Coordinating with Head Start Programs to Support Low-Income Working Families

 

By Michelle Ganow Jones

 

Background

 

Since its creation in 1965, many have considered Head Start to be the nation’s premier early childhood program. Head Start provides low-income pregnant women, children from birth to age five, and their families with comprehensive services, including health, social, nutrition, mental health, and child development services. Of the children served in a Head Start program, 90 percent must have family incomes below the federal poverty level; in addition, ten percent of the enrollment slots must be made available to children with disabilities. In fiscal 2002, 912,345 children received Head Start services. Of these, more than 62,000 were children from birth to age three who were served in Early Head Start programs.

 

Historically Head Start provided families with part-day, part-year services. However, by requiring parents to work to receive welfare benefits, the 1996 welfare reform law challenged the program to meet the changing needs of low-income families. As more parents of children enrolled in Head Start joined the workforce, families’ demand for full-day, full-year early childhood services increased significantly. Head Start programs have endeavored, both independently and with other agencies, to meet this demand.

 

This Issue Note examines the role Head Start plays as a support for low-income working families and their children. It describes coordination strategies for Head Start programs and other agencies to better meet the early care and education needs of this population. Next, the Issue Note explores issues being raised in the Head Start reauthorization debate that may affect how the program provides services to low-income working families. Finally, this Issue Note summarizes key research findings and shares examples of innovative practices at the state and local levels. It provides resources for additional information, including relevant publications and organizations.

 

Policy Issues

 

What effect has welfare reform had on the Head Start program? Welfare reform has affected and changed Head Start in several ways. Most importantly, welfare reform challenged Head Start programs, most of which operated on a part-day, part-year schedule, to provide early care and education services that are consistent with working families’ needs. For example, many programs have expanded their hours of operation or partnered with other providers. Nearly half of the families with children enrolled in Head Start programs during the 2001-2002 program year reported a need for full-day, full-year care; of those families, 42 percent received full-day, full-year services through Head Start programs (Schumacher and Rakpraja 2003). The Head Start Bureau estimates that 70 percent of all Head Start programs provide some full-day, full-year services. Clearly, Head Start has become a significant source of early care for low-income working families.

 

Another impact of welfare reform is that it limited the ability of parents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to maintain their involvement in their children’s Head Start program. Head Start has always strongly emphasized parental involvement in the classroom and in program governance. Because many TANF parents are required to work to receive assistance, they cannot sustain their involvement in Head Start.

 

TANF reauthorization, which Congress is now debating, may further affect Head Start by increasing the number of hours per week that TANF recipients are required to participate in work activities. If the parents of children in TANF families are required to increase the number of hours they work from 30 hours to 40 hours per week, as proposed by President George W. Bush and passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, families will likely require more child care services, including Head Start, to cover those additional work hours. At the same time, states may have greater flexibility to count as work up to 16 hours of the total hours that parents volunteer with their children’s Head Start program.

 

How does Head Start fit into the array of early care and education services that support low-income working families? Most states and localities lack a coordinated system of early care and education services. Low-income children and families often receive services that are provided by multiple programs with multiple funding streams. Head Start provides the largest source of federal funding for early care and education. In fiscal 2003 Congress appropriated $6.7 billion for Head Start.

 

Another significant source of federal funding for early care and education is the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Like Head Start, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers CCDF. In fiscal 2003 Congress appropriated $4.8 billion in federal funds for CCDF. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education administers several programs, such as Title I, Even Start, and the Preschool Grants Program, that fund early care and education services (Flynn and Hayes 2003). In fiscal 2002 these programs provided an estimated $950 million for early childhood supports and services. States can also spend TANF funds on child care, either directly or through transfers to CCDF. In 2001 states spent $3.3 billion directly on child care and transferred $1.9 million in TANF funds to CCDF. For more information, see Office of Family Assistance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Fifth Annual Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 2003), at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/index.htm.

 

There is increasing support for collaboration across systems and funding streams to create a more cohesive system of early care and education. This emphasis has been strong within the federal Head Start program. HHS has issued guidance to Head Start and child care programs on strategies for coordination and collaboration (Administration for Children and Families 1999; and Administration for Children and Families 2001). To encourage collaboration and the inclusion of Head Start in state preschool initiatives, the federal Head Start Bureau funds a Head Start-State Collaboration Office in every state, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. These offices work to expand systems of early care and education, encourage collaboration between Head Start and other programs, and facilitate Head Start’s involvement in the development of state policies for low-income children and families. Although the efforts to support collaboration are noteworthy, states and localities can do more to continue to better integrate the system of early care and education.

 

How can child care, TANF, and Head Start agencies coordinate or collaborate to serve families more effectively? Even though the early care and education services funded by child care, TANF, and Head Start have different funding streams and accountability approaches, there are ways these programs can work together to achieve more efficient results. Blending and Braiding Funds to Support Early Care and Education Initiatives describes challenges to and strategies for bridging separate programs and services (Flynn and Hayes 2003).

 

Some of the challenges that programs and agencies face in coordinating or collaborating include working with different eligibility requirements for program participation, reconciling diverse program regulations, and navigating programs’ various funding, administration, and reporting requirements. HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has offered guidance to Head Start and child care agencies on specific strategies for collaboration across programs. For example, in 1999 ACF issued guidance to Head Start and child care agencies on establishing consistent eligibility periods to serve children using funds from both programs. Guidance issued in 2001 addressed overcoming actual or perceived barriers related to cost allocation and other program requirements.

 

Flynn and Hayes (2003) present three models for working across funding streams to create a more seamless system of services: coordination, pooling, and decategorization. Coordination entails combining program funds to support comprehensive service initiatives. For example, Head Start and child care programs could work together to offer full-day care, with Head Start funds purchasing part of the day’s services and child care funds supporting the rest. Agencies can also pool funds across programs or agencies to offer services that are more cohesive. For example, state policymakers may decide to use TANF dollars to fund additional Head Start services for low-income children.

 

Decategorization, which aims to remove, reduce, or align the barriers that separate funding streams, is yet another strategy for decisionmakers to consider. This strategy has its limitations, however, because state officials are often constrained by federal laws or regulations that determine the use of funds. The Innovative Practices section of this paper gives examples of how programs, including Head Start programs, have worked together to create a more coordinated system of early care and education for low-income working families.

 

What issues might be raised during the upcoming reauthorization of the Head Start program that could affect how families are served? In 1998 Congress reauthorized Head Start and made numerous changes to the program. The 1998 amendments increased the percentage of the annual appropriation that is set aside for the Early Head Start program¾now 10 percent of the annual Head Start appropriation. The 1998 amendments also increased the percentage of new appropriations that must be set aside for quality improvement activities. In addition, the law stipulated that by September 30, 2003, at least half of all Head Start teachers must have an associate, a bachelor’s, or a graduate degree in early childhood education. The program is authorized through September 30, 2003. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions have jurisdiction over Head Start’s reauthorization.

 

The Bush Administration has outlined its Head Start reauthorization proposal. A key element of the proposal is to offer states the ability to coordinate Head Start with other state preschool programs. Currently the federal government makes grants directly to agencies at the community level. Under the Bush proposal governors could integrate or align state early childhood programs with Head Start programs.

 

Interested states would submit a plan to the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services describing how they will coordinate services. The plan must describe how states will work with local school districts to develop goals for preschool programs, develop and implement guidelines for preschool programs, create an accountability system to ensure children are meeting the goals, and provide professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators. States must also ensure they continue to serve as many Head Start-eligible three- and four-year-olds as currently receive Head Start services in the state and, at a minimum, maintain current state funding for state preschool programs. The proposal also includes a provision to move the administration of Head Start from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, the proposal calls for a greater emphasis on early literacy and school readiness through regular assessments of Head Start children and literacy-focused training for Head Start teachers.

 

Although the Administration’s proposal would afford states more opportunity to coordinate their systems of early care and education, some Head Start advocates have expressed concerns. Specifically, the National Head Start Association, a membership organization that represents the interests of Head Start programs and counts among its members 190,000 Head Start staff from 2,500 Head Start programs, and the Children’s Defense Fund have strongly criticized the proposal. They are concerned about whether a coordinated state program would provide low-income families with the same comprehensive services as Head Start. Many feel strongly that Congress should keep the Head Start program in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There are also questions about how the Administration’s proposal would treat the Head Start Program Performance Standards and whether those standards would apply to coordinated programs. Finally, some fear that cash-strapped states may be tempted to use Head Start funds to fill state budget gaps.

 

Research Findings

 

Children’s early experiences can have a profound effect on their social, emotional, and cognitive development later in life. A committee of experts spent two and one-half years evaluating the science of early childhood development. The culmination of their research, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, emphasizes the importance of the quality of children’s early experiences and caregiving relationships for their future healthy development (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). Yet the committee found significant shortcomings in the fragmented system of early care and education in the United States, particularly for children from low-income families. These children’s development is already threatened by the conditions of poverty they experience. From Neurons to Neighborhoods offers recommendations to better align what is known about quality care environments for children and society’s commitment to making quality care environments available to all families.

 

Head Start is frequently touted as a high-quality care program that offers children and families early childhood development services and enables children to start school ready to learn. However, critics question whether children really do experience gains from their participation in Head Start and, if gains do occur, whether they are sustained. The findings from research to establish the long-term impacts of Head Start on children are mixed. In the short term Head Start programs improve children’s health, verbal skills, and social skills, but it is unclear whether these gains are sustained or whether any favorable long-term effects occur (Currie 2000). Other researchers characterize this so-called Head Start “fade-out” as a myth (Barnett 2002). Barnett argues that gradual fade-out of IQ gains is not unique to Head Start but a phenomenon of many preschool interventions. He points to lasting impacts on grade repetition, special education, and high school graduation rates. Barnett also asserts that design flaws have caused some Head Start studies to erroneously find fade-out. Currently the Head Start Bureau is funding a longitudinal study that will evaluate the impact of Head Start in the context of a controlled experiment.

 

Head Start programs do tend to be of higher quality than commercially available child care programs (Currie 2001). This may be because of the Head Start Program Performance Standards and triennial monitoring visits with which Head Start programs must comply. These accountability mechanisms enable bad programs to be identified and improved or eliminated. During the past 10 years, approximately 150 Head Start program grantees have had their grants terminated or have chosen to relinquish their grants, generally because of program quality concerns.

 

In addition to addressing the developmental needs of young children, Head Start and other programs that provide early care and education services offer an important work support for low-income working families. Three quarters of children age five and younger living with employed parents in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level regularly spend time in nonparental care. And, even among nonemployed low-income families, 55 percent of children age five and younger receive regular nonparental care (Tout et al. 2001). As employment rates among low-income single mothers have risen dramatically since 1996, the importance of early care and education programs such as Head Start as a work support cannot be overstated. Many families at all income levels struggle to obtain child care that is accessible, affordable, and of high quality. This challenge is particularly acute for low-income families, which have fewer resources on which to draw. As the largest source of federal funding for early care and education, Head Start plays a pivotal role in supporting low-income working families.

 

A recent Center for Law and Social Policy report illustrates how Head Start programs meet the child care needs of low-income working families (Schumacher and Rakpraja 2003). Analyzing Head Start program data, the authors report that the percentage of families receiving Head Start services and working full time increased from 42 percent to 53 percent from 1997 to 2001. Not surprisingly the percentage of families reporting a need for full-day, full-year child care services also increased¾from 38 percent to 49 percent. Of these families, 42 percent received full-day, full-year child care services from Head Start programs, which were provided directly by Head Start or through partnerships with child care providers. Families that did not receive full-day, full-year services from Head Start supplemented their Head Start services with free care provided by family or friends, child care purchased with child care subsidies, or child care purchased from family child care or center-based providers.

 

Head Start and child care partnerships are critical to ensure expanded availability of full-day, full-year services. A forthcoming report by James Scott and David Fernie documents the extent and types of Head Start and child care partnerships in the Region V states¾Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Scott and Fernie examined the number of children served by partnerships, the types of partnerships, the length of day and year that services were provided (i.e., full-day/full-year versus full-day/part-year), funding sources, and other characteristics. Of the 162,590 children in federally funded and state-funded Head Start enrollment slots in the 2001-2002 program year, 33,304 (or just more than 20 percent) are enrolled in Head Start/child care partnerships.

 

The two most prevalent types of partnerships in Region V were Head Start-operated, under which Head Start programs acquire additional resources to create full-day and full-year programs (43 percent) and partnerships with child care centers (37 percent). Other partnership types included partnerships with school districts (13 percent); blended classrooms, in which separate Head Start and child care programs are merged to create a full-day/full-year program (4 percent); and partnerships with family child care (3 percent). Most children (77 percent) received services in full-day/full-year settings. Most (93 percent) of the Head Start-operated programs provided full-day/full-year services. Among Early Head Start programs, 25 percent of children were served in Early Head Start/child care partnerships, which were evenly distributed among the partnership types and primarily consisted (94 percent) of full-day/full-year services. For more information on the study, contact David Fernie at 614-292-8023 or fernie.1@osu.edu.

 

Schilder, Kiron, and Elliott conducted a review of early care and education partnerships to better understand the nature of partnerships and their relationship to quality and access to services (2003). Their report, Early Care and Education Partnerships: State Actions and Local Lessons, describes the reasons states form partnerships, the kinds of activities found in partnerships, and the factors that support partnerships. States form partnerships in order to maximize funding and cost-effectiveness, to meet parents’ changing needs, and to improve the quality of services. Schilder, Kiron, and Elliott provide examples of state activities to support and promote partnerships in five categories: review, research, and dissemination; state-level coordination; professional development, training, and technical assistance; legal and regulatory actions; and incentives.

 

Finally, the authors discuss the factors that providers identified as most important in supporting partnerships. First, the benefits of partnering are themselves a powerful factor in sustaining the development and growth of partnerships. Second, the authors found that the start-up activities that create a foundation for partnership are another critical element of successful partnerships. Third, providers pointed to the importance of strong relationships between partners. Another factor that supports partnerships is management policies that keep partnerships running smoothly. Last, the report notes the value of resources and allies that strengthen the partnership.

 

Innovative Practices

 

Numerous examples exist of innovative Head Start partnerships at the state and local levels. Several states have invested state funds or contributed other funds to increase the number of eligible children served by Head Start. Many other states have established early care and education initiatives that include Head Start programs. At the local level, countless partnerships exist between Head Start and child care programs; a database of these partnerships is maintained by QUILT: Quality in Linking Together Early Education Partnerships and is available at http://www.quilt.org/Home/pprofile.html.

 

Georgia’s Office of School Readiness (OSR) coordinates Head Start, child care, and public school early care and education providers. The office uses a federal Head Start-State Collaboration Project grant to coordinate federal initiatives for children and families with prekindergarten programs and other state-funded child and family programs. These coordinated efforts assist in building seamless, comprehensive early childhood systems and in ensuring access to services and support for all low-income children. OSR encourages statewide collaboration between Head Start and other appropriate programs, services and initiatives through the efforts of the state Head Start Collaboration Project. OSR also uses Head Start funds to facilitate the involvement of Head Start in the development of state policies and initiatives affecting the Head Start target population and other low-income families. For more information, contact Robert Lawrence, assistant director, Georgia Office of School Readiness, at 404/656-5957 or robert.lawrence@mail.osr.state.ga.us; or visit http://www.osr.state.ga.us/.

 

The KCMC Child Development Corporation in Kansas City, Missouri also partners with local child care providers to provide full-day, full-year services to Head Start-eligible children. Through this partnership, called Full Start, KCMC uses federal dollars to leverage state, local, and private funds. Using these funds, KCMC has created a seamless system of comprehensive services for low-income children and their families. Children receive early childhood education and comprehensive services in classrooms composed of Head Start and non-Head Start children. Child care providers receive reimbursement and technical assistance from KCMC. For more information, contact Dwayne Crompton, executive director, at 816-474-3751 or dcrompton@gabs.net; or visit http://www.kcmccdc.org/.

 

Since 1990, Ohio has supplemented federal Head Start funding with state and TANF funds, serving an additional 18,000 children in fiscal 2002. The state also encourages partnerships between Head Start programs and child care providers. For more information, contact Sandra Miller at 614-466-0224; or visit http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ece/. One partnership example is the Council on Rural Services Program, Inc. (CORSP), which provides services in a rural, eight-county region in southwest Ohio. CORSP collaborates with child care providers to provide full-day, comprehensive services to low-income families. For more information, contact Mary Burns, early childhood director, at 937-778-5220 or mburns@corsp.org; or visit http://www.corsp.org/. Hamilton County Head Start serves more than 1,500 children in the Cincinnati area in settings that meet families’ needs, including half-day, full-day, center-based, and home-based services as well as services provided through collaborations with child care and family day care providers. For more information, contact Jack Collopy at 513/851-2899; or visit http://www.hcheadstart.org/. The Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency has formed a collaboration between its Head Start program and child care centers and providers. More than 5,000 preschool-age children from low-income families receive comprehensive services through this collaboration. For more information, contact Verline Dotson, Head Start director, at 513-569-1840.

 

The Oregon Department of Education supplements federal Head Start funds to offer Oregon Head Start Prekindergarten (OHSP) in all 36 counties. OHSP provides services to low-income children between the ages of three and five and their families. Early Head Start serves families with pregnant mothers and children from birth to age three. The Oregon Head Start-State Collaboration Project fosters partnerships among Head Start, child care, public schools, health and social service agencies, and communities to provide high-quality, continuous programs to low-income children and families. For more information, contact Dell Ford, director, Oregon Head Start-State Collaboration Office, at 503-378-3600, ext. 2601, or dell.ford@state.or.us; or visit http://www.ode.state.or.us/stusvc/earlychild/index.htm.

 

In Washington the Puget Sound Educational Service District Head Start program (Puget Sound ESD), the largest Head Start program in the Northwest, provides full-day, full-year early childhood care and education services to more than 1,800 children of low-income families in suburban Seattle-Tacoma. Puget Sound ESD, through partnerships and contracts with 12 licensed center-based care providers and 12 licensed family child care providers, uses an integrated model to deliver comprehensive child care and family support services. Every child enrolled in the program receives both Head Start and child care services. Head Start funds are strategically used to improve program quality in a way that benefits the greatest number of children. Programs use Head Start funds to hire additional staff to provide intensive high quality services, including family support specialists and additional teachers to provide staff time for curriculum development, home visits, and training. Head Start funds also enhance the salaries of all staff participating in the delivery of Head Start services, making it possible for programs to attract and retain highly qualified staff. Head Start staff get tuition support and professional support, while classrooms receive Head Start funds for supplies and equipment. For more information, contact John Bancroft, executive director, at 206-439-6922 or jbancrof@psesd.wednet.edu; or visit http://www.psesd.wednet.edu/.

 

Resource Contacts

 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/.

 

American Public Human Services Association, 202-682-0100 or http://www.aphsa.org/.

 

Center for Law and Social Policy, 202-906-8000 or http://www.clasp.org/.

 

Children’s Defense Fund, 202-628-8787 or http://www.childrensdefense.org/.

 

The Finance Project, 202-587-1000 or http://www.financeproject.org/.

 

Harvard Family Research Project, 617-495-9108 or http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~hfrp/index.html.

 

High/Scope Foundation, 734-485-2000 or http://www.highscope.org/.

 

National Academies of Science, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, 202-334-1952 or http://www4.nationalacademies.org/cbsse/bocyfweb.nsf.

 

National Association for the Education of Young Children, 202-232-8777, 800/424-2460, or http://www.naeyc.org/.

 

National Black Child Development Center, 202-833-2220 or http://www.nbcdi.org/.

 

National Center for Children in Poverty, 212-304-7100 or http://www.nccp.org/.

 

National Center for Early Development and Learning, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 919-966-0867 or

http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl.

 

National Child Care Information Center, 800-616-2242 or http://www.nccic.org/.

 

National Conference of State Legislatures, 303-364-7700 or http://www.ncsl.org/.

 

National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, 202-624-5300 or

http://www.nga.org/center/.

 

National Head Start Association, 703-739-0875 or http://www.nhsa.org/.

 

National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 202-219-1935 or

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ECI/.

 

National League of Cities, Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, 202-626-3069 or

http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/programs/institute_for_youth_education_and_families/index.cfm.

 

QUILT: Quality in Linking Together Early Education Partnerships, 877-867-8458 or

http://www.quilt.org/.

 

Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, 212-304-7150 or

http://www.researchforum.org/.

 

Zero to Three/National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families and Brainworks, 202-638-1144 or http://www.zerotothree.org/.

 

Publications and Electronic Resources

 

Administration for Children and Families. Budgeting for Partnerships between Child Care and Head Start. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November 16, 2001. Available at http://www.headstartinfo.org/publications/im01/im01_13.htm.

 

Administration for Children and Families. Improving Head Start Collaboration with Programs Funded through the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 22, 1999. Available at

http://www.headstartinfo.org/publications/im99/im99_10.htm.

 

Barnett, W. Steven. The Battle Over Head Start: What the Research Shows. New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2002. Available at http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=43.

 

Butler, Alice, and Melinda Gish. Head Start: Background and Funding. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, updated January 10, 2001. Available at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/educ/reports/headstrt.pdf.

 

California Head Start–State Collaboration Office. Full-Day, Full-Year Early Care and Education Partnerships—Recommendations of the Collaborative Partners Work Group. Sacramento, Calif.: California Department of Education, 2002. Available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/cyfsbranch/chssco/edpartnerships.pdf.

 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. Available at

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309068363/html/1.html#pagetop.

 

Committee for Economic Development. Bridging Gaps: Linking Pre-Kindergarten and Child Care. Washington, D.C.: Committee for Economic Development, October 2002. Available at

http://www.ced.org/newsroom/inbrief/brief_preschool.pdf.

 

Currie, Janet. Early Childhood Intervention Programs: What Do We Know? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, April 2000. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/ /research/projects/cr/doc/currie20000401.htm.

 

Currie, Janet. A Fresh Start for Head Start? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, March 2001. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/comm/childrensroundtable/issue5.htm.

 

Education Commission of the States. Starting Early, Starting Now: A Policymaker’s Guide to Early Care and Education and School Success. Denver, Colo.: Education Commission of the States, 2001. Ordering information available at http://www.ecs.org/html/publications/publication.asp?PublicationID=120.

 

Education Week on the Web. Quality Counts 2002¾Building Blocks for Success: State Efforts in Early-Childhood Education. Bethesda, Md.: Editorial Projects in Education Inc., January 10, 2001. Available at http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/.

 

Ewen, Danielle, Helen Blank, Katherine Hart, and Karen Schulman. State Developments in Child Care, Early Education, and School-Age Care 2001. Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 2002. Available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/pdf/cc_statedev01.pdf.

 

Flynn, Margaret, and Cheryl D. Hayes. Blending and Braiding Funds to Support Early Care and Education Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, January 2003. Available at http://www.financeproject.org/FP%20Blending%20Funds%201_24.pdf.

 

Gallagher, James J., Jenna R. Clayton, and Sarah E. Heinemeier. Education for Four-Year-Olds: State Initiatives. Chapel Hill, N.C.: National Center for Early Development and Learning, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2001. Available at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/EdFours-tr.pdf.

 

Groginsky, Scott. Child Care and Early Education Coordination in the States: A Statutory Overview. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures, April 2002. Available at

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/coordsum.htm.

 

Kagan, Sharon L., Marce Verzaro-O’Brien, Una Kim, and Megan Formica. Head Start–Child Care Partnership Study. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy, winter 2000. Available at http://www.quilt.org/Home/pdfdocs/BushBooklet.pdf.

 

Knitzer, Jane. Building Services and Systems to Support the Healthy Emotional Development of Young Children: An Action Guide for Policymakers. New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, January 2002. Available at http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/ProEmoPP1.html.

 

Mitchell, Anne W. Education for All Young Children: The Role of States and the Federal Government in Promoting Prekindergarten and Kindergarten. New York, N.Y.: Foundation for Child Development, April 2001. Available at http://www.ffcd.org/mitchell.pdf.

 

National Governors Association. Where There’s a Will: Promising Ways to Promote Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, September 2001. Available at http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/1,1188,C_ISSUE_BRIEF^D_2405,00.html.

 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, May 2001. Available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/early_child_care.htm.

 

National League of Cities. Supporting Early Childhood Success: Action Kit for Municipal Leaders. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, National League of Cities, 2003. Available at http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/files/reports/earlychild.pdf.

 

National League of Cities. Our Children, Our Future: Promoting Early Childhood Success in America’s Cities and Towns. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2002. Available at http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/files/reports/futures02.pdf.

 

Paulsell, Diane, Julie Cohen, Ali Stieglitz, Erica Lurie-Hurvitz, Emily Fenichel, and Ellen Kisker. Partnerships for Quality: Improving Infant-Toddler Child Care for Low-Income Families. Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, March 11, 2002. Available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/pdfs/redirect.asp?strSite=partnership.pdf.

 

Peisner-Feinberg, Ellen S., Richard M. Clifford, Mary L. Culkin, Carollee Howes, and Sharon Lynn Kagan. The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go to School. Chapel Hill, N.C.: National Center for Early Development and Learning, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999. Available at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/ncedl/PAGES/cq.htm.

 

Peth-Pierce, Robin. A Good Beginning: Sending America’s Children to School with the Social and Emotional Competence They Need to Succeed. Bethesda, Md.: The Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network, 2000. Available at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/childhp/monograph.pdf.

 

Sandfort, Jodi R., and Sally Coleman Selden. “Blurring the Boundaries: Local Collaborations Among Head Start, Preschool, and Child Care Programs.” Policy and Practice of Human Services (March 2001). Available at http://www.lynchburg.edu/business/i-piece/Blurring.pdf.

 

Schilder, Diane, Ellen Kiron, and Kimberly Elliott. Early Care and Education Partnerships: State Actions and Local Lessons. Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, Inc., March 2003. Available at http://ccf.edc.org/partnership_report.asp.

 

Schumacher, Rachel, and Tanya Rakpraja. A Snapshot of Head Start Children, Families, Teachers, and Programs: 1997 and 2001. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, March 2003. Available at http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1047305635.76/Head_Start_brief1.pdf.

 

Schumacher, Rachel, and Tanya Rakpraja. States Have Slowed Their Use of TANF Funds for Child Care in the Last Year. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, September 23, 2002. Available at http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1032806810.14/2001_TANF_CC.pdf.

 

Schumacher, Rachel, Mark Greenberg, and Joan Lombardi. State Initiatives to Promote Early Learning: Next Steps in Coordinating Subsidized Child Care, Head Start, and State Prekindergarten. Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, May 30, 2001. Available at http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childcare/POLICYBR.PDF.

 

Scott, James, and David Fernie. Early Education Partnerships in Region V: Program Year September 2001 – June 2002. Forthcoming.

 

Shonkoff, Jack P., and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9824.html.

 

Tout, Kathryn, Martha Zaslow, Angela Romano Papillo, and Sharon Vendivere. Early Care and Education: Work Support for Families and Developmental Opportunity for Young Children. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 2001. Available at http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/op51/occa51.html.

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “President Bush’s Plan to Prepare Children for Kindergarten.” News Release (February 3, 2002). Available at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030203.html.

 

Wilson, Susan. States Can Encourage Early Childhood Partnerships. Vienna, Va.: National Child Care Information Center, June 14, 2001. Available at http://www.nccic.org/pubs/encourage.html.

 

The Welfare Information Network is supported by grants form the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.