Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

VII. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Qualified, committed staff members are the backbone of any service program. In the case of Early Head Start, the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards emphasize the importance of well-qualified staff and effective program management for achieving the overall goal of improving the social competence of children in low-income families. The performance standards and the Early Head Start Program Grant Availability Notice both stress the key role of staff supervision, training, and support, and the grant announcement directs programs to select staff and design staff development approaches with the knowledge that high-quality staff performance is linked to rewards such as salary, compensation, and career advancement. The performance standards also lay out requirements for program management and governance to ensure that programs operate effectively to accomplish their goals.

In human resources management, the performance standards include requirements in the areas of organizational structure, staff qualifications, staffing patterns, staff performance appraisals, staff training and development, and staff health. We focused the implementation ratings on supervision (including performance appraisals) and staff training and development; however, we examined descriptive data in the other areas. To be rated as “fully implemented” in staff development, programs had to be fully implementing the performance standards in most of the dimensions of staff development that we rated, including supervision, training, compensation, morale, and staff retention.1 

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards also address a number of aspects of program management, including:

• Program governance, including Policy Councils and Parent Committees

• Management systems and procedures, including program planning, communications, and program self-assessments and monitoring

To be rated as fully implementing Early Head Start management systems, programs had to be fully implementing the performance standards in most dimensions of management systems that we rated, including functioning of the Policy Council; community needs assessment; communication systems; goals, objectives, and plans; and self-assessment.

In this chapter we describe the implementation of staff development and management, and review progress and changes that programs experienced between fall 1997 and fall 1999.2  Information for this review comes from both the implementation study site visit interviews and the self-administered survey that most Early Head Start staff responded to at the time of the 1997 and 1999 visits. We begin with the areas in which information is exclusively from site visits (supervision and staff retention). We then discuss areas, such as staff training and education, in which we have data from both sources, and conclude with the areas examined only through the staff survey. First, however, we describe the characteristics of the staff who were responsible for carrying out the Early Head Start mission in the 17 Early Head Start research programs.

A. EARLY HEAD START STAFF CHARACTERISTICS

Early Head Start staff members are diverse in many ways, but they also share a number of characteristics (Table VII.1). Overall, their characteristics changed little between 1997 and 1999. In 1999, three-fourths of all staff members (76 percent) had children of their own, and about a third had children who participated in Early Head Start or Head Start; 61 percent were currently married. Although the vast majority were women (94 percent in 1999, with the staff at five programs being entirely female), they were ethnically diverse. Overall, 53 percent of Early Head Start staff members were white, 28 percent were African American, and 14 percent identified themselves as of Hispanic origin, the remaining being Asian or other ethnicity.

The racial/ethnic composition of program staff generally reflected that of the families their program served. Although the percentage of staff in each racial/ethnic group within a site rarely matched the percentage of families, the distributions were similar in most programs. Considering the three major racial/ethnic groups among Early Head Start families—white, African American, and Hispanic—in 10 of the programs, the ranking of these groups by their percentage was the same for staff and families (for example, if the most families were Hispanic, the second-most white, and the fewest African American, then the highest proportion of staff was Hispanic, followed by white and African American). Whenever programs had at least 10 percent of their families in a particular racial/ethnic group, they also had at least one staff member who identified themselves as members of that group.

It is also important for staff to be able to communicate with their families, and in general, the percentage of staff who reported speaking Spanish paralleled the percentage of families in the programs whose primary language was not English. Across all 17 programs, about 20 percent of parents reported that their primary language was not English, and this ranged from 0 to 81 percent across the programs. Overall, about one-quarter (23 percent) of staff spoke Spanish, and another 5 percent spoke another language (other than English). At the site level, the percentage of staff who spoke Spanish ranged from 0 (at two programs) to 91 percent (at the program that served predominantly migrant families).

TABLE VII.1

PERCENTAGE OF EARLY HEAD START STAFF WITH PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH IN 1997

	Full Sample	Range of Percentage Across Programs	Program Approach in 1997
			Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
Had Children of Their Own	76	45-100	82	72	73
Had Children Who Participated in Head Start or Early Head Start	35	0-71	52	24	25
Currently Married	61	25-88	62	63	59
Women	94	60-100	98	88	97
White	53	22-100	46	62	51
African American	28	0-78	28	19	37
Hispanic Origin	14	0-72	21	15	5
At Some Time Lived in Neighborhood Served by Program	46	27-68	43	53	42
Member of Religious, School, Political, or Social Group in Community Program Served	33	9-68	23	43	34

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999.

Early Head Start staff members had ties to the communities they served, which provided a basis for their being able to understand the needs and circumstances of the families they served. Almost half of Early Head Start staff members (46 percent) reported that at some time in their life they had lived in a neighborhood served by the program. Almost four-fifths of these were living in their program’s neighborhood at the time of the survey, and one-fifth reported that they grew up in that neighborhood. One-third of Early Head Start staff were currently members of a religious, school, political, or social group within the community their program served. Some differences occurred by program approach. Staffs in home-based programs were more likely to have membership in such a group (43 percent, compared with 34 percent for mixed-approach and 23 percent for center-based program staff). Home-based program staff members were also more likely to have ever lived in their program’s neighborhood (53 percent, compared with just over 40 percent for staff in center- and home-based programs).

B. STAFF DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES AND IMPLEMENTATION IN 1999 AND PROGRESS BETWEEN 1997 AND 19993 

As a group, the Early Head Start research programs strengthened their implementation of staff development during the evaluation period, and by fall 1999, nearly all the programs had fully implemented the staff development areas that we examined. In fall 1999, 15 research programs had fully implemented the Head Start staff development requirements (that is, had achieved a status of full or enhanced implementation), compared with 11 programs in fall 1997 (Figure VII.1). No research programs remained at a low level of implementation in fall 1999, whereas three programs had been at that level in 1997.

1. Supervision

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards and the Early Head Start grant announcement mandate that programs implement a system of supervision, training, and mentoring that emphasizes relationship building, employs experiential learning techniques, and provides regular opportunities for feedback on performance.

By fall 1999, all the research programs had fully implemented these requirements, up from 12 programs in fall 1997 (Figure VII.2). Ten programs had reached an enhanced level of implementation of these requirements by fall 1999—they provided both individual and group supervision sessions, as well as feedback on performance that was based in part on observation of service delivery (in centers or during home visits).

2. Staff Retention

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards and the Early Head Start grant announcement emphasize the importance of developing and maintaining secure, continuous relationships between staff, children, and parents and avoiding frequent turnover of key people in children’s lives. We rated programs as fully implemented in the area of staff retention if less than 20 percent of the staff had left the program and been replaced in the previous year.4 

In fall 1999, 8 research programs were rated as fully implemented in the area of staff retention, down from 10 programs in fall 1997 (Figure VII.2). Although the number of programs that met the requirement for a rating of “fully implemented” in the area of staff retention declined slightly over time, the number experiencing very high rates of staff turnover decreased between fall 1997 and fall 1999. In fall 1997, three programs had experienced staff turnover rates of 40 percent or more in the previous year, while in fall 1999, no programs had experienced staff turnover rates that high in the past year.

FIGURE VII.1

EARLY HEAD START STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS

[D]

 

FIGURE VII.2

EXTENT TO WHICH FIVE EARLY HEAD START STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED

[D]

 

Unfortunately, high turnover rates are common among early childhood programs. Among all staff, turnover in the majority of Early Head Start research programs was in the 15 to 32 percent range in fall 1999. Among Early Head Start direct care staff across the 11 programs that offered all or some center-based care, turnover averaged 39 percent, and ranged from 6 percent to 66 percent across the programs. These levels of turnover are comparable to estimates of turnover rates for frontline staff in child care centers nationally, which range from 25 percent (Kisker et al. 1991) to 43 percent (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team 1995). Programs reported a number of reasons for staff turnover, including:

• Personal reasons, such as health problems, family moves, or decisions to stop working and stay home with children

• Career reasons, such as returning to school, moving for job advancement, or finding a higher-paying job (often with the public schools)

• Performance reasons, such as dismissal for poor performance

• Programmatic reasons, such as program reorganization, changing program skill needs

Program staff sometimes viewed staff turnover positively, because it sometimes created openings that allowed program managers to hire staff members who were better suited to the position.

Some staff members who left the Early Head Start programs took similar jobs with other agencies in the community. Program managers often reported that the training and experience that those staff members had received during their tenure with the Early Head Start program continued to benefit the program through new or improved working relationships among agencies. Similarly, some program managers noted that the training and experience provided to the staff members who left Early Head Start continued to benefit the community by increasing the qualifications and competence of staff members in social service agencies more generally.

Many of the research programs maintained continuity in program leadership staff, but slightly more than half of them (nine programs) experienced turnover of directors during the evaluation period. In three of these instances, however, the change was developmental, as directors moved to higher positions within their agencies and another Early Head Start staff member assumed the role of director. The experience of the other six sites showed the variety of processes involved in leadership transitions. For example, in one case, the position was vacant for nine months while the program searched for a new director, and then administrative details initially occupied a large share of the new director’s time. In another program, turnover was particularly disruptive, as the first director was promoted and a new director was hired but then resigned and had to be replaced. During this same period—between the 1997 and 1999 site visits—all home visitors and child care teachers at that program left and had to be replaced.

3. Staff Training and Educational Attainment

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to establish and implement a structured approach to staff training that is designed to help build relationships among staff and provide them with the skills they need to do their jobs. We rated programs as fully implemented in this area if all staff received training in multiple areas and if training was provided according to a plan based on an assessment of staff training needs. The 1998 Head Start reauthorization required that, by September 2003, at least 50 percent of all Head Start and Early Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have an associate’s degree, a bachelor’s degree, or an advanced degree in early childhood education or development, or a degree in a related field and experience in teaching preschool children. In addition, the standards require that Early Head Start teachers obtain a CDA credential for infant and toddler caregiver within one year of their hire as a teacher of infants and toddlers.5 

Based on information gathered in site visit interviews and focus groups with program staff, we rated each program’s degree of implementation in the area of training by considering the extent to which programs provided staff with training in multiple areas according to a plan based on an assessment of staff training needs. In fall 1999, 15 research programs had fully implemented the staff training requirements (Figure VII.2), up from 12 programs in fall 1997. Thirteen research programs had reached an enhanced level of implementation in this area—their approach to staff training extended to emphasizing relationship-building and provided opportunities for practice, feedback, and reflection. One program was rated as moderately implemented in this area because part-time staff did not participate in most staff training sessions, and another program was rated as moderately implemented because it provided initial training but did not provide adequate opportunities for ongoing training throughout the year.

Most programs reported conducting assessments of staff training needs. Almost all surveyed their staff members annually so that the individual staff members could give their perceptions of areas in which they needed additional training and support. Center-based programs also observed teachers working in their classroom settings, and supervisors in home-based programs accompanied home visitors to observe home visit activities directly. Program directors and coordinators also used their group and individual supervision meetings to assess areas in which staff development was needed. Several program supervisors maintained a professional development plan for each staff member. Staff training needs were also typically judged in relation to the needs of the families the program served. For example, a program serving families whose children presented particular disabilities would offer specialized training for its staff.

We obtained information on staff educational attainment from the staff survey and report it here to augment the picture of Early Head Start staffing based on the site visits. It was not included in the implementation ratings. Responses to the staff survey show that Early Head Start staff members in the research sites were generally highly educated (Table VII.2). In fact, overall, the 17 research programs were more than meeting the requirement of the Head Start reauthorization: 55 percent of frontline staff and 62 percent of all staff had at least a two-year degree. Furthermore, 50 percent of all staff had completed at least a four-year college degree in 1999 (this includes 3 percent who had taken some graduate courses, 13 percent with a graduate degree, and 6 percent with some other post-baccalaureate or master’s certificate). Eleven percent held a two-year college degree as their highest level of education, 14 percent had taken some college courses, and only 3 percent had not completed high school.

Educational attainment and certification of staff varied by program approach and by site, with home-based and mixed-approach programs having the highest average educational attainment. The percentage of staff with a four-year degree or higher was 28 percent in center-based, 60 percent in mixed-approach, and 63 percent in home-based programs. Site-to-site variation was wide, with, at the high end, 100 percent and 85 percent of staff having a four-year or higher degree at two home-based programs, and 84 percent at a mixed-approach program; in two programs—both center-based—just 24 percent of staff had a bachelor’s or higher degree. In one home-based program, 56 percent of staff had a master’s or other graduate degree, while there were eight programs in which fewer than 10 percent of staff had advanced degrees.

TABLE VII.2

EARLY HEAD START STAFF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN TRAINING, FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH (PERCENTAGES)a

	Full Sample	Range of Percentage Across Programs	Approach in 1997
			Program Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
All Staff
At Least a Two-Year Degree	62	28-100	38	74	73
At Least a Four-Year Degree	50	24-100	28	63	60
Participated in at Least One Professional Training in Past Year	87	74-100	82	89	91
Training Rated "Very Beneficial"	76	44-100	76	86	67
Frontline Staff
Completed CDA or Higher	76	20-100	62	85	83
Currently in CDA Training	18	0-100	19	24	11
At Least a Two-Year Degree	55	13-100	34	73	65
At Least a Four-Year Degree	41	7-100	21	61	48
Participated in at Least One Professional Training in Past Year	88	75-100	84	92	91
Rated Training "Very Beneficial"	73	40-100	74	86	63

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999. aFrontline staff members are all staff who work directly with children, typically teachers in center-based, home visitors in home-based, and both in mixed-approach programs (N = 242).(back)

 

Of particular interest is the degree to which programs succeeded in having their frontline staff credentialed. In 1999, we were able to examine CDA credentialing separately for frontline staff. Seventy-six percent of frontline staff reported having a CDA credential or a higher degree.6  According to the staff members’ self-reports, in 1999, center-based programs appeared not to be meeting the performance standards with respect to frontline staff attaining their CDA credential. Among frontline center-based staff who had been in their position for at least one year (and therefore required to have their CDA credential), 61 percent reported having a CDA credential or higher degree (associate’s, bachelor’s, or graduate degree) (not shown in table). Nineteen percent of center-based frontline staff members were currently participating in CDA training, and another 29 percent reported planning to do so.

Most staff (87 percent overall, 88 percent of frontline staff) reported having participated in at least one professional training activity in the past 12 months. Although training participation was reported to be high in all types of programs, it was somewhat more common in mixed-approach and home-based programs (91 and 89 percent of staff, respectively) than in center-based programs (82 percent) (see top portion of Table VII.2). Three-fourths of all staff found the training “very beneficial,” and almost 90 percent said they were somewhat or very likely to change what they did in their work based on the training; staff in the three program approaches differed little in this regard. Perception of the value of training varied considerably by the individual program, however, with more than 90 percent of staff in four programs finding training to be “very beneficial”; in only two programs was this figure less than 60 percent. In general, home-based staff members reported not only higher levels of educational attainment but higher rates of participation in training (both CDA and other professional training) and rated their training as more beneficial than did staff in other programs. This was especially the case among frontline staff who work directly with children and families.

Many programs make special efforts to tailor their training to the needs of their staff and their families. Researchers Joseph Stowitschek and Eduardo Armijo, working with the Washington State Migrant Council’s Early Head Start program, have documented the training opportunities that the program has provided to its largely Hispanic farm-working families, as well as the results they have achieved. Their research is summarized in the box below and reported in greater detail in Appendix C.

4. Compensation

The Advisory Committee on Services to Families with Infants and Toddlers noted that high-quality staff performance and development are associated with salary, compensation, and career advancement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994). The Early Head Start grant announcement emphasizes the importance of adequate staff compensation to promote staff retention and to reward high-quality performance and professional development. We rated programs as fully implemented in this area if directors reported that staff salaries and benefits were above the average level for similar staff in other community programs.

Ten research programs were rated as fully implemented in the area of staff compensation, up from eight in fall 1997 (Figure VII.2). Of these, six had achieved an enhanced level of implementation—in addition to above-average staff compensation, their staff received tuition reimbursement, child care, or other “family-friendly” benefits. Seven programs were rated as moderately implemented in this area in fall 1999 because staff salaries and benefits were not reported to be higher than the average level for similar staff in community programs.

 

OUTCOMES IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT AT THE WASHINGTON STATE MIGRANT COUNCIL EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM Joseph J. Stowitschek and Eduardo J. Armijo University of Washington Staff development is identified as one of the “cornerstones” of Early Head Start (along with an emphasis on children, families, and communities), and is a major component of the Washington State Migrant Council’s (WSMC) Early Head Start project. A qualified, well-trained staff with opportunities for growth and development would be essential to ensure that the diverse needs displayed by the program’s migrant and Hispanic farm-working families are met. The WSMC staff has received training, as well as educational incentives, to promote competence in such areas as brain development, conflict and anger management, proper food preparation, disabilities, and transition services. A staff development interview provided data on staff members’ educational goals and career aspirations, training, and incentives and disincentives for personal and professional growth. A family services questionnaire provided data pertaining to service delivery focus areas and methods. Respondents were six home educators, two case managers, and WSMC project coordinator, and the project director. Findings center on staff educational goals and career aspirations, training, and incentives and disincentives. Staff Educational Goals/Career Aspirations. To help staff meet their goals of attaining bachelor’s degrees, WSMC offered incentives to encourage staff to continue with their education. These included an education-reimbursement package for tuition, books, mileage, and child care, and flex time schedules to accommodate coursework. On a 5-point scale of degree of encouragement, staff uniformly gave WSMC’s efforts the highest possible rating, a “5.” Many staff educational goals directly related to career aspirations. When asked about the future, staff mentioned positions included running a certified day care center, full-time case management, Head Start or public school teaching, family program coordination, and program or public school administration. Training. WSMC emphasized staff development through training, both within and outside the agency, in the areas mentioned above. Staff received an average of nearly 55 hours of training in the preceding year. Staff members rated their training as significantly contributing both to their professional skills and to career advancement. Incentives and Disincentives. Personnel were asked about job-related incentives (such as pay and outside trainings), in-service training provided by WSMC, attitudes of coworkers, and attitudes of WSMC supervisors and administrators. On a 5-point scale, staff rated job-related incentives at 4.1, WSMC training at 3.9, coworker attitudes at 3.2, and supervisors/administrators attitudes at 4.0. In open-ended questions, staff indicated that WSMC strongly encouraged growth in these areas. In addition, many staff feel they have been personally enriched by the program in such areas as raising their own children, reaching out to families in need, and increasing their own self-esteem and self-confidence. Discussion. WSMC Early Head Start is highly committed to the staff development cornerstone as a means of improving services for families. Staff uniformly indicated that the incentives received as part of their jobs had a positive effect with the families they worked with. For example, over a three-year period, staff reported 26 percent average increases in hours spent with families as part of regular visits, as well as over 300 percent average increases in hours spent training families in project-related areas (such as child development and proper food preparation). In addition, staff reported nearly 400 percent average increases in contact with families over the phone. During the same three-year period, the focus has increased in the percentage of time spent in the areas of mental health, nutrition, child language development, and father involvement. Staff also reported an increase in the percentage of time spent in the specific areas of coaching families, providing praise and feedback to families, problem solving, assessing and evaluation, providing verbal pointers, and arranging resources for families. Because most of the Early Head Start staff have the same Hispanic roots as the families they served, their professional successes and advancements reflect the hopes, aspirations, and opportunities that are strived for with these younger, poorer Hispanic families.

 

At the time of the fall 1999 site visits, several programs were in the process of increasing salaries and revising them to reward staff who obtained associate’s degrees. In most of these programs, however, the new rates had not yet been implemented or had been implemented only recently. Nevertheless, according to the staff survey, the average hourly wage of frontline staff increased by 9 percent over two years, from $9.77 per hour in 1997 to $10.68 in 1999 (Table VII.3).7  Wages differed greatly across the individual programs and by program approach. Classroom teachers in center-based programs received the lowest average wage among frontline staff ($9.86 per hour). Center-based programs also had the greatest variation of any program approach, ranging from $7.76 per hour in a Southern site to $16.41 at a program in the Northeast). Home visitors were the highest-paid frontline workers, averaging $12.00 per hour, but hourly wages of home visitors ranged widely across the seven home-based programs, from a low of $9.43 in one site to $15.12 in another. As might be expected, frontline staff in mixed-approach programs averaged in the middle, earning a reported $10.70 per hour, with a range across these programs from $7.73 to $13.34.

Several programs significantly increased compensation for frontline staff between 1997 and 1999, with the number of programs paying above $14.00 on average increasing from one to three. However, in 1999 four programs paid frontline staff less than $10 per hour, on average. Across all staff, including program administrators, the 1999 average hourly wage was $12.59.

According to staff reports, Early Head Start programs provided a range of important fringe benefits (Figure VII.3). At least three-fourths of all staff reported receiving six different benefits. The most common were paid holidays (which 95 percent of staff reported receiving), paid release time to attend training (also 95 percent), paid sick leave (88 percent), paid vacation time (88 percent), health insurance (83 percent), and retirement benefits (77 percent). Seventy-one percent reported receiving educational stipends. Fewer staff reported receiving dental insurance, health insurance for their dependents, life insurance, or compensation for overtime work. The benefit picture did not change substantially between 1997 and 1999 (8 of the 11 benefits we asked about did not change by more than 5 percentage points). The exceptions were paid life and dental insurance, which declined by 7 and 10 percentage points, respectively, and compensation for paid overtime, which increased substantially across all programs, from 33 to 42 percent of all staff reporting that they received this benefit).

TABLE VII.3

EARLY HEAD START STAFF COMPENSATION AND FRINGE BENEFITS, FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH

	Full Sample	Range Across Programs	Program Approach in 1997
			Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
All Staff
Hourly Wage	$12.59	$8.25-$17.73	$11.43	$13.47	$12.99
Percentage of Staff Reporting:
Health Insurance	83	50-100	76	85	86
Health Insurance for Dependents	54	20-91	42	61	59
Life Insurance	67	13-100	33	81	87
Dental Insurance	66	0-100	47	67	84
Paid Vacation Time	88	63-100	77	96	91
Paid Holidays	95	75-100	96	97	91
Compensation for Overtime	42	0-77	46	31	50
Paid Sick Leave	88	55-100	79	89	95
Educational Stipends	71	35-91	61	65	85
Paid Release Time for Training	95	85-100	90	96	97
Retirement Plan	77	0-100	56	89	85
Child Care for Own Children	10	0-39	16	1	14
Frontline Staff
Hourly Wage	$10.68	$7.73-$16.41	$9.86	$12.00	$10.70

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999.

 

FIGURE VII.3

FRINGE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY STAFF IN EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH PROGRAMS, FALL 1997 AND FALL 1999

[D]

 

The benefits picture for Early Head Start staff was somewhat dependent on the program approach of the program in which they worked. Of the 11 benefits shown in Figure VII.3 and Table VII.3, 7 were most prevalent in mixed-approach programs, and in 4 cases it was staff in home-based programs that were most likely to report receiving a benefit. However, in most cases the difference between these two program approaches was small (Table VII.3). In most areas, center-based programs provided benefits to a substantially smaller percentage of staff than did either of the other two program approaches. For example, 56 percent of center-based staff reported receiving a retirement or pension plan, whereas 85 percent of mixed and 89 percent of home-based staff reported retirement benefits; 47 percent of center-based staff received dental insurance, compared with 67 percent of home-based staff and 84 percent of staff in mixed-approach programs. A few benefits that were very common overall differed little by program approach: in all three types of programs, more than 90 percent of staff reported receiving paid holidays and paid release time to attend training. One of the less-common benefits was provision of free child care for children of the staff. Center-based and mixed-approach programs were most likely to provide this benefit (reported by 16 and 14 percent of staff, respectively), while only 1 percent of home-based staff reported receiving a child care benefit. In a number of ways, benefits are therefore seen to parallel wages and education levels across the program approaches.

5. Staff Morale

Staff morale is not specifically addressed in the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards. We included it in the implementation ratings, however, because it is an important measure of the extent to which programs created supportive environments that enable staff to perform and develop. We rated programs as fully implemented in this area if morale was high or very high at the time of the site visit.

Based on staff reports during site visits and in staff surveys, nine programs were rated as “fully implemented” in the area of staff morale in fall 1999, up from eight in fall 1997. Eight programs were rated as moderately implemented in this area, because staff morale appeared to be average.

To obtain detailed information about this important aspect of program operations, we assessed “workplace climate” by including on the staff survey a number of questions that would tell us how staff members in the research programs perceived key aspects of their employment circumstances. Staff members generally reported a very positive view of their workplace (Figure VII.4 and Table VII.4). Most reported that Early Head Start is a pleasant place to work. Program directors received high marks from their staff: a large percentage of staff saw their director as communicating a clear vision, providing realistic job expectations, keeping the staff informed, and recognizing when the staff member does “a good job.” Similarly, very few staff reported that they are required to follow rules that conflict with their best professional judgment; only about one-quarter felt that routine duties and paperwork interfered with doing their jobs. The area in which staff members were least satisfied, as might be expected, is salary: 42 percent reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with the survey item, “I am satisfied with my salary.” This percentage, however, increased from 1997 to 1999, while most of the responses to workplace climate items changed little over this time (Figure VII.4).

FIGURE VII.4

WORKPLACE CLIMATE, FALL 1997 AND FALL 1999

[D]

 

TABLE VII.4

PERCENTAGE OF EARLY HEAD START STAFF AGREEING OR STRONGLY AGREEING WITH STATEMENTS REGARDING THEIR PROGRAM'S WORKPLACE CLIMATE, FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH

	Full Sample	Range of Percentage Across Programs	Program Approach in 1997
			Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
Director Communicates Clear Vision	82	56-100	79	79	87
Early Head Start Is Pleasant Place to Work	89	55-100	93	82	94
Director Recognizes when I Do a Good Job	74	44-86	75	70	77
Director Keeps Me Informed	81	17-100	82	79	82
Director Has Realistic Expectations	79	64-88	78	80	78
Routine Duties and Paperwork Interfere with Job	27	4-64	25	26	31
Have to Follow Rules That Conflict with Own Judgment	20	0-40	25	15	21
Satisfied with Salary	42	14-82	42	46	38
Administrators Encourage Staff Development Activities	86	73-100	80	88	88
Staff Frequently Share Ideas with Each Other	86	55-100	83	82	92
Staff and Administrators Work Collaboratively for Program Improvement	78	64-96	74	81	78
Administrators Collaborate with Other Staff to Make Decisions	69	52-86	65	74	68
Staff and Administrators Are Receptive to Change	64	36-86	66	65	61
Staff Have Enough Opportunity to Influence Decisions Affecting Their Work	55	35-82	50	60	56

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999.

 

A number of questions about workplace climate focused on the interrelationships of staff and directors, collaboration, and decision making (Figure VII.5 and Table VII.4). Most staff members (86 percent in both 1997 and 1999) felt that the program encouraged staff development, a critical element for any human services program. A large percentage of staff members (86 percent in 1999) worked in programs where their colleagues shared ideas with each other, and 78 percent reported that staff and administrators worked together for program improvement. Somewhat smaller numbers (about two-thirds) saw their program administrators as collaborating with staff in decision making and being receptive to change. Slightly more than half (55 percent) of all staff felt that they had “enough opportunity” to influence decisions that affected their work. Although the percentage who perceived that they had to follow rules they didn’t agree with was small (20 percent), it increased 4 percentage points from 1997.

Through two years of program growth and with increasing programmatic complexity, staff members in the research programs generally maintained their positive view of Early Head Start as a place to work, a view that we reported in Leading the Way. Two survey items about workplace climate that staff members rated somewhat lower in 1999 than in 1997 related to collaborative decision-making. The percentage agreeing that “administrators collaborate with other staff to make decisions” fell from 75 to 69 percent, and the percentage saying “staff and administrators work collaboratively for program improvement” declined from 83 to 78 percent. These declines, though not large, might reflect a number of factors operating over this period, including the increasing complexity of program designs, growth in the size of program staffs, turnover of directors and frontline staff, and the evolving program designs.

Through our staff interviews, we learned about several key factors that appeared to account for this generally good staff morale. Staff members talked about their conviction that they were making a difference in the lives of children and families, felt that they got along well and supported each other, received generous benefits, and had flexible work schedules. When morale was poor, staff attributed it to such factors as the stress resulting from dealing with the difficult problems their families faced, inadequate communication within the program, the departure of a program director, and program expansions or moves.

 

FIGURE VII.5

WORKPLACE CLIMATE: COLLABORATION, SHARING, AND DECISION MAKING FALL 1997 AND FALL 1999

[D]

6. Staff Health and Mental Health

Early Head Start staff members are generally healthy (Table VII.5). More than two-thirds (71 percent) described their health as “very good” or “excellent” on a 5-point scale; only 3 percent reported it to be “fair” or “poor.” Furthermore, 31 percent reported their health as being somewhat or much better than one year earlier, with only 8 percent saying it was somewhat or much worse than a year ago (health stayed “about the same” for 61 percent of the staff). Health problems did not appear to be a significant interference with work: one-fifth or fewer of Early Head Start staff indicated that any of four problems with work were a result of their physical health “during the past four weeks” (Table VII.5). Staff responded in a similar fashion to a question as to whether, in the past four weeks, they had a number of work difficulties “as a result of emotional problems, such as feeling depressed or anxious” (Table VII.5).

Finally, staff members reported on the extent to which their “physical health or emotional problems” interfered with their normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors, or groups. Ninety percent reported that they interfered “slightly” or “not at all.” Although considerable site-to-site variation appeared, there were no systematic differences in reported physical and emotional health by staff in the three program approaches.

TABLE VII.5

STAFF HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH: PERCENTAGE OF EARLY HEAD START STAFF RESPONDING "YES" TO SURVEY STATEMENTS, FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH

	Full Sample	Range of Percentage Across Programs	Program Approach in 1997
			Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
Overall Health
Health Is "Very Good" or "Excellent"	71	38-91	76	66	71
Health Is Somewhat or Much Better than One Year Ago	31	15-45	19	36	28
Problems as Result of Physical Health "During Past Four Weeks"
Did you cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities?	9	0-16	7	10	8
Did you accomplish less than you would have liked?	20	9-31	21	18	22
Were you limited in the kind of work or other activities you were able to do?	10	0-17	9	12	10
Did you have difficulty performing work or other activities, for example, did it take extra effort?	12	0-29	10	15	11
Problems as Result of Emotional Problems "During Past Four Weeks"
Did you cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities?	7	0-29	6	10	4
Did you accomplish less than you would have liked?	16	4-35	19	17	13
Did you not work or perform other activities as carefully as usual?	11	0-27	14	14	6
In Past Four Weeks, Physical Health or Emotional Problems Interfered with Normal Social Activities Slightly or Not at All	90	84-100	88	88	93

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999.

7. Job Satisfaction and Commitment

Responses to a number of questions about job satisfaction indicated that Early Head Start staff members enjoyed their work, found it worthwhile, and agreed that their jobs used their skills; few found their work boring. A sizable proportion said their work was “hard,” yet overall, more than three-fourths were satisfied with their position in the program. Table VII.6 shows the percentage of staff reporting that they agreed or strongly agreed with the job satisfaction statements on the survey.

In spite of being generally happy with their jobs, at least some Early Head Start staff members nevertheless found them stressful. About one-fourth of all staff members (24 percent) reported that their jobs were usually or always stressful. This varied considerably across programs, ranging from a low of just 9 or 10 percent of staff saying their jobs were usually or always stressful at three sites to 50 and 56 percent with this response at two sites. The latter two programs were home-based and, overall, the highest levels of stress were reported by home-based program staff (on average, 31 percent rated their jobs as usually or always stressful) and the lowest for center-based staff (18 percent). This is consistent with the fact that home-based staff are faced with coping directly with families’ day-to-day problems more often than are center-based staff.

Early Head Start staff generally had somewhat mixed feelings about their position with their program (Table VII.6). While 71 percent responded, “no,” they did not intend to “leave this field” in the next year (just 4 percent said yes to that question), 45 percent responded that they did not “feel committed to working in this field” (26 percent indicated they did feel committed to their field). As the job satisfaction responses also indicated, however, staff members put a lot of effort into their work and generally did not feel like quitting (only 7 percent indicated they frequently felt like quitting).

TABLE VII.6

JOB SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT: PERCENTAGE OF EARLY HEAD START STAFF RESPONDING TO SURVEY STATEMENTS, FOR THE FULL SAMPLE AND BY PROGRAM APPROACH

	Full Sample	Range of Mean Percentage Across Programs	Program Approach in 1997
			Center- Based	Home- Based	Mixed Approach
Percentage Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing
I enjoy my work	95	81-100	99	93	91
I find my work worthwhile	94	84-100	95	95	93
I find the work that I do is hard	41	0-70	30	47	45
I find my work boring	3	0-17	5	9	2
The work I do uses my skills	91	76-100	90	90	93
I am satisfied with my position with the Early Head Start program	77	56-100	77	79	74
Percentage Responding "Yes"
I intend to leave this field in the next year	4	0-13	4	5	2
I put a lot of effort into my work	99	93-100	99	99	99
I frequently feel like quitting	7	0-24	6	8	6
I feel committed to working in this field	26	14-50	30	20	27
I feel stuck in this position due to few other employment opportunities	14	0-32	13	17	13
Job is usually or always stressful	24	9-56	18	31	22

SOURCE: Survey of program staff conducted in fall 1999.

Although responses varied by site, this variation was not as great as on some of the other staff survey questions. Differences by program approach are not substantial, with the percentage of staff agreeing to these items differing by only a few percentage points across the three program approaches, but a trend suggests that staff of home-based programs experience greater stress than staff in other programs.

C. IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND CHANGES FROM 1997 TO 1999

The Early Head Start research programs’ implementation of management systems improved substantially during the evaluation period. The number of programs that had achieved full implementation of management systems doubled from 7 programs in fall 1997 to 14 in fall 1999 (Figure VII.6).

1. Policy Councils

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to establish Policy Councils that develop and approve key program policies and procedures. Policy Councils must include parents and community members. At least 51 percent of the members must be parents of currently enrolled children.

The number of research programs that had fully implemented these Policy Council requirements doubled between fall 1997 and fall 1999, from 8 to 16 (Figure VII.7). Ten programs had reached an enhanced level of implementation by fall 1999—their Policy Councils met regularly and made decisions about many aspects of the program. One research program received a low implementation rating on this dimension because, although it had established a Policy Council, it did not meet regularly.

2. Goals, Objectives, and Plans

To ensure careful and inclusive planning, the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to develop multiyear goals, short-term objectives, and written plans for implementing program services.

FIGURE VII.6

EARLY HEAD START MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS

[D]

 

FIGURE VII.7

EARLY HEAD START MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ASPECTS THAT WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED

[D]

 

In fall 1999, 13 research programs had fully implemented these planning requirements, almost doubling from the 7 programs that were fully implemented in fall 1997 (Figure VII.7). Seven programs had reached an enhanced level of implementation of the planning requirements in fall 1999—they developed their goals and plans in consultation with Policy Councils, advisory groups, parents, staff, and community members. Two programs received a rating of “moderately implemented” because their goals, objectives, and plans needed to be updated. Two programs received a low implementation rating in fall 1999 because, although they had implemented a planning process, their goals and plans had been only partially implemented.

3. Program Self-Assessment

To promote continuous improvement, the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to assess annually their progress toward achieving their goals and their compliance with the standards. The self-assessment should include Policy Council members, parents, staff, and other community members.

The number of programs that had fully implemented these self-assessment requirements doubled between fall 1997 and fall 1999, from 6 to 12 (Figure VII.7). Six programs had reached an enhanced level of implementation of the self-assessment requirements in fall 1999; these programs had used the results of their self-assessments to make specific program improvements. Three programs reached a moderate level of implementation in this area in fall 1999; while they had conducted some self-assessment activities in the past year, the self-assessment process needed to be formalized and documented in program records. One program received a low implementation rating in this area in fall 1999 because it had developed a plan for conducting a self-assessment but had not yet implemented it. One program had not yet planned for or conducted a self-assessment.

4. Community Needs Assessment

The revised Head Start Program Performance Standards require programs to conduct an assessment of community strengths, needs, and resources at least once every three years.

Fifteen research programs had fully implemented the community needs assessment requirements in both fall 1997 and fall 1999 (Figure VII.7). Seven had reached an enhanced level of implementation of the community needs assessment requirements in fall 1999—they involved a wide range of Policy Council and advisory group members, staff, parents, and community members in the assessment process. One program had conducted a community needs assessment, but it had not updated the assessment within the past three years. Another program had not yet carried out its plans for conducting a community needs assessment.

5. Communications Systems

We rated programs as fully implementing communication systems if systems were in place for communication among program staff, between staff and parents, with the grantee agency, and with the Policy Council and other governing bodies.8 

In fall 1999, 13 programs had fully implemented communication systems, including meetings and written communications on paper and through email. Eight programs reached an enhanced level of implementation of communication systems—their systems facilitated two-way communication in which staff, parents, the Policy Council, and the grantee provided information and input and also received it from each other. Four programs received a rating of “moderately implemented” in fall 1999 because they did not have adequate systems in place for communicating with the grantee agency, Policy Council, or other governing bodies.

D. SUMMARY

The Early Head Start research programs made significant strides in staff development and program management. Almost all (15 out of 17) achieved a rating of full or enhanced implementation in staff development by fall 1999, and the 3 programs that had been rated “low” in 1997 improved by 1999. Fourteen programs were rated as fully implemented in Early Head Start management systems in 1999, and 3 of the 4 that had been “minimal” or “low” in 1997 received higher ratings in 1999. The strongest areas across staff development and management were supervision, staff training, Policy Councils, and community needs assessments—in each of these, 15 or more programs were rated as fully implemented in 1999. Although staff retention was lower in 1999 than in 1997, most programs experienced annual turnover in the 15 to 32 percent range, and improvement was seen in the fact that fewer programs experienced very high turnover rates. A number of programs focused on improving wages, and the average compensation for frontline staff improved by 9 percent over that two-year period. Staff responses to a survey administered in fall 1999 showed that staff morale was generally high. Staff reported positive workplace climates and valued their directors.

The three program approaches differed in some aspects of staff development. Staff in home-based and mixed-approach programs had higher levels of educational attainment than those in center-based programs, the frontline staff in these programs received higher wages, and home-based and mixed-approach programs provided better benefits packages. Overall, programs were successful in meeting the requirement of the performance standards that at least 50 percent of frontline staff have a two-year or higher degree, even before the 2003 deadline. However, center-based programs were not achieving the required goal of having all teachers CDA-certified within a year of being hired. The three program approaches did not differ substantially in staff health and mental health, nor did they differ greatly in their staff’s job satisfaction ratings, although satisfaction was somewhat lower among home-based staff. Many staff across the research programs believed they were making a difference in the lives of children and families.

---

1Staff morale is not specifically addressed in the performance standards, but we included it in our ratings because it is an important indicator of the supportiveness of the work environment.(back)

2The 1997 staff information can be found in the earlier implementation report, Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early Experiences of Selected Early Head Start Programs, Volume I: Cross-Site Perspectives, Chapter III (Administration on Children,
Youth and Families 1999a).(back)

3The data on staff development issues are both qualitative (from the site visits) and quantitative (from a staff self-administered survey completed at the time of the site visits in 1997 [by 356 research program staff members] and 1999 [by 416 research program staff members]). The two staff surveys provide cross-sectional data at the two points in time; they do not permit longitudinal analysis of the same staff over time.(back)

4We chose 20 percent as the benchmark for full implementation because it is low relative to the average staff turnover rates in child care centers, yet it allows for some turnover for reasons outside the program’s control and for some turnover that can be healthy for a program.(back)

5The CDA credential is designed to ensure that the CDA is able to meet the specific needs of children and is able to work with parents and other adults to nurture children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth in a child development framework. CDAs must be high school graduates or have a GED, be 18 years or older, and have 480 hours of experience working with children within the previous 5 years. They must attend 120 hours of formal education/training at an approved institution. Training must include at least 10 hours in each of 8 content areas: (1) planning a safe, healthy, learning environment; (2) advancing children's physical and intellectual development; (3) supporting children's social and emotional development, (4) establishing productive relationships with families; (5) managing an effective program operation; (6) maintaining a commitment to professionalism; (7) observing and recording children's behavior; and (8) understanding principles of child growth and development. Each CDA’s advisor observes the candidate working with children for a minimum of two hours and completes an assessment that is forwarded to the national CDA office, which then schedules a written test and oral interview. The CDA office forwards results to the Council for Professional Recognition, which issues the CDA credential.(back)

6In 1997, we were not able to provide data separately for frontline staff. Then, 14 percent of all staff reported having completed a CDA credential; an additional 14 percent reported currently participating in CDA training. In 1999, 24 percent of all staff reported having their CDA credential (a 71 percent increase over the two-year period), and an additional 12 percent were in training.(back)

7Frontline staff members were those whose job titles reported on the survey indicated that they worked directly with children and/or families. Of the 356 staff responding to the survey in 1997, 228 were considered frontline (64 percent). Of the 416 responding in 1999, 242 (58 percent) were classified as frontline staff.(back)

8We did not rate this dimension in 1997. We added the scale for communication systems in 1999 based on the recommendation of a member of the training and technical assistance network.(back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next