EARLY LEARNING 

AND CHILD CARE

Agencies Have 

Helped Address 

Fragmentation and 

Overlap through 

Improved 

Coordination

Report to the Chairwoman, Committee 

on Education and the Workforce, House 

of Representatives

July 2017

GAO-17-463

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-463, a report to the 

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, House of Representatives

July 2017

EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE

Agencies Have Helped Address Fragmentation and 

Overlap through Improved Coordination

What GAO Found

Multiple federal programs may provide or support early learning or child care for 

children age 5 and under. Of these programs, nine describe early learning or 

child care as an explicit purpose and are administered by the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (Education), and the Interior 

(Interior). Fiscal year 2015 obligations for these nine programs totaled 

approximately $15 billion, with the vast majority of these funds concentrated in 

Head Start and the Child Care and Development Fund. An additional 35 

programs did not have an explicit early learning or child care purpose, but 

permitted funds to be used for these services. Additionally, three tax 

expenditures subsidized individuals’ private purchase of child or dependent care.

As GAO found in 2012, some early learning and child care programs are 

fragmented, overlap, or have potential for duplication. Specifically:

• Fragmentation. The federal investment in early learning and child care 

is fragmented in that it is administered through multiple agencies. 

• Overlap. Some programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose overlap, given that they target similar beneficiaries, such as lowincome children, or engage in similar activities. However, these 

programs often have different goals and administrative structures. 

• Duplication. Some programs are potentially duplicative because they 

may fund similar types of services for similar populations. However, the 

extent to which actual duplication exists is difficult to assess due to 

differing program eligibility requirements and data limitations. 

HHS and Education have helped address these conditions through improved 

agency coordination, particularly by following leading practices for interagency 

collaboration. For example, in response to needed actions GAO identified in 

2012, HHS and Education expanded membership of their inter-departmental 

workgroup on young children to include other agencies with early learning and 

child care programs. The agencies have also documented their agreements,

dedicated staff time to promote the goals and activities of this inter-departmental 

workgroup, and issued joint policy statements. The resulting improvement in 

coordination has helped mitigate the effects of fragmentation and overlap.

HHS, Education, and Interior use different methods to assess performance for 

the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose. These 

agencies collect performance information through various combinations of 

performance monitoring, program evaluations or studies, and other information, 

such as grantee-submitted reports. In addition, they collect performance 

information that aligns with program objectives, and many programs examine 

common aspects of performance. However, the specific results agencies assess

differ for a number of reasons. For example, some programs assess children 

only while they receive services, while others assess later impacts on children.

View GAO-17-463. For more information, 

contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-

7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Millions of children age 5 and under

participate each year in federally 

funded preschool and other early 

learning programs, or receive federally 

supported child care. Federal support 

for early learning and child care has 

evolved over time to meet emerging 

needs. In 2012, GAO reported that 

multiple federal agencies administer 

numerous early learning and child care 

programs. GAO was asked to reexamine federal programs that provide 

or support early learning and child 

care. 

This report examines 1) the federal 

investment in early learning and child 

care programs; 2) fragmentation,

overlap, and duplication among early 

learning and child care programs and

agencies’ efforts to address these 

conditions; and 3) the extent to which 

agencies assess performance for 

programs with an explicit early learning 

or child care purpose. GAO analyzed 

responses to questionnaires from nine 

agencies and one regional 

commission; reviewed budget and tax 

expenditure documentation, 

evaluations, annual program 

performance results, and other agency 

documentation; and interviewed 

officials from HHS, Education, and 

Interior.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes no recommendations in 

this report. In its comments, HHS

agreed with GAO’s findings and noted 

that children benefit most from 

investments in federal early learning 

and child care programs when they are 

coordinated with similar programs. 

Education and HHS also provided 

technical comments, which GAO

incorporated as appropriate.
Page i GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Letter 1

Background 4

Federal Investment in Early Learning and Child Care Includes 

Multiple Programs that Either Require or Permit Use of Funds 

for Such Services 7

Improved Agency Coordination has Helped Address 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication 14

Agencies Assess Performance for All Programs with an Explicit 

Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, and Methods Vary by 

Program 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II Update of Programs and Tax Expenditures that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care 40

Appendix III Fiscal Year 2015 Obligations for Programs without an Explicit Early 

Learning or Child Care Purpose 48

Appendix IV Performance Information for Programs with an Explicit Early Learning 

or Child Care Purpose 51

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 72

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74

Tables

Table 1: Funding for Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or 

Child Care Purpose, Reported by Federal Agency, Fiscal 

Year 2015 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 2: Estimated Total Income Tax Expenditures that Support 

Child Care, Fiscal Year 2015 13

Table 3: Number of Programs and Tax Expenditures that May 

Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care, by 

Federal Agency, Fiscal Year 2015 15

Table 4: Collaboration Efforts of the Early Learning Interagency 

Policy Board 24

Table 5: Early Learning and Child Care Agency Priority Goals and 

Performance Indicators for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 34

Table 6: Obligations for Programs without an Explicit Early 

Learning or Child Care Purpose, but That Permit Such 

Uses of Funds, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2015 48

Table 7: Performance Measures for the Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School Program, Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 52

Table 8: Reported Performance Targets and Results for the Early 

Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities, Project Years 2012-2014 54

Table 9: Performance Measures for the Preschool Development 

Grant Program 56

Table 10: Reported Performance Targets and Results for 

Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, Project 

Years 2012-2014 58

Table 11: Performance Measures for the Promise Neighborhoods 

Program for Grantees Awarded Funds in 2011, Project 

Years 2013-2015 60

Table 12: Performance Measures for the Promise Neighborhoods 

Program for Grantees Awarded Funds in 2012, Project 

Years 2013-2015 62

Table 13: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Striving 

Readers Comprehensive Literacy, Project Years 2013-

201564

Table 14: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Child 

Care and Development Fund, Fiscal Years 2012-2014 66

Table 15: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Head 

Start, Fiscal Years 2013-2015 69

Figures

Figure 1: Purposes and Targeted Populations of Federal 

Programs for Which Early Learning or Child Care Is an 

Explicit Program Purpose, as of Fiscal Year 2015 16
Page iii GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 2: Activities Agencies Reported as Funded by Federal 

Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care 

Purpose, Fiscal Year 2015 18

Figure 3: Methods for Assessing Performance in Programs with 

an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose 29

Figure 4: Common Aspects of Performance Assessed by 

Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care 

Purpose 31

Figure 5: Department of Education Programs that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as 

a Baseline 40

Figure 6: Department of Health and Human Services Programs 

that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care 

(as of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified 

in 2012 Report as a Baseline 41

Figure 7: Department of the Interior Programs that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as 

a Baseline 42

Figure 8: Appalachian Regional Commission Program that May 

Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of 

Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 

2012 Report as a Baseline 43

Figure 9: Department of Agriculture Programs that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as 

a Baseline 43

Figure 10: General Services Administration Programs that May 

Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of 

Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 

2012 Report as a Baseline 44

Figure 11: Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or 

Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs 

GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline 44

Figure 12: Department of Justice Programs that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as 

a Baseline 45

Figure 13: Department of Labor Programs that May Provide or 

Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 
Page iv GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as 

a Baseline 46

Figure 14: Department of the Treasury Child Care-Related Tax 

Expenditures (as of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Tax 

Expenditures GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a 

Baseline 47
Page v GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Abbreviations

AA Associate of Arts

BA Bachelor of Arts

CCAMPIS Child Care Access Means Parents in School

CCDF Child Care and Development Fund

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Education Department of Education

FACE Family and Child Education

FACES Family and Child Experiences Survey

FY Fiscal Year

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Interior Department of the Interior

NEILS National Early Intervention Longitudinal

 Study

PEELS Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal

 Study 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Treasury Department of the Treasury

SSBG Social Services Block Grant

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 13, 2017

The Honorable Virginia Foxx

Chairwoman

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Dear Madam Chairwoman:

Millions of children age 5 and under participate each year in federally 

funded preschool and other early learning programs or receive federally 

supported child care. Research cites the importance of providing highquality early learning experiences during children’s formative years.1

Furthermore, we have previously reported that having high-quality child 

care is critical to sustaining parents’ ability to work.2 Federal funding for 

early learning and child care has evolved over time to meet emerging 

needs. In 2012, we reported that multiple federal agencies administer 

numerous early learning and child care programs.3

The array of federal agencies involved in administering early learning and 

child care programs raises questions about potential overlap and 

duplication among programs, as well as about how agencies that 

administer the programs are coordinating with each other and measuring 

program performance. You asked us to review the programs that 

comprise the federal investment in early learning and child care. This 

report examines:

1. What is known about the federal investment in early learning and child 

care programs;

 1

For example, see J. Shonkoff and D. Phillips, Eds, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The 

Science of Early Childhood Development (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

2000).

2

GAO, Multiple Factors Could Have Contributed to the Recent Decline in the Number of 

Children Whose Families Receive Subsidies, GAO-10-344 (Washington D.C.: May 5, 

2010). 

3

GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

2. The extent to which early learning and child care programs are 

fragmented, overlap, or are duplicative, and the efforts agencies have 

made to address these conditions; and

3. The extent to which agencies assess performance for programs with 

an explicit early learning or child care purpose.

To address our objectives, we used three criteria to identify relevant 

programs: they (1) funded or supported early learning or child care 

services, (2) were provided to children age 5 and under, and (3) delivered 

services in an educational or child care setting. We limited our review to 

programs for which federal funds were obligated in fiscal year 2015, the 

most recent available obligations data at the time we conducted our work. 

We did not conduct a separate legal review to identify and analyze 

relevant programs or verify the accuracy of the information agencies 

provided to us.

To address our first objective, we started with the list of 45 programs and 

5 tax expenditures in our 2012 review.4 We sent questionnaires to nine 

agencies and one regional commission included in the 2012 review and 

received responses from them all. We conducted follow-up interviews 

with agency officials to confirm that these programs and tax expenditures 

continued to meet all three of our criteria in fiscal year 2015. We also 

reviewed supplementary information, such as information from annual 

reports and program notices in the Federal Register, from the 

Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services 

(HHS), the Interior (Interior), and all the other agencies included in our 

prior review. After we created a preliminary list of programs, we counted 

the number of federal early learning and child care programs by 

 4

We excluded kindergarten programs from our scope because early learning applies to 

children who are pre-school age (age 5 and under), while children who are in kindergarten 

are grouped as part of the standard K-12 education demographic. In this review, we also 

excluded any programs that were not listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA), a government-wide compendium of federal programs, projects, services, and 

activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. As we did in 2012 and 

prior work, we excluded programs operated by the U.S. Department of Defense because 

these programs are available only to members of the military and their families, and are 

not listed in the CFDA. For a more detailed description of the methodology for our 2012 

review, see p. 201, “How GAO Conducted Its Work,” GAO-12-342SP.
Page 3 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

examining the key benefits and services they provide.5 Using a similar 

definition as in our prior review, we considered a program to have an 

explicit early learning or child care purpose if, according to our analysis, 

early learning or child care is specifically described as a program purpose 

in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) or in agency 

documents. We categorized all other programs included in this review as 

not having an explicit early learning or child care purpose. In this review, 

we also included tax expenditures that could be used to subsidize families 

or employers for early learning or child care related expenses.6 After we 

identified programs and tax expenditures that met our criteria, we 

obtained information about fiscal year 2015 program obligations from the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2017. We used the Department of the 

Treasury’s (Treasury) Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017 to 

obtain information on estimated losses in revenue in fiscal year 2015 for 

tax expenditures.

To analyze potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we used the 

responses agencies provided us through our questionnaires and other 

documents to assess the programs’ activities and target populations. We 

also interviewed Education and HHS officials regarding their efforts to 

coordinate with other agencies that administer early learning or child care 

programs and examined supporting documentation. We compared these 

 5

In 2012, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance allowing agencies 

flexibility to define and count their programs using five possible approaches for the 

purpose of preparing program inventories. These include defining programs by: 1) goals 

and outcomes; 2) beneficiaries, customers, or other target populations; 3) key benefits, 

services, or products; 4) administering agencies or organizational structure; and 5) 

budget. The resulting number of programs can vary depending on the approach used to 

define programs.

6

Tax expenditures are reductions in a taxpayer’s tax liability that are the result of special 

exemptions and exclusions from taxation which include deductions, credits, deferrals of 

tax liability, or preferential tax rates. Tax expenditures included in this review include those 

that (1) fund or support early learning or child care services, (2) are obtained on behalf of 

children under age 5, and (3) forgo taxes so those funds can be used to purchase child 

care services occurring in an educational or child care setting. To identify relevant tax 

expenditures, we: 1) started with the list of tax expenditures in our 2012 review; 2) 

reviewed descriptions in the Congressional Research Service’s2014 Tax Compendium to 

identify any new tax expenditures that can be used for early learning or child care; and 3) 

confirmed with officials from the Department of the Treasury that the tax expenditures we 

identified met our criteria.
Page 4 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

efforts against leading practices for agency collaboration.7 In addition, we 

obtained information about program performance for programs with an 

explicit early learning or child care purpose by interviewing agency 

officials and reviewing agency performance reports, congressional budget 

justifications, program studies, and other documentation. Details on our 

objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to July 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

While parents are primarily responsible for the education and care of 

children who are younger than school age, a variety of factors have led to 

an increased demand for early learning and child care programs. For 

example, workforce participation among mothers with children age 5 and 

under has generally increased since the 1970s. In addition, initiatives to 

expand access to preschool have developed at the local, state, and 

federal level. Federal support for early learning and child care has 

developed gradually in response to emerging needs. Historically, early 

learning and child care programs existed separately with separate goals: 

early learning programs focused on preparing young children for school, 

while child care programs subsidized the cost of child care for low-income 

parents who worked or engaged in work-related activities. Over time, the 

distinction between these two types of programs has blurred somewhat 

 7

Key features of leading practices for agency collaboration fall into the following 

categories: outcomes and accountability; bridging organizational cultures; leadership; 

clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; resources; and written guidance and 

agreements. See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance 

and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

21, 2005); Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); and 

Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in 

Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

Background

Early Learning and Child 

Care Programs
Page 5 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

as policymakers seek to make educationally enriching care available to 

more young children.

In addition to costs paid by parents, multiple levels of government 

contribute funding to support early learning and child care through a 

loosely connected system of private and public programs. Public 

financing for early learning and child care in the United States involves 

multiple funding streams and programs at the federal, state, and local 

level. A portion of federal support for child care is provided through 

funding to states, which in turn provide subsidies to low-income families. 

Within the parameters of federal law, regulations, and guidance, states 

generally determine their own specific policies concerning the 

administration of these funds, including who is eligible to receive 

subsidies, the amount of the subsidies, and the standards that programs 

must meet.

We previously reported that different agencies administer the array of 

federal early learning and child care programs.8 This report, like our prior 

work, uses standard definitions to describe fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication among government programs:9

• Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one 

federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 

involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities 

exist to improve service delivery.

• Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar 

goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve their goals, 

or target similar beneficiaries.

• Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are 

engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the 

same beneficiaries.

 8

GAO-12-342SP.

9

GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015).

Program Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and Duplication
Page 6 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

As we have previously reported, fragmentation, overlap, and duplication 

exist across many areas of government activity.10 In some cases it may 

be appropriate or beneficial for multiple agencies or entities to be involved 

in the same programmatic or policy area, due to the complex nature or 

the magnitude of the federal effort.

For policy makers considering investments in early learning or child care 

programs, understanding more about the quality of the program or the 

results of early learning interventions can be instructive. Evaluative 

information can help demonstrate whether and why a program is working 

well or not. We have previously reported that performance assessment is 

an important way to obtain such information.11 Performance assessment 

is also critical to effective program management. Agencies may use 

different methods to assess the performance of programs. Performance 

measurement focuses on whether a program has achieved its objectives, 

expressed as measureable standards, while program evaluations typically 

examine a broader range of information on program performance and its 

context. Both forms of assessment aim to support resource allocation and 

other management decisions. Agencies may measure different types of 

performance information, including the type or level of program activities 

(process), the direct products and services delivered by a program 

(output), or the results of those products and services (outcomes).

 10GAO has conducted a review of opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication every year since 2011. For example see GAO, Opportunities to Reduce 

Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011); 2017 Annual Report: Additional 

Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other 

Financial Benefits, GAO-17-491SP (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2017).

11GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005); 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011); and Program Evaluation: Strategies to 

Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making, 

GAO-13-570 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).

Performance Assessment
Page 7 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Multiple federal programs may provide or support early learning or child 

care for children age 5 and under. The federal investment in early 

learning and child care includes three broad categories of programs:

1. Programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose:

For these programs, early learning or child care is specifically 

described as a program purpose, according to our analysis of the 

CFDA and agency documents. This may include some programs that 

also serve children older than 5 or provide some services outside a 

formal early learning or child care setting. The Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF), which provides subsidies to low-income 

working families, is an example of a program in this category.

2. Programs without an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose: These programs may provide or support early learning or 

child care; however, early learning or child care is not specifically 

described as a program purpose in the CFDA or agency documents. 

According to agency officials, these programs permit, but do not 

require, using funds for these services. Programs in this category 

include multipurpose block grants; programs that permit funds to be 

used for early learning or child care as an ancillary service; and 

programs that support early learning or child care through food, 

materials, or other services. Examples of programs without an explicit 

early learning or child care purpose include Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF), the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act Adult program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

3. Tax expenditures that subsidize child care through the tax code: 

These include tax credits and exclusions that subsidize the private 

purchase of child care. Tax credits allow eligible individuals or 

Federal Investment in 

Early Learning and 

Child Care Includes 

Multiple Programs 

that Either Require or 

Permit Use of Funds 

for Such Services

Multiple Programs May 

Provide or Support Early 

Learning or Child Care
Page 8 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

employers to reduce their tax liability dollar for dollar. The credits 

included in this review are nonrefundable and do not offer benefits to 

individuals or businesses with no tax liability.12 Exclusions allow 

individuals to exclude certain compensation from their taxable income 

and generally provide larger tax savings to those taxed at higher 

rates. The revenue that the government forgoes through tax 

expenditures can be viewed as spending channeled through the tax 

system, which contributes to the overall federal investment.13 The 

credit for child and dependent care expenses is an example of such a 

tax expenditure.

Within this framework, we identified 9 programs that have an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose and another 35 programs that do not have 

an explicit early learning or child care purpose.14 In addition to these 

federally funded programs, we identified three federal tax expenditures 

that forgo tax revenue to subsidize the private purchase of child care and 

adult dependent care services. (For a complete list of programs and tax 

expenditures we identified, see fig. 5 through fig. 14 in appendix II.)

 12A nonrefundable tax credit can be used to reduce current-year tax liability to zero, and a 

refundable credit in excess of tax liability results in a cash refund. 

13GAO, Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance 

Processes to Increase Oversight, GAO-16-622 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2016).

14Using a similar methodology in 2012, we reported that the federal investment in early 

learning and child care was administered through 12 programs with an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, 33 programs without such a purpose, and 5 tax 

expenditures. For this review, we removed 6 programs and 2 tax expenditures because 

they were no longer funded or we determined that they do not meet our criteria. We added 

8 programs that were not part of our 2012 review for various reasons, including some that 

were new since 2012, or were identified by agency officials and we determined that they 

met our criteria. Additionally, in our 2012 report, we listed each component of the Child 

Care and Development Fund and Community Development Block Grant separately 

because they were listed individually in the CFDA. However, for our current review, we 

used the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance for identifying programs and 

considered key benefits and services as the framework to guide our identification of 

programs, regardless of how the components are listed in the CFDA. Therefore, we 

consider the Child Care and Development Fund to be one program, rather than two. 

Similarly, we consider the Community Development Block Grant to be one program, rather 

than three (see appendix II).
Page 9 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Agencies obligated approximately $15 billion in fiscal year 2015, the most 

recent obligations data available at the time we conducted our review, 

across the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose. The vast majority of this funding is concentrated in two 

programs administered by HHS: Head Start and CCDF. Together, these 

two programs comprised over 90 percent of total obligations for programs 

with an explicit early learning or child care purpose in fiscal year 2015. All 

other programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose each 

obligated less than $500 million in fiscal year 2015 (see table 1).

The Federal Government 

Obligated $15 Billion in 

Fiscal Year 2015 for 

Programs with an Explicit 

Early Learning or Child 

Care Purpose, and Other 

Programs Also Permit 

Using Funds for These 

Purposes
Page 10 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 1: Funding for Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, Reported by Federal Agency, Fiscal 

Year 2015 

Program name by federal agency Total program 

obligations (dollars 

in millions)

Obligations for early 

learning or child 

care purposes 

(dollars in millions)a

Early learning or 

child care 

obligations as a 

percent of total 

program obligations 

Department of Education

Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS)b 15 − −

Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers 

with Disabilities

439 439 100

Preschool Development Grantsc 250 250 100

Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities 353 353 100

Promise Neighborhoodsd 52 − −

Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacye 160 23 14

Department of Health and Human Services

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)f 5,311 − −

Head Startg 8,718 8,718 100

Department of the Interior

Family and Child Education (FACE)h 17 − −

Total 15,315

Legend: − = information not available, according to agency officials

Source: GAO analysis of the Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, Fiscal Year 2017, and federal agency responses to GAO questionnaire. | GAO-17-463

a

The amount of obligations for early learning or child care purposes include funds for services for 

children from birth through age 5; however, this may include some funds obligated for services 

provided in homes or other informal settings (e.g., home visits).

b

The primary purpose of the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program is to provide grants 

to institutions of higher education to support the participation of low-income parents enrolled in 

postsecondary programs through the provision of campus-based child care services. This program 

does not limit child care to children age 5 and under.

c

According to agency officials, the Department of Education obtains Preschool Development Grant 

information from state grantees that outlines program activities and the intended use of funds for 

eligible 4-year-old children. Additionally, according to Education officials, state grantees are allowed 

to reserve a portion of their funds for grant administration, technical assistance, evaluation, and other 

activities that support quality improvements in early learning.

d

The Promise Neighborhoods program provides competitive grants to support distressed communities 

in implementing a comprehensive, effective continuum of coordinated solutions designed to improve 

the academic and developmental outcomes for children, youth, and their families from birth through 

college to career. Officials told us that Education’s reporting system does not allow Education to 

identify the amount of funds obligated at the grantee project level for early learning services.

e

The Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program requires state education agency grantees to 

ensure that 15 percent of subgranted funds serve children from birth through age 5. State education 

agencies must subgrant no less than 95 percent of the total grant award they received from the 

Department of Education.

f

The Child Care and Development Fund serves eligible children under age 13. However, the majority 

of funds are spent by states on children younger than kindergarten entry. Total program obligations 

do not include funds transferred from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, 
Page 11 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

which are considered CCDF discretionary funds once transferred at the state level, according to HHS 

officials.

g

The Early Head Start program targets pregnant women and children under age 3.

h

The Family and Child Education program funds early learning and supportive services primarily for 

pregnant women and children from birth to age 5, as well as some adult and family activities. It also 

serves children in kindergarten through grade 3 in some instances. Officials told us the way they track 

program funds does not allow them to isolate funds used specifically for children age 5 and under.

All of the programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose 

require at least some funds to be used on early learning or child care 

services, according to agency officials. However, not all funds for these 

programs are targeted toward children from birth through age 5 in an 

early learning or child care setting, and agencies noted that they are 

generally not required to track funds used specifically for these purposes. 

One exception is the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program: 

Education officials collect data on the amount of funds used for preliteracy activities because grantees must ensure that local providers use 

15 percent of funds to serve children from birth through age 5. In fiscal 

year 2015, all four programs that exclusively target children age 5 or 

under—Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities, Preschool Development Grants, Preschool Grants for 

Children with Disabilities, and Head Start—used 100 percent of their 

funds for early learning or child care services for this population, 

according to agency officials. In contrast, CCDF, Family and Child 

Education (FACE), Promise Neighborhoods, and Child Care Access 

Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) programs provide services to 

school-age children in addition to children age 5 and under. Officials told 

us they were unable to identify the amount of funds used specifically for 

children age 5 and under for these programs. For example, CCDF serves 

eligible children under age 13, and while states report the percentage of 

children served by age, officials told us states are not required to report 

the amount of CCDF funds spent by age. Not all CCDF funds are used for 

child care subsidies. In addition to directly subsidizing access to child 

care services for eligible low-income children, CCDF invests in improving 

the quality of child care available to families. We recently reported that the 

majority of children who received CCDF subsidies were under age 5.15

 15In December 2016, we reported that children age 4 and under comprise 57 percent of all 

children who received child care subsidies through CCDF between 2010 and 2012. GAO, 

Child Care: Access to Subsidies and Strategies to Manage Demand Vary Across States, 

GAO-17-60 (Washington D.C.: Dec.15, 2016).
Page 12 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Among programs without an explicit early learning or child care purpose, 

none require spending on early learning or child care, according to 

agency officials. Further, agency officials told us that they do not track the 

amount of funds used for early learning or child care for most of these 

programs and are not required to do so. Officials from 3 of these 35 

programs could identify the amount of funds obligated for early learning 

and child care purposes.16 Funding for early learning or child care for 

these three programs ranged from $2 million to $14 million in fiscal year 

2015. Additionally, HHS officials told us that although they do not track 

program obligations specifically for early learning or child care purposes 

for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and TANF, they do track 

state spending on child care. However, HHS does not track spending 

specifically for services provided to children age 5 and under, according 

to agency officials.17 (See table 6 in appendix III for details.)

Moreover, although they do not track this information, officials from some 

programs without an explicit early learning or child care purpose said it is 

likely that little funding, if any, actually went toward these purposes. For 

example, officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) told us 

that the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program 

are targeted to school-age children, and they did not think very many 

children under age 5 receive meals from the program. Additionally, 

Department of Labor officials told us that the Native American 

Employment and Training Program permits funds to be used for child 

care services, among other supportive services, to enable parent 

participation in the program. However, due to the limited grant size, 

 16The Department of Agriculture provided us with an estimate of program obligations used 

for meal reimbursement by home daycare providers and child care centers based on 

average reimbursement rates, but officials do not track this amount for their program 

administration purposes. Therefore, we did not count this estimate among the 3 programs 

that track spending specifically for early learning or child care purposes.

17According to HHS officials, states do not obligate SSBG funds for child care or early 

learning; however, states may elect to use any portion of their funding for services 

categorized as children’s daycare. HHS officials told us that in fiscal year 2015, states 

expended a total of $2,761,559,075 in SSBG funds, including TANF transfer funds and 

allowable carryover from the previous fiscal year. Of that total expenditure amount, 

officials said that $287,826,781 (including TANF transfer funds) were expended for 

children’s daycare services. Additionally, TANF obligations used for early learning or child 

care of are not tracked at the federal level, according to HHS officials. However, states do 

report TANF spending and transfers for child care. In fiscal year 2015, states used 

$1,250,115,096 in federal TANF funds for child care (spent directly or transferred to the 

Child Care and Development Fund) and $52,438,839 for pre-kindergarten or Head Start.
Page 13 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

officials said it is likely that most participants only receive referrals to child 

care providers.

Much like the agencies with programs that do not have an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, Treasury does not estimate the amount of 

forgone revenue resulting specifically from tax credits or exclusions that 

support the care of children age 5 and under, according to agency 

officials. All of the tax expenditures we identified are available for the care 

of dependent children. The credit for child and dependent care expenses 

also subsidizes dependent care of individuals who are physically or 

mentally incapable of self-care, including adults with disabilities or who 

are elderly. Combined, these tax expenditures accounted for 

approximately $5.4 billion of forgone federal income tax revenue in fiscal 

year 2015 (see table 2).18 This amount, however, includes forgone 

revenue for care of children older than age 5 and dependent adults, since 

the available data do not distinguish children and other dependents by 

age.

Table 2: Estimated Total Income Tax Expenditures that Support Child Care, Fiscal 

Year 2015

Tax expenditure Estimated revenue loss

(Dollars in millions)

Credit for child and dependent care expenses 4,500

Employer-provided child care credit

a 10

Employer-provided child care exclusionb 900

Totalc 5,410

Source: Department of the Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017. | GAO-17-463

Note: Tax provisions listed in this table are not exclusively available for the care of children age 5 and 

under. The credit for child and dependent care expenses may also cover dependent care for 

individuals who are physically or mentally incapable of self-care, including adults with disabilities or 

who are elderly. In our 2012 report (GAO-12-342SP) on this topic, we listed the names of tax 

expenditures as they appeared in the Congressional Research Service’s 2010 Tax Compendium. For 

our current review, we list the names of these tax provisions as they appear in the Department of the 

Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017.

a

In our 2012 report, we listed this tax expenditure as the credit for employer-provided child care.

b

This tax expenditure is also known as the dependent care assistance program exclusion. In our 2012 

report, we listed this tax expenditure as the exclusion of employer-provided child and dependent care. 

For the purposes of this report, we refer to this tax expenditure as the employer-provided child care 

 18Summing tax expenditure estimates provides a sense of size but does not take into 

account possible interactions among individual tax expenditures and within the tax code. 

Total change in tax revenues from repealing all tax expenditures could differ from the sum 

of the estimates. 
Page 14 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

exclusion, which is how it is referred to in the Department of the Treasury’s Tax Expenditure 

Estimates.

c

Summing tax expenditure estimates provides a sense of size but does not take into account possible 

interactions among individual tax expenditures and within the tax code. Total change in tax revenues 

from repealing all tax expenditures could differ from the sum of the estimates.

As we found in 2012, some fragmentation, overlap, and potential 

duplication exist among early learning and child care programs.

The federal investment in early learning and child care is fragmented in 

that it is administered through multiple agencies. HHS, Education, and 

Interior administer programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose. Five additional agencies and one regional commission 

administer programs without an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose, and the Internal Revenue Service at Treasury is responsible for 

administering federal tax expenditures (see table 3).

Improved Agency 

Coordination has 

Helped Address 

Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and 

Potential Duplication

Some Early Learning and 

Child Care Programs are 

Still Fragmented, Overlap, 

or Have Potential for 

Duplication

Fragmentation
Page 15 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 3: Number of Programs and Tax Expenditures that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care, by Federal 

Agency, Fiscal Year 2015

Federal agency Number of programs with an 

explicit early learning or child 

care purpose

Number of programs without an 

explicit early learning or child 

care purpose but that permit 

such uses of funds 

Number of tax expenditures that 

support early learning or child 

care

Appalachian Regional 

Commission

− 1 −

Department of Agriculture − 5 −

Department of Educationa 6 12 −

Department of Health and 

Human Services

2 3 −

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

− 3 −

Department of the Interior 1 2 −

Department of Justice − 2 −

Department of Labor − 6 −

Department of the 

Treasury

− − 3

General Services 

Administration

− 1 −

Total 9 35 3

Legend: − = no programs

Source: GAO analysis of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Congressional Research Service’s 2014 Tax Compendium, and other agency information. | GAO-17-463

a

The Preschool Development Grants program is counted among the Department of Education’s 

(Education) six programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose, but this program is 

jointly administered by Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The 

Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, authorized Preschool 

Development Grants to be administered by HHS, jointly with Education. Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 9212, 

129 Stat. 1802, 2152 (2015). Previously, the program had been authorized through appropriations 

language and was funded through Education and jointly administered by HHS and Education.

We found some overlap between early learning and child care programs, 

as some programs target similar beneficiaries (see fig. 1). For example, 

five of the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose primarily target children age 5 and under, and four programs 

target low-income children. Despite these general similarities, however, 

some of these programs target very specific populations that in some 

cases have limited overlap or no overlap. For example, Preschool 

Development Grants specifically target 4-year-olds, the Early Intervention 

Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities targets children with 

disabilities from birth through age 2, and Preschool Grants for Children 

with Disabilities targets children with disabilities ages 3 through 5. Other 

programs target more specific populations, such as children whose lowOverlap
Page 16 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

income parents are pursuing postsecondary education, or children living 

in certain distressed geographic areas.

Figure 1: Purposes and Targeted Populations of Federal Programs for Which Early Learning or Child Care Is an Explicit 

Program Purpose, as of Fiscal Year 2015

Note: All programs included in this figure are those for which early learning or child care is explicitly 

described as a program purpose, according to our analysis of Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance and other agency information. However, early learning or child care may not be a primary 

or sole purpose for all of these programs.

a

Some programs target children of a specific age under age 5. For example, Preschool Development 

Grants targets 4-year-olds, the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

targets children with disabilities from birth through age 2, and Preschool Grants for Children with 

Disabilities targets children with disabilities ages 3 through 5.

b

Other primary population targets identified by agency officials include children whose low-income 

parents are pursuing postsecondary education (CCAMPIS); children who live in a grantee-determined 

geographic area (Promise Neighborhoods); disadvantaged students at risk of educational failure, 
Page 17 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

such as children who are homeless or in foster care, among others (Striving Readers Comprehensive 

Literacy); homeless children (CCDF and Head Start); children of migrant workers (Head Start); and 

children in foster care (Head Start).

Additionally, some programs engage in similar activities, according to our 

analysis of agency-provided information. For example, grantees of Head 

Start, Preschool Development Grants, and FACE use funds for 

enrollment slots (spots for individual children to participate in programs on 

an ongoing basis), health care, and social services or transportation, 

according to agency officials. However, other programs with an explicit 

early learning or child care purpose do not fund enrollment. Instead, some 

programs fund additional services to aid early learning, such as special 

education services or evaluations (see fig. 2).
Page 18 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 2: Activities Agencies Reported as Funded by Federal Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, 

Fiscal Year 2015

Note: All programs included in this figure are those for which early learning or child care is explicitly 

described as a program purpose, according to our analysis of the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance and other agency information. However, early learning or child care may not be a primary 

or sole purpose for all of these programs. In our questionnaire to agencies, we asked officials to 

report approximately what portion of each program’s grantees use funding for a range of early 

learning and child care activities (e.g. no grantees, a few grantees, most grantees, etc.). The figure 

above indicates the activities funded by any of the program’s grantees, according to agency officials.

a

Each state educational agency that receives a Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy grant must 

use at least 95 percent of its allocation to make competitive subgrants to one or more local 

educational agencies or, for the purposes of providing early literacy services, to local educational 

agencies or other nonprofit providers of early childhood education that partner with a public or private 

nonprofit organization with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving early literacy.

b

According to HHS officials, children with disabilities who qualify for services provided under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) must receive services funded by the local 

educational agency responsible for implementing IDEA. In some cases, children with developmental 

delays or other special needs may not be eligible under IDEA. In such cases, Head Start grantees 

provide necessary accommodations using Head Start funding.
Page 19 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Despite some similarities in target populations and activities, programs 

with an explicit early learning or child care purpose often have different 

goals and administrative structures. For example, while the CCAMPIS 

program and CCDF both fund child care, they have different goals. The 

goal of CCAMPIS is to support the participation of low-income parents in 

postsecondary education. In contrast, CCDF has dual goals of providing 

child care as a work support to parents and providing children with quality 

child care to prepare them for success in school, according to HHS. 

Additionally, the two largest programs—Head Start and CCDF—differ 

significantly from each other both in their goals and in how they are 

administered. Head Start was created, in part, to support children’s early 

development by offering comprehensive, community-based services to 

meet children’s multiple needs and, as such, provides federal grants 

directly to community-based public and private service providers. In 

contrast, CCDF was created to help states reduce dependence on public 

assistance. It provides grants to states to subsidize child care to support 

parents’ involvement in the workforce. States, in turn, generally provide 

subgrants to counties or other local entities for distribution to parents.

Though some overlap exists among programs with an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, the majority of the programs we identified–

35 of 44–do not have such a purpose. Overlap is limited among these 35 

programs and those 9 programs with an explicit early learning or child 

care purpose for a number of reasons. For example:

• Multipurpose block grants can be combined and jointly 

administered: In their comments regarding our 2012 report, HHS 

officials noted that many states choose to integrate CCDF, TANF, and 

SSBG funding streams to provide services. They noted that states 

jointly administer these funding streams under one set of rules, often 

in coordination with other state and local funding.19

• Programs that provide child care as an ancillary purpose are not 

targeted toward children: Overlap between programs that permit 

funds to be used for child care as an ancillary service and those with 

an explicit child care purpose is limited given that such programs are 

not targeted to children and that child care is not among the programs’

objectives. For example, six worker training programs authorized by 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act allow for grant dollars 

 19According to HHS officials, all TANF funds have to follow TANF rules, which are 

different from CCDF and SSBG rules. HHS officials also noted that TANF funds that are 

transferred to CCDF or SSBG follow the rules of those programs.
Page 20 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

to pay for child care and other supportive services that are necessary 

to enable an individual to participate in training and other authorized 

activities. These programs are not targeted to children age 5 or 

under—their objectives are to provide individuals with job search 

assistance and training.

• Some programs support but do not provide early learning or 

child care for young children: Other programs we identified support 

early learning or child care by providing food, materials, or other 

services. These programs have limited overlap with programs with an 

explicit early learning or child care purpose because they support 

such programs rather than provide early learning or care for children 

age 5 and under. For example, the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program, which is administered by USDA, reimburses child care 

centers for the cost of meals and snacks, among other things. 

Additionally, the General Services Administration donates unused 

federal property to certain state and local agencies through the 

Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program. Officials 

from the General Services Administration told us that agencies that 

receive the donations pass them along to eligible organizations, which 

may include preschools. They also told us that they do not track the 

ultimate destination of the donated property.

HHS and Education have acknowledged some overlap among early 

learning and child care programs. In a November 2016 joint report to 

Congress, HHS and Education identified eight federal programs with a 

primary purpose of providing early learning for young children.20 In this 

report, HHS and Education stated that overlap among early learning and 

 20These include Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Head Start, Early Head Start, 

Preschool Development Grants, Department of Defense Child Development Program, 

Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for 

Children with Disabilities, and the Family and Child Education (FACE) program. The 

methodology we used to identify programs for this report differs from HHS and 

Education’s approach in three key ways. First, HHS and Education focused their review 

on programs that have a primary purpose of promoting early learning for children from 

birth to age 6. In contrast, early learning or child care may not be a primary or sole 

purpose for the programs we identified as having an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose. Second, HHS and Education included programs available only to the military and 

their families, which we excluded. Third, HHS and Education listed Head Start and Early 

Head Start as two separate programs for the purposes of their report because they serve 

children of different ages. In contrast, we used key benefits and services as a framework 

for identifying programs, and therefore considered Head Start and Early Head Start to be 

one program, with two different age targets. As previously noted, the Office of 

Management and Budget guidance allows agencies flexibility to define their programs 

using five possible approaches, including target populations or key benefits, services, or 

products.
Page 21 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

child care programs is purposeful and necessary to meet the needs of 

children and parents. For example, some programs fund enrollment slots 

and others fund additional services to aid early learning, such as special 

education services, according to HHS and Education officials. They also 

noted that families may have multiple needs that require more than one 

type of service. For instance, families can combine Head Start and 

CCDF, which allows families to meet children’s learning needs and 

parents’ child care needs, according to HHS officials.

Despite this overlap, there may be service gaps because these programs 

are not entitlements, and therefore do not serve all eligible children. For 

example, we recently reported that an estimated 1.5 million children 

received CCDF subsidies, out of an estimated 8.6 million children who 

were eligible in their state in an average month in 2011 and 2012.21

Additionally, Education officials told us that many states have narrowed 

their eligibility criteria for the Early Intervention Program for Infants and 

Toddlers with Disabilities because of funding constraints. According to 

these officials, states are focusing these services on children with the 

most severe disabilities.

There may be potential for duplication among early learning and child 

care programs insofar as some programs may fund similar types of 

services for similar populations. However, as we noted in our 2012 

review, the extent to which actual duplication exists is difficult to assess at 

the federal level due to differing program eligibility requirements and data 

limitations.22 For example:

• Program eligibility requirements: Eligibility requirements differ 

among programs, even for similar subgroups of children, such as 

those from low-income families. For example, Head Start serves 

primarily low-income children under age 5 whose families have 

incomes at or below the official federal poverty guidelines, while 

CCDF serves children under age 13 whose parents are working or in 

 21In the same report, we also found that it is difficult to accurately predict the extent to 

which families with eligible children are likely to apply for and receive subsidies. This is, in 

part, because several factors influence families’ child care decisions, which can make it 

difficult or unappealing to pursue subsidies. See GAO-17-60.

22A portion of federal support for child care is provided through funding to states, which in 

turn provide subsidies to low-income families. For example, federal funding for CCDF is 

distributed to states, not families. For this reason, state and local governments may be 

better positioned to assess the extent that two or more programs provide the same 

services to the same families.

Duplication
Page 22 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

school and who earn up to 85 percent of state median income. 

Moreover, states have the flexibility to establish specific eligibility 

policies for CCDF within broad federal eligibility requirements. Given 

this flexibility, it may be possible for families with similar 

circumstances to be eligible to receive CCDF subsidies in some 

states but not others. Additionally, although the CCAMPIS program 

also provides funding for child care, families must be eligible for Pell 

Grants, which are need-based federal grants to low-income 

undergraduate students, in order to receive services.

• Data limitations: For some programs, relevant programmatic 

information is sometimes not readily available. For example, as we 

previously reported, HHS does not collect data on all families who 

receive child care funded by TANF. This is because some families 

that do not receive cash assistance receive child care funded through 

TANF. States are not required to report on families who receive only 

TANF-funded child care without also receiving cash assistance. This 

leaves an incomplete picture of the number of children receiving 

federally funded child care subsidies. We previously suggested 

requiring additional data collection on families receiving TANF-funded 

child care, but this information is currently not collected.23 Additionally, 

inadequate or missing data, as well as difficulties quantifying the 

outcomes of some tax expenditures, can make it difficult to study the 

beneficiaries of these expenditures.24

While the extent of potential duplication may be difficult to fully assess, 

some early learning and child care programs include some safeguards 

against duplication. For example, some programs can use funds to 

expand access to other programs, thus limiting the likelihood that the 

same beneficiaries receive the same services from more than one 

program. Promise Neighborhood grantees can use funds to expand 

access to Head Start or to establish new child care or preschool options. 

Similarly, Preschool Development Grants can be used to expand the 

capacity of Head Start to serve more eligible children. Specifically, 

 23GAO, Child Care: Additional Information Is Needed on Working Families Receiving 

Subsidies, GAO-05-667 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005) and Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families: Update on Families Served and Work Participation, GAO-11-880T 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2011).

24As GAO noted in earlier work, tax returns generally do not collect information necessary 

to assess how often a tax expenditure is used and by whom unless the IRS needs the 

information or collection is legislatively mandated. See GAO, Government Performance 

and Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a Substantial Federal Commitment and 

Need to be Reexamined, GAO-05-690 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2005).
Page 23 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Preschool Development Grant funds must be used to supplement, not 

supplant, any federal, state, or local funds, including Head Start and 

CCDF, among others.

In addition, the tax code has limits on combining the credit for child and 

dependent care and the employer-provided child care exclusion. 

Taxpayers can claim the credit for child and dependent care if they pay 

someone to care for a dependent under age 13 or for a spouse or other 

dependents who are not able to care for themselves. The credit can be up 

to 35 percent of dependent care expenses with a limit of $3,000 per 

qualifying person and $6,000 for two or more qualifying persons.25 The 

employer-provided child care exclusion, a kind of flexible spending 

account for dependent care expenses, generally provides participants an 

opportunity to exclude an amount not to exceed $5,000 for dependent 

care each year from their gross income.26 Families using the employerprovided child care exclusion must subtract the amount of those benefits 

from the maximum they are eligible to receive for the credit for child and 

dependent care, thereby preventing duplication of benefits.

We found that since our 2012 review of early learning and child care 

programs, HHS and Education have improved coordination among the 

agencies that administer these programs, which has helped to address 

potential risks regarding fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication. 

As we previously reported, effective coordination can help mitigate the 

effects of program fragmentation and overlap and potentially help bridge 

service gaps.27

Based upon our analysis, the Early Learning Interagency Policy Board—

HHS and Education’s inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on 

children from birth through age 8—has followed leading practices for 

interagency collaboration that we have identified, such as defining 

outcomes, tracking progress toward goals, and including relevant 

 2526 U.S.C. § 21(a)(2) provides that the credit can be up to 35 percent, but it is reduced 

(but not below 20 percent) by 1 percentage point for each $2,000 (or fraction thereof) by 

which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $15,000.

2626 U.S.C. § 129(a)(2) also provides that in the case of a separate return by a married 

individual, the amount is not to exceed $2,500.

27GAO-12-342SP.

HHS and Education Have 

Helped Address 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Potential Duplication 

through Improved 

Coordination with Other 

Agencies
Page 24 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

participants across agencies, among others (see table 4).28 For example, 

in response to needed actions we identified in 2012, HHS and Education 

expanded membership of this group to include other agencies with early 

learning and child care programs.

Table 4: Collaboration Efforts of the Early Learning Interagency Policy Board 

Key considerations for 

implementing interagency

collaborative mechanisms

Examples of Interagency Policy Board efforts

Defining outcomes and accountability

Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined?

The Interagency Policy Board has defined its intended outcomes by setting goals, which 

include developing policy recommendations and improving program coordination and quality 

across federally funded early learning and development programs serving children from birth 

through age 8.

Specifically, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education formed 

the Interagency Policy Board to:

• increase the coordination of early learning and development research, technical 

assistance, and data systems;

• improve family engagement; and

• advance the effectiveness of the early learning and development workforce among the 

major federally funded early learning and development programs.

Is there is a way to track and 

monitor progress? 

The Interagency Policy Board has tracked and monitored its progress. In January 2017, it 

submitted a report to the Secretaries of HHS and Education detailing its major activities and 

accomplishments, including providing technical assistance to agencies that administer early 

learning and child care programs, and sponsoring research on early childhood issues such 

as parent-child interactions.

Bridging organizational cultures

Have agencies agreed on common 

terminology and definitions?

Agencies have agreed upon common terms and definitions and worked together to bridge 

organizational differences. According to HHS’ fiscal year 2016 Congressional Budget 

Justification, HHS and Education coordinated to define high quality benchmarks for early 

learning and child care programs. Additionally, HHS and Education officials told us that 

planning joint initiatives and issuing joint reports has helped bridge organizational 

differences across agencies because of the level of problem solving and discussion 

involved. For example, in March 2014, the Interagency Policy Board launched a federal 

effort to encourage universal developmental and behavioral screening for children. It also 

issued a report regarding the integration of early childhood data in November 2016.

 28GAO-06-15, GAO-12-1022, and GAO-14-220.
Page 25 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Key considerations for 

implementing interagency

collaborative mechanisms

Examples of Interagency Policy Board efforts

Leadership

If leadership is shared, have 

leadership roles and responsibilities 

been clearly defined?

HHS and Education are the co-leads of the Interagency Policy Board. They have established 

workgroups, which are led by key staff, to develop strategies for addressing certain issues. 

For example, HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and 

Education’s Office of Policy and Program Studies Service lead a workgroup pertaining to 

research and data. This group is responsible for providing research support to the 

Interagency Policy Board. It is also a venue for federal staff to communicate about ongoing 

and upcoming federally-funded research on early learning. According to HHS and 

Education, this workgroup serves as an important platform for researchers across agencies 

to ensure that their efforts and investments build on each other, that they are informed by 

key research findings funded by other agencies and offices, and that research is used to 

support leadership decision-making.

Clarity of roles and responsibilities 

Have participating agencies 

clarified roles and responsibilities?

Participating agencies have clarified roles and responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities 

of the key members of the Interagency Policy Board include meeting on a regular basis and 

identifying areas in which enhanced information-sharing about agency activities is needed.

Participants

Have all relevant participants been 

included? 

In response to needed actions we identified in 2012, HHS and Education expanded 

membership of the Interagency Policy Board to include other agencies with early learning or 

child care programs. HHS and Education expanded membership in this workgroup to include

high-level officials in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture (USDA). These federal 

agencies administer programs with an explicit purpose of early learning that targets a 

specific population (Interior), or complementary programs that provide direct services that 

support early learning programs (USDA). Other agencies that operate programs without the 

explicit purpose of providing early learning or child care services, such as the Departments 

of Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Justice, serve as partners to the 

Interagency Policy Board, and are periodically invited to attend quarterly meetings.

Do they have the ability to commit 

resources?

HHS and Education have agreed to dedicate staff time to promote the goals and activities of 

the Interagency Policy Board. 

Resources

How will the collaborative 

mechanism be funded and staffed?

HHS and Education have agreed to bear the costs of their participation and related activities, 

including the cost of staff-time.

Have online collaboration tools 

been developed?

Education’s website includes information regarding the Interagency Policy Board and its 

activities, including links to policy statements and partner agencies.

Written guidance and agreements

If appropriate, have participating 

agencies documented their 

agreement regarding how they will 

be collaborating? 

HHS and Education have documented their agreement through a Memorandum of 

Understanding. This document details the purpose of the Interagency Policy Board, a list of 

its activities, and the responsibilities of parties. 

Have they developed ways to 

continually update and monitor 

these agreements?

HHS and Education have monitored their agreements. In the aforementioned report to the 

Secretaries of HHS and Education in January 2017, the Interagency Policy Board detailed 

its agreements and the efforts agencies have made to meet these agreements. 

Source: GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); 

and GAO analysis of agency documents and interviews with agency officials. | GAO-17-463
Page 26 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

In addition to efforts related to the Interagency Policy Board, HHS and 

Education have improved coordination in other ways since our 2012 

review of early learning and child care programs. For example, they have:

• Jointly administered the Preschool Development Grants: HHS 

and Education coordinate to co-administer the Preschool 

Development Grants program, which began in 2014.29

• Issued joint policy statements: HHS and Education have also 

issued joint policy statements on a range of early learning and child 

care issues. Examples include statements on limiting preschool 

suspensions and expulsions, and strategies to increase the inclusion 

of young children with disabilities in high-quality early learning 

programs. Joint policy statements create consistent guidance for local 

programs, according to HHS and Education officials.

• Coordinated training and technical assistance: In 2015, HHS 

redesigned its training and technical assistance system across Head 

Start and CCDF. Previously, Head Start and CCDF had separate 

training and technical assistance centers that were operated 

independently of one another. The new training and technical 

assistance centers provide services to both Head Start and CCDF. 

Additionally, HHS and Education coordinated technical assistance by 

issuing a literature review about strategies to help children maintain 

the benefits of preschool attendance. They also held joint webinars on 

the use of assistive technology to support young children with 

disabilities and strategies to limit preschool suspensions and 

expulsions.

 29The Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, 

authorized a new Preschool Development Grants program to be administered by HHS, 

jointly with Education. Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 9212, 129 Stat. 1802, 2152 (2015).
Page 27 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Agencies assess performance for all nine programs with an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, and they do so using different methods. 

The agencies use various combinations of three approaches: 

performance monitoring, conducting program evaluations or studies, and

reviewing other performance information (see fig. 3). Specifically:

• Performance monitoring: For all nine programs, agencies reported 

they monitor performance annually either through performance 

measures or other annual reviews. Interior monitors performance for 

the FACE program through an annual review. This review includes 

implementation data and program outcomes, such as children’s 

proficiency in math and literacy, parenting practices, and integration of 

native language and culture into FACE program instruction, which 

officials can use to assess program progress from year to year. For 

the other eight programs, HHS and Education report results on 

measureable performance standards in agency congressional budget 

justifications or other publicly available sources.

• Program evaluations or studies: For six of the nine programs, 

agency officials also periodically conduct internal or contracted 

program evaluations or studies.30 Most of the programs that have 

conducted program evaluations have done so to fulfill a program 

requirement. For example, the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) called for a national 

assessment to measure the implementation progress and relative 

effectiveness of the law.31 Similarly, in response to a congressional 

mandate in the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start,32 HHS conducted 

a national impact evaluation of Head Start and an evaluation of the 

Early Head Start program. Additionally, since fiscal year 2000, 

 30In contrast to these programs, a primary goal of the Promise Neighborhoods program is 

to learn how particular strategies affect student outcomes, including through a rigorous 

evaluation of the program, but Education has not yet conducted such an evaluation. We 

previously recommended that the Secretary of Education develop a plan to conduct a 

national evaluation of the program. As of May 2017, this recommendation remained 

unimplemented. GAO, Education Grants: Promise Neighborhoods Promotes Collaboration 

but Needs National Evaluation Plan, GAO-14-432 (Washington D.C.: May 5, 2014). 

31Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, 2783.

32Pub. L. No. 105-285, § 116(2), 112 Stat. 2723.

Agencies Assess 

Performance for All 

Programs with an 

Explicit Early 

Learning or Child 

Care Purpose, and 

Methods Vary by 

Program
Page 28 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Congress has appropriated funds through CCDF specifically for 

research and evaluation, according to agency officials.33

• Other performance information: Officials from six of the nine 

programs told us they collect other performance information through 

grantee-submitted performance reports or other methods. For 

example, the CCAMPIS program, which funds child care for student 

parents enrolled in postsecondary institutions, uses grantee-submitted 

annual reports to collect detailed information about individual student 

enrollment that provides context for understanding performance 

measures. Additionally, some programs track information about the 

cost of certain outcomes.

34

Agency officials told us they use results from performance monitoring, 

evaluations, and other performance information to assist in grantee 

monitoring, determine continued funding to grantees, and develop 

technical assistance, among other things.

 33According to HHS officials, the reauthorized Child Care and Development Block Grant 

Act of 2014 created a new research set-aside, which replaced the set-aside Congress 

previously included in annual appropriations. The Act allows the Secretary of HHS to 

reserve one-half of 1 percent of CCDF appropriations for research and demonstration 

activities (Pub. L. 113-186 Sec. 658O(a)(5)).

34For example, HHS officials track the number of children served each year through Head 

Start funding. For the CCAMPIS Program, Education officials measure the cost per 

student who receives child care services through the program and remains in 

postsecondary education at the end of the academic year. 
Page 29 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 3: Methods for Assessing Performance in Programs with an Explicit Early 

Learning or Child Care Purpose

Note: Many program officials told us they collect other performance information through granteesubmitted performance reports or other methods.

a

Education has not conducted an evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program, although a key 

purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to learn how particular strategies affect student 

outcomes through a rigorous evaluation of the program. In 2014, we recommended that the Secretary 

of Education should develop a plan to use the data collected from grantees to conduct a national 

evaluation of the program. As of May 2017, this recommendation remained open. GAO, Education 

Grants: Promise Neighborhoods Promotes Collaboration but Needs National Evaluation Plan, 

GAO-14-432 (Washington D.C.: May 5, 2014).

b

Education has not conducted an evaluation of the current Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy 

program, but it has synthesized evaluations of adolescent reading interventions implemented by the 

related 2006 and 2009 Striving Readers grant cohorts. The original Striving Readers program funded 

the 2006 and 2009 grant cohorts, and aimed to, among other things, build a scientific research base 

for identifying and replicating strategies to improve adolescent literacy skills. The name of the 

program changed in fiscal year 2010 to Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy, with the new 

program focusing on supporting pre-literacy in addition to adolescent literacy.

c

Interior monitors program performance of the Family and Child Education (FACE) program through 

an annual program review. These annual reviews include implementation data and program 

outcomes, such as children’s proficiency in math and literacy, as well as indicators of cultural and 

social development, which officials can use to assess program progress from year to year.
Page 30 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

While agencies use different methods to assess programs, all agencies 

that administer programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose collect performance information that aligns with program 

objectives to determine progress toward those objectives. For example, 

the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program aims to advance 

literacy skills—including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing—for 

students from birth through grade 12. The program has four performance 

measures that assess student’s literacy proficiency at age 4, grade 5, 

grade 8, and again at high school. (See appendix IV for more details on 

recent program performance for each of the nine explicit-purpose early 

learning or child care programs.)

Additionally, agency officials examine common aspects of performance 

for many programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose. 

Specifically, we found that many programs had assessments relating to 1) 

results for children age 5 and under, 2) program quality or teacher 

qualifications, and 3) academic improvement or kindergarten readiness 

(see fig. 4). For example:

• Children age 5 and under: Eight of the nine programs assess results 

regarding this age group.35 For example, for the Early Intervention 

Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, Education officials 

assessed the percentage of children who entered the program with 

below age social-emotional skills and who then substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

• Program quality or teacher qualifications: Six of the nine programs 

assess program quality or teacher qualifications. For example, CCDF 

measures the number of states that implement a systemic approach 

to assessing, improving, and communicating a child care or education 

program’s level of quality, including meeting certain benchmarks. 

Similarly, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities measures the 

number of states with at least 90 percent of special education 

teachers certified in the areas in which they are teaching.

• Academic improvement or kindergarten readiness: Eight of the 

nine programs, including all seven of the programs with an explicit 

early learning purpose, assess academic improvement or 

 35The one program that does not measure results specific to children age 5 and under is 

CCAMPIS. This program collects information through grantee-submitted reports on 

children who participate in program-funded child care, and on child care facilities 

accreditation and licensure status, but officials have not established an outcome measure 

associated with children who receive child care.
Page 31 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

kindergarten readiness. For example, for the Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy program, Education measures the 

percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieve significant 

gains in oral language skills. For Preschool Development Grants, 

Education measures the number and percentage of children served 

by the grant who are ready for kindergarten.

Figure 4: Common Aspects of Performance Assessed by Programs with an Explicit 

Early Learning or Child Care Purpose

Note: Some individual results relate to both children age 5 and under and to academic improvement 

or kindergarten readiness. Agencies assess results for the areas listed in this table through various 

methods, including performance monitoring, evaluations, or other studies. For evaluations, we limited 

our review to recent evaluations or studies that assessed results that aligned with program objectives.

a

The goal of the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program is to support the 

participation of low-income parents in the postsecondary education system through the provision of 

campus-based child care services, with the objective of increasing access for these parents to 

postsecondary institutions. Therefore, program performance measures assess persistence and 
Page 32 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

graduation from grantee postsecondary institutions. Officials told us they collect additional 

performance information from grantees about child care services and participating children.

b

In the cohort of grants funded prior to the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, Preschool 

Development grantees were required to meet nationally recognized program quality standards.

c

HHS conducted four studies examining different strategies to improve child care quality. Three of 

these studies assessed the impacts of specific strategies on early language development and school 

readiness.

Although many of the programs with an explicit early learning or child 

care purpose assess common aspects of performance, the specific 

results agencies examine differ for a number of reasons. One reason is 

that agencies use different tools to assess performance. For example, 

although all seven early learning programs assess some aspect of 

academic improvement or kindergarten readiness, programs vary in how 

they perform these assessments. The Striving Readers Comprehensive 

Literacy program provides grants to states and requires them to use 

approved state accountability assessments to determine most program 

performance measures.36 In contrast, the FACE program provides grants 

to Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools that implement in-home 

and center-based services, and uses a single student assessment tool to 

measure performance across participants.37

Another reason assessments differ is that some programs examine 

students’ progress while they participate in the program, whereas others 

assess proficiency at a particular point in time. For instance, both of the 

special education programs administered by Education that we reviewed 

collect entry and exit data on children with disabilities who receive 

program services. Officials use these assessments to show children’s 

developmental progress while in the program across a number of early 

childhood outcomes, including early language and literacy knowledge 

skills, including early language and literacy knowledge skills. In contrast, 

other programs assess children only once, during the academic year. For 

 36For the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program, Education requires states to 

report on participating children’s performance on state English language arts assessments 

or student growth on Education-approved state student growth models for children in 

grades 5, 8, and12. For assessments of children at age 4, the program measures the 

percentage of participating children who achieve significant gains in oral language skills 

on a variety of state-selected assessments.

37The FACE program compares scores on the Measures of Academic Progress Reading 

Assessment and the Measures of Academic Progress Mathematics Assessment at 

kindergarten entry between children who participated in the FACE program and those that 

did not.
Page 33 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

example, the Preschool Development Grants program assesses children 

once at kindergarten entry.

Programs also differ in the time frame over which officials assess 

performance. For example, HHS has assessed the long-term impact of 

Head Start and Early Head Start by evaluating the same cohort of 

children as they progress through later grades, even after the children 

stopped receiving program services. Other programs gauge children’s 

performance annually while grantees receive funding, but do not evaluate 

them after they stop receiving grant-funded services. (See appendix IV for 

additional performance details and a complete list of program 

performance measures for all nine programs with an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose.)

In addition to assessing performance by program, HHS and Education 

each have an agency-wide priority goal that incorporates early learning or 

child care program performance measures, and both agencies assess 

performance on meeting these goals. The GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRAMA) requires that every 2 years, certain agencies identify 

their highest priority performance goals, which GPRAMA refers to as 

agency priority goals. Agencies are expected to identify performance 

measures to track progress on achieving these goals, or identify 

alternative ways of measuring progress, such as milestones for 

completing major deliverables.38 Education incorporated performance 

measures for the Preschool Development Grants program into its priority 

goal, and HHS incorporated performance measures from Head Start and 

CCDF (see table 5). Education and HHS have incorporated these goals 

into their strategic plans and have published updates on progress toward 

meeting their priority goals at performance.gov.

 3831 U.S.C. § 1120(b). GAO, Managing for Results: Greater Transparency Needed in 

Public Reporting on the Quality of Performance Information for Selected Agencies’ Priority 

Goals, GAO-15-788 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 10, 2015).
Page 34 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 5: Early Learning and Child Care Agency Priority Goals and Performance Indicators for Fiscal Years 2016-2017

Department Priority goal Performance indicator

Education Increase the percentage of children, 

especially children from low-income 

families, enrolled in high-quality preschool 

programs.

Percentage of 4-year-old children enrolled in state preschool 

programs.

Number of state preschool programs meeting high-quality 

standards.

Health and Human 

Services

Improve the quality of early childhood 

programs for low-income children. 

Increase the percentage of teachers in Head Start and Early 

Head Start that have a Bachelor’s degree (Bachelor of Arts) or 

higher.

Increase the number of states with quality rating and 

improvement systems that meet high quality benchmarks for 

child care and other early childhood programs developed by 

HHS.

a

Reduce the proportion of Head Start grantees receiving a score 

in the low range on the basis of the Classroom Assessment 

Scoring System.b

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ reported performance information. | GAO-17-463

a

Quality rating and improvement systems are a systemic approach to assessing, improving, and 

communicating the level of quality in child care and education programs. These standards are used to 

assign ratings to participating programs, providing parents and the public with information about each 

program’s quality.

b

The Classroom Assessment Scoring System is an observation instrument that assesses the quality 

of teacher-child interactions in preschool classrooms.

Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget states that 

agencies are to identify tax expenditures, as appropriate, among the 

various federal programs and activities that contribute to their strategic 

objectives and agency priority goals.39 HHS officials told us that they 

decided the three child care-related tax expenditures we identified are not 

potential contributors to their agency priority goal to improve the quality of 

early childhood programs for low-income children. According to HHS 

officials, they concluded that low-income families who qualify for HHS’s 

 39We previously reported that agencies may not assess the effectiveness of tax 

expenditures because of 1) a reported lack of clarity about their roles and challenges with 

performance measurement, and 2) a lack of sufficient data available to estimate the 

degree to which some tax expenditures are used, since tax forms do not collect specific 

data on them. To help address these issues, we recommended that federal agencies 

identify which tax expenditures contribute to their goals. As of April 2017, this 

recommendation remained unimplemented. See GAO, Tax Expenditures: Opportunities 

Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance Processes to Increase Oversight, 

GAO-16-622 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2016). 
Page 35 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

key programs, such as CCDF, are not likely to benefit from these tax 

expenditures due to their lack of tax liabilities. Moreover, agency officials 

told us the child care-related tax expenditures we identified are available 

to help pay for dependent care and do not directly align with HHS’s 

priority goal focused on program quality. According to Education officials, 

Education also does not incorporate these tax expenditures in its agency 

priority goal because families who benefit from publicly provided early 

learning services would not incur tuition costs, and therefore would not 

benefit from these expenditures.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services 

(HHS), and the Interior (Interior). We also sent selected excerpts of the 

report to the Appalachian Regional Commission, and to the Departments 

of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, the 

Treasury, and the General Services Administration. We received formal 

written comments from HHS, which are reproduced in appendix V. In 

addition, Education and HHS provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. Interior did not have comments on our 

report.

In its written comments, HHS agreed with our findings and noted that 

children and families benefit most from investments in federal early 

learning and child care programs when they are coordinated with similar 

programs and activities. The agency also noted that it will continue to 

work with the Department of Education and other agencies to streamline 

resources for early learning and child care programs, to the extent 

permitted by law.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services, 

and the Interior, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 36 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Cindy S. Brown Barnes, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

The objectives of this review were to examine: (1) what is known about 

the federal investment in early learning and child care programs; (2) the 

extent to which early learning and child care programs are fragmented, 

overlap, or are duplicative, and the efforts agencies have made to 

manage these conditions; and (3) the extent to which agencies assess 

performance for programs with an explicit early learning or child care 

purpose.

To count the number of federal early learning and child care programs, 

we examined the key benefits and services they provide.1 We used the 

following three criteria to identify relevant programs. The programs (1) 

funded or supported early learning or child care services, (2) were 

provided to children age 5 and under, and (3) delivered services in an 

educational or child care setting. We excluded kindergarten programs 

from our scope because early learning applies to children who are 

preschool age (age 5 and under), while children who are in kindergarten 

are grouped as part of the standard K-12 education demographic. We 

also excluded any programs that were not listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA), a government-wide compendium of federal 

programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or 

benefits to the American public. Additionally, we limited our review to 

programs for which federal funds were obligated in fiscal year 2015, the 

most recent available obligations data at the time we conducted our work. 

As we did in 2012 and prior work, we excluded programs operated by the 

U.S. Department of Defense because these programs are available only 

to members of the military and their families.2 Furthermore, these 

programs are not listed in the CFDA.

Tax expenditures included in this review include those that (1) fund or 

support early learning or child care services, (2) are obtained on behalf of 

children under age 5, and (3) forgo taxes so those funds can be used to 

 1

In 2012, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance allowing agencies 

flexibility to define and count their programs using five possible approaches. These 

include defining programs by: 1) goals and outcomes; 2) beneficiaries, customers, or other 

target populations; 3) key benefits, services, or products; 4) administering agencies or 

organizational structure; and 5) budget. The resulting number of programs can vary 

depending on the approach used to define programs. 

2

For a more detailed description of the methodology we used in our 2012 review, see p. 

201, “How GAO Conducted Its Work,” GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to 

Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance 

Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Selection Criteria for 

Programs and Tax 

Expenditures
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

purchase child care services occurring in an educational or child care 

setting.

In identifying programs and tax expenditures for this work, we relied on 

the results of our 2012 report, agency responses to our questionnaires, 

and other supplemental information provided by agencies. We did not 

conduct an independent legal analysis to verify the accuracy of the 

information provided to us by agencies.

To identify federal programs and tax expenditures, we started with the list 

of 45 programs and 5 tax expenditures in our 2012 review. For each 

program, we sent questionnaires to and received responses from nine 

agencies and one regional commission and conducted follow-up 

interviews to confirm that these programs and tax expenditures continued 

to meet all three of our criteria, which are described more fully below, in 

fiscal year 2015. We asked agency officials to identify additional 

programs meeting these criteria that were not included in our 2012 

review. We reviewed descriptions in the Congressional Research 

Service’s 2014 Tax Compendium to identify any new tax expenditures 

that can be used for early learning or child care. We used the 

questionnaires we sent to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to 

confirm that the tax expenditures we identified in 2012 remained in effect 

in fiscal year 2015. In addition to agency responses to our questionnaires, 

we obtained supplementary information from the Departments of 

Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior 

(Interior), and other agencies.3

Using a similar definition as in our prior review, we considered a program 

to have an explicit early learning or child care purpose if, according to our 

analysis, early learning or child care is specifically described as a 

program purpose in the CFDA or other agency information.

After we identified programs and tax expenditures that met our criteria, 

we obtained information about fiscal year 2015 program obligations, the 

most recent year for which these data were available, from the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2017. We obtained information on 

 3

Examples include information from annual reports and program notices in the Federal 

Register.

Efforts to Identify 

Programs and Tax 

Expenditures

Efforts to Identify Program 

Obligations and Estimated 

Revenue Loss
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

estimated losses in revenue from fiscal year 2015 tax expenditures from 

Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017.

To analyze potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across 

programs, we assessed the programs’ activities and target populations 

using questionnaire responses from the nine agencies and one 

commission, as well as from supporting documentation. We also 

interviewed Education and HHS officials regarding their efforts to 

coordinate with other agencies that administer early learning and child 

care programs, and examined documents about these efforts. We 

compared these efforts against leading practices for agency 

collaboration.4

In addition, we obtained information about program performance for 

programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose by 

reviewing agency performance reports, congressional budget 

justifications, and program studies, and by interviewing agency officials. 

For programs with performance measures, we reported the results for the 

last 3 years of available data found in agency congressional budget 

justifications, or other publically available sources. We also reviewed 

program studies that were cited in congressional budget justifications or 

other published performance documents, and obtained additional 

program studies that Education, HHS, and Interior conducted or used 

independent contractors to conduct. Through these steps, we identified 

30 studies published between 2002 and 2016. We then reviewed a 

subset of 27 studies that we determined to have assessed results aligned 

with the programs’ objectives. We reviewed the methodological and 

analytical approaches of each of these studies to ensure that they were 

appropriate to measure program performance.

 4

Key features of leading practices for agency collaboration fall into the following 

categories: outcomes and accountability; bridging organizational cultures; leadership; 

clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; resources; and written guidance and 

agreements. See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance 

and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

21, 2005); Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012); and 

Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in 

Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

Efforts to Assess Potential 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication

Efforts to Assess 

Performance Information
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 40 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Agencies that Administer Programs With and Without an Explicit Early 

Learning or Child Care Purpose

Figure 5: Department of Education Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 41 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

a

In our 2012 review, we listed this program as Special Education-Grants for Infants and Families.

b

In our 2012 review, we identified the Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies as 

having an explicit early learning or child care purpose. According to officials from the Department of 

Education (Education), this program permits funds to be used for early learning or child care, but this 

is not a required component of the program. According to our analysis of the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and agency documents, services provided through this program are not 

targeted to children age 5 and under, insofar as they include activities such as after-school programs, 

tutoring, and drop-out prevention. We therefore identified the program as not having an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose in this review.

c

The Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, authorized a 

Preschool Development Grants program to be administered by HHS, jointly with Education. Pub. L. 

No. 114-95, § 9212, 129 Stat. 1802, 2152 (2015). Previously, the program had been authorized 

through appropriations language and was funded through Education, and was jointly administered by 

HHS and Education.

d

In our 2012 review, we listed this program as Special Education-Preschool Grants.

e

In 2012, we did not classify Promise Neighborhoods as a program with an explicit early learning or 

child care purpose, because early learning or child care was not listed as a specific purpose in the 

program materials we reviewed. We changed the classification of this program to one that has an 

explicit early learning or child care purpose because “building a complete continuum of cradlethrough-college-to-career solutions” is described as one of the purposes of the program in the 

Federal Register.

f

The Every Student Succeeds Act eliminated the School Improvement Grants program. However, 

according to Education, consistent with the transition provisions of this Act and the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2016, Education made a final round of School Improvement Grant 

awards for fiscal year 2016.

Figure 6: Department of Health and Human Services Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as 

of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) consists of two funding sources: mandatory and 

matching funding authorized under section 418 of the Social Security Act, and discretionary funding 

authorized under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended. In addition, 

states may transfer up to 30 percent of their allotment under Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 42 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Families (TANF) to CCDF. States operate subsidy programs using these two funding sources as one 

program, according to HHS officials. In our 2012 report, we listed each of these components 

separately because they were listed individually in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA). However, for our current review, we considered key benefits and services as the framework 

to guide our identification of programs, regardless of how the components are listed in the CFDA.

Figure 7: Department of the Interior Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

This program is also known as Johnson-O’Malley Assistance Grants.
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 43 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 8: Appalachian Regional Commission Program that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal 

Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

Figure 9: Department of Agriculture Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 

2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

Agencies that Administer 

Programs Without an 

Explicit Early Learning or 

Child Care Purpose
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 44 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 10: General Services Administration Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal 

Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

In 2012, we noted that the General Services Administration’s Child Care Program had an explicit 

early learning or child care purpose. We determined that this program is out of the scope of our 

current review because it is a benefit for a limited number of federal employees and not listed in the 

CFDA.

Figure 11: Department of Housing and Urban Development Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child 

Care (as of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

The Community Development Block Grant comprises Entitlement Grants, Special Purpose 

Grants/Insular Areas, and State Program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii. In our 2012 report, 

we listed each of these components separately because they were listed individually in the CFDA. 

However, for our current review, we considered key benefits and services as the framework to guide 

our identification of programs, regardless of how the components are listed in the CFDA.
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 45 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 12: Department of Justice Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 2015), 

Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

In our 2012 report, we listed this program as the Reduction and Prevention of Children’s Exposure to 

Violence (Safe Start) program. The Department of Justice has since replaced the Reduction and 

Prevention of Children’s Exposure to Violence (Safe Start) program with the Defending 

Childhood/Children’s Exposure to Violence program.
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 46 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 13: Department of Labor Programs that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care (as of Fiscal Year 2015), 

Using Programs GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

a

This program was listed as the Workforce Investment Act Adult Program in our 2012 report. The 

program’s name changed as a result of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which 

amended the previous law in 2014.

b

This program was listed as the Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Formula Grants in our 

2012 report. The program’s name changed as a result of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act, which amended the previous law in 2014.
Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care

Page 47 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Figure 14: Department of the Treasury Child Care-Related Tax Expenditures (as of Fiscal Year 2015), Using Tax Expenditures 

GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline

Note: The tax provisions listed in this figure are not exclusively available for the care of children age 5 

and under. The credit for child and dependent care expenses may also cover dependent care for 

individuals who are physically or mentally incapable of self-care, including adults with disabilities or 

who are elderly. In our 2012 report on this topic, we listed the names of tax expenditures as they 

appeared in the Congressional Research Service’s 2010 Tax Compendium. For our current review, 

we list the names of these tax provisions as they appear in the Department of the Treasury’s 

(Treasury) Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017.

a

In our 2012 report, we listed this tax expenditure as the credit for employer-provided child care.

b

This tax expenditure is also known as the dependent care assistance program exclusion. In our 2012 

report, we listed this tax expenditure as the exclusion of employer-provided child and dependent care. 

For the purposes of this report we will refer to this tax expenditure as the employer-provided child 

care exclusion, which is how it is referred to in Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Estimates.

c

The exclusion of benefits provided under cafeteria plans includes revenue used for health insurance 

and other benefits, in addition to dependent care. According to Treasury officials, estimates for 

various benefits under cafeteria plans are reported separately by budget function (e.g., healthcare). 

Revenue loss associated with child care through cafeteria plans is the employer-provided child care 

exclusion.

Tax Expenditures
Page 48 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 6: Obligations for Programs without an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, but That Permit Such Uses of 

Funds, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2015

FY 2015 

program 

obligations 

(dollars in 

millions)

FY 2015 

obligations for 

early learning or 

child care 

(dollars in 

millions)b

FY 2015 early 

learning or child 

care obligations 

as a percent of 

total program 

obligations 

(percent) 

Appalachian Regional Commission

Appalachian Area Development 117 2 2 

Department of Agriculturea

Child and Adult Care Food Program 3,350 2,935a 88

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program 139 − −

National School Lunch Program 12,002 − −

School Breakfast Program 4,057 − −

Special Milk Program for Children 11 − −

Department of Education

Alaska Native Educational Programs 31 − −

Education for Homeless Children and Youth 65 − −

English Language Acquisition Grants 739 − −

Full-Service Community Schools 10 − −

Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies 100 − −

Indian Education-Special Programs for Indian Children 18 4b 22 

Migrant Education-State Grant Program 365 − −

Native Hawaiian Education 32 14b 44 

School Improvement Grantsc 504 − −

Special Education-Grants to States 11,502 − −

Special Education-State Personnel Development 42 − −

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 14,410 − −

Department of Health and Human Services − −

Community Services Block Grant 674 − −

Social Services Block Grantd 1,576 −d 18

Temporary Assistance for Needy Familiese 16,716 − −

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Development Block Grantsf 2,662 − −

Choice Neighborhoods 148 − −

Jobs-Plus Pilot Initiative 15 − −

Appendix III: Fiscal Year 2015 Obligations for 

Programs without an Explicit Early Learning 

or Child Care Purpose
Page 49 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

FY 2015 

program 

obligations 

(dollars in 

millions)

FY 2015 

obligations for 

early learning or 

child care 

(dollars in 

millions)b

FY 2015 early 

learning or child 

care obligations 

as a percent of 

total program 

obligations 

(percent) 

Department of Justice

Defending Childhood/Children's Exposure to Violence 7 − −

Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of Domestic 

Violence, Dating Violence, Stalking or Sexual Assault

25 − −

Department of Labor 

National Farmworker Jobs Program 82 − −

Native American Employment and Training Program 46 − −

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Program 775 − −

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Dislocated Worker Program 1,240 − −

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Youth Activities 830 − −

YouthBuild 76 − −

Department of the Interior − −

Indian Child Welfare Title II Grants 28 − −

Indian Education-Assistance to Schoolsg 15 − −

General Services Administration

Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property 58 − −

Legend: − = no information available, according to agency officials

Source: GAO analysis of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal and federal agency responses to GAO questionnaire. | GAO-17-463

Notes: Obligations amounts published in the President’s budget are published as dollars in millions. 

We similarly rounded obligation amounts provided by agency officials to the nearest million. Agency 

officials told us they could not identify the amount of funds used for early learning or child care 

purposes for many programs. Obligations identified for early learning or child care purposes include 

funds for services for children birth through age 5. However, this may include some funds obligated 

for services provided in-home or in other informal settings (e.g., home visits).

a

The Department of Agriculture provided us with this estimate of program obligations used for meal 

reimbursement by home daycare providers and child care centers, based on average reimbursement 

rates. However, officials noted that they do not track this amount for program administration 

purposes.

b

Education officials told us that the amount of funds used for early learning or child care in fiscal year 

2015 is an estimate, and it is the total amount that was awarded to grantees for projects that were 

exclusively focused on early childhood. Additionally, officials said that for those grantees, it is likely 

that not every dollar went to support early childhood directly (e.g., some funds were probably used for 

program administration).

c

The Every Student Succeeds Act eliminated the School Improvement Grants program. However, 

according to Education, consistent with the transition provisions of this act and the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2016, the Department made a final round of School Improvement 

Grant awards for fiscal year 2016.

d

According to HHS officials, states do not obligate Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for child 

care or early learning; however, states may elect to use any portion of their funding for services 

categorized as children’s daycare. HHS officials told us that in fiscal year 2015 states expended a 

total of $2,761,559,075 in SSBG funds, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Page 50 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

transfer funds and allowable carryover from the previous fiscal year. Officials said that of that total 

expenditure amount, $287,826,781 (including TANF transfer funds) were expended for children’s 

daycare services.

e

TANF obligations used for early learning or child care of are not tracked at the federal level, 

according to HHS officials. However, states do report TANF spending and transfers for child care. In 

fiscal year 2015, states used $1,250,115,096 in federal TANF funds for child care (spent directly or 

transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund) and $52,438,839 for pre-kindergarten or Head 

Start.

f

Officials from the Department of Housing and Urban Development told us that they track 

expenditures related to early learning or child care activities, not obligations.

g

This program is also known as Johnson-O’Malley Assistance Grants.
Page 51 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

The Department of Education (Education) has two performance 

measures for Child Care Access Means Parents in School program 

(CCAMPIS), but has not set program-wide targets (see table 7). 

Education reports performance on these measures separately for fouryear and two-year institutions of higher education in its annual 

congressional budget justification. The fiscal year 2017 budget 

justification contained performance information for fiscal years 2012 and 

2013. Education officials told us reporting requirements for the program 

changed recently, from 18- and 36-month performance reporting to 

annual performance reporting. At that time, officials revised the data 

collection instrument and program performance measures to reflect the 

annual data collection. As of 2016, officials said they have two years of 

baseline data and are considering setting performance targets for future 

years.

Education has not conducted an evaluation of the CCAMPIS program. 

However, officials told us they use data from other Education-conducted 

evaluations of post-secondary students to gather contextual information 

about conditions associated with low-income student parents.

Appendix IV: Performance Information for 

Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or 

Child Care Purpose

Department of 

Education: 

Performance 

Assessment of 

Programs with an 

Explicit Early 

Learning or Child 

Care Purpose

Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School 

(CCAMPIS)
Page 52 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 7: Performance Measures for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program, Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013

Legend: − = No Data

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

Note: According to Education officials, in addition to these primary performance measures, Education 

reports on an additional efficiency measure: the federal cost per CCAMPIS student enrolled at 

grantee institutions receiving child care services who remains in postsecondary education at the end 

of the academic year.

a

Education recently stopped reporting completion rates at 4-year grantee institutions. According to 

Education’s Fiscal Year 2017 congressional budget justification, the methodology used for this 

measure was problematic because the denominator included students who had not been in school 

long enough to graduate even if they persisted without interruption. The Department does not plan to 

replace this measure. CCAMPIS grantees at 4-year institutions will continue to be required to submit 

completion rate data for students served by their projects; however, the data will not be aggregated to 

obtain completion rates at 4-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions.

Education has six performance measures for the Early Intervention 

Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and set program-wide 

targets for each of these (see table 8).1 In its congressional budget 

justification, Education reports its progress toward achieving these targets 

annually. Results have remained relatively stable among the six 

measures over the 3 years of data we reviewed (2012-2014). However, in 

2014, the most recent year of available data, Education reported meeting 

two performance targets: the number of states that serve at least 1 

percent of infants in the general population under age 1 through this 

program, and the percentage of children receiving age-appropriate early 

intervention services in the home or in programs designed for typically 

developing peers. Other measures were relatively close to meeting 

 1

This program is also known as Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA).

Summary of program objectives 

Increase access for low-income parents to postsecondary institutions. 

Performance measures

(in percent)

FY 2012

2-year 

Institutions 

FY 2012

4-year 

Institutions

FY 2013

2-year 

Institutions 

FY 2013

4-year 

Institutions 

Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at 

CCAMPIS grantee institutions receiving child care services 

who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the 

academic year, as reported in the annual performance 

report.

49 69 45 46

Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at 

2-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions receiving child care 

services who graduate from postsecondary education 

within 3 years of enrollment.a

31 − 35 −

Early Intervention Program 

for Infants and Toddlers 

with Disabilities
Page 53 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

targets. Education acknowledges that some data quality issues exist, 

particularly with regard to missing data.2

In various reauthorizations, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) has included provisions for collecting information on the 

implementation and impact of the law. For example, in response to a 

requirement in the 1997 reauthorization, Education conducted four 

longitudinal child-based studies on specific age groups, including the 

National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). NEILS was a 

descriptive study of young children and families served through this 

program, the services they received, the cost of those services, and the 

outcomes that children and their families experienced. According to the 

authors of the final NEILS report, outcomes for families and children from 

birth through age 3 were generally positive.3 For example, nearly one 

third of children who received early interventions were not receiving 

special education services at kindergarten, nor did they have any 

disability. However, a large percentage of children who received early 

intervention services had communication problems, such as speech or 

communication delay, or the inability to make needs known, and for many 

children, these problems continued through kindergarten.

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA also called for a national assessment to 

measure the implementation progress and the relative effectiveness of 

the law. Among other reports published as part of the IDEA national 

assessment, Education published an analysis of the patterns in 

identification of and outcomes for children with disabilities as well as a 

report on IDEA implementation.4 Among other key findings, Education 

 2

According to Education’s published performance information, because the program’s 

performance measures require entry- and exit-testing of participating children in order to 

measure growth in these outcomes, it requires a significant investment of time and 

technical assistance at both the federal and state levels to ensure that the data collected 

are valid, reliable, and meaningful. Education reports that it has made efforts to address 

these concerns by investing in technical assistance to state grantees.

3

Kathlen Hebbeler, et al. “Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and 

their Families: Participants, Services, and Outcomes, Final Report of the National Early 

Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS)” SRI International for the U.S. Office of Special 

Education Programs (January 2007).

4

Jose Blackorby, et al. “Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and 

Youth with Disabilities. Final Report. NCEE 2010-4005.” National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2010), and M.C. Bradley, et al. “IDEA National 

Assessment Implementation Study.” Final Report. NCEE 2011-4027.” National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2011).
Page 54 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

found that 32 states have early learning guidelines for infants and 

toddlers. Few states, however, provide a mandated or suggested written 

plan documenting the early intervention services a child should receive 

and how these services are to be administered for infants and toddlers 

and their families.

Education also uses the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort, 

a nationally representative sample of children studied from birth through 

their entry into kindergarten, to obtain important demographic information 

on infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Table 8: Reported Performance Targets and Results for the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities, Project Years 2012-2014

Summary of program objectives

The functional development of infants and toddlers will be enhanced by early intervention services.

All infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families will receive early intervention services in natural environments that meet their 

individual needs.

Performance measures 2012

Target

2012

Actual

2013

Target

2013

Actual

2014

Target

2014

Actual

Percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the 

program below age expectations in positive socialemotional skills (including social relationships) who 

substantially increased their rate of growth by the time 

they exited the program. 

67 66 69 66 69 65

Percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the 

program below age expectations in acquisition and use 

of knowledge and skills (including early 

language/communication and early literacy) who 

substantially increased their rate of growth by the time 

they exited the program. 

71 72 73 71 73 71

Percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the 

program below age expectations in the use of 

appropriate behaviors to meet their needs who 

substantially increased their rate of growth by the time 

they exited the program. 

71 73 73 71 73 72

Number of states that serve at least 1 percent of infants 

in the general population under age 1 through Part C.

27 28 27 30 28 31

Number of states that serve at least 2 percent of infants 

and toddlers in the general population, birth through 

age 2, through Part C.

32 44 42 41 45 44

Percentage of children receiving age-appropriate early 

intervention services in the home or in programs 

designed for typically developing peers. 

93 95 94 95 95 96

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463
Page 55 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

The Preschool Development Grants program has three performance 

measures for its fiscal year 2014 cohort of grantees (see table 9).5

Education has not set program-wide performance targets, but requires 

individual grantees to set targets. Education published a progress update 

on grantee performance for the 2015-2016 school year, which was the 

program’s first year of implementation. In this update, Education reported 

that the state grantees met nearly 90 percent of their targets for the 

number of children served in high-quality preschool programs. Education 

has not yet published results for all three of its performance measures.

Education officials told us that Education and HHS have not conducted an 

evaluation of this program, in part because the program is new and in the 

process of implementation.

 5

The Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, 

authorized a Preschool Development Grants program to be administered by HHS, jointly 

with Education. Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 9212, 129 Stat. 1802, 2152 (2015). Previously, the 

program had been authorized through appropriations language and was funded through 

Education, and was jointly administered by Education and HHS. The new program will be 

funded through HHS and jointly administered by HHS and Education. 

Preschool Development 

Grants
Page 56 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 9: Performance Measures for the Preschool Development Grant Program 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

Note: The measures we describe in this report pertain to Preschool Development Grants awarded in 

fiscal year 2014. Additionally, this program has supported two types of grants to states: (1) 

Development Grants for states with small or no state public preschool program to develop or enhance 

their preschool program infrastructure and capacity to deliver high-quality preschool services to 

eligible children in one or more high-need communities, and (2) Expansion Grants to states that have 

robust preschool systems or that have been awarded a Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge 

grant, to implement and sustain high-quality preschool programs to serve additional children in highneed communities. Education developed the following performance measure specifically for 

Development Grants: the number of states that collect and analyze data on state preschool program 

quality, including the structural elements of quality specified in Education and HHS’s definition of 

high-quality preschool programs.

Education has five performance measures for Preschool Grants for 

Children with Disabilities and sets program-wide targets for each of these 

(see table 10).6 In its congressional budget justification, Education reports 

its progress toward achieving these targets annually. Results have 

remained relatively stable among the five measures over the 3 years of 

data we reviewed (2012-2014). However, in 2014, the most recent year of 

available data, Education reported meeting only one performance 

target—the percentage of children with disabilities (ages 3 through 5) 

attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of 

hours of special education and related services in the regular early 

childhood program. Other measures were relatively close to meeting 

 6

This program is also known as Part B, section 619 of IDEA.

Summary of program objectives Performance measures

Support state and local efforts to build, 

develop, and expand high quality 

preschool programs so that children 

from low- and moderate-income 

families enter kindergarten ready to 

succeed in school and in life. 

Number and percentage of eligible children served in high-quality preschool programs funded 

by the grant; 

Number and percentage of children served overall in the state preschool program; and

Number and percentage of children in the high-need communities served by the grant that are 

ready for kindergarten as determined by the state's kindergarten entry assessment or, if the 

state does not yet have a kindergarten entry assessment, other valid and reliable means of 

determining school readiness.

Preschool Grants for 

Children with Disabilities
Page 57 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

targets. Education acknowledges that some data quality issues exist, 

particularly with regard to missing data.7

In various reauthorizations, IDEA has included provisions for collecting 

information on the implementation and impact of the law. For example, in 

response to a requirement in the 1997 reauthorization, Education 

conducted four longitudinal child-based studies on specific age groups, 

including the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS). 

PEELS was designed to describe young children with disabilities, their 

experiences, the services they receive, as well as their performance over 

time in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school. Education has 

conducted several reports based on these longitudinal data. In the most 

recent report we reviewed, Education found, among other things, that 

children who received preschool special education services showed 

growth each year in vocabulary and mathematics; however, growth 

slowed in both subject areas as children got older. Children’s 

performance varied across assessments and across subgroups defined 

by disability. At age 10, the gap between these subgroups persisted, and 

there were no differences in growth rates between subgroups.8

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA also called for a national assessment to 

measure the implementation progress and the relative effectiveness of 

the law. Among other reports published as part of the IDEA national 

assessment, Education published an analysis of the patterns in 

identification of and outcomes for children with disabilities as well as a 

report on IDEA implementation.9 Education found that the percentage of 

children identified for services increased every year from 1997 to 2006 for 

all preschool-age children, among other findings. Furthermore, children in 

 7

According to Education’s published performance information, because the program’s 

performance measures require entry- and exit-testing of participating children in order to 

measure growth in these outcomes, these measures require a significant investment of 

time and technical assistance at both the federal and state levels to ensure that the data 

collected are valid, reliable, and meaningful. Education reports that it has made efforts to 

address these concerns by investing in technical assistance to state grantees.

8

Elaine Carlson, et al. “A Longitudinal View of the Receptive Vocabulary and Math 

Achievement of Young Children with Disabilities. NCSER 2011-3006.” National Center for 

Special Education Research Institute for Education Sciences (2011).

9

Jose Blackorby, et al. “Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and 

Youth with Disabilities. Final Report. NCEE 2010-4005.” National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2010), and M.C. Bradley, et al. “IDEA National 

Assessment Implementation Study. Final Report. NCEE 2011-4027” National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (2011).
Page 58 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

each of the disability categories differed significantly from the general 

population in academic skills as well as social development. Among other 

key findings, this study found that 27 states either mandate or suggest a 

standards-based individualized education program for preschool age 

children. Such a program is designed to enable a child to make progress 

in the general education curriculum through the inclusion of state 

academic standards, among other things.

Additionally, through two complementary cohort studies of children’s early 

school experiences, Education is currently investigating outcomes 

experienced by children with and without disabilities in preschool 

programs, through its National Center for Education Statistics.10

Table 10: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, Project Years 2012-

2014 

Summary of program objectives

Preschool children with disabilities will receive special education and related services that result in increased skills that enable them to 

succeed in school.

Program measures 2012 

Target

2012 

Actual

2013 

Target

2013 

Actual

2014 

Target

2014 

Actual

Percentage of children who entered the program below 

age expectations in positive social-emotional skills 

(including social relationships) who substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the 

program. 

81 79 82 81 83 80

Percentage of children who entered the program below 

age expectations in acquisition and use of knowledge 

and skills (including early language/communication and 

early literacy) who substantially increased their rate of 

growth by the time they exited the program. 

81 80 82 80 83 80

Percentage of children who entered the program below 

age expectations in the use of appropriate behaviors to 

meet their needs who substantially increased their rate of 

growth by the time they exited the program. 

81 77 82 80 83 79

Percentage of children with disabilities (ages 3 through 5) 

attending a regular early childhood program and 

receiving the majority of hours of special education and 

related services in the regular early childhood program.a

− − set 

baseline

44 44 44

 10Education is currently collecting data on children participating in The Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 cohort. It plans to release the final 

round of data by fall 2018. Education collected the last round of data on the Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort, during the 2007-2008 school year. 
Page 59 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Program measures 2012 

Target

2012 

Actual

2013 

Target

2013 

Actual

2014 

Target

2014 

Actual

Number of states with at least 90 percent of special 

education teachers of children with disabilities ages 3 to 

5 who are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching. 

41 44 42 43 45 44

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

a

Education set the baseline for this measure in fiscal year 2013 because this is a new measure that 

replaced a previous measure on the extent to which children with disabilities receive their special 

education services in regular education settings.

Education has 15 performance measures for the Promise Neighborhoods 

program (see tables 11 and 12).11 Education requires that individual 

grantees set their own performance targets. Education publicly reports 

available data for its two grant cohorts online. Due to data reliability 

concerns, Education officials have not reported results for some of the 

performance measures. Education officials stated that some of these data 

are under development because they have not been able to collect them 

consistently from their grantees. They noted that they have made efforts 

to address these concerns by investing in technical assistance to 

grantees.

Education has not conducted an evaluation of the Promise 

Neighborhoods program. A key purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods 

Grant program is to learn how particular strategies affect student 

outcomes through a rigorous evaluation of the program. In 2014, we 

recommended that the Secretary of Education develop a plan to use the 

data collected from grantees to conduct a national evaluation of the 

program. As of May 2017, this recommendation remained 

unimplemented.12

 11Tables 11 and 12 below contain data on 18 measures. Education reports student 

attendance, academic proficiency, and kindergarten readiness measures to display more 

specific information. For example, Education reports its student attendance measure 

separately by average daily attendance rates and chronic absenteeism rates. Additionally, 

Education reports student proficiency on math and reading assessments separately. 

12GAO, Education Grants: Promise Neighborhoods Promotes Collaboration but Needs 

National Evaluation Plan, GAO-14-432 (Washington D.C.: May 5, 2014).

Promise Neighborhoods
Page 60 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 11: Performance Measures for the Promise Neighborhoods Program for Grantees Awarded Funds in 2011, Project Years 

2013-2015

Summary of program objectives 

Provide competitive grants to support distressed communities in implementing a comprehensive, effective continuum of coordinated 

services designed to improve academic and developmental outcomes for children, youth, and their families, from birth through 

college.

Performance measures

(in percent)

2013 2014 2015 

Percent of children, from birth to kindergarten entry, 

who have a place where they usually go, other than an 

emergency room, when they are sick or in need of 

advice about their health. 

80 79 71

Percent of 3-year-olds who demonstrate at the 

beginning of the program age-appropriate functioning 

across multiple domains of early learning as 

determined using developmentally-appropriate early 

learning measures.

− 70 71

Percent of children in kindergarten who demonstrate at 

the beginning of the school year age-appropriate 

functioning across multiple domains of early learning 

as determined using developmentally-appropriate 

early learning measures.

48 50 55

Percent of children, from birth to kindergarten entry, 

participating in center-based or formal home-based 

early learning settings or programs, which may include 

Early Head Start, Head Start, child care, or preschool.

− 42 39

Percent of students at or above grade level according 

to state English language arts assessments in at least 

the grades required by Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (3rd through 8th grades and 

once in high school).

− 41 39

Percent of students at or above grade level according 

to state mathematics assessments in at least the 

grades required by Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (3rd through 8th grades and 

once in high school).

− 35 27

Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th 

grade (measured by average daily attendance rate of 

students).

95 95 94

Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th 

grade (measured by chronic absenteeism rate). 

16 18 16

Graduation rate (four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate).

data under 

development

data under 

development

data under 

development

High school graduates that obtain a postsecondary 

degree, certification or credential (as measured by the 

percent of high school graduates who enroll in a 

college or university).

data under 

development

data under 

development

data under 

development
Page 61 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Legend: − = No Data

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

Note: According to Education’s published performance reporting, data are not available for some 

measures. These reports state that Education does not yet have enough data to report on how 

grantees are progressing, but is gathering this data to share in the future. Additionally, these reports 

also state that some data are under development. According to these reports, Education could not 

compile grantee data to assess a trend because it has not been able to collect uniform data from 

grantees.

Performance measures

(in percent)

2013 2014 2015 

Percent of children who participate in at least 60 

minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily.

− 33 35

Percent of children who consume five or more 

servings of fruits and vegetables daily. 

36 33 32

Percent of students who feel safe at school and 

traveling to and from school, as measured by a school 

climate needs assessment.

70 68 69

Student mobility rate (measured by percent of student 

entries and withdrawals from school).

data under 

development

data under 

development

data under 

development

For children birth to kindergarten entry, the percent of 

parents or family members who report reading to their 

children three or more times a week.

data under 

development

data under 

development

data under 

development

For children in kindergarten through 8th grade, the 

percent of parents or family members who report 

encouraging their children to read books outside of 

school.

data under 

development

data under

development

data under 

development

For children in the 9th to 12th grades, the percent of 

parents or family members who report talking with their 

child about the importance of college and career.

data under 

development

data under 

development

data under 

development

Percent of students who have school and home 

access to broadband internet and a connected 

computing device.

86 89 90
Page 62 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 12: Performance Measures for the Promise Neighborhoods Program for Grantees Awarded Funds in 2012, Project Years

2013-2015 

Summary of program objectives

Provide competitive grants to support distressed communities in implementing a comprehensive, effective continuum of coordinated 

services designed to improve academic and developmental outcomes for children, youth, and their families, from birth through 

college.

Performance measures

(in percent)

2013 2014 2015 

Percent of children, from birth to kindergarten entry, 

who have a place where they usually go, other than an 

emergency room, when they are sick or in need of 

advice about their health. 

75 62 82

Percent of 3-year-olds who demonstrate at the 

beginning of the program age-appropriate functioning 

across multiple domains of early learning as 

determined using developmentally-appropriate early 

learning measures.

53 88 69

Percent of children in kindergarten who demonstrate at 

the beginning of the school year age-appropriate 

functioning across multiple domains of early learning 

as determined using developmentally-appropriate 

early learning measures.

35 39 52

Percent of children, from birth to kindergarten entry, 

participating in center-based or formal home-based 

early learning settings or programs, which may include 

Early Head Start, Head Start, child care, or preschool.

47 40 35

Percent of students at or above grade level according 

to state English language arts assessments in at least 

the grades required by Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (3rd through 8th grades and 

once in high school).a

46 48 43

Percent of students at or above grade level according 

to state mathematics assessments in at least the 

grades required by Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (3rd through 8th grades and 

once in high school).a

43 44 42

Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th 

grade (measured by average daily attendance rate of 

students).

95 90 91

Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th 

grade (measured by chronic absenteeism rate).

20 20 16

Graduation rate (four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate). 

66 72 81

High school graduates that obtain a postsecondary 

degree, certification or credential (as measured by the 

percent of high school graduates who enroll in a 

college or university).

57 67 63
Page 63 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

a

According to Education’s published performance information, due to changes in the tests given to 

students, English language arts and mathematics assessment data is only comparable across 

multiple years for two grantee Neighborhoods.

Education has four performance measures for the Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy program and sets program-wide targets for each

of these (see table 13). In its congressional budget justification, Education 

reports its progress toward achieving these targets annually. One of the 

four performance measures is specific to the early learning population: 

the percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieved 

significant gains in oral language skills. Results on this measure have 

declined over the 2 years of data we reviewed (2013-2015). Education 

reported meeting none of the four performance targets in 2015, the most 

recent year of available data.

Education has not conducted an evaluation of the current Striving 

Readers Comprehensive Literacy program, but officials told us they are 

considering conducting one in the future. However, Education has 

Performance measures

(in percent)

2013 2014 2015 

Percent of children who participate in at least 60 

minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily. 

24 21 25

Percent of children who consume five or more 

servings of fruits and vegetables daily. 

25 29 31

Percent of students who feel safe at school and 

traveling to and from school, as measured by a school 

climate needs assessment. 

77 67 61

Student mobility rate (percent of student entries and 

withdrawals from school).

27 23 20

For children birth to kindergarten entry, the percent of 

parents or family members who report reading to their 

children three or more times a week.

58 63 59

For children in kindergarten through 8th grades, the 

percent of parents or family members who report 

encouraging their children to read books outside of 

school.

76 70 73

For children in the 9th to 12th grades, the percent of 

parents or family members who report talking with their 

child about the importance of college and career.

72 84 79

Percent of students who have school and home 

access to broadband internet and a connected 

computing device.

89 88 88

Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy
Page 64 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

synthesized evaluations of adolescent reading interventions implemented 

by the related 2006 and 2009 Striving Readers grant cohorts. The original 

Striving Readers program funded only the 2006 and 2009 grant cohorts 

and aimed to build a scientific research base for identifying and 

replicating strategies to improve adolescent literacy skills. 13 For those 

cohorts, Education found that four of the 10 interventions had at least one 

study showing a positive effect on reading achievement. The remaining 

six interventions had no discernible effects. The findings from the studies 

funded by Striving Readers expanded the evidence base on effective 

reading interventions for adolescents by adding information on 

interventions not previously reviewed by Education’s Institute of 

Education Sciences.

Table 13: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy, Project Years 2013-2015

Summary of program objectives

To advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, for students from birth through grade 12, including English 

learners and students with disabilities.

Performance measures

(in percent)

2013 

Target

2013 

Actual

2014 

Target

2014 

Actual

2015 

Target

2015 

Actual

Percentage of participating 4-year-old children who 

achieve significant gains in oral language skills.

set baseline 68 68 63 68 61

Percentage of participating 5th-grade students who 

meet or exceed proficiency on state English 

language arts assessments.

set baseline 75 75 77 75 72

Percentage of participating 8th-grade students who 

meet or exceed proficiency on state English 

language arts assessments.

76 81 76 71 76 60

Percentage of participating high school students 

who meet or exceed proficiency on state English 

language arts assessments.

75 72 75 65 75 62

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

Note: According to Education’s published performance reports, all states are required to report on the 

performance measure specific to 4-year-old children. States have the option of either reporting on the 

2nd, 3rd, and 4th performance measures, or reporting proficiency rates for those same measures that 

include students who demonstrate adequate growth under the state’s Education-approved growth 

model and are counted as meeting or exceeding proficiency for purposes of accountability 

determinations.

 13The name of the program changed in fiscal year 2010 to Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy, with the new program focusing on supporting pre-literacy in 

addition to adolescent literacy.
Page 65 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

HHS has six performance measures for CCDF and sets targets for the 

four that it considers outcome measures (see table 14), and reports 

results annually. HHS reported in its congressional budget justification 

that CCDF met two of its six performance targets in 2014, the last year of 

available data.14 Some of CCDF measures are reviewed biannually. HHS 

is in the process of updating these measures due to recent statutory and 

legislative changes to the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

program. In addition, one of CCDF’s measures is under development, 

and HHS is still building capacity to collect this information from all states. 

Officials plan to obtain this information from states and territories in 2017.

HHS has conducted evaluations of CCDF to learn about different 

approaches to improving quality and helping parents retain employment. 

For example, one evaluation examined three types of programs that 

promote language development. This evaluation found that two of these 

programs improved teacher interactions with children and increased preliteracy skills of children. Another evaluation found that expanding income 

eligibility and extending the time before families have to reapply for child 

care subsidies temporarily increased the use and stability of subsidy 

receipt.

 14This includes two performance measures with data from fiscal year 2013. 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

(HHS): Performance 

Assessment of 

Programs with an 

Explicit Early 

Learning or Child 

Care Purpose

Child Care and 

Development Fund 

(CCDF)
Page 66 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Table 14: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Child Care and Development Fund, Fiscal Years 2012-2014

Summary of program objectives

Provide financial assistance to help low-income working families and families engaged in training or education activities obtain access 

to child care and to improve the quality of child care for all children.

Performance measures FY 2012 

Target

FY 2012 

Actual

FY 2013

Target

FY 2013

Actual

FY 2014

Target

FY 2014

Actual

Maintain the proportion of children 

served through Child Care and 

Development Fund, Temporary 

Assistance to Needy Families, and 

Social Services Block Grant child 

care funding compared to the 

number of children in families with 

income equal to or less than 85 

percent of state median income (in 

percent).a

17b 18b 18c 15c 17 15 

Increase the number of states that 

implement quality rating and 

improvement systems that meet high 

quality benchmarks. 

20 19 25 27 29 29 

Increase the number of states and 

territories with professional 

development systems that include 

core knowledge and competencies, 

career pathways, professional 

development capacity assessments, 

accessible professional development 

opportunities, and financial supports 

for child care practitioners.

e

− 31 

(baseline)d 35 30 35e 30e

Increase the number of states and 

territories that have implemented 

early learning and development 

standards for children birth to age 5 

that cover a range of domains 

across physical, cognitive, and 

social and emotional development, 

are incorporated into other parts of 

the child care system, and aligned 

with other education standards.f

− 27 

(baseline)d 30 36 30e 36e

Increase the number or percentage 

of low-income children receiving 

CCDF subsidies who are enrolled in 

high quality child care settings.g

− − − − − −

Amount of CCDF expenditures on 

quality improvement activities (in 

dollars).

N/A 1 billionb N/A 1 billionc N/A 958 million

Legend: N/A = Not Applicable − = No Data

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463
Page 67 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Note: HHS officials told us they report the most recent data available at the time they publish the 

congressional budget justification for each measure. Therefore, not all data reported in a particular 

budget justification will be from the same fiscal year.

a

This measure estimates the average monthly number of children receiving child care subsidies from 

all federal sources (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, 

and Social Services Block Grant), compared on an annual basis to an estimate of the average 

monthly number of children eligible for child care subsidies. Under CCDF law, states have substantial 

flexibility to establish their own rules regarding eligibility for child care subsidies within broad federal 

guidelines. This estimate does not take into account state-specific eligibility thresholds and other 

requirements families must meet to receive child care subsidies. Prior to fiscal year 2014, the family 

income used to determine eligibility included only income from the household head, spouse, and 

children. The new definition of family income includes the household head, spouse, children, 

unmarried cohabiting parent, and older siblings and other relatives who are unmarried and childless. 

The result of this is that slightly fewer families are income-eligible, relative to the previous definition of 

family income.

b

Data are from fiscal year 2010.

c

Data are from fiscal year 2012.

d

Data are from fiscal year 2011.

e

Data are from fiscal year 2013.

f

The 2014 reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, and the CCDF final 

rule published in September 2016, include changes to the program. These reforms include 

requirements around professional development, including early learning and development standards. 

Because of these requirements, HHS officials are in the process of revising these measures, 

including looking at new data sources, such as the quality progress report, and changing the 

measures from biannual to annual.

g

According to HHS officials, this is a developmental measure designed to track progress on 

increasing the number of low-income children in high-quality child care settings. HHS officials told us 

that this measure is developmental because they have not had sufficient data to set a baseline and 

track progress. HHS has implemented changes to its data reporting form, and they expect all states 

and territories to begin submitting this data in October 2017.

HHS has 11 performance measures for Head Start. In fiscal year 2015, 

the last year of available data, HHS reported progress toward achieving 

targets for the five measures that it considers related to outcomes or 

efficiency (see table 15). HHS reported meeting two of these five 

performance targets in fiscal year 2015. For example, HHS reported that 

Head Start met its target for reducing the proportion of grantees receiving 

a score in the low range on a classroom assessment tool. Officials told us 

that improving the quality of teacher-child interactions, staff training and 

competency, and classroom environments have been primary goals of 

the program in recent years. HHS added a fifth outcome measure, to 

increase the percentage of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers that 

have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In its fiscal year 2017 performance 

report, HHS collected baseline data on this measure, and used this 

information to set targets for the future.

Head Start
Page 68 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

In response to a mandate in the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, HHS 

conducted a national level, random-assignment impact evaluation of the 

Head Start program (Head Start Impact Study). HHS published this 

impact study, which followed children through first grade, in 2010, and in 

a subsequent report, researchers followed the same cohorts of children 

as they transitioned to third grade. These impact studies assessed the 

advantages that 4-year-old children gained during 1 year of participation 

in Head Start and 3-year-old children gained during 2 years of 

participation in Head Start among cognitive, social-emotional, health, and 

parenting outcomes. The Head Start Impact Study showed that having 

access to Head Start improves children’s preschool experiences and 

school readiness in certain areas, though few of those advantages persist 

through third grade. However, some subgroups of children in this study 

experienced sustained benefits into third grade. In more recent work, 

HHS examined the extent to which classroom quality affected outcomes 

observed in the impact study. Although some subgroups experienced 

sustained positive effects, the evaluation found little evidence to support 

that Head Start leads to program impacts lasting into third grade for 

participants overall, regardless of the program’s quality level. However, 

the study’s ability to detect effects of Head Start participation may have 

been limited by difficulty maintaining the random assignment of children 

to Head Start and to comparison groups, an important component of such 

impact studies.

The 1994 reauthorization of Head Start that established the Early Head 

Start program called for an evaluation to focus on services delivered to 

families with infants and toddlers and the impacts of these services on 

children and families. In response, in 2002 HHS published a separate 

rigorous, random-assignment evaluation of the Early Head Start program. 

This evaluation investigated program impacts on children and families 

through their time in the program. Subsequent reports followed children 

and families as they transitioned from preschool and again in the 5th

grade. HHS found, among other things, a consistent pattern of modest, 

favorable impacts across a range of outcomes when participating children 

were 2 and 3 years old, with larger impacts in some subgroups. However, 

some impacts on the full sample of children and families did not persist 

when assessed at grade 5, though some subgroup impacts remained. In 

more recent work, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked 

data from this project with child welfare records to and found that the 

program may be effective in reducing some kinds of child maltreatment 

outcomes among Early Head Start children when compared to children in 

a control group.
Page 69 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Additionally, HHS collects information on the characteristics, experiences, 

and outcomes of children participating in Head Start through the Head 

Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). This survey 

provides data from five successive, nationally representative samples of 

Head Start participants. HHS also maintains a similar survey specific to 

the Early Head Start population called Baby FACES.

Table 15: Reported Performance Targets and Results for Head Start, Fiscal Years 2013-2015

Summary of program objectives

Provide comprehensive early learning and development services to economically disadvantaged children and families, with a special 

focus on helping preschoolers develop the education and skills required to be successful in school.

Performance measures FY 2013 

Target

FY 2013 

Actual

FY 2014 

Target

FY 2014 

Actual

FY 2015 

Target

FY 2015 

Actual

Reduce the proportion of Head Start grantees 

receiving a score in the low range on the basis of 

the Classroom Assessment Scoring System. (in 

percent)

23 31 27 23 26 22

Increase the percentage of Early Head Start 

children completing all medical screenings. (in 

percent)

93 84 93 83 93 81

Percentage of parents of children in their prekindergarten Head Start year who report reading to 

a child three times per week. (in percent)

N/A 77 N/A 77 80 81

Increase the percentage of Head Start teachers 

with an Associate of Arts (AA), Bachelor of Arts 

(BA), advanced degree, or a degree in a field 

related to early childhood education. (in percent) 

100 95 100 96 100 96

Reduce the number of grantees with repeat 

deficiencies through the provision of targeted 

technical assistance.a

0 1 − − − −

Increase the percentage of Head Start and Early 

Head Start teachers that have a BA or higher.b (in 

percent)

− − − − N/A 60

Decrease under-enrollment in Head Start 

programs, thereby increasing the number of 

children served per dollar. (in percent)

0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.8 0.8

Number of Early Head Start medical screenings 

completed.

N/A 126,594 N/A 126,644 N/A 126,120

Number of Head Start teachers without a degree 

who are enrolled in Early Childhood Education 

degree program.

N/A 2,811 N/A 2,262 N/A 2,175

Number of Head Start teachers with at least an AA 

degree.

N/A 52,923 N/A 51,298 N/A 53,005

Number of teachers’ aides with at least an AA 

degree.

N/A 14,517 N/A 15,569 N/A 16,517
Page 70 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Summary of program objectives

Provide comprehensive early learning and development services to economically disadvantaged children and families, with a special 

focus on helping preschoolers develop the education and skills required to be successful in school.

Performance measures FY 2013 

Target

FY 2013 

Actual

FY 2014 

Target

FY 2014 

Actual

FY 2015 

Target

FY 2015 

Actual

Number of Head Start staff who are current or 

former Head Start parents.

N/A 57,317 N/A 57,702 N/A 58,636

Legend: N/A= Not Applicable − = No Data

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported program performance information and interviews. | GAO-17-463

a

HHS officials stopped collecting information on this performance measure following fiscal year 2013.

b

In its fiscal year 2017 performance report, HHS collected baseline data on this measure and used 

this information to set targets for the future. HHS officials told us that they added this measure to 

track the progress of increasing the credentials of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers as well 

as to support its early childhood priority goal.

The Department of the Interior (Interior) does not have specific 

performance measures for the Family and Child Education (FACE) 

program. Instead, Interior uses an independent contractor to conduct 

annual reviews of the FACE program to obtain performance information. 

These reviews identify program outcomes and provide implementation 

data, which are summarized for the program overall and disaggregated

for individual program sites. Interior reports a number of outcomes in 

these reviews, including children’s proficiency in math and literacy, 

parenting practices, and integration of native language and culture into 

FACE program instruction.

In response to a 2004 Office of Management and Budget mandate, 

Interior contracted an external impact evaluation of the FACE program. In 

Department of the 

Interior: Performance 

Assessment of 

Programs with an 

Explicit Early 

Learning or Child 

Care Purpose

Family and Child 

Education (FACE)
Page 71 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

2008, Interior funded a second FACE impact study. Interior subsequently 

published a report that integrated findings from both impact studies.15

Selected findings from this report indicate that a greater number of the 

FACE parents included in this study were more likely to participate in 

literacy activities with their children and to be involved in their children’s 

school than parents of non-FACE participants. However, both groups of 

children appeared equally kindergarten-ready, on several measures. 

Because FACE serves children with greater needs, the study concludes 

the program puts those children, as well as those with special needs, on 

an equal playing field with their peers. However, the study did not account 

for some child and program factors that may have affected participants’

outcomes.

 15Judy Pfannenstiel and Vicki Yarnell, “Family and Child Education Program (FACE) 

Impact Studies: Synthesis of 2004 and 2008 Findings.” Research and Training 

Associates, Inc. (2010). 
Page 72 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services
Page 73 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs
Page 74 GAO-17-463 Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Cindy Brown Barnes, (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Rebecca Woiwode (Assistant 

Director), Hedieh Fusfield (Analyst-in-Charge), Colin Ashwood, and 

Karissa Robie made key contributions to this report. Additional assistance 

was provided by Kay Brown, Carol Henn, Brian James, Melissa Jaynes, 

John Lack, Kirsten Lauber, Benjamin T. Licht, Elizabeth Mixon, Janet 

Mascia, Drew Nelson, Mimi Nguyen, Dae Park, Jessica Orr, James 

Rebbe, Marylynn Sergent, Stephanie Shipman, Deborah A. Signer, 

Almeta Spencer, Rachel Stoiko, Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, Sarah Veale, 

Betty Ward-Zuckerman, Greg Whitney, and Craig Winslow.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100813)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.