Elections Have Consequences

The October meeting of the ECE Implementation Working Group focused on the intersection of local electoral politics and early childhood policy. Why talk about local politics in a group focused on implementation? When we surveyed group members earlier this year about what was most top of mind, they highlighted local politics as particularly relevant and timely, and with good reason. In many cities and counties, launching or expanding early care and education programs like universal pre-K is driven by the mayor or equivalent local executive who has the ability to prioritize funding, resources, attention, and support toward implementation.

So what happens when that person leaves office? When a newly elected official brings fresh support for early childhood programs and wants to hit the ground running, what can teams do quickly?

Local politics can hinder or enable effective implementation significantly; therefore, understanding how to navigate changes in the local political environment — and where there may be opportunities to influence how transitions happen — is critical.

Local politics have outsized impacts on early childhood education–even more so than K-12 education because of how programs are funded and managed. Understanding the dynamics will help program leaders advocate for their communities’ priorities and manage the political forces more strategically. Across communities, we see that:

• Early childhood education is deeply politicized. Despite widespread voter support for greater public spending on early education, there are deep divides between politicians about whether early care and education should be publicly funded and how it should be implemented
• Strong support in one administration can become baggage in another. Many successful local early care and education initiatives exist because they were championed by an elected official. Their support sustains the program as long as they remain in office, but that same support can become a political liability in a subsequent administration. Many municipal pre-K programs that got their start as campaign promises became legacy issues for specific leaders. Even in same-party transitions, a new executive may want to make their own mark.
• Funding can shift with political winds. ECE funding is rarely guaranteed, and funds often require renewal, either at the ballot or through the local budgeting process. This creates uncertainty, even in communities where the program has wide support.
• Local politics can have big impacts on a largely blank slate. There is no federal model for free, universal early care and education programs, and federal and state funding for early childhood services is fragmented. With no overarching structures in place, local governments are driving innovation in program design and delivery. Local leaders have far more latitude in early childhood education than K-12 education and other public services, and this raises the stakes during political transitions.

Electoral change can bring positive opportunities – and risks to mitigate. Local political transitions can trigger impacts across the board:

• overall prioritization of early childhood education
• specific focus areas within early care and education
• size of the fiscal investment
• commitment to a specific goal
• staff stability and institutional knowledge
• support from parents, providers, teachers, advocates, labor, and other stakeholders
• the locality’s posture toward state government

Mapping out potential changes due to local leadership transitions can help program leaders and policymakers think about what is more or less in their control given their role and position, and prioritize where to focus time and energy during a transition. For example, the civil servants leading pre-K implementation probably cannot change a messy interpersonal dynamic between a mayor and a governor, but local leaders can focus on building staff-level relationships with state counterparts that allow them to get things done regardless of the political dynamic.

Successfully navigating a political transition may require demonstrating to an elected official how early care and education aligns with their priorities. Efforts from around the country have shown us that there are a wide range of reasons for elected officials to support early childhood investments. Supporting child development, enabling parental workforce participation, and invigorating the economy can all be effective messages for elected officials. Understand what motivates specific leaders and who they listen to, and then align ECE investments to outcomes that will resonate most.

During the October meeting, local leaders reflected on a few big themes: When you know a political transition is coming, what can you do to prepare? If the incoming executive does see early childhood education as a priority, how can you be ready to leverage their support on day one? If the incoming executive does not see early childhood education as a priority, how can you build connections to help them see the value? And lastly, what steps can administrators take to “future-proof” early childhood programs from political transitions?

To protect group members’ confidentiality, we are sharing thematic takeaways from the discussion without attributing the examples to specific cities or counties.

• Newly elected officials may be looking for quick wins, and early childhood programs can be appealing options because impacts for families are fairly immediate. Having a proposal in hand that can be quickly implemented will give your program a leg up.
• The amount of work on most teams’ plates makes it a challenge to do much besides keep heads down and push towards the “finish line” of a transition, but prioritizing dedicated time for long-term planning can be incredibly valuable. Teams shared how this helped them define priorities, identify what messages might resonate for a new administration, and think collaboratively about how to navigate the changing headwinds.
• Transitions can open- and reopen- debates about goals and priorities for early childhood programs, which is not itself a problem. Reasonable people can have different opinions about how these services should be designed and implemented! But, debates can lead to the kind of infighting that fractures political support and hurts long-term funding opportunities. Some folks discussed compromising on priorities and looking for language that could help build consensus. Others reflected on the importance of tough conversations to communicate what is at stake if the early childhood community does not come together more to defend critical investments.
• Many communities are developing stronger in-roads with business leaders to build broader support for early childhood education investments, influence political leaders, and potentially leverage new funding sources. Strategies included working closely with city or regional chambers of commerce, and other organizations connecting economic growth with stronger policies supporting working families.
• Early childhood services show up in elections beyond candidates’ platforms: ballot initiatives are another very tangible way that elections impact policy. Several working group members have programs that were initially funded at the ballot, and they had to build multi-sectoral coalitions to win enough votes to achieve passage. Others are thinking about how to build the political coalitions to introduce a ballot measure, either with an elected official as champion or with a signature petition (depending on the state). This November, we will have our eyes on at least three communities nationally with funding measures on the ballot that would put meaningful resources into early care and education: Travis County, TX; Saint Paul, MN; and Sonoma County, CA. The Children’s Funding Project will be closely tracking and reporting on the outcomes of these efforts. The outcomes in these votes could be instructive for other communities thinking about pursuing measures next year and beyond.
• The group talked a bit about different approaches to local politics based on structural differences – for example, weak versus strong mayoral systems, whether early childhood is managed at the city or county level, how city and county boundaries overlap, and how school district boundaries map to local government boundaries. Members of the working group represent an array of different governance structures; what this means for effective implementation will undoubtedly continue to be a theme in our ongoing conversations.

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