Head Start 1
Running Head: HEAD START

Social Policy Study
Improving Head Start Act of 2007
Kristin Sancken
University of Minnesota

Head Start 2

I.

Introduction
Head Start is a beloved program and one of the few social welfare programs

that continues to garner strong support from both sides of the aisle. It has seen very little shift in public perception over the last 44 years since it’s creation as part of
President Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity, and politicians have framed it essentially the same way during that time, namely, a way to provide the least fortunate with a chance at educational opportunity.
Every few years, the Head Start Act must be reauthorized by the U.S. House and Senate in order to continue receiving federal funding. The Head Start Act itself states that its purpose is to, “promote the school readiness of low-income children by enhancing their cognitive, social, and emotional development”(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). Head Start focuses on growth in a variety of areas such as acquisition of language, literacy, math, science, social and emotional functioning, creative arts, and physical education (Kildee, 2007; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2008). To reach these lofty goals, Head Start provides a holistic blend of services to low-income children and their families, based on family needs (Kildee, 2007; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008).
The latest reauthorization of the Head Start Act is the Improving Head Start
Act of 2007 (H.R. 1429), which was first introduced to the U.S. House of
Representatives by State Representative Dale Kildee, a Republican from Michigan, on March 9 of 2007. Its purpose was to “reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes” (McElroy, 2007). The bill passed the House in May, then the Senate in June. Differences were resolved

Head Start 3 between the two legislative bodies in November, and on December 12, 2007
President George W. Bush signed the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 into public law (Money And Politics Light.org, 2007).
In the last decade or so, research on brain development and attachment theory has shown that Head Start and its interventions with young children are more valuable than ever. Multiple research studies have shown that a vital amount of development occurs from birth to age five that not only prepares children for school, but for life (Barnet, 2008; Currie & Thomas, 1996; Scrivner & Wolfe, 2003).
For the sake of narrowing the focus of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, this paper will address its impact on Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Hispanic children and their families within the state of Minnesota. The effects of early intervention cannot be underestimated on the growing number of Hispanic students under the age of five with Limited English Proficiency, especially when studies like the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study (2008) are finding that “nearly half (49%) of Hispanic children do not recognize letters at the start of kindergarten, compared to onequarter (26%) of White children” (Calderon, 2005, p. 1). Head Start’s early intervention has the potential to decrease this achievement gap between Hispanic and White children, allowing a new generation of multi-cultural Americans to succeed. In describing and analyzing the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, several different models of policy analysis will be used. The model for description of the problem that necessitated the Head Start Act is based off of Karger and Stoesz’s model for policy analysis (Karger & Stoesz, 2006). The evaluation of this policy will

Head Start 4 be done using Chamber and Wedel’s six basic policy elements of goals and objectives, forms of benefits, eligibility rules, administration and service delivery, financing, and interactions (Chamber & Wedel, 2005). In discussing the policy elements, further evaluation of the adequacy, equity and cost efficiency of the
Improving Head Start Act of 2007 will also be addressed.
II.

Problem Analysis
The problem addressed by the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 is that at

the grade school level, an unacceptable number of Hispanic students have significantly lower test scores and are more likely to repeat a grade than nonHispanic white students (Currie & Thomas, 1996). This is disturbing news in light of the fact that currently, 22 percent of children under the age of 5 in the United States are Hispanic and that number is likely to increase 146 percent in the next 40 years
(Calderon, 2005). Thus, if nearly one-fifth of the future population of the nation’s children will have lower test scores and be likely to repeat a grade in the coming years, then the United States will soon have an educational crisis of epic proportions if something isn’t done to address the learning needs of Hispanic children.
To the surprise of many, Hispanic children are no longer solely concentrated in California, Texas and New York. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Minnesota has the tenth fastest growing Latino population of children under the age of 5, growing 160 percent from 1990 to 2000 (Caledron, 2005). Furthermore, Latino students in Minnesota are more likely to drop out of school than any other racial or ethnic group. During the 2005-2006 school year, the graduation rate of Latino students in Minnesota was only 65 percent, compared to 66 percent for American

Head Start 5
Indians, 71 percent for Black students, 90 percent for Asian students, and 94 percent for White students (Chicano Latino Affairs Council: State of Minnesota,
2007). Accordingly, not only does the U.S. have an impending educational crisis due to not meeting the needs of Hispanic students, but so does the state of Minnesota.
It’s difficult to assess why Hispanic children are not doing well in school. The
Chicano Latino Affairs Council as well as the National Council on La Raza have identified that some of the root causes are socio-economic in nature including unstable housing, high student mobility, low parental education and lack of access to adequate health care (Calderon, 2005; Chicano Latino Affairs Council: State of
Minnesota, 2007). Health care may seem unrelated to child development, but with proper immunizations, screenings for lead poisoning and developmental delays, and providing for nutritional needs an at-risk child’s cognitive functioning is likely to improve (Currie & Thomas, 1996). Several of these identified causes of low academic achievement in Hispanic students can be stabilized early on with some of
Head Start’s comprehensive services.
Another reason why it’s difficult to assess why Hispanic children are not doing well in school is because there are so many variables and “unobservables” that can’t be measured in any study. Currie & Thomas (1996) noted that there is no way to measure the effects of how much a parent knows about child development, how invested a family is in education, how impoverished a family is, the impact of being a first-born child or the impact of living in a single versus two-parent household – to name a few “unobservable” factors. However, when accounting for
“observables” (things that can be measured like family income and parental

Head Start 6 education level) they found that Hispanic children who had gone through a Head
Start program preformed much better in school than children who had no preschool education. This provides a strong argument for the long-term benefits of Head Start.
Studies have shown that providing Hispanic children with even one year of
Head Start services can reduce the achievement gap between white and Hispanic students by nearly half (Currie & Thomas, 1996). But why are Hispanic students doing badly now if Head Start has existed since 1965? It’s because of their increasing numbers that Spanish-speaking families are and will be the most affected by the limitations of Head Start, both nationwide and in Minnesota. In 1980, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began taking statistics on race,
19 percent of all Head Start participants were Hispanic. In 2007, that percentage was well over one-third. Hispanics and Latinos are the only racial or ethnic group to have continually increasing enrollment numbers in Head Start over the last 30 years. Enrollment in Head Start by Race (%)
45
40
35
30
25

Hispanic
Black
White

20
15

Source: Office of Head Start, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Head Start 7
In Head Start programs in Minnesota, enrollment of Hispanic children has gone up about the same rate as total enrollees, about 5 percent each year. However, when one isolates the number of enrollees who speak only Spanish in the home, that number of Head Start participants has gone up by 17 percent in the last two years
(Minnesota Head Start Association, 2007). This means that not only are more children enrolling in Head Start with language barriers, but they are also most likely to have parents coming from significantly different cultural backgrounds, as it is estimated that 84 percent of foreign-born Hispanic mothers only speak Spanish to their children (Currie & Thomas, 1996). Measuring outcomes for Hispanic children is thus complicated by new and increased immigration. Because of this, Minnesota is facing a larger increase of Hispanic LEP students in Head Start than any other population. The continuing existence of Head Start has created both winners and losers.
A few winners include the public school system, colleges and universities and any company or organization that has to meet Affirmative Action quotas, as Head Start helps to produce more qualified students and applicants of color. In fact, on January
24 of 2007, the University of Minnesota donated money to Senator McCain to make sure that the Improving Head Start Act of 2007 was passed (Money And Politics
Light.org, 2007). This is because if diverse students get more services from Head
Start early on, they are more likely to do better in school and make it to a four-year institution like the University of Minnesota. Likewise, if these students are able to graduate, they are then a vital part of the future trained workforce that helps to perpetuate the success of people of color.

Head Start 8
Unfortunately, if there are winners, there are also losers. Some of the most easily identified losers are the many programs that have to compete with Head Start for funding. Ironically, the public school system is also in this group. Although they would benefit from receiving more kids who are prepared for kindergarten, K-12 public education is also in competition with Head Start for federal education funds.
Any other program that has to go through the annual appropriations process also competes with Head Start and thus may be a loser. These include, but are not limited to environmental, defense and transportation programs (Parrott, 2008).
More on controversies and complications surrounding funding will be discussed in policy analysis.
III.

Policy Analysis
Head Start is one of the few programs from President Johnson’s “War on

Poverty” and Office of Economic Opportunity that has survived from 1964 until now.
At the time, the “domestic enemy” of poverty affected one-fifth of the U.S. population
(Trattner, 1999). “War on Poverty” supporters were promoting education as a main strategy to “enhance the productive ability of the needy” (Trattner, 1999, p. 323).
However, President Johnson also saw the link between race and poverty, stating that “many Americans live on the outskirts of hope – some people because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity” (Myers-Lipton, 2006, p. 217).
Thus, out of this ideology of opportunity through education, regardless of race, Head
Start was born. After all, who has more potential and opportunity than a small child? Head Start 9
a. Goals and Objectives
With the first Head Start Act, approved in 1964 and instated in 1965, the main goal of Head Start was put forth. This goal was to “improve the social competence, learning skills, and health and nutrition status of low-income children so that they can begin school on an equal basis with their peers from higher-income households” (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2008).
By the end of the decade, specific programs began to emerge out of Head Start that targeted Hispanic children.
In order to fully understand the current goals for Hispanic LEP children that are written into the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, one must understand that with each federal reauthorization of Head Start, services applicable to Latino families shift and change. The first of such changes appeared in 1969, when the
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) program addressed the unique needs of predominantly Hispanic migrant farm workers and their children (Calderon, 2005).
Later, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter approved a bill that provided more bilingual and bicultural Head Start programs. In 1991, the first President Bush nearly doubled the funding for Head Start in an effort to “permit the Head Start program to serve all eligible 3 and 4 year olds” (Chafel, 1992, p. 11). Then, in 1995, under
President Clinton, Early Head Start was added to address prenatal care and birth through age 3 programs because mounting evidence showed that the earlier the intervention, the more effective the results. In 2005, the School Readiness Act increased funding for Early Head Start and increased the eligibility level for Head
Start from 100 percent of the poverty line to 130 percent (Sanz, 2005). This is only

Head Start 10 a short synopsis of the many changes that have occurred to Head Start legislation since 1964, to give an idea of how Head Start has grown and expanded.
The newest bill, the Improving the Head Start Act of 2007, contains goals that specifically target Hispanic LEP children in states like Minnesota where the percentage of Limited English Proficiency students grew by at least 100 percent from 1990 to 2000. Some of these goals include improving outreach to eligible families, settings standards for effectively communicating with LEP parents, providing training for communities on available resources, having the local Head
Start programs provide data regarding teaching qualifications by race, ethnicity and ability to speak a language other than English, and for the federal government to conduct a study that evaluates both the unique needs related to serving LEP children and families as well as Head Start’s capacity to meet those needs (Kildee,
2007). These goals, outlined by the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, build upon past federal Head Start legislation and work in conjunction with local, state legislation. Several laws have been passed in Minnesota within the last few years that go above and beyond federal standards to strengthen Head Start. Until 2002, Head
Start was under the Department of Economic Opportunity. Then Governor
Pawlenty decided to switch it to be under the Department of Education, which was highly unpopular with Head Start providers, as they believed that Head Start should be seen as a holistic and comprehensive program rather than just an education program (Minnesota Head Start Association, 2007). However, this switch allowed the State to increase the quality of the educational services. For instance, in 2006,

Head Start 11 the State of Minnesota started requiring a minimum of one adult for every 10 4year-olds, and a maximum class size of 20 (National Center for Children in Poverty,
2008). Two years later, they began requiring that each Head Start program fulfill early learning standards and developmental guidelines (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 2008). It’s clear that the educational standards of Head Start in
Minnesota have been raised, but what’s unclear is how that affects other aspects of the Head Start program.
b. Benefits and Eligibility
Head Start is more than just daycare or even preschool. It’s a comprehensive child development program that provides a variety of benefits depending on eligibility. Contingent on the geographic area, Head Start provides a part-day or fullday program during the regular school year that offers not only cognitive and language development, but also medical, dental and mental health services, screening and immunizations, and nutritional and social services (Currie & Thomas,
1996; Kildee, 2007; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008; 6 U.S.
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2008). Originally, only low-income 3- and 4-year-olds were eligible for Head Start, but after the 1994 reauthorizations, Early Head Start allowed low-income pregnant mothers and lowincome children under 3 to be eligible for services. “Low-income” is defined as anyone under 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold, or receiving TANF benefits, or homeless (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and
Means, 2008). Eligibility for Head Start services, and all subsidized childcare, is determined every six months (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2008).

Head Start 12
Accordingly, if a family qualifies for Head Start services in August and a working parent gets a raise during the school year that bumps the family above 130 percent of the poverty guideline, then the child would have to be kicked out of Head Start in
February. While eligibility and benefits are mostly outlined and determined by federal law, the financing and administration of Head Start is a careful dance between federal, state and local authorities.
c. Administration, Delivery and Financing
Head Start is financed and administered through a federal-local matching grant program. In Minnesota, there are 34 local agencies that provide Head Start programs. These local agencies, like Hennepin County’s Parents in Community
Action (PICA) receive federal funding from the Administration of Children, Youth and Families (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services) and state funding from the Minnesota Department of Education (Minnesota Head Start
Association, 2007; U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
2008). However, to encourage community support, federal law requires that the community contribute at least 20 percent of the cost of a Head Start program, either through direct funding or through in kind contributions like volunteer hours, donated space, materials or services (Minnesota Head Start Association, 2007).
Therefore, it’s not unusual to see a Head Start program that receives some of its
“nutritious meals” donated from a local fast food chain. Even with donations, local
Head Start agencies can only make their budgets stretch so far.

Head Start 13
d. Adequacy, Equity and Efficiency
Although Congress has authorized increases in Head Start funding each year since its inception, many Hispanic families continue to not have access to Head Start services because there are not enough spaces for those that are eligible and a number of language and cultural barriers prevent them from fully utilizing and getting the most out of Head Start services. The US General Accounting Office reported that many Head Start programs have long waiting lists, despite increasing the number of places each year (Currie & Thomas, 1996). This may be because the number of families who are eligible for Head Start also grows every year. Between
2002 and 2006, the number of poor children under age 5 grew by 13 percent, or
493,000 (Parrott, 2008). This is not just a nationwide trend but a local one too.
Minnesota Head Start is struggling to provide adequate services not just for
Hispanic families, but across the board. According to the Minnesota Head Start
Association, the number of enrolled children in Head Start in the state is in any given year 2,000 to 3,000 children over what they are funded to provide. For example, in 2007, Minnesota Head Start was given enough money to enroll 14,622 kids, but ended up enrolling 17,850 kids, showing that the need for Head Start services continually is higher than what they are able to fund (Minnesota Head Start
Association, 2007). Looking at these statistics, it’s easy to say that lack of necessary funding is the biggest barrier to Head Start’s ability to expand and improve services.
Why does this happen when over 15 years ago the first president Bush was supposed to have provided enough services to “permit the Head Start program to serve all eligible 3 and 4 year olds” (Chafel, 1992)? In 2007, Congress authorized

Head Start 14
$7.35 billion to be spent on Head Start. Although that may sound like a lot of money, that is only the money that’s been authorized; authorization of funds and appropriation of funds are two different processes. According to the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities,
… just 14 days after signing the reauthorization legislation, the President signed into law an omnibus appropriations bill that cut Head Start funding for fiscal year 2008, even before adjusting for inflation. The 2008 cut follows five years in which Head Start was repeatedly funded below the level needed just to keep pace with inflation. In 2008, funding for Head Start is 11 percent
– or $893 million – below the 2002 funding level, adjusted for inflation …
This funding difference is equivalent to the cost of serving more than 20,000 children in Head Start this year. (Parrott, 2008)

Head Start Funding Has Declined 11% Since 2002
2002
2004
Head Start Funding in
Millions of 2008 Dollars

2006
2008
6

6.5

7

7.5

8

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This is where the rubber meets the road. With all of the promises made to LEP
Hispanic families in the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, all of them were dependent on if funds were available. Was there a sudden change of opinion on
Capitol Hill? No. Head Start is still bipartisan supported, almost unanimously.
Unfortunately, due to stronger lobby efforts for government allocations, sometimes our societal values do not translate into sufficient funding.

Head Start 15
And what about state funding? Could it make up the difference? The state of
Minnesota contributed an additional $19.1 million to Head Start programs in 2007
(Minnesota Head Start Association, 2007; National Center for Children in Poverty,
2008). Although that is the same amount of money that was awarded in 2006, in adjusted dollars it’s a decrease in funding of $0.7 million (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 2008).
Because of the crunch on funding, and the long-term forecast for the economy is somewhat dismal with auto manufacturing and bank buy-outs, we must look to see if Head Start is being efficient with funds. Namely, are they attempting to meet the goals at the lowest cost, in the most beneficial way? The answer to this question is both yes and no. The main reason for “no” is that teachers are not being used efficiently as resources. For instance, bicultural and multicultural activities and resources are already being provided to Head Start programs, but most Head Start teachers don’t use them in daily activities or even know what to do with them
(Calderon, 2005). Exceptional programs require exceptional teachers.
The current examples of exceptional Head Start programs, like those in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, show impressive results of literacy and math scores that are .33 to .5 standard deviations above the mean. All of the lead teachers in the Tulsa Head Start programs have four-year degrees, early childhood certification and receive public school salaries and benefits (Barnet, 2008). Currently, in Minnesota the complications of high-staff turn over rates, due to low salaries is also “not only harmful to children, but it increases the costs of staff training, as newly prepared staff leave for better paying jobs elsewhere” (Chafel, 1992). This is an especially

Head Start 16 pertinent problem with the newest reauthorization because it will require that as of
“September 30, 2013, 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a baccalaureate in early childhood education or a related field” (Kildee, 2007).
Currently, the average Head Start teacher in Minnesota makes $25,229 per year
(Minnesota Head Start Association, 2007). In comparison, the federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $21,200 and the average Minnesota teacher’s salary is $37,500 (Average teacher salaries in Minnesota, 2006; 2008 poverty guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, 2008). The expectation of hiring highly qualified, bilingual teachers with a bachelor’s degree on salaries that would qualify them for the very services they are providing is unrealistic.
On the other hand, Head Start can be seen as being efficient because the benefits of Head Start far outweigh the costs. Studies have shown that Head Start closes the gap in test scores between Hispanic children and non-Hispanic white children by one-fourth, and closes the gap in repeating a grade by two-thirds (Currie
& Thomas, 1996). A 2002 longitudinal study done by the Chicago Parent Center
(CPC) estimated that a pre-kindergarten program, such as Head Start, is associated with “significantly higher rates of school completion by age 20, with lower rates of official juvenile arrests, violent arrests, and multiple arrests by age 18, and with lower rates of special education services and grade retention” (Scrivner & Wolfe,
2003). Therefore, in the long run, a program like Head Start ends up being very efficient for federal, state and county services because it saves money in all sorts of other programs. The CPC program estimated a generated return to society of

Head Start 17
$47,759 per participant by age 21, while the cost of the program per participant was only $7,000.
IV.

Conclusions and Recommendations
In a very unique and strange case, policy development for Head Start may

have done all it can up to this point. A little bit of fine-tuning could be done, to make
Head Start a more stable and reliable service to low-income families. For instance, eligibility should be determined every year, rather than every six months, to keep children consistently involved with the program, and nutrition standards could be more aggressively enforced. But otherwise, the policy itself, as in the words on the paper that dictate how Head Start should be run, is almost flawless. It’s the implementation of policy, namely the funding, that needs to be addressed.
The best recommendation that can be made from a policy point of view is
“don’t fix what ain’t broken”. The research literature establishes that “programs with well-educated, adequately paid teachers, small classes (no more than 20 children) and reasonable staff-child ratios (less than 1:10) have repeatedly produced strong short- and long- term educational gains” (Barnet, 2008). In the state of Minnesota, all of these things have been put into place. Current policy is desiring to expand the access and quality of Head Start services, as stated in the very subhead in the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, “to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes” (Kildee, 2007). However, none of these improvements can be made if the funding appropriations are not made at the federal and local levels.

Commented [OU1]: This paragraph is a good conclusion to this section, though the proceeding paragraphs are slightly skittish

Head Start 18
Reference List
2008 Poverty guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
(2008). Federal Register, 73(15)
Average teacher salaries in Minnesota. (2006). Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.teachingtips.com/average-teacher-salaries/minnesota/ Barnet, W. S. (2008). In Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy
Research Unit (Ed.), Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ:
Calderon, M. E. (2005). Head start reauthorization: Enhancing school readiness for
Hispanic children. National Council of La Raza. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/31454
Chafel, J. A. (1992). Funding head start: What are the issues? American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 62(1), 9-21.
Chamber, D., & Wedel, K. (2005). Analyzing the social problem background of social policies and social programs. Social policy & social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst (4th Edition ed., pp. 7-30). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Chicano Latino Affairs Council: State of Minnesota. (2007). 2008-2009 biennium
Minnesota Latino student achievement gap review (Presentation to the
Achievement Gap Subcommittee). St. Paul, Minnesota.
Currie, J. M., Thomas, D., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (1996). Does head start help Hispanic children?. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

Head Start 19

Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2006). Social welfare policy research: A framework for policy analysis. American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (Fifth
Edition ed., pp. 26-29). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Improving Head Start Act of 2007, H.R. 1429, 110th: 1st Session Cong. (2007).
Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr067.110.pdf
McElroy, R. (2007, May 7). "Managing America: Education". Legislation News &
Report: TheWeekInCongress.Com, 4.16. Retrieved from http://theweekincongress.com/Member/MAY07_FULL/HR1429EDUChMAY 4.htm
Minnesota Head Start Association. (2007). Minnesota head start facts & stats.
Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.mnheadstart.org/facts.html
Money And Politics Light.org. (2007). H.R.1429 to reauthorize the head start act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes: A timeline of contributions. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2008, from http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/12872/default/timeline/2007-1-2 Myers-Lipton, S. (2006). War on poverty: Office of economic opportunity. In C.
Lemert (Ed.), Social solutions to poverty: America's struggles to build a just society (1st ed., pp. 216-217). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2008). NCCP state early childhood profile.
New York, New York: Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health.

Head Start 20
Parrott, S. (2008). 2008 omnibus appropriations bill cuts funding for head start.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-08bud.htm
Sanz, M. (2005). Head start reauthorization progresses. National Association of
Counties. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.naco.org/CountyNewsTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManage ment/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16655
Scrivner, S., Wolfe, B. L., & University of Wisconsin—Madison Institute for Research on Poverty. (2003). Universal preschool : Much to gain but who will pay?.
[Madison, Wis.]: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of WisconsinMadison.
Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in
America (6th ed.). New York, New York: The Free Press.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Compilation of the U.S. head start act. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/legislation/HS_act.html#635 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. (2008). 2008 green book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the committee on ways and means No. (WMCP 108-6). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.