Getting Inside the "Black Box" of Head Start Quality: What Matters and What Doesn't?

Critics of Head Start contend that many programs spend too much money on programs extraneous to education. On the other hand, Head Start advocates argue that severely disadvantaged children need a broad range of services. Given the available evidence, it has been impossible to assess the validity of these claims. In this study, we match detailed administrative data with data on child outcomes from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, including test scores, behavior problems, and grade repetition. We find that former Head Start children have higher reading scores and are less likely to have been retained in grade where Head Start spending was higher. Holding per capita expenditures constant, children in programs that devoted higher shares of their budgets to education and health have fewer behavior problems and are less likely to have been retained in grade. However, when we examine specific educational inputs holding per capita expenditures constant, only pupil/teacher ratios matter.

“Head Start Works Because We Do”: Head Start Programs, Community Action Agencies, and the Struggle over Unionization

In the summer of 2002, the city of Boston watched a fierce battle unfold between low-wage workers who provide child care and the social service agencies that employ them. Boston requires its city contractors to pay more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour to their employees, according to the terms of the city\u27s living wage ordinance. The social service agencies, which receive government subsidies to run their child care programs, claimed that they could not afford to pay this rate. These agencies mounted an intense legal and political campaign, arguing that they would be forced to lay off workers if the city did not exempt them from the living wage requirement, and that they would be compelled to cut off affordable child care for low-income working parents as a consequence. Child care workers, through advocacy groups, responded vigorously that the workers were no less in need of economic support than these low-income working parents, arguing that these are the very types of workers the law was intended to protect. Although this particular battle was new, the principles behind it were not. The conflict over the living wage waiver is reminiscent of another struggle that has been taking place around the country for more than a decade as teachers and other employees of Head Start programs initiate union drives and their nonprofit Community Action Agency employers attempt to thwart these efforts. Over the past fifteen years, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Auto Workers (UAW), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and other labor unions have embarked on union organizing campaigns at Head Start programs in Community Action Agencies (CAAs) across the country, from Boston to Houston, Hartford to Los Angeles, New York City to Cleveland, Minneapolis to Michigan. “Head Start works because we do,” one union’s slogan proclaims. Although some CAA employers have accepted the union drives without much rancor, labor strife between Head Start teachers and their employers has been a common story. Both the living wage struggle and the unionization conflicts manifest a strange tension. The avowed mission of many social service agencies, including the CAAs that operate Head Start programs, is to empower individuals, families, and communities in poverty and to assist them along the path to economic self-sufficiency. The labor movement and worker advocates claim similar goals. What, then, lies behind this clash, and what dynamics does the conflict create? More importantly, how can the parties move beyond this conflict and mutually support their common missions? Answering these questions is crucial, for the issues at the heart of this struggle are hardly going away. As living wage movements gain momentum around the country, as social service labor unions gain influence in the labor movement, as the nonprofit sector increases in prominence, and as the country turns its attention to early childhood education and to the low-wage labor market in the wake of welfare reform, the workforce that is the subject of the Head Start unionization battle stands at the center of important national concerns. This Note outlines initial answers to the questions above. After briefly describing the history and mission of CAAs and the Head Start program, and their intersection with the labor movement, Part I analyzes the practical, rhetorical, and legal arenas in which the battle over Head Start unionization is waged. Part II proposes strategies for change, offering legislative solutions, regulatory proposals, and preemptive problem solving and dispute resolution possibilities. My central thesis is that the labor movement and the CAAs that operate Head Start programs have many common interests and overlapping missions, and that the two sides in this conflict can and should move beyond competition to cooperation. The struggle over unionization is not simply about the distribution of an inadequate pot of money, so it is not a zero-sum game; beneath the specific points of contention lie opportunities for the parties to work together amicably to achieve better results. I focus on unions in Head Start programs, rather than on the living wage, because the union struggle has a much longer history, but I hope that lessons from the union struggle will inform the emerging living wage debate. In fact, the battle over the living wage may actually comprise the latest stage in the Head Start unionization conflict, since unions themselves have organized and supported several living wage campaigns in recent years. Understanding the history of this conflict is essential to changing its future

Putting Children and Families First: Head Start Programs in 2010

Offers data highlights from the 2010 Program Information Reports, including trends since 2006 in the characteristics of the various Head Start programs, teachers, and enrollees, as well as the programs' impact on access to medical and dental care

Early Head Start Participants, Programs, Families, and Staff in 2005

This fact sheet reviews the 2005 Program Information Reports (PIR) data for the Early Head Start program, which serves children under age 3 and pregnant women. In 2005, Early Head Start continued to provide vital services to a diverse group of low-income children and families, most of which included at least one working parent. Most children received medical, dental, and disability screenings and follow-up services when necessary. Families also accessed services at high rates; 80 percent of families accessed at least one social service. However, just 2.5 percent of eligible children receive Early Head Start services

A structured management approach to implementation of health promotion interventions in Head Start.

Improving the health and health literacy of low-income families is a national public health priority in the United States. The federal Head Start program provides a national infrastructure for implementation of health promotion interventions for young children and their families. The Health Care Institute (HCI) at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, developed a structured approach to health promotion training for Head Start grantees using business management principles. This article describes the HCI approach and provides examples of implemented programs and selected outcomes, including knowledge and behavior changes among Head Start staff and families. This prevention-focused training platform has reached 60,000 Head Start families in the United States since its inception in 2001. HCI has demonstrated consistent outcomes in diverse settings and cultures, suggesting both scalability and sustainability

Supporting Our Youngest Children: Early Head Start Programs in 2010

Reviews research about the impact of Early Head Start programs on the health and development of poor children under age 3 and their parents' knowledge and parenting, trends in enrollment, program options, and characteristics of teachers and enrollees

Federal Expenditures on Infants and Toddlers in 2007

Estimates how much the federal government spends on children under age three, on which programs and purposes, and in what form. Compares findings with research on the most effective investments, including Early Head Start and childcare assistance

Kids' Share 2008: How Children Fare in the Federal Budget

Provides an annual analysis of trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children's programs -- such as food stamps, tax credits, and Head Start -- and assesses the impact of future budget planning on children

Does Head Start Improve Children’s Life Chances? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design

This paper exploits a new source of variation in Head Start funding to identify the programs effects on health and schooling. In 1965 the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) provided technical assistance to the 300 poorest counties in the U.S. to develop Head Start funding proposals. The result was a large and lasting discontinuity in Head Start funding rates at the OEO cutoff for grant-writing assistance, but no discontinuity in other forms of federal social spending. We find evidence of a large negative discontinuity at the OEO cutoff in mortality rates for children ages 5-9 from causes that could be affected by Head Start, but not for other mortality causes or birth cohorts that should not be affected by the program. We also find suggestive evidence for a positive effect of Head Start on educational attainment in both the 1990 Census, concentrated among those cohorts born late enough to have been exposed to the program, and among respondents in the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.heat start, reform, labor