Logic and experience tell us that preventing a problem before it happens is the most effective approach. That is why children use seat belts. And sit in car seats. It’s why we put baby gates at the tops of staircases. We know this approach works for children. To paraphrase Frederick Douglass, “It’s easier to build strong children than to repair broken people.” 

When it comes to early education policy, this “ounce of prevention” approach is also backed by some of the strongest social science data available. Parents, families, and early childhood educators offer glowing personal testimonies to the enriching experiences, life-changing and long-term human connections, and other benefits that early learning gives children. And a rich history of research as well as ongoing studies show that investing in early learning programs produces unprecedented positive impacts for children, families, professionals, and the economy. We have distilled some of this research to highlight the many social and economic advantages that result from this commonsense approach. 

The History of Early Learning Research 

The evidence for positive long-term effects of early learning interventions is among the strongest in economics. In the 1960s and 1970s, multiple field experiments were conducted in which a group of children were randomly assigned to early learning programs, including both classroom education and home visiting that provided support to parents beyond the classroom. They were tracked into adulthood to monitor effects across a broad range of socioeconomic indicators.

This groundbreaking research offers truly rare insights. These studies were randomized control trials (RCTs), meaning that some participants were randomly assigned to the “treatment” and received the early learning intervention, while others were assigned to a “control” group and did not receive access to the early learning programs. RCTs are considered the “gold standard” of evidence in social science because, as in laboratory experiments, randomness of treatment ensures that the treatment and control groups should be roughly statistically equivalent in all characteristics such as health, access to child care, or nutrition that might affect long-term life outcomes. In most circumstances, children enrolled in early learning programs are likely different in many ways from kids who are not — they may come from families with greater financial resources, for example — and it could be these differences rather than early learning itself that drive better socioeconomic outcomes. But, with randomization, the only meaningful difference between the groups is whether they participated in the early learning programs; so we can conclude confidently that the early learning is actually causing any progress observed in the data.

But what was truly special about these experiments was not just that they were randomized, giving us top-notch evidence, it is that these experiments were run more than a half-century ago. RCTs are all the rage in modern economics, but were much rarer in the 1960s and 1970s. Modern RCTs can often only look at short-term outcomes because not enough time has passed to look at persistence of positive effects. But, because these early learning studies were so far ahead of the curve, we have gold standard evidence not just for short-term impacts of early learning on outcomes such as school readiness, but also reliable evidence on long-term impacts well into middle age.

The long-term impacts of these early learning programs were remarkable. These interventions reduced crime, improved educational attainment, boosted cognitive development, increased employment, and improved health. The benefits for taxpayers were just as impressive, with $2.50 of savings for every $1 invested due to less need for support later in life.

Modern Evidence on Head Start and Early Learning

More recent research continues to confirm that Head Start and other early learning programs carry on the legacy of these pioneering early learning experiments. Using cutting-edge empirical methods to evaluate program effects in the real world, Martha J. Bailey, Shuqiao Sun, and Brenden Timpe find that Head Start increased years of schooling attained and both college and high school completion rates, demonstrating persistent educational impacts. Similarly, research on Oklahoma’s universal pre-k program led by Anna Johnson finds that participants have better math skills and self-regulation behaviors into the third grade.

Patrick Kline and Christopher Walters show that children who would not otherwise be able to attend preschool experience the largest positive effects. They further estimate that Head Start delivers benefits for taxpayers that are significantly larger than the cost of funding the program in part because it increases after-tax earnings of participants. Moreover, positive effects on cognitive development and social skills are largest when Head Start centers possess sufficient resources to provide top-quality programming, including full-day instruction and home-visiting services. 

Head Start also complements other investments in K-12 education. Analysis by Rucker C. Johnson and C. Kirabo Jackson shows that both Head Start and higher funding of K-12 education independently increase earnings and educational attainment while reducing poverty and chances of incarceration later in life for children living in poverty. But these benefits are even larger for low-income children who receive both — each program boosts the benefits of the other. Greater support throughout the life cycle is needed rather than cuts in essential programs.

Universal preschool provisions may offer even more gains. Work by Elizabeth Cascio demonstrates the positive effects of preschool more generally, showing that preschool programs have positive effects on test scores for low-income kids, and these effects are actually larger when preschool programs are universal rather than targeted to just low-income kids. A randomized study of a large-scale public preschool program in Boston finds positive impacts on long-term educational attainment as well as decreases in chances of juvenile incarceration and other disciplinary issues. Other research shows that early learning programs improve the economic security and contribution of participating families. Early childhood education boosts work hours for parents of participants and increases family income, demonstrating how a robust public safety net and child investments can increase productive work in the economy. 

But the benefits of early learning programs extend beyond the direct benefits for recipients by boosting local economies and communities. In another study, C. Kirabo Jackson, Julia A. Turner, and Jacob Bastian show that universal pre-k increased employment, hours worked, and labor force participation, leading to higher earnings. On average, “each dollar spent on [universal pre-k] generated between 3 to over 20 dollars in aggregate earnings – enough that tax revenues might fully cover costs,” severely undermining the case that the government cannot afford universal pre-k. A study by Micah W. Rothbart and Taryn W. Morrissey shows that Virginia’s targeted pre-k program for low-income children increased participation in pre-k and kindergarten readiness both for participants and for children more broadly across the community.

Conclusion 

The evidence supporting high-quality early childhood investment is among the strongest in the social sciences. Investing in children during their most formative years is not only one of the smartest financial decisions we can make as a country, it also ensures that children across the country receive the support they need to thrive. Access to high-quality early education should not depend on a family’s income, yet the cost makes it unreachable for many families across the country. When early learning is available to all, it supports working parents and equips children with essential skills that benefit them throughout their lives.

Programs such as Head Start connect families to critical resources such as health care and nutrition support, helping both children and their caregivers succeed. These programs are especially impactful at a time when raising a child is more unaffordable than ever. The average annual cost of raising a child has reached nearly $30,000. For low-income families, these expenses are unsustainable. Child care is among the highest costs for families, costing more than rent across the 100 largest U.S. metro areas. The high cost of raising children is a critical policy failure – having a child should not be a luxury, nor should it force families into poverty. Federally funded child care subsidies are essential to the economic security and well-being of families across the country.

Along with the lack of affordability for families looking to access high-quality early childhood resources, there is a critical shortage of early care educators. Poverty-level pay and a lack of professional development opportunities create difficulty in maintaining early childhood educators, exacerbating child care shortages across the country. The early care and education workforce was found to be compensated at lower rates than 97% of all professions. The low pay and lack of resources can make early childhood careers undesirable and create high turnover. Increased investment in the early care and education workforce is desperately needed. A high-quality early childhood workforce requires specialized training and specific skill sets. It’s important that the pay and benefits of the job match the qualifications needed. 

The evidence behind early childhood investments is clear, and recent policy decisions have resulted in insufficient levels of spending. This lack of investment creates inequitable access to high-quality early childhood education and leaves kids and educators behind. It’s time for our federal government to follow the data and invest in our youngest. 

The post Research Confirms that Early Learning Investments Increase Benefits to Children, Lower Costs to Taxpayers appeared first on First Focus on Children.

Rural areas, southern states will bear the brunt

The budget reconciliation bill currently making its way through the Senate will disproportionately hurt the nation’s children by cutting the programs that benefit them most, experts said today on Capitol Hill.

“We keep hearing this rhetoric that none of the bill targets kids, that these changes do not hurt kids. That’s impossible,” said First Focus on Children health policy expert Abuko Estrada at “Invest in Kids,” a briefing hosted by First Focus on Children, the Congressional Dads Caucus and the Congressional Mamas’ Caucus. “You can’t take a third of the funding for a program that mainly serves kids and say it doesn’t hurt kids.”

The budget proposal passed by the House of Representatives would cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and would cut nearly $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Senate is likely to maintain many of these cuts, panelists said.

Federal spending on children accounts for just 8.87% of the total U.S. budget, according to Children’s Budget 2024, although children make up 23% of the population. But the programs Congress has targeted disproportionately serve children: 20% of Medicaid funding goes to children, 43% of SNAP funding goes to children, and of course, 100% of CHIP funding goes to children and pregnant women. Cuts to these programs will almost certainly push the share of spending on children much lower. During the first Trump Administration, the president proposed reducing this share to a record low of 7.32%.

The budget bill under consideration in the Senate would significantly alter Medicaid and CHIP, jeopardizing health care access for over 37 million children, by including waiting periods, lock outs for parents who can’t keep up with premiums, and caps on annual and lifetime benefits. The package also would reduce the federal matching rate for adults in Medicaid expansion states to 80% if the state provides health care benefits to residents who are ineligible because of their immigration status — even if the states are using money from their own taxpayers.

“We are resurrecting barriers for children,” First Focus on Children’s Estrada said.

The bill also threatens the food security of at least 4 million children who live in households that could lose their benefits as a result of increased work requirements. The bill would also shift hundreds of millions of dollars in program and benefit costs to the states, said Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), and revise the formula that determines benefits in a way that reduces the amount.

“If states cannot afford these cost shifts, they will pull out of the program,” Bhatti said. “Food insecurity has increased three years in a row. And the one program that fights hunger is getting cut. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Panelists also criticized the bill’s Child Tax Credit provision. Supporters focus on the increased amount of the credit — from $2000 per child to a maximum of $2500 per child — but other changes would deny the full credit to an additional 5 million children. Rural areas and states in the South would be hardest hit.

“These changes are not centered on children and families,” said Michelle Dallafior, First Focus on Children senior vice president for budget and tax. “And they do not help children most in need.”

To view the recorded briefing, visit Children’s Week 2025-Invest in Kids Briefing. 

The post Budget bill targets the nation’s children, analysts say in Capitol Hill briefing appeared first on First Focus on Children.

The post The Ugliest of Bills: How Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill Endangers All Children appeared first on First Focus on Children.

Meanwhile, we’ve gathered members of Congress and fellow advocates to celebrate Children’s Week 2025, which starts Sunday and runs through Saturday, June 14. The week will feature a series of briefings and events with lawmakers, advocates, and academics on subjects including the metrics of early education, investing in foreign assistance for children, and the threats to children contained in the reconciliation package making its way through Congress. Events include:

MONDAY, June 9 | Welcome Reception

Monday, June 9, 5:30 pm ET

Join First Focus on Children, members of Congress and other advocates for food and drink to celebrate the kick-off to Children’s Week. Register here.

TUESDAY, June 10 | Why Foreign Assistance Matters for Children

Tuesday, June 10, 12:00 pm ET, VIRTUAL

As Congress considers critical decisions on the FY 26 appropriations, join us for a timely and urgent webinar exploring the real-world consequences of foreign assistance cuts on children across the globe. Hosted in conjunction with Georgetown University Collaborative on Global Children’s Issues. Register here.

WEDNESDAY, June 11 | Invest in Children Briefing

Wednesday, June 11, 10:00 am ET

Join First Focus Campaign for Children and the Congressional Dads Caucus for a briefing on the ways the budget reconciliation package puts the health, nutrition, economic security, and education of children at risk. Register here.

THURSDAY, June 12 | Early Gains, Lifelong Returns – What the Early Childhood Research Shows

Thursday, June 12, 12:00 pm ET

Join First Focus on Children and policy advocates for a briefing demonstrating the effectiveness and strong return on investment of federal early childhood programs. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is scheduled to provide opening remarks. Register here.

For a full list of events, please visit our registration page: https://firstfocus.org/childrens-week-2025/.

The post The Kid Angle: Briefings Spotlight Challenges to Children appeared first on First Focus on Children.

• From 2020 to 2022, COVID-19 was the 7th leading cause of death for 1-17 year olds in America, killing an estimated 1086 children.
• Even if children recover from a COVID-19 infection that caused mild or no symptoms, they are still at risk of long COVID, also called post-COVID condition or PCC. Currently, more than 1 million children in the U.S. have had long COVID with 80% experiencing activity limitations.
• Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C), is a rare but serious condition that can affect children infected with COVID-19. A child with MIS-C may have severe inflammation in multiple parts of their body, including their heart, lungs, and brain. The only way to protect against MIS-C is to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
• COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. The benefits for getting vaccinated far outweigh the risk of side effects.

Learn more about COVID and kids, as well as the weak and misleading evidence behind the Administration’s decree, in this analysis from First Focus on Children’s Senior Director of Health and Nutrition Policy Advocacy Maxwell R. Rowshandel.

In other news, the terrible horrible no good very bad budget bill moves to the Senate when Congress returns next week. Among the most egregious elements that advocates are urging lawmakers to correct are:

• Several provisions that would significantly alter Medicaid and CHIP, jeopardizing health care access for over 37 million children, including waiting periods, lock outs for parents who can’t keep up with premiums, and caps on annual and lifetime benefits. The package also would reduce the federal matching rate for adults in Medicaid expansion states to 80% if the state provides health care benefits to residents who are ineligible because of their immigration status — even if the states are using money from their own taxpayers.
• The bill’s threat to the food security of at least 4 million children living in households at risk of losing some or all of their food and nutrition benefits as a result of increased work requirements.
• The bill’s uneven Child Tax Credit, which increases the maximum refund from $2,000 to $2,500, but simultaneously prevents 20 million of the nation’s poorest kids from receiving the full credit — 2.5 million more kids than previously. It also disqualifies 4.5 million U.S. citizen babies and children because their parents don’t have a Social Security number.
• Inclusion of the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would create a federal private school voucher program. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, this provision could lead to a 120 percent match or more for upper-income families  while decreasing funding in state and federal budgets. In addition to the lost capital gains revenue, the measure would spend $5 billion a year in taxpayer funds, totaling $20 billion over a four-year period.
• The claw back of up to $16 million in grants from the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce air pollution and monitor and improve indoor air quality in schools.

See our full analysis of the budget reconciliation package here.

The post The Kid Angle: Consigning Kids to COVID and its aftermath appeared first on First Focus on Children.