Head Start Impact Study

Head Start Impact Study
Name	Head Start Impact Study
Country	United States
Conducted by	Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Abt Associates
Period	2002–2010
Sample	nationally representative cohort of preschool children
Design	randomized controlled trial
Reported	2005, 2010

Head Start Impact Study was a federally funded randomized evaluation of Head Start (United States) conducted to assess program effects on children’s cognitive, social, and health outcomes. The study compared children offered access to Head Start (United States), often through local community action agency providers, with children not offered access, using standardized assessments and parent reports administered by independent contractors. Results informed debates among policymakers in institutions such as the United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Congress, and think tanks like the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute.

Background and Purpose

The initiative originated from directives by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 and oversight by the Administration for Children and Families, responding to calls from committees in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives for rigorous evidence. The design was influenced by prior evaluations of Early Head Start, Perry Preschool Project, and Abecedarian Project, and by guidance from advisory bodies including the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Education Sciences. Objectives aligned with accountability movements championed by leaders associated with the No Child Left Behind Act and advocates from organizations such as the Children’s Defense Fund.

Study Design and Methodology

The evaluation enrolled a nationally representative sample stratified by region and service provider drawn from grantees funded through Head Start (United States). Children were randomly assigned via lotteries administered by local community action agency centers, modeled after methods in clinical trials used by the National Institutes of Health and designs recommended by the What Works Clearinghouse. Instruments included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, and behavior checklists adapted from measures used by the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Data collection was overseen by contractors such as Abt Associates and academic partners from institutions like Harvard University, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Chicago. Analytic approaches employed intent-to-treat estimates, subgroup analyses, and adjustments using methods promoted by scholars at RAND Corporation and the Brookings Institution.

Key Findings and Outcomes

Initial reports indicated modest positive effects on cognitive outcomes at the end of the preschool year as measured by instruments linked to Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, with effect sizes smaller than those reported in the Perry Preschool Project and Abecedarian Project. Gains largely dissipated by the end of first grade in assessments comparable to metrics used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress and tests influenced by standards from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The study documented impacts on parenting and classroom quality in analyses related to indices developed by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale and researchers associated with the National Institute for Early Education Research. Health and safety components were evaluated against benchmarks promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association.

Criticisms and Limitations

Scholars and advocates raised concerns about external validity relative to long-term longitudinal cohorts like those in the HighScope Perry Preschool Study. Critics from institutions including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and academics at Yale University and Columbia University argued that random assignment procedures created comparison groups affected by differential access to alternate preschool programs such as state prekindergarten initiatives and private child care. Methodological critiques referenced attrition issues familiar from studies at the Institute for Research on Poverty and statistical debates from researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago concerning intent-to-treat versus treatment-on-the-treated analyses. Commentators in outlets linked to the National Review and the New York Times debated interpretation and policy implications.

Policy Impact and Implementation

Findings influenced legislative hearings in the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and briefings for the Office of Management and Budget and the White House Domestic Policy Council. Federal agencies, including the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Health and Human Services, incorporated lessons into monitoring, quality improvement, and training initiatives coordinated with organizations such as the National Head Start Association, Zero to Three, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. State agencies responsible for state prekindergarten programs and departments such as the Texas Education Agency and New York State Education Department reviewed findings when designing mixed-delivery systems.

Subsequent Research and Follow-up Studies

Follow-up analyses extended into elementary years and stimulated secondary investigations by researchers at Princeton University, University of California, Berkeley, Northwestern University, and Columbia University. Meta-analyses by groups including the What Works Clearinghouse and studies by the Institute for Research on Poverty compared results with long-term studies like the HighScope Perry Preschool Study and Abecedarian Project. Ongoing dialogues among policymakers at the Brookings Institution, Urban Institute, and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities continued to shape programmatic reforms and new evaluations funded by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation and philanthropic organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Category:Early childhood education evaluations