Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
PARENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TRAINING AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES REGARDING THEIR CHILD’S NURTURING AND DEVELOPMENT: IMPLEMENTATION AND BENEFITS OF EARLY HEAD START
Joseph J. Stowitschek and Eduardo J. Armijo
University of Washington
1Supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau (Grant Number 90YF0015/01). No official endorsement by the Department or the Office of the opinions expressed herein should be inferred.
In today’s socially conscious society, it is reasonable to assume that families who do not participate in a particular early childhood development intervention have recourse to alternative services. Even in rural locales such service options are increasingly available, but may vary in the quality of what is provided (Perroncel, 2000; Little Hoover Commission, 1998). Annual or quarterly monitoring of a program such as Early Head Start (EHS), may yield information regarding conformity to intended criteria or standards (c.f., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997), yet fall short in developing a picture of de facto service delivery, especially regarding whether that level of service would have been attained in the program’s absence (Lincoln & Guba, 1984). Thus it may be as important to gauge the relative strength and quality of an intervention as perceived by the consumer as it is to assure staff-reported conformance to national standards or, as some would argue, to assess staff-determined impacts (Balaban & Dubiel, 1993).
At the onset of the Washington State Migrant Council’s Early Head Start Program (WSMC-EHS), the family cornerstone was identified as being of paramount import in the Council’s larger mission to enhance the contributions of their constituents to the communities in which they reside (WSMC Early Head Start, 1995). The impact of EHS in supporting and strengthening the integrity of the family unit was considered a crucial element and fundamental to increasing parents’ ability to nurture their children’s early development (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). With regard to the predominantly Mexican and Mexican American families of the rural areas served by WSMC-EHS, and whom they describe mainly as Hispanic, the interplay of cultural variables, particularly language and acculturation, were seen as some of the more salient of the potential moderators of that impact (c.f., Cox & Malabonga, 1998; Balaban & Dubiel, 1993; Garcia-Coll, 1990).
Hypotheses underlying our research on child outcomes pertained to whether families in Early Head Start experienced services focusing on child nurturing and development that they would not have received otherwise, and whether they perceived themselves and their children to have benefited from those services. We speculated that EHS families would report substantively higher levels of opportunity, participation and benefits than would families in a comparison group. In reference to service receipt, we also hypothesized that levels reported would be attenuated by gender, home language use and selected acculturation variables.
Information on 189 families determined as eligible for WSMC-EHS, who had a child born between September, 1995 and August, 1998, and who agreed to participate in the research were forwarded to Mathematica Policy Research for random assignment and inclusion in the national sample. Ninety-five families were assigned to the EHS Program and 94 families to the comparison group. Over the course of the three-year period, attrition accounted for the loss of 39 families from the research, resulting in a retention rate of approximately 79 percent. Nearly all of the families were of Mexican or Mexican American descent (97 percent). Two families were of Native American descent, one family was from Pakistan and three were Anglos. Over half of the parents were in their teens or early twenties. There were 36 single parent families (34 mothers) and three families in which the grandparent was the primary caregiver. The predominant family occupation was agricultural, with many working family members engaged in seasonal fieldwork, or in fruit processing warehouses. Slightly fewer than 10 percent were typified by WSMC as interstate migrants. Names of 15 EHS families were placed on a service waiting list for an average of 5.7 months (range = 1.5 to 14.8 months).
A locally designed Supplemental Services Interview (SSI) protocol and the 12-item, two-dimensional version of the Short Acculturation Scale (SAS; Marín & Marín, 1991) were utilized for the purposes of this research. The SSI and SAS were administered concurrently with the Program Services Interview (PSI), employed in the national study of EHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Administration and training protocols mirrored those described for the national study in which two local research staff, both of Mexican American heritage, met criteria for certification to conduct the PSI. In addition, the SSI and SAS were subjected to pilot administrations in which the local research staff co-administered and co-critiqued trial interviews with 25 non-EHS research families.
During the study, the SSI and SAS were administered to families on three occasions: approximately 6 months, 15 months and 26 months following random assignment. Thirty-one SSI items sampled parent’s perceptions regarding services received, their participation in activities relating to child nurturing and development, financial stability of the family and their involvement in the community. Eight SAS items sampled respondents’ comfort in speaking with persons who spoke Spanish or English, while four items addressed respondents’ daily affiliations. In addition, local research staff completed post interview, contact sheets pertaining to observed variables (e.g., language used during interview, responsiveness of participants, father’s participation).
Respondents were asked whether they had one or more opportunities to participate in home support, formal child development or child care training, adult education activities or events in the previous month. Table 1 is a descriptive summary of the frequencies of parents reporting opportunities over three rounds of interviews. At six months after random assignment, over two-thirds of EHS families reported one or more opportunities for parent meetings, as compared to one-fifth of the comparison group families. The differences in opportunities were statistically significant and sustained over the 15 and 26 month interview rounds, although, the numbers declined slightly for EHS families as they exited the program.
| Percent of Respondents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Group | 6-Month | 15-Month | 26-Month | Overall |
| S5.1: Asked to Attend Parent Program | EHS | 57* | 59* | 58* | 68* |
| Meetings | Comparison | 19 | 16 | 24 | 25 |
| * p<.01 |
Table 2 represents a more focused examination, drawn from the 26-month interview round, and depicts mean frequencies of participatory opportunities, mother’s, relative to father’s attendance, and among English or Spanish-speaking subgroups. All EHS families averaged more than 12 opportunities for every 1 reported by all comparison group families. EHS Mother’s attended nearly 65 percent of the activities they were invited to. The ratio of EHS to comparison group mother’s attendance exceeded 8 to 1 and the difference was statistically significant. According to mother’s accounts, EHS fathers attended barely over 5 percent of the activities, and the overall difference between EHS and comparison group fathers was not statistically significant. These trends were consistent across English and Spanish-speaking sub groups of families. However, EHS Spanish-speaking families (63 percent of families) reported slightly higher averages of opportunities and attendance than did EHS English-speaking families (37 percent of families). Although quite low, the levels of attendance differed among English-speaking fathers, approaching statistical significance in favor of EHS fathers.
| Item | Group | Mean Frequency |
t Value | Significance Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Activities, All Families: | ||||
| Opportunity | EHS | 13.03 | 5.67 | .000* |
| Comparison | 1.12 | |||
| Mother's Attendance | EHS | 8.41 | 5.14 | .000* |
| Comparison | 1.07 | |||
| Father's Attendance | EHS | 0.71 | 0.31 | 0.76 |
| Comparison | 0.6 | |||
| All Activities, English Speaking: | ||||
| Opportunity | EHS | 9.25 | 3.35 | .002* |
| Comparison | 0.17 | |||
| Mother's Attendance | EHS | 6.36 | 2.96 | .005* |
| Comparison | 0.11 | |||
| Father's Attendance | EHS | 0.39 | 1.8 | 081*** |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| All Activities, Spanish Speaking: | ||||
| Opportunity | EHS | 16.26 | 5.06 | .000* |
| Comparison | 1.47 | |||
| Mother's Attendance | EHS | 10.17 | 4.55 | .000* |
| Comparison | 1.43 | |||
| Father's Attendance | EHS | 0.86 | 0.1 | 0.92 |
| Comparison | 0.82 | |||
| * *p<.01 **p<.05 ***p<.10 |
Break-outs on types of opportunities for training and support at 26 months (not displayed) revealed significant differences in favor of EHS families for four of five categories: Parent Literacy Education (t = 3.27, p <.01), Education in Child Rearing (t = 7.07, p <.000), Center or Program Visits (t = 1.98, p <.05) and Individual or Family Consultations (t=2.40, p <.018). No differences were evident for the category "Other."
While reported attendance was somewhat less frequent, EHS parents attended significantly more of several categories of events than did their comparison group counterparts across all categories combined. Education in Child Rearing was the predominant category of attendance, with EHS mothers, averaging nearly 7 over a 12 month period, and comparison group mothers reporting no opportunity in this category (t = 5.60, p<.000). There was negligible reported attendance (averaging from 0 to .39 incidences per reporting period) in any category by fathers of either group, except that more EHS fathers attended education in child rearing (t = 2.01, p<.047).
Because WSMC-EHS was predominantly a home-based program, the provision of home services and support pertaining to child nurturing and development was of particular interest. Results of interview questions pertaining to the frequency of home visits across the three interview rounds are summarized in Table 3. Overall, more than 90 percent of EHS families, and 5 percent of comparison group families reported one or more home visits were made during the month preceding an SSI interview. At six months, 63 EHS families (76 percent of respondents) and four comparison group families (5 percent of respondents) reported one or more home visits occurred in the last month. The number declined for EHS families at 15 and 26-month interview rounds as families were exited from the program. However, the difference remained statistically significant in favor of EHS families.
Table 4 depicts an analysis of home visit groupings, drawn from the 26-month interview. Families were asked to identify the persons making visits over the previous 12 months. Overall, for every home visit reported by comparison group families, EHS families reported nearly seven home visits, and 93 percent of them were for the purpose of home education in child-care and child rearing.
| Percent of Respondents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Group | 6-Month | 15-Month | 26-Month | Overall |
| S5.3: Home visitor provided assistance | EHS | 76* | 75* | 55* | 91* |
| or training in child care, nurturing and development | Comparison | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| * p<.01 |
| Titles Derived from Described Purposes of Visits |
Group | Mean Frequency |
t Value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case Manager | EHS | 0.66 | 1.59 | 0.115 |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| Home Educator | EHS | 13.44 | 7.22 | .000* |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| Social Worker | EHS | 0 | -- | -- |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| Health Worker | EHS | 0.31 | 1.11 | 0.269 |
| Comparison | 0.05 | |||
| Teacher | EHS | 0 | -- | -- |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| Child Care Center Staff | EHS | 0 | -- | -- |
| Comparison | 0 | |||
| Other | EHS | 0.24 | -1.32 | 0.19 |
| Comparison | 2.1 | |||
| __ | EHS | 14.47 | _ | .000* |
| Overall | Comparison | 2.15 | 5.17 |
| * p<.000 |
This difference was statistically significant in favor of EHS families, while there was no difference in the remaining categories (case manager, social worker, health worker, teacher, child care center staff, other). During informal follow-up interviews with EHS staff, case managers indicated that most of their work for families was carried out at intake and then indirectly thereafter, through telephone calls or meetings with health, mental health, social service and housing agencies. Further, EHS staff indicated that the health worker’s time was focused mainly on group parent training at the center, and that her home visits were with a small number of families who had significant health/nutrition issues. Home educators, one assigned to each of six communities, carried out the bulk of the visitation schedule.
The EHS and comparison group differences in home visits at 26 months were similar for subgroups of English and Spanish-speaking families (not depicted). However, the average frequency of home visits for EHS Spanish-speaking families (18.24) was more than twice that for EHS English-speaking families (7.83). During informal interviews with EHS staff, they suggested that a number of monolingual Spanish-speaking families, many, recent immigrants from Mexico, had less favorable financial and/or family conditions, and thus had greater need for home support and training.
Parents were also asked to supply confidence ratings on their ability to care for their child, and nurture their child’s development (1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree). While the differences only approached statistical significance, more EHS parents tended to rate themselves highly (strongly agree: 47 on child care; 43 on child nurturing) than did parents in the comparison group (strongly agree: 34 on child care; 34 on child nurturing).
No statistically significant differences or changes in family’s SAS ratings were evident for the eight language preference questions, nor for three of the affiliation questions at any of the three interview rounds. However, at 26 months, EHS families demonstrated a significantly greater preference for their child to affiliate with English-speaking children (mean EHS rating: 2.99, mean comparison group rating: 2.77; p < .04). In contrast, between the 6 and 26 month interviews, comparison group families showed a shift in preferences for their child’s friends, away from English-speaking children and toward Spanish-speaking children (t = -2.17, p< .04). While few differences across time or between groups were evident from the SAS, reviews of the interviewer’s contact sheets revealed that more families described themselves as bi-lingual and responded to the interviews in English at 26 months than at the 6-month interviews (EHS group, 23 more, Comparison group, 18 more).
Twenty-six items of the SSI sampled respondents’ perceptions of functional indicators of the family’s involvement and acculturation to the community, as well as financial stability. At six months, significantly more EHS families reported they attended parent meetings at day care centers, preschools or early intervention programs, attended parent-teacher association meetings, and participated in clubs, community center, or community activities during the prior year than did comparison group families (Table 5). The difference in parent meeting and community center involvement was sustained through the 15 and 26-month interviews, but not for contacts with children’s caregivers or teachers, nor for parent’s attendance at PTA meetings.
| Percent of Respondents | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interview Item | Group | 6-Month | 15-Month | 26-Month |
| S8.1a.Talked with my child'scare giver in the past month. | EHS | 40* | 27 | 33 |
| Comparison | 31 | 35 | 38 | |
| S8.1b. Talked with my child's teacher in the past month. | EHS | 21* | 5 | 8 |
| Comparison | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| S8.1c Attended parent meetings at my child's daycare centeror early intervention program in the pastmonth. | EHS | 35* | 23* | 36* |
| Comparison | 9 | 8 | 10 | |
| S8.1e. Attended PTA meeting in the past month. | EHS | 30* | 38 | 33 |
| Comparison | 17 | 30 | 33 | |
| S8.1h. Attendeda club,communitycenteror community activity program in the past year. | EHS | 13** | 53* | 27* |
| Comparison | 5 | 14 | 14 | |
| *p<.05 **p<.10 |
There were no differences reported between EHS and comparison group families for items pertaining to economic or financial stability (e.g., rent/own a home, received welfare benefits, increased in annual income). However, between the first and last interview rounds a higher percentage of EHS families reported a) a raise in pay (11 percent at 6 months, 24 percent at 26 months), b) moving off from welfare benefits (18 percent at 6 months, 30 percent at 26 months), c) paying car license taxes (28 percent at 6 months, 44 percent at 26 months), and d) opening checking accounts (15 percent at 6 months, 26 percent at 26 months). Other indications of acculturation were drawn from reviews of interviewer’s contact sheets between 6 and 26 months. EHS family contacts were noted more often as a) receptive to visits by non-relatives, b) outgoing and c) speaking often with their child (10 at 6 months, 78 at 26 months).
In summary, distances, limited tax bases and sparse population distributions continue to present challenges for providing child-care and child development, social, and health services in rural areas. Yet, an array of services are available in the Lower Yakima Valley, including state-funded child development and child care, the Farmworker’s Clinic, Valley Memorial Hospital’s child care and early intervention programs, privately supported child care programs, La Clinica mental health services and a county cooperative of agencies. While available, they may not be readily accessed by low-income families who are dependent upon seasonal agricultural work, who experience language or cultural barriers, and/or who have limited educational backgrounds. These access variables appeared to be highly salient in the evaluation of WSMC-EHS.
Though available, few comparison group families reported opportunities for, or their involvement in education, training or support pertaining to child-development and child nurturing. Most gained no access to center or home-based services on their own initiative. On the other hand, most EHS families reported frequent opportunities for, and participation in activities pertaining to their child’s care and development, in some cases attaining an eight-fold advantage. This was despite several being placed on a waiting list for EHS services. The bulk of the activities they did report were carried out or arranged by EHS staff, and most often occurred in the home. Active participation from fathers in either group was reported as being low or nonexistent. This is consistent with reports of many programs serving high numbers of low-income, Hispanic, and in many instances, non-Hispanic, rural families.
Monolingual Spanish-speaking families received the most attention from EHS program staff, who indicated these families had the greatest need, and their comparison group counterparts reported the lowest service involvement. Nearly all of these families reported that service agencies provided Spanish-speaking staff. We offer that language may be less a barrier and more an indicator of families in the early stages of acculturation (c.f., Marín & Marín, 1991). Thus, EHS seems to provide an important buffer, supporting a period of adjustment to and by the community.
Considerable benefit from EHS participation was indicated, but the differences in benefit between EHS and comparison group families were slight. There was a trend toward greater confidence in child-care and child development abilities among EHS families. While a standard index of acculturation showed little change and few group differences, indicators of functional acculturation -- family and community participation -- suggested EHS families had enhanced involvement in selected areas.
From a quantitative standpoint, EHS families reported as high as a nine-fold advantage in access to, and receipt of training, services and support pertaining to child-case and child nurturing (see Table 2: Spanish-speaking families). We consider family access and participation to be important contextual requisites for the provision of best practices known to impact young children’s development. The content and character of training, services and support pertaining to child care and child nurturing are often the focus of studies of child development programs. While they may address crucial aspects of the implementation of best practice, the “how” of service delivery is of little import if it is too limited in concentration, or shear amount of service provided (c.f., Hart & Risley, 1995). Although a significant part of the WSMC-EHS program’s effort must be devoted to tracking its compliance with Head Start standards, the families served have also mirrored a level of involvement and benefit they were not likely to have attained otherwise.
References
Balaban, N. and Dubiel, C. (1993). Toddlers in childcare: What does a "quality" program mean? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA.
Cox, M. and Malabonga, V. (1998). Improvements in the English and Spanish language expression and comprehension of Latino preschoolers. Paper presented at the Head Start National Research Conference, Washington, DC.
Garcia-Coll, C.T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-oriented look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61(2), 270-289.
Hart, V., & Risley T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.E. (April, 1984). Research,
evaluation, and policy analysis: Heuristics for disciplined inquiry.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Little Hoover Commission (1998). Caring for our children:
Our most precious investment.
Sacramento, CA.
Marín, G., & Marín, B. V., (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Perroncel, C. B. (2000). Getting kids ready for school in rural America: Rural Education Issue Document. Charleston, WV:AEL, Inc.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001). Building their futures: How Early head start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Volume I: Technical report. The Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Leading the way: Characteristics and early experiences of selected Early Head Start programs. Volume 1: Cross-site perspectives. Washington, DC: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Washington State Migrant Council: Early Head Start (1995). Proposal submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Washington, D.C.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |