Head Start and Outcomes for Children and Families: How Head Start Serves the Big Ten States

Anna J. Markowitz, Alejandra Ros Pilarz, David Purpura, Terri Sabol, & Dawn Thomas

Overview

The Big Ten Early Learning Alliance brings together early childhood experts at the nation’s Big Ten universities to offer unique and diverse perspectives on contemporary early childhood policies and practices. Their work is designed, in part, to promote the visibility of scientific discoveries relevant to early childhood and its translation for use in policies and practices. The purpose of this brief is to provide information on the documented benefits of the Head Start program for children and families and to present an overview of Head Start services provided in Big Ten states. We highlight three key takeaways:

1. Big Ten states leverage substantial federal Head Start dollars to provide early care and education, and family support services, for more than 310,000 children annually;
2. Decades of research provide strong evidence that Head Start participation improves children’s development in the early years and helps them enter school more ready to learn; and
3. Head Start programming supports caregivers’ parenting skills and improves their educational and labor market outcomes.

What is Head Start?

Head Start is the federal government’s flagship direct investment in early childhood programming, serving approximately one million children and families annually. Founded sixty years ago, Head Start was designed to provide early-learning services for young children as well as educational and employment supports for parents as a mechanism to support full family flourishing.¹ Comprised of Head Start (serving children between 3 and 5 years of age) and Early Head Start (serving pregnant women and families with children under 3 years of age), Head Start is a whole-family program that provides services to families with incomes at or below the federal poverty line. Additionally, up to 10% of enrollees are children with disabilities, regardless of income, and program sites can support a small proportion (10%) of children who are over-income but have need for Head Start services. Head Start is operated through federal grants awarded to local service providers, such as local nonprofit organizations, community action agencies, and school districts. In 2023, the federal government awarded nearly $12 billion in funding to approximately 1600 grantees nationwide.² For brevity, we use the term Head Start throughout to refer to both programs.

Children enrolled in Head Start participate in part- or full-day early-education programs. The federal government sets comprehensive, developmentally informed Head Start Performance Standards, designed to ensure that programs meet minimum safety and quality benchmarks.³ Head Start’s Early Learning Outcomes Framework⁴ establishes guidelines for skills addressed within Head Start programming; encompasses multiple developmental domains; and serves as a model for many state-level early learning standards. To ensure children receive high-quality early learning informed by best-evidence on pedagogy, Head Start educators are required to participate in ongoing professional learning,⁵ and Head Start programs must engage in continuous quality assessment and improvement strategies.⁶ Head Start’s developmentally appropriate approach to early care and education has provided a model for the design of some states’ early learning programs, including public pre-kindergarten.

Family supports provided by Head Start programs typically include those designed to address issues related to parenting and family life (e.g., pre- and postpartum supports, parenting classes, education around co-parenting); health and wellness (e.g., access to health and nutritional education, dental and health services); and human capital and employment (e.g., adult English-as-a-second-language (ESL) services, GED classes, job training). Altogether, and in contrast to many other public early learning investments, Head Start was designed as a full-family intervention to bolster both child development and the overall wellness of families with low incomes.

Head Start’s Impact

Since its inception, there has been bipartisan support for conducting rigorous evaluation of Head Start both to foster quality improvement and to maximize the impact of federal investments. Though estimates of the effects of Head Start on children and families vary across studies, most researchers agree that Head Start is able to meet its dual aims of improving young children’s development and family well-being. Most reviews of the accumulated evidence conclude that Head Start is likely to generate benefits that well exceed program costs for both participants and society more broadly.⁷

Impacts on Children: Early Academic Skills, Health, and Well-Being 

Studies find that Head Start is effective in providing immediate improvements to child early-learning skills, such as language and math competencies, and health and well-being outcomes. These studies have used rigorous research methodologies, including randomized control trials (such as the nationally representative Head Start Impact Study) and quasi-experimental methods. Notably, several studies have found particularly large and long-lasting impacts for groups that face significant barriers to early learning (e.g., children who speak English as a second language and children who start Head Start with lower cognitive skills)⁸ and for children from families who are unable to access other types of early care and education.⁹

Some studies also find that Head Start impacts can last into adulthood, with positive effects on long-term educational attainment, earnings, and general well-being (e.g., mental health, adult health, self-esteem).¹⁰ There is also some experimental evidence for intergenerational benefits, whereby the effects of attending Head Start are larger for children whose parents also attended Head Start.¹¹ Such studies show second-generation long-term impacts, including improved educational attainment and reduced teen pregnancy, relative to Head Start children whose parents did not attend Head Start themselves.¹²

Impacts on Caregivers: Family Well-Being, Education, and Employment 

Head Start also shows benefits for children’s adult caregivers, with respect to both their parenting practices, and their own human capital development and labor market participation. For example, Head Start has positive short- and long-term benefits for parental mental health and parenting practices, particularly those that support children’s cognitive development.¹³ Additionally, experimental data from the Head Start Impact Study show that parents of 3-year-olds whose child participated in Head Start had steeper increases in educational attainment than parents without access to Head Start.¹⁴ Finally, Head Start provides high-quality early care and education for many families with low incomes who would otherwise struggle to find and pay for the child care they need to maintain their employment.¹⁵ In Big Ten states, on average, 72% of children under 6 live in households where all parents work,¹⁶ suggesting that access to Head Start can also meaningfully support families’ economic self-sufficiency and well-being.

Head Start in the Big Ten States

Big Ten Early Learning Alliance institutions are currently located in 14 states: California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. More than 1.4 million children are born in these states annually, representing nearly 40% of all babies born in the United States each year.¹⁷ In these states, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau,¹⁸ there are more than 7.4 million residents under the age of 5, constituting 40% of American children under age 5. For these children, access to some kind of high-quality early care and education settings can ensure that they experience optimal environments and interactions in the earliest years of life.

For many children living in Big Ten states, this quality care occurs in Head Start. Roughly one-third of children and families receiving Head Start services live in the Big Ten states, suggesting that these programs help address an important need for families. To support this programming, Big Ten states receive more than $3.6 billion in Head Start funding from the federal government annually. Table 1 provides basic information collated from the federally mandated Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) data, on the number of children and pregnant women served in total, and by state. We find that in 2023-24, in Big Ten states, Head Start served:

• Over 310,000 children, roughly one-third of whom were infants and toddlers (children under 2)
• Over 50,000 children with disabilities
• Nearly 6,000 pregnant women

Head Start and Early Head Start also provided significant services for families living in Big Ten states. Table 2 provides information collated from the Head Start PIR on family service receipt overall and across key programming areas, by state. We find that in 2023-24, in Big Ten states:

• 250,000 families received family programming
• 40,000 families received mental health services
• 15,000 families received substance misuse prevention and treatment services
• 30,000 families were supported in job training efforts
• 17,000 families received ESL services
• 115,000 families received specific training on parenting
• 138,000 families received health-related education services 

Head Start and Early Head Start serve children across geographic areas within states, but they serve an especially important role in rural areas where there are not as many other early learning options for families. For example, data suggest that in Minnesota, Head Start makes up nearly half of available center-based slots in rural counties, and two-thirds in the most rural, or “frontier” counties.¹⁹ In Iowa, these figures are roughly 25% and 33%, respectively.²⁰ 

Trends and Opportunities for Head Start in the Big Ten States

This brief characterizes research on Head Start’s impacts on children and families in Big Ten states. We find a robust body of evidence demonstrating that Head Start services improve participating children’s academic skills, health, and well-being during and immediately following Head Start attendance, and suggestive evidence of long-term and intergenerational benefits. Moreover, in the immediate term, that Head Start provides access to early care and education allows caregivers to work or continue their education. Taken together, evidence suggests that, over time, Head Start generates returns above and beyond initial government expenditures.

As the new administration makes changes to agencies administering federal programs²¹ (following a policy plan that suggests significant curtailment of Head Start²²), it is important to consider the ways Big Ten states benefit from the current Head Start funding. If Head Start funding is reduced or eliminated, this information can help states decide whether they might want to increase state investments in early care and education to avoid economic impacts for families and employers.²³ Our review shows that changes to Head Start services might be particularly consequential in rural areas, in which Head Start makes up a large share of available early care and education.²⁴

The evidence and data reviewed in this brief show that Head Start likely supports children’s development, parents’ employment, and families’ economic self-sufficiency and well-being in the Big Ten states. As we look back at 60 years of Head Start, this brief suggests that this kind of two-generation program can meaningfully create change that promotes both immediate child and family well-being, and long-term economic self-sufficiency.

---

Table 1. Number of Children and Pregnant Women Served by Head Start and Early Head Start 2023-2024, Big Ten States

	Total Enrolled Children	Children Served, Age 0 to 2	Children Served, Age 3 to 5	Children With Disabilities Served	Pregnant Women Served
California	84,195	35,636	48,559	13,985	1,401
Illinois	28,208	12,427	15,781	4,036	645
Indiana	12,702	3,732	8,970	2,053	210
Iowa	7,299	2,301	4,998	941	174
Maryland	7,544	2,252	5,292	969	97
Michigan	27,150	8,808	18,342	4,896	506
Minnesota	12,775	4,410	8,365	2,125	280
Nebraska	5,527	2,258	3,269	1,062	144
New Jersey	12,261	3,658	8,603	1,168	561
Ohio	33,465	9,719	23,746	3,984	535
Oregon	14,159	4,983	9,176	2,573	150
Pennsylvania	35,386	9,753	25,633	7,830	534
Washington	14,527	6,340	8,187	2,066	396
Wisconsin	15,075	5,177	9,898	2,565	338
Total	310,273	111,454	198,819	50,253	5,971

Data collated from Head Start Program Information Report data, 2023-2024. 

---

Table 2. Selected Data on Family Receipt of Head Start and Early Head Start Services, 2023-2024, Big Ten States

	Families Who Received Services	Emergency / Crisis Intervention	Housing Assistance	Mental Health Services	Substance Misuse Prevention / Treatment	ESL Training	Education or Job Training Support	Research-Based Parenting Curriculum
California	65,541	18,012	4,336	14,297	1,817	4,382	8,864	25,336
Illinois	21,511	7,639	2,253	3,749	767	1,780	3,597	12,627
Indiana	8,973	2,899	848	1,513	1,408	564	971	5,623
Iowa	5,733	2,682	1,110	1,211	227	463	740	2,536
Maryland	5,907	2,430	332	955	102	221	627	1,213
Michigan	21,212	8,974	1,972	2,690	1,248	715	1,773	10,287
Minnesota	9,121	3,422	1,366	1,156	501	961	1,576	5,157
Nebraska	4,170	2,063	432	1,232	157	489	578	2,963
New Jersey	8,634	4,023	814	1,295	1,495	1,591	1,246	3,788
Ohio	25,322	7,692	1,658	3,161	1,290	1,105	2,051	13,634
Oregon	10,070	5,075	1,473	1,536	697	859	1,329	3,948
Pennsylvania	27,589	10,454	3,629	3,579	3,345	1,332	2,966	14,891
Washington	11,324	5,730	1,526	1,462	712	1,523	1,856	7,213
Wisconsin	11,389	4,597	1,466	1,989	632	731	1,573	5,951
Total	236,496	85,692	23,205	39,825	14,398	16,716	29,747	115,167

Data collated from Head Start Program Information Report data, 2023-2024. 

---

Endnotes

¹ Office of Head Start. (2024). Head Start history. Retrieved from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/history-head-start (accessed March 3, 2025)

² Office of Head Start. (2023). FY 2023 Head Start funding increase. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/pi/acf-pi-hs-23-02 (accessed March 3, 2025)

³ Office of Head Start. (2024). Head Start program performance standards. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/performance-standards-final.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025)

⁴ Office of Head Start. (2024). Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework (accessed March 3, 2025)

⁵ Office of Head Start. (2024). Professional development. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/professional-development Office of Head Start. (2024). Professional development plans. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/browse/tag/professional-development-plans (accessed March 3, 2025)

⁶ Office of Head Start. (2024). Continuous learning and quality improvement. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/continuous-learning-quality-improvement (accessed March 3, 2025)

⁷ Bauer, L., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2016). The long-term impact of the Head Start program. The Hamilton Project. Retrieved from: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/long_term_impact_of_head_start_program.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025); Kline, P. & Walters, C.R. (2016). Evaluating public programs with close substitutes: The case of Head Start. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1795-1848. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw027; Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12973. Retrieved from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w12973 (accessed March 3, 2025); Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. (2008). Long term effects of Head Start on low-income children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1), 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.005

⁸ Bitler, M.P., Hoynes, H.W., & Domina, T. (2014). Experimental evidence on distributional effects of Head Start. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 20423. Retrieved from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w20434 (accessed March 3, 2025); Bloom, H.S., & Weiland, C. (2015). Quantifying variation in Head Start effects on young children’s cognitive and socio-emotional skills using data from the national Head Start Impact Study. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2594430

⁹ Bauer, L. (2019). Does Head Start work? The debate over the Head Start Impact Study, explained. Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-head-start-work-the-debate-over-the-head-start-impact-study-explained/ (accessed March 3, 2025); Bloom, H. S., & Weiland, C. (2015), in endnote 8, above; Morris, P. A., Connors, M., Friedman-Krauss, A., McCoy, D. C., Weiland, C., Feller, A., … & Yoshikawa, H. (2018). New findings on impact variation from the Head Start Impact Study: Informing the scale-up of early childhood programs. AERA Open, 4(2), 2332858418769287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418769287

¹⁰ Barr, A. & Gibbs, C.R. (2022). Breaking the cycle? Intergenerational effects of an antipoverty program in early childhood. Journal of Political Economy, 130(12), 3253-3285. https://doi.org/10.1086/720764; Bauer, L., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2016), in endnote 7, above; Carneiro, P., & Ginja, R. (2014). Long-term impacts of compensatory preschool on health and behavior: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 135-73. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.4.135; Chazan-Cohen, R., Ayoub, C., Pan, B.A., Roggman, L., Raikes, H., Mckelvey, L., Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Hart, A. (2007). It takes time: Impacts of Early Head Start that lead to reductions in maternal depression two years later. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28(2), 151-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20127; Chazan-Cohen, R., Von Ende, A., & Lombardi, C. (2023). Parenting and family self-sufficiency services contribute to impacts of Early Head Start for children and families. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1302687; Currie, J. & Thomas, D. (1993). Does Head Start make a difference? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4406. Retrieved from: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w4406/w4406.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025); Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects of Head Start. American Economic Review, 92 (4), 999–1012. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344560; Johnson, R.C., & Jackson, C.K. (2019). Reducing inequality through dynamic complementarity: Evidence from Head Start and public school spending. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 310–49. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180510; Love, J.M., Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). What makes a difference: Early Head Start Evaluation findings in a developmental context. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(1), 1-173. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23361872; Ludwig, J., & Miller, D.L. (2007). Does Head Start improve children’s life chances? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(1), 159-208. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.1.159; Prenatal to 3 Policy Impact Center. (2023). A roadmap to strengthen your state’s prenatal-to-three system of care. https://pn3policy.org/pn-3-state-policy-roadmap-2021/us/ (accessed March 3, 2025); Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Shapiro, G., Broene, P., … & Spier, E. (2010). Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Administration for Children & Families. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507845.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025); Roggman, L.A., Boyce, L.K., & Cook, G.A. (2009). Keeping kids on track: Impacts of a parenting-focused Early Head Start program on attachment security and cognitive development. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 920-941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280903118416; Vogel, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Martin, A., & Klute, M. M. (2013). Impacts of Early Head Start participation on child and parent outcomes at ages 2, 3, and 5. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(1), 36–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23361872; Zhai, F., Raver, C.C., & Jones, S.M. (2012). Academic performance of subsequent schools and impacts of early interventions: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Head Start settings. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(5), 946-954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.026

¹¹ Chor, E. (2018). Multigenerational Head Start participation: An unexpected marker of progress. Child Development, 89(1), 264-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12673

¹² Barr, A. & Gibbs, C.R. (2022). Breaking the cycle? Intergenerational effects of an antipoverty program in early childhood. Journal of Political Economy, 130(12), https://doi.org/10.1086/720764.

¹³ Bauer, L., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2016), in endnote 7, above; Chazan-Cohen, R., et al. (2007), in endnote 10, above; Chazan-Cohen, R., et al. (2023), in endnote 10, above; Gelber, A., & Isen, A. (2013). Children’s schooling and parents’ behavior: Evidence from the Head Start Impact Study. Journal of Public Economics, 101, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.02.005; Pratt, M.E., Lipscomb, S.T., & Schmitt, S.A. (2015). The effect of Head Start on parenting outcomes for children living in non-parental care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2944-2956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0098-y; Roggman, L.A., Boyce, L.K., & Cook, G.A. (2009). Keeping kids on track: Impacts of a parenting-focused Early Head Start program on attachment security and cognitive development. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 920-941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280903118416; Ritblatt, S.N., Brassert, S.M., Johnson, R., & Gomez, F. (2001). Are two better than one? The impact of years in Head Start on child outcomes, family environment, and reading at home. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(4), 525-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00122-3

¹⁴ Sabol, T.J. & Chase-Lansdale, P.L. (2014). The influence of low-income children’s participation in Head Start on their parents’ education and employment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(1), 136-161. https://doi.org/10.10012/pam.21799

¹⁵ D’Souza, K. (2024). How to pay for child care remains a struggle. EdSource. https://edsource.org/updates/how-to-pay-for-childcare-remains-a-struggle (accessed March 3, 2025); Morrissey, T. W. (2017). Child care and parent labor force participation: a review of the research literature. Review of Economics of the Household, 15(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9331-3; Landivar, L. C., Ruppanner, L., & Scarborough, W. J. (2021). Are States Created Equal? Moving to a State With More Expensive Childcare Reduces Mothers’ Odds of Employment. Demography, 58(2), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-8997420; Landivar, L. C., Scarborough, W. J., Collins, C., & Ruppanner, L. (2022). Do high childcare costs and low access to Head Start and childcare subsidies limit mothers’ employment? A state-level analysis. Social Science Research, 102, 102627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102627; Wikle, J., & Wilson, R. (2023). Access to Head Start and Maternal Labor Supply: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 41(4), 1081-1127. https://doi.org/10.1086/720980

¹⁶ Annie E. Casey Foundation Kids Count Data Center. (2023). Retrieved from: https://datacenter.aecf.org/ (accessed March 3, 2025)

¹⁷ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2025). Provisional Natality on CDC WONDER Online Database. Data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Births occurring in 2024, compiled as of January 30, 2025. http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality-expanded-provisional.html (accessed March 3, 2025)

¹⁸ U.S. Census Bureau (2023). 2023: American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Subject Tables. S1101. Households and Families. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S0101 (accessed March 3, 2025)

¹⁹ Schochet, L., & Malik, R., (2018). Head Start in Rural Minnesota. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/RuralHeadstart-MN-factsheet.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025)

²⁰ Schochet, L., & Malik, R., (2018). Head Start in Rural Iowa. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/RuralHeadstart-IA-factsheet.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025)

²¹ Targeting Children: The unseen impacts of proposed DOGE cuts to programs awaiting reauthorization. First Focus on Children. Retrieved from https://firstfocus.org/resource/targeting-children-the-unseen-impacts-of-cuts-to-pending-programs/ (accessed March 3, 2025)

²² Gillispie, C. (2024). Project 2025 Would End Head Start and Hurt Children with Disabilities. New America. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/project-2025-would-end-head-start-and-hurt-children-with-disabilities/ (accessed March 3, 2025)

²³ Bateman, N., & Ross, M. (2020). Why has COVID-19 been especially harmful for working women? Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-has-covid-19-been-especially-harmful-for-working-women (accessed March 3, 2025); California Department of Public Health. (2024). Income loss, job loss, and child care problems early in the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DMCAH/MIHA/Pages/COVID-19-Data-Brief-Job-and-Income-Loss.aspx (accessed March 3, 2025); Landivar, L.C., & deWolf, M. (2022). Mothers’ employment two years later: An assessment of employment loss and recovering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Women’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor. http://web.archive.org/web/20250122203448/https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/media/Mothers-employment-2%20-years-later-may2022.pdf (accessed March 3, 2025)

²⁴ Center for American Progress (2024). RELEASE: Child Care Deserts Would Expand Under Project 2025’s Plan To Eliminate Head Start, CAP Analysis Finds. https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-child-care-deserts-would-expand-under-project-2025s-plan-to-eliminate-head-start-cap-analysis-finds/ (accessed March 3, 2025)

Author Note

Activities of the Big Ten Early Learning Alliance are supported in part by a generous gift from the American Family Insurance Dreams Foundation to The Ohio State University.

Correspondence about this work may be addressed to Anna Markowitz (markowitz@gseis.ucla.edu).

The views reflected in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the Big Ten Academic Alliance or member universities.

The recommended citation for this paper is: Markowitz, A.J., Pilarz, A. R., Purpura, D. J., Sabol, T. J., & Thomas, D. (2025). Head Start and Outcomes for Children and Families: How Head Start Serves the Big Ten States. Columbus, Ohio: Big Ten Early Learning Alliance.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank members of the Big Ten Early Learning Alliance Steering Committee for their feedback on this brief. The authors would also like to thank the Policy and External Affairs team at the Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy at The Ohio State University: Laura Justice and Jamie O’Leary for reviewing the brief; Michael Meckler for data retrieval, copy edits and dissemination; and Janelle Williamson for project management.

About the Big Ten Early Learning Alliance

The Big Ten Early Learning Alliance (Big Ten ELA) is a coalition of early childhood expert scientists at 17 of the institutions of higher education participating in the Big Ten Academic Alliance. As research-intensive universities¹ located across 14 states, these Big Ten institutions’ shared profiles enable academic experts to leverage an established network to pursue scientific collaborations focused on addressing critical issues. In this vein, the Big Ten ELA was established in 2023 to collaborate on scientific activities that enhance and expand fundamental knowledge relevant to early childhood development and science-based policies and practices, and to promote the visibility of scientific discoveries relevant to early childhood and its translation for use in policies and practices.

Big Ten ELA institutions are currently located in 14 states: California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Washington.

---

American Family Insurance Dreams Foundation believes that equity in education — including early education and care — can be a pivotal lever to break cycles of generational poverty for students and their families. Early education and care are leading priorities in our Equity in Education investment strategy. We invest in equity-centered innovation focused on a strong and diverse educator pipeline, research and coalition-building, direct family and community services, and business/funder roundtables.

---

1. At this time of this writing, the Big Ten Early Learning Alliance comprises experts from the University of California – Los Angeles, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, University of Oregon, the Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, the University of Washington and the University of Wisconsin. ↩︎