Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Enrollment in high quality pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs is associated with positive outcomes for children; yet, inequities in access are prevalent. This mixed methods study is a comprehensive examination of early care and education (ECE) centers’ enrollment practices with a specific focus on enrollment of children from underserved backgrounds in Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) pre-K programs compared with non-ABC programs. Logistic regression models using a statewide sample of ECE centers reveal that ABC programs are typically fully enrolled and enroll underserved populations—including children in impoverished and rural areas and children with disabilities—at higher rates than non-ABC programs. Qualitative interviews reveal enrollment facilitators and barriers in both ABC and non-ABC programs, including aspects of centers, surrounding communities, and state policies. Results suggest that policies such as deliberately setting and implementing certain enrollment priorities may enhance equitable ECE access.

Keywords

early childhood educational policy diversity equity mixed methods pre-kindergarten early childhood education early childhood policy

Enrollment in high-quality early care and education (ECE), including state and local pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs, has been shown to positively impact children’s development (Phillips et al., 2017). Outcomes are particularly strong for children from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds, and for children living in poverty (Hustedt et al., 2021; Phillips et al., 2017). However, persistent systemic inequities contribute to unequal access and disparate outcomes, even amidst policy efforts to expand the supply of pre-K and prioritize enrollment for those who have historically lacked access (Lin et al., 2023). Even in locations where access to pre-K has generally expanded, some research suggests that disparities in access have widened for certain groups of children (e.g., Bassok et al., 2016; McCormick et al., 2023; Zhang & Jenkins, 2022). Although increasing enrollment for typically underserved groups, such as children with disabilities and children experiencing homelessness, is essential for advancing equity (Lin et al., 2023), little is known about the implementation of these policies, particularly those policies related to eligibility and prioritized enrollment, and how pre-K (and other ECE) programs’ enrollment is impacted.

The present study uses a mixed methods approach, relying on quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data gathered from a statewide sample of directors in Arkansas ECE centers. Arkansas has made significant investments in serving preschool-aged children via Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) pre-K programs. We examine ECE centers’ enrollment practices, with a focus on children from underserved backgrounds served in ABC centers versus non-ABC centers. We also explore center directors’ decision-making priorities and how ABC requirements may contribute to enrollment decisions. As our study was conducted in a state with a large proportion of rural communities, high rates of child poverty, and wide racial and ethnic diversity, this state-specific research offers opportunities to more broadly advance knowledge about enrollment practices in ECE programs and implications for enhancing equitable access to ECE.

ECE Settings and Enrollment Priorities

The landscape of ECE initiatives in the United States is complex, with few consistent guarantees of access for young children. Many ECE centers across the United States operate as small businesses and rely heavily on tuition from families to meet expenses. Particularly in the context of mixed public-private markets, ECE centers may have to make trade-offs where enrollment is concerned. Specifically, ECE centers must balance the costs of serving children—including providing the materials/supplies needed and compensation for teachers equipped to educate and care for children—with what families can afford to pay. When these centers participate in public systems, such as public pre-K, they must consider how the need to attract parent tuition will be balanced with meeting requirements imposed by the public system, such as serving targeted populations of children.

Three key initiatives providing ECE services in center-based settings are child care, Head Start, and state pre-K. Head Start and pre-K are usually free to families, while child care costs may be entirely paid by families unless subsidies are available. Data from a nationally representative sample of center-based ECE programs (National Survey of Early Care and Education [NSECE] Project Team, 2014) show that 73% receive public funds and 68% collect tuition.

Federally funded ECE supports

Head Start is the U.S. federal government’s main ECE initiative, targeting children ages 3 through 5 from families in poverty or who have disabilities. Children from birth to age 3 from the same populations, along with pregnant mothers, are served through Early Head Start. Head Start offers a wide variety of comprehensive services to both children and their families. Local Head Start providers must follow extensive federal standards (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2016), meaning that consistent services are available, regardless of program location. In the 2021–2022 program year, more than two-thirds of Head Start children were age 3 or older (Office of Head Start, 2022).

While higher income families may pay the full cost of enrolling their child at an ECE center, the federal government supports enrollment of children from lower income families by providing child care subsidies that meet some or all of the cost through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Although CCDF has historically focused on providing care to support parental employment opportunities, over the past decade it has strengthened its focus on healthy child development. For 42% of families who reported income, CCDF paid the full cost of child care, while 58% of families contributed copayments (Office of Child Care, 2022).

State-funded pre-K

State pre-K programs are widespread, with 44 U.S. states providing funds for pre-K (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). However, there are many variations across states related to pre-K availability, types of services offered, and requirements pre-K providers must follow. For example, while states most typically target pre-K efforts toward children in poverty, some have adopted or committed to universal pre-K (UPK), where families do not have to meet income or other eligibility criteria. However, UPK may have unintended consequences. For example, New York City’s UPK expansion decreased availability of center-based ECE for infants and toddlers (Brown, 2018). Another key difference across states relates to whether pre-K is offered primarily in public school settings or part of broader mixed-delivery systems that also rely on child care providers in other types of ECE settings, including child care centers (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). There are several potential advantages to states operating mixed-delivery pre-K systems, including increased capacity for expanding pre-K availability and offering parents different types of choices (Garver et al., 2023). In such states, eligible child care providers may engage in a decision-making process about whether, and to what extent, they will participate in the state pre-K program.

Inequities in Enrollment Among Children From Underserved Groups

In general, many states’ pre-K programs have focused on promoting equity (Hustedt et al., 2021). States may employ a universal approach or a more narrowly targeted approach aimed at enrolling families who are disadvantaged or who have historically been underserved. ECE programs may make intentional enrollment decisions in alignment with these approaches and/or report practices and policies to support enrollment of children from numerous specific groups.

Enrollment of infants and toddlers

In 2019, 59% of children aged 5 and younger, who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten, had at least one weekly nonparental child care arrangement (Cui et al., 2021). However, only 32% of children younger than 1 participated in center-based care compared to 83% of 3- to 5-year-old children (U.S. Department of Education [DOE], National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021). One possible reason may be related to the difficulty families face in accessing infant and toddler care. A study of available licensed child care programs for infants and toddlers in nine states and the District of Columbia found a ratio of more than five infants and toddlers per licensed child care slot, which is three times greater than the ratio for 3- to 5-year-olds (Jessen-Howard et al., 2018). Additionally, accreditation standards recommend lower child-to-adult ratios and maximum class sizes for infants and toddlers, which results in a higher cost of care for providers and families alike (Malik et al., 2018). Some research suggests that the cost of providing infant and toddler care may discourage ECE programs from enrolling infants/toddlers (Jessen-Howard et al., 2018).

Enrollment of children who are experiencing homelessness

In the 2017–2018 school year, Yamashiro and McLaughlin (2020) estimated 1 in 16 children under the age of 6 were experiencing homelessness, and only 9% of these children were served in federally-funded child care programs. Families experiencing homelessness may face various barriers to accessing ECE. Parents may find a limited number of programs that are accessible geographically or that offer the care hours parents need, particularly because low-income families are more likely to work in positions that require non-standard working hours (Institute for Children, Poverty, & Homelessness [ICPH], 2014; Perlman et al., 2017). Although they may be eligible for financial assistance and subsidized care, parents may be unaware of these programs or may not have required documentation readily available (ICPH, 2014). Some recent research suggests that certain characteristics of ECE programs may be associated with serving children experiencing homelessness, including program funding sources and operating in a high poverty area (Slicker et al., 2024b).

Enrollment of children with disabilities

In the 2020–2021 school year, 472,622 children with disabilities between 3 and 5 years old who were not yet in kindergarten received special education services through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in the United States (NCES, 2023). Despite federal legislation intended to protect educational access for children with disabilities, their parents report having greater difficulty finding ECE than parents of typically developing children (Novoa, 2020). It is possible ECE providers may be unfamiliar with such legislation. In a national survey of 970 providers, over 10% were not familiar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and more than one-third reported being only somewhat familiar with IDEA (Perlman et al., 2017). In addition, the high cost of caring for children with disabilities (Sullivan et al., 2018) and providers’ lack of self-efficacy in serving children with disabilities (Weglarz-Ward, 2019) may serve as barriers. State and program policies have also been identified as important considerations for ECE programs weighing decisions around the enrollment of children with disabilities (Stoffers et al., 2025).

Enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities

Although free and reduced-fee preschool programs have had a positive impact on combating the systemic exclusion of students of color and low-income families from ECE programs (American Public Health Association, 2017), equity has not been achieved. For example, compared to White and high-income families, children from African American, Latinx, and low-income families are still less likely to attend high-quality pre-K (A. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2019). Similarly, Latinx and low-income children are less likely to be enrolled in center-based ECE programs compared to non-Latinx and higher-income children (Reid et al., 2015). Discriminatory state policy decisions, such as excluding child care centers in low-income African American communities from subsidy funding initiatives, can serve as a barrier for access to ECE programs for children of color (Johnson-Staub, 2017).

Features of Programs and ECE Enrollment

A wide range of contextual factors and program features influence ECE enrollment, with the most common being the overall child care market, policies, funding, and staffing. The supply of child care shapes enrollment in ECE programs. Prior to the pandemic, the demand for ECE increased over several decades, but the supply was problematic for certain locations and demographics. Rural areas and Hispanic/Latinx communities face the most challenges in finding ECE (Malik et al., 2018). Rural communities tend to have the least number of ECE programs (Malik et al., 2018). Recruiting and retaining qualified staff was a concern prior to the pandemic and has been attributed to the lack of benefits for the ECE workforce (McLean et al., 2021; Totenhagen et al., 2016; Whitebook et al., 2014). The pandemic has exacerbated this issue and has resulted in a mass exodus of the ECE workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.) that has negatively impacted ECE enrollment. Enrollment in ECE programs is greatly impacted by funding and policies. Individual ECE programs may combine funding from different sources. Specifically, pre-K programs typically receive funding from multiple mechanisms (Parker et al., 2018), which can shape the number of slots available as well as the demographics of children who are eligible to enroll (Barnett & Kasmin, 2018). Programs that receive public funding are more likely to enroll children from less advantaged backgrounds (Greenberg, 2010; Slicker et al., 2024b).

Enrollment Priorities/Practices of ECE Providers

Much research has examined parents’ decision-making processes when choosing child care programs (e.g., Tang et al., 2024; Weber et al., 2018). For instance, one mixed methods study found that employment constraints and subsidy use increased parents’ use of informal care and family child care, respectively (Weber et al., 2018). However, less is known about how ECE providers make decisions about which children, or groups of children, to enroll. ECE providers participating in publicly funded systems themselves may face a set of trade-offs. Particularly in mixed public–private markets, providers may have to make intentional enrollment decisions. To follow guidelines, including potentially extensive state pre-K requirements (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022), ECE providers need to ensure they have capacity to meet these standards (e.g., staff qualifications, staff-child ratios) while also ensuring children meet eligibility criteria prior to enrollment. One qualitative study examined ECE directors’ decision-making practices related to providing high-quality services, such as staffing decisions and market factors (Rohacek et al., 2010). For example, an ECE director chose not to serve infants because they did not have the necessary skills to hire qualified infant caregivers. Quantitative studies have examined issues including programs’ decisions about whether to accept CCDF, showing that child care centers have higher subsidy participation rates when states offer policies such as reimbursement for child absences that provide fiscal stability for the centers (Slicker et al., 2024a). A mixed methods study revealed the complexity of subsidy system participation decision-making with features of the center, community, and state playing a role (Slicker et al., 2023). For example, a provider may have to compromise fulfilling their own program mission statement and/or enrollment priorities of CCDF to enroll local children living in poverty in the face of staffing shortages or inadequate subsidy reimbursements or private payments to cover the cost of care. While prior research provides some insight into ECE providers’ decision-making practices, to our knowledge, no qualitative or mixed methods studies have examined how ECE centers make child care enrollment decisions, particularly in the context of operating in a state with a widespread and long-standing pre-K program. Further, a scoping review that identified trends in ECE leadership studies reported that studies using qualitative and mixed methods designs predominantly focused on leadership roles, strategies, practices, and skills related to managing programs (Movahedazarhouligh, 2021).

Arkansas Context

Per the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER; A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022), Arkansas has operated the ABC state pre-K initiative since 1991, and eligibility for 3- and 4-year-olds differs somewhat based on whether programs were funded by the original ABC funding mechanism or via the Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS) expansion starting in 2003 (T. Williams, personal communication, March 14, 2025). Programs funded by ABC or ABCSS mechanisms operate similarly and are described collectively as ABC here, unless there are differences. Eligibility is determined by household income (below 200% of poverty), particularly for programs funded under ABCSS. However, programs funded using criteria from the original ABC can choose to use a broader set of risk factors. These include family income, developmental, and/or economic risk factors (e.g., low parental education, child disability status, and homelessness; A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022, 2025), offering more latitude to determine which children enroll. Certain communities are prioritized to receive funding, including those where at least 75% of students in a school district do not meet state math and literacy proficiency levels and schools designated as “school improvement status” (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2025). While ABC must be available in about one-third of districts by law, ABC is available in all 75 counties in Arkansas, likely reaching all districts in the state (T. Williams, personal communication, March 14, 2025). Not all ABC services are provided by districts, as mixed delivery provision is allowed for by law. ABC slots for children are thus provided in a variety of settings, including public schools, child care centers, and Head Start (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). Currently, 74% of ABC programs are in public school settings and 26% are in community-based settings (T. Williams, personal communication, March 14, 2025).

During 2020–2021, ABC pre-K enrolled 27% of Arkansas 4-year-olds and 16% of 3-year-olds, statewide (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). While this was not included as part of the ABCSS expansion, which focuses on 3- and 4-year-olds, programs funded under original ABC criteria allow children from birth to age 5 to enroll, with a small number of programs currently serving infants and toddlers (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022; T. Williams, personal communication, March 14, 2025). A study (Hill et al., 2022) examining state student records from 2009 to 2021 shows that 65%–70% of kindergarteners who recently completed ABC qualify for free lunch, based on family incomes below 130% of poverty. In a comparison group of non-ABC participants, 50%–55% of kindergartners received free lunch, suggesting that ABC attracts and serves a comparatively more disadvantaged population, even among low-income families. Additionally, only about 20% of children with disabilities in Arkansas are included in general education classrooms—well below the national average of approximately 40%; however, 37% of Arkansas 3- and 4-year-olds with IEPs attend ABC (A. H. Friedman-Krauss & Barnett, 2023).

Programs are required to offer at least 7 hours of ABC services per day (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). The state provides a list of approved curricula for ABC programs, and requires curricula be aligned with the Arkansas early learning and development standards. In terms of overall quality, ABC pre-K meets eight of the 10 NIEER benchmarks (A. H. Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). This represents levels of quality comparable to the federal Head Start program and exceeding what would be required nationally for child care centers that participate in CCDF. Given this NIEER quality rating, ABC can generally be characterized as a high-quality program. A regression-discontinuity study shows that ABC has positive impacts on children’s language, literacy, and math skills at kindergarten entry (Hustedt et al., 2015). Though potentially subject to selection bias, the longitudinal study by Hill et al. (2022) shows more positive results across academic and non-academic measures for ABC compared to non-ABC participants in kindergarten and during elementary and secondary school. This includes increases in English, math, and science proficiency, higher attendance rates, and reductions in chronic absenteeism.

Investments in high-quality state pre-K via ABC may be especially beneficial, since Arkansas is a state where children have relatively high levels of need. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2022) ranks Arkansas 43^rd in overall child well-being. From 2016 to 2020, 22% of all Arkansas children were living in poverty, and poverty rates for young children under age 5 ranged from 24%–27% (Annie E. Casey Foundation, n.d., 2022). When comparing Arkansas against national education indicators, Arkansas had proficiency rates for fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics that were lower than U.S. averages (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2022). In Arkansas, 41% of the overall population lives in rural settings, much greater than the 14% rural population in the overall U.S. (Miller & Wheeler, 2021).

The Current Study

Some emerging quantitative evidence suggests policy efforts that expand pre-K enrollment for children from historically underserved groups have the potential to advance equity and promote stronger academic outcomes (Connors et al., 2021); yet, little is known about the ways ECE policy efforts around eligibility shape enrollment decision-making and practices. Using secondary data collected in a larger research project (Slicker et al., 2023), we examine ECE enrollment and centers’ enrollment decision-making processes for Arkansas children from underserved backgrounds. By integrating different, but complimentary, types of quantitative and qualitative data from providers across a state, we gain a more complete understanding of enrollment in ECE programs, particularly for underserved groups.

Our research questions are:

(1) To what extent does general child enrollment and enrollment of children from underserved backgrounds differ for ABC vs non-ABC centers? (Quantitative)

(2) What features of centers’ enrollment are associated with receipt of ABC pre-K funds? (Quantitative)

(3) How do ECE centers make child enrollment decisions? How do ABC requirements factor into programs’ enrollment decisions? (Qualitative)

(4) To what extent and in what ways do themes from qualitative interviews with center directors contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the differences in enrollment between ABC and non-ABC centers? (Quantitative and Qualitative)

Method

Our goal was to gain an in-depth understanding of centers’ enrollment decisions, with a specific focus on how enrollment practices may vary for ABC versus non-ABC programs. Data were gathered from a diverse statewide sample of ECE centers. Relying on a partnership with the Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education (DCCECE), Slicker et al. (2023) used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, starting with quantitative methods to establish more generalizable associations before progressing into qualitative methods that allowed for description of real-life contexts (Plano Clark, 2019). Quantitative survey data were first collected and analyzed; then subsequent qualitative follow-up interviews were conducted. The qualitative component was used as a mechanism for corroborating and further explaining quantitative findings (Plano Clark, 2019).

Quantitative Method and Analyses

An electronic statewide census survey of Arkansas centers was conducted from January to February 2021. Survey questions (available in Appendix A in the online supplementary material) were developed in consultation with the DCCECE. A master list of the state’s licensed child care centers (n = 1,231) was provided by the state, and survey links were distributed via email to all centers on the list. The survey was administered using an online platform, and 463 completed surveys were received (38% response rate; see Table 1). Participants received $10 gift cards.

Table 1

Descriptive Information From Centers, by Pre-K Program Status

	All ECE CentersN = 463M%	ABC Pre-K ProgramsN = 137	Non-ABC ProgramsN = 319
Enrollment Characteristics
Total enrollment*	73.16 [SD: 121.52]	113.77	56.00
Fully enrolled pre-pandemic*	328 (70.8%)	116 (84.7%)	207 (64.9%)
Fully enrolled during pandemic	138 (29.8%)	39 (28.5%)	95 (29.8%)
Needs to fill vacancies during pandemic	249 (53.8%)	86 (62.8%)	162 (50.8%)
Center Characteristics
Accepts vouchers*	211 (45.6%)	48 (35.0%)	161 (50.5%)
Accepts private pay*	285 (61.6%)	64 (46.7%)	221 (69.3%)
Head Start/Early Head Start funding	53 (11.4%)	10 (13.9%)	33 (10.3%)
For-profit*	171 (36.9%)	23 (16.8%)	147 (46.1%)
Non-profit	238 (51.4%)	71 (51.8%)	161 (50.5%)
Child Demographic Characteristics
Serves 0–3-year-olds*	312 (67.4%)	41 (29.9%)	268 (84.0%)
Enrolls any children with IEP*	267 (57.7%)	117 (85.4%)	146 (45.8%)
Enrolls any Hispanic children*	266 (57.5%)	92 (67.2%)	173 (54.2%)
Enrolls any White children	388 (83.8%)	120 (87.6%)	266 (83.4%)
Enrolls any African American/Black children	316 (68.3%)	96 (70.1%)	216 (67.7%)
Enrolls any Asian children	115 (24.8%)	31 (22.6%)	84 (26.3%)
Enrolls any Mixed Race children	270 (58.3%)	85 (62.0%)	183 (57.4%)
Enrolls any homeless children*	62 (13.4%)	33 (24.1%)	28 (8.8%)
Community Characteristics
ADI State*	5.29 [SD: 3.0]	6.41 [SD: 2.5]	4.75 [SD: 2.9]
ADI National*	73.50 [SD: 19.9]	81.31 [SD: 15.0]	69.87 [SD: 20.7]
Metro area*	293 (63.3%)	58 (42.3%)	232 (72.7%)
Rural area*	169 (36.5%)	78 (56.9%)	87 (27.3%)

Note. *significant differences at p < .05 between ABC and non-ABC programs. There are seven programs that we were unable to designate as either ABC or non-ABC programs due to missing data. ADI = Area Deprivation Index, and higher rankings indicate more socioeconomic disadvantage. The state ADI rank ranges from 1 to 10 and the national ADI rank ranges from 1 to 100.

Measures

ABC pre-K program

To perform the logistic regression, we relied on a dummy variable capturing whether a center had any children supported by ABC pre-K funds (0 = no pre-K funds; 1 = pre-K funds). Because centers can combine pre-K funds with other funding sources, it is likely centers will have some children funded by ABC and others who are not. Centers were asked to report the number of children under age 3 and ages 3 to 5 (not yet in kindergarten) using ABC pre-K funds. In our study, 61% of ABC centers also accepted another source of funding.

Center enrollment

We captured features of enrollment in ECE centers both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified total enrollment by combining the total number of children enrolled under age 3 and ages 3 to 5 (not yet in kindergarten). Respondents were also asked about their program’s enrollment prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We created dummy variables to represent enrollment during both time periods (fully enrolled = 1, not fully enrolled = 0). A dummy variable was also created based on responses to whether programs not fully enrolled during the pandemic were seeking to enroll additional students.

Center characteristics

Directors indicated whether their program currently serves children using vouchers (i.e., child care subsidies) and reported the number of children who use different funding streams, including private pay and Head Start/Early Head Start. Each of these variables was turned into a dummy variable. Similarly, dummy variables were created based on survey responses about whether programs were for- or non-profit.

Child demographics

Directors provided enrollment counts for children from a variety of ages and backgrounds. This included numbers enrolled who (a) have an IEP/Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), (b) are of Hispanic or Latino origin, (c) are White, (d) are Black or African American, (e) are Mixed Race, and (f) are experiencing homelessness. We created dummy variables that captured whether or not the center served children from each category.

Community characteristics

We included two measures evaluating the surrounding community using the center’s location. In the original study, these publicly-available items were collected by research assistants (Slicker et al., 2023).

The Area Deprivation Index (ADI; University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 2020) is a publicly available aggregate measure of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage based on program address. The ADI is a composite score calculated using a series of 17 measures related to educational attainment, employment, housing quality, and income, using Census block groups from the U.S. Census and American Community Survey (Kind et al., 2014). The ADI has recently been applied to ECE centers (Slicker et al., 2023) and families enrolled in ECE programs (Hooper et al., 2022). ADI rankings are available as a state decile, where rankings range from 1 (lowest disadvantage) to 10 (highest disadvantage), and a national ranking from 1 (lowest disadvantage) to 100 (highest disadvantage).

The 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA Economic Research Service, 2013) determine whether a center is located in an urban (county with a population over 250,000) or rural (county with a population of 250,000 or fewer) area. Most counties in Arkansas are rural, with 20 urban and 55 rural counties.

Analyses

Research Question 1 was descriptive in nature. Characteristics of centers, their enrollment, and the surrounding community were examined across ABC pre-K and non-ABC centers. Chi-square and t tests were used to identify statistically significant differences. In a sensitivity analysis (Appendix B), we further broke down non-ABC centers into centers that accept Head Start funds and other ECE centers (i.e., do not accept ABC or Head Start funds).

Logistic regression was performed to answer Research Question 2, examining the association between receipt of ABC pre-K funds (0 = no pre-K funds; 1 = pre-K funds) and characteristics of centers’ enrollment. As is standard in regression, the effect of each predictor is interpreted acknowledging that all other variables are held constant, differentiating these results from the descriptive results for Research Question 1. Logistic regression models estimate coefficients in log-odds units. We first transformed these units into odds ratios, which described the expected chance that a center receives pre-K funds given a change in the predictor. We then transformed odds ratios to probability units for ease of interpretation. Probabilities can be expressed as proportions that range from 0 to 1 or percentages which range from 0 to 100, allowing for easy comparison and interpretation.

Quantitative analyses were performed in MPlus (Version 8.5; Muthén & Muthén, 1998). Missing data were handled with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) according to recommended procedures for handling missing data (Acock, 2012). Missing data ranged from 0% to 9.2%, with demographic variables about the children served in the program, such as children’s race and whether the program serves children with IEPs/IFSPs or children experiencing homelessness, having the most missing values. Percentages of missing data for each variable for the full sample as well as for ABC and non-ABC centers are in Appendix C.

Qualitative Method and Analyses

In the original study, Slicker et al. (2023) used analysis of quantitative survey data to identify a purposeful sample of directors willing to be contacted for follow-up data collection. Maximal variation sampling (Breckenridge & Jones, 2009) was used to select a diverse group of 35 centers with a variety of funding sources from across the state. Appendix D provides a descriptive overview of these centers.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from April to July 2021 using web conferencing software, and interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes, ranging from 26 minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. The interview protocol addressed topics including enrollment of children, sources of funding, and the surrounding child care market. Interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation (Willig & Rogers, 2017) was ascertained. Participants received additional $25 gift cards. All interviews were recorded, and transcripts were reviewed, cleaned, and edited for accuracy.

To answer our third research question, we used thematic analysis and analyzed interview data to identify themes and patterns (Charmaz, 2008). We began by using line-by-line coding before moving into focused coding with the most salient codes (Willig & Rogers, 2017). Line-by-line coding included open codes, which are short, analytic, and active codes (Charmaz, 2008). We continued to code transcripts line-by-line until the concepts became repetitive. Once the most salient codes were identified in the line-by-line coding, we sorted and combined codes into categories that were used for focused coding (Willig & Rogers, 2017) in NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2020). We developed a codebook and theoretical framework that involved collapsing original codes into themes. In the cases where disagreements between coders occurred, they were reconciled by discussion and mutual agreement.

Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods and Analyses

Although the original study collected data using an explanatory sequential approach, our current analysis of the data followed a convergent approach as we simultaneously analyzed quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Following procedures to integrate data in convergent designs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), we compared quantitative results side-by-side with qualitative themes to have a more complete understanding of the differences in enrollment between ABC and non-ABC centers. Specifically, we merged data from Research Question 2 (Quantitative), which identifies the features of centers’ enrollment that are associated with receipt of ABC pre-K funds, and from Research Question 3 (Qualitative), which identifies factors influencing enrollment in ABC pre-K and non-ABC programs.

In assessing this data, we determined whether the two sources provided confirmation, expansion, or discordance to one another. Following Fetters and colleagues’ (2013) description of integration, we defined confirmation as both data sources providing similar insights; expansion as when the data sources had differences that, when compared together, provide additional details about ECE enrollment; and discordance as when the two data sources provided contradictory or inconsistent information. Two of the coauthors discussed each instance of confirmation, expansion, and discordance in order to reduce bias and ensure integration “fit” the data (Fetters et al., 2013).

Results

Quantitative Results

Descriptive analyses

Table 1 provides descriptive information for survey respondents, addressing Research Question 1. Descriptive information is provided for the full sample as well as for subsets of centers that accept ABC funding and those that do not. Regarding center enrollment characteristics, we found that ABC centers were more likely to report higher enrollment totals (p < .05) and to be fully enrolled pre-pandemic (p < .05). We also found significant differences on center characteristics, with more non-ABC programs accepting vouchers and private pay (p < .05). In terms of child demographic characteristics, non-ABC centers served more 0–3-year-olds, while ABC centers enrolled significantly more children with an IEP, Hispanic children, and children experiencing homelessness than non-ABC centers (p < .05). Finally, we found significant differences for all features of community characteristics, with ABC centers having higher ADI state and national rankings (p < .05). More ABC centers were located in rural areas, and more non-ABC centers were located in metro areas (p < .05).

Associations between features of centers’ enrollment and receipt of ABC pre-K funds

We present results from the logistic regression in probability percentages, depicting associations between features of centers’ enrollment and receipt of ABC pre-K funds (Research Question 2) in Table 2. Results suggest there are associations between receipt of ABC funding and characteristics of centers’ enrollment. The probability that ABC centers were fully enrolled prior to the pandemic was 70% (p = .015); similarly, the probability that ABC centers reported vacancies during the pandemic was 68% (p = .014). The probability that ABC centers were located in rural areas was 70% (p = .01) and as the poverty level of an area where a center was located increased, centers were increasingly likely to offer ABC. Though the probability that ABC centers served infants and toddlers was only 7% (p < .001), the probability that ABC centers served children with disabilities was much greater, at 79% (p = .001). We also ran a model with community fixed effects in Appendix E and a model where multi-site directors were omitted in Appendix F. The pattern of significant results from these models remains the same as in Table 2.

Table 2

Logistic Regression Results: Associations Between Receipt of ABC Funding and Characteristics of Centers’ Enrollment

Variable	Logit Coefficient	SE	P Value	OR	Probability	95% CI
Center Enrollment
Total number of children enrolled	0.004	0.002	.022*	1.00	0.50	[1.00, 1.01]
Center fully enrolled pre-pandemic	0.84	0.35	.015*	2.32	0.70	[1.64, 3.00]
Center needs to fill vacancies during the pandemic	0.74	0.30	.014*	2.09	0.68	[1.51, 2.68]
Community Characteristics
State ADI ranking	0.19	0.06	.001**	1.21	0.55	[1.10, 1.32]
Rural area	0.83	0.32	.01**	2.29	0.70	[1.65, 2.92]
Child Demographics
Enrolls 0–3-year-olds (infants and toddlers)	−2.54	0.31	< .001***	0.08	0.07	[−0.53, 0.69]
Enrolls children with IEPs	1.30	0.39	.001**	3.68	0.79	[2.91, 4.44]
Enrolls any Hispanic children	0.11	0.34	.738	1.12	0.53	[0.45, 1.79]
Enrolls any Black children	0.18	0.38	.627	1.2	0.55	[0.46, 1.94]
Enrolls any Mixed Race children	−0.11	0.31	.733	0.9	0.47	[0.30, 1.50]
Enrolls any children experiencing homelessness	0.45	0.40	.263	1.57	0.61	[0.78, 2.36]

Note. Analyses were run using MPlus (Version 8.5). Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to address missing data. Caution should be used when interpreting the number of children enrolled as there was a large range across programs.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Qualitative Results

To answer research question three investigating how ECE centers make child enrollment decisions, we analyzed transcripts to identify themes. We found five themes about factors shaping enrollment: the COVID-19 pandemic, ABC pre-K policies/requirements, the child care market, the surrounding community, and staffing. See Table 3 for example quotes.

Table 3

Qualitative Themes: Factors Influencing Enrollment

Theme	ABC Pre-K Programs (n = 12)	Non-ABC Programs (n = 23)
COVID-19 Pandemic
Pandemic-Specific Barriers to Enrollment	10 (83%)“With COVID last year, we had a lot of people declining spots because they were afraid. So it was a lot more effort to fill the spots and at some locations we were not at 100% capacity.”	16 (70%)“This year we've had to drop a teacher and close the classroom. Now we only have two classrooms, so we have 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds. One teacher for each with COVID.”
Intentional Enrollment Modification During Pandemic	0 (0%)	4 (17%)“We chose to have lower enrollment. I’ll just state that. So we kept our enrollment last year at two-thirds of our funded capacity.”
ABC Pre-K Policy/Requirements
ABC Policy/Requirements Impact General Enrollment	11 (92%)“With ABC you can take just a little bit higher of an income of a child so those that barely miss Head Start we’re able to serve with ABC. That’s the number one benefit, but it’s not much higher.”	5 (22%)“We’ve lost three kids because they were able to go to a free [pre-K] where their siblings go to school. Um so yeah. . . . I’ve been a little worried about like what if [our city] puts [pre-K] in their school systems. Are we even going to have a platform anymore?”
ABC Policy/Requirement Impacts Age-Specific Enrollment	9 (75%)“You know ABC covers from three to five so for the younger children, I think it would be beneficial [to have subsidies] for parents that’s needing childcare. I feel like there is a need for that in this area, but just not very many facilities accept the younger kids.”“We only have the kiddos that are getting ready to go to kindergarten, so the 4-year- olds . . . but we’ve talked about how we’d really like to start with a 3-year-old classroom. That just hasn’t happened.”	6 (26%)“And then the two to three group- so much happens to their little brains in that time, so that’s the real focus for us. And usually the three, four, and five—some will go to [pre-K]. The school district, in the last three years, it seems like they have been more focused on getting the 3-year-olds in pre-K . . . so that’s kind of the reasoning behind [serving 2-year-olds] as a priority.”“Because the pre-K in our program area is so strong and it primarily serves 4- year-olds . . . we target 3-year-olds . . . because oftentimes that’s an underserved population.”
ABC Policy/Requirement Impacts Enrollment of Children with IEPs	11 (92%)“As an ABC program . . . we do like the first come, first serve, but there are oftentimes when we do have parents that have children with severe [disabilities] and we do offer services for that. And if the situation is really severe to where they really need help, and it is a very long waiting list and a spot becomes available, we do try to move that child up according to their needs.”	0 (0%)
ABC Policy/Requirement Impacts Enrollment of Children Experiencing Homelessness	9 (75%)“So that would be one of those—if they’re homeless—that would be one of those flags where they need us and they move to the top of the list”	0 (0%)
Child Care Market
Competition Impacts General Enrollment	3^a (25%)“Well, the preschool program here in town, the ABC program is on the campus of the school - of the elementary school. So we have had to work really hard to say hey we’re a preschool program as well. We’ve had to work really hard to make sure people understand that we also prepare children for kindergarten, we’re not just a daycare.”	14 (61%)“The biggest competitor—really the only competitor—is [pre-K] programs.”
Prioritize Enrollment of Infants and Toddlers	3^b (25%)“This year we’re taking [more infants] because we have so many on the waiting list. So there is kind of a priority there.”	12 (52%)“We prioritize [infants] . . . we want to get them at the youngest age, that way we can make the biggest impact.”
The Surrounding Community
Community Socioeconomic Status Impacts General Enrollment	10 (83%)“Most [families here] qualify for a [free] program like ours.”	11 (48%)“This is a low-income area. And just, for instance, we charge [our rate] a week for infants. A lot of these people they don’t—they’re on food stamps, WIC. They can’t afford [our rate].”
Location in a Rural Area Impacts General Enrollment	9 (75%)“Just because we’re in rural Arkansas, and so we don’t have a whole lot of diversity, as far as ethnicity goes.”“So we’re rural . . . we’re in the delta. So the private pay rate, I really have to consider that. And I think I probably got the lowest rate in my area and that probably contributes to me staying full.”	5 (22%)“The surrounding communities is very rural . . . because of where we’re at, so very country. Nope [they can’t afford prices being charged for care]. [They are] trying to barter, you know, like I can’t do that much, what can you do for me, kind of thing. And it’s like yeah, well, I still have to make payroll. So therein lies the challenge.”
Community Demographics Impact Diversity of Children Enrolled	8 (67%)“There’s not a lot of diversity. Well I’d say that the majority of our children are African American. But that’s pretty much the makeup of the community.”	19 (83%)“When you are looking at a community that is X% White and X% Black—that’s what my enrollment reflects.”
Staffing
Staffing Shortages Impact General Enrollment	0 (0%)	6 (26%)“I have no problem at this point [enrolling children]. Like, I’m being very picky about what families I bring in. I know I’m not definitely not the only center that has frozen enrollments because we can’t find staff, so I look at it, like, I can be very picky.”
Staffing Impacts Enrollment of Children with IEPs	2 (17%)“We have a nurse that works with our staff. We’ve had kids that had catheterization, feeding tubes, that kind of stuff. And because we can provide that, but also provide that inclusive environment where they’re with their neurotypical peers or their peers that don’t have physical disabilities. Parents, I think are attracted to that, because they get that typical preschool experience but also get the support they might need from therapists and nursing and medical staff.”	8 (35%)“I think we had a family that wanted to enroll and the child had a feeding tube. Well, my teacher’s not equipped to handle feeding tubes, I’m sorry.”

Note. ^aEach of the three centers is primarily a Head Start center, but also receives ABC funding. ^bABC centers that also accept other forms of funding (private pay, vouchers, and/or Head Start). ABC= Arkansas Better Chance. IEPs= Individualized Education Program; WIC= Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

While many centers reported that enrollment was generally strong prior to the pandemic, the majority reported enrollment-related challenges that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. It was common to hear that centers were not operating at full capacity. Importantly, however, several non-ABC programs cited intentional programmatic decisions to enroll fewer children. Program-level decisions were made to keep some classrooms closed and/or keep classroom ratios lower than pre-pandemic levels for safety or other operational reasons. ABC pre-K programs, on the other hand, were slightly more likely to report vacancies they desired to fill.

Both ABC and non-ABC programs mentioned that ABC pre-K policies and/or requirements impacted their enrollment, both in general and for decisions about prioritizing specific groups of children. Non-ABC programs reported that ABC policies around offering free programming, sometimes in elementary school sites where siblings attended school, negatively impacted their program’s enrollment. ABC programs cited these same types of policies as benefits to their enrollment. As it related to enrollment of specific groups of children, ABC eligibility policies also played an important role in which children enrolled in both ABC and non-ABC centers. For example, ABC programs reported prioritizing 4-year-olds at higher rates while non-ABC programs prioritized infants and toddlers (and in some cases, 3-year-olds). Many non-ABC programs mentioned challenges with keeping their 4-year-old classrooms full, but having long waitlists for other age groups, especially infants and toddlers. Many ABC programs also discussed serving and prioritizing enrollment for children with disabilities and children experiencing homelessness, consistent with ABC eligibility policies.

The local child care market also played a role in enrollment decisions. Specifically, non-ABC programs discussed competition—usually from ABC programs—that negatively impacted enrollment. Many non-ABC centers reported a high community demand to serve specific age groups (i.e., infants and toddlers) and consequently centers prioritized these groups. Centers throughout Arkansas mentioned that children younger than 4 years old, and particularly infants and toddlers, were an underserved group.

Respondents shared that the surrounding community influenced child enrollment. The proportion of ABC programs that operated in impoverished and rural areas was higher than for non-ABC programs. While many respondents stated that their program was racially and ethnically diverse, they also qualified their responses by stating that their child enrollment matched the racial and ethnic make-up of the surrounding community.

Finally, staffing appeared to impact enrollment, particularly for non-ABC programs. Several non-ABC programs (but not the ABC programs) cited staffing shortages in their decisions to enroll fewer children. Directors from ABC and non-ABC programs also shared that the qualifications and experiences of staff factored into decisions around enrolling children with IEPs. However, while respondents from ABC programs sometimes mentioned having access to nurses or other support staff meant they could enroll children with IEPs, more than one quarter of non-ABC programs did not serve children with IEPs because their current staff was not equipped to handle children’s specific needs.

Integrated Results

Integration of qualitative and quantitative results in our convergent design involves comparing and illustrating the results from Research Questions 1–3 in a side-by-side joint display. This helps identify points of confirmation, expansion, and discordance and addresses our fourth research question. Within Table 4, we identified instances where the quantitative and qualitative data confirm one another, such as where data indicated that ABC programs were more likely to operate in areas of high poverty.

Table 4

Joint Display of Qualitative and Quantitative Results

Characteristic	Meta Inferences
Child Care Market Characteristics
State of Enrollment	Expansion • Vacancies that programs wanted to fill during the pandemic were more prevalent amongst ABC programs, in part because these programs had more slots available. However, interviews with non-ABC programs also revealed that they made intentional enrollment reductions during the pandemic (i.e., they did NOT want to fill vacancies), which was not the case in ABC programs.• The child care market, and particularly competition from other ECE programs, shapes general center enrollment, with non-ABC programs being particularly vulnerable, and typically having lower total enrollment.• ABC enrollment policies shape enrollment decisions for ABC directly and non-ABC centers indirectly.
Pre-Pandemic Enrollment
Center Characteristics
Staffing Shortages	No Matching Data (Qualitative Data ONLY) • Staffing shortages were prevalent in Arkansas during the pandemic, and programs identify these shortages as a hinderance to being fully enrolled and, in some cases, to enrolling children from specific underserved populations (i.e., children with disabilities).• In addition to general staff salary increases, more funding and support for serving children from underserved groups is warranted.
Child Demographic Characteristics
Considerations for Infant/Toddler Enrollment	Expansion • ABC policy directly shapes the enrollment of infants and toddlers in ABC programs, with programs limiting enrollment in ABC slots to children who are age-eligible under the ABCSS requirements (i.e., 3- and 4-year-olds). ABC policy indirectly shapes the enrollment of infants and toddlers in non-ABC programs, with these programs being more likely to report enrollment decisions focused on addressing shortages of care for infants and toddlers due to higher enrollment of 3- and 4-year-olds in ABC programs.• ABC programs, particularly those receiving funding under the original ABC program, reported prioritizing the enrollment of unhoused children; however, there was not a significant association between receipt of ABC funding and the enrollment of unhoused children. This could be, in part, because of the eligibility criteria changes under ABCSS.• ABC policy and staffing shapes the enrollment of children with disabilities, with ABC programs prioritizing children with disabilities for slots because of eligibility criteria and because these programs typically have more qualified staff and therapists available to support children with disabilities. On the other hand, non-ABC programs reported lacking appropriate staff to support children with disabilities.• Community socioeconomic status and demographics also play a role in program enrollment, with programs frequently reporting that their enrollment looks similar to the surrounding community.
Considerations for Enrollment of Unhoused Children
Considerations for Enrollment of Children With IEPs
Considerations for Enrollment of Culturally Diverse Children
Community Characteristics
Community Poverty	Confirmation • Higher percentages of ABC programs operate in high poverty and rural areas, driving enrollment of children living in poverty.• ABC policies and priorities surrounding placement of sites in high poverty and rural areas appear to drive higher enrollment of children from these communities.• Non-ABC programs operating in rural and low-income areas also have higher enrollment of children from these groups, suggesting the importance of location for child enrollment.
Community Urbanicity

Note. ABC= Arkansas Better Chance; ABCSS= Arkansas Better Chance for School Success.

An example of expansion relates to the enrollment of children with IEPs. Our quantitative results suggested that ABC programs were more likely to enroll children with IEPs. Depending on whether the program received ABC or ABCSS funding, programs may have had the option of considering IEP status (regardless of household income) for eligibility. However, the qualitative results helped us to further understand these results, as the majority of ABC programs mentioned that they try to move these children to the top of their waiting list/prioritize these children for enrollment, regardless of whether they were funded under the original ABC or ABCSS expansion funding. In addition, ABC programs revealed that they also benefited from having qualified staff to support children with disabilities, including access to medical professionals, therapists, and other support staff. In contrast, non-ABC programs did not have access to these resources and this sometimes led to them encouraging families to pursue other options that would “better meet their child[ren]’s needs.” Additionally, although the quantitative results indicated that significantly more ABC programs reported vacancies they wanted to fill during the pandemic, the qualitative results allowed us to better understand why these undesired vacancies existed. For example, unlike ABC programs that wanted to fill their vacancies, some non-ABC programs intentionally maintained vacancies.

Finally, there were areas where we did not have matching qualitative and quantitative data. While our quantitative data did not include information about how staffing may shape enrollment, our qualitative data helped us to better understand how staffing shortages played a role in program vacancies.

Discussion

In the context of persistent inequities in ECE access and outcomes, we critically examine enrollment patterns and processes in one state context, an essential step in moving toward more equitable ECE access (Lin et al., 2023). Importantly, we aimed to understand the degree to which eligibility processes and enrollment procedures in ECE centers across Arkansas may shape enrollment trends for groups that have historically been underserved. Our study fills a knowledge gap in Arkansas (McKelvey et al., 2018) by providing information about enrollment patterns in ABC programs and how they compare to non-ABC programs. Further, this is one of few mixed methods studies of state pre-K. Our quantitative results highlight enrollment differences generally and for children from underserved backgrounds in ABC pre-K versus non-ABC programs. Our qualitative interviews of center directors allow for deeper insight into enrollment priorities while providing a glimpse into important facilitators and barriers to enrollment of children from diverse backgrounds. Taken together, these findings have implications for ECE programs, researchers, and policymakers with a goal of enhancing equitable access to ECE.

Prior to the pandemic, quantitative results suggest that ABC programs reported being fully enrolled more often than non-ABC centers; this differs from the qualitative results where the majority of ECE centers, regardless of ABC status, reported strong pre-pandemic enrollment. Nevertheless, more non-ABC programs reported pre-pandemic enrollment challenges as well as enrollment procedures and eligibility processes that may limit enrollment for children from historically underserved groups. The qualitative results may also suggest that non-ABC centers are full because they are enrolling infants, toddlers, and in some cases 3-year-olds, at higher rates. However, the majority of these spots for younger children are being filled by families that can afford private payments. These types of enrollment practices can potentially create a siloed ECE system that disadvantages younger children from lower-income backgrounds (Sipple et al., 2020). Our results may suggest the importance of implementing state and local pre-K in mixed delivery systems, where pre-K slots may be offered in a variety of settings (e.g., a mixed-age ECE center) that best meets the needs of families from diverse backgrounds.

Consistent with ABC’s enrollment and eligibility priorities, our integrated quantitative and qualitative results suggest that ABC programs are enrolling other underserved populations—including children in impoverished and rural areas, and children with disabilities—at higher rates than non-ABC programs. Quantitative results suggested significant associations between receipt of ABC funds and enrollment of children in these populations. In interviews, ABC programs explicitly mentioned prioritizing children with disabilities, sometimes specifically citing optional ABC eligibility considerations. In addition, some non-ABC programs mentioned that they lacked access to resources and staff that could adequately serve children with disabilities, highlighting the complexity of factors that shape enrollment decision-making and the need for more widespread funding and resources for programs serving children with disabilities as well as children from other underserved groups (Stoffers et al., 2025). In addition to noting the importance of enrolling children from low-income backgrounds in interviews, center directors mentioned that their child enrollment often looked very similar to the surrounding community demographics, which helps to interpret the quantitative results. However, it is also important to acknowledge that although there were non-ABC centers also prioritizing these underserved groups, several were Head Start programs with similar enrollment priorities (U.S. DHHS, 2016). ECE systems leaders should continually conduct community assessments to understand children from focal populations’ eligibility and other enrollment processes across all ECE program types (Lin et al., 2023).

In general, our results add to a small body of literature highlighting the potential of pre-K and other ECE policies intentionally designed to increase the enrollment of children from underserved populations and reduce persistent inequities in ECE enrollment (Connors et al., 2021). Despite the expansion of pre-K programs, which often have eligibility policies aimed at promoting higher enrollment of children from these underserved groups, research suggests pre-K and other ECE programs continue to suffer from inequitable access and disparate outcomes (McCormick et al., 2023; Weiland et al., 2022). Yet, some evidence suggests policy changes aimed at increasing the enrollment of children from specific racial groups in school-based pre-K initiatives have the potential to increase enrollment for those children (Ehrlich et al., 2020). Our results specifically highlight the importance of eligibility processes and statewide policies that prioritize access for a range of children from historically underserved groups. Our findings not only suggest higher enrollment of traditionally underserved groups in ABC programs, but also that ABC centers consistently mention the role of those eligibility policies in their enrollment processes. Policies that continue to prioritize access for these groups and enforcement of enrollment procedures that make it easier for centers to support these groups once enrolled are critical to ensuring more equitable ECE access (Lin et al., 2023).

Although not previously explored in prior research, given the prominence of ABC pre-K, it is not surprising that non-ABC centers mention competition from ABC programs as a barrier to enrollment. For example, centers mentioned ABC programs were regarded by the general public as more “academic” and thus better equipped to get children ready for kindergarten, which is consistent with family perceptions of pre-K in other state contexts (Westat, Inc., 2016). Given increased policy attention and calls for expanding pre-K nationwide, these findings are important to consider for the full range of ECE programs. Families, particularly those from diverse backgrounds and with children with specific needs, should be able to access ECE programs that best meet their needs.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

By using a mixed methods approach, we were able to examine enrollment characteristics, priorities, and practices in Arkansas ECE programs using both quantitative survey data and results from qualitative interviews. Although our study topic already differs from prior literature on state pre-K in that it focuses on program enrollment practices rather than child outcomes, we are not aware of any state-specific study of public pre-K with published results using a mixed methods approach. The present study employs a convergent mixed methods design where we examined both sets of results in parallel, through secondary data analysis. However, this approach also benefited from the original study’s explanatory sequential mixed methods design, where interview questions were developed to address emerging themes based on knowledge of the quantitative survey results.

The Arkansas setting provides a particularly rich context to investigate enrollment. ABC is a mature pre-K program that is widely available across the state, and where both ABC pre-K and non-ABC pre-K providers have had many years to refine the service models offered through their programs. Further, ABC is offered in a variety of types of settings and serves diverse children, including many who live in rural communities. Our Arkansas results help to expand upon prior quasi-experimental evidence that children who participate in ABC experience positive kindergarten readiness outcomes (Hustedt et al., 2015).

It is important to note that our approach has some limitations. While we were able to gather a depth of information about ABC in our secondary analysis, the original study was conducted to examine provider participation in the state child care subsidy system. Some interview and survey questions specifically requested details about ABC participation, allowing us to compare ABC and non-ABC programs (although while necessary because of sample sizes, our approach to grouping all non-ABC programs together as a comparison group is a limitation). However, other details about ABC emerged unprompted in the qualitative interviews.

It is relevant to highlight that the study relies on self-report data, and data about programs’ enrollment counts and practices were provided by ECE administrators rather than state administrative data. In addition, we acknowledge that the original survey response rate was low—although consistent with previous research in Arkansas (e.g., McKelvey et al., 2018)—and therefore recommend interpreting findings with caution. Despite these limitations, we have confidence that our sample is representative for the following reasons: we received responses from nearly all of Arkansas’s 75 counties; we have responses from each of the nine Rural-Urban Continuum Codes; and our sample includes approximately equal proportions of centers from each decile of the state ADI. While there were minor differences across ABC and non-ABC programs, these differences were consistent with ABC program priorities (e.g., more ABC than non-ABC programs were located in parts of the state with greatest socioeconomic disadvantage). Further, we found no significant differences in ADI or rural/urban status between responding and non-responding ABC and non-ABC programs in Arkansas using chi-square and t tests. When asking questions about enrollment prior to the pandemic, we relied on recall of the interviewees, as our study was not longitudinal. Another limitation is that we gathered data only from center directors and not from parents. Thus, we are not able to investigate parents’ priorities.

Future research about ECE programs’ enrollment practices would benefit from collecting longitudinal data to examine trends over time. Although the Arkansas context is well suited to the types of questions we addressed, it would also be valuable to examine enrollment priorities in other states. Understanding of child outcomes linked with state pre-K has benefited tremendously from studies conducted in numerous state contexts (e.g., Barnett et al., 2018; Early et al., 2019) where different types of pre-K models are employed. Similarly, additional studies of enrollment could be carried out in states with different configurations of policies, including pre-K models and subsidy policies, as well as states with different demographic profiles.

Conclusions

Employing a statewide mixed methods research design, our study examines the implementation of Arkansas’s ABC pre-K programming with specific attention to enrollment policies and practices for children from underserved backgrounds. Our integrated results reveal enrollment facilitators and barriers, including aspects of centers, surrounding communities, and state policies, that may shape which children and families are prioritized for ECE access. While the present study takes place in a single state, our findings have implications for policymakers with goals to enhance equitable access to pre-K (and ECE) in other diverse state and local contexts.

Given that ABC pre-K programs are enrolling children from several underserved populations, our findings suggest continued use of similar enrollment priorities while keeping in mind the groups of children that may still need supportive policies to ensure equitable access (e.g., infants, toddlers), in Arkansas as well as in other state ECE programs. Our findings have important implications for states aiming to expand equitable access to ECE for children from diverse backgrounds.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251357591 – Supplemental material for Enrollment Practices in Early Education Centers: Examining Implementation in the Arkansas State Pre-K Program

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251357591 for Enrollment Practices in Early Education Centers: Examining Implementation in the Arkansas State Pre-K Program by Gerilyn Slicker, Jason T. Hustedt, Melissa Stoffers and Cara L. Kelly in AERA Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project described is supported by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award (Grant # 90YE0248) totaling $50,000 with 100% funded by ACF/HHS. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by ACF/HHS, or the U.S. Government. For more information, please visit the ACF website, Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

ORCID iDs

Gerilyn Slicker

Jason T. Hustedt

Melissa Stoffers

Cara L. Kelly

Note. This manuscript was accepted under the editorial team of Kara S. Finnigan, Editor-in-Chief.

Authors

GERILYN SLICKER is an assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Department of Early Childhood, Multilingual, and Special Education, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV, 89154; gerilyn.slicker@unlv.edu. Her program of research focuses on early childhood policies and practices, and the extent to which they play a role in access to and outcomes in early care and education programs.

JASON T. HUSTEDT is a professor at the University of Delaware’s Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, 240 Academy St., Newark, DE 19716; jhustedt@udel.edu. His program of research focuses on understanding implications of state and federal early childhood policies, examining outcomes of public early childhood programs and school readiness, and investigating parent-child interactions in low-income families.

MELISSA STOFFERS is a postdoctoral researcher at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Early Childhood, Multilingual, and Special Education, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy Las Vegas, NV 89154; melissa.stoffers@unlv.edu. Her research focuses on the social-emotional learning, relationship development, and educational access and inclusion of individuals with disabilities.

CARA L. KELLY is a senior research associate at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa’s Early Childhood Education Institute, 4502 E. 41st Street, 4201-G, Tulsa, OK 74135; cara.kelly@ou.edu. Her research focuses on understanding whether and how early care and education programs and policies best promote children’s development.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2012). What to do about missing values. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 3. Data analysis and research publication (pp. 27–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-002

American Public Health Association. (2017, November 7). Public health and early childhood education support for universal preschool in the United States. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2018/01/18/support-for-universal-preschool

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2022). 2022 Kids Count data book. https://www.aecf.org/resources/2022-kids-count-data-book

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (n.d.). Kids Count data center. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#AR/2/0/char/0

Barnett

W. S.

Jung

Friedman-Krauss

Frede

E. C.

Nores

Hustedt

J. T.

Howes

Daniel-Echols

(2018). State prekindergarten effects on early learning at kindergarten entry: An analysis of eight state programs. AERA Open, 4(2), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418766291

Barnett

W. S.

Kasmin

(2018). Fully funding pre-K through K-12 funding formulas. State Education Standard, 18(1), 22–28. https://www.nasbe.org/?s=Fully+funding+pre-K+through+K-12+funding+formulas

Bassok

Miller

L. C.

Galdo

(2016). The effects of universal state pre-kindergarten on the child care sector: The case of Florida’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program. Economics of Education Review, 53, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.05.004

Breckenridge

Jones

(2009). Demystifying theoretical sampling in grounded theory research. The Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 113–126. https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/883

Brown

J. H.

(2018). Does public pre-k have unintended consequences on the child care market for infants and toddlers? (Princeton University Industrial Relations Section Working Paper No., 626). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3360616

10.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). BLS data viewer. https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES6562440010

11.

Charmaz

(2008). Construction and the grounded theory. In Holstein

J. A.

Gubrium

J. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). The Guilford Press.

12.

Connors

M. C.

Ehrlich

S. B.

Stein

A. G.

Francis

Easton

J. Q.

Kabourek

S. E.

(2021). A path to equity: From expanded pre-kindergarten access to success in elementary school. NORC at the University of Chicago, Start Early, and the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/NORC_Path%20to%20Equity%20Brief_Final.pdf

13.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00096.x

14.

Cui

Natzke

Grady

(2021). Early childhood program participation: 2019. National household education surveys program: First look (NCES 2020-075REV). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics at Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020075REV.pdf

15.

Early

D. M.

Maxwell

K. L.

Ponder

B. D.

(2019). Participation in Georgia’s Pre-K as a predictor of third-grade standardized test scores. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848687

16.

Ehrlich

S. B.

Connors

M. C.

Stein

A. G.

Francis

Easton

J. Q.

Kabourek

S. E.

Farrar

I. C.

(2020). Closer to home: More equitable pre-k access and enrollment in Chicago. Chicago Consortium on School Research, NORC at the University of Chicago, and Start Early. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2020-10/Pre-K%20Enrollment-Access%20Closer%20to%20Home-Oct%202020-Consortium_NORC_Start%20Early.pdf

17.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W

. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/gbd7p5

18.

Friedman-Krauss

Barnett

W. S.

(2019). Early childhood education: Three pathways to Better Health. National Institute for Early Education Research. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/nieer-policy-update_health_2019.pdf

19.

Friedman-Krauss

A. H.

Barnett

W. S.

(2023). The state(s) of early intervention and early childhood special education: Looking at equity. National Institute for Early Education Research. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/se_fullreport.pdf

20.

Friedman-Krauss

A. H.

Barnett

W. S.

Garver

K. A.

Hodges

K. S.

Weisenfeld

Gardiner

B. A.

Jost

T. M.

(2022). The state of preschool 2021: State preschool yearbook. National Institute for Early Education Research.

21.

Friedman-Krauss

A. H.

Barnett

W. S.

Hodges

K. S.

Garver

K. A.

Duer

J. K.

Weisenfeld

G. G.

Siegel

(2025). The state of preschool 2024: State preschool yearbook. National Institute for Early Education Research. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2024NIEERStateofPreschool-1.pdf

22.

Garver

Weisenfeld

G. G.

Connors-Tadros

Hodges

Melnick

Plasencia

(2023). State preschool in a mixed delivery system: Lessons from five states. Learning Policy Institute & National Institute for Early Education Research. https://doi.org/10.54300/387.446

23.

Greenberg

J. P.

(2010). Assessing policy effects on enrollment in early childhood education and care. Social Service Review, 84(3), 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/655822

24.

Hill

E. W.

Argue

Holland

(2022). Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Program longitudinal study 2009-2021. Arkansas Research Center, University of Central Arkansas. https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/Files/ABC_2022_Report_final_OEC.pdf

25.

Hooper

Hustedt

J. T.

Slicker

Hallam

R. A.

Gaviria-Loaiza

Han

(2022). Area deprivation index as a predictor of economic risk and social and neighborhood perceptions among families enrolled in Early Head Start. Children and Youth Services Review, 132, Article 106468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106468

26.

Hustedt

J. T.

Jung

Barnett

W. S.

Williams

(2015). Kindergarten Readiness Impacts of the Arkansas Better Chance State Prekindergarten Initiative. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/684105.

27.

Hustedt

J. T.

Jung

Friedman-Krauss

A. H.

Barnett

W. S.

Slicker

(2021). Impacts of the New Mexico PreK initiative by children’s race/ethnicity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.006

28.

Institute for Children, Poverty, & Homelessness. (2014). Meeting the child care needs of homeless families: How do states stack up? https://www.icphusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICPH_policyreport_MeetingtheChildCareNeedsofHomelessFamilies.pdf

29.

Jessen-Howard

Malik

Workman

Hamm

(2018). Understanding infant and toddler child care deserts. Center for American Progress. https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/IT-ChildCare-Deserts-13.pdf

30.

Johnson-Staub

(2017). Equity starts early: Addressing racial inequities in child care and early education policy. The Center for Law and Social Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582788.pdf

31.

Kind

A. J. H.

Jencks

Brock

Menggang

Bartels

Ehlenbach

Greeneberg

Smith

(2014). Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30 day rehospitalizations: An analysis of medicare data. Annals of Internal Medicine, 161(11), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2946

32.

Lin

Hackett

S. E.

Richards

King

Bredeson

(2023). System transformation for equitable preschools (STEP Forward with Data) framework: Moving toward an equitable preschool system. Child Trends. https://doi.org/10.56417/7986y3601e

33.

Malik

Hamm

Schochet

Novoa

Workman

Jessen-Howard

(2018). America’s child care deserts in 2018. https://marylandfamiliesengage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AmericasChildCareDeserts20182.pdf

34.

McCormick

Pralica

Hsueh

Weiland

Weissman

Xia

Shapiro

MacDowell

Maves

Taylor

Sachs

(2023). Going the distance: Exploring variation in access to high-quality preK by geographic proximity, race/ethnicity, family income, and home language (EdWorkingPaper No. 23-730). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/t5hq-1b40

35.

McKelvey

Forsman

Morrison-Ward

(2018). Arkansas workforce study: Program administrators in early childhood care and education. Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, Arkansas Department of Human Services. https://medicine.uams.edu/familymedicine/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/Directors-Workforce-Study-Report_FINAL.pdf

36.

McLean

Austin

L. J.

Whitebook

Olson

K. L.

(2021). Early childhood workforce index 2020. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/workforce-index-2020/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/02/Early-Childhood-Workforce-Index-2020.pdf

37.

Miller

Wheeler

(2021). 2021 rural profile of Arkansas: Social & economic trends affecting rural Arkansas. University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Research and Extension. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/MP564.pdf

38.

Movahedazarhouligh

(2021). A scoping review of the knowledge base, landscape, and trends in leadership literature in early intervention, early childhood, and early childhood special education. Infants & Young Children, 34(3), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000196

39.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998). Mplus users guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

40.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Number and percentage of children served under Individuals with Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by age group and state or jurisdiction: Selected school years, 1990-91 through 2021-22. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_204.70.asp

41.

National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team. (2014). Characteristics of center-based early care and education programs: Initial findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education (OPRE Report #2014-73a). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/characteristics-of-center-based-early-care-and-education-programs-initial-findings-from-the-national-survey-of-early

42.

Novoa

(2020). The child care crisis disproportionately affects children with disabilities. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2020/01/07090004/Child-Care-for-Children-with-Disabilites1.pdf

43.

Office of Child Care. (2022). Characteristics of families and children: Preliminary FY 2020. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/occ/Characteristics_of_Families_and_Children_FY2020.pdf

44.

Office of Head Start. (2022). Office of Head Start – services snapshot. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/no-search/service-snapshot-all-programs-2021-2022.pdf

45.

Parker

Diffey

Atchison

(2018). How states fund pre-k: A primer for policymakers (Special Report). Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/How-States-Fund-Pre-K_A-Primer-for-Policymakers.pdf

46.

Perlman

S. M.

Shaw

S. H.

Kieffer

C. H.

Whitney

G-A. C.

Bires

(2017). Access to early childhood services for young children experiencing homelessness. In Haskett

M. E.

(Ed.), Child and family well-being and homelessness: Integrating research into practice and policy (pp. 65–82). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50886-3_5

47.

Phillips

D. A.

Lipsey

M. W.

Dodge

K. A.

Haskins

Bassok

Burchinal

M. R.

Duncan

G. J.

Dynarski

Magnuson

K. A.

Weiland

(2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. Brookings Institute & Drake University. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/consensus-statement_final.pdf

48.

Plano Clark

V. L

. (2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when, and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 106–111. https://doi.org/gf7rhc

49.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (released in March 2020). https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

50.

Reid

J. L.

Kagan

S. L.

Hilton

Potter

(2015). A better start: Why classroom diversity matters in early education. The Century Foundation & the Poverty Race Research Action Council. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571023.pdf

51.

Rohacek

Adams

G. C.

Kisker

E. E.

(2010). Understanding quality in context: Child care centers, communities, markets, and public policy. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29051/412191-Understanding-Quality-in-Context-Child-Care-Centers-Communities-Markets-and-Public-Policy.PDF

52.

Sipple

J. W.

McCabe

L. A.

Casto

H. G.

(2020). Child care deserts in New York State: Prekindergarten implementation and community factors related to the capacity to care for infants and toddlers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 51, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.10.007

53.

Slicker

Areizaga Barbieri

Hustedt

J. T.

(2024a). The role of state subsidy policies in early education programs’ decisions to accept subsidies: Evidence from nationally representative data. Early Education and Development, 35(4), 859–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2244859

54.

Slicker

Faucheux

Hustedt

J. T.

Kelly

C. L.

(2024b). Access to early care and education for the historically underserved: Characteristics of centers that enroll children from prioritized populations. International Journal of Early Childhood Education, 30(2), 51–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.18023/ijece.2024.30.2.003

55.

Slicker

Hustedt

J. T.

Stoffers

(2023). Participation of early care and education centers in the child care subsidy system: A statewide mixed methods investigation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.07.009

56.

Stoffers

Slicker

Ain

(2025). Factors affecting enrollment of children with disabilities in child care and early education programs: A mixed methods study of Arkansas center-based programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 70, 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.11.009

57.

Sullivan

A. L.

Farnsworth

E. M.

Susman-Stillman

(2018). Childcare type and quality among subsidy recipients without special needs. Infants and Young Children, 31(2), 109–127. http://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000116

58.

Tang

Hallam

Francis

(2024). Exploring parents’ child care search and decision-making processes. Children and Youth Services Review, 157, Article 107437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107437

59.

Totenhagen

C. J.

Hawkins

S. A.

Casper

D. M.

Bosch

L. A.

Hawkey

K. R.

Borden

L. M.

(2016). Retaining early childhood education workers: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(4), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1214652

60.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. (2020). Neighborhood atlas. https://www.neighborhoodatlas.medicine.wisc.edu/

61.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2013). Rural-urban continuum codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/

62.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Child care. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4

63.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Head Start program performance standards and other regulations. Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau. https://headstart.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii

64.

Weber

R. B.

Grobe

Scott

E. K.

(2018). Predictors of low-income parent child care selections. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.001

65.

Weglarz-Ward

J. M.

Santos

R. M.

Timmer

(2019). Factors that support and hinder including infants in child care. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0900-3

66.

Weiland

McCormick

Duer

Friedman-Krauss

Pralica

Xia

Nores

Mattera

(2022). Mixed-delivery public prekindergarten: Differences in demographics, quality, and children’s gains in community-based versus public school programs across five large-scale systems (Working Paper No. 22-651). https://doi.org/10.26300/pncz-2233

67.

Westat, Inc. (2016). New York City’s Pre-K for sll: Family perceptions. Evaluation of the New York City Pre-K for all initiative, 2014-15. https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/westat-metis-branchprek-study-implementation-report-family-perceptions.pdf?sfvrsn=d04df30a_

68.

Whitebook

Phillips

Howes

(2014). Worthy work, STILL unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/ReportFINAL.pdf

69.

Willig

Rogers

W. S.

(2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555

70.

Yamashiro

McLaughlin

(2020). Early childhood homelessness state profiles: Data collected in 2017-2018. United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/homeless/early-childhood-homelessness-state-profiles-2020.pdf

71.

Zhang

Jenkins

J. M.

(2022). Did state pre-kindergarten programs affect the Head Start enrollment of children with disabilities? A quasi-experimental analysis. Exceptional Children, 89(2), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221110241

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB