Making California’s Early Childhood Investments Work for Families

Simplify governance for coherence and accountability across the 0–5 ECE system

California invests billions in multiple programs, which are governed and administered by various government entities, to support children ages 0–5. The complexity of funding and multiplicity of programs have long been recognized as problems in ECE systems across the country, including in California. While there has been progress in our state, fragmented governance and inefficient structures continue. The impact: families are forced to navigate a maze of complicated systems, eligibility rules, and waitlists while they struggle to make ends meet.

Simplifying governance across the 0–5 ECE system aligns well with Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent proposal to reform TK–12 governance and establish “accountability, clarity, and coherence” within the education system. Further, comparative studies show that consolidated early childhood services and unified governance structures, supported by shared data systems and coordinated accountability, increase equity, efficiency, and responsiveness for children, families, and communities. With responsibilities shared between the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the state’s dual-agency structure has made strides in its systems-alignment work. Localities bring an additional network of ECE partnerships, including through county First 5s, Local Planning Councils, and Resource & Referral agencies. Despite these partnerships, operational challenges and fragmentation persist. For families, this means it is difficult to verify eligibility; they receive inconsistent guidance across agencies; and they lack information about program availability as their children grow and transition. For providers, it means navigating differing eligibility processes, multiple funding streams with different reporting requirements, and shifting licensing and facility rules.

To fulfill the foundational goals of California’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care, strategies to simplify governance and reduce burdens on families and providers must include:

• developing effective opportunities for meaningful engagement of parents of young children about their needs and solutions for improved early childhood systems;
• reviewing state and local structures for effectiveness and integrating duplicated programs to ensure that families engage with streamlined systems;
• deepening cross-agency collaboration among CDE, CDSS, and First 5 California, including evaluating opportunities to consolidate departments to create fewer points of entry and better meet families’ needs; and
• expanding partnerships between agencies that oversee child care with relevant departments within the California Health and Human Services Agency, given the centrality of family health in early childhood.

Together, these strategies will give us a better understanding of whether California’s investments are working for families and how to improve them.

Expand investments for children ages 0–3

Child care availability and affordability affect the entire state’s economy. When parents cannot access reliable care, they may reduce work hours or leave the workforce. This costs employers experienced staff, lowers productivity, and shrinks state tax revenue. Research estimates that the lack of access to licensed child care for California children under the age of 5 represents an annual economic loss of $34–$53 billion in household income, business productivity, and taxes. While this analysis does not comprehensively assess family demand, the findings signal the scale of economic risk created by underinvestment in child care systems.

Availability and affordability are inseparable from California’s early childhood workforce crisis. Hourly pay for early child care assistant teachers in many parts of California falls short of the $20 fast food minimum wage, while a typical lead teacher earns only $21.00–$26.57 per hour throughout the state. Nearly half this workforce relies on public assistance. Chronic underpayment drives turnover rates of 20–30 percent each year statewide (and up to nearly 40 percent for some early care positions in the state’s northern and central counties), resulting in programs that are understaffed, less stable for children, and less available to families.

TK represents a significant step forward for California’s 4-year-olds and is now an essential part of the state’s early learning infrastructure. The majority of parents of children enrolled in TK report that the program supports their children’s learning and social-emotional development, indicating it’s a positive experience for enrolled families. This underscores the importance of continued focus on awareness raising and outreach to communities that are harder to reach as well as continuous improvement in TK implementation.

California’s next and most strategic opportunity to support young children and their families lies in strengthening ECE for children ages 0–3. A high-quality, mixed-delivery system—one that includes both public and private providers operating under a shared policy and funding framework—remains essential to meet families’ expressed needs as well as to ensure choice and positive development.

However, access to ECE falls short for younger children, despite state incentives. For example, only one third of California’s 3-year-olds gain access to a licensed preschool center. The supply gap for infants and toddlers is more acute, with disparities in access to licensed programs across California’s counties. Licensed child care is only one of several forms of care, but limited access to child care may serve as a barometer for access across all care. Emerging research from the University of California (UC), Berkeley and Irvine, finds that there were five times as many licensed spaces per child for children ages 2–5 in 2023 as for children ages 0–1.3

TK expansion has also created significant market pressures. UC Berkeley research on Los Angeles County shows that while TK enrollment for 4-year-olds is rising rapidly in the region, younger children still lack access to ECE. Findings show that a declining child population and the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have caused a significant decrease in the number of nonprofit and private-pay licensed day care centers in the county for children ages 2–5 since 2021. This decline appears to be greater in communities with higher growth in TK enrollment.

Policymakers can take targeted steps to support a high-quality, mixed-delivery system designed around how parents live, work, and raise their kids, including:

• incentivizing and providing technical assistance to the California State Preschool Program (CSPP) and California General Child Care and Development (CCTR) providers to develop or expand their classrooms for 2- and 3-year-olds, including extended hours;
• creating opportunities for larger providers to subcontract with smaller ones that may not have the scale to pivot to younger children in order to extend overall capacity and maintain field stability—no easy task as providers work to meet the staffing, facilities, and other licensure requirements of serving younger children as well as balance affordability and sustainability of services;
• focusing capital and facility modernization grants for both public and private organizations that are ready to expand infant, toddler, and 3-year-old care;
• reviewing licensing guidelines to find efficiencies and inconsistencies;
• developing support structures to stabilize family, friend, and neighbor care arrangements as well as to expand access to voucher programs;
• evaluating the financial-need thresholds to expand eligibility to subsidized care; and
• enhancing community outreach to make families aware of available providers (including TK) in order to increase awareness and, ultimately, enrollment.

Strategic investment in the 0–3 sector will strengthen the foundation of California’s mixed-delivery ECE system—improving access, stability, and quality for infants and toddlers. These improvements will, in turn, reinforce the broader continuum of care by creating the conditions for smoother transitions into preschool, TK, and the early elementary grades that benefit children well beyond age 3.

Leverage workforce, existing funding, and infrastructure investments for greater impact

California’s investments in children and families span multiple sectors beyond ECE to include programs targeting health, housing, nutrition, safety, and well-being. To maximize these resources effectively, the state has the opportunity to develop a coordinated early childhood ecosystem through workforce investments, funding alignment, and infrastructure strengthening.

Invest in the workforce. The strength and stability of the ECE workforce are foundational to young children’s healthy development and readiness for school. Children’s outcomes are shaped by the quality and continuity of relationships with ECE educators, as well as by educators’ preparation, instructional effectiveness, and use of developmentally appropriate practices. A substantial body of research demonstrates that compensation parity, access to benefits, and clearly defined professional pathways are key drivers of workforce retention and, in turn, program quality.4 California’s shift towards cost-based reimbursement represents an important step towards advancing pay equity and stabilizing the ECE workforce. Sustained investment in workforce pathways—including professional development and support networks, credentialing supports, and career ladders—is essential to building and maintaining the skilled workforce needed to expand high-quality early learning capacity.

Local initiatives in counties such as Alameda, San Francisco, and Sonoma illustrate the impact of wage and workforce investments on system stability, program access, and child outcomes. San Francisco’s dedicated funding and implementation efforts, for example, have achieved measurable improvements in kindergarten readiness, expanded access to affordable child care for low- and middle-income families, and increased compensation for early educators. Implementing workforce strategies such as these throughout the state would help stabilize compensation while strengthening quality, capacity, and results across California’s early learning system.

Align existing funding streams. Blending and braiding funding at both state and local levels is essential to maximize revenue, streamline services, expand eligibility, and improve the stability of community providers. Aligned contracting and payment systems, improved fiscal transparency, and supported shared fiscal infrastructure across agencies will enable dollars to flow more efficiently and equitably to where they are needed most. Emerging interagency efforts, such as those inspired by the integrated service delivery model of California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM), offer promising frameworks for linking fiscal alignment with outcomes-based accountability. The Child Development Consortium of Los Angeles’s funding model provides a concrete example that weaves together CSPP, CCTR, and private tuition funding in early childhood settings.

Strengthen infrastructure. Facility and infrastructure constraints are major bottlenecks for many California communities, where needs range from classroom renovation to new construction. Strengthening capital financing, simplifying approval and business license processes, waiving California Environmental Quality Act and other regulatory requirements where appropriate, and investing in community-based and public facilities that together support California’s mixed-delivery approach can increase access.