Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
III. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES
The Early Head Start program guidelines and the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards provide the framework for Early Head Start services. They specify the parameters for high-quality child and family development services, direct program managers to work with staff to enhance their skills and promote their professional development, and encourage programs to collaborate with other community agencies. They also require that programs do community needs assessments and develop implementation plans, including plans for continuous program improvement activities. Within this framework, Early Head Start programs are allowed flexibility to design services to meet the specific needs of families in their communities.
In fall 1997, the Early Head Start research programs were taking diverse approaches to serving children and families. Some provided child and family development services primarily in regular, frequent home visits. Others offered center-based child development services and provided family development services in less-frequent meetings with parents, either at the center or in families’ homes. Still others mixed these approaches, providing services to some families in centers and to others in home visits. The programs took a variety of approaches to ensuring that children received high-quality child care, from providing care directly to making referrals to local child care resource and referral agencies to establishing collaborative agreements with child care providers and giving them training and technical assistance. The programs also involved parents in group activities, such as monthly parent meetings and intensive play groups with children.
The research programs vary in the emphases they place on particular goals and outcomes. They vary also in the ways they have implemented particular services for children and families. The purpose of this chapter is to describe these activities and services. The third volume of this report will analyze the degree of program implementation in the key program areas and overall. The following sections describe various approaches and services as the research programs carried them out at the time of the site visits in fall 1997. These include recruitment and enrollment strategies; child and family development services; characteristics, training, supervision, support, and well-being of staff members; community partnerships; and management of operations.
A. RECRUITMENT AND ENROLLMENT
The Early Head Start guidelines specify that programs may enroll “pregnant women and families with children under age 3 who meet income criteria specified in the Head Start regulations.” However, the guidelines also note that Congress encouraged programs to identify participants while pregnant or while their children are infants (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995). According to the criteria specified in the Head Start Act, children are eligible if their families’ incomes are below the poverty line, or if their families would be eligible for public assistance if they could not find child care to enable them to work. The Head Start regulations require that at least 90 percent of families must have incomes below the poverty level, and at least 10 percent of children must have disabilities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996).
Individual programs can impose additional eligibility criteria. For example, most of the research programs specifically limited eligibility to families living in certain geographic areas (Figure III.1). In addition, because the EHS research included only families whose children are under age 1 (or unborn), many of the research programs imposed this age requirement on all families. To facilitate the local research, a few limited age eligibility even further or selected different age criteria. Several research programs required that parents be working, in training, or attending school when they apply. Two programs limited eligibility to first-time parents, although, to increase the pace of enrollment, one of them expanded eligibility midway through the first year to include mothers of two children if one is an infant. Three programs limited eligibility to particularly high-risk families. One of them served only families with two or more issues identified in a psychosocial assessment. The other limited eligibility to intrastate migrants. In a third, eligibility at one site was limited to homeless, substance-abusing parents.
FIGURE III.1
ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
ADOPTED BY EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS
 |
| [D] |
Most programs adopted multiple strategies for recruiting families. Nearly all programs sought referrals from other service providers in the community, and most distributed flyers or hung posters to advertise their services. Another common strategy was to go door to door to identify potentially eligible families and tell them about the program. Many of the programs also reached out to families at neighborhood events or at other community agencies, such as WIC offices. Several programs advertised program services in public service radio, television, or newspaper announcements.
Most of the research programs had funds to serve 75 families at one time. One program was smaller (45 families), while six were larger (100 to 140 families). The Head Start Bureau required that programs reach full enrollment within one year of receiving funding. Thus, the research programs in the first wave of funded programs were expected to be fully enrolled by October 1996. However, many research programs did not meet the deadline, primarily because of the research eligibility criteria and the need to recruit two families for every program vacancy.1
The dynamic nature of families’ lives and participation in program services led enrollment to fluctuate over time in some programs. Programs usually try for some time to persuade families who stop participating in program activities to return. Eventually, however, they remove unresponsive families from the rolls and offer services to new families. While staff members are trying to re-engage families who have stopped participating, the families remain on the rolls and are counted as being in the program. Some of the programs reported that they had lost some families by the time of the 1997 site visits. At least four programs reported that more than 20 families dropped out after enrolling, usually for the following reasons: (1) families did not want to participate at the expected levels or wanted services different than those offered by the program, (2) families moved out of the area, (3) contact with families lapsed when there was staff turnover, and (4) other commitments or family stresses interfered with families’ ability to participate. At the time of the site visits, six programs were not fully enrolled, and two additional programs reported that they were not actively serving all enrolled families.
B. CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Early Head Start is a program designed to help children develop fully by providing “individualized support that honors the unique characteristics and pace of their physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and language development” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995). Head Start regulations require that programs supply services to promote child health, to foster positive relationships between the child and parents and other significant caregivers, to provide opportunities for children’s active engagement in appropriately stimulating environments, and to enhance parents’ knowledge of child development. However, programs have flexibility to design and implement services that will best meet the specific needs of their clients.
1. Center-Based Child Development Services
One of the approaches that Early Head Start programs may take to deliver child development services is center-based child care, which may be particularly appropriate when the target population served by Early Head Start includes many low-income working families. Nine of the research programs (the four center-based and five mixed-approach programs) provided child development services to some or all families in Early Head Start child care centers in fall 1997. In most of the centers, child care was available full-time for families who needed it. One program, however, offered only part-time care (in two 2.75-hour sessions each day). All the centers were open during standard working hours, but not on evenings or weekends, when some working families needed child care.
In most centers, staff members reported that infants and toddlers were cared for in small groups of eight or fewer.2,3 For infants alone, the reported maximum group sizes ranged from 4 to 10, with six programs having groups of eight or fewer. Reported maximum group sizes for toddlers ranged from 6 to 14, with five programs having groups of 8 or fewer. Center-based and mixed-approach programs reported similar maximum group sizes in their centers.
Staff in all programs reported relatively small maximum child-staff ratios. The maximum ratio for infants was 3 to 1 in four programs and 3 or 4 to 1 in the remaining five (Figure III.2). The maximum ratios reported for toddlers were slightly higher. In seven programs, the maximum ratio for toddlers was 3 or 4 to 1. In one program, the maximum ratio was smaller (2.7 to 1), and in one program it was larger (5 to 1). As with group sizes, center-based and mixed-approach programs reported similar maximum ratios in their centers.
In most of the centers, children were assigned to a primary caregiver. However, two programs took a team approach to caring for children and did not assign children to primary caregivers.
FIGURE III.2
MAXIMUM CHILD-CAREGIVER RATIOS IN CENTERS
(AS REPORTED BY STAFF)
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Center staff members drew on a variety of materials to plan activities with children and, in most programs, relied on multiple resources. Two programs used the High/Scope curriculum/approach. Three programs drew on WestEd’s Program for Infant/Toddler Caregivers materials, and four drew on the Creative Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers. Other materials mentioned include Partners in Parenting Education, Resources for Infant Educators, Hawaii Early Learning Profile, Partners in Learning, Games to Play with Babies, Games to Play with Toddlers, Playtime Learning Games for Young Children, Talking to Your Baby, Learning Activities for Infants, Ones and Twos, the Anti-Bias Curriculum, and Montessori.
Center staff members in most of the programs either had a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential (or its equivalent or a higher degree) or were working toward a CDA.4 In one program, center managers were comparing the CDA requirements with the extensive Montessori training provided for center caregivers and were planning to request that Montessori be accepted as equivalent.
2. Home-Based Child Development Services
Another approach that Early Head Start programs may take to providing child development services is to visit homes to conduct activities and support parents. Home-based services recognize the importance of parents in fostering child development and support them in fostering the growth and development of their children. Thirteen of the research programs provided child development services to some or all families through the home-based option.
Most of the 13 programs offering home-based services planned the required weekly home visits to families that received child development services primarily in such visits (Figure III.3).5 Three programs planned less-frequent visits (two or three visits per month). In one home-based program, the planned frequency of home visits was biweekly if the child was in developmentally appropriate child care in the community or weekly if the child was not.
The actual intensity of home visiting that staff members reported was usually less than planned.6Most of the programs reported that, on average, they were able to visit families two or three times per month, and one program was able to visit families an average of only once a month (Figure III.3). The program that planned biweekly home visits reported that home visitors were able to make them. Among the 10 programs that planned weekly visits with some or all families, 3 reported that they were able to make them.
Staff members reported that conflicts with school or work, illnesses, and difficult family circumstances often prevented families from keeping appointments for home visits. Families receiving welfare cash assistance faced work requirements and time limits on receipt. Because they were giving priority to meeting these requirements and finding jobs, these families often did not have time for weekly home visits. Many families lived in difficult circumstances, and some program staff members reported that they were just not able to comply with a schedule of weekly home visits plus other program activities. Scheduling difficulties, illnesses, and bad weather also interfered with completing some home visits.
FIGURE III.3
PLANNED AND ACTUAL FREQUENCY OF HOME VISITS IN EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS TAKING A HOME-BASED OR MIXED APPROACH, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. NOTE: Four programs reported completing the planned number of visits per family, on average (three that planned weekly visits and one that planned biweekly visits). |
Caseload sizes of home visitors varied, in part depending on the number of visits the program planned to complete each month. Home visitors in about half the home-based and mixed-approach programs had caseloads of 10 or 12 families (Figure III.4). Home visitors in three programs had slightly higher caseloads (13 to 15 families), and home visitors in three others had even higher caseloads (20 to 25 families). Two of these were mixed-approach programs, and the caseloads of some home visitors contained some families who were receiving child development services in other ways and received only monthly home visits. Caseload sizes of home visitors did not differ systematically between home-based and mixed-approach programs.
Some of the programs offering home-based services hired professional home visitors, while others hired paraprofessionals. Most required that home visitors have a postsecondary educational credential or be working toward one. Five programs and one site of a sixth required home visitors to have at least a bachelor’s degree. Six programs required home visitors to have a CDA, a college degree, or an associate’s degree. One program offering both home-based and center-based options and three out of four centers in another home-based program required home visitors to have a high school diploma.
Home visitors in all the programs offering home-based services drew on existing materials to plan home visits. The most commonly used were the Parents as Teachers curriculum (five programs) and WestEd’s Program for Infant/Toddler Caregivers (five programs). Home visitors in several programs drew on the Partners in Parenting Education curriculum, Early Learning Accomplishment Profile materials, or Hawaii Early Learning Profile materials.
According to staff members’ reports, the percentage of time home visitors spent on child development during a typical home visit (a typical child development home visit, if the program conducted more than one type of visit) varied widely across programs, and in some cases, within programs. In estimating the proportion of time spent on child development, staff members included any activities that they considered applicable. In four programs, staff members indicated that the amount of time spent on child development activities varied based on family needs, and they could not give an estimate (Figure III.5). Four programs reported that home visitors typically spent between three-quarters and all of the time on child development activities (in two of these programs, families also received home visits from other staff members to address family development issues). Four programs reported that home visitors usually spent between half and three-quarters of the home visit time on child development activities. In one program the amount of time typically spent on child development was estimated to be 20 percent. The amount of time typically spent on child development did not vary systematically between home-based and mixed-approach programs.
FIGURE III.4
HOME VISITOR CASELOADS, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Staff members’ reports indicated that children’s involvement in the typical home visit ranged from the entire visit to very little of it. Children’s involvement tended to be highest in programs that provided family development services in separate home visits (so child development home visitors did not have to address family development issues) and in programs that planned activities using the Parents as Teachers curriculum (which facilitates direct involvement with the child). Among the nine programs that estimated how much home visit time was typically devoted to child development activities, six estimated that at least half the visit was spent with the child (either alone or together with the parent). In the remaining three programs, staff members gave an estimate of one-third or less.
FIGURE III.5
TYPICAL TIME SPENT ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT IN HOME VISITS, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
3. Child Care Arrangements
In fall 1997, the need for child care by low-income parents of infants and toddlers was increasing as families began responding to the new work requirements imposed by the 1996 welfare reform legislation. The Early Head Start program guidelines require that programs provide part- and full-day child care services as needed by children and families. They may provide these services directly or by helping families obtain appropriate child care. When programs are brokering child care services in the community, they are responsible for ensuring that the child care settings meet standards for high-quality, developmentally appropriate care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995), in compliance with the revised Head Start Program Performance standards.
In all the programs, a significant proportion of families were using child care, either the Early Head Start center or another child care provider in the community. In the four center-based programs, virtually all children were receiving Early Head Start child care (Figure III.6). In two of these programs, an estimated one-fifth to one-third of the children were also in other child care arrangements (in one program, many children were in wraparound care provided by the agency; in the other program, some families were receiving care in other arrangements temporarily until one of the program’s centers opened). In four additional programs (three of them mixed-approach), more than half of enrolled children were in some kind of child care arrangement (most often Early Head Start child care), and in two programs, directors reported that “many” children were in child care. In seven programs, fewer than half of enrolled children were in child care. In most of these programs, the figure was about one-third.
At the time of the site visits, six of the research programs were taking some or all of the required steps to ensure that children for whom they were not directly providing child care received high-quality child care in a community setting, beyond teaching parents what to look for in selecting a child care arrangement. In the initial stages of program implementation, the requirement to oversee the quality of care received by Early Head Start children in community child care settings was not clear to all programs, and seven research programs were not taking steps to ensure high-quality child care.
FIGURE III.6
ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF FAMILIES USING CHILD CARE, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Of the 13 home-based and mixed-approach programs, 2 were trying to assess, monitor, and promote the quality of the community settings in which Early Head Start children were receiving care. One of these referred families only to providers that it had determined provided developmentally appropriate child care. Program coordinators spent time in the centers and in family child care homes, provided feedback and technical assistance, and planned training to address issues they identified. The program provided monthly training sessions for child care providers. Another program identified high-quality centers and family child care homes that had openings, then accompanied parents on visits to the providers and helped the parents make an informed choice. A program coordinator made both announced and unannounced visits to the providers who cared for Early Head Start children and communicated with them frequently by telephone. The coordinator also provided training and technical assistance to the providers.
Two other programs either assessed the quality of child care arrangements before placing children or helped parents do so. They did not, however, monitor the quality of the arrangements once placements were made, nor did they supply ongoing training to providers. One program helped families assess the quality of child care arrangements using the Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS). Another used National Association for the Education of Young Children accreditation criteria and the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards to assess the quality of child care centers and licensed family child care homes to which it referred families.
Two other programs that did not assess or monitor the quality of child care arrangements for particular families tried to improve the quality of child care in their communities by offering CDA training to community providers. One mixed-approach program invited other community providers to CDA training it conducted for its center staff and family child care providers. Another program worked with a resource and referral agency to provide mentoring assistance to providers who were setting up family child care homes and becoming licensed. It also offered CDA training to anyone interested in providing family child care.
4. Other Child Development Services
Early Head Start programs also are required to conduct developmental, sensory, and behavioral assessments; to provide child health services, including helping families identify and obtain the services of a consistent health care professional who can provide ongoing care for their children; and to offer group socialization activities.
Developmental Assessments. All the research programs regularly and frequently assessed the developmental progress of enrolled children. These assessments helped to identify children with potential disabilities and served as the basis for child development activities with children and parents. For example, many programs used the assessments for planning activities with children in the centers or during home visits, and several programs used them to help parents develop goals for their children and to plan specific parent-child activities. In some cases, parents actively participated in conducting the assessments. The most commonly used tools were:
- Denver Developmental Screening Test II (six programs)
- Ages and Stages Questionnaires (six programs)
- Early Learning Accomplishment Profile (four programs)
- Hawaii Early Learning Profile (four programs)
Child Health Services. All the research programs checked on children’s immunization status and receipt of health care, followed up with parents when necessary, and made referrals to health care providers. Many programs also provided additional health care and/or health education services, either directly or through collaboration with community agencies (Figure III.7). Six programs conducted on-site health screenings or provided on-site care, either by medical staff they employed or through collaboration with health care providers. Seven programs reported that they provided health education in home visits and/or parent meetings. Ten programs conducted health screenings and/or provided health care during home visits (most often through nurses who were either employed by the program or provided by another agency). Two programs reported that staff members accompanied parents on health care visits.
At the time of the site visits, some programs were still trying to arrange medical homes for some enrolled children. Nine programs reported that at least 90 percent of enrolled children had a medical home, an additional five gave a figure of between 80 and 89 percent, and three programs did not know the percentage.
The proportion of children reported to have up-to-date immunizations varied widely among the research programs. Not all programs could report precise percentages, but among those that could, the figures ranged from under 70 percent to 100 percent. Similarly, in many programs at the time of the site visits, some children had not had a well-child examination. While six programs reported that all children had had them, four programs reported a figure of under 80 percent.
All the programs had enrolled some children with suspected or diagnosed disabilities by the time of the site visits. Most programs reported a figure of at least 10 percent, which the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require. Of these, six programs reported a figure of at least 15 percent. Six programs reported that fewer than 10 percent of enrolled children had disabilities. Many programs were still in the process of assessing children with suspected disabilities to determine if they qualified for special services.
Group Socialization Activities. The Early Head Start program guidelines specified that programs must provide parent education, including parent-child activities. Most of the programs offering home-based services to some or all families invited families to regular group activities at least once a month (although the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards recommend two group socializations per month across all Head Start and Early Head Start programs offering home-based services). The frequency of these activities for parents and children varied from monthly in some programs to biweekly or weekly in others. In some programs, the frequency of group socialization activities varied across program sites or at different times of year. Group activities included classes, play groups, picnics, family outings, and special events on particular themes. At the time of the site visits, many of the programs reported that attendance at group activities was fairly low (typically 10 to 30 families per session or event). Because of poor attendance, one program had discontinued group socializations and was redesigning them, and another program was considering offering them on weekends.
FIGURE III.7
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
5. Extent of Participation in Child Development Services
If child development services are to be effective, they must be regular. During the month before the site visits, most enrolled children participated in the program and received some services. Staff in eight programs, including all four center-based programs, reported that all enrolled children had received child development services during the previous month. Staff of five additional programs cited a figure of at least 85 percent, and staff in two gave a figure of less than 85 percent. In one of these programs, new staff members were re-establishing contact with some families who had not been actively participating, and in the other, home visitors had difficulty completing visits with some families.
C. FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
The Early Head Start program guidelines and revised Head Start Program Performance Standards recognize that “healthy child development depends on the ability of parents and families to support and nurture children while meeting other critical social and economic needs” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995). Therefore, they require that programs (1) help parents set goals and incorporate them into individual family development plans, and (2) provide a range of services to help parents achieve those goals. The following sections describe how programs conducted needs assessments and service planning and provided family development services, parent involvement opportunities (including special efforts to involve fathers), and family health services in fall 1997.
1. Needs Assessment and Service Planning
The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require that Early Head Start programs form partnerships with parents as soon as possible after enrollment and offer them the opportunity to develop and implement Individualized Family Partnership Agreements (IFPAs), though the exact nature of the process and of the forms to be used is not prescribed. In any case, all the research programs had a process in place and forms to use for assessing family needs and developing IFPAs. In one program, the process was informal and families were not required to enter into an IFPA, but at the time of the site visit, the program was planning to formalize the process. At the time of the site visits, the families were in various stages of completing IFPAs, in part depending on how long they had been enrolled. Nine programs reported that they had established IFPAs with all enrolled families, and three reported that they had done so with at least 80 percent. Some families who had not established IFPAs had enrolled recently and had not yet completed the process. In five programs, staff reported a figure of less than 80 percent. In these programs, staff had not succeeded in completing the assessment and service planning process with some families, some families became inactive before completing an IFPA, some families resisted setting formal goals and instead had informal agreements, and families in some programs were not required to enter into an IFPA. The frequency with which families’ IFPAs were updated varied considerably across programs, ranging from “continual” to monthly to annually. Some programs updated IFPAs during regular, formal meetings; other programs updated them more informally as needed.
Most research programs engaged in joint needs assessment and service planning with local Part C programs.7 Five programs did not develop such joint plans, but in most cases, they tried to follow the Part C Individual Family Service Plan or tried to coordinate services.
None of the research programs was engaging in joint service planning with the welfare agency at the time of the site visits. Three programs reported that they worked closely with the welfare agency in other ways (two incorporated welfare self-sufficiency contracts into their work with families, and one worked closely with the welfare agency when families were having problems and faced sanctions). Two additional programs reported that they were planning to or wanted to engage in joint service planning with the welfare agency.
2. Family Development Services
The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require that programs work with parents to identify and obtain, either directly or through referral, needed services and useful resources, including assistance with emergencies, education, counseling, and employment. All the programs provided case management to link families with needed services in the community. The extent to which families had met with their case manager (a home visitor or other staff member who worked with them on family development) in the month prior to the site visit varied across programs. In most programs, however, staff members reported that 80 percent or more of enrolled families had met with their case manager in the previous month.8
At the time of the fall 1997 site visits, most of the programs were serving some families receiving TANF cash assistance who were or would soon be facing work requirements. In addition to providing referrals to employment-related services, nine programs offered various types of education and employment services to families (Figure III.8). Four conducted skill assessments, and four offered job search and/or job placement services. Three programs offered workshops on employment topics, and two offered on-site GED courses. Other education and employment services offered by at least one of the programs included tutoring for parents who were students, a monthly employment support group, and special efforts to support parents’ interactions with employers.
Many families in the Early Head Start research programs reported having transportation needs when they enrolled, and most of the programs helped with transportation. Nine programs used vans or buses to transport families to services and appointments. Two provided families with bus passes or taxi vouchers, and six programs reported that staff members provided transportation as often as possible to families who needed it.
FIGURE III.8
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT-RELATED SERVICES, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
All the research programs provided referrals for emergency assistance, and a few provided emergency food or money directly. Several programs kept funds they could draw on in emergencies; one required families who received assistance to work with staff members to create a budget. One program had made arrangements with a local bank to make loans to families with emergency needs.
3. Parent Involvement Opportunities
The Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers recommended that the new Early Head Start programs create and maintain an environment that supports the highest level of partnership with both mothers and fathers. The committee advised programs to support parents as primary caregivers of their children, to offer each parent the opportunity for experiences that support his or her goals, and to provide a policy- and decision-making role for parents (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994b). The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards emphasize the importance of involving parents in program governance and activities and of using them as employees and volunteers.
The research programs encouraged parents to become involved, both by participating in program governance and social activities, and by volunteering. All the research programs either had or were forming policy councils at the time of the site visits (Figure III.9).9 Seven of the eight programs operated by Head Start grantees had or were forming a joint Head Start-Early Head Start policy council. Ten programs had or were forming independent Early Head Start policy councils. Ten programs had also formed parent committees, usually center committees and finance committees, to involve more parents.
FIGURE III.9
PARENT INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Most of the research programs provided opportunities for parents to volunteer. Ten programs involved parents in planning, organizing, and conducting program activities, including parent meetings and social events. Six involved parent volunteers in center operations, such as staffing a toy-lending library or a clothing or food bank, doing repairs, or helping in the kitchen. Four programs with center-based child development services involved parents as volunteers in the classrooms. Three programs used parent volunteers to assist with filing or other office work, three involved parents in outreach or recruiting activities, and two had parents provide transportation or serve as bus monitors. Programs also used parents as translators, involved them in peer support, and sought their contributions to program newsletters. Three programs--all home-based--did not involve parents as volunteers at the time of the site visits.
The degree to which Early Head Start parents were involved in volunteer activities varied dramatically across programs. Eight programs reported that at least half of enrolled parents were involved in volunteer activities. Six reported that some, but fewer than half, volunteered. Center-based and mixed-approach programs tended to offer more opportunities for parent involvement, in part because they could have parents help in their classrooms.
4. Special Efforts to Involve Fathers
In recommending that parental involvement be key to the conceptual design of the Early Head Start program, the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers urged that special efforts be made to welcome and support fathers as parenting partners (Department of Health and Human Services 1994b). Accordingly, all the programs invited and encouraged fathers to participate in regular program activities and become involved as parents. One program strongly encouraged the father to be present during the enrollment process, so that staff members could explain his roles and participation in the program and include him in the family’s IFPA. Several programs had made special efforts to make the program environment more male-friendly--for example, by hanging posters of fathers and children, making the center decor more gender-neutral, or holding special “meet and greet our men” events.
Ten of the research programs offered special services for fathers and father figures. An additional program collaborated with a community agency to offer special services. Many of these programs (seven) employed staff members (usually men) who were responsible for working with and involving fathers and provided support to other staff members working with fathers. Seven programs convened a monthly fathers’ support group, either as part of Early Head Start or in collaboration with a community agency. Six programs organized recreational activities for men only, and three used special curricula or modules for fathers in their work with families.
5. Family Health Services
All the research programs helped families apply for Medicaid and made referrals to health care providers. If families were not eligible for Medicaid, the programs helped them apply for other health insurance available to low-income families, referred them to providers who would care for low-income families, or, as a last resort, paid for needed health care.
All the Early Head Start research programs provided prenatal education and care either directly or through referrals. Twelve programs provided it during home visits, and two additional programs provided prenatal classes. The rest of the programs collaborated with or made referrals to other agencies for prenatal education. For prenatal care, most of the programs referred pregnant women to health care providers, while two employed nurses or health specialists to visit pregnant women at home.
In addition to making referrals for mental health care needs, many of the research programs offered services, either directly or through collaboration with other agencies. Ten provided counseling or therapy to families, two convened parent support groups or organized parent meetings, and two assessed children’s and families’ needs and made referrals to community providers. Eleven mentioned supplying special staff training on mental health issues and/or employing a specialist to consult with staff about them.
All the programs referred families to the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women Infants, and Children (WIC), food pantries, and other agencies, but many also provided other nutrition services. Five programs employed or had access to a nutritionist to train and consult with staff or work with families, and five provided nutrition education in home visits or parent meetings. Four (two center-based and two mixed-approach) participated in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and four programs conducted nutritional assessments with families. Other nutrition services mentioned during the site visits include weekly cooking classes, emergency food boxes, requiring parents to bring nutritious food to the center for their children, and quarterly food festivals.
D. STAFF DEVELOPMENT10
The Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers recognized that “programs are only as good as the individuals who staff them.” Thus, the Early Head Start program goals include ensuring the provision of high quality, responsive services through the development of highly trained, caring, and adequately compensated program staff members (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995). As a result, staff development is a strong focus of the 17 Early Head Start research programs.
In fall 1997, the programs employed between 8 and 38 mostly permanent, full-time staff members. The different staff sizes reflect the variations in program sizes and approaches, as well as differences in the levels of staff support provided through other programs the grantee operated (for example, the extent to which Head Start coordinators also provided support to Early Head Start staff). The programs with the smallest staff sizes tended to be home-based programs operated by agencies that were also Head Start grantees, while programs with the largest staff sizes tended to be those serving families in center-based programs. The programs that served larger numbers of families also tended to employ more staff members.
1. Staff Demographics
The vast majority of staff members in the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997 were female. The staff of five programs was entirely female, and in eight programs, more than 90 percent of staff members were female.
In most programs, a substantial proportion of staff members were married, which suggests that they probably had both personal and financial support outside the program. Three-fourths of staff members had children of their own and thus could draw on their own parenting experiences in developing relationships with the families.
To a large extent, the racial/ethnic composition of staff members in the programs reflected that of the families the programs served and differed substantially in only three programs. Five programs served some African American families but did not employ any African American staff members (except for one program, all these programs served only a small proportion of African American families). Six programs served a small number of Hispanic families but did not employ any Hispanic staff members.
For the most part, the percentage of staff hired by the research programs who spoke Spanish was similar to or greater than the percentage of enrolled families who were Hispanic. In three programs, the proportion of staff members who spoke Spanish was considerably less than the proportion of enrolled families who were Hispanic; however, the proportion of staff members who spoke Spanish was comparable to the proportion of enrolled families who did not speak English well.
Many staff members reported that they had lived in a neighborhood served by the Early Head Start program. In 10 of the research programs, the majority of staff members had lived in program neighborhoods at some time, and in most of the remaining programs, a significant proportion had done so. Many of the staff members who had ever lived in a program neighborhood were living there in fall 1997.
Nearly one-fifth of staff members were or had previously been Early Head Start or Head Start parents. The extent to which staff members were or had been Early Head Start or Head Start parents varied widely, however, from 0 to 38 percent.
2. Needs Assessment and Staff Training
The nature and extent of training needed by Early Head Start staff members depends in part on their education and experience. The 17 Early Head Start research programs employed highly educated staff members: 20 percent had a graduate degree, 14 percent had taken some graduate courses, and 24 percent had a four-year degree. In addition, 12 percent had earned a two-year degree. Staff members in center-based programs were more likely than staff members in other types of programs to have a CDA credential (Figure III.10). Staff members in home-based and mixed-approach programs were much more likely than those in center-based programs to have a 4-year college degree or a graduate degree (70 and 61 percent versus 29 percent).
FIGURE III.10
HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF ALL STAFF BY PROGRAM APPROACH, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Overall, 14 percent of staff members had a CDA credential, and an additional 14 percent were participating in CDA programs at the time of the site visits. In a few programs, 40 percent or more of staff members had a CDA, while in five programs, no staff members had one (but they did have other relevant qualifications). Staff members in center-based programs were more likely to report having a CDA than a college degree.
Most programs reported conducting assessments of staff training needs, either formally through staff surveys or less formally through discussions with and observations of staff. Program directors and coordinators used these assessments to develop staff training plans. Nine programs reported that they work with staff members to develop individual plans in addition to these overall, programwide plans.
Most of the programs reported that staff members received preservice orientation and training, and in some programs, the preservice training was extensive. For example, one program provided three months of such training to home visitors on infant-toddler development, family development, health and wellness, community collaboration, and Head Start policies. In several programs, the preservice training was designed to lead to certification in the use of a particular curriculum (such as Parents as Teachers) or approach (such as Montessori).
All programs provided regular staff in-service training, either in group sessions or through individual observation and feedback. In some programs, time was set aside each week or each month for training sessions, while in other programs, training was integrated into regular staff meetings. Some programs encouraged staff members to attend additional training through other community organizations or at national conferences.
Staff members’ assessments of the usefulness of the training they had received in the 12 months prior to the site visits varied substantially. Overall, about three-fourths of staff members reported that it was very beneficial, but only 41 percent indicated that the training would be very likely to change how they do their work. Across the 17 Early Head Start research programs, however, the percentage of staff members who reported the training to be very beneficial ranged from 36 to 100 percent. The percentage who reported that the training was very likely to change how they do their work ranged widely, from 11 to 100 percent.
The vast majority of staff members reported that they planned to attend more training in the future, 91 percent because they wanted to learn more, and nearly half because it was required for their job. Between one-fifth and one-fourth of staff members also cited the need for credits and the enjoyment of the social aspects of training.
In addition to their extensive training opportunities, most of the research programs encouraged staff members to participate in other development activities, including classes, certification programs, workshops, and professional meetings. Many of the programs encouraged staff members to attend conferences, workshops, and classes and provided leave time and funds so they could do so. Several programs set aside a fixed dollar amount for each staff member to use as he or she chose for professional development activities.
3. Staff Supervision and Support
The Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers recommended that ongoing staff training, supervision, and mentoring be integrated into staff development (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994b). Through strong supervision, both in groups and with individual staff members, program managers can support frontline staff and help them meet the challenges and manage the stress of their responsibilities.
All the research programs reported convening regular staff meetings so that program managers could supervise and support frontline staff members (the home visitors and center caregivers). These meetings also gave staff members opportunities to provide and receive peer support. Most programs held meetings weekly, while two programs held them biweekly and one program held them monthly. In mixed-approach programs, separate meetings were often held with center teachers and home visitors.
Informal mentoring of new or junior staff by senior staff often occurs naturally without any action by program managers, but not all staff members may receive such mentoring. Several of the research programs assigned mentors to new staff members to ensure that they all received special support and guidance from someone with experience. Most programs conducted regular performance reviews with staff members. Twelve programs conducted them annually, three programs did so more frequently, and one did so less frequently. One program did not conduct regular staff performance reviews, but managers observed staff members regularly, assessed their performance, and provided feedback and training to address any issues identified.
Program managers also provided individual support and supervision to frontline staff. In most programs, directors and coordinators provided individual supervision informally, as needed. A few programs scheduled regular opportunities for individual supervision. In many of the home-based programs, coordinators periodically accompanied home visitors on visits and provided individual feedback.
4. Wages and Benefits
The Advisory Committee on Services to Families with Infants and Toddlers noted that high-quality staff performance and development are linked to rewards such as salary, compensation, and career advancement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994b). The wages of frontline staff members (home visitors and center teachers) in the research programs were relatively low: on average, $9.77 per hour at the time of the site visits. The average hourly wages in the programs ranged from $6.37 in a mixed-approach program to $14.18 in a program employing master’s-level home visitors.
Most staff members in the research programs reported receiving key fringe benefits. Approximately 86 percent reported receiving paid health insurance for themselves, and 58 percent reported receiving it for family members (Figure III.11). Three-quarters of staff members reported receiving dental insurance, and three-quarters also reported receiving pension or retirement benefits. Most reported receiving paid vacation time (88 percent) and paid sick leave (93 percent). About one-third of staff members reported receiving compensation for overtime work.
Staff members in home-based and mixed-approach programs were more likely than those in center-based programs to report receiving most key benefits (pension, paid vacation, and paid health insurance) (Figure III.12). Staff members in home-based and mixed-approach programs were also more likely to receive educational stipends.
Consistent with the low wages and benefits of child care center staff nationally, staff members of the center-based Early Head Start programs reported the lowest average hourly wages and were least likely to report receiving significant fringe benefits. The 4 center-based programs ranked last among the 17 research programs, in terms of average hourly wages of frontline staff members ($8.41) and the percentage who reported receiving pension benefits, life insurance, and paid health insurance for themselves and their dependents.
The Early Head Start research programs that paid the highest average hourly wages to frontline staff and provided benefits to higher percentages of staff members were home-based programs that did not operate child development centers. These programs tended to hire home visitors with college or graduate degrees, or they operated in areas where the cost of living was high. The average hourly wage of frontline staff in the home-based programs was $12.00.
FIGURE III.11
FRINGE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY STAFF
IN EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Self-administered surveys of staff completed during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
FIGURE III.12
FRINGE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY STAFF, BY PROGRAM APPROACH, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Although the wages the programs paid were low, they were consistent with those of center teachers and home visitors generally. All program directors reported that staff salary and benefit levels were at or above those of other similar positions in their areas. In most programs, staff members expressed dissatisfaction during the site visits with what they perceived as low salary levels. Only 38 percent of staff members who completed the staff survey agreed that their salary was satisfactory. One program reported having trouble filling open positions at the salaries offered.
5. Staff Retention
The emphasis on strong, caring, continuous relationships in the principles set forth by the Advisory Committee for the Early Head Start program highlights the importance of maintaining a stable program staff. On average, program directors in the research programs reported that 20 percent of permanent staff members had left and been replaced. Staff turnover rates ranged from 0 to 50 percent. Four programs experienced high levels of staff turnover (one-third of their staff or more). In most cases, staff members left voluntarily, but two programs had asked at least one staff member to leave.
Three programs, all with relatively high rates of staff turnover, underwent changes in leadership by the time of the site visits (at the end of two years of funding and one year of serving families). These changes were accompanied by low staff morale and, in some cases, turnover in other staff positions that led to disruptions in services to some families.
6. Workplace Climate
The workplace climate in the research programs at the time of the site visits was very positive, and staff members rated their Early Head Start programs very highly (Figure III.13). More than 90 percent reported that their Early Head Start program was a pleasant place to work and said that staff members shared ideas. Ninety-three percent described their relationships with other staff members as cooperative or very cooperative, and about three-fourths reported that decision-making was collaborative and that they were included. Eighty-six percent felt that the program encouraged staff development, and 85 percent agreed that materials they needed were available. Only a small proportion of staff members reported that they sometimes had to follow rules that conflicted with their judgment.
FIGURE III.13
WORKPLACE CLIMATE, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Self-administered surveys of staff completed during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
Staff members also rated their program directors highly. Eighty-four percent indicated that their director communicated a clear vision for the program. Approximately three-fourths agreed that their director recognized a good job, kept them informed, and had realistic expectations.
Many staff members had concerns in two areas--salaries and paperwork. Nearly two-thirds of staff members indicated that they were not satisfied with their salaries, and only about 60 percent of staff members reported that paperwork did not interfere with their job.
Staff members in center-based, home-based, and mixed-approach programs held similar opinions about their workplace (Figure III.14). Staff members of center-based programs were slightly more likely than those in other types of programs to report that their director communicated a clear vision for the program. They were also slightly less likely to report that program administrators encourage staff development. Staff members in home-based programs were slightly less likely than those in other types of programs to report that paperwork does not interfere with their job. They were also somewhat more likely to be satisfied with their salary.
Although staff members at the research programs were generally positive in their assessments of their work environment, at some programs they expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction. In two programs, staff members were less likely to agree with various positive statements about their workplace environment and about their program director. Both of these were home-based programs in which low staff morale was reportedly an issue. In five programs, staff members were more likely to agree with various positive statements about their workplace environment. Three of these programs were home-based programs, and two were mixed-approach programs.
FIGURE III.14
WORKPLACE CLIMATE, BY PROGRAM APPROACH, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Information gathered during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
7. Job and Career Satisfaction
Virtually all staff members in the Early Head Start research programs felt their work to be worthwhile and enjoyed it. All of them reported that they put in a lot of effort. Most staff members also felt that their work uses their skills.
About half the staff members indicated that their work is difficult (Figure III.15). The proportion agreeing that their work is hard ranged from 11 percent in one home-based program to 78 percent in a mixed-approach program. Although not all staff members thought their work was hard, only five percent thought it was boring.
Even if they were less satisfied with their work environments, most staff members in the Early Head Start research programs were satisfied with their jobs and very committed to working in the early childhood field. Overall, 80 percent of staff members reported that they were satisfied with their position in the Early Head Start program. Very few staff members--about five percent overall--reported that they frequently felt like quitting their jobs or felt stuck in their current position. Half of them reported that they saw their current position as their chosen occupation, and an additional 28 percent saw it as the first step in their field.
Levels of job satisfaction were quite similar among staff of center-based, home-based, and mixed-approach programs (Figure III.16). Although the differences are small, staff members in center-based programs were slightly less likely than those in other types of programs to report that they were committed to working in the field and they were slightly more likely to report that they frequently felt like quitting.
FIGURE III.15
JOB SATISFACTION, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
| SOURCE: Self-administered surveys of staff completed during visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997. |
FIGURE III.16
JOB SATISFACTION,
BY PROGRAM APPROACH, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
All or nearly all of the staff members in several programs were satisfied with their position, and many saw their current position as their chosen occupation. Job satisfaction at some research programs was lower, however. In one home-based program, only 62 percent of staff members were satisfied with their position, 27 percent felt stuck in their current position, and 18 percent said that they frequently felt like quitting. In another home-based program, only 68 percent of staff members were satisfied with their position in the program, the same proportion felt that their work was hard, and 9 percent reported that they frequently felt like quitting. In two other programs in which fewer than 70 percent of staff members were satisfied with their position, many staff members saw their current position as a first step in the field, and no staff members reported feeling that they were stuck in their current position.
8. Health Status and Job Stress
Most staff members (86 percent) reported being in excellent health, only 3 percent described it as fair or poor, and only 7 percent reported that it was worse than it had been a year ago. Approximately 10 percent of staff members reported that they had cut down the time they spent on work or other activities because of physical or mental health problems during the month prior to the site visits, but only 3 percent said that a physical or mental health problem limited their social activities a great deal in that time.
Although their health was good, some staff members reported experiencing stress at work. Overall, one-fourth of staff members in the Early Head Start research programs reported that their job was always or usually stressful. However, the extent to which they felt this way varied substantially across the 17 programs from 0 percent in a center-based program to 63 percent in a home-based program. In general, staff members in center-based programs were less likely than staff members in home-based and mixed-approach programs to report that their job was always or usually stressful.
E. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
In setting forth the goals of Early Head Start, ACYF recognized that children develop within the context of the family, and that families develop within the context of the community. Thus, community-building is an explicit goal of Early Head Start, and the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require Early Head Start programs “[to] take an active role in community planning to encourage strong communication [and] cooperation and the sharing of information among agencies and their community partners, and to improve the delivery of services to children and families.” Programs are also required to establish and maintain a Health Services Advisory Committee, as well as other service advisory committees as appropriate to address program service issues (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996).
The research programs had formed numerous partnerships with community agencies, and almost all of them participated in interagency coordination groups in their communities. Nearly all the programs had a formal written agreement to collaborate with at least one community agency, and half had such agreements with more than five community agencies (Figure III.17). In addition, nearly all programs reported having informal agreements with at least one community agency. One program reported having no such formal agreements, but it did have informal ones with a large number of agencies. The collaborative agreements ranged from general agreements to support each other to agreements to exchange referrals or to provide services.
Many of the Early Head Start research programs had “major” partners--that is, they were collaborating with one or several other community agencies to provide important services to Early Head Start families. Programs were most likely to forge close working relationships with the local Part C program. At the time of the site visits, 11 of the 17 research programs were collaborating with the local Part C agency to develop joint IFSPs and to coordinate services for families with children with disabilities. The remaining programs reported that they followed the Part C IFSPs for families with children with disabilities, and in some cases, they also participated on the Part C Local Interagency Coordinating Council.
The Early Head Start research programs were also likely to develop working partnerships with health care providers. Ten programs had done so, six to provide mental health services to families, and six to provide physical health services.
Working partnerships with other types of community agencies were less common. Seven programs were working with child care providers or local child care resource and referral agencies. Through these partnerships, the programs conducted staff cross-training and/or arranged for developmentally appropriate child care for Early Head Start children who needed care, training to become a family child care provider for Early Head Start parents, drop-in care for Early Head Start families, or space for an Early Head Start center.
FIGURE III.17
FORMAL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, FALL 1997
 |
| [D] |
Seven of the research programs were collaborating with education or job training providers in their communities to provide special services to Early Head Start families. Through these partnerships, programs provided GED classes to Early Head Start parents, arranged for in-house skills testing to be accepted by local job training providers, arranged support for families trying to obtain education or employment, and/or facilitated access for Early Head Start parents to ESL, child development, or job training classes.
Four programs were collaborating with the local welfare agency. Through these partnerships, programs were coordinating services for families facing sanctions, cross-training staff, arranging for welfare agency staff members to be located at the Early Head Start center, and/or serving as welfare-to-work training sites.
All the programs reported participating in interagency coordination groups in their community. In many cases, Early Head Start staff members were leaders of the interagency groups. In some communities with multiple interagency groups, different Early Head Start staff members represented the program at group meetings. These staff members were responsible for sharing information from the meetings with other Early Head Start staff.
Program staff in all the programs communicated frequently with other community service providers and described their relationships with them as cooperative or very cooperative. Most programs reported that they communicated with more than one other provider at least monthly and often weekly. In most programs, at least 85 percent of staff members described their relationships with other community agencies as cooperative or very cooperative.
At the time of the site visit, all the research programs either had formed or were forming a health advisory committee of community members. Many programs had also formed other advisory committees. Five had formed general advisory committees or used the grantee’s general advisory committee. Three had formed an advisory committee on education, social services, parent involvement, and/or employment and training. Two programs had formed an advisory committee on child care, and a third was in the process of forming one at the time of the site visit. Two programs had boards of directors or were advised by the grantee’s board of directors, and one program had formed a research advisory committee.
F. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
The site visits did not include a review of management procedures, but the topics of discussions with program directors included community needs assessments, program implementation plans, and continuous program improvement strategies. Strong management, self-assessment, and continuous program improvement activities are particularly important because the programs were new, and they were operating in a dynamic world in which social policies and families’ needs were changing.
1. Program Planning
All the programs conducted their own community needs assessment or relied, either entirely or in part, on assessments done by other community organizations. Programs used these community needs assessments initially to document the need for the Early Head Start program, and later to develop program implementation plans.
Most programs had written implementation plans at the time of the site visits. In many programs, these plans were undergoing revision. Several programs that were operated by Head Start grantees were incorporating Early Head Start’s implementation plans into those of the agency to create an integrated plan for children age 0 to 5. One program was in the process of completing manuals to present its implementation plans and best practices for serving families.
2. Continuous Program Improvement
Many programs (eight) conducted regular formal self-assessments to take stock of their progress in serving families. In addition, six programs either were planning to conduct a formal self-assessment or were engaged in informal self-assessment activities. At the time of the site visit, three programs did not report engaging in self-assessment activities.
Most programs had partners to help them with continuous program improvement. Nine programs worked with their local research partner on it, and three worked with other partners. In five programs, internal staff members were responsible for such activities.
The improvement activities focused on several areas. Six programs mentioned discussions with their local research partner about theories of change, program outcomes, or intervention strategies as components of their activities. Six programs focused on identifying and addressing staff training needs, and six convened regular meetings to assess implementation and discuss changes. Five focused on documenting and assessing program services in their continuous improvement activities.
All except one of the research programs had a local research partner.11 Even partners that were not also the program’s continuous improvement partner sometimes provided eedback that was useful to the program.
3. Training and Technical Assistance
By fall 1997, many programs had drawn on technical assistance resources available to them through Head Start’s training and technical assistance network. In fall 1997, this network included a network of 16 regional Technical Assistance and Support Centers (TASCs) and a network of 12 regional Resource Access Projects (RAPs).12 In fall 1997, 11 Early Head Start research programs reported receiving training or other key support from their TASC representative, and 9 programs reported receiving training or other key support from their RAP representative. In another program, staff members had met recently with TASC and RAP representatives to assess the program’s training and technical assistance needs.
Another element of the Early Head Start training and technical assistance network is the Early Head Start National Resource Center operated by Zero to Three: National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families and WestEd’s Center for Child and Family Studies. Zero to Three staff visited the research programs during the early phase of their implementation and in many cases, provided key support to the programs. Zero to Three also organizes an annual Institute for Programs Serving Pregnant Women, Infants, Toddlers, and Their Families, which presents information and training on a wide range of topics. Many program staff also attended training offered by WestEd on caring for infants and toddlers.
In addition to training and technical assistance they received through the Head Start network, many of the research programs took advantage of training and technical assistance available from other organizations in their community or state. They also received key support from their federal program officer.
1 Enrollment into the research sample continued from June 1996 through September 1998. Eligibility for the research was limited to families with children under age 1 who were born within a 37-month period (June 1995 through July 1998).(back)
2 Group sizes and child-caregiver ratios are also being observed in connection with child care data being collected for the national evaluation of Early Head Start, and future reports will discuss the observed group sizes and ratios in the Early Head Start centers.(back)
3 The revised Head Start Program Standards, which did not take effect until shortly after the site visits, set the maximum group size for infants and toddlers at eight children and the maximum child-staff ratio at 4 to 1. Programs were monitored shortly after the new standards took effect in January 1998, and the Head Start Bureau expected some changes to occur after the monitoring visits. (back)
4 The Child Development Associate (CDA) National Credentialing Program, administered by the Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition, is a training effort to improve the quality of child care. Individuals apply for a CDA credential by providing documentation of training and experience in the early childhood care profession to the council for assessment according to national standards. (back)
5 Home-based programs are expected to offer one home visit per week (48 to 52 visits per year). Programs may offer home-based services less frequently if they are provided in combination with center-based services. (back)
6 As noted in Table II.6, site visit schedules sometimes resulted in insufficient discussion of staff development outcomes for us to be able to summarize the program’s expected outcomes in this area.(back)
7 Part C (formerly Part H) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides federal funds to assist states in planning and implementing a system of coordinated, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, interagency programs to provide appropriate early intervention services to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. All states serve infants and toddlers with diagnosed developmental delays or diagnosed conditions that have a high probability of resulting in developmental delay, and they have the discretion to serve infants and toddlers and their families who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays if early intervention services are not provided. .(back)
8 Two programs could not provide a precise estimate of the percentage of families who had met with their case manager. (back)
9 The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to form a policy council, which is the formal group of parents and community representatives that assists in planning and operating the program.(back)
10 The information in this section is based primarily on data from questionnaires completed by program staff members during the fall 1997 site visits. Overall, 356 staff members in the 17 research programs (93 percent) completed questionnaires. .(back)
11 One of the two programs that ACYF added to the research had not applied with a local research partner to be part of the research and did not have a local research partner. The other program that ACYF added was located near another research program, and the local researcher for that program became the local partner for the added one. (back)
12 Shortly after the site visits were completed, the system was reorganized, and training and technical assistance is now provided by regional Quality Improvement Centers (QICs) and Disabilities Services Quality Improvement Centers (DSQICs). (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |