Transcript Document

Federal Funding Update and the Latest
Research
on the
Successes
NHSA
Update
of Head Start and Early Head Start
Ben Allen, Ph.D.
Washington State Conference Call Presentation
December 19, 2007
NHSA September 2006 Leadership Institute
Arlington, Virginia
Federal Funding Has Failed to
Keep Pace with Inflation Since
Fiscal Year 2002
FY 2008 Head Start and
Child Care Funding
• Head Start programs received a $10.6
million cut.
• The Child Care and Development Block
Grant program received a zero
increase.
Estimated Impacts of Various
FY 2008 Funding Scenarios
Bush
Proposal
No Change
in Funding
Scenario
House
Labor/HHS/
Education
Appropriations
Bill
Senate
Labor/HHS/
Education
Appropriations
Bill
House-Senate
Conference
Report for the
Labor/HHS/
Education
Appropriations
Bill
Change in Funding
$100
million cut
$0 increase
$75 million
increase
$200 million
increase
$10.595 million
Decrease
Real Cut since FY 2002
12 percent
11 percent
10 percent
8 percent
11 percent
Gap in funding since FY 2002
$944.6
million
$844.6
million
$769.6 million
$644.6 million
$855 million
Equivalent to closing enrollment for
_______ children and pregnant
women
38,418
25,094
15,101
Not Applicable
26,506 nationwide
324 in Washington state
Equivalent to increasing enrollment
for __________ children and
pregnant women
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not Applicable
About 1,000*
Not Applicable
* Subject to Future Office of Head Start Funding Guidance
At Least $750 Million in Additional Head Start and Early Head Start
Funding in Fiscal Year 2008 Is Required to Close the Projected Eleven
Percent Real Cut in Funding Since Fiscal Year 2002
$8,000,000,000
$7,800,000,000
$7,600,000,000
$7,400,000,000
Dollars
$7,200,000,000
$7,000,000,000
Funding Needed
Actual/Projected Funding
$6,800,000,000
$6,600,000,000
$6,400,000,000
$6,200,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$5,800,000,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fiscal Year
Sources: Office of Head Start, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The estimated needed funding figures for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2007 were calculated by the NHSA Research and Evaluation Department (RED) using actual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers data from the BLS, and the
estimated needed funding figure for Fiscal Year 2008 was calculated by RED using estimated CPI for All Urban Consumers data from the CBO. The actual/projected funding
figure for Fiscal Year 2008 assumes that Head Start and Early Head Start will receive a zero increase in funding during that year.
A large corpus of research
demonstrates that the Head
Start and Early Head Start
Programs have favorable child
and family outcomes. To find a
some of this research go to
http://www.nhsa.org/download/
research/REDFactSheets1.pdf.
Despite What You May Have Heard
Elsewhere, Head Start Is a Quality
Program.
Head Start Is a Quality Program.
•
•
•
Head Start quality has been observed to be
consistently good over time (Family and Child
Experiences Survey 2000).
Head Start programs are rated as “good” using
the ECERS-R (Head Start Impact Study 2005).
Head Start’s quality, comprehensive services
ensures that Head Start provides significant
educational, health, economic, and law
enforcement benefits.
Head Start Is a Quality Program
(Continued)
•
A meta-analysis of reliable studies
revealed that Head Start children have
increased
 achievement test scores and
 favorable long-term effects on grade
repetition, special education, and high
school graduation rates (Barnett 2002;
Ludwig and Miller 2007).
Head Start Is a Quality Program
(Continued)
•
•
Head Start reduced mortality rates for children
aged 5- to 9-years-old from causes that could
have been affected by their participation in
Head Start when they were 3- and 4-years-old
(Ludwig and Miller 2007).
Head Start benefits its children and society-atlarge by reducing crime and its costs to crime
victims (Fight Crime Invest In Kids 2004;
Garces, Thomas, and Currie 2002).
Head Start Is a Quality Program
(Continued)
•
•
The preliminary results of a randomly selected
longitudinal study of more than 600 Head Start
graduates in San Bernardino County,
California, showed that society receives nearly
$9 in benefits for every $1 dollar invested in
these Head Start children (Meier 2003).
These benefits were projected and include
increased earnings, employment, and family
stability, and decreased welfare dependency,
crime costs, grade repetition, and special
education.
Head Start Impact Study
• The National Head Start Impact Study is
a longitudinal research project designed
to evaluate the effectiveness of the
Head Start program.
• Congressional mandate
• Experimental random assignment
research design
First-Year Findings of the Head Start
Impact Study
•
•
These findings reflect 6 to 9 months of Head
Start.
Statistically significant favorable findings were
found in the following domains:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Cognitive
Social-Emotional
Health
Parenting practices
Impact Study’s Findings in the Context
of Recent State-Funded Pre-K Findings
•
•
•
•
National Institute for Early Education Research
(NIEER) is funding evaluations of state-funded
pre-k programs.
Findings (effect sizes) from these evaluations are
appearing in publications and the media.
NIEER has been comparing these effect sizes with
the Head Start Impact Study’s effect sizes and
arguing that state-funded pre-k programs with high
standards are more effective than Head Start is.
NIEER’s argument is flawed.
Flaws in the NIEER Argument
•Creaming
•Different populations
•Comparison group inequality
•Dissimilar evaluation scopes
•Different evaluation designs
For more detailed information, go to
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/events/briefingmay06-cook/slide1.html
Flaws of a 2004 Washington State Institute for
Public Policy (WSIPP) Cost-Benefit Study
of Early Head Start
• The Outcomes Considered Were Too Few and
Narrow in Scope
• Full Longitudinal Benefits of Early Head Start Were
Unavailable since Early Head Start Impact Study
Children Are Now Only 14-Years-Old or Younger
• Misleading Presentation of WSIPP Report
Fade-Out Effect
• Myth: Gains to Head Start children “fade-out”
(Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University
1969).
• Fact: Reliable studies have found resoundingly favorable
long-term effects on grade repetition, special education, and
graduation rates for Head Start children. Studies that pointed
to a fade-out effect in achievement test scores, on the other
hand, have been found to have methodological flaws that,
when taken into account, show favorable achievement test
scores (Barnett 2002). Another explanation for the fade-out
effect is that Head Start children attend low quality primary
schools after they attend Head Start (Lee and Loeb 1995).
Early Head Start Impact Study
• The Early Head Start Impact Study was a
longitudinal study designed to measure the
effectiveness of Early Head Start on the
children and families that it serves.
• Congressional mandate
• Experimental research design
• Timeline: 1996 through 2001
Early Head Start Impact Study’s Participants
• Three thousand and one families were randomly
selected from the 17 participating programs.
• The children were randomly assigned to either a
treatment group (which receives Early Head
Start services) or a control group (which does
not receive Early Head Start services).
Early Head Start Impact Study’s Findings
• Three-year-old Early Head Start children
Performed better than the control group did in
cognitive and language development.
Experienced higher emotional engagement with
their parent during semi-structured play than the
control group did.
Displayed sustained attention with play objects, and
Were rated by parents to show lower levels of
aggressive behavior than the control group children.
Early Head Start Impact Study’s Findings
(Continued)
• Compared with the control group parents, Early
Head Start parents
Provided more language and learning
stimulation.
Were more emotionally supportive.
Read to their child more frequently.
Spanked their children less.
Quality Matters!
• Model early childhood programs include the
Perry Preschool, Abecedarian, and Chicago
Parent-Child programs.
• They are more expensive per child than Head
Start or most state-funded pre-k programs.
• Model programs provide very intensive
comprehensive services and yield costbenefit ratios of 1 to 4 or much higher.
The End