EARLY HEAD START
WHAT IS EARLY HEAD START AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded program that 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.1
Early Head Start serves pregnant women and infants, toddlers, and their caregivers in families with low incomes.2 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 can 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 similar to EHS.
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. Early Head Start aims to bolster children’s social support by providing comprehensive services to families, including mental and physical health services to children and a variety of supports to parents.3
Home-Based EHS Supports Parents, Promoting Child Development Indirectly
Home-based EHS 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 EHS Impacts Children Directly Through High-Quality Classroom Environments and Teacher-Child Interactions
Center-based EHS 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.2 Center-based 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
Center-based EHS includes 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 EHS 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?
The current evidence base does not clearly identify a specific policy lever that states should adopt to ensure access to EHS for all children who are eligible.
We identified one key policy lever that states can implement to increase access to EHS:
- 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, 19 states implement at least one strategy to fund EHS, and Delaware, the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, and Oregon leverage two methods.
Serve as an EHS-CCP Grantee
States can leverage federal funding by serving 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 four states (Alabama, California, Delaware, and the District of Columbia) are EHS-CCP grantees. Georgia previously served as a grantee through July 31, 2024. 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.
States can also support local EHS-CCP grant recipients without functioning as a state-level grantee. For example, Connecticut allocates state funds to support local EHS-CCP grantees. In Michigan, local EHS-CCP grantees may bill the state’s subsidy program for the full subsidy amount per child, including hours covered by EHS services.
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 assist local programs in meeting 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 may ultimately improve outcomes for eligible children and families.
Additionally, states may choose to leverage other federal funding sources to support the expansion of EHS slots (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 six states that have taken this approach, including Arkansas (Arkansas Better Chance Program), Delaware (State Funded Early Care and Education Program), Illinois (Illinois Prevention Initiative), Nebraska (Sixpence Early Learning Fund), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Early Childhood Program), and Oregon (Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten Program). These state-specific programs are typically designed with similar eligibility criteria, quality performance standards, and program structures as EHS
Washington’s Early Childhood Education Assistance Program exists in statute and served children through June 2025, but did not receive funding for the 2025-2026 school year. Additionally, Maine is implementing a pilot program, known as First4ME.
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. Though there are approximately 1.8 million children across the US that are income-eligible for EHS, the federal government funds only 185,000 slots. Access to EHS in a state is typically driven by local grantees, however, states can improve the share of eligible children with access to EHS by providing supplemental funding.
Because of state policy choices, the share of income-eligible children with access to EHS programs across states ranges from only 4.5% of income-eligible children in Nevada to 70% in the District of Columbia, the highest in the nation. In only two states (the District of Columbia and Vermont), over one-third of income-eligible children have access to EHS. In contrast, fewer than 10% of income-eligible children have access to EHS in 18 states.
These numbers do not include the percentage of children who were served by state-specific programs in Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, Oklahoma, 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?
3 States Increased State Funding for EHS
In the last year, state leaders have taken various approaches to supporting EHS. In Connecticut, legislators increased Head Start and EHS allocations for Fiscal Year 2026 to $5.8 million, an increase of approximately $800,000 from the prior year. Massachusetts similarly expanded its commitment, allocating $20 million for Head Start and EHS for FY2026—an increase of $1.5 million from the prior year. Oklahoma also increased funding by $195,000 for a total allocation of $2.2 million for FY2026. Â
Legislators in at least eight states (Alaska, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) maintained funding at prior-year levels. Minnesota’s legislature reduced Head Start and EHS allocations by $700,000 to approximately $34.4 million for FY2026. Similarly, the District of Columbia reduced EHS funding by $600,000 for a total of $1.7 million. In South Carolina, legislators introduced legislation to create a 5-year plan to provide universal access to Head Start and EHS for all eligible families, though the bill did not pass.
6 States Continued Funding for State-Specific Programs Similar to EHS
Additionally, several states have continued to support longer-term EHS programs and models. In Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Oregon, well-established state-specific programs continue to receive funding at the same level as the prior fiscal year. In Washington, however, the state removed all allocations for FY2026 for the Early Childhood Education Assistance Program, effectively closing the program for the 2025-2026 school year.
Recent Federal Action
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 enhance the quality of services provided. The rule authorizes a waiver if average appropriations for Head Start increase by less than 1.3% on average for a 4-year period. As federal funding remains unchanged, local EHS programs may face significant challenges in meeting the new standards.
Early Head Start has also faced uncertainty regarding federal funding in the last year. Congress was unable to reach a consensus on the FY2025 budget which led to three continuing resolutions to extend funding at FY2024 levels. In early 2025, the federal government announced a freeze in federal grants, which would have impacted local EHS grantees. After avoiding the funding freeze, programs experienced glitches with the funding website, which impacted providers’ access to funds.
Uncertainty continued into the FY2026 budget cycle, when a proposal to eliminate Head Start and EHS at the federal level raised concerns about the future of EHS for families, grantees, and states. Ultimately, the proposal failed, allowing programs to continue to serve children and families.
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
View our Policy Impact Calculator, which illustrates how policies, such as state minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, out-of-pocket child care expenses, taxes and tax credits, as well as federal nutrition benefits, interact to impact overall household resources.
NOTES AND SOURCES
- 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
- Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center. (2024, May 20). Early Head Start programs. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/early-head-start-programs
- 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. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674224575Â
- 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
