Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

FF 1003TRFF

Authors

FF 1003TRFF

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "FF_1003TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "456522" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(107104) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Head Start Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2003 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Head Start Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian September 2003 Overview The federal Head Start program was launched in 1965 as a short-term plan to prepare low-income preschool children for elementary school. After having served more than 20 million children, the program has evolved over the years and today offers a comprehensive array of early childhood development services, including literacy training, health and nutrition services, and social development and parental support services for low-income children and their families.1 Incorporating recent advances in child development and early education research, Head Start remains an innovative and respected program. Passed initially as the Head Start Act,2 the program was revised substantially by Congress in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.3 Among other things, that legislation added a “hold harmless” provision to mitigate funding reductions from one year to the next. With the Head Start Act Amendments of 1994, Congress expanded the program—initially intended to serve families with preschoolers ages 3 and 4—to include coverage for prenatal care and for children through age 4, thus adapting its mission to include provision of services to the youngest infants as well as pregnant mothers with physical and educational needs.4 That legislation also tightened performance standards, requiring that some grant recipients alter service delivery practices and forcing others out of the program entirely. Congress last overhauled the program with its passage of the Head Start Amendments of 1998,5 which changed the base year for guaranteed funds distribution, based funds distribution on preschool-age poverty, and renewed the program’s authorization through September 30, 2003. Head Start is 1Crisis intervention, language instruction, marriage counseling, and health and parenting education services are available to Head Start parents in California. 242 U.S.C. 9801 et seq. 3Public Law 97-35 (8/13/81). 4Children ages 0–2 and their parents receive services under section 645A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9840A), the Early Head Start Programs for Families with Infants and Toddlers. 5The reauthorization act was included as a portion of the Coats Human Services Amendments of 1998, Public Law 105285 (10/27/98). administered and funds are distributed to grantees by the Head Start Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).6 During the period covered by the most recent reauthorization, funding for local projects and support activities grew by more than one-third, from $4.37 billion in 1998 to $6.67 billion in 2003.7 Over the course of the past two decades, Head Start funding has grown rapidly relative to that of other federal programs, rising at an average rate of 11 percent per year since 1980. California’s share of Head Start funds remained fairly constant throughout the last reauthorization’s lifetime, remaining at approximately 12.2 percent of total program appropriations between 1998 and 2003. This paper examines the workings and results of the distribution method used to determine the allocation of Head Start funds to the states. As with other federal programs already discussed in this publication series, Head Start is treated as a formula grant because it awards funds geographically on the basis of a mathematical construct—a formula. However, Head Start differs from many other formula programs insofar as its formulaic directives are paired with unusually wide discretion that Congress has given to the federal agency distributing program funds. As might be expected, this hybridized authority and wide administrative latitude complicates prediction of future funding distribution. Program Function The mission of Head Start is to help low-income children gain vocabulary, writing, arithmetic, and other school readiness skills and to encourage family development and community collaboration in achieving school readiness. More than 1,500 Head Start providers nationwide offer language, literacy, mathematics, health, nutrition, and social services to low-income families through nonprofit, educational, community, and faith- and government-based facilities and organizations. In 2002, centers receiving program funding served 912,000 children in the United States, with 99,000 of them located in California. Unlike most formula grants that distribute federal dollars to state and local government entities as block grants, Congress devised Head Start so that HHS 645 CFR 1301 et seq. 7When Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 in January 2003, most domestic discretionary programs received an across-the-board spending cut of 0.65 percent. Head Start was explicitly spared this reduction. 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California distributes funds directly to public and private service providers, primarily at the local level.8 Local service providers are sustained by direct intergovernmental grant transfers from federal sources (often without the input or resources of states) to support center-based, home-based, or a mixed combination of services on a full-time or part-time basis.9 Head Start services for Indian and migrant and seasonal workers and their families are managed from the HHS main office.10 Congress has maintained Head Start administration by HHS rather than the U.S. Department of Education, despite the program’s significant educationrelated components, in large part because of the program’s broad service scope. Program Structure As noted above, Head Start authorizing legislation affords HHS considerable discretion in determining how funds are allotted.11 That said, Congress provides a primary formula framework that includes a number of set-asides before geographic allotment—a hold harmless provision set to a fixed base year,12 an inflation adjustment from the preceding year, and an allotment of remaining funds based on child poverty counts. In years during which total program appropriations exceed those of the prior year, formula language implies that HHS should provide all grantees a cost-ofliving adjustment (COLA) to defray the effect of inflation on Head Start services. The COLA is determined by comparing the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for one year to the same period for the prior year. In practice, HHS typically compares the September CPI-U for the most recent year with that of the prior year. 8As discussed below in conjunction with program structure, HHS must ensure that the geographic distribution of funds meets specified state-by-state requirements, but the state government is not the primary recipient of these funds. 9Once a proposed project meets program performance criteria, grantees must demonstrate the ability to provide a 20 percent non-federal share of individual program costs before qualifying for federal grants, although the agency may request a waiver of this requirement from HHS. Nevertheless, a number of states support their own preschool and school-readiness programs. 10The Migrant Head Start program provides services identical to those of the primary program, with greater emphasis on younger children who might otherwise be cared for in the fields or left in the care of young siblings while parents are working, and with preference given to grantees serving families that move more frequently. Indian Head Start programs integrate various Native American languages and cultures into their curriculum and program goals. 11For Head Start, HHS uses the term allotment when referring to the amounts distributed to states, whereas other federal agencies use synonymous terms such as disbursement, allocation, and distribution. 12Hold harmless provisions slow the shift of formula funding allotments from one state or jurisdiction to another by limiting the amount or percentage by which funds may be reduced relative to funds of the previous year or to a set base year. See Tim Ransdell, Federal Formula Grants and California: Factors Determining California’s Share of Federal Formula Grants, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 The first statutory set-asides are relatively small. From the total amount Congress appropriates for Head Start ($6.67 billion in fiscal year 2003), HHS must use up to $35 million of total funds to help local education agencies with school transition costs, $5 million for a national impact study on Head Start, and an unspecified amount for additional research, demonstration, and evaluation (RD&E) projects.13 In addition to these initial set-asides, separate language requires that HHS use 13 percent of total funds for a number of specified activities. In Congressionally delineated priority order, these include • Head Start programs for Indian children and their families, migrant and seasonal worker families, and children with disabilities (no less than in the program’s base year); • Head Start programs in U.S. territories;14 • Training and technical assistance activities focused on program expansion and program and management improvement (a minimum of 2 percent of total appropriations); • Discretionary payments to defray provider costs for quality reviews, provider disciplinary action, and program oversight; and • Additional funds to supplement activities funded by the RD&E set-aside noted above. Whereas funds for Indian and migrant programs and for programs in the territories are delineated as separate budget items, HHS commingles many of the other discretionary funds from this 13 percent set-aside with formula-based state allotments. If total Head Start appropriations exceed the rate of inflation, the formula requires that HHS use additional funds for a wide variety of activities identified under the heading of Quality Improvement (QI).15 Congress statutorily sets a minimum percentage of excess (after adjustment for inflation) funds that must be used for QI activities—25 percent in 200316—but HHS is given leeway to use up to 100 percent of any excess funds for QI activities. 13Additional research projects related to Head Start evaluation are supported by set-aside language, with funding of $12 million in 1999 and unspecified amounts as determined by HHS for every year thereafter. 14Territories include Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 15Specified QI activities include staff development, salary increases, performance enhancements, community planning, learning environment improvements, and language and literacy promotion. 16With its 1998 amendments, Congress raised the minimum percentage of excess (above inflation) funds that must be used for QI activities from 25 percent in 1997 (under the prior law) to 60 percent of excess funds in 1999, 50 percent in 2000, 47.5 percent in 2001, 35 percent in 2002, and 25 percent for 2003. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California After the set-asides, COLA, and QI, funds are allotted by state, although the recipients generally are not states but individual grantees.17 First, funds are allotted to ensure that no state’s grantees receive less than was received during the statutory base year. The base year concept was established in 1981, and Congressional passage of the 1998 amendments changed the base year to fiscal year 1998 for allotments in fiscal years 1999 through 2003. Because HHS typically begins the allotment process with an inflation adjustment for all continuing grantees, the base-year hold harmless provision typically does not alter state allotment levels. After base-year funding is ensured, any remaining excess funds are allotted to states according to their relative percentage of children below age 5 living in families with income below the federal poverty line.18 For fiscal year 2002 and prior-year allotments, HHS used weighted sample data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). For 2003 allotments, HHS would have been able to use poverty data from the 2000 Decennial Census, but the agency elected instead to distribute all excess funds pro rata on a percentage basis, mirroring the COLA increases already applied.19 Thus, no funds were allotted according to child poverty percentage shares in 2003. The distributive discretion Congress has afforded HHS is not unlimited. Whereas the agency may use 100 percent of above-inflation funds for QI activities, the law requires that it allot at least 80 percent of these QI funds to grantees in states in the same proportion as the state formula allotment, i.e., according to preschool-age child poverty. Only the remaining 20 percent of QI funds may be distributed to states, agencies, and Indian and migrant providers at the full discretion of the agency. The breadth of administrative discretion limits precise tracking of funds during years in which total appropriations growth between one year and the next is great, such as between 2000 and 2001. In years characterized by minimal program growth, the task of following the Head Start money is considerably less tenuous. Although Head Start’s direct allocation method largely bypasses state governments, the governing law provides two primary avenues for significant state participation in the program, with funding amounts taken from each state’s 17The Head Start Act defines the term state to include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 18Poverty is defined as below 100 percent of the poverty level as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 19The inflation rate assumption for 2002 to 2003 was 1.57 percent, whereas total program appropriations grew by 2.0 percent. HHS allotted the remaining 0.4 percent to grantees by the same percentage growth method it used for the COLA adjustment. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 formula allotment. The law requires that the Early Head Start program (focused on infants and toddlers ages 0–2) must receive 10 percent of geographically distributed Head Start appropriations for fiscal year 2003.20 In addition, Congress gives HHS the discretion to provide to states so-called collaboration grants to enhance administrative coordination and programmatic planning among state and local programs governed by state lead agencies and other groups. Program Funding State and local governments often view Head Start favorably in part because it imposes no maintenance-of-effort requirements on public coffers.21 In California, Head Start services are provided in 5,081 classrooms in 1,945 centers in economically disadvantaged communities across nearly every county, but demand for services continues to outstrip supply. According to data for 1998 through 2000 compiled by the child advocacy organization Children Now, 53 percent of California children below age 5 attend preschool compared to 64 percent nationwide, and 41 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Head Start compared to 58 percent nationwide. By some estimates, Head Start serves approximately 40 percent of the nation’s eligible children. In fiscal year 2003, total federal appropriations for Head Start were $6.67 billion, an increase of 67.5 percent from 1997, when the total appropriation was slightly less than $4 billion (see Table 1). Funds distributed geographically (i.e., to Head Start programs in states and territories and those serving Indian children and children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers) grew by 66.5 percent during that period. Head Start allotments to California grew somewhat more quickly than did funding in the nation as a whole.22 In fiscal year 2003, California received $817.6 million, or 12.3 percent, of the nation’s Head Start appropriation. The total represents growth of 78.2 percent from the state’s $458.8 million allotment in 1997. 20The Early Head Start takedown requirement is graduated: 7.5 percent for fiscal year 1999, 8 percent for 2000, 9 percent for 2001, and 10 percent for both 2002 and 2003. 21The 20 percent local matching requirement is generally imposed on local grantees, although in some instances state or local government funds may be used to satisfy the match. Some states operate their own preschool programs and others provide state funds to supplement Head Start. 22Most of the state’s increased share was attributable to funding changes between 1997 and 1998. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Table 1 Head Start Funding, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, California and United States California Total ($) 458,841,000 528,339,000 554,366,000 642,512,000 758,590,509 801,429,541 817,556,305 U.S. Total ($) 3,980,546,000 4,347,431,000 4,658,151,097 5,266,211,000 6,199,123,000 6,536,570,000 6,667,533,000 California as a % of U.S. Total 11.53 12.15 11.90 12.20 12.24 12.26 12.26 U.S. Total (States Only) ($) 3,592,449,000 3,931,847,000 4,186,863,000 4,731,695,000 5,562,622,567 5,861,884,413 5,979,840,165 California as a % of U.S. States 12.77 13.44 13.24 13.58 13.64 13.67 13.67 Percentage Share of Funding In 1997, California grantees received 11.5 percent of the nation’s Head Start funds. The state’s share rose to 12.2 percent in 1998 and, with the exception of 1999, has remained at or near that percentage since then. Between 1998 and 2003, California’s share of the nation’s total Head Start appropriations grew negligibly, by less than 1 percent. California ranked 21st among states in the extent to which funding rose between 1998 and 2003. As shown in Table 2, states experiencing substantial increases in funding share included Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho, whereas those experiencing substantial decreases included the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Jersey. California’s 12.3 percent share of total 2003 Head Start appropriations is slightly above the state’s 12.2 percent share of the nation’s total population. Moreover, when the state’s allotment is compared only to those of the other states—thereby excluding funds for administration, the territories, and Indian Table 2 Ten States Experiencing Greatest Increases and Decreases in Head Start Funds Between 1998 and 2003 % Growth in Head Start Allotment for Fastest- Growing States Wyoming 23.09 Nevada 16.67 Utah 11.03 Idaho 10.35 North Dakota 9.72 Arizona 9.23 Montana 8.86 South Dakota 8.45 Texas 8.06 Nebraska 7.90 % Reduction in Head Start Allotment for Most Sharply Declining States District of Columbia –12.32 Wisconsin –8.52 Michigan –7.68 New Jersey –6.78 Mississippi –6.60 Ohio –6.57 Massachusetts –5.93 Connecticut –5.67 Pennsylvania –5.39 Minnesota –5.29 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 and migrant programs—California’s allotment represents 13.67 percent of the total. It is interesting to note that, according to data from the 2000 Decennial Census, California housed exactly 13.67 percent of the nation’s children below age 5 living in poverty—the target population for Head Start. In fact, the 2003 Head Start funding percentage tracks more closely with the preschool poverty percentage in California than in any other state. For some states, the difference between these two shares is very large. As shown in Table 3, Vermont’s share of Head Start funds exceeds its share of 2000 Census poor preschoolers by 77 percent, and Mississippi’s share of funds exceeds its population share of target children by 64 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, Table 4 demonstrates that Nevada’s share of poor children ages 0–4 exceeded its share of Head Start funds by 48 percent, and Arizona’s relative shortfall was almost 25 percent. Child Poverty Data The 2000 Decennial Census counted 489,256 poor children below age 5 in California out of a national total of 3,579,535, thus resulting in California’s 13.67 percent share. In California, 20.4 percent of preschool-age children were in poverty in 1999 23 compared to an 18.8 percent rate nationwide. Thus, California’s preschool poverty rate exceeded the national rate by nearly 20 percent. Table 3 Ten States with Greatest Relative Excess of 2003 Head Start Share Versus Share of Preschool Children in Poverty Vermont Mississippi Maine North Dakota District of Columbia Michigan Wyoming Nebraska Massachusetts Connecticut % of U.S. Head Start Funds 0.22 2.65 0.45 0.27 0.41 3.84 0.20 0.59 1.78 0.85 % of Preschool Children in Poverty 0.13 1.61 0.31 0.19 0.29 2.87 0.15 0.45 1.35 0.69 % by Which Head Start Funds Share Exceeds Poor Preschool-Age Child Share 77.67 64.74 45.13 44.34 41.32 34.00 33.16 32.42 31.33 23.98 23The 2000 Census assessed the 1999 income and poverty status of families queried. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 4 Ten States with Greatest Relative Shortfall of 2003 Head Start Funds Share Versus Share of Preschool Children in Poverty Nevada Arizona Texas Idaho Arkansas New Mexico Puerto Rico North Carolina Indiana Oklahoma % of U.S. Head Start Funds 0.34 1.65 7.75 0.37 1.04 0.84 4.00 2.26 1.51 1.31 % of Preschool Children in Poverty 0.64 2.20 9.94 0.46 1.25 0.98 4.68 2.64 1.72 1.49 % by Which Head Start Funds Share Exceeds Poor Preschool-Age Child Share –47.57 –24.90 –22.01 –19.89 –16.39 –14.66 –14.59 –14.39 –12.14 –11.72 By their nature, demographic data often shift considerably from decade to decade and even from year to year. At the time of the 1990 Decennial Census,24 California’s preschool-age child poverty rate (19.3 percent) was below the national rate (19.7 percent).25 However, the early 1990s recession affected the economy of California more harshly than that of the nation as a whole. By the late 1990s, California’s preschool poverty rate was estimated to be well above the national average. According to the Current Population Survey: 2000 March Supplement, which measured income status in 1999 based on an ongoing sample survey unrelated to the 2000 Decennial Census, California’s preschool poverty rate was 23.1 percent, compared to the national rate of 19.5 percent, and the state housed 15.9 percent of the nation’s poor children under age 5. The preschool-age poverty numbers in the 2000 Decennial Census were thus significantly below those in recent years’ sampled levels, raising the question whether they may represent an aberration or a temporary decline commensurate with the state’s strong economic situation in 1999. Before the 1998 reauthorization, which linked excess fund allotment solely to preschool-age poverty, above-inflation increases in Head Start funding were distributed to states based two-thirds on poor preschool child counts and onethird on counts of children under age 18 in households receiving welfare benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the 24Income and poverty information from the 1990 Census reported family status in 1989. 25The 1990 Decennial Census thus found that the state housed 12.3 percent of the nation’s poor preschoolers, whereas it housed 12.5 percent of all children below age 5. California’s 1990 preschool child poverty rate was less than 98 percent of the national average. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 predecessor to the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The AFDC child count helped to increase California’s share of Head Start funding somewhat. Relative to other states, California’s welfare program during the early 1990s was generous.26 In 1993, 17 percent of the nation’s welfarerecipient families resided in California; by 1999—when the Head Start formula was altered to remove the welfare data factor—the state’s share of welfare families exceeded 23 percent. The 1998 deletion of the welfare count from the Head Start formula can be expected to reduce the growth in California’s Head Start funding share below what would have been expected if the factor had been retained. However, California’s share of poor preschool children for purposes of recent Head Start funding allotments has also remained relatively high (118 percent of the national average in the 2000 March Supplement), thereby mitigating much of that reduction. Because the Census Bureau did not release the data until very recently, HHS did not begin using the 2000 Decennial Census count—with its lower share for California—to allot funds to states until fiscal year 2003. As noted above, by then California’s share of Head Start allotments had risen to 13.67 percent.27 Formula Funding and Discretionary Authority For fiscal years 2001 through 2003, each state’s share of Head Start allotments has changed little if at all. Recent funding history indicates that HHS prefers to distribute funds in a manner that maximizes uniform increases among grantees, and the authorizing statute affords the agency great authority to do so. The Head Start Act’s requirement that preschool-age poverty data be used to allot funding among states is largely trumped by separate QI language giving HHS authority to use 20 percent of program funding increases at its discretion.28 As a result, in 2002 and 2003, the agency allotted funds so that every grantee first received an inflationary increase, and it then allotted all remaining funds in identical proportion. In other words, after allotting funds according to the 26For additional information, see Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian, Federal Formula Grants and California: TANF and Welfare Programs, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002. 27A separate, longstanding issue regarding the widespread use of poverty data as a factor in various formulas is the poverty line’s blindness to geographic variations; the cost of living (especially housing) fluctuates considerably throughout the nation and is typically higher in California than in the rest of the nation. Thus, until a geographically stratified poverty rate is developed, recipients in California and other higher-cost states may receive less actual value from federal funding than their counterparts in lower-cost states. 28In addition to these QI funds, HHS may use other Head Start discretionary funding sources, discussed above, to further supplement allotments as it sees fit. 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California formula, HHS used its discretionary funding to award proportional increases to states that would otherwise have received a smaller growth amount. Discretion over 20 percent of growth funds gives HHS sufficient authority to compensate for—and thereby blunt, if it so chooses—nearly all formula-based funding changes. Even a reduction in authority from 20 percent to 10 percent would still produce similar results. Only if the scope of the agency’s discretionary authority should fall below 5 percent of the total appropriations would half of funding growth be mandated for incontrovertible allotment according to the formula. Of course, HHS may elect to allot future funding according to other criteria, or according to the formula itself. For purposes of this analysis, however, we assume that the agency will continue to use the percentage growth approach it has favored in recent funding cycles. Predicted Allotments for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 With the caveats that agency discretion and Congressional action may significantly affect distribution, this study uses a spreadsheet-based model to estimate future allotments of Head Start funding. Appendix A provides a detailed narrative breakdown of our formula allocation mechanics, with corresponding assumptions regarding appropriations levels and economic indicators. In Appendix C, we present hypothetical funding allotments among states, territories, Indian and migrant programs, and HHS program administration based on specific appropriations totals for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. We show four allotment arrays displayed in separate columns. The percent-only method—which was used by HHS to allot 2003 funding—assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. The COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation-rate (COLA) increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds, with the assumption that HHS will use its discretionary authority over QI funding to equalize growth rates for states. The hypothetical formula-only method assumes use of the statutory formula’s base-year hold harmless provision only, with no automatic COLA, and with the balance allotted by formula. The hypothetical poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no COLA or hold harmless provisions of any kind (with state allotments permitted to fall below the preceding year and the base year). Both the formula-only and FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 poverty-only methods would require Congressional action to change Head Start formula language.29 As this report goes to print, appropriations measures for fiscal year 2004 are moving through both the House and Senate. To date, both chambers have agreed to use the Head Start funding total, $6.8 billion, originally included in President Bush’s budget proposal. The amount would represent a 2.2 percent increase from the program’s 2003 appropriation. Appendix Table C.2 displays a predicted allotment of this proposed fiscal year 2004 amount. Using this fiscal year 2004 funding total and predicted allotment as a base, Appendix Tables C.3 and C.4 estimate allotments of fiscal year 2005 funding based on two hypothetical funding amounts—a $1 billion increase, to $7.8 billion (Appendix Table C.3), and a 5 percent increase, to $7.2 billion (Appendix Table C.4). As is apparent from the tables, California’s percentage share of the nation’s Head Start appropriations relative to that of other states is unlikely to change significantly in the near future. Nearly every scenario tested would retain California’s 13.67 percent share of total funds to states. In fiscal year 2004, the currently proposed Head Start appropriation would yield $836 million for California, a 2.2 percent increase from the state’s $818 million allotment in 2003. The fact that the state’s share of current funding tracks so closely with its share of poor children results in virtually no change in the state’s share under any of the alternative allotment methods. In addition, the small (2.2 percent) growth in total program funding leaves little room for changes in allotment shares for any other states under the COLA-then-formula approach, and the assumed change in the formula’s hold harmless base year to 2003 results in no change under the formula-only approach. Only the poverty-only approach, which makes the unlikely assumption of no hold harmless base year, would cause substantial state funding shifts. Assuming that HHS again uses the percent-only method to allot 2004 Head Start funds, California’s share of funds for 2005 will remain at 13.67 percent. The hypothetical $1 billion appropriation increase to a total of $7.8 billion (Appendix Table C.3) would yield a California allotment of approximately $962 million, a share that would not change substantially regardless of formula method. Likewise, a 5 percent increase to $7.2 billion (Appendix Table C.4) would result in $878 million for the state. 29Neither approach is presently under active consideration; the allotments are presented for reference to assess the effect of formula functions and to aid discussion of alternatives. 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California At larger appropriations totals and in later years, allotments for some other states would change substantially under the hypothetical formula schemes. For example, a $1 billion increase in total appropriations would yield $116 million for Arizona under the percent-only method and $117 million under the COLAthen-formula method. But the formula-only method would raise Arizona’s allotment to $122 million and the poverty-only allotment would increase it to $155 million. Likewise, Texas’s hypothetical allotment would rise by $22 million with the formula-only approach and by $154 million with a poverty-only approach. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi’s hypothetical allotment would change from $186 million under the COLA-based plans to $175 million with the formula-only method and $113 million with the poverty-only method. Current Reauthorization Proposals With the authorization for Head Start scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003, a number of measures have been proposed to renew the program for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. In his fiscal year 2004 budget submission to Congress in February 2003, President Bush unveiled a plan to shift Head Start administration from HHS to the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, he sought to replace the current system of direct grants to local organizations with a state-administered block grant option, similar to that conferred upon states by welfare reform and the President’s No Child Left Behind education program. Neither of these sweeping proposals has been incorporated into primary reauthorization legislation, although committee leaders adopted many other administration suggestions, such as strengthened academic standards and authorization to begin limited experimentation with state-level program administration. The current House reauthorization proposal is the “School Readiness Act of 2003,” H.R. 2210, authored by House Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Michael Castle (DE). It would authorize $35.6 billion over five years for Head Start—$6.9 billion in 2004 (slightly more than currently appears in both the House and Senate Appropriations bills), $7 billion for 2005, $7.1 billion for 2006, $7.2 billion for 2007, and $7.4 billion for fiscal year 2008.30 The House Education Reform Subcommittee approved the bill by an 11 to 9 party-line vote on June 12, and the full Committee on Education and the Workforce approved the measure on June 19 by a vote of 27 to 20. 30Specific authorization totals in the House bill are $6,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $6,988,750,000 for 2005, $7,106,500,000 for 2006, $7,245,000,000 for 2007, and $7,427,000,000 for 2008. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 The Senate is expected to commence committee action on its reauthorization proposal in September 2003, with debate again focusing on policy alternatives rather than the flow of federal funds. The House plan would change the base year for calculating funds distribution from 1998 to 2003, but most other formula aspects would be changed little if at all. The bill would increase initial funding set-asides from 13 percent to 14 percent,31 alter language and provide specific direction regarding use of technical assistance funds, add homeless family outreach to the list of approved QI goals, and change the reservation of state funding for collaboration grants from discretionary to mandatory.32 Non-formulaic provisions in the House bill include an increase in teaching standards, whereby 50 percent of Head Start instructors would be required to hold at minimum a bachelor’s degree by 2008, and 75 percent of teachers would need a minimum associate’s degree by 2005.33 The bill also proposes an eightstate pilot program for state-level administration of Head Start funds.34 Billed as an effort to increase coordination, efficiency, and accountability across Head Start and with non-Head Start preschool programs presently administered by states and other entities, the demonstration program would require that states and local governments match federal funds dollar-for-dollar and would give Head Start centers in good standing a three-year hold harmless guarantee, ensuring no funding reductions in participating states until at least 2006. A recent HHS report35 found that children in Head Start still significantly lag their peers in literacy and math, that the current Head Start delivery system contributes to the shortfalls by exempting local Head Start agencies from the scrutiny and uniformity of state standards, and that state administration would narrow the achievement gap. Head Start advocates dispute these findings and 31 One-fourth of the additional 1 percent would be used to expand services for migrant and seasonal farmworker families, and 60 percent of the additional funds would be used to expand QI. 32Although collaboration grants would become mandatory under HR 2210, the bill does not provide an independent funding stream. 33Section 648A(a)(2) of the 1998 law had required that by September 2003, at least half of Head Start teachers nationwide hold at least an associate’s degree in early childhood education or development or else a degree in a related field combined with experience teaching preschool children. 34A staff member at the House Education and the Workforce Committee recently commented that states likely to qualify for the proposed demonstration program as currently drafted include Ohio, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, and North Carolina. 35U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strengthening Head Start: What the Evidence Shows, Washington, D.C., 2003, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/StrengthenHeadStart03/. 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California charge that the proposed reorganization would shift responsibility and cost to states without sufficient financial resources.36 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (NH) is expected to introduce a Head Start reauthorization bill without President Bush’s eight-state pilot program, although the administration plan is likely to be offered as an amendment when the bill is debated on the Senate floor. (No legislative language was available as this report went to press.) On July 29, Senate HELP Committee Democrats introduced an alternative measure, S. 1483, which would sharply increase Head Start funding, providing $62 billion for the program over five years.37 The Democrats’ bill, entitled the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act, would increase initial set-asides from 13 percent to 16 percent of total appropriations.38 Conclusion Without Congressional action, authorization for the Head Start program will expire on September 30, 2003. Current reauthorization proposals make few changes to the formula that allots federal funds among states. Congress conferred considerable authority over funding delivery upon the administering agency, which uses that authority to alter the distributive results that would take place in the absence of its intervention. The operation of the program’s formula is thus somewhat limited. The effect is greatest when year-over-year growth in total funding is small. At present, California receives a share of state-level Head Start dollars that closely matches the state’s share of poor preschool-age children, the formula’s target population. As a result, changes in future funding amounts are unlikely to significantly alter the state’s share of total funds. Whereas California’s share of funding appears equitable, other states find themselves with a relative surplus or deficit when funding is compared to population. Moreover, if California’s child poverty numbers return to their 36In a letter to House Education and the Workforce Ranking Member George Miller (Martinez), among others, California Governor Gray Davis expressed concern about the proposed funding structure and a lack of financial support, and he communicated the state’s preference to maintain the current system. Governors of other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, and Alabama, have embraced the state option plan. 37The Senate Democrats’ alternative would authorize $8,570,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $10,445,000,000 for 2005, $12,384,000,000 for 2006, $14,334,000,000 for 2007, and $16,332,000,000 for 2008. 38At least 4 percent of total funds would be spent on Indian Head Start programs and at least 5 percent on programs for migrant and seasonal farmworker families. The bill would increase minimum spending for training and technical assistance from 2 percent to 3 percent, with at least half of those funds slated for compliance with performance standards. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 recent perch, substantially above the national average and above the state’s share of total Head Start funding, California again could be faced with the challenge of reconciling need and dollars. 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix A Methodology Payments distributed for Indian Head Start programs, services for children with disabilities, and migrant and seasonal Head Start programs result in additional federal dollars within states. However, these amounts are not attributed in state allotment calculations to the states in which the recipient organization is located. For formula allotments, Head Start treats the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states. Preschool-age child poverty counts for fiscal year 2003 allotments derive from the 2000 Decennial Census, whereas counts for 2002 and prior years derive from HHS calculations based on the Current Population Survey: March Supplement, also published by the U.S. Census Bureau. As discussed in the text, the wide discretion afforded HHS makes precise prediction of future HHS allotments impossible. To make rough predictions of future allotments, however, we make a number of behavioral and economic assumptions, and we employ a spreadsheet-based program to calculate approximate state totals. We assume that the amount of funding for HHS administration and program support activities will increase by the lesser of the rate of inflation or the percentage growth in total funding from one year to the next. (Actual inflation for fiscal year 2003 allotments was 1.6 percent; current estimates for 2004 allotments are 2.2 percent, and for hypothetical 2005 allotments 3.0 percent.) For fiscal year 2004 and subsequent allotments, we assume that Congress will adopt current proposals to change the formula’s hold harmless base year from 1998 to 2003. For future years, we hold constant states’ child poverty share from the 2000 Census; we make no assumptions regarding future changes. Starting from a selected funding total for all states, the model subtracts an inflation-adjusted administrative set-aside estimate; applies a uniform growth percentage to funds for territories and for Indian and migrant programs; increases all grant amounts by the rate of inflation; reserves the maximum allowable portion of above-inflation program growth for QI activities at the discretion of HHS; ensures that no state receives less than was allotted in the base year (assumed to be 2003, as proposed in current reauthorization bills); allots 80 percent of remaining funds to grantees according to each states’ share of children FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 under age 5 living in poor households; and assumes that HHS will use its discretionary authority over the remaining 20 percent of above-inflation funds to equalize, as uniformly as possible, the percentage growth of all grantees. Table A.1 shows a step-by-step functional narrative of this model’s distributive process, and it shows estimated funding levels for corresponding categories for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 19 Table A.1 Head Start: Formula Allotment Model Narrative Fiscal Year To approximate Head Start allotments for a given fiscal year … 2003 2004 … multiply the previous year's funds for HHS administration … … by the lesser of the inflation rate from the prior year … … and the percentage change … … in total Head Start funds in the current year … … in comparison to the preceding year … … to estimate an amount for HHS administration. Then multiply … … the percentage change … … in remaining funds for geographic distribution … … in comparison to that amount for the preceding year … … by the prior year's total for territory, Indian, and migrant programs ... … to estimate an initial amount for territory, Indian, and migrant programs. Then take … … the remainder after HHS, territory, Indian, and migrant funding … … and subtract the comparable amount from the previous year … … to determine initial growth in funding for states. If this amount is more than would be expected because of inflation … … then multiply the excess above the inflation adjustment … … by the statutorily required minimum QI percentage … … to determine the minimum amount that must be used for QI. However, assuming that HHS will use all funds possible … … for QI activities, take 80 percent of these funds … … and allot them to states by their share of poor preschool children, and … … give to HHS the remaining 20 percent of these funds … … for discretionary grants to maximize growth evenness for all grantees, … ensuring that every state receives at least what it did in the base year … … and redistributing any funds on a pro rata basis if necessary. 210,255,250 1.572% 2.004% 6,667,533,000 6,536,570,000 213,917,000 2.012% 6,453,616,000 6,326,314,750 464,430,337 473,775,835 5,979,840,165 5,861,884,413 117,955,752 92,157,644 25,798,108 25.00% 6,449,527 25,798,108 20,638,487 5,159,622 0 213,917,000 2.117% 2.220% 6,815,570,000 6,667,533,000 218,445,605 2.224% 6,597,124,395 6,453,616,000 473,775,835 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 5,979,840,165 132,973,090 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 6,380,374 5,104,299 1,276,075 0 aAppropriation for 2005 represents a hypothetical increase of $1 billion from 2004. The inflation rate is assumed to be 3 percent. 2005a 218,445,605 3.000% 14.672% 7,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 224,998,973 15.059% 7,590,571,027 6,597,124,395 484,311,140 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 6,112,813,255 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 737,130,872 589,704,697 147,426,174 0 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix B Head Start: Funding Allotments and Percentage Shares, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, and Enrollments, 1997 and 2002 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Table B.1 Head Start: Funding Allotments, Fiscal Years 1997–2003 U.S. total (all) U.S. total (states, territ., Ind., migr.) U.S. total (states 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 1997 3,980,546,000 3,876,680,000 3,592,449,000 65,970,000 7,581,000 53,478,000 36,396,000 458,841,000 40,902,000 32,985,000 8,314,000 17,361,000 144,663,000 96,295,000 12,632,000 12,529,000 170,193,000 55,293,000 28,458,000 28,815,000 65,587,000 87,261,000 15,536,000 47,688,000 68,913,000 150,074,000 43,536,000 103,523,000 66,763,000 11,500,000 19,037,000 9,942,000 7,430,000 82,650,000 33,971,000 261,514,000 80,559,000 8,733,000 155,354,000 45,865,000 34,466,000 142,973,000 13,135,000 51,714,000 10,139,000 69,365,000 253,186,000 20,132,000 8,433,000 54,571,000 59,644,000 31,064,000 58,550,000 5,814,000 143,121,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 4,347,431,000 4,658,151,097 5,266,211,000 6,199,123,000 6,536,570,000 6,667,533,000 4,232,431,000 4,513,620,000 5,102,907,000 6,004,717,000 6,326,314,750 6,453,616,000 3,931,847,000 4,186,863,000 67,517,000 71,983,000 8,209,000 8,786,000 59,017,000 62,444,000 39,367,000 43,449,000 528,339,000 554,366,000 42,368,000 46,602,000 35,244,000 37,906,000 8,446,000 8,873,000 18,276,000 19,201,000 159,055,000 169,996,000 105,423,000 112,040,000 13,983,000 15,786,000 13,058,000 14,122,000 182,050,000 192,580,000 61,337,000 65,226,000 33,451,000 36,038,000 31,299,000 32,958,000 71,283,000 76,409,000 94,565,000 100,196,000 17,233,000 18,695,000 51,664,000 54,966,000 73,664,000 78,544,000 162,316,000 171,121,000 48,909,000 51,740,000 110,564,000 117,375,000 73,482,000 78,622,000 12,292,000 13,839,000 21,318,000 23,890,000 11,280,000 11,484,000 8,512,000 9,114,000 89,319,000 94,945,000 32,470,000 35,363,000 286,961,000 304,283,000 87,978,000 93,979,000 9,721,000 10,561,000 168,724,000 178,271,000 50,997,000 54,422,000 37,909,000 40,118,000 154,046,000 165,674,000 13,901,000 15,330,000 52,826,000 56,280,000 11,088,000 12,708,000 76,803,000 81,387,000 279,640,000 299,891,000 21,728,000 23,185,000 8,900,000 9,691,000 61,960,000 66,246,000 64,841,000 69,601,000 33,349,000 36,062,000 63,218,000 67,582,000 6,421,000 7,546,000 155,526,000 165,387,000 4,731,695,000 82,414,000 9,738,000 73,697,000 48,379,000 642,512,000 52,226,000 41,674,000 9,820,000 20,926,000 195,696,000 126,281,000 18,199,000 16,098,000 214,965,000 72,467,000 40,714,000 37,061,000 85,198,000 110,318,000 20,378,000 61,920,000 85,917,000 186,842,000 56,401,000 129,843,000 93,475,000 15,267,000 26,660,000 12,369,000 9,838,000 104,743,000 38,374,000 342,136,000 104,684,000 11,973,000 196,684,000 61,555,000 46,071,000 181,844,000 17,378,000 64,060,000 14,045,000 92,040,000 361,846,000 27,840,000 10,514,000 74,487,000 78,359,000 39,842,000 72,177,000 8,187,000 185,563,000 5,562,622,567 95,375,529 11,656,051 89,629,094 57,380,784 758,590,509 61,804,681 47,930,594 11,830,730 23,202,665 236,056,455 151,340,480 21,165,615 20,157,609 248,854,680 85,240,767 47,381,413 44,950,595 99,053,896 128,483,678 24,769,885 71,713,437 99,674,529 215,873,226 65,522,896 149,606,362 108,304,517 18,944,492 32,141,653 18,366,961 12,387,680 120,245,137 45,918,602 398,522,297 124,579,740 15,749,932 226,942,460 72,189,686 54,784,581 209,346,239 20,412,042 74,963,147 17,512,687 107,145,843 429,075,102 35,858,291 12,553,205 89,889,625 92,257,118 46,712,650 83,337,143 10,759,887 216,475,690 5,861,884,413 100,154,494 12,104,386 96,912,656 61,023,626 801,429,541 65,716,131 49,984,520 12,286,428 24,090,814 252,369,803 161,740,120 21,977,038 21,662,707 259,780,216 88,666,972 49,494,840 47,909,093 103,472,617 135,048,223 26,661,319 74,928,894 104,182,066 225,290,497 69,643,329 155,259,338 113,255,841 20,117,436 34,580,417 19,785,629 12,860,678 125,175,590 49,185,413 418,238,532 132,667,143 16,036,018 236,999,439 76,909,804 57,105,005 219,114,506 21,184,290 78,506,579 18,078,512 112,343,511 454,292,444 36,270,290 13,022,989 95,366,343 97,246,982 48,624,566 86,940,813 11,882,457 234,303,518 5,979,840,165 102,169,853 12,347,956 98,862,781 62,251,574 817,556,305 67,038,504 50,990,333 12,533,662 24,575,581 257,448,114 164,994,735 22,419,271 22,098,615 265,007,643 90,451,173 50,490,800 48,873,144 105,554,744 137,765,730 27,197,811 76,436,650 106,278,469 229,823,904 71,044,727 158,383,544 115,534,831 20,522,249 35,276,261 20,183,765 13,119,467 127,694,435 50,175,146 426,654,536 135,336,737 16,358,703 241,768,460 78,457,421 58,254,100 223,523,637 21,610,571 80,086,327 18,442,297 114,604,143 463,433,942 37,000,139 13,285,044 97,285,352 99,203,834 49,603,014 88,690,279 12,121,562 239,018,290 Indian tribes Migrant programs Outer Pacific U.S. Virgin Islands Program support/ HHS administration 113,920,000 153,788,000 9,963,000 6,560,000 103,866,000 117,227,558 166,248,442 10,297,000 6,811,000 130,191,000 178,122,000 11,279,000 7,165,000 115,000,000 144,531,097 144,768,000 206,391,000 12,356,000 7,697,000 163,304,000 171,289,090 246,904,899 14,381,145 9,519,299 194,406,000 181,794,159 257,814,769 14,942,945 9,878,464 210,255,250 SOURCES: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/budget.htm; http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/. 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 22 Table B.2 Head Start: Percentage of Allotments, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, and Enrollments, 1997 and 2002 Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 1997 100.00 1.66 0.19 1.34 0.91 11.53 1.03 0.83 0.21 0.44 3.63 2.42 0.32 0.31 4.28 1.39 0.71 0.72 1.65 2.19 0.39 1.20 1.73 3.77 1.09 2.60 1.68 0.29 0.48 0.25 0.19 2.08 0.85 6.57 2.02 0.22 3.90 1.15 0.87 3.59 0.33 1.30 0.25 1.74 6.36 0.51 0.21 1.37 1.50 0.78 1.47 0.15 3.60 Percentage of Head Start Funding 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.54 1.53 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 1.36 1.34 1.40 1.45 1.48 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 12.15 11.90 12.20 12.24 12.26 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.37 3.66 3.65 3.72 3.81 3.86 2.42 2.41 2.40 2.44 2.47 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.33 4.19 4.13 4.08 4.01 3.97 1.41 1.40 1.38 1.38 1.36 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.73 0.73 1.64 1.64 1.62 1.60 1.58 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.07 2.07 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.41 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.69 1.69 1.63 1.61 1.59 3.73 3.67 3.55 3.48 3.45 1.13 1.11 1.07 1.06 1.07 2.54 2.52 2.47 2.41 2.38 1.69 1.69 1.77 1.75 1.73 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 2.05 2.04 1.99 1.94 1.92 0.75 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.75 6.60 6.53 6.50 6.43 6.40 2.02 2.02 1.99 2.01 2.03 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 3.88 3.83 3.73 3.66 3.63 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.18 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.87 3.54 3.56 3.45 3.38 3.35 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.32 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.21 1.20 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 1.77 1.75 1.75 1.73 1.72 6.43 6.44 6.87 6.92 6.95 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.58 0.55 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.45 1.46 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.74 1.45 1.45 1.37 1.34 1.33 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 3.58 3.55 3.52 3.49 3.58 2003 100.00 1.53 0.19 1.48 0.93 12.26 1.01 0.76 0.19 0.37 3.86 2.47 0.34 0.33 3.97 1.36 0.76 0.73 1.58 2.07 0.41 1.15 1.59 3.45 1.07 2.38 1.73 0.31 0.53 0.30 0.20 1.92 0.75 6.40 2.03 0.25 3.63 1.18 0.87 3.35 0.32 1.20 0.28 1.72 6.95 0.55 0.20 1.46 1.49 0.74 1.33 0.18 3.58 Enrollment (No.) 1997 2002 793,809 912,449 14,979 16,529 1,212 1,839 10,561 13,297 9,637 10,930 79,929 98,687 8,952 9,872 6,190 7,224 2,077 2,231 3,273 3,403 29,523 35,610 20,505 23,414 2,539 3,073 2,213 3,347 33,924 39,619 12,415 14,145 6,341 7,620 6,355 8,013 14,828 16,190 19,998 22,136 3,392 4,002 9,514 10,527 11,499 13,040 32,440 35,269 9,117 10,331 24,693 26,742 14,899 17,646 2,510 2,982 4,088 5,252 2,019 2,754 1,267 1,632 13,746 15,262 7,187 7,749 43,716 49,493 16,825 19,202 2,121 2,307 35,441 38,081 11,631 13,460 5,222 9,199 27,515 30,986 2,676 3,150 10,822 12,248 2,374 2,827 14,553 16,507 54,624 67,664 4,419 5,527 1,379 1,573 11,480 13,772 9,387 11,167 6,858 7,650 12,556 13,489 1,395 1,803 32,221 36,920 Enrollment (% of U.S.) 1997 2002 100.00 100.00 1.89 1.81 0.15 0.20 1.33 1.46 1.21 1.20 10.07 10.82 1.13 1.08 0.78 0.79 0.26 0.24 0.41 0.37 3.72 3.90 2.58 2.57 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.37 4.27 4.34 1.56 1.55 0.80 0.84 0.80 0.88 1.87 1.77 2.52 2.43 0.43 0.44 1.20 1.15 1.45 1.43 4.09 3.87 1.15 1.13 3.11 2.93 1.88 1.93 0.32 0.33 0.51 0.58 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.18 1.73 1.67 0.91 0.85 5.51 5.42 2.12 2.10 0.27 0.25 4.46 4.17 1.47 1.48 0.66 1.01 3.47 3.40 0.34 0.35 1.36 1.34 0.30 0.31 1.83 1.81 6.88 7.42 0.56 0.61 0.17 0.17 1.45 1.51 1.18 1.22 0.86 0.84 1.58 1.48 0.18 0.20 4.06 4.05 Indian tribes 2.86 2.70 2.79 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.78 21,019 23,837 Migrant programs 3.86 3.82 3.82 3.92 3.98 3.94 3.94 36,458 33,850 Outer Pacific 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 5,849 6,209 U.S. Virgin Islands 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1,446 1,161 Program support/ HHS administration 2.61 2.65 3.10 3.10 3.14 3.22 3.21 SOURCES: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/budget.htm; http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/. 2.65 2.61 4.59 3.71 0.74 0.68 0.18 0.13 23 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix C Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotments and Percentage Shares, Fiscal Years 2003–2005 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Table C.1 Head Start: Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2003 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,917,000 6,453,616,000 2.012% 473,775,835 5,979,840,165 117,955,752 92,157,644 25,798,108 25.00% 6,449,527 5,159,622 COLA-Then-Formula 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,560,779 6,453,972,221 2.018% 471,731,881 5,982,240,340 120,355,927 92,157,644 28,198,284 25.00% 7,049,571 5,639,657 Formula-Only Method 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,560,779 6,453,972,221 2.018% 473,801,986 5,980,170,235 118,285,822 92,157,644 26,128,178 25.00% 6,532,045 5,225,636 26 U.S. total (all U.S.) Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998 $ % States % Total 4,347,433,000 100.00 4,232,431,000 97.35 3,931,847,000 100.00 90.44 67,517,000 1.72 1.55 8,209,000 0.21 0.19 59,017,000 1.50 1.36 39,367,000 1.00 0.91 528,339,000 13.44 12.15 42,368,000 1.08 0.97 35,244,000 0.90 0.81 8,446,000 0.21 0.19 18,276,000 0.46 0.42 159,055,000 4.05 3.66 105,423,000 2.68 2.42 13,983,000 0.36 0.32 13,058,000 0.33 0.30 182,050,000 4.63 4.19 61,337,000 1.56 1.41 33,451,000 0.85 0.77 31,299,000 0.80 0.72 71,283,000 1.81 1.64 94,565,000 2.41 2.18 17,233,000 0.44 0.40 51,664,000 1.31 1.19 73,664,000 1.87 1.69 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2002 $ % States % Total 6,536,570,000 100.00 6,326,314,750 96.78 5,861,884,413 100.00 89.68 100,154,494 1.71 1.53 12,104,386 0.21 0.19 96,912,656 1.65 1.48 61,023,626 1.04 0.93 801,429,541 13.67 12.26 65,716,131 1.12 1.01 49,984,520 0.85 0.76 12,286,428 0.21 0.19 24,090,814 0.41 0.37 252,369,803 4.31 3.86 161,740,120 2.76 2.47 21,977,038 0.37 0.34 21,662,707 0.37 0.33 259,780,216 4.43 3.97 88,666,972 1.51 1.36 49,494,840 0.84 0.76 47,909,093 0.82 0.73 103,472,617 1.77 1.58 135,048,223 2.30 2.07 26,661,319 0.45 0.41 74,928,894 1.28 1.15 104,182,066 1.78 1.59 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 3,579,535 100.00 69,062 1.93 6,494 0.18 78,803 2.20 44,569 1.25 489,256 13.67 37,039 1.03 24,620 0.69 7,296 0.20 10,410 0.29 173,427 4.84 106,663 2.98 11,571 0.32 16,512 0.46 134,266 3.75 61,623 1.72 24,705 0.69 27,428 0.77 60,324 1.69 90,610 2.53 11,218 0.31 40,331 1.13 48,441 1.35 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,616,000 5,979,840,165 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 12,347,956 0.21 98,862,781 1.65 62,251,574 1.04 817,556,305 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 50,990,333 0.85 12,533,662 0.21 24,575,581 0.41 257,448,114 4.31 164,994,735 2.76 22,419,271 0.37 22,098,615 0.37 265,007,643 4.43 90,451,173 1.51 50,490,800 0.84 48,873,144 0.82 105,554,744 1.77 137,765,730 2.30 27,197,811 0.45 76,436,650 1.28 106,278,469 1.78 COLA-Then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,972,221 5,982,240,340 100.00 102,273,119 1.71 12,345,843 0.21 99,057,050 1.66 62,334,108 1.04 817,883,401 13.67 67,041,067 1.12 50,964,299 0.85 12,537,064 0.21 24,551,564 0.41 257,703,631 4.31 165,123,171 2.76 22,413,702 0.37 22,133,353 0.37 264,922,051 4.43 90,546,394 1.51 50,467,590 0.84 48,878,364 0.82 105,574,573 1.76 137,885,177 2.30 27,168,846 0.45 76,424,602 1.28 106,201,566 1.78 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,972,221 5,980,170,235 100.00 107,036,463 1.79 11,925,072 0.20 104,110,571 1.74 64,870,793 1.08 808,306,770 13.52 63,562,888 1.06 49,332,343 0.82 12,621,002 0.21 24,232,932 0.41 258,295,419 4.32 166,458,945 2.78 20,604,292 0.34 22,506,689 0.38 258,881,255 4.33 96,599,631 1.62 47,587,983 0.80 46,994,170 0.79 105,802,302 1.77 146,414,910 2.45 23,652,295 0.40 74,742,675 1.25 101,383,474 1.70 Table C.1 (continued) Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998 $ % States % Total 162,316,000 4.13 3.73 48,909,000 1.24 1.13 110,564,000 2.81 2.54 73,482,000 1.87 1.69 12,292,000 0.31 0.28 21,318,000 0.54 0.49 11,280,000 0.29 0.26 8,512,000 0.22 0.20 89,319,000 2.27 2.05 32,470,000 0.83 0.75 286,961,000 7.30 6.60 87,978,000 2.24 2.02 9,721,000 0.25 0.22 168,724,000 4.29 3.88 50,997,000 1.30 1.17 37,909,000 0.96 0.87 154,046,000 3.92 3.54 13,901,000 0.35 0.32 52,826,000 1.34 1.22 11,088,000 0.28 0.26 76,803,000 1.95 1.77 279,640,000 7.11 6.43 21,728,000 0.55 0.50 8,900,000 0.23 0.20 61,960,000 1.58 1.43 64,841,000 1.65 1.49 33,349,000 0.85 0.77 63,218,000 1.61 1.45 6,421,000 0.16 0.15 155,526,000 3.96 3.58 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2002 $ % States % Total 225,290,497 3.84 3.45 69,643,329 1.19 1.07 155,259,338 2.65 2.38 113,255,841 1.93 1.73 20,117,436 0.34 0.31 34,580,417 0.59 0.53 19,785,629 0.34 0.30 12,860,678 0.22 0.20 125,175,590 2.14 1.92 49,185,413 0.84 0.75 418,238,532 7.13 6.40 132,667,143 2.26 2.03 16,036,018 0.27 0.25 236,999,439 4.04 3.63 76,909,804 1.31 1.18 57,105,005 0.97 0.87 219,114,506 3.74 3.35 21,184,290 0.36 0.32 78,506,579 1.34 1.20 18,078,512 0.31 0.28 112,343,511 1.92 1.72 454,292,444 7.75 6.95 36,270,290 0.62 0.55 13,022,989 0.22 0.20 95,366,343 1.63 1.46 97,246,982 1.66 1.49 48,624,566 0.83 0.74 86,940,813 1.48 1.33 11,882,457 0.20 0.18 234,303,518 4.00 3.58 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 102,664 2.87 34,352 0.96 57,552 1.61 64,736 1.81 12,174 0.34 15,946 0.45 23,045 0.64 6,794 0.19 63,044 1.76 35,195 0.98 253,609 7.08 94,630 2.64 6,784 0.19 128,266 3.58 53,201 1.49 37,792 1.06 116,166 3.25 12,009 0.34 52,453 1.47 10,202 0.29 75,183 2.10 355,714 9.94 24,086 0.67 4,476 0.13 59,783 1.67 61,225 1.71 26,991 0.75 43,836 1.22 5,449 0.15 167,510 4.68 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 COLA-Then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 229,641,153 3.84 71,008,840 1.19 158,153,622 2.64 115,546,360 1.93 20,529,615 0.34 35,249,690 0.59 20,278,229 0.34 13,116,388 0.22 127,640,176 2.13 50,235,935 0.84 426,811,711 7.13 135,498,331 2.27 16,341,570 0.27 241,735,860 4.04 78,538,040 1.31 58,300,493 0.97 223,474,430 3.74 21,611,941 0.36 80,154,026 1.34 18,443,101 0.31 114,701,985 1.92 464,236,791 7.76 37,030,254 0.62 13,262,990 0.22 97,336,594 1.63 99,258,159 1.66 49,601,643 0.83 88,652,978 1.48 12,112,192 0.20 239,306,705 4.00 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 221,063,591 3.70 68,566,302 1.15 143,497,076 2.40 110,525,988 1.85 19,258,348 0.32 30,442,806 0.51 24,467,078 0.41 12,399,742 0.21 125,394,772 2.10 52,609,693 0.88 432,084,098 7.23 142,128,281 2.38 13,603,020 0.23 242,121,865 4.05 81,440,296 1.36 59,534,779 1.00 220,519,862 3.69 20,772,930 0.35 82,841,267 1.39 16,925,907 0.28 119,825,092 2.00 483,190,811 8.08 35,510,772 0.59 11,461,309 0.19 96,169,725 1.61 99,875,883 1.67 48,794,105 0.82 88,302,347 1.48 9,539,090 0.16 251,380,524 4.20 27 Indian tribes Migrant Programs Outer Pacific U.S. Virgin Islands Program support/HHS admin. 117,227,558 166,248,442 10,297,000 6,811,000 115,000,000 2.70 181,794,159 3.82 257,814,769 0.24 14,942,945 0.16 9,878,464 2.65 210,255,250 2.78 3.94 0.23 0.15 3.22 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 184,652,237 261,868,005 15,177,871 10,033,768 213,560,779 185,462,548 263,017,163 15,244,476 10,077,800 213,560,779 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflationrate increases for all recipients, then is followed by formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base-year hold harmless only, with balance allotted by formula. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflation-only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2003 compares September 2002 consumer price index for all urban consumers with same datum for one year prior. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.2 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2004, Assuming Appropriation Proposed in President’s Budget and Senate and House Appropriations Bills Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method COLA-Then-Formula Formula-Only Method Poverty-Only Method 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 28 Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% U.S. total (all U.S.) 6,667,533,000 Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) 6,453,616,000 Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) 5,979,840,165 100.00 Alabama 102,169,853 1.71 Alaska 12,347,956 0.21 Arizona 98,862,781 1.65 Arkansas 62,251,574 1.04 California 817,556,305 13.67 Colorado 67,038,504 1.12 Connecticut 50,990,333 0.85 Delaware 12,533,662 0.21 District of Columbia 24,575,581 0.41 Florida 257,448,114 4.31 Georgia 164,994,735 2.76 Hawaii 22,419,271 0.37 Idaho 22,098,615 0.37 Illinois 265,007,643 4.43 Indiana 90,451,173 1.51 Iowa 50,490,800 0.84 Kansas 48,873,144 0.82 Kentucky 105,554,744 1.77 Louisiana 137,765,730 2.30 Maine 27,197,811 0.45 Maryland 76,436,650 1.28 Massachusetts 106,278,469 1.78 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments COLA-then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment Prior Year Funding: 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases or Actual Allotments, Fiscal Census Child Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- Hold Harmless of Any Year 2003 Poverty Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Kind) $ % No. % $ % $ % $ %$% 6,667,533,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,453,616,000 6,597,124,395 6,597,073,219 6,597,124,395 6,597,124,395 5,979,840,165 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 6,113,154,246 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 69,062 1.93 104,441,793 1.71 104,459,300 1.71 104,735,378 1.71 117,937,975 1.93 12,347,956 0.21 6,494 0.18 12,622,537 0.21 12,621,914 0.21 12,589,197 0.21 11,089,879 0.18 98,862,781 1.65 78,803 2.20 101,061,182 1.65 101,095,825 1.65 101,790,166 1.67 134,572,793 2.20 62,251,574 1.04 44,569 1.25 63,635,856 1.04 63,650,203 1.04 63,907,229 1.05 76,110,996 1.25 817,556,305 13.67 489,256 13.67 835,736,220 13.67 835,782,642 13.67 835,731,258 13.67 835,508,121 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 37,039 1.03 68,529,232 1.12 68,528,487 1.12 68,414,434 1.12 63,251,928 1.03 50,990,333 0.85 24,620 0.69 52,124,200 0.85 52,118,383 0.85 51,904,921 0.85 42,043,858 0.69 12,533,662 0.21 7,296 0.20 12,812,371 0.21 12,812,781 0.21 12,804,694 0.21 12,459,463 0.20 24,575,581 0.41 10,410 0.29 25,122,066 0.41 25,117,110 0.41 24,962,294 0.41 17,777,277 0.29 257,448,114 4.31 173,427 4.84 263,172,961 4.31 263,216,195 4.31 263,890,605 4.32 296,163,291 4.84 164,994,735 2.76 106,663 2.98 168,663,706 2.76 168,684,787 2.76 168,957,068 2.76 182,149,637 2.98 22,419,271 0.37 11,571 0.32 22,917,806 0.37 22,916,351 0.37 22,849,112 0.37 19,759,930 0.32 22,098,615 0.37 16,512 0.46 22,590,019 0.37 22,596,133 0.37 22,712,005 0.37 28,197,733 0.46 265,007,643 4.43 134,266 3.75 270,900,590 4.43 270,879,685 4.43 269,995,376 4.42 229,287,599 3.75 90,451,173 1.51 61,623 1.72 92,462,526 1.51 92,478,738 1.51 92,740,353 1.52 105,234,309 1.72 50,490,800 0.84 24,705 0.69 51,613,558 0.84 51,608,280 0.84 51,408,545 0.84 42,189,014 0.69 48,873,144 0.82 27,428 0.77 49,959,931 0.82 49,960,016 0.82 49,892,043 0.82 46,839,112 0.77 105,554,744 1.77 60,324 1.69 107,901,954 1.77 107,903,745 1.77 107,795,669 1.76 103,015,991 1.69 137,765,730 2.30 90,610 2.53 140,829,213 2.30 140,849,105 2.30 141,131,724 2.31 154,735,743 2.53 27,197,811 0.45 11,218 0.31 27,802,606 0.45 27,796,674 0.45 27,614,539 0.45 19,157,108 0.31 76,436,650 1.28 40,331 1.13 78,136,364 1.28 78,132,706 1.28 77,934,872 1.27 68,873,714 1.13 106,278,469 1.78 48,441 1.35 108,641,773 1.78 108,625,400 1.78 108,077,963 1.77 82,723,255 1.35 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Table C.2 (continued) Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased Census Child Evenly by Nationwide Poverty Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) No. % $ % 102,664 2.87 234,934,475 3.84 34,352 0.96 72,624,541 1.19 57,552 1.61 161,905,502 2.65 64,736 1.81 118,103,967 1.93 12,174 0.34 20,978,600 0.34 15,946 0.45 36,060,696 0.59 23,045 0.64 20,632,590 0.34 6,794 0.19 13,411,203 0.22 63,044 1.76 130,533,963 2.14 35,195 0.98 51,290,886 0.84 253,609 7.08 436,142,009 7.13 94,630 2.64 138,346,206 2.26 6,784 0.19 16,722,470 0.27 128,266 3.58 247,144,640 4.04 53,201 1.49 80,202,071 1.31 37,792 1.06 59,549,491 0.97 116,166 3.25 228,494,109 3.74 12,009 0.34 22,091,123 0.36 52,453 1.47 81,867,199 1.34 10,202 0.29 18,852,396 0.31 75,183 2.10 117,152,584 1.92 355,714 9.94 473,739,275 7.75 24,086 0.67 37,822,907 0.62 4,476 0.13 13,580,462 0.22 59,783 1.67 99,448,676 1.63 61,225 1.71 101,409,820 1.66 26,991 0.75 50,706,031 0.83 43,836 1.22 90,662,476 1.48 5,449 0.15 12,391,108 0.20 167,510 4.68 244,333,315 4.00 COLA-then-Formula Al- lotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 234,895,983 3.84 72,616,508 1.19 161,859,466 2.65 118,104,018 1.93 20,979,607 0.34 36,055,065 0.59 20,649,945 0.34 13,410,386 0.22 130,521,448 2.14 51,301,374 0.84 436,163,697 7.13 138,374,051 2.26 16,718,956 0.27 247,134,102 4.04 80,215,763 1.31 59,557,130 0.97 228,480,789 3.74 22,090,985 0.36 81,878,437 1.34 18,852,210 0.31 117,168,846 1.92 473,881,438 7.75 37,827,881 0.62 13,576,081 0.22 99,456,512 1.63 101,418,198 1.66 50,704,867 0.83 90,653,855 1.48 12,389,128 0.20 244,383,059 4.00 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Re- mainder by Formula, Base- Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 233,637,682 3.82 72,320,840 1.18 160,521,494 2.63 117,939,654 1.93 20,974,491 0.34 35,868,626 0.59 21,039,844 0.34 13,371,851 0.22 130,036,403 2.13 51,482,575 0.84 436,075,640 7.13 138,852,066 2.27 16,610,716 0.27 246,533,304 4.03 80,433,740 1.32 59,658,003 0.98 227,838,989 3.73 22,056,683 0.36 82,034,859 1.34 18,821,282 0.31 117,397,052 1.92 476,648,058 7.80 37,894,889 0.62 13,451,319 0.22 99,506,180 1.63 101,478,229 1.66 50,605,679 0.83 90,318,705 1.48 12,323,982 0.20 245,240,976 4.01 Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmless of Any Kind) $% 175,320,498 2.87 58,663,307 0.96 98,282,215 1.61 110,550,415 1.81 20,789,680 0.34 27,231,168 0.45 39,354,213 0.64 11,602,192 0.19 107,660,967 1.76 60,102,908 0.98 433,091,018 7.08 161,600,744 2.64 11,585,115 0.19 219,041,329 3.58 90,851,962 1.49 64,537,835 1.06 198,378,020 3.25 20,507,908 0.34 89,574,594 1.47 17,422,073 0.29 128,390,877 2.10 607,456,906 9.94 41,131,940 0.67 7,643,717 0.13 102,092,119 1.67 104,554,640 1.71 46,092,842 0.75 74,859,243 1.22 9,305,320 0.15 286,058,761 4.68 29 Indian tribes 185,452,311 Migrant programs 263,002,646 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 189,422,688 268,633,309 15,569,988 10,292,989 218,496,781 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflationrate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula’s base year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless provisions or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflationonly increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.3 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2005, Assuming Hypothetical $1 Billion Appropriation Increase from 2004 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 COLA-Then-Formula 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 Formula-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 Poverty-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 30 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments COLA-Then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment Prior Year Funding: 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases Base Year Funding: Actual Actual Allotments, Fiscal Census Child Poverty Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- or Hold Harmless of Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 Year 2004 Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Any Kind) $ % $ % No. % $%$% $ %$% U.S. total (all U.S.) 6,667,533,000 6,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) 6,453,616,000 6,597,124,395 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) 5,979,840,165 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 Alabama 102,169,853 1.71 104,441,793 1.71 69,062 1.93 120,169,456 1.71 120,140,619 1.71 122,495,401 1.74 135,697,998 1.93 Alaska 12,347,956 0.21 12,622,537 0.21 6,494 0.18 14,523,337 0.21 14,512,619 0.21 14,259,197 0.20 12,759,880 0.18 Arizona 98,862,781 1.65 101,061,182 1.65 78,803 2.20 116,279,766 1.65 117,075,290 1.66 122,055,191 1.74 154,837,818 2.20 Arkansas 62,251,574 1.04 63,635,856 1.04 44,569 1.25 73,218,641 1.04 73,210,791 1.04 75,368,619 1.07 87,572,386 1.25 California 817,556,305 13.67 835,736,220 13.67 489,256 13.67 961,587,922 13.67 961,109,768 13.67 961,548,611 13.67 961,325,474 13.67 Colorado 67,038,504 1.12 68,529,232 1.12 37,039 1.03 78,848,900 1.12 78,797,671 1.12 77,939,404 1.11 72,776,898 1.03 Connecticut 50,990,333 0.85 52,124,200 0.85 24,620 0.69 59,973,470 0.85 59,920,637 0.85 58,236,214 0.83 48,375,152 0.69 Delaware 12,533,662 0.21 12,812,371 0.21 7,296 0.20 14,741,759 0.21 14,733,629 0.21 14,680,938 0.21 14,335,707 0.20 District of Columbia 24,575,581 0.41 25,122,066 0.41 10,410 0.29 28,905,143 0.41 28,873,995 0.41 27,639,335 0.39 20,454,319 0.29 Florida 257,448,114 4.31 263,172,961 4.31 173,427 4.84 302,803,605 4.31 302,728,616 4.30 308,489,192 4.39 340,761,877 4.84 Georgia 164,994,735 2.76 168,663,706 2.76 106,663 2.98 194,062,407 2.76 193,996,843 2.76 196,386,586 2.79 209,579,155 2.98 Hawaii 22,419,271 0.37 22,917,806 0.37 11,571 0.32 26,368,949 0.37 26,348,632 0.37 25,824,717 0.37 22,735,535 0.32 Idaho 22,098,615 0.37 22,590,019 0.37 16,512 0.46 25,991,801 0.37 25,991,710 0.37 26,958,240 0.38 32,443,968 0.46 Illinois 265,007,643 4.43 270,900,590 4.43 134,266 3.75 311,694,922 4.43 311,444,970 4.43 304,523,297 4.33 263,815,520 3.75 Indiana 90,451,173 1.51 92,462,526 1.51 61,623 1.72 106,386,257 1.51 106,362,611 1.51 108,587,359 1.54 121,081,315 1.72 Iowa 50,490,800 0.84 51,613,558 0.84 24,705 0.69 59,385,932 0.84 59,334,890 0.84 57,761,697 0.82 48,542,166 0.69 Kansas 48,873,144 0.82 49,959,931 0.82 27,428 0.77 57,483,288 0.82 57,447,601 0.82 56,945,443 0.81 53,892,513 0.77 Kentucky 105,554,744 1.77 107,901,954 1.77 60,324 1.69 124,150,675 1.77 124,077,839 1.76 123,308,624 1.75 118,528,946 1.69 Louisiana 137,765,730 2.30 140,829,213 2.30 90,610 2.53 162,036,378 2.30 161,987,684 2.30 164,433,043 2.34 178,037,063 2.53 Maine 27,197,811 0.45 27,802,606 0.45 11,218 0.31 31,989,340 0.45 31,953,687 0.45 30,499,367 0.43 22,041,935 0.31 Maryland 76,436,650 1.28 78,136,364 1.28 40,331 1.13 89,902,750 1.28 89,836,919 1.28 88,306,415 1.26 79,245,257 1.13 Massachusetts 106,278,469 1.78 108,641,773 1.78 48,441 1.35 125,001,901 1.78 124,880,560 1.78 120,535,078 1.71 95,180,370 1.35 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Table C.3 (continued) Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 $% 234,934,475 3.84 72,624,541 1.19 161,905,502 2.65 118,103,967 1.93 20,978,600 0.34 36,060,696 0.59 20,632,590 0.34 13,411,203 0.22 130,533,963 2.14 51,290,886 0.84 436,142,009 7.13 138,346,206 2.26 16,722,470 0.27 247,144,640 4.04 80,202,071 1.31 59,549,491 0.97 228,494,109 3.74 22,091,123 0.36 81,867,199 1.34 18,852,396 0.31 117,152,584 1.92 473,739,275 7.75 37,822,907 0.62 13,580,462 0.22 99,448,676 1.63 101,409,820 1.66 50,706,031 0.83 90,662,476 1.48 12,391,108 0.20 244,333,315 4.00 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 102,664 2.87 34,352 0.96 57,552 1.61 64,736 1.81 12,174 0.34 15,946 0.45 23,045 0.64 6,794 0.19 63,044 1.76 35,195 0.98 253,609 7.08 94,630 2.64 6,784 0.19 128,266 3.58 53,201 1.49 37,792 1.06 116,166 3.25 12,009 0.34 52,453 1.47 10,202 0.29 75,183 2.10 355,714 9.94 24,086 0.67 4,476 0.13 59,783 1.67 61,225 1.71 26,991 0.75 43,836 1.22 5,449 0.15 167,510 4.68 Percent-Only Allotments COLA-Then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- or Hold Harmless of Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Any Kind) $%$% $ %$% 270,312,747 3.84 270,042,199 3.84 260,038,815 3.70 201,721,631 2.87 83,560,913 1.19 83,487,491 1.19 81,154,820 1.15 67,497,287 0.96 186,286,500 2.65 186,048,524 2.65 175,321,599 2.49 113,082,320 1.61 135,888,987 1.93 135,804,222 1.93 134,587,201 1.91 127,197,962 1.81 24,137,722 0.34 24,125,301 0.34 24,105,163 0.34 23,920,353 0.34 41,490,998 0.59 41,450,204 0.59 39,969,308 0.57 31,331,851 0.45 23,739,606 0.34 25,048,078 0.36 26,966,110 0.38 45,280,478 0.64 15,430,767 0.22 15,418,967 0.22 15,119,000 0.21 13,349,341 0.19 150,190,789 2.14 150,063,899 2.13 146,248,834 2.08 123,873,398 1.76 59,014,669 0.84 59,005,500 0.84 60,533,342 0.86 69,153,674 0.98 501,819,686 7.13 501,563,452 7.13 501,293,876 7.13 498,309,254 7.08 159,179,461 2.26 159,153,556 2.26 163,187,171 2.32 185,935,849 2.64 19,240,670 0.27 19,219,369 0.27 18,355,293 0.26 13,329,692 0.19 284,361,614 4.04 284,156,123 4.04 279,518,262 3.97 252,026,287 3.58 92,279,527 1.31 92,258,036 1.31 94,114,939 1.34 104,533,162 1.49 68,516,919 0.97 68,494,290 0.97 69,376,615 0.99 74,256,447 1.06 262,902,541 3.74 262,703,107 3.74 257,712,304 3.66 228,251,335 3.25 25,417,777 0.36 25,401,532 0.36 25,144,924 0.36 23,596,149 0.34 94,195,402 1.34 94,166,234 1.34 95,523,703 1.36 103,063,437 1.47 21,691,338 0.31 21,677,294 0.31 21,444,834 0.30 20,045,625 0.29 134,794,337 1.92 134,753,074 1.92 136,731,155 1.94 147,724,981 2.10 545,078,644 7.75 546,552,980 7.77 568,123,674 8.08 698,932,521 9.94 43,518,576 0.62 43,504,525 0.62 44,088,859 0.63 47,325,910 0.67 15,625,515 0.22 15,604,181 0.22 14,602,370 0.21 8,794,768 0.13 114,424,436 1.63 114,373,644 1.63 114,880,010 1.63 117,465,950 1.67 116,680,904 1.66 116,630,136 1.66 117,222,885 1.67 120,299,296 1.71 58,341,742 0.83 58,302,217 0.83 57,546,700 0.82 53,033,863 0.75 104,315,141 1.48 104,227,200 1.48 101,591,596 1.44 86,132,134 1.22 14,257,058 0.20 14,242,922 0.20 13,725,250 0.20 10,706,588 0.15 281,126,938 4.00 281,082,685 4.00 288,317,943 4.10 329,135,729 4.68 31 Indian tribes 185,452,311 189,576,195 218,124,063 218,124,063 218,124,063 218,124,063 Migrant programs 263,002,646 268,851,009 309,336,698 309,336,698 309,336,698 309,336,698 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 15,582,605 17,929,156 17,929,156 17,929,156 17,929,156 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 10,301,330 11,852,585 11,852,585 11,852,585 11,852,585 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 218,445,605 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation rate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless provisions or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflation- only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.4 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2005, Assuming Hypothetical 5 Percent Appropriation Increase from 2004 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainer to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 COLA-Then-Formula 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 Formula-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 Poverty-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 32 U.S. total (all U.S.) Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,616,000 5,979,840,165 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 12,347,956 0.21 98,862,781 1.65 62,251,574 1.04 817,556,305 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 50,990,333 0.85 12,533,662 0.21 24,575,581 0.41 257,448,114 4.31 164,994,735 2.76 22,419,271 0.37 22,098,615 0.37 265,007,643 4.43 90,451,173 1.51 50,490,800 0.84 48,873,144 0.82 105,554,744 1.77 137,765,730 2.30 27,197,811 0.45 76,436,650 1.28 106,278,469 1.78 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Age 0–4 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) COLA-then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmlesses Enforced) $ % No. % $ % $% 6,815,570,000 7,156,348,500 7,156,348,500 6,597,124,395 6,931,349,527 6,931,349,527 6,112,813,255 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 6,422,502,098 100.00 6,422,502,098 100.00 104,441,793 1.71 69,062 1.93 109,733,049 1.71 109,728,108 1.71 12,622,537 0.21 6,494 0.18 13,262,023 0.21 13,260,186 0.21 101,061,182 1.65 78,803 2.20 106,181,168 1.65 106,317,478 1.66 63,635,856 1.04 44,569 1.25 66,859,791 1.04 66,858,446 1.04 835,736,220 13.67 489,256 13.67 878,076,493 13.67 877,994,563 13.67 68,529,232 1.12 37,039 1.03 72,001,077 1.12 71,992,299 1.12 52,124,200 0.85 24,620 0.69 54,764,929 0.85 54,755,876 0.85 12,812,371 0.21 7,296 0.20 13,461,475 0.21 13,460,082 0.21 25,122,066 0.41 10,410 0.29 26,394,806 0.41 26,389,469 0.41 263,172,961 4.31 173,427 4.84 276,505,894 4.31 276,493,045 4.31 168,663,706 2.76 106,663 2.98 177,208,588 2.76 177,197,354 2.76 22,917,806 0.37 11,571 0.32 24,078,873 0.37 24,075,392 0.37 22,590,019 0.37 16,512 0.46 23,734,480 0.37 23,734,465 0.37 270,900,590 4.43 134,266 3.75 284,625,022 4.43 284,582,194 4.43 92,462,526 1.51 61,623 1.72 97,146,885 1.51 97,142,834 1.51 51,613,558 0.84 24,705 0.69 54,228,417 0.84 54,219,671 0.84 49,959,931 0.82 27,428 0.77 52,491,013 0.82 52,484,898 0.82 107,901,954 1.77 60,324 1.69 113,368,510 1.77 113,356,029 1.76 140,829,213 2.30 90,610 2.53 147,963,937 2.30 147,955,593 2.30 27,802,606 0.45 11,218 0.31 29,211,149 0.45 29,205,040 0.45 78,136,364 1.28 40,331 1.13 82,094,928 1.28 82,083,648 1.28 108,641,773 1.78 48,441 1.35 114,145,809 1.78 114,125,018 1.78 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 7,156,348,500 6,931,349,527 6,422,502,098 100.00 110,710,380 1.72 13,151,035 0.20 108,607,926 1.69 67,763,183 1.06 878,059,975 13.67 71,618,919 1.12 54,034,957 0.84 13,435,919 0.21 25,862,930 0.40 278,894,902 4.34 178,185,177 2.77 23,850,195 0.37 24,140,565 0.38 281,611,600 4.38 98,071,759 1.53 53,545,935 0.83 52,265,018 0.81 113,014,691 1.76 148,970,984 2.32 28,585,081 0.45 81,424,169 1.27 112,268,908 1.75 Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmlesses of Any Kind) $% 7,156,348,500 6,931,349,527 6,422,502,098 100.00 123,912,977 1.93 11,651,717 0.18 141,390,553 2.20 79,966,950 1.25 877,836,838 13.67 66,456,413 1.03 44,173,895 0.69 13,090,688 0.20 18,677,914 0.29 311,167,588 4.84 191,377,746 2.98 20,761,013 0.32 29,626,294 0.46 240,903,823 3.75 110,565,715 1.72 44,326,404 0.69 49,212,087 0.77 108,235,013 1.69 162,575,003 2.53 20,127,650 0.31 72,363,011 1.13 86,914,201 1.35 Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 $% Table C.4 (continued) Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Age 0-4 No. % Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% COLA-then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmlesses Enforced) $% Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmlesses of Any Kind) $% Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 229,823,904 3.84 234,934,475 3.84 102,664 2.87 246,836,783 3.84 246,790,426 3.84 242,519,812 3.78 184,202,628 2.87 71,044,727 1.19 72,624,541 1.19 34,352 0.96 76,303,863 1.19 76,291,283 1.19 75,292,855 1.17 61,635,322 0.96 158,383,544 2.65 161,905,502 2.65 57,552 1.61 170,107,998 2.65 170,067,222 2.65 165,500,691 2.58 103,261,413 1.61 115,534,831 1.93 118,103,967 1.93 64,736 1.81 124,087,380 1.93 124,072,855 1.93 123,540,386 1.92 116,151,147 1.81 20,522,249 0.34 20,978,600 0.34 12,174 0.34 22,041,423 0.34 22,039,295 0.34 22,027,742 0.34 21,842,932 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 36,060,696 0.59 15,946 0.45 37,887,612 0.59 37,880,622 0.59 37,248,218 0.58 28,610,760 0.45 20,183,765 0.34 20,632,590 0.34 23,045 0.64 21,677,883 0.34 21,902,084 0.34 23,033,617 0.36 41,347,985 0.64 13,119,467 0.22 13,411,203 0.22 6,794 0.19 14,090,645 0.22 14,088,623 0.22 13,959,645 0.22 12,189,985 0.19 127,694,435 2.14 130,533,963 2.14 63,044 1.76 137,147,107 2.14 137,125,365 2.14 135,490,749 2.11 113,115,313 1.76 50,175,146 0.84 51,290,886 0.84 35,195 0.98 53,889,397 0.84 53,887,826 0.84 54,527,524 0.85 63,147,856 0.98 426,654,536 7.13 436,142,009 7.13 253,609 7.08 458,237,942 7.13 458,194,037 7.13 458,017,003 7.13 455,032,381 7.08 135,336,737 2.26 138,346,206 2.26 94,630 2.64 145,355,136 2.26 145,350,697 2.26 147,039,123 2.29 169,787,800 2.64 16,358,703 0.27 16,722,470 0.27 6,784 0.19 17,569,667 0.27 17,566,017 0.27 17,197,644 0.27 12,172,043 0.19 241,768,460 4.04 247,144,640 4.04 128,266 3.58 259,665,542 4.04 259,630,332 4.04 257,630,429 4.01 230,138,455 3.58 78,457,421 1.31 80,202,071 1.31 53,201 1.49 84,265,288 1.31 84,261,606 1.31 85,036,504 1.32 95,454,726 1.49 58,254,100 0.97 59,549,491 0.97 37,792 1.06 62,566,402 0.97 62,562,524 0.97 62,927,635 0.98 67,807,466 1.06 223,523,637 3.74 228,494,109 3.74 116,166 3.25 240,070,134 3.74 240,035,962 3.74 237,889,264 3.70 208,428,295 3.25 21,610,571 0.36 22,091,123 0.36 12,009 0.34 23,210,309 0.36 23,207,525 0.36 23,095,660 0.36 21,546,885 0.34 80,086,327 1.34 81,867,199 1.34 52,453 1.47 86,014,775 1.34 86,009,777 1.34 86,572,909 1.35 94,112,644 1.47 18,442,297 0.31 18,852,396 0.31 10,202 0.29 19,807,501 0.31 19,805,095 0.31 19,703,924 0.31 18,304,715 0.29 114,604,143 1.92 117,152,584 1.92 75,183 2.10 123,087,796 1.92 123,080,726 1.92 123,901,622 1.93 134,895,447 2.10 463,433,942 7.75 473,739,275 7.75 355,714 9.94 497,739,970 7.75 497,992,592 7.75 507,423,189 7.90 638,232,036 9.94 37,000,139 0.62 37,822,907 0.62 24,086 0.67 39,739,100 0.62 39,736,693 0.62 39,978,725 0.62 43,215,777 0.67 13,285,044 0.22 13,580,462 0.22 4,476 0.13 14,268,479 0.22 14,264,824 0.22 13,838,567 0.22 8,030,965 0.13 97,285,352 1.63 99,448,676 1.63 59,783 1.67 104,486,970 1.63 104,478,266 1.63 104,678,396 1.63 107,264,335 1.67 99,203,834 1.66 101,409,820 1.66 61,225 1.71 106,547,469 1.66 106,538,770 1.66 106,775,202 1.66 109,851,612 1.71 49,603,014 0.83 50,706,031 0.83 26,991 0.75 53,274,912 0.83 53,268,140 0.83 52,940,846 0.82 48,428,009 0.75 88,690,279 1.48 90,662,476 1.48 43,836 1.22 95,255,640 1.48 95,240,572 1.48 94,111,243 1.47 78,651,781 1.22 12,121,562 0.20 12,391,108 0.20 5,449 0.15 13,018,869 0.20 13,016,447 0.20 12,795,410 0.20 9,776,749 0.15 239,018,290 4.00 244,333,315 4.00 167,510 4.68 256,711,789 4.00 256,704,207 4.00 259,733,355 4.04 300,551,140 4.68 33 Indian tribes 185,452,311 189,576,195 199,180,551 199,180,551 199,180,551 199,180,551 Migrant programs 263,002,646 268,851,009 282,471,604 282,471,604 282,471,604 282,471,604 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 15,582,605 16,372,055 16,372,055 16,372,055 16,372,055 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 10,301,330 10,823,218 10,823,218 10,823,218 10,823,218 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 218,445,605 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation- rate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base-year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E . Amount for administration and program support assumes HHS provides inflation-only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCEs: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. BOARD OF DIRECTORS RAYMOND L. WATSON, CHAIRMAN Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company EDWARD K. HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. WALTER B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California CHERYL WHITE MASON Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office ARJAY MILLER Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUTTON Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center ADVISORY COUNCIL MARY C. DALY Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco CLIFFORD W. GRAVES General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California HILARY W. HOYNES Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis ANDRÉS E. JIMÉNEZ Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President DANIEL A. MAZMANIAN C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California DEAN MISCZYNSKI Director California Research Bureau RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco MANUEL PASTOR Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee JAMES P. SMITH Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org ISBN 1-58213-093-0" } ["___content":protected]=> string(108) "

FF 1003TRFF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(79) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/federal-formula-grants-head-start/ff_1003trff/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8366) ["ID"]=> int(8366) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:00" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3556) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(11) "FF 1003TRFF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(11) "ff_1003trff" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(15) "FF_1003TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "456522" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(107104) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Head Start Tim Ransdell Shervin Boloorian The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2003 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute nearly $300 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Head Start Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian September 2003 Overview The federal Head Start program was launched in 1965 as a short-term plan to prepare low-income preschool children for elementary school. After having served more than 20 million children, the program has evolved over the years and today offers a comprehensive array of early childhood development services, including literacy training, health and nutrition services, and social development and parental support services for low-income children and their families.1 Incorporating recent advances in child development and early education research, Head Start remains an innovative and respected program. Passed initially as the Head Start Act,2 the program was revised substantially by Congress in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.3 Among other things, that legislation added a “hold harmless” provision to mitigate funding reductions from one year to the next. With the Head Start Act Amendments of 1994, Congress expanded the program—initially intended to serve families with preschoolers ages 3 and 4—to include coverage for prenatal care and for children through age 4, thus adapting its mission to include provision of services to the youngest infants as well as pregnant mothers with physical and educational needs.4 That legislation also tightened performance standards, requiring that some grant recipients alter service delivery practices and forcing others out of the program entirely. Congress last overhauled the program with its passage of the Head Start Amendments of 1998,5 which changed the base year for guaranteed funds distribution, based funds distribution on preschool-age poverty, and renewed the program’s authorization through September 30, 2003. Head Start is 1Crisis intervention, language instruction, marriage counseling, and health and parenting education services are available to Head Start parents in California. 242 U.S.C. 9801 et seq. 3Public Law 97-35 (8/13/81). 4Children ages 0–2 and their parents receive services under section 645A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9840A), the Early Head Start Programs for Families with Infants and Toddlers. 5The reauthorization act was included as a portion of the Coats Human Services Amendments of 1998, Public Law 105285 (10/27/98). administered and funds are distributed to grantees by the Head Start Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).6 During the period covered by the most recent reauthorization, funding for local projects and support activities grew by more than one-third, from $4.37 billion in 1998 to $6.67 billion in 2003.7 Over the course of the past two decades, Head Start funding has grown rapidly relative to that of other federal programs, rising at an average rate of 11 percent per year since 1980. California’s share of Head Start funds remained fairly constant throughout the last reauthorization’s lifetime, remaining at approximately 12.2 percent of total program appropriations between 1998 and 2003. This paper examines the workings and results of the distribution method used to determine the allocation of Head Start funds to the states. As with other federal programs already discussed in this publication series, Head Start is treated as a formula grant because it awards funds geographically on the basis of a mathematical construct—a formula. However, Head Start differs from many other formula programs insofar as its formulaic directives are paired with unusually wide discretion that Congress has given to the federal agency distributing program funds. As might be expected, this hybridized authority and wide administrative latitude complicates prediction of future funding distribution. Program Function The mission of Head Start is to help low-income children gain vocabulary, writing, arithmetic, and other school readiness skills and to encourage family development and community collaboration in achieving school readiness. More than 1,500 Head Start providers nationwide offer language, literacy, mathematics, health, nutrition, and social services to low-income families through nonprofit, educational, community, and faith- and government-based facilities and organizations. In 2002, centers receiving program funding served 912,000 children in the United States, with 99,000 of them located in California. Unlike most formula grants that distribute federal dollars to state and local government entities as block grants, Congress devised Head Start so that HHS 645 CFR 1301 et seq. 7When Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 in January 2003, most domestic discretionary programs received an across-the-board spending cut of 0.65 percent. Head Start was explicitly spared this reduction. 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California distributes funds directly to public and private service providers, primarily at the local level.8 Local service providers are sustained by direct intergovernmental grant transfers from federal sources (often without the input or resources of states) to support center-based, home-based, or a mixed combination of services on a full-time or part-time basis.9 Head Start services for Indian and migrant and seasonal workers and their families are managed from the HHS main office.10 Congress has maintained Head Start administration by HHS rather than the U.S. Department of Education, despite the program’s significant educationrelated components, in large part because of the program’s broad service scope. Program Structure As noted above, Head Start authorizing legislation affords HHS considerable discretion in determining how funds are allotted.11 That said, Congress provides a primary formula framework that includes a number of set-asides before geographic allotment—a hold harmless provision set to a fixed base year,12 an inflation adjustment from the preceding year, and an allotment of remaining funds based on child poverty counts. In years during which total program appropriations exceed those of the prior year, formula language implies that HHS should provide all grantees a cost-ofliving adjustment (COLA) to defray the effect of inflation on Head Start services. The COLA is determined by comparing the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for one year to the same period for the prior year. In practice, HHS typically compares the September CPI-U for the most recent year with that of the prior year. 8As discussed below in conjunction with program structure, HHS must ensure that the geographic distribution of funds meets specified state-by-state requirements, but the state government is not the primary recipient of these funds. 9Once a proposed project meets program performance criteria, grantees must demonstrate the ability to provide a 20 percent non-federal share of individual program costs before qualifying for federal grants, although the agency may request a waiver of this requirement from HHS. Nevertheless, a number of states support their own preschool and school-readiness programs. 10The Migrant Head Start program provides services identical to those of the primary program, with greater emphasis on younger children who might otherwise be cared for in the fields or left in the care of young siblings while parents are working, and with preference given to grantees serving families that move more frequently. Indian Head Start programs integrate various Native American languages and cultures into their curriculum and program goals. 11For Head Start, HHS uses the term allotment when referring to the amounts distributed to states, whereas other federal agencies use synonymous terms such as disbursement, allocation, and distribution. 12Hold harmless provisions slow the shift of formula funding allotments from one state or jurisdiction to another by limiting the amount or percentage by which funds may be reduced relative to funds of the previous year or to a set base year. See Tim Ransdell, Federal Formula Grants and California: Factors Determining California’s Share of Federal Formula Grants, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 The first statutory set-asides are relatively small. From the total amount Congress appropriates for Head Start ($6.67 billion in fiscal year 2003), HHS must use up to $35 million of total funds to help local education agencies with school transition costs, $5 million for a national impact study on Head Start, and an unspecified amount for additional research, demonstration, and evaluation (RD&E) projects.13 In addition to these initial set-asides, separate language requires that HHS use 13 percent of total funds for a number of specified activities. In Congressionally delineated priority order, these include • Head Start programs for Indian children and their families, migrant and seasonal worker families, and children with disabilities (no less than in the program’s base year); • Head Start programs in U.S. territories;14 • Training and technical assistance activities focused on program expansion and program and management improvement (a minimum of 2 percent of total appropriations); • Discretionary payments to defray provider costs for quality reviews, provider disciplinary action, and program oversight; and • Additional funds to supplement activities funded by the RD&E set-aside noted above. Whereas funds for Indian and migrant programs and for programs in the territories are delineated as separate budget items, HHS commingles many of the other discretionary funds from this 13 percent set-aside with formula-based state allotments. If total Head Start appropriations exceed the rate of inflation, the formula requires that HHS use additional funds for a wide variety of activities identified under the heading of Quality Improvement (QI).15 Congress statutorily sets a minimum percentage of excess (after adjustment for inflation) funds that must be used for QI activities—25 percent in 200316—but HHS is given leeway to use up to 100 percent of any excess funds for QI activities. 13Additional research projects related to Head Start evaluation are supported by set-aside language, with funding of $12 million in 1999 and unspecified amounts as determined by HHS for every year thereafter. 14Territories include Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 15Specified QI activities include staff development, salary increases, performance enhancements, community planning, learning environment improvements, and language and literacy promotion. 16With its 1998 amendments, Congress raised the minimum percentage of excess (above inflation) funds that must be used for QI activities from 25 percent in 1997 (under the prior law) to 60 percent of excess funds in 1999, 50 percent in 2000, 47.5 percent in 2001, 35 percent in 2002, and 25 percent for 2003. 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California After the set-asides, COLA, and QI, funds are allotted by state, although the recipients generally are not states but individual grantees.17 First, funds are allotted to ensure that no state’s grantees receive less than was received during the statutory base year. The base year concept was established in 1981, and Congressional passage of the 1998 amendments changed the base year to fiscal year 1998 for allotments in fiscal years 1999 through 2003. Because HHS typically begins the allotment process with an inflation adjustment for all continuing grantees, the base-year hold harmless provision typically does not alter state allotment levels. After base-year funding is ensured, any remaining excess funds are allotted to states according to their relative percentage of children below age 5 living in families with income below the federal poverty line.18 For fiscal year 2002 and prior-year allotments, HHS used weighted sample data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). For 2003 allotments, HHS would have been able to use poverty data from the 2000 Decennial Census, but the agency elected instead to distribute all excess funds pro rata on a percentage basis, mirroring the COLA increases already applied.19 Thus, no funds were allotted according to child poverty percentage shares in 2003. The distributive discretion Congress has afforded HHS is not unlimited. Whereas the agency may use 100 percent of above-inflation funds for QI activities, the law requires that it allot at least 80 percent of these QI funds to grantees in states in the same proportion as the state formula allotment, i.e., according to preschool-age child poverty. Only the remaining 20 percent of QI funds may be distributed to states, agencies, and Indian and migrant providers at the full discretion of the agency. The breadth of administrative discretion limits precise tracking of funds during years in which total appropriations growth between one year and the next is great, such as between 2000 and 2001. In years characterized by minimal program growth, the task of following the Head Start money is considerably less tenuous. Although Head Start’s direct allocation method largely bypasses state governments, the governing law provides two primary avenues for significant state participation in the program, with funding amounts taken from each state’s 17The Head Start Act defines the term state to include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 18Poverty is defined as below 100 percent of the poverty level as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 19The inflation rate assumption for 2002 to 2003 was 1.57 percent, whereas total program appropriations grew by 2.0 percent. HHS allotted the remaining 0.4 percent to grantees by the same percentage growth method it used for the COLA adjustment. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 formula allotment. The law requires that the Early Head Start program (focused on infants and toddlers ages 0–2) must receive 10 percent of geographically distributed Head Start appropriations for fiscal year 2003.20 In addition, Congress gives HHS the discretion to provide to states so-called collaboration grants to enhance administrative coordination and programmatic planning among state and local programs governed by state lead agencies and other groups. Program Funding State and local governments often view Head Start favorably in part because it imposes no maintenance-of-effort requirements on public coffers.21 In California, Head Start services are provided in 5,081 classrooms in 1,945 centers in economically disadvantaged communities across nearly every county, but demand for services continues to outstrip supply. According to data for 1998 through 2000 compiled by the child advocacy organization Children Now, 53 percent of California children below age 5 attend preschool compared to 64 percent nationwide, and 41 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Head Start compared to 58 percent nationwide. By some estimates, Head Start serves approximately 40 percent of the nation’s eligible children. In fiscal year 2003, total federal appropriations for Head Start were $6.67 billion, an increase of 67.5 percent from 1997, when the total appropriation was slightly less than $4 billion (see Table 1). Funds distributed geographically (i.e., to Head Start programs in states and territories and those serving Indian children and children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers) grew by 66.5 percent during that period. Head Start allotments to California grew somewhat more quickly than did funding in the nation as a whole.22 In fiscal year 2003, California received $817.6 million, or 12.3 percent, of the nation’s Head Start appropriation. The total represents growth of 78.2 percent from the state’s $458.8 million allotment in 1997. 20The Early Head Start takedown requirement is graduated: 7.5 percent for fiscal year 1999, 8 percent for 2000, 9 percent for 2001, and 10 percent for both 2002 and 2003. 21The 20 percent local matching requirement is generally imposed on local grantees, although in some instances state or local government funds may be used to satisfy the match. Some states operate their own preschool programs and others provide state funds to supplement Head Start. 22Most of the state’s increased share was attributable to funding changes between 1997 and 1998. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Table 1 Head Start Funding, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, California and United States California Total ($) 458,841,000 528,339,000 554,366,000 642,512,000 758,590,509 801,429,541 817,556,305 U.S. Total ($) 3,980,546,000 4,347,431,000 4,658,151,097 5,266,211,000 6,199,123,000 6,536,570,000 6,667,533,000 California as a % of U.S. Total 11.53 12.15 11.90 12.20 12.24 12.26 12.26 U.S. Total (States Only) ($) 3,592,449,000 3,931,847,000 4,186,863,000 4,731,695,000 5,562,622,567 5,861,884,413 5,979,840,165 California as a % of U.S. States 12.77 13.44 13.24 13.58 13.64 13.67 13.67 Percentage Share of Funding In 1997, California grantees received 11.5 percent of the nation’s Head Start funds. The state’s share rose to 12.2 percent in 1998 and, with the exception of 1999, has remained at or near that percentage since then. Between 1998 and 2003, California’s share of the nation’s total Head Start appropriations grew negligibly, by less than 1 percent. California ranked 21st among states in the extent to which funding rose between 1998 and 2003. As shown in Table 2, states experiencing substantial increases in funding share included Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho, whereas those experiencing substantial decreases included the District of Columbia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Jersey. California’s 12.3 percent share of total 2003 Head Start appropriations is slightly above the state’s 12.2 percent share of the nation’s total population. Moreover, when the state’s allotment is compared only to those of the other states—thereby excluding funds for administration, the territories, and Indian Table 2 Ten States Experiencing Greatest Increases and Decreases in Head Start Funds Between 1998 and 2003 % Growth in Head Start Allotment for Fastest- Growing States Wyoming 23.09 Nevada 16.67 Utah 11.03 Idaho 10.35 North Dakota 9.72 Arizona 9.23 Montana 8.86 South Dakota 8.45 Texas 8.06 Nebraska 7.90 % Reduction in Head Start Allotment for Most Sharply Declining States District of Columbia –12.32 Wisconsin –8.52 Michigan –7.68 New Jersey –6.78 Mississippi –6.60 Ohio –6.57 Massachusetts –5.93 Connecticut –5.67 Pennsylvania –5.39 Minnesota –5.29 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 and migrant programs—California’s allotment represents 13.67 percent of the total. It is interesting to note that, according to data from the 2000 Decennial Census, California housed exactly 13.67 percent of the nation’s children below age 5 living in poverty—the target population for Head Start. In fact, the 2003 Head Start funding percentage tracks more closely with the preschool poverty percentage in California than in any other state. For some states, the difference between these two shares is very large. As shown in Table 3, Vermont’s share of Head Start funds exceeds its share of 2000 Census poor preschoolers by 77 percent, and Mississippi’s share of funds exceeds its population share of target children by 64 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, Table 4 demonstrates that Nevada’s share of poor children ages 0–4 exceeded its share of Head Start funds by 48 percent, and Arizona’s relative shortfall was almost 25 percent. Child Poverty Data The 2000 Decennial Census counted 489,256 poor children below age 5 in California out of a national total of 3,579,535, thus resulting in California’s 13.67 percent share. In California, 20.4 percent of preschool-age children were in poverty in 1999 23 compared to an 18.8 percent rate nationwide. Thus, California’s preschool poverty rate exceeded the national rate by nearly 20 percent. Table 3 Ten States with Greatest Relative Excess of 2003 Head Start Share Versus Share of Preschool Children in Poverty Vermont Mississippi Maine North Dakota District of Columbia Michigan Wyoming Nebraska Massachusetts Connecticut % of U.S. Head Start Funds 0.22 2.65 0.45 0.27 0.41 3.84 0.20 0.59 1.78 0.85 % of Preschool Children in Poverty 0.13 1.61 0.31 0.19 0.29 2.87 0.15 0.45 1.35 0.69 % by Which Head Start Funds Share Exceeds Poor Preschool-Age Child Share 77.67 64.74 45.13 44.34 41.32 34.00 33.16 32.42 31.33 23.98 23The 2000 Census assessed the 1999 income and poverty status of families queried. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 4 Ten States with Greatest Relative Shortfall of 2003 Head Start Funds Share Versus Share of Preschool Children in Poverty Nevada Arizona Texas Idaho Arkansas New Mexico Puerto Rico North Carolina Indiana Oklahoma % of U.S. Head Start Funds 0.34 1.65 7.75 0.37 1.04 0.84 4.00 2.26 1.51 1.31 % of Preschool Children in Poverty 0.64 2.20 9.94 0.46 1.25 0.98 4.68 2.64 1.72 1.49 % by Which Head Start Funds Share Exceeds Poor Preschool-Age Child Share –47.57 –24.90 –22.01 –19.89 –16.39 –14.66 –14.59 –14.39 –12.14 –11.72 By their nature, demographic data often shift considerably from decade to decade and even from year to year. At the time of the 1990 Decennial Census,24 California’s preschool-age child poverty rate (19.3 percent) was below the national rate (19.7 percent).25 However, the early 1990s recession affected the economy of California more harshly than that of the nation as a whole. By the late 1990s, California’s preschool poverty rate was estimated to be well above the national average. According to the Current Population Survey: 2000 March Supplement, which measured income status in 1999 based on an ongoing sample survey unrelated to the 2000 Decennial Census, California’s preschool poverty rate was 23.1 percent, compared to the national rate of 19.5 percent, and the state housed 15.9 percent of the nation’s poor children under age 5. The preschool-age poverty numbers in the 2000 Decennial Census were thus significantly below those in recent years’ sampled levels, raising the question whether they may represent an aberration or a temporary decline commensurate with the state’s strong economic situation in 1999. Before the 1998 reauthorization, which linked excess fund allotment solely to preschool-age poverty, above-inflation increases in Head Start funding were distributed to states based two-thirds on poor preschool child counts and onethird on counts of children under age 18 in households receiving welfare benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the 24Income and poverty information from the 1990 Census reported family status in 1989. 25The 1990 Decennial Census thus found that the state housed 12.3 percent of the nation’s poor preschoolers, whereas it housed 12.5 percent of all children below age 5. California’s 1990 preschool child poverty rate was less than 98 percent of the national average. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 predecessor to the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The AFDC child count helped to increase California’s share of Head Start funding somewhat. Relative to other states, California’s welfare program during the early 1990s was generous.26 In 1993, 17 percent of the nation’s welfarerecipient families resided in California; by 1999—when the Head Start formula was altered to remove the welfare data factor—the state’s share of welfare families exceeded 23 percent. The 1998 deletion of the welfare count from the Head Start formula can be expected to reduce the growth in California’s Head Start funding share below what would have been expected if the factor had been retained. However, California’s share of poor preschool children for purposes of recent Head Start funding allotments has also remained relatively high (118 percent of the national average in the 2000 March Supplement), thereby mitigating much of that reduction. Because the Census Bureau did not release the data until very recently, HHS did not begin using the 2000 Decennial Census count—with its lower share for California—to allot funds to states until fiscal year 2003. As noted above, by then California’s share of Head Start allotments had risen to 13.67 percent.27 Formula Funding and Discretionary Authority For fiscal years 2001 through 2003, each state’s share of Head Start allotments has changed little if at all. Recent funding history indicates that HHS prefers to distribute funds in a manner that maximizes uniform increases among grantees, and the authorizing statute affords the agency great authority to do so. The Head Start Act’s requirement that preschool-age poverty data be used to allot funding among states is largely trumped by separate QI language giving HHS authority to use 20 percent of program funding increases at its discretion.28 As a result, in 2002 and 2003, the agency allotted funds so that every grantee first received an inflationary increase, and it then allotted all remaining funds in identical proportion. In other words, after allotting funds according to the 26For additional information, see Tim Ransdell and Shervin Boloorian, Federal Formula Grants and California: TANF and Welfare Programs, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002. 27A separate, longstanding issue regarding the widespread use of poverty data as a factor in various formulas is the poverty line’s blindness to geographic variations; the cost of living (especially housing) fluctuates considerably throughout the nation and is typically higher in California than in the rest of the nation. Thus, until a geographically stratified poverty rate is developed, recipients in California and other higher-cost states may receive less actual value from federal funding than their counterparts in lower-cost states. 28In addition to these QI funds, HHS may use other Head Start discretionary funding sources, discussed above, to further supplement allotments as it sees fit. 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California formula, HHS used its discretionary funding to award proportional increases to states that would otherwise have received a smaller growth amount. Discretion over 20 percent of growth funds gives HHS sufficient authority to compensate for—and thereby blunt, if it so chooses—nearly all formula-based funding changes. Even a reduction in authority from 20 percent to 10 percent would still produce similar results. Only if the scope of the agency’s discretionary authority should fall below 5 percent of the total appropriations would half of funding growth be mandated for incontrovertible allotment according to the formula. Of course, HHS may elect to allot future funding according to other criteria, or according to the formula itself. For purposes of this analysis, however, we assume that the agency will continue to use the percentage growth approach it has favored in recent funding cycles. Predicted Allotments for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 With the caveats that agency discretion and Congressional action may significantly affect distribution, this study uses a spreadsheet-based model to estimate future allotments of Head Start funding. Appendix A provides a detailed narrative breakdown of our formula allocation mechanics, with corresponding assumptions regarding appropriations levels and economic indicators. In Appendix C, we present hypothetical funding allotments among states, territories, Indian and migrant programs, and HHS program administration based on specific appropriations totals for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. We show four allotment arrays displayed in separate columns. The percent-only method—which was used by HHS to allot 2003 funding—assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. The COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation-rate (COLA) increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds, with the assumption that HHS will use its discretionary authority over QI funding to equalize growth rates for states. The hypothetical formula-only method assumes use of the statutory formula’s base-year hold harmless provision only, with no automatic COLA, and with the balance allotted by formula. The hypothetical poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no COLA or hold harmless provisions of any kind (with state allotments permitted to fall below the preceding year and the base year). Both the formula-only and FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 poverty-only methods would require Congressional action to change Head Start formula language.29 As this report goes to print, appropriations measures for fiscal year 2004 are moving through both the House and Senate. To date, both chambers have agreed to use the Head Start funding total, $6.8 billion, originally included in President Bush’s budget proposal. The amount would represent a 2.2 percent increase from the program’s 2003 appropriation. Appendix Table C.2 displays a predicted allotment of this proposed fiscal year 2004 amount. Using this fiscal year 2004 funding total and predicted allotment as a base, Appendix Tables C.3 and C.4 estimate allotments of fiscal year 2005 funding based on two hypothetical funding amounts—a $1 billion increase, to $7.8 billion (Appendix Table C.3), and a 5 percent increase, to $7.2 billion (Appendix Table C.4). As is apparent from the tables, California’s percentage share of the nation’s Head Start appropriations relative to that of other states is unlikely to change significantly in the near future. Nearly every scenario tested would retain California’s 13.67 percent share of total funds to states. In fiscal year 2004, the currently proposed Head Start appropriation would yield $836 million for California, a 2.2 percent increase from the state’s $818 million allotment in 2003. The fact that the state’s share of current funding tracks so closely with its share of poor children results in virtually no change in the state’s share under any of the alternative allotment methods. In addition, the small (2.2 percent) growth in total program funding leaves little room for changes in allotment shares for any other states under the COLA-then-formula approach, and the assumed change in the formula’s hold harmless base year to 2003 results in no change under the formula-only approach. Only the poverty-only approach, which makes the unlikely assumption of no hold harmless base year, would cause substantial state funding shifts. Assuming that HHS again uses the percent-only method to allot 2004 Head Start funds, California’s share of funds for 2005 will remain at 13.67 percent. The hypothetical $1 billion appropriation increase to a total of $7.8 billion (Appendix Table C.3) would yield a California allotment of approximately $962 million, a share that would not change substantially regardless of formula method. Likewise, a 5 percent increase to $7.2 billion (Appendix Table C.4) would result in $878 million for the state. 29Neither approach is presently under active consideration; the allotments are presented for reference to assess the effect of formula functions and to aid discussion of alternatives. 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California At larger appropriations totals and in later years, allotments for some other states would change substantially under the hypothetical formula schemes. For example, a $1 billion increase in total appropriations would yield $116 million for Arizona under the percent-only method and $117 million under the COLAthen-formula method. But the formula-only method would raise Arizona’s allotment to $122 million and the poverty-only allotment would increase it to $155 million. Likewise, Texas’s hypothetical allotment would rise by $22 million with the formula-only approach and by $154 million with a poverty-only approach. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi’s hypothetical allotment would change from $186 million under the COLA-based plans to $175 million with the formula-only method and $113 million with the poverty-only method. Current Reauthorization Proposals With the authorization for Head Start scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003, a number of measures have been proposed to renew the program for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. In his fiscal year 2004 budget submission to Congress in February 2003, President Bush unveiled a plan to shift Head Start administration from HHS to the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, he sought to replace the current system of direct grants to local organizations with a state-administered block grant option, similar to that conferred upon states by welfare reform and the President’s No Child Left Behind education program. Neither of these sweeping proposals has been incorporated into primary reauthorization legislation, although committee leaders adopted many other administration suggestions, such as strengthened academic standards and authorization to begin limited experimentation with state-level program administration. The current House reauthorization proposal is the “School Readiness Act of 2003,” H.R. 2210, authored by House Education Reform Subcommittee Chairman Michael Castle (DE). It would authorize $35.6 billion over five years for Head Start—$6.9 billion in 2004 (slightly more than currently appears in both the House and Senate Appropriations bills), $7 billion for 2005, $7.1 billion for 2006, $7.2 billion for 2007, and $7.4 billion for fiscal year 2008.30 The House Education Reform Subcommittee approved the bill by an 11 to 9 party-line vote on June 12, and the full Committee on Education and the Workforce approved the measure on June 19 by a vote of 27 to 20. 30Specific authorization totals in the House bill are $6,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $6,988,750,000 for 2005, $7,106,500,000 for 2006, $7,245,000,000 for 2007, and $7,427,000,000 for 2008. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 The Senate is expected to commence committee action on its reauthorization proposal in September 2003, with debate again focusing on policy alternatives rather than the flow of federal funds. The House plan would change the base year for calculating funds distribution from 1998 to 2003, but most other formula aspects would be changed little if at all. The bill would increase initial funding set-asides from 13 percent to 14 percent,31 alter language and provide specific direction regarding use of technical assistance funds, add homeless family outreach to the list of approved QI goals, and change the reservation of state funding for collaboration grants from discretionary to mandatory.32 Non-formulaic provisions in the House bill include an increase in teaching standards, whereby 50 percent of Head Start instructors would be required to hold at minimum a bachelor’s degree by 2008, and 75 percent of teachers would need a minimum associate’s degree by 2005.33 The bill also proposes an eightstate pilot program for state-level administration of Head Start funds.34 Billed as an effort to increase coordination, efficiency, and accountability across Head Start and with non-Head Start preschool programs presently administered by states and other entities, the demonstration program would require that states and local governments match federal funds dollar-for-dollar and would give Head Start centers in good standing a three-year hold harmless guarantee, ensuring no funding reductions in participating states until at least 2006. A recent HHS report35 found that children in Head Start still significantly lag their peers in literacy and math, that the current Head Start delivery system contributes to the shortfalls by exempting local Head Start agencies from the scrutiny and uniformity of state standards, and that state administration would narrow the achievement gap. Head Start advocates dispute these findings and 31 One-fourth of the additional 1 percent would be used to expand services for migrant and seasonal farmworker families, and 60 percent of the additional funds would be used to expand QI. 32Although collaboration grants would become mandatory under HR 2210, the bill does not provide an independent funding stream. 33Section 648A(a)(2) of the 1998 law had required that by September 2003, at least half of Head Start teachers nationwide hold at least an associate’s degree in early childhood education or development or else a degree in a related field combined with experience teaching preschool children. 34A staff member at the House Education and the Workforce Committee recently commented that states likely to qualify for the proposed demonstration program as currently drafted include Ohio, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, and North Carolina. 35U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Strengthening Head Start: What the Evidence Shows, Washington, D.C., 2003, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/StrengthenHeadStart03/. 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California charge that the proposed reorganization would shift responsibility and cost to states without sufficient financial resources.36 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (NH) is expected to introduce a Head Start reauthorization bill without President Bush’s eight-state pilot program, although the administration plan is likely to be offered as an amendment when the bill is debated on the Senate floor. (No legislative language was available as this report went to press.) On July 29, Senate HELP Committee Democrats introduced an alternative measure, S. 1483, which would sharply increase Head Start funding, providing $62 billion for the program over five years.37 The Democrats’ bill, entitled the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act, would increase initial set-asides from 13 percent to 16 percent of total appropriations.38 Conclusion Without Congressional action, authorization for the Head Start program will expire on September 30, 2003. Current reauthorization proposals make few changes to the formula that allots federal funds among states. Congress conferred considerable authority over funding delivery upon the administering agency, which uses that authority to alter the distributive results that would take place in the absence of its intervention. The operation of the program’s formula is thus somewhat limited. The effect is greatest when year-over-year growth in total funding is small. At present, California receives a share of state-level Head Start dollars that closely matches the state’s share of poor preschool-age children, the formula’s target population. As a result, changes in future funding amounts are unlikely to significantly alter the state’s share of total funds. Whereas California’s share of funding appears equitable, other states find themselves with a relative surplus or deficit when funding is compared to population. Moreover, if California’s child poverty numbers return to their 36In a letter to House Education and the Workforce Ranking Member George Miller (Martinez), among others, California Governor Gray Davis expressed concern about the proposed funding structure and a lack of financial support, and he communicated the state’s preference to maintain the current system. Governors of other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, and Alabama, have embraced the state option plan. 37The Senate Democrats’ alternative would authorize $8,570,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $10,445,000,000 for 2005, $12,384,000,000 for 2006, $14,334,000,000 for 2007, and $16,332,000,000 for 2008. 38At least 4 percent of total funds would be spent on Indian Head Start programs and at least 5 percent on programs for migrant and seasonal farmworker families. The bill would increase minimum spending for training and technical assistance from 2 percent to 3 percent, with at least half of those funds slated for compliance with performance standards. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 recent perch, substantially above the national average and above the state’s share of total Head Start funding, California again could be faced with the challenge of reconciling need and dollars. 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix A Methodology Payments distributed for Indian Head Start programs, services for children with disabilities, and migrant and seasonal Head Start programs result in additional federal dollars within states. However, these amounts are not attributed in state allotment calculations to the states in which the recipient organization is located. For formula allotments, Head Start treats the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states. Preschool-age child poverty counts for fiscal year 2003 allotments derive from the 2000 Decennial Census, whereas counts for 2002 and prior years derive from HHS calculations based on the Current Population Survey: March Supplement, also published by the U.S. Census Bureau. As discussed in the text, the wide discretion afforded HHS makes precise prediction of future HHS allotments impossible. To make rough predictions of future allotments, however, we make a number of behavioral and economic assumptions, and we employ a spreadsheet-based program to calculate approximate state totals. We assume that the amount of funding for HHS administration and program support activities will increase by the lesser of the rate of inflation or the percentage growth in total funding from one year to the next. (Actual inflation for fiscal year 2003 allotments was 1.6 percent; current estimates for 2004 allotments are 2.2 percent, and for hypothetical 2005 allotments 3.0 percent.) For fiscal year 2004 and subsequent allotments, we assume that Congress will adopt current proposals to change the formula’s hold harmless base year from 1998 to 2003. For future years, we hold constant states’ child poverty share from the 2000 Census; we make no assumptions regarding future changes. Starting from a selected funding total for all states, the model subtracts an inflation-adjusted administrative set-aside estimate; applies a uniform growth percentage to funds for territories and for Indian and migrant programs; increases all grant amounts by the rate of inflation; reserves the maximum allowable portion of above-inflation program growth for QI activities at the discretion of HHS; ensures that no state receives less than was allotted in the base year (assumed to be 2003, as proposed in current reauthorization bills); allots 80 percent of remaining funds to grantees according to each states’ share of children FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 under age 5 living in poor households; and assumes that HHS will use its discretionary authority over the remaining 20 percent of above-inflation funds to equalize, as uniformly as possible, the percentage growth of all grantees. Table A.1 shows a step-by-step functional narrative of this model’s distributive process, and it shows estimated funding levels for corresponding categories for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California 19 Table A.1 Head Start: Formula Allotment Model Narrative Fiscal Year To approximate Head Start allotments for a given fiscal year … 2003 2004 … multiply the previous year's funds for HHS administration … … by the lesser of the inflation rate from the prior year … … and the percentage change … … in total Head Start funds in the current year … … in comparison to the preceding year … … to estimate an amount for HHS administration. Then multiply … … the percentage change … … in remaining funds for geographic distribution … … in comparison to that amount for the preceding year … … by the prior year's total for territory, Indian, and migrant programs ... … to estimate an initial amount for territory, Indian, and migrant programs. Then take … … the remainder after HHS, territory, Indian, and migrant funding … … and subtract the comparable amount from the previous year … … to determine initial growth in funding for states. If this amount is more than would be expected because of inflation … … then multiply the excess above the inflation adjustment … … by the statutorily required minimum QI percentage … … to determine the minimum amount that must be used for QI. However, assuming that HHS will use all funds possible … … for QI activities, take 80 percent of these funds … … and allot them to states by their share of poor preschool children, and … … give to HHS the remaining 20 percent of these funds … … for discretionary grants to maximize growth evenness for all grantees, … ensuring that every state receives at least what it did in the base year … … and redistributing any funds on a pro rata basis if necessary. 210,255,250 1.572% 2.004% 6,667,533,000 6,536,570,000 213,917,000 2.012% 6,453,616,000 6,326,314,750 464,430,337 473,775,835 5,979,840,165 5,861,884,413 117,955,752 92,157,644 25,798,108 25.00% 6,449,527 25,798,108 20,638,487 5,159,622 0 213,917,000 2.117% 2.220% 6,815,570,000 6,667,533,000 218,445,605 2.224% 6,597,124,395 6,453,616,000 473,775,835 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 5,979,840,165 132,973,090 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 6,380,374 5,104,299 1,276,075 0 aAppropriation for 2005 represents a hypothetical increase of $1 billion from 2004. The inflation rate is assumed to be 3 percent. 2005a 218,445,605 3.000% 14.672% 7,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 224,998,973 15.059% 7,590,571,027 6,597,124,395 484,311,140 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 6,112,813,255 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 737,130,872 589,704,697 147,426,174 0 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix B Head Start: Funding Allotments and Percentage Shares, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, and Enrollments, 1997 and 2002 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Table B.1 Head Start: Funding Allotments, Fiscal Years 1997–2003 U.S. total (all) U.S. total (states, territ., Ind., migr.) U.S. total (states 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 1997 3,980,546,000 3,876,680,000 3,592,449,000 65,970,000 7,581,000 53,478,000 36,396,000 458,841,000 40,902,000 32,985,000 8,314,000 17,361,000 144,663,000 96,295,000 12,632,000 12,529,000 170,193,000 55,293,000 28,458,000 28,815,000 65,587,000 87,261,000 15,536,000 47,688,000 68,913,000 150,074,000 43,536,000 103,523,000 66,763,000 11,500,000 19,037,000 9,942,000 7,430,000 82,650,000 33,971,000 261,514,000 80,559,000 8,733,000 155,354,000 45,865,000 34,466,000 142,973,000 13,135,000 51,714,000 10,139,000 69,365,000 253,186,000 20,132,000 8,433,000 54,571,000 59,644,000 31,064,000 58,550,000 5,814,000 143,121,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 4,347,431,000 4,658,151,097 5,266,211,000 6,199,123,000 6,536,570,000 6,667,533,000 4,232,431,000 4,513,620,000 5,102,907,000 6,004,717,000 6,326,314,750 6,453,616,000 3,931,847,000 4,186,863,000 67,517,000 71,983,000 8,209,000 8,786,000 59,017,000 62,444,000 39,367,000 43,449,000 528,339,000 554,366,000 42,368,000 46,602,000 35,244,000 37,906,000 8,446,000 8,873,000 18,276,000 19,201,000 159,055,000 169,996,000 105,423,000 112,040,000 13,983,000 15,786,000 13,058,000 14,122,000 182,050,000 192,580,000 61,337,000 65,226,000 33,451,000 36,038,000 31,299,000 32,958,000 71,283,000 76,409,000 94,565,000 100,196,000 17,233,000 18,695,000 51,664,000 54,966,000 73,664,000 78,544,000 162,316,000 171,121,000 48,909,000 51,740,000 110,564,000 117,375,000 73,482,000 78,622,000 12,292,000 13,839,000 21,318,000 23,890,000 11,280,000 11,484,000 8,512,000 9,114,000 89,319,000 94,945,000 32,470,000 35,363,000 286,961,000 304,283,000 87,978,000 93,979,000 9,721,000 10,561,000 168,724,000 178,271,000 50,997,000 54,422,000 37,909,000 40,118,000 154,046,000 165,674,000 13,901,000 15,330,000 52,826,000 56,280,000 11,088,000 12,708,000 76,803,000 81,387,000 279,640,000 299,891,000 21,728,000 23,185,000 8,900,000 9,691,000 61,960,000 66,246,000 64,841,000 69,601,000 33,349,000 36,062,000 63,218,000 67,582,000 6,421,000 7,546,000 155,526,000 165,387,000 4,731,695,000 82,414,000 9,738,000 73,697,000 48,379,000 642,512,000 52,226,000 41,674,000 9,820,000 20,926,000 195,696,000 126,281,000 18,199,000 16,098,000 214,965,000 72,467,000 40,714,000 37,061,000 85,198,000 110,318,000 20,378,000 61,920,000 85,917,000 186,842,000 56,401,000 129,843,000 93,475,000 15,267,000 26,660,000 12,369,000 9,838,000 104,743,000 38,374,000 342,136,000 104,684,000 11,973,000 196,684,000 61,555,000 46,071,000 181,844,000 17,378,000 64,060,000 14,045,000 92,040,000 361,846,000 27,840,000 10,514,000 74,487,000 78,359,000 39,842,000 72,177,000 8,187,000 185,563,000 5,562,622,567 95,375,529 11,656,051 89,629,094 57,380,784 758,590,509 61,804,681 47,930,594 11,830,730 23,202,665 236,056,455 151,340,480 21,165,615 20,157,609 248,854,680 85,240,767 47,381,413 44,950,595 99,053,896 128,483,678 24,769,885 71,713,437 99,674,529 215,873,226 65,522,896 149,606,362 108,304,517 18,944,492 32,141,653 18,366,961 12,387,680 120,245,137 45,918,602 398,522,297 124,579,740 15,749,932 226,942,460 72,189,686 54,784,581 209,346,239 20,412,042 74,963,147 17,512,687 107,145,843 429,075,102 35,858,291 12,553,205 89,889,625 92,257,118 46,712,650 83,337,143 10,759,887 216,475,690 5,861,884,413 100,154,494 12,104,386 96,912,656 61,023,626 801,429,541 65,716,131 49,984,520 12,286,428 24,090,814 252,369,803 161,740,120 21,977,038 21,662,707 259,780,216 88,666,972 49,494,840 47,909,093 103,472,617 135,048,223 26,661,319 74,928,894 104,182,066 225,290,497 69,643,329 155,259,338 113,255,841 20,117,436 34,580,417 19,785,629 12,860,678 125,175,590 49,185,413 418,238,532 132,667,143 16,036,018 236,999,439 76,909,804 57,105,005 219,114,506 21,184,290 78,506,579 18,078,512 112,343,511 454,292,444 36,270,290 13,022,989 95,366,343 97,246,982 48,624,566 86,940,813 11,882,457 234,303,518 5,979,840,165 102,169,853 12,347,956 98,862,781 62,251,574 817,556,305 67,038,504 50,990,333 12,533,662 24,575,581 257,448,114 164,994,735 22,419,271 22,098,615 265,007,643 90,451,173 50,490,800 48,873,144 105,554,744 137,765,730 27,197,811 76,436,650 106,278,469 229,823,904 71,044,727 158,383,544 115,534,831 20,522,249 35,276,261 20,183,765 13,119,467 127,694,435 50,175,146 426,654,536 135,336,737 16,358,703 241,768,460 78,457,421 58,254,100 223,523,637 21,610,571 80,086,327 18,442,297 114,604,143 463,433,942 37,000,139 13,285,044 97,285,352 99,203,834 49,603,014 88,690,279 12,121,562 239,018,290 Indian tribes Migrant programs Outer Pacific U.S. Virgin Islands Program support/ HHS administration 113,920,000 153,788,000 9,963,000 6,560,000 103,866,000 117,227,558 166,248,442 10,297,000 6,811,000 130,191,000 178,122,000 11,279,000 7,165,000 115,000,000 144,531,097 144,768,000 206,391,000 12,356,000 7,697,000 163,304,000 171,289,090 246,904,899 14,381,145 9,519,299 194,406,000 181,794,159 257,814,769 14,942,945 9,878,464 210,255,250 SOURCES: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/budget.htm; http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/. 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 22 Table B.2 Head Start: Percentage of Allotments, Fiscal Years 1997–2003, and Enrollments, 1997 and 2002 Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 1997 100.00 1.66 0.19 1.34 0.91 11.53 1.03 0.83 0.21 0.44 3.63 2.42 0.32 0.31 4.28 1.39 0.71 0.72 1.65 2.19 0.39 1.20 1.73 3.77 1.09 2.60 1.68 0.29 0.48 0.25 0.19 2.08 0.85 6.57 2.02 0.22 3.90 1.15 0.87 3.59 0.33 1.30 0.25 1.74 6.36 0.51 0.21 1.37 1.50 0.78 1.47 0.15 3.60 Percentage of Head Start Funding 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.54 1.53 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 1.36 1.34 1.40 1.45 1.48 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 12.15 11.90 12.20 12.24 12.26 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.37 3.66 3.65 3.72 3.81 3.86 2.42 2.41 2.40 2.44 2.47 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.33 4.19 4.13 4.08 4.01 3.97 1.41 1.40 1.38 1.38 1.36 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.73 0.73 1.64 1.64 1.62 1.60 1.58 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.07 2.07 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.41 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.69 1.69 1.63 1.61 1.59 3.73 3.67 3.55 3.48 3.45 1.13 1.11 1.07 1.06 1.07 2.54 2.52 2.47 2.41 2.38 1.69 1.69 1.77 1.75 1.73 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 2.05 2.04 1.99 1.94 1.92 0.75 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.75 6.60 6.53 6.50 6.43 6.40 2.02 2.02 1.99 2.01 2.03 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 3.88 3.83 3.73 3.66 3.63 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.18 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.87 3.54 3.56 3.45 3.38 3.35 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.32 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.21 1.20 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 1.77 1.75 1.75 1.73 1.72 6.43 6.44 6.87 6.92 6.95 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.58 0.55 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.45 1.46 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.74 1.45 1.45 1.37 1.34 1.33 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 3.58 3.55 3.52 3.49 3.58 2003 100.00 1.53 0.19 1.48 0.93 12.26 1.01 0.76 0.19 0.37 3.86 2.47 0.34 0.33 3.97 1.36 0.76 0.73 1.58 2.07 0.41 1.15 1.59 3.45 1.07 2.38 1.73 0.31 0.53 0.30 0.20 1.92 0.75 6.40 2.03 0.25 3.63 1.18 0.87 3.35 0.32 1.20 0.28 1.72 6.95 0.55 0.20 1.46 1.49 0.74 1.33 0.18 3.58 Enrollment (No.) 1997 2002 793,809 912,449 14,979 16,529 1,212 1,839 10,561 13,297 9,637 10,930 79,929 98,687 8,952 9,872 6,190 7,224 2,077 2,231 3,273 3,403 29,523 35,610 20,505 23,414 2,539 3,073 2,213 3,347 33,924 39,619 12,415 14,145 6,341 7,620 6,355 8,013 14,828 16,190 19,998 22,136 3,392 4,002 9,514 10,527 11,499 13,040 32,440 35,269 9,117 10,331 24,693 26,742 14,899 17,646 2,510 2,982 4,088 5,252 2,019 2,754 1,267 1,632 13,746 15,262 7,187 7,749 43,716 49,493 16,825 19,202 2,121 2,307 35,441 38,081 11,631 13,460 5,222 9,199 27,515 30,986 2,676 3,150 10,822 12,248 2,374 2,827 14,553 16,507 54,624 67,664 4,419 5,527 1,379 1,573 11,480 13,772 9,387 11,167 6,858 7,650 12,556 13,489 1,395 1,803 32,221 36,920 Enrollment (% of U.S.) 1997 2002 100.00 100.00 1.89 1.81 0.15 0.20 1.33 1.46 1.21 1.20 10.07 10.82 1.13 1.08 0.78 0.79 0.26 0.24 0.41 0.37 3.72 3.90 2.58 2.57 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.37 4.27 4.34 1.56 1.55 0.80 0.84 0.80 0.88 1.87 1.77 2.52 2.43 0.43 0.44 1.20 1.15 1.45 1.43 4.09 3.87 1.15 1.13 3.11 2.93 1.88 1.93 0.32 0.33 0.51 0.58 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.18 1.73 1.67 0.91 0.85 5.51 5.42 2.12 2.10 0.27 0.25 4.46 4.17 1.47 1.48 0.66 1.01 3.47 3.40 0.34 0.35 1.36 1.34 0.30 0.31 1.83 1.81 6.88 7.42 0.56 0.61 0.17 0.17 1.45 1.51 1.18 1.22 0.86 0.84 1.58 1.48 0.18 0.20 4.06 4.05 Indian tribes 2.86 2.70 2.79 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.78 21,019 23,837 Migrant programs 3.86 3.82 3.82 3.92 3.98 3.94 3.94 36,458 33,850 Outer Pacific 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 5,849 6,209 U.S. Virgin Islands 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1,446 1,161 Program support/ HHS administration 2.61 2.65 3.10 3.10 3.14 3.22 3.21 SOURCES: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/budget.htm; http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/. 2.65 2.61 4.59 3.71 0.74 0.68 0.18 0.13 23 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix C Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotments and Percentage Shares, Fiscal Years 2003–2005 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Table C.1 Head Start: Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2003 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,917,000 6,453,616,000 2.012% 473,775,835 5,979,840,165 117,955,752 92,157,644 25,798,108 25.00% 6,449,527 5,159,622 COLA-Then-Formula 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,560,779 6,453,972,221 2.018% 471,731,881 5,982,240,340 120,355,927 92,157,644 28,198,284 25.00% 7,049,571 5,639,657 Formula-Only Method 6,667,533,000 2.004% 1.572% 213,560,779 6,453,972,221 2.018% 473,801,986 5,980,170,235 118,285,822 92,157,644 26,128,178 25.00% 6,532,045 5,225,636 26 U.S. total (all U.S.) Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998 $ % States % Total 4,347,433,000 100.00 4,232,431,000 97.35 3,931,847,000 100.00 90.44 67,517,000 1.72 1.55 8,209,000 0.21 0.19 59,017,000 1.50 1.36 39,367,000 1.00 0.91 528,339,000 13.44 12.15 42,368,000 1.08 0.97 35,244,000 0.90 0.81 8,446,000 0.21 0.19 18,276,000 0.46 0.42 159,055,000 4.05 3.66 105,423,000 2.68 2.42 13,983,000 0.36 0.32 13,058,000 0.33 0.30 182,050,000 4.63 4.19 61,337,000 1.56 1.41 33,451,000 0.85 0.77 31,299,000 0.80 0.72 71,283,000 1.81 1.64 94,565,000 2.41 2.18 17,233,000 0.44 0.40 51,664,000 1.31 1.19 73,664,000 1.87 1.69 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2002 $ % States % Total 6,536,570,000 100.00 6,326,314,750 96.78 5,861,884,413 100.00 89.68 100,154,494 1.71 1.53 12,104,386 0.21 0.19 96,912,656 1.65 1.48 61,023,626 1.04 0.93 801,429,541 13.67 12.26 65,716,131 1.12 1.01 49,984,520 0.85 0.76 12,286,428 0.21 0.19 24,090,814 0.41 0.37 252,369,803 4.31 3.86 161,740,120 2.76 2.47 21,977,038 0.37 0.34 21,662,707 0.37 0.33 259,780,216 4.43 3.97 88,666,972 1.51 1.36 49,494,840 0.84 0.76 47,909,093 0.82 0.73 103,472,617 1.77 1.58 135,048,223 2.30 2.07 26,661,319 0.45 0.41 74,928,894 1.28 1.15 104,182,066 1.78 1.59 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 3,579,535 100.00 69,062 1.93 6,494 0.18 78,803 2.20 44,569 1.25 489,256 13.67 37,039 1.03 24,620 0.69 7,296 0.20 10,410 0.29 173,427 4.84 106,663 2.98 11,571 0.32 16,512 0.46 134,266 3.75 61,623 1.72 24,705 0.69 27,428 0.77 60,324 1.69 90,610 2.53 11,218 0.31 40,331 1.13 48,441 1.35 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,616,000 5,979,840,165 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 12,347,956 0.21 98,862,781 1.65 62,251,574 1.04 817,556,305 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 50,990,333 0.85 12,533,662 0.21 24,575,581 0.41 257,448,114 4.31 164,994,735 2.76 22,419,271 0.37 22,098,615 0.37 265,007,643 4.43 90,451,173 1.51 50,490,800 0.84 48,873,144 0.82 105,554,744 1.77 137,765,730 2.30 27,197,811 0.45 76,436,650 1.28 106,278,469 1.78 COLA-Then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,972,221 5,982,240,340 100.00 102,273,119 1.71 12,345,843 0.21 99,057,050 1.66 62,334,108 1.04 817,883,401 13.67 67,041,067 1.12 50,964,299 0.85 12,537,064 0.21 24,551,564 0.41 257,703,631 4.31 165,123,171 2.76 22,413,702 0.37 22,133,353 0.37 264,922,051 4.43 90,546,394 1.51 50,467,590 0.84 48,878,364 0.82 105,574,573 1.76 137,885,177 2.30 27,168,846 0.45 76,424,602 1.28 106,201,566 1.78 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,972,221 5,980,170,235 100.00 107,036,463 1.79 11,925,072 0.20 104,110,571 1.74 64,870,793 1.08 808,306,770 13.52 63,562,888 1.06 49,332,343 0.82 12,621,002 0.21 24,232,932 0.41 258,295,419 4.32 166,458,945 2.78 20,604,292 0.34 22,506,689 0.38 258,881,255 4.33 96,599,631 1.62 47,587,983 0.80 46,994,170 0.79 105,802,302 1.77 146,414,910 2.45 23,652,295 0.40 74,742,675 1.25 101,383,474 1.70 Table C.1 (continued) Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 1998 $ % States % Total 162,316,000 4.13 3.73 48,909,000 1.24 1.13 110,564,000 2.81 2.54 73,482,000 1.87 1.69 12,292,000 0.31 0.28 21,318,000 0.54 0.49 11,280,000 0.29 0.26 8,512,000 0.22 0.20 89,319,000 2.27 2.05 32,470,000 0.83 0.75 286,961,000 7.30 6.60 87,978,000 2.24 2.02 9,721,000 0.25 0.22 168,724,000 4.29 3.88 50,997,000 1.30 1.17 37,909,000 0.96 0.87 154,046,000 3.92 3.54 13,901,000 0.35 0.32 52,826,000 1.34 1.22 11,088,000 0.28 0.26 76,803,000 1.95 1.77 279,640,000 7.11 6.43 21,728,000 0.55 0.50 8,900,000 0.23 0.20 61,960,000 1.58 1.43 64,841,000 1.65 1.49 33,349,000 0.85 0.77 63,218,000 1.61 1.45 6,421,000 0.16 0.15 155,526,000 3.96 3.58 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2002 $ % States % Total 225,290,497 3.84 3.45 69,643,329 1.19 1.07 155,259,338 2.65 2.38 113,255,841 1.93 1.73 20,117,436 0.34 0.31 34,580,417 0.59 0.53 19,785,629 0.34 0.30 12,860,678 0.22 0.20 125,175,590 2.14 1.92 49,185,413 0.84 0.75 418,238,532 7.13 6.40 132,667,143 2.26 2.03 16,036,018 0.27 0.25 236,999,439 4.04 3.63 76,909,804 1.31 1.18 57,105,005 0.97 0.87 219,114,506 3.74 3.35 21,184,290 0.36 0.32 78,506,579 1.34 1.20 18,078,512 0.31 0.28 112,343,511 1.92 1.72 454,292,444 7.75 6.95 36,270,290 0.62 0.55 13,022,989 0.22 0.20 95,366,343 1.63 1.46 97,246,982 1.66 1.49 48,624,566 0.83 0.74 86,940,813 1.48 1.33 11,882,457 0.20 0.18 234,303,518 4.00 3.58 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 102,664 2.87 34,352 0.96 57,552 1.61 64,736 1.81 12,174 0.34 15,946 0.45 23,045 0.64 6,794 0.19 63,044 1.76 35,195 0.98 253,609 7.08 94,630 2.64 6,784 0.19 128,266 3.58 53,201 1.49 37,792 1.06 116,166 3.25 12,009 0.34 52,453 1.47 10,202 0.29 75,183 2.10 355,714 9.94 24,086 0.67 4,476 0.13 59,783 1.67 61,225 1.71 26,991 0.75 43,836 1.22 5,449 0.15 167,510 4.68 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 COLA-Then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 229,641,153 3.84 71,008,840 1.19 158,153,622 2.64 115,546,360 1.93 20,529,615 0.34 35,249,690 0.59 20,278,229 0.34 13,116,388 0.22 127,640,176 2.13 50,235,935 0.84 426,811,711 7.13 135,498,331 2.27 16,341,570 0.27 241,735,860 4.04 78,538,040 1.31 58,300,493 0.97 223,474,430 3.74 21,611,941 0.36 80,154,026 1.34 18,443,101 0.31 114,701,985 1.92 464,236,791 7.76 37,030,254 0.62 13,262,990 0.22 97,336,594 1.63 99,258,159 1.66 49,601,643 0.83 88,652,978 1.48 12,112,192 0.20 239,306,705 4.00 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 221,063,591 3.70 68,566,302 1.15 143,497,076 2.40 110,525,988 1.85 19,258,348 0.32 30,442,806 0.51 24,467,078 0.41 12,399,742 0.21 125,394,772 2.10 52,609,693 0.88 432,084,098 7.23 142,128,281 2.38 13,603,020 0.23 242,121,865 4.05 81,440,296 1.36 59,534,779 1.00 220,519,862 3.69 20,772,930 0.35 82,841,267 1.39 16,925,907 0.28 119,825,092 2.00 483,190,811 8.08 35,510,772 0.59 11,461,309 0.19 96,169,725 1.61 99,875,883 1.67 48,794,105 0.82 88,302,347 1.48 9,539,090 0.16 251,380,524 4.20 27 Indian tribes Migrant Programs Outer Pacific U.S. Virgin Islands Program support/HHS admin. 117,227,558 166,248,442 10,297,000 6,811,000 115,000,000 2.70 181,794,159 3.82 257,814,769 0.24 14,942,945 0.16 9,878,464 2.65 210,255,250 2.78 3.94 0.23 0.15 3.22 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 184,652,237 261,868,005 15,177,871 10,033,768 213,560,779 185,462,548 263,017,163 15,244,476 10,077,800 213,560,779 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflationrate increases for all recipients, then is followed by formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base-year hold harmless only, with balance allotted by formula. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflation-only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2003 compares September 2002 consumer price index for all urban consumers with same datum for one year prior. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.2 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2004, Assuming Appropriation Proposed in President’s Budget and Senate and House Appropriations Bills Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method COLA-Then-Formula Formula-Only Method Poverty-Only Method 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,815,570,000 2.220% 2.117% 218,445,605 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 6,597,124,395 2.224% 484,311,140 6,112,813,255 132,973,090 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 126,592,717 6,380,374 25.00% 1,595,093 1,276,075 28 Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% U.S. total (all U.S.) 6,667,533,000 Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) 6,453,616,000 Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) 5,979,840,165 100.00 Alabama 102,169,853 1.71 Alaska 12,347,956 0.21 Arizona 98,862,781 1.65 Arkansas 62,251,574 1.04 California 817,556,305 13.67 Colorado 67,038,504 1.12 Connecticut 50,990,333 0.85 Delaware 12,533,662 0.21 District of Columbia 24,575,581 0.41 Florida 257,448,114 4.31 Georgia 164,994,735 2.76 Hawaii 22,419,271 0.37 Idaho 22,098,615 0.37 Illinois 265,007,643 4.43 Indiana 90,451,173 1.51 Iowa 50,490,800 0.84 Kansas 48,873,144 0.82 Kentucky 105,554,744 1.77 Louisiana 137,765,730 2.30 Maine 27,197,811 0.45 Maryland 76,436,650 1.28 Massachusetts 106,278,469 1.78 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments COLA-then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment Prior Year Funding: 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases or Actual Allotments, Fiscal Census Child Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- Hold Harmless of Any Year 2003 Poverty Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Kind) $ % No. % $ % $ % $ %$% 6,667,533,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,815,570,000 6,453,616,000 6,597,124,395 6,597,073,219 6,597,124,395 6,597,124,395 5,979,840,165 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 6,113,154,246 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 69,062 1.93 104,441,793 1.71 104,459,300 1.71 104,735,378 1.71 117,937,975 1.93 12,347,956 0.21 6,494 0.18 12,622,537 0.21 12,621,914 0.21 12,589,197 0.21 11,089,879 0.18 98,862,781 1.65 78,803 2.20 101,061,182 1.65 101,095,825 1.65 101,790,166 1.67 134,572,793 2.20 62,251,574 1.04 44,569 1.25 63,635,856 1.04 63,650,203 1.04 63,907,229 1.05 76,110,996 1.25 817,556,305 13.67 489,256 13.67 835,736,220 13.67 835,782,642 13.67 835,731,258 13.67 835,508,121 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 37,039 1.03 68,529,232 1.12 68,528,487 1.12 68,414,434 1.12 63,251,928 1.03 50,990,333 0.85 24,620 0.69 52,124,200 0.85 52,118,383 0.85 51,904,921 0.85 42,043,858 0.69 12,533,662 0.21 7,296 0.20 12,812,371 0.21 12,812,781 0.21 12,804,694 0.21 12,459,463 0.20 24,575,581 0.41 10,410 0.29 25,122,066 0.41 25,117,110 0.41 24,962,294 0.41 17,777,277 0.29 257,448,114 4.31 173,427 4.84 263,172,961 4.31 263,216,195 4.31 263,890,605 4.32 296,163,291 4.84 164,994,735 2.76 106,663 2.98 168,663,706 2.76 168,684,787 2.76 168,957,068 2.76 182,149,637 2.98 22,419,271 0.37 11,571 0.32 22,917,806 0.37 22,916,351 0.37 22,849,112 0.37 19,759,930 0.32 22,098,615 0.37 16,512 0.46 22,590,019 0.37 22,596,133 0.37 22,712,005 0.37 28,197,733 0.46 265,007,643 4.43 134,266 3.75 270,900,590 4.43 270,879,685 4.43 269,995,376 4.42 229,287,599 3.75 90,451,173 1.51 61,623 1.72 92,462,526 1.51 92,478,738 1.51 92,740,353 1.52 105,234,309 1.72 50,490,800 0.84 24,705 0.69 51,613,558 0.84 51,608,280 0.84 51,408,545 0.84 42,189,014 0.69 48,873,144 0.82 27,428 0.77 49,959,931 0.82 49,960,016 0.82 49,892,043 0.82 46,839,112 0.77 105,554,744 1.77 60,324 1.69 107,901,954 1.77 107,903,745 1.77 107,795,669 1.76 103,015,991 1.69 137,765,730 2.30 90,610 2.53 140,829,213 2.30 140,849,105 2.30 141,131,724 2.31 154,735,743 2.53 27,197,811 0.45 11,218 0.31 27,802,606 0.45 27,796,674 0.45 27,614,539 0.45 19,157,108 0.31 76,436,650 1.28 40,331 1.13 78,136,364 1.28 78,132,706 1.28 77,934,872 1.27 68,873,714 1.13 106,278,469 1.78 48,441 1.35 108,641,773 1.78 108,625,400 1.78 108,077,963 1.77 82,723,255 1.35 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Table C.2 (continued) Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased Census Child Evenly by Nationwide Poverty Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) No. % $ % 102,664 2.87 234,934,475 3.84 34,352 0.96 72,624,541 1.19 57,552 1.61 161,905,502 2.65 64,736 1.81 118,103,967 1.93 12,174 0.34 20,978,600 0.34 15,946 0.45 36,060,696 0.59 23,045 0.64 20,632,590 0.34 6,794 0.19 13,411,203 0.22 63,044 1.76 130,533,963 2.14 35,195 0.98 51,290,886 0.84 253,609 7.08 436,142,009 7.13 94,630 2.64 138,346,206 2.26 6,784 0.19 16,722,470 0.27 128,266 3.58 247,144,640 4.04 53,201 1.49 80,202,071 1.31 37,792 1.06 59,549,491 0.97 116,166 3.25 228,494,109 3.74 12,009 0.34 22,091,123 0.36 52,453 1.47 81,867,199 1.34 10,202 0.29 18,852,396 0.31 75,183 2.10 117,152,584 1.92 355,714 9.94 473,739,275 7.75 24,086 0.67 37,822,907 0.62 4,476 0.13 13,580,462 0.22 59,783 1.67 99,448,676 1.63 61,225 1.71 101,409,820 1.66 26,991 0.75 50,706,031 0.83 43,836 1.22 90,662,476 1.48 5,449 0.15 12,391,108 0.20 167,510 4.68 244,333,315 4.00 COLA-then-Formula Al- lotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmless Enforced) $% 234,895,983 3.84 72,616,508 1.19 161,859,466 2.65 118,104,018 1.93 20,979,607 0.34 36,055,065 0.59 20,649,945 0.34 13,410,386 0.22 130,521,448 2.14 51,301,374 0.84 436,163,697 7.13 138,374,051 2.26 16,718,956 0.27 247,134,102 4.04 80,215,763 1.31 59,557,130 0.97 228,480,789 3.74 22,090,985 0.36 81,878,437 1.34 18,852,210 0.31 117,168,846 1.92 473,881,438 7.75 37,827,881 0.62 13,576,081 0.22 99,456,512 1.63 101,418,198 1.66 50,704,867 0.83 90,653,855 1.48 12,389,128 0.20 244,383,059 4.00 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Re- mainder by Formula, Base- Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 233,637,682 3.82 72,320,840 1.18 160,521,494 2.63 117,939,654 1.93 20,974,491 0.34 35,868,626 0.59 21,039,844 0.34 13,371,851 0.22 130,036,403 2.13 51,482,575 0.84 436,075,640 7.13 138,852,066 2.27 16,610,716 0.27 246,533,304 4.03 80,433,740 1.32 59,658,003 0.98 227,838,989 3.73 22,056,683 0.36 82,034,859 1.34 18,821,282 0.31 117,397,052 1.92 476,648,058 7.80 37,894,889 0.62 13,451,319 0.22 99,506,180 1.63 101,478,229 1.66 50,605,679 0.83 90,318,705 1.48 12,323,982 0.20 245,240,976 4.01 Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmless of Any Kind) $% 175,320,498 2.87 58,663,307 0.96 98,282,215 1.61 110,550,415 1.81 20,789,680 0.34 27,231,168 0.45 39,354,213 0.64 11,602,192 0.19 107,660,967 1.76 60,102,908 0.98 433,091,018 7.08 161,600,744 2.64 11,585,115 0.19 219,041,329 3.58 90,851,962 1.49 64,537,835 1.06 198,378,020 3.25 20,507,908 0.34 89,574,594 1.47 17,422,073 0.29 128,390,877 2.10 607,456,906 9.94 41,131,940 0.67 7,643,717 0.13 102,092,119 1.67 104,554,640 1.71 46,092,842 0.75 74,859,243 1.22 9,305,320 0.15 286,058,761 4.68 29 Indian tribes 185,452,311 Migrant programs 263,002,646 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 185,452,311 263,002,646 15,243,634 10,077,243 213,917,000 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 189,422,688 268,633,309 15,569,988 10,292,989 218,496,781 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 189,576,195 268,851,009 15,582,605 10,301,330 218,445,605 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflationrate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula’s base year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless provisions or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflationonly increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.3 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2005, Assuming Hypothetical $1 Billion Appropriation Increase from 2004 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainder to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 COLA-Then-Formula 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 Formula-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 Poverty-Only Method 7,815,570,000 14.672% 3.000% 224,998,973 7,590,571,027 15.059% 557,242,502 7,033,328,525 920,515,269 183,384,398 737,130,872 60.00% 442,278,523 147,426,174 30 Target Population: Percent-Only Allotments COLA-Then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment Prior Year Funding: 2000 Decennial (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases Base Year Funding: Actual Actual Allotments, Fiscal Census Child Poverty Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- or Hold Harmless of Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 Year 2004 Ages 0–4 Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Any Kind) $ % $ % No. % $%$% $ %$% U.S. total (all U.S.) 6,667,533,000 6,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 7,815,570,000 Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) 6,453,616,000 6,597,124,395 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 7,590,571,027 Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) 5,979,840,165 100.00 6,112,813,255 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 7,033,328,525 100.00 Alabama 102,169,853 1.71 104,441,793 1.71 69,062 1.93 120,169,456 1.71 120,140,619 1.71 122,495,401 1.74 135,697,998 1.93 Alaska 12,347,956 0.21 12,622,537 0.21 6,494 0.18 14,523,337 0.21 14,512,619 0.21 14,259,197 0.20 12,759,880 0.18 Arizona 98,862,781 1.65 101,061,182 1.65 78,803 2.20 116,279,766 1.65 117,075,290 1.66 122,055,191 1.74 154,837,818 2.20 Arkansas 62,251,574 1.04 63,635,856 1.04 44,569 1.25 73,218,641 1.04 73,210,791 1.04 75,368,619 1.07 87,572,386 1.25 California 817,556,305 13.67 835,736,220 13.67 489,256 13.67 961,587,922 13.67 961,109,768 13.67 961,548,611 13.67 961,325,474 13.67 Colorado 67,038,504 1.12 68,529,232 1.12 37,039 1.03 78,848,900 1.12 78,797,671 1.12 77,939,404 1.11 72,776,898 1.03 Connecticut 50,990,333 0.85 52,124,200 0.85 24,620 0.69 59,973,470 0.85 59,920,637 0.85 58,236,214 0.83 48,375,152 0.69 Delaware 12,533,662 0.21 12,812,371 0.21 7,296 0.20 14,741,759 0.21 14,733,629 0.21 14,680,938 0.21 14,335,707 0.20 District of Columbia 24,575,581 0.41 25,122,066 0.41 10,410 0.29 28,905,143 0.41 28,873,995 0.41 27,639,335 0.39 20,454,319 0.29 Florida 257,448,114 4.31 263,172,961 4.31 173,427 4.84 302,803,605 4.31 302,728,616 4.30 308,489,192 4.39 340,761,877 4.84 Georgia 164,994,735 2.76 168,663,706 2.76 106,663 2.98 194,062,407 2.76 193,996,843 2.76 196,386,586 2.79 209,579,155 2.98 Hawaii 22,419,271 0.37 22,917,806 0.37 11,571 0.32 26,368,949 0.37 26,348,632 0.37 25,824,717 0.37 22,735,535 0.32 Idaho 22,098,615 0.37 22,590,019 0.37 16,512 0.46 25,991,801 0.37 25,991,710 0.37 26,958,240 0.38 32,443,968 0.46 Illinois 265,007,643 4.43 270,900,590 4.43 134,266 3.75 311,694,922 4.43 311,444,970 4.43 304,523,297 4.33 263,815,520 3.75 Indiana 90,451,173 1.51 92,462,526 1.51 61,623 1.72 106,386,257 1.51 106,362,611 1.51 108,587,359 1.54 121,081,315 1.72 Iowa 50,490,800 0.84 51,613,558 0.84 24,705 0.69 59,385,932 0.84 59,334,890 0.84 57,761,697 0.82 48,542,166 0.69 Kansas 48,873,144 0.82 49,959,931 0.82 27,428 0.77 57,483,288 0.82 57,447,601 0.82 56,945,443 0.81 53,892,513 0.77 Kentucky 105,554,744 1.77 107,901,954 1.77 60,324 1.69 124,150,675 1.77 124,077,839 1.76 123,308,624 1.75 118,528,946 1.69 Louisiana 137,765,730 2.30 140,829,213 2.30 90,610 2.53 162,036,378 2.30 161,987,684 2.30 164,433,043 2.34 178,037,063 2.53 Maine 27,197,811 0.45 27,802,606 0.45 11,218 0.31 31,989,340 0.45 31,953,687 0.45 30,499,367 0.43 22,041,935 0.31 Maryland 76,436,650 1.28 78,136,364 1.28 40,331 1.13 89,902,750 1.28 89,836,919 1.28 88,306,415 1.26 79,245,257 1.13 Massachusetts 106,278,469 1.78 108,641,773 1.78 48,441 1.35 125,001,901 1.78 124,880,560 1.78 120,535,078 1.71 95,180,370 1.35 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Table C.3 (continued) Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 229,823,904 3.84 71,044,727 1.19 158,383,544 2.65 115,534,831 1.93 20,522,249 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 20,183,765 0.34 13,119,467 0.22 127,694,435 2.14 50,175,146 0.84 426,654,536 7.13 135,336,737 2.26 16,358,703 0.27 241,768,460 4.04 78,457,421 1.31 58,254,100 0.97 223,523,637 3.74 21,610,571 0.36 80,086,327 1.34 18,442,297 0.31 114,604,143 1.92 463,433,942 7.75 37,000,139 0.62 13,285,044 0.22 97,285,352 1.63 99,203,834 1.66 49,603,014 0.83 88,690,279 1.48 12,121,562 0.20 239,018,290 4.00 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 $% 234,934,475 3.84 72,624,541 1.19 161,905,502 2.65 118,103,967 1.93 20,978,600 0.34 36,060,696 0.59 20,632,590 0.34 13,411,203 0.22 130,533,963 2.14 51,290,886 0.84 436,142,009 7.13 138,346,206 2.26 16,722,470 0.27 247,144,640 4.04 80,202,071 1.31 59,549,491 0.97 228,494,109 3.74 22,091,123 0.36 81,867,199 1.34 18,852,396 0.31 117,152,584 1.92 473,739,275 7.75 37,822,907 0.62 13,580,462 0.22 99,448,676 1.63 101,409,820 1.66 50,706,031 0.83 90,662,476 1.48 12,391,108 0.20 244,333,315 4.00 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Ages 0–4 No. % 102,664 2.87 34,352 0.96 57,552 1.61 64,736 1.81 12,174 0.34 15,946 0.45 23,045 0.64 6,794 0.19 63,044 1.76 35,195 0.98 253,609 7.08 94,630 2.64 6,784 0.19 128,266 3.58 53,201 1.49 37,792 1.06 116,166 3.25 12,009 0.34 52,453 1.47 10,202 0.29 75,183 2.10 355,714 9.94 24,086 0.67 4,476 0.13 59,783 1.67 61,225 1.71 26,991 0.75 43,836 1.22 5,449 0.15 167,510 4.68 Percent-Only Allotments COLA-Then-Formula Al- Formula-Only Allotment Poverty-Only Allotment (All Recipients Increased lotment (Inflation Increases, (No Inflation Increases, Re- (No Inflation Increases Evenly by Nationwide Remainder by Formula, mainder by Formula, Base- or Hold Harmless of Growth Percentage) Hold Harmless Enforced) Year Hold Harmless Only) Any Kind) $%$% $ %$% 270,312,747 3.84 270,042,199 3.84 260,038,815 3.70 201,721,631 2.87 83,560,913 1.19 83,487,491 1.19 81,154,820 1.15 67,497,287 0.96 186,286,500 2.65 186,048,524 2.65 175,321,599 2.49 113,082,320 1.61 135,888,987 1.93 135,804,222 1.93 134,587,201 1.91 127,197,962 1.81 24,137,722 0.34 24,125,301 0.34 24,105,163 0.34 23,920,353 0.34 41,490,998 0.59 41,450,204 0.59 39,969,308 0.57 31,331,851 0.45 23,739,606 0.34 25,048,078 0.36 26,966,110 0.38 45,280,478 0.64 15,430,767 0.22 15,418,967 0.22 15,119,000 0.21 13,349,341 0.19 150,190,789 2.14 150,063,899 2.13 146,248,834 2.08 123,873,398 1.76 59,014,669 0.84 59,005,500 0.84 60,533,342 0.86 69,153,674 0.98 501,819,686 7.13 501,563,452 7.13 501,293,876 7.13 498,309,254 7.08 159,179,461 2.26 159,153,556 2.26 163,187,171 2.32 185,935,849 2.64 19,240,670 0.27 19,219,369 0.27 18,355,293 0.26 13,329,692 0.19 284,361,614 4.04 284,156,123 4.04 279,518,262 3.97 252,026,287 3.58 92,279,527 1.31 92,258,036 1.31 94,114,939 1.34 104,533,162 1.49 68,516,919 0.97 68,494,290 0.97 69,376,615 0.99 74,256,447 1.06 262,902,541 3.74 262,703,107 3.74 257,712,304 3.66 228,251,335 3.25 25,417,777 0.36 25,401,532 0.36 25,144,924 0.36 23,596,149 0.34 94,195,402 1.34 94,166,234 1.34 95,523,703 1.36 103,063,437 1.47 21,691,338 0.31 21,677,294 0.31 21,444,834 0.30 20,045,625 0.29 134,794,337 1.92 134,753,074 1.92 136,731,155 1.94 147,724,981 2.10 545,078,644 7.75 546,552,980 7.77 568,123,674 8.08 698,932,521 9.94 43,518,576 0.62 43,504,525 0.62 44,088,859 0.63 47,325,910 0.67 15,625,515 0.22 15,604,181 0.22 14,602,370 0.21 8,794,768 0.13 114,424,436 1.63 114,373,644 1.63 114,880,010 1.63 117,465,950 1.67 116,680,904 1.66 116,630,136 1.66 117,222,885 1.67 120,299,296 1.71 58,341,742 0.83 58,302,217 0.83 57,546,700 0.82 53,033,863 0.75 104,315,141 1.48 104,227,200 1.48 101,591,596 1.44 86,132,134 1.22 14,257,058 0.20 14,242,922 0.20 13,725,250 0.20 10,706,588 0.15 281,126,938 4.00 281,082,685 4.00 288,317,943 4.10 329,135,729 4.68 31 Indian tribes 185,452,311 189,576,195 218,124,063 218,124,063 218,124,063 218,124,063 Migrant programs 263,002,646 268,851,009 309,336,698 309,336,698 309,336,698 309,336,698 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 15,582,605 17,929,156 17,929,156 17,929,156 17,929,156 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 10,301,330 11,852,585 11,852,585 11,852,585 11,852,585 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 218,445,605 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation rate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless provisions or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E. Amount for administration and program support assumes that HHS provides inflation- only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCES: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. Table C.4 Head Start: Predicted Funding Allotment, Fiscal Year 2005, Assuming Hypothetical 5 Percent Appropriation Increase from 2004 Initial appropriation and set-asides Total Head Start appropriation for fiscal year Percentage change in total funds from prior year Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) from prior year Amount for HHS administration and program support Funding for distribution by geographic area Remainder after administration Percentage change in funds for geographic distribution Initial amount to territories and to Indian and migrant programs Remainer to states after HHS, territories, and Indian and migrant programs Growth in funding for states from prior year QI funding calculation Inflation-adjusted program funding change Excess amount above inflation adjustment Required minimum percentage of excess for QI usage Minimum QI amount Maximum QI portion at full HHS discretion Percent-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 COLA-Then-Formula 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 Formula-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 Poverty-Only Method 7,156,348,500 5.000% 3.000% 224,998,973 6,931,349,527 5.066% 508,847,429 6,422,502,098 309,688,842 183,384,398 126,304,445 60.00% 75,782,667 25,260,889 32 U.S. total (all U.S.) Total (state, territ., Ind./migr.) Total (states: 50 + D.C., PR) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% 6,667,533,000 6,453,616,000 5,979,840,165 100.00 102,169,853 1.71 12,347,956 0.21 98,862,781 1.65 62,251,574 1.04 817,556,305 13.67 67,038,504 1.12 50,990,333 0.85 12,533,662 0.21 24,575,581 0.41 257,448,114 4.31 164,994,735 2.76 22,419,271 0.37 22,098,615 0.37 265,007,643 4.43 90,451,173 1.51 50,490,800 0.84 48,873,144 0.82 105,554,744 1.77 137,765,730 2.30 27,197,811 0.45 76,436,650 1.28 106,278,469 1.78 Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Age 0–4 Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) COLA-then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmlesses Enforced) $ % No. % $ % $% 6,815,570,000 7,156,348,500 7,156,348,500 6,597,124,395 6,931,349,527 6,931,349,527 6,112,813,255 100.00 3,579,535 100.00 6,422,502,098 100.00 6,422,502,098 100.00 104,441,793 1.71 69,062 1.93 109,733,049 1.71 109,728,108 1.71 12,622,537 0.21 6,494 0.18 13,262,023 0.21 13,260,186 0.21 101,061,182 1.65 78,803 2.20 106,181,168 1.65 106,317,478 1.66 63,635,856 1.04 44,569 1.25 66,859,791 1.04 66,858,446 1.04 835,736,220 13.67 489,256 13.67 878,076,493 13.67 877,994,563 13.67 68,529,232 1.12 37,039 1.03 72,001,077 1.12 71,992,299 1.12 52,124,200 0.85 24,620 0.69 54,764,929 0.85 54,755,876 0.85 12,812,371 0.21 7,296 0.20 13,461,475 0.21 13,460,082 0.21 25,122,066 0.41 10,410 0.29 26,394,806 0.41 26,389,469 0.41 263,172,961 4.31 173,427 4.84 276,505,894 4.31 276,493,045 4.31 168,663,706 2.76 106,663 2.98 177,208,588 2.76 177,197,354 2.76 22,917,806 0.37 11,571 0.32 24,078,873 0.37 24,075,392 0.37 22,590,019 0.37 16,512 0.46 23,734,480 0.37 23,734,465 0.37 270,900,590 4.43 134,266 3.75 284,625,022 4.43 284,582,194 4.43 92,462,526 1.51 61,623 1.72 97,146,885 1.51 97,142,834 1.51 51,613,558 0.84 24,705 0.69 54,228,417 0.84 54,219,671 0.84 49,959,931 0.82 27,428 0.77 52,491,013 0.82 52,484,898 0.82 107,901,954 1.77 60,324 1.69 113,368,510 1.77 113,356,029 1.76 140,829,213 2.30 90,610 2.53 147,963,937 2.30 147,955,593 2.30 27,802,606 0.45 11,218 0.31 29,211,149 0.45 29,205,040 0.45 78,136,364 1.28 40,331 1.13 82,094,928 1.28 82,083,648 1.28 108,641,773 1.78 48,441 1.35 114,145,809 1.78 114,125,018 1.78 Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% 7,156,348,500 6,931,349,527 6,422,502,098 100.00 110,710,380 1.72 13,151,035 0.20 108,607,926 1.69 67,763,183 1.06 878,059,975 13.67 71,618,919 1.12 54,034,957 0.84 13,435,919 0.21 25,862,930 0.40 278,894,902 4.34 178,185,177 2.77 23,850,195 0.37 24,140,565 0.38 281,611,600 4.38 98,071,759 1.53 53,545,935 0.83 52,265,018 0.81 113,014,691 1.76 148,970,984 2.32 28,585,081 0.45 81,424,169 1.27 112,268,908 1.75 Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmlesses of Any Kind) $% 7,156,348,500 6,931,349,527 6,422,502,098 100.00 123,912,977 1.93 11,651,717 0.18 141,390,553 2.20 79,966,950 1.25 877,836,838 13.67 66,456,413 1.03 44,173,895 0.69 13,090,688 0.20 18,677,914 0.29 311,167,588 4.84 191,377,746 2.98 20,761,013 0.32 29,626,294 0.46 240,903,823 3.75 110,565,715 1.72 44,326,404 0.69 49,212,087 0.77 108,235,013 1.69 162,575,003 2.53 20,127,650 0.31 72,363,011 1.13 86,914,201 1.35 Base Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2003 $% Prior Year Funding: Actual Allotments, Fiscal Year 2004 $% Table C.4 (continued) Target Population: 2000 Decennial Census Child Poverty Age 0-4 No. % Percent-Only Allotments (All Recipients Increased Evenly by Nationwide Growth Percentage) $% COLA-then-Formula Allotment (Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Hold Harmlesses Enforced) $% Formula-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases, Remainder by Formula, Base-Year Hold Harmless Only) $% Poverty-Only Allotment (No Inflation Increases or Hold Harmlesses of Any Kind) $% Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico 229,823,904 3.84 234,934,475 3.84 102,664 2.87 246,836,783 3.84 246,790,426 3.84 242,519,812 3.78 184,202,628 2.87 71,044,727 1.19 72,624,541 1.19 34,352 0.96 76,303,863 1.19 76,291,283 1.19 75,292,855 1.17 61,635,322 0.96 158,383,544 2.65 161,905,502 2.65 57,552 1.61 170,107,998 2.65 170,067,222 2.65 165,500,691 2.58 103,261,413 1.61 115,534,831 1.93 118,103,967 1.93 64,736 1.81 124,087,380 1.93 124,072,855 1.93 123,540,386 1.92 116,151,147 1.81 20,522,249 0.34 20,978,600 0.34 12,174 0.34 22,041,423 0.34 22,039,295 0.34 22,027,742 0.34 21,842,932 0.34 35,276,261 0.59 36,060,696 0.59 15,946 0.45 37,887,612 0.59 37,880,622 0.59 37,248,218 0.58 28,610,760 0.45 20,183,765 0.34 20,632,590 0.34 23,045 0.64 21,677,883 0.34 21,902,084 0.34 23,033,617 0.36 41,347,985 0.64 13,119,467 0.22 13,411,203 0.22 6,794 0.19 14,090,645 0.22 14,088,623 0.22 13,959,645 0.22 12,189,985 0.19 127,694,435 2.14 130,533,963 2.14 63,044 1.76 137,147,107 2.14 137,125,365 2.14 135,490,749 2.11 113,115,313 1.76 50,175,146 0.84 51,290,886 0.84 35,195 0.98 53,889,397 0.84 53,887,826 0.84 54,527,524 0.85 63,147,856 0.98 426,654,536 7.13 436,142,009 7.13 253,609 7.08 458,237,942 7.13 458,194,037 7.13 458,017,003 7.13 455,032,381 7.08 135,336,737 2.26 138,346,206 2.26 94,630 2.64 145,355,136 2.26 145,350,697 2.26 147,039,123 2.29 169,787,800 2.64 16,358,703 0.27 16,722,470 0.27 6,784 0.19 17,569,667 0.27 17,566,017 0.27 17,197,644 0.27 12,172,043 0.19 241,768,460 4.04 247,144,640 4.04 128,266 3.58 259,665,542 4.04 259,630,332 4.04 257,630,429 4.01 230,138,455 3.58 78,457,421 1.31 80,202,071 1.31 53,201 1.49 84,265,288 1.31 84,261,606 1.31 85,036,504 1.32 95,454,726 1.49 58,254,100 0.97 59,549,491 0.97 37,792 1.06 62,566,402 0.97 62,562,524 0.97 62,927,635 0.98 67,807,466 1.06 223,523,637 3.74 228,494,109 3.74 116,166 3.25 240,070,134 3.74 240,035,962 3.74 237,889,264 3.70 208,428,295 3.25 21,610,571 0.36 22,091,123 0.36 12,009 0.34 23,210,309 0.36 23,207,525 0.36 23,095,660 0.36 21,546,885 0.34 80,086,327 1.34 81,867,199 1.34 52,453 1.47 86,014,775 1.34 86,009,777 1.34 86,572,909 1.35 94,112,644 1.47 18,442,297 0.31 18,852,396 0.31 10,202 0.29 19,807,501 0.31 19,805,095 0.31 19,703,924 0.31 18,304,715 0.29 114,604,143 1.92 117,152,584 1.92 75,183 2.10 123,087,796 1.92 123,080,726 1.92 123,901,622 1.93 134,895,447 2.10 463,433,942 7.75 473,739,275 7.75 355,714 9.94 497,739,970 7.75 497,992,592 7.75 507,423,189 7.90 638,232,036 9.94 37,000,139 0.62 37,822,907 0.62 24,086 0.67 39,739,100 0.62 39,736,693 0.62 39,978,725 0.62 43,215,777 0.67 13,285,044 0.22 13,580,462 0.22 4,476 0.13 14,268,479 0.22 14,264,824 0.22 13,838,567 0.22 8,030,965 0.13 97,285,352 1.63 99,448,676 1.63 59,783 1.67 104,486,970 1.63 104,478,266 1.63 104,678,396 1.63 107,264,335 1.67 99,203,834 1.66 101,409,820 1.66 61,225 1.71 106,547,469 1.66 106,538,770 1.66 106,775,202 1.66 109,851,612 1.71 49,603,014 0.83 50,706,031 0.83 26,991 0.75 53,274,912 0.83 53,268,140 0.83 52,940,846 0.82 48,428,009 0.75 88,690,279 1.48 90,662,476 1.48 43,836 1.22 95,255,640 1.48 95,240,572 1.48 94,111,243 1.47 78,651,781 1.22 12,121,562 0.20 12,391,108 0.20 5,449 0.15 13,018,869 0.20 13,016,447 0.20 12,795,410 0.20 9,776,749 0.15 239,018,290 4.00 244,333,315 4.00 167,510 4.68 256,711,789 4.00 256,704,207 4.00 259,733,355 4.04 300,551,140 4.68 33 Indian tribes 185,452,311 189,576,195 199,180,551 199,180,551 199,180,551 199,180,551 Migrant programs 263,002,646 268,851,009 282,471,604 282,471,604 282,471,604 282,471,604 Outer Pacific 15,243,634 15,582,605 16,372,055 16,372,055 16,372,055 16,372,055 U.S. Virgin Islands 10,077,243 10,301,330 10,823,218 10,823,218 10,823,218 10,823,218 Program support/HHS admin. 213,917,000 218,445,605 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 224,998,973 NOTES: Percent-only method (actually used for 2003 funding) assumes that all non-administrative funds are allotted a pro rata increase from the prior year. COLA-then-formula method first assumes initial inflation- rate increases for all recipients, then formula-based allotments for remaining funds. Formula-only method assumes use of statutory formula's base-year hold harmless only, with no automatic COLA, balance allotted by formula. Poverty-only method assumes allotment of all state-level funds on the basis of preschool-age child poverty, with no hold harmless or COLA. Outer Pacific allotment includes funds for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Program support/HHS administration includes funds for technical assistance, monitoring, and RD&E . Amount for administration and program support assumes HHS provides inflation-only increases in funding for these activities. Assumed percentage inflation rate (CPI-U) for 2004 compares most current consumer price index as of time of publication with same datum for one year prior. Model assumes that HHS will elect to allocate its discretionary QI funds uniformly on a pro rata basis. At time of publication, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees had approved a 2004 appropriation of $6,815,570,000 for Head Start. SOURCEs: Statutory allotment formula under section 640 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801) available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/9835.html. Base year and prior year funding allotments from Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Child poverty counts from 2000 Decennial Census data, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.census.gov. BOARD OF DIRECTORS RAYMOND L. WATSON, CHAIRMAN Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company EDWARD K. HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. WALTER B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California CHERYL WHITE MASON Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office ARJAY MILLER Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUTTON Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center ADVISORY COUNCIL MARY C. DALY Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco CLIFFORD W. GRAVES General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California HILARY W. HOYNES Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis ANDRÉS E. JIMÉNEZ Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President DANIEL A. MAZMANIAN C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California DEAN MISCZYNSKI Director California Research Bureau RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco MANUEL PASTOR Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee JAMES P. SMITH Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org ISBN 1-58213-093-0" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:00" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(11) "ff_1003trff" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:00" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:00" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(53) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/FF_1003TRFF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }