bang for your buck

Investing early in quality child care for at-risk kids pays off big later, research finds

A staff member works with preschoolers at Educare Denver at Clayton Early Learning.

New research reveals that despite hefty up-front costs, quality child care programs for disadvantaged children starting just after birth and continuing to age five produce major financial dividends over the long term.

Such programs yield an annual return of 13 percent per child — generating $6.30 for every $1 initially invested in the program, according to the research by University of Chicago economist James Heckman.

The rate of return, which Heckman described as “huge,” is significantly higher than the 7 to 10 percent rate he found in previous research focusing just on the impact of preschool.

“We think this is very strong evidence for supporting this kind of program going forward,” Heckman said during a media briefing Thursday.

The study, released Monday, was authored by Heckman and other researchers from the University of Chicago and the University of Southern California. Heckman is known for his groundbreaking research on the economics of early childhood education.

With many cities and states focused on the expansion of full-day kindergarten or preschool in recent years, the new findings bolster arguments for early childhood investments that also cover kids’ first three years.

“The public policy literature has understated the importance of the very early years,” Heckman said.

At the same time, the study further documents the non-educational benefits of quality child care for at-risk children, particularly when it comes to long-term health outcomes.

“We’re seeing an improved human being in terms of the health capacity…at age 35,” said Heckman. “That’s a big benefit and it’s not a benefit that’s been considered in looking at these early childhood programs in the past.”

He said the research team’s projections show lower risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease among children who attended the high-quality programs studied, as well as a reduction in unhealthy habits like smoking and drug use.

”What we found is a substantial reduction in those health costs and a much healthier workforce going forward,” he said.

The new study compared children who attended two intensive child care programs in North Carolina starting in the 1970s — the Carolina Abecedarian Project and Carolina Approach to Responsive Education — with those in a control group who had lower-quality child care arrangements.

In 2014 dollars, the annual cost of the intensive programs would be more than $18,000 per child.

In addition to providing full-day, full-year care and regular health exams to the children, the two programs provided child care subsidies to the parents, enabling them to work. Researchers followed participants from eight weeks old until age 35, examining a variety of outcomes, including educational attainment, earnings, health and involvement in crime.

While the early intensive programs benefitted all children, they benefitted boys most.

Heckman said the finding points to the likelihood that boys are more vulnerable and less resilient than girls if placed in low-quality child care settings.

“There do seem to be more harmful consequences for boys than for girls,” he said.

Although the two programs studied operated 40 years ago, the research team noted that such comprehensive birth-age 5 programs exist around the world today. Heckman cited the national Educare network of model child care centers as one example.

Denver’s Clayton Early Learning houses one such center and President and CEO Charlotte Brantley said she welcomed the new study.

“The research is absolutely telling us this is worth the upfront investment,” she said. “I applaud him for coming out one more time, saying this yet again.”

Brantley said there are few programs as comprehensive as Clayton in the state, though some full-day, full-year Head Start and Early Head Start programs may offer something similar.

Clayton, which offers care for infants starting at six weeks of age, provides extensive staff training, in-depth assistance for parents and has very low staff-child ratios. Brantley said the center recently embarked on a pilot project to train other providers on some of Clayton’s key practices.

Quality quest

How Colorado is trying to boost access to quality child care for poor kids

PHOTO: Meghan Mangrum

When Colorado changed the way it paid child care providers for educating little kids from low-income families — paying high quality providers more than lower-quality ones — there was both elation and frustration.

Deb Hartman, program director at a highly rated center in Las Animas County in southern Colorado, called the new approach “life-changing.” The extra money, she said, helped save infant and toddler classrooms that otherwise would have closed. She was able to give her teachers raises and even buy a coffee-maker for the teacher’s lounge.

But 300 miles north in Larimer County, officials who administer the state’s child care subsidy program for residents weren’t so happy. The new reimbursement rates meant a growing price tag for the program and today, nearly 600 kids on the wait list.

The dichotomy illustrates the growing pains that have come with state efforts to get low-income youngsters into high-quality child care — a key factor in making sure kids are ready for kindergarten and reading well in third grade.

While Colorado policy-makers have made an array of changes to the complicated $86 million subsidy program in recent years — several focused on promoting child care quality— there’s a long way to go to ensure poor kids get the same level of care available to upper-income kids.

Not only are there too few high-quality providers across the state, but many don’t accept subsidies, which is often the only way low-income families can gain access to top-notch child care.

Thousands of providers — about 84 percent — are still on the lowest rungs of the state’s two-year-old quality rating system, Colorado Shines. The lowest rating is Level 1, which means a provider is licensed and has met basic health and safety requirements. Level 2 is a step up and means a provider has started to climb the quality ladder, but has not yet achieved what is considered the mark of high quality — a Level 3, 4 or 5 rating.

Of about 680 high-quality providers across Colorado, about 37 percent accept subsidies. Sometimes it’s because they can easily fill their rosters with children whose parents pay full freight. In other cases directors balk at accepting subsidies because the program, officially called the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, has a reputation for red tape and out-of-date technology.

“It’s not very 21st century at all,” said Terri Albohn, who helps administer the subsidy program for Boulder County.

State officials say they’re in the process of streamlining and modernizing the program, which helps low-income parents afford child care if they’re working, in school or looking for jobs.

State officials aim to increase the number of providers that have ratings above Level 1 and to improve the distribution of high-quality programs that accept subsidies so communities outside the Front Range have better access.

“The idea is to try to break out of that I-25 corridor in particular,” said Erin Mewhinney, director of early care and learning for the state Department of Human Services.

When kids lack access to high-quality care, it can mean less-than-ideal child care arrangements — sitting in front of the TV or staying home with grandparents or older siblings.

One state initiative in the works will award grants to providers rated Level 2-5 that accept or plan to accept child care subsidies. Mewhinney said the state’s goal is to ensure that 33 percent of Colorado communities have at least one high-quality provider that takes subsidies. Right now, that number stands at 26 percent.

One person on the front lines of efforts to get more providers to accept subsidies is Jennifer Sanchez McDonald, coordinator of the Huerfano and Las Animas Counties Early Childhood Advisory Council.

She likes to tell providers that the program is “going to empower your site, not decrease your opportunities.”

In one recent example, she visited a licensed provider who cares for children in her home, discussing the subsidy program over a conversation at the kitchen table. The woman was worried about shrinking enrollment because some of her families were struggling to pay. Shortly after that conversation, the provider began taking the subsidies.

Sanchez McDonald hopes to get up to eight more of the 16 licensed providers in the two-county area to accept state subsidies. Currently, four take the subsidies — only two that have high ratings.

Besides getting centers to take subsidies, there’s also the challenge of getting parents to apply for them. Although area poverty rates are high and children often lag academically, many parents keep their kids at home until kindergarten, Sanchez McDonald said.

In Boulder County, officials launched a campaign called “Just One More” urging high-quality child care providers to set aside one new slot for a subsidized child. In some cases, the centers are accepting subsidies for the first time.

The campaign, begun 18 months ago, hinges on personal outreach to providers by county workers who describe the impact quality care can have on a low-income child and check in frequently during the early weeks of enrollment.

Elizabeth Groneberg, outreach coordinator for Boulder County’s subsidy program, said she tells providers, “You let me know when you get your first (subsidized) family. We’ll be in touch every day.”

At one high-quality private preschool, she said, the director agreed to begin accepting the subsidies so the child of one the center’s teachers could attend. Today, the center has two children in subsidized slots.

In Larimer County, where demand for subsidies far outstrips supply, officials say they’re not recruiting more providers to take subsidies because they couldn’t place children in those slots.

While about a dozen Colorado counties have wait lists for subsidies, Larimer has the largest, according to state officials.

“We want to pay for good quality care, but you have to have additional finances … to do it,” said Heather O’Hayre, deputy director of human services for Larimer County.

The real problem is that the state’s formula for distributing funds to counties isn’t working the way it should, O’Hayre said. She and her colleagues also lament that the committee that determines the formula is heavy on metro Denver representation and that members have no term limits. There are no voting members from Larimer County.

While state officials say they understand Larimer’s concerns about the long wait list, the fact that the problem is acute in just one county rather than several doesn’t necessarily indicate a problem with the allocation formula.

“I know they’re frustrated for sure,” Mewhinney said.

Legislating discipline

Not just a Front Range problem: Young boys of color are more likely to be suspended in rural Colorado, too

PHOTO: Photo by Shaina Cavazos/Chalkbeat

When a Colorado bill that would limit suspensions and expulsions among young students met vocal opposition from rural school district leaders in March, a common refrain was that harsh discipline tactics were a Front Range problem, not a rural one.

But a Chalkbeat examination of state data on out-of-school suspensions of students in kindergarten to second grade shows that a key concern of bill advocates — that such methods disproportionately impact boys, especially boys of color — bears out in the state’s rural districts, too.

Last year, the state’s 148 rural districts handed out nearly 500 out-of-school suspensions to early elementary kids, 84 percent of them to boys. Boys in almost every racial and ethnic category were overrepresented in the suspension pool when compared to their overall populations in rural districts.

The disparities were particularly pronounced for black and multiracial boys, who make up just under 2 percent of rural students, followed by white boys, who comprise one-third of rural students.

Supporters of efforts to curb early childhood suspension and expulsion say removing kids from school at a young age can have devastating lifelong consequences — increasing the likelihood of future suspensions and the risk that kids will eventually drop out and end up incarcerated.

House Bill 1210 would curb out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for students in kindergarten through second grade, as well as preschoolers in state-funded programs. It would permit out-of-school suspensions only if a child endangers others on school grounds, represents a serious safety threat or if school staff have exhausted all other options.

In general, suspensions would be limited to three days. Expulsions would be prohibited under the bill except as allowed under federal law when kids bring guns to schools.

The legislation was crafted after months of work by advocates who sought input from an array of sources, including the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance.

At first, the alliance didn’t take an official stand on the bill, but in late March — the same day the House approved the bill — its board voted unanimously to oppose the bill. After that, Republicans in the Senate assigned the bill to a committee that has a track record of killing legislation that leadership opposes. It’s scheduled for a hearing in that committee on Monday.

While not all rural school district leaders oppose the bill, some say the problem the proposed legislation is trying to solve doesn’t apply to them.

Michelle Murphy, executive director of the Colorado Rural Schools Alliance said, “It’s not a rural issue … We are not over-expelling or over-suspending our kids.”

National experts, however, say the problem touches districts of all sizes and types.

“Usually whether it’s rural, suburban or urban, we see a wide range of suspension rates, evidence of excess and unjustified disparities,” said Dan Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We see it everywhere.”


Murphy said there’s been no outcry in Colorado’s rural districts from parents or community groups about discipline in the early grades.

Losen said there can be a variety of reasons for that. Parents may not be aware of data that illuminates discipline disparities. They may also be ashamed that their children behaved poorly at school or feel intimidated by school officials.

If parents are undocumented immigrants, Losen said, “the last thing they’re going to do is challenge school officials about anything.”

Taken together, Colorado’s rural districts do have lower suspension rates in the early childhood years than non-rural districts. Colorado’s rural districts educate about 16 percent of the state’s students and hand out 9 percent of the early elementary suspensions, according to 2015-16 data from the Colorado Department of Education.

The numbers, however, vary widely by district.

Dozens of rural districts suspended no kindergarten through second-grade children last year. Dozens of others suspended at least a few, with several handing out more than 20 suspensions. (Expulsions of young children are rare in all types of school districts, with only six statewide last year.)

There are dramatic differences in out-of-school suspension rates even in similarly sized rural districts. For example, the 1,360-student East Otero district in southeastern Colorado handed out 32 suspensions to children in kindergarten through second grade last year, while the 1,320-student Fremont RE-2 district suspended one.

East Otero Superintendent Rick Lovato said part of the reason for the high number of suspensions last year at La Junta Primary School was a new principal and assistant principal who put in place stricter behavior guidelines after a year in which students were being sent to the office constantly for bad behavior.

The vast majority of suspensions — some children received two or three that year — were for violent behavior such as punching, fighting, kicking and biting, Lovato said. This year, so far, kindergarten to second grade suspensions are down to 12.

“Kids and parents have adjusted to the culture and understand what those boundaries are,” said Lovato.

He said the district is working to reduce out-of-school suspensions in all grade levels at all three of its schools.

Lovato said he’s on the fence about House Bill 1210. While he’s adamantly against early elementary expulsions and believes nearly all early childhood suspensions given in East Otero would be allowed under the legislation, he feels districts should get to have the final say in such decisions.

High poverty rates can sometimes drive high suspension rates, but it’s far from universal in Colorado’s rural districts. For example, the 3,600-student Canon City district, where about half of students come from low-income families, gave out 43 early elementary suspensions last year while the nearly 5,000-student Garfield RE-2 district, where the same proportion of students come from low-income families, gave out nine.

Losen said how heavily a building relies on suspension has a lot “to do with the school principal and the culture and history of a school.”

“You tend to see it where resources are really scarce and folks don’t feel they can teach all kids,” he said.

Given the state’s perennial school funding crunch, many rural superintendents argue that limited resources play a part. They say shoestring budgets make it hard to afford counselors, social workers or other staff who could help children with challenging behavior.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that East Otero had suspended 32 children last year. In fact, the district gave out 32 suspensions last year, with some children receiving multiple suspensions. Also, a previous version of the story quoted the Fremont Unified School District director of student support services. That school district is in California. The administrator gamely answered our questions about Colorado legislation, and we quoted him. We meant to contact the Fremont R-2 school district in Florence, in southern Colorado, to ask about the district’s low suspension rates. We regret getting our Fremonts mixed up.