Sacramento Head Start Alumni Association

Block Grants are not the Approach for Head Start

Acknowledgments

This paper has been developed through the efforts of NHSA members across the nation. We would like to thank each and every member of the Head Start family for their tireless efforts to help solidify NHSA's stance with the 104th Congress. We express our appreciation for the State and Regional Presidents' hard work, and their giving feedback to us in a timely manner.

Finally, a special thanks goes to thousands of Head Start parents, staff, directors, and friends who have continued to keep us informed on this and other important issues. Your active communication with board representatives has made our jobs easier and more meaningful.

Ron Herndon, President
National Head Start Association
October 1994

Coordinated by Gregg Powell, Director, Research and Evaluation Division

Executive Summary

The 1994 reauthorization of Head Start brought with it some exciting new service directions, and hope among the Head Start community the program would finally attain the level of quality and responsiveness we have all worked toward during the past 30 years. Even before our celebration could begin, the newly elected 104th Congress has begun efforts that could nullify those gains and destroy Head Start as we know it. Recent comments by Republican governors and members of Congress indicate there are plans to include Head Start in state Child Care Block Grants. The National Head Start Association is vehemently opposed to any attempt to make Head Start a block grant program.

Head Start is a comprehensive child development program, it is not child care. Head Start addresses child and family needs: health, nutrition, dental, mental health, and social services. Head Start puts a premium on parent involvement: parenting skills, literacy skills, and employment skills; and Head Start always encourages parents to participate in important program decisions. Head Start needs to remain in the hands of local communities to ensure successful program elements are maintained.

In preparation for this paper we asked each Head Start Association president to give us ten reasons why he or she felt Head Start should remain a federal to local program rather than a block grant to states. The response has been tremendous –– we have received lists of reasons from 42 states and two regions. Many states also sent letters from parents and staff on the subject.

The following were dominant themes in the responses:

Costs: The assumption block granting Head Start will save money is erroneous. If states could administer the program for 10 percent of the current Head Start budget, it would require an additional $350 million to maintain funding for the current number of Head Start children. According to the Government Accounting Office (October, 1994), 41 percent of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools was retained for use at the state level, leaving only 59 percent for the local level.
Enrollment: Given increased costs shown above, and the current mood opposing funding increases for Head Start, enrollment would drop around the nation. President Bush set a goal for achieving full enrollment by 1994. With this change, the percentage enrolled will drop from nearly 40 percent to 36 percent of the eligible 4-and 5-year-old children. This will eliminate our ability to achieve Goal 1 of Goals 2000, "By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn."
Quality: Without current national Head Start Performance Standards, the level of quality will be at the mercy of state regulations for children’s programs. There are no national day care standards. Using adult to child ratios as one indicator of quality, the states allow a range for 4-year-olds from a 1-to-20 ratio in some states to 1-to-5 in others. Current Head Start Standards require one adult for every seven children of the same age group, with state standards taking precedence when they are stricter.
Philosophy: Head Start is a family-focused developmental program that is far more comprehensive than child care or standard preschool programs currently operated in most states. By lumping Head Start with other children’s programs, the focus on families will be lost. When stressing personal and family responsibility, it is more important than ever to have a program that is family oriented.
Eligibility: Because of the emphasis on community decisions, Head Start programs currently serve children who are in the most need (as defined by the community) rather than accepting or denying enrollment based on state political expediency. Unless Head Start is to be funded at a level allowing enrollment of all eligible children, it is unlikely state targets and community targets will coincide.
Trust: One of the most important reasons for success with low-income families has been the ability of staff to gain their trust. Head Start staff are members of the community they serve. Head Start staff –– many are former Head Start parents –– are reflective of the cultural and linguistic communities they serve. Under most state personnel systems, Head Start would be subject to hiring practices that would give preference to existing state employees over members of the community to be served.
Block granting Head Start will destroy the program and its ability to accomplish the very thing that the Contract with America is striving for –– return of control to communities. In December 1993 a bipartisan report was released examining Head Start. After the most thorough review of Head Start in 30 years, the report stated Head Start should remain a federal to local program. The report further stated Head Start children performed better than children in public preschool and community-based child care programs. Head Start remains the only federal program that exerts its influence on public policy from a "bottom-up" approach. States have an important role to play in the program, but this should be in partnership and collaboration, rather than a costly management role.

BACKGROUND

The idea of block granting Head Start to states is not a new one and we expect it will continue surfacing in the future. The failure to understand history causes these types of recommendations to surface as leadership changes. During the original discussions in 1964, the founders of Head Start came to the logical conclusion that communities had to be empowered to administer the program. States were not in a position to give these communities the authority or autonomy to do so, and it is NHSA's view this has not changed.

In 1974, the call was for "New Federalism" as the code word for turning over federal programs to the states. Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95, states were being encouraged to assume a greater role in the planning of federally funded programs. OMB received a letter from Governor James E. Carter, who wanted to take control of Head Start in Georgia. Support for this idea was immediate within OMB and the Democratic administration in general. The only roadblock was Casper Weinberger, Secretary of HEW at the time. Zigler (1992) writes,

Although Weinberger was a proponent of block grants, he made an exception for Head Start. "In the case of Head Start, I wanted to be assured that the money would go where it was intended," he said recently. "I didn’t want the schools to spend money for Head Start on vocational education or some other activity."
As president, Carter did not give up his attempt to turn the program over to the states ––enter the National Head Start Association. With a budget of $8,000, NHSA's Education and Information Committee Chairperson, Nancy Spears, began a campaign to halt what seemed to be a sure thing –– the inclusion of Head Start in the soon to be created Department of Education. Pointing out the move would bring an end to the only program recognizing the role of parents in child development, Spears and the Head Start community took on a president they actually liked, and won.

After nearly 30 years, Head Start is now receiving recognition for doing what it was funded to do, rather than being criticized for failing to accomplish objectives for which it was never designed. The bipartisan committee established by HHS Secretary Shalala made its recommendations that Head Start should remain a federal to local program. We feel this Congress should work to implement the existing recommendations, rather than revisit history.

CURRENT SITUATION

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
— Louis D. Brandeis

With the passage of the 1994 reauthorization, recommendations regarding state collaboration made by the bipartisan "Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion" have been given the priority needed to achieve integration of Head Start within the broader child and family services arena. NHSA is strongly supportive of these efforts and is willing to work with the new Congress in any attempts to improve this legislation.

In addition to the 22 federally funded collaboration projects, many state Head Start associations work in partnership with state initiatives to enhance services to children and families. Our opposition to block granting has been well documented for numerous reasons. In addition to the key principles discussed above, a selected sample of responses received from NHSA state affiliates represented by members of the House Ways and Means Committee include:

Leadership at state level would be subject to changes in elected officials, thus crippling the program every few years. (Texas)
Head Start is already the most successful publicly funded children’s program (see Department of Education report) in the nation. Why meddle with something that works? To block grant Head Start would be disastrous. (Illinois)
In California, the state has a Head Start State Collaborative Grant. The grant has accomplished nothing that can be identified by anyone in the field –– either on the Head Start side or the state-funded child care side. It appears to be a pure waste of money. The state’s failure to use the collaborative grant is hard evidence that the state does not understand Head Start, and is not prepared to administer the Head Start program or Head Start funds. (California)
Within a block grant structure, there would be little incentive for states to continue the special initiatives that are currently providing us with promising new ways to reach families –– i.e., literacy, male involvement, transition, family day-care, etc. (Connecticut)
If block granted, the Head Start program may wind up being administered by an agency with a lot less experience and expertise in the delivery of comprehensive services to children and families. (Kentucky)
The key to program success, parent involvement, will be seriously compromised under state administration. (Georgia)
Head Start has assumed an effective leadership role in partnership building and collaboration with state agencies. These doors would not have been opened had it not been for the local advocacy role that was required of Head Start. As a result of this advocacy role, parents are now receiving the support and services they need to actively pursue economic self-sufficiency. Head Start must continue being controlled at the local level to ensure the rights of parents are protected. (New York)
Supportive services and environments are mandated for Head Start. A combination of Head Start funds into state coffers means the issues of Head Start, looked at separately under federal funding, would be misplaced by other priorities. If the planned changes are made, it will be an extremely difficult task to acquire the 20 percent non-federal share match which the program currently requires. It would also foster less motivated participation in community groups and advocacy roles of staff for parents and clients. (Missouri)
In current federal legislation, the administrative cap is 15 percent. There is a higher administrative cost (25 percent) at the state level for the Child Care Block Grant Program. (Virginia)
It would take away the decision-making abilities from local community-based programs to the state; undo local control of addressing unique community needs; and reduce empowerment of families and local grantees. (Louisiana)
If Head Start is placed into block grants, we are concerned that this will require more local matching. If so, funding will probably be reduced. Since matching is difficult, it can start a chain reaction: less match, less funding, fewer children and families being served, and so on. (Florida)
RECOMMENDATIONS

Don't try to go too fast. Learn your job. Don't ever talk until you know what you're talking about.
— Sam Rayburn

The National Head Start Association applauds any effort to improve Head Start's ability to serve children and families. We have no problem with the concept of personal responsibility. In fact, that is what parent involvement (one of the first victims of block granting) in Head Start is all about. In a spirit of cooperation, the National Head Start Association would like to make the following recommendations regarding program issues:

Recommendation 1:
Fulfill the pledge made by President Bush to achieve full enrollment for Head Start. This will not be cheap, but nothing worthwhile is. Let's meet the challenge of Goals 2000 –– By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. The primary objectives of Goal 1 are:

All disadvantaged and disabled children will have access to high quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school.
Every parent in America will be a child’s first teacher and devote time each day to helping his or her preschool child learn; parents will have access to the training and support they need.
Children will receive the nutrition and health care needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies; and the number of low-birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced prenatal health systems.
Head Start is the only program today actually working toward these objectives. To change the program now will close the door of opportunity on millions of children yet to step through a Head Start classroom door. Rather than looking to send Head Start to the states, we should examine the possibility of folding into Head Start those early childhood programs currently administered by the states.

Recommendation 2:
Although there have been problems in some states, NHSA supports the concept of state collaboration projects. This is the appropriate way to encourage state involvement with Head Start. We suggest Congress look at successful state collaboration projects and work with the administration to expand these partnerships.

Recommendation 3:
The cost of living for families varies greatly across the states. With the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, all Head Start programs must currently deny enrollment (with the exception of 10 percent) to any family above the federal poverty guidelines. We feel this guideline is arbitrary and too low, and is completely unrealistic. If Congress really wants to be fair to citizens of each state, then eligibility should be based on state and local cost of living.

CONCLUSION

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
— Hubert H. Humphrey

There are some issues that are too important to the nation to be left to the management of individual states. It is the position of the National Head Start Association that the needs of low-income children is a national concern deserving national attention, with direct local input taking precedence over state concerns. By reinventing Head Start as a block grant program, all guarantees of minimum standards of service will be lost. No individual state should have the right to decide what level of safety or well-being is appropriate for low-income children, because these children belong to all of us; they are the children of this nation. Why change a program that works? The often quoted old African proverb reminds us that "it takes an entire village to raise a child," not a state.

Email us
http://www.nhsa.org/govaff/blockgrant.htm