By Paul Behrman, Walnut Leadership

Local Head Start programs must modernize quickly, and chart a solid course for quality and sustainability.  Prior to the pandemic which emerged in 2020, the broader field of early care and education was struggling with a workforce crisis.  The pandemic worsened this crisis, with many staff leaving the ECE field for less stress, and better pay and working conditions.  Behavioral concerns around children of the “COVID generation” increased, along with mental health stressors for families.  Add to this the unique challenges faced by Head Start programs, which include the OHS Full Enrollment Initiative (FEI), the Designation Renewal System (DRS), stressors associated with CLASS scores and OHS Risk Assessment Notification (RAN), unannounced Focus Area 2 Monitoring Reviews, the uncertain agenda and turbulence of a new federal administration, and more.  And, all of this in the context of serving children and families with low-income, many of whom bring trauma histories and hardships, making Head Start’s work perhaps the most challenging in the field of early care, education and family services.

Major improvements in staff wages and working conditions, at all levels, are central to the modernization of local Head Start programs.  Working conditions can include better group sizes and ratios for children and teaching staff, more manageable caseloads for family service staff, sufficient management capacity for management and leadership longevity, and more.  The OHS Change in Scope (CIS) process is the best current strategy to achieve modernization, as it can be done at any time, and is not a “one and done.”  A CIS application approved previously (say, last year), does not preclude a grantee from submitting CIS applications now or in the future.  And, modernization of local Head Start programs requires bold, ambitious CIS applications which demonstrate vision and need, and are built upon solid data.

To equip local Head Start programs with some of the essential data needed to drive modernization, I submitted requests to the federal government via the U.S. Administration for Children and Families Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process.  The requests were for public, non-confidential data on a program-level basis for all Head Start, Early Head Start and Early Head Start – Child Care Partnerships programs nationwide for FY2023 and FY2024.  I requested and received this data, for all Head Start grants (approx. 1,500 grants) and Early Head Start grants (approx. 1,425 grants) across the country.  The data in the FY23 and FY24 spreadsheets I received include grant number, organization name and administrative address, HS or EHS federal funded enrollment (slots), HS or EHS federal operations annual funding level ($ base), and HS or EHS federal training & technical assistance annual funding level ($ TTA).

As with local, public school district data around annual budget and student enrollment, the HS / EHS data is public, non-confidential data not proprietary to any local organization.  However, for nearly 60 years, OHS has failed to make this data transparent.  OHS does not easily make this data available, and it required FOIA requests and extensive advocacy to obtain it.  If we had this data annually for the past 60 years, it would likely have improved and accelerated the evolution of the program, with a more thriving workforce, pay parity in 2025 and not “by 2031,” and higher quality for children and families.

This data is power.  It was difficult to obtain from OHS, and any grantee programs / directors who lack this information are at a distinct disadvantage in their strategic planning.  Specifically, from this data we can calculate the OHS funding-per-child (“FPC,” previously called “cost-per-child”) for every HS and EHS program in the nation.  When we see stark disparities in FPC among programs in comparable “cost of living zones,” it may incentivize a local HS / EHS program with low FPC to pursue a Change in Scope to achieve the FPC of higher FPC programs which have better staff compensation, lower group sizes and ratios, and other quality elements.  For example, Vermont and New Hampshire are neighboring states with similar cost of living.  By my calculations, the lowest FY24 FPC for Head Start programs in these states is $13,502, while the highest is $28,721.  The lowest FY24 FPC for Early Head Start programs in these states is $15,880, while the highest is $39,385.  While some might try to explain this wide variation based on certain factors, I am well-acquainted with the HS program with highest FPC, and the EHS program with highest FPC, in this region.  The highest FPC programs in these states achieved high FPC though bold applications informed by vision, need and data, and their FPC much better represents the true cost of quality.

I encourage you to work with the FY23 and FY24 spreadsheets to closely review FPC and other metrics, to share this with your teams and stakeholders, and to use it as you pursue modernization of your local program.  If you are interested in joining a national workgroup of local program leaders, and collaboration office staff, which meets via zoom several times per year to discuss these issues, metrics and data, please email me at admin@walnutleadership.com and I will add you to the list to receive invitations to these meetings.  Thank you for your commitment, and I hope you will join me in these efforts to help assure better solutions and a brighter future for our Head Start program, its workforce, children and families.