This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-852 
entitled 'Prekindergarten: Four Selected States Expanded Access by 
Relying on Schools and Existing Providers of Early Education and Care 
to Provide Services' which was released on September 09, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office:

Report to Congressional Requesters:

GAO:

September 2004:

Prekindergarten:

Four Selected States Expanded Access by Relying on Schools and Existing 
Providers of Early Education and Care to Provide Services:

GAO-04-852:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-852, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in 
providing early childhood development programs for children of low-
income families through Head Start and other programs. Since 1980, the 
number of states with preschool programs has also significantly 
increased. While most of these programs have targeted children at risk 
of school failure, more recently, interest has grown in expanding these 
limited programs because of the growing concern about children’s 
readiness for school and subsequent achievement. It has also been 
fueled by new research on early brain development that suggests the 
importance of early education and by the high rate of mothers in the 
workforce and their need for early childhood services. In this context, 
questions have arisen about how the various programs are coordinated 
and what lessons have been learned from broad-based state preschool 
efforts.

This work focused on four states that have expanded their preschool 
programs to serve more children. In these states, GAO addressed (1) 
how prekindergarten programs were designed and funded, (2) the 
potential implications of these program features for children’s 
participation and other programs that serve four year-olds, and (3) 
the outcome data that have been collected on participating children 
and families. To gather this information, GAO conducted site visits in 
four states—Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.

What GAO Found:

The expanded prekindergarten programs in Georgia, Oklahoma, New York, 
and New Jersey had some similarities in their design features. For 
instance, programs were offered at no direct cost to parents, 
regardless of family income, and each state incorporated some level of 
collaboration with community-based providers such as Head Start and 
large child care facilities. Some key differences in their design 
features also existed. For example, Georgia and Oklahoma had statewide 
programs providing prekindergarten services to over half of their four-
year olds, while New York’s and New Jersey’s programs were more 
geographically targeted. States and school districts also varied in 
offering full- or half-day prekindergarten programs. States also 
varied in teacher qualifications, the percentage of prekindergarten 
children served by community-based providers, funding methods, and in 
the amount of funding per child.

State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs and Kindergarten 
through Grade 12: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Some program features had potential implications for the participation 
of children and for early childhood programs. For example, none of the 
four states required providers to transport all children to and from 
prekindergarten, and many children were enrolled in half-day programs, 
which officials believed might have limited the participation of 
children from low-income and working families. Collaborations between 
programs and community-based organizations generally permitted rapid 
program expansion and were viewed as beneficial to early childhood 
programs. Finally, we found few data to determine the impact of state 
prekindergarten expansion on the availability or prices of child care.

While some data were available on outcomes for children who 
participated in prekindergarten programs, less was known about their 
impacts on families. For example, a study in Oklahoma showed that 
children who participated made significant gains on several school 
readiness measures relative to a comparison group of unenrolled 
children. However, none of the four states had measured effects on 
families, such as parents’ work effort.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-852.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Mamie Shaul at (202) 512-
7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results In Brief:

Background:

Four Selected States Varied In the Design and Funding of their Expanded 
Prekindergarten Programs:

Some Program Features Had Potential Implications for Children's 
Participation and Other Early Childhood Programs:

Some Data Have Been Collected on Outcomes for Participating Children:

Concluding Observations:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: State Prekindergarten Program Characteristics, Benchmarks, and 
Number of State Programs Meeting the Benchmarks:

Table 2: Number of School Districts Statewide, Number of School 
Districts with State Prekindergarten Programs, and Percentage of Age-
Eligible Children Participating in Five State Prekindergarten Programs 
during the 2003-04 School Year:

Table 3: Variation in Selected Features of Five State Prekindergarten 
Programs:

Table 4: Primary Method of Program Funding, Estimated Number of 
Children Participating, and Estimated State Spending for 
Prekindergarten Programs during the 2002-03 School Year:

Figures:

Figure 1: Enrollment of Four-Year-Olds in State-Sponsored 
Prekindergarten Programs:

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Age-Eligible Children, Prekindergarten 
Enrollments, and Head Start Enrollments in the Four States:

Figure 3: State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs and 
Kindergarten through Grade 12:

Abbreviations:

CBO: community-based organization: 
CCDF: Child Care and Development Fund 
ECPA: early childhood program aid 
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
LEA: local education agencies 
NIEER: National Institute for Early Education Research 
SEA: state education agencies 
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
TPK: targeted prekindergarten 
UPK: universal prekindergarten:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

September 9, 2004:

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Children and Families: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Jack Reed: 
United States Senate:

For nearly 40 years, the federal government has played a role in 
providing early childhood development programs for children of low-
income families through Head Start and other programs. Prior to 1970, 
only a few states had prekindergarten programs, and these were mostly 
available to a small number of children and targeted specific 
populations such as disadvantaged children, those at risk of school 
failure, or those with special needs. More recently, there has been 
interest in expanding these limited prekindergarten programs because of 
the growing concern about children's readiness for school and 
subsequent achievement. This interest has also been fueled by advances 
in early brain development research that suggest the importance of 
early education and by the high rate of mothers in the workforce and 
their need for early childhood services. During the 2001-02 school 
year, about 40 states enrolled approximately 700,000 of the nation's 
7.8 million three-and four-year-olds in prekindergarten programs, and 
spent over $2.4 billion to finance these programs. A few of these 
states have invested significant resources to expand enrollments of 
prekindergarten programs beyond targeted populations. They have also 
used federal funds such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to support prekindergarten 
programs, and have implemented these programs in a variety of settings 
such as child care centers and Head Start agencies, as well as public 
schools.

Given the level of investment and the variety of preschool programs 
currently receiving federal and state support, there is concern about 
whether these programs are well coordinated and that lessons from 
implementing broadly based state programs are documented. Accordingly, 
you asked that we review programs in selected states that expanded 
their prekindergarten efforts. This report presents information on (1) 
how state prekindergarten programs were designed and funded in these 
states, (2) the potential implications of these program features for 
children's participation and for other programs that serve four-year-
olds, and (3) the outcome data that have been collected on 
participating children and families.

To determine how prekindergarten programs were designed, we reviewed 
program information and interviewed state officials, local education 
program officials, as well as numerous Head Start grantees and 
directors of large child care facilities, during site visits to four 
states (Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma). These states were 
selected, in part, because they were among a small subset of states 
that had expanded their prekindergarten programs and aimed to serve all 
four-year-olds whose parents wanted them to attend, regardless of 
family income. We also considered states that had well-established 
prekindergarten programs. Because New Jersey had two major preschool 
programs, including the court-ordered Abbott program that was 
implemented in New Jersey's 30 highest-poverty school districts, we 
report on a total of five prekindergarten programs in four states.

To identify potential implications of the design of state 
prekindergarten programs, we interviewed (1) state and local education 
agency officials; (2) providers of prekindergarten services at 
community-based organizations; and (3) federal, state, and local Head 
Start program staff. We also reviewed selected data on child care 
availability in these states and the nation. We assessed the data for 
reliability and reasonableness and found them to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report. To determine what outcome 
data have been collected on participating children and families, we 
interviewed state and local education agency officials in each of the 
four states we visited, contacted researchers, and reviewed two 
studies--a study of a school district in Oklahoma and one statewide 
study in Georgia. We assessed the methodologies used in these studies 
and determined that the methodologies were of sufficient quality for 
use in discussion of most study findings, and we limited our discussion 
to these findings. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our 
scope and methodology.) We conducted our work between October 2003 and 
August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief:

The four states we visited had developed expanded prekindergarten 
programs that varied in design features and funding. The four states' 
program features were similar in that each offered services at no 
direct costs to parents and emphasized preparing children for school 
and preventing failure in early grades. They also afforded the option 
of collaboration with community-based providers. We found significant 
differences in other aspects of the programs, such as geographic 
coverage, requirements for teachers, and extent of reliance on 
community-based providers of early childhood education. For example, 
Georgia had a statewide program that was implemented in all of its 
school districts, while New Jersey targeted its two prekindergarten 
programs in high-poverty areas--covering about 24 percent of its school 
districts. Teacher qualifications also varied among the four states. 
Requirements for lead teachers ranged from an associate's degree to a 
bachelor's degree with certification in early childhood education. In 
providing their prekindergarten programs, states and school districts 
also differed in the degree and type of collaborations they established 
with community-based providers such as Head Start and private child 
care centers. In terms of funding, the four states relied primarily on 
state resources but differed in funding methods and amounts per child. 
For example, New York financed its program using general revenues, 
while Georgia relied on proceeds from a state lottery. With regard to 
funding levels, New Jersey had the highest funding per child for its 
Abbott prekindergarten--over $9,500 compared with less than $4,200 for 
each of the other programs during the 2002-03 school year. All four 
states generally used relatively small amounts of federal funds, such 
as those from Title I or the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, to support their prekindergarten programs.

Some design features of state prekindergarten programs had potential 
implications for children and early childhood programs in the four 
states we visited. For example, both local officials and providers told 
us that the lack of transportation and half-day programs may have 
affected participation in prekindergarten programs for children of low-
income and working families. None of the four states we visited 
required prekindergarten providers to transport all participating 
children. Regarding the implications of state prekindergarten programs 
for other early childhood program providers, three of the five programs 
served most prekindergarten children through community-based 
organizations such as Head Start and child care centers. State and 
local officials and community-based providers told us that 
collaborations were beneficial to their programs, but they also 
identified some challenges. In terms of benefits, some states used 
collaborations to quickly expand their prekindergarten programs by 
using existing age-appropriate facilities. In addition, collaborations 
increased access to school district resources for some community-based 
organizations. Some Head Start grantees received state funds to provide 
prekindergarten services, while other grantees told us they had begun 
serving more three-year-olds to offset the loss of four-year-olds who 
participated in state prekindergarten programs elsewhere, which 
potentially increased the number of poor children with 2 years of 
preschool education. At the same time, challenges remained for some 
states and school districts--including the lack of expertise in 
arranging formal contracts and maintaining effective collaborations 
with community-based providers. Little empirical data were available to 
determine the degree to which these broad-based state prekindergarten 
programs affected the availability of and prices for child care, and 
the anecdotal evidence we collected was mixed.

Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, 
but little is known about outcomes for their families. In the school 
districts we visited, we found that assessments of children's 
development were incorporated in the curriculum and used to provide 
information to parents. We also found two studies that provided 
information about the educational outcomes of state prekindergarten 
programs in Oklahoma and Georgia. A study conducted by Georgetown 
University collected data on prekindergarten children in the Tulsa, 
Oklahoma, school district and found that children who participated in 
the Tulsa program had significantly higher scores on several school 
readiness measures than similar children in the comparison group, who 
did not participate in the Tulsa prekindergarten program. A second 
study, conducted by Georgia State University on Georgia's 
prekindergarten program, reported that children who participated in the 
state program made significant gains on several school readiness 
measures, including language and problem solving, as did children in 
Head Start and those enrolled in private prekindergarten programs. None 
of the four states we visited reported collecting information regarding 
the impact of their programs on families with respect to issues such as 
workforce participation.

Background:

The growth in state prekindergarten programs has occurred for various 
reasons, but three frequently cited reasons are (1) evidence of the 
importance of early childhood to later development, (2) the high rate 
of labor force participation by mothers of young children, and (3) 
increased concern over school readiness and subsequent achievement. 
Much has been discovered about children's ability to learn more at an 
earlier age than previously believed. The early childhood years are 
commonly portrayed as formative. Between the first day of life and the 
first day of kindergarten, development proceeds at a pace exceeding 
that of any subsequent stage of life. Children from birth to age five 
engage in making sense of the world on many levels: language, human 
interactions, counting and quantification, spatial reasoning, physical 
causality, problem solving, and categorization.[Footnote 1]

Since the 1960s, the percentage of women in the labor force has 
increased dramatically. In 1960, about 36 percent of women participated 
in the labor force, and by 2000 this figure had increased to 58 
percent. Moreover, in 2003, about 69 percent of women with children 
aged three to five (but none younger) were in the labor force. This 
high rate of participation of women in the labor force has resulted in 
more children enrolled in preschool programs of varying quality and 
pressure being placed on schools to provide before-and after-school 
programs.

To improve educational achievement for all children and reduce failure 
in lower grades, many states and school districts are placing a greater 
emphasis on the school readiness of younger children. For nearly a 
quarter century, many states have developed or expanded their 
investment in prekindergarten programs to increase the likelihood of 
children's success in school. Prior to 1970 only 7 states funded 
preschool programs, and by 1988, 28 states had programs and total 
spending was $190 million;[Footnote 2] such programs generally targeted 
economically and educationally disadvantaged children. While most 
state-sponsored prekindergarten programs continue to serve such 
children, a few states are in the process of expanding their programs 
to include all four-year-olds, regardless of family income. According 
to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), 40 
states (and Washington, D.C.) had some form of state-sponsored 
prekindergarten program in the 2001-02 school year and enrolled over 
700,000 children, mostly four-year-olds.[Footnote 3] While states spent 
more than $2.4 billion for prekindergarten during the 2001-02 school 
year, 10 states accounted for over 80 percent of this amount.

Generally, prekindergarten programs aimed to serve four-year-olds, but 
according to NIEER estimates, most states served less than one-fifth of 
all their four-year-olds (see fig. 1). NIEER estimated that about 80 
percent of children served by state prekindergarten programs were four-
year-olds.[Footnote 4] During the 2001-02 school year, only two states 
(Georgia and Oklahoma) enrolled more than 50 percent of their four-
year-olds in a state-sponsored prekindergarten program. Ten states 
(Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) had not initiated 
prekindergarten programs.

Figure 1: Enrollment of Four-Year-Olds in State-Sponsored 
Prekindergarten Programs:

[See PDF for image]

Note: NIEER estimated enrollments by age categories when states did not 
provide data separately for three-and four-year-olds. NIEER did not 
report enrollments of state prekindergarten programs in Florida, 
Minnesota, and Rhode Island.

[End of figure]

The NIEER study also reported on characteristics describing the quality 
of states' prekindergarten programs. Table 1 provides information on 
NIEER's findings related to certain program characteristics, 
benchmarks, and the number of state programs meeting the benchmarks 
that NIEER associated with quality prekindergarten programs.

Table 1: State Prekindergarten Program Characteristics, Benchmarks, and 
Number of State Programs Meeting the Benchmarks:

Program characteristics[A]: Class size; 
Benchmarks[A]: 20 children or fewer; 
Number of state programs[B]: 32.

Program characteristics[A]: Family support services; 
Benchmarks[A]: At least one family support service including parent 
conferences or adult education, referral to social services for 
families, or information relating to nutrition; 
Number of state programs[B]: 32.

Program characteristics[A]: Staff-child ratio; 
Benchmarks[A]: 1:10 or better; 
Number of state programs[B]: 31.

Program characteristics[A]: Teacher qualifications; 
Benchmarks[A]: Bachelor's degree for lead teachers; 
Number of state programs[B]: 22.

Program characteristics[A]: Comprehensive curriculum standards; 
Benchmarks[A]: Developed specifically for prekindergarten and cover 
the domains of language/literacy, mathematics, science, social/
emotional skills, cognitive development, health and physical 
development, and social studies; 
Number of state programs[B]: 12. 

Source: NIEER, The State of Preschool, 2003 State Preschool Yearbook.

[A] NIEER identified 10 program characteristics and developed 
benchmarks for each of the characteristics. The other program 
characteristics were teacher specialized training requirements, 
assistant teacher degree requirements, teacher in-service 
requirements, screening/referral requirements, and meal requirements.

[B] Based on NIEER's summary of quality standards for a total of 44 
programs, including some states with more than one prekindergarten 
program, and Washington, D.C.

[End of table]

Among the 10 largest state prekindergarten programs, most met the 
benchmarks for class size, family support services, staff-child ratio, 
and teacher qualifications, and they were equally divided with respect 
to comprehensive curriculum standards.

State-sponsored prekindergarten programs are expanding alongside 
existing programs for young children, including Head Start, Title I, 
and private child care programs. Head Start is a targeted program that 
mostly serves children from low-income families.[Footnote 5] Head 
Start, administered at the federal level by the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS), is implemented in local communities through 
grantees. These grantees include community action agencies, school 
systems, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, other government 
agencies, and tribal governments or associations. The Department of 
Health and Human Services reported that Head Start served just over 
900,000 children nationwide during the 2003 fiscal year, and most were 
aged three and four; Head Start was funded at about $6.7 billion, or 
about $7,366 per child.

In addition to administering Head Start, the federal government also 
provides some limited support for early education programs through 
Title I. Administered by the Department of Education (Education), Title 
I is the single largest federal investment for elementary and secondary 
education.[Footnote 6] Its primary purpose is to help local education 
agencies and schools improve the teaching and learning of children who 
are failing, or are most at risk of failing, to meet challenging 
academic standards. In support of that goal, Education reported that 
Title I was funded at about $11.7 billion during the 2003 fiscal year. 
Nearly 15 million students were supported by Title I funds, and of 
these, about 2 percent (an estimated 313,000) were enrolled in 
prekindergarten programs during the 1999-2000 school year.[Footnote 7]

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the principal federal 
program that supports child care for low-income families. CCDF is 
administered by HHS, and each state receives an annual allocation that 
is used to subsidize the child care expenses of low-income families 
with children generally under age 13. CCDF subsidies can be used to 
obtain child care from various types of providers, including child care 
centers and family homes.[Footnote 8] In fiscal year 2002, CCDF was 
appropriated nearly $5 billion, and HHS reported that about 1.8 million 
children received subsidies in an average month. As a condition of 
receiving CCDF funds, states must conduct biennial surveys of child 
care providers, which are considered by states when establishing 
reimbursement rates for providers serving subsidized children. In 
addition to information regarding the fees charged by providers for 
child care services, such surveys may provide states with information 
about the type of child care they provide, qualifications of the staff, 
the age groups of the children they serve, and where they are located.

Four Selected States Varied In the Design and Funding of their Expanded 
Prekindergarten Programs:

The four states we visited varied in the design features and funding of 
their prekindergarten programs. Programs shared similar features such 
as voluntary enrollment of children at no direct cost to their parents, 
but differed in others. In addition, all five state programs permitted 
collaboration with community-based providers. States varied in features 
such as the teacher requirements for their prekindergarten programs. 
States and school districts also differed in the degree and type of 
collaborations they established with community-based agencies. 
Finally, while states relied primarily on state resources, they 
reported some differences in funding mechanisms and per child funding 
levels.

Selected States Designed Expanded Prekindergarten Programs to Enroll 
Children Voluntarily at No Direct Cost to Parents, but Differed in 
Geographic Breadth and Other Key Features:

In the four states visited--Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and 
Oklahoma--we found some similarities in prekindergarten 
programs.[Footnote 9] Over the last few years, all four states had 
expanded their state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and, as 
reported by NIEER in February 2004, were among only nine states and 
Washington, D.C., that provided prekindergarten services to more than 
20 percent of their four-year-olds. All four states' prekindergarten 
programs were provided at no direct cost to parents--regardless of 
family income--and were offered on a voluntary basis; children's 
enrollment was not mandatory. In addition, each program emphasized 
preparation for school and incorporated the delivery of prekindergarten 
services by community-based organizations as well as schools. None of 
the states required that all providers offer transportation services, 
although some providers did, and one state offered reimbursement for 
some children when this occurred.[Footnote 10] Figure 2 shows the 
estimated number of age-eligible children in the state, and the number 
of age-eligible children participating in prekindergarten and Head 
Start programs in the four states we visited.[Footnote 11]

Figure 2: Estimated Number of Age-Eligible Children, Prekindergarten 
Enrollments, and Head Start Enrollments in the Four States:

[See PDF for image]

Note: With the exception of New Jersey, this analysis is based on four-
year-olds. In New Jersey, three-and four-year-olds were eligible in 
some districts. Also, New York's prekindergarten program enrollment 
does not include children participating in the targeted prekindergarten 
program.

[End of figure]

The states we visited differed in the extent of geographic coverage and 
participation in prekindergarten programs. Three of the four states--
Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma--aimed to provide prekindergarten 
programs to all four-year-olds in the state whose parents wanted them 
to attend. While none of these states provided prekindergarten to all 
four-year-olds, Oklahoma and Georgia had the most widespread programs. 
During the 2003-04 school year, Oklahoma provided prekindergarten in 
509 of its 541 school districts to about 63 percent of its four-year-
olds; Georgia provided prekindergarten in all of its 181 school 
districts and to about 55 percent of its four-year-olds. New York 
initially implemented much of its universal prekindergarten program in 
school districts located in the five largest cities in the state--
Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers. During the 
2003-04 school year, about 80 percent of the participating children 
attended prekindergarten in one of these five cities. Overall, New 
York's prekindergarten program was offered in 190 of its 680 school 
districts. In New Jersey's Abbott program, the state was court ordered 
to provide prekindergarten to all three-and four-year-olds who resided 
in the state's 30 highest-poverty school districts. In addition, 102 
non-Abbott early childhood program aid (ECPA) school districts in high-
poverty areas received funds for prekindergarten programs. Combined, 
these two programs provided prekindergarten in 132 of 539 (24 percent) 
school districts in New Jersey. Table 2 provides information on the 
extent of geographic coverage and percentage of age-eligible children 
participating in prekindergarten programs in the four states we 
visited.

Table 2: Number of School Districts Statewide, Number of School 
Districts with State Prekindergarten Programs, and Percentage of Age-
Eligible Children Participating in Five State Prekindergarten Programs 
during the 2003-04 School Year:

State: Georgia; 
Number of school districts statewide: 181; 
Number of school districts with state prekindergarten programs: 181; 
Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten[A]: 55.

State: New Jersey (Abbott districts); 
Number of school districts statewide: 539; 
Number of school districts with state prekindergarten programs: 30; 
Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten[A]: 73.

State: New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA); 
Number of school districts statewide: 539; 
Number of school districts with state prekindergarten programs: 102; 
Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten[A]: 57.

State: New York[B]; 
Number of school districts statewide: 680; 
Number of school districts with state prekindergarten programs: 190; 
Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten[A]: 28.

State: Oklahoma; 
Number of school districts statewide: 541; 
Number of school districts with state prekindergarten programs: 509; 
Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten[A]: 63.

Source: Information was obtained from the Georgia Department of Early 
Care and Learning and the state departments of education in New Jersey, 
New York, and Oklahoma.

[A] Percentage of age-eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten was calculated by dividing the number of children in 
prekindergarten by the number of children residing in eligible school 
districts. In Georgia and Oklahoma, all school districts were eligible 
for the state prekindergarten program. In New York, 224 of the state's 
680 school districts were eligible for UPK funds. In New Jersey, 30 
school districts were eligible for the Abbott program. In addition, 102 
non-Abbott high-poverty school districts in New Jersey were eligible 
for non-Abbott ECPA prekindergarten programs.

[B] This table does not include four-year-olds served in New York's 
targeted prekindergarten program, which served about 5 percent of the 
state's four-year-olds.

[End of table]

The state-sponsored prekindergarten programs also differed in some of 
their key design features. For example, the length of the program, in 
terms of hours per day, ranged from 2.5 hours to 6.5 hours per day 
among the four states. Full-day prekindergarten was provided in Georgia 
and New Jersey's Abbott prekindergarten programs.[Footnote 12] The 
other three prekindergarten programs--New Jersey's non-Abbott ECPA, New 
York, and Oklahoma--allowed school districts to determine whether to 
offer full-day or half-day programs.

The states also varied in their requirements for lead teachers, and two 
of the five state programs (New Jersey's Abbott and Oklahoma) required 
teachers to be certified in early childhood education.[Footnote 13] In 
New Jersey's non-Abbott ECPA program, prekindergarten teachers could 
also hold certification in elementary education. Beginning with the 
2004-05 school year, New York's state program required that all 
prekindergarten teachers be certified, but certification could be in an 
area other than early childhood education. In Georgia, lead teachers 
were required to hold at least a technical diploma or degree, 
associate's degree, or Montessori diploma. However, most lead teachers 
had at least a four-year-college degree. As of May 2004, the Georgia 
Department of Early Care and Learning reported that about 58 percent of 
its prekindergarten teachers were certified in early childhood or 
elementary education and 21 percent held four-year education-related or 
other degrees with some additional training in early childhood 
education or development. Combined, about 79 percent of the lead 
teachers in Georgia had at least a four-year education-related college 
degree.[Footnote 14]

States and school districts established collaborations with community-
based organizations differently and often relied on them extensively to 
provide prekindergarten services to children. For example, Georgia had 
a centralized program and the state's Department of Early Care and 
Learning was directly responsible for establishing collaborations with 
community-based organizations such as child care centers and U.S. 
military bases. In contrast, in the other three states we visited, 
local school districts had responsibility for establishing 
collaborations. In New York, the state required that school districts 
use at least 10 percent of their universal prekindergarten grant funds 
to serve children in community-based organizations, but statewide over 
60 percent of four-year-olds were participating in community-based 
prekindergarten programs during the 2002-03 school year. The extent of 
collaborations varied between the two prekindergarten programs in New 
Jersey during the 2003-04 school year. In the Abbott school districts, 
the state was ordered by the New Jersey Supreme Court to provide full-
day prekindergarten for all three-and four-year-olds; over 70 percent 
of these children were served by community-based providers.[Footnote 
15] In contrast, in New Jersey's non-Abbott ECPA school districts, only 
about 11 percent of the children received prekindergarten from 
community-based providers. While state officials in Oklahoma were 
supportive of collaborations, local school district officials 
determined the role of community-based providers in their 
prekindergarten programs. In Oklahoma, most children were enrolled in 
prekindergarten programs in public school buildings; the state did not 
know how many local school districts collaborated with community-based 
organizations or the number of children participating in them. These 
and other key differences in the design and implementation of state 
prekindergarten programs are identified in table 3.

Table 3: Variation in Selected Features of Five State Prekindergarten 
Programs:

Program feature: Role of school districts and community-based 
organizations (CBOs); 
Georgia: School districts and CBOs enter into contract with the 
Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning to provide 
prekindergarten; 
New Jersey (Abbott): School districts must provide prekindergarten and 
contract with CBOs wherever feasible using a state model contract; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): School districts must provide some level 
of prekindergarten services and have option of establishing contracts 
with CBOs; 
New York: Participating school districts must use 10% of UPK grant 
funds to serve children in CBOs; 
Oklahoma: Participating school districts have option to contract with 
CBOs.

Program feature: Maximum class size; 
Georgia: 20; 
New Jersey (Abbott): 15; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): No required maximum; 
New York: 20; 
Oklahoma: 20.

Program feature: Hours per day; 
Georgia: 6.5 hours; 
New Jersey (Abbott): 6 hours; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): Minimum of 2.75 hours or 6 hours at 
school district option; 
New York: Minimum of 2.5 hours or 5 hours at school district option; 
Oklahoma: Minimum of 2.5 hours or 6 hours at school district option.

Program feature: Percentage of children in half-day programs; 
Georgia: 0; 
New Jersey (Abbott): 0; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): 88%; 
New York: 83%; 
Oklahoma: 56%.

Program feature: Curriculum; 
Georgia: Sites used state-approved curricula; 
New Jersey (Abbott): Determined locally; 
New Jersey (non- Abbott ECPA): Determined locally; 
New York: Determined locally; 
Oklahoma: Determined locally based on state guidelines.

Program feature: Content standards; 
Georgia: Statewide standards; 
New Jersey (Abbott): Statewide standards; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): Statewide standards; 
New York: Statewide standards; 
Oklahoma: Determined locally based on state guidelines.

Program feature: Lead teacher qualifications; 
Georgia: Early childhood- related certification or credential[A]; 
New Jersey (Abbott): Certification in early childhood education[B]; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): Certification in early childhood or 
elementary education[C]; 
New York: Teacher certification[D]; 
Oklahoma: Certification in early childhood education[E].

Program feature: Estimate for percentage of prekindergarten children 
served in CBOs; 
Georgia: 57 percent; 
New Jersey (Abbott): 71 percent; 
New Jersey (non-Abbott ECPA): 11 percent; 
New York: 63 percent; 
Oklahoma: Largely school-based; 
percentage in CBOs unknown.

Source: Information on program features was obtained from the Georgia 
Department of Early Care and Learning and the state departments of 
education in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma.

[A] Georgia provides a variety of ways to meet the certification or 
credentialing requirements, such as certification in early childhood 
or elementary education; four-year-college degree in certain education 
fields or four-year degree in psychology or social work with additional 
studies in early childhood education or care; a technical institute 
diploma/degree in early childhood education or care; associate degree 
in early childhood education; or a Montessori diploma.

[B] By September 2004, a bachelor's degree plus a state-approved 
preparation program.

[C] Bachelor's degree plus certification in early childhood or 
elementary education.

[D] Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, a bachelor's degree plus 
must pass two state teacher examinations (liberal arts and sciences 
test and assessment of teaching skills).

[E] Bachelor's degree plus must pass general education, professional 
teaching, and early childhood tests.

[End of table]

State Funding Structure, Levels, and Stability Varied, and States Used 
Little Federal Funding:

All four states relied primarily on state resources but differed in 
other aspects of funding such as amounts per child, funding methods, 
and the extent to which these methods and amounts provided for 
financially stable programs. During the 2002-03 school year, 
enrollments and state spending for prekindergarten services varied 
widely among the five state programs. Based on data we collected from 
the states, spending ranged from approximately $347 million for 
prekindergarten services in the 30 Abbott school districts in New 
Jersey to about $30 million for the 102 non-Abbott ECPA school 
districts in New Jersey. Table 4 provides information on the primary 
methods of program funding, estimated number of participating children, 
and estimated state spending among the five programs during the 2002-03 
school year.

Table 4: Primary Method of Program Funding, Estimated Number of 
Children Participating, and Estimated State Spending for 
Prekindergarten Programs during the 2002-03 School Year:

State programs: New Jersey - Abbott; 
Primary method of program funding: General revenues: school funding 
formula[A]; 
Estimated number of children participating: 36,500; 
Estimated state spending for prekindergarten programs (dollars in 
millions): $347.

State programs: Georgia; 
Primary method of program funding: Lottery proceeds; 
Estimated number of children participating: 65,900; 
Estimated state spending for prekindergarten programs (dollars in 
millions): $252.

State programs: New York; 
Primary method of program funding: General revenues: annual 
appropriation; 
Estimated number of children participating: 58,300; 
Estimated state spending for prekindergarten programs (dollars in 
millions): $195.4.

State programs: Oklahoma; 
Primary method of program funding: General revenues: school funding 
formula; 
Estimated number of children participating: 28,060; 
Estimated state spending for prekindergarten programs (dollars in 
millions): $66.4.

State programs: New Jersey-non-Abbott ECPA; 
Primary method of program funding: General revenues: school funding 
formula; 
Estimated number of children participating: 7,200; 
Estimated state spending for prekindergarten programs (dollars in 
millions): $30. 

Source: Information was obtained from the Georgia Department of Early 
Care and Learning and the state departments of education in New Jersey, 
New York, and Oklahoma.

[A] In addition to receiving formula-driven funding, Abbott school 
districts also receive preschool expansion aid. This aid is derived 
from the state's general revenues and is provided to the Abbott 
districts to support the required full-day program for three-and four-
year-olds.

[End of table]

Per child expenditures for full-day and half-day prekindergarten varied 
across the four states we visited and were consistently less than the 
state's per pupil expenditures for kindergarten through grade 12. New 
Jersey's Abbott districts had the highest funding per child for full-
day prekindergarten, relative to kindergarten through grade 12 
funding.[Footnote 16] In the remaining states, funding for full-day 
prekindergarten was much less than the level of funding per child in 
kindergarten through grade 12. See figure 3 for comparisons of per 
child expenditures for prekindergarten and kindergarten through grade 
12 in the four states we visited.

Figure 3: State Per Child Funding for Prekindergarten Programs and 
Kindergarten through Grade 12:

[See PDF for image]

Note: State per child funding for prekindergarten programs was for the 
2002-03 school year, and kindergarten through grade 12 expenditures 
were for the 2000-01 school year.

[End of figure]

Apart from New Jersey's Abbott and Georgia's prekindergarten programs, 
the other state programs we examined were largely half-day. New 
Jersey's non-Abbott ECPA program, New York, and Oklahoma permitted 
local school districts to operate half-day prekindergarten. However, 
these states differed in how they funded their half-and full-day 
programs. School districts in New Jersey's non-Abbott ECPA program and 
New York received the same amount per child whether they operated half-
day or full-day programs, and about 80 percent of the children attended 
half-day prekindergarten in each of the two programs. In Oklahoma, 
local school districts received about $1,743 per child (54 percent of 
the full-day rate), and over half of the four-year-olds participating 
in the state's prekindergarten program were enrolled in half-day 
programs during the 2002-03 school year.

The four states varied in how they funded their state-sponsored 
prekindergarten programs, and officials in two states told us that the 
financial outlook of their programs was stable. According to two 
New Jersey state officials, because of the state supreme court decision 
and subsequent court order, New Jersey was committed to providing a 
quality prekindergarten program to all three-and four-year-olds who 
lived in the Abbott school districts. In addition, funding for both New 
Jersey's Abbott and non-Abbott ECPA prekindergarten programs was part 
of the school funding formula. Oklahoma supported prekindergarten 
through the funding formula, as it did for other school grades, and 
state officials told us they believed that funding for the program was 
stable.

However, funding for prekindergarten in the other two states may be 
more uncertain. For example, funding levels for New York's state-
sponsored prekindergarten had increased somewhat for the past 3 years 
but were insufficient to allow the state to implement a universal 
prekindergarten program available to all four-year-olds by the 2001-02 
school year as planned. During the same period, New York financed its 
program from general revenue funds as a line item in the budget, and in 
2003, the program was targeted for elimination because of state fiscal 
shortfalls. While avoiding elimination, limited increases in funding 
have restricted the state's ability to expand the program over the past 
several years. Most eligible districts participated in the program. 
However, about two-thirds of the school districts were not eligible for 
the state-sponsored prekindergarten program during the 2002-03 school 
year.

Georgia has historically relied on the state lottery to fund its 
prekindergarten program. When the lottery was initially created, its 
proceeds were set aside for three programs, including state-sponsored 
prekindergarten. Currently, lottery funds are used to support 
prekindergarten and a program to provide academic scholarships for 
eligible high school graduates. However, over time, a greater 
percentage of the lottery funds has been designated for the college 
scholarship program than for prekindergarten. Additionally, lotteries 
recently began in two neighboring states, and officials we interviewed 
were concerned that Georgia's lottery proceeds may level off. State 
officials told us that lottery funds may be insufficient to entirely 
support the prekindergarten program by 2007, and the state has begun to 
look at stop gap measures to protect lottery funding if needed in the 
future.

The four states reported using small amounts of federal funds to 
support their prekindergarten programs; these amounts were generally 
small relative to state funding levels. For example, two states--
Georgia and Oklahoma--used some prekindergarten monies to meet their 
CCDF matching or maintenance-of-effort requirements.[Footnote 17] In 
fiscal year 2002, Georgia used about $2.4 million in lottery funds for 
CCDF state matching and maintenance-of-effort, which represented about 
1 percent of the state funding for prekindergarten. These funds were 
used for extended day (before-and after-school) for Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) eligible children participating in 
prekindergarten. Oklahoma used about $2.1 million of its 
prekindergarten funds to meet CCDF maintenance-of-effort requirements, 
which represented about 3 percent of the state funding for 
prekindergarten. In fiscal year 2002, New York transferred $61.3 
million from the TANF program to the state prekindergarten program, but 
this was done for only one year.[Footnote 18] None of the other states 
used TANF funds to support the expansion of their prekindergarten 
programs. While state officials told us that Title I, Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, and Head Start program funds were also used 
at the local level to support prekindergarten, they did not know the 
exact amounts from these other federal sources.

Some Program Features Had Potential Implications for Children's 
Participation and Other Early Childhood Programs:

Some prekindergarten design features had implications for children's 
participation and early childhood programs in the four states we 
visited. For example, both local officials and providers told us that 
transportation and program hours may have affected access to 
prekindergarten programs for children of low-income and working 
families. State and local officials, along with community-based 
providers and Head Start grantees, told us that collaborations were 
beneficial to their programs and had allowed rapid expansion of state 
prekindergarten. However, some challenges remained, such as the efforts 
needed to establish and maintain effective collaborations. Finally, few 
empirical data were available to quantify the effect of expanding state 
prekindergarten programs on the availability and prices for child care, 
and the anecdotal evidence we collected was mixed.

Transportation and Program Hours May Have Implications for 
Participation:

Program features, which varied across states and school districts, may 
have affected participation, particularly for children of low-income 
and working families. None of the four states required prekindergarten 
providers to transport all participating children. Officials in some 
school districts told us that the lack of transportation may have 
decreased the participation of children from low-income and working 
families, and 10 of the 12 school districts we visited did not provide 
transportation to and from prekindergarten for all participating 
children. Some school district officials primarily cited insufficient 
funding as a reason for not providing transportation services. For 
example, in one Oklahoma school district, children did not necessarily 
attend prekindergarten classes at their neighborhood school; 
consequently, the district would have incurred additional costs to 
transport children to their designated school. One official in a rural 
school district we visited in New York told us that more children from 
low-income and working families would have participated in 
prekindergarten if transportation were provided. However, costs 
prohibited the district from offering such services. However, officials 
in the urban school district we visited in New York did not view the 
lack of transportation as a barrier to participation, as the 
prekindergarten programs were generally available in proximity to 
children's homes or parents' jobs. In Georgia, the Department of Early 
Care and Learning offered additional funding to providers who opted to 
transport eligible children to and from the prekindergarten 
program.[Footnote 19] In May 2004, the Georgia Department of Early Care 
and Learning paid for the transportation of 13,152 children. In New 
Jersey, the Abbott school districts were required to provide 
transportation when needed.

In Oklahoma, where the majority of the participating children attended 
half-day prekindergarten programs, school district officials told us 
that the length of the school day affected participation. In all three 
school districts we visited, local officials told us that shortened 
program hours may have hindered the participation of children of low-
income and working families. Officials from one Oklahoma school 
district told us that the combination of a half-day program coupled 
with the lack of transportation to and from the prekindergarten program 
reduced the participation of children from low-income and working 
families. In that district, approximately 45 percent of the district's 
elementary school population was eligible for free and reduced price 
lunch during the 2003-04 school year, but only 29 percent of the 
children enrolled in prekindergarten were eligible for free and reduced 
price lunch, indicating lower participation of children from low-income 
families. Similarly, in another Oklahoma school district, while about 
84 percent of the district's student population was eligible for free 
and reduced price lunch, 60 percent of children who participated in 
prekindergarten were eligible for free and reduced price lunch. 
However, officials in two Oklahoma school districts told us that 
certain factors discouraged them from offering full-day programs; for 
example, they were able to serve twice as many children with half-day 
programs, rather than full-day programs, using the same resources 
(classrooms and teachers). Additionally, one of these officials told us 
that it would be difficult to implement full-day prekindergarten while 
the school district only offered a half-day kindergarten program.

Finally, some school district officials told us that the location of 
the program could also affect the participation of children of working 
families. In particular, half-day programs without transportation could 
be more appealing to low-income and working families if they were 
offered in a child care center where the child could receive care for 
the duration of the work day. One urban school district we visited 
primarily offered half-day prekindergarten classes. However, the school 
district officials told us that the prekindergarten classes were 
sometimes offered in conjunction with other programs at the same 
location. A district official and child care providers in this school 
district told us that this arrangement met the needs of low-income and 
working families as children would receive a full day of care. 
Officials and child care providers in this school district told us that 
in order to offer a full day of care, some child care providers 
supplemented the state-sponsored prekindergarten program with other 
monies, including Head Start funding, CCDF subsidies, and parent 
payments.

State and Local Officials and Community-Based Providers Said 
Collaborations Were Beneficial to Their Programs, but They Also 
Identified Some Challenges:

Although state and local officials, as well as staff of community-based 
organizations, told us that collaborations were beneficial, some 
challenges remained. Officials in all four states we visited told us 
that such collaborations allowed them to serve more children, and three 
of the five programs served most prekindergarten children in community-
based organizations such as Head Start and child care centers. In 
Georgia, New Jersey, and New York, officials reported that they made 
extensive use of collaborations because they wanted to implement the 
prekindergarten programs quickly and schools were often at capacity. In 
New Jersey, the state supreme court ordered the state to provide full-
day kindergarten as well as full-day preschool for three-and four-year-
olds in the 30 Abbott school districts. To implement the court order, 
the districts turned to community-based organizations to accommodate 
the influx of children. In New York, school districts were only 
required to use at least 10 percent of their universal prekindergarten 
grant funds to serve children in community-based organizations. Two 
school districts we visited in New York served the majority of 
participating children in community-based organizations (66 and 100 
percent). However, in Oklahoma, where school districts had been 
experiencing declining enrollment, collaborations with community-based 
organizations were less prevalent, as districts were able to 
accommodate prekindergarten children in public schools. Officials from 
most of the school districts we visited that did use collaborations 
told us that the collaborations allowed them to take advantage of the 
existing early child care and education infrastructure, such as 
buildings, equipment, and assistant teachers to increase program 
capacity and reduce program costs.

Child care providers who partnered with state prekindergarten programs 
generally had favorable experiences with collaborations as well. 
Specifically, providers mentioned increased enrollment, improved 
quality of programs, and increased access to school district resources 
as benefits of their partnerships. Some providers who collaborated with 
the state prekindergarten programs in Georgia, New Jersey, and New York 
told us that they expanded their centers to serve more children of all 
ages--as some parents enrolled the younger siblings of their 
prekindergarten children in the same child care center. In addition, 
child care providers in all four states told us that the overall 
quality of care had improved as a result of collaborating with the 
state prekindergarten program. Some providers attributed the improved 
quality to various factors, including a greater focus on learning, the 
presence of credentialed teachers, and higher standards for the 
children. Finally, some child care providers who collaborated with 
state-sponsored prekindergarten programs told us that the partnership 
allowed them increased access to school district resources such as 
professional development and materials such as new computers for the 
classrooms.

Head Start grantees also told us that collaborations were beneficial to 
their programs. For example, in Georgia and New York, some Head Start 
grantees who provided prekindergarten services stated they were better 
able to serve children by leveraging state prekindergarten and Head 
Start funds. These grantees told us they were able to expand program 
hours and enrich the learning environment while still providing Head 
Start's services, including establishing family partnerships.[Footnote 
20] In Georgia, Head Start grantees served 3,654 children, or just over 
5 percent of the children enrolled in the program during the 2004 
fiscal year. In New York, Head Start provided about 345 classrooms of 
prekindergarten--representing about 9 percent of the total number of 
prekindergarten classrooms. Two Head Start grantees told us that since 
the state prekindergarten program served four-year-olds they began 
serving more three-year-olds. As a result, children from low-income 
families could participate in 2 full years of preschool.

While collaborations generally benefited early childhood programs, some 
challenges existed in establishing and maintaining partnerships between 
state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and community-based 
organizations. State and school district officials told us that 
establishing and maintaining collaborations took effort, required 
expertise, and involved increased monitoring and technical assistance, 
including financial guidance. For example, while one school district we 
visited had a staff person responsible for establishing and maintaining 
collaborations, another school district did not have such an expert and 
was unsure about how to develop partnerships or arrange the formal 
contracts needed to collaborate.

Child care providers also mentioned certain challenges such as 
insufficient or uncertain funding. For example, in New York and 
Georgia, where per child funding to community-based organizations had 
remained fairly level for at least the past 3 years, some child care 
providers told us that the per child funding was insufficient and they 
had to use other funding sources to support the collaboration. In 
addition, we found that challenges existed in establishing the 
collaborations with Head Start in all four states. In both Oklahoma and 
New York, there was no formal mechanism, such as a statewide contract 
to facilitate collaboration between school districts and Head Start 
grantees, and the two programs sometimes coexisted in the same 
community without the benefit of shared resources. Two of the three 
school districts we visited in Oklahoma did not collaborate with Head 
Start; the third served about 9 percent of its prekindergarten children 
through collaborations with Head Start grantees. Challenges in 
establishing collaborations with Head Start also remained in New 
Jersey.[Footnote 21] In 2003, New Jersey's Department of Education and 
Department of Human Services developed plans for including Head Start 
grantees as partners in providing prekindergarten in the Abbott 
districts over the following 3 years. However, many challenges remained 
to achieving this goal including agreement on appropriate per child 
funding levels, as well as challenges in aligning curricula and other 
coordination issues.

Few Data Available to Determine the Impact of State Prekindergarten 
Programs on Availability and Prices of Child Care:

While some community-based providers were initially apprehensive about 
the potential impact of the widespread availability of states' 
prekindergarten programs on the market for child care, we found few 
data to support this concern. In the states we visited, neither state 
officials nor the child care provider community had data regarding the 
effects of expanded prekindergarten programs on the availability and 
prices of child care. The available data were limited to child care 
market rate surveys, which were conducted by states to obtain 
information needed to set reimbursement rates for child care, and data 
collected every 5 years by the Census of Service Industries on the 
number of tax filings by child day care providers. Market rate surveys 
provided relatively recent data on prices, but generally did not 
include sufficient data to isolate any effects of prekindergarten and 
were not always collected in a comparable or reliable form before and 
after prekindergarten expansion. In contrast, the state level data 
currently available from the Census of Service Industries were 
collected in a consistent fashion over time and across states, but were 
available only for the period through 1997, just 2 years after 
significant growth in the prekindergarten program in Georgia, the 
oldest expanded program of the five we studied.[Footnote 22] The data 
indicate that the number of small child care providers per 1,000 
preschoolers in Georgia and the nation as a whole followed similar 
growth trends from 1987 to 1997, the years of available data. Further, 
in the same time period, the number of child care centers per 1,000 
preschoolers and the number of employees paid by these centers 
increased in both Georgia and the nation (where prekindergarten 
services were generally less available than in Georgia). However, this 
does not prove that the expansion of prekindergarten programs had no 
effect on the number of child care providers. For example, perhaps the 
number of providers would have increased even more had prekindergarten 
programs not been expanded.

The anecdotal evidence regarding the effects of prekindergarten 
programs on the market for child care was mixed. For example, 
representatives of the child care community mentioned some positive 
effects on the market for child care, including the increased 
availability and accessibility of high-quality child care and early 
education for children from low-income families. However, some child 
care providers in Georgia, New Jersey, and Oklahoma told us that state 
programs had adverse effects on the business of child care, but they 
were unable to provide us with supporting documentation. According to 
child care providers, the care of three-and four-year-olds was less 
costly than the care of infants and toddlers, and the revenue generated 
from caring for the older children subsidized the care of younger 
children and made up a significant portion of their revenues. Child 
care providers also said that the enrollment of four-year-olds in state 
prekindergarten programs could result in child care centers raising 
prices to compensate for the loss of such revenues or even going out of 
business. In addition, some child care providers in Georgia told us 
that because state program funding did not cover the costs of operating 
prekindergarten, some centers had raised the rates for other services 
such as extended day care.

However, any potential effects of prekindergarten on the price and 
availability of child care may have been mitigated by certain design 
aspects of the programs in the states we visited. For example, while 
the majority of prekindergarten children in Oklahoma were served in 
public school settings, the potential effects on the child care market 
may have been mitigated because most children were in half-day 
prekindergarten programs and some needed child care before and after 
the program. In Oklahoma, the state Department of Human Services also 
provided a full-day reimbursement for CCDF-eligible children who used 
child care for more than 4 hours a day. As a result, the state's half-
day program appeared to have minimal impact on child care providers. In 
New Jersey's Abbott districts and Georgia, which had full-day 
prekindergarten, the classes were often situated in community-based 
organizations. Consequently, many four-year-olds who attended these 
programs remained in community-based settings, and child care providers 
maintained their enrollment of four-year-olds. Furthermore, in the 
Abbott districts, the New Jersey Department of Human Services provided 
additional funds to cover 4 hours of child care, beyond the 6 hour 
educational program. As a result, some child care centers were 
reimbursed for providing services for up to 10 hours per day.

Some Data Have Been Collected on Outcomes for Participating Children:

Some data have been collected on outcomes for participating children, 
but little is known about outcomes for their families. In all the 
school districts we visited, prekindergarten teachers routinely 
assessed children and provided parents with information about their 
child's progress during the school year. However, the states did not 
collect and analyze these assessment data. We found two studies that 
provided information about the educational outcomes of state 
prekindergarten programs on children in Oklahoma and Georgia.[Footnote 
23] One study focused on the Tulsa School District and found that 
children who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten program had 
significantly higher scores on several school readiness measures than 
children who did not participate in the program. A second study 
analyzed statewide data regarding Georgia's prekindergarten program and 
reported that children who participated in one of three programs 
studied (Georgia's prekindergarten program, Head Start, and private 
preschools) generally made significant gains on developmental skills 
during the prekindergarten year. None of the four states we visited 
reported collecting information regarding the impact of their programs 
on families. State officials told us that prekindergarten programs 
increased choices for families, but none reported knowing whether the 
prekindergarten program had any effect on parents' work efforts.

Teachers Regularly Assessed Children's Progress, although States Did 
Not Systematically Collect These Data:

In general, teachers assessed the progress of the children's 
development in the course of teaching prekindergarten using 
developmentally appropriate assessments. We found that the types of 
assessments varied across prekindergarten providers, and some providers 
used multiple types of assessments. For example, assessments included 
checklists that rated the child's progress on various developmental 
objectives, observational records, as well as portfolio assessments, 
which consisted of a collection of the child's work and projects that 
showed the child's progress throughout the school year. In general, 
such assessments were used to inform the teacher and provide 
information to parents during the school year. None of the states 
required a particular assessment of children's outcomes.[Footnote 24]

State officials acknowledged the importance of collecting and analyzing 
student outcome data. However, such analysis had not been 
systematically conducted on a statewide basis in any of the four states 
we visited. The outcome data that the teachers had were not necessarily 
in a form conducive to collection and analysis by the states. Officials 
offered various reasons for not collecting outcome data. In New York, 
officials told us that there was no funding for large-scale data 
collection efforts and they were awaiting the results of this year's 
fourth grade state test to analyze the potential long-term effects of 
their prekindergarten program, since some of these fourth graders had 
participated in the prekindergarten program as four-year-olds. In New 
Jersey, state officials told us that they planned to perform a program 
evaluation including children's outcomes after the program had matured. 
In Oklahoma, state officials told us that they did not collect outcome 
data for all children in the state, but limited information regarding 
program outcomes was available in two school districts. For example, we 
found that one school district we visited in Oklahoma had collected and 
analyzed data on the outcomes of 22 children over a 1-year period, 11 
of whom participated in the district's prekindergarten program.

Two Studies Provided Some Information about the Outcomes for Children 
Who Participated in State Prekindergarten Programs:

Two recent studies provided some information on outcomes for children 
in two state prekindergarten programs. A study conducted by researchers 
at Georgetown University analyzed the short-term effects of 
prekindergarten on children in the Tulsa public schools and found 
positive effects of the Tulsa program. In particular, the study found 
that children who participated in the Tulsa prekindergarten program had 
higher scores on both cognitive knowledge and language measures, and on 
measures of motor skills, than did similar children who did not 
participate. Additionally, the Tulsa study found that impacts tended to 
be larger for African American and Hispanic children, and that there 
was little impact for white children, although the authors discussed 
certain ceiling effects that may have made it difficult to detect any 
impacts for white children as a whole.[Footnote 25] The study also 
found that children who qualified for the full free lunch program 
showed greater benefits than the population as a whole, and benefits 
were larger for children from low-income families who participated in 
full-day programs than those participating in half-day programs.

The second study, sponsored in part by the Georgia Department of Early 
Care and Learning and conducted by Georgia State University, also found 
progress among children who participated in the Georgia prekindergarten 
program during the 2001-02 school year. The study compared the progress 
of children in three early education settings: private preschool, 
Georgia's state prekindergarten program, and Head Start.[Footnote 26] 
Children participating in the three programs performed at different 
levels upon entering the programs. The study reported that at the 
beginning of prekindergarten, children enrolled in Head Start 
demonstrated less mastery of certain skills than did children in the 
Georgia prekindergarten program, who, in turn, scored lower than 
children in private preschools. The study found that children in all 
three programs made significant gains over the course of 1 year, though 
in general, the gains made by the prekindergarten children were not 
significantly different from the gains made by the other two groups of 
children. By the end of prekindergarten, or at the beginning of the 
kindergarten year, the relative rankings of the children from the 
different programs had not changed. The researchers also matched 
children with similar backgrounds to compare the effectiveness of Head 
Start and Georgia's state prekindergarten program. When comparing the 
language, communication, problem-solving, and basic mastery skill 
scores for the matched samples of children, researchers noted one case-
-basic skill mastery--in which the gap between scores of the state 
prekindergarten children and the Head Start children widened to a 
statistically significant level at the end of the prekindergarten year.

Concluding Observations:

Citing benefits of prekindergarten, many states have made an investment 
in the early education of young children, especially four-year-olds. 
Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma have taken steps to expand 
early educational opportunities for preschoolers. These four states 
offer different approaches for consideration by other states that are 
considering whether to expand the scope of their prekindergarten 
programs. Given that states have limited resources, an opportunity 
exists to engage community-based providers such as Head Start grantees 
and other early education and care providers in the coordinated 
delivery of additional prekindergarten services. Collaborations 
between school districts and community-based organizations facilitate 
the coordination of child care and early learning for preschoolers and 
can provide additional classroom capacity. At the same time, these 
partnerships can help allay fears among child care providers that 
prekindergarten programs would supplant the need for community-based 
services.

It is also important to acknowledge the trade-offs of certain program 
features. For example, while programs with limited hours may 
accommodate a higher number of children within the same facility and 
may be less likely to affect existing child care providers, they may 
create barriers to participation for children of working families and 
show smaller effects in school readiness of children. Also, 
prekindergarten programs may benefit by collaborating with existing 
programs to maximize the efficient use of limited state and federal 
education resources. However, such arrangements may make it necessary 
for states and school districts to invest resources to facilitate such 
coordination. Perhaps the biggest trade-off that states face is whether 
the benefits of an expanded prekindergarten program outweigh those of 
one that is more targeted. Targeted programs have the advantage of 
giving more intensive services to eligible children who may benefit 
most from prekindergarten, but such programs exclude some children who 
might also benefit. Additional information on outcomes for children in 
the most intensive programs, particularly relative to children who do 
not receive comparable services, may be helpful to other states 
considering varied types of prekindergarten services, as would data on 
the benefits of half-day programs relative to full-day programs.

Agency Comments:

The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education were 
provided a draft of this report for review and comment. The Department 
of Health and Human Services commented that given the discussions 
surrounding the "state option" proposals being held during Head Start 
reauthorization, our report is informative. Education's Executive 
Secretariat stated that the department appreciated the opportunity to 
review the draft but was not going to provide agency comments. Both 
agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional 
committees, and other interested parties. Please contact me on (202) 
512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site 
at http://www.gao.gov. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 
listed in appendix III.

Marnie S. Shaul, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

In conducting our review, we obtained and analyzed information from the 
federal Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, state 
agencies,[Footnote 27] and local education agencies (LEA). We visited 
four states, and in each state we interviewed staff from state agencies 
and LEAs, and generally included one urban, one suburban, and one rural 
school district in each state--for a total of 12 school districts. We 
also interviewed early childhood education and child care policy 
experts and reviewed selected current literature on state-sponsored 
prekindergarten programs.

For our fieldwork, we considered states that (1) had expanded programs 
and aimed to serve all children whose families wanted them to attend, 
(2) served large numbers of children in their prekindergarten programs, 
and (3) had well-established programs. We attempted to include varied 
program models and gave some priority to states that had studied their 
efforts.

To determine how states designed their prekindergarten programs, we 
interviewed state and local education officials and officials of 13 
community-based organizations who were direct providers of state 
prekindergarten services. We also reviewed documents related to states' 
prekindergarten programs, including state laws, general program 
information, state data on program participation and costs, curriculum 
guides, content standards, and contracts governing collaborations with 
community-based organizations. We obtained information to describe the 
state-sponsored prekindergarten programs and reviewed the data for 
reasonableness. We assessed reliability of specific information, 
including estimates of age-eligible children and program expenditures, 
by interviewing state officials in all four states about their data 
reliability assessment processes. On the basis of this information, we 
concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. In addition, we performed a detailed review of the 
methodology of a National Institute for Early Education Research report 
and found it to be sufficient for descriptive purposes. The data that 
were used for background purposes were not independently verified.

To determine the potential implications of prekindergarten on other 
programs that serve four-year-olds, we interviewed state child care 
administrators, state and local Head Start association directors, 
coordinators and program staff, as well as staff of local child care 
centers. We also met with national and state representatives of the 
National Child Care Association (an association of managers and owners 
of child care centers) and related organizations, as well as state and 
local staff of child care resource and referral offices. We also 
reviewed selected national and state data on child care availability 
and prices. Finally, we interviewed state officials regarding federal 
funds, including Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant. We did 
not review the expenses of providers of state prekindergarten services 
to ascertain the extent, if any, to which federal funds or other 
revenues may have subsidized provision of prekindergarten.

To determine what is known about the impacts of prekindergarten 
programs on children and families in the states visited, we interviewed 
state and local education officials and local policy experts. We also 
identified two studies on children's outcomes that met our selection 
criteria: studies that (1) analyzed student achievement and (2) 
compared prekindergarten children with a control or comparison group of 
children who did not attend the state-sponsored prekindergarten 
programs.[Footnote 28] To collect information systematically, we 
developed a data collection instrument and examined each study to 
assess the adequacy of the samples and measures employed, the 
reasonableness and rigor of the statistical techniques used to analyze 
them, and the validity of the results and conclusions that were drawn 
from the analyses. A social scientist read and coded the documentation 
for each study. A second social scientist reviewed each completed data 
collection instrument and the relevant documentation to verify the 
accuracy of every coded item. We found these two studies to be 
sufficiently reliable and rigorous to include in our report. We did not 
identify any studies that assessed the impact of these prekindergarten 
programs on working families such as workforce participation.

We conducted our work between October 2003 and August 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Betty Ward-Zukerman, (202) 512-2732, WardZukermanB@gao.gov, or Tim 
Hall, (202) 512-7192, hallt@gao.gov:

Staff Acknowledgments:

The following people also made important contributions to this report: 
Nagla'a El-Hodiri, Shana Wallace, Alison Martin, Jean McSween, 
Barbara Hills, Susan Bernstein, Amy Buck, and Daniel Schwimer.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed to Monitor 
Underenrollment. GAO-04-17. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2003.

Child Care: States Exercise Flexibility in Setting Reimbursement Rates 
and Providing Access for Low-Income Children. GAO-02-894. Washington, 
D.C.: September 18, 2003.

Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess 
Program Effects. GAO-01-542. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001.

Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging Effect 
on School Readiness Difficult. GAO-00-171. Washington, D.C.: September 
20, 2000.

Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting 
Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2000.

Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children 
Significant but Effectiveness Unclear. GAO/T-HEHS-00-83. Washington, 
D.C.: April 11, 2000.

Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability of 
School Readiness Information. GAO/HEHS-00-38. Washington, D.C.: 
February 28, 2000.

Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-
Income Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 1999.

FOOTNOTES

[1] National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2000. From 
Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, 
Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. 
Jack P. Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, 
Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and 
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

[2] Mitchell, Anne W. 2001. "Education for All Young Children: The Role 
of States and the Federal Government in Promoting Prekindergarten and 
Kindergarten." Working paper series, Early Childhood Policy Research. 
The Foundation for Child Development. New York, New York.

[3] NIEER, a unit of Rutgers University, supports early childhood 
education policy through research. In the recent NIEER report The State 
of Preschool: 2003 State Preschool Yearbook, enrollment and spending 
data were based on 38 states providing information. 

[4] NIEER estimated enrollment by age categories when states did not 
provide data separately for three-and four-year-olds.

[5] Created in 1965, Head Start is the largest federal program that 
supports early childhood education and was designed to help break the 
cycle of poverty by providing comprehensive educational, social, 
health, nutritional, and psychological services to low-income children. 


[6] Education also funds two other smaller early childhood education-
related initiatives. The Even Start program was designed to improve 
family literacy and educational opportunities. The program is generally 
targeted to parents who are not enrolled in school and their children 
through age seven, who lack a high school diploma or its equivalent; 
the basic skills necessary to function in society; or are unable to 
speak, read, or write English. In program year 2000, Even Start served 
about 31,600 families and 41,600 children; in 2002, Even Start was 
funded at $250 million. Early Reading First is a competitive grant 
program to support local efforts to enhance the early language, 
literacy, and prereading development of preschool age children, 
particularly those from low-income families, through strategies and 
professional development that are based on scientifically based reading 
research. In fiscal year 2003, nearly $75 million was awarded to 30 
grantees. 

[7] GAO, Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but Gauging 
Effect on School Readiness Difficult, GAO/HEHS-00-171 (Washington, 
D.C.: September 20, 2000) provides the most recent survey data 
available we identified.

[8] Child care centers typically provide for 12 or more children in a 
nonresidential facility; family homes generally provide child care for 
a small group of children in a provider's home.

[9] New York has two prekindergarten programs: the targeted 
prekindergarten (TPK) and the universal prekindergarten (UPK). During 
the 2002-03 school year, the TPK program served about 5 percent of the 
state's four-year-olds. This report focuses only on the state's UPK 
initiative that served about 23 percent of the state's four-year-olds. 

[10] As a result of a state supreme court decision, the Abbott school 
districts were required to provide transportation to children, if 
needed.

[11] The numbers of children who participated in state-sponsored 
prekindergarten and Head Start are not mutually exclusive, that is, an 
unknown number of children participated in both programs. Participation 
data for Head Start refer to funded enrollment levels. 

[12] The Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning also offered a 
resource coordination grant program that was available to eligible 
prekindergarten providers on a competitive basis so that they could 
provide supportive services to children and their families in addition 
to educational services. The key focus of the resource coordinator was 
to involve parents in their child's educational development process by, 
among other things, helping parents obtain needed health services for 
their child and attending informational and child development seminars. 
Resource coordinators may also help parents obtain community resources 
such as information regarding the General Educational Development (GED) 
test, employment counseling, and access to literacy classes. These 
grants were made available to grantees to provide services to at-risk 
(category one) children and families. Category one is defined as those 
children who participated in one of the following programs: food 
stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), PeachCare for Kids, as well as 
those that were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. For the 
2003-04 school year, over $18 million in resource coordination grants 
was awarded, as of January 8, 2004.

[13] Certification in New Jersey's Abbott program, for example, 
requires that teachers possess a preschool through grade 3 (P-3) 
endorsement. To qualify for a P-3 endorsement, candidates must possess, 
at a minimum, a bachelor's degree, a 2.5 grade point average, pass a 
state test when identified, and complete a state-approved preparation 
program at one of the state's colleges or universities. As of June 
2004, New Jersey officials estimated that about 93 percent of the 
teachers in the Abbott school districts have met the certification 
requirement. 

[14] Of the remaining lead teachers in Georgia, about 21 percent held 
technical or other degrees.

[15] In May 1998 the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that children 
aged three and four living in the 30 highest-poverty school districts 
in the state receive a high-quality preschool education. The New Jersey 
Department of Education funds a 6-hour, 180-day prekindergarten 
program, and the New Jersey Department of Human Services funds a 
wraparound program that provides daily before-and after-care and a 
summer program. In total, the full-day, full-year program is available 
to eligible children for 10 hours per day, 245 days per year. The New 
Jersey Department of Education reported that during the 2002-03 school 
year, the Abbott program enrolled nearly 36,500 children at a cost of 
about $347 million for prekindergarten. An official of the New Jersey 
Department of Human Services also reported that about $103 million was 
spent for the wraparound services during the 2003 fiscal year. In 
addition, school districts can opt to have a 3-hour-per-day program for 
20 days over the summer break. This program would also be funded by the 
state Department of Education.

[16] While New Jersey's Abbott prekindergarten program per child 
funding was more than double the other state programs, certain aspects 
of the program contributed to the increased costs. For example, one 
feature (maximum class size) increased program cost by roughly 25 
percent by limiting enrollment to 15 children. The New Jersey 
Department of Education also initiated a number of activities to 
improve program quality. For example, during the 2002-03 school year, 
the state provided a year-long training program for 105 master teachers 
who, in turn, mentored and coached over 4,000 classroom teachers and 
assistant teachers in the Abbott school districts. The New Jersey 
Department of Education also recommended that the Abbott school 
districts employ one family worker for every 45 students. Family 
workers are to meet regularly with teachers and families to identify 
specific concerns or needs, assist in locating resources in the 
community, and support families in utilizing these resources.

[17] States receive CCDF funds from potentially four funding streams. 
Each state's annual federal allocation consists of separate 
discretionary, mandatory, and matching funds. A state does not have to 
obligate or spend any state funds to receive the discretionary and 
mandatory funds. However, to receive federal matching funds--and thus 
its full CCDF allocation--a state must maintain its program spending at 
a specified level, referred to as a state's maintenance of effort, and 
spend additional state funds above that level.

[18] TANF, a block grant to states, provides temporary assistance to 
needy families. In general, able-bodied TANF recipients, who receive 
cash assistance, must participate in work or work-related activities 
after receiving assistance for a maximum of 24 months, and there is a 
5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance. Beyond work, work-related 
activities include education and training; job search; and 
participation in community service. States may also use a portion of 
TANF funds for child care services.

[19] Transportation reimbursements were available for category one 
children.

[20] The Head Start program performance standards on family 
partnerships provide minimum requirements for grantees in areas such as 
family goal setting; accessing community services and resources; parent 
involvement in child development and education; parent involvement in 
health, nutrition, and mental health education; and parent involvement 
in shared decision making and community advocacy.

[21] In 2000, the New Jersey supreme court approved the use of 
community providers such as Head Start as part of the Abbott preschool 
program whenever practical. Abbott v. Burke, 748 A.2d 82 (N.J. 2000). 
Two years later, the court discussed the problems encountered in 
coordinating the two programs, including differing teacher 
qualifications, differing program standards, and the costs associated 
with bringing Head Start up to state standards. The court concluded 
that "districts should utilize Head Start providers unless they are not 
able and willing to comply with Abbott preschool standards or unless 
the cost of doing so is demonstrably more expensive than other high-
quality alternatives." Abbott Ex. El. Abbott v. Burke, 790 A.2d 842 at 
853 (N.J. 2002).

[22] Georgia's program was initially a targeted program. It expanded in 
the early years (1992-1995) but remained targeted. In the 1995-96 
school year, the program became available to children regardless of 
family income. At this time, the program went from enrolling 15,000 
children to enrolling 44,000 children. The program has grown steadily 
since.

[23] William T. Gormley, Jr., and Ted Gayer, Promoting School Readiness 
in Oklahoma: An Evaluation of Tulsa's Pre-k Program, Public Policy 
Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 2003; Gary T. Henry 
and others, Report of the Findings from the Early Childhood Study: 
2001-02, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State 
University, August 2003.

[24] Officials in Georgia reported that the Department of Early Care 
and Learning was in the process of developing and piloting a standard 
assessment process for all prekindergarten children.

[25] Ceiling effects can occur when children pretest at or near the 
highest possible score on a given assessment. In such cases, if the 
same assessment is used as a post-test, it is difficult to measure any 
gains children have made.

[26] The study did not include a comparison group of children who did 
not attend any preschool program.

[27] In New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, we collected information 
and interviewed officials from the state education agencies (SEA); in 
Georgia, we collected information and interviewed officials from the 
Department of Early Care and Learning, which administered the 
prekindergarten program.

[28] We identified a third study, the Rochester Early Childhood 
Assessment Partnership 2002-2003 Annual Report, but did not review the 
study because it did not include comparison groups and thus could not 
isolate the potential effects of New York's universal prekindergarten 
program on the children who attended. 

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

	

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: