Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Infant Welfare Society warns returning Head Start slots could displace families; asks districts to preserve slots
Summary
At the joint meeting, Robert Jones of the Infant Welfare Society of Evanston said District 65 is not contractually obligated to fund Early Head Start if federal funding is cut, warned that returning slots to the Office of Head Start could remove services from local families, and asked the boards to consider local impacts.
Robert Jones, board chair of the Infant Welfare Society of Evanston (IWS), told the joint District 202/District 65 meeting that local Head Start slots are critical and asked the boards to record a fact sheet for the public record.
Jones said the Infant Welfare Society’s April 2024 Office of Head Start review returned a 95.5% rating and that the program’s enrollment is growing — currently projected at about 87% and aligned with teacher recruitment. In prepared remarks he asked the district to consider three points if federal Early Head Start funding is cut or if District 65 contemplates returning slots to the federal Office of Head Start:
1) District 65 would not have an obligation to continue paying the Infant Welfare Society under the parties’ subcontract agreement if the federal government reduces Early Head Start funding. 2) If District 65 returns Early Head Start slots to the Office of Head Start, there is no guarantee those slots would be reallocated to Evanston; local families could lose access. 3) Returning the slots could jeopardize services for roughly 55 families who now receive comprehensive subsidized care, and the community has an estimated additional 150–200 families needing 0‑to‑3 Head Start services.
Jones said the Infant Welfare Society’s high Office of Head Start rating reflects program quality and impact, and asked that the fact sheet he provided be entered into the public record.
Why it matters: Jones framed the issue as a potential loss of early‑childhood services for low‑income, multilingual and other marginalized families if federal funding changes lead to local slot reductions. He requested that boards consider the local demand data and the possibility that returned slots would be reallocated elsewhere.
Response and next steps: The public comment concluded with Jones asking the boards to put the fact sheet into the record; no formal action on Head Start funding or contracts was taken during the meeting.
