Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed to Monitor Underenrollment
Published: 2003-12-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Head Start, created in 1965, is designed to prepare low-income preschool children for school by providing a comprehensive set of early child development services primarily through communitybased organizations. Over the last decade there have been a number of changes in Head Start's operating environment, including a decrease in the number of poor children; an increase in the number, size, and scope of other federal and state early childhood programs; and an expansion in Head Start spending and enrollment. Given this environment, GAO was asked to determine (1) what is known about the extent to which Head Start programs are underenrolled, (2) ACF regional officials' and Head Start grantees' views on what factors contribute to underenrollment, and (3) what actions ACF and grantees have taken to address underenrollment.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The extent to which Head Start programs have enrolled fewer children than they are funded to serve is unknown because the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) does not collect accurate national data and does not monitor underenrollment in a uniform or timely manner. While some modest fluctuations in enrollment are to be expected, regional offices had differing definitions of unacceptable underenrollment, and the approaches they used to identify it were either not timely or not systematic. The regional offices identified a total of about 7 percent of grantees as unacceptably underenrolled in 2001-02, significantly less than the percentage of grantees reporting enrollment ratios below 100 and 95 percent on ACF's survey of grantees. As a result of differences in regional definitions of what constitutes an unacceptable level of underenrollment, grantees with similar levels of underenrollment may be treated differently across regions. ACF regional officials and officials of underenrolled Head Start grantees often cited a mixture of factors that made it difficult to achieve full enrollment, including increased parental demand for full-day child care, a decrease in the number of eligible children, facilities-related problems, and more parents seeking openings with other sponsors of early education and care. ACF national and regional offices and grantees all report taking action to address underenrollment through the issuance of guidance, increased monitoring by regional offices, and more aggressive outreach attempts by grantees. The ACF national office issued a memo in April 2003 that instructed regional offices to address underenrollment with a variety of measures depending on its causes. While this guidance was clear on the actions to be taken, it lacked clear criteria for prioritizing grantees for corrective actions. Also, while many grantees we spoke with had taken steps to address underenrollment, some told us of their concern to maintain total funded enrollment levels, even as they were converting unfilled part-day openings to full-day. While 18 of the 25 grantees we contacted had made progress toward full enrollment, others cited continuing problems.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Head Start is the largest federal early childhood program, funded at about  $6.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. Created in 1965, Head Start is designed to  prepare poor children for school by providing a comprehensive set of  developmental services. The Administration for Children and Families  (ACF) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  administers the program. Over the last decade, the Head Start program has  expanded substantially. Between fiscal years 1990 and 2002,  appropriations for Head Start quadrupled from $1.6 billion to over   $6.5 billion, and the number of children served increased by 69 percent  from about 540,000 to over 910,000.
Over the past decade, significant changes to Head Start’s environment may  have created challenges for some Head Start grantees when they tried to  find children to fill funded slots. For example, in the 1990s there was a  decline in welfare caseloads following welfare reform and a decline in the  number of children living in poverty, which may have decreased the  number of children eligible for Head Start. At the same time, the  expansion of other federal and state early childhood programs may have  increased child care options available to Head Start-eligible families.  Consequently, it is possible that federally funded Head Start slots in some  areas remain unfilled even while eligible children elsewhere remain on  waiting lists. Given these potential challenges, and in anticipation of Head  Start’s reauthorization, you asked that we determine the extent to which  Head Start grantees were underenrolled and that we identify potential  causes of underenrollment. As agreed with your offices, our review  addresses: (1) what is known about the extent to which Head Start  programs are underenrolled, (2) what factors may have contributed to  underenrollment, and (3) what actions ACF and grantees have taken to  address underenrollment.
To determine what is known about the extent to which Head Start  programs are underenrolled, we attempted to verify the accuracy of  national enrollment data, interviewed ACF headquarters officials, and  reviewed federal guidance and regulations on enrollment. Because we  determined that national enrollment data were not reliable and because  the regional offices have primary responsibility for identifying and  addressing underenrollment, we surveyed all 10 ACF regional offices and  the American Indian-Alaska Native Program Branch. We asked them to  identify the threshold below which they consider underenrollment to be  unacceptable and to identify grantees with enrollment levels beneath this  threshold. To gather further details on the process by which regions  identify and address underenrollment, we interviewed regional officials in  3 regions—region III (covering Delaware, the District of Columbia,  Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), region V (Illinois,  Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin), and region IX  (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Insular Areas)— selected on the basis of geographical representation and the number of  underenrolled grantees they reported to us. To determine what factors  ACF officials and Head Start grantees believed contributed to  underenrollment and to identify actions they took to address it, we  surveyed all 10 ACF regional offices and the American Indian-Alaska  Native Program Branch office, selected and interviewed 25 grantees  identified by regional offices as unacceptably underenrolled, and  conducted site visits to 3 regional offices listed above. We performed our  work between May and October 2003 in accordance with generally  accepted government accounting standards. Appendix I further describes  our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Head Start was designed to help break the cycle of poverty by providing  comprehensive educational, social, health, nutritional, and psychological  services to low-income children. Head Start is authorized to serve children  at any age prior to compulsory school attendance. Originally, the program  was aimed at 3- to 5-year-olds. A companion program begun in 1994, Early  Head Start, made these services available to children from birth to 3 years  of age as well as to pregnant women. Head Start and Early Head Start  programs are administered by ACF, which funds and monitors more than  1,500 grantees through its 10 regional and 2 branch offices. (See fig. 1)  ACF’s national office has responsibility for overseeing and providing  guidance to the regional offices, as well as for administering and collecting  annual survey data from grantees.
Head Start grantees include community action agencies, school systems,  for-profit and nonprofit organizations, other government agencies, and  tribal governments or associations. Also, many Head Start grantees  provide services by subcontracting with other organizations, known as  delegate agencies. In fiscal year 2002, Head Start grantees served more  than 912,000 children, a 69 percent increase over the number of children  served in 1990. Head Start has traditionally been a part-day, part-year  program, but currently serves more children on a full-day basis, which is  defined as 6 hours or more a day, than on a part-day basis. Approximately  47 percent of children served by Head Start were enrolled in a center- based full-day program for 6 hours or more a day. Less than 20 percent of  children enrolled in Head Start receive 8 hours or more of center-based  services a day. As of 2001-02, about 44 percent of Head Start children were  enrolled in a part-day center-based program. Figure 2 shows the  percentages of Head Start services provided on a full-day or part-day basis.
Head Start funds are allotted among the states based on their 1998  allocation and, for funds exceeding that amount, by formula based on the  number of children in each state under the age of 5 from families whose  income is below the federal poverty level. Head Start grantees are  required to provide at least 20 percent of annual program funding, which  can include in-kind contributions, such as facilities for holding classes.  During the award process, Head Start grantees receive from ACF regional  officials their level of funded enrollment—the number of children the  grantee is to serve.
Head Start regulations require that at least 90 percent of the children  enrolled in Head Start come from families with incomes at or below the  federal poverty guidelines, from families receiving public assistance, or  from families caring for a foster child. While the poverty guidelines are  firm, grantees have some flexibility in determining income eligibility. For  example, grantees can use the 12 months prior to the month the family  applied to Head Start or the previous calendar year as a basis for  determining income eligibility. Also, once a family is determined to be  eligible in 1 program year, it is considered eligible for the subsequent  program year, for a total of 2 years. Additionally, families that participate  in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) or the  Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) or that care for a foster  child are eligible for Head Start services even when family income exceeds  the poverty guidelines. Grantees may fill up to 10 percent of their slots  with children from families that exceed the low-income guidelines.
An enrollment occurs when a Head Start program officially accepts a child  and completes all necessary steps to begin providing services. If a child is  chronically absent and the grantee cannot serve the child in another way,  the child’s slot is considered vacant. Once a slot is vacant, the grantee  generally must fill it within 30 days to be considered fully enrolled.  Consequently, actual enrollments can fluctuate somewhat throughout  funding periods. Head Start regulations require grantees to track program  attendance on a daily basis. However, grantees are asked to annually  report enrollment levels for any 2 months they choose as part of ACF’s  annual Program Information Report (PIR) survey. ACF regions may  require grantees to report enrollment data more frequently.
Head Start regulations require grantees to maintain enrollment at 100  percent of the funded level and regional offices have primary  responsibility for identifying and addressing underenrollment. However,  as a practical matter, not all grantees are able to continually sustain  enrollment at the fully funded level. Underenrollment can occur for a  variety of reasons and can vary from month to month in a given program.  Therefore, before deciding that underenrollment is unacceptable and  taking action, the regions take into consideration a variety of factors about  underenrollment, including its level and duration, its causes, and the  actions taken by grantees to address it.
The number of children eligible for Head Start services on the basis of  being below the poverty line has decreased over the last decade, falling  from over 6 million children in 1992 to just over 4 million in 2000. By 2002,  the number of children under age 6 living in poverty had increased to  nearly 4.3 million. Over the same period, Head Start enrollment has  increased to over 910,000 children—a level that is significantly below the  number of children living in poverty. (See fig. 3.) However, it should be  noted that Head Start predominately serves children ages 3 and 4, who  make up only a portion of all children under 6 living in poverty.
In addition, during the 1990s, the number of other federal and state  programs offering services to low-income children increased substantially.  For example, welfare reform in 1996 greatly expanded the Child Care  Development Fund (CCDF) and also allowed TANF funds to be used for  child care. For fiscal years 1997 through 2002, these programs increased  their investment in children; CCDF spending increased from $2.5 billion to  $6.4 billion and TANF spending on child care increased from $13 million to  $1.6 billion. (See fig. 4.) On the state level, one study cited by the  Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that state spending on  prekindergarten programs increased from about $700 million in 1991-92 to  about $1.7 billion in 1998-99. Over the same period, the number of  children served by these programs has increased from 290,000 to 725,000.
Expanding federal and state early childhood programs has increased the  need for coordination to better ensure that services are provided in a  complementary fashion. One way that Head Start encourages coordination  is by requiring all grantees to periodically prepare community assessments  that analyze trends in the number of eligible children in their jurisdictions  and assess the other early childhood services provided in the area. While  grantees are not required to coordinate with other service providers, ACF  has issued guidance encouraging grantees to coordinate with other  providers in order to provide more full-day services. Also, in recent years,  ACF has used some Head Start expansion money to build partnerships  with child care providers to deliver full-day, full-year services. As another  way to increase coordination, HHS has been authorized since 1998 to  provide additional funds to states to encourage such collaboration.
section_title: The Extent to Which Head Start Programs Are Underenrolled is Not Known
paragraphs: The extent to which Head Start programs are underenrolled is unknown  because ACF does not collect accurate national data and it does not  monitor grantee enrollment in a uniform or timely way. Specifically,  national enrollment data contain many inaccuracies and regional offices  use a variety of thresholds to define “unacceptable” levels of  underenrollment. Additional approaches used by the regions to identify  underenrollment do not systematically address underenrollment or  provide timely information. Using varying thresholds, the regional offices  identified 170 grantees as unacceptably underenrolled in program year  2001-02, or about 7 percent of all grantees. By contrast, the agency’s  annual survey data indicated that as many as half or more of the grantees  were enrolled at less than 100 percent—the enrollment level grantees are  required to maintain under Head Start regulations.  Overall, regions’ use of  different thresholds for unacceptable underenrollment suggests that  regions may treat grantees with similar enrollment ratios differently.
subsections: section_title: ACF Annual Grantee Surveys Contain Inaccurate Enrollment Data
paragraphs: ACF’s annual survey of grantees—the only source of nationwide  information on grantee enrollment rates—contained many inaccuracies.  The PIR survey, as it is known, requests actual enrollment figures for any   2 months that grantees choose to report. When we attempted to verify  2001-02 PIR enrollment data for 19 of the grantees, we found that 8 had  reported erroneously. For 6 underenrolled grantees, we found they  underreported their enrollment ratio by an average of 25 percent. We also  found that 2 overenrolled grantees had erroneously reported enrollment  ratios that were over 200 percent. A similar review by ACF of 75 grantees  and delegate agencies that had reported particularly high or low  enrollment levels found that approximately half had erroneously reported  their actual numbers. GAO and ACF found a variety of causes that  grantees cited for misreported enrollments, including typographical errors,  failure to report children who were enrolled in the home-based or after- school programs, and reporting on 2 months in which enrollment was not  their highest.
section_title: Regional Monitoring Efforts Employed Varied Criteria and Lacked Timely Data
paragraphs: We found that ACF regional offices employed different criteria and used a  variety of data sources and approaches to determine if a grantee is  underenrolled. Given that regional offices are responsible for identifying  and monitoring underenrollment, we asked regional offices to identify  their operational criterion for an unacceptable level of underenrollment.  Of 11 regional offices we surveyed, we found that 3 did not utilize a  specific threshold to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable  underenrollment, while the other 8 offices used different thresholds. Each  of the 3 regions that did not have a set threshold for “unacceptable”  underenrollment indicated that underenrollment was treated on a case-by- case basis that would take into consideration the degree of  underenrollment and other factors, including the grantee’s efforts to  increase enrollment. For the regions that specified thresholds of  “unacceptable” underenrollment, these thresholds ranged from any  enrollment ratio below 100 percent in 3 regions to below 74 percent in one  region (See table 1.)
ACF regional offices reported that they identify unacceptable  underenrollment primarily by visiting grantees every 3 years and also by  engaging grantees in periodic dialogue. More than half of the regions also  said that they relied heavily on PIR data and on their review of grant- refunding applications. Finally, 5 regions indicated that they rely to a great  extent on their reviews of annual audits of grantees. Table 2 presents the  extent to which regional offices rely on various approaches to identify  underenrollment.
Each of the approaches used by regional offices to monitor enrollment is  lacking in timeliness or accuracy, or is not used systematically to monitor  underenrollment. For example, in 3 regions we visited, ACF officials  commented that while the on-site visits are designed to systematically  assess underenrollment, the visits do not provide timely information  because they are only conducted every 3 years. Conversely, while most  regional officials we surveyed said that they rely on periodic discussions  with grantees to identify underenrolled grantees, regional officials we  visited said that they do not systematically discuss enrollment levels with  grantees during this process. Officials from one region we interviewed also  said that enrollment data included in grant re-funding applications are not  informative because the data are based on forecasts. Also, while surveyed  officials listed the PIR data as a key resource, those we spoke with said it  was not necessarily accurate or timely due to the fact that data arrive after  the subsequent program year has begun. Finally, regarding the use of  annual audits, regional officials we spoke with said they did not always  receive them for all grantees and that the audits they did receive do not  necessarily comment on grantee enrollments.
section_title: National Data on the Extent of Underenrollment Differs from Regionally Reported Data on Number of Unacceptably Underenrolled Grantees
paragraphs: Applying a range of underenrollment thresholds to national data indicates  that a higher percentage of grantees may be underenrolled than what was  reported to us by regional offices. Regional offices, using a range of  enrollment thresholds, reported to us that about 7 percent of grantees  were unacceptably underenrolled. Comparatively, PIR survey data  indicated that more than 50 percent of Head Start grantees had enrollment  ratios below 100 percent—the regulatory definition of fully enrolled. PIR  data also showed a significantly higher proportion of grantees—33  percent—reported enrollment ratios below 95 percent than the 7 percent  of grantees reported as unacceptably underenrolled by the regional  offices. Finally, PIR data showed that a similar proportion of grantees— about 9 percent—reported an enrollment ratio below 80 percent as the   7 percent of unacceptably underenrolled grantees reported to us by the  regions. (See fig. 5.)
The portion of grantees that regions reported as unacceptably  underenrolled differed from what would have been identified by applying  the regional threshold to national PIR data. When compared with the  percentage of unacceptably underenrolled grantees reported by regions,  PIR data show larger percentages of grantees below these thresholds for  each region that specified a threshold. This was true even in regions that  indicated they relied on PIR data to a great or very great extent. (See table  3). For example, region V, using a threshold of 100 percent for  unacceptable underenrollment, reported to us that slightly less than 2  percent of its grantees were unacceptably underenrolled in 2001-02. PIR  data from that same year indicate that about 62 percent of region V  grantees had enrollment ratios less than 100 percent—a difference of 60  percentage points from what was reported to us. In fact, only regions III  and VII, of the 7 regions in table 3 with clearly defined thresholds for  unacceptable underenrollment, reported to us a percentage of  unacceptably underenrolled grantees that was within 10 percentage points  of what PIR data show using the same threshold. While we do not think  that PIR data are reliable for reporting national enrollment figures, the  regional offices based what they reported to us in part on their review of  PIR data.
section_title: Differing Definitions of Underenrollment Create Potential for Uneven Treatment of Grantees across Regions
paragraphs: As a result of differences in regional definitions of what constitutes an  unacceptable level of underenrollment, grantees with similar levels of  underenrollment may be treated differently across regions, particularly in  areas without a defined threshold. Regional offices reported to us that  they take a variety of actions to address unacceptable underenrollment,  including increased monitoring, technical assistance, and, occasionally,  enforcement actions, including recouping funds and reducing future grant  awards. To the extent that differing thresholds affect the identification of  deficiencies that would lead to these actions, regions may subject grantees  to different treatment. For example, as shown in table 4, although a higher  percentage of grantees in region II have enrollment levels below 95  percent than in region III, according to PIR data (44 percent versus 18  percent), region II considers only 3 percent of its grantees unacceptably  underenrolled, while region III considers 14 percent of its grantees  unacceptably underenrolled. This discrepancy may be attributable to the  fact that region II lacks a threshold for defining unacceptable enrollment,  while region III has set a threshold of 97 percent. As a result, more  grantees in region III have been subject to monitoring and enforcement  actions.
section_title: Regional and Grantee Officials Often Cited Combinations of Factors as Responsible for Underenrollment
paragraphs: ACF regional officials and officials of underenrolled Head Start grantees  often cited a mixture of factors that made it difficult to achieve full  enrollment, including increased parental demand for full-day child care  and a decrease in the number of eligible children. Many said welfare  reform has increased the number of working parents, increasing demand  for full-day child care and reducing the number of eligible children. Also,  more than one-half of the grantees we interviewed reported they were  having difficulty acquiring and developing adequate facilities. Meanwhile,  underenrolled grantees and ACF regional officials also said that  underenrollment was occurring because more parents were seeking  services with other early education and child care programs, some of  which subsidized care with relatives. Other contributing factors, such as  eligible families moving from the service area, language, and cultural  differences between children’s families and program staff, and weak or  inadequate recruiting efforts by the grantees, were less frequently cited.
subsections: section_title: Multiple Factors Often Linked to Underenrollment
paragraphs: Many grantees indicated that the combination of multiple factors had  fostered underenrollment for their program. Nearly two-thirds of the  underenrolled grantees we spoke with cited two or more contributing  factors. For example, one northern California grantee believed that  underenrollment was caused by a decrease in income-eligible children in  its area, because the high cost of living and a shortage of affordable  housing in the area, and also by the number of families moving from  welfare to work. In addition to citing the decrease in eligible children, this  grantee expressed a need for more full-day slots, and reported facing  increasing competition from day care programs that reimbursed relatives  or friends to provide full-time child care. Similarly, one New Jersey  grantee experiencing problems acquiring a new facility was also affected  by a state supreme court decision requiring free preschool for poor  children. Additionally, this grantee felt that it was losing eligible children  as a result of families on welfare finding jobs and needing more full-day  slots. A commonly cited combination of factors—cited by 8 of the 25  grantees we interviewed—was the simultaneous shortage of full-day slots  and the movement of families out of welfare and into the workforce.
section_title: Increased Demand for Full-day Care, Facilities Problems, and Increased Availability of Other Programs Most Frequently Cited as Affecting Underenrollment
paragraphs: Regional and grantee officials most frequently cited the increased demand  for full-day child care, construction delays and inadequate facilities, and  the increased availability of early education and child care programs as the  factors causing underenrollment. Other factors, such as high turnover  rates and income eligibility criteria were also cited, but less frequently.  Each of the factors affecting underenrollment that grantees and regions  cited is described in more detail in the following sections. Appendix II lists  the factors identified by regions as contributing to grantee  underenrollment, and appendix III lists factors identified by grantees.
subsections: section_title: Grantees and Regions Said Movement of Families from Welfare to Work Affected Enrollment and Increased Demand for Full-day Care
paragraphs: Both regional and grantee officials said that the movement of low-income  families from welfare to work had contributed to underenrollment. Seven  of 11 regions cited the movement of low-income families from welfare to  work as either a major or a moderate reason for grantees’  underenrollments. Similarly, of the 25 grantees we contacted, 11 cited this  factor. Regional officials and grantees suggested the movement from  welfare to work affected enrollments in two ways. First, as many parents  began to work full-time, they increasingly needed full-day care. When  Head Start grantees could not meet this need, some eligible families  secured child care elsewhere. Second, some families entered work and  earned income that disqualified their children from Head Start programs.  A number of grantees related specific examples of how the movement  from welfare to work affected enrollments. For example,    A large grantee in Illinois said that many former welfare recipients who  need full-day child care services no longer qualify for Head Start because  they earn wages just above the Head Start income guidelines or work  rotating schedules to avoid using formal child care services.
A grantee in California said that the cost associated with switching to full- day care sometimes is a barrier to meeting families’ needs.
section_title: Construction Delays and Inadequate Facilities Affected Enrollments
paragraphs: Of the 25 underenrolled grantees we surveyed, 14 reported that difficulty  acquiring and developing adequate facilities contributed to  underenrollment. Similarly, over half of the 11 regions reported that  underenrollment was linked to a major or moderate extent to facilities  being completed more slowly than expected. For example, an Eastern  grantee was unable to serve children in need of full-day care because it  lacked classrooms and found it difficult to acquire more space. In the  Midwest, 2 grantees reported that their inadequate facilities kept them  from filling about 1,800 funded slots—43 percent of their funded slots— even though many eligible families desired Head Start services for their  children. The grantees said that they had difficulty acquiring alternate  facilities: some potential sites were environmentally unsuitable, while  others faced neighborhood opposition. In another case, an American  Indian grantee that had 25 unfilled Early Head Start slots expects to  achieve 100 percent enrollment in the fall of 2003 when a new facility is  scheduled to open.
section_title: Other Early Education and Child Care Programs Can Affect Enrollments
paragraphs: Regional and grantee officials often indicated that competition from other  early education or child care centers serving low-income preschool  children contributed to Head Start underenrollment. Seven of 11 regions  cited this factor as a major or moderate contributor to underenrollment,  and 8 of 25 grantees we interviewed identified this factor. In addition, 5  grantees said that a closely related factor also reduced families’ use of  Head Start—the availability of state subsidies to pay relatives or friends  for child care.
Officials in 2 regions provided specific examples of increased availability  of other programs having a negative impact on Head Start enrollment.  According to region V officials, the availability of other programs had a  major impact on a large grantee in Michigan when the public school  system increased its preschool programming and as a result increased the  options available to Head Start-eligible children. As a result, the grantee  sustained a shortfall of almost 2,000 children.
Grantees also reported specific examples of increased availability of other  programs having a negative impact on Head Start enrollment:    A large underenrolled grantee on the East Coast said that availability of  prekindergarten programs at public and charter schools is the most  important reason its delegate agencies are underenrolled.
A medium-sized grantee in Oklahoma with 454 funded slots indicated that  in the 2001-02 school year, the local public school started a preschool  program for 4-year-old children that resulted in a slight decline in Head  Start enrollments at some of its service centers.
Officials representing a smaller grantee in Georgia with 161 funded slots  said that their program was affected in 2001-02 when the state funded a  prekindergarten program in public schools. Specifically, the grantee said  that some children who had been pre-enrolled for Head Start switched to  the state-funded program.
Regional and grantee officials also indicated that state subsidies for  unlicensed child care caused some grantees to be underenrolled. Officials  of region IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Pacific Insular  Areas) said that increasingly, low-income parents make use of state child  care subsidies to pay for child-care exempt from licensing standards, such  as care provided by friends or nonresident relatives. Region IX officials  believed this had a significant impact on reducing Head Start program  enrollments. In another example, a grantee in Pennsylvania saw its  enrollments drop after the state allowed parents to use state child care  subsidies to pay nonlicensed child care providers such as relatives and  friends. In another instance, a grantee in California said that since its  program primarily offers part-day/part-year services, many families chose  to use subsidized, license-exempt care by relatives or friends who can  provide full-day or part-day care.
section_title: Other Factors Affected Enrollments, but Were Cited Less Frequently
paragraphs: Less frequently, regions and grantees also cited other factors as negatively  influencing Head Start enrollment. Eight grantees indicated that eligible  families had moved from their service areas, often because of the high cost  of living, increasing underenrollment. Three regions also reported that  high turnover rates among enrolled children contributed moderately to  underenrollment.
Five grantees indicated that the income-eligibility criterion for Head Start  was too low in their high-cost areas. For example, 4 underenrolled  California grantees said that even relatively poor families were disqualified  from Head Start participation because their incomes, though inadequate to  meet the basic costs in the local area, were above the federal poverty  guidelines. Officials of an underenrolled grantee in Oakland indicated that  during the 2002-03 program year they had denied Head Start services to  over 100 families because their incomes exceeded the current poverty  guidelines. The other three California grantees said that they were also  turning families away because they were slightly over the income  guidelines. Grantees said that families just over the federal poverty  guideline cannot afford to send their children to education and child care  programs equivalent in quality to Head Start programs.
Four regions cited inadequate program management factors, such as weak  recruitment efforts, as a major or moderate contributor to  underenrollment. Five grantees also cited such factors as inhibiting Head  Start enrollments. Inadequate program management was characterized by  weak recruitment efforts, not developing or using waiting lists of Head  Start-eligible children, and planning enrollment expansions poorly. For  example, a grantee in Pennsylvania agreed to expand enrollment by 144  slots, and although the grantee received increased funding in the 2000-2001  program year, grantee officials said they had difficulty filling the additional  slots because of inadequate planning by the previous management team.
Three grantees in California noted that language and cultural differences  between eligible Head Start families and program staff complicated  outreach and consequently reduced enrollments from some minority  groups. One grantee indicated that families in its service area spoke over  25 languages at home. Another grantee said it was difficult to find staff  that spoke the same languages as the families needing service.
section_title: ACF and Grantees Use a Variety of Approaches to Address Underenrollment
paragraphs: ACF national and regional offices and grantees all report taking action to  address underenrollment, such as issuing guidance, increasing monitoring,  and attempting to conduct broader outreach efforts. The ACF national  office issued a memorandum instructing regional offices to address  underenrollment, and all ACF regions we surveyed said that they have  increased their monitoring efforts. Some ACF regions have also taken  action to reduce grantees’ funding and recoup federal funds. Many  grantees we spoke with have increased outreach efforts, sought partners  to help provide more full-day services, and increased the capacity of  physical facilities. While 18 of the 25 grantees we contacted had made  progress toward achieving full enrollment, others cited continuing  challenges.
subsections: section_title: ACF-Issued Guidance for Managing Underenrollment Lacks Specific Criteria for Priority Review and Corrective Action
paragraphs: In April 2003, ACF headquarters issued policy guidance to its regional  offices instructing them to take specific actions with underenrolled  grantees, although it provided no particular instructions for the review  process or any criteria for prioritizing grantees for corrective action. The  guidance instructs regional officials to address underenrollment  depending on four possible causes. For example, if the grantee can  demonstrate that an inappropriate program option is causing  underenrollment, the guidance instructs regions to carefully consider  grantee requests to make changes to their services, such as converting  current part-day slots to full-day slots. The four causes identified in the  guidance and the recommended actions are summarized in table 5.
The April guidance does not suggest any systematic process for identifying  underenrolled grantees, nor does it specify criteria for prioritizing when  grantees should be subject to corrective action based on their level of  underenrollment. One regional official said that the lack of a threshold  offered no gauge for establishing priorities and intensifying monitoring  efforts.
section_title: Regional Officials Reported Intervening with Underenrolled Grantees to Correct Underenrollment
paragraphs: The ACF regions we surveyed reported taking a variety of actions to  address underenrollment ranging from providing assistance to recouping  federal funds in some cases. Officials in all 11 regions responded that they  had taken at least one action to ensure that grantees address  underenrollment. The interventions taken most often were to monitor  enrollment levels (55 grantees), track improvement efforts (43), and  provide training and technical assistance (30). Notably, 4 regions provided  additional funds to a total of 18 underenrolled grantees to purchase or  renovate facilities. Somewhat less often, regions took action to reduce  funded enrollment levels or recoup funds. Specifically, only 2 regions  reported that they recouped funds from a total of 6 underenrolled  grantees. (See table 6.)
As noted earlier, many regions and grantees said the need for full-day  services was a major factor fostering underenrollment. As part of their  efforts to assist grantees in providing more full-day services, some ACF  regional officials told us they had encouraged grantees to collaborate with  other programs or had provided additional funds to purchase or renovate  facilities. However, such efforts can be costly. For example, region V  officials told us that it costs more to provide full-day care than part-day  care because full-day care requires more facility space and staff per child.
section_title: Underenrolled Grantees Report Taking Some Remedial Actions
paragraphs: Grantees we interviewed took a variety of actions to address  underenrollment, including more aggressive recruiting efforts,  collaborating with other preschool and child care programs, and  increasing slots in selected program options such as home-based services.  Most grantees we contacted said that they had taken one or more actions.  The most frequently mentioned was more aggressive recruiting followed  by collaboration with other programs. For example, a large grantee in New  York State that faced increased demand for full-day care since welfare  reform collaborated increasingly with other child care providers to piece  together a package of full-day services. Nine grantees also reported trying  to increase physical facilities capacity. (See table 7.) Other actions taken  to address underenrollment, which were cited by 3 or fewer grantees,  included improving the tracking or monitoring of enrollment  opportunities, hiring multilingual staff, reducing the number of funded  slots, and providing contractual incentives for delegate agencies to  maintain full enrollment.
section_title: Grantees Cite Obstacles to Providing Additional Full- Day Care
paragraphs: The costs of transitioning part-day, double sessions, to full-day services have never been  fully understood and no national process has emerged to assist grantees and regional  offices to address this problem. The major costs often include facilities and additional  staffing (where only two and one-half staff are needed for a double session, four to six are  needed to staff a full-day session, depending on the number of hours the option operates).
Such fixed costs would require a reduction in the number of slots (children enrolled) or an  increase in funding in order to transition from part-day double sessions to two full-day  sessions.
While these two grantees expressed concern over a lack of guidance, it  should be noted that there is national guidance on budgeting for  partnerships between child care and Head Start and on financial  management issues in Head Start programs utilizing other funding  sources.
Furthermore, grantees told us of their concern to maintain total funded  enrollment levels, even as they were converting unfilled part-day openings  to full-day. According to region V officials, this concern to maintain  enrollment levels may be in keeping with national efforts to serve a greater  number of needy children. For example, one underenrolled grantee said  that ACF suggested several alternatives to address underenrollment,  including converting part-day to full-day slots, but would not permit the  grantee to reduce funded slots as a way to address underenrollment.  Consequently, while converting part-day slots to full-day slots, the grantee  would have had to expand its facilities or find other child care partners in  order to serve the same number of children.
section_title: Grantees Reported Mixed Results Resolving Underenrollments
paragraphs: Some grantees reported success addressing underlying factors  contributing to underenrollment, while others did not. Of the 25  underenrolled grantees that we contacted, 18 (72 percent) indicated that  their underenrollment had either been corrected (10 grantees) or would be  corrected shortly (8 grantees). These 18 grantees overcame a variety of  factors that they said affected underenrollment. For example, 6 of these 18  grantees overcame a shortage of available full-day slots and 8 managed to  fill slots lost due to a decline in eligible children attributed to declining  TANF rolls. The 7 grantees that had not made progress addressing  underenrollment often cited similar issues. For example, 3 of these   7 grantees said they had faced challenges resulting from decreasing TANF  caseloads and were unable to respond to the increased demand for full- day services. On the basis of our limited number of interviews, we could  not determine why some grantees reported they were able to successfully  address problems that other grantees could not.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Because ACF has no reliable nationwide data on enrollment, it is not  possible for the agency to identify and track underenrollment trends and  to develop strategies to ensure that federally funded Head Start slots are  filled. While we could not determine with any precision the extent to  which there is underenrollment, our survey work and analysis indicate it is  possible that underenrollment is more widespread than ACF has  acknowledged. The complexity of factors buffeting Head Start grantees  underscores the need for ACF to accurately identify underenrollment and  its causes on a timely basis. Even if ACF corrects national survey data  issues, there is no guarantee that its regions will know of underenrollment  in a timely manner because the main national data source is not available  until the following program year.
Furthermore, because ACF regions vary in how they define unacceptable  levels of underenrollment and because they rely on approaches to identify  grantees that are not timely or consistent, there is some indication that  Head Start grantees with similar levels of underenrollment are treated  differently across regions. ACF guidance to the regions on how to address  different types of underenrollment is a good first step toward a more  systematic approach to underenrollment. However, until ACF issues  guidance that more clearly explains how to prioritize grantees with  varying levels of underenrollment for purposes of corrective action,  regions are likely to continue using varied criteria or none at all. Also, until  more timely and systematic approaches are developed for regions to  identify underenrolled grantees, it is possible that low enrollment will go  undetected and federal dollars will not be fully utilized for low-income  children who could benefit from Head Start’s program goals.
Finally, it appears that there may be a perceived incentive for  underenrolled grantees to maintain or increase enrollments due, in part, to  ACF’s emphasis on counting the total number of children served  irrespective of whether they are enrolled part-day or full-day. Measuring  Head Start enrollments without capturing the difference in level of service  provided by full-day or part-day programs adds to the difficulty of meeting  local needs and adjusting to changes in those needs. Until ACF can get a  better grasp of the nature and size of underenrollment and align program  incentives with family needs, it may be a challenge for Head Start to best  meet the needs of some families it could serve.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of HHS direct ACF to (1) take steps to  ensure the accuracy of enrollment data reported in its annual nationwide  survey of grantees, (2) develop a standard criterion for regional offices to  use in identifying grantees whose underenrollment merits monitoring or  corrective actions, (3) develop an additional measure of aggregate services  other than total enrollment that takes into consideration the different  levels of service provided by full-day and part-day programs, and (4) work  with regional offices to develop a more systematic process for them to  collect reliable enrollment data during the program year so that they can  address underenrollment more quickly.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and Human  Services for review and comment. In its written response, included as  appendix IV of this report, HHS agreed with our recommendations and  indicated that it will take action to address each recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human  Services and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any further questions about this report, please  call me on (202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope And Methodology
paragraphs: To determine what is known about the extent to which Head Start  programs are underenrolled, we assessed the reliability of PIR enrollment  data, conducted interviews, reviewed program documentation, and  surveyed ACF regional offices. Specifically, we assessed the reliability of  the PIR data on grantee enrollment by (1) performing electronic testing of  key data elements for obvious errors in completeness and accuracy,   (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that  produces it, and (3) contacting 19 underenrolled and overenrolled  grantees selected across a range of reported enrollment ratios. We did not  assess the reliability of other PIR data used in the report. We also  interviewed ACF headquarters officials, reviewed federal guidance and  regulations on enrollment, surveyed the regions and a branch office, and  interviewed regional officials in regions III, V, and IX. The 3 regions were  selected for site visits on the basis of geographical representation and the  number of underenrolled grantees they reported to us. Since ACF  oversight of Head Start grantees is primarily accomplished through its  regions and program branches, we designed a survey instrument in which  these entities could provide written responses to our specific requests for  such information as:  the methods the regions used to oversee grantee and delegate agency  enrollment levels; the threshold, if any, they had established for determining the point at  which a grantee or delegate agency’s level of underenrollment is  considered to be unacceptable;   a list of all grantees and delegate agencies that they believed had  unacceptable levels of underenrollment for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03  program years;  the reasons that they believed unacceptable levels of underenrollment had  occurred and the extent (major, moderate, minor, or none) that they  believed each identified reason had contributed to underenrollment; the actions they had taken to address the unacceptable level of  underenrollment for their grantees and delegate agencies.
We surveyed all 10 ACF regional offices and the American Indian-Alaska  Native Program Branch. The Migrant and Seasonal Program Branch was  excluded from our review because of its lack of comparability with the  other branch and regions caused by anticipated enrollment fluctuations  resulting from the seasonal movement of migrant families.
To determine ACF officials’ and Head Start grantees’ views on the factors  that contribute to underenrollment and to identify actions they took to  address underenrollment, we relied on our survey of the ACF regional  offices and the American Indian-Alaska Native Program Branch office as  well as a interviews with 27 grantees (1 of which was actually a delegate  agency) that had been identified by the regions as underenrolled. Twenty  grantees were contacted by telephone and 7 were interviewed face-to-face.  Two of the 27 grantees said that they had not experienced any  underenrollment; therefore, our grantee survey results were based on the  responses of 25 grantees that agreed with the regions’ designation of their  underenrolled status.
Using a standard set of questions, we interviewed at least 1 identified  grantee from each region or branch. In selecting grantees to be  interviewed, we chose 7 from the metropolitan areas of the 3 regions that  we visited so that we could conduct some of the interviews in person. The  other 20 grantees we interviewed were primarily selected from each region  based on having been identified as being underenrolled for 2 program  years (2001-02 and 2002-03). We also attempted to interview both grantees  that were funded for more than 500 slots and grantees that were funded  for fewer.
The grantee interview requested that grantee officials    describe the factors they believed contributed to the grantee’s  identify the actions the grantee had taken to address underenrollment, and indicate whether they believed that the grantee’s underenrollment had  been corrected.
Because of the lack of reliable enrollment data, the information we  collected regarding underenrollment was primarily testimonial. Apart from  assessing the basic consistency of interviewees’ responses with known  program characteristics, we did not independently test the information  they provided, such as reasons for underenrollment.
section_title: Appendix II: Factors That the ACF Regions Believed Contributed to Underenrollment to a Major or Moderate Extent
section_title: Appendix III: Factors that Grantees Believed Contributed to Their Head Start Programs’ Underenrollment
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Daniel Jacobsen, Lesley Woodburn,  Luann Moy, Barbara Johnson, James Rebbe, Susan Bernstein, and   Amy Buck made key contributions to the report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Education and Care: Head Start Key Among Array of Early Childhood  Programs, but National Research on Effectiveness Not Completed. GAO- 03-840T. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2003.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of  Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29,  2002.
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/HEHS-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.
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.
Head Start: Challenges in Monitoring Program Quality and  Demonstrating Results. GAO/HEHS-98-186. Washington, D.C.: June 30,  1998.
Head Start Programs: Participant Characteristics, Services, and  Funding. GAO/HEHS-98-65. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1998.