Prekindergarten: Four Selected States Expanded Access by Relying on Schools and Existing Providers of Early Education and Care to Provide Services
Published: 2004-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in providing early childhood development programs for children of low-income families through Head Start and other programs. Since 1980, the number of states with preschool programs has also significantly increased. While most of these programs have targeted children at risk of school failure, more recently, interest has grown in expanding these limited programs because of the growing concern about children's readiness for school and subsequent achievement. It has also been fueled by new research on early brain development that suggests the importance of early education and by the high rate of mothers in the workforce and their need for early childhood services. In this context, questions have arisen about how the various programs are coordinated and what lessons have been learned from broad-based state preschool efforts. This work focused on four states that have expanded their preschool programs to serve more children. In these states, GAO addressed (1) how prekindergarten programs were designed and funded, (2) the potential implications of these program features for children's participation and other programs that serve four year-olds, and (3) the outcome data that have been collected on participating children and families. To gather this information, GAO conducted site visits in four states--Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The expanded prekindergarten programs in Georgia, Oklahoma, New York, and New Jersey had some similarities in their design features. For instance, programs were offered at no direct cost to parents, regardless of family income, and each state incorporated some level of collaboration with community-based providers such as Head Start and large child care facilities. Some key differences in their design features also existed. For example, Georgia and Oklahoma had statewide programs providing prekindergarten services to over half of their four-year olds, while New York's and New Jersey's programs were more geographically targeted. States and school districts also varied in offering full- or half-day prekindergarten programs. States also varied in teacher qualifications, the percentage of prekindergarten children served by community-based providers, funding methods, and in the amount of funding per child. Some program features had potential implications for the participation of children and for early childhood programs. For example, none of the four states required providers to transport all children to and from prekindergarten, and many children were enrolled in half-day programs, which officials believed might have limited the participation of children from low-income and working families. Collaborations between programs and community-based organizations generally permitted rapid program expansion and were viewed as beneficial to early childhood programs. Finally, we found few data to determine the impact of state prekindergarten expansion on the availability or prices of child care. While some data were available on outcomes for children who participated in prekindergarten programs, less was known about their impacts on families. For example, a study in Oklahoma showed that children who participated made significant gains on several school readiness measures relative to a comparison group of unenrolled children. However, none of the four states had measured effects on families, such as parents' work effort.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in providing  early childhood development programs for children of low-income  families through Head Start and other programs. Prior to 1970, only a few  states had prekindergarten programs, and these were mostly available to a  small number of children and targeted specific populations such as  disadvantaged children, those at risk of school failure, or those with  special needs. More recently, there has been interest in expanding these  limited prekindergarten programs because of the growing concern about  children’s readiness for school and subsequent achievement. This interest  has also been fueled by advances in early brain development research that  suggest the importance of early education and by the high rate of mothers  in the workforce and their need for early childhood services. During the  2001-02 school year, about 40 states enrolled approximately 700,000 of the  nation’s 7.8 million three- and four-year-olds in prekindergarten programs,  and spent over $2.4 billion to finance these programs. A few of these states  have invested significant resources to expand enrollments of  prekindergarten programs beyond targeted populations. They have also  used federal funds such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary  Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to support prekindergarten  programs, and have implemented these programs in a variety of settings  such as child care centers and Head Start agencies, as well as public  schools.
Given the level of investment and the variety of preschool programs  currently receiving federal and state support, there is concern about  whether these programs are well coordinated and that lessons from  implementing broadly based state programs are documented. Accordingly,  you asked that we review programs in selected states that expanded their  prekindergarten efforts. This report presents information on (1) how state  prekindergarten programs were designed and funded in these states,   (2) the potential implications of these program features for children’s  participation and for other programs that serve four-year-olds, and (3) the  outcome data that have been collected on participating children and  families.
To determine how prekindergarten programs were designed, we reviewed  program information and interviewed state officials, local education  program officials, as well as numerous Head Start grantees and directors  of large child care facilities, during site visits to four states (Georgia, New  Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma). These states were selected, in part,  because they were among a small subset of states that had expanded their  prekindergarten programs and aimed to serve all four-year-olds whose  parents wanted them to attend, regardless of family income. We also  considered states that had well-established prekindergarten programs.  Because New Jersey had two major preschool programs, including the  court-ordered Abbott program that was implemented in New Jersey’s 30  highest-poverty school districts, we report on a total of five  prekindergarten programs in four states.
To identify potential implications of the design of state prekindergarten  programs, we interviewed (1) state and local education agency officials;  (2) providers of prekindergarten services at community-based  organizations; and (3) federal, state, and local Head Start program staff.  We also reviewed selected data on child care availability in these states  and the nation. We assessed the data for reliability and reasonableness and  found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To  determine what outcome data have been collected on participating  children and families, we interviewed state and local education agency  officials in each of the four states we visited, contacted researchers, and  reviewed two studies—a study of a school district in Oklahoma and one  statewide study in Georgia. We assessed the methodologies used in these  studies and determined that the methodologies were of sufficient quality  for use in discussion of most study findings, and we limited our discussion  to these findings. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope  and methodology.) We conducted our work between October 2003 and  August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The growth in state prekindergarten programs has occurred for various  reasons, but three frequently cited reasons are (1) evidence of the  importance of early childhood to later development, (2) the high rate of  labor force participation by mothers of young children, and (3) increased  concern over school readiness and subsequent achievement. Much has  been discovered about children’s ability to learn more at an earlier age  than previously believed. The early childhood years are commonly  portrayed as formative. Between the first day of life and the first day of  kindergarten, development proceeds at a pace exceeding that of any  subsequent stage of life. Children from birth to age five engage in making  sense of the world on many levels: language, human interactions, counting  and quantification, spatial reasoning, physical causality, problem solving,  and categorization.
Since the 1960s, the percentage of women in the labor force has increased  dramatically. In 1960, about 36 percent of women participated in the labor  force, and by 2000 this figure had increased to 58 percent. Moreover, in  2003, about 69 percent of women with children aged three to five (but  none younger) were in the labor force. This high rate of participation of  women in the labor force has resulted in more children enrolled in  preschool programs of varying quality and pressure being placed on  schools to provide before- and after-school programs.
To improve educational achievement for all children and reduce failure in  lower grades, many states and school districts are placing a greater  emphasis on the school readiness of younger children. For nearly a quarter  century, many states have developed or expanded their investment in  prekindergarten programs to increase the likelihood of children’s success  in school. Prior to 1970 only 7 states funded preschool programs, and by  1988, 28 states had programs and total spending was $190 million; such  programs generally targeted economically and educationally  disadvantaged children. While most state-sponsored prekindergarten  programs continue to serve such children, a few states are in the process  of expanding their programs to include all four-year-olds, regardless of  family income. According to the National Institute for Early Education  Research (NIEER), 40 states (and Washington, D.C.) had some form of  state-sponsored prekindergarten program in the 2001-02 school year and  enrolled over 700,000 children, mostly four-year-olds. While states spent  more than $2.4 billion for prekindergarten during the 2001-02 school year,  10 states accounted for over 80 percent of this amount.
Generally, prekindergarten programs aimed to serve four-year-olds, but  according to NIEER estimates, most states served less than one-fifth of all  their four-year-olds (see fig. 1). NIEER estimated that about 80 percent of  children served by state prekindergarten programs were four-year-olds.  During the 2001-02 school year, only two states (Georgia and Oklahoma)  enrolled more than 50 percent of their four-year-olds in a state-sponsored  prekindergarten program. Ten states (Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi,  Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and  Wyoming) had not initiated prekindergarten programs.
The NIEER study also reported on characteristics describing the quality of  states’ prekindergarten programs. Table 1 provides information on  NIEER’s findings related to certain program characteristics, benchmarks,  and the number of state programs meeting the benchmarks that NIEER  associated with quality prekindergarten programs.
Among the 10 largest state prekindergarten programs, most met the  benchmarks for class size, family support services, staff-child ratio, and  teacher qualifications, and they were equally divided with respect to  comprehensive curriculum standards.
State-sponsored prekindergarten programs are expanding alongside  existing programs for young children, including Head Start, Title I, and  private child care programs. Head Start is a targeted program that mostly  serves children from low-income families. Head Start, administered at the  federal level by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is  implemented in local communities through grantees. These grantees  include community action agencies, school systems, for-profit and  nonprofit organizations, other government agencies, and tribal  governments or associations. The Department of Health and Human  Services reported that Head Start served just over 900,000 children  nationwide during the 2003 fiscal year, and most were aged three and four;  Head Start was funded at about $6.7 billion, or about $7,366 per child.
In addition to administering Head Start, the federal government also  provides some limited support for early education programs through Title  I. Administered by the Department of Education (Education), Title I is the  single largest federal investment for elementary and secondary education.  Its primary purpose is to help local education agencies and schools  improve the teaching and learning of children who are failing, or are most  at risk of failing, to meet challenging academic standards. In support of  that goal, Education reported that Title I was funded at about $11.7 billion  during the 2003 fiscal year. Nearly 15 million students were supported by  Title I funds, and of these, about 2 percent (an estimated 313,000) were  enrolled in prekindergarten programs during the 1999-2000 school year.
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the principal federal  program that supports child care for low-income families. CCDF is  administered by HHS, and each state receives an annual allocation that is  used to subsidize the child care expenses of low-income families with  children generally under age 13. CCDF subsidies can be used to obtain  child care from various types of providers, including child care centers  and family homes. In fiscal year 2002, CCDF was appropriated nearly $5  billion, and HHS reported that about 1.8 million children received  subsidies in an average month. As a condition of receiving CCDF funds,  states must conduct biennial surveys of child care providers, which are  considered by states when establishing reimbursement rates for providers  serving subsidized children. In addition to information regarding the fees  charged by providers for child care services, such surveys may provide  states with information about the type of child care they provide,  qualifications of the staff, the age groups of the children they serve, and  where they are located.
section_title: Four Selected States Varied In the Design and Funding of their Expanded Prekindergarten Programs
paragraphs: The four states we visited varied in the design features and funding of their  prekindergarten programs. Programs shared similar features such as  voluntary enrollment of children at no direct cost to their parents, but  differed in others. In addition, all five state programs permitted  collaboration with community-based providers. States varied in features  such as the teacher requirements for their prekindergarten programs.  States and school districts also differed in the degree and type of  collaborations they established with community-based agencies. Finally,  while states relied primarily on state resources, they reported some  differences in funding mechanisms and per child funding levels.
subsections: section_title: Selected States Designed Expanded Prekindergarten Programs to Enroll Children Voluntarily at No Direct Cost to Parents, but Differed in Geographic Breadth and Other Key Features
paragraphs: In the four states visited—Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and  Oklahoma—we found some similarities in prekindergarten programs.  Over the last few years, all four states had expanded their state-sponsored  prekindergarten programs and, as reported by NIEER in February 2004,  were among only nine states and Washington, D.C., that provided  prekindergarten services to more than 20 percent of their four-year-olds.  All four states’ prekindergarten programs were provided at no direct cost  to parents—regardless of family income—and were offered on a voluntary  basis; children’s enrollment was not mandatory. In addition, each program  emphasized preparation for school and incorporated the delivery of  prekindergarten services by community-based organizations as well as  schools. None of the states required that all providers offer transportation  services, although some providers did, and one state offered  reimbursement for some children when this occurred. Figure 2 shows the  estimated number of age-eligible children in the state, and the number of  age-eligible children participating in prekindergarten and Head Start  programs in the four states we visited.
The states we visited differed in the extent of geographic coverage and  participation in prekindergarten programs. Three of the four states— Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma—aimed to provide prekindergarten  programs to all four-year-olds in the state whose parents wanted them to  attend. While none of these states provided prekindergarten to all four- year-olds, Oklahoma and Georgia had the most widespread programs.  During the 2003-04 school year, Oklahoma provided prekindergarten in  509 of its 541 school districts to about 63 percent of its four-year-olds;  Georgia provided prekindergarten in all of its 181 school districts and to  about 55 percent of its four-year-olds. New York initially implemented  much of its universal prekindergarten program in school districts located  in the five largest cities in the state—Buffalo, New York City, Rochester,  Syracuse, and Yonkers. During the 2003-04 school year, about 80 percent  of the participating children attended prekindergarten in one of these five  cities. Overall, New York’s prekindergarten program was offered in 190 of  its 680 school districts. In New Jersey’s Abbott program, the state was  court ordered to provide prekindergarten to all three- and four-year-olds  who resided in the state’s 30 highest-poverty school districts. In addition,  102 non-Abbott early childhood program aid (ECPA) school districts in  high-poverty areas received funds for prekindergarten programs.  Combined, these two programs provided prekindergarten in 132 of 539 (24  percent) school districts in New Jersey. Table 2 provides information on  the extent of geographic coverage and percentage of age-eligible children  participating in prekindergarten programs in the four states we visited.
The state-sponsored prekindergarten programs also differed in some of  their key design features. For example, the length of the program, in terms  of hours per day, ranged from 2.5 hours to 6.5 hours per day among the  four states. Full-day prekindergarten was provided in Georgia and New  Jersey’s Abbott prekindergarten programs. The other three  prekindergarten programs—New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA, New York,  and Oklahoma—allowed school districts to determine whether to offer  full-day or half-day programs.
The states also varied in their requirements for lead teachers, and two of  the five state programs (New Jersey’s Abbott and Oklahoma) required  teachers to be certified in early childhood education. In New Jersey’s  non-Abbott ECPA program, prekindergarten teachers could also hold  certification in elementary education. Beginning with the 2004-05 school  year, New York’s state program required that all prekindergarten teachers  be certified, but certification could be in an area other than early  childhood education. In Georgia, lead teachers were required to hold at  least a technical diploma or degree, associate’s degree, or Montessori  diploma. However, most lead teachers had at least a four-year-college  degree. As of May 2004, the Georgia Department of Early Care and  Learning reported that about 58 percent of its prekindergarten teachers  were certified in early childhood or elementary education and 21 percent  held four-year education-related or other degrees with some additional  training in early childhood education or development. Combined, about 79  percent of the lead teachers in Georgia had at least a four-year education-  related college degree.
States and school districts established collaborations with community- based organizations differently and often relied on them extensively to  provide prekindergarten services to children. For example, Georgia had a  centralized program and the state’s Department of Early Care and  Learning was directly responsible for establishing collaborations with  community-based organizations such as child care centers and U.S.  military bases. In contrast, in the other three states we visited, local school  districts had responsibility for establishing collaborations. In New York,  the state required that school districts use at least 10 percent of their  universal prekindergarten grant funds to serve children in community- based organizations, but statewide over 60 percent of four-year-olds were  participating in community-based prekindergarten programs during the  2002-03 school year. The extent of collaborations varied between the two  prekindergarten programs in New Jersey during the 2003-04 school year.  In the Abbott school districts, the state was ordered by the New Jersey  Supreme Court to provide full-day prekindergarten for all three- and four- year-olds; over 70 percent of these children were served by community- based providers. In contrast, in New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA school  districts, only about 11 percent of the children received prekindergarten  from community-based providers. While state officials in Oklahoma were  supportive of collaborations, local school district officials determined the  role of community-based providers in their prekindergarten programs. In  Oklahoma, most children were enrolled in prekindergarten programs in  public school buildings; the state did not know how many local school  districts collaborated with community-based organizations or the number  of children participating in them. These and other key differences in the  design and implementation of state prekindergarten programs are  identified in table 3.
section_title: State Funding Structure, Levels, and Stability Varied, and States Used Little Federal Funding
paragraphs: All four states relied primarily on state resources but differed in other  aspects of funding such as amounts per child, funding methods, and the  extent to which these methods and amounts provided for financially stable  programs. During the 2002-03 school year, enrollments and state spending  for prekindergarten services varied widely among the five state programs.  Based on data we collected from the states, spending ranged from  approximately $347 million for prekindergarten services in the 30 Abbott  school districts in New Jersey to about $30 million for the 102 non-Abbott  ECPA school districts in New Jersey. Table 4 provides information on the  primary methods of program funding, estimated number of participating  children, and estimated state spending among the five programs during the  2002-03 school year.
Per child expenditures for full-day and half-day prekindergarten varied  across the four states we visited and were consistently less than the state’s  per pupil expenditures for kindergarten through grade 12. New Jersey’s  Abbott districts had the highest funding per child for full-day  prekindergarten, relative to kindergarten through grade 12 funding. In the  remaining states, funding for full-day prekindergarten was much less than  the level of funding per child in kindergarten through grade 12. See figure  3 for comparisons of per child expenditures for prekindergarten and  kindergarten through grade 12 in the four states we visited.
Apart from New Jersey’s Abbott and Georgia’s prekindergarten programs,  the other state programs we examined were largely half-day. New Jersey’s  non-Abbott ECPA program, New York, and Oklahoma permitted local  school districts to operate half-day prekindergarten. However, these states  differed in how they funded their half- and full-day programs. School  districts in New Jersey’s non-Abbott ECPA program and New York  received the same amount per child whether they operated half-day or full- day programs, and about 80 percent of the children attended half-day  prekindergarten in each of the two programs. In Oklahoma, local school  districts received about $1,743 per child (54 percent of the full-day rate),  and over half of the four-year-olds participating in the state’s  prekindergarten program were enrolled in half-day programs during the  2002-03 school year.
The four states varied in how they funded their state-sponsored  prekindergarten programs, and officials in two states told us that the  financial outlook of their programs was stable. According to two  New Jersey state officials, because of the state supreme court decision and  subsequent court order, New Jersey was committed to providing a quality  prekindergarten program to all three- and four-year-olds who lived in the  Abbott school districts. In addition, funding for both New Jersey’s Abbott  and non-Abbott ECPA prekindergarten programs was part of the school  funding formula. Oklahoma supported prekindergarten through the  funding formula, as it did for other school grades, and state officials told  us they believed that funding for the program was stable.
However, funding for prekindergarten in the other two states may be more  uncertain. For example, funding levels for New York’s state-sponsored  prekindergarten had increased somewhat for the past 3 years but were  insufficient to allow the state to implement a universal prekindergarten  program available to all four-year-olds by the 2001-02 school year as  planned. During the same period, New York financed its program from  general revenue funds as a line item in the budget, and in 2003, the  program was targeted for elimination because of state fiscal shortfalls.  While avoiding elimination, limited increases in funding have restricted the  state’s ability to expand the program over the past several years. Most  eligible districts participated in the program. However, about two-thirds of  the school districts were not eligible for the state-sponsored  prekindergarten program during the 2002-03 school year.
Georgia has historically relied on the state lottery to fund its  prekindergarten program. When the lottery was initially created, its  proceeds were set aside for three programs, including state-sponsored  prekindergarten. Currently, lottery funds are used to support  prekindergarten and a program to provide academic scholarships for  eligible high school graduates. However, over time, a greater percentage of  the lottery funds has been designated for the college scholarship program  than for prekindergarten. Additionally, lotteries recently began in two  neighboring states, and officials we interviewed were concerned that  Georgia’s lottery proceeds may level off. State officials told us that lottery  funds may be insufficient to entirely support the prekindergarten program  by 2007, and the state has begun to look at stop gap measures to protect  lottery funding if needed in the future.
The four states reported using small amounts of federal funds to support  their prekindergarten programs; these amounts were generally small  relative to state funding levels. For example, two states—Georgia and  Oklahoma—used some prekindergarten monies to meet their CCDF   matching or maintenance-of-effort requirements. In fiscal year 2002,  Georgia used about $2.4 million in lottery funds for CCDF state matching  and maintenance-of-effort, which represented about 1 percent of the state  funding for prekindergarten. These funds were used for extended day  (before- and after-school) for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF) eligible children participating in prekindergarten. Oklahoma used  about $2.1 million of its prekindergarten funds to meet CCDF  maintenance-of-effort requirements, which represented about 3 percent of  the state funding for prekindergarten. In fiscal year 2002, New York  transferred $61.3 million from the TANF program to the state  prekindergarten program, but this was done for only one year. None of  the other states used TANF funds to support the expansion of their  prekindergarten programs. While state officials told us that Title I,  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Head Start program funds  were also used at the local level to support prekindergarten, they did not  know the exact amounts from these other federal sources.
section_title: Some Program Features Had Potential Implications for Children’s Participation and Other Early Childhood Programs
paragraphs: Some prekindergarten design features had implications for children’s  participation and early childhood programs in the four states we visited.  For example, both local officials and providers told us that transportation  and program hours may have affected access to prekindergarten programs  for children of low-income and working families. State and local officials,  along with community-based providers and Head Start grantees, told us  that collaborations were beneficial to their programs and had allowed  rapid expansion of state prekindergarten. However, some challenges  remained, such as the efforts needed to establish and maintain effective  collaborations. Finally, few empirical data were available to quantify the  effect of expanding state prekindergarten programs on the availability and  prices for child care, and the anecdotal evidence we collected was mixed.
subsections: section_title: Transportation and Program Hours May Have Implications for Participation
paragraphs: Program features, which varied across states and school districts, may  have affected participation, particularly for children of low-income and  working families. None of the four states required prekindergarten  providers to transport all participating children. Officials in some school  districts told us that the lack of transportation may have decreased the  participation of children from low-income and working families, and 10 of  the 12 school districts we visited did not provide transportation to and  from prekindergarten for all participating children. Some school district  officials primarily cited insufficient funding as a reason for not providing  transportation services. For example, in one Oklahoma school district,  children did not necessarily attend prekindergarten classes at their  neighborhood school; consequently, the district would have incurred  additional costs to transport children to their designated school. One  official in a rural school district we visited in New York told us that more  children from low-income and working families would have participated in  prekindergarten if transportation were provided. However, costs  prohibited the district from offering such services. However, officials in  the urban school district we visited in New York did not view the lack of  transportation as a barrier to participation, as the prekindergarten  programs were generally available in proximity to children’s homes or  parents’ jobs. In Georgia, the Department of Early Care and Learning  offered additional funding to providers who opted to transport eligible  children to and from the prekindergarten program. In May 2004, the  Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning paid for the  transportation of 13,152 children. In New Jersey, the Abbott school  districts were required to provide transportation when needed.
In Oklahoma, where the majority of the participating children attended  half-day prekindergarten programs, school district officials told us that the  length of the school day affected participation. In all three school districts  we visited, local officials told us that shortened program hours may have  hindered the participation of children of low-income and working families.  Officials from one Oklahoma school district told us that the combination  of a half-day program coupled with the lack of transportation to and from  the prekindergarten program reduced the participation of children from  low-income and working families. In that district, approximately 45  percent of the district’s elementary school population was eligible for free  and reduced price lunch during the 2003-04 school year, but only 29  percent of the children enrolled in prekindergarten were eligible for free  and reduced price lunch, indicating lower participation of children from  low-income families. Similarly, in another Oklahoma school district, while  about 84 percent of the district’s student population was eligible for free  and reduced price lunch, 60 percent of children who participated in  prekindergarten were eligible for free and reduced price lunch. However,  officials in two Oklahoma school districts told us that certain factors  discouraged them from offering full-day programs; for example, they were  able to serve twice as many children with half-day programs, rather than  full-day programs, using the same resources (classrooms and teachers).  Additionally, one of these officials told us that it would be difficult to  implement full-day prekindergarten while the school district only offered a  half-day kindergarten program.
Finally, some school district officials told us that the location of the  program could also affect the participation of children of working families.  In particular, half-day programs without transportation could be more  appealing to low-income and working families if they were offered in a  child care center where the child could receive care for the duration of the  work day. One urban school district we visited primarily offered half-day  prekindergarten classes. However, the school district officials told us that  the prekindergarten classes were sometimes offered in conjunction with  other programs at the same location. A district official and child care  providers in this school district told us that this arrangement met the  needs of low-income and working families as children would receive a full  day of care. Officials and child care providers in this school district told us  that in order to offer a full day of care, some child care providers  supplemented the state-sponsored prekindergarten program with other  monies, including Head Start funding, CCDF subsidies, and parent  payments.
section_title: State and Local Officials and Community-Based Providers Said Collaborations Were Beneficial to Their Programs, but They Also Identified Some Challenges
paragraphs: Although state and local officials, as well as staff of community-based  organizations, told us that collaborations were beneficial, some challenges  remained. Officials in all four states we visited told us that such  collaborations allowed them to serve more children, and three of the five  programs served most prekindergarten children in community-based  organizations such as Head Start and child care centers. In Georgia, New  Jersey, and New York, officials reported that they made extensive use of  collaborations because they wanted to implement the prekindergarten  programs quickly and schools were often at capacity. In New Jersey, the  state supreme court ordered the state to provide full-day kindergarten as  well as full-day preschool for three- and four-year-olds in the 30 Abbott  school districts. To implement the court order, the districts turned to  community-based organizations to accommodate the influx of children. In  New York, school districts were only required to use at least 10 percent of  their universal prekindergarten grant funds to serve children in  community-based organizations. Two school districts we visited in New  York served the majority of participating children in community-based  organizations (66 and 100 percent). However, in Oklahoma, where school  districts had been experiencing declining enrollment, collaborations with  community-based organizations were less prevalent, as districts were able  to accommodate prekindergarten children in public schools. Officials from  most of the school districts we visited that did use collaborations told us  that the collaborations allowed them to take advantage of the existing  early child care and education infrastructure, such as buildings,  equipment, and assistant teachers to increase program capacity and  reduce program costs.
Child care providers who partnered with state prekindergarten programs  generally had favorable experiences with collaborations as well.  Specifically, providers mentioned increased enrollment, improved quality  of programs, and increased access to school district resources as benefits  of their partnerships. Some providers who collaborated with the state  prekindergarten programs in Georgia, New Jersey, and New York told us  that they expanded their centers to serve more children of all ages—as  some parents enrolled the younger siblings of their prekindergarten  children in the same child care center. In addition, child care providers in  all four states told us that the overall quality of care had improved as a  result of collaborating with the state prekindergarten program. Some  providers attributed the improved quality to various factors, including a  greater focus on learning, the presence of credentialed teachers, and  higher standards for the children. Finally, some child care providers who  collaborated with state-sponsored prekindergarten programs told us that  the partnership allowed them increased access to school district resources  such as professional development and materials such as new computers  for the classrooms.
Head Start grantees also told us that collaborations were beneficial to  their programs. For example, in Georgia and New York, some Head Start  grantees who provided prekindergarten services stated they were better  able to serve children by leveraging state prekindergarten and Head Start  funds. These grantees told us they were able to expand program hours and  enrich the learning environment while still providing Head Start’s services,  including establishing family partnerships. In Georgia, Head Start  grantees served 3,654 children, or just over 5 percent of the children  enrolled in the program during the 2004 fiscal year. In New York, Head  Start provided about 345 classrooms of prekindergarten—representing  about 9 percent of the total number of prekindergarten classrooms. Two  Head Start grantees told us that since the state prekindergarten program  served four-year-olds they began serving more three-year-olds. As a result,  children from low-income families could participate in 2 full years of  preschool.
While collaborations generally benefited early childhood programs, some  challenges existed in establishing and maintaining partnerships between  state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and community-based  organizations. State and school district officials told us that establishing  and maintaining collaborations took effort, required expertise, and  involved increased monitoring and technical assistance, including  financial guidance. For example, while one school district we visited had a  staff person responsible for establishing and maintaining collaborations,  another school district did not have such an expert and was unsure about  how to develop partnerships or arrange the formal contracts needed to  collaborate.
Child care providers also mentioned certain challenges such as insufficient  or uncertain funding. For example, in New York and Georgia, where per  child funding to community-based organizations had remained fairly level  for at least the past 3 years, some child care providers told us that the per  child funding was insufficient and they had to use other funding sources to  support the collaboration. In addition, we found that challenges existed in  establishing the collaborations with Head Start in all four states. In both  Oklahoma and New York, there was no formal mechanism, such as a  statewide contract to facilitate collaboration between school districts and  Head Start grantees, and the two programs sometimes coexisted in the  same community without the benefit of shared resources. Two of the three  school districts we visited in Oklahoma did not collaborate with Head  Start; the third served about 9 percent of its prekindergarten children  through collaborations with Head Start grantees. Challenges in  establishing collaborations with Head Start also remained in New Jersey.  In 2003, New Jersey’s Department of Education and Department of Human  Services developed plans for including Head Start grantees as partners in  providing prekindergarten in the Abbott districts over the following 3  years. However, many challenges remained to achieving this goal including  agreement on appropriate per child funding levels, as well as challenges in  aligning curricula and other coordination issues.
section_title: Few Data Available to Determine the Impact of State Prekindergarten Programs on Availability and Prices of Child Care
paragraphs: While some community-based providers were initially apprehensive about  the potential impact of the widespread availability of states’  prekindergarten programs on the market for child care, we found few data  to support this concern. In the states we visited, neither state officials nor  the child care provider community had data regarding the effects of  expanded prekindergarten programs on the availability and prices of child  care. The available data were limited to child care market rate surveys,  which were conducted by states to obtain information needed to set  reimbursement rates for child care, and data collected every 5 years by the  Census of Service Industries on the number of tax filings by child day care  providers. Market rate surveys provided relatively recent data on prices,  but generally did not include sufficient data to isolate any effects of  prekindergarten and were not always collected in a comparable or reliable  form before and after prekindergarten expansion. In contrast, the state  level data currently available from the Census of Service Industries were  collected in a consistent fashion over time and across states, but were  available only for the period through 1997, just 2 years after significant  growth in the prekindergarten program in Georgia, the oldest expanded  program of the five we studied. The data indicate that the number of  small child care providers per 1,000 preschoolers in Georgia and the  nation as a whole followed similar growth trends from 1987 to 1997, the  years of available data. Further, in the same time period, the number of  child care centers per 1,000 preschoolers and the number of employees  paid by these centers increased in both Georgia and the nation (where  prekindergarten services were generally less available than in Georgia).  However, this does not prove that the expansion of prekindergarten  programs had no effect on the number of child care providers. For  example, perhaps the number of providers would have increased even  more had prekindergarten programs not been expanded.
The anecdotal evidence regarding the effects of prekindergarten programs  on the market for child care was mixed. For example, representatives of  the child care community mentioned some positive effects on the market  for child care, including the increased availability and accessibility of high- quality child care and early education for children from low-income  families. However, some child care providers in Georgia, New Jersey, and  Oklahoma told us that state programs had adverse effects on the business  of child care, but they were unable to provide us with supporting  documentation. According to child care providers, the care of three- and  four-year-olds was less costly than the care of infants and toddlers, and the  revenue generated from caring for the older children subsidized the care  of younger children and made up a significant portion of their revenues.  Child care providers also said that the enrollment of four-year-olds in state  prekindergarten programs could result in child care centers raising prices  to compensate for the loss of such revenues or even going out of business.  In addition, some child care providers in Georgia told us that because state  program funding did not cover the costs of operating prekindergarten,  some centers had raised the rates for other services such as extended day  care.
However, any potential effects of prekindergarten on the price and  availability of child care may have been mitigated by certain design  aspects of the programs in the states we visited. For example, while the  majority of prekindergarten children in Oklahoma were served in public  school settings, the potential effects on the child care market may have  been mitigated because most children were in half-day prekindergarten  programs and some needed child care before and after the program. In  Oklahoma, the state Department of Human Services also provided a full- day reimbursement for CCDF-eligible children who used child care for  more than 4 hours a day. As a result, the state’s half-day program appeared  to have minimal impact on child care providers. In New Jersey’s Abbott  districts and Georgia, which had full-day prekindergarten, the classes were  often situated in community-based organizations. Consequently, many  four-year-olds who attended these programs remained in community- based settings, and child care providers maintained their enrollment of  four-year-olds. Furthermore, in the Abbott districts, the New Jersey  Department of Human Services provided additional funds to cover 4 hours  of child care, beyond the 6 hour educational program. As a result, some  child care centers were reimbursed for providing services for up to 10  hours per day.
section_title: Some Data Have Been Collected on Outcomes for Participating Children
paragraphs: Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, but  little is known about outcomes for their families. In all the school districts  we visited, prekindergarten teachers routinely assessed children and  provided parents with information about their child’s progress during the  school year. However, the states did not collect and analyze these  assessment data. We found two studies that provided information about  the educational outcomes of state prekindergarten programs on children  in Oklahoma and Georgia. One study focused on the Tulsa School District  and found that children who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten  program had significantly higher scores on several school readiness  measures than children who did not participate in the program. A second  study analyzed statewide data regarding Georgia’s prekindergarten  program and reported that children who participated in one of three  programs studied (Georgia’s prekindergarten program, Head Start, and  private preschools) generally made significant gains on developmental  skills during the prekindergarten year. None of the four states we visited  reported collecting information regarding the impact of their programs on  families. State officials told us that prekindergarten programs increased  choices for families, but none reported knowing whether the  prekindergarten program had any effect on parents’ work efforts.
subsections: section_title: Teachers Regularly Assessed Children’s Progress, although States Did Not Systematically Collect These Data
paragraphs: In general, teachers assessed the progress of the children’s development in  the course of teaching prekindergarten using developmentally appropriate  assessments. We found that the types of assessments varied across  prekindergarten providers, and some providers used multiple types of  assessments. For example, assessments included checklists that rated the  child’s progress on various developmental objectives, observational  records, as well as portfolio assessments, which consisted of a collection  of the child’s work and projects that showed the child’s progress  throughout the school year. In general, such assessments were used to  inform the teacher and provide information to parents during the school  year. None of the states required a particular assessment of children’s  outcomes.
State officials acknowledged the importance of collecting and analyzing  student outcome data. However, such analysis had not been systematically  conducted on a statewide basis in any of the four states we visited. The  outcome data that the teachers had were not necessarily in a form  conducive to collection and analysis by the states. Officials offered various  reasons for not collecting outcome data. In New York, officials told us that  there was no funding for large-scale data collection efforts and they were  awaiting the results of this year’s fourth grade state test to analyze the  potential long-term effects of their prekindergarten program, since some  of these fourth graders had participated in the prekindergarten program as  four-year-olds. In New Jersey, state officials told us that they planned to  perform a program evaluation including children’s outcomes after the  program had matured. In Oklahoma, state officials told us that they did not  collect outcome data for all children in the state, but limited information  regarding program outcomes was available in two school districts. For  example, we found that one school district we visited in Oklahoma had  collected and analyzed data on the outcomes of 22 children over a 1-year  period, 11 of whom participated in the district’s prekindergarten program.
section_title: Two Studies Provided Some Information about the Outcomes for Children Who Participated in State Prekindergarten Programs
paragraphs: Two recent studies provided some information on outcomes for children  in two state prekindergarten programs. A study conducted by researchers  at Georgetown University analyzed the short-term effects of  prekindergarten on children in the Tulsa public schools and found positive  effects of the Tulsa program. In particular, the study found that children  who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten program had higher scores  on both cognitive knowledge and language measures, and on measures of  motor skills, than did similar children who did not participate.  Additionally, the Tulsa study found that impacts tended to be larger for  African American and Hispanic children, and that there was little impact  for white children, although the authors discussed certain ceiling effects  that may have made it difficult to detect any impacts for white children as  a whole. The study also found that children who qualified for the full free  lunch program showed greater benefits than the population as a whole,  and benefits were larger for children from low-income families who  participated in full-day programs than those participating in half-day  programs.
The second study, sponsored in part by the Georgia Department of Early  Care and Learning and conducted by Georgia State University, also found  progress among children who participated in the Georgia prekindergarten  program during the 2001-02 school year. The study compared the progress  of children in three early education settings: private preschool, Georgia’s  state prekindergarten program, and Head Start. Children participating in  the three programs performed at different levels upon entering the  programs. The study reported that at the beginning of prekindergarten,  children enrolled in Head Start demonstrated less mastery of certain skills  than did children in the Georgia prekindergarten program, who, in turn,  scored lower than children in private preschools. The study found that  children in all three programs made significant gains over the course of 1  year, though in general, the gains made by the prekindergarten children  were not significantly different from the gains made by the other two  groups of children. By the end of prekindergarten, or at the beginning of  the kindergarten year, the relative rankings of the children from the  different programs had not changed. The researchers also matched  children with similar backgrounds to compare the effectiveness of Head  Start and Georgia’s state prekindergarten program. When comparing the  language, communication, problem-solving, and basic mastery skill scores  for the matched samples of children, researchers noted one case—basic  skill mastery—in which the gap between scores of the state  prekindergarten children and the Head Start children widened to a  statistically significant level at the end of the prekindergarten year.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Citing benefits of prekindergarten, many states have made an investment  in the early education of young children, especially four-year-olds.  Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma have taken steps to  expand early educational opportunities for preschoolers. These four states  offer different approaches for consideration by other states that are  considering whether to expand the scope of their prekindergarten  programs. Given that states have limited resources, an opportunity exists  to engage community-based providers such as Head Start grantees and  other early education and care providers in the coordinated delivery of  additional prekindergarten services. Collaborations between school  districts and community-based organizations facilitate the coordination of  child care and early learning for preschoolers and can provide additional  classroom capacity. At the same time, these partnerships can help allay  fears among child care providers that prekindergarten programs would  supplant the need for community-based services.
It is also important to acknowledge the trade-offs of certain program  features. For example, while programs with limited hours may  accommodate a higher number of children within the same facility and  may be less likely to affect existing child care providers, they may create  barriers to participation for children of working families and show smaller  effects in school readiness of children. Also, prekindergarten programs  may benefit by collaborating with existing programs to maximize the  efficient use of limited state and federal education resources. However,  such arrangements may make it necessary for states and school districts  to invest resources to facilitate such coordination. Perhaps the biggest  trade-off that states face is whether the benefits of an expanded  prekindergarten program outweigh those of one that is more targeted.  Targeted programs have the advantage of giving more intensive services to  eligible children who may benefit most from prekindergarten, but such  programs exclude some children who might also benefit. Additional  information on outcomes for children in the most intensive programs,  particularly relative to children who do not receive comparable services,  may be helpful to other states considering varied types of prekindergarten  services, as would data on the benefits of half-day programs relative to  full-day programs.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education were  provided a draft of this report for review and comment. The Department of  Health and Human Services commented that given the discussions  surrounding the “state option” proposals being held during Head Start  reauthorization, our report is informative. Education’s Executive  Secretariat stated that the department appreciated the opportunity to  review the draft but was not going to provide agency comments. Both  agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human  Services, the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees,  and other interested parties. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or  your staff have any questions about this report. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Other  GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In conducting our review, we obtained and analyzed information from the  federal Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, state  agencies, and local education agencies (LEA). We visited four states, and  in each state we interviewed staff from state agencies and LEAs, and  generally included one urban, one suburban, and one rural school district  in each state—for a total of 12 school districts. We also interviewed early  childhood education and child care policy experts and reviewed selected  current literature on state-sponsored prekindergarten programs.
For our fieldwork, we considered states that (1) had expanded programs  and aimed to serve all children whose families wanted them to attend, (2)  served large numbers of children in their prekindergarten programs, and  (3) had well-established programs. We attempted to include varied  program models and gave some priority to states that had studied their  efforts.
To determine how states designed their prekindergarten programs, we  interviewed state and local education officials and officials of 13  community-based organizations who were direct providers of state  prekindergarten services. We also reviewed documents related to states’  prekindergarten programs, including state laws, general program  information, state data on program participation and costs, curriculum  guides, content standards, and contracts governing collaborations with  community-based organizations. We obtained information to describe the  state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and reviewed the data for  reasonableness. We assessed reliability of specific information, including  estimates of age-eligible children and program expenditures, by  interviewing state officials in all four states about their data reliability  assessment processes. On the basis of this information, we concluded that  the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In  addition, we performed a detailed review of the methodology of a National  Institute for Early Education Research report and found it to be sufficient  for descriptive purposes. The data that were used for background  purposes were not independently verified.
To determine the potential implications of prekindergarten on other  programs that serve four-year-olds, we interviewed state child care  administrators, state and local Head Start association directors,  coordinators and program staff, as well as staff of local child care centers.  We also met with national and state representatives of the National Child  Care Association (an association of managers and owners of child care  centers) and related organizations, as well as state and local staff of child  care resource and referral offices. We also reviewed selected national and  state data on child care availability and prices. Finally, we interviewed  state officials regarding federal funds, including Title I of the Elementary  and Secondary Education Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Child Care and  Development Block Grant. We did not review the expenses of providers of  state prekindergarten services to ascertain the extent, if any, to which  federal funds or other revenues may have subsidized provision of  prekindergarten.
To determine what is known about the impacts of prekindergarten  programs on children and families in the states visited, we interviewed  state and local education officials and local policy experts. We also  identified two studies on children’s outcomes that met our selection  criteria: studies that (1) analyzed student achievement and (2) compared  prekindergarten children with a control or comparison group of children  who did not attend the state-sponsored prekindergarten programs. To  collect information systematically, we developed a data collection  instrument and examined each study to assess the adequacy of the  samples and measures employed, the reasonableness and rigor of the  statistical techniques used to analyze them, and the validity of the results  and conclusions that were drawn from the analyses. A social scientist read  and coded the documentation for each study. A second social scientist  reviewed each completed data collection instrument and the relevant  documentation to verify the accuracy of every coded item. We found these  two studies to be sufficiently reliable and rigorous to include in our report.
We did not identify any studies that assessed the impact of these  prekindergarten programs on working families such as workforce  participation.
We conducted our work between October 2003 and August 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: The following people also made important contributions to this report:  Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Shana Wallace, Alison Martin, Jean McSween,  Barbara Hills, Susan Bernstein, Amy Buck, and Daniel Schwimer.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed to Monitor  Underenrollment. GAO-04-17. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2003.
Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates  and Providing Access for Low-Income Children. GAO-02-894.  Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2003.
Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess  Program Effects. GAO-01-542. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001.
Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging Effect  on School Readiness Difficult. GAO-00-171. Washington, D.C.: September  20, 2000.
Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess  Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28,  2000.
Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children  Significant but Effectiveness Unclear. GAO/T-HEHS-00-83. Washington,  D.C.: April 11, 2000.
Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of  School Readiness Information. GAO/HEHS-00-38. Washington, D.C.:  February 28, 2000.
Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low- Income Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington, D.C.: November 15,  1999.