Head Start, a federal program that has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children since 1965, was last reauthorized in 1998 for fiscal years 1999-2003. The program has remained alive in subsequent years through the annual appropriations process. After unsuccessful efforts by the 108 th and 109 th Congresses to complete the reauthorization process, the 110 th Congress has undertaken the task. The House and Senate have each passed its own version of a reauthorization bill, the Senate version adopting the House bill's number ( H.R. 1429 ) and representing only a slightly modified version of the bill reported by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee ( S. 556 ). On November 9, 2007, House and Senate conferees filed a conference report ( H.Rept. 110-439 ). This report does not yet reflect the provisions contained in that agreement. The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 ( H.R. 1429 ) was introduced by Representative Kildee on March 9, 2007. The following week, the House Committee on Education and Labor debated, amended, and approved the bill (42-1), and the committee's written report accompanying the legislation ( H.Rept. 110-67 ) was filed on March 23, 2007. That bill was taken to the House floor on May 2, and was approved (with nine amendments) by a vote of 365-48. Twelve amendments in total were offered on the floor, in addition to a motion to recommit (which was rejected). The Head Start for School Readiness Act ( S. 556 ) was introduced by Senator Kennedy on February 12, 2007, and approved via voice vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on February 14. The Chairman's amended version of the bill was subsequently reported on March 29, 2007; a written report ( S.Rept. 110-49 ) was filed April 10, 2007. On June 19, the Senate passed (by voice vote under a unanimous consent agreement) its bill, adopting the bill number of the reauthorization bill that passed the House ( H.R. 1429 ), but substituting its own committee-reported bill language of S. 556 (with a few technical changes). Both reauthorization bills propose to amend Head Start with the purpose of improving the program's ability to promote low-income children's school readiness by supporting their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development. The means for doing so encompass a wide range of provisions, covering issues of program funding, administration, eligibility, accountability, quality, governance, and coordination. Below is an overview of broad areas addressed in the proposed legislation, followed by Table 1 , a detailed side-by-side comparison of each bill's provisions with current law (and, where relevant, current regulations). The areas listed below are not intended to encompass every provision included in each of the respective bills, but rather major areas addressed. The table does not reflect the provisions agreed to in conference. Despite the expiration of authorizing language, the Head Start program has continued to receive its funding through the annual appropriations process, most recently (FY2007) at a level of almost $6.9 billion. From FY1995-FY2003, the Head Start Act authorized funding Head Start at an unspecified dollar amount—"such sums as may be necessary." The reauthorization bills propose to increase funding for Head Start, with both bills designating a dollar amount ($7.350 billion) for FY2008. After FY2008, the House version of H.R. 1429 would authorize "such sums as may be necessary" for each of the remaining four years covered by the legislation, whereas the Senate version includes specific increases for FY2009 and FY2010, before once again mirroring the House bill with unspecified amounts for FY2011 and FY2012. Both bills propose changes with respect to the allocation of appropriated funds. Within the 13% currently reserved from the total appropriation for a variety of purposes, both bills introduce a greater level of specificity, assigning designated percentages (of the total appropriation) for allotments to Indian and Migrant Head Start programs. In the case of both bills, the percentages proposed reflect increases above the portion currently received (and not set in statute). The allocation formula for determining state allotments is changed in both bills to update the "hold harmless," or base amounts assured for the states. Appropriated funds available to states after allotting the hold harmless amounts would be distributed differently by the two bills. The House bill would continue to allot remaining funds based on states' relative shares of poor children under age 5, while the Senate bill introduces a new provision in which a portion of the remaining funds would be allocated based on the percentage of eligible children served by grantees within the state. Program quality is also addressed by the funding allocation provisions. The proposed legislation would maintain current law's practice of reserving a designated percentage of the aforementioned remainder funds for "quality improvement," with both bills proposing greater percentages for this purpose than under current law. Both bills elaborate on the uses of quality improvement funds. Both bills would increase the percentage of the total appropriation reserved for funding Early Head Start programs, with a caveat that these percentages may only be reached provided appropriation levels suffice. To compare the specifics of these and other funding-related provisions, see the portions of Table 1 that refer to Sections 639 and 640 of current law. Provisions designed to address issues of accountability take several forms. Both bills target accountability with respect to fiscal and program management, as well as accountability with respect to Head Start children's outcomes. Under both the House bill and Senate bill, agencies would be designated as a grantee for no more than five years at a time, after which recompetition may be required. (Under current law, grantees do not have to recompete for funds.) Only the House version would establish an application review system to be used during this process; however, both bills establish means for determining what constitutes a "high-performing" grantee, and those agencies not meeting the standard would be faced with recompetition. In order to be considered a high performing grantee under either bill, Head Start agencies would need to demonstrate competent financial management, as well as the ability to deliver a program high in quality, developmentally appropriate, and based on scientifically-based research and measures. Both bills add new language to current law, requiring programs' governing bodies to include individuals with expertise in fiscal matters. Both bills would introduce detailed definitions of "deficiency" into statute, along with provisions to help ensure that funding for any grantees or delegates unable or unwilling to correct deficiencies be suspended or terminated as necessary. As reflected in Table 1 , particularly within Sec. 641A, the two proposals often expand on current regulations with respect to corrective actions. Both bills emphasize the use of scientifically-based early childhood research as a basis for formulating educational measures for children and developing appropriate curricula that will lead to positive outcomes. Likewise, both would suspend use of the National Reporting System (NRS) in its current form, pending further review and recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences panel. The importance of effective and reliable screening and assessments in the Head Start program is stressed by both bills, accompanied by an emphasis on the value of ensuring that the tools used for screening and assessment be scientifically sound, based on the most up-to-date research in the field. Current law emphasizes shared governance and parent involvement within Head Start programs in general terms, leaving the details to regulation. Both versions of H.R. 1429 would introduce into statute more detailed provisions regarding program governance, clearly outlining the composition and responsibilities of both the governing bodies and the policy councils. The reports accompanying the legislation emphasize the committees' intent that a commitment be made to maintaining the structure of shared governance (between governing bodies and policy councils), with clear language that the governing bodies hold legal and fiscal accountability. The responsibilities of policy councils are stated in both bills, but using different language; both bills are more specific than current regulations. As in current regulations, both bills make reference to the need for an impasse policy or means for dealing with internal disputes, in the event that a governing body disagrees with recommendations from the policy council. As noted in Table 1 , within the two bills, the provisions related to program governance do not amend the same section of current law. Section 8 of the House version of H.R. 1429 includes the provisions stating the required composition, role and responsibilities of the governing bodies and councils as part of amendments to Sec. 642, whereas the Senate bill includes its program governance requirements (including composition, roles, and responsibilities) in Section 7, the portion of the bill that amends Sec. 641 of current law. Provisions that aim to improve the quality of Head Start programs (through a variety of means) permeate both reauthorization bills. Some of these provisions, already alluded to, relate to allocation of funds for quality and technical assistance and training, designating agencies, and developing standards and measures. In addition, both proposed bills would amend Sec. 648A of current law to increase staff qualifications for Head Start teachers (but with different requirements). Accompanying report language makes clear both committees' view that teacher quality is essential to early childhood program quality. Professional development is promoted in both bills, as are efforts to enhance services for children with limited English proficiency. Included in the Senate bill is a newly proposed section (641B) to the Head Start Act, which would provide for the establishment of a program under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would designate up to 200 exemplary Head Start agencies as "Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood." These agencies would receive (pending appropriation of funds) bonus grants of at least $200,000 per year. Like regularly designated grantees, the Centers of Excellence bonus grants would be designated for up to five years at a time. In addition to provisions aimed at improving the quality and accountability of Head Start programs, both bills would amend current law to foster even greater program coordination between Head Start and other early childhood programs, including state prekindergartens. Program coordination includes providing for alignment of Head Start goals and expectations with those schools into which Head Start children will later enroll. Coordination is also to be enhanced by bolstering state and local relationships with Head Start. The House version of H.R. 1429 proposes a new section, 642B, specifically outlining the partnerships that Head Start agencies are to enter into with local education agencies, including a description of the memorandum of understanding that each Head Start agency would negotiate with the local entities. Under both bills, collaboration grants are described in greater detail, and the state's role in collaboration is bolstered through involvement of an Early Learning Council (under the House bill) or a State Advisory Council (under the Senate bill). Under current law, all children from families with income under 100% of the poverty line are eligible for Head Start. Regulations state that at least 90% of children enrolled in each program must fit this criterion, allowing for 10% to be over-income. Both bills would allow for expansion of eligibility up to 130% of the poverty line, with the House version of H.R. 1429 specifying that no more than 20% of children served by a Head Start program be above the poverty line. In the case of both bills, the intent is that programs seek to serve children under 100% of poverty before serving those from families with higher incomes. Homeless children would also be deemed categorically eligible under both bills. Both bills address the issue of how to confront situations of under-enrollment in Head Start programs, recognizing that the cause of these situations may differ from program to program, sometimes reflecting a program weakness while in other cases demographic changes in the community. Another provision reflecting both committees' desire for greater flexibility with respect to participation and serving the needs of communities is one that allows for regular funds to be used for serving Early Head Start infants and toddlers. Doing so requires approval of a written application under both bills, but the possibility for this expansion of services would be written into law. Table 1 provides a detailed comparison of the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1429 , and current law. Where applicable, current regulations are included to show whether changes proposed in the reauthorization bills would reflect practical changes to the program. As stated earlier, the table does not include provisions agreed to in the conference report ( H.Rept. 110-439 ) filed on November 9, 2007. The table is structured in the order of current law's sections. In cases where bills address the same or similar provisions by amending different sections of current law, that has been noted in the table. The table also notes if a provision was added as an amendment during House floor debate.

Summary: Head Start, a federal program that has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children since 1965, was last reauthorized in 1998 for fiscal years 1999-2003. The program has remained funded in subsequent years through the annual appropriations process. After unsuccessful efforts by the past two Congresses to complete the reauthorization process, efforts to do so are underway in the 110th Congress. The House and Senate have each passed their own version of a reauthorization bill (H.R. 1429), and on November 9, 2007, conferees filed a conference report (H.Rept. 110-439). This report does not yet reflect the provisions included in the conference agreement. The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 (H.R. 1429) was introduced by Representative Kildee on March 9, 2007. The following week, the House Committee on Education and Labor debated, amended, and approved the bill (42-1), and the committee's written report accompanying the legislation (H.Rept. 110-67) was filed on March 23, 2007. That bill was taken to the House floor on May 2, and was approved (with nine amendments) by a vote of 365-48. The Head Start for School Readiness Act (S. 556) was introduced by Senator Kennedy on February 12, 2007, and approved via voice vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on February 14. The Chairman's amended version of the bill was subsequently reported on March 29, 2007, with a written report (S.Rept. 110-49) filed April 10, 2007. On June 19, under unanimous consent, the full Senate passed the committee's bill, with a few technical changes, under the House bill number (H.R. 1429). Both reauthorization bills amend Head Start with the goal of improving the program's ability to promote low-income children's school readiness by supporting their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development. The means for doing so encompass a wide range of provisions, covering issues of program funding, administration, eligibility, accountability, quality, governance, and coordination. Authorization levels for funding would be increased above current funding amounts by both bills, and eligibility would be expanded to allow for serving children up to 130% of the poverty line. Both bills include provisions that would increase competition for Head Start grants, by limiting the period for which a grantee may receive grant funds to five years, before recompetition may be required. Other similarities include increasing the percentage of the appropriation to be reserved for Early Head Start; emphasizing coordination and collaboration with other state and local early childhood programs; increasing staff qualifications; specifying requirements of shared governance principles in statute; and suspending use of the National Reporting System. Although the overall areas addressed by the two reauthorization bills are similar, a side-by-side comparison of provisions, alongside current law, reveals notable differences in detail. The table does not reflect the provisions agreed to in conference.