Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
VI. SUMMING UP AND LOOKING AHEAD
At the time of our site visits in fall 1997, the Early Head Start research programs were at a very early stage of implementation. Most of the research programs had been serving families for about one year; some had been serving families for even less time. Many were still putting some service and management systems in place and seeking guidance from the Head Start Bureau and the technical assistance network on the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards. All programs were grappling with how to respond to families’ changing service needs in the wake of welfare reform.
Even at this early stage, six programs had fully implemented Early Head Start according to our ratings in fall 1997 (Figure VI.1). These programs had fully implemented all or nearly all of the five program components, and all of them had fully implemented the early childhood development and health services and staff development requirements that we examined. All of these programs were building on previous experience serving families with young children. Two of the six programs had experience as Head Start grantees, three were former Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) programs, and one had experience operating another early childhood development program. The six fully implemented programs were evenly divided across program approaches. Two were center-based, two were home-based, and two employed a mixed approach to serving families.
Eight research programs had reached moderate levels of implementation in fall 1997 according to our ratings. Most of these programs had fully implemented some, but not all, of the five program components we assessed. Two had fully implemented early childhood development and health services and four had fully implemented family partnerships. Four of these programs were homebased, two were center-based, and two were mixed-approach programs.
[D] |
| Source: Site visits conducted in fall 1997
to 17 Early Head Start research programs. Note: Implementation ratings represent the average rating across all program components. Programs rated as fully implemented achieved full implementation in most of the components we examined, but did not necessarily achieve full implementation in every dimension. |
Three research programs had reached only low levels of implementation according to our ratings. One of these programs was a mixed-approach program, and two were home-based. These programs had not yet reached full implementation of any of the program components we examined, but they had achieved a moderate level of implementation in at least one area. Two of these programs had only minimally implemented the management systems we looked for.
The research programs faced important challenges and experienced successes during their first two years of program funding and their first year of serving families. Assigning implementation ratings to programs enabled us to identify patterns of challenges and strengths that were common across the research programs in fall 1997. The remainder of this chapter summarizes the main challenges and successes that emerged from the our first round of implementation ratings and looks ahead to the next round of implementation ratings based on information collected during site visits in fall 1999.
A. EARLY IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES REFLECTED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS
The implementation ratings discussed in previous chapters point to several themes related to the difficulties some programs had in becoming fully implemented by fall 1997. Several of these themes reflect the policy and community context in which the research programs were implemented. Others reflect the programs’ early stage of implementation. Identifying challenges may help explain why some programs were able to become implemented early while others were not.
1. Research programs that provided home-based services experienced challenges in completing the required number of home visits with most families.
In fall 1997, only 6 of the 13 research programs providing home-based services were able to complete at least two child development home visits per month with almost all families. During the site visits, program staff told us that they were still adjusting to the new demands imposed on families by welfare reform. Because more parents were working or attending school or training activities, their availability to participate in home visits had become more limited. Some programs responded by trying to conduct more home visits during evenings and on weekends. Home visitors reported, however, that families were often too tired and busy to focus on child development activities during evening visits and were too busy with other activities to meet with them on weekends.
2. Many research programs had difficulty engaging parents in parent education and other group activities, although programs were successful in engaging parents in planning services for their children.
Welfare reform also affected programs’ ability to engage parents in parent education and program involvement activities away from home. Parents’ work and school schedules made scheduling meetings and group socializations when most parents could attend very challenging. Programs found it difficult to achieve high participation rates, in part because of the competing demands on parents’ time. For example, although 11 of 13 research programs providing home-based services offered regular group socialization activities, only two programs achieved regular participation by half or more of families in the home-based option. Many programs were seeking clarification about the nature of appropriate socialization activities for infants. Likewise, while almost all programs had implemented a special initiative to involve fathers, participation rates were low in most programs. Many programs, especially those implementing the home-based option, also found it difficult to achieve good levels of attendance at Parent Committee and Policy Council meetings and to develop volunteer opportunities for parents.
3. Most programs did not have systems in place to ensure that all child care arrangements used by Early Head Start families met the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards.
Early Head Start programs are responsible for ensuring that child care arrangements used by Early Head Start families comply with the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards, whether care is provided in Early Head Start centers or in the community. At the time of our fall 1997 site visits, however, this requirement was not clear to all of the research programs. The revised Performance Standards had not yet taken effect and programs were still seeking guidance from the Head Start Bureau on some program requirements. The Head Start Bureau’s expectations regarding child care were clarified during monitoring visits conducted in early 1998.
A few programs were taking steps to ensure that community child care arrangements used by program families met the standards in fall 1997, and they encountered several challenges. First, some programs found that the supply of good-quality child care in their communities was limited. For these programs, helping families arrange good-quality child care became a more complex task that involved increasing the supply of good-quality care in the community and helping providers work towards meeting the performance standards. Several programs developed partnerships with community providers to work toward meeting the performance standards. Second, building partnerships with child care providers and making the changes in community child care settings necessary to meet the performance standards takes time. Some providers were not set up to meet the standards quickly, even if they were eager to do so. In some cases, resources were needed for staff training and for reducing ratios and group sizes to levels required by the performance standards. Understandably, some parents preferred to make arrangements for child care on their own. Parents often chose relatives and other informal providers whom they knew and trusted, and these providers did not always meet the performance standards. A few programs tried to develop relationships with these providers but found it challenging to gain the trust of informal providers and work with them on quality improvements.
4. Many programs had not yet implemented transition-planning requirements.
In fall 1997, some research programs had developed procedures for planning transitions but had not yet implemented them for all children within six months of their third birthday. Some of these communities had few good-quality preschool programs that the staff believed could meet the needs of families with children transitioning out of Early Head Start. For example, some programs reported that the local Head Start program did not serve 3-year-olds. Other programs did not have arrangements with area Head Start programs to give priority to Early Head Start children and were not able to arrange enrollment for all eligible transitioning children.
Several research program grantees also operated Head Start programs. These programs usually planned to transition all Early Head Start children into their Head Start programs, and some had not identified alternatives for families who were no longer eligible for Head Start. In some communities, staff reported that no other good-quality, affordable preschool programs were available.
Finally, a few programs had not yet developed transition-planning procedures because in fall 1997 they did not yet have children who needed transition plans (all children were younger than age 2 and a half). Because of the programs’ early stage of development, staff members at some research sites reported that transition-planning procedures were not the program’s highest priority, although they would become more important as children got older and families needed to begin planning for transitions.
5. Many programs were still putting management systems in place.
In part due to the programs’ early stage of implementation, many had not yet developed systems for tracking and managing services. For example, while many programs followed up on child health needs, about one-third had procedures in place to systematically track receipt of required health services. In addition, about half of the research programs had not yet put systems in place for updating individual family partnership agreements. Similarly, Policy Councils, advisory committees, and self-assessment procedures were not yet fully operational or were still in the planning stages in some programs.
Several factors accounted for delays in establishing management systems. First, several programs experienced turnover of staff in key positions, which delayed the development of management systems and procedures or resulted in changes to systems that had been in place. Some programs had planned to use the Head Start Family Information System for tracking service receipt, and delays in its development and implementation affected programs’ capacity to systematically track services. Some programs, especially those that did not have previous experience providing Head Start services, did not clearly understand the Head Start management requirements and were still seeking clarification from the Head Start Bureau. Finally, perhaps due to the programs’ early stage of development, in fall 1997 some programs were immersed in staff training and implementing program services. In these programs, establishing management systems had not yet become a high priority.
6. A number of programs were reconfiguring previous program models.
Several programs were reconfiguring services following different approaches they had been using under previous program models. No particular experience in delivering services in the past seemed to offer programs an easy start in the early period of implementation; rather, each configuration of background experiences had its own challenges. For example, former CCDP programs had to adjust to the enhanced child development focus of Early Head Start. Three of the former CCDPs did this readily, two were somewhat successful, but the other two struggled to make the transition and were among the least implemented of the programs. Grantees with former preschool-age Head Start program experience had to resolve issues related to global program resources and make appropriate changes in order to serve infants and toddlers. Some did that smoothly; some did not. Programs that had not been Head Start or CCDP grantees had different challenges in learning about the Head Start requirements. Of these programs in 1997, one was fully implemented and the others were moderately implemented.
B. EARLY IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESSES REFLECTED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS
Despite these challenges and the programs’ early stage of implementation, the implementation ratings point to several areas in which most programs had notable successes in implementing program requirements in fall 1997.
1. Most programs provided highly individualized services.
Most of the research programs provided services that were tailored to the individual needs and circumstances of families and children. For example, 14 of the 17 research programs provided individualized child development services that were responsive to needs expressed by parents and almost always provided services in the language families spoke at home (usually English or Spanish). Most programs conducted regular developmental assessments, used the results to plan services, and involved parents in the service-planning process. Finally, many programs had completed family partnership agreements with most families and, in the process, worked with families to set and prioritize their own goals.
2. Almost two-thirds of the research programs had fully implemented the staff development component.
By fall 1997, most of the research programs had developed a strong staff development system, which served as a solid foundation for providing high-quality services and building strong relationships with families. Most programs had made significant investments in staff training. Strong supervisory systems were also in place, with some programs providing regular, intensive individual and group supervision to front-line staff. Staff retention was good in most programs. In programs in which staff turnover was high, it was usually associated with changes in program leadership. Finally, no program reported low staff morale, despite the stress of program startup and significant leadership changes in several programs.
3. The quality of center-based child care provided directly by research programs ranged from good to excellent.
When the research programs provided child care directly in Early Head Start centers, the quality of care they provided was good and in some cases excellent. Across programs providing centerbased child care, quality observed using the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) was at least minimal-to-good in all programs (4.1 or above on the ITERS) and good-to-excellent in five programs (5.9 or above on the ITERS). The quality of child care provided by the Early Head Start research programs stands out in contrast to the quality of care infants and toddlers receive nationally.
The research programs’ success in setting up child care centers that provided high-quality services early in the programs’ development may be the result of several factors. Several of the programs that provided center-based care in fall 1997 had prior experience operating Head Start centers or other center-based early childhood programs. This experience may have helped them establish their Early Head Start centers and achieve good or high levels of quality relatively quickly. In addition, some programs were not fully enrolled during much of the period in which the classroom observations were conducted, and lower-than-planned child-teacher ratios may have made it easier for research programs to provide high-quality services in their centers. Most importantly, the level of quality observed in Early Head Start centers may be the result of the research programs’ solid staff development systems. Staff in almost all programs received intensive training on infant and toddler care and were supported in working toward obtaining a Child Development Associate credential.1 Likewise, supervisory systems were strong in most programs. In some programs, supervisors provided regular feedback to staff based on observations of service delivery.
4. Most research programs had established strong collaborative relationships with other community service providers.
The Early Head Start research programs quickly established themselves as key players in services for disadvantaged families with infants and toddlers. By fall 1997, most of the research programs had established a range of collaborative relationships and partnerships with other community service providers. In particular, many programs coordinated closely with Part C providers to serve children with disabilities. Some programs were developing partnerships with community child care providers. Many programs participated in or held leadership roles in collaborative groups formed to coordinate services in their community.
C. LOOKING AHEAD
Programs are dynamic, and, like children and families, they grow and change. The patterns of implementation challenges and successes discussed in this chapter are those identified during the implementation rating process for fall 1997, when the programs were still very young. In 1997, within a year of their startup, the programs were actively engaged in providing services and working to implement their program designs. That six were already offering a full package of services--that is, were fully implementing a highly complex, new program--was a strong achievement. Another eight were not far behind and, for many others, the complexities of welfare reform meant that programs had an initial year (1996-1997) in which many social and community circumstances changed considerably. All of the programs began devoting considerable attention to examining their program models and, in some cases, began to modify their approach.
To learn about the research programs’ development over time, we conducted another round of site visits in fall 1999 and used the information collected to assign a second set of implementation ratings (after updating the rating scales to incorporate clarifications about the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards that the Head Start Bureau had made since 1997). We also developed ratings for the quality of child development services, including assessments of child care provided by Early Head Start programs and community child care providers, and factors that contribute to the quality of child care and child development home visits. The continuing story of the development of Early Head Start will be told in the Pathways to Quality report. There, we will describe levels of implementation and quality of child development services in fall 1999 and trace their changes over time.
1The Early Head Start National Resource Center has provided training known as “intensives” in infant-toddler care; week-long training for key program staff; annual institutes in Washington, DC, for key program staff; and identification and preparation of a cadre of nationally known infanttoddler consultants who work intensively with programs on a one-to-one basis.(back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |