investinginkids

My local newspaper, the Kalamazoo Gazette, recently had an interesting interview with the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, Jase Bolger. According to reporter Julie Mack,

[Speaker Bolger] also expressed reluctance about spending more tax dollars on social programs for early childhood. He acknowledged the research that shows the value of early intervention services, but also he sees it as an area where government programs intrude on the role of the private and nonprofit sectors.

”It’s a very difficult balance,” he said. “Kids go hungry, so schools start feeding them. Kids get in trouble after school, so there’s after-school  [programs]. Parents don’t read to kids at home, so we give reading help at school. Parents don’t get kids ready for kindergarten, so we need preschool.”

”We turn to schools to do the things that parents aren’t doing” and it builds an expectation in parents that it’s really the schools’ responsibility, Bolger said. “It’s an unintended consequence of government doing too much.”

The print version of the article stopped there. The online version added one more crucial sentence:

This doesn’t mean that the state won’t expand early childhood programs, he added, “but my point is we need to be very careful.”

I think Speaker Bolger reflects an uneasiness that is common among some policymakers. Is government interfering too much when it engages in early childhood programs? Will government programs discourage parents from fulfilling their responsibilities?

What can be said in response to such uneasiness?

First, there is no evidence that publicly supported early childhood programs lead to poorer parenting. In fact, many early childhood programs seek to improve parenting. Good preschool programs seek to encourage parent involvement in their child’s education. Good home visitation programs, such as the Nurse Family Partnership program, center their program on empowering parents.

Second, much of what early childhood programs do involve activities that are difficult for parents to do completely on their own. For example, some of the social skills developed in preschool are difficult to develop outside of an organized group setting.  That is why private preschool enrollment rates are so high among families with over $100,000 in income.

Third, as with any additional program, it is always possible that a new program will substitute to some degree for what is already going on. For example, a free, universally accessible preschool program may attract some parents who otherwise would have paid to enroll their child in a private preschool. However, many middle class and working class parents cannot afford the high cost of high-quality preschool. Preschool programs with broad eligibility also allow integration of different income groups, which may help develop adults who can work with diverse groups.

Fourth,  the estimates of the high benefit to cost ratio for high-quality early childhood programs already account for whatever the programs’ effects are on parental and private activities. For example, the various studies on how state-supported pre-K programs affect kindergarten readiness already account for any possible effects on reducing enrollment in other pre-K programs.  The state pre-K program is being compared with whatever child care and preschool options parents use on their own if their child is too young to get into the state program.

Fifth, publicly-supported early childhood programs can be structured to encourage more parental and private sector responsibility. For example, state support can go to quality private pre-K programs as well as programs run by public schools. Parents with sufficient income can be asked to pay tuition on a sliding scale.

Sixth, I certainly agree that we should be careful in adopting any policy towards early childhood programs. Part of that policy should be to ensure accountability for results. We can design early childhood programs so that we regularly collect data on outcomes. In that way, the public can be assured that their funding is actually improving our society and economy. In addition, accountability encourages programs to be improved in their performance over time.

While we should be careful in adopting early childhood programs, there are also costs in doing nothing. Doing nothing means that we are not adopting programs that are known to improve the outcomes of former child participants as adults, that are known to have short-run and long-run positive effects in creating more and better jobs, and that are known to reduce crime. Every year in which we avoid action means another cohort of children without needed early childhood services. We know that the lack of such services will have a cost for both those families and for the broader society and overall local economy.

Steve Barnett and Jason Hustedt have a new issue brief for the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), on financing early learning programs.  This issue brief analyzes many aspects of the financing of early learning programs. But I want to focus here on one key question:  what financing arrangements are most likely to provide sustained adequate support for high-quality early childhood programs?

Based on this issue brief, and my own reading of the evidence, funding for early childhood programs is most likely to be sustained at an adequate level if it is based on a formula that automatically provides so much per child eligible for a particular type of program. In other words, early childhood funding is more sustainable if the funding is part of an “entitlement” program.

For example, as Barnett and Hustedt discuss, Oklahoma has had sustained high levels of funding for pre-k for four-year olds. Oklahoma is the state that is closest to true universal access, with 71% of all four-year –olds in the state-funded pre-k program. With other four-year-olds in Head Start or private preschool, Oklahoma essentially has almost all four-year olds with access to high-quality preschool.  Oklahoma’s sustained high funding is in part due to pre-k funding being part of the state school funding formula.  School districts receive funding from the state of Oklahoma in part based on the number of four-year-olds enrolled in pre-k.

Under entitlement funding for early childhood programs, funding automatically grows as more children meeting eligibility requirements are enrolled.  Therefore, local programs can better respond to population growth or local needs.

Of course, even under “entitlement” programs, state legislatures can always change program eligibility rules or the funding amount per child. But the funding formula frames the political debate about early childhood programs in a way that is advantageous for early childhood programs. The formula endorses the belief that children in a certain eligibility category need this service, and need so much per child for an adequate quality service.  Cuts to eligibility requirements or funding per child can be more readily challenged as denying adequate services to a group that needs this service.

In contrast, if early childhood funding is provided through grants from a fixed size program, it is easier to cut the program without being accused of sacrificing needed services.  If the state legislature is providing $x for the program, with no explicit ties to children’s needs, then the grant amount seems arbitrary and easier to cut.

The advantages of entitlement financing is likely to not only be true for pre-k programs but for other early childhood programs. Even if an early childhood program is targeted at the disadvantaged, it is possible to finance it through an entitlement program that provides a funding amount per child (or family) for children meeting eligibility requirements who are provided with the specified service.

Setting up new entitlement programs is not easy. Policymakers are aware that entitlement programs are harder to cut, and easier to expand over time. Setting up a new entitlement program may require decisively winning the political debate over whether certain children need a particular service. Alternatively, it is possible to start with a funding formula that is of modest cost, but then over time expand the size and scope of the formula to cover additional children or a larger share of program costs.

If we believe that research shows that most or many children in a group will need a particular early childhood program service, then it makes sense to finance this program via an entitlement program with a formula that guarantees funding.  The funding structure of the program then matches the program’s rationale. In contrast, a fixed dollar allocation for a program implies that the program is a nice program, but is not really needed for most children meeting eligibility standards. Entitlement financing is more consistent with expanding programs so that they have the size and scope needed to have community-wide impact.