How Local Early Childhood Initiatives Can Shape State Policy

By

Emmy Liss

and

Sarah Gilliland

This is the seventh blog in our series on the recently relaunched Early Care and Education (ECE) Implementation Working Group. For more information on the group's origin and activities, please see our first blog Implementation is Everything, and Early Care and Education is No Exception and a recent update Meet the Early Care and Education Implementation Working Group. For a deep dive into some of the findings from the initial working group cohort, see our briefs on Family Outreach, Centralized Enrollment, and Participatory Planning.

Harnessing Local Innovation

Though municipalities might like to operate independently and with minimal oversight, all local leaders work within a broader state context. Given the limited role of the federal government in most aspects of early childhood education, the state operating environment is critical to local program success. Policy decisions in state capitals may help-or hinder-the growth and success of local initiatives, and local leaders need to be able to work with state leadership and agency counterparts to advance the interests of the families and children they serve. The New Practice Lab has long focused on the ways that policy decisions at all levels of government make or break program implementation and influence the ways that families experience programs themselves. It is through this lens that we see how the implementation experience of program leaders can shape the next generation of policy choices-a view that is shared by members of the Early Care and Education Implementation Working Group who are delivering programs for young children every day.

Even before the ballots in the 2024 election were cast, Working Group members had voted to spend time discussing ways local leaders can influence state policymaking. In the wake of this year's election results for multiple levels of government, this conversation took on greater significance. First, given that major federal investment feels unlikely, state and local governments-already centers of innovation in early care and education-will likely continue to lead. Second, voters are hungry for more local public investment in early childhood; even in an election cycle dominated by economic concern, communities voted to raise their own taxes to fund more early learning. And third, however people voted in this election, the high cost of living and the inaccessibility of child care was a top issue, driving up the urgency that state and local leaders feel to address these issues in the near term.

In its November 2024 meeting, the ECE Implementation Working Group looked at how early learning policy contexts vary in states across the country, and explored examples of places where localities have effectively impacted state policymaking. In doing so, the group considered:

• How can the experiences of local policymakers influence state (and ultimately, federal) policy?
• What are some of the structures that local leaders can put in place to exert influence?
• How can we do more to share local experience with state policymakers and create true two-way communication channels?

How Early Learning Governance, Funding, and Policy Contexts Differ from State to State-and Why It Matters

There is a lot of confusion over federal, state, and local control of benefits and services-who runs them, and who pays for them-and early learning is no exception. Like many government programs, most public early learning programs are funded through a mix of federal, state, and local dollars. Federal early learning programs are fairly narrowly targeted though, and most services are administered and delivered by state or local agencies. The particulars vary from state to state, and there is a lot of complexity involved in interactions between federal, state, and local governments in delivering services to families. To set the table for the working group meeting read out, this section provides some background on the complexity of state early childhood governance and funding.

Governance: The Structure that Shapes State and Local Interactions, and Influences Family Experience

The Build Initiative describes "early childhood governance" as the ways that states create organizational structure and delegate decision making for program, policy, financing, and implementation for publicly funded early care and education for children from birth to age five. Early childhood governance differs tremendously from state to state - most states have one department that oversees child care (typically the social services department) and another that oversees preschool education (typically the education department). Some states have both of those functions report to the same larger department, whereas others have a single department that covers all aspects of early care and development, including home visiting, early intervention, child care, Head Start, and pre-K. There is no one 'best' model for state governance, but the structures matter to local leaders because they influence how localities work with their state counterparts.

In recent years, about a half-dozen states have created a unified department of early childhood or early learning that reports directly to the governor. Unified governance on its own doesn't necessarily signal anything, but in many states, it has come with a growing recognition of the importance of early care and education.

Unified governance on its own doesn't necessarily signal anything, but in many states, it has come with a growing recognition of the importance of early care and education.

Funding: The Fuel that Drives Increased Access

Over the last two decades, and across states with all types of governance structures, there has been tremendous growth in state pre-K funding and enrollment. From 2002 to 2022, the number of four year olds enrolled in state-funded pre-K more than doubled from 1.4 million to 3.1 million children. However, limited federal investment in preschool education outside of Head Start results in widely varying access to programs for young children and families across states. While a few states offer universal pre-K or have committed to it, there are still six states with no public preschool at all. Even in states with public pre-K, what that really looks like for families differs from one state to another.

Where state pre-K programs do exist, localities are often building on top of them to do more. This is the case for members of this working group, who have all dedicated additional local funding for early childhood education. This layering of funds occurs for a few reasons:

• a local match may be required to receive any state funds or to maximize state funding;
• state funding per-child may be insufficient to deliver the program model local leaders want;
• total state funding may be insufficient to cover all children or funds may be limited to certain categories of eligible children;
• state funding may cover only some age groups, while local funding fills the gap by covering additional children

Many states invest funds in early care and education beyond just pre-K, including expansions to state-run child care subsidy programs. These investments grew particularly during the height of COVID-19, bolstered in part by pandemic relief funds. Congress granted more than $52 billion to states to use on child care. Many states invested additional funds for child care on top of that dedicated allocation by leveraging other federal relief dollars and funds from within the state budget. Collectively, these funds reached more than 80 percent of licensed child care providers in the U.S. and impacted both access and quality, benefiting approximately 9.6 million children. Many states and localities are now grappling with how to fill these gaps after the expiration of this historic investment.

Policy: Where Governance and Funding Converge to Influence Programmatic Decisions

When federal funding is used to support state or locally run programs, federal rules for eligibility and delivery prevail, but states can and do work around them by adding more restrictive requirements (generally to focus benefits and services to households with very low incomes) or creating additional flexibilities to include more families (generally achieved by putting their own funds on the table). States have some discretion within federal guidance and take a variety of approaches to their interpretation of federal statute.

Localities may build on state policy, too, adding additional requirements for licensing or quality, or providing access beyond what a state mandates (i.e., number of hours of programming, which children are included). Some local early childhood programs are really distinct from the state pre-K initiative, whereas others are much more tightly tied together. This often depends on the nature of state oversight and the governance structures in place.

How State Differences Shape Local Early Care Delivery

Localities and states have a variety of different dynamics when it comes to early childhood initiatives. In some states, early childhood investments are nominal or nonexistent, but localities are driving work forward anyway. Massachusetts' state pre-K program has one of the lowest per-child funding rates in the country, but Boston has been running a very robust full-scale preschool program for multiple decades. In some states, localities are going further, faster, on early childhood education than their state governments. For example, New York City has universal pre-K for all 4-year-olds and most 3-year-olds; New York State has a universal pre-K policy, but less than 50 percent of the state's 4-year-olds outside of New York City participate. In some states, local programs led the way, but now state policy is catching up. For example, Denver's universal preschool program predates the statewide program by about 15 years. And in some other states, the local investment and focus is complementary to the state program. New Orleans' local funding provides care for infants and toddlers primarily, while state investments support pre-K for 4-year-olds.

How Local Leaders Can Influence State Policy

Across all dynamics, local leaders find themselves at times in the dual position of policymaker and advocate, pushing for specific policies at the state level while doing the work locally. This may be out of necessity-there is a limit to what localities can do on their own and at times, state policy may actually hamper local progress-and it often requires delicate coordination. This advocacy work can also be in service of a broader goal, as local programs can serve as a testing group and an inspiration for broader state policy. For local leaders, there are many reasons to try and influence state policy-both in the interest of program preservation for localities and in the interest of greater good.

Given the variation in state context, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, the lessons learned from localities that have successfully moved state policy over decades-and the lessons in progress from localities actively pushing for change-can be applied across a variety of contexts. Some lessons from the working group discussion that resonated in particular:

Recognize that the state cannot make policy based on the needs of one city.

To make the case for statewide policy, local leaders may need to demonstrate the relevance of policies to a diverse set of communities. In most state legislatures, where representatives from rural communities far outnumber urban leaders, just speaking to the needs of the state's biggest city is unlikely to build support. Being able to point to examples of practice from a diverse set of communities will be more meaningful. Additionally, there may be gaps in some communities that need to be met before there is appetite for more innovative policy. For example, Denver had been operating a full-day preschool program for over a decade, while other parts of Colorado did not yet have universal kindergarten. As a matter of equity, the Governor had to bolster kindergarten access statewide before putting new funds into preschool education as some local advocates were calling for.

On the other hand, there may be cases where it is worth advocating not necessarily for the state to make statewide policy based on one city, but to call for policy exceptions for large cities or specific regions that have different operational needs. In New York, the state directly oversees licensing for all center-based child care providers statewide-except in New York City, where that responsibility falls to the city's health department. There are numerous education and child care regulations in New York that apply only to the state's largest municipality, and the five largest school districts in the state can draw down on different funding sources than smaller communities to bolster their pre-K spending.

Build coalitions across localities to leverage collective strength.

To demonstrate statewide relevance of early childhood policies, and to build strength in numbers, many cities and counties have found success in banding together. In Texas, representatives from six cities across the state with a strong investment in early childhood have come together to form Early Matters Texas, a coalition working together for statewide change. This grew from locally advocacy work in Dallas that has since radiated outward, especially as local leaders look for more diverse proof-points they can point policymakers to. Together, the group represents over 40 percent of children under five in the state.

Similarly, in Ohio, seven locally-funded preschool initiatives meet together to share ideas for advocacy and influence. The group has been vocal in trying to influence the state's work on measuring quality in early care settings.

Develop personal relationships that can transcend politics.

When city and state leaders meet to discuss policy, there can be plenty of reasons for disagreement - but what matters is that leaders can come to the table together. The world of early childhood education can be very small, and it is likely that any local leader is just a connection or two removed from their state counterpart. Investing in building personal relationships so that the state regulator is just a phone call away can be meaningful in the long term. Political leaders-and their priorities-may come and go, but the civil servants within government can be a source of stability and expertise.

Bring in new champions to amplify the message.

As the ECE Working Group has discussed previously, there can be many reasons for elected officials to support early learning. In states where the state legislature has shown more resistance to investments in early learning for the sake of child development alone, local leaders have seen greater receptivity when business leaders come to the state capital alongside early childhood initiative leaders. Leaders in San Antonio credited the business community as a powerful voice that led to the 2012 passage of a local tax to fund the Pre-K 4 SA program. Cross-sector collaboration has been instrumental to the growth of Pre-K 4 SA, and that broad coalition is now standing with San Antonio's early childhood leaders as they bring their issues forward to the state.

Local leaders in many jurisdictions have also found common cause with parents and advocates in pushing for state policies that will better support local service delivery - an added incentive for local leaders to meaningfully engage community members in their planning work.

Celebrate the shared victories.

Good work at the state and local levels can be mutually and beneficially reinforcing, and not all policy matters need to be adversarial. When state and local leaders can stand together, it can help build public confidence in the investments that the government is making in early care and education, and in the effectiveness of government overall. Local leaders in the ECE Implementation Working Group talked about finding moments to celebrate policy victories with their state counterparts-and also about standing with them in the face of criticism or pushback, and the ways in which that strengthened collaboration. Mayors, governors, county and city executives, and state and local early childhood agency and program leaders can all show up for children, and championing each other's work and shared wins matters. Particularly when the goal is to inspire bigger changes and more meaningful support at the federal level, state and local partnership can go a long way.

About the ECE Implementation Working Group

The ECE Implementation Working Group is a group of early childhood education leaders from cities and counties across the country. These leaders gather to share best practices from their experience working with families and local communities, and their work aligns with the New Practice Lab's theory of change: that implementation lessons should inform policy design from the start. More information about the Working Group can be found here. You can reach out to us with questions about the group and its work at [email protected].