United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2004 PREKINDERGARTEN

Four Selected States 

Expanded Access by 

Relying on Schools 

and Existing Providers 

of Early Education 

and Care to Provide 

Services 

GAO-04-852 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-852.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mamie Shaul at 

(202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-852, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2004

PREKINDERGARTEN

Four Selected States Expanded Access 

by Relying on Schools and Existing 

Providers of Early Education and Care to 

Provide Services 

For nearly 40 years, the federal 

government has played a role in 

providing early childhood 

development programs for children 

of low-income families through 

Head Start and other programs. 

Since 1980, the number of states 

with preschool programs has also 

significantly increased. While most 

of these programs have targeted 

children at risk of school failure, 

more recently, interest has grown 

in expanding these limited 

programs because of the growing 

concern about children’s readiness 

for school and subsequent 

achievement. It has also been 

fueled by new research on early 

brain development that suggests 

the importance of early education 

and by the high rate of mothers in 

the workforce and their need for 

early childhood services. In this 

context, questions have arisen 

about how the various programs 

are coordinated and what lessons 

have been learned from broadbased state preschool efforts. 

This work focused on four states 

that have expanded their preschool 

programs to serve more children. 

In these states, GAO addressed (1) 

how prekindergarten programs 

were designed and funded, (2) the 

potential implications of these 

program features for children’s 

participation and other programs 

that serve four year-olds, and (3) 

the outcome data that have been 

collected on participating children 

and families. To gather this 

information, GAO conducted site 

visits in four states—Georgia, New 

Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. 

The expanded prekindergarten programs in Georgia, Oklahoma, New York, 

and New Jersey had some similarities in their design features. For instance, 

programs were offered at no direct cost to parents, regardless of family 

income, and each state incorporated some level of collaboration with 

community-based providers such as Head Start and large child care facilities. 

Some key differences in their design features also existed. For example, 

Georgia and Oklahoma had statewide programs providing prekindergarten 

services to over half of their four-year olds, while New York’s and New 

Jersey’s programs were more geographically targeted. States and school 

districts also varied in offering full- or half-day prekindergarten programs. 

States also varied in teacher qualifications, the percentage of 

prekindergarten children served by community-based providers, funding 

methods, and in the amount of funding per child. 

State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs and Kindergarten through Grade 12 

Full or half day

Full day

K - 12

New Jersey

 Full or half day K - 12

New York

 Full day K - 12

Georgia

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Half day Full day K - 12

Oklahoma

Sources: Data on per child funding for kindergarten through grade 12 were obtained from the U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics; data on per child funding for state prekindergarten programs were obtained from the Georgia

Department of Early Care and Learning, and the state departments of education in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.

Kindergarten

through 12 Full-day pre-K Mixture of fulland half-day

Half-day

pre-K

Dollars

Some program features had potential implications for the participation of 

children and for early childhood programs. For example, none of the four 

states required providers to transport all children to and from 

prekindergarten, and many children were enrolled in half-day programs, 

which officials believed might have limited the participation of children from 

low-income and working families. Collaborations between programs and 

community-based organizations generally permitted rapid program 

expansion and were viewed as beneficial to early childhood programs. 

Finally, we found few data to determine the impact of state prekindergarten 

expansion on the availability or prices of child care. 

While some data were available on outcomes for children who participated 

in prekindergarten programs, less was known about their impacts on 

families. For example, a study in Oklahoma showed that children who 

participated made significant gains on several school readiness measures 

relative to a comparison group of unenrolled children. However, none of the 

four states had measured effects on families, such as parents’ work effort. 
Page i GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Letter 1

Results In Brief 3 

Background 4 

Four Selected States Varied In the Design and Funding of their 

Expanded Prekindergarten Programs 10 

Some Program Features Had Potential Implications for Children’s 

Participation and Other Early Childhood Programs 22 

Some Data Have Been Collected on Outcomes for Participating 

Children 28 

Concluding Observations 31 

Agency Comments 32 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 33 

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36 

GAO Contacts 36 

Staff Acknowledgments 36 

Related GAO Products 37 

Tables 

Table 1: State Prekindergarten Program Characteristics, 

Benchmarks, and Number of State Programs Meeting the 

Benchmarks 8 

Table 2: Number of School Districts Statewide, Number of School 

Districts with State Prekindergarten Programs, and 

Percentage of Age-Eligible Children Participating in Five 

State Prekindergarten Programs during the 2003-04 School 

Year 13 

Table 3: Variation in Selected Features of Five State 

Prekindergarten Programs 16 

Table 4: Primary Method of Program Funding, Estimated Number 

of Children Participating, and Estimated State Spending 

for Prekindergarten Programs during the 2002-03 School 

Year 17 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Figures 

Figure 1: Enrollment of Four-Year-Olds in State-Sponsored 

Prekindergarten Programs 7 

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Age-Eligible Children, 

Prekindergarten Enrollments, and Head Start Enrollments 

in the Four States 12 

Figure 3: State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs 

and Kindergarten through Grade 12 19 

Abbreviations 

CBO community-based organization 

CCDF Child Care and Development Fund 

ECPA early childhood program aid 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

LEA local education agencies 

NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research 

SEA state education agencies 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TPK targeted prekindergarten 

UPK universal prekindergarten 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

September 9, 2004 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Children and Families 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jack Reed 

United States Senate 

For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in providing 

early childhood development programs for children of low-income 

families through Head Start and other programs. Prior to 1970, only a few 

states had prekindergarten programs, and these were mostly available to a 

small number of children and targeted specific populations such as 

disadvantaged children, those at risk of school failure, or those with 

special needs. More recently, there has been interest in expanding these 

limited prekindergarten programs because of the growing concern about 

children’s readiness for school and subsequent achievement. This interest 

has also been fueled by advances in early brain development research that 

suggest the importance of early education and by the high rate of mothers 

in the workforce and their need for early childhood services. During the 

2001-02 school year, about 40 states enrolled approximately 700,000 of the 

nation’s 7.8 million three- and four-year-olds in prekindergarten programs, 

and spent over $2.4 billion to finance these programs. A few of these states 

have invested significant resources to expand enrollments of 

prekindergarten programs beyond targeted populations. They have also 

used federal funds such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to support prekindergarten 

programs, and have implemented these programs in a variety of settings 

such as child care centers and Head Start agencies, as well as public 

schools. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Given the level of investment and the variety of preschool programs 

currently receiving federal and state support, there is concern about 

whether these programs are well coordinated and that lessons from 

implementing broadly based state programs are documented. Accordingly, 

you asked that we review programs in selected states that expanded their 

prekindergarten efforts. This report presents information on (1) how state 

prekindergarten programs were designed and funded in these states, 

(2) the potential implications of these program features for children’s 

participation and for other programs that serve four-year-olds, and (3) the 

outcome data that have been collected on participating children and 

families. 

To determine how prekindergarten programs were designed, we reviewed 

program information and interviewed state officials, local education 

program officials, as well as numerous Head Start grantees and directors 

of large child care facilities, during site visits to four states (Georgia, New 

Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma). These states were selected, in part, 

because they were among a small subset of states that had expanded their 

prekindergarten programs and aimed to serve all four-year-olds whose 

parents wanted them to attend, regardless of family income. We also 

considered states that had well-established prekindergarten programs. 

Because New Jersey had two major preschool programs, including the 

court-ordered Abbott program that was implemented in New Jersey’s 30 

highest-poverty school districts, we report on a total of five 

prekindergarten programs in four states. 

To identify potential implications of the design of state prekindergarten 

programs, we interviewed (1) state and local education agency officials; 

(2) providers of prekindergarten services at community-based 

organizations; and (3) federal, state, and local Head Start program staff. 

We also reviewed selected data on child care availability in these states 

and the nation. We assessed the data for reliability and reasonableness and 

found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To 

determine what outcome data have been collected on participating 

children and families, we interviewed state and local education agency 

officials in each of the four states we visited, contacted researchers, and 

reviewed two studies—a study of a school district in Oklahoma and one 

statewide study in Georgia. We assessed the methodologies used in these 

studies and determined that the methodologies were of sufficient quality 

for use in discussion of most study findings, and we limited our discussion 

to these findings. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope 

and methodology.) We conducted our work between October 2003 and 
Page 3 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

The four states we visited had developed expanded prekindergarten 

programs that varied in design features and funding. The four states’ 

program features were similar in that each offered services at no direct 

costs to parents and emphasized preparing children for school and 

preventing failure in early grades. They also afforded the option of 

collaboration with community-based providers. We found significant 

differences in other aspects of the programs, such as geographic coverage, 

requirements for teachers, and extent of reliance on community-based 

providers of early childhood education. For example, Georgia had a 

statewide program that was implemented in all of its school districts, 

while New Jersey targeted its two prekindergarten programs in highpoverty areas—covering about 24 percent of its school districts. Teacher 

qualifications also varied among the four states. Requirements for lead 

teachers ranged from an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s degree with 

certification in early childhood education. In providing their 

prekindergarten programs, states and school districts also differed in the 

degree and type of collaborations they established with community-based 

providers such as Head Start and private child care centers. In terms of 

funding, the four states relied primarily on state resources but differed in 

funding methods and amounts per child. For example, New York financed 

its program using general revenues, while Georgia relied on proceeds from 

a state lottery. With regard to funding levels, New Jersey had the highest 

funding per child for its Abbott prekindergarten—over $9,500 compared 

with less than $4,200 for each of the other programs during the 2002-03 

school year. All four states generally used relatively small amounts of 

federal funds, such as those from Title I or the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, to support their prekindergarten programs. 

Some design features of state prekindergarten programs had potential 

implications for children and early childhood programs in the four states 

we visited. For example, both local officials and providers told us that the 

lack of transportation and half-day programs may have affected 

participation in prekindergarten programs for children of low-income and 

working families. None of the four states we visited required 

prekindergarten providers to transport all participating children. 

Regarding the implications of state prekindergarten programs for other 

early childhood program providers, three of the five programs served most 

prekindergarten children through community-based organizations such as 

Head Start and child care centers. State and local officials and communitybased providers told us that collaborations were beneficial to their 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

programs, but they also identified some challenges. In terms of benefits, 

some states used collaborations to quickly expand their prekindergarten 

programs by using existing age-appropriate facilities. In addition, 

collaborations increased access to school district resources for some 

community-based organizations. Some Head Start grantees received state 

funds to provide prekindergarten services, while other grantees told us 

they had begun serving more three-year-olds to offset the loss of four-yearolds who participated in state prekindergarten programs elsewhere, which 

potentially increased the number of poor children with 2 years of 

preschool education. At the same time, challenges remained for some 

states and school districts—including the lack of expertise in arranging 

formal contracts and maintaining effective collaborations with 

community-based providers. Little empirical data were available to 

determine the degree to which these broad-based state prekindergarten 

programs affected the availability of and prices for child care, and the 

anecdotal evidence we collected was mixed. 

Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, but 

little is known about outcomes for their families. In the school districts we 

visited, we found that assessments of children’s development were 

incorporated in the curriculum and used to provide information to parents. 

We also found two studies that provided information about the 

educational outcomes of state prekindergarten programs in Oklahoma and 

Georgia. A study conducted by Georgetown University collected data on 

prekindergarten children in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, school district and found 

that children who participated in the Tulsa program had significantly 

higher scores on several school readiness measures than similar children 

in the comparison group, who did not participate in the Tulsa 

prekindergarten program. A second study, conducted by Georgia State 

University on Georgia’s prekindergarten program, reported that children 

who participated in the state program made significant gains on several 

school readiness measures, including language and problem solving, as did 

children in Head Start and those enrolled in private prekindergarten 

programs. None of the four states we visited reported collecting 

information regarding the impact of their programs on families with 

respect to issues such as workforce participation. 

The growth in state prekindergarten programs has occurred for various 

reasons, but three frequently cited reasons are (1) evidence of the 

importance of early childhood to later development, (2) the high rate of 

labor force participation by mothers of young children, and (3) increased 

concern over school readiness and subsequent achievement. Much has 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

been discovered about children’s ability to learn more at an earlier age 

than previously believed. The early childhood years are commonly 

portrayed as formative. Between the first day of life and the first day of 

kindergarten, development proceeds at a pace exceeding that of any 

subsequent stage of life. Children from birth to age five engage in making 

sense of the world on many levels: language, human interactions, counting 

and quantification, spatial reasoning, physical causality, problem solving, 

and categorization.1

Since the 1960s, the percentage of women in the labor force has increased 

dramatically. In 1960, about 36 percent of women participated in the labor 

force, and by 2000 this figure had increased to 58 percent. Moreover, in 

2003, about 69 percent of women with children aged three to five (but 

none younger) were in the labor force. This high rate of participation of 

women in the labor force has resulted in more children enrolled in 

preschool programs of varying quality and pressure being placed on 

schools to provide before- and after-school programs. 

To improve educational achievement for all children and reduce failure in 

lower grades, many states and school districts are placing a greater 

emphasis on the school readiness of younger children. For nearly a quarter 

century, many states have developed or expanded their investment in 

prekindergarten programs to increase the likelihood of children’s success 

in school. Prior to 1970 only 7 states funded preschool programs, and by 

1988, 28 states had programs and total spending was $190 million;2

 such 

programs generally targeted economically and educationally 

disadvantaged children. While most state-sponsored prekindergarten 

programs continue to serve such children, a few states are in the process 

of expanding their programs to include all four-year-olds, regardless of 

family income. According to the National Institute for Early Education 

Research (NIEER), 40 states (and Washington, D.C.) had some form of 

state-sponsored prekindergarten program in the 2001-02 school year and 

 1

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2000. From Neurons to 

Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, Committee on Integrating 

the Science of Early Childhood Development. Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, 

eds. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

2

Mitchell, Anne W. 2001. “Education for All Young Children: The Role of States and the 

Federal Government in Promoting Prekindergarten and Kindergarten.” Working paper 

series, Early Childhood Policy Research. The Foundation for Child Development. New 

York, New York. 
Page 6 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

enrolled over 700,000 children, mostly four-year-olds.3 While states spent 

more than $2.4 billion for prekindergarten during the 2001-02 school year, 

10 states accounted for over 80 percent of this amount. 

Generally, prekindergarten programs aimed to serve four-year-olds, but 

according to NIEER estimates, most states served less than one-fifth of all 

their four-year-olds (see fig. 1). NIEER estimated that about 80 percent of 

children served by state prekindergarten programs were four-year-olds.4

During the 2001-02 school year, only two states (Georgia and Oklahoma) 

enrolled more than 50 percent of their four-year-olds in a state-sponsored 

prekindergarten program. Ten states (Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, 

Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming) had not initiated prekindergarten programs. 

 3

NIEER, a unit of Rutgers University, supports early childhood education policy through 

research. In the recent NIEER report The State of Preschool: 2003 State Preschool 

Yearbook, enrollment and spending data were based on 38 states providing information. 

4

NIEER estimated enrollment by age categories when states did not provide data separately 

for three- and four-year-olds. 
Page 7 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Figure 1: Enrollment of Four-Year-Olds in State-Sponsored Prekindergarten Programs 

Note: NIEER estimated enrollments by age categories when states did not provide data separately for 

three- and four-year-olds. NIEER did not report enrollments of state prekindergarten programs in 

Florida, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. 

No program

1-19 percent

20-49 percent

Over 50 percent

Not applicable

Source: NIEER, The State of Preschool, 2003 State Preschool Yearbook. 

Alaska

Hawaii

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Vt.

Maine

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

W.Va.

Minn.

Fla.
Page 8 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

The NIEER study also reported on characteristics describing the quality of 

states’ prekindergarten programs. Table 1 provides information on 

NIEER’s findings related to certain program characteristics, benchmarks, 

and the number of state programs meeting the benchmarks that NIEER 

associated with quality prekindergarten programs. 

Table 1: State Prekindergarten Program Characteristics, Benchmarks, and Number of State Programs Meeting the 

Benchmarks 

Program characteristicsa

 Benchmarksa

Number of 

state programsb

Class size 20 children or fewer 32

Family support services At least one family support service including parent conferences or adult 

education, referral to social services for families, or information relating 

to nutrition. 32

Staff-child ratio 1:10 or better 31

Teacher qualifications Bachelor’s degree for lead teachers 22

Comprehensive curriculum standards Developed specifically for prekindergarten and cover the domains of 

language/literacy, mathematics, science, social/emotional skills, 

cognitive development, health and physical development, and social 

studies. 12

Source: NIEER, The State of Preschool, 2003 State Preschool Yearbook.

a NIEER identified 10 program characteristics and developed benchmarks for each of the 

characteristics. The other program characteristics were teacher specialized training requirements, 

assistant teacher degree requirements, teacher in-service requirements, screening/referral 

requirements, and meal requirements. 

b Based on NIEER’s summary of quality standards for a total of 44 programs, including some states 

with more than one prekindergarten program, and Washington, D.C. 

Among the 10 largest state prekindergarten programs, most met the 

benchmarks for class size, family support services, staff-child ratio, and 

teacher qualifications, and they were equally divided with respect to 

comprehensive curriculum standards. 

State-sponsored prekindergarten programs are expanding alongside 

existing programs for young children, including Head Start, Title I, and 

private child care programs. Head Start is a targeted program that mostly 

serves children from low-income families.5

 Head Start, administered at the 

 5

Created in 1965, Head Start is the largest federal program that supports early childhood 

education and was designed to help break the cycle of poverty by providing comprehensive 

educational, social, health, nutritional, and psychological services to low-income children. 
Page 9 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is 

implemented in local communities through grantees. These grantees 

include community action agencies, school systems, for-profit and 

nonprofit organizations, other government agencies, and tribal 

governments or associations. The Department of Health and Human 

Services reported that Head Start served just over 900,000 children 

nationwide during the 2003 fiscal year, and most were aged three and four; 

Head Start was funded at about $6.7 billion, or about $7,366 per child. 

In addition to administering Head Start, the federal government also 

provides some limited support for early education programs through Title 

I. Administered by the Department of Education (Education), Title I is the 

single largest federal investment for elementary and secondary education.6

Its primary purpose is to help local education agencies and schools 

improve the teaching and learning of children who are failing, or are most 

at risk of failing, to meet challenging academic standards. In support of 

that goal, Education reported that Title I was funded at about $11.7 billion 

during the 2003 fiscal year. Nearly 15 million students were supported by 

Title I funds, and of these, about 2 percent (an estimated 313,000) were 

enrolled in prekindergarten programs during the 1999-2000 school year.7

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the principal federal 

program that supports child care for low-income families. CCDF is 

administered by HHS, and each state receives an annual allocation that is 

used to subsidize the child care expenses of low-income families with 

children generally under age 13. CCDF subsidies can be used to obtain 

child care from various types of providers, including child care centers 

 6

Education also funds two other smaller early childhood education-related initiatives. The 

Even Start program was designed to improve family literacy and educational opportunities. 

The program is generally targeted to parents who are not enrolled in school and their 

children through age seven, who lack a high school diploma or its equivalent; the basic 

skills necessary to function in society; or are unable to speak, read, or write English. In 

program year 2000, Even Start served about 31,600 families and 41,600 children; in 2002, 

Even Start was funded at $250 million. Early Reading First is a competitive grant program 

to support local efforts to enhance the early language, literacy, and prereading 

development of preschool age children, particularly those from low-income families, 

through strategies and professional development that are based on scientifically based 

reading research. In fiscal year 2003, nearly $75 million was awarded to 30 grantees. 

7

GAO, Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging Effect on School 

Readiness Difficult, GAO/HEHS-00-171 (Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2000) provides 

the most recent survey data available we identified. 
Page 10 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

and family homes.8 In fiscal year 2002, CCDF was appropriated nearly $5 

billion, and HHS reported that about 1.8 million children received 

subsidies in an average month. As a condition of receiving CCDF funds, 

states must conduct biennial surveys of child care providers, which are 

considered by states when establishing reimbursement rates for providers 

serving subsidized children. In addition to information regarding the fees 

charged by providers for child care services, such surveys may provide 

states with information about the type of child care they provide, 

qualifications of the staff, the age groups of the children they serve, and 

where they are located. 

The four states we visited varied in the design features and funding of their 

prekindergarten programs. Programs shared similar features such as 

voluntary enrollment of children at no direct cost to their parents, but 

differed in others. In addition, all five state programs permitted 

collaboration with community-based providers. States varied in features 

such as the teacher requirements for their prekindergarten programs. 

States and school districts also differed in the degree and type of 

collaborations they established with community-based agencies. Finally, 

while states relied primarily on state resources, they reported some 

differences in funding mechanisms and per child funding levels. 

In the four states visited—Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and 

Oklahoma—we found some similarities in prekindergarten programs.9

Over the last few years, all four states had expanded their state-sponsored 

prekindergarten programs and, as reported by NIEER in February 2004, 

were among only nine states and Washington, D.C., that provided 

prekindergarten services to more than 20 percent of their four-year-olds. 

All four states’ prekindergarten programs were provided at no direct cost 

to parents—regardless of family income—and were offered on a voluntary 

basis; children’s enrollment was not mandatory. In addition, each program 

emphasized preparation for school and incorporated the delivery of 

 8

Child care centers typically provide for 12 or more children in a nonresidential facility; 

family homes generally provide child care for a small group of children in a provider’s 

home. 

9

New York has two prekindergarten programs: the targeted prekindergarten (TPK) and the 

universal prekindergarten (UPK). During the 2002-03 school year, the TPK program served 

about 5 percent of the state’s four-year-olds. This report focuses only on the state’s UPK 

initiative that served about 23 percent of the state’s four-year-olds. 

Four Selected States 

Varied In the Design 

and Funding of their 

Expanded 

Prekindergarten 

Programs 

Selected States Designed 

Expanded Prekindergarten 

Programs to Enroll 

Children Voluntarily at No 

Direct Cost to Parents, but 

Differed in Geographic 

Breadth and Other Key 

Features 
Page 11 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

prekindergarten services by community-based organizations as well as 

schools. None of the states required that all providers offer transportation 

services, although some providers did, and one state offered 

reimbursement for some children when this occurred.10 Figure 2 shows the 

estimated number of age-eligible children in the state, and the number of 

age-eligible children participating in prekindergarten and Head Start 

programs in the four states we visited.11

 10As a result of a state supreme court decision, the Abbott school districts were required to 

provide transportation to children, if needed. 

11The numbers of children who participated in state-sponsored prekindergarten and Head 

Start are not mutually exclusive, that is, an unknown number of children participated in 

both programs. Participation data for Head Start refer to funded enrollment levels. 
Page 12 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Age-Eligible Children, Prekindergarten Enrollments, 

and Head Start Enrollments in the Four States 

Note: With the exception of New Jersey, this analysis is based on four-year-olds. In New Jersey, 

three- and four-year-olds were eligible in some districts. Also, New York’s prekindergarten program 

enrollment does not include children participating in the targeted prekindergarten program. 

The states we visited differed in the extent of geographic coverage and 

participation in prekindergarten programs. Three of the four states—

Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma—aimed to provide prekindergarten 

programs to all four-year-olds in the state whose parents wanted them to 

attend. While none of these states provided prekindergarten to all fouryear-olds, Oklahoma and Georgia had the most widespread programs. 

During the 2003-04 school year, Oklahoma provided prekindergarten in 

509 of its 541 school districts to about 63 percent of its four-year-olds; 

Georgia provided prekindergarten in all of its 181 school districts and to 

about 55 percent of its four-year-olds. New York initially implemented 

much of its universal prekindergarten program in school districts located 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Head Start enrollments (2003 fiscal year)

Approximate number of pre-kindergarten enrollments (2002-03 school year)

Estimated number of age-eligible children (2003-04 school year)

Georgia New Jersey New York Oklahoma

Sources: Estimates on numbers of age-eligible children statewide and prekindergarten enrollments obtained from the Georgia

Department of Early Care and Learning, the state Departments of Education in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma; Head Start

data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau, Washington, D.C., and refer to funded enrollment;

actual enrollment may differ.

States

122,861

10,698

65,900

230,650

43,700

13,340

250,000

58,300

26,390

47,533

28,060

7,190

Number of age-eligible children
Page 13 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

in the five largest cities in the state—Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, 

Syracuse, and Yonkers. During the 2003-04 school year, about 80 percent 

of the participating children attended prekindergarten in one of these five 

cities. Overall, New York’s prekindergarten program was offered in 190 of 

its 680 school districts. In New Jersey’s Abbott program, the state was 

court ordered to provide prekindergarten to all three- and four-year-olds 

who resided in the state’s 30 highest-poverty school districts. In addition, 

102 non-Abbott early childhood program aid (ECPA) school districts in 

high-poverty areas received funds for prekindergarten programs. 

Combined, these two programs provided prekindergarten in 132 of 539 (24 

percent) school districts in New Jersey. Table 2 provides information on 

the extent of geographic coverage and percentage of age-eligible children 

participating in prekindergarten programs in the four states we visited. 

Table 2: Number of School Districts Statewide, Number of School Districts with 

State Prekindergarten Programs, and Percentage of Age-Eligible Children 

Participating in Five State Prekindergarten Programs during the 2003-04 School 

Year 

State 

Number of 

school districts 

statewide

Number of school 

districts with state 

prekindergarten 

programs 

Percentage of ageeligible children 

participating in 

prekindergartena

Georgia 181 181 55

New Jersey 

(Abbott districts) 539 30 73

New Jersey 

(non-Abbott ECPA) 539 102 57

New Yorkb 680 190 28

Oklahoma 541 509 63

Source: Information was obtained from the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning and the state departments of education in 

New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. 

a

Percentage of age-eligible children participating in prekindergarten was calculated by dividing the 

number of children in prekindergarten by the number of children residing in eligible school districts. In 

Georgia and Oklahoma, all school districts were eligible for the state prekindergarten program. In 

New York, 224 of the state’s 680 school districts were eligible for UPK funds. In New Jersey, 30 

school districts were eligible for the Abbott program. In addition, 102 non-Abbott high-poverty school 

districts in New Jersey were eligible for non-Abbott ECPA prekindergarten programs. 

b

This table does not include four-year-olds served in New York’s targeted prekindergarten program, 

which served about 5 percent of the state’s four-year-olds. 
Page 14 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

The state-sponsored prekindergarten programs also differed in some of 

their key design features. For example, the length of the program, in terms 

of hours per day, ranged from 2.5 hours to 6.5 hours per day among the 

four states. Full-day prekindergarten was provided in Georgia and New 

Jersey’s Abbott prekindergarten programs.12 The other three 

prekindergarten programs—New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA, New York, 

and Oklahoma—allowed school districts to determine whether to offer 

full-day or half-day programs. 

The states also varied in their requirements for lead teachers, and two of 

the five state programs (New Jersey’s Abbott and Oklahoma) required 

teachers to be certified in early childhood education.13 In New Jersey’s 

non-Abbott ECPA program, prekindergarten teachers could also hold 

certification in elementary education. Beginning with the 2004-05 school 

year, New York’s state program required that all prekindergarten teachers 

be certified, but certification could be in an area other than early 

childhood education. In Georgia, lead teachers were required to hold at 

least a technical diploma or degree, associate’s degree, or Montessori 

diploma. However, most lead teachers had at least a four-year-college 

degree. As of May 2004, the Georgia Department of Early Care and 

Learning reported that about 58 percent of its prekindergarten teachers 

were certified in early childhood or elementary education and 21 percent 

 12The Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning also offered a resource coordination 

grant program that was available to eligible prekindergarten providers on a competitive 

basis so that they could provide supportive services to children and their families in 

addition to educational services. The key focus of the resource coordinator was to involve 

parents in their child’s educational development process by, among other things, helping 

parents obtain needed health services for their child and attending informational and child 

development seminars. Resource coordinators may also help parents obtain community 

resources such as information regarding the General Educational Development (GED) test, 

employment counseling, and access to literacy classes. These grants were made available 

to grantees to provide services to at-risk (category one) children and families. Category one 

is defined as those children who participated in one of the following programs: food 

stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), PeachCare for Kids, as well as those that were eligible for free and 

reduced-price lunch. For the 2003-04 school year, over $18 million in resource coordination 

grants was awarded, as of January 8, 2004. 

13Certification in New Jersey’s Abbott program, for example, requires that teachers possess 

a preschool through grade 3 (P-3) endorsement. To qualify for a P-3 endorsement, 

candidates must possess, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree, a 2.5 grade point average, 

pass a state test when identified, and complete a state-approved preparation program at 

one of the state’s colleges or universities. As of June 2004, New Jersey officials estimated 

that about 93 percent of the teachers in the Abbott school districts have met the 

certification requirement. 
Page 15 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

held four-year education-related or other degrees with some additional 

training in early childhood education or development. Combined, about 79 

percent of the lead teachers in Georgia had at least a four-year educationrelated college degree.14

States and school districts established collaborations with communitybased organizations differently and often relied on them extensively to 

provide prekindergarten services to children. For example, Georgia had a 

centralized program and the state’s Department of Early Care and 

Learning was directly responsible for establishing collaborations with 

community-based organizations such as child care centers and U.S. 

military bases. In contrast, in the other three states we visited, local school 

districts had responsibility for establishing collaborations. In New York, 

the state required that school districts use at least 10 percent of their 

universal prekindergarten grant funds to serve children in communitybased organizations, but statewide over 60 percent of four-year-olds were 

participating in community-based prekindergarten programs during the 

2002-03 school year. The extent of collaborations varied between the two 

prekindergarten programs in New Jersey during the 2003-04 school year. 

In the Abbott school districts, the state was ordered by the New Jersey 

Supreme Court to provide full-day prekindergarten for all three- and fouryear-olds; over 70 percent of these children were served by communitybased providers.15 In contrast, in New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA school 

districts, only about 11 percent of the children received prekindergarten 

from community-based providers. While state officials in Oklahoma were 

supportive of collaborations, local school district officials determined the 

role of community-based providers in their prekindergarten programs. In 

Oklahoma, most children were enrolled in prekindergarten programs in 

 14Of the remaining lead teachers in Georgia, about 21 percent held technical or other 

degrees. 

15In May 1998 the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that children aged three and four 

living in the 30 highest-poverty school districts in the state receive a high-quality preschool 

education. The New Jersey Department of Education funds a 6-hour, 180-day 

prekindergarten program, and the New Jersey Department of Human Services funds a 

wraparound program that provides daily before- and after-care and a summer program. In 

total, the full-day, full-year program is available to eligible children for 10 hours per day, 

245 days per year. The New Jersey Department of Education reported that during the 2002-

03 school year, the Abbott program enrolled nearly 36,500 children at a cost of about $347 

million for prekindergarten. An official of the New Jersey Department of Human Services 

also reported that about $103 million was spent for the wraparound services during the 

2003 fiscal year. In addition, school districts can opt to have a 3-hour-per-day program for 

20 days over the summer break. This program would also be funded by the state 

Department of Education. 
Page 16 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

public school buildings; the state did not know how many local school 

districts collaborated with community-based organizations or the number 

of children participating in them. These and other key differences in the 

design and implementation of state prekindergarten programs are 

identified in table 3. 

Table 3: Variation in Selected Features of Five State Prekindergarten Programs 

Program feature Georgia 

New Jersey 

(Abbott) 

New Jersey 

(non-Abbott ECPA) New York Oklahoma 

Role of school 

districts and 

community-based 

organizations (CBOs) 

School districts and 

CBOs enter into 

contract with the 

Georgia Department 

of Early Care and 

Learning to provide 

prekindergarten 

School districts must 

provide 

prekindergarten and 

contract with CBOs 

wherever feasible 

using a state model 

contract 

School districts 

must provide some 

level of 

prekindergarten 

services and have 

option of 

establishing 

contracts with CBOs

Participating school 

districts must use 

10% of UPK grant 

funds to serve 

children in CBOs 

Participating school 

districts have option 

to contract with 

CBOs 

Maximum class size 20 15 No required 

maximum 

20 20 

Hours per day 6.5 hours 6 hours Minimum of 2.75 

hours or 6 hours at 

school district option

Minimum of 2.5 

hours or 5 hours at 

school district option 

Minimum of 2.5 

hours or 6 hours at 

school district option

Percentage of 

children in half-day 

programs 

0 0 88 83 56 

Curriculum Sites used stateapproved curricula Determined locally Determined locally Determined locally Determined locally 

based on state 

guidelines 

Content standards Statewide standards Statewide standards Statewide standards Statewide standards Determined locally 

based on state 

guidelines 

Lead teacher 

qualifications 

Early childhoodrelated certification 

or credentiala

 

Certification in early 

childhood educationb

Certification in early 

childhood or 

elementary 

educationc

Teacher 

certificationd

Certification in early 

childhood educatione

Estimate for 

percentage of 

prekindergarten 

children served in 

CBOs 

57 percent 71 percent 11 percent 63 percent Largely schoolbased; percentage 

in CBOs unknown 

Source: Information on program features was obtained from the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning and the state 

departments of education in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. 

a

Georgia provides a variety of ways to meet the certification or credentialing requirements, such as 

certification in early childhood or elementary education; four-year-college degree in certain education 

fields or four-year degree in psychology or social work with additional studies in early childhood 

education or care; a technical institute diploma/degree in early childhood education or care; associate 

degree in early childhood education; or a Montessori diploma. 
Page 17 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

b

By September 2004, a bachelor’s degree plus a state-approved preparation program. 

c

Bachelor’s degree plus certification in early childhood or elementary education. 

d

Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, a bachelor’s degree plus must pass two state teacher 

examinations (liberal arts and sciences test and assessment of teaching skills). 

e Bachelor’s degree plus must pass general education, professional teaching, and early childhood 

tests. 

All four states relied primarily on state resources but differed in other 

aspects of funding such as amounts per child, funding methods, and the 

extent to which these methods and amounts provided for financially stable 

programs. During the 2002-03 school year, enrollments and state spending 

for prekindergarten services varied widely among the five state programs. 

Based on data we collected from the states, spending ranged from 

approximately $347 million for prekindergarten services in the 30 Abbott 

school districts in New Jersey to about $30 million for the 102 non-Abbott 

ECPA school districts in New Jersey. Table 4 provides information on the 

primary methods of program funding, estimated number of participating 

children, and estimated state spending among the five programs during the 

2002-03 school year. 

Table 4: Primary Method of Program Funding, Estimated Number of Children 

Participating, and Estimated State Spending for Prekindergarten Programs during 

the 2002-03 School Year 

State programs 

Primary method of 

program funding 

Estimated 

number of 

children 

participating 

Estimated state 

spending for 

prekindergarten 

programs (dollars in 

millions)

New Jersey – 

Abbott 

General revenues: 

school funding 

formulaa

 36,500 $347

Georgia Lottery proceeds 65,900 $252 

New York General revenues: 

annual appropriation 58,300 $195.4

Oklahoma General revenues: 

school funding 

formula 28,060 $66.4

New Jersey–nonAbbott ECPA General revenues: 

school funding 

formula 7,200 $30

Source: Information was obtained from the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning and the state departments of education in 

New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. 

a

In addition to receiving formula-driven funding, Abbott school districts also receive preschool 

expansion aid. This aid is derived from the state’s general revenues and is provided to the Abbott 

districts to support the required full-day program for three- and four-year-olds. 

State Funding Structure, 

Levels, and Stability 

Varied, and States Used 

Little Federal Funding 
Page 18 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Per child expenditures for full-day and half-day prekindergarten varied 

across the four states we visited and were consistently less than the state’s 

per pupil expenditures for kindergarten through grade 12. New Jersey’s 

Abbott districts had the highest funding per child for full-day 

prekindergarten, relative to kindergarten through grade 12 funding.16 In the 

remaining states, funding for full-day prekindergarten was much less than 

the level of funding per child in kindergarten through grade 12. See figure 

3 for comparisons of per child expenditures for prekindergarten and 

kindergarten through grade 12 in the four states we visited. 

 16While New Jersey’s Abbott prekindergarten program per child funding was more than 

double the other state programs, certain aspects of the program contributed to the 

increased costs. For example, one feature (maximum class size) increased program cost by 

roughly 25 percent by limiting enrollment to 15 children. The New Jersey Department of 

Education also initiated a number of activities to improve program quality. For example, 

during the 2002-03 school year, the state provided a year-long training program for 105 

master teachers who, in turn, mentored and coached over 4,000 classroom teachers and 

assistant teachers in the Abbott school districts. The New Jersey Department of Education 

also recommended that the Abbott school districts employ one family worker for every 45 

students. Family workers are to meet regularly with teachers and families to identify 

specific concerns or needs, assist in locating resources in the community, and support 

families in utilizing these resources. 
Page 19 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Figure 3: State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs and Kindergarten 

through Grade 12 

Note: State per child funding for prekindergarten programs was for the 2002-03 school year, and 

kindergarten through grade 12 expenditures were for the 2000-01 school year. 

Apart from New Jersey’s Abbott and Georgia’s prekindergarten programs, 

the other state programs we examined were largely half-day. New Jersey’s 

non-Abbott ECPA program, New York, and Oklahoma permitted local 

school districts to operate half-day prekindergarten. However, these states 

differed in how they funded their half- and full-day programs. School 

districts in New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA program and New York 

received the same amount per child whether they operated half-day or fullday programs, and about 80 percent of the children attended half-day 

prekindergarten in each of the two programs. In Oklahoma, local school 

districts received about $1,743 per child (54 percent of the full-day rate), 

and over half of the four-year-olds participating in the state’s 

prekindergarten program were enrolled in half-day programs during the 

2002-03 school year. 

Full or half day

Full day

K - 12

New Jersey

 

Full or half day

K - 12

New York

 

Full day

K - 12

Georgia

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Half day

Full day

K - 12

Oklahoma

$11,248

$4,167

$9,507

$10,716

$3,352

$6,929

$3,824

$6,019

$3,238

$1,743

Kindergarten through grade 12

Full-day prekindergarten

Mixture of full- and half-day

Half-day prekindergarten

Dollars

Sources: Data on per child funding for kindergarten through grade 12 were obtained from the U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics; data on per child funding for state prekindergarten programs were obtained from the Georgia

Department of Early Care and Learning, and the state departments of education in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.
Page 20 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

The four states varied in how they funded their state-sponsored 

prekindergarten programs, and officials in two states told us that the 

financial outlook of their programs was stable. According to two 

New Jersey state officials, because of the state supreme court decision and 

subsequent court order, New Jersey was committed to providing a quality 

prekindergarten program to all three- and four-year-olds who lived in the 

Abbott school districts. In addition, funding for both New Jersey’s Abbott 

and non-Abbott ECPA prekindergarten programs was part of the school 

funding formula. Oklahoma supported prekindergarten through the 

funding formula, as it did for other school grades, and state officials told 

us they believed that funding for the program was stable. 

However, funding for prekindergarten in the other two states may be more 

uncertain. For example, funding levels for New York’s state-sponsored 

prekindergarten had increased somewhat for the past 3 years but were 

insufficient to allow the state to implement a universal prekindergarten 

program available to all four-year-olds by the 2001-02 school year as 

planned. During the same period, New York financed its program from 

general revenue funds as a line item in the budget, and in 2003, the 

program was targeted for elimination because of state fiscal shortfalls. 

While avoiding elimination, limited increases in funding have restricted the 

state’s ability to expand the program over the past several years. Most 

eligible districts participated in the program. However, about two-thirds of 

the school districts were not eligible for the state-sponsored 

prekindergarten program during the 2002-03 school year. 

Georgia has historically relied on the state lottery to fund its 

prekindergarten program. When the lottery was initially created, its 

proceeds were set aside for three programs, including state-sponsored 

prekindergarten. Currently, lottery funds are used to support 

prekindergarten and a program to provide academic scholarships for 

eligible high school graduates. However, over time, a greater percentage of 

the lottery funds has been designated for the college scholarship program 

than for prekindergarten. Additionally, lotteries recently began in two 

neighboring states, and officials we interviewed were concerned that 

Georgia’s lottery proceeds may level off. State officials told us that lottery 

funds may be insufficient to entirely support the prekindergarten program 

by 2007, and the state has begun to look at stop gap measures to protect 

lottery funding if needed in the future. 

The four states reported using small amounts of federal funds to support 

their prekindergarten programs; these amounts were generally small 

relative to state funding levels. For example, two states—Georgia and 
Page 21 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Oklahoma—used some prekindergarten monies to meet their CCDF 

matching or maintenance-of-effort requirements.17 In fiscal year 2002, 

Georgia used about $2.4 million in lottery funds for CCDF state matching 

and maintenance-of-effort, which represented about 1 percent of the state 

funding for prekindergarten. These funds were used for extended day 

(before- and after-school) for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) eligible children participating in prekindergarten. Oklahoma used 

about $2.1 million of its prekindergarten funds to meet CCDF 

maintenance-of-effort requirements, which represented about 3 percent of 

the state funding for prekindergarten. In fiscal year 2002, New York 

transferred $61.3 million from the TANF program to the state 

prekindergarten program, but this was done for only one year.18 None of 

the other states used TANF funds to support the expansion of their 

prekindergarten programs. While state officials told us that Title I, 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Head Start program funds 

were also used at the local level to support prekindergarten, they did not 

know the exact amounts from these other federal sources. 

 17States receive CCDF funds from potentially four funding streams. Each state’s annual 

federal allocation consists of separate discretionary, mandatory, and matching funds. A 

state does not have to obligate or spend any state funds to receive the discretionary and 

mandatory funds. However, to receive federal matching funds—and thus its full CCDF 

allocation—a state must maintain its program spending at a specified level, referred to as a 

state’s maintenance of effort, and spend additional state funds above that level. 

18TANF, a block grant to states, provides temporary assistance to needy families. In 

general, able-bodied TANF recipients, who receive cash assistance, must participate in 

work or work-related activities after receiving assistance for a maximum of 24 months, and 

there is a 5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance. Beyond work, work-related activities 

include education and training; job search; and participation in community service. States 

may also use a portion of TANF funds for child care services. 
Page 22 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Some prekindergarten design features had implications for children’s 

participation and early childhood programs in the four states we visited. 

For example, both local officials and providers told us that transportation 

and program hours may have affected access to prekindergarten programs 

for children of low-income and working families. State and local officials, 

along with community-based providers and Head Start grantees, told us 

that collaborations were beneficial to their programs and had allowed 

rapid expansion of state prekindergarten. However, some challenges 

remained, such as the efforts needed to establish and maintain effective 

collaborations. Finally, few empirical data were available to quantify the 

effect of expanding state prekindergarten programs on the availability and 

prices for child care, and the anecdotal evidence we collected was mixed. 

Program features, which varied across states and school districts, may 

have affected participation, particularly for children of low-income and 

working families. None of the four states required prekindergarten 

providers to transport all participating children. Officials in some school 

districts told us that the lack of transportation may have decreased the 

participation of children from low-income and working families, and 10 of 

the 12 school districts we visited did not provide transportation to and 

from prekindergarten for all participating children. Some school district 

officials primarily cited insufficient funding as a reason for not providing 

transportation services. For example, in one Oklahoma school district, 

children did not necessarily attend prekindergarten classes at their 

neighborhood school; consequently, the district would have incurred 

additional costs to transport children to their designated school. One 

official in a rural school district we visited in New York told us that more 

children from low-income and working families would have participated in 

prekindergarten if transportation were provided. However, costs 

prohibited the district from offering such services. However, officials in 

the urban school district we visited in New York did not view the lack of 

transportation as a barrier to participation, as the prekindergarten 

programs were generally available in proximity to children’s homes or 

parents’ jobs. In Georgia, the Department of Early Care and Learning 

offered additional funding to providers who opted to transport eligible 

children to and from the prekindergarten program.19 In May 2004, the 

Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning paid for the 

 19Transportation reimbursements were available for category one children. 

Some Program 

Features Had 

Potential Implications 

for Children’s 

Participation and 

Other Early 

Childhood Programs 

Transportation and 

Program Hours May Have 

Implications for 

Participation 
Page 23 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

transportation of 13,152 children. In New Jersey, the Abbott school 

districts were required to provide transportation when needed. 

In Oklahoma, where the majority of the participating children attended 

half-day prekindergarten programs, school district officials told us that the 

length of the school day affected participation. In all three school districts 

we visited, local officials told us that shortened program hours may have 

hindered the participation of children of low-income and working families. 

Officials from one Oklahoma school district told us that the combination 

of a half-day program coupled with the lack of transportation to and from 

the prekindergarten program reduced the participation of children from 

low-income and working families. In that district, approximately 45 

percent of the district’s elementary school population was eligible for free 

and reduced price lunch during the 2003-04 school year, but only 29 

percent of the children enrolled in prekindergarten were eligible for free 

and reduced price lunch, indicating lower participation of children from 

low-income families. Similarly, in another Oklahoma school district, while 

about 84 percent of the district’s student population was eligible for free 

and reduced price lunch, 60 percent of children who participated in 

prekindergarten were eligible for free and reduced price lunch. However, 

officials in two Oklahoma school districts told us that certain factors 

discouraged them from offering full-day programs; for example, they were 

able to serve twice as many children with half-day programs, rather than 

full-day programs, using the same resources (classrooms and teachers). 

Additionally, one of these officials told us that it would be difficult to 

implement full-day prekindergarten while the school district only offered a 

half-day kindergarten program. 

Finally, some school district officials told us that the location of the 

program could also affect the participation of children of working families. 

In particular, half-day programs without transportation could be more 

appealing to low-income and working families if they were offered in a 

child care center where the child could receive care for the duration of the 

work day. One urban school district we visited primarily offered half-day 

prekindergarten classes. However, the school district officials told us that 

the prekindergarten classes were sometimes offered in conjunction with 

other programs at the same location. A district official and child care 

providers in this school district told us that this arrangement met the 

needs of low-income and working families as children would receive a full 

day of care. Officials and child care providers in this school district told us 

that in order to offer a full day of care, some child care providers 

supplemented the state-sponsored prekindergarten program with other 
Page 24 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

monies, including Head Start funding, CCDF subsidies, and parent 

payments. 

Although state and local officials, as well as staff of community-based 

organizations, told us that collaborations were beneficial, some challenges 

remained. Officials in all four states we visited told us that such 

collaborations allowed them to serve more children, and three of the five 

programs served most prekindergarten children in community-based 

organizations such as Head Start and child care centers. In Georgia, New 

Jersey, and New York, officials reported that they made extensive use of 

collaborations because they wanted to implement the prekindergarten 

programs quickly and schools were often at capacity. In New Jersey, the 

state supreme court ordered the state to provide full-day kindergarten as 

well as full-day preschool for three- and four-year-olds in the 30 Abbott 

school districts. To implement the court order, the districts turned to 

community-based organizations to accommodate the influx of children. In 

New York, school districts were only required to use at least 10 percent of 

their universal prekindergarten grant funds to serve children in 

community-based organizations. Two school districts we visited in New 

York served the majority of participating children in community-based 

organizations (66 and 100 percent). However, in Oklahoma, where school 

districts had been experiencing declining enrollment, collaborations with 

community-based organizations were less prevalent, as districts were able 

to accommodate prekindergarten children in public schools. Officials from 

most of the school districts we visited that did use collaborations told us 

that the collaborations allowed them to take advantage of the existing 

early child care and education infrastructure, such as buildings, 

equipment, and assistant teachers to increase program capacity and 

reduce program costs. 

Child care providers who partnered with state prekindergarten programs 

generally had favorable experiences with collaborations as well. 

Specifically, providers mentioned increased enrollment, improved quality 

of programs, and increased access to school district resources as benefits 

of their partnerships. Some providers who collaborated with the state 

prekindergarten programs in Georgia, New Jersey, and New York told us 

that they expanded their centers to serve more children of all ages—as 

some parents enrolled the younger siblings of their prekindergarten 

children in the same child care center. In addition, child care providers in 

all four states told us that the overall quality of care had improved as a 

result of collaborating with the state prekindergarten program. Some 

providers attributed the improved quality to various factors, including a 

State and Local Officials 

and Community-Based 

Providers Said 

Collaborations Were 

Beneficial to Their 

Programs, but They Also 

Identified Some 

Challenges 
Page 25 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

greater focus on learning, the presence of credentialed teachers, and 

higher standards for the children. Finally, some child care providers who 

collaborated with state-sponsored prekindergarten programs told us that 

the partnership allowed them increased access to school district resources 

such as professional development and materials such as new computers 

for the classrooms. 

Head Start grantees also told us that collaborations were beneficial to 

their programs. For example, in Georgia and New York, some Head Start 

grantees who provided prekindergarten services stated they were better 

able to serve children by leveraging state prekindergarten and Head Start 

funds. These grantees told us they were able to expand program hours and 

enrich the learning environment while still providing Head Start’s services, 

including establishing family partnerships.20 In Georgia, Head Start 

grantees served 3,654 children, or just over 5 percent of the children 

enrolled in the program during the 2004 fiscal year. In New York, Head 

Start provided about 345 classrooms of prekindergarten—representing 

about 9 percent of the total number of prekindergarten classrooms. Two 

Head Start grantees told us that since the state prekindergarten program 

served four-year-olds they began serving more three-year-olds. As a result, 

children from low-income families could participate in 2 full years of 

preschool. 

While collaborations generally benefited early childhood programs, some 

challenges existed in establishing and maintaining partnerships between 

state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and community-based 

organizations. State and school district officials told us that establishing 

and maintaining collaborations took effort, required expertise, and 

involved increased monitoring and technical assistance, including 

financial guidance. For example, while one school district we visited had a 

staff person responsible for establishing and maintaining collaborations, 

another school district did not have such an expert and was unsure about 

how to develop partnerships or arrange the formal contracts needed to 

collaborate. 

 20The Head Start program performance standards on family partnerships provide minimum 

requirements for grantees in areas such as family goal setting; accessing community 

services and resources; parent involvement in child development and education; parent 

involvement in health, nutrition, and mental health education; and parent involvement in 

shared decision making and community advocacy. 
Page 26 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Child care providers also mentioned certain challenges such as insufficient 

or uncertain funding. For example, in New York and Georgia, where per 

child funding to community-based organizations had remained fairly level 

for at least the past 3 years, some child care providers told us that the per 

child funding was insufficient and they had to use other funding sources to 

support the collaboration. In addition, we found that challenges existed in 

establishing the collaborations with Head Start in all four states. In both 

Oklahoma and New York, there was no formal mechanism, such as a 

statewide contract to facilitate collaboration between school districts and 

Head Start grantees, and the two programs sometimes coexisted in the 

same community without the benefit of shared resources. Two of the three 

school districts we visited in Oklahoma did not collaborate with Head 

Start; the third served about 9 percent of its prekindergarten children 

through collaborations with Head Start grantees. Challenges in 

establishing collaborations with Head Start also remained in New Jersey.21

In 2003, New Jersey’s Department of Education and Department of Human 

Services developed plans for including Head Start grantees as partners in 

providing prekindergarten in the Abbott districts over the following 3 

years. However, many challenges remained to achieving this goal including 

agreement on appropriate per child funding levels, as well as challenges in 

aligning curricula and other coordination issues. 

While some community-based providers were initially apprehensive about 

the potential impact of the widespread availability of states’ 

prekindergarten programs on the market for child care, we found few data 

to support this concern. In the states we visited, neither state officials nor 

the child care provider community had data regarding the effects of 

expanded prekindergarten programs on the availability and prices of child 

care. The available data were limited to child care market rate surveys, 

which were conducted by states to obtain information needed to set 

reimbursement rates for child care, and data collected every 5 years by the 

Census of Service Industries on the number of tax filings by child day care 

 21In 2000, the New Jersey supreme court approved the use of community providers such as 

Head Start as part of the Abbott preschool program whenever practical. Abbott v. Burke, 

748 A.2d 82 (N.J. 2000). Two years later, the court discussed the problems encountered in 

coordinating the two programs, including differing teacher qualifications, differing program 

standards, and the costs associated with bringing Head Start up to state standards. The 

court concluded that “districts should utilize Head Start providers unless they are not able 

and willing to comply with Abbott preschool standards or unless the cost of doing so is 

demonstrably more expensive than other high-quality alternatives.” Abbott Ex. El. Abbott v. 

Burke, 790 A.2d 842 at 853 (N.J. 2002). 

Few Data Available to 

Determine the Impact of 

State Prekindergarten 

Programs on Availability 

and Prices of Child Care 
Page 27 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

providers. Market rate surveys provided relatively recent data on prices, 

but generally did not include sufficient data to isolate any effects of 

prekindergarten and were not always collected in a comparable or reliable 

form before and after prekindergarten expansion. In contrast, the state 

level data currently available from the Census of Service Industries were 

collected in a consistent fashion over time and across states, but were 

available only for the period through 1997, just 2 years after significant 

growth in the prekindergarten program in Georgia, the oldest expanded 

program of the five we studied.22 The data indicate that the number of 

small child care providers per 1,000 preschoolers in Georgia and the 

nation as a whole followed similar growth trends from 1987 to 1997, the 

years of available data. Further, in the same time period, the number of 

child care centers per 1,000 preschoolers and the number of employees 

paid by these centers increased in both Georgia and the nation (where 

prekindergarten services were generally less available than in Georgia). 

However, this does not prove that the expansion of prekindergarten 

programs had no effect on the number of child care providers. For 

example, perhaps the number of providers would have increased even 

more had prekindergarten programs not been expanded. 

The anecdotal evidence regarding the effects of prekindergarten programs 

on the market for child care was mixed. For example, representatives of 

the child care community mentioned some positive effects on the market 

for child care, including the increased availability and accessibility of highquality child care and early education for children from low-income 

families. However, some child care providers in Georgia, New Jersey, and 

Oklahoma told us that state programs had adverse effects on the business 

of child care, but they were unable to provide us with supporting 

documentation. According to child care providers, the care of three- and 

four-year-olds was less costly than the care of infants and toddlers, and the 

revenue generated from caring for the older children subsidized the care 

of younger children and made up a significant portion of their revenues. 

Child care providers also said that the enrollment of four-year-olds in state 

prekindergarten programs could result in child care centers raising prices 

to compensate for the loss of such revenues or even going out of business. 

In addition, some child care providers in Georgia told us that because state 

program funding did not cover the costs of operating prekindergarten, 

 22Georgia’s program was initially a targeted program. It expanded in the early years (1992-

1995) but remained targeted. In the 1995-96 school year, the program became available to 

children regardless of family income. At this time, the program went from enrolling 15,000 

children to enrolling 44,000 children. The program has grown steadily since. 
Page 28 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

some centers had raised the rates for other services such as extended day 

care. 

However, any potential effects of prekindergarten on the price and 

availability of child care may have been mitigated by certain design 

aspects of the programs in the states we visited. For example, while the 

majority of prekindergarten children in Oklahoma were served in public 

school settings, the potential effects on the child care market may have 

been mitigated because most children were in half-day prekindergarten 

programs and some needed child care before and after the program. In 

Oklahoma, the state Department of Human Services also provided a fullday reimbursement for CCDF-eligible children who used child care for 

more than 4 hours a day. As a result, the state’s half-day program appeared 

to have minimal impact on child care providers. In New Jersey’s Abbott 

districts and Georgia, which had full-day prekindergarten, the classes were 

often situated in community-based organizations. Consequently, many 

four-year-olds who attended these programs remained in communitybased settings, and child care providers maintained their enrollment of 

four-year-olds. Furthermore, in the Abbott districts, the New Jersey 

Department of Human Services provided additional funds to cover 4 hours 

of child care, beyond the 6 hour educational program. As a result, some 

child care centers were reimbursed for providing services for up to 10 

hours per day. 

Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, but 

little is known about outcomes for their families. In all the school districts 

we visited, prekindergarten teachers routinely assessed children and 

provided parents with information about their child’s progress during the 

school year. However, the states did not collect and analyze these 

assessment data. We found two studies that provided information about 

the educational outcomes of state prekindergarten programs on children 

in Oklahoma and Georgia.23 One study focused on the Tulsa School District 

and found that children who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten 

program had significantly higher scores on several school readiness 

measures than children who did not participate in the program. A second 

 23William T. Gormley, Jr., and Ted Gayer, Promoting School Readiness in Oklahoma: An 

Evaluation of Tulsa’s Pre-k Program, Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, 

Washington, D.C., 2003; Gary T. Henry and others, Report of the Findings from the Early 

Childhood Study: 2001-02, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State 

University, August 2003. 

Some Data Have Been 

Collected on 

Outcomes for 

Participating Children 
Page 29 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

study analyzed statewide data regarding Georgia’s prekindergarten 

program and reported that children who participated in one of three 

programs studied (Georgia’s prekindergarten program, Head Start, and 

private preschools) generally made significant gains on developmental 

skills during the prekindergarten year. None of the four states we visited 

reported collecting information regarding the impact of their programs on 

families. State officials told us that prekindergarten programs increased 

choices for families, but none reported knowing whether the 

prekindergarten program had any effect on parents’ work efforts. 

In general, teachers assessed the progress of the children’s development in 

the course of teaching prekindergarten using developmentally appropriate 

assessments. We found that the types of assessments varied across 

prekindergarten providers, and some providers used multiple types of 

assessments. For example, assessments included checklists that rated the 

child’s progress on various developmental objectives, observational 

records, as well as portfolio assessments, which consisted of a collection 

of the child’s work and projects that showed the child’s progress 

throughout the school year. In general, such assessments were used to 

inform the teacher and provide information to parents during the school 

year. None of the states required a particular assessment of children’s 

outcomes.24

State officials acknowledged the importance of collecting and analyzing 

student outcome data. However, such analysis had not been systematically 

conducted on a statewide basis in any of the four states we visited. The 

outcome data that the teachers had were not necessarily in a form 

conducive to collection and analysis by the states. Officials offered various 

reasons for not collecting outcome data. In New York, officials told us that 

there was no funding for large-scale data collection efforts and they were 

awaiting the results of this year’s fourth grade state test to analyze the 

potential long-term effects of their prekindergarten program, since some 

of these fourth graders had participated in the prekindergarten program as 

four-year-olds. In New Jersey, state officials told us that they planned to 

perform a program evaluation including children’s outcomes after the 

program had matured. In Oklahoma, state officials told us that they did not 

 24Officials in Georgia reported that the Department of Early Care and Learning was in the 

process of developing and piloting a standard assessment process for all prekindergarten 

children. 

Teachers Regularly 

Assessed Children’s 

Progress, although States 

Did Not Systematically 

Collect These Data 
Page 30 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

collect outcome data for all children in the state, but limited information 

regarding program outcomes was available in two school districts. For 

example, we found that one school district we visited in Oklahoma had 

collected and analyzed data on the outcomes of 22 children over a 1-year 

period, 11 of whom participated in the district’s prekindergarten program. 

Two recent studies provided some information on outcomes for children 

in two state prekindergarten programs. A study conducted by researchers 

at Georgetown University analyzed the short-term effects of 

prekindergarten on children in the Tulsa public schools and found positive 

effects of the Tulsa program. In particular, the study found that children 

who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten program had higher scores 

on both cognitive knowledge and language measures, and on measures of 

motor skills, than did similar children who did not participate. 

Additionally, the Tulsa study found that impacts tended to be larger for 

African American and Hispanic children, and that there was little impact 

for white children, although the authors discussed certain ceiling effects 

that may have made it difficult to detect any impacts for white children as 

a whole.25 The study also found that children who qualified for the full free 

lunch program showed greater benefits than the population as a whole, 

and benefits were larger for children from low-income families who 

participated in full-day programs than those participating in half-day 

programs. 

The second study, sponsored in part by the Georgia Department of Early 

Care and Learning and conducted by Georgia State University, also found 

progress among children who participated in the Georgia prekindergarten 

program during the 2001-02 school year. The study compared the progress 

of children in three early education settings: private preschool, Georgia’s 

state prekindergarten program, and Head Start.26 Children participating in 

the three programs performed at different levels upon entering the 

programs. The study reported that at the beginning of prekindergarten, 

children enrolled in Head Start demonstrated less mastery of certain skills 

than did children in the Georgia prekindergarten program, who, in turn, 

 25Ceiling effects can occur when children pretest at or near the highest possible score on a 

given assessment. In such cases, if the same assessment is used as a post-test, it is difficult 

to measure any gains children have made. 

26The study did not include a comparison group of children who did not attend any 

preschool program. 

Two Studies Provided 

Some Information about 

the Outcomes for Children 

Who Participated in State 

Prekindergarten Programs 
Page 31 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

scored lower than children in private preschools. The study found that 

children in all three programs made significant gains over the course of 1 

year, though in general, the gains made by the prekindergarten children 

were not significantly different from the gains made by the other two 

groups of children. By the end of prekindergarten, or at the beginning of 

the kindergarten year, the relative rankings of the children from the 

different programs had not changed. The researchers also matched 

children with similar backgrounds to compare the effectiveness of Head 

Start and Georgia’s state prekindergarten program. When comparing the 

language, communication, problem-solving, and basic mastery skill scores 

for the matched samples of children, researchers noted one case—basic 

skill mastery—in which the gap between scores of the state 

prekindergarten children and the Head Start children widened to a 

statistically significant level at the end of the prekindergarten year. 

Citing benefits of prekindergarten, many states have made an investment 

in the early education of young children, especially four-year-olds. 

Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma have taken steps to 

expand early educational opportunities for preschoolers. These four states 

offer different approaches for consideration by other states that are 

considering whether to expand the scope of their prekindergarten 

programs. Given that states have limited resources, an opportunity exists 

to engage community-based providers such as Head Start grantees and 

other early education and care providers in the coordinated delivery of 

additional prekindergarten services. Collaborations between school 

districts and community-based organizations facilitate the coordination of 

child care and early learning for preschoolers and can provide additional 

classroom capacity. At the same time, these partnerships can help allay 

fears among child care providers that prekindergarten programs would 

supplant the need for community-based services. 

It is also important to acknowledge the trade-offs of certain program 

features. For example, while programs with limited hours may 

accommodate a higher number of children within the same facility and 

may be less likely to affect existing child care providers, they may create 

barriers to participation for children of working families and show smaller 

effects in school readiness of children. Also, prekindergarten programs 

may benefit by collaborating with existing programs to maximize the 

efficient use of limited state and federal education resources. However, 

such arrangements may make it necessary for states and school districts 

to invest resources to facilitate such coordination. Perhaps the biggest 

trade-off that states face is whether the benefits of an expanded 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 32 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

prekindergarten program outweigh those of one that is more targeted. 

Targeted programs have the advantage of giving more intensive services to 

eligible children who may benefit most from prekindergarten, but such 

programs exclude some children who might also benefit. Additional 

information on outcomes for children in the most intensive programs, 

particularly relative to children who do not receive comparable services, 

may be helpful to other states considering varied types of prekindergarten 

services, as would data on the benefits of half-day programs relative to 

full-day programs. 

The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education were 

provided a draft of this report for review and comment. The Department of 

Health and Human Services commented that given the discussions 

surrounding the “state option” proposals being held during Head Start 

reauthorization, our report is informative. Education’s Executive 

Secretariat stated that the department appreciated the opportunity to 

review the draft but was not going to provide agency comments. Both 

agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, 

and other interested parties. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or 

your staff have any questions about this report. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Other 

GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. 

Marnie S. Shaul, Director 

Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

In conducting our review, we obtained and analyzed information from the 

federal Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, state 

agencies,1

 and local education agencies (LEA). We visited four states, and 

in each state we interviewed staff from state agencies and LEAs, and 

generally included one urban, one suburban, and one rural school district 

in each state—for a total of 12 school districts. We also interviewed early 

childhood education and child care policy experts and reviewed selected 

current literature on state-sponsored prekindergarten programs. 

For our fieldwork, we considered states that (1) had expanded programs 

and aimed to serve all children whose families wanted them to attend, (2) 

served large numbers of children in their prekindergarten programs, and 

(3) had well-established programs. We attempted to include varied 

program models and gave some priority to states that had studied their 

efforts. 

To determine how states designed their prekindergarten programs, we 

interviewed state and local education officials and officials of 13 

community-based organizations who were direct providers of state 

prekindergarten services. We also reviewed documents related to states’ 

prekindergarten programs, including state laws, general program 

information, state data on program participation and costs, curriculum 

guides, content standards, and contracts governing collaborations with 

community-based organizations. We obtained information to describe the 

state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and reviewed the data for 

reasonableness. We assessed reliability of specific information, including 

estimates of age-eligible children and program expenditures, by 

interviewing state officials in all four states about their data reliability 

assessment processes. On the basis of this information, we concluded that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In 

addition, we performed a detailed review of the methodology of a National 

Institute for Early Education Research report and found it to be sufficient 

for descriptive purposes. The data that were used for background 

purposes were not independently verified. 

To determine the potential implications of prekindergarten on other 

programs that serve four-year-olds, we interviewed state child care 

 1

In New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, we collected information and interviewed 

officials from the state education agencies (SEA); in Georgia, we collected information and 

interviewed officials from the Department of Early Care and Learning, which administered 

the prekindergarten program. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

administrators, state and local Head Start association directors, 

coordinators and program staff, as well as staff of local child care centers. 

We also met with national and state representatives of the National Child 

Care Association (an association of managers and owners of child care 

centers) and related organizations, as well as state and local staff of child 

care resource and referral offices. We also reviewed selected national and 

state data on child care availability and prices. Finally, we interviewed 

state officials regarding federal funds, including Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant. We did not review the expenses of providers of 

state prekindergarten services to ascertain the extent, if any, to which 

federal funds or other revenues may have subsidized provision of 

prekindergarten. 

To determine what is known about the impacts of prekindergarten 

programs on children and families in the states visited, we interviewed 

state and local education officials and local policy experts. We also 

identified two studies on children’s outcomes that met our selection 

criteria: studies that (1) analyzed student achievement and (2) compared 

prekindergarten children with a control or comparison group of children 

who did not attend the state-sponsored prekindergarten programs.2

 To 

collect information systematically, we developed a data collection 

instrument and examined each study to assess the adequacy of the 

samples and measures employed, the reasonableness and rigor of the 

statistical techniques used to analyze them, and the validity of the results 

and conclusions that were drawn from the analyses. A social scientist read 

and coded the documentation for each study. A second social scientist 

reviewed each completed data collection instrument and the relevant 

documentation to verify the accuracy of every coded item. We found these 

two studies to be sufficiently reliable and rigorous to include in our report. 

 2

We identified a third study, the Rochester Early Childhood Assessment Partnership 2002-

2003 Annual Report, but did not review the study because it did not include comparison 

groups and thus could not isolate the potential effects of New York’s universal 

prekindergarten program on the children who attended. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

We did not identify any studies that assessed the impact of these 

prekindergarten programs on working families such as workforce 

participation. 

We conducted our work between October 2003 and August 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 36 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Betty Ward-Zukerman, (202) 512-2732, WardZukermanB@gao.gov, or 

Tim Hall, (202) 512-7192, hallt@gao.gov 

The following people also made important contributions to this report: 

Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Shana Wallace, Alison Martin, Jean McSween, 

Barbara Hills, Susan Bernstein, Amy Buck, and Daniel Schwimer. 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 37 GAO-04-852 State Prekindergarten Programs 

Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed to Monitor 

Underenrollment. GAO-04-17. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2003. 

Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates 

and Providing Access for Low-Income Children. GAO-02-894. 

Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2003. 

Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess 

Program Effects. GAO-01-542. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001. 

Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging Effect 

on School Readiness Difficult. GAO-00-171. Washington, D.C.: September 

20, 2000. 

Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess 

Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 

2000. 

Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children 

Significant but Effectiveness Unclear. GAO/T-HEHS-00-83. Washington, 

D.C.: April 11, 2000. 

Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of 

School Readiness Information. GAO/HEHS-00-38. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2000. 

Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for LowIncome Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 

1999. 

Related GAO Products 

(130320) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER