Patrick T. Brown


Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where his work with the Life and Family Initiative focuses on developing a robust pro-family economic agenda and supporting families as the cornerstone of a healthy and flourishing society.

Read full bio.

Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where his work focuses on developing a robust pro-family economic agenda and supporting families as the cornerstone of a healthy and flourishing society.

His writing has been published in The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Post, and USA Today, and he has spoken on college campuses and Capitol Hill on topics from welfare reform to child care and education policy.

He has published reports on paid leave and family policy with the Institute for Family Studies, and edited an essay series featuring working-class voices for American Compass. He is an advisory board member of Humanity Forward and the Center on Child and Family Policy, and a contributing editor to Public Discourse.

Prior to joining EPPC, Patrick served as a Senior Policy Advisor to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC). There, he helped lead research about how to make it more affordable to raise a family and more effectively invest in youth and young adults. He also previously worked a government relations staffer for Catholic Charities USA.

Patrick graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a degree in political science and economics. He also holds a Master’s in Public Affairs from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He and his wife Jessica have three young children and live in Columbia, S.C.


Close bio

Why Working-Class Parents Don’t Buy What D.C. Is Selling

Patrick T. Brown

If politicians want expanded child benefits to stick, they need to listen to the families that will benefit most.


The New York Times / September 14, 2021

Early Childhood Districts: A Capita Symposium

Patrick T. Brown

It is difficult to look at the existing public education system and recommend it as a model for ensuring high-quality child care for newborns, toddlers, and preschoolers.


Capita / September 8, 2021

Working Americans Are Speaking. Are Politicians Listening?

Patrick T. Brown

For a “populist” agenda to be more than a noisy veneer on pre-existing preferences, partisans of the right and left need to recognize the distance between their favored narratives and the ones that keep working-class Americans up at night.


Newsweek / August 23, 2021

More Beautiful Backyards

Patrick T. Brown

To be successful, the pro-housing movement must respect the desire of homeowners to influence the look and feel of their neighborhood. Showing such flexibility will help smooth the path for more housing, in more styles, and in more neighborhoods, across the United States.


City Journal / August 12, 2021

Where School Choice Legislation Falls Short

Patrick T. Brown

A conservative educational agenda needs to move beyond choice alone and toward a system of educational pluralism in which government dollars are used to support a multiplicity of schooling options.


Washington Examiner / August 6, 2021

Where Should New Parents Settle Post-COVID?

Patrick T. Brown

As the ripple effects from COVID start to fade, making more communities attractive to couples and families who want to move should become a priority of any pro-family policy agenda.


Institute for Family Studies / August 5, 2021

How Conservatives Could Solve the Child Care Crunch

Patrick T. Brown

If conservatives are serious about opposing progressives’ prescriptions for big-government solutions to child care affordability, they need to come up with proactive ideas beyond just tax credits.


Newsweek / July 12, 2021

The Communitarian Case for a Universal Child Benefit

Patrick T. Brown

A conservative family policy should be about supporting families as the core building block of a flourishing society — and recognizing the work parents put into rearing the next generation.


Real Clear Policy / June 18, 2021

Child Care Pluralism: Supporting Working Families in Their Full Diversity

Patrick T. Brown

Expanding the array of options available to American families, whether it be care by a relative or parent, or a daycare or child care center, should be a prime focus of public policy.


Last month Capita published a new white paper by policy expert Elliot Haspel in which he proposes “early childhood districts.” Elliot envisions these districts as the counterpart to public school districts for children five and under, but adapted to the early childhood context, and learning from the inequities found in the K-12 system.

In order to help us think more deeply about this novel proposal and to foster its prudent development, we have commissioned several other experts to contribute to a written symposium to critique and to caution, and to make recommendations about where next to take this proposal.

The symposium’s first essay is by EPPC Fellow Patrick T. Brown.

In his book Crawling Behind, Elliot Haspel laid out a comprehensive argument for universal, free child care. His new white paper calling for the creation of Early Childhood Districts [ECDs] is a thoughtful, though I think flawed, attempt at making his larger goal more achievable.

I should show my cards up front - it is difficult for me to look at the existing public education system and recommend it as a model for ensuring high-quality child care for newborns, toddlers, and preschoolers. Most school districts reflect the wealth of their local tax base, contributing to achievement gaps. Haspel suggests that ECDs would avoid the geography-based inequalities that plague the K-12 public school system, while at the same time layering them onto “existing, extremely well-known governmental boundaries.” Just as school quality is capitalized into house prices, it seems difficult to imagine a world in which the quality of an early childhood district does not also end up correlated with existing advantage, especially given the understandable preference parents have for care located near their home.

Haspel admits localities should have some skin in the game, but would argue the equity concerns would be allayed by having nine out of every ten dollars come from federal or state sources. If that were the case, however, ECDs seem more likely to soak up resources than guide their use more effectively. He perceptively nods to the potential of regulatory capture by stipulating that ECDs be staffed “leanly,” so as to avoid replicating the “overly bureaucratic nature” of the K-12 system. But one can already hear the cries of underfunding echoing in future ECD districts as they do in current K-12 ones. A new middle layer of bureaucracy seems as likely to end up playing the role of a self-interested stakeholder as one of benign facilitator.

Haspel’s proposal is extremely flexible, which is a strength. But that wide latitude leaves the door open to massive, open-ended spending commitments and government overreach. Potentially granting ECDs taxation authority while also guaranteeing child care workers’ salaries could cause costs to balloon. And his more expansive vision to “bring all child care programs…under the district umbrella” would lay the groundwork for a dramatic crowding-out of private child care provision. He pledges that the assimilation would be “voluntary but would provide tremendous benefits,” leaving faith-based child care providers, or those that want to provide a culturally-distinctive environment, operating at a disadvantage. My preference would be to see states or counties favoring an explicitly pluralist approach to child care infrastructure, rather than gently coercing alternate entities to effectively become arms of the state.

I was intrigued to imagine what Haspel’s proposal would look like in the absence of federal action. Much of the ECDs’ presumed benefit to parents would rely on drawing on additional federal dollars (such as the limit on parents’ out-of-pocket spending.) But what if that money never arrives? Many of the functions Haspel proposes for an ECD, like a common pool of substitutes or bulk purchasing, could be achieved through greater public-private collaboration, or a state-funded consortium structured to avoid conflicts with anti-trust law. Integrating home visiting programs and other community-based services into a full-service family life department could be a valuable pilot project. As his helpful use of real-world examples suggests, these kind of innovations could be undertaken by an innovative state or county without having to construct the apparatus of an ECD.

Haspel is, of course, exactly right to want to address the shortcomings in how parents find child care in the U.S., a sector plagued by information asymmetries and market failures. There is clearly a sound rationale for states to take some of the actions he gestures to, such as regulating price transparency or operating centralized databases of open seats and available tuition credits.

Layering on another level of bureaucracy, however, would replicate some of the worst of the K-12 district model without necessarily improving the situation facing parents. His proposal is an intriguing path for anyone who believes the U.S. needs a universal, welfare-state provision of early childhood. But for the unconvinced, it is a reminder that the unavoidable difficulties in implementing such a scheme is yet another reason for skepticism.

Patrick T. Brown (@PTBwrites) is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.