A Worthwhile Gamble

This newspaper abhors the abuse of the ballot initiative, and we are not enthusiastic about special-issue taxes. That The Times would still endorse Proposition 10 is a measure of how desperately California’s young children need help, and fast. Proposition 10, which would raise cigarette taxes by 50 cents a pack to fund early childhood development programs, is a gamble California can’t afford not to take.

Most of the $750 million generated by the tax each year would be handed over to county commissions with, as the opposition ads say, “no specifics on how the money’s spent.” That’s not quite true, but there’s no disputing that Proposition 10’s flexibility leaves open the possibility that some experiments will be tried, and some may fail.

Risk, however, is the price of innovation, and while Proposition 10 is far from perfect, it’s also a bold, worthwhile experiment--an attempt to solve a genuine social problem arriving at just the right time. Imagine a state that actually invests in giving children a head start instead of devoting ever more time and money on remedial education for university students. Science has recently demonstrated that nearly 90% of brain growth occurs during a child’s first three years (and with it, a great potential for learning), but only 4% of public spending on children is earmarked for those years.

That’s far more wasteful than Proposition 10 would ever be, for studies have shown that every dollar spent on quality preschool, maternal and infant nutrition, domestic violence prevention and other early childhood interventions saves $11 in later spending on special education, juvenile crime and other social problems.

The initiative’s greatest weakness, its failure to detail how counties should spend their early childhood dollars, is also its greatest strength, allowing flexibility to respond to regional needs and popular demands. Los Angeles County, for example, might want to spend some of the $177 million it would receive yearly to provide day care slots for children of welfare moms who go to work (it has about 500 licensed child care slots but sees a need for 50 times as many). But Proposition 10 would also leave the county free to spend money on programs having nothing to do with welfare: quality preschool, for instance, to stimulate children’s social and intellectual growth.

Each program must state measurable goals, which counties must assess in yearly audits. Scrutiny of the goals and how successfully they are met will be important. And keeping an eye on the political appointees who will administer the funds will be equally important.

California has a chance, through this clearly imperfect initiative, to reverse the rise in teen smoking and to focus more public spending on early childhood, when it can do the most good. So long as the audits are scrutinized to ensure that each program and county is taking its challenge seriously, Proposition 10 could do a great service by giving all California children a chance to live up to their potential. Catching problems and providing help during early childhood is essential. The state’s future depends on it.