Public Safety Can?t Wait

February 1, 2005

Executive Summary
Quality Preschool Cuts Crime
The sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys
and crime survivor members of FIGHT CRIME:
INVEST IN KIDS California are determined to put
dangerous criminals behind bars. But those on
the front lines know that locking up criminals
is not enough to win the fight against crime.
Law enforcement leaders and victims of
violence recognize that among the most
powerful weapons to prevent violence and
crime are quality preschool programs that help
kids get the right start, when their brains are
rapidly developing and ready to learn.1
Research backs up what law enforcement
officials have learned from experience. Studies
show that at-risk kids who attend quality
preschool programs are less likely to commit
crimes as adults than similar children who do
not attend preschool. Look at the evidence:
High/Scope Perry Preschool: The
High/Scope Research Foundation conducted a
study of randomly selected 3- and 4-year olds
at the Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti,
Michigan starting in 1962. The Perry Preschool
Program is a high-quality, one- to two-year
educational program with a home-visiting
component that is considered the model for
early childhood educational programs. In
November 2004, the Foundation released the
most recent findings on the lifetime effects of
the Perry Preschool Program. By age 40, those
who did not attend Perry Preschool were:| more than twice as likely to become
career criminals with more than 10
arrests;| twice as likely to be arrested for three
or more violent crimes; and| four times more likely to be arrested
for drug felonies, and seven times more
likely to be arrested for dangerous
drugs.2
Chicago Child-Parent Centers: Chicago?s
federally-funded Child-Parent Centers have
served 100,000 3- and 4-year-olds since 1967.
The program is a center-based early
6 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
Public Safety Can?t Wait
California?s Preschool Shortage,
A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
14%
31%
Perry Preschool
children
Similar children
randomly excluded
from Perry Preschool
More than 10 arrests by age 40
Schweinhart, et al., 2004
Kids Left Out of Quality Preschool
Twice as Likely to be Career Criminals
intervention program that provides educational
and family-support services to economicallydisadvantaged
children. A study published in
the Journal of the American Medical Association
compared 989 children in the Child-Parent
Centers to 550 similar children who were not
in the program. It showed that children who
did not participate in the program were 70
percent more likely to be arrested for a violent
crime by age 18.3 This program will have
prevented an estimated 33,000 crimes by the
time the children who have attended the
program reach the age of 18.4
Furthermore, the Chicago Child-Parent
Centers cut the abuse and neglect of children
in the program in half.5 The reduction of abuse
and neglect is significant in itself, but also
because of the potential impact on future
criminal behavior. Studies show that children
who were abused or neglected are more likely
to be arrested as juveniles and to commit
crimes as adults than children who were not
abused or neglected.6
The Syracuse University Family
Development Program: Syracuse University
developed a program that provides weekly
home visitation and quality early learning
programs to low-income, single-parent families
beginning prenatally through age five. Ten
years after the initial study ended, children who
were not included in the program were 10
times more likely to have committed a crime
than comparable children enrolled in the
program (16.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent). Further,
children not in the program committed more
serious crimes, including sexual abuse, robbery,
and assault.7
North Carolina?s Smart Start: North
Carolina?s Smart Start is a nationallyrecognized
initiative designed not only to help
working parents pay for early child care, but
also to improve the quality of care through
measures such as educational opportunities for
teachers and providing resources and
educational materials. Low-income children
who were not enrolled in early childhood
education centers with Smart Start quality
improvement assistance demonstrated
significantly more behavioral problems than
children who attended centers with the Smart
Start services. Specifically, children not
enrolled were twice as likely to have behavior
problems such as aggressive acts and poor
temper control, anxiety, and hyperactivity in
kindergarten.8 This is important because
research shows that 60 percent of children with
high levels of disruptive, aggressive behaviors
in early childhood will manifest high levels of
antisocial and delinquent behavior later in life.9
Head Start: Head Start is the federallyfunded
national program for low-income
families that provides early education services
for children ages 3 to 5. Research shows that
adults who graduated from Head Start have
lower crime rates than adults from similar
backgrounds who did not attend Head Start. A
large national survey of Head Start graduates
found that African-American graduates were
12 percentage points less likely to be later
arrested or charged with a crime than their
siblings who did not attend Head Start.10
Additionally, a Florida study found that girls
who had not attended Head Start were three
7 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
9%
15.3%
Child-Parent
Center children
Similar children
who did not attend
a Child-Parent
Center
Reynolds, et al., 2001
At-risk Children Without Quality
Preschool were 70% More Likely to
Commit Violent Crimes
An Arrest for Violence by Age 18
times more likely to be arrested by age 22 than
comparable girls who had participated in Head
Start (15 percent vs. 5 percent).11
Quality Preschool Programs Help
Children Succeed
In addition to crime prevention, quality
preschool programs also lead to better
academic performance. Everyday, kindergarten
teachers witness the difference between
children who received quality preschool and
those who did not. Children who attend
preschool programs are simply better prepared
to succeed in school than those who do not. In
a recent national poll, nine out of ten
kindergarten teachers agreed that substantially
more children would succeed in school if all
families had access to quality preschool
programs.12
Decades of research also confirm that quality
preschool programs help children succeed. For
example, compared to children who did not
attend the Perry Preschool Program, by age 40
those who did attend the program were more
likely to graduate from high school (65 percent
vs. 45 percent).13 Children who were not
enrolled in the Perry Preschool Program were
also twice as likely to be placed in special
education classes and were a third less likely to
graduate from high school on time.14 Similarly,
in the Chicago Child-Parent Center program,
children who attended the program were 28
percent more likely to graduate from high
school. In contrast, children who were not in
the Chicago Child-Parent Center program were
8 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
What Is a Quality Preschool Program?and How Does California
Measure Up?
Research shows that quality preschool programs include:| Highly-qualified teachers with appropriate compensation18| Comprehensive and age-appropriate curricula19| Strong parent involvement20| Ratios of no more than 10 children per staff member21| Class sizes of no more than 20 children22| Screening and referral services23
Unfortunately, California?s state-funded preschool programs are deficient in all but two
of the above quality measures: child/teacher ratios and parent involvement.24 Also,
California did not fare well according to the National Institute of Early Education
Research?s assessment of state preschool program quality, ranking in the bottom third of all
states with programs.25
In addition, the quality of California?s state-funded preschool programs is compromised
by the low reimbursement rate provided for each child, which has not kept pace with the
cost of living over the past 20 years.26 If funding for preschools supported by the General
Child Care program had kept pace with the cost-of-living increases offered to the K-12
system, preschool funding would be 27 percent higher.27 Not only does inadequate
funding make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified teachers, it also has forced
some preschool and child care programs to close their doors entirely.28
67 percent more likely to be retained a grade in
school and 71 percent more likely to be
admitted to special education classes.15
Research also shows that quality preschool
programs have positive effects on children?s
school readiness, leveling the playing field by
preventing disadvantaged children from
lagging behind more advantaged children in
kindergarten and later school years.16 In a
2004 study by the University of California?s
Policy Analysis for California Education,
tracking the progress of over 2,300
kindergarteners, researchers found that
students who attended preschool programs
were better prepared to learn. The preschool
experience essentially diminished the
achievement gap between disadvantaged and
advantaged students.17
The link between preschool and academic
success is clear. Quality preschool programs
give children the right start to achieve success
in school and in life.
Quality Preschool Programs Save
Money
Quality preschool is a cost-effective
investment that pays off in saved lives and
saved money. The newest study of the Perry
Preschool Program shows an even higher
return to society than previously recorded. The
Perry program cuts crime, welfare, and other
costs so much that it saved more than $17 for
every $1 invested?including more than $11 in
crime savings.29 These savings counted only
the benefits to the public at large?in taxes
paid when the preschoolers became adult
workers and in reduced costs of crime, welfare,
and remedial education. This does not take
into account participants? increased earnings or
the increased contribution to economic
development those earnings represent.30
Similarly, a study of the Chicago Child-
Parent Centers revealed that quality programs
delivered savings to taxpayers, victims, and
participants of more than $7 for every $1
invested.31
In other words, not only do quality preschool
programs cut crime and boost academic
performance, but California?s failure to provide
access to these programs costs taxpayers
money.
Leading economists agree that quality
preschool is among the best investments
government can make. An analysis by Arthur
Rolnick, Senior Vice-President and Director of
Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, showed that the Perry Preschool
Program resulted in a 16 percent return on
investment after adjusting for inflation.
Seventy-five percent of that return went to the
public in the form of decreased special
education expenditures, crime costs, and
welfare payments.
To put this in perspective, the long-term
average return on U.S. stocks is seven percent
after adjusting for inflation. Thus, an initial
investment of $1,000 in a program like Perry
Preschool is likely to return more than $19,000
in 20 years, while the same initial investment in
the stock market is likely to return less than
$4,000.32 As William Gale and Isabel Sawhill of
the Brookings Institution assert: investing in
early childhood education provides
government and society ?with estimated rates
of return that would make a venture capitalist
envious.?33
9 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
Taxpayers, victims, and participants saved over $17
for every $1 invested in the High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program.
For every $1
invested
Over $17 was
saved
Quality Preschool Saves Money
California?s Preschool Shortage:
Inadequate Funding and Long Waiting
Lists Keep Preschool Out of Reach to
Children Most in Need
Despite the many benefits and cost savings
linked to quality preschool programs, these
programs are unavailable to hundreds of
thousands of California children?many of
whom are left languishing on long waiting
lists.
High Costs Make Low-Income, At-Risk
Children Least Likely to Enroll
The thousands of dollars
it costs to send a child to
private preschool make
quality preschool
unaffordable to too many
California children. One
year of private preschool
can cost more than the
$3,000 annual tuition to a
California State
University.34
Low-income children?who are most at risk
of failing in school and becoming involved in
crime and most likely to benefit from quality
preschool programs?are hardest hit.
According to the 2000 census, California
children from families earning over $60,000 per
year are more than 50 percent more likely to be
enrolled in preschool than children from
families earning under $30,000 per year.35 A
county-by-county breakdown of how lowincome
families compare in terms of preschool
enrollment is provided in Appendix 1.
Patchwork of Publicly-funded Preschool
Programs
California provides free or partiallysubsidized
preschool to some at-risk 3-, 4- and
5-year-olds through a patchwork of publiclysupported
early childhood education programs.
Yet, due to a lack of funding, these programs
are not available for hundreds of thousands of
eligible children.
The major publicly-supported preschool
programs are:| Head Start?This long-standing,
federally-funded preschool program serves
children from families earning at or below the
poverty level ($18,850 in 2004 for a family of
four).36 It is primarily a part-day program, and
is open to families both with and without
working parents. Head Start is funded to serve
91,155 preschool-age children in California.37| State Preschool?This state-funded,
primarily half-day preschool program targets a
broader range of children,
serving children from
families at or below 75
percent of the State Median
Income (SMI) level. In
2005, 75 percent of SMI for
a family of four was
$49,325.38 These
preschools are open to
families both with and
without working parents.
They must meet quality
standards that are higher
than the minimum standards for licensed child
care facilities (although only partly in line with
quality indicators discussed previously). State
Preschool is funded to serve 101,100 children
in California.39| General Child Care?This state- and
federally-funded, state-administered child care
program serves preschoolers?as well as
infants, toddlers and school-age children?
from working families earning at or below 75
percent of the State Median Income level.
Families apply to specific child care programs
that directly contract with the state. While
General Child Care-funded preschool
programs must meet the same heightened
quality standards as State Preschool, these
programs are full-day and full-year. General
Child Care serves an estimated 43,549
preschool-age children in California.40| Voucher Programs?CalWORKs Child
Care and the Alternative Payment Program
10 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
?Quality preschool
programs...are unavailable
to hundreds of thousands
of California children?
many of whom are left
languishing on long
waiting lists.?
provide vouchers to working families earning
at or below 75 percent of the State Median
Income, enabling families to choose the form
of child care for which they want to use
financial aid. Families may choose licensed or
license-exempt child care arrangements, and
this assistance may be for full-day and full-year
arrangements. These voucher programs serve
as many as an estimated 29,233 children in
licensed settings that may function as
preschools.41
In addition, children receive subsidized
preschool through a variety of other funding
sources, including federal Title I education
funding, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, and county First 5
Commissions, although these programs may
not be as narrowly-targeted to low-income
children as the programs highlighted above.42
Some preschools can offer full-day programs
by blending funding streams: for example, an
estimated 22,000 of children in Head Start are
served for a full day with the help of State
Preschool and General Child Care funding.43
Most Low-Income Children Denied Access
Despite high demand for these programs,
they are drastically under funded. Together,
Head Start, State Preschool, General Child
Care, and the CalWORKs and Alternative
Payment voucher programs only reach up to
43 percent of all 3- to 5-year-olds eligible for
such assistance (not counting 5-year-olds
already in kindergarten)?and 20 percent of all
preschool-age children statewide.44 Of the
close to 600,000 children eligible for the major
state and federally-funded preschool programs,
there is only enough funding to serve fewer
than 250,000, after discounting for children
who are subsidized through two programs.45
Moreover, due to restrictive eligibility limits,
these programs exclude thousands of
additional families who are unlikely to be able
to afford to send their children to quality
preschools. The California Budget Project
estimates that the average cost of raising a
family of four with two working parents in
California is $58,269, well more than the
eligibility levels for these programs.46
In addition, many preschool programs offer
only half-day services, leaving most California
families?over half of which have two working
parents or a single working parent47?in need
of ?wrap-around?child care services to take
care of their children while they work. Yet the
federal Child Care and Development Block
Grant, which helps working families with
children of all ages pay for full-day and
wrap-around child care services, is dramatically
under funded: it serves only one out of seven
California children eligible for federal child care
support.48
Long Waiting Lists Prove High Demand
While too few children are enrolled in
preschool, the real crisis is that many children
are lining up to get in, only to be turned away.
Demand is high and long waiting lists exist at
many preschools.
A survey completed in January 2005 of more
than 2,000 preschools across California found
that 76 percent of publicly-funded programs
(Head Start, State Preschool, General Child
Care) that responded have waiting lists.49 The
first-of-its-kind survey was conducted by FIGHT
CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California in partnership
11 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
3 out of 5 Low-Income Kids Denied
Access to Preschool
U.S. Census Bureau, CA Head Start Assn., CA Dept. of Ed.
326,758
Eligible 3-5
year olds not
being served
(57%) 243,037
3-5 year olds
enrolled in
publicly-funded
preschools
(43%)
with the California Association for the
Education of Young Children, California Child
Development Administrators?Association and
California Head Start Association. A regional
and county-by-county breakdown of preschool
waiting lists is provided in Appendix 2.
As a result, tens of thousands of low-income
children are on waiting lists for publicly-funded
preschools in California. For Head Start, the
survey documented 14,713 children on waiting
lists; for State Preschool, 14,676 children are on
waiting lists; and for General Child Care,
20,567 children are on waiting lists.50 For every
ten children enrolled in each of these
programs, on average four are turned away.51
And, despite some duplication of children on
multiple waiting lists, the waiting list totals
may be conservative because they reflect only
the 48 percent of publicly-funded agencies and
preschools that responded to the survey and
they leave out countless children who may not
have bothered applying because they knew no
spaces were available.
Low-income children are not alone waiting
in line for preschool. For example, 72 percent
of primarily private preschools accredited by
the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC) that responded to
the survey have waiting lists.52 The NAEYC
accreditation is a nationally-recognized
measure of quality.
The message from these long waiting lists is
clear: regardless of income levels, too many
families are struggling to find spaces at
affordable, quality preschools. And it is the
community as a whole that suffers as a result.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Investing in children?s early education is vital.
More than 220,000 juveniles are arrested every
year in California.53 Despite the best efforts
from law enforcement, this pattern will
continue unless serious measures are taken
before?not after?young people turn to lives
of crime.
It?s time to invest in what works. The
research is clear: quality preschool programs
are crucial to California?s crime-prevention
strategy. That is why the California Police
Chiefs Association, the California State
Sheriffs?Association, the California Peace
Officers?Association and the California District
Attorneys Association, as well as national law
enforcement organizations, such as the
Fraternal Order of Police and the National
District Attorneys Association, are calling on
elected leaders to provide all children
affordable access to quality preschool.
The law enforcement leaders and victims of
violence of FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS
California call on the state and federal
governments to:| As the economy recovers, support
making preschool available to all 3- and
4-year-olds in California, with priority to
children from low-income families and
in under-performing school districts.| Support expansion of the federal
Head Start program and improved
quality safeguards. Head Start is underfunded
and fails to reach a half million of
eligible poverty-level children
nationally.54
12 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
76%
24%
Waiting Lists No Waiting Lists
Preschool programs with Head Start,
State Preschool and General Child Care funding
Preschool survey, 2005
Low-income Kids Stuck on Waiting Lists at
3 out of 4 Preschools
13 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention| Support increased federal funding of
the Child Care and Development Block
Grant to increase access to preschool
and wrap-around care as well as
program quality.| Strengthen the quality of California?s
state-funded preschools by upgrading
quality standards and increasing the per
child reimbursement rate to support
quality improvements.| Oppose cuts to the State child care
system that would further reduce
preschool access and quality for many
families, such as proposals that would
reduce either the number of families
eligible for child care assistance or per
child reimbursement rates.
Hundreds of thousands of California?s young
children are denied access to early education
due to inadequate state and federal funding.
California must invest additional state and
federal funds to ensure that children have
access to quality preschool programs that
prepare them to succeed in school and avoid
lives of crime. Investments in preschool are
investments in the quality of life for all
Californians.
Appendix 1
14 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
Higher-Income Children More Likely to Enroll in Preschool
California Research Bureau. 2004. Unpublished data (from 2000 Census, using 5% Public Use Microdata Sample).
(enrollment per 100 children ages 3-5 not in kindergarten, in select counties)
Alameda 48 63 31%
Contra Costa 43 69 60%
Fresno 33 49 48%
Kern 35 49 40%
Los Angeles 40 60 50%
Monterey/San Benito 41 52 27%
Orange 33 61 85%
Riverside 30 48 60%
Sacramento 39 52 33%
San Bernardino 35 48 37%
San Diego 41 62 51%
San Joaquin 41 56 37%
Santa Clara 42 57 36%
Stanislaus 36 48 33%
Ventura 38 62 63%
Statewide 39 60 54%
County
Family Income
Family Income
>$60,000 % Higher Income
More Likely to Enroll (enrollment/100 children) (enrollment/100 children)
Appendix 2
Bay Area counties include Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma.
Central Coast counties include Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Ventura.
Central Valley counties include Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare.
Eastern California counties include Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono and Tuolumne.
Inland Empire counties include Imperial, Riverside and San Bernardino.
Northern California counties include Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada,
Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba.
Sacramento Region counties include El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter and Yolo.
This survey was conducted from November 2004 through January 2005 by FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California in partnership
with the California Association for the Education of Young Children, California Child Development Administrators? Association
and California Head Start Association. The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network also added its name to the survey
to encourage responses. All State Preschool, Head Start and General Child Care contractors were contacted. The local data
above does not include accredited, non-subsidized preschools that were also surveyed. Contractors include both those operating
multiple programs as well as individual programs that contract with the state. Response rate reflects the percentage of contractors
who responded. For the total number of programs, we counted a physical site with both State Preschool and Head Start
funding two times?both as a Head Start program and a State Preschool program. Number of children on waiting lists is total
number reported by all respondents in the county, not an estimate of total countywide waiting list if all programs had responded.
As children may be on multiple waiting lists, the same child may be counted more than once within one funding source (i.e. if
child on waiting lists at two Head Start programs) and among different funding sources (i.e., if on both Head Start and State
Preschool waiting lists).
15 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
Region/County
Programs
Responding
(Response Rate)
Head Start State Preschool General Child Care
Bay Area (total) 79% 427 (45%) 1,812 1,337 4,643
Alameda/Contra Costa 84% 139 (45%) 779 110 2,568
San Francisco 87% 54 (30%) 194 101 213
San Mateo 67% 63 (43%) 238 140 476
Santa Clara 68% 96 (50%) 437 350 973
Central Coast (total) 74% 211 (65%) 694 1,431 1,785
Monterey 74% 90 (68%) 266 388 1,087
Santa Barbara 91% 65 (86%) 220 1,043 352
Central Valley (total) 77% 356 (53%) 2,423 1,684 1,957
Kern 83% 103 (57%) 717 619 656
Stanislaus 96% 57 (56%) 445 513 120
Tulare 64% 115 (56%) 435 552 404
Eastern CA (total) 39% 33 (50%) 30 41 25
Inland Empire (total) 91% 277 (44%) 2,360 652 793
Riverside 97% 118 (35%) 783 354 189
San Bernardino 91% 147 (61%) 1,574 298 604
Los Angeles 73% 861 (46%) 4,575 5,802 9,064
Northern CA (total) 72% 254 (54%) 226 1,184 118
Butte 91% 53 (80%) 40 204 15
Orange 91% 129 (59%) 423 1,177 576
Sacramento Region (total) 67% 244 (44%) 671 379 556
Sacramento 72% 165 (50%) 335 320 428
San Diego 83% 84 (38%) 1,462 1,026 1,050
STATEWIDE 76% 2876 (48%) 14,676 14,713 20,567
Number of Children on Respondent Waiting Lists
Waiting List Rates for Publicly-funded Preschool Programs
(for Head Start, State Preschool and General Child Care-funded preschools, by region and in select counties)
% Programs w/
Waiting Lists
Endnotes
1 The National Research Council reports that 90 percent of brain
development occurs before the age of five. Shonkoff, J.P., & Philips,
D.A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
child development. National Research Council, Institute of Medicine,
Washington: National Academy Press.
2 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., & Xiang, Z. (2004). Lifetime Effects:
The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through Age 40. High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation. Unpublished Manuscript.
3 Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A.
(2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational
achievement and juvenile arrest. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 285(12), 2339-2380.
4 Reynolds, A. J. (2001, February 9). Chicago Child Parent Centers
linked to juvenile crime prevention. Speech given at Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids press conference in Washington, DC.
5 Reynolds, A. J. & Robertson, D. L. (2003). Preventing child abuse
and neglect through school-based early intervention: An investigation
of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 74, 3-26.
6 Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence:
Revisited 6 years later. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
150, 390-395. See also Child Welfare League of America. (1997).
Sacramento County community intervention program: Findings from a
comprehensive study by community partners in child welfare, law
enforcement, juvenile justice, and the Child Welfare League of
America. Washington, DC: Author; Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. P.
(1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent
involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451-479.
7 Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1988). The Syracuse
University Family Development Research Program: Long-range
impact of an early intervention with low-income children and their
families. In Powell, D. R. (Ed.), Parent education as early childhood
intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice (pp.
79-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
8 Maxwell, K., Bryant, D., & Miller-Johnson, S. (1999). Smart Start:
A six-county study of the effects of Smart Start Child Care on kindergarten
entry skill. Retrieved from the University of North Carolina
Web site: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~smartstart
9 Campbell, S.B., Shaw, D.S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing
behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later
maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 467-488;
Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R.E. (1999). Trajectories of boys? physical
aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically
violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70,
1181-1196. Both cited in Raver, C.C. (2002). Emotions matter:
Making the case for the role of young children?s emotional development
for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, XVI(3).
Retrieved from the Society for Research in Child Development Web
site: http://www.srcd.org/spr.html
10 Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects of
Head Start. American Economic Review, 92(4), 999-1012.
11 Oden, S., Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart, D. P., Marcus, S. M., & Xie,
Y. (2000). Into adulthood: A study of the effects of Head Start.
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
12 Mason-Dixon Polling and Research. (2004, August). National
Kindergarten Teacher Survey. Retrieved from Fight Crime: Invest in
Kids Web site: www.fightcrime.org.
13 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., & Xiang, Z. (2004). Lifetime Effects:
The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through Age 40. High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation. Unpublished Manuscript.
14 Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993).
Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through
age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
15 Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A.
(2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational
achievement and juvenile arrest. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 285(12), 2339-2380.
16 See Mead, S. (2004). National Pre-K Strategy Unveiled.
Washington, D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute.
17 Scharfenberg, D. (2004). Preschool pays off. UC. Berkeley-based
Policy Analysis for California Education Research center and the
University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute at UC
Santa Barbara.
18 Several studies show that high-quality preschool teachers have at
least a four-year degree, partake in on-going training, and are paid
well. Whitebook, M. (2003). Early education quality: Higher teacher
qualifications for better learning environments?A review of the literature.
Retrieved from the Center for the Study of Child Care
Employment Web site: http://iir.berkeley.edu/cscce/pdf/teacher.pdf
19 Katz, L. (1999). Curriculum disputes in early childhood education.
Early Childhood and Parenting Collaborative; University of
Illinois. Archive of ERIC/EECE Digest. Retrieved from the Archive of
ERIC/EECE Digest Web site: http://ecap.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/
digests/1999/katz99b.pdf; Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. (2001).
Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraising the
relationship (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
20 Some examples of a strong parent-involvement component include
the home visits in the High/Scope Perry Preschool and Syracuse
University Family Development programs, the intensive parent coaching
in Chicago Child-Parent Centers, and the parent volunteers in
Head Start. For Perry Preschool see: Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V.,
& Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry
Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. See
also D. R. Powell (Ed.). (1988). Parent education as early childhood
intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice
(pp. 79-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
21 National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998).
Accreditation criteria and procedures of the National Association for
the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Cited in
Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L. (2003).
The state of preschool: 2003 state preschool yearbook. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
22 National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998).
Accreditation criteria and procedures of the National Association for
the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Cited in
Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L. (2003).
The state of preschool: 2003 state preschool yearbook. New
Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
23 Dunkle, M., & Vismara, L. (2004). Developmental checkups:
They?re good, they?re cheap and they?re almost never done. What?s
wrong with this picture? Retrieved from the Education Week Web site:
http://www.edweek.org
24 Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L.
(2004). The state of pre-kindergarten: 2004 state pre-kindergarten
yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research. This analysis is of the program requirements for the State
Preschool and General Child Care programs.
25 Barnett, W. S., Robin, K. B., Hustedt, J. T., & Schulman, K. L.
(2004). The state of pre-kindergarten: 2004 state pre-kindergarten
yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research.
26 Child Development Policy Institute & California Child Care
Resource and Referral Network. (2000, September 6). Legislative
News Update. These rates do not apply to child care facilities that do
not directly contract with the state. For those facilities, the rate for
serving subsidized low-income children is based on the ?market rate?
in the local region.
27 Paul Miller. (2005, January 5). Personal Communication. Paul
Miller is Executive Director of Kidango, a multi-county child care and
child development provider; California Budget Project. (2001).
California?s Subsidized Child Care Center Funding Crisis. Retrieved
from the California Budget Project Web site:
http://www.cbp.org/2001/qh010329.pdf
16 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
28 See, e.g., Garrison, J. (2000, November 28). Orange County?s
Child-Care Plan Has Statewide Impact. L. A. Times. In this example,
one center closed down completely, while nine were converted to forprofit
centers and teachers and aides faced drastic pay cuts and loss of
health benefits.
29 Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., & Xiang, Z. (2004). Lifetime Effects:
The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through Age 40. High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation. Unpublished Manuscript.
30 Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993).
Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through
age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
31 Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A.
(2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-
Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4),
267-303.
32 Rolnick, A., et al. (2003) calculated an investment return of 16
percent by estimating the time periods in which costs and benefits in
constant dollars were paid or received by Perry participants and society.
For the rate of return on High/Scope Perry Preschool, see: Rolnick,
A., & Grunewald, R. (2003). Early childhood development:
Economic development with a high public return. Retrieved from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Web site: http://www.minneapolisfed.
org/pubs/fedgaz/03-03/earlychild.cfm. For the rate of
return on the stock market, see: Farrell, C. (2002, November 22).
The best investment: America?s kids. Retrieved from the Business
Week Web site: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/
nov2002/nf20021122_0334.htm
33 Gale, W., & Sawhill, I.V. (1999, February 17). The best return on
the surplus. The Washington Post, p. A17.
34 Preschool California. (2004). Kids Can?t Wait to Learn: Achieving
Voluntary Preschool for All in California, at p. 30. System-wide
tuition for CSU for full-time students in the 2004-2005 school year
was $2,916. Retrieved from:
http://www.calstate.edu/admission/fee.shtml
35 Children from families earning over $60,000 are 54 percent more
likely to be enrolled in preschool (60% vs. 39%). California Research
Bureau. (2004). Unpublished data (from 2000 Census, using 5%
Public Use Microdata Sample).
36 United States Department of Health & Human Services. 2004
HHS Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved from U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services Web site:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml. 2005 poverty guidelines
will be available in February or March 2005.
37 California Head Start Association. Head Start/Early Head Start in
California: 2002-2003 Program Year. Retrieved from California Head
Start Association Web site: http://www.ca-headstart.org/facts.html.
The number reflects funded enrollment (the expected enrollment,
given federal funding levels and reimbursement rates per student) of
children 3-5 years old; it does not include children in migrant, seasonal
and tribal Head Start programs (5,926 children in program year
2002-2003) that may include children under age 3. Head Start funding
nationally has remained relatively constant since 2002-2003, not
quite keeping pace with inflation. Retrieved from:
http://zfacts.com/p/708.html
38 According to the Census Bureau, the State Median Income for 4-
person families in California for FY 2005 was $65,766. U.S. Census
Bureau. (2004, July 8). Median Income for 4-Person Families, by
State. Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau Web site: http://www.census.
gov/hhes/income/4person.html. However, the state has not updated
the SMI for purposes of eligibility since 2000, when 75 percent of
SMI was $39,000 for a family of four. Michael Fuller. (2004, April 13
and December 16). Personal Communication. Michael Fuller is a
Consultant for the California Department of Education, Child
Development Division.
39 Michael Fuller. (2004, April 2). Personal Communication. The
number reflects funded enrollment in FY 2004-2005. Over the course
of a year the total number of children actually served may vary: for
example, the number would increase if one child leaves the program
and is replaced by another, or it could be less if a program cancels its
contract with CDE or has vacancies.
40 Funded enrollment numbers were not available for this program,
so the data were derived from the number of children served at a particular
point in time. The number of preschool-age children served
was based on an average of two one-month enrollment counts, from
October 2003 and April 2004. California Department of Education,
Child Development Division. (2004, November 4). State Fiscal Year
(SFY) 2003-04: Number of Children Served by Program Type. That
average was multiplied by the average percentage of 3-, 4- and 5-
year-olds served in the program. California Department of Education,
Child Development Division. (2004, April 13). Statewide Number of
Children by Age and Program During April 2003. Source: CD-801A;
California Department of Education, Child Development Division.
(2003, November 26). Statewide Number of Children by Age and
Program During October 2002. Source CD-801A. The percentage of
5-year olds served in the program was adjusted to account for the fact
that many 5-year olds are already in kindergarten or higher grades
and therefore would be in before- or after-school programs, but not
preschool: the percentage of 5-year olds served in the program was
multiplied by the percentage of 5-year-olds not yet in kindergarten or
higher grades: 35.8%. 2003 American Community Survey. Public
Use Microdata from Minnesota Population Center. IPUMS Project.
Retrieved from Minnesota Population Center at University of
Minnesota Web site: http://www.ipums.org/
41 By functioning as preschools, we mean functioning as educational
programs for 3- to 5-year olds prior to kindergarten. In the analysis of
voucher programs, we include the Alternative Payment Program (AP)
and CalWORKs Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 Child Care. The actual
number of children in voucher programs enrolled in ?preschool? may
be lower because this analysis includes all children estimated to be in
both child care centers and licensed family child care homes. Family
child care homes may be less likely than child care centers to offer
?preschool? programs: unlike for teachers in licensed child care centers,
there are no licensing requirements that family child care
providers study early childhood education. If children in family child
care homes were not included, the total number of children from
voucher programs in preschools would be 17,073.
Funded enrollment numbers were not available for these programs, so
the data were derived from the number of children served at a particular
point in time. The number of preschool-age children served was
based on an average of two one-month enrollment counts in the AP
program and Stages 2 and 3, from October 2003 and April 2004.
California Department of Education, Child Development Division.
(2004, November 4). State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2003-04: Number of
Children Served by Program Type. The number of children served in
each of these programs was then multiplied by the average percentage
of 3-, 4- and 5- year olds in each program, with the percentage for 5-
year olds adjusted (as with General Child Care) to account for the fact
that many 5-year olds are already in kindergarten. California
Department of Education, Child Development Division. (2004, April
13). Statewide Number of Children by Age and Program During April
2003. Source: CD-801A; California Department of Education, Child
Development Division. (2003, November 26). Statewide Number of
Children by Age and Program During October 2002. Source CD-
801A.
After adjusting for age, the numbers were then multiplied by the percentage
of children served in the AP program, Stage 2 and Stage 3 in
child care centers (licensed and license-exempt) and licensed family
child care homes. California Department of Education, Child
Development Division. (2002, Revised November 20). Table 14:
Percentage of Children by Type of Child Care and Major Program.
Revised source: California Department of Education. Survey on
Statewide Participation in Subsidized Child Care. Time Period: Data
from July 1999-June 2000. Retrieved from California Dept. of
Education Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/survey.asp.
For Stage 1, the number of children served was based on an average
of two one-month enrollment counts for children in licensed care,
17 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
from October 2003 and April 2004. California Department of Social
Services, Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau. (2004, February 4
and 9). Child Care Monthly Report?CalWORKs Families and Child
Care Monthly Report?Two-Parent Separate State Program October
2003. Sources CW115 and CA115A; California Department of Social
Services, Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau. (2004, August 13).
Child Care Monthly Report?CalWORKs Families and Child Care
Monthly Report?Two-Parent Separate State Program April 2004.
Sources CW115 and CA115A. Retrieved from California Dept. of
Social Services Web site: http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/dssdb/. To
include children in license-exempt centers, because data regarding
Stage 1 children in license-exempt centers were not available, we
multiplied the average number of children enrolled in Stage 1 by the
percentage of Stage 2 children in license-exempt centers. To identify
data for preschool-age children only, because the age breakdown for
children in Stage 1 was not available, the age breakdown for Stage 2
was applied. Accordingly, the average number of Stage 1 children in
licensed care and license-exempt centers was multiplied by the percentage
of 3-, 4- and 5- year olds in Stage 2, with the percentage for
5-year olds adjusted as with the other voucher programs and General
Child Care. For determining the number of Stage 1 children in centers
alone, we applied the percentage of Stage 2 children in centers
compared to children in centers or family child care.
42 For example, Federal Title I funding, which can be used for a wide
variety of educational purposes including preschool, is not tied to the
income level of individual families, although it is targeted to schools
with a high concentration of students in poverty and to students failing
or at high risk of failing. Retrieved from U. S. Dept. of Education
and California Dept. of Education Web sites: http://www.ed.gov/programs/
titleiparta/index.html;
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/titleIpreschool.asp. As of 1999-2000,
Title I funded preschool for an estimated 313,000 children nationally.
General Accounting Office. (2000). Title I Preschool Education:
More Children Served but Gauging Effect on School Readiness
Difficult. Retrieved from General Accounting Office Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he00171.pdf
Other programs not highlighted here include several small programs
administered by the California Department of Education, Child
Development Division that cover a range of ages including preschoolage
children. They are the General Campus Care, General Migrant
Child Care, and General Severely Handicapped programs. Total
enrollment for all ages for the three programs combined as of April
2004 was 3,040. California Department of Education, Child
Development Division. (2004, November 4). State Fiscal Year (SFY)
2003-04: Number of Children Served by Program Type.
43 Edward Condon. (2004, April 2). Personal communication.
Edward Condon is the Executive Director of the California Head Start
Association. There is no estimate for the number of children for
whom Head Start and an AP/CalWORKs voucher is blended.
44 The estimate of the percentage of children eligible for subsidized
preschool (at or below 75% of SMI) is based on the number of children
who would be eligible if the State Median Income (SMI) level
were updated to reflect current income levels, rather than the number
of children eligible under the outdated SMI currently used by the state
to determine eligibility. Based on 2003 data from the Census Bureau,
the number of eligible preschool-age children (3- and 4-year olds, and
5-year olds not in kindergarten or a higher grade) is 569,795 and the
total number of preschool-age children statewide is 1,238,857. 2003
American Community Survey. Public Use Microdata from Minnesota
Population Center. IPUMS Project. Retrieved from Minnesota
Population Center at University of Minnesota Web site:
http://www.ipums.org/
45 Based on our analysis, the total number of children served in the
major subsidized preschool programs (after discounting for the 22,000
Head Start children served by multiple programs) is as many as
243,037. The number of children actually served in preschool by the
major programs may be overstated given that: funded enrollment for
State Preschool and General Child Care may not take into account
vacancies or cancelled contacts that have not yet been replaced; not
all family child care homes accessed through vouchers may offer educational
?preschool? programs; and no data were available to avoid
?double counting? any children being funded through both Head
Start and a voucher program. On the other hand, the number of children
served may be understated to the extent that the reported monthly
enrollment data used to estimate numbers for General Child Care
and voucher programs may be incomplete.
46 California Budget Project. (2003). Making Ends Meet: How Much
Does it Cost to Raise a Family in California?
47 California Child Care Resource & Referral Network. (2004). The
2003 California Child Care Portfolio. 52% of children are in families
with either both parents or a single working parent in the labor force.
48 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration
for Children and Families. (2002). Child Care and Development
Block Grant/Child Care and Development Fund: Children served in
fiscal year 1999 (average monthly). Retrieved from U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Web site:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/2000/cctable.htm
49 The survey was conducted from November 2004 through January
2005. The California Child Care Resource & Referral Network also
added its name to the survey to help encourage preschools and preschool
contractors to respond.
We attempted to contact all State Preschool, Head Start and General
Child Care (including General Migrant, Campus and Severely
Handicapped) contractors, and all accredited preschools. Contractors
include both those operating multiple sites as well as individual programs
that contract with the state. Many contractors rely on two or
more funding sources (i.e., State Preschool and Head Start) often both
within individual sites and across multiple sites. Of 837 contractors
that provide subsidized preschool programs through Head Start, State
Preschool and General Child Care, 401?48%?responded. The
respondents represented over 2,000 subsidized sites. Once accredited
non-subsidized sites are included, the respondents represented a
total of 2,401 subsidized and non-subsidized sites. For the analysis
regarding the number of total sites responding, the total is the actual
number of physical sites: individual sites with more than one funding
source (i.e., Head Start and State Preschool) are counted only once.
For Head Start, of 196 contractors, 117?60%?responded.
Respondents represent 1,050 sites. 831?79%?of responding sites
reported waiting lists, and 108?10%?of responding sites reported
vacancies (including approximately 55?5%?of sites that reported
both waiting lists and vacancies). It is possible for a site to report
both vacancies and a waiting list because, for example, some slots
(i.e., morning rather than afternoon or 5-day rather than 3-day) may
be in higher demand than others. Other sites reported neither waiting
lists nor vacancies. The list of Head Start contractors was obtained
from the California Head Start Association.
For State Preschool, of 539 contractors, 298?55%?responded.
Respondents represent 1,225 sites. 878?72%?of responding sites
reported waiting lists, and 162?13%?of responding sites reported
vacancies (including approximately 52?4%?of sites that reported
both waiting lists and vacancies). The remaining sites reported neither
waiting lists nor vacancies.
For General Child Care, of 355 contractors, 177?50%?responded.
Respondents represent 601 sites. 486?81%?of responding sites
reported waiting lists, and 92?15%?of responding sites reported
vacancies (including approximately 36?6%?of sites that reported
both waiting lists and vacancies). The remaining sites reported neither
waiting lists nor vacancies. The lists of State Preschool and General
Child Care contractors were obtained from the California Department
of Education.
Overall for the subsidized programs, 2,195?76%?of responding
programs reported waiting lists, and 362?13%?of 2,876 responding
programs reported vacancies (including approximately 193?7%?of
programs that reported both waiting lists and vacancies). The remaining
programs reported neither waiting lists nor vacancies. In this
analysis regarding the combined percentage of subsidized programs
18 FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS California
with waiting lists and vacancies, the total number of programs (2,876)
is greater than the number of actual physical sites because we counted
sites with more than one funding source once for each funding
source. For example, a site with both State Preschool and Head Start
funding would be counted twice?both as a Head Start program and
a State Preschool program. Counting the same site multiple times
should not detract from our analysis: we found that sites with multiple
funding sources had waiting lists at a similar rate to sites with a sole
funding source.
50 These numbers are likely to include some duplication of children
who are on more than one waiting list. For example, we are not able
to determine where the same child is on waiting lists at two or more
agencies or for two or more funding sources (i.e., State Preschool and
Head Start). We attempted to minimize the amount of duplication by
asking individual programs and agencies to count only once children
who are on waiting lists for a particular funding source at more than
one agency-operated site. For example, a child on a waiting list at 2
Head Start sites operated by the same agency should only be counted
once.
The total number of vacancies for Head Start was 443, for State
Preschool was 1,490, and for General Child Care was 827.
51 Among survey respondents, total enrollment for Head Start is
48,801; for State Preschool, enrollment is 45,585; and for General
Child Care, enrollment is 25,813.
52 For accredited sites, of 410 accredited programs we had contact
information for statewide, 155?38% responded. Respondents represent
315 sites. 227?72%?of responding sites reported waiting lists,
and 103?33%?of responding sites reported vacancies (including
approximately 50?16%?of sites that reported both waiting lists and
vacancies). The remaining sites reported neither waiting lists nor
vacancies. Two-thirds of accredited preschools responding were private,
and approximately 60% of the private preschools had waiting
lists. The total number of children on waiting lists at accredited sites
was 10,219, and the total number of vacancies for accredited sites
was 1,228. Total accredited enrollment was 22,173. The list of
accredited programs was obtained from the National Association for
the Education of Young Children. Accredited preschools represent
only a small percentage of all licensed preschools and child care centers,
and many quality programs may not choose to apply for accreditation.
For a comprehensive look at the extent of waiting lists at private
preschools, a broad survey of licensed preschools, including
unaccredited preschools, would be required.
53 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports. (2003).
Crime in the United States, by State, 2003. Table 69. Retrieved from
Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site:: http://www.fbi.gov
54 Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2003). Head Start Improves
Achievement and Reduces Crime. Retrieved from Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids Web site: http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/HeadStartBrief.pdf
19 Public Safety Can?t Wait: California?s Preschool Shortage, A Missed Opportunity for Crime Prevention
with waiting lists and vacancies, the total number of programs (2,876)
is greater than the number of actual physical sites because we counted
sites with more than one funding source once for each funding
source. For example, a site with both State Preschool and Head Start
funding would be counted twice?both as a Head Start program and
a State Preschool program. Counting the same site multiple times
should not detract from our analysis: we found that sites with multiple
funding sources had waiting lists at a similar rate to sites with a sole
funding source.
50 These numbers are likely to include some duplication of children
who are on more than one waiting list. For example, we are not able
to determine where the same child is on waiting lists at two or more
agencies or for two or more funding sources (i.e., State Preschool and
Head Start). We attempted to minimize the amount of duplication by
asking individual programs and agencies to count only once children
who are on waiting lists for a particular funding source at more than
one agency-operated site. For example, a child on a waiting list at 2
Head Start sites operated by the same agency should only be counted
once.
The total number of vacancies for Head Start was 443, for State
Preschool was 1,490, and for General Child Care was 827.
51 Among survey respondents, total enrollment for Head Start is
48,801; for State Preschool, enrollment is 45,585; and for General
Child Care, enrollment is 25,813.
52 For accredited sites, of 410 accredited programs we had contact
information for statewide, 155?38% responded. Respondents represent
315 sites. 227?72%?of responding sites reported waiting lists,
and 103?33%?of responding sites reported vacancies (including
approximately 50?16%?of sites that reported both waiting lists and
vacancies). The remaining sites reported neither waiting lists nor
vacancies. Two-thirds of accredited preschools responding were private,
and approximately 60% of the private preschools had waiting
lists. The total number of children on waiting lists at accredited sites
was 10,219, and the total number of vacancies for accredited sites
was 1,228. Total accredited enrollment was 22,173. The list of
accredited programs was obtained from the National Association for
the Education of Young Children. Accredited preschools represent
only a small percentage of all licensed preschools and child care centers,
and many quality programs may not choose to apply for accreditation.
For a comprehensive look at the extent of waiting lists at private
preschools, a broad survey of licensed preschools, including
unaccredited preschools, would be required.
53 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports. (2003).
Crime in the United States, by State, 2003. Table 69. Retrieved from
Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site:: http://www.fbi.gov
54 Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2003). Head Start Improves
Achievement and Reduces Crime. Retrieved from Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids Web site: http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/HeadStartBrief.pdf
For more information or to access our other reports contact us at www.fightcrime.org/ca


#

tags