Poster #105 - State Policy Variation and Head Start Enrollment Among Children in Foster Care

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Introduction and Background: Head Start has positive impacts on school readiness for children in foster care (CiFC; Lipscomb et al., 2013), who are categorically eligible for Head Start/Early Head Start (HS/EHS) services regardless of income. Nationally, 24% of CiFC are enrolled in HS/EHS, but rates vary substantially across states (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2024; Children’s Bureau, 2025). Because the U.S. early care and education (ECE) system is mixed-delivery, state policies governing other ECE programs (e.g., subsidized child care, public pre-K) may shape the supply of care available to foster families and influence whether CiFC enroll in HS/EHS versus other settings.

Purpose and Research Question: Despite CiFC’s categorical eligibility for HS/EHS, little research has explored challenges and facilitators to enrollment for CiFC. We address this gap with the following research questions (RQs):
1) How does the proportion of HS/EHS enrollees who are CiFC vary across states?
2) How does variation in state ECE program eligibility policies relate to HS/EHS enrollment?
3) What challenges do HS/EHS programs face in serving CiFC?
4) What strategies do HS/EHS programs use to promote enrollment, quality, and stability for CiFC? 

Methods: We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates administrative and qualitative data. For RQs 1-2, we analyze the 2024 Head Start PIR, 2021 Kids Count, and 2023 Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Policies Database. We calculate state-level variation in the share of HS/EHS enrollees who are CiFC (RQ1) and estimate regression models examining associations between this measure and CCDF subsidy priority policies (RQ2). We will also review eligibility definitions for additional ECE programs (e.g., state pre-K, transitional kindergarten) to extend these analyses. For RQs 3-4, we focus on Arkansas—a state with low HS/EHS enrollment among CiFC (6%; Ortiz et al., 2024)—to identify barriers and facilitators for serving CiFC. We interviewed 12 staff across six HS/EHS programs serving both high and low proportions of CiFC. Data will be coded in Dedoose using combined inductive and deductive approaches, with deductive codes informed by prior research and emerging quantitative findings.

Results and Findings: Descriptive results show substantial cross-state variation in the share of HS/EHS enrollees who are CiFC, with a median of 3.7% and range from 0.9% (MS) to 11% (ME). Regression analyses indicate states that prioritize (β = -2.34, SE = 0.70, p < 0.01) or guarantee (β = -2.32, SE = 0.56, p < 0.01) CCDF subsidies for CiFC serve significantly fewer CiFC in HS/EHS, suggesting potential substitution across ECE options. Next steps include incorporating additional state ECE program policies  and qualitative data analysis.

Conclusion and Implications: These findings highlight how state policy contexts may unintentionally shape where CiFC receive care, with implications for equitable access to HS/EHS. Results will inform strategies to better align ECE systems, reduce enrollment barriers, and support stable, high-quality placements for CiFC.

Author

• Nancy Perez, University of California Irvine
  Presenting Author