..J 
. -1 
Deparment of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL

HEAD START SELF-ASSESSMENT

f,RVICE$. 
l.R ichard P. Kusserow 
.f 
INSPECTR GENERA
FEBRUARY 1991
'0 
;fq"d3U  ~ "'
Department of Health and Human Services

OFFICE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL

HEAD START SELF-ASSESSMENT

f,RVICE$. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
.f 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OEI-04-89-00790
'0 
;fq"d:W  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted to examne self-assessment in the Head Star Progr. It 
describes the process and analyzes the utility of self-assessment to  to the staff of the 
grtees and 
Admnistration for Childrn Youth and Famlies (ACYF). 
BACKGROUND 
Head Start Program 
progr 
Head Star is a comprehensive, pre-school child development  designed to serve 
progr 
low-income childrn, handicapped children and their famlies. The  is based on the 
premises that all childrn shar cenain social and cognitive development needs and that 
progr 
low-income children can especially benefit from a developmenta  addressing those 
needs. 
Head Star is admnistered by the ACYF within the Offce of Human Development Services 
(OHDS). In Fiscal Year 1988, the program served 446,523 childrn in 1 910 local projects 
throughout the  expenditue of $1.2 bilion. 
countr, with a Federal 
Self-As!essment 
Sta 
Title 45, Par 1304 of the Code of Federal Regulations requirs every Head  grantee to 
progr. 
conduct an annual self-assessment of its  These regulations give the Policy Council 
responsibilty for conductig the self-assessment. However, the regulations do not provide 
Grtees ar 
guidance on how self-assessment should be done.  allowed to self-assess in any 
manner they choose. 
The ACYF has not developed criteria for judging the quality of a self-assessment. Many 
pgrarntaeesc, tthoiucghe, hsav.e  made judgments about the effectiveness and wonh of self-assessment FINDINGS 
This inspection found: 
Virually all grntees are conducting self-assessment annually, as required. 
Nearly all grantees (90%) use the Self Assessment Validation Instrment (SA VI) for 
conducting self assessment. However, many have concerns about its length, 
complexity and comprehensiveness. 
Policy Councils are involved in the self-assessment process in a varety of ways, 
including design, data collection, analysis and oversight. 
Every self-assessment requires a significant commtment of staff and volunteer 
resources. 
Grantees use self-assessment for a varety of puroses, including determning 
compliance with program performance standads, improving programs, garering 
additional resources, enhancing public relations and training team members. 
The ACYF uses self-assessment findigs in its review of grantees ' major refunding 
applications every third year, and as a basis for on-site monitorig of grantees. 
The self-assessment process would benefit from: 
being scheduled later in-the program year to allow for more traiing; 
improved trning by ACYF and the local grantee; and, 
improved communication/feedback between ACYF and the grantee, and within the 
grantee self-assessment team. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The ACYF should: 
Improve the Self-Assessment/alidation Instrment (SAVI) which 
grantees use for

conducting self-assessment.

Eliminate the redundancy in the instrment to make it simpler and less time-consuming. 
Simplify the terms used in the instrment in order to make it more appropriate for 
parents and other team members not famliar with Head Star termnology.  Update the instrment to keep it current with changes in the program, for example 
by adding transponation and handicapped sections. 
Provide feedback and technical assistace which grantees fmd useful when they voluntarly 
submit their self-assessment findings. 
Develop and provide training and technical assistace to grantees on how to improve 
self-assessment. 
Grantees should:

Provide feedback to self-assessment team members and all sta on the findings and actions 
resultig from self-assessment so that they can better understand the process. 
Trai team members thoroughly so that each fully understads his/her component and 
responsibilty in the self-assessment process. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
The comments from the Assistat Secreta for Human Development Services on the draft report 
were supponive of the fmdings and the recommendations. However, OHDS did not agree with 
an OIG recommendation in the draft repon that  required to conduct self-assessments 
grtees be 
no earlier than March. We have deleted that recommendation from the fmal repone  ................. .. .......... ......................... ..... ......................  .................... ..... ......................................... ..... ....................... ... .. ... ............. . ..... .. ......................... ........ ................ ......  ...... ........ ..... ..................... ............... ......................  ........ . .............. ....... .  ....... . ....... ... .......................... .......... ............ .. .... .. ........ ................ .. ..... ..... ..............
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N .. 
Purpose...... ...... .................. .... 
Ba ck groun d.......... ...... ...... .................... .... ................ .......... 
Methods........................................ ...... 
FIND IN G S .... 
Virtually All Grantees Are Conducting 
S elf -Assessments .. ............ ............ ................ ...... .... .......... 

Self-Assessment Is Useful To G ran tees .............................................................

A CYF Can Improve Self-Assessment ...............................................................

CON CL U SI 0 N S .......... .... .......... .... .... 

RECD MMEND A TI 0 NS .........................................................................................

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT ...............................................12 .

APPENDIX 
Detailed Description of Methods.................................................................. A-

Comments on the Draft Report ....................................................................
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted to examne self-assessment in the Head Star Program. It 
describes the process and analyzes the utilty of self-assessment to  to the staff of the 
grtees and 
Administration for Childrn Youth and Famlies (ACYF). 
BACKGROUND 
Head Start Program 
Head Star is a comprehensive, pre-school child development program designed to serve 
progr 
low-income children, handicapped children and their famlies. The  is based on the 
premises that all children shar cenain social and cognitive development needs and that 
progr 
low-income children can especially benefit from a developmental  addressing those 
needs. 
Head Star is admnistered by the ACYF within the Offce of Human Development Services 
(OHDS). Most projects are funded and monitored by the regional ACYF offces. Head Stan is 
the only child development program that is largely Federally funded. In Fiscal Year 1988, the 
program served 446,523 children in 1 910 local projects throughout the countr, with a Federal 
expenditure of $1.2 bilion. 
Head Star is also unusual in that it is one of the few large programs of the Deparent of Health 
and Huma Services funded diectly to local grantes. Grantes include local general purose 
governments, school boards, community action agencies and single  profit 
purose non-
organizations. Grtees ar required to contrbute a non-federal share to their local projects, of 
at least 20 percent of the total operating amount. 
A grantee may operate the  par of it to other 
entie local project or delegate the operation of al or 
suitable entities called delegate agencies. 
There are four component areas for all Head Star programs: education, health, social services 
and parent involvement. Head Star provides a wide varety of services across these component 
areas. 
Par of the local grant is designated for trning. Each local project has access to a Regional 
Resource Center (RRC), a contractor which is responsible for providing training on all Head 
Star components except health.  Expectations for grantee perfonnance ar detaled in the Head Sta perfonnance stadards for

each component area. This careful blueprint is said by respondents at all levels to have

contrbuted to the program s success since its inception in 1965.

Policy Council 
Each grantee has a Policy Council (called the Policy Commttee in delegate agencies). The 
Sta 
Policy Council is a group comprised of parnts of curently enrolled Head  children and 
representatives of the community. No more than 50 percent of the Council's members may 
community representatives. 
The Policy Council exercises approval and disapproval functions over the grantee s operations. 
hig 
The Policy Council reviews and votes on such personnel actions as promotions,  and 
firng. It also approves grant applications, major purchases and proposed changes in program 
priar 
operations. The Policy Council is one of the  vehicles for promotig parnt involvement 
in the local program. 
Self-Assessment 
Sta 
Title 45, Part 1304 of the Code of Federal Regulations requirs every Head  grantee to 
conduct an annual self-assessment of its program. Head Star is one of the few Federal grant 
. programs that requires such a sophisticated self-examnation. 
The regulations give the Policy Council responsibilty for conductig the self-assessment. 
However, the regulations do not provide guidace on how the self-assessment should be done. 
Grantees are allowed to self-assess in any manner they choose as long as all component areas are 
covered. 
The ACYF has not developed criteria for judging the quality of a self-assessment. Many

grantees, though, have made judgments about the effectiveness and wonh of self-assessment

practices. Grantee staf shar these judgments with inspection team members. The

characteristics which distinguish outstanding self-assessments ar said to include:

Sta 
a high degree of commitment by local Head  project management to the process 
of self-assessment;

the total involvement of the Policy Council in conducting the activity; 
intensive training for self-assessment team members; 
open communication providing all team members the opponunity to express their 
opinions and ideas;  feedback to all team members on findigs and corrtive actions; and 
a formal, wrtten corrective action plan outlining the steps needed to bring the Head 
Star project into compliance with performnce standards. 
Program Monitoring 
Current ACYF policy calls for an on-site monitoring visit by ACYF staf every three years prior 
to submission of the major refundig application. 
The ACYF has developed a Self-Assessment/alidation Instrment (SA VI). The grantees may 
use the instrment to conduct self-assessment. The ACYF staf use this document to validate 
grantees ' self-assessment fmdings. The SAVI details the performance standards and is 
acknowledged by respondents at all levels to be rigorous and comprehensive. There is also a 
Admnistration. 
SA VI for 
METHODS 
Sta 
Information for this inspection was gathered though discussions with Head  grantee staff 
parents and community representatives. Discussions were also held with sta of ACYF and the 
Regional Resource Centers. Additional information came from review of Head Star regulations 
and other program documents penient to self-assessment. Appendix A provides more detaled 
information regardig the methods used for this inspection.  ' '
FINDINGS

VIRTUALLY ALL HEAD START GRANTEES ARE CONDUCTING 
SELF -ASSESSMENTS 
Policy Council Involvement 
Although Policy Councils are involved in the self-assessment process, the nature of their 
progr. 
involvement vares from program to  Policy Council activities include planning and 
diecting the self-assessment, collecting and analyzing data, reviewing findigs and corrective 
action plans and implementing  Respondents repon that the greater the 
cOITective action plans. 
involvement of Policy Council members in the self-assessment process, the better the process 
works. 
Use of SA VI 
Nearly all grantees (90%) use the SAVI for conductig the self-assessment. Use of the SAVI 
helps to organize data collection in all program aras and anticipates the ACYF staf validation. 
VI does cause problems for many team members. 
Despite its widespread use, the SA 
progrs 
Respondents in 35 of the  which use it question the suitabilty of the SA VI for 
conducting the self-assessment. They are most concerned that the instrment is too complex and 
that parents fmd it hard to use. The Program Performance Stadards SA VI is 81 pages. It 
requires that evaluation be done on such multi-facete crteria as: 
Does the parent involvement program adequately provide methods and 
opportunities for enhancing parents  parenting' skils such as: 
Experiences and activities which lead to enhancing the development 
of their skils, self-confidence, and sense of independence in fostering 
an environment in which their children can develop to their full 
potential... " 
Most grantees (86%) have suggestions for modifying the SA VI to improve its utility in 
self-assessment. Many propose simplifying the abstract and technical terms in the document so 
that it is more understandable to parents who serve as self-assessment team members. 
Others suggest elimnatig redundancies thoughout the instrment. Many of the redundancies 
result from the inteITelated nature of the components of the Head Sta Program. For example, 
parent education, an impottt facet of Head Star, is addressed in the education, health and 
social services components of the SA VI. There is, funher, a parnt involvement component 
which covers these same parent education issues. Many  that for 
grantes suggested 
self-assessment, once would be enough.  Some respondents suggest that sections on trsponation and services to handicapped children 
be added to make the instrment more complete. While a SA VI instrment for the handicapped 
does exist in some regions, this inspection found that may grtees were either unaware of it or 
not using it. 
Several  adapted SA VI to their own programs, for example, by simplifying it into a 
grtees have 
short checklist. Some grantes use a shon checklist for two years and then use the more 
comprehensive SAVI in the third year to prepare for the major refunding application. 
Commitment of Resources 
Self-assessment represents a major commtment of resources among Head Star grantees. These 
resources include:

staff time developing and delivering training to self-assessment team members. 
time spent by  , Policy Council members and community volunteers 
grntee personnel
receiving training and actually performg the self-assessment. 
time devoted by team members and Head Sta managers and staff developing and 
implementing solutions to problems uncovered by self-assessment. 
Sta 
At Head  grantee and delegate agencies, the size of the resource commtment depends on the 
number of persons involved in the self-assessment. These numbers correlate roughly with the 
size of the Head Star project. Since self-assessments typically exame at least one component 
in each Head Star center, large grantees (with many centers) require much larger teams. One 
grantee included in this inspection described a self-assessment team of 64 members. 
Teams ar made up of Policy Council members, grtee sta, parnts and persons from outside 
the program. Respondents repon that a diversity of well-qualifed people improves the quality 
of self-assessment. 
Assessments 
Training for Self-
Training is such an imponant par of the resources being commtted to Head Star that it deserves 
specific attention. One-half of Head Star Directors repon never having received formal training 
in conduct of self-assessment. Most of those who have received instrction were traied six 
more years ago. Directors report that this lack of training in self-assessment is a major detrment 
to the activity. 
Although many respondents report that they are unaware of available trning, al of the RRCs 
The RRCs repon that this training is not often 
contacted can provide self-assessment traiing. 
requested by grantees. Since RRCs usually organize training for clusters of grantees rather than  individual grtees, it is unlikely that the RRC wil provide self-assessment traiing unless 
interest is widespread. 
Grantees train their assessment teams prior to each annual self-assessment. Traiing is usually 
progr 
organized around  components and conducted by component coordinators or the Head 
Star Director. Typically, self-assessment training rages from two hours to one-hal day. 
Given the comprehensiveness of the widely-used SA VI, ACYF respondents question whether 
such short periods of training are adequate. Parents, to, repon that they have difficulty with 
aspects of the SA VI that reuir specialized educational background. In fact, there ar elements 
in each component of Head Star which require special knowledge. Judgments on "foods which 
broaden the child' s food experience" or the existence of an "organize health education 
program" would be diffcult without such knowledge. 
Some Head Star grtees with pancularly successful self-assessments trai team members at 
stag 
Sta 
each Policy Council meeting  in September, the beginning of the Head  school year. 
By the time of the self-assessment in March or Apri, the parnts on the team have received up to 
tring. 
thiny-six hour of  In order to allow suffcient time to prepar, at least one regional 
offce now requires that grantees schedule self-assessments no sooner than March. 
GRANTEES REPORT THAT SELF -ASSESSMENT IS USEFUL 
All grantees contacted in this inspection report some positive outcomes from self-assessment. 
Head Star Directors, component coordinators and parents are pancularly positive in their 
repons. Community professionals are also enthusiastic about their parcipation. On the other 
hand, first line program staf, for example teachers and aides, tend to question the value of the 
self-assessment process which they say consumes to much time for the benefits gained. Often 
these staf are involved only in the trning and data collection phases of the activity and are not 
famliar with outcomes. 
Head Star  the self-assessment process and the fmdings in five ways: 
grtees use 
identifying and correcting areas out of compliance with Head Star performance 
standards, 
improving program areas which ar in compliance, 
garering additional resources for the project, 
educating self-assessment team members about the Head Star program, and 
enhancing the project's public relations.  Identifying and Correcting Areas Out Of Compliance 
Nearly all grtees (91 %) consider any negative self-assessment findig to be non-compliance 
with performce standads. If the self-assessment contas no negative findings, grantees 
Sta 
consider themselves to be in compliance. Once non-compliance is determned, the Head 
Director or her/his designee develops a corrctive action plan to addrss the aras out of 
compliance. 
tie 
Usually the corrective action plan is wrtten and specifies actions to be taen within specific 
frames. In some cases, the plan is not wrtten, but an infonnal agreement is made by the Head 
Star Director and staf to tae cenan corrective actions. A formal, wrtten corrctive action plan 
is reponed by many respondents to be superior in that it provides a common basis of 
understandig for all those involved. In many projects, the Policy Council may also vote to 
approve the corrective action plan. 

Most grantees (70%) trat self-assessment findigs of non-compliance as an internal matter. 
These fmdings  regularly reponed to the regional ACYF offce. 
ar not 
In two instances, however routinely reportd to ACYF: 
, self-assessment findings  are 
The findings of the most recent self-assessment ar included in the major refunding 
application. 
Where corrective actions require substantial new resources, 
grtees may use 
self-assessment findings to  supplemental funding. 
justiy requests for 
Head Stan Directors repon that non-compliance uncovere though the self-assessment is 
seldom a serious problem; the shoncomings identified are usualy smal and easily corrected. 
Nor are grantees concerned that ACYF wil become aware of their non-compliance findings, as 
there is little lielihoo of a monitoring visit. 
Improving the Program 
Self-assessment results in two types of modification to Head Star projects. Most of the 
modifications mentioned in the corrctive actions plans brig the project into compliance with a 
staiay 
Head Stan requirement. For example, if the self-assessment discovers a  accessible to 
the children, the center diector may instal a gate to bar access. 
However, every improvement does not addrss non-compliance. Other self-assessment 
follow-up actions improve operations which were alady in compliance. For example, the 
assessment team may discover and repon on an effective teaching technique or an unusually 
good set of materials in one center which could be adopted by other centers in the project. 
Respondents cite innovative ideas from parents as the most rewarding of these modifications 
Sta 
because they demonstrate parent involvement in improving their children s Head  program.  Garnering Additional Resources 
Grantees use the self-assessment process in two ways to increase their resources. First they use 
self-assessment findings to justify requests to ACYF for additional funding. Often these requests 
represent one-time capita expenditures to improve facilties or to purchase major equipment that 
the self-assessment shows is needed. 
The second type of increased resources comes from the expanded "Head Star famy." Many 
grantees repon that they have received additional cash, in-kind contrbutions and  pro bono

services as a result of the involvement of community leaders in self-assessment and their

Sta 
buy-in" to the Head  philosophy. Such benefits as expanded health screenings, newly

donated facilities and improved access to local social services were mentioned.

Educating Self-Assessment Team Members 
All grantees use the self-assessment activity as a vehicle for educating team members about the 
trning is cross-component traiing. A staf member 
Head Star Program. Much of the  staff 
. who works in one area wil become familar with and assess another. Normally staf members 
assess centers other than those in which they work. Assessing other component areas and other 
centers tends to broaden staf understanding of Head Sta. 
are usually trained to perform self-assessment in one component area. Such traiing 
Parents 
increases their understading of how their children benefit from that component Many grtees 
cite this traiing as one of their most effective activittiresn wgit h parents. Yet 58% of the projects 
train parents for less than four hour. This miimal  greatly dinishes the potential 
benefit parnts can brig to self-assessment, as well as the value that they can receive from it. 
Enhancing Public Relations 
Grantes use self-assessment findings to promote the Head Sta program in their communities. 
Some Head Star grantees use a number of community professionals on their assessment teams. 
In this way they famliarze outsiders with the Head Star program. Respondents who have 
successfully used this approach say that Head Star sells itself. 
Sta progr, grtees ar 
By involving qualfied professionals from outside the Head  able to 
extend the "Head Star famy" in the community. The local project can be enhanced as these 
professionals share new skills and ideas. However, most grantees fail to utilze these generally 
available community resources.  ACYF CAN IMPROVE SELF-ASSESSMENT 
Better Using Self-Assessment Results 
The ACYF staf use self-assessment repons as the basis for montihtor ing grantee performance. 
The ACYF policy calls for one in-depth monitoring visit every  years. The monitorig 
procedur uses the SAVI to valdate grantee self-assessments. In past year, the monitorig visit 
progr 
involved several people reviewing the  for several days. Presently, due to limited travel 
funds in ACYF, a typical monitoring visit is more likely to be conducted by one Child 
Development Program Specialist (CDPS) for one day or less. 
ACYF staf also use self-assessment results by requirng that the most recent findigs be 
included in the major refunding package which  three years. The findigs 
grantes submit every 
are evaluated along with other information contaned in the application; however, grtees raely 
get any feedback specifically on self-assessment findings. Most respondents repon that specific 
feedback would be helpful in many cases to assist them in resolving problems. 
Improving the Self-Ass.essmentProcess 
When ACYF staf receive self-assessment findigs independent of the refunding application 
they mayor may not respond with useful feedback to the  the  send 
grtee. Some of  grtees do 
at least summar information to their CDPSs in the ACYF regional offces. Other grantees 
repon having done so in the past. 
In a few cases, the CDPSs make a signifcant effon to respond to self-assessment inormation 
from the  suggest ways to remedy shortcomings that mayhave been discovered 
grtees. They 
by other grantees. Grantees who receive this constrctive tye of feeback report that it adds 
substatially to the value of self-assessment.

In most cases, however, grantees get no feedback from regional program staf on the findings 
which they voluntary submit. ACYF has an opportnity to improve Head Stan projects by 
increasing the quantity and quality of the feedback to  self-assessment fmdings. 
grtees on 
A well-done self-assessment provides a very imponant framework for an abbreviated monitoring 
visit. However, respondents from both ACYF and the grantees question the effectiveness of the 
current monitoring practices. They agree that these visits ar too brief and infrquent to be 
helpful, either to the grantee or to ACYF. ACYF has an opponunity to improve its process for 
monitoring grantees, including the attention given to valdating the self-assessment. 
There is a limit to the resources that a grantee can devote to self-assessment. ACYF can help by 
improving training packages, updating the SA VI and providing a mechanism for grantees to 
share successful experiences.  CONCLUSIONS 
Head Start grantees are peIfonning self-assessments as required. Each year, the process of 
self-assessment consumes considerable grantee time and effort. All grantees repon that 
swelf-hasseiscsmhent  iss vtalruaeblen. Thge gtrhanteees nuse  ttheh acetiviityr a npd threo fingdinrgsa in ma varsiet.y  of ways
The ACYF uses the self-assessment findings for monitoring grantee perfonnance and evaluating 
the major refunding package. These uses make self-assessment valuable to ACYF. 
Increased infonnation and feedback on self-assessment are needed to improve the activity. With 
ACYF assistance, the benefits of self-assessment to grantees could be substantially increased.  RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACYF should: 
Improve the SAVI instrment which grantees use for conducting self-assessment. 
Eliminate the redundancy in the instrment to make it simpler and less time-consuming. 
Simplify the terms used in the instrment in order to make it more appropriate for 
parents and other team members not famliar with Head Star termnology. 
progr, 
Update the instrment to keep it current with changes in the  for example, 
by adding sections on transporttion and services to the handicapped. 
Provide feedback and technical assistace which grantees fmd useful when they voluntarly 
submit their self-assessment findings. 
Develop and provide training and technical assistance to grantees on how to improve 
self-assessment. 
Grantees should:

Provide feedback to self-assessment team members and all staf on the. findigs and actions 
ultig from the self-assessment so that they can bettr understand the process. 
Trai self-assessment team members thoroughly so that each fully understads his/her 
component and responsibility in the self-assessment process.  OIG RESPONSE TO OHDS  COMMENTS

The comments from OHDS were in genera agrement with most of the recommendations. 
However, OHDS did not concur with a recommendation in the draft repon that grantees be 
required to conduct self-assessments no earlier than March, due to the wide range of differences 
in the individual schedules of  believe that in general it would be more 
grtees. While we 
beneficial to conduct the self-assessment late in the program year, we acknowledge the OHDS 
concern that such a requirment would be overly prescriptive and might not allow grantees to 
follow a schedule more suitable to their own individual needs. We have deleted that 
recommendation from the final repone 
Although OHDS concured with the recommendation that the SA VI be modfied to make it more 
user friendly" and to include sections on the handicapped and trsponation, OHDS indicated 
that the SAVI would be diicult to change because it is so closely tied to the Head Star 
regulations. OHDS fuher indicated that the Head Star On-Site Progr Review Instrment 
(OSPRI), which is now being used for monitoring by OHDS regional offces, is designed to be 
more "user friendly" and has a section on children with disabilties. However, it does not 
address the transponation issue. 
As a follow-up to their fonnal response to the draft repon, OHDS sta met with the OIG and 
provided an overview of an action plan that would more fully address the repon 
recommendations. According to this action plan, which wil be submitted in grater detai to the 
DIG within 60 days, OHDS wil provide the results of this OIG inspection to all grantees and 
regional offces. In addition, sinc  the OSPRI is now being utilized for regional offce 
monitoring, grntees wil be encouraged, but not  VI with the OSPRI. 
required, to replace the SA 
Grantees wil also be encouraged to include transponation in the self-assessment; the scope and 
focus of the transporation review wil be determed by each grtee. Within the next year 
OHDS plans to establish a task force to address transporttion. One of the agenda items wil be 
how best to formally incorporate this issue into the self-assessment process. Finally, the OHDS 
action plan wil identify a policy or procedure that wil enable regional offce sta to provide 
feedback to grantees on self-assessment results that ar voluntaly submitted. 
We have included the comments from the Assistant Secreta as well as the technical comments 
and clarcations from OHDS at Appendi B.  ....................... ...... ......................... ............ .................... .........
APPENDIX A

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODS 
. Very little information exists on self-assessment despite the fact that self-assessments 
Sta 
performed annually by all grantees. The Head  regulations mention self-assessment one 
time. No guidace has been developed by ACYF to clarfy either how self-assessment should be 
done or what constitutes goo quality self-assessment. 
This inspection provided an opportunity, though a large number of discussions with people 
involved in self-assessment, to determne what grtees believe to be the most imponant aspects 
of self-assessment. 
The inspection team conducted interviews with: 
A CYF staf.. ................ ...... 
Head Star grantee staf .............................................. 117 
Head Star parnts........ 
Community professionals.... ............ .............................. 33 
Regional Resource Center staf...................................... 13

TOTAL  250 
The inspection team interviewed respondents from all ten ACYF regions. Furer, the grtee 
sstaeff rteptreisnentged s58. g rtees, including large and smal grtees located in urban and rual
Documents reviewed included: 
pertnent sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Head Star Grant Application Package, 
Head Sta Self-Assessment Validation Instrments (SA VI), 
regional and grantee-specific instrctions on self-assessment, and 
training materials provided by Regional Resource Centers.  APPENDIX 

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT 
Immediately following are comments on the draft repon from the Assistant Secretar for Human 
Development Services and technical comments from the Office of Human Development 
Services.  ----
- .
. '. " "-"'  .." ' '"-. '"'''
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SE  \\'ED  OHfufimC:a no tD
 evelopment Services 
ff\C  OF tNSPEC TOR 
"""flO  GENERAL  Assistant Secretary 
Washington DC 20201 
25 PM q: 3 \ 
\990 Jil 

2 5 1990

JIll 
TO:	 Richard P. Kussero 
Inspector General

FROM:  Assistant Secretary for

Human Development Services

SUBJECT :	 Office of Inspector General Draft Report on "Head 
Start Self-Assessment" (OEI-04-S9-00790) 
Attached are comments on the draft report by the Office of

Inspector General 
(OIG) entitled "Head Start Self-Assessment. 
In general, we support the findings of this report and believe 
that it fairly characterizes the state of' self-assessment in 
Hgead rStaart pnrogrtamse. Ite constain.s good information to share with 
grantees regarding "best practice" self-assessment activities. 
Moreover, it shows that self-assessment can contribute to
improving the quality of services .
provided by Head Start 
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. 
kfdia G 
Mary 
Attachment 
I" 
EI 
,11 	
1I -
" DIG-AS 

I '  '" .'/I
 i' !	 . DIG
DIG-
OI 
AIG- v 
MP 
OO/tG 
l1fr 
JUL 7I  ,;  Db 	 :b  J.ld  0661  EXSEC
DATE SENT -

""V".'
O.:.1j 
Ol  3dSNI ::O 3 
/::::'J 
031\'3  HU 
COMMNTS OF THE OFFICE OF  DEVLOPMENT SERVICES ON THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERL' S REPORT, "HEAD START 
SELF-ASSESSMENT, " OEI-04-89-00790 
General Comment

Pages i and 2 contain references to Title 
45, Part 1304 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which state that every Head

Start grantee is required to conduct an annual self-assessment. 
As a point of clarification, the only regulatory reference in 
B. It 
Part 1304 is Appendix B, Chart  states that Head Start 
grantees and delegate agencies must "Conduct self-evaluation of 
(the) agency's Head Start program.  The "operating
responsibility" is assigned to the Head Start Policy Council 
Commi ttee. The reference to conducting an annual 
self-assessment is implied, since at least 50% of the membership
of Policy Councils and Committees are parents of children 
currently enrolled in Head Start, and these groups change
. annually. 
The implication is that each Policy Council 
Committee will then be involved in a self-assessment each year. 
ACYF Recommendation #1

Improve the SAVI instruent which grantees use for conducting

sel f-assessment. 
instruent to 
a. Eliminate the redundancy in the 
make it 
simpler and less time-consuming. 
instruent in 
b. Simplify the terms used in the  order to 
make it more appropriate for parents and other team 
members not familiar with Head Start terminology. 
instruent to 
c. Update the  keep it current with changes in 
the program, for example by adding transportation and

handicapped sections.

OHDS Comment 
We concur with the recommendation.

The Self-Assessment Validation Instrument (SAVI) is designed to

assist Head Start programs in determining their compliance

status with Head Start regulations, specifically 45 CFR Parts

1301, Head start Grants Administration, and 1304, the Head Start

Program Performance Standards. The organization of the SAVI

reflects that of the regulations and redundancy is attributable
 to the language and organization of the regulations. 
Part 1304

for example, is organized into four component areas. Al though
there is a separate component for Parent Involvement, the

requirement to involve parents in all aspects of Head Start

program operations is woven throughout all component areas and

contributes to much of the redundancy. 
The Head Start Bureau has taken some steps to simplify the

instruent that is 
used by Federal staff to conduct on-site
toring reviews. 
moni  During fiscal year 1990, Federal staff
instruent 
began using a revised 
entitled the On-Site Program
Review Instruent (OSPRI). The OSPRI is organized to minimize

regulations. In 
the redundancy of some Head Start 
addition, we
have replaced the SAVI guidance with indicators for each

regulation item to better assist the reviewer in determining

that the grantee is meeting the intent of the regulation.

After one year of use, HDS Regional staff are generally pleased

with the OSPRI, finding that the indicators make it an easier

instruent to use. 
Some Regions have trained all grantees in
the use of the OSPRI. 
Because the SAVI is not a required 
sel f-assessment instruent, many grantees have begun to use the

instruent 
OSPRI as it is the  Federal staff use for monitoring.
Grantees are reporting that the OSPRI is easier than the SAVI

for parents and staff to use.

We have not eliminated the SAVI as an option for self-assessment
for grantees. In  instruents 
addition to  grantees develop on
their own, the SA VI and the OSPRI will be available for grantees

to use for sel f-assessment. 
By fiscal year 1991, the Office of Human Development Services

plans to review the OSPRI to assure that the content and format

assist the reviewer in obtaining the information necessary to

make a compliance determination. When we do this, we will

consider adding areas that are not currently included. The 
OSPRI now has a brief section on services to children with

disabilities. We are considering adding to this and will also 
consider adding other areas, such as transportation, to the
OSPRI. 
There is not a SAVI related to services to children with
disabili ties or 
related to transportation because there are no 
services. 
regulations that address such  Regulations covering
services to children with disabilities are, however, in the 
process of being published. 
ACYF Recommendation 

Provide feedback and technical assistance which grantees find 
useful when they submit their self-assessment findings. 
-2
 OHDS Comment 
We concur with this recommendation.

Because of limited travel resources over the past several years,

Federal monitoring of Head start grantees declined, with

toring frequently limited to problem grantees. 
moni 
Prior to 
this, Federal staff monitored all grantees through an in-depth

team review at least once every three years. Self-assessment 
was part of a "monitoring system" generally occurring prior to

the on-site review. 
The Federal team then validated the
grantee' 
s self-assessment findings during the review process. 
When the agency's capacity to conduct on-site reviews declined,

the link between self-assessment and monitoring also declined.

During fiscal year 1990, Regional Offices monitored at least 25%

of the grantees they fund, a much higher percentage than was

achieved in the recent past. This trend is expected to continue

with on-site monitoring increasingly receiving emphasis. We
believe that increased monitoring 'wi11 also increase the 
attention paid by Federal staff to grantee self-assessment 
resu1 ts. While we currently have not defined a national system 
for monitoring or self-assessment, we expect to do so when the 
revised Head Start Grant Application Instructions become 
1991. 
effective sometime during fiscal year  These Instructions 
implement a three-year grant application cycle that will require 
grantees to submit a comprehensive grant application package 
once every three years. Monitoring and self-assessment are 
expected to be linked to this cycle but we have not defined that

process at this time. The revised Instructions request that 
grantees submit information regarding the progress they have 
findings. 
made in addressing self-assessment  This information 
will be submitted annually and will create an opportunity for

more reqular feedback to all grantees.

ACYF Recommendation 

Develop and provide training and technical assistance to

grantees on how to improve self-assessment.

OHDS Comment 
We concur with this recommendation. 
Head start Resource Centers are designed to provide large,
mUlti-
grantee training activities in response to needs
identified by grantees. 
We will advise the Resource Centers 
that self-assessment training should be an option for grantees 
-3
 when conducting training needs assessments and that they should 
area. In 
be prepared to provide training in this 
addition, the
Head start Bureau is planning a Management Institute for key 
1991. 
grantee staff during fiscal year  Self-assessment is a 
topic that will be addressed during the Management Institute. 
Grantee Recommendations

Grantees should: 
Provide feedback to self-assessment team members and all

staff on the findings and actions resulting from

self-assessment so that they can better understand the

process. 
Train team members thoroughly so that each fully

understands his/her component and responsibility in the

self-assessment process.

Schedule the self-assessment for no earlier than March to

allow for adequate training.

OHDS Comment 
We concur that the first two recommendations are "best practice"

activities that all grantees should address in their own 
self-assessment process. The third recommendation is affected

by plans and schedules of the individual grantees. The

self-assessment is a key activity in the early stages of a
grantee' s planning process. 
All grantees have different
schedules to address. While the March to May time-frame is a 
logical and good one for many grantees, we are reluctant to 
require it for all grantees.

-4