¹ú²úÊÓƵ

High-quality, affordable early education supports children’s development and lets families fully participate in work and community life. Yet in most of the country, supply falls short of demand. Expanding access requires sustained investment in many areas, but safe, suitable physical space for children and classrooms is vital. States and communities are taking smart, practical steps—like updating zoning codes, repurposing public buildings, and adjusting tax policies—to increase the supply of early learning settings.

What Does the Research Say?

Findings from the show that families want and need options. Families , often selecting different settings for different ages and developmental needs. Quality exists . While quality may vary across early childhood programs, differences within setting types are larger than differences between them. That is, no single model is inherently better—what matters is access to high-quality options that meet diverse needs. Expanding access means creating a mix of high-quality spaces where families live and work.Ìý

Research also indicates that facilities are on the supply of early childhood education and care. The availability of suitable, affordable physical space determines whether programs can open, expand, or sustain operations. , —which may limit where child care programs can legally operate—and insufficient funding to acquire, build, or renovate space make it difficult for providers to secure appropriate facilities; these challenges fall most heavily on and .Ìý

Research also shows that is especially scarce, in part because it requires specialized and more costly physical environments—including dedicated spaces for safe sleep and diapering—that add to facilities’ cost and complexity. Recent state and local initiatives point to several promising strategies—including the reuse of public buildings, capital grants, and zoning reform—that can expand supply and increase access.

Repurposing Public Spaces: Hawai’i’s Acts 152 and 204

Early learning spaces were scarce in underserved communities, yet unused public facilities sat idle. Leaders needed to authorize new uses for public assets while ensuring that community-based providers weren’t displaced. ÌýHawai’i’s , enacted in 2024, authorizes use of unused public facilities for early learning. , enacted in 2025, clarifies the authority of the School Facilities Authority—the state agency responsible for public school planning and construction—to work across property types and pursue public-private partnerships.

How Leaders Made It Happen

Secured champions and coalitions early. A high-visibility champion—the lieutenant governor—was pivotal in moving the work along and securing funding. Leaders identified allies and built advocacy networks before the policy push, creating political momentum.Ìý

Engaged communities through trusted intermediaries. Groups like Hawai’i Children’s Action Network (HCAN) were able to reach local communities that policymakers couldn’t easily convene. Regular stakeholder meetings surfaced practical considerations and built trust.

Communicated “kitchen table” impact. Leaders framed the policy around expanding access to communities previously excluded. One noted: “If we just talk policy … okay, well, what does that mean at my kitchen table?”¹ Translating statutes into everyday impacts built support.Ìý

Addressed provider concerns directly. Community providers initially feared Department of Education (DOE) expansion would create competition. Providers had “seen their students leaving … DOE is free, whereas community-based still had tuition.”² Leaders responded by acknowledging these fears and clarifying that Ready Keiki—Hawai’i’s initiative to ensure all children are ready for kindergarten, launched in 2023 and led by Lieutenant Governor Sylvia Luke—was designed to support all providers, not compete with them: “That’s not the intention of Ready Keiki. It is to support all providers.”³ Acts 152 and 204 helped operationalize this commitment by creating the legal framework for public-private partnerships and mixed-delivery approaches.

Built flexibility into policy design. Act 152 enabled public-private partnerships and co-location in housing projects. Act 204 clarified the School Facilities Authority’s authority to work across properties, making “the building process more effective, because it’s under one house.”

Using New Development to Fund Early Education Facilities: San Carlos’s Impact Fee

San Carlos faced a documented shortage of 640 child care spaces, but child care had not yet been recognized as essential infrastructure for the city. New development was not contributing to the care infrastructure families needed. San Carlos on new commercial, industrial, or office projects. Revenue supports building new facilities, acquiring land, or expanding existing programs. Developers can avoid paying the impact fee by building a child care center on-site and contracting with a licensed child care provider to run it.

How Leaders Made It Happen

Grounded policy in data and narrative. A 2017 county report documenting a 640-space shortage created urgency. Leaders framed child care as infrastructure—”as fundamental as roads, sewers, or parks”⁴—broadening support beyond early childhood advocates. A nexus study (an analysis linking new development to community impacts) balanced community needs with economic feasibility by examining cumulative fees on developers.Ìý

Cultivated a sustained champion. Mayor McDowell was described as “our champion for child care,”⁵ consistently keeping the issue visible and helping normalize it as routine city business—”below the waterline”⁶ work—rather than a special initiative.Ìý

Embedded priorities in formal structures. Strategic documents (Council Strategic Plan, Economic Development Plan) gave staff authoritative proof that child care was a priority, allowing them to act confidently. The city hired a designated child care person—Senior Management Analyst Andrew Douglass—to make it routine municipal work.Ìý

Leveraged regional networks. San Mateo County 4Cs, the Child Care Partnership, and advocates assisted with implementation.

What These Stories Tell Us and A Glimpse At Other Examples

A few patterns stand out across these examples:Ìý

• Both secured visible champions and built coalitions early—before policy windows opened, not after.Ìý
• Data and narrative worked together. Numbers (640-space shortage, 45 classrooms delivered) created urgency and fueled momentum. Framing child care as infrastructure and translating policy into kitchen-table impact broadened support.Ìý
• Leaders embedded change in formal structures (laws, strategic plans, dedicated staff) so progress wouldn’t depend on individual champions staying in their roles.
• Both addressed provider skepticism directly and designed flexibility into policy—through public-private partnerships, nexus studies, multiple property types—building trust through design, not just messaging.

Other Promising Approaches

Braiding public and private funding for capital improvements. Leaders at Promise All Atlanta Children Thrive (PAACT), an initiative of the Georgia Early Education Alliance for Ready Students (GEEARS), braided funding from the Office of the Mayor, Atlanta Public Schools, and local philanthropists to . With the support of local technical assistance partners and contractors, PAACT awarded grants to over 70 programs. Using evidence of widespread demand, benefit to providers, and political attractiveness, they also created a proof of concept for a statewide capital improvement fund for early learning programs.Ìý

Creating dedicated facility grant funds. Harris County, Texas’s , created in 2023, awards grants to expand or rehabilitate facilities and offers free technical assistance. Eligible expenses include renovations, health and safety equipment, playgrounds, security, parking, and ADA accessibility. New Jersey’s provided grants to child care providers across the state for capital improvement projects, matching each grantee with a Grant Project Specialist to provide guidance throughout the process.Ìý

Updating zoning and planning. Pittsburgh to allow family child care in more areas. Colorado’s gives local governments incentives to improve planning and zoning processes, funded by a Child Care Facility Development Cash Fund. Seattle passed the ordinance in 2020, amending the city’s Land Use Code to allow child care centers to operate in all commercial and residential zones, including areas zoned for single-family housing.Ìý

Supporting home-based educators through property tax policy and legal protections. In December 2024, Boise, Idaho, expanded its to include licensed in-home child care providers. The program provides up to $500 in property tax relief for providers who own their homes and are actively offering care. In Oregon, restricts landlords from raising rent, terminating a tenancy, or taking other retaliatory actions against tenants who choose to operate a family child care program in their rental unit.Ìý

Involving educators in design. °­±ð²Ô³Ù³Ü³¦°ì²â’s encourages local governments, when considering zoning rules, to create a community-wide child care task force that includes center- and home-based providers, design professionals, business partners, and community members.

Cross-Cutting Implementation Challenges

Policy changes do not automatically produce new spaces. Common friction points include:Ìý

• Last mile barriers — Permitting, inspections, ADA compliance, insurance, and licensure often delay or derail projectsÌý
• Hidden costs — Repurposed buildings may require significant renovation, maintenance, and liability managementÌý
• Process misalignment — Zoning changes may not translate into openings without hands-on applicant support and interagency coordinationÌý
• Provider trust — Mixed-delivery commitments can erode if inclusion is not explicit and benefits are not visibleÌý
• Sustainability — Capital expansion is difficult to sustain without plans for ongoing operating support and workforce stability
• Local knowledge — Enlisting the help of partners without contextual knowledge can slow down implementation, create room for misunderstandings, and erode trust

Measures of Progress

Consider tracking:

• Seats created and closures preventedÌý
• Time from inquiry/application to permit/licensure approvalÌý
• Geographic distribution of new capacityÌý
• Mix of setting types supported (home-based, center, school, community-based)Ìý
• Provider experience (process clarity, burden, perceived support)Ìý
• Fund utilization and time to deploy capital

Tools for Action

• Toolkit for translating this brief’s findings into concrete next steps
• Questions to guide your work
• —a user-friendly, interactive digital tool that helps policymakers, advocates, and leaders explore how cities and states across the country are tackling challenges related to early education