Head Start would be one of the first programs to cut if you were developing a blueprint to deepen childhood poverty. On April 1, 2025, there were significant terminations of staff across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS houses the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which manages the Head Start Program. On April 16, a draft HHS budget called for a $40 billion cut to the agency–eliminating the Office of Head Start and all its programs.
Head Start provides comprehensive services, including early childhood education, health, and family engagement, to low-income families. In fiscal year 2023, Head Start programs were in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and six U.S. territories, and served 778,420 children ages 0 to 5.
President Lyndon B. Johnson established Head Start in 1965; it has served children and families for 60 years. Head Start families have limited material resources. With few exceptions, eligible families must have incomes below the federal poverty line. This means, for example, a maximum household income of $32,150 for a family of four.
People who support a plan that would impose budget cuts on Head Start, let alone eliminate it entirely, support reducing access to childcare and other essential services for the most vulnerable families. It is that simple.
But there is such a blueprint, originally seen on Page 482 of the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise–also known as Project 2025.
What are the potential impacts of eliminating Head Start? The family of four mentioned earlier, with two adults and two children, has an income of no more than $32,150 before taxes. In 2023, the average cost of child care in the U.S. was $11,582 – more than a third of the family’s income. The average cost of infant care is even higher—around $16,000. The family’s total annual cost for childcare would be $27,582 –nearly 86 percent of their combined income. At the same time, ACF views “affordable child care” as a cost of no more than 7 percent of a family’s annual income.
The wider impacts on hunger and poverty of eliminating Head Start will be reflected in the lived experience of thousands of children and families around the country. The stories of families who have benefited from Head Start make this clear. Ashley Grillot’s child attended Head Start, and she describes her family as being more “economically stable and grounded” now. Kay Dease and Michelle Michaud are two of the many parents who were able to obtain their GEDs because they enrolled their children in Head Start, which provided the necessary child care for them to focus on finishing school. Head Start had longer-term impacts for former students like Frankie Caldwell and Stephanie V. McKee-Anderson, who attribute their success to participating in Head Start.
The impacts on families of losing affordable childcare options would be catastrophic. They would face deeper levels of food insecurity and poverty. Many Head Start programs offer full-day care and some offer extended or after-hours care. If Head Start were eliminated, parents with children in these programs would need to dramatically alter their work schedules – potentially leaving the workforce entirely. Loss of income from work would only add to the financial constraints on families. Head Start teachers and staff—about 248,000 people—would lose their jobs.
Childcare programs are a natural venue to help reduce food insecurity. Children in many Head Start programs receive consistent nutritious meals and snacks offered throughout the day, funded by programs such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Families also have access to important nutrition education programs.
The importance of quality childcare and education in the early years of a child’s life has been well documented. Bread has done extensive work and analysis on the importance of investing in mothers and very young children, especially up to a child’s second birthday.
HHS, the agency that administers Head Start points out that such programs support the child’s “cognitive and behavioral foundation for the rest of their development and learning.”
Children enrolled in quality childcare programs are more likely to graduate from high school, maintain consistent employment as adults, and enjoy better long-term health. It follows that those who do not have access to these programs are less likely to have the tools and skills that are essential to building an economically secure future.
Critics of Head Start say that it does not work. Some even call it a tool for government indoctrination. On the contrary, decades of research find that Head Start is extremely effective at supporting the family unit, increasing parental involvement, and improving childhood outcomes. (See evidence from Brookings, American Sociological Association, American Economic Review, Education Next, and National Head Start Association.)
Head Start is not optional – it is a critical lifeline for the most vulnerable children and families in the U.S., and a commonsense investment with proven results. Giving children a fair start and creating pathways out of poverty reflect the best of American values. The real costs of dismantling Head Start go far beyond its annual cost now. They are the costs of leaving generations of children and their families behind.
Taylor Johnson is a domestic policy advisor, Policy and Research Institute, with Bread for the World.
