Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply removes $1 million from the Administration for Children and Families programs account, but it replaces it back in the very same account. My intent in doing this is to highlight an issue for my colleagues and for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Before I go into detail on this, I want everyone to know that I was one of the early participants in the Head Start program as an assistant teacher. I was there when Head Start was first developed under the Federal poverty program.

I love Head Start. I understand it very thoroughly, and I wish that every child that needed the advantages of this program could have it and benefit from it.

In California alone, the Head Start program serves over 100,000 children. Nationwide, more than 1 million children and families across the country rely on its essential services.

However, children and families can't receive the care and valuable benefits of Head Start if we aren't strategic in determining the organizations and communities that receive aid.

When Federal auditors determine whether a Head Start program must recompete for funding, they compare the metrics of a program against national averages. However, a successful program operating within an urban community must be defined differently than one operating in the suburbs or a rural community. Comparing providers to national averages disadvantages those with fewer resources and more obstacles to success.

In my own district, the 43rd Congressional District of California, there have been six Head Start organizations that serve predominantly minority communities that have lost their funding in favor of organizations operating in more affluent areas.

I fear these closures in Los Angeles may be indicative of a nationwide trend. There are also reports of Head Start programs serving minority communities in Detroit, Michigan, and Little Rock, Arkansas, that have been forced to recompete because they did not rank high enough when compared to programs nationwide.

Instead of helping struggling programs improve, which would ensure that families living in those communities still receive uninterrupted Head Start services, this recompete process forces providers to divert resources from programmatic priorities to administrative costs associated with competing for Federal grant dollars. This only compounds the difficulties faced by the Head Start provider.

The result of this process may be that affluent Head Start providers are better able to navigate the bureaucratic system HHS has created while those providers struggling to overcome obstacles, such as funding deficiencies and higher teacher turnover rates, are shut down.

Further oversight is required. The Department of Health and Human Services should comprehensively examine its Head Start selection and evaluation process for any evidence that such processes are having a disparate impact on either the minority communities that the programs serve or on minority-operated Head Start programs.

HHS should submit a report to Congress no later than January 1 of 2020--and I am going to be working on that--on its findings and any changes necessary to remedy the effects of such disparate impacts on communities of color. We must do everything possible to ensure that all children, not merely the ones who happened to live in affluent communities near a well-funded Head Start provider, have access to the support services they need.

Although I will be withdrawing this amendment, I strongly urge my colleagues to support a comprehensive audit of the Head Start application, evaluation, and recompete processes.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source