I know this much is true

three truths that will shape the evolution of an increasingly uncertain early childhood landscape

In my first post here, I wrote about the uncertainty of this moment in early childhood policy and some of the forces and trends that offer cause for both optimism and pessimism. It’s hard to predict right now where the early childhood field is headed, in part because that direction will be shaped by broader factors—the outcomes of the mid-term and 2028 elections, whether (and/or when) the economy enters a full recession, the continued development of AI and how policymakers and businesses respond—that are also difficult or impossible to predict right now. That said, there are three things I think we can know will be true about early childhood in the near- to mid-term future:

1. Increasing variability: The kinds of early childhood services that children have access to, their quality, and what they cost have long depended in large part on where they live. Some communities offer free, public pre-k and have a strong supply of market child care with robust subsidies for low-income infants and toddlers. Other states and communities offer little or no pre-K, have shortages of market child care, and make it very difficult for families to access child care subsidies. This variation is only going to grow in the next few years, as some states push forward with expansions of and investments in early care and education programs, while others make sharp cuts in response to fiscal pressures. Recent federal regulatory changes, which lifted Biden-ea requirements for states to cap child care subsidy copays and implement subsidy payment practices more reflective of how non-subsidized families pay for care, may accelerate this variation. States are still permitted to implement these policies, and some will keep or move forward with copay caps and less burdensome payment policies. Others will use the federal regulatory change, along with increased attention to “fraud” from the current administration, as a cover not only to resume past practices but also impose new requirements on providers and families that further restrict access.

We’ll also see more variation within states, as mayors, county executives, school district superintendents, and local voters, impatient with lack of state progress on early childhood, choose to take matters into their own hands, passing local tax levies or shifting local funding priorities to expand or sustain early childhood investments.

Greater state and local variation in early childhood policies, funding, and systems has implications for children, families, and child care operators. It will exacerbate geographic inequities in access, quality, affordability, and outcomes for families and children. Where state spending cuts or other policies (e.g. burdensome new “anti-fraud” requirements, regulatory barriers, minimum wage increases) make it harder for child care businesses to operate, more child care facilities will close up shop. But states and communities that are investing will need strategies to grow supply. Existing child care providers can’t easily move in response to funding changes, though, and access to capital to open or expand child care programs isn’t evenly distributed. As a result, variation in state and local early childhood systems could fundamentally reshape what the national portfolio of child care operators looks like, across multiple dimensions of scale, operator type/corporate structure, and business owners and program leader demographics.

Increased state and local variation also creates opportunities for learning: Some state and local efforts will improve access, quality, or outcomes for children and families. Others will be less successful or even do harm. Learning from variation in strategies and results can help accelerate progress, but requires a willingness to be honest about what is working and what is not; mechanisms for capturing lessons learned and sharing with other states and federal policymakers; and robust data systems and analytic capacity—all of which are still too scarce in early childhood.

Increasing state and local variability also has implications for the federal role in early childhood. With the exception of Head Start,¹ federal early childhood policies and funding must work through states. When states are doing very different things and designing systems that operate in new ways, one size fits all federal approaches won’t work and may even penalize front-running states. The next iteration of federal leadership on early childhood will need to combine learning from and building on the lessons of states that are leading the way, providing flexibility for those states to use federal resources in ways that accelerate progress within the new kinds of systems they are already building, while also providing guardrails that raise the floor for states that are laggards.

2. Need for new ideas and thinking: Making and sustaining progress in this current landscape—whether at the federal, state, or local level—is going to require new ideas and thinking. The formulas that advocates and state leaders have used to incrementally expand early childhood programs over the past decade won’t work the same way in a climate of growing fiscal constraint. Sustaining and growing investments will require new approaches to generating revenues and broadening coalitions that strengthen the political base of support for early childhood.

Over the past five years, we’ve seen that traditional tools for improving child care access and affordability—incremental increases in child care subsidy rates and eligibility—aren’t, in themselves, sufficient to support sustainable child care businesses or improve affordability for the broader population of working families struggling to afford child care. These approaches are also hard to sustain in the current funding climate. Achieving states’ goals for access, quality, and affordability requires new methods of funding childcare. A growing number of states are designing or implementing new funding mechanisms that complement subsidies and/or parent funding to support sustainable provider operations, increase early educator pay, or boost access and affordability for families. But further innovation and learning are needed. At the same time, system leaders and advocates also need to think critically about how to make the most of existing funds—including ways to make current programs more efficient, as well as what to stop doing and funding in order to focus resources on the strategies most likely to improve results for children and families.

Child care providers will also need to learn to operate in new ways to meet the needs of families and be sustainable in the current landscape. This may mean expanding part-time offerings; shifting the of ages of children served; increasing use of technology and automation; or other innovations not yet identified. State system leaders and advocates need to work closely with innovative child care providers to identify rules, systems, and processes that create barriers to this type of innovation and make adjustments to support new delivery models.

Philanthropic leaders also need to think creatively about how they are best poised to support progress in the current landscape. The playbook many have followed for the past decade or more—invest in a promising practice, seek to demonstrate impact, work with advocates to build support to sustain and scale the practice with public funding—isn’t obsolete, but may be less effective going forward. Philanthropic support for advocacy will continue to be essential, but the types of strategies and coalitions that philanthropy is supporting may need to evolve, as well as the toolkit philanthropic funders use to support effective advocacy.

Philanthropic funders also have opportunities to accelerate progress by supporting improvements in data, state and local administrative and systems capacity, and rigorous analysis and thinking that contribute to development of effective and feasible new solutions for the early childhood field.

There’s a particulary need for new thinking and vision about the go-forward federal role in early childhood. This is an opportunity for 2028 House, Senate, and presidential contenders—on both sides of the political aisle—but one that requires true leadership. Speaking of which….

3. Importance of leadership: Leadership has always been essential for driving progress in early childhood, but it’s even more important in the current context. Sustaining and expanding early childhood investments in a tight fiscal climate will only be possible when executive and legislative branch decisionmakers at the most senior levels are both deeply committed to early childhood and willing to make hard choices to prioritize early childhood funding relative to other important priorities. This in turn requires strong, smart leadership from advocates and philanthropic funders to hold elected leaders accountable, provide them cover when they make hard choices, and forge new alliances that build the base of political support for early childhood. Elected and non-elected early childhood systems leaders, advocacy and philanthropic leaders, and early childhood program leaders will also need to be willing to set priorities, be honest about trade-offs between competing goods, and disappoint key constituencies when necessary.

Part of the goal of this substack is to help leaders across this variety of contexts to have the information, analysis, and ideas they need in order to do the hard work needed to hold ground or enable progress in a challenging landscape. As we move through the mid-term election cycle and the 2028 campaign gets underway, I’ll continue to be following where we’re seeing governors, mayors, other elected officials and 2028 presidential contenders show leadership on early childhood, as well as the various efforts of advocates, analysts, and others to shape where that leadership may be headed.

I’ll also be on the lookout for where less well-known folks are showing leadership or driving innovation on early childhood at the program, local, state, and national levels. Is there someone you think is showing important leadership that deserves more attention? Share in the comments or email me at [myfirstinitial+mylastname]AT[aftonpartners.com].

1. As of this writing; it’s possible federal regulatory or legislative action may change this as well.