Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children
Significant but Effectiveness Unclear (Testimony, 04/11/2000,
GAO/T-HEHS-00-83).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed preschool education
for children of low-income families, focusing on: (1) the federal and
state commitment to preschool programs, including funding and
collaborative efforts; and (2) what is known about the effectiveness of
federal preschool programs.

GAO noted that: (1) the federal investment in preschool programs for
low-income children is considerable; (2) annually, the federal
government provides about $4.6 billion in funds for preschool education
and about $4.4 billion a year for federal block grants, such as the
Child Care Development Fund, some portion of which is used for preschool
education; (3) state governments provide about another $2 billion
annually to support preschool programs; (4) Head Start, administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Even Start,
administered by the Department of Education, are two federal programs
that focus on developing cognitive and other skills needed to prepare
children for school; (5) in addition, in some communities, title I
funds, which support elementary and secondary education programs for
economically and educationally disadvantaged children, are also used for
preschool programs; (6) federally funded and state-funded preschool
programs typically serve children only part of a day and thus do not
always accommodate the schedules of working parents; (7) in some states,
federal and state officials have collaborated to provide full-day
services by bringing together both child care and preschool services;
(8) given the considerable investment at the federal level, it is
important to know how effectively the different programs prepare
children for school; (9) although Head Start and Even Start studies have
shown that the skills of participating children have improved, the
studies have not provided definitive results on effectiveness--that is,
the extent to which these improvements can be attributed to the
programs; (10) however, HHS and Education are making progress in
assessing the effectiveness of their preschool programs; and (11) in
contrast, the effectiveness of block grant funds is not being evaluated
for school readiness because it is not a primary goal of these programs.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-HEHS-00-83
     TITLE:  Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income
	     Children Significant but Effectiveness Unclear
      DATE:  04/11/2000
   SUBJECT:  Preschool education
	     Disadvantaged persons
	     Block grants
	     Federal/state relations
	     Program evaluation
	     Aid for education
	     State-administered programs
	     Children
IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program
	     Even Start Program
	     HHS Child Care and Development Fund
	     Dept. of Education Title I Program
	     Social Services Block Grant
	     HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program

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

   * For Release on Delivery
     Expected at 9:30 a.m.

Tuesday, April 11, 2000

GAO/T-HEHS-00-83

PRESCHOOL EDUCATION

Federal Investment for Low-Income Children Significant but Effectiveness
Unclear

        Statement of Marnie S. Shaul, Associate Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Children and Families, Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children Significant
but Effectiveness Unclear

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of preschool
education for children of low-income families. Over the past several years,
members of the Congress and leaders in state government have expressed
concern about the number of children who are coming to school not ready to
learn because they lack appropriate cognitive and social skills. The first
national education goal is that all children in America will start school
ready to learn. Both federal and state governments have programs to help
low-income preschool children obtain these skills. Given the significant
federal commitment, it is important to have information on the effectiveness
of the federal programs.

My remarks today focus on (1) the federal and state commitment to preschool
programs, including funding and collaborative efforts and (2) what is known
about the effectiveness of federal preschool programs. My comments are based
on the findings from our recent report on early childhood care and education
and our two reports on the effectiveness of federal early childhood
programs.

In summary, the federal investment in preschool programs for low-income
children is considerable. Annually, the federal government provides about
$4.6 billion in funds for preschool education and about $4.4 billion a year
for federal block grants, such as the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF),
some portion of which is used for preschool education. State governments
provide about another $2 billion annually to support preschool programs.
Head Start, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and Even Start, administered by the Department of Education, are two
federal programs that focus on developing cognitive and other skills needed
to prepare children for school. In addition, in some communities title I
funds, which support elementary and secondary education programs for
economically and educationally disadvantaged children, are also used for
preschool programs. Federally funded and state-funded preschool programs
typically serve children only part of a day and thus do not always
accommodate the schedules of working parents. In some states, federal and
state officials have collaborated to provide full-day services by bringing
together both child care and preschool services.

Given the considerable investment at the federal level, it is important to
know how effectively the different programs prepare children for school.
Although Head Start and Even Start studies have shown that the skills of
participating children have improved, the studies have not provided
definitive results on effectiveness-that is, the extent to which these
improvements can be attributed to the programs. However, HHS and Education
are making progress in assessing the effectiveness of their preschool
programs. In contrast, the effectiveness of block grant funds is not being
evaluated for school readiness because it is not a primary goal of these
programs.

Background

In addition to their role in preparing children for school, these programs
play a part in allowing parents to enter the workforce. Welfare reform
legislation is directed at increasing low-income families' reliance on work
rather than welfare. But many parents who work need full-day, full-year care
for their children. To use preschool programs, which often serve children
part of a day and part of a year, parents need some type of child care to
cover the additional hours they work. Child care settings vary and include
care given by relatives or nonrelatives in a home or in a center or other
out-of-home settings. For families that use subsidized care, recent HHS data
showed that about half of these families use center-based settings for their
children, which often include educational services, and the remainder place
their children in home-based settings. Information about what services
children receive in home-based settings is limited.

Historically, early childhood care programs and early childhood education
programs have existed as separate systems with different goals. The primary
goal of child care programs has been to subsidize the cost of care for
low-income parents who are working or engaged in education and training
activities. At the federal level, child care is primarily supported by CCDF.
In contrast, early childhood education programs have generally focused on
helping children become ready to begin school. This split is also reflected
at the state level in child care subsidy programs and preschool programs.

Federal and State Funds for Preschool Are Significant

Federally Supported Preschool Programs

Table 1: Head Start, Even Start, and Title I Programs

                       Fiscal year
                       1999
 Program    Department appropriations  Description

                       ($ in millions)
                                       Head Start's primary goal is to
                                       promote school readiness by
                                       enhancing the social and cognitive
                                       development of low-income preschool
                                       children (generally aged 3 and 4) by
                                       providing health, educational,
                                       nutritional, social, and other
 Head Start HHS        $4,311a         services that are determined through
                                       a needs assessment to be necessary.
                                       The services are delivered locally
                                       by public and private nonprofit
                                       agencies that receive funding
                                       directly from HHS. In fiscal year
                                       1999, Head Start served more than
                                       831,000 children.
                                       Even Start Family Literacy Program's
                                       purpose is to help reduce poverty
                                       and illiteracy by improving
                                       educational opportunities for
                                       families. The program integrates
                                       early childhood education, adult
                                       literacy and basic education, and
                                       parenting education into a family
                                       literacy program. The rationale is
                                       that children will benefit directly
                                       from their participation in early
                                       childhood education programs and
 Even Start Education  $135            indirectly from their parents'
                                       literacy and parenting skills.
                                       Education distributes grants to
                                       states, which then make subgrants to
                                       partnerships consisting of at least
                                       one local education agency and at
                                       least one community-based
                                       organization, higher education
                                       institution, or other public or
                                       private nonprofit agency. During the
                                       1998-99 program year, 735 local Even
                                       Start projects served approximately
                                       32,000 families.
                                       Title I's primary purpose is to help
                                       local education agencies and schools
                                       improve the teaching and learning of
                                       children failing, or most at risk of
                                       failing, to meet challenging state
                                       academic standards. Local education
                                       agencies received $7.8 billion in
                                       title I funds, a formula grant, and
                                       have broad discretion in using
                                       funds. For example, the funds may be
 Title I    Education  $155b           used to pay for teachers' salaries,
                                       provide professional development, or
                                       purchase new equipment such as
                                       computers. Education has encouraged
                                       state title I directors to use title
                                       I funds for early learning programs
                                       that improve school readiness. Title
                                       I served about 264,000 preschool
                                       children in 1996-97 (about 2 percent
                                       of all children title I served that
                                       year).

aRepresents funding for Head Start preschool programs only.

bEducation did not have information on the proportion of title I funds used
for preschool children. Using the figure from 1996-97 that about 2 percent
of title I children were preschool as a rough estimate, about $155 million
would have gone to preschool programs.

Federal Block Grant Programs

CCDF is aimed primarily at increasing the availability, affordability, and
quality of child care; preschool readiness is not a primary goal. The two
other grant programs have child care as a service secondary to other primary
goals. SSBG funds can be used for services directed at the goals of
achieving or maintaining economic self-support and self-sufficiency;
preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, and exploitation of children and
adults; and preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care. TANF's
main goal is to achieve and maintain self-sufficiency in the workplace, and
federal funds can be used for child care to help achieve that goal.

The extent to which block grant funds are used for preschool-aged children
is not currently available. These grants fund a wide variety of services and
serve children up to age 13 in a variety of settings, and HHS does not
collect data separately for preschool education. In our early childhood
report, we reported on preliminary HHS data on the types of care being used
for children subsidized by federal block grants. The data indicate that on
average about 11 percent of the children are cared for in their homes, 30
percent are in family child care (that is, a small number of children,
usually fewer than 10, are cared for in the home of the provider), 4 percent
are in group homes (that is, care is given in the home of a provider for a
larger number of children, generally more than 10), and 55 percent are using
centers. Children receiving these services may also be receiving services
that help them prepare for school, even though that is not the goal of the
block grant program.

Most States Provide Funding for Preschool Programs

In our recent report on early childhood education and care, we stated that
31 states and the District of Columbia reported that they provided about
$1.7 billion in their last complete fiscal year to support preschool
programs. Many of these preschool programs were operated as part of the
public school system and were part-time programs. Fifteen states also
reported providing $155 million to supplement the Head Start program. These
supplemental funds were used to serve more children, increase teacher
salaries, or provide transportation to Head Start facilities. Nineteen
states reported providing additional funds through grants to communities to
meet parents' needs, which could include early childhood education, child
care, or both. These 19 states reported spending $1.7 billion on these
grants.

Collaboration Efforts Helped Meet the Need for Full-Day Services

Federal programs also have supported collaborative efforts. For example,
since 1990, HHS has been awarding collaboration grants to states to promote
more integrated service delivery systems. These grants are designed to
encourage collaboration between Head Start and other programs to increase
the availability of full-day coverage and increase the number of children
served. Further, the Congress increased Head Start funding in fiscal year
1998-99, and Head Start has awarded much of this money to programs that
consider combining their funds with other child care and early childhood
funding sources. This helps deliver more full-day services through
partnerships such as community-based child care centers.

Limited Information Is Available on Program Effectiveness

Head Start

HHS is now taking steps to determine the extent to which these outcomes can
be attributed to Head Start. In the Head Start Amendments of 1998, the
Congress mandated a national impact study of Head Start. The law defined
impact to mean that Head Start children had enhancements in their readiness
for school that would not have occurred without their participation in the
program. In accordance with the legislation, HHS established an expert panel
to recommend a research design. The panel recommended that the study include
a random assignment of families to Head Start or control groups as the best
approach to answer the question of outcomes. HHS plans to implement the
panel's recommendations through procurements awarded this year. The Congress
required that the study be completed by 2003.

Even Start

While the first evaluation showed positive outcomes for children, it did not
show conclusively that the children's improved scores resulted from their
being in Even Start. The researchers examined program effect by comparing
the performance of families randomly assigned to Even Start projects and a
control group. The data showed that during their early participation in the
program, Even Start children gained more than the control group children.
However, after 18 months there was no statistical difference between
children in Even Start and children in the control group. According to the
evaluation researchers, two possible explanations may be that by 18 months
(1) most of the children assigned to the control group participated in some
other type of early childhood program and (2) nearly half of the children
who had been participating in Even Start had left the program when the test
was administered to them, limiting the program's potential to affect their
readiness for school. The second national evaluation of Even Start did not
assess whether the program was responsible for children's gains in test
scores.

Education is currently conducting a third national evaluation to try to
answer the question of Even Start's effectiveness. As with the first
evaluation, it is randomly assigning families to allow for an assessment of
program effectiveness. This evaluation will cover program years 1997-98 to
2000-01. Study results will be presented in a report to be issued in June
2002.

Title I

Block Grant Programs

Challenges in Assessing Effectiveness

   * Young children are often better at demonstrating what they know by
     showing than by talking or writing, making traditional paper and pencil
     tests inadequate. Thus, researchers emphasize the need to use a variety
     of assessment tools, including ratings by teachers and parents and
     direct observation of children's behavior.
   * Young children learn and develop so quickly that assessments given at
     any one point in time may not provide a complete picture of their
     learning.
   * Children's language proficiency can undermine the validity of the
     results of assessments, especially for children who come from homes
     with limited exposure to English.
   * Assessing the effectiveness of flexible grant programs such as title I
     is complicated because an evaluation at the national level requires
     uniform activities and consistent program measures, characteristics
     that these programs generally do not have.
   * Funds from early childhood education and care programs are often
     commingled with other federal state, local, and private funds for
     delivering services in a preschool setting, making it difficult to
     isolate the effect of one program's funding.

Finally, measuring program effectiveness can present ethical challenges.
Most researchers believe that comparison group studies-those that randomly
assign study participants to either a treatment or a control group-provide
the most certain information about program effectiveness. However, assigning
children to an unserved control group could seem unfair and can affect the
willingness of local projects to participate in national evaluations. All
these reasons make it difficult for federal agencies to assess the
effectiveness of their programs in improving children's school readiness.
The latest evaluations that Education and HHS are undertaking are attempting
to address some of these issues.

(104997)

        Orders by Internet

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

[email protected]

or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

        Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected]

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)
  
*** End of document. ***