Even Start: Funding Controversy

Even Start: Funding Controversy

Order Code RL33071
Even Start: Funding Controversy
Updated February 6, 2008
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Even Start: Funding Controversy
Summary
The Even Start program is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). The ESEA was reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLBA). The NCLBA was signed into law on January 8, 2002, and will expire
with FY2007 (FY2008 with the automatic General Education Provisions Act one-
year extension). It is expected that the 110th Congress will be considering legislation
to extend the authorization of the ESEA as amended by the NCLBA.
The Even Start program provides education and related services jointly to
disadvantaged parents and their young children. The purpose of the program is to
integrate early childhood education, adult basic education, and parenting skills
education into a unified family literacy program. Even Start program services must
include adult literacy instruction, early childhood education, instruction to help
parents support their child’s education, participant recruitment, screening of parents,
staff training, and home-based instruction.
The Even Start program, first authorized in 1989, grew rapidly in its first years,
but has been subject to increasing criticism in recent years and has seen its funding
decline in every year since FY2003. For FY2009, the fifth year in a row, the
Administration has requested no funding for the program. The program received
$66.454 million in funding for FY2008; FY2007 funding was $82.283 million. In
the FY2009 budget justification, the Administration argued that the program has not
demonstrated that it has been effective in improving child and adult learning
outcomes through the integration of the four core services of adult education,
parenting education, parent-child activities, and early childhood education. The
Administration argues that these conclusions are supported by data from three
national evaluations of Even Start. Advocates of the Even Start program argue that
the goal of providing integrated family literacy services to an extremely
disadvantaged population is so important that the program should not be eliminated
or have its funding cut. Furthermore, they argue that a thorough study of the impact
of legislatively mandated quality improvements to Even Start is needed, as well as
a concerted effort to improve the program through implementation of model
programs and technical assistance.
The Third National Even Start Evaluation has suggested several areas in which
the Even Start program could be enhanced to improve participant outcomes. First,
it noted that the quality and content of language instruction provided in Even Start
programs should be made the most important priority for programs, and that language
instruction must be improved based on recent scientific research. Second, it found
that families did not participate long enough or receive instruction of sufficient
intensity to achieve program goals. Finally, it recommended that future research
focus on identifying effective family literacy practices and instructional services to
serve as models for improving Even Start projects. This report will be updated
periodically.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Even Start Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Should the Even Start Program Be Eliminated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
List of Tables
Table 1. Even Start Funding: 1989-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Even Start: Funding Controversy
Background
The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs (Even Start) is
authorized as Title I, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). The ESEA was reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLBA). The NCLBA was signed into law on January 8, 2002, and will expire
with FY2007 (FY2008 with the automatic General Education Provisions Act one-
year extension). It is anticipated that the 110th Congress will be considering
legislation to extend the authorization of the ESEA as amended by the NCLBA.
The purpose of Even Start is to integrate early childhood education, adult basic
education, and parenting skills education into a unified family literacy program. The
U.S. Department of Education (ED) provides formula grants to states which then
distribute them to eligible entities — consisting of a local education agency (LEA)
in collaboration with a community based organization — for joint programs of
education for children ages 0-7 and their parents.1
Even Start program services must include adult literacy instruction, early
childhood education, instruction to help parents support their child’s education,
participant recruitment, screening of parents, staff training, and home-based
instruction. Five percent of Even Start funds is reserved for programs serving
migrant children plus the outlying areas and Indian tribes;2 and up to 3% is reserved
for a national evaluation, technical assistance, and program improvement. Even Start
programs must be coordinated with other programs with similar purposes, operate
year-round, and be independently evaluated. The federal share of Even Start
projects’ costs is limited to 90% for the first year, gradually declining to 35% for the
ninth and subsequent years.3
Even Start serves an extremely disadvantaged population. In 2000-2001, 85%
of Even Start parents did not have a high school diploma and 84% of Even Start
families lived below the federal poverty line. By comparison to Head Start families
overall, Even Start families are considerably more disadvantaged. Data from 1997
indicate that 41% of Even Start families had an annual income below $6,000,
compared to 13% of Head Start families in the same year; and 13% of Even Start
1 Although services are for children up to age 7, they may be provided to children up to age
8, if they are provided in collaboration with an ESEA Title I, Part A program.
2 The reservation is six percent if appropriations are more than $200 million.
3 For more information on the program see CRS Report RL30448, Even Start Family
Literacy Programs: An Overview, by Gail McCallion .

CRS-2
parents had a high school diploma or GED (high school equivalency degree)
compared to 71% of Head Start parents.4
The Even Start program was reauthorized in the 106th Congress by the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554). ESEA Title I, Part B was renamed
the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs, and was reauthorized
for five years beginning with an authorization of $250 million for FY2001. The
legislation included several changes intended to improve Even Start quality and
accountability. The reauthorizing language in P.L. 106-554 was largely the same as
language contained in the Literacy Involves Families Together (LIFT) Act, H.R. 3222
(Goodling), which was passed by the full House on September 12, 2000. The
reauthorized Even Start program was subsequently incorporated in P.L. 107-110 (The
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), and moved to Subpart 3 of Title I, Part B of the
ESEA.
The Even Start program, first authorized in 1989, grew rapidly in its first years,
but it has been subject to increasing criticism in recent years and has seen its funding
decline in every year since FY2003. For FY2009, the fifth year in a row, the
Administration has requested no funding for the program. The program received
$66.454 million in funding for FY2008; FY2007 funding was $82.283 million. The
entire funding history for the program is provided in Table 1, below. The rationale
given for eliminating the program is the disappointing results from national
evaluations of the program. Moreover, the Administration maintains that Even Start
resources should be directed to other literacy programs it argues are potentially more
efficacious.
Even Start Evaluations
There have been three national Evaluations of Even Start, the most recent based
on 2000-2001 data. This latest evaluation, the Third National Even Start Evaluation
(hereafter, the Evaluation) relied on two data sources: an experimental design study
(EDS) that tracked 18 projects that agreed to randomly assign new families to Even
Start or a control group; and the Even Start Performance Information Reporting
System, which tracks annual data from the universe of Even Start projects. Although
families participating in the EDS were randomly assigned to either a control or an
Even Start group, the 18 projects participating were not randomly selected. The EDS
families were more likely than Even Start families as a whole to be Hispanic (75%
versus 46%), and to be participating in Even Start projects in urban areas (83%
versus 55%).
4 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and
Secondary Education Division, Third National Even Start Evaluation: Program Impacts and
Implications for Improvement, Washington, D.C., 2003.

CRS-3
Table 1. Even Start Funding: 1989-2009
Year
Funding Amount ($)
1989
14,820,000
1990
24,201,000
1991
49,770,000
1992
70,000,000
1993
89,123,000
1994
91,373,000
1995
102,024,000
1996
101,997,000
1997
101,992,000
1998
124,000,000
1999
135,000,000
2000
150,000,000
2001
250,000,000
2002
250,000,000
2003
248,375,000
2004
246,910,000
2005
225,095,000
2006
99,000,000
2007
82,283,000
2008
66,454,000
2009
President’s Budget
Request: $0
Source: U.S. Department of Education Justifications of
Appropriations Estimates to the Congress.
Note: These amounts are not adjusted for price level changes.
The national evaluation collected data on 41 different outcome measures for the
families participating in the EDS study.5 The results indicated that the Even Start
children and their parents did not perform better than the control group children and
their parents. Even Start children and their parents made gains in literacy and other
measures, but so did control group parents and children:
The data show that children and parents in the control group made the same
kinds of gains on literacy assessments, on parent reports of child literacy, on
parent-child reading, on literacy resources at home, on family economic self-
sufficiency, and so on, that were seen for Even Start families.6
The only area in which Even Start children did significantly better than control
group children was in teacher reports of behavior problems for elementary school
5 The Third National Even Start Evaluation was conducted for ED by Abt Associates Inc.,
and Fu Associates, Ltd.
6 Third National Even Start Evaluation, p. 165.

CRS-4
aged children. The evaluation indicated that the overall quality of services provided
to children and families were equal to, but not better than, competing programs.
In addition, a 2003 study of state implementation of Even Start titled State
Administration of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Structure, Process and
Practices found very little consistency among states in the performance indicators
submitted to ED or in the performance standards or subgroups evaluated by these
measures. According to this study, implementation of these standards was just
beginning at the time of this evaluation, and most states did not begin collection of
these data until 2002.7
Should the Even Start Program Be Eliminated?
The Administration argues that data from the three national evaluations of Even
Start justify the elimination of the Even Start program. In its FY2009 budget
justification it argued that the program has not demonstrated that it has been effective
in improving child and adult learning outcomes through the integration of the four
core services of adult education, parenting education, parent-child activities, and
early childhood education:
The key premise underlying the Even Start program is that the integration of the
four core instructional components of adult education, parenting education,
parent-child activities, and early childhood education adds value to the individual
components. This premise, while appealing, remains unproven. The extent to
which family literacy programs can enhance parent literacy and parenting skills
is unknown.8
Advocates of the Even Start program contend that the goal of providing
integrated family literacy services to an extremely disadvantaged population is so
important that the program should not be eliminated or have its funding cut.
Furthermore, they argue that a thorough study of the impact of legislatively mandated
quality improvements to Even Start is needed, as well as a concerted effort to
improve the program through implementation of model programs and technical
assistance.
Data employed in the Evaluation were based on the program before full
implementation of legislative changes passed in the LIFT Act and incorporated in the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The most significant of these changes to the
Even Start program included new requirements that the services provided build on
existing high quality community services; the program use its resources to improve
the academic achievement of Even Start children and families; instructional services
be based on scientifically based reading research; reading readiness activities be
7 U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, State Administration of the
Even Start Family Literacy Program: Structure, Process and Practices, Washington, D.C.,
2003.
8 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2009: Justifications of Appropriation Estimates
to the Congress, p. A-73-74.

CRS-5
included for preschool children; Even Start staff meet more stringent qualifications;
higher intensity and continuity of services be encouraged; and programs employ
“continuing use of evaluation data for program improvement,” and provide
information on how their plan “provides for rigorous and objective evaluation of
progress toward” meeting the program’s stated objectives.9
States were also required to submit a plan for performance indicators of program
quality for Even Start programs within the state by June 2001 to ED in order to be
eligible for continued funding under the program. Most states had not yet begun
collection of performance indicator data at the time data were collected for the Third
National Evaluation of Even Start and the State Administration of the Even Start
Family Literacy Program: Structure, Process and Practices. These indicators must
include measures of adult achievement in the following areas: reading, writing,
problem solving, numeracy, English language acquisition, high school graduation or
GED, college entrance, and employment advancement. For Even Start children these
indicators must include measures of achievement in reading readiness and ability to
read at grade level, school attendance, and grade retention and promotion. These
indicators could provide information on the program’s performance following the
changes implemented in the LIFT and NCLB Acts, and might be used in guiding
further program changes.
ED is currently conducting a peer review of state Even Start indicators and is
providing technical assistance to states to strengthen performance indicators and their
use by states. In addition, ED has begun an evaluation of new model interventions
emphasizing high quality early literacy instruction in Even Start programs. The Even
Start Classroom Literacy Interventions and Outcomes Study (CLIO) examines the
efficacy of four enhanced early childhood and parenting education models in Even
Start programs and compares the outcomes from these models to those of Even Start
programs without these enhancements. All of the model programs include enhanced
early literacy instruction with the following components: oral language, phonological
processing, print awareness, and letter knowledge. In addition, two of the model
programs also include an enhanced parenting education component that is linked to
the early childhood education component: “conceptually and in instructional
approach.” If model interventions prove successful, they have the potential, if widely
adopted by local programs, to improve Even Start participant outcomes. However,
interim results from these model interventions will not be available until sometime
in 2008.10
Program Improvement
The Evaluation has suggested several areas in which the Even Start program
could be enhanced to improve participant outcomes. First, it noted that the quality
and content of language instruction provided in Even Start programs should be
9 All changes to Even Start included in the LIFT Act are discussed in CRS Report RL30448,
Even Start Family Literacy Programs: An Overview, by Gail McCallion.
10 CLIO interventions will be implemented in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, and data will be
collected from 2004-2005 through 2007-2008. Interim results are expected in 2008, and a
final report is due to be issued by September 2009.

CRS-6
improved. Second, it found that families did not participate long enough or receive
instruction of sufficient intensity to achieve program goals. Both are critical for
improved program outcomes. According to the Evaluation:
If we expect children to learn more in Even Start than they would otherwise learn
(by participating in a control group), then the overall quality of Even Start early
childhood education, and especially the emphasis on language acquisition and
reasoning, will have to be better than, not the same as, the instruction offered by
competing programs. Currently, this does not appear to be the case.11
Looking at early childhood education programs that have achieved large short-
term effects on I.Q. tests, such as the Abecedarian and Infant Health and
Development Programs, the Evaluation’s authors concluded that Even Start families
were not receiving sufficient early childhood education to meet their goals. In 2000-
2001 Even Start children between the ages of 0-5 received an average of 220 hours
of instruction; 20%-25% of the amount of instruction received by recipients in the
Abecedarian and Infant Health and Development Program. The Evaluation
concludes that:
The implication is clear — the early childhood programs that have produced the
largest effects on child development are those that are able to engage children in
full-time, year round center-based instructional services using a single
curriculum. Given the great needs of Even Start families, the best possible
family literacy program would be able to engage families intensively for a very
substantial period of time.12
However, succeeding in achieving greater intensity and duration of Even Start
services will not be easy to accomplish given the economic and social constraints
experienced by Even Start families. In 2000-2001, although an average of only 220
hours of instruction were received by children aged 0-5, an average of 591 hours was
offered by Even Start programs. And, although Even Start programs strive to provide
multi-year services to participants, the average tenure of an Even Start family is only
10 months. Barriers to participation are great for Even Start families: “These
barriers are myriad, from dispositional (fear of schooling, lack of self-confidence),
institutional (location of services or schedule), and situational (lack of child care,
transportation).”13
According to the Evaluation, to be more successful, Even Start must make the
quality of instruction provided by programs its primary focus. Because Even Start
programs are legislatively mandated to build on existing resources, some Even Start
programs may be negatively impacted by the quality of services provided by their
collaborators. The legislation requires that programs must work to ensure that
existing resources are used only if they are of high quality. And instructional quality
11 Third National Even Start Evaluation, p. 8.
12 Ibid., p. 12.
13 Diane Weirauch, Even Start Revisited: A Counter to the Third National Even Start
Evaluation Program Impacts and Implications for Improvement (2003), The Goodling
Institute for Research in Family Literacy, College of Education, Penn State University,
2005, p. 5.

CRS-7
may be enhanced by more targeting to families and children with similar needs.
Because of the complicated array of services that must be coordinated and/or
provided by Even Start programs, they may be spreading themselves too thin by
providing such varied services to parents and children of such different ages and
divergent needs. And finally, according to the Evaluation, Even Start projects would
benefit from more research on effective family literacy practices and instructional
services, and on how best to meet the needs of diverse participants, including the
growing segment of Even Start participants with limited English skills.14
14 Third National Even Start Evaluation, p. 17.