The authors evaluated the implementation of the Early Childhood Impact Fund (ECIF) in Harris County, Texas. ECIF represented a historic investment of more than $15 million to scale up evidence-informed programs serving children from birth to age 5, their caregivers, and early childhood professionals.

When Counties Invest in Early Childhood

Successes, Challenges, and Lessons from Harris County, Texas

Elaine Lin Wang, Karen Christianson, Jill S. Cannon, Jonathan Schweig, Adaeze Ibeanu

ResearchPublished Sep 1, 2026

Cover: When Counties Invest in Early Childhood
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes Executive Summary

The Harris County Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity conceived of the Early Childhood Impact Fund (ECIF) in fall 2020. Funded primarily through the American Rescue Plan Act, ECIF represented a historic investment of more than $15 million to scale up evidence-informed programs serving children from birth to age 5, their caregivers, and early childhood professionals in Harris County, Texas. The long-term goal of ECIF, which was designed to fund six programs for two to three years each, was to strengthen outcomes for young children and families, particularly those considered vulnerable because of their income. This report presents the findings of RAND’s three-year evaluation of the implementation of ECIF.

The purposes of the evaluation were to assess progress toward initiative goals and inform future county decisionmaking. The authors formulated ten indicators to measure success across program selection, monitoring and supports for grantees, program implementation, participant satisfaction, and contributions to broader benefits for the early childhood system in Harris County. The evaluation approach included analysis of existing literature; program data; participant surveys; and interviews and focus groups with program leads, staff, and county administrators.

ECIF successfully expanded access and built some momentum for early childhood services in Harris County. The initiative demonstrated that public investment can expand early childhood supports for families and access to professional development for early childhood professionals. The initiative also highlighted system barriers—timelines, administrative complexity, and uncertain post‑grant continuation—that county leaders could address in future investments.

Key Takeaways

Collectively, grantees served far more people than initially targeted

  • Overall, ECIF‑funded organizations far exceeded service delivery targets. More than 30,000 children, 5,500 caregivers, and 8,500 early childhood professionals received direct benefits.
  • Programs reached all high‑poverty ZIP codes and primarily served Black and Hispanic families.
  • Many programs also provided wraparound supports and professional development for early childhood professionals.
  • Nearly 1.5 million meals were delivered to children and families.
  • Nearly 10,000 developmental screenings were provided to children.
  • More than 70,000 early literacy materials and resources were provided to children and families.

Participants were generally satisfied

  • About 90 percent of surveyed participants agreed that programs met their needs and were delivered respectfully and conveniently.

ECIF’s broader contributions were mixed

  • ECIF helped raise the profile of early childhood issues and efforts in the county and fostered some new partnerships.
  • About two‑thirds of grantees continued or expanded services after funding ended; smaller organizations faced sustainability challenges.

Program and county leads identified key lessons

  • Recruitment was more successful when programs actively addressed barriers to access for vulnerable families by working with community partners and providing direct support, such as transportation or translation services.
  • Participant feedback led to customized aspects that better addressed participant needs.
  • Programs needed up to one year for hiring; allotting sufficient time and resources would have helped programs scale more smoothly.
  • The grantee selection process should have better assessed early childhood service providers for a clear vision of goals, implementation capacity, budget assumptions, and readiness to manage public funds.
  • More thoughtfully structured performance indicators would have had more value for evaluating initiative success.

Recommendations

  • Harris County administrators should simplify oversight and reporting requirements—and provide technical assistance—to lower the burden on grantees.
  • Harris County administrators should plan evaluation data collection alongside program implementation to support more accurate assessment of initiative impact.
  • Harris County administrators should formalize and measure progress toward goals for networking and collaboration among grantees and potentially other early childhood organizations in the county.
  • Harris County administrators and grantees should plan for sustainability of programming and organizational capacity from day one.
  • Harris County administrators should invest in county-level data infrastructure to support evaluation of long-term outcomes and system-level change.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Wang, Elaine Lin, Karen Christianson, Jill S. Cannon, Jonathan Schweig, and Adaeze Ibeanu, When Counties Invest in Early Childhood: Successes, Challenges, and Lessons from Harris County, Texas. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4333-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Harris County DEEO and conducted in RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.