A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Early Childhood

Update

What a Difference a State Makes: Tracking the Well-Being of Young Children and Families

To what extent are states investing in program and/or planning strategies designed to enhance school and health-related outcomes for young children and their families before they enter school? This critical question is the focus of the first edition of Map and Track: State Initiatives for Young Children and Families (Knitzer & Page 1996). Released in the spring of 1996 by the National Center for Children in Poverty, Map and Track emphasizes state initiatives, rather than efforts linked to federal programs.

With input from national organizations and the states themselves, Map and Track is designed to be a tool that state policymakers, advocates, program directors, and others interested in young children and families can use to foster state-to-state learning and to document the extent to which a particular state is addressing the well-being of young children and families. A second edition, tracking changes, will be issued in 1998.

Map and Track Highlights

• Three-quarters of the states (37) are supporting one or more state-funded, comprehensive program strategies explicitly targeted to young children and families, although expenditure and program scope vary greatly. One-third of the states are not only focusing on the preschool years (ages 3-5) but are developing home visiting, parent education, or family support programs targeted to infants and toddlers and their families.

• Close to 40 percent of the states are engaging in broad state-level or state- and community-level planning or system reform efforts. Many focus on linking school-based programs with child care programs.

• Overall, although there is much activity among the states on behalf of young children and their families, only eight states have developed comprehensive initiatives with linked program and planning components and media and other efforts to build understanding about the importance of early investments. Further state initiatives in most states involve support for individual program strategies, rather than efforts to build systems of supports for young children and their families that link school and community-based early care and education programs, as well as home visiting programs for infants and toddlers.

• There was no obvious pattern linking state program, planning, or comprehensive multi-strategy initiatives with levels of risk in the young child population, or patterns of state investments based on the indicators identified by the National Center for Children in Poverty.

What It All Means

Map and Track has several important messages. First, the fact that three-quarters of the states have recognized the importance of supporting learning and developmental experiences for children before they enter school either through home visiting, family support, or prekindergarten-type programs is encouraging, given empirical knowledge that so strongly supports early learning experiences. Second, the mechanisms for building a strong community voice on behalf of young children and families are expanding. The fact that close to half of the states already have planning processes for children and families in place, many involving a range of community voices, may provide a positive and unanticipated catalyst for the allocation of federal and state dollars in new ways. Third, some states, such as Oregon, are already experimenting with a kind of state-to-community devolution; creating, for example, "readiness to learn" flexible funding streams that communities can use to fill in gaps in services. Thus, in Oregon, Great Start grants can be used to support preventive services for children from birth to six. Fourth, the schools and departments of education are centrally involved in many initiatives for young children and families, either with direct program responsibility or as partners in collaborative efforts. In Massachusetts, for example, the Community Partnerships for Children Program (the state's prekindergarten program) provides grants to local partnerships of child care providers, Head Start programs, and schools to develop and implement joint plans to coordinate education, health, and social services. In 1995, with a budget of $14.3 million, grants were made to 130 communities.

Implications for Research

Map and Track also has implications for policy-relevant research. It highlights the need for a study, for example, examining the role of the schools in early childhood programs. It also suggests a framework through which specific groups of children might be examined, for example, young children living in urban poverty (Knitzer, in press); and it underscores the need to examine initiatives for young children and families in the context of recent changes related to the Family Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law 103-193). Perhaps, most importantly, Map and Track highlights the need to gather common information on early childhood indicators and the transition to school that can be used across programs, agencies, and states. Only then will it truly be possible to use the kind of data Map and Track reports to enhance the well-being of young children and the likelihood of later success in school.

To learn more about Map and Track or to purchase a copy of the report, please contact the National Center for Children in Poverty, 154 Haven Avenue, New York, New York 10032; internet: http://wwwcpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/.

REFERENCE

Knitzer, Jane and Page, Stephen (1996).

Map and Track: State Initiatives for Young Children and Families. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University School of Public Health.

Forward to Next Article