Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Fifty States, Fifty Systems: Measuring Governance Outcomes in Early Childhood Systems

Thursday, November 5, 8:30 to 10:00am, Property: Boston Marriott Copley Place, Floor: 3rd Floor, Room: Harvard

Abstract

Early childhood education and care systems in the US are fragmented across education, health, and social service sectors, reflecting historically distinct policies, funding streams, and administrative structures. These arrangements produce unaligned regulatory, funding, and accountability requirements, leading to confusion for families, inequities for children, competition for teachers, and inefficiencies for programs. Addressing these challenges requires the development of more coordinated, cross-sector systems.

Within a federalist system, states hold primary responsibility for organizing and delivering services for young children, resulting in substantial variation in structure and implementation. In this context, governance is a central mechanism for achieving coordination and coherence, yet remains underexamined. Existing research has largely described governance arrangements rather than systematically assessing their effects on system functioning, leaving the field without clear approaches to measure and compare outcomes.

This study asks: How do governance characteristics—structure, purview, and longevity—shape variation in alignment across pedagogical, regulatory, and data (PRD) domains? PRD alignment—defined as alignment across pedagogical, regulatory, and data systems—is conceptualized as a measurable governance outcome that captures how governance approaches shape system functioning. As the first study to define and measure specific outcomes in early childhood governance, it advances both theory and policy and will likely inform policy design to improve the equitable delivery of services for young children across states.

Data are drawn from a multi-state qualitative dataset developed through a sequential, multi-phase design. Phase I involved a systematic review of statutes, agency reports, and policy frameworks across 51 jurisdictions to construct a governance classification matrix. Phase II included semi-structured interviews with policymakers and administrators in a purposive sample of states selected to capture variation in governance characteristics, with follow-up interviews used to refine interpretations. PRD alignment was operationalized using domain-specific criteria to classify states as high, moderate, or low across domains. Analysis employed iterative coding, cross-case comparison, and configurational comparative approaches to examine how governance characteristics—individually and in combination—shape variation in alignment outcomes.

Findings indicate that alignment is not determined by governance structure alone, but by the interaction of governance characteristics and context. While independent structures are often associated with higher pedagogical and regulatory alignment, variation within categories suggests outcomes are conditional. Higher alignment occurs where governance authority—and the functions it enables—span licensing, funding, workforce systems, and quality improvement are coordinated through policy and administrative mechanisms. Breadth of purview is a key enabling condition, particularly when authority extends across sectors, while longevity shapes the capacity to sustain coordination over time. Patterns also vary by domain: pedagogical alignment is less dependent on structure, regulatory alignment is highly sensitive to how authority is organized, and data alignment is the most difficult to achieve, requiring sustained coordination and integrated infrastructure. 

By operationalizing PRD alignment, this study offers a framework for analyzing how governance characteristics shape system alignment in practice. Findings suggest that structural reforms alone are insufficient; alignment depends on how authority is organized, coordinated, and sustained across systems, informing state efforts to design more coherent and equitable governance systems.

Author