.....  ' - . .
READINESS TO EXPAN D 

HEAD  START  EN ROLLM ENT

C;f,RVICf5' 
. Kusserow 
Richard P
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
AUGUST'1991
lq"dm  . '
. '
' .
- '
' - - -
L .
1- , 
GENERA 
OFFICE-
OFINSPRCfOR-
The  Officeoflnsp ctorGeneral (OIG), as mandated by Public Law95
mission of the  ,!1 . 
452, as amended, is to protect the intc:grity of the Department of Health ahdHuman 
Services' (HHS) programs as wellaslhehealthand .welfare of beneficiariessetvedby , 
those programs. This statutory mission iscarriedout through a naticinwidenetworkof 
audits, investigations, and inspections cQnducted by threeOIG operating .components: 
the Offce , of Audit Services, the Offce of Inve tigations, and the Office of Evaluation 
and Inspections. The OIG  HHS of program and 
alsQ informs the Secretary of 
. management problems, and tecommenctscourses to correct them. 
AUDIT SERVICE
OFFICE OF 

TheOIG' s 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 
examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees 
done by others. Audits 
and contractors in carrng out their respective responsibilties, and are intended to 
provide independent assessments :of HHSprograms and operations in order to reduce 
waste, abuse and mismanagernentand to promote economy and effciency throughout 
the Department. 
OFFICE OF INVETIGATIONS 
TheOIG' s Office of InvestigationsJOI) conducts criminal , and administrative 
, civil
inHHSprograms or to HHS beneficiaries 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing 
and of unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal 
convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil ' money penalties. The 01 also oversees 
patient 
State i\1edicaid fraud control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and 
abuse in the Medicaid program. 
EVALUATION  INSPECTONS
OFFICE OF 
 AN 
The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term 
management and program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues 
concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The findings and 
recommendations contained in the inspections reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-
to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental 
programs. This report was prepared in the New York Regional Offce under the 
direction of Regional Inspector General Thomas F. Tully. Project staff included: 
Joseph J. Corso Jr., Project Leader  Jodi Nudelman 
Joseph Benkoski  Alan S. Meyer 
Wiliam Counihan  Alan S. Levine, Headquarters 
Luci1Je M. Cop  Health and Human Services

Department of 
OFFICE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL

READINESS TO EXPAND

HEAD START ENROLLMENT

~ Sf,RVJCES. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
'0 
OEI-02-91-00741 
lt-l 
" "d.()  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted to assess the capacity of the Head Sta system to successfully 
manage the current and future enrollment expansion process. 
BACKGROUND 
This inspection was requested by the Assistant Secretar for Management and Budget (ASMB), 
Star 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), based on concerns about the Head 
system s capacity to expand at a time of rapidly increasing appropriations. 
The national Head Star program is in its 26th year, and is now administered by the newly 
(ACF). It serves primarly low-income 
fOff1ed Administration for Children and Families 
children, ages 3 to 5, and their families. Currently about 1,300 grantees operate local Head Start 
programs. 
There were two rounds of Head Star enrollment expansion in FY 1990 totaling $266 million, a 
21 percent increase over FY 1989; another $159 milion, or a 10 percent increase, is scheduled 
for FY 1991. Total enrollment is projected to increase from 450,970 children to nearly 600,000 
children, during the same period. The Administration s budget for FY 1992 requests $100 
million in additional Head Start funding, for a total of about $2.06 billon. 
METHODOLOGY 
We conducted strctUred interviews with a stratified random sample of 75 grantees (2 large 
grantees were added), with 52 OHDS staff, including 5 or 6 from each of 10 regions, and 6 
OHDS headquarters' staff. We obtained data and perceptions regarding their experiences with 
enrollment expansion in 1990 and their plans and capacity to handle further expansion in 1991. 
FINDINGS 
Grantees Report Meeting Enrollment Expansion Goals 
Grantees have met their enrollment expansion goals for the first round of 1990 Head Start 
expansion and plan to full y meet them for the second round by September 1991. 
Most grantees report few problems with the FY 1990 grant process. 
Three-quarters plan to apply for the 1991 expansion funds.  Acquiring Space Is Grantees' Primary Problem 
FY 1990 expansion, most needed more space, cited frequently as a major problem 
. In the 
and, typically, the biggest problem. 
Eighty-five percent of grantees wil need more space to implement the FY 1991 expansion. 
Half consider space a major problem. However, they expect to find suitable space by 
September. 
Grantees And Federal Staff Have Differing Views About The Impact Of Expansion On 
Qualiy 
Most grantees are generally positive about the expansion s impact on quality; 20 percent, 
however, think expansion wil either have no effect on or wil lower quality. 
In contrast, slightly more than half the Federal staff doubt whether grntees receiving
expansion funds can maintain or improve quality over the next several years, while nearly 
40 percent say they have no reason to be concerned. 
Federal Capacity To Manage Expansion Appears Limited 
Regional staff feel they lacked sufficient time and staff to monitor and assist grantees in 
the FY 1990 funding rounds; also, most regional and headquaners staff claim a serious 
lack of resources to assess and assist grantees in FY 1991. 
Federal staff lack timely data on grantee enrollment. 
Most Head Start managers feel communication between headquaners and regions needs 
improvement. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The ACF should: 
address promptly the resource needs of ACF staff; 
provide maximum lead time for grantee expansion and offer technical assistance and 
guidance to grantees to resolve expansion problems; 
develop a system to collect timely data on grantee enrollment progress during expansions; 
and 
assure more direct and effective communication between headquaners and regional Head 
Start staff.  AGENCY COMMENTS 
The Assistant Secretary for Children and Familes has reviewed the draft of this report and 
supports the study s findings and recommendations. The Assistant Secretar noted, however 
that the report s conclusions apply only to expansion efforts of the magnitude the Head Star 
program experienced during FY 1990. We agree with this assessment. The complete comments 
of the Assistant Secretary are included in the Appendix.  ........ .............. .... .......... .................... ................ ............ ....... ............
.................................. .... ........ 
TABLE  OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTR() D U CTI () N.. ...... .........,.............. ........................ .................. ...... ............ 

Purpose................................................................................................................ .

Background................................................................ .........................................

Methodology...................................................... ..................................................

FINDINGS ..,....................................... 

NS .... .............. ......

RECD MMENDA TI 
APPENDIX A 
Comments of the Assistant Secretar for Children and Familes...................A - 1  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted to assess the capacity of the Head Stat system to successfully 
manage the current and future enrollment expansion process. 
BACKGROUND 
This inspection was requested by the Assistant Secretar for Management and Budget (ASMB), 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), based on concerns about the Head Stan 
system s capacity to expand at a time of rapidly increasing appropriations. 
The Head Start program, now in its 26th year, was established under Title V of the Economic 
Opportunity Act of 1964. A national program, it serves primarly low-income children, age three 
to the age of compulsory school attendance, and their families. It is now administered by the 
newly fonned Administration for Children and Families (ACF), DHHS, which absorbed the 
Office of Human Development Services (OHDS) where Head Stan was fonnerly managed. 
OHDS, the Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) and the Head Stan Bureau 
(HSB) administer the program. The program s services include education, health care (including 
medical, dental, nutritional and mental health services), parental involvement and social services. 
At least 10 percent of the enrollment in each State must be made available for handicapped 
children. 
car 
Head Start grantee agencies  out the program s objectives. There are currently about 1 300 
grantees operating. A grantee agency may delegate all or pan of its responsibility for the 
operation of the program to a public or private nonprofit organization. There are about 600 such 
delegate agencies. The largest grantees, with enrollment in the thousands of children, are 
referred to as "supergrantees. 
Grants are awarded and monitored by OHDS regional staff in the Office of Community 
Programs and by the American Indians Programs Branch and Migrant Programs Branch in 
OHDS headquarters. The law requires that the Federal grant shall not (but with certain 
exceptions may) exceed 80 percent of the approved costs of the program. The grantee must 
contribute twenty percent of the costs in cash or in kind. 
Funding for Head Start grew substantially from $1.24 bilion in FY 1989 to $1.95 bilion in FY 
1991. Two rounds of enrollment expansion funding took place in FY 1990, the first for $100 
million, the second for $166 millon. Thus, the total increase for FY 1990 was $266 milion, a 
21 percent increase over the FY 1989 funding level. The second round resulted from an 
unexpected supplemental allocation by Congress late in the fiscal year. For the first round, 
grantees applied in April; they applied in either July or October 1990 for the second round. The  Congress pemlitted the supplemental funds to be obligated by December 31 , 1990. In approving 
the awards, it was anticipated that full enrollment of children would take until September 1991. 
Further expansion of $159 milion, or a 10 percent increase, is scheduled for FY 1991. In 
addition , $1.95 million is available for quality enhancements to retain and recruit qualified staff 
and to increase staff salaries and fringe b  nefits. Total enrollment is projected to increase to 
nearly 600,000 children. 
Head Start reauthorizing legislation projects expansion funding of $4.27 bilion for FY 1992; 
$5.92 billion for FY 1993; and $7.66 bilion for FY 1994. The Administration s budget for FY 
1992 requests $100 million in additional Head Sta funding, most of which is to be used for 
further enrollment expansion, bringing the total to about $2.06 billon, as outlined below: 
Fiscal Year  1990  1990 supp.  1991  1992 
Appropriation  $1.38B*  $166M*  $1.95B  $2.06B 
Expansion $  $99.  $166M  $159M**  $90. 
Expansion goals  37,500  60,  000 
Guidance issued  2/90  6/90  4/91 
Funds obligated  9190  12/90 
* B = billion; M = million 
** An additional S241M is provided for quality enhancements ($ 195M) 
and other projccts, initiatives and assistance ($46M). 
METHODOLOGY 
We held strctured interviews with officials from a stratified random sample of 75 grantees (plus 
2 supergrantees), with 52 OHDS staff, including 5 or 6 from each of 10 regions, and 6 OHDS 
headquarters staff, to obtain data and perceptions based on their experiences with enrollment 
expansion in 1990 and backgrounds of regional staff from each region. We also asked them 
about their plans and capacity to handle further expansion in 1991. 
We held discussions in each OHDS region with the OHDS Regional Administrator, the Director 
of Fiscal Operations, the Director of Community Programs (and any supervisors on their staffs), 
and two program specialists. We conducted interviews in person with six OHDS, ACYF and 
HSB officials in five regions and in headquaners. 
We selected a stratified random sample of 75 grantees from the total of 1 , 140 (excluding 
American Indian and Migrant grantees) who received enrollment expansion awards in 1990. 
includes: 25 of the 100 (25 percent) who received more than $400,000 in FY 1990 expansion 
funding; 25 of the 513 (5 percent) who received between $51 000 and $399,000; and 25 of the 
527 (5 percent) who received no more than $50,000. None of the grantees from the latter 
stratum received funds for the first round of FY 1990 funding.  We weighted grantee responses in each stratum to reflect the proportion which their stratum 
represented of the sample universe. In analyzing responses to questions which did not apply to 
all respondents, however, we reduced the universe based on the proponion of each stratum to 
whom the question did not apply. We also visited two supergrantees to lear about the 
experience of very large grantees with expansion; however, their responses are nOt included in 
grantee sample projections. 
We held telephone discussions with the Head Start Director and/or the Executive Director of the 
75 grantee agencies; and we conducted discussions with the two supergrantees at their offces. 
We obtained data and perceptions regarding their experience with enrollment expansion in 1990 
and their plans and capacity to handle further expansion in 1991. These discussions were held 
with these grantees in February and March 1991 , after two rounds of expansion funding in 1990 
and prior to the recent round of expansion funding begun in May 1991.  FINDINGS

GRANTEES REPORT MEETING ENROLLMENT EXPANSION GOALS 
Goals for FY 1990 first round met; grantees confident about meeting second round goals 
Grantees report having met 97 percent of their enrollment expansion goals for the first round. 
They also expect to fully meet them for the second round of FY 1990 by September 1991. 
(See
Graph) 
GRANTEES REPORT MEETING

ENROLLMENT EXPANSION GOALS

97%  % of funded children enrolled now or by  9/91

100 
74% 
59% 
41% 
26% 
First Round  Second Round  Total 
404 children funded 56 469children funded 91 873 
children funded 
enrolled 
00 Now  Will enroll by 9/91 
*Numbers and percents of children funded and enrolled are 
projections to the national universe of 1 140 grantees. 
Few grantees report problems with the 1990 grant process 
Ninety percent of the grantees in the first round and 92 percent in the second round 
leared early
about both rounds of expansion and used this lead time to begin planning. 
Somewhat more than 
half the grantees received help from regional offices. Over 90 percent of them rate the assistance 
as either very or somewhat helpful. Almost 75 percent repon having had no problems with the 
Federal instructions they received prior to applying in the fIrst round. Similarly, nearly 
percent report experiecing no problems with second-round instructions.  expansion funds 
Most grantees wil apply for FY  /99/ 
Seventy-five percent of the grantees plan to apply in 1991. Sixteen percent 
wil not because they 
feel they re not ready to expand. (Nearly a third of the latter 
grantees are reluctant to expand
their programs before fully implementing current programs; a quarter said there was competition 
from public preschool programs for the same childrn; the remaining grantees cited varous 
reasons including lack of space, staffng problems and realistic assessments of limited capacity 
to expand further). The remaining nine percent of grantees will predicate their decision to apply 
on the availability of space, the timing of the grant and the amount of the award. Almost all say 
there are substantial numbers of unserved childrn in their service areas. 
ACQUIRING SPACE IS GRANTEES' PRIMARY PROBLEM 
At least eighty percent of the grantees needed more space in order to expand enrollment in each 
round; at least 4 of lOin each round rated obtaining space a major problem. Of those having a 
major problem of any kind, 30 percent in the fIrst round and 40 percent in the second round 
considered space their biggest problem. The space problem was most prevalent among 
grantees
funded to increase enrollment by more than 200 children in each round. A typical grantee 
comment was "I may fInd a building, but I wil have to renovate it." Others cited strict licensing 
requirements and delays in license approval. 
The large majority of grantees in each round had to hire more teachers and support 
staf and 
obtain more transportation to expand enrollment. Most did not consider this a major problem. 
Eighty-five percent of the grantees anticipate needing more space to expand enrollment in FY 
1991; 47 percent of them expect this to be a major problem. 
Of those who believe space wil be 
a major problem, most say it wil be their biggest problem. Nevertheless, many grantees believe 
that suitable space can be obtained if enough lead time is provided. As indicated in the previous 
finding, grantees receiving four to six months advanced notifIcation of expansion funding in FY 
1990 were able to acquire space for expansion within twelve months of notifIcation. 
Eighty-three percent of the grantees will have to have additional staff and sixty-four percent wil 
need more transportation to expand enrollment in FY 1991. Again, few see these as major 
problems, with suitable lead time. 
GRANTEES AND FEDERAL STAFF HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS ABOUT THE 
IMPACT OF EXPANSION ON QUALITY 
Most grantees are generally positive about the expansion s impact on quality. About two-thirds 
expect expansion funds to raise the quality of services over the next few years. A majority 
express this without qualification, but others feel it is contingent upon monies being allocated for 
quality enhancements, such as increased staff salares and benefIts. (As noted on page 3, $195 
million wil be made available to grantees in FY 1991 for quality enhancements). In contrast 
about 20 percent believe expansion funds will either have no effect on or wil lower quality. 
These grantees typically feel quality depends upon meeting the rising cost of staff salares and  benefits, rent and insurance. Grantees also noted the adverse effect on quality caused by the 
Sta 
rising incidence of dysfunctional Head  families. The remaining 
15 percent are uncertain 
about the impact of expansion on quality. 
In contrast to the relatively positive expectations of grantees, slightly more than half the regional 
and headquarers OHDS staff doubt that grantees who receive expansion funds  e to 
wil be 
maintain or improve the quality of their services. They question whether allocations for salares 
and costs per child will be suffcient, whether grantees wil have the capacity to maintain quality, 
and whether Federal staff will be able to evaluate grantee quality. Nonetheless, nearly 40 percent 
say they have no reason to be concerned about the quality of grantee services. The remaining 12 
percent are uncertain about their position on the question. 
Regional respondents estimate that 107 grantees in their regions ar not ready for further 
expansion. That is about nine percent of all grantees nationally. Reasons most often cited 
include weaknesses in grantee infrastructure and management, "high risk" status, and lack of 
eligible children. 
FEDERAL CAPACITY TO MANAGE EXPANSION APPEARS LIMITED 
Regional stafffelt unable to adequately assist grantees in FY 1990 
Regional staff point to a number of barers to their having been able to help grantees. Fifty 
percent feel there was not enough time to adequately help grantees prepare applications in each 
round. Similarly, almost fifty percent report they were unable to do as good ajob as they d have 
liked in helping grantees prepare their expansion funding applications in the first round; 40 
percent were not able to do so for grantees who applied in the second round by July 16, and 20 
percent felt unable to do so for grantees who applied in the second round by October 15. 
Overall, half blamed lack of time and insufficient staff for keeping them from doing a better job. 
Most regional and headquarters staff are concemed about the lack of resources for FY 1991 
Eighty percent say they lack sufficient resources (both staff and travel funds) to monitor and 
assist grantees in the coming enrollment expansion effort. Having more staff but not enough 
travel money, or the reverse would not solve the problem. Providing technical assistance to 
grantees and performing comprehensive monitoring calls for more onsite visits than are currently 
possible. Only 3 of 10 OHDS Regional Administrators say they can provide technical assistance 
or assess grantee expansion progress and problems. 
Staff size and grantee workloads var widely among regions: there are 3 to 17 program staff in 
each region (the national total is 97) and average staf workloads range from 10 to 27 grantees. 
Regional offices currently have 31 staff vacancies, most of which are in Head Star slots. 
A positive note is that current regional Head Star professional program staff reflect depth in 
their educational background and program experience. Most have completed undergraduate 
and/or graduate studies related to Head Start. Many also have prior work experience with Head  Start. Over half have from 10 to 20 or more years of Federal experience working with Head 
Start grantees. 
. Federal Head Start . taff lack timely information on enrollment 
The regional offices and headquarers staff lack ongoing infonnatjon on grantee expansion 
progress. They rely primarily on what grantees report to them annually (in June), as par of a 
Head Start Program Infonnation Report." They can only verify this infonnation during on site 
monitoring visits usually made to grantees no more frequently than once every three years. 
Most Head Start managers believe communication between headquarters and regional offices 
needs improvement 
Over half the Head Start managers do not consider communication between headquarers and 
regional offices to be as efficient and effective as they d like. They expressed concerns about the 
headquarters and regional structure under which the Head Star program has operated and other 
communications problems. 
The structure problem relates to the following: the regional Head Stat program staff has 
operated under the Offce of Human Development Services (OHDS), Offce of Community 
Programs (OCP), which existed only in the regions and had responsibility also for the Runaway 
Youth Program. (As noted above, the OHDS was recently absorbed by ACE) In headquarers 
HSB was within ACYF, a division non-existent in the regions. All official ACYF/HSB 
communications to the regions had to go through the Office of Regional Operations in OHDS 
headquarters to reach OHDS Regional Administrators. Similarly, all official Head Sta/OCP 
communications to ACYF/HSB had to follow the same procedure in reverse. Both regional and 
headquarters Head Start staff say this situation caused unnecessar delays in the processing of 
policy issuances and funding guidances, and has been problematic during the enrollment 
expansIon. 
Another concern cited by ACYF and HSB staff is that OCP Head Star staff were accountable to 
OHDS, not ACYF or HSB , for their perfonnance rating. One respondent said, "Head Star is a 
$2 bilion program and growing, and should be separated from other programs in OHDS. We 
need regional staff dedicated solely to the Head Star program. 
Regional OCP Head Start staff say that little opportunity exists for meaningful regional staff 
input into headquarters policy decisions, and there is limited regional decision-making authority. 
One respondent stated, "We have 100 pairs of eyes and ears in the communities," but noted that 
headquarters does not utilize this experience in developing funding guidances and enrollment 
expansion policy. 
Given the creation of ACF, there may be organizational changes planned which wil address 
some or all of the above-cited concerns.  RECOMMENDATIONS

, The ACFshould: 
, ACYF and regional staff with the resources to effectively 
provide, as soon as possible
manage and monitor their increasing responsibilities, including staff and discretionary 
travel funds for more frequent grtee 
site visits; 
provide maximum lead time for expansion implementation and offer technical assistance 
and guidance to resolve major expansion problems, including obtaining suitable space, 
qualified teachers and support staff, and trnsportation; 
develop a system to collect timely data on grantee enrollment progress during expansions; 
and 
assure more direct and effective communication between ACYF, HSB and regional Head 
Star staff. 
AGENCY COMMENTS 
The Assistant Secretar for Children and Familes has reviewed the draft of this report and 
supports the study s findings and recommendations. The Assistant Secretar noted, however 
that the report s conclusions apply only to expansion efforts of the magnitude the Head Star 
program experienced during FY 1990. We agree with this assessment. The complete comments 
of the Assistant Secretar are included in the Appendix.  APPENDIX 
Comments of the A ssistant Secretary for Children and Families  / 

.- 
, "  :':. ' ,.-  tLJr! -r  \-  :-= .--.,   ..-:--.-, 
DEPARTME!\T OF HEALTH & HUMA 
SERVICES
.I
DIG-
ADMINISTRA TION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILI 
DIG-
Office of the Assistant Secretary. Suite 600

DIG- W. -; 

370 L'Enfant Promenade, S. 
199\  AIG- C. 20447

JJL  OGC/IG  Washington, D. - n;:
EX SEC  7fl"  ;-11
DATE  c- :,  C-':
t ;.
,,1
TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General
 III 
Department of Health and Human Services

FROM:  Assistant Secretary 
c.,

for Children and Families

Report: 
SUBJECT:  Response to Office of Inspector General Draft 
Readiness To Expand Head Start Enrollment
OEI-02-91-00741 
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft

report entitled "Readiness To Expand Head Start Enrollment.

We are supportive of the findings and recommendations in this

report and think it presents a fair and accurate picture of the

FY 1990 expansion effort. We note, however, that your

conclusions only apply to expansion efforts of the magnitude we 
1990. Significantly 
experienced during FY  greater funding
increases , for example, might lead to different conclusions. 
We would like to comment on the four recommendations contained on 
technical corrections for 
page 7 of the report and provide some 
your consideration in preparing the final report. 
OIG Recommendation

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) should

provide, as soon as possible, ACYF and regional staff with

the resources to effectively manage and monitor their

increasing responsibilities, including staff and

discretionary travel funds for more frequent grantee site

visits 
ACF Comment

We concur with this recommendation. The shortage of staff and 
' the program expansion 
travel funds to assure the quality of
numer of 
efforts is critical. We are moving to increase the 
staff in the Head Start program both in Headquarters and in

regional offices. In FY 1991, we will be adding an additional 

staff to Headquarters. Should Congress approve our FY 1992

request for additional employees, we anticipate a further staff

increase that would include more staff in the regions.

The need for additional increases for future years is also being

assessed.  . Page 2 - Richard P. Kusserow 
Similarly, travel funds have been increased in FY 1991 and we 
Our 
hope to obtain additional increases in future years. 
intention is that these steps will correct the deficiencies that 
have existed in the past and bring us to a staffing level that

will assure our ability to "effectively manage and monitor our

increased responsibilities.

OIG Recommendation 
The ACF should provide maximum lead time for expansion

implementation and offer technical assistance and guidance

to resolve major expansion problems, including obtaining

suitable space, qualified teachers and support staff, and

transportation. 
ACF Comment

We concur with this recommendation and will make every effort in

future years to assure that both grantees and regional staff are

given guidance on implementing expansion as soon as possible in

the fiscal year. 
We also agree that sufficient technical 
assistance and maximum lead time for expansion implementation 
should be provided to grantees who experience problems operating 
timeframes. Several regional off ices pointed 
under compressed 
out that lead time has not been a problem so far, because the 
required implementation dates for grantees were extended when 
necessary. We would like to emphasize, however, that no 
standard" has been developed. Nei ther this report nor our 
experiences with Head start expansion has allowed us to quantify
the term " adequate lead time. 
OIG Recommendation 
The ACF should develop a system to collect timely data on

grantee enrollment progress during expansions.

ACF Comment

We agree that grantees ' implementation of enrollment expansion

needs to be tracked to assess progress and resolve problems that 
are identified. Our regional offices have maintained close 
contact with grantees to follow their progress in implementing
expansion. 
However, a more formal system of periodic reports 
from grantees could provide more reliable data and help assure 
successfully. 
that the expansion initiative is being implemented 
Wi thin the limits of available resources , especially staff in 
Headquarters and regional offices, we will explore the 
system. 
development of such a  Page 3 - Richard P. Kusserow 
OIG  Recommendation 
4 .  The ACF should assure more direct and effective 
communication between ACYF, HSB and regional Head start
staff. 
ACF Comment

We agree that direct and effective communication between

Headquarters and regional staff is very important in assuring a

successful expansion effort and we will continue to explore ways

to improve this process. While some regional offices and

Headquarters staff may have experienced communication problems

which may have caused unnecessary delays in the expansion

process, several regions reported that their expansion efforts

were successful and their relationships with Headquarters staff

were posi ti ve. 
Technical Comments

Page 1	 The first sentence of paragraph five refers to "ACYF

regional staff" which do not exist; we suggest that

the acronym "ACYF" be deleted. It should also be noted

in this sentence that grants are awarded and monitored

by staff in the AIer ican Indians Programs Branch and

Migrant Programs Branch, as well as by regional staff

in the Office of Community Programs.

Page 2  On the first line, "$1. 95 billion" should be changed to

$195 million.

Page 	
It is stated in paragraph one that 16% of the grantees 
1991. As 
will not apply for expansion funds in FY 
basis for designing appropriate technical assistance to 
such grantees, it would be useful if this section is 
expanded to include additional information collected by 
OIG on the reasons for this position. 
We suggest that the following statement be added to the

two: 
end of paragraph  "However, since the report only 
covers early expansion efforts , we do not know how much 
enough. 
lead time is "
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on

th i s report. 
h:f4