Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

I. THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF EARLY HEAD START: ORIGINS AND CONTEXT

The year 1995 saw the beginning of a new federal program, with 68 grantees, aimed at enhancing the development of infants and toddlers. It was named Early Head Start by the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers that created it. The program has grown into today’s national initiative, which comprises 664 grantees serving some 55,000 children around the country, commands an increasing proportion of the Head Start budget, and enjoys bipartisan support.1 Seventeen of these programs are participating in a national evaluation and local research studies that are documenting the implementation process and assessing program impacts and outcomes. The 17 research programs, which reflect important characteristics of all 143 Early Head Start programs funded in the first two waves (1995-1996 and 1996-1997; ACYF 1999a), were also among the first to design and implement programs under the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996). The 17 research programs opened their doors to the implementation research to provide lessons that might apply to all Early Head Start programs and ultimately aid program development for new Early Head Start programs across the country.

During their first four years, the research programs moved from designing services and enrolling children and families to making real the vision of the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1995). The developments during this period were dramatic. Programs exerted strong efforts to create the appropriate services for their families. They made numerous changes to meet the revised performance standards that were announced in late 1996 and went into effect January 1, 1998 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996). In some cases, this meant fine-tuning their mix of services to fit both the program vision (with its accompanying standards and guidelines) and the needs of their families and communities. In other cases, meeting the changing needs of families moving from welfare to work meant redesigning programs developed for a world before welfare reform. In still other cases, programs looked beyond their immediate boundaries to take on the mantle of leadership for local and statewide partnerships to enhance services for infants and toddlers. Through these and many other experiences described in this report, the research programs provide an invaluable opportunity to learn about what it takes to make the Early Head Start concept functional within a changing programmatic and policy context.

Pathways to Quality describes the programs as they existed in fall 1999 and tells the story of their development during the first three to four years of operation.2 This report describes their programmatic approaches in 1999, follows their evolution since 1997, and describes the paths they followed from their early beginnings. What emerges is a picture of a dynamic process through which 17 programs serving diverse communities found varied ways to achieve new and increasing levels of implementation and quality in their key program services. This picture comes into focus in succeeding chapters as we address the following research questions:

• How have the programs changed over time? How have they grown during their first four years? What is the story of their dynamic change and growth?

• To what extent did the Early Head Start research programs reach full implementation within four years after funding? To what extent did they achieve good quality in their child development services?

• What does it take to attain full implementation and high quality services? How long does it take? What are alternative trajectories to achieving good quality?

• What factors account for the variation in levels of implementation and quality among the research programs four years after funding?

• What are the key factors that facilitated the achievement of full implementation and high quality? What key challenges did programs face in working toward these goals?

To address these broad questions, we examined five aspects of the research programs’ development in depth: (1) their approach to delivering services, (2) their theories of change, (3) the extent to which they fully implemented the Early Head Start program, (4) the quality of key child development services, and (5) families’ levels of service use and program engagement. These analyses provide an enriched understanding of implementation processes by enabling us to chart implementation progress over time, discern trends in the way programs have grown and changed, and identify key implementation challenges and successes.

The implementation study findings have also contributed to our understanding of program impacts and outcomes. In addition to helping us interpret impact findings, we used the results of our implementation analyses to test hypotheses about how various aspects of implementation relate to outcomes. For example, how do program approach and the timing of program implementation relate to child and family outcomes? To answer such questions, we designed targeted impact analyses on key subgroups of programs.3 For example, we estimated impacts on child and family outcomes for programs that implemented key aspects of the Head Start Program Performance Standards early and later and for programs that implemented various approaches to service delivery.

Pathway to Quality presents the detailed results of these implementation analyses and highlights key implications for programs and policy. Chapter II identifies the main approaches programs took to delivering services and traces the evolution of approaches to service delivery over the first four years of operation. Chapter III explores the programs’ theories of change and expected outcomes, focusing on how they changed during the evaluation period. Chapters IV through VII present the results of our assessment of implementation: Chapter IV presents an overview of the patterns and levels of program implementation overall; Chapter V focuses on programs’ progress in implementing key child development services; Chapter VI examines implementation of family and community partnerships; and Chapter VII describes progress in implementing key aspects of staff development and program management systems. In Chapter VIII, we focus on the quality of key child development services that programs achieved. Chapter IX reports families’ use of services and the program engagement patterns of their families and assesses the match between their service needs and service receipt. Finally, in Chapter X, we analyze the pathways programs followed in striving to achieve full implementation and high quality and the factors that influenced those pathways.

The rest of this introductory chapter provides an overview of the Early Head Start program and the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, summarizes key characteristics of program families participating in the research, and describes the data sources and analytic methods used for the implementation study.

A. THE EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM

1. Origins of the Early Head Start Initiative

Early Head Start began at a time of increasing awareness of the “quiet crisis” facing families with infants and toddlers in the United States, as identified in a report entitled Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children, by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (1994). As the report showed, a great many infants and toddlers are starting life in poor environments, without adequate stimulation, and without sufficient interactions with caring, responsive adults. The release of Starting Points followed closely on a comprehensive self-examination of Head Start services conducted by the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. This committee called for Head Start programs to improve their quality, address the fragmentation of services by forging new partnerships, and expand services in a number of ways, including serving more families with infants and toddlers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1993). Subsequently, the Head Start Authorization Act of 1994 mandated new Head Start services for families with infants and toddlers, authorizing 3 percent of the total Head Start budget in fiscal year 1995, 4 percent in 1996 and 1997, and 5 percent in 1998 for these services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994a). The Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998 further expanded the program, setting aside 7.5 percent of Head Start funds in 1999, 8 percent in 2000, and 10 percent in 2001 and 2002 for Early Head Start programs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1998).

In 1994, the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers provided guidelines for the new Early Head Start program. The report of the Advisory Committee set forth a vision and blueprint for Early Head Start programs and established principles and “cornerstones” for the new program (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994b).

Early Head Start programs are comprehensive child development programs. The Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers envisioned a two-generation program of intensive services that begin before the child is born and concentrate on enhancing the child’s development and supporting the family during the critical first three years of the child’s life. The Advisory Committee recommended that programs be designed to promote outcomes in four domains:

• Child development (including health; resiliency; and social, cognitive, and language development)

• Family development (including parenting and relationships with children, the home environment and family functioning, family health, parent involvement, and economic self-sufficiency)

• Staff development (including professional development and relationships with parents)

• Community development (including enhanced child care quality, community collaboration, and integration of services to support families with young children)

The program guidelines specify that grantees should design programs that achieve these outcomes by providing home- or center-based child development services, combining these approaches, or implementing other locally designed options.

The first wave of grantees—68 programs—was funded in September 1995. Another 75 programs were funded in September 1996, and in subsequent years additional funding brought the total in 2002 to almost 700 programs serving some 60,000 infants and toddlers and their families. Not only have the programs’ development been dramatic, it has taken place within a changing context. National, state, and local changes in social policy (as well as changes in our understanding of the effectiveness of child development programs), have dramatically influenced the development of the programs and are likely to affect their future direction. Figure I.1 shows the timing of the key events in the first five years of Early Head Start’s development. Important events and changes within the Head Start/Early Head Start infrastructure have also shaped the programs, including the revision of performance standards, ongoing program monitoring, and the continuing training and technical assistance that supports Early Head Start programs.

FIGURE I.1

KEY EVENTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EARLY HEAD START

Jan. 1994			Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion recommends serving families with children under 3
			Carnegie "Starting Points" report released
			Head Start reauthorized with mandate to serve infants and toddlers
			Advisory Committee sets forth vision and named Early Head Start (EHS)
Jan. 1995			First Early Head Start program announcement
			Federal Fatherhood Initiative formed
			Wave I: 68 new Early Head Start programs funded
Jan. 1996			University-based research partners selected
			First EHS programs began serving families
			Welfare reform legislation enacted
			Wave II: 75 new EHS programs funded
			First round of research site visits conducted
			Revised Head Start Performance Standards enacted
Jan. 1997			White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning
			Wave III: 32 new EHS programs funded
			Second round of research site visits conducted
Jan. 1998			Revised Head Start Performance Standards took effect
			Monitoring visits to Wave I programs conducted
			Wave IV: 127 new EHS programs funded
			Youngest child in research sample born
			Wave V: 148 new EHS programs funded
			Head Start reauthorized
Jan. 1999			Wave VI: 97 new EHS programs funded
			Third round of research implementation visits conducted
Jan. 2000

2. Early Head Start’s Social and Political Context

Understanding the implementation of any large-scale initiative requires examining the context in which it operates. Early Head Start is being implemented during a time of fundamental changes in this country’s social services systems. Some of these changes may have a dramatic effect on the approaches programs take, the ways in which families respond, and the ways in which programs interact with others in their communities. In particular, five broad social changes and contextual factors, some of which occurred after Early Head Start began, may have influenced the Early Head Start initiative: (1) increasing recognition of the importance of early development, (2) welfare reform in the context of a strong economy, (3) new child care and prekindergarten initiatives, (4) growing attention to the roles of fathers in young children’s lives, and (5) recent evaluation findings that identify challenges in improving outcomes for children and families.

Early Child Development. Recent research has shown that human development before birth and during the first year of life is rapid and extensive but vulnerable to environmental influences (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000). Moreover, early development has a long-lasting effect on children’s cognitive, behavioral, and physical growth (Carnegie Corporation of New York 1994). National attention focused on early brain development in spring 1997, when the White House convened the Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning and special editions of national news magazines featured articles on the brain development of infants. All this has helped program staff gain the support of policymakers, program sponsors, and community members for services that start when women are pregnant and focus directly on child development.

Welfare Reform. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which went into effect just as Early Head Start programs began serving families, reformed federal welfare policy and gave states more autonomy and responsibility for setting and administering welfare policy. It also established clear expectations for families receiving welfare. Cash assistance is now provided through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and is no longer an entitlement. Adults may receive cash assistance for a maximum of 60 months over their lifetime. After two years (or less, at state option), many families have to work in order to continue receiving cash assistance. Some states exempt parents of infants from the work requirements for a short time (typically less than a year), but almost half do not.

For delivery of program services, PRWORA created a climate different from the one that existed when the first wave of Early Head Start grantees wrote their proposals. The new work requirements and time limits on cash assistance have increased demands on parents’ time, increased their child care needs, increased stress for some families, and made it more difficult for parents to participate in some program services. Some parents are now more receptive to services related to both employment and child care and are motivated to find jobs and work toward self-sufficiency. Thus, in the context of the strong U.S. economy at that time, the new requirements may have improved families’ economic well-being. The increasing need for good infant/toddler child care has put extra pressure on Early Head Start programs either to provide full-day, full-year child care themselves or to help develop and support it in their communities. As discussed more fully in Chapter II, these changes caused some Early Head Start programs to redesign their services to meet families’ current needs.

New Child Care and Prekindergarten Initiatives. PRWORA also consolidated federal funding for child care into the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which provides increased funding for child care for low-income families and allows states to design comprehensive, integrated child care subsidy systems. These changes may make it easier both for families who need child care to obtain financial assistance and for Early Head Start staff members to help them obtain child care subsidies. The increased employment of low-income families under PRWORA has also increased the need for Early Head Start staff members to collaborate with state child care administrators and local providers to help meet families’ child care needs. Staff members have had to find ways to blend funds and work with the child care system within their states and communities.

States are required to spend at least 4 percent of their total CCDF funds to improve quality and expand supply of child care for infants and toddlers. In FY 1999, CCDF received an additional $173 million to improve care specifically for these age groups. Since 1996, several states in which Early Head Start research programs are located have used quality enhancement funds to create new and stronger initiatives for infant-toddler child care: (1) in 1998, the Kansas Legislature approved an Early Head Start project as a joint endeavor with the federal government, and awarded grants to 13 early childhood development programs across the state; (2) New York State increased funding for child care from its TANF funds and created an incentive program for centers that serve infants and toddlers to seek accreditation; (3) Missouri has been experimenting with differential reimbursement rates for infant and toddler care; and (4) Michigan provides grants to encourage expansion and quality improvement, with special attention given to programs for infants and toddlers (Blank, Behr, and Schulman 2001).

In addition to providing child care subsidies for low-income families, 42 states now fund prekindergarten programs or have a school-funding mechanism for 4-year-olds (Mitchell 2001). Shifting resources and increased support for the care of preschool children in many areas may offer Head Start and other preschool programs more opportunities to blend funding sources and may free resources for serving more families with infants and toddlers. Where early childhood labor markets are tight, however, these initiatives have made it more difficult for Early Head Start programs to hire and retain well-trained staff.

The Role of Fathers. During the study period, policymakers, researchers, and educators have gained increasing appreciation of the importance of fathers as contributors of emotional and economic support to their children. As a consequence, to promote the positive involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, federal agencies were developing and enhancing fatherhood policies. In addition to recent social trends and PRWORA’s increased emphasis on paternity establishment and enforcement of child support judgments, the federal Fatherhood Initiative was created in 1995 to promote the involvement of fathers and acknowledge their contributions to their children’s well-being. The growing focus on fathers has led some programs to devote more program resources than originally planned to strengthening fathers’ relationships with their children and enhancing their parenting skills. Changing patterns of father involvement also challenge programs to develop creative strategies that are not limited by traditional conceptions of family structure.

Recent Program Evaluation Findings. The Early Head Start programs began just as new findings from evaluations of programs that served families with infants and toddlers during the 1980s and early 1990s were being released. In particular, the longer-term findings of the evaluation of ACYF’s Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) were released soon after the first Early Head Start programs were funded (St. Pierre et al. 1997). The CCDP, which offered case management services to low-income families with infants and toddlers, had few lasting impacts on child and family outcomes. In addition, recent research suggests that home-visiting programs often may not be effective and that careful attention needs to be paid to how they are implemented (Gomby, Culross, and Behrman 1999; and Olds et al. 1998).

These recent research findings highlight the difficulty of improving the lives of low-income children and families, but they also provide valuable lessons to build on.4 Research suggests that programs that provide intensive, purposeful, high-quality, child-focused services are more likely than those that provide primarily adult-focused services to effect significant changes in children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Accordingly, ACYF directed Early Head Start programs to emphasize child development services—direct services to children in child development centers or home visits—and to pay careful attention to the quality of children’s child care arrangements, in addition to supporting parents as their children’s primary educators. ACYF strongly supports continuous program improvement in Early Head Start by enforcing requirements in the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards for goal setting, data collection, feedback, and formal self-assessment procedures; providing intensive training and technical assistance; drawing on early research findings in its training and technical assistance activities; and supporting program partnerships with local researchers.

3. Context of the Evolving Infrastructure of Program Support

Building on a national and regional infrastructure developed for the national Head Start program, ACYF created for the Early Head Start programs an infrastructure that included (1) the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards, (2) program monitoring to ensure compliance with the standards, and (3) training and technical assistance to support programs in achieving full implementation and quality.

Early Head Start programs follow the Head Start Program Performance Standards and are monitored according to their adherence to them. These standards were revised in 1996 through an extensive process that took several years and included commentary by thousands of experts in early education, health, and related areas; Head Start parents and staff members; and members of the general public. At the time of site visits to the Early Head Start research programs in fall 1997 (described in Section D), the revised standards had been published but had not yet taken effect, and the programs were still seeking clarification of some of the new regulations. The revised performance standards took effect in January 1998. Head Start Bureau monitoring teams visit programs every three years to check compliance with program guidelines and the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards. Initially, the national office of the Head Start Bureau was responsible for awarding program grants and overseeing program operations. In fall 1997, however, this responsibility was transferred to the 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regional Offices, except for a limited number of programs involving special circumstances. Wave I Early Head Start programs were first monitored in spring 1998.

The Early Head Start National Resource Center was created in 1995 to provide ongoing support, training, and technical assistance to all waves of Early Head Start programs under a contract with ZERO TO THREE. The center has provided training conferences for Early Head Start teachers 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 infant-toddler consultants who work intensively with programs on a one-to-one basis. The Early Head Start National Resource Center has worked closely with regional training grantees—the Head Start Quality Improvement Centers (HSQICs) and the Head Start Disabilities Quality Improvement Centers (DSQICs)—and with their infant-toddler specialists, as well as the 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regional Offices and Indian and Migrant program branches that assumed responsibility for administrating Early Head Start grants in fiscal year 1998.

B. EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PROJECT

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project includes a national evaluation conducted in tandem with local research studies, which together address a broad range of issues. The project is assessing program impacts on an extensive set of child and family outcomes. In addition, it is investigating the role of program and contextual variations, studying the pathways to achieving program quality, examining the pathways to desired child and family outcomes, and creating the foundation for a series of longitudinal research studies. To achieve its aims, the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project encompasses five major components:

1. An implementation study to examine service needs and use for low-income families with infants and toddlers, assess program implementation, understand programs’ theories of change, illuminate pathways to achieving quality, and identify and explore variations across sites

2. An impact evaluation, using an experimental design, to analyze the effects of Early Head Start programs on children, parents, and families; and descriptive analyses to assess outcomes for program staff and communities. Early Head Start programs that are participating in the national evaluation recruited 150 to 200 families with pregnant women or children under age 1 to participate in the impact evaluation (half the 3,000 children and families were randomly selected to participate in the program, and half were randomly assigned to the control group)

3. Local research studies to learn more about the pathways to desired outcomes for infants and toddlers, parents and families, staff, and communities

4. Policy studies to respond to information needs in areas of emerging policy-relevant issues, including welfare reform, fatherhood, child care, health, and disabilities

5. Continuous program improvement activities to guide all Early Head Start programs through formative evaluation

In 1996 and early 1997, ACYF selected 17 programs to participate in the national research and evaluation project. When they first applied for funds, all Early Head Start programs funded in Wave I (1995-1996) and Wave II (1996-1997) had agreed to participate in a random assignment evaluation if they were selected. In January 1996, ACYF invited Wave I programs to select local research partners and apply to be a research site for the national evaluation. To be eligible, programs had to guarantee that they could recruit 150 families for Early Head Start research (twice their program capacity). For easier identification of research partners, the Society for Research in Child Development made directories of its membership available to each new Early Head Start program, and ACYF issued a request for proposals, including the addresses and contact persons for the 68 Wave I programs, to notify researchers of the research opportunity. Forty-one program-researcher partnerships submitted proposals to be research sites (a number of other programs may have been interested but could not meet the sample size requirement). Initially, ACYF selected 15 partnerships, basing its choices on both the quality of the proposed local research and a desire to achieve a balance across programs in national geographic representation, rural and urban locations, racial/ethnic composition of families, and program approaches. The 15, however, underrepresented center-based programs, so in 1996 ACYF selected one additional center-based program from Wave I, and in late 1997 selected another center-based program (without a local research partner) from Wave II.

The final set of 17 research programs constitutes a balanced group that includes variation in the key characteristics considered in the site-selection process. All the major program approaches, family background characteristics, regions of the country, urban and rural areas, and families’ racial/ethnic backgrounds are represented. Together, the selected programs also broadly resemble all Early Head Start programs funded in the first two waves (Table I.1). They have approximately the same ACYF-funded enrollment, on average, and the characteristics of enrolled children and families are very similar. Thus, although this sample of programs is not statistically representative of all Early Head Start programs, the implementation study findings from these programs are likely to be indicative of implementation issues faced more broadly across all early programs (see Leading the Way, Volume I, Chapter II, for details; ACYF 1999a).

TABLE I.1

COMPARISON OF RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND WAVE I AND II PROGRAMS

	Wave I Programs (Percent)	Wave II Programs (Percent)	Research Programs (Percent)
Total ACYF-Funded Enrollment
10 to 29 children	6	0	0a
30 to 59 children	14	9	6
60 to 98 children	62	64	65
100 to 199 children	15	27	29
200 to 299 children	3	0	0
(Average)	(81)	(84)	(85)
Race/Ethnicity of Enrolled Children
African American	33	21	34a
Hispanic	22	27	23
White	39	46	37
Other	6	5	6
English Is the Main Language	85	79	80
Family Type
Two-parent families	39	46	40
Single-parent families	51	46	52
Other relativesb	7	5	3
Foster families	1	1	0
Other	1	1	5
Employment Statusc
In school or training	20	22	22
Not employed	48	48	56
Number of Programs	66	11	17

SOURCE: Preliminary Head Start Family Information System application and enrollment data. NOTE: The percentages for the Wave I and II Early Head Start programs are derived from available Program Information Report (PIR) data. The percentages for the Early Head Start research programs are derived from preliminary Head Start Family Information System application and enrollment data from 1,462 families. Percentages may not add up to 100, as a result of rounding. aThe data for the research programs refer to families instead of children.(back) bThe HSFIS data elements and definitions manual instructs programs to mark “other relatives” if the child is being raised by relatives other than his/her parents, such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles, but not if the child is being raised by his/her parents, and is living with other relatives as well.(back) cThe research program data and PIR data are not consistent in the way that they count primary caregivers’ employment status, so it is not possible to compare the percentage of caregivers who are employed.(back)

C. FAMILIES IN THE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The families who enrolled in the Early Head Start research programs and in the research study (those who enrolled between July 1996 and September 1998) had diverse characteristics and needs when they enrolled:

Most families enrolled in the research programs before their child reached the age of 6 months (Table I.2). One-fourth of the primary caregivers enrolled while they were still pregnant (Table I.3).

Indicators based on children’s low birthweight and reports by primary caregivers that someone had a concern about their children’s development suggest that approximately 20 percent of the children who enrolled after birth might have had or were at risk for a developmental disability.5

Many families included two parents—about 40 percent overall—but the extent to which the research programs served two-parent families varied widely.

About one-third of the children’s primary caregivers were teenage parents, but this also varied substantially. For example, in two programs, more than half of all families were headed by a teenage parent.

On average, about one-third of the families were African American, one-fourth were Hispanic, slightly more than one-third were white, and a small proportion belonged to other groups. In 11 programs, enrolled families belonged predominantly to one group, while in six programs, the racial/ethnic composition of enrolled families was diverse and not dominated by one group.

TABLE I.2

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN ENTERING THE EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS

	All Research Programs Combined (Percent)	Range Across Research Programs (Percent)
Child's Age
Unborn	25	7 to 67
0 to 6 months old	42	12 to 57
6 to 12 months old	33	1 to 75
Child Was Born at Low Birthweight (Under 2,500 grams)	10	4 to 23
Concerns About Child's Development Were Noted on Application Form	13	3 to 26
Number of Applicants/Programs	1,514	17

SOURCE: Preliminary Head Start Family Information System application and enrollment data.

 

TABLE I.3

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES ENTERING THE EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS

	All Research Programs Combined (Percent)	Range Across Research Programs (Percent)
Primary Caregiver (Applicant) Is Female	94	88 to 99
Primary Caregiver Is a Teenager (under 20)	35	12 to 84
Primary Caregiver Is Married	28	2 to 70
Family Is a Two-Parent Family	40	9 to 74
Primary Caregiver's Race/Ethnicity
African American	33	0 to 89
Hispanic	24	0 to 89
White	37	2 to 91
Other	6	0 to 16
Primary Caregiver's Main Language Is Not English	21	0 to 81
Primary Caregiver Does Not Speak English Well	11	0 to 55
Primary Caregiver Lacks a High School Diploma	48	24 to 88
Primary Caregiver's Main Activity
Employed	23	11 to 44
In school or training	22	4 to 64
Unemployed	29	13 to 43
Other	26	2 to 55
Number of Applicants/Programs	1,514	17

SOURCE: Preliminary Head Start Family Information System application and enrollment data.

• On average, 20 percent of primary caregivers did not speak English as their main language. Some of these caregivers also spoke English well, but some did not. Overall, 11 percent of the primary caregivers did not speak English well.

• Overall, slightly more than half the primary caregivers had a high school diploma.

• On average, 23 percent of applicants were employed and another 22 percent were in school or training (usually school) as their main occupation at the time they enrolled.

• Some of the families had basic needs that were not being met when they enrolled in the research programs. Overall, the percentages reporting that they did not have adequate food, housing, medical care, or personal support ranged from 5 to 13 percent (Table I.4).

• Child care was a significant need of the families. Overall, 34 percent of the families did not have adequate child care arrangements when they enrolled. The percentage of families without adequate child care arrangements ranged from 8 to 66 percent across the research programs.

• Most of the families who enrolled in the research programs were receiving some kind of public assistance. Overall, 77 percent had Medicaid coverage, and 88 percent were receiving WIC benefits. Almost half the families were receiving food stamps, and slightly more than one-third were receiving AFDC or TANF cash assistance (some pregnant women were not eligible for cash assistance because they were not yet parents). A small proportion (7 percent) was receiving SSI benefits.

• Child care was a significant need of the families. Overall, 34 percent of the families reported that their child care arrangements seldom or never met their needs, at the time they enrolled. The percentage of families without adequate child care arrangements ranged from 8 to 66 percent across the research programs.

• Most of the families who enrolled in the research programs were receiving some kind of public assistance. Overall, 77 percent had Medicaid coverage, and 88 percent were receiving WIC benefits. Almost half the families were receiving food stamps, and slightly more than one-third were receiving AFDC or TANF cash assistance (some pregnant women were not eligible for cash assistance because they were not yet parents). A small proportion (7 percent) was receiving SSI benefits.

D. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDY

This report describes the 17 research programs as they existed in fall 1999 and focuses on the changes that developed in their features over their first four years of operation, with special emphasis on those that occurred between 1997 and 1999. Pathways to Quality builds on an earlier report that fully described the programs in their first year of serving families. That report, Leading the Way, included in-depth profiles of each of the 17 research programs (Volume II), a detailed cross-site analysis of the program services being delivered (Volume I), and analysis of the levels of implementation programs achieved and the quality of their child development services (Volume III).6 Pathways to Quality applies these analyses to the levels of implementation and quality observed in 1999, traces the program changes that led to these achievements, provides new analyses of service use and program engagement, and identifies the challenges and successes that the programs experienced during this period. The rest of this section describes the data sources and analytic methods used to conduct these analyses.

TABLE I.4

FAMILY RESOURCES AND RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE BY FAMILIES ENTERING THE EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS

	All Research Programs Combined (Percent)	Range Across Research Programs (Percent)
Adequacy of Resources
Inadequate food	5	0 to 20
Inadequate housing	12	4 to 24
Inadequate medical care	14	3 to 36
Inadequate child care	35	11 to 67
Inadequate transportation	21	12 to 35
Inadequate parenting information	13	0 to 39
Inadequate personal support	13	3 to 39
Assistance Received Currently
Medicaid	77	47 to 89
AFDC/TANF	34	11 to 64
Food stamps	48	22 to 75
WIC	87	69 to 96
SSI	7	0 to 16
Number of Applicants/Programs	1,514	17

SOURCE: Preliminary Head Start Family Information System application and enrollment data.

1. Data Sources

Qualitative and quantitative data for this report are from a range of sources: (1) site visits to the research programs in fall 1997 and fall 1999, (2) observations of program children’s child care arrangements, (3) parent services follow-up interviews, and (4) Head Start Family Information System (HSFIS) data collected at enrollment. During the site visits, we:

• Conducted individual and group interviews with program staff, parents, community members, and local researchers

• Distributed and collected self-administered staff surveys

• Reviewed randomly selected case files to learn about service patterns of individual families

• Observed service delivery in a center or during a home visit

Following the site visits, we prepared detailed narrative program profiles and organized information on program implementation and factors affecting the quality of child development services into tables and checklists. Program directors reviewed the draft profiles and checklists, corrected errors and supplied clarifying information, and verified the final profiles and checklists.

We also drew on data from systematic observations of the child care settings of Early Head Start children in the research sample. These observations were conducted when children in the research sample reached 14 and 24 months of age.7 These data include observed child-teacher ratios, observed group sizes, and Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) scores or Family Day Care Environment Rating Scale (FDCRS) scores as appropriate for the settings in which research sample children received child care.

Parent services follow-up interviews provided information about families’ use of program and community services. These interviews were targeted for 6, 15, and 26 months after program enrollment (and completed an average of 7, 16, and 27 months after enrollment). Most of the interviews were conducted by telephone with the focus child’s primary caregiver, although some interviews were conducted in person for those who could not be reached by phone. Finally, we used data from the HSFIS program application and enrollment forms that were completed by families when they applied to enroll in the program.

2. Overview of Analytic Methods

This report presents a blend of qualitative and quantitative research. Our analysis of site visit data yielded rich descriptions of program operations, approaches to service delivery, stories of change, and dynamics of the wide range of efforts programs developed to meet their families’ needs. We applied systematic and consistent methods to define, describe, and analyze levels of implementation and indicators of the quality of child development services across all sites. In addition, we used descriptive statistical methods, including calculating means and frequencies, to analyze quantitative data from the parent services follow-up interviews, HSFIS application and enrollment forms, and child care observations. The chapters that follow contain more detailed explanations of our methods for each of the analyses described in this report.

---

1At the October 23, 1997, White House Conference on Child Care, the President announced his proposal to double Early Head Start funding; Congress has increased Early Head Start’s share of the Head Start budget from 3 percent in fiscal year 1995 to 10 percent in 2001 and 2002.(back)

2One of the research sites was a Wave II program (funded in 1996-1997) and had only been in operation for three years when we visited in 1999. As Wave I programs (funded in 1995-1996), all of the other research sites had been in operation for four years by the time of the 1999 site visits.(back)

3See Building Their Futures: How Early Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of Infants and Toddlers in Low-Income Families (Administration on Children, Youth and Families 2001) and Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start (Administration for Children and Families 2002) for more information about targeted impact analyses conducted for specific subgroups of programs.(back)

4For a summary of findings of key studies, see Chapter I of Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start (ACYF 2002).(back)

5Four percent of children who enrolled after birth had been born at low birthweight, and concerns about their development were reported on the application form. Nine percent of the children had not been born at low birthweight, but their primary caregivers reported that someone had a concern about their development. Seven percent had been born at low birthweight, but their primary caregivers did not report that someone had a concern about their development. Children with these indicators at enrollment were not necessarily identified as having disabilities within the evaluation period.(back)

6The Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early Experiences of Selected Early Head Start Programs volumes include: I. Cross-Site Perspectives (ACYF 1999a); II. Program Profiles (ACYF 1999b); III. Program Implementation (ACYF 2000a); and Executive Summary (ACYF 2000b).(back)

7Observations were also conducted when children were 36 months old; they will be reported in a special policy paper focusing on Early Head Start child care.(back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next