United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

April 1997 HEAD START

Research Provides

Little Information on

Impact of Current

Program

GAO/HEHS-97-59

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-271866 

April 15, 1997

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

In the 30 years it has existed, Head Start has served over 15 million

children at a total cost of $31 billion. Growing out of the War on Poverty in

the mid-1960s, Head Start was created to provide comprehensive health,

social, educational, and mental health services to disadvantaged preschool

children. The program was built on the philosophy that effective

intervention in the lives of children can best be accomplished through

family and community involvement. Fundamental to program philosophy

was the notion that communities be given considerable latitude to develop

their own Head Start programs, an idea that has made variability a defining

characteristic of the program. These philosophies and the general goals of

the program remain virtually unchanged today.

Although Head Start has long enjoyed both congressional and public

support, opinions about the program’s impact have been divided and its

effectiveness debated. Some maintain that no compelling evidence exists

that Head Start makes any lasting difference in the lives of the population

it serves. Others strongly support Head Start and maintain that research

has conclusively established its value. Amid this debate, funding for Head

Start has tripled in the past 10 years.

Conflicting information on program impact and the focus on resultsoriented program performance information required by the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 have renewed interest in the

impact of the current Head Start program. In light of this, you asked us to

determine (1) what the studies conducted on current Head Start programs1

suggest about Head Start’s impact and (2) what types of Head Start studies

are planned by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

We defined impact for this study as differences in outcomes caused by

Head Start participation.2

 Implicit in this definition is the notion that

1

Because Head Start changed significantly in its early years, which could have affected program

impact, we defined current Head Start programs as those in existence in 1976 or later. See app. I for a

further discussion of this decision.

2

Our definition of impact is based on the concept of “net impact” as defined by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for agency use in developing performance measures for GPRA and is

from “Selected Examples of Performance Measurement,” OMB Office Memorandum 95-37

(Washington, D.C.: July 28, 1995).

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

differences found would not have occurred without program participation.

Impact research is designed to permit the assumption that differences

were caused by the program. Although impact studies are sometimes

difficult and expensive, they are the only way to answer the question, “Is

this program making a difference?” Thus, we included only studies in this

review that gave some information on program impact. See appendix I for

details on criteria we used to select studies.

To determine what research suggests about the impact of Head Start, we

searched many electronic databases to locate published and unpublished

manuscripts. We also spoke with early childhood researchers and

practitioners to identify research studies. Our search yielded nearly 600

citations and documents, which were screened for possible inclusion in

the study. Of these, we found 22 studies that fit our agreed-upon criteria

and are reviewed in this study. (See app. I for details on our scope and

methodology.) To obtain information about HHS’ studies of Head Start, we

reviewed HHS’ research plans for Head Start and other research documents

and spoke with HHS and National Head Start Association officials involved

with Head Start research.

Results in Brief Although an extensive body of literature exists on Head Start, only a small

part of this literature is program impact research. This body of research is

inadequate for use in drawing conclusions about the impact of the national

program in any area in which Head Start provides services such as school

readiness or health-related services. Not only is the total number of studies

small, but most of the studies focus on cognitive outcomes, leaving such

areas as nutrition and health-related outcomes almost completely

unevaluated. Individually, the studies suffer to some extent from

methodological and design weaknesses, such as noncomparability of

comparison groups, which call into question the usefulness of their

individual findings. In addition, no single study used a nationally

representative sample so that findings could be generalized to the national

program.

Failing to find impact information in existing research, we examined HHS’

research plans for Head Start. Planned research will focus on new or

innovative service delivery strategies and demonstrations but will provide

little information on the impact of regular Head Start programs. HHS’

planned research includes descriptive studies; studies of program

variations, involving new and innovative service delivery strategies and

demonstration projects; and studies of program quality.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

HHS officials, in explaining the agency’s research emphasis, stated that

early research has proven Head Start’s impact. Such research, however,

conducted over 20 years ago, may no longer apply to today’s program

because of program changes and changes in the population served. HHS

also noted some ethical and methodological difficulties of conducting

impact research, especially studies that would produce national estimates

of program effect. But neither ethical nor methodological issues present

an insurmountable deterrent to conducting research on Head Start’s

impact. Moreover, the size and cost of the program appear to warrant an

investment in such research.

Background Begun in 1965 as a part of the effort to fight poverty, Head Start is the

centerpiece of federal early childhood programs. Head Start’s primary goal

is to improve the social competence of children in low-income families,

that is, their everyday effectiveness in dealing with both their present

environment and later responsibilities in school and life. Social

competence takes into account the interrelatedness of cognitive and

intellectual development, physical and mental health, nutritional needs,

and other factors. To support its social competence goal, Head Start has

delivered a wide range of services to over 15 million children nationwide

since its inception. These services consist of education and medical,

dental, nutrition, mental health, and social services. Another essential part

of every program is parental involvement in parent education, program

planning, and operating activities.

Head Start services are provided at the local level by public and private

nonprofit agencies that receive their funding directly from HHS. These

include public and private school systems, community action agencies,

government agencies, and Indian tribes. In fiscal year 1996, grants were

awarded to about 1,400 local agencies, called grantees. Head Start

grantees are typically required to obtain additional funding from

nonfederal sources to cover 20 percent of the cost of their programs. The

Head Start program works with various community sources to provide

services. For example, some programs coordinate with public health

agencies to obtain health services, while other programs contract with

local physicians. Although all programs operate under a single set of

performance standards, local programs have a great deal of discretion in

how they meet their goals, resulting in great variability among programs.

Although the program is authorized to serve children at any age before the

age of compulsory school attendance, most children enter the program at

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

age 4. The law requires Head Start to target children from poor families,

and regulations require that 90 percent of the children enrolled in each

program be low income. By law, certain amounts are set aside for specific

subpopulations of children, including those with disabilities and Native

American and migrant children.

In addition to providing services to children and families, Head Start also

sees one of its roles as a national laboratory for child development.

Consequently, Head Start uses much of its discretionary research funding

for demonstrations and studies of program innovations. Although overall

funding has grown over the years, the amount of funds allocated to

research, demonstration, and evaluation3

 has represented about 2 percent

or less of the Head Start budget. In fiscal year 1996, Head Start’s research,

demonstration, and evaluation budget totaled $12 million (see app. II).

Head Start Has Changed

Over the Years

Today’s Head Start is a much different program than it was 30 years ago.

Although the program’s goals have changed little since its inception, Head

Start changed considerably during its first decade. Begun as a summer

program, Head Start became largely a full-year program by the early 1970s.

In addition, in the early to mid-1970s, the program launched improvement

initiatives, including promulgation of performance standards and teacher

credentialing. Programs also had the option of providing home-based

services.

In the 1990s, the program continues to change. In 1990, the Congress

passed the Head Start Expansion and Quality Improvement Act, which

reauthorized Head Start and set aside funds for programs to use to

enhance and strengthen the quality of services.4

 In 1994, the Congress

established a new program—called Early Head Start—to serve low-income

families with infants and toddlers. The program provides continuous,

intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support

services to low-income families with children under age 3.

In addition to changes to Head Start over the years, other changes

affecting the program relate to the children and families Head Start serves

and the amount appropriated to support the program. Head Start’s service

population has become increasingly multicultural and multilingual and is

confronted with difficult social problems such as domestic violence and

3

HHS makes little distinction between spending for research and evaluation, HHS officials told us.

4

Despite the emphasis on quality, some early childhood experts are still concerned about the uneven

quality of Head Start programs.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

drug abuse. Moreover, the number of children served by the program has

grown dramatically—from 349,000 children in 1976 to about 750,000 in

1995. The amount appropriated for the program, which totaled $3.5 billion

in 1995, has paralleled the growth in the number served (see fig. 1).

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

Figure 1: Growth in Head Start

Note: In the early years of Head Start, most programs were summer programs. In the early 1970s,

summer programs were almost completely phased out.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

Research on the Early

Years of Head Start

In the decade after Head Start’s inception, many studies of the program’s

impact were conducted. One of the first major studies was conducted for

the Office of Economic Opportunity by the Westinghouse Corporation in

1969. This study found that summer Head Start programs produced no

lasting gains in participants’ cognitive or affective development and that

full-year programs produced only marginal gains by grades one, two, and

three. Several researchers criticized this study because of its methodology.

Subsequently, many other studies investigated Head Start’s impact.

In 1981, HHS contracted with CSR, Inc., to synthesize the findings of Head

Start impact studies. CSR concluded that Head Start participants showed

significant immediate gains in cognitive test scores, socioemotional test

scores, and health status. Cognitive and socioemotional test scores of

former Head Start students, however, did not remain superior in the long

run to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start,

according to CSR. In addition, on the basis of a small subset of studies,

CSR reported that Head Start participants were less likely to be retained in

grade and less likely to be placed in special education.5

Because these research studies were conducted during Head Start’s

infancy, their findings provide little information on the effectiveness of the

current program. For instance, most of the programs included in the

Westinghouse study were summer programs. Almost all programs today

are full-year programs. Similarly, the great majority of studies in CSR’s

synthesis study were late 1960’s and early 1970’s programs and therefore

would not have reflected many significant program changes that took

place in the early to mid-1970s.

Interest in Impact

Research Has Increased

Interest in Head Start’s impact has grown with increased congressional

and public concern for substantiating federal program performance.

Traditionally, federal agencies have used the amount of money directed

toward their programs, the level of staff deployed, or even the number of

tasks completed as some of the measures of program performance. At a

time when the value of many federal programs is undergoing intense

public scrutiny, however, an agency that reports only these measures has

not answered the defining question of whether these programs have

produced real results. Because today’s environment is results oriented, the

Congress, executive branch, and the public are beginning to hold agencies

5

Ruth McKey and others, The Impact of Head Start on Children, Families, and Communities, HHS Pub.

No. (OHDS) 85-31193 (June 1985), p. 1.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

accountable for outcomes, that is, program results as measured by the

differences programs make.

The Congress’ determination to hold agencies accountable for their

performance lay at the heart of two landmark reforms of the 1990s: the

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and GPRA. With these two laws, the

Congress imposed a new and more businesslike framework for

management and accountability on federal agencies. In addition, GPRA

created requirements for agencies to generate the information

congressional and executive branch decisionmakers need in considering

measures to improve government performance and reduce costs.

Body of Research on

Current Head Start

Program Insufficient

to Draw Conclusions

About Impact

The body of research on current Head Start is insufficient to draw

conclusions about the impact of the national program. Drawing such

conclusions from a body of research would require either (1) a sufficient

number of reasonably well-designed individual studies whose findings

could appropriately be combined to provide information about the impact

of the national program or (2) at least one large-scale evaluation using a

nationally representative sample. Findings from the individual studies we

identified, however, could not be appropriately combined and generalized

to estimate program impact at the national level. In addition, no single

study used a nationally representative sample, permitting findings to be

generalized to the national program.

Findings Could Not Be

Combined to Produce

National Estimates of

Impact

The body of studies was inadequate to assess program impact by

combining the findings of studies using similar outcome measures. The

total number of studies found on Head Start impact was too small to

permit generalizing findings to the national program. Most of these studies

targeted cognitive outcomes, leaving other outcome areas, such as health

and nutrition, scarcely examined. In addition, all the studies suffered to

some extent from methodological problems that weakened our confidence

in the findings of the individual studies.

Number of Studies Too Small Although the body of literature on Head Start is extensive, the number of

impact studies was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about the

impact of the national Head Start program. Such an aggregation of findings

should be based on a large number of studies.6

 The larger the number of

studies, the greater the chance that the variability in Head Start programs

6

John E. Hunter and Frank L. Schmidt, Methods of Meta-Analysis (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage

Publications, 1990), p. 83.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

would be represented in the studies. Conversely, the smaller the number

of studies, the greater the risk that the aggregate findings from these

studies may not apply to Head Start in general. Most of the approximately

600 articles and manuscripts about Head Start that we identified could not

be used to answer questions about impact for various reasons. Much of

this literature consisted of program descriptions, anecdotal reports, and

position papers. Of those articles that were research studies, some (for

example, case studies) were not suitable for drawing general conclusions

about impact. Some studies examined change in outcome measures before

and after Head Start but did not control for other plausible explanations

for the change, for example, maturation. Other studies using a comparison

group to control for competing explanations of change did not provide

statistical information about the confidence that the differences found

were not chance occurrences.

Only 22 of the more than 200 manuscripts we reviewed met our criteria for

inclusion in our analysis. (See app. I for a detailed description of inclusion

criteria.) Of these, 16 investigated impact by comparing Head Start

participants with an unserved comparison group; 3 analyzed gains on

normed tests. Only three studies included comparisons of Head Start with

some other type of preschool or day care program. These studies

represent work by a variety of researchers, including college students,

college faculty, and contractors. Appendix III contains more detailed

information on each study.

No Outcome Area or

Population Adequately

Researched

Although Head Start provides services in several outcome areas, such as

health, nutrition, education, and the like, most of the studies we found

focused on educational/cognitive outcomes, and few made distinctions on

the basis of differing populations served by Head Start. For example, most

of the studies examined the impact of Head Start on grade retention and

other indicators of academic achievement, such as standardized reading

and math scores. Of the 22 studies included in our review, 16 included one

or more outcomes in the cognitive area. Conversely, only five studies

investigated health- or nutrition-related outcomes, and only five examined

family impacts.

Similarly, few studies analyzed impact by subpopulations. Because Head

Start is a multicultural program, serving children and families of varying

races, ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels, research that targets

these subpopulations may uncover differential effects.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

Studies Suffered From

Methodological Weaknesses

All of the studies had some methodological problems. Although research

in field settings can rarely conform to rigorous scientific procedures, in

general, researchers place more confidence in findings of studies that

control for competing explanations for their results and that use large

samples.

One of the more serious of the methodological problems was

noncomparability of comparison groups. The most reliable way to

determine program impact is to compare a group of Head Start

participants with an equivalent group of nonparticipants. The preferred

method for establishing that the groups are equivalent at outset is to

randomly assign participants to either the Head Start group or the

comparison group. Only one of the studies we reviewed used random

assignment to form the Head Start and non-Head Start comparison groups.

Most of these studies formed a comparison group by selecting children

who were similar to the Head Start participants on some characteristic

thought to be important to the outcome under study. In most cases,

researchers matched participants on one or more demographic variables,

usually including some variable related to socioeconomic level. In other

cases, researchers did not match treatment and comparison groups but

tried to compensate statistically for any inequality between the groups.

Neither of these methods compensates completely for lack of random

assignment to group.

Some of the studies used no comparison group; instead, they compared

performance of Head Start participants with test norms. This approach to

evaluating program performance indicates the performance of Head Start

participants relative to the norming group. Because the norming group

may be unlike the Head Start group, however, conclusions about program

impact are unclear.

Finally, many of the studies also suffered from small samples, especially

those investigating intermediate and long-term effects. Some studies began

with relatively small samples; others, which began with larger samples,

ended up with smaller samples as the study progressed because of missing

data and attrition. Small samples present problems in research because

they adversely affect statistical procedures used in analyses. Some

procedures cannot appropriately be used with small samples; others are

rendered less able to detect differences, resulting in an underestimation of

program effects.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

No National Program

Evaluation Found

No completed, large-scale evaluation of any outcome of Head Start that

used a nationally representative sample was found in our review. One

characteristic of Head Start is program variability, not only in the kind of

services delivered, but also in the quality of services. Making summary

statements about program impact requires that the sample of programs

studied represent all programs nationwide.

Although one evaluation had a study design that would have allowed

findings to be generalized to the national program, this study was never

completed. In the late 1970s, HHS contracted for a national evaluation of

the educational services component of basic Head Start. The design called

for a longitudinal study that would follow children and their parents from

preschool through the fourth grade. The evaluation was to compare the

Basic Educational Skills Program, regular Head Start, and a non-Head

Start control group. Thirty Head Start programs were to be randomly

selected, and Head Start-eligible children from these communities were to

be randomly assigned to Head Start or the control group. Many

methodological problems as well as funding problems occurred, however,

during the implementation of this study, and it was abandoned.

The 1990 act that reauthorized funding for Head Start directed the

Secretary of HHS to conduct “. . . a longitudinal study of the effects that the

participation in Head Start programs has on the development of

participants and their families and the manner in which such effects are

achieved.” The study, as described in the act, was to examine a wide range

of Head Start outcomes, including social, physical, and academic

development, and follow participants at least through high school. The

description also stipulated that, “To the maximum extent feasible, the

study . . . shall provide for comparisons with appropriate groups

composed of individuals who do not participate in Head Start programs.”

The act authorized the appropriation of funds to carry out this study for

fiscal years 1991 through 1996. According to HHS, however, funds were

never appropriated for the study, and it was not conducted.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

Research Planned by

HHS Focuses on

Program

Improvement, Not

Impact

Head Start’s planned research will provide little information about the

impact of regular Head Start programs7

 because it focuses on descriptive

studies; studies of program variations, involving new and innovative

service delivery strategies and demonstration projects; and studies of

program quality. Although these types of studies are useful in evaluating

programs, they do not provide the impact information needed in today’s

results-oriented environment and encouraged by GPRA.

HHS Focuses Research on

Program Improvement

The primary focus of research, according to Head Start Bureau officials, is

to improve the program by exploring ways to maximize and sustain Head

Start benefits. Thus, HHS studies evaluate which practices seem to work

best for the varying populations Head Start serves and ways to sustain

program benefits. Some of these studies are descriptive, providing

information on service delivery and the characteristics of populations

receiving services. For example, HHS is currently conducting a descriptive

study of the characteristics of families served by the Head Start Migrant

Program. Other descriptive studies have been conducted on health

services and bilingual/multicultural programs.

HHS also funds studies designed to answer questions about the

effectiveness of new or innovative service delivery strategies and

demonstrations and how effectiveness may relate to characteristics of the

population served. Such studies typically involve special program efforts

and demonstration projects conducted on a trial basis at a few Head Start

sites that focus on practices or services not typically found in regular Head

Start programs.8

 For example, both Early Head Start and the

Comprehensive Child Development Program target infants and children

younger than those normally served by Head Start. Similarly, the Family

Service Center demonstrations place more emphasis on family services

and provide assistance in a variety of areas such as illiteracy, substance

abuse, and unemployment.

In addition, HHS funds research to explore program quality and to develop

instruments to assess program performance. In 1995-96, HHS funded

several Quality Research Centers and a Performance Measure Center to

7

“Regular” Head Start refers in this report to programs that operate within the scope of established

Head Start program options and under normal Head Start requirements. Regular programs are to be

distinguished from demonstrations and other special programs, which may serve populations or offer

services not normally found in Head Start.

8

Both special programs and demonstrations are innovative programs, implemented on a limited basis

and with program features not found in regular Head Start programs. Demonstrations, however, have a

predetermined end because their grants expire at the end of a specified period. Special programs may

continue to receive funding because programs may recompete for such grants at the end of the grant

period.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

develop and identify instruments for measuring the quality of Head Start

programs and to collect performance measure data on a nationally

representative sample of Head Start programs. The major purpose of this

effort, according to HHS officials, is to determine which program

characteristics relate to meeting program goals. Some of the performance

measure assessments use instruments for which national norms are

available, however, and HHS will be able to compare participant

performance to national norms for these measures.

Identifying performance measures is an important step in building a

research and evaluation base for Head Start. Because the program’s goals

are so broad and difficult to assess, precisely defining expected outcomes

and identifying appropriate instruments should produce a more valid,

useful body of research. But identifying standard performance measures is

also valuable because it provides a set of common measures upon which a

body of research could be built, including impact research.

Although descriptive studies, studies of new or innovative programs and

demonstrations, and studies of program quality provide information useful

both to HHS and the Congress, they do not provide full information on the

impact of regular Head Start. Even the performance measures study

already discussed will not provide clear-cut impact information because

no comparison group is being used. Over time, this type of study will

provide some useful information about program outcomes; however, such

a study can neither attribute effect nor estimate the precise effect size with

the level of confidence found in comparison group studies.

Research Planned by HHS

Will Provide Little

Information on Program

Impact

Research planned by HHS will provide little program impact information on

regular Head Start programs. HHS officials expressed concerns about using

their research dollars for impact research rather than program

improvement. The effectiveness of Head Start has been proven by early

research, according to these officials, who also pointed to difficulties in

conducting impact studies. In addition, because Head Start is such a varied

program, averaging across local programs to produce national estimates of

effect is not appropriate, they said. Finally, HHS maintains that Head Start

is unique because of the comprehensiveness of services it offers and the

population it serves; therefore, comparing Head Start with other service

programs would be inappropriate, HHS officials believe.

Most of the research that HHS cited as evidence of Head Start’s impact is

outdated, however, and, as previously mentioned, insufficient research has

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

been done in the past 20 years to support drawing conclusions about the

current program. Furthermore, it appears that impact studies on Head

Start could be done and would provide valuable results-oriented

information. In addition, although research on programs that vary greatly

could be methodologically more challenging to producing national

estimates of impact, variation alone should not prevent developing such

estimates. Moreover, comparisons with other service programs, if

designed to answer questions about specific program outcomes, would

provide useful information about assessing program impacts.

HHS Believes Effectiveness of

Head Start Is Already Proven,

So Further Impact Research Is

Not Warranted

HHS maintains that early research has proven the effectiveness of early

childhood education, including Head Start, so impact research is not the

most effective use of limited research funds. Findings from early studies,

however, do not conclusively establish the impact of the current Head

Start program because today’s program differs from that of the late 1960s

and early 1970s. Although program changes might be assumed to increase

positive impact, this assumption is largely unsubstantiated. In addition,

program impact may be affected by changes in the population served;

Head Start families today face different problems than those in the past

because of an increase in substance abuse, violence, and homelessness.

Furthermore, an increased availability of social services may have

lessened the impact of Head Start because families may get services from

other sources if not from Head Start. The net effect of these changes on

program impact is unknown.

Later studies offered to support Head Start’s impact do not provide

enough evidence to conclude that current Head Start is effective. Findings

in literature reviews cited by Head Start proponents to support its

effectiveness often involve only a few Head Start programs. For example,

HHS cited a review in a recent Packard Foundation report9 that reported

positive cognitive results of early childhood programs. This review,

however, had only five studies involving Head Start participation in 1976

or later, and two of the five studies combined Head Start and other public

preschools in the analyses. Authors of other studies of high-quality

preschool programs have sometimes warned against applying their

findings to Head Start. For instance, researchers in the Consortium for

Longitudinal Studies, which produced a major study reporting positive

long-term effects of preschool, explicitly stated that caution should be

used in generalizing their findings to Head Start and that the programs

9

Steven W. Barnett, “Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School

Outcomes,” in The Future of Children: Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, Richard E.

Behrman, ed., Vol. 5, No. 3 (Los Altos, Cal.: 1995).

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

were “. . . examples of what Head Start could be rather than what it has

been.”10

HHS Believes Conducting

Impact Studies Would Be

Difficult

HHS believes conducting impact research would present methodological

difficulties. Two types of research designs are commonly used in

conducting impact studies, experimental and quasi-experimental. HHS

officials mentioned difficulties with both types of designs in studying Head

Start’s impact. In addition, finding enough unserved children to form

comparison groups would be a problem with either kind of research

design, they said.

True experimental designs, also called randomized trials, are comparison

group studies that randomly assign study participants to either a treatment

or control group. In the case of Head Start, these studies would require

recruiting more eligible children than the program can serve. From these

recruits, some children would be randomly assigned to Head Start; the

rest, the unserved children, would constitute the control group. HHS

officials cited ethical considerations of assigning children to an unserved

control group as one of the difficulties in conducting randomized trials.

Randomized trials, however, could be appropriately applied to Head Start

research. In fact, the evaluation of the Early Head Start project, now under

way, has randomly assigned potential participants to Early Head Start or a

control group that has not received Early Head Start services.

Alternatively, a research design that delays, rather than withholds, services

could be used. This would involve selecting a study group and randomly

assigning some children to Head Start the first year, while the remainder

would serve as a control group. The control group would receive services

the following year. Another strategy that could be used to study specific

parts of the program would be to use an alternative treatment design. In

this case, some randomly assigned participants would receive the full

Head Start program, while others would receive partial services. For

example, if the study interest is in school readiness and cognitive issues,

the control group might receive only nutritional and health services.

Most researchers believe that randomized trials yield the most certain

information about program impact. Random assignment is an accepted

practice in virtually every area of research, including medicine,

economics, and social sciences. In some cases, the treatment of study

interest is simply withheld from the control group. In other cases, for

10Sandra Condry, “History and Background of Preschool Intervention Programs and the Consortium

for Longitudinal Studies,” in As the Twig Is Bent . . . Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs, Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates (Hillsdale, N.J.: 1983), p. 27.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

example, when researchers suspect that withholding treatment would

have a profoundly negative impact, treatment may be delayed for awhile

or some lesser, alternative treatment offered. While acknowledging the

difficulties of random assignment, some early childhood researchers we

spoke with suggested that Head Start conduct randomized trials to study

regular Head Start programs because this type of study provides the most

conclusive information on program impact.

A common alternative to randomized trials, quasi-experimental designs,

uses a naturally occurring, unserved comparison group. In the case of

Head Start, some researchers have tried to identify other children in the

community who are like Head Start participants in ways thought to be

important (usually socioeconomic level) but who are not enrolled in Head

Start. This group became the comparison (control) group.

Quasi-experimental research is less rigorous than research that uses

random assignment, and less confidence can be placed in its conclusions.

Rarely are pre-existing groups equivalent. Even when statistical

adjustments are made to compensate for known nonequivalencies, some

questions always remain about the degree to which pre-existing

differences in the groups may have contributed to study results. When well

planned and well executed, however, such designs can provide some

indication of program impact.

Because Head Start strives to serve the neediest children, those in

quasi-experimental comparison groups would be less likely to be

disadvantaged than children in the Head Start group, according to HHS

officials. If true, this nonequivalency in groups would bias the outcome in

favor of the comparison group, resulting in underestimation of program

effects. Because investigating the characteristics of Head Start

participants was beyond the scope of this study, we do not know to what

extent, if any, Head Start children may be more disadvantaged than similar

children not attending Head Start. Even assuming that Head Start has

identified and is serving the neediest applicants, however, it seems

possible that a comparably disadvantaged, unserved group could be

identified from the applicants whom the program cannot serve and

nonapplicants in a community.

Regardless of which design is used, experimental or quasi-experimental,

finding enough truly unserved children for a comparison group would be

extremely difficult because of the growing number of public preschool

programs and the increased availability of child care, according to HHS

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

officials. Statistics on the percentage of children being served by

preschools suggest, however, that finding disadvantaged children

unserved by preschools is possible. In our report, Early Childhood

Programs: Many Poor Children and Strained Resources Challenge Head

Start (GAO/HEHS-94-169BR), we found that only 35 percent of poor 3- and

4-year-olds attended preschool in 1990. The Congressional Research

Service estimated that in fiscal year 1994, about 30 percent of eligible 3- to

4-year-olds were being served by Head Start.11 On the basis of these

estimates, it appears that some locations do exist where a control group of

children not attending preschool could be formed.

HHS Believes National

Estimates of Program Impact

Are Not Appropriate

Estimating program impact at the national level is not appropriate because

of the extreme variability of local programs, HHS officials said. Local Head

Start sites have great flexibility, and, even though all programs share

common goals, they may operate very differently. Therefore, on the advice

of HHS’ research advisory panel,12 HHS considers a single, large-scale,

national study of impact to be methodologically inappropriate. For this

same reason, HHS believes that summing across sites for an aggregate

estimate of effect is not justified in cases where sites are not basically

operating the same way.

Evaluating outcomes at the national program level is an accepted program

evaluation procedure, however, even for programs with a great deal of

variability. It is the only way to determine with certainty whether the

program is making an overall difference in any particular outcome area.

Aggregate analysis does not, however, replace the need for lower level

analyses, which provide insight into the summary finding. In cases where

effects are not uniform across sites, this lower level analysis provides

more understanding of which service areas and delivery approaches are

working for which subpopulations. Evaluations can be planned to answer

both the aggregate and disaggregate question in a single study.

HHS Believes Comparisons

With Other Service Providers

Are Not Appropriate

Another way to evaluate Head Start’s impact is to compare its effects with

some other types of preschool, for instance, state or local preschools.

When several programs exist that deliver similar services, studies

comparing programs in areas that have common goals can provide useful

information. For instance, Head Start and public preschools share the goal

of school readiness. A study might be conducted to compare Head Start

11Head Start in the 104th Congress, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Washington,

D.C.: Mar. 6, 1996), p. 2.

12Since 1989, advisory panels of experts in early childhood education and research and evaluation have

helped HHS plan its research.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

and public preschool students on the basis of a measure of school

readiness. Such a study might compare the performance of program

participants, while describing relevant program differences that might

affect results, such as level of service in the area studied and program

costs.

Regarding a comparative study, HHS has maintained that Head Start is

unique in the comprehensiveness of the services it offers. Therefore,

according to the agency, any comparison of programs would be

misleading. In addition, HHS claims that children served by Head Start are

more disadvantaged than children in other types of preschools. The

agency also points out that in some places, other public preschools have

adopted the Head Start model, making such comparisons essentially Head

Start with Head Start.

Concerns about differences in populations served by the programs would

relate to the rigor of the study design, that is, whether it is experimental or

quasi-experimental. When quasi-experimental designs are used,

researchers frequently use statistical techniques to mitigate for preexisting differences; but these designs always suffer to some degree from

the limitations referred to earlier in our discussion of quasiexperimental designs. Therefore, confidence in the study’s results would

vary depending on the study design used.

In the case of Head Start-like programs, one might reasonably expect a

difference in outcome on the basis of such factors as program

administration and context. For example, a preschool program operated

by a local school system might have different outcomes in school

readiness because of the possible advantage of transitioning its students

into kindergarten. Research that compares Head Start with alternative

ways of accomplishing a particular goal might provide insight into the

most effective and efficient way to provide services to needy children and

families.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

Increasing demand for shrinking federal resources has raised the concerns

of the Congress, the executive branch, and taxpayers about the impact of

multibillion dollar federal investments in federal programs such as Head

Start. In addition, GPRA requires agencies to be more accountable for

substantiating program results. Although research has been conducted, it

does not provide information on whether today’s Head Start is making a

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

positive difference in the lives of participants who live in a society that

differs vastly from that of the sixties and early seventies.

While we acknowledge the difficulties of conducting impact studies of

programs such as Head Start, research could be done that would allow the

Congress and HHS officials to know with more certainty whether the

$4 billion dollar federal investment in Head Start is making a difference.

For this reason, we recommend that the Secretary of HHS include in HHS’

research plan an assessment of the impact of regular Head Start programs.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of our report, HHS expressed the belief that the

research base on the efficacy of Head Start is more substantial than

depicted in our report and that the strategy of the Department to extend

this base is appropriate to produce findings about both impact and

program quality. HHS also indicated plans to evaluate the feasibility of

conducting impact studies such as we recommended. The Quality

Research Centers are evaluating the feasibility of conducting randomized

trials in small-scale evaluations, and, on the basis of these experiences

may consider implementing larger scale studies. The full text of HHS’

comments appears in appendix IV.

HHS supported the claim that the research base is more substantial than we

depict by pointing to the findings from the 1985 synthesis conducted by

CSR (cited as “McKey et al., 1985” in HHS’ comments) and two more recent

studies (the Currie and Thomas study and the Fosburg study). For reasons

discussed in this report, we do not agree that findings drawn from studies

more than 20 years old adequately support claims about the impact of the

current Head Start program. Similarly, the findings from the two more

recent studies mentioned fail to support conclusions about impact that

can be generalized to the national program. Even though these studies

were larger than others we found, both had significant methodological

limitations. The Currie and Thomas study examined information in a

database to reach conclusions about Head Start. This study used an

after-the-fact, post-test-only design. Although this design is frequently used

when researchers must rely on existing data as their only source, the

design is vulnerable to serious threats to validity, as discussed earlier in

this report. Because of these design limitations, neither positive

conclusions about Head Start (that is, that children’s test scores show

immediate positive effects) nor negative conclusions (that is, that these

effects quickly disappear for African American children) can be firmly

drawn from the findings of this study.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

The second study, the Fosburg study, as HHS pointed out, used a much

stronger research design, which randomly assigned children in four Head

Start programs to either Head Start or a non-Head Start control group. The

site selection methodology, however, precluded generalizing these

findings to all Head Start programs. The four Head Start programs selected

were chosen from areas identified as underserved in medical and dental

services, and Head Start sites that were not in compliance with Head Start

performance standards were excluded from selection. In addition, attrition

was a significant problem in this study.

HHS also mentioned that on the basis of recommendations of leading

researchers, the Department is conducting a well-balanced, innovative set

of new studies of Head Start. It contends that our report does not

acknowledge the major longitudinal studies that HHS has planned or that

are being conducted by other agencies. Our report states that HHS’ planned

research focuses on program improvement, and we agree that such studies

are needed. We also support the studies of program impact that HHS has

under way in special program areas such as Early Head Start. Our work,

however, focused specifically on HHS’ research plans that address the

question of impact of the regular Head Start program. HHS’ current

research plans, however, do not include such research.

Finally, HHS maintained that it is building a substantial system of

innovative research, development, and management tools in response to

GPRA. The Department emphasized the role the Quality Centers play in

these efforts and said that these centers are currently evaluating possible

strategies for performing comparison group studies that use a random

assignment research design. HHS maintained that we overlooked the

importance of studying the quality of Head Start programs in assessing

impacts.

We fully support HHS’ plans to investigate the feasibility of conducting

randomized trials because these studies provide the clearest indication of

program impact. We also agree that the issue of quality is important in

assessing program impact and findings from studies need to include

information on program quality. The ultimate measure of program quality

is impact, however. Until sound impact studies are conducted on the

current Head Start program, fundamental questions about program quality

will remain.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
B-271866 

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

Services, the Head Start Bureau, appropriate congressional committees,

the Executive Director of the National Head Start Association, and other

interested parties. Please call me at (202) 512-7014 if you or your staff have

any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed

in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

24

Appendix II 

Research,

Demonstration, and

Evaluation Budgets

for the Head Start

Program

27

Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies

Included in the

Review

28

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of Health

and Human Services

47

Appendix V 

Acknowledgments

53

Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

54

Related GAO Products 56

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Contents

Figure Figure 1: Growth in Head Start 6

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

PPVT-R Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised

WJ-R Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,

asked us to examine existing research on Head Start programs and to

determine what it suggests about the impact of the current Head Start

program. Another objective was to determine what types of Head Start

research HHS has planned.

Scope Although the bulk of research on Head Start was conducted in the early

years of the program, we focused on studies of Head Start participation in

1976 or later for several reasons. First, HHS instituted quality initiatives and

other important program changes in the early to mid-1970s that shaped the

current Head Start program, including phasing out summer programs,

implementing performance standards, and establishing teacher

credentialing procedures. Second, findings from studies of early programs

have limited generalizability to more stable programs. The early years of

any program are not likely to represent a program in its maturity. This is

especially true for Head Start, which was implemented quickly and on a

large scale.

Finally, earlier studies were thoroughly reviewed by the Head Start

synthesis project and were reported in The Impact of Head Start on

Children, Families, and Communities in 1985. Studies from the years

before 1976 constituted the bulk of studies included in this synthesis. A

short summary of these findings appears in the “Background” section of

this report.

After speaking with HHS research personnel, we anticipated that the body

of studies usable for a research synthesis might be small. Therefore, in

addition to comparison group studies, we included pretest/post-test-only

designs in cases in which outcomes were discussed in relation to test

norms. Although much less useful in providing information about program

impact relative to comparison group designs, these studies provide a

certain degree of valuable information.

Methodology To report on what existing research says about Head Start’s impact, we

identified studies meeting our basic selection criteria as outlined in the

“Literature Review” section of this appendix. Because the number of

studies found in the first phase was so small, we did not screen further for

adequacy of information reported. To determine how HHS uses research,

we reviewed HHS’ research plans and publications by their research

advisory panel. We also spoke with HHS officials who direct Head Start

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

research and with the director of research at the National Head Start

Association.

Literature Search We began our search for studies with two bibliographies contracted for by

HHS. The first, An Annotated Bibliography of the Head Start Research Since

1965, was a product of the 1985 Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and

Utilization Project. We also reviewed An Annotated Bibliography of Head

Start Research: 1985-1995. This bibliography was produced by Ellsworth

Associates, Inc., for the Head Start Bureau as a part of its contract to

maintain a library of Head Start and related research. Search strategies

used to compile these bibliographies are described in the introductions to

the documents.

In addition, we conducted our own search for studies. Our primary source

was the database maintained by the Education Resources Information

Center. However, we also searched a number of other databases, including

MEDLINE, AGRICOLA, Dissertation Abstracts, Government Printing

Office, Mental Health Abstracts, Psyc INFO, Federal Research in Progress,

Social SciSearch, Sociological Abstracts, IAC Business A.R.T.S., British

Education Index, Public Affairs Information Service International, and

National Technical Information Service.

We also interviewed people knowledgeable about early childhood

research. We attended the Head Start Third National Research Conference

and spoke with conference participants. We also mailed letters to every

conference participant asking for their assistance in locating relevant

research. We interviewed personnel in charge of research for the

Administration for Children Youth and Families and the Head Start Bureau

and spoke with other researchers whom they recommended. We also

talked with the executive director and the director of research and

evaluation of the National Head Start Association and addressed the state

and regional presidents of this organization at their annual meeting. In

addition, we announced our effort to locate research dealing with Head

Start effectiveness on several of the Internet forums sponsored by the

American Educational Research Association.

Literature Review From these sources, we identified over 600 manuscripts that were

screened for relevance to our study. We acquired about 200 of these and

reviewed them carefully regarding the following selection criteria:

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• Head Start participation had occurred in 1976 or later;

• studies had compared outcomes of Head Start participants with children

not attending any preschool—or those attending some other type of

preschool—or studies had compared Head Start outcomes with test

norms; and

• tests of statistical significance13 were reported to have been performed on

the differences, except in cases in which outcomes were measured using

normed instruments.

We excluded studies of transition or follow-through programs that

provided services beyond the Head Start years and studies that pooled

Head Start and other kinds of preschool participants. We considered

multiple articles or later follow-ups on the same study to be one study.

This final screening yielded 22 impact studies that were evaluated in our

review.

We performed our work between April and December 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

13Tests of statistical significance produce a measure of the likelihood that a finding occurred as a result

of sampling error. Such tests result in a value (usually denoted by “p”) that represents the probability

that the outcome (for example, differences in scores) arose from a sampling error. Thus, “p< .01”

means that the probability of the outcome occurring as a result of sampling variation is less than 1 in

100. Although statistical significance may take on any value from .00 to 1.0, benchmark levels often

used in research are .01 and .05. We excluded one study because of lack of evidence about the

statistical significance of the findings.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix II 

Research, Demonstration, and Evaluation

Budgets for the Head Start Program

Fiscal year Appropriation

Research,

demonstration,

evaluation amount

Percentage of

total appropriation

1971 $360,000,000 $5,700,000 1.58

1972 376,300,000 6,200,000 1.65

1973 400,700,000 9,000,000 2.25

1974 403,900,000 9,000,000 2.23

1975 403,900,000 9,000,000 2.23

1976 441,000,000 9,000,000 2.04

1977 475,000,000 9,000,000 1.89

1978 625,000,000 8,200,000 1.31

1979 680,000,000 14,630,000 2.15

1980 735,000,000 15,200,000 2.07

1981 818,700,000 14,600,000 1.78

1982 911,700,000 12,300,000 1.35

1983 912,000,000 6,900,000 0.76

1984 995,750,000 1,800,000 0.18

1985 1,075,059,000 1,300,000 0.12

1986 1,040,315,000 810,000 0.08

1987 1,130,542,000 1,300,000 0.11

1988 1,206,324,000 1,300,000 0.11

1989 1,235,000,000 1,500,000 0.12

1990 1,552,000,000 1,500,000 0.10

1991 1,951,800,000 3,500,000 0.18

1992 2,201,800,000 8,500,000 0.39

1993 2,776,286,000 8,900,000 0.32

1994 3,325,728,000 12,000,000 0.36

1995 3,534,128,000 12,000,000 0.34

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Evaluation of the Process

of Mainstreaming

Handicapped Children Into

Project Head Start, Phase

II, Executive Summary,

and Follow-Up Evaluation

of the Effects of

Mainstreaming

Handicapped Children in

Head Start

Authors: Applied Management Sciences, Inc. (first study) and Roy

Littlejohn Associates, Inc. (second study)

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and health

Overview of study: Children receiving Head Start program services

compared with children receiving services from other types of programs

and with children receiving no special services

Design: Pretest with post-test 6 months later

Population: 55 randomly selected Head Start centers and 49 non-Head

Start programs

Sample: 391 Head Start children, 321 non-Head Start children, and 121

unserved children

Head Start program year(s): 1977-78

Measures/instrumentation: Various development indicators, including

physical development, self-help skills, cognitive development, social

development, communication skills, classroom social skills, and classroom

behavior and social integration

Findings: Developmental gains for Head Start and non-Head Start

children identified as physically handicapped, mentally retarded, and

health or developmentally impaired were generally not significantly

greater than those of unserved children. Developmental gains were

significant in physical, self-help, academic, and communications skills for

children identified as speech impaired in Head Start and non-Head Start

programs relative to unserved children.

Source: Applied Management Services, Inc., Evaluation of the Process of

Mainstreaming Handicapped Children Into Project Head Start, Phase II,

Executive Summary, Education Resources Information Center (ED

168291), 1978, and Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., Follow-Up Evaluation

of the Effects of Mainstreaming Handicapped Children in Head Start

(Washington, D.C.: 1985).

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

A Longitudinal Study to

Determine If Head Start

Has Lasting Effects on

School Achievement

Author: Colleen K. Bee

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Followed up Head Start participants in kindergarten,

first grade, and second grade

Design: Post-test only, comparison group selected from waiting list for

each respective year

Population: Head Start participants in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sample: 10 girls and 10 boys were selected for each Head Start year, 10

girls and 10 boys were selected each year for the comparison groups

Head Start program year(s): 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80

Measures/instrumentation: Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test,

special education placements, and grade retention

Findings: No significant differences were found at the .01 level of

confidence on reading readiness scores for any of the years studied.

Non-Head Start group retained in grade less than the Head Start group in

1977-78 (difference significant at .01 level). No significant difference was

found in special education placements for any of the years studied.

Source: Colleen K. Bee, A Longitudinal Study to Determine If Head Start

Has Lasting Effects on School Achievement, UMI Dissertation Services

(Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1981).

Evaluation of Public

Preschool Programs in

North Carolina

Authors: Donna M. Bryant, Ellen S. Peisner-Feinberg, and Richard M.

Clifford

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and socioemotional

Overview of study: Followed up public preschool graduates in

kindergarten

Design: Post-test only, comparison group comprised children from same

kindergarten classes

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Population: Public preschool programs in North Carolina

Sample: 97 children participated in Head Start, 99 in community day care,

and 120 in no group care

Head Start program year(s): 1992-93

Measures/instrumentation: Reading and math subscales of the

Woodcook-Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ-R), Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), developmental assessment on

communication development, and an assessment on social behavior

completed by a kindergarten teacher; adapted questionnaire form of the

Communication Domain of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale used to

provide a measure of children’s cognitive development; and Social Skills

Questionnaire used to measure teachers’ ratings of children’s classroom

behaviors

Findings: Significant group effects were found for the PPVT-R, with all the

groups performing better than children in the non-day care group. For the

WJ-R reading scale, the preschool group showed no effects. Significant

main effects were found for preschool group on the WJ-R math scale, with

the community day care sample scoring higher than the four other groups.

Significant preschool group differences were found on the Vineland

Communication Domain, with community day care children rated higher

than the other four groups. Social skills of community child care children

were rated significantly higher by their kindergarten teachers than

children who attended the standard or the family-focused classes or

children who did not attend group day care and marginally higher than the

Head Start children. On the Academic Competence scale of the Social

Skills Questionnaire, children who previously attended community child

care scored significantly higher than those in the other four groups.

Source: Donna M. Bryant, Ellen S. Peisnar-Feinberg, and Richard M.

Clifford, Evaluation of Public Preschool Programs in North Carolina,

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, N.C.: 1993).

The Impact of Escalating

Family Stress on the

Effectiveness of Head Start

Intervention

Authors: Mary Anne Chalkley and Robert K. Leik

Outcome area studied: Family

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Overview of study: Explored the effects that declining conditions among

the U.S. poor may have on the potential for intervention programs to make

a difference in the lives of those receiving services

Design: Pretest/post-test, followed up Head Start Family Impact Project

participants in 1993; comparison group recruited from Head Start-eligible

families

Population: Head Start families in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sample: 130 of the 190 families in the original study

Head Start program year(s): 1986-87, 1989-90

Measures/instrumentation: Mothers reported various measures on their

families, themselves, and their children. Children completed the pictorial

form of Perceived Competence and Acceptance.

Findings: An examination of the absolute amount of change in the

mother’s perception of the child was inconclusive on the impact of Head

Start.

Source: Mary Anne Chalkey and Robert K. Leik, The Impact of Escalating

Family Stress on the Effectiveness of Head Start Intervention, paper

presented at the National Head Start Association’s 22nd Annual Training

Conference (Washington, D.C.: April 1995).

Developmental Progress of

Children Enrolled in

Oklahoma Head Start

Programs in 1987-1988

Author: Laurna Champ

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and social

Overview of study: Head Start students were tested in the fall and again

in the spring in multiple developmental areas.

Design: Pretest/post-test

Population: Children in 15 Head Start programs in Oklahoma

Sample: 120 students

Head Start program year(s): 1987-88

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Measures/instrumentation: Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early

Development and Head Start Measures Battery

Findings: Gains on the Brigance ranged from 9 to 16 months. Similar

claims were made for results on the Head Start Measures Battery, but

findings were reported in raw scores with no intrinsic meaning.

Source: Laurna Champ, Developmental Progress of Children Enrolled in

Oklahoma Head Start Programs in 1981-1988, unpublished manuscript,

1988.

Does Head Start Make a

Difference?

Authors: Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and health

Overview of study: Examined the impact of Head Start on school

performance, cognitive attainment, and various health and nutritional

measures

Design: Post-test only, comparison groups comprised participants in other

preschool or no preschool

Population: U.S. Head Start participants

Sample: National sample of data for nearly 5,000 children from the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the National Longitudinal

Survey’s Child-Mother file

Head Start program year(s): 1986-90

Measures/instrumentation: Picture Peabody Vocabulary Test and grade

retention

Findings: Head Start had positive and persistent effects on test scores and

school attainment of white children relative to participation in either other

preschool or no preschool after controlling for family and background

effects. An increase in test scores was noted for African American

children, but these gains were quickly lost, and there appeared to be no

positive effects in school attainment. Greater access to preventive health

care was reported for white and African American children who attended

Head Start or other preschools.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Source: Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas, “Does Head Start Make a

Difference?” The American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3 (1995), pp.

341-64.

A Comparison of Head

Start and Non-Head Start

Reading Readiness Scores

of Low-Income

Kindergarten Children of

Guam

Author: Maria D. Esteban

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Followed up Head Start participants in kindergarten

Design: Post-test only, comparison group comprised low-income

kindergarten students that did not attend Head Start

Population: Head Start participants from six public schools on Guam

Sample: 35 male and 35 female Head Start children and 35 male and 35

female non-Head Start children

Head Start program year(s): 1985-86

Measures/instrumentation: Brigance K&I Screen for Kindergarten

Findings: Differences among the four groups were not significant at the p

= .05 level. Head Start to non-Head Start comparison was not significant.

Source: Maria D. Esteban, A Comparison of Head Start and Non-Head

Start Reading Readiness Scores of Low-Income Kindergarten Children of

Guam, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1987).

The Effectiveness of

Family Health Care in

Head Start: The Role of

Parental Involvement

Author: Barbara A. Facchini

Outcome area studied: Health

Overview of study: Relationship of the amount of parental involvement

in the Head Start program to the amount of health care received by both

Head Start-age children and their siblings

Design: Post-test only, comparison group selected from waiting list

Population: West Haven, Connecticut, Head Start program

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Sample: 40 Head Start children and 20 waiting-list children for

comparison group

Head Start program year(s): 1980-81

Measures/instrumentation: Immunizations, physical examinations,

health screenings, and dental examinations

Findings: Immunizations were up to date for about one-half of both the

Head Start children and the waiting-list children before the beginning of

the Head Start programs. All of the Head Start children were up to date

during the Head Start year, but only a few additional waiting-list children

were up to date. Head Start children were more likely to receive health

screenings and dental examinations (p < .001). Head Start children were

more likely to receive physical examinations, but only the difference for

children of highly involved parents was significantly different from the

waiting-list children (p < .05). No significant difference for immunizations

was found between the siblings of Head Start children and siblings of

waiting-list children. Head Start siblings were more likely to have received

health and dental screenings (p < .05).

Source: Barbara A. Facchini, The Effectiveness of Family Health Care in

Head Start: The Role of Parental Involvement, Quinnipiac College (West

Haven, Conn.: 1985).

The Effects of Head Start

Health Services: Executive

Summary of the Head Start

Health Evaluation

Authors: Linda B. Fosburg and Bernard Brown

Outcome area studied: Health

Overview of study: Longitudinal study of the Head Start health services

Design: Pretest/post-test, longitudinal experimental design, involving

random assignment of children to a Head Start and a non-Head Start group

Population: Four large Head Start programs

Sample: 208 children completed both pre- and post-tests, 609 received

post-tests only

Head Start program year(s): 1980-81

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Measures/instrumentation: Pediatric, dental, anthropometric,

hematology, developmental, speech and language, vision, and hearing

evaluations and nutritional observation; parent interview addressed the

health history of child, nutritional evaluation of child, and family

background

Findings: Head Start children were more likely to receive preventive and

remedial health services than other low-income children in their

community. Head Start children were more likely to receive medical and

dental examinations, speech evaluation and therapy services, and vision

screen or examination. Head Start children tested at both pretest and

post-test were less likely to have speech and language deficiencies at

post-test. Nutritional intake evaluation showed exceptionally positive

impacts of Head Start’s nutrition services on children and their families.

Source: Linda B. Fosburg and Bernard Brown, The Effects of Head Start

Health Services: Executive Summary of the Head Start Evaluation, Abt

Associates (Cambridge, Mass.: 1984).

Children Are a Wonderful

Investment: A Study in

Preschool Education

Authors: Mary Fulbright and others

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and family

Overview of study: To examine the effects of preschool education on

children of low-income families in Dallas, Texas

Design: Post-test only, followed up students who had attended Sunnyview

Head Start Center during the previous 5 years; comparison group selected

from children in district who did not attend Sunnyview Head Start Center

but were matched on demographic characteristics

Population: Dallas Independent School District students who had

attended Sunnyview Head Start Center during the previous 5 years

Sample: 83 former Sunnyview parents and 76 comparison group parents;

for the grade retention analysis, 43 Sunnyview and 41 comparison students

Head Start program year(s): 1984-89 (estimated)

Measures/instrumentation: Demographic, economic, home

environment, and educational experience/expectation information was

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

collected from parents. Grade retention information was gathered from

school files.

Findings: Significantly fewer former Sunnyview students had repeated a

grade than comparison group students. Sunnyview parents reported

significantly more educational items in the home than comparison group

parents.

Source: Mary Fulbright and others, Children Are a Wonderful Investment:

A Study in Preschool Education, Community Services Development

Center, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Texas (Arlington,

Tex.: 1989).

Health Services and Head

Start: A Forgotten Formula

Authors: Barbara A. Hale, Victoria Seitz, and Edward Zigler

Outcome area studied: Health

Overview of study: Studied the impact of Head Start’s health services on

children and their siblings

Design: Post-test only, comparison groups from the waiting list and from

a nursery school serving middle-class families

Population: Head Start participants in two adjacent small cities in

Connecticut

Sample: 40 Head Start children, 18 children on the Head Start waiting list,

20 children enrolled in a nursery school, and 103 siblings of the nursery

school children

Head Start program year(s): 1984-85

Measures/instrumentation: Immunizations, physical examinations,

health screenings, and dental examinations

Findings: Head Start children received more age-appropriate health

screenings than middle-class children and waiting-list children. Head Start

children were more likely to receive dental examinations than middleclass children and waiting-list children. Head Start siblings were less likely

than middle-class siblings to receive age-appropriate immunizations and

health screenings.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Source: Barbara A. Hale, Victoria Seitz, and Edward Zigler, “Health

Services and Head Start: A Forgotten Formula,” Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, Vol. 11 (1990), pp. 447-58.

An Analysis of the

Effectiveness of Head Start

and of the Performance of

a Low-Income Population

in MCPS

Author: Kathleen Hebbeler

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Examined the long-term effectiveness of Head Start

by comparing the performance of Head Start graduates in elementary and

secondary school to that of students who had applied for Head Start but

did not attend

Design: Post-test only, followed up three cohorts of Head Start graduates;

one cohort, the 1978-79 group, was within the scope of our study;

comparison group selected from waiting list for each respective year

Population: Children continuously enrolled in Montgomery County,

Maryland, school system between 1980 and 1984 and currently in the

fourth grade

Sample: Head Start group comprised 411 children; the comparison group

had 89.

Head Start program year(s): 1978-79

Measures/instrumentation: California Achievement Test, Cognitive

Abilities Test, special education placements, and grade retention

Findings: Head Start group had a higher percentage of students who

scored above the 80th percentile on one of the subtests of the Cognitive

Abilities Test administered in the third grade.

Source: Kathleen Hebbeler, An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Head Start

and of the Performance of a Low-Income Population in MCPS,

unpublished manuscript, Education Resources Information Center

(ED281674), 1985.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

A Comparison of the

Academic Achievement of

Urban Second Grade

Pupils With Different

Forms of Public Preschool

Experience

Author: Elva Williams Hunt

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Comparison of the academic achievement of urban

second grade students from low-income families with different forms of

public preschool experience

Design: Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in second

grade; comparison groups comprised students with public preschool (First

Step) or no preschool experience

Population: Three cohorts of second grade students from the Newport

News Public Schools

Sample: 74 former Head Start students, 92 former First Step preschool

students, and 92 students with no preschool experience

Head Start program year(s): 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83

Measures/instrumentation: Standardized test scores and grade

retention

Findings: Achievement test scores of the three groups were not

significantly different. No conclusion was reached about the performance

of Head Start students on the grade retention measure.

Source: Elva Williams Hunt, A Comparison of the Academic Achievement

of Urban Second Grade Pupils With Different Forms of Public Preschool

Experience, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1987).

A Head Start Program

Evaluation in Terms of

Family Stress and Affect: A

Pilot Study

Authors: Ron Iverson and others

Outcome area studied: Family

Overview of study: Assessment of the effect of a local Minnesota Head

Start’s family services on family stress levels

Design: Pretest/post-test, comparison groups selected from waiting-list

families and from the local population

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Population: Families with children enrolled in the Clay-Wilkin

Opportunity Council Head Start program

Sample: 149 Head Start families were surveyed at the beginning of the

program year and completed a post-test in May and a 1-year follow-up the

following May. Twenty-one waiting-list families and 35 randomly selected

families with young children from the general population were surveyed as

comparison groups.

Head Start program year(s): 1991-92, 1992-93

Measures/instrumentation: Index of Family Stress and

Adjustment—Stress was measured by a correlated subscale of 13 of the

original 55 stress items, and affect was measured by a correlated subscale

of 9 of the original 30 affect items.

Findings: Head Start and waiting-list families were both significantly

higher in stress means and lower in affect means than the general

population families. Head Start families were both significantly lower in

stress and significantly higher in affect than the waiting-list families at

Head Start post-test. Head Start gains in both stress and affect measures

appeared to reverse at the 1-year follow-up, but the changes were not

significant.

Source: Ron Iverson and others, A Head Start Program Evaluation in

Terms of Family Stress and Affect: A Pilot Study, State of Minnesota

Department of Jobs and Training (Moorhead, Minn.: 1993).

Final Report-The Head

Start Family Impact

Project

Authors: Robert K. Leik and Mary Anne Chalkley

Outcome area studied: Family

Overview of study: Studied family functioning and optimal involvement

of parents in Head Start

Design: Pretest/post-test of two treatment groups—regular Head Start and

an enriched program with a comparison group selected from the Head

Start waiting list

Population: Head Start participants in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Sample: 51 families in regular Head Start, 30 families in the enriched

program, and 21 waiting-list families

Head Start program year(s): 1986-87

Measures/instrumentation: Various measures of family characteristics,

mother’s evaluation of her child’s behavior and competence, and

children’s feelings of competence and social acceptance

Findings: Head Start families exhibited large and significant changes in

family cohesion and adaptability. Mothers in both Head Start groups

increased their evaluation of their children’s competence. Children in all

samples increased their sense of competence and acceptance.

Source: Robert K. Leik and Mary Anne Chalkley, Final Report—The Head

Start Family Impact Project.

A Longitudinal Study to

Determine the Effects of

Head Start Participation on

Reading Achievement in

Grades Kindergarten

Through Six in Troy Public

Schools

Author: Paula J. Nystrom

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Review impact of the Head Start program on

academic achievement of children

Design: Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in

kindergarten through sixth grade; comparison group comprised children

who had not attended Head Start, but who were similar to the Head Start

group on certain demographic variables

Population: Head Start participants from three schools in Troy, Michigan

Sample: 54 Head Start children and 54 comparison children

Head Start program year(s): 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84

Measures/instrumentation: Metropolitan Readiness Test,

Gates-MacGinite Reading Test, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Cognitive

Abilities Test, special education placements, and grade retention

Findings: Mean scores at kindergarten were higher for the Head Start

group compared with the comparison group at kindergarten; no significant

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

differences were found at any of the other grade levels. An analysis of

change in scores over time showed a significant difference in favor of the

Head Start group. No significant differences were found between the Head

Start and comparison group for special education placement and grade

retention.

Source: Paula J. Nystrom, A Longitudinal Study to Determine the Effects

of Head Start Participation on Reading Achievement in Grades

Kindergarten Through Six in Troy Public Schools, UMI Dissertation

Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1988).

A Comparison of Long

Range Effects of

Participation in Project

Head Start and Impact of

Three Differing Delivery

Models

Author: Yvonne B. Reedy

Outcome area studied: Cognitive, socioemotional, and family

Overview of study: Investigated possible differences among groups of

children receiving Head Start through three different delivery models

Design: Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants after 2 to 4

years in public schools to examine the long-range effects of different

delivery models; comparison group comprised children who might have

attended Head Start but did not

Population: Head Start participants in rural Pennsylvania

Sample: 18 were children for each of the three groups: classroom, mixed

model, and home based; and 18 children were included in the control

group

Head Start program year(s): Not specified

Measures/instrumentation: Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational

Battery - Part II, Tests of Achievement; PPVT-R; Child Behavior Checklist -

Parent Rating Scale; Child Behavior Checklist - Teacher Rating Scale;

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale - Survey Form; and Head Start

Follow-up Family Questionnaire

Findings: No differences among Head Start and non-Head Start children

in reading, math, written language, or receptive language. Levels were in

the average range when compared with national norms. Head Start

children obtained significantly higher mean scores on the measure of

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

general knowledge. Head Start children had significantly lower mean

scores on both subscales and total scale on the measure of maladaptive

behavior. Correlations with teacher reports were significant. On the

socialization scale, differences were not significant at p = .05. On the

adaptive behavior measures, the non-Head Start children obtained

significantly higher means on the communication, daily living skills, and

social skills domains, as well as on the total adaptive behavior score.

On the parent questionnaire, non-Head Start parents reported they felt less

capable of providing a good learning environment, spent less time working

with the child on homework or other learning activities, were less likely to

seek information about age-appropriate expectations, were more likely to

resort to spanking as a form of discipline, were less able to find

community services when needed and to feel their involvement with their

child’s education had resulted in any noticeable accomplishments. On the

daily living skills, social skills, and total independent living scales, the

children in the classroom model obtained lower means than the two

groups who received home visits. Parents of children in the classroom

model reported they spent smaller amounts of time working with their

children at home, and they were less likely to seek out information about

age-appropriate information and to feel that their involvement in their

children’s education resulted in any noticeable accomplishments.

Source: Yvonne B. Reedy, A Comparison of Long Range Effects of

Participation in Project Head Start and Impact of Three Differing Delivery

Models, Pennsylvania State University (State College, Penn.: 1991).

A Study of Duration in

Head Start and Its Impact

on Second Graders’

Cognitive Skills

Author: Joyce Harris Roberts

Outcome area studied: Cognitive and socioemotional

Overview of study: Assessed the impact of Head Start programming on

later school success and the development of social competence in its

graduates

Design: Post-test only, compared 1-year Head Start participants with

2-year Head Start participants and a non-preschool comparison group of

second grade classmates

Population: Second grade students in four public schools in a large

suburban school district

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Sample: 30 children with 1 year of Head Start year, 22 children with 2

years of Head Start, and 33 children with no preschool

Head Start program year(s): 1978-79, 1979-80

Measures/instrumentation: Locus of Control Scale for Children -

Pre-School and Primary, Form A; Self-Concept Inventory; and Cognitive

Abilities Test (Primary Level)

Findings: No significant difference was found between groups on any

measure.

Source: Joyce Harris Roberts, A Study of Duration in Head Start and Its

Impact on Second Graders’ Cognitive Skills, UMI Dissertation Services

(Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1984).

Changes in Mental Age,

Self-Concept, and Creative

Thinking in Ethnically

Different 3- and 4-Year-Old

Head Start Students

Author: Linda L.B. Spigner

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Studied Head Start participants’ progress after 8

months of Head Start participation and conducted home interviews for the

children who showed the highest gains and for the children who made the

least progress

Design: Pretest/post-test

Population: Head Start participants in a north Texas community

Sample: 37 Head Start participants

Head Start program year(s): Exact year not specified

Measures/Instrumentation: Bankson Language Screening Test,

Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test, Self-Concept Adjective Checklist, and Torrance Tests of

Creative Thinking

Findings: Average mental age gain of almost 11 months was significant at

the .01 level. Gains in self-concept and creative thinking were significant at

the .01 level.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Source: Linda L.B. Spigner, Changes in Mental Age, Self-Concept, and

Creative Thinking in Ethnically Different 3- and 4-Year-Old Head Start

Students, Texas Woman’s University (Denton, Tex.: 1985).

Learning by Leaps &

Bounds

Author: Texas Instruments Foundation, Head Start of Greater Dallas, and

Southern Methodist University

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Followed up Margaret H. Cone Preschool Head Start

program participants; cohorts 4, 5, and 6 participated in a new Language

Enrichment Activities Program

Design: Post-test only, comparison group comprised classmates who did

not attend the Margaret H. Cone Preschool

Population: Six cohorts of children attending the Margaret H. Cone

Preschool Head Start program in Dallas, Texas

Sample: Cohorts ranged from about 30 to 58 children

Head Start program year(s): 1990-96

Measures/instrumentation: Battelle Developmental Inventory, PPVT-R,

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Preschool, and Iowa Test

of Basic Skills

Findings: Results of cohorts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 revealed a pattern of

improved performance in vocabulary, language skills, concept

development, and social-adaptive skills during the years of the language

enrichment program.

Source: Texas Instruments, Head Start of Greater Dallas, and Southern

Methodist University, Learning by Leaps & Bounds, paper presented at

Head Start’s Third National Research Conference (Washington, D.C.:

June 22, 1996).

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Early Childhood

Educational Intervention:

An Analysis of Nicholas

County, Kentucky, Head

Start Program Impacts

From 1974-1986

Author: Marium T. Williams

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Examined the impact of the Nicholas County Head

Start Program over a 12-year period

Design: Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in first grade

through sixth grade; comparison groups were selected from comparable

first grade enrollment

Population: Children who entered first grade in the years 1975, 1976,

1979, 1980, and 1981 in Nicholas County, Kentucky; the first three groups

are outside our period of study

Sample: 14 Head Start and 9 comparison children for 1979-80 and 11

Head Start and 10 comparison children for 1980-81

Head Start program year(s): 1979-80, 1980-81

Measures/instrumentation: Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills,

Cognitive Skills Index, mathematics and reading/English grades, Kentucky

Essential Skills Test, special education placements, and grade retention

Findings: No significant differences were found for most comparisons.

Reading scores for the Head Start children were significantly better than

those of the comparison group for 3 of the 6 years at the .05 level of

significance.

Source: Marium T. Williams, Early Childhood Educational Intervention:

An Analysis of Nicholas County, Kentucky, Head Start Program Impacts

From 1974-1986, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1988).

Is an Intervention Program

Necessary in Order to

Improve Economically

Disadvantaged Children’s

IQ Scores?

Authors: Edward Zigler and others

Outcome area studied: Cognitive

Overview of study: Studied changes in intelligence quotient scores of

children attending Head Start

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix III 

Summaries of Studies Included in the

Review

Design: Pretest/post-test, comparison group comprised Head Start-eligible

children not attending Head Start; testing was done at three points in the

Head Start year

Population: Preschool children from economically disadvantaged

families living in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods in New Haven,

Connecticut

Sample: 59 Head Start children and 25 comparison children

Head Start program year(s): Not stated

Measures/instrumentation: Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M

Findings: Both groups increased from test to retest, a result which was

attributed to familiarity with the testing situation. Only the Head Start

group continued to show improvement on the post-test, which was

interpreted as reflecting changes in the children’s motivation from

attending a preschool intervention program.

Source: Edward Zigler and others, “Is an Intervention Program Necessary

in Order to Improve Economically Disadvantaged Children’s IQ Scores?”

Child Development, Vol. 53 (1982), pp. 340-48.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix V 

Acknowledgments

Many researchers and early childhood experts provided valuable

assistance and information used in producing this report. In particular, we

wish to acknowledge the following individuals who reviewed the draft

report: Dr. Richard Light, Harvard University; Dr. Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt

University; Greg Powell, National Head Start Association; and Dr. Edward

Zigler, Yale University. Although these reviewers provided valuable

comments, they do not necessarily endorse the positions taken in the

report.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Appendix VI 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts D. Catherine Baltzell, Assistant Director, (202) 512-8001

Deborah L. Edwards, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-5416

Staff

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Sherri Doughty managed the

literature search and co-wrote the report, Wayne Dow led the literature

review and screening, and Paula DeRoy performed the literature searches

and collected the manuscripts.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Page 55 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Related GAO Products

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Head Start: Information on Federal Funds Unspent by Program Grantees

(GAO/HEHS-96-64, Dec. 29, 1995).

Early Childhood Centers: Services to Prepare Children for School Often

Limited (GAO/HEHS-95-21, Mar. 21, 1995).

Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress

(GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan. 30, 1995).

Early Childhood Programs: Parent Education and Income Best Predict

Participation (GAO/HEHS-95-47, Dec. 28, 1994).

Early Childhood Programs: Local Perspectives on Barriers to Providing

Head Start Services (GAO/HEHS-95-8, Dec. 21, 1994).

Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target

Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994).

Early Childhood Programs: Many Poor Children and Strained Resources

Challenge Head Start (GAO/HEHS-94-169BR, May 17, 1994).

Infants and Toddlers: Dramatic Increase in Numbers Living in Poverty

(GAO/HEHS-94-74, Apr. 7, 1994).

Poor Preschool-Age Children: Numbers Increase but Most Not in

Preschool (GAO/HRD-93-111BR, July 21, 1993).

(104849) Page 56 GAO/HEHS-97-59 Head Start Research
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100