Assessment of the Cost–Benefit Literature on Early Childhood Education for Vulnerable Children

Given international interest in evidence-informed early educationpolicy, we sought to interpret what is often a confusing literature on the performanceof early childhood education programs. We explore whether they represent a good returnon investment and the factors affecting their transferability. A systematic review wasconducted to identify all cost–benefit (C-B) studies of center-based programs enrollingdisadvantaged children prior to age 5 compared with a matched group. From a searchacross all pertinent databases in 2013, 13 economic evaluations relating to six distinctprograms were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Of the six programs, half werereported as producing a substantial net benefit (benefits considerably greater thancost) representing a good investment, while for the other half, costs were greater thanbenefits. We explore possible reasons for the considerable divergence in economicoutcomes. The primary driver was the divergent effectiveness of the programs reported inthe original outcome studies, and to a lesser extent the scope of benefits included inthe economic evaluation and period of follow-up. The context in which programs weredelivered and program intensity differed markedly. The two oldest (1960s and 1970s)small randomized control trials of high intensity produced far better outcomes andreturn on investment than more recent large-scale service delivery. This collection ofC-B studies challenges the expectation of good returns on investment from the rollout ofearly childhood programs. A checklist is provided to assist policy makers with theinterpretation of C-B studies