This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Why We Need the Strong Start for America’s Children Act
By Katie Hamm and Erika Basurto March 27, 2014
Pending legislation in Congress to expand access to preschool has led some to question whether a new federal investment in early childhood education would be duplicative of existing programs. For many reasons, the answer to this question is a resounding no. Current investments are not sufficient to provide access to high-quality early learning programs for low-income children. Less than one-third of low-income children currently have access to publicly funded or publicly subsidized child care and preschool programs. While the Strong Start for America’s Children Act would improve access to high-quality programs if fully funded, it would still leave 60 percent of low-income children under age 5 without access to any public program.1
The myth of the 45 early childhood programs
A 2012 Government Accountability Office, or GAO, report concluded that there are 45 federal early learning and child care programs, 12 of which the GAO claims directly fund slots in early learning or child care programs.2 Of these 12 programs, only four provide substantial funds to serve children: special education preschool grants, also known as Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA; Head Start; the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG; and Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds. The latter two programs operate as a single program, known as the Child Care and Development Fund. IDEA Part B serves children with special needs from ages 3 to 21 and provides preschool services to an estimated 430,000 children.3 The remaining eight programs fall into one of three categories: • Small programs that are targeted to a specific population with a particular need. These are not designed to serve children and families on a large scale and are tailored to meet the needs of a specific population.
1 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
• Larger programs that support early childhood but are not specifically designed to support access to early childhood programs over the long term. • Programs that have expired or are for a purpose other than early childhood. This includes one program that is no longer in existence and a program that does not serve young children. A summary of these programs is provided in Table 1.
Small programs to address the needs of a specific population Child Care Access Means Parents in School, or CCAMPIS $16 million Provides grants primarily to campus-based child care programs to expand services to low-income families. Funds support approximately 155 programs across the country. Provides grants for the unique educational and cultural needs of American Indian and Alaskan Native children. Serves children of all ages, but can include preschool children. Supports family literacy in early childhood for American Indian children and families in Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools. Provides child care to 8,000 children of federal employees and ﬁnanced primarily by parent-paid fees.
Indian Education - Grants to Local Education Agencies
Indian Child and Family Education, or FACE The General Services Administration’s Child Care Program Large programs intended for other purposes Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge
$15 million N/A*
Competitive grant program to states that primarily supports infrastructure development to support early childhood programs rather than direct services. These one-time funds cannot sustain slots over the long term. Serves children ages 0 to 2 with special needs, including developmental delays. While the ultimate goal is to prepare children for preschool and kindergarten, funds provide services including screenings, evaluations, and early intervention services.
Special Education - Grants for Infants and Families
Programs that have expired or do not focus on early childhood Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy $35 million Provides funds to state educational agencies to serve children who are below reading level. The Department of Education describes the program as targeting middle and high school students. These were one-time funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, to help states with reforms to early childhood, K-12 education, and higher education during the economic downturn.
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education State Grants
*The General Services Administration does not fund or support child care operators. Parents pay fees for the service, and child care providers must cover all operating costs. Operators are all private companies and can be organized for-profit, nonprofit, or large or small business. **Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge received $500 million in 2011. The fiscal year 2014 omnibus provided $250 million in competitive grants to states to enhance and expand access to preschool. ***This program was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 and no longer exists. Note: Funding levels are 2010 obligations. Source: Government Accountability Office, “2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings and Enhance Revenue” (2012).
2 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
The other 33 programs include child care or early learning as a permissible use of funds, but in most cases, only a small portion of these funds go to early childhood programs. Local education agencies, for example, may use Title I funds for early childhood programs, but only about 3 percent of total obligations actually support preschool.4 Similarly, the Appalachian Regional Commission funds a broad array of education, social service, and economic development programs in distressed communities. But of the 400 programs funded across 13 states, only four are targeted to early learning for a total of less than $800,000 in spending—far short of the $73 million that GAO reports for the total program funding level.5 Other programs provide a supplemental service that enhances early learning programs but do not fund access to such programs. The Child and Adult Care Food Program, or CACFP, for instance, reimburses providers for nutritious meals and snacks if they meet the eligibility criteria, but the program does not actually pay for access to early childhood programs.6 Likewise, the Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program provides equipment to make the classroom more accessible to children with disabilities, including preschoolers, but it does not directly fund access to preschool programs.7 Two programs—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and the Social Services Block Grant, or SSBG—provide substantial funding for child care, but the amount is still a small portion of the total grant. TANF provided $1.5 billion for child care in 2012—9 percent of total TANF funding—and most of these funds were transferred to CCDBG.8 States spend an additional $391 million from the Social Services Block Grant on child care—14 percent of total SSGB funds.9 While there is certainly room for better coordination across programs, and potentially even opportunities for streamlining, the fact is that current federal investments are insufficient to reach a sizable portion of low-income children. Existing investments number just four—Head Start; CCDBG, both the mandatory and discretionary programs; and IDEA Part B—and current funding is insufficient to reach a majority of eligible children.
Existing investments are underfunded
The federal government really has only two major investments in early childhood care and education: the Head Start program and CCDBG. Head Start began in the 1960s and provides early learning and comprehensive services for young children and their families.10 The federal government provides $8 billion annually to serve 1 million children.11 CCDBG traces its origins to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and provides child care for low-income children so that their parents may work or attend job training or education programs.12 Federal and state expenditures totaled $7.5 billion in 2012 and provided services for 1.5 million children.13
3 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
In both programs, the need for services far outpaces federal resources. In the Head Start preschool program, which services children ages 3 and 4, only half of eligible children have access to the program.14 Many programs have waiting lists and cannot serve all families who want the program.15 The Early Head Start program, which services infants and toddlers, reaches only 4 percent of eligible children.16 CCDBG serves only a quarter of those eligible, and 19 states had waiting lists or frozen intake as of February 2013.17 Many families churn in and out of the child care subsidy system; the average length of time with a child care subsidy is three to seven months.18 A recent study found that the number of children served by CCDBG in 2012 fell to the lowest level since 1998, and more than 260,000 children have lost access to child care subsidies since 2006.19 State preschool programs reach 28 percent of 4-year-olds and 4 percent of 3-year-olds.20 The per-child spending rate is quite low; it averaged $3,841 in 2012, down $1,100 since 2001.21 Many states have set ambitious goals when it comes to expanding access to preschool, but only a handful have been able to reach most preschool-aged children. Altogether, existing federal and state programs have the capacity to reach less than onethird of low-income children under age 5. (see Table 2) Of the 31 percent of children enrolled in federal- or state-funded early childhood programs, Head Start serves 8 percent, state-funded preschool programs serve 12 percent, CCDBG serves 7 percent, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act serves 4 percent. While it appears that state-funded preschool programs have the largest capacity, it is important to note that high-income children also occupy preschool slots in states with universal preschool, such as Oklahoma, Georgia, and Florida.22 This might overestimate the number of lowincome children enrolled in preschool. A large federal investment to fund the Strong Start Act would not be duplicative of existing programs. Rather, it will fill major gaps in existing spending on early childhood programs at the state and federal level.
Some existing programs are not high quality
Even when children and families have access to existing state and federal early learning programs, they do not necessarily have access to high-quality programs. CCDBG has few standards at the federal level, and, when implemented at the state-level, most CCDBG-funded child care programs only need to meet state child care licensing standards, which are designed to ensure minimal health and safety standards rather than prepare children for school. Pending legislation in the U.S. Congress and regulations proposed by the Obama administration would set a floor on health and safety but still do very little to ensure a nurturing and enriching environment for children.23
4 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
Quality is significantly better in Head Start and state preschool programs. At least 40 states have developed preschool programs on their own accord, funded primarily by state dollars. They differ in their approach, but most serve 4-year-old children from low-income families or with other risk factors and, similar to Head Start, are designed to support children’s learning and prepare them for school. However, both Head Start and state preschool programs fall short of the high-quality standards proposed in the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. The Head Start program comes very close, but only two-thirds of teachers nationally had a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a related field in 2013.24 The quality of Head Start programs varies across the country, and in recognition of this, low-performing Head Start programs are now required to compete for their grants rather than receive an automatic renewal.25 This allows other early childhood providers in the community to apply for Head Start funds and incentivizes improvement across the board. Many state preschool programs also lack quality. As the per-child allocation declines in many states, so too does the quality. The National Institute for Early Education Research, or NIEER, established 10 benchmarks to measure quality in state preschool programs.26 These benchmarks roughly align with the quality standards outlined in the Strong Start for America’s Children Act. Only five states had a preschool program meet all of the benchmarks. More than half a million children, or 42 percent of nationwide enrollment, were served in programs that met fewer than half of the quality benchmarks. Florida—which reaches 79 percent of 4-year-olds, more than any other state— met just three of the benchmarks.27 The Strong Start Act would improve quality in state preschool programs by putting evidence-based standards in place and providing states with assistance to improve quality in existing programs. Teachers would be required to have a bachelor’s degree and training or demonstrated competency in early childhood education. They would also be paid at the same rates as K-12 teachers, reducing turnover and improving retention. Small class sizes, a research-based curriculum, and the provision of comprehensive services to families would also be part of the program.28 Families would also have more options when it comes to selecting a program for their child and would be able to select a higher-quality arrangement if they are dissatisfied with the quality provided in some other federal or state programs.
5 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
Existing programs do not always meet the needs of low-income, working families
Existing state and federal programs do not always cover a full working day for low-income families, necessitating the layering of multiple programs in order to meet children’s and parents’ needs. Thus, it is possible for a child to be enrolled in multiple programs without “double-dipping.” Only 9 percent of Head Start and Early Head Start slots are full-day and year-round.29 Likewise, preschool programs vary in their length. Some are part-day and others operate for the full school day. New Jersey’s Abbott preschool program is a rarity in that children receive a 10-hour preschool day to meet the needs of working parents.30 As a result, children might need to be enrolled in more than one program. For example, a child might attend a Head Start program for six hours, then receive a child care subsidy for the remaining hours of the day while the parent is at work. In 2013, 5 percent of children enrolled in Head Start also received a child care subsidy.31 Some early childhood programs have blended funding from multiple federal and state sources to fund high-quality early learning programs. District of Columbia Public Schools, for example, blends federal Head Start funding with local funds to serve 5,000 children with high-quality preschool for the full school day. The local funds pay for teachers, staff, and infrastructure, and the Head Start funds provide comprehensive services for families and additional professional development and training for teachers.32
The Strong Start for America’s Children Act will expand access to high-quality programs
The Strong Start Act would significantly improve access to early education for lowincome children. Not only will it increase the number of children served, but it will also provide more equitable access to early learning programs across the country. By the fifth year of implementation, federal funds for Strong Start combined with existing early childhood slots will support an estimated 4.3 million slots, raising the percentage of lowincome children under age 5 served by federal and state programs from 31 percent to 39 percent. Also, by spurring states with little investment, the Strong Start Act will make the biggest difference in states serving a small proportion of low-income children. For example, the four states currently reaching the lowest share of children—Utah, Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada—will expand capacity by more than 50 percent. (see Table 2)
6 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
Access to early childhood programs
Low-income children ages 5 and under
189,552 24,213 289,293 135,303 1,366,272 170,323 76,597 27,102 643,020 412,661 33,773 77,480 424,452 256,997 100,933 113,959 177,274 253,962 38,834 138,506 136,293 348,131 154,314 145,804 228,556 38,307 67,310 152,371 23,381 215,441 97,356 581,159 388,271 19,548 418,613 168,208
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma
9% 14% 7% 8% 8% 6% 10% 8% 6% 6% 9% 4% 10% 6% 8% 8% 10% 9% 9% 8% 10% 11% 8% 19% 8% 12% 8% 2% 8% 7% 10% 9% 5% 18% 9% 10%
8% 10% 5% 4% 4% 5% 8% 16% 8% 6% 17% 4% 6% 7% 8% 9% 9% 8% 4% 8% 11% 8% 9% 7% 12% 7% 9% 2% 14% 8% 12% 12% 9% 8% 7% 9%
2% 1% 1% 15% 11% 11% 12% 3% 27% 20% 0% 0% 19% 0% 23% 6% 12% 8% 12% 21% 10% 7% 1% 0% 2% 0% 15% 1% 0% 24% 5% 18% 6% 0% 1% 24%
2% 5% 3% 6% 3% 4% 6% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3% 5% 4% 4% 6% 6% 2% 6% 6% 7% 3% 6% 4% 4% 2% 5% 3% 9% 5% 4% 8% 3% 5% 4% 3%
21% 30% 16% 33% 26% 28% 36% 32% 44% 34% 31% 11% 40% 17% 43% 29% 36% 27% 32% 42% 38% 29% 24% 30% 26% 21% 37% 8% 30% 45% 30% 46% 24% 31% 21% 45%
Strong Start estimated slots, Year 5**
14,479 4,331 22,110 10,626 105,723 12,343 6,724 4,331 48,513 30,904 4,331 5,175 32,382 17,853 8,135 8,732 13,862 15,330 4,331 12,173 9,043 23,719 11,603 11,514 15,121 4,331 4,976 8,493 4,331 15,121 7,650 41,560 29,371 4,331 32,891 10,897
All programs with Strong Start
29% 41% 22% 41% 33% 35% 44% 48% 52% 42% 44% 18% 48% 24% 51% 36% 43% 33% 43% 50% 45% 35% 31% 37% 33% 28% 45% 13% 48% 52% 37% 53% 31% 48% 29% 50%
7 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 50-state total
*Children under 5 only
Low-income children ages 5 and under
134,693 357,042 30,386 192,715 30,006 254,778 1,206,078 128,080 15,797 209,353 216,138 59,366 187,323 20,375 11,175,699
10% 10% 10% 7% 16% 7% 6% 5% 10% 7% 6% 14% 8% 10% 8%
5% 14% 9% 5% 11% 9% 6% 5% 17% 6% 10% 8% 11% 15% 7%
5% 8% 0% 15% 0% 7% 19% 0% 34% 8% 4% 26% 26% 0% 12%
5% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 7% 4% 4% 5% 5% 11% 4%
25% 38% 25% 30% 31% 26% 32% 14% 68% 25% 24% 52% 49% 36% 31%
Strong Start estimated slots, Year 5**
9,850 27,516 4,331 17,343 4,331 19,731 89,925 9,563 4,331 15,552 17,223 5,074 15,353 4,331 861,789
All programs with Strong Start
32% 46% 40% 39% 40% 34% 40% 21% 95% 32% 31% 60% 57% 56% 39%
**Reflects federally funded slots only and does not include slots funded through state match Sources: Sources: National Center for Children in Poverty, “Demographic Profiles,” available at http://nccp.org/profiles/demographics.html (last accessed March 2014); Office of Head Start, “Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2012,” available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/2012-hs-program-factsheet.html (last accessed March 2014); Office of Child Care, “FY 2012 Preliminary Data Table 1 – Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and Children Served,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdf-data-tables-preliminary-table-1 (last accessed March 2014); Office of Child Care, “FY 2012 Preliminary Data Table 9 – Average Monthly Percentages of Children In Care By Age Group (FY 2012),” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdf-data-tables-preliminary-table-9 (last accessed March 2014); W. Steven Barnett and others, “The State of Preschool 2012: State Preschool Yearbook” (New Jersey: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2012).
The Strong Start Act addresses, but does not completely solve, the issue of insufficient access to early education programs. Along with the two states that already reach a majority of low-income children under age 5—Vermont and West Virginia—eight additional states will have the capacity to enroll at least 50 percent of low-income children in early learning programs statewide—Florida, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. However, there will still be 40 states that are unable to serve more than half of children. After the fifth year of Strong Start’s implementation, 60 percent of children will still not have access to a publicly funded early learning program without significant state or local investment. Continuous investment will be needed to continue to reach additional low-income children. Improving access to early learning programs involves not only expanding the number of available slots, but also equalizing the proportion of children served in each state.
8 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
A new federal investment to expand access to high-quality preschool would not be duplicative of existing investments. Rather, it would provide a much-needed boost in access to quality programs, expanding the number of children reached by public programs and enhancing the quality of those programs. Current investments in early childhood education leave many children without access to high-quality early learning programs. The Strong Start bill will expand access to children who do not currently have access to programs and expand the availability of high-quality programs. Even five years after implementation of the Strong Start Act, federal and state investments will need to grow to reach an additional 60 percent of low-income children under age 5. Katie Hamm is the Director of Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress. Erika Basurto is an intern at the Center.
9 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
1 Center for American Progress analysis of: Office of Head Start, “Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2012,” available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/2012hs-program-factsheet.html (last accessed March 2014); National Center for Children in Poverty, “Demographic Profiles,” available at http://nccp.org/profiles/demographics. html (last accessed March 2014); W. Steven Barnett and others, “The State of Preschool 2012: State Preschool Yearbook” (New Jersey: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2012); Office of Child Care, “FY 2012 Preliminary Data Table 9 - Average Monthly Percentages of Children In Care By Age Group (FY 2012),” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdf-data-tables-preliminarytable-9 (last accessed March 2014); Office of Child Care, “FY 2012 Preliminary Data Table 1 - Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and Children Served,” available at http:// www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/fy-2012-ccdfdata-tables-preliminary-table-1 (last accessed March 2014). 2 Government Accountability Office, “2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings and Enhance Revenue” (2012). 3 Barnett and others, “The State of Preschool 2012”; U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA,” available at http://idea. ed.gov/explore/home (last accessed March 2014). 4 U.S. Department of Education, “Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title 1, Part A),” available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ index.html (last accessed March 2014). 5 Appalachian Regional Commission, “ARC Projects Approved in Fiscal Year 2013,” available at http://www.arc.gov/ funding/ARCProjectsApprovedinFY2013.asp (last accessed March 2014). 6 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),” available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ cacfp/why-cacfp-important (last accessed March 2014). 7 U.S. Department of Education, “Special Education--National Activities--Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program,” available at http:// www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptms/index.html (last accessed March 2014). 8 Administration for Children and Families, A.1.: Federal TANF and State MOE Expenditures Summary by ACF-196 Spending Category, FY 2012 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/ files/ofa/fy2012_expenditures.pdf. 9 Karen E. Lynch, “Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding” (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2012), available at http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house. gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/ documents/94-953_gb.pdf. 10 Office of Head Start, “History of Head Start,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/history-ofhead-start (last accessed March 2014). 11 Department of Health and Human Services, “Head Start Program Facts Fiscal Year 2013,” available at http://eclkc. ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/docs/hs-program-factsheet-2013.pdf (last accessed March 2014). 12 National Association for the Education of Young Children, “Child Care and Development Block Grant,” available at https://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/ccdbg (last accessed March 2014). 13 Office of Child Care, “Characteristics of Families Served by Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Based on Preliminary FY 2012 Data,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/occ/resource/characteristics-of-families-servedby-child-care-and-development-fund-ccdf (last accessed March 2014); Office of Child Care, “CCDF Expenditures Overview for FY 2012 as of 9/30/2012,” available at http:// www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdf-expenditures-overview-for-fy-2012-as-of-9-30-2012 (last accessed March 2014). 14 CLASP, “Putting Children and Families First: Head Start Programs in 2010,” available at http://www.clasp.org/resourcesand-publications/publication-1/Head-Start-Trend-AnalysisFinal2.pdf (last accessed March 2014). 15 See, for example, Lydia Sheaks, “Head Start has a huge waiting list, but parents should still apply,” The Elkhart Truth, March 4, 2014, available at http://www.elkharttruth.com/ news/schools/2014/03/04/Five-things-to-know-aboutHead-Start.html. 16 CLASP, “Supporting Our Youngest Children: Early Head Start Programs in 2010,” available at http://www.clasp. org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/EHS-TrendAnalysis-Final.pdf (last accessed March 2014). 17 National Women’s Law Center, “State by State Fact Sheets: Child Care Assistance Policies 2013,” available at http:// www.nwlc.org/resource/state-state-fact-sheets-child-careassistance-policies-2013 (last accessed March 2014). 18 Marcia K. Meyers and others, “The Dynamics of Child Care Subsidy Use: A Collaborative Study of Five States” (New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002). 19 CLASP, “Child Care Assistance Spending and Participation in 2012,” available at http://www.clasp.org/resources-andpublications/publication-1/ccspending2012-Final.pdf (last accessed March 2014). 20 Barnett and others, “The State of Preschool 2012.” 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 For more information on the Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed regulation, see Office of Child Care, “HHS Announces Actions to Improve Safety and Quality of Child Care,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ occ/child-care-rule; Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2013, S. 1086, 133th Cong. (Government Printing Office, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ BILLS-113s1086is/pdf/BILLS-113s1086is.pdf. 24 Office of Head Start, “Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2013,” available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/ factsheets/2013-hs-program-factsheet.html (last accessed March 2014). 25 Office of Head Start, “Designation Renewal,” available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/grants/dr (last accessed March 2014). 26 Barnett and others, “The State of Preschool 2012.” 27 Ibid. 28 Strong Start for America’s Children Act, S. 1697. 14430, 113 Cong. 2 sess., available at http://beta.congress.gov/113/ bills/s1697/BILLS-113s1697is.pdf. 29 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Head Start Program Information Report (PIR)” (2013). 30 CLASP, “New Jersey Abbott Program,” available at http:// www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0230.pdf (last accessed March 2014). 31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Head Start Program Information Report (PIR).” 32 Ms. Danielle Ewen, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, “Supporting Children and Families through Investments in High-Quality Early Education,” February 6, 2014, available at http://www. help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ewen.pdf.
10 Center for American Progress | Is a New Federal Early Learning Initiative Duplicative?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.