Head Start and Early Head Start  programs are administered by ACF, which funds and monitors more than  1,500 grantees through its 10 regional and 2 branch offices. 3.) In addition, during the 1990s, the number of other federal and state  programs offering services to low-income children increased substantially. The Extent to Which Head Start Programs Are Underenrolled is Not Known

The extent to which Head Start programs are underenrolled is unknown  because ACF does not collect accurate national data and it does not  monitor grantee enrollment in a uniform or timely way. PIR  data also showed a significantly higher proportion of grantees—33  percent—reported enrollment ratios below 95 percent than the 7 percent  of grantees reported as unacceptably underenrolled by the regional  offices. Differing Definitions of Underenrollment Create Potential for Uneven Treatment of Grantees across Regions

As a result of differences in regional definitions of what constitutes an  unacceptable level of underenrollment, grantees with similar levels of  underenrollment may be treated differently across regions, particularly in  areas without a defined threshold. Regional and Grantee Officials Often Cited Combinations of Factors as Responsible for Underenrollment

ACF regional officials and officials of underenrolled Head Start grantees  often cited a mixture of factors that made it difficult to achieve full  enrollment, including increased parental demand for full-day child care  and a decrease in the number of eligible children. ACF and Grantees Use a Variety of Approaches to Address Underenrollment

ACF national and regional offices and grantees all report taking action to  address underenrollment, such as issuing guidance, increasing monitoring,  and attempting to conduct broader outreach efforts. The ACF national  office issued a memorandum instructing regional offices to address  underenrollment, and all ACF regions we surveyed said that they have  increased their monitoring efforts. While 18 of the 25 grantees we contacted had made  progress toward achieving full enrollment, others cited continuing  challenges. The  guidance instructs regional officials to address underenrollment  depending on four possible causes. The most frequently mentioned was more aggressive recruiting followed  by collaboration with other programs. Furthermore, grantees told us of their concern to maintain total funded  enrollment levels, even as they were converting unfilled part-day openings  to full-day. Since ACF  oversight of Head Start grantees is primarily accomplished through its  regions and program branches, we designed a survey instrument in which  these entities could provide written responses to our specific requests for  such information as:  the methods the regions used to oversee grantee and delegate agency  enrollment levels; the threshold, if any, they had established for determining the point at  which a grantee or delegate agency’s level of underenrollment is  considered to be unacceptable;   a list of all grantees and delegate agencies that they believed had  unacceptable levels of underenrollment for both the 2001-02 and 2002-03  program years;  the reasons that they believed unacceptable levels of underenrollment had  occurred and the extent (major, moderate, minor, or none) that they  believed each identified reason had contributed to underenrollment; the actions they had taken to address the unacceptable level of  underenrollment for their grantees and delegate agencies. Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low- Income Families.
Why GAO Did This Study

Head Start, created in 1965, is designed to prepare low-income preschool children for school by providing a comprehensive set of early child development services primarily through communitybased organizations. Over the last decade there have been a number of changes in Head Start's operating environment, including a decrease in the number of poor children; an increase in the number, size, and scope of other federal and state early childhood programs; and an expansion in Head Start spending and enrollment. Given this environment, GAO was asked to determine (1) what is known about the extent to which Head Start programs are underenrolled, (2) ACF regional officials' and Head Start grantees' views on what factors contribute to underenrollment, and (3) what actions ACF and grantees have taken to address underenrollment.

What GAO Found

The extent to which Head Start programs have enrolled fewer children than they are funded to serve is unknown because the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) does not collect accurate national data and does not monitor underenrollment in a uniform or timely manner. While some modest fluctuations in enrollment are to be expected, regional offices had differing definitions of unacceptable underenrollment, and the approaches they used to identify it were either not timely or not systematic. The regional offices identified a total of about 7 percent of grantees as unacceptably underenrolled in 2001-02, significantly less than the percentage of grantees reporting enrollment ratios below 100 and 95 percent on ACF's survey of grantees. As a result of differences in regional definitions of what constitutes an unacceptable level of underenrollment, grantees with similar levels of underenrollment may be treated differently across regions. ACF regional officials and officials of underenrolled Head Start grantees often cited a mixture of factors that made it difficult to achieve full enrollment, including increased parental demand for full-day child care, a decrease in the number of eligible children, facilities-related problems, and more parents seeking openings with other sponsors of early education and care. ACF national and regional offices and grantees all report taking action to address underenrollment through the issuance of guidance, increased monitoring by regional offices, and more aggressive outreach attempts by grantees. The ACF national office issued a memo in April 2003 that instructed regional offices to address underenrollment with a variety of measures depending on its causes. While this guidance was clear on the actions to be taken, it lacked clear criteria for prioritizing grantees for corrective actions. Also, while many grantees we spoke with had taken steps to address underenrollment, some told us of their concern to maintain total funded enrollment levels, even as they were converting unfilled part-day openings to full-day. While 18 of the 25 grantees we contacted had made progress toward full enrollment, others cited continuing problems.