Education, Government

Head Start impact: Department of Health and Human Services report

Tags: , ,

Last updated: August 11, 2011

(iStock)
(iStock)

Since its creation in 1965, Head Start, the federal program that provides preschool education, medical care, nutritional counseling and parenting support for low-income families has often been touted as an important public policy success. Children enrolled in the program receive varying degrees of support until they reach kindergarten. While research suggests that the program’s overall efficacy is positive when children are participating, questions remain about the duration of its impact as students advance through school.

A 2010 report by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “Head Start Impact Study,” examines the cognitive development, social-emotional development, and physical health outcomes of Head Start students as compared to a control group that attended private preschool or stayed home with a caregiver. Head Start students were split into two distinct group — 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start before kindergarten, and 4-year-olds with only one year of Head Start before kindergarten.

The report’s findings include:

  • Though the program had a “positive impact” on children’s experiences through the preschool years, “advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole. Impacts at the end of kindergarten were scattered…”
  • After first grade, there were no significant social-emotional impacts for the cohort of 4-year-olds, and mixed results on measures of shyness, social withdrawal and problematic student-teacher interactions. The cohort of 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start attendance, however, manifested less hyperactive behaviors and more positive relationships with parents.
  • By the end of first grade, only “a single cognitive impact was found for each cohort.” Compared to students in the control group, the 4-year-old Head Start cohort did “significantly better” on vocabulary and the 3-year-old cohort tested better in oral comprehension .
  • Parents of students in the 3-year-old cohort were 7% less likely to spank them and more likely to read to them and involve them in cultural enrichment activities versus parents of 3-year-olds in the control group.

The report sums up the findings as follows: “Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by first grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children’s longer term development.” These findings are supported by a subsequent DHHS study published in 2012.

A related study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Does Head Start Do Any Lasting Good?” provides additional information on the 2010 DHHS report and calls into question some of the findings.

Tags: children, poverty, parenting


Writer: | August 11, 2011

Analysis assignments

Read the issue-related Times magazine article "Time to Ax Public Programs That Don't Yield Results

  1. Evaluate how the article's author characterizes the findings of the study. Is the author fair in his claims? Do the findings support his position? Or are there important nuances that he misses?

Read the full Department of Health and Human Services study "Head Start Impact Study Final Report."

  1. Summarize the study in fewer than 40 words.
  2. Express the study's key term(s) in language a lay audience can understand.
  3. Evaluate the study's limitations. (For example: Do the results conflict with those of other reliable studies? Are there weaknesses in the study's data or research design?)

Newswriting assignments

  1. Write a lead (or headline or nut graph) based on the study.
  2. Spend 60 minutes exploring the issue by accessing sources of information other than the study. Write a lead (or headline or nut graph) based on the study but informed by the new information. Does the new information significantly change what one would write based on the study alone?
  3. Interview two sources with a stake in or knowledge of the issue. Be prepared to provide them with a short summary of the study in order to get their response to it. Write a 400-word article about the study incorporating material from the interviews.
  4. Spend additional time exploring the issue and then write a 1,200-word background article, focusing on major aspects of the issue.

3 comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Lie of Julia « CRDaily May 4, 2012 16:55

Math In The Head Start Program Just Doesn't Add Up - The Brenner Brief | The Brenner Brief May 7, 2013 13:48

[...] contradicts a recent 2011 Health and Human Services study on Head Start. In this study, improved educational and social outcomes were found to be nearly [...]

The Sequatraceous Period | The Pike & The Hurricane Sep 9, 2013 5:18

[…] program, which introduces low-income children into the public school system early (though the efficacy of this has been in question). Beyond this, a slew of cuts will come to research and development […]

Leave a comment


nine × = 27