Supply-Side Thinking: Applying the Abundance Frame to Early Education Policy

• In Event: California’s Child Care Supply: Enrollment Capacity, Facilities Constraints, and Labor Constraints

Abstract

Introduction/Background: Despite its essential nature, supply of early care and education (ECE) is consistently unable to meet demand. In California, the only abundant form of care is unpaid labor, typically performed by grandparents (Powell et al., 2023). Licensed care, available in child care centers and family child care (FCC) homes, can only support a quarter of the children aged 0 to 12 in households where all parents work (California Resource & Referral Network, 2023). Moreover, child care supply is highly sensitive to the business cycle, creating havoc for families during economic downturns (Brown and Herbst, 2022). 

Shortages of essential services are not limited to ECE. A new policy movement, the Abundance Agenda, explores how supply-side reforms and interventions can lead to broad availability of public goods (Abundance Accelerator, 2024). The Abundance frame is not a vehicle specifically for deregulation, but it does require identifying policies that exacerbate scarcity. The idea has taken root in infrastructure policy such as housing and transportation (Freemark, 2023). In this paper, I explore the applications of the Abundance Agenda in the context of ECE in California. 

Purpose/Research Question: California struggles to expand the supply of ECE services. How might California double down or rethink its ECE policy priorities when applying the Abundance frame? What are the implications for ECE governance in California and beyond?

Methods: This paper explores the Abundance policy frame as it applies to two dimensions of ECE supply: facilities and labor. I analyze supply-side reforms and interventions, including examples from other states. For this, I draw on key informant interviews of policy specialists, mini case studies of select policies, and source material on California’s regulations. 

Results/Findings: Application of the supply-side Abundance frame is more straightforward for ECE facilities: California already has a history of infrastructure grants and special tax districts. The former, however, is inconsistently funded; the latter, meanwhile, has never been used to generate funding for ECE. I will also discuss examples from other states of viable supply-side strategies that California could consider, including property tax exemptions and rent-to-own programs. 

The second dimension, labor shortages, is more challenging to address with an Abundance-oriented frame. Barriers to entry to the profession are technically low, though advancement in the field typically requires permitting and/or credentialing. California’s recent reforms to permits and credentials, however, are not consistent with streamlining or improving access. Additionally, structurally low pay deters workforce growth and cannot be addressed without substantial new public funding. On the margin, offerings like apprenticeships and career pathways programs can ease the burden of becoming established in the profession, but low wages may undermine their efficacy. 

Conclusion/Implications: The Abundance Agenda policy framework can help California identify missed opportunities or underutilized approaches to the supply of ECE facilities. However, it may not be feasible to leverage the Abundance Agenda to motivate policies that boost workforce supply. Instead, perhaps the Abundance frame can be complementary to the current policy movement around reforming child care subsidy rates and movement towards boosting wages in ECE.

 

 

Author

• Anna Powell, University of California, Berkeley
  Presenting Author