U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–143 PDF 2018

OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATE LEADERSHIP 

OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 13, 2017 

Serial No. 115–23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

David Brat, Virginia 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 13, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education ....................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brown Barnes, Ms. Cindy, Director of Education Workforce and Income 

Security, Government Accountability Office ............................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Harris, Ms. Pamela, President and CEO, Mile High Montessori Early 

Learning Centers .......................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

Maas, Ms. Ericca, Executive Director, Close Gaps By 5 ............................... 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52 

Stevens, Dr. Katharine, Resident Scholar, Education Policy Studies, 

American Enterprise Institute ..................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Polis: 

The Head Start Advantage ....................................................................... 73 

Article: Head Start: Keeping It Real ....................................................... 82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATE LEADERSHIP 

OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS 

Thursday, July 13, 2017 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Garrett, Handel, Polis, Fudge, 

Bonamici, Davis, and Wilson. 

Also Present: Representatives Foxx, and Scott. 

Staff Present: Michael Comer, Press Secretary; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and 

Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Kelley 

McNabb, Communications Director; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Mandy 

Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Michael Woeste, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern 

and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Press Assistant; 

Jacque Chevalier, Minority Director of Education Policy; Denise 

Forte, Minority Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff 

Assistant; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Director Health Policy/Senior 

Labor Policy Advisor; Kevin McDermott; Minority Senior Labor 

Policy Advisor; Alexander Payne, Minority Education Policy Advisor, and Veronique Pluviose, Minority General Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. Good morning. A quorum being present the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education will come to order. Welcome to today’s subcommittee 

hearing. I would like to thank our panel of witnesses and my colleagues for joining today’s important discussion on the effectiveness 

of early childhood education programs. 

You know, a child’s early development lays critical groundwork 

for he or she to succeed in the future. So, while a parent is the ultimate decider of what is best for their own children’s early development the federal government has had a role in child care for over 

50 years. 

With enactment of the Head Start Act in 1965, a byproduct of 

President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, the federal government established its role helping promote healthy development of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

vulnerable children in their earliest and arguably most important 

years. 

While Head Start provided greater access to early childhood education for vulnerable family, like many Johnson-era programs the 

federal government’s involvement in this space has mushroomed 

into an overly burdensome, costly, and confusing network or program. 

Today, GAO will testify on their new report which finds the federal government provides support for early childhood services 

through 44 separate programs, nine of which have an explicit purpose to do so at an annual cost of more than $15 billion. The two 

largest are the Head Start and the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant programs, and we will hear that the agencies have 

done a better job at improving their communications and operating 

these programs, but that overlap, duplication, and fragmentation 

among the programs, unfortunately, remains. 

Finding an early childcare or education program is an important 

decision for many working parents and families. The federal government should not be making the job of navigating the system 

even more difficult through a confusing maze of federal programs. 

Luckily for parents, states have stepped up to the plate. 

Recently we have seen states take the lead in operating early 

childhood programs, as well as increased funding for this area. For 

example, my home state in Indiana has launched a promising new 

pilot program aimed at helping low income Hoosier children access 

a free, high-quality pre-K education. 

In 2016 alone states increased funding by a combined $480 million in early childhood programs. Now, this is an increase of 6.8 

percent from the previous year. 

Now, we will hear today, I assume, examples of how states are 

finding a better way for children and are helping small businesses 

innovate and improve their services to their employees. States have 

recognized that they are better positioned to help parents when it 

comes to choosing the services that are best for their child. 

And now for those of us that want to see the federal government 

take a diminished role in deciding what is best for our children in 

terms of education I think this is excellent news. States understand 

their local communities best and understand what works and what 

does not work for their children and their parents within the state. 

So, today we will hear about the positive impacts of state-centered early childhood programs. Additionally, we will hear testimony on just how large and cumbersome federal involvement has 

become. I hope this conversation will help us consider how we 

might address the redundancies and inefficiencies throughout these 

programs. In short, I hope the conversation is constructive and productive. 

Early childhood development is a critical issue because we are 

talking about the future students, future citizens, and future leaders in the workforce. In short, our best assets. At the same time, 

we have a responsibility to reevaluate the current climate and 

make sure the tax payer investments are being used effectively. 

I look forward to a discussion about the ways we can better meet 

the needs of American children, families, and taxpayers alike. So 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

with that, I know recognize Ranking Member Polis for his opening 

remarks. 

Mr. Polis? 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I’d like to thank our 

panel of witnesses and my colleagues for joining today’s important discussion on the 

effectiveness of our early childhood education programs. 

A child’s early development lays critical groundwork for he or she to succeed in 

the future. 

While a parent is the ultimate decider of what is best for their own child’s early 

development, the federal government has had a role in childcare for over 50 years. 

With enactment of the Head Start Act in 1965, a by-product of President Lyndon 

Johnson’s War on Poverty, the federal government established its role helping promote healthy development of vulnerable children in their earliest—and arguably— 

most important years. 

While Head Start provided greater access to early childhood education for vulnerable families, like many Johnson-era programs, the federal government’s involvement in this space has mushroomed into an overly-burdensome, costly, and confusing network of programs. 

Today, GAO will testify on their new report which finds the federal government 

provides support for early childhood services through 44 separate programs, nine of 

which have an explicit purpose to do so at an annual cost of more than $15 billion. 

The two largest are the Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block 

Grant programs. We will hear that the agencies have done a better job at improving 

their communications in operating these programs, but that overlap, duplication, 

and fragmentation among programs remain. 

Finding an early childcare or education program is an important decision for 

many working parents and families. The federal government should not be making 

the job of navigating the system more difficult through a confusing maze of federal 

programs. 

Luckily for parents, states have stepped up to the plate. Recently, we have seen 

states take the lead in operating early childhood programs, as well as increase funding for this area. For example, my home state of Indiana has launched a promising 

new pilot program aimed at helping low-income Hoosier children access a free, highquality pre-k education. 

In 2016 alone, states increased funding by a combined $480 million in early childhood education programs. This is an increase of 6.8 percent from the previous year. 

We will hear today examples of how states are finding a better way for children, 

and are helping small businesses innovate to improve their services. 

States have recognized that they are better positioned to help parents when it 

comes to choosing the services that are best for their child. 

For those of us who want to see the federal government take a diminished role 

in deciding what is best for our children in terms of education, this is excellent 

news. 

States understand their local communities best, and understand what works and 

does not work for the children and parents within the state. 

Today, we will hear about the positive impacts of state centered early childhood 

programs. 

Additionally, we will hear testimony on just how large and cumbersome federal 

involvement has become. I hope this conversation will help us consider how we 

might address the redundancies and inefficiencies throughout these programs. 

Early childhood development is a critical issue because we are talking about future students, future citizens, and future leaders in the workforce. At the same 

time, we have a responsibility to re-evaluate the current climate and make sure that 

taxpayer investments are being used effectively. I look forward to a discussion about 

the ways we can better meet the needs of American children, families, and taxpayers alike. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot emphasize 

enough the importance of this hearing highlighting the importance 

of early childhood programs. Support for our investment in making 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

quality early childhood education a reality for every child in our 

country has broad support from across the political spectrum because it simply makes sense. 

As a father of a three- and a 5, year-old I get to see this firsthand at home every day. Support for early childhood education expands across the ideological spectrum. According to a recent poll 82 

percent of Republicans and 97 percent of Democrats believe we 

should make quality early education more prevalent. 

It is not just the public who sees the benefit. The academic and 

research side results are also completely clear. The advantages of 

high-quality early childhood education include higher graduation 

rates, improved job outcomes, longer life expectancies, lower rates 

of criminal acts, higher attendance, and greater academic achievement. 

Noble Prize winning economist James Heckman estimates that 

society receives $7.30 in benefits for every dollar invested in highquality early learning programs for at risk kids. But despite the 

nearly unanimous findings about the value of early learning our 

country continues to rank third to last among developed nations for 

enrollment of three- to 5- year-olds. 

As law makers, I hope that my colleagues join me in finding this 

unacceptable. The lack of access to early childhood education is 

something we experience firsthand in Colorado. The Colorado Preschool Program, or CPP, helps provide preschool for at-risk kids in 

our state, but has a very limited number of slots. 

Students enrolled in our Colorado Preschool Program come from 

low income families or dual language learners or in foster care or 

of another variety of high-risk factors, and compared to their peers 

who do not participate in our preschool program, the Colorado Preschool Program students are much less likely to be held back and 

more likely to perform well in school, even years after preschool. 

And while our Colorado Preschool Program is an important step, 

and it is opening the door for many families, it is not nearly 

enough. Our Colorado Department of Education estimated that 

over 8,000 at risk four year olds had no preschool available to them 

through CPP or Head Start, and many more middle class and nonat-risk kids also did not have those opportunities. 

Overall, in our state, only about half of our four year olds are in 

preschool. The lack of availability and the rising costs of childcare 

hits working families especially hard; parents who cannot afford or 

do not have access to high-quality childcare. I represent a district 

with two, large four-year universities and many community colleges, and I hear many stories of college students who have children who struggle to find childcare for their kids. 

Strong investments at the local, state, and federal level in early 

learning will make an enormous positive difference for our economy, for our future, and for the children. Fortunately, at the state 

level both red and blue governors agree on the benefits of early 

childhood education. The National Governors Association included 

early learning support and investment in its platform for the very 

first time. 

In many states, including states led by both Republican and 

Democratic governors are making bold investments in early learnCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

ing with the support of federal programs like Preschool Development Grants. 

These states look at the data and are making sound decisions 

knowing that the data shows that the early years of a child’s life 

truly lay the foundation for success in later years. They also see 

the federal government as an important partner in efforts to expand access to quality early childhood learning and improve life 

outcomes. 

Frankly, the debate about the efficacy of early learning is over. 

It is simply undeniable that high-quality early childhood education 

has lifelong benefits for kids. So, together, we now need to think 

creatively about how we can further support, expand, grow quality 

of early learning, creating more opportunities for children and for 

families across our country. 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their day 

to join us to help improve the knowledge of this committee, and I 

look forward to hearing about what more the federal government 

can do to help improve access to early learning opportunities, and 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding today’s hearing. Support for public investment to make quality early childhood education a reality for every child has broad 

support from across the political spectrum. As a father of a three and five year old 

this is not merely a partisan issue, but a personal one. 

According to a 2017 poll sponsored by the First Five Years Fund, 82% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats believe that we should make quality early education 

more affordable and prevalent. 

It’s not just the public who sees the benefits of early learning, the extensive research is clear too. The advantages of high-quality early childhood education include 

higher graduation rates, improved job outcomes, and longer life expectancies. Longterm, Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman estimates society receives 

$7.30 in benefits for every $1 invested in high-quality early learning programs. 

Despite the nearly unanimous findings about early learning, our country ranks 

third-to-last amongst all developed nations for enrollment of three- to five-year olds. 

As lawmakers we should all find these results absolutely unacceptable. 

The lack of access to early childhood education is something we’ve experienced 

firsthand in my home state of Colorado. The Colorado Preschool Program, or CPP, 

helps provide preschool for at-risk kids in our state. 

Students enrolled in CPP are those who may come from low-income families, are 

dual language learners, are in foster care, or a range of other factors. Compared to 

their peers who don’t participate in CPP, CPP students are less likely to be held 

back and more likely to perform well in school even years after preschool. 

CPP is an important step, and it’s opening doors for families across our state. But 

it’s not enough. The Colorado Department of Education predicts that nearly 8,400 

at-risk four-year olds had no preschool available to them through CPP or Head Start 

in the 2015–16 school year. 

For those 8,400 four-year olds, it’s simply not fair that they won’t have the same 

access and opportunity because there aren’t enough slots in our system. 

Overall, only half of Colorado’s three- and four-year olds are in preschool. 

The lack of availability and the rising cost of childcare hits working families especially hard. Many parents can’t afford or don’t have access to high-quality childcare. 

I represent several large four-year universities and community colleges in my district. I’ve heard countless stories of college students who have children who struggle 

to find the childcare their kids need. 

Strong investments – at the local, state, and federal levels – in early learning will 

make an enormous positive difference for our future. But President Trump is running in the other direction. His administration proposes to cut hundreds of millions 

of dollars in federal funding for early childhood education. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

Fortunately at the state level, both red and blue state governors agree on the benefits of early childhood education. The National Governors Association, for the first 

time, included early learning support and investment in its platform. And many 

states, those led by both Republican and Democratic governors, are making bold investments in early learning with the support of federal programs like preschool development grants. These states know that the early years of a child’s life lay the 

foundation for success in later years. They also know that the federal government 

is a partner, not a burden, in efforts to expand access to quality early learning and 

improve life outcomes. 

The debate about the efficacy of early learning is over. It’s undeniable that highquality early childhood education has lifelong benefits for kids. Together, we should 

think creatively about how we can further support early learning and create more 

opportunities for more children. 

I thank the witnesses for taking time out of their day to come testify and look 

forward to hearing from them about what more the federal government can do to 

ensure all children have access to quality, affordable, early learning opportunities. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to 

turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses. First, Ms. 

Cindy Brown Barnes is director with the Education Workforce and 

Income Security Team at the Government Accountability Office. 

Welcome, Ms. Barnes. 

Dr. Katharine Stevens is a resident scholar in education policy 

studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome, as well, 

Doctor. 

And I will now turn to Mr. Polis again to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. POLIS. We are very excited to have Dr. Pamela Harris with 

us who is the president and CEO of Mile High Learning Center, 

Denver’s largest and oldest provider of early care and education in 

Denver. They reach over 9,000 children annually with high-quality 

learning centers and community outreach, including parents. She 

has over 25 years of experience in education with a focus on early 

childhood and vulnerable populations. 

She has directed Head State Grantee and Delegate programs, 

most recently received an Early Head Start and Child Care Partnership grant. Dr. Harris was also instrumental in developing 

Colorado’s early learning and development guidelines and the 

state’s Early Childhood Workforce Plan 2020, and we are excited 

to welcome her here today. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman, and not to be outdone, 

and finally, Ms. Ericca Maas is the executive director of Close Gaps 

by 5 which seems self-explanatory. I am sure we are going to hear 

even more about your program. 

I now ask our witnesses to each raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Okay. Let the record reflect that each witness nodded in affirmation. 

[Witnesses sworn] 

Chairman ROKITA. Before I recognize each of you to provide your 

testimony let me briefly explain the lighting system, and it goes 

just as much as a reminder for us up here as it does for you. You 

each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When you begin, 

of course, the light will turn green. When you have one minute left 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

it will be yellow, and when it is red that means I will start gaveling you, so please try to wrap it up, and that goes the same for 

5 minutes of questioning up here. 

So, with that I would like to recognize Ms. Barnes for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CINDY BROWN BARNES DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, 

and members of the subcommittee I am pleased to be here to discuss the report we are issuing today on federally funded early 

learning and childcare programs. Millions of children age 5 and 

under participate each year in federally funded preschool, other 

early learning programs, or childcare. 

Historically, early learning program focus on preparing young 

children for school. In contrast, childcare programs subsidize these 

costs for low income parents who worked. Over time, the distinction between these two types of programs has blurred somewhat as 

policymakers seek to make educationally enriching care available 

to more young children. 

Today I will cover one, the number and funding of programs that 

comprise the federal investment in early learning and childcare. 

Two, the extent to which these programs are fragmented, overlap, 

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

these conditions, and three, what is known about program performance. 

Today’s report updates previous work we did on this topic in 

2012 and in 2014. Overall, we identified 44 programs and three tax 

expenditures that may provide or support early learning or 

childcare. While the overall number is similar to our 2012 review 

there are several differences due to such factors as programs ending or beginning in the intervening time period. 

As shown on the figure on the monitor, nine of the 44 programs 

have an explicit purpose of providing early learning or childcare 

services. That is these services are part of their main mission. 

Seven of these programs focus on early learning, and two focus on 

childcare. 

In fiscal year 2015 these programs received about $15 billion in 

federal funds. Some are very large, such as Head Start, which obligated nearly $9 billion that year. While most others are smaller 

and obligated less than $500 million each. The remaining 35 programs do not have an explicit early learning or childcare purpose, 

but permit funds to be used for such services. 

For example, worker development programs authorized by the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act can pay for childcare to 

enable participants to attend these activities, and the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program provides nutrition assistance to young 

children in different settings. 

Regarding the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication 

in early learning and childcare the federal investment is fragmented, meaning that these programs are administered by multiple federal agencies. They are concentrated within the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, but three 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

other agencies, six and one federal state commission are also involved. 

Further, some of these programs overlap one another, meaning 

they have similar goals and target similar groups of children. For 

example, four of the nine programs with an explicit early learning 

and childcare purpose target low income children. However, overlap 

among programs is limited for a number of reasons. 

For example, some programs target very specific populations, 

fund different types of activities, or support early learning or 

childcare for young children by providing food, materials, or other 

services rather than early learning or childcare itself. It is harder 

to tell whether these programs are duplicative. That is whether 

they provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. 

This is because of the many different ways the programs are 

structured, the wide range of allowable uses for the funds, and in 

some cases the limited data on services provided. Also, the eligibility requirements differ among programs, even for similar subgroups of children such as those from low income families. 

However, HHS and Education have helped mitigate the effects of 

fragmentation and overlap through improved agency coordination 

and have followed leading practices for inner-agency collaboration. 

For example, in response to needed actions GAO identified in 2012, 

HHS and Education expanded membership of their interdepartmental workgroup on young children to other agencies with early 

learning and childcare programs. 

The agencies have also documented their agreements, dedicated 

staff time to promote the goals and activities of this workgroup, 

and issued joint policy statements. 

In terms of program performance, we found that agencies assess 

performance for all nine programs with an explicit early learning 

or childcare purpose. Additionally, many programs examine common aspects of performance such as school readiness. 

In conclusion, multiple agencies administer the federal investment in early learning and childcare and have improved their coordination of these programs. Thank you. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The testimony of Ms. Brown Barnes follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 26143.001

GliO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. ET 

Thursday, July 13,2017 

GA0-17-671T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, House of Representatives 

EARLY LEARNING AND 

CHILD CARE 

Overview of Federal 

Investment and Agency 

Coordination 

Statement of Cindy Brown Barnes, Director, Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security 
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 26143.002

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the report we are issuing today on 

federally funded early learning and child care programs. 1 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. 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; 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 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. 

My statement summarizes the findings from the report we issued today, 

which examines (1) the programs that comprise the federal investment in 

early learning and child care; (2) the extent to which these programs are 

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

made to address these conditions; and (3) what is known about these 

programs' performance. 

For our report, we used 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 limited our review to programs for 

which federal funds were obligated in fiscal year 2015, the most recent 

1

GAO, Early Learning and Child Care· Agencies Have Helped Address Fragmentation and 

Overlap through Improved Coordination. GA0-17 -463 (Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2017) 

Page 1 GA0~17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 26143.003

available obligations data at the time we conducted our work. Using the 

45 programs and 5 tax expenditures in our 2012 review on this topic as a 

starting point, we sent questionnaires to nine agencies and one regional 

commission and received responses from them all. We interviewed 

agency officials and reviewed supplementary information to confirm that 

these programs and tax expenditures continued to meet all three of our 

criteria in fiscal year 2015, and to identify any new programs. As in our 

2012 review on this topic, 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. 2 We categorized all other programs included in this review as 

not having an explicit early learning or child care purpose. We also 

included tax expenditures that could be used to subsidize families or 

employers for early learning or child care related expenses. 3 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. 

We interviewed officials from the Departments of Education (Education) 

and Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding their efforts to 

coordinate with other agencies that administer early learning or child care 

programs, and examined supporting agency documentation. We 

compared these efforts against leading practices for agency 

2For a more detailed description of the methodology for our 2012 rev1ew, seep. 201, "How 

GAO Conducted Its Work,'' GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Ach1eve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

GA0-12-342SP (Washington, D.C: Feb. 28, 2012). 

3Tax expenditures are reductions !n 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 serv1ces occurring in an educational or chl!d 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's 2014 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 

tdentifted met our cntena. 

Page 2 GA0-17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 26143.004

Federal Investment in 

Early Learning and 

Child Care Includes 

Multiple Programs 

that Either Require or 

Permit Use of Funds 

for Such Services 

collaboration• In addition, we reviewed agency performance reports, 

congressional budget justifications, program studies, and other 

documentation. 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. A more detailed explanation of our methodology 

is available in our July 2017 report. The work upon which this statement is 

based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 5 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 

4Key features of leading practices for agency collaboration fall into the following 

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

clarity of roles and responsibi!lties; participants; resources; and written guidance and 

agreements. See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GA0-12-1022 (Washmgton, D.C.: Sept 27, 

2012). 

5

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

refundable credit ln excess of tax liability results 1n a cash refund. 

Page 3 GA0~17·671T Early Learning and Child Care 
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 26143.005

expenditures can be viewed as spending channeled through the tax 

system, which contributes to the overall federal investment. 6 

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. 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. 7 While the overall number of programs in 

fiscal year 2015 is similar to our 2012 review, there are several 

differences between the programs we included in each of the two 

reviews, due to such factors as programs ending or beginning in the 

intervening time period. (For a complete list of programs we identified that 

may provide or support early learning or child care and changes since our 

2012 review, see figures 1 through 10 in appendix I.) 

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 the Child Care and 

Development Fund (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. Among programs without an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, none require spending on early learning or 

6GAO, Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance 

Processes to Increase Oversight, GA0-16-622 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2016). 

7Using 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 w1thout 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 that some 

were new since 2012, or were identified by agency officials and we detem1ined 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 2017 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 Hsted in the CFDA Therefore, we consider the 

Child Care and Development Fund to be one program, rather than two. Similarly, we 

consider the Commun1ty Development Block Grant to be one program, rather than three. 

Page 4 GAOM17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 26143.006

Improved Agency 

Coordination has 

Helped Address 

Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and 

Potential Duplication 

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. 

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 20158 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. 

As we found in 2012, our current review identified some fragmentation, 

overlap, and potential duplication among early learning and child care 

programs. 

Fragmentation: The federal investment in early learning and child care is 

fragmented in that it is administered through multiple agencies. 

HHS, Education, and the Department of the Interior administer 

programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose. 

Five additional agencies-the Departments of Agriculture, Housing 

and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and the General Services 

Administration-and one regional commission, the Appalachian 

Regional Commission, administer programs without an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose. 

The Internal Revenue Service at Treasury is responsible for 

administering federal tax expenditures. 

8

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. 

Page 5 GA0-17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 26143.007

Overlap: We found some overlap between early learning and child care 

programs, as some programs target similar beneficiaries or engage in 

similar activities. 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 while 

the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with 

Disabilities targets children with disabilities from birth through age 2. 

Grantees of Head Start, Preschool Development Grants, and the 

Family and Child Education (FACE) program 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. 

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, 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. 

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 stated that overlap among early learning 

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

of children and parents. 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. 

Page 6 GA0-17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 26143.008

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 reported in 2016 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. 9 

Duplication: 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. 10 

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

some early learning and child care programs include some safeguards 

against duplication. 

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. For example, Preschool 

Development Grants can be used to expand the capacity of Head 

Start to serve more eligible children. 

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

and dependent care and the employer-provided child care exclusion. 

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 

91n the same report, we also found that it is difficult to accurately predict the extent to 

which families w1th eligible ch!ldren are likely to apply for and receive subsidies. This is in 

part because several factors influence families' child care decisions that can make it 

difficult or unappealing to pursue subsidies. See GAO, Child Care: Access to Subsidies 

and Strategies to Manage Demand Vary Across States, GA0~17~60 (Washington D.C .. 

Dec.15. 2016). 

10A 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. 

Page 7 GA0-17·671T Early Learning and Child Care 
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 26143.009

effects of program fragmentation and overlap and potentially help bridge 

service gaps. 11 

Based upon our analysis, the Early Learning Interagency Policy BoardHHS 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. For example, HHS and 

Education defined outcomes for the Interagency Policy Board by setting 

goals, which include developing policy recommendations and improving 

program coordination and quality across federally funded early learning 

and development programs. HHS and Education have also tracked 

progress toward these goals. Specifically, in January 2017, the 

Interagency Policy Board submitted a report to the Secretaries of HHS 

and Education detailing its major activities and accomplishments. Further, 

the agencies have included relevant participants in the Interagency Policy 

Board. In response to needed actions we identified in 2012, HHS and 

Education expanded membership of the board to other agencies with 

early learning and child care programs." The agencies have also 

documented their agreements in a memorandum of understanding and 

have dedicated staff time to promote the goals and activities of this interdepartmental workgroup. Additionally, they have jointly administered the 

Preschool Development Grants, issued joint policy statements, and 

coordinated training and technical assistance. 

11GA0-12-342SP. 

12HHS and Education expanded membership in this workgroup to high-level officials in the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), These federal 

agencies administer programs with an explicit purpose of earty 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. 

Page 8 GA0~17*671T Early Learning and Child Care 
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 26143.010

Agencies Assess 

Performance for All 

Programs with an 

Explicit Early 

Learning or Child 

Care Purpose 

Agencies assess performance for all nine programs with an explicit early 

learning or child care purpose, and all of these agencies collect 

performance information that aligns with program objectives to determine 

progress toward those objectives. Moreover, 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. 

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, including: 

Agencies use different tools to assess performance, such as a single 

assessment across all participants or a variety of state-selected 

assessments: 

Some programs examine students' progress while they participate in 

the program, whereas others assess proficiency at a particular point in 

time: and 

Some programs evaluate the same cohort of children over time as 

they progress through later grades, even after the children stop 

receiving program services, while other programs gauge children's 

performance annually only while grantees receive funding. 

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

Page 9 GA0·17~671T Early Learning and Child Care 
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 26143.011

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

1102087) 

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, 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 statement. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this testimony include Rebecca Woiwode and Hedieh 

Fusfield. Additional assistance was provided by Kirsten Lauber, Benjamin 

T. Licht, Mimi Nguyen, Jessica Orr, James Rebbe, and Sarah Veale. 

Page 10 GA0·17·671T Early Learning and Child Care 
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 26143.012

Appendix I: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

Agencies that Administer Programs With and Without an Explicit 

Early Learning or Child Care Purpose 

Figure 1: 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 

~~0~-~-~ _!!!~~ 

Department of Education 

Alaska Nat1ve Educational Programs 

Ch1ld Care Access Means Par<':'nts in School 

Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers w1th D1sabilthesa 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

English Language AcquiSition G1ants 

Fuii-SerVICB Commumty Schools 

Indian Education-Grants to Local Edu<..ational Agencies0 

Indian Education-Special Progratns for lnd1an Children 

!'vl:grant EdL>cat;on-State Grant Program 

Nat1ve Hawa11an Education 

Preschool Developmenl Grarts~ 

Preschool Grants for Children W1lh D1sabilitlesd 

Prom1se Ne,ghborhoods" 

RacP. to !he Top~Carly Learn;ng Chn!lenge 

School improvement Grants' 

Spec1al Educalion-Grnnts to Stoles 

Spedal Education-State Personnel Development 

Strivmg Readers Comprehensive L1teracy 

Title 1 Grants to Local Educal!Onal Agencies 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

care ~31ran;_~--"-

Explicit 

early learning 

or child care 

~~!l~~---

0 

IIIII 

IIIII 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• • • • 0 

0 

0 

0 

• • 0 

Rationale for 

addin~ or 

removmg 

~~~~ 

l\ewprogramasofflscalyear20i4 

Notfundednl•scalyear2015 

Nollunded•'lf'scalyear2015 

legend II '"Relllalneti on list a "Added !o liS[ a = Rer'lOiied flom iisl • "Yes 0 ..:-No - =Not aop,icabie 

so.,cce GAO analysts of IB<:er~l agenr.y res(X>E'S~s 10 GAO quest'""",.,'~ aM ,lg;mcy dowmePts and GAO. 2012 AwE<~.f<ll'<epc!t OppO/l11llH<es lo RedEU:f'l Ollp!malli;J!E, 0\'art~p end Fmgmrm/a/10n 

Ar.I1,PVD Sav1ng~ <>nd fntmnceR<"ve>nue, GAO ~2 14JSP ;Wast"n91on 0 f. ~eb 28 2012) 1 GAO 17 671T 

Page 11 GA0-17·671T Early Learning and Child Care 
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 26143.013

Appendix I; Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

d!n our 2012 review, we listed this program as Special Education-Grants for Infants and Famihes. 

~>In our 2012 review, we identified the Indian Education-Grants to Local Educational Agencies as 

havmg an explicit early learning or child care purpose. According to officials from the Department of 

Education (Education), th1s program permits funds to be used for early learning or child care, but this 

is not a required component of the program. Accordmg to our analysis of the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Ass·!stance (CFDA) and agency documents, serv1ces 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 rev1ew. 

"The Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, authorized a 

Preschool Development Grants program to be admmistered 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. 

~In our 2012 review, we listed this program as Special Education-Preschool Grants. 

"!n 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 !earning or child care purpose because "building a complete continuum of crad!ethrough-college-to~career solutions" is described as one of the purposes of the program in the 

Federal Register. 

1

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 Schoo! Improvement Grant 

awards for fiscal year 2016. 

Figure 2: 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 

Program Title 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Child Care and Development Fund" 

Community Services B:ock GrAn! 

Head Star: 

Soc1al Serv1ces Block Grant 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

legend· 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

care programs ----·-~~ 

• 0 

• 0 

0 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

rJ.ocRema·nedoniiSt • co Yes 0 =No -"'Net app11cab!e 

Sourw GAO analys•s of Ieder~! agency responses lo GAO Questtonna,re and agency oocuments aM Gl\0, 2012 Anmm! Repor1· Opporti!mlms to Reduce Dupllc8/!0TJ. Overlap and FmgmtJnla/IOil 

Aehi(W£< S&vmgs <lilt! £r,liilfiC(J RWer'we, Gr\0·12<}42SP (Wash1ng1on 0 C reb 28. 201?) j GA0·17·671T 

a The Child Care and Development Fund {CCDF) consists of two funding sources: mandatory and 

matching funding authonzed 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. !n addition, 

states may transfer up to 30 percent of their allotment under Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Page 12 GA0~17~671T Early Learning and Child Care 
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 26143.014

Appendix 1: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

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 are listed individually in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA). However, for our current revrew, we considered key benefits and services as the framework 

to gUJde our identification of programs. regardless of how the components are listed in the CFDA. 

Figure 3: 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 

Program Title 

Department of the Interior 

Family and Child Educat1on (FACE) 

lnd;an Ch;ld Welfare Act Title ll Grants 

lnd<an Educat1on-Ass1stance to Schools" 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

care programs 

Explicit 

early learning 

or child care 

purpose? 

II 

0 

0 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

fj ""Remamedonl1st B "'Yes 0 =No -.,Not applicable 

Source GAO analys» olledelai agercy resi)Or\Ses to GAO queS\<(){'na<re and agency dDCl!'Tients a'ld GAO, 2012 Annual Re/){'!rl Opporlum/!es !o Redur» Duphcil/lon Overlap and Fragmenta/lon 

/.Ch1eve Savmgs and E'lhimce Revenue GA0-12·342Sf' {Waslm>g/on DC feb 2B, 2012) j QA0-17-6711 

a This program is also known as Johnson-O'Malley Assistance Grants. 

Agencies that Administer Programs Without an Explicit Early 

Learning or Child Care Purpose 

Figure 4: 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 

Program Titl~ 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Aopalach1!Jn Area Development 

Legend: 

l!I=Re'T1a,nedonliSI -"'Not appkab'e 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

~-~re programs 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

-----

Source GAO dnalyo; s olledetal agency res~nses to GAO questionnaire ana agency documents and GAO. 2012 A!1JJio<ll Report Opporiumlies to Redor:e Duplrcatwn. OWJrlap and Fmgmentatwn 

Actrmve Sav•ngs. andEmmnce Rav<mue GA0-12 342:SP (1<\lasnmgton 0 C Feb 28 2012l 1 GA0-17 671T 

Page 13 GAOw17-671T Early Learning and Child Care 
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 26143.015

Appendix 1: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

Figure 5: 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 

Program Title 

Department of Agriculture 

Child and Adult Care Food Program 

Fresh FrUit and Vegetable;; Program 

National School lunch Program 

School Breakfast Program 

Special M1lk Program tor Children 

Logend 

a"Rema.''Bdor.,st 

Changes from 

20121istofear!y 

learning and child 

care programs ~~~~~-

-o=Notappllcab!e 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

~---~~ 

Program ident1f1ed by agency officials 

so,,rct' G/10 anaiys1s of federal Dge~w responses 10 G/lO O\•e~t•onnmre and agency documents a~o Gi\0. 2012 Amwnl Report Oppmtumlws to Rcd!ff:e DaplicaiiOn. OV$cr~p ana l'mg"T>efli-?IIO!l, 

AcwweS<~vmgs an,1Ei!1>.;rlceR<>NIWt! GA0-12-342SP{Wastllngtrm.DC Feb 28 20121 i GAQ.J7.fi71T 

Figure 6: 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 

Program Title 

General Services Administration 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

care programs 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Propetty rJ 

The General Servtces Admlnts!ratton's Child Gate Program" II 

Legend· 

a:>{ematnedcnllst -"'Notapplic.<lble 

So"'~" GAO analy'3-<~ of Ieder~: ag<>ncy 'e~oorses to GAO quesl,crmme and agency doc .. ments and GAO. 20J2 Al>l'iiill R<morl Opporf!ln>f,<J£ lo Re(luoe Oil{!hoa/!On, Over!<lp and Fragmemla/rOIJ 

Ac)"<;tv!! $,nwg~ ana Enl•aFJW R&Vf!''<lll, GA0-12-342SP {Wat;hmglon. 0 C Feb 28. 2012) [ GA0-17-671T 

aln 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. 

Page 14 GA0-17-6711 Early Learning and Child Care 
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 26143.016

Appendix 1: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

Figure 7: 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 

~gram Title 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

care programs -·--·---

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

-----

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Cho1ce Nei)lhborhoods Program 1dentif1ed by agency off.cials 

Commun1ty Development Block Grant" 

Jobs-Plus P!lot lnit1al1ve Program !den!1f1ed by agency off1C1a!s 

legend 

a "Renlalned on list D ""Added to liSt - "Notapplicabie 

Source GAO ;:malys1s or !ecleral acyency respor.ses to GAO questronnrwe and agency docume~ts and GAO. 2012 Armual Report OpprJ!twnt:es to Reduce Oupl!cauon. OverWp and rrogmeritalron 

Ac.':wvc'Savmgs vmiE!>henceRevomw GA0-12·342Si>(Washmgton DC Feb 28,21)12) 1 GA0-17-6711 

3

The Community Development Block Grant comprises Entitlement Grants, Special Purpose 

Grants/Insular Areas, and State Program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii. !n our 2012 report, 

we listed each of these components separately because they are 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 hsted in the CFDA. 

Figure 8: 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 

Prog:-_~!_11-Title 

Department of Justice 

Ch1loren and Youth E.>;posed to Vtolence 

Changes from 

2012 list of early 

learning and child 

~:!.E:ogr~~~~ 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

Defer>d'ng ChtldhoodiChildren's Exposure to Vto!ence~ 

legend 

J:lo:::Rernovedlromhst 1:] "'Added to Its! rJ,r~emamedonl<st -=Notapphcable 

Opportuni!•es fo RedQce 01Jpilcilllfm. Overlap ami Fragmel!lallorl. 

"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 

Page 15 GA0~17R671T Early Learning and Child Care 
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 26143.017

Appendix 1: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early learning or Child Care 

Prevention of Children's Exposure to Violence {Safe Start) program with the Defending 

Childhood/Children's Exposure to Violence program. 

Figure 9: 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 

Department of Labor 

Changes from 

20121ist of early 

learning and child 

care programs ------

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

----

National Farmworker Jobs Program PJ Nat1ve Amencan Employment and Trainmg PJ 

V'Jon<force Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Program a PJl 

Workforce lnnovai!On and Qpportemty Act Dislocated Worker Programb l'J 

Workforce lnnovat1on and Opportunity Act Youth Ac!iv1ties a YouthBwld a Legend· 

~~ Re'JH'HnedonliS! Oc:o/\ddedto:1st -o::Notapphcabie 

So!lfca GAO analysis ol federal agency responses to Gf<O (1l!CSiirmna"" and agency r!or;um&.n!s a~o GAO. ?012 Anmmi R~>;;orl Oppoltumrms In Reduce D!!pi,c,,l,on O•·mlap cmd FragnJNI!tJ/ton 

A01mve Saw1gs 1mrtEnhancu Rwrmue. GA0-12-342SP !Washlngtoo. DC Feb 28 2012) 1 GAO 17-671T 

"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 prevwus taw in 2014. 

"This program was !is ted as the Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Fonnula 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. 

Page 16 GA0~17~G71T Early Learning and Child Care 
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 26143.018

Appendix 1: Update of Programs and Tax 

Expenditures that May Provide or Support 

Early Learning or Child Care 

Tax Expenditures 

Figure 10: Department of the Treasury Child Care·Related Tax Expenditures (as of Fiscal Year 2015h Using Tax Expenditures 

GAO Identified in 2012 Report as a Baseline 

Program Title 

Department of Treasury -Tax Expenditures 

Credit for child and dependent care expenses 

Empioyer·prov1ded ch•ld care credita 

Employer-provided chtld care exdusionb 

Changes from 

20121ist of early 

learning and child 

care programs 

Rationale for 

adding or 

removing 

program 

F.xclusion of Denefits prov1ded under cafeteria plansc 

ExcluSIOn of mcome earned by voluntary employees' 

benefiCiary assocmtJons 

legend 

J:I.,Removedflorrilst -:oNotapplicaDie 

Source GAO d!lil'fStS of federal agency response~ to GAO que~toonna.te and agency do~umoents and GAO, 2012 Annuo! Repo1t OppcutwJJflrts to Redu~e Oupilcfi!IOf!. Overlap and Fragmell/a/101! 

k:h1rtveSavmgs ardEnlwnceR(•,,erve GA0·12<)42SP(Wash•'lgtn•l DC Feh 28 2012) 1 C':>A0-17-671T 

(102087) 

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 the 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 top!c, 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. 

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

'!his 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. 

"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. 

Page 17 GA0-17-S71T Early Learning and Child Care 
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 26143.019

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 

copynghted images or other material, perm1sston from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 26143.020

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 

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, Linkedln, 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/fraudneUfraudnet.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 Blackwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

.:~ Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
29 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Barnes. Dr. Stevens, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHARINE STEVENS, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, 

EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Ms. STEVENS. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for convening 

today’s hearing on opportunities for state leadership of early childhood programs. My name is Katharine Stevens and I am a resident 

scholar in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute where I lead AEI’s early childhood program. 

My research is focused on the science of brain development and 

its implications for early care and education policy, especially the 

role of early learning in expanding opportunity for low income 

Americans. The views I offer today are mine alone. 

Before my current position at AEI, I worked for nine years in 

higher education, followed by 15 years in K-12 school reform. Having worked at every level of the education continuum, I have come 

to believe that early childhood is perhaps the most exciting and 

crucial area of U.S. domestic policy. So, it is a special honor for me 

to testify before the subcommittee today on this topic. 

As is now widely known, a growing body of scientific research 

has established that the first 5 years of life are the most crucial 

period of human development. What we also know is that the education process is cumulative. Each stage builds on the prior one, 

and research shows that, in fact, gaps between higher and lower 

income children emerge long before children start school. 

Many children enter school unprepared to succeed and research 

shows that schooling, largely, does not close those initial gaps. Improving the well-being of America’s youngest, most vulnerable children is crucial to both their life chances and our nation’s future. 

Yet, even as science underscores the importance of early childhood, 

federal policy has lagged behind. 

Since 1935 the federal government has supported early care and 

education for poor children and still has a critical role but the policy making legacy of the past 80 years has left us with two core 

problems. The first problem is that integrating disparate federal 

funding streams to best serve children and family at the state and 

local levels is difficult, at best, and often impossible. 

Not all states are equally committed to improving early care and 

education. But those that are working hard to do so find their efforts hampered by current federal policy. 

The second problem is that federal programs strongly reflect the 

commonly made, but false distinction between childcare and early 

education. Research has established that young children are continuously and rapidly learning wherever they are and from whomever they are with starting at birth. 

We have long thought of school as where children learn, but the 

reality is that every environment, whether home, school, or 

childcare is a learning environment for young children. In fact, 

childcare is unique among early childhood programs precisely because it serves multiple purposes. By promoting the complementary aims of adult responsibility and self-sufficiency on the one 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

30 

hand, and healthy child development on the other, childcare offers 

a valuable strategy for two generation human capital development 

in America’s most disadvantaged communities. 

We know that family and child well-being are inextricably linked. 

Indeed, today’s early care and education programs must have two 

purposes: supporting parents’ work in a 24/7 economy and advancing children’s healthy growth and learning during the most crucial 

period of human development. But current federal policy fails to realize the significant potential of this dual generation approach to 

help children and their parents move ahead at the same time. 

Federal early childhood programs still play a key role in addressing inequality of opportunity and lack of economic mobility for disadvantaged children. But the context has changed enormously 

since our major federal early childhood programs were first put 

into place. 

Unlike half a century ago, today the strongest leadership in early 

childhood is emerging from forward looking states. The best path 

now for federal policy is to build on this growing state momentum 

by identifying, supporting, and highlighting the work of leading innovative states. 

Our goal should be to amplify the impact of currently siloed programs aiming to build states’ capacity to support low income working families and give American’s most vulnerable young children 

the strong start they need to thrive. 

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before this subcommittee on such an important topic. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The testimony of Ms. Stevens follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 26143.021

Promoting State Leadership 

AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE 

INSTITUTE 
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 26143.022

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for convening today's hearing on opportunities for state leadership of early childhood programs. 

My name is Katharine Stevens, and I am a resident scholar in Education Policy Studies at the American 

Enterprise Institute (AEI), where !lead AEI's early childhood program. My research is focused on the 

science of brain development and its implications for early care and education policy, especially the role of 

early learning in expanding opportunity for low-income Americans. The views I offer today are mine 

alone. 

Before my current position at AEI, I worked for nine years in higher education followed by 15 years inK12 school reform. And having worked at every level of the education continuum, I have come to believe 

that early childhood is perhaps the most exciting and crucial area of US domestic policy. So it is a special 

honor for me to testify before the subcommittee today on opportunities for state leadership of early 

childhood programs. 

Early childhood is a unique area of education policy for two reasons. First, it targets the very foundation of 

educational opportunity: aiming to help children get a strong start rather than trying to fix everworsening problems down the line. Second, I know of no other area of policy, in education or otherwise, 

that has such a robust body of scientific knowledge that so clearly points us in specific policy directions. 

I am here today to make two key points: the first on the science of early development and the second on 

the policy implications of that science. I suggest that the science of early development strongly indicates 

that early childhood is a truly critical area of domestic policy-and, in the long run, may be the most 

important area of education policy. I also suggest that the federal government has a crucial role in 

advancing better early care and education, especially for the most vulnerable children. 

Because it is such a critical area, though, the most important federal role now is to promote state 

leadership. We must find new ways to promote and leverage growing state commitment to early 

childhood, to incentivize state innovation, and to highlight strategies and activities of currently leading 

states, particularly around supporting lower-income families by improving access to high-quality 

childcare. 

The Lifelong Importance of Children's Earliest Years 

A growing body of scientific research has established that a solid early foundation, constructed in the 

first years of life, is crucial to everything that follows. Extraordinary development occurs from birth to 

age five, forming the bedrock for lifelong health, intellectual ability, emotional well-being, and social 

functioning. In just the first 1,000 days after birth, a child grows from a helpless infant to a running, 

jumping, climbing preschooler. And children's early cognitive, social, and emotional development is 

equally rapid, mirroring this dramatic physical growth. 

2 
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 26143.023

A child's brain isn't born fully built; it is constructed through the interactive influences of his or her 

genes and early experiences, The infant brain has about 100 billion cells at birth-roughly the same 

number as an adult brain-but with many fewer connections between cells, In the first months of life, 

the brain's neural network expands exponentially, from around 2,500 connections per neuron at birth to 

about 15,000 connections between ages two and three, with rapid growth continuing into the early 

elementary school years, Those connections-called synapses-"wire" the structure of a young child's 

brain in response to his or her environment and cumulative experiences, 

Figure 1. Development of Synapses in the Human Brain Between Birth and Age Six 

Source: J, LeRoy Cone!, The Postnatal Development of the Human Cerebral Cortex 

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), 

The developing brain is an integrated organ: Cognitive, social, and emotional capacities are interconnected 

and interdependent Healthy development at any stage depends on healthy development in previous 

stages, as more complex neural connections and skills build on earlier ones, And while children's physical 

development is fostered by adequate nutrition and physical freedom, their brain development is driven 

almost entirely by time- and attention-intensive adult nurture and care, Just as a plant's growth depends 

on sufficient water and light, children's development depends on hour-to-hour, day-to-day interactions 

with caring, responsive adults, 

Starting at birth, ongoing, reciprocal, "serve-and-return" communication in the context of secure, loving 

relationships with adult caregivers literally builds the architecture of children's brains, As neuroscientists 

from Harvard University's Center on the Developing Child explain, those early interactions "determine 

whether a child's developing brain architecture provides a strong or weak foundation for all future 

learning, behavior, and health," 1 

The bottom line is that the early experiences of babies and young children have a profound, lasting impact 

on the rest of their lives, And when children's early environments are unsupportive or even damaging, 

3 
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 26143.024

the repercussions persist for decades, compromising their development and limiting their capacity for 

success in school, work, and life. 

Gaps Emerge Early and Schools Do Not Close Them 

Like all human development, the education process is cumulative: Each stage builds on the prior one. 

Success in postsecondary education depends on a strong high school education. Success in high school, 

in turn, depends on a strong education in elementary school. And, success in elementary school depends 

on the strength of the foundation laid in early life-' 

A broad set of socially and economically valuable skills start developing in children's first months, build 

over time, and are critical determinants of academic and economic achievement. Although a sturdy base 

of early skill and ability is not alone sufficient for children's long-term success, without it, the effectiveness 

of later investments in their education are substantially reduced.' 

Yet research shows that developmental gaps between higher- and lower-income children emerge 

among children as young as nine months old.' By 18 months, toddlers from low-income families can 

already be several months behind their more advantaged peers in language development.' One widely 

cited study found that by age three, children with college-educated parents had vocabularies as much as 

three times larger than those of children whose parents did not complete high school-a gap so big, 

researchers concluded, that even the best intervention programs could at most keep the lessadvantaged children from falling still further behind.' 

In other words, many children enter school unprepared to succeed, and schooling largely cannot close 

initial gaps. 7 Fewer than half of low-income five-year-olds enter school ready to learn, and some are up 

to two years behind their peers' Achievement gaps between economically advantaged and disadvantaged 

children widen as they progress through school, resulting in poor academic performance, grade repetition, 

expensive remedial services, and high rates of school dropout." The long-run economic impact of this 

ongoing school failure is, as a McKinsey report put it, the "equivalent of a permanent recession." 10 

Children Have Not Changed-But Childhood Has 

Early childhood has always been the most critical developmental period of the life cycle. Yet for most of 

history, that essential early foundation for all subsequent learning and development was laid in the home, 

largely through full-time maternal care. Today, though, an unprecedented number of American mothers 

are in the workforce. 

Almost two-thirds of mothers with children under six are working outside the home, compared with 

fewer than one in 10 in 1940-a sevenfold increase." Nearly three in 10 mothers now return to work 

within two months of their baby's birth, and almost 40 percent of those with an infant under a year old 

are employed full time. 12 

As the American workforce-and mothers' work-has been transformed, so has early childhood. More 

than three out of five children under age six have all residential parents in the workforce. Almost 11 million 

4 
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 26143.025

American children under five are in non parental care for an average of 33 hours a week." Indeed, millions 

of children are now spending thousands of hours in paid childcare-often 10 times more hours than a 

year offull-day pre-K and up to 20 times more than a year of Head Start-before they enter kindergarten, 

meaning that childcare has a far greater impact on their development and learning. So while parents are 

still by far the most important influence on children's development, child care also now plays a key role 

in raising young children. 

Figure 2. Total Hours in Childcare Versus Pre-K and Head Start 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

11,700 

1,080 

- 448 

Total hours in Total hours in Total -hours in typical 

ful!-t1me chiidcare one year of pre-K Head Start program 

before kmdergarten 

Source: Author's calculations. 14 

Current Federal Programs Are Inadequate 

Improving the well-being of America's youngest, most vulnerable children is crucial to both their life 

chances and our nation's future. Yet even as a growing body of science underscores the importance of 

early childhood, federal policy has lagged behind. Current federal programs are inadequate to advance 

the healthy development of young children and ensure that children have a chance to start kindergarten 

ready to learn and succeed-giving them a fair shot at success and avoiding expensive problems down 

the line. 

Since 1935, the federal government has supported early care and education for poor children. But the 

policymaking legacy of the past 80 years is a haphazard array of uncoordinated programs, shaped by 

outdated science and entrenched political interests, and long driven by addressing unintended 

consequences of previous policies rather than core goals. 15 

While the federal government now funds dozens of small programs providing services to children from 

birth through age five, the preponderance of federal funds is spent on Head Start, the Child Care 

5 
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 26143.026

Development Fund (CCDF), and child care expenditures from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF). All three programs fund poor children's participation in early care and education, and all 

originated decades ago in initiatives to promote children's healthy development. 16 Yet federal early 

childhood policy faces two core problems today. 

The first problem is that integrating disparate federal funding streams-each constrained by its own 

administration, rules, and monitoring frameworks-to best serve children and families at the state and 

local levels is difficult at best and often impossible. The well-respected early childhood advocacy 

organization, the Ounce, recently described this problem: 

Because no single federal or state funding source adequately addresses [the needs of 

children and families], individual early care and education programs have sought to foster 

healthy child development and promote families' economic self-sufficiency by combining 

existing funding streams through "blending" and "braiding" funds .... At the individual 

program level, these financing strategies are inefficient and costly because significant 

staff time and resources are necessary to manage the different, and often conflicting, 

program eligibility requirements, quality standards, and funding mechanisms required by 

each funding stream .... 

. . . Each government agency administering a categorical funding stream typically requires 

that its funds be tracked separately ... requir[ing] skilled staff, a high degree of record 

keeping, a good management information system, and a strong cost accounting system 

to track expenditures by funding source, often at the child level, in order to properly 

allocate and report them. Many providers of early care and education are small centers 

or family-based homes that do not have the administrative capacity to manage the 

requirements of multiple funding sources17 

In addition, as the Ounce notes, this "create[s] disincentives for many providers to serve the highest 

need children who depend on public funding to access the early learning experiences they need before 

kindergarten entry."" 

The second problem with current federal programs is that they incorporate the commonly made but false 

distinction between the "care" and "education" of children, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding 

of early learning and development. Research has established that young children are continuously and 

rapidly learning, wherever they are and from whomever they are with, starting at birth. So while we 

have long thought of "school" as where children learn, the reality is that every environment-whether 

home, school, or childcare-is a learning environment for young children. 

This has crucial implications for federal policy. Head Start has long been emphasized as the federal 

government's major early education program, and more recently, pre-K for four-year-olds has been the 

primary focus of new early education initiatives. But because children often spend many more hours in 

childcare, starting much earlier in their lives, it has a much greater impact on their development. In 

other words, childcare is early education, regardless of the building in which it occurs or what we call it. 

The question is only whether it is promoting or impeding children's learning. 

6 
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 26143.027

In fact, childcare is unique among early childhood programs precisely because it serves multiple purposes. 

By promoting the complementary aims of adult responsibility and self-sufficiency on the one hand, and 

healthy child development on the other, childcare offers a valuable strategy for two-generation human 

capital development in America's most disadvantaged communities. Yet Head Start, CCDF, and TANF all 

fall short of realizing the significant potential of this dual-generation approach to help children and their 

parents move ahead at the same time. 

Head Start. Head Start has dominated the federal early childhood landscape for decades as the federal 

government's preschool program for poor children. Founded in 1965 as a centerpiece of President Lyndon 

B. Johnson's War on Poverty, it remains the largest and most visible federal early childhood program. 

By establishing Head Start more than half a century ago, the federal government played a crucial leadership 

role in what we have increasingly recognized as an extremely important policy area. Yet while science has 

borne out Head Start's long-standing focus on the importance of early childhood development, when it 

was founded in 1965 the world was very different in two important ways. First, Head Start was designed 

as a part-time enrichment program, targeted at mothers on welfare who at the time were not expected 

to work. Second, few states in the mid-1960s were focused on the healthy development of young, lowincome children. 

But neither of these conditions are true today. Today, mothers of young children are expected to be 

self-sufficient, rather than receive welfare, and the most critical challenge facing today's lower-income 

families is how they can support young children's financial well-being without compromising their 

foundational early development. And while not all states have prioritized early childhood, a significant 

number of states are not only far ahead of where they were in 1965-they are far ahead of where the 

federal government is today. 

Child Care Development Fund and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. CCDF and TANF are the 

major federal childcare subsidy programs, aimed primarily at supporting low-income adults' 

participation in the labor market by helping them pay for childcare. Although CCDF and TANF are now 

focused on promoting adult work, they grew out of an early-20th-century effort to advance the development 

of disadvantaged children. 19 

The initial iteration of these programs, Aid to Dependent Children {ADC), was the federal government's 

first early childhood program, enacted in 1935. ADC's goal was to allow poor mothers to exit the workforce 

and care for their young children at home, aiming to ensure children's "health in mind and body," in 

President Herbert Hoover's words, and thus open "the door of opportunity" for every child. 20 

As the 20th century wore on, however, ADC evolved into Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 

expanding its scope to explicitly include support for adults. Adult welfare rolls exploded, and policy focus 

gradually shifted from children's early development to the financial self-sufficiency of adults. Through 

welfare reform passed in 1996, today's CCDF and TANF programs were established, framing childcare as 

a work support for adults while deemphasizing its role in children's early development." 

7 
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 26143.028

Yet science has advanced a great deal since 1996, and these programs, too, have become outdated. We 

now know that while childcare is a necessary support for working parents, it also has a significant impact 

on children during the most consequential phase of human development. Promoting families' economic 

self-sufficiency can unintentionally harm children, families, and society if it means that disadvantaged 

children are spending a large proportion of their most important developmental years in inadequate, 

counterproductive settings. While parents' work outside the home improves children's financial security 

and helps adults move ahead, the gaps left for children's early development must also be addressed to 

advance the ultimate aim of giving every child a fair chance at a successful life. 

Family and child well-being are inextricably linked. Today's federal care and education programs for 

children from birth through age four must have two purposes: supporting parents' work in a 24/7 

economy and advancing children's healthy growth and learning during the most crucial period of human 

development. But current policy fails to recognize that those two aims are complementary, equally 

important strategies for building human capital in our nation's most disadvantaged communities. 

Moving Forward: A Better Approach 

Over the past 20 years, efforts to strengthen federal early childhood policy have largely been confined to 

tinkering with these three major funding streams: Head Start, CCDF, and TANF. Some useful improvements 

have been made, but current, long-established programs do not provide the best means for accomplishing 

our fundamental goals-" We need new thinking to make substantial headway in improving the lives and 

life chances of low-income children. 

The best path forward for federal early childhood programs is to realign them around a childcare focus, 

strengthening whole families by simultaneously supporting children's healthy development and adult work. 

Empowering parents to further their children's developmental and financial well-being simultaneously 

honors the dignity of parenthood-promoting self-sufficiency while helping parents lay the early 

groundwork that enables their children to have a better future than their own. Done correctly, highquality childcare advances whole families, helping two generations at the same time and amplifying the 

impact on each. 

A Crucial Role for Federal Leadership 

Unlike K-12, early childhood care and education largely remains a decentralized, market-based sector, 

making it an ideal arena for innovation. The federal government plays a large role in public spending on 

care and education programs for children under five and is well positioned to provide forward-looking 

leadership at this pivotal moment for the field. 

The context for federal early childhood policy has changed enormously since the major federal programs 

were first put into place. Over the past 80 years, the federal government has led much of the nation's 

efforts to protect and advance the well-being of low-income young children. Today, however, the 

strongest leadership is emerging from states. Policymakers across the country, both Democrat and 

Republican, are heeding the growing research underscoring the importance of early childhood and are 

prioritizing investment in the earliest years of learning and development. 

8 
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 26143.029

The American public, too, overwhelmingly now understands the importance of early care and learning 

programs in today's changing world. Almost three-quarters of respondents in a 2016 bipartisan poll 

identified the period from birth to age five as the most significant for developing a child's capacity to 

learn. A full82 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of independents, and 98 percent of Democrats said 

that "making early education and childcare more affordable for working parents to give children a 

strong start" is important for our country. And almost 80 percent of respondents said that public 

investment should be made equally or more heavily in early childhood than in higher education." 

The most promising path forward is to advance the work of leading, innovative states, building on 

growing state and local momentum in early childhood. Indeed, recent federal action has significantly 

strengthened state capacity toward this end: 

The 2007 reauthorization of Head Start required that every state governor establish a State 

Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education (SAC) to improve the quality, availability, and 

coordination of the state's programs and services for children from birth through age four. SACs 

are now in place in every state, providing valuable infrastructure for ongoing state activity. 24 

The Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge competition was launched in 2011, jointly 

administered by the US Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The program 

funded the efforts of 20 winning states to design and implement an integrated system to improve 

the quality of early learning and development services and to close the achievement gap for 

children with high needs. Several of those states are now national leaders in early childhood 

policy and practice. 25 

The Preschool Development Grants competition, also jointly administered by the US Departments 

of Education and Health and Human Services, was launched in 2014. The program helps states 

build their infrastructure to provide high-quality preschool programs for low- and moderateincome families, expand high-quality programs in high-needs communities, and create sustainable 

programs by coordinating existing early learning funds. Grants were awarded to states that are 

demonstrating a strong commitment to building and enhancing their early learning systems, and 

the 18 winning states are intended to serve as national models.26 

The Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CC) were launched in 2014, administered by 

the Department of Health and Human Services. EHS-CC partnerships aimed to incentivize 

integration of federal funding streams to expand access to high-quality early care and education 

for low-income children and families." 

In 2014, Congress reauthorized the CCDF program for the first time in 18 years. The bipartisan 

reauthorization-passed in the Senate with an overwhelming majority of88 to 1-promotes 

state leadership in providing young children with high-quality learning opportunities while 

simultaneously supporting their working parents." 

Using the important groundwork laid by these federal initiatives, the federal government now needs to: 

(1) Leverage federal spending to incentivize and support forward-looking states to better serve larger 

numbers of children from birth through age four, especially children in lower-income working families; 

9 
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 26143.030

and (2) Promote rigorous research and innovation that increases our knowledge about what works best 

for children and families. 

Conclusion 

The first 60 months are the most crucial developmental period of a child's life. The cognitive, social, and 

emotional growth that occurs from birth to age five lays the essential groundwork for all future learning 

and success. And too many children enter kindergarten so far behind that they can never catch up. 

Improving the well-being of America's youngest, most vulnerable children is crucial to both their life 

chances and the success of our country as a whole. 

Federal early childhood programs play a key role in addressing inequality of opportunity and lack of 

economic mobility for disadvantaged children. Targeting investment to children's earliest years is 

sensible policy because it aims to build a strong foundation in the first place rather than trying to fix 

expensive, preventable problems down the line. Too often, though, our thinking is limited by what 

currently exists, not driven by what we are actually trying to accomplish. We need new strategies to 

accomplish our core aim: promoting the well-being of lower-income children so they can grow into 

healthy, happy, productive citizens. 

The best path forward is to identify, support, and highlight the work of leading, innovative states, 

focused on advancing whole families through a two-generation human capital development strategy 

that simultaneously enables adult work and supports young children's learning and development. Our 

goal should be to amplify the impact of currently siloed programs, aiming to build states' capacity to 

support low-income families and give America's least-advantaged children a fair chance at a good life. 

1 Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, A Science-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy: Using 

Evidence to Improve Outcomes in Learning, Behavior, ond Health for Vulnerable Children, August 2007, 

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/a-science-based-framework-for-early-childhood-policy/. 

2 Flavia Cunha et al., "Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation," Handbook of the Economics of Education 1 

(2006): 697-812, http:/ /jenni.uchicago.edu/papers/Cunha_Heckman_etai_2006_HEE_ vl_ch12.pdf; Flavia Cunha, James 

Heckman, and Susanne Schennach, "Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation," Institute 

for the Study of Labor, January 2010, http://ftp.iza.org/dp4702.pdf; and James J. Heckman and Tim Kautz, "Hard 

Evidence on Soft Skills," Labour Economics 19, no. 4 (August 1, 2012): 451-64, 

https:/ /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612993/. 

3 James J. Heckman and Dlmitriy V. Masterov, "The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children, 11 Review of 

Agricultural Economics 29, no. 3 (2007): 446-93. 

4 Tamara Halle et aL, ''Disparities in Early Learning and Development: lessons from the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-8)," Child Trends, June 2009, www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2009-

5 2 0 ispa ritiesELExecSumm. pdf. 

'Anne Fernald, Virginia A. Marchman, and Adriana Weisleder, "SES Differences in Language Processing Skill and 

Vocabulary Are Evident at 18 Months," Developmental Science 16, no. 2 (2013): 234-48. 

'Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, "The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3," American Educator 27, no. 

(2003): 4-9, http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf. Vocabulary at age three 

predicts reading skills in third grade. In turn, third-grade reading skills are a strong predictor of long-term school and life 

outcomes. A 2009 study, for example, found that about 16 percent of children who were not reading proficiently by the 

end of third grade failed to complete high school-a dropout rate four times higher than that of proficient readers. 

Among children who were not reading proficiently at the end of third grade and were poor for at least one year, 26 

10 
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 26143.031

percent failed to graduate from high school. In contrast, 89 percent of poor children who were reading on grade level by 

third grade graduated by age 19. Donald J. Hernandez, Double Jeopardy: How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty 

Influence High School Graduation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, April 2011, http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECFDoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf. Similarly, failure to complete high school strongly predicts unemployment, incarceration, 

and single motherhood. More than half (54 percent} of all high school dropouts and more than two-thirds (69 percent} of 

African American dropouts age 16 to 24 were unemployed in 2008. Nearly 1 in 10 male dropouts and one in four African 

American male dropouts age 16 to 24 were incarcerated on any given day in 2006-Q7. Female dropouts of that age were 

six times as likely to have given birth as peers who were college students or four-year-college graduates. Almost 23 

percent were single mothers. Andrew Sum et al., The Consequences of Dropping Out of High School: Joblessness and 

Jailing for High School Dropouts and the High Cost for Taxpayers, Center for Labor Market Statistics, October 1, 2009, 

http:/ /www.prisonpolicy. o rg/ scans/The_ Consequences_ of_ Dropping_ Out_ of _High _School.pdf. 

7 David M, Quinn, "Kindergarten Black-White Test Score Gaps: Re-Examining the Roles of Socioeconomic Status and 

School Quality with New Data," Sociology of Education 88, no. 2 (2015}: 120-39, 

http:/ /www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/journals/soe/Apr15SOEFeature.pdf; and Lisa G. Klein and Jane Knitzer, 

Promoting Effective Early Learning: What Every Po/icymaker and Educator Should Know, National Center for Children in 

Poverty, January 2007, http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_695.html. 

8 Julia B. Isaacs, Starting School at a Disadvantage: The School Readiness of Poor Children, Brookings Institution, March 

19, 2012, http://www. brookings.edu/ research/starting -school-at -a-disadvantage-the-school-readiness-of -poorchildren/. 

9 John K. McNamara, Mary Scissons, and Naomi Gutknecth, "A Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children at Risk for 

Reading Disabilities," Journal of Learning Disabilities 44, no. 5 (September/October 2011): 421-30; and Sean F. Reardon, 

"The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor," Community Investments 24, no. 2 (Summer 

2012): 19-39, http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/CI_Summer2012_Reardon.pdf. 

10 McKinsey & Company, "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America's Schools," April 2009, 

http:/ /mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/achievement_gap_report.pdf. 

ll US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Women in the Labor Force: A Databook," December 2014, 

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/archive/women-in-the-labor-force-a-databook-2014.pdf. 

12 Ajay Chaudry and Jane Waldfogel, "A 10-Year Strategy of Increased Coordination & Comprehensive Investments in 

Early Child Development," Behavioral Science & Policy 2 (2016): 47-55, https://behavioralpolicy.org/articles/a-10-yearstrategy-of-increased-coordination-comprehensive-investments-in-early-child-development/; US Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, "Women in the Labor Force: A Data book"; and US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table 6. Employment Status of 

Mothers with Own Children Under 3 Years Old by Single Year of Age of Youngest Child and Marital Status, 2015-2016 

Annual Averages," April20, 2017, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t06.htm. 

13 Child Care Aware of America, "Parents and the High Cost of Childcare," 201S, 

http ://www.usa .ch ildca reawa re .org/ advocacy-public-policy I resources/ reports -and-research/ costofcare/; and Lynda 

Laughlin, "Who's Minding the Kids? Childcare Arrangements: Spring 2011," US Department of Commerce, Economics and 

Statistics Administration, April2013, https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf. 

"Total hours of childcare are calculated at 40 hours per week from birth through age four. Total hours for pre-K are 

calculated based on a full year of a typical, full-day program: six hours per day for 180 regular school days. Most Head 

Start programs run just three and a half hours per day for 128 days per year. Only 9 percent of center-based slots provide 

services for a full workday, year-round. See US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families, "Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2015," August 24, 2016, https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoingmonitoring/article/head-start-program-facts-fiscal-year-2015. 

15 Katharine B. Stevens, Renewing Childhood's Promise: The History and Future of Federal Early Care and Education 

Policy, American Enterprise Institute, November 2, 2015, http://www.aei.org/publication/renewing-childhoods-promisethe-history-and-future-of-federal-early-care-and-education-policy/. 

16 lbid. 

17 Margie Wallen and Angela Hubbard, "Blending and Braiding Early Childhood Program Funding Streams Toolkit: 

Enhancing Financing for High-Quality Early Learning Programs," The Ounce, November 2013, 

https :/ /www. theou nee .org/wp-content/uploads/20 17/03/NPT -Blended-Funding-Tool kit. pdf. 18 1bid. 

19 For a history of CCDF, TANF, and Head Start, see Stevens, Renewing Childhood's Promise. 

"Herbert Hoover, "Address to the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection" (speech, Constitution Hall, 

Washington, DC, November 19, 1930}, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22442. 

11 
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 26143.032

"Both programs were established through federal welfare reform-the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)-passed in 1996. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was replaced by TANF 

and administered as a block grant that gives states great flexibility in determining how funds are spent. At the same time1 

four preexisting childcare funding streams-the AFDC Child Care Guarantee, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, 

and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)-were consolidated into the Child Care and Development 

Fund (CCDFL also referred to as CCDBG, aimed primarily to support working parents. 

12 In 2014, for example, CCDBG was reauthorized with strongly bipartisan support (passing in the Senate by 88 to 1), 

expanding its focus to not only assist parents as a work support but also support the healthy development of children by 

increasing the percentage of low-income children in high-quality care. The 2014 bill stresses child development and 

learning (neither "development" nor "learning" were mentioned in the earlier bills), setting out new standards for 

program design, safety, licensing, oversight, and reporting, and requiring that states define program quality and develop 

plans for improving it. 

13 First Five Years Fund, "2016 National Poll," http:/ /ffyf.org/2016-poll/. 

"See US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Early Childhood 

Development, "State Advisory Councils," www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/state-advisory-councils. 

25 See US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Early Childhood 

Development, "Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge," www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/early-learning/race-to-thetop. 

"See US Department of Education, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Early Learning, "Preschool 

Development Grants," www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html. 

27 See US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Early Childhood 

Development, "Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships," https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/early-learning/ehs-ccpartnerships. 

28 See US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Office of Child Care, "CCDF 

Reauthorization," www. acf. hhs.gov I programs/ occ/ ccdf -reauthorization. 

12 
43 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Harris, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAMELA HARRIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MILE 

HIGH MONTESSORI EARLY LEARNING CENTERS 

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you and good morning Chairman Rokita, 

Ranking Member Polis, and members of the committee. Thank you 

for inviting me to testify today about early childhood programs. As 

Mr. Polis said, I am an early childhood education provider in Denver and we work in the most impoverished neighborhoods there. 

We have an enormous responsibility. Children are born with 100 

billion neurons. That is as many stars as are in the Milky Way, 

and it is through interactions with responsive, caring adults that 

children thrive. Eighty-five percent of brain development occurs before a child even enters kindergarten and delays in development 

appear as early as 9 months old. And if a child is not reading proficiently in third grade, they are four to six times less likely to 

graduate high school. 

Reaching children in their critical years, as you have heard, is 

very important and it is federal early learning programs that target unique populations or specific needs that are complementary 

and not duplicative help us do our work. 

We serve 384 Head Start and Early Head Start children and our 

families live in poverty. By using Head Start’s whole child approach, focusing on cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development while supporting their families we can really make a difference and this shows in our school readiness for our children. 

In the fall, only 60 percent of our children are meeting developmental levels, but by the end of the year, more than 90 percent are 

meeting those same benchmarks. Head Start is really the original 

two generation program, and its model, federal to local funding, allows programs to be responsive to the specific needs of their community. 

We have seven early learning centers. One serves predominantly 

Spanish speaking families. One serves refugee families who speak 

over 20 languages, and one is in a historically black neighborhood 

impacted by gentrification. 

Across Colorado, Head Start programs in rural and farming communities, in the mountains, and on the plains in Western Slope, 

and Eastern plains they are working locally to collaborate and leverage services to meet the needs of their specific families. 

Through the federal Early Learning Challenge grant that Colorado was awarded, we developed a quality rating and improvement 

system for licensed childcare providers using Head Start performance standards as quality indicators. One hundred and sixty families in my program access childcare subsidies through the 

Childcare Development Block Grant, CCDBG, while they are working or going to school to improve their families’ lives. And in Colorado, the state has invested additional funding for subsidies to 

serve infants and toddlers. 

IDEA provides funding for early intervention services for children birth to 5. Approximately 15 percent of our children enrolled 

have disabilities and we partner with our school district to support 

toddlers with delays as they transition to preschool. And the most 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

recent federal changes in Head Start and CCDBG continue to ensure and emphasize high-quality services for children and families. 

However, gaps in ensuring access exist. While subsidies help defray the cost of childcare they do not meet the full cost and do not 

support parents working non-traditional schedules. And due to low 

wages, there is a severe shortage of early childhood teachers; turnover rates average 30 percent. 

Colorado’s Early Childhood Leadership Commission, our statewide advisory board, with Departments of Education and Human 

Services just published an ambitious early childhood workforce 

plan to address these issues. The bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act encourages greater coordination within states, requiring 

local educational agencies to develop agreements with Head Start. 

Our state plan aligns early childhood competencies for educators 

who are working with children from birth through age eight. And 

we have also benefited with Colorado within the Departments of 

Human Services and Education and our Head Start Collaboration 

Office. By successfully coordinating these federal programs at the 

state and local levels, Colorado has been better able to address our 

access and quality gaps. 

From discussions over the years with my colleagues from other 

states. it is evident that the systemic collaboration has had similar, 

positive effects across the country. The benefits of high-quality 

early care and education and Head Start are clear: high rates of 

high school graduation, attendance at college, greater income levels, decreased need for special education services. 

The true importance of our work is making sure children reach 

their full potential and are contributing members to their communities. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Harris follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 26143.033

Dr. Pamela Harris 

President and CEO of Mile High Early Learning 

Testimony for "Opportunities for State Leadership of Early Childhood Programs" 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thursday, July 13, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and Members of the Committee; thank 

you for inviting me to testify today about opportunities for early childhood programs. I'm the 

President & CEO of Mile High Early Learning, the largest and oldest provider of subsidized early 

care and education in Denver, Colorado providing care to more than 500 children in Denver's 

most impoverished neighborhoods. We provide high-quality early childhood programs, including 

Head Start, Early Head Start, and child care services and were recently awarded an Early Head 

Start/Child Care Partnership grant. 

We have an enormous responsibility. We are entrusted by parents, most of them living at or 

below poverty level working hard to improve their family's circumstance, to care for their children 

and help prepare them for school, so they can grow, learn, and thrive. Because of the wide 

array of services we use to do this, we have several federally funded early learning programs 

that are tailored to specific goals. These include Head Start/Early Head Start, the Child Care 

Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and IDEA-Individuals with Disabilities Education ActPart Band Part C. These programs provide complementary rather than duplicative services, 

with each targeting a unique population or specific need. 

First, I want to share why we do what we do. Children are born with 100 billion neurons-that's 

as many stars as in the Milky Way-and it's through the quality of interactions with caring, 

responsive adults that children grow and thrive. 85% of brain development occurs before a child 

even starts kindergarten. The more experiences and opportunities children have to activate 

those neurons, the more successful they will be in life. Differences or delays in child 

development can be detected as early as 9 months old. By 3 years, children from backgrounds 

with limited opportunities will have heard 30 million fewer words. By 3'd grade, children not 

proficient in reading are less likely to graduate high school. Reaching these children in the early 

years of their lives is critical. 

Head Start provides comprehensive services to low income children ages 3 to 5 years and their 

families. These services include physical and oral health, nutrition, mental health, and family 

support services along with high-quality early childhood education and services specific for 
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 26143.034

children with disabilities. Early Head Start provides these same services to pregnant women 

and children birth to 3 years old. At Mile High Early Learning, we serve 269 Head Start and 115 

Early Head Start children. Over 95% of our families live at or below the federal poverty level 

($24,600 for a family of four) and are impacted by the adverse effects of poverty. By using a 

whole child approach-focusing on their physical, social, and emotional development and 

supporting their family, we can have a positive impact on their lives. And we do. At the 

beginning of the year, only 60% of our children are at a developmentally appropriate level, but 

by the end of the year, more than 90% are meeting developmental benchmarks. 

Head Start's federal to local funding model allows programs to be responsive to the specific 

needs of the community while ensuring the highest quality services for the most vulnerable 

children. We have seven early learning centers in Denver, and each is a unique community. 

One center serves predominantly Spanish-speaking families; another serves mostly refugee 

families who speak 22 different languages from Somalia, Myanmar, and Sudan; while another is 

in a historically African American neighborhood now dealing with the impact of gentrification. We 

maintain our high quality programming and meet the needs of the diverse groups of children 

and families at all of our centers. 

Through the federal Early Learning Challenge grant that Colorado was awarded, we have 

developed a Quality Rating and Improvement System for all state licensed child care providers 

that uses many of the Head Start Program Performance Standards as indicators of quality 

including parent engagement in their child's education, highly qualified teachers, and 

comprehensive services. 

The Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides child care subsidies for parents 

with children up to age 12 years who are working or going to school. In our program, we serve 

160 families with child care subsidies. Families are eligible if they earn less than 85% of the 

state median income. In Colorado, as a local control state, individual county human services 

determine the income eligibility for families to participate, which can vary from 130% to 225% of 

federal poverty guidelines. CCDBG also provides funds for quality improvement, and Colorado 

has invested additional funding for child care subsidies to serve infants and toddlers. The City of 

Denver also provided additional funding as part of the Denver Quality Care Initiative Program. 

Harris Testimony 

July 13, 2017 
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 26143.035

IDEA provides funding for early intervention services for children birth to 5 years with disabilities 

or developmental delays. Between 14-18% of our enrolled children have disabilities that include 

speech/language and cognitive or physical delays. At Mile High Early Learning, we also have 

four inclusive classrooms that provide services for 32 children transitioning from Part C (infants 

and toddlers) to Part B (preschool). Funding from IDEA supports our costs for specialists, 

adaptive equipment and materials, and teacher training. 

We support the most recent federal changes to Head Start and CCDBG that continue to ensure 

high-quality services to children and families. 

New Head Start Program Performance Standards continue to set a high bar for quality early 

care and education programs. Head Start has always been a pioneer in best practices, such as 

the requirement that all Head Start teachers have at least an Associates of Arts degree in early 

childhood education, and 50% must have a Bachelor of Arts degree. To ensure that children are 

receiving the maximum benefit of a quality program, Head Start is now requiring programs to 

serve all children for a minimum of 1020 hours per year, which translates into more than six 

hours a day or more days. Unfortunately, without more funding for additional staff, equipment, 

and materials, we will not be able to continue serving the same number of children. 

We are also grateful for the reauthorization of CCDBG that clearly identifies quality child care as 

a necessary work support as well as a support for children to be ready for school. However, 

gaps in ensuring access exist. Even though nearly two-thirds of Colorado children under 6 have 

both parents in the workforce, not even a quarter (23%) of a114-year-olds and just 8% of all 3-

year-olds are enrolled in preschool, which means over 11,000 4 year olds in Colorado had no 

access to preschool. For the Colorado Preschool Program (CPP), waitlists reached 4,000 

statewide, and in 2015, the state estimated that about 8,400 at-risk 4-year-olds had no 

preschool available to them through either CPP or Head Start in the 2015-16 school year. In 

licensed child care, Colorado has gone from 26% of children in a program in high quality care to 

45%, while serving the same number of children. However, child care subsidies in Colorado 

reach only 13.2% of eligible children, and the state projects that the number of waitlisted 

families in 2016-17 will be 648. 

Harris Testimony 

July 13. 2017 
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 26143.036

In Denver, only 60% of children are enrolled in preschool, and our Head Start and Early Head 

Start programs can serve just a quarter (23%) of eligible children. Our program has waitlists for 

children of all ages-infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. 

While child care subsidies help defray the cost of child care, they don't meet the cost of quality 

child care, which includes comprehensive support services for children and families and highly 

qualified staff with ongoing professional development. Many of ourfamilies have non-traditional 

work schedules that require care for evenings and weekends. 

There's also a shortage of highly qualified early childhood education teachers, which is 

estimated to grow by 20% or more over the next decade. Staff turnover is high in ECE programs 

averaging 30% with low wages being a key factor. In Colorado, the average wage for a child 

care teacher is approximately $11 per hour. In public schools, teachers with similar credentials 

earn $23 per hour. 

Most recently, our Early Head Start/Child Care Partnership grant allows us to serve 80 more 

children in the three high-poverty areas in Colorado through partnerships with other early 

education providers that include high-quality, center-based, charter school, and family child care 

homes with Head Start's comprehensive services. 

The bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) encourages greater coordination within 

states including requiring Local Education Agencies (LEA) to develop agreements with Head 

Start and other early learning programs to support children's transition into kindergarten and 

services for children with special needs. Colorado's ESSA plan aligns our Early Childhood 

Competencies for Educators and Administrators and long-term commitment to building the 

workforce supporting children birth through age 8 years. 

We have also benefited from coordination efforts within Colorado with the Departments of 

Human Services and Education and the Head Start State Collaboration Office. The Early 

Childhood Leadership Commission is a statewide advisory board and recently published the 

Early Childhood Workforce Plan 2020, an ambitious plan to address the issues of teacher 

shortages, compensation, and quality through innovative practices and funding streams as a 

joint project of the Colorado Department of Human Services and Colorado Department of 

Education and which builds upon our state CCDBG plan. 

Harris Testimony 

July 13. 2017 
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 26143.037

By successfully coordinating these federal programs (CCDBG, Head Start, IDEA, ESSA, Early 

Learning Challenge) at the state and local levels, Colorado has been able to better address our 

access and quality gaps. From discussions over the years with my colleagues from other states, 

it is evident that this systemic collaboration has had similar positive effects across the country. 

The benefits of high quality early care and education programs are clear. Children who 

participate in Head Start and other high quality early childhood programs have: 

Increased high school graduation, higher attendance at college, and greater income 

levels 

Decreased need for special education services, reduced grade repetition, lowered child 

mortality rates (by 50%), and decreased involvement with criminal justice system. 

Long-term impacts for children show: 

Higher executive functioning-problem solving, decision making, and perseverance; 

better social skills, self-esteem, with sizable benefits for at-risk children-low income, 

children of color, children in foster care, English Language Learners. 

There's also a benefit to parents of children in Head Start-they read more often with their child, 

have better parenting skills, and are more involved in their child's education. 

A conservative estimate in Colorado recently found that the early care and education sector 

produces over $639 million and 22,000 jobs annually, generates $4.4 billion in earnings 

annually by enabling parents to work, and saves the economy $832 million each year due to the 

long-term effects of a quality early education (e.g., avoided special education and juvenile 

justice costs, and increased lifetime earnings). James Heckman, Nobel Prize economist, shows 

that there is a 7 to 13% return on investment when funding early learning programs. 

The true importance of our work is that we are moving families towards self-sufficiency, 

supporting children to achieve their potential, and ensuring that everyone can be contributing, 

valuable members of our communities. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

Harris Testimony 

July 13, 2017 
50 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Dr. Harris. Ms. Maas, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ERICCA MAAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLOSE 

GAPS BY 5 

Ms. MAAS. Thank you. Good morning Mister Chair and members. 

My name is Ericca Maas. I am the executive director of a Minnesota based nonprofit organization called Close Gaps by 5. We 

champion the use of targeted early education to close Minnesota’s 

achievement gaps before children enter kindergarten. 

Our approach has come to be known by some as the Minnesota 

model for early learning. Beginning 11 years ago this model was 

developed, piloted, and refined by a business-led nonprofit called 

the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation or MELF. MELF 

sunsetted in 2011; Close Gaps by 5 continues to advocate for the 

implementation of its recommendations. 

MELF set out to design an early learning model that specifically 

addressed achievement gaps. Minnesota has some of the worst 

achievement gaps in the nation. The workforce benefits of closing 

those gaps are of particular interest to the business and community 

leaders supporting this effort. MELF raised $20 million in private funds and rejected appropriated government funds so it could be an independent, honest 

broker in the debate. MELF used the funding to pilot and evaluate 

an approach based on best available research with pointed to the 

following core principles: start early, target resources, empower 

parents, and insist on quality. 

The approach that MELF proved effective has since been expanded state-wide with help of Governor Mark Dayton, bipartisan 

members of the Minnesota Legislature, and a federal Race to the 

Top Grant. 

The market-based Minnesota model has two primary components. The parent-aware quality rating and improvement system 

which provides good information, helping parents make informed 

choices, and early learning scholarships would provide resources to 

families who need them most. 

Here is how it works. Imagine you are a low income parent in 

Minnesota. Because of your circumstances your child is at high risk 

of falling into gaps, but you cannot afford high-quality early learning. Now, imagine that you learn your child is getting one of about 

10,000 early learning scholarships awarded each year. This scholarship can change the trajectory of your child’s life. Your scholarship empowers you. It opens the doors to any one of 3,000 proven, 

high-quality programs that are based in schools, Head Starts, 

childcare centers, churches, nonprofits, and homes. 

Rather than having someone else tell you what to do, you pick 

a program that fits your family’s needs, your preferred location, 

schedule, cultural connections, and teaching approach. Importantly, 

the act of making that choice engages you in your child’s learning 

right from the start. 

The only requirement is that your scholarship has to be used at 

a program that is using kindergarten readiness best practices, as 

measured by the consumer report-style Parent Aware rating system. Beyond the ratings, Parent Aware also helps small childcare 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

programs learn to adapt to those kindergarten readiness best practices. 

Parent Aware is a completely voluntary program. It works on a 

reward system, not with mandates. We are continually working to 

refine this model, but the early results are encouraging. Minnesota 

children in Parent Aware programs are making significant gains in 

kindergarten readiness measures such as phonics, executive function, vocabulary, social competence, and early math skills. Low income children are making even larger gains than their higher income counterparts. We are headed in the right direction. 

In addition to the benefits for children, the model is helping a 

struggling childcare sector tap into a larger, new group of scholarship empowered customers, adopt best practices, and market improvements to a customer base that now has a new and deeper appreciation of the need for quality early education. 

Particularly for mom and pop type businesses who tend to struggle the most, all of this offers a helpful economic shot in the arm. 

We also see other important benefits that I have addressed in my 

written statement. 

Finally, let me just say that Minnesota’s early education debate 

has focused on whether to invest in this flexible scholarship-based 

approach or in a more rigid, universal pre-K model. Specifically, 

there is a focus on the extent to which each of those approaches 

is aligned to the research-based cored principles I described at the 

beginning of my remarks. 

Minnesota’s achievement gaps was a huge threat to our economy, 

children, and communities. To address those gaps research says we 

need solutions that start early, are targeted, empower parents, and 

demand quality. The scholarship and Parent Aware approach 

meets those tests; universal pre-K falls far short. 

It is for this reason that we continue to be strong advocates for 

the Minnesota model. I have provided more detail about this debate in my written statement as well. 

In conclusion, you know, this is the model that we have moved 

forward with in Minnesota. Scholarships open doors in a flexible, 

empowering way. Parent Aware ensures quality improvement 

through rewards rather than mandates, and the winners are small 

businesses, our most vulnerable children, and our state’s economy. 

I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Maas follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 26143.038

Full Written Statement of 

Ericca Maas 

Executive Director, Close Gaps by 5 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

July 13, 2017 

Chair and members, my name is Ericca Maas. I'm the Executive Director of a 

Minnesota-based nonprofit organization called Close Gaps by 5 that champions 

the use of targeted early education to close Minnesota's achievement gaps. 

The Problem: Achievement Gaps 

Minnesota has some of the worst achievement gaps in the nation, which 

presents an urgent threat to our children, communities, and global 

competitiveness. The workforce benefits of closing achievement gaps are of 

great interest to the business and community leaders who invest their time and 

resources in support of Close Gaps by 5. For that reason, we have designed an 

early education model specifically to close those gaps. 

The Solution: Minnesota Model of Early Learning 

Our approach has come to be known as the Minnesota Model for Early Learning. 

Starting 11 years ago, this model was developed, piloted, and refined by a 

business led nonprofit called the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation (MELF). 

MELF sunsetted in 2011, and Close Gaps by 5 is advocating for the 

implementation of the MELF recommendations. It is important to note that the 

programs that make up the Minnesota Model have been adopted and brought to 

scale with public investment in the years since the privately funded pilot phase. 

Beginning in 2006, MELF set out to design an early learning model that 

specifically addressed achievement gaps. It raised $20 million in private funds, 

and rejected appropriated government funds so it could be an independent 

"honest broker" in the debate. MELF used the funding to pilot and evaluate an 

approach based on the best available research. The approach that MELF 

proved effective has since been expanded statewide with the help of Governor 

Mark Dayton, a federal Race to the Top grans, and bipartisan members of the 

Minnesota Legislature. 
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 26143.039

The Minnesota Model has two primary programmatic components. First, the 

Parent Aware Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), which fills a 

critical information gap faced by parents giving them information to help them find 

programs using kindergarten-readiness best practices. Making this information 

available is so crucial to the success of our market-based approach, that we 

have heavily promoted Ratings to parents through a privately funded marketing 

campaign. The second component of the model are Early Learning Scholarships. 

Scholarships work to fill a resource gap faced by families with limited means 

allowing them to act on the information made available by Ratings and to access 

the quality program of their choice. 

Maybe the best way explain the model is to paint a scenario for you. Imagine for 

a moment that you're a low-income parent in Minnesota. Because of your 

circumstances, your child is at a high risk of falling into achievement gaps later in 

life. But, you can't afford high quality early learning environments. So, the future 

of your child is concerning to you. 

Now imagine that you learn that your child is getting one of about 10,000 Early 

Learning Scholarships currently awarded in Minnesota each year. These 

Scholarships can change the trajectory of your child's life. 

Here's how: Your Scholarship empowers you. It puts you in the driver's seat. 

After all, the Scholarship can be used to open the doors of any one of 3,000 

proven high quality programs that are based in schools, centers, churches, 

nonprofits, and homes. 

Rather than having the government tell you what to do, you pick a program that 

fits your family's needs. You can find a place that fits your preferred location, 

work schedule, cultural connections, approach, and facility. You the parent are 

empowered, and that engages you more deeply in your child's learning right from 

the start. And we know how important that parental engagement piece is for 

children. 

The only requirement is that your Scholarship has to be used at a program that is 

using kindergarten-readiness best practices, as measured by the Parent Aware 

Ratings, a one- to four-star Consumer Reports style system for giving parents 

information about quality child care and preschool. 

Beyond the Ratings, Parent Aware also has coaches, grants, and other supports 

to help small child care businesses learn how to adopt those kindergartenreadiness best practices. So, in a way, it's sort of like a small business technical 

assistance program focused on early education best practices. 

2 
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 26143.040

It's important to understand that Parent Aware is a completely voluntary program. 

For businesses, it's not a mandate. No business is required to do anything. But 

if they do volunteer to adopt best practices and get a rating, they can tap into 

millions of dollars in Scholarship business, marketing, and other support. In 

other words, it uses a carrot approach, not a stick. 

Benefits 

We are continually working to refine this model, but the early results are 

encouraging. 

Children Benefitting. Most importantly, the Minnesota Model is working for 

children. In 2016, we funded an extensive evaluation that found Minnesota 

children in Parent Aware-rated programs were making significant gains in 

kindergarten-readiness measures, such as phonics, executive function, 

vocabulary, social competence, and early math skills. Low-income children were 

found to be making even larger gains than their higher income counterparts. 

While we have more work to do to bring the benefits of the Minnesota Model to 

all children who need it, we're headed in the right direction. 

Marketplace Improving. It's also working to bring a better supply of high quality 

programs to Minnesota's child care and preschool marketplace. Before Parent 

Aware there was no consistent, widespread way for child care and preschool 

programs in Minnesota to prove to parents that they were using kindergartenreadiness best practices. Now, nearly 3,000 programs of all types (center-based, 

home-based, church-based, school-based) have stepped up to do that, and more 

are doing so all the time. As a result, the Minnesota marketplace now has a 

much stronger supply of high quality early education programs than we did 

before the Minnesota Model was implemented. 

Parents Benefitting. On the demand side of the equation, our marketplace also 

now has many more consumers who value the importance of quality early care 

and education. Parent Aware's heavily used online shopping tool, 

ParentAware.org, receives thousands of visits per month from Minnesota parents 

shopping for quality child care. The resulting consumer demand for high quality 

programs rewards businesses who volunteer to improve their early education 

quality. 

Small Businesses Benefitting. This model has had a positive effect on the 

overall economy. There are nearly 3,000 rated early care and education 

programs in Minnesota, many of them struggling small businesses, that are now 

able to access $70 million per year worth of Scholarships. That's a huge deal for 

many. This new investment allows early education providers to create jobs, 

3 
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 26143.041

reinvest in their programs. and. over time, will incent more expansion in 

underserved areas. 

We have also provided millions of dollars in marketing support to these small 

businesses. so they can promote their high quality to potential customers. Yard 

signs, flyers. mailers, radio ads, and an online shopping tool. Most of these small 

businesses can't afford their own marketing, so we developed it for them to 

reward them for volunteering to adopt kindergarten-readiness best practices. In 

addition to marketing supports. substantial quality improvement supports are on 

offer. Providers participating in Parent Aware may receive financial supports, 

plus coaching, technical assistance, and training to help them implement best 

practices. 

Workforce Competitiveness Benefits. Beyond that direct economic impact. 

the indirect economic impact is perhaps even more powerful. Scholarship 

recipient children are making important kindergarten readiness gains, which is 

helping them to ultimately be better prepared for the workforce of the future. Our 

Minnesota businesses desperately need educated workers in order to compete in 

the global marketplace, so we know we have to invest in early learning for our 

most vulnerable children. We view it as one of the very best investments we can 

collectively make in Minnesota's future economic competitiveness. 

To summarize, the Minnesota Model for Early Learning has helped a struggling 

child care sector: 

• tap into a large new group of Scholarship-empowered customers, 

• adopt best practices and improve early education service offerings, and 

• market those improvements to a customer base that now has a new and 

deeper appreciation of the need for high quality early education. 

Particularly for the "mom and pop" type businesses who tend to struggle the most, 

all of this offers a very helpful economic shot in the arm. 

So, that's our Minnesota Model in a nut shell: Scholarships open doors in a 

flexible. empowering way. Parent Aware ensures quality improvement through 

rewards rather than mandates. And the winners from all of that are thousands of 

small businesses, thousands of our most vulnerable children, and our state's 

economy. 

Minnesota's Early Education Debate 

I'm going to shift now and focus in more detail on three frequently discussed 

elements of the Minnesota Model, its emphasis on 1) income-based targeting, 2) 

starting early, and 3) flexibility. On those three issues, I will often be comparing 

4 
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 26143.042

Scholarships with Universal Pre-k (UPK), since in Minnesota over the last three 

years those two programs have effectively been competing for limited state 

funding. 

Targeting. Early Learning Scholarships can only go to low-income families 

earning at or below 185% of the federal poverty level. With state early learning 

funding limited, we prioritize low-income children for three primary reasons. 

• First, unlike wealthier families, low-income families simply can't access 

high quality early learning programs without help. They're being leftbehind. 

• Second, low-income children are the most likely to fall into achievement 

gaps, so investing in expanding their opportunities for high quality early 

education is key to preventing and closing those gaps. 

• Finally, research done by Dr. Art Rolnick, formerly an economist at the 

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and a current member of our board, 

and others find that early education can earn taxpayers a very high returnon-investment (ROI). Specifically, an ROI of up to $16 in societal benefits 

for every $1 invested, but only when investments are directed to those 

who can't otherwise access high quality early education. Dr. Rolnick 

stresses that this level of ROI is not available when funding is directed to 

families who can already afford quality programs on their own. 

By the way, targeting not only is the most evidence-based strategy for reducing 

achievement gaps, it also is overwhelmingly supported by citizens. In a survey 

we did in 2015, we asked Minnesotans "which categories of children should be 

the top priority for limited government funding for pre-kindergarten early 

education services?" By more than a four to one margin, Minnesotans said state 

leaders should prioritize "low income" children (66% support) rather than "all 

children" (15% support). 

Scholarships have had the support of the Dayton Administration and a bipartisan 

group of state legislators since 2011. However, in the last few years, the Dayton 

Administration and others have instead proposed investing new resources in a 

public schools-only universal approach that is not income targeted. When fully 

funded, at a cost of $500 million per year, about two-thirds of this UPK 

investment would be subsidizing non-low-income families at a time when 

thousands of younger low-income children can't access quality programs. 

Over the past three legislative sessions, targeting has been a major issue in the 

legislative debate about whether to direct new investments to Scholarships or 

UPK. During that time, targeted Scholarships and untargeted school-based 

funding streams have both received funding, but there are still an estimated 

5 
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 26143.043

35,000 low-income children under five lacking public support for early education 

in our state. Close Gaps by 5 is advocating for fully funding Scholarships to 

serve children in low-income households under age five before we consider 

subsidizing wealthier families through UPK. 

Starting Early. A second major issue in Minnesota's Scholarships versus UPK 

debate is timing. Scholarships start earlier, and can provide many more hours of 

assistance over multiple years than UPK. Scholarships give parents full-day, fullyear, multi-year options to children ages five and under, while UPK is for fouryear-olds only, operating for only nine months the year prior to kindergarten. 

Why start early? Research shows that gaps can be measured as early as nine 

months of age. Therefore, with the children who are most vulnerable to falling 

into achievement gaps, we must start early to either prevent the gaps from 

opening or close them before they get too large. The most vulnerable children 

need to be in high quality early learning programs over multiple years. For them, 

a nine-month program that is only open two to three hours per day is simply not 

enough. 

Beyond Scholarships, we are also strong supporters of parent mentoring that 

begins very early in a child's life, sometimes called home visiting, for new parents. 

Many parents want and need help learning how to help their child learn. 

Flexibility. A third issue in Minnesota's UPK versus Scholarship debate has 

focused on flexibility and choice. As I mentioned earlier, Scholarships allow lowincome parents to choose from a variety of rated early education programs 

based in centers, schools, homes, religious organizations, and nonprofits. By 

contrast, UPK is effectively a schools-only monopoly. (Minnesota school districts 

are allowed to share the state funding that has been earmarked for them with 

non-school early education programs, but in practice, only 3% of funding has 

been shared to date.) 

Why does flexibility matter? Well, let's say you're a parent working an eight-hour 

shift year-round. A school-based program that only operates two to three hours 

per day and is completely closed in the summer is problematic for you. By 

contrast, Scholarships offer you full-day, full-year options, which allow you to 

continue working and supporting your family, or going to school. 

Our research shows this is a very important issue to a large majority of lowincome parents. An overwhelming 84 percent of low-income parents told us in a 

recent survey that they opposed "a government program in which a parent would 

only be able to use a program that offers care for their child for three hours per 

day," which is what UPK does. 

6 
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 26143.044

We also value including non-school programs because Minnesota children 

frankly need all of the quality early education programs they can get. There 

aren't enough school-based programs to serve all children in need, and flexible 

Scholarships give us an "all hands on deck" approach. A schools-only monopoly 

unnecessarily excludes some of the state's most experienced and effective early 

educators, and necessitates that taxpayers build new school-based early 

education programs from scratch, which leads to a waste of limited tax dollars 

that could otherwise be used to help change the life trajectories of left-behind 

children. 

7 
59 

Chairman ROKITA. Well, thank you, Ms. Maas. We will now turn 

to member questions and any statements. And I would first like to 

recognize the Chairwoman of the full committee, Dr. Foxx, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, and I want to thank all 

of our witnesses for being here today and sharing their expertise 

with us. 

Ms. Barnes, welcome back to the Education and Workforce Committee. You testified there is a limited overlap in duplication of federal early childhood programs. The graph you showed claimed that 

Head Start and Child Care and Development Fund programs serve 

different purposes. However, your testimony states that quote, ’historically early learning and childcare programs existed separately 

with separate goals, but over time the distinction between these 

two types of questions has blurred somewhat as policy makers seek 

to make educationally enriching care available to more children.’ 

If your findings indicate these programs’ distinctions have 

blurred then in a practical sense does the difference between overlap or duplication matter? And as Dr. Stevens suggests, shouldn’t 

policy makers look at the breadth of these programs in totality to 

determine the best use of tax payers’ funds in this space? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Again, the overlap refers to programs with 

the similar goals, activities, or target populations. An example of 

both activities and target populations overlapping would be Head 

Start and preschool development grants which target both of them, 

low income children under 5 and provide slots for early learning. 

An example of programs that provide the same types of activities 

are the Early Intervention Program for Infants, and the preschool 

grants for children with disabilities. These programs provide special education services, both of them, but they target different ages 

to children 5 and under. 

In terms of duplication, it is difficult to determine if programs 

are actually duplicative because they would serve the same beneficiaries and provide the same exact services. Our report discusses 

how there is the potential for the duplication. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Having worked on these issues when I 

was in the state as the president of a community college who built 

a childcare center on our campus and then worked in the legislature and served on Smart Start Board in North Carolina, I have 

always been concerned about the duplication and also the expenditures in administrative cost. 

I worry a great deal about how much money we spend on administrative cost as opposed to monies going directly into services. Dr. 

Stevens, maybe you can help clarify things from a more realistic 

standpoint. 

You testified that any setting a child is in, whether it be their 

home, a childcare center, or a preschool is inherently both caring 

for and educating that child. And I remember very well the head 

of Smart Start in North Carolina telling me long ago when children 

are playing they are learning. That their play is their work and 

their learning. 

Do you agree that we should not focus on whether the programs 

are overlapping or duplicative, but instead consider all of the proCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

grams as inherently serving the same purpose of caring for and 

educating children? 

Ms. STEVENS. One of the things that I find most exciting about 

this area of policy, the area of early care and education there is no 

other area of policy that I know of that has such a strong body of 

science that so clearly points us in the right direction. And to me, 

that is where we need to be starting. 

So, what the science is telling is very clearly is that from the moment of birth children are learning continuously and rapidly wherever they are and from whomever they are with. It does not matter 

what we call it. It does not matter what funding stream is. It does 

not matter what building it is occurring in. We cannot stop them 

from learning. 

So, the question is only the quality of that environment. I think 

the best way for us to be thinking about this is ultimately from a 

child-centered point of view. Focusing starting at birth which is 

when the most—there are 4 million infants, 4 million children 

every single year begin and end their infancy, and what we know 

from science is that is the most critical period of learning. 

So, the bottom line is we need to be relying on the science to be 

making these decisions. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the Chairlady. Mr. Polis, you are recognized. 

Mr. POLIS. Point of Parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman ROKITA. Go ahead. 

Mr. POLIS. I wanted to ask whether the GAO report which was 

literally just made available to the Democrats and was not made 

available 48 hours ahead of the appearance of this hearing, whether the delay in the delivery of that is a violation of Rule 7 Subsection D? 

Chairman ROKITA. I think the gentleman for his inquiry. It is 

not. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. If I may speak to the Parliamentary inquiry for 

a moment briefly. I just want to express the dissatisfaction of the 

Democrats and we obviously are not ready to discuss the GAO report because we have not read it. It was literally just made available moments ago. So, perhaps there can be a future hearing and 

that addresses, of course, much of Ms. Barnes testimony. 

We are happy to engage on the other topics, but, obviously, we 

have not had a chance to read this yet. 

Chairman ROKITA. Noted. Do you have questions? You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS Dr. Harris, thank you again for being here again today 

from Colorado and everything you do for Colorado’s children as a 

practitioner. 

As you know, in Colorado we do not have full day kindergarten 

for all of our students. Now, we have made progress in recent 

years. It is my understanding about 77 percent of kindergartners 

are attending full day. Many parents pay for that, of course. Those 

that do have access either live in communities that have full day 

kindergarten, they pay for it either through their own tax revenue 

or just out of pocket in tuition. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

That being said, there are still over 20,000 kindergartners that 

are not enrolled in full day. Mile High Learning serves some of the 

neediest students in Denver. Do most of your students make a 

seamless transition to a full day kindergarten? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Mr. POLIS. And statewide, is there a similar picture or are there 

inconsistencies across our patchwork or communities across our 

state? 

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Polis. There is inconsistency actually across the state. There has been a commitment to try to get 

full day K. In Denver we have a great relationship with Denver 

public schools, so most of our children do transition to full day kindergarten. 

Mr. POLIS. What can be done to support the continuity between 

early learning and K–12? What more can we do in our state and 

nationally? 

Ms. HARRIS. So, part of the ESSA is to do those kinds of coordination, so really to align what is happening in early childhood with 

what is happening in our local educational agencies and one specific is to help with transitions. So, as children are coming into 

public school, into kindergarten after finishing preschool that there 

are activities, professional development for staff. 

There are a number of things and it is really looking at the continuum of childcare from birth to eight, and thinking of professionals who are in the workforce as professionals. 

Mr. POLIS. And along those lines, you mention in your testimony 

the shortage of high-qualified early childhood education teachers. 

You referenced the average compensation of around $11 an hour. 

We all know how hard it is to have that as your vocation and support yourself. Research shows us that the result is nearly half of 

childcare workers actually rely on public assistance to make ends 

meet. 

In Colorado means many childcare workers are, themselves, eligible for the Colorado Childcare Assistance Program. What does 

that mean for teacher turnover? How does it affect quality that the 

average rate is about $11 an hour? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well, we know in addition to the wages being low 

that compensation, so thinking of healthcare, time off, paid sick 

leave, that kind of thing really impacts, especially many of our staff 

who come from similar situations as those families that we serve. 

Sorry, do not remember the rest. 

Mr. POLIS. What does it do to turnover rates and your ability to 

retain good early childhood educators? 

Ms. HARRIS. So, I would say in general if we do not have 

childcare, continuity of childcare for any parents, so our teachers, 

but also parents who are working then the turnover rate impacts 

the employment as well as the development of children. 

Mr. POLIS. What can we do at the local, state, and federal level 

to support early childhood teachers and try to establish a greater 

respect and support for the profession? 

Ms. HARRIS. I think it is a great opportunity now. Head Start 

has taken the lead in ensuring that at least 50 percent of teachers 

have a Bachelor’s Degree. We really need to focus on professional 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

development interaction between children and their teachers is 

how they have great outcomes. That supports brain development. 

So, treating teachers as professionals. Currently, childcare teachers are defined as hourly workers. 

Mr. POLIS. Dr. Stevens, you recently published a report making 

the business case for high-quality childcare which I very much enjoyed. On July 3rd, the Wall Street Journal published a story that 

compared women’s participation in labor force and its implication 

on economic growth. I wanted to ask you based on your research 

can you briefly explain why investments in childcare are simply a 

wise decision for our economy and economic growth? 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes, as I addressed in a report that was released 

a couple of weeks ago, and as I mentioned in my testimony 

childcare serves multiple purposes. 

So, first of all we know we are laying the groundwork for children’s lifelong learning and success from kindergarten through 

their own participation in the workforce, and secondly, it enables 

parents to work which enables them to be self-sufficient, and contributes to overall economic well-being of communities. 

Mr. POLIS. So, you draw the numbers both from increased workforce participation which, for instance, you have an example in 

Canada which has led to more women working, as well as, of 

course, the longer term benefit which is the child themselves receiving it. Both of those are factors? 

Ms. STEVENS. Correct. 

Mr. POLIS. Okay. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Handel, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HANDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of 

the witnesses here today. My question is for Ms. Maas. You explained in your testimony how important it is for families to choose 

the type of care that is right for them and for their child whether 

that be the location, the schedule, cultural connections, teaching 

methods, and other very important aspects of the program. 

Do you think it is appropriate, more so or less so, for Congress 

to specify and dictate these aspects of a program or have you found 

that it is more important for each community and program to be 

able to determine and tailor what works best in that community 

for those families? 

Ms. MAAS. Thank you for your question. So, from our perspective 

we do not support either Congress or local governments controlling 

program choice. We support individual parents controlling program 

choice and really having input into what is on offer in their community. 

And Dr. Harris mentioned some of this in her testimony. There 

are a ton of variables in play. In particular, as you think about 

childcare also as a workforce support, so the location. Close to 

work. Close to home. What makes the most sense for you. The 

hours. 

We see in a lot of instances in Minnesota, you know, workers in 

light manufacturing or food processing working second shift. We 

need to provide services to those families. It is really difficult to 

know or to set kind of a one size fits all in terms of schedule or 

programming options that are on offer. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

So, from our perspective we need to give parents a wider range 

of high-quality program choices and let them choose because they 

are in the best position to know what works for them. 

Ms. HANDEL. Thank you. It seems to me that would be an important aspect of a child-centered approach that would most succeed. 

Ms. HARRIS. Ms. Handel, I just wanted to share about Head 

Start. 

Ms. HANDEL. Actually, thank you. I have a second question, I do 

not want to use up my time, for Dr. Stevens. When you gave your 

testimony you talked a lot about science and research, and I was 

interested in understanding from you how best to promote rigorous 

research that would increase the knowledge about what works best 

for children and families. 

What general questions would that research answer? And what 

information are we currently lacking? And how will that benefit 

the states and local programs in making the best decisions for a 

child-centered program? 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes, I mean, I think what the science tells us is 

general principles of what is crucial for child development. But, for 

example, one of the questions that we really do not know much 

about is we know that the adults working with children are the 

crucial factor for the development of young children, physical plant, 

curriculum is not really what matters for children under 5. 

What we do not know is how to identify and develop the kinds 

of professionals who will be effective with young children. What is 

clear from K–12 is that graduate degrees in no way ensure highquality teaching. So, my background is in K–12. As a matter of 

fact, my background is in teacher quality and preparation. I think 

we have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes that K–12 has 

made and approach this in a different way. I do not want to underestimate. I do not want to be underestimating how important the 

quality of that person is, but we just do not know enough about 

how to find the right people and how to prepare them to be effective with young kids. 

Ms. HANDEL. Great. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Fudge, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. Not here. No, we had him crossed out. 

We asking questions? 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Polis for holding his hearing and thank you to our witnesses. 

Like many of my colleagues I have visited many programs in 

Northwest Oregon. Head Start, Childcare Centers, Childcare 

Homes, prekindergarten programs. I was recently out at the Hillsboro, Oregon Head Start and one of the things that I really appreciate about Head Start is the family engagement piece, too. It is 

really meaningful. 

I hear support for high-quality early childhood programs everywhere I go, and even here this morning. And that is one of the reasons why I was so troubled to see that this administration is proposing cutting hundreds of millions of dollars for early childhood 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

programs including Childcare Develop Block Grants, Head Start, 

Preschool Development Grants. 

I am pleased that the House appropriators are so far ignoring 

many of these proposals, but I am concerned about Congress’ long 

term commitment to early childhood programs in light of all the research and all the success. 

I also want to note that the current Healthcare legislation proposes to slash Medicaid and that jeopardizes services for children, 

including children with disabilities both in early childhood and in 

school settings. And I recently met with the President of the Oregon Pediatric Society who is extremely concerned about that. 

So that the federal investment in early childhood programs is essential. It is meaningful. Of course programs need to be of highquality to have a lasting benefit and high quality programs require 

significant resources, and it is a wise investment because we know 

children who get a strong start are more likely to succeed, less likely to need safety net programs later. 

Are there still, however, many eligible families who continue to 

go unserved? And I asked that question when I was visiting Head 

Start. There is a lot of unmet need out there, so clearly there is 

a role for us here. 

And I want to note, I do not think anybody supports funding duplicative, overlapping programs. We all want to work to make sure 

that we are expanding access and making sure that the resources 

are going to the families in need. If we can make these programs 

better and more assessable, let us do that. We can do that in a bipartisan way, similar to the bipartisan Child and Adult Care Food 

Program bill that Representative Stefanik and I have reintroduced, 

streamlining the program making kids eligible for a third meal 

when they are in childcare. 

Dr. Harris, I wanted to start by asking you to go ahead and respond. You wanted to say something about Ms. Handel’s question 

regarding choice and I want to give you that opportunity. 

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you. Head Start sets high-quality standards, 

but part of that is to be responsive to the community that they are 

in. So, there is a structure and a framework that ensures that 

teachers are qualified, that there is comprehensive services. But 

you also then respond to if you are in the inner city, if you are in 

a farming community, so it really does help support parental 

choice. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I appreciate that. Constituents in my district, 

many of them benefit from high-quality migrant and seasonal Head 

Start programs. The children and families who participate in those 

programs benefit and so does the local economy, which relies on a 

productive agriculture sector. 

So, I want to ask you about that, but I also want to talk about 

the whole child approach. Certainly, we know that is important. I 

authored, it has not been reintroduced yet this year, but a bipartisan resolution demonstrating support for a whole child approach 

to education, social, emotional, and physical well-being. 

There are some great examples of that happening in Oregon, 

Earl Boyles Elementary School, for example, benefits from those 

strong community partnerships, preschool programs. There is access to housing resources, home visits, adult education programs, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

community health professionals, a food and pantry, and after 

school learning opportunities, and it really makes a difference. 

So, can you talk about the importance, Dr. Harris, of addressing 

all of the needs of families and children and the long term benefits 

of that? And then I also want you to address the importance of tailoring services like the migrant and seasonal Head Start programs. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Before we run out of time. 

Ms. HARRIS. So, children, as they are developing it is not just 

cognitive. It is physical. It is social/emotional. Some children have 

different levels of needs which is why the community partners are 

important, as well as the relationship that we have with school districts and IDEA. 

Children are learning to think, and so it is not just about learning ABCs. It is about how to problem solve, how to have self-regulation skills. And communities, again, are different. So, the migrant 

Head Start programs are really clearly focused on working with the 

children so that the children have a place to go, a place to be educated. 

The other thing I just wanted to add is that Head Start asks the 

community to be engaged. There is a 25 percent in-kind match. So, 

the idea is that communities really want to provide this kind of 

service to their children and families. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Chairman ROKITA.—the gentlelady’s time is expired. She yields 

back. 

Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that 

yourself and the committee chair have seen fit to bring these fine 

individuals in for questions today. I think one of the existential 

challenges, and I use that word intentionally, existential, facing 

America is the denial of a fundamental entitlement of American 

birth, and that is the entitlement to an opportunity. 

That happens to manifest itself, I would argue, by virtue of geography or ones’ zip code. Right? It is the belief of this member that 

no child based on any external factor is any less capable of success 

than another child, and yet we see pattern after pattern where our 

children are not failing our schools, but instead our schools are failing our children. That is that it is predictable based on zip code, 

perhaps, that one child is far more likely to achieve post-secondary 

degrees than another by virtue of where they grew up. 

And what I have observed, Mr. Chair, members of the panel is 

that there are all too many times a reverse correlation between per 

people expenditures and outcomes, and that we work systematically in some sectors to deny parents the fundamental opportunity 

to ensure that their children are enrolled in institutions where 

there is a high probability of success. 

And so I guess I say that to lead into the 2010 HHS study that 

was entitled the Head Start Impact Study that concluded that 

Head Start, ’had little or no positive effects for children who were 

granted access and that for the four year group compared similarly 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

situated children not allowed access to Head Start. The program 

failed to raise cognitive abilities on 41 measures, specifically language skills, literacy, math, and school performance. Of the participation all of the children all failed to improve.’ 

Alarmingly, Head Start for the three year old group actually had 

a harmful effect on the teacher assessed math ability of those children once they entered kindergarten. Teachers reported that nonparticipating children were more prepared in math skills than 

those who participated in Head Start. 

So, I think it is fair to say that what we do in this body should 

be judged not on its intent, oh, they meant well, but on its outcomes, and that the outcomes should be determined based on not 

how the child does in kindergarten or first grade, but how they do 

when they are 22, when they are 32, when they are 42. 

So, I would ask first, Ms. Stevens, where parents are afforded 

more choices as it relates to the educational opportunities available 

to their children do we not see actual better outcomes in educational and life achievement amongst those children? In other 

words, if you are in a failing school district, but you are afforded 

the opportunity to go somewhere else is that child not more likely 

to be successful then if you are not allowed to go somewhere else? 

Ms. STEVENS. My research focus is on the preschool years, so 

birth through four. The same principles apply. I think one of the 

very important things for us to remember is that there are millions 

of children who today are entering full time childcare as infants. 

By the time they enter kindergarten, many children have been in 

childcare for over 11,000 hours. 

What we know is that those hours are having a tremendous impact on their development. A full day, full year pre-K program is 

a little over 1,000 hours for four year olds. And the science is clear 

that the most important period of development actually occurs before children turn four. 

A full time Head Start program, again, most of the children in 

Head Start are four, some are three. The majority of those programs are less than a 500 hours. So, again, the science is making 

this very clear. 

When children are spending 11,000 hours starting in infancy in 

particular environments, those are the environments we need to 

look at. Unlike K–12 I would suggest that for low income parents 

the problem they are facing is actually a lack of choice because 

they do not have the resources and they do not have the information to make good choices. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so the uniform product that is held out to individuals who face that lack of choice historically has not been successful. I guess the easy question is, is there a better way to do 

this? And I have only got 35 seconds. 

Ms. STEVENS. There are some places where probably Head Start 

is the best option that children have, and I do not support taking 

that away from children when that is their best option. What we 

are seeing is a growing number of states who are stepping up and 

are providing a broader range of options—— 

Mr. GARRETT. So, I have got 15 seconds with absolutely no intent 

to be rude. I think the point is that historically and foundationally 

by this nation’s charter, if you will, this has been the manifest reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

sponsibility of localities and states, and that if we empower localities and states to endeavor to create a better product we will find 

better products than Head Start. 

And so what we might be thinking about is how to allow people 

at the local level to determine what is best for their children. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROKITA. I think the gentleman. Gentleman’s time is 

expired. Gentleman of Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow through on 

that, Dr. Stevens. Head Start has different qualities to it than 

some other early childhood education programs. It is actually 

housed in Health and Human Services because it provides a lot of 

other services. 

You indicated that would be the best choice for some parents. 

Who would benefit better by Head Start than other early childhood 

education programs? Dr. Stevens? 

Ms. STEVENS. Head Start is a funding stream built around a set 

of ideas. What is important about that program are the ideas. 

There is nothing more magical about it being called Head Start 

than fourth grade. 

What we know is some fourth grades work very well for children 

and other fourth grades do not work well for children. The principles are always the same. The question is the implementation, 

and what we know is that the more hours that children are in environments and the younger they are the bigger the impact it is 

going to be having on their development and the more important 

focusing on quality is. So, Head Start is one way of approaching 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. And is the benefit more profound with low income 

rather than upper income children? 

Ms. STEVENS. The research is clear. Why is that? The reason for 

that is children in more advantaged environments are, in fact, getting a great deal of an investment starting in infancy at home. In 

terms of the developmental support they are getting at home. 

So, what early childhood programs do and, in fact, what childcare 

is doing for better or for worse is supplementing what is going on 

at home. So, if what is going on at home is for whatever reason 

insufficient, and then children are in poor childcare environments, 

you are exacerbating the problem. Right? 

So, the principles are going to be the same and we need to be 

focusing on the principles and what those do for children. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Ms. Maas, you indicated that your program is designed to eliminate the achievement gap by 5. What do 

you do to try to achieve that goal? 

Ms. MAAS. Thank you. Yes, so as I said in my remarks we are 

really focused on a set of principles that are about starting early. 

So, this year Minnesota’s legislature opened the opportunity of 

early learning scholarships to infants and toddlers who are in foster care or are homeless or in a child protection system. Offering, 

you know, full day, multiple years. Children who receive scholarships keep them until they enter kindergarten, trying to ensure 

continuity for families. Portability is a very important principle. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

So, as families move because of changes in home or location 

those dollars follow the child to make sure that they are stable in 

a new, high-quality environment. Of course, insisting on quality. 

This is a movement that is happening around the country and in 

Minnesota as well. What are the ingredients to a high-quality early 

care education setting? How can we support the existing provider 

base in offering those best practices? Those are the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you evaluated for results? Have you been able 

to achieve your goal? 

Ms. MAAS. We have not been able to achieve our goal. We are 

continuously evaluating for results. I think the thing that has been 

more elusive is getting all of the ingredients in place at the same 

time. So, starting early, stabilizing children in high-quality programs for multiple years—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And do you have long term evaluations of your initiatives? 

Ms. MAAS. Yes, so the private sector in Minnesota has invested 

about, you know, a $1 million or more over time. In evaluating we 

are committed to continuing that evaluation, and we feed that evaluation back into the programs to improve them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Does somebody on the panel know about 

Part C under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? 

Ms. HARRIS. I am sorry. I did not understand the question. 

Mr. SCOTT. On Part C, can you talk about the importance of investments under Part C? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, they focus on children from birth to three. They 

create an individualized family services plan, so the idea is that, 

again, you are engaging families as well as specialists in supporting the development of their children. And it is a very specific, 

defined disability in order to qualify for that program. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you have early intervention before disabilities 

manifest? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, so all of the children in Head Start are 

screened as soon as they enter the program and assessed ongoing 

throughout the year so that we can provide those intervention services. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Let me start first with Ms. Barnes. You know, on older reports 

on this subject on hand today we found that those reports said, 

’fragmentation and program overlap can create an environment in 

which programs may not serve children and families as efficiently 

or effectively as possible.’ And that, ’the existence of multiple programs can create an added administrative cost such as cost associated with determining eligibility and meeting varied reporting requirements.’ 

Are we still adding cost to programs in terms of your latest review? What do you find? Do we still have a variety of programs 

that might not be serving children and families as efficiently and 

effectively as possible or did we clean all that up? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Yes, sure. 2012 review was based on 2010 

information, but our current one is based on the fiscal year 2015 

obligations, and it was 15 billion with the programs that we are 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

talking about today. Back then there were 12 programs with an explicit early learning or childcare purpose, 33 that allow funds to be 

spent on such activities, and 5 tax expenditures. So, a little different from what we found this time which we found in nine explicit purpose programs, 35 that allow early learning or childcare 

spending, and three tax expenditures. 

But for this review we actually removed six programs that were 

no longer either funded or for various other reasons such as Race 

to the Top, Early Learning Challenge, and we added an additional 

eight programs that were not part of our 2012 review such as Preschool Development Grants. So, there are some differences, to address that question. 

Chairman ROKITA. Differences? Does that mean better or worse? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. In terms of better or—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Duplication and costs and all that? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. We looked at the performance of the programs on a very—— 

Chairman ROKITA. So, you did not look at duplication or anything like that? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Not in terms of overall. We do have some 

of that. We did identify that in our report. We talk about some of 

the programs that do overlap. In terms of duplication, we identify 

potential duplication. I can explain some of that. 

Some of the programs have a limited requirement for data, so it 

is difficult to determine whether there is actual duplication. 

Chairman ROKITA. So, there are 44 programs? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. There are 44 programs. 

Chairman ROKITA. And you cannot tell which ones are likely 

overlapping or duplicative in nature? 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Well, some are overlapping. I gave a couple 

of examples earlier—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Yes, that is what I thought. 

Ms. BROWN BARNES. Yes. Like, Head Start and Preschool Development Grants. If you are looking at whether they have similar 

goals, activities, or target similar populations. Yes, they both target 

low income children under 5 and provide slots for early learning. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Stevens and Ms. Maas, 

today we heard that there are a multitude of federal programs. 

Some may be a disservice to the American family, business owner 

and tax payer. We have also heard examples of state and local innovation which are clearly better at meeting the needs of those involved, in my opinion. 

As we look to reform the system is there a better way Congress 

should provide assistance to states to make it easier at the local 

level? We will start with you, Dr. Stevens. 

Ms. STEVENS. A number of the new programs the GAO report 

has identified are, in fact, successful federal efforts to promote 

state leadership in this area. Not all states are equally interested 

and are committed to early childhood at this point. 

Chairman ROKITA. I heard you say that. 

Ms. STEVENS. There are a number of states that are not only far 

ahead of where they were in 1965, they are far ahead of where the 

federal government is now. To me, what makes the most sense is 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

Colorado is one, Minnesota is one, Indiana is one, North Carolina 

is one. We have a number of these states. 

If we can find ways to leverage federal funds to highlight and 

support that state momentum, those states can be very valuable 

models for the country. 

Chairman ROKITA. Are you proposing some kind of incentive procedure? Do you think we can find ways? That is my question. What 

would be the ways? 

Ms. STEVENS. I have written about one possible approach to this 

which would be what I have suggested would be a fairly small pilot 

project to give a handful of states, and there is a number of them 

represented here, the opportunity for a period of experimentation 

where they get money, if the money is held to high standards. 

Chairman ROKITA. Interesting. Could you submit that for the 

record? You said this is a separate report you did or? 

Ms. STEVENS. Correct. I can provide that. 

Chairman ROKITA. Would you mind providing that? 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes. 

Chairman ROKITA. And I would like to see it entered in the official record if we could. 

My time is expired so I cannot make the rules up here and then 

not follow them, unfortunately. So, Ms. Maas, we cannot get to you 

to answer that question, and Dr. Harris, same thing. 

So, with that, I want to thank the witnesses again for answering 

the questions. I do not see any more members to ask questions, so 

we will go to Mr. Polis for his closing statement. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I do want to highlight actually what our 

Chair was talking about with Dr. Stevens is the Race to the Top, 

Early Childhood Learning Challenge Grant Programs. That was 

the program also included in the testimony. 

I want to thank Chairman Rokita and our witnesses for joining 

us. In particular, those who had to travel, Dr. Harris and Ms. Maas 

thank you for coming all the way to our nation’s capital. As our 

witnesses shared, the science behind the benefits of early learning 

is undeniable, and I am glad that today’s hearing really focused 

around the most effective way to deliver those services. It is critical 

that children receive high-quality early childhood education at the 

earliest ages. 

Dr. Harris, thanks for your good work in Colorado and thank you 

for sharing with us the work you are doing at Mile High Early 

Learning Center, and the way that you are creatively using the different federal programs to meet the individual needs of young 

learners. She also spoke to the importance and value of each program and the need to maintain federal support for these programs. 

After today’s discussion I want to make sure that we carefully 

tread in the area of eliminating duplicative programs. The GAO report and, obviously, we have not had a chance to see the new one, 

but the previous one has not found significant duplication of early 

childhood learning programs. Duplicative means that they overlap, 

often toward the same goal. It is not the same as the recommendation that one program would better replace two. 

Overlapping goals, parameters of programs can be adjusted and 

sometimes it takes several programs working together to meet a 

common goal. But I want to be clear that overlapping is not the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

same as a word that is not contained in at least the prior version 

of the report, we have not read this one, like redundant. 

It is apparent after learning from Colorado and Minnesota that 

there is variation in how states and local governments determine 

and successfully create affordable early learning systems which 

makes the case there is flexibility in federal regulations, and if 

there is a meaningful way to work to improve that, we certainly 

look forward to working with our Republican colleagues to do that. 

The Ounce, whose report Ms. Stevens cited in her testimony, describes the complexity created by state imposed non-federally mandated regulations. It is important to highlight that these issues regard compliance not governance or program efficacy or integrity 

and those are very different. 

Congressional Democrats are thinking through ways to support 

high-quality early leaning and whatever we can do to help states 

fill the gaps that my home state in Colorado is not unique, unfortunately, in having. 

Early learning, quality childcare not just an education issue. It 

is a jobs issue. It is a workforce issue very much in the purview 

of this committee’s other work. Affordable childcare and early 

childhood education empowers workers, allows people to reenter 

the workforce sooner and, of course, equips future generations with 

the foundational tools that they need for success in life. 

Democrats are currently working on a bold visionary early learning proposal to allow working and middle class families to access 

quality, affordable early learning and care opportunities, and I 

strongly believe that support for early learning is a bipartisan 

issue, and we look forward to working with our Republican colleagues. 

And I invite my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats 

on supporting early childhood education, and I look forward to 

working with the Republicans towards this goal. Thank you and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman and I thank the witnesses again for your time today. We continue up here to learn a 

lot from you and so we appreciate it. We also appreciate the fact 

that you are on the front lines of this issue and at least for two 

of our witnesses, three, you are on the front lines with the kids. 

Right? With the children right there. 

And, again, as I said at the beginning of this hearing, the children are this country’s most important asset in so many different 

ways, however you want to define that. So, I really appreciate and 

applaud the work that each of you are doing. 

Of course, Representative Polis, you have our commitment to 

work together on this issue. It is very important. Nothing can replace a family bringing up a child, especially at those early years 

for the environment from where they first start learning, as Dr. 

Stevens says. 

But with environment today, with working parents, and everything else going on there certainly is, the science tells us, right? 

There is a role for early childhood learning, childcare, and the differences between those two have been exposed in this hearing as 

well, and I think that is a very important difference and needs to 

be considered carefully as we move forward. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

We have to make sure as fiduciaries of tax payers’ funds, not our 

property, their property, that these programs, whatever adjective 

you want to assign to them, are being used in the most efficient 

way possible. That is our duty. That is what Congress’ Article I 

powers are. 

Those duties will not be suspended here on this subcommittee, 

for sure, as long as I am the chairman of it. So, with that we will 

take your information, your testimony, and move forward with legislative policy on this matter. 

Seeing no other business before the committee I want to, again, 

lastly thank the witnesses, thank the members for coming today, 

and I see this committee as remaining adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Polis follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 26143.045

For more than SO years, Stnrt has provided early !earning op(.wrtunlties for 

our country's most vu!nerabk~ child ron nnd comprehensive supports to families that 

!ong~tenn economic stability and better health prospects, u!tlm<1te!y mltigat~ 

mg the d0vi:lstnting impacts that poverty have on the futlJre of young 

childn.~n, 

Head StCJrt se1ves mort:< til8n one million children and thoir families 

This compendium complies summaries of several key studies that have been pubhshed in recent months that represent the best knowledge to date about Head Start's 

including economic analyses, longitudinu! studiE:s, and 

seconda;y analyses-, revo,-ll positive cognitive and non-cognitive outcornes for chil-

(iren who partkip0ted 1n Head 

T!H?se outcomes huvc- significant imp!icat1ons fot· cost benefits to society in the short 

nnd long terrns. Among the findings impacts on vocabulary, cognitive skills, parz>nt 

ir:volvement, high school grndu,~·!ion rates, college enrollment and completion. nbsenretention, claSSiOOm quality, self-controL and self-esteem. The 

point to particularly 1mpuctful effects of Head Start on certain populations, includdiildrcn w1th low 1n1t1a! Skills, H1span!C ch11dren, and Afncan Amencan childron 

outcomes for 

children who 

""'u"'''"'u in Head 

Start 
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 26143.046

The Institute f<ir Resea~ch on labor and Emp-toymer1t at the Unlve'rslty of California at Berkeley I Claire Montia!oux 

Revisiting the- impact of Head 

Start 

In September 2016, Claire Montia!oux, resemcher nt the University 

California Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Ernployrnent (!RLE), wrote 

policy brief, titled ReviSiting the Jmpact of Head Start. The brief explores how our 

understanding of me Start lmpact Study (HS!S) has evolved in light of the 

deeper understanding of early childhood development and outcomes that 

hos in the 15 years since tile HSIS was conducted, 

The HSIS (Puma 2010) wus conducted in 2002 and was the first randomized 

stucly that examined Head HS!S randomly ussigned 

atmost 5.000 four-year-old children to either a Head Start center (treatment group) or to not admitted center {control group}. The initial analysis 

done by Puma C?t al. fmmd modest gnins in pro::Hiteracy ski!!s, fewer ct1aHenging 

behaviors, ond specific dental het-)lth benefits by kindergarten. However, in a fo!~ 

!ow-up study published in 2012, Puma did not find c!em evidence of improved 

non-cognitive and that the positive effects on cognitive skms t'nostly dis~ 

sipatcd by tlwd gn1de. !n1tial!y, some positive find1ngs, this analysis raised 

questions about the effectiveness of Head Start. 

Montlaloux reviews the secondary cmalyses {research that used the HSIS 

data) tflat shift the question from whether Head Start works to exnct!y how and for 

whom Head Start works 

Montialoux examined five studies th.nt reanalyzed the HS!S data and provided a 

more nuanced understandlnq of Head Start. The findings of these 

studios .::1re below: 

A significant design in the HSIS, n1m1e(y contmninat1on of the control 

group with quafity preschool experience, understnted Head Start's positive 

impncts on participating children by third grade. 

Start improves vocabulary and cognitive skiUs for particular subgroups, 

including children with the lowest initial ski!! levels and SpanistJ-speaklng 

clli!dren, 

Head Start hBs demonstrated crlti-caf parent involvement outcomes, such 

time and more father engagement, as we!! as greater involve~ 

Amerlcan and HI spunk famili-es. 

Tile Start Advantr1ge- A Resonrch Compendium 
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 26143.047

Revisiting the Impact of Head Start 

Understanding of the Head Start Impact Study (HS!S) 

wlth a control group. However an entire 

V3 of the control group attended other 

preschool programs, rather than receiv~ 

ing at-!1ome care. ln other words, the 

control group was contaminated. 

2. The HSlS assumed a homogeneous 

effect across various subgroups and 

centers. 

3. The HSIS examined the impacts on 

parents by evaluating five outcomes, 

isolated by both cohort and time period. 

Walters (2016) found much larger 

impacts when they accounted for the 

contamination of the control group, 

Bitler, Domina, and Haynes {2015) 

showed that Head Start hus heteroM 

geneous effects, meaning the effects 

are different for different groups of 

children. 

Walters (2015) showed variation in 

effects across different centers. 

Gelber and tsen {2013} examined effects on parental involvement across 

an additional 84, outcomes across 

collective cohorts and time perfods to 

assess average outcomes, 

The Head Start Advantuge- A Research Compendium 

Both re-analyse$ found that Head Start 

has a substantia( impact on children 

who would otherwfs"e be cared tor at 

home. 

Bitler, Domina, and Haynes (2Qt5} found 

that Head Start helps the moSt disadvantageq students'improve their school 

readiness. They found that, for Children 

with the lowest skill levels. Head Start 

results in a significant Qain in vocaPulary 

skills and has positive effects on,cognitive skills that persist through fir?t grade 

for Spanish speakers. 

Walters found that Head Start's effec~ 

tiveness is different across centers, 

based on home visiting services and 

how many hours children attend. 

Gelber and !sen (2013) found !hat i Head Start has a humber of impacts on 

parents, notclbfy that It 1) increases th~ 

time that parents spend reading to thefr 

children by 20 percent, 2),increase.s the 

time that absent fathers spend' with their 

children by one day per month; -arip 3) 

leads to greater inCreases tr parental 

involvement for African American and 

Hispanic parents In comparison 'tO 

White parents. 

page 3 
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 26143.048

Revisiting the Impact of Head Start 

With these findings verifying Head 

Start's eff.;;ctiveness, Montialoux addresses flaws in the HSIS calculations 

of the costs and benefits of providing 

Head Start by discussing the cost-bEmefit analysis conducted by Kline and 

Walters {2016) 

Previous analyses. she says, overestimated the net costs by overlooking 

the chl!dren who would have enrolled 

in another preschool had they not 

been admitted to Head Stort. In other 

words, previous analyses were based 

on the assumption that, if children did 

not attend Head Start, they would not 

incur any costs by attending another 

progrom 

"Early pessimism about 

the results of the Head 

Start Impact Study was not 

warranted." 

Claire Montialoux, UC Berkeley 

New 

After correcting for this, Kline and Walters 

(2016) found that those who attend Hend 

Start "can expect a discounted after·tax 

lifetime earnings galn of $5,513" 

Importantly, Montia!oux points out th<'lt 

Kline and Walters (2016) did not account 

for the benefits ttl at Head Start has on 

participants' future health, dvic engage~ 

ment (Milligan et aL 2010), crime (Lochner 

and Moretti, 2004 and Heckman et aL 

2010) or inequality. 

According to Kline ond Walters (2016), 

every one dollar invested in Head Start, 

generates $1.84 in future after~tax earnings when Head Stnrt draws from other 

nearby preschool programs that would 

then fi!! the open seat alternatively, if the 

nemby preschool provider downsizes as 

a result of an increase !n Head Start, 

then each dollar generates $2.02 in 

future after-tax earnings. 

Montia!oux's onalysis ultimately leads 

to her conclusion that, "[e]arly pessimism about the results of the Head 

Start Impact Study was not warranted; 

to the contrnry, this study validates the 

important impact of the program and 

shows that high quallty early childhood 

programs can have important beneficia! 

effects when delivered at scale." 

Tl1e Head Start Advantage~ A Research Compendium 
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 26143.049

The Hamilton Project at The Brookings tnstitut!on I 

In this econornic analysis, Bmmr 2v1d Schnnzenboch evi1iut1ted the !ong·tenn impact 

Stmt by analyzing data from the Nut\ona! Longitudinal Survey of Youth 

(NLSYj, Simply put, they three> conclusions 

Head Start improve-s educ.ntiona! outcomes. 

2. social, emotional, and behavioral development 

positive parenting 

Schanz en bach analywd data from tho National LongitudinB! Survey of 

Youth {NLSY} which was nntionA!!y representotive sample of nearly 13,000 

1n 1919. Children of the wornen originally in thE' study were included 

generution sample. Using this sarrp!e, study's authors compared chi!~ 

dren who <ltt\?nded Head Start to the1r siblings who went to another preschoot or 

did not attend any program at aiL This design e-ffectively controlled for differences 

that stem simply from children from ditferent families. The authors used th1s com~ 

pmison, building on work clone emlier by David Deming of Hnrvard, to 

$t8rt panicipants and the ch1!dren they have bter m life 

Schanzenbach 

The authors 8lso found that Head Start pnrtlc1pation incredses 

in both areas for Afriom 

Amorican t~hi!clrcn i'lnd children whose 

plet0 high schooL 

<lid not com~ 

Schanzenbach exi.'lmined outcomes beyond previ* 

ous stud iRs that had evaluated behavior while children 

attended the program. Speciflcalty, they t::valuilted whether 

pmticipation in Head Sturt f!ftected participants' parenting 

lt:lter when had ch1ldren of their own, 

Mensuring variflbles, such as time :;pent re0ding to their child 

numbers and t!1e ntphabet they found 

pm0nts to invest more time thmr 

own chllrlren 

The Head Stmt AcJvantBge ~A Resemch Compendium 

a !;kelihood of enrolling in completing higher 

educut1on. Specifically, they reported that students are 4 to 12 

15 percent lncrease for Hispanic 

In short, Sauer and effectively extended exist· 

ing ant1lyscs of Hcnd Stnrt further into the future and find that 

"Head Stnrt not only enhances eventual educational att<'llnment, but also has Jastin9 positive impact on behavioral outcomes including st?lf-control and self-esteem [ondllt improves 

parenting practices potentlnlly providing udditlona1 benefits 

to tile next generation·· 
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 26143.050

The Effects of Tulsa's CAP Head Start Program on Middle-School 

Academic Outcomes and Progress 

George!Own !)niverslty I Deborah Phillips, WiUiam Gormley .and Sara Anderson 

The Study Design 

Phillips ond her team nt the Georgetown Department of Psychology studied Tulsa's 

Community Action Program {CAP) Head Start program to evuluate whether the pro~ 

gram had effects on academic and school progress that lasted into middle school 

and whether these effects varied by certain demographic characteristics, such as 

gender or race/ethnic!ty. 

To do this, they studied the 2005-2006 cohort of Tulsa CAP Head Start participants 

into the eighth grade. 

The Study Findings 

This pmticular study examined the effects of Head Start on children who attended 

the Tulsa CAP Head Start program in 2005-2006. For Tulsa CAP Head Start, many 

of the fActors that may have contributed to their success mirror trends that are increasingly being adopted across Head Start programs, both through regulation and 

practice, namely lead teachers with bachelor's degrees, low child-teacher ratios, 

and longer service hours. Other aspects of the Tulsa CAP Head Start program are 

exceptional in the broader community-such as paying teachers according to the 

public school wage scale. 

Head Start children. in comparison to chlldren who did not attend Head Start or 

Oklahoma·s state preschool program, had higher math scores on the state test, 

were less likely to be chronically absent and were less likely to have been held 

back a grade. Many subgroups, including those who were eligible for the free and 

reduced lunch program, girls, Hispanic students, and white students, were less 

likely to repeat a grade and scored higher on the state math tests. 

The Head Start Advantage~ A Research Compendium 
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 26143.051

Tracking Quality in Head Start Classrooms: FACES 2006 to FACES 2014 

Office of Planning Research 

and evaluation 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) 

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences SuNey (FACES) 

collects data on cohorts of a nationally representative sample 

of three~ to four-year-old children who arc entering Head Start 

for the first time. The survey collects data through a number of 

means, including: 

A one-on-one cflild assessment that collects information 

on school readiness skills, including language, literacy, 

and mathematics, as welt as weight 

Interviews with the child's Head teacher and kindergarten teacher to collect information about their educational background and credentials and information 

about the child's social skills and classroom behaviors 

Interviews with the Head Start program center director 

and education coordinator nbout program policies and 

practices 

Classroom observotions to measure quality and teach~ 

er~child interactions 

Par(~nt interviews obout the child's health, family life, 

and experience with Head Start 

While most of the information was collected through surveys 

and Interviews, the quality of the Head Start df!SSrooms was 

measured using two tools: the Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System {CLASS; Pianta et aL 2008) and the Early Childhood 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R; Harms et a!. 

1998). 

To date, there have been six FACES cohorts. In November 

2016, the US Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 

within HHS published a report on a cross-cohort analysis of 

the data collected in three cohorts-2006, 2009, and 2014 

The agency evaluated the data to identify trends in classroom 

quality and teacher characteristics 

The Head Start Advantage - A Research Compendium 

From 2006 to 2014, there was an overall 

increase in classroom quality. Fifteen 

of this growth is attributed to 

positive changes in 

characteristics. 

The Study Findings 

teacher 

The cross-cohort analyses ldentlfied the following trends: 

Classroom Quality: 

From 2006 to 2014, there was an overall increase 

in classroom quality. Fifteen percent of this growth 

is attributed to positive changes in specific teacher 

characteristics. 

From 2009 to 2014, the number of classrooms rated as 

inadequate by the ECERS-R too! in the Teaching and 

Interactions subscale fell from five to one percent 

From 2006 to 2014, average ECERS-R Provisions for 

Learning scores improved from 3.6 to 4.4 on the 7-point 

scale. 

From 2006 to 2014, average CLASS scores Improved 

from 1.9 to 2.4 (out of 7}, and fewer classrooms scored 

in the low range (96 to 76%} while more scored in the 

mid-range (4 to 24%), 

Professional Development: 

Across cohorts, the number of teachers with a mentor 

stayed stable at about threc~quarters. Mentors were in~ 

creasing!y educational coordinators or specialists, rather 

than center or program directors. 

From 2006 to 2014, there was an increase in teachers 

receiving support from either a mentor or master teacher and from other Head Start teachers. 

Teacher Credentials: 

From 2006 to 2014, the percE:>nt of teachers with a 

bachelor's degree or higher increased from 40 to 70%. 
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 26143.052

These Reports Provide the Best Evidence of the Head Start Advantage 

The four reports t!igh!ig!"lted in this 

compendium were published between 

August and December of 2016 and pro~ 

vide some ot the best evidence to date 

of the Head Stmt advantage_ 

What is the Head Start advantnge? The 

HeRd Start advantugc is tl1c individuRl 

opportunity to thrive in a safe, stable, 

nurturing space that puts children and 

their fomilies on the path to success 

in schooL in work, and in life. It is the 

hundreds of thousands of dedicated 

staff and teachers contributing to their 

communities as they build brighter futures. !tis the several thousand partner 

organizations, working hand~in-hand 

with Head Start 0nd enriching local 

economtes. 

The recent outpouring 

of information about 

these long-lasting 

effects demonstrates the 

effectiveness of Head Start. 

More than 33 million children and families 

have benefited from Head Start's comprehensive model, receiving eduCE1tion, 

healthy meals, and vision, dental, and 

hearing screenings, parenting skills, 

nutrition training, and direct involvement 

in their children's education. The Head 

Start advnntage can be see-n in the lives 

of these 33 m!!!lon children and famiHes. It is seen in the research, which has 

documented time and again the mental, 

physical, developmental, educational, and 

social-emotional benefits that Head Start 

imparts. 

Ultimately, the reports' findings reveal 

increasing program qua!lty, that Head 

Start children have positive outcomes 

at the end of their year in the program, 

and that these results persist throughout their lives. 

Tt10 recent outpouring of information 

about these long-lasting effects demonstrates the effectiveness of Head Start 

and answers many questions about 

what exactly works best and for whom, 

ensuring the Head Start advantage for 

generations to come. 

The Head Start Advanti:lge- A Research Compendium 
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 26143.053

References 

Aikens. N., Bush, C, Gleason, P., Malone, L, and Tarullo, 

l. (2016). Tracking Quality in Head Stmt Classrooms: 

FACES 2006 to FACES 2014 Techntcal Report OPRE 

Report 2016~95. Washington, DC Office of Planning, 

Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health und Human 

Services 

Bauer, L., and Schanzenbach, D. (2016). The Long-Term 

JmpcJCt of the Head Start Program. The Humllton Project, 

The Brookings Institution. 

B1tler. M .. Domina, T., and Hoynes, H. {2014). 

"Experimental Ev1dence on Distributional Effects of 

Head Start" NBER Working Paper. No. 20434 

Fcllu, A., Gnnda!, T., Miratrix, L., and Page, l. C (2016). 

Compared to what? Variation in the impacts of early 

childhood education by alternative care type. The 

Annals of Applied Statist1cs 10 (3), 1245-1285_ 

Gelber, A. and !sen, A. {2013). ''Children's Schooling and 

Parents' Investment in Children: Evidence from the Head 

Start lmp,lCt Study." Journal of Public Economics 101 

Harms, T.. Clifford, R., and Cryer, D. "Early Ch!!dllood 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS~R)." New 

York NY: Teachers College Press, 1998 

Heckman, J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Save!yev, P .. Yavitz, 

A. {2010). "The Rate of Return to the H1gh/Scope Perry 

Preschool Program,'" Journal of Public Economics 94, 

114-128 

KlinE>. P. and Watters, C. (2016). "Evaluating Public 

Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of Head 

Stflrt." The Quarterly Journal of Econornics, vol131/4, 

page·s 1795·1848 

The Hc(ld Start Advantage -A Research Compendium 

Lochner, L., and Moretti, E. (2004). "The Effect of 

Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, 

Arrests, and Sc!f~Rcports.' American Economic Review 

94/1 

Montialoux, C. (2016). Revisiting the impact of Head 

Start. !RLE: Institute for Research on Labor and 

Employment University of California: Berkeley_ 

Phillips, D., Gormley, W., and Anderson. S. {2016). 

The Effects of Tulsa's CAP Head Start Program on 

Middle~Schoo! Academic Outcomes and Progress. 

Developmen1al Psychology 52 (8): 1247-61. 

Pianta, R, LaParo, K., and Hamre, B. "The Classroom 

Assessment Scor1ng System Pre-K Manual." 

CharlottGsvi!le, VA: University of Virginia, 2008. 

Puma, M., Bell, S .. Cook, R .. and Heid, C. (2010}. Head 

Start Impact Study: Final Report.'' U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Servlces_ Administration for Children 

and Familles. 

Puma. M., Bell, S , Cook, R., nnd Heid, C. (2012). Third 

Grade Follow-up to t!1e Head Start Impact Study Final 

Report, OPRE Report# 2012-45, Washington, DC: Office 

of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Walters, C. (2015). "Inputs in the Production of Early 

Childhood Capital: Evidence from Head Start." American 

Econom1c JournaL Applied Economics 7/4. 

png€ 9 
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 26143.054

Yasmina Vinci, Contributor Executive Director, National Head Start Association 

Head Start: Keeping It Real 

02/22/2017 10:29 am ET I Updated Feb 22, 2017 

While the Head Start community welcomes efforts to highlight the critical need for high-quality, 

early learning programs, including the need for more resources, longer duration, and increased 

access to quality early learning opportunities, too often these assetiions are fraught with 

misleading information that contl.tses the debate and waters down the argument. 

Take, for example, Katharine R, Stevens' chapter in Robert Doar' s recently-released book, A 

Safety Net that Works: Improving Federal Programs for Low-Income Americans." While we 

agree with Dr. Stevens' argument on the importance of high-quality early education existing 

needs in the field, Dr. Stevens fails to effectively highlight current challenges or adequately 

address them. In fact, the pilot program suggested in the chapter would likely hinder, rather than 

support, continuing improvement in the early childhood field, and would leave our nation's most 

vulnerable children and their families behind. 

The Head Start community's concerns with this chapter range from the questionably-presented 

historical context to omission of relevant policy actions and research to a proposed solution that 

does not address the challenges identified. Specific concerns include: 

• Mischaracterizing the History of Federal Social, Economic, and Early Learning Policies 

Several points throughout the chapter present an inaccurate portrayal of the history of welfare 

and social and economic policies in the United States. This flawed summary and selective 

presentation of current policies, practices, and research greatly diminishes the credibility of the 

chapter. With regard to Head Start in particular, there are several mischaracterizations of Head 

Stan's past, present, and future. Head Start is the original two-generation model, focusing on 

providing comprehensive services to support both children and families mentally, physically, and 

emotionally. With everything from nutrition services, screenings, medical care, and job training 

for parents, Head Start is anything but an "emphasis on schooling" alone, as Dr. Stevens 

suggests, and has never had such a narrow focus in its more than 50-year history. 

• Learning from Current Approaches and Making Evidence-Based Improvements 

The argument that Head Stmi's "implementation quality is uneven across the country" and that 

the program is "burdened by half a century of accumulated federal rules and regulations" is 

simply incorrect. Facts prove that Head Start provides consistently high-quality programming 

and continues to improve over time. This misconception of uneven quality comes from a report 

with a narrow and incorrect characterization of the data. Further, the new Head Start Program 

Pcrfc1rmance Standards, effective as of November 2016, are a comprehensive revision of Head 

Start rules and regulations. The new Standards substantially reduce administrative burden, 

encourage collaboration, align with other federal requirements, and build upon the earlier 
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 26143.055

standards' success to ensure quality practices and increased duration of services. Failing to 

acknowledge these new Standards does not negate their existence. Similarly, the chapter also 

fails to acknowledge many other ongoing efforts . States, local governments, and programs have 

made significant progress in the area of coordination and federal policymakers are participating 

in the solution through the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships and the Early Learning 

Challenge grants under Race to the Top. Before embarking on a new restructuring of federal 

laws and funding, it's imperative that we learn from these initiatives to thoughtfully inform any 

future action. In fact, recent federal reauthorizations, including the 2007 Head Start Act, the 2014 

Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, and the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act 

(ESSA), as well as the revised Standards, have focused on coordination of early learning 

programs. Combined, these current strategies represent a strong future for program 

improvements and local and state systems collaboration. Finally, the contention that early 

childhood policy is "shaped by outdated science," ignores the multitude of studies that show 

~tive outcomes from high-quality comprehensive early learning programs. Research on early 

childhood is constantly enhanced and refined; changes to the Standards were guided by such 

research, much of which is based on data from programs in place much more recently than the 

1972-1985 Abecedarian study cited in the chapter. 

• Limited Effectiveness of State-Level Control and Vouchers 

The recommendation that the federal government give states more control over early childhood 

funding negates the author's repeated argument that the states generally do a poor job running 

the K-12 school system. Further, the evidence from studies of school choice is far from 

conclusive, which makes the argument to align federal early childhood funding streams through 

a voucherized-school-choice program shaky at best. This proposal also ignores the fact that the 

desired alignment is already happening through local- and program-level coordination of funding 

streams throughout the country. The merging of funds at the federal level is, therefore, 

unnecessary and redundant. 

• Serving onr Neediest Children and Families 

The proposed pilot program threatens the status of our nation's neediest children and families. 

Without an influx of additional resources, there is very little capacity to increase affordable 

access without decreasing quality or duration. The fact that Head Start does not yet reach all 

eligible children, nor do all programs meet the schedules of working parents, is largely due to a 

significant limitation of federal resources for Head Start and CCDBG, not a fundamental flaw in 

the program design, difTering regulations, or anything else. In an effort to more closely match 

full-day care, in fact, the federal government recently put a down payment on a duration 

investment in Head Start and the new Standards codify the requirement for extended duration 

over the next five years - a fact expediently excluded from the chapter. 

While the Head Start community absolutely agrees with efTorts to expand access, increase 

quality and extend duration, achieving these goals cannot occur in a silo of narrowly reported 

information. Instead of advocating for a new federal system, a careful review of existing 

innovative coordination activities in communities across the country is merited to ensure 
84 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 26143.056

systemic improvements are made in the effective delivery of quality early learning to young 

children. Every vulnerable child deserves at least that. 

This post is hosted on the Buffington Post's Contributor platfonn. Contributors control their own 

work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.