U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator October 2000 The High/Scope Perry From the Administrator Preschool Project The more we learn about risk factors for delinquency, the more obvious it is that effective prevention programs targeting children at risk can provide benefits far beyond their cost. This Bulletin revisits a time-tested early childhood education program and Greg Parks looks at the results to date from an ongoing, well-designed study of the The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- appear to vary according to a child’s stage of program. quency Prevention (OJJDP) recently pub- development and may be reduced with ap- lished Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood propriate preventive measures. These devel- Nearly 40 years ago, the High/Scope Intervention (Greenwood, 1999), a Fact opmental differences for risk factors indicate Perry Preschool Project developed a Sheet reviewing the benefits of early child- the need for targeted interventions that ad- high-quality educational approach hood intervention in the prevention of dress specific age-related factors (Wasserman focusing on 3- and 4-year-olds at risk later delinquency. Among the most notable and Miller, 1998). Given this link between for school failure. The longitudinal and longstanding secondary prevention early risk factors and later delinquency, it is study has found that not only was the programs considered was the High/Scope important for practitioners to plan interven- project effective as an educational Perry Preschool Project of Ypsilanti, MI.1 tion programs for high-risk youth early in a intervention, it also demonstrated This Bulletin examines this successful youth’s life so that he or she can develop other positive outcomes, including a program model, which demonstrates a a strong foundation for later development. significantly lower rate of crime and potential link between early childhood in- delinquency and a lower incidence tervention and delinquency prevention. of teenage pregnancy and welfare Background dependency. By the age of 27, pro- The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project is a The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, gram participants were nearly three well-established early childhood interven- which began in 1962, is the focus of an on- times as likely to own their own tion that has been in operation for almost going longitudinal study—conducted by homes than the control group and 40 years. A review of the program’s findings the High/Scope Educational Research less than half as likely to be receiving is useful at this time in light of the field’s Foundation—of 123 high-risk African public assistance. growing knowledge of risk factors associated American children.2 Participants were of with juvenile delinquency, including early This Bulletin explains how and why childhood risk factors that may be dimin- the Perry Preschool Project was ished by secondary prevention programs 2 The original Perry Preschool no longer exists, but the successful, presents two positive targeted at high-risk populations. Juvenile High/Scope Educational Research Foundation—founded cost-benefit analyses, and examines justice research has made great strides in in 1970 by Perry Preschool researcher David Weikart— the implications for future policy identifying risk factors that may be precur- continues to collect followup data from the participants of decisions. One conclusion is that an sors to delinquency. Although the prob- the 1962 study. The foundation is an independent organi- effective prevention strategy requires zation dedicated to nonprofit research, development, both quality programming and an ability of delinquency increases with the training, and public advocacy. Its principal goals are to number of risk factors, specific risk factors promote the learning and development of children world- adequate commitment of resources. wide from infancy through adolescence and to support John J. Wilson and train educators and parents as they help children Acting Administrator 1 Unlike primary prevention programs, which are learn. In a High/Scope program, students should learn directed at the general population, secondary preven- through active involvement with materials, events, and tion programs target children at risk for school failure ideas. The Foundation disseminates the High/Scope Pre- or delinquency. school model worldwide. low socioeconomic status, had low IQ scores (between 70 and 85, the range for borderline mental impairment) with no organic deficiencies (i.e., biologically based mental impairment), and were at high risk of failing school. Fifty-eight of these 3- and 4-year-old children were assigned to the program group, and 65 of these children were assigned to a control group that did not go through the program. The groups were matched according to age, IQ, socio- economic status, and gender. There were no differences between the groups with regard to father absence, parent education level, family size, household density, or birth order. Researchers collected follow- up data annually when the children were between ages 4 and 11 and at ages 14, 15, and 19 and collected age 27 data from 1986 to 1991 (Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1995).3 research. This Bulletin reviews the program ences between the program and control outcomes, describes the early childhood groups. The program group had fewer ar- The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project’s risk factors that can be targeted with inter- rests overall than the control group (aver- high-quality educational approach is based vention, and explores the relationship be- ages of 1.3 versus 2.3 arrests per person), on an active learning model that empha- tween program components and risk factors. fewer felony arrests (averages of 0.7 ver- sizes participants’ intellectual and social sus 2.0 arrests per person), and fewer ju- development. Children attended the pre- venile court petitions filed (averages of 0.2 school Monday through Friday for 2.5 Program Outcomes versus 0.4 petitions per person). hours per day over a 2-year period. During Outcomes of the High/Scope Perry Pre- Like the criminal record data, a miscon- that same period, a staff-to-child ratio of school longitudinal study can be divided duct scale based on teacher-report data one adult for every five or six children en- into three major categories: social respon- and self-report data from the 19-year-old abled teachers to visit each child’s family sibility, scholastic success, and socioeco- respondents demonstrates a significant in their home for 1.5 hours each week. In nomic success (Schweinhart et al., 1985). difference between the program and con- addition, parents participated in monthly Social responsibility variables include de- trol groups, as reflected by the following small group meetings with other parents, linquency, marital status, and pregnancy. results for the program group: facilitated by program staff. Scholastic success is determined by a number of factors including graduation ◆ Although it was initiated as an educational Lower overall scores for total miscon- intervention, the High/Scope Perry Pre- rate, grade point average, and postsecond- duct and serious misconduct at ages ary education, whereas socioeconomic school Project has demonstrated a number 15 and 19. success is measured in terms of employ- of other positive outcomes, including a sig- ◆ Lower incidence of fighting and other ment, earnings, and welfare assistance. nificantly lower rate of crime and delin- violent behavior. quency and lower incidence of teenage Cost-benefit is included as an additional outcome because of the long-term savings ◆ Lower incidence of property damage. pregnancy and welfare dependency. Over- all, the program group has demonstrated to society as a result of program success. ◆ Fewer police contacts. significantly higher rates of prosocial be- Data collected from respondents at age havior, academic achievement, employ- Social Responsibility 27 indicate significant differences be- ment, income, and family stability as com- Delinquency. Data collected from police tween the program group and control pared with the control group. The success and court records show that juvenile de- group for adult arrests: the control group of this and similar programs demonstrates linquency was significantly lower for the underwent more than twice as many ar- intervention and delinquency prevention High/Scope Perry Preschool program group rests as the program group (averages of in terms of both social outcome and cost- as compared with the control group, in- 4.0 versus 1.8 arrests per person). Thirty- effectiveness and has a number of useful cluding fewer arrests and fewer juvenile six percent of the control group accounted implications for policy, practice, and ongoing court petitions (Schweinhart, Barnes, and for 98 felony arrests between ages 19 and Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart and Weikart, 27, while 27 percent of the program group 1995). Only 31 percent of the program accounted for 40 felony arrests during the 3 Researchers are currently collecting followup data group had ever been arrested, compared same period. Thirty-five percent of the from the original program participants. Called the with 51 percent of the control group. In control group were considered frequent High/Scope Perry Preschool Midlife Study, researchers have already interviewed 30 of the 39- to 41-year-old addition to police and court records, data offenders (defined as five or more arrests), participants. The interview emphasizes health and the collected from respondents at age 19 were compared with only 7 percent of the pro- performance of the program participants’ children. used as an overall indicator of delinquency. gram group. In addition, 25 percent of the The researchers expect to complete the data collec- When study participants were 19 years control group had been arrested for drug- tion by the end of 2001. This study is funded by the old, researchers found significant differ- related offenses, versus 7 percent of the McCormick Tribune Foundation in Chicago, IL. 2 program group (see figure 1).