Public Policy
MSTINA
week6WhitePaper.docx
White Papers and Briefing Books A Communications Program Workshop
This workshop teaches the basic strategies, mechanics, and structure of longer policy papers and briefing books. A white paper is an authoritative report that offers solutions to a problem. White papers are common not only to policy and politics, but also in business and technical fields. In commercial use, white papers are often used as a marketing or sales tool where the product is pitched as the “solution” to a perceived need within a particular market. In the world of policy, white papers guide decision makers with expert opinions, recommendations, and analytical research.
A briefing book provides a decision maker with an overview of an issue or problem, guiding policy with recommendations or with deep background and analysis. Briefing books are often accompanied by short memos and oral briefings that glean important findings or recommendations. The decision maker then refers to the extended briefing book for the deep analysis that supports the core findings and/or recommendations.
Core Components:
Both the white paper and the briefing book rely on your authority over the deep research that you have conducted on the issue or problem and they share many analytical features. The two genres, however, are distinguished by audience, and the structure and flow of information. While the briefing book is more immediately concerned with the precise needs, expectations, and concerns of the decision-maker, the white paper is more typically written for a broader audience. These following guidelines should help direct your analysis for both genres.
Define the problem or issue. Highlight implications or state significant findings based on the data.
Analyze—do not merely present—the data. Show how you arrived at the findings or recommendations through analysis of qualitative or quantitative data. Draw careful conclusions that make sense of the data and do not overstate or misrepresent it.
Summarize your findings or state recommendations. Provide specific recommendations or findings in response to specific problems and avoid generalizations.
Generate criteria for evaluating data. Explain the key assumptions and methodology underlying your analysis and prioritize the criteria you rely on to assess evidence.
If you are producing recommendations, analyze the options according to your methodology and assess their feasibility. What are the pros and cons? What is feasible? What are the predictable outcomes? Support your assertions with relevant data.
Address—and when appropriate rebut—counterarguments, caveats, alternative interpretations, and reservations to your findings or recommendations. Your credibility as a policy maker relies on your ability to locate and account for counterargument. You should be especially sensitive to the likely counterarguments your decision-maker faces in implementing or acting on your recommendations or findings.
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 1 of 9
Suggest next steps and/or implementation of the findings or recommendations. Briefly address the feasibility of those next steps or the implementation.
Distill the conclusions succinctly in a concluding section and remind the decision- maker of the big picture, the overall goal, the necessity of the investigation, or of the urgency for action. This answers the “so what?” question that reminds the decision- maker of the value of the research and recommendations. It should reflect the decision- maker’s primary concerns.
Adapted from Marie Danziger, “Option and Decision Memos: Basic Components,” 1988.
Locating Recommendations in Competing Data:
The Option and Decision Feasibility Chart and the PEST Matrix
After you have produced findings on the problem, you must orient the data around likely solutions. The Option and Decision Feasibility Chart and a PEST Analysis are essential starting points in locating recommendations from competing data and perspectives.
PEST focuses on how political, economic, social, and technological factors affect the feasibility of a recommendation option. Examples of political factors could include applicable regulations, taxation issues and government policies. Economic factors
include inflation, business cycles, government spending, and overall
cost, and consumer confidence. Social factors include demographics, public attitudes, and income distribution. Technological factors focus on the technology involved in supporting or implementing a recommendation, including energy use and the availability of key technology. PEST analysis involves not only identifying the relevant factors, but also considering options for responding to these influences.
There are two primary formats of PEST analysis for policy makers,
which each offer starting points from which you can drill down to
increasingly detailed conclusions and recommendations. The first
example chart shows the variability in a strong PEST analysis, breaking it into five categories to assess the feasibility of implementing four recommendation options: Political Feasibility, Administrative Feasibility, Equity, Cost Effectiveness, and Environmental Impact. That chart also shows that the policy writer folded Social Feasibility into the Political Feasibility and Equity tests. The example chart focuses on the problem of pesticides, offering four possible solutions to deal with the problem: (1) Do Nothing/Status Quo, (2) Tax Pesticides, (3) Increase Number of Pesticides Banned, (4) Discourage Pesticides through Tax Breaks to Ecologically Appropriate Crops, (5) Limit the Number of Pesticides that can be applied to a particular crop. The chart then assesses the overall positive and negative outcomes or qualities associated with each possible solution to reveal a dominant recommendation: Tax Pesticides.
You can build your own Feasibility Chart by measuring recommendation options in the context of PEST categories and through the perspectives of key interest groups. The more detailed your knowledge of your subject, the more authoritative the outcome of the chart. In this chart, the policy writer prioritizes five hypothetical solutions to the problem of pesticide use:
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 2 of 9
Options
Do Nothing/Status Quo
Tax Pesticides
- + - - +/- +/- + +/- + +
Increase Number of Pesticides Banned
+/-
-
-
+
-
Discourage Pesticides through Tax Breaks to Ecologically Appropriate Crops
-
-
+/-
+
+/-
Limit the Number of Pesticides Used on Certain Crops
-
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
Criteria
Political Administrative Equity Environmental Impact Economic Impact/Cost Feasibility Feasibility Effectiveness
The PEST chart shows that, while all five possible recommendations have positive environmental impact, only one of the options predominates among the other criteria. In this policy researcher’s view, taxing pesticides meets the bar of being administratively feasible and equitable to all parties; it has a positive environmental impact and it is both cost effective and offers a positive economic impact. For this policy writer, taxing pesticides is the best recommendation, which she will highlight early in her memo.
You’ll note, however, that the first column—“Political Feasibility”—shows up as the single negative for her recommendation of Tax Pesticides. Thus, in the body of her memo, the writer needs briefly to address and rebut or qualify the shortcomings of the political feasibility of taxing pesticides. The writer will also discuss the highlights and shortcomings of the other findings, demonstrating, for example, the limitations of increasing the number of banned pesticides and of limiting the amount of pesticides applied to particular crops.
A second chart examines the same five possible recommendations through the perspectives of involved interest groups.
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 3 of 9
Options
Do Nothing/Status Quo
Tax Pesticides
Stakeholders Chart -++---
+--+++
Increase Number of Pesticides Banned
+
-
-
+
-
+
Discourage Pesticides through Tax Breaks to Ecologically Appropriate Crops
+
+/-
-
+
+
+
Limit the Number of Pesticides Used on Certain Crops
+
-
-
+/-
+/-
+/-
Interest Groups
The Public Traditional Chemical Farm Labor The Environment Organic Farmers Farmers Production
Companies
The stakeholders chart shows that, while all five possible recommendations (or solutions to the
problem of under-regulated and over-used pesticides) have both positive and negative aspects, once again, the solution of taxing pesticides dominates. When the recommendation of “Tax Pesticides” again shows up positively, the writer can feel certain in prioritizing that recommendation.
Should the researcher wish to drill down further into the recommendation of taxing pesticides, she could, for example, compose yet another Option and Decision chart that breaks “Tax Pesticides” into different components, depending on her overall goals. She might, for example, analyze different types of taxes for pesticides or, alternatively, break the pesticides into subgroups, taxing them according to their virulent effects on people or the environment. The Option and Decision chart is only as authoritative as its creator but it will focus your attention on possible outcomes or findings. It is a first step in clarifying your ideas before writing the policy memo.
SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) Analysis. The SWOT analysis is adopted from organizational management and business strategy. It surveys the surrounding environment of a specific policy or strategy that you are analyzing or proposing. It allows you to identify the internal characteristics of the policy as either strengths or weaknesses and classify external factors as opportunities or threats.
After assessing and classifying internal and external factors, analysts construct a 2-by-2 matrix with the following four cells: strengths-opportunities (S-O), weaknesses-opportunities (W-O), strengths-threats (S-T), and weaknesses-threats (W-T).
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 4 of 9
This example tracks a strategy to expand public library services.
The Executive Summary
Once you have determined your dominant recommendation/s or findings, you are ready to structure your memo and, when appropriate to your findings or recommendations, write the Executive Summary. The structure of the paper or briefing book should follow the course of your recommendations, not the chronology of the problem or the development of your research. It can help to write a draft of the Executive Summary first as a structuring device, returning to it at the end of the writing process to make sure that it matches your analysis and outcomes. Even a short, two-page memo can benefit from a brief executive summary that foregrounds the recommendations or findings discussed later in the body.
Although the Executive Summary is the most important part of any policy paper, it is often the most difficult to write. Yet there are basic steps that will help turn complex ideas into succinct and powerful arguments guaranteed to capture the attention of a busy reader. You will, for example, need briefly to describe the current policy situation, offer immediate pros and cons of your reasoning for change, and explicitly state your recommendation/s or findings.
The Executive Summary serves as a starting point – but also the end point – for the policy paper. It telegraphs your key recommendations, relying on your authority as a researcher or expert in your field. It not only summarizes your key points for the busy reader, but highlights the recommendations in a memorable way to guide future discussions.
The Structure of the Executive Summary
An effective strategy is to draft the Executive Summary as you begin writing as a device that structures the analysis that follows. (You will necessarily return to the Executive Summary at the end of the process of writing, revising it and your recommendations according to your final analysis.) In telegraphic style, explain who the target audience is (i.e., the decision-maker for your policy proposal), clarify the problem, and describe the main points that the decision-maker should know. The Executive Summary serves as a road map for your policy paper, highlighting key themes and guiding the decision-maker’s understanding of the longer paper.
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 5 of 9
The Core Characteristics of the Executive Summary:
As a general rule, the executive summary is no more than two, single-spaced pages but longer white papers may demand longer executive summaries.
WHO and WHAT / Where
1. Acknowledges the target audience, the intended use/s, and the expected dissemination
for the paper
2. Concisely states the problem or issue either in terms of current policy or as a problematic situation
WHY
3. Offers reasons for initiating changes to that policy or situation; explains why the issue is
problematic
4. May sign post key policy options or approaches; sometimes this is simply stated as the status quo, sometimes it includes alternatives that seek to remedy or address the problem
5. May sign post the pros and cons of key options or may highlight the general trends in addressing the issue
6. May reference the methodology used to examine the data or explain core assumptions that guided research and analysis
HOW / When
7. Recommends primary course/s of action or states findings that may lead to
recommendations in future policy work
8. Offers supporting reasons for selecting or highlighting that course of action or findings
The last sentence may offer a timeline for completion or set up a roadmap that tells the reader how the memo is structured.
Briefing Book Criteria
Much policy analysis—and many recent PAEs—adopt a style that resembles a briefing book— that is, a “distilled” version of a traditional report. The finished product is not unlike a long decision memo: brief sentences and paragraphs, bulleted lists where appropriate, the use of headings, underlining, and boldface for “skimmability,” and effective use of white space to direct the reader's attention. As in memos, the bottom line is usually “up top”: your recommendations are stated first, followed by a logical breakdown of the conclusions, arguments, and evidence you analyzed to reach those conclusions.
Because these PAEs are somewhat briefer than the traditional 40-page report, they focus on presenting the tip of the iceberg. This is why you'll need to determine which supporting material should be supplied in the form of appendices—e.g., discussions of methodology, charts and graphs, regression equations, questionnaires, survey data, focus group responses, budget breakdowns, etc. The idea is to give your readers the choice of which material they need to digest, and when. Some might read only the Executive Summary, some the text of the briefing
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 6 of 9
book, and some the whole package—appendices and all. Therefore it is important that each of these elements be completely self-contained and able to stand alone.
Briefing Book Checklist:
1. What’s the quality of the Executive Summary? Are all of the crucial bases covered for the decision maker’s or legislator’s personal attention? If this is all the decision-maker were to read before entering into a policy discussion, testifying before a legislative committee, or moving forward on the issue, will she be adequately positioned?
2. Is there a brief, clear storyline that outlines the big picture?
3. How effective is the breakdown of sections? Does it suggest the right logic and structure for the decision-maker and her staff? Are issues framed from the perspective of potential actions by the other key stakeholders and senior decision-makers involved?
4. How focused are the background descriptions? Are problems well specified from the perspective of the likely reader(s)? Has raw data been carefully selected and adequately interpreted for the decision-maker?
5. Is there a clear discussion of the tradeoffs involved?
6. Are all problems matched with potential solutions or guidelines for change?
7. Is a framework for future work by the Administration or the Congress provided? Is there a focus on decisions that need to be made?
8. Is the treatment of advantages and disadvantages (economically, politically) analytically sound and clearly explained?
9. If included, are existing and potential laws and regulations covered?
10. Are recommendations and/or findings feasible, clear, and logically prioritized?
11. Are the graphics of high quality, with captions and narrative summarizing the key points they make?
12. Is the overall presentation and writing quality up to professional standards? Does the book avoid excessive wordiness?
Basic Structure of a White Paper
1. The Executive Summary
2. Introduction and/or Background. These are sometimes broken out as separate sections
with the introduction dedicated to the broad goals and underlying motivations for the paper. They may also describe the context for the ultimate goal, the decision to move forward with research on the topic, or the big picture for the research you are undertaking. This is also where you may describe the operations of the client or the group that is your key stakeholder or decision-maker.
3. Methodology. Narrate your methodology briefly. Include the micro data, survey questions, and the specific details for your rationale in the appendices.
4. Literature Review. Although standard white papers do not include a lit review, academic research papers often do. You may need to indicate the status of existing academic work or
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 7 of 9
thinking about the issue and situate your own research in the context of questions that still need answers. How does your work or project fit into the overall context of existing research or common academic perceptions on the general issue?
5. Policy Options or Policy Context. Depending on the orientation of your research, you may need to explore the pros and cons of possible policy options.
6. Findings. This is your original research. These are accompanied by specific subheaders that describe each finding.
7. Case Studies and Best Practices. If your findings are grounded in original case studies, indicate the names of those case studies individually with “Lessons Learned” at the end of each individual case study. Add a subsequent section called “Best Practices” that synthesizes and orients the lessons learned around the needs of the client or decision-maker.
8. Recommendations. Again, break these out by specific subheaders. Note: Some white papers may merge the findings and recommendations, with the recommendations flowing immediately from specific findings.
9. Implementation.
Some white papers fold implementation into the recommendations or into next steps.
Others break out this section discretely to detail the specific steps of how and when to implement the recommendations. If there are significant risks, costs, or obstacles associated with implementation, you should discuss them in the earlier section that describes the pros and cons of the policy recommendation/s. This section should be dedicated to the mechanics of implementation.
10. Next Steps and Conclusion.
Here, you might return to the big picture or the motive of your policy: What is the
goal of the policy recommendation? What will happen if the decision-maker does not implement the recommendation? What will happen if she does? This is your opportunity to remind your reader of the imperative of your recommendation.
11. Appendices. These typically include the survey data and questions, charts and graphs, and details of case studies that detail your analysis.
12. Bibliography. While you will often see professional white papers that do not reference their sources, any academic paper must provide a bibliography.
Sample Briefing Books, PAE’s and Longer White Papers
Exemplary Spring Exercise Briefing Book: Cheesebrough, et al. (2001), U.S. Intervention in the African HIV/AIDS Epidemic. Distributed in hard copy in workshop.
Exemplary PAE Briefing Book: Eli Sprecher (2011), Improving Care at Children’s Hospital: How Close Are We? Distributed in hard copy in workshop.
Prize-winning PAE: Erica Han and Lymari Morales (2007), Understanding Muslim Populations: What Leaders Need to Know,
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/degree-programs/oca/pae- han-morales-understanding-muslim-populations.pdf
o This policy analysis paper synthesizes and prioritizes its findings, offering recommendations
as subsets. Many clients are more fascinated by a PAE-writer’s survey of the problem than they are interested in the writer’s conclusions and recommendations. This paper offers a way of meeting the client’s immediate interests without losing sight of recommendations.
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 8 of 9
Prize-winning PAE: Mamie Marcus (2007), Immigrant Voters in Massachusetts: Implications for Political Parties,
o http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/degree- programs/oca/pae-marcuss-immigrant-voters-in-massachusetts.pdf
o This policy analysis paper first highlights the findings, building on them for the subsequent recommendations.
Lengthy professional white paper: Pew Center, Asia Society. January 2009. "A Roadmap for U.S.- China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change,”
http://www.pewclimate.org/US-China
o ThisreportpresentsavisionandaconcreteroadmapforU.S.-Chinacollaborationfocusedon reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change. The report begins with a “Forward” that highlights the importance of a collaboration between the U.S. and China as key leaders in negotiating climate change policy. The Forward also names key goals and describes underlying motivations.
o The Executive Summary explicitly names basic assumptions for the rationale supporting the methodology, findings, and recommendations. Without those assumptions, readers will not be persuaded of the report’s ultimate recommendations. The Executive Summary then advocates its major recommendations before moving on to explicit findings with second-level, more specific recommendations. The conclusion to the Executive Summary underscores the urgency of following its recommendations both in a negative sense—what will happen if China and the U.S. do not act on these recommendations—and in a positive sense—what will happen if China and the U.S. do act on the recommendations. While conclusions are not mandatory for executive summaries, they do allow you to return to the big picture or the motive and urgency of your policy recommendations.
Resources
General Texts on Policy Analysis:
Bardach, Eugene. 2000. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
Stokley, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser. 1978. A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.
Smith, Catherine F. 2010. Writing Public Policy. Oxford UP.
Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. 1992. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
HKS and other online resources:
Communications Program, Writing Skills Handouts (log-in necessary)
o http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/comm/handout.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab?OpenVie w&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=2#2
PAE Guide, “Standards for Good Analysis,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government
o http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/oca/students-alumni/pae/guide/standards-for-good-analysis
THE POLICY ANALYSIS EXERCISE: THE WRITING GUIDE. This booklet serves as a checklist to guide you through strong policy analysis and HKS expectations for PAE writers:
o http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/comm/handout.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/df7ca3946 b85b8aa8525773d006b7515/$FILE/PAE%20WRITING%20GUIDE%202009.pdf
“Policy Paper Guidelines,” International Relations Department, Boston University o http://www.bu.edu/ir/graduate/current/papers/policy/
Luciana Herman’s course on policy writing, MLD 720M, “Policy Writing for Decision Makers,” click on Assignment 4 “Policy Paper” (left menu bar). The website offers additional resources on white papers and briefing books.
o http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k82503&pageid=icb.page447197
Luciana Herman 2012 Page 9 of 9
CASE STUDY
Pre-K: the US state of Georgia’s pre-kindergarten programme
In the early 1990s, Georgia ranked very low in terms of educational outcomes for young people in the US. To address this issue, Georgia’s Department of Education rolled out the Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) programme in 1993 under the direction of Governor Zell Miller, with funding from the newly established Lottery Fund. Pre-K has substantially improved early childhood educational outcomes in Georgia. By 2016, Georgia met eight of the National Institute’s for Early Education Research ten quality benchmarks for preschool. [1]
The initiative
In 1992, at Governor Zell Miller’s direction, Georgia’s Department of Education (DoE) launched a pilot of Pre-K for 750 children from low-income families. One year later, after the successful completion of the pilot, the DoE expanded the scheme to provide Pre-K programmes for more than 8,700 at-risk four year olds from low-income families. [4] With funding from the newly established Lottery Fund, the DoE was able to grow the programme further in 1995 and offer a universal Pre-K programme for all four year olds in the state. [5]
The challenge
As part of President Johnson’s “Great Society” campaign, Jule Sugarman launched the publicly funded preschool programme, Head Start, in 1965 to provide half-day preschool for children from low-income families. However, by the end of the 1960s, only 10 percent of the nation’s three- and four-year-olds were enrolled in the programme. In the 1980s, demand was still high and – given the lack of funding for Head Start from national government – a handful of states considered starting their own version of the programme. [2] In the 1990s, Georgia was relatively impoverished and ranked near the bottom of educational tables in the US: in their 1990 SAT scores, for example, Georgia’s high school students ranked second to last nationwide. [3]
The public impact
Georgia's Pre-K became a preschool model for other states to follow: it was the first Pre-K programme to be entirely financed by a lottery fund, and by the late 1990s it was the largest and most comprehensive preschool education system in the US. [5] [6] Pre-K served 15,000 children in 1994, and continued to grow to serve more than 80,000 four-year-olds by 2015. [7] [8] Additionally, the program was associated with positive outcomes for children: a longitudinal study demonstrated that students who participated in these programs had higher cognitive and academic abilities those that did not (particularly with regard to language arts, mathematics, and reductions in grade retention). The evaluation of the programme demonstrated that the students in pre-K programs demonstrated better skills in making conversations, demonstrating a positive attitude, and coping with conflict than those who were not. [9]
Although Georgia increased its budget in 2016 to raise teachers' salaries, it was not able to meet the demand to create enough spaces for all children. [10] Accordingly, the Pre-K programme could no longer fulfil its promise to grant a place for every four-year-old child in Georgia.
Written by Pascal Roelcke
Stakeholder engagement
The key stakeholders in Pre-K were Governor Miller, the DoE, the Lottery Fund, private agencies, and the families involved in the programme. Governor Miller and the DoE worked together very effectively to set up and maintain Pre-K. The Lottery Fund supported the programme by creating a consistent revenue base. The collaboration with the private sector, as vital as it became at a later stage, proved to be difficult in the beginning. Although the DoE aimed to establish a public-private partnership from the outset, for-profit childcare providers only started applying to Pre-K in 1995, when it became a universal service and was expanded to include all four year olds.
In the meantime, Pre-K relied on public and not-for-profit agencies, who had limited resources and capacities, and this constrained the programme's growth in its first years. The public-private partnership became particularly important as the number of children involved in the programme and the need for facilities to teach grew considerably. By 1998, more than half of the children in Pre-K were allocated to non-public school programmes. At this time, parent interviews demonstrated strong support and high satisfaction rates with the Pre-K programme. [3]
Political commitment
In 1992, Pre-K was broadly supported by both Democrats and Republicans in Georgia. This was due to the fact that, in contrast to Head Start, Pre-K did not rely on taxpayers' money but instead on money from the Lottery Fund. Rather than being perceived as a tax burden, the lottery funding of education became more popular because politicians did not have to worry about the source of the money. After the programme became universal in 1995, its popularity rose further, because it no longer focused solely on low-income children but included all four year olds. By 2014, politicians and leaders continued to be very supportive of Pre-K, while Governor Miller's continued popularity in Georgia was due in part to his role in founding the programme. [7]
With the election of State Superintendent Linda Schrenko in 1994, the course of Pre-K changed. Schrenko, a conservative Republican closely aligned with religious organisations, was responsible for overseeing Georgia's public schools. She was opposed to Pre-K because it conflicted with her conservative principles and would not bring her any political gains, being under the control of the Democrat governor. In the first 10 months in office, she cut 190 positions within the Early Childhood Division of the DoE in order to reduce the DoE's budget. [3] Consequently, the political atmosphere around Pre-K became more tense.
Public confidence
Governor Miller’s victory in the 1990 gubernatorial race was partly due to his promise to set up a lottery fund earmarked for education. “He proposed creating a Georgia lottery whose proceeds would go to two dedicated causes – college scholarships and preschool. Miller campaigned almost exclusively on that idea and won.” [7] As the Lottery Fund fulfilled its promise to finance Pre-K, public support for the programme rose: in a 1997 survey, 85 percent of the population stated that they supported the use of Lottery Funds for Pre-K. [3]
Clarity of objectives
Governor Miller and the DoE’s objective was to improve Georgia’s education system by focusing on four-year-old children from low-income families. The DoE defined the objective at the outset of the Pre-K programme as a comprehensive education development programme focusing on the needs of the child within the family, rather than traditional custodial childcare. After the revenue from the Lottery Fund exceeded the envisaged budget in 1995, Governor Miller modified the policy objective, making it a universal programme open to all four-year-olds. [3]
Strength of evidence
A year before the implementation of Pre-K in 1993, the DoE rolled out a pilot programme at 20 sites for 750 four-year-old children from low-income families. The guiding vision of the 1992 pilot programme was informed by two previous policies: Goals 2000 and Family Connections. During the pilot year, the DoE tested different service delivery models – from emulations of Head Start to family daycare – to see which model would deliver the most appropriate services for children. [3] These tests informed the design of the initiative, and they enabled Pre-K to be integrated into a comprehensive system of services for children and families in Georgia.
Feasibility
In November 1992, Georgia’s voters approved a constitutional amendment to establish a lottery for education. After the initial, state-funded pilot phase, the Lottery Fund set up a steady funding stream for the Pre-K programme. [3] By 1998, the Fund covered Pre-K’s entire operating costs by providing USD212 million per year, a funding mechanism which is unique to Pre-K. Access to the Lottery Fund removes the dependency on taxpayer budget cuts and enables long-term planning and financial security . [6]
Management
Governor Miller assigned the responsibility for developing and implementing Pre-K to the DoE. To assist in creating the pilot programme, the DoE created a Pre-K advisory council comprising educators and leaders from Georgia's education sector. The Pre-K advisory committee promoted the founding of “coordinating councils”, which were “composed of the agencies involved in providing or coordinating services to participating children and families”. [3]
To administer the universal Pre-K programme more effectively, Governor Miller established in 1996 a separate office outside the DoE - the Office of School Readiness (OSR). He gave the OSR “the authority to monitor childcare licensing for all sites that receive Pre-K funding” together with oversight of the local councils. [3]
Measurement
From the outset, Pre-K was committed to evaluation mechanisms. Hence, the DoE partnered with Georgia State University (GSU) to measure the programme’s social and academic impact. With the help of randomised control studies, GSU researchers found that Pre-K participants scored significantly higher than children from the comparison group on measures of academic development, communication, physical development, self-help, and social development. The Pre-K children also had significantly fewer absences and were less frequently kept down a grade than children in the comparison group. [3]
Alignment
Most of the actors involved in the programme shared an alignment of interest in relation to Pre-K. The state governor, the DoE, the Lottery Fund, the coordinating councils, the for-profit providers, and GSU worked effectively to provide universal access to Pre-K in Georgia.
However, Pre-K was less well aligned with Head Start and its providers. “Governor Zell Miller's decision to create an independent state-run Prekindergarten programme - not to supplement Head Start as some states opted - had immediate consequences for Head Start in Georgia.” [3] For Head Start staff, the situation created “fear of competition for children and mistrust of the state”, [3] particularly as they were not involved in the planning of Pre-K. One of Head Start's administrators in the DoE stated that “‘there was a small group of people who advised [Governor Miller], not a broad-based coalition... Head Start was not at the table'”. The DoE addressed these relationships during the academic year 1993-94, stating that their programme was not in competition with Head Start and recommended that representatives of Head Start serve on the Pre-K coordinating councils. [3]
Bibliography
https://www.in.gov/sboe/files/CEEP-SBOE-IN%20Pre-K-2-17-2017.pdf
[2] History of Preschool in the United States , K12 academics
[3] Universal Prekindergarten In Georgia: A Case Study of Georgia's Lottery-Funded Pre-K Program, Anthony Reden, May 1999, Foundation for Child Development
https://www.fcd-us.org/assets/2010/11/Universal20PreK20in20Georgia.pdf
[4] History of Georgia's Pre-K Program, Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning
http://www.decal.ga.gov/Prek/History.aspx
[5] Time to Lead Again: The Promise of Georgia Pre-K , 2008, Southern Education Foundation
[6] About Georgia's Pre-K Program , Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning
http://www.decal.ga.gov/Prek/About.aspx
[7] How Georgia Got Republicans and Democrats to Embrace Universal Pre-K, Fawn Johnson, 7 May 2014, The Atlantic
[8] National preschool report: Georgia shows little growth in pre-k enrollment , Maureen Downey, 24 May 2017, myAJC from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[9] Report on the Findings from the Early Childhood Study: 2001-2003 , Henry, Gary, T., Henderson, Laura, W., Ponder, Bentley D., Gordon, Craig S., Mashburn, Andrew, and Rickman, Dana (2003c).
[10] Free Pre-K in Georgia: How Does It Work? April Lentini, 16 June 2016, GeorgiaGov
https://georgia.gov/blog/2016-06-16/free-pre-k-georgia-how-does-it-work
Photo by Tina Floersch on Unsplash
