{"id":339,"date":"2023-05-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-05-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/moneywithkatie.com\/oregons-free-preschool-experiment\/"},"modified":"2025-09-03T18:56:09","modified_gmt":"2025-09-03T18:56:09","slug":"oregons-free-preschool-experiment","status":"publish","type":"essays","link":"https:\/\/moneywithkatie.com\/essays\/oregons-free-preschool-experiment\/","title":{"rendered":"Oregon\u2019s Free Preschool Experiment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Between 1941 and 1945, roughly 16.5 million<\/span><\/a> Americans served in WWII alongside the Allied powers (for context, the US population<\/span><\/a> in 1941 was only 133 million), which meant one thing back home: all hands on economic deck, including mothers<\/em>. The original girlboss, Rosie the Riveter, was born\u2014women joined the ranks of laborers building aircraft, ships, and bombs. <\/p>\n

But employers noticed something: Now that a parent was responsible for parenting and<\/em> working outside the home, absenteeism was higher. Young children were left in parked cars outside workplaces or by themselves at home, which\u2014understandably\u2014raised some eyebrows. Something needed to be done if all these Rosies were going to keep on riveting! <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
>
\n \u201c<\/span>The link between economic vitality, national security, and caring for our nation\u2019s youngest members was obvious; prioritized, even.\u201d<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

As a result, \u201cthe federal government supported a nationwide program of child care centers, intended to boost war production by freeing mothers to work,\u201d per Congress\u2019s 2000 report<\/span><\/a> on childcare during the war. At their peak, these childcare centers (in all states except one, and in DC) had enrolled 130,000 children by 1944. <\/p>\n

The general consensus was: We need both parents to pitch in for this economy to keep on economy-ing, and that means we need a childcare solution that works for everyone. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Under the Lanham Act, local communities received federal funding so they could plan and provide care. The link between economic vitality, national security, and caring for our nation\u2019s youngest members was obvious; prioritized, even. <\/em><\/p>\n

We seemed to get it back then. Oh, how things have changed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

It\u2019s long been acknowledged that the US is in a bit of a childcare pickle, to put it kindly. <\/h3>\n

The word \u201ccrisis\u201d is used more often than not in journalistic coverage of the post-pandemic situation, and public childcare spending (that is, spending from the federal government) amounts to an average of $500 per child, per year<\/span><\/a> as of 2021. For context, the average among our member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is $14,436. <\/p>\n

Yet the American family with young children pays an average of more than $20,000 per year<\/a> out of pocket on childcare.<\/p>\n

Relatedly, on The Money with Katie Show<\/em><\/a> this week, <\/em>we\u2019re speaking with Amanda Freeman and Lisa Dodson, the authors of Getting Me Cheap<\/em><\/span><\/a>, about the way low-wage labor traps women in cycles of poverty. <\/p>\n

The upshot? When you\u2019re trying to navigate government subsidies, cobbling together (sometimes multiple) minimum wage jobs, and<\/em> taking care of your kids, your life is a series of exhausting, impossible tradeoffs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
>
\n \u201c<\/span>When you\u2019re trying to navigate government subsidies, cobbling together (sometimes multiple) minimum wage jobs, and taking care of your kids, your life is a series of exhausting, impossible tradeoffs.\u201d<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

More than one-third<\/span><\/a> of America\u2019s working poor are also caring for children, with twice as many mothers as fathers represented. Because care work is still seen as gendered (depending on the source, between 88%<\/span><\/a> and 97% of childcare workers are female), it\u2019s undervalued\u2014and disproportionately hurts women\u2019s economic prospects.<\/p>\n

When public funding is limited, private spending picks up the tab. If you\u2019re going to have kids, you better<\/em> have that budget right \u2019n tight.<\/p>\n

According to Yahoo! Finance<\/span><\/a>, 63% of parents said their childcare costs had risen from 2021 to 2022, and roughly half of parents spend more than 20%<\/em> of their household income on child care. It doesn\u2019t matter how much Starbucks you forfeit: Spending 20% of your household income to effectively keep your job(s) is an expense you can\u2019t outmaneuver with \u201csavvy couponing.\u201d <\/p>\n

And the results of this tradeoff are\u2026well, predictable: This Wall Street Journal piece<\/span><\/a> concluded \u201cemployers are challenged to fill jobs\u201d right now because \u201cthe high cost and limited availability of child care is keeping some parents out of the labor force.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, childcare is a conundrum that private markets have a hard time solving, because it costs more to provide than most customers can afford to pay. (This is why all other high-income nations approach it as a matter of civic policy, rather than consumer choice.)<\/p>\n

So in developing this week\u2019s episode, I was curious if any local<\/em> governments were making progress. Surely there has to be a model within<\/em> the US for how to solve this problem, right? Lo and behold, I stumbled across Multnomah County, Oregon, which is undergoing its very own \u201cfree preschool\u201d experiment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

How Multnomah County, Oregon is funding free preschool<\/h2>\n

Developmentally speaking, early childhood education and care is especially important: Researchers at Georgetown University, Vanderbilt, Duke, and the Brookings Institution, among others, published a study<\/span><\/a> in 2017 that found that while all<\/em> kids benefit from attending preschool, poor and disadvantaged kids often experience the largest gains. The study suggested that pre-K promotes things like \u201cschool readiness\u201d and \u201clonger-term educational success,\u201d as neuroscientists estimate that \u201cthe brain grows at an astounding rate over the first several years of life.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
>
\n \u201c<\/span>If you want a smarter overall population, starting \u2019em young is a good investment. Enter Preschool for All (PFA).\u201d<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

In other words, if you want a smarter overall population, starting \u2019em young is a good investment. Enter \u201cPreschool for All\u201d (PFA).<\/p>\n

PFA is intended to address the lack of childcare openings, a problem Oregonians were facing even before Covid forced us all inside. <\/p>\n

So how does it work? The local government (via the Multnomah County Preschool and Early Learning Division) partnered with 36 preschool programs at 47 different locations across the county to provide 700+ slots for the 2022\u20132023 school year for 3- and 4-year-olds in the program\u2019s first year. Their plan? Start with that cohort and expand over time.<\/p>\n

All programs are free, and parents can check their eligibility online<\/span><\/a> (I took a quick spin around the site and was impressed at how un-bureaucratic it felt, proving that applying for government programs doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to suck).  <\/p>\n

The policymakers who developed PFA knew they\u2019d need to increase wages for early educators, provide professional development, invest in recruiting and retaining a skilled and diverse workforce, and\u2014of course\u2014provide the slots to families. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

So, the multimillion dollar question: How are they paying for it? <\/h3>\n

Multnomah County voters approved a new tax<\/span><\/a> that went into effect in early 2021: \u201c1.5% on taxable income over $125,000 for individuals and $200,000 for joint filers, and an additional 1.5% on taxable income over $250,000 for individuals and $400,000 for joint filers.\u201d A detailed, itemized breakdown of exactly<\/em> how the program\u2019s expenses break down can be found here<\/span><\/a>, but I noticed things like \u201cearly mental health specialists\u201d made the list.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
>
\n \u201c<\/span>20% of overall revenue [came] from just 100 returns filed by the wealthiest residents.\u201d<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

In its first year, the county expected to bring in $120 million in revenues for the program. They exceeded their goal by 60%<\/span><\/a>, bringing in a whopping $187 million<\/span><\/a>, with 20% of overall revenue ($37 million) coming from just 100 returns<\/em> filed by the wealthiest residents. (!!)<\/p>\n

Now, the program hasn\u2019t been in place long enough to judge its long-term effects, but a longitudinal study would be interesting:<\/p>\n