Early Head Start
ImpactS of Early cHIlDHooD programS
Research Brief #3:
Early Head Start
BY: JULIA ISAACS & EMILY ROESSEL
wHat IS Early HEaD Start?
This research brief is one in
Early Head Start (EHS) provides child development services to low-income
a series of research briefs on
pregnant women and families with young children under age three. Begun
the impacts of early childhood
in 1994 as an extension of Head Start, the program promotes healthy prenatal
programs. See the websites for
outcomes; the health, cognitive and language development and socio-emotional
First Focus (www.fi rstfocus.net)
well-being of infants and toddlers; and family development and a supportive
and the Brookings Center
parent-child relationship. Local EHS agencies offer services in centers and
on Children and Families
through home visits, with some programs combining both center-based and
(www.bookings.edu/ccf)
home-based approaches. In 2006, the program served an estimated 61,647
for the full series including an
children, at an estimated annual federal cost of about $10,500 per child.1
overview and briefs on State
Pre-K, Head Start, Early
Head Start, Model Early
wHat IS tHE Impact of Early HEaD
Childhood Programs, and
Start on cHIlDrEn anD famIlIES?
Nurse Home Visiting.
There has been a large-scale, random-assignment
evaluation of Early Head Start that found the
• Better language skills. The percentage of children
program had positive impacts on many dimensions
with “at risk” scores on language development
of parenting and child development at ages two and
skills fell signifi cantly but remained high: 51.1
three years. Overall, program impacts were mostly
percent after EHS participation compared to 57.1
small, with larger impacts for some population
percent without the intervention.4
subgroups.2
Behavioral and Socio-emotional Outcomes:
Cognitive and School-Related Outcomes:
Early
Early
Head Start children engaged their parents more, were
Head Start children scored higher on standardized
less negative to parents, and were more attentive
assessments of cognitive development and language
to objects during play. EHS children were also less
development than a control group of children not
aggressive than the control group of children not
assigned to the program. Signifi cantly fewer Early
assigned to the program. More positive impacts on
Head Start children scored in the at-risk range on
socio-emotional development were observed at age
these two measures of cognitive skills. Even with
three than at age two.
these gains, however, EHS children scored below
national norms and many remained in the at-risk
Health and Safety Outcomes: There were small but
range of developmental functioning.
signifi cant impacts on children’s health. More Early
• Improved cognitive development. On average,
Head Start children visited a doctor for treatment of
Early Head Start children scored 91.4 on an
an illness or immunizations. Fewer children were
assessment of cognitive development compared to hospitalized for an accident or injury.
a score of 89.9 for children in the control group
(a score of 100 is the population average). Those
• Doctor visits. The study found that 83 percent of
receiving EHS services were less likely than
EHS children visited a doctor for treatment of an
those in the control group to fall in the “at-risk”
illness, compared to 80 percent of children in the
range of developmental functioning
control group.
(27 percent
compared to 32 percent had a score of 85 or lower).3
SEPTEMBER 2008
IMPACTS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS | 1
rESEarcH BrIEf 3: Early HEaD Start
• Hospitalizations. Hospitalizations were relatively
in size.7 A follow-up report with findings through
rare: 0.4 percent of EHS children and 1.6 percent
the end of kindergarten for children enrolled in Early
of children not assigned to EHS were hospitalized Head Start is due out in the second half of 2008.
for an accident or injury.
Outcomes for Parents: After participating in Early
How Do Early HEaD Start
Head Start, parents were more emotionally supportive ImpactS Vary?
in play with the child and showed more warmth
toward the child. They were also more likely to
Race and Ethnicity. There were more positive
read daily to children and were less likely to engage
impacts for African American and Hispanic families
in negative parenting behaviors. In addition, EHS
than for White families. Early Head Start brought
parents were more likely to participate in education
African American children and families closer to the
or job training, and some impacts on employment
levels of other racial groups in development outcomes.
were observed later in the study.5 However, there
were no significant improvements in parental income. Parental Characteristics. Impacts were greater for
children whose mothers enrolled while they were
• Reading to children. The study found that 56.8
pregnant. Among parents at risk of depression at
percent of EHS parents compared to 52.0 percent
the beginning of the program, EHS parents were less
of parents in the control group reported reading
depressed than control group parents when children
to their child every day.
were age three.
• Spanking children. Early Head Start parents were Program Type. Impacts varied by program type,
less likely to spank their children: 46.7 percent
depending on whether services were offered through
of EHS parents and 53.8 percent of parents in the a center-based program, a series of home visits, or
control group reported spanking their children in a mixed approach of center-based and home-based
the past week.
services. The impacts of center-based programs
were concentrated in cognitive and socio-emotional
• School attendance. Early Head Start increased
development, with some favorable impacts on
school attendance among parents who were teens. parenting as well. Home-based programs had
impacts on socio-emotional development, and
• Subsequent births. Early Head Start mothers
also reduced parenting stress.8 Mixed-approach
were less likely to have subsequent births during
programs had the strongest impacts, with a wide
the first two years after enrollment (22.9 percent
range of impacts across cognitive and socio-emotional
of Early Head Start mothers compared to 27.1
development, parenting behaviors, and participation
percent of mothers in the control group).
in self-sufficiency activities. In addition, programs
that were fully implemented early on had more
Early Head Start had positive effects on fathers as well significant impacts than programs that were not fully
as mothers. Fathers were less intrusive when playing
implemented by 1999.
with children and children were better able to engage
their fathers. In addition, EHS fathers were also more
likely to participate in home visits and parenting
How Strong IS tHE EVIDEncE
classes than other fathers.
BaSE for Early HEaD Start?
Early Head Start has been subject to only one
Medium- and Long-Term Outcomes: EHS children
national evaluation, but it was sufficiently large
were more likely to enroll in Head Start and other
and rigorous to provide a solid evidence base. A
formal programs (prekindergarten or child care) than
large sample of 3,000 children and families across
control group children.6 Many impacts on children
seventeen sites were randomly assigned, with half
and parenting observed at age three are still present
assigned to receive EHS services and half assigned to
at age five, though overall impacts are still modest
a control group that did not receive Early Head Start
SEPTEMBER 2008
IMPACTS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS | 2
rESEarcH BrIEf 3: Early HEaD Start
services.9 Multiple methods, including direct child
assessments, direct observations of children’s behavior,
videotaped parent-child interactions, and parent
reports, were used for measuring outcomes. The
seventeen programs themselves were not randomly
selected, although their features (program approaches,
family characteristics, and geographic distribution)
were similar to those of all 143 programs initially
funded in 1995 and 1996. Note that the program has
continued to expand and evolve in the past ten years,
and so its impacts may have changed as the program
has matured.
IS Early HEaD Start gEnErally VIEwED
aS EffEctIVE?
The EHS evaluation found positive impacts, although
most are small.10 The small size of the benefits,
compared to relatively high costs, has led one team
of analysts to extrapolate that the program’s benefits
will not exceed the program’s costs.11 However, the
existence of positive impacts across a broad range of
measures, and the fact that many impacts observed at
age three were still present at age five, leads others to
conclude that Early Head Start is working.12
wHat fEDEral lEgISlatIVE actIon lIES
aHEaD for Early HEaD Start?
As with Head Start, the major issue facing Early
Head Start is the level of funding provided in annual
appropriations. The recent reauthorization of Head
Start in December 2007 included provisions to
strengthen and expand Early Head Start, such as
requiring half of all new funds to go towards Early
Head Start, providing increased flexibility to Head
Start programs to convert slots for preschool children
into slots for infants and toddlers and requiring at
least one infant and toddler specialist in every state.
SEPTEMBER 2008
IMPACTS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS | 3
rESEarcH BrIEf 3: Early HEaD Start
NOTES:
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2008, page D-38. http://www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/olab/budget/2008/cj2008.html. The FY 2009 Congressional Justification reported that
enrollment increased to 61,788 children in 2007 (annual cost data not provided for 2007).
2 This review follows common convention in considering an effect size of 0.80 as “large,” 0.50 as
“medium” and 0.20 as “small.” Unless noted otherwise, all impacts are from John M. Love, Ellen
Eliasan Kisker, Christine M. Ross, and others, Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and
Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start (Washington, DC: Department of
Health and Human Services, 2002).
3 The effect size for average scores on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development Mental Development
Index was 0.12, a small effect.
4 Overall scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test increased from 81.1 to 83.3 on a scale of 100.
This increase has an effect size of 0.13.
5 Note that 60.0 percent of Early Head Start parents participated in job training or education,
compared to 51.4 percent of control group parents (an impact with an effect size of 0.17). Also,
86.8 percent of Early Head Start parents were employed at some point during the first 26 months,
compared to 83.4 percent of control group parents (an effect size of 0.09 and significant at 90 but not
95 percent confidence).
6 Forty-seven percent of Early Head Start children and 42 percent of control group children were in
formal programs at ages three and four.
7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Research to Practice: Preliminary Findings from the Early Head Start Prekindergarten Followup
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/reports/prekindergarten_followup/prekindergarten_followup.pdf.
8 Home-based programs that were fully implemented had favorable impacts on cognitive and
language development at age three that have not been found in evaluations of home-visiting
programs.
9 The control group children could have received services other than Early Head Start, and about 0.7
percent of the control group actually did enroll in Early Head Start.
10 Effect sizes ranged from 0.10 to 0.20.
11 Steve Aos, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, and others, Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early
Intervention Programs for Youth (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004).
12 See for example, Zero to Three Policy Center, Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project:
Early Head Start Works, Policy Brief, January 2007, http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/
Jan_07_EHS_Policy_Brief.pdf?docID=2623.
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank Phillip Lovell and Melissa Lazarín of First Focus for their comments and guidance.
Julia Isaacs is the Child and Family Policy Fellow at the Brookings Institution
and a First Focus Fellow. She can be reached at: jisaacs@brookings.edu.
Emily Roessel, a former research assistant at the Brookings Institution, is now
in graduate school at the University of Michigan.
SEPTEMBER 2008
IMPACTS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS | 4
About the Center on Children & Families
at the Brookings Institution
The Brookings Center on Children and Families studies policies that affect the well-being of
America’s children and their parents, especially children in less advantaged families. The Center
addresses the issues of poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity in the United States and seeks
to find more effective means of addressing these problems. The Center includes a partnership
with Princeton University and joint publication of the journal The Future of Children. Over
the next several years the Center will give particular attention to the following issues:
• Low-income working families and policies designed to improve their economic prospects;
• Economic mobility and opportunity in the United States and investments in children, such
as preschool programs, that could improve their chances to get ahead;
• The key role of education at all levels in creating the skills needed to promote opportunity
and reduce poverty;
• The growth of single-parent families caused by early unwed childbearing and the decline of
marriage; and
• The growing fiscal problems at the federal and state levels and steps that might be taken to
ensure fiscal responsibility while minimizing cuts in effective programs targeted to this low-
income families and children.
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington, D.C. 20036
202-797-6058 • www.brookings.edu/ccf
About First Focus
First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization that is committed to making children and
families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. First Focus brings both traditional
and non-traditional leaders together to advocate for federal policies that will improve the lives
of America’s children. Child health, education, family economics, child welfare, and child safety
are the core issue areas in which First Focus promotes bipartisan policy solutions.
While not the only organization working to improve public policies that impact kids, First
Focus approaches advocacy in a unique way, bridging the partisan divide to make children
a primary focus in federal policymaking. First Focus engages a new generation of academic
experts to examine issues affecting children from multiple points of view in an effort to create
innovative policy proposals. First Focus convenes cross-sector leaders in key states to influence
federal policy and budget debates, and to advocate for federal policies that will ensure a brighter
future for the next generation of America’s leaders.
1110 Vermont Avenue, Suite 900, NW• Washington, D.C. 20005
202. 657.0670 • www.firstfocus.net
