Search

1. Kim M. Dalziel[1][1] 2. Dale Halliday[2][2] 3. Leonie Segal[2][2] 1. 1The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 2. 2University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia 1. Leonie Segal, Chair, Health Economics & Social Policy, School of Population Health, University of South Australia, G.P.O. Box 2471, CWE-48, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Email: Leonie.Segal{at}unisa.edu.au Given international interest in evidence-informed early education policy, we sought to interpret what is often a confusing literature on the performance of early childhood education programs. We explore whether they represent a good return on investment and the factors affecting their transferability. A systematic review was conducted to identify all cost–benefit (C-B) studies of center-based programs enrolling disadvantaged children prior to age 5 compared with a matched group. From a search across all pertinent databases in 2013, 13 economic evaluations relating to six distinct programs were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Of the six programs, half were reported as producing a substantial net benefit (benefits considerably greater than cost) representing a good investment, while for the other half, costs were greater than benefits. We explore possible reasons for the considerable divergence in economic outcomes. The primary driver was the divergent effectiveness of the programs reported in the original outcome studies, and to a lesser extent the scope of benefits included in the economic evaluation and period of follow-up. The context in which programs were delivered and program intensity differed markedly. The two oldest (1960s and 1970s) small randomized control trials of high intensity produced far better outcomes and return on investment than more recent large-scale service delivery. This collection of C-B studies challenges the expectation of good returns on investment from the rollout of early childhood programs. A checklist is provided to assist policy makers with the interpretation of C-B studies. [1]: #aff-1 [2]: #aff-2