There’s been lots of good news for the nation’s Head Start program. The federal government has already awarded some 93 percent of the $1.5 billion that was designated for expansion of Head Start and Early Head Start. That money has been split into 832 grants, designed to serve some 59,000 children and families. Programs devoted to infants, toddlers and pregnant women are getting an extra boost.

So, what are the results? Hold your horses. There’s a big difference between money that’s been allocated and money that’s actually been spent. The recent Recovery Act report from the Government Accountability Office noted that by the end of March 2010, grantees had actually drawn down only 10 percent of the $713 million in first year awards.  Among the reasons for the delays are computer glitches, clerical problems, and time consuming audits of new grantees.

Even when the money does roll out, the GAO points out another significant issue: Head Start’s data focuses on enrollment, not on attendance. Data on attendance is only required at the annual review, not in the monthly reports required by the Office of Head Start. You can easily see the problems with that. It would be like car dealers getting credit for every test drive they give, without paying attention to the number of cars actually sold.Writes the GAO:  “The discrepancies between definitions of enrollment and provision of services may be a reason why expansion grantees’ drawdown of awarded funds has lagged behind reported enrollment.”

The GAO report argues that a better measure of services provided, rather than just enrollment is critical for understanding the impact of the program. “Under the current definition of ‘enrollment’, grantees – particularly those experiencing obstacles in start-up – could reasonably report full enrollment, while some classrooms sit empty, perhaps due to licensure or other delays.”

The GAO’s analysis of the Head Start management information issues comes from its May 2010 Recovery Act report. Details are on pages 163 to 185.

1 comments

Reading these blog entries kind of wears on me - it seems like the culture of government too often focuses on spending the money and meaningless data, at least in terms of outcomes and effective control. Maybe that is too cynical. The persistent theme for ARRA is money that will not be used effectively. Many of these programs do not belong in a stimulus and recovery effort. In the first place the launch time is too long. It seems like a lot of :bright ideas" or pet projects were loaded on the ARRA train. You just can't do so many new things in so short a time. The other major complication is that states., already strapped by budget shortfalls have a hard enough time keeping up with what they were doing without adding on top of that. The final history of ARRA will make interesting reading.

06/08/2010 - 20:36

Your name: *

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:

Write a comment...

Your comment will appear after administrative review.

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image?: *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

764 recommendations

Recommended