How do admission systems change if public programs become universal instead of targeted?

Daycare access supports both children’s development and parents’ ability to work. How do admission systems change if public programs become universal instead of targeted? Why would change help users and reduce costs? Is change relevant to the success of transitioning to universal daycare?

The United States does not have universal daycare, and admissions for public and private care occupy two different universes:

1️⃣ Publicly funded programs like Head Start – Rationed by highly complex eligibility rules administered by experts that are tied to income, location, program type, and detailed family characteristics.

2️⃣ Private daycare providers – Usually charge relatively flat fees and admit families in order of application (with some exceptions).

So Americans might be surprised to learn that many universal systems abroad don’t copy the Head Start approach to admissions.

3️⃣ Copenhagen’s universal daycare – A coordinated admission system that mimics and enhances the simplicity of private daycare admissions in the United States.

💡 If Head Start uses detailed rules and professional expertise to prioritize admissions for vulnerable children and low income families, why does universal daycare in Copenhagen use a central admission system that is more aligned with private daycare admission rules?

Is this simply a cultural choice?
Or could it be a deliberate market design strategy — perhaps even the optimal approach if the U.S. adopted universal childcare?
What lessons can we learn for other public services that we wish to make universal?

For a deeper dive into the market design reasoning about different daycare admission systems, you might look at an article I worked on about daycare admissions ( https://lnkd.in/d5Gjh7CT )

hashtag#ChildcarePolicy hashtag#UniversalChildcare hashtag#EducationPolicy hashtag#ECEC hashtag#PublicPolicy hashtag#ComparativePolicy hashtag#MarketDesign hashtag#SocialPolicy hashtag#Inequality