Developing a Theory of Change Based on an
Integrated Scientific Framework
The task of crafting an integrated scientific framework to inform more effective approaches to reducing the consequences of early childhood adversity begins with two strategic objectives. The first is a commitment to embed our work in an intergenerational, life course perspective, in order to deepen our understanding of change in both children and parents over time. The second objective is the challenge of leveraging advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and epigenetics to inform both the design of testable, new interventions and the measurement of their impacts by capitalizing on a deeper understanding of how early experiences are built into the body and influence learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health. Guided by these two strategies, the following scientific topics will receive close and continuing attention as part of the Center’s innovation agenda.
The first topic is the critical importance of elucidating causal mechanisms from the perspectives of biology, developmental-behavioral research, and studies of intervention effects. In other words, advancing a deeper explanation of how and why early experiences and other environmental factors are linked to later life outcomes. Are there critical or sensitive periods during which positive or adverse experiences have particularly significant short- and long-term effects on young children. Are there critical or sensitive periods during which it is most advantageous to intervene, and how are these effects sustained over time? How and why do outcomes differ depending on whether a child experiences acute or chronic adversity? How can early childhood interventions move beyond a single risk-factor approach to address multi-systemic issues? These areas of investigation open up new opportunities to develop more refined hypotheses about mechanisms that lead to long-term outcomes as well as to identify short- and medium-term indicators of intervention impacts.
The second is to continue to explore the biology of adversity and its impacts, while directing increasing attention to the equally important biology of resilience. What accounts for the observation that some children do better than others, despite similar risk profiles? What developmental systems are relatively more resilient and why? How can we apply growing evidence about the role of gene-environment interaction and the intriguing issue of differential sensitivity to context as an explanation for disparities in developmental outcomes? The extent to which new thinking about differences in resilience and vulnerability might inform the design, implementation, and targeting of more effective policies and services underscores the potential benefits of bringing these fields of study closer together.
Finally, we plan to dig deeper into the science of learning. Increasing attention to the promotion and assessment of executive functioning in the preschool years is one example of a developmental domain that warrants closer inspection. Another area that is ripe for coordinated investigation is the extent to which learning problems associated with emotional and behavioral difficulties in the face of significant disadvantage are symptoms of adverse effects on brain architecture that require therapeutic intervention—not simply enhanced instruction.
We believe that, together, these areas of scientific inquiry will provide a foundation for new theories of change in interventions that will dramatically improve outcomes for children.
