Program

Dec 16, 2010

OVERVIEW

The Carolina
Abecedarian Program began in 1972, with high-quality,
developmentally-appropriate childcare provided for high-risk four-month-old
children. Care was provided five days a week, and focused on developing the
cognitive, social, language, and gross motor skills of the children through age
five. The program was designed to enhance children’s school readiness, to ease
their transition into elementary school, and to investigate the short- and
long-term effects of providing high-risk children with educational experiences
early in life. The studies in this guide use the same data, but examine
different outcomes and different ages. The randomization approaches are the same
throughout.

Positive impacts
have been found for participants during and following the program (ages 3-21),
including higher IQ, reading and math scores, higher rates of college
enrollment, and later childbearing compared with the control group.

Table 1 presents a
summary of findings from the studies in this guide.

Table 1:
Findings by Age when Outcome was Measured and Whether Outcomes Resulted in a
Positive Impact or No Impact (Null Finding).

Age

Positive Impacts of the Preschool Treatment Program Null Findings Between the Preschool Treatment Group and Preschool Control Group

1

  • goal-directed behavior (18 months old)
  • social confidence (6 months, 12 months, 18 months old)
  • IQ scores (6, 12, 18, 24 months)

3

  • IQ scores (36, 42 months)

4

  • IQ scores (48, 52 months)

12

  • IQ scores- academic achievement on reading, knowledge, and written language scores
  • school-age treatment nonsignificant for achievement indicators (reading, knowledge, written, math)

15

  • grade retention-special education- reading achievement consistently higher ages 8-15-  IQ scores
  • change in achievement after intervention ended- scholastic self concept- academic locus of control- general locus of control

21

  • reading- 4 year college or university enrollment- skilled employment- childbearing during teen years
  • marijuana use in the past month
  • intellectual ability (besides reading)

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: High-risk children

The Carolina Abecedarian Project was conducted by the Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute. Children in the treatment group
received child care for six to eight hours per day, five days per week through
kindergarten entry. Some services, such as nutritional supplements, social work
services and medical care were provided to control group families in order to
ensure that those were not the only factors accounting for different outcomes
between the two groups.

The
caregiver-to-infant ratio in the child care center was 1:3 initially, and
increased to 1:6 as children got older (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). The activities
that teachers carried out targeted four areas: cognitive and fine motor skills,
social and self-help skills, language and gross motor skills. Activities were
individualized for infants and children based on readiness. As the children
reached age 3 or 4, the child care center became a preschool program with areas
in the classroom for a variety of activities. Activities were designed to seem
playful and spontaneous to the children. Teachers were trained to place a
special emphasis on language development by speaking with children about their
daily lives in a developmentally appropriate way (Ramey & Campbell, 1991).

In 1984, the
program looked like the following.

In the school-age
phase, families were each assigned a home-school resource teacher to help keep
in contact with the school during the first three years the child was enrolled.
Each parent received an individualized curriculum packet every week and
encouraged to use the activities in the curriculum at least fifteen minutes each
day with their children.

The control and
experimental groups both receive nutritional supplements and basic health care
throughout the program. The experimental group children start attending the
educational daycare as early as six weeks of age, but nearly all are enrolled by
three months of age. The daycare is open from 7:45am to 5:30pm every weekday for
50 weeks in the year. Transportation is provided to the children, both to the
center and from the center. In the daycare, children are grouped by age into
infants and toddlers. The infant group has a teacher-child ratio of one to
three, while the four-year-olds have the largest ratio, one teacher for every
six children. Overall, the program has 12 teachers and assistants and three
administrative staff. The goal for the young children is to aid in their
language development. The teacher-child interaction for these children is
modeled after the typical middle-class mother’s dialogue with her child, only
the daycare adds more structure and time to the dialogues with the individual
children. A secondary set of goals at this age is the use of structured
curricula to improve motor, social, and cognitive development. After the child’s
third birthday, he or she is exposed to a systematic set of curricula that
introduce science, math, and music to the children.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Study 1

Campbell, F.A.,
Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson S. (2002). Early
Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.

Evaluated
Population:
Four cohorts of 104 infants categorized as high-risk by family
circumstances were followed until 21 years of age. All families were under the
poverty line. On average, mothers were 20 years old, had 10 years of education,
were unmarried, lived in a multigenerational household, and reported no earned
income (33 percent were on public assistance). The sample was 98 percent African
American.

Approach:
Families from the four cohorts were eligible for the study based on a high risk
index made of parental education, income, maternal IQ score, history of social
or emotional problems, evidence of educational retardation in other family
members, intactness of the family, and need for public assistance. The mother
was asked at length about her pregnancy and attitudes on childrearing.

Once a mother-child
dyad was deemed eligible for the study, pairs of mothers were matched on IQ,
age, education, and parity. Then families were randomly assigned to condition.
Four yearly cohorts of children, born between 1972 and 1977, were randomly
assigned to receive either high-quality child care (a total of 57 children) or
no treatment (a total of 54 children).

Three children were
found ineligible during the preschool intervention and not included in the data
at all. One was diagnosed with retardation because of a seizure disorder
undetectable until 6 months of age and was not included in analyses. Two other
children were admitted later to the program because protective service officials
insisted.

When children
reached kindergarten, families were randomly assigned again to school-age
experimental and control groups, creating four groups: the control/control
group, which received no intervention at any time; the control/experiment group,
which began as a control in preschool, but then was randomly assigned to the
school-age intervention at kindergarten; the experimental/control, which began
with the experimental condition and was randomly assigned to the control group
at kindergarten; and the experimental/experimental group, which was randomly
assigned to the experimental group at birth and then randomly assigned again to
the experimental group at kindergarten.

When the children
reached age 21, the authors measured intellectual level, academic skills, degree
of self-sufficiency, and social adjustment defined by negative outcomes such as
substance abuse, violence, and a criminal record.

Results:
Reading scores of the preschool group at age 21 were significantly higher than
the control group. Other measures of intellectual level were nonsignificant.
None of the four groups were significantly different on cognitive or academic
functioning at age 21. The preschool treatment group was significantly more
likely than the preschool control to enroll in a four-year college or university
(70 vs 67 percent) and to have skilled employment (67 vs 41 percent). The
preschool treatment group was significantly less likely than the preschool
control group to be a parent before the age of 20 (26 vs 45 percent) and
significantly less likely to have used marijuana in the past month (18 vs 39
percent).

Effect sizes for
reading by treatment group are the following: for the control/experiment group
at age 8, effect size was 0.28, and it decreased to 0.11 by age 21; for the
experiment/control group at age 8, effect size was 0.75, and it decreased to
0.28 by age 21; for the experiment/experiment group, effect size was 1.04 at age
8 and decreased to a value between 0.8 and 1 at age 12, then increased at age 15
within the same range of 0.8 and 1, and decreased to 0.79 at age 21.

The effect sizes
for math by treatment group are the following: for the control/experiment group
at age 8, the effect size was 0.11 and increased to 0.26 by age 21; for the
experiment/control group, the effect size was 0.27 at age 8 and stayed about the
same until age 15, where it decreased, then increased back to 0.26 at age 21;
for the experiment/experiment group at age 8, the effect size is 0.64 and
increased to 0.73 at age 21.

Study 2

Campbell, F. A.,
Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The
development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early
childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2),
231-242.

Evaluated
Population:
This article does not provide detailed information on the sample
of the four cohorts, but it is the same sample as the other articles in this
guide. Most families were African American, all lived below the poverty line,
and all children were in families that met the guideline for high risk during
recruitment.

Approach:IQ
of the four cohorts was measured at ages 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 12, 15, and 21 years
old. Academic achievement in math and reading was measured at these times, but
not at 6.5 years or younger.

Results:

Over time for the
whole sample between ages three and 21, IQ scores declined. Both groups showed
the same amount of change over time during follow-up for IQ and academic
achievement. However, as early as age 3, children in the treatment group had
significantly higher scores on IQ tests than children in the no-treatment group,
and the difference persisted through age 21. Furthermore, children who received
treatment had significantly higher scores on reading and math tests from ages 8
through 21.

Measures of
achievement collected while treatment was ongoing showed an effect size for the
program of 1.75, while measures of achievement collected during follow-up showed
an effect size about half of that, 0.87.

Looking at IQ,
academic achievement, and treatment, the authors found that the treatment has an
indirect impact on academic achievement by means of IQ. The effect size of the
program on reading achievement without accounting for IQ was 1.40. With IQ, the
effect size of the program was 0.79. For math achievement not accounting for IQ,
the effect size of the program was 0.86. When taking IQ into account, the effect
size of the program on academic achievement was 0.40.

Study 3

Campbell, F. A.,
& Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk
African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early
intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.

Evaluated
Population:
The first two cohorts (out of four possible) of high-risk
children followed from birth to age three. The mean maternal age of mothers
participating in the experimental condition was 19.56 and 20.28 years in the
control. The mean maternal IQ in the experimental group was 85.49 and 84.18 in
the control. The mean maternal education was 10.45 years in the experimental
group and 10.00 in the control group. The mean high risk score in the
experimental group was 20.08, and 21.14 in the control group (the cutoff point
for considering a family as “high risk” was 11).

At birth, 58.2
percent of the sample was living in a complex multigenerational household. This
decreased to 6.7 percent by 8 years of age and increased to 11.7 percent by 15
years of age. A random sample of the local community shows that 2.1 percent of
families lived in a complex multigenerational household. At birth, 10.0 percent
of families were single parents (mother or father). By 8 years old, this
increased to 43.3 percent, then decreased to 35.3 percent by 15 years old. The
random sample of the local community showed that 37.5 percent of families were
single-parent households.

Approach:
Random assignment and the sample were the same as the above study, but only the
first two cohorts were included in these analyses.

At follow-up ten
years later (children were 15 years old), IQ, academic achievement, and school
progress were measured.

Results:The
percentage of each group who repeated a grade was highest for the
control/control group, second highest for the control/experiment group, third
for the experiment/experiment group, and fourth for the experiment/control
group. Among children in the preschool treatment, 31.2 percent were ever held
back a grade by age 15. For children in the preschool control, that number was
54.5 percent.

The findings for
special education (assigned in kindergarten through 9th grade) were
similar–24.5 percent of the preschool treatment group had been placed in special
education, compared to 47.7 percent of the preschool control group. The
percentage of children assigned to special services in each group, from highest
to lowest, was as follows: control/control, control/experiment,
experiment/experiment, and experiment/control.

For all groups, IQ
tended to decline over time, but the initial level varied by group membership,
and children in treated groups had higher IQ scores than children in control
groups throughout follow-up measurement. However, children in the
control/experiment group who only received the school-age intervention had lower
IQ scores than all the other groups. Higher IQ scores were associated with
duration of treatment (if the child was treated in the preschool group, they
tended to have a higher IQ than children in the control group. Higher IQ scores
were associated with membership in the preschool group.

Reading achievement
scores in the treatment groups were higher than the control groups from ages
eight to 15. The experiment/experiment group had the highest scores from eight
to 15, then the experiment/control group, then the control/experiment group, and
the lowest scores over these measurements was the control/control group. For the
experiment/experiment group and experiment/control group, reading scores
measured at eight years old decreased at age 12, but increased again by age 15.
For the control/experiment and control/control groups, reading achievement
measured at age 15 was higher than their achievement at ages eight and 12. For
the control/experiment group, there was a slight decline in reading achievement
from age eight to 12, but for the control/control group, there was an increase
from age eight to 12.

Math achievement
scores decreased over time for all groups. The control/control and
experiment/experiment groups experienced similar change in math achievement over
time. From age eight to age 12, scores dropped more steeply than the other two
treatment groups, but then slightly increased from age 12 to age 15. The
experiment/control and control/experiment groups experienced a decline in math
achievement from ages eight to 12, and then a slight increase by age 15, but not
to the levels measured at age eight. By age 15, the experiment/experiment and
experiment/control groups had no significant difference in scores. The same can
be said for the control/experiment and control/control groups; however, the
experiment/experiment and experiment/control groups still had higher math
achievement scores at age 15 than the control/experiment and control/control
groups.

Study 4

Campbell, F. A.,
& Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of Early Intervention on Intellectual and
Academic Achievement: A Follow-Up Study of Children from Low-Income Families.
Child Development, 65(2), 684-698.

Evaluated
Population:
The population in this study was the same as the others in this
guide (all four cohorts were used in this study). Among the subjects enrolled in
the study, 98 percent were African American, average maternal IQ was 85 points,
mean maternal age was 19.9 years when the target child was born (and ranged from
13 to 44 years), mean maternal education was 10.62 years, half of the mothers in
both groups were teens (19 years or younger), and the median earned income
reported by the families was none. The children were followed until age 12 by
the time of this study.

Approach:
Random assignment was the same as the other studies in this guide. This study
examined all four cohorts of children up through age 12.IQ and academic
achievement (math, reading, written language, and knowledge) were measured.

Results:
Membership in the preschool treatment group, but not the school-age treatment
group was significantly related to IQ score.

There were more
cases (N=3, 1.15 percent of the entire sample) of mild mental retardation
(IQ<70) than would have been predicted for a randomly selected group of this
size with the given baseline population. These three children were in the
preschool control group.

At age three, IQ
scores were not significantly different. For both the preschool treatment and
control groups, IQ increased by six months and then more by 12 months, but IQ
then decreased for both groups until about two years of age. By six months old,
the preschool treatment group scored higher on the IQ test than the preschool
control group and this remained through 12 years of age.

When the preschool
treatment and control groups were split into school-age treatment and control
groups, the preschool treatment group, whether split into school-age control or
treatment, retained higher IQ scores than the preschool control group through
age 12. The preschool control group assigned to the school-age treatment group
did experience an increase in IQ scores that remained higher than the
control/control group, but the difference is not substantive. The difference in
IQ scores for the experiment/control and experiment/experiment groups is not
substantive for any points of measurement.

At 12 years of age,
assignment to preschool treatment or control groups was significantly related to
academic achievement on reading, knowledge and written language scores, but
school age treatment was nonsignificant for all four achievement indicators.

Study 5

Martin, S. L., Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. (1990). The prevention of
intellectual impairment in children of impoverished families: Findings of a
randomized trial of educational day care. American Journal of Public Health,
80
(7), 844-847.

Evaluated Population: All children (N=120) randomly assigned were at
high-risk for intellectual impairment, and were identified for this study
through public health agencies and through hospitals. Most children were African
American, all in the control group and 95 percent of the children in the
experimental group. Most children in the study were firstborn, and most parents
were single. Maternal age was about 21 years, maternal IQ around 85, and
maternal education at approximately ten years.

Approach:Children were randomly assigned into the Abecedarian group
(N=41) or the control group (N=45). Three subgroups of children were analyzed:
impaired intellectual functioning (IQ < 71), borderline intellectual functioning
(70 < IQ < 85), and normal intellectual functioning (IQ > 84). Note these are
categories defined by the IQ score of the child. The children were tested at
certain key ages (in months), six, 12, 18, 24, 36, 42, 48, and 54.

Results:The mean of IQ for the treatment group exceeded 100 at seven of
eight assessments. Analyses taking into account maternal intellectual impairment
and how stimulating the home environment is for the child’s cognitive
development indicate that the experimental group children had significantly
higher IQ scores compared with the control group children.

Some significant impacts were found regarding the classification of children
into the impaired intellectual functioning, borderline intellectual functioning,
and normal intellectual functioning groups. The percentage of children in the
impeded group was significantly lower in the experimental group compared with
the control group at 18, 36, and 48 months, but not six or 12 months. For the
borderline and normal categories, the experimental group had a significantly
higher percentage of children, compared with the control group, at 18, 24, 36,
42, 48, and 54 months of age.

Study 6

Horacek, H. J.,
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Hoffman, K. P., & Fletcher, R. H. (1987).
Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk
children. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(5),
758-763.

Evaluated
Population:
The four cohorts of 92 children at baseline whose school records
could be obtained. These children are in high-risk families and were followed
from birth through their third year in school by the time of this study. The
mean maternal age in the experimental group was 19.65 in the experimental group
and 20.42 in the control group. The mean maternal education was 10.55 in the
experimental group and 10.08 in the control group. The mean maternal IQ was
85.39 in the experimental group and 84.25 in the control group. In the
experimental group, 83 percent were female-headed families, 67 percent of the
children in the study were first-born children, and 94 percent of families were
black. In the control group, 75 percent were female-headed families, 60 percent
of the children were first-born, and 100 percent of the families were black.

Approach:
This study recorded grade retention in each of four conditions, the percentage
of children who repeated a grade or not. This study examined all four cohorts
through their third year in school.

Results:
There was a significant relationship with repetition of a grade and the group in
which the child was assigned. In the experiment/experiment group, 16 percent of
children repeated a grade at least once by their third year in school. In the
experiment/control group, 29 percent of children repeated a grade. In the
control/experiment group, 38 percent of children repeated a grade. In the
control/control group, 50 percent of children repeated a grade.

There was a
relationship between intervention length and math and reading achievement.
Children who received both the preschool intervention and the school-age
intervention had better math achievement scores and better reading achievement
scores at the third year in school than children who received one intervention
or the other, and children who received only one intervention or the other had
better scores than children who received no intervention at any time.

Study 7

Pungello, E. P.,
Poe, M., & Graham, F. P. (2003). What’s a good childhood education worth and
why?: Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in the Abecedarian
project.
Paper presented at the SRCD Biennial meeting, Tampa Bay, FL.

Evaluated
Population:
111 infants in 109 families in four cohorts recruited between
1972 and 1977. These infants were identified as high-risk because of their
family’s circumstances. All children were born into low-income families, 25
percent lived with both parents at birth (intact families), average maternal
education was 10 years, and the average age of mothers was 20 years.

Approach:
This study used measures of academic achievement (assessed at age 15),
scholastic self-concept (assessed at age 15), locus of control (assessed at age
15), and education level (assessed at age 21). This study used data from all
four cohorts of children recruited into the program.

Results:
There was no significant difference between the preschool treatment and
preschool control group members on scholastic self-concept, academic locus of
control, or general locus of control.Membership in the preschool
intervention was significantly related to education level at age 21 (effect
size=0.94). The effect size was reduced to 0.75 and the treatment rendered
marginally significant when taking academic achievement at age 15 into account.
By itself, academic achievement for the treatment group members was
significantly higher than for the control group members.

Study 8

Ramey, C. T., &
Campbell, F. A. (1991). Poverty, early childhood education, and academic
competence: The Abecedarian experiment. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in
poverty: Child development and public policy
(pp. 190-221). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Evaluated
Population:
The first cohort of 109 children at baseline whose school
records could be obtained. These children are in high-risk families and were
followed from birth to age three. The mean maternal age in the experimental
group was 19.56 in the experimental group and 20.28 in the control group. The
mean maternal education was 10.45 in the experimental group and 9.98 in the
control group. The mean maternal IQ was 85.49 in the experimental group and
84.18 in the control group. In the experimental group, 23 percent were intact
families and 96 percent of families were black. In the control group, 26 percent
were intact families and 100 percent were black.

Approach:IQ
and academic achievement were measured from age six months to eight years of
age. This study used data from the first cohort only.

Results:
From six months through 96 months, IQ scores were consistently, significantly
higher for the preschool intervention group than the control group.

For achievement in
math and reading at years 2 and 3, scores were related to the amount of
intervention received. The experiment/experiment group had the highest scores,
experiment/control had lower, control/experiment had lower than that, and
control/control had the lowest scores.

The percentage of
children retained in grades kindergarten, 1, or 2, in this first cohort, from
highest to lowest were as follows: control/control (50 percent of children in
this condition), control/experiment (38 percent), experiment/control (29
percent), and experiment/experiment (16 percent).

Study 9

Ramey, C. T., Yeates, K. O., & Short, E. J. (1984). The plasticity of
intellectual development: Insights from preventive intervention. Child
Development, 55
(5), 1913-1925.

Evaluated
Population:
Ninety-eight families who had participated in the Carolina
Abecedarian Project and who have children at high risk for developmental delay
were assessed.

Approach:
The children were randomly assigned to the control condition or the treatment at
baseline. IQ and home-environment stimulation were measured throughout the
program. IQ was measured at six, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months while home
stimulation was measured at six, 18, 24, and 42 months.

Results:IQ
was significantly higher in the experimental group children at 18, 24, 36, and
48 months, but not at six or 12 months. At 18 months, the experimental group’s
IQ was a mean of 108.6, while the control group’s was 105.7. At 24 months, the
two groups’ IQs were 96.6 and 85.0, respectively; 36, 101.7 vs 84.4; and 48,
102.7 vs 89. No impacts were found on home-environment stimulation. However, the
ordering of the children was not found to vary significantly over time,
suggesting, in relative IQ for individuals, considerable stability, despite
impacts of the intervention on IQ for the treatment group overall.

Study 10

Ramey, C.T. and
F. A. Campbell. (1979). Compensatory Education for Disadvantaged Children. The School Review, 87(2), 171-189.

Evaluated
Population:
The oldest children were five years of age by the time of this
study, and all four cohorts had been recruited. For the first two cohorts, mean
maternal age for the experimental group was 18.60 years old and 21.18 for the
control group. Mean maternal IQ was 82.5 for the experimental group and 81.96
for the control group. Mean maternal education for the experimental and control
groups were 10.44 and 10.18, respectively. The median family annual income among
families who reported income was $3,250 for the experimental and the same for
the control group. Of the experimental group members, 57 percent of targeted
children were first-borns, and 54 percent were of the control group members. The
mean high-risk score of the experimental group was 19.33 and of the control
group was 21.70.

Approach:
Only the first two cohorts were examined in this study. Random assignment was
the same as the other studies in this guide. Children had not yet been randomly
assigned to the school-age intervention or control groups at the time of this
study. Also, the authors report scores at four years of age, but only the second
cohort had completed these measurements, and these children were three years of
age.

The authors
examined IQ, goal-directed behavior, and social confidence. There was a change
in the standardized test used at the 12-, 24-, and 36-months of age measurements
of IQ, so the findings are not reported here. Goal-directed behavior consisted
of three ratings of behavior called “object orientation,” “goal directedness,”
and “attention span.”

Results: The
experimental group scored significantly higher on goal-directed behavior than
the control group at 18 months of age. The experimental group scored
significantly higher than the control group at six months, one year, and 18
months of age on social confidence.

SOURCES FOR MORE
INFORMATION:

Contact
information:

Frances Campbell,
Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Frank Porter Graham
Child Development Center

University of North
Carolina

Campus Box 8180

105 Smith Level
Road

Chapel Hill, NC
27599-8180

919-966-4529
(phone)

919-966-7532 (fax)


Campbell@mail.fpg.unc.edu

Web Site:

www.fpg.unc.edu/~ABC/

References:

Campbell, F. A., &
Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of Early Intervention on Intellectual and Academic
Achievement: A Follow-Up Study of Children from Low-Income Families. Child
Development, 65
(2), 684-698.

Campbell, F. A., &
Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk
African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early
intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.

Campbell, F. A.,
Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The
development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early
childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2),
231-242.

Campbell, F.A.,
Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early
Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.

Horacek, H. J.,
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Hoffman, K. P., & Fletcher, R. H. (1987).
Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk
children. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(5),
758-763.

Martin, S. L., Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. (1990). The prevention of intellectual
impairment in children of impoverished families: Findings of a randomized trial
of educational day care. American Journal of Public Health, 80(7),
844-847.

Pungello, E. P, &
Poe, M. (2003). Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in
the Abecedarian project.
Poster Presented at the Society for Research in
Child Development.

Pungello, E. P.,
Poe, M., & Graham, F. P. (2003). What’s a good childhood education worth and
why?: Mediators of outcomes associated with economic benefits in the Abecedarian
project.
Paper presented at the SRCD Biennial meeting, Tampa Bay, FL.

Ramey, C.T. &
Campbell, F.A. (1979). Compensatory Education for Disadvantaged Children. School Review, 87(2), 171-189.

Ramey, C. T., &
Campbell, F. A. (1991). Poverty, early childhood education, and academic
competence: The Abecedarian experiment. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in
poverty: Child development and public policy
(pp. 190-221). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Ramey, C. T.,
Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L.
(2000). Persistent effects of early intervention on high-risk children and their
mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 2-14.

Ramey, C. T., Yeates, K. O., & Short, E. J. (1984). The plasticity of
intellectual development: Insights from preventive intervention. Child
Development, 55
(5), 1913-1925.

Program also discussed in the
following Child Trends publication(s)

Manlove, J., Terry-Humen, E., Romano Papillo, A., Franzetta, K., Williams, S., &
Ryan, S. (2001). Background for community-level work on positive reproductive
health in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors
.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Redd, Z., Brooks,
J., & McGarvey, A. (2001). Background for community-level work on educational
adjustment in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors
.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Halle, T., Zaff,
J., Calkins, J., & Margie, N. G. (2000). Background for community-level work
on school readiness: A review of definitions, assessments, and investment
strategies. Part II: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors to school
readiness
. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

KEYWORDS:
Education, Academic Achievement, Elementary School, High-Risk, Child Care,
Infants (0-12 months), Toddlers (12-36 months), Children (3-11), Cognitive
Development, Social/Emotional Health and Development, Early Childhood (0-5),
Middle Childhood (6-11), Adolescence (12-17), Young Adulthood (17-24),
Black/African American, Skills Training, Life Skills Training, Early Childhood
Education, Other Education, Community-based, Counseling/Therapy, Males and
Females (co-ed).

Program
information last updated 12/16/10.