United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1999 MIGRANT CHILDREN

Education and HHS

Need to Improve the

Exchange of

Participant Information

GAO/HEHS-00-4

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-281918 

October 15, 1999

The Honorable Henry Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Lantos

The Honorable Bernard Sanders

House of Representatives

Children in migrant agricultural worker families often face significant

developmental and educational obstacles, including poverty, limited

English proficiency, rural and social isolation, and health risks associated

with intermittent medical care and pesticide exposure. For migrant

children, these obstacles are compounded by mobility as families move

from site to site in search of work. In recognition of the needs of these

children, the Congress created the Department of Education’s Migrant

Education Program (MEP) in 1965 and the Department of Health and

Human Services’ (HHS) Migrant Head Start (MHS) program in 1969.1

 In fiscal

year 1999, about $350 million was appropriated for MEP and approximately

$174 million was appropriated for MHS.

For more than 30 years, these programs have served millions of migrant

children. In 1998, about 660,000 children received services from MEP and

MHS. Yet very little is known about program outcomes. In this context, you

asked us to ascertain (1) the goals of the MEP and MHS programs, how they

operate, who they serve, and what services they provide; (2) the extent to

which Education and HHS facilitate the coordination of MEP and MHS

services within each of their programs and between the two programs; and

(3) how well Education and HHS determine whether MEP and MHS achieve

their goals and objectives.

To answer these questions, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and

other relevant documents, including the departments’ strategic and

performance plans as required by the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). We also interviewed program

officials at the federal level and in eight states—California, Colorado,

Georgia, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We

selected these states because (1) large numbers of migrant families live in

1

Although MEP was not statutorily created until after 1965, the Congress first authorized migrant

education funding in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

them or travel to them for work, (2) they have both MEP and MHS programs,

(3) they offer a wide range of agricultural jobs, and (4) they are located in

different U.S. agricultural regions. During our site visits, we observed local

programs in each of the eight states. We conducted our work from

October 1998 through September 1999 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief MEP and MHS were created to provide assistance to migrant children by

providing a wide spectrum of health, educational, nutritional, and social

services. However, the programs’ goals are quite different. MEP’s major

goal is to ensure that migrant children have the opportunity to meet the

same state educational standards as other children, a goal geared to the

needs of elementary and secondary school students who constitute about

82 percent of its participants. To achieve this goal, MEP supplements

elementary and secondary education activities by, for example, providing

funds for tutoring and gives the states broad discretion regarding how to

use funds to achieve program goals. MEP serves children of workers

engaged in crop and a variety of other agricultural activities. MEP services

vary across states, districts, and schools and are provided in accordance

with state and district standards. In contrast, MHS’s primary goal—to

promote school readiness—reflects the needs of the preschool children it

serves. To achieve this goal, MHS provides funds to grantees to establish

infant and preschool centers that provide comprehensive and uniform

services for eligible migrant infants and preschool children of crop

workers only. MHS provides prescribed health, nutritional, social, and

educational services according to federal standards. As a result of MHS’s

narrower eligibility requirements, fewer infants and preschool migrant

children are eligible for MHS than for MEP.

Neither Education nor HHS has a system to transfer participant information

between different locations within each program, despite the need to

transfer key information in a timely way as students move around the

country. As a result, students may experience inappropriate classroom

placements or delays in receiving services, repeat immunizations, or fail to

complete high school graduation requirements. Although some states and

grantees have designed their own systems to track students who move

within their boundaries, none supports student information exchange on a

national level. During our site visits, some officials said that federal

leadership is needed to develop two national systems—one for MEP and

one for MHS—that could support the exchange of essential student

information on a national level and that could also help increase

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

coordination between migrant student service providers at the state and

local levels.

Although both Education and HHS have collected substantial data for MEP

and MHS such as numbers of participants and services, the current data do

not enable either department to evaluate program outcomes and

determine the extent to which program goals are met. This is partly

because of fundamental measurement problems associated with collecting

outcome data for these programs. Such problems include the difficulty of

linking student outcomes with program interventions provided at early

ages. As noted in the performance plans required by the Results Act, both

Education and HHS intend to expand their data collection efforts to include

some outcome data in the future. However, the usefulness of these data to

describe MEP and MHS outcomes on a national level is likely to be limited

because, for example, MEP data will not be comparable across states. We

are recommending that Education and HHS take steps designed to improve

delivery of services to migrant children under MEP and MHS and to enable

the assessment of their outcomes.

Background The fresh produce and the wide variety of canned and frozen foods found

on U.S. tables would not be available without the work of the diverse and

changing population of migrant farmworkers. Despite the importance of

migrant workers in agriculture and despite national concerns over the

living conditions of many migrant families, reliable data that describe this

population are limited. Government data describing the number and

characteristics of migrant agricultural workers vary widely, depending on

how migrancy is defined, the types of jobs that are considered agricultural,

and how and when data are collected. However, data indicate that 3 to

5 million farmworkers and family members travel in search of farm work

annually. To understand the needs of migrant children, how they have

changed over time, and the implications for service eligibility and service

availability, it is important to understand the nature of the population itself

and how mobility and work patterns change as the economy changes.

Migrant Workers Are

Diverse, Young, and Mobile

The migrant agricultural population is diverse. Although most crop

workers are Mexican and Mexican-American, there has been an influx of

workers from Central America. At the same time, the migrant labor force

continues to include English-speaking, white U.S. families picking

blueberries in Maine; women bikers (motorcyclists) picking fruit in Idaho;

Bengali-speaking workers harvesting grapes and other fruit in California;

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Russian-speaking workers fishing and logging in the Northwest; and

Gullah-speaking, African-American families shrimping in Georgia. Over the

years, the workforce has gotten younger: Most workers are younger than

35. In particular, the number of teenage boys, some as young as 13, who

migrate without families has continued to increase. Despite this increase,

about half of all migrant workers travel with their families. As figure 1

shows, 67 percent of migrant crop worker families lived in two or three

locations per year, about 22 percent lived in only one location, and

11 percent lived in four or more locations in 1993-94.

Figure 1: Number of Locations in

Which Crop Worker Families Lived

During 1993-94

Source: National Agricultural Worker Survey of MHS parents.

Mobility and Work Patterns

Are Changing

Traditionally, migratory workers have traveled in three geographical

streams, or routes, but these streams have given way to less predictable

movement patterns. The traditional routes that migrant families traveled

followed the growth cycles of crops across specific regions of the United

States, generally from south to north and back again. (See fig. 2.) The

western stream was the path followed by migrant families from California

to the Northwest and the western states. The central stream was the path

from Texas through the Central Plains states. The eastern stream was the

path followed from Florida through the East Coast states.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Figure 2: Traditional Streams of Migration

Source: GAO analysis of data from Joseph O. Prewitt Diaz, Robert T. Trottle II, and Vidal A.

Rivera, Jr., The Effects of Migration on Children: An Ethnographic Study (Harrisburg:

Pennsylvania Department of Education, Division of Migrant Education, 1989).

Migration patterns have been changing since the 1980s. Many families no

longer follow crops but travel from their home base directly to one

destination, where they work for a season and then return home, while

others follow unpredictable routes as they move between crop and other

types of agricultural work. For example, during the 1997-98 school year,

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

children attending school in one district in Texas had traveled from their

home base, attended schools in at least 40 other states, and then returned

home. (See fig. 3.)

Figure 3: Migration Patterns of Migrant Students in One Texas School District, 1997-98

Source: Weslaco Independent School District, 1998.

Changes in migration patterns reflect the increased mechanization of

agricultural work; growth of large-scale agribusiness, including poultry

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

and hog farming; the rotation of workers from harvest work to other types

of agricultural work; and increased opportunities for jobs in other types of

seasonal rural jobs, particularly the recreation industry. Although some

agricultural areas have not benefited from the currently strong economy,

many areas have increased in their opportunities for service-sector

employment such as work in resorts. This, in turn, has enabled some

migrant workers to find year-round work in a particular area, although

they might continue to change jobs seasonally.

Under traditional migration patterns, the states could be classified as

“home-based” and receiving states. Home-based states are those where

many migrant families live for all or most of the year, depending on

whether they migrate within one state or between states, respectively.

Receiving states are those in which most migrants work for a few weeks

or months per year and then return home. However, this distinction is

becoming increasingly blurred as migration patterns change and some

children stop migrating. For example, since California provides

good-quality housing to some families, the children do not travel but stay

at home with their mother or another relative while one or both parents

continue to migrate.

MEP and MHS Differ

in Goals and

Objectives,

Operations, Eligible

Populations, and

Services

Both MEP and MHS were created to provide assistance to children of

migrant farmworkers. However, these programs differ in terms of goals

and objectives, operations, eligible populations, and services.

MEP is one of many education programs that is intended to make sure that

“Special populations receive appropriate services and assessments

consistent with high standards” under the goal of building “a solid

foundation for learning for all children” in Education’s strategic plan.2

Although the statute mentions many goals, MEP officials define MEP’s

overall goal as ensuring that migrant students have the opportunity to

meet the same state educational standards as other children. To reach its

program goal, MEP distributes funds to the states and gives them

substantial discretion in reallocating resources to local and regional

agencies, determining program characteristics, or delegating program

decisions to local or regional agencies. Children up to age 21 who work or

whose parents work in a wide range of agricultural occupations and who

have moved across school district lines during the past 3 years are eligible

to receive MEP services, but not all eligible children are served. States and

localities determine which eligible children receive MEP services. Services

2

U.S. Department of Education, 1998-2000 Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1997).

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

vary across states and across local districts within states, but most

services are school-based.

In contrast, MHS’s primary goal is the same as that of regular Head

Start—to promote school readiness. To reach this overall goal, the

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) performance plan specifies

three performance goals: enhancing children’s growth and development,

strengthening families, and providing children with educational services.3

MHS does this by providing grants to establish and support preschool

programs separate from regular Head Start programs that provide

comprehensive services and that operate under uniform federal Head Start

standards. MHS targets only children of migrant crop workers who meet

MHS’s mobility and income requirements. As a result of MHS’s narrower

definition of agricultural work, fewer migrant children are eligible for MHS

than for MEP. Even for this smaller population, MHS’s capacity to serve all

eligible children is limited. Table 1 summarizes the goals, operations,

eligibility requirements, and services for MEP and MHS.

3

ACF, Annual Performance Plan, FY 2000, and Revised FY 1999 Performance Plan for the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1999).

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Table 1: Key MEP and MHS Goals and Objectives, Operations, Eligibility Requirements, and Services

Program Statutory goals and objectives Operations Eligibility requirements Services

MEP •To support high-quality

educational programs for migrant

children 

•To ensure that migrant children

are provided with appropriate

services such as social services,

reading instruction, and

emergency medical and dental

services

•To ensure that migrant children

have the same opportunity to

meet the challenging state

content and performance

standards that all children are

expected to meet

•To design programs to help

migrant children overcome

factors that inhibit their ability to

do well in school and to prepare

them to move successfully to

postsecondary education or

employment 

•To ensure that migrant children

benefit from state and local

systemic education reforms

•Funding level is set by the

Congress

•Each state is entitled to

receive funds according to

a statutory formula 

•States determine priorities

for use of funds 

•States determine the

amount of subgrants that

are awarded to operating

agencies

•States determine the

discretion allowed local

education agencies

regarding use of MEP funds

•Programs may be run by

state education agencies,

local education agencies,

or other entities

•0-21 years of age 

•Moved from one school

district to another within the

prior 36 monthsa

•Qualifying agricultural

work of students or parents

includes cultivating and

harvesting crops and trees,

logging, dairy, fisheries,

meat processing, and

canning 

•Qualifying work provides a

principal means of income

•No income level

requirements

•Priority for services is

given to migrant children

who are failing, or most at

risk of failing, to meet the

state’s challenging content

and performance standards

and whose education has

been interrupted during the

regular school year

•Services are determined

by state and local

education agencies

•Services typically support

other educational services

•Local education agencies

may use funds in

combination with other

federal, state, and local

funds to support

schoolwide programs to

upgrade the entire school

program

(continued)

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Program Statutory goals and objectives Operations Eligibility requirements Services

MHS To promote school readiness by

enhancing the social and

cognitive development of lowincome children through the

provision, to low-income children

and their families, of health,

educational, nutritional, social,

and other services that are

determined to be necessary,

given family needs assessments

•The Secretary of HHS

determines the funding

level by designating funds

from the 13 percent of the

total Head Start

appropriation that is

required to be reserved for

special priorities

•Grant periods are

indefinite and grantees can

be denied future funding

only for cause 

•Funds are awarded to

grantees who may operate

centers in multiple states,

single states, multiple

counties, or a single county

•Grantees can operate

MHS centers themselves or

delegate all or part of this

responsibility to other

agencies, called delegates

•0-5 years of age

•Changed residence from

one geographic area to

another in the preceding

2-year period

•At least 51 percent of

family income derives from

crop work activities 

•Income level is at or below

poverty level defined by the

Office of Management and

Budget

•Children of seasonal

agricultural workersb

•Each MHS center must

have a formal process for

establishing selection

criteria for selecting

children and families for

services 

•HHS prescribes program

standards and services

•Comprehensive services

are provided in the areas of

socialization, health,

nutrition, education, and

early childhood

development. The centers

can provide more services

but not fewer than required

by federal standards

•Services are provided, on

average, 10.4 hours per

day 

•Scheduled operations

range from 1 month to 12

months, depending on local

agricultural cycles

Note: MEP was authorized by the Improving America’s School Act (P.L. 103-382) on October 20,

1994. The Head Start program, under which funds are reserved for MHS, was most recently

reauthorized by the Coats Human Service Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-285).

aA child who is in a state that has only one school district, such as Hawaii, and moves from one

administrative area to another within that district would be considered a migrant. In Alaska, in

school districts larger than 15,000 square miles, children are considered migrants if they move to

a temporary residence 20 or more miles away to engage in a fishing activity.

bChildren of seasonal agricultural workers, defined as agricultural workers engaged in seasonal

activities who do not change residence, may be served as a result of the 1998 amendments, but

HHS has not issued guidance regarding services for this population.

MEP Assists State and

Local Efforts to Meet the

Needs of Migrant Children

MEP’s general goal is to support quality educational programs for migrant

children by providing funds to states and school districts to serve migrant

children up to age 21 who work or whose parents work in a wide range of

agricultural occupations. During the 1997-98 school year, MEP provided

assistance to more than 620,000 migrant children. In fiscal year 1999, MEP

grants to the states amounted to about $350 million, or an average of $560

per participant.4

 Because the average spending per child is relatively small,

MEP generally provides supplemental instructional and supportive services,

4

MEP’s allocation formula is based on the number of eligible migrant students aged 3-21 who have

been identified by the states and the per pupil expenditure for each state on a yearly basis. However,

MEP may serve children aged 0-21, and not all identified children receive services.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

such as counseling and outreach activities aimed at locating and

identifying eligible children and helping them and their families gain

access to educational, health, nutritional, and social services.

Decisions regarding how MEP funds are spent can be made largely at the

state level as in New York, at the regional level as in Pennsylvania, or at

the local level as in Michigan. In many of the states we visited, MEP funds

that went to the state were redistributed to school districts, consortia of

multiple school districts, or regional service centers with sizable migrant

populations. According to the most recent available data, migrant

education programs operated in about 17,000 schools, largely in rural

areas, during the regular school year.5

MEP supports programs in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

For the regular 1997-98 school year, about 82 percent of all MEP

participants were elementary and secondary school students, 13 percent

were preschool children, and 5 percent were out-of-school youths. (See

fig. 4.) However, each state and district decides which age groups to focus

on, so the proportions differ from place to place. For example, the

percentage of MEP preschool participants ranges from 41 percent of

participants in Georgia to none in Rhode Island, and the percentage of MEP

participants who are out-of-school youths ranges from 36 percent in

Maryland to none in Wisconsin. Although MEP services are widely

available, not all eligible students are served. In California, at least

25 percent of eligible students were not counted as receiving services from

MEP, but the states define services differently. For example, in Colorado,

all students who were identified as eligible were counted as participants

because the state considered its actions to identify students as eligible as a

service.6

5

Data are reported from the 1997 Database of Schools Enrolling Migrant Children, which was a

one-time project conducted by Education that used a list of schools and school districts from the

1993-94 Common Core of Data file.

6

Guidance from the Department of Education states that being identified as eligible for MEP is not

participation for reporting purposes. However, state and local officials told us that recruiters usually

provide information or referral services when they identify children.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Figure 4: Percentages of Migrant

Education Participants by Age or

Grade Range, 1997-98

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data.

A wide range of institutions deliver services. During our visits, we saw MEP

services delivered by states, regional service centers, universities, districts,

and local schools. Students receive services in schools, at home, or in

community facilities; during the regular school year, school vacations, or

in the summer; and before, during, or after the school day.

Nationwide, during the 1997-98 regular school year, MEP support services,

such as social services or outreach efforts and guidance or counseling,

were the most common services provided. Forty-six percent of MEP

participants received social or outreach services, and 20 percent received

guidance or counseling. Reading was the most common instructional

service and was received by about 23 percent of MEP participants.

In the states and districts we visited, specific services also varied widely.

In some cases, the needs of migrant children were met through regular

school activities. In other cases, states, regions, and districts targeted MEP

funds for certain services. For example, at the state level, some states

designated MEP funds to pay for summer programs for migrant children

and one state used MEP funds to purchase accident insurance, which

enabled migrant students to take part in extracurricular activities. At the

regional level, one high school was given MEP funds to hire a teacher to

provide bilingual instruction in high school mathematics and science

courses. At the district level, some districts used MEP funds for special

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

programs such as tutoring migrant children who were most at risk of

failure and providing computer-based instruction or leadership training,

while others used funds to support schoolwide activities. In some districts,

summer services were delivered by tutors who worked with students in

their homes, while in others, summer services were delivered at public

schools. In many of the districts we visited, a portion of MEP funds was

used for essential dental and medical services that families could not

obtain otherwise. In several districts, MEP staff organized clothing drives or

food banks and provided transportation to families for such things as

medical appointments. (Appendixes I and II describe in more detail MEP

programs and services in the eight states we visited and demographic

information on the children there.)

MHS Provides

Comprehensive Services to

Migrant Infants and

Preschool Children

To promote school readiness for migrant children, MHS funds grantees to

establish and operate preschool centers that provide comprehensive

services to migrant children up to age 6 whose parents cultivate and

harvest crops. In 1998, MHS provided grants totaling about $160 million to

24 grantees that served approximately 37,000 children in 33 states.

Although there are no national cost figures and programs vary

significantly, one MHS grantee estimated that the cost of a full-year MHS

program would be as high as $18,000 per child.

All Head Start programs are required to operate according to uniform and

comprehensive federal performance standards. These standards govern

key aspects of the program, such as nutrition, safety, child health and

development, and family and community partnerships. After standards are

met, grantees may offer additional services.

Although MHS services are comprehensive, the capacity of MHS centers to

serve eligible children varies greatly. At the time of our visits, only one

grantee had sufficient resources to serve all eligible children in its area,

while another could serve only about 10 percent. Most MHS officials

reported that the areas they served had large unmet needs for infant and

toddler care in their areas. In addition, the availability of centers is limited.

For example, only three MHS centers operate in Georgia.

In order to target MHS resources to the most needy children and families

and to provide services in areas where needs are greatest, Head Start

regulations require that all grantees and delegates set criteria that define

the types of children and families who will be given priority for

recruitment and selection and that they recruit children in areas that are

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

among those having the greatest needs as determined by formal

assessments of community strengths and weakness. To reflect

demographic changes in communities, community assessments have to be

conducted every 3 years.

MHS programs must comply with the same performance standards as

regular Head Start. However, MHS and regular Head Start differ in the ages

of the children served and the seasons, hours, and days operated. As table

2 shows, these differences in characteristics reflect how MHS addresses the

special needs of migrant families by providing services to younger

participants and by operating longer hours and more days per week than

regular Head Start.

Table 2: Differences Between

Participants and Program

Characteristics of MHS and Regular

Head Start

Participants and

program

characteristics MHS Regular Head Start

Participants 47 percent are aged birth to 3 3 percent are aged birth to 3

Schedule Coincides with local

agricultural cycles, anywhere

from 4 weeks to 12 months

September through June

Hours per day 8 to 14 4

Days per week 5 to 7 5

In the areas that we visited, MHS centers provided services that exceeded

services provided by regular Head Start centers in those areas and

operated for longer hours and more days per week. For example, most of

these MHS centers provided transportation between homes and centers and

many provided bilingual language development and education, while

others instructed parents about pesticide safety and provided clothing and

books to needy migrant families through community outreach efforts.

(Appendix III describes the nine MHS agencies in the eight states we

visited.)

MHS serves a narrowly defined agricultural population. The Head Start

statute requires that eligibility for MHS be limited to children of migrant

agricultural workers who have moved to seek agricultural employment

during the past 2 years. In addition, families are required to have income at

or below the poverty level and to derive at least 51 percent of family

income from qualifying agricultural activities.7

 Under the statute, the

7

Although the 1998 Head Start amendments expanded coverage to include children of seasonal crop

workers once the Secretary of HHS determines that services to migrants are being provided at an

appropriate level, this expansion has not been implemented.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Secretary of HHS determines what agricultural activities qualify families for

MHS. Since the beginning of the program in 1969, only families involved in

the cultivation and harvesting of crops have been eligible for services.

Moreover, 90 percent of crop workers work in fruit, vegetable, and

horticultural activities and these activities are concentrated in a few

states. For example, California produces one-third of all fruit, vegetable,

and horticultural sales. Consequently, MHS centers are concentrated in a

few states like California and Texas. In contrast, dairy, livestock, and

poultry operations are widespread throughout rural areas, most operating

in the Midwest, South, and East. Although these areas may have crop work

as well, concentrations of eligible children are not sufficient to warrant

many MHS centers in these areas.

Because MHS’s regulations define agriculture narrowly, a child would be

ineligible for enrollment in another MHS program if a parent found

agricultural work related to dairy, hogs, or poultry.8

 For example, a child

whose family meets MHS income and mobility requirements is eligible for

MHS if most of the family’s income was earned by cultivating or harvesting

crops. If the parents change jobs without moving, so that most of their

income is earned from working on a poultry farm, and the child is able to

continue in the same MHS program, the child will not be terminated from

the program until it closes down or the program year is over. If the family

moves to work on a chicken farm, however, and wants to use an MHS

program in a different location, the child will be ineligible even though the

family’s income level and migrant status remain unchanged. MHS officials

told us that this happens frequently.9

 If MHS’s definition were broadened to

include the same population as MEP, this disruption in services would not

necessarily occur. However, with more children eligible for services,

grantees and delegates would have a greater need to prioritize service

provision for the most needy migrant children and target funds to

geographic areas where the need for services is greatest, unless more

resources were devoted to MHS or to other federal or state programs.

8

We were told that this definition might result in unanticipated negative consequences to families

because it may deter some parents from accepting seasonal noncrop employment in order to maintain

eligibility for MHS programs.

9

In New York, MHS’s narrow definition is not a problem. The MHS program serves children funded by

MHS and by the state of New York. If a child becomes ineligible for MHS because parents change jobs

from picking crops to working in a poultry plant or milking cows, the state-funded program will

continue to fund services. Therefore, even if a child becomes ineligible for MHS, he or she continues to

receive the same services from the state-funded program.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Information Exchange

Is Limited Despite

Need

Neither Education nor HHS has done much in the past few years to

coordinate the exchange of participant information between different sites

of the same program as participants move from place to place. In some of

the sites we visited, officials said that children sometimes did not receive

needed services in a timely manner or had to repeat immunizations

because records were not transferred or were not transferred promptly.

Although some states and grantees have developed systems to track

students, none supports information exchange on a national level. One

way to address this problem is to develop national electronic information

transfer systems. Officials we interviewed said that federal leadership is

needed to develop such systems. In addition, we believe that federal

leadership could improve state and local coordination of services

although, in the sites we visited, significant interagency coordination did

occur at the state and local levels.

Absence of Nationally

Accessible MEP and MHS

Information Systems Has

Negative Effects on

Children

Although migrant children move frequently from place to place, no

national systems exist to support the timely transfer of student

information.10 For school-aged migrant children, this often causes

inappropriate classroom placements and delays in receiving services and

complicates the transfer of course credits for high school students,

according to MEP officials. For children eligible for MHS, MHS officials told

us, this can result in duplicated services such as multiple assessments and

immunizations.

While parents sometimes deliver records to the receiving school or center

or can provide contact information, local officials told us that staff at the

receiving school or center usually have to identify a contact point at the

sending institutions to obtain student records. According to several state

and local officials we visited, an electronic information tracking system

that contains essential information such as a point of contact, medical

information, and, in the case of MEP, grade and course placement

information would enable them to promptly enroll children in appropriate

courses or programs and initiate needed services.

MHS’s information exchange problems continue despite the implementation

of the Head Start Family Information System, a voluntary case

management information system designed by Head Start to track

child-specific data, including health and educational services. This

information system has the potential to resolve inefficiencies resulting

10Education used to have a national system called the Migrant Student Records Transfer System. The

goal of this effort was to computerize and transmit records of migrant students. Begun in 1969, it was

abolished in 1994 because it was slow, incomplete, and infrequently used.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

from duplication of services, particularly unneeded multiple

immunizations and health screenings, but HHS needs to take several steps

before the system can reach its potential. Although the system was

introduced in 1990, it remains in the implementation stage, and no MHS

grantee has yet fully implemented it, in part because of its voluntary

nature and burdensome data entry requirements. In addition, while Head

Start officials hope to use the Internet to transfer data from one MHS site to

another, HHS has not yet initiated activities to ensure data confidentiality.

Some States and All MHS

Grantees Have Access to

Information Transfer

Systems, but Their

Geographic Scope Is

Limited

Some states and all MHS grantees have access to information transfer

systems, but systematic exchange is limited to the states or centers within

each system. Although MEP lacks a national information transfer system,

the states or consortia of states do have their own systems, many of which

have been funded with the help of Education grants. The largest exchange

system is called MIS-2000; it has 21 member states and includes such

information as names and ages of the students, parent data, immunization

history, high school records, and special education needs. MIS-2000 also

provides unduplicated counts of students.11 Another system, the New

Generation System, used by 10 states, has the capability to electronically

transfer students’ records and provide unduplicated counts. The states

have also developed their own database systems or use a commercial

software package that functions as an intrastate database of student

eligibility.

Similarly, some MHS grantees use information-tracking systems other than

the Head Start Family Information System for transferring information

across their centers, and, if a student moves between MHS centers operated

by the same grantee, student information can usually be transferred

quickly.12 For example, the East Coast Migrant Head Start Project, the

largest interstate grantee, which operates 86 MHS centers in 12 states, has

developed a system that stores and transfers children’s records without

using computers. However, the MHS officials we spoke with said many

migrant children move between centers operated by different grantees in

such a way that timely information exchange does not occur. Therefore,

disruption in service provision can occur as children wait for appropriate

11Because national data currently are the result of adding together enrollment counts from each state,

children are counted every time they enroll in a program in a different state. As a result, databases

with unduplicated counts are valuable sources of information about the actual number of children

being served.

12The size of areas served by the MHS grantees we visited varies substantially. One grantee operates or

delegates the operation of centers in 12 states, one operates in 4 states, and five grantees operate in

only 1 state.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

placements and services. For example, a child who has been receiving

speech and language therapy during the regular school year may need to

receive it throughout the summer. If the family migrates for 6 weeks

during the summer to a new location and the records do not accompany

the child, the child may not receive speech therapy until he or she returns

to his or her original location. Thus, the child may experience a disruption

in service.

Federal Leadership Is

Needed to Improve

Information Exchange

Federal, state, and local educational officials agreed that Education would

have to lead the effort to develop a national information tracking system

for MEP. Any system that is developed would have to protect the privacy of

individuals. A secure Internet system that transferred immunization and

school placement information and identified a contact point at the sending

school would accomplish two objectives. First, the states and local school

districts could obtain a contact point for obtaining records from the

schools from which migrant children came. Second, by providing an

unduplicated count of migrant children, it would improve the accuracy of

MEP program data. For MHS, although some officials stated that the Head

Start Family Information System could provide national-level access to

records, others said that its voluntary nature and voluminous data entry

requirements were obstacles. Most MHS officials said that HHS leadership

would be helpful in overcoming these obstacles.

Creating national electronic information tracking systems for MEP and MHS

is complicated by such factors as the number and cost of existing systems

that are run by consortia, private corporations, or individual states and

grantees. For example, a few MHS grantees have already implemented

commercial information tracking systems and are reluctant to convert to

the Head Start Family Information System.

States and Local Agencies

Play the Key Role in

Coordinating Service

Delivery

Currently, state and local agencies play the key role in coordinating

services between MEP and MHS, as they do in coordinating all the other

service providers used at the local level. The role of the federal agencies in

coordinating services across the two programs is limited because MEP and

MHS target different populations—MEP serves mainly elementary and

secondary students while MHS serves preschool children—and whatever

coordination may be necessary between the two programs generally

occurs at the state and local levels.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

In the sites we visited, coordination between MEP and MHS occurred in

areas where programs overlapped, such as preparing children for

kindergarten or obtaining services for families with children in both

programs. For example, in an area in New York, local MEP and MHS officials

coordinated efforts to prepare migrant children for kindergarten by

sending MHS children to an MEP summer school and, in another area, by

sending MEP staff to tutor at an MHS center. In Oregon, an MHS site shares

facilities with a local MEP preschool program, and programs work together

to promote school readiness. MEP and MHS officials routinely cooperate

with local health agencies to provide health services for families.

Interagency coordination at the federal level could facilitate better

coordination at the state and local levels. In a few locations, competition

over 4- and 5-year-old migrant students and incorrect knowledge about the

program hindered cooperation between local MEP and MHS staff. In these

cases, federal leadership in developing complementary visions for these

programs could be helpful. Education does fund some programs to help

state and local coordination (see app. IV) but these efforts do not offer any

systemic solutions, and many are short term and help relatively few

migrant students.

In the past, interagency cooperation was largely limited to information

sharing. For example, the Federal Migrant Interagency Committee,

composed of representatives from 7 federal agencies, including MEP and

MHS, and 20 nonfederal organizations meets routinely four times a year to

share information on issues relating to migrancy.

A new interagency group, the Directors Group—formed in 1999 and

composed of the directors of MEP, MHS, HHS’s Migrant Health Program, and

the Department of Labor’s Migrant and Other Seasonally Employed

Farmworker Program—holds potential for increasing interagency

coordination. It has as its mission the development of consistent and

complementary program visions and collaboration on initiatives that affect

agricultural families. Because of its composition and mission, this group’s

activities could result in better program coordination.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Agencies Have

Limited Mechanisms

for Assessing

Progress Toward

Outcomes

Although state and local educational agencies collect information on

various measures of students’ outcomes, such as achievement test scores

and promotion and graduation rates, neither Education nor HHS can assess

how well the MEP or MHS programs work. This is partly because of

fundamental measurement problems associated with collecting outcome

data—data on the results of programs compared with their intended

purposes. In response to the Results Act, both Education and HHS intend to

expand data collection efforts to include some outcome data in the

future.13

Current Data Collection

Focuses on Inputs and

Outputs

Although both Education and HHS collect many types of data for MEP and

MHS, none of the current data enable the departments to evaluate their

program outcomes. For example, since 1984, Education’s data collection

efforts for MEP have focused on collecting input and output information,

such as percentages of students who receive particular instructional or

supportive services and counts of program participants, and not

information on outcomes, such as student performance.14 For some MHS

goals, having the input or the output information is enough. For example,

knowing that a child received an immunization is evidence enough that he

or she will not get the disease or infect others with the disease. However,

for other goals, including MEP’s principal goal—to help students meet state

educational standards—and MHS’s principal goal—to promote school

readiness—outcome measures are needed.

The lack of information on the results achieved by these programs is

related to obstacles that hinder creating outcome measures for both MEP

and MHS (see table 3). MEP’s characteristics make creating outcome

measures particularly challenging. For example, MEP operates as a funding

stream and supports the diverse goals and objectives of many state and

local activities. Thus, no single measure can be used to assess its results.

In addition, MEP’s relatively small dollar size, approximately $560 per

student, and its use in augmenting larger educational programs, make

isolating its effects difficult. Moreover, obstacles also hinder the creation

of outcome measures for MHS. For example, MHS serves many children

during their infancy, although its goal—promoting school

readiness—cannot be measured until 4 to 5 years later. Thus, the results of

13The Results Act requires agencies to develop annual performance plans to assess their progress

toward reaching program goals.

14Inputs are measures of the resources a manager has available to carry out a program or activity—for

example, the number of teachers or dollars available. Outputs are the amount or quality of goods,

products, or services produced. Outcomes are the results achieved by a program.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

the program are likely to be overshadowed by other situational factors

that intervene between infancy and kindergarten.

Table 3: Obstacles to Creating Outcome Measures for Migrant Programs

Obstacle Effect Program

Operates like a funding stream rather

than a distinct program with its own

operating structure

Because the program can support efforts that address diverse goals and

objectives, it is difficult to specify and select suitable outcome measures

MEP

Augments larger efforts Program outcomes are difficult to isolate from outcomes from other

federal, state, or local education programs for meeting challenging state

standards

MEP

Achievement data are not comparable

across states

Each state decides on its own state test, how proficiency or performance

levels are set and defined, and the grades at which students are tested.

Thus, student achievement scores are not comparable from state to state

MEP

Lack of flexibility Because operations, services, and types of students served vary by state,

region, district, and school, no single measure can assess outcomes

MEP

Small size Program outcomes are difficult to isolate from outcomes deriving from

other factors

MEP

Participants are mobile Some children may be in the program only for a few weeks and there is

unlikely to be measurable growth in that short time

MEP, MHS

Time lags between program

interventions; for example, program

intervention occurs early, often as

early as infancy, but expected

outcomes, such as school success,

are not measured until years later

Presents measurement challenges because of multiple factors that

intervene between the intervention and the measurement of outcomes

MEP, MHS

Problems with duplicate counts A child is counted every time he or she enrolls in an MEP program. For

example, if a child moves from Texas to Arkansas during the school year

and is enrolled in MEP in both states, each state reports him or her.

Because there is no unique national identifier for each child, aggregating

state data to produce national data counts this child twice

In MHS, children can be double counted as new participants when they

move from one center to another

MEP

MHS

Services and participants served are

not comparable across states

• States define “service” differently. For example, some states consider

identification and recruitment or referral to another social service

organization a service whereas others do not 

• Efforts to disaggregate data by migrant status have been problematic

because migrant students are not included in statewide standardized

tests if they are not enrolled in a school when tests are given, schools may

waive students’ participation if they are classified as having limited English

proficiency or being disabled, and staff may not identify them because

they dislike labeling children

• States focus on serving different age groups

MEP

Program duration varies Results of short-term programs are not likely to be measurable MEP, MHS

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Although Education does not have outcome data for MEP, it uses several

methods to obtain information on this program. Education cyclically

conducts large multistate and national studies on MEP. In appendix V, we

identify and briefly describe Education’s major sources of information on

migrant students. We also present information on the major outcome

studies for U.S. school children. These outcome studies would need to be

expanded to include migrant children to be useful in measuring MEP.

Education has begun several initiatives to use its standard data collection

systems for collecting additional information on migrant students through

its Common Core of Data and its Schools and Staffing Survey. However,

these surveys do not collect outcome information. Education has not used

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the only

nationally representative measure of the academic achievement of U.S.

students, to obtain outcome information specifically on migrant students.

NAEP, which is known as the “Nation’s Report Card” because it collects

data on educational outcomes for U.S. students, has been tracking student

achievement on the national level since 1969. Although NAEP’s testing

agency may include migrant students in its random sample of participants,

scores for migrant students cannot be analyzed separately because NAEP

does not include representative samples of migrant students and students

are not asked to identify themselves as children of migrant agricultural

families. Also, schools can exclude students from participating if they do

not have sufficient English proficiency, and some migrant children are

likely to fall within this category. Moreover, migrant families’ mobility

means that students may not be in a school participating in NAEP when the

test is given.

Despite the challenges in testing migrant students, such as language and

mobility, experts agree that it might be feasible to design a special sample

of migrant students in NAEP because migrant students are clustered in

particular areas. For example, according to Education’s statistics, about

281,000, or 45 percent, of migrant education participants were in California

and Texas, but only 17,000, or 3 percent, were in the six New England

states. In addition, many students live in their home states for most of the

school year. Furthermore, NAEP tests are usually administered in the

winter, when most migrant students are likely to be in their home states.

In Texas, for example, most migrant students begin traveling in May and

return home by October. Although information from a special sample may

not be ideal, it should provide useful outcome information on MEP and

allow Education to compare the academic achievement of migrant

students with that of other groups of U.S. students.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

The Head Start Program Information Report is HHS’s annual instrument for

collecting information on all Head Start programs. Although the report

collects much useful demographic and service data, its data collection

methods and data elements are not completely suitable to MHS’s operations

and population and cause data from the report to be less reliable than for

regular Head Start. In addition, HHS has not ensured that all MHS grantees

report these data. For the years 1996, 1997, and 1998, 27 percent,

8 percent, and 21 percent, respectively, of MHS grantees failed to report

Program Information Report data. Thus, basic national information, such

as the number of children served or immunizations received, is not

available. In appendix VI, we briefly discuss the report and describe other

sources of information on MHS.

Although HHS and other groups have conducted numerous studies to

evaluate Head Start and other childcare programs, none includes outcome

measures for participants in MHS.

15 Appendix VI includes information about

10 national studies that included MHS children or children who share key

characteristics, such as language or age, with MHS participants. Although

many of these studies are likely to provide information that will be useful

to HHS in evaluating the results of Head Start, none of them measures

outcomes specifically for MHS.

Plans for Future Data

Collection

Of the measures reported in Education’s performance plan for the Results

Act, only 1 of MEP’s 11 performance measures is based on outcomes. It is

that “increasing numbers of migrant children will meet or exceed the

basic and proficient levels in state and local assessments,” which will not

be measured until 2001. There are questions about whether Education will

be able to obtain the information by that time. For example, in the past,

school staff who have had to give such information have been unwilling to

identify migrant students, because they disliked labeling children and

often did not know which students were migrant. Second, because the

states use different tests and assess students at different times and grade

levels, information will not be comparable on a national level. While

intrastate comparisons can be useful for most children, they are less useful

for assessing migrant children because the children are often away from

their home states in the spring, when state assessments are likely to be

given. Third, many states have not developed statewide assessments and

are not likely to have assessments in place by 2001. Presently, 26 states

15Children and Families in an Era of Rapid Change, Head Start’s Fourth National Research Conference

(Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, July 12-18, 1998), and Current Head

Start and Related Research (McLean, Va.: Ellsworth Associates, n.d.) identify and describe major Head

Start and childcare studies.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

have received waivers from Education that allow them additional time to

develop assessment systems.

HHS is implementing two major efforts to obtain additional information for

regular Head Start program participants. First, HHS is revising its

monitoring instrument to include outcome-based information. However,

monitoring occurs in 3-year cycles during which its emphasis shifts.

Second, a national study, the Family and Child Experiences Survey

(FACES), is being implemented to collect data on program results.16

Although FACES provides outcome data for regular Head Start, its findings

do not apply to the MHS population because MHS participants were

excluded from the study. HHS officials told us that MHS was not included in

FACES because MHS and Head Start differ in duration and serve different

ages, but, most importantly, the MHS children are very mobile and harder to

track during a longitudinal study. However, it might be possible to get

good information on children in the majority of MHS centers by

concentrating on the MHS populations in states like California and Texas,

where children attend centers for 9 to 10 months a year.

Conclusions MEP and MHS have served many children. Although both programs serve

preschool children, MHS serves a narrower population than MEP because

MHS program regulations define agricultural work more narrowly. The

narrower definition results in service gaps for some preschool children

and for children of different ages in the same family, although their family

income level, mobility patterns, and working conditions are the same. If

MHS’s definition of migrant work were broadened, MEP and MHS could work

together to provide more orderly transitions for children as they move

from MHS into school and, in areas where MEP does not provide preschool

services but MHS does, all the children in a family could be served—the

older children by MEP and younger children by MHS. However, broadening

MHS’s definition would increase the number of children who would be

eligible for MHS services. As a result, HHS would need to analyze the

adequacy and targeting of MHS’s resources.

While coordination between MEP and MHS has been limited in the past, the

Directors Group may help remedy this. The more significant coordination

problem involves tracking participants as they move from one program

site to another site of the same program. Because MEP serves mainly

school-aged children and MHS serves only infants and preschool children,

16Head Start’s FACES is a longitudinal study that uses a nationally representative sample of Head Start

classes and collects extensive information about the quality of Head Start educational services.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

children face service disruptions mostly when they move between

different sites of the same program rather than when they move from one

program to another. Disruptions are compounded when receiving schools

or centers do not have children’s records or information about whom to

contact to obtain the records. Education and HHS could minimize these

problems by developing nationwide systems that transmit essential

information across state or grantee jurisdictions so that children can

receive needed services while complete records are being sent or faxed.

One approach to setting up such systems would be to use Internet and

encryption technology to allow the speedy and confidential

communication of basic information, such as immunization records,

special education needs, and, in the case of high school students,

information on credits and courses needed for graduation. For example,

Education and HHS could examine current interstate and intrastate

electronic information transfer systems and, building on best practices,

facilitate the development of a system that would link states and grantees

without imposing extensive data entry burdens or duplicating the efforts

of some states and grantees who have invested in developing and

operating electronic recordkeeping systems. In addition, building on

existing systems could help keep costs down while improving services to

children.

Although Education and HHS collect substantial data on MEP and MHS, the

departments have little information on the outcomes of these programs.

Both the statutes and performance plans lay out goals for gathering

outcome information, but neither Education nor HHS has conducted

outcome studies that measure how well MEP and MHS are achieving these

goals. We realize that implementing outcome studies is difficult and that

the cost of studies that include nationally representative samples of

migrant children might be prohibitive. However, the majority of MEP and

MHS participants are located in a small number of states—for example,

45 percent of MEP participants are located in California and Texas. Also,

most participants reside in their home states for considerable periods of

time. Therefore, including a special sample of migrant children in ongoing

national data collection efforts is feasible and would provide some

outcome information.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services examine

the advisability of expanding the types of activities included in MHS’s

definition of agricultural work to harmonize with those that are

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

considered agricultural work under MEP. In undertaking this examination,

the Secretary should consider the resource implications of broadening this

definition.

We recommend that to improve services to children, the Secretaries of

Education and HHS both develop nationwide systems to transmit essential

information about each participant, Education’s system to track MEP

participants from school district to school district and HHS’s system to

track MHS participants from center to center.

Because government agencies need to provide a clear picture of how their

programs are working, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education

and HHS include in their respective research and evaluation plans studies

that measure the outcomes of MEP and MHS and the extent to which the

programs are meeting their goals.

Agency Comments We provided copies of a draft of this report to Education and HHS for

review. Both responded with comments, reprinted in appendixes VII and

VIII. Education in its response generally agreed with our facts and most of

our conclusions and recommendations.

Regarding our recommendation about record transfer, Education was

concerned that the recommendation might be read to imply that it should

design a single new system and not build on existing systems, although, as

Education noted, we discussed building on past experience as one way to

design a national information transfer system. We did not intend that the

system necessarily be a single new system.

Regarding our recommendation on outcome information, Education said

that it would help if we had put more emphasis on the efforts Education

has undertaken to obtain better outcome data on migrant children and that

the proposed use of NAEP would not overcome the limitations associated

with measuring the outcomes of a specific program. In our report, we

discussed both Education’s plan to use the disaggregated results of state

assessments by the year 2000-01 and our concerns about the likely

limitations of these data. We believe that the advantages of using NAEP to

obtain a common matrix to measure and track the overall educational

progress of migrant children on a national level far outweigh any

theoretical benefits that might be obtained by limiting measures to those

attributable to any particular program.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
B-281918 

Education also listed technical comments that we included where

appropriate.

In its comments, HHS wrote that this report will help as the Department

continues its efforts to change and improve the MHS program. HHS

concurred with our recommendation on examining the advisability of

expanding the types of activities included in MHS’s definition of agricultural

work to harmonize with those that are considered agricultural work under

MEP. In addition, ACF agreed to explore various options for developing a

nationwide information transfer system. ACF also indicated its intent to

include outcome measures in its monitoring of MHS through the Head Start

program. It believes its current set of outcome measures will be

appropriate for use by MHS, although, as we noted in the report, its major

outcome study excludes samples of migrant children.

As we arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the

report’s contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after

the date of this letter. We will then send copies to the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and others who are

interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

Please contact me or Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, on

202-512-7215 if you have any questions about this report. Other major

contributors were Carolyn S. Blocker, Sonya M. Harmeyer, and Kathleen

D. White.

Cynthia M. Fagnoni

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security Issues

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Migrant Education

Services Provided

Frequently at Eight

Sites

30

Appendix II 

Migrant Education

Data on Students in

Eight States

32

Appendix III 

Migrant Head Start

Data on Nine Sites in

Eight States

36

Appendix IV 

Four Types of

Education

Information Exchange

38

Appendix V 

Migrant Education

Information Sources

and Studies

40

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Contents

Appendix VI 

Head Start

Information Sources

and Studies

44

Appendix VII 

Comments From the

Department of

Education

46

Appendix VIII 

Comments From the

Department of Health

and Human Services

49

Tables Table 1: Key MEP and MHS Goals and Objectives, Operations,

Eligibility Requirements, and Services

9

Table 2: Differences Between Participants and Program

Characteristics of MHS and Regular Head Start

14

Table 3: Obstacles to Creating Outcome Measures for Migrant

Programs

21

Figures Figure 1: Number of Locations in Which Crop Worker Families

Lived During 1993-94

4

Figure 2: Traditional Streams of Migration 5

Figure 3: Migration Patterns of Migrant Students in One Texas

School District, 1997-98

6

Figure 4: Percentages of Migrant Education Participants by Age

or Grade Range, 1997-98

12

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

FACES Family and Child Experiences Survey

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

MEP Migrant Education Program

MHS Migrant Head Start

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix I 

Migrant Education Services Provided

Frequently at Eight Sites

Location

Time

Site Term Home School Other

Before or

after school

During

school Evening Saturday

Santa Rosa, Calif. Regular

Summer

E

E

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S E

E,S

S

S

E,S

S

Adams County, Colo. Regular

Summer

E

E

E,S

E,S

S

S

E,S E,S

E, S

S

S

E

Gainesville, Ga. Regular

Summer E

E,S

E,S

S E,S

E,S

S

Alma, Mich. Regular

Summer E,S

E,S

E,S

S

E,S

E,S

E,S

S

S

Oneonta, N.Y. Regular

Summer

E,S

E,S

E,S

E S

E,S E,S

E S

E,S

S

Hillsboro, Oreg. Regular

Summer

E,S

E,S S

E,S

E,S

E,S

E

E,S

S

Gettysburg, Pa. Regular

Summer

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

S

S

E,S

E,S

E,S

S

E,S

S

Weslaco, Tex. Regular

Summer

E

E

E,S

E,S S

E,S E,S

E,S

S

S

E,S

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix I 

Migrant Education Services Provided

Frequently at Eight Sites

Service

Tutoriala

Teacher for

bilingual

courses

Teacher for

English as a

second

language

Schoolwide

programsb

Correspondence

and distance

learning courses Other

E

E,S

E

E,S

E S

S

Afternoon tutorial services in schools and

an afterschool program in a farmworker

housing project

E,S

E,S

S

E,S

S

E,S

E

E

Preschool programs for migrant children

and dental and medical services for all

migrant students

E,S E An intake and welcome center to enroll

migrant children and to provide family

support services

E,S

E

E,S E,S

E,S

S

S

Work study programs for high school

students in the summer day classes

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

S

S

Staff work with parents to publish a

newsletter and maintain a food bank for

the migrant community

E,S E,S

E,S

E,S

E,S

E S

S

Programs for infants, toddlers, and

preschoolers and 24-hour accident

insurance for all MEP students in the state

E,S

E,S E,S

S

S

Special summer school courses such as

leadership training for migrant middle

school students and work-study

programs for high school students

E,S

E,S

E,S

E

E,S E,S S Enrichment programs for secondary

students during summer and summer

and evening school tuition

Note: “E” is services for elementary school students, “S” secondary school students. No services

were available where cells are blank. Although the programs differed, all provided some common

services such as recruitment and outreach, instructional services, and guidance and counseling.

aIndividualized academic and social service support.

bMEP funds were pooled with other fundings to support educational improvements for all

students.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix II 

Migrant Education Data on Students in

Eight States

Characteristic California Colorado

Number

Schools in statea 7,989 1,462

Schools that enrolled migrant students 3,318 627

Eligible migrant students 210,220 13,029

Regular term MEP project sites 1,416 176

Summer term MEP project sites 329 33

Intersession project sites 24 0

Multiterm project sites 1,006 0

MEP funding (millions)

Fiscal year 1998 $89.1 $4.4

Fiscal year 1999 103.5 5.4

Ages served in regular term

0-5 7.5% 17.6%

Grades K-6 55.5 47.9

Grades 7-12 35.9 24.6

Otherc 1.4 10.0

Ages served in summer term

0-5 13.0% 23.3%

Grades K-6 55.6 51.0

Grades 7-12 30.2 18.2

Otherc 1.0 7.3

Ethnicity

American Indian 0 0.7%

Asian and Pacific Islander 3.3% 0.2

Black 0 0.1

Hispanic 96.3 96.3

White 0.2 2.6

Other 0.3 0

Parent occupations

Crop work X X

Meat and poultry processing X X

Fishing X

Dairy X X

Student information system

COEstar X

New Generation System X

MIS-2000

Own system

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix II 

Migrant Education Data on Students in

Eight States

Georgia Michigan New York Oregon Pennsylvania Texas

1,810 3,486 b 1,293 3,192 6,642

550 675 b 961 399 2,857

14,973 18,446 11,303 26,319 12,549 116,912

19 11 b 385 54 1,519

20 3 b 0 26 375

0 0 b 0 0 11

38 38 b 858 0 759

$4.5 $9.4 $6.8 $10.9 $7.5 $43.8

5.6 11 8 12.4 8.8 51.5

41.2% 1.7% 20.4% 10.7% 20.9% 14.3%

27.1 65.8 39.5 56.9 36.5 45.3

15.2 31.9 15.8 29.3 19.8 34.9

16.7 0.6 24.4 3.3 23.0 5.4

53.0% 18.5% 17.1% 24.1% 20.1% 15.3%

32.4 57.4 40.4 52.3 39.9 54.6

11.4 22.3 17.0 12.5 18.9 28.3

3.2 1.8 25.4 11.1 21.0 1.6

2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1%

0.1 0.6 0.1 2.3 10.3 0.2

3.1 1.6 4.3 0 1.2 0.5

89.2 93.8 55.7 89.5 83.9 96.9

5.2 3.6 39.8 6.8 4.5 2.4

0 0 0 0 0 0

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X X

(continued)

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix II 

Migrant Education Data on Students in

Eight States

Characteristic California Colorado

State funding formula components

Number of participants during summer

school X X

Number of participants during regular

school year X X

Number of eligible students X X

Additional funding for children at risk X X

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix II 

Migrant Education Data on Students in

Eight States

Georgia Michigan New York Oregon Pennsylvania Texas

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

Note: In addition to detailing statewide demographic information on migrant children for the

academic year 1997-98 in the eight states we visited, the table identifies the student information

systems the states used. The table shows that except for Oregon, migrant children attended a

relatively larger number of schools in homes states (California and Texas) than in receiving states

(Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania). Although the states tended to target

different age groups for services, in all eight states most participants attended elementary school

and services were more widely available during the regular term than the summer term.

aData are reported from the 1997 Database of Schools Enrolling Migrant Children.

bNew York could not provide data on the number of schools that enrolled migrant children or on

the number of project sites, but 427 of 705 school districts statewide enrolled migrant children

during 1997.

cOut-of-school youths and ungraded youths.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix III 

Migrant Head Start Data on Nine Sites in

Eight States

MHS delegate agency/granteea Location Annual funding

Agri-business Child Development/East Coast

Migrant Head Start (ECMHSP)

Schenectady, N.Y. $1,247,834

Central California Migrant Head Start Modesto, Calif. 13,343,055

E Center Migrant Head Start Ukiah, Calif. 3,907,200

Family Education Network of Weld County Greeley, Colo. 1,509,974

Georgia Telamon Migrant Head Start/ECMHSP Macon, Ga. 2,331,971

Michigan Telamon Migrant Head Start Lansing, Mich. 6,209,275

Oregon Child Development Coalition Wilsonville, Oreg. 11,121,501

Pennsylvania Rural Opportunities, Inc./ECMHSP Lemoyne, Pa. 1,144,649

Texas Migrant Council Laredo, Tex. 29,416,599

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix III 

Migrant Head Start Data on Nine Sites in

Eight States

Number of Information tracking system

centers

Number of

children

Dates of

operation

Number of hours

of operation

per day Ages of children HSFIS Other

10 457 Year-round 9-11 6 weeks-5 years No Yes

50 2,427 Mar.-Dec. 12 0-5 years No No

9 472 May-Nov. 12-14 3 months-5 years Limitedb No

9 208 June-Sept. 12 0-5 years Limitedb Yes

3 381 Apr.-Dec. 11 0-5 years No Yes

12 1,279 June-Nov. 8-12 2 weeks-5 years Limitedb Yes

14 1,864 Mar.-Dec. 8-10 6 weeks-5 years Limitedb No

4 190 Jan.-Mar. and

Aug.-Dec.

10-12 0-5 years No Yes

55 4,529 Year-round 8-10 0-5 years Limitedb No

Note: Data are for 1998 but were reported in fiscal year, calendar year, or school year.

aHead Start distributes its program funds through grantees. A delegate agency is a public or a

private nonprofit or for-profit organization or agency to which a grantee has delegated all or part

of the responsibility for operating a Head Start program. Where grantees operated MHS

programs, the table gives the grantee only. Where grantees delegated responsibility, the table

gives the delegate agency followed by the grantee.

bThis grantee is not able to electronically exchange information across grantees because the

Head Start Family Information System (HSFIS) has not been fully implemented.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix IV 

Four Types of Education Information

Exchange

Project Typea Description Participants

On student records

New Generation

System

Consortium Functions as a record transfer and a tracking

system that provides on-line records of a student’s

educational progress and health records and

various management reports. Participants have

rights to query, add, and update records on

students, enrollments, assessments, special needs,

and health information. Direct access is usually

available on a state or regional level.

Colorado, Delaware, District of

Columbia, Illinois, Montana, New

Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Utah,

Washington, and Wisconsin

Migrant Student

Network

Commercial Functions as a record transfer and tracking system.

Scheduled to stop operations on December 31,

1999.

Minnesota, New Mexico, North

Carolina, and South Carolina

MIS-2000 Commercial Functions as an intrastate database, maintains

information on individual students, and can be

tailored to needs of a user.

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,

Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

Nevada, New York, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto

Rico, South Dakota, and Tennessee

Red Bag Consortium Provides parents of migrant children from Texas a

red tote bag that contains a copy of the student’s

health and school records that the parents carry to

each school as they move.

Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio,

and Texas

On curriculums

Anchor School MEP technology

grant

Provides helpline, voice mail system, portable local

network, Internet access, and interactive CD-ROMs.

Students who live in two counties in

Florida whose parents migrate along

the East Coast

Consortium

Arrangement to

Facilitate Migrant

Student Achievement

Consortium Formed to develop and share procedures to quickly

assess students’ academic needs.

Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri,

New Hampshire, New Mexico, North

Dakota, and Utah

Estrella Consortium, MEP

technology grant

Provides 150 migrant students from Texas with

laptop computers and modems to enable them to

complete coursework needed for high school

graduation. Also provides teacher training.

Illinois, Montana, New York, and

Texas

Migrant Education

Consortium for Higher

Achievement

(MECHA)

Consortium, MEP

technology grant

Provides instructional television used for

supplemental tutoring.

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and

Virginia

NovaNet Commercial Provides a computer-based, on-line learning

system for instruction in more than 100 subject

areas for middle school, high school, and adult

learners.

Multiple

Portable Assisted

Study Sequence

Program (PASS)

State Consists of a year-round curriculum in the form of

correspondence courses that allow students to

work semi-independently to complete coursework

to help meet graduation requirements.

Used by sites in 31 states

(continued)

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix IV 

Four Types of Education Information

Exchange

Project Typea Description Participants

Summer Migrants

Access Resources

Through Technology

(SMART)

Consortium Consists of a national distance learning program

that uses television to transmit lessons aligned with

Texas’ curriculum for 8 weeks over the summer to

help Texas students who temporarily live in other

states earn credits for graduation.

Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio,

Texas, and Virginia

Out-of-state TASS

Testing Assistance

Consortium Provides out-of-state test preparation and

administration to enable students to pass

assessments required by Texas for promotion and

graduation.

Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois,

Maryland, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,

Texas, and Virginia

University of Texas

Migrant Student

Program

State Offers 22 print-based correspondence courses and

2 computer-based courses to about 145 students a

year.

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,

Montana, New York, North Dakota,

Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin

On identification and recruitment

Consortium

Arrangement for

Identification and

Recruitment (CAIR)

Consortium Originally formed to develop and enhance

identification and recruitment procedures and

programs; expanded to develop practices for

serving migrant preschoolers and secondary

school-aged youths and to address the needs of

families through collaborative partnerships with

agribusiness.

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,

Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,

Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New

York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West

Virginia, and Wyoming

States Having

Arrangements for

Resources and

Education (SHARE)

Consortium Develops and shares techniques in recruitment,

advocacy, health care, and secondary student

leadership and serves youths traveling without

families.

Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

Between Mexico and the United States

Binational Migrant

Education Program

International Conducts teacher exchanges, encourages the

transfer of school records, distributes Mexican

textbooks to U.S. public schools, and promotes

other activities designed to improve cooperation.

A joint effort between the United

States and Mexico; states and

districts participate at their discretion

Colorado/Tepic,

Nayarit, Mexico

Teacher Exchange

Incentive grant Two teachers from Colorado participated in a

weeklong exchange program with teachers in

Mexico.

Colorado, Mexico

Oregon Migrant

Technology System

Grant

MEP technology

grant

Provides services through a homework hotline,

on-line access to instructional materials, a

coordinated Oregonian-Mexican curriculum, and

televised bilingual instruction.

Oregon, Mexico

aThe states can use regular MEP funds for commercial and state-sponsored projects aimed at

improving educational coordination; the Department of Education also provides incentive and

technology grants. Education awards incentive grants to states to encourage them to join

multistate consortia that support coordination efforts and to reduce MEP’s administrative costs so

that more funds can be spent on direct services. In fiscal year 1999, 36 states—members of 12

consortia—received incentive grants ranging from $31,944 to $95,832. These funds supported a

variety of activities, including teacher exchange programs, career development retreats for

migrant students, and software purchases. Education awards competitive technology grants to

states or consortia that use technology to help migrant students overcome problems associated

with interstate and intrastate mobility. In 1998, Education awarded grants for five technology

projects, each funded at about $400,000 to $600,000, four of which supported interstate efforts.

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix V 

Migrant Education Information Sources and

Studies

Source Description

Samples or

focuses on

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

Program information

State Title I

Migrant

Participation

Information

Contains a descriptive

summary of national MEP

participation and staffing

counts and individual state

profiles.

Yes • Contains state-by-state

profiles.

• Reports a variety of data.

• Provides national as well

as state information.

• Reported annually.

• Will be used to evaluate

compliance with the Results

Act.

• National data include

duplicated counts.

• Provides only input and

output information.

• Data on services are

percentages, not numbers

of children.

• Has no common

definition of service.

No

Monitoring

Integrated

Reviews of ESEA

and Goals 2000

Formula Programs

Examines the implementation

of federal education programs

as a coherent set of funding

efforts that link with one

another and support state and

local reform efforts. Generally

replaces separate

program-specific reviews.

Yes • Consolidates formerly

separate reviews into a

coherent review.

• Reviews states on a

3-year cycle.

Coverage of MEP is

limited.

No

Current or

ongoing

Living in

Interesting Times:

Early State

Implementation

of New Federal

Education Laws

(Oct. 1998)

Analyzed how state officials

initially responded to new

legislative mandates related to

various programs, including

title I.

Yes • Includes data on MEP

administration and

implementation.

• Will be used to evaluate

compliance with the Results

Act.

Coverage of MEP is

limited.

No

Meeting the

Needs of Migrant

Students in

Schoolwide

Programs (Jan.

1999)

Examined, from a nationally

representative sample of

schoolwide projects that have

migrant students, how the

students were served in title I

schoolwide programs.

Yes • Focused on examining

whether migrant children

were actually being served

in schoolwide programs.

• Will be used to evaluate

compliance with the Results

Act.

Significant data gaps on

migrant students make it

difficult to determine the

extent to which

schoolwide programs are

actually meeting needs of

migrant children as a

group.

No

Common Core of

Data

Provides basic statistics on

K-12 education in the United

States. Consists of five surveys

completed annually to report

data on public elementary and

secondary schools, local

education agencies, and state

education agencies. Includes

demographic data on students

and dropouts as well as staff

and fiscal information.

No Reports basic information

collected on an annual

cycle.

Includes no migrant

sample.

No

(continued)

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix V 

Migrant Education Information Sources and

Studies

Source Description

Samples or

focuses on

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

Database of

Schools Enrolling

Migrant Children

Provides summary statistics of

public and private schools that

enroll migrant children.

Yes Provides first-time available

information to federal and

state policymakers on

schools enrolling migrant

children.

Contains a number of data

weaknesses because not

all states reported

consistent information.

No

National

Assessment of

Educational

Progress (NAEP),

known as the

“Nation’s Report

Card”

Continuously monitors the

knowledge, skills, and

performance of the nation’s

children and youths in such

subjects as reading,

mathematics, science, writing,

and geography.

No • Encourages schools to

include students with

limited English proficiency

in sample.

• Includes an ongoing

national study of students’

educational progress in

basic curricular areas in

grades 4, 8, and 12.

• Most students with limited

English proficiency

participate but with

accommodation.

Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

State Education

Indicators With a

Focus on Title I

(Council of Chief

State School

Officers)

Provides a basic picture of

characteristics of each

state—finances, population

demographics, and sources of

funding—that affect how public

K-12 schools operate.

Yes • Includes a wide range of

data by subject and

demographics.

• Where available, breaks

out data on migrant

students.

• Will be used to evaluate

compliance with the Results

Act.

Does not show number of

migrant students who

were tested; reports only

percentages.

Yes

In-process

Fast Response

Survey System’s

(FRSS) 1998

Survey of MEP

Summer School

Providers

Designed to collect

issue-oriented data quickly

and with minimum response

burden. Data are

representative at the national

level, drawing from a universe

that is appropriate for each

study.

Yes • Is a good effort to

develop a picture of MEP

summer school programs.

• Will be used to evaluate

compliance with the Results

Act.

Replication not scheduled. No

Early Childhood

Longitudinal

Study—

Kindergarten

Cohort (ECLS-K)

Provides detailed information

on children’s early school

experiences. The main study

began in the fall of 1998 with a

nationally representative

sample of 23,000

kindergartners from 1,000

kindergarten programs. The

children will be followed

longitudinally through the fifth

grade.

No • Longitudinal.

• Includes representative

samples of kindergarten

children from a wide variety

of public and private

schools and from diverse

racial, ethnic, and

socioeconomic

backgrounds.

Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix V 

Migrant Education Information Sources and

Studies

Source Description

Samples or

focuses on

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

Prospects: The

Congressionally

Mandated Study

of Educational

Growth and

Opportunity

Consists of a longitudinal study

of the effects of title I on

students in low-income

schools, including effects on

students with limited English

proficiency. It focused on

children attending schools with

a high concentration of poor

children, characteristics of

students who received title I or

other compensatory services,

and students’ educational

environment, including

coordination of title I services

within a school.

No Provides input, output, and

outcome information on

children in title I schools.

Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

Future

Schools and

Staffing Survey

(SASS)

Is an integrated survey of

public and private schools,

school districts, and principals

and teachers. Provides data

on staffing and service

providers.

Yes Will include some questions

on migrant children on

teacher and administrator

surveys beginning with next

survey.

Contains limited student

information because its

purpose is to collect

information on

characteristics of schools

and staff.

No

National

Longitudinal

Survey of School

Implementation

of

Standards-Based

Reform and Title I

Supports for

Reform (NLSS)

Examines how schools are

implementing standards-driven

improvements, with a focus on

title I provisions that support

such improvements. Provides

data on schools with high

proportions of at-risk students,

including migrant students.

Yes Provides information on the

number and location of

schools that provide regular

school year and summer

programs for migrant

students.

Was conducted in the fall

of 1998 and will be

conducted again in the fall

of 1999 and 2000.

No

Early Childhood

Longitudinal

Study—Birth

Cohort (ECLS-B)

Is a longitudinal survey that will

provide detailed information on

children’s development,

health, early care, and

education from a nationally

representative sample of

15,000 children born in 2000

who will be followed from birth

through the end of first grade.

No • Longitudinal.

• Includes representative

samples from diverse

racial-ethnic and

socioeconomic

backgrounds.

Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

(continued)

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix V 

Migrant Education Information Sources and

Studies

Source Description

Samples or

focuses on

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

Descriptive Study

of the Chapter 1

Migrant

Education

Program (1992)

Developed a description of

MEP that was current and

nationally representative in

terms of the characteristics of

the students served, program

staffing, and state and local

practices for targeting

services, program

administration, program

services, and program

expenditures.

Yes Provided information

suggesting that migrant

children might not receive

services from federal

educational programs they

were eligible for.

No replication is planned. No

Note: Describes the information the Department of Education collects from program operations,

monitoring, special studies, and longitudinal surveys.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VI 

Head Start Information Sources and Studies

Source Description

Includes

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

Program information

Program Information

Report

Collects annual program data

from grantees.

Yes Collects a wide range

of program data

annually.

• Does not address

uniqueness of migrant

program.

• Data are estimated for

some grantees because

reporting deadline is at

the height of the MHS

program.

• Not all grantees submit

data.

No

Monitoring

3-year site visit

monitoring

Monitors all Head Start

grantees every 3 years.

Yes • Conducts thorough

review on-site.

• Based on standards.

• Completed every 3

years.

Changes emphasis

because the instrument

is subjective.

No

Current or ongoing

Bilingual Study Surveys almost 2,000 Head

Start grantees and delegates

on bilingual education.

No • Provides

information on special

population.

• Includes Hispanic

children.

Had not been released

by October 1999.

No

Study of the

Characteristics of

Families Served by

Migrant Head Start

Consists of a national MHS

descriptive study that will

illustrate the characteristics

of MHS families and

programs by interviewing

1,000 parents and staff at 81

MHS centers.

Yes • Contains new types

of data on families.

• Focuses on MHS

children.

Had not been released

by October 1999.

No

Early Childhood

Longitudinal

Study—Kindergarten

Cohort (ECLS-K)a

Provides detailed information

on children’s early school

experiences. The main study

began in fall 1998 with a

nationally representative

sample of 23,000

kindergartners from 1,000

kindergarten programs. The

children will be followed

longitudinally through the fifth

grade.

No • Longitudinal.

• Includes

representative

samples of

kindergarten children

from a wide variety of

public and private

schools and from

diverse racial, ethnic,

and socioeconomic

backgrounds.

Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

Family and Child

Experiences Survey

(FACES)

Consists of a nationally

representative, longitudinal

study of families with children

enrolled in 40 regular Head

Start programs.

No • Longitudinal.

• Analysts can infer

conclusions from

sampled population.

• Uses Program

Information Report as

source of sample

population.

• Includes no migrant

sample.

Yes

(continued)

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VI 

Head Start Information Sources and Studies

Source Description

Includes

migrant

children Strength Weakness

Outcome

measures

National Agricultural

Workers Surveyb

The survey samples crop

farmworkers in three cycles

each year to capture

demographic data such as

household and family

composition, employment

history, wages, benefits and

working conditions, income

and assets, social services,

and legal status.

No • Focuses on

agricultural crop

workers.

• Constitutes the best

available data on

cropworkers.

Includes small sample

size and complex

sampling design.

No

National Institute of

Child Health and

Human Development

Study of Early Child

Care

A three-phase, longitudinal

study that focuses on 1,364

infants’ family, school,

neighborhood, and

after-school environment as

well as ethnic and peer

culture and electronic

technology.

No • Longitudinal.

• Includes data on

children up to 3 years

old

Includes only

English-speaking

mothers.

Yes

Future

Early Childhood

Longitudinal

Study—Birth Cohorta

Consists of a longitudinal

survey that will provide

detailed information on

children’s development,

health, early care, and

education on a nationally

representative sample of

15,000 children born in 2000

who will be followed from

birth through the end of first

grade.

No • Longitudinal.

• Focuses on children

up to 3 years old

Includes no migrant

sample.

No

Seasonal Farmworker

Study

Currently in design, this study

will provide estimates of the

number of eligible migrant

children being served by

Head Start agencies.

Yes Will provide a

comprehensive profile

of served and

unserved migrant and

seasonal farmworker

children.

Uses databases that are

problematic (National

Agricultural Workers

Survey, Migrant Student

Record Transfer System,

and Program Information

Report).

No

Note: Describes the information that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

collects from program operations, monitoring, special studies, and longitudinal surveys, all of

which HHS funds, unless noted otherwise. The criteria for including studies and surveys was that

they are national studies and that they include data on migrants, Latinos, farmworkers, or children

younger than 3 years old or that they contain longitudinal data.

aThe Department of Education funds this study.

bThe Department of Labor funds and conducts this survey.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Now GAO/HEHS-00-4.

Now on page 26.

Now on page 25.

Now on page 26.

Now on page 26.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Now on page 3.

Now on pages 20-21.

Now on page 7.

Now on page 9.

Now on page 7.

Now on page 10.

Now on page 11.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Now on pages 12-13.

Now on page 16.

Now on pages 18-19.

Now on page 17.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Now GAO/HEHS-00-4.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

(104953) Page 51 GAO/HEHS-00-4 Migrant Children
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 37050

Washington, DC 20013

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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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