EARLY HEAD START
WHAT IS EARLY HEAD START AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded program that serves pregnant women and infants, toddlers, and their caregivers in families with low incomes.1 Families are eligible to participate in EHS if their incomes are at or below 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and local grantees may serve additional families depending on community need.
Although EHS is primarily a federal-to-local program, states play a crucial role in EHS policymaking. Specifically, states can allocate funds to support local EHS programs, leverage federal funding as EHS-Child Care Partnership grantees, or administer state-specific programs that are similar to EHS.
EHS promotes healthy social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development in young children, helps parents develop positive parenting skills and move toward self-sufficiency goals, and brings together community partners and resources to provide families with comprehensive services and support.2
Early Head Start Is Delivered in Various Formats to Promote Child and Family Wellbeing
Early Head Start can be home-based, center-based, focused on family child care, or an alternative locally-designed approach. Each format approaches the goal of child wellbeing and healthy development differently. By providing comprehensive services to the family, including mental and physical health services to children and a variety of supports to parents, EHS aims to bolster the child’s social support through family members.3
Home-Based Early Head Start Supports Parents, Promoting Child Development Indirectly
EHS home-based services include weekly home visits and group activities for families to promote parents’ skills and knowledge, thereby supporting healthy child development.1 These services aim to improve parents’ knowledge of child development, warm and responsive caregiving skills, social support, coping mechanisms, and problem-solving skills, as well as connect families to community and health resources during the prenatal and early childhood period. As a result, home-based EHS can promote positive short-term child wellbeing outcomes4 and long-term developmental trajectories in children,5 and buffer the long-term negative effects of childhood stress and adversity.6
Center-Based Early Head Start Impacts Children Directly Through High-Quality Classroom Environments and Teacher-Child Interactions
EHS center-based services take place in classroom settings within a child care center or school and generally include at least 1,380 hours of care, education, and child development services annually.1 Early care and education (ECE) environments have the potential to impact children by providing high-quality classroom environments that can lead to improved child outcomes (e.g., school readiness).7 Early Head Start ECE environments include direct support to children through their classroom context (e.g., evidence-based curricula, physical environment) and indirect supports through quality teacher-child interactions (fostered by small group sizes, low child-to-adult ratios, and high teacher qualifications).8,9,10
Search the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Clearinghouse for an ongoing inventory of rigorous evidence reviews, including more information on Early Head Start.
WHAT IMPACT DOES EARLY HEAD START HAVE AND FOR WHOM?
Early Head Start enhances children’s wellbeing by providing safe settings in which nurturing and responsive relationships with parents and teachers may grow. Early Head Start also improves parent health and emotional wellbeing, promotes access to good quality child care, and improves indicators of healthy child development (e.g., reducing behavior problems, improving language and vocabulary skills).
More Research Is Needed to Determine the Potential for Early Head Start to Reduce Disparities
Although no strong causal evidence evaluates the effectiveness of EHS at reducing disparities in outcomes between groups by race and ethnicity, research demonstrates that Black families benefit the most from EHS, in absolute terms, relative to their nonparticipant counterparts, particularly in terms of child-parent relationships and optimal child health and development.11
Additional research is needed to explore how EHS participation impacts development for both children of color and White children, and whether EHS helps to narrow racial and ethnic gaps in developmental outcomes.
For more information on what we know and what we still need to learn about Early Head Start, see the evidence review on Early Head Start.
WHAT IS THE KEY POLICY LEVER TO SUPPORT EARLY HEAD START?
In contrast to the evidence for the four state-level policies that are included in this Roadmap, the current evidence base does not identify a specific policy lever that states should adopt and fully implement to provide access to EHS to all children who are eligible.
The key state policy lever to increase access to EHS is to:
- Provide state support for EHS programs by serving as an Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) grantee, directing state funds to local EHS programs, and/or creating a state-specific program similar to EHS.
Key Policy Lever: Provide State Funding Support for EHS
States can adopt any combination of three approaches to support EHS. States can choose to leverage federal dollars with state matching funds as an EHS-CCP grantee, thereby layering funding with state child care subsidy programs. States can also use general fund dollars to provide additional funding to local EHS programs. Finally, states can choose to create, fund, and implement a state-specific program with similar standards as EHS. Currently, 20 states implement at least one strategy to fund EHS, with the District of Columbia and Oregon leveraging two methods.
Serve as an EHS-CCP Grantee
States can leverage federal funding by acting as EHS-CCP grantees and contributing a state match to participate in the program. The EHS-CCP program brings together EHS programs and child care providers who participate in the Child Care and Development Fund (child care subsidy program) by layering program funding. Participating child care providers must meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, which should ensure high-quality care and education and access to comprehensive services for participating children.12
Only five states (Alabama, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Georgia) are EHS-CCP grantees. These states vary in how they use their funds, including providing additional funding to increase per-child payments to child care partners, running regional hub models to provide services and supports to child care partners, and improving the quality of care children receive. Although Connecticut is not a federal EHS-CCP grantee, the state allocates funds to support local EHS-CCP grantees.
Allocate Funding to Directly Support Local EHS Programs
Only 13 states invest state funds directly in local EHS programs. These states facilitate the additional infusion of EHS funding through state statute and through line-item or department-specific budget allocations.
Whereas some states dedicate funds to serve a larger number of eligible children, other states set aside funds to increase pay for EHS staff, to extend the hours that EHS is available throughout the day, to improve program quality, or to aid local programs so they can meet the non-federal share matching requirement of 20%. These state funds can fill critical service gaps and strengthen overall program quality; and state investments in EHS are a critical way to improve outcomes for eligible children and families.
Additionally, states may choose to leverage other federal funding sources to support the expansion of EHS slots within their states (e.g., through the use of the Child Care Development Fund, Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program funds, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five funds).
Create and Support a State-Specific Program Similar to EHS
States may also choose to create, fund, and implement a state-specific program similar to EHS. Currently, we are aware of five states that have taken this approach, including Arkansas (Arkansas Better Chance Program), Illinois (Illinois Prevention Initiative), Nebraska (Sixpence Early Learning Fund), Oregon (Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten Program), and Washington (Early ECEAP). These state-specific programs are typically designed with similar eligibility criteria, quality performance standards, and program structures as EHS.
For more information on the state policy levers to expand access to Early Head Start see our State Policy Lever Checklists.
HOW DOES ACCESS TO EARLY HEAD START VARY ACROSS STATES?
States vary considerably in the percentage of income-eligible children under age 3 who are served by EHS. Although access is typically driven by local grantees within a state, states can improve the share of eligible children with access to EHS by providing supplemental funding to EHS.
Because of state policy choices, the share of income-eligible children with access to EHS programs across states ranges from only 4.7% of income-eligible children in Nevada to 54.7% in the District of Columbia, the highest in the nation. In two states, approximately half of income-eligible children have access to EHS (the District of Columbia and Vermont). In contrast, fewer than 10% of income-eligible children have access to EHS in 21 states.
These numbers do not include the percentage of children who are served by state-specific programs in Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington, and therefore the percent of eligible children in those states who receive EHS or similar services is higher than what is presented in the figure.
WHAT PROGRESS HAVE STATES MADE IN THE LAST YEAR TO INCREASE ACCESS TO EARLY HEAD START?
In the last year, several states have made significant strides in their investment and expansion of access to EHS programs. Legislators in Connecticut established a state-funded grant to enhance program quality, increase the number of children served, and extend operational hours for both Head Start and EHS programs. In Alaska, the legislature allocated an additional $2.6 million from the general fund, bringing the total funding for Head Start and EHS programs in the state to $9.4 million for Fiscal Year 2025. Massachusetts appropriated $18.5 million in state funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025—a $1 million increase from the previous year.
Legislators in 11 states (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin) maintained funding levels similar to those of the previous fiscal year.
Additionally, several states have continued to support longer-term EHS programs and models. In Illinois and Oregon, well-established state-specific programs remain robust and continue to receive support. Legislators in Arkansas appropriated $114 million for FY 2025 for the Arkansas Better Chance Program, whereas Nebraska allocated $7.5 million to support the Sixpence Early Learning Fund.
In August 2024, the federal government amended the Head Start Program Performance Standards to improve wages, benefits, and wellness supports for staff; strengthen mental health services for children, families, and staff; and improve the quality of services provided. By focusing on these areas, the rule underscores the importance of continued program improvements and the essential role of Head Start and EHS educators in delivering high-quality care for children and families.
The Office of Head Start acknowledges that implementation of these changes absent additional funding could place significant pressure on local Head Start agencies and potentially reduce the number slots available for both Head Start and EHS. In response, the rule authorizes a waiver if average appropriations for Head Start increase by less than 1.3% on average for a 4-year period. Sustained additional funding will be essential as Head Start agencies move towards adoption of the rule.
For more information on each state’s progress on Early Head Start, find our individual state summaries under Additional Resources below (and here).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
NOTES AND SOURCES
- Head Start Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center. (2024, May 20). Early Head Start programs. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/early-head-start-programs
- Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center, Office of Head Start. (2024, May 20). About the Early Head Start program. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/about-early-head-start-program
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press; Brofenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 1, Theoretical Models of Human Development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utxa/detail.action?docID=258892
- Raikes, H. H., Roggman, L. A., Peterson, C. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chazan-Cohen, R., Zhang, X., & Schiffman, R. F. (2014). Theories of change and outcomes in home-based Early Head Start programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.003
- Sweet, M.A. & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home-visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75(5), 1435-1456. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00750.x
- National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2015). Supportive relationships and active skill-building strengthen the foundations of resilience [Working paper no.13]. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/supportive-relationships-and-active-skill-building-strengthen-the-foundations-of-resilience/
- Burchinal, M., Magnuson, K., Powell, D., & Soliday Hong, S. L. (2015). Early child care and education. In (7th ed.). R. M. Lerner, M. H. Bornstein, & T. Leventhal (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science: Vol. 4, (pp. 223–267). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Public Health Association (APHA), National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (NRC). (2019). Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards; Guidelines for early care and education programs. 4th ed. Itasca, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. https://nrckids.org/CFOC
- Institute of Medicine. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9824
- NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (ECCRN) (2002). Child-care structure – Process – Outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science 12(3), 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00438
- Raikes, H. H., Vogel, C., & Love, J. M. (2013). IV. Family subgroups and impacts at ages 2, 3, and 5: Variability by race/ethnicity and demographic risk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(1), 64–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2012.00703.x [Early Head Start Evidence Review Study S]
- Early Childhood Development, Administration for Children and Families. (2020, November 4). Early Head Start—Child Care Partnerships. Early Childhood Development, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/early-learning/ehs-cc-partnerships
