Early Learning and Child Care: Agencies Have Helped Address Fragmentation and Overlap through Improved Coordination
Published: 2017-07-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Millions of children age 5 and under participate each year in federally funded preschool and other early learning programs, or receive federally supported child care. Federal support for early learning and child care has evolved over time to meet emerging needs. In 2012, GAO reported that multiple federal agencies administer numerous early learning and child care programs. GAO was asked to re-examine federal programs that provide or support early learning and child care.
This report examines 1) the federal investment in early learning and child care programs; 2) fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among early learning and child care programs and agencies' efforts to address these conditions; and 3) the extent to which agencies assess performance for programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose. GAO analyzed responses to questionnaires from nine agencies and one regional commission; reviewed budget and tax expenditure documentation, evaluations, annual program performance results, and other agency documentation; and interviewed officials from HHS, Education, and Interior.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Multiple federal programs may provide or support early learning or child care for children age 5 and under. Of these programs, nine describe early learning or child care as an explicit purpose and are administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (Education), and the Interior (Interior). Fiscal year 2015 obligations for these nine programs totaled approximately $15 billion, with the vast majority of these funds concentrated in Head Start and the Child Care and Development Fund. An additional 35 programs did not have an explicit early learning or child care purpose, but permitted funds to be used for these services. Additionally, three tax expenditures subsidized individuals' private purchase of child or dependent care.
As GAO found in 2012, some early learning and child care programs are fragmented, overlap, or have potential for duplication. Specifically:
Fragmentation. The federal investment in early learning and child care is fragmented in that it is administered through multiple agencies.
Overlap. Some programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose overlap, given that they target similar beneficiaries, such as low-income children, or engage in similar activities. However, these programs often have different goals and administrative structures.
Duplication. Some programs are potentially duplicative because they may fund similar types of services for similar populations. However, the extent to which actual duplication exists is difficult to assess due to differing program eligibility requirements and data limitations.
HHS and Education have helped address these conditions through improved agency coordination, particularly by following leading practices for interagency collaboration. For example, in response to needed actions GAO identified in 2012, HHS and Education expanded membership of their inter-departmental workgroup on young children to include other agencies with early learning and child care programs. The agencies have also documented their agreements, dedicated staff time to promote the goals and activities of this inter-departmental workgroup, and issued joint policy statements. The resulting improvement in coordination has helped mitigate the effects of fragmentation and overlap.
HHS, Education, and Interior use different methods to assess performance for the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose. These agencies collect performance information through various combinations of performance monitoring, program evaluations or studies, and other information, such as grantee-submitted reports. In addition, they collect performance information that aligns with program objectives, and many programs examine common aspects of performance. However, the specific results agencies assess differ for a number of reasons. For example, some programs assess children only while they receive services, while others assess later impacts on children.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO makes no recommendations in this report. In its comments, HHS agreed with GAO's findings and noted that children benefit most from investments in federal early learning and child care programs when they are coordinated with similar programs. Education and HHS also provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Millions of children age 5 and under participate each year in federally  funded preschool and other early learning programs or receive federally  supported child care. Research cites the importance of providing high- quality early learning experiences during children’s formative years.  Furthermore, we have previously reported that having high-quality child  care is critical to sustaining parents’ ability to work. Federal funding for  early learning and child care has evolved over time to meet emerging  needs. In 2012, we reported that multiple federal agencies administer  numerous early learning and child care programs.
The array of federal agencies involved in administering early learning and  child care programs raises questions about potential overlap and  duplication among programs, as well as about how agencies that  administer the programs are coordinating with each other and measuring  program performance. You asked us to review the programs that  comprise the federal investment in early learning and child care. This  report examines:  1.  What is known about the federal investment in early learning and child  care programs;  2.  The extent to which early learning and child care programs are  fragmented, overlap, or are duplicative, and the efforts agencies have  made to address these conditions; and  3.  The extent to which agencies assess performance for programs with  an explicit early learning or child care purpose.
To address our objectives, we used three criteria to identify relevant  programs: they (1) funded or supported early learning or child care  services, (2) were provided to children age 5 and under, and (3) delivered  services in an educational or child care setting. We limited our review to  programs for which federal funds were obligated in fiscal year 2015, the  most recent available obligations data at the time we conducted our work.  We did not conduct a separate legal review to identify and analyze  relevant programs or verify the accuracy of the information agencies  provided to us.
To address our first objective, we started with the list of 45 programs and  5 tax expenditures in our 2012 review. We sent questionnaires to nine  agencies and one regional commission included in the 2012 review and  received responses from them all. We conducted follow-up interviews  with agency officials to confirm that these programs and tax expenditures  continued to meet all three of our criteria in fiscal year 2015. We also  reviewed supplementary information, such as information from annual  reports and program notices in the Federal Register, from the  Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services  (HHS), the Interior (Interior), and all the other agencies included in our  prior review. After we created a preliminary list of programs, we counted  the number of federal early learning and child care programs by  examining the key benefits and services they provide. Using a similar  definition as in our prior review, we considered a program to have an  explicit early learning or child care purpose if, according to our analysis,  early learning or child care is specifically described as a program purpose  in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) or in agency  documents. We categorized all other programs included in this review as  not having an explicit early learning or child care purpose. In this review,  we also included tax expenditures that could be used to subsidize families  or employers for early learning or child care related expenses. After we  identified programs and tax expenditures that met our criteria, we  obtained information about fiscal year 2015 program obligations from the  President’s budget for fiscal year 2017. We used the Department of the  Treasury’s (Treasury) Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017 to  obtain information on estimated losses in revenue in fiscal year 2015 for  tax expenditures.
To analyze potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we used the  responses agencies provided us through our questionnaires and other  documents to assess the programs’ activities and target populations. We  also interviewed Education and HHS officials regarding their efforts to  coordinate with other agencies that administer early learning or child care  programs and examined supporting documentation. We compared these  efforts against leading practices for agency collaboration. In addition, we  obtained information about program performance for programs with an  explicit early learning or child care purpose by interviewing agency  officials and reviewing agency performance reports, congressional budget  justifications, program studies, and other documentation. Details on our  objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to July 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Early Learning and Child Care Programs
paragraphs: While parents are primarily responsible for the education and care of  children who are younger than school age, a variety of factors have led to  an increased demand for early learning and child care programs. For  example, workforce participation among mothers with children age 5 and  under has generally increased since the 1970s. In addition, initiatives to  expand access to preschool have developed at the local, state, and  federal level. Federal support for early learning and child care has  developed gradually in response to emerging needs. Historically, early  learning and child care programs existed separately with separate goals:  early learning programs focused on preparing young children for school,  while child care programs subsidized the cost of child care for low-income  parents who worked or engaged in work-related activities. Over time, the  distinction between these two types of programs has blurred somewhat  as policymakers seek to make educationally enriching care available to  more young children.
In addition to costs paid by parents, multiple levels of government  contribute funding to support early learning and child care through a  loosely connected system of private and public programs. Public  financing for early learning and child care in the United States involves  multiple funding streams and programs at the federal, state, and local  level. A portion of federal support for child care is provided through  funding to states, which in turn provide subsidies to low-income families.  Within the parameters of federal law, regulations, and guidance, states  generally determine their own specific policies concerning the  administration of these funds, including who is eligible to receive  subsidies, the amount of the subsidies, and the standards that programs  must meet.
section_title: Program Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: We previously reported that different agencies administer the array of  federal early learning and child care programs. This report, like our prior  work, uses standard definitions to describe fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication among government programs:
Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one  federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is  involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities  exist to improve service delivery.
Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar  goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve their goals,  or target similar beneficiaries.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are  engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the  same beneficiaries.
As we have previously reported, fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  exist across many areas of government activity. In some cases it may  be appropriate or beneficial for multiple agencies or entities to be involved  in the same programmatic or policy area, due to the complex nature or  the magnitude of the federal effort.
section_title: Performance Assessment
paragraphs: For policy makers considering investments in early learning or child care  programs, understanding more about the quality of the program or the  results of early learning interventions can be instructive. Evaluative  information can help demonstrate whether and why a program is working  well or not. We have previously reported that performance assessment is  an important way to obtain such information. Performance assessment  is also critical to effective program management. Agencies may use  different methods to assess the performance of programs. Performance  measurement focuses on whether a program has achieved its objectives,  expressed as measureable standards, while program evaluations typically  examine a broader range of information on program performance and its  context. Both forms of assessment aim to support resource allocation and  other management decisions. Agencies may measure different types of  performance information, including the type or level of program activities  (process), the direct products and services delivered by a program  (output), or the results of those products and services (outcomes).
section_title: Federal Investment in Early Learning and Child Care Includes Multiple Programs that Either Require or Permit Use of Funds for Such Services
subsections: section_title: Multiple Programs May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care
paragraphs: Multiple federal programs may provide or support early learning or child  care for children age 5 and under. The federal investment in early  learning and child care includes three broad categories of programs:  1.  Programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose:  For these programs, early learning or child care is specifically  described as a program purpose, according to our analysis of the  CFDA and agency documents. This may include some programs that  also serve children older than 5 or provide some services outside a  formal early learning or child care setting. The Child Care and  Development Fund (CCDF), which provides subsidies to low-income  working families, is an example of a program in this category.  2.  Programs without an explicit early learning or child care  purpose: These programs may provide or support early learning or  child care; however, early learning or child care is not specifically  described as a program purpose in the CFDA or agency documents.  According to agency officials, these programs permit, but do not  require, using funds for these services. Programs in this category  include multipurpose block grants; programs that permit funds to be  used for early learning or child care as an ancillary service; and  programs that support early learning or child care through food,  materials, or other services. Examples of programs without an explicit  early learning or child care purpose include Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF), the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity  Act Adult program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.  3.  Tax expenditures that subsidize child care through the tax code:  These include tax credits and exclusions that subsidize the private  purchase of child care. Tax credits allow eligible individuals or  employers to reduce their tax liability dollar for dollar. The credits  included in this review are nonrefundable and do not offer benefits to  individuals or businesses with no tax liability. Exclusions allow  individuals to exclude certain compensation from their taxable income  and generally provide larger tax savings to those taxed at higher  rates. The revenue that the government forgoes through tax  expenditures can be viewed as spending channeled through the tax  system, which contributes to the overall federal investment. The  credit for child and dependent care expenses is an example of such a  tax expenditure.
Within this framework, we identified 9 programs that have an explicit early  learning or child care purpose and another 35 programs that do not have  an explicit early learning or child care purpose. In addition to these  federally funded programs, we identified three federal tax expenditures  that forgo tax revenue to subsidize the private purchase of child care and  adult dependent care services. (For a complete list of programs and tax  expenditures we identified, see fig. 5 through fig. 14 in appendix II.)
section_title: The Federal Government Obligated $15 Billion in Fiscal Year 2015 for Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, and Other Programs Also Permit Using Funds for These Purposes
paragraphs: Agencies obligated approximately $15 billion in fiscal year 2015, the most  recent obligations data available at the time we conducted our review,  across the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care  purpose. The vast majority of this funding is concentrated in two  programs administered by HHS: Head Start and CCDF. Together, these  two programs comprised over 90 percent of total obligations for programs  with an explicit early learning or child care purpose in fiscal year 2015. All  other programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose each  obligated less than $500 million in fiscal year 2015 (see table 1).
All of the programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose  require at least some funds to be used on early learning or child care  services, according to agency officials. However, not all funds for these  programs are targeted toward children from birth through age 5 in an  early learning or child care setting, and agencies noted that they are  generally not required to track funds used specifically for these purposes.  One exception is the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program:  Education officials collect data on the amount of funds used for pre- literacy activities because grantees must ensure that local providers use  15 percent of funds to serve children from birth through age 5. In fiscal  year 2015, all four programs that exclusively target children age 5 or  under—Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with  Disabilities, Preschool Development Grants, Preschool Grants for  Children with Disabilities, and Head Start—used 100 percent of their  funds for early learning or child care services for this population,  according to agency officials. In contrast, CCDF, Family and Child  Education (FACE), Promise Neighborhoods, and Child Care Access  Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) programs provide services to  school-age children in addition to children age 5 and under. Officials told  us they were unable to identify the amount of funds used specifically for  children age 5 and under for these programs. For example, CCDF serves  eligible children under age 13, and while states report the percentage of  children served by age, officials told us states are not required to report  the amount of CCDF funds spent by age. Not all CCDF funds are used for  child care subsidies. In addition to directly subsidizing access to child  care services for eligible low-income children, CCDF invests in improving  the quality of child care available to families. We recently reported that the  majority of children who received CCDF subsidies were under age 5.
Among programs without an explicit early learning or child care purpose,  none require spending on early learning or child care, according to  agency officials. Further, agency officials told us that they do not track the  amount of funds used for early learning or child care for most of these  programs and are not required to do so. Officials from 3 of these 35  programs could identify the amount of funds obligated for early learning  and child care purposes. Funding for early learning or child care for  these three programs ranged from $2 million to $14 million in fiscal year  2015. Additionally, HHS officials told us that although they do not track  program obligations specifically for early learning or child care purposes  for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and TANF, they do track  state spending on child care. However, HHS does not track spending  specifically for services provided to children age 5 and under, according  to agency officials. (See table 6 in appendix III for details.)
Moreover, although they do not track this information, officials from some  programs without an explicit early learning or child care purpose said it is  likely that little funding, if any, actually went toward these purposes. For  example, officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) told us  that the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program  are targeted to school-age children, and they did not think very many  children under age 5 receive meals from the program. Additionally,  Department of Labor officials told us that the Native American  Employment and Training Program permits funds to be used for child  care services, among other supportive services, to enable parent  participation in the program. However, due to the limited grant size,  officials said it is likely that most participants only receive referrals to child  care providers.
Much like the agencies with programs that do not have an explicit early  learning or child care purpose, Treasury does not estimate the amount of  forgone revenue resulting specifically from tax credits or exclusions that  support the care of children age 5 and under, according to agency  officials. All of the tax expenditures we identified are available for the care  of dependent children. The credit for child and dependent care expenses  also subsidizes dependent care of individuals who are physically or  mentally incapable of self-care, including adults with disabilities or who  are elderly. Combined, these tax expenditures accounted for  approximately $5.4 billion of forgone federal income tax revenue in fiscal  year 2015 (see table 2). This amount, however, includes forgone  revenue for care of children older than age 5 and dependent adults, since  the available data do not distinguish children and other dependents by  age.
section_title: Improved Agency Coordination has Helped Address Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication
subsections: section_title: Some Early Learning and Child Care Programs are Still Fragmented, Overlap, or Have Potential for Duplication
paragraphs: As we found in 2012, some fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication exist among early learning and child care programs.
subsections: section_title: Fragmentation
paragraphs: The federal investment in early learning and child care is fragmented in  that it is administered through multiple agencies. HHS, Education, and  Interior administer programs with an explicit early learning or child care  purpose. Five additional agencies and one regional commission  administer programs without an explicit early learning or child care  purpose, and the Internal Revenue Service at Treasury is responsible for  administering federal tax expenditures (see table 3).
We found some overlap between early learning and child care programs,  as some programs target similar beneficiaries (see fig. 1). For example,  five of the nine programs with an explicit early learning or child care  purpose primarily target children age 5 and under, and four programs  target low-income children. Despite these general similarities, however,  some of these programs target very specific populations that in some  cases have limited overlap or no overlap. For example, Preschool  Development Grants specifically target 4-year-olds, the Early Intervention  Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities targets children with  disabilities from birth through age 2, and Preschool Grants for Children  with Disabilities targets children with disabilities ages 3 through 5. Other  programs target more specific populations, such as children whose low- income parents are pursuing postsecondary education, or children living  in certain distressed geographic areas.
Additionally, some programs engage in similar activities, according to our  analysis of agency-provided information. For example, grantees of Head  Start, Preschool Development Grants, and FACE use funds for  enrollment slots (spots for individual children to participate in programs on  an ongoing basis), health care, and social services or transportation,  according to agency officials. However, other programs with an explicit  early learning or child care purpose do not fund enrollment. Instead, some  programs fund additional services to aid early learning, such as special  education services or evaluations (see fig. 2).
Despite some similarities in target populations and activities, programs  with an explicit early learning or child care purpose often have different  goals and administrative structures. For example, while the CCAMPIS  program and CCDF both fund child care, they have different goals. The  goal of CCAMPIS is to support the participation of low-income parents in  postsecondary education. In contrast, CCDF has dual goals of providing  child care as a work support to parents and providing children with quality  child care to prepare them for success in school, according to HHS.  Additionally, the two largest programs—Head Start and CCDF—differ  significantly from each other both in their goals and in how they are  administered. Head Start was created, in part, to support children’s early  development by offering comprehensive, community-based services to  meet children’s multiple needs and, as such, provides federal grants  directly to community-based public and private service providers. In  contrast, CCDF was created to help states reduce dependence on public  assistance. It provides grants to states to subsidize child care to support  parents’ involvement in the workforce. States, in turn, generally provide  subgrants to counties or other local entities for distribution to parents.
Though some overlap exists among programs with an explicit early  learning or child care purpose, the majority of the programs we identified– 35 of 44–do not have such a purpose. Overlap is limited among these 35  programs and those 9 programs with an explicit early learning or child  care purpose for a number of reasons. For example:
Multipurpose block grants can be combined and jointly  administered: In their comments regarding our 2012 report, HHS  officials noted that many states choose to integrate CCDF, TANF, and  SSBG funding streams to provide services. They noted that states  jointly administer these funding streams under one set of rules, often  in coordination with other state and local funding.
Programs that provide child care as an ancillary purpose are not  targeted toward children: Overlap between programs that permit  funds to be used for child care as an ancillary service and those with  an explicit child care purpose is limited given that such programs are  not targeted to children and that child care is not among the programs’  objectives. For example, six worker training programs authorized by  the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act allow for grant dollars  to pay for child care and other supportive services that are necessary  to enable an individual to participate in training and other authorized  activities. These programs are not targeted to children age 5 or  under—their objectives are to provide individuals with job search  assistance and training.
Some programs support but do not provide early learning or  child care for young children: Other programs we identified support  early learning or child care by providing food, materials, or other  services. These programs have limited overlap with programs with an  explicit early learning or child care purpose because they support  such programs rather than provide early learning or care for children  age 5 and under. For example, the Child and Adult Care Food  Program, which is administered by USDA, reimburses child care  centers for the cost of meals and snacks, among other things.  Additionally, the General Services Administration donates unused  federal property to certain state and local agencies through the  Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property program. Officials  from the General Services Administration told us that agencies that  receive the donations pass them along to eligible organizations, which  may include preschools. They also told us that they do not track the  ultimate destination of the donated property.
HHS and Education have acknowledged some overlap among early  learning and child care programs. In a November 2016 joint report to  Congress, HHS and Education identified eight federal programs with a  primary purpose of providing early learning for young children. In this  report, HHS and Education stated that overlap among early learning and child care programs is purposeful and necessary to meet the needs of  children and parents. For example, some programs fund enrollment slots  and others fund additional services to aid early learning, such as special  education services, according to HHS and Education officials. They also  noted that families may have multiple needs that require more than one  type of service. For instance, families can combine Head Start and  CCDF, which allows families to meet children’s learning needs and  parents’ child care needs, according to HHS officials.
Despite this overlap, there may be service gaps because these programs  are not entitlements, and therefore do not serve all eligible children. For  example, we recently reported that an estimated 1.5 million children  received CCDF subsidies, out of an estimated 8.6 million children who  were eligible in their state in an average month in 2011 and 2012.  Additionally, Education officials told us that many states have narrowed  their eligibility criteria for the Early Intervention Program for Infants and  Toddlers with Disabilities because of funding constraints. According to  these officials, states are focusing these services on children with the  most severe disabilities.
section_title: Duplication
paragraphs: There may be potential for duplication among early learning and child  care programs insofar as some programs may fund similar types of  services for similar populations. However, as we noted in our 2012  review, the extent to which actual duplication exists is difficult to assess at  the federal level due to differing program eligibility requirements and data  limitations. For example:
Program eligibility requirements: Eligibility requirements differ  among programs, even for similar subgroups of children, such as  those from low-income families. For example, Head Start serves  primarily low-income children under age 5 whose families have  incomes at or below the official federal poverty guidelines, while  CCDF serves children under age 13 whose parents are working or in  school and who earn up to 85 percent of state median income.  Moreover, states have the flexibility to establish specific eligibility  policies for CCDF within broad federal eligibility requirements. Given  this flexibility, it may be possible for families with similar  circumstances to be eligible to receive CCDF subsidies in some  states but not others. Additionally, although the CCAMPIS program  also provides funding for child care, families must be eligible for Pell  Grants, which are need-based federal grants to low-income  undergraduate students, in order to receive services.
Data limitations: For some programs, relevant programmatic  information is sometimes not readily available. For example, as we  previously reported, HHS does not collect data on all families who  receive child care funded by TANF. This is because some families  that do not receive cash assistance receive child care funded through  TANF. States are not required to report on families who receive only  TANF-funded child care without also receiving cash assistance. This  leaves an incomplete picture of the number of children receiving  federally funded child care subsidies. We previously suggested  requiring additional data collection on families receiving TANF-funded  child care, but this information is currently not collected. Additionally,  inadequate or missing data, as well as difficulties quantifying the  outcomes of some tax expenditures, can make it difficult to study the  beneficiaries of these expenditures.
While the extent of potential duplication may be difficult to fully assess,  some early learning and child care programs include some safeguards  against duplication. For example, some programs can use funds to  expand access to other programs, thus limiting the likelihood that the  same beneficiaries receive the same services from more than one  program. Promise Neighborhood grantees can use funds to expand  access to Head Start or to establish new child care or preschool options.  Similarly, Preschool Development Grants can be used to expand the  capacity of Head Start to serve more eligible children. Specifically,  Preschool Development Grant funds must be used to supplement, not  supplant, any federal, state, or local funds, including Head Start and  CCDF, among others.
In addition, the tax code has limits on combining the credit for child and  dependent care and the employer-provided child care exclusion.  Taxpayers can claim the credit for child and dependent care if they pay  someone to care for a dependent under age 13 or for a spouse or other  dependents who are not able to care for themselves. The credit can be up  to 35 percent of dependent care expenses with a limit of $3,000 per  qualifying person and $6,000 for two or more qualifying persons. The  employer-provided child care exclusion, a kind of flexible spending  account for dependent care expenses, generally provides participants an  opportunity to exclude an amount not to exceed $5,000 for dependent  care each year from their gross income. Families using the employer- provided child care exclusion must subtract the amount of those benefits  from the maximum they are eligible to receive for the credit for child and  dependent care, thereby preventing duplication of benefits.
section_title: HHS and Education Have Helped Address Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication through Improved Coordination with Other Agencies
paragraphs: We found that since our 2012 review of early learning and child care  programs, HHS and Education have improved coordination among the  agencies that administer these programs, which has helped to address  potential risks regarding fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication.  As we previously reported, effective coordination can help mitigate the  effects of program fragmentation and overlap and potentially help bridge  service gaps.
Based upon our analysis, the Early Learning Interagency Policy Board— HHS and Education’s inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on  children from birth through age 8—has followed leading practices for  interagency collaboration that we have identified, such as defining  outcomes, tracking progress toward goals, and including relevant  participants across agencies, among others (see table 4). For example,  in response to needed actions we identified in 2012, HHS and Education  expanded membership of this group to include other agencies with early  learning and child care programs.
In addition to efforts related to the Interagency Policy Board, HHS and  Education have improved coordination in other ways since our 2012  review of early learning and child care programs. For example, they have:
Jointly administered the Preschool Development Grants: HHS  and Education coordinate to co-administer the Preschool  Development Grants program, which began in 2014.
Issued joint policy statements: HHS and Education have also  issued joint policy statements on a range of early learning and child  care issues. Examples include statements on limiting preschool  suspensions and expulsions, and strategies to increase the inclusion  of young children with disabilities in high-quality early learning  programs. Joint policy statements create consistent guidance for local  programs, according to HHS and Education officials.
Coordinated training and technical assistance: In 2015, HHS  redesigned its training and technical assistance system across Head  Start and CCDF. Previously, Head Start and CCDF had separate  training and technical assistance centers that were operated  independently of one another. The new training and technical  assistance centers provide services to both Head Start and CCDF.  Additionally, HHS and Education coordinated technical assistance by  issuing a literature review about strategies to help children maintain  the benefits of preschool attendance. They also held joint webinars on  the use of assistive technology to support young children with  disabilities and strategies to limit preschool suspensions and  expulsions.
section_title: Agencies Assess Performance for All Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose, and Methods Vary by Program
paragraphs: Agencies assess performance for all nine programs with an explicit early  learning or child care purpose, and they do so using different methods.  The agencies use various combinations of three approaches:  performance monitoring, conducting program evaluations or studies, and  reviewing other performance information (see fig. 3). Specifically:
Performance monitoring: For all nine programs, agencies reported  they monitor performance annually either through performance  measures or other annual reviews. Interior monitors performance for  the FACE program through an annual review. This review includes  implementation data and program outcomes, such as children’s  proficiency in math and literacy, parenting practices, and integration of  native language and culture into FACE program instruction, which  officials can use to assess program progress from year to year. For  the other eight programs, HHS and Education report results on  measureable performance standards in agency congressional budget  justifications or other publicly available sources.
Program evaluations or studies: For six of the nine programs,  agency officials also periodically conduct internal or contracted  program evaluations or studies. Most of the programs that have  conducted program evaluations have done so to fulfill a program  requirement. For example, the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) called for a national  assessment to measure the implementation progress and relative  effectiveness of the law. Similarly, in response to a congressional  mandate in the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, HHS conducted  a national impact evaluation of Head Start and an evaluation of the  Early Head Start program. Additionally, since fiscal year 2000,  Congress has appropriated funds through CCDF specifically for  research and evaluation, according to agency officials.
Other performance information: Officials from six of the nine  programs told us they collect other performance information through  grantee-submitted performance reports or other methods. For  example, the CCAMPIS program, which funds child care for student  parents enrolled in postsecondary institutions, uses grantee-submitted  annual reports to collect detailed information about individual student  enrollment that provides context for understanding performance  measures. Additionally, some programs track information about the  cost of certain outcomes.
Agency officials told us they use results from performance monitoring,  evaluations, and other performance information to assist in grantee  monitoring, determine continued funding to grantees, and develop  technical assistance, among other things.
While agencies use different methods to assess programs, all agencies  that administer programs with an explicit early learning or child care  purpose collect performance information that aligns with program  objectives to determine progress toward those objectives. For example,  the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program aims to advance  literacy skills—including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing—for  students from birth through grade 12. The program has four performance  measures that assess student’s literacy proficiency at age 4, grade 5,  grade 8, and again at high school. (See appendix IV for more details on  recent program performance for each of the nine explicit-purpose early  learning or child care programs.)
Additionally, agency officials examine common aspects of performance  for many programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose.  Specifically, we found that many programs had assessments relating to 1)  results for children age 5 and under, 2) program quality or teacher  qualifications, and 3) academic improvement or kindergarten readiness  (see fig. 4). For example:
Children age 5 and under: Eight of the nine programs assess results  regarding this age group. For example, for the Early Intervention  Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, Education officials  assessed the percentage of children who entered the program with  below age social-emotional skills and who then substantially  increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.
Program quality or teacher qualifications: Six of the nine programs  assess program quality or teacher qualifications. For example, CCDF  measures the number of states that implement a systemic approach  to assessing, improving, and communicating a child care or education  program’s level of quality, including meeting certain benchmarks.  Similarly, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities measures the  number of states with at least 90 percent of special education  teachers certified in the areas in which they are teaching.
Academic improvement or kindergarten readiness: Eight of the  nine programs, including all seven of the programs with an explicit  early learning purpose, assess academic improvement or  kindergarten readiness. For example, for the Striving Readers  Comprehensive Literacy program, Education measures the  percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieve significant  gains in oral language skills. For Preschool Development Grants,  Education measures the number and percentage of children served  by the grant who are ready for kindergarten.
Although many of the programs with an explicit early learning or child  care purpose assess common aspects of performance, the specific  results agencies examine differ for a number of reasons. One reason is  that agencies use different tools to assess performance. For example,  although all seven early learning programs assess some aspect of  academic improvement or kindergarten readiness, programs vary in how  they perform these assessments. The Striving Readers Comprehensive  Literacy program provides grants to states and requires them to use  approved state accountability assessments to determine most program  performance measures. In contrast, the FACE program provides grants  to Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools that implement in-home  and center-based services, and uses a single student assessment tool to  measure performance across participants.
Another reason assessments differ is that some programs examine  students’ progress while they participate in the program, whereas others  assess proficiency at a particular point in time. For instance, both of the  special education programs administered by Education that we reviewed  collect entry and exit data on children with disabilities who receive  program services. Officials use these assessments to show children’s  developmental progress while in the program across a number of early  childhood outcomes, including early language and literacy knowledge  skills, including early language and literacy knowledge skills. In contrast,  other programs assess children only once, during the academic year. For  example, the Preschool Development Grants program assesses children  once at kindergarten entry.
Programs also differ in the time frame over which officials assess  performance. For example, HHS has assessed the long-term impact of  Head Start and Early Head Start by evaluating the same cohort of  children as they progress through later grades, even after the children  stopped receiving program services. Other programs gauge children’s  performance annually while grantees receive funding, but do not evaluate  them after they stop receiving grant-funded services. (See appendix IV for  additional performance details and a complete list of program  performance measures for all nine programs with an explicit early  learning or child care purpose.)
In addition to assessing performance by program, HHS and Education  each have an agency-wide priority goal that incorporates early learning or  child care program performance measures, and both agencies assess  performance on meeting these goals. The GPRA Modernization Act of  2010 (GPRAMA) requires that every 2 years, certain agencies identify  their highest priority performance goals, which GPRAMA refers to as  agency priority goals. Agencies are expected to identify performance  measures to track progress on achieving these goals, or identify  alternative ways of measuring progress, such as milestones for  completing major deliverables. Education incorporated performance  measures for the Preschool Development Grants program into its priority  goal, and HHS incorporated performance measures from Head Start and  CCDF (see table 5). Education and HHS have incorporated these goals  into their strategic plans and have published updates on progress toward  meeting their priority goals at performance.gov.
Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget states that  agencies are to identify tax expenditures, as appropriate, among the  various federal programs and activities that contribute to their strategic  objectives and agency priority goals. HHS officials told us that they  decided the three child care-related tax expenditures we identified are not  potential contributors to their agency priority goal to improve the quality of  early childhood programs for low-income children. According to HHS  officials, they concluded that low-income families who qualify for HHS’s  key programs, such as CCDF, are not likely to benefit from these tax  expenditures due to their lack of tax liabilities. Moreover, agency officials  told us the child care-related tax expenditures we identified are available  to help pay for dependent care and do not directly align with HHS’s  priority goal focused on program quality. According to Education officials,  Education also does not incorporate these tax expenditures in its agency  priority goal because families who benefit from publicly provided early  learning services would not incur tuition costs, and therefore would not  benefit from these expenditures.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services  (HHS), and the Interior (Interior). We also sent selected excerpts of the  report to the Appalachian Regional Commission, and to the Departments  of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, the  Treasury, and the General Services Administration. We received formal  written comments from HHS, which are reproduced in appendix V. In  addition, Education and HHS provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. Interior did not have comments on our  report.
In its written comments, HHS agreed with our findings and noted that  children and families benefit most from investments in federal early  learning and child care programs when they are coordinated with similar  programs and activities. The agency also noted that it will continue to  work with the Department of Education and other agencies to streamline  resources for early learning and child care programs, to the extent  permitted by law.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services,  and the Interior, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this review were to examine: (1) what is known about  the federal investment in early learning and child care programs; (2) the  extent to which early learning and child care programs are fragmented,  overlap, or are duplicative, and the efforts agencies have made to  manage these conditions; and (3) the extent to which agencies assess  performance for programs with an explicit early learning or child care  purpose.
subsections: section_title: Selection Criteria for Programs and Tax Expenditures
paragraphs: To count the number of federal early learning and child care programs,  we examined the key benefits and services they provide. We used the  following three criteria to identify relevant programs. The programs (1)  funded or supported early learning or child care services, (2) were  provided to children age 5 and under, and (3) delivered services in an  educational or child care setting. We excluded kindergarten programs  from our scope because early learning applies to children who are  preschool age (age 5 and under), while children who are in kindergarten  are grouped as part of the standard K-12 education demographic. We  also excluded any programs that were not listed in the Catalog of Federal  Domestic Assistance (CFDA), a government-wide compendium of federal  programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or  benefits to the American public. Additionally, we limited our review to  programs for which federal funds were obligated in fiscal year 2015, the  most recent available obligations data at the time we conducted our work.  As we did in 2012 and prior work, we excluded programs operated by the  U.S. Department of Defense because these programs are available only  to members of the military and their families. Furthermore, these  programs are not listed in the CFDA.
Tax expenditures included in this review include those that (1) fund or  support early learning or child care services, (2) are obtained on behalf of  children under age 5, and (3) forgo taxes so those funds can be used to  purchase child care services occurring in an educational or child care  setting.
section_title: Efforts to Identify Programs and Tax Expenditures
paragraphs: In identifying programs and tax expenditures for this work, we relied on  the results of our 2012 report, agency responses to our questionnaires,  and other supplemental information provided by agencies. We did not  conduct an independent legal analysis to verify the accuracy of the  information provided to us by agencies.
To identify federal programs and tax expenditures, we started with the list  of 45 programs and 5 tax expenditures in our 2012 review. For each  program, we sent questionnaires to and received responses from nine  agencies and one regional commission and conducted follow-up  interviews to confirm that these programs and tax expenditures continued  to meet all three of our criteria, which are described more fully below, in  fiscal year 2015. We asked agency officials to identify additional  programs meeting these criteria that were not included in our 2012  review. We reviewed descriptions in the Congressional Research  Service’s 2014 Tax Compendium to identify any new tax expenditures  that can be used for early learning or child care. We used the  questionnaires we sent to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to  confirm that the tax expenditures we identified in 2012 remained in effect  in fiscal year 2015. In addition to agency responses to our questionnaires,  we obtained supplementary information from the Departments of  Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior  (Interior), and other agencies.
Using a similar definition as in our prior review, we considered a program  to have an explicit early learning or child care purpose if, according to our  analysis, early learning or child care is specifically described as a  program purpose in the CFDA or other agency information.
section_title: Efforts to Identify Program Obligations and Estimated Revenue Loss
paragraphs: After we identified programs and tax expenditures that met our criteria,  we obtained information about fiscal year 2015 program obligations, the  most recent year for which these data were available, from the  President’s budget for fiscal year 2017. We obtained information on  estimated losses in revenue from fiscal year 2015 tax expenditures from  Treasury’s Tax Expenditure Estimates for fiscal year 2017.
section_title: Efforts to Assess Potential Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: To analyze potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across  programs, we assessed the programs’ activities and target populations  using questionnaire responses from the nine agencies and one  commission, as well as from supporting documentation. We also  interviewed Education and HHS officials regarding their efforts to  coordinate with other agencies that administer early learning and child  care programs, and examined documents about these efforts. We  compared these efforts against leading practices for agency  collaboration.
section_title: Efforts to Assess Performance Information
paragraphs: In addition, we obtained information about program performance for  programs with an explicit early learning or child care purpose by  reviewing agency performance reports, congressional budget  justifications, and program studies, and by interviewing agency officials.  For programs with performance measures, we reported the results for the  last 3 years of available data found in agency congressional budget  justifications, or other publically available sources. We also reviewed  program studies that were cited in congressional budget justifications or  other published performance documents, and obtained additional  program studies that Education, HHS, and Interior conducted or used  independent contractors to conduct. Through these steps, we identified  30 studies published between 2002 and 2016. We then reviewed a  subset of 27 studies that we determined to have assessed results aligned  with the programs’ objectives. We reviewed the methodological and  analytical approaches of each of these studies to ensure that they were  appropriate to measure program performance.
section_title: Appendix II: Update of Programs and Tax Expenditures that May Provide or Support Early Learning or Child Care
section_title: Appendix IV: Performance Information for Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose
subsections: section_title: Department of Education: Performance Assessment of Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose
subsections: section_title: Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS)
paragraphs: The Department of Education (Education) has two performance  measures for Child Care Access Means Parents in School program  (CCAMPIS), but has not set program-wide targets (see table 7).  Education reports performance on these measures separately for four- year and two-year institutions of higher education in its annual  congressional budget justification. The fiscal year 2017 budget  justification contained performance information for fiscal years 2012 and  2013. Education officials told us reporting requirements for the program  changed recently, from 18- and 36-month performance reporting to  annual performance reporting. At that time, officials revised the data  collection instrument and program performance measures to reflect the  annual data collection. As of 2016, officials said they have two years of  baseline data and are considering setting performance targets for future  years.
Education has not conducted an evaluation of the CCAMPIS program.  However, officials told us they use data from other Education-conducted  evaluations of post-secondary students to gather contextual information  about conditions associated with low-income student parents.
section_title: Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities
paragraphs: Education has six performance measures for the Early Intervention  Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and set program-wide  targets for each of these (see table 8). In its congressional budget  justification, Education reports its progress toward achieving these targets  annually. Results have remained relatively stable among the six  measures over the 3 years of data we reviewed (2012-2014). However, in  2014, the most recent year of available data, Education reported meeting  two performance targets: the number of states that serve at least 1  percent of infants in the general population under age 1 through this  program, and the percentage of children receiving age-appropriate early  intervention services in the home or in programs designed for typically  developing peers. Other measures were relatively close to meeting  targets. Education acknowledges that some data quality issues exist,  particularly with regard to missing data.
In various reauthorizations, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  (IDEA) has included provisions for collecting information on the  implementation and impact of the law. For example, in response to a  requirement in the 1997 reauthorization, Education conducted four  longitudinal child-based studies on specific age groups, including the  National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). NEILS was a  descriptive study of young children and families served through this  program, the services they received, the cost of those services, and the  outcomes that children and their families experienced. According to the  authors of the final NEILS report, outcomes for families and children from  birth through age 3 were generally positive. For example, nearly one  third of children who received early interventions were not receiving  special education services at kindergarten, nor did they have any  disability. However, a large percentage of children who received early  intervention services had communication problems, such as speech or  communication delay, or the inability to make needs known, and for many  children, these problems continued through kindergarten.
The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA also called for a national assessment to  measure the implementation progress and the relative effectiveness of  the law. Among other reports published as part of the IDEA national  assessment, Education published an analysis of the patterns in  identification of and outcomes for children with disabilities as well as a  report on IDEA implementation. Among other key findings, Education  found that 32 states have early learning guidelines for infants and  toddlers. Few states, however, provide a mandated or suggested written  plan documenting the early intervention services a child should receive  and how these services are to be administered for infants and toddlers  and their families.
Education also uses the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort,  a nationally representative sample of children studied from birth through  their entry into kindergarten, to obtain important demographic information  on infants and toddlers with disabilities.
section_title: Preschool Development Grants
paragraphs: The Preschool Development Grants program has three performance  measures for its fiscal year 2014 cohort of grantees (see table 9).  Education has not set program-wide performance targets, but requires  individual grantees to set targets. Education published a progress update  on grantee performance for the 2015-2016 school year, which was the  program’s first year of implementation. In this update, Education reported  that the state grantees met nearly 90 percent of their targets for the  number of children served in high-quality preschool programs. Education  has not yet published results for all three of its performance measures.
Education officials told us that Education and HHS have not conducted an  evaluation of this program, in part because the program is new and in the  process of implementation.
section_title: Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities
paragraphs: Education has five performance measures for Preschool Grants for  Children with Disabilities and sets program-wide targets for each of these  (see table 10). In its congressional budget justification, Education reports  its progress toward achieving these targets annually. Results have  remained relatively stable among the five measures over the 3 years of  data we reviewed (2012-2014). However, in 2014, the most recent year of  available data, Education reported meeting only one performance  target—the percentage of children with disabilities (ages 3 through 5)  attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of  hours of special education and related services in the regular early  childhood program. Other measures were relatively close to meeting  targets. Education acknowledges that some data quality issues exist,  particularly with regard to missing data.
In various reauthorizations, IDEA has included provisions for collecting  information on the implementation and impact of the law. For example, in  response to a requirement in the 1997 reauthorization, Education  conducted four longitudinal child-based studies on specific age groups,  including the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS).  PEELS was designed to describe young children with disabilities, their  experiences, the services they receive, as well as their performance over  time in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school. Education has  conducted several reports based on these longitudinal data. In the most  recent report we reviewed, Education found, among other things, that  children who received preschool special education services showed  growth each year in vocabulary and mathematics; however, growth  slowed in both subject areas as children got older. Children’s  performance varied across assessments and across subgroups defined  by disability. At age 10, the gap between these subgroups persisted, and  there were no differences in growth rates between subgroups.
The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA also called for a national assessment to  measure the implementation progress and the relative effectiveness of  the law. Among other reports published as part of the IDEA national  assessment, Education published an analysis of the patterns in  identification of and outcomes for children with disabilities as well as a  report on IDEA implementation. Education found that the percentage of  children identified for services increased every year from 1997 to 2006 for  all preschool-age children, among other findings. Furthermore, children in  each of the disability categories differed significantly from the general  population in academic skills as well as social development. Among other  key findings, this study found that 27 states either mandate or suggest a  standards-based individualized education program for preschool age  children. Such a program is designed to enable a child to make progress  in the general education curriculum through the inclusion of state  academic standards, among other things.
Additionally, through two complementary cohort studies of children’s early  school experiences, Education is currently investigating outcomes  experienced by children with and without disabilities in preschool  programs, through its National Center for Education Statistics.
section_title: Promise Neighborhoods
paragraphs: Education has 15 performance measures for the Promise Neighborhoods  program (see tables 11 and 12). Education requires that individual  grantees set their own performance targets. Education publicly reports  available data for its two grant cohorts online. Due to data reliability  concerns, Education officials have not reported results for some of the  performance measures. Education officials stated that some of these data  are under development because they have not been able to collect them  consistently from their grantees. They noted that they have made efforts  to address these concerns by investing in technical assistance to  grantees.
Education has not conducted an evaluation of the Promise  Neighborhoods program. A key purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods  Grant program is to learn how particular strategies affect student  outcomes through a rigorous evaluation of the program. In 2014, we  recommended that the Secretary of Education develop a plan to use the  data collected from grantees to conduct a national evaluation of the  program. As of May 2017, this recommendation remained  unimplemented.
section_title: Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy
paragraphs: Education has four performance measures for the Striving Readers  Comprehensive Literacy program and sets program-wide targets for each  of these (see table 13). In its congressional budget justification, Education  reports its progress toward achieving these targets annually. One of the  four performance measures is specific to the early learning population:  the percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieved  significant gains in oral language skills. Results on this measure have  declined over the 2 years of data we reviewed (2013-2015). Education  reported meeting none of the four performance targets in 2015, the most  recent year of available data.
Education has not conducted an evaluation of the current Striving  Readers Comprehensive Literacy program, but officials told us they are  considering conducting one in the future. However, Education has  synthesized evaluations of adolescent reading interventions implemented  by the related 2006 and 2009 Striving Readers grant cohorts. The original  Striving Readers program funded only the 2006 and 2009 grant cohorts  and aimed to build a scientific research base for identifying and  replicating strategies to improve adolescent literacy skills.  For those  cohorts, Education found that four of the 10 interventions had at least one  study showing a positive effect on reading achievement. The remaining  six interventions had no discernible effects. The findings from the studies  funded by Striving Readers expanded the evidence base on effective  reading interventions for adolescents by adding information on  interventions not previously reviewed by Education’s Institute of  Education Sciences.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Performance Assessment of Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose
subsections: section_title: Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)
paragraphs: HHS has six performance measures for CCDF and sets targets for the  four that it considers outcome measures (see table 14), and reports  results annually. HHS reported in its congressional budget justification  that CCDF met two of its six performance targets in 2014, the last year of  available data. Some of CCDF measures are reviewed biannually. HHS  is in the process of updating these measures due to recent statutory and  legislative changes to the Child Care and Development Block Grant  program. In addition, one of CCDF’s measures is under development,  and HHS is still building capacity to collect this information from all states.  Officials plan to obtain this information from states and territories in 2017.
HHS has conducted evaluations of CCDF to learn about different  approaches to improving quality and helping parents retain employment.  For example, one evaluation examined three types of programs that  promote language development. This evaluation found that two of these  programs improved teacher interactions with children and increased pre- literacy skills of children. Another evaluation found that expanding income  eligibility and extending the time before families have to reapply for child  care subsidies temporarily increased the use and stability of subsidy  receipt.
section_title: Head Start
paragraphs: HHS has 11 performance measures for Head Start. In fiscal year 2015,  the last year of available data, HHS reported progress toward achieving  targets for the five measures that it considers related to outcomes or  efficiency (see table 15). HHS reported meeting two of these five  performance targets in fiscal year 2015. For example, HHS reported that  Head Start met its target for reducing the proportion of grantees receiving  a score in the low range on a classroom assessment tool. Officials told us  that improving the quality of teacher-child interactions, staff training and  competency, and classroom environments have been primary goals of  the program in recent years. HHS added a fifth outcome measure, to  increase the percentage of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers that  have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In its fiscal year 2017 performance  report, HHS collected baseline data on this measure, and used this  information to set targets for the future.
In response to a mandate in the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, HHS  conducted a national level, random-assignment impact evaluation of the  Head Start program (Head Start Impact Study). HHS published this  impact study, which followed children through first grade, in 2010, and in  a subsequent report, researchers followed the same cohorts of children  as they transitioned to third grade. These impact studies assessed the  advantages that 4-year-old children gained during 1 year of participation  in Head Start and 3-year-old children gained during 2 years of  participation in Head Start among cognitive, social-emotional, health, and  parenting outcomes. The Head Start Impact Study showed that having  access to Head Start improves children’s preschool experiences and  school readiness in certain areas, though few of those advantages persist  through third grade. However, some subgroups of children in this study  experienced sustained benefits into third grade. In more recent work,  HHS examined the extent to which classroom quality affected outcomes  observed in the impact study. Although some subgroups experienced  sustained positive effects, the evaluation found little evidence to support  that Head Start leads to program impacts lasting into third grade for  participants overall, regardless of the program’s quality level. However,  the study’s ability to detect effects of Head Start participation may have  been limited by difficulty maintaining the random assignment of children  to Head Start and to comparison groups, an important component of such  impact studies.
The 1994 reauthorization of Head Start that established the Early Head  Start program called for an evaluation to focus on services delivered to  families with infants and toddlers and the impacts of these services on  children and families. In response, in 2002 HHS published a separate  rigorous, random-assignment evaluation of the Early Head Start program.  This evaluation investigated program impacts on children and families  through their time in the program. Subsequent reports followed children  and families as they transitioned from preschool and again in the 5th  grade. HHS found, among other things, a consistent pattern of modest,  favorable impacts across a range of outcomes when participating children  were 2 and 3 years old, with larger impacts in some subgroups. However,  some impacts on the full sample of children and families did not persist  when assessed at grade 5, though some subgroup impacts remained. In  more recent work, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked  data from this project with child welfare records to and found that the  program may be effective in reducing some kinds of child maltreatment  outcomes among Early Head Start children when compared to children in  a control group.
Additionally, HHS collects information on the characteristics, experiences,  and outcomes of children participating in Head Start through the Head  Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). This survey  provides data from five successive, nationally representative samples of  Head Start participants. HHS also maintains a similar survey specific to  the Early Head Start population called Baby FACES.
section_title: Department of the Interior: Performance Assessment of Programs with an Explicit Early Learning or Child Care Purpose
subsections: section_title: Family and Child Education (FACE)
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior (Interior) does not have specific  performance measures for the Family and Child Education (FACE)  program. Instead, Interior uses an independent contractor to conduct  annual reviews of the FACE program to obtain performance information.  These reviews identify program outcomes and provide implementation  data, which are summarized for the program overall and disaggregated  for individual program sites. Interior reports a number of outcomes in  these reviews, including children’s proficiency in math and literacy,  parenting practices, and integration of native language and culture into  FACE program instruction.
In response to a 2004 Office of Management and Budget mandate,  Interior contracted an external impact evaluation of the FACE program. In  2008, Interior funded a second FACE impact study. Interior subsequently  published a report that integrated findings from both impact studies.  Selected findings from this report indicate that a greater number of the  FACE parents included in this study were more likely to participate in  literacy activities with their children and to be involved in their children’s  school than parents of non-FACE participants. However, both groups of  children appeared equally kindergarten-ready, on several measures.  Because FACE serves children with greater needs, the study concludes  the program puts those children, as well as those with special needs, on  an equal playing field with their peers. However, the study did not account  for some child and program factors that may have affected participants’  outcomes.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Rebecca Woiwode (Assistant  Director), Hedieh Fusfield (Analyst-in-Charge), Colin Ashwood, and  Karissa Robie made key contributions to this report. Additional assistance  was provided by Kay Brown, Carol Henn, Brian James, Melissa Jaynes,  John Lack, Kirsten Lauber, Benjamin T. Licht, Elizabeth Mixon, Janet  Mascia, Drew Nelson, Mimi Nguyen, Dae Park, Jessica Orr, James  Rebbe, Marylynn Sergent, Stephanie Shipman, Deborah A. Signer,  Almeta Spencer, Rachel Stoiko, Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, Sarah Veale,  Betty Ward-Zuckerman, Greg Whitney, and Craig Winslow.