Program Profile: Abecedarian Project

This was an early education intervention designed to improve cognitive and educational development among low-income children. The program is rated Promising. The treatment group showed a statistically significant greater likelihood of being enrolled in college and having held skilled employment, a lower likelihood of being a teen parent, and fewer depressive symptoms, compared with the control group. However, there were no statistically significant differences in incarceration or drug use.

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

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

Program Goals/Components

The Abecedarian Project was an intensive early education intervention targeting children from low income, multi-risk families. The Abecedarian Project sought to address two major issues: 1) the extent to which impoverished children’s intellectual and cognitive development could be changed if given early environmental support and enrichment, and 2) the impact that preschool and primary school treatment could have on school performance (Campbell et al. 2002).  The overall goal of the project was to combat the impact of poverty on children’s development and educational aptitude. 

The program lasted 5 years and targeted children from infancy to 5 years old. The program was offered in a child care setting and involved year round, full-day child care, 5 days a week for 5 years. The project curriculum included educational games, which fostered cognitive, language, and adaptive behavior skills. The activities were individualized for the child and were adaptive, based on the child’s age. For example, the games for infants involved age-appropriate, adult–child interactions such as talking with the child, showing toys and pictures, and offering the infants a chance to react to certain stimuli (e.g., sights and sounds). As children aged, the educational content became more skill-based and conceptual, and the curriculum was oriented more toward language development. Children also received health care on-site from pediatricians.

Program Participants

The program targeted at-risk families with infants. Families were referred through various sources, such as the Department of Social Services, prenatal clinics, and hospitals (Campbell et al. 2002).

Program Theory

The Abecedarian project was grounded in the General Systems Theory, which posits that child development is an ongoing process of interactions. Interactions could range from individual and factors that directly affect physical survival, to psychological, involving interactions with caregivers, schools, neighborhoods, and societal forces. Although the General Systems Theory focuses on the various sources that can impact developmental outcomes, in general the theory holds the belief that early changes in the environment can have positive, long-term impacts on the child (Campbell, et al. 2002). 

Study

Campbell and colleagues (2002) conducted a long term study, evaluating the impact of the Abecedarian Project on young adults (aged 21 years) who had received the program when they were children. The pilot research began in 1971, and enrollment of participants into the program began in 1972 and lasted until 1977. The eligibility criterion was based on 13 sociodemographic factors that were weighted and combined to determine if a child and his/her family was considered high-risk. Moreover, to be eligible, infants could not have a biological condition associated with mental, sensory, or motor disabilities.

Four cohorts of families were randomized into preschool treatment or control status. A total of 109 families, which included 111 infants (1 pair of twins, and 1 sibling pair) were enrolled in the study. Fifty-seven infants (28 girls and 29 boys) were assigned to the treatment group and 54 infants (31 girls and 23 boys) were assigned to the control group. All families met poverty guidelines. The typical mother was young and had less than a high school education, was unmarried, and reported no income. Although ethnicity was not a selection factor, 98 percent of the sample was African American. The treatment and control groups received supportive social services as needed. Control infants had nutritional supplemental for the first 15 months of the treatment. Additionally although control group children did not receive the educational intervention, a number of them did attend other daycare centers.

The follow up study occurred when participants were 21 years old and included 105 of the original 111 infants. Contact with the young adults and their family was made via letter. Most participants were assessed within 1 month, on either side, of their 21st birthday. Young adults were contacted by letter inviting them to participate in the follow-up; telephone calls were a secondary form of contact, which also allowed for the scheduling of appointments. Of the original 111 participants, 105 were living and eligible for inclusion, of which 104 agreed to participate. All travel expenses were paid for those located outside of the study area, and participants were reimbursed $100 for their participation.

Data was collected through standardized tests, questionnaires, and an interview. The areas of interest included: intellectual level and academic skills, educational attainment, skilled employment, self-sufficiency, and social adjustment. To measure intellectual level and academic skill, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence-Scale Revised was used to evaluate intellectual levels (i.e., verbal and performance IQ scores), while the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised was used to evaluate academic skills in reading and mathematics. Educational attainment and skilled employment was evaluated through the young adult interview, where the youth would describe all educational attainment post high-school, as well as his/her current and previous employment. The responses were coded according to the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Socioeconomic Status, which rates skilled employment as 4 or higher (Hollingshead 1975). Self-sufficiently was gathered through the youth adult interview and rated on the Scale of Independent Living, which evaluated self-sufficiency in terms of economic support, living arrangements, transportation, and medical care. Finally, social adjustment was measured through the young person interview. Interviewees provided information on the number of convictions for misdemeanors or felonies, as well as the amount of time incarcerated or on probation. Additionally, substance abuse history was taken from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey provided to young adults.

General Linear Models were used to examine the treatment effects on the outcome variables. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Using the same sample as Study 1, McLaughlin and colleagues (2007) conducted a follow-up study to determine the impact of the Abecedarian Project on later depressive symptoms of young adults (at age 21) who had received the program when they were children. Participant’s included young adults who had enrolled in the Abecedarian Project as infants, including both the experimental and control groups. Young adults were contacted by letter inviting them to participate in the follow-up; telephone calls were a secondary form of contact, which also allowed for the scheduling of appointments. Of the original 111 participants, 105 were living and eligible for inclusion, of which 104 agreed to participate.

Data on participants’ depressive symptoms was collected through the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The inventory provides three summary scores: Global Severity Index, Positive Symptom Total, and Positive Symptom Depressive Index. The scale consists of six items, which required respondents to rate the degree to which each problem applied to them within the last 7 days (e.g. “feeling blue,” “feeling no interest in things”).

Additionally, for both the treatment and control groups, home visits were conducted during the preschool years when children were approximately 6, 18, 30, 42, and 54 months old. During each visit, the age-appropriate version of the Home Observation for Measure of the Environment was completed. This scale is used to score observations of the parent and child at the home, as well as parents’ responses to questions about the family. Overall, this measurement was used to ensure that the home environment did not impact treatment effects.

A series of analyses were conducted to examine the impact of the Abecedarian program on young adult depression. To determine if the program predicted clinical levels of depression, the sample was dichotomized into “cases” and “noncases” based on the BSI clinical cutoff score of T=63.Logistic regressions with the home environment, preschool intervention group, and their interaction as predictors were then conducted to determine the impact of the Abecedarian program on young adult depression. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

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

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

Campbell, Frances A., Elizabeth P. Pungello, Margaret Burchinal, Kirsten Kainz, Yi Pan, Barbara H. Wasik, Oscar A. Barbarin, Joseph J. Sparling, and Craig T. Ramey. 2012. “Adult Outcomes as a Function of an Early Childhood Educational Program: An Abecedarian Project Follow-up.” Developmental Psychology 48(4): 1033–1043. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions' criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Gee, Kevin A. 2014. “Multilevel Growth Modeling: An Introductory Approach to Analyzing Longitudinal Data for Evaluators.” American Journal of Evaluation 35(4):543–61.

Hollingshead, August B. 1975. Four Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript. New Haven, Conn: Yale University, Dept. of Sociology.

Ladd, Helen F., Clara G. Muschkin, and Kenneth A. Dodge. 2013. “From Birth to School: Early Childhood Initiatives and Third-Grade Outcomes in North Carolina.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(1): 162–87.

Muenning, Peter, Dylan Robertson, Gretchen Johnson, Frances Campbell, Elizabeth P. Pungello, and Matthew Neidell. 2011. “The Effect of an Early Education Program on Adult Health: The Carolina Abecedarian Project Randomized Controlled Trial.” Research and Practice 101(3):512–16.

Masse, Leonard N., and W. Steven Barnett. 2002. A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention. New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research.

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

Early Developmental Prevention Programs for At-Risk Youths

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

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

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

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