Social science research that has affected social policy is discussed, focusing on the follow-up studies of the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. It is argued that a study is likely to influence social policy if (1) it uses direct outcome measures so that the results are comprehensible to nonscientists, (2) it addresses the economic implications of the policy recommendations and so is congruent with contemporary political values, and (3) it is communicated directly to political professionals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. F. Davidson, Day Care Centers in Paris and its Suburbs, World Health Organization Working Paper no. 13 (Geneva: Joint UN/WHO Committee on the Care of Well Children in Day Care Centers and Institutions, 1962).
2.
2. International Year of the Child, Discussion Paper on Early Childhood Education, pt. 1 (New York: International Year of the Child Secretariat, 1979), p. 13.
3.
M. G. Wagner and M. M. Wagner, “Day Care Programs in Denmark and Czechoslovakia,” in Grotberg, Day Care: Decisions for Resources, pp. 28-49.
4.
4. A. W. Jones, Life, Liberty, & Property (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1941).
5.
5. R. A. Spitz, “The Role of Ecological Factors in Emotional Development in Infancy,”Child Development, 20(3):145-155 (1949).
6.
6. W. Goldfarb, “Infant Rearing and Problem Behavior,”American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 13:249-266 (1943); idem, “Effects of Early Institutional Care on Adolescent Personality: Rorschach Data,” ibid., 14:441-447 (1944); idem, “Psychological Privation in Infancy and Subsequent Adjustment,” ibid., 15:247-255 (1945).
7.
7. J. H. Reid, Child Welfare Perspectives; Selected Papers of Joseph H. Reid, ed. A. W. Shyne (New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1979), p. 101.
8.
8. White House Conference on Children, Youth, and Families, Profiles of Children (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 147.
9.
9. New York State Office of Social Research and Program Information, Bureau of Program Information and Analysis, “Major Trends in Foster Care of Children, New York State, 1965-1968,” New York State Department of Social Services Public Notice no. 1108 (Albany, 1970), p. 11.
10.
10. National Study Service, “Planning for Care and Protection of Neglected Children in California” (Report of a Study by National Study Services for the Joint Study Committee on Children's Services,”Anselmo, CA, 1965), p. 74.
11.
11. K. Clark and M. P. Clark, “Emotional Factors in Racial Identification and Preference in Negro Children,”Journal of Negro Education, 29:341-350 (1950).
12.
12. C. M. Jencks, H. Smith, M. B. Ackland, M. Bane, D. Cohen, H. Gintis, B. Heyns, and S. Michelson, Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972); N. J. Block and Gerald Dworkin, eds., The IQ Controversy: Critical Readings (New York: Pantheon, 1976).
13.
13. M. Deutsch, E. Taleporos, and J. Victor, “A Brief Synopsis of an Initial Enrich-ment Program in Early Childhood,” in A Report on Longitudinal Evaluations, vol. 1, ed. S. Ryan (Washington, DC: Office of Child Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication no. [OHD] 74-24, 1974), pp. 49-60.
14.
14. Edward Zigler and Jeannette Valentine, Project Head Start: A Legacy of the War on Poverty (New York: Free Press, 1979).
15.
15. Westinghouse Learning Corporation, The Impact of Head Start on Children's Cognitive and Affective Development, Executive Summary, Ohio Report to the Office of Economic Opportunity, EDO36321 (Washington, DC: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Jun. 1969).
16.
16. Urie Bronfenbrenner, “Is Early Intervention Effective?” in Ryan, A Report on Longitudinal Programs, vol. 2.
17.
17. Consortium on Developmental Continuity, The Persistence of Preschool Effects, Final report, grant no. 18-76-07843 from the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Office of Human Development Services (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Oct. 1977), pp. 74-81; idem, Lasting Effects After Preschool, Final report, grant no. 90C-1311 from the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (Office of Human Development Services (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Oct. 1978), pp. 53-74; C. D. Chang, “Evaluating the Long-Term Effects of Preschool Program on the Educational Attainment of Children from Low Income Families” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1981).
18.
L. J. Schweinhart and D. P. Weikart, “Young Children Grow Up: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 15,”Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, no. 7 (1980).
19.
19. The benefits included in this computation were the value of the mother's released time during the preschool years, the reduced cost of public education (due to lower rates of special education assignment and grade retention), and the increase in projected lifetime earnings of the child.
20.
20. D. P. Weikart, J. T. Bond, and J. T. McNeil, “The Y psilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool Years and Longitudinal Results,”Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, no. 3 (1978).
21.
21. P. Levenstein, “Cognitive Development Through Verbalized Play: The Mother-Child Home Program,” in Play, eds. J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, and K. Sylva (New York: Basic Books, 1976), pp. 286-300.
