‘Tech for good’ — How better digital services can improve state childcare programs

Years after the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the nation’s childcare challenges, state lawmakers are still struggling to find solutions that go beyond funding — there’s a growing recognition that outdated technology and fragmented data systems can make it harder for families to access services and harder for policymakers to target resources effectively.

A report published Monday by the National Conference of State Legislatures outlines bipartisan policy recommendations for strengthening state childcare systems, including addressing disparities in tech systems between state agencies and local providers, and the need for better data-sharing across agencies.

The 33-page report calls for state and local agencies to modernize childcare data systems, improve cross-agency data sharing, streamline digital services for families and providers and use better data to measure program performance. Though the framework focuses broadly on affordability, workforce and access, it also highlights how modern digital infrastructure can support more efficient administration and evidence-based decision-making.

In an interview, Jenna Bannon, associate director of the conference’s children and families program, stressed the need for technology solutions that simplify state systems for families and providers without sacrificing good data governance.

Sophia Fox-Sowell: What was the catalyst for this report?

Jenna Bannon: Our team saw a rapid rise in legislation related to childcare following the pandemic, it really was a very significant spike, and at the same time, we were getting a lot of requests and calls from legislators on on what they should do about the childcare crisis. And as a result, we convened this work group to really dive in on the issue because there’s really not one answer to how to resolve the crisis.

What are the the biggest gaps you’re seeing today in terms of states are looking to modernize their childcare data systems and improve data sharing across agencies?

Not all tech systems are equal. Childcare really happens at a very local community level in most cases, and your local childcare provider or family childcare provider may not have the same level of tech as your state agency does. We heard from our work group members who are childcare owners that they struggle to have an interface between the state system and the actual on-the-ground childcare provider.

There’s also the ability to interface data across state agencies. For example, childcare may happen in the Office of Economic Development, or be housed in the Office of Human Services, or be housed within the Department of Education. So you need data systems that can work across state agencies. And then you have the layer from the feds, because states are pulling down federal dollars, federal block grant dollars.

Are you seeing a lot of siloed systems?

Yes, they are siloed, and on top of that, you also really need to have very strong data to be able to take back to the legislature, who has the oversight of the state system, to know that both the system is accountable, but also be able to plan for the future based on the current outcome data they have.

What kind of data should states be collecting that they aren’t?

I don’t think it’s the issue of more data. I think the issue is better data, better use of the data that they have. There’s issues around privacy, because we have specific child data.

The Administration for Children and Families’ A Home for Every Child initiative is the administration’s effort to improve foster home ratios. Does it have any relation to the childcare systems that you’re researching?

It’s an interesting question. You know, I think at the root of both what the administration is trying to do and what this report talks about is the need to build capacity within states and communities to serve young children and families.

Definitely, especially since the pandemic and return-to-office orders have come in. It doesn’t seem like that issue has been solved.

And not only has the issue not been solved, but we’ve actually seen a decrease, both on the foster care side and on the childcare side, in people’s ability to take in children — especially vulnerable children.

Are you seeing an appetite from states to budget for this?

I do think there is an appetite, and if you go to the report, there are multiple examples of where states taking a step forward to invest additional resources into the childcare system and getting really innovative on how to generate revenue. However, states are also faced with multiple challenges of decreasing federal revenue. In general, many are facing state budget deficits. The cost of care is going up because the cost of living is going up. So states are having to get innovative. Everything from taxing vaping products, taxing gaming, taxing the oil and gas system, in New Mexico, the payroll tax — there’s a lot of different ways that they’re going at this.

Are states with either higher populations or bigger economies more streamlined in their in their approaches and able to tackle this issue better than states that have less taxable revenue?

I’m not so sure about that. Take for example, New Mexico, which is a state that has a high poverty rate and a low population. New Mexico is about 2.1 million in their population, yet they have found this revenue source. Vermont, another small population, finding a payroll tax. So I’m not sure if there is an equation between population and revenue, but we’re not seeing that states with higher populations are investing at a higher level. I think it’s kind of all across the board and how they’re doing it.

Can data-sharing and monitoring technologies reduce the cost of addressing this issue?

I’m not sure if data will improve the cost of the system. I haven’t seen any data or research to back that up, but a really important part of this tech conversation in the early childhood world is making it easier for families and childcare providers to navigate fairly complex state systems. And while I can’t say definitively that it eases a financial burden, I do think the return on investment is that you are helping helping people who navigate the system — the families and the childcare providers. If you’re putting an ease on them, I think it’s not necessarily that resources don’t exist; it’s that families don’t always know where to go.

Hmm, I can see that.

I think tech can be a tool to help them, but I also think it can work against them because it can be like so complicated. You know, we’ve all been there where we’re trying to navigate someone’s tech, and we’re like, “I can’t even navigate your system.” So it has to be tech for good. When it comes to children and people with young children, it has to work for them.

Going back to privacy, Code for America, the civic tech nonprofit, told me their tax-tool research found that residents want easier access to services, but also more transparency about how their data is used. Are you seeing that same appetite — for both assistance and more trust-building around data?

There’s an issue around data and children — some communities and states have explored whether an infant can have an ID, where you can kind of like track them through the system and see how they’re doing. But I think your key word was trust, and I don’t know if data can be used to build trust. I think trust happens between people, and we’re at a place where there is a healthy distrust of our own personal data being used in a broader system — especially with what’s happening with AI. So when you want your child to have a tracking number that helps them, follows them, there’s distrust about that.

I think if you have a governance system that families can trust, yes, but it’s a very layered and complicated question with some ethical concerns around it. But our work group did not go down deep into that hole. Their greater focus was on governance and how strong state governance systems need strong data systems that can gauge performance and child outcomes, and use that data with the legislature to ensure accountability.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.