Early Childhood Education Implementation Working Group
Why This Matters for Families
In recent years, an increasing number of local governments have invested in early care and education (ECE). According to an analysis by CityHealth, 53 of the 75 largest U.S. cities (71%) have enrolled 30% or more 4-year-olds in state or locally-funded pre-k programs, and 65 cities add local dollars to state and federal funds to support early care and education. A mix of factors drives the growth: increased recognition of the importance of high-quality education in a child's first five years, the high costs to families of child care, a focused strategy by local leaders to attract families and employers, and insufficient funding at the federal level. The return on investment for early care and education is significant, with evidence that quality services boost children’s long-term academic outcomes, has rapid impacts on maternal employment and families’ economic mobility, and generates new revenue for businesses and local economies. Cities and counties across the country have passed local initiatives on early childhood education investment due to broad public support.
Implementation Challenge
Getting public programs approved and funded takes enormous effort, but it's only half the battle. After the bill is signed and the money is appropriated, another challenge awaits: delivering a new service to people that is on time, on budget, and working as expected. Despite the importance of implementation, few mechanisms exist to help public servants stand up new and innovative programs. Launching and expanding public early care and education services is no exception. With new and bigger local early childhood programs launching each year, the need to do it well becomes more urgent. People want these programs to work, but a wall of complex funding streams, regulations, and workforce challenges complicates the path forward.
Even when no playbook exists, there are strategies to smooth implementation. Loose networks of public servants tasked with similar demands emerge to bridge knowledge gaps, sometimes self organizing into more formal structures designed to share lessons, pitfalls, and solutions.
Our Approach
The Early Care and Education (ECE) Implementation Working Group — a group of early education program leaders from 15 different locations — is an example of such an effort. The working group has met monthly, with the primary goal of building a trusted foundation as a group and co-designing the priorities and focus areas. Each month, the group tackles thorny implementation questions, examining how different teams have approached them, the challenges they have faced, and how they have navigated them. These conversations are candid and open spaces for participants to share their challenges frankly. To this end, confidentiality is critical. However, where possible, the lessons from these conversations are shared through blogs or research briefs published by the New Practice Lab.
What We Learned
The working hypothesis of the Implementation Working Group is that convening leaders of public early learning programs improves adoption of leading practices and lessons learned from others. We observed this from the exchange of nitty-gritty practices across localities, like shared communication templates that helped leaders respond to funding disruptions early in 2025, or designing a new procurement package based on another member’s model. There were broader lessons though, like the top takeaways from the IWG’s in-person convening and an event in Alameda County that brought implementation lessons from the group front and center as it embarks on an ambitious new early childhood initiative.
While peer-to-peer learning was a focus, one of the group priorities was to expand the implementation conversation to a broader audience. As a result of ECE Implementation Working Group conversations, the New Practice Lab has shared summaries of insights and lessons learned on the following topics:
2025
Conversation in Colorado
Two leaders share how Denver’s long-time investment in early childhood education helped catalyze a statewide transformationBuilding a Stronger Early Childhood Workforce
Challenges facing the early childhood workforce can feel vexing, but successful efforts to address fair compensation, training, and career pathways offer solutionsWhat Does a Federal Transition Mean for Local Early Childhood Initiatives?
As the new administration gets underway, the Early Care and Education Implementation Working Group takes stock of what to expect and how to prepare.Grounded Approaches to Federal Uncertainty
Local early childhood education program administrators share tactics and strategies to navigate new federal policies.Local Leaders’ Perspectives on Early Care and Education in this Moment
Ten takeaways from an in-person convening of the Early Care and Education Implementation Working GroupBuilding Stronger Early Childhood Coalitions
Local leaders can bolster support for early childhood investments with cross-sectoral partnerships, including some unexpected alliesLocal Early Childhood Initiatives Need Head Start
Head Start plays a pivotal role in local mixed-delivery early childhood systems; cuts to offices and staff are cuts to all kidsMore Options for Families: Public Preschool in Family Child Care Homes
New resources with stories from around the country offer lessons on how to more effectively engage providersUntangling Early Childhood Governance at the Local Level
Understanding Public Pre-K Models at the City and County Level Can Inform Future Program Design (Full research brief here)How State Early Learning Structure and Funding Impacts Local Governance
Implementing in Public: Sharing Lessons Learned from Across the Country in the Open
As Alameda County, CA begins to implement an expansive early childhood initiative, we are reminded of the value of sharing learning and the common experiences being felt nationally.Mixed Delivery, Stronger Results: How to Intentionally Design Local Early Childhood Systems
“The learning and documentation is so helpful. I have links to the writings that I am sharing with our Board of Supervisors today.”
“A huge great reminder/lesson learned [from participating in the working group] is that true administrative innovation is happening in counties and cities and there is so much good to share across this work.”
Next Steps
Heading into 2026, the team is exploring a new focus for the group based on an agreed upon theory of change. The ultimate path will depend on new member recruitment and the group’s composition, but meeting cadence will reorient from monthly topics to a series of 3-5 “deeper dives” into a smaller number of topics so that group members can directly apply learnings to their own work. Tightening the scope will help the Lab and IWG focus effort around members’ top priorities and demonstrate direct impact.
The Working Group will also share lessons from a series of meetings inspired by a key takeaway from the group’s spring convening. There, experts cited the disconnect between federal level policymakers and local program leaders with on-the-ground service delivery experience as a barrier to designing early childhood programs that will work across the states. We engaged Working Group members in supplementary meetings to get their feedback on where authority for service delivery decisions should ideally reside and will synthesize these perspectives in 2026.
Additionally, the Lab will support strategic partnerships and learning between IWG and other aligned efforts within the Lab and externally (such as with diversitydatakids.org among others).
