Head Start faces uncertain future amid congressional debate over flat or increased funding

Head Start, a federal program supporting low-income families with child development and family support services, is awaiting a decision on its funding for the next fiscal year. The outcome will be determined by October 1, as Congress considers whether to maintain current funding levels of $12.2 billion or approve an $85 million increase recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed flat funding.

Michelle Haimowitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Head Start Association, expressed concern about another year without increased funds. “On the one hand we’re relieved that the initial proposal to eliminate Head Start is out of the way and we don't have to have those conversations,” Haimowitz said. “But another year of flat funding would continue to cut us off at the knees. And the costs don't magically stay flat; the only way to do that is cut enrollment and make other changes we don't want to make.”

The uncertainty follows several months marked by leaked documents in April indicating possible elimination of Head Start’s budget for fiscal year 2026 and subsequent lawsuits from state advocacy groups and parent organizations against potential cuts targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Administrative challenges compounded concerns this spring when regional federal Head Start offices were reduced from ten to five as part of a plan to scale back operations at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle closed, causing confusion among parents who mistook these closures for local center shutdowns.

“While program specialists are doing everything they can to support us, their capacity to be as communicative and in touch as our program specialist in the Boston office — when they had half as many cases — is going to be significantly diminished,” Haimowitz said.

Megan Woller, executive director of Idaho’s Head Start Association, noted similar confusion among parents: “People got confused because they don't know who that is; that it’s the federal government supporting the grantees, it’s not your kids’ center,” she said. “But the public doesn't know the difference between all this. I was getting calls of ‘Wait, is my kid’s center closed tomorrow?’”

Woller also described financial strain during delays in accessing funds earlier this year: one Idaho office considered taking out a loan in July just to pay staff before grants arrived.

Despite some improvement in fund disbursement recently reported by both Woller and Haimowitz, there remains anxiety over future resources as inflationary pressures persist while proposed increases lag behind cost-of-living adjustments such as Social Security's 2.5 percent rise for 2025.

Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association, highlighted how rare it would be for Head Start not to receive any funding increase two years running—a first if approved—and emphasized ongoing workforce challenges tied to compensation constraints: “Our concern is the fact we’re facing incredibly high costs: inflationary costs, rising health care costs, the need to pay staff competitive wages,” he said. “It’s not like any warm body can work as a Head Start teacher; that is a very specific set of skills.”

Sheridan added his perspective on congressional support: “Yes, we’ve seen those types of stressors and feel very confident Congress and the president will continue to keep their commitment to support families in every corner of the country,” he said. “Sometimes you have to take a step back to go forward; it feels that’s where the conversation has been, but we’re excited to move forward.”

Woller echoed concerns about retaining qualified staff under uncertain conditions: “The purpose of Head Start is to help lift families out of poverty, but we have to demonstrate that in part in how we pay the staff...And when staff see everything crumbling at the federal level, they may look elsewhere; that's also a big concern.”

No alternative sources exist for matching what federal funds provide according to officials like Haimowitz: “The types of services that Head Start provides take manpower other streams of child care funding don't support...no alternative source is going to meet the types of needs that Head Start funding provides.” Woller summed up simply: “No, there is no Plan B...There’s no backup plan when it's this amount of dollars.”

Additionally under consideration are policy changes which could restrict non-U.S. citizens from enrolling children in Head Start programs if reclassified as a federal public benefit—though no directive has yet been issued or enforced.

“Philosophically, the Head Start promise is all children, regardless of circumstance at birth can succeed at school and life,” Woller stated.

Haimowitz summarized ongoing efforts despite uncertainty: “There are so few answers for all questions we have...directors are trying keep their teachers on staff...showing Head Start is open and enrolling amidst all this real uncertainty.”