In the United States, an average of 50 people die from firearm homicide each day, and many more sustain nonfatal injuries or live with the threat of gun violence and its ripple effects. Increasingly, the scientific community has come to understand that risk for gun violence is influenced by social and structural determinants of health, including the unequal distribution of power, resources, and opportunities, and is associated not only with people’s exposures and experiences of today but also of decades past. For instance, historical discriminatory housing and land use policies have concentrated poverty and disadvantage in specific neighborhoods. Children growing up in these neighborhoods are more likely than others to experience adversity, including exposure to stress, violence, trauma, and environmental hazards like lead.

Decades of research indicate that early childhood is a sensitive developmental period—a window when children are particularly influenced by their environment—making such early life experiences important drivers of social, economic, and health outcomes across the course of one’s life. Early life experiences and adversities have also been associated with risk for gun violence and behaviors like handgun carrying, a particularly salient and well-established risk factor for firearm assault.

Early childhood interventions that expand access to resources and opportunities and prevent or buffer against early adversity therefore hold substantial promise for long-term gun violence prevention efforts. High-quality early childhood education is one such intervention. Such programs, including those developed in part as anti-poverty initiatives to help provide greater social and economic opportunities for disadvantaged children, have been extensively studied. Prior research suggests that early childhood education programs can reduce crime and risk factors associated with gun violence, including, but not limited to, socio-emotional development, substance use, educational attainment, and employment. Until recently, however, there has not been more direct empirical evidence on the impact of early childhood education on firearm-related outcomes.

In April 2025, my colleagues and I published a new study that began to address this gap. We examined the association of Head Start, the nation’s oldest and largest high-quality preschool program for low-income children (serving about 500,000 children annually), and handgun carrying and interpersonal violence. Using longitudinal data from a large, nationally representative survey, we studied outcomes of individuals in adolescence and young adulthood who, during ages 3 through 5, either attended Head Start, did not attend Head Start but had some other kind of childcare,¹ or were cared for solely by their parents.

Specifically, we found that Black males who attended Head Start instead of other childcare had a 23 and 21 percent lower risk of handgun carrying and serious fighting, respectively.

We examined the relationship between Head Start and violence outcomes across different demographic subgroups and found no association, except in one subgroup. Specifically, we found that Black males who attended Head Start instead of other childcare had a 23 and 21 percent lower risk of handgun carrying and serious fighting, respectively. This is a striking finding, considering that Black males bear a vastly disproportionate burden of interpersonal gun violence in the United States. These results are consistent with prior evidence documenting larger benefits for those at greater risk of adverse outcomes, likely because the intervention fills gaps for those whose access to similar resources is otherwise more limited. The findings also suggest that Head Start reduces racial disparities in gun violence, likely amplifying the equity-focused design of the policy itself, which serves low-income children and families.

While ours is the first study that we know of to examine the link between early childhood education and firearm-related outcomes, our work builds on a large body of prior research that has documented long-term benefits of high-quality early childhood education programs for a range of other health and social outcomes. For example, evidence suggests such programs have improved academic outcomes, socio-emotional development, educational attainment, and employment, and reduced depression, substance use, and crime. Studies of smaller-scale and/or more intensive programs, such as the Perry Preschool Program and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers, have found that program participants had reduced risk of violent crime.

Such broad impacts suggest high-quality early childhood education may be an effective way to address multiple health and social challenges. This, combined with Head Start’s large scale and reasonable costs, is an important consideration for policymakers who face difficult decisions about allocation of limited resources. Cost-benefit analyses suggest Head Start produces returns on investment, especially relative to its reasonable costs: in 2023, the entire program cost approximately $12 billion, or 0.7 percent of federal discretionary spending. Research estimates that for every dollar invested in Head Start, from $1.50 to $2.66 is saved, although these figures may be underestimated as they do not include all relevant outcomes, which can be difficult to capture and monetize. In addition to long-term social and economic benefits for children (e.g., greater later-life economic stability), Head Start also may have more immediate benefits for parents. For example, for parents who cannot afford to stay home full-time to care for their children, access to quality early childhood education can help create the opportunity to participate in the labor force. Additionally, Head Start can help parents reach their own health, employment, and education goals, and research suggests these efforts may be effective. For example, an analysis of the randomized Head Start Impact Study found that parents of 3-year-old children assigned to Head Start had greater increases in their own educational attainment than parents of those assigned to the control group.

… in 2023, the entire program cost approximately $12 billion, or 0.7 percent of federal discretionary spending. Research estimates that for every dollar invested in Head Start, from $1.50 to $2.66 is saved…

Head Start’s preschool program served more than 500,000 children in 2023 and more than 40 million since it became federally funded in 1965 (with its large scale widely recognized as a key asset), meaning that any significant changes to the program could affect millions of children in the years to come. Our research, along with the larger existing body of evidence on impacts related to the program and those like it, should be considered when weighing the potential long-term costs and benefits of investments in early childhood education. Our recent findings are particularly timely, as Head Start is now facing an uncertain funding future. Some Head Start programs were notified earlier this year that they were losing funding. For example, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand recently warned that proposed Head Start cuts would affect 50,000 Head Start attendees in New York alone, and in April 2025, more than a dozen Head Start classrooms in Washington state temporarily closed because they had not received funds. While funding for those classrooms was restored, sustained federal funding for the program remains in question and under litigation.

The broader link between early life conditions and later life outcomes has been a topic of scientific inquiry and public policy interest for decades. As research increasingly recognizes that gun violence, too, is rooted in part in early life adversity and opportunity—an insight long held by communities most affected—interventions such as high-quality early childhood education could be considered not only as a tool for learning and development, but also as a strategy to help prevent gun violence in the long run.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Julia Schleimer is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Epidemiology, School of Health and a trainee with the Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program at the University of Washington. She is an affiliate scholar with the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium.

[1] The study defined “other childcare” as “any care given by someone other than a parent. Childcare includes care by relatives, babysitters, and nannies. It also includes time when the child attends daycare centers or preschools.”