Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of Current
Program (Letter Report, 04/15/97, GAO/HEHS-97-59).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the impact of the
current Head Start Program, focusing on what: (1) the studies conducted
on current Head Start programs suggest about Head Start's impact; and
(2) types of Head Start studies are planned by the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).

GAO noted that: (1) although an extensive body of literature exists on
Head Start, only a small part of this literature is program impact
research; (2) this body of research is inadequate for use in drawing
conclusions about the impact of the national program in any area in
which Head Start provides services such as school readiness or
health-related services; (3) not only is the total number of studies
small, but most of the studies focus on cognitive outcomes, leaving such
areas as nutrition and health-related outcomes almost completely
unevaluated; (4) individually, the studies suffer to some extent from
methodological and design weaknesses, such as noncomparability of
comparison groups, which call into question the usefulness of their
individual findings; (5) in addition, no single study used a nationally
representative sample so that findings could be generalized to the
national program; (6) failing to find impact information in existing
research, GAO examined HHS' research plans for Head Start; (7) planned
research will focus on new or innovative service delivery strategies and
demonstrations but will provide little information on the impact of
regular Head Start programs; (8) HHS' planned research includes
descriptive studies, studies of program variations, involving new and
innovative service delivery strategies and demonstration projects, and
studies of program quality; (9) HHS officials, in explaining the
agency's research emphasis, stated that early research has proven Head
Start's impact; (10) such research, however, conducted over 20 years
ago, may no longer apply to today's program because of program changes
and changes in the population served; (11) HHS also noted some ethical
and methodological difficulties of conducting impact research,
especially studies that would produce national estimates of program
effect; (12) but neither ethical nor methodological issues present an
insurmountable deterrent to conducting research on Head Start's impact;
and (13) moreover, the size and cost of the program appear to warrant an
investment in such research.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-97-59
     TITLE:  Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact 
             of Current Program
      DATE:  04/15/97
   SUBJECT:  Education program evaluation
             Preschool education
             Compensatory education
             Disadvantaged persons
             Preschoolers
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Aid for education
IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program
             Basic Educational Skills Program
             Early Head Start Program
             HHS Comprehensive Child Development Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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 the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives

April 1997

HEAD START - RESEARCH PROVIDES
LITTLE INFORMATION ON IMPACT OF
CURRENT PROGRAM

GAO/HEHS-97-59

Head Start Research

(104849)


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

  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  PPVT-R - Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised
  WJ-R - Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement

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


B-271866

April 15, 1997

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

In the 30 years it has existed, Head Start has served over 15 million
children at a total cost of $31 billion.  Growing out of the War on
Poverty in the mid-1960s, Head Start was created to provide
comprehensive health, social, educational, and mental health services
to disadvantaged preschool children.  The program was built on the
philosophy that effective intervention in the lives of children can
best be accomplished through family and community involvement. 
Fundamental to program philosophy was the notion that communities be
given considerable latitude to develop their own Head Start programs,
an idea that has made variability a defining characteristic of the
program.  These philosophies and the general goals of the program
remain virtually unchanged today. 

Although Head Start has long enjoyed both congressional and public
support, opinions about the program's impact have been divided and
its effectiveness debated.  Some maintain that no compelling evidence
exists that Head Start makes any lasting difference in the lives of
the population it serves.  Others strongly support Head Start and
maintain that research has conclusively established its value.  Amid
this debate, funding for Head Start has tripled in the past 10 years. 

Conflicting information on program impact and the focus on results-
oriented program performance information required by the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 have renewed interest in
the impact of the current Head Start program.  In light of this, you
asked us to determine (1) what the studies conducted on current Head
Start programs\1 suggest about Head Start's impact and (2) what types
of Head Start studies are planned by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). 

We defined impact for this study as differences in outcomes caused by
Head Start participation.\2 Implicit in this definition is the notion
that differences found would not have occurred without program
participation.  Impact research is designed to permit the assumption
that differences were caused by the program.  Although impact studies
are sometimes difficult and expensive, they are the only way to
answer the question, "Is this program making a difference?" Thus, we
included only studies in this review that gave some information on
program impact.  See appendix I for details on criteria we used to
select studies. 

To determine what research suggests about the impact of Head Start,
we searched many electronic databases to locate published and
unpublished manuscripts.  We also spoke with early childhood
researchers and practitioners to identify research studies.  Our
search yielded nearly 600 citations and documents, which were
screened for possible inclusion in the study.  Of these, we found 22
studies that fit our agreed-upon criteria and are reviewed in this
study.  (See app.  I for details on our scope and methodology.) To
obtain information about HHS' studies of Head Start, we reviewed HHS'
research plans for Head Start and other research documents and spoke
with HHS and National Head Start Association officials involved with
Head Start research. 


--------------------
\1 Because Head Start changed significantly in its early years, which
could have affected program impact, we defined current Head Start
programs as those in existence in 1976 or later.  See app.  I for a
further discussion of this decision. 

\2 Our definition of impact is based on the concept of "net impact"
as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for agency
use in developing performance measures for GPRA and is from "Selected
Examples of Performance Measurement," OMB Office Memorandum 95-37
(Washington, D.C.:  July 28, 1995). 


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

Although an extensive body of literature exists on Head Start, only a
small part of this literature is program impact research.  This body
of research is inadequate for use in drawing conclusions about the
impact of the national program in any area in which Head Start
provides services such as school readiness or health-related
services.  Not only is the total number of studies small, but most of
the studies focus on cognitive outcomes, leaving such areas as
nutrition and health-related outcomes almost completely unevaluated. 
Individually, the studies suffer to some extent from methodological
and design weaknesses, such as noncomparability of comparison groups,
which call into question the usefulness of their individual findings. 
In addition, no single study used a nationally representative sample
so that findings could be generalized to the national program. 

Failing to find impact information in existing research, we examined
HHS' research plans for Head Start.  Planned research will focus on
new or innovative service delivery strategies and demonstrations but
will provide little information on the impact of regular Head Start
programs.  HHS' planned research includes descriptive studies;
studies of program variations, involving new and innovative service
delivery strategies and demonstration projects; and studies of
program quality. 

HHS officials, in explaining the agency's research emphasis, stated
that early research has proven Head Start's impact.  Such research,
however, conducted over 20 years ago, may no longer apply to today's
program because of program changes and changes in the population
served.  HHS also noted some ethical and methodological difficulties
of conducting impact research, especially studies that would produce
national estimates of program effect.  But neither ethical nor
methodological issues present an insurmountable deterrent to
conducting research on Head Start's impact.  Moreover, the size and
cost of the program appear to warrant an investment in such research. 


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

Begun in 1965 as a part of the effort to fight poverty, Head Start is
the centerpiece of federal early childhood programs.  Head Start's
primary goal is to improve the social competence of children in
low-income families, that is, their everyday effectiveness in dealing
with both their present environment and later responsibilities in
school and life.  Social competence takes into account the
interrelatedness of cognitive and intellectual development, physical
and mental health, nutritional needs, and other factors.  To support
its social competence goal, Head Start has delivered a wide range of
services to over 15 million children nationwide since its inception. 
These services consist of education and medical, dental, nutrition,
mental health, and social services.  Another essential part of every
program is parental involvement in parent education, program
planning, and operating activities. 

Head Start services are provided at the local level by public and
private nonprofit agencies that receive their funding directly from
HHS.  These include public and private school systems, community
action agencies, government agencies, and Indian tribes.  In fiscal
year 1996, grants were awarded to about 1,400 local agencies, called
grantees.  Head Start grantees are typically required to obtain
additional funding from nonfederal sources to cover 20 percent of the
cost of their programs.  The Head Start program works with various
community sources to provide services.  For example, some programs
coordinate with public health agencies to obtain health services,
while other programs contract with local physicians.  Although all
programs operate under a single set of performance standards, local
programs have a great deal of discretion in how they meet their
goals, resulting in great variability among programs. 

Although the program is authorized to serve children at any age
before the age of compulsory school attendance, most children enter
the program at age 4.  The law requires Head Start to target children
from poor families, and regulations require that 90 percent of the
children enrolled in each program be low income.  By law, certain
amounts are set aside for specific subpopulations of children,
including those with disabilities and Native American and migrant
children. 

In addition to providing services to children and families, Head
Start also sees one of its roles as a national laboratory for child
development.  Consequently, Head Start uses much of its discretionary
research funding for demonstrations and studies of program
innovations.  Although overall funding has grown over the years, the
amount of funds allocated to research, demonstration, and
evaluation\3 has represented about 2 percent or less of the Head
Start budget.  In fiscal year 1996, Head Start's research,
demonstration, and evaluation budget totaled $12 million (see app. 
II). 


--------------------
\3 HHS makes little distinction between spending for research and
evaluation, HHS officials told us. 


      HEAD START HAS CHANGED OVER
      THE YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Today's Head Start is a much different program than it was 30 years
ago.  Although the program's goals have changed little since its
inception, Head Start changed considerably during its first decade. 
Begun as a summer program, Head Start became largely a full-year
program by the early 1970s.  In addition, in the early to mid-1970s,
the program launched improvement initiatives, including promulgation
of performance standards and teacher credentialing.  Programs also
had the option of providing home-based services. 

In the 1990s, the program continues to change.  In 1990, the Congress
passed the Head Start Expansion and Quality Improvement Act, which
reauthorized Head Start and set aside funds for programs to use to
enhance and strengthen the quality of services.\4 In 1994, the
Congress established a new program--called Early Head Start--to serve
low-income families with infants and toddlers.  The program provides
continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family
support services to low-income families with children under age 3. 

In addition to changes to Head Start over the years, other changes
affecting the program relate to the children and families Head Start
serves and the amount appropriated to support the program.  Head
Start's service population has become increasingly multicultural and
multilingual and is confronted with difficult social problems such as
domestic violence and drug abuse.  Moreover, the number of children
served by the program has grown dramatically--from 349,000 children
in 1976 to about 750,000 in 1995.  The amount appropriated for the
program, which totaled $3.5 billion in 1995, has paralleled the
growth in the number served (see fig.  1). 

   Figure 1:  Growth in Head Start

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  In the early years of Head Start, most programs were summer
programs.  In the early 1970s, summer programs were almost completely
phased out. 


--------------------
\4 Despite the emphasis on quality, some early childhood experts are
still concerned about the uneven quality of Head Start programs. 


      RESEARCH ON THE EARLY YEARS
      OF HEAD START
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

In the decade after Head Start's inception, many studies of the
program's impact were conducted.  One of the first major studies was
conducted for the Office of Economic Opportunity by the Westinghouse
Corporation in 1969.  This study found that summer Head Start
programs produced no lasting gains in participants' cognitive or
affective development and that full-year programs produced only
marginal gains by grades one, two, and three.  Several researchers
criticized this study because of its methodology.  Subsequently, many
other studies investigated Head Start's impact. 

In 1981, HHS contracted with CSR, Inc., to synthesize the findings of
Head Start impact studies.  CSR concluded that Head Start
participants showed significant immediate gains in cognitive test
scores, socioemotional test scores, and health status.  Cognitive and
socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students, however,
did not remain superior in the long run to those of disadvantaged
children who did not attend Head Start, according to CSR.  In
addition, on the basis of a small subset of studies, CSR reported
that Head Start participants were less likely to be retained in grade
and less likely to be placed in special education.\5

Because these research studies were conducted during Head Start's
infancy, their findings provide little information on the
effectiveness of the current program.  For instance, most of the
programs included in the Westinghouse study were summer programs. 
Almost all programs today are full-year programs.  Similarly, the
great majority of studies in CSR's synthesis study were late 1960's
and early 1970's programs and therefore would not have reflected many
significant program changes that took place in the early to
mid-1970s. 


--------------------
\5 Ruth McKey and others, The Impact of Head Start on Children,
Families, and Communities, HHS Pub.  No.  (OHDS) 85-31193 (June
1985), p.  1. 


      INTEREST IN IMPACT RESEARCH
      HAS INCREASED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

Interest in Head Start's impact has grown with increased
congressional and public concern for substantiating federal program
performance.  Traditionally, federal agencies have used the amount of
money directed toward their programs, the level of staff deployed, or
even the number of tasks completed as some of the measures of program
performance.  At a time when the value of many federal programs is
undergoing intense public scrutiny, however, an agency that reports
only these measures has not answered the defining question of whether
these programs have produced real results.  Because today's
environment is results oriented, the Congress, executive branch, and
the public are beginning to hold agencies accountable for outcomes,
that is, program results as measured by the differences programs
make. 

The Congress' determination to hold agencies accountable for their
performance lay at the heart of two landmark reforms of the 1990s: 
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and GPRA.  With these two
laws, the Congress imposed a new and more businesslike framework for
management and accountability on federal agencies.  In addition, GPRA
created requirements for agencies to generate the information
congressional and executive branch decisionmakers need in considering
measures to improve government performance and reduce costs. 


   BODY OF RESEARCH ON CURRENT
   HEAD START PROGRAM INSUFFICIENT
   TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
   IMPACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The body of research on current Head Start is insufficient to draw
conclusions about the impact of the national program.  Drawing such
conclusions from a body of research would require either (1) a
sufficient number of reasonably well-designed individual studies
whose findings could appropriately be combined to provide information
about the impact of the national program or (2) at least one
large-scale evaluation using a nationally representative sample. 
Findings from the individual studies we identified, however, could
not be appropriately combined and generalized to estimate program
impact at the national level.  In addition, no single study used a
nationally representative sample, permitting findings to be
generalized to the national program. 


      FINDINGS COULD NOT BE
      COMBINED TO PRODUCE NATIONAL
      ESTIMATES OF IMPACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The body of studies was inadequate to assess program impact by
combining the findings of studies using similar outcome measures. 
The total number of studies found on Head Start impact was too small
to permit generalizing findings to the national program.  Most of
these studies targeted cognitive outcomes, leaving other outcome
areas, such as health and nutrition, scarcely examined.  In addition,
all the studies suffered to some extent from methodological problems
that weakened our confidence in the findings of the individual
studies. 


         NUMBER OF STUDIES TOO
         SMALL
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1.1

Although the body of literature on Head Start is extensive, the
number of impact studies was insufficient to allow us to draw
conclusions about the impact of the national Head Start program. 
Such an aggregation of findings should be based on a large number of
studies.\6 The larger the number of studies, the greater the chance
that the variability in Head Start programs would be represented in
the studies.  Conversely, the smaller the number of studies, the
greater the risk that the aggregate findings from these studies may
not apply to Head Start in general.  Most of the approximately 600
articles and manuscripts about Head Start that we identified could
not be used to answer questions about impact for various reasons. 
Much of this literature consisted of program descriptions, anecdotal
reports, and position papers.  Of those articles that were research
studies, some (for example, case studies) were not suitable for
drawing general conclusions about impact.  Some studies examined
change in outcome measures before and after Head Start but did not
control for other plausible explanations for the change, for example,
maturation.  Other studies using a comparison group to control for
competing explanations of change did not provide statistical
information about the confidence that the differences found were not
chance occurrences. 

Only 22 of the more than 200 manuscripts we reviewed met our criteria
for inclusion in our analysis.  (See app.  I for a detailed
description of inclusion criteria.) Of these, 16 investigated impact
by comparing Head Start participants with an unserved comparison
group; 3 analyzed gains on normed tests.  Only three studies included
comparisons of Head Start with some other type of preschool or day
care program.  These studies represent work by a variety of
researchers, including college students, college faculty, and
contractors.  Appendix III contains more detailed information on each
study. 


--------------------
\6 John E.  Hunter and Frank L.  Schmidt, Methods of Meta-Analysis
(Newbury Park, Cal.:  Sage Publications, 1990), p.  83. 


         NO OUTCOME AREA OR
         POPULATION ADEQUATELY
         RESEARCHED
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1.2

Although Head Start provides services in several outcome areas, such
as health, nutrition, education, and the like, most of the studies we
found focused on educational/cognitive outcomes, and few made
distinctions on the basis of differing populations served by Head
Start.  For example, most of the studies examined the impact of Head
Start on grade retention and other indicators of academic
achievement, such as standardized reading and math scores.  Of the 22
studies included in our review, 16 included one or more outcomes in
the cognitive area.  Conversely, only five studies investigated
health- or nutrition-related outcomes, and only five examined family
impacts. 

Similarly, few studies analyzed impact by subpopulations.  Because
Head Start is a multicultural program, serving children and families
of varying races, ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels,
research that targets these subpopulations may uncover differential
effects. 


         STUDIES SUFFERED FROM
         METHODOLOGICAL WEAKNESSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1.3

All of the studies had some methodological problems.  Although
research in field settings can rarely conform to rigorous scientific
procedures, in general, researchers place more confidence in findings
of studies that control for competing explanations for their results
and that use large samples. 

One of the more serious of the methodological problems was
noncomparability of comparison groups.  The most reliable way to
determine program impact is to compare a group of Head Start
participants with an equivalent group of nonparticipants.  The
preferred method for establishing that the groups are equivalent at
outset is to randomly assign participants to either the Head Start
group or the comparison group.  Only one of the studies we reviewed
used random assignment to form the Head Start and non-Head Start
comparison groups.  Most of these studies formed a comparison group
by selecting children who were similar to the Head Start participants
on some characteristic thought to be important to the outcome under
study.  In most cases, researchers matched participants on one or
more demographic variables, usually including some variable related
to socioeconomic level.  In other cases, researchers did not match
treatment and comparison groups but tried to compensate statistically
for any inequality between the groups.  Neither of these methods
compensates completely for lack of random assignment to group. 

Some of the studies used no comparison group; instead, they compared
performance of Head Start participants with test norms.  This
approach to evaluating program performance indicates the performance
of Head Start participants relative to the norming group.  Because
the norming group may be unlike the Head Start group, however,
conclusions about program impact are unclear. 

Finally, many of the studies also suffered from small samples,
especially those investigating intermediate and long-term effects. 
Some studies began with relatively small samples; others, which began
with larger samples, ended up with smaller samples as the study
progressed because of missing data and attrition.  Small samples
present problems in research because they adversely affect
statistical procedures used in analyses.  Some procedures cannot
appropriately be used with small samples; others are rendered less
able to detect differences, resulting in an underestimation of
program effects. 


      NO NATIONAL PROGRAM
      EVALUATION FOUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

No completed, large-scale evaluation of any outcome of Head Start
that used a nationally representative sample was found in our review. 
One characteristic of Head Start is program variability, not only in
the kind of services delivered, but also in the quality of services. 
Making summary statements about program impact requires that the
sample of programs studied represent all programs nationwide. 

Although one evaluation had a study design that would have allowed
findings to be generalized to the national program, this study was
never completed.  In the late 1970s, HHS contracted for a national
evaluation of the educational services component of basic Head Start. 
The design called for a longitudinal study that would follow children
and their parents from preschool through the fourth grade.  The
evaluation was to compare the Basic Educational Skills Program,
regular Head Start, and a non-Head Start control group.  Thirty Head
Start programs were to be randomly selected, and Head Start-eligible
children from these communities were to be randomly assigned to Head
Start or the control group.  Many methodological problems as well as
funding problems occurred, however, during the implementation of this
study, and it was abandoned. 

The 1990 act that reauthorized funding for Head Start directed the
Secretary of HHS to conduct ".  .  .  a longitudinal study of the
effects that the participation in Head Start programs has on the
development of participants and their families and the manner in
which such effects are achieved." The study, as described in the act,
was to examine a wide range of Head Start outcomes, including social,
physical, and academic development, and follow participants at least
through high school.  The description also stipulated that, "To the
maximum extent feasible, the study .  .  .  shall provide for
comparisons with appropriate groups composed of individuals who do
not participate in Head Start programs." The act authorized the
appropriation of funds to carry out this study for fiscal years 1991
through 1996.  According to HHS, however, funds were never
appropriated for the study, and it was not conducted. 


   RESEARCH PLANNED BY HHS FOCUSES
   ON PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT, NOT
   IMPACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Head Start's planned research will provide little information about
the impact of regular Head Start programs\7 because it focuses on
descriptive studies; studies of program variations, involving new and
innovative service delivery strategies and demonstration projects;
and studies of program quality.  Although these types of studies are
useful in evaluating programs, they do not provide the impact
information needed in today's results-oriented environment and
encouraged by GPRA. 


--------------------
\7 "Regular" Head Start refers in this report to programs that
operate within the scope of established Head Start program options
and under normal Head Start requirements.  Regular programs are to be
distinguished from demonstrations and other special programs, which
may serve populations or offer services not normally found in Head
Start. 


      HHS FOCUSES RESEARCH ON
      PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The primary focus of research, according to Head Start Bureau
officials, is to improve the program by exploring ways to maximize
and sustain Head Start benefits.  Thus, HHS studies evaluate which
practices seem to work best for the varying populations Head Start
serves and ways to sustain program benefits.  Some of these studies
are descriptive, providing information on service delivery and the
characteristics of populations receiving services.  For example, HHS
is currently conducting a descriptive study of the characteristics of
families served by the Head Start Migrant Program.  Other descriptive
studies have been conducted on health services and
bilingual/multicultural programs. 

HHS also funds studies designed to answer questions about the
effectiveness of new or innovative service delivery strategies and
demonstrations and how effectiveness may relate to characteristics of
the population served.  Such studies typically involve special
program efforts and demonstration projects conducted on a trial basis
at a few Head Start sites that focus on practices or services not
typically found in regular Head Start programs.\8 For example, both
Early Head Start and the Comprehensive Child Development Program
target infants and children younger than those normally served by
Head Start.  Similarly, the Family Service Center demonstrations
place more emphasis on family services and provide assistance in a
variety of areas such as illiteracy, substance abuse, and
unemployment. 

In addition, HHS funds research to explore program quality and to
develop instruments to assess program performance.  In 1995-96, HHS
funded several Quality Research Centers and a Performance Measure
Center to develop and identify instruments for measuring the quality
of Head Start programs and to collect performance measure data on a
nationally representative sample of Head Start programs.  The major
purpose of this effort, according to HHS officials, is to determine
which program characteristics relate to meeting program goals.  Some
of the performance measure assessments use instruments for which
national norms are available, however, and HHS will be able to
compare participant performance to national norms for these measures. 

Identifying performance measures is an important step in building a
research and evaluation base for Head Start.  Because the program's
goals are so broad and difficult to assess, precisely defining
expected outcomes and identifying appropriate instruments should
produce a more valid, useful body of research.  But identifying
standard performance measures is also valuable because it provides a
set of common measures upon which a body of research could be built,
including impact research. 

Although descriptive studies, studies of new or innovative programs
and demonstrations, and studies of program quality provide
information useful both to HHS and the Congress, they do not provide
full information on the impact of regular Head Start.  Even the
performance measures study already discussed will not provide
clear-cut impact information because no comparison group is being
used.  Over time, this type of study will provide some useful
information about program outcomes; however, such a study can neither
attribute effect nor estimate the precise effect size with the level
of confidence found in comparison group studies. 


--------------------
\8 Both special programs and demonstrations are innovative programs,
implemented on a limited basis and with program features not found in
regular Head Start programs.  Demonstrations, however, have a
predetermined end because their grants expire at the end of a
specified period.  Special programs may continue to receive funding
because programs may recompete for such grants at the end of the
grant period. 


      RESEARCH PLANNED BY HHS WILL
      PROVIDE LITTLE INFORMATION
      ON PROGRAM IMPACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Research planned by HHS will provide little program impact
information on regular Head Start programs.  HHS officials expressed
concerns about using their research dollars for impact research
rather than program improvement.  The effectiveness of Head Start has
been proven by early research, according to these officials, who also
pointed to difficulties in conducting impact studies.  In addition,
because Head Start is such a varied program, averaging across local
programs to produce national estimates of effect is not appropriate,
they said.  Finally, HHS maintains that Head Start is unique because
of the comprehensiveness of services it offers and the population it
serves; therefore, comparing Head Start with other service programs
would be inappropriate, HHS officials believe. 

Most of the research that HHS cited as evidence of Head Start's
impact is outdated, however, and, as previously mentioned,
insufficient research has been done in the past 20 years to support
drawing conclusions about the current program.  Furthermore, it
appears that impact studies on Head Start could be done and would
provide valuable results-oriented information.  In addition, although
research on programs that vary greatly could be methodologically more
challenging to producing national estimates of impact, variation
alone should not prevent developing such estimates.  Moreover,
comparisons with other service programs, if designed to answer
questions about specific program outcomes, would provide useful
information about assessing program impacts. 


         HHS BELIEVES
         EFFECTIVENESS OF HEAD
         START IS ALREADY PROVEN,
         SO FURTHER IMPACT
         RESEARCH IS NOT WARRANTED
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

HHS maintains that early research has proven the effectiveness of
early childhood education, including Head Start, so impact research
is not the most effective use of limited research funds.  Findings
from early studies, however, do not conclusively establish the impact
of the current Head Start program because today's program differs
from that of the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Although program
changes might be assumed to increase positive impact, this assumption
is largely unsubstantiated.  In addition, program impact may be
affected by changes in the population served; Head Start families
today face different problems than those in the past because of an
increase in substance abuse, violence, and homelessness. 
Furthermore, an increased availability of social services may have
lessened the impact of Head Start because families may get services
from other sources if not from Head Start.  The net effect of these
changes on program impact is unknown. 

Later studies offered to support Head Start's impact do not provide
enough evidence to conclude that current Head Start is effective. 
Findings in literature reviews cited by Head Start proponents to
support its effectiveness often involve only a few Head Start
programs.  For example, HHS cited a review in a recent Packard
Foundation report\9 that reported positive cognitive results of early
childhood programs.  This review, however, had only five studies
involving Head Start participation in 1976 or later, and two of the
five studies combined Head Start and other public preschools in the
analyses.  Authors of other studies of high-quality preschool
programs have sometimes warned against applying their findings to
Head Start.  For instance, researchers in the Consortium for
Longitudinal Studies, which produced a major study reporting positive
long-term effects of preschool, explicitly stated that caution should
be used in generalizing their findings to Head Start and that the
programs were ".  .  .  examples of what Head Start could be rather
than what it has been."\10


--------------------
\9 Steven W.  Barnett, "Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs
on Cognitive and School Outcomes," in The Future of Children: 
Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, Richard E.  Behrman,
ed., Vol.  5, No.  3 (Los Altos, Cal.:  1995). 

\10 Sandra Condry, "History and Background of Preschool Intervention
Programs and the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies," in As the Twig
Is Bent .  .  .  Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates (Hillsdale, N.J.:  1983), p.  27. 


         HHS BELIEVES CONDUCTING
         IMPACT STUDIES WOULD BE
         DIFFICULT
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2

HHS believes conducting impact research would present methodological
difficulties.  Two types of research designs are commonly used in
conducting impact studies, experimental and quasi-experimental.  HHS
officials mentioned difficulties with both types of designs in
studying Head Start's impact.  In addition, finding enough unserved
children to form comparison groups would be a problem with either
kind of research design, they said. 

True experimental designs, also called randomized trials, are
comparison group studies that randomly assign study participants to
either a treatment or control group.  In the case of Head Start,
these studies would require recruiting more eligible children than
the program can serve.  From these recruits, some children would be
randomly assigned to Head Start; the rest, the unserved children,
would constitute the control group.  HHS officials cited ethical
considerations of assigning children to an unserved control group as
one of the difficulties in conducting randomized trials. 

Randomized trials, however, could be appropriately applied to Head
Start research.  In fact, the evaluation of the Early Head Start
project, now under way, has randomly assigned potential participants
to Early Head Start or a control group that has not received Early
Head Start services.  Alternatively, a research design that delays,
rather than withholds, services could be used.  This would involve
selecting a study group and randomly assigning some children to Head
Start the first year, while the remainder would serve as a control
group.  The control group would receive services the following year. 
Another strategy that could be used to study specific parts of the
program would be to use an alternative treatment design.  In this
case, some randomly assigned participants would receive the full Head
Start program, while others would receive partial services.  For
example, if the study interest is in school readiness and cognitive
issues, the control group might receive only nutritional and health
services. 

Most researchers believe that randomized trials yield the most
certain information about program impact.  Random assignment is an
accepted practice in virtually every area of research, including
medicine, economics, and social sciences.  In some cases, the
treatment of study interest is simply withheld from the control
group.  In other cases, for example, when researchers suspect that
withholding treatment would have a profoundly negative impact,
treatment may be delayed for awhile or some lesser, alternative
treatment offered.  While acknowledging the difficulties of random
assignment, some early childhood researchers we spoke with suggested
that Head Start conduct randomized trials to study regular Head Start
programs because this type of study provides the most conclusive
information on program impact. 

A common alternative to randomized trials, quasi-experimental
designs, uses a naturally occurring, unserved comparison group.  In
the case of Head Start, some researchers have tried to identify other
children in the community who are like Head Start participants in
ways thought to be important (usually socioeconomic level) but who
are not enrolled in Head Start.  This group became the comparison
(control) group. 

Quasi-experimental research is less rigorous than research that uses
random assignment, and less confidence can be placed in its
conclusions.  Rarely are pre-existing groups equivalent.  Even when
statistical adjustments are made to compensate for known
nonequivalencies, some questions always remain about the degree to
which pre-existing differences in the groups may have contributed to
study results.  When well planned and well executed, however, such
designs can provide some indication of program impact. 

Because Head Start strives to serve the neediest children, those in
quasi-experimental comparison groups would be less likely to be
disadvantaged than children in the Head Start group, according to HHS
officials.  If true, this nonequivalency in groups would bias the
outcome in favor of the comparison group, resulting in
underestimation of program effects.  Because investigating the
characteristics of Head Start participants was beyond the scope of
this study, we do not know to what extent, if any, Head Start
children may be more disadvantaged than similar children not
attending Head Start.  Even assuming that Head Start has identified
and is serving the neediest applicants, however, it seems possible
that a comparably disadvantaged, unserved group could be identified
from the applicants whom the program cannot serve and nonapplicants
in a community. 

Regardless of which design is used, experimental or
quasi-experimental, finding enough truly unserved children for a
comparison group would be extremely difficult because of the growing
number of public preschool programs and the increased availability of
child care, according to HHS officials.  Statistics on the percentage
of children being served by preschools suggest, however, that finding
disadvantaged children unserved by preschools is possible.  In our
report, Early Childhood Programs:  Many Poor Children and Strained
Resources Challenge Head Start (GAO/HEHS-94-169BR), we found that
only 35 percent of poor 3- and 4-year-olds attended preschool in
1990.  The Congressional Research Service estimated that in fiscal
year 1994, about 30 percent of eligible 3- to 4-year-olds were being
served by Head Start.\11 On the basis of these estimates, it appears
that some locations do exist where a control group of children not
attending preschool could be formed. 


--------------------
\11 Head Start in the 104th Congress, Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress (Washington, D.C.:  Mar.  6, 1996), p.  2. 


         HHS BELIEVES NATIONAL
         ESTIMATES OF PROGRAM
         IMPACT ARE NOT
         APPROPRIATE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.3

Estimating program impact at the national level is not appropriate
because of the extreme variability of local programs, HHS officials
said.  Local Head Start sites have great flexibility, and, even
though all programs share common goals, they may operate very
differently.  Therefore, on the advice of HHS' research advisory
panel,\12 HHS considers a single, large-scale, national study of
impact to be methodologically inappropriate.  For this same reason,
HHS believes that summing across sites for an aggregate estimate of
effect is not justified in cases where sites are not basically
operating the same way. 

Evaluating outcomes at the national program level is an accepted
program evaluation procedure, however, even for programs with a great
deal of variability.  It is the only way to determine with certainty
whether the program is making an overall difference in any particular
outcome area.  Aggregate analysis does not, however, replace the need
for lower level analyses, which provide insight into the summary
finding.  In cases where effects are not uniform across sites, this
lower level analysis provides more understanding of which service
areas and delivery approaches are working for which subpopulations. 
Evaluations can be planned to answer both the aggregate and
disaggregate question in a single study. 


--------------------
\12 Since 1989, advisory panels of experts in early childhood
education and research and evaluation have helped HHS plan its
research. 


         HHS BELIEVES COMPARISONS
         WITH OTHER SERVICE
         PROVIDERS ARE NOT
         APPROPRIATE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.4

Another way to evaluate Head Start's impact is to compare its effects
with some other types of preschool, for instance, state or local
preschools.  When several programs exist that deliver similar
services, studies comparing programs in areas that have common goals
can provide useful information.  For instance, Head Start and public
preschools share the goal of school readiness.  A study might be
conducted to compare Head Start and public preschool students on the
basis of a measure of school readiness.  Such a study might compare
the performance of program participants, while describing relevant
program differences that might affect results, such as level of
service in the area studied and program costs. 

Regarding a comparative study, HHS has maintained that Head Start is
unique in the comprehensiveness of the services it offers. 
Therefore, according to the agency, any comparison of programs would
be misleading.  In addition, HHS claims that children served by Head
Start are more disadvantaged than children in other types of
preschools.  The agency also points out that in some places, other
public preschools have adopted the Head Start model, making such
comparisons essentially Head Start with Head Start. 

Concerns about differences in populations served by the programs
would relate to the rigor of the study design, that is, whether it is
experimental or quasi-experimental.  When quasi-experimental designs
are used, researchers frequently use statistical techniques to
mitigate for pre-
existing differences; but these designs always suffer to some degree
from the limitations referred to earlier in our discussion of quasi-
experimental designs.  Therefore, confidence in the study's results
would vary depending on the study design used. 

In the case of Head Start-like programs, one might reasonably expect
a difference in outcome on the basis of such factors as program
administration and context.  For example, a preschool program
operated by a local school system might have different outcomes in
school readiness because of the possible advantage of transitioning
its students into kindergarten.  Research that compares Head Start
with alternative ways of accomplishing a particular goal might
provide insight into the most effective and efficient way to provide
services to needy children and families. 


   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Increasing demand for shrinking federal resources has raised the
concerns of the Congress, the executive branch, and taxpayers about
the impact of multibillion dollar federal investments in federal
programs such as Head Start.  In addition, GPRA requires agencies to
be more accountable for substantiating program results.  Although
research has been conducted, it does not provide information on
whether today's Head Start is making a positive difference in the
lives of participants who live in a society that differs vastly from
that of the sixties and early seventies. 

While we acknowledge the difficulties of conducting impact studies of
programs such as Head Start, research could be done that would allow
the Congress and HHS officials to know with more certainty whether
the $4 billion dollar federal investment in Head Start is making a
difference.  For this reason, we recommend that the Secretary of HHS
include in HHS' research plan an assessment of the impact of regular
Head Start programs. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In commenting on a draft of our report, HHS expressed the belief that
the research base on the efficacy of Head Start is more substantial
than depicted in our report and that the strategy of the Department
to extend this base is appropriate to produce findings about both
impact and program quality.  HHS also indicated plans to evaluate the
feasibility of conducting impact studies such as we recommended.  The
Quality Research Centers are evaluating the feasibility of conducting
randomized trials in small-scale evaluations, and, on the basis of
these experiences may consider implementing larger scale studies. 
The full text of HHS' comments appears in appendix IV. 

HHS supported the claim that the research base is more substantial
than we depict by pointing to the findings from the 1985 synthesis
conducted by CSR (cited as "McKey et al., 1985" in HHS' comments) and
two more recent studies (the Currie and Thomas study and the Fosburg
study).  For reasons discussed in this report, we do not agree that
findings drawn from studies more than 20 years old adequately support
claims about the impact of the current Head Start program. 
Similarly, the findings from the two more recent studies mentioned
fail to support conclusions about impact that can be generalized to
the national program.  Even though these studies were larger than
others we found, both had significant methodological limitations. 
The Currie and Thomas study examined information in a database to
reach conclusions about Head Start.  This study used an
after-the-fact, post-test-only design.  Although this design is
frequently used when researchers must rely on existing data as their
only source, the design is vulnerable to serious threats to validity,
as discussed earlier in this report.  Because of these design
limitations, neither positive conclusions about Head Start (that is,
that children's test scores show immediate positive effects) nor
negative conclusions (that is, that these effects quickly disappear
for African American children) can be firmly drawn from the findings
of this study. 

The second study, the Fosburg study, as HHS pointed out, used a much
stronger research design, which randomly assigned children in four
Head Start programs to either Head Start or a non-Head Start control
group.  The site selection methodology, however, precluded
generalizing these findings to all Head Start programs.  The four
Head Start programs selected were chosen from areas identified as
underserved in medical and dental services, and Head Start sites that
were not in compliance with Head Start performance standards were
excluded from selection.  In addition, attrition was a significant
problem in this study. 

HHS also mentioned that on the basis of recommendations of leading
researchers, the Department is conducting a well-balanced, innovative
set of new studies of Head Start.  It contends that our report does
not acknowledge the major longitudinal studies that HHS has planned
or that are being conducted by other agencies.  Our report states
that HHS' planned research focuses on program improvement, and we
agree that such studies are needed.  We also support the studies of
program impact that HHS has under way in special program areas such
as Early Head Start.  Our work, however, focused specifically on HHS'
research plans that address the question of impact of the regular
Head Start program.  HHS' current research plans, however, do not
include such research. 

Finally, HHS maintained that it is building a substantial system of
innovative research, development, and management tools in response to
GPRA.  The Department emphasized the role the Quality Centers play in
these efforts and said that these centers are currently evaluating
possible strategies for performing comparison group studies that use
a random assignment research design.  HHS maintained that we
overlooked the importance of studying the quality of Head Start
programs in assessing impacts. 

We fully support HHS' plans to investigate the feasibility of
conducting randomized trials because these studies provide the
clearest indication of program impact.  We also agree that the issue
of quality is important in assessing program impact and findings from
studies need to include information on program quality.  The ultimate
measure of program quality is impact, however.  Until sound impact
studies are conducted on the current Head Start program, fundamental
questions about program quality will remain. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Head Start Bureau, appropriate congressional
committees, the Executive Director of the National Head Start
Association, and other interested parties.  Please call me at (202)
512-7014 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. 
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

OBJECTIVES

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives, asked us to examine existing research on Head Start
programs and to determine what it suggests about the impact of the
current Head Start program.  Another objective was to determine what
types of Head Start research HHS has planned. 

SCOPE

Although the bulk of research on Head Start was conducted in the
early years of the program, we focused on studies of Head Start
participation in 1976 or later for several reasons.  First, HHS
instituted quality initiatives and other important program changes in
the early to mid-1970s that shaped the current Head Start program,
including phasing out summer programs, implementing performance
standards, and establishing teacher credentialing procedures. 
Second, findings from studies of early programs have limited
generalizability to more stable programs.  The early years of any
program are not likely to represent a program in its maturity.  This
is especially true for Head Start, which was implemented quickly and
on a large scale. 

Finally, earlier studies were thoroughly reviewed by the Head Start
synthesis project and were reported in The Impact of Head Start on
Children, Families, and Communities in 1985.  Studies from the years
before 1976 constituted the bulk of studies included in this
synthesis.  A short summary of these findings appears in the
"Background" section of this report. 

After speaking with HHS research personnel, we anticipated that the
body of studies usable for a research synthesis might be small. 
Therefore, in addition to comparison group studies, we included
pretest/post-test-only designs in cases in which outcomes were
discussed in relation to test norms.  Although much less useful in
providing information about program impact relative to comparison
group designs, these studies provide a certain degree of valuable
information. 

METHODOLOGY

To report on what existing research says about Head Start's impact,
we identified studies meeting our basic selection criteria as
outlined in the "Literature Review" section of this appendix. 
Because the number of studies found in the first phase was so small,
we did not screen further for adequacy of information reported.  To
determine how HHS uses research, we reviewed HHS' research plans and
publications by their research advisory panel.  We also spoke with
HHS officials who direct Head Start research and with the director of
research at the National Head Start Association. 


      LITERATURE SEARCH
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

We began our search for studies with two bibliographies contracted
for by HHS.  The first, An Annotated Bibliography of the Head Start
Research Since 1965, was a product of the 1985 Head Start Evaluation,
Synthesis and Utilization Project.  We also reviewed An Annotated
Bibliography of Head Start Research:  1985-1995.  This bibliography
was produced by Ellsworth Associates, Inc., for the Head Start Bureau
as a part of its contract to maintain a library of Head Start and
related research.  Search strategies used to compile these
bibliographies are described in the introductions to the documents. 

In addition, we conducted our own search for studies.  Our primary
source was the database maintained by the Education Resources
Information Center.  However, we also searched a number of other
databases, including MEDLINE, AGRICOLA, Dissertation Abstracts,
Government Printing Office, Mental Health Abstracts, Psyc INFO,
Federal Research in Progress, Social SciSearch, Sociological
Abstracts, IAC Business A.R.T.S., British Education Index, Public
Affairs Information Service International, and National Technical
Information Service. 

We also interviewed people knowledgeable about early childhood
research.  We attended the Head Start Third National Research
Conference and spoke with conference participants.  We also mailed
letters to every conference participant asking for their assistance
in locating relevant research.  We interviewed personnel in charge of
research for the Administration for Children Youth and Families and
the Head Start Bureau and spoke with other researchers whom they
recommended.  We also talked with the executive director and the
director of research and evaluation of the National Head Start
Association and addressed the state and regional presidents of this
organization at their annual meeting.  In addition, we announced our
effort to locate research dealing with Head Start effectiveness on
several of the Internet forums sponsored by the American Educational
Research Association. 


      LITERATURE REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2

From these sources, we identified over 600 manuscripts that were
screened for relevance to our study.  We acquired about 200 of these
and reviewed them carefully regarding the following selection
criteria: 

  -- Head Start participation had occurred in 1976 or later;

  -- studies had compared outcomes of Head Start participants with
     children not attending any preschool--or those attending some
     other type of preschool--or studies had compared Head Start
     outcomes with test norms; and

  -- tests of statistical significance\13 were reported to have been
     performed on the differences, except in cases in which outcomes
     were measured using normed instruments. 

We excluded studies of transition or follow-through programs that
provided services beyond the Head Start years and studies that pooled
Head Start and other kinds of preschool participants.  We considered
multiple articles or later follow-ups on the same study to be one
study.  This final screening yielded 22 impact studies that were
evaluated in our review. 

We performed our work between April and December 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\13 Tests of statistical significance produce a measure of the
likelihood that a finding occurred as a result of sampling error. 
Such tests result in a value (usually denoted by "p") that represents
the probability that the outcome (for example, differences in scores)
arose from a sampling error.  Thus, "p< .01" means that the
probability of the outcome occurring as a result of sampling
variation is less than 1 in 100.  Although statistical significance
may take on any value from .00 to 1.0, benchmark levels often used in
research are .01 and .05.  We excluded one study because of lack of
evidence about the statistical significance of the findings. 


RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, AND
EVALUATION BUDGETS FOR THE HEAD
START PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix II

                                   Research,    Percentage
                              demonstration,      of total
                                  evaluation  appropriatio
Fiscal year    Appropriation          amount             n
------------  --------------  --------------  ------------
1971            $360,000,000      $5,700,000          1.58
1972             376,300,000       6,200,000          1.65
1973             400,700,000       9,000,000          2.25
1974             403,900,000       9,000,000          2.23
1975             403,900,000       9,000,000          2.23
1976             441,000,000       9,000,000          2.04
1977             475,000,000       9,000,000          1.89
1978             625,000,000       8,200,000          1.31
1979             680,000,000      14,630,000          2.15
1980             735,000,000      15,200,000          2.07
1981             818,700,000      14,600,000          1.78
1982             911,700,000      12,300,000          1.35
1983             912,000,000       6,900,000          0.76
1984             995,750,000       1,800,000          0.18
1985           1,075,059,000       1,300,000          0.12
1986           1,040,315,000         810,000          0.08
1987           1,130,542,000       1,300,000          0.11
1988           1,206,324,000       1,300,000          0.11
1989           1,235,000,000       1,500,000          0.12
1990           1,552,000,000       1,500,000          0.10
1991           1,951,800,000       3,500,000          0.18
1992           2,201,800,000       8,500,000          0.39
1993           2,776,286,000       8,900,000          0.32
1994           3,325,728,000      12,000,000          0.36
1995           3,534,128,000      12,000,000          0.34
----------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARIES OF STUDIES INCLUDED IN
THE REVIEW
========================================================= Appendix III


      EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS OF
      MAINSTREAMING HANDICAPPED
      CHILDREN INTO PROJECT HEAD
      START, PHASE II, EXECUTIVE
      SUMMARY, AND FOLLOW-UP
      EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
      MAINSTREAMING HANDICAPPED
      CHILDREN IN HEAD START
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1

Authors:  Applied Management Sciences, Inc.  (first study) and Roy
Littlejohn Associates, Inc.  (second study)

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and health

Overview of study:  Children receiving Head Start program services
compared with children receiving services from other types of
programs and with children receiving no special services

Design:  Pretest with post-test 6 months later

Population:  55 randomly selected Head Start centers and 49 non-Head
Start programs

Sample:  391 Head Start children, 321 non-Head Start children, and
121 unserved children

Head Start program year(s):  1977-78

Measures/instrumentation:  Various development indicators, including
physical development, self-help skills, cognitive development, social
development, communication skills, classroom social skills, and
classroom behavior and social integration

Findings:  Developmental gains for Head Start and non-Head Start
children identified as physically handicapped, mentally retarded, and
health or developmentally impaired were generally not significantly
greater than those of unserved children.  Developmental gains were
significant in physical, self-help, academic, and communications
skills for children identified as speech impaired in Head Start and
non-Head Start programs relative to unserved children. 

Source:  Applied Management Services, Inc., Evaluation of the Process
of Mainstreaming Handicapped Children Into Project Head Start, Phase
II, Executive Summary, Education Resources Information Center (ED
168291), 1978, and Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., Follow-Up
Evaluation of the Effects of Mainstreaming Handicapped Children in
Head Start (Washington, D.C.:  1985). 


      A LONGITUDINAL STUDY TO
      DETERMINE IF HEAD START HAS
      LASTING EFFECTS ON SCHOOL
      ACHIEVEMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2

Author:  Colleen K.  Bee

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Followed up Head Start participants in
kindergarten, first grade, and second grade

Design:  Post-test only, comparison group selected from waiting list
for each respective year

Population:  Head Start participants in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sample:  10 girls and 10 boys were selected for each Head Start year,
10 girls and 10 boys were selected each year for the comparison
groups

Head Start program year(s):  1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80

Measures/instrumentation:  Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test,
special education placements, and grade retention

Findings:  No significant differences were found at the .01 level of
confidence on reading readiness scores for any of the years studied. 
Non-Head Start group retained in grade less than the Head Start group
in 1977-78 (difference significant at .01 level).  No significant
difference was found in special education placements for any of the
years studied. 

Source:  Colleen K.  Bee, A Longitudinal Study to Determine If Head
Start Has Lasting Effects on School Achievement, UMI Dissertation
Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.:  1981). 


      EVALUATION OF PUBLIC
      PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS IN NORTH
      CAROLINA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.3

Authors:  Donna M.  Bryant, Ellen S.  Peisner-Feinberg, and Richard
M.  Clifford

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and socioemotional

Overview of study:  Followed up public preschool graduates in
kindergarten

Design:  Post-test only, comparison group comprised children from
same kindergarten classes

Population:  Public preschool programs in North Carolina

Sample:  97 children participated in Head Start, 99 in community day
care, and 120 in no group care

Head Start program year(s):  1992-93

Measures/instrumentation:  Reading and math subscales of the
Woodcook-Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ-R), Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), developmental assessment on
communication development, and an assessment on social behavior
completed by a kindergarten teacher; adapted questionnaire form of
the Communication Domain of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale used
to provide a measure of children's cognitive development; and Social
Skills Questionnaire used to measure teachers' ratings of children's
classroom behaviors

Findings:  Significant group effects were found for the PPVT-R, with
all the groups performing better than children in the non-day care
group.  For the WJ-R reading scale, the preschool group showed no
effects.  Significant main effects were found for preschool group on
the WJ-R math scale, with the community day care sample scoring
higher than the four other groups.  Significant preschool group
differences were found on the Vineland Communication Domain, with
community day care children rated higher than the other four groups. 
Social skills of community child care children were rated
significantly higher by their kindergarten teachers than children who
attended the standard or the family-focused classes or children who
did not attend group day care and marginally higher than the Head
Start children.  On the Academic Competence scale of the Social
Skills Questionnaire, children who previously attended community
child care scored significantly higher than those in the other four
groups. 

Source:  Donna M.  Bryant, Ellen S.  Peisnar-Feinberg, and Richard M. 
Clifford, Evaluation of Public Preschool Programs in North Carolina,
University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, N.C.:  1993). 


      THE IMPACT OF ESCALATING
      FAMILY STRESS ON THE
      EFFECTIVENESS OF HEAD START
      INTERVENTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.4

Authors:  Mary Anne Chalkley and Robert K.  Leik

Outcome area studied:  Family

Overview of study:  Explored the effects that declining conditions
among the U.S.  poor may have on the potential for intervention
programs to make a difference in the lives of those receiving
services

Design:  Pretest/post-test, followed up Head Start Family Impact
Project participants in 1993; comparison group recruited from Head
Start-eligible families

Population:  Head Start families in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sample:  130 of the 190 families in the original study

Head Start program year(s):  1986-87, 1989-90

Measures/instrumentation:  Mothers reported various measures on their
families, themselves, and their children.  Children completed the
pictorial form of Perceived Competence and Acceptance. 

Findings:  An examination of the absolute amount of change in the
mother's perception of the child was inconclusive on the impact of
Head Start. 

Source:  Mary Anne Chalkey and Robert K.  Leik, The Impact of
Escalating Family Stress on the Effectiveness of Head Start
Intervention, paper presented at the National Head Start
Association's 22nd Annual Training Conference (Washington, D.C.: 
April 1995). 


      DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRESS OF
      CHILDREN ENROLLED IN
      OKLAHOMA HEAD START PROGRAMS
      IN 1987-1988
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.5

Author:  Laurna Champ

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and social

Overview of study:  Head Start students were tested in the fall and
again in the spring in multiple developmental areas. 

Design:  Pretest/post-test

Population:  Children in 15 Head Start programs in Oklahoma

Sample:  120 students

Head Start program year(s):  1987-88

Measures/instrumentation:  Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early
Development and Head Start Measures Battery

Findings:  Gains on the Brigance ranged from 9 to 16 months.  Similar
claims were made for results on the Head Start Measures Battery, but
findings were reported in raw scores with no intrinsic meaning. 

Source:  Laurna Champ, Developmental Progress of Children Enrolled in
Oklahoma Head Start Programs in 1981-1988, unpublished manuscript,
1988. 


      DOES HEAD START MAKE A
      DIFFERENCE? 
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.6

Authors:  Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and health

Overview of study:  Examined the impact of Head Start on school
performance, cognitive attainment, and various health and nutritional
measures

Design:  Post-test only, comparison groups comprised participants in
other preschool or no preschool

Population:  U.S.  Head Start participants

Sample:  National sample of data for nearly 5,000 children from the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the National Longitudinal
Survey's Child-Mother file

Head Start program year(s):  1986-90

Measures/instrumentation:  Picture Peabody Vocabulary Test and grade
retention

Findings:  Head Start had positive and persistent effects on test
scores and school attainment of white children relative to
participation in either other preschool or no preschool after
controlling for family and background effects.  An increase in test
scores was noted for African American children, but these gains were
quickly lost, and there appeared to be no positive effects in school
attainment.  Greater access to preventive health care was reported
for white and African American children who attended Head Start or
other preschools. 

Source:  Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas, "Does Head Start Make a
Difference?" The American Economic Review, Vol.  85, No.  3 (1995),
pp.  341-64. 


      A COMPARISON OF HEAD START
      AND NON-HEAD START READING
      READINESS SCORES OF
      LOW-INCOME KINDERGARTEN
      CHILDREN OF GUAM
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.7

Author:  Maria D.  Esteban

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Followed up Head Start participants in
kindergarten

Design:  Post-test only, comparison group comprised low-income
kindergarten students that did not attend Head Start

Population:  Head Start participants from six public schools on Guam

Sample:  35 male and 35 female Head Start children and 35 male and 35
female non-Head Start children

Head Start program year(s):  1985-86

Measures/instrumentation:  Brigance K&I Screen for Kindergarten

Findings:  Differences among the four groups were not significant at
the p = .05 level.  Head Start to non-Head Start comparison was not
significant. 

Source:  Maria D.  Esteban, A Comparison of Head Start and Non-Head
Start Reading Readiness Scores of Low-Income Kindergarten Children of
Guam, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.:  1987). 


      THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FAMILY
      HEALTH CARE IN HEAD START: 
      THE ROLE OF PARENTAL
      INVOLVEMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.8

Author:  Barbara A.  Facchini

Outcome area studied:  Health

Overview of study:  Relationship of the amount of parental
involvement in the Head Start program to the amount of health care
received by both Head Start-age children and their siblings

Design:  Post-test only, comparison group selected from waiting list

Population:  West Haven, Connecticut, Head Start program

Sample:  40 Head Start children and 20 waiting-list children for
comparison group

Head Start program year(s):  1980-81

Measures/instrumentation:  Immunizations, physical examinations,
health screenings, and dental examinations

Findings:  Immunizations were up to date for about one-half of both
the Head Start children and the waiting-list children before the
beginning of the Head Start programs.  All of the Head Start children
were up to date during the Head Start year, but only a few additional
waiting-list children were up to date.  Head Start children were more
likely to receive health screenings and dental examinations (p <
.001).  Head Start children were more likely to receive physical
examinations, but only the difference for children of highly involved
parents was significantly different from the waiting-list children (p
< .05).  No significant difference for immunizations was found
between the siblings of Head Start children and siblings of
waiting-list children.  Head Start siblings were more likely to have
received health and dental screenings (p < .05). 

Source:  Barbara A.  Facchini, The Effectiveness of Family Health
Care in Head Start:  The Role of Parental Involvement, Quinnipiac
College (West Haven, Conn.:  1985). 


      THE EFFECTS OF HEAD START
      HEALTH SERVICES:  EXECUTIVE
      SUMMARY OF THE HEAD START
      HEALTH EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.9

Authors:  Linda B.  Fosburg and Bernard Brown

Outcome area studied:  Health

Overview of study:  Longitudinal study of the Head Start health
services

Design:  Pretest/post-test, longitudinal experimental design,
involving random assignment of children to a Head Start and a
non-Head Start group

Population:  Four large Head Start programs

Sample:  208 children completed both pre- and post-tests, 609
received post-tests only

Head Start program year(s):  1980-81

Measures/instrumentation:  Pediatric, dental, anthropometric,
hematology, developmental, speech and language, vision, and hearing
evaluations and nutritional observation; parent interview addressed
the health history of child, nutritional evaluation of child, and
family background

Findings:  Head Start children were more likely to receive preventive
and remedial health services than other low-income children in their
community.  Head Start children were more likely to receive medical
and dental examinations, speech evaluation and therapy services, and
vision screen or examination.  Head Start children tested at both
pretest and post-test were less likely to have speech and language
deficiencies at post-test.  Nutritional intake evaluation showed
exceptionally positive impacts of Head Start's nutrition services on
children and their families. 

Source:  Linda B.  Fosburg and Bernard Brown, The Effects of Head
Start Health Services:  Executive Summary of the Head Start
Evaluation, Abt Associates (Cambridge, Mass.:  1984). 


      CHILDREN ARE A WONDERFUL
      INVESTMENT:  A STUDY IN
      PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.10

Authors:  Mary Fulbright and others

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and family

Overview of study:  To examine the effects of preschool education on
children of low- income families in Dallas, Texas

Design:  Post-test only, followed up students who had attended
Sunnyview Head Start Center during the previous 5 years; comparison
group selected from children in district who did not attend Sunnyview
Head Start Center but were matched on demographic characteristics

Population:  Dallas Independent School District students who had
attended Sunnyview Head Start Center during the previous 5 years

Sample:  83 former Sunnyview parents and 76 comparison group parents;
for the grade retention analysis, 43 Sunnyview and 41 comparison
students

Head Start program year(s):  1984-89 (estimated)

Measures/instrumentation:  Demographic, economic, home environment,
and educational experience/expectation information was collected from
parents.  Grade retention information was gathered from school files. 

Findings:  Significantly fewer former Sunnyview students had repeated
a grade than comparison group students.  Sunnyview parents reported
significantly more educational items in the home than comparison
group parents. 

Source:  Mary Fulbright and others, Children Are a Wonderful
Investment:  A Study in Preschool Education, Community Services
Development Center, Graduate School of Social Work, University of
Texas (Arlington, Tex.:  1989). 


      HEALTH SERVICES AND HEAD
      START:  A FORGOTTEN FORMULA
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.11

Authors:  Barbara A.  Hale, Victoria Seitz, and Edward Zigler

Outcome area studied:  Health

Overview of study:  Studied the impact of Head Start's health
services on children and their siblings

Design:  Post-test only, comparison groups from the waiting list and
from a nursery school serving middle-class families

Population:  Head Start participants in two adjacent small cities in
Connecticut

Sample:  40 Head Start children, 18 children on the Head Start
waiting list, 20 children enrolled in a nursery school, and 103
siblings of the nursery school children

Head Start program year(s):  1984-85

Measures/instrumentation:  Immunizations, physical examinations,
health screenings, and dental examinations

Findings:  Head Start children received more age-appropriate health
screenings than middle-class children and waiting-list children. 
Head Start children were more likely to receive dental examinations
than middle-
class children and waiting-list children.  Head Start siblings were
less likely than middle-class siblings to receive age-appropriate
immunizations and health screenings. 

Source:  Barbara A.  Hale, Victoria Seitz, and Edward Zigler, "Health
Services and Head Start:  A Forgotten Formula," Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, Vol.  11 (1990), pp.  447-58. 


      AN ANALYSIS OF THE
      EFFECTIVENESS OF HEAD START
      AND OF THE PERFORMANCE OF A
      LOW-INCOME POPULATION IN
      MCPS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.12

Author:  Kathleen Hebbeler

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Examined the long-term effectiveness of Head
Start by comparing the performance of Head Start graduates in
elementary and secondary school to that of students who had applied
for Head Start but did not attend

Design:  Post-test only, followed up three cohorts of Head Start
graduates; one cohort, the 1978-79 group, was within the scope of our
study; comparison group selected from waiting list for each
respective year

Population:  Children continuously enrolled in Montgomery County,
Maryland, school system between 1980 and 1984 and currently in the
fourth grade

Sample:  Head Start group comprised 411 children; the comparison
group had 89. 

Head Start program year(s):  1978-79

Measures/instrumentation:  California Achievement Test, Cognitive
Abilities Test, special education placements, and grade retention

Findings:  Head Start group had a higher percentage of students who
scored above the 80th percentile on one of the subtests of the
Cognitive Abilities Test administered in the third grade. 

Source:  Kathleen Hebbeler, An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Head
Start and of the Performance of a Low-Income Population in MCPS,
unpublished manuscript, Education Resources Information Center
(ED281674), 1985. 


      A COMPARISON OF THE ACADEMIC
      ACHIEVEMENT OF URBAN SECOND
      GRADE PUPILS WITH DIFFERENT
      FORMS OF PUBLIC PRESCHOOL
      EXPERIENCE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.13

Author:  Elva Williams Hunt

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Comparison of the academic achievement of urban
second grade students from low-income families with different forms
of public preschool experience

Design:  Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in
second grade; comparison groups comprised students with public
preschool (First Step) or no preschool experience

Population:  Three cohorts of second grade students from the Newport
News Public Schools

Sample:  74 former Head Start students, 92 former First Step
preschool students, and 92 students with no preschool experience

Head Start program year(s):  1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83

Measures/instrumentation:  Standardized test scores and grade
retention

Findings:  Achievement test scores of the three groups were not
significantly different.  No conclusion was reached about the
performance of Head Start students on the grade retention measure. 

Source:  Elva Williams Hunt, A Comparison of the Academic Achievement
of Urban Second Grade Pupils With Different Forms of Public Preschool
Experience, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.:  1987). 


      A HEAD START PROGRAM
      EVALUATION IN TERMS OF
      FAMILY STRESS AND AFFECT:  A
      PILOT STUDY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.14

Authors:  Ron Iverson and others

Outcome area studied:  Family

Overview of study:  Assessment of the effect of a local Minnesota
Head Start's family services on family stress levels

Design:  Pretest/post-test, comparison groups selected from
waiting-list families and from the local population

Population:  Families with children enrolled in the Clay-Wilkin
Opportunity Council Head Start program

Sample:  149 Head Start families were surveyed at the beginning of
the program year and completed a post-test in May and a 1-year
follow-up the following May.  Twenty-one waiting-list families and 35
randomly selected families with young children from the general
population were surveyed as comparison groups. 

Head Start program year(s):  1991-92, 1992-93

Measures/instrumentation:  Index of Family Stress and
Adjustment--Stress was measured by a correlated subscale of 13 of the
original 55 stress items, and affect was measured by a correlated
subscale of 9 of the original 30 affect items. 

Findings:  Head Start and waiting-list families were both
significantly higher in stress means and lower in affect means than
the general population families.  Head Start families were both
significantly lower in stress and significantly higher in affect than
the waiting-list families at Head Start post-test.  Head Start gains
in both stress and affect measures appeared to reverse at the 1-year
follow-up, but the changes were not significant. 

Source:  Ron Iverson and others, A Head Start Program Evaluation in
Terms of Family Stress and Affect:  A Pilot Study, State of Minnesota
Department of Jobs and Training (Moorhead, Minn.:  1993). 


      FINAL REPORT-THE HEAD START
      FAMILY IMPACT PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.15

Authors:  Robert K.  Leik and Mary Anne Chalkley

Outcome area studied:  Family

Overview of study:  Studied family functioning and optimal
involvement of parents in Head Start

Design:  Pretest/post-test of two treatment groups--regular Head
Start and an enriched program with a comparison group selected from
the Head Start waiting list

Population:  Head Start participants in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sample:  51 families in regular Head Start, 30 families in the
enriched program, and 21 waiting-list families

Head Start program year(s):  1986-87

Measures/instrumentation:  Various measures of family
characteristics, mother's evaluation of her child's behavior and
competence, and children's feelings of competence and social
acceptance

Findings:  Head Start families exhibited large and significant
changes in family cohesion and adaptability.  Mothers in both Head
Start groups increased their evaluation of their children's
competence.  Children in all samples increased their sense of
competence and acceptance. 

Source:  Robert K.  Leik and Mary Anne Chalkley, Final Report--The
Head Start Family Impact Project. 


      A LONGITUDINAL STUDY TO
      DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF
      HEAD START PARTICIPATION ON
      READING ACHIEVEMENT IN
      GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH
      SIX IN TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.16

Author:  Paula J.  Nystrom

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Review impact of the Head Start program on
academic achievement of children

Design:  Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in
kindergarten through sixth grade; comparison group comprised children
who had not attended Head Start, but who were similar to the Head
Start group on certain demographic variables

Population:  Head Start participants from three schools in Troy,
Michigan

Sample:  54 Head Start children and 54 comparison children

Head Start program year(s):  1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84

Measures/instrumentation:  Metropolitan Readiness Test,
Gates-MacGinite Reading Test, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Cognitive
Abilities Test, special education placements, and grade retention

Findings:  Mean scores at kindergarten were higher for the Head Start
group compared with the comparison group at kindergarten; no
significant differences were found at any of the other grade levels. 
An analysis of change in scores over time showed a significant
difference in favor of the Head Start group.  No significant
differences were found between the Head Start and comparison group
for special education placement and grade retention. 

Source:  Paula J.  Nystrom, A Longitudinal Study to Determine the
Effects of Head Start Participation on Reading Achievement in Grades
Kindergarten Through Six in Troy Public Schools, UMI Dissertation
Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.:  1988). 


      A COMPARISON OF LONG RANGE
      EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION IN
      PROJECT HEAD START AND
      IMPACT OF THREE DIFFERING
      DELIVERY MODELS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.17

Author:  Yvonne B.  Reedy

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive, socioemotional, and family

Overview of study:  Investigated possible differences among groups of
children receiving Head Start through three different delivery models

Design:  Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants after 2
to 4 years in public schools to examine the long-range effects of
different delivery models; comparison group comprised children who
might have attended Head Start but did not

Population:  Head Start participants in rural Pennsylvania

Sample:  18 were children for each of the three groups:  classroom,
mixed model, and home based; and 18 children were included in the
control group

Head Start program year(s):  Not specified

Measures/instrumentation:  Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery
- Part II, Tests of Achievement; PPVT-R; Child Behavior Checklist -
Parent Rating Scale; Child Behavior Checklist - Teacher Rating Scale;
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale - Survey Form; and Head Start
Follow-up Family Questionnaire

Findings:  No differences among Head Start and non-Head Start
children in reading, math, written language, or receptive language. 
Levels were in the average range when compared with national norms. 
Head Start children obtained significantly higher mean scores on the
measure of general knowledge.  Head Start children had significantly
lower mean scores on both subscales and total scale on the measure of
maladaptive behavior.  Correlations with teacher reports were
significant.  On the socialization scale, differences were not
significant at p = .05.  On the adaptive behavior measures, the
non-Head Start children obtained significantly higher means on the
communication, daily living skills, and social skills domains, as
well as on the total adaptive behavior score. 

On the parent questionnaire, non-Head Start parents reported they
felt less capable of providing a good learning environment, spent
less time working with the child on homework or other learning
activities, were less likely to seek information about
age-appropriate expectations, were more likely to resort to spanking
as a form of discipline, were less able to find community services
when needed and to feel their involvement with their child's
education had resulted in any noticeable accomplishments.  On the
daily living skills, social skills, and total independent living
scales, the children in the classroom model obtained lower means than
the two groups who received home visits.  Parents of children in the
classroom model reported they spent smaller amounts of time working
with their children at home, and they were less likely to seek out
information about age-appropriate information and to feel that their
involvement in their children's education resulted in any noticeable
accomplishments. 

Source:  Yvonne B.  Reedy, A Comparison of Long Range Effects of
Participation in Project Head Start and Impact of Three Differing
Delivery Models, Pennsylvania State University (State College, Penn.: 
1991). 


      A STUDY OF DURATION IN HEAD
      START AND ITS IMPACT ON
      SECOND GRADERS' COGNITIVE
      SKILLS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.18

Author:  Joyce Harris Roberts

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive and socioemotional

Overview of study:  Assessed the impact of Head Start programming on
later school success and the development of social competence in its
graduates

Design:  Post-test only, compared 1-year Head Start participants with
2-year Head Start participants and a non-preschool comparison group
of second grade classmates

Population:  Second grade students in four public schools in a large
suburban school district

Sample:  30 children with 1 year of Head Start year, 22 children with
2 years of Head Start, and 33 children with no preschool

Head Start program year(s):  1978-79, 1979-80

Measures/instrumentation:  Locus of Control Scale for Children -
Pre-School and Primary, Form A; Self-Concept Inventory; and Cognitive
Abilities Test (Primary Level)

Findings:  No significant difference was found between groups on any
measure. 

Source:  Joyce Harris Roberts, A Study of Duration in Head Start and
Its Impact on Second Graders' Cognitive Skills, UMI Dissertation
Services (Ann Arbor, Mich.:  1984). 


      CHANGES IN MENTAL AGE,
      SELF-CONCEPT, AND CREATIVE
      THINKING IN ETHNICALLY
      DIFFERENT 3- AND 4-YEAR-OLD
      HEAD START STUDENTS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.19

Author:  Linda L.B.  Spigner

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Studied Head Start participants' progress after 8
months of Head Start participation and conducted home interviews for
the children who showed the highest gains and for the children who
made the least progress

Design:  Pretest/post-test

Population:  Head Start participants in a north Texas community

Sample:  37 Head Start participants

Head Start program year(s):  Exact year not specified

Measures/Instrumentation:  Bankson Language Screening Test,
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test, Self-Concept Adjective Checklist, and Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking

Findings:  Average mental age gain of almost 11 months was
significant at the .01 level.  Gains in self-concept and creative
thinking were significant at the .01 level. 

Source:  Linda L.B.  Spigner, Changes in Mental Age, Self-Concept,
and Creative Thinking in Ethnically Different 3- and 4-Year-Old Head
Start Students, Texas Woman's University (Denton, Tex.:  1985). 


      LEARNING BY LEAPS & BOUNDS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.20

Author:  Texas Instruments Foundation, Head Start of Greater Dallas,
and Southern Methodist University

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Followed up Margaret H.  Cone Preschool Head
Start program participants; cohorts 4, 5, and 6 participated in a new
Language Enrichment Activities Program

Design:  Post-test only, comparison group comprised classmates who
did not attend the Margaret H.  Cone Preschool

Population:  Six cohorts of children attending the Margaret H.  Cone
Preschool Head Start program in Dallas, Texas

Sample:  Cohorts ranged from about 30 to 58 children

Head Start program year(s):  1990-96

Measures/instrumentation:  Battelle Developmental Inventory, PPVT-R,
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Preschool, and Iowa
Test of Basic Skills

Findings:  Results of cohorts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 revealed a pattern of
improved performance in vocabulary, language skills, concept
development, and social-adaptive skills during the years of the
language enrichment program. 

Source:  Texas Instruments, Head Start of Greater Dallas, and
Southern Methodist University, Learning by Leaps & Bounds, paper
presented at Head Start's Third National Research Conference
(Washington, D.C.:  June 22, 1996). 


      EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONAL
      INTERVENTION:  AN ANALYSIS
      OF NICHOLAS COUNTY,
      KENTUCKY, HEAD START PROGRAM
      IMPACTS FROM 1974-1986
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.21

Author:  Marium T.  Williams

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Examined the impact of the Nicholas County Head
Start Program over a 12-year period

Design:  Post-test only, followed up Head Start participants in first
grade through sixth grade; comparison groups were selected from
comparable first grade enrollment

Population:  Children who entered first grade in the years 1975,
1976, 1979, 1980, and 1981 in Nicholas County, Kentucky; the first
three groups are outside our period of study

Sample:  14 Head Start and 9 comparison children for 1979-80 and 11
Head Start and 10 comparison children for 1980-81

Head Start program year(s):  1979-80, 1980-81

Measures/instrumentation:  Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills,
Cognitive Skills Index, mathematics and reading/English grades,
Kentucky Essential Skills Test, special education placements, and
grade retention

Findings:  No significant differences were found for most
comparisons.  Reading scores for the Head Start children were
significantly better than those of the comparison group for 3 of the
6 years at the .05 level of significance. 

Source:  Marium T.  Williams, Early Childhood Educational
Intervention:  An Analysis of Nicholas County, Kentucky, Head Start
Program Impacts From 1974-1986, UMI Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor,
Mich.:  1988). 


      IS AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM
      NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
      IMPROVE ECONOMICALLY
      DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN'S IQ
      SCORES? 
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.22

Authors:  Edward Zigler and others

Outcome area studied:  Cognitive

Overview of study:  Studied changes in intelligence quotient scores
of children attending Head Start

Design:  Pretest/post-test, comparison group comprised Head
Start-eligible children not attending Head Start; testing was done at
three points in the Head Start year

Population:  Preschool children from economically disadvantaged
families living in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods in New Haven,
Connecticut

Sample:  59 Head Start children and 25 comparison children

Head Start program year(s):  Not stated

Measures/instrumentation:  Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form
L-M

Findings:  Both groups increased from test to retest, a result which
was attributed to familiarity with the testing situation.  Only the
Head Start group continued to show improvement on the post-test,
which was interpreted as reflecting changes in the children's
motivation from attending a preschool intervention program. 

Source:  Edward Zigler and others, "Is an Intervention Program
Necessary in Order to Improve Economically Disadvantaged Children's
IQ Scores?" Child Development, Vol.  53 (1982), pp.  340-48. 




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



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix V

Many researchers and early childhood experts provided valuable
assistance and information used in producing this report.  In
particular, we wish to acknowledge the following individuals who
reviewed the draft report:  Dr.  Richard Light, Harvard University;
Dr.  Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University; Greg Powell, National Head
Start Association; and Dr.  Edward Zigler, Yale University.  Although
these reviewers provided valuable comments, they do not necessarily
endorse the positions taken in the report. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GAO CONTACTS

D.  Catherine Baltzell, Assistant Director, (202) 512-8001
Deborah L.  Edwards, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-5416

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report:  Sherri Doughty managed the
literature search and co-wrote the report, Wayne Dow led the
literature review and screening, and Paula DeRoy performed the
literature searches and collected the manuscripts. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Executive Guide:  Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996). 

Head Start:  Information on Federal Funds Unspent by Program Grantees
(GAO/HEHS-96-64, Dec.  29, 1995). 

Early Childhood Centers:  Services to Prepare Children for School
Often Limited (GAO/HEHS-95-21, Mar.  21, 1995). 

Program Evaluation:  Improving the Flow of Information to the
Congress (GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan.  30, 1995). 

Early Childhood Programs:  Parent Education and Income Best Predict
Participation (GAO/HEHS-95-47, Dec.  28, 1994). 

Early Childhood Programs:  Local Perspectives on Barriers to
Providing Head Start Services (GAO/HEHS-95-8, Dec.  21, 1994). 

Early Childhood Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target
Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994). 

Early Childhood Programs:  Many Poor Children and Strained Resources
Challenge Head Start (GAO/HEHS-94-169BR, May 17, 1994). 

Infants and Toddlers:  Dramatic Increase in Numbers Living in Poverty
(GAO/HEHS-94-74, Apr.  7, 1994). 

Poor Preschool-Age Children:  Numbers Increase but Most Not in
Preschool (GAO/HRD-93-111BR, July 21, 1993). 


*** End of document. ***