Editing Head Start (program) (section)

== Impact ==
{{Primary sources section
| date = May 2024
}}[[File:Angel Taveras speaks about how Head Start impacted his life.ogg|thumb|[[Angel Taveras]] speaks about how Head Start changed his life as a child.]]
According to a 2024 article published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'',<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Burchina |first=Margaret |last2=Whitaker |first2=Anamarie |last3=Jenkins |first3=Jade |last4=Bailey |first4=Drew |last5=Watts |first5=Tyler |last6=Duncan |first6=Greg |last7=Hart |first7=Emma |date=2024 |title=Unsettled science on longer-run effects of early education |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn2141 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=384 |issue=6695 |pages=506–508 |doi=10.1126/science.adn2141 |issn=0036-8075 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240502185921/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn2141 |archive-date=2 May 2024}}</ref> long term studies of head start have had "discouraging" results. While early boosts in literacy were observed, these disappeared after several years, and:

{{Quote|text="In the third-grade assessments of children who were 4 years old when they entered the lottery for Head Start slots, none of the 11 literacy and math achievement-related measures was statistically significant at the P < 0.05 level. Of 19 socioemotional outcomes, only one survived multiple testing adjustments, and in that case, teachers reported that children who were offered a Head Start slot displayed more emotional symptoms than children who lost the lottery."<ref name=":2" />}}

A 2020 study found that cohorts that attended Head Start had higher incomes and years of education as adults than similar children who did not attend.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=De Haan|first1=Monique|last2=Leuven|first2=Edwin|date=2019-09-03|title=Head Start and the Distribution of Long-Term Education and Labor Market Outcomes|journal=Journal of Labor Economics|volume=38|issue=3|pages=727–765|doi=10.1086/706090|issn=0734-306X|hdl=10852/74324|s2cid=44049841|url=http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-77437 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> A 2021 study found that the children exposed to more generous Head Start funding had substantially improved test scores relative to children that were not exposed to generous Head Start funding.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kose|first=Esra|date=2021|title=Public Investments in Early Childhood Education and Academic Performance: Evidence from Head Start in Texas|url=http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/early/2021/08/31/jhr.0419-10147R2|journal=Journal of Human Resources|page=0419 |language=en|doi=10.3368/jhr.0419-10147R2|s2cid=231906512 |issn=0022-166X}}</ref> Another 2021 study found that students enrolled in Head Start ended up having substantially higher high school completion, college enrollment and college completion rates than comparable children who were not enrolled in Head Start.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Bailey|first1=Martha J.|last2=Sun|first2=Shuqiao|last3=Timpe|first3=Brenden|date=2021|title=Prep School for Poor Kids: The Long-Run Impacts of Head Start on Human Capital and Economic Self-Sufficiency|journal=American Economic Review|language=en|volume=111|issue=12|pages=3963–4001|doi=10.1257/aer.20181801|pmid=35418710 |pmc=9005064 |issn=0002-8282}}</ref> The authors of the study concluded, "these estimates imply sizable, long-term returns to investments in means-tested, public preschool programs."<ref name=":1" /> A 2009 study, which compared siblings, found that those who attended Head Start showed stronger academic performance as shown on test scores for years afterward, were less likely to be diagnosed as learning-disabled, less likely to commit crime, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and less likely to suffer from poor health as an adult.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Deming|first1=D.|year=2009|title=Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start|url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12305831/Deming_HeadStart_AEJfinal.pdf?sequence=1|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|volume=1|issue=3|pages=111–134|doi=10.1257/app.1.3.111|doi-access=free}}</ref> This study was replicated in a 2020 study which looked at 10 additional birth cohorts, and found a negligible impact.<ref name="2020demingreplication" />

A 2022 study found that Head Start increased the employment and earnings of single mothers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wikle |first1=Jocelyn |last2=Wilson |first2=Riley |date=2022 |title=Access to Head Start and Maternal Labor Supply: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Evidence |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/720980 |journal=Journal of Labor Economics |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=1081–1127 |language=en |doi=10.1086/720980 |issn=0734-306X|hdl=10419/250541 |s2cid=232045060 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> 

In 2015, CCR Analytics, formerly Child Care Analytics, published the results of their Family Outcomes Survey completed by nearly 11,600 California Head Start and [[Early Head Start]] parents. 90% of parents surveyed said that Head Start helped them to get or keep a job. 92% of parents surveyed said that Head Start helped them to enroll in an educational or training program. 99% of families surveyed said that Head Start helped them to improve their parenting skills, such as responding to children's misbehavior and helping their children to learn. These results indicate that Head Start has a positive impact on the whole family, beyond the individual children who attend the program.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ccr-analytics.com/familyoutcomes2015|title=Family Outcomes Bulletin 2015|website=CCR Analytics}}</ref>

In 2014, CCR Analytics published the results of their study of 49,467 children assessed in the 2012–2013 school year from 81 Head Start programs throughout the state of California (more than 50% of the entire California Head Start population). Participation in the study was open to all California Head Start programs who used the DRDP-PS 2010 assessment tool. The study found that providing two years of Head Start to a child increases the probability by between 13% and 86% that the child will meet age appropriate expectations. [[Regression discontinuity design]] was used to measure program impact without denying a [[control group]] the opportunity to attend Head Start.  The analysis compared three-year-olds enrolled in Head Start to four-year-olds who returned to Head Start for their second year. This also eliminated the issue of [[selection bias]] because both groups chose to attend Head Start as three-year-olds.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ccr-analytics.com/bulletin2014|title=2014 Child Outcomes Bulletin}}</ref>

Lee collected data across sixty Head Start classrooms in 2007 and 2008. A sample of 1,260 children ages three to four were selected as the final sample. Of these children, 446 had entered Head Start at age 3 and enrolled for a year (Group 1); 498 had been entered at age 4 and enrolled for a year (Group 2); and 316 children had been enrolled for 2 years, entering at age 3 (Group 3). Academic outcome measures in literacy, math and science were collected based on the Head Start and Early Childhood Program Observational Checklist rating on a 4-point scale (1—not yet to 4—excels. Family risk factor indicators (developed by the State Department of Education) included single parent, unemployed parent, teenage parent, parental loss (divorce/death), low parental school achievement, food insufficiency. Group 3 had higher literacy, math and science scores than the other groups. Children in the high-risk group had significantly lower literacy, math, and science scores than those who had three or fewer risk factors. Head Start is associated with significant gains in test scores. Head Start significantly reduces the probability that a child will repeat a grade.<ref name=Difference3>{{Cite journal  |doi=10.1002/jcop.20462 |title=Impacts of the duration of Head Start enrollment on children's academic outcomes: Moderation effects of family risk factors and earlier outcomes |journal=Journal of Community Psychology |volume=39 |issue=6 |pages=698–716 |year=2011 |last1=Lee  |first1=K.}}</ref>

In 2002, Garces, Thomas and Currie used data from the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics to review outcomes for close to 4,000 participating adults followed from childhood and compared with non-participant siblings. Among European Americans, adults who had attended Head Start were significantly more likely to complete high school, attend college and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties. African-American adults who had attended Head Start were significantly less likely to be booked/charged for a crime. Head Start may increase the likelihood that African-American males graduate from high school. Separately the authors noted larger effects for younger siblings who attended Head Start after an older sibling.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Eliana Garces |author2=Duncan Thomas |author3=Janet Currie  |title=Longer-Term Effects of Head Start |journal=The American Economic Review |volume=92 |issue=4 |pages=999–1012 |date=September 2002 |doi=10.1257/00028280260344560|citeseerx=10.1.1.196.91|s2cid=12458311 }}</ref>

In 1998, Congress mandated an intensive study of the effectiveness of Head Start, the "Head Start Impact Study," which studied a target population of 5,000 3- and 4-year-old children.<ref name="hsis-final">{{citation |url=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/ |title=Impact study |publisher=U.S. Department of Health and Human Services}}</ref> The study measured Head Start's effectiveness as compared to other forms of community support and educational intervention, as opposed to comparing Head Start to a nonintervention alternative. Head Start Impact Study First Year Findings were released in June 2005. Study participants were assigned to either Head Start or other parent–selected community resources for one year. 60% of the children in the control group were placed in other preschools. The first report showed consistent small to moderate advantages to 3-year-old children including pre-reading, pre-vocabulary and parent reports of children's literacy skills. No significant impacts were found for oral comprehension, phonological awareness, or early mathematics skills for either age group. Fewer positive benefits were found for 4-year-olds. The benefits improved with early participation and varied across racial and ethnic groups. These analyses did not assess the benefits' durability.<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_execsum/first_yr_execsum.pdf |title=First year executive summary |publisher=U.S. Department of Health and Human Services}}</ref>

In 1975, Seitz, Abelson, Levine and Zigler compared disadvantaged children enrolled and not enrolled in Head Start, using the [[Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test]] (PPVT). The participants were low-income inner-city black children whose unemployed, economically disadvantaged parents were considered unskilled. The Head Start children had attended for at least five months at the time of testing, including nine boys and 11 girls. The non-enrolled group was on the Head Start waiting list. The control group consisted of 11 boys and nine girls. The groups were matched by family income, parental employment and marital status. The tester tested children at home and in a school or office setting. The Head Start children scored higher than the controls in both settings, which suggested preschool intervention programs may have influenced the result. The controls tested at home scored the lowest, apparently due to anxiety from having an unfamiliar person in their homes. The Head Start children were unaffected by the environmental factor. In evaluating this study vs. others, the relatively small sample size should be noted: 20 children vs. thousands in other studies.<ref name="wiley.com">Seitz, V. Abelson, W., Levine, E. & Zigler, E.[http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/ "Effects of place of testing on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of disadvantaged Head Start and non-Head Start children"], ''Child Development'', 1975</ref>

A 2005 review of the literature by Barnett and Hustedt found "mixed, but generally positive, evidence regarding Head Start's long-term benefits. Although studies typically find that increases in IQ fade out over time, many other studies also find decreases in grade retention and special education placements. Sustained increases in school achievement are sometimes found, but in other cases flawed research methods produce results that mimic fade-out. In recent years, the federal government has funded large-scale evaluations of Head Start and Early Head Start. Results from the Early Head Start evaluation are particularly informative, as study participants were randomly assigned to either the Early Head Start group or a control group. Early Head Start demonstrated modest improvements in children's development and parent beliefs and behavior."<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Barnett, W. Steven |author2=Hustedt, Jason T. |title= Head Start's Lasting Benefits |journal=Infants & Young Children |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=16–24 |date=January–March 2005 |doi=10.1097/00001163-200501000-00003|citeseerx=10.1.1.644.8716 |s2cid=7617558 }}</ref>

A 1995 within–family analysis compared subjects with nonparticipant siblings. Mothers who had themselves been enrolled in Head Start were compared to adult sisters who were not. Currie and Thomas separately analyzed white, black and Hispanic participants. White children showed larger and longer lasting improvements than black children.<ref name="CurrieThomas">{{cite journal |last1=Currie |first1=Janet |last2=Thomas |first2=Duncan |title=Does Head Start Make a Difference? |journal=[[American Economic Review]] |date=September 1998 |volume=85 |issue=3 |pages=341–364 |doi=10.3386/w4406 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2321490 |access-date=14 May 2021|doi-access=free }}</ref>

"Head Start Fade", in which significant initial impacts quickly fade, has often been observed, as early as second and third grade.<ref name="Valerie E. Lee, Susanna Loeb 62–82">{{cite journal |author1=Valerie E. Lee |author2=Susanna Loeb |title= Where Do Head Start Attendees End up? One Reason Why Preschool Effects Fade Out | journal= Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=62–82 |date=Spring 1995 |doi=10.2307/1164270|jstor=1164270 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author= S. Barnett |title= Does Head Start Fade Out? |journal= Education Week |volume= 5 |page= 40 |year= 1993}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = S. Barnett | title= Long Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes | journal = The Future of Children |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=25–50 |date=Winter 1995 | doi=10.2307/1602366| jstor= 1602366 }}</ref> One hypothesis is that the decline is because Head Start participants are likely to attend lower-quality schools, which fail to reinforce Head Start gains.<ref name="Valerie E. Lee, Susanna Loeb 62–82"/> Fryer and Levitt found no evidence that Head Start participation had lasting effect on test scores in the early years of school.<ref>{{citation|last1=Fryer|title=Understanding the blacK-white test score gap in the first two years of school|url=http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/FryerLevittUnderstandingTheBlack2004.pdf|year=2004|publisher=University of Chicago|last2=Levitt}}</ref>

A 2010 report by the [[Department of Health and Human Services]], ''Head Start Impact'', examined the cognitive development, social-emotional development, and physical health outcomes of 4,667<ref name=nj14/> three- and four-year-old children in a nationally representative sample of programs across 23 states. Children were randomly assigned to either a Head Start group (participants) or a non-Head Start group (control group). The children in the two groups were similar in all measured characteristics at program entry. Pre-participation assessments of all critical outcome measures were taken. Control group children optionally enrolled in non-Head Start programs. Nearly half of the control-group children enrolled in other preschool programs. Outcome measures covered cognitive development, social-emotional development, health status and access to health care, and parenting practices. Head Start students were split into two cohorts – 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start and 4-year-olds with one year of Head Start.<ref  name=nj14/> The study found:
* Participants showed positive effects in cognitive skills during their Head Start years, including letter-naming, vocabulary, letter-word identification and applied math problems,<ref name=nj14/> although the "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. ... "<ref name=weigel/> The gains applied to different skills across cohorts and grades, undermining generalizations about program impacts.<ref name=nj14/>
* Participants showed fewer significant improvements in social and behavioral skills, even in the Head Start year, with inconsistent results between the three- and four-year-old cohorts. The four-year-old cohort showed no significant improvement in the Head Start year or kindergarten, but in third grade, parents reported a significant reduction in total problem behavior and social and behavioral skills. Three-year-olds showed multiple, significant improvements in social and behavioral skills, but only for outcomes assessed by parents. Significant negative effects emerged in teacher relationships as rated by first-grade and third-grade teachers; and no significant positive effects for this cohort were reported by teachers for any elementary year.<ref name=nj14/>
* 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.<ref name=weigel/>
* Head Start had significant health-related effects, especially in increasing the number of children receiving dental care and having health-insurance coverage. These effects were not consistent, however. For example, while participants increased health-insurance coverage, it did not extend into the third-grade year for either cohort. Parenting practice changes were significant, but applied only to the three-year-old cohort. Most related to discipline, such as reduced spanking or time-outs. The spanking outcome occurred did not last into the first grade. The significant effect on parental reading to children did not last into kindergarten.<ref name=nj14/>

The HSIS study concludes, "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 1st 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."<ref name=weigel>{{cite web |last= Weigel |first= Margaret |date= August 11, 2011 |url = http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/civil-rights/head-start-study/ |title = Head Start Impact: Department of Health and Human Services Report |publisher = Journalist's Resource.org }}</ref>

In an op-ed piece in ''The New York Times'', "Head Start Falls Further Behind", Besharov and Call discuss a 1998 evaluation that led to a national reevaluation of the program. The authors stated that research concluded that the current program had little meaningful impact.<ref>{{cite news
| title=Head Start Falls Further Behind
| first1=Douglas J. |last1=Besharov |first2=Douglas M. |last2=Call
| date=February 7, 2009
| work= The New York Times
| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08besharov.html
| access-date=February 8, 2011}}</ref>

In 2011, ''Time'' magazine's columnist [[Joe Klein]] called for the elimination of Head Start, citing an internal report that the program is costly and makes a negligible impact on children's well-being over time. Klein wrote, "You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients ... it is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work."<ref>{{cite magazine|url = http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html#ixzz1UqSuspUQ |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110709225617/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html#ixzz1UqSuspUQ |url-status = dead |archive-date = July 9, 2011 |title = Time to Ax Public Programs That Don't Yield Results |magazine = Time | first=Joe |last=Klein |date=July 7, 2011}}</ref>

[[W. Steven Barnett]], director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at [[Rutgers University]], rebutted Klein, "Weighing all of the evidence and not just that cited by partisans on one side or the other, the most accurate conclusion is that Head Start produces modest benefits including some long-term gains for children."<ref>Valerie Strauss, "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/05/does-head-start-work-for-kids-the-bottom-line/ Does Head Start work for kids? The bottom line]", [[The Washington Post]], March 5, 2013.</ref>