Order Code RL30952
Head Start: Background and Issues
Updated July 26, 2007
Melinda Gish
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
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 FY2006, Head Start funded enrollment for 909,201 children.
Head Start was last reauthorized in 1998 for FY1999-FY2003, and after
unsuccessful efforts by the 108th and 109th Congresses to complete the reauthorization
process, the 110th Congress has now undertaken the task. On May 2, 2007 the House
passed its reauthorization bill, H.R. 1429, by a vote of 365-48. The Senate passed
its own version of H.R. 1429 by voice vote under unanimous consent on June 19,
2007. The Senate version of H.R. 1429 adopted the language of the committee-
passed S. 556, with a few technical changes. Conferees have been appointed to
resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.
Head Start funding for the entirety of FY2007 was not settled until after four
continuing resolution measures were passed, the first three providing temporary
funding at Head Start’s FY2006 annual rate. The fourth CR (H.J.Res. 20), signed
into law (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007, included $6.889 billion for Head Start,
an increase of approximately $100 million above the FY2006 level provided in the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149). Supplemental dedicated
funding for Head Start was included in the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-148), which provided $90 million for Head Start to serve children displaced by
the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 and to help with the costs of renovating affected
facilities. (Of the $90 million provided, only $74 million was awarded, based on
grantee requests.) The President’s budget for FY2008 proposes funding Head Start
at $6.789 billion, the same as FY2006, but $100 million less than what was
ultimately provided for FY2007.
Program performance, fiscal management, staff qualifications, and the long-term
impact on children, particularly with respect to educational attainment, continue to
be areas of focus and concern, and the subject of reauthorization proposals. The
National Reporting System (NRS), developed with the purpose of assessing the
effectiveness of Head Start programs in achieving successful outcomes for children
in terms of school readiness, and first implemented in fall 2003, is just one subject
of current debate. Both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1429 have proposed
suspension of the NRS, pending further review by the National Academy of Sciences.
This report will be updated to reflect legislative and program developments.
Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Reauthorization Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Appropriations Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
House Subcommittee Hearing on Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2007 Appropriations Finalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Budget Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Head Start Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2007 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
President’s FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Response to Gulf Coast Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Estimates of Head Start Eligibility and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Early Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
President’s Head Start Proposals and Initiatives: Past and Present . . . . . . 12
Training and Technical Assistance Set-Aside Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FACES and Head Start Impact Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Reporting System (NRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Project STEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State Pilot Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FY2004 Proposal to Transfer Head Start to Department
of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reauthorization Bills in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
H.R. 1429, The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 (As Introduced) . . 17
H.R. 1429 (As Amended in Committee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
H.R. 1429 (As Passed by the House) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
S. 556/H.R. 1429, The Head Start for School Readiness Act . . . . . . . 21
Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 2123) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act (S. 1107) . . 25
Other Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Reauthorization Bills in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
The School Readiness Act of 2003 (H.R. 2210): House Passage . . . . 27
Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act (S. 1940) . . . . . . 29
Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act (S. 1483) . . . . . . 30
Other Head Start Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1998 Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Long-Term Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Coordination with Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Final Rule on Head Start Transportation Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Head Start Funding: FY1989-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Estimates of Head Start Eligibility and Participation, FY2005 . . . . . . 11
Table 3. Head Start FY2006 State Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Head Start: Background and Issues
Recent Developments
Reauthorization Activity. On June 19, 2007, the Senate passed (by voice
vote under a unanimous consent agreement) its Head Start for School Readiness Act.
The Senate adopted the bill number (H.R. 1429) of the reauthorization bill that
passed the House (365-48) on May 2, 2007, but substituted its own committee-
reported bill language of S. 556 (with a few technical changes). Unlike the Senate
bill passage, which occurred via voice vote, without floor debate, and under
unanimous consent, the House debated twelve amendments, of which nine were
adopted. Those amendments, as well as other provisions included in the House and
Senate reauthorization bills, are summarized later in this report; see the section
entitled “Reauthorization Bills in the 110th Congress.” Conferees have been
appointed to resolve differences between the two bills.
FY2008 Appropriations Activity. On June 19, 2007, the House passed (by
a vote of 276-140) its Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R. 3043), which
proposes $6.964 billion for Head Start (an increase of $75 million above current
funding). This is the same level that was approved by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 110-231) by voice vote on July, 11, 2007. When the House
began floor debate on the bill, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Statement of Administration Policy stating its opposition to the bill and threatened
a presidential veto if it is ultimately presented to the President.
The full Senate has yet to take up a Labor-HHS-Education bill; however, on
June 27, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved and reported S.
1720/S.Rept. 110-107. The committee-passed bill would provide $7.089 billion for
Head Start, an increase of $200 million above current funding.
House Subcommittee Hearing on Head Start. On February 28, 2007,
the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the
House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing, “Improving Head Start for
America’s Children.” Witness testimony and an archived webcast of the hearing may
be accessed at [http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/ecese022807.shtml].
FY2007 Appropriations Finalized. After three continuing resolutions (CR)
had extended temporary funding for Head Start at its FY2006 annual rate, a fourth
CR (H.J.Res. 20) signed into law (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007, ultimately
provided funding for the entirety of FY2007. This appropriations measure included
$6.889 billion for Head Start, an increase of approximately $100 million above the
FY2006 level provided in last year’s HHS appropriations law.
CRS-2
FY2008 Budget Proposal. The Administration released its proposed budget
for FY2008 on February 5, 2007. The President proposes to fund Head Start at the
FY2006 level of $6.789 billion. (Of note: at the time of the budget’s release, the
FY2007 appropriations law, providing an additional $100 million for Head Start, had
not been enacted. As a result, the budget proposal reflects what was at that point
considered level funding, rather than what would now actually be a $100 million
decrease.)
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
both the 108th and 109th Congresses, the Head Start Act was not reauthorized. Thus,
it remains an agenda item for the 110th Congress.
The reauthorization bills that were introduced in the 109th Congress differed in
substantial ways from those that received attention in the 108th Congress. While
much of the debate in the 108th Congress focused on a House proposal to allow up
to eight qualifying states to take over the administration of Head Start programs in
their states, the House bill passed by the 109th Congress (H.R. 2123) did 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), H.R. 2123 instead aimed
to promote better coordination between Head Start and other early childhood
programs 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 have remained unchanged under this bill. Neither the reauthorization
bill offered in the Senate during the 108th Congress (S. 1940), nor the Senate
committee-passed bill of the last Congress (S. 1107; 109th Congress), included 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. In the last Congress (the 109th), the House bill
(H.R. 2123), as introduced and amended in committee, did not contain the
discrimination language of the bill from the 108th Congress; however, Chairman
CRS-3
Boehner followed through on his plan (openly discussed in the committee markup)
to offer the provision as an amendment when the bill was brought to the House floor.
The provision faced strong opposition from many Democrats, and dominated much
of the floor debate, but ultimately passed (220-196). The full bill, including the faith-
based amendment among others, passed the House by a vote of 231-184.
Concerns regarding financial management problems among some Head Start
grantees (highlighted by a February 28, 2005 GAO report),1 and other program
performance issues were newly addressed by the reauthorization bills of the 109th
Congress. Both the House bill and the Senate committee-passed bill included
provisions to increase competition for grants, requiring most grantees to recompete
for funding every five years. Priority for funding (and refunding) would have been
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).
The 110th Congress has inherited the task of working to reauthorize the Head
Start Act, and at this writing, both the House and Senate have passed their own
versions of a reauthorization measure (H.R. 1429). While many of the proposals
included in previous reauthorization bills are included in this year’s legislation, the
controversial provision pertaining to the ability to discriminate in hiring of Head Start
staff, based on religion, is not included in either the House or Senate version of H.R.
1429. (Efforts to amend H.R. 1429 in the House to include the provision were
unsuccessful.) The status of the reauthorization bills and explanation of the major
provisions contained within them are summarized later in this report.
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, below). 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, $1.386 billion became available in FY2006. Head Start funding in the
FY2006 HHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) was subject to an across-the-board
cut of 1%, which brought the total to $6.786 billion (with $1.389 billion of that
becoming available in FY2007). In addition, the Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.
109-148) included $90 million in supplementary funding for Head Start, to be used
specifically for grantees serving children displaced by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of
2005, and to help with costs of renovating Head Start facilities that were affected by
the storms. (See FY2006 Appropriations, later in this report.) The FY2007
appropriation law (P.L. 110-5) provides $6.889 billion for Head Start.
1 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-4
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. In FY2006, regular Head
Start funding decreased to $6.786 billion (after the 1% across-the-board rescission);
however the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) also provided $90
million in supplementary funding to assist with Head Start needs arising as a result
of the Gulf Coast hurricanes (See Table 1, below). The appropriation for FY2007
(including a portion of advance funds for FY2008) was settled in February 2007 and
includes $6.889 billion for Head Start.
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.
CRS-5
Also of total Head Start appropriations, the Secretary must reserve 13% for use
in the following priority order:
! Indian and migrant Head Start programs2, 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 five 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 $225,000 per state.
(See Table 3 for actual state allocations for Head Start for FY2006.)
2 In FY2006, the actual appropriation ultimately reserved for Indian Head Start programs
was approximately 2.7% and for Migrant and Seasonal programs, approximately 4%. No
percentage is written into current law.
CRS-6
Table 1. Head Start Funding: FY1989-FY2007
($ in billions)
Year
Authorization
Appropriation
Year
Authorization
Appropriation
1989
1.332
1.235
1999
ssan
4.658
1990
1.552
1.552
2000
ssan
5.267a
1991
2.386
1.952
2001
ssan
6.200a
1992
4.273
2.202
2002
ssan
6.537a
1993
5.924
2.776
2003
ssan
6.668a
1994
7.660
3.326
2004
expired
6.775a,b
1995
ssan
3.534
2005
expired
6.843c
1996
ssan
3.569
expired
6.786d
2006
1997
ssan
3.981
(see footnotee)
0.090e
1998
ssan
4.347
2007
expired
6.889
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the Head Start
Bureau.
Note: ssan = such sums as necessary.
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). Of the $6.843 billion, $1.386 billion became
available in FY2006. (Prior to the rescission, the total amount was $6.899 billion.)
d. This amount reflects the across-the-board 1% rescission applied to discretionary programs under
the FY2006 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149). (Prior to the rescission, the amount
was $6.843 billion.) Of the $6.786 billion, $1.389 billion became available in FY2007.
e. The FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) appropriated $90 million in Head Start
funding to be used specifically to address needs arising from the Gulf Coast hurricanes (i.e.,
serving displaced children and helping with costs of renovating affected facilities). Of the $90
million appropriated, a total of $74 million was actually awarded, based on grantee requests.
FY2007 Appropriations. After three continuing resolutions (CR) had
extended temporary funding for Head Start at its FY2006 annual rate3, a fourth CR
(H.J.Res. 20) signed into law (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007, ultimately provided
funding for the entirety of FY2007. This appropriations measure included $6.889
billion for Head Start, an increase of approximately $100 million above the FY2006
level provided in last year’s HHS appropriations law.
Leading up to the CR activity, on July 20, 2006, in the 109th Congress, the
Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3708 (S.Rept. 109-287), a bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. The committee-
3 The first continuing resolution was attached to the Defense Appropriations Conference
Report (H.Rept. 109-676) and signed into law (P.L. 109-289) on September 29, 2006. It was
followed by a second CR (P.L. 109-369) that ran through December 8, 2006, and a third
(P.L. 109-383) that extended funding through February 15, 2007.
CRS-7
passed bill proposed $6.789 billion for Head Start, an increase of approximately $3.7
million above the comparable regular Head Start funding included in the FY2006
appropriations law (note that $90 million in special hurricane funds were included
as part of the FY2006 Defense Appropriations).
A month earlier, on June 20, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee
reported its version of a Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill, H.R. 5647
(H.Rept. 109-515), which included the same funding levels and provisions for Head
Start as proposed in the Senate Committee-passed bill described above.
FY2006 Appropriations. Following a lengthy appropriations process that
included three continuing resolutions4 and consideration of two conference reports5,
a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education
(H.R. 3010) was signed into law (P.L. 109-149) on December 30, 2005. Head Start,
like other discretionary programs funded under this act, was subject to an across-the-
board cut of 1%, which brought the total appropriation to $6.786 billion (of which
$1.389 billion became available in FY2007). In addition to funding, the law included
provisions allowing for Head Start transportation safety waivers, an earmark of $1
million to be used to establish a National Academy of Sciences panel to review and
provide guidance on appropriate outcomes and assessments for young children, and
a provision limiting the use of Head Start funds to pay compensation in excess of the
Executive Level II rate.
Earlier in the appropriations process, the House had passed its version of H.R.
3010, which would have funded Head Start at a level of $6.899 billion. The Senate-
passed version would have provided the lesser amount of $6.874 billion. As part of
passing its version of H.R. 3010, the Senate accepted an amendment (S.Amdt. 2280)
offered by Senator Harkin, which would provide the HHS Secretary with the
authority to temporarily waive certain transportation safety requirements for Head
Start programs, and postpone the effective date of particular Head Start regulations
under certain conditions. Similar transportation safety provisions were adopted in
conference. The conference report did not adopt either the House- or Senate-
proposed funding level, however. Instead, Head Start funding was maintained at the
FY2005 level.
Additional Funding in the Defense Appropriations Act. The Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) included $90 million in additional funding for
Head Start, to be used specifically for grantees serving children displaced by the Gulf
Coast hurricanes of 2005, and to help with the costs of renovating Head Start
facilities affected by the storms. Those funds were not allocated according to the
4 The first continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 68/P.L. 109-77) extended funding through
November 18, 2005. The second (H.J.Res. 72, P.L. 109-105) continued the funding through
December 17, 2005), and the third (H.J.Res. 75, P.L. 109-128) through December 31, 2005.
5 On November 17, 2005, the House failed to approve the first Conference Report (H.Rept.
109-300) on H.R. 3010. A second Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-337) was subsequently
approved by the House on December 14, 2005 (by vote of 215-213), and by unanimous
consent in the Senate on December 21, 2005. Head Start provisions in the two did not
differ.
CRS-8
standard Head Start formula due to the targeted purpose of the funding. As discussed
below, the Head Start Bureau has taken action to assess and address the needs of
Head Start grantees in response to these hurricanes. Of the $90 million appropriated,
a total of $74 million was awarded, based on grantee requests. The remainder was
returned to the Treasury.
President’s FY2007 Budget Request
The Administration’s budget request for FY2007, released on February 6, 2006,
proposed to maintain Head Start funding at a level of $6.786 billion [the same
amount, post-rescission, included in the FY2006 HHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-
149)]. In its Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, the
Administration (HHS) contended that by allowing a greater portion of Head Start
funds to be shifted away from training and technical assistance and into direct service
grants, the number of children estimated to be served by Head Start (and Early Head
Start) would increase to approximately 917,000 (an increase of roughly 10,000
children from FY2006 estimates). (For more details, see President’s Head Start
Proposals and Initiatives later in this report.)
Response to Gulf Coast Hurricanes
The Head Start Bureau urged all of its grantees to provide Head Start services
to any displaced children and families now in their communities as a result of the
2005 hurricanes. On September 12, 2005, HHS announced that it was making
available $15 million for this purpose, to help cover costs over a 30-day period.
Grantees were instructed to treat any preschool-aged child whose family was
displaced from their home as income-eligible, with or without documentation. The
Head Start Bureau anticipated that programs serving newly enrolled displaced
children may struggle to meet certain Head Start regulations, and issued guidance for
requesting waivers in those areas. Moreover, the Bureau encouraged grantees to
contact their regional federal offices with any concerns arising from serving
evacuated families. The regional offices were asked (by HHS) to collect data (on a
daily basis) from their respective grantees regarding the number of evacuee children
being served by their program(s), and whether these children were new to Head Start,
or, instead, were previously enrolled in a Head Start program in the community from
which they have been displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina. For copies of
documents prepared by HHS relating to Head Start’s role in responding to children
and families affected by Hurricane Katrina, as well as Head Start staff from centers
affected by the hurricane, see the following website: [http://www.headstartinfo.org/
hurricane_rir.htm].
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 ($20,650 for a family of four in 2007) 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. In the
CRS-9
2005-2006 Head Start program year, 12.1% of Head Start enrollment consisted of
children with disabilities. Head Start is authorized to serve children at any age prior
to compulsory school attendance; however, most children are three- and four-year-
olds. However, the 1994 reauthorization did create the Early Head Start program,
which serves children under age 3. In FY2006, according to HHS fact sheets,
children under age 3 represented 10% 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 FY2006 to have
totaled 909,201 children (of whom approximately 10% were under age 3 and served
by Early Head Start).6 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 FY2006, FY2005 (906,993), FY2004 (905,851) and FY2003
(909,608) all represent decreases from the FY2002 level of 912,345, and do not
trend in the same direction from year to year (when funding has increased), reflecting
that an increase in funding does not necessarily translate to additional slots. Rather,
the decrease may be indicative of grantees opting to convert the home-based slots to
more expensive center-based care, or part-day slots to full-day.
Estimates of Head Start Eligibility and Participation
Table 2 provides estimates of the percentage of the age-5-and-under population
economically or categorically eligible for the Head Start program. The estimates are
derived from data collected in the Census’s Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement. The estimated number of eligible children, shown
in the second column of the table, is based on the number of children living in
families with annual 2005 income below the Federal Poverty Guidelines (most
recently issued in February 2006), or in a family receiving TANF or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), or in foster care. (Other potentially eligible children, such as
children with disabilities, were not estimated.) The third column draws upon the
most recent data available regarding funded enrollment in Head Start (i.e. the number
of slots funded at a given point in the FY2005 program year) to reflect funded
enrollment, by age. The final column shows estimates of the percentage of eligibles
served, by age, calculated using the information in the prior two columns.
6 Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2007 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
CRS-10
Readers of previous versions of this report should note that the methodology
used to calculate the estimates shown in Table 2 for FY2005 differs from that used
for previous years. As a result, a comparison with previous estimates (e.g., for
FY2004) reflects changes in the percentage of eligibles served (see the Note at the
bottom of Table 2 for details) that are due to methodological changes in calculating
the estimates, and are not necessarily attributable to significant programmatic or
population changes. The inclusion of children from families receiving SSI, as well
as the inclusion of foster children, has increased the denominator of potentially
eligible Head Start children, translating to estimates of smaller percentages of
eligibles being served, at least in the 3- and 4-year-old age groups.7 Moreover, in
estimating the number of poor families, the new methodology measures family
income against the poverty guidelines of the survey year (in this case the February
2006 guidelines) as opposed to using guidelines issued in the income year (2005).
While the new methodology has been implemented to provide a more comprehensive
estimate, readers are cautioned that neither method can capture the extent to which
Head Start eligibility workers use all residing family members’ income (used for
these estimates, and allowable under Head Start rules) versus only
parent(s’)/caretaker(s’) income in determining eligibility.
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 three- and four-year-old children, in part because the applicable
program for children under three, Early Head Start, is by current law limited to 10%
of the total Head Start appropriation.
7 Under the methodology used for previous versions of this CRS report, the estimated
percentages of eligible children served in 2005 would reflect slight increases over the
estimates for 2004, rather than slight decreases. See table notes for details.
CRS-11
Table 2. Estimates of Head Start Eligibility and Participation,
FY2005
(numbers in thousands)
Economically or
FY2005
Percent
Age
Population
Categorically
Funded
Served
Eligible
Enrollment
Under 3
12,268
2,916
91
3%
Age 3
4,021
871
308
35%
Age 4
4,075
927
472
51%
Age 3-4 (combined)
8,096
1,799
780
43%
Age 5a
4,037
890
36
4%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the U.S.
Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(CPS/ASEC). Estimates of economic eligibility are based on the percentage of children living in
families with annual 2005 income below Federal Poverty Income Guidelines issued in February 2006,
or living in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) in 2005, or living in foster care. Head Start enrollment numbers represent
“funded enrollment” (or budgeted “slots” at a given point)as published by the Department of Health
and Human Services, not the total actual number of children who participate in the program at any
point over the course of the year.
Note: The methodology used to calculate these estimates differs from that used for this table in
previous years, resulting in comparatively lower percentages of eligible children served. Three
changes in methodology have been made: The inclusion of children from families receiving SSI, as
well as the inclusion of foster children, has increased the denominator of potentially eligible Head
Start children, translating to lower percentages of eligibles being served, at least for the 3- and 4-year-
olds. The potentially eligible population also increased as a result of measuring poverty using the
poverty guidelines of the survey year rather than the income year. If the estimated percentages of
eligible children served in 2005 had been calculated in the same way as in earlier years, they would
reflect slight increases over the estimates for 2004: 3% of under three year olds (same as in 2004);
39% of three year olds (37% in 2004); 56% of 4-year-olds (55% in 2004); and 4% of 5-year-olds (3%
in 2004).
a. The funded enrollment for “age 5” includes children in the Head Start program who may be over
5, but not yet in kindergarten.
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
CRS-12
FY2003. (Although authorized only through FY2003, the allotments since then have
maintained the 10% set-aside for Early Head Start.)
The first EHS grants were awarded in September 1995, and totaled $47 million.
In FY2005, nearly $685 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:
Past and Present
Over the course of his presidency, President Bush has proposed significant
changes to the Head Start program. Not all the proposals have gained legislative
traction. Some proposals have remained dormant, with no legislative support; others
have been modified and included in unsuccessful reauthorization measures, only to
be dropped from pending reauthorization bills; a few remain as current
reauthorization proposals; and finally, a few initiatives are currently under way, not
requiring new congressional approval. All of these proposals and initiatives are
discussed below, starting with proposals and initiatives mentioned as part of the
President’s FY2007 and FY2008 budgets.
Training and Technical Assistance Set-Aside Proposal. The
President’s budgets for both FY2007 and FY2008 maintained support for a change
to the statutory set-aside of Head Start funds for training and technical assistance.
(The Administration has been advocating for this change since its FY2004 budget
request.) The proposal specifically called 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 contended that the
Secretary would be afforded more discretionary authority to allocate resources each
year in a manner that would maximize benefits to children and families. (Neither
H.R. 1429 nor S. 556 proposes to make this change to the T/TA set-aside.)
FACES and Head Start Impact Study. In addition to reiterating support
for a change to the T/TA set-aside, the FY2008 budget proposal maintained the
Administration’s commitment to funding two comprehensive Head Start evaluation
CRS-13
studies: the Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES) and the National
Impact Study. FACES and the Impact Study are two evaluation efforts already under
way that are designed to measure the effectiveness of the Head Start program.
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.8
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 was scheduled to continue through 2006. Preliminary results from the first
year of data collection demonstrate small to moderate positive effects favoring the
children enrolled in Head Start for some outcomes in each domain. Fewer positive
effects were found for children in the 4-year-old group.9
National Reporting System (NRS). The President maintains 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 in the
areas of language comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic and numeracy awareness,
letter recognition, and for children whose native language is not English, progress
toward acquisition of the English language. Not having required legislative action,
this national reporting system, implemented for the first time in the fall of 2003, 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 [P.L. 105-285, Section 108 (b)(5)]. A May
2005 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that
analysis of the NRS to support its use for the purposes of accountability is
incomplete, and provides recommendations for improving the implementation of the
8 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].
9 Highlights of the preliminary findings from the Head Start Impact Study, as published by
the Department of Health and Human Services, can be found at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_execsum/firstyr_sum_highlights.html].
CRS-14
system.10 (Both H.R. 1429 and S. 556 would suspend the NRS pending further
review.) On February 12, 2007, HHS released a report from the Advisory Committee
on Head Start Accountability and Educational Performance Measures, a group
established by the Secretary in 2004.11 The report provides recommendations for the
integration of the NRS with other ongoing assessments.
Project STEP. 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. 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.
State Pilot Projects. The proposal to allow some or all states to administer
the Head Start program (as opposed to the direct federal to local structure now in
place) is not contained in any of the reauthorization bills pending before Congress.
Likewise, the President did not reintroduce the proposal in his last two budget
requests (FY2007 or FY2008). However, in past budgets, the President advocated
for shifting the administration of the program to the states.
In his FY2006 budget, the President requested $45 million to support his
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 was intended to assist states with implementing reforms
that promote better coordination, and in turn, school readiness.
The nine-state pilot project proposal, first introduced in the FY2005 budget,
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 President’s proposal
to make changes to the Head Start program.12 This was followed by a White House
10 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].
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Head Start
Accountability and Educational Performance Measures, January 2007 [http://www.acf.
hhs.gov/programs/hsb/budget/AdvCmteSep05/FINAL_SAC_NRS_Report_Jan2007.pdf].
12 For additional information, see the press release from the Department of Health and
(continued...)
CRS-15
document outlining the Administration’s assessment of the status of the Head Start
program, and its plans for the program in the future.13 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) were 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 the last Congress (109th) neither the House nor Senate bills (H.R. 2123 and
S. 1107, respectively) include the state pilot proposal in any form, nor do H.R. 142914
and S. 556 in this Congress.
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
12 (...continued)
Human Services (HHS), at [http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030203.html].
13 This document, entitled “Head Start Policy Book” is available on the White House
website [http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/hspolicybook/summary.html].
14 During floor debate of H.R. 1429, Rep. Price offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 117) that
would have allowed for the 8 state pilot projects, but the measure failed by a vote of 165-
254.
CRS-16
managing the Head Start program from the Department of Health and Human
Services to the Department of Education.”15 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 did any
subsequent budgets.
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.
15 See Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government: Analytical Perspectives, p. 251.
CRS-17
1940, 108th Congress) included the proposal to transfer Head Start to the Department
of Education, and the President’s most recent budget is silent on the issue of a
transfer.
Reauthorization Bills in the 110th Congress
After unsuccessful efforts to complete reauthorization of the Head Start program
last Congress, the 110th Congress is underway in its efforts to accomplish the task.
Most recently, the Senate passed its version of a reauthorization bill, adopting House
bill number H.R. 1429, while substituting its own committee bill (S. 556) language
with a few technical changes. The House passed its reauthorization measure, H.R.
1429, The Improving Head Start Act of 2007, including 9 amendments to the House
committee-reported version of the bill. Major provisions of both the House and
Senate bills are summarized below, tracing the evolution of each bill, from
introduction, through committee, and floor passage.16
H.R. 1429, The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 (As Introduced).
H.R. 1429, a bill to reauthorize and amend the Head Start Act, was introduced by
Representative Kildee on March 9, 2007. As introduced (see amendments below), the
legislation would authorize appropriations for the Head Start program at a level of
$7.350 billion in FY2008, and such sums as necessary for FY2009-2012. Of the total
appropriation, at least 3.5% would be reserved for Indian Head Start programs and at
least 5% for migrant and seasonal programs, provided that doing so does not result in
a loss of non-tribal and migrant Head Start slots. (Under current law, Indian, Migrant
and Seasonal programs do not have specified set-aside percentages, but are categories
for which the overall 13% reservation may be spent.) The bill would require that a
report, detailing the different amounts of expenditures within the 13% set-aside, be
submitted by HHS to Congress annually. The percentage of the total appropriation
remaining for “quality funds” after adjusting the prior year’s appropriation for state
allotments (updating the hold harmless to FY2007) and reserving the 13% set-aside
would be set at 60% (an increase from the current 25%).
The percentage of funding allocated for the Early Head Start program would
increase from the current 10% level to at least 12% in FY2008, rising to 20% in
FY2012. As with the aforementioned Indian and Migrant program set-asides, the
EHS percentages are only to increase if the regular Head Start slots and quality levels
are not reduced as a result. Moreover, the bill would permit states the ability to apply
to use regular Head Start funding for serving infants and toddlers.
In the area of bolstering staff credentials, the bill calls for at least 50% of all
Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs to have a B.A. or advanced
degree in early childhood education by the end of FY2013 (as opposed to the A.A.
degree required under current law).
The bill would increase competition for Head Start grants, requiring
recompetition every five years for grantees shown to have a deficiency. The bill
16 For a detailed comparison of the reauthorization bills and current law, see CRS Report
RL33968, Head Start Reauthorization: A Side-by-Side Comparison of House- and Senate-
passed Versions of H.R. 1429 and Current Law.
CRS-18
proposes to create an expert panel that would devise a grant review process for the
new system. Grantees without deficiencies would be designated as priority grantees,
and would not be subject to recompetition (in that five-year cycle). 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. While the board would be required to consult
with its policy council (of whom a majority of members must be parents of enrolled
or recently enrolled children), policy councils would not retain their current regulatory
authority to jointly approve or disapprove of many budget, program, and hiring
policies. They would instead serve in an advisory capacity. However, the bill does
require that the Secretary develop an “impasse policy” to be implemented in cases
where disputes arise between the council and board.
The bill calls for grantees to enroll 100% of its funded enrollment and to
maintain an active waiting list. Coordination with local education agencies (LEAs)
and state-funded prekindergartens is to be encouraged through the development of
memoranda of understanding (MOUs), and alignment of all program activities,
curricula, and instruction with state-developed K-12 academic standards, where
applicable.
The bill would suspend use of the National Reporting system pending further
review by a National Academy of Sciences panel. Other studies that the bill would
require include a study on the status of limited English proficient children and families
participating in the Head Start program.
H.R. 1429 (As Amended in Committee). On March 14, 2007, the
Education and Labor Committee markup began with the panel’s approval of a
manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute. The substitute added provisions
to allow for increasing eligibility for Head Start from 100% of poverty to 130% of
poverty; to reserve at least 25% of “quality improvement funds” for boosting staff
compensation and salaries; to coordinate with Teach for America as a source of Head
Start staff; to encourage programs to extend mental health services to children; and
to mandate a study of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Head Start
programs, and the development of a disaster preparedness plan for improving Head
Start centers’ coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Other amendments offered, debated, and accepted during markup included
! Representative Davis’s (IL) amendment, which would establish
standards for training, qualifications, and conduct of home visitation
in Early Head Start programs. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Foxx’s amendment, which would ensure
confidentiality of the records of participating Head Start children,
allowing access to parents but prohibiting the creation of a national
database with such information. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Bishop’s (NY) amendment, which would allow Head
Start grantees to use up to 10% of their quality improvement funds
for costs associated with transportation services necessary to maintain
services for participating children. (Voice vote approval)
CRS-19
! Representative Grijalva’s amendment, which would require the
Secretary of HHS to report to Congress on the percentage of Head
Start classroom teachers with A.A. degrees and above, disaggregated
by race, ethnicity, and proficiency in languages other than English.
(Voice vote approval)
! Representative Andrews’s amendment, which would require the
Secretary of HHS to consult with experts on issues concerning air
quality and impact on children’s health (e.g. asthma), and to inform
Head Start agencies of programs that provide methods of improving
indoor air quality. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Yarmuth’s amendment, which would extend the
authority of the Secretary of HHS to grant transportation waivers to
grantees with good cause, and codifies the transportation regulations
issued by HHS. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Grijalva’s amendment, which would encourage use of
culturally and linguistically appropriate instruction for children with
limited English proficiency. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Hinojosa’s amendment (with a second degree
amendment from Representative McKeon), which would authorize
demonstration grants to tribal colleges and universities for educating
individuals to serve as Indian Head Start teachers. It would also
authorize demonstration grants to Hispanic-serving institutions that
would provide career ladders and financial assistance to Head Start
staff to complete degree programs leading to service in Head Start as
a bilingual teacher (for a period of time equivalent to the period for
which financial assistance was received). (Voice vote approval)
! Representative McCarthy’s amendment, which would require the
Secretary of HHS to publish regulations on the issue of preventing
and reducing obesity in children who participate in Head Start
programs. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Hare’s amendment, which would provide technical
assistance and training to help teacher recruitment and retention in
rural Head Start programs. (Voice vote approval)
Amendments rejected by the committee included two controversial yet familiar
provisions from last Congress’s reauthorization debates. Representative Fortuño
offered the amendment proposing to allow faith-based Head Start agencies to
discriminate in hiring based on religion, and after vigorous debate, it failed by a vote
of 19-26. Representative Price offered the amendment proposing state pilot projects
for up to eight states, and it too failed, by a vote of 18-27.
H.R. 1429 (As Passed by the House). The bill passed the House on May
2, 2007 by a vote of 365-48. Twelve amendments to the committee-reported version
of the bill (described above) were offered on the House floor, and nine were accepted.
The amendments offered and accepted were as follows:
! Representative E.B. Johnson’s amendment, which would instruct the
Secretary of HHS to create partnerships between Head Start and
historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Education
programs implemented through the partnerships are to help increase
CRS-20
the degrees (AA, BA, and advanced degrees) in early childhood
education that are earned by Head Start staff. (Note: Although Head
Start-HBCU partnerships currently exist, current law does not
specifically address them.) (Voice vote approval)
! Representatives Kennedy and Hall’s amendment, which would define
“inclusive classroom” to be those classes serving both children with
and without disabilities. The amendment would make funds
available to increase the understanding of the impact of Head Start
service delivery on all children in inclusive classrooms, and to assist
Head Start programs in improving the quality of those classrooms.
(Voice vote approval)
! Representative Porter’s amendment, which would require that prior
to hiring an individual, a Head Start grantee is to conduct an
interview, verify personal and employment references, and obtain a
criminal records check. (Voice vote approval)
! Representative Cuellar’s amendment, which would require that a
description of the assessment(s) used to determine the rate of progress
made by limited English proficient children be included as part of the
proposed (in H.R. 1429) Report to Congress on the status of Head
Start children with limited English proficiency. (Voice vote approval)
! Representatives Space, Hare, and Welch’s amendment, which would
require that in allocating technical assistance and training funding, the
Secretary of HHS shall provide assistance to address the unique needs
of programs located in rural communities, including removing
barriers related to recruiting and training teachers in rural areas,
developing effective models of staff development, and removing
barriers to parent involvement and outreach. The amendment would
also require that when entering into contracts for training and
technical assistance, the Secretary ensure that the entities contracted
address the needs of grantees in both urban and rural areas. (Voice
vote approval)
! Representative Sestak’s amendment, which would authorize the
Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, to
implement a student loan forgiveness program for Head Start and
Early Head Start teachers who receive a BA in a field related to early
childhood education and agree to teach in a Head Start program for
a minimum of three years. (Approved 312-107)
! Representative Hirono’s amendment, which would require that
training and technical assistance in the Early Head Start program be
provided by entities with specific expertise in infant and toddler (age
0-3 years) development. (Approved 372-50)
! Representative Carnahan’s amendment, which would provide that if
the Head Start appropriation does not exceed the prior year’s,
grantees may negotiate a reduced funded-enrollment level, if able to
demonstrate (to HHS) that doing so is necessary to maintain the
quality of services provided. (Approved 253-171)
! Representatives Shuler, Ellworth, and Loebsack’s amendment, which
would add findings into law, outlining the history and importance of
faith-based and community-based organizations participating in the
Head Start program. The amendment also adds language clarifying
CRS-21
that these organizations would continue to be eligible to participate
in the Head Start program on the same basis as other organizations.
(Approved 229-195)
Failed Amendments. Amendments that failed on the floor included the
familiar (from previous Congresses) proposal to establish a demonstration program
allowing eight states to administer the Head Start program (offered by Representative
Price, failed 165-254); a proposal to require 50% of Head Start teachers nationwide
to have a BA degree by 2011 (offered by Representative Mica, failed 137-286); and
an amendment which would strike provisions in H.R. 1429 requiring the development
and implementation of a new system of grant application review, and would require
that all grantees recompete for funds every five years, regardless of performance
(offered by Representative Putnam, failed 161-262).
One amendment that was frequently referenced during consideration of H.R.
1429, but that had been rejected by the Rules Committee for floor consideration, was
an amendment pertaining to faith-based providers’ ability to discriminate in hiring.
The amendment, submitted by Representative Fortuño, would have allowed faith-
based Head Start providers to discriminate in their hiring of Head Start employees,
based on religion — overriding a provision in current Head Start law that bars this.
It also would have stipulated that (1) religious organizations be considered as Head
Start providers on the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations and not be
discriminated against because of their religious character, (2) faith-based providers
can retain their religious character and control of their internal governance, (3)
religious providers cannot be required to remove religious symbols and art, (4) federal
Head Start funds cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization,
and (5) federal audits of faith-based Head Start providers be limited to federal funds
they receive.17 Although Representative Fortuno’s amendment was not approved for
floor consideration, a motion was made (by Representative McKeon) during floor
debate to return H.R. 1429 to the Education and Labor Committee for further
consideration of the provisions in this amendment. The motion failed by a vote of
195-222. The reauthorization measure, H.R. 1429 as amended, subsequently passed
the House by a vote of 365-48.
S. 556/H.R. 1429, The Head Start for School Readiness Act. This bill
was originally introduced as S. 556 by Senator Kennedy in February 2007 and was
approved and reported by the Senate HELP Committee (S.Rept. 110-049). On June
19, 2007, the full Senate passed this bill (with technical changes) under the House
bill’s number, H.R. 1429, by voice vote (under unanimous consent).
The bill would amend and reauthorize the Head Start Act, authorizing
appropriations for Head Start at the following levels: $7.350 billion for FY2008;
17 Unlike the employment provision, these requirements generally would not reflect a change
in current Head Start practices. All but the federal audit provision are addressed in a current
Office of Head Start, HHS, policy clarification (OHS-PC-A-001), issued on July 11, 2006,
although they are not explicitly covered in Head Start law or regulations. Available at
[http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Program%20Design%20and%20Management/Head%2
0Start%20Requirements/Policy%20Clarifications%20and%20FAQs/a_pc.htm].
CRS-22
$7.650 billion for FY2009; $7.995 billion for FY2010; and such sums as may be
necessary for FY2011 and FY2012. Specified percentages for Indian programs (not
less than 4%) and migrant and seasonal programs (not less than 5%) are proposed in
the bill, to the extent that those percentages are practicable within other budgetary
constraints of the law. The percentage of the total appropriation remaining for quality
purposes after adjusting the prior year’s appropriation for state allotments and
reserving the set-asides would be set at 30% for FY2008, and 40% for each of
FY2009-FY2012 (an increase from the current 25%).
The formula for determining state allotments would be changed by updating the
“hold harmless” to FY2007, and distributing any remaining amounts based in part
(65%) on the percentage of eligible children being served by the state, and in part
(35%) on the number of low-income children under age 5 in the state.
Like the House bill, the percentage of funding reserved for Early Head Start
programs would be increased from the current level of 10%. Reservations would be
as follows: at least 12% for FY2008; 14% for FY2009; 16% for FY2010; 18% for
FY2011; and 20% for FY2012 (again, provided that doing so does not negatively
impact the ability to fund regular Head Start).
The income of families eligible for participation in Head Start would be raised
from current law’s 100% of poverty to 130% of poverty.
Like the bill introduced in the House, the Senate version would increase
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 would require
agencies designated as Head Start 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.
Also like the House bill, the Senate version 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.
Drawing on last year’s Senate committee-passed bill, the Senate version of H.R.
1429 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, the Senate bill would
authorize $10 million in FY2008 (and such sums as necessary for FY2009-FY2012)
to award grants for tribal colleges and university Head Start partnerships.
CRS-23
Staff qualifications and degree requirements for Head Start teachers are also
addressed by this bill, but differently than in the House version of H.R. 1429. 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 FY2012, all Head Start teachers
nationwide 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;
or demonstrated competency as determined by the program director). All Head Start
teachers would be required to attend an average of at least 15 hours of professional
development a year.
Like the House version of H.R. 1429, the Senate bill includes the provision to
suspend use of the National Reporting System and to commission a National
Academy of Sciences panel to review a range of issues related to early childhood care
and education — including assessments.
Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress
The Head Start program was not reauthorized by the 109th Congress, but a bill
(H.R. 2123) was introduced, amended, and approved by the House, and on the Senate
side, another bill (S. 1107) was approved (by voice vote) by the full Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, but did not reach the floor. Summaries
of major provisions in the two bills appear below.
The School Readiness Act of 2005 (H.R. 2123). This bill to reauthorize
the Head Start Act was originally introduced on May 5, 2005 by Representative
Castle. It was amended and approved (48-0) by the full Committee on Education and
the Workforce on May 18, 2005. On September 22, 2005, H.R. 2123 was amended
further, and passed by the House (231-184).
The bill would have authorized 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 have been 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 House bill would have increased competition for Head Start grants,
requiring recompetition every five years for grantees shown to have a deficiency.
Grantees without deficiencies would have been designated as priority grantees, and
would not have been subject to recompetition (in that five-year cycle). Priority
grantees would have earned that designation in part by demonstrating active
partnerships and collaboration with local educational agencies. The bill would also
have required 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. While the board would have
been required to consult with its policy council (of whom a majority of members must
be parents of enrolled or recently enrolled children), policy councils would not have
retained their current regulatory authority to jointly approve or disapprove of many
CRS-24
budget, program, and hiring policies. They would have instead served in an advisory
capacity. (On the House floor, Representative Souder offered an amendment that
would have maintained the policy councils’ decision-making authority, but it failed
by a vote of 153-266.)
H.R. 2123 would have 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 have added 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 would have made
changes to a grantee’s rights with respect to appealing any suspension or termination.
Under H.R. 2123, a grantee would have no longer received 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 have required 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 were
also included in H.R. 2123. This bill would have required that by the end of FY2011,
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 have been required to complete its recommendations
within 18 months of convening.
Floor Amendments to H.R. 2123. Amendments offered and accepted on the
House floor included the hotly debated provision to allow faith-based Head Start
providers to discriminate in hiring, based on religion (H.Amdt. 574, Boehner,
accepted 220-196); an amendment to suspend further implementation of the National
Reporting System while the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducts a review
and provides guidance (as authorized in H.R. 2123) on appropriate child outcomes and
assessments for young children (H.Amdt. 568, Kind, accepted by voice vote); a
provision directing the Secretary of HHS to implement an outreach program to train
and recruit African-American and Latino-American men to become Head Start
teachers (H.Amdt. 567, Davis (IL), accepted 401-14); an amendment to decrease
barriers to homeless and foster children’s participation in Head Start (H.Amdt. 571,
Millender-McDonald, accepted by voice vote); an amendment to assist Head Start
programs in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina by providing additional resources,
waiving documentation requirements for six months, and providing the Secretary of
HHS with waiver authority to exempt programs from providing their local match
(20%) (H.Amdt. 573, Woolsey, accepted by voice vote); an amendment to allow Head
CRS-25
Start centers to develop or maintain partnerships with institutions of higher education
and non-profit organizations to support college students that serve as mentors and
reading coaches to preschool children (H.Amdt. 565, DeLauro, accepted by voice
vote); an amendment directing HHS to undergo a management reform initiative, with
the aid of an outside management consulting firm (H.Amdt. 569, Mica, accepted by
voice vote); an amendment to initiate a study to assess the impact of new Head Start
teacher qualification and development regulations on teacher retention (H.Amdt. 570,
Filner, accepted by voice vote); and an amendment to include children with
disabilities as a group for which special staff training shall be provided (H.Amdt. 566,
Stearns, accepted 411-0).
The Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act (S. 1107).
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 have authorized 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
have been 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 have
been 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 would have increased 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 would have required agencies designated as
Head Start 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 have 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 have added to
law new provisions regarding reduction of funding for grantees that exhibit chronic
underenrollment. Reduction and redistribution of funds would occur only if actual
CRS-26
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 during the 108th 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 have
authorized $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 were also
addressed by S. 1107. Among other provisions to increase staff qualifications, the bill
would have required (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 have been 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 have been required to have a B.A.
degree relating to early childhood by the end of FY2011. All Head Start teachers
would have been required to attend an average of at least 15 hours of professional
development a year.
Also adopted from the 108th Congress’ Senate committee bill was the provision
increasing income eligibility for Head Start from the poverty line up to 130% of the
poverty guideline. Moreover, any homeless child would have been 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.)18
Other Legislation in the 109th Congress
Bills that were introduced in the 109th Congress with provisions pertaining to
Head Start included S. 189 (Inhofe), a bill to amend the Head Start Act to require
parental consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations; H.R. 2340 (De
Lauro)/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;
18 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-27
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; S. 1101
(Murray), a bill to improve Head Start access for homeless and foster children; and,
H.R. 778 (Putnam), a bill to provide greater accountability for Head Start agencies.
Bills to enable children affected by Hurricane Katrina to participate in Head Start and
Early Head Start (by waiving requirements when necessary, and by providing
additional technical assistance) include H.R. 3890 (Thompson, B.), S. 1715 (Enzi),
and H.R. 3975 (Jindal).
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 proposed 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): House Passage. 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-28
religion.19 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
19 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-29
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). 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-30
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 (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). 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.
CRS-31
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 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. 2563 (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.
CRS-32
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, economic, and
societal gains.20 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.
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
20 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].
CRS-33
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.
Final Rule on Head Start Transportation Waivers
On October 4, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal Register21
authorizing, effective November 1, 2006, the Department of Health and Human
Services to issue waivers to Head Start grantees from two of the provisions of the
Head Start Transportation Regulation (45 CFR Part 1310). These two requirements
are that children be secured in age- and weight-appropriate child restraint systems, and
that there be at least one monitor onboard any bus transporting Head Start children.22
On June 15, 2006, the President had signed legislation (P.L. 109-234) that
included a provision extending the deadline (from June 30 to December 30, 2006) for
Head Start grantees to comply with requirements included in the Head Start
transportation regulations (45 CFR Part 1310.12), namely, equipping allowable Head
Start vehicles with child safety restraints.23
21 Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 192, October 4, 2006, pp. 58533-58536.
22 On August 28, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Head Start:
Progress and Challenges in Implementing Transportation Regulations (GAO-06-767R), a
report conveying information provided by GAO to requesting Congressional staff on May
16, 2006. The report may be accessed at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06767r.pdf].
23 On August 28, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Head Start:
Progress and Challenges in Implementing Transportation Regulations (GAO-06-767R), a
report conveying information provided by GAO to requesting Congressional staff on May
16, 2006. The report may be accessed at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06767r.pdf].
CRS-34
Table 3. Head Start FY2006 State Allocations
(actuals)
State
Amount
State
Amount
Alabama
$105,467,527
Nevada
24,015,210
Alaska
12,336,713
New Hampshire
13,240,062
Arizona
102,373,122
New Jersey
127,606,975
Arkansas
63,823,622
New Mexico
51,729,545
California
822,593,768
New York
428,470,291
Colorado
67,594,321
North Carolina
139,734,909
Connecticut
51,332,832
North Dakota
16,987,597
Delaware
13,091,612
Ohio
244,204,960
District of Columbia
24,834,071
Oklahoma
80,166,186
Florida
260,267,223
Oregon
58,820,971
Georgia
166,671,579
Pennsylvania
225,684,989
Hawaii
22,636,682
Puerto Rico
246,599,340
Idaho
22,565,199
Rhode Island
21,775,158
Illinois
267,812,098
South Carolina
81,602,767
Indiana
95,151,487
South Dakota
18,620,111
Iowa
50,987,675
Tennessee
118,039,184
Kansas
50,371,658
Texas
473,492,116
Kentucky
106,670,143
Utah
37,352,635
Louisiana
144,311,959
Vermont
13,411,517
Maine
27,309,854
Virginia
98,017,628
Maryland
77,183,646
Washington
99,268,177
Massachusetts
107,169,026
West Virginia
50,091,048
Michigan
231,993,266
Wisconsin
89,887,220
Minnesota
71,218,555
Wyoming
12,236,450
Mississippi
159,927,300
Virgin Islands
7,909,770
Missouri
117,694,689
Outer Pacific
7,231,776
Montana
20,720,770
American Indian
185,393,811
Nebraska
35,665,489
Migrant Programs
283,370,711
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data included in the
Department of Health and Human Services FY2008 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Committees.
Note: Estimated state allocations do not include estimated funding for technical assistance ($173
million), Research, Development and Evaluation ($20 million), and Program Support ($40 million),
or the supplemental $90 million in hurricane relief funding (of which $74 million was actually awarded.