What does research say about the proposed expansion of Michigan’s Great Start Readiness Program?

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder recently proposed a major expansion of the state’s pre-K program, called the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP).  From reports in Gongwer News Service, legislators and others have expressed various doubts about the proposed expansion. This blog post attempts to clarify what research says about this proposed expansion.

As discussed in my previous blog post, the proposal would increase Michigan’s preschool funding from $109 million in fiscal year 2013, to $174 million in fiscal year 2014, and $239 million in fiscal year 2015.  The proposal both increases the state’s funding per preschool slot and increases the number of slots.  Funding per half-day slot for one child would increase from $3400 to $3625. The percentage of all 4 year olds in the program would increase from 20% of all Michigan four-year olds currently to 42% two-years from now.  By two years from now, the number of slots would come close to providing full access to quality pre-K for the main group targeted by GSRP, which is families below 300% of the poverty line.  However, the state would still be below the leading states in providing access to all 4-year-olds; for example, Oklahoma provides state-subsidized pre-K for 74% of all four-year olds.

What research findings are more relevant to the proposed GSRP expansion? What misconceptions about what research shows need to be clarified?

Here is the summary of my response to these questions:

1. Studies with disparate methodologies support the short-term and long-term effectiveness of GSRP.

2. Other large-scale state and local pre-K programs similar to GSRP have also shown evidence of short-term and long-term benefits.

3. Evidence from the Abecedarian Program and Perry Preschool provide rigorous evidence that more intensive early childhood programs than GSRP can yield even larger effects than GSRP on adult earnings and other outcomes, but we don’t need adult earnings effects anything close to these intensive programs for less costly programs such as GSRP to pass a benefit cost test. 

4. The more mixed educational results of Head Start suggest that more educationally focused programs such as GSRP can achieve more consistent educational results.

5. Programs similar to GSRP show strong benefits for middle-class as well as low-income children; this finding and peer effects suggest that there may be benefits for the state from relatively broad income eligibility standards for GSRP.

6. Keeping class size down, and keeping teacher quality up, helps improve benefit-cost ratios in programs such as GSRP.

7. Expanding half-day preschool programs to full-day programs, or one-year preschool programs to two-year preschool programs, probably have net benefits, but probably also reduce benefit-cost ratios somewhat (e.g., there are diminishing returns).  However, expanding half-day preschool programs to full-day programs also makes it easier for some families to access preschool programs, with the proportion of families in this situation varying across different local areas. Therefore, GSRP’s focus on one-year programs, with local flexibility on the mix of half-day versus full-day programs, probably makes sense.

8. GSRP per student funding has steadily lost ground to inflation over the past 10 years.  The proposed increase to $3625 per half-day slot only makes up for a small part of this decline in real funding. This decline in real funding creates challenges in maintaining access and quality, and particularly threatens the ability of the program to fund quality private preschool programs.

9. The proposal funds expanded GSRP out of the School Aid Fund.  Funding expanded GSRP out of reduced K-12 spending may offset roughly two-fifths of the positive educational and economic effects of expanded GSRP funding, although the exact offset depends upon assumptions about the productivity of K-12 spending. This funding source does not maximize the use of state educational resources to develop a better quality state labor force.

Now, the further details elaborating on these responses and providing or linking to evidence:

1. Studies with disparate methodologies support the short-term and long-term effectiveness of GSRP.  A number of studies from the High Scope Foundation compare GSRP participants with non-participants who are similar in observed pre-program characteristics such as family income, whether single parent family, etc. These studies have found both short-run and long-run effects of GSRP in improving various academic outcomes, most notably in improving on-time high school graduation of GSRP participants by reducing grade retention.

Although GSRP participants and non-participants in this study are similar in observable characteristics, it is certainly possible that GSRP participants and non-participants differ in unobserved characteristics. The econometrics buzz word for this possible problem is that the estimates might be subject to “selection bias”, because either GSRP families self-select their child into the family, or because of criteria that GSRP sites use for selecting participants.

This selection bias could go in either direction.  For example, it is possible that GSRP participants tend to come from families with more ambitious or aware parents, which might mean that GSRP participants would have unobserved characteristics that would have promoted greater success even without the GSRP program. On the other hand, the GSRP state office encourages local programs to select GSRP participants on the basis of greater risk factors, which we do not fully measure for non-participants, and such risk factors might cause GSRP participants to do worse than observationally similar non-participants without the program.

But GSRP’s effectiveness is also supported by other research that is less likely to be subject to possible selection bias.  Research by Wong et al. has evaluated GSRP by comparing test scores of children who are just entering GSRP, with children who have just entered kindergarten after participating in GSRP the previous years. This methodology relies on the fact that Michigan uses an age cut-off to determine eligibility for participation in GSRP and kindergarten. Therefore, these researchers can observe similar children whose families chose to select GSRP, and who GSRP sites select for enrollment, but who differed in age, which therefore determined what year they enrolled in the program. The researchers can observe how test scores increase with age of the child, and test for whether there is an abrupt jump in test scores at the age cut-off for being able to enroll in GSRP the previous year.  Intuitively, this methodology relies on comparing the test scores of children whose main difference is only a few days in age: some children were just old enough to participate in GSRP last year, and are entering kindergarten now; other children just missed the age cut-off for GSRP last year, and are just entering the GSRP program this year.  The difference between these two groups of children is hypothesized to be due to one group participating in GSRP for one year, versus the other group participating in other non-GSRP activities during the previous year.  The remaining age differences can be controlled for because we observe students who differ in age within each group.

This methodology for evaluating GSRP, which is called a “regression discontinuity” methodology (the “discontinuity” is the “jump” in test scores), is a well-established and respected econometrics methodology.  If random assignment is the “gold standard” for evaluating programs, regression discontinuity is a good “silver standard” methodology. Such regression discontinuity studies are less subject to selection bias because all the children in the study have been selected into the same program, with just some difference in the timing of that participation due to the age cutoff.  Such regression discontinuity methodologies have been used for evaluating pre-K programs in many state and local areas other than Michigan, including New Jersey, New Mexico, West Virginia, Oklahoma,  South Carolina,  and Tulsa.

This “regression discontinuity” study of Michigan’s GSRP program finds that GSRP significantly increases test scores on various academic tests. The average increase in test scores due to GSRP is estimated to be an “effect size” of 0.42. “Effect size” is education statistics jargon for measuring test score effects as a proportion of the typical variation across test scores for a given cohort of students. An effect of 0.42 in effect-size units corresponds to increasing the “percentile” test score of students by about 16 percentile points. That is, if the student would have otherwise scored better on tests entering kindergarten than 34% of all entering kindergartners, then GSRP would be expected to advance them to the 50th percentile or the median performance of all entering kindergartners. I think that most parents would regard such a test score gain as a major improvement. It corresponds to about a 55% increase in what we would normally expect children to learn without pre-K during the year before kindergarten.

Based on research by Chetty et al. that looks at the effects of kindergarten test scores on adult earnings, we would expect this 16 percentile gain in test scores to increase future adult earnings by about 8%. For each child participating in GSRP, the average discounted present value of his or her expected future earnings would increase by over $25,000. (This extrapolates my methodology used with Gormley and Adelstein for Tulsa to the Michigan context, which is obviously conservative given that earnings are somewhat higher in Michigan.) This is obviously far in excess of the per-child cost of GSRP.

We can add to these earnings benefits the benefits of GSRP in reducing the costs to the taxpayer of grade retention, which requires an extra year of funding during the K-12 years. The High Scope studies estimate that the cost savings from GSRP’s effects in reducing grade retention might eventually cover over 40% of the state’s costs of GSRP. From both the earnings benefits and grade retention cost savings, research directly on GSRP suggests that the benefits of GSRP are many multiples of its costs

2. Other large-scale state and local pre-K programs similar to GSRP have also shown evidence of short-term and long-term benefits.   There are a variety of large-scale state and local preschool programs around the U.S. that are similar to GSRP, both  in program design (a half-day or full-day program at age 4) and in costs per student (on the order of $4,000 to $6000 for a half-day program – with what local school districts pay for GSRP in subsidizing the program, for much of GSRP’s history its total costs per half-day program for a child have probably been close to  $5,000 in 2012 dollars).  Research evidence for short run benefits of these programs in improving kindergarten test scores has been found for such programs in West Virginia, New Jersey, South Carolina, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Tennessee, Tulsa, and Chicago. Research evidence for longer-term benefits on later test scores has been found in North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Probably the most important outside research evidence relevant to GSRP is from the Chicago Child-Parent Center program. This program, operated by Chicago Public Schools, provided half-day preschool for one or two years for children in low-income neighborhoods. The program was evaluated by comparing children in neighborhoods provided such preschool services with children in similar neighborhoods without such services. The program has now done follow-up with participants and non-participants up to age 28. This long-term follow-up with a good comparison group provides useful information in attempting to see whether GSRP is likely to have positive benefits in adulthood.

Research has found significant benefits of CPC in improving educational attainment and adult earnings, and in reducing crime.  The overall calculated benefit cost ratio for the program is almost $11 per dollar of costs. Of these benefits, about one-third are due to higher earnings for former participants. About half the benefits are due to the program’s effects in reducing former participants’ involvement in crime, which reduces costs to the criminal justice system of crime as well as costs to victims of crime

CPC is quite similar to GSRP in many of its design features. CPC and GSRP have similar class size limits and child to adult ratios (CPC is a max of 17 children to 2 adults, while GSRP for most students is a max class size of 18 with a max child to adult ratio of 8 to 1.)  GSRP is a half-day program for most students, as is CPC.  CPC tends to have more classroom days than GSRP; CPC is a 5-day a week program for the 9 month school year, and sometimes also include includes a six-week summer program; GSRP operates for a minimum of 4 classroom days per week for 30 weeks, with the remaining day for planning and home visits.  As I review below, this lesser time might reduce GSRP results somewhat compared to CPC, but would be expected to do so by less in percentage terms than the cut in preschool time, which may actually increase GSRP’s benefit-cost ratio per child above CPC.   Adjusted for Michigan prices in 2012, CPC costs about $5600 per child per year. This is above what GSRP currently receives per child from the state, but GSRP programs receive considerable local subsidies from local school districts, and for most of GSRP’s history, its real funding per child has been considerably higher than it is today. CPC is a two year program (ages 3 and 4) for about 55% of its participants, and a one-year program (age 4) for about 45% of its participants, which is different from GSRP’s focus on age 4. However, the available evidence on CPC suggests that the benefit-cost ratio for the CPC participants who only participate for one year at age 4 is actually higher, at over $13 in benefits per dollar of program costs. Adding a second year does not seem to quite double benefits, although benefits do exceed costs from this expansion.  I will return to this topic of program design later.

Overall, these research studies of other state and local programs suggest that preschool programs can produce significant short-run and long-run benefits. These benefits are estimated for programs run at a large scale by a variety of state agencies and a variety of local school districts. These benefits also are occurring for programs whose costs per student are in the $4,000 to $6,000 range, similar to GSRP, and for programs that are similar to GSRP in design. All this evidence from other state and local areas is consistent with direct research evidence for the GSRP program.

3.Evidence from the Abecedarian Program and Perry Preschool provide rigorous evidence that more intensive early childhood programs than GSRP can yield even larger effects than GSRP on adult earnings and other outcomes, but we don’t need adult earnings effects  anything close to these intensive programs for less costly programs such as GSRP to pass a benefit cost test.  

The Abecedarian program is full-time full-year high quality child care and preschool from birth to age 5 for highly disadvantaged families. The program shows strong benefits (e.g., estimated adult earnings benefits of former child participants of 14%), based on a rigorous random assignment methodology. However, because the program is considerably more intensive than GSRP (e.g., birth to five full-time rather than a mostly half-day school-year program at age 4), the main relevant finding for GSRP is that more intensive programs may yield larger effects.  However, preschool programs don’t need earnings effects as great as 14% to pass a benefit-cost test, given that preschool is considerably cheaper than the Abecedarian program, which has gross costs of around $80,000 per child (e.g., $16,000 per year for five years).

Perry Preschool also was a more intense program than GSRP. Perry was similar to GSRP in offering only a half-day program. But its class size ratio was 13 students to 2 teachers.  And almost all students in Perry participated for 2 school years, at both age 3 and age 4.  Perry’s gross cost per student per year was around $11,000 in today’s dollars, which is considerably more expensive than GSRP.

Perry shows large benefits (e.g., about a 19% increase in adult earnings of former participants), based on evidence from a rigorous random assignment experiment.  Because of the differences between class size and duration of Perry versus GSRP, what Perry directly implies for GSRP is that smaller class sizes and longer duration might increase the adult earnings impact of a preschool program.  However, we do not need adult earnings effects of anything close to 19% to get net benefits from a program as cheap as GSRP.  I will return to this topic of program design later.

4. The more mixed educational results of Head Start suggest that more educationally focused programs such as GSRP can achieve more consistent educational results.

Head Start has a more diverse mission based on its history and design, seeking to improve family health, not just kindergarten readiness.  As I have reviewed before, Head Start’s research evidence is more mixed. Meta-analysis of Head Start suggests immediate test score effects of an “effect size” of 0.31, about one-fourth less than the GSRP program.  Several analyses suggest that much of these test score effects fade during K-12, although the exact timing of this fading is disputed. This fading is also found in other early childhood programs. However, studies have also found strong Head Start benefits that re-emerge during adulthood (e.g., one study predicted an 11% increase on adult earnings of former Head Start participants), possibly due to Head Start’s effects on social skills.

Why might GSRP get somewhat greater kindergarten readiness effects than Head Start? In part, because GSRP is more focused on kindergarten readiness. In addition, GSRP is less income-segregated than Head Start, because it includes families up to 300% of the poverty line, whereas Head Start is almost all families below 100% of the poverty line. Research suggests that there are peer effects in preschool, so that preschool is more effective for low-income children when preschool classes also include middle-class children. Finally, it is possible that the greater local control in GSRP may increase effectiveness compared to Head Start, which has extensive federal regulatory requirements that may be well-intentioned, but may distract from focusing on the highest priorities for improving student kindergarten readiness.

5. Programs similar to GSRP show strong benefits for middle-class as well as low-income children; this finding and peer effects suggest that there may be benefits for the state from relatively broad income eligibility standards for GSRP.

Tulsa’s state-funded pre-K program is similar to GSRP in design and funding level. The program is a half-day or full-day program for one school year at age 4. Tulsa’s program operates for 2.5 hours per day for a half-day program, but for five days per week for a school year; Michigan’s half-day GSRP is 3 hours per day for a minimum of 4 days per week for a minimum of 30 weeks.  The total number of hours is about a fourth higher in Tulsa than the Michigan minimum, which we would expect to increase total effects of the program by somewhat less than one-fourth.  (More on this later.)  Total Tulsa state or local funding per student, adjusted to year 2012 Michigan prices, is about $5200 for a half-day program. This is probably above what state and local funding per student is for Michigan’s program, although it is more similar to Michigan’s historical levels of funding.

Based on research by me and Gormley and Adelstein, Tulsa’s pre-K program increases kindergarten entrance scores by similar amounts for low-income students and middle class students. Kindergarten entrance scores go up about 11 or 12 percentiles for a half-day program, and about 18 to 19 percentiles for a full-day program.

We estimate that these percentile increases in kindergarten test scores would increase the present value of future earnings by about $18,000 per middle-income participant for a half-day program, and $29,000 per middle-income participant for a full-day program. The estimated earnings increases for low-income participants are only slightly higher, at $21,000 and $32,000. (This adjusts our paper’s estimates to 2012 Michigan prices, using the Consumer Price Index and estimates of relative regional prices. Free-lunch students are “low income”; full-price lunch students are “middle income”. )  These earnings increases are in the range of 3 to 4 times preschool program costs for both low-income and middle income groups.

Middle-income children may benefit from pre-K because even the best parents have challenges in providing on their own all the services of a high-quality pre-K program, such as extended work and play with other students that will build both academic and social skills. Furthermore, many middle-class parents may have trouble affording a quality pre-K program that may cost around $5,000 for a half-day program for one school year.  Obviously at some income level such an investment is readily affordable without subsidy, but that point is probably well above median family income levels.

Based on this research, a state’s investment in broadening quality pre-K access to middle-income students is likely to pay off in higher skills and earnings for state residents. In addition, it may be easier to keep the quality high in pre-K programs that have a broad range of family income among students.  There is evidence of positive peer effects in preschool, which may help low-income students be more successful in a pre-K program that includes middle-class students.

Therefore, it seems strange for state policymakers to be discussing, as reported by Gongwer, the possibility of further targeting GSRP to low-income students. Such increased targeting would make GSRP more like Head Start, reducing positive peer effects, and would not realize the possible gains for the state by improving the future labor supply of a broad range of state residents.

6. Keeping class size down, and keeping teacher quality up, helps improve benefit-cost ratios in programs such as GSRP.  

As reviewed in chapter 5 of my book Investing in Kids, the evidence suggests that reducing class size in preschool probably increases benefit cost ratios, at least if we’re considering class sizes in the range down to a class size of 15 students to 2 teachers.  Whether there are benefits beyond that point is uncertain.  GSRP as currently constituted has a maximum class size of 18, and by requiring a maximum 8 to 1 child to teacher ratio, has some incentives for keeping class size at 16 to 2, as adding an additional student requires adding another teacher.

Most successful preschool programs have had some teacher credential requirements, including the Perry Preschool Program, the Abecedarian program, the Chicago Child-Parent Center program, Tulsa’ preschool program, and most state-funded preschool programs. GSRP’s requirements for most programs it funds are not unusual in requiring lead teachers to be certified teachers with an early childhood endorsement.

The role of teacher credentials in preschool quality is contested. Some studies suggest that higher educational credentials improve a preschool’s effectiveness, whereas other studies do not support this hypothesis (see chapter 5 of my book Investing in Kids for citations). What is generally agreed is that specific training and knowledge by teachers about early childhood education improves effectiveness. In addition, reducing teacher turnover among preschool teachers would be expected to increase preschool effectiveness.  This may mean that there is some interaction among teacher salaries and credentials and preschool effectiveness. If teacher salaries among preschool teachers are inadequate, increasing teacher credential requirements may actually be counterproductive, as it means that the credentialed preschool teachers will have other educational job options.  On the other hand, higher preschool teacher salaries may reduce turnover, and allow preschools to better compete for higher-quality teachers.

Even modest increases in teacher quality have huge payoffs.  It doesn’t take much of an increase in kindergarten readiness to increase the present value of predicted future earnings by a large amount. For example, suppose some teacher quality initiative in preschool results in kindergarten readiness increasing by one percentile in test score gains for the average student. This one percentage test score gain will increase the present value of earnings per student by about $1800. If we multiply this by a preschool class size of 15 students, the total increase in the present value of earnings for an entire preschool class is $27,000. It is worth seeing if some combination of education, training, and salary improvements might help achieve such classroom gains.

7. Expanding half-day preschool programs to full-day programs, or one-year preschool programs to two-year preschool programs, probably have net benefits, but probably also reduce benefit-cost ratios somewhat (e.g., there are diminishing returns).  However, expanding half-day preschool programs to full-day programs also makes it easier for some families to access preschool programs, with the proportion of families in this situation varying across different local areas. Therefore, GSRP’s focus on one-year programs, with local flexibility on the mix of half-day versus full-day programs, probably makes sense.     

The research evidence suggests that full-day pre-K probably adds 60% to the benefits of half-day pre-K. Two-year pre-K (adding age 3 to an age 4 program) probably adds about 50% to the benefits of one year of pre-K at age 4. In both cases, net benefits are probably positive. But because benefits don’t come close to doubling, the benefit cost ratio of these program expansions is less than the ratio for a half-day, one-year preschool program. (For sources for these estimates, see chapter 5 of my book Investing in Kids).

In the case of full-day preschool, one advantage is that full-day programs are easier for many parents to access, as full-day preschool involves fewer complications in trying to arrange wraparound child care. Therefore, one additional benefit from full-day preschool is that a higher percentage of parents will voluntarily choose full-day programs, which will help improve child outcomes and the state economy if these preschool programs are high-quality.

It seems likely that the availability of wraparound services varies greatly across different local areas and even across different neighborhoods. Therefore, there is some rationale for providing a range of options across different local areas and within local areas, to meet the diversity of needs.

8. GSRP per student funding has steadily lost ground to inflation over the past 10 years.  The proposed increase to $3625 per half-day slot only makes up for a small part of this decline in real funding. This decline in real funding creates challenges in maintaining access and quality, and particularly threatens the ability of the program to fund quality private preschool programs.

From 1990-91 to 2003-04, GSRP generally received increased per student funding every 3 or 4 years, often a sizable enough amount to offset intervening inflation. Over this time period, in 2012-13 dollars, GSRP funding averaged $4300 per half-day slot. In 2012-13 dollars, GSRP funding per half-day slot has declined steadily every year since 2000-2001, when real funding per half-day slot in today’s dollars was $4378. The bump in nominal funding in 2007-08 from $3300 to $3400 didn’t even make up for inflation. The proposed increase in funding for 2013-14 to $3625 is the first GSRP increase to exceed inflation since 2000-01. However, even with this increase, real funding would be projected to stay well below the program’s typical funding per slot for most of its history.

One question that this raises is whether GSRP’s current funding is adequate to maintain quality. For K-12 districts, GSRP can be cross-subsidized from the district’s K-12 operating funds, and therefore the question is whether districts are able and willing to afford to provide such cross-subsidies.

For private preschool providers, in most cases such cross-subsidies are infeasible. Therefore, the issue is whether private preschool providers can provide quality preschool services at the provided per child amount. This issue is more acute because the proposed program expansion suggests requiring that 20% of all funds go to private providers. It may be possible for private preschool programs to find some quality teachers at relatively low salaries. It is more difficult to find many such quality teachers who are willing to work steadily at low salaries. Scaling is a big problem when you are doing things on the cheap.

Establishing a clear standard for what GSRP programs should receive in funding per child to ensure quality is difficult. Presumably there is not an abrupt cliff, but rather a range of quality levels that gradually change as funding gradually changes.  The Institute for Women’s Policy Research has provided a report that examines how costs of a pre-K program vary with various characteristics. Based on their report, for a half-day program that operates every day of one school year, and pays salaries competitive with what is paid to public school kindergarten teachers,  a program with similar adult to child ratios as GSRP would cost $5,121 in 2013-2014 projected prices, and $5,227 in 2014-15 projected prices. (This calculation uses data from Table 2 of IWPR’s report, “Meaningful Investments in Pre-K: Estimating the Per-Child Costs of Quality Programs”.  I used the average of class size ratios of 15 to 2 and 17 to 2 to reflect GSRP’s standard of an 8 to 1 child to teacher ratio. I used their Bachelor’s Degree I estimates.  I adjusted to future prices by assuming that future inflation would be the same as it has been from 2011 to 2012. )

The proposed GSRP funding of $3625 for a half-day slot for  2013-14 and 2014-15, up from $3400 today, is about 30% less than these figures from IWPR of over $5,000 for a half-day slot. IWPR’s estimate of over $5,000 is for a program that would operate 5 days a week for an entire school year.  GSRP has minimum standards of 4 days per week for 30 weeks. The lesser time would presumably reduce GSRP costs somewhat. But would it reduce these costs by 30%? That seems doubtful.  Even with a modest reduction in the length of the classroom program, GSRP still needs to pay annual salaries that would help attract and retain quality teachers who in many cases have options to teach in the K-12 system.

9. The proposal funds expanded GSRP out of the School Aid Fund.  Funding expanded GSRP out of reduced K-12 spending may offset roughly two-fifths of the positive educational and economic effects of expanded GSRP funding, although the exact offset depends upon assumptions about the productivity of K-12 spending. This funding source does not maximize the use of state educational resources to develop a better quality state labor force.

K-12 funding as well as pre-K funding can be productive in improving educational outcomes and future earnings.  The challenge is in determining what productivity assumptions for K-12 spending are reasonable, and can be tied to rigorous research.

In chapter 7 of my book Investing in Kids, I considered a scenario in which expanded early childhood programs were financed by reduced K-12 spending. I assumed that the K-12 spending had productivity effects similar to the effects of changes in class size in early elementary school. The advantage of this assumption is that we have reliable evidence, from the Tennessee Class-Size Study, of the short-run and long-run effects of class size changes in early elementary school. This is an educational intervention for which we know K-12 spending makes a difference, and in which expanded K-12 spending will have economic benefits that exceed costs.  But class size reduction is also a relatively expensive intervention. It is an intervention in which large changes in spending yield moderate changes in educational outcomes, and these moderate changes in educational outcomes cause significant changes in future earnings.

Based on this assumption, the negative effects of reducing K-12 spending would offset about 2/5ths of the positive effects of expanding preschool. While this reallocation boosts the overall efficiency of how we use educational resources, it is counter-productive if the goal is to maximize cost-effective ways of improving the overall quality of Michigan’s labor force.  

About timbartik

Tim Bartik is a senior economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, a non-profit and non-partisan research organization in Kalamazoo, Michigan. His research specializes in state and local economic development policies and local labor markets.
This entry was posted in Early childhood program design issues, Early childhood programs, Local variation in benefits. Bookmark the permalink.