Home Early childhood case short Answer

Early childhood case short Answer

This Competency includes a Short-Answer Response Assessment. Write your response to each prompt below—in the space provided. Beneath the prompts is the Rubric, which will be used by the Competency Assessor to evaluate your responses. Carefully review the Rubric rows associated with each prompt to provide a complete response.

When writing your response, begin typing where it reads “Enter Your Response Here.” Write as much as needed to satisfy the requirements of the prompt. y

Guided Notes

Overview of Potential Funding Sources

Improving Public Financing for Early Childhood Programs

The following provides an overview of different funding streams for early childhood programs:

Head Start services are administered through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The funding source is a federal grant provided to local grantees. Services provided through this grant include comprehensive child development programming for children who are low income and their families. Funding is available for families with incomes at 100% of the poverty line or 130%, if all families at 100% of the poverty line are served. Children ages 3–5 are served within Head Start, while services of children birth to age 3 are provided within Early Head Start.

Child Care Subsidies, including the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), are administered through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This is a federal funding stream which requires state matching. The purpose of these dollars is to provide childcare assistance to families who are low income. Funding is available to working families who have incomes up to 80% of the state median income or who have been identified as needy, according to the state. Children between the ages of birth and 13 can qualify.

Child Care Tax Credits, provided through federal dollars and 28 State Treasury Departments, represent credits for childcare expenditures against federal and state income taxes. The primary result is a reduction in families’ childcare expenses. The families of children who are between the ages of birth and 13 can qualify; credits are based on income level.

Title 1 Preschool is funded through the U.S. Department of Education. These federal funds provide educational services for children who are disadvantaged. Funding is provided to schools where 40% of children are at the poverty level or who have been identified as academically at risk or are in schools where lower percentages of children are at the poverty level.

Early Childhood Special Education is funded through the U.S. Department of Education. These dollars are provided through federal, state, and local funds. Dollars are used to provide special education services for qualified preschool-aged children who have been identified as having disabilities or, at the state’s discretion, developmental delays.

State Pre-K is funded through the State Department of Education within 29 states and jointly administered within 11 states. Funds are usually provided from the state with some federal funding. Services are provided to qualifying children, and some health and social services may be provided. Generally, states provide services to children who are identified as being at risk. This is often based on family income.

Adapted from: Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2011). Improving public financing for early learning programs (Policy Brief Issue 23). Retrieved from

http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/24

FFuunnddrraaiissiinngg BBaassiiccss ffoorr PPrriivvaattee SScchhooooll FFaacciilliittiieess

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
at the National Institute of Building Sciences

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4905 888-552-0624 www.ncef.org
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education ©2009, National Institute of Building Sciences

Arthur H. Roach
Fundraising Consultant
2009

There is one problem many private schools are happy to
face: coping with growth. When the size of the student
body is increasing and the waiting list for enrollment
grows longer, a school may assume that it is
accomplishing its mission and educational goals. For
private schools, a full complement of tuition and fees
permits operating and program costs to be covered.

Schools usually accommodate growth with new
buildings or with renovated facilities adapted to support
instructional needs. This may require a construction loan
from a bank, an encumbrance not usually funded by an
institution’s annual operating budget. A construction loan
may be reduced or may be unnecessary if fund raising
generates enough capital to cover the costs of the
project before building begins. Or, a major portion of the
loan may be repaid later through funds given to the
school as charitable contributions.

Individuals, corporations and foundations in the United
States contributed more than $295 billion to nonprofits in
2006. This figure includes contributions to all non-profit
corporations holding IRS 501(c)(3) status, such as arts
organizations, healthcare and social service agencies,
churches and church-related institutions, as well as
schools and libraries. Foundation grants account for
$36.5 billion, or only about 12 percent of this 2006 total.
Corporate contributions were even less at $12.7 billion,
or approximately four percent. Gifts from individuals
(including bequests), at $246 billion, accounted for 84
percent of all charitable giving.

The term contributed income is important. It is a gift. The
donor does not buy a magazine subscription, a program
ad or a candy bar. According to the official language of
the IRS, the donor has received neither goods nor
services in consideration for the gift. The donor does,
however, receive a thank you, an acknowledgment, and
the option to reduce taxable income by itemizing
deductions on IRS Form 1040 Schedule A.

Most K-12 institutions seeking tax-deductible
contributions are private or church-related schools that
have obtained nonprofit incorporation within their state
and have been designated a 501(c)(3) organization by
the IRS. As such, they have articles of incorporation,
bylaws, and independent, deliberative—not advisory—
boards of directors with fiduciary responsibility.

• Some schools are wholly owned and operated by a

church. If the church is part of a denomination that
predates the IRS, it might not need 501(c)(3) status
in order to receive tax-deductible contributions.
Contributions to an unincorporated church school
are actually designated gifts to the sponsoring
church. These schools will encounter foundations
and corporations whose guidelines do not permit
contributions to churches.

• Tax-deductible gifts may be made to public schools.
Fund raising in public schools is usually associated
with projects that, for example, provide new band
uniforms or bleachers. As individual donors,
Americans expect their taxes to cover costs related
to public school buildings, so they are
unaccustomed to being asked for charitable financial
support to build or renovate schools.

• Public schools considering a campaign to fund
capital projects with contributed income should
identify a fundraising consultant who has specific
experience in this highly specialized area.

Raising money for new or renovated facilities is called a
capital campaign. In addition to funding the project that
motivated it, a successful capital campaign

• builds and refines a school’s development program

for the foreseeable future;
• builds visible volunteer leadership that should

continue to support the institution as well as build
the school’s credibility in the philanthropic sector;
and

• stretches, redefines, and expands the level of
contributed income a school should expect to
receive after the campaign is completed.

2 Fundraising Basics for Private School Facilities

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
at the National Institute of Building Sciences

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4905 888-552-0624 www.ncef.org
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education ©2009, National Institute of Building Sciences

Setting up a Comprehensive
Development Program

Obtain fundraising software (e.g., Blackbaud’s The
Raiser’s Edge, www.blackbaud.com or DonorPerfect,
www.donorperfect.com) or subscribe to one of the web-
based programs (e.g., www.etapestry.com ). These are
more than glorified address books. They anticipate the
way you will want to record and report donor and
potential donor information. You will accurately record
gifts and pledges, as well as generate
acknowledgements and payments. A good software
program greatly enhances the efficiency of the persons
assigned with fundraising responsibilities, provided they
receive good training in its use. Such a program has the
effect of adding staff without the expense.

Invest in the staff time to record data and build
donor profiles. In addition to names and addresses,
information like preferred salutations, relationship to the
school (e.g., board member, parent, past parent, alumni
and class year, vendor, area business, friend), and
contribution history will help you build a strategy for
identifying and contacting donors to a capital campaign.
Knowing their college, graduate school, profession, and
interests will assist in making connections with other
constituents. Having complete, accurate, and accessible
data is critical for developing solicitation strategies.
There is no such thing as “too much information.”

Implement all components of a comprehensive
development program.

• Annual fund. Begin asking people for money now,

regularly, twice a year. Simply ask for unrestricted
gifts to your school; but not for your capital
campaign—not yet.
An annual fund builds the donor database and
acquaints people with the idea of giving to and being
thanked for their contributions to your school.
Regularly asking for money keeps you focused on
the reasons you are seeking financial support
through contributions. You become accustomed to
describing your needs; that is, composing a case for
support. You may choose to target alumni, parents,
and friends differently. Whatever your plan, an
annual fund builds donor relations and donor giving
histories—an important first step in preparing for the
major gifts needed in a capital campaign.

• Major gifts. The Board of Directors should always
have a standing committee devoted to identifying,

cultivating, and ultimately soliciting contributions
from persons capable of making major gifts. The
board must define the term “major gift” within the
school’s context and needs. It might be $10,000 (or
less) or $100,000 (or more).
If a capital campaign is anticipated within two or
three years, delay asking for an assured major gift
until it can be incorporated into the campaign either
as an “advance” or “leadership” gift. Part of
cultivating donors might include keeping them
abreast of campaign plans and the important role
they will play as leadership donors. When the
campaign is completed, your school will have
experience in developing relationships with major
donors. There will always be a need for major gifts.

• Deferred or planned giving. Another standing
committee of the Board of Directors should be
assigned the task of encouraging deferred or
planned gifts, such as bequests and annuities.
Creating a “society” that recognizes planned giving
donors can be an effective tool to promote these
gifts. An official from the bank where your school
has its accounts may be willing to sit on your board
and assign a staff member to preside over that
committee. While the bank officer can oversee the
technical considerations, someone else may
assume responsibility for a proactive stance towards
deferred gifts.
An active and visible development program for
deferred gifts adds to the credibility and long-range
context for a capital campaign.

• Special event. Identify and establish a special
annual fundraising event. In addition to the amount
of money that is to be raised, be clear about other
goals, such as good publicity and public relations.
Be aware that a large percentage of the ticket
price for special events may not be tax deductible,
and much of the other money collected at a special
event is “earned income” from sales (not tax
deductible) rather than “contributed income.” The
IRS expects vigilant oversight of this. If someone
buys a ticket and receives a meal, the value of the
meal must be indicated. If your special event is a
silent or live auction and an attendee successfully
bids on a pair of opera tickets, you may not indicate
a charitable contribution up to the value of the
tickets.
The value of the special event to your future
capital campaign includes identifying volunteer
leaders and workers, adding names of school
friends to the database, and recording amounts of

Fundraising Basics for Private School Facilities 3

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities
at the National Institute of Building Sciences
1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4905 888-552-0624 www.ncef.org
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education ©2009, National Institute of Building Sciences

money transacted by attendees at the special event.

• Foundation Grants. Identify a volunteer who enjoys

on-line research. The Foundation Center
(www.fdncenter.org) has branches in several cities
and their on-site resources are free. Except for the
most basic information, however, the search function
here and at www.guidestar.org has a subscription
fee. If you spot foundations or corporations in the
Chronicle of Philanthropy or other news outlets, see
if their annual report is available on-line. If so, study
it carefully. Do you recognize the names of any of
the foundation’s board members? Are you
absolutely sure that your project matches every item
in the giving guidelines? Be aware that foundations
and corporations are much more likely to fund
educational activities than capital campaigns.

• Read the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Published
every two weeks, the Chronicle
(http://philanthropy.com) is the newspaper of record
for the non-profit world. By reading it you will
become familiar with the fundraising universe, learn
about the most up-to-date topics being addressed in
the philanthropic sector, discover how professionals
and volunteers in schools and other organizations
are accomplishing what you wish to do, and develop
ideas for planning and implementing your own
capital campaign.

• Budget now for future capital campaign costs.
Your fundraising counsel will work for a negotiated,
fixed fee. Professionals do not collect a percentage
of the money raised. The amount, method, and
schedule of payment to the consultant will be
determined in a letter of agreement. The
professional fee should be in hand before you
proceed with counsel.

Planning a Capital Campaign

Engage fundraising counsel. Do not undertake a
capital campaign alone! The size of your campaign will
indicate whether you need full-time or part-time, on-site
counsel or an aggressive, external consultant who
oversees staff, volunteers, and development of materials
and procedures.

• Talk to other schools that have conducted

capital campaigns. If they were happy with their
consultants, get the names and contact them.
Contact the national office or the local chapter of the
Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) for

names of consultants with experience in K-12 capital
campaigns (www.afpnet.org). The Association of
Philanthropic Counsel (www.apcinc.org), which
carefully screens independent fundraising
consultants and “small shops,” may also be helpful.

• Consider different kinds of consultants. Large
firms, small firms, and independent, self-employed
consultants will each bring different strengths to the
task.

• A good consultant will interview you and a few
of your colleagues at the first meeting.
Consultants need a great deal of information before
proposing a plan for a capital campaign. It will be
helpful if you have taken the steps described in
“Setting Up a Comprehensive Development
Program,” above, before meeting with a consultant.
If the consultant arrives and, instead of asking
questions, immediately tells you how he or she will
raise money, politely move on to the next candidate.

• At a second meeting, the consultant will outline
a plan, including a projected timetable, for
conducting your capital campaign. How the firm
or the individual consultant will staff the campaign
should be described. The fixed fees and projected
expenses are presented at this time.

• If you are meeting with a large consulting firm’s
sales team, insist on meeting the consultant who
would be assigned to your campaign. If you
proceed to contract with a firm, specify the
designated consultant in the letter of agreement and
retain the right to approve any change in personnel
and the right to terminate the contract if the firm
changes its personnel assigned to your campaign.

• In addition to considering skill and experience,
you have one more important consideration—do
you like and trust this consultant?

Draft or assemble the following materials.

• Temporary case statement. This short document

summarizes why you are undertaking a capital
campaign, what the effects will be, and why donors
should contribute.

• List of needs. This summary of the projected costs
of the project helps potential donors understand how
the financial goal was set.

• Architect’s rendering. A rendering of the proposed
structure or a before-and-after drawing of the

4 Fundraising Basics for Private School Facilities

renovation will help inspire donor confidence that
this is a “real” project.

• Potential campaign volunteer leaders. A basic
fundraising axiom is “People give to people.” Recruit
prominent volunteer leaders who will make
contributions and then ask other people to contribute
to your campaign.

• Potential campaign donors. Do you have a
preliminary and reasonable idea of who will
contribute the leadership gifts needed to reach your
campaign goal? This list may include corporations
and foundations.

Conduct a feasibility or planning study. An assured
formula for failure is simply to begin asking for money
with no strategy or plan for attracting major gifts at the
beginning. If you simply “pass the hat” or “go fishing for
dollars,” you will not reach your fundraising goal.

A feasibility or planning study is the tool for developing a
strategy to identify and solicit major donors and donors
at subsequent lower levels. Your consultant will develop
a gift chart of pyramid giving based on your campaign
goal and the number of potential donors. Your first 10
donors should contribute 40 percent of your goal.
Identifying campaign solicitors is another critical
component of the study. Your solicitors should be
credible, respected leaders who will contribute and then
ask others to make contributions.

The consultant’s strategy and plan should include results
of a number of confidential interviews that cover the
documents outlined in the previous section. The appeal
and credibility of the case statement, list of needs and
architect’s drawings are tested. Possible memorial gifts
might be proposed (e.g., the John Doe Memorial
Classroom for a gift of $100,000). The list of leaders and
donors is discussed for confidential opinions on their
capacity and inclination to give and for possible
expansion of the list. The confidential interview should
also include a discussion of the interviewee’s possible
level of financial support and interest in accepting a
leadership role in the campaign. When you compile a list
of study interviewees, the following types of persons
should be included:

• Sources of affluence. Persons perceived as

capable of making major gifts to your campaign if a
relationship is established and an effective case for
support is made.

• Sources of influence. Persons perceived as able to

influence the philanthropic behavior of other people.

• Sources of information. Persons with a great deal
of institutional and corporate memory, familiar with
relationships to the school, or attuned to the local
potential philanthropic profile of the local business
community, perhaps the executive director of the
local Chamber of Commerce.

• Sources of negativity. Persons who might already
think the project should not proceed or that it will not
succeed. A study interview can soften their feelings
or even convert them to supporting the campaign.

Develop a campaign strategy and plan based on the
results of the study. At the conclusion of the study, a
plan for campaign organization and a reasonable,
approximate timetable for the cultivation and solicitation
of leadership gifts should be in place. Promptly evaluate
and rate your first 10 potential donors with a goal of
raising 40 percent of your goal from them. Assign a
campaign leader to them and create a plan that
ultimately results in a meeting to ask for the gift.

Because the successes and failures of the first phase of
the campaign will be vital to developing a strategy and
plan for lower levels, beware of a campaign plan that is
too detailed after the first nine months or that otherwise
seems formulaic and inflexible.

Conducting a Capital Campaign

Expect a quiet but busy leadership gift phase.
Seeing gifts arrive makes you feel great, but stay
focused on the slow, albeit profitable, major gift activity
of the first phase. Each major gift solicitation is a mini-
campaign, with a painstakingly careful strategy and plan
for implementation. Do not move into lower levels of
solicitation until you have exhausted the potential major
gifts targeted in the first phase.

Do not give up on sequential, pyramid giving. If a
donor offers a gift that is smaller than the category within
which you are working, thank the donor and indicate that
you would like to return at a future date to discuss that
gift.

If an awareness of the campaign leads to the arrival of
unsolicited small gifts, acknowledge them quietly. Do not
publish donor lists. If a potential major donor sends a
small gift before you have met together, contact him or
her, express your gratitude, and request a meeting to
discuss the campaign. Perhaps the donor is unaware of
the level of gifts needed to have a successful campaign.

Fundraising Basics for Private School Facilities 5

Avoid anything that will divert donors to small gifts.
Well-intentioned campaign support can backfire.
Persons who are asked to purchase a memorial brick
costing $50 or a special event ticket at $100 are unlikely
to contribute at higher levels later in the campaign.
Conduct these collateral events late—when you are
celebrating the success of your leadership gift phase!
Know that you—and your consultant—will need to
be flexible.

• Consultants do not have crystal balls or magic

wands.

• Not everything learned in the study will be
completely accurate.

• A potential major donor may decide not to
contribute.

• An important campaign leader may move away.

• A large gift you were not expecting might show up.

Be prepared to go over goal. If you raise more money
in major gifts than you had planned for, do not reduce
your goal in lower categories. Remain aggressive and
goal-driven throughout every phase.

Say “thank you” a lot and take time to celebrate your
successes.

When staff, consultant, and volunteer leadership
have reached a consensus that every potential major
gift has been solicited, move to the next phase.

In summary, a capital campaign needs major gifts,
successfully solicited at the beginning of the campaign,
to be successful.

• Avoid the temptation to try to raise $2 million with
two million $1 gifts. Rather, let your strongest
supporters take leadership roles in making
contributions and asking for major contributions.

• Avoid a sales mentality for raising the money. Even
though “having a fund raiser” is commonly
understood to mean selling something, it really
means commerce, not contributed tax-deductible
income. Don’t sell. Rather, using your pyramid and
gift range table, ask for gifts.

• Avoid using campaign leaders who offer to lend their
name and nothing else. Rather, recruit leaders and
volunteers who are not overextended, who feel

passionately about the project, and who will commit
to working with you to achieve your campaign goal.

When you have demonstrated a credible need and
financial goal, engaged the services of a fundraising
professional at an appropriate level of involvement,
recruited committed volunteer leadership, and identified
potential major donors, you have the key ingredients for
achieving maximum fundraising success in your capital
campaign.

References

Brakeley, George A. Jr. 1997. “Major Gifts from Individuals.” In
The Nonprofit Handbook: Fund Raising, ed. James
M.Greenfield, 422-41. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kielstedt, Andrea 2004. Capital Campaigns: Strategies that
Work. Boston, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

______________. 1997. “Capital Fund Appeals.” In The
Nonprofit Handbook: Fund Raising, ed. James M. Greenfield,
442-74. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McCormick, Dan H., David G. Bauer, and Daryl E.Ferguson.
2000. Creating Foundations for American Schools.
Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Novom, Martin 2007. The Fundraising Feasibility Study. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Sternberg, David 2008. Fearless Fundraising for Nonprofit
Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Philanthropic
Support for Public Education in the Southwest Region.
Available at www.sedl.org.

Additional Information

A full array of fundraising topics and blogs may be found
at the website of the NonProfit Times, free online at
http://www.nptimes.com. The Chronicle of Philanthropy
frequently features articles on capital campaigns and
major gifts, online at http:// philanthropy.com.

See the NCEF resource list Private School Facilities
Fundraising at http://www.ncef.org.

Publication Notes

Reviewers: Bobbi Watt Geer, John-Joseph van
Haelewyn, and David M. Levite (original 2001 edition).
First published 2001; revised 2009.

N I E E R
Improving Public Financing
for Early Learning Programs
by W. Steven Barnett and Jason T. Hustedt

The care and education of young children in the United States is supported by nearly
$40 billion yearly from a variety of sources at the federal, state, and local levels. Even
so, about a quarter of 4-year-olds and half of 3-year-olds do not attend preschool, and
many of those who do attend receive only poor quality services. Some programs are
of such low quality that they actually harm child development. The nation’s

children

would greatly benefit from additional public funding for preschool programs. It also
matters how this funding is provided. How we fund early care and education varies
greatly from program to program, across states, and across levels of government.
Most funding sources exist independent of one another, in different departmental
jurisdictions and local, state, and federal governments each have their own
funding approaches. For these and other reasons,
the various streams of public funding are not
easily harmonized into a coordinated
system for financing early learning
programs. This brief reviews sources
and models of public financing of
early care and education and makes
recommendations for improving upon
what currently exists so as to remove
barriers to increasing program access
and quality.

What We Know:
• Public funding for early care and education reaches barely half of young children in poverty
at age 4 and the percentage aided is much less for children 3 and under. Children from
middle-income families receive even less public funding and those above the poverty line
but below the median income have the lowest rates of enrollment in public or private
programs.

• Different funding streams for early care and education evolved with different priorities.
Some emphasize providing low-cost child care so parents may work. Others emphasize
improving children’s learning and development including health and nutrition.

• At the federal level and in many states, funding streams for early childhood programs reside
in separate agencies, creating difficulties for cross-program coordination.

• The states’ role in funding early education grew rapidly over the last decade, but some of
their funding strategies are more susceptible to large cuts due to short-term political and
economic fluctuations than are those for K–12 education.

• Not only is access highly limited, but public funding strategies lead to wide variability in
who has access to high-quality early learning programs based on where children live and a
variety of eligibility criteria. In addition to the many children who are un-served, many
others are served by poor-quality programs.

• Child care subsidies and tax credits currently do little to improve the quality of early
learning programs and can even encourage the use of poor quality care.

April 2011, Issue 23

P
re

sc
h

o
o

lP
o

lic
y

B
ri

e
f

Policy Brief series edited by
Ellen C. Frede, Ph.D., and
W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D.

National Institute for
Early Education Research

www.nieer.org

What We Know: (continued)
• Recently, some federal initiatives have striven to improve coordination across the patchwork of early learning
policies while others that hold promise remain to be enacted.

• Increased public investment in early learning is a pro-growth strategy not inconsistent with greater fiscal restraint
generally. Although the recession and long-term financial difficulties may constrain overall spending growth,
providing adequate public funding for early education, which is modest relative to overall public spending, is
feasible providing any new investments are obtained by cutting wasteful public spending that does not generate
social benefits comparable to those from high-quality early care and education.

Policy Recommendations:
• Develop new and more reliable funding streams for early learning programs that increase the total amount of
public funding available and, at the very least, produce full coverage of disadvantaged children.

• Provide Head Start, child care, and education programs with regulatory relief to facilitate coordination and
collaboration across early care and education programs receiving federal and state funds. Allow states and Head
Start agencies to jointly apply for waivers based on Early Learning Council plans for systems integration and
improvement.

• Strengthen state Early Learning Councils by providing them with adequate staffing, authority, and longevity
through state statute.

• Fund federal early learning challenge grants to states for initiatives that support coordination and increase
program effectiveness.

• Conduct a public review of Head Start, state pre-K, and other policies to streamline regulations so that these
programs can work in a more coordinated and effective fashion at the state and community levels. Focus more on
performance and outcomes and less on monitoring compliance with detailed regulations

• Tie federal and state subsidies for child care to quality, perhaps using tiered payments linked to state Quality
Rating Systems. Replace tax credits with more direct subsidies or pay them in tiers linked to program quality.

• Measure the effectiveness of preschool special education spending, subjecting it to cost-effectiveness analysis.
Funding for preschool special education is substantial, but the needs are also great, and additional effort to ensure
effective use could have a high return.

• Increase the use of federal Title I funds for quality preschool programs by requiring school districts to spend these
funds on programs demonstrated to be effective.

• States that do not fund early education through their school funding formulas should work toward that goal or
develop other dedicated funding mechanisms that are more stable than annual discretionary appropriations from
general revenue.

• Early childhood finance reform should be pursued as part of a broader set of policies to increase collaboration and
coordination across agencies for children birth to 8 so as to improve program effectiveness.

[2]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

[3]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

A Patchwork of Funding Streams and Programs
Taxpayer-funded early care and education has grown dramatically in recent years, resulting in a
multiplicity of programs and funding streams at the federal, state, and local levels. Each has its own
mission, regulatory requirements, and constituency. Taken together, they form what has been called a
“patchwork quilt” or “non-system” of early care and education. They are seldom coordinated with each
other, the result being that opportunities to broadly raise program quality and access, work collaboratively
to gain efficiencies, and otherwise maximize the public’s investment are invariably lost. Meanwhile,
preschool providers face the increasingly daunting task of blending or “braiding” funds from various
sources to create their classrooms, dealing in the process with often-conflicting regulations. In this
section we provide an overview of funding streams and the programs they support as a foundation for
the next section that identifies policy problems.

Total federal spending on early childhood programs in 2008 was about $17 billion and it rose to an
estimated $19.5 billion in 2010 and $20 billion in 2011. This increase of about $3 billion over three years
was facilitated by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, which accounted for about
half of the increase.1 State and local spending amounted to at least another $17 billion in 2010 and 2011.
Our estimates of local spending on early childhood programs are incomplete, and how much more they
might add to spending is an important unknown. Conceivably, total public spending on early care and
education could approach $40 billion in 2011. Greater precision is not possible, as state and local spending
on early education including early intervention and special education are not carefully tracked at the
national level, as we discuss below. This amount is less than 1 percent of total government spending and
is far from sufficient to ensure that all children in poverty, much less all children, have access to quality
early care and education (as discussed in a later section). Whether even the current level of support will
be sustained is not entirely certain with proposals in Congress to roll back federal funding to pre-ARRA
levels and some states and localities debating future cuts.

This brief’s calls for increased funding and greater coordination of funding come against a backdrop of
the economic challenges occasioned by the “Great Recession,” making a review of current programs and
formulation of recommendations for reform especially timely. The states collectively account for the
greatest growth in early childhood education enrollment over the last decade, serving nearly 1.3 million
children (as of 2010) with relatively new programs, many of which have been shown to be effective.2

Given the financial difficulties many states face, it is reasonable to ask to what extent they can be expected
to continue on their trajectory of expansion. Federal programs, on the other hand, have been around
longer than many state programs. While they have not experienced the same growth curve as state
initiatives, they did receive a recent boost, and there is a large body of evaluative research on which to
base recommendations regarding federal programs. The federal budget faces its own difficulties, of course.
Table 3 offers a comparison of key features of federal, state and local programs.

[4]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Table 1. Federal Spending for Early Learning Programs (Children under 5)

* Includes additional American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for FY2010

** A significant portion of the increases from 2008 is due to ARRA funding ($1.4 billion of 2010 funding and $1.6 billion of
2011 funding).

*** Total assumes tax credits continuing at 2010 levels.

2008 2010 est. 2011 est.

Head Start
(excluding Early Head Start)

$6.2 billion $6.7 billion* $6.8 billion

Early Head Start $688 million $1.0 billion* $1.56 billion*

Child Care Subsidies $5.2 billion $5.7 billion* $5.7 billion*

Child Care Food Program $1.3 billion $1.4 billion $1.4 billion

Tax Credits
(CTCDC and DCAP) $2.2 billion $2.2 billion + $2.2 billion +

DOD Child Care $300 million $750 million $800 million +

Title I Preschool $400 million $500 million $550 million

Preschool Special Education
(IDEA Part B, Sect. 619)

$374 million $574 million* $373 million

Early Intervention for infants and
toddlers with disabilities
(IDEA Part C)

$436 million $632 million* $439 million

Home Visiting $0 $100 million $250 million

Total** $17.1 billion $19.5 billion $20.0 billion***

[5]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Table 2. State and Local Spending for Early Learning (Children under 5)

Note: State TANF transfers for child care subsidies are included in federal spending.

2008 2010 est. 2011 (Proposed)

State Pre-K Initiatives
(spending from all sources)

>$5.2 billion >$6.2 billion >$6.2 billion

State and local funding for preschool
special education

$6 billion >$6 billion >$6 billion

State Early Intervention $3 billion $3 billion $3 billion

State Child Care Subsidies $2.4 billion $2.2 billion $2.2 billion

Total >$16.6 billion >$17.2 billion >$17.2 billion

[6]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Table 3. Largest Public Early Learning Programs (Funding Streams)

Note: FPL is federal poverty level and SMI is state median income.

* Eligibility for early childhood programs can be defined in a variety of ways, including school/institution/community characteristics,
family characteristics, and individual child characteristics.

Program Administrative Agency Source of Funds Primary Service Eligibility Requirements

Head
Start

U.S. Department
of Health and

Human Services

Federal funds
distributed to
local grantees

Comprehensive
child development

program for
children and their

low-income families

Available to families with
incomes up to 100% FPL or
130% if all in 100% level are

served, children ages 3-5 (Head
Start) or 0-3 (Early Head Start)

Child Care
Subsidies
(Includes
CCDF and
TANF)

U.S. Department
of Health and
Human Services

Federal funds
with required
state matches

Child care assistance
for low-income

working families

Available to working families with
incomes up to 85% SMI (CCDF)
or who are needy as defined by
the state (TANF), children ages

0-13. State rules vary.

Child
Care Tax
Credits

Federal and 28
State Treasury
Departments

Credits for child
care expenditures

against federal
and state

income taxes

Reduction of
families’ child
care expenses

For families with expenditures
up to age 13, but CDCTC credit
amounts are based on income

levels. Most states tie their
credit to the federal credit.

Title I
Preschool

U.S. Department
of Education

Federal funds
Education services
for disadvantaged

children

All children in schools where
40% of children are in poverty,

or to academically at-risk children
in schools with lower percentages

of children in poverty

Early
Childhood
Special
Education

U.S. Department
of Education

Federal, state,
and local funds

Special education
services for children

Available to all preschool-age
children with identified

disabilities, or, at states’
discretion, developmental delays

State
Pre-K

State Departments of
Education for 29 states

and 11 states with
other agencies (may be

jointly administered)

State typically
with local and

sometimes
federal funds

Education programs
for qualifying

children, sometimes
with health and/or

social services

Most programs target at-risk
children, most often based

on family income. However, 13
states have only age eligibility.

Local
Programs

School districts
or other local

agencies

Determined at
the local level

Education programs
for qualifying
children

Determined at the local level,
often targeting at-risk children.

[7]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Head Start
The nation’s oldest large scale public preschool program, Head Start, dates back to the 1960s. Administered
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it serves preschoolers from low-income families
with a comprehensive child development approach that includes preschool education and health,
nutritional, and social services. Funding for Head Start programs goes directly from the federal
government to service providers who in turn must follow federally mandated program standards. Most
families must have an income below 100 percent of the federal poverty level in order to be eligible, but
programs deemed to have served all those eligible at the 100 percent of FPL can enroll children from
families earning up to 130 percent of FPL. In addition, up to 10 percent of the children enrolled need
not meet the income guidelines.

Total Head Start enrollment, including Early Head Start, has been about 875,000 children annually.3

ARRA funds were estimated to increase Early Head Start enrollment by more than 48,000 children in
2010. Programs vary in the number of hours of services provided per day with about half of children
enrolled receiving a full day of preschool five days a week. Numerous studies find that Head Start has
positive long-term impacts on child health and development, but the most rigorous study to date
indicates that Head Start needs improvement if it is to produce strong long-term gains.4 The Obama
administration has proposed dramatic changes to ensure that this happens.5

Direct Child Care Subsidies (CCDF and TANF)
Child care subsidies are another source of funding that can be used for preschool education. However,
since a primary motivation for child care subsidies is providing care for sufficient hours per day to
support working parents, education is often not a top priority. The federal government administers two
large child care funding streams through the Department of Health and Human Services: the Child Care
and Development Fund (CCDF) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). CCDF focuses
on working families who earn less than 85 percent of the median income in the state where they reside.
TANF serves needy families as they are defined at the state level.6

The passage of welfare reform in 1996 spurred a period of growth for CCDF and TANF but funding has
leveled off or, in the case of TANF money for child care, declined. CCDF spending has been about $5
billion a year and the amount of TANF funds spent on child care is about $3 billion per year.7 The ARRA
added $2 billion to CCDF over two years assuming it is all spent in 2010 and 2011.

There are few state reporting requirements for TANF. A little more than half of the children in CCDF
attend child care centers. Quality regulation is essentially left up to the states, many of which have weak
standards. About one quarter of children in CCDF are in the care of providers who are not required to
be licensed or regulated. Most funds are distributed through vouchers.8 Only six states set reimbursement
rates for child care at the federally recommended levels in 2010.9 Studies have raised concerns that
subsidized care can be of such low quality that it has little or no positive effects on learning and
development of children prior to kindergarten and might even have modest negative effects.10

Both CCDF and TANF require states to provide matching funds. Total federal spending on child care
subsidies was about $13 billion in 2007 and about 2.2 million children through age 13 were served.11

Slightly more than half of child care participants in CCDF were younger than age 5 as of 2007.12

[8]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Child Care Tax Credits
The Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
(CDCTC) are federal programs that enable parents to pay for child care and early education with pre-tax
earnings. The DCAP permits employees to pay for child care from an account in which they can annually
set aside up to $5,000 in pre-tax earnings. Neither federal income tax nor social security and Medicare
payroll taxes are paid on the money set aside in this manner. The CDCTC is a tax credit that reimburses
parents for a percentage of qualifying child care expenses of up to $3,000 per child for a maximum of two
children under age 13. The percentage starts at 35 percent (for incomes under $15,000) and falls by 1
percent for every additional $2,000 in income until it reaches 20 percent (for incomes over $43,000). The
maximum credit per child falls from $1,050 to $600 as income rises. The federal tax credit tends to be
accessed more at higher income levels because it is nonrefundable, and few low-income families have
federal income tax liabilities. Also, actual credits are lower than the limits would suggest because of the
limited tax liabilities of low-income families.

Relative to the costs of child care, tax credits provide modest assistance for most families, and they are
not linked to the quality of care purchased. In recent years, the average credit claimed was about $535 per
family.13 At best, the credits have minimal effects on the quality of child care purchased by middle-income
families. This makes the federal credits an inefficient approach to raising the quality of young children’s
early learning experiences. A recent California study indicates that policymakers should be concerned
about the poor quality of early learning programs purchased by parents with moderate to high incomes.14

Unless Congress acts, in 2011 the credit amounts will revert to the significantly lower 2001 levels.

Twenty-seven states (of 41 with a personal income tax) and the District of Columbia have a dependent
care tax credit or deduction. Most, but not all, of the state tax provisions provide less per child than the
federal credit. Some cities with income taxes also offer credits. In 13 states, the credits are refundable so
that even families with no income tax liability can claim the credit. Maine and Vermont have provisions
that provide higher credits for higher quality child care. One related policy that has been suggested to
increase the impact of tax credits on quality is to link tax credit amounts to the quality levels in state
Quality Rating Systems. Most states have these systems in place and those that don’t are in the process of
developing them.15

Title I
Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind)
provides funds that can be used to provide early childhood education so that disadvantaged children
have a greater opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. Administered by the U.S. Department of
Education, Title I funds through ESEA can be used to offer an extensive range of educational services to
children not only in grades K–12, but also from birth to age 5.16 Since these funds are available to most
school districts,17 they are a potentially important source of funds for districts interested in offering
preschool education. Districts have two potential options available.18 If at least 40 percent of district
children are in poverty, pre-K can be made available to all students regardless of their family income
level. Where fewer than 40 percent of children are in poverty, pre-K can be provided to students
identified as academically at-risk. Of course, there is nothing to prohibit such districts from funding
services for additional children not meeting the income eligibility requirement from other sources,
including parent fees.

Title I funds can be used to supplement existing programs such as state-funded pre-K and Head Start.
An additional $10 billion in Title I funding was made available through the ARRA.19

[9]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Early Childhood Special Education

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) provides federal funding for services to young children with
disabilities. IDEA, Part B provides states with funds for children with disabilities ages 3 to 5. Thus, the
program includes kindergarteners as well as preschoolers. Consistent with IDEA, every state guarantees a
free appropriate education to all children with disabilities ages 3 to 5. In fall 2009, 6 percent of 4-year-
olds and 4 percent of 3-year-olds were served nationwide.20 Many of these children also are served by
“regular” state-funded pre-K and Head Start. States vary considerably in the percentage of preschool
children receiving special education (from 3 percent to 14 percent of those ages 3 and 4), in part because
they have the discretion to serve children with developmental delays that fall short of constituting a
disability. However, federal financial support for preschool special education has not kept pace with
enrollment or inflation, and state and local governments have assumed a greater proportion of the total
cost over time. It is not known how much is spent on preschool special education by state and local
governments, as this has not been estimated in detail since 1999, but it could easily be $6 billion annually
today.21

IDEA, Part C provides states with funds to serve infants and toddlers (up to age 3) with developmental
delays or conditions that have a high risk of developmental delay. States also may choose to serve infants
and toddlers they judge to be “at risk” of a developmental delay if early intervention is not provided. All
states participate, but, as with Part B, definitions of the eligible population and the percentage of children
served differ among the states. In fall 2008, the percentage of children under age 3 served ranged from
less than 1.5 percent in the District of Columbia and Georgia to about 6.5 percent in Massachusetts and
Hawaii.22 For the nation as a whole, a little more than 2.5 percent of infants and toddlers received publicly
funded early intervention services. The services funded also vary by state, but they typically are quite
modest, delivering on average 1.5 hours per week of services in a home visit.23 Total spending on early
intervention likely exceeds $5 billion annually (the figures we rely on are over a decade old).24 The federal
government pays only about 10 percent of the cost through IDEA. However, the federal government also
pays through Medicaid and other programs and private insurance and parents also pay for some costs.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the state share is $5 billion. Our estimate of $3 billion for state expenditures
should be considered a “ballpark” figure, at best.

State-Funded Prekindergarten
In recent years, the states have been active in providing publicly funded preschool education. As of the
2009-2010 school year, all but 10 states provided some sort of program. Taken together, they are the
largest public investment in young children not connected to a federal program even though some state
programs are quite small. These initiatives take a variety of approaches and are funded, controlled, and
directed by state government.25 Providers of pre-K services follow state-specified standards and operate in
a variety of settings in addition to public schools. These include private child care providers, Head Start
centers, faith-based settings, and family child care providers. Most state programs target children who are
at risk of starting school behind and failing later. Family income is the most common criterion for
eligibility but many other criteria are used as well. All state pre-K programs are voluntary.

Across the nation, 27 percent of 4-year-olds (more than 1.1 million children) were enrolled by state pre-K
as of the 2009-2010 school year. Only 4 percent of 3-year-olds (about 170,000 children) were enrolled.26

In the vast majority of states, pre-K is primarily or entirely a program for children one year before
kindergarten. State spending on pre-K initiatives totaled over $5 billion for the country in fiscal year
2009. Local school funding added at least another $500 million, possibly much more.27

[10]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

The coverage of state pre-K programs varies greatly from state to state. A number of states have
committed to serving all children at age 4. Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, and
West Virginia have programs designed to serve all 4-year-olds now or at some time in the future.28 Not
all of these states currently enroll a high percentage of children at age 4. Some states that have not
committed to serve all children at age 4 nevertheless serve larger percentages of the population than
some states that have made universal access a policy goal. Illinois is the only state committed to serving
all children at ages 3 and 4. A few other states serve significant percentages of their populations at age 3.
On the other end of the spectrum are 10 predominantly rural states that did not fund any pre-K
programs as of 2010.29

State pre-K programs also vary widely in their funding per child and standards.30 As a result, effectiveness
is likely to be very different from one state to another. Several studies indicate that many state pre-K
programs have positive effects on learning and development, sometimes quite large.31 A number of state
programs appear to produce larger learning gains than Head Start and much larger gains than subsidized
child care.32

Local Pre-K Initiatives
Local districts often provide pre-K in the public schools or fund private providers to serve preschoolers.
They may partner with Head Start and/or use federal Title I funds to fund their programs (most often
in the schools). A well-known example of local use of Title 1 funds for preschool education is for the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Another example is provided by Montgomery County, Maryland, which
has used Title I money to extend Head Start programs to a full day.33 Some communities also choose to
serve typically developing children in their pre-K special education programs where they can be added to
small special education classes at little marginal cost.

Even when states fund pre-K, local schools often provide funds as well. (In this respect, state pre-K
resembles the way the K–12 finance system works—but since pre-K is, historically speaking, a more
recent development, it is not included in the school funding formula in most states.) State-funded pre-K
in 11 states requires local districts to also contribute funds. Many other state pre-K programs implicitly
rely on matching funds even though local matches are not statutorily required.34 Disparities between
public school and privately operated programs can be created when local schools supplement state
funding (either explicitly or by absorbing facilities, administration, and other costs not directly charged
to the preschool budget) in ways that private providers receiving state funds cannot. In 2009, 14 states
reported local spending for state-funded pre-K of about $450 million. Maryland and Oklahoma reported
over $100 million in local school spending annually. As the other 26 states with programs did not collect
this information, the total could be much higher across all states. In some states, a local match is required
by the state’s school funding formula, but funding of pre-K through the school funding system is likely to
lead to substantial local spending even if there is no required local share.

Some local pre-K initiatives across the nation use public funds and do not depend on state or federal
initiatives. They range in size from single classrooms to citywide initiatives. Local spending decisions
should not be underestimated as an important component of the financing picture for pre-K programs.
Local public school programs, including those in states that fund little or nothing in the way of pre-K, are
perhaps the most important in the aggregate. Counties and municipalities also sometimes contribute to
pre-K. Many First 5 California county commissions provide substantial funding for preschool programs
that may or may not receive funding from other public sources.35 First 5 funds derive from a dedicated
sales tax on cigarettes that generates over $500 million annually, most of which is devoted to programs

[11]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

that support the healthy development of children under age 5. More than $100 million from these funds
was spent on pre-K programs in the 2008-2009 year.36 Another example is provided by the Children’s
Trust in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which provides over $100 million annually primarily for early
childhood programs financed by a small property tax (0.50 mills). The Children’s Trust financing was
authorized by referendum and was renewed with a remarkable 86 percent favorable vote in 2008.37

Problems with the Status Quo
America now spends some $40 billion annually across 10 major programs, but still about 25 percent
of 4-year-olds and 50 percent of 3-year-olds attended no early learning program, public or private, in
the 2008-2009 school year.38 Even fewer children receive public support for learning and development
prior to age 3. Some receive child care or preschool of such low quality that it actually harms their
development, and others attend programs that do little to improve their long-term educational and
economic success.39 Although it is difficult to estimate how many receive high-quality services, we can say
without risk of error that most young children, including most young children in poverty, do not attend
high-quality programs even at age 4 where public support is greatest.

This is unfortunate because rigorous research has demonstrated that high-quality programs produce
substantial gains in child development that generate long-term benefits to society far in excess of their
costs.40 Effective policies put parents to work and make the next generation more productive and less
costly (requiring less remediation, less medical treatment, less welfare, and fewer prisons).41 Although
more money alone is not the solution to this problem, we will not have an adequate investment without
more money. As a ballpark figure, increasing our current investment by $20 billion (in constant dollars)
over the next decade would provide an additional $5,000 per child for 4 million of the roughly 12 million
children under age 6 in low-income families. As we discuss below, increased funding is only part of the
solution. Governments must take steps to ensure that public funds are invested in highly effective early
learning programs and that coordination across levels of government and different types of programs
results in efficient uses of funds.

Preschool and other services for young children more often than not operate in separate policy “silos.”42

Because federal, state, and local funding streams have different or even conflicting regulations,
coordination across them can be a challenge. Head Start and Title I are federal-to-local grants, bypassing
state government, making it difficult for states to coordinate efforts. This places much of the burden for
coordination at the local level, where providers must often combine different funding streams to come up
with sufficient money to offer a single preschool program. Providers often find themselves casting a wide
net, blending funding streams in order to meet the need for child care and early education. A state pre-K
program might, for example, use a combination of state and TANF funds while operating in a Head Start
building. This program could very well be required to comply with multiple sets of eligibility criteria when
enrolling children and expend considerable resources complying with multiple sets of administrative
requirements.

Work has begun to improve coordination across the patchwork of pre-K policies and regulations that
currently exists. One logical place to begin is at the state level. An interesting model is provided by
Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning, which became a statewide Early Head
Start grantee. More broadly, the Head Start Reauthorization Act of 2007 required that each state establish

[12]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

an advisory council on early childhood education and care. Among the duties of each state early learning
advisory council is the identification of opportunities to coordinate and collaborate across programs
receiving federal and state funds. Thirty-one states have applied for funds to develop the councils. It
remains to be seen how effective these councils will be, but they present an important opportunity.

Regardless of funding stream, research shows that when it comes to effectiveness, publicly funded early
care and education varies greatly. Research on the economics of early care and education demonstrates
that there are returns to both (1) providing care so that parents can work and (2) providing early education
that enhances learning and development.43 If either aspect of early education is neglected, returns are less
than optimal. The lost potential returns from failure to invest in child development can be quite large,
and public policy is particularly weak in its support for child development.44 Federal child care subsidy
policies that promote parental choice of informal family care with little attention to quality have led to
subsidized child care that has now been found to be detrimental to child development. Given the
tremendous potential for high-quality care to improve child development, this is an exceptionally
harmful and wasteful policy. Resolving the problem will require policy making across agencies and
possibly creating an authority over multiple agencies. Shifting responsibility for both to a single agency
can be difficult given the strength of longstanding agency cultures. For example, Pennsylvania created an
early childhood agency that spanned both welfare and education agencies to deal with such a problem.

The federal Head Start program provides more support for learning and development than typical child
care, but it is not nearly as strong as it could be when it comes to educating children. The Head Start
Impact Study, mandated by Congress in 1998 and conducted on a large sample of children beginning
in 2002, found modest positive impacts on some measures of cognitive ability and parent behavior.
However, by first grade, children who had attended Head Start demonstrated virtually no overall
cognitive, social, or emotional impacts from having attended the program over children who had not
attended.45 Other non-experimental studies have found some modest positive impacts from the program,
but there is no question that Head Start can do better. However, this will require changes in policy. The
Obama administration has proposed some of the most sweeping changes in Head Start in 40 years. The
administration can make most of these changes without requesting additional authority from Congress.
Others have suggested more changes including greater state involvement and more integration with state
pre-K.46

A number of state-funded pre-K programs have demonstrated considerably larger effects on children’s
learning and development than Head Start or child care, including effects that last well into elementary
school.47 Of course, there is considerable variation in program quality and effectiveness from one state to
another, and some state pre-K programs—poorly funded and with weak standards—may be less effective
than the federal Head Start program. Nevertheless, over the past two decades, the states have developed
programs that, taken together, serve nearly one and one-quarter million children through a variety of
funding models (See Appendix A) that often utilize funds from federal and local sources. Their success
in doing so suggests that, if the federal government provided incentives for state-funded pre-K to expand
and collaborate with other programs, they could serve as the leading edge of more effective early learning
policy. The tremendous impact on state and local services of relatively modest federal funding for young
children with special needs suggests that a new federal initiative could leverage substantial improvements
in early learning policy. Even a $2 billion annual federal investment in an Early Learning Challenge Fund,
perhaps through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, could significantly increase the level and
effectiveness of state and local early childhood funding.

[13]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

In general, returns on public investments in early learning programs could be increased if the amounts
paid were linked to program quality and performance. The introduction of more competition to Head
Start and pay for performance (using multiple measures of learning and teaching) at the center or school
level in state programs could lead to improvements in program effectiveness. States with tiered tax credits
linked to state quality rating systems or accreditation offer one example. This model could be extended to
federal and state expenditures of CCDF and TANF, and any new federal initiative to support state-funded
pre-K or early care and education programs more generally. Although this approach may be less well-
suited to preschool special education and early intervention, some policy change is needed to ensure that
these programs are highly effective as well.

State and local spending on programs for children with disabilities under age 5 is one of the nation’s
largest investments in early learning programs; it may exceed state and local funding of programs for all
young children without disabilities, despite the relatively small number of children with disabilities.
Therefore, the lack of evidence that programs for young children with disabilities are highly effective is
disconcerting. Recently, the federal government introduced new requirements for accountability under
the IDEA.48 As a result, data are now collected on the learning and development of young children in
early intervention and special education. However, it is as yet unclear how this information will be used
for real program improvement. Greater attention is needed for the development of evaluation strategies
that will permit valid inferences derived from this data about program effectiveness. In addition, it would
be useful to have better information on how much is actually spent on preschool special education and
early intervention by each level of government. These are tasks that might usefully be addressed by state
advisory councils as they work on the development of integrated data and evaluation systems for state
early learning programs. However, unless states provide early learning councils with sufficient staff,
authority, and longevity through statute, they are unlikely to be strong enough to make the necessary
improvements.

Financing and Regulations
The policies that finance programs vary considerably in the extent to which they also regulate or influence
the nature and quality of those programs and the extent to which decisions about operations and quality
are made at the federal, state, and local levels. Head Start programs are subject to extensive regulations
established at the federal level. Details such as procedures used to determine eligibility, types of educational
and family support activities and teacher education are federally determined49 and Head Start funding
flows directly from the federal government to local grantees. If states choose to supplement the federal
Head Start program with additional funds to enable more children to participate or to improve services,
federal regulations must still be followed.50

That is not the case with CCDF and TANF. These programs allow for state-level decision making by
providing annual funding that states may use for a variety of activities that are approved by the federal
government. These include paying for child care, improving the quality of child care services, and
providing preschool education.51 This flexibility enables states to use federal money more broadly than
Head Start funds (which must be used for a specific program rather than a range of activities). Unfortunately,
the CCDF and TANF experience also indicates that flexibility has done little to boost quality, as state
standards and reimbursement rates tend to be quite low. Of course, it should be acknowledged that
federal policy emphasizes maximizing parental choice through vouchers given to relatives. This policy
also places a high priority on moving parents from welfare to work. These emphases are not consistent

[14]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

with state efforts to raise quality, which would limit choice and raise cost per child. This is not to say that
parental choice or moving parents to work are not important priorities, but policy makers need to ensure
that these do not override the need for public funds to support quality. Some states have used their QRIS
to limit the use of subsidies to higher levels of quality, including New Mexico, North Carolina, and
Oklahoma.

The federal government asserts some limited authority over state-funded preschool education, including
preschool special education, but there are wide variations among states and within states at the local level.
Preschool special education receives some federal funds, but they are a small fraction of the costs of
programs. State pre-K initiatives are essentially unsupported by the federal government (aside from what
districts choose to spend from Title I). State pre-K relies on state revenues even more heavily than does
K–12, though it is often supported by local contributions, too, as part of the public education system.52

Decision-making authority rests primarily at the state level but can, to varying degrees, be delegated
to the local level. This enables states to assert control over early childhood education in key areas such
as standards and accountability, yet leave other policy decisions to local discretion.53 While states do
sometimes rely in part on federal funds that come with restrictions (e.g., TANF and special education
dollars), each state has broad latitude to develop its own pre-K policies.54 State pre-K policies vary greatly
with respect to standards and the adequacy of funding per child, but in all states standards for pre-K are
higher than those for subsidized child care.

Funding Models for State Prekindergarten Initiatives
States use a number of approaches to financing early education. Some are more successful than others in
providing adequate and consistent funding streams. Among the most notable alternatives are: including
pre-K with K–12 in the state’s funding formula for public schools; designating funds from a particular
revenue source such as a state lottery or sales tax on a particular product or service; appropriating funds
from general revenue; and, reallocating unspent TANF funds.

The School Funding Formula
Including pre-K initiatives in the statewide school funding formula for public schooling is a particularly
effective way of providing consistently adequate funding. This approach places no limits on enrollment
of the eligible population, and is particularly useful for preschool programs that are open to all children
regardless of income. In a number of states this means that school districts are not required to offer pre-K,
but if they do offer pre-K they receive a set amount for each child enrolled based on the school funding
formula. As enrollment increases, so does total funding. This is not the case with most other funding
approaches for pre-K. However, the state funding formula can have other significant advantages or
disadvantages that depend on the specifics of each state’s formula. In many cases, funding pre-K through
the school funding formula means funding would flow to school districts, which in turn would need to
subcontract with community-based pre-K providers. Districts not used to managing and monitoring
external providers would need to develop this capability. This has been done successfully in New Jersey.55

Thus, it is essential to know how a particular state’s formula works when deciding whether or not it is the
best approach to funding pre-K.

A state’s school funding formula determines the state’s contribution to per-pupil spending in each district.
States vary widely in the amount of the state’s contribution, average statewide contribution, and in how

[15]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

much and in what ways those contributions vary by district. States also differ in their requirements for
district contributions to per-pupil spending. A substantial local contribution can provide a strong base on
which states can build with a relatively modest (if appropriately distributed) share. As a national average,
states provide 48 percent of per-pupil funding with local districts providing 44 percent and 8 percent
coming from the federal government.56 However, few states are average and many depart considerably
from the average. Differences in state policies lead to wide variations in state average per-pupil funding
and local share and to wide variations within states in allocations to districts. Some state formulas are
highly progressive, resulting in much higher spending in high-poverty, low-wealth districts. Some are
basically neutral or flat (though this may equalize total spending across districts). Others are more
regressive with high-poverty, low-wealth districts having less to spend over all.57 Nevertheless, financing
early learning programs—pre-K programs in particular—through the school funding formula would
in many states provide more adequate and equitable financing than existing alternatives, assuming that
preschoolers were included in the base enrollment rather than in a categorical program with capped
funding or enrollment.

Despite concerns about state school funding formulas they tend to have one clear advantage over most
alternatives. When legislatures set total funding rather than a formula for funding per child, an increase
in enrollment can result in a decrease in dollars per child. Cuts in funding or even flat-funding in the
face of inflation can lead to cuts in the number of children served. Even though school funding formulas
primarily rely on general revenues rather than dedicated sources such as lotteries,58 they are less likely to
suffer from draconian cuts and there is an incentive for each district to maintain or increase enrollments.
In this framework, cutting enrollment is not usually considered an option. Also, any cuts tend to affect
pre-K through grade 12 so there is a larger constituency to prevent cuts and maintain adequate funding.
By contrast, when funding is separate it often appears to those seeking cuts or funds for some other
purpose as well-defined, discrete, and weakly defended targets. All of the major financing models used
by the states for early childhood programs are discussed in Appendix A.

School Funding Formula
Three states that have sought to have experienced success toward reaching their goals of providing pre-K
to all their children by using their school funding formulas:

Oklahoma. The statewide school funding formula played a critical role in expanding state pre-K to the
point where 71 percent of 4-year-olds are enrolled in the state-funded Early Childhood Four-Year-Old
Program. When Head Start enrollments are considered, 85 percent of 4-year-olds in Oklahoma are
enrolled in a public early education initiative.59 Oklahoma’s pre-K initiative first began in 1980 as a pilot
program. In 1990, pre-K for 4-year-olds was added to the state school funding formula as a statewide
targeted initiative for children from low-income families.60 In 1998, a bipartisan bill authorized districts
to provide pre-K to all 4-year-olds, regardless of family income. At the same time, Oklahoma experienced
declining K–12 enrollments, creating a more favorable environment for pre-K expansion in public
schools as this tends to produce excess capacity in administration and facilities.61 After the state made the
commitment to universal pre-K, enrollment grew quickly to 56 percent of 4-year-olds in the 2001-2002
school year and 71 percent in the 2009-2010 school year.62 All but two percent of the state’s districts offer
pre-K.

[16]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

experiencing declines in K–12 enrollment—a circumstance that again made the school funding formula a
particularly attractive means of expanding toward universal pre-K. Schools were able to draw down funds
for 4-year-olds to offset funding losses due to declines in enrollment by older children. Since the state
began its phase-in process, enrollment in state pre-K has grown from 24 percent of 4-year-olds to 55
percent.65 Another 23 percent of 4-year-olds are in Head Start. The state defines universal access as a
participation rate of 80 percent of all 4-year-olds, and is working to reach this goal by the 2012-2013
school year.66 All districts offer the program, and during the phase-in process districts may limit entry
to children at elevated risk of school failure based on locally developed criteria. Half of all children must
be served in private centers through collaboration agreements.

Wisconsin. Wisconsin first offered public pre-K in 1873 but pre-K provision declined after the 1890s and
was suspended entirely from 1957 to 1984. Nevertheless, the financing mechanism by which funds for
pre-K were distributed directly to the public schools remained in place.67 Use of these funds has grown in
recent years, as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in the state’s Four-Year-
Old Kindergarten (4K) grew from 18 percent in the 2001-2002 school year to 51 percent in the 2009-2010
school year.68 State government encourages districts to offer 4K, but it is up to districts to decide, and 77
percent of districts offered 4K in 2009-2010. If a district offers 4K, all age-eligible children who apply
must be served. All state funding models are discussed in Appendix A.

Conclusions and Recommendations
It should go without saying that developing more reliable, well-considered revenue streams for early
learning programs is a good thing. They not only maintain enrollment and program quality, they also
provide the predictability that is essential to ensuring continuous improvement and a high level of
program effectiveness. The lack of cohesive system-building that has typified the expansion of early
childhood education in the United States has perpetuated the patchwork of preschool policies and
finance mechanisms at all levels. This likely resulted in fewer children served than had a more systemic
approach been used. And, it has delayed the collaboration and adaptation of successful approaches across
programs that can lead to enhanced program effectiveness.

Develop New Revenues and Reallocate from Waste to Early Investments

Far more improvement is necessary than can be accomplished with current revenues. As Tables 1 and 2
show, recent growth in funding for early learning programs has been primarily at the federal level, and
most state funding is to serve children with special needs. And, despite these increases, only about 40
percent of 4-year-olds and 14 percent of 3-year-olds attends publicly funded pre-K or Head Start. About
a quarter of 4-year-olds and half of 3-year-olds attended no public or private program in 2008-2009.
Access to quality programs is even more limited for infants and toddlers. Participation rates are
particularly low for children from low- to moderate-income families. Although this does not take into
account tax credits, it is unlikely that they do much to increase access to quality programs. Underlying
the national averages is great unevenness in public support for early learning programs, and program
standards and effectiveness vary dramatically across and within funding silos.

In both the short term and long term, difficult choices regarding public spending will be required at the
local, state, and federal levels. Some experts argue that austerity budgets and tax cuts are required. Others
argue that this is exactly the wrong time for austerity budgets, as they will only exacerbate the recession,

[17]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

and that new public investments are needed to spur economic growth. On balance, we conclude that in
the long term both spending restraint and revenue increases will be required. Whatever view one takes,
we believe that increased public investments in early learning programs have a place because their
benefits far exceed their costs in the long run. Investment in high-quality early care and education is an
effective pro-growth strategy that can reduce future government costs and increase future revenues.
Government costs are reduced when fewer children repeat grades or need special education, delinquency
and crime are reduced, teen pregnancy and smoking decline, and fewer people need welfare or
unemployment payments. Revenues are increased when more parents work and when a better educated
workforce generates more income.

Even large increased investments in early care and education are quite small in the context of current
government budgets. In 2009, federal government spending topped $3.7 trillion and state and local
governments added another $1.6 trillion from their own sources.69 An additional $10 billion annually for
early learning programs would amount to just one penny out of every $500 dollars spent by government.
While this would be a significant improvement, more is needed. As mentioned previously, increasing our
current investment by $20 billion over the next decade would provide an additional $5,000 per child for
4 million of the 12 million children under age 6 in low-income families. Increased funding is only part of
the solution. Governments must take steps to ensure that public funds are invested in highly effective early
learning programs and that coordination across levels of government and different types of programs
results in efficient uses of funds.

The fiscal situation of states and the federal government are not projected to improve in the foreseeable
future without major policy changes. A recent report from the National Governors Association and
National Association of State Budget Officers concluded that “Fiscal 2010 presented the most difficult
challenge for states’ financial management since the Great Depression.”70 The next several years also are
expected to be difficult as state revenues tend to lag a recovery that is itself relatively slow.71 Even after
the recovery, long-term demands on state budgets from rising costs of health care, pensions, and other
obligations are projected to produce a persistent structural imbalance between state revenues and
expenditures. The long-term federal budget outlook is difficult for similar reasons. However, this does
not mean that additional investments in early care and education are not feasible or politically practical.
States vary greatly in their current tax efforts, and it could be argued that some should do more. At both
the federal and state levels there is considerable potential for increased funding for early childhood
programs by reducing unproductive current expenditures.

Where might the money for additional investments come from? Unlike early care and education,
few other government programs (including special tax rules that cost billions) are backed by rigorous
evidence that they contribute to human development and economic growth.72 Although the value of
many government programs can be debated, some are ineffective and inefficient while others are of no
value except to narrow special interests. A wide range of business incentives and tax loopholes provide
few benefits and misallocate private resources.73 Farm subsidies alone amounted to over $20 billion in
2010, and the vast majority went to wealthy agribusinesses.74 These giveaways to millionaires do not serve
the public good, and have negative social and environmental impacts. Cost savings also are to be gained
by choosing more effective approaches in education, corrections, social welfare, and, no doubt, even
defense. For example, states spend over $50 billion a year on corrections, a rapidly rising cost that could
be reined in by criminal justice reform, making room for investments in preventative programs like pre-
K.75 Even the cost of filing income taxes now amounts to as much as 10 percent of the tax so that tax
simplification itself could make it possible to raise more revenue while leaving the taxpayer better off.76

[18]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Revisit State Funding Mechanisms

A comprehensive approach to increasing state and local funds for early learning programs could begin by
including pre-K and other programs in the school funding formula. This would be a good start to solving
the early care and education financing problem, though it is not a complete solution, and other funding
streams for federal and state child care subsidies will remain vitally important. Keep in mind that most
early learning services are not provided in the public schools. Early childhood public education increasingly
takes place outside the public schools, but with their support. The revenues for a more adequate early
learning system could be raised by reducing other spending that does not generate long-term economic
benefits or from new revenue sources. Given the relatively small cost of expanded early learning programs,
neither revenue enhancements nor expenditure reallocations would require major changes.

What is best for each state will likely vary somewhat. We do not expect that “one size fits all” when it
comes to financing early childhood education. Models that work well in one locale may be less successful
in others—or less successful over time as political climates shift. Education lotteries responsible for the
early growth of public pre-K in some states may not support sustained growth over time. (See Appendix
A) States that do not fund pre-K through their school funding formulas should work toward that goal or
develop other dedicated funding mechanisms that are less susceptible to the shifting tides of the economy
than current arrangements. This approach should lead to more widespread availability of high-quality
pre-K programs.

Foster Collaboration, Coordination Through Policy

Collaboration and coordination can improve access to early learning programs and raise quality. New
initiatives for large scale coordination are taking shape through federally funded state advisory councils
for early learning programs. These councils represent a critical step toward a better-coordinated system.
They are charged with developing recommendations to increase participation in early childhood programs
from birth to age 5; developing recommendations for professional development plans and unified statewide
data systems; and identifying opportunities for improved coordination and collaboration.77 A key part of
their mission should be to develop plans for adequate financing of expanded state early learning systems.

The deep recession of 2008 has highlighted the extent to which current programs and their funding
streams exist in separate silos. When funds are limited, difficult tradeoffs must be made when deciding
whether to serve more children or to provide higher quality preschool programs. This makes it a challenge
to blend funds from separate streams that serve similar objectives. When one early learning program is
cut, the consequences ripple through the rest of the early care and education system and impact other early
learning programs. The broad perspective permitted by having council members across early childhood
constituencies should enable the state advisory councils to reduce overlap, identify gaps, and craft policies
that improve educational initiatives for young children.78 As they do so, they should identify needs for
federal regulatory relief that would facilitate more effective coordination and collaboration to increase
access and improve effectiveness. The federal government can then support these state efforts by granting
regulatory relief.

A federal early learning challenge fund should be established that awards substantial federal-to-state grants
for innovative initiatives that support coordination and collaboration to improve access and quality. This
additional financing would leverage the ability of state early learning councils to achieve their mission and
act as a catalyst for policy reform. In general, the federal government could play a much more important
role in promoting equal access and high quality across the states. The early learning challenge fund is one

[19]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

means to this end, but it should not be the only one. The federal government should also act more
directly by linking federal child care subsidy and tax credit amounts to quality standards or rating systems
and raising the bar for Head Start performance.

Review Head Start, State Pre-K Policies

A public review of Head Start and state pre-K policies should be conducted in anticipation of fulfilling the
mandate that Head Start and state pre-K work in a more coordinated fashion at the state, community,
and provider level. This could take place in the context of an even broader program review supported by
state advisory councils and, at the federal level, by the Early Learning Interagency Policy Board (ELIPB).79

Announced in August 2010, the federal ELIPB is to be composed of senior staff from the Departments of
Education and Health and Human Services. Early intervention and preschool special education should
be included in the policy reviews and planning, keeping in mind that these children also are served in
child care, Head Start, and pre-K “regular” education. As data systems are developed that cross systems,
programs serving children with special needs should be included. This public review provides a unique
opportunity to streamline regulations in ways that facilitate coordination and collaboration while shifting
emphasis toward evaluation and continuous improvement processes rather than monitoring and auditing.

Tie Child Care Subsidies to Program Quality

Tying federal and state subsidies for child care to quality by linking them in some way to state Quality
Rating Systems (QRIS) holds promise for increasing the quality of child care over time. More than half
the states have a fully operational QRIS, and those that don’t are in the process of designing them. QRIS
have the potential to provide a common standard for public funding. Initially, QRIS were designed for
child care only, taking state regulations as the floor and building up additional levels of program standards,
creating a path to national accreditation. QRIS in some states are designed for all sectors of early care and
education, incorporating standards for pre-K as well as national standards such as the Head Start Program
Performance Standards. Using QRIS as a funding standard would require ensuring that all QRIS not only
incorporate the highest standards, but also that states move toward consistency in their systems and that
they apply to settings in which early care and education are provided. A tiered payment system that
recognizes the various levels of quality in QRIS reporting may be feasible.

Focus Early Childhood Finance Reform on Birth to Age 8

High-quality early care and education prepares children to enter K–12 education ready to learn. There
are, however, compelling reasons for pursuing early childhood finance reform as part of a broader set of
policies aimed at increasing collaboration and coordination across agencies for children from birth to age
8. Doing so would enable children as well as the schools and policymakers who serve them to avoid the
transition problems that so often occur when kids leave pre-K and enter the K–12 system. Such a policy
focus would facilitate coordination of curricula, teacher communication across the pre-K/K–12 divide,
and professional development.

[20]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Appendix A
Funding Models Used to Provide State Pre-K

School Funding Formula
Three states that have sought to have experienced success toward reaching their goals of providing pre-K
to all their children by using their school funding formulas:

Oklahoma. The statewide school funding formula played a critical role in expanding state pre-K to the
point where 71 percent of 4-year-olds are enrolled in the state-funded Early Childhood Four-Year-Old
Program. When Head Start enrollments are considered, 85 percent of 4-year-olds in Oklahoma are
enrolled in a public early education initiative.80 Oklahoma’s pre-K initiative first began in 1980 as a pilot
program. In 1990, pre-K for 4-year-olds was added to the state school funding formula as a statewide
targeted initiative for children from low-income families.81 In 1998, a bipartisan bill authorized districts
to provide pre-K to all 4-year-olds, regardless of family income. At the same time, Oklahoma experienced
declining K–12 enrollments, creating a more favorable environment for pre-K expansion in public
schools as this tends to produce excess capacity in administration and facilities.82 After the state made
the commitment to universal pre-K, enrollment grew quickly to 56 percent of 4-year-olds in the 2001-
2002 school year and 71 percent in the 2009-2010 school year.83 All but two percent of the state’s
districts offer pre-K.

West Virginia. West Virginia took an approach similar to Oklahoma’s by setting universal pre-K for all
4-year-olds as a statutory goal. The state started a public school pre-K program in 198384 and in 2002
began a 10-year phase-in process toward universal pre-K.85 Like Oklahoma, West Virginia was also
experiencing declines in K–12 enrollment—a circumstance that again made the school funding formula
a particularly attractive means of expanding toward universal pre-K. Schools were able to draw down
funds for 4-year-olds to offset funding losses due to declines in enrollment by older children. Since the
state began its phase-in process, enrollment in state pre-K has grown from 24 percent of 4-year-olds to
55 percent.86 Another 23 percent of 4-year-olds are in Head Start. The state defines universal access as
a participation rate of 80 percent of all 4-year-olds, and is working to reach this goal by the 2012-2013
school year.87 All districts offer the program, and during the phase-in process districts may limit entry to
children at elevated risk of school failure based on locally developed criteria. Half of all children must be
served in private centers through collaboration agreements.

Wisconsin. Wisconsin first offered public pre-K in 1873 but pre-K provision declined after the 1890s and
was suspended entirely from 1957 to 1984. Nevertheless, the financing mechanism by which funds for
pre-K were distributed directly to the public schools remained in place.88 Use of these funds has grown in
recent years, as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in the state’s Four-Year-
Old Kindergarten (4K) grew from 18 percent in the 2001-2002 school year to 51 percent in the 2009-2010
school year.89 State government encourages districts to offer 4K, but it is up to districts to decide, and 77
percent of districts offered 4K in 2009-2010. If a district offers 4K, all age-eligible children who apply must
be served.

[21]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Lotteries
Lotteries have been used to create dedicated funding streams for pre-K. Until recently, lotteries were
believed to be relatively recession proof and protected from state budget shortfalls in difficult times.
However, many state lotteries saw declines in revenue beginning in 2008 due to the “Great Recession.”
This has threatened both current funding and future growth of programs. Another concern with the
lotteries as a funding source for pre-K is that they are often viewed as regressive taxes on low-income
populations. In addition, lottery revenues typically are devoted to more than one education program.
This creates a larger constituency, but it also can lead to competition among the various education
programs that are the beneficiaries.90 State lotteries have been a prominent source of revenue for pre-K
programs in southern states.

Georgia. In 1993, Georgia became the first state to offer a pre-K initiative supported by lottery funds. Two
years later, the state expanded its targeted pre-K initiative, becoming the first state to offer a voluntary
pre-K program to all its 4-year-olds. Georgia’s Pre-K Program grew quickly and had a lottery-supported
enrollment of more than 60,000 children by 1998. Even though revenues from the state lottery kept
increasing, growth in pre-K funding slowed considerably starting in 2000, and enrollment increases since
then have not quite managed to keep pace with Georgia’s growing 4-year-old population.

Demand for Georgia’s Pre-K Program has outstripped supply, and children’s participation is now
determined by methods such as waiting lists and enrollment lotteries.91 In the 2009-2010 school year, 55
percent of the state’s 4-year-olds were enrolled with the total reaching 63 percent when special education
and Head Start are included.92 Since then, Georgia’s governor has proposed diverting lottery funds to help
balance the state budget and experts have predicted that the costs of the lottery-funded programs (including
a popular college scholarship initiative) would exceed lottery revenues in 2010.93 Georgia’s experience
illustrates how lottery-based financing can limit the growth of pre-K and hinder a state from reaching its
goal of serving all children who seek to enter the program.

North Carolina. In 2006, North Carolina began using lottery funds to finance state pre-K. The state’s
More at Four (MAF) initiative started on a small scale in January 2002, serving about 1 percent of the
state’s 4-year-olds. By 2006, when the state’s lottery was approved, 12 percent of North Carolina’s 4-year-
olds were enrolled. About half of the proceeds from the lottery are committed to MAF and class size
reduction in grades K–3. By 2009, MAF was serving 25 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds and had some
of the highest program standards in the nation. Lottery proceeds, however, proved to be lower than
anticipated, and the state has struggled to find solutions to the revenue shortfall.94

Other States. Several other states have used lotteries to fund pre-K programs.95 Tennessee began its pre-K
program as a pilot project in 1998. The program grew slowly until funds from the new state lottery
became available in 2005, after which it expanded rapidly, serving 21 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds in
the 2009-2010 school year. Virginia also has moved toward using lottery funds to support pre-K in recent
years.96 Oklahoma began a lottery in 2005 to supplement general revenues, with proceeds supporting
public education from pre-K through college.97

[22]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Financing Universal Prekindergarten in New York and Florida
The experiences of New York and Florida inform any discussion of funding large scale state pre-K
initiatives. New York was one of the earliest states to make universal pre-K a statutory goal. Yet the state
has had considerable difficulty making consistent headway toward achieving that goal. Florida, on the
other hand, rolled out a universal program in a very short time span that enrolled a relatively high
proportion of 4-year-olds but had low program standards.

New York. New York’s Universal Prekindergarten (UPK) initiative began in 1998, the same year Oklahoma
adopted a universal approach. Unlike Oklahoma and Georgia, New York did not include pre-K in the
school funding formula or have a dedicated funding stream for pre-K such as a lottery. This left the
program subject to shifting political priorities in each year’s budget allocations process.98 After an initial
period of growth in districts with the most economically disadvantaged families, UPK was flat-funded
from 2002 until 2005. Expansion into more affluent districts was limited. The 2007-2008 budget committed
additional funds to UPK, and a goal was set for universal access by 2011.99 That year, UPK served 39
percent of the state’s 4-year-olds.100 Since then, UPK has battled for funding.101

Florida. Florida launched its Voluntary Prekindergarten (VPK) program in 2005 in response to a
constitutional amendment requiring the state to make pre-K available to all children at age 4. Five years
later, more than 155,000 children had enrolled, representing 68 percent of Florida’s 4-year-olds. Although
Florida offers a large pre-K program, it is not well funded. Per-child spending ranks among the lowest in
the country and standards for teacher qualifications are low.102 The state provides a minimal allocation for
every child projected to enroll and that has been reduced while staff-child ratios have been increased.103

Florida chose a low base student allocation that allowed for a rapid roll-out of VPK but did so at a price.
This rapid expansion was possible because children were served in existing child care programs with little
or no increase in program quality—making the educational effectiveness questionable.

Other State Finance Models
A number of other funding mechanisms have been used over the years for state-financed pre-K. Arkansas
implemented a “sin tax” on beer. Missouri levied fees on gambling. Several states have taxed tobacco or
used funds from the national tobacco settlement to help fund pre-K. These approaches have limitations
as supports for long-term pre-K expansion because such taxes tend to decrease expenditures on the
specific products that are taxed, and tobacco settlement money is finite. South Carolina and Arkansas
have used more general sales taxes. Ohio and Louisiana have made extensive use of unspent TANF funds
by allocating them to pre-K, a strategy that can create problems when unspent TANF funds are no longer
available.104

As mentioned previously, many states rely on local revenue as well as state revenue to fund preschool
programs, most often as part of a more general approach to funding public education. However, some
communities have levied local taxes dedicated to children’s programs including early care and education,
as for example, the Children’s Trust in Miami-Dade, Florida, mentioned earlier.105 Such local funding can
be a useful supplement to state and local education funding and can provide a buffer from economic
downturns that can more adversely affect state income and sales taxes, though local property taxes have
been by no means immune to downturns in the housing market.

[23]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

Endnotes
1 As we write it is still unclear exactly how ARRA funds will have been spent. The federal government
appropriated $2.1 billion for Head Start and Early Head Start and $2 billion for child care in 2009 and
2010. However, some of these funds will have been spent in FY 2011. For FY 2011 we estimate ARRA
spending at $415 million for Head Start and $768 for Early Head Start. The federal allocation for Head
Start and Early Head Start in FY 2011 without ARRA funds was $7.575 billion.
2 Barnett, W.S., Epstein, D.J, Carolan, M.E., Fitzgerald, J., Ackerman, D.J., & Friedman, A.H. (2010). The
state of preschool 2010: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick: Rutgers, State University of New Jersey,
National Institute for Early Education Research.
3 This number includes children funded by state additions to federal funding as well as children who are
federally funded. The number reflects actual slots rather than “total enrollment” which Head Start
computes including children who dropout and are replaced. CLASP (2010). Head Start by theNumbers
2009PIRProfile: United States. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. (2008). Head Start program fact
sheet. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/fy2008.html.
4 Haskins, R. & Barnett, W.S. (2010).
5 http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/09/22/2010-23583/head-start-program
6 Greenberg, M., & Schumacher, R. (2003). Financing universal pre-kindergarten: Possibilities and
technical issues for states in using funds under theChildCare andDevelopment Fund andTemporary
Assistance forNeedy Families BlockGrant. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
7 Besharov, D. J., Higney, C. A., & Myers, J. A. (2007). Federal and state child care and early education
expenditures (1997-2005): Child care spending falls as pre-K spending rises. College Park, MD and
Washington, DC: Welfare Reform Academy, University of Maryland and American Enterprise Institute.
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Head Start, Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. (2009). State advisory councils: Responses to
frequently asked questions onECLKC. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/sac/sac_response_to_faqs.
html.
9 Schulman, K., & Blank, H. (2010). State child care assistance policies 2010:New federal funds help states
weather the storm. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center.
10 Bernal, R., & Keane, M. (2010). Quasi-structural estimation of a model of child care choices and child
cognitive ability production. Journal of Econometrics, 156 (1):164-189. Herbst, C., & Tekin, E. (2010).
Child care subsidies and child development. Economics of EducationReview, 29, 618-638.
11 Matthews, H. (2009). Child care assistance in 2007. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Care
Bureau (2009). FFY2007CCDFdata tables. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/ccdf_data/07acf800/list.htm.
13 Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution (2010). Historical Dependent Care
Credits. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=180
14 Karoly, L. A., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Zellman, G., Perlman, M., & Fernyhough, L. (2008). Nature and
quality of early care and education forCalifornia’s preschool-age children: Results from theCalifornia
Preschool Study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
15 Office of Policy, Research and Evaluation (HHS) CompendiumonQuality Rating Systems and
Evaluation (2010) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/cc/childcare_quality/index.html#reports
Mitchell, Anne (2009). Quality Rating and Improvement Systems as the Framework for EarlyCare and
Education SystemReform. The Build Initiative. http://www.buildinitiative.org/files/QRIS-Framework )

[24]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

16 Gayl, C. L., Young, M., & Patterson, K. (2010). Tapping Title I: What every school administrator should
knowabout Title I, pre-K and school reform. Washington, DC: Pre-K Now; Matthews, H., & Ewen, D.
(2010). FAQ:UsingTitle I of ESEA for early education. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
17 Stullich, S., Eisner, E., & McCrary, J. (2007). National assessment of Title I final report. Volume I:
Implementation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
18 Gayl et al., 2010; Matthews & Ewen, 2010.
19 Matthews & Ewen, 2010.
20 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
21 The most recent estimates are from 1999 when 326,875 children ages three and four were enrolled at an
estimated cost of about $2.4 billion By 2008 enrollment had doubled to 657,634 and with inflation total
cost could now reach $6 billion. (Sources: Chambers, J., Parrish, T., & Harrr, J. (2004). What arewe
spending on special education services in theUnited States, 1999-2000? Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research. U.S. Department of Education Annual Reports to Congress on the
Implementation of the IDEA.
22 Downloaded November 24, 2010 from https://www.ideadata.org/arc_toc10.asp#partcCC
23 Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., Bailey, D., Scarborough, A., Mallik, S., Simeonsson, R., Singer, M., & Nelson,
L. (2007). Early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: Participants,
services, outcomes. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
24 Levin, J., Perez, M., Lam, I., Chambers, J., & Hebbeler, K. (2004). National early intervention
longitudinal study: expenditure study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. National estimate calculated
by multiplying number of children served in 2008 by expenditure per child and updating with the GDP
deflator for state and local government expenditures.
25 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
26 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
27 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
28 Barnett, W. S., Friedman, A. H., Hustedt, J. T., & Stevenson Boyd, J. (2009). An overview of
prekindergarten policy in the United States: Program governance, eligibility, standards, and finance. In R.
C. Pianta & C. Howes (Eds.), The promise of pre-K (pp. 3-30). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
29 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
30 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
31 Barnett, W. S., & Frede, E. C. (2010). The promise of preschool: Why we need early education for all.
AmericanEducator, 34(1), 21-40.
32 Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., & Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five
state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of PolicyAnalysis andManagement, 27(1), 122-154.
33 Gayl et al., 2009.
34 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
35 Karoly, L.A., Reardon, E., & Cho, M. (2007). Early care and education in theGolden State: Publicly
funded programs servingCalifornia’s preschool-age children. Santa Monica: RAND.
36 California Children and Families Commission. (2010). First 5 California 2008-2009 Annual Report.
Sacramento: Author.
37 http://www.thechildrenstrust.org/about-us
38 Barnett, W. S., Epstein, D. J., Friedman, A. H., Sansanelli, R. A., & Hustedt, J. T. (2009). The state of
preschool 2009: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research, Rutgers University.

[25]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

39 Barnett, W. S. (2010). Universal and targeted approaches to preschool education in the United States.
International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(1), 1-12. Haskins, R. & Barnett, W.S. (2010).
40 Barnett, W. S. (2007). Benefits and costs of quality early childhood education. The Children’s Legal
Rights Journal (CLRJ), 27, 7-23.
41 Barnett, W.S. (2007). Reynolds, A. J. Temple, J. A., White, B., Ou, S. & Robertson, D. L. (in press).
Age-26 cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Center early education program. ChildDevelopment.
42 Satkowski, C. (2009). The next step in systems-building: EarlyChildhoodAdvisoryCouncils and federal
efforts to promote policy alignment in early childhood. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
43 Adams, D., & Rohacek, M. (2002). More than a work support? Issues around integrating child
development goals into the child care subsidy system. EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly, 17, 418-440.
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative
benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and policy implications, Economics of EducationReview,
26, 113-125. Morrissey, T. & Warner, M.E. (2007). Why early care and education deserves as much
attention, or more, than prekindergarten alone. AppliedDevelopmental Science, 11(2): 57-70.
44 Herbst, C., & Tekin, E. (2010). Child care subsidies and child development. Economics of Education
Review, 29, 618-638. Zigler, E., Marsland, K., & Lord, H. (2009). The tragedy of child care inAmerica. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2010).
Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Washington, DC.
46 Haskins, R & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Investing in young children:Newdirections in federal preschool and
early childhood policy. Washington, DC Brookings
47 Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness.
Science, 320, 1723-1724. Barnett, W. S., Howes, C., & Jung, K. (2008). California’s state preschool
program:Quality and effects on children’s cognitive abilities at kindergarten entry. New Brunswick, NJ:
National Institute for Early Education Research. Waldfogel, J. & Zhai, F. (2008). Effects of public
preschool expenditures on the test scores of fourth graders: evidence from TIMMS. Educational Research
andEvaluation, 14(1), 9-28. Winsler, A., Tran, H., Hartman, S., Madigan, A., Manfra, L., & Bleiker, C.
(2008). School readiness gains made by ethnically diverse children in poverty attending center-based
childcare and public school pre-kindergarten programs. EarlyChildhoodResearchQuarterly, 23(3), 314-
329. Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., & Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of
five state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of PolicyAnalysis andManagement, 27(1), 122-154.
48 Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for childrenwith disabilities:
Recommendations for curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Missoula, MT: Author.
49 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Head Start. (n.d.). Head Start programperformance standards and other regulations. (45CFRParts 1301-
1311). Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/legislation/index.html.
50 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
51 Greenberg & Schumacher, 2003.
52 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
53 Conley, D. T. (2003). Who governs our schools? Changing roles and responsibilities. New York: Teachers
College Press.
54 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
55 Ellens Abbott paper for NRC
56 U.S. Department of Education, Education Finance Statistics Center (2010). Percentage distribution of
revenues for public elementary and secondary education in the United States, by source: 2007-08.
Downloaded November 19, 2010 from http://www.nces.ed.gov/edfin/graph_topic.asp?INDEX=4

[26]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

57 Baker, B., Sciarra, D., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is school funding fair? A national report card. Newark, NJ:
Education Law Center.
58 Stone, D. (2008). Funding the future: States’ approaches to pre-K finance 2008 update. Washington, DC:
Pre-K Now.
59 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
60 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010; Stone, 2008.
61 Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Phillips, D. (2003). The effects of universal pre-K inOklahoma: Research highlights
and policy implications. (CROCUSworking paper #2). Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children
in the United States, Georgetown University.
62 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
63 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
64 Cavalluzzo, L., Clinton, Y., Holian, L., Marr, L., & Taylor, L. (2009). WestVirginia’s progress toward
universal prekindergarten (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 070). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia.
65 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
66 Cavalluzzo et al., 2009.
67 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010; Stone 2008.
68 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010; Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L. (2003). The
state of preschool: 2003 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early
Education Research, Rutgers University.
69 Executive Office of the President of the United States (2010). Budget of theUnited StatesGovernment.
Fiscal Year 2011.Historical Tables. Washington, DC: USGPO.
70 National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers. (2010). The fiscal
survey of states. Washington, DC: Authors.
71 Dadayan, L., & Boyd, D. (2010). Revenue now growing in most states; sales tax gains 5.7 percent in 2nd
Quarter. State RevenueReport, No. 81. Albany: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of government.
72 Barnett, W. S. (Summer, 2008). Why governments should invest in early education. CESifo- DICE
report, Journal for Institutional Comparisons, Early Childhood Education and Care, 6(2), 9-14. Barnett,
W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative
benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and policy implications, Economics of EducationReview,
26, 113-125. Camilli et al.
73 Burstein, M.L., & Rolnick, R.J. (1995). Congress should end the economic war among the states.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Annual Report, TheRegion (March). Minneapolis: Federal Research
Bank of Minneapolis.
74 Edwards, C. (2009). Agricultural subsidies. Downsizing the federal government. Washington, DC: Cato
Institute. Downloaded November 23, 2010 from http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture
Executive Office of the President of the United States (2010). Budget of theUnited StatesGovernment.
Fiscal Year 2011.Historical Tables. Washington, DC: USGPO.
75 Justice Center, Council of State Governments. (2010). Facts and Trends. Downloaded November 23,
2010 from http://www.justicereinvestment.org/facts_and_trends. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006).
Evidence-Based Public PolicyOptions to Reduce Future PrisonConstruction, Criminal Justice Costs, and
CrimeRates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
76 Steuerle, C.E. (2008). ContemporaryU.S. TaxPolicy. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
77 Satkowski, 2009; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.

[27]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

78 Satkowski, 2009.
79 Duncan, A. (2010). Working together for early learning: Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks at “Early
Childhood 2010 — Innovation for the Next Generation” meeting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Downloaded November 24, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/working-together-
early-learning-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-early-childhood-2010-in
80 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
81 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010; Stone, 2008.
82 Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Phillips, D. (2003). The effects of universal pre-K inOklahoma: Research highlights
and policy implications. (CROCUSworking paper #2). Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children
in the United States, Georgetown University.
83 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
84 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
85 Cavalluzzo, L., Clinton, Y., Holian, L., Marr, L., & Taylor, L. (2009). WestVirginia’s progress toward
universal prekindergarten (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 070). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia.
86 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
87 Cavalluzzo et al., 2009.
88 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010; Stone 2008.
89 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010; Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L. (2003). The
state of preschool: 2003 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research, Rutgers University.
90 Stone, 2008.
91 Southern Education Foundation. (2008). Time to lead again: The promise ofGeorgia Pre-K. Atlanta:
Author.
92 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010.
93 Salzer, J. (2010, January 24). Perdue wants to tap lottery funds. TheAtlanta Journal-Constitution.
Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://www.ajc.com/news/perdue-wants-to-tap-281720.html .
94 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010; Cobb, C. (2009). North Carolina’s More at Four Prekindergarten
Program: A case study of funding versus quality and other issues in large-scale implementation. In R. C.
Pianta & C. Howes (Eds.), The promise of pre-K (pp. 123-144). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
95 Mitchell, A. (2009). Models for financing state-supported prekindergarten programs. In R. C. Pianta &
C. Howes (Eds.), The promise of pre-K (pp. 51-63). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
96 Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2010.
97 Mitchell, 2009.
98 Ackerman, D. J., Barnett, W. S., Hawkinson, L. E., Brown, K., & McGonigle, E. A. (2009). Providing
preschool education for all 4-year-olds: Lessons from six state journeys. Preschool policy brief no. 18. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.
99 Cochran, M. (2009). Implementing large-scale prekindergarten initiatives: Lessons from New York. In
R. C. Pianta & C. Howes (Eds.), The promise of pre-K (pp. 145-167). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
100 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
101 Winning Beginning New York. (2010). 2010 state budget update. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from
http://www.winningbeginningny.org/documents/2010_state_budget_update .
102 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.

[28]Improving Public Financing For Early Learning Programs

103 State of Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation. (n.d.). Voluntary Prekindergarten Program:
Frequently asked questions. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from
http://www.floridajobs.org/earlylearning/VPK/FAQs.html.
104 Barnett, Epstein et al., 2010.
105 Mitchell, A., Stoney, L., & Dichter, H. (2001). Financing child care in theUnited States: An expanded
catalog of current strategies. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Merzer, M. (nd).
The billion dollar bet on a community’s future. Miami, FL: The Children’s Trust.

120 Albany Street, Suite 500 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
(Tel) 732-932-4350 (Fax) 732-932-4360

Website: nieer.org
Information: info@nieer.org

by W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., and Jason T. Hustedt, Ph.D.

W. Steven Barnett is a Board of Governors Professor and Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research
(NIEER) at Rutgers University. His research includes studies of the economics of early care and education including
costs and benefits, the long-term effects of preschool programs on children’s learning and development, and the

distribution of educational opportunities.

Jason Hustedt is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the
University of Delaware. His work focuses on the impacts of state-funded pre-K initiatives on young children, federal

and state early childhood policy, and preschoolers’ and toddlers’ interactions with their parents and peers.

Improving Public Financing for Early Learning Programs is issue 23 in a series of briefs developed by the National
Institute for Early Education Research. It may be used with permission, provided there are no changes in the content.

Available online at nieer.org.

This document was prepared with the support of The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Trusts’ Advancing Pre-Kindergarten for All
initiative seeks to advance high quality prekindergarten for all the nation’s three-and four-year-olds through objective,
policy-focused research, state public education campaigns and national outreach. The opinions expressed in this report

are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

N AT I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R
E A R LY E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

Guided Notes

Overview of Potential Funding Sources

Improving Public Financing for Early Childhood Programs

The following provides an overview of different funding streams for early childhood programs:

Adapted from: Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2011). Improving public financing for early learning programs (Policy Brief Issue 23). Retrieved from

http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/24

CECS EP003 Funding Sources

Short-Answer Response Assessment Submission Form

Contact Information

Please provide your contact information and date of submission below.

Your Name: First and Last

Your Email address: Your e-mail here

Date: Click here to enter a date

Instructions

This Competency includes a Short-Answer Response Assessment. Write your response to each prompt below—in the space provided. Beneath the prompts is the

Rubric

, which will be used by the Competency Assessor to evaluate your responses. Carefully review the Rubric rows associated with each prompt to provide a complete response.

When writing your response, begin typing where it reads “

Enter

Your Response

Here

.” Write as much as needed to satisfy the requirements of the prompt.

Note: Save this file as EP003_firstinitial_lastname, and upload it to this Assessment within the learning platform. For example, EP003_B_Smith.

Short Answer 1

Describe each of the following public funding sources and its intended purpose. Responses should be a least 1 paragraph in length for each funding source.

a. Head Start

b. Child care subsidies

c. Child care tax credits

d. Title 1

e. Early childhood special education (IDEA)

f. State-funded pre-kindergarten

Rubric

Not Present

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Sub-Competency 1: Describe public funding sources to support early childhood programs and initiatives.

Learning Objective 1.1: Describe various public funding sources.

Description is missing.

Description of the public funding sources and their purposes are partial or incomplete.

Response includes a clear description of each public funding source and its intended purpose.

Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:

Response clearly describes an additional public funding source and its intended purpose.

Short Answer 2

Read the descriptions of the two early childhood learning centers below. Both Checkers and Smart Start will be seeking funding from one of several sources: Head Start, child care tax credits, Title I, or early childhood special education (IDEA). Determine which funding sources are most appropriate for each center and explain why. Your response should be 4–6 paragraphs in length.

Checkers Early Childhood Learning Center

Checkers Early Childhood Learning Center is a comprehensive program providing a full range of services to children ages 6 weeks to 5 years and their families. There are several locations throughout Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Checkers also provides a full range of educational, social, and health services to children and families who are low income. Services for adults and families are available through family medicine and mental health. Licensed professionals provide comprehensive evaluation, early intervention, and therapeutic services.

Smart Start Early Childhood Learning Center

Smart Start Early Childhood Learning Center provides a secure, nurturing, and stimulating preschool environment that helps children to understand themselves as individuals as well as members of a community. We believe that a good early-school experience can set the tone for a lifetime of learning. Through daily lessons, community involvement, and self-exploration, we strive to spark and encourage creativity and imagination in each child. Our preschool programs strive to establish comfortable environments for each child to reach new developmental milestones. Services for the community are provided at no out-of-pocket cost to families who meet income guidelines.

Your Response

Enter Your Response Here

Rubric

Not Present

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Sub-Competency 1: Describe public funding sources to support early childhood programs and initiatives.

Learning Objective 1.3:
Explain how various public funding sources apply to early childhood learning centers.

Explanation is missing.

Explanation is incomplete or vague.

Response includes a clear explanation of how the public funding sources applies to the early childhood learning center in the scenario.

Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:
Response explains why the other funding sources are not appropriate.

Short Answer 3
In addition to public funding, both Checkers Early Learning Center and Smart Start Early Learning Center have decided to pursue funding from private sources. Research private funding sources that would be applicable for each of the centers. Choose one source for each center and explain why the center is a good candidate for receiving this funding. Explain the process for obtaining the private funding sources you identified. The response should be 6–8 paragraphs in length.
Your Response
Enter Your Response Here
Rubric

Not Present

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Sub-Competency 2: Evaluate private funding sources and processes for obtaining funding to support early childhood programs and initiatives.

Learning Objective 2.1:
Describe private funding sources.

Description is missing.

Response describes a vague or inappropriate private funding source for the early childhood center.

Response includes an accurate and relevant description of the private funding source appropriate for the early childhood center.

Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:
Response explains the benefits and challenges of seeking private funding.

Learning Objective 2.2:
Explain processes for obtaining private funding sources for early childhood learning centers.

Explanation is missing.

Response includes a limited or incomplete explanation of how to obtain private funding for each source.

Response includes a clear explanation of how to obtain each private funding source for an early childhood learning center.

Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following:
Response identifies stakeholders involved and/or resources to support centers in the process for obtaining private funding.

Short Answer 4

Read the following reports about Universal Pre-K and its funding implications. Answer the questions that follow. Your response should be 4–6 paragraphs in length.

Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2011). Improving public financing for early learning programs (Policy Brief Issue 23). Retrieved from

http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/24

Citizen’s Budget Commission. (2013). The challenge of making universal prekindergarten a reality in New York state. Retrieved from

http://www.cbcny.org/sites/default/files/REPORT_UPK_10222013

a. Explain the challenges New York is experiencing in funding universal pre-kindergarten.

b. Describe at least three potential funding sources for Universal Pre-K described in the Citizens Budget Commission report.

c. How might policies like universal pre-kindergarten impact funding for early childhood centers and the children and families they serve?

Your Response
Enter Your Response Here
Rubric

Not Present

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Explanation is missing.

Description is missing.

Explanation is missing.

Sub-Competency 3: Analyze the impact of political, economic, and social policies and trends on programmatic funding streams for early childhood settings.
Learning Objective 3.1: Explain fiscal challenges in meeting policy initiatives.	Response provides a vague or partial explanation of the fiscal challenges in meeting policy initiatives.	Response provides an accurate explanation of the fiscal challenges in meeting policy initiatives.	Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following: Response explains how these challenges are relevant to other initiatives or settings.
Learning Objective 3.2: Describe funding sources to meet policy initiatives.	Response provides a vague or partial description of funding sources to meet policy initiatives.	Response provides an accurate and thorough description of three funding sources to meet policy initiatives.	Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following: Response describes more than three funding sources.
Learning Objective 3.3: Explain how policies and initiatives impact funding for early childhood programs.	Response provides an incomplete explanation of how policies and initiatives impact funding for early childhood programs and the children and families they serve.	Response provides a thorough explanation of how policies and initiatives impact funding for early childhood programs and the children and families they serve.	Demonstrates the same level of achievement as “2,” plus the following: Response uses specific examples to support the explanation.

FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING

Early childhood professionals, such as child care providers, teachers, and consultants, receive federal and state funding to provide a variety of
services to children in low-income working families. Federal and state funding for early childhood services are available through a complex maze
of funding streams and government agencies. The following are some quick facts about early childhood services and the funding streams that
support these services.

■ Most federal funds are granted to State agencies to provide statewide services. Some federal funding is provided directly to local public and
private entities. 1

■ Federal and state funding for child care services is also provided directly to parents via tax credits. Some States have established business tax
credits to support child care providers directly. There are also tax credits available for businesses that sponsor child care for their employees.

■ The Federal and the State Departments of Education fund public (schools) and private (schools and child care programs) entities to provide early
learning services to children in low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) also provides grants to selected Race to the Top –
Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) fund States to improve early learning and development programs for young children through
comprehensive early learning education reform.

■ The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides grants to local public and private nonprofit and for-profit agencies through
the Head Start and Early Head Start programs to provide early learning services to children in low-income families.

■ In addition to funding early learning programs through Head Start, HHS also funds child care services for low-income working families. An
estimated 2.4 million children received child care services through federal funding streams in an average month in FY 2009 (Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2012).

■ Federal funds are also available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide nutritious meals and snacks to children in child
care programs. Approximately 3.3 million children receive nutritious meals and snacks through the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
each year.

1 Some of the Federal funding streams listed in this document (TANF, CCDF, CCAMPIS) also fund child care for school-age children during out-of-school times.
There are additional federal and state funding streams that help fund services for school-age children during out-of-school time (such as 21st Century).
Additional information about out-of-school time funding sources is available at http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/.

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 1

http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/

http:http://www.findyouthinfo.gov

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014

■ The majority of the federal and state funding is used to provide direct services to children and families but some funds are used to improve the
overall quality of the services provided by early care and education programs, including the funding of technical assistance and training.

The following table summarizes available data for the major federal and state early care and education funding streams in the United States.

Table 1. Federal and State Early Care and Education Funding Streams

Federal and State Funding Sources

Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

Child Care and Federal Funding 1.5 million CCDF is administered by the Office of Child Care (OCC) within the
Development $5.3 billion average monthly (FY Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS and provides grants
Fund (CCDF) State Funding

$2.0 billion
(FY 2014
allocation)

2012) to States, Territories, and Tribes to assist low-income families, families
receiving temporary public assistance, and those transitioning from public
assistance in obtaining child care so they can work or attend education and
training programs. Grantees must serve children younger than 13 years,
however, some grantees may also elect to serve children ages 13 to 19
who are physically or mentally incapacitated or under court supervision.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ccdf/factsheet.htm

Preschool $250 million To be determined These grants will help States, local education agencies, and local
Development (FY 2014 governments build the fundamental components of a high-quality
Grant Program estimate) preschool system or expand proven early learning programs. To be

eligible for funding, prospective grantees must describe how they will
expand access to children from low- to moderate-income families, ensure
an adequate supply of high-quality preschool slots and qualified teachers,
monitor for continuous improvement, partner with local education
agencies and other providers, and sustain high-quality services after the
grant period.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 2

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ccdf/factsheet.htm

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014

Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

Federal Child
and
Dependent Care
Tax Credit
(CDCTC) 2

$3.3 billion
claimed by
taxpayers

(tax year 2010)

$6.2 billion
claimed by
taxpayers

(tax year 2010)

The Federal CDCTC helps families meet their child and dependent care
expenses. Families can use any type of child care (such as a center,
family child care [FCC] home, or a neighbor or relative’s house). The
care must have been provided for one or more qualifying persons
(dependent child age 12 or younger when the care was provided).
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106189,00.html

Head Start/Early
Head Start 3

Federal Funding
$8.6 billion
(FY 2014

expenditure)

1,034,000
(2012-2013
school year)

The Office of Head Start, within HHS, provides grants to local public and
private nonprofit and for-profit agencies to administer Head Start and Early
Head Start programs. These programs provide child-focused services to
children from birth to age 5, pregnant women and their families, and have
the overall goal of increasing the school readiness of young children from
low-income families. http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs

2 Additional tax credits are also available to businesses that support child care programs.

3 Some States also use state funds to fund Head Start programs (2010 – 2011 school year: State Funding = $144 million).

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 3

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0%2C%2Cid%3D106189%2C00.html

http://transition.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014
Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

IDEA: Early $438.5 million 338,932 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) authorizes
Intervention (FY 2014 (FY 2013) formula grants to States and discretionary grants to higher education
Program for appropriation) institutions and nonprofit organizations to support demonstrations,
Infants and research, parent training and information centers, technology and
Toddlers personnel development, and technical assistance and dissemination
with within the State. Part C of the IDEA (also known as the Early
Disabilities Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities) provides
(IDEA Part grants to States to serve infants and toddlers (ages birth through 2
C) years) who have developmental delays or have been diagnosed with a

physical or mental condition that may result in developmental delays.
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, within ED,
administers the IDEA grants, including Part C grants.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html

IDEA: Preschool $353.2 4 million 730,558 The Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities program is authorized
Grants for (FY 2014 (FY 2011) under Section 619 of Part B of IDEA and is administered by the Office of
Children appropriation) Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within ED. It was
with established to provide grants to States to serve young children with
Disabilities disabilities, ages 3 through 5 years.
(IDEA Part http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html
B)

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 4

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014
Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

Military Child
Development
Program

$532 million (FY
2007) (Updated

information is not
available)

175,000 approx.
(FY 2007)
(Updated

information is
not available

The U.S. Department of Defense spends more than $530 million annually
to provide child care services to military personnel, making it the largest
employer-sponsored child care program in the United States. These
services are provided to military families through both child development
centers and FCC homes. http://www.defense.gov/news/QRMCreport

Race to the Top
– Early
Learning
Challenge
(RTT- ELC)

$370 million
(FY 2013
funding)

211,000
(based on pre-k

enrollment in
6 grantee states)

RTT-ELC are competitive grants offered to States to improve their early
learning and development programs through comprehensive early learning
education reform. Nine States (CA, DE, MA, MD, MN, NC, OH, RI, WA)
won funding through Phase 1 in FY 2011, five states (CO, IL, NM, OR,
WI) won funding through Phase 2 in FY 2012, and six states (GA, KY, MI,
NJ, PA, VT) won funding through Phase 3 in FY 2013 of the RTT–ELC that
would provide funds to certain States that applied for, but did not receive,
funding under Phase 1. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop
earlylearningchallenge/index.html

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 5

http://www.defense.gov/news/QRMCreport

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014
Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

Social Services
Block
Grant
(SSBG)

$238 million
(direct child care

spending)
(FY 2012

expenditure)

Information not
available

SSBG is administered by the Office of Community Services within HHS
and provides grants to States to fund a broad range of social services
within the State. Each State has the flexibility to determine how funds are
distributed among services, what services are provided, and who is
eligible for services. Some of the SSBG fund is used to fund child care
services directly and part of the SSBG funds are transferred to Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to provide child care services.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/about/factsheets.htm

State Child and
Dependent Care
Tax Credit
(CDCTC)

Not Available Not Available Twenty-eight States have created a tax credit similar to the Federal
CDCTC. In 13 of these States, the tax credit is refundable. The eligibility
criteria for the tax credit vary by State. http://www.nwlc.org/our
issues/tax-%2526-budget

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 6

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/about/factsheets.htm

http://www.nwlc.org/our-issues/tax-%2526-budget

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014
Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

State-Funded
Prekindergarten 4

$5.39 billion
(2012 – 2013
school year)
expenditure)

1.34 million
(2012-2013
school year)

An early learning program funded by state general revenue funds to
increase access and improve quality; it invests public resources in state-
funded preschool education. The funding often goes to local school
districts for programming that emphasizes school readiness.
http://nieer.org/yearbook

Temporary
Assistance
for Needy
Families
(TANF)

$2.5 billion
(transfer)

$1.36 billion
(direct)
(FY 2013

expenditure)
Information not
available

TANF is administered by the Office of Family Assistance within HHS
and provides grants to States, Territories, or Tribes to assist families
with children so children can be cared for in their own homes; reduce
welfare dependency by promoting work, job preparation, and marriage;
reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the
maintenance and formation of two-parent families. States, Territories,
and Tribes may transfer TANF funds to CCDF or directly spend funds
on child care. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html

4 There is some duplication between state-funded prekindergarten and State CCDF funds since many States use prekindergarten funding as Match for the CCDF
program.

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 7

http://nieer.org/yearbook

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014
Federal and State Funding Sources
Programs Amount of Funding Number of Children Served Comments

Title I Preschool $14.4 billion
(FY

2014)

appropriation

Not available Many school districts support preschool programs with their Title I
(Education for the Disadvantaged) funds. More than 50,000 public
schools across the country use Title I funds to provide additional
academic support and learning opportunities to help low-achieving
children master challenging curricula and meet state standards in core
academic subjects. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

Early Head
Start-Child Care
Partnership

$500 million
(Initial Grant
Funding FY

2014)

TBD These grants will allow new or existing Early Head Start programs to
partner with local child care centers and FCC providers serving infants
and toddlers from low-income families. These grants will support States
and communities as they expand high-quality early learning opportunities
to infants and toddlers through EHS-CC Partnerships. The partnerships
will support working families by providing a full-day, full-year program so
that children in low-income families have the healthy and enriching early
experiences they need to realize their full potential.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships

References

Barnett, W. S., Brown, K.C., Carolyn, M. E., & Squires, J. H. (2013). The state of preschool 2013. New Brunswick: National Institute for Early

Education Research. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/yearbook/.

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2014, February). Annual appropriations and number of children served under Part C of IDEA
federal fiscal years 1987-2014. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/partc/partcdata.asp.

Food Research and Action Center. (2013, December). State of the states 2013: United States. Retrieved from http://frac.org/map/.

Internal Revenue Service. (2012, June). Tax Year 2010: Historical Table 2 (SOI Bulletin). Retrieved from

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=171535,00.html.

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 8

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships

http://nieer.org/yearbook/

http://ectacenter.org/partc/partcdata.asp

http://frac.org/map/

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0%2C%2Cid%3D171535%2C00.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014

National Women’s Law Center. (2012, February). 2012 Supplement to making care less taxing: Improving state child and dependent care tax
provisions. Retrieved from http://www.nwlc.org/resource/2012-supplement-making-care-less-taxing-improving-state-child-and-dependent-care
tax-provis.

National Women’s Law Center. (2011, April). 2011 Making care less taxing: Improving state child and dependent care tax provisions. Retrieved from
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/2011-making-care-less-taxing-improving-state-child-and-dependent-care-tax-provisions.

New America Foundation. (2014, April) No child left behind funding. Retrieved from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left
behind-funding.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014, July). Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Web site. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2008). Report of the Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation: Volume II Deferred and Noncash
Compensation. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Defense.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Fiscal year 2014 allocations for the grants for infants and families program Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act – Part C. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/2014apps.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, September). Preschool development grants. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, April). President’s FY 2015 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, April). Fiscal year allocations for preschool grants Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – Part B, Section
619. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/2014apps.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, February). Child care access means parents in school program: Funding status. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/campisp/funding.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2013, December). Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge: Funding Status. Retrieved from Funding Status:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/funding.html.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Accountability Center. (2013, September). Table 11.2: Special
education—children and students served under IDEA, Part B, by age: Fall 2011. Retrieved from
http://uploads.tadnet.org/centers/97/assets/2423/download.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care. (2014, October). Table 1 Child Care
and Development Fund preliminary estimates average monthly adjusted number of families and children served (FFY 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdf-data-tables-final-table-1.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care. (2014, July). Early Head Start
Child Care partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships.

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 9

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/2012-supplement-making-care-less-taxing-improving-state-child-and-dependent-care-tax-provis

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/2011-making-care-less-taxing-improving-state-child-and-dependent-care-tax-provisions

http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program

http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/2014apps.html

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/2014apps.html

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/funding.html

http://uploads.tadnet.org/centers/97/assets/2423/download

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdf-data-tables-final-table-1

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/campisp/funding.html

Federal and State Funding for Child Care and Early Learning December 2014

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Care. (2014, January). Child Care and
Development Fund fiscal year 2012 state spending from all appropriation years. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/expenditures-overview-for-fy-2012-all-appropriation-years.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2014, September).
SSBG fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/social-services-block-grant-ssbg-fact-sheet.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. (2014, July). C.1.b.: Federal
TANF expenditures on assistance in FY 2013 and C.1.c.: Federal TANF expenditures on non-assistance in FY 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2013.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. (2014, September). Head Start
program fact sheet fiscal year 2013. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet-2013 .

*The Child Care State Systems Specialist Network does not endorse any non-Federal organization, publication, or resource.

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care

9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax VA, 22031 | Phone: 877-296-2401 | Email: OCCTANetwork@icfi.com

Child Care State Systems Specialist Network, A Service of the Office of Child Care 10

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/expenditures-overview-for-fy-2012-all-appropriation-years

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/social-services-block-grant-ssbg-fact-sheet

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2013

https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet-2013

mailto:OCCTANetwork@icfi.com

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Early childhood case short Answer ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now