United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

December 1995 HEAD START

Information on Federal

Funds Unspent by

Program Grantees

GAO/HEHS-96-64

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-261919 

December 29, 1995

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In fiscal year 1995, Head Start—the centerpiece of federal early childhood

programs—was appropriated $3.5 billion to provide a range of services to

eligible, preschool-aged children from low-income families.1

 Currently,

about 1,400 local agencies, known as grantees, sponsor these programs

and serve 752,000 children. Local programs provide education, nutrition,

health, and social services to low-income children and opportunities for

parental involvement and enrichment.

Since 1990, the Congress has increased funding for Head Start 135 percent

(in current dollars) to allow more children the opportunity to participate

and to improve the quality of Head Start services. During this period of

growth, virtually all program funds were awarded to grantees. However,

some Head Start grantees, as expected, (1) did not spend all of the

program funds awarded them each year to conduct local program

activities and (2) carried these unspent funds forward for use in

subsequent years.2

This report responds to your request for us to determine

• the amount of Head Start funding unspent by program grantees at the end

of grantee budget years 1992, 1993, and 1994 and the reasons for these

unspent funds;3

• the proportion of carryover funds that was added to grantee awards or

that offset grantee awards in subsequent years;

• the proportion of carryover funds that are 1 or more grantee budget years

old; and

1

Although Head Start is authorized to serve children at any age before the age of compulsory school

attendance, most children enter the program at age four.

2

Unspent funds are the remainder of a grantee’s Head Start award—a federal obligation—that are

unexpended or uncommitted by the grantee at the end of its budget year. In other words, unspent

funds are the difference between a Head Start grantee’s total federal award and the amount spent by

the grantee during its budget year.

3

According to Head Start, a grantee budget year (1) is usually 12 months long but may be shorter or

longer, if appropriate, and (2) does not always correspond with the federal fiscal year, which begins on

October 1 and ends on September 30. We used this term to differentiate between the federal fiscal year

in which the award was made.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

• the grantees’ intended use of carryover funds.

To gather information about the extent and intended use of Head Start

grantees’ carryover funds in grantee budget years ending 1992 through

1995, we drew a nationally representative sample of 108 grantee files. We

subsequently examined key documents in these grantees’ files maintained

at Head Start’s Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and New York regional

offices. We discussed the information we collected with Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) officials at headquarters and the field

offices. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the data in the

grantee files. Finally, we analyzed and weighted the data from 107 grantees

and projected the results to a universe of 1,197 Head Start grantees in

1994.4

Our universe of 1,197 grantees did not include 135 grantees that operate

programs for Native American and migrant children; 69 grantees in

existence less than 3 years; and 4 grantees with fiscal year 1994 awards of

$60 million or greater. Our review was not designed to (1) determine

whether program grantees actually used carryover funds for the purposes

intended or (2) uncover program abuses, such as fraud or

mismanagement. (See app. I for a full description of our methodology.)

Results in Brief About two-thirds of the 1,197 Head Start grantees included in our study

had unspent balances at the end of each grantee budget year from 1992

through 1994. The average amount of the unspent balances increased from

about $69,000 to $177,000 during the 3-year period and ranged from as

little as $2 to $2 million. This represented about 4 to 6 percent of all

grantees’ total awards in the aggregate. Most of the unspent balances

resulted from (1) small differences between grantees’ budget estimates

and actual expenditures; (2) problems related to building or renovating

Head Start centers, which delayed planned expenditures; and (3) the

inability of grantees to spend their awards because HHS disbursed certain

types of funding (for example, program expansion funds) late in a

grantee’s budget year.

In grantee budget year 1994, a larger proportion of Head Start carryover

funding was added to grantee awards than was used to offset grantee

awards. About one-half of all carryover funds in grantee budget year 1993

4

Our national estimates are based on data from 107 instead of the 108 grantees in our sample because 1

grantee with a fiscal year 1994 award of more than $60 million was excluded. This grantee’s inclusion

in our analysis would have diminished the precision of our estimates. For further information, see

appendix I.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

and about three-fourths in grantee budget year 1994 were added to grantee

awards in subsequent budget years. About one-half and one-fourth of

carryover funds in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994, respectively, offset

grantee awards. Data were incomplete for grantee budget year 1995.

Our analysis of data for both grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 showed

that Head Start regional offices either added to or offset from about 70 to

90 percent of grantee awards with carryover funds within 2 grantee budget

years after an unspent balance occurred. However, the remaining

proportion of carryover funds used to offset grantee awards was 3 or more

years old. Head Start regional office officials primarily cited administrative

reasons—such as delays in data entry or grantee errors—for not offsetting

these carryover funds sooner.

According to grantee files, carryover funds were added to grantee awards

in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 combined to expand Head Start

enrollments (40 percent) and build or renovate facilities

(37 percent)—activities that are often not completed by grantees in a

single year. Information in the grantee files also indicated that an

additional 23 percent of funds carried over were to be used for capital

equipment, supplies, and other purposes such as staff training.

Background Head Start is administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and

Families (ACF). Services are provided at the local level by public and

private nonprofit agencies that receive their funding directly from HHS.

These agencies include public and private school systems, community

action agencies, government agencies, and Indian tribes. Grantees may

contract with one or more other public or private nonprofit

organizations—commonly referred to as delegate agencies—in the

community to run all or part of their local Head Start programs. Grantees

may choose to provide center-based programs, home-based programs, or a

combination of both.

Once approved for funding as a result of a competitive application

process, Head Start grantees do not compete for funding in succeeding

years. However, they are required to submit applications for continuation

awards (hereafter called awards) to support their programs beyond the

initial grantee budget year. After Head Start receives its annual

appropriation from the Congress, the respective HHS regional offices make

awards to grantees in their administrative service areas at the beginning of

each grantee’s budget year as shown in table 1.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

Table 1: Head Start Grantees Receive

100 Percent of Continuation Awards

Throughout the Federal Fiscal Year

Grantees with budget years beginning

in—

Quarter of federal fiscal year in which

funds are disbursed

October, November, December, and

January

First quarter

(October - December)

February, March, April Second quarter

(January - March)

May, June, July Third quarter

(April - June)

August and September Fourth quarter

(July - September)

Grantees use their awards for the following purposes, among others, to:

• purchase or rent a facility if providing a center-based program;

• hire qualified teachers, aides, and support staff;

• coordinate or contract with Public Health agencies and local health

providers to deliver medical and dental services;

• buy or lease vehicles to transport children to Head Start centers;

• purchase utilities, services, and supplies needed to operate a center and

administer the program; and

• comply with program standards and local building and health codes that

ensure quality and safety.

During a grantee budget year, grantees may also receive supplemental

awards for specific purposes (such as expanding enrollment) or to cover

normal, though sometimes unexpected, expenses such as repairing a roof

or purchasing a new heating system. In addition, grantee accounts may be

adjusted as the result of a routine financial audit or Head Start regional

office review of grantees’ files. These activities sometimes identify unspent

funds that the grantee did not report due to an error or oversight. HHS

requires grantees to get their Head Start accounts audited every 2 years,

though many grantees hire accountants to perform an audit every year.

As shown in figure 1, grantees, as expected, may not necessarily spend all

of their award by the end of their budget year. HHS permits grantees to

carry over unspent funds into the next grantee budget year to complete

any program objectives that remain unmet from the previous year.5 HHS

regional offices generally handle carryover funds in two ways:

5

Sometimes, anticipating an expenditure, regional offices may prohibit a grantee from spending the

entire carryover balance immediately. This earmarked or “unreprogrammed” portion of a carryover

balance is suspended in the grantee’s account and may be made available eventually to the grantee

when needed.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

1. Carryover balances from a previous year or years are added to an award

that a grantee receives in a subsequent year. This procedure is known as

“reprogramming” funds, and the amount of carryover funds added to a

grantee’s award is called total obligating authority (TOA).

2. Carryover balances from a previous year or years offset or reduce the

award that a grantee receives in a subsequent year. This procedure is

known as “offsetting” funds, and the amount of carryover deducted from

the award is called new obligating authority (NOA).6

6

According to the ACF Discretionary Grants Administration Manual, HHS regional offices can also

withdraw the obligating authority of a grantee with a carryover balance and refund to the federal

government any cash that has already been transferred to the grantee. We did not find any instances in

our sample of 108 grantee files in which HHS used this option to handle carryover balances during the

3 years we examined.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

Figure 1: Grantees May Not Spend All Funds When Initially Awarded

Grant

Award

Spent

Award Year Subsequent Years

Unspent Carryover

Balance

Unreprogrammed

In Addition to

New $

(TOA)

In Place of

New $

(NOA)

Funding Increases Had No

Impact on HHS’ Ability to

Disburse Awards

The growth in Head Start funding since 1990 (see fig. 2) reflects the federal

government’s commitment to expanding the number of children in the

program and to ensuring program quality.7

 Overall program funding

increased from about $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1990 to about $3.5 billion in

fiscal year 1995. Twice in fiscal year 1990 and once each in fiscal years

1991, 1992, and 1993, the Congress appropriated additional funding for

Head Start to, among other things, increase local enrollments, strengthen

the program’s social, health, and parent involvement components; improve

services for disabled children; initiate and improve literacy programs; and

enhance salaries, benefits, training, and technical assistance for program

7

In 1994, 40 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds participated in local Head Start programs.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

staff. ACF allocated these expansion funds on the basis of a formula as

required by statute.8

Figure 2: Head Start Funding

Increased Significantly Between 1990

and 1995 (in Current Year Dollars) 4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.5

1.95

2.2

2.78

3.32

3.53

1.50

1.00

0.50

Dollars in Billions

Fiscal Year

Total Budget

Expansion

Quality Improvement

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Despite this dramatic growth in Head Start appropriations, HHS awarded

virtually all program funding to eligible grantees. Head Start’s program

8

Eighty-seven percent of all Head Start funding except carryover is allocated by state on the basis of

the number of children in each state who are (1) age 5 and younger and living with low-income

families (2) and age 18 and younger and in families receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children.

See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9835 (a)(4) (1993).

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

obligation rates for each of these years stayed at or above 99 percent,

while the total number of grantees increased from 1,321 in fiscal year 1990

to about 1,400 in fiscal year 1994. Overall program outlay rates (that is, the

ratio of outlays to budget authority) during this period indicate that

outlays remained stable as grantees received infusions of Head Start

expansion or quality improvement funding. However, at the grantee level,

this funding growth increased grantee awards and unspent balances for

the grantees included in our universe during the grantee budget years we

examined.

Grantee Awards and

Unspent Balances

Increased in Recent

Years

We found that total grantee awards for the 1,197 Head Start grantees

covered by our review increased from $1.4 billion to $2.3 billion from

grantee budget years 1992 through 1994, while mean awards rose from

$1.2 million to $1.9 million in these same years. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Unspent Balances of Head

Start Grantees Rose (Grantee Budget

Years 1992-94) 

Grantee budget year

Total

award

(dollars in

billions)

Total

unspent

balance

(dollars in

millions)

Mean

unspent

balance

Unspent

balances ranged

from—

1992 $1.4 $54 $69,000 $17 to $1.3 million

1993 1.8 101 133,000 2 to 2.4 million

1994 2.2 130 177,000 22 to 1.7 million

During grantee budget years 1992, 1993, and 1994—a period of intense

growth—about two-thirds of the 1,197 grantees had unspent balances at

the end of each budget year. Almost 40 percent of these 1,197 grantees had

unspent balances every year. As shown in table 2, these balances totaled

approximately $54 million, $101 million, and $130 million, in grantee

budget years 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively, and varied greatly by

grantee.

However, these unspent balances were a small part of grantees’ total

awards. On the basis of our analysis, unspent balances represented from

about 5 to 8 percent of the award for those grantees with unspent balances

and from 4 to 6 percent of total awards for all grantees in the aggregate.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

(See app. II for the reported unspent balances of the 108 grantees included

in our sample.)

Why Do Unspent

Balances Occur?

Unspent balances resulted from (1) small differences between the amount

of a grantee’s annual award and its actual expenditures at the end of its

grantee budget year, (2) situations that delay a grantee’s expenditure of

funds or that hamper a grantee’s ability to spend funds before the year’s

end, and (3) a combination of these and other reasons.9

Small Budget Variances We found that almost two-thirds of grantees in grantee budget year 1992

and about half in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 had small differences

between their total award approved at the beginning of a grantee budget

year and the amount spent at year’s end. We considered these spending

variances small if the amount of unspent funds was 5 percent or less of a

grantee’s award in a given year. These small budget variances could have

occurred because, for example, (1) grantees’ projected budgets—upon

which grant awards are based—did not equal their actual expenditures or

(2) grantees did not purchase an item or service as originally planned. For

example, a grantee in Ohio had ordered two buses and playground

equipment for its Head Start center. However, these items were not

delivered nor paid for before the grantee’s budget year ended, resulting in

an unspent balance of $84,762.

Timing Issues We found that from 10 to 24 percent of grantees with unspent balances in

grantee budget years 1992 through 1994 (1) had problems renovating or

building a center, which delayed planned expenditures until subsequent

years, or (2) received additional funding late in a grantee budget year,

making it difficult for grantees to spend all of their funds before year’s end.

For example, a Head Start grantee in Colorado received funding to

increase its program enrollment in early September 1991—about 2 months

before the grantee’s budget year was to end on October 30. Due to the

short time remaining, the grantee could not spend $89,980 of the amount

awarded for expanding program enrollment. This same grantee had agreed

verbally with a private company to prepare a site so that the grantee could

place a modular unit on it to serve as a Head Start center. Site preparation

would have involved establishing water, sewer, gas, and electrical

hookups at the site. Before any work began, however, new owners took

over the company and did not honor the verbal agreement between the

9

In some cases, we could not determine why grantees had unspent balances.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

grantee and the previous owner. It took the grantee 2 years to find another

site suitable for the center, and that facility required extensive

renovations.

HHS’ Office of Inspector General reported in 1991 and 1993 that acquiring

adequate, affordable space was a major problem for Head Start grantees

attempting to expand program enrollments. Grantees told the Inspector

General’s office that it can take up to a year to find suitable space that

then may have to be renovated. Strict construction licensing requirements

and delays in license approval could also slow spending for center

construction or renovation. The Inspector General reported that space

problems were most prevalent among grantees funded to increase

enrollment by more than 200 children.10 The grantees believed that being

notified at least 6 months in advance of funding disbursements would help

to alleviate this problem.

Head Start grantees interviewed by the Inspector General’s staff also said

that receiving expansion funding late in the budget year results in

carryover fund balances. After expansion, more than twice as many

grantees interviewed had carryover balances of over $50,000. Many

grantees believe that even with adequate lead time large expansions

should not occur annually.

Other Reasons According to the grantee files we reviewed, unspent balances sometimes

occurred for reasons other than small budget variances or timing issues.

On the basis of information included in grantee files and discussions with

regional office program officials, we found, for example, that unspent

balances occurred because grantees

• experienced accounting or management problems during 1 or more years,

• depended on large government bureaucracies, such as New York City’s, to

provide certain goods and services, which often slowed program

expenditures; or

• assumed the program operations and accounts of a former grantee.

Also, unspent balances may have occurred for a combination of reasons

described above. In other cases we could not determine the reason for

grantees’ unspent balances on the basis of file information or discussions

with Head Start regional office officials.

10Readiness To Expand Head Start Enrollment (OEI-02-91-00741) HHS Office of Inspector General

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1991) and Head Start Expansion: Grantee Experiences (OEI-09-91-00760) HHS

Office of Inspector General (Washington, D.C.: May 1993).

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

Larger Proportion of

Carryover Funds

Added to Grantee

Awards in Grantee

Budget Year 1994

Unspent balances occur when a grantee’s total award differs from the

amount the grantee spent during its budget year. As previously stated,

these unspent funds may be carried over into a subsequent grantee budget

year. For our analysis, we defined carryover funds as any unspent funds

used to either offset or add to a grantee’s award during a subsequent

budget year. Carryover funds are not always added to or offset in the year

immediately following the year the unspent funds occurred. For example,

a grantee in Florida with $45,913 in unspent funds in grantee budget year

1992 did not have this amount totally added to or offset as carryover funds

in grantee budget year 1993. In fact, $45,759 was added to its budget year

1993 award and the remaining $154 was used to offset the grantee’s budget

year 1994 award. A grantee in Minnesota, on the other hand, had $3,840

from grantee budget year 1993 added to its budget year 1995 award. Yet, a

Michigan grantee had its entire grantee budget year 1992 unspent balance

of $1,568 offset as carryover funds in 1993.

On the basis of our analysis of grantee files, we found that in grantee

budget year 1993 HHS added about half of all carryover funds to grantees’

awards as TOA and the remaining proportion of carryover funds was offset

as NOA. Of the grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget year 1993,

the unspent funds added to grantee awards ranged from $10,900 to

$533,500 and averaged approximately $96,000. If we had included the

grantee representing New York City in our calculation, the upper end of

this range would have been about $4.2 million. NOA for the same period

ranged from $59 to $664,700 and averaged about $39,000.

In grantee budget year 1994, we found that about three-fourths of

carryover funding was added to awards as TOA, and the remainder was

offset as NOA. Of the grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget

year 1994, the amount of unspent funds added to grantee awards ranged

from $3,200 to $2.4 million and averaged about $197,400. NOA for the same

period ranged from $17 to $621,000 and averaged approximately $58,600.

This trend appears to continue in grantee budget year 1995, though data

for this year were incomplete when we performed our final calculations in

October 1995.

Most Carryover Funds Are

Reprogrammed or Offset

Within 2 Grantee Budget

Years

We found that HHS generally adds to or offsets grantee carryover funds

within 2 grantee budget years after an unspent balance occurs. For

example, for both grantee budget years 1993 and 1994, we found that

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

• about 90 percent of carryover funds added to grantee awards was 1 year

old, and the remainder was from 2 to 3 years old; and

• from about 70 to 90 percent of carryover funds offsetting grantee awards

was from 1 to 2 years old, and the remainder was 3 or more years old.11

Because Head Start carryover funds are generally spent in 2 grantee

budget years but are available for up to 5 fiscal years following the fiscal

year in which they are initially awarded (31 U.S.C., sec. 1552(a)), we asked

Head Start regional office officials why certain carryover balances were

reprogrammed or offset as long as 3 or more years after an unspent

balance occurred. Regional office officials gave the following

administrative and grantee-specific reasons:

• Regional office staff may not process grantee files in a timely manner due

to grantee or staff errors, delays in data entry, staff turnover, large

workloads, and differences in staff competence.

• Final forms documenting carryover balances are not due from grantees

until 90 days after the budget year’s end. Incorrect carryover balances may

not be caught immediately because independent auditors may take up to

13 months to complete an audit of a grantee’s program accounts for a

given year.

• Actions, such as reprogramming or offsetting carryover balances, could be

suspended if a grantee appeals an HHS decision to disallow funding.

• A grantee’s bankruptcy proceedings delayed a regional office from

offsetting certain carryover funds.

Intended Use of

Carryover Balances

Reportedly for

Expansion and

Facilities

For grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 combined, we estimated that

carryover funds totaled $139 million. Of this amount, carryover funds

added to grantee awards (TOA) totaled $97 million and those offsetting

grantee awards (NOA) totaled $42 million. We focused our analysis of

intended use on the TOA portion because NOA has no identifiable intended

purpose.

On the basis of our review of Head Start grantee files, the intended use of a

large proportion of Head Start carryover funds from grantee budget years

1993 and 1994 combined was to be used for expanding program

11HHS officials told us that, at the program level, about 40 percent of all Head Start funding is outlayed

by the end of the federal fiscal year in which it is awarded; about 95 percent is outlayed by the end of

the second year; and about 99 percent is outlayed by the end of the third year.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

enrollments and renovating or buying facilities.12 Of the $97 million of TOA

carryover funds, the intended use of 40 percent of these funds was for

expansion and 37 percent was for facilities. Data from the files indicated

that about 23 percent of the total TOA for these years was reportedly to be

used for capital equipment, supplies, and other purposes such as staff

training and moving expenses. Data were incomplete for grantee budget

year 1995.

We found that grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget years

1993 and 1994 combined to be used for facilities ranged from $901 to

$611,000 and averaged approximately $116,000. TOA reportedly to be used

for expansion ranged from $4,200 to $2.4 million and averaged about

$296,000.

In summary, although overall program outlay rates remained stable during

a period of intense program growth (fiscal years 1990-95), Head Start

grantees accrued increasingly larger average unspent balances in grantee

budget years 1992 through 1994. Depending on the size of grantees’

awards, their reported unspent balances in those years ranged from as

little as $2 to about $2 million. On the basis of Head Start files, we

determined in most cases that these unspent balances resulted from

(1) small differences between grantees’ budget estimates and actual

expenditures; (2) grantee problems renovating or constructing facilities,

which delayed planned expenditures; and (3) the receipt of supplemental

funding by grantees late in their budget year, which made it difficult for

grantees to spend their funds before year’s end. Of the unspent funds

added to grantee awards in budget years 1993 and 1994 combined, we

found that grantees planned to use these dollars for increasing local

program enrollments and buying or improving program

facilities—activities that grantees often do not complete in a single year.

As arranged with your office, we will make copies available to the

Secretary of Health and Human Services and other interested parties. We

will also make copies available to others on request.

12Here we combined data from the two budget years to increase the precision of our estimate. (See

app. I for a discussion of sampling errors.)

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
B-261919 

Please contact Fred E. Yohey, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7218 or

Karen A. Whiten, Evaluator-in-Charge, if you or your staff have any

questions. Other GAO contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education

 and Employment Issues

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

18

Data Collection Strategy 18

Methodology Limitations 24

Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees

Included in Our

Representative

Sample

25

Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

33

Tables Table 1: Head Start Grantees Receive 100 Percent of Continuation

Awards Throughout the Federal Fiscal Year

4

Table 2: Unspent Balances of Head Start Grantees Rose 8

Table I.1: Head Start Regions Stratified by New Funding Awards 19

Table I.2: Regions Included in GAO Sample 19

Table I.3: Distribution of Population and Sample of Grantees by

Amount of New Funding Received in Fiscal Year 1994

20

Table I.4: Sampling Errors for Dollar Estimates 22

Table I.5: Sampling Errors for Estimates of Proportions 23

Table II.1: Region 4—Atlanta 25

Table II.2: Region 5—Chicago 26

Table II.3: Region 6—Dallas 28

Table II.4: Region 8—Denver 30

Table II.5: Region 2—New York 31

Figures Figure 1: Grantees May Not Spend All Funds When Initially

Awarded

6

Figure 2: Head Start Funding Increased Significantly Between

1990 and 1995

7

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Contents

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NOA new obligating authority

TOA total obligating authority

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

We designed our study to collect information about the extent and nature

of Head Start carryover funds. To do so, we visited a sample of Head Start

regional offices and examined key documents in selected grantee files.

Results are generalizable to Head Start grantees that (1) were at least 3

years old in 1994, (2) had at least some but less than $60 million in new

funding in 1994, and (3) were located in 10 of the 12 Head Start regions.

Our work was performed between June and October 1995 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Data Collection

Strategy

We reviewed grantee files for a nationally representative sample of Head

Start grantees. We focused our efforts on grantee budget years that ended

in 1992 through 1995, examining file documents at selected Head Start

regional offices.

Sample Design To generate national estimates, we employed a two-stage cluster sampling

strategy. The Head Start regions constituted the first stage of the sample.

Of the 12 Head Start regions, 2 are operated from the Department of

Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C.—1 for

Native Americans and the other for migrant workers. Because these

regional offices share a unique relationship with headquarters, they were

not included in the regions to be sampled. We organized the 10 remaining

regions by the amount of grantee new funding received in federal fiscal

year 1994,13 separating them into three groups or strata: regions with new

funding of $500 million or more; regions with new funding of $200 to

$499 million; and regions with new funding of less than $200 million. Table

I.1 shows our population of regions.

13New funds are Head Start funds other than carryover funds that grantees received.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Table I.1: Head Start Regions Stratified

by New Funding Awards (Fiscal Year

1994) 

Amount of new

funding received in

fiscal year 1994

(dollars in millions) Region

Total fiscal year 1994

new funding (dollars in

millions)

Total number

of grantees

$500 or more 4—Atlanta $570 239

5—Chicago 532 213

$200 to 499 9—San Francisco 441 82

2—New York 421 104

6—Dallas 385 176

3—Philadelphia 250 149

Less than $200 1—Boston 118 84

7—Kansas City 116 76

10—Seattle 89 69

8—Denver 78 78

We then selected a sample of regions in each strata using a random

number generator program. Table I.2 shows the regions selected in our

sample.

Table I.2: Regions Included in GAO

Sample Amount of new funding received in

fiscal year 1994 (dollars in millions) Region

Total fiscal year 1994 new

funding (dollars in millions)

$500 or more 4—Atlanta $570

5—Chicago 532

$200 to $499 2—New York 421

6—Dallas 385

Less than $200 8—Denver 78

Stage two of the sample consisted of individual Head Start grantees. Head

Start had 1,270 grantees in the 10 regions in fiscal year 1994. Because we

were reviewing 2 to 3 years of data, we excluded any grantee not in

existence at least 3 years. We also excluded all grantees with no new

funding in fiscal year 1994. This reduced the number of grantees in our

population to 1,201.

We organized grantees in our sample regions by fiscal year 1994 new

funding and put them into four strata: those with fiscal year 1994 new

funding of less than $1 million; those with $1 million or more but less than

$3 million; those with $3 million or more but less than $5 million; and

those with $5 million or more. We then selected a random sample of

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

grantees in each strata. Table I.3 shows the distribution of grantees by

strata of our population and sample.

Table I.3: Distribution of Population

and Sample of Grantees by Amount of

New Funding Received in Fiscal Year

1994

Amount of new funding received in

fiscal year 1994 (dollars in millions)

Population

size

Number in

sample

regions Sample size

Less than $1 411 243 34

$1 to less than $3 567 375 44

$3 to less than $5 121 83 15

$5 or more 102 68 15

Total grantees 1,201 769 108

Once the fieldwork was completed and records evaluated, we determined

that one very large grantee with fiscal year 1994 new funding of $60 million

or more was, because of its complexity, unique and required special

handling. Therefore, we set aside this one grantee—The City of New York

Human Resources Administration, Agency for Child Development. We did

not include data collected from this site in our overall estimates but used

the data as a case study of a very large grantee. By eliminating the very

large grantees, we reduced our population further by 4 grantees to 1,197,

thereby reducing our sample from 108 to 107 grantees. Our findings,

therefore, are representative of grantees in the 10 Head Start regions that

are at least 3 years old with at least some but less than $60 million in fiscal

year 1994 new funding.

Fieldwork We provided the list of sample grantees to each selected regional office,

which collected records for our review. We examined key documents from

the files and summarized the information using a data collection

instrument.14 Data elements we collected included the number of service

years for a selected grantee; total federal funds authorized for specific

funding periods; the unspent balance of federal funds for specific funding

periods and its intended usage; and the amount of carryover funds added

to or offsetting grantee awards in grantee budget years 1993, 1994, and

1995 by type and source year. To link source year with carryover funds, we

gathered information from the Financial Assistance Award form, which

identifies the grantee service year in which the unspent funds occurred.

Once data collection was complete, we compiled and merged the data.

Data elements were verified and traced to documents maintained in the

14Key documents include the HHS form called the Financial Assistance Award, Standard Form 269:

Financial Status Report, and supporting HHS and grantee correspondence found in grantees’ files.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

grantee files for 91 percent of the cases. We then computed weights to

produce national estimates from our sample and calculated analytic

variables. To calculate the age of carryover funds, we subtracted the

source year from the grantee’s current service year.

The Head Start grantee funding process presented unique data collection

challenges. We made no attempt to capture the fiscal year funding. Rather,

we used each grantee’s budget year ending date to guide our compilation

of financial data.

Sampling Errors Because our analysis is based on data from a sample of grantees, each

reported estimate has an associated sampling error. The size of the

sampling error reflects the estimate’s precision; the smaller the error, the

more precise the estimate. The magnitude of the sampling error depends

largely on the size of the obtained sample and the amount of data

variability. Our sampling errors for the estimates were calculated at the

95-percent confidence level. This means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the

sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence interval15

containing the population value we are estimating.

Some sampling errors for our dollar estimates are relatively high because

dollar amounts vary substantially. Sampling errors also tend to be higher

for those estimates based on a subset of sample cases. For example,

estimates of the mean and total amounts of grantee unspent balances are

based on fewer than the 107 grantees in our sample and have large

sampling errors. Therefore, these estimates must be used with extreme

caution. For a complete list of sampling errors for dollar estimates and

proportions in this report, see tables I.4 and I.5, respectively.

15“Confidence interval” is another term for the range defined by the sampling error.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Table I.4: Sampling Errors for Dollar

Estimates (Grantee Budget Years

1992-94) 

Point estimate Sampling error

Number of

sample

grantees

contributing

to estimate

1992 Grant awards

Mean

Total

$1,237,902

$1,422,959,424

+/-$82,904103

+/-$98,912,337 103

1993 Grant awards

Mean

Total

$1,531,698

$1,819,803,471

+/-$102,334

+/-$123,885,671 106

1994 Grant awards

Mean

Total

$1,899,588

$2,273,375,524

+/-$102,618

+/-$122,810,684 107

1992 Unspent balance

Mean

Total

$69,052

$54,286,803

+/-$19,304

+/-$15,412,760 74

1993 Unspent balance

Mean

Total

$132,878

$100,643,570

+/-$41,297

+/-$32,225,320 69

1994 Unspent balance

Mean

Total

$176,716

$129,902,350

+/-$36,568

+/-$27,732,575 66

1993/1994 Combined carryover balance

$139,195,654 +/-$34,592,412 78

1993/1994 Carryover funds offsetting grantee awards (NOA)

Mean

Total

$61,162

$42,233,407

+/-$25,705

+/-$18,371,913 61

1993/1994 Carryover funds added to grantee awards (TOA)

Mean

Total

$210,283

$96,962,247

+/-$58,410

+/-$28,660,860 44

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Table I.5: Sampling Errors for

Estimates of Proportions (Grantee

Budget Years 1992-94) 

Estimated proportion (percent)

Sampling error

(percentage

points)

Number of

cases

contributing to

estimate

Grantees with unspent balances

1992—68

1993—64

1994—62

+/-7

+/-7

+/-7

102

105

106

Grantees with unspent balances all 3 years

1992-94—39 +/-7 107

Unspent balances as a percent of total

1992—4

1993—6

1994—6

+/-1

+/-2

+/-1

101

105

106

Amount of unspent as a percent of award

1992—5

1993—8

1994—8

+/-1

+/-2

+/-1

73

69

66

Unspent balances due to small budget variances

1992—65

1993—50

1994—53

+/-8

+/-9

+/-9

74

69

66

Unspent balances due to timing issues

1992—10

1993—20

1994—24

+/-5

+/-7

+/-7

74

69

66

Unspent balances due to other reasons

1992—8

1993—20

1994—13

+/-4

+/-6

+/-6

74

69

66

Unspent balances due to unknown reasons

1992—17

1993—10

1994—10

+/-7

+/-6

+/-6

74

69

66

Carryover as NOA

1993—45

1994—24

+/-18

+/-11

57

59

Carryover as TOA

1993—55

1994—76

+/-18

+/-11

57

59

Age of 1993 TOA

1 year old—94 +/-7 25

(continued)

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

Estimated proportion (percent)

Sampling error

(percentage

points)

Number of

cases

contributing to

estimate

Age of 1994 TOA

1 year old—89 +/-7 34

Age of 1993 NOA

1 to 2 years old—89 +/-9 40

Age of 1994 NOA

1 to 2 years old—72 +/-18 38

Intended use of 1993/1994 TOA

Expansion—40

Facilities—37

Capital equipment, supplies, and other—23

+/-19

+/-13

+/-9

44

44

44

Methodology

Limitations

Because we wanted to obtain general information about the extent and

frequency of Head Start carryover funds, we limited our investigation to

reviewing grantee records maintained at HHS’ Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas,

Denver, and New York regional offices. We gave officials at these regional

offices an opportunity to review the accuracy of the data we collected and

subsequently used to develop our estimates. We did not contact individual

grantees to verify records nor did we visit grantee sites. We did not follow

the flow of funds to determine if program abuses had occurred nor did we

make any attempt to determine whether program grantees actually used

the funds for the purposes intended.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Table II.1: Region 4—Atlanta

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Blue Ridge Opportunity

Commission, Inc./2524

North Wilkesboro, N.C. $0 0 $0 0 $0 0

Breckenridge County

Board of Education/2675

Hardinsburg, Ky. 122 <1 27,000 12 0 0

Broward County/0314 Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 159,216 4 604,471 11 591,693 8

CAA of Huntsville-Madison

& Limestone Counties,

Inc./0706

Huntsville, Ala. 152,236 11 78,170 5 19,445 1

Chesterfield-Marlboro

Economic Opportunity

Council, Inc./3204

Cheraw, S.C. 88,770 10 5,330 1 295,477 20

City of Chattanooga

Department of Human

Services/0047

Chattanooga, Tenn. 37,210 1 3,183 0 17,984 1

Community Service

Programs of West

Alabama/3409

Tuscaloosa, Ala. 0 0 0 0 228,398 8

DOP Consolidated

Services/2516

Jacksonville, N.C. 35,733 2 34,835 2 80,733 4

Economic Opportunity for

Savannah-Chatham County

Area, Inc./0584

Savannah, Ga. 166,097 8 3,609 0 105,074 4

Hillsborough County Board

of County

Commissioners/3035

Tampa, Fla. 313,500 5 876,179 11 1,102,198 11

Jasper County Board of

Education/4025

Monticello, Ga. 0 0 0 0 97,848 28

Martin County Community

Action, Inc./3020

Williamston, N.C. 0 0 0 0 41,248 2

Mid-Florida Community

Services/0316

Brooksville, Fla. 81,641 10 3,690 0 0 0

Montgomery Community

Action Committee/3179

Montgomery, Ala. 12,430 <1 0 0 49,195 1

Northeast Florida/3053 Jacksonville, Fla. 403,740 6 938,247 12 233,004 3

Oldham County Board of

Education/2614

La Grange, Ky. 6,520 4 8,266 4 27 <1

Pee Dee Community Action

Agency/3056

Florence, S.C. 776 0 0 0 0 0

Polk County Opportunity

Council, Inc./0199

Bartow, Fla. 45,913 3 569,643 29 536,462 14

(continued)

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Putnam County Board of

Education/4017

Eatonton, Ga. 206 0 0 0 0 0

Singing River/3219 Lucedale, Miss. 1,971 0 27,644 7 20,679 4

Sumter County

Opportunity, Inc./3333

York, Ala. 84,880 7 201,050 14 125,465 8

Tallatoona Economic

Opportunity Authority/3466

Cartersville, Ga. 6,985 1 87,980 6 14,068 1

Tri-County/0902 Bonifay, Fla. 0 0 0 0 0 0

United CAC/3230 Ashland, Miss. 19,309 4 55,134 7 25,992 3

Volusia County/3107 Deland, Fla. 0 0 5,186 0 0 0

Walker County Board of

Education/0123

Jasper, Ala. 10,878 2 48,742 7 39,253 5

Table II.2: Region 5—Chicago

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Akron-Summit Community

Action Agency/0391

Akron, Ohio $1,106 <1 $60,452 1 $186,490 3

Allen County School

District/5369

Lima, Ohio 10,280 2 0 0 272,552 16

Area Five Agency on Aging

and Community

Services/4167

Logansport, Ind. 3,675 2 0 0 0 0

Branch Intermediate

School District/4209

Coldwater, Mich. 21,250 4 0 0 0 0

Butler County School

District/5445

Hamilton, Ohio 83,163 9 97,154 6 0 0

CAC of Fayette

County/4221

Washington Court House,

Ohio

12,926 7 7,771 2 19,406 3

Community Action Program

Corporation of

Washington-Morgan

Counties/4042

Marietta, Ohio 21,242 4 23,101 3 0 0

CAP Services, Inc./4190 Stevens Point, Wis. 0 0 NA NA 0 0

Catholic Charities Diocese

of Joliet, Inc./1111

Joliet, Ill. 545,597 34 96,477 6 0 0

Child Development Council

of Franklin County,

Inc./6083

Columbus, Ohio 752 0 1,424,687 46 1,661,628 42

(continued)

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

City of Rockford Human

Resources

Department/4056

Rockford, Ill. 29,000 2 20,000 1 0 0

Cooperative Educational

Service Agency #2/5508

Milton, Wis. 35,513 7 12,579 2 0 0

Coshocton County Head

Start, Inc./5507

Coshocton, Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 0

Council for Economic

Opportunities in Greater

Cleveland/0197

Cleveland, Ohio NA NA 74,691 1 1,422,641 10

Eight Community Action

Program, Inc./4183

Greenville, Mich. 107,764 6 81,057 4 56,690 2

FIVECAP, Inc./4161 Scottville, Mich. 1,568 <1 NA NA 491 <1

Inter-County Community

Council/4041

Oklee, Minn. 0 0 0 0 38,057 6

Michigan Family

Resources/0115

Grand Rapids, Mich. NA NA 103,589 2 194,790 4

Northeast Michigan

Community Service

Agency/4329

Alpena, Mich. 145,483 3 2,191 <1 66,640 1

Ounce of Prevention/6100 Chicago, Ill. 127,492 4 110,918 3 787,447 16

Rock Walworth

Comprehensive Family

Services, Inc./4124

Janesville, Wis. 23,089 2 24,812 2 0 0

St. Clair County Economic

Opportunity

Committee/4016

Port Huron, Mich. 900 <1 65,064 6 0 0

SEMAC/4231 Rushford, Minn. 0 0 0 0 47,966 4

Southern Illinois University

at Edwardsville/5228

East St. Louis, Ill. 70,915 NA 5,038 <1 2,187 <1

Stark County Community

Action Agency/4022

Canton, Ohio 0 0 0 0 145,253 4

Three Rivers Community

Action, Inc./4171

Zumbrota, Minn. 0 0 3,840 1 0 0

Tri-County Opportunities

Council/4111

Rock Falls, Ill. 0 0 58,289 4 197,390 9

Warren-Trumbell

Community Service

Agency/4005

Warren, Ohio 33,812 3 157,506 9 72,976 3

NA - Information not available.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Table II.3: Region 6—Dallas

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Child Development Council

of Brazoria County/0017

Angleton, Tex. $0 0 $689 0 $0 0

Community Action Council

of South Texas/5025

Rio Grande City, Tex. 124,243 8 300,678 14 78,077 3

Community Action Program

for Central Arkansas/5247

Conway, Ark. 1,817 <1 0 0 0 0

Community Organization

for Poverty Elimination/0379

No. Little Rock, Ark. 34 <1 0 0 0 0

Day Care Association of

Fort Worth & Tarrant

County/0021

Fort Worth, Tex. 0 0 2,431,458 36 619,076 6

Detroit Independent School

District/5170

Detroit, Tex. 0 0 0 0 0 0

East Carroll Parish Police

Jury/0020

Lake Providence, La. 0 0 20,655 4 536 0

East Texas Family

Services/0384

Jacksonville, Tex. 77 <1 72 <1 0 0

Hays Caldwell & Blanco

Counties Community

Action, Inc./5185

San Marcos, Tex. 104,664 13 81,446 5 30,693 2

Jefferson Community

Action Program, Inc./5098

Harahan, La. 153,763 6 322,644 12 837,705 23

Little Dixie Community

Action Agency, Inc./5671

Hugo, Okla. 161 <1 1,093 <1 0 0

Mesa Vista Consolidated

School District/0139

El Rito, N. Mex. 0 0 0 0 554,606 26

Mid-Delta Community

Services, Inc./5099

Helena, Ark. 72 <1 118 <1 0 0

Neighbors in Need of

Services, Inc./0385

San Benito, Tex. 29,204 1 0 0 42,039 1

Quad Area CAA/0402 Hammond, La. 4,518 1 4,125 1 100,507 20

Reeves County Community

Council/5365

Pecos, Tex. NA NA 31,380 1 4 44,303 11

Regina Coeli Child

Development Center/6007

Covington, La. 17 <1 0 0 0 0

Region XX Education

Service Center/0389

San Antonio, Tex. 5,072 1 0 0 4,425 1

South Plains CAA/5487 Levelland, Tex. 0 0 0 0 0 0

(continued)

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Stonewall Head Start Inc.

At Trinity Lutheran

Church/5673

Stonewall, Tex. NA NA 0 0 0 0

United Ministerial Alliance,

Inc./0398

Winnsboro, La. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wm. Smith, Sr. Tri County

Development Council/0387

Bay City, Tex. 173 <1 176 <1 601 <1

NA - Information not available.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Table II.4: Region 8—Denver

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Adams County Board of

Commissioners/0008

Brighton, Colo. $89,980 8 $131,157 9 $216,932 12

Akron United Methodist

Church/0103

Akron, Colo. NA NA 115 <1 108,180 40

Alamosa Head Start/0006 Alamosa, Colo. 8,961 2 18,514 3 32,081 5

Bismarck Public School

District/0038

Bismarck, N. Dak. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Child Opportunity Program,

Inc./0013

Denver, Colo. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Child Start, Inc./0037 Missoula, Mont. 540 <1 21,113 2 12,766 1

Children Servies of

Colorado/0095

Lakewood, Colo. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Community Action of

Laramie County, Inc./0092

Cheyenne, Wyo. 68,565 13 120,543 17 370 <1

Newport Public School

District #4/0046

Towner, N. Dak. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Opportunities, Inc./0032 Great Falls, Mont. 2,189 <1 0 0 0 0

Pueblo City Manager’s

Office/0024

Pueblo, Colo. 4,929 1 2,006 <1 7,843 1

Rocky Mountain

Development Council/0035

Helena, Mont. 0 0 0 0 29,031 3

Salt Lake Community

Action Program/0061

Salt Lake City, Utah 114,519 3 56,033 1 0 0

Thompson School District

#25/0022

Loveland, Colo. 0 0 55,463 12 64,180 10

NA - Information not available.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Table II.5: Region 2—New York

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Associated Beth Rivka

Schools Head Start

Division/0265

Brooklyn, N.Y. $0 0 $0 0 $26,349 2

Atlantic Human Resources,

Inc./0447

Atlantic City, N.J. 100,363 3 0 0 189,151 5

Committee for Economic

Improvement of Essex

County/2031

Keeseville, N.Y. 94 <1 2 <1 22 <1

Community Programs

Center of Long Island/0245

Deer Park, N.Y. 15,136 3 3,228 <1 747 <1

Long Island Head Start

Child Development

Services, Inc./0271

Patchogue, N.Y. 365,996 6 316,145 5 1,184,503 15

Madison County

Cooperative Extension/0242

Morrisville, N.Y. 1,214 <1 5,398 1 0 0

Mercer County Head Start

Child Care Development

Program/0243

Trenton, N.J. 98,245 7 130,547 11 140,755 11

Montclair Child

Development Center,

Inc./0274

Glen Ridge, N.J. 58,064 4 158,043 9 NA NA

NYS Federation of

Growers’ & Processors’

Association, Inc./0281

Schenectady, N.Y. 90 <1 0 0 0 0

New York Foundling

Hospital/0256

New York, N.Y. 182,783 11 56,378 3 220,815 8

Oneida County Community

Action Agency, Inc./1194

Rome, N.Y. 11,130 1 8,344 1 67,187 4

Passaic City Human

Resources

Department/0005

Passaic, N.J. 19,200 2 34,200 4 285,433 24

Ponce Municipality Head

Start Program/0267

Municipality of Ponce,

P.R.

1,285,794 28 1,280,942 22 1,423,631 20

Sullivan County Head Start,

Inc./0279

Woodburne, N.Y. 36,192 4 0 0 0 0

Test City Child Care

Center, Inc./Test City Head

Start/1102

Bridgeton, N.J. 100,343 4 93,867 3 282,450 9

The City of New York

Human Resources

Administration, Agency for

Child Development/1064

Brooklyn, N.Y. 8,661,954 12 6,807,434 9 8,513,058 9

(continued)

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix II 

Head Start Grantees Included in Our

Representative Sample

Grantee budget year

1992

Grantee budget year

1993

Grantee budget year

1994

Grantee name and

identifier number Grantee city/state

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Unspent

balance

Percent of

award

Ulster County Community

Action Committee,

Inc./1108

Kingston, N.Y. 716 <1 177,699 15 152,388 11

United Talmudical

Academy of Boro Park/0264

Brooklyn, N.Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA - Information not available.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Fred E.Yohey, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7218

Karen A. Whiten, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7291

Acknowledgments The following individuals made important contributions to this report:

Robert Rogers and Karen Barry planned this review, and Karen managed

the data collection. David Porter and Lawrence Kubiak collected much of

the data from the HHS regional offices. Patricia Bundy also helped to

collect data, conducted follow-up discussions with HHS headquarters and

regional office officials, and assisted with report processing. Dianne

Murphy drew the sample and performed the analysis. Steve Machlin

calculated sampling errors. Harry Conley and Michael Curro provided

technical assistance, and Demaris Delgado-Vega provided legal advice.

(104823) Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-64 Funds Unspent by Head Start Grantees
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. 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

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