Smart Start statewide early education system
| Health Factors: |  Education |
|---|---|
| Decision Makers: |   Government - State, Schools |
| Evidence Rating: | |
| Population Reach: |  1-9% of WI's population |
| Impact on Disparities: |
Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.
Description
Smart Start is North Carolina's statewide early childhood initiative designed to ensure that every child arrives at school healthy and ready to succeed. This public/private partnership seeks primarily to improve access to high-quality educational childcare, but also includes health and family support services. Smart Start allows communities to determine and plan for themselves how to best serve the needs of their young children and families (PPN).
Expected Beneficial Outcomes
Increased school readiness
Increased child care quality
Increased access to child care
Improved child care and early childhood education centers
Increased access to health services
Evidence of Effectiveness
There is some evidence that Smart Start improves school readiness, especially for disadvantaged children (PPN). Additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.
Children who attend Start Smart centers appear better prepared for kindergarten than children who receive no child care. For low income children, Smart Start centers can increase school readiness (e.g., cognitive, language, social, and motor skills) more than other day care centers (PPN).
The quality of centers participating in Smart Start appears to improve over time, especially when centers adopt Smart Start's quality improvement strategies. Centers may increase kids' language, reading, and math skills as quality increases (UNC-Bryant 2003). Through Smart Start's health services, participating children are more likely to receive a DTP vaccination and to have a regular source of care than non-participants (Kropp 2001).
Research suggests that Smart Start partnerships work best when communities assess their baseline needs and develop plans locally, but set goals that can be evaluated by both communities and state officials. Communities can expect a multi-year collaborative process before they achieve measurable outcomes (Kroll 2000).
In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, Smart Start spent $176.8 million to serve approximately 84,000 kids. About 43% of those funds were used to subsidize child care for families in need (Huff 2011).
Implementation Resources
Webpage: http://www.smartstart.org/
Webpage: http://fpg.unc.edu/resources/north-carolina-smart-start-evaluation-notebook
Citations - Description
Webpage: http://www.promisingpractices.org/programs_evidence.asp
Citations - Evidence
Webpage: http://www.smartstart.org/smart-start-information/smart-start-publishes-2010-annual-impact-report
Webpage: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED450871&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED450871
Webpage: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/resources/effect-smart-start-health-interventions-childrens-health-and-access-care
Webpage: http://www.promisingpractices.org/programs_evidence.asp
Webpage: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/resources/smart-start-and-preschool-child-care-quality-nc-change-over-time-and-relation-childrens-re
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)
No comments
Health Factors
Health Behaviors Tobacco Use Diet & Exercise Alcohol Use Sexual Activity |
Clinical Care Access to Care Quality of Care |
Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety |
Physical Environment Environmental Quality Built Environment |
Decision Makers
Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
SchoolsEvidence Rating
Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.
- Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
- Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
- Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
- Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
- Evidence mixed; further study warranted
- Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect
Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.
* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.
Potential Population Reach
Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).
 |
<1% |  |
20-49% | |
 |
1-9% |  |
50-99% | |
 |
10-19% |  |
100% |
Potential Population Reach
Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).
|
<1% | |
20-49% | |
|
1-9% | |
50-99% | |
|
10-19% | |
100% |
Potential Impact on Health Disparities
Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.
© 2010 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. All rights reserved.Feedback, questions or accessibility issues, please contact the Webmaster | Last updated: April 11, 2011