That's a great question. On the early childhood ones we're seeing two very different kinds of programs being developed in multiple states. One is really early childhood, like six months before birth through the first two years of life, where the goal is to make sure the mother has a healthy pregnancy, and the first outcome that is tracked is the share of births that are low birth weight with the hope of reducing health care costs by having fewer low birth weight births, and then lower medical expenditures in the first couple years of life because the children were born healthier.
So one set of projects is very early childhood, and it's primarily with these kinds of health outcomes in mind at least in the short term, and then the other type of early childhood intervention is for children right before they're going to enter school, trying to spread high-quality child care to low-income communities where the hope is that by making sure that the children arrive at school ready for school rather than behind other children, there will be lower what we call “special education expenditures” helping people catch up once they get to school.
What makes these two kinds of projects somewhat different from the recidivism ones is that some of the benefits in these projects are much longer term. You help a child when they're five or six years old and you hope they have a lot of good things happen to them, so that they're less likely to commit crimes when they're a teenager, less likely to be a high school dropout, more likely to have higher earnings. So you end up in discussions with governments about whether they'll pay for these longer term outcomes too based on short-term results, or whether they'll only pay for the savings that have actually been accrued during the first few years.
That's what's going on in early childhood. I don't want use up all your time. I could tell you about homelessness too, if you'd like, or we can go onto another question.