Migrant Children: Education and HHS Need to Improve the Exchange of
Participant Information (Letter Report, 10/15/1999, GAO/HEHS-00-4).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Education's Migrant Education Program (MEP) and the
Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Migrant Head Start
Program (MHS), focusing on: (1) the goals of the MEP and MHS programs,
how they operate, who they serve, and what services they provide; (2)
the extent to which Education and HHS facilitate the coordination of MEP
and MHS services within each of their programs and between the two
programs; and (3) how well Education and HHS determine whether MEP and
MHS achieve their goals and objectives.

GAO noted that: (1) MEP and MHS was created to provide assistance to
migrant children by providing a wide spectrum of health, educational,
nutritional, and social services; (2) MEP's major goal is to ensure that
migrant children have the opportunity to meet the same state educational
standards as other children, a goal geared to the needs of elementary
and secondary school students who constitute about 82 percent of its
participants; (3) MEP serves children of workers engaged in crop and a
variety of agricultural activities; (4) MEP services vary across states,
districts', and schools and are provided in accordance with state and
district standards; (5) in contrast, MHS' primary goal--to promote
school readiness--reflects the needs of the preschool children it
serves; (6) to achieve this goal; MHS provides funds to grantees to
establish infant and preschool centers that provide comprehensive and
uniform services for eligible migrant children up to 6 years of age of
crop workers only; (7) MHS provides prescribed health, nutritional,
social, and educational services according to federal standards; (8)
neither Education nor HHS has a system to transfer participant
information between different locations within each program, despite the
need to transfer key information in a timely way as students move around
the country; (9) although some states and grantees have designed their
own systems to track students who move within their boundaries, none
supports student information exchange on a national level; (10) during
GAO's site visits, some officials said that federal leadership is needed
to develop two national systems--one for MEP and one for MHS--that could
support the exchange of essential student information on a national
level and that could also help increase coordination between migrant
student service providers at the state and local levels; (11) although
both Education and HHS have collected substantial data for MEP and MHS
such as numbers of participants and services, the data do not enable
either department to evaluate program outcomes and determine the extent
to which the program goals are met; (12) this is partly because of
fundamental measurement problems associated with collecting outcome data
for these programs; (13) as noted in the performance plans required by
the Government Performance and Results Act, both Education and HHS
intend to expand their data collection efforts to include some outcome
data in the future; and (14) however, the usefulness of these data to
describe MEP and MHS outcomes on a national level is likely to be
limited because, for example, MEP data will not be comparable across
states.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-00-4
     TITLE:  Migrant Children: Education and HHS Need to Improve the
	     Exchange of Participant Information
      DATE:  10/15/1999
   SUBJECT:  Interagency relations
	     Migrant or seasonal worker programs
	     Immigration information systems
	     Children
	     Education program evaluation
	     Immigrants
	     Aid for education
IDENTIFIER:  Migrant Education Program
	     HHS Migrant Head Start Program
	     California
	     Colorado
	     Georgia
	     Michigan
	     New York
	     Oregon
	     Pennsylvania
	     Texas

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 1999

MIGRANT CHILDREN - EDUCATION AND
HHS NEED TO IMPROVE THE EXCHANGE
OF PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

GAO/HEHS-00-4

Migrant Children

(104953)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ACF - Administration for Children and Families
  FACES - Family and Child Experiences Survey
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  MEP - Migrant Education Program
  MHS - Migrant Head Start
  NAEP - National Assessment of Educational Progress

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-281918

October 15, 1999

The Honorable Henry Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Lantos
The Honorable Bernard Sanders
House of Representatives

Children in migrant agricultural worker families often face
significant developmental and educational obstacles, including
poverty, limited English proficiency, rural and social isolation, and
health risks associated with intermittent medical care and pesticide
exposure.  For migrant children, these obstacles are compounded by
mobility as families move from site to site in search of work.  In
recognition of the needs of these children, the Congress created the
Department of Education's Migrant Education Program (MEP) in 1965 and
the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Migrant Head Start
(MHS) program in 1969.\1 In fiscal year 1999, about $350 million was
appropriated for MEP and approximately $174 million was appropriated
for MHS. 

For more than 30 years, these programs have served millions of
migrant children.  In 1998, about 660,000 children received services
from MEP and MHS.  Yet very little is known about program outcomes. 
In this context, you asked us to ascertain (1) the goals of the MEP
and MHS programs, how they operate, who they serve, and what services
they provide; (2) the extent to which Education and HHS facilitate
the coordination of MEP and MHS services within each of their
programs and between the two programs; and (3) how well Education and
HHS determine whether MEP and MHS achieve their goals and objectives. 

To answer these questions, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and
other relevant documents, including the departments' strategic and
performance plans as required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act).  We also interviewed program
officials at the federal level and in eight states--California,
Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
Texas.  We selected these states because (1) large numbers of migrant
families live in them or travel to them for work, (2) they have both
MEP and MHS programs, (3) they offer a wide range of agricultural
jobs, and (4) they are located in different U.S.  agricultural
regions.  During our site visits, we observed local programs in each
of the eight states.  We conducted our work from October 1998 through
September 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 

--------------------
\1 Although MEP was not statutorily created until after 1965, the
Congress first authorized migrant education funding in the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

MEP and MHS were created to provide assistance to migrant children by
providing a wide spectrum of health, educational, nutritional, and
social services.  However, the programs' goals are quite different. 
MEP's major goal is to ensure that migrant children have the
opportunity to meet the same state educational standards as other
children, a goal geared to the needs of elementary and secondary
school students who constitute about 82 percent of its participants. 
To achieve this goal, MEP supplements elementary and secondary
education activities by, for example, providing funds for tutoring
and gives the states broad discretion regarding how to use funds to
achieve program goals.  MEP serves children of workers engaged in
crop and a variety of other agricultural activities.  MEP services
vary across states, districts, and schools and are provided in
accordance with state and district standards.  In contrast, MHS's
primary goal--to promote school readiness--reflects the needs of the
preschool children it serves.  To achieve this goal, MHS provides
funds to grantees to establish infant and preschool centers that
provide comprehensive and uniform services for eligible migrant
infants and preschool children of crop workers only.  MHS provides
prescribed health, nutritional, social, and educational services
according to federal standards.  As a result of MHS's narrower
eligibility requirements, fewer infants and preschool migrant
children are eligible for MHS than for MEP. 

Neither Education nor HHS has a system to transfer participant
information between different locations within each program, despite
the need to transfer key information in a timely way as students move
around the country.  As a result, students may experience
inappropriate classroom placements or delays in receiving services,
repeat immunizations, or fail to complete high school graduation
requirements.  Although some states and grantees have designed their
own systems to track students who move within their boundaries, none
supports student information exchange on a national level.  During
our site visits, some officials said that federal leadership is
needed to develop two national systems--one for MEP and one for
MHS--that could support the exchange of essential student information
on a national level and that could also help increase coordination
between migrant student service providers at the state and local
levels. 

Although both Education and HHS have collected substantial data for
MEP and MHS such as numbers of participants and services, the current
data do not enable either department to evaluate program outcomes and
determine the extent to which program goals are met.  This is partly
because of fundamental measurement problems associated with
collecting outcome data for these programs.  Such problems include
the difficulty of linking student outcomes with program interventions
provided at early ages.  As noted in the performance plans required
by the Results Act, both Education and HHS intend to expand their
data collection efforts to include some outcome data in the future. 
However, the usefulness of these data to describe MEP and MHS
outcomes on a national level is likely to be limited because, for
example, MEP data will not be comparable across states.  We are
recommending that Education and HHS take steps designed to improve
delivery of services to migrant children under MEP and MHS and to
enable the assessment of their outcomes. 

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The fresh produce and the wide variety of canned and frozen foods
found on U.S.  tables would not be available without the work of the
diverse and changing population of migrant farmworkers.  Despite the
importance of migrant workers in agriculture and despite national
concerns over the living conditions of many migrant families,
reliable data that describe this population are limited.  Government
data describing the number and characteristics of migrant
agricultural workers vary widely, depending on how migrancy is
defined, the types of jobs that are considered agricultural, and how
and when data are collected.  However, data indicate that 3 to 5
million farmworkers and family members travel in search of farm work
annually.  To understand the needs of migrant children, how they have
changed over time, and the implications for service eligibility and
service availability, it is important to understand the nature of the
population itself and how mobility and work patterns change as the
economy changes. 

      MIGRANT WORKERS ARE DIVERSE,
      YOUNG, AND MOBILE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

The migrant agricultural population is diverse.  Although most crop
workers are Mexican and Mexican-American, there has been an influx of
workers from Central America.  At the same time, the migrant labor
force continues to include English-speaking, white U.S.  families
picking blueberries in Maine; women bikers (motorcyclists) picking
fruit in Idaho; Bengali-speaking workers harvesting grapes and other
fruit in California; Russian-speaking workers fishing and logging in
the Northwest; and Gullah-speaking, African-American families
shrimping in Georgia.  Over the years, the workforce has gotten
younger:  Most workers are younger than 35.  In particular, the
number of teenage boys, some as young as 13, who migrate without
families has continued to increase.  Despite this increase, about
half of all migrant workers travel with their families.  As figure 1
shows, 67 percent of migrant crop worker families lived in two or
three locations per year, about 22 percent lived in only one
location, and 11 percent lived in four or more locations in 1993-94. 

   Figure 1:  Number of Locations
   in Which Crop Worker Families
   Lived During 1993-94

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  National Agricultural Worker Survey of MHS parents. 

      MOBILITY AND WORK PATTERNS
      ARE CHANGING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

Traditionally, migratory workers have traveled in three geographical
streams, or routes, but these streams have given way to less
predictable movement patterns.  The traditional routes that migrant
families traveled followed the growth cycles of crops across specific
regions of the United States, generally from south to north and back
again.  (See fig.  2.) The western stream was the path followed by
migrant families from California to the Northwest and the western
states.  The central stream was the path from Texas through the
Central Plains states.  The eastern stream was the path followed from
Florida through the East Coast states. 

   Figure 2:  Traditional Streams
   of Migration

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of data from Joseph O.  Prewitt Diaz, Robert T. 
Trottle II, and Vidal A.  Rivera, Jr., The Effects of Migration on
Children:  An Ethnographic Study (Harrisburg:  Pennsylvania
Department of Education, Division of Migrant Education, 1989). 

Migration patterns have been changing since the 1980s.  Many families
no longer follow crops but travel from their home base directly to
one destination, where they work for a season and then return home,
while others follow unpredictable routes as they move between crop
and other types of agricultural work.  For example, during the
1997-98 school year, children attending school in one district in
Texas had traveled from their home base, attended schools in at least
40 other states, and then returned home.  (See fig.  3.)

   Figure 3:  Migration Patterns
   of Migrant Students in One
   Texas School District, 1997-98

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Weslaco Independent School District, 1998. 

Changes in migration patterns reflect the increased mechanization of
agricultural work; growth of large-scale agribusiness, including
poultry and hog farming; the rotation of workers from harvest work to
other types of agricultural work; and increased opportunities for
jobs in other types of seasonal rural jobs, particularly the
recreation industry.  Although some agricultural areas have not
benefited from the currently strong economy, many areas have
increased in their opportunities for service-sector employment such
as work in resorts.  This, in turn, has enabled some migrant workers
to find year-round work in a particular area, although they might
continue to change jobs seasonally. 

Under traditional migration patterns, the states could be classified
as "home-based" and receiving states.  Home-based states are those
where many migrant families live for all or most of the year,
depending on whether they migrate within one state or between states,
respectively.  Receiving states are those in which most migrants work
for a few weeks or months per year and then return home.  However,
this distinction is becoming increasingly blurred as migration
patterns change and some children stop migrating.  For example, since
California provides good-quality housing to some families, the
children do not travel but stay at home with their mother or another
relative while one or both parents continue to migrate. 

   MEP AND MHS DIFFER IN GOALS AND
   OBJECTIVES, OPERATIONS,
   ELIGIBLE POPULATIONS, AND
   SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Both MEP and MHS were created to provide assistance to children of
migrant farmworkers.  However, these programs differ in terms of
goals and objectives, operations, eligible populations, and services. 

MEP is one of many education programs that is intended to make sure
that "Special populations receive appropriate services and
assessments consistent with high standards" under the goal of
building "a solid foundation for learning for all children" in
Education's strategic plan.\2 Although the statute mentions many
goals, MEP officials define MEP's overall goal as ensuring that
migrant students have the opportunity to meet the same state
educational standards as other children.  To reach its program goal,
MEP distributes funds to the states and gives them substantial
discretion in reallocating resources to local and regional agencies,
determining program characteristics, or delegating program decisions
to local or regional agencies.  Children up to age 21 who work or
whose parents work in a wide range of agricultural occupations and
who have moved across school district lines during the past 3 years
are eligible to receive MEP services, but not all eligible children
are served.  States and localities determine which eligible children
receive MEP services.  Services vary across states and across local
districts within states, but most services are school-based. 

In contrast, MHS's primary goal is the same as that of regular Head
Start--to promote school readiness.  To reach this overall goal, the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) performance plan
specifies three performance goals:  enhancing children's growth and
development, strengthening families, and providing children with
educational services.\3 MHS does this by providing grants to
establish and support preschool programs separate from regular Head
Start programs that provide comprehensive services and that operate
under uniform federal Head Start standards.  MHS targets only
children of migrant crop workers who meet MHS's mobility and income
requirements.  As a result of MHS's narrower definition of
agricultural work, fewer migrant children are eligible for MHS than
for MEP.  Even for this smaller population, MHS's capacity to serve
all eligible children is limited.  Table 1 summarizes the goals,
operations, eligibility requirements, and services for MEP and MHS. 

                                         Table 1
                         
                          Key MEP and MHS Goals and Objectives,
                          Operations, Eligibility Requirements,
                                       and Services

Progr  Statutory goals and                         Eligibility
am     objectives              Operations          requirements        Services
-----  ----------------------  ------------------  ------------------  ------------------
MEP    To support high-       Funding level is   0-21 years of age  Priority for
       quality educational     set by the          Moved from one     services is given
       programs for migrant    Congress            school district to  to migrant
       children                Each state is      another within the  children who are
       To ensure that         entitled to         prior 36 months\a   failing, or most
       migrant children are    receive funds       Qualifying         at risk of
       provided with           according to a      agricultural work   failing, to meet
       appropriate services    statutory formula   of students or      the state's
       such as social          States determine   parents includes    challenging
       services, reading       priorities for use  cultivating and     content and
       instruction, and        of funds            harvesting crops    performance
       emergency medical and   States determine   and trees,          standards and
       dental services         the amount of       logging, dairy,     whose education
       To ensure that         subgrants that are  fisheries, meat     has been
       migrant children have   awarded to          processing, and     interrupted during
       the same opportunity    operating           canning             the regular school
       to meet the             agencies            Qualifying work    year
       challenging state       States determine   provides a          Services are
       content and             the discretion      principal means of  determined by
       performance standards   allowed local       income              state and local
       that all children are   education agencies  No income level    education
       expected to meet        regarding use of    requirements        agencies
       To design programs to  MEP funds                               Services
       help migrant children   Programs may be                        typically support
       overcome factors that   run by state                            other educational
       inhibit their ability   education                               services
       to do well in school    agencies, local                         Local education
       and to prepare them to  education                               agencies may use
       move successfully to    agencies, or other                      funds in
       postsecondary           entities                                combination with
       education or                                                    other federal,
       employment                                                      state, and local
       To ensure that                                                 funds to support
       migrant children                                                schoolwide
       benefit from state and                                          programs to
       local systemic                                                  upgrade the entire
       education reforms                                               school program

MHS    To promote school       The Secretary of   0-5 years of age   Each MHS center
       readiness by enhancing  HHS determines the  Changed residence  must have a formal
       the social and          funding level by    from one            process for
       cognitive development   designating funds   geographic area to  establishing
       of low-income children  from the 13         another in the      selection criteria
       through the provision,  percent of the      preceding 2-year    for selecting
       to low-income children  total Head Start    period              children and
       and their families, of  appropriation that  At least 51        families for
       health, educational,    is required to be   percent of family   services
       nutritional, social,    reserved for        income derives      HHS prescribes
       and other services      special             from crop work      program standards
       that are determined to  priorities          activities          and services
       be necessary, given     Grant periods are  Income level is    Comprehensive
       family needs            indefinite and      at or below         services are
       assessments             grantees can be     poverty level       provided in the
                               denied future       defined by the      areas of
                               funding only for    Office of           socialization,
                               cause               Management and      health, nutrition,
                               Funds are awarded  Budget              education, and
                               to grantees who     Children of        early childhood
                               may operate         seasonal            development. The
                               centers in          agricultural        centers can
                               multiple states,    workers\b           provide more
                               single states,                          services but not
                               multiple counties,                      fewer than
                               or a single                             required by
                               county                                  federal standards
                               Grantees can                           Services are
                               operate MHS                             provided, on
                               centers themselves                      average, 10.4
                               or delegate all or                      hours per day
                               part of this                            Scheduled
                               responsibility to                       operations range
                               other agencies,                         from 1 month to 12
                               called delegates                        months, depending
                                                                       on local
                                                                       agricultural
                                                                       cycles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  MEP was authorized by the Improving America's School Act (P.L. 
103-382) on October 20, 1994.  The Head Start program, under which
funds are reserved for MHS, was most recently reauthorized by the
Coats Human Service Amendments of 1998 (P.L.  105-285). 

\a A child who is in a state that has only one school district, such
as Hawaii, and moves from one administrative area to another within
that district would be considered a migrant.  In Alaska, in school
districts larger than 15,000 square miles, children are considered
migrants if they move to a temporary residence 20 or more miles away
to engage in a fishing activity. 

\b Children of seasonal agricultural workers, defined as agricultural
workers engaged in seasonal activities who do not change residence,
may be served as a result of the 1998 amendments, but HHS has not
issued guidance regarding services for this population. 

--------------------
\2 U.S.  Department of Education, 1998-2000 Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C.:  Sept.  30, 1997). 

\3 ACF, Annual Performance Plan, FY 2000, and Revised FY 1999
Performance Plan for the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (Washington, D.C.:  Jan.  1999).

      MEP ASSISTS STATE AND LOCAL
      EFFORTS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
      MIGRANT CHILDREN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

MEP's general goal is to support quality educational programs for
migrant children by providing funds to states and school districts to
serve migrant children up to age 21 who work or whose parents work in
a wide range of agricultural occupations.  During the 1997-98 school
year, MEP provided assistance to more than 620,000 migrant children. 
In fiscal year 1999, MEP grants to the states amounted to about $350
million, or an average of $560 per participant.\4 Because the average
spending per child is relatively small, MEP generally provides
supplemental instructional and supportive services, such as
counseling and outreach activities aimed at locating and identifying
eligible children and helping them and their families gain access to
educational, health, nutritional, and social services. 

Decisions regarding how MEP funds are spent can be made largely at
the state level as in New York, at the regional level as in
Pennsylvania, or at the local level as in Michigan.  In many of the
states we visited, MEP funds that went to the state were
redistributed to school districts, consortia of multiple school
districts, or regional service centers with sizable migrant
populations.  According to the most recent available data, migrant
education programs operated in about 17,000 schools, largely in rural
areas, during the regular school year.\5

MEP supports programs in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto
Rico.  For the regular 1997-98 school year, about 82 percent of all
MEP participants were elementary and secondary school students, 13
percent were preschool children, and 5 percent were out-of-school
youths.  (See fig.  4.) However, each state and district decides
which age groups to focus on, so the proportions differ from place to
place.  For example, the percentage of MEP preschool participants
ranges from 41 percent of participants in Georgia to none in Rhode
Island, and the percentage of MEP participants who are out-of-school
youths ranges from 36 percent in Maryland to none in Wisconsin. 
Although MEP services are widely available, not all eligible students
are served.  In California, at least 25 percent of eligible students
were not counted as receiving services from MEP, but the states
define services differently.  For example, in Colorado, all students
who were identified as eligible were counted as participants because
the state considered its actions to identify students as eligible as
a service.\6

   Figure 4:  Percentages of
   Migrant Education Participants
   by Age or Grade Range, 1997-98

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Education data. 

A wide range of institutions deliver services.  During our visits, we
saw MEP services delivered by states, regional service centers,
universities, districts, and local schools.  Students receive
services in schools, at home, or in community facilities; during the
regular school year, school vacations, or in the summer; and before,
during, or after the school day. 

Nationwide, during the 1997-98 regular school year, MEP support
services, such as social services or outreach efforts and guidance or
counseling, were the most common services provided.  Forty-six
percent of MEP participants received social or outreach services, and
20 percent received guidance or counseling.  Reading was the most
common instructional service and was received by about 23 percent of
MEP participants. 

In the states and districts we visited, specific services also varied
widely.  In some cases, the needs of migrant children were met
through regular school activities.  In other cases, states, regions,
and districts targeted MEP funds for certain services.  For example,
at the state level, some states designated MEP funds to pay for
summer programs for migrant children and one state used MEP funds to
purchase accident insurance, which enabled migrant students to take
part in extracurricular activities.  At the regional level, one high
school was given MEP funds to hire a teacher to provide bilingual
instruction in high school mathematics and science courses.  At the
district level, some districts used MEP funds for special programs
such as tutoring migrant children who were most at risk of failure
and providing computer-based instruction or leadership training,
while others used funds to support schoolwide activities.  In some
districts, summer services were delivered by tutors who worked with
students in their homes, while in others, summer services were
delivered at public schools.  In many of the districts we visited, a
portion of MEP funds was used for essential dental and medical
services that families could not obtain otherwise.  In several
districts, MEP staff organized clothing drives or food banks and
provided transportation to families for such things as medical
appointments.  (Appendixes I and II describe in more detail MEP
programs and services in the eight states we visited and demographic
information on the children there.)

--------------------
\4 MEP's allocation formula is based on the number of eligible
migrant students aged 3-21 who have been identified by the states and
the per pupil expenditure for each state on a yearly basis.  However,
MEP may serve children aged 0-21, and not all identified children
receive services. 

\5 Data are reported from the 1997 Database of Schools Enrolling
Migrant Children, which was a one-time project conducted by Education
that used a list of schools and school districts from the 1993-94
Common Core of Data file. 

\6 Guidance from the Department of Education states that being
identified as eligible for MEP is not participation for reporting
purposes.  However, state and local officials told us that recruiters
usually provide information or referral services when they identify
children. 

      MHS PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE
      SERVICES TO MIGRANT INFANTS
      AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

To promote school readiness for migrant children, MHS funds grantees
to establish and operate preschool centers that provide comprehensive
services to migrant children up to age 6 whose parents cultivate and
harvest crops.  In 1998, MHS provided grants totaling about $160
million to 24 grantees that served approximately 37,000 children in
33 states.  Although there are no national cost figures and programs
vary significantly, one MHS grantee estimated that the cost of a
full-year MHS program would be as high as $18,000 per child. 

All Head Start programs are required to operate according to uniform
and comprehensive federal performance standards.  These standards
govern key aspects of the program, such as nutrition, safety, child
health and development, and family and community partnerships.  After
standards are met, grantees may offer additional services. 

Although MHS services are comprehensive, the capacity of MHS centers
to serve eligible children varies greatly.  At the time of our
visits, only one grantee had sufficient resources to serve all
eligible children in its area, while another could serve only about
10 percent.  Most MHS officials reported that the areas they served
had large unmet needs for infant and toddler care in their areas.  In
addition, the availability of centers is limited.  For example, only
three MHS centers operate in Georgia. 

In order to target MHS resources to the most needy children and
families and to provide services in areas where needs are greatest,
Head Start regulations require that all grantees and delegates set
criteria that define the types of children and families who will be
given priority for recruitment and selection and that they recruit
children in areas that are among those having the greatest needs as
determined by formal assessments of community strengths and weakness. 
To reflect demographic changes in communities, community assessments
have to be conducted every 3 years. 

MHS programs must comply with the same performance standards as
regular Head Start.  However, MHS and regular Head Start differ in
the ages of the children served and the seasons, hours, and days
operated.  As table 2 shows, these differences in characteristics
reflect how MHS addresses the special needs of migrant families by
providing services to younger participants and by operating longer
hours and more days per week than regular Head Start. 

                          Table 2
          
            Differences Between Participants and
             Program Characteristics of MHS and
                     Regular Head Start

Participants
and program
characterist
ics           MHS                   Regular Head Start
------------  --------------------  ----------------------
Participants  47 percent are aged   3 percent are aged
              birth to 3            birth to 3

Schedule      Coincides with local  September through June
              agricultural cycles,
              anywhere from 4
              weeks to 12 months

Hours per     8 to 14               4
day

Days per      5 to 7                5
week
----------------------------------------------------------
In the areas that we visited, MHS centers provided services that
exceeded services provided by regular Head Start centers in those
areas and operated for longer hours and more days per week.  For
example, most of these MHS centers provided transportation between
homes and centers and many provided bilingual language development
and education, while others instructed parents about pesticide safety
and provided clothing and books to needy migrant families through
community outreach efforts.  (Appendix III describes the nine MHS
agencies in the eight states we visited.)

MHS serves a narrowly defined agricultural population.  The Head
Start statute requires that eligibility for MHS be limited to
children of migrant agricultural workers who have moved to seek
agricultural employment during the past 2 years.  In addition,
families are required to have income at or below the poverty level
and to derive at least 51 percent of family income from qualifying
agricultural activities.\7 Under the statute, the Secretary of HHS
determines what agricultural activities qualify families for MHS. 
Since the beginning of the program in 1969, only families involved in
the cultivation and harvesting of crops have been eligible for
services.  Moreover, 90 percent of crop workers work in fruit,
vegetable, and horticultural activities and these activities are
concentrated in a few states.  For example, California produces
one-third of all fruit, vegetable, and horticultural sales. 
Consequently, MHS centers are concentrated in a few states like
California and Texas.  In contrast, dairy, livestock, and poultry
operations are widespread throughout rural areas, most operating in
the Midwest, South, and East.  Although these areas may have crop
work as well, concentrations of eligible children are not sufficient
to warrant many MHS centers in these areas. 

Because MHS's regulations define agriculture narrowly, a child would
be ineligible for enrollment in another MHS program if a parent found
agricultural work related to dairy, hogs, or poultry.\8 For example,
a child whose family meets MHS income and mobility requirements is
eligible for MHS if most of the family's income was earned by
cultivating or harvesting crops.  If the parents change jobs without
moving, so that most of their income is earned from working on a
poultry farm, and the child is able to continue in the same MHS
program, the child will not be terminated from the program until it
closes down or the program year is over.  If the family moves to work
on a chicken farm, however, and wants to use an MHS program in a
different location, the child will be ineligible even though the
family's income level and migrant status remain unchanged.  MHS
officials told us that this happens frequently.\9 If MHS's definition
were broadened to include the same population as MEP, this disruption
in services would not necessarily occur.  However, with more children
eligible for services, grantees and delegates would have a greater
need to prioritize service provision for the most needy migrant
children and target funds to geographic areas where the need for
services is greatest, unless more resources were devoted to MHS or to
other federal or state programs. 

--------------------
\7 Although the 1998 Head Start amendments expanded coverage to
include children of seasonal crop workers once the Secretary of HHS
determines that services to migrants are being provided at an
appropriate level, this expansion has not been implemented. 

\8 We were told that this definition might result in unanticipated
negative consequences to families because it may deter some parents
from accepting seasonal noncrop employment in order to maintain
eligibility for MHS programs. 

\9 In New York, MHS's narrow definition is not a problem.  The MHS
program serves children funded by MHS and by the state of New York. 
If a child becomes ineligible for MHS because parents change jobs
from picking crops to working in a poultry plant or milking cows, the
state-funded program will continue to fund services.  Therefore, even
if a child becomes ineligible for MHS, he or she continues to receive
the same services from the state-funded program. 

   INFORMATION EXCHANGE IS LIMITED
   DESPITE NEED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Neither Education nor HHS has done much in the past few years to
coordinate the exchange of participant information between different
sites of the same program as participants move from place to place. 
In some of the sites we visited, officials said that children
sometimes did not receive needed services in a timely manner or had
to repeat immunizations because records were not transferred or were
not transferred promptly.  Although some states and grantees have
developed systems to track students, none supports information
exchange on a national level.  One way to address this problem is to
develop national electronic information transfer systems.  Officials
we interviewed said that federal leadership is needed to develop such
systems.  In addition, we believe that federal leadership could
improve state and local coordination of services although, in the
sites we visited, significant interagency coordination did occur at
the state and local levels. 

      ABSENCE OF NATIONALLY
      ACCESSIBLE MEP AND MHS
      INFORMATION SYSTEMS HAS
      NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Although migrant children move frequently from place to place, no
national systems exist to support the timely transfer of student
information.\10 For school-aged migrant children, this often causes
inappropriate classroom placements and delays in receiving services
and complicates the transfer of course credits for high school
students, according to MEP officials.  For children eligible for MHS,
MHS officials told us, this can result in duplicated services such as
multiple assessments and immunizations. 

While parents sometimes deliver records to the receiving school or
center or can provide contact information, local officials told us
that staff at the receiving school or center usually have to identify
a contact point at the sending institutions to obtain student
records.  According to several state and local officials we visited,
an electronic information tracking system that contains essential
information such as a point of contact, medical information, and, in
the case of MEP, grade and course placement information would enable
them to promptly enroll children in appropriate courses or programs
and initiate needed services. 

MHS's information exchange problems continue despite the
implementation of the Head Start Family Information System, a
voluntary case management information system designed by Head Start
to track child-specific data, including health and educational
services.  This information system has the potential to resolve
inefficiencies resulting from duplication of services, particularly
unneeded multiple immunizations and health screenings, but HHS needs
to take several steps before the system can reach its potential. 
Although the system was introduced in 1990, it remains in the
implementation stage, and no MHS grantee has yet fully implemented
it, in part because of its voluntary nature and burdensome data entry
requirements.  In addition, while Head Start officials hope to use
the Internet to transfer data from one MHS site to another, HHS has
not yet initiated activities to ensure data confidentiality. 

--------------------
\10 Education used to have a national system called the Migrant
Student Records Transfer System.  The goal of this effort was to
computerize and transmit records of migrant students.  Begun in 1969,
it was abolished in 1994 because it was slow, incomplete, and
infrequently used. 

      SOME STATES AND ALL MHS
      GRANTEES HAVE ACCESS TO
      INFORMATION TRANSFER
      SYSTEMS, BUT THEIR
      GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE IS LIMITED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Some states and all MHS grantees have access to information transfer
systems, but systematic exchange is limited to the states or centers
within each system.  Although MEP lacks a national information
transfer system, the states or consortia of states do have their own
systems, many of which have been funded with the help of Education
grants.  The largest exchange system is called MIS-2000; it has 21
member states and includes such information as names and ages of the
students, parent data, immunization history, high school records, and
special education needs.  MIS-2000 also provides unduplicated counts
of students.\11 Another system, the New Generation System, used by 10
states, has the capability to electronically transfer students'
records and provide unduplicated counts.  The states have also
developed their own database systems or use a commercial software
package that functions as an intrastate database of student
eligibility. 

Similarly, some MHS grantees use information-tracking systems other
than the Head Start Family Information System for transferring
information across their centers, and, if a student moves between MHS
centers operated by the same grantee, student information can usually
be transferred quickly.\12 For example, the East Coast Migrant Head
Start Project, the largest interstate grantee, which operates 86 MHS
centers in 12 states, has developed a system that stores and
transfers children's records without using computers.  However, the
MHS officials we spoke with said many migrant children move between
centers operated by different grantees in such a way that timely
information exchange does not occur.  Therefore, disruption in
service provision can occur as children wait for appropriate
placements and services.  For example, a child who has been receiving
speech and language therapy during the regular school year may need
to receive it throughout the summer.  If the family migrates for 6
weeks during the summer to a new location and the records do not
accompany the child, the child may not receive speech therapy until
he or she returns to his or her original location.  Thus, the child
may experience a disruption in service. 

--------------------
\11 Because national data currently are the result of adding together
enrollment counts from each state, children are counted every time
they enroll in a program in a different state.  As a result,
databases with unduplicated counts are valuable sources of
information about the actual number of children being served. 

\12 The size of areas served by the MHS grantees we visited varies
substantially.  One grantee operates or delegates the operation of
centers in 12 states, one operates in 4 states, and five grantees
operate in only 1 state. 

      FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IS NEEDED
      TO IMPROVE INFORMATION
      EXCHANGE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Federal, state, and local educational officials agreed that Education
would have to lead the effort to develop a national information
tracking system for MEP.  Any system that is developed would have to
protect the privacy of individuals.  A secure Internet system that
transferred immunization and school placement information and
identified a contact point at the sending school would accomplish two
objectives.  First, the states and local school districts could
obtain a contact point for obtaining records from the schools from
which migrant children came.  Second, by providing an unduplicated
count of migrant children, it would improve the accuracy of MEP
program data.  For MHS, although some officials stated that the Head
Start Family Information System could provide national-level access
to records, others said that its voluntary nature and voluminous data
entry requirements were obstacles.  Most MHS officials said that HHS
leadership would be helpful in overcoming these obstacles. 

Creating national electronic information tracking systems for MEP and
MHS is complicated by such factors as the number and cost of existing
systems that are run by consortia, private corporations, or
individual states and grantees.  For example, a few MHS grantees have
already implemented commercial information tracking systems and are
reluctant to convert to the Head Start Family Information System. 

      STATES AND LOCAL AGENCIES
      PLAY THE KEY ROLE IN
      COORDINATING SERVICE
      DELIVERY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Currently, state and local agencies play the key role in coordinating
services between MEP and MHS, as they do in coordinating all the
other service providers used at the local level.  The role of the
federal agencies in coordinating services across the two programs is
limited because MEP and MHS target different populations--MEP serves
mainly elementary and secondary students while MHS serves preschool
children--and whatever coordination may be necessary between the two
programs generally occurs at the state and local levels. 

In the sites we visited, coordination between MEP and MHS occurred in
areas where programs overlapped, such as preparing children for
kindergarten or obtaining services for families with children in both
programs.  For example, in an area in New York, local MEP and MHS
officials coordinated efforts to prepare migrant children for
kindergarten by sending MHS children to an MEP summer school and, in
another area, by sending MEP staff to tutor at an MHS center.  In
Oregon, an MHS site shares facilities with a local MEP preschool
program, and programs work together to promote school readiness.  MEP
and MHS officials routinely cooperate with local health agencies to
provide health services for families. 

Interagency coordination at the federal level could facilitate better
coordination at the state and local levels.  In a few locations,
competition over 4- and 5-year-old migrant students and incorrect
knowledge about the program hindered cooperation between local MEP
and MHS staff.  In these cases, federal leadership in developing
complementary visions for these programs could be helpful.  Education
does fund some programs to help state and local coordination (see
app.  IV) but these efforts do not offer any systemic solutions, and
many are short term and help relatively few migrant students. 

In the past, interagency cooperation was largely limited to
information sharing.  For example, the Federal Migrant Interagency
Committee, composed of representatives from 7 federal agencies,
including MEP and MHS, and 20 nonfederal organizations meets
routinely four times a year to share information on issues relating
to migrancy. 

A new interagency group, the Directors Group--formed in 1999 and
composed of the directors of MEP, MHS, HHS's Migrant Health Program,
and the Department of Labor's Migrant and Other Seasonally Employed
Farmworker Program--holds potential for increasing interagency
coordination.  It has as its mission the development of consistent
and complementary program visions and collaboration on initiatives
that affect agricultural families.  Because of its composition and
mission, this group's activities could result in better program
coordination. 

   AGENCIES HAVE LIMITED
   MECHANISMS FOR ASSESSING
   PROGRESS TOWARD OUTCOMES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Although state and local educational agencies collect information on
various measures of students' outcomes, such as achievement test
scores and promotion and graduation rates, neither Education nor HHS
can assess how well the MEP or MHS programs work.  This is partly
because of fundamental measurement problems associated with
collecting outcome data--data on the results of programs compared
with their intended purposes.  In response to the Results Act, both
Education and HHS intend to expand data collection efforts to include
some outcome data in the future.\13

--------------------
\13 The Results Act requires agencies to develop annual performance
plans to assess their progress toward reaching program goals. 

      CURRENT DATA COLLECTION
      FOCUSES ON INPUTS AND
      OUTPUTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Although both Education and HHS collect many types of data for MEP
and MHS, none of the current data enable the departments to evaluate
their program outcomes.  For example, since 1984, Education's data
collection efforts for MEP have focused on collecting input and
output information, such as percentages of students who receive
particular instructional or supportive services and counts of program
participants, and not information on outcomes, such as student
performance.\14 For some MHS goals, having the input or the output
information is enough.  For example, knowing that a child received an
immunization is evidence enough that he or she will not get the
disease or infect others with the disease.  However, for other goals,
including MEP's principal goal--to help students meet state
educational standards--and MHS's principal goal--to promote school
readiness--outcome measures are needed. 

The lack of information on the results achieved by these programs is
related to obstacles that hinder creating outcome measures for both
MEP and MHS (see table 3).  MEP's characteristics make creating
outcome measures particularly challenging.  For example, MEP operates
as a funding stream and supports the diverse goals and objectives of
many state and local activities.  Thus, no single measure can be used
to assess its results.  In addition, MEP's relatively small dollar
size, approximately $560 per student, and its use in augmenting
larger educational programs, make isolating its effects difficult. 
Moreover, obstacles also hinder the creation of outcome measures for
MHS.  For example, MHS serves many children during their infancy,
although its goal--promoting school readinesscannot be measured
until 4 to 5 years later.  Thus, the results of the program are
likely to be overshadowed by other situational factors that intervene
between infancy and kindergarten. 

                                         Table 3
                         
                          Obstacles to Creating Outcome Measures
                                   for Migrant Programs

Obstacle                  Effect                                             Program
------------------------  -------------------------------------------------  ------------
Operates like a funding   Because the program can support efforts that       MEP
stream rather than a      address diverse goals and objectives, it is
distinct program with     difficult to specify and select suitable outcome
its own operating         measures
structure

Augments larger efforts   Program outcomes are difficult to isolate from     MEP
                          outcomes from other federal, state, or local
                          education programs for meeting challenging state
                          standards

Achievement data are not  Each state decides on its own state test, how      MEP
comparable across states  proficiency or performance levels are set and
                          defined, and the grades at which students are
                          tested. Thus, student achievement scores are not
                          comparable from state to state

Lack of flexibility       Because operations, services, and types of         MEP
                          students served vary by state, region, district,
                          and school, no single measure can assess outcomes

Small size                Program outcomes are difficult to isolate from     MEP
                          outcomes deriving from other factors

Participants are mobile   Some children may be in the program only for a     MEP, MHS
                          few weeks and there is unlikely to be measurable
                          growth in that short time

Time lags between         Presents measurement challenges because of         MEP, MHS
program interventions;    multiple factors that intervene between the
for example, program      intervention and the measurement of outcomes
intervention occurs
early, often as early as
infancy, but expected
outcomes, such as school
success, are not
measured until years
later

Problems with duplicate   A child is counted every time he or she enrolls    MEP
counts                    in an MEP program. For example, if a child moves
                          from Texas to Arkansas during the school year and
                          is enrolled in MEP in both states, each state
                          reports him or her. Because there is no unique
                          national identifier for each child, aggregating
                          state data to produce national data counts this    MHS
                          child twice

                          In MHS, children can be double counted as new
                          participants when they move from one center to
                          another

Services and               States define service differently. For         MEP
participants served are   example, some states consider identification and
not comparable across     recruitment or referral to another social service
states                    organization a service whereas others do not
                           Efforts to disaggregate data by migrant status
                          have been problematic because migrant students
                          are not included in statewide standardized tests
                          if they are not enrolled in a school when tests
                          are given, schools may waive students'
                          participation if they are classified as having
                          limited English proficiency or being disabled,
                          and staff may not identify them because they
                          dislike labeling children
                           States focus on serving different age groups

Program duration varies   Results of short-term programs are not likely to   MEP, MHS
                          be measurable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Education does not have outcome data for MEP, it uses
several methods to obtain information on this program.  Education
cyclically conducts large multistate and national studies on MEP.  In
appendix V, we identify and briefly describe Education's major
sources of information on migrant students.  We also present
information on the major outcome studies for U.S.  school children. 
These outcome studies would need to be expanded to include migrant
children to be useful in measuring MEP. 

Education has begun several initiatives to use its standard data
collection systems for collecting additional information on migrant
students through its Common Core of Data and its Schools and Staffing
Survey.  However, these surveys do not collect outcome information. 
Education has not used the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), the only nationally representative measure of the
academic achievement of U.S.  students, to obtain outcome information
specifically on migrant students.  NAEP, which is known as the
Nation's Report Card because it collects data on educational
outcomes for U.S.  students, has been tracking student achievement on
the national level since 1969.  Although NAEP's testing agency may
include migrant students in its random sample of participants, scores
for migrant students cannot be analyzed separately because NAEP does
not include representative samples of migrant students and students
are not asked to identify themselves as children of migrant
agricultural families.  Also, schools can exclude students from
participating if they do not have sufficient English proficiency, and
some migrant children are likely to fall within this category. 
Moreover, migrant families' mobility means that students may not be
in a school participating in NAEP when the test is given. 

Despite the challenges in testing migrant students, such as language
and mobility, experts agree that it might be feasible to design a
special sample of migrant students in NAEP because migrant students
are clustered in particular areas.  For example, according to
Education's statistics, about 281,000, or 45 percent, of migrant
education participants were in California and Texas, but only 17,000,
or 3 percent, were in the six New England states.  In addition, many
students live in their home states for most of the school year. 
Furthermore, NAEP tests are usually administered in the winter, when
most migrant students are likely to be in their home states.  In
Texas, for example, most migrant students begin traveling in May and
return home by October.  Although information from a special sample
may not be ideal, it should provide useful outcome information on MEP
and allow Education to compare the academic achievement of migrant
students with that of other groups of U.S.  students. 

The Head Start Program Information Report is HHS's annual instrument
for collecting information on all Head Start programs.  Although the
report collects much useful demographic and service data, its data
collection methods and data elements are not completely suitable to
MHS's operations and population and cause data from the report to be
less reliable than for regular Head Start.  In addition, HHS has not
ensured that all MHS grantees report these data.  For the years 1996,
1997, and 1998, 27 percent, 8 percent, and 21 percent, respectively,
of MHS grantees failed to report Program Information Report data. 
Thus, basic national information, such as the number of children
served or immunizations received, is not available.  In appendix VI,
we briefly discuss the report and describe other sources of
information on MHS. 

Although HHS and other groups have conducted numerous studies to
evaluate Head Start and other childcare programs, none includes
outcome measures for participants in MHS.\\15 Appendix VI includes
information about 10 national studies that included MHS children or
children who share key characteristics, such as language or age, with
MHS participants.  Although many of these studies are likely to
provide information that will be useful to HHS in evaluating the
results of Head Start, none of them measures outcomes specifically
for MHS. 

--------------------
\14 Inputs are measures of the resources a manager has available to
carry out a program or activity--for example, the number of teachers
or dollars available.  Outputs are the amount or quality of goods,
products, or services produced.  Outcomes are the results achieved by
a program. 

\15 Children and Families in an Era of Rapid Change, Head Start's
Fourth National Research Conference (Washington, D.C.:  Department of
Health and Human Services, July 12-18, 1998), and Current Head Start
and Related Research (McLean, Va.:  Ellsworth Associates, n.d.)
identify and describe major Head Start and childcare studies. 

      PLANS FOR FUTURE DATA
      COLLECTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Of the measures reported in Education's performance plan for the
Results Act, only 1 of MEP's 11 performance measures is based on
outcomes.  It is that increasing numbers of migrant children will
meet or exceed the basic and proficient levels in state and local
assessments, which will not be measured until 2001.  There are
questions about whether Education will be able to obtain the
information by that time.  For example, in the past, school staff who
have had to give such information have been unwilling to identify
migrant students, because they disliked labeling children and often
did not know which students were migrant.  Second, because the states
use different tests and assess students at different times and grade
levels, information will not be comparable on a national level. 
While intrastate comparisons can be useful for most children, they
are less useful for assessing migrant children because the children
are often away from their home states in the spring, when state
assessments are likely to be given.  Third, many states have not
developed statewide assessments and are not likely to have
assessments in place by 2001.  Presently, 26 states have received
waivers from Education that allow them additional time to develop
assessment systems. 

HHS is implementing two major efforts to obtain additional
information for regular Head Start program participants.  First, HHS
is revising its monitoring instrument to include outcome-based
information.  However, monitoring occurs in 3-year cycles during
which its emphasis shifts.  Second, a national study, the Family and
Child Experiences Survey (FACES), is being implemented to collect
data on program results.\16

Although FACES provides outcome data for regular Head Start, its
findings do not apply to the MHS population because MHS participants
were excluded from the study.  HHS officials told us that MHS was not
included in FACES because MHS and Head Start differ in duration and
serve different ages, but, most importantly, the MHS children are
very mobile and harder to track during a longitudinal study. 
However, it might be possible to get good information on children in
the majority of MHS centers by concentrating on the MHS populations
in states like California and Texas, where children attend centers
for 9 to 10 months a year. 

--------------------
\16 Head Start's FACES is a longitudinal study that uses a nationally
representative sample of Head Start classes and collects extensive
information about the quality of Head Start educational services. 

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

MEP and MHS have served many children.  Although both programs serve
preschool children, MHS serves a narrower population than MEP because
MHS program regulations define agricultural work more narrowly.  The
narrower definition results in service gaps for some preschool
children and for children of different ages in the same family,
although their family income level, mobility patterns, and working
conditions are the same.  If MHS's definition of migrant work were
broadened, MEP and MHS could work together to provide more orderly
transitions for children as they move from MHS into school and, in
areas where MEP does not provide preschool services but MHS does, all
the children in a family could be served--the older children by MEP
and younger children by MHS.  However, broadening MHS's definition
would increase the number of children who would be eligible for MHS
services.  As a result, HHS would need to analyze the adequacy and
targeting of MHS's resources. 

While coordination between MEP and MHS has been limited in the past,
the Directors Group may help remedy this.  The more significant
coordination problem involves tracking participants as they move from
one program site to another site of the same program.  Because MEP
serves mainly school-aged children and MHS serves only infants and
preschool children, children face service disruptions mostly when
they move between different sites of the same program rather than
when they move from one program to another.  Disruptions are
compounded when receiving schools or centers do not have children's
records or information about whom to contact to obtain the records. 
Education and HHS could minimize these problems by developing
nationwide systems that transmit essential information across state
or grantee jurisdictions so that children can receive needed services
while complete records are being sent or faxed. 

One approach to setting up such systems would be to use Internet and
encryption technology to allow the speedy and confidential
communication of basic information, such as immunization records,
special education needs, and, in the case of high school students,
information on credits and courses needed for graduation.  For
example, Education and HHS could examine current interstate and
intrastate electronic information transfer systems and, building on
best practices, facilitate the development of a system that would
link states and grantees without imposing extensive data entry
burdens or duplicating the efforts of some states and grantees who
have invested in developing and operating electronic recordkeeping
systems.  In addition, building on existing systems could help keep
costs down while improving services to children. 

Although Education and HHS collect substantial data on MEP and MHS,
the departments have little information on the outcomes of these
programs.  Both the statutes and performance plans lay out goals for
gathering outcome information, but neither Education nor HHS has
conducted outcome studies that measure how well MEP and MHS are
achieving these goals.  We realize that implementing outcome studies
is difficult and that the cost of studies that include nationally
representative samples of migrant children might be prohibitive. 
However, the majority of MEP and MHS participants are located in a
small number of states--for example, 45 percent of MEP participants
are located in California and Texas.  Also, most participants reside
in their home states for considerable periods of time.  Therefore,
including a special sample of migrant children in ongoing national
data collection efforts is feasible and would provide some outcome
information. 

   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services examine
the advisability of expanding the types of activities included in
MHS's definition of agricultural work to harmonize with those that
are considered agricultural work under MEP.  In undertaking this
examination, the Secretary should consider the resource implications
of broadening this definition. 

We recommend that to improve services to children, the Secretaries of
Education and HHS both develop nationwide systems to transmit
essential information about each participant, Education's system to
track MEP participants from school district to school district and
HHS's system to track MHS participants from center to center. 

Because government agencies need to provide a clear picture of how
their programs are working, we recommend that the Secretaries of
Education and HHS include in their respective research and evaluation
plans studies that measure the outcomes of MEP and MHS and the extent
to which the programs are meeting their goals. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided copies of a draft of this report to Education and HHS for
review.  Both responded with comments, reprinted in appendixes VII
and VIII.  Education in its response generally agreed with our facts
and most of our conclusions and recommendations. 

Regarding our recommendation about record transfer, Education was
concerned that the recommendation might be read to imply that it
should design a single new system and not build on existing systems,
although, as Education noted, we discussed building on past
experience as one way to design a national information transfer
system.  We did not intend that the system necessarily be a single
new system. 

Regarding our recommendation on outcome information, Education said
that it would help if we had put more emphasis on the efforts
Education has undertaken to obtain better outcome data on migrant
children and that the proposed use of NAEP would not overcome the
limitations associated with measuring the outcomes of a specific
program.  In our report, we discussed both Education's plan to use
the disaggregated results of state assessments by the year 2000-01
and our concerns about the likely limitations of these data.  We
believe that the advantages of using NAEP to obtain a common matrix
to measure and track the overall educational progress of migrant
children on a national level far outweigh any theoretical benefits
that might be obtained by limiting measures to those attributable to
any particular program. 

Education also listed technical comments that we included where
appropriate. 

In its comments, HHS wrote that this report will help as the
Department continues its efforts to change and improve the MHS
program.  HHS concurred with our recommendation on examining the
advisability of expanding the types of activities included in MHS's
definition of agricultural work to harmonize with those that are
considered agricultural work under MEP.  In addition, ACF agreed to
explore various options for developing a nationwide information
transfer system.  ACF also indicated its intent to include outcome
measures in its monitoring of MHS through the Head Start program.  It
believes its current set of outcome measures will be appropriate for
use by MHS, although, as we noted in the report, its major outcome
study excludes samples of migrant children. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As we arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
report's contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30
days after the date of this letter.  We will then send copies to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education,
and others who are interested.  Copies will also be made available to
others upon request. 

Please contact me or Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, on
202-512-7215 if you have any questions about this report.  Other
major contributors were Carolyn S.  Blocker, Sonya M.  Harmeyer, and
Kathleen D.  White. 

Cynthia M.  Fagnoni
Director, Education, Workforce,
 and Income Security Issues

MIGRANT EDUCATION SERVICES
PROVIDED FREQUENTLY AT EIGHT SITES
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                  Location                          Time                                                            Service
                           ----------------------  --------------------------------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                   Teacher                 Corresponden
                                                                                                       Teacher     for                     ce and
                                                   Before                                              for         English as              distance
                                                   or after  During                                    bilingual   a second    Schoolwide  learning
Site             Term      Home    School  Other   school    school    Evening   Saturday  Tutorial\a  courses     language    programs\b  courses       Other
---------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ---------------------------
 Santa      Regular   E       E,S     E,S     E,S       E         S         E,S       E                       E           E           S             Afternoon tutorial services
Rosa, Calif.     Summer    E       E,S     E,S               E,S       S         S         E,S                     E,S                     S             in schools and an
                                                                                                                                                         afterschool program in a
                                                                                                                                                         farmworker housing project

 Adams      Regular   E       E,S     S       E,S       E,S       S         E         E,S         S           S           E                         Preschool programs for
County, Colo.    Summer    E       E,S     S                 E, S      S                   E,S         E,S         E,S         E                         migrant children and dental
                                                                                                                                                         and medical services for
                                                                                                                                                         all migrant students

Gainesville,     Regular           E,S     S                 E,S       S                   E,S                                 E                         An intake and welcome
Ga.              Summer    E       E,S                       E,S                                                                                         center to enroll migrant
                                                                                                                                                         children and to provide
                                                                                                                                                         family support services

 Alma,      Regular           E,S     S                 E,S       S                   E,S         E,S         E,S                     S             Work study programs for
Mich.            Summer    E,S     E,S     E,S               E,S       S                   E                       E,S                     S             high school students in the
                                                                                                                                                         summer day classes

 Oneonta,   Regular   E,S     E,S             E,S       E,S                 E,S       E,S         E,S         E,S                     S             Staff work with parents to
N.Y.             Summer    E,S     E       S                 E         S         S         E,S         E,S         E,S                     S             publish a newsletter and
                                                                                                                                                         maintain a food bank for
                                                                                                                                                         the migrant community

            Regular           E,S             E,S       E,S       E,S                 E,S         E,S         E,S         E           S             Programs for infants,
Hillsboro,       Summer            E,S     S       E,S       E         S                               E,S         E,S                     S             toddlers, and preschoolers
Oreg.                                                                                                                                                    and 24-hour accident
                                                                                                                                                         insurance for all MEP
                                                                                                                                                         students in the state

Gettysburg, Pa.  Regular   E,S     E,S     S       E,S                 E,S       E,S       E,S                                             S             Special summer school
                 Summer    E,S     E,S     S                 E,S       S         S         E,S                     E,S                     S             courses such as leadership
                                                                                                                                                         training for migrant middle
                                                                                                                                                         school students and work-
                                                                                                                                                         study programs for high
                                                                                                                                                         school students

Weslaco, Tex.    Regular   E       E,S             E,S       E,S       S         E,S       E,S         E,S         E,S         E,S         S             Enrichment programs for
                 Summer    E       E,S     S                 E,S       S                   E,S         E                                                 secondary students during
                                                                                                                                                         summer and summer and
                                                                                                                                                         evening school tuition
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  "E" is services for elementary school students, "S" secondary
school students.  No services were available where cells are blank. 
Although the programs differed, all provided some common services
such as recruitment and outreach, instructional services, and
guidance and counseling. 

\a Individualized academic and social service support. 

\b MEP funds were pooled with other fundings to support educational
improvements for all students. 

MIGRANT EDUCATION DATA ON STUDENTS
IN EIGHT STATES
========================================================== Appendix II

Characteristic                  California        Colorado         Georgia        Michigan      New York         Oregon    Pennsylvania         Texas
--------------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  ------------  -------------  --------------  ------------
Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools in state\a                   7,989           1,462           1,810           3,486            \b          1,293           3,192         6,642
Schools that enrolled                3,318             627             550             675            \b            961             399         2,857
 migrant students
Eligible migrant students          210,220          13,029          14,973          18,446        11,303         26,319          12,549       116,912
Regular term MEP project             1,416             176              19              11            \b            385              54         1,519
 sites
Summer term MEP project                329              33              20               3            \b              0              26           375
 sites
Intersession project sites              24               0               0               0            \b              0               0            11
Multiterm project sites              1,006               0              38              38            \b            858               0           759

MEP funding (millions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998                     $89.1            $4.4            $4.5            $9.4          $6.8          $10.9            $7.5         $43.8
Fiscal year 1999                     103.5             5.4             5.6              11             8           12.4             8.8          51.5

Ages served in regular term
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5                                   7.5%           17.6%           41.2%            1.7%         20.4%          10.7%           20.9%         14.3%
Grades K-6                            55.5            47.9            27.1            65.8          39.5           56.9            36.5          45.3
Grades 7-12                           35.9            24.6            15.2            31.9          15.8           29.3            19.8          34.9
Other\c                                1.4            10.0            16.7             0.6          24.4            3.3            23.0           5.4

Ages served in summer term
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5                                  13.0%           23.3%           53.0%           18.5%         17.1%          24.1%           20.1%         15.3%
Grades K-6                            55.6            51.0            32.4            57.4          40.4           52.3            39.9          54.6
Grades 7-12                           30.2            18.2            11.4            22.3          17.0           12.5            18.9          28.3
Other\c                                1.0             7.3             3.2             1.8          25.4           11.1            21.0           1.6

Ethnicity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Indian                          0            0.7%            2.4%            0.4%          0.1%           1.4%            0.1%          0.1%
Asian and Pacific Islander            3.3%             0.2             0.1             0.6           0.1            2.3            10.3           0.2
Black                                    0             0.1             3.1             1.6           4.3              0             1.2           0.5
Hispanic                              96.3            96.3            89.2            93.8          55.7           89.5            83.9          96.9
White                                  0.2             2.6             5.2             3.6          39.8            6.8             4.5           2.4
Other                                  0.3               0               0               0             0              0               0             0

Parent occupations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop work                                X               X               X               X             X              X               X             X
Meat and poultry                         X               X               X               X             X              X               X             X
 processing
Fishing                                  X                               X               X             X              X                             X
Dairy                                    X               X               X               X             X              X               X             X

Student information system
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COEstar                                  X                               X
New Generation System                                    X                                                                                          X
MIS-2000                                                                                               X                              X
Own system                                                                               X                            X

State funding formula components
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of participants                   X               X               X               X             X              X               X             X
 during summer school
Number of participants                   X               X               X               X             X              X               X
 during regular school
 year
Number of eligible                       X               X               X               X             X              X               X             X
 students
Additional funding for                   X               X               X                             X              X               X             X
 children at risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  In addition to detailing statewide demographic information on
migrant children for the academic year 1997-98 in the eight states we
visited, the table identifies the student information systems the
states used.  The table shows that except for Oregon, migrant
children attended a relatively larger number of schools in homes
states (California and Texas) than in receiving states (Colorado,
Georgia, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania).  Although the states
tended to target different age groups for services, in all eight
states most participants attended elementary school and services were
more widely available during the regular term than the summer term. 

\a Data are reported from the 1997 Database of Schools Enrolling
Migrant Children. 

\b New York could not provide data on the number of schools that
enrolled migrant children or on the number of project sites, but 427
of 705 school districts statewide enrolled migrant children during
1997. 

\c Out-of-school youths and ungraded youths. 

MIGRANT HEAD START DATA ON NINE
SITES IN EIGHT STATES
========================================================= Appendix III

                                                                                                                                Information tracking
                                                                                                                                       system
                                                                                                                               ----------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                                         hours
                                                                                                            of
                                                    Annual   Number of   Number of      Dates of     operation        Ages of
MHS delegate agency/grantee\a       Location       funding     centers    children     operation       per day       children       HSFIS       Other
------------------------------  ------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------  -------------  ----------  ----------
Agri-business Child             Schenectady,    $1,247,834          10         457    Year-round          9-11      6 weeks-5          No         Yes
 Development/East Coast                 N.Y.                                                                            years
 Migrant Head Start (ECMHSP)
Central California Migrant          Modesto,    13,343,055          50       2,427     Mar.-Dec.            12      0-5 years          No          No
 Head Start                           Calif.
E Center Migrant Head Start           Ukiah,     3,907,200           9         472      May-Nov.         12-14     3 months-5   Limited\b          No
                                      Calif.                                                                            years
Family Education Network of         Greeley,     1,509,974           9         208    June-Sept.            12      0-5 years   Limited\b         Yes
 Weld County                           Colo.
Georgia Telamon Migrant Head      Macon, Ga.     2,331,971           3         381     Apr.-Dec.            11      0-5 years          No         Yes
 Start/ECMHSP
Michigan Telamon Migrant Head       Lansing,     6,209,275          12       1,279     June-Nov.          8-12      2 weeks-5   Limited\b         Yes
 Start                                 Mich.                                                                            years
Oregon Child Development        Wilsonville,    11,121,501          14       1,864     Mar.-Dec.          8-10      6 weeks-5   Limited\b          No
 Coalition                             Oreg.                                                                            years
Pennsylvania Rural              Lemoyne, Pa.     1,144,649           4         190     Jan.-Mar.         10-12      0-5 years          No         Yes
 Opportunities, Inc./ECMHSP                                                            and Aug.-
                                                                                            Dec.
Texas Migrant Council           Laredo, Tex.    29,416,599          55       4,529    Year-round          8-10      0-5 years   Limited\b          No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data are for 1998 but were reported in fiscal year, calendar
year, or school year. 

\a Head Start distributes its program funds through grantees.  A
delegate agency is a public or a private nonprofit or for-profit
organization or agency to which a grantee has delegated all or part
of the responsibility for operating a Head Start program.  Where
grantees operated MHS programs, the table gives the grantee only. 
Where grantees delegated responsibility, the table gives the delegate
agency followed by the grantee. 

\b This grantee is not able to electronically exchange information
across grantees because the Head Start Family Information System
(HSFIS) has not been fully implemented. 

FOUR TYPES OF EDUCATION
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
========================================================== Appendix IV

Project        Type\a        Description                         Participants
-------------  ------------  ----------------------------------  ------------------------
On student records
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New            Consortium    Functions as a record transfer and  Colorado, Delaware,
Generation                   a tracking system that provides     District of Columbia,
System                       on-line records of a student's      Illinois, Montana, New
                             educational progress and health     Mexico, Ohio, Texas,
                             records and various management      Utah, Washington, and
                             reports. Participants have rights   Wisconsin
                             to query, add, and update records
                             on students, enrollments,
                             assessments, special needs, and
                             health information. Direct access
                             is usually available on a state or
                             regional level.

Migrant        Commercial    Functions as a record transfer and  Minnesota, New Mexico,
Student                      tracking system. Scheduled to stop  North Carolina, and
Network                      operations on December 31, 1999.    South Carolina

MIS-2000       Commercial    Functions as an intrastate          Alabama, Alaska,
                             database, maintains information on  Arkansas, Connecticut,
                             individual students, and can be     Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky,
                             tailored to needs of a user.        Louisiana, Maine,
                                                                 Maryland, Mississippi,
                                                                 Missouri, Nebraska,
                                                                 Nevada, New York, North
                                                                 Dakota, Oklahoma,
                                                                 Pennsylvania, Puerto
                                                                 Rico, South Dakota, and
                                                                 Tennessee

Red Bag        Consortium    Provides parents of migrant         Arkansas, Illinois,
                             children from Texas a red tote bag  Maine, Maryland,
                             that contains a copy of the         Missouri, Montana,
                             student's health and school         Nebraska, Ohio, and
                             records that the parents carry to   Texas
                             each school as they move.

On curriculums
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor School  MEP           Provides helpline, voice mail       Students who live in two
               technology    system, portable local network,     counties in Florida
               grant         Internet access, and interactive    whose parents migrate
                             CD-ROMs.                            along the East Coast

Consortium     Consortium    Formed to develop and share         Colorado, Iowa, Maine,
Arrangement                  procedures to quickly assess        Missouri, New Hampshire,
to Facilitate                students' academic needs.           New Mexico, North
Migrant                                                          Dakota, and Utah
Student
Achievement

Estrella       Consortium,   Provides 150 migrant students from  Illinois, Montana, New
               MEP           Texas with laptop computers and     York, and Texas
               technology    modems to enable them to complete
               grant         coursework needed for high school
                             graduation. Also provides teacher
                             training.

Migrant        Consortium,   Provides instructional television   Florida, Georgia, North
Education      MEP           used for supplemental tutoring.     Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Consortium     technology                                        South Carolina, and
for Higher     grant                                             Virginia
Achievement
(MECHA)

NovaNet        Commercial    Provides a computer-based, on-      Multiple
                             line learning system for
                             instruction in more than 100
                             subject areas for middle school,
                             high school, and adult learners.

Portable       State         Consists of a year-round            Used by sites in 31
Assisted                     curriculum in the form of           states
Study                        correspondence courses that allow
Sequence                     students to work semi-
Program                      independently to complete
(PASS)                       coursework to help meet graduation
                             requirements.

Summer         Consortium    Consists of a national distance     Arkansas, Illinois,
Migrants                     learning program that uses          Maine, Maryland,
Access                       television to transmit lessons      Missouri, Montana,
Resources                    aligned with Texas' curriculum for  Nebraska, Ohio, Texas,
Through                      8 weeks over the summer to help     and Virginia
Technology                   Texas students who temporarily
(SMART)                      live in other states earn credits
                             for graduation.

Out-of-state   Consortium    Provides out-of-state test          Arkansas, Delaware,
TASS Testing                 preparation and administration to   Illinois, Maryland,
Assistance                   enable students to pass             Missouri, Montana,
                             assessments required by Texas for   Nebraska, North Dakota,
                             promotion and graduation.           Ohio, Texas, and
                                                                 Virginia

University of  State         Offers 22 print-based               Indiana, Michigan,
Texas Migrant                correspondence courses and 2        Minnesota, Montana, New
Student                      computer-based courses to about     York, North Dakota,
Program                      145 students a year.                Ohio, Texas, and
                                                                 Wisconsin

On identification and recruitment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consortium     Consortium    Originally formed to develop and    Alabama, Arkansas,
Arrangement                  enhance identification and          Colorado, Connecticut,
for                          recruitment procedures and          Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Identificatio                programs; expanded to develop       Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
n and                        practices for serving migrant       Missouri, Nebraska, New
Recruitment                  preschoolers and secondary school-  Hampshire, New York,
(CAIR)                       aged youths and to address the      North Carolina,
                             needs of families through           Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
                             collaborative partnerships with     South Dakota, Tennessee,
                             agribusiness.                       Vermont, Virginia, West
                                                                 Virginia, and Wyoming

States Having  Consortium    Develops and shares techniques in   Arkansas, Missouri, and
Arrangements                 recruitment, advocacy, health       Oklahoma
for Resources                care, and secondary student
and Education                leadership and serves youths
(SHARE)                      traveling without families.

Between Mexico and the United States
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binational     Internationa  Conducts teacher exchanges,         A joint effort between
Migrant        l             encourages the transfer of school   the United States and
Education                    records, distributes Mexican        Mexico; states and
Program                      textbooks to U.S. public schools,   districts participate at
                             and promotes other activities       their discretion
                             designed to improve cooperation.

Colorado/      Incentive     Two teachers from Colorado          Colorado, Mexico
Tepic,         grant         participated in a weeklong
Nayarit,                     exchange program with teachers in
Mexico                       Mexico.
Teacher
Exchange

Oregon         MEP           Provides services through a         Oregon, Mexico
Migrant        technology    homework hotline, on-line access
Technology     grant         to instructional materials, a
System Grant                 coordinated Oregonian-Mexican
                             curriculum, and televised
                             bilingual instruction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The states can use regular MEP funds for commercial and
state-sponsored projects aimed at improving educational coordination;
the Department of Education also provides incentive and technology
grants.  Education awards incentive grants to states to encourage
them to join multistate consortia that support coordination efforts
and to reduce MEP's administrative costs so that more funds can be
spent on direct services.  In fiscal year 1999, 36 states--members of
12 consortia--received incentive grants ranging from $31,944 to
$95,832.  These funds supported a variety of activities, including
teacher exchange programs, career development retreats for migrant
students, and software purchases.  Education awards competitive
technology grants to states or consortia that use technology to help
migrant students overcome problems associated with interstate and
intrastate mobility.  In 1998, Education awarded grants for five
technology projects, each funded at about $400,000 to $600,000, four
of which supported interstate efforts. 

MIGRANT EDUCATION INFORMATION
SOURCES AND STUDIES
=========================================================== Appendix V

                                  Samples
                                  or
                                  focuses                                          Outcom
                                  on                                               e
                                  migrant                                          measur
Source      Description           children  Strength            Weakness           es
----------  --------------------  --------  ------------------  -----------------  ------
Program information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State       Contains a            Yes        Contains state-    National data    No
Title I     descriptive summary             by-state            include
Migrant     of national MEP                 profiles.           duplicated
Participat  participation and                Reports a         counts.
ion         staffing counts and             variety of data.     Provides only
Informatio  individual state                 Provides          input and output
n           profiles.                       national as well    information.
                                            as state             Data on
                                            information.        services are
                                             Reported          percentages, not
                                            annually.           numbers of
                                             Will be used to   children.
                                            evaluate             Has no common
                                            compliance with     definition of
                                            the Results Act.    service.

Monitoring

Integrated  Examines the          Yes        Consolidates      Coverage of MEP    No
Reviews of  implementation of               formerly separate   is limited.
ESEA and    federal education               reviews into a
Goals 2000  programs as a                   coherent review.
Formula     coherent set of                  Reviews states
Programs    funding efforts that            on a 3-year cycle.
            link with one
            another and support
            state and local
            reform efforts.
            Generally replaces
            separate program-
            specific reviews.

Current or
ongoing

Living in   Analyzed how state    Yes        Includes data on  Coverage of MEP    No
Interestin  officials initially             MEP administration  is limited.
g Times:    responded to new                and
Early       legislative mandates            implementation.
State       related to various               Will be used to
Implementa  programs, including             evaluate
tion of     title I.                        compliance with
New                                         the Results Act.
Federal
Education
Laws (Oct.
1998)

Meeting     Examined, from a      Yes        Focused on        Significant data   No
the Needs   nationally                      examining whether   gaps on migrant
of Migrant  representative                  migrant children    students make it
Students    sample of schoolwide            were actually       difficult to
in          projects that have              being served in     determine the
Schoolwide  migrant students,               schoolwide          extent to which
Programs    how the students                programs.           schoolwide
(Jan.       were served in title             Will be used to   programs are
1999)       I schoolwide                    evaluate            actually meeting
            programs.                       compliance with     needs of migrant
                                            the Results Act.    children as a
                                                                group.

Common      Provides basic        No        Reports basic       Includes no        No
Core of     statistics on K-12              information         migrant sample.
Data        education in the                collected on an
            United States.                  annual cycle.
            Consists of five
            surveys completed
            annually to report
            data on public
            elementary and
            secondary schools,
            local education
            agencies, and state
            education agencies.
            Includes demographic
            data on students and
            dropouts as well as
            staff and fiscal
            information.

Database    Provides summary      Yes       Provides first-     Contains a number  No
of Schools  statistics of public            time available      of data
Enrolling   and private schools             information to      weaknesses
Migrant     that enroll migrant             federal and state   because not all
Children    children.                       policymakers on     states reported
                                            schools enrolling   consistent
                                            migrant children.   information.

National    Continuously          No         Encourages        Includes no        Yes
Assessment  monitors the                    schools to include  migrant sample.
of          knowledge, skills,              students with
Educationa  and performance of              limited English
l Progress  the nation's                    proficiency in
(NAEP),     children and youths             sample.
known as    in such subjects as              Includes an
the         reading,                        ongoing national
Nation's   mathematics,                    study of students'
Report      science, writing,               educational
Card       and geography.                  progress in basic
                                            curricular areas
                                            in grades 4, 8,
                                            and 12.
                                             Most students
                                            with limited
                                            English
                                            proficiency
                                            participate but
                                            with
                                            accommodation.

State       Provides a basic      Yes        Includes a wide   Does not show      Yes
Education   picture of                      range of data by    number of migrant
Indicators  characteristics of              subject and         students who were
With a      each statefinances,            demographics.       tested; reports
Focus on    population                       Where available,  only percentages.
Title I     demographics, and               breaks out data on
(Council    sources of                      migrant students.
of Chief    fundingthat affect              Will be used to
State       how public K-12                 evaluate
School      schools operate.                compliance with
Officers)                                   the Results Act.

In-process
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast        Designed to collect   Yes        Is a good effort  Replication not    No
Response    issue-oriented data             to develop a        scheduled.
Survey      quickly and with                picture of MEP
System's    minimum response                summer school
(FRSS)      burden. Data are                programs.
1998        representative at                Will be used to
Survey of   the national level,             evaluate
MEP Summer  drawing from a                  compliance with
School      universe that is                the Results Act.
Providers   appropriate for each
            study.

Early       Provides detailed     No         Longitudinal.     Includes no        Yes
Childhood   information on                   Includes          migrant sample.
Longitudin  children's early                representative
al Study-   school experiences.             samples of
-           The main study began            kindergarten
Kindergart  in the fall of 1998             children from a
en Cohort   with a nationally               wide variety of
(ECLS-K)    representative                  public and private
            sample of 23,000                schools and from
            kindergartners from             diverse racial,
            1,000 kindergarten              ethnic, and
            programs. The                   socioeconomic
            children will be                backgrounds.
            followed
            longitudinally
            through the fifth
            grade.

Prospects:  Consists of a         No        Provides input,     Includes no        Yes
The         longitudinal study              output, and         migrant sample.
Congressio  of the effects of               outcome
nally       title I on students             information on
Mandated    in low-income                   children in title
Study of    schools, including              I schools.
Educationa  effects on students
l Growth    with limited English
and         proficiency. It
Opportunit  focused on children
y           attending schools
            with a high
            concentration of
            poor children,
            characteristics of
            students who
            received title I or
            other compensatory
            services, and
            students'
            educational
            environment,
            including
            coordination of
            title I services
            within a school.

Future
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools     Is an integrated      Yes       Will include some   Contains limited   No
and         survey of public and            questions on        student
Staffing    private schools,                migrant children    information
Survey      school districts,               on teacher and      because its
(SASS)      and principals and              administrator       purpose is to
            teachers. Provides              surveys beginning   collect
            data on staffing and            with next survey.   information on
            service providers.                                  characteristics
                                                                of schools and
                                                                staff.

National    Examines how schools  Yes       Provides            Was conducted in   No
Longitudin  are implementing                information on the  the fall of 1998
al Survey   standards-driven                number and          and will be
of School   improvements, with a            location of         conducted again
Implementa  focus on title I                schools that        in the fall of
tion of     provisions that                 provide regular     1999 and 2000.
Standards-  support such                    school year and
Based       improvements.                   summer programs
Reform and  Provides data on                for migrant
Title I     schools with high               students.
Supports    proportions of at-
for Reform  risk students,
(NLSS)      including migrant
            students.

Early       Is a longitudinal     No         Longitudinal.     Includes no        Yes
Childhood   survey that will                 Includes          migrant sample.
Longitudin  provide detailed                representative
al Study-   information on                  samples from
-Birth      children's                      diverse racial-
Cohort      development, health,            ethnic and
(ECLS-B)    early care, and                 socioeconomic
            education from a                backgrounds.
            nationally
            representative
            sample of 15,000
            children born in
            2000 who will be
            followed from birth
            through the end of
            first grade.

Descriptiv  Developed a           Yes       Provided            No replication is  No
e Study of  description of MEP              information         planned.
the         that was current and            suggesting that
Chapter 1   nationally                      migrant children
Migrant     representative in               might not receive
Education   terms of the                    services from
Program     characteristics of              federal
(1992)      the students served,            educational
            program staffing,               programs they were
            and state and local             eligible for.
            practices for
            targeting services,
            program
            administration,
            program services,
            and program
            expenditures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Describes the information the Department of Education collects
from program operations, monitoring, special studies, and
longitudinal surveys. 

HEAD START INFORMATION SOURCES AND
STUDIES
========================================================== Appendix VI

                                     Includes
                                     migrant                                     Outcome
Source          Description          children  Strength        Weakness          measures
--------------  -------------------  --------  --------------  ----------------  --------
Program
information

Program         Collects annual      Yes       Collects a       Does not        No
Information     program data from              wide range of   address
Report          grantees.                      program data    uniqueness of
                                               annually.       migrant
                                                               program.
                                                                Data are
                                                               estimated for
                                                               some grantees
                                                               because
                                                               reporting
                                                               deadline is at
                                                               the height of
                                                               the MHS
                                                               program.
                                                                Not all
                                                               grantees submit
                                                               data.

Monitoring

3-year site     Monitors all Head    Yes        Conducts      Changes emphasis  No
visit           Start grantees                 thorough        because the
monitoring      every 3 years.                 review on-      instrument is
                                               site.           subjective.
                                                Based on
                                               standards.
                                                Completed
                                               every 3 years.

Current or ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilingual       Surveys almost       No         Provides      Had not been      No
Study           2,000 Head Start               information on  released by
                grantees and                   special         October 1999.
                delegates on                   population.
                bilingual                       Includes
                education.                     Hispanic
                                               children.

Study of the    Consists of a        Yes        Contains new  Had not been      No
Characteristic  national MHS                   types of data   released by
s of Families   descriptive study              on families.    October 1999.
Served by       that will                       Focuses on
Migrant Head    illustrate the                 MHS children.
Start           characteristics of
                MHS families and
                programs by
                interviewing 1,000
                parents and staff
                at 81 MHS centers.

Early           Provides detailed    No                       Includes no       Yes
Childhood       information on                 Longitudinal.   migrant sample.
Longitudinal    children's early                Includes
Study--         school experiences.            representative
Kindergarten    The main study                 samples of
Cohort (ECLS-   began in fall 1998             kindergarten
K)\a            with a nationally              children from
                representative                 a wide variety
                sample of 23,000               of public and
                kindergartners from            private
                1,000 kindergarten             schools and
                programs. The                  from diverse
                children will be               racial,
                followed                       ethnic, and
                longitudinally                 socioeconomic
                through the fifth              backgrounds.
                grade.

Family and      Consists of a        No                        Uses Program    Yes
Child           nationally                     Longitudinal.   Information
Experiences     representative,                 Analysts can  Report as source
Survey (FACES)  longitudinal study             infer           of sample
                of families with               conclusions     population.
                children enrolled              from sampled     Includes no
                in 40 regular Head             population.     migrant sample.
                Start programs.

National        The survey samples   No         Focuses on    Includes small    No
Agricultural    crop farmworkers in            agricultural    sample size and
Workers         three cycles each              crop workers.   complex sampling
Survey\b        year to capture                 Constitutes   design.
                demographic data               the best
                such as household              available data
                and family                     on
                composition,                   cropworkers.
                employment history,
                wages, benefits and
                working conditions,
                income and assets,
                social services,
                and legal status.

National        A three-phase,       No                       Includes only     Yes
Institute of    longitudinal study             Longitudinal.   English-
Child Health    that focuses on                 Includes      speaking
and Human       1,364 infants'                 data on         mothers.
Development     family, school,                children up to
Study of Early  neighborhood, and              3 years old
Child Care      after-school
                environment as well
                as ethnic and peer
                culture and
                electronic
                technology.

Future
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early           Consists of a        No                       Includes no       No
Childhood       longitudinal survey            Longitudinal.   migrant sample.
Longitudinal    that will provide               Focuses on
Study--Birth    detailed                       children up to
Cohort\a        information on                 3 years old
                children's
                development,
                health, early care,
                and education on a
                nationally
                representative
                sample of 15,000
                children born in
                2000 who will be
                followed from birth
                through the end of
                first grade.

Seasonal        Currently in         Yes       Will provide a  Uses databases    No
Farmworker      design, this study             comprehensive   that are
Study           will provide                   profile of      problematic
                estimates of the               served and      (National
                number of eligible             unserved        Agricultural
                migrant children               migrant and     Workers Survey,
                being served by                seasonal        Migrant Student
                Head Start                     farmworker      Record Transfer
                agencies.                      children.       System, and
                                                               Program
                                                               Information
                                                               Report).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Describes the information that the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) collects from program operations, monitoring,
special studies, and longitudinal surveys, all of which HHS funds,
unless noted otherwise.  The criteria for including studies and
surveys was that they are national studies and that they include data
on migrants, Latinos, farmworkers, or children younger than 3 years
old or that they contain longitudinal data. 

\a The Department of Education funds this study. 

\b The Department of Labor funds and conducts this survey. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix VI

(See figure in printed edition.)

Now on page 11. 

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
========================================================== Appendix VI

(See figure in printed edition.)

(See figure in printed edition.)

*** End of document. ***