If I had to pick only one issue of utmost importance to the future of this country, without hesitation I would say it is the need for comprehensive, quality early childhood care and education (ECE). While not all women have children, we are all evaluated –whether we like it or not – on whether we will have children and thus drop out of the workforce.

ECE is not only a feminist issue because it affects how women make “choices” about work and family (which are often not choices at all, but usually deciding between unattractive options which don’t meet our needs or the needs of our families), but because it is really about helping the next generation develop their maximum potential as human beings. And if fair starts in life, opportunities for self-actualization, and equal opportunity for all is not a feminist issue, then nothing is.

We don’t have to frame the issue of ECE through the lens of fairness and justice, though. Some politicians and a large portion of our citizenry, I’ve sadly learned, don’t find those to be compelling arguments. What talks to nearly everyone, however, is economics (ie - money). Fortunately, the economic rationale for investing in quality early childhood programs for all is very strong.

A few months ago, I wrote about this topic in The Panelist, an online magazine about socially conscious investing. I pointed out that evidence presented by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis indicates that investments in high quality child care and early education programs outperform anything that can be achieved in the private market.

Arthur Rolnick has been studying the economic impact of early childhood development programs for several years. In his most recent report, Early Intervention on a Large Scale (Jan. 4, 2007), he writes:

Careful academic research demonstrates that tax dollars spent on early-childhood development provide extraordinary returns compared with investments in the public, and even private, sector. Some of these benefits are private gains for the children involved, in the form of higher wages later in life. But the broader economy also benefits because individuals who participate in high-quality early-childhood-development programs have greater skills than they otherwise would, and they’re able to contribute productively to their local economies.

The promise of early-childhood programs is based on fundamental facts about early human development. A child’s quality of life and the contributions that child makes to society as an adult can be traced to his or her first years of life. From birth until about the age of 5, a child undergoes tremendous development. If this period of life includes support for growth in language, motor skills, adaptive abilities, and social-emotional functioning, the child is more likely to succeed in school and to later contribute to society. Conversely, without support during these early years, a child is more likely to drop out of school, depend on welfare benefits, and commit crime—thereby imposing significant costs on society. Early-childhood-development programs recognize this potential—and this risk—and seek to nurture healthy development from the earliest years.

Several longitudinal evaluations essentially reach the same conclusion: The return on early-childhood-development programs that focus on at-risk families far exceeds the return on other projects that are funded as economic development. Cost-benefit analyses of the Perry Preschool Program, the Abecedarian Project, the Chicago Child-Parent Centers, and the Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project showed returns ranging from $3 to $17 for every dollar invested. This implies an annual rate of return, adjusted for inflation, of between 7 percent and 18 percent.The emphasis is mine. I challenge anyone to find another investment with such an impressive rate of return.

Sure, the annual rate of return is not quite the same dollar-in-your-wallet as if you had bought some stake in a company. Except that it is. If you hate paying "high" taxes, this would potentially eliminate a portion of your tax burden because of social costs that would no longer be incurred. Of course, there is always the concern that money saved through reduced juvenile justice costs, prison lock ups, welfare payments, special education expenses, etc., would just be shifted over to another cause, but chances are that this other cause (environmental conservation or the arts, for example), would be a worthy one. There will never be enough resources to adequately cover everything.

Part of the reason that early childhood development programs are rarely spoken of as an economic imperative is because they are relegated to the status of "women's issues," but I'll never understand why properly caring for, educating, and preparing our youngest members of society is of concern only to women. Let's remind elected officials that we all need to be concerned about kids. This isn't just an issue of morality – it's also a wise investment.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and has worked on child care policy for ten years.