Quantifying the Life-Cycle Benefits of an Influential Early-Childhood Program
García, J. L., Heckman, J. J., Ermini Leaf, D., & Prados, M. J. · 2020
grade Dquasi-experimentdeveloper-involvedunreplicatednumbers spot-checked
Sample
Abecedarian (111 analyzed) pooled with two CARE cohorts
Population
ABC/CARE participants with lifetime outcomes projected to age 67.
Design
MODEL OUTPUT — graded D. Requires extrapolating earnings from age 34 to 67.
Key findings
The source of the '13.7% return' claim for Abecedarian. Like Perry's ROI it is a projection, it is male-driven, the female estimate is non-significant, and the benefit-cost ratio falls from 17.4 to 2.9 depending purely on the discount rate chosen.
Counterfactual
~75% of controls enrolled in lower-quality alternative childcare, mostly federally subsidised.
Genetic confound
N/A (economic model).
Replication notes
The female IRR (10%, SE 8%) is not statistically distinguishable from zero — the widely quoted 13.7% is driven by males.
Cost
Prior Abecedarian benefit-cost work (Barnett & Masse 2007), following only to age 21, reported ~2.5 — far below the projected figure.
DOI / URL
10.1086/705718
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal rate of return (model) | % per annum | pooled 13.7% (SE 3%); MALES 14.6% (SE 4%); FEMALES 10% (SE 8%, NOT significant) | unknown | adult | active-alternative | adulthood | attainment |
| Benefit-cost ratio by discount rate (model) | $ per $ | 17.4 at 0%; 7.3 at 3%; 2.9 at 7% — the headline collapses with a realistic discount rate | unknown | adult | active-alternative | adulthood | attainment |
Cited by
- Perry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establishmixedconf: mediumgc: low