Restoring Head Start’s Children and Families First Mission 

Critics of the Trump administration’s proposed reforms to the federal Head Start program warn that they will gut the program’s comprehensive character. A new report being released today, however, shows that the erosion critics fear is already happening. 

Over the last decade, Head Start has not only served fewer children and families; many of those it does serve have received fewer services. The Obama administration’s 2016 regulations effectively accepted higher costs and fewer available slots in exchange for improved classroom quality and more intensive services for the children and families who remained. Instead, costs have risen, quality has not measurably improved, and the program’s defining wraparound character has been diluted. 

“Fewer Head Start Families Received Comprehensive Services and the Percentage of Families Receiving Services Also Declined for Many Categories” is a new report by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“Head Start really is about engaging the whole family and having these comprehensive services delivered to the family to wrap around and ensure that the child has the best opportunity in life. And this is really what makes Head Start Head Start,” Alex J. Adams, assistant secretary for Family Support at HHS, who leads the Administration for Children and Families, told me. 

Among the report’s findings: 

• Head Start served fewer children in FY25 (771,121) than FY16 (1,067,965), a 28 percent decrease in actual number of children and pregnant women served. . . .

• The total number of newly enrolled children who received required screenings within 45 days decreased by 38 percent (237,654 children) from FY16 to FY25, outpacing the decrease in total number of newly enrolled children (33 percent). . . .

• Since FY16, the number of enrollees receiving at least one family service fell by 89,228 families (13.2 percent). The volume and rates increased for some family services (e.g., substance use prevention, emergency/crisis intervention) and decreased for some (e.g., parenting education, health education).

• Of all the services examined in this brief, 67 percent diminished in volume over time while rates decreased across about 46 percent of the services.

While a few services did improve, the overall trajectory is clear: Head Start is serving fewer children and families, while providing fewer services and seeing greater staff turnover.

In other words, Head Start’s capacity to create the comprehensive environment at the heart of its mission has diminished: connecting families with pediatric care, reaching women before a child is born, and maintaining the consistent professional presence that can identify signs of a learning disability before a child’s needs go undiagnosed and unsupported. 

Head Start is not merely a federal preschool program. When it was established in 1965, the idea was to reach children — and their families — living in poverty and help nurture an environment in which fundamental needs would not get lost amid the stresses of life or the realities of bureaucratic programs. 

Speaking on the occasion of Head Start’s 40th anniversary, Sargent Shriver, one of the program’s principal architects, recalled that it was conceived as a “comprehensive program” encompassing “health, nutrition, education, and social services for children,” with parent participation as an essential element. 

Adams reiterated what Shriver insisted: “This is an important program. It’s some of our most vulnerable youth, and it’s some of our best early-childhood educators who have devoted their entire lives and careers to this.” 

Repeatedly, he emphasized that his criticism is not directed at the people doing the work: “I have nothing but absolute praise for the Head Start workers — the teachers, the teaching assistants, the navigators, the home visitors. What we’re saying to them is: We want to empower them and liberate them to do what they’re doing best.” 

“These people are doing the Lord’s work,” he added. “They truly are making a difference in the lives of children.”  

Speaking from his Washington, D.C., office decorated with his seven-year-old daughter’s artwork, Adams adds a personal note: “My wife’s grandma ran one of these programs in Blackfoot, Idaho, in the mid-sixties, right after the program passed. I get why people are passionate about this program.” 

Referring to the Obama and Biden changes in the program, Adams said: “A lot of times, good ideas on paper, good ideas in people’s minds, don’t translate into actual results. And again, this shows the high cost of good intentions.” 

“Let’s trust local leaders to make those decisions, and let’s hold them accountable for outcomes — kindergarten readiness and, importantly, access to comprehensive services,” Adams said.  

“If we continue on the status quo,” he said, “you are going to continue to have fewer kids in this program. You’re going to continue to have fewer services.” 

Reminding Head Start practitioners that the public comment period on the proposed rule remains open until October 6, Adams said: “We proposed a different approach. If there’s specific language that we need to add in, make that case — but don’t start from the premise that the status quo is working.” 

Adams is, unmistakably, a numbers man. During our interview, he pointed — as he has before — to the sticker on his phone: “Data is more important than opinion.” 

He cannot guarantee that the proposed reforms will work. But he wants the new rule to be judged by whether it helps Head Start reach more of the children and families living in poverty for whom the program was created — and whether it enables those delivering its services to do their work instead of inundating them with requirements that make the program increasingly burdensome to administer. 

The new report does not prove that the administration’s reforms will succeed. It does show that defending the regulatory status quo is not the same thing as defending Head Start’s comprehensive mission.  

Read more on the proposed Head Start reform here.