Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

HEADSTART PROGRAM

The Headstart program is authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act to provide comprehensive developmental services to disadvantaged preschool children. Since its inception in 1965, Headstart has provided health, educational, nutritional, and social services to some 6 million children and their families in every U.S. State and territory. Launched by the Office of Economic Opportunity, it is now administered by the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In fiscal year 1977, Headstart served 349,000 children through 1,233 full year grantees, 161 summer grantees, and 33 parent and child centers. The program employed nearly 68,000 professionals and nonprofessionals and enlisted the services of about 95,000 volunteers, including many parents. Ten percent of enrollment opportunities in each State are made available to handicapped children. In fiscal year 1976, Headstart served approximately 32,000 handicapped children in its full year programs.

To achieve its goals, Headstart provides not only for the educational needs of the children, but also for their social, psychological, health, and nutritional requirements. Recognizing the major role of the family in child development, Headstart has pioneered in the area of parent involvement-providing low-income parents an opportunity to help plan and implement local Headstart programs. In many cases, Headstart provides training and jobs for parents at the centers, helping them work their way out of poverty and, often, achieve professional status.

Headstart has also launched a series of innovative projects which have had influence on the child development field across the country. About 11,000 Headstart children are enrolled in innovative demonstrations projects.

For 12 years the Headstart program has played a major role in focusing the attention of the nation on the importance of early childhood development, especially in the first five years of life. In many ways, the program has had a dramatic impact on the child development field nationwide: serving as a model for many other child development programs, public and private; pioneering in the delivery of health services to disadvantaged preschool children; focusing attention on the importance of parent involvement; and impacting on community efforts for low-income families.

Headstart children benefit from the program in a variety of ways. Data concerning the program's short-term and long-term effectiveness support the following conclusions based on Headstart research since 1969:

1. Headstart has been effective in preparing children for later reading achievement. Headstart participants perform equal to or better than their peers when they begin regular school and there are fewer grade retentions and special class placements.

2. The majority of studies show improvement in performance on standardized tests of intelligence or general ability.

3. Headstart positively contributes to the development of emotionally mature behavior. Studies of self-concept have been favorable when programs operate with a high degree of parent participation.

4. The research has revealed lower absenteeism, fewer cases of anemia, more immunizations, better nutritional practices, and, in general, better health among children who had participated in Headstart.

Further, research and evaluations of preschool intervention programs support the Headstart findings and reveal sustained effects of early intervention beyond the third grade.

Many Headstart programs are operated or administered by community action agencies. In many instances Headstart grantees and community action agencies work closely in attempting to help the community's institutions meet the needs of low-income children and families.

FOLLOW THROUGH PROGRAM

The Follow Through Program was one of the original programs started by President Johnson in the Office of Economic Opportunity. The program was designed as a developmental program for lowincome, disadvantaged children and was intended to "follow-through" or sustain and expand upon the gains made by children in Headstart or similar preschool programs. The original plan for the program called for appropriations of $120 million in the first year. When the amount of money available for poverty programs proved to be less than had been expected, the design of and plans for the Follow Through Program had to be scaled down. As a result, Follow Through was modified to become a research program which began operation at a $15 million funding level in school year 1967-68.

Follow Through is based on the concept of planned variation utilizing different educational and developmental models, each of which has developed an approach to the education of disadvantaged children in kindergarten through third grade. The program emphasizes community and parental involvement and encourages the focusing of available local, State, and Federal resources on low-income persons.

The local programs (there is at least one program in 49 of the 50 states) are comprehensive in scope and directly focus on various aspects of child learning and development. This includes instruction, medical and dental health, nutrition, psychological and social services, staff development, and career advancement,

In the school year 1976-77, approximately 4,000 Follow Through classrooms enrolled more than 75,000 children from low-income families (50 percent black, 14 percent Spanish surnamed, 30 percent white, 5 percent Indian). Approximately 7,500 paraprofessionals were employed in the program, the majority of whom were parents of Follow Through children.

Since 1974, the Follow Through Program has been authorized, under Title V, Part B (Financial Assistance for Follow Through Programs), of the Economic Opportunity Act, at a funding level of $60 million.

For three consecutive years from 1974-1976, the previous Administration attempted to phaseout the program. Each time the Congress refused to accept a phaseout. The current Administration is recommending such a phaseout again.

Unlike the Headstart Program, which is administered by the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, the Follow Through Program is administered by the Office of Education (OE). OE has viewed the program as a means by which various educational models could be tested with the intent of finding one model that would be successful nationwide. After spending several million dollars on the evaluation of the various models, the OE evaluation reached the conclusion that there was no one approach to early childhood education that would work universally.

It appears that OE in its evaluation of the program failed to recognize that Follow Through was intended to be a comprehensive child development program which would focus on all aspects of child development and seek to maintain the gains accomplished by preschool programs. However, the local programs have attempted to recognize the comprehensive nature of the programs, as well as the program's emphasis on community and parental involvement, including education of and employment of parents.

In the communities where a Follow Through Program operates, the children participating in the program, the parents and the community have benefited significantly from the many developmental services the program provides.

NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAM

The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is charged with serving the 1.4 million American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians who together rank lowest among special population groups on most measures of health, education, and socioeconomic well-being. The Native American Program is authorized under Title VIII of the Economic Opportunity Act. ANA provides financial and technical assistance to Indian tribes and groups to increase their economic and social self-sufficiency. Financial support has been provided primarily to create an administrative structure at the tribal or local level which serves as a catalyst for obtaining and managing a broad range of programs to meet the needs of the Native American population. In fiscal year 1978, $33 million was provided for the Native American Program and 219 programs were funded by ANA.

During the past year ANA instituted a number of improvements in its management system. Regulations were published, new grant and contract review procedures were established, evaluation standards were developed, and an internal reorganization to increase accountability was initiated.

Programmatically, ANA provides grant support to 110 tribal organizations, 68 urban Indian organizations, and one Native Hawaiian consortium. All grantees provide administrative, social, and community services to Native American residents. Programs funded by other agencies but administered by ANA grant-funded personnel include housing, health, nutrition, manpower, outreach, services for senior citizens, alcoholism, day care, and Headstart.

Grantees have been particularly successful in generating additional resources. The 68 urban centers receive $5.4 million annually through ANA and have been able to attract an additional $31.5 million in other programs and services.

ANA has attempted to mobilize other agencies' resources to develop services targeted to the needs of Native Americans, as in the case of the community health representative program of the Indian Health Service, the development of Indian community colleges and Indiancontrolled schools, and the initiation of a special program for aged Indians.

The programs of the ANA fall under three main categories: General Community Programming, Training and Technical Assistance, and Research and Evaluation. The programs funded are many and varied including: food and nutrition, health education, family planning, senior citizens services, adult education, arts and crafts development, and Indian-owned and operated housing construction companies. They also include many economic development programs such as environmental farming, cutting and sale of timber products, fishing rights, gem stone mining and stone polishing, and coal mining. Training and technical assistance programs are in manpower training, financial management, proposal writing grantsmanship, management development, reporting and evaluation. Research and evaluation programs are in the areas of census use studies, planning and management tools and techniques, and urban Indian Centers service delivery.

Many local grantees are organized and operate in their Native American communities much like community action agencies. These grantees maintain the basic community action philosophy of helping people help themselves, and through participation with the CAA's in statewide anti-poverty associations and joining in the planning and delivery of services for CSA programs such as Community Food and Nutrition and Energy Conservation and Home Weatherization. PART II: SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS CONCERNING PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE EOA

The purpose of Part Two of this report is to provide the Members of the Subcommittee with a review and analysis of various reports and investigations which have been issued or conducted within the past two years concerning management problems, abuses, and recommended reforms in the Community Services Administration (CSA). Problems in other programs authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act also are reviewed.

While the attempts of the Nixon Administration to dismantle the federal anti-poverty agencv did not succeed, they left the agency fragmented, poorly managed, and demoralized.

President Nixon's budget message in January 1973, announced that OEO would be closed out as of June 30, 1973. Howard Phillips was President Nixon's choice to head the agency and preside over the planned dismantling. To carry out this mission, Phillips wrote an internal OEO memorandum which discussed strategies for handling Congress while the dismantling of OEO was accomplished. It said, in part, "Thus unless a focus on OEO is politically desirable, program transfers and shutdowns should be prompt, before the opposition musters strength (or will) to put Humpty Dumpty together again." The memorandum called for "a swift and successful dismemberment" of OEO by June 30th, before there was time for "congressional opposition to gather and develop a legislative counter-strategy."

Since January of 1976, there have been eight reports or investigations by Congressional Committees, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity regarding the administration and management of programs authorized under Titles I, II, III, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Economic Opportunity Act. The reports are enumerated below in chronological order:

The January 1976 Report of the House Government Operations Committee entitled "Management Deficiences in CSA" (the Hicks Report);

The Ninth Report of the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity in March of 1977;

The August 1977 Report of the House Government Operations Committee entitled "Establishment of Offices of Inspector General in Certain Executive Departments and Agencies" (the Fountain Report);

The August 1977 Report of the House Government Operations Committee entitled "Major Reforms Needed in the Community Services Administration" (the first Collins Report);

The September 1977 Report of the Congressional Research Service entitled "Distribution of Formula Grant Funds Under the Headstart Program" (the CRS Report);

The October 1977 Report of the Comptroller General entitled "National Organizations Which Support the Community Action Program" (the GAO Report);

The October 1977 House Government Operations Committee Report entitled "Operations of CSA-Supported Anti-Poverty Associations" (the second Collins Report); and

The ongoing investigation by the GAO concerning the operations of Community Development Corporations under Title VII of the Act (the GAO-CDC Report).

These reports detailed a wide variety of management deficiencies as well as some abuses which have occurred at the Federal, State, and local levels. Each has included recommendations for correcting the identified problems.

This section summarizes the findings of the various reports according to the following categories:

(a) Organization and Management;

(b) Fiscal Program and Grantee Administration;
(c) Community Economic Development;

(d) Advocacy; and

(e) CSA-Supported Anti-poverty Associations.

The summary in each category also details the recommendations made in each report, the responses of the agency to those recommendations, and any additional recommendations of the staff of the Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor Subcommittee.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Deficiencies in the organization and management of the Community Services Administration were detailed in three reports: the Hicks Report; the August 1977 Collins Report (first Collins Report); and the 1977 Report of the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »