Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428757
label
Head Start [Folder 1] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428757
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Head Start [Folder 1] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428757
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-021-006-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9b2829051e2abd79
ocrText
7-14-1998 06AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 1
HUMAN SERVICES USA
DATE:7/13/98
I
&
HEALTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OF
200 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SW
DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
PHONE: (202) 690-6311
FAX: (202) 690-8425
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION
HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION
ROOM 413 H HUMPHREY BUILDING
FROM:
TO
: Barbara Chow 395-5730
[X ] MARY M. BOURDETTE
Nicole/Jen/Neera 456-2878 Deputy Asst. Sec.
Melinda Haskins
OFFICE
:
ROOM NO
:
PHONE NO :
FAX NO
:
TOTAL PAGES
INCLUDING COVER) :
3
REMARKS: Here's the House Republican (i.e. Riggs/Goodling) list of what they
"might" include in their Head Start reauthorization bill. Obviously we need
to see their actual legislative language (which we hope to see soon), but
clearly there are a number of serious problems here including the 75/25
quality V. expansion split, the overly specific performance measures (and how
to enforce - through a national test?), the paternity measure and the
waivers. While the vouchers and scholarships are not on this list, I
understand they are still under consideration.
The plan is for Riggs to mark-up in full committee on the 22nd, but most
expect that date to slip. We'll keep you posted.
7-14-1998 10:06AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
FILE No. 258 07/14 '98 09:24 ID:EDUCATION CLUSTER
202 225 3614
PAGE
Differences between S. 2206 and House Draft Bill
2
EARLY HEAD START AUTHORIZATION- Draft bill includes a 7% set-aside for FY 99-01
and up to a 10% set-aside for FY 02-03, provided HHS has issued a report to Congress on the
results of the Early Head Start Impact Study by January 1, 2001.
INCREASE QUALITY MONEY: Goodling issue
FY 99
26-497-33
75% quality - 25% expansion
FY00
75% quality - 25% expansion
FY01
50% quality - 50% expansion
FY 02
50% quality - 50% expansion
75
FY 03
25% quality - 20% expansion
Draft bill retains requirement that 50% of quality money must be spent on salaries. It also
retains Senate language that stipulates that preferences in awarding salary increases, in excess
of cost of living allowances, shall be granted to classroom teachers and staff who obtain
additional training or education related to their responsibilities as employees of a Head Start
program.
Draft also stipulates that after quality money has been expended on salaries, of the remaining
quality money, the highest priority for quality dollars should be spent on training classroom
teachers and other staff
to meet education performance standards in the Senate bill;
to train staff in activities listed in the Senate bill. and;
to train classroom staff to provide "competent staff" activities (note: competent staff activities
are defined in the Senate bill).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Draft bill requires that, by the year 2003, the majority of Head Start classrooms will have a
teacher with a college degree. Retain Senate language on competent staff.
at least AA
LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Draft bill retains Senate language on performance measures and local monitoring. However,
the draft stipulates that HHS must develop local performance measures by January 1, 2000. In
addition, the bill adds four performance measures to measure newly established education
performance standards. Measures are as follows:
1. Knows that alphabet letters are a special category of visual graphics that can be individually
named.
2. Recognizes a word as a unit of print.
3. Identifies at least 10 alphabet letters.
4. Associate sounds with written names.
PATERNITY REQUIREMENT
Draft bill requires Head Start grantees to certify in their plan that. prior to delivering services
to a family, they require custodial parents (in cases where there is an absent parent) to
7-14-1998 10:07AM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
FILE No. 258 07/14 '98 09:24 ID:EDUCATION CLUSTER
202 225 3614
PAGE
2dnd fullcommitter
cooperate with the State child support agency to establish a child's paternity and to obtain child
support from the non-custodial parent.
FORMULA CHANGE
Draft bill retains Senate language on 1998 hold harmless, but stipulates that new money go out
based on most recent child poverty data.
WAIVER AUTHORITY
FAMILY LITERACY DEMO
SENT BY:AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 6-22-98 ; 5:22PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878; # 2/ 2
Table I-1
HEAD START PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES
OBJECTIVE I: ENHANCE CHILDREN'S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
1. Head Start children demonstrate Improved emergent literacy, numeracy. and language skills.
2. Head Start children demonstrate improved general cognitive skills.
3. Head Start children demonstrate improved gross and fine motor skills.
4. Head Start children demonstrate improved positive attitudes toward learning.
3. Head Start children demonstrate improved social behavior and emotional well-being.
6. Head Start children demonstrate improved physical health.
OBJECTIVE 2: STRENGTHEN FAMILIES AS THE PRIMARY NURTURERS OF THEIR
CHILDREN
7. Head Start parents demonstrate improved parenting skills.
8, Head Start parents improve their self-concept and emotional well-being.
9. Head Start parents make progress toward their educational. literacy, and employment goals.
OBJECTIVE 3: PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH AND NUTRITIONAL
SERVICES.
10. Head Start programs provide developmentally appropriate educational environments.
11. Head Start staff interact with children in a skilled and sensitive manner.
12. Head Start programs support and respect children's cultures.
13. Head Start assures children receive needed medical, dental. and mental health services.
14. Head Start children receive meals and snacks that meet their daily nutritional needs.
15. Head Start programs provide individualized services for children with disabilities.
OBJECTIVE 4: LINK CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO NEEDED COMMUNITY SERVICES.
16. Head Start parents link with social service agencies to obtain needed services.
17. Head Start parents link with educational agencies to obtain needed services.
18. Head Start parents link with health care services to obtain needed care.
19. Head Start parents secure child care in order to work. go to school, or gain employment training.
OBJECTIVE 5: ENSURE WELL-MANAGED PROGRAMS THAT INVOLVE PARENTS IN
DECISION-MAKING
20. Head Start programs are well-managed.
21. Head Start parents are involved actively in decisions about program operations.
22. Head Start programs employ qualified staff.
23. Head Start programs support staff development and training.
24. Head Start programs comply with Head Stan regulations.
5
TOTAL P.02
HUMAN SERVICES:USA USA
DATE: 6/18/98
&
HEALTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OF
200 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SW
DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
PHONE: (202) 690-6311
FAX: (202) 690-8425
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION
HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION
ROOM 413 H HUMPHREY BUILDING
FROM:
TO
: Melinda Haskins
[ X] MARY M. BOURDETTE
Jen/Neera/Nicole 756
Deputy Asst. Sec.
Emil Parker
OFFICE
:
ROOM NO
:
PHONE NO :
FAX NO
:
TOTAL PAGES
5
INCLUDING COVER) :
REMARKS: Here's a piece we did earlier that gets to the crux of the
difference we are having with the R's -- the issue of mandating a study with
a national control group. GAO is behind this effort, including that their
recommendations be legislatively mandated -- despite the fact that leading
researchers do not think it makes sense. Lets stay in touch on this.
Research
WASS:
GAO REPORT ON HEAD START RESEARCH
QUESTION: According to a recent GAO report, existing studies fail to fully establish what
impacts or outcomes the Head Start program produces. Therefore, GAO recommended that
HHS expand its research plan for Head Start to include an impact assessment. GAO stated
(page 19) impact research "could be done that would allow the Congress and HHS officials to
know with more certainty whether the $4 billion dollar federal investment in Head Start is
making a difference." Do you agree with this recommendation?
ANSWER: The GAO states that random assignment studies on Head Start effects are needed
in light of the new results-oriented environment of the Federal Government. However, the
Department has created a wealth of new initiatives and systems to promote stronger
accountability and program quality, notably the Head Start Quality Research Consortium. In
1995, the Head Start Bureau established four Quality Research Centers (QRCs). One
objective of the QRCs is to work cooperatively to develop and test instruments to gather
information on program performance measures. In 1996, the Head Start Bureau established a
Performance Measure Center which will use these instruments to conduct the Head Start
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). The FACES is an ambitious effort to assess
the performance of the Head Start program on an ongoing basis through a national
longitudinal study of a representative sample of Head Start children and their families.
We are convinced that the current research design will allow us to have an ongoing,
longitudinal data collection on representative Head Start children, families, staff and
programs. The Performance Measures are in place, and we will continue to develop, test and
refine the instruments as necessary to provide periodic, regular data on these objectives. The
ability to compare data with nationally normed instruments, as well as other data from large
national surveys, will provide good indicators of how Head Start children measure up to their
peers. In addition, the use of observational measures of program quality, often used in
national studies of preschools and day care centers, will provide Head Start with ongoing
assessments of the educational quality of classroom environments. Finally, the opportunity to
link indicators of program quality with child outcome data over time will provide the
strongest test of program accountability.
The Head Start research agenda has been shaped over the years based on input from a number
of leading researchers from the field. The various researchers that have been consulted
consistently have recommended against conducting a single nationally-representative impact
study of the effectiveness of Head Start due to a variety of ethical, methodological and
logistical difficulties. In 1990, the Advisory Panel for the Head Start Evaluation Design
Project put forth a set of research recommendations in the publication "Head Start Research
and Evaluation: A Blueprint for the Future."
"An overall research strategy rather than a single large scale study is the appropriate
framework or addressing critical Head Stary research and evaluation questions. The
Panel recommends strongly against a single large-scale study of Head Start as the
principal mechanism for seeking answers to the pivotal research questions highlighted
above. The methodological requirements for the new generation of research and
evaluation issues do not lend themselves to large-scale evaluations that treat Head
Start as a single program. Head Start is not, in any simple sense, a uniform
"treatment." The common denominator of Head Start programs nationwide is
conformity to a set of regulatory performance standards that reflect comprehensive
service requirements in education, parent involvement, social services, and health
services. But programs are allowed and encouraged broad flexibility in how they
deliver the required component services. Moreover, Head Start programs serve
children in different regions and subeconomies of American society. They serve a
number of minority groups and address issues of bilingualism and multiculturalism.
They embody a variety of programmatic formulas and intentions created by local
Head Start staff to respond to the unique needs of families in their communities
It is important to note then, in the view of the Panel, randomized studies designed to
compare the effects of Head Start against the effects of nonparticipation ("treatment
vs. no treatment") are generally no longer viable options. First, as ACYF progresses
toward the Administration's goal of universal services for all eligible children, the
potential for withholding services to form a control group, already difficult for ethical
and practical reasons, will cease to be an option. Second, in view of the expansion of
State and public school preschool programs and developmental child care, it is
unrealistic to expect to find in most communities a representative group of
"untreated" eligible children, even if Head Start services are not provided.
There are a variety of more specific barriers to a randomized study design reflected in the
summary comments of the Panel. First, recruitment of children and families for Head Start is
guided by mandates to serve the most needy of eligible families and to incorporate a
minimum of 10% of children with disabilities in each program. A randomized, control group
design would mean that agencies would be expected to recruit a sufficiently large pool of
children with special needs to provide both a treatment and control group with at least 10%
children with disabilities - and then to inform roughly one-half of the parents that they would
not be allowed to enroll in Head Start. Second, in some states and many communities, Head
Start is already serving more than a majority of the eligibility children and families. For
example, in Ohio, the combination of state contributions and federal Head Start resources is
estimated to be sufficient to serve 85% of all eligible families. In these situations, it would be
impossible to conduct the form of evaluation recommended by GAO because of a lack of
sufficient numbers of unserved children to comprise a control group. In addition, because of
the very success of Head Start-state collaborations and Head Start-child care partnerships, it is
difficult to determine whether control group children are actually participating in care that is
totally non-Head Start.
One of the other violations to the basic assumptions of randomization is the mobility of low-
income populations like Head Start. The Transition study and other research have
documented the large number of moves among this population. Having children leaving
treatment in unpredictable numbers and at unpredictable time points corrupts the random
assignment design. Crossovers from program to comparison or vice versa are also common.
Randomization also assumes that everyone in the treatment group and everyone in the control
group gets the same treatment (program) within their group. However, it is virtually assured
that control group children will participate in a wide range of other early childhood programs
and settings, of varying levels of quality, intensity, and comparability to the standard of Head
Start services. In the first place, it would be difficult to coordinate recruitment and enrollment
processes across these various program options, in order to identify the full range of eligible
children before they are recruited/enrolled into other programs. Second, it would be
challenging and expensive to track these other arrangements (including transitions between
programs during the year and instances where children participate in a combination of several
different programs simultaneously.) Further, it would be very difficult to interpret or use the
results of a study that compares Head Start participation with such a wide range of other
forms of programming. The types of available alternative programming, and the selection
effects that contribute to parental choices of these programs are locally-determined. They
include such factors as the welfare reform requirements parents face (and their resulting need
for child care), child care licensing standards and effects on the formal and informal child care
market, as well as cultural factors of the community such as ethnicity and family composition
that affect choices parents make.
Finally, GAO has suggested in their 1997 report and in testimony this year that
alternative strategies such as randomly accelerating and delaying Head Start services
or studying partial vs. full versions of Head Start services should be considered as
suitable for evaluation of Head Start effects. However, both of these recommended
strategies have serious flaws and would not provide useful evidence on the central
question of Head Start's effectiveness. Delaying/accelerating Head Start treatment
would presumably involve serving some children as 3-year-olds and others as 4-year-
olds. It would be difficult to draw appropriate comparisons between outcomes from
these different forms of Head Start treatment, given the varying capacities of children
of different ages and the correspondingly different expectations of appropriate
outcomes for these different sets of participants. Such a delayed entry control design
would, in most localities, change the fundamental way in which programs are
operating. For example, current recruitment and enrollment patterns indicate that
programs serving three year olds may select them according to special criteria
(including being at greater risk than fout-year-olds, and deemed by the program to be
in need of services for a longer period).
The proposed design of partial vs. full versions of Head Start would contend with
many of the same complications as the treatment/no-treatment design, given that
parents would be unlikely to be satisfied with assignment to the "watered-down" or
partial versions of Head Start and could choose not to participate. In addition, this
design would not produce answers to the central questions of outcomes and payoff of
the existing comprehensive Head Start program that drive the call for more research.
The current body of research on early childhood interventions does achieve consensus
on some points. When studying program effects, it is imperative to take into account
such factors as family and neighborhood characteristics, culture and language, quality
and intensity of services received (including observation of classrooms and caregive-
child interaction), as well as parent participation in and satisfaction with the program.
There is less consensus about the best methodolgy for answering questions about
program effectiveness. Some researchers advocate using comparisons to nationally
normed instruments or large-scale studies, while others insist that random assignment
designs are the standard, however difficult to carry out in real-life situations. Given
this divergence of opinion on such an important question, perhaps the best recourse
would be to seek consensus and advice from experts called together by an external
scientific organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences.
P.5
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
6-18-1998 35PM
JUN-24-1998 13:37 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM: HASKINS, M.
P. 2/5
HEALTH STATES
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
June 24, 1998
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Chairman
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We take this opportunity to inform you of the Department's views on S. 2206, the Human
Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. The Administration supports the work of your Committee
to gain enactment of bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program, the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) program this year as well as to create a demonstration program for Individual
Development Accounts (IDA). Based on our understanding of the provisions included in
S.2206, which you have sponsored with Senators Kennedy, Coats and Dodd, we support the
improvements that the bill makes to these essential human services programs.
Head Start
We are pleased that your bill maintains the critical improvements to the Head Start program
initiated by the historic bipartisan legislation enacted in 1994 and incorporates many of the
Administration's proposals submitted this year. We fully support the five-year reauthorization of
the program contained in S. 2206 and its specific authority to increase the exciting new Early
Head Start program over the next five years. We support provisions in your bill that build upon
the promising efforts begun in 1994 and provide greater emphasis on collaboration with States
and other providers of preschool services; full-day, full-year services; school readiness, literacy
training and related teacher qualifications; and services for children with disabilities.
We also fully support efforts to learn more about the Head Start program and measure the
outcomes for Head Start children. Since 1994, we have undertaken a wealth of new initiatives
and systems to promote stronger accountability and program quality, including the Head Start
Quality Research Consortium and the ground-breaking Family and Child Experiences Study
(FACES). As you know, FACES is an ambitious effort to assess the performance of the Head
Start program on an ongoing basis through a national longitudinal study of a representative
sample of Head Start children and families. We look forward to convening the expert panel of
researchers and reviewing their recommendations on the best approach to carry out the research
initiatives outlined in your bill.
JUN-24-1998 13:37 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM:HASKINS, M.
P. 3/5
Page 2 . The Honorable James M. Jeffords
We will work with the Committee to address remaining issues relating to the Head Start title of
the bill.
CSBG
We commend your efforts to strengthen accountability in the Community Services Block Grant
program by improving the program's existing performance measurement system. We also
appreciate your commitment to a fundamental aspect of the Community Services Block Grant
program: the tripartite governing board. The tripartite board has been an important way for low-
income persons to participate in planning services and activities to improve the conditions in
which they live. Your bill expands the role of private, nonprofit organizations in a number of
ways but we have concerns about ensuring the essential and historic role of the existing commu-
nity services network and preserving the role of low-income persons in the planning and
administration of the programs administered by these funds. We also have technical concerns,
including concerns with the provision for the designation and redesignation of eligible entities in
unserved areas, and the time frame for reviewing determinations by State agencies. We look
forward to working with your staff on these and other issues.
LIHEAP
We support the reauthorization of the LIHEAP program. We believe that the bill's increased
availability of resources for the administration of the program in the smaller States, Tribes and
territories will make the program more effective. Additionally, the increased resources for
technical assistance, training, and compliance reviews will also be crucial to improving the
effectiveness of the program.
IDA
We also are pleased that the bill includes a new demonstration project designed to encourage
low-income persons to establish individual development accounts for the purpose of
accumulating assets to be used for postsecondary education, home ownership and micro
enterprise development expenses. The Clinton Administration has supported the concept of
individual development accounts and looks forward to the increased utilization of such accounts
that this legislation would create. The Administration will continue its discussions with the
Committee about provisions regarding this new effort.
We greatly appreciate the leadership and cooperation with which your Committee and staff have
approached the reauthorization of these vital programs, and will provide you with further
comments as we continue to review S. 2206. We hope to work with you in the weeks ahead to
gain Senate approval and final passage of legislation that takes Head Start, Community Services
and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance programs into the 21st century.
JUN-24-1998 13:37 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM: HASKINS, M.
P. 4/5
Page 3 ~ - The Honorable James M. Jeffords
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the transmission
of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Donn 98hlole
Donna E. Shalala
JUN-24-1998 13:37 TO:NICOLE RABNER
FROM:HASKINS, M.
P. 5/5
would umwarn
at menkgs
Dodd Amendment (as worked out) on For-profit participation in the Head Start Program
on page 28 after line 2 add a new (B) and renumber accordingly:
(B) by inserting at the end of (c), "If the Secretary determines
that a non-profit and a for profit have submitted applications of
equivalent quality, the Secretary may give priority to the
non-profit."
TOTAL P.05
MAR-24-1998 18:32 FROM
TO
94562878
P.01
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Office of the Assistant Secretary
The Administration for Children and Families
DATE:
March 24, 1998
TO:
Jen Klein
DPC
Telephone:
bbse-9sh
Fax:
456-2878
Number of Pages (excluding cover): 2
FROM:
Samara Weinstein
Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families
Telephone: (202)401-6953
Fax:
(202)401-4678
MESSAGE:
Jen:
As per your request to Olivia, attached please find the cleared CCDP fact sheet. The best
responses to the questions are one that were directly lifted from the fact sheet. As you
know, when the report was issued at the end of January, HHS relied on the fact sheet as both
public information and internal q&a's.
Please call me if you need more information.
Department of Health and Human Services
& M&X
Administration for Children and Families
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447
Phone: (202) 401-9200
MAR-24-1998 18:33
FROM
TO
94562878
P.02
January 30, 1998
Contact:
Michael Kharfen
(202) 401-9215
Evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program
In 1988, Congress, concerned about extremely at-risk low-income young children and families,
created the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP). As implemented, the CCDP
tested whether a newly designed community service delivery program that identified family needs
and referred families 10 different services would result in improved developmental outcomes for
children and self-sufficiency for families. HHS, which administered the program, released an
evaluation with the finding that the CCDP did not produce the results sought. Though the final
evaluation was issued today, HHS had preliminary reports of the less than successful program
results. HHS has already incorporated important lessons from CCDP, especially that of the
need to provide intensive services that directly affect young children's developmental
experiences, into the design of the new Early Head Start and the revised performance standards
of the entire Head Start program 10 assure better outcomes for young children and their families.
What is the CCDP?
Between 1989 and 1993, 34 demonstration projects were funded, with 21 the subject of evaluation research
by Abt Associates and CSR, Inc. Case managers linked families to specific services in their communities
or programs created services within their agencies to meet particular family needs. In general, the families
were comprised of young, largely minority, very low-income mothers with low educational attainment who
tended to be single, unemployed and dependent on public assistance. The evaluation randomly assigned
over 4,000 families to either an experimental or control group. In 1994, Congress directed a phased
closing of the projects by 1998.
No significant results compared to other families
Both interim and final evaluation results of the CCDP showed that there were no consistent
differences for families participating in the program as compared to families who did not. The Abt
Associates' evaluation did find that "changes were observed in the lives of CCDP families (e.g., increases in
children's achievement scores, in the percentage of mothers in the labor force, and in average household
income). However, exactly the same kind of changes observed in CCDP families also occurred in control
group families." The evaluation offered several possible reasons for the results of the program, including
initial difficulties in implementing the projects, in some cases project families may have been
unintentionally referred to services of low or poor quality, the project relied on indirect efforts (such as
primarily focusing on helping parents improve their parenting skills) which could not directly improve child
outcomes on their own, and some families were resourceful enough to find services in their own
community. However, the most compelling finding was that the program did not provide sufficiently direct
intensive child development services to bc effective.
- More -
MAR-24-1998 18:34 FROM
TO
94562878
P.03
-2- -
Intensive early childhood services work
The most productive result of the demonstration is a clear understanding that intensive, focused
services provided directly to children and linked to distinctly defined outcomes are critical to
success. As the evaluation asserted, several recent studies confirm that early childhood programs
achieve important benefits and the most impressive long-term effects on children's cognitive
development and on mothers' parenting skills and behaviors when the families participated in
intensive early childhood programs. The evaluation confirms, the best way to achieve positive effects is
to provide intensive services directly to the individuals that you hope to affect."
Early Head Start and Head Start already focus on direct intensive child services
Already, the lessons from the CCDP have been incorporated into the policies and designs of Early Head
Start and the newly revised performance standards for the entire Head Start program to provide more
effective interventions for young children and familics in poverty. In both Early Head Start and Head
Start, intensive learning and developmental services are provided directly to children and their families,
combined with connections to other community services to meet family needs. For Early Head Start, which
serves children aged 0 to 3, the key program elements are intensive child development, engaging parents as
partners in the developmental process of their children and supporting them in improving their self-
sufficiency. These principles are also included in the new Head Start Performance Standards guiding the
programs serving three- and four-year-old children. Those Standards now more clearly define appropriate
and necessary linkages of the program's central child development mission to community-based health,
mental health, social service and employment services. The Head Start combination of direct intensive
services to children and referrals to supplemental services reflect the best research and evaluation of how to
achieve effective and long-term results for children and their families. In 1998, Head Start will benefit
approximately 830,000 children and their families, including about 38,000 low-income infants and toddlers
in Early Head Start. With the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, Head Start will reach President Clinton's goal
of serving 1 million children in 2002.
TOTAL P.03
SENT BY: AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 3:32PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 1/5
PRIORITY
SERVICES
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
=
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
370 L'ENFANT PROMENADE, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20447
DATE: 3/24/98
Name: J.Klein
PRIORITY
Telephone: 202-456-2878 202 456-6266
Fax:
Number of Pages (excluding cover): 4
FROM:
JOHN MONAHAN
Office of the Assistant Secretary
Telephone:
(202) 401-5180
Fax:
(202) 401-4678
MESSAGE:
SENT BY : AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 3:32PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 2/5
STATE OF COLORADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792
Phone (303) 866-2471
1116
Roy Romer
Governor
Governor's Office
Fax Transmittal
Date:
3-23-96
To: JOHN MONAHAN
Fax number:
202-401-4078
Phone: 202-401-5180
From:
Laura Schuchat, Executive Assistant to Chief of Staff
and Deputy Chief of Staff
Fax number: (303) 866-2003
Phone: (303) 866-4567
Number of pages (including cover): $ 4
Notes: PerAlan Salazar: JOHN,
3/26 I want to know if there is
Gov. Romer has been asked to testify on
anything here to cause 'heartbum'.
I willcall you.
SENT BY:AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 3:32PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600-
94562878; 3/ 5
****** non
M32398 12:00am From:
202-624-5313 To:
Page 802
Head Start Testimony
March 26, 1998
Necessary grectings, etc.
Thank you for inviting me to share the state perspective OR the Head Start program. I am not here
to debate the value of the program or its success in helping low-income children and their
families. My remarks will Incus on state diforts In huild coordinated, comprehensive early care
and education systems and the difficulty We are experiencing in coordinating these efforts with
the Head Start program
For the past two years the National Governors' Association has focused an the importance of
carly childhood development and the compelling evidence that carly investments in children will
reduce future expenses in remedial education, juvenile crime, tecaage pregnancy, and welfare.
Wc know that children who spend their carlicat years in a nurturing, stimulating anvironment are
more likely to become solf-sufficient, successful adults. In order to improve outcomer for young
children many Governors are working to create coordinated, comprehensive early childhood
programs that support families with young children. The Intent is to create a system that is more
responsive to the needs of all parents, and that supports opportunities for children to participate in
high-quality program.
Despite a number of federal and state initiatives to integrate early care and education services for
young children, harriers to these collaborative efforts remain.
One of the main harriers to collaboration among different programs for young chiktren is the
different visions or missions addered to by the various programs. In Colorado I have worked
with business leaders, early childhood professionals, parents, and legislators 10 coordinate the
multiple programs that touch young chikinen's lives. We have developed a stratogic plan for an
integrated system called "Bailding Bridges for Colorado's Young Children and Their Families"
that empowers local communities to assess and design programs that most their needs. Paralicl
afforts are happening in many other states. In Ohio the coordinating initiative is called Ohio
Family and Children First, in North Carolina it's Sanat Start and in Indiana it's Step Ahead.
(Patty - - me there other strategic states va the committees we should name??)
N=U4%
202-084-6313
03-23-98 10:92AM 8002 #38
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 3:33PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 4/ 5
inus TMI ...
032398 12:81am From:
202-624-5313 To:
Page низ
Head Start was around long before any of these state afforts at coordination and it has maintained
itself as a separate, and in many cases isolated system. Head Start grantees have no incentive to
collaborate. Their Landing to secure and support for their work is strong. la some cases they fear
collaboration will dilute the Head Start program, in other Cases they are besident to combins
funding streams from various early childhood programs when they do not know what will be
acceptable to the auditors and administrators, Why change a good thing? Why risk failure?
Wc have worked very hard with liced Start grantees to show the benefits of collaboration, and
That improving services for children does not mean diluting services for low-facome three- and
four-year-olds. This has been a very time-consuming effort that requires consultation
with each individual Head Start grantee and we have been only inildly Now the
growth of the Early Head Start program increases the number of grantees WC FINAST persuade and
adds another funding Areans WE must coordinate. The Eady Head Start program recognizes the
need to provide the same high-quality services to children below the age of three, but is moves us
farther away from our goal of coordinating services for children
Recommendations
The nations Governors have adopted bipartivan policy recommendations to improve the
relationship between Head Start and the states.
First, the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families should reinforce requirements
in current law that Head Start grantees must actively collaborate with state and local
planning processes in order to better meet the needs of children and families and develop .
systematic way to namess the degree to which collaboration is occurring.
The Governors commend the work thus far of the Administration for Children, Youth, and
Pamilies in trying to send a strong message to both individual grantees and regional offices about
the importance of collaboration, but we believe more must be done to ensure that this happens.
This measage nust also be shared with fiscal staff an that a fear of auditing does not impair
collaborative efforts. At a otherimm WD recommend the respthorization legislation include
language that gives priority to new Head Start grantees slant collaborate with state and local
efforts to provide full-day, fall-year acrivies for children.
R=94%
202-624-5313
03-23-08 10:32AM POD3 #38
SENT BY:AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 3:33PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 5/ 5
JHM1 VM HVA ...
COA no.
U ᵃ
032398 12:01am From:
202-624-5313 To:
Page 004
States should play 1 role in the selection, monitoring. and refunding of grantees.
To change that Head Start programs are an integral part of the larges early care and education
systems, states should have an opportunity to provide direct input on decisions about funding new
grantees or refunding or expending existing grantees. With movement toward bleaded classrooms
and programs and consolidated applications, monitoring activities should also be shared and
coordinated.
Allow grantees (simies??) to seek waivers from current Head Start regulations for the
purpose of creating a more coordinated early care and education program.
Grantees must be given the opportanity to seek waivers to conduct business outside of traditional
Head Start protocols.
(I need imput on how this could work.)
Flead Start provides a vision of comprehensive services that all early childhood programs can
benefit from, including a Incus on the entire family, links to health and social services, and well-
developed training system for staff. Governors want to build on flais vision and bring it to all
children starting from the moment they are bore. The momesture to build a coordinated system
of care for young children is growing in the states and I am hear because Governors want Head
Start to be D part of that system. I hope you cab help as make that happen.
R-94%
202-684-5313
08-23-98 10:32AM P004 #38
SENT BY: AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 5:36PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 2/ 9
.....
032190 05:22pm From:
202-624-5313 To:
Paye 001
NATIONAL
Green V. Wollowich
Rhy round e Scheppech
GOVERNORS
Governor of Chie
Executive Director
ASSOCIATION
Chairman
ILD of the Sums
Them k Carper
446 March Capital Sence
General of Delaware
Wishington D.C. 20091-3512
VL. theires
Telephone (20sh 624-3500
Date:
3/24/98
Time: 5:22:19 PM
Pages:
8
To.
Bally Vogler
Fax Number:
+1 (303) 8662635
From:
Helene Stebbins
Subject:
Note:
To: John Monahar
* 202/401-4678
* $ 202/362-9214
R=93%
202-624-5313
03-24-95 03:00PM P001 1105
; 3-24-98 ; 5:36PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 9
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
1. UC
I'IN no.
una C4 JU LUE 00.00 111
832498 05:23pm From:
202-624-5313 901
Page 002
Head Start Testimony
March 26, 1998
Good Morning:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this historie joint House and
Senate Subcommittee hearing. I appreciate the chance to share the
perspectives of the nation's Governors on the Head Start program. I am not
here to dobate the value of the program or its success in helping low-income
children and their families-I think we all believe that this programs has
helped many children and their families and it should be reauthorized. My
remarks will focus on state efforts to build coordinated, comprehensive early
care and education systems and the difficulty states are experiencing in
coordinating these efforts with the Head Start program.
The National Governors' Association has a long history of focusing on
children's issues. In the past two years we have examined the importance of
carly childhood development and the compelling evidence that early
investments in children will reduce future expenses in remodial education,
juvenile crime, leenage pregnancy, and welfare. We know that children who
spend their eachest years in a nurturing, stimulating ouvironment arc more
K 0430
202-524-5313
03-24-98 03:55PM P002 445
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 5:36PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600-
94562878,#
1 1251
10711 UV UMM ...
032490 05:23pm From:
202-624-5313 To:
Fage ИЯЗ
likely to become self-sufficient, successful adults, than those who do not
have that benefit. To give our children the best possible start in life, many
Governors are working to create coordinated, comprehensive early
childhood programs that support families with young children. The intent is
to create 2 system that is more responsive to the needs of all parents and
provides opportunities for children to participate in high quality programs.
Despite a number of federal and state initiatives to integrato carly care and
education services for young children, barriers to these collaborative efforts
remain.
One of the main barriers is the different visions or missions adhered to by
the various programs. In Colorado 1 have worked with business leaders,
early childhood professionals, parents, and legislators to coordinate the
multiple programs that touch young children's lives. We have developed a
strategic plan for an integrated system called "Building Bridges for
Colorado's Young Children and Their Families" that empowers local
communities to assess and design programs that meet their needs. Parallel
efforts are happening in many other states. In Ohio the coordinating
initiative is Ohio Family and Children First, and in Indiana it is Step Ahcad.
R=94%
202-624-5319
03 P4-08 02:06PM P003 1105
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 5:36PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;#
THE no
IVL ...
032498 05:24pm From:
282-624-5313 To:
Page 004
Head Start was around long before any of our state efforts at coordination,
and il has maintained itself as a separate, and in many cases isolated, system.
Head Start grantees have no incentive to collaborate. Their funding is socure
and support for their work is strong. In some cases they fear collaboration
will dilute the Head Start program, in other cases they are hesitant to
combine funding streams from various early childhood programs when they
do not know what will be acceptable to the auditors and administrators. Why
change a good thing? Why experiment with new idens?
Let me tell you why. Over the past decade several major changes have
occurred - the influx of mothers into the paid workforce, devolution of
major federal programs such as welfare, child care, and children's health
insurance, and the development of early care and education systems at the
state and local levels. These trends threaten to marginalize Head Start unless
collaboration occurs between the states and Head Start grantees. We have
worked very hard with grantees to demonstrate the benefits of collaboration,
and that improving services for children does not mean diluting services for
the throe- and four-year-olds who benefit from the Head Start program. This
has been a very time-consuming effort that requires one-on-one consultation
R-94%
202-624-5319
03-24-98 03:55PM F004 #UE
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 5:37PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600
94562878,#
181
...
032498 05:24pm From:
202-624-5312 Tu:
Page ABS
with each individual Head Start grantee, and we have been only mildly
successful. The recent growth of the Early Head Start program is increasing
the number of grantees We must persuade and adds another funding stream
we must coordinate. The Early Head Start program recognizes the need to
provide the same high-quality services to children below the age of three,
but it moves us farther away from our goal of providing a coordinated
continuum of services for children. In its current form the Early Head Start
program is too often just another program island with very little connection
to other cxisting programs for young children.
Recommendations
The nation's Governors have adopted bipartisan policy recommendations to
improve the relationship between Head Start and the states. I will leave
copies of that policy for you, but let me highlight a few recommendations
that we would like to emphasize.
First, the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families should
reinforee requirements in current law that Head Start grantees must
actively collaborate with state and local planning processes in order to
R-94%
202-624-5313
03-24 90 00:55PM POOL WDS
; 3-24-98 ; 5:37PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;#
1. UU
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
100 nu.
1000 LY IUL 00.00 111
032498 05:25pm From:
202-624-5313 Yo:
Page BLL
better mest the needs of children and Camilies and develop a systematic
way to assess the degree to which collaboration is occurring.
The Governors commend the work thus far of the Administration for
Children, Youth, and Families in trying to send a strong message to both
individual grantces and regional offices about the importance of
collaboration, but We believe statutory changes are necessary to ensure that
this happens. This message also must be shared with fiscal staff so that a fear
of auditing does not impair collaborative efforts. At a miniumm the
Governors recommend that the reauthorization legislation include language
that gives priority to new Head Start grantees that collaborate with state and
local efforts to provide full-day, full-year services for children.
Second, states should play a role in the selection, monitoring, and
refunding of grantees,
To ensure that Head Start programs are an integral part of the larger early
care and education systems, states should have an opportunity to provide
direct input on decisions about funding new grantees, or refunding DI
expanding existing grantees. With movement toward blended classrooms
R=94%
203-324-5313
03-24-98 03.55PM P008 #DG
SENT BY AEROSPACE BLDG.
; 3-24-98 ; 5:37PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600->
94562878;# 87
1000
032499 05:25pm From:
202-624-5313 To:
Page 007
and programs and consolidated applications, monitoring activities also
should be shared and coordinated,
Finally, NGA would like to work with designated staff from the two
committees to draft language that creates state or regional pilot
programs designed to encourage Head Start flexibility and
experimentation.
The current Head Start regulations do not provent grantees from
participating in many of the collaborative activities we are designing. Still,
many grankies are hesitant to collaborate without the approval of the
regional Hoad Start offices, and some regional offices 3rc hesitant to
approve anything that is not strictly authorized by the legislation. The
purpose of the pilots will bc to remove the barriers Head Start grantees
percoive as preventing them from collsborating. This should include access
to technical assistance and oversight to assure grantees that experiments
such as blended funding streams at the local level and shared responsibility
will not jeopardize their grant. We hope this will change the culture to one
that says "do it if the legislation doesn't foshid it," instead of "don't do it
unless the legislation explicitly mquires it."
E-94%
202-624-5717
03-24-98 D3:55PM roof #ОБ
; 3-24-98 ; 5:37PM ;
ACF/SUITE 600-
94562878;# 97
UU
SENT BY : AEROSPACE BLDG.
11111 NV.
1000 LT TOL WITH 111
032498 05:26pm From:
202-624-5313 fo:
Page BBB
Head Start provides a vision of comprehensive services that all early
childhood programs can benefit from, including a focus on the entire family,
links to health and social services, and well developed training systems for
staff. The Governors want to build on this vision and bring it to all children
starting from the moment they are born. The momentum to build a
coordinated system of care for young children is growing in the states. I am
hore today because the nation's Governors want Head Start to be a part of
that system. 1 hope you can help US make that happen.
202-621-5310
03 24-38 03:04PM P006 #05
billiang wpd
Page 1
OMBpasshack
Transmittal letter
Insert A
to ovabuate
the effectiveness OF
undertake a study of the program's quality investment set-aside so that we
can learn more about the types of investments we are making and the types
of investments that best imrpove program quality and help to improve
outcomes for children.
evaluate case existing investments
to underspand dedi termarane and examine
item
Bill language
strategies improve outiones
Sec. 639(b)(2) not more than $3,000,000 $12,000,000 for fiscal year 999, and
to
2)
such sumsas may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2002, to children.
carry out lengitudinal research, demonstrations and evaluation activities and
longitudinal studies under section 649(b) and (e).
New Section:
to streng then the
item
Sec. X
program and
(a) STUDY. -- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct a
3
study regarding the use and effects of the quality improvement funds under
Sec. 640(a)(3) since 1991.
(b) REPORT. The Secretary shall prepare a report not later than September
1999 containing the results of the study, including on
(1) the types of activities funded with quality improvement funds;
(2) the extent to which quality improvement funds accomplish the
goals of Sec. 640(a)(3)(B);
(3) the effect of quality improvement funds on teacher training,
salaries, benefits, recruitment and retention;
(4) the effect of quality improvement funds on the cognitive and social
development of Head Start children.
(3) of other approa
on improving
outcomes
for underen
P.2/11
W SNIXSVH:WOHE
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
Dear Senator/Rep:
T am writing to offer the Administration's strong support for a
prompt and hipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start program.
I have outlined below the few significant statutory changes that
we believe are necessary to continue to provide quality Head
Start services for the next four years.
As you know, Head Start is America's premier early childhood
development program and it has made a major difference in the
lives of more than 16 million children and families since 1965.
One of the program's key reasons for success has been the ability
of the Administration and Congress to work hand in hand to make
the continued expansion and improvement of Head Start a top
priority. Together in 1994, we engaged in an historic effort
that critically recomined overy feature of the program. The
Congress enacted bipartisan reauthorization legislation that
created a blueprint for quality and expansion of the program, and
established a solid foundation for moving Head Start into the
21st century.
Since the last reauthorization, we have aggressively followed the
blueprint, combining strong leadership and tough management with
top notch expertise and tochnical assistance to programs. Among
many achievements, program quality has improved, now performance
standards are in place, and an exciting new Early Head Start
program is operating in communities in all 50 States. This year,
a strengthened Head Start program will serve 830,000 low-income
children, including up to 39,000 children under age three in
Early Head Start. The President's FY 1999 budget proposes
funding for additional children, moving toward our goal of
enrolling a million children in Head Start by 2002 -- including
double the number of children in Early Head Start.
We urge the Congress to enact bipartisan reauthorization
legislation that maintains the strong foundation set down in
1994, First, we recommend extending the authorization for
another four years, through FY 2002, at "such sums as may be
necessary". Second, we urge the Congress to build upon the
innovative Early Head Start program established in 1994 by
gradually increasing the authorized set aside to 10 percent by
2002. Based upon the mounting evidence that the earliest years
P.3/11
FROM HASKINS, M.
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
are critically important to children's growth, WC believe this
increase is essential to bring the vital Head Start experience to
more at-risk infants and toddlers in the years ahead.
In addition 10 this one important change in the Head Start
statute, we also suggest the following more technical changes:
modify the funding allotments to update the hold harmless
date for State allocations from 1981 in 1998;
increase the amount or funds the Secretary may reserve
for the highly successful Head Start Fellowship program,
which enables local Head Start staff and others in the field
of child development to expand their knowledge and
experience while making significant contributions to the
Head Start program; and
replace outdated references throughout the Act, such as
references to the completed Head Stail Transition, Parent-
Child Center, and Comprehensive Child Development Center
Insert
initiatives.
here
We believe this straightforward approach to reauthorization
reaffirms the bipartisan consensus for program quality and
accountability combined with community flexibility in program
planning, implementation and decision making. Further, it
retains the promising new improvements including performance
outcome measures and a variety of research and evaluation
initiatives.
My staff and I are eager to work with you on this important
reauthorization and would be happy to provide legislative or
technical assistance to ensure that Head Start continues to make
a difference for America's children and families.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to this transmittal to the Congress, and that
enactment of legislation pursuant to it would be in accord with
the program of the President.
Sincerely,
Donna E. Shalala
P.4/11
W 'SNIMSVH:WORE
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
A BILL
To extend and amend programs under the Head Start Act, and for other
purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
2
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4
This Act may be cited as the "Head Start Act Amendments of
5
1998".
6
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
7
(a) AUTHORIZATION.-Section 639 (a) of the Head Start Act (42
8
U.S.C. 9834 (a)) 1a amended by striking "1995 through 1999" and
9
inserting "1999 through 2002".
10
(b) ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS FOR HEAD START TRANSITION AND
11
LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH.-
12
(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 639 of that Art (42 U.S S C
13
9834) is amended-
14
(A) by striking "(a)" after "Sec. 639. and
15
(B) by striking subsection (b).
16
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. -Section 640 (a) (4) of that Act
17
(42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (4)) is amended by striking "Subject to
18
section 639 (b), the" and inserting "The".
19
SEC. 3. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS, LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
2
here
Item
II/S 'd
W
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
5
1
"familico with children under age 3" and inserting a
2
scmicolon;
3
(3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and
4
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
5
(4) by striking subsection (e),
6
(b) in subsection (±), by striking all that precedes
7
"the Secretary shall award grants" and inserting "From the
8
amounts specified in section 640 (a) (6) ,";
9
(5) in subsection (h)--
10
(A) by striking all that follows "(h)" through
11
the paragraph designation " (3) II and adjusting the left
12
margin accordingly;
13
(R) by striking "balance" and inserting "amount";
14
and
15
(C) by striking " (f) " and inserting "(e)"; and
16
(7) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h)
17
as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
18
SEC. 7. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.
19
(a) Head Start Fellowships.-Section 648A (d) (6) of the Head
20
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843 (a)) is amended by striking "$1,000,000"
21
and inserting "$2,000,000".
22
P.6/11
W 'SNIMSVH:WORE
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
ED's comments for HNS
OMB passback
March 13, 1998
Department of Education recommendations for additional amendments
to the Head Start Act
Section 637 (42 U.S.C. 9832). definitions
Paragraph (11), definition of "local educational agency". As of
the 1994 overhaul of Live ESEA by P.L. 103-382, the term "local
educational agency" is defined, as used throughout that Act, in
section 14101 (28), 20 U.S.C. 8801 (18). HHS may want to update
the Head Start provision to cite this particular section,
although it may want to cite only to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
that section. Subparagraph (C) is an oddly worded inclusion of
schools funded by the sureau of Indian Affairs, most of which
would not otherwise qualify as LEAs.
Section 640 (42 U.S.C. 9835), allotment of funds
Subsection (a) (3) (B) (ii) Add the underlined text:
(ii) Ensuring that such programs have adequate qualified
staff, and that such staff are furnished adequate training,
including developing skills in working with children with
non-English language background[s], special needs children,
and homeless children, when appropriate.
Subsection (a) (3) (B) (iv) Add the underlined text:
Imsert
(iv)
and to assist with the implementation of career
A
development programs and systems that serve the staff of
Head Start programs.
here
Subsection (a) (3) (C) (vi) Replace the reference to
"dysfunctional families" with "families under significant
stress", and add references to children who experience chronic
violence in their homes and to homeless children, so that the
clause reads,
(vi)
... other services necessary to address the problems of
children participating in Head Start programs, including
children from families under significant strees, children
who experience chronic violence in their communities or in
their homes, children who experience substance abuse in
their families, and homeless children.
Note: Research indicates that homeless children have
difficulty obtaining Head Start services.
Subsection (a) (5) (C) (1) (II), Add the underlined text so that the
individual serves as a liaison between--
(I) agencies and individuals carrying out Head Start
programs in the Stato, and
P.7/11
FROM HASKINS, M.
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
Insert(A)
Section 640 (42 U.S.C. 9835), allotment of funds
Subsection (1) (3) (B) (iv): Add the underlined text:
and to assist with the implementation of career development programs that serve the staff of
Head Start programs and the integration of those programs with state early childhood career
development systems.
P.8/11
W 'SNIMSVH:WORE
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
(II) agencies (including local educational agencies) and
entities serving low-income children and families, including
Even Start programs under part B of title I of the [ESEA].
Subsection (a) (5) (C) (111) Include the underlined text so that
the clause relating to collaboration and the State liaison says,
(111) ensure that the individual holds a position with
sufficient authority and access to ensure that the
collaboration described in subparagraph (B) is effective and
involves a range of State agencies, including the State
educational agency;
Subsection (a) (5) (C) (iv): expand the requirement relating to
collaboration to include services for the homeless, as well as
employment and economic development services.
Policies and procedures relating to homeless children. Add,
probably in section 640, a new subsection, along the lines of
subsection (d) (children with disabilities), but without any
percentage requirement, directing the Secretary to establish
policies and procedures to ensure that enrollment opportunities
in each State are available for homeless children in sufficient
numbers to meet their needs.
Section 641 (42 U.S.C. 9836) designation of Head Start agencies
In subsections (d) (3) and (d) (4) (C), update the reference to the
Even Start program. As revised by P.L. 103-382, that program is
now Part B of Title I of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6361 et (There
are no longer "chapters" within Title I, and the U.S. Code cite
has changed.) This change also should be made in section
642 (b) (5) and 642 (c).
Section 641A (20 U.S.C. 9836a). quality standards: monitoring of
Head Start agencies and programs
Subsection (a) (3) (R) (11) and (vi) : Add underlined text, BO that
the standards take into consideration,
(iii) developments concerning best practices with respect to
child development and early learning, transition to school,
children with disabilities, family services, program
administration, and financial management,
...
(vi) changes in the population of children who are eligible
to participate in Head Start programs, including the
language background, family structure, parental employment
status, and homelessness of such children,
-2-
P.9/11
W 'SNIMSVH:WORE
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
03/13/86
11:14
USE GUA OJES
vari. AV UGC
Subsection (b) (1) Add experts in early learning to the
categories of experts the Secretary consults in developing the
Head Start performance measures.
section 642 (42 U.G.C. 2837). powers and functions of Head Start
agencies
Subsection (b) (8) : To encourage Head Start projects to consider
assisting young wiblings to obeain early childhood development
services from other sources, revise paragraph (8) by adding the
underlined text:
(8) consider providing services to assist siblings of
children participating in its Head Start program to obtain
health and early childhood development services from other
sources, if the Head Start agency does not operate a program
for infants and toddlers under section G45A of this Act:
Subsection (c) Add a specific reference to migrant education
programs under Part C of Title I of the ESEA to the programs that
Head Start agencies must coordinate with.
Subsection (d), transition coordination with schools: Amond
paragraph (2) (D) to read,
(D) organizing and participating in joint professional
development and transition-related training activities that
include staff from Head Start, Even Start, ESEA Title I, and
State-funded preschool programs, and kindergarlen through
third grade teachers, to support continuity among those
programs.
Subsection (d) (3) change "may" to "shall", so that coordination
with the local schools is required. This will mirror section
1112 (b) (4) of the ESEA, which requires school districts to
coordinate with Head Start programs.
Section 645A (20 U.S.C. 9840a) programs for families with
infants and toddlers
Subsection (b) (2), level of services: Add underlined text, SO
paragraph reads,
(2) ensure that the level and scope of services provided to
families responds to their needs and circumstances;
Subsection (b) (6), linkages with other programs: Add underlined
text:
(6) ensure formal linkages with local Head Start programs,
Even Start programs. and preschool programs funded under
-3-
P.10/11
FROM HASKINS, M.
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
part A of title I of the ESEA. in order to provide for
continuity of services for children and families;
Section 648A (42 U.S.C. 9843a). staff qualification and
development
Subsection (L), mentor teachers: Add a paragraph (3) relating to
the qualifications of mentor teachers.
Subsection (d) (4), selection of Head Start Fellows: add early
learning to the fields from which Fellows may be selected.
Subsection (e), model staffing plans: Wero these developed?
Insert
B
here
Freet
(Page 26-27) Section 648A Staff qualifications and development
(B) Mentor Teachers
For purposes of this subsection, the term "mentor teacher" means an individual with proven
expertise responsible for observing and...
Source: The Center for the Child Care Workforce, which operates a national early childhood
mentoring program for practitioners recommends the use of stringent criteria for deciding the
qualifications of mentors. The criteria are meant to provide an indication of a level of proven
expertise which this language would support.
-4-
II/II'd
FROM HASKINS, M.
MAR-24-1998 16:33 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
option4 wpd
Page 1
Starting Position
Provide quality funds on a noncompetitive basis in FY99; phase-in a
competitive process for quality funds, requiring grantees to compete for 10%
of funds in FYOO, 25% in FY01, and 50% in FY02.
Authorize appropriations for a COLA at the Secretary's discretion, not to
exceed the levels currently authorized.
Remove requirement that at least 50 percent of quality funds must go to
salary and benefit improvements.
Require HHS to use part of the quality funds to track the use of quality
dollars and evaluate the effects of these investments on outcomes for
children.
Keep earmark for research activities, raise it to $12 m in FY99 and "such
sums" thereafter.
Fall-back Position
Remove requirement that at least 50 percent of quality funds must go to
salary and benefit improvements.
Require HHS to use part of the quality funds to track the use of quality
dollars and evaluate the effects of these investments on outcomes for
children.
Keep earmark for research activities, raise it to $12 m in FY99 and "such
sums" thereafter.
option4 wpd
Page 2
Issues
- the $35 million is in the base for transition activities. Continuing the earmark
doesn't add new money, it just maintains the commitment to transition activities.
Otherwise, it is a freebie.
- 13% secretarial reserve pot grows by $130 million over FY98. They propose
that the money continue to go for indians, migrants, disabled, territories, and
monitoring, but that it also go for research. Will they max out on the amount for
indians and migrants, or will they always need $6.7%? If the max out, this will
give a huge pot of $ for research. Keeping it at "such sums" means they need to
propose and defend research plans. Putting it under the 13% gives it to them
automatically. If we don't put research under the 13%, and some set-asides can
max out (indians, migrants, territories) then should we consider trying to lower the
reserve pot?
Will this give them a huge pot of money for reseach (now have $12 million), or will
the ?
Nicole R. Rabner
03/12/98 02:19:48 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
Jennifer L. Klein/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: Head Start options
Let's talk sometime before our meeting with Elena to discuss.
Forwarded by Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP on 03/12/98 01:20 PM
Emil E. Parker
03/10/98 08:00:49 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP
CC:
Subject: Head Start options
What do you think of these puppies? Let me know.
Option Three (NEC)
Eliminate the requirement that at least 50 percent of the quality dollars be devoted to increases
in compensation.
Limit the COLA to the lesser of 1) the change in the CPI or 2) the COLA provided to Federal
employees (not including locality pay adjustments, etc.).
Do not include in the Head Start funding base, for purposes of calculating the next year's
COLA, quality dollars used for purposes other than compensation increases.
Require HHS to use, e.g., Secretarial reserve funds to conduct a multi-year study on the
impact of the quality funds on child outcomes. HHS could also be required to conduct a study
comparing the compensation of Head Start staff with that of comparable (e.g., same level of
education) staff in public school-based preschool programs.
Option Four (NEC)
Same as Option Three, except for the following:
Do not include any quality dollars, whether used for compensation increases or not, in the
Head Start funding base for purposes of calculating the next year's COLA.
Estimate the percentage of total Head Start funding (e.g., three-year average) devoted to
salaries and benefits; limit the COLA to the product of 1) the lesser of the CPI increase or the
COLA provided to Federal employees and 2) the percentage of Head Start funding devoted to
compensation.
option3. wpd
Page 1
OPTIONS FOR HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION
The FY99 President's budget increases Head Start $3.8 billion over the five year
period FY99 to FY03. This funding level is sufficient to meet the President's goal
of serving 1 million children by 2002, including 80,000 children in Early Head Start.
The budget provides for a full inflation adjustment and "quality" set-aside in FY99.
However, because outyear policy was deferred to the reauthorization cycle, less
than the full current law amounts for the traditional COLA or set-aside are in the
budget for the outyears. The amounts for quality and COLA for FY 2000 to 2003
are between $40 to $260 million.
Policy was deferred because the effectiveness of the quality set-aside and COLA in
raising quality is not clear. HHS argues that the salary and benefit increases and
the new staff paid for with the "quality" money help to improve student-to-teacher
ratios and increase staff retention, and that these are proxies for quality.
However, important points to consider when discussing Head Start quality are:
There is no evidence indicating that these funds have lowered
student-to-teacher ratios or improved staff retention. Furthermore, there is a
significant body of research showing that improved teacher salaries do not
result in improved educational outcomes for children.
The Head Start Performance Standards set required student-to-teacher ratios
that are designed to ensure a uniform level of program quality. These
standards can be met within current funding levels.
Head Start providers currently earn $9 to $16 per hour, well above the
average child care worker's hourly wage of $6 to $7.
COLA increases have been given in Head Start every year of the Clinton
Administration. Given the size of the base appropriation, even freezing
participation requires a COLA increase of over $100 million annually.
Grantee staffs in other programs in HHS' Administration for Children and
Families, and very few social programs, if any, receive COLAs by statute. In
particular, neither the COPS program nor the new Class Size Reduction
Initiative include provisions that provide automatic COLAs.
Even if these funds do improve quality, one can argue that there is still no
need to continue the set-aside because these funds have permanently
increased the average amount spent per child. Since 1993, this
Administration has invested over $600 million in new quality activities.
When we consider that each year these funds go into the base and then get
inflated in subsequent years, we have cumulatively spent over $1.2 billion on
quality activities since 1993. Therefore, there are already sufficient funds in
the base to continue activities previously funded with the "quality"
investment set-aside.
option3 wpd
Page 2
The debate comes down to one of slots versus automatic set-asides, and as the
discretionary caps become tighter in the outyears, it becomes increasingly
necessary to prioritize.
Providing the current law COLA and set-aside would add $1.6 to $1.8 billion to the
cost of Head Start expansion from FYOO to FY03. Roughly $550 to $750 million is
due to the set-aside; $900 to $1,000 million is due to the COLA; and the remainder
is due to interactions between the COLA and the set-aside. The costs are high
because there is a compounding effect, i.e., each year the current law COLA and
quality set-aside go into the base and then get inflated in subsequent years.
OPTIONS
Option 1
Authorize appropriations for quality set-aside and COLA at the
Administration's discretion, not to exceed the levels currently authorized.
Require HHS to use part of the quality funds to track the use of quality
dollars and evaluate the effects of these investments on outcomes for
children.
Pros:
Provides flexibility to make funding decisions on a year-by-year
basis, resulting in potentially large savings. This flexibility allows
the Secretary the choice of maintaining the FY99 budget path.
Results in valuable information on meritorious uses of the quality
set-aside.
Cons:
Some argue that this option may upset Congressional
consensus on Head Start; may be seen as an inconsistent position
on quality, thereby jeopardizing the Child Care Initiative; and can be
seen as compromising the President's commitment to Head Start.
Puts pressure on the Administration to debate this issue every year
when making funding decisions.
Option 2
Structure quality set-aside so that it continues to be 25 percent of the Head
Start increase, but provide quality funds for one-time expenditures, such as
facilities improvements, salary bonuses based on merit, purchase of
educational materials, playground equipment, teacher training, transportation
services, etc. Since funds go for one-time purchases, the amounts do not
need to go into the base.
option3 wpd
Page 3
Require grantees to apply for quality funds on a competitive basis.
Remove requirement that at least 50 percent of quality funds must go to
salary and benefit improvements.
Require HHS to use part of the quality funds to track the use of quality
dollars and evaluate the effects of these investments on outcomes for
children.
Authorize appropriations for a COLA at the Secretary's discretion, not to
exceed the levels currently authorized.
Pros:
By redirecting quality funds to one-time
improvements/purchases, eliminates need for quality funds to go
into the base and get inflated. The increase over the FY99 budget
caused by this policy is $600 million less than the increase caused
by providing the current law COLA and quality set-aside.
Results in obtaining timely information on actual uses and net
impact of the quality set-aside.
Provides opportunity to refine the quality set-aside and target dollars
to activities that have more clear cut benefits.
Rewards grantees that propose uses for quality funds that have
proven merit.
Maintains quality investment as a set-aside equaling 25 percent of
the program's increase.
Provides flexibility to make funding decisions regarding the size of
the COLA on a year-by-year basis.
Cons:
Makes public the concern with the current structure.
Flexibility to lower COLA may be seen as a threat to teacher
retention.
Removes guarantee that every grantee will receive quality funds.
Elimination of compounding effect for quality set-aside reduces rate
of long term Head Start spending, considered by some to be an
independent goal.
Total Pages: 12
LRM ID: MDH147
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Monday, March 9, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
pret R. Jorsen
FROM:
Forsgren (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Melinda D. Haskins
PHONE: (202)395-3923 FAX: (202)395-6148
SUBJECT:
HHS Draft Bill on Head Start Reauthorization
DEADLINE:
10 AM Friday, March 13, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: Please review the attached HHS draft bill, transmittal letter, and section-by-section on
the Department's Head Start proposals in support of the President's FY 1999 Budget. Note that
the Sonato Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Children and Families will hold a hearing
on March 26th regarding reauthorization of the Head Start Act.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
30-EDUCATION - Jack Kristy - (202) 401-8313
61-JUSTICE - Andrew Fois - (202) 514-2141
110-Social Security Administration - Judy Chesser - (202) 358-6030
118-TREASURY Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
EOP:
Barbara Chow
Janet Himler
Laura Oliven Silberfarb
Barry White
Wendy A. Taylor
Keith J. Fontenot
Richard B. Bavier
Edwin Lau
Leslie S. Mustain
Jennifer Friedman
Janet R. Forsgren
Cynthia A. Rice
Robert G. Damus
Diana Fortuna
William P. Marshall
Emil E. Parker
Nicole R. Rabner
Jennifer L. Klein
Mary L. Smith
Thomas L. Freedman
I/I
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
LRM ID: MDH147
SUBJECT: HHS Draft Bill on Head Start Reauthorization
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you profer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attomey's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not
answer): or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
Melinda D. Haskins Phone: 395-3923 Fax: 395-6148
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-7362
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following Is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this response sheet
P.2/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
Dear Senator/Rep:
T am writing to offer the Adminiutration's strong support for &
prompt and bipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start program.
I have outlined below the few significant statutory changes that
we believe are necessary to continue to provide quality Head
Start services for the next four years.
As you know, Head Start is America's premier early childhood
development program and it has made a major difference in the
lives of more than 16 million children and families since 1965.
One of the program's key reasons for success has been the ability
of the Administration and Congress to work hand in hand to make
the continued expansion and improvement of Head Start a top
priority. Together in 1994, we engaged in an historic effort
that critically recxamined overy feature OF the program. The
Congress enacted bipartisan reauthorization legislation that
created a blueprint for quality and expansion of the program, and
established a solid foundation for moving Head Start into the
21st century.
Since the last reauthorization, we have aggressively followed the
blueprint, combining strong leadership and tough management with
top notch expertise and tochnical assistance to programs. Among
many achievements, program quality has improved, new performance
standards are in place, and an exciting new Early Head Start
program is operating in communities in all 50 States. This year,
a strengthened Head Start program will serve 830,000 low-income
children, including up to 39,000 children under age three in
Early Head Start. The President's FY 1999 budget proposes
funding for additional children, moving toward our goal of
enrolling a million children in Head Start by 2002 - - including
double the number of children in Early Head Start.
We urge the Congress to enact bipartisan reauthorization
legislation that maintains the strong foundation set down in
1994. First, we recommend extending the authorization for
another four years, through FY 2002, at "such sums as may be
necessary". Second, we urge the Congress to build upon the
innovative Early Head Start program established in 1994 by
gradually increasing the authorized sel, aside to 10 percent by
2002. Based upon the mounting evidence that the earliest years
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
are critically important to children's growth, we believe this
increase is essential to bring the vital Head Start experience to
more at-risk infants and toddlers in the years ahead.
In addition 10 this one important change in the Head Start
Atatute, WA also suggest. the following more technical changes:
modity the funding allotments to update the hold harmless
date for State allocations from 1981 t.n 1998;
increase the amount of funds the Secretary may reserve
for the highly successful Head Start Fellowship program,
which enables local Head Start staff and others in the field
of child development to expand their knowledge and
experience while making significant contributions to the
Head Start program; and
replace outdated references throughout the Act, such as
references to the completed Head Start Transition, Farent-
Child Center, and Comprehensive Child Development Center
initiatives.
We believe this straightforward approach to reauthorization
reaffirms the bipartisan consensus for program quality and
accountability combined with community flexibility in program
planning, implementation and decision making. Further, it
retains the promising new improvements including performance
outcome measures and a variety of research and evaluation
initiatives.
My staff and I are eager to work with you on this important
reauthorization and would be happy to provide legislative or
technical assistance to ensure that Head Start continues to make
a difference for America's children and families.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to this transmittal to the Congress, and that
enactment of legislation pursuant to it would be in accord with
the program of the President.
Sincerely,
Donna E. Shalala
P.4/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
A BILL
To extend and amend programs under the Head Start Act, and for other
purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
2.
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4
This Act may he cited as the "Head Start Act Amendments of
S
1998".
6
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
7
(a) AUTHORIZATION.-Section 639 (a) of the Head Start Act (42
8
U.S.C. 9834 (a) is amended by striking " "1995 through 1998" and
9
inserting "1999 through 2002".
10
(b) ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS FOR HEAD START TRANSITION AND
11
LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH.-
12
(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 639 of that Act (42 11.8 C
13
9834) is amended-
14
(A) by striking "(a)" after "Sec. 639."; and
15
(B) by striking subsection (b).
16
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section 640 (a) (4) of that Act
17
(42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (4)) is amended by striking "Subject to
18
section 639(b), the" and inserting "The".
19
SEC. 3. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
P.5/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - -J. KLEIN
,
1
(a) SECRETARY'S RESERVED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR COSTS OF
2
TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS. Section 640 (a) (2) (D) of the Head Start
3
Act. (42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (2) (D) ) io amended by striking "activities
4
related to" and all that follows and inserting "activities under
5
641A (d) related to correction of deficiencies and proceedings to
6
terminate the designation of Head Start agencies."
7
(b) SECRETARY'S RESERVED FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR COSTS OF
8
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.-Section 640 (a) (2) of the Head Start Act
9
(42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (2) ) is amended-
10
(1) by striking "and" al the end of subparagraph (C);
11
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
12
(D) and inserting "; and"; and
13
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following
14
new subparagraph:
15
" (E) payments for research, demonstration, and
16
evaluation activities, including longitudinal studies,
17
under section 649.".
18
(c) UPDATED HOLD HARMLESS FOR STATE ALLOTMENTS.-Section
19
640 (a) (4) (A) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (4) (A) ) is amended by
20
striking "1981" and inserting "1398".
21
(d) INCREASED SET-ASIDES FOR INFANTS AND TODDLERS PROGRAMS.-
22
Section 640 (a) (5) of that ACL (42 U.S.C. 9835 (a) (6)) is amended
P.6/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - -J. KLEIN
3
1
by striking all that follows "equal to" and inserting "7.5
2
percent for fiscal year 1999, 8 percent for fiscal year 2000, 9
3
percent for fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for fiscal year
4
2002, of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 639 (a) .".
5
(e) ENROLLMENT PRIORITY ADDED FOR INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH
6
DISABILITIES; CORRECTION OF REFERENCE TO DEFINITION IN
7
IDEA. -Section 640 (d) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9835 (d) ) is amended-
8
(1) by striking "section 602 (a) and inserting "section
y
602 (3)"; and
10
(2) by inserting "and infants or toddlers with
11
disabilities (as defined in section 632 (5) of that Act) "
12
after "Act)
73
ARC. 4. QUALITY STANDARDS.
14
(a) UPDATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. -Section 641A(a) (3) (C) of
15
the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) is amended-
16
(1) in clause (i), to read as follows:
17
" (C) (i) review and revise as necessary the
18
performance standards in effect under this section;
19
and";
20
(2) in clause (ii), by striking "November 2. 1978" and
21
inserting "the date of enactment of the Head Start Act
22
Amendments of 1998".
P.7/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
4
1
(b) ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMIT; CONTINUATION OF PERFORMANCE
2
MEASURES.-Section 641A (b) (1) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a (b) (1) )
3
is amended, by striking "Not later than 1 year after the date of
1
enactment of this section, the Secretary" and inserting "The
S
Secretary".
6
SEC. 5. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.
7
(a) WELFARE REFORM CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-ection 642 (c) of
8
the Head Start Act. (42 U.S.C. 9837 (c) is amended by striking
9
"section 402 (g) of the Social Security Act" and inserting "the
10
State program under the Child Care and Development Block Grant
11
Act of 1990".
12
(b) REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR COMPLETED DEMONSTRATION.-Section
13
642 (d) (5) of that ACL (42 U.S.C. 9837 (d) (5) ) is repealed.
14
SEC. 6. PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH INFANTS AND TODDLERS.
15
ELIMINATION OF REFERENCES TO TIME-LIMITED PRIORITY FOR
16
PARENT-CHILD CENTERS AND COMPREHENSIVE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
17
CENTERS.-Section 645A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9810a) is
18
amended-
19
(1) in subsection (a) (2), by striking all that follows
20
"entities carrying out programs" and inserting "under this
21
section and evaluation of such programs.",
22
(2) in subsection (c) (2), by striking all that follows
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
5
1
"familico with children under age 3" and inserting a
2
scmicolon,
3
(3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and
4
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
5
(4) by striking subsection (e),
6
(b) in subsection (t), by striking 2.11 that precedes
7
"the Secretary shall award grants" and inserting "From the
8
amounts specified in section 640 (a) (6),";
9
(6) in subsection (h)
10
(A) by striking all that follows "(h)" through
11
the paragraph designation " (3) " and adjusting the left
12
margin accordingly;
13
(R) by striking "halance" and inserting "amount";
14
and
15
(C) by striking "(f)" and inserting "(e)"; and
16
(7) by redesignating subsections (£), (g), and (h)
17
as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
18
SEC. 7. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.
19
(a) Head Start Fellowships.-Section 648A (d) (6) of the Head
20
Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843 (a)) ia amended by striking "$1,000,000"
21
and inserting "$2,000,000".
22
P.9/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - - J. KLEIN
THE "HEAD START ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998"
Section-by-Section Summary
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This section provides that the bill, if enacted, shall be
cited as the "Head Start Act Amendments of 1998".
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 2 (a) amends section 639 (a) of the Head Start Act
(the Act) to extend the authorization of appropriations for four
years, through FY 2002.
Section 2 (b) eliminates section 639 (b), which earmarked
funding for Head Start Transition projecty and for longitudinal
research.
SEC. 3. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS, LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE.
section 3 (a) amends section 640 (a) (2) (D) of the Act to make
the Secretary's reserved funds available for costs of proceedings
to terminate designation of Head Start agencies.
Section 3 (b) adde to section 640 (a) (2) of the Act a new
subparagraph (E), providing that any remainder of the Secretary's
reserved funds may he used for costs of research, demonstration,
and evaluation, including longitudinal studies.
Section 3 (c) amends section 640 (a) (4) (A) of the Act. to
update the hold harmless base year for State allotments from FY
1981 to FY 1998.
Section 3 (d) amends section 640 (a) (6) of the Act to
increase the percentage get-asides for the Early Head Start
program under section 645A of the Act to 7.5 percent for fiscal
year 1999, 8 percent for fiscal year 2000, 9 percent for fiscal
year 2001, and 10 percent for fiscal year 2002, of the amount
appropriated pursuant to section 639 (a).
Section 3 (e) amends section 640 (d) of the Act (which provides
for enrollment priority for children with disabilities) (1) to
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
2
conform the reference LU the definition "child with a disability"
in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to that
definition as renumbered by the 1997 amendments (P.L. 105-17)
and (2) to add infants and toddlers with disabilities, as defined
in IDEA, as children to whom the Head Start enrollment priority
applies.
SEC. 4. QUALITY STANDARDS.
Section 4 (a) amends section 641A(a) (3) (C) of the Act (1) to
delete an obsolete deadline for revision of Head Start
performance standards, and (2) to update the performance
standards benchmark date from November 2, 1978 to the date of
enactment of this bill.
Section 4 (b) amends section 641A (b) (1) of the Act to delete
an obcolete deadline for initial development of performance
measures.
SEC. 5. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF HEAD START AGENCIES.
Section 5 (a) amends section 642 (c) of the Act to substitute
a reference to the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 for a reference to the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program repealed by the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)
Section (b) amends section 642 (d) (5) of the Act to repeal
the requirement for evaluation, information dissemination, and
technical assistance related LU the now completed Head Start
Transition Project.
SEC. 6. PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH INFANTS AND TODDLERS.
Section 6 amends section 645A of the Act to delete
provisions concerning the time-limited priority for Parent-Child
Centers and Comprehensive Child Development Centers, and makes
conforming changes, This authority expired at the end of FY 1997.
SEC. 7 STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.
Section 7 amends section 648A OE the Act to increase from
$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 the maximum amount of discretionary
P.11/12
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3
payments for the Head Start Fellowship program that may be made
from amounts reserved for the Secretary under section
640 (a) (2) (D) .
'I
MAR-09-1998 15:23 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
Alan Salazar Travis Barry
LRM ID: RJP231
SUBJECT: HHS Testimony on HHS Draft Bill on Head Start Reauthorization
Total Pages: 22
LRM ID: RJP231
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Friday, March 20, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
LIRGENT
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM:
faxit R. Josephen
Janet R. Forsgren (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:
Melinda D. Haskins
PHONE: (202)395-3923 FAX: (202)395-6148
SUBJECT:
HHS Testimony on HHS Draft Bill on Head Start Reauthorization
DEADLINE:
Noon Monday, March 23, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: Joint hearing before Senate Labor and Human Resources/House Education and the
Workforce Subcommittees on Thursday, March 26th. Olivia Golden is the HHS witness.
Committee staff have requested the HHS statement by March 23rd.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
30-EDUCATION - Jack Kristy - (202) 401-8313
61 JUSTICE - Andrew Fois - (202) 514-2141
110-Social Security Administration - Judy Chesser - (202) 358-6030
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
62-LABOR - Robert A. Shapiro - (202) 219-8201
EOP:
Barbara Chow
Thomas L. Freedman
Laura Oliven Silberfarb
Barry White
Wendy A. Taylor
Keith J. Fontenot
Richard B. Bavier
Edwin Lau
Mary I. Cassell
Jennifer Friedman
Robert G. Damus
Cynthia A. Rice
Diana Fortuna
Emil E. Parker
Janet R. Forsgren
Nicole R. Rabner
OMB LA
KLEIN_J
Mary L. Smith
P. 1/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
TESTIMONY OF OLIVIA GOLDEN
Assistant Secretary
Administration for Children and Families
before the
Children and Families Subcommittee
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
and the
Early Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee
House Education and the Workforce Committee
March 26, 1998
P.2/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
I am pleased to appear before you today to offer the
Administration's strong support for prompt and bipartisan
reauthorization of the Head Start program. This joint hearing
exemplifies the cooperative spirit that Congress and the
Administration have traditionally committed to America's premier
early childhood development program.
Together in 1994, we engaged in an historic effort that
critically reexamined every feature of the Head Start program.
Following this review, the Congress enacted bipartisan
legislation that created a blueprint for quality and expansion of
the Head Start program and established a solid foundation for
moving Head Start into the 21st century.
Today, I would like to urge you to enact a bipartisan
reauthorization that maintains the strong foundation set down in
1994. We recommend extending the authorization for another four
years at such sums as may be necessary. We also urge the
Congress to build upon the innovative Early Head Start program
you initiated in 1994 by gradually increasing it to 10 percent of
program funds by 2002. By keeping the core provisions of the
2
P.3/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.4
1994 legislation, and making these and a few other small changes,
we can reaffirm the bipartisan consensus for program quality and
accountability, combined with community flexibility in program
planning, implementation and decision making. Further, this
straightforward approach to reauthorization retains promising new
improvements, including performance outcome measures and a
variety of research and evaluation initiatives.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE HEAD START PROGRAM
Head Start's mission is to help prepare young economically
disadvantaged children for success in school and life through a
comprehensive program of early education, health and nutrition
services. In addition, programs work hard to educate, support,
and advance the economic and social progress of Head Start
parents. This year, 830,000 children will attend Head Start in
more than 16,000 community-based centers and 595 home-based
programs. They come from low-income families, 60 percent of Head
Start families earn less than $9,000 per year and 45 percent
receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program.
3
P.4/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:01PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.5
Head Start is very much "locelly owned and operated". Over 1,400
public and private non-profit community agencies manage Head
Start programs, guided by a common framework of national
standards and policies. There are 42,200 Head Start classes
meeting across the country every day. Head Start agencies have
considerable flexibility in designing programs to meet the needs
of local families and to mesh with the efforts of other community
early childhood agencies and programs.
Most importantly, research is showing that Head Start works.
Data from our new Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey,
the Department of Education's National Household Education
Survey, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Longitudinal
Study of Youth, show that:
Head Start children are more advanced in early literacy and
verbal skills compared to similar children who have not
attended early childhood programs;
Parents are involved at high levels in Head Start
activities and in supporting their children's learning
at home; and
4
P.5/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:01PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.6
There are long-term positive effects of participation
in Head Start on academic achievement and reduction in
grade repetition.
This pattern of positive outcomes is further bolstered by
conclusions of the Packard Foundation's Center for Children's
recent analysis of nearly 150 studies of high quality early
intervention programs in the U.S. and other nations, including
Head Start.
Since its inception in 1965, one of the key reasons for Head
Start's success has been sustained, bipartisan support for the
program and the ability of leaders from the Administration and
Congress to work hand in hand to make continued program expansion
and improvement a top priority. This support was clearly
demonstrated in Secretary Shalala's Advisory Committee on Head
Start Quality and Expansion where we worked together to develop a
set of recommendations for the future of the Head Start program.
The Committee concluded that Head Start of the 21st century must:
Ensure quality and strive to attain excellence in every
local program;
5
P.6/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:02PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.7
Respond flexibly to the needs of today's children and
families, including those currently unserved, and
Forge new partnerships at the community, state, and
federal levels, renewing and recrafting these
partnerships to fit the changes in families,
communities, and state and national policy.
This vision of Head Start formed the basis of the 1994
reauthorization and since that time we have worked to
successfully implement the key provisions of this legislation.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1994 HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION
I would now like to summarize some of our key accomplishments
over the past four years to expand and strengthen the quality of
this program across the nation.
Enhancing Program Quality
We have taken four important new steps to promote continuous
improvement and a stronger focus on outcomes in every local Head
6
P.7/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:02PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.8
Start program. The first step called for in the 1994 legislative
mandates was to complete the first revision in 20 years of Head
Start's Program Performance Standards, our template for holding
programs accountable for delivering high quality services to
every child and family. The revised standards, effective January
1, 1998, are clearer and easier to use, provide valuable new
guidance on quality practices in program management and in
serving infants and toddlers, and reflect the latest research on
the best ways to work with young children and their families.
A second important provision in the 1994 reauthorization was
support for tough enforcement to make sure that every agency
lives up to the Performance Standards: We have taken a new tough
stance whenever our on-site program monitoring teams found
serious deficiencies in program compliance with the Performance
Standards. We have replaced 90 grantees that were unable to
correct performance problems promptly, in each instance making
arrangements to continue services through another local agency.
In many other cases, grantees targeted as deficient were
successful in making substantial improvements in management and
program practices and moving back into compliance with Head Start
standards. Taken together, these efforts led to significant
7
P.8/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:03PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.9
improvements in the relatively small proportion of agencies with
quality problems.
Step three in our quality initiative was to complete the design
and initial implementation of a new system to define, measure and
track progress on the key outcomes of Head Start services. our
performance measures encompass outcomes in key areas from
enhancing children's health and learning, to strengthening
families as the primary nurturers of their children, to ensuring
that Head Start is a well-managed program that involves parents
in decision-making. We established four new Quality Research
Centers to develop and field test a system to assess and track
these outcomes. And we have completed collection and analysis of
pilot data on a nationally representative sample of 2,400
children and families from 40 Head Start programs across the
country through our Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).
Initial results from FACES show that the quality in Head Start
classrooms is good; no classrooms are rated in the poor range.
Perhaps most importantly, program quality -- including small
class sizes, favorable child:adult ratios, a variety of learning
materials, and more sensitive and responsive teaching -- is
positively related to child outcomes in vocabulary, prewriting
8
P.9/21
I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:03PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE. 96905750
P. 10
skills, and knowledge of numbers. Data on parent involvement is
equally impressive; 80 percent or more are attending parent-
teacher conferences and observing in their child's classroom,
more than 70 percent are volunteering in the classroom, and one-
third are involved in program planning and decision-making.
Fourth, we made program quality a priority in the way we fund
programs. Based on Congressional mandates, a portion of each
year's funding increase has been allocated to locally-designed
quality improvement initiatives and investments in staff salaries
and fringe benefits. Over the last four years agencies hired
additional family service workers to work more intensively with
parents on adult literacy, job training, parenting education, and
substance abuse treatment. These additional staff members will
be a vital asset in supporting Head Start parents as they
participate in new welfare reform initiatives.
An increasing body of research on early childhood and child care
programs shows that success for children depends on stable, well-
trained teams of staff members in classrooms. Toward this end,
local agencies have made small but steady improvements in
9
P.10/21
'I ERO::DADE
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:04PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.11
salaries and fringe benefits for Head Start's more than 145,000
staff members. Average salaries for teachers increased from
$14,600 in 1992 to approximately $17,800 in 1997, the proportion
of Head Start grantees providing retirement benefits increased by
21 percent, and virtually all agencies are now providing
comprehensive health insurance. These investments helped Head
Start maintain an annual staff turnover rate of less than 8
percent, much lower than the estimated 33 percent annual turnover
rate in child care centers that lack the resources to provide
adequate salaries and fringe benefits.
Expanding Head Start Services
Over the past five years, stoady increased investment in Head
Start has allowed a total of nearly 175,000 more children to
receive Head Start's comprehensive health, nutrition, and high
quality early childhood education services while their parents
also participate, volunteer and learn. At the same time, Head
Start agencice are also working to provide more high quality
full-day, full-year services to meet the needs of parents moving
from welfare to work. This successful expansion has put us on
track to achieve the President's goal, supported by the Balanced
10
12/11'd
I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:04PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96305750
P. 12
Budget Act of 1997, of serving 1 million children by 2002.
In addition to enrolling more preschool children, Head Start has
expanded to serve infants and toddlers. Prompted by compelling
new research on brain development in very young children, the
1994 reauthorization created the Early Head Start program,
extending the benefits of Head Start's comprehensive quality
services to this younger age group. We successfully launched
this nationwide initiative through a series of open national
competitions that funded Early Head Start programs in 173
communities in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico to serve 22,000 children birth to age three. This year we
will be making awards to establish approximately 200 additional
programs to extend Early Head Start services to up to 39,000
children in total. This initiative also includes a state-of-the-
art research strategy to learn in a systematic way about the
long-term outcomes of this program and to assess what types of
program strategies are most effective.
Forging New Partnerships
Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has drawn on community
11
"I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:04PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 13
resources and contributions. Last year over 1.3 million
volunteers worked in Head Start, and local citizene, health
professionals, businesses, and voluntary organizations donated
everything from eyeglasses to computers to space for classrooms
in support of local programs. However, in recent years, Head
Start has stepped up to new levels of collaboration with both
public and private sector partners.
One rapidly growing area of partnerships is between Head Start
and state-funded early childhood programs. In part based on the
example and success of Head Start, more than 32 states are now
investing to expand and improve child care, prekindergarten and
other preventive initiatives. For instance, Ohio has increased
funding to expand Head Start services from less than $20 million
in 1992 to more than $83 million this year, and Minnesota has
boosted its support from $6.5 million to $37.5 million in the
same period.
We have worked closely with these and other states to create
full-fledged cooperative approaches to joint funding, program
monitoring, staff training and technical assistance. Similarly,
sparked by the example of Early Head Start, states such as Kansas
12
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:05PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 14
and Oklahoma are adding state funds to expand services to very
young children, using our Performance Standards as guidelines for
their state funding.
To enhance our partncrships with states, we have created a
network ot 52 Head Start-State Collaboration Offices to connect
local Head Start programs with state initiatives in areas such as
child care, health, family literacy, welfare reform and public
education. In Washington State, the Collaboration Office and the
Administration for Children and Families Regional Office have
brokered a creative partnership with the Costco and Washington
Works Corporations to help Head Start parents who are looking for
a job. Head Start parents in Costco's Wholesale Retail
Internship Program participate in a comprehensive, 10-month
program of paid work experience, employment training and
community college courses which lead to 45 academic credits and a
certificate that qualifies them for further job opportunities at
Costco and other companies. Head Start agencies help families
with child care, tranoportation and other needs.
In an important Head Start-private sector partnership, Johnson
and Johnson, Inc. for the past seven years has co-sponsored an
13
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:05PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 15
advanced management training program for Head Start Directors
through the John E. Anderson Graduate School of Management at the
University of California at Los Angeles. An exciting new five-
year, $16 million joint venture with the Conrad N. Hilton
Foundation will provide special training to Head Start staff in
working with infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families.
In another significant partnership, Head Start has made a
commitment to link with local child care agencies to help meet
growing needs of low-income families for quality child care. The
majority of Head Start programs provide part-day classroom
services, but report that many Head Start families are employed
or moving into welfare-to-work initiatives. Therefore, we set a
priority in last year's competition for expanding Head Start
enrollment to encourage Head Start agencies to join forces with
local child care providers to provide high quality, full-day
services. The outcome was a dramatic shift in the pattern of new
services -- more than 30,000 new children will be served in full-
day forms of Head Start and more than 400 Head Start agencies
will be partnering with other community child care and early
childhood agencies and resources. We believe these new models
14
I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:06PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 16
will help young children prepare for school as well as support
parents as they move into employment.
We have continued to strengthen Head Start research, launching
several new long-term studies in collaboration with other federal
partners. The Department of Education's Early Childhood
Longitudinal study will follow a nationally representative sample
of 25,000 kindergarten children, including a substantial
subsample of children who attended Head Start. Head Start is
also contributing to the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development's (NICHD) seven-year longitudinal Study of
Early Child Care which will track the cognitive, health, and
social development of over 1,200 infants in a variety of child
care and Head Start centers and informal care arrangements.
Other new research partnerships include projects with the
National Institute of Mental Health on mental health needs and
services for Head Start families, and, with NICHD, a special
study of how fathers in Early Head Start are involved with their
children.
THE AGENDA AHEAD
15
16/21 'd
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:06PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 17
What I hope to have portrayed today through these vivid examples
is that, as a result of the solid base provided by the 1994
reauthorization, Head Start today is bigger, better, more
accountable, more diverse and effective in its forms and
functions, and better connected to significant state and local
partners than at any time in its history. We've created a base
of stronger local agencies, updated management systems and
significant new forms of service to our nation's most needy
children, families, and communities.
However, Head Start also faces a number of significant challenges
in the years ahead. First, despite strong public support and
recent funding increases, Head Start only serves roughly 40
percent of the eligible preschool children and a tiny fraction of
the eligible infants and toddlers. Second, while we've improved
staff compensation and invested in quality improvements, Head
Start staff still earn less than comparably trained and
experienced workers in other occupations and local agencies are
hard pressed to maintain quality as they respond to the growing
needs of families for full-day, full-year services. Third, Head
Start must fulfill its historic role as the national laboratory
for America's child care, early childhood, and parent support
16
12/LI'd
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:07PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 18
system through research, development, and outreach efforts. To
accomplish this task, Head Start must further expand its
promising partnerships with other early childhood agencies to
create more quality child care services by combining the best of
Head Start's model of comprehensive services and well-trained
classroom staff with the best of child care's heritage of
supporting working families with full-day, full-year and other
forms of flexible service.
We can address these challenges by working toward another
bipartisan reauthorization that maintains and builds on the
strong foundation set down in 1994. Specifically, we urge your
committees to extend the authorization for the Head Start program
for another four years through 2002, with only a few limited
modifications. It is essential to maintain the important
existing provisions that support program improvement and
accountability, including challenging and comprehensive
performance standards and outcome measures; a strong system for
monitoring and enforcement; and sustained, targeted investment in
quality improvements, staff compensation and professional
development, and technical assistance.
17
*18/21 'd
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:07PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 19
The one key change which must be made in the Head Start statute
is to build on the innovative Early Head Start program
established in 1994 by gradually increasing the authorized set
aside to 10 percent by 2002, meeting the President's goal to
double the number of children in Early Head Start. Continued
expansion of Early Head Start is a vital investment for three
reasons. First, we now understand as a result of research how
early experiences with parents and caregivers shape brain
development, language acquisition, and a host of related
physical, cognitive, and social capacities in infants and
toddlers. Second, we know how to translate this knowledge into a
solid program strategy that meets the needs of, and makes a
difference for, both children and their families. Third, as more
parents with infants and toddlers are working to support their
families, Early Head Start is becoming a vital catalyst to
inspire other public and private investment for very young
children and a crucial model of quality services that will guide
program development and front-line staff practice in a wide range
of other agencies and programs.
In addition to this one fundamental change, we would recommend an
increase in the amount of funds the Secretary may reserve for the
18
'd
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:08PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 36305750
P. 20
highly successful Head Start Fellowship program. This program
enables local Head Start staff and others in the field of child
development to expand their knowledge and experience while making
significant contributions to the Head Start program. We think it
would be extremely beneficial to the Head Start program to offer
this opportunity to a greater number of Head Start staff and
other child development specialists across the nation. Finally,
we would suggest a few technical adjustments to eliminate or
correct now-outdated provisions of the Act.
We believe this straightforward approach to reauthorization will
reaffirm the bipartisan consensus of support for Head Start as
our nation's flagship early childhood program and provide the
right framework for continued expansion and improvement efforts.
These recommendations will allow Head Start to continue expanding
enrollment with a more diverse mix of full-day/full-year and
infant/toddler options, strengthen our efforts to improve
programs with a new set of tools, and help Head Start in moving
into even more substantial working partnerships with states and
communities as they manage and fund other early childhood,
welfare, health, and public education services.
19
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN
3-20-1998 2:08PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.21
CONCLUSION
I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you and look forward
to working with the Congress as we take Head Start into the 21st
century. My staff and I are available to work with your
committees on this important reauthorization and to provide any
assistance needed to ensure that Head Start continues to make a
difference for America's children and families.
I would be happy to respond to your questions.
20
P.21/21
'I
MAR-20-1998 15:38 TO:213 - J. KLEIN