The funding and overall future of Head Start — which helps low-income families with child development and family support services — has been in the headlines for the better half of the year because of potential program cuts, followed by lawsuits, then think pieces and statements lauding its benefits.

The program, which is turning 60 this year and has served more than 40 million families, appears to be in the calm amid the eye of the storm. Local Head Start offices are largely operating business as usual, but leaders have bated breath — the future of its funding will be decided on Oct. 1.

While it may come into an additional $85 million windfall, or maintain its $12.2 billion in funding, both local and national Head Start officials have concerns that either scenario will not be enough.

“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,” says Michelle Haimowitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Head Start Association. “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 concern comes amid months of confusion for staff and parents on the fate of Head Start. In April, leaked documents detailing fiscal year 2026 budgets revealed plans to cut Head Start funding entirely. That same month, four state Head Start advocacy organizations — Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin — and two parent groups sued the Trump administration over potential spending cuts on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The yo-yoing policy proposals brought delays in accessing funds. Megan Woller, executive director of Idaho’s Head Start Association, recalls one local Head Start office considered taking out a loan in July in order to pay staff before the funding came through. Haimowitz added the Massachusetts offices saw “significant” delays in the first half of the year accessing funds and getting grant approvals. Many Head Start offices across the nation, including in Washington, Mississippi and Illinois, have reported experiencing confusion, but meanwhile others, including in Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, are expanding.

The administrative funding hiccups were exacerbated by the stress of not being able to reach regional federal Head Start offices: In April, the 10 Head Start offices that helped local Head Start offices throughout the country were whittled down to five, with the remaining half of offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Seattle closing. The closures followed plans to reduce the scope of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“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 says.

It also created confusion among parents who did not know the shuttered regional offices did not directly serve children, and instead were intermediaries.

“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,” Woller says. “But the public doesn’t know the difference between all this. I was getting calls of ‘Wait, is my kid’s center closed tomorrow?’”

The funding hangups have largely been alleviated for now — Woller and Haimowitz both said the delays are continuing but seem to be improving — but a collective breath is being held as the future of Head Start’s funding remains in flux. While the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an $85 million increase to Head Start funding in July — a roughly 0.6 percent bump — on Sept. 2, the House Appropriations Committee pushed the bill forward, proposing maintaining its current level of funding of $12.2 billion. The full Senate and House still need to give final approval and have until Oct. 1 to do so.

‘There Is No Plan B’

Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association, has served in the role for close to two decades. He acknowledged Head Start has been a pawn in political games on both sides of the aisle long before this year, pointing to a proposed funding cut in 2011 that was ultimately reversed, and the sequestration efforts in 2013.

Critics of Head Start have argued that it doesn’t produce strong enough outcomes for families to justify taxpayer support. Supporters contest that characterization.

Sheridan maintains what he calls a “cautious optimism” when it comes to the program’s funding future.

“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 says. “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.”

However, what is unique in this year’s case is the possibility for Head Start’s funding to stay flat. The federal program has only had three instances over six decades when it did not receive an increase in funding, according to Sheridan. If the government decides to keep its funding flat yet again for the program this year, it would be the first time in its history that it did not receive a funding boost two fiscal years in a row.

Even if the 0.6 percent proposed increase for Head Start funding were enacted, it would not keep up with the rising cost of living — Social Security benefits, for example, increased 2.5 percent to account for cost of living in 2025. Each state has its own amount of Head Start funding, with some receiving more than others due to additional state investments. Massachusetts, for example, allocated an additional $20 million for the Head Start Supplemental Grant in fiscal year 2025, largely to boost classroom teacher salaries.

“Our concern is the fact we’re facing incredibly high costs: inflationary costs, rising health care costs, the need to pay staff competitive wages,” Sheridan says. “It’s not like any warm body can work as a Head Start teacher; that is a very specific set of skills, it requires degrees and training. So when we work with our staff and train them up, we want to reward them. With seeing flat funding, programs do have to make those cuts somewhere.”

The early childhood education sector is already battling with keeping its workforce, which has long been plagued by low wages. Woller says concern over the future of funding could accelerate the workforce exodus.

“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 it’s really hard when the funding is as low as it is,” she says. “And when staff see everything crumbling at the federal level, they may look elsewhere; that’s also a big concern.”

There are also no viable alternative funding pathways, according to local and national officials. Head Start services are free for families.

“The types of services that Head Start provides take manpower other streams of child care funding don’t support,” Haimowitz says. “The state supplement has been growing and we’re incredibly grateful for that, but no alternative source is going to meet the types of needs that Head Start funding provides.”

Woller put it more simply.

“No, there is no Plan B,” she says with a self-defeated laugh. “There’s no backup plan when it’s this amount of dollars.”

Serving All Children?

There’s the added confusion of the recently announced policy change to reclassify Head Start as a federal public benefit, which would bar non-U.S. citizens from enrolling in Head Start services. There are currently no systems in place to check for immigration status.

The policy idea has not been passed as of the beginning of September. Both regional and national Head Start officials say they have not been given any directive or guidance to enforce these proposed rules, and that all families that were eligible for Head Start according to preexisting guidelines continue to be.

“Philosophically, the Head Start promise is all children, regardless of circumstance at birth, can succeed at school and life,” Woller says. “We want to make sure we uphold that.”

While the funding future of Head Start remains in flux, officials are trying to spread the word that the programming remains open and available for any one that needs it.

“The tough part is the uncertainty and lack of answers; that’s the part that’s keeping folks up at night,” Haimowitz says. “There are so few answers for all the questions we have, and directors are trying to keep their teachers on staff, keep families feeling comfortable and showing Head Start is open and enrolling amidst all this real uncertainty. It’s tough.”