Capstone Head Start director warns federal cuts would unravel family‑stabilization services

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Christie Swenson, director of Capstone Head Start and chair of the Vermont Head Start Association, told the House Human Services Committee on May 14 that Head Start programs provide education, health and intensive family‑stabilization services for low‑income children and families and cautioned that federal funding reductions would erode services that local agencies and state programs rely on.

“Most people are familiar with our high‑quality early childhood education, but that’s one of three things that we do,” said Swenson. She described Head Start as serving prenatal through kindergarten and noted the program’s combined focus on education, health and family stability.

Swenson outlined Head Start eligibility rules used by local grantees: children who meet federal poverty guidelines (100 percent of the federal poverty level) are income‑eligible; up to 30 percent of enrollees may fall between 100 and 130 percent of the poverty level; and up to 10 percent of enrollees may be over‑income. She also noted categorical eligibility for children who are experiencing homelessness, in foster care, living with someone receiving SSDI, or whose households receive benefits such as TANF or SNAP.

Local programs tailor services using a community needs assessment every five years, Swenson said, and that tailoring governs priorities for enrollment and service design. Capstone, for example, serves families in Lamoille, Washington and Orange counties (the witness identified her service area as “Memorial, Washington, and Orange Counties” in the hearing) and provides center‑based classrooms, classrooms embedded in elementary schools, partnerships with community childcare providers and, where needed, home‑visiting services.

Swenson described Head Start’s “layered” financing model: federal Head Start funds combine with state childcare subsidy and other funding sources to support a higher level of services than a childcare subsidy alone would provide. She warned that a reduction in federal Head Start funding or related federal childcare funding could remove the family‑stabilization work that underpins long‑term outcomes. “If you guys were funded at 50%, what would you keep? … My answer is I would keep all of that family services work,” Swenson said.

Members asked for details about program scale and funding. Swenson said Head Start funding in Vermont is allocated by longstanding federal grant awards and local expansions over time; cost‑of‑living increases are provided only when Congress approves them. She cited program figures from materials provided to the committee: parent‑child center staffing of 38 positions at a cost of about $2.2 million, and a statewide Head Start allocation figure referenced during the hearing at roughly $27.4 million. Swenson said those numbers reflect federal grant allocations and local program staffing choices.

Committee members and Swenson discussed how Head Start staff coordinate with state agencies and how the loss of Head Start family services would increase pressure on other state systems such as child protective services, Reach Up, and WIC. Swenson described intensive home‑visiting work in her program — weekly visits providing coaching on child development and family‑stabilization assistance — and said those supports are central to long‑term outcomes including school success and reduced involvement with justice systems.

Swenson invited committee members to visit local Head Start programs and encouraged lawmakers to consider the integrated role Head Start plays in the early‑childhood service system. No formal actions or decisions followed the presentation; the committee thanked Swenson and said it would monitor federal funding developments.

Ending: Committee members expressed interest in better understanding Head Start’s linkages to state services and in visiting local programs; lawmakers said they would track the federal budget process and its potential effects on Head Start programs in Vermont.