Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

VI. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING FAMILY AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Ongoing family and community partnerships are critical for supporting Early Head Start and Head Start programs in their efforts to promote children’s healthy development. The Head Start program is “family centered and is designed to foster the parent’s role as the principal influence on the child’s development and as the child’s primary educator, nurturer, and advocate” (Department of Health and Human Services 1996, p. 57186). Similarly, the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards emphasize that Early Head Start and Head Start programs are intended to be “community-based, with different specific models of service delivery flowing out of the differing needs of differing communities.” The performance standards envision programs as “central community institutions for low-income families, building linkages and partnerships with other service providers and leaders in the community” (Department of Health and Human Services 1996, p. 15187). Thus, central questions for the implementation study were: Were Early Head Start programs implementing family and community partnerships by their third year of delivering services?, Were aspects of these activities especially challenging?, and Did programs experience particular successes in these areas?

In the area of family partnerships, the performance standards address program practices in several domains:

• Setting goals for families

• Gaining access to community services and resources

• Providing services to pregnant women who are enrolled in Early Head Start

• Encouraging parent involvement in the program

• Providing child development and education; health, nutrition, and mental health education; transition activities; and home visits

• Advocating in the community

To be rated as fully implementing family partnerships, programs had to be rated as fully implementing services in most dimensions that we rated, including frequency of family development services, development of individualized family partnership agreements (IFPAs), availability of services, and parent involvement.1  The performance standards address the following aspects of community partnerships:

• Partnerships

• Advisory committees

• Transition services

To be rated as fully implementing EHS community partnerships, programs had to be rated as fully implementing services in most of the dimensions that we rated, including collaborative relationships, advisory committees, and transition planning.

A. FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS: CHANGES IN SERVICES AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS BETWEEN 1997 AND 1999

The research programs made significant strides in implementing Early Head Start’s family partnerships, and by fall 1999, three years after they began serving families, two-thirds had reached full implementation in this area. The number that achieved full implementation increased from 9 to 12 between fall 1997 and fall 1999 (Figure VI.1).

1. Individualized Family Partnership Agreements

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require that programs develop IFPAs in collaboration with families, review them regularly, and update them as needed.

Fourteen research programs had fully implemented these requirements in fall 1999 (Figure VI.2), up from 8 in fall 1997. Nine were rated as having reached an enhanced level of implementation in this area in fall 1999 because they had learned about the other services that families received, coordinated with other service providers, and conducted joint planning when appropriate. The programs that had reached only moderate implementation of the IFPA requirements in fall 1999 had developed IFPAs with fewer than 90 percent of the families in their caseloads.

2. Availability of Services

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to make a wide range of services available to families, either by providing them directly or through referral to other community service providers, and to follow up systematically to ensure that families receive the services they need.

Between fall 1997 and fall 1999, the number of programs that were fully implementing these requirements nearly doubled, from 6 to 11 (Figure VI.2). Eight had reached an enhanced level of implementation of the service availability requirements by fall 1999 because, in addition to following up on services families received, they assessed and monitored the quality of family development services offered. The programs that were rated as moderately implemented did not systematically follow up on referrals.

FIGURE VI.1

EARLY HEAD START FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS

[D]

 

FIGURE VI.2

EARLY HEAD START FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS ASPECTS THAT WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED

[D]

3. Frequency of Services

Although the performance standards do not specifically address frequency of family development services, we rated programs as fully implemented with respect to the frequency of family development services if most families regularly received such services.

As in other areas, the number of programs that were fully implemented nearly doubled, from 8 to 15 (Figure VI.2). The fully implemented programs held regular case management meetings (at least monthly) with families, either during home visits or in conferences at program centers, parents’ workplaces, or parents’ school sites. In addition, many programs provided some services—such as health, employment, or counseling services—directly and also made referrals to community providers. Two programs were rated as moderately implemented on this dimension because some families did not have case management meetings at least monthly with program staff.

4. Parent Involvement

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to involve parents in child development services (this type of parent involvement is discussed in Chapter V, Section B.3), to involve them in policymaking and program operations, and to give them multiple opportunities to participate as volunteers or employees (this type of parent involvement is rated under family partnerships). In addition to the requirements for parent involvement in the performance standards, the Head Start Bureau clarified its expectation that programs try to increase father involvement. We rated programs as fully implemented in this area if the program provides multiple opportunities for involvement in policy groups and volunteer activities (with most parents involved in some capacity) and makes special efforts to encourage father involvement (with some fathers participating).2 

In fall 1999, four programs had fully implemented these parent involvement requirements, down from five in fall 1997 (Figure VI.2). In part because of welfare reform, many parents were working and finding it more difficult to make time for volunteering and participating in other program activities. Six programs achieved moderate implementation of the parent involvement requirements. These programs involved many parents, including some fathers, in policy groups and volunteer activities.

The research programs promoted parent involvement in a variety of ways (Figure VI.3). All programs had Policy Councils that involved varying numbers of parents in program decision making in areas such as policies and procedures, staff roles and responsibilities, staff employment-related decisions, budgets, and curricula. By fall 1999, in addition to Policy Councils, most programs had Parent Committees to involve more parents in program planning and activities. In programs with centers, these were formed separately for parents at each center. In rural areas, Parent Committees were often formed based on geographical location. In some programs, the Policy Council established committees to address specific topics or oversee particular areas, such as personnel, finance/budgets, funding, field trips, center activities, fundraising, and grievances.

Most programs also offered opportunities for parents to volunteer, such as by assisting in classrooms, doing office work, making repairs, organizing fundraising or social activities, contributing to newsletters, helping to plan meetings, providing peer support, and serving as bus monitors.

All programs encouraged fathers and father figures to participate in regular services and activities. In fact, the majority of programs (16 in 1997 and 13 in 1999) made special efforts to involve fathers and father figures in program activities. Four programs had a designated staff position, usually a coordinator or specialist, assigned responsibility for involving fathers in program activities; two additional programs had male staff members with other responsibilities who promoted efforts to involve fathers. Six programs offered group activities for men or for men and their children. These groups usually met monthly. Five additional programs organized recreational activities for men only. In addition, many programs had special activities designed for fathers only (Figure VI.3). These included such activities as father support groups, father-only nights out, father sports teams and events, and “daddy-and-me” volunteer days at the child development center.

FIGURE VI.3

ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE PARENT INVOLVEMENT

[D]

Although many programs experienced growth in father involvement, a few were not making special efforts to involve fathers in fall 1999. In a few cases, programs eliminated staff positions for father involvement due to low participation by the fathers. Other programs faced several obstacles in their efforts to involve fathers. Some fathers were uncomfortable being the only male present at program activities, or they perceived that activities were for mothers, not fathers. Some programs had no (or not enough) male staff, and fathers were sometimes reluctant to attend events led by female staff. In addition, some mothers did not want nonresident fathers to be involved with their children or the program. Resident fathers sometimes were not at home when home visits were scheduled, or visits could not be scheduled when fathers were at home. When staff with responsibility for involving fathers left the program, they could not always be replaced quickly. Finally, in some programs other issues simply took priority. Some programs recognized the importance of special efforts to involve fathers but focused on other aspects of program services that that they believed were more pressing at the time.

B. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS: CHANGES IN SERVICES AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS BETWEEN 1997 AND 1999

The research programs improved their implementation of community partnerships dramatically over the evaluation period. The number that had fully implemented their community partnerships component nearly doubled between fall 1997 and fall 1999, from 8 to 15 (Figure VI.4).

1. Collaborative Relationships

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to establish collaborative relationships with other community service providers, with the goal of increasing access to services that are responsive to the needs of children and families.

The number of research programs that had fully implemented collaborative relationships increased from 11 to 16 between fall 1997 and fall 1999 (Figure VI.5). The fully implemented programs had established many relationships with other service providers, including some formal written agreements. These included partnership with Part C agencies and with child care providers (see Chapter V). They also communicated regularly with service providers to coordinate services for families and participated in at least one coordinating group of community service providers. One program received a lower implementation rating in the area of collaborative relationships because it had established few relationships with other service providers (it provided center-based child care, and the grantee offered many other services in-house).

2. Advisory Committees

According to the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards, programs must establish a health advisory committee that involves community health services providers and meets regularly to discuss infant and toddler health.

The number of programs that had fully implemented these requirements nearly doubled between fall 1997 and fall 1999, from 7 to 13 (Figure VI.5). Five were rated as having reached an enhanced level of implementation in this area because they had established at least one additional advisory committee to advise them on infant and toddler matters. Several programs had not reached full implementation of advisory committees by fall 1999. At one program, the health advisory committee had been established shortly before the fall 1999 site visit and was not yet meeting regularly. The health advisory committees at three other programs advised the agencies on broader health issues but did not discuss infant and toddler health on a regular basis.

FIGURE VI.4

EARLY HEAD START COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS

[D]

 

FIGURE VI.5

EARLY HEAD START COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS ASPECTS THAT WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED

[D]

3. Transition Planning

To ensure a smooth transition from Early Head Start to Head Start or another preschool program, the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to develop individualized transition plans in collaboration with parents for all children at least six months before their third birthday.

The number of research programs that had fully implemented these transition-planning requirements more than doubled between fall 1997 and fall 1999, from 4 to 10 (Figure VI.5). Of these, 7 had reached an enhanced level of implementation: all children in these programs had transition plans in place by age 2½, and parents were active participants in the transition planning. Seven programs were rated as moderately implemented in this area in fall 1999, either because not all children had a transition plan in place by age 2½ or because the program had not identified alternatives for families who could not enroll or did not wish to enroll their child in Head Start.

It appears that many Early Head Start children enrolled in Head Start. Information on where children who had transitioned out of Early Head Start went was not available for all programs, but slightly more than half the research programs reported that at least half the children who remained in the program until they were transitioned out went to Head Start.

C. SUMMARY

As in the case of child development and health services, the research programs made substantial progress in implementing the elements of family and community partnerships that we examined. Although involving parents—both mothers and fathers—continued to challenge the programs, most had fully implemented the other aspects of family partnerships. The programs also made substantial progress in implementing community partnerships, and by fall 1999, nearly all had reached full implementation. These partnerships played a key role in programs’ progress toward full implementation of child development services, as will be seen in Chapter X.

---

1In Chapter IV we reported ratings of parent involvement in child development activities, which refers to their involvement in the planning and delivery of such services. In this chapter, parent involvement refers to parents’ participation in program policymaking, operations, and governance. These activities may include child development and other components of the Early Head Start Program.(back)

2In 1997, we rated parent involvement and father initiatives separately, with the rating of father initiatives indicating simply whether or not the program made any special effort to involve fathers. Nearly all the programs had a special father initiative in 1997. In 1999, we made the rating criteria more rigorous to assess whether programs had established comprehensive approaches to involving both mothers and fathers and were succeeding in involving them.(back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next