Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Chapter V: Staff Characteristics and Program Management

Understanding the types of management activities taking place within Early Head Start programs to support the delivery of quality services helps policymakers assess the extent to which programs are achieving key objectives within the performance measures framework. These activities include staff hiring and retention, activities to support staff, use of curricula, and use of data to support continuous program improvement. Because of their critical role in delivering services, this chapter starts with a description of staff qualifications, expertise, and retention in the program. Management activities designed to support staff and enhance their work with children and families, including staff development, training, and supervision are then described. Finally we describe management systems designed to support continuous program improvement, including use of curricula, collection of data, both classroom quality and child functioning, and how this information is used to enhance program practice. Selected topics from the site visits are highlighted in text boxes.

EARLY HEAD START STAFF CHARACTERISTICS

The qualifications of staff and their development are core to the success of early childhood programs and both the Head Start Program Performance Standards and the performance measures framework emphasize employing qualified staff. The current mandate requires that staff working with infants and toddlers obtain a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent within one year of hire, and that at least 50 percent of these staff have an associate degree in early childhood education. The pending Head Start reauthorization bill will increase these requirements if passed in its current form.1 Other important skills include the ability to maintain good relationships with children's families, establish caring relationships with infants and toddlers, provide appropriate developmental experiences, and conduct developmental screenings. Thus, successful service delivery in Early Head Start programs depends on the programs’ ability to attract and keep staff with a range of expertise and educational backgrounds. In this section, we describe Early Head Start staff characteristics, how these characteristics differ by types of staff, and the challenges programs experience hiring and keeping qualified staff.

Specialists and Coordinators

Early Head Start programs employ and have access to a wide range of staff, including primary caregivers and/or home visitors (depending on program model), directors, and specialists, all with knowledge, skills, and experience in a wide array of fields. More than 90 percent of Early Head Start programs employ or have access to a mental health specialist, a disability specialist, and a health care professional or nurse (Table V.1). More than half report having access to a literacy specialist. Less than 20 percent of programs employ or have access to a dietitian or nutritionist. This may be because health specialists/coordinators often oversee services provided to address the nutritional needs of Early Head Start children and families. Nearly two-thirds of programs report having access to a speech or language specialist, perhaps because speech and language impairments are the most common special needs reported for children in Early Head Start. Disability specialists may also provide services for these conditions. Finally, more than half the programs employ staff specifically to support and encourage involvement by fathers, reflecting an emphasis in Early Head Start on support for fathers’ involvement in program activities and decision making. Chapter IV provides a more detailed discussion of strategies programs use to involve fathers in program activities.

Table V.1. Types of Staff in Early Head Start Programs

Staff Characteristics		Percentage of Programs
Program Employs or Has Access to	Mental health specialist	95.5
	Disability specialist	92.0
	Health care professional or nurse	91.0
	Speech or language specialist	64.8
	Father or male involvement specialist	57.5
	Literacy specialist	56.7
	Dietitian or nutritionist	18.9
	Any other specialist	27.7
Program Employs	Home visitors (own)	81.8
	Home visitors (partner)	15.8
	Primary caregivers (own centers)	82.9
	Primary caregivers (partner centers)	33.8
Sample Size (Programs)		240-652

SOURCE: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Management Staff

Nearly all program directors have a bachelor’s or higher degree; 62 percent of programs employ directors with graduate degrees (Table V.2). Eighty-three percent of programs indicate that they only employ directors with a baccalaureate (BA) or graduate degree.2 Similarly, half of all programs only employ managers with such educational backgrounds. Like directors, more than 90 percent of these staff members have a bachelor’s or higher degree. Nearly 60 percent of programs employ at least one manager with a graduate degree.

Table V.2. Qualifications and Education of Early Head Start Staff

Staff Characteristics		Percentage of Programs
Highest Degree Held by Director	Graduate degree	61.9
	Baccalaureate degree	32.9
	Associate degree	2.4
	GED or high school diploma	2.8
Highest Degree Held by Manager	Graduate degree	58.9
	Baccalaureate degree	36.1
	Associate degree	4.1
	GED or high school diploma	0.9
Employs Only Directors with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree		83.3
Employs Only Managers with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree		50.6
Employs 50 Percent or More Primary Caregivers Who Hold a	Graduate degree	1.1
	Baccalaureate degree	15.5
	Associate degree	15.5
	Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential	15.7
Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least an Associate Degree		13.2
Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least a Child Development Associate Credential		29.3
Employs 50 Percent or More Home Visitors Who Hold b	Graduate degree	3.8
	Baccalaureate degree	46.5
	Associate degree	19.0
	Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential	12.1
Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least an Associate Degree		46.7
Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least a Child Development Associate Credential		63.3
Sample Size (Programs)		422-581

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. a Among programs reporting any caregivers. b Among programs reporting any home visitors.

Management staff members monitor progress toward program goals and oversee implementation of program services. While educational background provides necessary knowledge and expertise to manage and, at times, implement services, other characteristics may also be essential for management staff to be effective in their roles as program leaders. Interviews during site visits provide additional background on the skills and qualities that Early Head Start staff members feel are important for effective leadership (Box V.1).

Frontline Staff

Programs rely on frontline staff working within centers the programs operate, as well as those employed by community partners.3 Most programs, however, rely on home visitors and primary caregivers employed by the program (82 and 83 percent, respectively). A small minority (16 percent) of the programs that offer home-based services use home visitors employed by community partners. Similarly, one-third of programs report relying on primary caregivers employed through partnerships with child care providers in the community.

Unlike preschool Head Start, where a distinction is made between teacher and assistant teacher in terms of qualifications, for Early Head Start, all direct service classroom care providers are called caregivers. The performance standards do not require primary caregivers in center-based programs to have a BA degree, but at least half must have an associate degree (AA) or higher in early childhood education or a related field. Few programs (13 percent) report that all primary caregivers have an AA or higher; 32 percent indicate that at least half the primary caregivers they employ have an AA or higher degree (Table V.2). All primary caregivers in center-based programs must have a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent within one year of hire. Nearly one-third of programs report only employing primary caregivers with at least a CDA or higher. Most programs also provide tuition reimbursement for some or all of their primary caregivers and home visitors to support them in securing required educational credentials (discussed later in this chapter). Consequently, many programs employ at least one primary caregiver or home visitor who is without a degree but enrolled in training of some sort (65 and 32 percent, respectively).

BOX V.1 PROVIDING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS Underlying the performance measures for Early Head Start programs is an expectation that programs employ qualified staff with the skills necessary to provide high-quality services. While the Head Start Program Performance Standards include requirements for staff credentials, other staff characteristics also may be critical for providing high-quality services. In selecting sites for visits, we chose some programs that had experienced a change in director in the past year. In fact, during site visit interviews, Early Head Start staff members rarely focused their discussions of effective leadership traits on credentials or educational background; instead, they focused on personal characteristics as essential for leadership success. In this text box, we discuss staff perceptions of the skills necessary for effective leadership and management staff’s attempts to involve staff and parents in decision making. Frontline and management staff emphasize the ability to motivate and support staff as important skills for effective leadership. During site visits, program directors and other management staff recognized that program leaders have to envision “the bigger picture” while also handling the day-to-day tasks and challenges of their work. Therefore, they must balance an understanding of both daily and long-term requirements and obligations. They also must have a clear vision of the goals for the program. In this process, they must motivate and encourage staff and ensure that they have the tools and materials to effectively carry out their jobs. This requires understanding the inherent challenges of working with low-income families and the difficulties participating families face. To fulfill all these roles, program leaders need strong communication and listening skills, interpersonal and coaching skills, and respect for staff opinion and input. Program leaders need to have knowledge of child development and Early Head Start regulations, management and decision-making skills, passion for the work, and the ability to support and respect staff. For example, primary caregivers report valuing leaders that relate well to frontline staff, are sympathetic to the demands of their position, and respect and treat them as equals. In particular, primary caregivers emphasize a desire to interact with management staff who seek their opinion and input on policies and procedures and who understand the difficulties associated with their daily work. A similar desire for understanding the challenges of home visiting also emerged during site visits. Other program staff members (such as education coordinators and specialists) underscore the importance of leaders having good communication skills, a willingness to be innovative and try new things, empathy for families and frontline staff, and the ability to maintain staff morale. In an effort to be inclusive and support staff morale, most programs solicit input from frontline staff on procedural and policy changes. As many of the selected programs report, management staff generally uses this approach to encourage “buy-in” and support of staff members for program changes that directly affect them. Even allowing staff members, during staff meetings, to discuss any changes that have already been decided is seen as a way to encourage their support. It also allows management staff to identify any obstacles to implementation or other ways to approach issues. In addition, several program directors report providing detailed information to staff about proposed and upcoming changes (and the reasons for these changes) to promote the acceptance of such changes. One program reports providing opportunities for staff to contribute suggestions or programmatic ideas throughout the year. Again, program leaders view these activities as a means of effectively leading programs, with the maintenance of staff support perceived as essential to their success and effectiveness. Programs that do not openly communicate with staff regarding new policies or the rationale for procedural or policy changes have frontline staff members who report greater frustration and feelings of powerlessness. As some staff members at visited programs indicate, it is important for them to have a voice in policy and a clear understanding of any program changes. Some programs also suggest that praise and recognition for frontline staff’s ability to adapt to such changes are important in maintaining staff morale.

Home visitors have higher levels of education than primary caregivers on average across programs. Nearly half of all programs report that all home visitors they employ have an AA or higher in early childhood education. More than two-thirds of programs report that at least half their home visitors have an AA or higher. The disparity between education levels of home visitors and primary caregivers suggests that programs may impose a higher standard for the credentials of home visitors than for those of primary caregivers, even though the performance standards contain more stringent education requirements for primary caregivers. One possible explanation for this difference is that the classroom setting is a more supervised environment, while home visiting is a more solitary activity that may require more clinical skills in working with families. Home visitors also need to establish relationships with parents and be able to work effectively with both parents and children. For example, home visitors must be able to communicate effectively and respectfully with parents about sensitive topics and work with families in crisis. Box V.2 describes the ways programs approach hiring qualified staff.

Staff Turnover

Programs strive to hire qualified staff and to keep them. Consistency in staff helps maintain smooth program operations and reduces costs associated with advertising, interviewing, hiring, and training new staff. Furthermore, children and families benefit from consistency when relationships are maintained over time; transitions in front-line staff can be very difficult for families and may at times precipitate termination of participation in the program.

Although Early Head Start programs seek to keep staff, some turnover is to be expected. In the year before the survey, many programs had experienced staff turnover (Table V.3). Depending on the type of staff who leave and the frequency of changes, turnover can have a greater or lesser impact on programs. The loss of management staff is particularly critical, as there may be a resulting disruption in leadership and in smooth program operations. However, the replacement of an ineffective leader with an effective one can have positive effects on a program.

On average, programs report that home visiting staff left at a slightly higher rate than other frontline staff during the year before the survey (24 percent of home visitors, compared to 20 percent of primary caregivers). However, the rate of home visitor turnover varies widely across programs—in that time period, 41 percent of programs had no turnover among home visitors, and 6 percent had all home visitors leave. Sixty-six percent of programs had home visitor turnover at or below 25 percent. Among primary caregivers, an average of 20 percent of those employed directly by Early Head Start left the program in the year before the survey; 17 percent of those employed by community partners left their jobs during the previous year. Again, the rates of turnover vary across programs, with 27 percent of programs reporting no turnover of primary caregivers they employ and 3 percent reporting turnover of all primary caregivers in the past year. Seventy-four percent of programs had turnover at 25 percent or lower. Nearly half the programs (49 percent) report that there has been no turnover among primary caregivers employed by their partners.

BOX V.2 CHALLENGES IN HIRING AND RETAINING STAFF IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS Overall, Early Head Start programs employ well-qualified frontline staff members despite facing challenges of competing employers offering higher salaries, and shortages of job candidates with early childhood backgrounds and experience working with infants and toddlers. During site visits with selected programs, staff members discussed their experiences hiring and retaining staff. Many Early Head Start programs have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified frontline staff. During site visit interviews, program staff indicated that compared to other early childhood programs, the requirements for Early Head Start teaching staff are stringent. Because of difficulties identifying qualified applicants, however, programs often must hire staff without the minimum CDA or AA credentials, with the expectation that they will obtain the necessary credentials within a year. Programs also report that qualified staff often feel that the salaries for Early Head Start positions are inadequate, especially when compared to similar positions in the public schools and when considering the emotional commitment the work requires. As some programs report, degreed teachers in Early Head Start often do not receive the same compensation as similar staff in other settings. According to some programs we visited, this compels them to find other ways to make job offers more appealing to potential staff. For example, some programs report offering generous benefit packages to candidates to offset less appealing salaries. Despite the commitment of staff members to the well-being of children and families that encourages many to join and stay with the program, low salaries continue to contribute to high turnover rates. Difficulty finding staff with an interest in and ability to work with infants and toddlers and the intensive care they require, as opposed to preschool-age children, also contributes to hiring challenges. A few programs indicate that higher education institutions in rural areas do not offer all the coursework necessary to obtain an appropriate degree in the field. The survey data support this assertion to a certain degree. Compared to programs in mainly suburban and urban areas, rural programs (38 percent) are less likely to employ all home visitors who hold at least an associate degree in early childhood education or a related field (38 percent of rural, compared to 70 percent of suburban and 52 percent of suburban programs). However, similar differences in the degree attainment of primary caregivers did not emerge. Rural programs are also less likely than mainly suburban or urban programs to employ most types of specialists. Other than educational background, programs emphasize desired experience in their search for qualified frontline staff. For example, many indicate the importance of social service experience, so that staff members are prepared to work with low-income, culturally diverse families who may be in crisis. Cultural competence among staff members is particularly important because of the diversity in cultures and traditions among Early Head Start families. (Chapter III discusses respect for the cultures of families receiving services.) During site visit discussions, programs emphasized the desire to recruit staff members capable of working with families in a nonjudgmental, empathetic manner. Others noted the importance of experience working with young children. As some programs report, frontline staff members need to know how to relate well to children, how children learn, and how programs can contribute to that learning. A few programs face challenges in hiring bilingual staff. Bilingual staff members, especially those that speak Spanish and English, are in high demand, given the population served by Early Head Start programs. During site visits, some programs emphasize the importance of bilingual staff, as their presence helps build relationships between families and program staff. As these programs point out, the need to use translators during home visits and interactions with families may pose a barrier to establishing greater close communication with parents. In addition, some parents may prefer interacting and communicating with staff sharing the same language and cultural background. In fact, a parent in one visited program notes this preference in home visiting staff. However, as one program points out, it may be a challenge to find bilingual staff with the education and experience to provide high quality services.

Table V.3. Early Head Start Staff Turnover

Staff Characteristics		Number of Programs	Percentage of Programs
Director Left Program in the Past 12 Months		77	11.9
Coordinator or Manager Left Program in the Past 12 Months		185	28.5
Among Programs with Any Management Change, Most Cited Reasons	Personal reasons	128	61.5
	Higher compensation (same field)	69	35.9
	Change in job field	68	34.0
	Fired or laid off	30	14.8
	Other reasons	8	4.4
Staff Turnover in Past 12 Months			Average Percentage of Staff Leaving Each Yeara
Turnover of Home Visitors		422	23.8
Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Program		437	19.8
Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Child Care Partner		121	17.3
Sample Size (Programs		121-650

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. a Calculated within each program as the number of each type of staff leaving divided by total home visitors or total primary caregivers, averaged across all programs with that type of staff.

Relatively few Early Head Start programs (12 percent) lost their director within the previous year. However, a sizable minority of programs (29 percent) report that an Early Head Start coordinator or manager left within the same period. A handful (5 percent—not shown) report that they had lost both their program director and at least one manager. Such transitions in management staff may be particularly troubling for programs because of disruptions in leadership.

Programs report that most staff (managers and frontline) leave the program for personal reasons. More than one-third of programs (36 percent) that lost management staff reported that those staff took higher-paying jobs in the early childhood education field. Programs are challenged to retain credentialed staff members who are often lost to higher-paying jobs in the public school system. Approximately one-third of programs experiencing management turnover indicate that a change in job field was the reason for staff leaving. In most cases, staff left voluntarily, with only 15 percent of programs that lost a manager or director reporting losses due to layoffs or firing.

SUPERVISION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Because of the high toll turnover has on programs and families, and to maintain high-quality services, programs engage in activities to support staff and prevent turnover. Below, we discuss what programs have done to support ongoing staff development, training, and mentoring. In this section, we discuss Early Head Start programs’ approaches to supervision and staff support, staff development, and training.

Supervisory Practices and Support

Supervision and support activities help staff meet the demands of their job responsibilities and work effectively with children and families. Supervisory practices include a range of activities, such as reflective supervision, performance appraisals, group case conference sessions, and mentoring. These activities may be conducted individually or in groups. They also may include formal activities, such as individual performance reviews, or less formal activities, such as discussions about how to address the needs of a particular family.

Most Early Head Start programs support staff through ongoing reflective supervision. Reflective supervision is a collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor and supervisee in which staff are encouraged to reflect on the progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis. The process is considered important to ensuring staff quality, retention, and support and is therefore encouraged by its inclusion in the performance measures. Similar numbers of programs report that they engage in this practice with primary caregivers and home visitors (83 and 81 percent of programs, respectively; Table V.4). Two-thirds of programs that do reflective supervision report receiving outside training or assistance to conduct it. Box V.3 provides further details on programs’ experiences with reflective supervision. For primary caregivers, 54 percent of programs report that they practice reflective supervision monthly or more often. Slightly more programs (60 percent) indicate they practice reflective supervision monthly or more with home visitors.

Aside from reflective supervision, programs engage in other supervisory activities with staff, including performance appraisals, group case conference sessions, and mentoring. These activities keep management staff abreast of staff performance, the challenges staff face, and potential emerging issues with families. As expected, nearly all programs conduct performance appraisals, almost all conduct group case conference sessions, and a significant proportion assign mentors to less experienced staff. Formal performance reviews provide opportunities for self-assessment and feedback. Assigning experienced staff to mentor junior staff allows programs both to monitor and supervise the activities of less experienced staff and to provide guidance as needed. Case conference sessions can support communication among staff and provide opportunities to brainstorm ways to address challenging problems, particularly in regard to serving high-risk families or families facing particular difficulties.

Table V.4. Supervisory Practices and Training Opportunities in Early Head Start

Supervision and Training		Percentage of Programs
Staff Supervisory Practices	Conducts performance appraisals for all staff	99.2
	Conducts group case conference sessions	92.7
	Assigns mentors to less experienced staff	83.6
	Conducts reflective supervision with primary caregiversa	82.6
	Conducts reflective supervision with home visitorsa	80.9
	Received outside training for reflective supervision (among programs that use reflective supervision)	69.4
Staff Development and Training	Conducts staff training	99.1
	Meets with staff individually	98.9
	Holds staff meetings	99.5
	Observes frontline staff providing services	98.9
Program Provides Tuition Reimbursement for (Some or All)	Primary caregivers	84.9
	Home visitors	79.2
Program Provides Workshop Fees or Other Training Costs for (Some or All)	Primary caregivers	85.3
	Home visitors	86.4
Program Provides Time for Staff Development for (Some or All)	Primary caregivers	79.6
	Home visitors	82.8
Sample Size (Programs)		398-644

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. a Reflective supervision is generally considered to be a collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor and supervisee in which staff members are encouraged to reflect on the progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis.

Training Opportunities

Performance standards require programs to provide training to frontline staff and volunteers to help them acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver services effectively. For example, there are annual requirements for training in child safety (CPR, first aid, emergency response, and medicine administration) and child abuse and neglect reporting. However, programs also have flexibility to customize training to address topics of particular interest or need. The content of staff training may therefore vary from program to program and within programs from year to year. Box V.4 provides additional details on the nature of training activities and goals across programs.

BOX V.3 SUPPORTING EARLY HEAD START STAFF WITH REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION Reflective supervision is a collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor and supervisee in which staff members reflect on the progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis. Programs are expected to make reflective supervision a regular and ongoing process to help frontline staff work with families effectively, to support staff working in stressful circumstances, and to help them find solutions to problems faced in their work with families. Program performance measures emphasize the use of these activities. Accordingly, during site visit interviews, we asked programs to describe their experiences with this practice. Programs using reflective supervision view it as an opportunity for staff to express their needs and to seek guidance and support for coping with the challenges of working with high-need children and families. Several programs indicate that reflective supervision is often an opportunity for staff to vent frustration, reduce stress, and work toward professional goals. As one program selected for a site visit suggests, the process allows staff members to reflect on their job performance and the difficulties of their position. Two programs also emphasize the importance of staff members’ self-awareness and their understanding of how their work affects themselves and others. Reflective supervision allows programs to provide this opportunity to staff. Some programs also suggest that the process helps avoid staff burnout, because it allows staff to discuss issues that are particularly stressful for them. One program notes that when managers listen to staff and support them during this process, staff feel more confident and better able to independently address issues they encounter. Programs we visited use both individual and group meetings for supervision. Group meetings may be led by a manager and individual meetings are held with supervisors (who may be the same person depending on the program). Some programs are unfamiliar with the term reflective supervision, or they believe there is room for improvement in this process for their program. For example, some programs selected for site visits indicate that they do not practice reflective supervision in an organized fashion, in a manner that they are satisfied with, or as frequently as they would like. Finding the time to use this approach with individual staff members is a challenge for several programs. In addition, during interviews, some programs referred to the practice as a less reflective and broad activity than the term implies. For instance, one program reports reviewing classroom teachers’ curriculum plans as reflective supervision, rather than discussing personal and classroom goals with teachers. Another defines reflective supervision as having managers model developmentally appropriate practices for teaching staff. Other programs indicate that they do not practice reflective supervision but report engaging in activities that could be classified as taking a reflective approach. Because most programs reported using reflective practices within the survey component (Table V.5), this may indicate some programs’ lack of knowledge of terminology.

All Early Head Start programs reported providing opportunities for ongoing staff development and training. In addition to directly providing staff training activities, programs encourage the ongoing professional development of staff by supporting their attendance at conferences, workshops, and classes. For example, 85 percent of programs provide tuition reimbursement for some or all of their primary caregivers, and another 79 percent provide similar reimbursement for their home visitors. Similarly, approximately 85 and 86 percent of programs cover workshop fees or other training costs for some or all of their primary caregivers and home visitors, respectively.

BOX V.4 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS The performance measures framework for Early Head Start emphasizes the development of systems that ensure programs are well managed, supportive of staff, and able to effectively meet the needs of participating parents and children. As part of this mandate, programs develop plans and systems to provide staff with training opportunities to support them in performing their job duties and continuing to develop their skills. The nature of training activities, as well as the impetus driving training goals, varies from program to program and from year to year. This variability in approaches to staff training reflects an awareness of and responsivity to program and staff needs. In this text box we discuss programs’ training activities, including topics and goals, staff involvement, and participation in national and regional conferences and workshops as seen in site visits. Training goals and decisions in Early Head Start programs are responsive to staff interests and needs, the needs of participating families, and ongoing self-assessments of program quality. For example, several programs we visited survey teaching staff about their training needs to prioritize areas for training. A handful of programs selected for site visits indicate that the program self-assessment process guides their training plans and goals. During this process, programs report analyzing child and program outcomes; conducting observations of classroom teaching and home visiting practices; and surveying parents, staff, and community partners. Results from the process, therefore, help programs to identify training needs and areas requiring program-wide attention and improvement. Training plans are then crafted based on results from the self-assessment process. Programs also use other tools to guide training activities. For instance, one program indicates that outside initiatives, such as promotion of father involvement, guide their training activities. Other programs emphasize improving staff knowledge on infant and toddler development because, as some staff point out, early childhood coursework does not always focus on this developmental period. Notably, while training areas may be identified for the program as a whole, they also may be identified for individual staff members. For example, programs may focus training on areas important for all staff members to develop (such as the attainment of relevant degrees or knowledge of program curriculum) as well as those that individual staff members are interested in learning more about. Commonly, programs also must comply with state training requirements in health and safety. These requirements generally center on first aid, CPR, child abuse and neglect prevention and reporting, and medicine administration. Programs vary in how and when they provide training activities and in the staff for whom they provide training. For example, visited programs report providing training opportunities using in-house staff members, outside consultants, or staff at partner agencies. Programs also report providing training at orientation for new staff, as well as at periods throughout the program year for all staff. Similarly, some programs provide all training hours for all staff at the beginning of the program year during pre-service training, while others provide ongoing and in-service training throughout the year. Often, training opportunities are open to staff at child care partners as well. Chapter VI provides further details about the nature of child care partnerships in Early Head Start. Many programs also emphasize increasing staff members’ understanding of program curriculum and the assessment process, knowledge of early child development and developmental milestones, and receipt of necessary teacher credentials. Programs also provide training geared towards developmentally appropriate classroom practices, dealing with parents’ mental health and substance abuse issues, building relationships with families, working with special needs children, developing and documenting the goal setting process with families, time management, and culture and language issues. In addition, a handful of programs indicate that it is important for training to be specific to the needs of the program. Typically these programs reference a need to emphasize rural issues (versus urban issues) in mainly rural areas. Besides providing training opportunities locally, many programs support staff in their attendance at national and regional conferences and workshops. These opportunities may focus on building knowledge among frontline staff or improving the leadership skills of management staff. For example, one program reports providing leadership training for its program director, another program director attended Coaching for Results training, and another supports the attendance of its entire management staff at a minimum of one conference annually. Programs also note that they have staff who attend NAEYC, local and regional AEYC conferences, WestEd, and the Birth To Three Institute, among other conferences and trainings.

PROGRAM SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

In this section, we report on program activities to support program improvement, including use of specific curricula, screening and assessment tools, and management information systems. The performance standards require programs to screen each child for developmental delays within 45 days of enrollment, and to conduct regular assessments (at least three times a year) to track children’s developmental progress. Early Head Start programs are free to select the curricula and screening and assessment tools, they use while providing services.

Curricula in Use

We asked programs to report on the curricula they use in each setting where they provide services (home-based, center-based, or family child care). Programs report using many different curricula in center-based settings, with only a few curricula in use by substantial proportions of programs (Table V.5). Slightly more than three-quarters of programs use the Creative Curriculum (Dodge and Colker 1992) in center-based settings. Other curricula—that are used much less frequently—include Games to Play with Babies and Games to Play with Toddlers (both 20 percent; Silberg 1993). Fifteen percent of programs use the Hawaii Early Learning Profile (Parks 1993), and 15 percent report using an agency-created curriculum (not shown).

Table V.5. Use of Curricula, Screeners, and Assessments

Curricula and Instruments		Percentage of Programs
Curricula (Center-Based Settings) a b	Creative Curriculum	75.8
	Games to Play with Babies	20.0
	Games to Play with Toddlers	20.0
Curricula (Home-Based Settings) a c	Partners for a Healthy Baby	59.6
	Games to Play with Babies	31.3
	Games to Play with Toddlers	27.3
	Hawaii Early Learning Profile	29.3
Curricula in Family Child Care Settings a c	Creative Curriculum	82.7
	Games to Play with Babies	14.8
	Games to Play with Toddlers	14.8
	High/Scope	12.4
Screeners d	Ages and Stages	69.5
	Ages and Stages Socio-emotional	48.1
	Denver II Developmental Screening Test	44.7
	Brigance Screening Test	8.7
Assessments d	Creative Curriculum	28.5
	Ounce Scale	13.3
	High/Scope COR	8.7

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. a Among programs providing this type of service option. b Sample Size = 120. c Sample Size = 99. d Sample Size = 541–601.

Curricula in home-based settings are more evenly distributed across programs than those in center-based settings. The most popular curricula in use by programs that offer home-based services are Partners for a Healthy Baby (60 percent), Games to Play with Babies (31 percent), the Hawaii Early Learning Profile (29 percent), and Games to Play with Toddlers (27 percent).

Among programs that provide family child care services, again most use Creative Curriculum (83 percent), followed by Games to Play with Babies and Games to Play with Toddlers (both 15 percent). Nearly one-fifth use an agency created curriculum.

Use of Screening and Assessment Instruments

Many programs use more than one instrument for initial screening upon program entry. Most programs (70 percent) use the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (Squires et al. 2002). About half the programs use the Ages and Stages Socio-Emotional scale (Squires et al. 1999), and a similar number (45 percent) use the Denver II Developmental Screening Test (Frankenburg and Dodds 1989). A few programs report using other instruments, such as the Brigance Screening Test (Brigance 1991) or another instrument (Table V.5).

Nearly all programs reported using an instrument for ongoing assessment (91 percent). Across programs, many different instruments are used, with only a few programs endorsing any one instrument. The most frequently cited assessment instruments are the Creative Curriculum assessment tools (29 percent), the Ounce Scale (13 percent), and High/Scope COR (9 percent; High/Scope 1999).4

Programs use these screening and assessment data in a variety of ways, primarily for lesson plans, either for a class or a specific child (87 percent), referring a child for additional services (79 percent), and planning activities for home visits (74 percent). Other uses that programs report for screening and assessment data are to update individual family partnership agreements (IFSPs; 61 percent), or use assessments in the aggregate to describe child outcomes (42 percent). Ten percent of programs reported other uses of these data.

Parent and Family Assessments

Nearly three-quarters of programs use some type of parent or family assessment with parents (73 percent; Table V.6). As is the case with some other assessments or instruments, a few parent/family instruments are most likely to be used by programs that conduct such assessments. For example, family partnership agreements are the parent/family assessment that most programs use (80 percent), next most common is an agency created assessment (32 percent), and the Family Needs Scale (10 percent). Programs primarily use parent/family assessment data to support referrals for additional services (93 percent), plan home visit activities (64 percent), and create lesson plans for home visits (49 percent), and update IFSPs (47 percent).

Table V.6. Parent/Family Assessments in Early Head Start

Parent/Family Assessment Instruments and Uses		Percentage of Programs
Family Partnership Agreement		79.5
Agency Created Assessment		31.9
Family Needs Scale		10.4
Use of Parent/Family Assessments	Refer for additional services	93.3
	Plan activities for home visits	64.2
	Create lesson plans for home visits	49.3
	Update IFSP	46.8
	Other	11.0
Sample Size (Programs)		402-404

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. Note: Among 404 programs that use a parent/family assessment.

Child Care Quality Assessments

As described earlier, the performance standards require programs to ensure that child care meets acceptable quality standards. We asked programs to report the quality assessments that they use in each setting where they provide care (centers and family child care). Nearly all programs report using a tool to assess quality in child care settings (92 percent; Table V.7). In center-based settings, two-thirds of programs primarily rely on a well-known child care quality assessment, the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS; Harms et al. 1990). Only a handful of programs report using any other child care quality assessment, such as the Arnett (1989) or Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith 2002; each under 10 percent). Among the few programs providing care through family child care providers, more than half (57 percent) use the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; Harms and Clifford 1989); nearly one-third report using another unspecified assessment. After assessing child care quality, nearly all programs found improvements needed to be made, most often by offering staff training, developing written improvement plans, or scheduling a follow-up assessment.

Table V.7. Early Head Start Program Efforts to Ensure Quality of Child Care

Quality Assurance Activities		Percentage of Programs
Conduct Classroom Assessments		92.3
Among Programs That Conduct Assessments, Percentage That Found Improvements Were Needed		93.7
Among Those That Found Needed Improvements, Steps Taken	Provided staff training	90.7
	Developed written improvement plan	75.9
	Scheduled follow-up assessment	71.2
	Obtained technical assistance	50.3
	Terminated partnership	6.0
	Improvements to facility/equipment	3.9
	Other	3.4
Sample Size (Programs)		386-456

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Management Information Systems (MIS) and Use of Data

Nearly 90 percent of Early Head Start programs use an electronic MIS to collect and organize administrative data, most often either the Head Start Family Information System (HSFIS; 34 percent) or Child Plus (37 percent; Table V.8). A handful of programs use other software packages for this purpose (all less than 4 percent), including COPA, Prinis, Access, and locally designed systems. Ten percent of programs report using a combination of software programs to gather and use program data. These systems allow programs to collect data on children and their skills, special needs, and services. For example, programs may collect data on children’s attendance and immunizations, health and developmental screening results, service receipt, and referrals. Information on staff (such as type, credentials, and training), participating family demographics, and other information collected at intake are also gathered and stored electronically. These systems enable programs to monitor program activities, enrollment, and quality and are usually the primary resource for meeting reporting requirements such as the PIR. Site visit interviews provide further details on programs’ uses of MIS (Box V.5).

Among programs using a computerized MIS, most report satisfaction with their system (Table V.8). One-quarter of programs are very satisfied with their MIS, and half are somewhat satisfied. Among the remaining 25 percent of programs reporting being somewhat or very dissatisfied with their MIS, most cite problems with software as the reason for their dissatisfaction. Forty-two percent indicate that their MIS is difficult to use, while another 40 percent feel that the reports the MIS generates are not useful. Many programs completing this survey complained that it is difficult to get needed information because their MIS is not adaptable enough or because staff do not know how to use it to report information in a different way from the one to which they are accustomed.5 Among programs that report being somewhat or very dissatisfied with their MIS, 82 percent use HSFIS and 19 percent use Child Plus (not shown). Small proportions of users of other MIS are also dissatisfied.

BOX V.5 USING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS MIS support programs in their efforts to monitor program activities and compliance with the Head Start Program Performance Standards. During site visit interviews with selected programs, staff described how they use these systems. Programs use their MIS for program monitoring, generating reports, and tracking participation and service use rates. For example, many programs use the MIS to monitor program participation and service receipt, including attendance rates, completion of home visits and health exams, and receipt of immunizations and screenings. Programs also use their MIS to track enrollment numbers, family characteristics, and children’s illnesses and injuries. In addition, programs use these systems to keep track of families that have dropped out of the program or are transitioning into Head Start or another program, the proportion of families with incomes above poverty, and the proportion of children with disabilities. Several programs also use their MIS to record and track families’ progress toward family partnership goals. A few programs mention using MIS data to assess father involvement and participation in program activities. Most sites we visited (all but 4 of the 17) use their MIS to compile and provide data for the PIR, the primary annual data collection requirement for programs. Many programs generate reports with their MIS for instructional planning and to assess training and technical assistance needs. Since programs often maintain records of children’s assessments, many report using their MIS as a tool to document and monitor children’s status and developmental progress. This information is then used to individualize instruction for children. Some programs also provide child outcomes data generated from the MIS to parents to make them aware of their child’s status and to educate them on how to tailor the home environment to meet a child’s specific needs. Similar reports can be generated to monitor program-wide performance. In fact, programs report generating program-level data for self-assessment purposes. One program indicates that it is able to identify whether it meets program performance standards for completing screenings, for example. Programs may also use reports to provide program-level data to other interested parties. For example, one program uses its MIS to generate reports for its Policy Council, funders, and executive board. By examining performance at the classroom, center, and program level, programs also are able to identify training opportunities and areas for improvement. For instance, one program indicates that reports from its MIS reveal whether there is a need for better curriculum in certain subjects or whether teachers need more training on how to teach certain subject areas.

Among programs with an MIS, more than 90 percent indicated they use it to generate enrollment lists, reports on the characteristics of Early Head Start families, and on children’s immunization status. Fewer (83 percent) use it to generate reports on services provided. MIS are used less often to trace staff training (59 percent), individual child progress (64 percent), or staff characteristics (66 percent).

KEY POINTS

• Nearly all Early Head Start programs have access to a wide array of specialists including mental health, disability, and health care specialists.

• Nearly all programs have directors and managers with BAs or advanced degrees.

• Forty-seven percent of programs have a staff consisting of at least half home visitors with a BA or higher, and 17 percent have a staff consisting of at least half primary caregivers with that credential. Overall, home visitors on average have more education than primary caregivers.

• Sixty-six percent of programs have a staff consisting of at least half home visitors with an AA, and 32 percent have a staff consisting of at least half primary caregivers with that credential.

• Few programs lost their director in the year before the survey, and only a handful lost both a director and manager in that period. Turnover rates among primary caregivers and home visitors were higher—both near 20 percent on average.

• Most programs provide tuition reimbursement for some or all of their primary caregivers and home visitors to support them in securing required educational credentials. Consequently, many programs employ at least one primary caregiver or home visitor who is without a degree but enrolled in training of some sort (65 and 32 percent, respectively).

• Programs we visited report challenges in hiring and keeping frontline staff, primarily because of the educational requirements for Early Head Start teaching staff, the low salaries offered compared to those for similar jobs in the community, and the desire of many candidates to work with preschool-age children rather than infants and toddlers.

• Programs engage in a variety of supervisory activities with staff members to support and guide them. More than 80 percent of programs report using reflective supervision with primary caregivers and home visitors. Of those, more than two-thirds report receiving outside training or assistance to conduct reflective supervision.

• All Early Head Start programs provide opportunities for ongoing staff development and training. Eighty-five percent of programs provide tuition reimbursement for some or all primary caregivers, and 79 percent provide similar reimbursements for home visitors.

• Programs collect large amounts of data on families, staff, services provided, and child functioning. However, not all are aggregating this information for use in continuous program improvement. For instance, 83 percent report using their MIS to generate reports on services provided to children and families, while 64 percent generate reports on individual child progress.

• Ninety percent of programs use an MIS to collect and organize administrative data, most often the HSFIS or Child Plus. About three-quarters of programs using an MIS are somewhat or very satisfied with it. The primary reasons for dissatisfaction are software problems, difficulty using the software, and the inability to generate useful reports.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next