Evidence from model preschool education programs is reviewed to determine what impacts quality programs can have on poor children "s intellectual and social competence; evidence from Head Start is reviewed to determine whether preschool programs of national scope have typically produced the same effects as those produced by model programs. Research has shown that both model programs and Head Start have immediate positive impacts on tests of intellectual performance and social competence but that this impact declines over the first few years of public schooling. The evidence of improvement on longterm measures of school performance such as special education placement is substantial for model programs but thin and inconsistent for Head Start. There is limited but provocative evidence that model programs may have positive effects on life success measures such as teen pregnancy, delinquency, welfare use, and employment, but there is virtually no evidence linking Head Start attendance with any of these variables. Benefit-cost studies show that model programs can produce long-term benefits that exceed the value of the original program investment, but it would be premature to argue that Head Start is cost-beneficial Research to explain the different impacts of model programs and Head Start is recommended. It is also concluded that social scientists should be modest in claiming that research supports new public investments in preschool education.

No abstract

No abstract

59 children with varying amounts and types of day-care experience were followed over their first 2 or 3 years of public schooling. Schoolteachers rated aggressiveness of several types and in several situations by these children, and also supplied information about managing the children, about children's use of strategies to avoid conflict, and about several associated skills and behaviors. Multivariate analyses indicated that children who had attended a cognitively oriented day-care program beginning in infancy were more aggressive than all other groups of children who had attended day care. Aggression among these children, however, declined over time, the children were not considered difficult to manage, and they were well liked by teachers. It was speculated that the increased aggressiveness among children attending cognitively oriented day care may have been caused by several problems of adaptation to the school setting.

Over a decade ago, the Society for Prevention Research endorsed the first standards of evidence for research in preventive interventions. The growing recognition of the need to use limited resources to make sound investments in prevention led the Board of Directors to charge a new task force to set standards for research in analysis of the economic impact of preventive interventions. This article reports the findings of this group’s deliberations, proposes standards for economic analyses, and identifies opportunities for future prevention science. Through examples, policymakers’ need and use of economic analysis are described. Standards are proposed for framing economic analysis, estimating costs of prevention programs, estimating benefits of prevention programs, implementing summary metrics, handling uncertainty in estimates, and reporting findings. Topics for research in economic analysis are identified. The SPR Board of Directors endorses the “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science.”Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11121-017-0858-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.