“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
