Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Aug 10.
Published before final editing as: Educ Urban Soc. 2025 Aug 10:10.1177/00131245251363204. doi: 10.1177/00131245251363204

Can early childhood education cultivate more engaged citizens in midlife? Findings from urban youth of color

Suh-Ruu Ou 1, Sangok Yoo 2, Arthur J Reynolds 1
PMCID: PMC12714313  NIHMSID: NIHMS2110469  PMID: 41425111

Abstract

Early childhood education (ECE) is linked to improved school achievement and certain adult outcomes; however, its connection with civic engagement has not been thoroughly examined. In the present study, we investigated the relation between the Child-Parent Center (CPC) program, an ECE program, and civic engagement in midlife. The sample was drawn from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS, N = 1,098, 93.6% black; 54.5% women), a cohort of urban youth of color. Regression analyses revealed that CPC preschool is significantly associated with higher civic participation, electoral activities, and the Civic Engagement Index (CEI). Participants who attended both CPC preschool and school-age programs (PK-3) reported significantly higher electoral activities and a higher CEI. Males benefited more from PK-3 participation in civic participation. Educational attainment and juvenile arrest mediated the significant associations between CPC participation and civic engagement. Findings suggest that early childhood education programs may promote civic engagement in midlife among urban youth of color in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Keywords: long-term effects, early childhood education, civic engagement, Child-Parent Center Program, urban youth of color

Although there is no consensus on the definition of civic engagement, it can be defined as a range of individual and collective activities that seek to improve or benefit others, the community, or society (Adler & Goggin, 2005; Serrat et al., 2022). Civic engagement has gained attention in developmental science over the past two decades because researchers have recognized it as a catalyst for promoting positive well-being in individuals and improving the quality of life in communities (Blitstein-Mishor et al., 2023; Thompson & McClenden, 2020; Zaff et al., 2011). Identified as a social determinant of health in Healthy People 2030 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020), civic engagement is also fundamental to a well-functioning democracy, which benefits the entire community (Campbell, 2019; Dee, 2020). However, civic engagement is underrecognized for its potential in promoting equity and successful aging (Sherrod, 2015). Urban youth of color face disparities in civic engagement due to the barriers they encounter in high-poverty urban environments (Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Given the potential benefits of civic engagement, it is imperative to investigate what factors boost civic engagement among urban youth of color.

The effects of early childhood education (ECE) programs on academic achievements have been reported over the past decades (Bassok et al., 2018; Camilli et al., 2010; Cannon et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020). Many states have expanded public prekindergarten (pre-K) programs to boost school readiness and reduce achievement gaps resulting from racial and socioeconomic differences (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021). In addition to improvements in academic performance, ECE programs have been linked to better well-being in adulthood (e.g., higher income and education, fewer criminal involvement, and better health) (Anders et al., 2023; Hahn & Barnett, 2023; McCoy et al., 2017; Reynolds et al., 2019). The connections between ECE programs and civic engagement were investigated in two studies (Kitchens & Gormley, 2023; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). The findings show that ECE program participation is associated with higher rates of volunteering and voting. Further studies on the connections between ECE programs and civic engagement will thoroughly investigate this relationship.

In the current study, we investigate whether a federally funded ECE program, the Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program, is associated with civic engagement in midlife using data from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS). CLS is a longitudinal study of a cohort of minority children from low-income families growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago (Chicago Longitudinal Study, 2005). Although the long-term effects of the CPC program on midlife have been reported (Reynolds et al., 2021; Reynolds et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2018), its effects on civic engagement have yet to be examined. Findings expand our understanding of the long-term effects of the CPC program and provide insight into interventions that promote civic engagement among urban youth of color.

Theoretical Foundation

ECE programs (e.g., Head Start) were initiated in the 1960s to support preschool children at risk of poor educational outcomes due to economic inequality, aiming to help them start school on an equal footing with their more advantaged peers by enhancing their cognitive skills and family functioning (Zigler & Berman, 1983). Both ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) and psychosocial risk and protective factors (Rutter, 1987) suggest that development is a result of processes involving factors and interactions among individuals, families, and other systems over time. The ecological systems theory emphasizes the framework of person-within-context, and the psychosocial risk and protective factors model highlights individual differences in responding to risk and protective factors over time. Developmental outcomes are improved as a function of supportive contexts and behaviors at multiple levels of influence. Developmental continuity is an essential feature of the process. The effects of early childhood experiences are magnified when they increase in duration and intensity and are accompanied by supportive environments.

Additionally, a component of the theories is the concept of cumulative advantages, similar to developmental cascades (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010). Early positive experiences are hypothesized to enhance competencies in one area, and these competencies are subsequently transferred to other domains over time, leading to positive developmental outcomes. ECE programs are viewed as a positive early experience that directly interacts with individuals and families, improving their competencies. These competencies, in turn, interact with environmental factors to ultimately lead to better well-being. In urban communities, there are barriers resulting from discrimination to civic engagement for youth of color in particular, which might prevent them from developing civic engagement. Both theories highlighted the associations between positive early experiences and better well-being later, via the enhancement of positive factors in the environment. ECE programs can be viewed as a positive early experience that can lead to positive developmental outcomes.

Long-Term Effects and Mediators of ECE

Evidence has shown that ECE programs improve outcomes for children, particularly those at risk of poor outcomes (Cannon et al., 2017; Hahn & Barnett, 2023; McCoy et al., 2017). However, findings on the long-term effects of ECE programs in midlife are limited. The original goals of ECE programs in the 1960s were to improve academic achievement and reduce achievement gaps for disadvantaged children (Zigler & Berman, 1983). Consequently, most ECE studies examined long-term effects on educational outcomes, such as years of education, special education placement, and income (Bustamante et al., 2022; Cannon et al., 2017; Reynolds et al., 2018). For example, a meta-analysis of studies published between 1960 and 2016 concluded that participation in ECE is associated with lower rates of special education placement and grade retention, as well as higher rates of high school graduation (McCoy et al., 2017). ECE programs have been linked to various developmental outcomes. However, civic engagement has only been examined occasionally. The rationale might be that civic engagement is not one of the objectives of ECE programs.

Only a few studies have examined the associations between ECE programs and civic engagement, and they focused on volunteering, voter registration, and voter turnout (Holbein et al., 2022; Kitchens & Gormley, 2023). For example, participation in the Perry Preschool program is associated with higher rates of volunteering and voter turnout at age 23 (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). Researchers have suggested that increased cognitive and socio-emotional skills explain the significant association between ECE participation and civic engagement (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). This hypothesis was examined and supported in a recent study. Universal preschool in Tulsa was associated with improved cognitive and socioemotional skills, which, in turn, were linked to higher rates of voter registration and voting behavior (Kitchens & Gormley, 2023). In addition, a study reported that psychosocial abilities strongly predict civic engagement (Holbein et al., 2020). Moreover, researchers have pointed out that education is a crucial determinant of civic engagement (Campbell, 2019; Hansen & Tyner, 2021; Milligan et al., 2004; Sondheimer & Green, 2010). A recent review found that investments in schooling are linked to substantial increases in voter participation and civic awareness (Dee, 2020). Consequently, interventions that improve educational attainment may indirectly promote civic engagement through enhanced educational opportunities. Given the positive effects of ECE programs on education, the associations between these programs and civic engagement warrant investigation. As a result, it would be reasonable to examine cognitive and socio-emotional skills as mediators through which other ECE programs might increase civic engagement.

Differential effects of ECE programs by race/ethnicity, gender, and family income have been examined in some studies (Bustamante et al., 2022; Hustedt et al., 2021; Muschkin et al., 2020). It is crucial to understand whether ECE programs have heterogeneous effects, as they may be an effective strategy to address disparities in income, ethnicity, and gender (Watts et al., 2023). ECE programs are consistently associated with significant gains for children from disadvantaged families (Bustamante et al., 2022). However, ECE programs are not consistently associated with substantial gains for either gender (García et al., 2018; Magnuson et al., 2016; Muschkin et al., 2020). It is essential to understand the gender-differential effects of ECE programs from a gender disparity perspective (Muschkin et al., 2020).

Child-Parent Center Program

The Child-Parent Center (CPC) program is a comprehensive early childhood program that provides services to children and families in high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago (Reynolds, 2000). The CPC program is based on a program theory that parents’ involvement in education and a stable and enriched environment in early childhood are crucial conditions for children’s school success. The CPC program is a PK-3 program that provides services from preschool through third grade, along with additional enhancement components. Additionally, the CPC program emphasizes community participation and engagement through home visits, field trips, and parent workshops during preschool and kindergarten (Reynolds, 2000), which help parents and children participate and engage in the community. Those broad involvements are embedded within a program philosophy that emphasizes child-initiated activities and environmental exploration as key to long-term success, as they strengthen autonomy and self-control (Sullivan, 1971). Ample time in child-initiated activities in the CPCs has been found to predict later high school graduation (Graue et al., 2004). Consequently, active engagement in learning is expected to carry over into adulthood, manifesting in behaviors that value social engagement. See Reynolds (2000) for more information on the CPC program.

The effects of the CPC program have been reported in studies, including higher academic achievement, increased educational attainment, higher average income, and fewer juvenile delinquencies (e.g., Ou et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2021; Reynolds et al., 2019). The CPC preschool is linked with more considerable gains for males than females in education (Reynolds et al., 2018). Reynolds (2000) developed a five-hypothesis model based on ecological and risk-protection theories to explain the long-term effects of the ECE program. This model hypothesizes that the impact of the ECE program on later well-being is achieved by promoting cognitive advantages, motivational advantages, social adjustment, family support behaviors, and school support (Reynolds & Ou, 2016). The five-hypothesis models have been examined to explain the long-term effects of the CPC program (Ou & Reynolds, 2010; Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2004). Education and juvenile delinquency are two significant mediators representing cognitive advantage and social adjustment hypotheses that have been tested in the CLS studies, which are approximately matched with the hypotheses proposed by other researchers to explain the association between ECE programs and civic engagement (Kitchens & Gormley, 2023; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997).

Civic Engagement

There is no consistent definition for civic engagement, but it is generally agreed that civic engagement can be classified into three categories: civic, electoral, and political voice (Fenn et al., 2024). Although recognized as a multidimensional concept, civic engagement has been broadly defined to encompass a range of dimensions, including volunteering and voting. Researchers have indicated that civic engagement is a powerful approach for individuals to develop relationships and support their community (Robinson, 2019). For example, civic participation is found to be positively associated with well-being in young adults (Fenn et al., 2024) and resilence in older adults (Burr et al., 2021). Given the positive effects of civic engagement on well-being, it can be particularly beneficial to enhance it for urban youth of color (Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). However, civic engagement has been conceptualized with a focus on data sources primarily based on White (Phan & Kloos, 2023). Furthermore, the development of civic engagement depends heavily on the environment. The urban context is particularly influential for youth of color, as they are more likely to face discrimination in urban communities and have limited access to civic engagement opportunities (Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Civic engagement among urban youth of color, especially Black, is understudied and warrants further investigation.

The Current Study

The current study investigates the connection between the CPC Program and civic engagement in midlife. There are three hypotheses in the current study. First, participation in CPC is significantly associated with increased civic engagement in midlife. Second, the CPC program is associated with larger gains in civic engagement for males than females. Finally, education and juvenile arrest explain the associations between the CPC program and civic engagement. The current study contributes to the ECE field by evaluating whether ECE programs impact civic engagement and exploring the potential mediators that explain these associations. Moreover, we assess civic engagement as a multidimensional concept, which differs from studies using a single item to measure civic engagement.

Method

Study Design and Sample

Data for the current study were drawn from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS). Details of the CLS design have been presented elsewhere (e.g., Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds et al., 2011). In short, CLS is a longitudinal study of a cohort of minority children from low-income families growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago (Chicago Longitudinal Study, 2005). CLS applies a quasi-experimental design. Like most ECE programs, random assignment to the intervention was not practical. It would have been inappropriate, given that it violated the legal rules requiring enrollment of the neediest children on a first-come, first-served basis. Children in the comparison group did not enroll in the CPCs primarily because they did not reside in a neighborhood with a CPC. The original sample consisted of 989 children (the program group), who entered the CPC preschool program and graduated from kindergarten in 1985–86, and 550 children (the comparison group), who did not have CPC preschool experience but graduated from five randomly selected Chicago public schools with full-day kindergarten programs in 1985–86.

All participants (in both the program and comparison groups) resided in Title I-eligible neighborhoods and faced similar economic disadvantages (Reynolds, 2000). Therefore, quasi-experimental design is an appropriate approach to evaluate the effects of the CPC program. The comparability between the program and comparison groups is well documented (Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds et al., 2011). Nevertheless, family risk indicators between participants’ birth and age three, including maternal education, maternal employment, single parent status, teen parent status, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) participation, free lunch eligibility, four or more children in the household, 60% or more poverty in school attendance area, have been used as covariates in previous CLS studies (Ou et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2018; Reynolds et al., 2011) to adjust the potential differences before the program participation between the program and comparison groups.

Participants have been followed since kindergarten, and data were collected from parents, teachers, children, and schools. In addition to administrative data (e.g., education, crime involvement, and voting), participants were contacted to complete surveys several times after age 18. The most recent survey was conducted from 2012 to 2017 (ages 32 to 37, mean age 34.9 years). Over 76% (N = 1,104) of the living participants (N = 1,444) completed the midlife survey (Ou et al., 2020). Among those who completed the midlife survey, 1,098 participants reported data on civic engagement. The preprogram characteristics of the study sample, from birth to age 3, are similar to those of the original sample. The attrition sample (N = 141) includes individuals who moved, were deceased, or could not be located. The attrition sample includes more males, participants’ mothers who did not complete high school by the child’s age 3, and AFDC participation by the child’s age 3 (See Table 1). Data collection procedures have been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Minnesota (IRB ID 0511S77508; project title: Longitudinal Effects of Extended Early Childhood Intervention). Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Study Sample

Characteristics Original Sample
(N = 1,539)		 Study Sample
(N = 1,098)		 Attrition Sample
(N = 441)
Black (%) 93.0 93.6 91.4
Female (%) 50.2 54.5 39.3***
Mother did not complete HS by child’s age 3 (%) 54.3 52.5 58.7*
Single parent by child’s age 3 (%) 75.6 75.4 79.1
Four or more children in household by child’s age 3 (%) 16.6 16.8 16.1
Mother was teen (<18) at child’s birth (%) 16.2 15.0 19.0
Mother unemployed by child’s age 3 (%) 66.3 65.6 68.3
AFDC participation by child’s age 3 (%) 62.8 61.0 67.1*
Eligible for free lunch by child’s age 3 (%) 83.8 83.1 85.5
60 % or more poverty in school attendance area (%) 76.0 75.3 77.6
Number of Family Risk Index (8-point scale) 4.52 4.45 4.71
Missing any family risk indicator (%) 16.2 14.6 20.4***
Any child welfare case histories by age 3 (%) 3.8 3.5 4.5
Low birth weight (<2,500 gms) (%) 11.8 12.7 9.5
Participation in CPC preschool program (%) 64.3 65.6 61.0
Participation in CPC follow-on program (%) 55.2 56.7 51.5
Open in a new tab

Note. AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

*

p<.05,

**

p<.01,

***

p<.001

Measures

CPC participation

As mentioned earlier, the CPC Program includes preschool and school-age services. Children receive one or both services. We used three dichotomous variables to distinguish three types of CPC participation. First, preschool participation indicates whether the youth participated in CPC preschool at the ages of 3 or 4. Second, school-age participation indicates whether youth participated in the CPC school-age program from first to third grade. Third, CPC PK-3 participation indicates whether youth participated in the CPC program for 4 to 6 years (encompassing both preschool and school-age programs) or participated for 0 to 3 years (in either preschool or school-age programs). This PK-3 contrast evaluated whether children who received the complete program (PK-3) did better than those who did not receive the complete program. This CPC PK-3 variable was used as a stand-alone program variable in the models, while the CPC preschool and CPC school-age variables were included simultaneously.

Civic Engagement

Data sources for civic engagement include self-reports (such as the CLS midlife survey) and administrative records. The administrative records include official voting records on the CLS participants' general, primary, and presidential primary elections from 2010 to 2018, which were matched with official voting records via YouGov. The Civic Engagement Index (CEI) is a 12-item measure assessing civic engagement in the CLS. The CEI was constructed using the available CLS data based on the 19 indicators developed by Keeter et al. (2002). The CEI comprises three subscales: civic participation, political voices, and electoral activities. Civic participation was assessed using four items from the midlife survey. The items are: during the last 12 months, did you participate in “1) unpaid volunteer or community service work”, “2) a youth service or tutoring program”, “3) a church-related activity”, and “4) other community or neighborhood clubs or organizations”? Participants received a “1” for each item they endorsed. We summed the four items for civic participation, ranging from 0 to 4 (Kuder-Richardson formula-20 (KR20) = 0.69, M = 1.34, SD = 1.34). Political voices were assessed using five items from the midlife survey. The items are: during the last 12 months, did you “1) participate in a political club or organization”, “2) contribute money to a political party or candidate”, “3) contact a government official about a political or community issue”, “4) contact a newspaper or radio station to express your opinion”, and “5) take part in a political protest march or demonstration”? Participants received a “1” for each item they endorsed. We summed the five items for political voices, ranging from 0 to 5 (KR20 = 0.61, M = 0.41, SD = 0.86). Electoral activities were assessed using two items from the midlife survey, and a third item consisted of information from voting records. The two items from the midlife survey are: During the last 12 months, did you “1) identify with a specific political party” and “2) vote in a local or state election”? The third item is whether the participant voted in any elections (e.g., general, primary, and presidential elections) from 2010 to 2018 based on the administrative voting records. Participants received a “1” for each item they endorsed. We summed the three items for electoral activities, ranging from 0 to 3 (KR20 = 0.54, M = 1.63, SD = 0.95). Finally, we summed the scores from the 12 items across the three dimensions to create the score for the CEI (KR20 = 0.72, M = 3.38, SD = 2.33), which ranged from 0 to 12. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for this 3-factor correlated model (χ2 = 119.18, p < 0.001; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04).

Mediators

As mentioned previously, researchers have suggested that ECE promotes civic engagement by increasing cognitive and socio-emotional skills. Hence, we examined two potential mediators — education and juvenile delinquency — representing cognitive and socioemotional adjustment. Education was measured by the number of years of schooling completed by age 29, ranging from 8 to 22. Juvenile delinquency was measured through a dichotomous variable, indicating whether the participant had ever been arrested by age 18.

Covariates

As mentioned earlier, the CLS utilizes a quasi-experimental design. Therefore, we included preprogram attributes in the models as covariates, including gender, race/ethnicity, and family risk indicators between participants’ birth and age 3. The family risk index indicators include maternal education, maternal employment, single-parent status, the mother’s teen parenthood status, having four or more children in the household, AFDC participation, eligibility for subsidized meals, and the school neighborhood poverty. The missing values of the family risk index indicators were imputed via multiple imputations with the Expectation-Maximization procedure. Following established procedures (Cohen et al., 2002), we created a missing value indicator (binary) to indicate if missing data were imputed. The missing values index was included in the models to determine whether estimates based on multiple imputations were associated with outcomes. The program and comparison groups were similar in most child and family characteristics measured between birth and age 3 (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Equivalence of Program and Comparison Groups on Preprogram Attributes and Outcomes for the Follow-up Study

Follow-up Sample (n=1098) Original Sample Male
n=500		 Female
n=598
Preschool Group
(n=720)		 Comp. Group
(n=378)		 P-Value P-Value P-Value P-Value
Child or Family Characteristics
Sample recovery --
Percent females .565 .505 .059 .109 -- --
Percent black .931 .947 .268 .677 .807 .049
Family risk index (0–7) by child’s age 3 4.432 4.476 .679 .802 .354 .902
Percent four or more risk factors by child’s age 3 .717 .717 .993 .549 .829 .979
Percent mother not completed high school by child’s age 3 .500 .571 .024 .001 .431 .019
Percent mother completed some college child’s age 3 .132 .106 .197 .051 .664 .156
Percent single parent by child’s age 3 .749 .765 .560 .660 .063 .376
Percent mother not employed by child’s age 3 .663 .643 .516 .214 .470 .159
Percent ever reported receiving free lunch by child’s age 3 .831 .831 .996 .470 .471 .585
Percent ever reported receiving AFDC by child’s age 3 .608 .614 .861 .619 .269 .502
Percent having four or more children at home by child’s age 3 .161 .183 .368 .317 .361 .046
Percent children in school areas in which 60% or more of children reside in low-income families .775 .712 .024 .060 .125 .126
Percent any child welfare case history by child’s age 3 .032 .040 .506 .092 .321 .990
Percent mother was teen at child’s birth .146 .159 .570 .347 .535 .894
Percent missing on any family risk indicators .140 .156 .481 .107 .354 .952
Outcomes
Civic participation in midlife 1.37 1.26 .174 -- .013 .606
Political voice in midlife .42 .41 .924 -- .432 .571
Electoral indicator in midlife 1.53 1.32 .000 -- .076 .004
Civic engagement index in midlife 3.50 3.15 .018 -- .022 .379
Open in a new tab

Note. AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

*

p<.05,

**

p<.01,

***

p<.001

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by regression in STATA statistical software version 15 (StataCorp, 2017). The models adjust for the impacts of covariates (race, sex, and family risk indicators) and account for program selection and attrition through Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) (Seaman & White, 2013; Wooldridge, 2007). IPW was used to consider each individual’s differential propensity to enroll in the CPC program (selection model) and to be lost from the study sample (attrition model). Over 20 explanatory variables were used to construct the weights on program selection (Table S1) and sample attrition (Table S2). Researchers have reported that IPW yields efficient estimators and is robust to misspecification (Stuart, 2010; Wooldridge, 2002). The standard errors for site clustering (CPC sites) were also adjusted in the models.

Models were estimated separately for CPC preschool/school-age and CPC PK-3 groups. CPC preschool and school-age participation were assessed simultaneously. CPC PK-3 participation for 4 to 6 years was evaluated against CPC participation for 0–3 years. In addition, we used modified significance levels to correct for multiple comparison groups (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995; Newson & Team, 2003), which reduces the likelihood of wrongly concluding that the differences among groups are statistically significant (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). We reported the adjusted means by groups, which were calculated using marginal effects. Effect sizes (ES) in standard deviations, as measured by Cohen’s d, were calculated to assess significant differences between groups. Values of 0.20 and above were considered significant practically (Cohen, 1988). We used interaction terms of the CPC program participation and gender to examine whether gender moderated the associations between CPC program participation and civic engagement. To assess mediation, we included education and juvenile arrest in the models to determine whether the significant associations between the CPC program and civic engagement were altered.

Results

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the study variables. The CLS participants had completed an average of 12.2 years of schooling by age 29 (SD = 1.85), and about 17% of the CLS participants had experience with juvenile arrest. The preschool group has slightly higher civic participation (M = 1.37 SD= 1.34 vs. M = 1.26 SD=1.34), political voice (M = 0.42 SD=0.86 vs. M = 0.41 SD=0.86), electoral activities (M = 1.53 SD = 0.98vs. M = 1.32 SD= 0.96), and civic engagement index (M = 3.50 SD = 2.32 vs. M = 3.15 SD = 2.33) than the comparison group. The electoral activities and CEI differences are statistically significant at 0.05 (See Table 2). When we examined the descriptive statistics by gender, females have slightly higher civic participation (M = 1.34 SD=1.32 vs. M = 1.33 SD = 1.36), electoral activities (M = 1.63 SD=0.92 vs. M = 1.26 SD=1.01), and civic engagement index (M = 3.47 SD = 2.17 vs. M = 3.26 SD= 2.50) than males. Still, males report slightly higher political voices (M = 0.48, SD = 0.96) than females (M = 0.36, SD = 0.77). The gender differences in electoral activities and political voices are statistically significant at 0.05.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Key Study Variables

Measures N Min. Max. Mean SD
CPC program
Preschool 1,098 0 1 0.66 0.48
School-age 1,098 0 1 0.57 0.50
PK-3 (4–6 years versus 0–3 years) 1,098 0 1 0.38 0.48
Covariates 1
Black 1,098 0 1 0.94 0.24
Female 1,098 0 1 0.54 0.50
Reside in high-poverty neighborhoods 1,098 0 1 0.75 0.43
Child welfare case histories by age 41 1,098 0 1 0.03 0.18
Mother under age 18 at child birth1 1,098 0 1 0.15 0.36
Mother did not complete high school1 1,098 0 1 0.52 0.50
Mother not employed1 1,098 0 1 0.66 0.48
Single-parent family status1 1,098 0 1 0.75 0.43
Child eligible for subsidized meals1 1,098 0 1 0.83 0.38
Participate in AFDC1 1,098 0 1 0.61 0.49
Four or more children in family1 1,098 0 1 0.17 0.37
Had missing values of family risk indicators 1,098 0 1 0.15 0.35
Mediators
Juvenile arrest by age 18 1,098 0 1 0.17 0.38
Education by age 29 1,037 3 22 12.24 1.85
Civic Engagement midlife
Civic participation 1,098 0 4 1.34 1.34
Political voice 1,098 0 5 0.41 0.86
Electoral indicator 1,098 0 3 1.63 0.95
Civic engagement index 1,098 0 12 3.38 2.33
Open in a new tab

Note.

1.

Family risk indicators. Missing data were imputed. The variable “mother not employed” had 12.8% of imputed data. Less than 7% of the data for the other covariates were imputed.

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

CPC Participation and Civic Engagement

After adjusting for preprogram characteristics, program selection, and sample attrition, CPC preschool participants reported significantly higher civic participation (1.37 vs. 1.20, p < .05; ES d = 0.12), electoral activities (1.68 vs. 1.44, p < .01; ES d = 0.25), and civic engagement index (3.49 vs. 3.05, p < .01; ES d = 0.19) (Table 4). After adjusting for preprogram characteristics and program selection and sample attrition, participants with 4–6 years of CPC program reported higher electoral activities (1.73 vs. 1.52, p < .001; ES d = 0.22) and civic engagement index (3.53 vs. 3.20, p < .05; ES d = 0.14) compared to participants with 0–3 year of CPC program. Estimates from the alternative models are consistent, indicating that the results are robust across models. See Table S3 for the results from the alternative models.

Table 4.

Adjusted Means of Civic Engagement by Program and Gender Groups

Preschool Groups School-age groups PK-3 groups
Indicators of civic engagement Interv Comp Interv Comp Interv (4–6 years) Comp (less than 4 years)
Full study sample n=720 n=378 n=623 n=475 n=412 n=686
 Civic participation 1.37* 1.20 1.25 1.36 1.35 1.28
 Political voice 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.36
 Electoral activities 1.68** 1.44 1.54 1.60 1.73*** 1.52
 Civic engagement index 3.49** 3.05 3.2 3.40 3.53* 3.20
Male n=313 n=187 n=279 n=221 n=175 n=325
 Civic participation 1.41* 1.11 1.22 1.34 1.47* 1.19
 Political voice 0.46 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.50 0.39
 Electoral activities 1.47 1.29 1.41 1.37 1.58** 1.31
 Civic engagement index 3.39* 2.85 3.12 3.22 3.61* 2.94
Female n=407 n=191 n=344 n=254 n=237 n=361
 Civic participation 1.28 1.39 1.28 1.32 1.22 1.39
 Political voice 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.32
 Electoral activities 1.86*** 1.58 1.72 1.77 1.87* 1.71
 Civic engagement index 3.52 3.35 3.36 3.49 3.48 3.48
Open in a new tab

Note. Adjusted means/rates on the outcomes are calculated using the marginal effects, which were adjusted for preprogram characteristics (i.e., child’s gender, child’s race, and sociodemographic factors), and program selection and attrition by IPW, and Benjamin-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons. Standard errors are clustered at the site level.

***

p < 0.001,

**

p < 0.01,

*

p <0 .05.

Interaction of CPC Participation and Gender

We examined the interaction terms between CPC participation (CPC preschool and CPC PK-3) and gender. The interaction term of gender and CPC PK-3 participation was significant for civic participation (β = −.366, p < .05). Figure 1 shows that males benefited more from CPC PK-3 participation in civic participation. All other interactions were not statistically significant.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Interaction Effects of CPC PK-3 Participation and Gender in Civic Participation with 95% CI

Note. CI=Confidence intervals

Additionally, we examined males and females separately (see Table 4). For males, the preschool participants reported significantly higher civic participation (1.41 vs. 1.11, p < .05; ES d = 0.22) and a higher civic engagement index (3.39 vs. 2.85, p < .05; ES d = 0.22) than the comparison group. Adjusting for preprogram characteristics and program selection and attrition, CPC PK-3 participants reported higher civic participation (1.47 vs. 1.19, p < .05; ES d = 0.21), electoral activities (1.58 vs. 1.31, p < .001; ES d = 0.27), and civic engagement index (3.61 vs. 2.94, p < .05; ES d = 0.27) than non-CPC PK-3 participants. For females, the preschool group reported significantly higher electoral activities than the comparison group (1.86 vs. 1.58, p < .001; ES d = 0.32). Adjusting for preprogram characteristics, program selection, and attrition, CPC PK-3 participants reported higher electoral activities than non-CPC PK-3 participants (1.87 vs 1.71, p < .05; ES d = 0.18).

Mediation of the Association between the CPC program and Civic Engagement

We examined mediations of the association between the CPC preschool and three outcomes with significant differences between groups: civic participation, electoral activities, and the civic engagement index. After entering the year of education by age 29 and juvenile arrest by age 18 into the models, CPC preschool participation was no longer significantly associated with the three outcomes. We examined the mediations of the association between CPC PK-3 participation and two outcomes with significant group differences: electoral activities and the civic engagement index. After entering the year of education by age 29 and juvenile arrest by age 18 into the models, CPC PK-3 participation was no longer significantly associated with the civic engagement index. CPC PK-3 participation remained significantly associated with electoral activities. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage reductions in coefficients for the CPC preschool and CPC PK-3 through the mediators.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Percent Reduction of CPC Preschool and CPC PK-3 Coefficients through Education and Juvenile Arrest

Discussion

The study yields several significant findings. First, CPC preschool participants report significantly higher civic participation, electoral activities, and CEI than the participants in the comparison group. CPC PK-3 participants report significantly higher electoral activities and CEI than the non-CPC PK-3 participants. CPC preschool and CPC PK-3 are associated with favorable long-term outcomes, including higher education attainment, higher income, lower involvement in criminal activities, and reduced risks of cardiovascular disease (Reynolds et al., 2021; Reynolds et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2018). The findings from the present study expand on existing evidence regarding the long-term effects of the CPC program on civic engagement. Given the importance of civic engagement to individuals and society, the practical implications that an ECE program can promote overall CEI suggest that there are unanticipated long-term impacts of ECE beyond education and economic well-being. ECE can be valuable in improving civic engagement, especially for disadvantaged populations. Furthermore, enhanced civic engagement may empower disadvantaged groups to address and change the structural inequalities in society, ultimately leading to a healthier environment.

Researchers have suggested that civic engagement starts in early childhood. Children develop social competencies and executive functions (EFs) from quality play experiences in enriched environments, which might facilitate civic engagement (Astuto & Ruck, 2017; Astuto & Ruck, 2010). Moreover, community involvement is a significant component of the CPC program, encompassing field trips, parent workshops, and home visits, which help engage children and their parents more deeply in the community. Additionally, the association between CPC preschool participation and more voting behaviors might result from the association between CPC preschool and higher education attainment (Reynolds et al., 2018). On the other hand, CPC preschool participation was not associated with expressing political views or advocating for specific issues or policies. It might be related to the general low involvement in political activities among historically disadvantaged minorities and low-income populations (Baker-Bracy, 2004; Griffin & Newman, 2008; Phan & Kloos, 2023).

Second, findings on the gender differential effect of CPC PK-3 participation on civic participation have the same patterns as previous findings from the CLS. Subgroup analyses indicate that CPC preschool and PK-3 participation benefit males more in civic participation and CEI. CPC preschool participation benefits females more in electoral activities. Additionally, CPC PK-3 participation is associated with higher electoral activities for both males and females—the gender differential effects of the CPC program on types of civic engagement warrant further examination.

Gender differences in civic engagement are mixed. For instance, one study reported that females volunteered more than males (Gaby, 2017), but females are less likely to participate in political activities (Thompson & McClenden, 2020). Another study found no gender gaps in electoral participation (Alexander & Coffé, 2018). One potential explanation for the gender finding from the present study is that civic participation (volunteering) requires more time commitment than electoral activities, and females are usually the primary child caregivers, so they are not as flexible as males in participating in community activities (Schlozman et al., 1994; Thompson & McClenden, 2020) notably if females employed full-time as well (Putnam, 2000). Participating in electoral activities takes less time, but the results can have a significant impact on communities because the elected candidates will influence how they change in the future. As a historically underrepresented minority, females might perceive electoral activities as more important than males, consistent with the finding that females have a higher sense of civic duty. Hence, they are as likely to vote as males (Carreras, 2018).

Third, education and juvenile arrest explain the connections between CPC preschool and civic participation, electoral activities, and CEI, which support the hypotheses that ECE facilitates civic engagement via enhancing cognitive and socio-emotional skills (Holbein et al., 2020; Kitchens & Gormley, 2023; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). Researchers have discussed the significance of education in civic engagement (Dee, 2020). Cognitive and socio-emotional skills were examined as mediators of ECE effects in political involvement (Kitchens & Gormley, 2023). In addition, findings show that the Fast Track intervention, an early prevention program that targets children’s psychosocial skills to improve their life outcomes, promotes political involvement and voter turnout (Holbein, 2017; Holbein et al., 2022). Moreover, education and juvenile arrest serve as proxies for the cognitive advantage and social adjustment hypotheses within the five-hypothesis model used to explain the connections between the CPC program and adult outcomes. It is worth exploring whether the comprehensive five-hypothesis model offers a more effective explanation of the relationships between the CPC program and civic engagement.

Unique Contributions

The current study makes several contributions to the literature. The first is on the measures of civic engagement. We examined civic engagement as a multidimensional concept. We constructed a 12-item scale based on the 19 indicators defined by Keeter et al. (2002), distinguishing the present study from other ECE studies examining civic engagement. The second is to investigate the associations between the CPC program and civic engagement for the first time, which contributes to understanding the effects of the CPC program and supporting the developmental trajectory of civic engagement rooted in early childhood. Given the suggested link between civic engagement and health (Ballard et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2015), the findings imply that ECE has the potential to promote better health by facilitating civic engagement. Therefore, investments in early childhood intervention may contribute to improved public health.

Third, we investigated the heterogeneous effects of the CPC program on civic engagement by gender, and the findings support that the CPC program benefits males more than females (Reynolds et al., 2018). Findings shed light on approaches to narrow gender gaps in civic engagement. Fourth, we examined the mediators between the CPC program and civic engagement. Findings provide insight into how the CPC program is linked to civic engagement in midlife. Finally, the study sample consists of low-income minority children from high-poverty contexts, who are the primary focus of prevention efforts aimed at reducing achievement gaps, improving health, and facilitating educational equity throughout the lifespan. The findings provide insights into promoting civic engagement among urban youth of color in high-poverty contexts.

Implications

The study findings have two major implications. The first is the significant association between participation in CPC and civic engagement in midlife. Civic engagement is essential for promoting positive well-being for individuals and society. However, underprivileged groups, such as urban youth of color, face particular socioeconomic disparities in civic engagement (Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). In addition to promoting education and economic well-being, effective ECE can serve as an intervention to enhance civic engagement among disadvantaged populations. The second is that CPC facilitates civic engagement in midlife by improving educational attainment or reducing juvenile delinquency, which supports the hypothesis that ECE promotes civic engagement by enhancing cognitive and socioemotional skills (Kitchens & Gormley, 2023; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). Prevention programs in schools that promote academic achievement, prevent school dropout, and reduce juvenile delinquency might enhance the effects of ECE programs and increase the likelihood of ECE effects carrying over to civic engagement in midlife.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has some limitations. First, we created the measures for civic engagement using the available data from the CLS. The items from the CLS were developed based on items identified and used by other researchers and national surveys. However, the internal reliabilities of subscales are marginal. Second, the study sample is a cohort of low-income minority children growing up in high-poverty environments. The results should not be generalized to groups with different backgrounds. Finally, the study used a quasi-experimental design. Therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the groups were well matched with strong evidence of interpretability and stronger inference than most other designs.

Civic engagement is often associated with health and well-being (Brewer & Nicotera, 2023; Kim et al., 2015; Stopka et al., 2022). However, the relationship between health and civic engagement is complicated. The effects of health and civic engagement might work in both directions. Longitudinal data are necessary to explore the influences of civic engagement further (Nelson et al., 2019). Moreover, civic engagement has yet to be considered a mediator of the long-term effect of the CPC program. Findings on the association between the CPC program and civic engagement suggest that the CPC program may lead to other later outcomes, such as improved health, via civic engagement. It warrants further investigation. Finally, it is worth exploring why the CPC program is not associated with political voices and whether participation in ECE programs is related to political voices among different racial or ethnic groups or income levels.

Conclusion

Civic engagement is particularly crucial for minority groups because it provides a mechanism for marginalized groups to take action and contribute to a healthier community. Although civic engagement may be more beneficial to youth of color in high-poverty contexts, opportunity gaps hinder their development of civic engagement (Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Phan & Kloos, 2023; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Although the CPC program participants reported higher civic engagement than the comparison group, the overall civic engagement of the study sample seems low (M = 3.38, ranging from 0–12), which is consistent with the literature indicating that blacks and low-income groups tend to have lower civic engagement than other race/ethnicity and income groups (Baker-Bracy, 2004; Phan & Kloos, 2023; Verba et al., 1995). The findings suggest that a comprehensive early childhood education program, such as the CPC program, may effectively facilitate civic engagement in midlife for urban youth of color living in high-poverty contexts. ECE programs can be an intervention to narrow the civic engagement gaps for children from disadvantaged families.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material

Acknowledgments:

We are grateful to the Chicago Public School District and participating schools and families for their long-term collaboration and support of the project. We are also thankful to the district for cooperation in data collection, data sharing, and dissemination efforts.

Funding statement:

This study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [Grant no. R01HD034294]. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study, article preparation, analysis and interpretation of data, approval of the article, and the decision to submit the article for publication.

Footnotes

Ethical considerations: Data collection procedures have been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Minnesota (IRB ID 0511S77508; project title: Longitudinal Effects of Extended Early Childhood Intervention). Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Declaration of conflicting interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability:

The data sets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Adler RP, & Goggin J (2005). What do we mean by “Civic Engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253. 10.1177/1541344605276792 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander AC, & Coffé H (2018). Women’s Political Empowerment Through Public Opinion Research: The Citizen Perspective. In Alexander AC, Bolzendahl C, & Jalalzai F (Eds.), Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment across the Globe: Strategies, Challenges and Future Research (pp. 27–53). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-64006-8_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anders J, Barr AC, & Smith AA (2023). The Effect of Early Childhood Education on Adult Criminality: Evidence from the 1960s through 1990s. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 15(1), 37–69. 10.1257/pol.2020066038031535 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Astuto J, & Ruck M (2017). Growing up in poverty and civic engagement: The role of kindergarten executive function and play predicting participation in 8th grade extracurricular activities. Applied developmental science, 21(4), 301–318. 10.1080/10888691.2016.1257943 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Astuto J, & Ruck MD (2010). Early Childhood as a Foundation for Civic Engagement. In Sherrod Lonnie R., Torney-Purta J, & Flanagan CA (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 249–275). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker-Bracy LJ (2004). Political Participation in America: The Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender. [University of Arkansas; ]. Fayetteville, Arkansas. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2724 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ballard PJ, Hoyt LT, & Pachucki MC (2019). Impacts of Adolescent and Young Adult Civic Engagement on Health and Socioeconomic Status in Adulthood. Child Development, 90(4), 1138–1154. 10.1111/cdev.12998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bassok D, Gibbs CR, & Latham S (2018). Preschool and children's outcomes in elementary school: Have patterns changed nationwide between 1998 and 2010? Child Development, 90(6), 1875–1897. 10.1111/cdev.13067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benjamini Y, & Hochberg Y (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Blitstein-Mishor E, Vigoda-Gadot E, & Mizrahi S (2023). Navigating Emergencies: A Theoretical Model of Civic Engagement and Wellbeing during Emergencies. Sustainability, 15(19), 14118. 10.3390/su151914118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brewer SE, & Nicotera N (2023). The Protective Effects of Pre-collegiate Civic Engagement on College Alcohol Use and Well-being. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(1), 111–124. 10.1007/s11469-021-00583-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bronfenbrenner U, & Morris PA (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Damon W & Lerner RM (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology Volume 1 Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  13. Burr JA, Mutchler JE, & Han SH (2021). Volunteering and health in later life. In Ferraro KF & Carr D (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (9th ed., pp. 303–319). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815970-5.00019-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bustamante AS, Dearing E, Zachrisson HD, & Vandell DL (2022). Adult outcomes of sustained high-quality early child care and education: Do they vary by family income? Child Development, 93(2), 502–523. 10.1111/cdev.13696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Camilli G, Vargas S, Ryan S, & Barnett WS (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620. 10.1177/016146811011200303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Campbell DE (2019). What Social Scientists Have Learned About Civic Education: A Review of the Literature. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(1), 32–47. 10.1080/0161956X.2019.1553601 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cannon JS, Kilburn MR, Karoly LA, Mattox T, Muchow AN, & Buenaventura M (2017). Investing early: Taking stock of outcomes and economic returns from early childhood programs. RAND Corporation. 10.7249/RR1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Carreras M (2018). Why no gender gap in electoral participation? A civic duty explanation. Electoral Studies, 52, 36–45. 10.1016/j.electstud.2018.01.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chicago Longitudinal Study. (2005). User's Guide: A Study of Children in the Chicago Public Schools (Version 7). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, & Aiken LS (2002). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (third ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dee TS (2020). Education and civic engagement. In Bradley S & Green C (Eds.), The Economics of Education (2nd ed., pp. 103–108). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00008-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fenn N, Sacco A, Monahan K, Robbins M, & Pearson-Merkowitz S (2024). Examining the relationship between civic engagement and mental health in young adults: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Youth Studies, 27(4), 558–587. 10.1080/13676261.2022.2156779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Flanagan C, & Levine P (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 159–179. 10.1353/foc.0.0043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Friedman-Krauss AH, Barnett WS, Garver KA, Hodges KS, Weisenfeld GG, & Gardiner BA (2021). The state of preschool 2020" State preschool yearbook. The National Institute for Early Education Research. https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/YB2020_Full_Report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. Gaby S (2017). The Civic Engagement Gap(s): Youth Participation and Inequality From 1976 to 2009. Youth & Society, 49(7), 923–946. 10.1177/0044118x16678155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. García JL, Heckman JJ, & Ziff AL (2018). Gender differences in the benefits of an influential early childhood program. European Economic Review, 109, 9–22. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.06.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Graue E, Clements MA, Reynolds AJ, & Niles MD (2004). More than teacher directed or child initiated: Preschool curriculum type, parent involvement, and children's outcomes in the child-parent centers. education policy analysis archives, 12(0), 72. 10.14507/epaa.v12n72.2004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Griffin JD, & Newman B (2008). Minority report: evaluating political equality in America. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hahn RA, & Barnett WS (2023). Early Childhood Education: Health, Equity, and Economics. Annual Review of Public Health, 44(Volume 44, 2023), 75–92. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071321-032337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hansen ER, & Tyner A (2021). Educational Attainment and Social Norms of Voting. Political Behavior, 43(2), 711–735. 10.1007/s11109-019-09571-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Holbein JB (2017). Childhood Skill Development and Adult Political Participation. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 572–583. 10.1017/S0003055417000119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Holbein JB, Bradshaw CP, Munis BK, Rabinowitz J, & Ialongo NS (2022). Promoting Voter Turnout: an Unanticipated Impact of Early-Childhood Preventive Interventions. Prevention Science, 23(2), 192–203. 10.1007/s11121-021-01275-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Holbein JB, Hillygus DS, Lenard MA, Gibson-Davis C, & Hill DV (2020). The Development of Students’ Engagement in School, Community and Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1439–1457. 10.1017/S000712341800025X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hustedt JT, Jung K, Friedman-Krauss AH, Barnett WS, & Slicker G (2021). Impacts of the New Mexico PreK initiative by children’s race/ethnicity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 194–203. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Keeter S, Zukin C, Andolina M, & Jenkins K (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Center for information and research on civic learning and engagement (CIRCLE). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498892.pdf [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim S, Kim C. y., & You MS (2015). Civic participation and self-rated health: a cross-national multi-level analysis using the world value survey. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 48(1), 18–27. 10.3961/jpmph.14.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kitchens KE, & Gormley W (2023). From preschool to politics: Early socialization in Tulsa. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 62, 259–274. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Li W, Duncan GJ, Magnuson K, Schindler HS, Yoshikawa H, & Leak J (2020). Timing in early childhood education: How cognitive and achievement program impacts vary by starting age, program duration, and time since the End of the program (EdWorkingPaper: 20–201). https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-201 [Google Scholar]
  40. Magnuson KA, Kelchen R, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Shager H, & Yoshikawa H (2016). Do the effects of early childhood education programs differ by gender? A meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 521–536. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Masten AS, & Cicchetti D (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491–495. 10.1017/S0954579410000222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Yang R, Koepp A, & Shonkoff JP (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474–487. 10.3102/0013189x17737739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Milligan K, Moretti E, & Oreopoulos P (2004). Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9), 1667–1695. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Muschkin CG, Ladd HF, Dodge KA, & Bai Y (2020). Gender Differences in the Impact of North Carolina’s Early Care and Education Initiatives on Student Outcomes in Elementary School. Educational Policy, 34(2), 377–407. 10.1177/0895904818773901 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nelson C, Sloan J, & Chandra A (2019). Examining civic engagement Links to health: Findings from the literature and implications for a culture of health. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3100/RR3163/RAND_RR3163.pdf [Google Scholar]
  46. Newson R, & Team AS (2003). Multiple-test procedures and smile plots. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 109–132. 10.1177/1536867X0300300202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ou S-R, Arteaga I, & Reynolds AJ (2019). Dosage Effects in the Child-Parent Center PreK-to-3rd Grade Program: A Re-analysis in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 285–298. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ou S-R, Mondi CF, Yoo S, Park K, Warren B, & Reynolds AJ (2020). Thirty years later: Locating and interviewing participants of the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 51, 1–13. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ou S-R, & Reynolds AJ (2010). Mechanisms of effects of an early intervention program on educational attainment: A gender subgroup analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(8), 1064–1076. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Phan V, & Kloos B (2023). Examining civic engagement in ethnic minority youth populations: A literature review and concept analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 71(1–2), 54–78. 10.1002/ajcp.12643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Putnam RD (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster. 10.1145/358916.361990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Reynolds AJ (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. University of Nebraska Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Reynolds AJ, & Ou S-R (2011). Paths of Effects From Preschool to Adult Well-Being: A Confirmatory Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Program. Child Development, 82(2), 555–582. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01562.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Reynolds AJ, & Ou S-R (2016). Generative Mechanisms in Early Childhood Interventions: A Confirmatory Research Framework for Prevention. Prevention Science, 17(7), 794–805. 10.1007/s11121-015-0611-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Reynolds AJ, Ou S-R, Eales L, Mondi CF, & Giovanelli A (2021). Assessment of a Comprehensive Early Childhood Education Program and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Midlife. JAMA Network Open, 4(8), e2120752–e2120752. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Reynolds AJ, Ou S-R, Mondi CF, & Giovanelli A (2019). Reducing Poverty and Inequality Through Preschool-to-Third-Grade Prevention Services 7 4(6), 653–672. 10.1037/amp0000537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Reynolds AJ, Ou S-R, & Temple JA (2018). A Multicomponent, Preschool to Third Grade Preventive Intervention and Educational Attainment at 35 Years of Age. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(3), 247–256. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Reynolds AJ, Ou S-R, & Topitzes JW (2004). Paths of Effects of Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Attainment and Delinquency: A Confirmatory Analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75(5), 1299–1328. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00742.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Ou SR, Arteaga I, & White BAB (2011). School-Based Early Childhood Education and Age-28 Well-Being: Effects by Timing, Dosage, and Subgroups. Science, 333(6040), 360–364. 10.1126/science.1203618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Robinson CC (2019). (Re)theorizing civic engagement: Foundations for Black Americans civic engagement theory. Sociology Compass, 13(9), e12728. 10.1111/soc4.12728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rutter M (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Schlozman KL, Burns N, & Verba S (1994). Gender and the Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources. The Journal of Politics, 56(4), 963–990. 10.2307/2132069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Schweinhart LJ, & Weikart DP (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(2), 117–143. 10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90009-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Seaman SR, & White IR (2013). Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 22(3), 278–295. 10.1177/0962280210395740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Serrat R, Scharf T, & Villar F (2022). Mapping Civic Engagement in Later Life: A Scoping Review of Gerontological Definitions and Typology Proposal. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 33(3), 615–626. 10.1007/s11266-021-00346-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sherrod LR (2015). Recognizing Civic Engagement as a Critical Domain of Human Development. Research in Human Development, 12(3–4), 312–318. 10.1080/15427609.2015.1068040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sondheimer RM, & Green DP (2010). Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 174–189. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00425.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. StataCorp. (2017). Stata: Release 15. StataCorp LP. [Google Scholar]
  69. Stopka TJ, Feng W, Corlin L, King E, Mistry J, Mansfield W, Wang Y, Levine P, & Allen JD (2022). Assessing equity in health, wealth, and civic engagement: a nationally representative survey, United States, 2020. Int J Equity Health, 21(1), 12. 10.1186/s12939-021-01609-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Stuart EA (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21. 10.1214/09-STS313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sullivan L (1971). Let us not underestimate the children. Scott, Foreman and Company. [Google Scholar]
  72. Thompson V, & McClenden GG (2020). Fostering civic engagement across the life course. In Rank MR (Ed.), Toward a livable life: A 21st century agenda for social work (pp. 193–210). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Healthy People 2030. https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/civic-participation
  74. Verba S, Schlozman KL, & Brady HE (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  75. Watts TW, Jenkins JM, Dodge KA, Carr RC, Sauval M, Bai Y, Escueta M, Duer J, Ladd H, Muschkin C, Peisner-Feinberg E, & Ananat E (2023). Understanding Heterogeneity in the Impact of Public Preschool Programs. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 88(1), 7–182. 10.1111/mono.12463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Wooldridge JM (2002). Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection, attrition, and stratification. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 117–139. 10.1007/s10258-002-0008-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Wooldridge JM (2007). Inverse probability weighted estimation for general missing data problems. Journal of Econometrics, 141(2), 1281–1301. 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.02.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Wray-Lake L, & Abrams LS (2020). Pathways to Civic Engagement Among Urban Youth of Color. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 85(2), 7–154. 10.1111/mono.12415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zaff JF, Kawashima-Ginsberg K, & Lin ES (2011). Advances in civic engagement research: Issues of civic measures and civic context. In Lerner RM, Lerner JV, & Benson JB (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 41, pp. 273–308). JAI. 10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00011-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Zigler E, & Berman W (1983). Discerning the future of early childhood intervention. American Psychologist, 38(8), 894–906. 10.1037/0003-066X.38.8.894 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental material
NIHMS2110469-supplement-Supplemental_material.docx (36.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data sets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

RESOURCES