In parts 1 and 2 of this series, we reported that investing in early-stage education makes social and fiscal sense for both the recipient and the community. In this post, we’ll explore how, relative to later interventions, early-stage intervention is remarkably more effective and much lower in cost.
2014 SKIpgo recipients and their families
Policies that aim to repair educational deficits from early years are more expensive than smart investments made during childhood. As James J. Heckman asserts throughout his work, as a person ages, the cost of remedying early education deficits increases. Moreover, attempts to recoup these deficits later in life are often ineffective, even with vast funding.
In a 2006 article published in Science, Heckman emphasized that early interventions are even more effective than later interventions such as smaller pupil-teacher ratios, convict rehabilitation programs, public job training, or tuition subsidies.
Beyond being more effective, early interventions also produce greater returns than later ones. In Gary Becker’s 1964 paper on human capital, he showed that the return is higher on human capital when it is spent on young people. According to Becker, because they generally have more life left to live, there is a longer timeframe for investors to see returns.
Through investments in young girls, SKIpgo is reducing the long-term expenses for their communities and preventing late-term reparative costs. SKIpgo is a small program, but it is flourishing.
“As we grow, we will stimulate growth in more and more communities,” Shyam says.
