[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE HEAD START EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 5, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-472 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Major R. Owens, New York
California Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Judy Biggert, Illinois John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida David Wu, Oregon
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Susan A. Davis, California
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
John Kline, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Cathy McMorris, Washington Tim Ryan, Ohio
Kenny Marchant, Texas Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tom Price, Georgia John Barrow, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 5, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boehner, Hon. John A., Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Delaware...................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and the Workforce.......................................... 6
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Golden, Olivia, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute,
Washington, DC............................................. 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Henry, Pamela, Jr., Head Start Parent, Las Vegas, NV......... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Horn, Hon. Wade F., Assistant Secretary, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Shaul, Marnie S., Ph.D., Director, Education Issues,
Education, Workforce and Income Security, U.S. Government
Accountability Office...................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE HEAD START EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Boehner
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Boehner, McKeon, Castle, Osborne,
Kline, McMorris, Price, Fortuno, Foxx, Drake, Miller, Kildee,
Woolsey, Hinojosa, Tierney, Wu, Holt, McCollum, Grijalva, and
Van Hollen.
Staff Present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member;
Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Kate Houston,
Professional Staff Member; Alexa Marrero, Press Secretary;
Jennifer Daniels, Communications Staff Assistant; Jessica
Gross, Legislative Assistant; Lucy House, Legislative
Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern
Coordinator; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Ruth
Friedman, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd
Horwich, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Ricardo
Martinez, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock,
Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority
Legislative Associate/Education; and Tom Kiley, Press
Secretary.
Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order. We are holding
this hearing today to hear testimony on the financial
accountability in the Head Start Early Childhood program. I am
going to limit opening statements to the Chairman and Ranking
Member. Therefore, if other Members have opening statements,
they can be included in the hearing record.
And with that, I would ask unanimous consent for the
hearing record to remain open for 14 days to allow Members'
statements and other documents referenced during the hearing to
be submitted for the official hearing record. Without
objection, so ordered. Let me change my unanimous consent
request to also include Mr. Castle and Ms. Woolsey's opening
statements. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
High quality early childhood education is essential to
closing the achievement gap that exists in our country between
disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers. President
Bush urged Americans to unite to eliminate this gap when he
took office in 2001. Congress has responded by enacting two
major overhauls of education law, the No Child Left Behind Act
and the special education bill signed by the President just
last December. Today, our Committee embarks on another phase of
this process, strengthening the Head Start early childhood
program. Head Start's mission is to prepare disadvantaged
children for kindergarten, and this Committee has strongly
supported Head Start in this mission over the years and
particularly during the last decade. Federal funding for Head
Start has nearly doubled since 1995, increasing from 3.6
billion annually in 1996 to nearly 7 billion this year.
I support Head Start. It is an important program that is
entrusted with a vitally important mission and I believe that a
vast majority of those involved with the Head Start program are
honest individuals who are dedicated to making sure the poorest
of our Nation's children have a chance to succeed in life. I
believe we need to listen to these people and support them and
support the children that they serve. And I know Chairman
Castle agrees, I believe the President agrees, and I don't
think there is a single Member of this Committee who would
disagree with that.
I also want to state that neither I nor the President nor
Chairman Castle have called for turning Head Start into a so-
called block grant to the States or dismantling Head Start as
some have claimed. As I said 2 years ago, as a conservative
Republican, I know a block grant when I see one. And trust me,
what the President has proposed for Head Start is no block
grant program. There are, however, two critical problems in
Head Start that I believe Congress has to address. One problem
is the school readiness gap that continues to exist between
some Head Start children and their peers when they reach
kindergarten. There is no question most Head Start children are
better off in the program than they would have been without it.
That is not in dispute.
But there is evidence that some Head Start centers could be
doing an even better job of providing preschoolers with an
academic foundation they need in order to succeed in school. A
summary of research released in 2003 by the Department of
Health and Human Services showed that while children in Head
Start are learning, they are more than 25 percentile points
behind the national average on many key learning indicators.
And we need to listen to people who run the best programs in
the Head Start system, get their input on what works and use
that information to strengthen the weaker program. Last week
our Committee launched a Web site to facilitate this project,
and I would encourage parents, teachers, taxpayers and anyone
else who has an interest in Head Start to check out this Web
site and use it to share your own experiences.
The second problem is that an unacceptable share of Federal
Head Start funding never reaches the disadvantaged children the
money is meant to serve. Instead, it is being lost to financial
abuse and mismanagement, impropriety or outright theft within
the Head Start system. And these abuses are happening at the
expense of children served by the many law abiding grantees
within the Head Start system, grantees that too often are put
in a position of being forced to defend the actions of a few
bad apples in the program.
Between January of 2003 and the first months of 2005, media
accounts in numerous U.S. cities alleged serious financial
abuses and irregularities by those entrusted with the
responsibility of managing Head Start funds meant to serve poor
children. These incidents identified in these reports
collectively involve the use of tens of millions of Federal
Head Start funds that were intended to serve more than 10,000
disadvantaged U.S. children. Such reports surfaced in
Baltimore, Maryland; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Charleston, South
Carolina; Charleston, West Virginia; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus,
Ohio; Honolulu, Hawaii; Jamestown, North Dakota; Kansas City,
Missouri; Las Vegas, Nevada, Little Rock, Arkansas; Lubbock,
Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Norwalk, Connecticut; Rapid City,
South Dakota; San Antonio, Texas; and Stockton, California.
And some reports involving financial mismanagement suggest
that many Head Start grantees have good intentions yet lack
strong financial controls and the skills needed to effectively
manage complex multi million dollar not-for-profit
organizations.
As much as we all support Head Start, Congress cannot
simply turn a blind eye to this problem. Financial abuse in the
Head Start system cheats not only children and taxpayers, but
also the many law abiding local Head Start grantees nationwide
who find themselves in the position of being asked to defend
indefensible practices by other grantees.
A new report by the independent Government Accountability
Office warns, the financial control system in the Federal Head
Start Early Childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent
these abuses. GAO has independently determined that unresolved
financial management weaknesses among Head Start grantees are
having a negative effect on some eligible children. It has also
determined that the procedures of the Federal Government uses
to collect data on grantee financial management performance
have significant flaws as well. The GAO report recommends that
the Federal Government take steps to allow the recompetition of
grants awarded to Head Start grantees.
And I am particularly interested in hearing from our
witnesses today on this important issue. It is my view that by
failing to promote competition for Head Start grants, the
Federal Government has essentially granted monopoly power to
some Head Start operators and, as often happens with
monopolies, the power has been abused. Removing obstacles for
competition of Head Start grants must be a top priority for
Congress in reauthorizing Head Start, and if we fail to
accomplish this goal, we will fail on our most basic
responsibility to children and taxpayers.
Also, some States are operating their own early childhood
programs, programs that sometimes rival Head Start in quality.
And I do think we need to help such States better integrate and
coordinate these programs with Head Start to better serve the
needs of our most disadvantaged children. When Head Start was
first established 40 years ago, it was the only program of its
kind, Federal or State. Now, there are many different programs
across the country preparing children for kindergarten, and we
need to make sure all of those children are getting the same
quality education.
In the last Congress, this Committee passed a bill that
sought to address this need. But we know many things today that
we didn't know then, particularly with respect to the financial
control problems that exist in the program. And with this in
mind, I think we have a responsibility to start from square one
and build this year's legislation from the ground up. There
were many elements of the 2003 bill that had bipartisan
support. Those things may provide a good foundation. And in
those areas where there was disagreement, I am more than
willing to look at alternative routes that can be taken to
reach the same goal if we can show that they may be effective.
That includes the issue of coordination with State programs
which generated the most disagreement 2 years ago.
I am committed to passing the bill that promotes
competition, strengthens academics, and restores fairness for
children taxpayers and honest grantees. And I think we can
produce a bill that does these things and does it in a
bipartisan fashion. As the Head Start reauthorization process
moves forward, this will be my goal.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce
High quality early childhood education is essential to closing the
achievement gap that exists in our country between disadvantaged
children and their more affluent peers. President Bush urged Americans
to unite to eliminate this gap when he took office in 2001. Congress
has responded by enacting two major overhauls of education law-the No
Child Left Behind Act, and the special education bill signed by the
President last December. Today our Committee embarks on another phase
of this process: strengthening the Head Start early childhood program.
Head Start's mission is to prepare disadvantaged children for
kindergarten. This Committee has strongly supported Head Start in this
mission over the years, particularly during the past decade. Federal
funding for Head Start has nearly doubled since Republicans assumed
control of the House in 1995, increasing from $3.6 billion annually in
fiscal year 1996 to nearly $7 billion this year.
I support Head Start. It's an important program that is entrusted
with a vitally important mission. I believe the vast majority of those
involved with Head Start are honest individuals who are dedicated to
making sure the poorest of our nation's children have a chance to
succeed in life. I believe we need to listen to these people, and
support them, and support the children they serve. I know Chairman
Castle agrees. I think the President agrees. And I don't think there's
a single member of this Committee who disagrees.
I also want to state that neither I, nor President Bush, nor
Chairman Castle, have called for turning Head Start into a so-called
``block grant'' to the states or ``dismantling'' Head Start. As I said
two years ago-as a conservative Republican, I know a block grant when I
see one. And trust me-what President Bush has proposed for Head Start
is no block grant.
There are, however, two critical problems in Head Start that I
believe Congress has to address.
One problem is the school readiness gap that continues to exist
between some Head Start children and their peers when they reach
kindergarten. There's no question most Head Start children are better
off in the program than they would have been without it; that is not in
dispute. But there's evidence some Head Start centers could be doing an
even better job of providing preschoolers with the academic foundation
they need to succeed in school. A summary of research released in June
2003 by the Department of Health and Human Services showed that while
children in Head Start are learning, they are still more than 25
percentile points behind the national average on key learning
indicators. We need to listen to the people who run the best programs
in the Head Start system, get their input on what works, and use that
information to strengthen the weaker programs. Last week our Committee
launched a website to facilitate this project. I encourage parents,
teachers, taxpayers and anyone else with an interest in Head Start to
check out this website and use it to share your experiences.
The second problem is that an unacceptable share of federal Head
Start funding never reaches the disadvantaged children the money is
meant to serve. Instead it is being lost to financial abuse,
mismanagement, impropriety, or outright theft within the Head Start
system. These abuses are happening at the expense of children served by
the many law-abiding grantees within the Head Start system-grantees
that too often are put in the position of being forced to defend the
actions of the ``bad apples'' in the program.
Between January 2003 and the first months of 2005, media accounts
in numerous U.S. cities alleged serious financial abuses and
irregularities by those entrusted with the responsibility of managing
Head Start funds meant to serve poor children. The incidents identified
in these reports collectively involve the use of tens of millions in
federal Head Start funds that were intended to serve more than 10,000
disadvantaged U.S. children. Such reports surfaced in Baltimore,
Maryland; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Charleston, South Carolina;
Charleston, West Virginia; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Honolulu,
Hawaii; Jamestown, North Dakota; Kansas City, Missouri; Las Vegas,
Nevada; Little Rock, Arkansas; Lubbock, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin;
Norwalk, Connecticut; Rapid City, South Dakota; San Antonio, Texas; and
Stockton, California. Some reports involving financial mismanagement
suggest that many Head Start grantees have good intentions, yet lack
strong fiscal controls and the skills needed to effectively manage
complex, multi-million dollar non-profit organizations.
As much as we all support Head Start, Congress simply cannot turn a
blind eye to this problem. Financial abuse in the Head Start system
cheats not only children and taxpayers, but also the many law-abiding
local Head Start grantees nationwide who find themselves in the
position of being asked to defend indefensible practices by other
grantees.
A new report by the independent Government Accountability Office
(GAO) warns the financial control system in the federal Head Start
early childhood program is flawed and failing to prevent these abuses.
GAO has independently determined that unresolved financial management
weaknesses among Head Start grantees are having a negative impact on
some eligible children. It has also determined that the procedures the
federal government uses to collect data on grantee financial management
performance have significant flaws.
The GAO report recommends that the federal government take steps to
allow the ``recompetition'' of grants awarded to Head Start grantees.
I'm particularly interested in hearing from our witnesses today on this
issue. It's my view that by failing to promote competition for Head
Start grants, the federal government has essentially granted monopoly
power to some Head Start operators-and as often happens with
monopolies, that power has been abused.
Removing obstacles to competition for Head Start grants must be a
top priority for Congress in reauthorizing Head Start. If we fail to
accomplish this goal, we will fail in our most basic responsibility to
children and taxpayers.
Also, some states are operating their own early childhood programs,
programs that sometimes rival Head Start in quality. I do think we need
to help such states better integrate and coordinate these programs with
Head Start, to better serve the needs of our most disadvantaged
children. When Head Start was first established 40 years ago, it was
the only program of its kind--federal or state. Now there are many
different programs across the country preparing children for
kindergarten, and we need to make sure all of those children are
getting the same quality education.
In the last Congress, this Committee passed a bill that sought to
address this need. But we know many things today we didn't know then,
particularly with respect to the financial control problems that exist
in Head Start. With this in mind, I think we have a responsibility to
start from square one, and build this year's legislation from the
ground up. There were many elements in the 2003 bill that had
bipartisan support. Those things may provide a good foundation. And in
those areas where there was disagreement, I'm more than willing to look
at alternative routes that can be taken to reach the same goal, if they
might be effective. That includes the issue of coordination with state
programs, which generated the most disagreement two years ago.
I'm committed to passing a bill that promotes competition,
strengthens academics, and restores fairness for children, taxpayers,
and honest grantees. I think we can produce a bill that does these
things, and does it in a bipartisan fashion. As the Head Start
reauthorization process moves forward, this will be my goal.
I would now yield to the senior Democratic member of our committee,
Mr. Miller, for any opening statement he may have.
______
Chairman Boehner. I would like to yield to my friend and
the Ranking Democrat on our Committee, Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Mr. Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
majority for holding this hearing and for GAO's work on fiscal
accountability. Strengthening accountability and a shining
bright star in any program is an important process. Head Start
is this country's premiere early education program for low
income children. It has helped millions achieve more in school
and in life. We owe it to America's children and families
living in some of this country's most difficult situations to
provide them with the best programs possible. Making sure a
program is working efficiently and effectively is one of
Congress's most important jobs and it is particularly important
in a program like Head Start, which research shows has strong
effects on the cognitive and social development and almost
closes the achievement gap by the time these kids finish
kindergarten.
So I welcome this opportunity today and hope that we can
proceed in a constructive manner to do what is best for the
children. I have recently been disappointed at some of my
colleagues sensationalistic approach to today's topic, whether
it is Head Start or millions of dollars in fraud and waste in
higher education or billions of dollars by Halliburton,
fraudulent behavior cannot be tolerated. But sensationalism
only serves to heighten the rhetoric and distract people from
the real reforms that need to be undertaken.
Instead of resorting to gotcha attacks and rehashing risky
ideas from 2 years ago I hope that we can use this hearing to
start working together to strengthen Head Start. Head Start has
some extremely rigorous standards and procedures that are the
basis for its delivery of comprehensive services. It also has
one of the most demanding monitoring programs. According to
HHS, there are 1,797 program requirements covering areas of
early childhood development, health services, family and
community partnerships and program design and management. All
1,800 get assessed in some manner in the triennial prism review
by HHS. In addition to the prism review, grantees also submit
monthly financial records to their governing board to submit
audits to the ACF annually, and to report on program
performance to ACF annually and resubmit their budgets and
renew their grants to ACF annually.
I want to thank GAO for their work and their
recommendations. It is helpful to see that most programs are
being effectively managed and how we need better to target our
efforts on programs that are struggling. It seems clear that
Head Start has the most of the proper tools for strong
accountability, but they need to be better implemented. So I
look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today and
listening to their recommendation. Head Start children and
families deserve the very best we can give them, and I hope
that we can work together today throughout the reauthorization
to make sure that is exactly what is true.
I am encouraged, Mr. Chairman, by your remarks that you are
prepared to discard some of those ideas from last year and work
together on a bipartisan solution for Head Start. That is very
encouraging. That is the manner in which we have made
continuous improvement in this program over the many years of
its existence. That is why it continues to be the premiere
program for the comprehensive development and education of
these children in these most difficult situations. And again, I
want to thank you for holding this hearing and look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Miller. The record will
show I haven't discarded anything.
Mr. Miller. I thought you said that there were some bad
ideas you were getting rid of.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Delaware, the Chairman of the Education Reform Subcommittee,
Mr. Castle.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Boehner. And good afternoon
ladies and gentlemen. I read the report a little bit
differently, perhaps, than Mr. Miller did in terms of some of
the problems here and I think they are fairly significant. But
I am pleased we are having the hearing and I am pleased that we
will learn more today. And I think we should approach this
constructively to try to deal with the issues of Head Start. I
happen to believe very strongly in Head Start, which is one of
the reasons I am frustrated by the problems that I have learned
about. I think it is a lifetime benefit. There is some
discussion about that, but I think it is a lifetime benefit
that it provides to the children who go through it and to their
families. And I think this hearing is important to make sure
that we are off on a solid footing as far as this year is
concerned.
Approximately 2 years ago, I think it was a little bit less
than 2 years really, we began to hear deeply concerning press
reports of financial mismanagement in some Head Start programs
across the country. Unfortunately we have heard of everything
from embezzlement to the leasing of luxury vehicles with Head
Start funds. I was particularly upset to hear of a director who
chose to divert funds from Head Start children in order to
operate a restaurant. As Chairman Boehner and I heard more and
more stories like these, we decided to launch a study into
these instances, specifically, why were they happening. We
wanted to know if children were being shortchanged, if these
were isolated incidents; if HHS has the tools necessary to
catch them and how can we fix it? The impetus for asking the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, to examine the procedures
surrounding program management is simple, to ensure Federal
dollars are going to the children participating in the Head
Start program and not to fund lavish perks and blatant abuses.
I am not only shocked at the number of reports that have
filtered out from across the country, but the mere fact that
they are happening. While it is true that these incidences
represent a limited number of Head Start programs, I truly
believe that one is too many. I commend the thousands of Head
Start programs who do not sway from their goals of providing
necessary services to the children and families in their
programs. The fact remains, however, that there is a problem
and the children at faulty programs do deserve better. I don't
believe that my job is to point fingers or blame, but I do
believe strongly that we have a responsibility to prevent any
future abuses. It is in the interest of the more than 900,000
low income children across the country that we identify areas
where we can make sound change in order to strengthen the
overall program.
The GAO report, however, is quite clear that there are
deficiencies in the manner HHS has monitored the program
throughout the years. You will hear testimony from the GAO
today that despite the numerous processes in place to monitor
financial management, HHS has not utilized this information to
assess overall program risks. Moreover, of the grantees
reviewed by HHS in 2000, 76 percent were out of compliance with
financial management standards, and 53 percent of the same
grantees remained out of compliance at their next review.
Disturbing stories presented about Head Start grantees and
knowledge of the flaws at HHS allow us to move forward in a
productive manner. The GAO report identifies key areas of
reform and Assistant Secretary Horn will testify as to changes
made at HHS to address management abuses.
I am encouraged by the GAO's recommendations and do believe
they will assist in this effort. I also look forward to
learning what this Committee can do through the reauthorization
process to complement what has and will be instituted. We have
been deliberative up to this point making sure that we are
identifying why this has happened. And I fully intend on
continuing to monitor the program to ensure that there are not
future abuses.
Head Start is a program that is supposed to help our
disadvantaged students by giving them the edge they need to
come to school ready to learn. It is not supposed to be a
program that benefits the executive directors by loading their
pockets and satisfying their whims. The reality is some bad
actors are shedding a bad light on the good programs that exist
nationwide. And for the benefit of the program and all who take
part in it, it is important to institute reform to ensure Head
Start can continue to serve all needy children the way it is
supposed to. It is unfortunate that it has come to this point,
but I am hopeful this will be a catalyst for all of us to work
together on critical reforms to restore the public's faith in
Head Start programs nationwide and to create a strong program
for years to come. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Castle follows:]
Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Delaware
Good Afternoon. I am pleased to welcome all of today's witnesses,
and look forward to hearing your testimony. I would also like to thank
the Chairman for his leadership. I believe strongly in the Head Start
program, and the lifetime benefits it provides to children and their
families. This hearing is an important step in making sure this program
maintains solid footing.
Approximately two-years ago we began to hear deeply concerning
press reports of financial mismanagement in some Head Start programs
across the country. Unfortunately, we have heard of everything from
embezzlement to the leasing of luxury vehicles with Head Start funds. I
was particularly upset to hear of a director who chose to divert funds
from Head Start children in order to operate a restaurant. As Chairman
Boehner and myself heard more and more stories like these we decided to
launch a study into these instances. Specifically, why they were
happening. We wanted to know if children were being short changed, if
these were isolated incidents, if HHS has the tools necessary to catch
them, and how can we fix it. The impetus for asking the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to examine the procedures surrounding program management
is simple--to ensure federal dollars are going to the children
participating in the Head Start program, and not to fund lavish perks
and blatant abuses.
I am not only shocked at the number of reports that have filtered
out from across the country, but the mere fact that they are happening.
While it is true that these incidences represent a small number of Head
Start programs, I truly believe that one is too many. I commend the
thousands of Head Start programs who do not sway from their goals of
providing necessary services to the children and families in their
programs. The fact remains, however, that there is a problem and the
children at faulty programs deserve better.
I don't believe that my job is to point fingers or blame, but do
believe strongly that we have a responsibility to prevent any future
abuses. It is in the interest of the more than 900,000 low-income
children across the country that we identify areas where we can make
sound change in order to strengthen the overall program. The GAO
report, however, is quite clear that there are deficiencies in the
manner HHS has monitored the program throughout the years. You will
hear testimony from the GAO today that despite the numerous processes
in place to monitor financial management, HHS has not utilized this
information to assess overall program risk. Moreover, of the grantees
reviewed by HHS in 2000, 76 percent were out of compliance with
financial management standards and 53 percent of the same grantees
remained out of compliance at their next review.
The disturbing stories presented about Head Start grantees, and
knowledge of the flaws at HHS allow us to move forward in a productive
manner. The GAO report identifies key areas of reform, and Assistant
Secretary Horn will testify as to changes made at HHS to address
management abuses. I am encouraged by the GAO's recommendations, and do
believe they will assist in this effort. I also look forward to
learning what this Committee can do through the reauthorization process
to compliment what has, and will, be instituted. We have been
deliberative up to this point in making sure that we are identifying
why this has happened, and I fully intend on continuing to monitor the
program to ensure there are not future abuses.
Head Start is a program that is supposed to help our disadvantaged
students by giving them the edge they need to come to school ready to
learn; it is not supposed to be a program that benefits the executive
directors by loading their pockets and satisfying their whims. The
reality is some crooked actors are shedding a bad light on the good
programs that exist nationwide and for the benefit of the program and
all who take part in it, it is important to institute reform to ensure
Head Start can continue to serve all needy children the way it is
supposed to. It's unfortunate that it has come to this point, but I am
hopeful this will be a catalyst for all of us to work together on
critical reforms to restore the public's faith in Head Start programs
nationwide and to create a strong program for years to come.
______
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I hope that today is
the beginning of a process that will end up with a Head Start
law with high standards, strong accountability, and more
resources, so that the children who most need help to succeed
in life get that help when they most need it. There is no more
critical program for our Nation's children than Head Start,
because there are no years more critical to their development
than their early years. I am sure we all agree that the vast
majority of Head Start programs provide comprehensive high
quality services that help children make academic and social
gains to close the achievement gap before they enter
kindergarten.
We were able to work last Congress on Title I to improve
Head Start's accountability provisions to ensure high
performance by Head Start programs. Of course, accountability
in the law must be implemented in practice. And so I am pleased
that we are considering this GAO report that calls for improved
accountability through changes to the law and efforts by the
Department of Health and Human Services to identify poorly
performing programs so that we can help them improve, and for
those that cannot or will not improve, force them out, as a
last resort. Because any waste or fraud in Head Start is
unacceptable, I believe that the GAO report will provide with
us an opportunity to work together to make the Head Start
improvements that we need.
But it is important that we understand that this report
does not say--and I have to say this louder than loud--that
fraud and abuse are widespread in Head Start programs, because
it just is not true. There are incidents, yes. But often a Head
Start program simply needs more oversight and technical
assistance to help it do what it is trying do in the first
place, comply with detailed financial management requirements.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we must not allow the report to
distract us from the fact that if we truly are concerned about
getting Head Start dollars to children, we also must look at
this President's and this Congress's minimal increases in
support for the Head Start program.
Those increases have barely kept pace with inflation, if
that, which means that for Head Start programs, programs that
should be getting more resources so that they can serve more
children in the first place, the only way not to cut children
from the roles is to decrease the quality of services. But
again, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be able to work in a very
bipartisan way to reauthorize Head Start and to learn from the
challenges that we met in the 108th Congress, and I look
forward to the panel's discussion today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. We have a distinguished panel with us
today. It is my pleasure to introduce them. Our first witness
today will be Dr. Marnie S. Shaul. Dr. Shaul is the director on
the Education, Workforce and Income Security Team at the
Government Accountability Office. She is responsible for the
studies that GAO undertakes for the Congress on early childhood
programs and elementary and secondary education programs. Dr.
Shaul has had a varied career that includes research, teaching
project management and policy development. And prior to the
Federal Government, she worked for the State of Ohio on
community and business development issues at the Kettering
Foundation. She holds a Ph.D. in economics from the Ohio State
University.
Then we will hear from the Honorable Wade F. Horn. Dr. Horn
is the Assistant Secretary for the Administration For Children
and Families At the Department of Health and Human Services.
Prior to being appointed to the Assistant Secretary, Dr. Horn
was president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, whose
mission is to increase the number of children growing up with
involved committed and responsible fathers. During the first
Bush administration, Mr. Horn served as the Commissioner For
Children, Youth and Families and chief of the Children's Bureau
At the Department of Health and Human Services and as a
Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children
from 1990 to 1993. From 1993 to 2001 Dr. Horn served as an
adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University's public policy
institute and an affiliate scholar with the Hudson institute.
Then we will hear from Ms. Pamela Henry. Ms. Henry is a
proud parent of 4 adopted children, all with special needs, all
of whom participate in the Head Start program. She is a
licensed nail technician and an active member of her community
in Las Vegas, Nevada. She is the president of Foster Parents of
Southern Nevada, a local affiliate for the National Foster
Parents Association, and president of the West Neighborhood
Care Centers.
As a Head Start parent, Ms. Henry served as a center
representative for the Head Start Policy Council of the
Economic Opportunity Board during the 2001/02 school year and
as vice chair and community representative for Foster Parents
from 2002 to 2004. Over the last several years, Ms. Henry
served as policy council chair. She credits Head Start with the
parenting and leadership skills she has developed during her
tenure on the policy council.
And last we will hear from Olivia Golden. Dr. Golden is a
senior fellow at the urban institute and from 2001 to 2004 she
served as the director of the Child and Family Services Agency
of the District of Columbia. During the Clinton administration,
she served in two positions within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, first as Commissioner for Children,
Youth and Families, and then as Assistant Secretary for
children and families.
In these roles she was responsible for over 60 Federal
programs, including Head Start and early Head Start. Dr. Golden
also held previous positions at the Childrens Defense Fund, the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the
Office of Human Services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I am sure someone has explained to you how the lights work
many times. We would like to keep all of your comments to 5
minutes and then Members will ask questions. And with that, Dr.
Shaul we are glad you are here. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARNIE S. SHAUL, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION ISSUES,
EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Shaul. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present the
findings of the report we did for this Committee on financial
oversight of the Head Start program by the Department of Health
and Human Services. As you pointed out, Head Start has provided
services to low income children for 40 years and at about $6.8
billion is the largest Federal investment in early childhood
education and care. So it is important that program management
insures that children receive the services they deserve. My
remarks today focus on three issues: First, risk assessment,
the extent to which the administration for children and
families, the part of the department responsible for Head
Start, connects information to make an assessment of financial
risks. Second, information quality, the quality of the
information in ACF's processes. And third, correcting financial
problems, the effectiveness of ACF's approaches in insuring
that grantees with financial weaknesses correct their problems.
Let me turn first to risk assessment. ACF does not bring the
information it collects together to comprehensively assess the
financial risks the program faces. Now, we have a chart over
here and all those different bubbles represent different
processes that are already in existence at the Agency.
Ms. McCollum. Dr. Shaul, do you have a copy of that chart?
Ms. Shaul. It is in your testimony statements. Both charts
are in the statement. So although there are all these
individual processes and they are collected by the different
offices, that chart is in your statement over there. Those are
the offices. The information is not integrated. And instead,
Head Start sometimes relies on more of an ad hoc approach, ad
hoc responses. For example, it responds to calls made to
regional offices about grantee problems or to questions from
the Congress. This type of response is useful but it cannot
substitute for a comprehensive approach to determining where
Head Start faces the highest risk. Second, regarding
information quality, we found problems with ACF's process, and
again, I am talking about the ones that are in that chart. For
example, different onsite review times have had inconsistent
findings about the status of the same grantee.
Another example. The information provided in ACF's annual
surveys is not verified, and some critical information such as
enrollment has been inaccurately reported by grantees. Third,
with respect to correcting financial problems, we found that
ACF is not fully effective in insuring that grantees correct
their financial problems. As was mentioned, in 2000, 76 percent
of the grantees ACF reviewed onsite were out of compliance with
one or more financial management standards. And since then,
when ACF did a follow-up visit, more than half of these
grantees still were not compliant with financial management
standards. A small percent of Head Start grantees have a level
of noncompliance that ACF determines deficient, a status that
brings corrective action beyond self-certification. However, we
found that ACF regional offices did not use common criteria to
determine deficiency. In our review of 20 grantee files that
contained similar financial problems and where we would have
expected similar results, half were deemed deficient and half
were not.
Finally, when ACF finds that a grantee has very serious and
continuing problems that may impair services to children, its
corrective action may be limited. Over the past decade, a
relatively small percentage of grantees relinquished their
grants or were terminated. ACF generally agreed with GAO's
recommendations to strengthen the tools it uses for financial
management. However ACF disagreed with GAO's interpretation of
its authority to recompete grants. ACF said that it must give
current grantees priority at renewal time which effectively
eliminates its opportunity to replace grantees. We believe that
when grantees reapply for their grant, ACF has an opportunity
to change grantees, if a grantee fails to fulfill program and
financial requirements. For that reason, we suggested that the
Congress might want to consider clarifying the circumstances
under which ACF can recompete a Head Start grant.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would ask my
full statement be placed in the record and I would be pleased
to answer questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shaul follows:]
Statement of Marnie S. Shaul, Ph.D., Director, Education Issues,
Education, Workforce and Income Security, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent report on
oversight of the Head Start program by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to ensure that federal funds are used to achieve
Head Start's goals. Head Start is the federal government's single
largest investment in early childhood education and care for low-income
children. HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF) manages
Head Start and relies on hundreds of different grantees throughout the
country to provide services to more than 900,000 children and their
families. Head Start funding increased three-fold in real terms during
the 1990s. Currently, ACF disburses about $6.8 billion annually to Head
Start grantees. As you can imagine, managing a program of this size,
with this many grantees and beneficiaries, can present many challenges.
The reauthorization of Head Start presents an opportunity to
discuss some of these management challenges. Although Head Start is a
popular program and millions of low income children have benefited from
the program over the past 40 years, it is important to ensure that all
grantees are held accountable for achieving program results and
properly managing their federal funds.
My testimony today will focus on how well ACF manages the financial
risks associated with the Head Start program. Specifically, I will
discuss (1) ACF's processes to assess financial risks, (2) how those
processes can be improved to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
information ACF collects on its Head Start grantees, and (3) the
effectiveness of the approaches ACF uses to make sure Head Start
grantees address any financial management weaknesses in a timely
manner.
My written statement is drawn from our recent report on Head Start
risk management, which was completed for the Committee in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Head Start, Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and
Addressing Risks Could Help Prevent Grantee Financial Management
Weaknesses, GAO-05-176 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary:
ACF does not have a comprehensive risk assessment process
it can use to collect information on how well grantees are performing
and managing their federal grant funds. Such an assessment should be
able to provide ACF with the information it needs to target its
oversight activities, reduce the risks inherent in managing a large
federal grant program, and help prevent grantees from failing
financially, through earlier intervention. While ACF has many processes
it uses to collect information on its grantees, these efforts are
conducted by different organizations within ACF, and ACF does not have
a process in place to systematically bring the information together in
one place to do an assessment of how well the program is operating.
When we looked more closely at ACF's oversight processes,
we identified flaws that limit the quality, accuracy, and reliability
of the information ACF collects on its grantees. For example, ACF does
not have a quality assurance process that could validate the findings
of the reviews it conducts of its grantees at least every 3 years; it
does not verify the accuracy of the data it asks its grantees to submit
on key performance indicators each year; and it does not reconcile a
grantee's actual withdrawals with its reported expenditures until all
of the funds have been spent. These flaws limit the information ACF has
on Head Start grantee's financial status and operations and, as a
result, many program specialists in ACF regional offices that we
visited told us they most frequently learn that a grantee is having
trouble through a call from a parent or teacher reporting a problem.
Program specialists said that such calls were a routine part of their
day-to-day monitoring activities. Over-reliance on this approach to
identifying problems can result in missed opportunities to help
grantees address management challenges before they become problems. As
a result, unchecked problems may worsen. Although infrequent, there
have been cases in which grantees have furloughed employees or
temporarily closed centers--thereby disrupting services to children and
their families--because they spent their grant funds too quickly and
did not adequately manage their grants to ensure that there would be
funds available throughout the school year.
When ACF identified grantees with financial management
problems, we found that it took limited actions to ensure that grantees
quickly corrected their problems and made lasting changes to their
programs so the problems would not surface again. This is a concern
because ACF's data show that more than 76 percent of Head Start
programs that were reviewed in 2000 were out of compliance with
financial management standards, and more than half of these grantees
were still out of compliance during their next review. When we looked
at the approach ACF takes to ensure that grantees correct their
problems, we found that ACF most frequently relies on grantees to self-
certify that they have corrected their problems without ever visiting
the grantees for verification. One of the more aggressive approaches
ACF can take to address long-standing problems is to require the
grantee to develop and implement a quality improvement plan, but first
ACF must declare the grantee ``deficient''--a term it uses to identify
grantees with severe problems. Yet, we noted inconsistencies in the
process used by the ACF regional offices to determine the severity of
the problem. As a result, one grantee could be deemed deficient while
another, with similar problems, would not. We also found that ACF makes
limited use of its authority to terminate its relationship with poorly
performing grantees. ACF does not seek competition for a grant until
after the current grantee has exhausted all its appeals or it has
convinced a poorly performing grantee to voluntarily relinquish its
grant. The process to remove a grantee that fails to perform up to
standards is protracted, and that grantee can continue to receive funds
long after financial management weaknesses have been identified. In the
meantime, the community has no other option for Head Start services and
low-income children may not receive the quality or intensity of
services that they need.
We made a number of recommendations in our report and ACF agreed to
implement many of them. Implementing these recommendations will go a
long way towards ensuring that those responsible for overseeing the
Head Start program and its 1,680 grantees have the information they
need to target oversight resources effectively and reduce the program's
risks. More importantly, however, these improvements should help ACF
prevent grantee financial management weaknesses before the problems
become too severe. We also recommended that ACF make greater use of its
authority to seek competition by taking steps to seek qualified
applicants where the current grantee fails to meet program
requirements. While such a step should be taken after carefully
considering all available options, competition would help to ensure
that children are no longer served by poorly performing grantees.
Ultimately, enforcing all the program's requirements--especially
financial management requirements--strengthens the federal commitment
to poor children and their families by effectively managing scarce
federal resources and making sure as many eligible families as possible
can participate in the program.
Background
Begun in 1965 as part of the Johnson Administration's War on
Poverty, Head Start offers poor children and their families a range of
services, including preschool education, family support, health
screenings, dental care, and assistance in accessing medical services.
The program may either provide the services directly or facilitate
access to existing services. Eligibility for Head Start is generally
limited to children who are below the age of school entry and from
families with incomes below the federal poverty level or receiving cash
assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. To
accomplish Head Start's goals for these poor children and families, the
Congress last year provided $6.8 billion in federal funds, which HHS
awards directly to nearly 1,700 grantees nationwide. As funding for
this longstanding program has grown, so has the risk associated with
any mismanagement of program funds.
While effective oversight of federal funds is always a guiding
principle in managing the various federal government programs,
accounting scandals in the private sector in 2001-2002 reinforced the
need for organizations to have stronger financial oversight. Since that
time, both public sector and private sector organizations--including
many not-for-profit organizations--are paying closer attention to
managing the risks in their operations. Indeed, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) recently revised its guidance for federal
agencies' financial managers to better integrate and coordinate their
risk assessments and other management activities.
The primary goal in managing any federal program is to provide
reasonable assurance that the program is operating as intended and is
achieving expected outcomes. A key step in the process of providing
this assurance is conducting a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a
comprehensive review and analysis of program operations, especially the
management of federal funds, to identify risks and to measure the
potential or actual impact of those risks on program operations. The
potential for such risks exist in all federal grant programs; for
example, the diversion of funds to other purposes, inefficient use of
funds, failure to contribute the grantee's share of funds, or other
problems that reduce the effectiveness with which financial resources
are brought to bear on achieving program goals. When a federal program
relies heavily on grantees to provide services, as the Head Start
program does, the risk assessment process can become more complex.
Processes must be developed to assess the operations of every grantee
to ensure that each complies with program rules and to measure whether
each achieves expected results.
The federal government makes Head Start grants directly to nearly
1,700 local organizations, including community action agencies, school
systems, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, other government
agencies, and tribal governments or associations. Many of these
grantees operate other federal, state, or local programs in addition to
the Head Start program. Many of these Head Start grantees also provide
services by subcontracting with other organizations, known as delegate
agencies. In 2003, there were about 800 delegates providing services in
the Head Start program. Some grantees had multiple delegate agencies
while others had none. The various layers of grantees, the
administrative complexity of the program, and the interrelationship
between programs operated by the same grantee add to the challenges of
overseeing the Head Start program.
ACF uses a number of processes to collect information on grantee
performance and financial management. Table 1 summarizes ACF key
processes for monitoring Head Start grantees.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0472.001
Various offices within ACF have roles in developing and
implementing processes to monitor grantee performance and financial
management. (See fig. 1). The Head Start Bureau develops program
policies and designs the program-specific oversight processes to
collect information on grantee performance. Staff from the ten regional
offices implement the policies developed by the other offices within
ACF, ensure that all grantees are in compliance with program rules, and
frequently develop additional policies to aid in their oversight
responsibilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0472.002
ACF Lacks a Comprehensive Strategy to Assess Head Start Risks
ACF uses many processes to collect information on grantee
performance and financial management but does not bring together this
information to comprehensively assess the program's risks or identify
areas where it might need new or improved processes to collect
information. Staff in ACF regional offices maintain day-to-day contact
with the Head Start grantees and monitor the operations of those
grantees throughout the country. Many of those regional office staff
told us that they most frequently learn if a grantee is having a
problem through a call from a parent or a teacher. The staff in the
regional offices said these calls are a routine part of their day-to-
day monitoring activities. Over-reliance on this approach can result in
missed opportunities to help grantees address management challenges
before they become problems. Greater linkages among the various
programs offices and oversight activities could produce a more
comprehensive approach to assessing program risks and help prevent
financial management weaknesses in Head Start grantees. (See fig. 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0472.003
In our review of ACF's management of the Head Start program, we
noted a number of on-going activities that were not well-integrated and
did not present a comprehensive view of the program's risks. For
example, Head Start's 2004 Management Initiative targeted risks that
were identified in recent GAO reports, news articles, and congressional
inquiries. The Initiative targeted well-known problems such as
underenrollment, overenrollment of children from families that did not
meet income eligibility requirements, and excessive executive
compensation at some Head Start programs. However, efforts to address
broader concerns about program governance--the skills and knowledge of
local Head Start governing boards to effectively manage their
programs--were notably absent from the Initiative.
In another example of an ACF oversight process that is too limited
in scope, we reported that before 2004 ACF had not collected
information it could use to estimate the extent of improper payments
made by grantees or the Head Start Bureau. But when ACF began to
collect this information, the agency focused on just one type of
improper payments to grantees--payments made to grantees that enrolled
too many children from families that did not meet the program's income
eligibility requirements. These improper payments pose a program risk
because eligible children may not have access to services. While this
effort is an important step in systematically assessing risks, the
study overlooked many other possible forms of improper payments, such
as those made to contractors, to grantees that are significantly
underenrolled, or for unallowable program activities.
Finally, we noted in our report that ACF relies on its regional
offices to assess their own operations for gaps that might pose risks
to all ACF programs, including Head Start. Such gaps might include
failure to follow ACF grant management policies or to maintain files on
property acquired or renovated with Head Start funds. Self-assessments
can be an important tool, but ACF had not recently conducted an
independent compliance review to ensure that its own grant policies are
enforced and that the federal government's financial interests are
protected.
Processes ACF Uses to Collect and Analyze Information on Grantees are
Flawed
We found that the main processes ACF uses to collect information on
its grantees' financial management--on-site reviews, annual grantee
surveys, and analyses of financial reports and audits--have flaws that
limit the value of the information collected. The on-site review
process, mandated by the Head Start Act and often known as PRISM--the
name of the review protocol--is ACF's main tool to assess whether
grantees are in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
While the Head Start Bureau has made progress in improving its on-site
reviews, we found that problems remain. We found that the Bureau has no
process to ensure that the teams of reviewers follow the Bureau's
guidance. This is a concern because there is evidence that some PRISM
reviewers might not follow the guidance for the on-site reviews. For
example, comparisons of simultaneous on-site reviews of the same
grantees by two different teams--a PRISM review team and an improper
payments study team--revealed significant discrepancies. Notably, 21 of
the 50 grantees in the improper payments study were cited for enrolling
too many children that did not meet the income eligibility guidelines,
but the PRISM review teams cited only 3 of those same grantees for
failing to comply with income eligibility criteria.
The effectiveness of on-site reviews to systematically identify
grantees with financial management weaknesses depends on some assurance
that the on-site review is implemented as designed and that the
reviewers have the necessary skills to assess grantees' compliance with
Head Start performance standards. The review teams are lead by staff
from ACF's regional offices and include a number of reviewers under
contract with Head Start. Many of these contractors are employees of
Head Start programs throughout the country. While this level of
experience should indicate a familiarity with Head Start program
requirements, ACF does not check reviewer credentials or test their
knowledge of the rules before they are sent to conduct reviews. ACF
seeks feedback, on a voluntary basis, on the contractors' performance
but ACF's Director of Regional Operations expressed reluctance to
solicit feedback on the team leaders' performance.
ACF also uses an annual survey of its grantees to collect
information on the status of their programs to measure results, but ACF
does not verify the information collected. We reported last year that
important information, such as enrollment in many Head Start programs,
is often reported inaccurately. Also, our analysis raises concerns
about the reliability of the survey data. ACF relies on 700 checks of
internal consistency to ensure that data are reported accurately. Many
ACF officials said that the checks make it difficult for grantees to
provide inaccurate information. However, our own review of the internal
consistency of the data found problems; as long as grantees complete
the survey consistently, the data--whether accurate or not--would pass
the tests. While ACF officials said they would be able to address the
problems we identified in our analysis, because the data are used
widely by policymakers and the public to assess the program's results,
until ACF takes steps to ensure the accuracy of the database we urge
caution in using data from the survey to monitor Head Start grantees.
All Head Start grantees report on the status of their funds through
periodic financial reporting and annual audits of their financial
statements. We found that ACF made limited use of the information
collected through these two processes to analyze Head Start grantees'
financial status. For example, ACF does not routinely reconcile a
grantee's withdrawals with its reported expenditures until after the
funds have all been spent. It is therefore difficult for ACF to
identify grantees that might be drawing down excess funds at the
beginning of the grant period and risking shortfalls at the end of the
period. Regarding audits, all grantees must obtain an annual audit of
their financial statements and compliance with selected federal laws
and regulations. These audits are conducted under a framework mandated
by the Single Audit Act. While these audits may not be as comprehensive
as an on-site program review, they are designed to ensure that federal
grantees' financial statements are accurate, that they have adequate
checks and balances in place to protect federal funds, and that they
are in compliance with key regulations. However, ACF officials cited
limitations in the scope and timing of the audits for failing to use
them more systematically in their day-to-day oversight activities. In
focusing on the limitations of these audits, ACF officials may overlook
some valuable information on grantees' financial management practices.
ACF Does Not Ensure that Grantees Effectively Resolve Financial
Management Problems
One way to assess the effectiveness of the approaches ACF uses to
address grantees' financial management weaknesses is to examine whether
grantees resolve their problems and then stay in compliance. ACF's data
from its on-site reviews from 2000-2003 show that many grantees that
were cited for failing to comply with financial management requirements
in one review still had problems in their next review.\2\ Our analysis
of the data shows that more than half of the grantees cited for failure
to comply with financial management-related rules were out of
compliance again with one or more financial management standards during
their next review. (See fig. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The data base for on-site reviews, PRISM, contains both
grantees and grantees with any delegate agencies reviewed. The data
presented in this section contains both types of entities. When we
analyzed the grantees separately, we obtained the same results about
percentages of grantees that were non-compliant and had recurrent
problems in their next review.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0472.004
Moreover, the number of areas of financial management in which
grantees were noncompliant did not decrease with subsequent reviews. As
figure 4 shows, of the 70 grantees cited in 2000 for problems in all
three major areas of financial management--fiscal management, program
governance, and record keeping/reporting--69 still had one or more
problems in each area at the next review.
The repeat problems could be a result of failure to correct the
problems in the first place--something that might have been identified
with a follow up review--or an initial correction that did not take
hold. One senior official in a regional office said that many Head
Start grantees will fix a problem identified in the PRISM report in the
short term but fail to make lasting changes to their financial
management systems. For example, a grantee might try to meet financial
reporting deadlines for a few months after being cited by a PRISM
review team for missing deadlines, but if the grantee did not implement
a system to ensure that these reports are consistently on time, the
improved performance may not be sustained
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0472.005
When grantee problems are identified through on-site reviews or
audits, ACF often relies largely on grantees' self-certification that
they have corrected problems rather than imposing special conditions or
conducting a site visit. While self-certification may be appropriate in
cases when minor problems can be corrected quickly, the analysis in
figure 4 suggests that many grantees with problems are not getting the
help they need to correct their problems and make lasting improvements
in their financial management capabilities. We reviewed the files of 34
grantees with financial management problems identified by ACF during
its on-site reviews. In 18 cases, ACF determined that the grantees'
problems were not severe enough to be deemed deficient--a term ACF uses
to identify grantees with severe problems. Of those 18 grantees ACF
required 16 to submit letters certifying that they had corrected the
problems and no further action was pursued. In the other 2 cases, ACF
returned to the review the grantees and found that they had not
corrected their problems. It was not clear from our file review how ACF
prioritized these 2 grantees for follow-up, but in revisiting these
grantees ACF took an aggressive step to ensure compliance. Because the
two grantees had not corrected their problems, as required by law, ACF
deemed them deficient and required them to develop a quality
improvement plan.
ACF also relies primarily on self-certification to resolve problems
identified in grantees annual audits. In each of the 30 audits we
tracked from the date the auditor completed a report identifying
financial weaknesses until the regional office judged the audit
findings resolved, that judgment was based on a letter from the grantee
rather than a site visit or other follow-up. Regional staff said they
relied on subsequent audits to ensure that such findings are resolved,
but we found it frequently takes up to 2 years from the point an audit
identifies a problem until the regional office receives the next audit,
during which the grantee continues to receive federal funds. While the
results of our review in four regional offices may not represent the
range of actions taken by all ACF regional offices nationwide, we
interviewed managers in other regional offices who generally described
similar procedures.
To the extent that grantees have recurring financial management
problems, more aggressive approaches might be appropriate. ACF has the
authority to impose special award conditions--such as requiring
grantees to seek approval for every withdrawal of grant funds--but ACF
rarely imposes these conditions. ACF can also make a follow-on visit to
ensure that the grantee has implemented corrective actions and is in
compliance with the program's rules. The Head Start Act requires ACF to
conduct follow-on visits when it determines that a grantee has such
severe problems that it deems the grantee deficient; ACF can also
return to grantees with less severe problems, but we found ACF rarely
does so. We could not discern an objective rationale for when ACF
regional offices decide that a grantee is deficient and when they do
not. For example, reports based on the on-site reviews for 20 of the
grantees we reviewed showed similar problems in the quantity of
violations and the severity of the problems cited, but the regional
offices deemed only 10 of the grantees deficient. Regional office staff
and their managers in the offices we visited said they meet to discuss
any problems identified during the on-site review to determine whether
to deem the grantee deficient, but they said they treat each case
differently and largely base their determinations on their previous
experiences with the grantee.
The most aggressive approach ACF can take to ensure that a
community is served by a Head Start grantee with sound financial
management is to seek a new grantee if the current grantee cannot
perform as expected. However, we found that ACF rarely terminates its
relationships with poorly-performing grantees. Instead, ACF said that,
in lieu of terminating a poorly performing grantee, it will try to
convince such a grantee to voluntarily relinquish its right to its
grant. When ACF does undertake the protracted process of terminating
its relationship with a grantee, the grantee will continue to receive
funding even if it appeals ACF's decision--regardless of the appeal's
merits. Under ACF's current regulations, it must also fund a grantee's
legal costs until the grantee has exhausted its appeals before HHS'
Departmental Appeals Board. According to an Administrative Judge on the
Appeals Board, no other HHS grant program except Head Start allows
grantees to continue receiving funding throughout the appeals process.
When ACF decides to award a grant, the Head Start Act requires that
ACF give priority to grantees already operating a Head Start program in
the community. This aspect of the law provides important continuity for
Head Start services in a community. It also provides important
stability for grantees. However, the act allows the Secretary to deny
priority to any grantee the Secretary finds fails to meet the program's
performance or financial management requirements. Denial of priority
status to current Head Start grantees would open up the possibility of
competition for the grant among other qualified applicants. ACF could
seek a new grantee that can demonstrate the ability to manage federal
funds responsibly, in accordance with program rules, and that can
provide high-quality Head Start services to eligible children in the
community. Obviously, denying priority status to a grantee that has
been a part of a community for years, has educated multiple generations
of children from that community, and has employed a number of staff
from the community is a major step that should be taken after carefully
considering all available options. But, denial of priority status is a
step that ACF should take if a grantee fails to make the necessary
changes to effectively manage its program. Ultimately, enforcing all
the program's requirements--especially financial management
requirements--is really about strengthening our commitment to future
generations of children, seeking better ways of managing scarce federal
resources, and making sure that we reach as many eligible families as
possible.
We made 8 recommendations in our report to improve the overall
management of the Head Start program, strengthen the tools ACF uses to
collect useful information on its grantees, and improve ACF's analysis
of the information it collects. Specifically we recommended that the
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families:
Produce a comprehensive risk assessment of the Head Start
program and update it periodically. Such an assessment should:
Consider plans to collect data on and estimate the extent
of improper payments made for unallowable activities, payments to
grantees that are significantly underenrolled, or other unauthorized
activities,
Aim to improve the processes ACF currently uses to
collect and analyze information on program risks; for example, ACF
should:
Train and/or certify its on-site reviewers to ensure
they have the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their
responsibilities,
Develop an objective approach for regional office
management to use in assessing the severity of the problems
identified during on-site reviews and for finding grantees
deficient or not, and
Implement a quality assurance process to ensure that
the framework for conducting on-site reviews is implemented as
designed, including holding ACF's regional management
accountable for following this framework and for the quality of
the reviews.
Verify key data from the annual survey of grantees to
enhance the usefulness of this data in overseeing its grantees and
managing the program, and
Seek ways to make greater use of the data it collects on
the status and use of federal funds through a periodic reconciliation
of grantees' reported expenditures with their withdrawals.
Take steps to obtain competition for a grant if ACF has
determined that the current grantee fails to meet program, financial
management, or other requirements. Such a competition could be held
without giving priority to the current grantee.
ACF agreed to implement most of our recommendations. However, ACF
expressed concerns about our last recommendation, suggesting that it
did not have the authority to seek competition from other qualified
applicants for grant funds in communities that are currently served by
poorly performing grantees without first terminating its relationship
with such grantees. Seeking other qualified applicants under these
circumstances would strengthen the linkages between a program's
performance--including financial management--and its funding. Congress
may wish to seek other qualified applicants and clarify the extent of
ACF's authority to deny priority status to grantees it determines fail
to meet program, financial management, and other requirements.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. At this time, I
would be happy to take any questions you or other Committee Members may
have.
______
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF HON. WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the recent report of the Government
Accountability Office Head Start. The President is committed to
strengthening Head Start and has made accountability a guiding
principle of our work. And I can assure you that we have--we
take GAO's findings very seriously. For nearly 2 years, we have
been actively and aggressively engaged in addressing many of
the weaknesses cited in this report. Other suggestions in the
report will help us plan and implement additional strategies
for enhancing the quality and credibility of our oversight of
the Head Start program in order to ensure that all Head Start
children receive the Head Start they deserve. The Head Start
program is now in its 40th year and is a nearly $7 billion a
year program serving more than 900,000 low income children and
families, through a network of 1,600 local grantees.
Head Start children are served in nearly 50,000 classrooms
located within more than 20,000 centers, which are located in
more than 3,000 counties nationwide. Head Start is, in short,
the program that has wide ranging presence and influence. It
ought to be absolutely the best early childhood education
program we can design. As stewards of this program, we are
committed to making that goal a reality. I will focus my
testimony today on our ongoing efforts as well as some of our
planned initiatives to improve program oversight and
stewardship.
As discussed in the GAO report, we have several ongoing
procedures to examine program compliance and to measure
results. Key among these is the mandated triennial onsite
monitoring of local programs. Monitoring is one of our best
opportunities ensure that every Head Start program is
accountable to all applicable statutes and regulations. In the
last several months, inconsistent with many of the GAO's
observations and recommendations, we have implemented several
efforts to improve our oversight of local Head Start programs.
First, we have established for the first time minimum
qualifications for all reviewers in the area they are
reviewing. Establishing these minimum qualifications helps
insure that all individuals on a monitoring review team have
the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to be part of a
quality review.
Second, December of last year and February of this year, we
provided intensive multi-day training for more than 1,000
reviewers in the areas of fiscal program management and early
childhood development. Additional training will be conducted
later this year for reviewers in the fields of health and
nutrition services, mental health services and family and
community partnerships.
Third, we will soon be implementing a quality assurance
initiative in which specially trained reviewers will lead teams
to conduct reviews of a sample of recently monitored grantees.
We believe this effort will substantially address GAO's concern
about consistency among reviewers and across ACF regional
offices.
Fourth, we have been conducting in-depth analysis of all
triennial and first year monitoring reports to improve report
quality, comprehensiveness, accuracy and uniformity within and
across the regional offices.
Fifth, ACF substantially revised the fiscal checklists used
during all fiscal reviews to incorporate a risk-based
assessment approach. This will allow us to identify fiscal
issues which may suggest underlying fiscal problems.
Sixth, ACF is requiring the program review instrument for
systems monitoring, or PRISM review teams to closely examine
several special areas that were not as carefully or
consistently considered in the past, including transportation
services, condition in Federal interest and facilities,
salaries and staff compensation, maintenance of full enrollment
and income eligibility.
And finally, this year, ACF began emphasizing to grantees
that conducting quality comprehensive program self assessments
are critical to insuring the delivery of high quality services
to children and families. I hope this information has provided
a clear picture of our continued and more aggressive commitment
to improving program oversight and monitoring. We also look
forward to working with the Congress in the upcoming discussion
of Head Start reauthorization to explore statutory changes that
can enhance the secretary's flexibility to replace poorly
performing grantees.
In conclusion, I want to assure this Committee that the
President, the Department, and the Administration on Children
and Families are committed to strengthening the quality of Head
Start. We acknowledge that we can and must do better. I feel
confident that working together we will achieve that goal.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary, Administration for
Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC
Chairman Boehner and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the recent
report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on ``Head Start:
Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and Addressing Risks Could Help
Prevent Grantee Financial Management Weaknesses''. The President is
committed to strengthening the quality of Head Start to improve the
school readiness of low-income preschool children and has made
accountability a guiding principle of our work. Within this context, I
can assure you that we take GAO's findings very seriously and for
nearly two years we have been actively and aggressively engaged in
addressing the weaknesses cited in the report.
The Head Start program is now in its 40th year. It is a nearly $7
billion program, serving more than 900,000 low-income children and
families through a network of 1,600 local grantees. There are 212,000
staff employed in Head Start programs and more than 1.3 million persons
volunteer in local programs. Head Start children are served in nearly
50,000 classrooms located within more than 20,000 centers, which are
located in more than 3,000 counties nation-wide. Head Start is, in
short, a program that has wide ranging presence and influence. It ought
to be absolutely the best early childhood education program we can
design. As stewards of this program, we are committed to making that
goal a reality.
I will focus my testimony today on our ongoing efforts, as well as
some of our planned efforts, to improve program oversight and
stewardship. Several of GAO's findings mirror weaknesses we previously
identified and are actively working to resolve. Other suggestions in
the report will help us plan and implement additional strategies for
enhancing the quality and the credibility of the Head Start monitoring
system in order to ensure that all Head Start children receive the head
start they deserve.
Head Start Monitoring
As discussed in the GAO report, we have several ongoing procedures
to examine program compliance and to measure results. Key among these
is the mandated, triennial, on-site monitoring of local programs. Under
the Head Start Act, each grantee must be monitored at the end of the
first year of operation and intensely at least once every three years
thereafter. These reviews are conducted by consultants with
professional expertise in their assigned area, under the direction of a
federal team leader. Most teams are composed of approximately six to
eight reviewers; additional reviewers may be assigned to review larger
or more complex programs.
Written reports containing findings from these reviews are provided
to each grantee and corrective action must be implemented by the
grantee. Programs identified as deficient must correct all deficiencies
within a prescribed period of time or we must seek to terminate the
grantee's authority to operate that Head Start program.
In fiscal year 2004, the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) conducted triennial reviews of 570 programs. Eighty-nine of these
programs were identified as deficient. Each was issued a report by ACF
mandating correction of their deficiencies within a specified time
period, not to exceed one year. Any of these 89 grantees that do not
correct their deficiencies must have their grant terminated. In fiscal
year 2004, ACF replaced 20 grantees with unresolved fiscal and quality
issues.
Monitoring is one of our best opportunities to measure the quality
of Head Start programs. As federal stewards, we must use our monitoring
procedures to assure we are holding every Head Start program
accountable to all applicable statutes and regulations.
In the last several months, and consistent with many of the GAO's
observations and recommendations, ACF has implemented several efforts
to improve our monitoring.
First, we have established for the first time minimum
qualifications for all reviewers in the area they are reviewing. For
example, a reviewer wanting to do fiscal reviews must have a minimum of
a bachelor's degree with at least 12 credits in accounting, with a
preference for a degree in accounting. Establishing these minimum
qualifications helps assure that all individuals on a monitoring review
team have the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to be part of
a quality review. Reviewers not meeting these qualifications can no
longer participate in Head Start reviews. Qualified individuals must be
annually certified and meet our minimum requirements. Additional
individuals will be recruited, trained, mentored, and added to the
reviewer pool.
Second, we have implemented a formal assessment process in which
the federal team leaders and reviewers assess the performance of their
team members. These assessments are conducted after every review.
Assessment scores and comments are tracked for individuals over
multiple reviews. Reviewers with identified patterns of ``poor
performance'' are removed from the Head Start reviewer pool.
Third, in February and December 2004 we provided intensive, multi-
day training for more than one thousand reviewers in the areas of
fiscal, program management, and early childhood development. We also
have provided and are continuing to provide professional development
for federal team leaders and federal grants staff. Training for team
members provides a very clear understanding of the nature of their
responsibilities as part of a monitoring team, and the important roles
they play in helping to assure a quality Head Start experience for
every child and family.
Additional training will be conducted later this year for reviewers
in the fields of health and nutrition services, disabilities services,
mental health services, and family and community partnerships. We feel
confident that these three changes will go a long way in helping us
assure that only qualified, skilled reviewers perform the vital role of
evaluating the comprehensiveness, local management, and quality of our
Head Start programs.
Soon we will implement a quality assurance initiative in which
specially trained reviewers will lead teams to conduct re-reviews of a
sample of recently monitored grantees. We believe this effort will
substantially address GAO's concern about consistency among reviewers
and across ACF regional offices. The re-review teams will go on-site to
grantees that have been monitored within the previous few months. A
second, complete monitoring review will take place and the results will
be evaluated by the Head Start Bureau. This will allow us to make
better-informed professional judgments about the reliability of our
current monitoring teams, including individual reviewers and federal
team leaders. We believe this approach also will allow us to achieve
more complete, more accurate, and more consistent monitoring outcomes.
In addition, we are conducting in-depth analyses of all triennial
and first year monitoring reports. The results of these analyses are
provided to regional administrators for regional quality assurance and
staff training. The Head Start Bureau has created a two-part strategy
to improve report quality, comprehensiveness, accuracy and uniformity
within and across regions. First, draft deficiency reports are analyzed
and reviewed for accuracy by the Head Start Bureau prior to release to
grantees, with the results and recommendations of these analyses sent
to the regional administrators. In the second part of this strategy the
Head Start Bureau has established standards for all other letters and
reports related to grantee monitoring.
Additionally, ACF is continuing our emphasis on improving each
grantee's fiscal viability. For example, the Fiscal Checklist, now used
by all fiscal reviewers, was substantially revised in fiscal year 2005
to use a ``risk-based'' assessment approach in alignment with GAO's
recommendation. The Fiscal Checklist includes a set of very specific,
prioritized indicators, or ``red flags'', designed to identify fiscal
issues which may suggest underlying fiscal problems. These indicators
focus on those areas or irregularities which are most likely to have
the greatest adverse impact on the fiscal accountability of the
grantee. Grantees whose indicators suggest current or possible future
problems will be subject to a more detailed review of their fiscal
systems and records to determine if there are indeed problems that
impact the grantee's fiscal operations and management.
Further, ACF is requiring the Program Review Instrument for Systems
Monitoring (PRISM) review teams to closely examine several specific
areas that were not as carefully or consistently considered in the
past. These include transportation services, condition and federal
interest in facilities, salaries and staff compensation, maintenance of
full enrollment, and income eligibility.
Also, in fiscal year 2005, ACF is emphasizing the conduct of
required grantee self-assessments. Grantees have been reminded that
conducting quality, comprehensive program self-assessments are critical
to ensuring the delivery of high-quality services to children and
families. Grantees must conduct accurate, comprehensive self-
assessments building on information from the triennial federal
monitoring review to further program improvement, regularly identify
issues, correct problems, and improve services.
GAO Recommendations
I hope this information has provided a clear picture of our
continued and more aggressive commitment to improving program
monitoring. This is a goal we have undertaken in earnest over the past
year. The GAO report synthesized many of the concerns we have had
regarding program weaknesses. This report affirms that we are on the
right track in strengthening our oversight and accountability efforts.
While my initial remarks today have provided some insight into our
responses to the GAO recommendations, I would like to take this
opportunity to briefly and specifically walk through each of the
recommendations in their report and our response.
I. (a) ACF should develop a strategy to produce a comprehensive
risk assessment of the Head Start program which would provide
reasonable assurance that a Head Start grantee's finances are
reasonably sound and that program objectives are being met.
We fully support the recommendation to develop a ``comprehensive
risk assessment'' of the Head Start program. We are looking to both the
HHS Office of Inspector General's Risk Assessment Protocol as well as
tools used by GAO that have been adopted by other agencies in ACF in
our efforts to develop this comprehensive risk assessment.
Over the next few months, we will continue developing an approach
that will allow us to identify, early on, grantees that have issues
that could suggest potential fiscal or programmatic problems. Beginning
with the indicators in the fiscal checklist, we will identify the
factors we should use in determining a grantee's fiscal and
programmatic accountability. We then will identify the data source or
sources we will use to consistently collect information about each of
the factors. Finally, we will determine the relative risks associated
with each of these factors and develop a rating system that tells us
when a grantee is at risk of heading down a path to larger fiscal or
programmatic problems. We believe that such a system will enable us to
identify at risk grantees while there is still time to work with them
and implement appropriate change.
1. (b) ACF should collect data on improper payments made by Head
Start grantees.
ACF will assure that grantees are held accountable for improper
payments made with Head Start grant funds. For example, this year
monitoring teams will be looking more carefully and more systematically
at the way grantees expend all of their Head Start funds. Also, we are
continuing our strong focus on improper payments begun last year by
visiting 50 randomly chosen grantees to review grantees' enrollment
files and determine whether they are serving only children who are
eligible for Head Start.
As an additional strategy for examining improper payments, we have
begun rigorously enforcing the new requirement enacted by Congress to
cap the compensation of Head Start staff. We will move to disallow
costs expended by a Head Start grantee when they are in violation of
this cap. Further, we will continue our efforts to assure all grantees
are serving the full number of children for which they have been funded
by holding grantees accountable for upholding all terms and conditions
of their grant award. Grantees failing to do so will see their funding
levels reduced.
II. ACF should train and certify all PRISM reviewers.
As I discussed earlier, over the last several months, we provided
PRISM training to federal team leaders and to fiscal, program design
and management, and early childhood consultants. ACF has and will
continue to schedule additional training events for consultants in
other areas of expertise to ensure that all reviewers have appropriate
training. ACF agrees with GAO that reviewer training needs to be
provided regularly and designed to assure reviewers have the knowledge
and appropriate understanding of their roles in assisting ACF in
determining the management and quality of our Head Start programs.
III. ACF should develop an approach to assess the results of PRISM
reviews and ensure consistency among Regional Offices.
ACF's Head Start Bureau is continuing an effort begun last year in
which all monitoring reports to be issued by the regional offices are
reviewed and critiqued, providing feedback to the regions about the
quality, comprehensiveness and accuracy of these reports and related
letters to grantees. We also are analysing data from monitoring
findings and discussing areas of inconsistency within and across our
regional offices. When regional data indicate inconsistencies in the
number and types of problems found in Head Start grantees, we are
working more closely with those regional offices to uncover the reasons
for the inconsistencies and be certain they do not reoccur.
As mentioned earlier, in fiscal year 2005, ACF will be implementing
a quality assurance system in which a selected number of programs will
be ``re-reviewed'' a few months after their regularly scheduled PRISM
review. This is another method that will help us achieve greater
consistency across regions and among reviewers. Further, ACF is
supportive of legislative change that can provide the Administration
increased flexibility to use the best team leaders available for a
particular review by not requiring every team leader to be a federal
employee.
We want to acknowledge our agreement with the GAO, that for too
many years we have relied too heavily on a grantee's self-certification
that serious non-compliances have been corrected. There may be some
situations in which such certifications are sufficient; however,
reliance on this practice for ensuring grantee corrective action must
be dramatically reduced. Therefore, ACF is significantly increasing the
use of on-site visits to verify corrective actions. These site visits
will focus on whether the grantee has made systemic, sustainable
changes to reduce the possibility of repeating problems in the future.
This approach also will help regional offices more consistently assess
a grantee's success in correcting identified problems in both the short
and the long term.
IV. (a) ACF should implement a quality assurance system to assure
on-site reviews are being conducted as intended to provide ACF with
objective and accurate data about grantees.
As noted above, in fiscal year 2005, ACF will be implementing a
quality assurance system designed to enhance consistency and quality
among both regional offices and reviewers. Specially trained review
teams made up of some of the best reviewers in the country will visit
grantees that have been monitored within the last few months. A
complete monitoring review will take place; the results of which will
be shared with the responsible ACF regional office. This process will
allow us to make more informed, professional judgments about the
reliability of our current monitoring teams; including individual
reviewers and federal team leaders. We believe this approach will help
enhance the process of achieving more complete, more accurate, and more
consistent monitoring outcomes.
4. (b) ACF should assure the accuracy of its data collection forms.
ACF and others rely upon the annual Program Information Report
(PIR) and other data. We will, therefore, continue to explore ways to
increase the accuracy of the PIR and other data sources. We will, for
example, initiate an effort this year in which we will visit randomly
selected Head Start programs to conduct a validation study of the data
reported on the PIR. We also initiated procedures to assure that the
information grantees report on their required salary comparability
studies is accurate and current. In addition, Head Start staff
currently is working with ACF information technology staff to develop a
single, integrated database that will contain all the current Head
Start data sources. This integrated database will allow us to take a
comprehensive approach to examining the management, fiscal and
programmatic status of Head Start grantees.
V. ACF should make greater use of information currently available
to regional offices to more quickly identify potential risks.
ACF will make more complete use of all data sources available to us
to assure we are able to identify risks as quickly as possible. Central
and regional offices will jointly develop specific protocols to assure
that we are making full and timely use of the fiscal and other data
available.
VI. ACF should recompete Head Start grants when the current
recipient has not met its obligations in the areas of program or
financial management.
ACF is looking forward to working with the Congress in the upcoming
discussions on Head Start reauthorization to explore changes to the Act
that can enhance the Secretary's flexibility to replace poorly
performing grantees. Without such statutory changes, we do not believe
we can implement GAO's proposed recommendation in this area. It is our
position that, because of current statutory language there can be
lengthy delays before we can replace the grantee in charge of Head
Start operations in that community.
More specifically, we would like to work with this Committee to
amend language in the current Head Start Act which provides current
grantees with priority consideration for funding and which requires
grantees to be given a hearing before being replaced, no matter how
poor their operations and performance may be. We believe the current
system makes it unnecessarily time consuming and difficult to remove
grantees which are not responsibly delivering comprehensive, quality
services. Like GAO, we are particularly dismayed by the increasing
number of grantees with recurring problems that fail to correct or only
temporarily correct areas of non-compliance and deficiencies. We look
forward to working with Congress to give HHS the ability to quickly
remove poor performing grantees so that we are providing the best
quality services possible to Head Start children.
Additional Program Improvement Efforts
I would like to close my remarks by sharing with this Committee
several other efforts the Administration is engaged in designed to
improve grantee quality and accountability. Foremost among these is
working with this Committee and this Congress to pass a Head Start
reauthorization bill which will send a clear message that all Head
Start grantees are expected, at all times, to deliver high quality
services to every enrolled child and family.
First, we would like the Congress to help us increase the
involvement of selected states in Head Start as we move to increase
coordination between Head Start, state pre-K programs, and child care
services. Second, we would like the Congress to provide the Secretary
with greater discretion to use funds appropriated for Head Start in the
most effective manner possible by enacting changes to the current
statutory set-aside for training and technical assistance. Third, we
would like the statute to more clearly state the expectation that all
children should leave Head Start prepared for school and that the
standards for school readiness are being met. Fourth, we would like
increased flexibility in the make-up of our monitoring teams so that we
always can send out the most qualified individuals for the job. And
fifth, we would like to work with Congress to ensure that the statute
allows us to deal with poorly performing grantees fairly but
expeditiously.
In addition to these proposed statutory changes, I would like to
close by sharing information about one other training and technical
assistance project which, although not directly related to monitoring,
plays an important role in assuring grantees are providing high quality
services to the communities they serve. We are in the second year of a
new training and technical assistance (T/TA) system that we believe
will help improve grantee quality and, by so doing, address some of the
underlying issues raised by GAO. We have, for the first time, hired T/
TA specialists who are assigned to work on a regular basis with
individual grantees. These specialists will help grantees identify T/TA
needs and appropriate ways of meeting these needs. They will visit
their assigned grantees several times a year to focus on improving
grantees. The local specialists are supported by a team of content
experts in each regional office to provide guidance to grantees and to
support the local specialists in their technical assistance work within
programs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I can assure this Committee that the President, the
Department and ACF are committed to strengthening the quality of Head
Start. In keeping with the findings of this GAO report-we can do
better. The Administration for Children and Families will continue to
improve program oversight to ensure program quality and effectiveness.
At the same time, we look forward to working with you to make
appropriate changes to Head Start's legislation that will hold all
grantees accountable for all requirements and for providing quality
service. I feel confident that together we will achieve these goals.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Chairman Boehner. Ms. Henry. Welcome. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA HENRY, JR., HEAD START PARENT, LAS VEGAS,
NV
Ms. Henry. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Boehner,
Representative Miller, and Members of the Committee. My name is
Pamela Ann Henry Jr., and I am honored for this opportunity to
share my experience as a parent and former chair of the Head
Start and early Head Start policy Council for the Economic
Opportunity Board, Clark County. EOB is the Head Start grantee
in Las Vegas, Nevada.
I may not have a Ph.D. or be a high ranking government
official, but I can tell you firsthand the importance of Head
Start to a parent and what is happening, and in some cases, not
happening in my Head Start program. I am a foster/adoptive
parent that cares for children with special needs between the
ages of birth and 5 years of age. Since 2001, my husband and I
have been affiliated with the Head Start and Early Head Start
program as active parents, and I, with the policy council as a
center representative and later chair for the EOB in Clark
County.
Policy counsels are required by Head Start regulations to
assist with program governance that include parents, community
representatives and liaisons from the executive board. The
topic of today's hearing is a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office, or the GAO, which found Federal
oversights to be inadequate to swiftly identify and correct
financial mismanagement of Head Start grantees. I have just
three messages for the Committee today. No. 1, too much time
can go by from the time problems start to the time they are
fixed. Many times they go unrecognized. But even worse, there
is no incentive to fix problems quickly because grantees are
not held accountable for correcting these problems.
Number 2, the Federal Government shouldn't let bad grantees
continue to operate bad programs. Like the three-strikes-you-
are-out policy, at a certain point enough should be enough.
No. 3, policy counsels and other governing boards at the
local levels should matter. Often times these boards are not
given a real opportunity to be involved, but they should be. I
will elaborate briefly on each of these points. The GAO report
was requested by Congress after reports of misuse of Head Start
funds were printed in newspapers around the country.
Unfortunately the grantee over the center where my children
attend Head Start is one such case. I know most Head Start
programs are good, so why focus on a few bad ones? There may be
many others who don't have these problems, but even if just one
program has problems, they should be fixed.
The EOB Community Action Partnership is the largest private
non-profit social service organization in Nevada. EOB has nine
service divisions that administer 40 programs intended to
assist 55,000 area residents each year. EOB receives over $12
million annually to prepare 1,700 children, including mine for
kindergarten. In 2003 and 2004, EOB was cited as a high risk
grantee by the Head Start Bureau. Yet, as I learned later, the
board had been deemed a deficient grantee in several important
areas for many years.
For example, EOB had been cited repeatedly for inaccurate
accounting practices, yet no corrective action seemed to be
initiated by the Federal Government or the Agency itself.
In 2003 I was involved with the annual review process
conducted by the Region IX staff. I accompanied the EOB
executive director and other agency administrators. EOB was
instructed to develop a corrective action plan after its review
identified multiple deficiencies. The policy council was
initially involved in the drafting of the corrective action
plan, but in the end, the senior managers and other agencies
approved a different plan without our input. The policy council
expressed concern both to the executive active team and the HHS
Region IX staff, but our concerns were dismissed. This was very
discouraging. As policy council chair, I emerged a stronger
leader and advocate for the Head Start and gained the
confidence to stand my ground and fight a fight for what I felt
was right for the eligible children enrolled and their
families.
And then at the local level, many Head Start boards are
agreeing to actions taken by administrators. There is no
independent review or checks and balances--no accountability
for the administrators because in most cases, there is no
responsibility assumed by the executive board.
A dysfunctional senior management and grantee board at EOB
triggered multiple concerns that I shared with the Region IX
representative. While in the position as PC chair, the program
had been deemed high risk due to several noncompliance matters.
But one of the most important factors is what the GAO has
stated in their recent report, mismanagement of program funds,
along with continuous deficiencies.
By the end of my third year, there had been several reviews
and audits. With the right accountability in place,
mismanagement of funds could have been avoided. However, those
involved were never held responsible for their misconduct for
such funds. The EOB never felt as though the grant was
threatened, or that they could do anything that would lead to
the termination of their funding. In such cases, an
organization other than EOB should have been given millions of
dollars taken for granted by this grantee.
The GAO report recommends that poorly performing grantees
should come compete against other entities for their grant. In
the case of EOB, another organization might have been more
qualified to manage the Head Start program. I am done. Thank
you. I am sorry.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Henry follows:]
Statement of Pamela Henry, Jr., Head Start Parent, Las Vegas, NV
Good Afternoon Chairman Boehner, Representative Miller, and Members
of the Committee. My name is Pamela Henry, and I am honored for this
opportunity to share my experience as a parent and former Chair of the
Head Start Policy Council of the Economic Opportunity Board (EOB). EOB
is the Head Start grantee in Las Vegas, Nevada.
I may not have a Ph.D., or be a high-ranking government official,
but I can tell you first hand the importance of Head Start to a parent
and what is happening--and in some cases not happening--in my Head
Start program.
I am a foster/adoptive parent that cares for children with special
needs between the ages of birth and 5 years. Since 2001, my husband and
I have been affiliated with the Head Start & Early Head Start Program
as active parents and I, with the Policy Council as a Center
Representative and later Chair, for EOB in Clark County. Policy
Councils are required by Head Start regulations to assist with program
governance and include parents, community representatives, and a
liaison from the Executive Board.
The topic of today's hearing is a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office--or GAO--which found federal oversight to be
inadequate to swiftly identify and correct financial mismanagement by
Head Start grantees.
I have just three messages for the Committee today:
I. Too much time can go by from the time problems start to the time
they are fixed. Many times, they go unrecognized. But even worse,
there's no incentive to fix problems quickly because grantees are not
held accountable for correcting these problems.
II. The federal government shouldn't let bad grantees continue to
operate bad programs. Like the three strikes you're out policy, at a
certain point, enough should be enough.
III. Policy Councils and other governing boards at the local level
should matter. Often times these boards are NOT given a real
opportunity to be involved, but they should be.
I will elaborate briefly on each of these points.
The GAO report was requested by Congress after reports of misuse of
Head Start funds were printed in newspapers around the country.
Unfortunately, the grantee over the center where my children attend
Head Start, is one such case.
I know most Head Start programs are good. So why focus on a few bad
ones? There may be many, many others who don't have these problems, but
even if just one program has problems, they should be fixed!
The EOB Community Action Partnership is the largest private, non-
profit social service organization in Nevada. EOB has nine (9) service
divisions and administers forty (40) programs intended to assist 55,000
area residents each year. EOB receives over $12 million dollars
annually to prepare 1,700 children, including mine, for kindergarten.
In 2003-4, the EOB was cited as a high-risk grantee by the Head Start
Bureau. Yet, as I later learned, the Board had been deemed a deficient
grantee in several important areas for many years. For example, the EOB
had been cited repeatedly for inadequate accounting practices yet no
corrective action seemed to be initiated by the federal government or
the agency itself.
In August 2003, I was involved in the triennial review process
conducted by the Regional IX staff. I accompanied the EOB executive
director and other agency administrators. EOB was instructed to develop
a corrective action plan after its review identified multiple
deficiencies. The Policy Council was initially involved in drafting the
corrective action plan but in the end, the senior managers of the
agency approved a different plan without our input. The Policy Council
expressed concern to both the Executive Team and HHS Region IX staff
but our concerns were dismissed. This was very discouraging.
As Policy Council Chair, I emerged a stronger leader and advocate
for Head Start and gained the confidence to stand my ground and fight a
fight for what I felt was right for the eligible children enrolled and
their families. At the local level, many Head Start boards are agreeing
to all actions taken by the administrators--there is not independent
review or checks and balances. No accountability for the administrators
because in most cases there's no responsibility assumed by the
Executive Board.
A dysfunctional Senior Management and the Grantee Board at EOB
triggered multiple concerns that I shared with the Region IX
Representative. While in the position as PC Chair the program had been
deemed as high-risk due several non-compliance matters, but one of the
most important factors is what the GAO has stated in their recent
report, mismanagement of program funds, along with continuous
deficiencies.
By the end of my third year there had been several reviews and
audits. With the right accountability in place, the mismanagement of
the funds could have been avoided. However, those involved were never
held responsible for the misconduct of such funds. Unfortunately, the
EOB never felt as though their grant was threatened or that they could
do anything that would lead to the termination of their funding. In
such cases, an organization other than EOB should have been given the
millions of dollars taken for granted by this grantee.
The GAO report recommends that poorly performing grantees should
compete against other entities for their grants. In the case of EOB
another organization might have been more qualified to manage the Head
Start program.
Members of the Policy Council had little confidence that an
adequate corrective action plan was put into place or that Region IX
administrators would return to EOB to ensure that changes we
successfully implemented. Under the current system, grantees must self-
certify that deficiencies have been corrected and the federal
government takes the grantee at their word. Yet, according to the GAO
report, and consistent with the experience at EOB, problems cited
continued to be problems for multiple review cycles.
If Regional manager's performance was tied to the improvement and
performance of the programs for which they were responsible, many Head
Start programs would improve. The Regional IX manager's job apparently
was not judged by the success or failure of the grantees under his or
her control and so there was no incentive to improve the situation.
Furthermore, it seems many Regional managers believe it is more trouble
to go through the grantee termination process than to just recommend a
grant be re-funded, even when the manager knows it's not in the best
interest of Head Start.
Regional managers should be held accountable for bringing a program
back into compliance and help support grantees in that process or be
liable for letting a program be deemed deficient over and over again.
We must remember that this is for the children and low-income families,
and as our current President says, ``no child shall be left behind!''
______
Chairman Boehner. That is all right. Thank you, Ms. Henry.
I know it is rather daunting to have to show up and speak
before all of us and those people behind you, but you did a
very nice job.
Dr. Golden.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA GOLDEN, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, URBAN
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Golden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Miller and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear
before you today. My perspective on Head Start and on tough and
effective management has been shaped by experiences as a
researcher and a practitioner at the Federal, State and local
levels, as you heard in the Chairman's introduction. I spent 8
years at HHS, including 3 as Assistant Secretary for Children
and Families. And in 1993, I was a member of the Bipartisan
Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion,
including members from both parties, staff to this Committee.
The advisory committee's unanimous final report provided a
rigorous blueprint for quality, including strengthening Federal
oversight. As a result of reforms put in place by HHS and the
Congress, beginning with the advisory committee, the 1994 Head
Start Reauthorization and the 1996 publication of tough and
research-based performance standards, Head Start has the most
rigorous standards and the most intensive monitoring of any
human services program that I am aware of. This emphasis on the
accountability paid off in clear results during the late
1990's. As the GAO report indicates, a historically
unprecedented 144 grantees were terminated or relinquished
their grants between 1993 and 2001. GAOs report provides useful
next steps for Federal oversight that build on these earlier
reforms. But before turning to my suggestions for implementing
GAO's recommendations, I would like to highlight two themes
from the research which my written testimony provides more
detail on. First, Head Start serves extremely vulnerable
children and families who experience multiple and complex
problems. You just heard about children with special needs.
Second, Head Start programs make a positive difference for
these very disadvantaged children and their family. Research
demonstrates both Head Start's positive results in terms of
children's learning and the generally high quality of local
programs. To me, these themes underline the importance of
accountability in Head Start. Federal oversight must live up to
the crucial importance of Head Start's mission.
Let me turn now to the five suggestions for strong Federal
oversight that are detailed in my written testimony. These
suggestions draw on my experience raising the bar on
accountability during the 1990's, both lessons about what works
and lessons about what is persistently difficult. The central
theme is that holding Head Start programs to high standards,
including closing those that can't meet the standards, can be
done with strong focused and hands on Federal oversight.
Lesson one, the foundation for strong Federal oversight and
results for children is the tough, rigorous and research-based
requirements of the Head Start performance statistics. As a
result of the Advisory Committee's recommendations and the 1994
reauthorization, we thoroughly revamped and strengthened the
performance standards in 1996 bringing them into line with the
latest research. So many of the vigorous fiscal standards that
GAO is now looking at are in place now because of this reform.
Rigorous standards are especially important because emerging
research that strong implementation of the standards is linked
to better results for children.
Lesson two, terminating grantees and aggressively
negotiating relinquishments are important steps for HHS to take
when a grantee cannot successfully resolve its problems. Hands
on leadership is key. Stronger authority for HHS to terminate
grantees who can't meet standards was in the 1994
reauthorization and the 1996 regulations. As GAO indicated in
its 1998 report, HHS moved quickly and aggressively to use this
new authority. My own experience was that personal and hands-on
involvement helped make it happen. In one example, I flew to
Denver to speak with parents and board members about the
gravity of our monitoring findings so they could make a more
informed choice about whether to relinquish the grant.
Lesson three, continuity for successful grantees is just as
important as turnover for unsuccessful grantees. Because for a
Head Start program to do a truly excellent job of linking
children to services in a community takes time, consistency and
relationships among partners developed and sustained over many
years. This means that strong technical assistance to keep
successful programs on track is a critical partner to strong
monitoring. It also means that recompetition of Head Start
grants should be limited to unsuccessful programs.
Two more lessons. The Federal oversight strategy needs to
integrate fiscal accountability and program accountability at
every stage. And Assistant Secretary Horn spoke to that in
speaking of training. And finally, the oversight strategy must
include a focus on Federal staff in both central office and the
regions, including training and professional development.
In conclusion, for 40 years, the Head Start program has
played a critical role for the Nation's most impoverished and
vulnerable children, continuing to evolve and innovate in
response to family needs. For Head Start to continue its
success requires an equally strong innovative and vigorous
Federal oversight role. I want to thank the Committee for your
commitment over many years and I look forward to any questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Golden follows:]
Statement of Olivia A. Golden, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute,
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, and members of the committee, my
name is Olivia Golden, and I am currently Senior Fellow and Director of
the Assessing the New Federalism project (a multi-year, nationwide
study of low-income children and families) at the Urban Institute, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute in Washington, D.C.\1\ I am
honored by the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Head Start program, effective strategies for federal monitoring, and
the content and recommendations of the GAO's recent report regarding a
Comprehensive Approach to Identifying and Addressing Risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author
and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, its
employees, or its funders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My perspective on Head Start, on programs that serve low-income
children and families, and on tough and effective management to support
accountability has been shaped by my experiences as a researcher and a
practitioner at the federal, state and local levels. Immediately before
coming to the Urban Institute, I directed the District of Columbia's
Child and Family Services Agency. Before that, I spent eight years at
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as Commissioner for
the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families and then as
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. During those eight
years, I was a member or chair of three expert committees charting the
future of Head Start. In 1993, I was a member of the bipartisan
Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, which included
both majority and minority staff to this Committee as well as staff
from both parties to three other House and Senate committees. The
Advisory Committee's unanimous Final Report provided extensive
recommendations, including a rigorous blueprint for monitoring program
and fiscal quality and strengthening federal oversight capacity. In
1994, I chaired the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with
Infants and Toddlers, which created the overall design for Early Head
Start. And in 1999, I chaired the Advisory Committee on Head Start
Research and Evaluation, which provided an overall framework for the
design of the Head Start impact study. We are all eagerly awaiting the
first report from that study.
In my testimony today, I will focus primarily on effective
strategies for building the strongest possible federal oversight role
to support high-quality, fiscally accountable, programmatically
successful, and well-managed Head Start programs across the country. As
a result of reforms put in place by HHS and the Congress--beginning
with the bipartisan 1993 Head Start Advisory Committee, the 1994 Head
Start reauthorization, and the 1996 publication of tough, research-
based performance standards and continuing across two administrations--
Head Start has the most rigorous standards and the most intensive
monitoring of any human services program that I am aware of. This
emphasis on accountability by HHS and the Congress paid off in clear
quality control results during the late 1990's: for example, as the GAO
report indicates, 144 grantees were terminated or relinquished their
grants between 1993 and 2001, a historically unprecedented number.
GAO's report provides useful next steps for the federal oversight
role that build on these earlier reforms. The report does not, however,
provide a clear picture of the number or proportion of Head Start
programs with serious fiscal problems, because it shows the percentage
of programs with even one monitoring finding, rather than grouping
programs by frequency or severity of findings. Based on the Head Start
Bureau's annual monitoring reports, about 15 percent of grantees have
serious problems, including both programmatic and fiscal problems.
Whatever the current numbers, any serious failures in fiscal
accountability need to be forcefully addressed.
The GAO report contributes to this effort by identifying gaps in
federal oversight--in particular, how the federal implementation of
monitoring doesn't live up to the rigorous design--and by providing
practical recommendations for improvement. The implementation
challenges highlighted in the report -'' such as effective use of early
warning information, consistent decision-making across central office
and the regions, and closing ineffective programs on a prompt timetable
yet with appropriate due process--are not limited to any one
Administration or even to one program. In my own experiences both with
Head Start monitoring and with designing and implementing monitoring
systems for other programs and at other levels of government, these
same challenges have arisen. For that reason, I believe that the GAO's
practical recommendations for next steps are particularly useful and
that thoughtful implementation of these recommendations, with some
additional suggestions and modifications that I suggest below, should
help Head Start programs live up to the very highest levels of
accountability.
Why Accountability Matters: The Research Context and the Role of Head
Start
Before turning to these specific suggestions about monitoring, I
would like to highlight briefly two broader themes from the research.
To me, these themes ``- (1) that Head Start serves extraordinarily
vulnerable children and families and (2) that it makes a positive
difference for them ``- underline the whole reason accountability is so
important. In a program with such a critical mission, and such a
history of success for the most vulnerable children in good times and
bad, we must ensure that federal oversight lives up to the importance
of the mission, both demanding and supporting strong programs.
First, Head Start serves extremely vulnerable children and
families, who experience considerable disadvantage and often multiple
and complex problems. Children enrolled in Head Start may suffer from
various health conditions and disabilities, live in families that have
difficulty finding and keeping stable housing, and experience violence
in their families and neighborhoods. For these children, improved
learning and cognitive development require extremely high-quality
services that follow the comprehensive model laid out in the Head Start
performance standards.
For example, a survey of a nationally representative sample of Head
Start families in 2000 found that 25 percent of parents were moderately
or severely depressed, more than 20 percent of parents had witnessed
violent crime, and parents reported that almost 10 percent of their
children had witnessed domestic violence in the last year. According to
the researchers, ``preliminary findings suggest that Head Start may
play a role in protecting children from the negative outcomes
associated with family risk factors, including maternal depression,
exposure to violence, alcohol use, and involvement in the criminal
justice system.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation. April 2003. Executive Summary for Head Start
FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Head Start programs overall make a positive difference for
these very disadvantaged young children and their families. Both past
and recent research, such as the rigorous, random assignment evaluation
of Early Head Start, demonstrate Head Start's positive results for
children and the generally high quality of its programs when observed
and compared with other early childhood programs. For example,
A rigorous, randomized assignment evaluation of Early
Head Start found that compared to a control group, 3-year-olds who had
attended Early Head Start had higher average scores and a smaller
percentage at-risk in language development, higher average scores and a
smaller percentage at-risk on tests of cognitive development, and
better home environments and parenting practices (for example, more
reading to young children).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Administration for Children and Families. June 2002. Making a
Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The
Impacts of Early Head Start. Executive Summary, pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies of Head Start using a variety of methods (for
example, comparing siblings who have been in Head Start with those who
have not) also show positive results for children. Soon, the results of
the random assignment study of Head Start--designed by the committee I
chaired in 1999 -'' will be released. This study should provide more
up-to-date information about the effects of Head Start for today's
children, compared with being in other programs or at home.
When researchers score Head Start classrooms across the
country using standard indicators, they generally find them good and
quite consistent in quality. A recent study that observed classrooms in
six state pre-k programs found that the overall quality of these
classrooms was lower than in similar observational studies of Head
Start.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Donna Bryant, Dick Clifford, Diane Early, and Loyd Little.
2005. ``Who Are the Pre-K Teachers? What Are Pre-K Classrooms Like?''
Early Developments 9(1): 15-19. Published by the FPG Child Development
Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income children are less likely than higher-income
children to get the benefits of high quality pre-school or child care
settings. This disparity would be far greater without Head Start,
especially for the poorest children. Research conducted through the
Assessing the New Federalism project at the Urban Institute has found
that low-income 3- and 4-year-olds are less likely to be in center-
based care (including preschool) than higher-income children. Because
of the research evidence suggesting that quality center-based care can
help children prepare for school, the researchers conclude that this
``disparity''.may represent a missed opportunity to assist low-income
children in becoming school-ready.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jeff Capizzano and Gina Adams, 2003. ``Children in Low-Income
Families Are Less Likely to Be in Center-Based Child Care.'' Snapshots
of America's Families III, No. 16. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,
p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Accountability Agenda: Lessons from Experience
The reforms in Head Start quality and accountability that were
driven by the bipartisan Advisory Committee of 1993 and the Head Start
reauthorizations of 1994 and 1998 provide a very rich source of lessons
about strong federal oversight -- both what works and what issues are
perennially difficult and need to be revisited often. The central theme
is that holding Head Start programs to high standards, including
closing those that can't meet the standards, can be done. It takes
strong, focused, and hands-on federal oversight that includes both
monitoring and technical assistance.
The reforms grew out of the widespread concern that after several
years of expanding the number of children served in Head Start without
corresponding investment in program quality or in the training and
development of federal staff, the quality of local Head Start programs,
while generally good, had become uneven. The charge of the 1993
Advisory Committee--whose members in addition to Congressional staff
from both parties and both houses included experts with experience in
academia, the federal government, state and local early childhood
programs, and the broader health and education worlds -'' was to
provide recommendations for both improvement and expansion that would
reaffirm Head Start's vision of excellence for every child. The
extensive and specific recommendations in the unanimous report covered
every area of quality improvement, from local programs to federal
staff. Many of the recommendations were incorporated into the 1994
Congressional reauthorization of Head Start, and others were
implemented by HHS without requiring legislative authority.
Five specific lessons from this experience seem to me particularly
important as Congress and the Administration consider implementing the
GAO's recommendations:
1. The foundation for strong federal oversight--and of results for
children--is the tough, rigorous, and research-based requirements of
the Head Start performance standards.
The Advisory Committee recommended and the 1994 Head Start
Reauthorization required a major overhaul of the Head Start regulations
that define what is expected of local programs (regulations that are
known as the Head Start Performance Standards) to raise the bar for the
quality of both service delivery and management. The final regulations,
published in 1996, thoroughly revamped and strengthened the performance
standards across many dimensions. For example, they:
raised standards for program management, including fiscal
accountability and governance;
brought standards for service delivery into line with the
latest research; and
created new standards which had not existed before for
the quality of services to infants and toddlers.
Thus, many of the rigorous fiscal, board governance, and reporting
standards discussed in the GAO report are in place now because of this
important revision of the performance standards. For example, as part
of their fiscal and governance standards Head Start programs are
expected to ensure that their governing board and the parent policy
council approve funding applications and review the annual audit.
Rigorous standards are important not only because they hold
programs accountable and form the basis of a coherent monitoring
strategy but also because emerging research suggests a link between
strong implementation of the standards and positive results for
children. As part of the Early Head Start evaluation mentioned above,
researchers assessed program implementation of key elements of the
performance standards during in-depth site visits. They found evidence
that ``full implementation [of the performance standards] contributes
to a stronger pattern of impacts.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Administration for Children and Families (June 2002), p.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Terminating grantees and aggressively negotiating
relinquishments are appropriate, important, and realistic steps for HHS
to take when a grantee cannot successfully resolve its problems and
meet fiscal and program standards. Hands-on leadership is key to using
this authority effectively.
Stronger authority for HHS to terminate grantees who cannot meet
standards was recommended by the 1993 Advisory Board and included in
the 1994 Head Start Reauthorization. As a result, the 1996 revision of
the performance standards provided a framework and a tight time limit
``- no more than one year--for grantees with serious problems (called
``deficiencies'') to solve those problems or face termination. As GAO
indicated in its 1998 report assessing HHS oversight soon after the
regulations, the agency moved quickly and aggressively to use this new
authority, with 90 grantees terminated or voluntarily relinquishing
their grants by the time of the 1998 report. The GAO report also noted
the experience of HHS officials that the termination authority helps
them negotiate voluntary relinquishments, which can be the quickest and
smoothest path to a transition.
While I was at HHS, I found that hands-on involvement from agency
leadership was very helpful in reinforcing the new expectations. In one
example, I flew to Denver to speak with parents and Board members about
the gravity of our monitoring findings, so they could make a more
informed choice about whether the grantee should relinquish the grant
in order to achieve better services for children. In that example, the
grantee relinquished the grant, and a transitional grantee ensured that
services to children continued uninterrupted while the grant was
recompeted.
GAO recommends in its report an additional approach, besides
termination and relinquishment, to ensure the replacement of grantees
who cannot successfully serve children. The comments provided by the
Administration on Children and Families express serious legal concerns
about this approach, which involves changes in the recompetition of
Head Start grants. I am not qualified to comment on the legal issues,
but I would note that the existing approaches, termination and
voluntary relinquishment, exercised with strong leadership and under a
tight timetable, have in my view proved effective at raising the bar on
program quality and compliance.
3. The goal of the federal oversight strategy is good results for
children. To achieve this goal, continuity for successful grantees is
just as important as turnover for unsuccessful grantees. This means
that strong technical assistance--high-quality, well-tailored to
grantee needs, and available promptly on request--is a critical partner
to strong monitoring in the federal oversight strategy. It also means
that recompetition of Head Start grants should be limited to
unsuccessful programs.
A very important lesson from the deliberations of the Advisory
Committee, reinforced for me by my own research and practice
experience, is the value to children and families of continuity over
time in a quality Head Start program. The Advisory Committee found that
an effective Head Start program needs to be a central community
institution for poor families: it has to link services that vulnerable
children need in order to learn, such as health care, mental health
services (for example, when young children have experienced family or
neighborhood violence), and help for parents who may be young,
overwhelmed, and struggling to support their children. For a Head Start
program to do a truly excellent job at linking children to needed
services takes time, patience, and a consistent set of players in a
community, sometimes over many years. As a result, just as constant
staff turnover can jeopardize quality services for children, turnover
in a program can set back quality for many years, as new players get to
know each other and readjust their priorities. In my own research, not
specifically focused on Head Start but on communities around the
country that created successful partnerships to serve both parent and
child in poor families, I found that longstanding relationships among
people involved in the work over many years were an important
ingredient of success.
Continuity also matters because the lives of poor children,
families, and communities are unstable in so many ways that the Head
Start program may be the one critical source of stability. From my
experience in child welfare, where I directed an agency that serves
abused and neglected children, I became convinced that a high quality
Head Start or Early Head Start program can be a source of consistent
stable relationships for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers who are
moving around from home to foster care and back as a result of abuse or
neglect. Given what the research tells us about the importance of
consistent relationships to cognitive development in early childhood,
this role is crucial.
Therefore, it is just as important to a successful federal
oversight strategy to make sure strong programs continue to succeed as
it is to make sure failing programs are replaced. As the Advisory
Committee made clear in its very first recommendation regarding federal
oversight, this means placing a priority on responsive, up-to-the-
minute, technical assistance capacity easily available to local
programs and closely linked to program and management priorities. When
programs have strong capacity and a strong track record in serving
children, the federal oversight responsibility must include making sure
that a small problem doesn't grow until it threatens a program's
continued success. And as new issues emerge across the country, the
technical assistance system must be able to respond flexibly and
effectively.
At HHS, when we revamped and invested in technical assistance in
response to the Advisory Committee report, we learned to consider
technical assistance early in every one of our initiatives. For
example, in implementing the current GAO report, HHS might consider
whether the early risk assessment strategy would have its greatest
impact paired with rapid-response technical assistance, so a program
could get help as soon as the risk assessment set off alarms. While I
was at HHS, we used a variation on this strategy in the field of child
welfare, seeking to make sure that when we implemented more rigorous
child welfare reviews, technical assistance to address newly identified
problems would be rapidly available.
4. The federal oversight strategy needs to integrate fiscal
accountability with program accountability at every level and stage -
in staff training, in the design of monitoring, and in additional
elements of the strategy such as the comprehensive risk assessment or
the analysis of improper payments proposed by GAO. Focusing on fiscal
accountability without also emphasizing program accountability and
results for children can lead, in the words of GAO's 1998 report on
Head Start monitoring to ``hold [ing] local Head Start programs
accountable only for complying with regulations - not for demonstrating
progress in achieving program purposes.'' \7\ Looking at the two kinds
of accountability together, on the other hand, can lead to successful
solutions that help programs serve children better and more
efficiently. Local programs providing Head Start services, like all
publicly funded human services programs serving children with complex
needs, often face questions about how to meet child and family needs
and yet stay within fiscal reporting and accounting requirements. For
example, when Head Start programs collaborate with other local programs
- such as a mental health clinic that can help children who have
experienced violence in the home - they often face questions about what
services they should pay for from the Head Start grant and what
services should come out of the other agency's funding stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office. 1998. Head Start: Challenges in
Monitoring Program Quality and Demonstrating Results, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these and many other questions that come up regarding fiscal
accountability, it is important to find solutions that support program
creativity and innovation as well as fiscal accountability. The worst
outcome is to have different program and fiscal experts or monitoring
reviewers provide conflicting advice. Conflicting responses create the
kind of unfairness that GAO cites, where different programs get
different treatment, and they also chill innovation, because many
programs won't want to risk innovation without knowing how reviewers
will judge it. The best outcome is for fiscal and program experts to
work together to develop solutions to the real problems programs face.
Integrated training for fiscal and program reviewers is also likely
to reduce the inconsistencies reported by GAO in assessing program
findings and deficiencies. Among the many reasons that people interpret
regulations differently, one is the different focus of ``compliance-
oriented'' fiscal reviewers and ``results-oriented'' program reviewers.
For this reason, it is especially helpful to address potential
conflicts explicitly in advance.
5. Finally, a key step in implementing the GAO recommendations will
be a focus on federal staff in both central office and the regions:
their training and professional development, staffing levels, and
administrative support (such as travel resources), as well as
strategies to make federal decision-making more consistent. These are
difficult issues that have not been solved yet, either in Head Start or
in most other monitoring programs, but there are promising examples to
draw on.
While I was at HHS, we tried a number of approaches to these
dilemmas - investing in federal staff despite very tight administrative
budgets and promoting consistent decision-making - but there is much
left to be done. One promising approach that we implemented might offer
lessons for today's strategies, because it aimed both to use federal
dollars more efficiently and to achieve program goals, including Head
Start accountability. Specifically, we chose to divide the ten regions
into five pairs, each with one larger ``hub'' region and one smaller
region, and to design some of the Head Start monitoring strategies
across the two paired regions. We used this approach to allocate
resources more efficiently and to ensure that if we thought it
appropriate, the monitoring team leader for a particular review could
be from the region that did not directly oversee the grantee. This
allowed the selection of a team leader who was familiar with the
geographic area but not involved with the individual grantee.
In summary, a well-designed system of federal oversight for Head
Start must
set the bar high, through rigorous and research-based
standards;
ensure through aggressive and hands-on management that
unsuccessful programs are promptly replaced;
ensure prompt and high-quality technical assistance, to
promote continuity and steady improvement for successful programs;
integrate an emphasis on management with an emphasis on
results for children, in order to support creativity, innovation, and
fiscal responsibility; and
use multiple approaches to strengthen federal staff
capacity.
For more than forty years, the Head Start program has played a
critical role for the nation's most impoverished and vulnerable
children, continuing to evolve and innovate to respond to increasingly
complex family needs. For Head Start to continue this success into the
future requires an equally strong, innovative, and vigorous federal
oversight role. I appreciate the Committee's commitment to ensuring the
continued strength of this federal role, so that Head Start can build
on its record of making a difference to America's poorest young
children and their families. Thank you for the opportunity to offer
suggestions for further improvements, and I look forward to any
questions you may have.
______
Chairman Boehner. Let me thank all the witnesses for coming
today, and your excellent testimony. The Members of this
Committee understand pretty clearly the importance of early
childhood development especially for low income children. And
without this help, their chances of success in school is very,
very limited.
Congress has made a big investment in Head Start over the
years. And as we said earlier, a lot of grantees are doing a
lot of very good work. But Dr. Horn and Dr. Golden, you have
both been around this process for a long time. There are some
operators out there who have done a pathetic job for a very
long time. You probably know who they are better than I do. I
hear about it from members. They come up to me. They have been
fighting the problem at home for a long time, and nothing ever
happens. Why is it it is so difficult to change grantees when
it is obvious to virtually everyone that there is a significant
problem? Dr. Horn, you are in the hot seat right now because
this is your job. So I will let you begin.
Mr. Horn. Well, first of all, let me say from the outset
that I believe that most Head Start programs are operating
well, that most people who work in Head Start get up every day,
go to work and try to do the best they can to further
development of children who come from an economically
disadvantaged background. So I also believe that Head Start is
the embodiment of a very important ideal. That ideal is that
now children should be disadvantaged by the circumstances of
their birth in their overall education.
So I don't believe that trying to improve the oversight of
the Head Start program ought to be equated as some have tried
to equate it with an antipathy toward the program in general. I
think it is a good program and a program that deserves our
support. But there are problems. Some of those problems are
internal within my agency. And some of them statutory. And to
answer your question about replacing grantees, there is a
problem statutorily and I know the GAO and we have a different
opinion upon this and it may be useful for the Congress to
settle this, because frankly we would like the opinion of the
GAO to prevail. Would that we had more authority than we
believe the statute provides. And here is the problem. There
are two sections in the statute. The first is section
641(b)(2).
And this section says, in part, that the secretary shall
give priority to the designation of Head Start agencies to any
local public or private non profit or for profit agency which
is receiving funds under any Head Start program. Unless the
secretary determines that it is, you know--and then it has some
exceptions. The problem is, you have to cross reference that
with section 646(a)(3) in the statute, which says in part that
financial assistance under the subchapter shall not be
terminated or reduced or an application for refunding shall not
be denied to a grantee unless the recipient has been afforded
reasonable notice and opportunity for a full and fair hearing.
Now, if you look at the requirements for notice and so
forth, and you add them up, the minimum amount of time to
actually defund a grantee who does not voluntary relinquish is
240 days and that is assuming the hearing before the
departmental appeals board occurs in 1 day.
Chairman Boehner. But the fact, is Mr. Wade, or Mr. Horn,
that if you look at the period from May 1998 to 2001, the--to
terminate a grantee, here is an example. It took 1,236 days. I
have got another one here, another example occurred between
February 1, 2001 and May, 03, 800 days from the start of the
review to the date of the termination. Now why would it take
the agency 24 long to make this determination?
Mr. Horn. Well, part of it has to do--we have no control
over how long the hearing is before the appeals board. And that
hearing can drag on for months. There are cases where it has
dragged on for over a year. Just the hearing. And we can't
order the DAB to come up with a decision in a shorter period of
time. But it seems to us--I am agreeing with you. We ought to
be able to move quicker toward termination of a grantee.
Chairman Boehner. All right. Dr. Golden.
Dr. Golden. I guess what I would highlight is that when I
started people said to me just this, that it is too hard. And
it turned out that in most cases it wasn't too hard. That is
how we were able to accomplish that termination and
relinquishment of so many grantees. And it is what we learned I
think about what makes it possible is that you have to have--
you have to have high quality fact gathering. You have to have
hands-on involvement. I think that this helps to have not only
the high standards of Head Start, those are key, but the clear
vision about how those standards relate to the result, because
what I found when I went and talked to parents is that parent
boards of a grantee might initially have wanted to fight your
conclusion that it was deficient, but once you talk to them
about how what was going on was say the kind of fiscal problem
that we heard from Ms. Henry and that the teachers in the
classroom who they had such affection for really were terrific
and were going to be able to stay, once you did that you could
often get a relinquishment.
And I don't know the legal specifics of the issue that
Assistant Secretary Horn is raising enough to know if there are
additional things Congress could do. But the message that I
want to leave you with is that there is a great deal you can do
with the existing authority when you are focused on being able
to prevent a lot of problems with technical assistance and then
address the rest.
And I think the one big picture context piece I would put
on it is that we know something about the quality of Head Start
programs compared to the quality of other programs nationally,
because researchers go out and look. And we know in Head Start
not only is quality good, but it is unusually consistent
compared to, say, State pre-K or child care, so that the
overall, this elaborate and high standards monitoring process
is delivering at the same time that the Committee is clearly
absolutely right and the GAO is right, you can't have--you have
to address the individual cases that aren't being met.
Chairman Boehner. Well, I appreciate your comments and your
testimony about all the changes that were made in the 1990's.
But here is a June 1998 study from the GAO. Challenges in
monitoring program quality and demonstrating results. And this
isn't new. And the two of you know that this isn't new. That is
the part that is agitating me because--
Dr. Golden. The 1998. I think that is right. The 1998 study
was very helpful to us. It highlighted how aggressively we have
moved on terminations, but it expressed the concern--and
relinquishments--it expressed the concern that the research
base wasn't as strong and so that is the next step which I
think is really key to work on.
Chairman Boehner. Let me ask one more question. And excuse
me for going a little bit over. But as Mr. Miller pointed out
in his opening statement, there are 1,796 little boxes that
every Head Start grantee has to check off. And I have watched
some of this occur as I have gone to Head Start centers. And
sometimes, between what we are asking the Head Start centers to
do in terms of--they are diligent about wanting to check those
boxes off and the different offices that are reviewing various
parts of the program, is there ever an opportunity, one, to
look at the overall program itself that the grantee in terms of
fiscal management, quality, results? That is one question.
And second, are we creating an environment with 1,796 boxes
to check off that we are distracting the local grantee from
actually accomplishing results for low income children who need
the help?
I will let you start, Dr. Golden.
Dr. Golden. OK. I think that is a great question because I
think the key issue for the Committee and for anyone managing
the program is that on the one hand, we know from the research,
we have studied how programs that do a good job at the
standards do for results for kids compared to programs that do
a less good job, and so we know that high standards really
matter and that carrying out the high standards really matters.
At the same time, I think you are absolutely right that you
want to be looking at those standards in a way that is focused
on results not a way that is picky about details. And so one of
the things that I think is important about the way the
regulations now talk about deficiencies is that those are meant
to be not just about counting up the boxes, but if you are
going to go into this really serious program improvement
process you have to step back and you have to say this is
serious. This is something that is getting in the way of the
program's success. So my own view would be that high standards
really matter, and we know that from the research; that in
enforcing those high standards you have to keep your eye on the
big picture, do a lot of training and technical assistance, and
that as the Committee moves forward, that is one of the reasons
that I recommended thinking about fiscal and program issues
together in carrying out GAO's recommendations because you are
absolutely right. You don't want to be pulling people in
multiple directions. You want them kept focused on the big
picture.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. I think one of the strengths of the Head Start
program is its focus on local control and the ability of local
programs to design a program that meets local community needs;
and there is a tension between preserving that local control
and that local flexibility and the degree of Federal oversight
that we want.
I think that there are two things that the Federal
Government ought to do when it comes to oversight of the local
programs while preserving the ability of the local programs to
be flexible to meet local community needs:
First, we ought to make sure, at a minimum, that money that
you here in Congress appropriate for Head Start is used for
Head Start purposes, No. 1, and is being used to the maximum
extent possible to deliver quality services to kids, not to
provide outrageous salaries to some executives.
The second thing we ought to do, and I agree with Dr.
Golden, is to focus on results. If all of our monitoring is
focused on process and we lose sight of results, then the
monitoring isn't really very useful. We need to find a way to
ensure that as we are monitoring these programs, that at the
end of the day what we really care about is not whether certain
processes and procedures were followed to the T, but the kids
are actually developing well as a consequence of those
programs.
Chairman Boehner. The gentleman recognizes the gentleman
from California, the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me see if I am
hearing some of this correctly, Dr. Golden and Secretary Horn;
we have 1,600 grantees roughly, is that correct?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Miller. You say as a result of the high standards in
effect, the program is delivering what we expect it to do on
behalf of these children. And I think, Mr. Horn, in a different
way you arrived at the same conclusion. Overall, the program is
in fact delivering the kinds of services that we in the
Congress and other people expect from the Head Start program;
is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Horn. I think most programs are doing a good job.
Mr. Miller. And I think that would be probably our
experience. There are obviously some cases when it goes wrong,
it seems to go wrong in a rather dramatic and even criminal
fashion. But when I look at the GAO report, it seems to me that
there is a lot of failure to comply with these regulations or
with what would be good fiscal management in some cases, or in
some cases there is programmatic failure to comply; you are not
doing right by the children.
But it seems--what I see in this report is you are cited,
so to speak; you are told that this is the deficiency and you
are told to correct it, and then there is this heavy reliance
on self-certification. And it would seem that the average
grantee could think that these people are never coming back,
because not only may it take a long time to relinquish one, it
looks like it is a long time before you get back to find out if
in fact it was corrected, or, even as you go into the next
cycle, you find out--the very same problem sitting there
staring you in the face.
Is that a fair assumption of what GAO is telling us?
Ms. Shaul. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Pretty sloppy layman's language.
Ms. Shaul. There were a variety of noncompliances, from
grantees that might have only one, all the way through to
grantees who are deficient. I think when you have a grantee
with a very low number of noncompliances, probably on their
self-certification, could be affected, because it is a fairly
small issue. But when you begin looking at grantees who have
multiple citations of noncompliance, or who are deemed
deficient, of course that wouldn't be appropriate. Deficient
grantees can't self-certify. They have to have a quality
improvement plan.
Mr. Miller. What part of the universe are those people
where this is serious?
Ms. Shaul. In the 2000 data we reviewed, of all the
grantees about 13 percent were deficient grantees. And in that
group that we said had at least one noncompliance, it was 17
percent of that group.
Mr. Miller. This is a theory. This is a manageable
caseload. If you want to provide technical assistance, if you
want to provide follow-up, if you want to make sure these
things are corrected and people are coming into compliance,
this is I think manageable, Secretary Horn, is it not?
Mr. Horn. Yeah, I do. However, I don't think it is
manageable with the old practices and procedures that we had in
place. And that is one of the reasons we have restructured the
way that we deliver training and technical assistance to local
Head Start grantees. In the past, there was sort of an
overreliance, in my judgment, on going to conferences and being
trained at conferences. There is a certain efficiency at
training at conferences, but not an effective way of changing
behavior.
What we are interested in doing with the new training and
technical assistance network is to do much more training and
technical assistance onsite at the local Head Start program,
and not just with in-services, but with experts that come in
and provide mentoring and guided practice and come back again
and again to make sure that appropriate changes have taken
place.
Mr. Miller. That extends to compliance and with program
regulations?
Mr. Horn. I agree completely that we have relied too much
in the past on self-certifications, and we issued guidance
recently to all the regional offices that said we are no longer
going to allow self-certification--certainly not for deficient
grantees--but, rather, they are going to have to travel to the
local programs to make sure they are fixed.
Mr. Miller. In terms of flexibility, you talked about what
happened in 93 with terminations and relinquishments. Those
were two: You either terminate in an adversarial process or you
show them the wisdom of their ways and you get a
relinquishment.
And there is also this question as to whether or not you
can deprioritize a grantee, which would then allow competition.
Is that a cumbersome process?
Dr. Golden. I think you have heard that there is some
disagreement between GAO and the Assistant Secretary about what
is legally possible under the current statute, which I am not
expert on. We didn't need to go to that strategy, but used the
other strategies that involved termination.
Mr. Miller. Dr. Shaul, when I read your discussion on page
16 of the denial of the priority--and you make the point, which
I think is an important one, that denying the priority status
to a grantee who has been part of the community for years and
has educated multiple generations, this is a serious decision.
And one of the things we like in this community is having some
continuity. We don't want to change a grantee or vendor every
year. I don't think that is helpful. But it seems to me you are
suggesting that can be done without a lot of hassle. If you
find that they have consistent nonperformance you can
deprioritize them, or the Secretary can.
Ms. Shaul. Our understanding of the law, Congressman, is
that if the Secretary says that a program is failing program or
financial standards, that that program does not continue to
have priority, and therefore the agency could recompete.
Mr. Horn. If that is the case, I would love the Congress to
clarify it, because our lawyers says that is not the case.
Mr. Miller. Have you tried to do it?
Mr. Horn. Our lawyers tell us that the statute requires
that you cannot deny--you cannot either terminate funding or
deny a funding application until the grantee has had an
opportunity for a full and fair appeal, if they choose to
appeal, which is the reason why we too try to move to voluntary
relinquishments. The average number of relinquishments and
terminations under the Clinton administration was 16 per year
and under the Bush administration is 13 per year. We are not
talking about a huge difference. But we do rely upon voluntary
relinquishments, as the Clinton administration, precisely
because it is very difficult for us to move to termination,
given the statutory requirement that we cannot in fact deny
refunding to a grantee until the appeals process has played its
course.
Mr. Miller. If I could have Dr. Shaul respond on that
point. When I read this, it sounds like this is all doable.
Your attorneys have the same caveat?
Ms. Shaul. Our attorneys looked at one case where there was
a decision made that allowed the agency to select a grantee
who--to deny priority to a grantee that applied to take on an
expansion grant. And we used that as the basis for saying if
they could deny it in that case because one of the delegate
agencies was deficient, that that would--we thought that that
would apply in other circumstances as well. That is the case we
cite in our report.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of problems
in my area, more on the programmatic side than on fiscal side.
And I don't know, it seems to me if you ride them pretty hard,
you could get the changes; whether it is in people running the
program, seems to me you could bring these programs into shape.
And the ones that are in the newspaper with the travel and the
purchases and the credit cards, I don't know why somebody
didn't just call the cops. This behavior went way out of
bounds. This isn't about compliance, this is about criminal
intent. And I don't know why the board--I don't know if we can
bring judgment into play here, but somebody failed to pick up
the phone and call the district attorney and say someone is
absconding with the funds. This is beyond this at the moment,
but there is another failure going on here.
Mr. Castle. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Miller. I yield
myself 5 minutes for questioning.
I would like to follow up on that line. How those things
happened and were never detected I don't know, regardless of
whether they should have happened or not. But let me try to get
a bigger picture, because I am having trouble with this hearing
because I did spend some time reading the report and marking
up--my staff did as well. I think this was a pretty damning
report and I didn't look at this as having a lot of positives.
And I am pleased, Secretary Horn, things are happening as a
result of it, but what happened before didn't make me real
happy. Maybe I am wrong. Everybody is sort of making nicer than
what I would have, based on what I read at this hearing.
Dr. Shaul, if you could help me, your title is Director of
Education, Workforce, and Income Security issues. How many of
these types of reports have you been involved with in your
career at GAO--not Head Start--but reports where you were
either the head person or key person putting it together? A
dozen, 100 or--
Ms. Shaul. Probably more than 50, less than 100.
Mr. Castle. How does this rank in terms of what you stated
in here in a general sense? I read this and I didn't read a lot
of positive in here. I read, to me, that we have government
problems. We have problems with these agencies as well that
have done the things that Mr. Miller referred to. But it seems
to me that we are not carrying out our responsibilities, and
maybe even at the congressional level not carrying out our
responsibilities the way we should have here in recent years.
Am I misreading that, or are you saying you are just pointing
out the problems but there are a lot of good things as well?
What is going on here?
Ms. Shaul. Our report, Congressman, was designed in part to
look at the processes in place for oversight and then what
happened when problems were found. And I think basically what
we are saying is there are enough processes in place. In our
chart you can see there are many, many. But we didn't believe
that the agency really pulled the information together
effectively so it could do a real risk assessment, so it could
really target its resources.
Mr. Castle. Stop right there. In my view, that is the real
problem. And in following up on what Mr. Boehner said, that
questionnaire of 1800 things that they have to mark up, there
is a heck of a lot of information flow, but are we handling the
management of that information? Is that really at the crux of
this problem, so that we are not doing the proper supervision
and administration of these programs--because they complain
about it as well-- and, you know--and maybe they are right--the
Head Start programs?
Ms. Shaul. I think there are two issues. Our report wasn't
really commenting on the overall quality of the Head Start
program. We know it is a popular program. What we were focusing
on was the oversight of the program by the Department could be
improved by bringing together information in a much more
effective fashion, and, as I said, targeting the resources.
Mr. Castle. Let me talk about the information again. I
mean, one of the complaints I have heard about is that the Head
Start agency--there are those forms, I don't know if they are
self-inspection or what they are, they are voluminous,
literally in the many hundreds and couple thousands, and
information is derived from that. There is information which is
derived from the various reviews which are done here. Is there
a better way of approaching this?
Without criticizing that--and maybe I should open this up
to Secretary Horn and Dr. Golden as well--but are there ways on
improving this? I don't think there isn't anybody here on
either side of the aisle that doesn't want to make Head Start
the best program we can. We all like and admire this program as
well. And we had trouble with this legislation last year and we
would like to pass legislation this year, but we want to
effectively monitor this without having these groups spending
all their lives without having to fill out forms. And my
impression is there is a lot of information flow without much
coming from it which is really beneficial. And as a result, we
don't know where the programs are. We don't seem to be able to
terminate the programs, and there are some serious and
incredible flaws in at least a dozen, two dozen, programs that
seems to me that somebody should have caught. Why isn't all
this happening? Does anybody want to help me with that?
Dr. Golden. I was going to comment on the more general
information flow question, and the question is where does the
information for monitoring go? And I do want to note, because
there is a lot of research around Head Start, it is possible
for us to know some things that we don't know about how the
programs work and what is out there. One of the things we know
is that when researchers go in and observe programs, even
though Head Start is spread out all across the country, they
find consistent good quality. They find very few classrooms
that are of low quality compared to when they look at, say,
pre-K or child care settings, which are more varied and of
lesser quality.
So what I would take from that--even though I think you are
absolutely right that there is an enormous amount of
information and some of it doesn't get used well--that,
clearly, gathering this information in a lot of areas is having
an effect in terms of consistency, and that is because of the
work the Committee has done to make sure that there is rigor.
The way I read the GAO report was that it provided very
important recommendations for a particular set of programs, for
both pulling together fiscal information for a particular set
of programs that could build on the capacities you already
found there and that needed to be pulled together.
Mr. Castle. I would like to hear from Secretary Horn as
well. You are basically saying that that information flow, you
think, helps give them parameters in terms of what they are
doing, and therefore we have a consistent, reasonably high
quality of programs at Head Start?
Mr. Horn. I want to agree there are high-quality programs
at Head Start. I think most of the programs are delivering
quality services to the kids, and that is borne out by some of
our survey studies, particularly through the FASA survey. But I
agree we have not made maximum use of the information that is
available to us, and we need to do a better job.
We--for example, it is astounding to me as it is to you
that we can have Head Start directors making $200,000-plus and
not have somebody question that in a refunding application and
to ask for the comparability study which is required by our
regulations to show that that salary is in line with other
executive directors in similar situated nonprofits in that
community.
The fact that the Head Start programs are required to
provide us every 6 months with a history of their drawdowns and
expenditures, not in detail, and that those are not being
reconciled on a regular basis in the regional offices; we need
to do a better job, because if you start to see over time a
grantee which is--whose expenditures are going up at a
precipitous level or who are drawing down too early in their
grant period, that should be a red flag to us to go out to the
program and ask what is going on.
I think most programs get themselves in trouble not because
they wake up and say, gee, what can I do that is illegal or
fraudulent today; I think a lot of programs get themselves in
trouble because they don't know better. They find themselves in
a situation where they have overspent their grants and don't
know how to deal with it. And we have to do a better job
working with the local Head Start programs and making sure they
don't get into those kinds of trouble.
The best system in the world is not going to be able to
detect immediately every instance in which someone submits
fraudulent data to us, but we can do a better job with the
information we have available to us, and we are committed to
doing so.
Ms. Shaul. If I could just add one thing to support this.
One of the noncompliance areas has to do with program
governance, and that is really the place where the day-to-day
oversight of the agency occurs, not through the Federal
oversight, which is a more systematic and systemic kind of
approach.
Mr. Castle. You mean a local board of directors is running
that?
Ms. Shaul. The importance of the local board of directors.
We all know in other venues, the importance of boards in
providing some oversight. So the local boards are extremely
important.
Mr. Castle. Maybe we can make Sarbanes-Oxley applicable to
them. That would take care of that problem. That is a joke.
I recognize Mr. Kildee for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
hearing today.
I know you are concerned about prolonged appeals and you
listen to your attorneys. I can understand that. But I can
recall Secretary Shalala probably didn't listen to her
attorneys. I remember in 1 year she got rid of 100 grantees
under the same law. Maybe she had different attorneys. But I
would think that you might want to change your attorneys. I
have done that a few times, too.
Either these grantees relinquished their funds or she
pushed them out. A little more aggressive action for those who
aren't really functioning well might be warranted. You might
look into that and consult your attorneys.
Dr. Golden, it is good to have you before this Committee. I
have memories of your testimony before this Committee from
years past. Should good programs be required to recompete? And,
if not, how should we determine which ones should recompete?
Dr. Golden. Thank you for asking that, Congressman, because
one of the points I made in my testimony is that we need to be
able to have turnover when programs don't succeed; but when
programs are good, we need to have continuity. And the
different several sources of evidence I think suggests that
that is what works for children.
That bipartisan advisory committee I mentioned did some
looking into what it takes to build community connections to
serve children well, and they concluded you needed continuity.
My own research has suggested the same thing. And when I was in
the district working on child welfare and working with kids, as
you heard from Ms. Henry, kids who have been abused and
neglected and have lots of instability in their lives, having
that Head Start program as a source of stability was really
important. It was a place you could build continuity. My own
view would be that good programs should not be recompeted. You
should not be adding a source of instability.
In terms of which programs, I guess my own view is that the
structure we had around deficiencies where you are looking at
programs that seriously can achieve the goals of the program
and can't fix it is a pretty good framework. We may need to
fine-tune that in some way. But right now, what we have at the
Federal level is the ability to say once we pull together the
information, this is a program that has a serious problem, we
are going to give them a very short amount of time to fix it;
and, if not, they are not doing a service to children.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate your response, Dr. Golden.
It has been proposed that the Head Start program be block
granted. Some don't like to use that term, but we all know it
is a block grant. I have been in Congress 29 years and I can
smell a block grant a mile away. So it is a block grant. Would
this help or hurt Head Start, especially in the area of
accountability?
Dr. Golden. Let me not use the word ``block grants,'' and
that sounds as though it is under dispute, and talk about what
I think the research says about what works for kids. I think
that the research on early childhood says that high standards,
like the high Federal performance standards and consistent
enforcement, consistent quality, are what is key. And I think
we know from a variety of sources that the way you get
consistent quality is through the Federal monitoring and
enforcement.
So some of the kinds of research that I turn to to draw
that conclusion, the reviews of the quality of Head Start
programs through observation compared to--for example, there is
a recent study that compares that to observation of State early
childhood programs and finds the Head Start programs higher
quality. When you look at State capacity to do monitoring or
quality enforcement in child care and pre-K, what you find is
enormous inconsistency; and, in child care, a very great
difficulty with having high standards to start with.
I learned some more about this with the research I am doing
now at the Urban Institute where we are looking at State
programs, programs for low-income children more broadly. One of
the things you see is that when there is devolution, when
States are asked to take responsibility for programs for low-
income kids, State budgets are so hit hard by the recession, by
the ups and downs, that they get hit by the State budget crunch
at the very same moment that there are more poor children that
need help, so it doesn't work as a way to get consistent high
standards.
I think what I would say is what it takes to deliver on the
goals of Head Start, on the school readiness, on the learning,
on the results, is consistent, high standards, the Federal
performance standards in force through an effective Federal
monitoring structure.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. [Presiding] The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you all for being
here today.
I would like to pick up on the notion that Mr. Miller
raised earlier when he was asking about the universe and the
scope. We see--we have the anecdotal evidence here clearly that
there has been abuse. We have the stories of directors making
$200,000-plus salaries. And I am looking at the report, Dr.
Shaul, and there is a number in here on page 2 in the summary.
I would like you to think I got past the summary, but let me
refer to the summary. It says this is a concern because ACF's
data shows that more than 76 percent of Head Start programs
that were reviewed in 2000 were out of compliance with
financial management standards.
And in response to Mr. Miller, when he asked about the
universe, I think you said there was a 13 percent number and 70
percent of 13. Could you take a minute and sort out the
percents here, to the end where how big is the problem?
Ms. Shaul. In terms of serious problems, Congressman, those
would be grantees who are deemed deficient in the 2000 year
sample that we looked at of all those grantees that we reviewed
that year, 13 percent of those grantees were deficient. Now, if
I move to the pool that we said had at least one noncompliance,
the 76 percent--17 percent of that group, since it is a smaller
portion of the grantees--17 percent of that group were
deficient. Those are the most serious.
I would want to make one point on the record here too, is
that we did make a recommendation that the agency look at
developing a clear definition that both it and the grantees
know what is deficient, since we found that there were some
inconsistencies and deficiency determinations.
Now, to go back to your question about how serious. When we
came to that 76 percent, we looked at one noncompliance in any
one of three areas which we considered important to financial
management. And so there was a wide range of problems at
grantees, from grantees who might have had only one
noncompliance to grantees who might have had dozens of
noncompliances. So there is a big range from the first grantee
who is cited with the noncompliance all the way through to
grantees who were deficient.
Mr. Kline. Could you help me a little more and sort of--and
to get out of the sort of deficient one point, many points and
so forth, could we look at the Head Start program that grantees
out there, how many--what percentage of the total universe of
Head Start grantees are in your judgment--and I am certainly
willing to take subjective here--are in trouble; just don't--
absolutely do not know what they are doing and therefore are in
major noncompliance or perhaps occasionally on purpose
noncompliant? Of all those programs out there, how many should
we be worried about?
Ms. Shaul. Congressman, our review is limited to the
financial aspect. If you are asking for the program as a whole
in any given year, HHS reports something around 15 percent or
fewer of its grantees are deemed deficient.
Mr. Kline. And financially, when you cut through the 13 or
16 of 76, what is that number?
Ms. Shaul. The number would be slightly lower, because HHS
makes its determination about deficiencies looking across the
program standards, not just the financial ones.
Mr. Kline. That does help me understand the scope. And I am
getting ready to yield back, but I am going to express my
concerns. We have a 1998 report and a 2005 report indicating
that there are difficulties. And so I think, Mr. Secretary, you
can see where there is some frustration on our part that we
don't seem to be making the progress that we ought to be.
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. I have three comments and two questions.
The comments. First of all, when we are talking about
appeals and hearings, I would like to remind everybody in this
room that this is still America and we do have a process for
appealing for what we don't think is right. Second, I would
like to say where there is a will, there is a way. And I think
that this report has laid this out for us. We can, if we want,
take this report and make it punitive to the Head Start
directors and the Head Start program in general, or we can use
it to learn and to help and to prevent future problems. And
that depends on what this Congress wants to do with the report.
Third, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of
the programs are doing a good job, and every single person up
there has said that. So the idea that we would recompete every
year with every program would be absolutely wasteful and
inefficient; it would punish the good programs for the problems
of just a few. And I don't think we should be writing law based
on a few bad apples. There will always be a few bad apples. Let
us prevent those bad apples from being part of our programs.
Mr. Horn, you mentioned salaries at least three times, so
that must be a problem you see with Head Start programs. And
from what I can tell, there are some outrageously high salaries
and/or benefits with a few program directors, from what I can
tell. But the average salary of a director is under $57,000 a
year. Do you think that is excessive, one?
And two, given that HHS approves the budgets of these
programs, who approved those excessive salaries?
Mr. Horn. Well, first of all, it is not just me who worries
about excessive salaries. Apparently the Congress does too,
because they put the salary cap on Head Start staff in last
year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I am not against people
making money. The real tragedy in my view is somebody making
$150,000 as a Head Start director. It is not that they are
making $150,000; the real tragedy is if they are still paying
their teachers about 6 or 7 bucks an hour. When you think about
salaries in Head Start, it is not just looking at the top
salaries, you have to look at the salary structure.
Ms. Woolsey. I am asking about the $56,670.
Mr. Horn. I think most directors of most Head Start
programs have salaries that are reasonable and have a
reasonable salary structure, but that doesn't mean that we
ought not to identify those who are paying themselves.
Ms. Woolsey. Why weren't they identified when the detailed
budgets were before HHS each year?
Mr. Horn. Very good question. And we have issued guidance
to our regional offices that they require and ask for and
receive information on the salaries of not only--of the
salaries of the directors and the top executive staff, but of
their teachers as well; because I think it is very important
that we take a comprehensive view every single time there is a
refunding application that looks at the complete salary
structure, because, as I said, it is not just looking at the
director's salary that has me bothered. But what bothers me is
when someone is making a high salary and paying their teachers
6 or 7 bucks an hour.
Ms. Woolsey. What is the average salary of the director of
the HHS program, or your program, of the director of the
assessors or the fact finders? What is the average salary of
the fact finders in your Department who are going to training
and technical assistance?
Mr. Horn. I don't have that information.
Ms. Woolsey. I bet it is a lot higher than a lot of these.
We should look at that. I mean apples and apples.
Mr. Horn. My salary is substantially below the cap that the
U.S. Congress put on Head Start directors last year.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, OK.
Dr. Shaul, I have a question. You said something about
there being a relatively small number of grantees that were
seriously deficient and not closed. How many of those actually
improved so they didn't have to close? Was there any way to
know that?
Ms. Shaul. Congresswoman, we did not look at that, but I am
sure one could tell the answer to that question by going back
to the HHS data.
Ms. Woolsey. But it could be.
Ms. Shaul. We could certainly do that. And certainly other
grantees who are deemed deficient, only a portion of those have
had their grants terminated or they have been relinquished. One
could presume that they have gotten the technical assistance
they needed to improve.
Ms. Woolsey. I have one last thing to say and that is to
Ms. Henry. Good witness down there. And what you have to know,
don't ever be intimidated by us. You are sitting there, and you
are the teacher and we are the students. You know way more than
we do.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Virginia, Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. North Carolina.
Chairman Boehner. I was looking at the gentlelady from
Virginia, Ms. Drake. But, Ms. Foxx, you are recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Henry, I would like to thank you for being here, too
and thank you for what you do. We appreciate you very, very
much and thank you for what you do.
I would like to make a brief comment and then ask Dr. Horn
a question. Dr. Horn, I was on the original board of the Smart
Start program in North Carolina when it was formed about 1995.
And that program was designed to give maximum flexibility to
local programs in North Carolina, but it is State-funded
primarily.
I have always had a little bit of experience of program
evaluation over the years in my role as a university
administrator and community college president, so I know a
little bit about program evaluation. Smart Start, where we
funded 12 programs, and then 12 more, and then 12 more, and
then we had one or two programs that really had problems, and
we almost could know that from the very beginning that they
were going to have problems. We could tell that from the
criteria that had been established, and yet we funded them
because we were trying to do one per congressional district.
When we abused the system to make it fit, we created problems.
But over time, we had few people who really abused the system
and misused funds. And part of that is because there was not a
consistent accounting program established and there was not
consistent evaluation of the programs done at the State level.
And what wound up happening was there were both sins of
omission as well as sins of commission that occurred.
What is wrong with the Federal Government establishing
oversight that would establish minimum sort of requirements for
evaluation, minimum requirements for accounting standards and
those kinds of things? In fact, I am not very much involved
with Smart Start anymore, but my understanding is they have
installed a statewide accounting program so that people can--so
apples and apples can be compared.
What is wrong with the Federal Government establishing a
mechanism for gathering information and evaluating at the
Federal level, and yet leaving capability for local control,
which you said is a very difficult balance to strike? And has
anybody attempted to do that?
Mr. Horn. Well, two things. First of all, there are
certainly consistent ways that the Federal Government asks for
information from the local programs. I think you are suggesting
a step further than that, which is that the Federal Government
should say precisely what accounting package they use and so
forth. That is sort of left up to local grantees in the Head
Start program. But there are consistent methods for us to ask
for information that they have to generate for us.
I think the difficulty that GAO pointed out is that we
don't always use that information to its maximum potential. But
it is precisely on this point of consistency that we
implemented the National Reporting System in Head Start,
because prior to the National Reporting System, every grantee
could determine for themselves how they were going to measure
outcomes.
And as someone who has a history in program evaluation, I
realize that as a Federal program manager, if people are
measuring what they think is the same thing but in different
ways, you can't compare them. Even worse, if you don't know
they are measuring them in different ways, you compare them
anyway, and then you have no idea whether your interpretations
are correct.
So is there anything wrong with the Federal Government, in
appropriate areas, standardizing the way people collect
information or report information? Absolutely not.
Ms. Foxx. Follow-up, if I could, for Dr. Shaul and you too.
Did we see consistent problems or is there a thread that
runs through? I know, again from having operated a Federal
program one time in my life, grantees get together and share
information, talk about what works, what doesn't work. Did you
see regional problems where people are sharing bad information
or how to get around the system? Are there regional issues,
State issues? Are there just programs stuck out there all by
themselves? Is there any kind of pattern to the problems that
you saw?
Ms. Shaul. We did an analysis of which of the Federal
standards and regulations were the ones that were most commonly
a problem for grantees, and the ones that came up most often
were in the program governance area, particularly things like
the ability of the agency to generate reports that could
provide information to its policy boards, its parents, and to
the staff so they could know what was going on in program
management and operation. So that was a fairly common thread.
Also there was an issue that came up fairly regularly about
difficulties in establishing practices between the policy
boards and the governing boards about how they would share
program responsibility, which sometimes meant that agencies
were not in touch with what the community wanted them to do.
Those are two areas.
One thing I might add to the question you raised earlier,
too, I think probably all of the Head Start programs or the
entities within which they are housed are subject to the Single
Audit Act, so there is that uniformity across the agencies.
However, as Dr. Horn pointed out, that information isn't always
used.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
the panelists for your presentation and coming to visit with us
this afternoon.
My first question is to Dr. Horn. Dr. Horn, in your
testimony, you highlight some of the administration's
recommendations for this reauthorization of Head Start.
Specifically, you ask for more discretion to use funds in the
most effective manner, and that sounds good.
I am concerned that the track record at HHS does not
warrant increased discretion. Let me tell you why. Currently,
13 percent of Head Start funding, which equals $897 million, is
set aside for the Secretary of HHS to carry out a list of
activities, including funding migrant and seasonal Head Start
Training and Technical Assistance, quality assurance, and
several other activities. Clearly, one of the messages we take
away from the report that we have been discussing is that there
is a need for Training and Technical Assistance and greater
oversight. Furthermore, despite HHS studies showing that
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is reaching a measly 19 percent
of the eligible population, and appropriations language
directing the Secretary to develop a plan to serve more migrant
children, the Secretary has not used his discretion to close
the access gap for migrant children. In the 9 years I have been
in Congress, this has been one of my biggest concerns, and I
don't see it happening.
Please break down for me the $897 million in big
categories, how it is being spent by HHS.
Mr. Horn. I would be pleased to present that and give that
to you for the record. I don't have those numbers in front of
me right now, but let me respond to the 19 percent figure.
When it comes to the migrant program, the denominator is
all children zero to five. When it comes to enrollment of
children in Head Start, the denominator is 3- and 4-year-olds.
You are going to get a smaller percentage because your
denominator is over 5 years, zero to five, and there are more
kids. Whereas in the Head Start program, the denominator is 2
years of kids, 3- and 4-year-olds. What we have to start to do
is look at apples and apples and not apples and oranges when it
compares to the enrollment of children in those two programs.
The other thing I would say is that we have made a very
special effort in the last 3 years in this administration to
enroll Hispanic children in the regular Head Start program. We
distributed, as far as I know for the very first time, Spanish
language television and radio PSAs specifically targeting
Hispanic and Latino families to encourage them to enroll in
Head Start. We have been working with chronically under-
enrolled Head Start programs who--one of the reasons they are
often under-enrolled is they aren't very effective at reaching
out to Hispanic and Latino families. We are working with them
to do that. We held the first-ever Hispanic Institute for Head
Start just a month or so ago. And in fact, the result of that
is that we now serve a greater number of Hispanic and Latino
children in Head Start than we do any other subgroup.
Historically, that that has not been the case. Historically,
the largest subgroup that we serve is African American
children. And this year is the first time that we are seeing
the plurality of children are actually of Hispanic and Latino
descent.
Mr. Hinojosa. Your response is one that is very
bureaucratic, and I am not going to accept that because we are
dealing with the total number from zero to five, and that the
Head Start children are just for the 2 years, that this 19
percent of the eligible population of those children from the
migrant and seasonal workers is OK.
I have said it is not OK 9 years ago, and I don't see you
or anyone changing the numbers in a way that we compare apples
to apples and we get the number to at least 50 percent of the
eligible children.
That you are bringing up some Spanish language and Spanish
written material, I accept that. I have seen the improvement in
some of the materials that are coming to our children. My
problem, my concern, is that we don't reach 50 percent instead
of the numbers that we have gotten for the 9 years I have been
in Congress. If you want to compare apples to apples, do it. Do
it so we can have something that we can really measure the
outreach of. And I would love to see the report that gives me
the answer to my question, how you are using the $900 million
of that 13 percent of Head Start funding.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I return the balance of my time.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Virginia, Ms. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank you all for being here.
Your testimony has raised a lot of questions in my mind. I
think you can hear tremendous support for Head Start. We
realize the value of it and realize the value of continuing
very good programs. But I think after a program has been in
place for 40 years and we hear the kind of abuses that we are
hearing about, it is very upsetting to think that we haven't
determined a better way to monitor this program.
And I would like to know from you, Mr. Horn, these cases
that we read about in the cities that were cited, are these
programs that you were already investigating or maybe they were
in an appeal process? Or were they new to you when the press
reported some of these abuses with credit cards, vehicles,
salaries?
Mr. Horn. I think it is quite variable. In some cases we
were involved, and in some cases the inspector general's office
was involved, and in other cases we were not.
Mrs. Drake. When they file these reports with the 1700-and-
some boxes with the information that you want, does somebody
actually review that information; or are there certain
components that they look at based on are they self-certifying,
or are they ones you need to look more closely?
Mr. Horn. Are you referring to the PRISM review information
or the program information report?
Mrs. Drake. You mentioned that they have to file a report,
but there seems to be no consequences from that report.
Mr. Horn. Well, we have implemented a policy that says that
except in--that the exception shall be, if there are instances
of noncompliance, the exception shall be self-certification as
opposed to the acceptable means of dealing with noncompliances;
that noncompliances in the future, except for when we are
talking about relatively noncompliances, shall be certified by
a visit directly to the Head Start grantee.
I think that is going to go to a long way to ensuring that
the kind of situation that the GAO talked about between 2000
and 2002 doesn't occur; that we actually show that changes have
been made.
Mrs. Drake. I think one of the questions I had as well is,
are these people that are so blatantly abusing the program--and
I think we are very angry about that, because those are
children we aren't serving--are they providing you fraudulent
data on those forms, or are they coming right out and telling
you this?
Mr. Horn. I doubt the ones that are using the money to
support their private restaurant business are reporting that to
us on that form. Let me clarify one thing. It is perfectly
possible for someone to have inadequate fiscal controls and
still provide a quality environment in the classroom for
children.
Mrs. Drake. If they are spending money on their restaurant
or their vehicle--
Mr. Horn. That is not an excuse for fiscal mismanagement.
Some are suggesting that, gee, because we have data that shows
that classroom quality is high in most Head Start classrooms,
that therefore that is a reflection of good fiscal management.
Well, not necessarily. You could have very poor fiscal
mismanagement, have someone paying themselves an exorbitant
salary, and yet have reasonable good quality in the classroom
itself.
But your point is exactly correct. The reason it is so
important for us to do a better job of fiscal oversight is
because every dollar wasted is a dollar that is not going to
services for kids. That is the real tragedy here. When somebody
is being given a Mercedes SUV as part of their compensation
package, that is money not going to kids. And that is why we
need to do a better job.
Mrs. Drake. Is it true that you have to fund the cost of
that program's appeal?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mrs. Drake. Why wouldn't people appeal if it isn't a cost?
Mr. Chairman, I know I am running out of time. What I am
hoping that we will do is look at what we are asking of these
programs, what should be the process to determine they are
doing a good job; maybe set up a way to help them if they are
not; but ones that are doing blatant things like this, that
they just be terminated immediately. Whether it is America or
not, I think it is criminal.
Mr. Horn. One last clarification. The notion that we cannot
move to restrict funding or terminate funding during the course
of an appeal is somewhat unique to the Head Start program. That
is not something that we generally do with grants from the
Federal Government. And most grant programs from the Federal
Government to a local program, if we believe that they are
underperforming or engaging in--lack of internal controls and
so forth, we can defund them immediately and then the appeals
process is still available to them, but we don't have to
continue to provide them with funds while the appeal is going
on. That is what is unique about this program. And that is a
problem--if in fact we can move directly and terminate their
funding without a change in the statute, please let us know
that, because we don't believe the statute allows us to do
that.
Mrs. Drake. In those other programs, do you also fund their
appeal like you do in Head Start?
Mr. Horn. No.
Mrs. Drake. Mr. Chairman, I hope those are things that we
look at.
Chairman Boehner. It is clearly under advisement. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
Members of the panel for being here today and being so patient.
I know this is about Head Start. I would like to make a
somewhat broader comment. There was a White House report that
came out a couple of years ago that indicated there are roughly
150 different youth-serving programs under the auspices of the
Federal Government, and there was quite a bit of concern in
this report. Obviously, Head Start is one of those 150. But the
report basically said that there is a little coordination
between programs, little evaluation of programs to see if they
are really doing what they are designed to do. In some cases,
the statute actually prevented people from one agency talking
with individuals in another agency who may have a similar
program. And so there is quite a bit of frustration among
youth-serving programs around the country. And they approached
us and others and said, you know, we would like to see
something where we could pull all of these programs at least
under one umbrella, and take a look at them and make sure there
is not duplication and make sure there is not waste, fraud and
abuse, and make sure they are fulfilling their purpose and make
sure there are quantifiable, measurable goals that they are
attempting to meet.
And so we have introduced a Federal Youth Coordination Act.
But just a couple of examples of these concerns would be--we
have talked about Head Start today; but, for instance, a child
that is in foster care has to go to four or five different
agencies, and if you are in foster care it is pretty difficult
to negotiate that jungle. As part of the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act a couple years ago, we
included an amendment for mentoring for success, and there were
two objectives to that. One was to broaden mentoring to provide
some money. But the second was to determine what programs
worked--you know there are all kinds of mentoring programs,
there are school-based, faith-based, there are one-to-one,
there are 1-to-10, over the Internet--and also to determine are
some programs saying let us cut drug and alcohol abuse by 50
percent? Is that true? We haven't been able to get an answer.
The President's budget zeroed out this particular program and
said it hasn't fulfilled its purpose. The program was what we
have outlined and we can't get any answer as to any evaluation
that has been done. We have been trying to. The money has been
distributed, but what we wanted to do was to try to get a
handle on what works.
So that is just sort of an editorial comment and I would
like to proceed with a couple of questions, having gotten that
off my chest.
Ms. Henry, you haven't had a lot of questions here. How
long did the problems continue without action being taken? Is
there a time lag? How long a delay was there?
Ms. Henry. For many years prior to my involvement, they
have been happening, you know, the continuous deficiencies and
everything that has been happening. In Nevada, it has been
going on many years prior to my involvement.
Mr. Osborne. Dr. Shaul, how do you believe that competition
will help address the problems in communities served by poorly
serving grantees? I think you talked about competition being
important.
Ms. Shaul. Currently it appears as though it has been
difficult for the agency to replace grantees quickly. And we
believe that many grant programs do have an annual renewal
process. And we were not recommending recompetition at renewal
time for every grantee. But for grantees who are not performing
well, we believe that at renewal time, that would be a good
opportunity to give others in the community who might be able
to provide good services for children the opportunity to put in
an application and compete on a level playing field with the
current grantee and to have some determination made about which
of the entities might be able to best serve the children in the
community.
Mr. Osborne. And, Dr. Horn, this may be repetitious, and I
had to step out and if this was asked before, please let me
know. The study noted when Health and Human Services sent
different review teams to the same grantee, they often came
back with different results. And do you see any solution to
this, or do you have any idea why this was happening?
Mr. Horn. In particular, the study we did had to deal with
erroneous payments where the regular PRISM review team went to
the local grantees, and a piece of that PRISM review is to look
at whether children who are ineligible for the program are
being served, and to the extent to which those erroneous
payments are being made. And then we sent specialized people in
to look at the same data and they came back with two different
conclusions.
And that has led us in two places: First of all, better
training for review teams, the standard review teams on this
issue. The other thing we are implementing, which I think is
consistent with the GAO's recommendations, is this idea of
rereviewing a certain percentage of local programs that are
reviewed in the course of any given year by a specialized team
that will review them across the 10 regions. What they will
serve is as calibrators, if you will, for the adequacy, the
reliability, and the validity of the general review teams that
are sent out to the local programs.
So we review a third of the local grantees as we normally
do, but then we would send out these specialized review teams
to a random sample of those grantees to rereview them to make
sure we are applying the standards consistently across the
various regions and across the various review teams.
Mr. Osborne. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Castle. [Presiding] Mr. Price is recognized.
Mr. Price. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Now is the time
you can ask questions and really get the truth. I want to thank
each of you for coming as well, and for testifying, and I have
concerns, like all of the Committee Members do, about Head
Start and not about its mission. Obviously, its mission is
noble. One of the things that may be that when a mission is so
noble, it may be that accountability and oversight gets less,
because anybody that questions the program itself then is
questioned for questioning whether or not the program itself
ought to continue, which isn't what we are talking about at
all.
But I have a very simple question, and it may be too simple
but I don't know. And that is, when I look over the numbers
that have been presented in the budget, I think that we are
spending $6.8 billion, about, for a Head Start program that
provides services to 919,000 or thereabouts children. Are those
numbers accurate?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Price. 6.8 billion. If my calculator is working
correctly, that means we are spending about $7,400 per child?
Mr. Horn. It is a bit more, because what that calculation
does not take into account is services that are provided to
Head Start through other funding sources; for example, the food
nutrition program, the child care, and also Medicaid.
Mr. Price. I was being conservative. So the question is are
we getting our money's worth?
Dr. Golden. I don't know if I could comment on that,
because that is a really important question and one that as a
researcher is very dear to me. One of the things that Head
Start has, that goes to the several earlier comments about
evaluation, is that very few other Federal programs have very
detailed research, sort of meeting the gold standard of
research, meaning children in the program compared to
comparable children outside, that helps you answer both what
you are accomplishing and how much are you paying for it and
how much is the benefit.
In early Head Start, which is the program for babies and
toddlers, it is a bit more expensive than that, because, as you
know, in any State or in any circumstance, high-quality care
for very young children is more expensive because you need an
adult to be with fewer children.
Dr. Golden. There we have evaluation research showing the
effects on kids in terms of fewer of them, for example, in the
range that would be likely to target them for special ed for
disabilities. So we are seeing learning improvements that take
kids out of some of these expensive later experiences.
We have new information, I think, about early Head Start
bringing the kids up to about 4 years that should be--I think
will be--out this week. And then the equivalent evaluation
study about Head Start as a whole, there is a lag time in
research, so I had the chance to chair the group that designed
it when I was at HHS. But I gather that that will be out, I
hope, within weeks, perhaps months, in any case, in time for
this Committee to consider it. So I think one of the advantages
of Head Start is that whereas with some programs, you would
just have to guess or you would have to say there are lots of
early childhood programs out there and they show a four-to-one
return on expenditures; with Head Start there is actually some
additional detailed information to help the Committee look at
that.
Mr. Price. Dr. Horn, do you want to comment? Are we getting
our money's worth?
Mr. Horn. Well, first of all, I would say that when she
chaired the committee to design the implementation of the
national impact study, she invited me to serve on the
committee, so we both have an investment in that project. I
think it is a well designed project and, for the first time,
will allow us to serve with a national representative sample
randomly assigned to Head Start, not Head Start, be able to
determine what the true impact of Head Start is.
Mr. Price. The answer is, we don't know. Is that accurate?
Mr. Horn. I think the--I mean, my feeling is that we know
some things. I think the data is strong enough for us to say,
all things being equal, it is better for kids in economically
disadvantaged circumstances to get a quality program such as
Head Start than not.
Mr. Price. When folks in my neighborhood want their
children who aren't Head Start eligible to go to a program that
is similar to Head Start, the cost of that program is markedly
less than $7,400 a year. So I would hope that, in this process
that we are going through, Mr. Chairman, and as we try improve
this program, we look at where the efficiencies are that can be
derived from the program that make it so that we are driving as
much money to the child and not wasting money along the way,
which I fear we are doing.
Mr. Horn. I agree with that 1,000 percent.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Castle. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Price.
And I think we have reached the end. And let me just thank
all the Members who are here and able to ask questions.
But I would like to particularly thank those of you who
came from near and far to testify and answer our questions here
today. We appreciate it a great deal, and all those who
participated by being witnesses to all this today.
With that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]