“Rosie’s Kids: Pre-School Exposure during WWII &

Later-Life Outcomes”QuentinBrummet(U.S.CensusBureau)

JosephFerrie(NorthwesternUniversity&NBER)ClaudiaGoldin(HarvardUniversity&NBER)

ElizabethMokyrHorner(AmericanInstitutesforResearch)ClaudiaOlivetti(BostonCollege&NBER)

KarenRolf(UniversityofNebraska,Omaha)

NBER2017SummerInstituteProgramonChildren

July28,2017Disclaimer: This presentation is released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion. Theviews expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.

1

“Rosie’sKids?”

“Thehandthatholdsthepneumaticrivetercannotrockthecradleatthesametime.”G.G.Whetherill (1943)

“Rosie’sKids”

1. Introduction & Literature Review§ Thevalueofqualitypre-schooleducationinpromotingbetterlater-lifeoutcomeshasbeendemonstratedinagrowingliterature

§ Bettercognitiveperformanceandearly-adultincomes(Heckman 2006)andadulthealth(Campbelletal. 2014)areevidentfromrandomizedexperimentsthatprovidedanenhancedlearningenvironmentbeforeagefive

§ Twochallengeshaveariseninthiswork:1.smallsamplesheterogeneoustreatmenteffectshardtodiscern2.theseexperimentsarerelativelyrecent(early1970s),solong-termeffectsintomiddleandlateadulthoodcannotyetbeobserved

4

§ Wetakeadvantageofthesuddenexpansionofpre-schoolopportunitiesintheU.S.duringWorldWarII,fundedbythefederalgovernment1943-46,togetherwiththeabilitytolinkseveralmillionindividualsfromtheirpost-2000outcomestothelikelihoodthattheywereexposedtothis“treatment”

§ ManyofthebenefitsofthisepisodehavebeendocumentedinHerbst(JOLE 2017).Usingastate-leveldiff-in-diffapproach,heshowsthatacompositemeasureofadultincomesishigherforbirthcohortsthatwereexposedtotheprogram

§ Herbst(2017)includesallchild-carespendingunderthisprogram– weareabletofocusspecificallyonchildrenage2-5,andmoreoutcomes

5

2. The Lanham Program

§ TherehadbeenanexpansionofchildcareintheearlyyearsoftheNewDeal,asaschemetoemployout-of-workteachers,nurses,schoolworkers.Butthesehadlargelyclosedbytheearly1940s.

§ Thebigpushforcareofchildren,especiallyunderage6,cameatthepeakofWorldWarII.

§ AsWorldWarIIcontinued,thenumberofmaleswithdrawnfromcivilianemploymentformilitaryservicegrew.

§ By1943,withthenumberofnewinducteesatitspeakandpreviousinducteesnowobligatedtoserve“forthedurationoftheconflict,”businessesfacedseverelaborshortages

6

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946

Indu

ctions

Year

NumberofU.S.SelectiveServiceInductions,1940-46

Source:https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/Induction-Statistics

3.3million

7

• Women’sincreasedLFPwasseenasvital tothewareffort

• ButtheU.S.recognizedthatmorethanapublicrelationscampaigntouting“RosietheRiveter”wasneeded.

• TheLanham Actof1940provided$$$tocommunitiesaffectedbythewareffort.By1942,thisincludednurseryschools.

8

ClaudiaGoldin,AER 1991.

9

Example:KaiserShipyardinRichmond,CA

Lanham Pre-School

KaiserShipyard

Dr. Hymes learned his trade when he managed an around-the-clock nursery school program during World War II for the children of women who built Liberty ships in three shifts at shipyards in Oregon. He became a household name in the decades that followed as the author of numerous pamphlets and books advising parents and teachers on the dos and don'ts of child-rearing. New York Times obituary, March 30, 1998

• UnderthedirectionofHenryKaiserhimself,centerswereestablishedinCA&OR

• ChilddevelopmentexpertsfromUCBerkeleyandColumbiaUniversity’sTeachersCollegewererecruitedtodesignboththecampus&thecurriculum

• ThedirectorofthePortlandORcenters,JamesL.Hymes,literallywrotethebook onpre-schooleducation

11

• Thepre-schoolsservedchildren2-5inplacesimpactedbywartimelabordemand

• Enrollmentwasnotlimitedtochildrenw/mothersinwarindustries

• Feeswereminimal--$0.50/dayinitially(womenearned$30/wk)

• Morethan100,000childrenin1,000+nurseryschoolsatanyonetime1942-46

12

3. Data§ Weneedthreepiecesofinformationtolinkpre-schoolexposuretolater-lifeoutcomes:1.Thelocationsthatwere“exposed”(i.e. gotLanham funds)2.Later-lifeoutcomes3.Alinkbetween(1)locations&(2)outcomes

§ TheFederalWorksAgency’sLanham Actcardfilerecordsinfo(dateapproved,$$$amount,students)foreachplace(city/town)receivingLanham pre-schoolfunds– NARARG162.4

§ Later-lifeoutcomesareobservedinthe2000DecennialCensus1-in-6LongFormandthe2001-2016AmericanCommunitySurvey(ACS)

§ TheCensusBureauhasattachedProtectedIdentificationKeys(PIKs)tothesefilesandhasacrosswalktoSSNs

13

WethankBlakeHellerforthisimage.

14

Weignorecounty-wideLanhamprogramsfornow

15

§ TheSocialSecurityAdministration(SSA)maintainstheNUMIDENT filewhichrecordsallapplicationsforentryintothesystem(FormSS-5)

§ Eachapplicationreportsname,exactdateofbirth,detailedplaceofbirth(city/town),andthefullnamesofbothparents,aswellastheindividual’sSSN

§ SSAalsorecordsdateofdeathforindividualswhohadbegundrawingSocialSecuritybenefits(reasonablycompletefordeathsage65+)

§ TheserecordscanbeconvertedtoPIKsandlinkedtotheCensusdata(2000LF,2001-16ACS)

16

Data Linkage

17

4. Analysis§ Twoquestions:(1)whatisthe“experiment,”and(2)whatisthebest“control”group?

§ The“experiment”:childrenofwomenwhoworked(becauseofWWIIplantsintheircommunities)andweretakencareofinLanham pre-schools.Ifnotfortheschools,theywouldhavebeentakencareofbyrelativesor,possibly,theirmotherswouldnothaveworked.

§ Wehaveavarietyofpossiblecontrolgroups

18

Possiblecontrols:1. Otherwiseidenticalplaces(WWIIproduction,daycareforchildren2-5)

àmarginaleffectifbetterstandardsinLanham programs2. Nearlyidentical(WWIIproduction),butwithoutdaycareàmarginal

effectincludesmothers’LFPdecision3. Older&youngerchildreninLanham places4. Childrenwhowereage-eligibleandlivedinLanham placesbutweretoo

farfromLanham nurseriestoparticipate(asapracticalmatter)5. Childrenwhowereage-eligibleduringtheKoreanWarinplacesthathad

LanhamprogramsinWWIIà sametypeofmalelaborshortages,CongressagreedaLanham-likeprogramwasnecessarybutneverappropriatedany$$$

§ Fornow,weuseboth(3)andplaceswithin25milesofLanham placesinadiff-in-diff(proximityasaproxyforWWIIproduction)

19

EmpiricalStrategy(Older&YoungerChildren&ProximatePlacesasControls):1. Examineadultoutcomes(educ attainment,income,

disability,longevity)Yij wherei indexesindividuals&j indexeslocations

2. “Treatment”(i.e.potentialexposuretopre-schooleducation)isaninteractionbetween(a)placeexposure(borninacityortownthatreceivedaLanham pre-school)and(b)ageexposure(age2-5betweenJuly1943&March1946)

3. “AgeExposure”isacontinuousvariable:numberofyearsage2-57/43-3/46

21

Yij =α +β1*(Lanham)j +β2*(Age2-5)i +β3*(Lanham)j*(Age2-5)i +εij

whereYij =anadultoutcomeforindividuali borninplacej(Lanham)j =1ifbirthplacej hadaLanham pre-school(Age2-5)i =numberofyearsage2-57/43-3/46(e.g.born7/41

2½yearspotentialexposure)(Lanham)j*(Age2-5)i = potentialexposureinaLanham place

β3 =“Lanham Pre-SchoolEffectPerYearofExposure”

ThetypicalLanham pre-schoolreachedonly10%ofeligiblestudentsà effectof“treatmentonthetreated”(TOT)>β3 (=ITT)

22

§ Challengestoidentification:1.TheWPAwasrunningsomepre-schoolprogramspre-1943à

mosthadbeenshutdownbyearly1940s,wewillidentifythem2.Wedonotknowifspecificindividualsattendedschoolsà

thinkofthisasan“intent-to-treat”(ITT)analysis3.Migrationto/fromLanham placesafterbirthbutbefore

treatmentwillweakenthelinkto“treatment”à attenuationofeffect4.Non-randomassignmentofplacestotreated/controlà

balancingonplacecharacteristics,propensityscorematching5.Someplaces(NYC)hadseparate,non-Lanham systems,while

someplaces(CA,NYC,Phila.,WA,MA)continuedwithstatefundsforatleastsometimeafterthewarà experimentwithdroppingthese

23

3yearsofLanhampre-schoolàincome+2.1%(0.007x3)perannum inlateadulthood

24

3yearsofLanham pre-schoolà+5.9%(0.006x3/0.304)morelikelytograduatefromcollege

25

Noeffect

26

§ Thereissubstantialevidencefromanimalexperimentsthatthenegativeeffectsofleadexposureoncognitioncanbereversed– andeveneliminated– withearly-lifementalstimulation(Schneideretal.BrainResearch 2001)

§ Thereisnopopulation-leveldatawithwhichtoseeifthisistrueinhumans

§ Thiswouldrequireinfoon(1)early-lifeleadexposure,(2)early-lifementalstimulation,and(3)later-lifecognitively-sensitiveoutcomes

§ Wehave(2)&(3),butwhatabout(1)?§ Exploitinfooncitypipingmaterials,thepHofcitywatersupplies,andthepH-plumbosolvency relationship

27

Does exposure to Lanham pre-school have other benefits?

w/ostimulationw/stimulationPb(Lead)dissolvedperunitofpipebypH

28

Empirical Strategy 𝑌"# = 𝛼 + 𝛽)𝑃𝑏# + 𝛽,𝑝𝐻# + 𝛽/𝑝𝐻#

/ + 𝛽0𝑝𝐻# ∗ 𝑃𝑏# + 𝛽2𝑝𝐻#/ ∗ 𝑃𝑏# + 𝜃4 + 𝛾6 + 𝜀"#

§ Where§ 𝑌"# isadultwageandsalaryincome§ pH_j isthepHofcitywatersupplies§ Pb_j isanindicatorforlead-basedpipinginthecity§ 𝜃4 and𝛾6 areyearofbirthandcurrentyearfixedeffects,respectively

§ RunseparatelyforLanhamandnon-LanhamplacestoexaminetheconcavityofthepH—Incomegradient

29

pH-Incomegradientislessconcave inLanham places

30

5. Extensions§ ProjectTalent(1960)hashighschoolIQ&testscoresforindividualsborn1942-46

§ Outcomesearlierinthelife-cycleusingtheCPSMarchASEC(1973,1979,1981-1999)whichhavePIKsattached

§ Backgroundfamilycharacteristics:the1940DecennialCensushasbeenPIKed,soindividualscanbelinkedfrom2000-16backtotheirparents’1940characteristics(education,income,occupationà

1. Familyfixedeffects2. Heterogeneoustreatmenteffects

§ Propensityscoreweightingbyplacecharacteristicstobalancetreated&controlplaces

31

6. Conclusions§ Lanham pre-schoolshadalastingimpactonthechildrenexposedtothem:ITT

estimatesofeffectsarelargeandprobablysubstantiallyunderestimateTOTestimates

§ Alleffectswereconsiderablystrongerformalesthanforfemales§ Maleannualwage&salaryincomeatage60was6%greaterforevery3yearsof

Lanham pre-schoolexposure§ Maleswere6%morelikelytograduatefromcollegeiftheywereexposedto3

yearsofLanham pre-school§ Agivenlevelofearly-lifeexposuretowater-borneleadhadalesssevereeffect

forchildrenwithaccesstoLanham pre-schools§ Furtherrefinementofthecontrolgroupandanalysisofhighschooltestscores

willbecrucialinunderstandingthemechanisms generatingtheseeffects

32

Thank You

33