Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of
School Readiness Information (Letter Report, 02/28/2000, GAO/HEHS-00-38).

The federal government spent about $14 billion in 1997 on programs
devoted to early childhood education and care. These programs have
various goals and provide different services and support to children and
their families. Because of this large federal investment and the
attention now being given to early childhood experiences, there is
interest in the effectiveness of early childhood education and care
programs, especially with respect to preparing children to enter
school-known as "school readiness." This report (1) categorizes federal
early childhood education and care programs for a better understanding
of the federal involvement in achieving school readiness and (2)
discusses available information on the effectiveness of selected
programs in contributing to school readiness.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-00-38
     TITLE:  Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the
	     Availability of School Readiness Information
      DATE:  02/28/2000
   SUBJECT:  Preschool education
	     Child care programs
	     Aid for education
	     Performance measures
	     Disadvantaged persons
	     Program evaluation
	     Preschoolers
IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program
	     HHS Child Care and Development Fund
	     Social Services Block Grant
	     Dept. of Education Title I Program
	     USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program
	     HHS Family and Child Experiences Survey

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO/HEHS-00-38

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U. S. Senate

February 2000 EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

Characteristics Affect the Availability of School Readiness Information

GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38

Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Health and
Human

Services 20 Tables Table 1: Selected Information on the Four Programs We
Reviewed 6

Table 2: Characteristics of Selected Programs Associated With the
Availability of School Readiness Information 11

Figures Figure 1: Categorization of Federal Early Childhood Education and
Care Programs 9

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families CCDF Child Care and Development
Fund EC Enterprise community ECLS Early Childhood Longitudinal Study EZ
Empowerment zone FACES Family and Child Experiences Survey HHS Department of
Health and Human Services SSBG Social Services Block Grant

Health, Education, and Human Services Let ter

B- 283428 February 28, 2000 The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight of

Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman: At the federal level, about $14 billion supported
programs in 1997 that addressed early childhood education and care. 1 These
programs have various goals and provide different services and support to
children and their families. Given this large federal investment and the
current attention to the importance of early childhood experiences, there is
interest in the effectiveness of federal early childhood education and care
programs, especially with respect to preparing children to enter school,
known as school readiness. Therefore, our objectives for this report were to
(1) develop a categorization of federal early childhood education and care
programs for a better understanding of the federal involvement in achieving
school readiness and (2) determine what is known about the effectiveness of
selected programs in contributing to school readiness.

1 Child Care: Federal Funding in Fiscal Year 1997( GAO/ HEHS- 98- 70R, Jan.
23, 1998).

To respond to the first objective, we consulted with agency officials and
experts in the field, analyzed a variety of agency documents and studies,
and reviewed our earlier reports and those of the Congressional Research
Service. We considered early childhood programs identified in our reports in
order to develop a categorization framework. 2 To address the second
objective, we selected four programs to review- Head Start; title I, part A,
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; the Child Care and
Development Fund (CCDF); and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). 3 These
programs represent varying levels of emphasis on school readiness and use
varying proportions of their funds for preschool children. Together they
accounted for the majority of the federal investment in early childhood
education and care in 1997. The programs are housed in the Department of
Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the two
departments most involved in supporting the early childhood education and
care efforts of the federal government. We conducted our work between August
1999 and January 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Results in Brief Federal early childhood education and care programs can be
divided into three broad categories:

those that fund early childhood education and care settings, such as day
care centers, in- home care, or school- sponsored prekindergarten programs;
those that fund support services to early childhood education and care

settings, such as subsidizing meals served in day care centers; and those
that support child care for working families through provisions in

the tax code. Programs in the first category could potentially have the
greatest influence on children's readiness for school; this is the category
we focus on in this

2 See Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target
Groups (GAO/ HEHS- 95- 4FS, Oct. 31, 1994), in which we identified more than
90 federal early childhood programs, 34 with education or child care as key
to their mission. See also Child Care: Federal Funding in Fiscal Year 1997(
GAO/ HEHS- 98- 70R, Jan. 23, 1998), in which we identified 22 key federal
early childhood education and care programs. 3 Title I, part A, which we
refer to as title I, provides basic grants to school districts for the
benefit of disadvantaged children. Other parts of title I target specific
populations of disadvantaged children, such as migrant students.

report. Within this category, however, programs vary in their emphasis on
school readiness. Some programs, such as Head Start, have a strong emphasis
on early childhood education and teach children skills and behaviors that
help them become ready to enter school. Other programs, including CCDF, may
contribute to the education and care of young children while subsidizing the
cost of child care for low- income parents but do not have school readiness
as an explicit program goal. Still others- title I and SSBG, for example-
provide funds for a variety of services that can include early childhood
education and care.

The availability of information on the four programs' effects on school
readiness was associated with whether their primary purpose or goal was
related to school readiness and whether the majority of program funds were
directed toward early childhood education and care. For example, outcome
data on children's readiness for school were available for Head Start, which
has program goals related to school readiness and devotes the majority of
its budget to early childhood education and care. The data for Head Start
show that participating children had mastered many of the skills and
behaviors on which they were tested to assess their readiness for school.
The three other programs we reviewed had weaker links to goals related to
school readiness or directed most of their funds to purposes other than
early childhood education and care. This may help explain why the agencies
had not collected the kind of data needed to determine the programs' effect
on school readiness.

Background In earlier work, we identified many federal programs that could
fund early childhood services. While there has been interest in the
existence and

effectiveness of multiple early childhood education and care programs, we
also reported that the vast majority of federal funding for early childhood
education and care rests in just a handful of programs, the largest of
which- Head Start and CCDF- we selected to review. Both of these programs
are focused either entirely or to a great extent on the education or care of
young children. In contrast, title I and SSBG, the two other programs we
reviewed, allow funds to be used for the education and care of preschool
children but do so as part of program objectives that are broader than early
childhood care or education. Table 1 describes the four programs.

Table 1: Selected Information on the Four Programs We Reviewed Fiscal year
1999

appropriation Program Agency

($ in billions) Description

CCDF HHS $3. 2 CCDF is aimed at increasing the availability, affordability,
and quality of child care services. States receiving CCDF funds subsidize
child care by providing eligible families with a certificate or voucher to
purchase care from a provider of their choice. Parents can choose from a
variety of child care providers, including for- profit and nonprofit child
care centers, family child care homes, and relatives. In addition, states
may contract directly with child care providers to purchase slots for
eligible families. Federal law limits eligibility to families whose income
does not exceed 85 percent of the state median income and to children
generally under age 13. In an average month in 1998, 1.5 million children
received child care services as a result of CCDF.

Head Start a HHS $4. 6 Head Start's primary goal is to promote school
readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of low- income
preschool children (generally aged 3 and 4) through the provision of health,
educational, nutritional, social, and other services that are determined to
be necessary. The services are delivered at the local level by public and
private nonprofit agencies that receive funding directly from HHS. In fiscal
year 1999, Head Start served more than 831,000 children.

SSBG b HHS $1.9 c SSBG's aim is to consolidate federal assistance to states
for social services, increase state flexibility in using social service
grants, and furnish services directed at the goals of achieving or
maintaining economic self- support and self- sufficiency; prevent or remedy
neglect, abuse, and exploitation of children and adults; and prevent or
reduce inappropriate institutional care. It is a capped entitlement to
states that may be used to fund a variety of social services, including day
care for children. In 1997, 2. 2 million children received day care services
at least partially funded by SSBG. HHS does not ask states to report on the
ages of the children served.

Title I Education $7.8 d Title I's primary purpose is to help local
education agencies and schools improve the teaching and learning of children
failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet challenging state academic
standards. Local education agencies receive title I funds in a formula grant
and have broad discretion in using the funds. For example, program funds may
be used to pay for teachers' salaries, provide professional development, or
purchase new equipment, such as computers. Education has encouraged state
title I directors to use title I funds for early learning programs that
would improve school readiness. Title I served about 264,000 preschool
children in 1996- 97 (about 2 percent of all children title I served that
year).

a Our discussion of Head Start in this report refers to the Head Start
program targeted to preschool- age children. Early Head Start ($ 349.4
million in fiscal year 1999), created by the Congress in 1994, serves
pregnant women and low- income families with infants and toddlers. b A
special SSBG grant for rural and urban empowerment zones (EZ) and enterprise
communities (EC)

was implemented in 1994. Administered by the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this program awards
grantees funds totaling $1 billion, which they

have 10 years to use for community development activities in support of
three of SSBG's overall goals. Some of these funds are used to provide child
care and development activities in both the rural and urban EZs and ECs. c
HHS reported recently that about 11 percent of SSBG funds ($ 252 million)
were used for child day

care services in 1997. d The Department of Education did not have
information on the proportion of title I funds used for

preschool children.

Two developments have affected whether and how early childhood programs
attempt to address and collect performance data about school readiness. They
are the agreement on national education goals in 1990- which include school
readiness- and the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993. 4

After school readiness was established as the first national education goal,
the National Education Goals Panel articulated that school readiness is
composed of five dimensions: (1) physical well- being and motor development,
(2) social and emotional development, (3) cognition and general knowledge,
(4) approaches to learning, and (5) language developments. 5 The school
readiness goal has prompted considerable activity on behalf of young
children and their families. For example, the federal government has
increased investments in early childhood programs such as Head Start and
Early Head Start to improve the chances that children will arrive at school
ready to learn.

The Results Act shifted the focus of accountability for federal programs
from inputs, such as staffing and activity levels, to outcomes. The act
requires that each federal agency develop a multiyear strategic plan
identifying the agency's mission and long- term goals and annual performance
plans that set forth goals and performance measures for each program
activity. To develop the plans, each agency must connect its longterm
strategic goals and daily program activities. For example, Education's
strategic plan for 1998 to 2002 highlighted early childhood programs as an
area of concern. The plan set forth an overall goal of “building a
solid foundation for learning for all children” and under this goal an
objective that “all children enter school ready to learn.”
Following the strategic plan,

4 The goals were enacted into law in 1994 (20 U. S. C. 5812). 5 The National
Education Goals Panel has been charged with chronicling the nation's
progress toward meeting all the National Education Goals over the 10- year
period 1990 to 2000. The panel is composed of governors, members of the
administration, members of the Congress, and state legislators.

Education's 1999 performance plan identified programs contributing to the
early childhood objective and set individual performance goals for each of
its programs.

Programs Differ in Federal early childhood programs can be divided into
three broad

How They Support categories, depending on how they support early childhood
education and

care. Programs that provide funds for early childhood education and care
Early Childhood

settings are probably considered most often in discussions about school
Education and Care

readiness. However, programs in this group vary in their emphasis on school
readiness.

Three Broad Categories of We developed three broad categories to describe
the variety of federal

Programs programs that relate to early childhood education and care: (1)
those that

provide funding for early childhood education and care settings; (2) those
that provide funding for support services to early childhood education and
care settings, such as meals in day care centers; and (3) those that support
child care through provisions in the tax code.

Programs in the first category provide education and care for children in
settings such as day care centers, preschools, home care situations, and
public school prekindergartens. The activities in these settings may be
provided for a full day or part of a day and can vary from custodial care to
care that is oriented more toward education. Examples of programs in this
category are CCDF and Head Start.

Programs in the second category provide specific support services to
children in early childhood care and education settings. Such services could
include speech and hearing assessments, nutrition, and mental health. An
example of a program in this category is the Child and Adult Care Food
Program, which funds meals served in eligible early childhood settings.

The third category includes all the federal tax provisions that support
child care for working families. A program in this category is the Child and
Dependent Care Tax Credit, which allows an income tax credit to qualifying
taxpayers for eligible employment- related child care expenses for children
younger than 13.

The first category contains programs that probably have the most opportunity
to contribute to multiple dimensions of school readiness. For

this reason, we focused our review of school readiness on programs in this
category, examining further the various kinds of programs included in this
group and the likelihood that they collect information on school
readinessrelated outcomes. Figure 1 displays our three broad categories and
outlines further the early childhood education and care settings category.

Figure 1: Categorization of Federal Early Childhood Education and Care
Programs

How does the program Federal programs that fund

Federal programs that support support early childhood

support services for early child care through provisions

education and care? Federal programs that fund childhood education and

in the tax code early childhood education and

care settings care settings

Example: Child and Adult Care Example: Child and Dependent

Food Program Care Tax Credit

Which aspect of education and care does the program's

goals or purposes place more emphasis on? Early childhood education Access
to child care

Is it a major activity Major activity

One of many allowable or one of many allowable

Major activity One of many allowable

activities activities?

activities Example: Head Start

Example: Title I Example: Child Care and

Example: Social Services Development Fund

Block Grant Note: The figure depicts the federal level only. While federal,
state, and local efforts and funds are often combined in complex ways to
support early childhood education and care, the purpose of the figure is to
highlight and categorize the federal portion of the effort for our
discussion of school readiness.

Programs Vary in Their With regard to the first category, the federal
government invests in various

Emphasis on School programs that place differing emphases on preparing
children for school.

Readiness These programs can be roughly divided into two groups: (1) those
that

place a greater emphasis on early childhood education and helping children
reach their potential as learners and (2) those that provide parents with
access to child care so they can work, go to school, or attend job training.
6

6 We based these distinctions on the programs' purposes as delineated in
authorizing legislation or agency documents, not necessarily on the services
that children can receive.

Early childhood education programs have been a key strategy in the federal
government's effort to help disadvantaged children improve their performance
in school. Head Start is the largest of these programs and provides a full
range of services for children and their families, including child
development, health, and nutrition services. Some other federal programs
provide funds that can be used for early childhood education under broader
program purposes. An example is the title I program, one of the Department
of Education's largest aid programs serving educationally disadvantaged
children. School districts may use title I funds for early childhood
education services to prepare children for the transition to school, among
many other allowable activities.

In contrast, federal programs that subsidize child care for low- income
families are primarily focused on providing access to child care so that
parents can work or obtain training or education for employment. For
example, CCDF, the largest federal program subsidizing child care, was
developed as a component of welfare reform to support the overall goal of
promoting self- sufficiency through work. Similarly, most states use some
SSBG funds for child day care, which is an allowed service in support of
SSBG's overall goals of economic self- support and self- sufficiency. This
does not mean that children receiving care funded by these programs are not
benefiting from them in ways that help them prepare for school; it means
simply that school readiness is not an explicit goal of these programs.

Goals and Support When we reveiwed four selected programs, all in the first
category, we

Levels Influence What determined that what is known about the effectiveness
of programs in

contributing to school readiness was associated with whether their primary
Is Known About

purposes or goals were related to school readiness and whether a majority
Programs'

of program funds were directed to early childhood education and care as
Contributions to

opposed to other activities. Only Head Start has both of these
characteristics and had collected outcome data on participating children's

School Readiness readiness for school. CCDF, SSBG, and title I either did
not have a primary

purpose or goal related to school readiness or directed most of their funds
toward purposes other than early childhood education and care. Education and
HHS were not collecting data for these three programs that could be used to
determine their effect on school readiness. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Characteristics of Selected Programs Associated With the
Availability of School Readiness Information The program has federal- level
School readiness is a

The majority of program funds are information for assessing its

primary goal or purpose for directed toward early childhood

effectiveness in readying children for Program

prekindergarten children education and care

school

Head Start x x x Title I x CCDF x SSBG

Head Start Has School Head Start, which has program goals that are related
to the achievement of

Readiness- Related Outcome school readiness and devotes most of its budget
to services for preschool

Data and Is Taking Steps to children, has been the subject of several
studies and data collection efforts.

Measure Effectiveness Through the years, Head Start has provided a
comprehensive array of

services and, as prompted in part by the Results Act, has in recent years
substantially strengthened its emphasis on determining the results of those
services. Recent data collected on program outcomes show that children
participating in Head Start exhibit many of the skills thought to indicate a
readiness to learn in school. HHS is now undertaking efforts to determine
the extent to which such outcomes are directly attributable to children's
participation in the program rather than to other factors.

Head Start has a complex system for measuring program outcomes, based on the
program's overarching goal of improving the social competence of low- income
children. Social competence is defined as children's everyday effectiveness
in dealing with both their present environment and later responsibilities in
school and life. The conceptual framework for this system is based on
several objectives that support the goal of social competence; one of these
objectives, to enhance children's healthy growth and development, is the
most closely related to school readiness. The performance measures that
support this objective include (1) emergent literacy, numeracy, and language
skills; (2) general cognitive skills; (3) gross and fine motor skills; (4)
positive attitudes toward learning; (5) social behavior and emotional well-
being; and (6) physical health.

To collect the data needed to assess program outcomes, as captured by the
Head Start performance measures, HHS' Head Start Bureau funded the Family
and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) in 1996. FACES collects performance
measures data from a nationally representative sample of Head Start
programs, children, and families using four data collection methods- parent
interviews, child assessments, classroom observations, and teacher ratings.
7 Specifically, FACES collects data on the cognitive, social, emotional, and
physical development of Head Start children; the characteristics, well-
being, and accomplishments of Head Start families; the quality of Head Start
classrooms; and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and
other program staff. Data collection began in 1997 and has recently been
extended to follow children into first grade.

According to the spring 1998 FACES data, “typical” 4- year- olds
completing Head Start had mastered many of the skills and behaviors on which
they were tested to assess their readiness for school, such as increasing
their vocabulary, but they did not possess other skills and behaviors, such
as identifying letters. With the FACES data, information on program outcomes
is available, but definitive data on the program's impact are not. That is,
it is not yet known whether observed outcomes are a result of the children's
participation in Head Start or other factors, such as the emphasis on
reading in their homes. 8

7 Data for the performance measures are also collected through the annual
Program Information Report, which collects program- level data describing
the children and families enrolled and the services provided, and the Head
Start Monitoring Tracking System. For more information on Head Start's
performance measures, see Head Start Program Performance Measures: Second
Progress Report( Washington, D. C.: HHS, 1998).

8 Although FACES does not directly assess the effect of Head Start,
according to HHS officials, it does demonstrate a relationship between
observed quality of classrooms and child school readiness outcomes.

In a previous report on Head Start, we concluded that although an extensive
body of literature exists on Head Start, it is inadequate for drawing
conclusions about the effects of the program. 9 Consequently, we recommended
that HHS include in its research plan an assessment of the effect of regular
Head Start programs. In response to our recommendation and as a result of
increased attention to outcomes and accountability for federal resources in
general, the Congress included specifications for a national impact study of
Head Start in the Head Start Amendments of 1998. The legislation requires
that the study be a rigorous evaluation and that it determine whether the
program is achieving its goal of increasing children's social competence
and, in particular, whether it helps children attain school readiness. The
Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation, whose formation
was required by the 1998 amendments, was asked to recommend a framework for
the evaluation. Its October 1999 recommendations stipulate that the
evaluation be based on a design that randomly assigns children and families
to Head Start groups and non- Head Start groups (for example, groups in
which the children do not participate in any program or participate in
programs other than Head Start) to measure differences in outcomes between
the two groups that can be attributed to Head Start. 10 HHS plans to
implement these recommendations through procurements awarded in 2000.

9 Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of Current
Program (GAO/ HEHS- 97- 59, Apr. 15, 1997). 10 Advisory Committee on Head
Start Research and Evaluation, A Recommended Framework for Studying the
Impact of the Head Start Program( Washington, D. C.: HHS, Oct. 1999).

Title I, CCDF, and SSBG Education currently has no information that could be
used to determine

Have No Information on title I's effect on children's school readiness.
Education, in its 1998- 2002

Their Effectiveness Related strategic plan, cites school readiness as one of
the agency's objectives and

identifies title I as a program supporting this objective. 11 However, to
School Readiness

performance indicators for title I in Education's fiscal year 2000 annual
performance plan do not address school readiness; rather, they address how
the program supports other objectives more directed at school- age children,
such as the use of challenging content standards by title I schools.
Similarly, Education's national review of title I reported on the progress
of school- age students but did not address the results of the program for
preschool children. 12 According to agency officials, Education has recently
decided to include indicators for title I preschool that address school
readiness- specifically, title I's effect on emergent literacy and numeracy.
Education officials also recently indicated that they are developing an
evaluation plan for title I preschool that will provide data to measure
progress in meeting the preschool objectives.

HHS did not have information that could be used to determine CCDF's effect
on children's school readiness. Providing parents with access to child care
so they can obtain and sustain employment and increasing the quality of
child care are both purposes of CCDF. In HHS' Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) fiscal year 2000 performance plan, one of the agency's
objectives is to increase the quality of child care to promote childhood
development. The agency's current performance indicators for this goal focus
on ways of improving the quality of care but do not address outcomes for
children. For example, the measures include the number of

11 In addition to title I, the Even Start Family Literacy Program supports
the agency's school readiness objective. According to agency officials, Even
Start is the agency's largest commitment to early childhood education. Our
separate report on the Even Start program (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 58R), discussing
the program's effectiveness regarding school readiness, is forthcoming.

12 See Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report of the
National Assessment of Title I( Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of
Education, 1999). An earlier Education study examined children's experiences
in prekindergarten classrooms funded by chapter I (later changed to title I)
as the program operated before the last reauthorization. Among the study's
findings were that classrooms funded by chapter I were of acceptable to good
quality, were less likely to operate full- day programs, and were not
organized to offer children many nonteacher- led social interaction with
peers. The study also tried to examine the relationship between classroom
characteristics and outcomes for children but was not able to draw any
strong conclusions. See Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs,
vol. 2, Chapter 1 Funded Early Childhood Programs( Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of

Education, 1993).

child care facilities that are accredited by a nationally recognized early
childhood development professional organization and the number of states
that provide health services linkages with child care.

In another effort, HHS is preparing a report for the Congress summarizing
state data collected in response to CCDF's reporting requirements. The
report is not expected to contain information on CCDF's effect on school
readiness but will include such data as the number of children and families
the program serves and the type of child care in which children are enrolled
(for example, family child care, home care, or center- based child care).
HHS expects to send the report to the Congress in July 2000, according to an
agency official.

The data collected for SSBG generally focus on services the states provide
with SSBG funds and do not address specific outcomes, such as school
readiness. SSBG's goals are even broader than CCDF's and include assisting
states in helping their vulnerable children (and adults) achieve
selfsufficiency and evade abuse and neglect. According to ACF's performance
plan, HHS has not specified individual performance measures for the program
because of states' flexibility to invest the funds with limited reporting
requirements.

Evaluating the effect of programs such as title I, SSBG, and CCDF on
specific outcomes like school readiness presents some challenges. As we have
reported, measuring program results at the national level requires
conditions- such as uniform activities, objectives, and measures across
grantees- not often present with many flexible grant programs. 13 Moreover,
funds from such programs are often commingled with other federal, state,
local, or private funds to deliver services, making it difficult to isolate
the effect of these programs alone. Outside of program evaluations, both
Education and HHS have sponsored research, sometimes collaboratively,
examining such topics as the relationship between early childhood
experiences and outcomes for children, without a focus on specific funding
sources. For example, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS)- Birth
Cohort is being conducted by Education's National Center for Education
Statistics in collaboration with several other federal agencies, including
some agencies of HHS. The study will follow a national sample of children,
born in 2000, from birth through first grade and will focus on a number of
characteristics that influence children's first experiences with formal
school, including interaction between the child and family, nonparental
care, and health care. Among the issues addressed by the ECLS- Birth Cohort
study are the effects of participation in different types of early care and
education programs or arrangements on children's development. 14 The first
available data from the study are scheduled to be released in spring 2002.

Summary A number of federal programs support early childhood care and
education, and many of them provide services that may contribute to
children's school

readiness. The programs' primary goals or purposes and the level of support
for preschool services help determine whether information is available on
specific program outcomes such as school readiness. Programs that are not
primarily focused on achieving school readiness, for example, are less
likely to collect data to measure that outcome. Although services provided
through these programs may contribute to school readiness, data collection
efforts will likely center on outcomes more

13 See Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability,
and Performance Information( GAO/ GGD- 98- 137, June 22, 1998). 14 The Head
Start and Child Care bureaus are also funding an enhancement of ECLS- Birth
Cohort that focuses on assessing parents' reasons for selecting the types of
child care and observations of the quality of the child care settings. This
is an addition to the original design of the study.

central to a program's major purposes. The level of support for specific
services may also relate to what information is available. For example, if
most funds or services are used for purposes other than early childhood
education and care, program assessments are more likely to be conducted on
the areas that receive greater support. Consequently, even though the
federal funding in support of early childhood education and care is
substantial, there are currently limited data upon which to determine the
effect of individual federal programs on school readiness.

Agency Comments HHS and Education reviewed a draft of this report. HHS's
written comments are provided in appendix I. HHS generally concurred with
the

findings in our report. HHS provided additional information about CCDF and
the school readiness- related benefits of quality child care as well as the
role of the states in administering CCDF and the Child Care Bureau in
providing technical assistance to them. Finally, HHS indicated that we
represented Head Start performance measurement information fairly.

Education did not provide written comments. Both HHS and Education provided
technical and editorial comments that we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education; the Honorable Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and
Human Services; and others who are interested. We will also make copies
available to others on request.

Please contact me on (202) 512- 7215 or Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director,
on (202) 512- 9045, if you or your staff have any questions about this
report. Other major contributors were Linda Y. A. McIver, Susan A.
Riedinger, and Pamela R. Vines.

Sincerely yours, Marnie S. Shaul Associate Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

Appendi xes Comments From the Department of Health

Appendi I x and Human Services

(104982) Let er t

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Contents

Page 2 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Page 3 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs United States General
Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 4 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 5 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 6 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 7 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 8 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 9 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 10 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 11 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 12 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 13 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 14 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 15 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 16 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 17 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

B- 283428 Page 18 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Page 19 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Page 20 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Appendix I

Appendix I Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 21 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Appendix I Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 22 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is
free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following
address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-
mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Appendix I Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 24 GAO/ HEHS- 00- 38 Early Childhood Programs

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00

PAGE 27 GAO/ XXXX- 98-??? NAME OF DOCUMENT
*** End of document. ***