Putting a value on young minds

The single most taxpayer-friendly policy that Michigan can pursue may be investing in proven early childhood programs to help the state’s estimated 260,000 at-risk kids. The up-front costs may be steep, but the long-term financial savings for Michigan will be enormous.

That’s the conclusion of a comprehensive study by the Citizens Research Council of Michigan and Public Sector Consultants, two Lansing-based research organizations, on the social and economic benefits of better developing the minds of young children, from birth to age 3.

“The consequences of not investing in children early are greater today than they were in the past,” the report finds. “A higher skill level is needed today to secure most jobs that pay a middle-class wage.”

Most vulnerable children identified in the report do not have access to proven early childhood programs because of inadequate funding, bureaucratic obstacles, or because they don’t know such programs exist, according to the CRC-PSC analysis and Bridge interviews with more than three dozen educators, early-childhood experts, legislators, state health officials, business and nonprofit leaders and families.

Michigan already lags behind most states in important milestones: It’s 35th in college attainment, 32d in eighth-grade reading and 42d in fourth-grade math proficiency.

Several programs cited in the report have been proven effective through empirical research; some studies have followed children’s progress for decades. Today, in the first of a two-part series, Bridge will explore two such programs ‒ home visitation and high-quality child care for children up to age 3 ‒ that have shown promise and developed bipartisan interest or support across the nation.

The most successful of these programs have a demonstrated return for taxpayers, who save money in the long run through reduced costs for special education and remedial classes, lower welfare payments, fewer child-abuse prosecutions, less imprisonment and increased tax payments due to higher earnings of children in these programs who grow up and secure better jobs.

Roger Kahn, a Republican who headed the state Senate appropriations committee before he was term-limited in December, said he believes scientific data shows early childhood programs lead to “a country that’s functional, and a citizenry that has opportunity.”

Kahn, a cardiologist, added: “At the appropriations level it’s cost effective.”

“If you tell me I can have 20 percent less kids go to prison, I just go ‘Cha-ching, cha-ching.’ Each saves us $21,000 a year. Twenty percent more of them become taxpayers. ‘Cha-ching, cha- ching, cha-ching.’”

The programs found by the study to be the most effective in helping low-income and other at-risk children are:

  • Home visiting – voluntary programs that link parents with trained service providers, who coach the families.
  • Access to medical homes – making sure all children have a primary care physician who manages all of the child’s healthcare needs.
  • High-quality child care – which has been shown by a growing body of research to lead to positive long-term outcomes.
  • Preschool for 3-year-olds – expanding Michigan’s Great Start to Readiness Program for 4 year olds.

Those programs “represent critical areas where careful study has shown that upfront investment can provide lifelong dividends to high-risk children and to the taxpayers of Michigan,” the CRC-PSC report says.

Early childhood programs are partly the result of scientific studies over the past three decades of the young, delicate brain that underscore the importance of nurturing and education before age 3.

Kathleen Howard, a Grand Rapids pediatrician who is involved in early childhood initiatives in Kent County, noted much of the world has figured out over the centuries how to have a largely germ-free society, clean water and access to education.

“So the things that are harming our population have changed,” she said. “Now we find out what is causing the most distress to infants and children. Early mental health is a huge issue these days.”

The team of researchers from the Citizens Research Council and Public Sector Consultants spent about a year developing the research, including interviews with early childhood experts, a review of more than 60 studies, and an in-depth analysis using data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

The CRC-PSC study cautioned the programs don’t provide the entire solution to the complex problems of Michigan’s at-risk children, who make up 56 percent of the state’s birth-to-3 population.

Michigan’s record is mixed when it comes to early childhood programs.

The state already funds the four early childhood programs cited in the report to various extent. Under Gov. Rick Snyder, Michigan has boosted spending for 4-year-old preschool by $130 million over the past two years – the biggest preschool expansion in the nation. That initiative followed a 2012 Bridge series, “Michigan’s forgotten 4-year-olds,” which revealed that nearly 30,000 Michigan 4 year olds who qualified for free preschool were excluded from the program, in large part because of a lack of state funding.

Parallels abound in state programs for even younger children, newborns to age 3. For example, an estimated 25,000 at-risk children benefit from home visitation programs in the state, far below the 260,000 who qualify for such services. Meanwhile, state funds for quality child care have plummeted 67 percent within the past decade.

In his most recent budget proposal, Gov. Snyder called for $48.6 million in new funding to improve student reading proficiency, with a good chunk focused on parenting classes, home visits, high-quality childcare and other early childhood initiatives.

“If you compare where Michigan is at on all the child-care metrics, we are not in good shape,” said Susan Broman, deputy superintendent for the Department of Education’s Office of Great Start, which consolidates early childhood programs and resources under a single agency. “I would not dispute that at all. I would say that is probably an understatement.”

Broman, though, acknowledged that the state is making adjustments to its child-care policy and praised Snyder’s budget plans.

“That’s a very, very good sign,” Broman said. “We don’t have to convince him that this is good for children and for the state of Michigan.”

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Tue, 03/03/2015 - 7:04pm
"The single most taxpayer-friendly policy that Michigan can pursue may be investing in proven early childhood programs to help the state’s estimated 260,000 at-risk kids. " I am so sad, Mr. McGraw sounds like every other 'politician' who wants to spend more and more of other people's money. He wants to save the children and all it takes is other people’s money, but he cares so little about the results that he makes no effort to talk about how to ensure the results are achieved. Mr. McGraw is just the latest evangelist spouting his ‘good intentions,’ but in 5, 10, 20 years we will be hearing the same pitch from a new wave of social evangelists, how all we need to do is spend more and more because nothing will have changed for the better. I value the children and learning, but I am not so desperate to throw other’s people money around on Mr. McGraw’s ‘good intentions’. We have had a life time of those ‘good intentions’ and the claims today have no more credibility then the promises of the past. I want to hear from someone who is about real results not just the emptiness of ‘good intentions’. I want to hear from the people who will get into a conversation about how to assure the results the children need not simply throw more of other people’s money at their ‘good intentions’.
Wed, 03/04/2015 - 11:53am
I totally, totally agree, Duane. Throwing money at something again is so redundant and it is actually not fair.
John Q. Public
Tue, 03/03/2015 - 8:24pm
I can get the prison population down 20%, and all it will cost is the price of a disposable pen. That, and the willingness to not waste the legislative process talking like a pirate.
Mary Kovari
Wed, 03/04/2015 - 9:33am
Thanks Bridge for continuing to expand your reporting on this critical issue. We have known about the benefits of early childhood intervention programs for a very long time. Our problem has always been the will to appropriate money to these programs (mostly because of mindsets represented above that seem to monopolize the conversation). As someone who taught in Detroit for 19 years, the consequences of generational poverty cannot be managed by schools alone. We must have support from other social sectors and work in collaboration to address the issues of generational poverty. We can see how much money, frustration and wasted lives cost when we do not intervene in children's lives. I thank Bridge for all the work they have done at promoting and expanding the discussion about child poverty and what we can do as a democracy, to mediate this plague on Michigan and create a brighter future for all children.
Christine Baker
Wed, 03/04/2015 - 9:50am
Amen, Mary....
Myrna Henderson
Thu, 03/05/2015 - 8:58am
The Perry Preschool Study in Ypsilanti proved this decades ago. When will we finally believe it and finance it?
Mon, 03/09/2015 - 10:58am
Education or ignorance: I remember a quote some time ago if you think education is hard try ignorance. It is so important to our country and our citizens that we make the best attempt possible to do that. I am including an article I placed in the paper a few months ago about education. Apathy Quote Apathy is a condition that most everybody is born with and left untreated only gets worse with age. The best known treatment is lifetime education and service to your fellow man and the cure rate is almost 100%. Dale Westrick
Rita Casey
Tue, 03/10/2015 - 9:21am
Thanks for this article, and this series. I'm saddened by the usual put-down's of spending funds on "other people's children", as if proof of the worth of these programs was lacking. In addition to the Perry Preschool Project, there is the Abecedarian Project conducted in North Carolina. That project followed the children long-term, and continued formal trials of additional interventions through many years of schooling. Bottom line: The preschool intervention packed the most punch in aiding children, though interventions at older ages had some positive effects. For those concerned with dollar costs versus net benefits, the RAND corporation has several outstanding projects that have looked intensively at costs and benefits to several childhood interventions, (for example, see http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145.html). Their research indicates benefits ranging from $1.80 to $17.07 cents for every $1.00 invested. Even the lowest return is impressive by purely financial standards.
Fri, 03/13/2015 - 10:17am
There is no doubt money spent on "high quality" early childhood education provides a high return on the investment. Gov. Snyder did boost spending for additional Great Start Readiness Programs for 4-year old children. However, that is one small piece of the work that is yet to be accomplished. Until we can stop working in silos and start working together, collaboratively, without barriers and restrictions, we will not be able to support our young children as we should. Parent training, coaching families in the home environment, and programs for 3-year olds are non-negotiable. Restrictions put in place to keep GSRP and special education separate must be snipped. We should not have to identify a young child as disabled to provide any specialized intervention. Rules need to be re-written to state an expectation that every child's needs will be met during the child's most critical years. Although funding is essential, putting money into preschool alone will not solve the problem. I get that we will always have folks who feel the need to red-tape everything, the rule makers. But when the rules and regulations interfere with supporting our children as we should, we have an ethical obligations to change the rules & regs. Thank you Bridge for the article!
Tue, 07/14/2015 - 9:52pm
It is not just early children care that needs to be addressed in Michigan it is the parents too. Kids live with parents and if the parents don't have jobs, or skills, or childcare so they can get an education or go to work, then you failed families Michigan. A solid foundation for children is based upon the strength of the parent(s), so spend money for children and spend money for parents to get childcare and the skills to support those kids.