Buncombe County committee narrows priorities for focused early‑childhood investment, flags workforce and behavioral supports

On Dec. 2 the Buncombe County Early Childhood Education Committee met to narrow options for a focused‑investment initiative that will be launched from the county’s early‑childhood fund. Committee members emphasized workforce development, behavioral‑health supports and targeted subsidy strategies as the most promising levers to improve access and quality.

Committee members described the fund’s goal as finding the “highest and best use of the money,” and said staff should return specific cost models before the committee chooses one or two priorities. Several members urged a ranked‑choice or bucketed approach so multiple complementary strategies could move forward rather than selecting a single exclusive option.

Workforce concerns dominated the conversation. Members noted state teacher pay supplements were expiring and that recruiting and retaining qualified early‑childhood educators remains a chief barrier to expanding classroom capacity. One committee member said workforce solutions could include pay supplements, stronger partnerships with local training providers and more aggressive marketing of early‑childhood teaching as a profession. “It is a profession. It is not babysitting,” said Speaker 7, urging more prestige and recruitment efforts for teachers.

Behavioral‑health supports were raised repeatedly as part of that ecosystem. Heather (Speaker 8) told the group that behavioral‑health services for children and supports for teacher mental health are “a really big piece” of reducing burnout and improving classroom outcomes, and recommended embedding those services alongside pay and training investments.

Members also debated how to make public dollars sustainable. Some favored supplementing CCDF or NC Pre‑K subsidy rates to raise program revenue streams for providers; others cautioned that county‑level supplements can become “soft” funding unless paired with longer‑term commitments or matching investments. Speaker 9 asked that sustainability be explicitly reflected in scoring criteria for future grant rounds.

The committee discussed targeted supports for infant‑toddler classrooms and family childcare homes, noting a local decline in family childcare and a near‑absence of infant rooms at some centers. Suggestions included technical assistance to help family childcare providers through licensing and start‑up hurdles and targeted grants to encourage infant‑classroom development.

Staff said guests from several North Carolina counties (Wake, Mecklenburg and Forsyth) and other local partners will join the January meeting to share models and practices. Members asked staff to bring cost and program‑design data back to the committee so decisions can be grounded in numbers rather than theory.

Next steps: staff will bucket the committee’s starting list of ideas, prepare clarifying questions for visiting panelists in January, and return cost models and data necessary to evaluate sustainability and expected impact.