Order Code RL30952
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Head Start: Background and Issues

Updated June 7, 2005
Melinda Gish
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Head Start: Background and Issues
Summary
Head Start is a federal program that has provided comprehensive early
childhood development services to low-income children since 1965. Services
provided to preschool-aged children include child development, educational, health,
nutritional, social and other activities, intended to prepare low-income children for
entering kindergarten. The program is administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). Federal Head Start funds are provided directly to local
grantees, rather than through states. Programs are locally designed and are
administered by a network of over 1,600 public and private nonprofit and for-profit
agencies. In FY2004, Head Start funded enrollment for 905,851 children.
Head Start was last reauthorized in 1998 for FY1999-FY2003, and after
unsuccessful efforts to complete the reauthorization process on schedule, the 109th
Congress inherited the task of reauthorizing the program. On May 18, 2005, the
House Education and Workforce Committee approved a reauthorization bill (H.R.
2123), which differs markedly from the bill that passed the House by one vote during
the 108th Congress, in that it does not contain the controversial provision to allow
qualifying states the option of administering the Head Start program. The bill does
contain provisions to increase coordination between Head Start and other entities
providing early childhood services, and increases competition for Head Start grants,
requiring most to recompete every five years. A reauthorization bill (S. 1107) has
been approved in committee on the Senate side as well, with emphasis on improving
coordination with other early childhood programs, and increasing staff qualifications.
Earlier (in the FY2004 budget) the Administration conveyed its intent to transfer
federal responsibility for Head Start from HHS to the Department of Education. No
House nor Senate bills introduced since have adopted that controversial proposal, and
the President’s FY2005 and FY2006 budgets did not revisit the issue.
The Head Start program has received increases of varying levels over the past
two decades. The FY2005 appropriations law (P.L. 108-447) provides $6.843
billion, approximately $68 million above the FY2004 level. The FY2006 budget
proposes to fund the program at $6.888 billion.
Program performance, fiscal management, and the long-term impact on
children, particularly with respect to educational attainment, continue to be areas of
focus and concern. The 1998 revisions to the Head Start Act required HHS to
develop specific education performance standards, and established teacher and staff
training related to these standards as a priority use of quality improvement funds.
Development of a national reporting system that can be used to assess the
effectiveness of Head Start programs in achieving successful outcomes for children
in terms of school readiness — particularly the areas of literacy and number
knowledge — got underway during the 108th Congress. This national reporting
system was implemented in fall 2003, and is designed to assess Head Start 4- and
5-year-olds twice a year on educational performance measures — using indicators
that were included in legislation as part of the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start.

---

Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Head Start Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Early Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
President’s Head Start Proposals and Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reauthorization Bills in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Head Start Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1998 Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Long-Term Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FACES and Head Start Impact Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Coordination with Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Head Start Funding: FY1990-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Estimates of Head Start Populations and Percent Served, FY2003 . . . . 7
Table 3. Head Start FY2005 State Allocations (Estimates) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

---

Head Start: Background and Issues
Recent Developments
On May 25, 2005, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions approved its Head Start reauthorization bill, S. 1107, by voice vote. One
week earlier, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously
passed (48-0) its own reauthorization legislation, H.R. 2123, as amended. (For
descriptions of the two bills, see “Reauthorization Legislation in the 109th Congress,”
later in this report.)
On May 17, 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report examining the Head Start National Reporting System (NRS), focusing on the
information that the NRS is designed to provide, the degree to which it effectively
and accurately does so, and suggestions for improvement.1
Overview
Head Start is a federal program that has provided comprehensive early
childhood development services to low-income children since 1965. The program
is administered by the Administration for Children and Families of the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), which provides grants directly from the
federal government to local entities (as opposed to providing funding through the
state). Head Start was last reauthorized in 1998 (P.L. 105-285) for fiscal years 1999-
2003, and though addressed by legislation offered and vigorously debated during the
108th Congress, the Head Start Act was not ultimately reauthorized. Thus, the 109th
Congress inherited the task, and at present, legislation has made its way through
committee with bipartisan support in both the House and Senate (H.R. 2123 in the
Education and Workforce Committee and S. 1107 in the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee).
The reauthorization bills that have been introduced this year differ in substantial
ways from those that received attention in the 108th Congress. While much of the
debate in the last Congress focused on a House proposal to allow up to eight
qualifying states to take over administration of Head Start programs in their states,
this year’s House committee-passed bill (H.R. 2123) does not include that provision.
Rather than proposing the eight-state pilot project (characterized by critics as “block
grants” to eight states) that would allow for state administration of the Head Start
program (as did H.R. 2210, 108th Congress), this year’s House bill instead aims to
promote better coordination between Head Start and other early childhood programs
1 Government Accountability Office, Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results
of New Test to Be Used for Decision Making, May 2005, GAO-05-343,
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05343.pdf].

---

CRS-2
by requiring that Head Start grantees in all 50 states align their objectives for
improving school readiness with state-developed standards for kindergarten, and
demonstrate active partnerships with local school districts serving the same
communities. The direct relationship between the federal government and local
grantees would remain unchanged. Neither the reauthorization bill offered in the
Senate last Congress (S. 1940, 108th Congress), nor this year’s Senate committee-
passed bill (S. 1107) includes a provision to allow for state administration of the
Head Start program.
Another major source of debate during reauthorization discussions in the 108th
Congress was a provision included in the House bill (H.R. 2210, 108th) — but not S.
1940 — which would have amended Section 654 of the Head Start Act to allow for
discrimination in the employment of Head Start staff, based on religion. An
amendment to strip the provision from H.R. 2210 was offered by Representative
Woolsey on the House floor, but the amendment was not adopted [failing 199-231],
and the House subsequently passed H.R. 2210, containing the new language allowing
discrimination, by a one-vote margin. This year’s House bill (H.R. 2123) as
introduced and amended in committee, does not contain the discrimination language
of last year’s bill; however, Chairman Boehner has indicated plans to introduce the
provision as an amendment when the bill is brought to the House floor. Several
Democratic members of the committee have made clear their opposition to this
provision, strongly indicating that the controversial provision could jeopardize the
bill’s bipartisan support.
Concerns regarding financial management problems among some Head Start
grantees (highlighted by a February 28, 2005 GAO report),2 and other program
performance issues are newly addressed by current reauthorization legislation. Both
the House and Senate committee-passed bills include provisions to increase
competition for Head Start grants, requiring most grantees to recompete for funding
every five years. Priority for funding (and refunding) would be given to high
performing grantees (those found to be meeting the goals aligned with the Head Start
child outcomes framework, state early learning standards, and expectations for local
schools).
Congress appropriates funds annually for the Head Start program as part of the
appropriations process for the Department of Health and Human Services.
Appropriations have been made without an authorization since FY2003. The Head
Start program has received increases of varying levels over the past two decades (see
Table 1). At the conclusion of the 108th Congress, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2005 was signed into law (P.L. 108-447), providing the Head Start
program with $6.843 billion (this amount reflects the across-the-board cut of 0.8%
applied to the $6.899 billion found in the legislative language). Of that amount, $1.4
billion is to become available in FY2006. (See FY2005 Appropriations, later in this
report.) This reflects an increase of $68 million over funding provided in the
FY2004 Appropriations Act.
2 Government Accountability Office, Head Start: Comprehensive Approach to Identifying
and Addressing Risks Could Help Prevent Grantee Financial Management Weaknesses,
GAO-05-176, February 28, 2005, [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05176.pdf].

---

CRS-3
Head Start Program
Services. Head Start provides comprehensive early childhood development,
educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to low-income preschool
children and their families. These services are intended to prepare children to enter
kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary for their success in later school
and life. Head Start strongly emphasizes the involvement of families and the local
community to assure that programs are responsive to the unique needs of each
community. Since flexibility in local program design and operation is encouraged,
there is wide variation across the country in how Head Start services are delivered
(e.g., center-based, home-based, or some combination), as well as in local program
costs, sponsoring agencies, and coordination arrangements with other social service
programs. Head Start operates both full- and part-day programs — most only during
the school year. Some local Head Start programs do coordinate with other programs
to lengthen the time of care, both in terms of hours, and the year. Full-day
enrollment in Head Start is defined as six or more hours per day. Part-day sessions
must comply with a minimum class time requirement of 3.5 hours.
Funding. Federal appropriations for Head Start substantially increased during
the 1990s, tripling from the FY1990 level of $1.552 billion to the FY1999 level of
$4.658 billion, and more than quadrupling from FY1990 to the FY2005 level of
$6.843 billion. These increased appropriations have been used both to expand the
number of children served and for quality improvement activities. (See Table 1).
Table 1. Head Start Funding: FY1990-FY2005
($ in billions)
Year
Authorization
Appropriation
Year
Authorization
Appropriation
1990
1.552
1.552
1998
ssan
4.347
1991
2.386
1.952
1999
ssan
4.658
1992
4.273
2.202
2000
ssan
5.267a
1993
5.924
2.776
2001
ssan
6.200a
1994
7.660
3.326
2002
ssan
6.538a
1995
ssan
3.534
2003
ssan
6.668a
1996
ssan
3.569
2004
expired/tbd
6.775a,b
1997
ssan
3.981
2005
tbd
6.843a,c
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the Head
Start Bureau.
ssan = such sums as necessary.
tbd = to be determined.
a. This amount includes an advance appropriation of $1.4 billion for the following fiscal year.
b. This amount reflects the across-the-board 0.59% rescission applied to discretionary programs under
the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199).
c. This amount reflects the across-the-board 0.8% rescission applied to discretionary programs under
the FY2005 Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). Prior to the rescission, the amount was $6.899
billion.

---

CRS-4
Unlike some other federal social service programs that are funded through the
states, HHS awards Head Start funds directly to local public and private nonprofit
and for-profit grantees. Grantees must contribute a 20% nonfederal match, which
may be in cash or in-kind, unless they are granted a waiver. No more than 15% of
a grantee’s total program costs may be for administration. Funds are awarded to over
1,600 grantees at the discretion of HHS from state allocations determined by a
formula in law. However, before these state allocations are made, the law contains
a series of set-aside provisions that reserve funds for specified activities.
Under the 1998 Head Start amendments (P.L. 105-285), up to $35 million of
total Head Start appropriations is reserved annually for transition-to-school grants;
up to $5 million is reserved annually for national research on the impact of Head
Start; and $12 million in FY1999 and such sums as necessary thereafter is reserved
for other research, demonstration and evaluation activities, including longitudinal
studies.
Also of total Head Start appropriations, the Secretary must reserve 13% for use
in the following priority order:
! Indian and migrant Head Start programs, and services for children
with disabilities;
! payments to outlying territories, not to exceed one-half of 1% of the
total annual appropriation. The territories include Guam, American
Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands,
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau;
! training and technical assistance (not less than 2% of the total annual
appropriation, of which at least $3 million must be related to family
literacy);
! discretionary payments made by the Secretary, including the costs
(other than federal salaries) of local program monitoring and
correcting deficiencies and conducting proceedings to terminate
Head Start grantees; and
! payments for research, demonstration and evaluation activities.
Of remaining Head Start appropriations (after reserving the amounts described
above and adjusting the prior year appropriation to reflect the percentage change in
the Consumer Price Index), “regular” Head Start funds are allotted among states
according to the following formula, which was established in the 1998 amendments:
! each state first receives an amount equal to the amount received by
grantees in that state for FY1998, and any amounts available above
the FY1998 level are distributed proportionately among states on the
basis of the number of children under 5-years-old whose family
income is below the federal poverty line.
Although the amounts allocated according to the above formula are actually
distributed directly to local grantees, the Secretary may use a portion of these funds
to make grants to the states, to foster collaboration within the state among Head Start
and other activities designed to benefit low-income children and families. These
state collaboration grants typically range between $125,000 and $225,000 per state.

---

CRS-5
(See Table 3 at the end of this report for estimated state allocations for Head Start
for FY2005.)
President’s FY2006 Budget Request. On February 7, 2005, the President
released his budget request for FY2006. In it, he proposes to fund Head Start at a
level of $6.888 billion, which reflects an increase of $45 million above the FY2005
appropriation. Administration documents state that the increase is provided to
support the President’s initiative to fund a nine-state pilot project, in which those
states would administer their Head Start programs, with a goal of promoting
coordination of state preschool programs, child care programs, and Head Start into
a comprehensive system of early childhood programs. The Administration estimates
that Head Start will provide 919,000 children with services, of whom 62,000 will be
children in Early Head Start. (For more information on proposals discussed in the
Administration’s FY2006 budget see President’s Head Start Proposals and
Initiatives, later in this report.)
FY2005 Funding. On December 8, 2004, the FY2005 consolidated
appropriations bill (H.R. 4818, 108th Congress) was signed into law (P.L. 108-447).
Included in the law is approximately $6.843 billion in funding for the Head Start
program. This amount reflects the across-the-board cut of 0.8%, also included in the
law, which applies to most discretionary programs. Prior to passage of the final bill,
the Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 15, 2004, approved and
reported a bill that would have funded Head Start at a level of $6.935 billion (S.
2810/S.Rept. 108-345). The House, on September 9, 2004, had passed a bill (H.R.
5006/H.Rept. 108-636) proposing the $6.899 billion level that was ultimately signed
into law (as Division F of H.R. 4818) but reduced to $6.843 billion by the across-the-
board cut. The President’s requested level for FY2005 was $6.944 billion ($169
million more than the FY2004 funding level).

FY2004 Funding. On January 23, 2004, an omnibus appropriations bill for
FY2004 (H.R. 2673/H.Rept. 108-401) was signed into law (P.L. 108-199). The
omnibus bill consolidated appropriations for multiple agencies, including the
Department of HHS, the administering agency for Head Start. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199) provided $6.775 billion for Head Start,
of which $1.4 billion became available in FY2005. (Note: while in FY2003, Head
Start was not subject to the across-the-board offset, in the FY2004 law Head Start
was subject to the 0.59% rescission. The $6.775 billion reflects the rescission, and
amounts to $108 million more than was provided in FY2003. Before the rescission
was taken, the funding level mirrored the President’s request of $6.816 billion.)
FY2003 Funding. FY2003 funding for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and
Education was provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L.
108-7), signed into law on February 20, 2003. The law included $6.668 billion for
Head Start (of which $1.4 billion was advance appropriated, and became available

---

CRS-6
in FY2004). Unlike many other discretionary programs funded under the law, Head
Start was not subject to the across-the-board rescission included in the law.3
Prior to the signing of P.L. 108-7, Congress passed a series of continuing
resolutions (CRs) extending funding for programs, including Head Start, into
FY2003. Prior to the CRs, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its
version of a Labor/HHS/ED bill (S. 2766/S.Rept. 107-216). The Committee’s
proposed funding level for Head Start was $6.870 billion for FY2003. The House
introduced a version of its FY2003 appropriations bill (H.R. 5320) for
Labor/HHS/ED. There was no committee action, and the bill requested the same
funding level for Head Start as that proposed by the President in his FY2003 budget.
Eligibility. As authorized by law, HHS regulations require that at least 90%
of children enrolled by each Head Start grantee must come from families with
income at or below the official federal poverty guideline ($19,350 for a family of four
in 2005) or from families receiving welfare assistance. Up to 10% of the children
may be from families whose incomes exceed the poverty guideline. Regulations also
require grantees to reserve at least 10% of their slots for children with disabilities.
Head Start is authorized to serve children at any age prior to compulsory school
attendance; however, most children are 3- and 4-year-olds. However, the 1994
reauthorization did create the Early Head Start program, which serves children under
age 3. In FY2004, according to HHS fact sheets, children under age 3 represented
only 9% of total enrollment.
Under the 1998 amendments, a child who has been determined to be low-
income and who is participating in Head Start may continue to be considered low-
income for another program year. The 1998 amendments also provide grantees with
additional flexibility in determining family income and therefore, eligibility for
participation. Specifically, the amendments authorize grantees to consider family
income during the 12 months before the month in which an application is submitted,
or during the calendar year before the calendar year in which an application is
submitted.
Participation. Data from HHS show funded enrollment for Head Start in
FY2004 to have totaled 905,851 children (of whom almost 62,000 were under age
3 and served by Early Head Start).4 It should be noted that “funded enrollment”
refers to the number of Head Start “slots” that are funded, not the total number of
children served throughout the year (accounting for turnover), which is higher. The
funded enrollments for FY2004 (905,851) and FY2003 (909,608) both represent
decreases from the FY2002 level of 912,345, reflecting that an increase in funding
does not necessarily translate to additional slots. Rather, the decrease may be
3 H.J.Res. 2, as amended and passed by the Senate, (and ultimately passed into the FY2003
appropriations law) included S.Amdt. 188 (offered by Sen. Dodd), which exempted the
Head Start funding from rescission. However, the advance appropriation for FY2004 ($1.4
billion) was later subject to an across-the-board rescission (0.59%) included in the FY2004
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199).
4 Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2006 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.

---

CRS-7
indicative of grantees opting to convert the home-based slots to more expensive
center-based care, or part-day slots to full-day. In his FY2006 budget, the President
estimates that in FY2006, 919,000 children will receive Head Start services,
including 62,000 in Early Head Start. This is the same number that was estimated
for FY2005, according to last year’s budget. However, the FY2005 estimated
enrollment has since been revised, with this year’s budget documents showing
estimated enrollment for FY2005 at 909,851.
Table 2 provides estimates of the percentage of the population economically
eligible for and served by the Head Start program in 2003, by age. As shown in the
enrollment column, most children served by Head Start are 3- and 4-year-olds,
contributing to the higher percentage of eligibles served. It should be noted that the
percentage of eligible children under age 3 served (3%) is notably lower than that of
3- and 4-year-old children, in part because the applicable program for children under
3, Early Head Start, is by current law limited to 10% of the total Head Start
appropriation.
Table 2. Estimates of Head Start Populations
and Percent Served, FY2003
(number in thousands)
Population
Economically
FY2003
Percent
Age
March 2004
eligible 2003
enrollment
served
Under 3
11,354
2,580
73
3%
Age 3
4,276
920
309
34%
Age 4
4,133
894
482
54%
Age 3-4 (combined)
8,410
1,814
791
44%
Age 5 and above
7,718
1,559
45
3%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the Mar. 2004
Current Population Survey (CPS). Estimates of economic eligibility are based on the percentage of
children living in families with annual income below Federal Poverty Income Guidelines or in families
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in 2003. Head Start enrollment
estimates are based on data and estimates from HHS.
Early Head Start. Early Head Start (EHS) was established in the 1994
reauthorization legislation (P.L. 103-252), to serve infants and toddlers who are
generally too young to participate in the regular Head Start program. The law
requires that a portion of Head Start’s total appropriation be set aside to fund the
EHS program. For FY1998, Congress earmarked more than was required by law for
EHS, and the statutory set-aside was increased in the 1998 amendments to Head
Start. One of the few legislative changes sought by the Clinton Administration,
during the 1998 debate on Head Start, was an increase in the EHS program. The
current law EHS set-asides are 7.5% in FY1999, 8% in FY2000, 9% in FY2001, and
10% in each of FY2002 and FY2003. (Although authorized only through FY2003,
the allotments since then have maintained the 10% set-aside for Early Head Start.)

---

CRS-8
The first EHS grants were awarded in September 1995, and totaled $47 million.
In FY2004, nearly $677 million was used to support more than 650 projects in all 50
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. These projects served
approximately 62,000 low-income families with children under the age of 3.
EHS grantees must design programs which respond to the strengths and needs
of individual families with services including education, in and out of the home;
home visits, especially for families with newborns and infants; parent education,
including parent-child activities; comprehensive health services, including services
to women during and after pregnancy; and ongoing parental support through case
management and peer groups. All programs must conduct an assessment of
community resources and needs and must ensure the recruitment and development
of high-quality staff.
In addition to increasing EHS appropriations, the 1998 amendments also require
that an EHS research and evaluation plan be developed to identify successful
program models and variables contributing to program outcomes and to lay
groundwork for future longitudinal studies.
President’s Head Start Proposals and Initiatives. Over the course of
his presidency, President Bush has proposed significant changes to the Head Start
program. In certain cases (e.g., state option to administer Head Start), his proposals
have been adopted in a modified form within reauthorization bills that failed to reach
fruition; in other cases (e.g., Head Start transfer to Department of Education) his
proposals remained dormant, with no legislative sponsor. Lastly, there were
Administration initiatives that were able to get underway, without requiring
congressional approval.
President’s Proposals for FY2006. The Head Start proposals included as
part of the FY2006 budget released on February 7, 2005 all either mirror or build
upon those proposed in earlier years. These proposals include a nine-state pilot
project for state administration of Head Start; a change to the current statutory set-
aside for training and technical assistance funding for Head Start programs; and a
continuation of the National Reporting System (NRS) for Head Start.
State Pilot Projects. The FY2006 budget requests $45 million to support the
President’s initiative to improve Head Start by funding a nine-state pilot project to
coordinate Head Start, state preschool programs, and federal child care grants into
a comprehensive system of early childhood programs. According to the
Administration’s budget documents, coordination is a means of improving preschool
programs in general, to help ensure that children enter school prepared to succeed.
The nine-state pilot project is intended to assist states with implementing reforms that
promote better coordination, and in turn, school readiness.
The nine-state pilot project proposal was first introduced in last year’s (FY2005)
budget, and followed the more expansive proposal from FY2004, which would have
allowed all states the option to administer Head Start, provided they fulfilled certain
criteria. That initial proposal, issued on February 3, 2003, alongside release of the
President’s FY2004 Budget, was included in a press release announcing the

---

CRS-9
President’s proposal to make changes to the Head Start program.5 This was followed
by a White House document outlining the Administration’s assessment of the status
of the Head Start program, and its plans for the program in the future.6 The
Administration stated that the top goal of the Head Start reauthorization should be
to improve both Head Start and other preschool programs to ensure that children are
prepared to enter kindergarten. The President asserted that states should have the
opportunity to administer the program, provided they demonstrate how Head Start
will be coordinated with other preschool programs and services to emphasize
developing skills and behaviors including language development; pre-reading skills;
numeracy; and social and emotional competence, while meeting state-established
accountability standards.
Under the President’s proposal, interested states would submit a plan for the
approval of both HHS and the Department of Education, in which they outline: state
preschool goals and activities; a state accountability program; an explanation of how
the current level of enrollment of Head Start-eligible 3- and 4-year-olds would be
maintained (if not exceeded); information regarding the most recent year’s spending
on Head Start and state preschool programs, and assurances that this level would be
at a minimum maintained; plans for assuring professional development for staff; and
the plans for coordination of programs and funding (state and federal) for the purpose
of promoting school readiness. Programs specifically mentioned were Head Start,
Early Head Start, Title I preschool, the special education preschool program (IDEA),
state-funded preschool, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
The President’s FY2005 budget did not reiterate plans to allow all the states the
option to administer Head Start, but did continue to promote the goal of improved
coordination among Head Start and other early childhood and child care programs,
through a new set of nine pilot programs. Those same goals (and pilot program
proposals) have been raised again in the President’s budget for FY2006. Note that
in the House reauthorization bill (H.R. 2210, 108th Congress) a maximum of eight
states would have been afforded the option of administering the Head Start program.
The Senate bill (S. 1940, 108th Congress) did not provide for state administration of
Head Start. In this Congress (109th) neither the House nor Senate bills (H.R. 2123
and S. 1107, respectively) as passed in committee include the state pilot proposal in
any form.
Changes to Statutory Funding Set-asides. The President’s FY2006 budget
proposes to loosen what it describes as “extremely prescriptive provisions” that have
been added to the law over time, in order to provide greater flexibility to “target the
dollars where they are needed most.” The proposal specifically calls for changing
current law’s set-aside for training and technical assistance (T/TA) from at least 2%
of the total Head Start appropriation to up to 2%. In doing so, the Administration
contends that the Secretary will be afforded more discretionary authority to allocate
resources each year in a manner that would maximize benefits to children and
5 For additional information, see the press release from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), at [http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030203.html].
6 This document, entitled “Head Start Policy Book” on the White House website, is available
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/hspolicybook/summary.html].

---

CRS-10
families. In FY2006, the Administration states it would use the new flexibility to
serve an additional 10,000 children in areas of the country with the greatest unmet
need for Head Start services. These areas are said to include those with recent
demographic changes resulting in more low-income families; remote areas with few
or no alternative service providers, and areas with large numbers of unserved but
eligible children. The Administration has been advocating for this change since its
FY2004 budget request.
National Reporting System (NRS). The President used the FY2006 budget
as an opportunity to maintain his support for continuing the development and
implementation of a national reporting system that can be used to assess the
effectiveness of Head Start programs in achieving successful outcomes for children
in terms of school readiness — particularly the areas of literacy and number
knowledge. Not having required legislative action, this national reporting system
was implemented for the first time in fall 2003, and is designed to assess Head Start
four- and five-year olds twice a year on educational performance measures — using
indicators that were included in legislation as part of the 1998 reauthorization of
Head Start (P.L. 105-285, Sec. 108 (b)(5)). A recent (May 2005) report from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) concludes that analysis of the NRS is
currently incomplete to support its use for the purposes of accountability, and
provides recommendations for improving implementation of the system.7
Like the National Reporting System, which did not require any additional
legislative action to be implemented, the Administration’s initiative aimed at
enhancing professional development continues to move ahead. This initiative is
known as Project STEP.
Project STEP. The Strategic Teacher Education Program, also known as
Project STEP, is described by the Head Start Bureau as “a comprehensive, multi-
faceted, sequential professional development endeavor to ensure teachers use
research-based strategies to implement early and emergent literacy.” As part of this
development, during the summer and fall of 2002, 3,000 Head Start staff and 100
state child care administrators received 32 hours of training in strategies to support
children’s emerging literacy. Those who were trained are expected to serve as
“mentor coaches” for staff within their respective Head Start programs.
FY2004 Proposal to Transfer Head Start to Department of
Education. The proposal to transfer Head Start from HHS to the Department of
Education has lay dormant since first proposed in the Administration’s FY2004
budget. In the FY2004 budget, the Administration contended that “in order to
improve coordination between Head Start and other Federal, State, and local
programs affecting pre-school children, the President plans to move responsibility for
managing the Head Start program from the Department of Health and Human
7 Government Accountability Office, Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results
of New Test to Be Used for Decision Making, May 2005, GAO-05-343,
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05343.pdf].

---

CRS-11
Services to the Department of Education.”8 It proposed that this transition begin in
2004, with the Department of Education assuming full responsibility for the program
in 2005. However, such a transition would have required a change to the Head Start
statute, and was not proposed in either the House or Senate reauthorization
legislation introduced in the 108th Congress. Moreover, the FY2005 budget did not
mention any plan to transfer the Head Start program from HHS, nor does the FY2006
budget.
History of the Proposed Transfer of Head Start to the Department of
Education. During his 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush proposed
moving the Head Start program from HHS to the Department of Education as part
of an effort to prioritize the education (school-readiness) component of Head Start
over the health, nutrition, and social service components of the program. The
President proposed a Reading First reform agenda aimed at making pre-reading and
numeracy skills Head Start’s top priority. By also supporting an early childhood
reading initiative in the Department of Education, along with a reading program
focused on children in kindergarten through second grade who are at risk of falling
behind, the President’s goal is to ensure that young children participating in existing
preschool and Head Start programs are able to read by the time they reach third
grade.
Many Head Start advocates believe that the Head Start program should remain
in HHS. Because Head Start offers a wide variety of services beyond traditional
education, there is concern that transferring the program to the Department of
Education could restrict Head Start to a narrow, classroom program, without the broad
set of human services currently provided. Opponents of the shift further suggest that
moving the program from an agency where children receive comprehensive services,
to one focused on education, would compromise the parental and community action
strengths of Head Start. When promoting the proposal in the FY2004 budget, an aide
to the President offered assurances that the proposed move was not intended to
interrupt any of the social service components, but rather to stress the most important
part of Head Start, which the President believes is literacy development. At the time
of proposing it, the President described the transfer as consistent with his priorities,
and expressed hope that moving the program to the Department of Education would
increase the chances of making every child a proficient reader by third grade. Some
of those in favor of keeping Head Start in HHS argue that Head Start currently focuses
on getting children ready for school, including readiness in language and early
literacy.
There is a history of proposed transfers of the Head Start program. In 1978,
President Carter proposed to transfer Head Start to the Department of Education.
Edward Zigler, a noted architect of Head Start, was one of the most ardent opponents
of the transfer, for the reasons cited above. While the Reagan Administration tried to
include Head Start in a block grant, up until now, no President since Carter has
recommended a transfer of Head Start to the Department of Education. As mentioned
earlier, however, neither the House nor Senate reauthorization bill (H.R. 2210 and S.
1940, 108th Congress) included the proposal to transfer Head Start to the Department
8 See Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government: Analytical Perspectives, p. 251.

---

CRS-12
of Education, and the President’s most recent budget is silent on the issue of a
transfer.
Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress. Thus far, bills to reauthorize
the Head Start program have been introduced, amended and approved by the
respective committee with jurisdiction in both the House and Senate. Summaries of
major provisions in the two bills (H.R. 2123, as amended and unanimously approved
by the full Education and Workforce Committee in the House; and S. 1107, as
approved (by voice vote) by the full Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee in the Senate) appear below.
The School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 2123, approved by House
Education and Workforce Committee 48-0, May 18, 2005). This bill to
reauthorize the Head Start Act was introduced on May 5, 2005 by Representative
Castle, and has since been approved (as amended) in both subcommittee and in the
full Committee on Education and the Workforce. Unlike the House bill from last
Congress (H.R. 2210), H.R. 2123 does not include the controversial state
demonstration program proposal. It also does not contain the provision allowing for
discrimination in Head Start employment based on religion — a provision that was
the source of heated debate last Congress. However, Chairman Boehner has indicated
intentions to add the language to the bill once it reaches the House floor, potentially
jeopardizing some of the bipartisan support that the bill has garnered thus far.
The bill would authorize funding for Head Start at a level of $6.9 billion for
FY2006, and such sums as may be necessary for FY2007-FY2011. Of the total
appropriation, 3.5% would be reserved for Indian Head Start programs and at least 5%
for migrant and seasonal programs (under current law, Indian, Migrant and Seasonal
programs do not have a specified set-aside, but are categories for which the 13%
reservation may be spent). The set-aside for training and technical assistance would
be changed from at least 2% to “equal to 2%.” Funding for Early Head Start would
be maintained at 10% for each of FY2006-FY2011.
This year’s House bill would increase competition for Head Start grants,
requiring recompetition every five years for grantees shown to have a deficiency.
Grantees without deficiencies would be designated as priority grantees, and would not
be subject to recompetition (in that 5-year cycle). Priority grantees would earn that
designation in part by demonstrating active partnerships and collaboration with local
educational agencies. The bill would also require that to be designated as a Head Start
grantee, the Head Start agency must establish an independent board of directors,
which would have oversight responsibility for all program activities and finances.
H.R. 2123 would put into law the requirement that each Head Start agency is to
establish procedures for evaluating its delegate agencies, and procedures for, when
necessary, defunding them. The bill also would add to law new provisions regarding
reduction of funding for grantees that exhibit chronic underenrollment. Reduction and
redistribution of funds would occur only if actual enrollment still fails to reach 95%
of funded enrollment after receiving technical assistance attempting to remedy the
situation. The House bill also makes changes to a grantee’s rights with respect to
appealing any suspension or termination. Under H.R. 2123, a grantee would no longer

---

CRS-13
receive reimbursement (with federal Head Start funds) for legal fees and other costs
associated with waging an appeal.
As a means of improving coordination among Head Start and other state and
local early childhood education programs, H.R. 2123 would require that Head Start
agencies enter into a memorandum of understanding with those state and local
entities, and align all program activities, curricula, and instruction with state-
developed K-12 academic standards.
New standards with respect to staff qualifications and degree requirements are
also included in H.R. 2123. This bill would require that by the end of FY2010, at
least 50% of all Head Start teachers in center-based programs have a B.A. or advanced
degree in early childhood education; or a B.A. or advanced degree in a related field,
with pre-school teaching experience.
The bill also adopted the provision to commission a National Academy of
Sciences panel to review a range of issues related to early childhood care and
education. The panel would be required to complete its recommendations within 18
months of convening.
The Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act (S. 1107,
approved by Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
May 25, 2005). This bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act was introduced by HELP
Committee Chairman Enzi on May 23, 2005, and approved by voice vote with no
amendments two days later by the HELP Committee.
The bill would authorize funding for Head Start at the following levels: $7.215
billion for FY2006; $7.515 billion for FY2007; $7.815 billion for FY2008; and such
sums as necessary for FY2009 and FY2010. Under S. 1107, changes would be made
to the way funds are allotted among programs: tribal programs would receive 4% of
the entire Head Start appropriation, and migrant and seasonal programs 5% (provided
that doing so would not reduce the total number of children served by Head Start
programs); exactly 2% of funds would be reserved for training and technical
assistance; and state allotments would be based on amounts received in FY2005
(updating the “hold harmless” from FY1998) with any remaining funds distributed
not by the share of poor children under age 5 (as dictated by current law), but instead
by apportioning 65% of the remainder among states giving priority to those whose
programs serve the lowest percentage of eligible children, and awarding 35% of the
remainder on a competitive basis.
The percentage of funding reserved for Early Head Start programs would be
increased from the current level of 10%. Reservations would be as follows: 11% for
FY2006; 13% for FY2007; 15% for FY2008; 17% for FY2009; and 18% for FY2010.
Like the House bill, S. 1107 increases competition for grant funds, by requiring
grantees to recompete for funding every five years. High-performing grantees would
receive priority, with “high-performing” meaning those grantees who meet goals for
improving school readiness and who meet goals aligned with the Head Start child
outcomes framework, state early learning standards, and requirements and
expectations for local schools. The bill requires agencies designated as Head Start

---

CRS-14
grantees to assemble a governing body, which is to receive regular and accurate
information about program planning, finances, and performance data, and is to work
with the grantee’s policy council and committee.
Like the House bill, S. 1107 would put into law the requirement that each Head
Start agency is to establish procedures for evaluating its delegate agencies, and
procedures for, when necessary, defunding them. The bill also would add to law new
provisions regarding reduction of funding for grantees that exhibit chronic
underenrollment. Reduction and redistribution of funds would occur only if actual
enrollment still fails to reach 95% of funded enrollment after receiving technical
assistance attempting to remedy the situation.
Similar to the bill introduced in the Senate last Congress, S. 1107 would
authorize $90 million for the Secretary to make a maximum of 200 grants (of at least
$200,000 per year for five years) to Head Start agencies nominated by Governors as
“Centers of Excellence” in early childhood. Grants could be used for purposes such
as: furthering best practices, serving more children, and providing additional training
for staff. In a separate authorization of funds, S. 1107 would authorize $10 million
in FY2006 (and such sums as necessary for FY2007-FY2010) to award grants for
tribal colleges and university Head Start partnerships.
Staff qualifications and degree requirements for Head Start teachers are also
addressed by S. 1107. Among other provisions to increase staff qualifications, the bill
would require (except in cases where a waiver could be granted) that by the end of
FY2010, all Head Start teachers in center-based programs have at least an associate
degree relating to early childhood (or a related educational area, with coursework
relating to early childhood). In states that have established state teacher requirements
for their pre-K programs, all Head Start teachers would be required (by the end of
FY2011) to meet those requirements (provided they are not lower than Head Start
requirements). For states without established pre-K staff requirements, 50% of Head
Start teachers in those states’ programs would be required to have a B.A. degree
relating to early childhood by the end of FY2011. All Head Start teachers would be
required to attend an average of at least 15 hours of professional development a year.
Also adopted from last Congress’ Senate committee bill is the provision
increasing income eligibility for Head Start from the poverty line up to 130% of the
poverty guideline. Moreover, any homeless child would be deemed eligible for the
program. The bill also adopted the provision to commission a National Academy of
Sciences panel to review a range of issues related to early childhood care and
education — including assessments. (During the brief discussion of S. 1107 prior to
a voice vote passage, a few Democratic members of the committee did express
concern regarding use of the National Reporting System, noting that the recently
released (May 17, 2005) GAO report calls the effectiveness of the assessment system
into question.)9
9 Government Accountability Office, Head Start: Further Development Could Allow Results
of New Test to Be Used for Decision Making, May 2005, GAO-05-343,
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05343.pdf].

---

CRS-15
Other Legislation in the 109th Congress. Bills that have been introduced
this Congress with provisions pertaining to Head Start include S. 189 (Inhofe), a bill
to amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for nonemergency intrusive
physical examinations; S. 117 (Feinstein), a bill to extend loan forgiveness for certain
loans to Head Start teachers; S. 15 (Bingaman) a bill that would authorize increased
funding for Head Start, and increase access to Early Head Start, and Indian and
Migrant programs; S. 9 (Enzi) a comprehensive education bill that calls for the
Senate, in reauthorizing Head Start, to establish new educational standards for Head
Start, to improve coordination and alignment of Head Start with other early childhood
programs, and to support efforts to improve fiscal management and accountability;
and, H.R. 778 (Putnam), a bill to provide greater accountability for Head Start
agencies.
Reauthorization Bills in the 108th Congress. Efforts to pass
reauthorization legislation in the 108th Congress were unsuccessful, after the House
narrowly passed its bill (H.R. 2210) by one vote, and a markedly different bill
emerged out of committee in the Senate (S. 1940), but was never brought to the full
floor. The House bill’s passage followed a heated debate over proposals to allow state
administration of Head Start in up to eight qualifying states, and to allow
discrimination in employment of Head Start staff based on religion. The Senate bill
contained neither of those controversial provisions. Both bills propose to increase
competition for Head Start grants, and also to foster greater collaboration between
Head Start and other entities providing early childhood services at the state and local
level. Likewise, both bills propose to increase staff qualifications beyond the levels
required by the legislation enacted in 1998. Summary of both bills follow. Also,
following is a summary of S. 1483, a reauthorization bill introduced by Senator Dodd,
prior to the HELP committee’s activity on S. 1940.
The School Readiness Act of 2003 (H.R. 2210, 108th Congress) —
Passed by the House. This bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act was introduced
in the House by Representative Castle on May 2, 2003, with eight Republican co-
sponsors. The originally introduced bill, H.R. 2210, was subsequently amended at
both the subcommittee and full committee level, and was passed by the House on July
25, 2003.
H.R. 2210, as amended by the full Committee on Education and the Workforce
on June 19, 2003, included two titles; the first would have amended sections of the
current Head Start law, and the second would have introduced a new option for eight
qualifying states to administer their own federal Head Start funds. (The bill as
originally introduced would have provided this option to all qualifying states, but as
amended would have limited the option to eight qualifying states over the five year
period of the legislation.) H.R. 2210 was reported from the full Committee on
Education and the Workforce with a vote of 27 (Republicans) to 20 (Democrats), and
subsequently was passed by the House by a one-vote margin of 217-216. Prior to
passage, Representative George Miller offered a substitute bill on the floor (H.Amdt.
322), which proposed to retain the changes to Title I as included in H.R. 2210, with
the exception of the bill language allowing discrimination in employment based on

---

CRS-16
religion.10 The substitute bill would have struck Title II (the section proposing state
demonstration projects). The Miller amendment failed by a vote of 200-229.
H.R. 2210 as passed would have authorized an appropriation for Head Start in
FY2004 of $6.87 billion, rising to $7.427 billion in FY2008. If appropriated, this
FY2004 amount would have reflected a $200 million increase above the FY2003
funding level of $6.67 billion. The President’s budget request for FY2004 included
$6.816 billion for Head Start, which is $54 million less than the amount H.R. 2210
would have authorized.
Major features of the bill’s Title I (“Program Improvements”) included increased
credentials for Head Start teachers; a 2% cap on the percentage of funds to be reserved
for training and technical assistance (under current law, the floor is set at 2%);
increased requirements to promote collaboration and coordination among early
childhood programs; a 60% set-aside of excess appropriation funds for quality
improvement; a requirement that at least 10% of the total Head Start appropriation be
reserved for Early Head Start; and new language that would explicitly allow faith-
based Head Start programs to discriminate in hiring, based on religion (Sec. 116).
The proposal to increase credentials for Head Start teachers would have required
that by 2008, 50% of Head Start teachers have a B.A. or advanced degree in early
childhood education. (Current law requires that 50% of Head Start teachers
nationwide have an A.A. or above in early childhood education by 2003. That
requirement was met.) In addition, within three years after the date of enactment, this
legislation would have required that the Secretary require all Head Start teachers in
center-based programs, hired following the date of enactment, to have an A.A. degree
or above in early childhood education, or be enrolled in a program of study leading to
an A.A. degree in early childhood education, with an agreement to complete the
program within three years of being hired.
Title II (“State Demonstration Program”) of the bill contained provisions that
would have allowed up to eight qualifying states to participate in “state demonstration
programs” in which their allocation of federal Head Start funding would be
administered by the state (as opposed to current law’s system of direct federal to local
grantees). To qualify, a state would have had to have an existing state-supported
system of public-pre-kindergarten; standards for school readiness that are aligned with
state kindergarten through grade 12; prior-year state and local spending at a level of
at least 50% of the federal Head Start funds to be allocated to the state; and an
established “means” for interagency coordination and collaboration. States would
have been required to demonstrate that their standards “generally meet or exceed the
standards that ensure the quality and effectiveness of programs operated by Head Start
agencies.”
A local grantee currently receiving funds would have continued to receive funds,
from the participating state, for at least three years after that state received approval
10 For more discussion of executive and legislative efforts to allow for religious
organizations to give preference to co-religionists when hiring, see CRS Report RS21924,
Charitable Choice: Expansion by Executive Action, by Joe Richardson.

---

CRS-17
to participate in the program (assuming the grantee has no uncorrected deficiencies
identified in monitoring reports from the most recent five-year period).
Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act (S. 1940/ S.Rept.
108-208, 108th Congress). This bill to reauthorize Head Start was introduced and
reported by Chairman Gregg of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee on November 24, 2003. There were significant differences between the
House bill (H.R. 2210) and the bill reported by the HELP committee. Most notably,
S. 1940 (S.Rept. 108-208), unlike the House-passed H.R. 2210, would not have
provided any state the option to administer the Head Start program (nor would it have
changed current law with respect to the non-discrimination in hiring provision). A
summary of many of the bill’s provisions follows.
As reported, S. 1940 did not include a funding authorization amount for FY2004,
but would have authorized $7.215 billion for FY2005, $7.615 billion for FY2006,
$8.015 billion for FY2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 and 2009. The bill would have made changes to the way in which Head Start
funds are allocated, allowing not less than 4% to Indians, and not less than 5% to
migrant and seasonal Head Start programs (provided this could be done without
reducing the total number of children funded by Head Start). The bill would also have
changed the way in which remaining funds (after the set-asides, including exactly 2%
for training and technical assistance) would be allocated, giving priority to grantees
in states serving the smallest percentages of eligible children, and distributing a
portion of the funds on a competitive basis. The bill would have provided a 60% set-
aside of excess appropriation funds for quality improvement.
The percentage of funds allotted for the Early Head Start program would have
been maintained at 10% in FY2004 and would have gradually increased to 18% in
FY2009. Collaboration grants would have been awarded to each state by the
Secretary, and each state’s Governor would have designated a State Advisory Council
to advise states on collaboration between Head Start and other entities involved with
early child care and education.
The bill would have authorized $90 million for the Secretary to make a
maximum of 200 grants (of at least $100,000 per year for five years) to Head Start
agencies nominated by Governors as “Centers of Excellence” in early childhood.
Grants could have been used for purposes such as: furthering best practices, serving
more children, and providing additional training for staff.
The bill would have also addressed the population of children eligible for Head
Start services by increasing the eligibility level to 130% of the poverty line. Programs
would also have been required to keep an active waiting list at all times. S. 1940
would have required monthly enrollment reporting to the Secretary, and if actual
enrollment were found to be lower than 95% of funded enrollment for a period of a
year, technical assistance would have been required to be provided to alleviate chronic
under-enrollment. If the under-enrollment were to persist after 18 months of technical
assistance, the bill would have allowed for the grantee’s base grant to be reduced by
a percentage reflecting the under-enrollment.

---

CRS-18
The bill would have provided for the Secretary to make training and technical
assistance funds available to support a regional or state system of early childhood
education and training and technical assistance. The bill also outlined a variety of
uses for those funds.
Other provisions in the bill included increasing Head Start staff qualifications
and requirements (ultimately requiring that no later than September 30, 2010, 50% of
all Head Start teachers in center-based programs have both a B.A. degree relating to
early childhood and demonstrated teaching competencies); requiring that school
readiness-related goals be established by a Head Start agency before designating it as
such; commissioning a National Academy of Sciences panel to review a range of
issues related to early childhood care and education (including assessments); and
authorizing $10 million for FY2004 to award grants for tribal college (or university)
Head Start partnerships.
Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act (S. 1483, 108th
Congress) — Introduced (Dodd). This bill to reauthorize Head Start was
introduced by Senator Dodd on July 29, 2003. Unlike the House bill, S. 1483 would
not have provided any state the option to administer the Head Start program. Included
in the bill were provisions to require expanded coordination and collaboration among
Head Start and other agencies, and to provide funding for doing so. The bill would
have established state Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration (HSQIC)
Offices, expanding the functions of state Head Start Collaboration Offices. As
proposed, the HSQIC Offices would have worked in consultation with State advisory
councils (also newly defined in the bill) to improve coordination among programs, and
to plan for a state system of training and technical assistance. Advisory councils
would have been composed of representatives from a wide range of early child hood
programs, agencies and organizations in the state, including Head Start.
The bill would have authorized $8.570 billion for FY2004, $10.445 billion for
FY2005, $12.384 billion for FY2006, $14.334 billion for FY2007, and $16.332
billion for FY2008.
Under this bill, center-based Head Start program classrooms would have been
required within eight years (at most) to have at least one teacher with a B.A. degree
in early childhood education (or an advanced degree in related field). Like the House
bill, this bill proposed that within three years of enactment, the Secretary of HHS
would have required that newly hired Head Start teachers (for center-based programs)
have an A.A., B.A., or advanced degree in early childhood education, or be currently
enrolled (or enrolled within a year) in an associate degree program in early childhood
education. S. 1483 would have authorized new additional funding to be used to meet
the increased staff qualification requirements: $387 million for FY2004, rising to $841
million for FY2008.
Other Head Start Legislation in the 108th Congress. Several Head Start
bills of narrower scope than the reauthorization bills outlined above were introduced
in the 108th Congress. S. 1474 (Alexander), The Head Start Centers of Excellence
Act of 2003, would have established grant programs to fund 200 Head Start agencies
designated by HHS as “Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood.” This bill would
also have awarded grants to states to establish state councils that would identify

---

CRS-19
barriers to, and opportunities for, coordination and collaboration among early
childhood programs. S. 1444 (Harkin) would have gradually increased the set-aside
for Early Head Start to 20% in FY2008. The overall authorization of appropriations
for FY2003-FY2008 would have been set at “such sums as may be necessary.” H.R.
2543 (Berkley) would have amended the Head Start Act to provide additional funding
for states with increased numbers of Head Start-eligible children. S. 1469
(Bingaman) would have amended the Head Start Act to provide grants to Tribal
Colleges and Universities to increase the number of post-secondary degrees in early
childhood education and related fields earned by Indian Head Start agency staff. H.R.
2291 (DeLauro)/S. 140 (Feinstein) would have amended the Higher Education Act
to extend loan forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers. H.R. 2945 (P.
Kennedy)/S. 1620 (Bingaman) would have conditioned the implementation of
assessment procedures in connection with the Head Start National Reporting System
on Child Outcomes.
1998 Reauthorization. Although Head Start has traditionally enjoyed
widespread support, the program has not been without criticism. Concern has been
expressed about the quality of services and the program’s potential for sustaining
positive effects over the long term. The 1998 amendments to Head Start, included in
the legislation reauthorizing the program in 1998, continued to emphasize the need for
quality improvement.
The 1998 reauthorization law (P.L. 105-285) increased the amount of new
appropriations that must be used for quality improvement activities, at least until
FY2003, and slowed the pace at which the program could expand. The law required
HHS to develop specific education performance standards, and established teacher and
staff training related to these standards as a priority use of quality improvement funds.
The law encouraged payment of higher salaries for staff with higher levels of
education and training, and required every Head Start classroom to have a teacher with
demonstrated competency to perform certain functions related to school readiness and
child development. The legislation also required that, by September 30, 2003, half of
all Head Start teachers nationwide must have at least an associate, bachelors, or
graduate degree in early childhood education or development, or in a related field with
experience teaching preschool children. According to HHS Head Start Program
Information Report (PIR) data, this requirement was met in the 2002 program year,
reaching just over 50% — up from 37% holding a postsecondary degree in 1999. The
law further required HHS to develop results-based performance measures, and to
review the effectiveness of individual programs in meeting those measures.
Long-Term Benefits. During the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start, several
congressional committees expressed interest in a rigorous evaluation component for
Head Start. While there is widespread agreement that Head Start produces significant
short-term gains, there continues to be disagreement over the program’s long-term
benefits. Several studies in the 1980s and early 1990s found a “fade-out” of Head
Start benefits for children during their later school years, but some researchers have
questioned whether this apparent fade-out was due to the children’s preschool
experience or the poor quality of the schooling they later received. A 1995 report by
the Packard Foundation presents evidence that high-quality early childhood education
for low-income children, including Head Start, does produce long-term educational,

---

CRS-20
economic, and societal gains.11 Head Start programs included in the review generally
showed significant favorable effects on grade retention and special education
placement. Multi-service Head Start programs did not fare as well as better-funded
public preschool programs in overall effectiveness measures, although the report noted
that Head Start participants tend to be more disadvantaged, so that comparisons could
be affected by preexisting conditions.
The General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability
Office) published a Head Start literature review in 1997, in which it concluded that
an extensive body of literature exists, but the research is inadequate to draw
conclusions about the impact of Head Start on a national basis (Head Start: Research
Provides Little Information on Impact of Current Program, HEHS-97-59, April
1997). GAO noted that most of the studies were on cognitive outcomes and did not
evaluate such program components as nutrition or health-related services. Moreover,
the quality of some of the research was poor and none of the studies used a nationally
representative sample that would enable conclusions to be drawn about the national
program. However, GAO pointed out that HHS currently has a variety of research and
evaluation activities underway that will eventually produce information about the
program’s impact.
The 1998 amendments to Head Start mandated and reserved funds for additional
studies on the impact of Head Start. The law also required all Head Start agencies to
coordinate with the local education agency and community schools, to develop
procedures for the transition of Head Start children into kindergarten and elementary
school. The law also required HHS to provide technical assistance to Head Start
programs to help ensure school readiness of children and to promote family literacy.
FACES and Head Start Impact Study. Two evaluation efforts underway
which are designed to measure the effectiveness of the Head Start program are the
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) and the National Impact Study.
FACES, initially launched in 1997 (with the most recent cohort starting in Fall
of 2000), is a periodic, longitudinal study of successive nationally representative
samples of children and families in Head Start programs. The purpose of the study
is to provide descriptions of the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical
development of Head Start children; the characteristics, well-being, and
accomplishments of families; the observed quality of Head Start classrooms; and the
characteristics, needs, and opinions of Head Start teachers and other program staff.
Children and parents are studied at entry into the program, followed for one or two
years of program participation, and followed-up at the end of the child’s kindergarten
year.12
11 The Future of Children, Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, The David
and Lucille Packard Foundation, winter 1995. Available via the web, at
[http://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs-info2825/pubs-info.htm?doc_id=77657].
12 For information on recent findings from the FACES study research team, see “What Are
We Learning About Program Quality and Child Development?” by Ruth Hubbell, available
at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/pres_papers/nhsa/nhsa_home.html].

---

CRS-21
The National Impact Study, mandated by the 1998 reauthorization law (P.L. 105-
285), began in FY2001, and is designed to provide a national analysis of the impact
of Head Start on the development and school-readiness of low-income children. The
HHS study requires random assignment of children to Head Start and non-Head Start
groups, with attention being paid to the type and quality of other care and services that
the control group receives. Data collection began in the Fall of 2002, and results of
the study are not expected until 2006.
Coordination with Child Care. Particularly in light of welfare reform
requirements instituted in 1996, which have caused more parents to work or
participate in training activities, Head Start is working to respond to the needs of
families for full-time child care. In recent years, HHS has used some of the Head Start
expansion funds to build partnerships with child care providers to deliver full-day,
full-year services. The 1998 amendments also were intended to encourage
collaboration between child care and Head Start and to promote the development of
unified early education and child care plans that will increase the availability of full-
time services. The law authorized the Secretary of HHS to provide supplemental
collaboration funds to states that undertake such unified planning or other innovative
collaborative initiatives.
The 1998 amendments also directed the Secretary to identify barriers to
collaboration and to develop a mechanism for resolving programmatic conflicts, and
to provide technical assistance related to the provision of full-day, full-year services.
In addition, factors to be considered in awarding Head Start expansion grants, under
the 1998 amendments, include the applicant’s ability to coordinate with other
community child care providers and preschool programs to provide full-day, full-year
services. Moreover, the law authorized Head Start agencies to charge fees for
extended-day services provided to children, if necessary as part of a collaboration with
another agency.

---

CRS-22
Table 3. Head Start FY2005 State Allocations (Estimates)
State
Amount
State
Amount
Alabama
$106,555,000
Nevada
23,953,000
Alaska
12,476,000
New Hampshire
13,390,000
Arizona
103,043,000
New Jersey
129,039,000
Arkansas
64,447,000
New Mexico
52,308,000
California
831,931,000
New York
434,387,000
Colorado
68,353,000
North Carolina
140,753,000
Connecticut
51,915,000
North Dakota
17,179,000
Delaware
12,899,000
Ohio
246,543,000
District of Columbia
25,114,000
Oklahoma
81,052,000
Florida
262,910,000
Oregon
59,481,000
Georgia
168,505,000
Pennsylvania
228,262,000
Hawaii
22,892,000
Puerto Rico
249,260,000
Idaho
22,635,000
Rhode Island
22,020,000
Illinois
269,783,000
South Carolina
82,565,000
Indiana
96,044,000
South Dakota
18,830,000
Iowa
51,560,000
Tennessee
119,399,000
Kansas
50,937,000
Texas
478,833,000
Kentucky
107,867,000
Utah
37,773,000
Louisiana
145,942,000
Vermont
13,563,000
Maine
27,617,000
Virginia
99,124,000
Maryland
78,050,000
Washington
101,195,000
Massachusetts
108,372,000
West Virginia
50,654,000
Michigan
234,537,000
Wisconsin
90,682,000
Minnesota
71,831,000
Wyoming
12,375,000
Mississippi
161,722,000
Virgin Islands
7,998,000
Missouri
119,015,000
Outer Pacific
7,334,000
Montana
20,954,000
American Indian
188,571,000
Nebraska
36,066,000
Migrant Programs
267,267,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data included in the
President’s FY2006 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Table 8-22.
Note: Estimated state allocations do not include estimated funding for technical assistance ($174
million), Research, Development and Evaluation ($20 million), and Program Support ($40 million).
Total FY2005 Head Start funding = $6.843 billion.

---