Introduction and context
The project was shaped by the desire of my client at the Office of Child Development, Ray Firth, to create more salient, tangible, and strengthened communication methods between his organization and state lawmakers, in order to advocate for the continued funding of early childhood education programs like Head Start in Pennsylvania. His interest lies in educating policymakers about the science of early childhood, in order to construct evidence-based arguments for supporting early childhood programs.
The project culminated in a multi-phased print and web-based communication strategy, and set of communication heuristics for the Office of Child Development to use in their advocacy efforts. The strategy has been implemented, and continues to be used by the Office of Child Development.
Research
I began the project with several months of research, to begin to understand the context of the problem my client posed. My research was focused on three main areas:
- the science of early childhood
- understanding the policymaking process
- who policymakers are as a communicative audience
The Science of Early Childhood
Much of my understanding about the science of early childhood came from current neuroscience research, and the work of Jack Shonkoff. The critical concepts I learned about early childhood development that helped shape my strategy are as follows:
neuron development
- Child development is integral to community and economic development, as healthy children become the foundation of a prosperous and sustainable society.
- A child’s brain architecture is constructed through an ongoing process that begins before birth, and continues into early adulthood. The quality of this architecture, be it strong or fragile, establishes a foundation for all the capabilities and behaviors that follow.
- Brains are built in a hierarchical manner, from the bottom up. Increasingly complex neural circuits and skills build on simpler circuits and skills over time.
- The interaction of genes and experience shapes the circuitry of a child’s developing brain. Young children offer frequent invitations to engage with adults and caregivers, who are either responsive or unresponsive to their needs. This ‘‘serve and return’’ process is an essential part of a child’s development, especially in the early years.
- A child’s cognitive, emotional, and social capacities are inextricably intertwined. Learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health are highly interrelated throughout the course of their development.
- Although manageable levels of stress are normal, “toxic stress” in a child’s early years can damage their developing brain architecture. Toxic stress can result from severe poverty, parental mental health impairments such as maternal depression, child maltreatment, or family violence. This can lead to problems in learning and behavior, as well as increased susceptibility to physical and mental illness.
- “Brain plasticity” and the ability to change behavior decrease over time. Consequently, “getting it right early” leads to better outcomes for children, and is less costly to society and to individuals than retroactive fixes. Investing in quality early care not only promotes positive developmental outcomes for children, but has proven to be a wise long-term economic investment as well.
- Factors that determine an early childhood program’s efficacy make the difference between programs that work and those that do not work in supporting children’s healthy development. These factors can be measured, and can inform wise investments in effective policies and programs.
The policymaking process
In conjunction with my research on the science of early childhood, I began learning about how early childhood policy is crafted at the state level. I researched how policymakers communicate, how they get and parse information, and how they disseminate information that's important to them. This research was done through a series of several interviews with my client, political communications specialists, state policymakers and their staffers, and staffers at the federal (Congressional) level.
I then researched who the "key players" in Pennsylvania state policymaking on early childhood were, and at what times of the state budget cycle it would be important to communicate with them about early childhood issues. This is represented in the diagram below:
Who are policymakers as an audience?
These interviews were incredibly illuminating, as they illustrated some very specific communication practices that are unique to policymakers. The summarization of these findings about political communication practices helped me shape a set of heuristics for my client to refer to when communicating with policymakers:
Forming a strategy based on the research
Content: what do we want to tell policymakers about early childhood?
After several conversations about which early childhood issues we wanted to communicate to policymakers about, my client and I narrowed our focus to providing evidence-based arguments for Head Start. Because my research on policymakers as an audience had shown that policymakers are more likely to respond to communication about issues that directly involve their political interests (or dislikes), their constituents, or budget issues that they have a stake in, we decided to focus on early childhood education programs that are proven effective in supporting healthy early childhood development for at-risk children—and specifically, Head Start.
I began researching the multitude of scientific studies that have been conducted on Head Start and similar center-based care programs to get a sense of how successful these programs have been in promoting healthy development for at-risk children. This data, along with visualizations of how a child's brain develops in her early years would form the basis of my initial communication prototypes for policymakers, as you can see below:
Conflicting arguments and missing data
As I delved into the many political arguments both for and against Head Start—many of which are supported by the same sets of scientific data and longitudinal studies—I began to understand that Head Start is only one of many care programs for at-risk children and their families that needs support from state policymakers.
I looked into these programs at the state level to find which children were being supported by what programs, and was only able to get a rough, county-by-county number from the state agency in charge of early childhood policy—that did not match up with the state-wide numbers.
This lack of data about which at-risk children in the state were being served by what types of early childhood care led to the final development of my strategy—I would no longer solely focus on advocating for Head Start, but make the case for improving care statewide. I developed my communication prototypes accordingly, and finalized my strategy, as shown below:
