Testimony 

Before the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions 

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 EDUCATION AND CARE

Head Start Key Among 

Array of Early Childhood 

Programs, but National 

Research on Effectiveness 

Not Completed 

Statement of Marnie S. Shaul, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-03-840T 
Head Start, created in 1965, is the largest funded program among an array of 

federal early childhood education and care programs, most of which did not 

exist until decades later. The early education and child care demands of 

families have changed significantly since Head Start’s inception. More 

women are working, the number of single parents has been increasing, and 

welfare reform has resulted in more families, including those with young 

children, entering the workforce. To help meet families’ demands for early 

childhood education and care services, an array of federal programs, such as 

the child care block grant, have been added over time. Program legislation 

requires some of these programs to coordinate the delivery of early 

childhood education and care services for low-income families with young 

children. For example, to provide parents with full day coverage, Head 

Start, a predominately part day program, may coordinate with child care 

programs for the other part of the day. However, barriers--such as differing 

program eligibility requirements--sometimes make it difficult to blend 

services across the different programs. 

Although extensive research exists that provides important information 

about Head Start, no recent, definitive, national-level research exists about 

Head Start’s effectiveness on the lives of the children and families it serves. 

In its last reauthorization, Congress mandated a Head Start effectiveness 

study and specified that it be completed this year. According to HHS, the 

study will be completed in 2006. 

The federal government invests 

over $11 billion in early childhood 

education and care programs. 

These programs exist to ensure 

that children from low-income 

families are better prepared to 

enter school and that their parents 

have access to early childhood 

education and care that allow them 

to obtain and maintain 

employment. The federal 

government invests more in Head 

Start, which was funded at $6.5 

billion in fiscal year 2002, than any 

other early childhood education 

and care program. Head Start has 

served over 21 million children at a 

total cost of $66 billion since it 

began. The Chairman, Senate 

Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions asked GAO to 

discuss Head Start--how it fits 

within the array of early childhood 

education and care programs 

available to low-income children 

and their families and what is 

known about its effectiveness. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO--03-840T. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

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

Highlights of GAO-03-840T, a report to 

Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

July 2003

EDUCATION AND CARE 

Head Start Key Among Array of Early 

Childhood Programs, But National 

Research on Effectiveness Not 

Completed 
Page 1 GAO-03-840T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on early childhood 

education and care programs, and in particular, Head Start, which many 

view as one of the most successful social programs. Nationwide attention 

has been focused on ensuring that children from low-income families are 

better prepared to enter school and that parents have access to early 

childhood services that allow them to obtain and maintain employment. In 

response, the federal government has increased funding for early 

childhood education and care programs to over $11 billion. Head Start—

the federal government’s single largest investment in early childhood 

education and care for low-income children—has served over 21 million 

children and their families at a total cost of $66 billion since its inception 

in 1965; its funding for fiscal year 2002 was $6.5 billion. 

The reauthorization of the Head Start program offers a timely occasion for 

considering the two major issues my statement will address today: How 

Head Start fits into the array of early childhood education and care 

programs available to low-income children and their families and what is 

known about Head Start’s effectiveness. My statement is based primarily 

on recent studies that we have conducted on early childhood education 

and care programs. 

In summary, much has changed in society since Head Start was 

established nearly 40 years ago, including an increase in the availability of 

federal early childhood programs for low-income families. Changes in 

women’s employment, family structure, and public assistance have 

dramatically increased the demand for early education and child care for 

low-income families. To help meet the increased demand brought about by 

societal changes, an array of federal education and care programs, as well 

as many state and local community programs, has been created for 

children from low-income families. The largest sources of additional 

federal funding for child care services come from the Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF). To meet the demands of families, some federal programs require 

coordination of services among early childhood education and care 

programs. To illustrate, most Head Start programs are predominately part 

day, part year programs, and they cannot meet the demands of working 

families who need full-day, full-year education and care services. In 

response to this requirement, some Head Start programs collaborate with 

other programs to provide families full day coverage. However, differing 

program eligibility requirements and other coordination barriers 

sometimes impede coordination efforts. 
Page 2 GAO-03-840T 

Although a substantial body of Head Start research exists that provides 

important information about the program, little is known about its 

effectiveness on the lives of the children and families it serves. Although 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently has studies 

that show that the skills of children who participate in Head Start have 

improved, the studies do not provide definitive evidence that this 

improvement is a result of program participation and not other 

experiences children may have had. HHS has a study underway, however, 

that is expected to provide more definitive information on Head Start’s 

effectiveness in preparing young children for school. The study, mandated 

by Congress to have been completed this year, is expected to be 

completed in 2006, according to HHS. Currently, no preliminary results are 

available. 

Head Start was created in 1965 as part of the “War on Poverty.” The 

program was built on the premise that effective intervention in the lives of 

children could be best accomplished through family and community 

involvement. Fundamental to this notion was that communities should be 

given considerable latitude to develop their own Head Start programs. 

Head Start’s primary goal is to prepare young children to enter school. In 

support of its school readiness goal, the program offers children a broad 

range of services, which include educational, as well as medical, dental, 

mental health, nutritional, and social services. Children enrolled in Head 

Start are primarily 3 and 4 years old and come from varying ethnic and 

racial backgrounds. Most children receive part day, part year program 

services in center-based settings. 

Head Start is administered by HHS. Unlike most other federal early 

childhood education and care programs that are funded through the states, 

HHS awards Head Start grants directly to local grantees. Grantees may 

contract with organizations—called delegate agencies—in the community 

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

Families’ needs for early childhood education and care have changed 

dramatically since Head Start’s inception, and to meet the increased 

demand, the federal government has created an array of federal early 

education and care programs. Many of these programs are required to 

coordinate the delivery of services to low-income families with children. 

However, barriers sometimes exist, making it difficult to blend the 

services offered across programs to meet the demands of families. 

Background 

Array of Early 

Childhood Education 

and Care Programs 

Exists to Help Meet 

Increased Demand 
Page 3 GAO-03-840T 

Since Head Start was created in 1965, it has provided a wide range of 

services, through part day, part-year programs, to improve outcomes for 

children from low-income families. However, the demographics of families 

have changed considerably over the past several decades and increasingly, 

families need full-day, full-year services for their children. More parents 

are working full time, either by choice or necessity, and the proportion of 

children under age 6 who live with only one parent has increased. 

Moreover, welfare reform has meant that more families, including those 

with very young children, are expected to seek and keep jobs than ever 

before. 

To help meet the demand for early education and care, the federal 

government has increased the number of, and funding for, programs 

providing early education and care services. For example, Head Start 

program funding has tripled over the past decade. Moreover, the federal 

government invests over $11 billion in early education and care programs 

for children under age 5, primarily through six major programs, including 

Head Start (see table 1). These programs are funded through HHS and the 

Department of Education. While these six programs receive most of the 

federal funding for early childhood education and care, many other 

smaller programs also fund services for low-income families with 

children.1

 Funding under these six programs can generally be used to 

provide a range of services: early education and care; health, dental, 

mental health, social, parental, and nutritional services; speech and 

hearing assessments; and disability screening. 

 1

GAO analysis of Department of Education and HHS data using proportions based on 

analysis in U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates 

Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs, GAO/HEHS-00-78 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 

2000). 

Increased Demand for 

Early Childhood Education 

and Care Services Has Led 

To An Increase in the Size 

and Number of Programs 
Page 4 GAO-03-840T 

Table 1: Characteristics of the Six Major Federal Programs Supporting Early Childhood Education and Care 

Program Agency Program goals 

Estimated 

number of 

children served 

under age 5 

Estimated 

amount spent for 

children under 5 

(in billions)

Head Starta HHS Promote school readiness 912,000 $6.5

CCDF HHS Increase the availability, affordability and quality of child 

care services 

1,260,000 $2.2

TANF HHS Provide assistance for needy families; end dependence 

of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work 

and marriage; prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies; and encourage the formation and 

maintenance of two-parent families 

350,000 $1.3b

Special Education— 

Preschool Grants 

(IDEA) 

Education Ensure that children with disabilities have access to a 

free and appropriate public education 

316,000 $0.206

Title I (preschool 

programs) 

Education Ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and 

significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education 

and reach proficiency on challenging state standards 

and academic assessments 

313,000 $0.407

Even Start Education Improve the educational opportunities of low-income 

families by integrating early childhood education, adult 

literacy or adult basic education, and parenting 

education into a unified family literacy program 

25,500 c 

Sources: Programs’ legislation and regulation. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, number of children and funding for them are fiscal year 1999 

estimates as determined through our survey. With the exception of Head Start, these are the most 

recent data available estimating the number of children under age 5 served. 

a

Number of children based on fiscal year 2002 data and funding reflects 2002 appropriation. 

b

May include funds expended directly on child care and transferred to CCDF. 

c

Estimate of the amount spent on children under age 5 is not available. 

All of the programs—with the exception of IDEA—specifically target lowincome children and their families, though they may actually serve 

different populations and age ranges of children. For example, Even Start 

programs serve a larger percentage of Hispanic children and a broader age 

range of children than Head Start.2

 Moreover, some programs differ in 

their goals. The primary goal of early childhood education programs such 

as Head Start, Even Start, and Title I, is to prepare young children to enter 

school. In contrast, a primary goal of child care programs, such as CCDF is 

 2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration 

Needed on Measures of Adult Education and Literacy, GAO-02-348 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 29, 2002). 
Page 5 GAO-03-840T 

to subsidize the cost of care for low-income parents who are working or 

engaged in education and training activities. In addition, states have the 

flexibility to use block grant funds to subsidize child care as states pursue 

one of the key TANF goals—promoting employment for low-income adults 

with families. 

In addition to federal programs that support services for poor children, 

many state and local community programs also offer education and care 

services for low-income families.3

 The majority of states, 39, fund 

preschool programs. Moreover, some states provide funding to 

supplement Head Start and fund child care programs. 

To better ensure that low-income families and their children can access 

the services provided through the myriad federal programs, Congress 

mandated that some programs coordinate with one another to deliver 

services to low-income families and their children. As a result, program 

officials have reported collaborative efforts with one another to deliver 

services; however, barriers still remain. 

Head Start programs are required by law to coordinate and collaborate 

with programs serving the same children and families, including CCDF, 

Even Start, IDEA, and other early childhood programs. Similarly, CCDF 

agencies are required to coordinate funding with other federal, state, and 

local early childhood education and care programs. To promote more 

integrated service delivery systems and to encourage collaboration 

between Head Start and other programs that fund early childhood 

services, HHS began awarding collaboration grants to states in 1990. In 

fiscal year 2002, Head Start provided $8 million to states to support 

collaborative activities. Moreover, in awarding program expansion funds, 

Head Start has given priority to funding first those Head Start programs 

that coordinate with other child care and early childhood funding sources 

to increase the number of hours children receive early education and care. 

Positive outcomes have occurred as a result of early childhood education 

and care program collaboration, enabling some states to expand the 

options for low-income families with children. For example, Head Start 

and CCDF officials reported pooling resources by sharing staff to add full-

 3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and 

Services for Low-Income Families, GAO/HEHS-00-11 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 1999). 

Head Start and Other Early 

Childhood Programs 

Report Service 

Coordination, but Barriers 

to Coordination Exist 
Page 6 GAO-03-840T 

day care to the half-day Head Start program and to add Head Start 

services, such as nutrition and medical care, to day care programs. At the 

local level, about 74 percent of Even Start grantees reported that they 

collaborated with Head Start in some way, including cash funding, 

instructional or administrative support, technical assistance, and space or 

job training support.4

However, collaboration does not eliminate all gaps in care, and sometimes 

barriers, such as differing eligibility requirements, program standards, and 

different locations of programs, hinder collaboration. For example, 

program officials in 1 state said that the differing eligibility requirements 

between CCDF and Head Start made collaboration difficult. CCDF funds 

may be used for families with incomes up to 85 percent of state median 

income, which generally allows the states to give subsidies to families 

whose income is higher than the federal poverty level.5

 Head Start’s 

income eligibility standard requires that 90 percent of enrollments be from 

families at or below the federal poverty level or from families eligible for 

public assistance. Thus, collaboration between these programs to achieve 

objectives might be difficult because some children may be eligible only 

for CCDF. 

Although an extensive body of Head Start research exists that provides 

important information about the program, no definitive, national-level 

research exists on the effectiveness of Head Start for the families and 

children it serves, prompting Congress to mandate such a study when it 

reauthorized the program in 1998. HHS has other studies underway that 

provide important information about the progress of children enrolled in 

the program; however, these studies were not designed to separate the 

effects of children’s participation in Head Start from other experiences 

these children may have had. Although obtaining information about Head 

Start’s effectiveness is difficult, the significance of Head Start and the 

sizeable investment in it warrant conducting studies that will provide 

answers to questions about whether the program is making a difference. 

 4

GAO-02-348. 

5

In fiscal year 2000, the federal poverty guideline was $17,050 for a family of four while the 

state median income ranged from a low of $24,694 for West Virginia households to a high of 

$43,941 in Maryland in 2000. States have the flexibility to set income eligibility limits up to 

85 percent, but generally set them lower. 

Effectiveness Study 

Underway to 

Determine Whether 

Head Start Makes a 

Difference 
Page 7 GAO-03-840T 

In 1998, we testified that the body of research on Head Start though 

extensive, was insufficient for drawing conclusions about the program as a 

whole and recommended that HHS undertake a study of Head Start’s 

effectiveness.6

 In reauthorizing Head Start in 1998, Congress mandated 

such a study. The law mandated that the study be completed in 2003 and 

was very specific in detailing the kind of study HHS was to undertake. 

Specifically, Congress required that the study use rigorous methodological 

designs and techniques to determine if Head Start programs are having an 

impact on children’s readiness for school. The mandated study addresses 

two questions: (1) what difference does Head Start make to key outcomes 

of development and learning for low-income children and (2) under which 

conditions does Head Start work best and for which children? 

The study is using a rigorous methodology that many researchers consider 

to be the most definitive method of determining a program’s effect on its 

participants when factors other than the program are known to affect 

outcomes.7

 This methodology is referred to as an “experimental design” in 

which groups of children are randomly assigned either to a group that will 

receive program services or to a group that will not receive program 

services. This approach produces information that is more likely to show 

the effect of the program being studied, rather than the effects of other 

developmental influences on young children (see fig. 1). 

 6

U.S General Accounting Office, Head Start: Challenges Faced in Demonstrating Program 

Results and Responding to Societal Changes, GAO/T-HEHS-98-183. (Washington, D.C.: 

June 9, 1998). 

7

U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact 

Evaluations to Assess Program Effects, GAO-01-542 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2001. 
Page 8 GAO-03-840T 

Figure 1: Experimental Design for Early Childhood Program Impact Evaluations 

Source: GAO visual rendition based on requirements of experimental impact evaluations 

Factors affecting 

children's development

Children are randomly 

assigned to either a 

group that receives 

program services or a 

group that does not 

receive program services. 

Therefore, the groups are 

fundamentally the same.

Children are tested at 

various ages to plot 

their progress...

The differences in test 

results between the two 

groups are assessed

Any differences found 

can be attributed to the 

program

Receives 

program services

Does not receive 

program services but 

can receive services 

through other programs

At 3-years old

At 4-years old

At 5-years old

In first grade

Other 

learning 

experiences

Physical/ 

psychological 

maturation

Parenting 

practices

Socioeconomic 

status Parents’ 

education Nutrition

Health care

Community
Page 9 GAO-03-840T 

The Head Start study is a $28.3 million national impact evaluation that 

follows participants over time. The study has two phases. The first phase, 

a pilot study designed to test various procedures and methods, was 

conducted in 2001. The second phase began in the fall of 2002 and entails 

data collection on 5,000 to 6,000 3- and 4- year olds from 75 programs and 

communities across the country. The study will track subjects through the 

spring of their first grade year. An interim report, scheduled to be released 

in September of this year, will describe the study’s design and 

methodology and the status of the data collection; it will not contain 

findings. Although Congress required that the study be completed in 2003, 

HHS reports that the study will be completed in 2006. This study is a 

complex, multiyear, longitudinal study and considerable attention had to 

be given to both study planning and execution. According to HHS, many 

aspects of the study needed to be pilot tested before the larger study could 

begin. 

In another effort, Head Start is collecting outcome data on a nationally 

representative sample of Head Start children and families as part of its 

Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). FACES is an ongoing, 

longitudinal study of Head Start programs that uses a national sample of 

3,200 children. FACES provides national data on Head Start child 

outcomes, family involvement, and key aspects of program quality and 

teaching practices. New findings from FACES research published in 2003 

show that children enrolled in Head Start demonstrated progress in early 

literacy and social skills; however, their overall performance levels when 

they left Head Start was below that of children nationally in terms of 

school readiness.8

 This study, however, was not designed to provide 

definitive data about whether the initial gains children made in early 

literacy and social skills resulted from their participation in Head Start or 

some other experiences children may have had. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other Committee Members may have. 

 8

Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child 

Perspective on Program Performance, 2003. 
Page 10 GAO-03-840T 

For further information regarding this testimony, please call Marnie S. 

Shaul, Director, at (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to 

this testimony include Sherri Doughty and Harriet Ganson. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Page 11 GAO-03-840T 

Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability of 

Assistance for Low-Income Families. GAO-03-588. Washington, D.C.: May 

5, 2003. 

Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of 

Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 

2002. 

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

School Readiness Difficult. GAO/HEHS-00-171. Washington, D.C.: 

September 20, 2000. 

Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of 

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

February 28, 2000. 

Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess 

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

Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for LowIncome Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington, D.C: Nov. 15, 1999. 

Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess 

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

2000. 

Head Start: Challenges Faced In Demonstrating Program Results and 

Responding to Societal Changes. GAO/T-HEHS-98-183. Washington, D.C.: 

Jun. 9, 1988. 

Head Start: Challenges in Monitoring Program Quality and 

Demonstrating Results. GAO/HEHS-98-186. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 

1998. 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Head Start Programs: Participant 

Characteristics, Services, and Funding. GAO/HEHS-98-65. Washington, 

D.C.: March 31, 1998. 

Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of Current 

Program. GAO/HEHS-97-59. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1997. 

Related GAO Products 

(130276)