Factors Influencing Local Governance Choices

State governance and funding structures play an outsized role in determining local early childhood governance structures. No two local early childhood programs are exactly the same—each is a creature of circumstances and context, and their governance structures reflect the realities of their operating environments.

Ten questions can help leaders think about governance models that could best serve their community:

1. How do state funds for early childhood education flow to localities? In many localities, there are structures in place to administer state pre-K and child care funds, as mandated by state law. Sometimes, municipalities build their governance structure on top of the one mandated by the state; in other cases, the local program is run entirely separately. In many cases, there are multiple parallel structures. This governance complexity is the direct result of funding fragmentation; in many cities and counties, there are multiple different early childhood programs with different oversight bodies, different goals, and different eligibility requirements. State funding structures matter to local governance because they empower—or disempower—specific local systems and organizations. In a state where the local school district has a mandated role to administer pre-K funds, the district will play a broader role in program administration. Where local school districts are bypassed, or treated as just a provider and not an administrator, other types of organizations will take the lead.
2. Who is championing the introduction of a new early childhood initiative? Newly elected officials who campaigned on early childhood may want to administer new programs in an agency under their direct control, as in New York City’s Pre-K for All. In Oregon, Multnomah County’s political capital to fund and launch Preschool for All was largely driven by a county executive; this, combined with a strong county government system, led to the recommendation that the program be managed at the county level. In Harris County, Texas, the Commissioner’s Court Offices strategically allocated approximately $149 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to expand access to publicly funded early care, education, family, and workforce supports. This investment led to the creation of the Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity, Early Childhood Initiatives Division, to oversee and manage the implementation of these programs.
3. Is there a strategic advantage to city or county government leadership? Whenever new funds need to be raised, there will be political, budgetary, and impact implications built into governance decisions. In Travis County, Texas, where a recently passed ballot measure will raise $75 million annually for early childhood education and afterschool programs, there was a strategic decision to advance the measure at the county level and not just in the city of Austin. Even though early coalition-building work had been focused on the city, local leaders felt the impact would be greatest with a county-wide program. Further, the state child care subsidy program is administered at the county level by the Workforce Investment Board, providing some potential synergies.
4. How do the city, county, and school district boundaries overlap? Contiguous boundaries—like in Denver and Philadelphia, where there is one city, one county, and one school district—simplify some of the decision-making. In some cities, particularly in the South and Southwest, there may be a dozen or more school districts within a city’s boundaries. In San Antonio, it would not have been possible for a school district to lead the local preschool initiative given this dynamic; the program, which was championed by the mayor, was intended from the outset to be citywide and therefore stretched across multiple district boundaries. Some of the city’s 16 school districts opted out of participating when the program launched; then-mayor Julian Castro felt strongly about the best approach: “excellent full-day pre-K that wasn’t bound by these district lines.”There are several examples of places where both the city and county have their own early childhood initiatives, administered by different agencies, and serving slightly different areas. Seattle Preschool Promise, administered by the city’s Department of Education and Early Learning, is funded by a city tax levy and serves three- and four-year-olds across the city. Seattle sits within King County, Washington, which has raised its own levy to operate a comprehensive suite of programs for children and youth, including some targeted early care and education investments. The program, known as Best Start for Kids, is operated by and serves the entire county.
5. Does the municipal government have oversight of the school district? In places where the school district is under mayoral control, like New York City and Chicago, placing an early childhood program may be an easier bet: The program gets the instructional and institutional benefits of stronger alignment to K–12 education, while also effectively reporting to the mayor. There are places where the school district plays a strong leadership role in administering the local early childhood education initiative, even where the mayor has a reduced management role. However, it just may mean the mayor has less direct influence in shaping the program.
6. If there are existing funding streams that can and will be leveraged, which entities locally have control over them? As described above, many state pre-K programs are prescriptive about what entity manages the program locally. Some localities are able to layer their funding on top of state dollars; if the same agency is managing both the state and local programs, that blending and braiding of funds may be more manageable. In Oklahoma, funds from the state’s universal pre-K program go directly to school districts. Tulsa has run a strong early childhood program for decades, building on the state’s investment, and much of this work is driven out of Tulsa Public Schools.
7. Is there an opportunity to shift how state dollars flow to localities to streamline governance? Sometimes, localities can successfully influence how the state dollars flow to create these stronger local synergies. In Denver, the local early childhood program—the Denver Preschool Program—predates Colorado’s universal pre-K program. Advocates in Denver pushed for the Denver Preschool Program to be a local intermediary for the state program to enable that kind of strategic funds management. (Read more about this in our conversation with the leaders of the Denver Preschool Program and the Colorado Department of Early Childhood.) In New York City, the universal pre-K program was managed from its launch by the Department of Education; at the time, the city’s means-tested child care programs were run by another city agency. Over time, the city worked with the state to enable the Department of Education to manage some child care funding to better integrate the city’s early care and education programs.
8. If new local funds are being raised, are there limits on which entity can have fiduciary responsibility for the new revenue? Many cities and counties have introduced ballot measures to raise new revenue for their early childhood programs. State and local laws about where those funds can be managed may impact whether the funds must be administered from within the government or whether they can be allocated to a non-governmental entity. In some states, there are restrictions as to whether funds can be raised at the city or county level. For communities considering ballot measures to raise new revenue, the Children’s Funding Project can be a tremendous resource to navigate these decisions.
9. What governmental or non-governmental entity has existing capacity to manage the program or can scale up capacity on the appropriate timeline? When there are options for who can implement a local early childhood program, it may be prudent to consider which management structure will facilitate effective—and potentially rapid—implementation. In some communities, choosing a non-governmental or quasi-governmental entity to manage the program enabled program administrators to bypass some procurement requirements or fast-track hiring key staff, for example, and move faster than they would be able to from within a government agency. In New Orleans, the early childhood system is jointly managed by Agenda for Children, a local nonprofit, and New Orleans Public Schools (NOLA-PS). NOLA-PS was already running a K–12 unified enrollment system in 2012 when state legislation required localities to implement a similar system for early childhood education. Because NOLA-PS had the economy of scale and experience running a unified enrollment system, they took it on and closely adapted K–12 system rules to early care and education. As New Orleans has continued to expand its early childhood services, including through a 2022 property tax millage that supports infant and toddler care and education, Agenda for Children and NOLA-PS have continued to collaborate: Agenda for Children administers the services, including oversight of seats and partner management for wraparound services, while NOLA-PS supports with enrollment.
10. If there is no logical existing agency within the local government to manage the program, is there room to create a new one? It is typical for many city or county agencies to do work that touches on early care and education. Sometimes, no one of those agencies is the right fit to oversee a new initiative because there is insufficient capacity or misaligned priorities, or because the work will not be sufficiently elevated within the existing agency. In a few cases, this had led the local government to create a new office altogether. For example, in Pennsylvania, Allegheny County created its new Department of Children Initiatives in 2021 to drive an enhanced focus in the county on early care and education and out-of-school time services.