Department of Health and Human Services

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

E L
NROLLMENT  EVELS 

H S
IN  EAD  TART

Daniel R. Levinson

Inspector General 

April 2007

OEI-05-06-00250
 Office of Inspector General 

http://oig.hhs.gov 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, 
as amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those 
programs.  This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, 
investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components: 
Office of Audit Services 
The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors 
in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations.  These assessments help reduce waste, 
abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide 
HHS, Congress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on 
significant issues.  Specifically, these evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or 
abuse and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in departmental programs.  
To promote impact, the reports also present practical recommendations for improving 
program operations. 
Office of Investigations 
The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries 
and of unjust enrichment by providers.  The investigative efforts of OI lead to criminal 
convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil monetary penalties. 
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to 
OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all 
legal support in OIG's internal operations. OCIG imposes program exclusions and civil 
monetary penalties on health care providers and litigates those actions within HHS. 
OCIG also represents OIG in the global settlement of cases arising under the Civil False 
Claims Act, develops and monitors corporate integrity agreements, develops compliance 
program guidances, renders advisory opinions on OIG sanctions to the health care 
community, and issues fraud alerts and other industry guidance.  I N T R O D U C T I O N
  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y  

OBJECTIVES 
1.	 To determine the enrollment levels of Head Start grantees. 
2.	 To describe grantees challenges to maintaining full enrollment. 
3.	 To assess the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 
monitoring of enrollment. 
4.	 To assess ACFs enforcement of full enrollment. 
BACKGROUND 
Established in 1964, Head Start is a nationwide program designed to 
increase school readiness in children from low-income families.  Within 
ACF, the Office of Head Start administers Head Start.  In fiscal year 
(FY) 2005, ACF provided $6.8 billion in funding to grantees for 
approximately 900,000 Head Start children. Grantees are local public 
agencies, private organizations, Native American tribes, and school 
systems. 
To determine the enrollment levels of Head Start grantees, we analyzed 
attendance data from 200 randomly sampled grantees.  We also 
surveyed sampled grantees and ACF staff regarding challenges to 
maintaining full enrollment.  To assess ACFs monitoring of enrollment 
levels, we reviewed the accuracy of the enrollment data reported by 
grantees.  To assess ACFs enforcement of full enrollment, we 
interviewed grantees and ACF staff. 
FINDINGS 
Almost all Head Start grantees had high enrollment levels. In the 
2006 program year, 40 percent of grantees were fully enrolled. 
Eighty-one percent of Head Start grantees had enrollment levels of 
95 percent or higher.  Enrollment levels by grantee ranged from full 
enrollment to a low of 68 percent. 
Overall, this translated into 5 percent of Head Start slots that were 
funded but not filled. Head Start slots that are funded but not filled 
equal Federal dollars that are inefficiently used.   
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  i  EEE XXX EEE CCC UUU TTT III VVV EEE     SSS UUU MMM MMM AAA RRR YYY
Grantees cited challenges to maintaining full enrollment. Grantees 
cited the requirement to fill 90 percent of Head Start slots with very 
low-income children, competition with State and locally funded 
prekindergarten programs, and transportation issues as the biggest 
challenges to maintaining full enrollment. 
ACFs monitoring of enrollment levels may rely on inaccurate data. 
For the 2006 program year, only 11 percent of grantees reported to ACF 
actual enrollment levels that matched the actual enrollment levels we 
determined based on attendance records. We also question the ability of 
26 percent of grantees to maintain accurate attendance records and 
thus their ability to determine enrollment accurately. 
ACFs enforcement of full enrollment has increased overall but 
varies by region. ACF has increased its practice of reducing or 
withholding funds to grantees not at full enrollment. However, 
reductions varied greatly by region. In particular, there were variations 
among regions in the levels of underenrollment that prompted funding 
reductions and the amounts of the reduction. ACF has also increased 
its supplemental monitoring and is providing additional technical 
assistance to grantees. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Based on the results of our review, ACF should: 
Address grantee challenges to maintaining full enrollment. ACF 
should focus particular attention on the challenges identified in this 
report: the requirement that grantees fill 90 percent of slots with 
children from very low-income families, competition with State and 
locally funded prekindergarten programs, and transportation issues. 
Ensure that enrollment data are accurate. To help ensure the 
accuracy of reported enrollment data, ACF should work with grantees to 
facilitate the maintenance of accurate attendance records and provide 
Program Information Report training to grantees. 
Issue guidance concerning the use of funding reductions for 
grantees not at full enrollment. To ensure consistent enforcement of 
the full enrollment requirement, ACF should clarify guidelines to 
regional offices concerning the level of enrollment that warrants a 
funding reduction. ACF should also issue guidance concerning the 
calculation of funding reductions and the process of negotiating funding 
reductions with grantees. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  ii  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
RESPONSE 
ACF indicated general support for our recommendations.  However, 
ACF pointed out problems with two suggestions we offered on how our 
recommendation to address grantee enrollment challenges regarding 
the requirement that grantees fill 90 percent of slots with children from 
very low-income families might be implemented.  We continue to 
recommend that ACF address grantees reported challenges to 
maintaining full enrollment, including challenges related to the  
income-eligibility guidelines. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  iii    T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

I N T RO DUC T IO N  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

F I N D IN G S  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Almost all granteeshad high enrollment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Granteescited challenges tomaintaining full enrollment  . . . . . .  11

ACFs monitoringmay rely on inaccurate data .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

ACFs enforcement increased but varied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

R E C O MMEN D A T ION S  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Agency Comments andOffice of Inspector General Response . . .  19 

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

A:  Detailedmethodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

B:  Estimates and confidence intervals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

C:  AgencyComments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

A C K NO WL E D G M E N T S  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
 I N T R O D U C T I O N
  I N T R O D U C T I O N  

OBJECTIVES 
1.	 To determine the enrollment levels of Head Start grantees. 
2.	 To describe grantees challenges to maintaining full enrollment. 
3.	 To assess the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 
monitoring of enrollment. 
4.	 To assess ACFs enforcement of full enrollment. 
BACKGROUND 
Head Start 
Established in 1964, Head Start is a nationwide grant program 
designed to promote school readiness in children from low-income 
families. Head Start services include early childhood education; 
medical, dental, and mental health care; nutritional services; and efforts 
to encourage parental involvement. 
Within ACF, the Office of Head Start (OHS) administers Head Start.  
OHS administers four Head Start programs:  the Head Start program, 
the Early Head Start program, the American IndianAlaska Native 
Head Start program, and the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
program. In fiscal year (FY) 2005, ACF funded approximately   
900,000 slots for children, with the majority (800,750) of slots awarded 
to the Head Start program and the American IndianAlaska Native 
Head Start program.  We limited our study to these two Head Start 
programs, hereafter referred to as Head Start.   
ACF awards Head Start funds directly to grantees.  Grantees are local 
public agencies, private organizations, Native American tribes, and 
school systems.  In FY 2006, ACF awarded funds to 1,405 grantees. 
Many Head Start grantees contract out the operation of services to 
delegate agencies that operate programs at the community level. 
Head Start Eligibility 
Head Start serves children from age 3 through the State mandatory school 
age (generally age 5). Head Start services are available to families who 
meet any of the following four criteria: 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  1  III NNN TTT RRR OOO DDD UUU CCC TTT III OOO NNN
o	 The family income is at or below the poverty line (in FY 2006, 
$20,000 for a family of four)1; 
o	 The family receives Social Security Income (SSI) benefits; 
o	 The family receives benefits or services on a regular basis2 through 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); or 
o	 The family cares for a foster child. 
At least 90 percent of children enrolled by each Head Start grantee 
must be from low-income families. Head Start grantees may enroll 
children from families with incomes above the poverty line so long as 
they do not exceed 10 percent of total enrollment.3 Grantees must also 
offer 10 percent of their slots to children with disabilities, regardless of 
income.4 
Head Start Funding 
Grantees base funding is their historical funding amount from 1998. 
Additional funds are determined using a formula based on the number 
of children under age 5 living in poverty in each State.5 Funding for all 
four programs of Head Start was $6.8 billion in FY 2005.6 
Head Start funding covers not only the costs of program services 
(e.g., health services, teacher salaries, parent involvement services) but 
also administrative costs, including organizationwide management 
functions of accounting, budgeting, coordination, direction, and 
planning; as well as the management of payroll, personnel, property, 
and purchasing.7 Because grantee funding covers both direct and 
indirect costs, ACF does not compute funding using a predetermined 
per-child formula. 
Once ACF awards funds to a Head Start grantee, the funding continues 
until the grantee relinquishes the grant or ACF terminates it for cause. 
1 Annual update of the Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines, 
71 Federal Register 3848 (January 24, 2006). 
2 ACF Program Instruction, Receipt of Public Assistance and Determining Eligibility for 
Head Start (ACYF-PI-HS-99-06), July 29, 1999. 
3 45 CFR  1305.4(b)(2). A Head Start grantee operated by an Indian tribe may enroll up 
to 49 percent of its children from families whose income exceeds the low-income guidelines 
under certain conditions specified in 45 CFR  1305.4(b)(3). 
4 Section 640(d) of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.  9835(d), and 45 CFR  1305.6(c). 

5 Section 640(a)(4) of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.  9835(a)(4). 

6 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447. 

7 45 CFR  1301.32(b) and (c).

OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  2  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
After ACF grants the initial award, the grantee submits a 
noncompetitive continuation application for subsequent budget periods.8 
Grantees are generally required to match 20 percent of their Head Start 
grant award with non-Federal funds.9  According to ACF, most grantees 
fulfill this requirement through in-kind donations (e.g., subsidized 
space, volunteer staff); however, some grantees fulfill this requirement 
using State funds.    
Enrollment Requirements 
ACF assigns each grantee a specific number of children it is required to 
serve, known as the funded enrollment.  In negotiating how many Head 
Start children a grantee will serve, ACF considers variation in grantee 
services and locality costs.  By accepting their annual Head Start grant 
award, grantees agree to serve the number of children assigned.10 
Head Start regulations require grantees to maintain enrollment at  
100 percent of the funded enrollment level.11  If a child stops attending 
Head Start, the grantee must establish that a vacancy exists.  No more 
than 30 calendar days may elapse before the grantee fills the vacancy; 
otherwise, ACF considers the grantee underenrolled.  ACF refers to a 
vacancy left open more than 30 days as an enrollment vacancy.  If 
fewer than 60 days remain in the grantees program year at the time an 
enrollment vacancy occurs, the grantee can choose not to fill the vacancy 
without ACF considering it underenrolled. 
To facilitate prompt filling of vacancies, Head Start regulations require 
each grantee to maintain a waiting list that ranks children according to 
its selection criteria and to select those with the greatest need for Head 
Start services.12 
Monitoring Enrollment 
Nationally, ACF monitors Head Start enrollment through the Program 
Information Report (PIR) and the Program Review Instrument for 
8 ACF, Application and Grant Award Process.  Available online at  
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Fiscal/Gran 
t%20Award%20Process/Grant%20Award%20Process/fiscal_pub_00154a_080905.htm. 
Accessed on January 9, 2007. 
9 Section 640(b) of the Head Start Act, 42 U.S.C.  9835(b), and 45 CFR  1301.20. 
10 45 CFR  1305.2(f). 
11 45 CFR  1305.7(b). 
12 45 CFR  1305.6. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  3  II NN TT RR OO DD UU CC TT II OO NN
Systems Monitoring (PRISM). Regional and branch offices monitor 
enrollment through ongoing contact with grantees in their regions. 
Federal regulations require grantees to establish and implement 
procedures for ongoing monitoring.13 Grantees use PIR software to 
self-report enrollment, demographic, and performance data to ACF. 
Grantees report a variety of information, including their funded 
enrollment and actual enrollment levels. Two studies from the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG), Status of Efforts To Increase Qualifications of 
Head Start Teachers and Head Start Services for Children With 
Asthma, cited concerns related to PIR data.14 These reports noted that 
grantees receive little training or guidance about completing the PIR 
and questioned the usefulness of PIR data. 
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that ACF 
could not determine the level of enrollment in Head Start from PIR data 
because of inaccuracies in the database and reporting delays.15 GAO 
also noted that data often arrived after the beginning of the subsequent 
program year and that ACF allowed grantees to select the 2 months for 
which they provided enrollment figures. 16 
In 2006, ACF addressed some of these issues. Specifically, ACF now 
requires grantees to report enrollment levels for 3 specified months. 
Additionally, grantees must submit their enrollment data for these 
3 months as soon as each month has ended.17 
PRISM is a standardized instrument used by ACF staff to conduct 
comprehensive reviews of Head Start grantees. Each Head Start 
grantee receives a PRISM review every 3 years. This intensive, 
weeklong review covers all aspects of grantees performance, including 
enrollment. Using PRISM, reviewers calculate a grantees enrollment 
by counting the number of children enrolled during the week of their 
onsite review. 
13 45 CFR  1304.51(i)(2). 
14 Status of Efforts To Increase the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers 
(OEI-07-01-00560), 2004; and Head Start Services for Children With Asthma 
(OEI-09-01-00330), 2002. 
15 Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed To Monitor Underenrollment, 
(GAO-04-17), p. 2. 
16 Ibid, p. 14. 
17 ACF Information Memorandum, On-line Reporting Beginning in November, 2006 
(ACF-IM-HS-06-04), September 12, 2006. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  4  II NN TT RR OO DD UU CC TT II OO NN
Enforcing Full Enrollment 
Maintaining full enrollment was a major focus of the 2004 Head Start 
Management Initiative.18  The initiative reiterated the regulatory 
definition of underenrollment as anything less than 100 percent 
enrollment. The initiative stated that ACF would hold systematic, 
periodic discussions with grantees related to enrollment. 
Head Start regulations and guidance specify that grantees that do not 
maintain full enrollment may be referred for technical assistance or 
may face a reduction in funding, denial of refunding, or termination of 
financial assistance. 19 Regulations and guidance do not specify the 
amount of the reduction.20 ACF reports that most reductions are 
subject to negotiations between the regional offices and grantees. 
Head Start regulations state that ACF can terminate a grant or deny 
refunding if a grantee received a deficiency because of underenrollment 
and failed to correct the deficiency.21 In addition, ACF guidance states 
that ACF can decrease funding in situations in which enrollment issues 
are caused by changing demographics that have resulted in insufficient 
numbers of eligible children in a grantees service area.22 
An amendment to the Head Start Act was proposed, but not enacted, 
during the 109th Congress that would have required grantees to report 
their enrollment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who 
then would have been required to develop plans to reduce or eliminate 
underenrollment for any grantee less than 95-percent enrolled. The bill 
also provided for the recapture, reduction, or withholding of a portion of 
a grantees basic grant in the case of chronic underenrollment.23 
18 Head Start Management Initiative, 2004. Available online at: 
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Fiscal/Manag 
ement%20Initiatives/Accountability/fiscal_rep_00058_061605.html. Accessed on 
January 9, 2007. 
19 45 CFR  1304.60, 1304.61, and 1305.10; ACF Program Instruction, Achieving and 
Maintaining Full Enrollment (ACYF-PI-HS-04-03), November 30, 2004. 
20 Ibid. 
21 45 CFR  1304.60, 1304.61, and 1305.10. 
22 Achieving and Maintaining Full Enrollment (ACYF-PI-HS-04-03). 
23 School Readiness Act of 2005, H.R. 2123, 109th Cong.,  8(f) (as passed by the 
U.S. House of Representatives, October 25, 2005). 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  5  III NNN TTT RRR OOO DDD UUU CCC TTT III OOO NNN
Hispanic Families 
Although Hispanic families compose 14 percent of the population 
nationwide, Hispanic children represent 22 percent of the population 
under 5 years of age.24 Twenty-two percent of the Hispanic population 
lives in poverty, and almost one-third of Hispanic children under age 
5 lives in poverty.25 Concerns have been raised that grantees in areas 
with recent growth in Hispanic population may have difficulty 
recruiting these families because of cultural and linguistic issues. 
METHODOLOGY 
To determine the enrollment levels of Head Start grantees, we analyzed 
attendance data from 200 grantees randomly selected from a stratified 
sample. For grantees 20052006 operating period,26 hereafter referred 
to as the 2006 program year, we compared grantees actual enrollment 
to their funded enrollment. We also surveyed sampled grantees and 
ACF staff regarding challenges to maintaining full enrollment. See 
Table 1 for the definitions of key terminology used when discussing 
grantee enrollment levels. 
Table 1: Key Terminology 
Attendance  A grantees daily record of children who are present. If a child does not 
data  attend for 30 consecutive days, the child is no longer considered enrolled. 
Actual  The number of children enrolled with the grantee as of the end of a 
enrollment  month. 
Funded  The number of children the grantee is funded to enroll, as 
enrollment  determined by ACF and as stated in the grantees application. 
Source: OIG summary of key terminology, 2006. 
To assess ACFs monitoring of enrollment levels, we reviewed the 
accuracy of PIR enrollment data and attendance records submitted by 
grantees. To assess ACFs enforcement of full enrollment, we 
interviewed ACF staff and grantees. Lastly, we reviewed all Head Start 
laws, regulations, and policies pertinent to enrollment. 
24 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 
Supplement, 2005. These figures were generated using the Microdata Access, Current 
Population Survey Table Creator. Available online at 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/cps_table_creator.html. Accessed on 
January 9, 2007. 
25 Ibid. 
26 Operating period is defined by the grantees contract, and the months covered can 
differ by grantee. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  6  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
Below we provide a basic description of our methodological approach.  
See Appendix A for a more detailed description of our methodology. 
Sample 
This study determines the enrollment levels for Head Start grantees in 
the 50 States and Washington, DC, hereafter referred to as the  
51 States. As previously stated, we excluded grantees from the Early 
Head Start and Migrant and Seasonal programs.  We excluded Early 
Head Start grantees because this is a much smaller program that, 
according to ACF staff, does not face the same enrollment challenges. 
We excluded the Migrant and Seasonal program grantees because they 
face a unique set of logistical, recruitment, and enrollment challenges 
not typical of other grantees. 
We also excluded 28 grantees in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands because the  
U.S. Census Current Population Survey does not capture Hispanic data 
for these locations and we therefore could not stratify grantees in these 
areas appropriately.  The exclusion of these 28 grantees brought our 
study population to 1,377 grantees.  We randomly selected 200 grantees 
out of the 1,377 grantees in the 51 States. 
To assess enrollment issues related to the shifting Hispanic population, 
we stratified our sample according to recent growth in the Hispanic 
preschool-age population using U.S. Census data.  Grantees in counties 
where the total Hispanic population age 4 and under27 increased by 
more than 40 percent between 2000 and 2004 fell into the Hispanic-
growth stratum; the remaining grantees were placed in the 
nongrowth stratum. 28  To improve our estimates, we also stratified by 
grantee size.  See Table 2 on the next page for our stratified sampling 
structure. 
27 This was the most appropriate census category available. 
28 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 
Supplement, 20002004, Ethnicity and Ancestry Statistics Branch, Population Division.   
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  7  II NN TT RR OO DD UU CC TT II OO NN

Table 2: Sample Structure 
Number of 
Number of  grantees whose 
Stratum  Grantee  grantees  attendance data 
Number  Stratum Description  population  selected  were reviewed 
Hispanic-growth grantees  221  75  68 
1  Small grantees (funded enrollment <=1,600)  211  65  58 
2  Large grantees (funded enrollment >1,600)  10  10  10 
Nongrowth grantees  1,156  125  111 
3  Small grantees (funded enrollment <=600)  908  55  49 
4  Medium grantees (funded enrollment 6016,000)  241  63  56 
5  Large grantees (funded enrollment >6,000)  7  7  6 
Total  1,377  200  179 
Data Collection 
We obtained data for this study from grantee attendance records, 
grantee surveys, and interviews with ACF staff. We also obtained 
2006 program year PIR data. 
We requested 3 months (November 2005 and January and April 2006) of 
attendance records from sampled grantees. We selected these 3 months 
after consulting with grantees in pretest interviews to ensure that these 
months were representative of enrollment during the rest of those 
years.29 
Although our request for attendance data yielded a response rate of 
93 percent, we reviewed attendance data for 90 percent (179 of 200) of 
sampled grantees. We did not review all attendance records we received 
because some grantees did not include attendance data for all of their 
delegate agencies, or they submitted such a large volume of paper 
attendance records that we could not analyze them within the 
timeframe of the study. 
In June 2006, we surveyed grantees to ascertain their difficulty in 
maintaining full enrollment and to identify challenges affecting 
enrollment. Overall, our survey achieved a response rate of 95 percent 
29 We did not select the last 2 months of the program year because of the exemption that 
allows grantees to leave a vacancy open if it occurs within 60 days of the end of the program 
year. See 45 CFR  1305.7(b). 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  8  II NN TT RR OO DD UU CC TT II OO NN
(189 of 200). We also asked ACF staff to identify challenges grantees 
face in maintaining full enrollment. 
To assess ACFs oversight of enrollment levels, we conducted structured 
interviews with ACF headquarters staff and key staff in all 10 regional 
offices and the American IndianAlaska Native program office 
(hereafter referred to as 11 regional offices). 
Data Analysis 
To determine grantees enrollment, we counted all children who 
attended at least once within each month (i.e., 30 calendar days). We 
determined the level of actual enrollment by averaging grantees 
attendance data over the 3 sampled months. We then compared 
grantees actual enrollment as determined based on attendance records 
to their funded enrollment as reported by ACF. 
To assess ACFs monitoring of enrollment, we reviewed the accuracy of 
grantee data self-reported to the PIR and attendance records submitted 
to OIG. We compared the actual enrollment levels reported by grantees 
in the PIR to our determination of actual enrollment based on 
attendance records. We also compared grantees reported funded 
enrollment to the funded enrollment figures provided by ACF. Finally, 
we assessed the ability of grantees to provide us with complete, 
unduplicated attendance records based on our data request. 
Unless otherwise noted, we projected all statistics to the population of 
Head Start grantees in our study. See Appendix B for a list of 
95-percent confidence intervals for all statistical projections. 
Limitations 
Although we requested that grantees provide data for ACF-funded 
children only and pretested our instruments to ensure their validity, 
some grantees may have incorrectly submitted attendance records for 
State-funded children. However, we believe that the risk of this 
occurring is minimal because ACF regularly asks grantees to 
distinguish between ACF-funded and State-funded enrollment for the 
PIR. Further, when grantees use State funds as the 20-percent fiscal 
match, children served through these matching funds are considered 
ACF-funded children. 
Standards 
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for 
Inspections issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and 
Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  9    F I N D I N G S

Almost all Head Start grantees had high  Overall, enrollment rates by 
enrollment levels  grantees were high.  Forty percent 
of grantees were fully enrolled in 
the 2006 program year. Eighty-one percent of grantees had enrollment 
levels of 95 percent or higher.  Ninety-one percent of grantees had 
enrollment levels in excess of 90 percent, leaving only 9 percent of 
grantees with enrollment levels less than 90 percent.  See Table 3 for a 
breakdown of the enrollment levels by stratum. 
Table 3: Percentage of Grantees by Enrollment Levels 
Enrollment Levels  Percentage of Grantees 
Grantees in  Grantees Not 
Hispanic- in Hispanic-
  All Grantees  Growth Areas  Growth Areas 
100%   40%  41%  40% 
 95% and < 100%  41%  50%  40% 
 90% and < 95%   10%  3%  11% 
Less than 90%  9%  6%  9% 
Source:  OIG analysis of grantee enrollment, 2006. 
Despite grantees overall high enrollment levels, the Head Start 

program did experience underenrollment.  Enrollment levels by 

grantees in our sample ranged from full enrollment to a low of   

68 percent.30

Nationally, an estimated 5 percent of slots were funded but unfilled 
The 5 percent of funded but unfilled slots represents approximately 
33,726 enrollment vacancies.  Given the $6.8 billion cost of the Head 
Start program, less-than-full enrollment could represent ineffective use 
of considerable Federal dollars.  Additionally, less-than-full enrollment 
may mean that vulnerable children are not receiving early childhood 
services for which they are eligible. 
Grantees in areas with recent growth in the Hispanic population had levels 
of enrollment similar to those of grantees in all other areas 
Concerns have been raised that grantees serving areas with a recent 
growth in the Hispanic population may have difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment because they may have difficulty modifying their 
recruitment strategies to adapt to the cultural and linguistic differences 
30 Eighteen grantees in our sample had enrollment levels lower than 90 percent, and           
three grantees were less than 70-percent enrolled.   
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  10  F I N D I N G S  
in the shifting population.  However, more grantees in the 
Hispanic-growth areas were at least 95-percent enrolled than grantees 
in all other areas.  Specifically, 91 percent of grantees in 
Hispanic-growth areas were at least 95-percent enrolled, while  
80 percent of grantees in the non-Hispanic-growth areas were at least 
95-percent enrolled.  This difference is statistically significant at the 
95-percent confidence level.  This statistical difference implies that 
grantees serving areas with high growth rates of Hispanic children have 
higher enrollment levels.  We did not evaluate grantees recruitment 
and enrollment of Hispanic children.   
Nine regional offices reported a growth of Hispanic families in their 
regions. None of the staff from these offices believe that the increase 
poses a challenge for enrollment.  In fact, staff from two regional offices 
reported that the increase in this population helps grantees to maintain 
full enrollment; one office stated that this is because grantees in 
Hispanic-growth areas have a larger income-eligible population from 
which to enroll.  Moreover, 80 percent of grantees that reported recent 
increases in Hispanic families in their service areas reported changing 
their recruitment strategies to reflect this population change. The most 
common changes to recruitment strategies were translating program 
material into Spanish and hiring Spanish-speaking staff.   
Grantees cited challenges to maintaining full  Fifty-five percent of grantees
enrollment  reported difficulty maintaining 
full enrollment during the  
2006 program year.31  Even among grantees with enrollment levels of 
95 percent or higher, 49 percent reported difficulty.  Grantees who 
reported difficulties were asked to identify the specific challenges that 
they faced in maintaining full enrollment.  Grantees cited the 
requirement to fill 90 percent of Head Start slots with very low-income 
children, competition with State and locally funded prekindergarten 
programs, and transportation issues. Many ACF regional offices also 
cited that these challenges face grantees in maintaining full enrollment. 
31 In our sample, 106 of 189 grantees reported difficulty maintaining full enrollment.  
The projected percentage is 55 percent of grantees.  Because data are self-reported, the 
noted challenges are the grantees perceptions and not demonstrated reasons that grantees 
are not at full enrollment.   
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  11  F I N D I N G S  
See Table 4 for the percentage of grantees and the number of ACF 
regional offices that cited each challenge. 
Table 4: Challenges to Maintaining Full Enrollment 
Percentage of grantees that  ACF regional offices that 
reported challenge  reported challenge 
Income requirements too low  71%  6 of 11 
Competition with other childcare programs  49%  9 of 11 
Transportation issues  46%  6 of 11 
Source:  OIG analysis of grantee surveys and ACF interviews, 2006. 
Grantees report that the income requirement is too low for their service 
areas 
Among the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining 
full enrollment, 71 percent stated that the dollar amounts of the income 
requirements are too low for their service areas.  As a result, grantees 
reported difficulty recruiting enough eligible families.  Similarly,  
41 percent of grantees noted a decline in the number of eligible families 
in their service areas.   
Grantees reported that the working poor in their service areas earn 
incomes slightly above the poverty guidelines, often at 120 to   
150 percent of the poverty level,32 and therefore do not qualify for Head 
Start. For example, a family of four with two parents earning the 
Federal minimum wage, $5.15/hour,33 would earn enough to be slightly 
over the Head Start income guidelines.  This problem is of even greater 
concern to grantees in States with higher minimum wages. 
Twenty-six percent of grantees stated that they could better maintain 
full enrollment if ACF increased the income threshold or if ACF 
permitted grantees to serve a greater number of families that are above 
the stated income guidelines. 
Grantees report that competition with other childcare programs is a 
challenge 
Another reported challenge to maintaining full enrollment relates to the 
recent growth in the number of subsidized State and locally funded 
32 This amounts to $24,000$30,000/year for a family of four, respectively. 
33 Section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended                     
(29 U.S.C.  206(a)(1)). 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  12  FFFF IIII NNNN DDDD IIII NNNN GGGG SSSS  
prekindergarten programs. Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported 
difficulty maintaining full enrollment, 49 percent stated that they 
compete with these programs for eligible children. According to 
grantees, these programs are often more convenient to a parents job, 
the familys home, or places siblings are enrolled, or are more 
compatible with full-time work schedules. Further, grantees noted that 
State and locally funded programs can often recruit Head Start-eligible 
families in addition to families above the poverty guidelines because 
these programs do not have to comply with Federal income 
requirements. 
Grantees report that they are unable to provide, or face obstacles in 
providing, transportation services 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, 46 percent reported transportation issues as a challenge to 
maintaining full enrollment: either they are unable to provide 
transportation at all or they face obstacles to providing it. Some 
grantees in rural areas find that eligible families live outside their 
transportation service areas. Budget constraints have forced grantees 
in both urban and rural areas to reduce or eliminate bus routes. In 
addition, grantees stated that State programs are able to offer 
transportation while many Head Start grantees are not, further 
contributing to a competitive disadvantage. 
ACF primarily relies on PIR
ACFs monitoring of enrollment levels may rely 
data to monitor enrollment. 
on inaccurate data 
We found inaccuracies in the 
grantee-reported actual enrollment and funded enrollment data in the 
PIR. We also have concerns about the accuracy of the attendance 
records some grantees use as the basis for reporting their actual 
enrollment to the PIR. 
Most grantees reported inaccurate enrollment data in the PIR 
For the 2006 program year, only 11 percent of grantees reported actual 
enrollment levels that matched those we determined based on our 
review of grantee-provided attendance records. Of the 89 percent of 
grantees that misreported their actual enrollment levels, 69 percent 
overreported their enrollment and 19 percent underreported their 
enrollment. The net effect of this misreporting is an overreporting by 
38,587 children. Of the grantees that misreported, 20 percent 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  13  FF II NN DD II NN GG SS  
misreported by more than 50 children, which accounts for 88 percent of 
the misreporting. 
Grantees overreporting affects ACFs ability to monitor enrollment 
using PIR data. According to the 2006 PIR data, total actual enrollment 
was 4 percent higher than the total funded enrollment. By contrast, in 
reviewing attendance records, we determined that the total actual 
enrollment was an estimated 5 percent lower than total funded 
enrollment. 
Similarly, our review indicated that 40 percent of grantees were fully 
enrolled, while PIR data indicated that 59 percent of grantees were fully 

enrolled. We found that
 Table 5: Percentage of Grantees by

9 percent of grantees had
 Enrollment Levels (OIG vs. PIR) 

enrollment rates of less

Enrollment Levels 
 Percentage of 

than 90 percent. 
 Grantees 

According to PIR data, 
 OIG review
 PIR  

only 1 percent of grantees 

100% 
 40% 
 59%

were less than 90-percent 

95% and <100% 
 41% 
 36%

enrolled. See Table 5 for a 

90% and <95%
 10% 
 5%

full comparison of the OIG 

Less than 90%
 9% 
 1%

review of enrollment levels 
Source: OIG analysis of grantee enrollment and PIR data, 

by grantee to the reported  2006. 

PIR data.34

In addition to reporting actual enrollment, grantees report their 

understanding of their funded enrollment in the PIR. In the 2006 

program year, 7.5 percent of grantees reported in the PIR funded

enrollment levels different from levels in official ACF records. 

Fifty-seven percent of these inaccuracies involved differences of more

than 20 slots from official ACF records. ACF headquarters staff could 

not identify reasons for these discrepancies. These differences limit the

validity of the PIR and raise concerns that some grantees are unaware

of the number of children whom they are responsible for serving. 

Two previous OIG reports highlight the need for PIR training to ensure

accurate reporting.35 The inaccuracies in PIR data suggest that

34 There are no statistically significant differences between OIG and PIR enrollment 
levels for grantees 95- to less than 100-percent enrolled and 90 to less than 95-percent 
enrolled. 
35 Status of Efforts To Increase the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers, and Head 
Start Services for Children With Asthma. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  14  FFF III NNN DDD III NNN GGG SSS  
grantees are still not receiving PIR training. Only 3 of 11 regional 
offices reported providing PIR training to grantees and only 6 percent of 
grantees reported receiving any (PIR or other) enrollment-related 
training from their regional offices. 
The ability of 26 percent of grantees to produce accurate attendance counts 
is questionable 
PIR data may be inaccurate if Head Start grantees are unable to 
accurately monitor attendance and thus determine enrollment. In 
conducting this review, we had significant concerns about the ability of 
26 percent of grantees to produce accurate attendance counts. We 
determined accurate enrollment counts for these grantees only after a 
labor-intensive cross-check among multiple files. 
In response to our data request, 74 percent of sampled grantees 
provided records for all children they served in a given month compiled 
into a single file or list, or used a system capable of producing such a 
report.36  Twenty-two percent of grantees submitted attendance data 
separated by classroom or delegate agency and did not appear to have 
systems capable of compiling accurate attendance lists. Another 
4 percent of grantees could not provide us with completed attendance 
data because they could not collect attendance records from all of their 
delegate agencies or the burden of gathering their attendance data 
would have taken longer than the study allowed.37 
Regional offices reported
ACFs enforcement of full enrollment has 
taking a variety of
increased overall but varies by region 
enforcement actions with 
grantees that were not 
fully enrolled. The most commonly cited enforcement action was 
withholding or reducing funds. Other commonly cited actions include 
supplemental monitoring and providing technical assistance. 
36 Several electronic software packages are capable of producing an unduplicated, 
complete list of children. Therefore, grantees that submitted data from one of these 
systems could produce accurate counts of their enrollment. 
37 We accepted grantee data up to 2.5 months after our initial data request. 
OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  15  F I N D I N G S  
ACFs action of reducing or withholding funds has increased, but its use 
varies by region 
Reducing or withholding funds as an enforcement action has increased 
since 2003. At that time, three regional offices reduced funds for six 
grantees, and two regional offices withheld funds.38 In the 2006 
program year, 8 regional offices reported that they reduced funds for  
30 grantees.  In addition, three regional offices temporarily withheld 
funding until the grantees achieved full enrollment.39 
The levels of enrollment that prompted regions to reduce funds varied 
widely in 2006: five regions reported reducing funds when a grantee 
was chronically underenrolled,40 one region reduced funds when 
enrollment levels fell below 90 percent, and one region reported 
reducing funds to grantees less than 100-percent enrolled. Among the 
eight regional offices reporting funding reductions, four reduced funds 
when the number of eligible families in grantees service areas declined. 
The amount of funding reductions imposed by regions also varied.  To 
determine funding reductions, 6 of 11 regional offices reported that they 
negotiate a cost-per-child reduction less overhead and administrative 
costs.  Among the 30 grantees that experienced funding reductions in 
2006, there was over a $9,000 range between the cost-per-child 
reduction.41 
The observed range of reductions per enrollment vacancy may be 
attributed to a number of factors. First, there is no standard Head 
Start cost per child.  Therefore, grantees funded to serve the same 
number of children may receive different grant awards.  Second, 
regional offices, in consultation with ACF, negotiate funding reductions 
with grantees.  Lastly, the only guidance ACF headquarters provides to 
regional offices describes situations in which a funding reduction may 
38 Head Start:  Better Data and Processes Needed To Monitor Underenrollment 
(GAO-04-17), p. 25. 
39 These grantees had between 10 and 200 enrollment vacancies.   
40 Three regional offices did not define chronic, one regional office defined a grantee as 
chronically underenrolled when the grantee was underenrolled for at least 6 months, and 
one regional office defined a grantee as chronically underenrolled when a grantee was 
underenrolled for at least 1 year. 
41 The 30 grantees that lost funding in the 2006 program year lost between $906 and 
$10,000 per enrollment vacancy. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  16  F I N D I N G S  
be appropriate. 42  The guidance does not specify how to determine the 
amount of the reduction or the process of negotiation. 
Supplemental monitoring and technical assistance also increased 
Since 2003, ACF has also increased its use of supplemental monitoring 
and technical assistance as enforcement actions.  In 2003, only five 
regional offices increased monitoring and three provided technical 
assistance in response to underenrolled grantees.43  In the 2006 
program year, 8 of 11 regional offices increased monitoring and 6 of 11 
provided technical assistance to grantees not at full enrollment. 
42 Once a regional office becomes aware of an underenrolled grantee, the grantee 
generally has 90 days to correct the problem.  If the grantee remains underenrolled, it may 
be cited as deficient and given another period, not to exceed 90 days, before the regional 
office begins the process of a funding reduction or termination.  Achieving and Maintaining 
Full Enrollment (ACYF-PI-HS-04-03). 
43 Head Start:  Better Data and Processes Needed To Monitor Underenrollment 
(GAO-04-17), p. 25. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  17  FRR IEE NCC DOO IMMN MMG EES NN  DD AA TT II OO NN SS   
  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  

We found relatively high levels of enrollment among Head Start 
grantees.  In fact, 81 percent of grantees were at least 95-percent 
enrolled in the 2006 program year. Despite high enrollment, more than 
half of grantees reported challenges to maintaining full enrollment.  In 
addition, we found continued inaccuracies in the data used to monitor 
enrollment.  Finally, we found that although ACF enforcement of full 
enrollment had increased, enforcement varied by region. 
Based on the results of our review, ACF should: 
Address Grantee Challenges to Maintaining Full Enrollment 
ACF should focus particular attention on the challenges identified in 
this report:  specifically, the requirement that grantees fill 90 percent of 
slots with children from very low-income families, competition with 
State and locally funded prekindergarten programs, and transportation 
issues. 
o	 To address concerns regarding the requirement that grantees fill  
90 percent of slots with children from very low-income families, 
ACF could amend its regulations to increase the allowable 
percentage of eligible families that exceed the income guidelines or 
assist grantees in identifying and recruiting categorically eligible 
families, i.e., those receiving TANF or SSI or those with foster 
children. 
o	 To address concerns about competition with State and locally 
funded prekindergarten programs, ACF could work with grantees 
to increase coordination with these programs.  Increased 
coordination could help ensure that States make information 
available to parents about Head Start programs.   
o	 To address concerns regarding transportation, ACF could provide 
technical assistance to grantees regarding transportation resources. 
Ensure That Enrollment Data Are Accurate  
To help ensure the accuracy of reported enrollment data, ACF should: 
o	 Work with grantees to maintain accurate attendance records. To 
facilitate this, ACF could encourage the use of electronic attendance 
records. 
o	 Provide PIR training to grantees. 
o	 Fill in the grantees funded enrollment field in the PIR. Because 
ACF establishes the funded enrollment level, there is no need to ask 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  18  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  
grantees to report this.  This allows for an unnecessary source of 
reporting error. 
Issue Guidance Concerning the Use of Funding Reductions for Grantees 
Not at Full Enrollment 
To ensure consistent enforcement of the full enrollment requirement, 
ACF should: 
o	 clarify guidelines to regional offices concerning the level of 
enrollment that warrants a funding reduction, and 
o	 issue guidance to regional offices concerning the calculation of 
funding reductions and the process of negotiating funding 
reductions with grantees. 
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
RESPONSE 
ACF indicated general support for our recommendations.  However, 
ACF pointed out problems with two suggestions we offered on how our 
recommendation to address grantee enrollment challenges regarding 
the requirement that grantees fill 90 percent of slots with children from 
very low-income families might be implemented.  First, ACF stated that 
it is not within its purview to change the income guidelines. Second, 
ACF did not support our suggestion to amend its regulation to increase 
the allowable percentage of eligible Head Start families that exceed the 
low-income guidelines. ACF felt that this change would allow grantees 
to enroll higher-income children without ensuring participation by the 
neediest children.  The complete text of ACFs comments is located in 
Appendix C. 
We understand ACFs concern that Head Start continue to serve the 
neediest children.  However, grantees cited the current Head Start 
income-eligibility requirements as a challenge to maintaining full 
enrollment.  Thus, we continue to recommend that ACF address 
grantees reported challenges to maintaining full enrollment, including 
challenges related to the income-eligibility guidelines.  
ACFs technical comments are not included in Appendix C, but we made 
changes in the report where appropriate. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  19    A P P E N D I X ~ A  

DETAILED METHODOLOGY 
Sample 
To improve the precision of our enrollment estimates, we stratified our 
sample by grantee size.  Within the Hispanic-growth stratum, we 
created two substrata based on size; within the nongrowth stratum, we 
created three substrata based on size.  The size-of-grantee strata are 
defined differently for the Hispanic-growth stratum and the nongrowth 
stratum because the relative sizes of grantees are different for these 
groups (i.e., there are more large grantees in the nongrowth stratum). 
We do not make comparisons of grantees based on their size. 
Data Collection   
Data for this study came from grantee attendance records, grantee 
surveys, interviews with the Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF) staff, and 2006 program year Program Information Report (PIR) 
data. 
To ensure the construct validity of our grantee survey instrument and 
data request for attendance records, we pretested both on a subset of 
22 grantees.  After the grantees responded, we contacted them by phone 
to conduct a short cognitive interview to determine whether the survey 
and data request were clear and understandable.  The vast majority of 
grantees interpreted the questions as we intended.  We altered the few 
unclear questions to make them more understandable.  We included 
these pretested grantees in the final sampling frame. 
We also conducted in-depth reviews of attendance records for 9 of the  
22 Head Start grantees selected for pretesting. In these reviews, we 
compared grantees original attendance records with attendance 
information grantees provided us.  We found that our instrument was 
successful in eliciting accurate attendance records. 
Our request for attendance data yielded a response rate of 93 percent 
(185 of 200).  We designed our sample to produce an estimate of the 
total number of enrolled and underenrolled Head Start slots with an 
expected relative precision of 15 percent at the 95-percent confidence 
level, assuming a grantee response rate of 80 percent.  Beyond the nine 
grantees that did not respond to our request, an additional six grantees 
did not comply with the data request because they either could not 
collect attendance records from all their delegate agencies or the effort 
of gathering all of their attendance data would have taken the grantees 
more time than the study allowed.  
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  20  A P P E N D I X   ~   A  
Another six grantees submitted a large volume of hard-copy attendance 
records.  We determined that the task of reviewing these hard-copy 
records was significant and would have taken longer than the time 
allotted for the study.  Because we designed our sample to obtain 
precise estimates with a grantee response rate as low as 80 percent and 
our response rate would be 90 percent (179 of 200) without including 
these six, we did not analyze attendance records for these six grantees. 
Thus, we reviewed attendance data for 90 percent (179 of 200) of 
sampled grantees. 
To understand ACF regional offices enforcement of full enrollment, we 
interviewed staff from all 11 regions.  We asked regional offices about 
their definitions of underenrollment, the actions they took in response 
to grantees failure to maintain full enrollment, and the number of 
grantees whose funding they reduced and/or froze during the  
2006 program year because of the inability to maintain full enrollment. 
Data Analysis 
Estimating enrollment levels. For each grantee, we counted children as 
enrolled if they attended at least once within a given month.  We could 
not determine whether a child whose first day of attendance was after 
the beginning of the month was filling a vacancy that had been open for 
more than 30 days.  Also, because we counted each child who attended 
at least 1 day in the month as a separate enrolled slot, it is possible that 
we double-counted children who were filling the same slot.  For 
example, if a child attended at the beginning of the month and then 
dropped out and another child filled that slot within 30 days, we would 
count them as filling two enrolled slots.  This method produced a 
conservative count of enrolled children. 
We used grantees average attendance data over 3 sampled months to 
determine their actual levels of enrollment.  We then compared the 
number of children actually enrolled to grantees funded enrollment 
according to ACF. We projected from our sample to the population of 
Head Start grantees to estimate the proportion of fully enrolled 
grantees and the degree to which other grantees were enrolled.  We also 
estimated enrollment levels nationwide and the total number of 
enrollment vacancies.   
Comparing our estimates of enrollment levels with the PIR.  The PIR 
requires that grantees report their enrollment for 3 specified months 
per year. To facilitate comparison between our enrollment data and the 
PIR, we chose two sampled months (November 2005 and April 2006) to 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  21  A P P E N D I X   ~   A  
overlap with PIR reporting months. To assess accurate reporting of 
actual enrollment levels, we compared the 179 grantees actual 
enrollment levels from our review to the actual enrollment levels they 
reported in the PIR for these 2 months.   
Limitations 
Although we requested that grantees provide data for ACF-funded 
children only and we pretested our instruments to ensure validity, some 
grantees may have incorrectly submitted attendance records for 
State-funded children.  
State funding for Head Start services is still relatively uncommon.  ACF 
headquarters staff reported that State-funded Head Start slots are 
proportionally few compared to ACF-funded Head Start slots.  
According to ACF, only 7 percent (14 of 200) of sampled grantees served 
State-funded children during the 2006 program year. In the event that 
some grantees included State-funded children in their attendance 
records, our enrollment level estimates would be conservative. 
To reduce the possible effect of grantees reporting State-funded children 
along with ACF-funded children in their attendance records, we 
considered grantees whose actual enrollment was greater than    
ACF-funded enrollment to be fully enrolled and did not report the 
amount of overenrollment. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  22  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  
  A P P E N D I X ~ B  

ESTIMATES AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS 

Table 6A: Estimates Discussed in Finding One:  Almost All Head Start Grantees Had High 
Enrollment Levels 
95-Percent  
Sample  Point  Confidence 
Estimate Description  Size  Estimate  Interval 
Percentage of grantees at least 95-percent enrolled   179  81.5%  74.2%88.9% 
Overall percentage of Head Start slots unfilled  179  4.6%  2.9%6.2% 
Number of total unfilled Head Start slots  179  33,726  20,55146,901 
Percentage of grantees in the Hispanic strata at least 95-percent 
enrolled  68  91.0%  85.7%96.3% 
Percentage of grantees in the non-Hispanic strata at least  
95-percent enrolled  111  79.7%  71.0%88.4% 
Percentage of grantees who reported changing their recruitment 
strategies because of an increase in the Hispanic population in their 
service area   111  79.7%  70.2%89.2% 
Source:  Office of Inspector General analysis of grantee attendance records, 2006. 
Table 6B: Estimates in Table 3 of Finding One:  Almost All Head Start Grantees Had High 
Enrollment Levels 
Percentage of Grantees 
Enrollment Levels  95-Percent Confidence Interval 
Grantees in Hispanic- Grantees Not in Hispanic-
All Grantees  Growth Areas  Growth Areas 
(n = 179)  (n = 68)  (n = 111) 
40.2%  41.0%  40.1% 
100%   (30.8%49.6%)  (30.6%51.4%)  (29.1%51.1%) 
41.3%  50.1%  39.6% 
 95% and < 100%  (32.1%50.6%)  (39.6%60.6%)  (28.8%50.5%) 
9.8%  2.6%  11.2% 
 90% and < 95%  (4.1%15.5%)  (0.9%7.2%)  (4.4%18.0%) 
8.7%  6.4%  9.1% 
< 90%  (3.4%13.9%)  (1.7%11.0%)  (2.9%15.3%) 
Source:   Office of Inspector General analysis of grantee attendance records, 2006. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  23  A P P E N D I X   ~   B  

Table 7: Estimates Discussed in Finding Two:  Grantees Cited Common Challenges To Maintaining 
Full Enrollment 
95-Percent  
Sample  Point  Confidence 
Estimate Description  Size  Estimate  Interval 
Percentage of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment   189  54.7%  45.6%63.9% 
Percentage of grantees at least 95-percent enrolled that expressed 
difficulty maintaining full enrollment  144  48.9%  38.4%59.4% 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, the percentage that cited low-income requirements as a 
challenge  106  71.2%  60.2%82.1% 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, the percentage that cited population shifts/declines as a 
challenge  106  41.3%  29.0%53.7% 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, the percentage that stated that they could better 
maintain full enrollment if ACF increased the income thresholds or 
permitted grantees to serve a greater number of families above the 
stated income guidelines 106  26.0%  15.2%36.8% 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, the percentage that cited competition with State 
programs as a challenge  106  49.5%  37.0%62.0% 
Of the 55 percent of grantees that reported difficulty maintaining full 
enrollment, the percentage that cited transportation issues as a 
challenge  106  45.8%  33.3%58.2% 
Source:   Office of Inspector General analysis of grantee surveys, 2006. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  24  A P P E N D I X   ~   B  

Table 8: Estimates Discussed in Finding Three:  ACFs Monitoring of Enrollment Levels May Rely 
on Inaccurate Data 
95-Percent  
Sample  Point  Confidence 
Estimate Description  Size  Estimate  Interval 
Percentage of grantees that reported actual enrollment levels that 
matched those we determined based on our review of attendance 
records  175  11.2%  4.8%17.6% 
Percentage of grantees that misreported actual enrollment levels  175  88.8%  82.4%95.2% 
Percentage of grantees that overreported actual enrollment levels  175  69.4%  60.7%78.1% 
Percentage of grantees that underreported actual enrollment levels  175  19.4%  12.3%26.5% 
Net number of children misreported  159  38,587  22,80254,373 
Percentage of grantees that misreported actual enrollment levels by 
more than 50 children  175  19.6%  12.3%27.0% 
Percentage of misreporting accounted for by the 20 percent of 
grantees that misreported by more than 50 children  159  87.8%  80.8%94.7% 
Percentage of grantees that reported receiving any enrollment-
related training from their regional offices  189  5.7%  0.9%10.5% 
Percentage of grantees for which we had significant concerns about 
their ability to produce accurate attendance counts  191  26.2%  17.9%34.4% 
Percentage of grantees that provided records for all children they 
served in a given month compiled into a single file or list or used 
systems capable of producing such reports  191  73.8%  65.6%82.1% 
Percentage of grantees that submitted attendance data separately 
by classroom or delegate agency and did not appear to have 
systems capable of compiling accurate attendance lists  191  21.7%  14.0%29.4% 
Percentage of grantees that could not provide us with completed 
attendance data because they could not collect attendance records 
from all their delegate agencies or the task of gathering attendance 
data would have taken longer than the study allowed  191  4.5%  0.3%8.6% 
Source:  Office of Inspector General analysis of grantee surveys and attendance records, 2006. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  25   
   
 A P P E N D I X ~ C  
AGENCY COMMENTS 
 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  26  A P P E N D I X   ~   C  

  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  27 
 A P P E N D I X   ~   C  

  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  28 
   A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S  

This report was prepared under the direction of Ann Maxwell, Regional 
Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Chicago 
regional office, and Thomas Komaniecki, Deputy Regional Inspector 
General. 
This report was led by Emily Melnick and Anne Bracken.  Other 
principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff who contributed 
include Kevin Farber, Alan Levine, Tamara Perry, Louise Schoggen, 
Elise Stein, Rosaella Washington, and Mara Werner. 
  OEI-05-06-00250  ENROLLMENT LEVELS IN HEAD START  29