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
34428759
label
Head Start [Folder 2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428759
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Head Start [Folder 2]
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
34428759
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-021-008-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
60be296105e8b82d
ocrText
MUMAN
SERVICES
USA
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
8
DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIE
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Suite 600
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447
August 15, 1995
NOTE TO CAROL RASCO
In response to your request for research findings on Head Start and
HIPPY, attached are summary findings and background explanatory
material.
As you might imagine, there is a great deal more information
available on Head Start particularly, and depending on the context
in which the information is to be used, some of it may be useful to
you. I would be pleased to talk with you further about your needs
in this area. In the meantime, I hope the attached is helpful.
Ann Rosewater
HEAD START:
What We've Learned from the Research
The research is unequivocal that Head Start, for 30 years,
has worked for low-income children and their families. It
helps low-income children get ready and stay ready for
school. It helps parents improve their parenting skills,
improve their ability and willingness to contribute to their
communities and, in many cases, helps put parents on the
road to economic and social self-sufficiency.
Head Start improves intelligence (IQ), academic
readiness and achievement, self-esteem, social
behavior, and physical health (including better
dental and nutritional status, greater
immunization rates, and periodic medical screening
and treatment). (Zigler and Styfco 1993; McCall,
1993; Datta, 1979; Fosburg et al, 1984; Haskins,
1989; Mann, et al, 1976; McKey, et al, 1985).
According to the bipartisan Advisory Committee on
Head Start Quality and Expansion, "The evidence is
clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for
children and families."
Several studies show that Head Start helps to
improve the lives of parents, including increased
parental communication with their children,
increased participation in their children's school
activities, increased satisfaction with the
quality of their own lives, enhanced confidence in
their ability to cope and interact in society,
improved disciplinary practices with their
children, and decreased feelings of depression and
anxiety. (Mann, et al, 1976; McKey, et al, 1985;
Parker, et al, 1987)
Current child development theory is that parent
involvement enhances the effects of early
childhood programs by producing less subsequent
school failure. (Greensburg, 1989; Lazar and
Darling, 1982; Lee, et al 1989; Powell, 1986;
Seitz, et al 1989; Washington, 1985). In Head
Start specifically, research has found that high
levels of parental involvement in Head Start are
associated with higher levels of subsequent
academic achievement. (Kincaid, 1975; Mann, et
al, 1976; Monroe and McDonald, 1981; Weld, 1973).
Despite all the countervailing forces in the lives of
low-income children and their families, there is
substantial and growing evidence that early
intervention programs in general and Head Start in
particular can have important and lasting positive
effects on children's development.
Two large longitudinal data bases, the
Philadelphia Public Schools and the Montgomery
Public Schools, contain evidence of consistent
lasting effects for Head Start graduates over low-
income children across a number of cohorts.
(Hebbeler, 1985; Copple, et. al., 1987).
An analysis of Head Start children through the age
of 10 identified in the National Longitudinal
Study of Youth (NSLY) found positive and
persistent effects of participation in Head Start
on the test scores of White and Hispanic children.
(Currie and Thomas, 1993).
Some studies report that Head Start graduates have
better high school attendance, are less likely to
be retained in grade, and use less special
education services. (Bee, 1981; Copple, et al,
1987; Goodstein, 1975; Monroe and McDonald, 1981;
Royster and Larson, 1977; Shipman, 1976).
This Administration has embarked on a vigorous
longitudinal research agenda that will improve our
knowledge about what works in the long-term and enable
us to make an even greater difference to low-income
children.
This Administration has taken action to maximize the
long-term benefits of Head Start, by ensuring that all
programs share the hallmarks of quality that the
research suggests are associated with long-run
effectiveness, and by supporting effective linkage with
the public schools.
The experts on what Head Start does for children are the children
and parents who have experienced it. Over and over, parents
consulted in focus groups and surveys report (according to the
bipartisan Advisory Committee report) that "Head Start [has had]
a positive impact on their child's preparation for school, their
own understanding of the importance of their involvement in the
education of their child, their own parenting skills, and on
their own self-esteem and the self-esteem of their child."
HIPPY:
Initial Research Results
Initial results from a five-year, quasi-experimental study
of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters
(HIPPY) show teachers rating children who had been in HIPPY
as better adapted to the classroom and more likely to do
well in school than children who had not been in HIPPY.
(Baker, A., & Piotrkowski, C., NCJW Center for the Child)
61424
-Deberah
X
SOCIAL POLICY REPORT
Society For Research In Child Development
Volume VII, Number 2
1993
USING RESEARCH AND THEORY TO JUSTIFY
AND INFORM HEAD START EXPANSION
Edward Zigler
Sally J. Styfco
Head Start is America's favorite social pro-
1993). The program's advocates felt their sense of
gram-or is it? President Clinton appeared to echo
victory turn into a defensive stance.
public sentiment in his first congressional address
when he described the program as a sound social
They have assumed this posture before.
Since its inception, opinions of Head Start have
investment deserving of additional support. But
what seemed like a unanimous call to fully fund
bounced from positive to negative and back again.
Head Start was soon punctuated by voices of
The project has been favored as a quick means of
boosting poor children's IQ scores and criticized
dissent. The attack should have been expected-
the inevitable backlash that occurs whenever a
when these increases did not appear to be perma-
nent. It has been praised as a cure for welfare
favored position becomes so politically correct as
dependency, teenage pregnancy, and criminality
to invite scrutiny. Also, conservatives were newly
and condemned because no one ever collected
freed from their duty to side with the former
data to substantiate such claims. Today Head Start
Republican president, who vocally supported Head
is in the middle of an ideological debate over the
Start. and found the changing of the political guard
proper role of government in solving social prob-
an opportune time to counter whatever the Demo-
lems. Can the program help the nation attain its
cratic victors held dear. They found ammunition
goal of having all children ready to learn when
in the constructive criticisms being offered by
they begin school, or is it just another example of
Head Start's friends, many of whom had silenced
"Big Brother" intruding in the lives of private"
their concerns during prior administrations intent
citizens?
on reducing social welfare expenditures. Soon the
print media began to fill with articles portraying
Head Start has clearly been subjected to
Head Start as a national boondoggle, a "scam" that
unrealistic expectations and entangled in the web
is a waste of precious tax dollars (Hood, 1992,
of politics. The time is long overdue to look at this
program objectively, sifting fact from opinion and
A Brief History
separating the emotions from the evidence that
should be the primary basis for determining its
Project Head Start originated during an
future course. Head Start has been in operation for
optimistic period of American history, a time
nearly 30 years and has been evaluated more
when there were both the desire and financial
extensively than perhaps any other social pro-
means to attempt to eliminate poverty and pro-
gram. During this time the disciplines devoted to
mote social equality. The federal government took
early childhood have blossomed and generated
a proactive role in this effort, launching the War on
sophisticated theories and practical applications.
Poverty to provide education and self-help oppor-
The purpose of this paper is to use this accumu-
tunities to enable socioeconomically disadvan-
lated wisdom to make a realistic assessment of
taged citizens to improve their lives. The 1964
Head Start. Such an analysis is vital not only to
Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) opened the
determining whether the program's record justi-
War by creating several projects' for poor adults,
fies its expansion. The knowledge derived from
including the Community Action Programs. The
experience with Head Start can guide the program's
CAP were designed to assist local communities in
evolution and inform the search for effective strat-
establishing and administering their own antipov-
egies of early intervention and education for chil-
erty programs. However, some local governments
dren in poverty.
opposed the CAP's proposed placement of admin-
istrative control and resources in the hands of
impoverished citizens and therefore refused to
Head Start's Program and Goals
apply for program grants. In an effort to make the
CAP more palatable to local officials, while using
The current controversy over the value of
what would have been an embarrassing budget
Head Start is riddled with misconceptions about
surplus, the Head Start project was born. Sargent
the program's structure and mission. Head Start is
Shriver, head of the Office of Economic Oppor-
referred to either as child care, preschool educa-
tunity and chief strategist of the Johnson Admin-
tion. health and social services, or a training and
istration's War on Poverty, was struck by the
job program for poor adults. The project, in fact,
realization that children comprised half of the
serves all of these functions. Many observers also
population living below poverty. He envisioned a
have confused Head Start with the Perry Pre-
preschool intervention program as a way to "over-
school, an educational intervention project con-
come a lot of hostility in our society against the
ducted in the 1960s and still being evaluated for
poor," because no one could blame children for
lifetime effects. In reality, Head Start is a very
their financial predicament or fear giving them too
different type of program than the Perry Project
much power (quoted in Zigler & Anderson, 1979,
was, so the two should not so casually be com-
p. 12).
pared. To enable constructive debate and effective
social policy, interested parties must have an accu-
With the exception of a few compensatory
rate view of Head Start's nature. This section
education projects, there was very little experi-
describes Head Start's model, goals. and imple-
ence at the time to suggest how to meet the needs
mentation to help clarify what this frequently
of economically disadvantaged preschoolers. Is-
misunderstood program actually encompasses.
sues of program content, size, and duration were
therefore open questions for Shriver as he began
piecing together a national intervention project.
His first step was to appoint a planning committee
the Head Start planning committee interpreted it
of 14 experts from the fields of preschool educa-
more literally than many local officials might have
tion. health. child development, and mental health.
liked (see Valentine & Stark, 1979). The planners
This diversity ensured that Head Start would be-
were also influenced by the ideas of one member.
come far more than an educational program. (For
Urie Bronfenbrenner. who was just beginning to
the history of the development of Head Start, see
develop his ecological approach to human devel-
Zigler & Muenchow, 1992. and Zigler & Valen-
opment. Bronfenbrenner (1974, 1979) argued that
tine, 1979.)
there is a complex interrelationship among chil-
dren, their families. and communities, so interven-
Dr. Robert Cooke, a noted pediatrician,
tion must touch all of these areas to be effective.
chaired the group. which had only a few months to
develop their plans. The committee's recommen-
This insight was an astute one: today, parent
dations, presented to Shriver in February 1965,
participation is recognized as crucial to the suc-
cess of early intervention as well as later education
were based on a "whole child" philosophy that
called for comprehensive programming: Head
(e.g., Comer, 1980; Powell, 1982: Seitz, 1990).
Start's goals were to improve physical health,
Program Implementation
enhance mental processes (particularly concep-
tual and verbal skills), and foster social and emo-
Expert advisors and planning committee
tional development, self-confidence, relationships
members counseled Shriver that a small. pilot
with family and others, social responsibility, and
program should be run and evaluated prior to
a sense of dignity and self-worth for both the
mounting a large-scale effort. Yet the Johnson
child and family ("Recommendations for a Head
Administration demanded that Shriver fire a ma-
Start Program." 1965). Note that only one of these
jor volley in the War on Poverty by beginning
seven goals specifically related to intellectual
on a large scale, a plan made possible by the
performance.
economic prosperity of the times. When Head
The committee's recommendations were
Start opened in 1965, over 500,000 children were
unique not only because they outlined a multifac-
served in a summer program lasting 6 or 8 weeks.
eted intervention but because they included the
Unfortunately, there was not enough time to screen
-family as well as the child. The planning docu-
all the grant applications carefully, so variation in
ment accorded parents a central role that was
quality characterized Head Start from the very
virtually unprecedented in the design of preschool
beginning.
or compensatory education programs. Prior to
Today the basic Head Start program is a
Head Start, economically disadvantaged families
center-based preschool serving primarily poor
had been treated as passive recipients of services
children aged 3 to 5, with the majority (63%)
dispensed by professionals. But Head Start par-
being 4 years old (Administration on Children,
ents were to be involved in the planning, adminis-
Youth and Families, 1993). Most children attend
tration, and daily activities of their local centers.
a half-day session for a school year, although
One reason for this decision derived from Head
some participate for 2 years. Full-day programs
Start's origins in the CAP, which were mandated
and home-based services are delivered in some
to allow poor citizens "maximum feasible partici-
locations. Federal guidelines require that at least
pation" in running antipoverty efforts. The EOA
90% of the children enrolled be from families
contained no clear definition of this slogan, and
whose income falls below the poverty line; at least
2
10% of enrollment must consist of children with
teristics. Further, random assignment to pre-
disabilities. Head Start programs by law receive
school and comparison groups would be
80% of their funding from the federal government
problematic because eligibility for Head Start
and the rest from other. usually local. sources,
was defined by law. This left evaluation subject to
which may be in the form of in-kind services.
less rigorous quasi-experimental designs (Cook &
In fiscal year 1992, there were 1,370 Head
Campbell, 1979). Another problem was that
Start grantees serving over 621,000 children and
there were no generally accepted definitions or
their families (Administration on Children, Youth
measures of some concepts like social compe-
and Families, 1993). (This is less than the yearly
tence and parental empowerment that were part
of Head Start's agenda.
enrollment in the late 1960s but represents a 35%
increase since 1989.) Each program is required to
The burst of research in the program's first
include six components: early childhood educa-
decade illuminated these and other problems in
tion. health screening and referral, mental health
evaluating such a complex intervention. Although
services, nutrition education and hot meals, social
this paved the way for more informed investiga-
services for the child and family, and parent in-
tions, few were subsequently conducted. Support
volvement. Local programs are overseen by Policy
for Head Start research was greatly reduced dur-
Advisory Councils, composed of parents, staff,
ing the 1980s, falling from 2.5% of the project's
and community representatives who are respon-
budget in 1974 to 11% in 1989, including demon-
sible for operating and staffing decisions. Although
stration efforts (National Head Start Association,
all Head Start programs must adhere to a body of
1990). Much of what is known about the effects of
national regulatory standards, each is encouraged
Head Start is therefore based on old, sometimes
to adapt the program to local needs and resources.
problematic studies, and, as we will discuss later
Thus it is somewhat misleading to speak of Head
in this section, there is much that is still not known.
Start as a singular intervention because of the varia-
tion in localized programming.
Focus on Intelligence
Despite the many goals of Head Start.
Evaluating Head Start
initial research 'focused almost exclusively on
how much the program could raise children's
Head Start was designed as a comprehen-
intelligence test scores. This emphasis sprang
sive, two-generation. community-based program.
from a popular view within developmental psy-
Its complexity and uniqueness made evaluation
chology that even limited environmental interven-
difficult from the start. Federal officials under-
tions could stimulate cognitive growth (see Schorr,
standably wanted a national impact study to ascer-
1988; Spitz, 1986; Zigler, 1970). Supporters of
tain the effects of this costly new experiment. Yet
this position held that if the "right" experiences
the diversity of Head Start programs around the
were provided at the "right" time (commonly
country would confound comparisons of preschool
assumed to be before age 5), IQ scores could be
and control groups, because the preschool samples
raised dramatically. Another reason that Head
would not all have had the same Head Start expe-
Start came to be judged on the basis of IQ changes
rience. The participants themselves were a hetero-
could be that psychologists conducted most of the
geneous population differing in terms of racial,
evaluations, and standard IQ tests are tools of their
ethnic, linguistic, geographic, and other charac-
trade. If physicians had designed the first studies,
perhaps Head Start's health benefits would have
the problems that had weakened the validity of the
been evaluated instead. The positive impact of the
Westinghouse findings. All significant results
health component (see below) might have become
were reanalyzed by dropping the program with
better known as a result.
the strongest effect to determine whether it still
Also contributing to the fixation on intel-
held among the others (in effect, guaranteeing
conservative conclusions).
lectual effects is the fact that the results were
striking. Early studies showed that children's IQ
The Consortium results confirmed that
scores leapt by at least 10 points and their achieve-
children who attend quality preschool programs
ment levels rose after just a few weeks of Head
evidence an initial boost in IQ and achievement
Start (see Datta, 1979). Then researchers at Ohio
scores that lasts for some years but eventually
University and the Westinghouse Learning Cor-
fades. However, lasting effects were found in
poration delivered the unwelcome news that the
other areas: participants were less likely to be
achievement gains faded away shortly after chil-
assigned to special education classes, and were
dren entered school (Cicirelli, 1969). Experts in
somewhat less likely to be held back a grade in
statistics and evaluation conducted in-depth re-
school. The rigor of the Consortium methodology,
views of the Westinghouse report and criticized it
and the findings of benefits that persisted until
for problems with sampling procedures, data
many children had reached 12 or more years of
analysis, and appropriateness of the outcome
age, helped to restore faith in the value of early
measures (e.g., Campbell & Erlebacher, 1970;
intervention.
Datta, 1976; Lazar, 1981; Smith & Bissell, 1970).
Other longitudinal studies and reviews of
Nonetheless, subsequent studies of Head Start and
almost every other early intervention program
research specific to Head Start programs have
yielded similarly encouraging results. The Head
reached the same conclusion: preschool graduates
generally do not continue to do better on cognitive
Start Synthesis Project, a meta-analysis of some of
over 200 studies reviewed, also found the loss of
tests or school quizzes. These reports dashed hopes
initial cognitive gains but reported that Head Start
that brief preschool experiences could guarantee
children had better health, immunization rates,
academic success for poor children. Disappointed
and nutrition, as well as enhanced socioemotional
federal officials began to entertain plans to phase
characteristics (McKey et al., 1985). Family life
out Project Head Start.
was also found to be strengthened through the
Parents-empowered by their involvement
involvement of parents in the program. A study of
in Head Start-came out in force and ultimately
thousands of children who had attended Head
saved the program. Their efforts were soon bol-
Start in 33 programs throughout Philadelphia
stered by the release of findings from the Consor-
showed that they had better school adjustment
tium for Longitudinal Studies (1978, 1983), a
than peers who had no preschool experience
group of investigators who had evaluated 11 early
(Copple, Cline, & Smith, 1987). After at least
intervention programs (2 of them Head Start)
sixth grade, the preschool graduates had fewer
during the 1960s and early 1970s. The researchers
school absences, did not miss as many standard-
located original program participants and col-
ized tests, and seemed less likely to be retained in
lected a uniform set of information about them.
grade. Another study of over 1,900 children who
Data from the programs were combined and ana-
had attended Head Start at three different times
lyzed using sophisticated techniques which avoided
revealed that by the end of high school, the oldest
5
group performed better academically than a con-
probably do not fade out at all. He suggests that
trol sample (Hebbeler, 1985).
their apparent loss is an artifact of measurement,
statistical analysis, and sampling procedures. For
Although much of this research has tech-
nical problems that make the findings tentative,
example, poor achievers in both preschool gradu-
the results are all in the same direction: Head Start
ate and comparison groups are likely to be retained
in grade and thus dropped from the evaluation,
does not permanently raise IQ scores but may have
thereby minimizing the differences among the
enduring effects on school adjustment and other
remaining students.
aspects of social competence (McCall, 1993).
Findings concerning immediate program effects
Confusion with Other Interventions
are much more definite: when children leave Head
Start they have better IQ test scores and school
Many of the current criticisms of Head
readiness skills. In other words. Head Start does
Start center on the argument that the project's
help prepare children for school. In lamenting the
results do not match those of more expensive
loss of initial cognitive benefits. many critics have
preschool programs. This claim would not have
overlooked Head Start's success in this regard.
assumed much importance if the findings from
There are several reasons why children
one such program-the Perry Preschool-did not
leave the program testing well and then may lose
become widely attributed to Head Start. Yet the
this advantage. One is that performance on an IQ
fact that they did encourages us to examine not
test reflects not only formal cognitive processes
only the weaknesses in Head Start but the
but achievement and personality variables as well.
strengths, with the result being a more complete
The IQ gains apparent after Head Start are not
picture of the potential of early intervention.
necessarily due to expanded intellectual capacity
The Perry Program was conducted by re-
but may instead be explained by improved moti-
searchers at the High/Scope Educational Research
vation. familiarity with test content. and comfort
Foundation in Ypsilanti, Michigan (Berrueta-
in the testing situation (Seitz, Abelson. Levine, &
Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, &
Zigler. 1975; Zigler, Abelson, Trickett, & Seitz,
Weikart, 1984). Like many other experimental
1982: Zigler & Butterfield, 1968). Thus, partici-
projects, the program operated for only a few
pation in Head Start can enable children to de-
years and involved a relatively small number of
velop the skills and attitudes needed to apply their
children. What piqued scientists' interests was
abilities more fully. When they enter school, how-
that the participants were followed into adult-
ever, the environment may not continue to encour-
hood, with results reported for age 19 and re-
age full use of their potential; for example, there
cently for age 27 (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart,
may be a poor curriculum or teaching practices
1993). What piqued public interest was a cost-
that lower self-confidence and ignore individual
benefit analysis which placed a monetary value on
learning styles. Another explanation for fade-out,
programeeffects.
advanced by early childhood educators, is that the
paper-and-pencil, standardized group achievement
The High/Scope investigators estimated
tests used in many studies are inappropriate for
the savings to society resulting from better social
children in the primary grades (e.g., Meisels, 1992).
competence among Perry graduates, including
This argument supports Barnett's (1992) position
reduced grade retention and usage of the welfare
that the achievement gains made in preschool
and criminal justice systems. They also counted
higher contributions to the tax base resulting from
higher employment rates. They reported that for
assumption that Head Start graduates generally do
every dollar spent on the preschool program. tax-
not do as well as those who attended other, usually
payers received a savings of $3 to $6 by the time
university-based programs (Haskins, 1989;
participants had reached 19 years of age (Barnett,
Kotelchuck & Richmond, 1987; Woodhead. 1988).
1985). By age 27, these savings were estimated to
In defense of Head Start, some have pointed out
be $7 (Barnett, 1993).
that the smaller projects were very carefully de-
The High/Scope researchers cautioned
signed and implemented, with highly trained staff
against generalizing their findings to the national
and substantial budgets. The annual per-child cost
Head Start program, a warning issued earlier by
of the Perry Preschool, for example, was esti-
the Consortium investigators. The media, how-
mated to be $7,600 in 1992 dollars (Barnett,
1993)-more than twice as much as Head Start
ever, continued to devote attention to the Perry
results. which were a lot more interesting and
spends. There is no way the national program
could provide each child with more services with
understandable than the positive but more esoteric
reports on Head Start that were appearing in the
less than half the money. Further, the experimen-
scientific literature. Eventually the Perry Project
tal preschools typically operated in single sites
came to be described as "Head Start-like," and its
under constant monitoring to ensure that the pro-
grams were delivered in the manner intended.
findings became attributed to early intervention in
general and sometimes to Head Start itself.
Head Start operates in nearly 1,400 different
places where it is tailored to local circumstances
The High/Scope program focused on pre-
and quality ranges from excellent to poor.
school education, although there was a home
Besharov has been particularly critical of the com-
visitation component to enable parents to rein-
mon assumption that Head Start produces the
force the curriculum at home. Head Start also
same benefits as other programs precisely because
provides preschool education, but attempts to in-
they do not have the same level of quality. Assert-
volve parents in many more ways and to deliver
ing that "not all preschool programs are created
comprehensive services to children as well as their
equal," Besharov believes that "Head Start has
families. The Perry Project is therefore not at all
serious problems
that often prevent it from
"Head Start-like." And whether or not the two
making, a lasting impact on disadvantaged chil-
programs produce the same results is unknown.
dren" (1992, pp. 521, 520).
There has never been a report on Head Start's
effects on college attendance or welfare usage, for
Because the experimental preschools fo-
cused almost exclusively on preschool education,
example, and no one has ever conducted a cost-
the debate over generalizability of the evidence
benefit analysis of the project (Haskins, 1989).
actually centers on the quality of the educational
Just considering the value of parental employment
experience. The smaller programs typically con-
and preventive health care, Head Start may be
tained an excellent curriculum delivered by well-
more cost-effective than High/Scope. This is an
trained teachers-features not found in all Head
empirical issue that must be addressed before
Start programs. The original planners purpose
comparative judgments of the two programs can
fully avoided prescribing a national curriculum,
be fairly made.
so the quality of the educational component in
Despite the lack of comprehensive, longi-
each Head Start center essentially depends on
tudinal data on Head Start, many reviewers of the
local talent. It seems logical to assume that if all
early intervention literature have accepted the
Head Start programs matched the-educational
T
standards of. for example. the Perry Preschool
who also have a critical role in helping their
(including teacher qualifications and compensa-
children adjust to school. As a result of 1 to 2 years
tion), the same results would be achieved.
of weekly home visits, the Perry parents may have
become more interested and involved in their
We would carry this assumption a step
children's schooling (an outcome established for
further and argue that with an improved preschool
other programs. e.g., Hauser-Cram, Pierson,
education component. Head Start's benefits would
Walker, & Tivnan, 1991; Pfannenstiel, 1989).
surpass those of the Perry Project. In addition to
These attitudes, present at the sensitive time of
education, Head Start contains the other elements
transition to elementary school, could be what
that many theorists and much empirical data asso-
triggered the positive cycle of achievement. (See
ciate with effective intervention: attention to the
Hale, Seitz. & Zigler, 1990, and Seitz, 1990, for
needs of the whole child. attention to the needs of
discussions that the High/Scope effects may be
the family through support services, and the in-
due to parents.)
volvement of parents. who are the child's first and
most influential teachers (see National Head Start
Another question raised by the High/Scope
Association, 1990; Price. Cowen. Lorion, &
results concerns the expectations we should have
Ramos-McKay, 1988; Schorr. 1988; Zigler &
of early intervention. Recently, preschool educa-
Berman, 1983; Zigler & Styfco, 1993). Even with-
tion has been widely heralded as a means to end
out this scientific support. it is logical to assume
crime and welfare dependency. This ridiculous
that a program that delivers quality educational
claim was certainly fueled by the publicity given
and other needed services to children as well as
the Perry findings. Yet the High/Scope investiga-
their families will produce more benefits than one
tors have pointed out that not all of their former
that provides a good education alone.
students had good outcomes. Over half of the
Perry graduates were arrested at least once by the
A question that begs answering is why the
time they were 27 years old, and 44% of the
Perry preschoolers benefited from a program that
program females had been teen mothers
had such a narrow focus when the knowledge base
(Schweinhart et al., 1993). Longitudinal studies
indicates that broader services are required. The
of other preschool projects have also shown that
High/Scope investigators believe that their sound
although children do better than they would have
curriculum allowed children to enter school with
without the expérience, they still do not approach
better academic skills and attitudes, which elicited
the achievements of middle-class students (e.g.,
positive reactions from their teachers; these fur-
Fuerst & Fuerst, 1993; Hebbeler, 1985).
ther enhanced their performance and led to better
student-teacher interactions in subsequent grades
Such findings lead to the sobering conclu-
(Berrueta-Clement et al., 1984). This "snowball"
sion that early childhood intervention alone can-
hypothesis is consistent with Woodhead's sug-
not transform lives. Its positive effects can be
gestion that children who have quality preschool
overpowered by the longer and larger experience
experiences are "better able to cope with the
of growing up in poverty. Quality preschool edu-
demands of schooling at a critical time when their
cation such as that provided in the Perry Project
identities within the education system [are] being
may prepare poor children for school and help
established," triggering "a more positive cycle of
them meet social expectancies during the school
achievement and expectation" (1988, p. 448).
years and perhaps beyond. Quality, comprehen-
An alternative explanation centers on parents,
sive services such as those delivered in many Head
Start centers might achieve these and. as we are
ing a major supplier of screening and diagnostic
about to discuss, other important gains. But no
testing services (EPSDT) required for children
program can enable children to develop optimally
covered under Medicaid. In addition, Head Start
when their larger rearing environment is not con-
delivers many of the services to preschoolers with
ducive to optimal development. Early interven-
disabilities and their families, as mandated under
tion can help, but it must not be considered more
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
than one piece of the solution to the problem of
(PL 99-457). In fact, children with disabilities
poverty.
comprise over 13% of Head Start's enrollment
(Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Lessons Yet to Learn from Head Start
1993), so the program has done well in meeting
Although the Perry Project was better than
the needs of this underserved population. An-
other health benefit derives from the nutritious
Head Start in terms of quality of preschool educa-
meals and snacks served at each center.
tion (and in evaluation), in other respects Head
Start is the superior program. The knowledge base
Although Head Start's health benefits may
clearly supports the value of Head Start's compre-
seem obvious, little research has been done to
hensive, family-centered approach. Ironically, al-
document these effects. One study reported that
though the range of services provided in the Perry
Head Starters were just as likely as middle-class
program was relatively narrow, the outcome mea-
children to have inoculations and physical exams,
sures used were broad, revealing the variety of
and more likely to have seen a dentist (Hale et al.,
behaviors affected by intervention. Of Head
1990). Similar physical exam histories were also
Start's many components, evaluators have de-
found for the two groups' siblings. Despite the
voted the most attention to the preschool aspect
absence of more hard evidence, the value of Head
and its long-term effects on IQ and achievement.
Start's health services is really not in question.
Possible benefits to physical health. nutritional
Each year hundreds of thousands of poor children
status. social interactions, parents' child-rearing
receive some medical attention and nutritious food
abilities. family functioning, parental empower-
they otherwise might not have had. As the Clinton
ment. and community responsiveness have
Administration searches for solutions to inad-
been underevaluated and undervalued.
equate health care and dismal inoculation and
The area in which Head Start has perhaps
hunger rates among children, the Head Start
had its strongest impact is in physical health and
model may offer some guidance.
well-being. Program performance standards re-
Head Start's positive impact on families is
quire that all enrolled children receive medical
another outcome that has not received the atten-
screenings, immunizations, dental exams, and
tion it merits. In 1992, 94% of enrolled families
corrective treatment if needed. A high percentage
received needed support services through the pro-
of them do (Brush, Gaidurgis, & Best, 1993;
gram (Brush et al., 1993). Each year thousands of
National Head Start Association, 1990; Zigler,
low-income parents benefit financially by receiv-
Piotrkowski, & Collins, in press), making Head
ing jobs and job training through Head Start. Over
Start a major provider of health services to poor
35% of the staff are parents of enrolled children or
children. This role is now expanding, as the project
graduates (Brush et al., 1993), and many of them
has recently been authorized to extend health care
have earned Child Development Associate (CDA)
to participants' siblings. Head Start is also becom-
credentials and have entered careers in early child-
9
hood education (Collins. 1990). Parents have also
therefore simplistic. To get a true picture of Head
gained on a personal level, reporting improved
Start's effects on developmental outcomes, a
relationships with their children (National Head
broader empirical approach is required.
Start Association, 1990) and greater life satisfac-
tion and psychological well-being resulting from
Policy Directions: Issues of
the supportive social network of the preschool
Quantity and Quality
community (Parker, Piotrkowski, & Peay, 1987).
Another possible effect on families is that
Despite its limitations. the literature on
siblings benefit from their parents' involvement in
early childhood intervention points in two clear
Head Start and the support services the family
directions: to improve the life outcomes of chil-
receives. as has been found for other interventions
dren in poverty, programs must be more sustained
(reviewed by Seitz & Apfel, in press). It certainly
and of high quality. We have learned that there are
makes sense that if parents are encouraged to be
no magical periods of development when children
actively engaged in their children's education, and
can be inoculated against the ravages of social and
if they have help resolving at least some personal
economic disadvantage. Every period of develop-
or practical problems, they may become better
ment is important and requires appropriate envi-
socializers of all their children. If so, the standard
ronmental nutrients. Thus, to be more effective,
empirical approach that evaluates only the target
intervention should begin earlier and last longer
child may greatly underestimate the benefits of
than the year or 2 before the child enters school.
Head Start.
Further, not just any program will do. Only those
Another underresearched area is the im-
that provide good services can be expected to
achieve consistently good results. These lessons
pact of Head Start on local communities. A few
have important implications for the future of Head
studies (reviewed by McKey et al., 1985) have
Start.
shown that the presence of a Head Start program
enhances a community's capacity to meet local
Dovetailed Programming
needs. In one survey, investigators identified al-
most 1.500 institutional changes in the health care
When Head Start began, a widely held
and educational systems in 48 communities after
belief was that a quick dose of environmental
Head Start centers opened (Kirschner Associates,
enrichment would immunize children against the
1970). A more recent General Accounting Office
effects of poverty. Fortunately, Head Start's plan-
(1992) report praised Head Start's methods of
ners did not subscribe to the inoculation model.
linking families with local services, judging this
They knew that no program could do much for a
approach far more successful than efforts to create
child in the course of one summer, which was the
new services or delivery mechanisms. The GAO
duration of Head Start in its first incarnation. Not
extended uncharacteristic approval by suggesting
only was the program extended to last for a school
that "Congress may wish to consider promoting
year, but planning got underway to serve children
service-oriented efforts like Head Start" (p. 6).
both before and after the preschool stage. Just 2
Clearly, Head Start has the potential to
years after Head Start began. the first Parent and
enhance many systems that influence the course
Child Centers (PCCs) were opened to provide
of a child's development. Judgments of the pro-
supportive services and parent education to fami-
gram based solely on academic indicators are
lies and children from birth to age 3. That same
10
year. Follow Through was initiated to continue
A common complaint about Head Start is
Head Start services through the early grades of
that graduates soon lose the academic and cogni-
elementary school. Plans were for this to be a
tive gains they made in preschool. This criticism is
national project of the same scope as Head Start,
more appropriately directed toward the elemen-
but the escalating costs of the Vietnam War de-
tary schools they attend, for this is where the
pleted the expected funding before the demonstra-
preschool advantage fades. To continue the mo-
tion phase was completed (see Doernberger &
mentum toward success, there must be a smooth
Zigler. 1993). The concept survives as a tiny
transition from the preschool to the school envi-
experiment in planned curriculum variation oper-
ronment and coordinated programming that builds
ating in less than 40 sites across the country.
upon prior learning.
Sadly, after nearly 30 years. both of these efforts
to extend Head Start have remained undeveloped
The Head Start-Public School Early Child-
hood Transition Project (described by Kennedy.
and their potential gone unrealized.
1993) is the latest attempt to continue services in
There are a few encouraging signs. The
grade school. The project, which was legislated in
number of PCCs has been expanded from 36 in
the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990
1989 to 106 today. The centers still operate with-
and is now operating in 32 demonstration sites.
out consistent performance standards, however,
follows Head Start graduates from kindergarten
so there is no way of knowing what services are
through grade 3. Local Head Start and public
generally delivered or how well they meet the
school personnel work to introduce each child and
needs of participating families.
family to the new school experience and to famil-
iarize kindergarten teachers with the child's
The first author has been working with the
progress, program, and needs. Comprehensive
Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of
services, parental involvement, and family sup-
Young Children to advise the Clinton administra-
port are continued for the next 4 years. Early
tion on planning a 0 to 3 Head Start, possibly
childhood educators often express skepticism
housed in existing PCCs. The exact details of the
about linking preschools and schools because they
program would be worked out by a planning
fear there will be a downward extension of formal
committee of experts from various disciplines
educational practices that are not appropriate for
similar to that which developed the current Head
very young children. In the Transition Project.
Start. Services for at-risk families would begin
curricula and pedagogies must be coordinated
prenatally and include nutrition, health care,
between the two levels of schooling. This should
parenting education, and family support. (A child
mean that the individualized, developmental na-
care component is also being suggested because of
ture of the preschool program will be extended
the dearth of quality infant care despite the grow-
upward, making the two school experiences less
ing need.) The rationale for the project is clear:
fragmented for young learners.
waiting until a child is 3 or 4 years old is waiting
too long. Preventive services can be more effec-
A small but convincing body of evidence
tive than remedial ones. Children who are healthy,
supports the premise of the Transition Project, i.e.,
have sound relationships with their primary
that longer, coordinated intervention produces
caregivers, and who have received adequate nur-
longer lasting gains. When a very intensive inter-
turing and stimulation will have the socioemotional
vention, the Abecedarian Project (Horacek, Ramey,
foundations needed for learning in preschool and
Campbell, Hoffmann, & Fletcher, 1987), was fol-
beyond (Zero to Three, 1992).
11
lowed by a school-age program through second
attended traditional school programs. A follow-up
grade. children continued to do better than peers
showed these graduates maintained their superior-
who had not participated; classmates who experi-
ity in several areas through grade 9 (Seitz, Apfel.
enced only the early intervention no longer had a
Rosenbaum. & Zigler. 1983). In another study of
statistically significant advantage over controls
the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. children who
(Ramey & Campbell, 1991; Seitz. 1990), and
attended for 4 to 6 or more years had better high
those who received only the school-age program
school graduation rates. For the overall sample,
did not benefit substantially. An intensive reading
62% received diplomas compared to about 49% of
curriculum in Success for All resulted in substan-
controls (Fuerst & Fuerst, 1993). Among students
tial gains for children who began the program in
who had 7 to 9 years of intervention, 85% of girls
preschool. kindergarten, or first grade, and these
and 70% of boys graduated. Center students who
gains magnified each year through third grade
eventually dropped out did so 18 months later than
(Madden. Slavin. Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik, 1991).
other dropouts in the school system. Finally, a
The results were much less pronounced for chil-
follow-up of children who had participated in the
dren who encountered the new curriculum after
Deutschs' early enrichment program from pre-
first grade. indicating that continuity from one
school through third grade showed that by young
reading level to the next was important for build-
adulthood, the boys had higher education and
ing program effects.
employment status and some stronger academic
A program more similar to Head Start, the
skills than a control sample (Jordan, Grallo,
Deutsch, & Deutsch, 1985). The researchers at-
Chicago Child-Parent Centers, provided compre-
hensive services and required parental involve-
tributed the loss of the advantage for girls to a
ment for 1 to 2 years of preschool, kindergarten,
more difficult transition to the regular fourth-
and from 1 to 3 years of elementary school
grade classes, where their active learning orienta-
tions were not harmonious with traditional sex-
(Reynolds. 1992). Children who attended the pre-
role expectations.
school and kindergarten did not differ from con-
trois by the time they were in fifth grade. However,
This research has convinced us that the
fifth graders who had received 4 to 5 years of the
Transition Project will be effective in helping
intervention (preschool through second grade)
Head Start graduates maintain their preschool
had higher achievement scores and less grade
advantage. If evaluation of the demonstration
retention. with no fade-out evident. Reynolds con-
phase confirms this expectation, it will be com-
cluded that the transition between kindergarten
pelling to move the project into the educational
and the primary grades is a crucial time, and that
mainstream. We have developed a plan to do so
at least 2 years of follow-up programming in
using current federal education expenditures
elementary school are required to sustain benefits.
(Zigler & Styfco, 1993). A large part of the De-
A few studies suggest that the gains pro-
partment of Education's budget (over $6 billion
duced by extended intervention can last into high
annually spent on Chapter 1 of the Elementary
school and beyond. Initially, Abelson, Zigler, and
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
DeBlasi (1974) found that Head Start graduates in
Chapter 1 is a compensatory education program
their fourth year of Follow Through did better on
for economically and "educationally" deprived
IQ, achievement. and social-motivational mea-
children in preschool through grade 12. Originally
intended to enhance the educational services of
sures than did their preschool classmates who
impoverished school districts, the program now
operates in the majority of the nation's schools—
Renewed Emphasis on Quality
mostly as a pull-out program offering remedial
instruction to children who have fallen behind the
The studies involved in the Consortium,
academic expectations of their grade level.
including the Perry Preschool. and others that
were carefully designed. implemented. and evalu-
There has been little evaluation of Chapter
ated (e.g., Price et al., 1988), prove the obvious:
1 considering the size of the program, but what
only good programs produce good results. For
there is shows that most students do not exhibit a
example. a review of early intervention projects
meaningful gain in achievement (see Arroyo &
led Weikart and Schweinhart to conclude that
Zigler. 1993). The reasons for the lackluster re-
"only high quality programs consistently show
sults may be in the program's design: services are
success" (1991, p. 58). This fact may explain why
remedial rather than preventive and narrow in-
some studies of Head Start show lasting benefits
stead of comprehensive; parental involvement is
while others do not. One criticism of the Head
minimal: and health and family problems that can
Start Synthesis Project (McKey et al., 1985), which
interfere with school performance are not ad-
confirmed the fade-out observation. is that the
dressed. The ESEA will be reauthorized in 1993,
analysts paid no attention to the differences in the
and suggestions to revamp the program have fo-
Head Start programs in the studies they synthe-
cused on training teachers and narrowing the tar-
sized (Gamble & Zigler, 1989). Findings from
get population (Commission on Chapter 1, 1992).
studies of excellent programs were combined with
Although such efforts may do some good, they do
those of poorer programs. diluting what may pos-
not bring the elements of effective intervention to
sibly have been robust effects for the former.
Chapter 1. To make a difference in the education
of low-income children, we must put aside the
Quality problems are not new but have
ineffectual educational model of Chapter 1 and
plagued Head Start since its hasty beginnings. In
adopt on a large scale the proven model of compre-
a matter of a few months, the project was trans-
hensive. family-focused services.
formed from an idea before the planning commit-
tee to a national summer program serving over
Our proposal is for Chapter 1 to follow
one-half million children. Starting off so big and
Transition program plans and become the school-
so fast left quality controls behind, and the pro-
age version of Head Start. As Head Start eventu-
gram has been trying to catch up ever since.
ally expands to serve all eligible children, Chapter
Program performance standards were not imple-
1 can continue their intervention in grammar
mented until 1975. They dictate what services
school. Coordinated curricula and continued pa-
each program must provide and remain the princi-
rental involvement and comprehensive services
pal vehicle for monitoring quality. The regional
will then be firmly placed in schools that serve
offices have primary responsibility for assuring
populations below the poverty line. On another
that grantees adhere to the standards, but regional
level. Head Start and the Chapter 1 Transition will
staffing has declined considerably over the years
be two parts of a coherent federal policy to meet
even as Head Start has become larger. One former
the needs of poor children beginning in preschool.
regional director told us that his oversight staff
Based on a solid knowledge base and big enough
decreased from at least 50 persons in 1978 to 12 in
to have an impact, this new face for Chapter 1
1992, and travel money for site visits declined
holds promise for halting the fade-out of the Head
more than 90%. His experiences are not atypical;
Start advantage.
nationwide only one in five centers was monitored
13
in 1988 (Chafel. 1992), although this level im-
The biggest threat to Head Start quality is
proved to 35% in 1992 (Horn, 1993). The best
posed by staffing problems. Caregiver stability and
standards in the world are meaningless if they are
level of skill have been identified as essential to
not enforced.
quality care and directly responsible for positive
developmental outcomes in children. In the Na-
Over the years many experts have studied
tional Child Care Staffing Study, quality of care
the problems in Head Start and proposed thought-
was linked to staff wages and turnover rates
ful solutions. For the project's 15th anniversary
(Whitebook. Howes, & Phillips, 1989). Low wages
the first author chaired a major advisory commit-
led to high turnover, disrupting continuity in the
tee convened to chart future directions (U.S. De-
child's experiences and harming social and verbal
partment of Health and Human Services, 1980).
development. In a nationwide survey of Head Start
The report stressed areas where improvement was
centers in 1988, Collins (1990) reported that teach-
needed and made recommendations for corrective
ers received an average salary of about $12,000.
action. The committee's successor on the 25th
only 61% of the average compensation of teachers
anniversary, the Silver Ribbon Panel, found that
in public schools. In 1992. starting salaries for Head
many of the same problems were still there and
Start teachers averaged only $12,077 (Brush et al..
had worsened over time (National Head Start
1993), about half the public school average. De-
Association, 1990). Other thorough analyses have
spite poor salaries, Head Start has been spared from
similarly concluded that upgrading quality must
high attrition apparently because staff are commit-
be a top priority (e.g., Chafel, 1992; Washington
ted to their jobs. Collins found annual turnover in
& Oyemade, 1987; Zigler, Styfco, & Gilman,
Head Start to be about 25%, considerably lower
1993).
than that in other early care and education pro-
Of all the program components, parental
grams. Yet a more recent report showed that in
involvement and family support have been the
Head Start centers that do experience turnover, the
most neglected. In many programs there are no
rate is higher than 60% (Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips,
coordinators for either component (or for health),
& Farquhar, 1991). Quality care cannot be pro-
and these positions are often combined with others
vided under such conditions.
because personnel budgets have fallen short of
Critics are quick to note that funding could
inflation (National Head Start Association, 1990).
not possibly be the cause of Head Start's problems
In 1991-92, social service staff had average
because its budget has skyrocketed, jumping from
caseloads higher than 94 children-more than
$1.2 billion in 1989 to $2.8 billion in 1993. But if
three times the number recommended (Inspector
we look at the numbers prior to the recent expan-
General, 1993a). Between 1987 and 1991, train-
sion increases, we can see why quality has some-
ing institutes were held in every area but parental
times been compromised. Head Start barely held
involvement (National Head Start Association,
its funding level until the positive results of the
1991)-a void not addressed until 1993. Lack of
Consortum studies were released. Then the project
attention to this component is particularly worri-
received its first substantial budget increase and
some not only because participation has such
was placed in a "safety net" where it would be
potential benefit to parents (Nelson, 1991), but
spared spending reductions the Reagan Adminis-
because they can support the intervention goals
tration imposed on most federal programs. How-
long after the formal program.
ever, cuts in federal food and other programs that
centers relied upon began to erode their ability to
maintain services even at previous levels (Wash-
how many children are enrolled." Policymakers
ington. 1985). Despite increasing appropriations,
have good reasons to want to open Head Start to
the average expenditure per child fell by more than
every eligible child, but they must assure each of
$400 in constant dollars, or 13% in inflation-
them a good Head Start experience:
adjusted dollars, between 1981 and 1989 (Rovner,
1990). It is no wonder that a recent Inspector
General report (1993a) showed that in some Head
Planning for a Better, Bigger Program
Start programs, participants do not receive even
basic services such as all their immunizations.
Lawmakers heeded the advice of experts
when they wrote a quality set-aside into the Hu-
Despite questions about the criteria used in the
man Services Reauthorization Act of 1990. After
report, and indeed whether the centers surveyed
were representative, there is no doubt that some
adjustments for inflation, 25% of expansion funds
are to be used for improvements. Half of the set-
Head Start centers deliver inadequate services.
aside is reserved for increased salaries and ben-
Years of insufficient funding are of course
efits. The rest is marked for training and technical
not the only reason Head Start has been struggling
assistance, facility improvements. and transporta-
to maintain quality. The population it serves and
tion. The Act also requires that by 1994, each
their needs have changed. America is a different
center is to have at least one teacher with a CDA
place than it was in 1965. The face of poverty has
credential. While a step in the right direction, this
grown uglier. The environments where poor chil-
mandate shows how far Head Start has fallen
dren are raised now involve more homelessness,
behind over the years and how far it has to go to
street violence, illegal drugs, and young, single-
catch up with current professional practices. Few
parent families. Children who were born with the
middle-class parents would enroll their children in
HIV virus or exposed to crack are now showing up
a preschool program where the teachers did not
in Head Start centers. The number of dysfunc-
have college degrees and certification in early
tional families with myriad needs has multiplied.
childhood education. Head Start is supposed to be
The extra attention required by these children and
a model program and should also have qualified
families has burdened already overworked staff
teachers who are paid a worthy wage.
and undoubtedly deprived some participants of
Although the plans to improve Head Start
-the individual help they need (Inspector General,
are good ones, they cannot be implemented over-
1989, 1993b).
night. Training staff and locating facilities, for
Quality can no longer be threatened or
example, can be very time consuming. But pro-
overlooked, especially now that Head Start is
gram directors are also under a great deal of
serving increasing numbers of children and fami-
pressure to serve more children, which can drain
lies. The Silver Ribbon Panel warned that "Pro-
the energies needed for trying to serve them better.
gram expansion should never occur at the expense
Another Inspector General's report (1993b)
of quality" (National Head Start Association, 1990,
and discussions with program directors tell the
p. 35). Supporting their conclusion, the first au-
story. In some areas Head Start centers have been
thor testified before the U.S. Senate (1990, p. 49)
unable to recruit all the children they are supposed
that "Head Start is effective only when quality is
to enroll with expansion monies. A widespread
high.
Below a certain threshold of quality, the
problem is the inability to find qualified staff
program is useless, a waste of money regardless of
because they are either unavailable or will not hire
15
on at the low pay levels. Space is a major problem.
gram, we must have a well-managed one that is
with some centers having to operate with double
sufficiently staffed to accomplish its charge.
sessions because new classrooms cannot be found.
Plans to improve Head Start must also
This practice reduces time for planning daily pro-
address the future. The project's success rests on
grams and attending to family needs. Many pro-
its capacity to meet the needs of impoverished
grams have had a difficult time raising the local
children and their families; as their needs change,
match to their sudden budget increases.
so must the program. The Advisory Panel for the
Expansion is clearly proceeding without a
Head Start Evaluation Design Project (1990) pre-
plan. The effort is of such magnitude and impor-
sented a blueprint for needed research to guide the
tance that one must be implemented quickly so
development of better services and delivery
that growth does not threaten efforts to enhance
mechanisms. Their recommendations focused on
quality. Thankfully, both the White House and
studying which program services work best and
Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human
for whom. This overriding question suggests sev-
Services (HHS), have voiced a commitment to
eral circumscribed ones: What mediates program
thoughtful growth and improving quality. Shalala
effects? Are 2 years of Head Start more or less
appointed the Advisory Committee on Head Start
cost-effective than 1? Do all participants need all
Quality and Expansion, charged with recommend-
program services?
ing the priorities and pace for expansion. Their
Another question-one that can no longer
work also focused on short- long-term plans to
be answered by generalizing from the findings of
strengthen services. The Committee's recommen-
other programs-is just how wide-ranging and
dations, now in various stages of review and
lasting are Head Start's benefits? In 1990 Con-
implementation within Congress and the agencies
gress entertained plans to conduct a 20-year
responsible for Head Start, have at the very least
longitudinal study to include competence indica-
begun the planning process in earnest.
tors such as rates of criminality, welfare use, and
Although much attention is now being
employment status of Head Start graduates and
devoted to poor service delivery in some Head
their families. Unfortunately, this much needed
Start centers. expansion and improvement efforts
work was never funded. Hopefully the current
must apply to administration as well. Some ad-
controversy over the value of Head Start, raging at
ministrative responsibilities have been scattered
a time when substantial monies are being granted
throughout HHS and should be brought back to
for expansion, will resurrect the commitment to
the central Head Start office. For example, staff-
research.
ing for health care was moved to the Maternal and
This is not an empty hope. After 30 years
Child Health Division, leaving a void in leader-
of experience with early intervention, good ideas
ship for this vital program component. Regional
and plans for empirical study have been devel-
Head Start personnel no longer report directly to
oped. A committee charged with implementing
Head Start's top managers, so there is not a clear
the Design Project's blueprint is now in session.
managerial relationship between the national
And Secretary Shalala has repeatedly acknowl-
headquarters and those who are responsible for
edged the need for scientific guidance to enhance
carrying out the program. And, as noted earlier,
program effectiveness. Head Start is finally mov-
regional staffing levels have been greatly reduced
ing toward long-awaited expansion and improve-
over the years, so there are fewer people to oversee
ment of service quality. These efforts müst be
more grantees. To have a better Head Start pro-
anchored in the best knowledge available if Head
Bronfenbrenner. U. (1974). Is early intervention ef-
Start is to fulfill its promise of improving the lives
fective? Day Care and Early Education. 44, 14-
of children and families in poverty.
18.
Bronfenbrenner. U. (1979). The ecology of human
development. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univer-
References
sity Press.
Brush. L.. Gaidurgis. A., & Best. C. (1993). Indices of
Abelson, W. D., Zigler. E.. & DeBlasi, C. L. (1974).
Head Start Program Quality. Report prepared
for the Administration on Children, Youth and
Effects of a four-year Follow Through program
on economically disadvantaged children. Jour-
Families. Head Start Bureau. Washington. DC:
Pelavin Associates.
nal of Educational Psychology, 66, 756-771.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
Campbell. D. T., & Erlebacher, A. (1970). How re-
(1993. January). Project Head Start. Statistical
gression artifacts in quasi-experimental evalua-
Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
tions can mistakenly make compensatory educa-
of Health and Human Services.
tion look harmful. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Compen-
Advisory Panel for the Head Start Evaluation Design
satory education: A national debate (Vol. 3. pp.
185-210). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Project. (1990). Head Start research and evalu-
ation: A blueprint for the future. Washington,
Chafel. J. A. (1992). Funding Head Start: What are the
DC: Administration on Children. Youth and
issues? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
62. 9-21.
Families.
Arroyo. C. G.. & Zigler. E. (1993). America's Title I/
Cicirelli, V.G. (1969). The impact of Head Start: An
Chapter 1 programs: Why the promise has not
evaluation of the effects of Head Start on
been met. In E. Zigler & S.J. Styfco (Eds.), Head
children's cognitive and affective development.
Report presented to the Office of Economic
Start and beyond: A national plan for extended
childhood intervention (pp. 73-95). New Haven.
Opportunity (Report No. PB 184 328).
CT: Yale University Press.
Westinghouse Learning Corporation. Washing-
ton, DC.
Barnett, W.S. (1985). The Perry Preschool Program
Collins. R. C. (1990). Head Start salaries: 1989-90
and its long-term effects: A benefit-cost analy-
staff salary survey. Alexandria, VA: National
sis. High/Scope Early Childhood Policy Papers
Head Start Association.
(No. 2). Ypsilanti. MI: High/Scope Educational
Research Foundation.
Comer. J.P. (1980). School power. New York: Free
Press.
Barnett. W. (1992). Benefits of compensatory pre-
Commission on Chapter 1. (1992). Making schools
school education. Journal of Human Resources,
27, 279-312.
work for children in poverty. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Barnett. W. S. (1993). Benefit-cost analysis of pre-
school education: Findings from a 25-year fol-
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (1978). Lasting
effects after preschool. Final report to Adminis-
low-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
tration on Children, Youth and Families (Pub.
63, 500-508.
#
Berrueta-Clement. J. R., Schweinhart, L., Barnett,
No. OHDS 79-30178). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
W., Epstein. A., & Weikart, D. (1984). Changed
"
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (Ed.). (1983).
lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Pro-
As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool
gram on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI:
programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Besharov, D.J. (1992). New directions for Head Start.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experi-
mentation: Design and analysis issues for field
The world and I. 7, 515-531.
settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
17
Copple. C., Cline. M., & Smith. A. (1987). Paths to the
Hood. J. (1993. February 19). What's wrong with
future: Long-term effects of Head Start in the
Head Start. Wall Street Journal. p. A14.
Philadelphia school district. Washington. DC:
Horacek. H., Ramey, C., Campbell. F.. Hoffmann. R.,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
& Fletcher. R. (1987). Predicting school failure
Datta. L. (1976). The impact of the Westinghouse/
and assessing early intervention with high-risk
Ohio evaluation on the development of Project
children. Journal of the American Academv of
Head Start. In C. C. Abt (Ed.), The evaluation of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 26. 758-763.
social programs (pp. 129-181). Beverly Hills.
Horn. W. F. (1993). Administration on Children, Youth
CA: Sage.
and Families. Accomplishments: FY 1989 to FY
Datta. L. (1979). Another spring and other hopes:
1993. Washington. DC: ACYF.
Some findings from national evaluations of
Inspector General (Office of). (1989). Dysfunctional
Project Head Start. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine
families in the Head Start program: Meeting the
(Eds.). Project Head Start: A legacy of the War
challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
on Poverty (pp. 405-432). New York: Free Press.
Printing Office.
Doemberger. C., & Zigler. E. (1993). Project Follow
Inspector General (Office of). (1993a). Evaluating
Through: Intent and reality. In E. Zigler & S. J.
Head Start expansion through performance in-
Styfco (Eds.), Head Start and beyond: A na-
dicators (OEI-09-91-00762). Washington. DC:
tional plan for extended childhood intervention
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(pp. 43-72). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Inspector General (Office of). (1993b). Head Start
Press.
expansion: Grantee experiences (OEI-09-91-
Fuerst, J. S., & Fuerst. D. (1993). Chicago experience
00760). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
with an early childhood program: The special
Health and Human Services.
case of the Child Parent Center program. Urban
Jordan. T.J., Grallo. R., Deutsch. M., & Deutsch. C.P.
Education, 28, 69-96.
(1985). Long-term effects of early enrichment:
Gamble, T., & Zigler. E. (1989). The Head Start
A 20-year perspective on persistence and change.
Synthesis Project: A critique. Journal of Applied
American Journal of Community Psychology.
Developmental Psychology, 10. 267-274.
13, 393-415.
General Accounting Office. (1992). Integrating hu-
Kennedy, E. M. (1993). The Head Start Transition
man services (Report No. GAO/HRD-92-108).
Project: Head Start goes to elementary school.
Washington. DC: Author.
In. E. Zigler & S.J. Styfco (Eds.), Head Start and
Hale. B. A., Seitz, V., & Zigler, E. (1990). Health
beyond: A national plan for extended childhood
services and Head Start: A forgotten formula.
intervention (pp. 97-109). New Haven. CT: Yale
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
University Press.
11. 447-458.
Kirschner Associates. (1970). A national survey of the
Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor. The efficacy of
impacts of Head Start centers on community
early childhood education. American Psycholo-
institutions. Albuquerque. NM: Author.
gist, 44, 274-282.
Kisker, E. E., Hofferth, S. L., Phillips, D. A.. &
Hauser-Cram, P., Pierson, D. E., Walker. D. K., &
Farquhar. E. (1991). A profile of child care
Tivnan, T. (1991). Early education in the public
Bettings: Early care and education (Vol. 1).
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
Hebbeler, K. (1985). An old and a new question on the
tion.
effects of early education for children from low
Kotelchuck, M., & Richmond, J. B. (1987). Head Start:
income families. Educational Evaluation and
Evolution of a successful comprehensive child
Policy Analysis, 7, 207-216.
development program. Pediatrics. 79, 441-445.
Hood. J. (1992. December). Caveat emptor: The Head
Lazar, I. (1981). Early intervention is effective. Edu-
Start scam. Policy Analysis, #187. Washington,
cational Leadership, 38, 303-305.
DC: Cato Institute.
Madden. N. A., Slavin. R., Karweit, N., Dolan. L., &
Huston (Ed.). Children in poverty. Child devel-
Wasik, B. (1991). Success for all. Phi Delta
opment and public policy (pp. 190-221). New
Kappan, 72, 593-599.
York: Cambridge University Press.
McCall, R. (1993). Head Start: Its potential, its achieve-
Recommendations for a Head Start-Program by a
ments. its future. A briefing paper for
Panel of Experts. (1965, February). Washington,
policymakers. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pitts-
DC: U.S. Department of Health. Education and
burgh Center for Social and Urban Research.
Welfare. Office of Child Development.
McKey, R. H., Condelli, L.. Ganson. H., Barrett, B.,
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Effects of a multi-year child-
McConkey, C., & Plantz. M. (1985). The impact
parent center intervention program on children
of Head Start on children, family, and communi-
at risk. Manuscript submitted for publication.
ties: Final report of the Head Start Evaluation,
Rovner, J. (1990). Head Start is one program everyone
Synthesis and Utilization Project (DHHS Pub.
wants to help. Congressional Quarterly, 48(16),
No. OHDS 85-31193). Washington. DC: U.S.
1191-1195.
Government Printing Office.
Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the
Meisels. S.J. (1992). Doing harm by good: Iatrogenic
cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.
effects of early childhood enrollment and pro-
Schweinhart. L. J.. Barnes. H. V., & Weikart. D. P.
motion policies. Early Childhood Research Quar-
(1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope
terly, 7. 155-174.
Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Ypsilanti.
National Head Start Association. (1990). Head Start:
MI: High/Scope Educational Research Founda-
The nation's pride. a nation's challenge. Report
tion.
of the Silver Ribbon Panel. Alexandria, VA:
Seitz, V. (1990). Intervention programs for impover-
Author.
ished children: A comparison of educational and
National Head Start Association. (1991). Parent in-
family support models. Annals of Child Devel-
volvement survey. NHSA Journal, 10(2), 30-31.
opment, 7, 73-103.
Nelson, T. (1991). What really makes Head Start
Seitz, V., Abelson, W. D., Levine, E., & Zigler. E.
work? You may be surprised. Milwaukee, WI:
(1975). Effects of place of testing on the Pea-
Institute for Innovation in Human Services.
body Picture Vocabulary Test scores of disad-
Parker, F. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Peay, L. (1987).
vantaged Head Start and non-Head Start chil-
Head Start as a social support for mothers: The
dren. Child Development, 46, 481-486.
psychological benefits of involvement. Ameri-
Seitz, V., & Apfel. N. H. (in press). Parent-focused
can Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 220-233.
intervention: Diffusion effects on siblings.
Pfannenstiel. J. (1989). New Parents As Teachers
Child Development.
project: A follow-up investigation. Jefferson
Seitz, V., Apfel, N., Rosenbaum, L., & Zigler, E.
City: Missouri Department of Elementary and
(1983). Long-term effects of Projects Head Start
Secondary Education.
and Follow Through: The New Haven Project. In
Powell, D. R. (1982). From child to parent: Changing
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Eds.), As
conceptions of early childhood intervention.
the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool
Annals of the American Academy of Political
programs (pp. 299-332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
and Social Science, 461, 135-144.
Smith, M., & Bissell. J. (1970). Report analysis: The
Price, R. H., Cowen. E., Lorion, R. P., & Ramos-
impact of Head Start. Harvard Educational Re-
McKay, J. (Eds.). (1988). Fourteen ounces of
view, 40, 51-104.
prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Wash-
Spitz, H. H. (1986). The raising of intelligence: A
ington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
selected history of attempts to raise retarded
tion.
intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ramey, C. T., & Campbell. F. A. (1991). Poverty,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
early childhood education, and academic com-
(1980). Head Start in the 1980's. Review and
petence: The Abecedarian experience. In A. C.
recommendations. Washington. DC: Author.
19
U.S. Senate. (1990. August 3). Human Services Reau-
Child Development, 53. 340-348.
thorization Act of 1990. Report to accompany
Zigler. E., & Anderson. K. (1979). An idea whose time
H.R. 4151 (Report 101-421). Washington. DC.
had come: The intellectual and political climate
Valentine. J., & Stark. E. (1979). The social context of
for Head Start. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine (Eds.),
parent nvolvement in Head Start. In E. Zigler &
Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on
J. Valentine (Eds.). Project Head Start: A legacy
Poverty (pp. 3-19). New York: Free Press.
of the War on Poverty (pp. 291-313). New York:
Zigler. E., & Berman. W. (1983). Discerning the
Free Press.
future of early childhood intervention. American
Washington. V. (1985). Head Start: How appropriate
Psychologist, 38. 894-906.
for minority families in the 1980s? American
Zigler. E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1968). Motivational
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55. 577-590.
aspects of changes in IQ test performance of
Washington. V., & Oyemade, U. (1987). Project Head
culturally deprived nursery school children. Child
Start: Past. present. and future trends in the
Development, 39. 1-14.
context of family needs. New York: Garland.
Zigler. E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The
Weikart. D.P., & Schweinhart. L. J. (1991). Disadvan-
inside story of America's most successful educa-
taged children and curriculum effects. New Di-
tional experiment. New York: Basic Books.
rections for Child Development, 53. 57-64.
Zigler. E.. Piotrkowski. C., & Collins. R. (in press).
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips. D. (1989).
Health services in Head Start. Annual Review of
Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality
Public Health.
of care in America. Final report. National Child
Zigler. E., & Styfco, S. J. (1993). Strength in unity:
Care Staffing Study. Oakland. CA: Child Care
Consolidating federal education programs for
Employee Project.
young children. In E. Zigler & S.J. Styfco (Eds.).
Woodhead. M. (1988). When psychology informs
Head Start and beyond: A national plan for
public policy. The case of early childhood inter-
extended childhood intervention (pp. 111-145).
vention. American Psychologist, 43, 443-454.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zero to Three: National Center for Clinical Infant
Zigler. E., Styfco, S. J., & Gilman, E. (1993). The
Programs. (1992). Heart start: The emotional
national Head Start program for disadvantaged
foundations of school readiness. Arlington, VA:
preschoolers. In E. Zigler & S. J. Styfco (Eds.).
Author.
Head Start and beyond: A national plan for
Zigler. E. (1970). The environmental mystique: Train-
extended childhood tervention (pp. 1-41). New
ing the intellect versus development of the child.
Haven. CT: Yale University Press.
Childhood Education, 46, 402-412.
Zigler. E., & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (1979). Project Head
Zigler, E., Abelson, W.D., Trickett, P. K., & Seitz, V.
Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty. New
(1982). Is an intervention program really neces-
York: Free Press.
sary to raise disadvantaged children's IQ scores?
About the Authors
Edward Zigler is Sterling Professor of Psychology at Yale University,
where he is Director of the Bush Center in Child Development and Social
Policy. He was a member of the original planning committee for Head
Start and was the federal official responsible for administering the
program from 1970-72, when he was Director of the Office of Child
Development (now the Administration on Children, Youth and Families).
Most recently he served on the Advisory Committee on Head Start
Quality and Expansion and is a member of the Advisory Panel on
Implementing the Head Start Blueprint for the Future.
Sally J. Styfco is a writer at the Yale University Bush Center in Child
Development and Social Policy, where she is a specialist in educational
policy issues affecting children and their families.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Saul Rosoff and Sheldon White for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Recent Issues
Volume V (1991)
No. 1. (Spring) Two-generation program models: A new intervention strategy.
Shèila Smith.
No. 2. (Summer) Infant mortality and public policy.
Ann L. Wilson and Gary Neidich.
No. 3. (Autumn) The Migrant Head Start program.
Mary Lou de Leon Siantz.
No. 4. (Winter) Rhetoric or reality: Child and family policy in the United States.
Francine H. Jacobs and Margery W. Davies.
Volume VI (1992)
No. 1. (Spring) Mother-headed families: An international perspective and the
case of Australia.
Ailsa Burns.
No. 2. (Summer) Testing in American Schools: Issues for research and policy.
Patricia Morison.
No. 3. (Fall) The states and the poor: Child poverty rises as the safety net
shrinks.
Julie Strawn.
No. 4. (Winter) Crack's children: The consequences of maternal cocaine abuse.
Theresa Lawton Hawley and Elizabeth Disney.
Volume VII (1993)
No. 1. (Spring) Canadian special education policies: Children with learning
disabilities in a bilingual and multicultural society.
Linda S. Siegel and Judith Wiener.
No. 3. (Fall) Child witnesses: Translating research into policy.
Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck.
"n,
No. 4. [Winter, tentative title]. Integrating science and ethics in research with
high-risk and underserved children and youth.
Celia B. Fisher.
X
SRCD Executive Office
University of Michigan
300 N. Ingails 10th Floor
Ann Arbor. MI 48109-0406
dr
SOCIAL POLICY REPORT
Subscriptions ($10 to nonmembers of SRCD) and single issues ($3.50) are available from:
SRCD Executive Office
University of Michigan
300 North Ingalls. 10th floor
Ann Arbor. MI 48109-0406
Social Policy Report is a quarterly publication of the Committee on Child Development,
Public Policy and Public Information of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Copyright of the articles published in the Report is maintained by the originator[s] of the
work. Statements appearing in the Report are the views of the author and do not imply
endorsement by the Editor or by SRCD.
Editor: Nancy G. Thomas
Phone: (303) 925-5516
Fax: (303) 925-9570
TO
PHONE NO. : 912022053848
AUG. 14.1995 11:36AM P 2
FROM
NCJW Center for the Child Report
March 1993
THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION IN HIPPY ON CHILDREN'S
CLASSROOM ADAPTATION: TEACHER RATINGS
An Initial Report of the NCIW Center for the Child
Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D. and Chaya S. Plotrkoweld, Ph.D.
This report presents initial results from a five-year, quari-
make blweekly home visits to bring each family that week's
experimental study of the Home Instruction Program for
story book and activity packet. During the home visit, the
Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY). Teachers rated children who
paraprofessional role-plays the activities with the parent.
had been in HIPPY as better adapted to the classroom and
Later the parent and child work on them together. On
more likely to do well in school than children who had not
alternate weeks parents come to group meetings where they
been in HIPPY.
receive that week's materials, discuss issues of concern to
them and participate in parent enrichment activities.
The Problem
HIPPY was developed in 1969 at the National Council of
Public schools are facing an over increasing rise in school
Jewish Women (NCIW) Research Institute for Innovation
failure, especially among poor children. Many poor
in Education at the Hebrew University in Israel (Lombard,
children enter school behind their more economically
1981). HIPPY has since been implemented in Turkey,
advantaged peers and fall further bebind in their academic
Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, Mexico, South Africa, and
achievement over their years of schooling. Being poor is
the United States. The first HIPPY programs in the
associated with a number of risk factors for children and
United States were established in 1984. In 1992, HIPPY
families, many of which play a causal role in the child's lack
served approximately 10,000 families in 17 states. All U.S.
of success at school (Halpern, 1989; Schorr, 1966; Schorr,
HIPPY programs are affiliated with HIPPY USA, a
1988). Because school success is closely linked to later
national training and technical assistance center.
employability, a successful formal education is the most
common pathway out of poverty (e.g., Schorr, 1988;
Evaluations of HIPPY have been conducted in Israel
William T. Grant Foundation Report, 1988).
(Lombard, 1981), the Netherlands (Eldering, 1988) and
South Africa (Adams, Skuy, & Fridjhon, 1992). However,
as The HIPPY Program
such research, while encouraging, may not be applicable to
families participating in the program in this country.
Programs that offer educational enrichment for preschool
Although HIPPY has been implemented in the United
children have been developed to help children living in
States since 1984, there had been no compreheasive study
poverty succeed in school. More recently, many programs
of its effectiveness here. Given the increasing expansion
have broadened their focus to include parents, who have
and interest in the HIPPY program in the United States, a
been recognized as their children's first teachers. The
careful ovaluation of the program in this country was
Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters
clearly needed.
(HIPPY) is one such family-oriented early intervention
program that combines educational carichment for
The Study of HIPPY in the United States
preschool children with parent involvement.
L response to this need, the NCJW Center for the Child
HIPPY is a two-year, early childhood education program
for parents with limited formal education and their four-
launched several evaluation and implementation studies of
and five-year old children. Its goals are to empower
HIPPY. These include in-depth implementation case
parents to be their children's primary educators, provide
studies of three local HIPPY programs in Texas, Michigan
school readiness skills for children, and bring literacy into
and New York; a five-year, three-site, quasi-experimental
the home. As such, HIPPY aims to nurture learning at
prospective study of the effectiveness of HIPPY; and other
home and at school.
smaller studies. The case studies address implementation
questions such as what challenges programs face in
Each HIPPY program consists of a professional
implementing HIPPY with families for whom English is a
coordinator, a team of paraprofessionals, and 50 to 250
second language. The evaluation studies ASSOM the impact
participating families. HIPPY is contered around school-
of participation in HIPPY on children's school functioning,
readiness activities for parents and children. The program
on parental involvement in their children's education and
spans 60 weeks over two years, coinciding with the public
on the parent-child relationship, as well as parental literacy,
school calendar. Paraprofessionals from the community
well-being, and self-sufficiency.
TO
PHONE NO. : 912022053848
AUG. 14. 1995 11:40AM P 3
FROM
2
This report presents initial findings from the quasi-
The Study Design
experimental evaluation of the effects of HIPPY on
children's classroom adaptation at two of the three school-
This three-site outcome study utilizes a quasi-experimental,
based HIPPY programs being studied.¹ Data are presented
pre-test post-test, two cohort design that is following almost
from HIPPY programs in Arkansas and New York.2 These
600 children (HIPPY and comparison children and their
programs were not selocted as demonstrations; rather they
families) from age four through third grade. There are 121
are typical school-administered HIPPY programs. In the
Arkansas families (66 in HIPPY and 55 comparisons) and
New York site, HIPPY is part of a preschool program.
75 New York families (42 in HIPPY and 33 comparisons)
while in Arkansas, the HIPPY program stands alone.
in Cohort One. At the Arkansas site, a community control
group was used for comparison with HIPPY families.
Background
Comparison families were identified through the same
procedures as the HIPPY families and were matched on
Zigler and Trickett (1978), among others, have argued for
important demographic characteristics such as ethnicity,
age and gender of the child, family constellation, and the
a broad assessment of the impact of early intervention
child's preschool experience. At the New York site, a
programs on children's functioning. Longitudinal research
lottery was held to randomly assign families interested in
on early intervention programs has supported this view by
HIPPY into either HIPPY or the control group.
showing that children in such programs, while not
maintaining initial IQ gains, scored better on reading and
In 1990, at the start of the HIPPY program year,
math achievement tests later in their school careers and
comparison and HIPPY families and children in the first
were less likely to be retained, to be placed in special
research cohort were assessed on many factors, including
education classes, and to drop out of school (Lazar and
children's cognitive skills and their home environments.
Dartington, 1982).
Two years later, upon completion of the HIPPY program,
this first cohort of research families were visited again for
Consistent with this perspective, a major question addressed
post-testing. In the Fall of 1992, their first grade and
by the three-site evaluation study is the extent to which
kindergarten teachers completed a rating scale of their
HIPPY has a positive impact on children's school success,
adaptation to the classroom.³
broadly defined. As used here, school success refers to a
child's positive adaptation to the demands of the school
The Sample
environment, the development of a positive academic self-
image and timely graduation. A child's adaptation to
The research families were predominantly low-income.
school is shaped by a host of factors that include the child's
Approximately one-third were single-parent familier; one-
individual cognitive skills. his/her motivations, extent of
third reported government assistance as their primary
parental support and involvement, the quality of the parent-
source of income; and one-third of the parents had less
child relationship, and the school itself. Positive adaptation
than a high school degree. There were approximately equal
to school is manifested by grade-level achievement and age-
numbers of boys and girls. In Arkansas, 90% of the
appropriate classroom behaviors that reflect self-direction,
children in Cobort One were African-American. In New
task orientation, interest in and enjoyment of learning. i.e.,
York, the sample was ethnically varied: 29% were African-
social competence in the classroom.
American. 24% were white, 33% were Hispanic or other
Spanish speakers, and 13% were members of other ethnic
It was hypothesized that participation in the HIPPY
groups. In Arkansas, children were not enrolled in
program would enhance a child's positive adaptation to
preschool programs. In New York, HIPPY and comparison
school through its impact on both achievement and
children all were enrolled in the same preschool. AB New
classroom behaviors. The HIPPY activities may affect
York children. and all but 16 Arkansas children were in
achievoment by providing children with on-going daily
first grade in the Fall of 1992. Group comparisons within
opportunities to engage in skill-building activities. The
each site on family demographic variables revealed no
initial significant differences between the HIPPY and
HIPPY activities are designed to help develop language
comparison families.
skills, visual discrimination, visual-motor coordination,
auditory discrimination and problem-solving skills, all
Sample Attrition: Teacher ratings were not available for all
considered important for early school achievement. HIPPY
196 children at the Arkansas and New York sites. In
also may promote age-appropriate classroom behaviors,
Arkansas, information from teachers was available on 87 of
enjoyment of learning, and motivation to learn. For
121 children (72%). Two percent of the families were
example, the daily parent-child book-reading and the
found too late to be included in the data collection, 12%
activities linked to the HIPPY stories may help the young
could not be found, and 14% did not participate for
child develop competencies important for successful
unknown reasons. In New York, teacher ratings were
adaptation to the classroom environment. These include
available on 56 of 75 children (75%). Two percent of the
listening, following directions, focusing on a task, paying
families refused to participate, 15% moved and/or could
attention to oral instructions, and using assistance
not be found, and one teacher did not return the
appropriately.
questionnaires (8%).
TO
:
PHONE NO. : 912022053848
AUG. 1995 11:43AM P 4
FROM :
3
HIPPY and comparison families were compared on
York teachers rated HIPPY children (boys and girls
demographic variables for the subset of families for whom
combined; mean= 3.5, sd= 1.1) as significantly (p<.01)
teacher ratings were available. There were no significant
better adapted to the classroom than children randomly
group differences. Those for whom teacher ratings were
assigned to the control group (mean=2.7, sd=1.3). Thus,
available also were compared with those for whom such
teachers perceived HIPPY children to be significantly better
data were not available on the demographic variables. In
adapted to the classroom than those who had not been in
Arkansas there were no significant differences. In New
HIPPY. An analysis of the question concerning the
York, those for whom teacher ratings were not available
teachers' predictions of how well the child would do in
were more likely to have been educated outside the United
school that year revealed significant effects (p<.009) at
States. Findings can only be generalized to those children
both sites. Teachers believed that children in HIPPY (boys
for whom teacher ratings were available.
in Arkansas) would do better in the coming year than
comparison children. Because teacher expectations may
Teacher Ratings
shape children's performance, these perceptions are
important.
The use of teacher reports has been important in
educational research in general and in studies of early
Possible Alternative Explanations of Findings
intervention programs in particular. For example,
evaluations of Head Start, the Perry Preschool Project,
Two possible alternative explanations for the differences
Project Giant Step, and the home-based option of Head
between HIPPY and comparison children were considered.
Start have all employed teacher ratings to assess program
First, were these differences due to initial noncomparability
impact on the quality of the child's behavior in the
between HIPPY and comparison children and families on
classroom (Meleen, Love, & Nauta, 1988; Bond et. al,
factors other than demographics? Such differences may be
1982; ABT Associates, 1988). Teacher ratings have been
due to the children in HIPPY being advantaged prior to
shown to be a reliable and valid measure of children's
their participation in HIPPY or to differential attrition
functioning in the classroom (e.g., Spivak & Swift, 1973).
from the sample. A second alternative explanation was
that teachers' beliefs that children were in HIPPY
Seventy teachers in Arkansas and New York in 27 schools
accounted for their higher ratings of the HIPPY children.
completed the Child Classroom Adaptation Index (CCAI).
Developed by Dr. Robert Halpern of the Erikson Institute
To address the first alternative, HIPPY and comparison
and revised by the NCJW Center for the Child for use in
children for whom teacher ratings were available were
this study, the CCAI assusses the child's:
compared on a host of pre-test variables, including
cognitive skills, to assess comparability of the groups. Few
Enjoyment of hooks and reading
group differences were statistically significant. In Arkansas,
Listening and paying attention
parents of children in HIPPY for whom teacher ratings
Task orientation
were available, initially were more likely to report helping
Self-direction in learning
their children learn concepts such as colors, numbers and
Seeking and using assistance appropriately
shapes. In New York, parents of children in HIPPY for
Curiosity
whom teacher ratings were available were more likely to
Initiative
report that they involved their children in daily household
Enjoyment of schoolwork
chores and had significantly higher expectations for their
Likelihood of school ###### for that year
children's school success.
Motivation to learn
Readiness to learn
Next, teachers' beliefs about children's group status were
examined. In New York, no teacher reported believing a
Teachers rated each child on a scale from 1 to 5. in which
child had been in HIPPY, In Arkansas, half of the HIPPY
"1" represents poor adaptation, "3" represents a good or
children were correctly identified as being in HIPPY and
moderate adaptation and "3" represents a very successful
one fourth of the comparison children were incorrectly
adaptation.
identified as being in HIPPY.
Initial Findless
Multiple linear regression analyses were then conducted to
determine if the higher CCAI scores for HIPPY children
Scores on all eleven items of the CCAI were summed to
were accounted for by any pre-test group differences and/or
create a total score to indicate the child's adaptation to the
teachers' beliefs about the child's group status rather than
classroom.⁴
by participation in HIPPY. After statistically controlling
for these and other variables,¹ HIPPY still had an'effect.
In Arkansas, teachers rated boys who participated in
Arkansas boys in HIPPY and New York boys and girls in
HIPPY (mean= 3.5, sd=1.0) as significantly (p<.03) better
HIPPY were rated significantly higher by teachers than
adapted to the classroom than boys not participating in
comparison children. Thos, these alternative explanations
HIPPY (mean=2.8 sd=1.1). There were no significant
did not account for teachers rating HIPPY children as
differences between HIPPY and comparison girls. New
better adapted to the classroom.
TO
PHONE NO. : 912022053848
AUG. 14. 1995 11:59AM P 1
FROM :
4
Conclusions
These initial findings from this ethnically diverse sample of
REFERENCES
children indicate that participation in HIPPY has a positive
effect on their classroom adaptation, an important
Abt Associates. (1988, October). Evaluation of Project
component of school success. Moreover, in the New York
Giant Step (Technical Progress Report No. 4).
program. participation in HIPPY had a positive effect over
Cambridge, MA: Author.
and above preschool. Again. these findings cannot be
generalized to families who left the study, particularly in
Adams, I, Skuy, M., & Fridjhon, P. (1992). Effectiveness
New York, where families with teacher ratings differed
of a home-based program for preschool children in
somewhat from those without ratings. In future data
disadvantaged South African communities.
collection efforts, we will attempt to locate all families to
International Journal of Cognitive Education &
increase the generalizability of the findings.
Mediated Learning, 2(1). 6-16.
The positive findings for boys in Arkansas cannot be
interpreted to indicate that HIPPY does not have positive
Bond, J.T. et ai. (1982). Project developmental
effects on girls. We know that boys and girls are affected
continuity evaluation final report. Ypsilanti, ML
differently by similar experiences. We would not be
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
surprised to find other types of outcome measures that
show positive effects for Arkansas girls in HIPPY.
Eldering, L (1988, November). Home intervention in
ethnic minority families in the Netherlands, Paper
These children will be followed through their early years of
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
schooling to determine the long-term effects of HIPPY.
Anthropological Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Future reports will present findings regarding the effects of
HIPPY on other aspects of children's school success-such
Halpern, R. (1989). Parent support and child
as educational achievement, attendance, academic self-
image and placement in special education--us well as
education: What role in the continuum of family
parental literacy, well-being. self-sufficiency, and the
services? Unpublished manuscript.
parent-child relationship.
Lazar, L, & Darlington, R. (1982). Lasting effects of
FOOTNOTES
early education. A report from the Consortium of
Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for
I
This study has been funded by the United States Department of
Research in Child Development, 47 (2-3, Serial No. 195).
Education, the Wolens Foundation, the Taubman Foundation, the Rauch
Foundation, and the National Council of Jewish Women.
Lombard, A. (1981). Success begins at home.
3 This report does not present date from the Michigan site because the
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.
small sample there requires combining data scross cohorts. Such date are
not yet available.
Melcen, P., Love, J., & Nauta, M. (1988). Final report,
, Information on attendance, grades, standardized achievement, special
Vol. I: Technical report. Study of the home-based
placement and retention were also gathered from school records. Fladings
option in Head Start. Hampton, NH: RMC Research
will be available in future reports.
Corp.
,
A factor analysis indicated a single factor on which all 11 items Inaded.
Cronbach's alpha for the 11 items composite index was 96, demonstrating
Schorr, A. (1966). Poor kids; A report on children and
very high internal consistency. The significant correlation (rm 35. p<.001)
poverty, New York: Basic Books.
between the CCAI and the Cooperative Preschool Inventory, measured
almost two years previously. provides some evidence for the construct
validity of the teacher ratings.
Schorr, L (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle
of disadvantage. New York: Anchor Press.
$ At both sites the mcan for HIPPY children (boys only in Arkansas) was
greater than the mean for comparison children OR all eleven items. The
probability of this binomial distribution is P X .006.
Spivak, G., & Swift, M. (1973). The classroom behavior
of children: A critical review of teacher
# This difference was accounted for by the fact that at pro-test. Arkansas
HIPPY families had participated in ONC to three months of the HIPPY
administered rating scales. The Journal of Special
program. Late administration of pre-test was a function of when funding
Education, Z(1), 55-77.
because available.
William T. Grant Foundation. (1988). The forgotten
, In New York, familica for whom we did not have teacher retings were
more likely to be aducated outside the United States. Is addition, smong
balf. Pathways to success for America's youth and
HIPPY families in New York, those for whom we did not have teacher
dr
young families. Final Report.
ratings had received less social services in the past and had children who
scored lower on the protest incasure of cognitive skills. These variables
also were culored as control variables.
Zigler, E, & Trickett, P. (1978). IQ and social
competence, and evaluation of early childhood
$ Because the effects of the intervention were for boys only in Arkansas,
education programs. American Psychologist, 33,
the regression analysis entailed testing for the significance of the
789-798.
interaction term between group status and gender, which was entered at
the end of the equation. The change to R square for the interaction term
was significant, (p<.03).
© National Council of Jewish Women, Center for the Child, 53 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10010
(TEL NO: 212-645-4048, FAX NO: 212-645-7466)
TO:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
FROM:
DATE:
9/26/96 Jennifer Klein j.n.
RE:
Head Start
I thought you might be interested in the attached document. Sunday is the
anniversary of the vote creating Head Start. Bob Dole voted against it.
BOB DOLE FINALLY MAKES NEWS ON HOW
HE IS GOING TO PAY FOR HIS $548 BILLION TAX CUT
September 26, 1996
At long last, Bob Dole began admitting yesterday what would be cut in order
to pay for his $548 billion tax plan. In Iowa, Dole announced the first specific
cut that he would make in order to pay for his plan: HEAD START.
The Associated Press on Bob Dole's Admission that he
would go after Head Start:
"As Dole shook hands outside the rally, child-care
advocate Tammy Kesterson shouted at him, 'What are you
gonna do, cut Head Start?"
'It's gonna get looked at,' Dole replied. 'Head Start is a
good program, but like any government program, you've
got look at it.'''
[AP, 9/25/96]
By Contrast, President Clinton's balanced budget invests in
our children's futures by expanding Head Start to reach 1
million children in 2002 -- helping prepare pre-school children
to learn the skills that they will need to succeed in the 21st
century. [OMB; President Clinton's FY 1997 balanced budget]
Studies Show that Head Start Works: "Head Start
Works 144 Studies of Head Start that are reviewed in the
Packard Journal point to one unassailable conclusion: Head
Start -- and other early childhood programs that provide
stimulating environments for learning, involve parents and
link health, education, and social services -- improving poor
children's chances." ["The Future of Children," The Packard Foundation, 1995]
TO:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
FROM:
Jennifer Klein
DATE:
3/12/96
RE:
Early Head Start
You had asked me to look into Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
funding for Early Head Start. Bill Harris's memo correctly states that the 1994 bill signed by
the President reauthorizing and expanding Head Start required that Early Head Start be
funded at the following levels: 3% of all appropriated Head Start funds for the first year
(fiscal year 1995), 4% of all appropriated funds for the second and third years, and 5% of all
appropriated funds for the fourth year. Bill Harris's memo also suggests that HHS is not
spending the required 4% of fiscal year 1996 funding for Early Head Start.
HHS intends to spend 4% of Head Start funding on Early Head Start in fiscal years
1996 and 1997. However, HHS's ability to do so is in real danger because of the budget cuts
proposed by Congress. The President requested $3.935 billion for Head Start for fiscal year
1996. The House voted to provide only $3.397 billion, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee (the full Senate has not taken action on the Labor/HHS appropriations bill)
recommended that $3.402 billion be appropriated. HHS believes that they need an absolute
minimum of $3.631 billion in order to spend 4% of Head Start funds on Early Head Start
without being forced to cut Head Start for 3 and 4 year olds and jeopardizing high quality,
comprehensive Head Start services.
A political battle is brewing between those, like Bill Harris, who are concerned about
Early Head Start, and those who feel that the first priority should be to protect regular Head
Start slots.
FEB-29-96 THU 15:38
P. 02
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Melissa Ludtke
FROM:
Bill Harris
DATE:
February 29, 1996
RE:
Early Head Start
On May 19, 1994, President Clinton signed a bill reauthorizing and expanding Head
Start. The bill established a new initiative that targeted infants and toddlers, Early
Head Start. Early Head Start was to be funded at the following levels: 3% of all
appropriated Head Start funds for the first year, 4% of all appropriated funds for the
second and third years, and 5% of all appropriated funds for the fourth year.
HHS has implemented the first year funds. They have not yet acted upon the
second year funds. Indeed, there is a reason to believe that they are searching
frantically to discharge their responsibilities by designating the funds allocated to
other programs and saying that this would cover their obligation to fund Early Head
Start.
The law is explicit that 4% of appropriated funds for Head Start must be spent on the
Early Head Start program. If HHS were to pretend that other existing programs that
serve infants and toddlers could be used to satisfy this law, I believe it would violate
both the bipartisan intent of Congress and the law.
Congress will take up a Continuing Resolution in the near future. The agency
should be reminded of its obligation to follow the law.
It is particularly ironic that HHS would act in this manner after the publication of
the First lady's book, It Takes a Village. On page 247 she writes:
"But Head Start doesn't reach children until they are four, when we know
from research that many of them are already behind their peers. So when Congress
reauthorized Head Start in 1994, at the President's recommendation it established
Early Head Start to target low-income families with infants and toddlers."
What can be done to rectify this situation?
TO:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
FROM:
Jennifer Klein
J.K.
DATE:
3/12/96
RE:
Early Head Start
You had asked me to look into Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
funding for Early Head Start. Bill Harris's memo correctly states that the 1994 bill signed by
the President reauthorizing and expanding Head Start required that Early Head Start be
funded at the following levels: 3% of all appropriated Head Start funds for the first year
(fiscal year 1995), 4% of all appropriated funds for the second and third years, and 5% of all
appropriated funds for the fourth year. BiN Harris's memo also suggests that HHS is not
spending the required 4% of fiscal year 1996 funding for Early Head Start.
Because fiscal year 1995 annual grants were awarded in September 1995, Head Start
grantees are still spending their 1995 funds and will continue to do so through the end of this
fiscal year. HHS anticipates that the fiscal year 1996 funds will be awarded in September
1996.
However, HHS's ability to spend 4% on Early Head Start is in real danger because of
the budget cuts proposed by Congress. The President requested $3.935 billion for Head Start
for fiscal year 1996. The House voted to provide only $3.397 billion, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee (the full Senate has not taken action an the Labor/HHS
appropriations bill) recommended that $3.402 billion be appropriated. HHS believes that they
need an absolute minimum of $3.631 billion in order to spend 4% of Head Start funds on
Early Head Start without being forced to cut back on Head Start for 3 and 4 year olds and
jeopardizing high quality, comprehensive Head Start services.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
12-Mar-1996 04:30pm
TO:
Jennifer L. Klein
FROM:
Edwin Lau
Office of Mgmt and Budget, HRD
SUBJECT: Early Head Start
We received a similar memo from Bill Harris. Our response is
attached.
I would strike the second paragraph of your memo, and rewrite the
third paragraph to reflect the following:
I think that they key point is that HHS has reaffirmed it's
commitment to the 4% set-aside. Early Head Start will get 4% of
whatever the final appropriation ends up being. Obviously, if the
appropriation is less than the Administration's new FY96 policy
level ($3,631 M), then some regular Head Start kids will get cut,
but SO will some Early Head Start infants. By promising to take
the 4% earmark, HHS promises that it will not raid Early Head
Start funds to support regular participation. The First Lady will
not need to justify this earmark to Bill Harris since he seems to
be an Early Head Start advocate, but she may need to defend the
HHS position with those who feel that the first priority is to
protect regular Head Start slots.
If you have more background information as to why Bill Harris has
raised these concerns, could you please share with us? We might
be able to give a more detailed response. Thanks.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
12-Mar-1996 11:51am
TO:
Kenneth S. Apfel
TO:
Barry White
FROM:
Edwin Lau
Office of Mgmt and Budget, HRD
CC:
Keith J. Fontenot
CC:
Christine B. Ellertson
SUBJECT:
Head Start
You had sent to us a memorandum received by Nancy-Ann Min
regarding the Early Head Start program. The memo alleges that HHS
is trying to get out of the legislative requirement to set aside
4% of Head Start funds for its Early Head Start program. This is
what we've been able to find out:
HHS's draft press release explicitly states the Department's
commitment to funding Early Head Start at the earmark level:
"Serving low-income children under the age of three and pregnant
women, Early Head Start funds in FY 1997 will be equal to 4
percent of the total Head Start budget or $159.3 million under the
President's request.'
In addition, ACF is preparing materials for the First Lady to
defend the earmark which is under criticism that it robs regular
Head Start dollars to fund Early Head Start.
The true problem is unclear from the Chicago materials, but they
may have misread part year funding under the CR as somehow a
change in Head Start policy. In summary, there does not seem to
be an issue here HHS supports the current law policy.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
FEB-29-96 THU 15:38
P.01
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
80 Trowbridge Street
Attention: Pam Cicetti
Company: Office of the First Lady
Telephone #:
Fax #: 202 456 2878
Date: 2/29/96
Sender: William W. Harris
Sender Telephone #:617/492-2229
Sender Fax #: 617/354-7831
You should receive 2 page(s), including this cover
sheet.. If you do not receive all the pages, please call
the number above.
COMMENTS:
MAR-04-1996 18:17 FROM
TO
94562878 P.01
HUMAN SERVICES. ,LISA
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
$
OF HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT
370 L'ENFANT PROMENADE, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20447
TO:
Jen klin
Telephone:
456 ASIAH 2878
Fax:
Number of Pages (excluding cover): 2
FROM:
Wendy Jacobson
Special Assistant to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Telephone:
(202) 260-1853
Fax:
(202) 205-3848
MESSAGE:
As we discussed
This is material that was
given to the secretary
for her testimony tomorrow committee
before the approps.
MAR-04-1996
18:17
FROM
TO
94562878
P.02
EARLY HEAD START
QUESTION: I understand that the Head Start Act specifies that 4 % of funds
appropriated to Head Start in FY 96 must be set aside for the Early Head Start program
which serves infants and toddlers. (This is compared to the FY 95 set aside of 3 % of
appropriated funds.) How much funding must be appropriated for FY 96 in order to
ensure that the current level of enrollment for 3 and 4 year olds is maintained and that an
increased percentage of funds required by statute is set aside for Early Head Start?
ANSWER:
We are very excited about the progress we have made in the new Early Head Start
program for infants and toddlers and look forward to further progress in the this
year. In FY 95, Early Head Start programs received approximately $106 million
and were able to serve 18,200 infants and toddlers. As you noted, the bipartisan
Head Start legislation requires that an increased percentage of total funds be set
aside for Early Head Start in FY 96, and we intend to honor that important
responsibility. The statutory requirement will mean an increase in Early Head
Start funds for FY 96 even if Congress continues to hold Head Start funding
below its FY 95 appropriated amount.
However, any Head Start funding cut for FY 96 will jeopardize our ability to
maintain stepped-up quality improvement efforts, also required by the 1994 Head
Start reauthorization legislation, and our ability to maintain the current level of
enrollment for 3 and 4 year olds. In FY 95, Head Start served 751,000 children
and families. This represents less than 40 percent of the low income preschoolers
and their families who are eligible for Head Start.
We believe that an appropriation of $3.631 billion for FY 96 is the minimal
amount that will allow us to ensure: (1) the increased set aside for Early Head
Start; (2) no cutbacks in Head Start for 3 and 4 year old; and (3) continuation of
high quality, comprehensive Head Start services.
BACKGROUND:
The Head Start Act requires that 4 % of funds be set aside for Early Head Start; 2
% for Training and Technical Assistance; and $35 million for Transitional
services.
With 3 % of FY 95 funds, Early Head Start served 18,200 infants and toddlers.
With 4 % of funds in FY 96, it can serve 26,400 at the $3.9 billion requested in
the President's budget, and 24,400 at the a $3.6 billion level.
MAR-04-1996 18:17 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
Head Start
($ in millions)
FY 1995
FY 1996
Actual
Pres Bud
House
Senate
Head Start
$3,534
$ 3,935
$ 3,397
$ 3,402
MAR-12-1996 11:16 FROM
TO
94562878 P.01
SERVICES-USA
HEALTH = DEPARTMENT HUMAN
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
370 L'ENFANT PROMENADE, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20447
TO:
den klein
Telephone: Fax: 456-2878
Number of Pages (excluding cover): 2
FROM:
Wendy Jacobson
Special Assistant to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Telephone:
(202) 260-1853
Fax:
(202) 205-3848
MESSAGE:
MAR-12-1996 11:16 FROM
TO
94562878 P.02
TO:
Jen
FROM:
Wendy
SUBJECT: Suggested edits
1. Last sentence, paragraph one: "...also suggests that HHS is not spending the required
FY 96 funding for Early Head Start.
2. Delete paragraph two and insert:
"Because FY 95 annual grants were awarded in September, 1995, Head Start grantees
are still spending their FY 95 funds, and will continue to do so through the end of the
fiscal year. HHS anticipates that the FY 96 funds will be awarded in September, 1996.
3. Replace third paragraph with the following:
"However, HHS's ability to spend 4% on Early Head Start in FY 96 is in real danger
because of the budget cuts proposed by Congress. The President requested $3.935
billion for Head Start for FY 1996. As part of the regular appropriations process, the
House voted to provide only $3.397 billion for Head Start. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended providing $3.402 billion in the appropriations process (the full
Senate never took action on the Labor/HHS/Education FY 96 Appropriations).
Last week, the House passed an omnibus full-year appropriations bill for agencies whose
funding expires on March 15. Included in that bill was $3.534 billion for Head Start, the
same as the FY 1995 level. The companion bill moving through the Senate would
provide $3.397 billion, with an additional $137 million to be available contingent on the
passage of other spending cut legislation (such as an entitlement cut bill). HHS believes
that it needs an absolute minimum of (continue as written)."
4. Last paragraph: Secretary Shalala testified before the Labor/HHS/Education
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 5. The portion of her
speech on Head Start is attached. She was not asked any questions about this issue.
MAR-12-1996 11:17 FROM
TO
94562878 P.03
Head Start
We are all aware of the positive impacts Head Start has on the lives of low income
children as they begin their educational development. The President had proposed in
his 1996 budget a path of investment in Head Start that would lead to a $1.5 billion
increase by FY 2002.
The Senate bill doesn't go forward in building this program, but takes a step
backward, cutting spending by $133 million below last year's level. This could reduce
enrollment by 45,000 to 50,000 students if programs maintain their current level of
quality.
We are proud of our FY '95 success in implementing the Early Head Start
program which the President and the bipartisan Congress created to reach our youngest
and most vulnerable infants, toddlers and their families. We must move forward in FY
'96 to provide top quality comprehensive services for even more infants and toddlers
who so critically need this early head start to reach their potential.
5