Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

3.0 Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 Site Visits

3.1 Overview

In 1987, John Love and Jane Grover completed a study for Head Start, focusing on recruitment and enrollment activities (Love & Grove, 1987). Specifically, they interviewed staff from local Head Start programs to document their perceptions of eligible families and the ways that Head Start reached out to eligible families in need of services. Their work was the first to detail problems that staff encountered in getting families into the program (and keeping them there) as well as strategies that were used in addressing these problems.

Similarly, the current study sought to examine how programs were reaching out to serve differing populations of low-income families and to learn about eligible families who do not use Head Start. Nine Head Start sites were visited in the fall of 1999, while two additional site visits took place in the spring of 2000. The selection of individual Head Start programs to participate in this feasibility study was based on overall program size and representation of the original FACES sampling strata: region, urbanicity, and minority membership. At least one urban and one rural Head Start program in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West was selected. At each of nine locations, two focus groups with staff were completed. The first involved administrative staff, and the second included field staff involved in recruitment and enrollment activities. An additional program was added to the focus groups conducted at the rural Midwest site and to the urban West site. This resulted in a total of 11 programs participating in nine pairs of focus groups.

The first round of visits was to review selected Head Start records on recruitment, to solicit information on recruitment and enrollment procedures from Head Start staff, and to discuss impressions of Head Start with parents who had the opportunity for their children to attend, but chose not to use the program. The second set of visits was to test the feasibility of identifying, contacting, and interviewing families who were in the Head Start-eligible population but not using Head Start services.

This section presents the following summaries of local community descriptions as well as findings from both sets of site visits. These findings include:

• A description of Head Start programs and the communities they serve, including the particular needs addressed by the programs and information about enrollment and recruitment decisions,

• Findings from focus groups conducted with Head Start staff and non-enrolled families,

• Reviews of program recruitment records,

• Reviews of program waiting lists,

• Findings from community service providers about Head Start’s partnerships with other Federal, State, and community level organizations that serve low-income children and their families, and

• Assessments of the potential for completing interviews with a sample of non-enrolled, eligible parents, with a summary of the pilot interview findings.

3.2 Program Descriptions

Upon selection, each participating program was asked to provide copies of their most recent community assessment, as well as a listing of the eligibility criteria that the program uses to prioritize families for enrollment. This section summarizes this information, highlighting the range of characteristics that was evident across the participating programs.

3.2.1 Site Descriptions

As part of their enrollment and recruitment activities, each Head Start program is required under the Program Performance Standards to complete a community assessment that examines and documents the specific needs of the population it serves. Community characteristics, such as geographic size, community type (i.e., urban, rural, or suburban), availability of child care and other services for low-income families such as health, education, social, and nutrition services, and general demographic information (i.e., ethnicity, employment and income levels, education, and prevalence of disabilities among preschool children), are required. In addition, documentation of any specific challenges faced by their particular communities that may impact low-income families are also expected to be addressed.

Of the seven programs that responded to the request for a copy of their most recent community assessment, five submitted their formal community assessment, one submitted a re-funding application, while another 38  provided newspaper clippings, maps and the results of a welfare reform survey administered to its Head Start staff. As expected, there was substantial variation in the content and quality of information presented, especially in the data sources used, the comprehensiveness of the data presentation, and the translation of data into articulated community needs. In general, programs uniformly provided information on the geographic size and location of the communities they served, and the characteristics of the population they served, such as ethnicity, employment and income levels, and education.

Census data from 1990 was the most frequent data source used by the Head Start programs to compile their community assessments. Some programs reported using locally-derived data, such as information from state agencies, regional planning boards, economic development groups, local hospitals, advocacy groups and school districts in conjunction with Census data. Other programs relied heavily on data generated from internal surveys of Head Start staff and families to discuss their community characteristics and needs. Exhibit 3-1 presents a summary of community characteristics as reported by each of the Head Start program sites.

>

Exhibit 3-1 Summary of Community Characteristics of Head Start Programs

Program 1:

This is a large, rural county in the Northeast. It covers 1,460 square miles and is one of the most rural of the State’s counties. Over one third of all land parcels in the county are owned by nonresidents.

Population/Ethnicity:

Over the past decade the county’s population has remained relatively constant at about 47,000 people or about 2% of the State’s population. During the past decade, the percentage of elderly persons has risen disproportionally. The county’s average population density is 33 persons per square mile, although in some areas the population density is only 9-10 persons per square mile. The county’s racial composition is largely White; only 1.9% of all residents are non-White. Of the county’s 17,646 households, about 6,500 of these are households containing children. Family units average 3.07 persons.

Employment and Income:

Unemployment and underemployment are major problems in this rural county. The county’s estimated family income in 1995 was $31,700, the fifth lowest in the State. As of June 1996, there were 16,400 persons working in non-agricultural occupations in the county, representing a net loss of several hundred over a two year period. Of these, 11,500 persons were employed in service industries (e.g. wholesale and retail, government, services), while 4,900 were employed in goods producing industries (e.g. construction and mining, and manufacturing). Statistics from 1989 indicate that average per capita income for White residents was about $11,000, while for Blacks and Hispanics it was close to $7,000. It was estimated in 1994 that close to 15% of the county’s population, or slightly more than 7,000 people, were in poverty.

Program 2:

This program covers a large, urban county in the East.

Employment and Income:

Over the past two decades, this county has lost a substantial amount of its manufacturing and heavy industry businesses. This has been replaced by service employment, specifically education and health care. About 1 in 12 county families live below the poverty line. Approximately 16,000 children under the age of five live in poverty. In 1995, nearly 70,000 individuals were receiving cash assistance and about 127,000 were receiving food stamps.

Program 3:

This program covers two counties in the rural Southeast. The larger county contains 1,652 square miles and is less than 100 miles from many of the State’s resorts and vacation areas. In addition, about one fourth of the county is national forest land. Much of the county land is designated for agricultural use. There are five incorporated municipalities within the county. The smaller county contains 629 square miles, with much of the land designated for future residential development.

Population and Ethnicity:

In 1997, the population of the larger county was 237,494, with an anticipated increase to 254,139 by the year 2000. It was also estimated that by 2000, the gender/racial distribution of the population would be as follows: 40.3% White male, 43.3% White female, 6.5% Black female, 5.9% Black male and 4% all others. Further, it was anticipated that over 25% of the population growth by year 2000 would be of persons ages 65 and older. In 1997, the population of the smaller county was 111,828 as compared to 93,515 seven years earlier. Over 71% of this population growth is attributed to migration. The 1990 Census report indicated that this county was 97% non-Hispanic Whites and about 2% Black. The average family size is 2.47 persons per household. Seventy-one percent of children 18-years old and younger reside in two-parent households, about 18% in single-parent households, and the remaining 10% in a household headed by neither parent.

Employment and Income:

1997 statistics suggested that about 19% of the larger county’s population was designated as “poor” and over one fourth of these people were children aged 5-17. At that time, the median household income was $23,200, while the majority of families served by this Head Start program during the previous year earned $15,000 or less. In the county, 57% of the K-5 schools reported a student poverty rate of over 50%. As of January 1998, the county had 36 families residing in emergency shelters and about 200 families with children 5-years old and younger under protective services. In the smaller county, 50% of the K-5 schools have a poverty student enrollment of greater than 50%. No further information was provided about this county.

Program 4:

This Head Start program serves five Midwestern counties.

Employment and Income:

Poverty is increasing in the counties served by this Head Start program. Female-headed households with children under 5 years of age represent the largest group of persons living in poverty, with a high of 65% in County A to a low of 44% in County D. The following chart provides additional information on poverty levels and median household incomes for these counties, as reported for 1995. County # Living in Poverty % of Population Median Household Income A 2,263 6.1% $46,316 B 23,950 6.5% $50,747 C 6,030 7.8% $40,002 D 1,603 3.3% $54,334 E 1,863 5.2% $46,860 Many residents live in one county and work in another. Of the counties served by the program, labor force participation includes administrative support-clerical positions, precision crafts occupations, State-supported jobs, and manufacturing.

Population and Ethnicity:

The following chart shows the distribution of the population by ethnicity, completed in 1997. County Population White Black Hispanic Asian Other A 37,922 90% < 1% 9% < 1% < 1% B 380,801 74% 7% 17% < 1% 2% C 83,602 90% 3% 4% < 1% 3% D 49,856 93% < 1% 6% < 1% < 1% E 36,253 96% < 1% 3% < 1% < 1%

Educational Attainment:

1990 Census data indicates that overall, the percentage of residents age 25 and older having completed high school in the five counties served by the program is higher than the national average of 75.2%. In County C, it is the highest, with nearly 84% of this population having finished high school.

Public Housing:

There is a large gap between availability of public housing and need in these counties. In one county, the waiting list is years long. The program suspects that homelessness may be greater than reported because the Census numbers only include those persons who are in shelters and does not reflect a count of those using less reliable housing.

Program 5:

This Head Start program serves two counties in a split urban-rural area halfway between two large Midwestern cities. At the time of our study, this Head Start program was applying for its Head Start grant renewal. Staff of the program felt that the current community assessment did not accurately reflect community conditions, in part, because of the State’s welfare reform program which, as of September 1997, requires that all former AFDC recipients with children older than 12 weeks of age be involved in work activities.

Employment and Income:

As of January 1998, the first county had a relatively low unemployment rate of 3.5%. About one third of the county’s jobs are in manufacturing, followed by service-related, retail and public administration. Average median household income in July 1996 was approximately $40,000.

Population and Ethnicity:

In the first county, about 6.9% of children under 18-years of age live in poverty. This county is overwhelmingly White, about 98%, according to the 1990 Census. Among minorities, Latinos are the most numerous, about 1.6%. In the second county, approximately 18% of children under 18 years of age live in poverty, according to 1996 statistics. Overall, the population of this county is increasing and it is anticipated that the absolute number of children living in poverty will likewise increase, creating a larger group of potential Head Start-eligible children. Of the county’s 3- to 5- year olds, 3.1% are minority, 10.6% are disabled and 8.6% qualify for free/reduced lunches.

Program 6:

This Head Start program serves families in one county in the Southwest. No other data were available

Program 7:

This Head Start program serves three rural counties in the upper Northwest.

Population and Ethnicity:

The first county is 1,123 square miles. Its population is 23,800 people, spread out across 24 towns and small cities. The second county occupies an area of 873 square miles, with a population of 34,500, while the third county is 687 square miles in area with a population of 42, 500 people. The population of all three counties is predominately White, accounting for more that 93% of the population. All of the counties have experienced a gradual increase in population over the last several years.

Program 8:

This Head Start program serves five rural counties in the Southern United States.

Employment and Income:

There are about 53, 000 residents in the labor force in the program’s service area. Among the approximately 1,280 Head Start families, about 47% are not employed, 44% are employed full-time, and the remaining 9% includes families who are working part-time, in school or training, retired, disabled or performing seasonal work. Most jobs available to Head Start families are entry level service and factory worker jobs that offer minimum pay and limited benefits. About 70% of the Head Start families are not TANF recipients, while the other 30% receive TANF support. In 1998, the average annual income of one third of Head Start families was below $3,000.

Educational Attainment:

Seventy percent of the program’s Head Start parents have less than a high school education.

Program 9:

This is a large, Midwestern urban program consisting of 13 centers and is one of over 70 delegate agencies for the grantee. In a few of the centers, the program provides child care services as well as Head Start.

Program 10:

This Head Start program is located in the West.

Employment and Income:

Seventy-nine percent of the program’s families earn less than $15,000 annually. While 96% of Head Start families are eligible for public assistance, only 55% receive it. Contributing factors include: welfare reform restrictions, immigration status, and issues associated with pride and a desire for self-sufficiency.

Population and Ethnicity:

The majority of the estimated 200,000-250,000 population of this program’s service area is Latino, typically of Mexican heritage. In addition, there are sizable numbers of residents from Central and South America, Southeast Asian countries, and of Armenian heritage. In 1998, about 5,000 children under the age of four are income-eligible for Head Start services, an increase of 41% from 1995.

Program 11:

This Head Start program, whose auspice is a non-profit agency, enrolls over 6,700 children, mostly Hispanic. This grantee offers multiple schedule options, including part-day, full-day, and twilight care (3:30pm to 11:00pm).

3.2.2 Program Needs. While some of the participating Head Start programs documented factual information regarding the challenges faced by their particular communities, they presented little or no information about how they planned to address these needs. Instead, most programs focused on the needs of the families they served, or the needs of their program that they had a reasonable chance of influencing. The two most frequent program needs reported were 1) increasing enrollment capacity, and 2) enhancing partnership efforts. The family service needs most frequently reported were 1) health education and health services, and 2) education and employment services. Exhibit 3-2 summarizes program and family needs identified by each participating Head Start program.

Exhibit 3-2 Program and Family Needs Identified in the Community Assessments

Program 1:

Secure and maintain meaningful employment Make better use of available income Obtain and maintain adequate and affordable housing Obtain emergency assistance Counteract conditions of hunger and poor nutrition Obtain other services as needed by low-income families Attain an adequate education

Program 2:

Expand low cost child care services Convert Head Start classrooms to full day/ full year Increase “Welfare-to-Work” sites Expand family child care

Program 3:

Expand low-cost child care Funding for before and after care for parents working or going to school Improve inadequate transportation Increase ability to serve more eligible children Partner with local agencies to provide information and training on child abuse and neglect Expand community partnerships to develop inter-generational experiences with senior population Expand partnership with Hispanic community based upon emerging information of demographic shifts Realignment of Head Start activities (home visits, parent meetings) to accommodate working hours Health services

Program 4 and Program 5:

Obtain and maintain adequate and affordable housing Improve inadequate transportation

Program 6:

No information provided

Program 7:

No information provided

Program 8:

Continuation of Head Start center-based program: 5 days/week, 6 hours/day for 3- to 5-year-old children Establish a pre-Head Start program Incorporate a comprehensive preventive and corrective program of environmental health education into the parent education curriculum Expand partnerships with agencies to enhance GED program offerings, tuition and transportation Identify and recruit Head Start-eligible children from State-certified day care Provide greater parent/community involvement and support in public education through transition and tracking activities Encourage more medical specialists to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients

Program 9:

No information provided

Program 10:

Provide opportunities for parents to develop civic awareness and pride in their communities

Program 11:

No information provided.

 

3.2.3 Head Start Eligibility Criteria

In an effort to meet their mandate of responsiveness to community needs, individual Head Start programs establish eligibility criteria for entry into their program. Ten39  of the participating Head Start programs were asked to submit a copy of their program’s eligibility criteria. While there were some common eligibility requirements reported across programs, these eligibility criteria also reflected the unique characteristics of each particular community being served. One large urban program even developed a separate list of criteria for each center. Nine of the ten reporting Head Start programs assigned points or a weight to each factor, but these weights were not comparable across programs.40  Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the listed criteria across programs (without consideration of weights or points), with attention given to urban and rural differences. In the case of the one program where criteria were set by the individual centers, these criteria were collapsed into a single representation for the entire program.

Exhibit 3-3 Head Start Eligibility Criteria, Across Sites.

	UrbanSites					RuralSites
Criteria	02	03	06	09	10	01	04	05	07	08	Total
Age Factors
4-years plus (missed kindergarten cutoff)											5
Within age range (3- to 5-years, prioritize by age, oldest have highest priority)											4
Within age range (3- to 5-years, not prioritized)											3
3-years old											1
4-years old											1
Waiting list for over one year											1
Family Status Factors
Number of parents in household											10
Alternate caregiver (e.g., grandparent, foster parent, other relative)											9
Number of siblings (many or none)											5
Age of parent (very young, very old)											4
Ethnic minority											1
Non-English speaking family											1
Health and Disability Factors
Disability - child											10
Disability - other family member											7
Impaired health - child											6
Impaired health - other family member											5
Risk Factors
Referral from another agency											9
Stressful family/personal situation/crisis (e.g., death of parent, incarcerated parent, marital stress)											8
Physical abuse / neglect											7
Alcohol, substance abuse											4
Socialization needs											3
Pregnant mother in shelter											1
Abnormal test results / untestable											1
Illiterate parents											1
Child behavior problems											1
Work / Income / Housing Factors
Level of income relative to FPL											5
Parent works/attends school or training											4
Poor/unsafe housing conditions; homeless											4
TANF Recipient											3
Unemployed family members											1
High medical bills											1
No TANF or Medicaid, but in need											1
Rural isolation											1
Head Start Experience
Child/family currently enrolled in Head Start											5
Parent has Head Start experience											1
Head Start transfer											1
No previous Head Start experience											1
Completed Head Start medical and dental forms											1

 

Common criteria, reported by at least seven of the ten programs, included parental status (typically a single-parent family or a family having an alternate caregiver, such as a grandparent, foster parent, or relative), children with disabilities or families that had another member with a disability, families that were referred to Head Start by another social service agency, families that were experiencing particularly stressful times (e.g., the death of a parent, an incarcerated parent, or marital stress), and families for which there was evidence of physical abuse or neglect.

In reviewing the eligibility risk factors, attention was also given to the application of weights (or points) by specific programs to the different factors. This was done by 9 of the 10 programs. Higher weights increased the likelihood of enrollment for families having that risk, with enrollment decisions typically based on the total points accumulated by a family. Therefore, the eligibility risk factors were reviewed to determine which were given the highest weights by each of the programs (given the large number of risk factors reviewed by programs, the top five -- those carrying the five highest weights within a program -- are discussed). The review found little consistency across programs in the assignment of weights for the risk factors. The only risk factor that consistently carried a top five weight was for a child with a previously diagnosed disability. This risk factor carried a top five weight in 8 of the 9 programs. No other risk factor was listed among the top five weighted factors by more then five programs. The only top five risk factors used by at least five programs included 1) a child who was at least 4.5 years of age; 2) a family referred to Head Start by an outside agency; and 3) a family with an income well-below the FPL (either lower than 50% or lower than 25%, depending on the program). All other eligibility risk factors carried top five weights in three programs or less. For example, children from families with histories of substance abuse received top five weights from only three of the programs. Just as in the selection of the risk factors themselves, the development and application of weights likely reflect specific concerns about the local communitiesas well as Head Start’s ability to address the risk factor.

An interesting pattern among the eligibility criteria also emerged within the groupings of urban programs and rural programs. For age factors, rural programs were more likely to focus on enrolling children who were 4-years old than children who were 3, while urban programs noted little preference for 3-year olds or 4-year olds. Among the family status eligibility factors, rural programs were more likely to target children who were living with non-parents, while urban programs focused on children who had a large number of siblings and children who had parents who were either very young or very old. While it was noted that all programs targeted both child and other family member disabilities as important factors, rural programs were equally interested in reaching children or other family members who are experiencing serious health problems, a risk rarely cited by urban programs. Slightly more urban programs than rural programs listed alcohol or substance abuse as an eligibility risk factor.

With regards to work and income, five of the ten programs considered the level of income relative to poverty status in determining eligibility. In other words, these programs examined each family’s income relative to the FPL, with a special interest in the families that fell furthest below this line. A majority of the urban sites also accounted for whether the family has a parent who is working or is attending school or a training program, a consideration for only one rural site.

3.3 Focus Group Overview

In each of the nine selected Head Start focus group sites, two staff focus groups were conducted. Administrative staff, knowledgeable about their program’s recruitment, enrollment, and retention policies, were invited to participate in the first focus group; field staff who had primary responsibility for doing program outreach and recruitment were invited to participate in the second focus group. At three sites, focus groups were also conducted with parents of preschool children who were eligible for Head Start, but not currently enrolled.41  One of the three parent focus groups was conducted in Spanish. Focus group topic areas and cross-site findings are presented in the sections that follow.

3.3.1 Focus Group Methodology

Instrument Development. Using the stated objectives for the project as a framework, moderator guides were prepared to be used for each type of focus group: Head Start administrative staff (e.g., Program Directors, Coordinators, Center Directors), Head Start outreach and recruitment field staff (e.g., Family Service Workers, Teachers, Assistant Teachers), and non-enrolled parents (families recruited to Head Start that never enrolled, families that enrolled in Head Start but never attended, families that enrolled and began the program, but dropped out early). Exhibit 3-4 presents the topics areas covered in each of the moderator guides. Copies of the three moderator guides are in Appendix D.

Exhibit 3-4 Topics Covered during the Administrative, Field, and Parent Focus Groups

Topics	Admin	Field	Parent
Identification of eligibility
Program outreach and recruitment
Description of recruitment staff
Strategies to locate/approach/enroll families
Agreements with other agencies for referrals
Geographic limitations and overlap of service areas
Safety policies and issues
Cultural considerations
Contacting families
Risk factors for prioritizing enrollment
Characteristics/experiences of non-enrolled families
Drop-out policies and follow-up
Waiting list policies and procedures
Other preschool options for parents
Use of Head Start Training and Technical Assistance
Perceptions of Head Start

 

Subject Recruitment and Description. An On-Site Coordinator from each Head Start focus group site was retained by project staff to recruit Head Start staff and where needed, non-enrolled parents to participate in the focus groups. They also facilitated the arrangement of space for the meetings.

The number of participants in each staff focus group ranged from 5 to 12 (mean = 8.85 participants per group). Most staff participants reported many years of Head Start experience. The administrative staff’s Head Start experience ranged from 2 days to 32 years (mean = 9.7 years; median = 8.0 years), while the field staff’s Head Start experience ranged from 4 months to 33 years (mean = 9.6 years; median = 6.5 years). 42 

Focus groups with Head Start-eligible parents were conducted at three sites. A description of the participants is presented in Exhibit 3-5.

Exhibit 3-5 Description of Parent Participants

	(Site 1) Northeast Urban	(Site 2) South Rural	(Site 3) West Urban
Number of Participants	9	12	7
Gender
Women	9	12	7
Ethnicity
White	1	1	0
Black	8	11	0
Hispanic	0	0	7
Enrollment Status
Recruited, never enrolled	2	4	0
Recruited, dropped out	3	5	0
On wait list	4	0	7
Did not re-enroll	0	2	0
No previous knowledge of Head Start	0	1	0

 

The confidentiality of responses by focus group participants was ensured at two levels. Head Start staff received verbal assurances of confidentiality prior to participating; parents received the same verbal assurances of confidentiality and gave written, informed consent prior to the start of the focus groups.

Staffing. Abt and CDM organized a two-member research team for data collection at each site. These teams consisted of a focus group moderator and a notetaker. All moderators and notetakers attended a one-day training in Washington, DC which covered focus group procedures and a review of the project objectives.

Procedures. Each Head Start focus group site was visited by a data collection team for two to three days. Although most of the staff focus group sessions were held on site (at the local Head Start program), three of the programs did not have appropriate space available. In these cases, a local church, a community center, and a hotel were used as alternative locations. Arrangements were made to host the three parent focus groups at alternative sites (one community center, two hotels) away from the Head Start program to ensure that the participants would feel comfortable expressing their feelings and/or concerns about Head Start. Each focus group session lasted approximately 90 minutes and was audio taped.43  Two recordings were made of each group for quality purposes and to protect against equipment failure.

The focus group was led by the moderator who was responsible for establishing and maintaining rapport with group members, introducing the topics, and encouraging all group members to participate actively in the discussion. The notetaker was responsible for capturing the key comments of each participant, as well as capturing the general feel or attitude of the discussion, including non-verbal cues. Notetakers ensured that all material was adequately covered by the moderator, and occasionally asked questions of the group to help clarify responses. An incentive of $50 was paid to the participants of the parent focus groups. Head Start staff was not paid for their participation.

3.3.2 Analytic Strategies.

Audio tapes of the focus group discussions were transcribed, edited, and supplemented with the notetaker’s affective or intuitive insights. Using data from the final versions of the transcripts, individual site reports were prepared by a member of the research team who summarized the administrative, field, and parent group participants’ responses to each question. Key summative quotes or text segments were selected to represent the findings and were integrated into the descriptive summaries. A second member of the research team reviewed the transcripts with the corresponding site report to ensure the reliability of the site report and to aid in bias recognition.

A cross-site analytic meeting was held as part of the data reduction component of the qualitative analyses. The data reduction technique used at this meeting was Pattern Matching, which involved presenting the findings by site for each of the focus group questions. Data displays for each question were created to quantify the results. These numerically-based tables,44  which listed all the responses reported in each focus group, aided in the identification of similar and dissimilar events, and were used to answer the following questions in order to establish the cross-site summative findings:

• What was the range or distribution of responses?

• What was the modal or typical response?

• Were there relational differences across sites based on factors such as urbanicity, geographic region, or minority membership?

Emergent themes, based on the empirically derived findings and supported by the data, were identified and used to facilitate interpretation and explanation building.

3.4 Focus Group Findings

The data presented in this chapter were obtained from focus groups conducted at the nine Head Start sites. The findings reported are based on cross-site analyses of the qualitative data obtained from Head Start administrative and field staff, and parents of non-enrolled Head Start-eligible children.

3.4.1 Family Typology

A Typical Family Successfully Recruited to Head Start. The field staff group at each site was asked to describe a family that they had successfully recruited into Head Start. The question asked was:

• Think about a typical family you have successfully recruited, what characteristics did they have?

Although a wide range of characteristics was reported by the field staff (Exhibit 3-6) in each focus group, three key themes emerged across all nine groups. Staff reported that successful recruits were more likely to be 1) single-parent families (mentioned by two thirds of the field staff focus groups), 2) families that were low-functioning, or 3) families at high-risk. The last two were each mentioned in approximately one half of the field staff focus groups.

Low-functioning families were described by focus group members as having low self-esteem, or poor learning and/or coping skills. Field staff felt that these families were often aware that they needed help, yet they seemed to lack the knowledge or experience necessary to access and use outside resources. High-risk families were described as families with high social service needs who were coping with major life challenges such as drug and alcohol abuse problems, issues of domestic violence, or loss of significant family members to prison.

Low-income was also mentioned frequently as a characteristic of families successfully recruited to Head Start. However, this was expected, given the Head Start guidelines for eligibility mandate recruitment of low-income families.

 

Exhibit 3-6 Staff Reports of Types of Families Successfully Recruited to Head Start*

Single Parents	Grandparents/Foster	Have 3-year-old children
High Risk	Employed	Non-English speaking
Low-Functioning	Not Employed	Value Education
Low-Income	Teen Parents	In Public Housing
Special Needs	Intact Families	Poorly Educated

* In order of frequency

When asked if particular types of families were targeted for recruitment to Head Start, responses across sites varied considerably and ranged from targeting mothers with multiple children, single fathers, families with low literacy, to Spanish-speaking families. Three of the nine field staff focus groups reported spending more time and effort recruiting families they felt were at risk. This included teen parents and families who were homeless or had mental health or substance abuse issues. Families having children with disabilities were also mentioned.

A Typical Family Recruited to Head Start Who Did Not Enroll, or Enrolled but Dropped Out. The field staff group at each of the nine Head Start focus group sites was asked to describe a fam