A valuable program
The editorial “Fight crime? A dubious program” (Sept. 9 and TribLIVE.com) unfairly criticized our Fight Crime: Invest in Kids report. The Chicago preschool research dismissed in the editorial was published in premier peer-reviewed journals, including The Journal of the American Medical Association.
That program's impact on crime and other outcomes supported earlier Perry Preschool research showing, for example, that by age 40, the individuals served were 46 percent less likely to have been sentenced to prison or jail. Among more recent studies, disadvantaged children served across New Jersey were held back in school by fourth and fifth grade 40 percent less often and were placed in special education 31 percent less often.
Our projection on reducing the number of prisoners by 10 percent was acknowledged as a conservative but simple estimate, so we also presented a rigorous review of over 20 preschool evaluations showing that net benefits to society averaged $15,000 per child served.
The editorial's suggestion that the above research may not apply to many middle-class children is irrelevant because the proposed state/federal preschool expansion will serve poor or near-poor families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level. Finally, we urged that existing programs not yet achieving strong results learn from those that are.
High-quality preschool works and deserves our support.
William Christeson & Sandra Bishop-Josef
The writers are research director and deputy director of research, respectively, for Fight Crime: Invest in Kids (fightcrime.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Arnold must cut police force
- No ‘pass’ for Obama
- Right to veto
- Pa.’s ‘safety laws’
- Why the difference?
- Bad cartoon
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- PETA & its tactics II
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- PETA & its tactics I