Analysis of Federal
Even Start
Expenditures and
Selected Comparisons
1998 Prepared forU.S. Department of Education Planning & Evaluation Service 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Cambridge, MA Lexington, MA Hadley, MA Bethesda, MD Washington, DC Chicago, IL Cairo, Egypt
Johannesburg, South Africa
Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Fu Associates for the use of the Even Start Information System (ESIS) datasets, Marla Nierenberg for her assistance in editing, and Eileen Fahey for her help in preparing this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary . . . i
Introduction . . . 1
Even Start Family Literacy Program Background . . . 1
Even Start Program Design . . . 3
Summary of Evaluation Design and Methodology for This Paper . . . 3
Summary of Even Start Federal Cost Information . . . 20
Executive Summary
Analysis of Federal Even Start Expenditures and Selected Comparisons
This paper summarizes what we know about the federal expenditures of the Even Start Family Literacy Program, as of program year 1995-96. Cost is an important characteristic of any program, and an analysis of federal expenditures on Even Start may help inform policy makers, particularly those interested in family literacy programs.
The purpose of this paper is to address the following questions:
• How much does the Department of Education spend on the Even Start program, by year?
• How much, on average, does the Department of Education spend per project? How do federal Even Start expenditures vary by region, state, urban/rural status, etc.? How much variation is there in federal
expenditures across projects?
• What is the average federal expenditure per family? How does this vary across project? By region, state, urban/rural status, etc.?
• How do federal Even Start expenditures compare to federal expenditures for Head Start and Adult Education? In total? Per project? Per family? • What services are provided with federal Even Start funds? How do other
related programs use their funds?
This report includes descriptive analyses of federal spending at the national, project and family level and comparisons of federal expenditures with other relevant programs. We have also
examined bivariate relationships between federal project-level costs and several other project-level variables. Our analyses draw from records maintained by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and project-level and cost data from Even Start projects.
The data show that annual federal expenditures grew dramatically from the program’s inception in 1989 up to 1995, followed by level funding from 1995 to 1997. Annual federal per-project expenditures declined once the States began to administer the program, from $203,103 in 1992 to approximately $144,569 in 1997. The average federal expenditure for a family participating in Even Start has similarly declined over time, as the number of families served has increased. Even Start can be considered to be in the middle of the cost spectrum when compared with other programs with similar aims, like New Chance, the Comprehensive Child Development Program and Head Start. As with other social and educational programs, federal expenditures vary greatly across Even Start projects, both in total and on a per-family basis. This variation in project-level costs is related to structural and programmatic factors. Spending also varies between states and regions.
INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes what we know about the costs of the Even Start Family Literacy Program as of program year 1995-96. We describe federal spending on the Even Start program, federal spending per project, and federal spending per family. We also describe how federal Even Start funds are used at the local level. Where possible, comparisons of federal expenditures for Even Start are made with federal expenditures for Head Start, adult education, and other relevant programs. Throughout this paper we use the terms “expenditures”, “spending”, and “costs” to refer to the federal outlays for Even Start excluding technical assistance and evaluation. This does not include the federal cost of other programs that might be coordinated by Even Start, nor does it include the value of local matching. Only the federal outlays for Even Start are included. When we consider other cost elements we make specific mention of this fact.
EVEN START FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The Even Start Family Literacy Program was first authorized in 1988 as Part B of Chapter 1 of Title I (P.L. 100-297) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Even Start program was reauthorized in 1994 by the Improving America’s Schools Act (P.L. 103-382), as Part B of Title I of the ESEA. This description of Even Start refers to the reauthorized law. Projects were not required to implement changes made by that law, however, until program year 1995-96. According to the 1994 legislation, the Even Start program is intended to:
“...help break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving the educational opportunities of the Nation’s low-income families by integrating early childhood
education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education into a unified family literacy program...The program shall (1) be implemented through cooperative projects that build on existing community resources to create a new range of services; (2) promote achievement of the National Education Goals; and (3) assist children and adults from low-income families to achieve to challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards.”
(P.L. 103-382, Sec. 1201).
To be eligible for Even Start under the reauthorized law, a family must have (a) an adult who is eligible for adult education programs under the Adult Education Act, or is within the state’s compulsory school attendance age, and (b) have a child less than eight years of age. Even Start projects are required to provide participating families with an integrated program of early
childhood education, adult literacy and basic education, and parenting education. The program’s design is based on the notion that these components build on each other and that families need to receive all three services, not just one or two, in order to effect lasting change and improve children’s school success. As a family-focused rather than parent- or child-focused program, Even Start has two interrelated goals:
• to help parents become full partners in the education of their children; and • to assist children in reaching their full potential as learners.
In April 1996, the Even Start statute was amended to require high-quality, intensive instructional programs. This new
1
requirement became effective for projects in program year 1996-97.
To achieve these goals, Even Start began as a demonstration program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that provided school districts with four-year discretionary grants for family literacy projects in 1989. In 1992, the program, while remaining a competitive
discretionary grant program, became primarily administered by the states, although two small set-asides remain for direct federal grants for Migrant Education projects and grants to federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal organizations. In addition, the reauthorized law authorizes one grant in a prison that houses women and their preschool-age children, and grants for statewide family literacy initiatives. According to the Even Start statute, when the program is funded for $50 million or more per year, it must be administered at the state level. Each state’s share of Even Start funds is based on its proportion of funds under the Title I Part A LEA Program. States hold grant competitions and make subgrant awards. The statute specifies that each Even Start subgrantee must receive a minimum of $75,000 per year, although each State may have one grant under $75,000 at any time.
EVEN START PROGRAM DESIGN
The Even Start legislation contains language setting forth the major elements that must be the basis of each Even Start local project. The legislation allows grantees flexibility in devising projects to meet local needs but all projects are required to offer three core services:1
• Early childhood education: services to meet the early education needs of children from birth through seven years of age, designed to enhance
development and prepare children for success in school.
• Adult education and adult literacy: services that develop the basic educational and literacy skills of the adult including adult basic education (ABE), adult secondary education (ASE), English as a second language (ESL), or preparation to attain a General Education Development (GED) certificate.
• Parenting education: services for parents designed to enhance parent-child relationships and help parents understand and support their parent-child’s growth and development.
Each family is required to participate in all three core services, and projects are required to provide some home-based services as well as some services to parents and children together. The Even Start program has the potential to benefit families in several domains. The focus is education, and improved literacy is the foremost goal. Desired outcomes for parents include positive effects in three areas linked to the Even Start objectives or goals: literacy behaviors (e.g., shared literacy events with children, increased reading and writing activities in the home),
child), and educational skills (e.g., improved reading and English language ability, higher educational attainment). In addition, goals for parents participating in Even Start might include growth in personal skills (e.g., increased self-efficacy), community involvement (e.g., increased involvement in schools), family stability, and family self-sufficiency.
Ideally, Even Start will have a positive impact for children on age-appropriate cognitive, language, and social skills (school readiness). Once children enter school, outcomes might include satisfactory school performance and improved school attendance, as well as a lower incidence of special education and retention in grade.
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR THIS PAPER
The Even Start legislation requires an independent national evaluation of the projects funded under Even Start. The first national evaluation of Even Start was conducted during the first four years that Even Start operated, from 1989 to 1993. Among other activities, that evaluation collected information from all local Even Start projects on a broad range of project and
participant characteristics in order to learn how local projects operated, how they were staffed, and what kinds of services they provided as well as who the local projects served and how participants progressed on a variety of educational indicators (St.Pierre et al., 1995). Additional data on program outcomes and costs were collected from 10 projects participating in an “In-Depth Study.” The second national evaluation, which operated from 1994 until the summer of 1998, continued to collect similar project- and participant-level data on all projects (Tao et al., 1997).
The analyses reported in this paper draw primarily from records maintained by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, from the project-level data
submitted by all of the Even Start projects in the most recent year of the second national evaluation (the 1995-96 program year), and from the cost data collected from In-Depth Study projects as part of the first national evaluation. We have structured the analyses around the following questions:
(1) How much does the Department of Education spend on the Even Start program, by year?
(2) How much, on average, does the Department of Education spend per project? How do federal Even Start expenditures vary by region, state, urban/rural status, etc.? How much variation is there in federal expenditures across projects? (3) What is the average federal expenditure per family? How does this vary across
projects? By region, state, urban/rural status, etc.?
(4) How do federal Even Start expenditures compare to federal expenditures for Head Start and Adult Education? In total? Per project? Per family?
(5) What services are provided with federal Even Start funds? How do other related programs use their funds?
The federal cost per project is calculated by using federal-level data on total program expenditures and the total number of
2
projects funded. Different estimates of federal per-project spending are derived when the calculation is based on aggregates of data supplied by individual projects. For example, the federal cost per project for 1995 is $179,726 when based on federal-level data, compared to $163,712 when based on project-level data. The difference is primarily due to nonresponse and missing project-level data.
1. HOW MUCH DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SPEND ON THE EVEN START PROGRAM, BY YEAR?
Data to address this question comes from U.S. Department of Education administrative records of annual appropriations for the Even Start program. Federal Even Start expenditures by year from the start of the program in 1989 through 1997 are shown in Exhibit 1. The data show that the program grew dramatically from its inception up to 1995, followed by level funding from 1995 to the present. Increased funding during Even Start’s early years was accompanied by
corresponding increases in the number of projects funded and in the total number of families served. During the 1994 reauthorization hearings, it was made clear that future increases in Even Start funding would be based upon the program having demonstrated progress with the families served.
2. HOW MUCH, ON AVERAGE, DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SPEND PER PROJECT? HOW DO FEDERAL EXPENDITURES VARY BY REGION, STATE, URBAN/RURAL STATUS, ETC.? HOW MUCH VARIATION IS THERE IN FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ACROSS PROJECTS?
Expenditures Per Project. We calculated average project-level federal expenditures by dividing the total federal funding for Even Start by the total number of projects funded. Doing so (see the fifth column in Exhibit 1) shows that federal per-project expenditures grew during the first three years of Even Start, from $192,368 in 1989 to $205,431 in 1991. During this period the program was administered at the federal level and overall program expenditures were growing each year. However, once annual funding for Even Start reached $50 million, administration of the program was turned over to the States, with State Even Start allocations determined on the basis of the Title I allocation formula. Once the States began administering the program, annual federal per-project expenditures declined, from $203,103 in 1992 to an estimated $144,569 in 1997. This likely reflects pressures on State agencies to expand the pool of grantees, at the same time that total federal funding leveled off.2
Variation Across Projects. Projects vary greatly in the amount of their annual Even Start grant. Exhibit 2 shows that the majority of projects (55 percent) have federal grants between $75,000 and $175,000, while 36 percent have federal grants between $175,000 and $275,000. On the other hand, about 4 percent of the projects report annual grants of less than $75,000, while 5 percent report annual grants over $275,000.
Exhibit 1: Annual Federal Even Start Expenditures, by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year (A) (B) (C) (C/A) (C/B)
N of N of Even Start Expenditure Expenditure Projects Families Expenditure Per Project Per Family
Federal Even Start Even Start Federal Federal 1989 76 2,460 $14,619,930 $192,368 $5,943 1990 122 6,596 $23,874,286 $195,691 $3,620 1991 239 14,900 $49,098,105 $205,431 $3,295 1992 340 16,518 $69,055,000 $203,103 $4,181 1993 439 29,400 $87,919,839 $200,273 $2,990 1994 476 28,500 $90,139,464 $189,369 $3,163 1995 560 30,001 $100,646,670 $179,726 $3,355 1996 (est.) 635 36,195 $100,620,040 $158,457 $2,780 1997 (est.) 696 39,672 $100,620,040 $144,569 $2,536
Sources: ED program data for funding and number of local grants; evaluation contractors (Abt Associates Inc., Pelavin Associates, Inc., and Fu Associates, Ltd.) for participants. Notes: 1. Federal Even Start expenditure excludes funds for technical assistance and evaluation
estimated at 1.35% per year.
2. Participant and project data for 1996 and 1997 are estimated based on prior patterns. The federal Even Start cost per project and cost per family are calculated by using federal-level data on the total program expenditures and the total number of projects funded, combined with project-level data on the total number of families served. Different estimates of federal per-project and per-family spending are derived when the calculation is based on aggregates of project-level data. For example, the federal Even Start cost per family for 1995 is $3,355 when based on federal-level expenditure data, compared to $2,689 when based on project-level data. The difference is primarily due to nonresponse and missing data at the project level.
3.6%
31.7%
23.7% 22.9%
13.1%
5%
Annual Federal $ (thousands, 1995-96)
<75 75-125 125-175 175-225 225-275 >275 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Exhibit 2: Distribution of Annual Federal Expenditures Per Even Start Project (1995-96)
Variation Across States and Regions. There also is variation between states in the average size of federal Even Start grants. Most states make average federal grants between $100,000 and $200,000, but there are 4 states in which the average grant is less than $100,000, and 10 other states in which the average grant is greater than $200,000. As shown in Exhibit 3, states in the Northeast ($189,000 average) and Midwest ($172,000 average) tend to give larger federal grants than states in the South ($155,000 average) and West ($150,000 average).
In-Kind Contributions and Other Resources. Even Start projects obtain substantial resources (e.g., matching funds, in-kind contributions, and the value of referred services) in addition to their federal Even Start funds, in order to deliver appropriate services to participating families. By law, Even Start projects are required to contribute 10 percent in matching funds during the first year of their grant, 20 percent in the second year, 30 percent in the third year, 40 percent in the fourth,
$188,692
$155,333
$172,439
$149,544
Region
Northeast South Midwest West
$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 $250,000 $275,000 $300,000
Exhibit 3: Average State Even Start Grant, by Region (1995-96)
and 50 percent in succeeding years. In 1995, the average federal grant of $163,712 (as reported by Even Start grantees) was augmented by an average of $122,507 in other resources to arrive at total resources of $286,219 per Even Start project. In 1995, on average, federal Even Start funds comprised 57 percent of the total resources used, and other funds comprised 43 percent. Note that this average figure does not distinguish between projects in their first or second year, on one hand, and those that have been operating for four or more, on the other.
$6,204 $3,669 $3,340 $4,238 $3,031 $3,206 $3,401 $2,818 $2,571 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
The cost per family is calculated by using federal-level data on total program expenditures combined with project-level data
3
on the total number of families served.. Different estimates of per-project spending are derived when the calculation is based on aggregates of data on expenditures supplied by individual projects. For example, the cost per family for 1995 is $3,355 when based on federal-level expenditure data, compared to $2,689 when based on project-level expenditure data. The difference is primarily due to nonresponse and missing data for project-level expenditures.
3. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE FEDERAL EXPENDITURE PER FAMILY? HOW DOES THIS VARY ACROSS PROJECTS? BY REGION, STATE, URBAN/RURAL STATUS, ETC.?
Federal Expenditures Per Family.3 Exhibit 4 shows that the average federal expenditure for a family participating in Even Start has declined over time, from a high of $6,204 in 1989 to a low Exhibit 4: Federal Even Start Expenditures per Family, 1989 to 1997
Note: The federal cost per family is calculated by using federal-level data on program expenditures combined with project-level data on the number of families served. Different estimates of federal per-project spending are derived when the calculation is based on aggregates of data supplied by individual projects. For example, the federal cost per family for 1995 is $3,355 when based on federal-level expenditure data, compared to $2,689 when based on project-level data. The difference is primarily due to nonresponse and missing project-level data.
of $2,571 (estimated) in 1997. While total federal expenditures for the Even Start program have grown over time (although level funded from 1995 - 1997), we have seen even larger increases in the number of families served each year.
This level of federal expenditure per family puts Even Start in the middle of the cost spectrum when compared to other programs that provide related sets of services. As a way to judge the magnitude of Even Start’s per-family federal costs, consider the per-family, per-year costs of a few related programs (see Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5
Summary of Program Expenditures
Program Name Family Per Year Source
Expenditures Per
Infant Health and Development Program $10,000 Ramey, 1994 Comprehensive Child Development $15,768 CSR, Incorporated, 1997 Program*
New Chance 8,300 Quint et al., 1994
Head Start* 4,746 ACYF, 1997
Child Survival/Fair Start 1,600 - 2,800 Larner et al., 1992 Nurse Home Visiting Program in Elmira, 2,300 Olds et al., 1993 NY
Avance Family Support and Educational 1,600 Johnson & Walker, 1991 Program
*CCDP and Head Start are federal programs. The expenditure per family per year reflects only the federal dollars spent on these programs, and therefore is comparable to the federal Even Start expenditures discussed in this paper. Other programs in this table are funded by foundations, states, or other sources. Even so, the expenditure per family per year reflects only the basic funding provided by the funding agency, and does not include matching funds, the cost of referral services, etc.
Cost comparisons are often difficult because the dollars allocated to social programs are used to buy very different sets of services. While these examples are not intended to provide an
exhaustive comparison of the costs incurred by similar social and educational programs, they illustrate that federal Even Start costs fall roughly in the middle when compared with other social and educational programs that have broadly similar aims, if not exactly the same services.
Variation Across Projects. Some Even Start projects spend relatively few federal dollars per family while other projects spent much more on a per-family basis. Almost 40 percent of the
projects are in the $1,000 to $3,000 per family range, while an additional 35 percent are in the $3,000 to $5,000 range (Exhibit 6). However, about 3 percent of all projects spent less than
2.6%
38.9%
35%
13.7%
9.8%
Federal Project-Level Expenditure Per Family
<$1,000 $1-3,000 $3-5,000 $5-7,000 $7,000+ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Exhibit 6: Distribution of Project-Level Annual Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family
$1,000 per family, while about 10 percent of all projects spent over $7,000 per family. Such wide variation in federal expenditures per family reaffirms that Even Start projects took very different approaches to organizing and implementing services. It also suggests that there are wide project-to-project differences in access to federal and non-federal resources outside of Even Start. For example, some projects used locally-available adult education and early childhood education services, while others had to provide those services using their federal Even Start funds.
Comparisons with other social programs show that this amount of variation between projects is not unusual. For New Chance, project-level costs ranged from a low of $4,758 per family to a high of $16,846 across 16 projects. In CCDP, federal costs ranged from $10,253 to $23,045 per family across 10 program sites.
$2,809
$2,469
$3,193
$2,678
Region
Northeast South Midwest West
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000
As a first step at explaining variation in costs across projects we examined the bivariate
relationships between federal project-level costs and several other project-level variables that we hypothesized would be related to costs.
Federal per-family expenditures vary across states, from less than $1,000 per family in 4 states to more than $4,000 per family in 7 states. There also are regional differences in federal cost per family, just as there are regional differences in the federal grant amount given to projects. Exhibit 7 shows that projects in the South spend the least amount of federal funds per family ($2,469), followed by the West ($2,678), the Northeast ($2,809), and the Midwest ($3,193). These are substantial differences--projects in the Midwest spend almost 30 percent more per family in federal Even Start funds than projects in the South. Some of this is due to the fact that projects in the Midwest and Northeast generally have larger Even Start grants than projects in the South and West (see Exhibit 3).
$8,485 $4,694 $3,552 $2,506 $2,247 $1,539
Number of Families Served
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+ $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000
As might be expected, projects that serve large numbers of families do so at a lower federal cost per family (Exhibit 8). In particular, projects that serve 100 or more families do so at a federal cost of $1,539 per family, while projects that serve 20 or fewer families spend an average of $8,485 in federal Even Start funds per family.
Least Most
$3,814 $4,354
$3,635 $4,103
Degree of Use of Existing Services
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
The extent to which projects rely on existing service agencies seems unrelated to federal costs. It might be expected that projects that provided their own services would expend more of their federal dollars on each family than projects that delegate or share responsibility for providing services to a cooperating agency, but this does not appear to be the case (Exhibit 9).
Exhibit 9: Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family, by Degree of Use of Existing Services (projects categorized into quartiles)
Least integration Most integration
$4,097
$3,616 $3,871
$4,350
Extent of Service Integration
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
The relationship between federal cost per family and the extent to which core services are integrated is shown in Exhibit 10. Projects in which core services are least integrated and projects in which core services are most integrated seem to have higher federal per-family costs than projects with “medium” levels of integration. This could occur because a lack of integration might indicate a disorganized and inefficient project, while a high degree of integration might simply be difficult and hence expensive to attain.
Exhibit 10: Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family, by Extent of Service Integration (projects categrorized into quartiles)
<150 150-300 300-425 >425
$4,023 $4,108
$3,953 $3,697
Total Hours of Care Service
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
We might hypothesize that the total hours of core services offered by a project ought to be related to the federal cost per family. Exhibit 11 provides limited evidence supporting this hypothesis: projects offering a total of less than 150 hours per month of core services have the lowest federal per family cost (about $3,700). On the other hand, projects offering 300 or more hours of core services per month have federal per-family costs of over $4,000.
Exhibit 11: Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family, by Total Hours of Core Service (projects categorized into quartiles)
Least Need Most Need
$3,612 $4,185
$3,913 $4,346
Need for Support Services
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
Another measure of the services offered by local projects is the extent to which Even Start families need various types of support services. Exhibit 12 shows that there seems to be some relationship between the need for support services and federal per-family costs, such that projects serving families with the greatest needs for support services spend the least federal dollars on a per-family basis. The explanation for this finding is not clear--it could be that projects with families that require the most support services also are projects that delegate responsibility for provision of core services to external agencies, thus lowering their federal per-family costs.
Exhibit 12: Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family, by Need for Support Services (projects categorized into quartiles)
Least Needy Most Needy
$3,828 $3,706
$4,006 $3,878
Family Need Index
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
Finally, we might hypothesize that the socio-economic needs of families are related to federal family costs. In general we find that this is not the case. Exhibit 13 shows that federal per-family costs seem to be unrelated to the per-family need index (a measure of socio-economic disadvantage). This may be due to the fact that Even Start projects are mandated to serve the “most in need” families, so that there is no reason for projects to make need-based distinctions. Exhibit 13: Federal Even Start Expenditure per Family, by Family Need Index
(projects categorized into quartiles)
4. HOW DO FEDERAL EVEN START EXPENDITURES COMPARE TO FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR HEAD START AND ADULT EDUCATION? IN TOTAL? PER PROJECT? PER FAMILY? Head Start. Head Start is a much larger program than Even Start. In FY 1997, total federal spending on Head Start was almost $4 billion (ACYF, 1997) compared with spending on Even Start of $102 million. In terms of total federal expenditures, Even Start is about 2.5 percent the size of Head Start.
Head Start grantees also receive much larger annual grants than Even Start grantees. The average Head Start grantee received about $2.76 million in federal funding in 1995, compared to about $182,000 in federal funding for the average Even Start grantee.
On a per-family basis, federal Even Starts costs have declined over the past decade, from about $3,700 per family in 1990 to an estimated $2,600 per family in 1997 (see Exhibit 14). At the same time, Head Start’s federal per-family costs have increased from about $2,900 per family in
Exhibit 14
Federal Per-Family Expenditures: Even Start and Head Start
Fiscal N of Expenditure N of Expenditure Year Families Per Family Families Per Family
Even Start Head Start
Federal Federal
Even Start Head Start
1989 2,460 $6,024 450,970 $2,739 1990 6,596 $3,669 540,930 $2,869 1991 14,900 $3,340 583,471 $3,345 1992 16,518 $4,238 621,078 $3,545 1993 29,400 $3,031 713,903 $3,889 1994 28,500 $3,206 740,493 $4,489 1995 30,001 $3,401 750,696 $4,708 1996 36,195 (est.) $2,818 (est.) 752,077 $4,746 1997 39,672 (est.) $2,571 (est.) na na
Source: Even Start data are from ED program statistics; Head Start data are from Head Start Statistical Fact Sheet, ACYF (1997).
Note: The federal cost per family is calculated by using federal-level data on program expenditures combined with project-level data on the number of families served. Different estimates of federal per-project spending are derived when the calculation is based on aggregates of data supplied by individual projects. For example, the full cost per family for 1995 is $3,401 when based on federal-level expenditure data, compared to $2,689 when based on project-level data. The difference is primarily due to nonresponse and missing project-project-level data.
This calculation treats each Head Start child as representing one family because there are rarely two children from a given
4
family participating in Head Start at the same time.
1990 to $4,700 per family in 1996 . The decline in Even Start’s federal cost per family can be4 attributed to a variety of factors: projects may have matured and become more efficient, projects may be doing a better job of using existing services, or perhaps projects are being pushed by States to “do more with less.” On the other hand, the increase in federal Head Start costs per family are attributable to substantial increases in program funding during the early 1990s, which were used primarily to improve the quality of existing programs and services and secondarily to serve more children, but not to increase the number of grantees.
Adult Education and Job Training. In 1992, the federal government spent about $235 million on adult education programs (adult basic education, adult secondary education, ESL programs). These funds were augmented by state expenditures of $810 million, so that total federal and state expenditures for adult education topped $1 billion (Moore & Stavrianos, 1995). This makes adult education about 10 times the size of Even Start.
Many estimates are available for the per-participant cost of adult education/job training programs. Basic adult education programs funded by the federal government cost quite little compared to most of the programs discussed so far: Pugsley (1990) estimated annual per-student expenditures to be $160 (in 1987), while Development Associates (1994) estimated the average per-student cost to be $258, with most states spending between $100 and $500 per participant. Costs for Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training programs range from $100 to $1,000 per
participant for less comprehensive programs (Gueron & Pauly, 1991) up to $1,400 to $3,900 per participant for more comprehensive versions (Maynard, 1993; Burghardt & Gordon, 1990). California’s GAIN program costs about $3,000 per participant (Riccio, Freedlander & Freedman, 1994). Finally, GED programs implemented by community colleges have been estimated to cost an average of $250 per student, with ESL programs costing $154 per student (Hershey & Silverberg, 1993).
5. WHAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED WITH FEDERAL EVEN START FUNDS? HOW DO OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS USE THEIR FUNDS?
Functional cost data have not been collected about Even Start since the 1991-92 program year, when detailed cost data were collected from 10 projects that participated in the In-Depth Study component of the first national evaluation. These data allow us to describe the way in which Even Start funds were spent during that year. We recognize that allocations of resources may well have changed since then.
More than half (55 percent) of all federal Even Start funds were spent in the provision of core services: 31 percent for early childhood education, 15 percent for adult education, and 9 percent for parenting education (Exhibit 15). An additional 9 percent was spent on the provision of support services which are designed to enable families to participate in core service activities. Thus, almost two-thirds (64 percent) of projects' federal funds were spent on the direct provision of services. Remaining federal funds were spent for program administration and coordination (14
Exhibit reads: 31 percent of federal Even Start expenditures were incurred in the provision of early childhood education services.
percent), evaluation (10 percent), case management and recruiting (4 percent), and for a variety of other functions (8 percent) such as field trips, staff meetings, clean-up, and errands.
In 1991, the overall distribution of federal costs in Head Start projects was about 70 percent for direct service provision and 30 percent for other costs, with the largest categories being education (41 percent), administration (13 percent), and occupancy (13 percent).
In contrast to these allocations which are quite similar in terms of the percentage used for direct service delivery, other programs make different uses of their federal funds. For example, New Chance emphasized child care (29 percent of federal funds were spent on child care) and case management (27 percent); while CCDP allocated 43 percent of their federal personnel costs on “direct intervention services” and 57 percent on “program support services.”
SUMMARY OF EVEN START FEDERAL COST INFORMATION
There is great variation in federal expenditures across Even Start projects, both in total and on a per-family basis. But Even Start is not unique in this respect, and other social and educational programs also exhibit substantial federal cross-project cost variability.
Variation in project-level federal costs is related both to structural factors (e.g., region, state) and to programmatic factors (e.g., number of families served, extent to which services are provided by collaborating agencies).
Compared to other social and educational programs, Even Start falls in the middle in terms of amount of federal dollars spent on a per-family basis. In 1991-92, Even Start and Head Start projects each allocated about two-thirds of their federal funds for direct service delivery. On the basis of the data we have available, then, we have been able to describe federal costs of Even Start and to learn about its costs in relation to other educational programs. If we were to conduct a study focusing specifically on an analysis of federal costs of Even Start, we would have to collect additional data than were collected as part of the Even Start Information System. For example, we would need to have federal-level data on the amount of Even Start monies that are awarded to each state, and further, to be able to distinguish between such categories of funding as grants, technical assistance, state administrative costs, and technical assistance. Further, in order to validate what local projects report, having another source of information about the actual federal grant would be quite useful.
Because individual states play a critical role in funding decisions, it would be important to collect some state-level financial data as well, including the amount of federal funding (passed through individual states) received by projects, on an annual basis. This would allow us to examine trends in funding over time. Obtaining information on matching funds on an annual basis would allow us to describe, and possibly to predict, relationships between project maturity and sources of
funding.
During the first national evaluation of Even Start, as part of the In-Depth Study (IDS), we collected detailed time-use and costing information from the 10 IDS projects. This kind of detailed cost-by-function and indirect cost data allowed us to determine how both federal and matching funds are spent locally on different core instructional and support services. We
anticipate that we will collect some comparable information in the Experimental Study component of the third national evaluation of Even Start. Finally, in order to link project costs with specific project characteristics, we would need to be able to link up any cost data with the kinds of project data routinely collected in a management information system such as the ESIS or the Even Start Performance Information Reporting System (ESPIRS).
REFERENCES
ACYF (1997). Project Head Start statistical fact sheet. Washington, DC: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Burghardt, J. & Gordon, A. (1990). More jobs and higher pay: How an integrated program compares with traditional programs. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.
CSR, Incorporated (1997). Comprehensive Child Development Program: Process Evaluation Final Report. Washington, D.C.
Development Associates, Inc. (1994). National evaluation of Adult Education Programs: Draft final report. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.
Gueron, J. & Pauly, E. (1991). From welfare to work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hershey, A. & Silverberg, M. (1993). Costs of mandatory education and training programs for teenage parents on welfare: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Johnson, D. & Walker, T. (1991). Final report of an evaluation of the Avance parent education and family support program. Report submitted to the Carnegie Corporation. San Antonio, TX: Avance.
Larner, M., Halpern, R. & Harkavy, O. (1992). Fair Start for children: Lessons learned from seven demonstration projects. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Maynard, R. (1993). Building self-sufficiency among welfare-dependent teenage parents: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Moore, M. & Stavrianos, M. (June 1995). Review of adult education programs and their effectiveness: A background paper for reauthorization of the Adult Education Act. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Olds, D., Henderson, C., Phelps, C., et al. (1993). Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending. Medical Care, 31(2): 155-174.
Pugsley, R. (1990). Vital statistics: Who is served by the Adult Education Program. Washington, DC: Division of Adult Education and Literacy, U.S. Department of Education.
Quint, J., Polit, D., Bos, H. & Cave, G. (1994). New Chance: Interim findings on a comprehensive program for disadvantaged young mothers and their children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Ramey, C. (1994). Personal communication. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama.
Riccio, J., Friedlander, D., & Freedman, S. (1994). GAIN: Benefits, costs, and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
St.Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., Murray, S., Deck, D. & Nickel, P. (January 1995). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Tao, F., Swartz, J., St.Pierre, R., & Tarr, H. (January 1997). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1995 interim report. Alexandria, VA: Fu Associates, Ltd.
