Brownell Et Al Choices

IRPP Investing in Our Children

choicesVol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 ISSN 0711-0677 www.irpp.org Ensuring the Best Start in Life Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development

Gillian Doherty ounded in 1972, the Institute for Research on Public Policy is an independent, national, F nonprofit organization. IRPP seeks to improve public policy in Canada by generating research, providing insight and sparking debate that will contribute to the public policy decision-making process and strengthen the quality of the public policy decisions made by Canadian Gillian Doherty has been involved in child and family issues for over 30 years in a variety of governments, citizens, institutions and organizations. roles, including those of clinical psychologist, university and college instructor in child IRPP's independence is assured by an endowment fund development, and Director of Policy Services for established in the early 1970s. the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Currently she is a consultant and researcher in the early childhood field, with a focus on the promotion of children’s optimal development, and an adjunct professor at the ondé en 1972, l’Institut de recherche en University of Guelph, Ontario. She was the lead politiques publiques (IRPP) est un organisme author of the background report on services and financial supports for children under age six and F canadien, indépendant et sans but lucratif. their families provided by the federal government to the OECD to assist it in its 2003 on-site review L’IRPP cherche à améliorer les politiques publiques of early childhood education and care in Canada. canadiennes en encourageant la recherche, en mettant She has written extensively on the importance of de l’avant de nouvelles perspectives et en suscitant des children’s experiences prior to school entry for their future academic success, initially for the débats qui contribueront au processus décisionnel en federal government in 1991. matière de politiques publiques et qui rehausseront la qualité des décisions que prennent les gouvernements, This publication was produced under the les citoyens, les institutions et les organismes direction of Sarah Fortin, Research Director, IRPP. The manuscript was copy-edited by Zofia canadiens. Laubitz, proofreading was by Mary Williams, production was by Chantal Létourneau, art L’indépendance de l’IRPP est assurée par un fonds de direction was by Schumacher Design and dotation établi au début des années 1970. printing was by AGL Graphiques.

IRPP 1470 Peel Street, Suite 200 Montreal, Quebec H3A 1T1 Telephone: 514-985-2461 Fax: 514-985-2559 E-mail: [email protected]

All IRPP Choices and IRPP Policy Matters are available for download at www.irpp.org

To cite this document:

Doherty, Gillian. 2007. “Ensuring the Best Start in The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early do not necessarily reflect the views of IRPP or its Board of Directors. Childhood Development” IRPP Choices 13 (8). Investing in Our Children / Investir dans nos enfants Research Director / Directrice de recherche Sarah Fortin

his research program examines issues related to family policy from the perspective of lifetime T investment in human capital based on in-depth empirical and analytical evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of current policies as well as evidence supporting alternative strategies. The IRPP's research in this area focuses on recent developments across the country in policies that are geared toward children.

e programme examine les politiques publiques familiales selon une perspective C d'investissement à long terme dans le capital humain et sur la base d'études empiriques et analy- tiques des forces et faiblesses de nos politiques actuelles, et explore des stratégies de rechange. Il met l'accent sur les récents choix des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux en matière de politiques des- tinées à l'enfance.

Contents

3 Introduction 6 Targeted Initiatives: What Do We Know? 30 Universal Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): What Do We Know? 33 Benefit/Cost Ratios 36 Policy Implications and Discussion 40 Conclusion 41 Notes 41 References Acknowledgements

any thanks to the following individuals, who generously provided information M about their targeted initiatives: Lynne Robertson from Aboriginal Head Start, Public Health Agency of Canada; Mariette Chartier and Darlene Girard from Healthy Child Manitoba; Joanna Blais from Manitoba Education and Youth; Cynthia Abel and Helen Hodgson from the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services; Louise Therrien from the Quebec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux; Dannie Giguère from the Quebec, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport; Kathy Abernethy and Gail Russell from Saskatchewan Learning; Debbie Bell from HIPPY Canada; Jennifer Chalmers, evaluator of the Western Arctic Aboriginal Head Start Program; Juanita Duncan, University of Regina; Dorota Dziong from the Parent-Child Mother Goose Program; Kathy Lenihan from ABC Head Start; and Ruth Sischy from the Toronto Parenting and Family Literacy Centres. I am also indebted to the two anonymous peer reviewers whose insightful comments and suggestions made this a much stronger paper than it would otherwise have been. Ensuring the Best Start in Life Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development

Gillian Doherty

Introduction

anada is facing a workforce shortage resulting from low birth rates and increasing numbers of Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty C baby boomers retiring over the next two decades. These demographics and the demands of new technolo- gies and the global economy for workers with good people, literacy, numeracy, problem-solving and decision-making skills mean that Canada’s future prosperity depends upon increasing the productivity of what will be a much smaller workforce in the future. Increasing productivity requires public policies supported by adequate levels of government funding to ensure that every child reaches his or her fullest potential (Dodge 2003; Fortin 2006; Lefebvre and Merrigan 2003). The research evidence is clear; the foundations for good adult physical health, social competence, communication skills, adaptability, literacy, and numeracy are laid down before entry into kindergarten (McCain, Mustard and Shanker 2007). Children who enter school lacking the basic knowledge and skills required to benefit from the school program are more likely to experience social and academic difficulties and drop out prior to graduation (Heckman 2000; Stipek 2001). The costs of failure to graduate from high school are substantial for the individual and for society. The individual faces decreased employability and earning potential and an increased likelihood of lifelong levels of poorer physical and mental health (Canadian Council on Learning 2006; Keating and Hertzman 1999). Society faces decreased workforce productivity, decreased government revenue and increased demands for social assistance and health services. For instance, adults with less than a high school diploma —19 percent of the population — contribute 9 percent of income taxes while consuming 35 percent of government income transfers such as employment insurance and social assistance (Canadian Council on Learning 2006).

3 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 funding would beterminatedeffectiveApril 1,2007. signed bilateral ECECagreementsandtheir future ernment andtheannouncement thattherecently universal ECECservicesacross thewholecountry. funding laidafoundationfor theestablishmentof them. Theseagreementsandtheirrelatedfederal provinces andinitialfederalfundingtransferredto eral agreementsweresignedwitheachofthe10 of Canada2005a).Duringthenextfewmonths,bilat- port thedevelopmentofsuchasystem(Government et committed$1billionannuallyforfiveyearstosup- Canada 2004).Inthefollowingyear, thefederalbudg- accessibility andchilddevelopment(Governmentof system basedontheprinciplesofquality, universality, Canadian earlychildhoodeducationandcare(ECEC) cooperation withtheprovincesandterritories,apan- nalled thefederalgovernment’swishtodevelop,in Canada 2003).The2004SpeechfromtheThronesig- and nurseryschools(HumanResourcesDevelopment for servicesinsettingssuchaschildcareprograms million totheprovincesandterritoriesoverfiveyears it, thefederalgovernmentundertooktotransfer$900 focused specificallyonchildren’sprograms.Through on EarlyLearningandChildCareannouncedin2003 used forprovidingdirectservicestochildren. practice, onlyasmallproportionofthesefundswas Intergovernmental ConferenceSecretariat2000).In strengthening communitysupports(Canadian family support;childdevelopmentprograms;and healthy pregnancy, birthandinfancy;parenting the provincesandterritoriestofundpromotionof mitted totransfer$500millionannuallyby2007-08 to Agreement underwhichthefederalgovernmentcom- territorial EarlyChildhoodDevelopment(ECD) was followedin2000bythefederal-provincial- Ministers onSocialPolicy Renewal1999).TheNCA ilies tal initiativestosupportyoungchildrenandtheirfam- as adultsandapolicyframeworkforintergovernmen- dren havetheopportunitytoreachtheirfullpotential ulates avisionofCanadaascountrywhereallchil- known astheNationalChildren’sAgenda(NCA),artic- support thedevelopmentofyoungchildren.Theresult, sultation anddevelopacomprehensivestrategyto existing socialprograms,engageinbroadpubliccon- Ministers onSocialPolicy Renewalin1996toreview lished theFederal-Provincial-Territorial Councilof the bestpossiblestartinlife,FirstMinistersestab- The electionin2005resulted inachangeofgov- The subsequentMultilateralFrameworkAgreement Recognizing theneedtogiveallCanadianchildren 1 (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Councilof ments (seetable 7,page28).Giventhelimited millionfromprovincial andterritorialgovern- $99 $145 millioncomesfromthe federalgovernmentand excess of$260million fromvarioussources,ofwhich Saskatchewan’s KidsFirstprogram. vivant encontextedevulnérabilité(SIPPE)and pour lapetiteenfanceàl’intentiondesfamilles program, Quebec’sServicesintégrésenpérinatalitéet and off-reservechildren,Manitoba’sFamiliesFirst the federalAboriginalHeadStartprogramsforon- programs andtofundnewtargetedinitiativessuchas invested tocontinueand/orexpandsomeofthese Subsequently, additionalgovernment moneyhasbeen (CAPC) beganin1993(BoyleandWillms2002). ment’s CommunityAction ProgramforChildren bourhoods (Peters etal.2000).Thefederalgovern- children livingineconomicallydisadvantagedneigh- programs topreventdevelopmentalproblemsamong 25-year projecttoexplorethepotentialoftargeted ment createdBetterBeginnings,Futuresasa areas (Doherty1991). In1990,theOntariogovern- munities and ing living inlow-incomefamiliesandQuebecwasfund- on theAmericanHeadStartprogramforpreschoolers Scotia wassupporting30part-timeprogramsbased funded inCanadaforover15years.By1990,Nova system. Yet suchinitiativeshavebeengovernment- mental outcomesortheirroleinanoverallECEC tives forchildrendeemedvulnerabletopoordevelop- the NCA,therewaslittledebateabouttargetedinitia- ment in2005. to the$1billioncommittedbypreviousgovern- announced in2006,stillrepresentsasubstantialcut ing in2007, incombinationwiththe$250million Canada 2007a). Thepromiseofthisadditionalfund- for thecreationofchildcarespaces(Government funding of$250milliontoprovincesandterritories March 2007 budgettoprovideadditionalannual ability. Subsequently, thegovernmentpromisedin ing toaddresstheneedexpandchildcareavail- child caremoreaffordableformostparentsandfail- criticized asbeinginsufficienttomake regulated (Government ofCanada2006).TheUCCBhasbeen beginning in2007 tocreatenewchildcarespaces under agesix,andallocated$250millionannually ment of$100 amonthtoallfamiliesforeachchild Universal ChildCareBenefit(UCCB),ataxablepay- As areplacement,thenewgovernmentinstituted Currently, targetedECECinitiativesreceivein During thediscussionsleadinguptoandfollowing maternelles quatreans maisons maternelles 4 in low-incomeurbancom- in targetedrural funding available for services to young children, it is susceptibility is associated with physical or mental dis- important to examine what we know about the cost- abilities or health problems (2002). Consistent with effectiveness of targeted programs and engage in a Willms’s definition, this paper focuses on interventions debate about whether they provide the largest social for children prior to school entry who had a normal birth return for the ECEC money they receive. weight and do not exhibit indications of a disability or evidence of conditions such as fetal alcohol syndrome Objectives (FAS) but do have developmental problems. Thus, the This paper seeks to identify the most promising paper does not include discussion of the Canada Prenatal strategies for enhancing the development of vulnera- Nutrition Program (CPNP) and similar provincial or terri- ble children and to contribute to the debate about torial targeted initiatives to improve the nutrition of the how best to achieve the NCA goal of ensuring that all fetus or services for special needs children. children in Canada have the best possible start in life. Two broad community development initiatives tar- It begins by describing Canadian early interven- geting areas where children are deemed vulnerable tion programs for vulnerable children and what we because their neighbourhood has a high concentration know about their impact on children’s development. of low-income families or families of Aboriginal ances- Since the body of Canadian evaluations is extremely try are excluded. The first — 1,2,3 Go! — does not pro- small, Canadian findings are supplemented with vide any direct interventions but instead responds to

American findings from similar initiatives. Concern is issues of concern to the community by mobilizing com- Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty often and appropriately expressed about the validity munity members to work together to address them of using American experience to inform Canadian (Centraide of Greater Montreal 2007). The second, policy development because of the differences Brighter Futures for First Nations and Inuit between the two countries in factors such as the Communities, provides funds that may be used for a availability of universal health care and the extent of wide variety of purposes such as community mental the social safety net. Nevertheless, it is the only health promotion; public awareness and prevention option, given that few evaluations of early interven- activities related to family violence or suicide; improv- tion strategies have been conducted in countries ing birth outcomes; parent education; and/or cultural other than the United States. All Canadian evalua- activities (Government of Canada 2007b). While some of tions are reported regardless of the rigour of their these activities directly or indirectly address children’s methodology and the extent to which it isolates the vulnerability to developmental problems, the broad effect of the intervention from other influential fac- mandate and emphasis on culturally appropriate tors. However, only American evaluations with rigor- approaches has resulted in initiatives that are very com- ous methodological designs that have been reported munity-specific. This makes it difficult to tease out in a peer-reviewed journal or conducted by a research which strategies are appropriate for replication in other organization such as the National Institute for Early communities. However, CAPC, another broad communi- Education Research at Rutgers University are cited. ty initiative, is discussed. CAPC funding is specifically The paper then considers four specific policy tied to services for children under age six and their issues: the relative efficiency of a targeted versus a families and is intended to enhance the children’s devel- universal approach for assisting vulnerable children; opment (Government of Canada 2007b) Almost every the conditions required for high-quality ECEC; the site provides direct services to children and/or parenting benefit/cost ratios associated with different types of education and supports parents in their parenting role early childhood interventions; and what is required to (Beaudoin and Turcotte 2002). support the healthy development of all Canada’s chil- The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and dren. In conclusion, the paper identifies a need to Youth (NLSCY), the Étude longitudinale du développe- rethink the current targeted approach to enhancing ment des enfants du Québec (ELDEQ) and the federal the development of vulnerable children. government’s Aboriginal Children’s Survey (ACS) support and inform the development and implementation Scope of initiatives for vulnerable children by identifying how Willms uses the term “vulnerable children” to denote child, family and community factors influence child young children susceptible to poor developmental out- development and expanding our understanding of child comes as a result of their environmental circumstances vulnerability. Other initiatives, such as the federal gov- and states that this does not include children whose ernment’s Understanding the Early Years Project and

5 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 and McCain,MustardShanker (2007). their findingscanbefoundinKershawetal.(2005) Additional informationabouttheseinitiativesand sion ofthemisoutsidethescopethispaper. engage indirectserviceprovisionandfurtherdiscus- Neither longitudinalsurveysnorcommunitymapping resource gapsandmonitortheeffectofactionstaken. its childpopulationassistcommunitiestoaddress of resourceswithinit,andthedevelopmentallevel graphic characteristics,theavailabilityandlocation about acommunity’ssocio-economicanddemo- specific communities.Theirprovisionofinformation in BritishColumbia,supportandinforminitiatives undertaken bytheHumanEarlyLearningPartnership the EarlyChildDevelopmentMappingProjectbeing and Karoly, Kilburn andCannon(2005). marized inAnderson etal.(2003),Aos etal.(2004) ects suchastheHigh/Scope Perry Preschoolissum- Information ontheoutcomes ofdemonstrationproj- not befeasibletoreplicateon alarge-scalebasis. Project (Aos etal.2004).Suchexpenditureswould school yearin2003dollarsforthePerry Preschool expensive; forexample,itcost$15,270 perchild included inthereportbecausetheywereextremely the High/ScopePerry Preschoolprojectsarenot tion initiativessuchastheCarolinaAbecedarianand catalogue. Thefindingsfromsingle-sitedemonstra- word searchoftheUniversityToronto Library tion onchildoutcomeswassoughtthroughakey- the outcomesoftheseinitiatives.Additional informa- (2005); thesealsoprovidedsomeinformationabout Gormley (2006)andKaroly, KilburnandCannon through thecomprehensivereviewsundertaken by Comparable Americaninitiativeswereidentified initiatives similartothoseexistinginCanada. vulnerable childrenandtheiroutcomesislimitedto sonable, thediscussionofAmericaninitiativesfor nication. Inordertokeep thelengthofreportrea- research anddataobtainedthroughpersonalcommu- sites, documentsprovidedbytheprograms,published comes wascollectedfrommaterialpostedonWeb information aboutprogramdesignandchildout- Web sites;andleadsprovidedbyindividuals.Specific 2007b); federal,provincialandterritorialgovernment its earlychildhoodactivities(GovernmentofCanada identified throughthefederalgovernment’sreporton and/or indirectlythroughparenteducationwere development directlybyworkingwiththechildren Canadian initiativestoenhancevulnerablechildren’s Identification oftargetedinitiatives ing parentingbehaviourandthehomeenvironment. child’s developmentcanbebestenhancedbychang- tion andsupportarebasedonthepremisethat Initiatives thatfocusonprovidingparentingeduca- focus isongroupprogrammingforchildren. enhanced byworkingdirectlywiththem,theprimary premise isthatchildren’sdevelopmentbest ise onwhichtheinitiativeisbased.Whenbasic types ofactivitiesengagedindependupontheprem- funds, donationsandtheirownfundraising.The ernment orrelyonacombinationofgovernment fully fundedbythefederaland/oraprovincialgov- outcomes existinallpartsofCanada.Theymaybe children deemedvulnerabletopoordevelopmental relatively largeproportionsofsuchfamilies. young children’sdevelopmenttocommunitieswith the provisionofinitiativesintendedtoenhance fiable markers makes apersuasivecasefortargeting mental outcomes.Theexistenceofsucheasilyidenti- children’s increasedvulnerabilitytopoordevelop- characteristics canbeviewedasamarker indicating offers (Doherty2007). Eachofthesethreefamily with theskillsrequiredtotake advantageofwhatit community atlargearelesslikely toenterschool whose homelanguageisotherthanthatusedinthe A Know? Targeted Initiatives:WhatDoWe resources. Nevertheless, thethree-partcategorization ing assistingparentstoaccess othercommunity ming butalsoprovidessome parentsupportsinclud- example, HeadStartfocuses onchildren’sprogram- all initiativesfitneatlyinto this categorization;for focused andtwo-generation programs.Inreality, not part categorizationschemeofparent-focused,child- the samepremiseasasinglegroup,usingthree- convention ofdiscussinginitiativesoperatingunder both CanadaandtheUnitedStateshaveadopted useful wayforpolicydevelopment,commentatorsin and supportforparents. provide bothprogramsforchildrenandeducation and, toagreaterorlesserextent,theseinitiatives requires workingwithboththeparentandchild vulnerable children’sdevelopmentaltrajectories Other initiativesoperateonthepremisethatchanging Targeted initiativestopromotethedevelopmentof In anefforttoprovideinformationinthemost family thatisAboriginal,and/ora that childrenlivinginalow-incomefamily, a robust bodyofCanadianresearchdocuments 6 2 scheme is a useful policy tool in that it enables con- However, they vary on two other important dimen- sideration of the relative effectiveness of focusing on sions: the intensity of the intervention and the back- children, focusing on parents, or providing an inter- ground of the person who delivers the program. At one vention that combines parent and child services. end of the intensity continuum, Quebec’s SIPPE and This section provides an overview of each category Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst initiatives begin working with of intervention, beginning with parent-focused initia- the mother when she is pregnant and parents may con- tives and concluding with two-generation programs. tinue in the program until the child is five; they also Each of the three categories is organized as follows: provide assistance that goes beyond parent education. (1) Canadian initiatives; (2) evaluations of Canadian Mother Goose and HIPPY are at the other end of the initiatives; (3) evaluations of comparable American continuum: both focus solely on teaching parents how initiatives; and (4) discussion. A summary table is to stimulate their child’s development through either provided for each of the Canadian initiatives in each weekly group meetings or biweekly home visits for a category, indicating the target population, services 30-week period. The Manitoba, Saskatchewan and provided, duration of intervention and approach to HIPPY programs rely on paraprofessionals for service staffing. Table 7 (page 28), provides the best available delivery while the programs operated by SIPPE and information on federal and provincial/territorial Mother Goose are staffed by people who have a profes- funding for targeted initiatives to promote the devel- sional degree.

opment of vulnerable children and the number of Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty children/families receiving assistance. Manitoba’s Families First program Families First, part of the provincial Healthy Child Parent-focused initiatives Manitoba initiative created in 2000, operates in each of Parent-focused initiatives seek to enhance the child’s the regional health authorities in the province and is development indirectly by changing parental behav- delivered by them. As of March 31, 2006, the program iour and enhancing the home environment; they pro- had the capacity to provide home visits to 1,581 fami- vide parents with information about child development lies using a 2005-06 budget of $9,486,000 (Government and effective parenting strategies and teach them how of Manitoba 2006; Darlene Girard, Healthy Child to engage in educational activities with their children. Manitoba, personal communication, March 20, 2007). It The service is usually delivered through home visits is important to note that this budget includes funding but may be provided through group or individual par- for the province’s universal screening of every family ent meetings in an agency’s office. Home visiting has with a newborn in Manitoba as well as an in-depth the advantage of enabling linguistic and cultural assessment of families identified as possibly vulnerable matching between staff and family, may be less threat- to determine whether they should be referred to ening for some parents, and eliminates the need for the Families First. parent to travel in order to receive the service. The In addition to providing assistance in accessing other home visitor focuses on the parent during the home community services, Families First uses a home-visiting visit; direct contact between visitor and child is limited program to deliver a specific parenting and child devel- to modelling how an activity should be done. opment curriculum that addresses basic care, health and There are five Canadian parent-focused initiatives: safety; child development; parenting issues such as dis- Manitoba’s Families First program, Quebec’s Services cipline; and strategies to enhance family functioning. intégrés en périnatalité et pour la petite enfance à Home visitors create an individual binder of activities l’intention des familles vivant en contexte de vul- and information that is left with the family and discuss nérabilité (SIPPE), Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst program, with parents ways to incorporate their new learning the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool into their daily routine. There is no formal requirement Youngsters (HIPPY) Program and the Parent-Child that parents work with the materials between visits and Mother Goose Program. Table 1 provides basic infor- families choose the level, intensity and duration of mation about each of these five initiatives. involvement. As indicated in table 1, home visitors As illustrated in the table, all the initiatives pro- receive preservice training through the Manitoba vide parents with information on child development, Curriculum for Training Home Visitors; this includes effective parenting and activities to stimulate chil- modules in child development and parenting, safety and dren’s development and all but Mother Goose deliver well-being and the materials used in the program their interventions primarily through home visits. (Creating Great Kids and Growing Great Families). Over

7 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 ntaiePplto evdSrie rvddDrto Homevisitors Duration Servicesprovided Population served Initiative Descriptions ofTargeted Parent-Focused Initiatives Table 1 Canada; DorotaDziong,Parent-Child MotherGooseProgram. Government ofManitoba;GailRussell, ofSaskatchewan;LouiseTherrien,QuebecMinistèredelaSantéetdesServices for Parents ofPreschool Youngsters (HIPPY)Canada(2006,undated);Parent-Child MotherGooseProgram(2007 Sources: GovernmentofManitoba(2006); Government ofSaskatchewan(2005,2006);Quebec,MinistèredelaSantéetdesServices Program Mother Goose Parent-Child HIPPY KidsFirst Saskatchewan’s nérabilité (SIPPE) contexte devul- familles vivanten l’intention des petite enfanceà talité etpourla intégrés enpérina- Quebec’s Services initiative) Manitoba Healthy Child (part ofthe Families First Manitoba’s a childunderagefour immigrant familieswith Low-income and/or program Toronto withaHIPPY areas ofMontrealand six areasinBCorthe to fivelivinginanyof with achildagedthree Low-income families vulnerable families largest concentrationof deemed tohavethe the ninecommunities who arelivinginanyof in-depth assessment births andasubsequent screening ofallnew identified through a childunderagefive Off-reserve familieswith the childreachesagefive week ofpregnancyuntil ice fromthetwelfth Family mayreceiveserv- previous fiveyears to Canadawithinthe and/or haveimmigrated living inseverepoverty, and underage20,and/or ice whoarepregnant a hospitalorsocialserv- the provincereferredby Women inanypartof child isagefive receive serviceuntilthe health nurse.Parent may follow-up byapublic births andasubsequent screening ofallnew Manitoba’s universal needing supportthrough where intheprovinceas Families identifiedany- Out-of-homegroupmeetingsforparentsoncea • Biweeklyparentgroups overthesameperiod • Biweeklyhomevisits 15timesovera30-weekperi- • Parent supportgroups • Accesstodedicated regulated childcarespaces • Assistanceobtaining othercommunityresources • Dedicatedmentalhealth andaddictionsservices • Homevisitseveryweek initially, theneverytwo • Supportstovulnerable pregnantwomen • Activitygroupsforparents andtheirchildren • Assistanceobtaining othercommunityservicessuch • Counsellingtoenhance parentandfamilyfunction- • Informationonand suggestions forenhancingchild • Parenting education • Homevisitseverytwoweeksduringpregnancy, then • Supportstovulnerablepregnantwomen • Training toenhancefamilyfunctioning,e.g.goal- • Informationonandsuggestionsforenhancingchild • Parenting education • Assistanceinaccessingothercommunityresources • Homevisitseveryweekfor9to12months, thenas • week for30weeks od duringtheschoolyear in needofrespitechildcare while parentpursuesfurthereducation,worksoris progress weeks orlessfrequentlydependingonfamily as childcare ing, e.g.goalsetting,problemsolving,budgeting development week untilageone,thenmonthlyfive weekly untilthechildisagesixweeks, everysecond setting, problemsolving development indicated byfamilyprogressanddesire 8 ); personalcommunications:DarleneGirard, to four child isagedtwo session whenthe second 30-week two andthena child isunderage sion whentheir a 30-weekses- Parents maytake years for eachoftwo 30 weeksayear participation average lengthof desire. Nodataon needs andparent Depends onfamily participation age lengthof No dataonaver- and parentdesire. family needs Depends on pation length ofpartici- data onaverage parent desire.No family needsand Depends on sociaux;DebbieBell,HIPPY sociaux (2004);HomeInstruction trainers or parenteducation existing program for 30sessionsinan practicum experience participate ina workshop andthen take atwo-daytraining program arerequiredto People providingthe and theirfamilies for vulnerablechildren that providesservices Staff fromanagency service training Both pre-andin- HIPPY graduates community whoare cally membersofthe Paraprofessionals, typi- the program the materialsusedin In-service trainingin raised theirownchildren cally peoplewhohave Paraprofessionals, typi- province developed bythe ery agencieshavebeen the localservicedeliv- Materials foruseby In-service training. employed psychology maybe such associalworkor education infields other post-secondary although peoplewith Typically anurse, ing in-servicetraining vice trainingandongo- Two weeksofpreser- with families ence suchasworking recent relevantexperi- 12 orequivalentand a minimumofgrade Paraprofessionals with the subsequent 18 months, they take additional train- experience. An evaluation of SIPPE was started in 2005 ing in areas such as domestic violence (Darlene and is ongoing (Quebec, Ministère de la Santé et des Girard, personal communication, March 20, 2007). Services sociaux 2004; Louise Therrien, personal communication, September 12, 2007). Quebec’s Services intégrés en périnatalité et pour la petite enfance à l’intention des familles Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst program vivant en contexte de vulnérabilité (SIPPE) Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst program, initiated by the gov- SIPPE, which targets women who are pregnant and ernment in 2001, operates in the nine communities under age 20 and/or living in extreme poverty and/or across the province deemed to have the greatest con- are recent immigrants, is provided right across the centration of vulnerable families. It is delivered by province through regional Centres de santé et des serv- community agencies operating under the supervision of ices sociaux. The mother and the father may continue a KidsFirst Management Committee, with either a local to participate in the program until the child is five school division or health region being the partner (Quebec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux responsible to the province. At the end of March 2006, 2004). Participants are referred by hospitals, other home visits were being made to 1,150 families and the health services and social services. In 2006-07, SIPPE program maintained 128 dedicated regulated child care served 5,240 women, an estimated 56 percent of the spaces for its clients (Gail Russell, Early Learning and

eligible population, and had an annual budget of $48 Child Care Branch, personal communication, March 12, Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty million (Louise Therrien, Quebec, Ministère de la Santé 2007). The 2006-07 budget for KidsFirst was et des Services sociaux, personal communication, $14,033,000 (Government of Saskatchewan 2006). It is September 12, 2007). important to note that the budget includes not only the Participants are provided with a variety of supports services listed in table 1 but also $2,185,000 granted to including home visits lasting 60 to 90 minutes every community child care services across the province to second week beginning in the twelfth week of preg- improve their program quality (Government of nancy, information about good nutrition and health Saskatchewan 2006). practices, food coupons and prenatal vitamins. After KidsFirst includes the provision of nutritional sup- the birth, there are weekly home visits until the child plements and prenatal education to vulnerable preg- is six weeks old, then every second week until age nant women; home visiting after the birth of the child twelve months and monthly until age five. The home with the delivery of a specific parenting and child visitor’s activities are tailored to the needs and aspira- development curriculum that addresses basic care, tions identified by the family and may include the health and safety, child development and parenting provision of information about child development, issues such as discipline; dedicated mental health and child nutrition, effective parenting strategies and edu- addictions services for parents; and assistance in cational activities to do with the child; budgeting and accessing other community resources such as literacy other life-skill counselling; assistance in accessing training. Initially, home visits occur once a week and other services such as child care and job training; and then gradually decrease as the family’s capabilities accompanying a parent to an appointment. Generally, progress; parents are expected to work with their chil- the home visitor is a nurse, although sometimes the dren between home visits using the suggestions and individual may have another post-secondary profes- materials provided by the home visitor. sional credential, for example, in social work. The There are also 128 regulated child care spaces oper- ministry has designed materials to help the regional ated by other organizations in the community dedicat- centres provide in-service training. As an employee of ed for the use of KidsFirst parents to support them a Centre de santé et des services sociaux, the home while they attend school, take skills upgrading, seek visitor has access to consultation with and can refer a work or require respite. A space may also be used to client to a broad interdisciplinary team including provide an enhanced developmental opportunity for a nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, speech and child. KidsFirst may cover the whole or part of the language therapists, and medical doctors. Home visits child care fee, depending on the family’s situation. The are supplemented by group activities for parents and mix of services received by a family is tailored on a their children and parents are encouraged and assisted case-by-case basis to provide only those supports need- to enrol their preschool-aged child in regulated child ed to address its needs, with the goal that the family care as a means of providing a group educational will be linked with services and support networks

9 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 Russell, personalcommunication,March12,2007). gram (GovernmentofSaskatchewan2005;Gail children andaregiventrainingrelatedtothepro- cally paraprofessionalswhohaveraisedtheirown gram. Asindicatedintable1,homevisitorsaretypi- level ofself-sufficiencyandstabilitytoleavethepro- within thecommunityanddevelopnecessary spends aboutan hourreviewingthematerials with materials tobe usedinactivitieswiththe child and by aHIPPYhomevisitorwho bringsapacket of all itsprograms(HIPPYCanada 2006). included intheHIPPYstandard agefourcurriculumin five differentage-appropriatescienceactivitiestobe to improvescienceliteracy, forthedevelopmentof national organizationthatdevelopslearningprograms Canada hasalsocontractedwithLet’sTalk Science,a the firstlanguageofcommunitiesinvolved.HIPPY enrichment programtosupportthetransmissionof with FirstNationstitlesanddevelopingalanguage Aboriginal sitesbyreplacingsomeofitsstorybooks has modifiedthestandardHIPPYprogramforits available inanumberoflanguages.HIPPYCanada materials arepreparedatagradethreeleveland problem-solving skills.Alloftheparentinstructional develop visual-motor, language,discriminationand their childrenandmaterialsdesignedtoassist include HIPPYstorybooksforparentstoreadwith a standardcurriculumandmaterials.These and isimplementedacrosssitesinthesamewayusing school year. TheHIPPYprogramisverystructured participate intheprogramfor30weeksduring lies arerequiredtomake atwo-yearcommitmentto sonal communication,March12,2007). (Debbie Bell,Executive Director, HIPPYCanada,per- serves AboriginalfamilieslivinginVancouver Nation on-reservecommunity, andtheremainingsite five FirstNations,threeothersiteseachservea is operatedbyanAboriginalconsortiumandserves Columbia serveAboriginalfamilies.Oneofthesesites Canada 2006).FiveoftheHIPPYsitesinBritish one siteinMontrealandToronto (HIPPY of $206,299throughsixsitesinBritishColumbia, low-income familieswereserved,foranexpenditure donations anditsownfundraising.In2005-06,385 receives itsrevenuefromthefederalgovernment, HIPPY Canadaisanonprofitorganizationthat Youngsters (HIPPY) Home InstructionforParents ofPreschool The familyisvisitedathome everysecondweek Children entertheprogramatagethreeandfami- September 10, 2007). Mother Goose Program,personalcommunication, Goose Program2007; DorotaDziong,Parent-Child wish toparticipateinthem (Parent-Child Mother workshops areavailablefor staffmemberswho a minimumof30sessions. Additional training under thesupervisionofafullytrainedpersonfor hands-on experienceinamandatorypracticum Mother Goosetrainingworkshopandobtained is requiredtohaveparticipatedinatwo-day between sessions.Thepersonleadingtheprogram requirement thatparentsworkwiththeirchild participants foruseathomebutthereisno versions oftherhymesandsongsaresuppliedto child’s languageandcommunicationskills.Printed stories andsongswiththeirchildtoenhancethe and educationonhowtouseinteractiverhymes, Instead, parents/caregiversreceivedemonstrations not aspecificcurriculum,suchasexistsinHIPPY. rather thanbyMotherGooseemployees.Thereis out-of-home settingsuchastheagency’soffice agencies workingwithvulnerablechildreninan consecutive weeks. ence forparents/caregiversandtheirchildren30 four. Eachversionprovidesaone-hourgroupexperi- two; theother, childrenbetweentheagesoftwoand Goose areavailable:onetargetschildrenunderage approach, anddonations.TwoversionsofMother Mother Gooseprogrammingmaterialsandoverall training fortheirstaffandbepermittedtousethe government grants,feesthatagenciespaytoobtain receives fundingthroughprovincialandmunicipal that operatesineightprovincesandtheYukon. It pour parentsetenfants)isanonprofitorganization The MotherGooseProgram(ProgrammelaMèrel’Oie The Parent-Child MotherGooseprogram munication, March12,2007). year (HIPPYCanada2006;DebbieBell,personalcom- for anaverageof140traininghoursintheirfirst HIPPY programandongoingweeklytrainingsessions vice trainingrelatedtotheimplementationof who haveparticipatedinHIPPYandreceivepreser- The homevisitorsareparentsfromthecommunity discuss theirprogress,askquestionsorseekadvice. centre orschooleveryotherweekwhereparentsmay undated). Thereisagroupmeetingatcommunity day doingactivitieswiththeirchild(HIPPYCanada are expectedtospendaminimumof15minutes the parent,usingrole-playing.Betweenvisits,parents The actualprogramisdeliveredbystafffrom 10 In 2005-06, the Mother Goose national organiza- HIPPY children on gender, ethnicity and family socio- tion and its largest provincial organization, in demographic variables but whose parents had not par- Toronto, had a combined budget of $27,595. Mother ticipated in HIPPY (LeMare and Audet undated).3 All Goose organizations operating in other jurisdictions the children in one comparison group had attended a and/or the agencies delivering the program may centre-based preschool program while the 14 children obtain additional funds for this purpose. Nationally, in the other comparison group did not have any pre- the agencies delivering the program reported having school experience. At the end of the kindergarten year, served a total of 1,649 adults (Dorota Dziong, person- the HIPPY children outperformed the children in the al communication, September 25, 2007). comparison groups on standard measures of knowledge of concepts, overall cognitive development, and degree Evaluations of Canadian parent-focused of comfort with the school situation and were rated initiatives higher by their kindergarten teacher on a standard The three Canadian parent-focused initiatives that measure of school adjustment and peer relationship have been evaluated are Families First in Manitoba, skills. This pattern of results is positive; however, none KidsFirst in Saskatchewan and one of the HIPPY sites of the differences was statistically significant. The lack in British Columbia. Manitoba and Saskatchewan of significance may reflect the small sample size, a fac- both use data obtained from all the families that par- tor that decreases the likelihood that statistical analyses

ticipated in the NLSCY in 1998-99, 2000-01 and will detect even moderate-sized effects (Karoly, Kilburn Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty 2002-03 as performance indicators for their parent- and Cannon 2005). focused programs (Government of Manitoba 2006; Government of Saskatchewan 2005). Evaluations of comparable American parent- Manitoba reports changes in parental behaviour focused initiatives and family function across the period but no infor- Quebec’s SIPPE and Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst initiatives mation about changes in children’s development lev- appear to owe much of their design to the Nurse-Family els. However, American research indicates that Partnership (NFP) program pioneered in Elmira, New successfully influencing parenting style or the fre- York, by David Olds and his colleagues over 20 years quency of parents’ engagement in educational activi- ago. The initial program targeted pregnant women with ties with their children is not always associated with no previous live births who met one of the following enhanced child development (Gomby 2005). eligibility criteria: under age 19; unmarried or living in Saskatchewan reports reductions in the percentage of poverty. The women received home visits by public behaviour problems and improvement in average health nurses lasting 75 to 90 minutes starting in the scores measuring cognitive development for children prenatal period and continuing until the child’s second in the total sample of NLSCY families in the province birthday. The frequency of the visits varied according to between 1998-99 and 2002-03. However, it is diffi- the needs of the mother, with a mean of 9 during preg- cult to know what this means without knowing what nancy and 23 after the child’s birth. The intent was to the changes were among children in the subsample of improve the women’s prenatal health, and thus birth NLSCY families with similar demographic and socio- outcomes, reduce the incidence of neglect and abuse of economic characteristics to those of the participants the children, and improve the women’s life situations. in the intervention program. Saskatchewan has The nurses followed detailed visit-by-visit protocols, recently obtained a grant from the Canadian implemented specific interventions and assisted partici- Population Health Institute for a three-year evalua- pants to access other health and human services (Olds et tion of its KidsFirst program (Gail Russell, al. 1998; Olds et al. 1999). According to the NFP Web Saskatchewan Early Learning and Child Care Branch, site, the program is now operating in 23 states. personal communication, March 12, 2007). This eval- The original Elmira program has been subject to a uation should enable the provision of more specific longitudinal evaluation and also replicated and evalu- information. ated through randomized trials in Memphis, Tennessee, A quasi-experimental evaluation has been con- and Denver, Colorado.4 Fifteen years after entry into ducted in a single HIPPY site in British Columbia the Elmira program, participants who had been unmar- involving 14 children whose parents participated in ried and living in poverty had longer gaps between the HIPPY for two years and two comparison groups of births of subsequent children, received welfare for sig- children who were individually matched with the nificantly fewer months and had fewer arrests by the

11 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 pleted twofull yearsofHIPPYand516 demographi- study involving 515 children whoseparentshadcom- results. Thefirstevaluation was aquasi-experimental peer-reviewed journalsand these presentmixed using acomparisongrouphave beenreportedin Nevertheless, onlytwoevaluations ofitseffectiveness rently has167sitesnationally(Gomby2005). American programbeganoperatingin1984andcur- approach andmostofthesamematerials.The American HIPPYprogramandusesthesame comparison group(Oldsetal.1999). victions andviolationsofparolethanchildreninthe poor, unmarriedmothers hadlowerratesofarrests,con- to delinquency. However, thesubgroupofchildren incidence ofsuspensionsfromschoolorreportsrelated group childreninteacherreportsofproblembehaviour, between thetotalElmirasampleandcomparison (Olds etal.2004a).Atage15,therewerenodifferences than didtheremaininggroupofparticipantchildren on testsofarithmeticskillsandverbalexpressiveability to havementalhealthproblemsobtainedhigherscores addition, thechildrenofmotherswhowereconsidered by teachersashavingfewerbehaviourproblems.In in thecomparisongroupandwereratedbyparents intellectual functioningandlanguageskillsthanthose Memphis programobtainedhigherscoresontestsof six, thetotalsampleofparticipatingchildrenin were notmeasuredinthissite(Oldsetal.2004b).Atage regulate thanthecomparisonchildren;languageskills gram hadnobetterabilitytoremainfocusedorself- However, four-year-oldparticipantsintheElmirapro- did childreninthecomparisongroup(Oldsetal.2004b). capacity forfocusedattentionandself-regulationthan scores onalanguagetestandmeasuringtheir had receivedhomevisitsbynursesobtainedhigher At agefour, childrenintheDenversitewhoseparents Denver, agesixforMemphisandfifteenElmira. Results areavailableforchildrenuptoagefour families, withdifferentcharacteristicswithinasite. the resultsintheseareasvaryacrosssitesandamong enhancing childdevelopmentorschool-readinessand ferences onthisvariable(Oldsetal.1999,2004b). although Denverdidnotfindanybetween-groupdif- parison grouptwoyearsafterleavingtheprogram, found loweruseofwelfarethaninthecom- pants hadlongergapsbetweenbirths.Memphisalso Memphis andDenversitesalsoreportthatpartici- abuse (Oldsetal.1998;Olds1999).The police andfewerincidentsofverifiedchildneglector The CanadianHIPPYprogramisbasedonthe The NFP’soriginalgoalsdidnotincludeafocuson and socialskills (Wagner andClayton 1999). tistically significant gainsinreceptivevocabulary Spanish-speaking Latinohomes madesmallbutsta- ther analysesindicatedthat children livingin for theparticipatinggroupas awhole.However, fur- cognitive, communication,social andself-helpskills edge andbehaviourminimalimpactonchildren’s small andinconsistenteffectsonparentingknowl- with low-incomefamiliesinCaliforniabothfound disadvantaged populations.Tworandomizedtrials and littleresearchhasexamineditseffectivenessfor originally designedforusewithmiddle-classfamilies, for theparenttouseathomewithchild.Itwas scriptive curriculumandtheprovisionofmaterials employs paraprofessionalsandusesarelativelypre- program withsimilargoalstoHIPPY. Like HIPPY, it mented betweencohorts. site orinthewaythatHIPPYprogramwasimple- ferences inthecharacteristicsofcohortsateither inconsistent resultscouldnotbeexplainedbyanydif- ences ateitherpoint.Theresearchersreportthatthe of kindergarten,althoughtherewerenootherdiffer- school-readiness andschoolachievementattheend children wereratedhigherthantheHIPPYon in onesite,whileattheothersitecomparison HIPPY andcomparisonchildreninthesecondcohort across thetwosites.Therewasnodifferencebetween fited ondifferentmeasuresand/orattimes of resultsemerged.Childreninthefirstcohortbene- Piotrkowski andBrooks-Gunn1999).Noclearpattern the othersiteusedaquasi-experimentaldesign(Baker, both cohorts,the“goldstandard”forevaluation,while different sites.Onesiteinvolvedarandomizedtrialfor been enrolledinHIPPYfortwoyearseachof two sequentialcohortsofchildrenwhoseparentshad kindergarten andagainattheendoffirstgradefor classroom adaptationwasassessedattheendof dren’s cognitivedevelopment,schoolachievementand classes (BradleyandGilkey 2002). grade repetitionorplacementinspecialeducation the groupsinachievementmathematics,levelof modest. Therewasnosignificantdifferencebetween parison group,althoughthedifferencewasvery guage achievementteststhanchildrenineithercom- HIPPY childrenperformedbetteronreadingandlan- experience. Ingradethreeandagaininsix,the school experiencewhileothershadnopreschool up, someofwhomhadreceivedanothertypepre- cally similarchildrenselectedatthetimeoffollow- Parents asTeachers (PAT) isanother home-visiting In thesecondstudy, theeffectofHIPPYonchil- 12 Early Head Start, a federally funded program that the various challenges associated with their situation has began in 1995, serves children from birth to age three proven to be very difficult. In the United States, the rates and their families. It permits its 700 sites to provide a of attrition prior to the intended length of the program primarily home-visiting program focusing on the par- are typically between 45 and 60 percent (Gomby 2005; ent, supplemented by two parent-child group activi- Wagner and Clayton 1999). Even when parents remain ties a month, a centre-based program for children, or in the program for its full duration, research indicates a “mixed-approach program” in which home-visiting, that many of them miss in-home visits, fail to attend and/or centre-based developmental programming is out-of-home parent meetings and/or or fail to work with provided to different families or in combination to their child using the program materials between home families either simultaneously or at different times. visits (Gomby 2005; Wagner and Clayton 1999). Seventeen Early Head Start sites across the country The educational background of the person provid- recruited twice as many eligible families as they ing the intervention also may influence its success. could serve and randomly assigned them to partici- Home-visiting programs targeting very low socio- pate in the program (1,513 families) or to be part of economic neighbourhoods need visitors who can the comparison group (1,488 families). At age three, establish and maintain good rapport with parents and there was no significant impact on children’s cogni- have the knowledge and skills to respond to family tive or language development in programs using the crises as they arise (Gomby 2005). These are not min-

primarily home-visiting approach (Love et al. 2005). imal skills, yet many parent-focused programs rely Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty on paraprofessionals. Overall, the research indicates Discussion that programs employing paraprofessionals tend to be Several commentators have concluded that generally least successful (Gomby 2005). A study that com- the use of primarily parent-focused initiatives as a pared the effectiveness of the Nurse-Family sole strategy has minimal or no effect on vulnerable Partnership program when delivered by nurses with a children’s development (Barnett 2002; Farran 2000; BSN degree and by paraprofessionals with no college Gomby 2005; Gormley 2006). Two hypotheses have education found that at age four the children whose been suggested to account for these disappointing families had been visited by a nurse had better lan- results. The first is that interventions concentrating on guage, cognitive and self-regulation skills than those parenting education fail to address the contextual fac- whose parents had been visited by a paraprofessional tors influencing parenting style. They do nothing to (Olds et al. 2004b). These results do not necessarily address the immediate problems of inadequate income imply that nurses make the best home visitors, but levels, substandard housing, and high rates of unem- they do suggest the value of post-secondary educa- ployment and are unlikely to address the high inci- tion in a discipline related to the provision of human dence of parental depression among parents living in services. In summary, the benefits to children’s devel- poverty (Farran 2000). Yet we know that parental opment obtained through parent-focused initiatives depression saps psychological energy and is associat- are inconsistent and usually negligible. The inconsis- ed with lack of engagement in educational activities tency may reflect differences in the planned intensity with children and a hostile rather than supportive par- of the initiative, the actual amount of intervention enting style (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan and Britto 1999). received by the parent and/or the educational level of The relatively low levels of intensity of many parent- the person delivering the program. focused initiatives and/or actual exposure to the intervention is the second explanation for the Child-focused initiatives disappointing results obtained with this approach. The Child-focused initiatives are based on the premise that effect of targeted interventions on child development the children’s home environment is unable to ade- is closely related to the intensity of the intervention quately support their optimal development and that (Barnett 2002; Gomby 2005; Gormley 2006; Ramey et direct work with the children is required in order to al. 1995). Some parent-focused programs, such as make a real difference in their developmental trajecto- HIPPY, provide their services for only a short time. ry. The five Canadian child-focused initiatives are the Sustaining parent involvement also is an issue; it is federal government’s Aboriginal Head Start Program essential for success because parents, not staff, provide and targeted prekindergarten in Alberta, Manitoba, the programming for the children. Obtaining sustained Quebec and Saskatchewan. Table 2 provides basic involvement from parents living in poverty and facing information on each of these initiatives.

13 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 Communities, establishedin1995,andAboriginal Aboriginal HeadStartinUrban andNorthern The AboriginalHeadStart Program consistsof Aboriginal HeadStart the otherinitiativesarestaffed bycertifiedteachers. education credential.Thechildren’sgroupprogramsin programs hirestaffwhohaveacollegeearlychildhood available inthecommunity, AboriginalHeadStart screening forchildren.To theextent that theyare vision, hearing,speechandgeneraldevelopment provides weeklyparentingeducationsessionsand community resources.Inaddition,ABCHeadStart also provideparentswithassistanceaccessingother Aboriginal HeadStartandABCinAlberta, part-day, out-of-homeprograms.Twoinitiatives, ntaiePplto evdSrie rvddaddrto Staffing Servicesprovidedandduration Population served Initiative Descriptions ofTargeted Child-FocusedInitiatives Table 2 Abernethy, GovernmentofSaskatchewan;Kathy Lenihan,ABCHeadStart. Condition feminine(2007); SaskatchewanLearning(2006);ABCHeadStart(2006a,2006b);personalcommunications:JoannaBlais, Sources: GovernmentofCanada(2007b); PublicHealthAgencyofCanada(2004);WinnipegSchoolDivision(2006);Quebec,Ministèr ABC HeadStart prekindergarten Saskatchewan’s four-year-olds maternelle for Quebec’s pré- preindergarten Manitoba’s Reserve Head Starton Federal Aboriginal Communities Northern Urban and Head Startin Federal Aboriginal As illustratedinthetable,allfiveinitiativesprovide hoods inEdmonton low-income neighbour- a halftofivelivingin Children agedthreeand throughout theprovince income neighbourhoods children livinginlow- Three- andfour-year-old Montreal bourhoods, primarilyin income, innercityneigh- Four-year-olds inlow- districts two specificschool Four-year-olds livingin ilies livingon-reserve to agesixandtheirfam- First Nationschildrenup ing off-reserve six andtheirfamiliesliv- Métis childrenuptoage First Nations, Inuitand Assistancetoparents inaccessingothercommunity • Weekly parenteducationgroups • Vision,hearing,speech andgeneraldevelopment • Part-day program,4daysaweekduringtheschool • Part-day program,5daysaweekduringtheschool • Part-day program,fourorfivedaysaweekduring • Part-day program,fivedaysaweekduringthe • Manyprovideparentingeducation • Assistancetoparentsinaccessingothercommunity • Promotionofchildandfamilyhealthnutrition • Half-daygroupprogramforchildrenagedthreeto • resources screening year year the schoolyear school year resources five fordaysaweekthroughouttheschoolyear Canada 2007b). 9,101 children servedin354sites(Governmentof sites; thetotalforAHSOR was $50,165,212, with for atotalof4,500children servedacross131 ernment expenditureforAHSUNC was$31,214,712 ages livingon-reserve.In2005-06, thetotalgov- on Reserve(AHSOR)targetschildrenofthesame children agedthreetofive;AboriginalHeadStart living off-reserve,withaprimaryemphasison and Métischildrenuptoagesixtheirfamilies Communities (AHSUNC)targetsFirstNations,Inuit ice. AboriginalHeadStartinUrbanandNorthern responsible fordesigningandoperatingtheserv- community groupsorbands/FirstNationsthatare through financialtransferstoAboriginalnonprofit are completelyfundedbythefederalgovernment Head StartonReserve,establishedin1998.Both 14 Assessment ServicesOutreachProgram the GlenroseHospitalPreschool Follow-up, ifrequired,arrangedthrough nursing assistantandadentalhygienist. sisting oftwopublichealthnurses, a Screening byaprimaryhealthteamcon- teaching assistants staffed byacertifiedteacherandtwo Each groupinthechildren’s programis college ECEcredential and ateachingassistantwhooftenhas Each classroomhasacertifiedteacher Each classroomhasacertifiedteacher college ECEcredential and ateachingassistantwhooftenhas Each classroomhasacertifiedteacher part intheprogram Elders areencouragedtotakeanactive staff. Preference isgiventohiringAboriginal at leastaone-yearcollegeECEcredential ates. Inmostcases, theleadteacherhas jurisdiction inwhichtheprogramoper- (ECE) requiredinchildcarecentresbythe same levelofearlychildhoodeducation Teaching staffarerequiredtohavethe Government ofManitoba;Kathy e delaFamille,desAînéset There are Head Start sites in every territory and each with its own social worker; parent counselling and province. The federal government requires that all assistance in accessing other resources; and in-home sites provide the following components: (1) promo- visits to families whose children have special needs to tion of school-readiness through a structured part- assist parents in implementing educational activities to day preschool program for children age three to five reinforce the classroom curriculum. In 2005-06, ABC during the school year; (2) promotion of Aboriginal Head Start served 304 children and their families and culture and language in the preschool program; (3) had a budget of $3,062,317, of which $2,580,942 came promotion of child and family health and nutrition; from the province (ABC Head Start 2006a, b; Kathy (4) assistance to families in accessing other communi- Lenihan, Executive Director, ABC Head Start, personal ty resources; and (5) opportunities for parent partici- communication, February 6, 2007). pation on parent councils or other governing bodies Two Manitoba school divisions, one in Winnipeg and in classroom activities (Public Health Agency of and the other in a northern part of the province with a Canada 2004). There is no required curriculum or cur- high proportion of families who live on-reserve, have riculum approach and each site determines how best established targeted nursery (prekindergarten) programs to provide the required components in its community for children age four. These programs do not receive context. To the extent that they are available, teach- provincial funding; the Winnipeg program is financed ing staff in the preschool program are required to through an education levy on property taxes while the

have the same level of training as required for child other program has been able to obtain federal funding Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty care centres in the jurisdiction in which the Head (Joanna Blais, Manitoba Education and Youth, personal Start site operates (Government of Canada 2005b). In communication, February 12, 2007). In September most cases, the lead teacher working with a group of 2005, the Winnipeg program was operating part-day children has probably a one-year college early child- classes in 58 schools and had an enrolment of 1,785 hood education credential (Lynne Robertson, Public children. The cost to operate the program is expected to Health Agency of Canada, personal communication, be approximately $4.1 million in the 2006-07 school February 19, 2007). year (Winnipeg School Division 2006). Similar information is not available for the program operating in Prekindergarten the northern part of the province. Targeted prekindergarten programs are operating in In Quebec, prématernelle for four-year-olds provides four provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and a part-day program operated by the local school board Saskatchewan. A nontargeted four-year-old junior for four or five days per week over 36 weeks for chil- kindergarten program is also provided in Ontario. dren living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In 2006- Alberta’s prekindergarten was initiated and developed 07, the program served 4,881 children (Dannie Giguère, by nonprofit organizations that operate Head Start- Quebec, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, like group programs targeting children aged three personal communication, November 29, 2007). The esti- and a half to five living in low-income neighbour- mated cost per child was $2,146 (Quebec 2007, 9). No hoods and also provide some parent supports. These new prématernelles for four-year-olds have been organizations supplement provincial grants for the opened since 1997, but the existing ones continue to be provision of kindergarten, which can be used for chil- funded (Friendly et al. in press). This “freeze” reflects dren younger than age five under certain circum- two important government initiatives. The first initia- stances, with funds from other sources such as the tive was the 1996 reform of the education system, federal government, donations and their own which included a provision for four-year-old children fundraising activities. The largest, ABC Head Start in living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods without a pré- Edmonton, has 12 sites and operates 19 half-day maternelle to attend a regulated child care program classes four days a week during the school year. without charge for 23.5 hours a week, with the express These classes have 16 to 18 children each and are purpose of enabling them to participate in an educa- staffed by a certified teacher and two assistants. Most tional experience (Quebec, Ministère de l’Éducation children attend for a single year only and then trans- 1996). The second important initiative was the adop- fer to kindergarten. ABC Head Start also provides tion of a specific and mandatory educational program vision, hearing, speech and general development for use in all regulated child care settings, Jouer, c’est assessments through partnerships with other commu- magique, which was inspired by the American nity agencies; weekly parenting education groups, High/Scope Education Approach, along with the rapid

15 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 nication, February22,2007). Abernethy, SaskatchewanLearning,personalcommu- (Government ofSaskatchewan2006;Kathy and someprogramsalsoprovidehomevisiting work intheclassroomand/orsitonaparentcouncil, childhood education(ECE).Parents areencouragedto assistant whooftenhasacollegecertificateinearly Staffing consistsofacertifiedteacherandteaching riences andplaytofacilitatechildren’sdevelopment. lines thatemphasizestheuseofdirectconcreteexpe- The provincehasproducedasetofprogramguide- half-days, fivedaysaweekduringtheschoolyear. grouping ofthree-andfour-year-oldsoperate a maximumenrolmentof16childreninmixed age year ofoperationforstart-upexpenses.Classeshave is alsosomeprovincialfundingavailableinthefirst provincial grantwithfundsfromothersources.There of childrenenrolled.Manydivisionsaugmentthe $48,346 foreachprogramregardlessofthenumber to operatetargetedprekindergartenandreceive dren. Schooldivisionsdecideifandwheretheywant anticipated enrolmentofapproximately 1,900chil- will be119 provinciallyfundedprogramswithan a pilotprojectintwocommunities.In2006-07, there was startedbytheprovincialgovernmentin1993as charge (GovernmentofQuebec2007). child careprogramforfivehalf-daysaweekwithout identified byasocialservicecanattendregulated very low-incomeorrefugeefamilyhavebeen developmental problemsbecausetheyarelivingina 2002). Currently, childrendeemedvulnerableto expansion ofregulatedchildcarespaces(Tougas the country. Overatwo-yearperiodintheprogram, which isyettobereleased, involved ninesitesacross The NationalAHSUNCEvaluation, thereportof Communities (AHSUNC) Aboriginal HeadStartinUrbanandNorthern approach, outcomemeasuresandoutcomes. 4. Table 3provides anoverviewoftheirevaluation garten operatedbyReginaPublicSchoolDistrictNo. program inEdmonton,andthetargetedprekinder- which hasbeenevaluatedtwice,theABCHeadStart Head StartinUrbanandNorthernCommunities, tives withchildoutcomeevaluationsareAboriginal The Canadianchild-focusedearlyinterventioninitia- Evaluations ofCanadianchild-focusedprograms Saskatchewan’s targetedprekindergartenprogram developmental areas(ABCHeadStart2006a). cent increaseoverallintheir abilitiesinallfour before theirentryintokindergarten showeda25per- 2007). ABCreportsthat265childrenassessedjust Head Start,personalcommunication, February6, knowledge (KathyLenihan,Executive Director, ABC nitive, motorandlanguageskillstheirgeneral dard tooltomeasurechildren’ssocial/emotional,cog- programs throughpre-andpost-testsusingastan- of whichevaluatetheeffectivenesstheirchildren’s prekindergarten programsintheEdmontonarea,all ABC HeadStartisthelargestinanetworkof Prekindergarten February 20,2007). Chalmers, Evaluator, personalcommunication, achievement scores(WAAHSC 2007; Jennifer Again, theAHSchildrenobtainedsignificantlyhigher ture andhomelanguagewiththeAHSchildren. been matchedonsocio-economicstatus,familystruc- study alsoconsistedofAboriginalchildrenwhohad eight totenyearsold.Thecomparisongroupinthis parison groupwhenbothgroupsofchildrenwere 2001), wasassessedfor50AHSchildrenandacom- II (Wechsler IndividualAchievement Test II)(Wechsler spelling andmathematics,asmeasuredbytheWIAT- the secondstudy, theachievementlevelinreading, Screen andKindergarten(Brigance1998).In ness skillsasmeasuredbytheBrigancePreschool obtained significantlyhigherscoresonschool-readi- the program.Onbothoccasions,AHSchildren structure andhomelanguage,whohadnotattended munity, matchedonsocio-economicstatus,family son groupofAboriginalchildrenfromthesamecom- kindergarten andagaininfirstgradewithacompari- school-readiness of31 AHSUNCchildrenatentryinto ducted twoevaluationstudies.Thefirstcomparedthe in theNorthwestTerritories. Oneprogramhascon- (WAAHSC) isanetworkofeightAHSUNCprograms program fromotherfactorssuchaschildmaturation. This makes itimpossibletoisolatetheeffectof Aboriginal childrenwhodidnotattendHeadStart. ation lacked acomparisongroupofsimilar results appearpromisingbutunfortunatelytheevalu- personal communication,February19,2007). These (Lynne Robertson,PublicHealthAgencyofCanada, exhibited enhancedliteracyandnumeracyskills physical healthandsocialskills38percentalso all thechildrenapparentlymadegainsintheiroverall The Western ArcticAboriginalHeadStartCouncil 16 Table 3 Research Approach, Outcome Measures and Outcomes: Targeted Child-Focused Initiatives

Study Approach and sample Outcome measures Outcomes

Aboriginal Head National AHSUNC Comparison of children’s level of develop- Standard classroom obser- All children apparently Start in Urban and Evaluation ment over a two-year period. No comparison vational tool and inter- made gains in their Northern group views with parents and overall physical health Communities kindergarten teachers and social skills and 38 (AHSUNC) percent made gains in literacy and numeracy skills

Western Arctic Study 1: comparison of school-readiness of • Brigance Preschool Children with Head Aboriginal Head Start 31 children who had attended Head Start Screen and Start experience Council (WAAHSC); and 31 comparison children at entry into Kindergarten Screen obtained significantly two studies in the same kindergarten and again at grade one • WIAT-II higher scores on both community the Brigance Preschool Study 2: comparison of achievement levels of and Kindergarten scales 50 Head Start children and 50 comparison children in reading, spelling and mathematics When between ages when they were between ages eight and ten eight and ten, children with Head Start experience obtained signifi- Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty cantly higher scores on the WIAT-II scales for reading, spelling and mathematics

Prekindergarten ABC Head Start Pre-post comparison of 265 children’s level • Measure of develop- 25 percent increase in of development after a single year of pro- ment in social/emotion- post- over pre-test gram participation. No comparison group al, cognitive, motor and scores on social/emo- language skills tional, cognitive/general knowledge, motor skills and language for the group as a whole

Regina Public School Follow-up of 48 children who had participat- • Merrell School Social No statistically signifi- District No. 4 prekinder- ed in the prekindergarten program and 43 Behaviour Scales cant between-group garten comparison children • Measures of reading differences at entry and mathematics skills into kindergarten or at developed by the school the end of either grade division one or grade two

Sources: Western Arctic Aboriginal Head Start Council (2007); ABC Head Start (2006a); Krentz, Mensch and Warkentin (2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2006); personal communications: Lynne Robertson, Aboriginal Head Start Program, Public Health Agency of Canada; Jennifer Chalmers, WAAHSC Evaluator; Kathy Lenihan, ABC Head Start.

Unfortunately, the lack of a comparison group makes as having poor cognitive skills; there was little difference it impossible to isolate the effect of the program from in ranking between the two groups on literacy skills. other influential factors such as maturation. None of the between-group differences was statistically Regina Public School District No. 4 recently com- significant (Krentz, Mensch and Warkentin 2004a). pleted a longitudinal study that started in kindergarten In first grade, 43 of the prekindergarten children and with 48 children who had attended prekindergarten 23 of the comparison children were assessed at the end and 43 comparison children selected by their kinder- of the school year using the School Social Behaviour garten teachers as the best match possible in the par- Scales (Merrell 2002) and on mastery of the first-grade ticular classroom to a prekindergarten graduate in curriculum using tools created by the Regina School terms of cultural and family background. In some Division. A higher proportion of the prekindergarten cases, teachers determined that a match was not possi- children obtained high or average scores on social ble, resulting in slightly fewer comparison children. In competence, both groups obtained very similar overall October, a slightly higher proportion of the prekinder- average scores on antisocial behaviour and mastery of garten children was rated by the kindergarten teachers mathematics but most of the children reading below as having highly developed communication and/or grade level were from the prekindergarten group. social/emotional skills and a slightly lower proportion Again, there were no statistically significant differences

17 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 analyses willdetectevenmoderatelysizedeffects. — afactorthatdecreasesthelikelihood thatstatistical Second, samplesizes,especiallyingradetwo,aresmall had receivedsomesortofgrouppreschoolexperience. as iswhethersomeorallofthecomparisonchildren istics suchasfamilysocio-economicstatusisunknown, children weresimilartoeachotheronsalientcharacter- findings. First,theextenttowhichtwogroupsof degree ofcautionmustbeexercised ininterpretingthese significant between-groupdifferences.However, a Warkentin 2006). son childrenwereavailable(Krentz,Menschand Warkentin 2005).Bygradethree,onlyfivecompari- levels ofreadingskills(Krentz,Menschand mathematics scoresandasagroupexhibitedhigher comparison childrenobtainedslightlyhigheraverage prekindergarten childrenwereratedasdisruptive.The competence whileaslightlyhighernumberof children obtainedhighoraveragescoresonsocial time, aslightlyhigherproportionofthecomparison parison childrenwereavailablefortesting.Atthat 2004b). Bytheendofsecondgrade,only15com- between thegroups(Krentz,MenschandWarkentin from varioussites acrossthecountry. Twosuchstud- representative ofHeadStart sitesingeneral. ty, therebyraisingthequestionofwhethertheywere to usesmallsamplesfroma specificsiteorcommuni- dren’s development.Theearly evaluationsalsotended lated fromotherfactorsthatmightinfluencechil- As aresult,theeffectsofprogramcannotbeiso- with nationalnormsforallchildren(Zilletal.2003). (FACES) study, whichcompared HeadStartchildren recent federallyfundedFamilyandChildExperiences studies lacked acomparisongroup,asdidthemore inception; unfortunately, however, manyoftheearly full-day basisandmostchildrenattendfortwoyears. children’s groupprogrammaybeofferedonapart-or health servicesforboththechildandfamily. The daily nutritionalneeds;and(4)socialmental hot mealsthatprovideatleastathirdofchildren’s children; (2)childhealthscreeningandreferral;(3) provide: (1)acentre-basedstructuredprogramforthe poverty andisrequiredbythefederalgovernmentto Head Starttargetsthree-andfour-year-oldslivingin Head Start focused programs Evaluations ofcomparableAmericanchild- No clearpatternemergesfromthisstudyconcerning More recentevaluations haveusedlarger, samples Head Starthasbeenextensivelyevaluatedsinceits result thatthe two siblingsmayhavedifferent home sibling isapreschooler thanwhenanother is,withthe bility thatfamilypovertymay bedeeperwhenone may erodethebenefitsofHead Start. fails tosupportchildren’sdevelopment adequately dren. Asubsequentelementaryschoolexperiencethat Start childrenwasgreaterforAfricanAmericanchil- school qualitybetweenHeadStartandnon-Head 1995). CurrieandThomasfoundthatthedifferencein grounds (CurrieandThomas2000;LeeLoeb ed byotherchildrenfromsimilarlow-incomeback- relations andtheacademicclimatethanthoseattend- in termsofvariablessuchassafety, teacher-student the HeadStartgraduateswereofmuchpoorerquality Both foundthattheelementaryschoolsattendedby lies whohadornotparticipatedinHeadStart. attended bychildrenfromsimilarlow-incomefami- studies examinedthequalityofelementaryschool experience, nottheeffectivenessofHeadStart.Two studies mayreflectthechildren’selementaryschool American childrenfoundinthetwoabove-mentioned Currie 2002). out HeadStartexperience(Garces,Thomasand booked orchargedwithacrime thansiblingswith- however, significantlylesslikely tohavebeen true forAfricanAmericangraduates.Theywere, high schoolandattendcollegebutthisdidnothold Head Startweresignificantlymorelikely tocomplete not. ItfoundthatWhitechildrenwhohadattended Head Startwithsiblingswhoreportedthattheyhad parts ofthecountrywhoreportedhavingattended Another studycompared489adultsfromdifferent other preschoolprogram(CurrieandThomas1995). for allchildrenexceeded thatofenrolmentinany tary orhighschool.ThepositiveeffectofHeadStart in likelihood ofrepeatingagradeineitherelemen- ates andwasassociatedwitha47percentdecrease but wasmaintainedbytheotherHeadStartgradu- African Americanchildrenafterthreeorfouryears age five.ThebenefitofHeadStartfadedoutfor about athirdofthegapinvocabularytestscoresat the programandfoundthatparticipationclosed Start graduateswithsiblingswhohadnotattended Longitudinal SurveyofYouth tocompare927Head subscribed. OnestudyuseddatafromtheNational possible becauseHeadStartisconsistentlyover- participate involuntaryprograms;thisstrategyis the issueofdifferencesinparentswhodoornot ies havecomparedsiblingsinanattempttoaddress Sibling studiesdonottake intoaccount thepossi- The apparentfade-outofbenefitsforAfrican 18 environments and experiences. Random assignment of Prekindergarten eligible applicant children to Head Start or to a com- In 2005-06, 39 states funded prekindergarten programs parison group increases the credibility of the findings for a total of 950,000 children, an increase of 40 per- by increasing the probability that both groups are cent in the number of four-year-olds being served since comparable at the beginning of the study. This 2001-02, which meant that prekindergarten now served approach has been used in two studies. In the first a larger number of children than Head Start. Most state- study, an identification number was randomly funded prekindergartens target children living in fami- assigned to each eligible child applicant and the chil- lies with a very low income although four states now dren were then randomly divided into 80 Head Start have universal prekindergarten (Barnett et al. 2006). and the 41 comparison group children. Assessments of The National Institute for Early Education Research at all the children and family background data collected Rutgers University has conducted evaluations of state- prior to the beginning of the study found no statisti- operated targeted prekindergarten in four states. All four cally significant differences between the groups in studies employed a regression-discontinuity design5 to parental education levels, family structure, or child obtain a comparison group. This design addresses the two receptive vocabulary or early literacy skills. Child problems of possible selection bias and increased skills assessment after nine months of participation in Head due to maturation alone. All the studies also used random Start found a significantly greater improvement selection procedures to obtain the group of children who among the Head Start children in receptive vocabu- had participated in prekindergarten and the comparison lary and ability to recognize and make the sounds children without this experience. The number of children related to letters but not print awareness or social with prekindergarten experience in the four studies varied skills (Abbott-Shim, Lambert and McCarty 2003). from 1,170 to 384 (Hustedt et al. 2007; Lamy, Barnett and In 2002, the US federal government initiated the Jung 2005a, b, c). longitudinal Head Start Impact Study. In so doing, it Statistically significant outcome differences between recognized the need for a large nationwide sample, the children with and without prekindergarten experi- randomized assignment of equally eligible children ence were found in all four evaluations. The increase in from the same neighbourhood to participate in Head vocabulary over the year attributable to attending the Start or not, and follow-up in elementary school. The preschool varied from 24 to 42 percent and the increase evaluation involves 2,449 children aged three and in prereading skills from 42 to 64 percent. The three 2,108 aged four drawn from 23 communities (Office studies that assessed premathematical skills reported an The Control of Irregular Migration by François Crépeau and Delphine Nakache of Planning, Research and Evaluation, US Department increase in skills of between 24 and 64 percent. None of Health and Human Services 2007). The results of of the four studies found significant between-group the first evaluation, based on data obtained nine differences in children’s ability to recognize, sound out months after the children’s enrolment, show signifi- or blend the sounds associated with letters. It is impor- cantly though modestly higher scores for Head Start tant to note that the comparison groups included chil- participants on letter-word identification, prereading dren who had attended other types of group early tests, prewriting tests and vocabulary tests and childhood programs such as Head Start and child care. reduced behaviour problems among children who Thus the results isolate the effects of a specific type of entered at age four. No significant between-group intervention rather than the influence of any group differences were found for mathematics skills (Puma program prior to entering kindergarten. et al. 2005). A study using data from the US National Early Overall, the American findings on Head Start Childhood Longitudinal Study on a nationally repre- from the more recent, larger and methodologically sentative sample of 10,224 children and controlling for more rigorous studies are encouraging and data on a wide variety of family and neighbourhood character- the longitudinal federal evaluation now underway istics compared reading and premathematical skills at will eventually enable a firm conclusion. entry into kindergarten between children who had one Meanwhile, several researchers agree that Head of the following types of nonparental experience: (1) Start has the potential to benefit vulnerable chil- prekindergarten; (2) Head Start; (3) another group pre- dren’s development and enhance their school-readi- school experience such as child care or nursery school; ness (Currie 2005; Garces, Thomas and Currie 2002; and (4) care from a relative or nanny. Prekindergarten Gormley 2006; Hustedt and Barnett 2005; Zigler participation was associated with higher scores on and Styfco 1996). measures of reading and mathematical skills just after

19 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 (Reynolds etal.2002). of graderepetitionanduseremedialeducation individuals inthecomparisongroupandlowerrates higher ratesofhighschoolcompletionatage20than participated intheprogramstillhadsignificantly longitudinal follow-upfoundthatchildrenwhohad and isdiscussedinthenextsubsection.Nevertheless, gram, whichincludesaprekindergartencomponent observed intheChicagoChild-Parent Centerspro- fade-out relatedtoachievementtestscoreshasbeen prekindergarten fadequickly. Asimilarpatternof children whohadandnotparticipatedinpublic study thatachievementscoredifferencesbetween indication intheMagnuson,RuhmandWaldfogel cussed aboveareveryencouragingexcept forthe (Magnuson, RuhmandWaldfogel 2007). but thefade-outwaslessfordisadvantagedchildren for thesampleasawholebyspringoffirstgrade, academic achievementscoreshadlargelydissipated positive associationsbetweenprekindergartenand and/or livedinpovertythanforthefullsample.The for childrenwhoseparentshadloweducationallevels academic benefitsfromprekindergartenweregreater program wasnotoperatedbyaschool.Thepre- expectations amongchildrenwhoseprekindergarten lack ofexposuretoschoolclassroombehavioural and Waldfogel 2007, 50).Instead,theymayreflect consequence ofpre-kindergarten”(Magnuson,Ruhm suggest thatbehaviourproblems“are notanecessary attended aschool-operatedprogram.Theresearchers the subsampleofprekindergartenchildrenwhohad ulation. Behaviouralconcernswerenotidentifiedfor classroom behaviourproblemssuchaspoorself-reg- other grouppreschoolexperienceaspresentingmore however, assessedchildrenwithprekindergartenor Start orrelativenannycare.Kindergartenteachers, grams, inturn,yieldedgreaterbenefitsthandidHead rience, butothergrouppreschoolexperiencepro- programs categorizedasothergrouppreschoolexpe- entry intokindergartenthanwereobtainedforthe preschool program isanexception. Thefindings are entry intokindergarten. Theevaluationof theRegina enhance vulnerablechildren’s school-readinessat ly foundthatcentre-basedpreschool groupprograms American prekindergartenprograms haveconsistent- Canadian Western Arctic AboriginalHeadStartand American HeadStartandtheevaluationsof The morerecent,rigorousevaluationsof Discussion The findingsfromtheprekindergartenstudiesdis- sible isdiscussedfurtherinthefollowingsection. the numberofchildrenforwhomanadultisrespon- by contributorstoqualitysuchasstafftrainingand cial roleinenhancingchildren’sdevelopmentplayed Lamy andJung2005;Hustedtetal.2007). The cru- garten teachersinthesamejurisdiction(Barnett, receive thesamecompensationpackageaskinder- In moststates,teachersinprekindergartenprograms teacher turnoverratesinthatprogram(NIEER2003). same state,afactorlikely tocontributehigh about halfthesalaryofakindergartenteacherin On average,AmericanHeadStartteachersearn states lessthan15percentofthemdo(NIEER2003). this levelofpost-secondaryeducationandinsome teachers intheAmericanHeadStartprogramhave Whitebook 2003).Onlyaboutone-thirdofalllead (Ackerman andBarnett2006;NIEER2003; in earlychildhoodeducationarethemosteffective teachers arewellqualified,andthatthosewithaBA the strongesteffectsonchilddevelopmentwhen shows thatpreschoolprogramsofanytypeproduce Early EducationResearch[NIEER]2003). (Hustedt andBarnett2005;NationalInstitutefor prekindergarten programsoperatedbyschoolboards that HeadStarthasloweroverallqualitythanthe parison children.Severalresearchershavesuggested that wouldnotbeavailabletothemajorityofcom- health andsocialservicesforparticipatingchildren Start, unlike prekindergarten,providesavarietyof terparts. ThisseemscounterintuitivegiventhatHead comparison childrenthanitsprekindergartencoun- development ofitsparticipantsinrelationtothat Start programmayhavelessofaneffectonthe demographic informationonthetwogroups. that cannotbeconfirmedduetothelackofsocio- parison groupswerenotcomparable,apossibility and/or thepossibilitythatparticipantandcom- of significancemayreflectthesmallsamplesizes in thepositivedirection,butnotsignificant.Thelack encourage parental involvementwiththechild in program intended toenhanceparentingstyle and group programforchildren; aparentingeducation parents. Theytypicallyhave threecomponents:a sitates providingservicesto both thechildand contributing totheirvulnerability andthatthisneces- trajectories requiresaddressingthemultipleissues that changingvulnerablechildren’sdevelopmental Two-generation initiativesarebasedonthepremise Two-generation initiatives There issomeindicationthattheAmericanHead 20 Table 4 Descriptions of Targeted Two-Generation Initiatives

Initiative Population served Services provided Duration Staffing

Community Action Children from birth to One or more of: Families may Varies across sites Program for age six living in low- • Parenting education participate for as depending on the mix of Children (CAPC) income and/or teenage- • Group programs for children with or without their long as they services parent families, or who parents wish if they have are neglected or abused • Individual programming for children a child under age or have developmental • Literacy and job skills training six delays or social/behav- • Provision of information about other community ioural problems resources • Community development

Ontario’s Better Children from birth to One or more of: Families may Varies across sites Beginnings, Better age four living in com- • Home visits participate for as depending on the mix of Futures munities whose charac- • Group parenting education long as they services teristics may put them • Supervised children’s playgroups wish if they have at risk, along with their • Parent/child drop-in programs a child under age families • Provision of information about other community four resources • Community development

Toronto Parenting Children from birth to • Group program for children Families may par- Staff working in the chil- Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty and Family Literacy age five living in low- • Parenting education, primarily through modelling ticipate for as dren’s group program Centres income, culturally with courses if specifically requested by parents long as they wish have a minimum of a diverse neighbourhoods • Lending library of books in the home languages used if they have a two-year post-secondary in the community child under age credential in early child- • Provision of information about other community five hood education resources • Numeracy and literacy courses for adults, if requested

Sources: Government of Canada (2007b); Public Health Agency of Canada (2004); Peters et al. (2000); personal communications: Helen Hodgson, Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth; Ruth Sischy, Toronto Parenting and Family Literacy Centres. educational activities; and adult programs, such as lit- Centres have the most intense focus on children’s pro- eracy and job skill training, intended to improve par- gramming and CAPC probably the least. ents’ life chances. The degree of focus on each component varies across initiatives. Some focus more The Community Action Program for Children of their attention on enhancing child development (CAPC) either directly through group programming or indi- The federal government’s CAPC program provides rectly though parent education than they do on adult long-term funding to community-based groups and services such as debt counselling. Others put much of coalitions to develop and implement programs for chil- their energy into adult programs and/or broad com- dren from birth to age six and their families living in munity development and much less into children’s situations that may hinder children’s development. It programming. Canada has three initiatives that can be targets children living in low-income and/or teenage- considered two-generation programs: the federal gov- parent families, children experiencing developmental ernment’s Community Action Program for Children delays and/or with social/behavioural problems, and (CAPC); the Ontario government’s Better Beginnings, neglected and abused children. Better Futures Program; and the Parenting and Family In a typical month in 2005-06, approximately 440 Literacy Centres operated by the Toronto District projects served 67,884 different participants. The CAPC School Board. Table 4 provides an overview of the expenditure through Health Canada in 2005-06 was approach in each of these initiatives. $60,867,980 (Government of Canada 2007b). Historically, As illustrated in the table, all three initiatives pro- CAPC projects also have obtained funds from other vide group programs for children, parenting educa- sources such as other departments in the federal govern- tion, adult education and information about other ment; provincial, territorial, regional and municipal gov- community resources. However, the extent to which a ernments; donations; and their own fundraising. In site focuses on a particular type of service provision 2004-05, these other sources contributed $22,946,537 varies: the Toronto Parenting and Family Literacy (Public Health Agency of Canada 2006).

21 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 nity. Asaresult,thereisnosingleCAPCmodel. addresses theneedsandpreferencesoftheircommu- aged todeliverthemixofcomponentsthatbest reach anddevelopment.CAPCprojectsareencour- about communityresources;and(7)out- adult literacyandjobskillstraining;(6)information programs forchildrenwithdevelopmentaldelays;(5) (3) groupprogramsforchildrenonly;(4)individual programs forchildrenandtheirparentorcaregiver; through homevisitingorgroupcourses;(2) include oneormoreof:(1)parentingeducation days aweekduring theschoolyearfrom 9 a.m.to with achildunder agefive.Allcentresoperate five diverse neighbourhoodand is opentoanyfamily is locatedinahigh-density, low-income,culturally Parenting andFamilyLiteracy Centres,eachofwhich The Toronto DistrictSchoolBoardoperates54 Toronto Parenting andFamilyLiteracyCentres to whichvisitsweremade(Doherty2001). visitors, thefrequencyofhomevisitsandageup variation inthebackgroundandtrainingofhome children underagefourbutthereisbetween-site Home visitingisprovidedinallfivesitestargeting a strongemphasisonbroadcommunitydevelopment. direct programmingwithchildrenwhileanotherhas variation; onesiteputsmuchofitsemphasison birth toagefiveprovideanexampleoftheresultant to thecommunity. Thesitesservingchildrenfrom to developthetypesandmixofservicesbestsuited nents, theOntariogovernmentencourageseachsite MCYS, personalcommunication,April11, 2007). 1,952 familiesand2,667children(HelenHodgson, sites servingchildrenuptoagefourservedatotalof personal communication,April11, 2007). Thefive by theMinistryofEducation(HelenHodgson,MCYS, $4.1 million,withanadditional$800,000provided Services’ (MCYS)expendituresforalleightsiteswere eight. In2005-06,theMinistryofChildrenandYouth age fourandtheotherthreeonchildrento ent community;fivefocusonchildrenfrombirthto opmental delay. Thereareeightsites,eachinadiffer- whose characteristicsmayputthematriskfordevel- tion projecttargetingchildrenlivingincommunities ation in1994,isa25-yearlongitudinaldemonstra- Better Beginnings,Futures,whichbeganoper- program Ontario’s Better Beginnings, BetterFutures Depending ontheproject,programcomponents Rather thanrequiringspecificprogramcompo- Board, personalcommunication,March6,2007). with families(RuthSischy, Toronto DistrictSchool most ofwhomalsohavepriorexperienceworking secondary credentialinearlychildhoodeducation, are providedbystaffwithatleastatwo-yearpost- by participatingadults.Thechildren’sgroupactivities adult literacyandnumeracycourseswhenrequested home languagesusedintheneighbourhood;and(5) resources; (4)alendinglibrarywithbooksinthe parents; (3)informationaboutothercommunity parenting workshopswhenspecificallyrequestedby staff duringthegroupprogram,supplementedby enting education,primarilythroughmodellingby required toparticipatealongwiththeirchild;(2)par- a groupprogramforchildren,withparents/caregivers tion, March6,2007). Toronto DistrictSchoolBoard,personalcommunica- adults attendedoneofthecentres(RuthSischy, the yearjustover10,500 childrenandcloseto9,000 budget infiscal2005-06was$2.8millionandover infant, andstayfortwotothreehourseachtime.The times aweek,oftenstartingwhenthechildisan 2:30 p.m.Onaverage,familiesattendtwoorthree a BetterBeginnings, BetterFuturesprogram plusa sites andinthree comparisonneighbourhoods without of infantsandtheirfamilies in eachofthefivetarget comparison sitedesign,”involved recruitingagroup neighbourhood. Thesecond approach, a“longitudinal group offour-year-oldsand theirfamiliesinthesame five yearsaftertheprogramstartedonadifferent before thelocalprogrambecameoperationalandthen months andtheirfamiliesineachofthefivesites between baselinedatacollectedonchildrenage48 first, a“baseline-focaldesign,”involvedcomparison researchers usedtwoquasi-experimentaldesigns.The ing childrenunderagefourandtheirfamilies.The the findingsfromevaluationoffivesitesserv- a givensite.Thediscussioninthisreportfocuseson vided andtheemphasisplacedoneachservicewithin Futures programvaryinthemixtureofservicespro- Individual sitesinOntario’sBetterBeginnings, Better Beginnings,Futures outcome measuresandoutcomes. a summaryoftheevaluationapproachandsample, Canadian two-generationprograms.Table 5provides Evaluations havebeenconductedonallthree initiatives Evaluations ofCanadiantwo-generation Each centreprovidesthesamemixofservices:(1) 22 Table 5 Research Approach, Sample, Measures and Outcomes: Targeted Two-Generation Initiatives

Initiative Approach and sample Outcome measures Outcomes

Better Beginnings, Two approaches: (1) comparison of data Ratings from junior kindergarten teachers Higher levels of fine-motor skills, auditory Better Futures1 collected on four-year-olds and their on the children’s overall school-readiness, attention and memory, nonverbal problem families in each of the five sites before social skills and evidence of behaviour or solving and lower levels of parental the program was operational with data emotional problems. Testing of visual and reports of behaviour problems were obtained five years later from other auditory attention and memory and abili- obtained for the sample as a whole four-year-old children who had partici- ty to process and follow instructions pated in the program at the same sites; Outcome patterns varied across the sites. and (2) comparison of data from chil- Parent’s report of overall development One site reported higher levels of overall dren from each of the five sites with and behaviour school-readiness, motor skills, auditory children from four neighbourhoods attention and memory and decreased evi- without a Better Beginnings, Better Data on both the E and C children col- dence of emotional problems. Another Futures program lected at 3, 18, 44 and 48 months of age reported significantly higher motor and expressive language skills. The greatest E2 = 700 from 5 sites benefit occurred when children partici- C3 = 350 from 3 sites pated in children’s group programs

Community Action A longitudinal comparison between a Measures of child motor and social devel- After statistical adjustments for baseline Program for probability sample of families who opment; indications of child behavioural differences between the experimental and Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty Children (CAPC) enrolled in CAPC during 1995 and 1996 or emotional problems; parents’ parenting comparison groups on the outcome and a comparison of families participat- style; indications of maternal depression; measures, the gains over the two-year ing in the first wave (1994) and two- and indications of family dysfunction period between the two groups were no year follow-up (1996) of the NLSCY different Testing at the time of program entry and E = 1,000 children at 9 and 24 months thereafter There was significant variation in out- C = 1,651 children from NLSCY families comes across CAPC sites. Activities in matched with the sample on household which the child participated were associ- income, family structure and parental ated with the greatest effect on children’s education level development

Toronto Parenting Comparison of graduates from the pro- The Early Development Instrument (EDI) At the beginning of junior kindergarten, and Family Literacy gram with peers from the same school administered just after entry into junior the children who had participated in the Centres who had not received it at the begin- kindergarten (when the child was four) program had substantially higher EDI rat- ning of junior kindergarten ings on social, language and communication skills and general knowledge and E and C each = 108 children somewhat higher ratings on emotional maturity 71 percent in both groups had a home language other than English

Sources: Peters et al. (2000); Boyle and Willms (2002); Palacio-Quinton (2002); Yau (2005). 1 In Ontario, junior kindergarten is open to any four-year-old living in the school district and is provided by almost every school board in the province. Five-year-olds attend senior kindergarten. 2 E = experimental (internvention) group. 3 C = comparison group. fourth other community. Data on the children and prosocial behaviour and school-readiness, as assessed their families were collected repeatedly between 1994, by junior kindergarten teachers between 1993-94 and when the children were three months of age, and 1998 1997-98. The longitudinal comparison site design to determine whether there were any changes result- found that Walpole Island children obtained higher ing from living in a Better Beginnings, Better Futures scores than children in any other Better Beginnings, neighbourhood; data were also collected from chil- Better Futures site in relation to the comparison site dren, families and teachers in the other four sites in motor skills and expressive language. As noted without the program (Peters et al. 2000). earlier, each site chose its own mix of programs and The greatest benefit to children’s development focus. The Kingston site invested extensive program occurred in two sites: Kingston and Walpole Island. resources in child care, both by enriching local child In the Kingston site, the baseline focus design care centres in the neighbourhood and also by pro- found a significant decrease in neighbourhood chil- viding a large number of informal group programs dren’s behavioural problems and increases in their for children from birth on.

23 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 development. direct programminghadthe greatesteffectontheir Futures intheirfindingthat involvingchildrenin are similartothoseofBetter Beginnings,Better least effectonchildren’sdevelopment. Theseresults family dysfunction;programsforadultsonlyhadthe with enhancedchilddevelopmentanddecreasesin on theirownorwithparents,wereassociated 2002). Programsinwhichchildrenparticipated,either quent analysisofthesamedata(Palacio-Quinton child outcome,butthishasbeendoneinasubse- types ofserviceschildrenhadactuallyreceivedand cal analysesdidnotlookforassociationsbetweenthe emphasis theyputoneachservice.Theinitialstatisti- mix ofservicestheyprovideandthedegree families (BoyleandWillms2002). and functioningoftheCAPCfamiliesNLSCY were nostatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthehealth family dysfunction.Atthe24-monthfollow-up,there child; and(3)theextentofmaternaldepression positive supportandofnegativeengagementwiththe problems; (2)parentingskills,specificallytheextentof development andindicationofemotional/behavioural used relatedtothreeareas:(1)childmotorandsocial reinterviewed twoyearslater. Theoutcomemeasures line data.BoththeCAPCandNLSCY parentswere in thefirstcycleofNLSCY in1994providedbase- 1995 or1996andinterviewswithfamiliesparticipating tion. InterviewswithfamilieswhoenrolledinCAPC household income,familystructureandparentaleduca- son groupof1,651 NLSCY familiesmatched onlevelof from 141 differentsitesacrossCanadaandacompari- The CAPCNationalEvaluationinvolved1,000families CAPC parent andfamilyoutcomes”(Peters etal.2000,56). outcomes, parent/familyfocusedprogramsaffecting focus, withchild-focusedprogramsaffectingchild term outcomesweregreatestintheareaofprogram with children.Theresearchersconcludedthat“short- ment andhomevisitingthandirectprogramming sites’ puttingmoreemphasisoncommunitydevelop- through groupprogramsasaresultofthosethree three siteshadlessexposuretodirectintervention months (Peters etal.2000,31). Childrenintheother children participatingintheresearchatage48 facility thatwasattendedbyover50percentofthe researchers classifiedasahigh-qualitychildcare CAPC sitesvaryintheirprimaryobjectives,the The Walpole Islandcommunityhadwhatthe other thanEnglish(Yau 2000). tal andcomparisongroupshadahomelanguage one percentofthechildrenineachexperimen- scale arestatisticallysignificant(Yau 2005).Seventy- these threescales.Thebetween-groupscoresoneach ipated intheprogramreceivedalowscoreonanyof more than30percentofthechildrenwhohadpartic- nication skills/generalknowledge.Incomparison,no ment and54percentreceivedalowscoreoncommu- received alowscoreonlanguage/cognitivedevelop- received alowscoreonsocialcompetence,51 percent Offord 2007), 55percentofthecomparisonchildren the EarlyDevelopmentInstrument(EDI)(Janusand four, justafterentryintojuniorkindergarten,using PFL centre.Whenthechildrenwereassessedatage ed fromthesameschools,whohadnotattendeda entry and108 comparisonchildren,randomlyselect- ticipated inoneof10 differentcentrespriortoschool Data werecollectedfrom108 childrenwhohadpar- The T the programand anonrandomizedmatched Miedel andMann2000). supplies andongoingstaffdevelopment (Reynolds, sizes ateacher’saideineach class,extrainstructional which thechildrenareenrolled inclassesofreduced program uptoandincludinggradethreethrough two yearsofprekindergarten,andaprimarygrade and four, asix-weeksummerprogram betweenthe during theschoolyearwhenchildisagedthree speech therapy, ahalf-daypreschool fivedaysaweek child healthscreeningandremediationsuchas helping parentstoaccessothercommunityresources, families throughhomevisiting,parentingeducation, 1967, servechildrenagedthreetonineandtheir The ChicagoChild-Parent Centers,establishedin The ChicagoChild-Parent Centers Development Program,asisdonebelow. Child-Parent CentersandtheComprehensiveChild children. ThisisillustratedbycomparingtheChicago which theinterventionprovidesdirectservicesto these initiativesappeartoberelatedtheextent Barnes 1998).Differencesinchildoutcomesamong (Barnett 2002;Farran2000;St.Pierre,Layzerand very fewhavedemonstratedanyeffectsonchildren that, whileseveralhavereportedeffectsonparents, Reviews ofAmericantwo-generationinitiativesnote generation initiatives Evaluations ofcomparableAmericantwo- A follow-upon 934childrenwhoparticipated in oronto P arenting andFamilyLiteracy(PFL)Centres 24 comparison group of 504 children from similar socio- Early Head Start demographic areas without a center found that when Early Head Start sites are permitted to choose whether the individuals were age 21 there was a 41 percent to provide a primarily home-visiting program, a struc- reduction in receipt of special education, a 40 percent tured, centre-based child development program, or a reduction in grade retention and a 49.7 percent high- “mixed-approach program” in which home-visiting er rate of high school completion among the partici- and/or centre-based developmental programming is pants (Reynolds, Miedel and Mann 2000). Although provided to different families or in combination to 95 percent of the participants were African American, families either simultaneously or at different times. the fade-out of developmental gains experienced by Seventeen Early Head Start sites across the country African American participants in Head Start, as noted recruited twice as many eligible families as they could above, did not occur in this program. The kinder- serve and randomly assigned them to participate in the garten and probably higher-quality grade one to program (1,513 families) or be part of the comparison three classrooms provided by the Chicago Child- group (1,488 families). Parent Centers may be a factor in this difference. At age three, when the intervention ended, there were no significant differences in child outcomes The Comprehensive Child Development Program between children who had attended a site using a The Comprehensive Child Development Program centre-based approach and children in the comparison

(CCDP) targeted low-income children from birth group, but children who had attended mixed-approach Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty through age five and their families. Parents sites obtained significantly higher scores on a measure received biweekly home visits by a case manager of receptive language than the comparison group. It is who assessed parental needs, referred families to important to note that in practice children from a site other services, obtained specific services for par- using a centre-based approach and children from a ents such as adult literacy education, vocational mixed-approach site had obtained almost identical training or employment counselling and some- amounts of group programming; an average of 1,400 times provided counselling themselves. Parenting hours in mixed-approach sites and 1,391 hours in cen- education was provided through biweekly home tre-based approach sites. This occurred because 30 per- visits by an early childhood specialist between the cent of families in mixed-approach sites received Early child’s birth and age three; these visits focused on Head Start Center care and other families used com- the parent and did not include direct work with munity child care services that worked with the Early the child. The program was mandated to ensure Head Start program. Parents in the mixed-approach that all children aged three to five received devel- sites received an average of two to three home visits a opmentally appropriate early childhood education. month while those in the centre-based approach sites Some sites operated their own centre-based pro- had a minimum of two home visits a year (Love et al. grams, while others relied on community child 2005). The researchers note that there were only four care programs. centre-based sites in the evaluation and that a small Overall, the average participation in group early sample size reduces the likelihood that statistical childhood education programs was two days a week. analysis will detect even moderate effects. Thus most children had relatively little exposure to This evaluation supports the importance of direct direct programming. At the beginning of the study, programming for children and does not provide suffi- CCDP sites recruited twice as many eligible families cient evidence to indicate that the addition of home as they could serve and then randomly divided the visits significantly increases an intervention’s ability to families into a group that would receive the program enhance vulnerable children’s development. A follow- and a comparison group. The evaluation conducted at up of the children at age five found that the Early Head the end of the five-year program involved 2,213 par- Start children were significantly less likely to exhibit ticipating children and 2,197 comparison children. At behaviour problems and significantly more likely to that time, there were no statistically significant have a positive approach to learning. The greatest between-group differences in child cognitive, lan- effects were found among five-year-olds who had guage, emotional and prereading or arithmetic skills experienced both Early Head Start and a formal group or in parenting style or employment status (Goodson program such as Head Start, prekindergarten or centre- et al. 2000). based child care at ages four and five (Administration for Children and Families 2006).

25 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 had been(Rameyetal.1985). development thantheoriginalcentre-basedprogram tion wasnomoresuccessfulinenhancingchildren’s and cognitiveskillsbutthetwo-generationinterven- the comparisongrouponstandardtestsoflanguage obtained significantlyhigherscoresthanchildrenin both homevisitsandcentre-basedprogramming this age,thechildrenfromfamiliesthathadreceived the childrenwereonaverageagefourandahalf.At ly workshopsonchilddevelopmentcontinuinguntil month, startinginthechildren’sinfancy, andmonth- families receivedanaverageof2.7homevisitsa nent tothecenter-basedintervention.Inthisproject, involving theadditionofafamilyeducationcompo- CARE, asecond-generationabecedarianproject Reynolds andHickey 2004). important thananyoftheotherfactors(Clements, concluded thatpreschoolparticipationwasmore impact ofdifferentcomponentsitsprogramand cal linearmodelling(HLM)todeterminetherelative Chicago Child-Parent Centersprojectusedhierarchi- est amountofdirectprogrammingforchildren.The the ChicagoChild-Parent Centers—providethegreat- Toronto Parenting andFamilyLiteracycentres; the BetterBeginnings,Futuressites; child developmentalgains—someCAPCsites;twoof child interventions.Thoseassociatedwiththegreatest proportion ofresourcestheydedicatetoparentalor Two-generation initiativesvaryconsiderablyinthe Discussion sidered negligible, thosebetween0.20and 0.49are ation. Byconvention, effectsizesunder0.20 arecon- on anoutcomevariabledivided bythestandarddevi- in meansforanintervention andcomparisongroup called the“effect size.”Aneffectsizeisthedifference from differentinterventions into astandardmeasure ness. Thisrequiresconvertingtheoutcomefindings vention approachesintermsoftheirrelativeeffective- but itdoesnotenableonetocomparedifferentinter- ipation andchildoutcomedidnotoccurbychance, indicates thattheassociationbetweenprogrampartic- received aninterventionandtheircomparisongroup significant” differencebetweenthechildrenwhohad for governmentsandserviceproviders.A“statistically ing vulnerablechildren’sdevelopmentisakey issue focused andtwo-generationinterventionsinenhanc- The relativeeffectivenessofparent-focused,child- initiatives The relativeeffectivenessoftargeted The sameconclusionwasreachedbyProject table shows,the federalandprovincial/territorial relevant fiscal yearisindicatedonthetable. Asthe other thanHealthCanada;in eachofthesecases,the grams andtheexpenditures forCAPCfromsources lations ofeffectsizeforCanadianinitiativeswerefound. Institute forEarlyEducationResearch2003).Nocalcu- and children(HustedtBarnett2005;National as aresult,lackoflong-termrelationshipsbetweenstaff which areassociatedwithhighstaffturnoverratesand, and howtopromoteit,itslowcompensationlevels poor levelsofstafftrainingrelatedtochilddevelopment associated withHeadStart’schronicunderfunding,its school. Theeffectivenessdifferenceishypothesizedtobe ing children’sdevelopmentandpreparingthemfor centre-based programswiththespecificgoalofenhanc- prekindergarten eventhoughbothprovidestructured, in levelofeffectivenessbetweenHeadStartand group program.Thetablealsounderlinesthedifference opment isbestenhancedthroughparticipationina child-focused programs,thatvulnerablechildren’sdevel- forces theevidenceofeffectsizesassociatedwith mal child-focusedcomponent.Itslackofimpactrein- unlike theothertwo-generationprograms,hadamini- less, theydoprovideasenseofrelativeeffectiveness. effect sizesmaynotbestrictlycomparable;neverthe- the childoutcomesweremeasuredmeanthat long-term effectiveness.Also,variationsintheway program so,whileinformative,theydonotindicate administered immediatelyaftertheconclusionof effect sizeswereallcalculatedonthebasisoftests reviewing table6,itisimportanttonotethatthe Baker, Piotrkowski andBrooks-Gunn(1999).When ations conductedbyBradleyandGilkey (2002)and that is,theeffectsizeforHIPPYisbasedonevalu- on thebasisofevaluationscitedinthisreport— above. Theeffectsizeforeachprogramwascalculated calculated fortheAmericaninterventionsdiscussed medium (Karoly, KilburnandCannon2005,64). considered smallandthosebetween0.500.79are Quebec’s pertain tothefiscalyear2005/06 except forSIPPE, of children/familiesreceivingassistance.Thedata development ofvulnerablechildrenandthenumber expenditures fortargetedinitiativestopromotethe information onfederalandprovincial/territorial Table 7(seepage28)providesthebestavailable initiatives The costandcoverageofCanadiantargeted The ComprehensiveChildDevelopmentProgram, Table 6summarizestheeffectsizesthathavebeen prématernelle 26 , thetwoSaskatchewanpro- Table 6 Effect Sizes, Targeted Interventions1

Pre- Age at Type of Cognitive Receptive Prereading mathematics Prewriting follow-up initiative Program development vocabulary skills skills skills (years)

Parent-focused HIPPY 0.12 5 Effect sizes not calculated PAT 0.06 3

Early Head Start 0.10 0.09 n.a.2 3 (sites using primarily home visiting)

Nurse-Family 0.18* Effect sizes not 6 Partnership calculated3

Child-focused Head Start4 See scores for 0.12* 0.24* n.s.5 0.13* 4 receptive vocabu- 0.19* lary, an outcome often used as an n.s. 0.22* n.s. 0.16* 5 approximate 0.24* Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty measure of cognitive development

Pre-Kindergarden 0.36* 0.76* 0.25* n.a. 5 (PK) Arkansas

Pre-K 0.21* 0.96* 0.44* n.a. 5 Michigan

Pre-K New 0.26* 0.47* 0.18* n.a. 5 Jersey

Pre-K South 0.35* 0.71* n.a. n.a. 5 Carolina

Two-generation Chicago Child- 0.35* Effect sizes not 6 Parent Centers calculated

Comprehensive - 0.06 Effect sizes not 5 Child calculated but Development no significant Program between-group differences

Early Head Start 0.11 0.23* n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 (“mixed- approach” sites with a strong child group program component)

Sources: Aos et al. (2004); Barnett, Brown and Shore (2004); Hustedt et al. (2007); Karoly, Kilburn and Cannon (2005); Lamy, Barnett and Jung (2005a, b, c); Love et al. (2005); Puma et al. (2005). 1 Effect sizes under 0.20 are negligible, those between 0.20 and 0.49 are small, those between 0.50 and 0.79 medium and those over 0.80 large (Karoly, Kilburn and Cannon 2005). 2 n.a. = no assessments were done to measure these skills. 3 Significant benefit to child cognitive development has only been found in one of the three Nurse-Family Partnership sites where child outcomes were evaluated. 4 The first cohort in the Head Start evaluation cited consisted of a group of children age three and a second group age four at the time of entry, hence there are data for both four- and five-year-olds. Each of receptive vocabulary, prereading skills and premathematics skills was measured by two tools; reporting of a single effect size indicates that a significant between-group difference was only found on one measure. 5 n.s. = no significant differences between children who received the intervention and comparison group children. * p < 0.05 or better

27 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 initiative Type of of Saskatchewan;(HIPPY)Canada(2006);DorotaDziong,Parent-Child MotherGooseProgram. Expenditures onTargeted InitiativestoAssistVulnerableChildren Table 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Canada (2007a); HelenHodgson,OntarioMinistryofChildren’s andYouth Services; RuthSischy, Toronto Parenting andFamilyLit Division (2006);personalcommunication:DannieGiguère,Ministèredel’Éducation,duLoisir etduSport,November29,2007. Sources: tional fundsspecificallytocoverthecostof stafftimeusedinMotherGoose. those servingchildren agedfourtoeight. tures werenotavailable. deemed vulnerable. Totals generation Two- focused Child- focused Parent- ABC HeadStartisthe largestofseveralsimilarprogramsinAlberta thatalsoreceiveprovincialfunding,but itistheonlyo The expenditureonOntario’s BetterBeginnings, BetterFuturesinitiativeisnotavailable asseparateamountsfortheprograms Manitoba alsohasasecondprekindergarten initiativeoperatinginanorthernschooldistrictbutstatisticsonthenumberofp The AHSUNCstatisticfornumberofparticipants isfrom2004-05;thecomparablestatisticfor2005-06notavailable. The MotherGooseprogramisnotdelivered byMotherGooseemployeesbutofavarietysocialservicesagencies. Saskatchewan’s KidsFirst programincludes$2,185,000grantedtocommunitychildcarecentresfor improvements. Manitoba’s FamiliesFirst expendituresalsocoverthecostofuniversalscreeningeveryfamilywithanewborn intheprovinc Parent-focused initiatives ABC HeadStart (2006-07) prekindergarten Saskatchewan’s (2006-07) four-year-olds (2005-06) Centres and FamilyLiteracy Toronto Parenting (2005-06) Futures Beginnings, Better Ontario’s Better (2005-06) Plan forChildren Community Action (2005-06) Quebec’s (2006-07) Winnipeg only prekindergarten, Manitoba’s Start (2005-06) Aboriginal Head (2005-06) Program Parent-Child Mother Goose (2005-06) HIPPY KidsFirst (2006-07) Saskatchewan’s (2006-07) Quebec’s SIPPE First (2005-06) Manitoba’s Families ntaiePriiat xedtrsepniue te ore fundingsources othersources expenditures expenditures Participants Initiative maternelle pré- for : DarleneGirard,GovernmentofManitoba;LouiseTherrien,QuebecMinistèredelaSanté etdesServicessociaux;GailRussell, 6 (2005-06) 1,785 children 4,500 children AHSUNC — 9,415 children AHSOR — caregiver) lar nonparental ents orchild’s regu- 1,649 adults(par- 385 families March 31, 2006 1,150 familiesasof tions servicesto health andaddic- home visitsand Capacity toprovide their children 5,240 womenand 31, 2006 families asofMarch home visitsto1,581 Capacity toprovide not available Accurate statistics 10,500 children caregivers and regular nonparental parents orchildren’s Approximately 9,000 age four 2,667 childrenunder 2005-06 a typicalmonthin parents/caregivers in 67,884 childrenand their families 304 childrenand children Estimated 1,900 4,881 children 5 $31,214,712 AHSUNC — $50,165,212 AHSOR — None $56,551 funds) ECD Agreement None (otherthan None funds) ECD Agreement None (otherthan $144,547,151 None province) transferred tothe Agreement funds No (otherthanECD 05 estimate federal funds)2004- $2,074,013 (other 2005-06 and (CAPC funds)in $60,867,980 funds) than ECDAgreement $168,683 (other funds) ECD Agreement None (otherthan None None eea adtrioilFnsfo Totals, all Fundsfrom andterritorial Federal 7 4 Child-focused initiatives Provincial and $98,541,504 None serve preschoolers) only 5ofwhich program (8sites, $4,900,000 fortotal (2004-05 estimate) $11,588,382 $2,580,942 $5,753,174 Allocation of $10,474,626 Estimated None None $5,206 None $5,753,174 Allocation of $48,000,000 Allocation of $9,486,000 3 2 1 28 : GovernmentofCanada(2007b); WinnipegSchool $16,716,629 More than $2,800,000 unknown Yes, amount 2004-05 estimates) other sources (both $5,123,397 from governments plus or municipal $4,160,745 regional $312,692 from schooldivisions Unknown amount None school division from Winnipeg $4,100,000 None other sources plus $47,658from pal governments regional ormunici- $22,389 from $149,748 None None None Two-generation initiatives eracy Centres. ne forwhichinformation wasavailable. articipants andtheamountofexpendi- servingchildrenunder agefourand e andfollow-upassessmentoffamilies These agenciesmayobtainaddi- $63,520,726 $104,770,041 More than $91,514,517 More than $259,805,284 More than : Governmentof Government governments combined contributed approximately 3. Quality matters. The effectiveness of group program- $243 million to targeted initiatives. Additional funds ming for children depends upon its quality — the were obtained from other sources such as municipal extent to which staff understand child development governments, donations and school boards. and can translate this knowledge into effective pro- Only two initiatives have developed estimates of gramming, are not responsible for too many children the extent to which they reach their target popula- and thus can provide individualized attention, and tion. Manitoba’s Families First calculates that it engage children in appropriate levels of linguistic and serves 81 percent of eligible women who agree to cognitive stimulation (Ackerman and Barnett 2006; participate in the program (Mariette Chartier, Healthy Sylva et al. 2004; Vandell 2004; Wylie et al. 2006). Child Manitoba, personal communication, September 4. The characteristics of the child’s elementary school 25, 2007); Quebec’s SIPPE estimates that it serves 56 matter. In the Chicago Child-Parent Centers, children percent of its target population (Louise Therrien, who participated in the preschool and kindergarten Quebec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, components and then in the classes with the reduced personal communication, September 12, 2007). Both sizes, fewer children per teacher and extra instruc- of these initiatives are two-generation programs. tional supplies for grades one through three had sig- Estimating the probable coverage by targeted initia- nificantly higher achievement scores on reading and tives as a group is impossible given the data avail- mathematics and lower levels of grade retention at

able. Some programs have specific eligibility the end of grade five than children who received the Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty requirements over and above having a child under same preschool and kindergarten programs but were age six and living in the targeted low-income neigh- not enrolled in the supported grade one to three bourhood; others are open to all families with an classes. The difference could not be explained by age-eligible child but target only specific low-income greater school stability among the children in the neighbourhoods within a low-income community. supported classes (Reynolds 1994). 5. Intensity matters. Group programs are more effective Lessons learned in enhancing children’s development when they are This section has focused on large, community-based half-day, five-days a week than when they are half- targeted early childhood initiatives to enhance the day, twice a week; a full-day group program is more developmental trajectories of children deemed vul- effective than a half-day program provided for the nerable to poor development for environmental rea- same number of days per week (Barnett 2002; sons. In so doing, it does not present the findings of Gomby 2005; Gormley 2006; Ramey et al. 1995). small demonstration models such as the Perry All the initiatives discussed in this section focus or Preschool Project or interventions with low-birth- focused on children living in low socio-economic weight infants or children with physical disabilities or neighbourhoods. It is only recently that research has conditions such as Down’s Syndrome or fetal alcohol documented the fact that many children living in mid- syndrome (FAS). dle- and upper-middle-income communities are vulner- Sufficient longitudinal, rigorous research has been able to developmental problems as a result of the accumulated to build confidence in the following parenting style they experience and/or the extent of conclusions: parental involvement in educational activities with 1. Positive effects on vulnerable children’s develop- them. The implications of this finding are discussed in ment are best achieved from initiatives that target the following section, which looks at: (1) who Canada’s children directly with structured, centre-based pro- vulnerable children are; (2) the efficiency and effectiveness grams (Gomby 2005; Ramey et al. 1995; St. Pierre, of universal programs; (3) the implications of the current Layzer and Barnes 1998). low quality of Canada’s child care; and (4) conditions 2. Although parent/family-focused interventions may enabling high-quality early childhood education and care. benefit parents by, for example, increasing self- confidence, targeting children’s development indirectly through attempts to change parenting style and/or improve parental education and/or parental employability generally has negligible effects on children’s development (Barnett 2002; Farran 2000; Gomby 2005; Gormley 2006; Ramey et al. 1995).

29 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 versal ECEC. benefit/cost ratiosassociated withtargetedanduni- ECEC programs?Thefollowingsectionexaminesthe tions arenecessarytoobtainthegreatestbenefitfrom families wishingtousethem?Second,whatcondi- practice inCanada,orbeuniversallyavailabletoall lies withthelowestincomes,asiscurrently dren’s school-readinesstargetchildrenlivinginfami- should publiclyfundedprogramstoenhancechil- Waldfogel 2007). 2002; Loebetal.2004;Magnuson,Ruhmand Gormley etal.2005;Kohen,HertzmanandWillms services (Caughy, DiPietroandStrobino1994; mental gainswhentheyreceivenontargetedECEC that low-incomechildrenmake substantialdevelop- Mustard andShanker 2007, 77).Researchalsoshows dren inCanadalivenon-poorfamilies”(McCain, show thatmorethan70 percentofvulnerablechil- assumptions. “Inactualnumbers,theNLSCY data grams. RecentCanadianresearchchallengesthese child vulnerabilityisbestaddressedbytargetedpro- dren liveinlow-incomefamiliesandthereforethat the assumptionthatmajorityofvulnerablechil- government decisionscontinuetobedominatedby and Shore2004). prekindergarten forfour-year-olds(Barnett,Brown states havemovedfromtargetedtouniversal ning toquestionthevalueoftargetingandsome lysts andgovernmentsintheUnitedStatesarebegin- their families,followed.Now, however, policyana- income childrenpriortoschoolentry, alongwith decades, aplethoraoftargetedinitiativesforlow- in 1965(ZiglerandStyfco1996).Overthenext 1964 andtocreatetheAmericanHeadStartprogram President Johnsontodeclareawaronpovertyin affluent families.Recognitionofthisrealityled and poorschoolcareersthanchildrenfrommore I Do We Know? Education andCare(ECEC):What Universal EarlyChildhood reach developmental milestonesattheexpected time The majorityofchildreninCanada arebornhealthy, Who areCanada’s vulnerablechildren? This sectionexplorestwopolicyquestions.First, In Canada,federalandmostprovincial/territorial nerable tohealthproblems,behaviouraldisorders low socio-economicenvironmentsaremorevul- t haslongbeenevidentthatchildrenlivingin personal communication,October31, 2006). Learning Partnership, UniversityofBritishColumbia, Instrument (EDI)(JenniferLloyd,HumanEarly on atleastonescaleoftheEarlyDevelopment received ascoreindicatinglackofschool-readiness in BritishColumbiafoundthat40percentofthem population. Astudyof4,226Aboriginalfive-year-olds may beevenmorevulnerablethanthoseinthegeneral cates thatchildrenwholiveinanAboriginalfamily are referredtoasvulnerablechildren.Researchindi- tive useofpublicmoney. this approachmaynotrepresentthemostcost-effec- aim istoenhancetheschool-readinessofallchildren, children whoseschool-readinessisnotatrisk.Ifour nerable childrenandprovidesspecialprogrammingto est-income familiesexcludes alargenumberofvul- children’s developmenttochildrenlivinginthelow- Shanker 2007, 46).Targeting initiativestoenhance percent ofthetotalpopulation(McCain,Mustardand families, agroupthatinCanadarepresentsabout75 poverty orinaffluentfamiliesthanmiddle-income families. However, therearefewerchildrenlivingin dle-income familiesandlowestinthemostaffluent vulnerability isloweramongchildrenlivinginmid- among childrenlivinginpoverty. Theprevalence of comes inthegeneralpopulationatagefiveishighest finding, theincidenceofpoordevelopmentalout- and Hertzman1999).Consistentwiththisgeneral non knownasthesocio-economicgradient(Keating nomic statusofthepopulationstudied,aphenome- a gradientwhenplottedagainstthesocialandeco- school-readiness skills(Doherty2007). delayed atschoolentryinoneormoreofthesecrucial olds inthegeneralpopulationaredevelopmentally ies havereportedthat25to30percentoffive-year- Learning 2007). Nevertheless,fivelargeCanadianstud- benefit fromtheschoolprogram(CanadianCouncilon guage, self-regulationandcognitiveskillsrequiredto and enterschoolwiththelevelofphysical,social,lan- 100 percent ofallthree-andfour-year-olds partici- found inBelgium, ItalyandFrance,where virtually use it.Examplesofuniversal ECECsystemsare available andaffordablefor allfamilieswishingto participate. Itdoesmeana service thatiswidely a programinwhichallage-eligible childrenmust ing of“universal”inthiscontext.Itdoesnotmean tem. Thereissometimesconfusionaboutthemean- The alternativetotargetingisauniversalECECsys- Universal approachtoaddressvulnerability All typesofhealthandsocialoutcomesappearas 30 6 Such children 7 pate (OECD 2006, 78). The only jurisdiction in ECEC, whether it was child care, preschool/nursery Canada that comes anywhere close to having uni- school or a formal regularly scheduled playgroup, for versal ECEC is Quebec. In 2006, there were 204,114 children from all socio-economic backgrounds. The sam- regulated child care spaces in that province, includ- ple in the first study was drawn from all the children ing those in family child care settings (Quebec, born in the United Kingdom in a single week in April Ministère de la Famille, des Aînés et de la Condition 1970 (Osborn and Milbank 1987). When 6,261 children féminine 2007), for almost 380,000 children (Institut were assessed at age ten on five standard achievement de la statistique 2006). Low parent fees, as a result tests, including 2,468 children who had not had any type of high government subsidization, and the govern- of ECEC experience, there was a statistically significant ment’s waiver of parent fees for very low-income difference on each test in favour of the children who had parents make the available spaces affordable for the participated in ECEC. Similarly, the longitudinal Effective majority of families. Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) study of 2,793 While the initial cost is higher for a universal than children found that those who had participated in any for a targeted program, a universal approach is an type of ECEC entered school with higher levels of cogni- attractive alternative for two reasons. First, a higher tive skills than those without this experience (Sammons proportion of vulnerable children would be reached et al. 2002). The beneficial effects of participation in (Belfield 2006a). ECEC on children’s reading and mathematical skills

Support for believing that more vulnerable chil- found at age five continued to be evident at age seven Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty dren would be reached by a nontargeted program (Sylva et al. 2004). By age ten, the impact of the quality8 comes from three sources: Europe, Argentina and the of the ECEC became more important than whether or not United States. Most European countries provide uni- the child had ECEC experience. Children who had partic- versal, publicly funded or highly subsidized ECEC for ipated in high-quality ECEC continued to exhibit a sta- three- and four-year-olds. Participation by three- tistically significantly better reading ability and slightly year-olds in these programs is virtually 100 percent better mathematical skills than children who had attend- in France, Italy and Belgium and over 70 percent in ed a low-quality ECEC program or children without Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Norway and Sweden ECEC (Sammons et al. 2007). (OECD 2006, 78). Argentina’s expansion of government-funded preschool was associated with a jump in The importance of high-quality services preschool enrolment from 49 to 64 percent (Berlinski, While these studies collapsed various types of ECEC Galiani and Gertler 2006). Similarly, American states into a single entity, other research has focused specifi- with universal government-funded prekindergarten cally on the effect of participation in either child care programs report that they are used by 60 percent or or prekindergarten. Longitudinal studies conducted in more of age-eligible children (Committee for both Sweden and the United States comparing children Economic Development 2006). The high rates of who have or have not participated in child care report usage associated with affordable, widely available an association between such participation and more early childhood education programs increases their successful school careers (Andersson 1992; Broberg et ability to reach a higher proportion of vulnerable al. 1997; Burchinal et al. 1995; Caughy, DiPietro and children not living in poverty than services targeted Strobino 1994). However, this is not always the case. to low-income neighbourhoods. Other studies have found no between-group differences Second, there is clear evidence from Argentina, or a negative association between participation in child Britain, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States care and children’s elementary school performance that the school-readiness of children from all socio- (Vandell and Wolfe 2000). economic backgrounds and their subsequent academ- A review of the last 20 years of child care research ic success can be enhanced by participation in early concluded that whether or not child care promotes chil- childhood education, whether it is prekindergarten or dren’s development depends upon its quality — the ordinary child care. In addition, as is the case for tar- extent to which the interactions between adults and geted programs, the returns to the public purse from children are warm and supportive and the children have universal ECEC services outweigh their costs (see ample opportunities to engage in activities that provide table 10, page 35). linguistic and cognitive stimulation (Vandell 2004). Two longitudinal British studies have documented The importance of the level of child care quality for the beneficial effect of participation in nontargeted children’s development has been demonstrated by large

31 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 2005; Lamy, Barnett andJung2005d).Lamy andher to childrenwithout thisexperience(Gormley etal. who hadparticipatedinthe programincomparison readiness justpriortokindergarten amongchildren garten programbothfound higherlevelsofschool- Two evaluationsofOklahoma’s universalprekinder- attendance (Berlinski,GalianiandGertler2006). increase of8percentforeachyearpreschool mathematics ingradethree,withanestimated higher scoresonachievementtestsinSpanishand for childrenfromagethreetofiveisassociatedwith the endofgradetwo(Peisner-Feinberg etal.2001). and teacherratingsofthechildren’ssociabilityat measures ofvocabularyandmathematicalskills program wasassociatedwithhigherscoreson Participation inahigher-ratherthanlower-quality cognitive skillsand0.18forlanguageskills. into kindergartenwas0.56forsociability, 0.43for size oflevelchildcarequalityjustpriortoentry Quality andChildOutcomes,foundthattheeffect Research Network2007). at theendofgradesix(NICHDEarlyChildCare care qualityandvocabularyscorepersistedeven A significantpositiveassociationbetweenchild (NICHD EarlyChildCareResearchNetwork2005). who hadparticipatedinpoorer-qualitychildcare cal skills,vocabularyandmemorythanchildren higher scoresonstandardizedtestsofmathemati- higher-quality childcareobtainedsignificantly ence controlled,childrenwhohadparticipatedin with factorsrelatedtoelementaryschoolexperi- Network 2002).Attheendofgradethree,and Development [NICHD]EarlyChildCareResearch (National InstituteforChildHealthandHuman preacademic skillsand0.29forlanguage the highestorlowestthirdofqualitywas0.39for skills relatedtoexperiencingchildcareineither lowest third.Thedifferenceineffectonchildren’s did childrenwhosechildcarewasratedinthe skills andlanguageatagefour-and-a-halfthan obtained higherscoresontestsofpreacademic was ratedinthehighestthirdofqualitylevels al. 2006). cal skillsandreadingcomprehensionpersisted(Wylie et eight betweenchildcarequalityandlevelofmathemati- to age14andfoundthattheassociationsnotedat United States.TheNewZealandstudyfollowedchildren longitudinal studiesinbothNewZealandandthe Attending Argentina’suniversalprekindergarten Similarly, asecondAmericanstudy, Cost, In anAmericanstudy, childrenwhosechildcare their compensation reflectstheirlevelof education child. Adults whoearn enoughtoliveonandfeel ing ofactivitiestotheparticular needsofeach actions betweenadultsand childrenandthetailor- adult enableagreaternumber ofindividualinter- about. Smallergroupsizes and fewerchildrenper mental activitiesratherthanaimlesslywandering probability thatchildrenwillengageindevelop- ful, planneddailyprogramincreasesthe ences thatpromotetheirdevelopment.Apurpose- stimulating, developmentallyappropriateexperi- respond sensitivelytothemandwillalsoprovide understand howyoungchildrendevelop,will ment increasetheprobabilitythatanadultwill and specializedtrainingrelatedtochilddevelop- age suchprogramming.Post-secondary education they establishconditionsthatpermitandencour- enablers ofhigh-qualityprogramminginasmuchas and Barnett2006). and engageinongoingself-evaluation(Ackerman provide regularprofessionaldevelopmentforstaff rials thatsupportgoodprogrammingpractices, grams alsohaveaphysicalenvironmentandmate- Wolfe 2000;Wylie etal.2006).EffectiveECECpro- and Barnett2006;Sylvaetal.2004;Vandell and opmentally appropriatedailyprogram(Ackerman the childrenreceiveaplanned,purposeful,devel- allow forindividualizedattentionandsupport, ed, thegroupsizesandchildren-to-adultratios early childhoodeducationandarewellcompensat- a universitydegreeandspecializedtrainingin The adultsresponsibleforagroupofchildrenhave or nontargetedandregardlessofwhatitiscalled. consistent findingswhethertheprogramistargeted children’s developmenthavereportedremarkably programs thatarethemostsuccessfulatpromoting Studies exploringthecharacteristicsofthoseECEC childhood educationandcare Conditions enablinghigh-qualityearly Barnett andJung2005e). matical skillsand30percentforvocabulary(Lamy, cent forprereadingskills,63percentpremathe- increase attributabletotheprogrambeing121 per- West Virginia’suniversalprekindergartenwiththe lary. Similarpositiveresultshavebeenfoundfor premathematical skillsand28percentforvocabu- was 88percentforprereadingskills,44 ness attributabletoparticipationinprekindergarten colleagues reportthattheincreaseinschool-readi- The characteristicsnotedaboveareimportant 32 and responsibility are more likely to stay. This observational tool as providing a program consistent results in more stable adult-child relationships and with supporting children’s development rather than a greater sense of security for the children and just providing custodial care (Helburn 1995). gives the adults a better understanding of each Calculating effect sizes based on a sample with few child’s developmental level. Indoor and outdoor high-quality programs would underestimate child spaces that are safe, child-friendly, pleasant to be care’s potential to enhance children’s development. in, large enough to permit a variety of activities and accessible to people with disabilities support good programming, as does the availability of Benefit/Cost Ratios appropriate and sufficient materials. any of the benefits derived from ECEC pro- The relative effectiveness of universal grams that enhance children’s development programs M can be translated into dollar figures and Table 8 summarizes the data available on effect compared with program costs to calculate a sizes for universal prekindergarten and for univer- benefit/cost ratio. The standard methodology and eco- sal ECEC programs of all types combined. The only nomic equation used to perform a benefit/cost analysis, data located on effect sizes for child care relate to and thus determine the ratio, is described in detail by

the differences in the effect on children’s develop- Aos and his colleagues (2004, appendix D). Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty ment directly associated with differences in pro- When considering benefit/cost estimates, it is essen- gram quality level (National Institute for Child tial to recognize that they are not the final word Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early although they can provide a sense of the relative differ- Child Care Research Network 2002, 2005; Peisner- ences across approaches. Benefit/cost analyses vary in Feinberg et al. 2001) or estimates of child outcome the benefits and costs included in the calculation and gains that would be achieved for specific incre- across jurisdictions as a consequence of differences in ments in program quality (NICHD Early Child Care factors such as the relative costs of personnel and facili- Research Network and Duncan 2003). There may be ties and whether the proposed program is full day or part some reluctance to publish effect sizes for child day. For example, if a prekindergarten program yields care based on combining data from all the child the same economic returns in two jurisdictions but wage care programs that participated in a specific evalu- levels are higher in one, the benefit/cost ratio in that ation due to the generally poor quality of the child jurisdiction will be lower. Sometimes a benefit/cost ratio care programs evaluated. For example, only 14 is projected beyond the age of final follow-up by esti- percent of the centres in the Cost, Quality and mating lifetime differences on the basis of experience in Child Outcomes study were rated on a standard the general population such as the greater employability

Table 8 Effect Sizes, Universal ECEC, Various Jurisdictions1

Receptive Prereading Premathematics Initiative Jurisdiction vocabulary skills skills Prewriting skills Age (years)

Prekindergarten Oklahoma2 n.s.3 0.79* 0.38* 0.64* 5

Oklahoma 0.24* 0.62* 0.29* n.s.

West Virginia 0.27* 0.93* 0.41* n.s.

Any type of Britain 0.44* 0.28* 0.44* n.a.4 5 centre-based ECEC experience

Sources: Gormley et al. (2005); Lamy, Barnett and Jung (2005d, 2005e); Sammons et al. (2002). 1 Effect sizes under 0.20 are negligible, those between 0.20 and 0.49 small, those between 0.50 and 0.79 medium and those over 0.80 large (Karoly, Kilburn and Cannon 2005). 2 The two evaluations of the Oklahoma initiative used different methodologies. 3 n.s. = no significant difference between the children who had participated in the program and the comparison group children. 4 n.a. = no assessments were done to measure this skill. *p < 0.05 or better

33 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 ty thattheywillusesocialassistance. son withthosewhohavenot,andthelowerprobabili- of peoplewhohavecompletedhighschoolincompari- tiveness asaresultofimprovementsinthe uation, suchasstrongernationaleconomiccompeti- benefits thatwerenotmeasuredintheprogrameval- benefit/cost ratiosdonotincludeotherpotential cost ofchildcareforemployedparents.Because government suchasthehalf-dayreductionin fit/cost ratioalsoincludesbenefitsnotaccruingto income tax.TheChicagoChild-Parent Centersbene- increases ingovernmentrevenuethroughincreased child and/oradultcriminaljusticesystems;and or moreofthechildwelfare,socialassistance likelihood ofhighschoolgraduation;savingstoone and useofremedialeducationservices;increased include reducedexpendituresforgraderepetition ured bytheresearchers.Thepossiblevariables mix ofwhichvariesdependingonwhatwasmeas- The benefitsarebasedonanumberofvariables,the from thespecificprogramevaluationscitedearlier. mates reportedintable9,thisinformationcame parison group.Inthecaseofbenefit/costesti- different outcomesbetweenaparticipantandcom- using thestatisticallysignificantfindingsrelatedto Benefit/cost analysesfortargetedprogramsstartby Targeted programs Type ofinitiative 1 Sources: Aosetal.(2004);Belfield(2006a); Reynoldsetal.(2002). Benefit/Cost EstimatesforTargeted Initiatives Table 9 criminal justicesystems andincreasedincometaxrevenuefrom increasedmaternalengagementinpaidemployment. Two-generation Child-focused Parent-focused Most ofthebenefits from theNurse-FamilyPartnership comefromdecreasedgovernment expendituresforthechildwelfare,socia Initiative combined) Early HeadStart(allsites Development Program Comprehensive Child grades-one-to-three component) and education,doesnotinclude (preschool plusparentsupport Chicago Child-Parent Centers Pre-K Arkansas PAT Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) HIPPY (US) 1 culcs e olr r foreverydollar dollarsare participant (dollars) Actual costper 11,892 10,849 6,692 4,400 1,450 3,659 1,250 several initiatives. ments locatedthatreviewbenefit/costratiosfor Head Startisincludedineitherofthetwodocu- (see table6,page27).Nobenefit/costanalysisfor efit intheseareasasdochild-focusedprograms career anddoesnotprovidethesamelevelofben- to enhancechildren’sschool-readinessorschool employment. TheNFPprogramwasnotdesigned inal systemsandgreaterlikelihood ofmaternal welfare, socialassistanceandchildadultcrim- This benefitprimarilyreflectssavingstothechild lic pursecomesfromtheNurse-FamilyPartnership. focused initiatives,thegreatestbenefittopub- solely aclassroomexperience.Ofthethreeparent- program, whichprovidesalowerbenefit, nutrition services.TheArkansasprekindergarten to andincludinggradethreeaswellhealth elementary schoolclassesusedbyparticipantsup focused anditincludesadditionalsupportforthe eration program,itsprimaryemphasisischild- the child’sschoolcareer. Althoughitisatwo-gen- yield thegreatestreturn,withveryclearbenefitsto lic fundsspent.TheChicagoChild-Parent Centers a benefitof$1.23to$7.14foreverydollarpub- (Karoly, KilburnandCannon2005). efit/cost estimatesarelikely tobeconservative educational attainmentofthefutureworkforce,ben- eri hc Estimatedbenefit Durationspent denominated (dollars) Year inwhich 2002 1994 1998 2006 2004 2002 2004 The benefit/costratiospresentedintable9show 34 Average 22months Average 3years 2 years 9 monthsforeachof 1 schoolyear Average 2.5years Average 2.5years Average 1.5years l assistanceandjuvenile/adult 0.23 (atage3) 0.00 upward toage65) 7.14 (projected upward toage65) 2.32 (projected 1.23 (atage3) 2.88 (atage15) 1.80 (atage5) Universal prekindergarten incurred in implementing a universal prekindergarten No benefit/cost analysis appears to have been done program by suggesting various ways to fund it (2006). for any of the four existing American universal prekindergarten programs. However, six other states Universal child care have estimated the likely benefit/cost ratios if they Analyses of the benefits/costs of universal child care implemented universal prekindergarten. The method- have been done in both Canada and Switzerland. In ology used was similar to that used to determine Canada, two economists from the University of Toronto benefit/cost ratios for targeted early childhood inter- estimate that a nationwide high-quality universal child vention but also included the need, in some states, to care system for children aged two to five with parent improve program inputs so that they are similar to fees geared to income would yield $2 for every dollar those in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers — bachelor of public money spent. Their methodology, detailed in degree lead teachers with a specialization in early appendix B of their report, took into account factors childhood education who receive the same compensa- such as costs not incurred for special education and tion packages as those received by other teachers in grade repetition and increased income taxes as a result the system, a maximum class size of 20 and no more of increased parental workforce participation than 10 children to every adult (Belfield 2005, 2006b; (Cleveland and Krashinsky 1998). Karoly and Bigelow 2005). As illustrated in table 10, a As indicated by table 10, the estimated cost per par-

positive return on investment was estimated for each ticipant per year for universal child care is greater than Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty state, with benefits ranging between $2.62 to $1.18 for the American universal prekindergarten programs, for every dollar spent. The Committee for Economic even taking into account the exchange rate. There are Development (CED) has estimated the likely two reasons for this difference. First, the child care day benefit/cost ratio for a nationwide prekindergarten is longer than the standard eight-hour work day, result- program in the United States as at least $2 for each ing in a need for additional staff to cover the beginning dollar of public funds. The CED report addresses the or the end of the day. Second, some children participat- substantial initial additional expenses that would be ing in child care would be younger than age three.

Table 10 Benefit/Cost Estimates for Universal ECEC, Various United States and Canada

Estimated cost per Year in which Estimated benefit participant per dollars are for every dollar Type of initiative Jurisdiction year (dollars) denominated Duration spent (dollars)1

Prekindergarten2 Arkansas 4,865 2005 2 school years, full day 1.58 (projected upward to age 65)

California 4,339 2003 1 school year, part day 2.62 (projected upward to age 65)

Louisiana 6,418 2003 1 school year, length 2.25 (projected of day not stated upward to age 65)

Massachusetts 6,500 2003 2 school years, full day 1.18 (projected upward to age 65)

Ohio 5,900 2003 1 school year, length 1.64 (projected of day not stated upward to age 65)

Wisconsin 6,445 2003 1 school year, length 1.62 (projected of day not stated upward to age 65)

Child care Canada-wide 8,5003, 4 1997 Up to 3 full years, 2.00 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Sources: Belfield (2005, 2006b); Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998); Karoly and Bigelow (2005). 1 Estimated benefit/cost ratios differ across states for pre-kindergarten because of differences in factors such as whether the program would be part day or full day, 2 Prekindergarten estimates are in US dollars; child care estimates are in Canadian dollars. whether children would attend for one or two years and estimated costs to bring current quality levels in line with those associated with effective targeted programs. 3 The estimated cost per participant for child care is more expensive than for prekindergarten since the program operates year-round, not just for the school year, and for a longer period each day. 4 The costs for implementing universal child care include the assumption of parent fees geared to income, with parent fees, overall, covering 20 percent of the actual costs.

35 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 reduced spendingonsocialassistance(OECD2006). CHF 29millionfromadditionaltaxrevenueand the cityofZurichisestimatedtobeoffsetbyatleast public investmentofCHF18millioninchildcareby Similar findingsarereportedfromSwitzerlandwhere the program(Baker, Gruber andMilligan2006). tax incomethatoffsetabout40percentofthecost paid employmentoutsidethehomeandadditional associated witha21 percentincreaseinmaternal day childcareprogram,nowsevendollarsaday, was calculated thatimplementationofthefive-dollar-a- of LabourandIncomeDynamics,astudyinQuebec benefits fortheprekindergartenprograms. mated benefitcomparesfavourablywiththeestimated year-olds. Inspiteofthehighercostperchild,esti- for asmanyanadultworkingwiththree-andfour- ing withyoungerchildrenshouldnotberesponsible younger children,withtheresultthateachadultwork- Desirable childrenperadultratiosaresmallerfor ages toleranceandsocialstability. a prosperoussocietyandencour- dren’s developmentassistsincreatingandmaintaining human capitalbuiltthroughenhancingyoungchil- school, andtheadult’slifeskillsemployability. The and mentalhealth,thechild’sdegreeofsuccessin foundation islaidfortheindividual’slifelongphysical lative anditisduringthepreschoolperiodthat is notsurprising.Developmentsequentialandcumu- cation” (McCain,MustardandShanker 2007, 136).This aged childrenandeighttimesasmuchforadultedu- [development] yieldsthreetimesasmuchforschool- estimated that,“a dollarinvestedinearlychildhood 2007). Infact,agroupofAmericaneconomistshas and Merrigan2003;McCain,MustardShanker greater returnsthanatanyotherperiodinlife(Lefebvre investments intheearlychildhoodperiodprovide economists, biologistsandsocialscientiststhatpublic Such findingssupportthestrongconsensusamong tives aregreaterthanistheircosttothepublicpurse. of bothtargetedanduniversallarge-scaleECECinitia- Tables 9and10 demonstratethatthebenefitstosociety Discussion Using annualdatafromStatisticsCanada’sSurvey tre-based group programs.Yet, astable7shows, over50 tions thattargetchildrendirectly withstructured,cen- children’s developmentarebest achievedwithinterven- vulnerable. lies missesthemajorityofchildren whoare nerable childrentolow-incomeandAboriginalfami- publicly fundedearly-interventioninitiativesforvul- (McCain, MustardandShanker 2007, 46).Restricting ly 75percent,liveinmiddle-incomehouseholds poverty, thelargestnumber ofchildren,approximate- of vulnerabilityishighestamongchildrenlivingin non-Aboriginal populations.Althoughtheincidence all incomelevelsandinboththeAboriginal However, vulnerablechildrenlivein familiesacross nomic neighbourhoodsandtoAboriginalchildren. programs targetingchildrenlivinginlowsocio-eco- ble topoordevelopmentaloutcomesarelimited tiatives toassistthedevelopmentofchildrenvulnera- inadequate inbothapproachanddegree. to promoteeverychild’sdevelopmentiswoefully al, provincialandterritorialgovernmentstotheneed Nearly adecadelater, theresponseofCanada’sfeder- mal earlychildhooddevelopmentfor a majorefforttoimprovetheopportunitiesforopti- problems inCanadaandurgedgovernmentstomake the extentofchildvulnerabilitytodevelopmental McCain andFraserMustardraisedthealarmabout Mustard andShanker 2007). In1999,Margaret more oftheessentialfoundationskills(McCain, of childreninCanadaenterschoollackingoneor oped priortoentryintokindergarten,yet25percent depends uponafoundationofcompetenciesdevel- as literacyandnumeracy”(Fortin2006,5). pressing taskasanation…istofosterbasicskillssuch that oneeconomisthassuggested“ourmost and Merrigan2003).Theneedtodothisissocritical fullest potential(Dodge2003;Fortin2006;Lefebvre upon ensuringthateverychildreacheshisorher skills, meansthatCanada’sfutureprosperitydepends cy, numeracy, problem-solvinganddecision-making global economyforworkers withgoodpeople,litera- C Discussion Policy Implicationsand We alsoknowthatpositiveeffectsonvulnerable Federally, provinciallyandterritoriallyfundedini- Successful acquisitionofliteracyandnumeracy the demandsofnewtechnologiesand from demographicfactors.Thisreality, and anada isfacingaworkforceshortageresulting 36 all children. percent of federal/provincial/territorial early interven- ming that promotes children’s social, language and tion funds are directed to parent-focused and two-gen- cognitive development (Doherty et al. 2006; Drouin et eration initiatives. While such interventions can yield al. 2004; Goelman et al. 2006; Japel, Tremblay and benefits to the individual parent, such as increased self- Côté 2005). confidence and job skills, and to society by reducing the As discussed in the previous section, the adults need for social assistance, they provide negligible bene- responsible for a group of children in the kinds of ECEC fit to children’s development (see table 5). services proven to promote children’s development have Finally, programs targeted on low-income families do a university degree and specialized training in early not even reach their intended clientele. Only two initia- childhood education, are well compensated and provide tives have developed estimates of the extent to which a planned, purposeful, developmentally appropriate daily they reach their target population. Manitoba’s Families program. But in 2001, the most recent year for which First reports that it serves 64 percent of eligible women, data are available, the majority of people working direct- that 22 percent decline and that 14 percent are not ly with children in Canadian child care had a one-year served for other reasons (Mariette Chartier, Healthy community college certificate or a two-year diploma; Child Manitoba, personal communication, September less than 15 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher 25, 2007). Quebec’s SIPPE estimates that it serves 56 qualification (Beach et al. 2004, 16). Salary levels were percent of its target population (Louise Therrien, Quebec, low and remain so. On average, staff in child care cen-

Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, personal tres who had a degree earned $21,023 in contrast to the Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty communication, September 12, 2007). Both of these ini- $47,146 earned by an elementary school teacher with tiatives are parent-focused programs that do not provide the same level of education (Beach et al. 2004, 25). This direct programming for children. In 2001, the most large discrepancy does not encourage degree-holders to recent date for which information is available, 415,655 remain in the child care field. Unlike the situation in children under age six were living in poverty (Canadian kindergarten, where all the provinces and territories Council on Social Development 2007, table A-1). In the require the provision of a specific curriculum or types of intervening period, child poverty levels have only been activities in every program, only Quebec requires all reg- reduced consistently in each year in Quebec, whereas in ulated child care settings to use a specific curriculum. other jurisdictions change has been variable or poverty The characteristics associated with effective ECEC rates have increased (Campaign 2000 2006, 2). The par- are expensive but necessary. Yet outside of Manitoba ticipant statistics provided in table 7 indicate that and Quebec, child care programs have to rely on fees approximately 23,000 children under age five across the paid by parents for an average of almost 50 percent of whole of Canada received child-focused targeted group their budget (OECD 2004, 57). However, parent fees programs. cannot be sufficiently high to cover the true cost of providing high-quality ECEC — for example, to cover The realities of child care in Canada the cost of staff compensation that reflects the desir- Child care plays a significant role in the lives and able level of training. Raising ECEC fees to increase thus the development of many Canadian children compensation levels is not an option since it would under age five. In 2005, 52 percent of children under reduce access. Instead, as noted by the OECD (2004, 72) age three and 54 percent of those between age four in its report on its evaluation of services in Canada for and five regularly received some form of nonparental children under age six, public funding of ECEC must be care while their parents engaged in paid work or fur- substantially increased. thered their education; they spent, on average, 27 As a matter of comparison, child care in Europe is hours a week in that care (Bushnik 2006). Yet, 38 per- generally of high quality and generously subsidized by cent of children who receive regular nonparental care government. Parent fees for children under age three in in Canada receive it in unregulated settings that do countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden range not have to meet even basic health and safety stan- between 9 and 15 percent of the cost; fees are about 25 dards (Bushnik 2006). This reflects the reality that, in percent of the cost in the rest of Continental Europe. In 2006, there were regulated child care spaces for only most European countries at least part-day fully subsi- 21 percent of children under age five (Friendly et al. dized ECEC is provided for all three- and four-year-olds in press). While participating in regulated child care (OECD 2006, 78). protects health and safety, only about a third of such Poor-quality child care is not simply a missed devel- programs provide the type and amount of program- opmental opportunity; it is known to be detrimental to

37 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 required leveloftrainingandremaininthefield. pensation thatencouragespeopletocompletethe provided outsideofQuebectoenablethesortcom- much higherlevelsofpublicfundingthancurrently standards, especiallyintheareaofstafftraining,and ductivity. Doingsowouldrequirehigherregulatory children andaninvestmentinCanada’sfuturepro- be recognizedasadevelopmentalopportunityfor for childrentostaywhiletheirparentswork.Itmust continue totreatthisserviceassimplyasafeplace regularly participatinginchildcare,Canadacannot Vandell andCorasaniti1990). (Howes 1990;Peisner-Feinberg andBurchinal1997; parents engageindevelopmentalactivitieswiththem economic backgroundortheextenttowhichtheir all children’sdevelopmentregardlessoftheirsocio- (Statistics Canada 2007, table5).Mostof these those whoseyoungest childwasagethree tofive engaged inpaidemployment, asdid69.4percentof of womenwhoseyoungestchild wasunderagethree increased eachyearsince1976. By2006,64.3percent who haveatleastonechild under agefivehas for thosewithuniqueneeds. garten; and(4)theprovisionofadditionalsupports developmental screeningpriortoentryintokinder- ily; (3)theneedforcomplementaryservicessuchas approach thatwouldworkbestforthechildandfam- women whohaveachildunderagefive;(2)the paid to:(1)thehighworkforceparticipationby that wouldbethemosteffective,attentionmust When consideringthetypeofgroupECECprogram Factors toconsider time, anditisaffordable. providingthelevelofgovernmentfunding 3. developinganontargeted, evidence-based,cost- 2. acceptingthatvulnerabilitytopoordevelopmental 1. readiness inaneffectivefashionrequires: Addressing thecurrenthighlevelsoflackschool- What needstobedone? Given thelargenumberofchildrenunderagefive The percentageofwomeninthepaidworkforce This isatallorderbutdoable,althoughitwilltake effective. required andotherresourcesforthestrategytobe effective strategy;and identify allvulnerablechildren; is noeasilyobservableneighbourhoodmarker to result, interventionsmustbeuniversalsincethere outcomes occursacrossallincomelevelsand,asa Beach 2003). specific teacher training(Doherty, Friendly and a four-yearB.Ed. or athree-yearBA andoneyearof whether workingwithfour- orfive-year-olds,have Prince EdwardIsland, with thepan-Canadianrequirement, except in (Cameron 2004).Thisleveloftrainingisconsistent equip themtoimplementtheunderlyingphilosophy four yearsofspecializedpost-secondarytrainingto out thewholedaydeliveredbyadultswiththreeor incorporate play-basedlearningactivitiesthrough- ECEC programsoperatingfor10 hoursadaythat phy, severalEuropeancountries provideuniversal care activitiesthroughout.Followingthisphiloso- of adultsinaprogramthatblendseducationaland children andshouldbeprovidedbythesamegroup that careandeducationareindivisibleforyoung day. Othercountrieshaveadoptedthephilosophy different physicallocationswithinthecourseof set providing“education” andseveraltransitionsto ences onesetofadultsproviding“care” andanother back andforth.Inthissituation,thechildexperi- nearby location,withthechildbeingtransported program eitherinanotherroomtheschoolora care providedbeforeandaftertheprekindergarten school hoursisaddressedby“wrap-around”child Canada, theneedforcarebeyondtraditional tional 9a.m.to3p.m.schoolday. Currentlyin require alternativecareforlongerthanthetradi- venient. However, parentswhoworkfulltime local school,suchprogramswouldprobablybecon- care foremployedparentsand,beinglocatedinthe four-year-olds wouldlessenthecostofalternative or full-dayprekindergartenprogramsforthree-and out ofthehome.Access togovernment-fundedpart- the hoursrequiredtocovertimeparentis convenient locationandaservicethatoperatesfor Working parents’primaryneedsareaffordability, a late theirlinguisticandcognitivedevelopment. a dailyprogramofinterestingactivitiesthatstimu- place duringthecourseofadayandareengagedin with aminimalnumberoftransitionsfromplaceto thrive whentheyexperiencestablerelationships the needsofbothchildandfamily. Young children many parentsmustfindreliablenonrelativecare. 51 percent(MarshallandFerrao2007, 6).Therefore, has sharplyincreasedsincethemid-1970s from32to labour forceparticipationofwomenaged55to64 mother isnotavailabletoprovidecare.Infact,the women worked fulltimeand,increasingly, agrand- The secondfactortoconsiderishowbestmeet 38 9 that kindergartenteachers, Early identification and remediation of visual or An example of what might be done hearing impairments or speech impediments enhances The recent follow-up to the 1999 Early Years Study the child’s chances for optimal development. proposes a universal system of early child development Currently, in some parts of Canada, the first universal and parenting centres that would be affordable and opportunity to participate in developmental screening widely available to pregnant women and families with after infancy occurs when the child enters kinder- a child under age six (McCain, Mustard and Shanker garten. At that point, undetected hearing and visual 2007). Each centre would incorporate pre- and postna- impairments or mild speech impediments may already tal supports, parenting education, developmental have had a negative effect on the child’s development. screening, child care and kindergarten and report to a Finally, the provision of universally available single local authority that would be administratively ECEC does not necessarily mean equal funding per responsible for the group of centres. Ontario’s Best child; the Canadian health system is universal but Start Initiative, announced in 2004, is already moving also recognizes that some citizens have unique needs in this direction. Three pilot projects in three very dif- that require additional services (Brownell et al. 2006). ferent parts of the province are developing community A case can be made that the principle of additional hubs through formal coordination and collaboration supports for those with unique needs may apply to among existing organizations so that families have a two specific groups of young children — those living single entry point to a continuum of ECEC services and

in Aboriginal families and those whose home lan- other services such as developmental screening. Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty guage is not that of the local school. Currently, there are 24 such hubs (Ontario, Ministry of British Columbia’s province-wide EDI study reports Children and Youth Services 2007a). Best Start’s ulti- that 40 percent of Aboriginal children obtain scores mate goal is full integration of child care and kinder- indicating a lack of school-readiness on one or more garten into a single ECEC service that works in close scales, with the lowest scores being obtained on the partnership with the local public health unit and other language/cognitive development and general knowl- community organizations to provide all their services edge/communication skills scales (Jennifer Lloyd, in a single location. As noted by the province, achiev- Human Early Learning Partnership, personal commu- ing this goal will require a transformation of the way nication, October 30, 2006). in which services are planned, funded, managed and A Toronto study found that when a group of low- delivered. A detailed timetable including 15 measurable income five-year-olds, 71 percent of whom had a goals, each with its own set of tasks and target dates, home language other than English, were assessed by has been developed to guide the transformation the EDI, just over half of the children obtained scores (Ontario, Ministry of Children and Youth Services suggesting a lack of school-readiness in one or more 2007b). Meanwhile, Ontario is addressing the immedi- of the social competence, language and cognitive ate need to improve the quality of regulated child care. development, or communication skills/general knowledge scales, a much higher average than found in the The bottom line population as a whole (Yau 2005, 2). What would it cost the public purse to do what needs The adjustment to and later success in school of to be done? Is the cost affordable? Taking into account both these groups of children might be enhanced not the services that already exist and are publicly funded, only by early exposure to the language used in the McCain and her colleagues estimate that their suggest- local school but also by assistance in understanding ed model would require about $8 billion in new spend- and adapting to its norms and experiences that pro- ing (McCain, Mustard and Shanker 2007, 142). This mote early literacy and numeracy skills. The provi- includes improved workforce training and compensa- sion of additional services might include additional tion, both of which should also improve program quali- government financial support to ECEC programs ty and thus child outcomes, and the assumption that operating in neighbourhoods with a high proportion parents would contribute to the cost through fees of families whose home language is neither English geared to income. As noted in tables 9 and 10, the nor French or of Aboriginal families, so that the pro- American experience indicates that the benefit of ECEC grams can operate with fewer children per adult and programs to the public purse outweighs their cost. In the staff receive specific training related to address- Canada, approximately 40 percent of the cost of ing each group’s unique needs. Quebec’s seven-dollar-a-day child care program is being recovered through additional income tax revenue

39 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 to competesuccessfullyintheglobaleconomy. school completionandaworkforcethatisbetterable ment inthefuturethroughincreasedratesofhigh expenditures andstandstorecoupmoreofitsinvest- already receivingsignificantbenefitsfromitsECEC Quebec (Campaign20002006).Thusis steady decreaseintheuseofsocialassistance increased maternalemploymenthasalsomeanta steady declineinchildpovertyassociatedwith workforce (Baker, Gruberand Milligan2006).The from increasedmaternalengagementinthepaid about 0.3percent ofitsGDP((2006,105). Currently Canada’sannualexpenditures onECECare and availabletoallfamilies whowishtouseit. enhance children’sdevelopment andbeaffordable for anECECsystemofsufficiently highqualityto domestic product(GDP)istheminimumrequirement it andtoactonthisrecognition. available andaffordabletoallfamilieswishinguse dren requiresasystemofhigh-qualityECECthatis recognize thatsupportingthedevelopmentofallchil- nerability whomightnotbesootherwise.Itistimeto their development,putsmanychildrenatriskforvul- of whichprovidesinsufficientactivitiestosupport four regularlyreceiveout-of-homechildcare,most reality thatover50percentofchildrenunderage majority ofvulnerablechildren.Failingtoaddressthe tiatives tolow-incomeneighbourhoodsmissesthe and Shanker 2007). Restrictingearlyinterventionini- most vulnerablechildrenarefound(McCain,Mustard socio-economic familiesandthisisthegroupwhere children overallliveinmiddle-andupper-middle lowest socio-economicgroup,thelargestnumberof nerable todevelopmentalproblemsishighestinthe of everychild.Whiletheincidencechildrenvul- must doallitcantoensuretheoptimaldevelopment Shanker 2007). Theimplicationisalsoclear:Canada years priortoschoolentry(McCain,Mustardand well-being andcompetencyislaiddownduringthe clear: thefoundationforschoolsuccessandadult 2006; LefebvreandMerrigan2003).Theresearchis ing decades(Brownelletal.2006;Dodge2003;Fortin C Conclusion The OECDsuggeststhat1percentofthegross what willbeasmallerworkforceinthecom- ability todeveloptheknowledgeandskillsof anada’s futureprosperitydependsuponits 10 The cost implement auniversalECECsystem. quences foritsfutureprosperityoffailingto diture; Canadacannotaffordtheinevitableconse- in publicexpenditures.Canadacanaffordthisexpen- ECEC providesgreaterbenefitstosocietythanitcosts (McCain, MustardandShanker 2007, 142).Universal for childrenunderagesixwouldbeabout$10 billion to Canadaofspending1percentitsGDPforECEC 40 Notes 6 Four studies measured school-readiness with the Early 1 Quebec agrees with the objectives of the National Development Instrument (EDI) which was developed by a Children’s Agenda. However, the Government of consortium of Canadian researchers and early childhood Quebec has decided not to participate in its develop- experts in the late 1990s and has subsequently been val- ment because it wishes to assume full control over idated (Janus and Offord 2007). The fifth study used the programs aimed at family and children within its terri- Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test — Revised as its meas- tory (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council of ure (Dunn and Dunn 1981). Ministers on Social Policy Renewal 1999, 1). 7 The EDI measures five components of school-readiness: 2 Research consistently shows that how the parent inter- physical health and well-being; social knowledge and acts with the child has a strong influence on the child’s competence; emotional maturity and ability to self-regu- development and later school career. Warm, responsive late; language and cognitive development; and general and supportive parents who set clear behavioural limits knowledge and communication skills. but allow children to have a voice in what happens are 8 ECEC quality was measured by trained observers while associated with positive school outcomes; in contrast, the child was in his or her ECE program using the Early children who experience highly controlling and harsh Childhood Environment Rating Scale — Revised (Harms, parenting are less likely to do well in school. Children’s Clifford and Cryer 1998) and the Caregiver Interaction development is also associated with the extent and type Scale (Arnett 1989). A further discussion of what is of verbal and other stimulation, such as opportunities meant by “quality” is provided later in this section. to play with manipulative toys, available in the home. 9 Prince Edward Island is an exception. In that province, Parent-focused programs encourage parents to be practitioners with a two-year college ECEC credential are

warm, supportive and consistent with their children permitted to work in either child care or kindergarten Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty and provide them with information about how to sup- and some child care centres deliver the kindergarten cur- port and stimulate their child’s development. riculum to age-eligible children as part of their child 3 A quasi-experimental evaluation involves comparing care program (Friendly et al. in press). the outcomes of two groups of people, one that partici- 10 The expenditure on ECEC calculated for each of the 14 pates in an intervention and the other that does not, countries compared was derived from information provid- matched with each other on salient characteristics such ed by each country. Given the strong provincial/territorial as age and socio-economic status. The intent is to role in child care in Canada, and the role of municipalities reduce the extent to which differences in outcomes in Ontario, the information provided to the OECD presum- between the two groups reflect differences between ably included funds from all three levels of government. them other than whether or not they received the intervention. 4 A randomized trial is one in which individuals from References the same population pool, such as all eligible appli- Abbott-Shim, Martha, Robert Lambert, and Frances McCarty. cants for a targeted intervention program, are random- 2003. “A Comparison of School Readiness Outcomes for ly assigned to the intervention or nonintervention Children Randomly Assigned to a Head Start Program group. This is considered to be the “gold standard” for and the Program’s Wait List.” Journal of Education for any intervention evaluation, since it minimizes the Students Placed at Risk 8 (2): 191-214. possibility that differences in outcome will reflect ABC Head Start. 2006a. Annual Report, 2005-2006. something other than the effect of the intervention. Edmonton: ABC Head Start. Accessed February 6, 2007. 5 This design compares two groups of children whose www.abcheadstart.org application was accepted by the program by using the _____. 2006b. News n’ Views, Fall 2006. Edmonton: ABC age cut-off for enrolment eligibility to define the Head Start. Accessed February 6, 2007. groups, one that had recently completed prekinder- www.abcheadstart.org garten and the other a group of children about to Ackerman, Debra J., and W. Steven Barnett. 2006. Increasing the begin the program at the same time. The concept may Effectiveness of Preschool Programs. Preschool Policy Brief be easier to understand by taking the extreme case, 11. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early that of two children who differ only in that one was Education Research. Accessed March 21, 2007. http://www. born the day before the date of cut-off and the other nieer.org/resources/research/IncreasingEffectiveness.pdf born the day after. When both are about to turn age Administration for Children and Families. 2006. Preliminary five, the slightly younger child will be about to enter Findings from the Early Head Start Prekindergarten prekindergarten while the other child will be about to Followup. Washington, DC: US Department of Health enter kindergarten. If the two children’s achievement and Human Services. Accessed April 2, 2007. scores are assessed on the same day, their closeness in http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/ age will mean that their maturation levels are virtually index.html the same with the result that any differences in Anderson, Laurie M., Carolynne Shinn, Mindy T. Fullilove, Susan achievement scores reflect the effect of the prekinder- C. Scrimshaw, Jonathan E. Fielding, Jacques Normand, garten program. In practice, the approach is applied to Vilma G. Carand-Kulis, and the Task Force of Community a wider age range around the cut-off. Preventive Services. 2003. “The Effectiveness of Early

41 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 Barnett, W. Steven,2002. Baker, Michael,JonathanGruber, andKevinMilligan.2006. Baker, AmyJ.L.,ChayaPiotrkowski, andJeanneBrooks- Arnett, Jeffrey. 1989.“CaregiversinDayCareCenters:Does Aos, Steve,Roxanne Lieb, JimMayfield,MarnaMiller, and Andersson, Bengt-Erik.1992.“EffectsofDayCareon Beach, Jane,JaneBertrand,BarryForer, DonnaMichal,and Barnett, W. Steven,CynthiaLamy, andKwangheeJung.2005. Barnett, W. Steven,JasonT. Hustedt,LauraE.Hawkinson, Barnett, W. Steven,KirstyBrown,andRimaShore.2004. “The Beaudoin, André,andDanielTurcotte.2002.“Community _____. Belfield, CliveR.2005. ebrief_25_english.pdf Accessed November10, 2006.www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ Greenwich, CT:InformationAgePublishing. Care Program?” “What CanWe LearnfromQuebec’sUniversalChild Program Evaluation Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY).” Gunn. 1999.“TheHomeInstructionProgramfor Psychology Training Matter?” wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901a.pdf Policy. Accessed February 19,2007. http://www.wsipp. Olympia, WA: Washington StateInstituteforPublic Prevention andEarlyInterventionProgramsforYouth. Annie Pennucci. 2004. Development Thirteen-Year-Old SwedishChildren.” Cognitive andSocioemotionalDevelopmentof American JournalofPreventiveMedicine Childhood DevelopmentPrograms:ASystematicReview.” Child CareW Jocelyne Tougas. 2004. resources/research/multistate/fullreport.pdf Research. Accessed March19,2007. http://nieer.org/ Brunswick, NJ:NationalInstituteforEarlyEducation Children’s SchoolReadinessinFiveStates The EffectsofStatePre-kindergartenProgramsonY Education Research. 2006 and KennethB. Robin.2006. Research. Accessed February17,2007. www.nieer.org Brunswick, NJ:NationalInstituteforEarlyEducation Have PreschoolforAll?” Universal vs.Targeted Debate:ShouldtheUnitedStates Action forChildrenatRiskinQuebec.”In Resources SectorCouncil. http://nieer.org/resources/research/doesitpay.pdf Research. Accessed November29,2007. Brunswick, NJ:NationalInstitute forEarlyEducation Analyzing Return-on-Investment inThreeStates. documents/LAEconAnalysisReport_June2005.pdf February 17,2007. http://www.preknow.org/ Louisiana. Agency ofCanada. for Children(CAPC):1995-2000. Regional EvaluationsoftheCommunityAction Plan 2006a. . NewBrunswick,NJ:NationalInstituteforEarly Does ItPayto Washington, DC:Pre-KNow. Accessed 10:541-52. orkforce 63:20-36. C.D. HoweInstituteE-Brief, Journal ofAppliedDevelopmental An EconomicAnalysisofPre-Kin 9 (1):116-33. Early ChildhoodEducation . Ottawa:ChildCareHuman Benefits andCostsof Working forChange:Canada’s NIEER PreschoolMatters Invest inPreschoolforAll? The StateofPreschool Home Visiting:Recent Ottawa: PublicHealth Child . New 24:32-46. National and February. . 6. New oung New Canadian CouncilonLearning. 2006. Campaign 2000.2006. Cameron, Claire.2004. Bushnik, Tracey. 2006. Burchinal, Margaret,SharonLandesmanRamey, MaryK. Brownell, Marni,NoralouRoos,RandyFransooetal.2006. Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne,GregJ.Duncan,andPeter Britto.1999. Broberg, AndersG.,HolgerWessels, MichaelE.Lamb, and Brigance, AlbertH.1998. Bradley Robert,andBarbaraGilkey. 2002.“TheImpactofthe Boyle, MichaelH.,andJ.DouglasWillms.2002.“Impact Berlinski, Samuel,SebastianGaliani,andPaul Gertler. 2006b. _____. Family P Poverty forToo 2007. www.ccl-cca.ca Canadian CouncilonLearning. Accessed February15, Positive Record—AnUncertainFuture Canada, 2006,CanadianP Final_28Nov04.pdf fileman/files/Building_an_Integrated_Workforce_ 2007. http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/mod/ Care. for aLong-T english/bsolc?catno=89-599-M2006003 Accessed March5,2007. http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/ Statistics Canada,cat.no.89-599-MIE2006003. Childhood ResearchQuarterly Child CharacteristicsduringMiddleChildhood.” Experiences andTheirAssociationwithFamily Reid, andJamesJaccard.1995.“EarlyChildCare Outcomes.” Perspective onSocioeconomicStatusandEducational “Is theGlassHalfEmpty?APopulation-Based Hertzman. NewYork: GuildfordPress. Wealth ofNations the UnitedStates.”In Those forAdults? Achievement andHealthofChildrenin “Are Socio-EconomicGradientsforChildrenSimilarto (1): 62-9. Longitudinal Study.” Development ofCognitiveAbilitiesin8-Year-Olds: A C. PhillipHwang.1997.“EffectsofDayCareonthe Curriculum Associates. Screen andFirstGradeScreen. Early EducationandDevelopment (HIPPY) onSchoolPerformance in3rdand6thGrades.” Home InstructionalProgramforPreschoolYoungsters Policy for At-RiskChildreninCanada.” Evaluation ofaNationalCommunity-BasedProgram http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0604.pdf London. Accessed February29,2007. Studies, DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityCollege School Performance. 2006. AREconAnalysisReport_Nov2006.pdf 2007. http://www.preknow.org/documents/ Washington, DC:Pre-KNow. Accessed February17, London, UK:DayCareTrust.Accessed May 12, The EffectofPre-primaryEducationonPrimary 28 (3):461-81. overty An EconomicAnalysisofPre-KinArkansas 42 IRPP Choices erm VisionofUniversalEducationand . Toronto: Campaign 2000. Long: 2006ReportCardonChild and , editedbyDanKeatingandClyde Oh Canada!Too Child CareinCanada Building anIntegratedW Developmental Healthandthe Preschool Screen,Kindergarten London, UK:InstituteforFiscal Developmental Psychology 12 (5). ost-Secondary Education:A 10:33-61. North Billerica,MA: Report onLearningin Canadian Public 13 (3):302-11. Many Childrenin . Toronto: . Ottawa: orkforce Early 33 . _____. 2007. State of Learning in Canada: No Time for Doherty, Gillian. Barry Forer, Donna S. Lero, Hillel Goelman, and Complacency. Toronto: Canadian Council on Learning. Annette LaGrange. 2006. “Predictors of Quality in Family Accessed February 8, 2007. www.ccl-cca.ca Child Care.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21: 296-312. Canadian Council on Social Development. 2007. Urban Doherty, Gillian, Martha Friendly, and Jane Beach. 2003. Poverty Project 2007: Poverty Data Tables. Ottawa: OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education Author. Accessed September 25, 2007. and Care: Canadian Background Report. Ottawa: Her http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2007/upp/poverty_data_table Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. s/provinces/canada.pdf Drouin, Carl, Nathalie Bigras, Claire Fournier, Hélène Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Desrosiers, and Stéphane Bernard. 2004. Grandir en 2000. “First Ministers’ Meeting Communiqué on qualité 2003: Enquête québecoise sur la qualité des serv- Early Childhood Development.” Press release, ices de garde educates. Quebec City: Institut de la statis- September 11. Ottawa: Canadian Intergovernmental tique du Québec. Conference Secretariat. Dunn, Lloyd L., and Leota M. Dunn. 1981. Peabody Caughy, Margaret O’Brien, Janet A. DiPietro, and Donna M. Vocabulary Test — Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Strobino. 1994. “Day-Care Participation as a Protective Guidance Service. Factor in the Cognitive Development of Low-Income Farran, Dale, C. 2000. “Another Decade of Intervention for Children. Child Development 65:457-71. Children Who Are Low Income or Disabled: What Do Centraide of Greater Montreal. 2007. The 1,2,3 Go! We Know Now?” In Handbook of Early Childhood Initiative. Montreal: Centraide. Accessed August 28, Intervention, 2nd ed., edited by Jack P. Shonkoff and 2007. http://www.centraide-mtl.org/centraide/ J. Meisels. New York: Cambridge University Press.

static/where/go.shtml Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council of Ministers on Social Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty Clements, Melissa A., Arthur J. Reynolds, and Edmond Hickey. Policy Renewal. 1999. A National Children’s Agenda: 2004. “Site-Level Predictors of Children’s School and Developing a Shared Vision. Ottawa: Minister of Public Social Competence in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers.” Works and Government Services. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 19:273-96. Fortin, Pierre. 2006. “Back to Basics.” Policy Options 27 (4). Cleveland, Gordon, and Michael Krashinsky. 1998. The Benefits Montreal: IRPP. and Costs of Good Child Care: The Economic Rationale for Friendly, Martha, Jane Beach, Carolyn Ferns, and Michelle Turiano. Public Investment in Young Children. Toronto: Childcare In press. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2006. Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Committee for Economic Development (CED). 2006. The Garces, Eliana, Duncan Thomas, and Janet Currie. 2002. Economic Promise of Investing in High-Quality “Longer-Term Effects of Head Start.” American Economic Preschool: Using Early Education to Improve Economic Review 92 (4): 999-1012. Growth and the Fiscal Sustainability of States and the Goelman, Hillel, Barry Forer, Paul Kershaw, Gillian Nation. Washington, DC: CED. Accessed April 24, Doherty, Donna S. Lero, and Annette LaGrange. 2006. 2007. www.ced.org “Towards a Predictive Model of Quality in Canadian Currie, Janet. 2005. Economic Impact of Head Start. Child Care Centers.” Early Childhood Research Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Quarterly 21:280-95. Development. Accessed February 18, 2007. Gomby, Deana. S. 2005. Home Visitation in 2005: Outcomes www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca for Children and Parents. Washington, DC: Committee for Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas. 1995. Does Head Start Economic Development Invest in Kids Working Group. Make a Difference? The American Economic Review 85 Accessed March 7, 2007. http://www.ced.org/docs/ (4): 341-64. report/report_ivk_gomby_2005.pdf _____. 2000. School Quality and Longer-Term Effects of Head Goodson, Barbara D., Jean I. Layzer, Robert G. St. Pierre, Start. Journal of Human Resources. 35 (4): 755-74. Lawrence S. Bernstein, and Michael Lopez. 2000. Dodge, David. 2003. “Human Capital, Early Childhood “Effectiveness of a Comprehensive, Five-Year Family Development and Economic Growth: An Economist’s Support Program for Low-Income Children and Their Perspective.” Address to the Annual Sparrow Lake Families: Findings from the Comprehensive Child Alliance Meeting, May. Development Program.” Early Childhood Research Doherty, Gillian. 1991. Addressing the Issue of Lack of Quarterly 15 (1): 5-36. School-Readiness in Preschoolers. Ottawa: Prosperity Gormley, William, T. 2006. Early Childhood Care and Steering Group, Government of Canada. Education: Lessons and Puzzles. Georgetown, DC: Public _____. 2001. Targeting Early Childhood Care and Policy Institute, Georgetown University. Accessed Education: Myths and Realities. Toronto: Childcare February 19, 2007. http://gppi.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto. Gormley%20Reading.pdf?CFID=302393&CFTO- _____. 2007. Conception to Age Six: The Foundation Of KEN=26459712 School-Readiness. Toronto: Learning Partnership. Gormley, William T., Ted Gayer, Deborah Phillips, and Accessed March 10, 2007. http://www.thelearning Brittany Dawson. 2005. “The Effects of Universal Pre-K partnership.ca/policy_research/Early_Years_research- on Cognitive Development.” Developmental Psychology paper-jan07.pdf 41 (6):872-84.

43 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 Home InstructionforParents ofPreschoolYoungsters (HIPPY) Helburn, Suzanne.1995. Heckman, James.2000.“Policies toFoster HumanCapital.” Harms, Thelma,RichardM.Clifford,andDebbyCryer. _____. Government ofSaskatchewan.2005. 2007. Government ofQuebec. Government ofManitoba.2006.AnnualReportthe Government ofCanada.2004. _____. _____. _____. Howes, Carollee.1990.“Canthe AgeofEntryintoChild Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada.2003. __.2007b. _____. 200 _____. _____. Canada. 2006. Department, UniversityofColoradoatDenver. in ChildCareCenters Research inEconomics Revised Edition. 1998. Accessed February26,2007. www.sasked.gov.sk.ca of Learning,MinisterHealthyLivingServices. Performance Plan,KidsFirstStrategy. ECD_KidsFirst_AR04_05.pdf http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/branches/elcc/pdfs/ Learning. Accessed February12,2007. Annual Report,2004-2005. reduite/0-a-4-ans.asp thematiques/famille/services-garde/contribution- September 18,2007. http://www.mfa.gouv.qc.ca/ Care MayBeReducedforChildrenAge0to5. Standard $7aDayP report_2005_06.pdf http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/about/annual_ Child Manitoba.Accessed March5,2007. Healthy ChildManitobaOffice.Winnipeg: ecdelcc_ae/2007/en/a_e_report.pdf August 30,2007. http://www.socialunion.ca/ Open theFirstSessionof Canada (October2004). 2005-06 AnnualReport. Finance, GovernmentofCanada. in Kindergarten?” Care andtheQualityofChild PredictAdjustment http://www.hippycanada.com/howhippyworks.php Canada. Accessed February2,2007. Canada’s Children andFamilies. 292-303. Her MajestytheQueeninRightofCanada.Accessed and Expenditure,2004-20052005-2006. Expenditure; EarlyLearningan Finance, GovernmentofCanada. Finance, GovernmentofCanada. Queen inRightofCanada. and Expenditure,2003-2004. Expenditure; EarlyLearningan 2006. 2005a. Undated. 2005b. 2006. 7a. Early ChildhoodEnvironmentRatingScale, 2006-2007 2006-2007 Federal Budget2006. Early ChildhoodDevelopmentand Federal Budget2007. Federal Budget2005. Early ChildhoodDevelopmentand How HIPPYW Focus Forward:A New York: Teachers CollegePress. Developmental Psychology arent ContributionforRegulatedChild Saskatchewan ProvincialBudget, Cost, QualityandChildOutcomes . Denver, CO:Economics Ottawa: GovernmentofCanada Vancouver: HIPPYCanada. Circumstances inWhichthe 54 (1):3-56. the Thirty-EighthP Speech fromtheThroneto orks Regina: Saskatchewan Ottawa: HerMajestythe dvancing 5KeyInitiatives, Ottawa: Departmentof . Vancouver: HIPPY d ChildCareActivities d ChildCareActivities Ottawa: Departmentof Ottawa: Departmentof KidsFirst Strategy: Federal-Provincial- Regina: Minister Supporting arliament of Accessed Ottawa: 26 (2): Janus, Magdalena,andDanOfford.2007. “Development Institut delastatistique.2006.“Population pargroupe Hustedt, JasonT., W. StevenBarnett, KwangheeJung,and Hustedt, Jason,T., andW. StevenBarnett. 2005. _____. 2004b. 2004b. _____. Krentz, Caroline,TwylaMensch,andBethWarkentin. Kohen, Dafna,ClydeHertzman,andJ.DouglasWillms. Kershaw, Paul, LoriIrwin,KateTrafford,and Clyde Keating, Dan,andClydeHertzman.1999. Karoly, LynnA.,M.RebeccaKilburn,andJillS.Cannon. Karoly, LynnA.,andJamesH.Bigelow. 2005. Japel, Christa,RichardTremblay, andSylvieCôté.2005. Readiness.” Instrument (EDI):AMeasureofChildren’sSchool and PsychometricPropertiesoftheEarlyDevelopment demographie/struc_poplt/104.htm http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/ Québec. Accessed November27,2008. d’âge, Canadaetrégions,2006.”Gouvernementdu 2007. http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=158 Early EducationResearch(NIEER).Accessed March19, Readiness. Better ChanceProgramonYoung Children’sSchool Jessica Thomas.2007. www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca Childhood Development.Accessed April4,2007. Policy Resources DevelopmentCanada. Meeting pressrelease,March13.Ottawa:Human Territorial MinistersResponsibleforSocialServices (1): 1-22. the ReginaPublic SchoolDivisionNo.4 the EffectivenessofPre-kindergarten Programin Fourth Year ofa6-Y Unit, UniversityofRegina. Saskatchewan InstructionalDevelopment andResearch Regina PublicSchoolDivision No. 4 Effectiveness ofthePre-kindergartenProgramin Year ofa6-Y 2004a. Edmonton: UniversityofAlbertaPress. Vulnerable Children 2002. “TheImportanceofQualityChildCare.”In Partnership, UniversityofBritishColumbia. Development. Hertzman. 2005. and EducationalDynamics. Health andtheWealth ofNations:Social,Biological monographs/2005/RAND_MG341.pdf Accessed March7,2007. http://www.rand.org/pubs/ Future Promise 2005. Corporation. Education inCalifornia. Economics ofInvestinginUniversalPreschool Child Development”. Services BasedontheQuebecLongitudinalStudyof “Quality Counts!AssessingtheQualityofDayCare March 12,2007. http://www.irpp.org/indexe.htm . Montreal:CentreofExcellence forEarly Early ChildhoodIntervention:ProvenResults, Summary andRecommendationsoftheThird Summary andRecommendations ofthe 44 New Brunswick,NJ:NationalInstitutefor Canadian JournalofBehavioralScience ear LongitudinalStudyExaminingthe Vancouver: HumanEarlyLearning . SantaMonica,CA:RANDCorporation. The BritishColumbiaAtlasofChild , editedbyJ.DouglasWillms. ear LongitudinalStudyExamining IRPP Choices The EffectsoftheArkansas Santa Monica,CA:RAND New York: Guilford. 11 (5).Accessed . Regina: Developmental . Regina: The Head Start 39 Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Christy Brady-Smith et al. 2005. “Effectiveness of Early Unit, University of Regina. Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: _____. 2005. Summary and Recommendations of the Fifth Lessons for Policy and Programs.” Developmental Year of a 6-Year Longitudinal Study Examining the Psychology 41 (6): 885-901. Effectiveness of the Pre-kindergarten Program in the Magnuson, Katherine A., Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Regina Public School Division No. 4. Regina: Waldfogel. 2007. “Does Prekindergarten Improve School Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Preparation and Performance?” Economics of Education Unit, University of Regina. Review 26:33-51. _____. 2006. Summary and Recommendations of the Sixth Marshall, Katherine, and Vincent Ferrao. 2007. “Participation Year of a 6-Year Longitudinal Study Examining the of Older Workers.” Perspectives on Labour and Income Effectiveness of the Pre-kindergarten Program in the 19 (3): 5-11. Accessed October 19, 2007. http://www.stat- Regina Public School Division No. 4. Regina: can.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/2007108/ Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research articles/10303-en.pdf Unit, University of Regina. McCain, Margaret Norrie, and J. Fraser Mustard. 1999. Early Lamy, Cynthia, W. Steven Barnett, and Kwanghee Jung. Years Study, Final Report. Toronto: Publications Ontario. 2005a. The Effects of the Michigan School Readiness McCain, Margaret Norrie, J. Fraser Mustard, and Stuart Program on Young Children’s Abilities at Kindergarten Shanker. 2007. The Early Years Study 2: Putting Science Entry. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early into Action. Toronto: Council for Early Child Education Research (NIEER). Accessed March 19, 2007. Development. Accessed September 3, 2007. http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/mi.pdf http://www.councilecd.ca.

_____. 2005b. The Effects of New Jersey’s Abbott Preschool Merrell, Kenneth. 2002. School Social Behavior Scale. 2nd ed. Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty Program on Young Children’s School Readiness. New Eugene, OR: Assessment Intervention Resources. Accessed Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education April 17, 2007. www.assessment-intervention.com Research (NIEER). Accessed March 19, 2007. National Institute for Child Health and Human Development http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/nj.pdf [NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network. 2002. “Early _____. 2005c. The Effects of South Carolina’s Early Childhood Child Care and Children’s Development Prior to School Programs on Young Children’s School Readiness. New Entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education American Educational Research Journal 39 (1): 133-64. Research (NIEER). Accessed March 19, 2007. _____. 2005. “Early Child Care and Children’s Development in http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/sc.pdf the Primary Grades: Follow-up Results from the NICHD _____. 2005d. The Effects of Oklahoma’s Early Childhood Study of Early Child Care.” American Educational Program on Young Children’s School Readiness. New Research Journal 42 (3): 537-70. Brunswick, NJ. National Institute for Early Education _____. 2007. “Are There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Research (NIEER). Accessed March 19, 2007. Care?” Child Development 78 (2): 537-70. http://nieer.org/resources/research/multistate/wv.pdf NICHD Early Child Care Research Network and Greg J. _____. 2005e. The Effects of West Virginia’s Early Duncan. 2003. “Modeling the Impacts of Child Care Childhood Program on Young Children’s School Quality on Children’s Preschool Cognitive Development.” Readiness. New Brunswick, NJ. National Institute for Child Development 74 (5): 1454-75. Early Education Research (NIEER). Accessed March 19, National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). 2003. 2007. http://nieer.org/resources/research/ “Investing in Head Start Teachers.” Preschool Policy multistate/wv.pdf Matters 4. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Accessed March Lee, Valerie, and Susanna Loeb. 1995. “Where Do Head 21, 2007. http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/4.pdf Start Attendees End Up? One Reason Why Preschool Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 2007. Head Start Effects Fade Out.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Impact Study. Washington, DC: US Department of Health Analysis 17 (1): 62-82. and Human Services. Accessed February 12, 2007. Lefebvre, Pierre, and Phillip Merrigan. 2003. “Assessing Family www.acf.hhs.gov Policy in Canada, A New Deal for Families and Children.” Olds, David L., Charles R. Henderson Jr., Robert E. Cole, John Montreal: IRPP Choices 9 (5). Accessed February 12, J. Eckenrode, Harriet J. Kitzman, Dennis Luckey, Lisa 2007. http://www.irpp.org/fasttrak/index.htm. Pettitt, Kimberley Sidora, Pamela Morris, and Jane LeMare, Lucy, and Karyn Audet. Undated. The Vancouver Powers. 1998. “Long-Term Effects of Nurse Home HIPPY Project: Preliminary Evaluation Findings from a Visitation on Children’s Criminal and Antisocial Multicultural Program. Vancouver: Faculty of Behavior.” Journal of the American Medical Association Education, Simon Fraser University. 280 (14): 1238-44. Loeb, Susanna, Bruce Fuller, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and Olds, David L., Charles R. Henderson Jr., Harriet J. Kitzman, John J. Bidemi Carrol. 2004. “Child Care in Poor Communities: Eckenrode, Robert E. Cole, and Robert C. Tatelbaum. 1999. Early Learning Effects of Type, Quality and Stability.” “Prenatal and Infancy Visitation by Nurses: Recent Findings.” Child Development 75 (1): 47-65. The Future of Children 9 (1): 44-65. Love, John M., Ellen Eliason Kisher, Christine Ross, Jill Olds, David L., Harriet J. Kitzman, Robert E. Cole, JoAnne Constantine, Kimberly Boller, Rachel Chazan-Cohen, Robinson, Kimberly Sidora, Dennis W. Luckey, Charles R.

45 IRPP Choices, Vol. 13, no. 8, December 2007 _____. Organisation forEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment __.2007b. _____. Osborn, A.F., andJ.E.Milbank.1987. Peisner-Feinberg, EllenS.,MargaretR.Burchinal, Richard, Peisner-Feinberg, EllenS.,andMargaretR.Burchinal.1997. Parent-Child MotherGooseProgram.2007. “About Us.” Palacio-Quintin, Ercila.2002.“NationalImpact Ontario. MinistryofChildrenandYouth Services.2007a. Olds, DavidL.,JoAnnRobinson,LisaPettitt, DenisW. Public HealthAgencyofCanada. 2004. Peters, RayV., RobertArnold,KellyPetrunka, Douglas and Care. for Education. Policy: Canada,CountryNote. (OECD). 2004. QHRReport_en.pdf http://www.children.gov.on.ca/NR/CS/Publications/ and Youth Services.Accessed September25,2007. Programs andParents. Toronto. MinistryofChildrenandYouth Services. Grade.” and SocialDevelopmentalTrajectoriesthroughSecond of PreschoolChild-CareQualitytoChildren’sCognitive Lynn Kagan,andNoreenYzzejian.2001. “TheRelation M. Clifford,MaryL.Culkin,CarolleeHowes,Sharon Quarterly Quality, andOutcomesStudy.” Experiences andConcurrentDevelopment:TheCost, “Relations betweenPreschoolChildren’sChild-Care mothergooseprogram/About.htm August 282007. http://www.nald.ca/ Toronto: Parent-Mother GooseProgram.Accessed Agency ofCanada.70-83. Children (CAPC):1995-2000. Evaluations oftheCommunityAction Planfor Evaluation Analysis.”In Education Study. Education: AReportfromtheChildHealthand “Ontario’s BestStartPlan. Trial.” Nurses: Age4Follow-upResultsofaRandomized “Effects ofHomeVisitsbyParaprofessionals andby Karen Sheff,andCharlesR.HendersonJr. 2004b. Luckey, JohnHolmberg, RosannaK.Ng,KathyIsacks, 114 (6):1550-9. Follow-up ResultsofaRandomizedTrial.” Maternal LifeCourseandChildDevelopment:Age6 Holmberg. 2004a.“EffectsofNurseHome-Visitingon Henderson Jr., CaroleHanks,JessicaBondy, andJohn Accessed May13,2007. www.phas-aspc.gc.ca. Overview Futures ResearchCoordination Unit, Queen’sUniversity. Short-Term FindingsReport. the BetterBeginnings,Futures Communities: Warren. 2000. Gloria Roberts-Fiati,ShelaghTowson, andWendy Susan Evers,Yves Herry, DenisLevesque,MarkPancer, Angus, KathleenBrophy, SharonBurke, GaryCameron, 2006. Pediatrics Child Development Starting StrongII:EarlyChildhoodEducation . Ottawa:PublicHealthAgency ofCanada. Investing inQuality: 43 (3):451-77. Paris: OECDDirectorateforEducation. Early ChildhoodEducationandCare Developing CapacityandCompetence in 114 (6):1560-8. Oxford: ClarendonPress. Toronto: MinistryofChildren National andRegional ” Press release,July5. 72 (5):1534-53. Kingston, ON:Better Policies, Practitioners, Ottawa: PublicHealth Paris: OECDDirectorate Merrill-P The EffectsofEarly Head StartProgram almer Pediatrics St. Pierre,RobertG.,JeanI.Layzer, andHelenV. Barnes.1998. Reynolds, ArthurJ.,JudyA.Temple, DylanL.Robertson, and Reynolds, ArthurJ.,Wendy T. Miedel,andEmilyA.Mann. Reynolds, ArthurJ.1994.“EffectsofaPreschoolPlus Ramey, CraigT., SharonL.Ramey, K.RobinGaines,and Ramey, CraigT., DonnaM.Bryant,JosephJ.Sparling, and Quebec. MinistèredelaSantéetdesServicessociaux.2004. Quebec. MinistèredelaFamille,desAînésetCondition Québec. Ministèredel'Éducation,duLoisiretSport. Quebec. Ministèredel’Éducation.1996. Puma, Michael,StephenBell,RonnaCook,CamillaHeid, _____. Barnett andSarane S.Boocock.Albany, NY: SUNYPress. Programs andLong-T and EducationforChildren “Regenerating Two-GenerationPrograms.” In Evaluation andP the TitleIChicagoChild-Parent Centers.” Emily A.Mann.2002.“Age 21 Cost-BenefitAnalysisof Child-Parent Centers.” Families withLowIncomes—LessonsfromtheChicago 2000. “InnovationsinEarlyInterventionforChildren Developmental Psychology Follow-on InterventionforChildrenatRisk.” Sheila Smith.Norwood,NJ:AblexPublishing. in Poverty: ANewInterventionStrategy Perspective.” In Intervention Programs:AChildDevelopment Clancy Blair. 1995.“Two-GenerationEarly Special Education Retarded Development.” of TwoEarlyInterventionStrategiestoPrevent Barbara H.Wasik. 1985.“ProjectCARE:AComparison qc.caa/acrobat/f/documentation/2004/04-836-02W.pdf September 3,2007. http://publications.msss.gouv. de laSantéetdesServicessociaux.Accessed de vulnérabilité:Cadreréférence. enfance àl’intentiondesfamillesvivantencontexte Les servicesintégrésenpérinatalitéetpourlapetite gouv.qc.ca/ statistiques/services-de-garde/index.asp feminine. Accessed October10, 2007. http://www.mfa. Ministère delaFamille,desAînésetCondition feminine. 2007. Direction généraledufinancementetdel'équipement. 2007: Commissionsscolaires 2007. http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/reforme/reform.htm l’Éducation. Accessed February12,2007. of theEducationalSystem. for Success:MinisterialPlanofA firstyr_finds_exec_summ.html programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_finds/ February 12,2007. http://www.acf.hhs.gov./ Department ofHealthandHumanServices.Accessed DC: Administration forChildrenandFamilies,US First Y and MichaelLopes.2005. 2004-2005. National ProgramProfile(NPP), 2006. ear Findings,Ex Règles budgétairespourl’annéescolaire2006- Community A 46 Ottawa: PublicHealthAgencyofCanada. Places enservicesdegarde. Two GenerationProgramsforFamilies olicy Analysis 5 (2):12-25. erm Results ction PlanforChildren(CAPC), Young Children ecutive Summary. Topics inEarlyChildhood Head StartImpactStudy: in Poverty: Promises, Quebec City:Ministèrede 30 (6):787-804. (Version amendée). 24 (4):267-303. , editedbyW. Steven Reporting P ction fortheReform A NewDirection Quebec: Ministère 55 (2):84-8. , editedby Educational Washington Quebec: Early Care eriod: Sammons, Pam, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj- Willms, Douglas J. 2002. “The Prevalence of Vulnerable Blatchford, and Brenda Taggart. 2007. The Effective Children.” In Vulnerable Children: Findings from Preschool and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and 3-11), Summary Report, Influences on Children’s Youth, edited by J. Douglas Willms. Edmonton: Attainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Cognitive University of Alberta Press. Outcomes in Year 5. London, UK: Department of Winnipeg School Division. 2006. Nursery Program. Education and Skills. Winnipeg: Winnipeg School Division. Accessed February Sammons, Pam, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj- 9, 2007. http://ww.wsd1.org/parents/documents/ Blatchford, Brenda Taggart, and Karen Elliot. 2002. NurseryProgram.pdf The Effective Provision of Preschool Education Wylie, Cathy, Edith Hodgen, Hilary Ferral, and Jean Project: Technical Paper 8a — Measuring the Impact of Thompson. 2006. Contributions of Early Childhood Preschool on Children’s Cognitive Progress over the Education to Age-14 Performance: Evidence from the Preschool Period. London, UK: Department of Competent Children, Competent Learners Project. Education and Skills. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Accessed Saskatchewan Learning. 2006. Early Learning and Child February 7, 2007. www.nzcer.org.nz. Care Prekindergarten Program. Accessed February 9, Yau, Maria Y.M. 2000. Do In-School Parenting and Family 2007. http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca Literacy Centres Make a Difference? Findings from First Statistics Canada. 2007. Women in Canada: Work Chapter Year Evaluation, 1999-2000. Toronto: Toronto District Updates 2006. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry. Accessed School Board. May 4, 2007. http://www.statcan.ca/english/ _____. 2005. “Do Parenting and Family Literacy Centres Make

freepub/89F0133XIE/89F0133XIE2006000.pdf a Difference?” Research Today 1 (1): 1-4. Toronto District Ensuring the Best Start in Life: Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development, by Gillian Doherty Stipek, Deborah. 2001. “Pathways to Constructive Lives: School Board. The Importance of Early School Success.” In Zigler, Edward F., and Sally Styfco. 1996. “Head Start and Constructive and Destructive Behavior: Implications Early Childhood Intervention: The Changing Course of for Family, School and Society, edited by Deborah Social Science and Social Policy.” In Children, Families Stipek and Arthur Bohart. Washington, DC: American and Government: Preparing for the 21st Century, edited Psychological Association. by Edward F. Zigler and Sally Styfco. London, UK: Sylva, Kathy, Edward Melhuish, Pam Sammons, Iram Siraj- Cambridge University Press. Blatchford, and Brenda Taggart. 2004. The Effective Zill, Nicholas, Gary Resnick, Kwang Kim, Kevin O’Donnell, Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project: Final Alberto Sorongon, Ruth Hubel McKey, Shefali Pai- Report. London, UK: Department of Education and Skills. Samant, Cheryl Clark, and Mary Ann D’Elio. 2003. Head Tougas, Jocelyne. 2002. Reforming Québec’s Early Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Childhood Care and Education: The First Five Years. Program Performance. Fourth Progress Report. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Washington, DC: Administration for Children and University of Toronto. Families, US Department of Health and Human Services. Vandell, Deborah Lowe. 2004. “Early Child Care: The Accessed April 27, 2007. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ Known and the Unknown.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces00_4thprogress/ 50 (3): 387-414. faces00_4thprogress.pdf Vandell, Deborah Lowe, and Mary Anne Corasaniti. 1990. “Variations in Early Child Care: Do They Predict Subsequent Social, Emotional and Cognitive Differences?” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5: 555-72. Vandell, Deborah Lowe, and Barbara Wolfe. 2000. Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need to Be Improved? Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Wagner, Mary M., and Serena L. Clayton. 1999. “The Parents as Teachers Program: Results from Two Demonstrations.” Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations 9 (1): 91-115. Wechsler, David. 2001. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test II (Abbreviated). Toronto: Psychological Corporation-Harcourt Assessment. Western Arctic Aboriginal Head Start Council (WAAHSC). 2007. Ten Years of Aboriginal Head Start in the NWT. Yellowknife, NWT: WAAHSC. Whitebook, M. 2003. Bachelor’s Degrees Are Best: Higher Qualifications for Pre-kindergarten Teachers Lead to Better Learning Environments for Children. Washington, DC: Trust for Early Education.

47 Related Publications

Investing in Our Children Investir dans nos enfants Études publiées / Studies Published Work-Life Balance “Measuring Up: Family Benefits in British Columbia and Équilibre vie-travail Alberta in International Perspective” Paul Kershaw Études publiées / Studies Published IRPP Choices Vol. 13. no. 2 (March 2007)

“Is the Class Half Empty? A Population-Based Perspective « Le temps dans tous ses états : temps de travail, temps on Socioeconomic Status and Educational Outcomes” de loisir et temps pour la famille à l’aube du XXIe siècle » Marni Brownell, Noralou Roos, Randy Fransoo et al. Gilles Pronovost IRPP Choices Vol. 12, no. 5. (October 2006) Enjeux publics IRPP Vol. 8, n° 1 (Février 2007)

« La qualité ça compte ! Résultats de l’Étude longitudi- “The Use of Family Friendly Workplace Practices in nale du développement des enfants du Québec concer- Canada” nant la qualité des services de garde » Ana Ferrer and Lynda Gagné Christa Japel, Sylvana Côté et Richard E. Tremblay IRPP Working Paper (September 2006) Choix IRPP Vol. 11, n° 4 (Octobre 2005) “Toward Squaring the Circle: Work-Life Balance and the “Quality Counts! Assessing the Quality of Daycare Implications for Individuals, Firms and Public Policy” Services Based on the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Richard Chaykowski Child Development” IRPP Choices Vol. 12, no. 3 (June 2006) Christa Japel, Sylvana Côté and Richard E. Tremblay IRPP Choices Vol. 11, no. 5 (December 2005) “Working for Working Parents: The Evolution of Maternity and Parental Benefits in Canada” “Meeting the Need: A New Architecture for Canada’s Shelley Phipps Student Financial Aid System” IRPP Choices Vol. 12, no. 2 (May 2006) Ross Finnie, Alex Usher and Hans Vossensteyn IRPP Policy Matters Vol. 5, no. 7 (August 2004) Other Research Program “Assessing Family Policy in Canada: A New Deal for Families and Children” Autre programme de recherche Pierre Lefebvre and Philip Merrigan IRPP Choices Vol. 9, no. 5 (June 2003) A Canadian Priorities Agenda: Policy Choices to Improve Economic and Social Well-Being « Mémoire soumis à la Commission des affaires sociales à Edited by Jeremy Leonard, Christopher Ragan and propos du Projet de loi no 140 » France St-Hilaire Sarah Fortin (IRPP) et Carole Vincent IRPP 2007 (ISBN 88645-203-2) Rapport spécial (Septembre 2000)

“Taxing Canadian Families: What’s Fair, What’s Not” Carole Vincent and Frances Woolley Choices Vol. 6, no. 5 (July 2000)

“Quebec Family Policy: Impact and Options” Robert Baril, Pierre Lefebvre and Philip Merrigan Choices Vol. 6, no. 1 (January 2000) Ensuring the Best Start in Life Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development by Gillian Doherty Résumé

ans le cadre du débat sur la nécessité d’adopter un grammes sert au financement d’initiatives qui ont une système de services de garde et d’éducation de la incidence négligeable sur le développement des enfants. D petite enfance, on avance souvent qu’il faut L’auteure examine ensuite les données internationales plutôt affecter les ressources disponibles aux enfants qui sur les avantages d’une approche universelle pour aider les en ont le plus besoin. Or nous en savons très peu sur l’ef- enfants vulnérables. Elle conclut que, malgré son coût ini- ficacité des initiatives ciblées actuellement en place au tial plus élevé, l’approche universelle est plus prometteuse Canada et auxquelles sont alloués plus de 260 millions de que l’approche ciblée pour deux grandes raisons. dollars par année. Dans cette étude, Gillian Doherty Premièrement, elle permet de rejoindre un plus grand analyse les effets de ces programmes et se demande s’ils nombre d’enfants vulnérables. Doherty rappelle que si le produisent le rendement social escompté par rapport aux risque de connaître des problèmes de développement est plus investissements publics qui leur sont consacrés. Ce qui élevé chez les enfants vivant dans les familles les plus dému- l’amène à s’interroger plus généralement sur la meilleure nies, de récentes enquêtes ont révélé qu’il existe des enfants des deux approches, universelle ou ciblée, pour assurer vulnérables dans tous les groupes socio-économiques et que aux enfants le meilleur départ possible dans la vie. plus de 70 p. 100 des enfants vulnérables au Canada sont en Elle passe tout d’abord en revue les programmes d’inter- fait issus de familles qui ne vivent pas dans la pauvreté. Ceci vention précoce destinés aux enfants vulnérables susceptibles signifie que les programmes ciblés sur les enfants issus des de vivre des problèmes de développement et ce que nous familles les plus pauvres revient à priver de soutien la savons de leur incidence sur le développement des enfants. majorité des enfants qui éprouvent des difficultés. L’expé- Elle examine 13 initiatives canadiennes de trois types : cen- rience de plusieurs pays montre que des programmes d’édu- trées sur les parents, sur les enfants et sur les deux généra- cation pour la petite enfance abordables et accessibles tions. Elle analyse pour chacune la population cible, les suscitent une forte participation ce qui, du même coup, per- services fournis, la durée de l’intervention, le nombre d’en- met de rejoindre un plus grand nombre d’enfants qui ne fants/familles bénéficiaires, la formation du personnel, de vivent pas dans des familles pauvres. même que les sommes investis par les gouvernements. Deuxièmement, les données internationales indiquent Elle examine également l’efficacité relative de ces pro- que la maturité scolaire des enfants de tous les milieux grammes en ce qui concerne le développement des socio-économiques et leurs chances de réussite à long enfants et, à la lumière des résultats tirés de recherche terme se trouvent améliorés par des programmes universels menées au Canada et aux États-Unis, elle conclut que : de qualité, que ce soit en prématernelle ou en garderie. Elle • Les initiatives qui ciblent directement les enfants et qui examine finalement les analyses coût-bénéfices des initia- sont offerts en institution avec un programme struc- tives ciblées et des programmes universels, pour en con- turé produisent les effets les plus positifs sur le clure que les deux approches peuvent produire pour la développement des enfants vulnérables. société des avantages supérieurs à leurs coûts. • Bien que les interventions centrées sur les parents avec En terminant, l’auteure analyse les implications de ces l’objectif d’améliorer les aptitudes parentales, la forma- résultats pour les politiques canadiennes en matière de tion ou l’employabilité puissent profiter aux parents, petite enfance. Puisque qu’environ 25 p. 100 des enfants notamment en raffermissant leur confiance en soi, ils ont canadiens de cinq ans manquent de maturité scolaire, que des effets négligeables sur le développement des enfants. les programmes ciblés sont relativement inefficaces et que • L’efficacité des programmes pour enfants dépend de l’accès et la qualité des services de garde à l’échelle du pays leur qualité, c’est-à-dire qu’il sont donné par un per- sont présentement fort limités, elle estime qu’il nous faut sonnel bien formé et dispose d’une programmation et reconnaître que (1) le risque de connaître des problème de d’un ratio éducateur/enfant adéquats. développement s’observe dans les familles de tous les • L’efficacité des programmes dépend également de leur niveaux de revenu ; (2) aucun repère observable n’est infail- durée. lible pour ce qui est d’identifier tous les enfants vulnérables. L’auteure note que les programmes de soutien aux Aussi, recommandent-elles que les services de garde et enfants vulnérables sont peu nombreux au Canada et d’éducation de la petite enfance doivent être universelle- qu’ils ne touchent qu’un petit nombre des enfants visés. ment accessibles à toutes les familles qui désirent en pro- En fait, comme la plupart de ces programmes ne font l’ob- fiter. À son avis, il est impératif d’adopter une stratégie jet d’aucune évaluation ou suivi, il est impossible d’établir efficace, non ciblée, fondée sur les résultats de la recherche dans quelle mesure ils atteignent leur clientèle cible. Qui et qui dispose des ressources et du financement publics plus est, 60 p. 100 des sommes investies dans ces pro- nécessaires à sa réussite. 49 Ensuring the Best Start in Life Targeting versus Universality in Early Childhood Development Summary by Gillian Doherty

n the ongoing debate about the need for a pan- since most programs are neither monitored nor evaluated, Canadian early childhood education and care (ECEC) it is not even possible to determine whether they are reach- I system, one of the arguments often raised is that ing their intended clientele. available public resources should instead be targeted to The author then examines the international evidence on children most in need. Yet we know very little about the the benefits of adopting a universal approach to assisting effectiveness of the targeted initiatives currently in place, vulnerable children. She concludes that while the initial costs which receive more than $260 million per year. In this involved are higher than those for targeted programs, a uni- paper Gillian Doherty looks at the impact of these pro- versal approach is an attractive alternative for two reasons. grams and whether they provide the highest social return First, it would reach a higher proportion of vulnerable in terms of public investment. This discussion leads to the children. Doherty notes that while the incidence of vulnera- larger question of whether a universal or targeted bility to poor developmental outcomes is highest among approach in ECEC is the best way to ensure that all chil- children living in the poorest families, recent research dren have the best possible start in life. shows that children from all socio-economic groups can be The author begins by reviewing Canadian early-interven- vulnerable. Indeed, more than 70 percent of vulnerable chil- tion programs for children vulnerable to poor developmental dren in Canada do not live in poor families. This means that outcomes and what we know about their impact on chil- programs for vulnerable children that are restricted to the dren’s development. She reviews 13 initiatives, including lowest-income group fail to provide support to the majority parent-focused, child-focused and two-generation programs. of children experiencing difficulties. Experience in several For each, she examines the target population, services pro- countries shows that having affordable, widely available vided, duration of intervention, number of children/families early childhood education programs results in high partici- receiving assistance and approach to staffing, as well as fed- pation rates, which ensures that a higher proportion of vul- eral and provincial/territorial funding. She also assesses the nerable children not living in poverty are reached. relative effectiveness of these programs in terms of child Second, the international evidence suggests that par- development. ticipation in nontargeted, high-quality ECEC, whether it Based on her review of the research and evidence from is prekindergarten or ordinary child care, enhances the Canada and the United States related to targeted programs, school-readiness of children from all socio-economic the author concludes that: backgrounds and their subsequent academic success. The • Initiatives that target children directly with structured author also examines benefit/cost ratio estimates associ- and centre-based programs have the most positive ated with targeted initiatives, universal prekindergarten effect on vulnerable children’s development. and universal child care, and concludes that both targeted • Although parent/family-focused interventions that and universal ECEC initiatives can provide greater bene- attempt to improve parenting skills, education and/or fits to society than they cost. employability may benefit parents by, for example, Finally, Doherty assesses the implications of these results increasing their self-confidence, their effect on chil- for Canada’s policy on early childhood education. Given the dren’s development is generally negligible. lack of school-readiness of approximately 25 percent of • The effectiveness of group programs depends on their five-year-olds, the relative ineffectiveness of targeted ECEC quality — that is, having well-trained staff, effective programs and the limited availability of high-quality child programming and appropriate staff-child ratios. care services, she concludes that we need a change of strate- • The effectiveness of group programs also depends on gy. In her view, we need to acknowledge that: (a) vulnerabil- the duration of intervention. ity to poor developmental outcomes occurs across all More generally, the study indicates that programs income levels, and that (b) there are no easily observable designed to assist vulnerable children are relatively few in markers to identify all vulnerable children. Therefore, if the number, and that they reach only a small number of chil- goal is to reach as many vulnerable children as possible, dren. Moreover, of the money invested in targeted pro- then ECEC programs must be universally available to all grams, 60 percent is spent on initiatives that do not families who wish to use them. What is required is a nontar- provide developmental programming and therefore have a geted, evidence-based, cost-effective strategy and the neces- negligible impact on the development of the children. And sary government funding and resources to make it work.