3. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 3
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
The term “school-to-prison pipeline” (STPP) has
been coined to describe the phenomenon in which
school policies and practices, as well as negative
interactions between youth and adults, result in
youth being funneled from school and into the justice
system. Certain children are more vulnerable than
others to being swept up in this pipeline. Factors that
can lead to juvenile incarceration include prenatal
and perinatal complications, racial disparities in
academic achievement, language delays, lack of
school engagement and parental involvement, and
social-emotional development issues (difficulty
forming positive relationships with peers, impulsivity
and attentional disorders, and early troublemaking
behaviors, for example). Yet research demonstrates
that very early intervention, including prenatal care
and infant, toddler, and preschool care and education,
can mitigate many of the factors that lead to juvenile
incarceration. These early interventions can yield
returns on investment that dramatically outpace the
dollars spent on interventions made in later years.
This paper examines factors that lead to the school-to-
prison pipeline, looks at the likely outcome and impacts
of juvenile incarceration, and investigates the potential
impact of a new system—a prenatal-to-preschool
pipeline—that promotes very early intervention as a
way to mitigate the factors that put children at risk.
It considers research on outcomes related to prenatal
care and early education separately and then suggests
that a comprehensive, combined system of intervention
may even more powerfully keep our young people out
of prison.
JOINTHEDISCUSSION
VisitExchangetojointhediscussion
abouthowprenatalandearlychildhood
interventioncanhelp youngpeopleavoid
theschool-to-prisonpipeline.Asyouread
moreaboutthistopic,considerthefollowing
questions:
Howcanweensurethatallthechildren
weservehaveaccesstoacomprehensive,
inclusivesystemofprenatalcareandhigh-
qualityinfant,toddler,andpreschoolcare
andeducation?
Whatwoulduniversalaccesstothiskind
ofearlyintervention—whichstudiesshow
resultincostsavings,reducethenumber
ofjuvenilesinlock-up,andreducethe
achievementgap—meantoourcommunities,
totheyoungpeoplethemselvesandtheir
families,andtofuturegenerations?
yexchange.org
Every year, close to 2 million young people enter the juvenile justice system, mostly
for nonviolent crimes, at a cost of up to $21 billion to our communities, states,
and country. A significant portion of those who enter the system ultimately end up
incarcerated. Just as juvenile incarceration is expensive at a societal level in terms of
the cost of imprisonment and tax income lost, it is also costly at an individual level.
Incarcerated youth not only miss out on school and the benefits that come with it, but
they are also more likely to recidivate, to drop out before graduation, to lose personal
income due to a variety of factors stemming from their incarceration, and to miss out
on needed mental health services.
4. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 4
Annually in the United States, almost 2 million juvenile
offenders enter the juvenile justice system (Puzzanchera,
Adams, & Sickmund, 2010). The majority of these youth
are minorities, male, and live in poverty (Sickmund &
Puzzanchera, 2014). States spend up to $21 billion
annually imprisoning young people, mostly for nonviolent
offenses involving drugs, technical violations (often
breaking rules of probation), and status offenses, like
underage drinking (Justice Policy Institute, 2014).
Instead of participating in school, these youths
experience an extensive array of negative consequences
as a result of incarceration, including, but not limited
to, an increased likelihood of future illegal behavior and
recidivism, reduced access to educational and mental
health services, reduced employment opportunities, and
reduced likelihood of high school graduation (Justice
Policy Institute, 2009).
The individual and societal cost of the incarceration of
our youth is high, making it imperative that we work to
mitigate this problem. This paper examines the factors
leading to the problem of juvenile incarceration and
explores potential approaches to intervention that
start in the prenatal stage of development and span the
preschool years.
WHENINCARCERATION
REPLACESEDUCATION
5. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 5
The school-to-prisonpipeline (STPP), a term used
to encapsulate the problem of juvenile incarceration,
describes a phenomenon in which juveniles, particularly
youths of color, those with special needs, and those who
are from low-income or impoverished families, are pushed
out of the school system and into the juvenile justice
system (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2015; Elias,
2013). African American students are 3.5 times more likely
than their white counterparts to be suspended or expelled
from school, and students with disabilities that affect their
ability to learn represent 32 percent of those detained in
juvenile incarceration centers, although they make up only
8.6 percent of the public school population (Elias, 2013).
Interactions between youth (particularly disadvantaged
youth), school teachers, and administrators, as well as the
youths’ families and the juvenile justice system, can lead to
a series of negative exchanges that may lead to or worsen
behavioral and academic problems and disengagement
from learning and school (McNeely & Falci, 2004).
In addition, these types of negative encounters may
lead to dropout, delinquency, arrest, and incarceration
(Osher et al., 2012). Studies show that often one of the
first stops on the school-to-prison pipeline is suspension
or expulsion, and, in fact, the majority of youth in the
criminal justice system are likely to have been suspended
or expelled. In addition, students who become involved
in the juvenile justice system are 10 times more likely to
eventually drop out of school than their peers who are not
caught up in the juvenile justice system (Council on School
Health, 2013).
THECAUSESOFTHESCHOOL-TO-PRISON
PIPELINE
While much research points toward zero-tolerance
and harsh discipline policies developed after the 1999
school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton,
Colorado, as the root cause of the school-to-prison
pipeline (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2015;
Krezmien, Leone, Zablocki, & Wells, 2010; Wald & Losen,
2003), other factors contribute to the negative exchanges
between youth and school personnel that often lead youth
down the path toward expulsion and entry into the juvenile
justice system.
In a study of the school-to-prison pipeline, Osher and
colleagues (2012) found that four factors specifically
perpetuate the crisis: (1) racial disparities in academic
achievement, (2) poor student and family engagement in
school, (3) poor social-emotional capacity of students,
and (4) poor conditions for learning. Other research on
childhood predictors of young adult or juvenile crime
point to these and other perpetuators, such that,
“researchers have concluded that there is no single path
to delinquency and note that the presence of several risk
factors often increases a youth’s chance of offending”
(Shader, 2004, p. 1). The risk factors noted in Shader and
others’ work include
• negative home environments, experience of child
abuse, early troublemaking behavior, and lack of social
competence (Ou & Reynolds, 2010);
• prenatal and perinatal complications (Hawkins et al.,
2000; Kandel & Mednick, 1991);
• early aggression (Hawkins et al., 2000; Tremblay &
LeMarquand, 2001);
• hyperactivity, attention problems, and impulsivity
(Hawkins et al., 1998);
• low verbal IQ and delayed language development
(Moffitt, Lynam, & Silva, 1994);
• general low academic performance, low commitment to
school, and lack of educational aspiration (Herrenkohl,
Hawkins, Chung, Hill, & Battin-Pearson, 2001);
• low levels of parental involvement (Hawkins et al.,
2000); and
• poor peer relationships in early and middle childhood
(Holmes, Slaughter, & Kashani, 2001).
This complex problem will undoubtedly require challenging
solutions and a multipronged approach; however, several
of the factors that perpetuate the school-to-prison
pipeline and juvenile incarceration are related to and can
perhaps even be mitigated during the prenatal period and
early childhood years. These include
• prenatal and perinatal complications (Canning, Frizzell, &
Courage, 2010; Ford et al., 2002; Santos, Cavalcante de
Barros, Lima Nogueira, Ribeiro Baião, & Saunders, 2013;
Resnick et al., 1999);
• racial disparities in academic achievement (Campbell
& Ramey, 1994; Reynolds, Temple, & Ou, 2003;
THESCHOOL-TO-PRISONPIPELINE
6. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 6
Schweinhart, Berrueta-Clement, Barnett, Epstein, &
Weikart, 1985; Schweinhart et al., 2011);
• language delays (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Reynolds et
al., 2003 ; Schweinhart et al., 1985; Yazejian, Bryant,
Freel, & Burchinal, 2015);
• school engagement and parental involvement (Reynolds
et al., 2003; Schweinhart et al., 2011); and
• social-emotional development (Campbell & Ramey,
1994; Schweinhart et al., 1985, 2011; Yazejian et al.,
2015), including relationships with peers, impulsivity and
attentional disorders, and early troublemaking behaviors.
All the factors mentioned above may be targets for
intervention, especially early in a child’s development.
After looking at the high cost of youth incarceration,
the remainder of this paper discusses potential methods
of intervention that target these issues through a
comprehensive framework.
THECOSTSOFYOUTHINCARCERATION
Putting young people in prison has significant, severe,
and negative effects on youths themselves, their future
productivity, and the health of their communities (Justice
Policy Institute, 2009). Consider these points:
• Incarceration of youth interferes not only with
educational attainment (LeBlanc & Pfannenstiel, 1991)
but also with future employment (Freeman, 1991).
According to the Council on School Health (2013),
youth males who spend time incarcerated are less
likely to graduate from high school, and those who do
not graduate from high school are expected to earn
$485,000 less over their lifetimes and will pay $60,000
less in taxes than high school graduates.
• Incarcerated youth also suffer worse health and shorter
life expectancies (Council on School Health, 2013).
According to a Justice Department investigation of
juvenile and correctional facilities, incarcerated youth
also do not receive the mental health services that they
need (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005).
• Compared to youths who were not detained or were
held in community-based settings, youths held in
secure confinement suffer an additional negative
effect: significantly higher rates of recidivism. In other
words, time in jail begets additional crime, increasing
the costs to taxpayers and the effects on offenders.
An Arkansas study found that being incarcerated is
the most significant factor—even more significant
than gang membership, carrying a weapon, and having
poor parental relationships combined—in determining
whether a juvenile would recidivate (Benda & Tollet,
1999). Other studies in other states confirm these
findings (Justice Policy Institute, 2009).
• Confinement in adolescence can interfere with the
natural aging-out process that often occurs with
delinquency, when offending behaviors become less
frequent as teens begin to gain employment and build
stronger bonds with the community of mainstream
adults (Sampson & Laub, 1993).
• Youth detained in either youth or adult facilities are
at higher risk of victimization through physical, verbal,
emotional, and sexual abuse (Lambie & Randell, 2013).
7. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 7
THEPRENATAL-TO-PRESCHOOLPIPELINE:
ANINTERVENTIONFRAMEWORK
In order to create a comprehensive early childhood
approach to mitigating the dynamics that often lead to
juvenile incarceration, this paper proposes a prenatal-to-
preschool pipeline (PTPP). This pipeline is a conceptual
framework that outlines a set of preventive early
interventions that can be provided to families in order to
prevent or mitigate the factors that place children at risk
of being caught up in the school-to-prison pipeline. The
interventions proposed begin before birth and continue to
the child’s entry into school at kindergarten or first grade.
In the typical approach to early intervention—an approach
that likely serves to maintain the status quo—families at
risk receive services to improve child and family outcomes
in a way that is often haphazard or erratic and in which
some, but not all, children at risk receive prenatal care or
have access to high-quality, affordable infant and toddler
or preschool care and education. In contrast, the proposed
prenatal-to-preschool pipeline includes prenatal care from
the first trimester; offers very high-quality full- or part-
time infant, toddler, and preschool care and education;
and includes parenting education. While the prenatal-
to-preschool pipeline does not currently exist as an
intentional set of interventions, this type of comprehensive
approach is vital to addressing the complex set of
factors that result in the school-to-prison pipeline. The
remainder of this paper explores whether the individual
early interventions that would make up the prenatal-to-
preschool pipeline may attenuate the factors that lead to
juvenile incarceration.
PRENATALANDPERINATAL
INTERVENTIONS
When considering the causes of severe educational
disability, no predictor is greater than adverse conditions
in the perinatal period, especially low birth weight (LBW);
in fact, even when other sociodemographic factors are
controlled for, low birth weight significantly increases
the risk of educational problems (Resnick et al., 1999).
Researchers have also found that low birth weight is
strongly correlated to children being classified with the
most severe types of special education needs, including
physical impairment, sensory impairment, profound
mental handicap, and academic problems, while children of
mothers who received no prenatal care were at increased
risk of being educable mentally handicapped (that is,
having an IQ between 55 and 69), learning disabled, and
emotionally handicapped (Resnick et al., 1999). Though
overall the numbers of children negatively affected by
low birth weight and other prenatal complications are
relatively low compared to other sociodemographic
factors such as poverty, parental marital status, maternal
education, and the like (Resnick et al., 1999), the
profundity of those effects make the alleviation of this
factor an important consideration.
Prenatal intervention has been demonstrated to have
a positive effect on birth weight, yet some women—
specifically those who are African American, Hispanic,
poor, unmarried, and in their teens—are less likely to
receive early prenatal care (Belasco, 2016.) In various
studies, interventional nutrition and general prenatal
care programs demonstrated reduced incidence of low
birth weight and better birth outcomes for both teen
and low-income mothers (Canning et al., 2010; Ford
et al., 2002; Santos et al., 2013). Several studies have
demonstrated reduced likelihood of giving birth to a low-
birth-weight infant when adolescent youth were provided
with nutritional supplementation and health information
(Canning et al., 2010), nutritional and wellness education,
exercise information, and prenatal and postpartum
care (Ford et al., 2002), and when clinical nutritional
intervention was provided for pregnant teens (Santos et
al., 2013).
EARLYCHILDHOODINTERVENTIONS
Numerous studies have focused on intervention during
the early childhood years, between birth and entry into
school, typically between the ages of 5 and 7. Most
famous of these studies are the High/Scope Perry
Preschool Study, begun in 1962; the Carolina Abecedarian
Project, in 1972; and the Chicago Longitudinal Studies,
which have been ongoing since 1986. These studies (the
data from which have been used in multiple other studies)
and others demonstrate a compelling case for early
childhood intervention.
THEHIGH/SCOPEPERRYPRESCHOOLSTUDY
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, conducted in
Ypsilanti, Michigan, was a longitudinal study of low-
income black children in Michigan (Schweinhart et al.,
1985). Children ages 3 and 4 were divided into two
8. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 8
groups: Those in the experimental group were assigned
to a high-quality preschool program specifically designed
to address both intellectual and social development; the
children assigned to the control group were not. At the
age of 5, both the experimental group and the control
group entered the same local, public elementary school.
Researchers collected data annually on the children
through age 11, and participants were assessed again at
ages 14, 15, 19, 27, and 40.
According to Schweinhart et al. (1985, 2011), the study
noted several beneficial outcomes for the children in
the experimental group compared to the children in
the control group, including increased likelihood of
graduation from high school (67% vs. 49%) and college or
vocational programs (38% vs. 21%); increased functional
competence on tests (61% average or above vs. 38%);
decreased likelihood of being classified with a mental
handicap (15% vs. 35%); and reduced need for special
education (16% vs. 28%).
Children in the experimental preschool group also
demonstrated higher engagement and better attitudes
toward school at ages 15 and 19, and parents of
children in the experimental group had better attitudes
toward their children’s learning as well. In addition,
experimental group participants were less likely to have
ever been detained or arrested (31% vs. 51%) and less
likely to become pregnant as a teenager (64 vs. 117
pregnancies). They were also more likely to be employed
(50% vs. 32%) and were less likely to receive welfare
(18% vs. 32%). At ages 27 and 40, program participants
were more likely to own a home and a car and to have
a savings account. Lifetime arrests to age 40 were
reduced for all kinds of crime.
A follow-up High/Scope Perry Preschool Study found
that subjects who attended the high-quality preschool
and subsequently achieved greater positive milestones
(increased academic achievement, high school graduation,
economic independence, and parental approval) showed
greater levels of self-esteem in adolescence (Luster
& McAdoo, 1995). Self-esteem, according to these
researchers, is a protective factor for youth who have
multiple risk factors for negative outcomes.
THECAROLINAABECEDARIANPROJECTANDTHE
EDUCARESTUDY
The Carolina Abecedarian Project focused on the effect of
intensive early childhood education and care for infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers who, because of their families’
low-income status, were at risk for developmental
delays and academic failure. It also provided education
for families and included follow-up assessments of
participants to age 30. According to Campbell and
Ramey (1994), the study reveals that, beginning at 18
months and through age 8, children in the experimental
group demonstrated a significant IQ advantage and
outperformed children in the control group in both
reading and mathematics; were retained a grade level
less often than those in the control group; demonstrated
persistent IQ gains over the control group and showed a
significant gain in verbal IQ and academic test scores in
reading, knowledge, and the written language.
A separate study of children enrolled in Educare schools
considered the length of time a child received early
care and education. For measures of social-emotional
development, including initiative taking and self-control,
teacher ratings of those skills increased the longer the
children were enrolled (Yazejian et al., 2015). Although
the results were not statistically significant, the study
did find that the longer study participants were enrolled
in early care and education programs, the lower the
teachers’ behavioral concern ratings were. Additionally,
language scores indicated that early entry and longer
enrollment prevented language declines often associated
with poverty.
THECHICAGOLONGITUDINALSTUDY
The Chicago Longitudinal Study offered long-term
early intervention to low-income, minority children
residing in high-poverty sections of Chicago (Reynolds,
1999). Among the interventions was a structured early
childhood program that began at age 3 and continued
through age 9 and included a high level of parent
involvement and family services (Mueller, Stenner, &
Washington, 1974; Reynolds et al., 2003). According
to Reynolds et al. (2003), the study’s findings reveal
significantly higher levels of school readiness at
kindergarten and increased reading skills at ages 14
and 15; increased positive parental involvement for the
program group and fewer cases of child maltreatment;
and significantly reduced grade retention, special
education placement, juvenile arrest (both overall and for
violent offenses particularly), as well as reduced rates of
recidivism as shown by repeat arrests for program versus
nonprogram participants.
9. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 9
COSTSAVINGSOFEARLYINTERVENTION
Research estimates societal cost savings that result from
early childhood education initiatives, including the High/
Scope Perry Preschool Study and the Chicago Longitudinal
Study, to be significant. According to Schweinhart et
al. (2011), the High/Scope Perry Study found that an
investment of $15,166 (in 2000 dollars) for one or two
years of high-quality preschool yielded a $244,812 return
on investment, perparticipant. In other words, every
$1 invested resulted in a $16 return. Of that $244,812
return, $195,621 went to the general public while the
remainder went to the participants (Schweinhart et al.,
2011). Of the percentage of money that went to the
general public, 88 percent ($171,473 per participant) was
a result of savings on crime.
The Chicago intervention findings indicate that for every
dollar invested, society at-large can expect a return of
approximately $7 (Reynolds et al., 2003). Clearly, these
programs offer a significant financial incentive to the
communities that implement them, as well as to the
participants, who as adults are more likely to have higher
earning potential, higher income, own a home, and so on.
10. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 10
THEPOTENTIALOFEARLYINTERVENTION
TOREDUCEJUVENILEINCARCERATION
Although direct relationships between research on
prenatal and early childhood intervention and the school-
to-prison pipeline and juvenile incarceration are not always
straightforward, it seems clear that the benefits to be
gained from early intervention programs (greater academic
readiness and success, reduced problem behaviors,
and increased parental involvement, for example) can
potentially stem the tide of youth otherwise caught up in
the juvenile justice system. The following sections consider
each factor that has been shown to contribute to juvenile
incarceration and outlines the mitigating effects that early
intervention can have.
EFFECTSONPRENATALCOMPLICATION
Kandel and Mednick’s study (1991) and others (Hawkins
et al., 2000) indicate that prenatal complications—
specifically low birth weight—are contributing factors for
juvenile incarceration. Low birth weight has been shown to
be associated with significantly higher special education
needs and increased academic problems of all kinds, which
themselves are associated with the school-to-prison
pipeline. Research indicates that prenatal intervention
for women who are less likely to receive early care can
significantly reduce the risk of babies being born with
low birth weight (Canning et al., 2010; Ford et al., 2002;
Santos et al., 2013) and potentially mitigate the cascading
effect that low birth weight can have on early childhood
development, behavioral issues, and academic achievement
that can increase the likelihood of a child entering the
prison system in the adolescent years.
EFFECTSONACADEMICACHIEVEMENT
Several studies indicate that lower academic achievement
of students of color and low socioeconomic status are
factors that increase a student’s likelihood of being pushed
from school into the juvenile justice system (Holmes et al.,
2001; Osher et al., 2012; Shader, 2004). However, as the
studies discussed earlier demonstrate, high-quality early
childhood education interventions can produce significant
gains in academic achievement by low-income children of
color (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Reynolds et al., 2003;
Schweinhart et al., 1985, 2011). These gains were seen
in higher overall IQs, greater reading and mathematics
achievement, and better performance on tests of
functional competence.
EFFECTSONSCHOOLENGAGEMENTAND
PARENTALINVOLVEMENT
Herrenkohl et al. (2001) and Osher et al. (2012) indicate
that low commitment to or engagement in school factored
into the school-to-prison pipeline, while research by
Hawkins et al. (2000) shows that lack of parental
involvement increases juvenile violence. The High/Scope
Perry Preschool Study shows that program participants
demonstrated higher homework completion rates,
which was considered a proxy for school engagement
(Schweinhart et al., 2011). Additionally, the Chicago
Longitudinal Study demonstrates that early childhood
intervention that includes an intense parental involvement
component increases positive feelings and interactions on
the part of families (Reynolds et al., 2003).
EFFECTSONSOCIAL-EMOTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
The school-to-prison pipeline and juvenile incarceration
researchers found a correlation between low social-
emotional development and an increased chance of
confinement prior to adulthood (Hawkins et al., 1998;
Osher et al., 2012; Shader, 2004). Social and emotional
development incorporates a number of competencies,
including the ability to control one’s own emotions,
to get along with and empathize with others, and to
communicate one’s needs, as well as several higher-level
executive functions, including self-regulation (the ability
to control impulses).
Several of the early childhood interventions that included
a social-emotional educational component, including
the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study and the Carolina
Abecedarian Project, demonstrate that children who
receive early intervention have reduced impulsivity
and increased executive function skills as measured
by outcomes such as reduced arrest rates and higher
graduation rates (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Schweinhart
et al., 1985, 2011). A study of dual-language learners also
noted a measurable outcome on both initiative-taking and
self-control that increased with the length of time children
were in the program (Yazejian et al., 2015). A follow-up of
the Abecedarian Project assessed whether early childhood
intervention results in changes in adult measures of social
development (marriage, parenthood, rates of substance
11. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 11
abuse, etc.); the only treatment-related outcome seen was
delayed first parenthood, by about two years (Campbell et
al., 2012). A High/Scope Perry Preschool follow-up shows
a correlation between early childhood education and
higher levels of self-esteem—another measure of social-
emotional development—in low socioeconomic status
African American adolescents (Luster & McAdoo, 1995).
EFFECTSONLANGUAGEDEVELOPMENT
A study by Moffitt et al. (1994) demonstrates that low
verbal IQ and reduced language development contributes
to juvenile incarceration. Several of the early childhood
intervention studies mentioned thus far have included
a language development component. All of the early
education studies that directly measured language
development demonstrate growth in language skills and/or
verbal IQ (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Reynolds et al., 2003;
Schweinhart et al., 1985; Yazejian et al., 2015).
EFFECTSONCRIMINALITY
Several studies looked directly at the effect of
intervention on criminality, an obvious contributor to
the school-to-prison pipeline, and came to promising
conclusions. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study
demonstrates a significant reduction in arrest rates in
adolescence and early adulthood and into middle age
(Schweinhart et al., 2011). The study also demonstrates
very powerful cost savings related to crime reduction.
The Chicago Longitudinal Study also demonstrates
decreased criminality, including decreased likelihood of
first arrest and recidivism in adolescence (Reynolds, Ou,
& Topitzes, 2004).
12. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 12
In an ideal prenatal-to-preschool pipeline intervention,
all families would have access to full prenatal care and
education to increase healthy birth outcomes, followed
by infant, toddler, and preschool care. In order to make a
difference, this care and education would be affordable,
accessible, and of the highest quality. Unfortunately, there
are multiple barriers to access to this kind of
early intervention.
THEHIGHCOSTOFQUALITYEARLY
CHILDCARE
Currently, there is no prenatal-to-preschool pipeline that
families living at or near poverty have consistent access
to. Even middle class families struggle to find high-quality
care for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, and when
such care can be found, it is often expensive enough to
be prohibitive. According to the 2015 report published
by Child Care Aware of America, center-based infant
care in the least affordable states has an average cost
of between $11,200 and $14,300 per year, when the
median incomes for single-parent families in those states
are between $23,800 and $26,700 (Child Care Aware of
America, 2015).
Despite these high cost-to-income ratios, the care offered
in these settings is not consistently of high quality. In
a study completed by the National Institutes of Child
Health and Human Development, one measure of quality
is positive caregiving, in which teachers demonstrate
qualities such as showing a positive attitude, engaging
in positive physical contact, being responsive to child
vocalizations, and talking to and encouraging children,
among other features shown to increase child outcomes
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2006). The study found that
only 18 percent of 18-month-olds in formal early care
received a lot of positive caregiving and that percentage
dwindled to 6 percent by the time children reached age 3.
Further, a Howard University study that focused on African
American preschool-aged boys found that the care offered
was neither high quality nor culturally responsive (Rashid,
2009), while LoCasale-Crouch and colleagues (2007)
demonstrated that preschools that are near high-poverty
areas and serve nonwhites consistently show fewer factors
associated with high quality.
This research, as well as the research previously
referred to, demonstrates that positive child outcomes
are a function of high-quality early care and education
experiences for children, as well as prenatal care and
education. A lack of access to high-quality, affordable care
is the biggest barrier to creating a prenatal-to-preschool
pipeline, particularly for single parent families, families of
color, and those living in or near poverty.
LIMITATIONSOFTHERESEARCH
There are possible limitations of this research that should
be mentioned. Importantly, there were no studies found
that combine prenatal care with quality early childhood
programming in the infant, toddler, and preschool
years; therefore, there is no way to state definitively
the benefits of combining early interventions into one
prenatal-to-preschool pipeline. Perhaps it is time for this
study to occur.
In addition, several studies (e.g., Head Start Impact Study,
2014) address the longevity of many of the intellectual
effects of early childhood education programs and thus
call into question the long-term impact of early childhood
interventions and their potential to mitigate some of the
factors that place children at high risk for being caught
up in the school-to-prison pipeline. More research is
necessary to provide clarity on whether early interventions
have long-term impact and to expand understanding of the
conflicting outcomes produced by the Head Start Impact
Study and the other studies mentioned.
BARRIERSTOTHE
PRENATAL-TO-PRESCHOOLPIPELINE
13. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 13
CONCLUSION
Juvenile incarceration and the school-to-prison pipeline
are complicated phenomena, with complicated causes.
Many of the factors contributing to juvenile incarceration
lie external to intervention: we cannot, for example,
change poverty in the short term with early childhood
intervention or prenatal nutritional intervention. However,
research shows that much can be done in the early years
of a child’s life to attenuate some of the factors that place
him or her at risk—interventions that include prenatal
care, high-quality early childhood care and education, and
parental involvement.
Given the return on investment of these early
interventions, it is not farfetched to assume that the
combined potential return on investment in a true
prenatal-to preschool pipeline could dramatically
affect youth who would otherwise suffer as a result of
incarceration, as well as the society that suffers when
youth do not become active, contributing members.
Therefore, this theoretical intervention approach warrants
further exploration and research.
14. REFERENCES
ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 14
American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). What is the school-to-prison pipeline? Retrieved from www.aclu.org/fact-
sheet/what-school-prison-pipeline
Belasco, J. (2016, Jan. 16). Behind from the start: Why some women aren’t receiving early prenatal care
— Part 2. San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved from Center for Health Journalism website:
www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/fellowships/projects/behind-start-why-some-women-arent-
receiving-early-prenatal-care
Benda, B. B., & Tollet, C. L. (1999). A study of recidivism of serious and persistent offenders among adolescents.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2) 111–126. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00051-8
Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Pan, Y., Wasik, B. H.,…Ramey, C. T. (2012). Adult outcomes as
a function of an early childhood educational program: An Abecedarian Project follow-up. Developmental
Psychology, 48(4), 1033–1043. doi:10.1037/a0026644
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.
doi:10.2307/1131410
Canning, P. M., Frizzell, L. M., & Courage, M. L. (2010). Birth outcomes associated with prenatal participation in a
government support programme for mothers with low incomes. Child: Care, Health and Development,
36(2), 225–231. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01045.x
Child Care Aware of America. (2015). Parents and the high cost of child care: 2015 report. Arlington, VA: Author.
Council on School Health. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000–e1007.
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3932
Elias, M. (2013). The school-to-prison pipeline: Policies and practices that favor incarceration over education do us all
a grave injustice. Teaching Tolerance, 43, 38–40. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/
files/general/School-to-Prison.pdf
Ford, K., Weglicki, L., Kershaw, T., Schram, C., Hoyer, P. J., & Jacobson, M. L. (2002). Effects of a prenatal care
intervention for adolescent mothers on birth weight, repeat pregnancy, and educational outcomes at one
year postpartum. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 11(1), 35–38. doi:10.1624/105812402X88588
Freeman, R. B. (1991). Crime and the employment of disadvantaged youth (Working Paper No. 3875). Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalono, R. F., & Harachi, T. W. (1998). A review of
predictors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders:
Risk Factors and Successful Interventions (pp. 106–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., & Cothern, L. (2000).
Predictors of youth violence (NCJ 179065). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
15. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 15
“Head Start Impact Study.” (April 2014). Congressional Digest, 93(4), 5-9. Washington, DC: Congressional
Digest Corporation.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Hawkins, J. D., Chung, I.-J., Hill, K. G., & Battin-Pearson, S. (2001). School and community risk factors
and interventions. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,
and Service Needs (pp. 211-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Holmes, S. E., Slaughter, J. R., & Kashani, J. (2001). Risk factors in childhood that lead to the development of conduct
disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31(3), 183–193.
Justice Policy Institute. (2009). The cost of confinement: Why good juvenile justice policies make good
fiscal sense. Washington, DC: Author.
Justice Policy Institute. (2014). Sticker shock: Calculating the full price tag for youth incarceration.
Washington, DC: Author.
Kandel, E., & Mednick, S. A. (1991). Perinatal complications predict violent offending. Criminology, 29(3), 519–529.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01077.x
Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Zablocki, M. S., & Wells, C. S. (2010). Juvenile court referrals and the public schools:
Nature and extent of the practice in five states. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 273-
293. doi:10.1177/1043986210368642
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3),
448–459. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007
LeBlanc, L. A., & Pfannenstiel, J. C.. (1991). Unlocking learning: Chapter 1 in correctional facilities. Final report:
National study of the Chapter 1 Neglected or Delinquent Program (Contract No. 300-87-0124).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Planta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D.,…Barbarin, O. (2007). Observed
classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher,
program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1). 3–17. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2006.05.001
Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. P. (1995). Factors related to self-esteem among African America youths: A secondary
analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool data. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(4), 451–467.
doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0504_4
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among
adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7),
284–292. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08285.x
Moffitt, T. E., Lynam, D. R., & Silva, P. A. (1994). Neuropsychological tests predicting persistent male delinquency.
Criminology, 32(2), 277–300. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01155.x
Mueller, S., Stenner, A. J., & Washington, R. (1974). The Chicago Child Parent Centers: A systematic program
of effective compensatory education. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut, National Leadership
Institute.
16. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 16
Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, T. (2012). Building school and teacher
capacity to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education: The
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 284–295.
doi:10.1177/0888406412453930
Ou, S.-R., & Reynolds, A. J. (2010). Childhood predictors of young adult male crime. Children and Youth Services
Review, 32(8), 1097–1107. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.02.009
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Juvenile court statistics 2006–2007. Pittsburgh, PA: National
Center for Juvenile Justice.
Rashid, H. M. (2009). From brilliant baby to child placed at risk: The perilous path of African American boys in early
childhood education. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 347-358.
Resnick, M. B., Gueorguieva, R. V., Carter, R. L., Ariet, M., Sun, Y., Roth, J.,…Mahan, C. S. (1999). The impact of low
birth weight, perinatal conditions, and sociodemographic factors on educational outcome in kindergarten.
Pediatrics, 104(6), 1-10.
Reynolds, A. J. (1999). The Chicago Longitudinal Study: A study of children in the Chicago public schools.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/research/cls/docs/
clsweb.pdf
Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S.-R., & Topitzes, J. W. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00742.x
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Ou, S.-R. (2003). School-based early intervention and child well-being in the Chicago
Longitudinal Study. Child Welfare, 82(5), 633–656.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Santos, M. M., Cavalcante de Barros, D., Lima Nogueira, J., Ribeiro Baião, M., & Saunders, C. (2013). Impact of an
intervention nutrition program during prenatal on the weight of newborns from teenage mothers. Nutrición
Hospitalaria, 28(6), 1943–1950.
Schweinhart, L. J., Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1985). The promise of early
childhood education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 66(8), 548–553.
Schweinhart L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2011). The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Study through age 40: Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
www.highscope.org/file/Research/PerryProject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf
Shader, M. (2004). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (Eds.). (2014).Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. Pittsburgh,
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
17. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 17
Tremblay, R. E., & LeMarquand, D. (2001). Individual risk and protective factors. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.),
Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs (pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development. (2006). The NICHD study of early child care and youth development: Findings
for children up to age 4½ years (NIH Publication No. 05-4318). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of
Health.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Department of Justice activities under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act: Fiscal year 2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.justice.gov/sites/default/
files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/split_cripa04.pdf
Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth
Development, 2003(99), 9–15. doi:10.1002/yd.51
Yazejian, N., Bryant, D., Freel, K., & Burchinal, M. (2015). High-quality early education: Age of entry and time in care
differences in student outcomes for English-only and dual language learners. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 32, 23–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.02.002
18. ThePrenatal-to-PreschoolPipeline:EarlyInterventiontoMitigateJuvenileIncarceration | 18
ABOUTTHEAUTHOR
JenSmallwood is the founding director for the Monroe
County YMCA’s Center for Children and Families, which she
conceptualized, designed, and implemented. She works to help her
staff provide the highest quality early childhood program possible
for children and families in the Bloomington, Indiana, community.
She is also a faculty member at Ivy Tech Community College’s
School of Education and the board president of the South Central
Indiana Association for the Education of Young Children.
Jen has undergraduate degrees in both child development and kinesiology and a graduate degree
in early childhood leadership from Bank Street College of Education (New York). Additionally, she
holds an advanced certificate in strategic human resource management from Cornell University
(New York).
Jen began her Y career in 2006 as an endurance coach and fitness instructor before returning to
her passion, early childhood education. She has more than 20 years of experience as a teacher of
children, a program administrator, and an adult educator.
Jen lives in Bloomington, Indiana, with her teenage son.
JENNIFERL.SMALLWOOD
DIRECTOR,CENTERFORCHILDRENANDFAMILIES
YMCAOFMONROECOUNTY(IND.)
KM-16-09
