Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
8.0 Head Start’s Special Populations
This chapter presents descriptions of three special populations served by Head Start: families of children with disabilities, families of Hispanic children, and families with grandparents as the primary caregivers of the children.
8.1 Overview of Families of Children with Disabilities
Since its inception, Head Start has promoted enrollment and delivery of services to children with special needs and has directed local programs to set aside a minimum of 10% of available program slots for these children and families, regardless of income [Head Start Program Performance Standard 1306.(c)]. Head Start guidelines promote inclusion of children with special needs in regular classroom activities and the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), including an integrated service delivery program, to accommodate the needs of these children and their families. This section will present characteristics of families who have children with disabilities, how these families function, and their relationships with the Head Start program.
Definition of Children with Disabilities
Although parents reported in the parent interview whether or not their children had disabilities, for the purpose of this report, children were counted as having disabilities only when these parent reports were supported by subsequent responses that the children also had an IEP (an indication of a professional diagnosis). It was also recognized that while some children entered Head Start with an identified disability (and an IEP), other children were identified sometime during their Head Start experience, including some who received professional diagnoses and IEPs during their second year in the program. In order to be inclusive of all children with professionally diagnosed disabilities, children with disabilities were identified in the sample in the following way.
Classification was based on information taken from each data collection. First, 233 children were identified in the fall of 1997 as having an IEP. Similarly, 281 were identified with an IEP in the spring 1998 interview, while 102 were identified as having an IEP in spring 1999. After accounting for children who were reported to have an IEP in two or more parent interviews, a total of 424 children in the study sample were classified as having disabilities. Regardless of when the disabilities were first reported, fall 1997 parent interview data are presented in sections 8.1.1 through 8.1.3, which contain descriptive background information on these children and families. Starting with section 8.1.4, spring 1998 data were used for only the 281 families with children identified as having disabilities at that time. This process offers the largest number of families with responses to questions gathered at the end of the Head Start year, including satisfaction with program services.
8.1.1 Characteristics of Children with Disabilities
Ethnicity
The supplemental exhibit(Exhibit 8-2) in section 8.1.6, page 150, presents the distribution of child and family characteristics within groups of families with and without children with disabilities, as well as across five categories of disabilities (language, behavioral, cognitive, physical, and sensory). Among children with disabilities, the ethnic groups with the largest representation were African American children (36.7%) and White children (34.1%). While Hispanic children made up 28.9% of the children without disabilities, only 20.3% of the children with disabilities were Hispanic.
Distributions of children by ethnicity, as shown in Exhibit 8-2, display some differences across the five disability categories. While African American children made up the largest ethnic percentage of all children with disabilities, this was the case for only one of the disability groups. White children made up the largest proportions of children with cognitive, physical, and sensory disabilities. Among children with physical disabilities, only 6.0% were Hispanic, much lower than the proportion of African American children (27.7%) or White children (53.9%). Compared with the overall category of children with disabilities, the sensory disabilities category had fewer African American children (18.2%) and an increased percentage of Hispanic children (34.0%).
Gender and Age of Children
While the main sample of children was evenly split between boys and girls, almost two thirds of the children with disabilities were boys (62.6%). This finding was generally true within each of the disability categories, although the proportion of boys in the behavioral disability category was up to 74.5%. Exhibit 8-2 shows that the percentage of 3-year-olds among the children without disabilities was less than one third (30.0%). This was very similar to the proportion of 3-year-olds in the overall study sample. In contrast, more than two fifths of the children (41.8%) with disabilities were 3 years old. Within the five disability categories, more than one half of the children with behavioral disabilities were 3 years old, but less than one quarter of those in the cognitive disabilities (24.4%) and the sensory disabilities (22.8%) categories were 3 years of age.
Geographic Location
As noted in Exhibit 8-2, urban areas were home to approximately two thirds of the children with disabilities (64.4%) and children without disabilities (67.4%). This pattern was consistent across the disability categories, with the exception of children with physical disabilities (56.3%), who were more likely to come from rural areas. The distribution of children, both with and without disabilities, by geographic region was generally similar to the distribution of the regions across the study population as a whole. In looking at the five disability categories, physical disabilities had an increased proportion of children from the Midwest (41.4%), while only 17.2% of the children came from the South, which was the largest group of children, overall.
Child Birthweight
As seen in the supplemental exhibit (Exhibit 8-2), more than 80% of the children in the study were of normal birthweight, regardless of whether they had disabilities (81.8%) or not (86.5%). Among the disability categories, less then three quarters of the children in the cognitive category (64.1%) and the physical category (55.8%) were born with a normal birthweight. The physical disabilities category had the largest proportions of children with low (20.5%) and very low (7.5%) birthweights.
8.1.2 Characteristics of Families of Children with Disabilities
Age of Parents
As displayed in Exhibit 8-2, the distributions of parents’ ages across the groups of children with and without disabilities was generally mixed. Both groups had about one half of the parents under 30 years of age, but the percentage of children with disabilities having parents less than 20 years of age (5.0%) was about twice that of children without disabilities (2.1%). About one tenth of the children in the behavioral disabilities category (10.2%) had parents under 20, while none of the children in the physical disabilities category had parents less than 20 years of age. More than one half of the children with disabilities had parents under age 30, including 70.2% of the children in the sensory disabilities group; 71.3% of the children in the physical disabilities group and 58.3% of the children in the cognitive disabilities group had parents older than 30 years of age. Consequently, Exhibit 8-2 also shows that the mean and median ages for parents of children in these two groups were slightly higher than that reported for parents of children in the other disability categories.
Nativity of Parents
The parents of children without disabilities (20.6%) included a much higher proportion of non-U.S. born individuals than did parents of children with disabilities (7.3%)(Exhibit 8-2). For children in the behavioral disabilities category, only 1.7% of the parents were born in a country other than the U.S., while 15.5% of the parents with children sensory disabilities were born out of the U.S.
Marital Status
As noted in Exhibit 8-2, the parents of children with disabilities were very similar to the parents of children without disabilities on their distribution across four categories of marital status. Within the disability categories, parents of children in the cognitive disabilities group (66.9%) and the physical disabilities group (71.3%) had the highest percentage of married parents. More than two thirds of the children in the behavioral disabilities category had single parents (70.7%), as did 55.8% of the children in the language disabilities category.
Education and Training
As with some other characteristics, Exhibit 8-2 shows that the distribution of parents across the five education and training categories was similar for parents of children with disabilities and parents of children without disabilities. In both cases, just over one quarter had less than a high school diploma, and just over one third had diplomas or GEDs. Within the five disability categories, less then one tenth of the parents of children with physical disabilities (9.5%) had less than a high school diploma, while for the other four groups, the proportion was closer to one quarter. The largest percentages of parents with college degrees were within the cognitive disabilities (8.2%) and the physical disabilities (6.8%) groups.
Employment Status
Full-time workers represented approximately one third of parents of children both with and without disabilities (Exhibit 8-2). This figure was also true for parents of children in each of the disability categories, except for parents of children in the sensory disabilities category (24.7%). Parents of children in the sensory disabilities category were also the most likely to be unemployed (65.9%).
Household Income
Some important differences in monthly household income were noted between families with and without children with disabilities. As seen in Exhibit 8-2, a smaller proportion of families having children with disabilities (7.8%) also had monthly household incomes of less than $500 than was noted among families without children with disabilities (12.5%). In contrast, the families with children that had disabilities (21.2%) were more likely than families not having children with disabilities (14.8%) to have monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more. For the three middle categories of income, differences between the two groups of families were slight.
Families with children who were classified as having language disabilities had a distribution of income very much like that of the disabled group as a whole, but differences were apparent for families with children in the other groups (Exhibit 8-2). The very low family incomes (less than $500) were most likely found in families having children in the language disabilities category (8.2%), and less apparent among families with children in the cognitive (2.5%), physical (2.5%), and sensory (3.1%) disabilities groups. A big difference was noted in the highest monthly income category ($2,000 or more). While only 14.8% of the families with non-disabled children and 21.2% of all families containing children with disabilities were in this category, more than two fifths of families with children in the cognitive category (41.1%) and almost one half in the physical category (47.9%) had the highest level of monthly household income.
Housing Status
Exhibit 8-2 shows that a slightly higher proportion of children with disabilities (90.5%) lived in private homes than did children without disabilities (85.8%), while shared housing was used slightly less. Interestingly, although it was noted above that the families of children with disabilities had fewer families in the lowest income category and more in the highest income category than did families of children without disabilities, the former group had the higher proportion of families living in public housing (29.6% vs. 20.9%). The proportion of children with behavioral disabilities who also lived in public housing was 39.7%, about two times the level of most other groups.
Sources of Support
Exhibit 8-2 shows that WIC was used by more than one half of families, regardless of whether or not the children had disabilities, but that the receipt of TANF was slightly higher for families of children with disabilities (35.4%) than for families of children without disabilities (29.4%). WIC was used, similarly, by more than one half of the families with children in each of the disability categories. TANF receipt, however, was lower among families of children classified as having cognitive (53.9%), physical (19.5%), or sensory (21.8%) disabilities.
As expected, Exhibit 8-2 shows that the receipt of SSI or SSDI was much more likely among families of children with disabilities (20.4%) than among families of children without disabilities (9.4%). Among the disability categories, receipt of SSI or SSDI was highest by families of children in the cognitive (29.7%) and physical (29.0%) categories, and lowest for families with children in the behavioral (14.2%) and sensory (15.4%) categories.
Insurance Coverage
As noted in Exhibit 8-2, a higher proportion of children with disabilities were covered by private insurance (37.1%) and Medicaid (68.7%) than were children without disabilities (31.8% and 56.3%, respectively). Coverage by private insurance was highest among families of children classified in the cognitive (53.9%) and physical (53.7%) disabilities categories. Use of Medicaid was reported by over two thirds of the families in each of the disability categories, except by families of children with physical (49.0%) and sensory (56.4%) disabilities.
8.1.3 Functioning of Families of Children with Disabilities
This section presents information gathered from the parent interviews about the functioning of the Head Start families who had children with disabilities, including their psychological well-being, and their neighborhood environments.
Social Support
All families need outside sources of support in raising young children. This may be especially true for families of children with disabilities. In the spring of 1998, parents were asked about the people or groups in their lives that were helpful to them during the past six months in raising their Head Start children. Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities (91.5%) reported that Head Start was helpful (30.5%) or very helpful (61.0%) as a source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than grandparents or other relatives (82.1%) and much more helpful than friends (65.1%), other parents (61.9%), professional helpgivers (60.1%), people from religious or social groups (44.4%), child care staff (38.9%), or co-workers (24.2%).
Based on a summary variable measuring total support1 , parents of children with disabilities reported receiving more support in raising their children than parents of children without disabilities, t(2683) = 2.57; p = .01. Although both groups of parents were close on their reports of the amount of support they received from Head Start, grandparents and other relatives, friends, religious and social group members, and co-workers, a slightly larger proportion of parents of children with disabilities (38.9%) reported they received support from child care staff than parents of children without disabilities (30.8%), and a slightly smaller proportion of parents of children with disabilities reported receiving support from other parents (61.9% vs. 68.1%). As expected, almost twice as many parents of children with disabilities (60.1%) compared to parents of children without disabilities (31.0%) reported receiving support from professional helpgivers. Reports of social support did not vary by type of disability.
Psychological Well-Being
Depression among Head Start parents was measured using the CES-D Depression Scale2 (Radloff, 1977). Overall, most parents of children with disabilities were classified as not depressed (37.0%) or mildly depressed (26.9%). Still, one third of these parents were classified as moderately depressed (14.8%) or severely depressed (17.6%). Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more depressed, t(2682) = 3.04; p < .01, and had a more external locus of control, t(2682) = 3.31; p < .001, than parents of children without disabilities. Reports of parental depression did not vary by type of disability.
Social Service Needs
Because parents of young children sometimes need help of various kinds, they were asked, during the spring 1998 interview, to report whether they or someone in their household had needed or received help from various community agencies since September of 1997. Types of services included income assistance, employment assistance, help with health care, or other social service needs. Based on summary scores measuring need for services3 and receipt of services4, parents of children with disabilities had a greater need for services, t(2686) = 2.77; p < .01, and received more services, t(2686) = 3.06; p < .01, than parents of children without disabilities. The mean number of services needed by parents of children with disabilities was 8.9 (SD = 6.2) compared to 8.0 (SD = 5.6) services needed by parents of children without disabilities. The mean number of services received by parents of children with disabilities was 6.9 (SD = 5.4) compared to 6.3 (SD = 4.7) services received by parents of children without disabilities.
Health
Almost two thirds (65.2%) of the parents of children with disabilities reported they usually took their children to private doctors or HMOs for routine medical care. The remaining parents indicated that their children received routine medical care through public health departments (19.9%), or hospital outpatient clinics (14.1%). This use of routine health care services did not differ from that of parents of children without disabilities. However, parents of children with disabilities were significantly more likely to report that their children had chronic diseases, X2 (1, 2685) = 24.6; p < .0001. A significant chi-square was found when testing differences of health status between children with or without disabilities, X2 (4, 2688) = 39.9; p < .0001. Children with disabilities were less likely to be reported by their parents as having excellent health (35.2%) than children without disabilities (44.8%).
Involvement With Their Children
Parents were asked about their families’ activities with their children during the week and month prior to the spring 1998 interview. Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities (96.3%) reported that they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Almost one third of the children (32.1%) were read to every day, while 38.4% were read to three or more times, and 25.9% were read to once or twice during the week prior to the interview. A very small proportion, 3.7%, reported they had not read to their children at all during the past week. The frequency of reading reported by parents of children without disabilities was very similar. Families of children with disabilities also involved their children in a wide range of activities. No significant differences in the amount of weekly, monthly, or total activities with children were noted between families with or without children with disabilities. Reports of family activities with children did not vary by type of disability.
Child Behavior
Parents were asked to rate their children in several different areas, including their behavior and emergent literacy. Compared to parents of children without disabilities, parents of children with disabilities indicated their children had fewer positive social behaviors5, t(2672) = 4.90; p < .0001, and more problem behaviors6, t(2659) = 8.12; p < .0001, including behavior that was more aggressive7, t(2681) = 4.40; p < .0001, hyperactive8, t(2679) = 6.47; p < .0001, and withdrawn9, t(2671) = 8.34; p <.0001. Children with disabilities were significantly lower on emergent literacy10 than children without disabilities, t(2686) = 7.95; p < .0001.
One-way analyses of variance were used to test for overall differences in the parents’ reports on child behavior and emergent literacy, categorized by child disability type. Post-hoc Scheffe tests (ps < .05) identified individual differences between each group. For the child behavior, significant main effects were noted for type of disability by positive social behavior, F(5, 274) = 3.60; p < .01, overall problem behavior, F(5, 272) = 10.84; p < .0001, aggressive behavior F(5, 279) = 3.69; p < .0001, and hyperactive behavior, F(5,275) = 7.96; p < .0001. Children with behavioral disabilities had higher reported behavior problems, including aggressive and hyperactive behaviors, than children with language disabilities. They also had more reported problem behaviors and hyperactive behaviors than children with physical disabilities, and more problem behaviors and aggressive behaviors than children with multiple disabilities. There were no differences by type of disability on emergent literacy.
Neighborhood Environments
When asked in spring 1998 about their families’ exposure to neighborhood and personal violence during the past six months, slightly larger proportions of parents of children with disabilities reported having been exposed to crime, violence, and victimization than parents of children without disabilities. Almost one fourth of parents of children with disabilities (23.5%) reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods and over two thirds reported exposure to violent crime (35.6%), while parents of children without disabilities reported less exposure to nonviolent (18.9%) and violent crime (23.3%) in their neighborhoods. Almost one quarter of the parents of children with disabilities (22.7%) knew someone who was the victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood, compared to 17.7% of parents of children without disabilities. Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.5% of the parents with disabilities compared to 3.8% of parents of children without disabilities and 3.8% of the parents of children with disabilities reported being victims of violence in their homes compared to 3.4% of the parents of children without disabilities.
This finding was somewhat surprising, given parents of children with disabilities reported, on average, higher monthly household incomes than parents of children without disabilities. Further investigation through the use of a one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc tests found that those families reporting the lowest household incomes (less than $500 per month) scored higher on the exposure to violence scale then families whose reported income fell into any of the other higher income categories, F(4, 392) = 2.75; p < .05.
8.1.4 Relationships with Head Start
This section presents information regarding how satisfied parents of children with disabilities were with the overall Head Start program, the barriers to participation they faced, ways they felt Head Start had helped their families, suggestions for improvement, and how Head Start addressed the special needs of their children.
Program Response to Children with Disabilities
Over one half of the children with disabilities (57.8%) were diagnosed after enrolling in Head Start and two fifths of their parents (40.2%) reported that the disabilities affected their children’s ability to learn. While almost all of the children (81.6%) were members of Head Start classrooms that included children with or without disabilities, about one half of the children with disabilities (48.7%) left their classrooms for separate services or instruction.
By the spring 1998 interview, almost 70% of the parents indicated their children received all (62.1%) or most (7.0%) of the services identified in their Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Yet, close to one quarter of the parents reported their children only received some (14.6%) or none (8.9%) of the services needed. When asked where their children were receiving services for their disabilities, Head Start was mentioned by 64.3% of the parents, school districts were mentioned by 36.7% of parents, 22.5% cited doctors or clinics, and 18.6% reported receiving services from State or local health or social service agencies. Over three quarters of the parents were very satisfied (59.6%) or somewhat satisfied (16.5%) with the services their children were receiving. Close to one fifth reported they were somewhat (2.1%) or very dissatisfied (14.1%) with these services.
When asked how helpful Head Start was with assisting parents in talking with other schools and agencies, and knowing about other resources available for meeting their children’s special needs, close to three quarters of the parents indicated Head Start was helpful (19.8%) or very helpful (53.8%) to them. Head Start was also rated as helpful (22.9%) or very helpful (49.8%) in assisting parents to better meet the special needs of their children in the home, for example, providing a proper diet and exercise or continuing recommended therapy.
Slightly over one third of the parents (34.2%) felt there were areas or ways that the Head Start program could improve in providing services to children with special needs and their families. Suggestions included the following: provide therapy at the Head Start center (21.2%), give more attention to children in special situations such as having separated parents (9.0%), provide more information about services available for special needs children (8.3%), provide services more quickly (8.0%), offer more activities or routines focused on special needs children (7.5%), notify parents immediately about children’s special needs (6.2%), provide more individual attention (5.6%), and have more special education teachers and staff available (5.3%).
Involvement at Head Start
In the spring of 1998, parents were asked about the ways that they were involved in the Head Start program throughout the past school year. A summary score measuring total involvement11 showed that parents of children with disabilities were significantly more involved in Head Start than parents of children without disabilities, t(2685) = 2.16; p = .03. As demonstrated in Exhibit 8-1, although parents of children with or without disabilities participated at very similar rates, slightly larger proportions of those who had children with disabilities attended parent-teacher conferences (88.2% vs. 80.7%) and participated in Policy Council (42.2% vs. 35.1%).
| Weighted Percentages | ||
|---|---|---|
| Parents of Children | ||
| With Disabilities | Without Disabilities | |
| Observed classroom for 30 minutes or more | 76.8 | 77.4 |
| Prepared food or materials | 71.4 | 65.4 |
| Helped with field trips | 50.7 | 50.9 |
| Attended Head Start social events | 58.4 | 55.2 |
| Attended workshops | 55.1 | 54.7 |
| Attended parent-teacher conferences | 88.2 | 80.7 |
| Had Head Start staff visit at home | 83.0 | 82.9 |
| Participated in Policy Council | 42.2 | 35.1 |
| Called another Head Start parent | 35.9 | 30.1 |
| Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. | 23.7 | 22.6 |
| Participated in fundraising | 63.0 | 59.5 |
Barriers to Participation
In the spring of 1998, parents were asked if there were particular barriers that prevented them from participating as much as they would have liked at their children’s Head Start program. The four barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the parents of children with disabilities were work commitments (56.0%), need for child care (36.9%), school schedules (18.8%), and lack of transportation (17.3%). Similar proportions of parents of children without disabilities mentioned these four barriers, except that slightly fewer of these parents reported a need for child care (30.7% vs. 36.9%). Interestingly, almost twice as many parents of children with disabilities felt Head Start did not provide enough opportunities to participate (7.6% vs. 3.8%) or reported a lack of support from their spouse or partner as a barrier to participation (20.4% vs. 11.5%).
Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience
Parents were asked how satisfied they were with Head Start’s performance in eight different areas, including helping their children to grow and develop, preparing their children for kindergarten, and supporting their family’s culture and background. A summary satisfaction score12 was created for each parent who responded to the questionnaire. While parents of children with disabilities were significantly less satisfied than parents of children without disabilities, t(2685) = 2.42; p = .02, the latter group’s satisfaction with the program was still high (M = 28.7 out of a possible 32; SD = 3.9). Further examination revealed that while overall satisfaction was comparable between the two groups, parents of children with disabilities were more likely to report that they were “somewhat” satisfied with Head Start whereas parents of children without disabilities more often indicated that they were “very” satisfied.
When asked if they could change anything about Head Start to help it better serve children and families, 38.1% of the parents of children with disabilities indicated that they were satisfied with the program and no change was needed. Areas for improvement mentioned by at least five percent of the parents included having extended hours and longer days (10.3%), involving parents more (9.1%), improving the special needs programs (6.3%), and focusing more on academic skills (5.7%).
8.1.5 Summary of Findings on Families of Children with Disabilities
Findings from this section contributed to a more complete understanding of Head Start families who have children with disabilities, including their involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction with the Head Start program. Highlights from Section 8.1 include :
Characteristics of Children
-
Among children with disabilities, the ethnic groups with the largest representation were African American children and White children. In both cases, these proportions were larger than the proportions of the same two ethnic groups among children without disabilities.
-
While the main sample of children was evenly split between boys and girls, almost two thirds of the children with disabilities were boys. This finding was generally true within each of the disability categories, although the proportion of boys in the behavioral disability category was up to three quarters.
-
The percentage of 3-year-olds among the children without disabilities was less than one third. This was very similar to the proportion of 3-year-olds in the overall study sample. In contrast, more than two fifths of the children with disabilities were 3 years old. Within the five disability categories, more than one half of the children with behavioral disabilities were 3 years old, but less than one quarter of those in the cognitive disabilities and the sensory disabilities categories were 3 years of age.
-
Urban areas were home to approximately two thirds of the children with disabilities and children without disabilities. This pattern was consistent across the disability categories, with the exception of children with physical disabilities, who were more likely to come from rural areas.
-
The distribution of children, both with and without disabilities, by geographic region was generally similar to the distribution of the regions across the study population as a whole.
-
In looking at the five disability categories, physical disabilities had an increased proportion of children from the Midwest, while only 17.2% of the children came from the South, which was the largest group of children, overall.
-
More than 80% of the children in the study were of normal birthweight, regardless of whether they had disabilities or not.
-
Among the disability categories, less then three quarters of the children in the cognitive category and the physical category were born with a normal birthweight. The physical disabilities category had the largest proportions of children with low and very low birthweights.
Characteristics of Families
-
The distributions of parents’ ages across the groups of children with and without disabilities was generally mixed. Both groups had about one half of the parents under 30 years of age, but the percentage of children with disabilities having parents less than 20 years of age was about twice that of children without disabilities.
-
About one tenth of the children in the behavioral disabilities category had a parent under 20, while none of the children in the physical disabilities category had a parent less than 20 years of age. The mean and median ages for parents of children in these two groups were slightly higher than that reported for parents of children in the other disability categories.
-
The parents of children without disabilities included a much higher proportion of non-U.S. born individuals than did parents of children with disabilities.
-
The parents of children with disabilities were very similar to the parents of children without disabilities on their distribution across four categories of marital status.
-
Within the disability categories, parents of children in the cognitive disabilities group and the physical disabilities group had the highest percentage of married parents. More than two thirds of the children in the behavioral disabilities category had single parents as did slightly over one half of the children in the language disabilities category.
-
The distribution of parents across the five education and training categories was similar for parents of children with disabilities and parents of children without disabilities. In both cases, just over one quarter had less than a high school diploma, and just over one third had a diploma or GED only.
-
Within the five disability categories, less then one tenth of the parents of children with physical disabilities had less than a high school diploma, while for the other four groups, the proportion was closer to one quarter. The largest percentages of parents with college degrees were within the cognitive disabilities and the physical disabilities groups.
-
Full-time workers represented approximately one third of parents of children both with and without disabilities. This figure was also true for parents of children in each of the disability categories, except for parents of children in the sensory disabilities category, who were also the most likely to be unemployed.
-
A smaller proportion of families having children with disabilities also had monthly household incomes of less than $500 than families without children with disabilities. In contrast, the families with children that had disabilities were more likely than families not having children with disabilities to have monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more. For the three middle categories of income, differences between the two groups of families were slight.
-
A slightly higher proportion of children with disabilities lived in private homes than did children without disabilities, while shared housing was used slightly less.
-
Interestingly, although it was noted that the families of children with disabilities had fewer families in the lowest income category and more in the highest income category than did families of children without disabilities, the former group had the higher proportion of families living in public housing. The proportion of children with a behavioral disability who also lived in public housing was about two times the level of most other groups.
-
WIC was used by more than one half of families, regardless of whether or not the children had disabilities, but the receipt of TANF was slightly higher for families of children with disabilities than by families of children without disabilities.
-
WIC was used by more than one half of the families with children in each of the disability categories. TANF receipt, however, was lower among families of children classified as having cognitive, physical, or sensory disabilities.
-
The receipt of SSI or SSDI was much more likely among families of children with disabilities than among families of children with out disabilities. Among the disability categories, receipt of SSI or SSDI was highest by families of children in the cognitive and physical categories, and lowest for families with children in the behavioral and sensory categories.
-
A higher proportion of children with disabilities were covered by private insurance and Medicaid than were children without disabilities. Coverage by private insurance was highest among families of children classified in the cognitive and physical disabilities categories. Use of Medicaid was reported by over two thirds of the families in each of the disability categories, except by families of children with physical and sensory disabilities.
-
Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities reported that Head Start was helpful or very helpful as a source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than grandparents or other relatives and much more helpful than friends, other parents, professional helpgivers, people from religious or social groups, child care staff, or coworkers.
-
Overall, most parents of children with disabilities were classified as not depressed or mildly depressed. Still, one third of these parents were classified as moderately depressed or severely depressed.
-
Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more depressed and had a more external locus of control then parents of children without disabilities. Reports of parental depression did not vary by type of disability.
-
Parents of children with disabilities had a greater need for services and received more services than parents of children without disabilities.
-
Almost two thirds of the parents of children with disabilities reported they usually took their children to private doctors or HMOs for routine medical care. This use of routine health care did not differ from parents of children without disabilities.
-
Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more likely to report that their children had chronic diseases and less likely to report they had excellent health than children without disabilities.
-
Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities reported that they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Almost one third of the children were read to every day. A very small proportion reported they had not read to their children at all during the past week.
-
Parents of children with disabilities also involved their children in a wide range of activities. No significant differences in reported amounts of activities with children were noted between families with or without children with disabilities. Reports of activities with children did not vary by type of disability.
-
Compared to parents of children without disabilities, parents of children with disabilities indicated their children had less positive social behavior, and more problem behavior, including behavior that was more aggressive, hyperactive, and withdrawn.
-
Children with behavioral disabilities had more reported problem behaviors, including the aggressive and hyperactive behaviors, than children with language disabilities, more reported problem behaviors and hyperactive behaviors than children with physical disabilities, and more problem behaviors and aggressive behaviors than children with multiple disabilities.
-
Children with disabilities also had significantly lower reports of emergent literacy than children without disabilities. There were no differences by type of disability on emergent literacy.
-
Almost one fourth of parents of children with disabilities reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods and over two thirds reported exposure to violent crime. Parents of children without disabilities reported less exposure to nonviolent and violent crime in their neighborhoods.
-
Almost one quarter of the parents of children with disabilities knew someone who was the victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood. Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by approximately five percent of the parents with disabilities. Less than five percent of the parents of children with disabilities reported being victims of violence in their homes. These percentages were slightly higher than parents of children without disabilities.
Relationship with Head Start
-
Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more involved at Head Start than parents of children without disabilities. Although parents of children with or without disabilities participated at very similar rates, slightly larger proportions of those who had children with disabilities attended parent-teacher conferences and participated in Policy Council.
-
The four barriers to participation mentioned by over ten percent of the parents of children with disabilities were work commitments, need for child care, school schedules, and lack of transportation.
-
While parents of children with disabilities were significantly less satisfied than parents of children without disabilities, their satisfaction with the program was still high.
-
When asked if they could change anything about Head Start they thought would help it better serve children and families, two fifths of the parents of children with disabilities indicated that they were satisfied with the program and no change was needed.
-
Areas for improvement mentioned by at least five percent of the parents included having extended hours and longer days, involving parents more, improving the special needs programs, and focusing more on academic skills.
8.1.6 Supplemental Table
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N = 3,120) |
Families without Disabilities (n =2,696) |
Families with Disabilities (n = 424) |
Disability Categoriesa | |||||
| Language (n =341) |
Behavioral (n = 59) |
Cognitive (n = 53) |
Physical (n = 36) |
Sensory (n = 39) |
||||
| Ethnicity | ||||||||
| African American | 28.8 | 27.5 | 36.7 | 36.7 | 35.7 | 30.6 | 27.7 | 18.2 |
| White | 30.6 | 30.1 | 34.1 | 31.9 | 42.6 | 45.7 | 53.9 | 36.4 |
| Hispanic | 27.6 | 28.9 | 20.3 | 22.0 | 13.9 | 16.5 | 6.0 | 34.0 |
| Native American | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.9 |
| Asian | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Other | 8.7 | 9.0 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 4.4 | 5.6 | 12.4 | 5.8 |
| Urbanicity | ||||||||
| Urban | 66.9 | 67.4 | 64.4 | 65.4 | 55.3 | 59.0 | 43.7 | 66.0 |
| Rural | 33.0 | 32.6 | 35.6 | 34.6 | 44.6 | 41.0 | 56.3 | 33.9 |
| Region | ||||||||
| Midwest | 23.1 | 23.7 | 19.4 | 17.0 | 34.0 | 21.0 | 41.4 | 26.2 |
| Northeast | 15.5 | 14.8 | 19.6 | 19.2 | 15.0 | 23.0 | 22.1 | 30.7 |
| South | 39.4 | 39.3 | 40.5 | 43.0 | 40.3 | 38.6 | 17.2 | 32.2 |
| West | 22.0 | 22.2 | 20.5 | 20.7 | 10.8 | 17.4 | 19.3 | 10.9 |
| Gender of Child | ||||||||
| Male | 50.4 | 48.3 | 62.6 | 63.1 | 74.5 | 69.1 | 61.9 | 58.0 |
| Female | 49.6 | 51.6 | 37.4 | 36.9 | 25.5 | 30.9 | 38.1 | 42.0 |
| Age of Child | ||||||||
| 3 years old | 31.7 | 30.0 | 41.8 | 40.4 | 54.2 | 24.4 | 47.8 | 22.8 |
| 4 years old | 68.3 | 70.0 | 58.2 | 59.6 | 45.8 | 75.6 | 52.2 | 77.1 |
| Child Birthweight | ||||||||
| Normal | 85.8 | 86.5 | 81.8 | 84.2 | 77.1 | 64.1 | 55.8 | 85.4 |
| Low | 7.6 | 7.3 | 9.4 | 9.3 | 10.8 | 9.3 | 20.5 | 7.5 |
| Very low | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 7.5 | 2.5 |
| Age of Parent | ||||||||
| Less than 20 years old | 2.5 | 2.1 | 5.0 | 5.8 | 10.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 |
| 21-29 years old | 53.1 | 54.2 | 46.9 | 47.2 | 45.3 | 38.8 | 28.7 | 65.7 |
| 30-39 years old | 32.4 | 31.7 | 36.3 | 36.4 | 31.9 | 38.6 | 53.4 | 22.9 |
| 40 and older | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 10.2 | 12.6 | 19.7 | 17.9 | 6.8 |
| Mean age | 30.2 | 30.0 | 31.4 | 30.9 | 31.8 | 33.1 | 32.6 | 30.5 |
| Median age | 28.0 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 29.0 | 29.5 | 31.0 | 32.5 | 28.0 |
| Nativity of Parent | ||||||||
| Born in country other than US | 18.7 | 20.6 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 1.7 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 15.5 |
| Marital Status | ||||||||
| Married | 43.1 | 43.1 | 43.1 | 44.2 | 29.2 | 66.9 | 71.3 | 57.6 |
| Single, never married | 33.7 | 33.4 | 35.1 | 35.0 | 47.2 | 19.3 | 17.8 | 30.8 |
| Divorced or widowed | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.4 | 12.2 | 15.8 | 11.7 | 8.2 | 4.6 |
| Married, but separated | 9.6 | 9.9 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 7.7 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 7.0 |
| Education and Training | ||||||||
| Less than high school | 27.2 | 27.5 | 25.4 | 27.1 | 28.2 | 17.0 | 9.5 | 30.8 |
| High school diploma/GED | 37.5 | 37.7 | 36.4 | 36.1 | 26.1 | 36.8 | 47.8 | 25.7 |
| Some college/AA degree | 32.5 | 31.9 | 36.1 | 35.4 | 45.7 | 38.0 | 35.9 | 43.5 |
| College degree or higher | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 0.0 |
| Vocational or trade school | 41.8 | 41.0 | 46.4 | 45.8 | 46.6 | 39.4 | 51.9 | 33.0 |
| Employment Status | ||||||||
| Full-time | 34.5 | 34.8 | 32.2 | 33.5 | 36.8 | 31.3 | 34.0 | 24.7 |
| Part-time or seasonal | 17.8 | 17.0 | 22.3 | 21.6 | 23.6 | 17.5 | 16.6 | 9.3 |
| Not employed | 47.3 | 47.7 | 44.9 | 44.3 | 39.7 | 51.2 | 47.6 | 65.9 |
| Household Income | ||||||||
| $499 or less | 11.8 | 12.5 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 3.1 |
| $500-999 | 29.6 | 29.1 | 32.9 | 35.0 | 39.4 | 11.0 | 13.5 | 23.9 |
| $1,000-1,499 | 24.8 | 24.9 | 24.5 | 24.2 | 17.4 | 32.2 | 23.8 | 33.5 |
| $1,500-1,999 | 14.4 | 14.9 | 11.8 | 10.4 | 15.8 | 13.1 | 7.3 | 10.5 |
| $2,000 or more | 15.7 | 14.8 | 21.2 | 20.7 | 21.9 | 41.1 | 47.9 | 28.9 |
| Housing Status | ||||||||
| Private housing | 86.4 | 85.8 | 90.5 | 91.1 | 93.0 | 90.0 | 89.2 | 89.9 |
| Shared housing | 12.5 | 13.3 | 7.7 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 6.8 | 10.1 |
| Transitional housing | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 4.2 | 6.5 | 4.1 | 0.0 |
| Public housing | 22.2 | 20.9 | 29.6 | 28.7 | 39.7 | 16.9 | 21.0 | 20.9 |
| Sources of Support | ||||||||
| WIC | 54.5 | 54.7 | 53.4 | 51.8 | 61.8 | 61.4 | 50.0 | 47.9 |
| TANF | 30.2 | 29.4 | 35.4 | 35.5 | 38.7 | 18.8 | 19.5 | 21.8 |
| SSI or SSDI | 11.0 | 9.4 | 20.4 | 18.8 | 14.2 | 29.7 | 29.0 | 15.4 |
| Insurance Coverage | ||||||||
| Private insurance | 32.6 | 31.8 | 37.1 | 38.8 | 27.0 | 53.9 | 53.7 | 48.0 |
| MEDICAID | 58.1 | 56.3 | 68.7 | 67.5 | 74.1 | 68.7 | 49.0 | 56.4 |
| aChildren with multiple disabilities may be represented in more than one disability category.(back) |
8.2 Hispanic Head Start Children and Families13
In Head Start, as in the United States, population growth among people of Hispanic heritage is greater than for any other ethnic group. As displayed in Exhibit 8-3, the Head Start Program Information Report(PIR) (ACYF, 1993; ACYF, 1999) data indicate that enrollment of Hispanic children has increased by 77,571 children or 51.0% since the 1992-93 school year, compared to 15.7% for Asian/Pacific Islanders, 8.5% for African-American, 3.5% for American Indian, and 3.1% for White children. Overall, enrollment of Hispanic children in Head Start has increased from 21.3% to 27.9% of the total enrollment since 1992-93.
|
| Source: Head Start PIR |
The focus of this section is to describe Hispanic Head Start children and families. Exhibit 8-4, located at the end of Section 8.3, presents weighted data describing basic variables of interest. The first column presents data on all FACES families. The next two columns present data on non-Hispanic families and all Hispanic families, respectively14. The last three columns present data on Hispanic families and children living in Puerto Rico and families of Hispanic children who are mainland residents, both those who speak English and those who are Spanish-speaking15. Head Start families residing in Puerto Rico generally speak only Spanish in a society where Spanish is the common language and the culture is primarily Hispanic. Mainland Hispanics may differ from Hispanics living in Puerto Rico on a number of issues, making it important to describe this group separately. Although many mainland Hispanic families are native English speakers, others live in households where the spoken language is predominantly Spanish while the common language outside the home is English. Further, mainland Hispanics include diverse groups of families originating in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba and other nations in Latin America, South America, and the Caribbean. Due to this diversity, cultural issues may not have an impact on these families similar to the impact on families residing in Puerto Rico.
This section first presents the results of analyses on descriptive variables of interest. Subsequent sections assess Hispanic family risk factors, health care, child care, family activities with their children, social support, and family involvement in Head Start. Each section presents analyses comparing all Hispanic families and children to non-Hispanic families and then compares findings among the three Hispanic groups – families residing in Puerto Rico, mainland Spanish-speaking families, and mainland English-speaking families.
8.2.1 Characteristics of Hispanic Children in Head Start
Age and Gender
Results presented in Exhibit 8-2 indicate that the majority of Hispanic children in Head Start, like the overall sample, were 4 years old (72.6%). More Hispanic children were 4 years old than non-Hispanic children (66.8%). Among Hispanic groups, while almost three fourths of mainland Hispanic children were 4 years old, proportionally fewer children living in Puerto Rico were 4 years old (60.8%). In regard to gender, like the overall sample, an equal proportion of Hispanic children were male and female. Differences among the Hispanic groups in terms of gender were not significant.
Birth Weight and Disabilities
The majority of Hispanic children in Head Start, like the overall sample, were normal birth weight(86.5%). There were no significant differences in birth weight between children from all Hispanic families and non-Hispanics or among children across the three Hispanic groups. Exhibit 8-5 displays the percent of children with disabilities and indicates that proportionally fewer Hispanic children were reported to have one or more disabilities16 (16.8%) than non-Hispanic children (20.6%). Head Start families living in Puerto Rico had almost twice as many children identified with one or more disabilities (32.7%) than mainland English-speaking (16.1%) and Spanish-speaking (7.3%) families.
|
8.2.2 Characteristics of Hispanic Families in Head Start
Family Residence
The majority of Hispanic families lived in urban areas and was geographically concentrated in the West and South regions of the country. More than three quarters of the families (86.4%) resided in urban areas. Likewise, more than two fifths of all Hispanic families lived in the South (40.4%) and the West (38.0%) regions of the country. Compared to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families were more likely to live in urban areas and the West and less likely to live in the Midwest.
Nativity of the Parents
As seen in Exhibit 8-6, 52.0% of all Hispanic Head Start parents were foreign born. Of this group, 90.4% have lived in the U.S. five or more years (M = 10.9 years; SD = 6.6). There was large variability among the Hispanic groups in terms of parents’ nativity. Almost all the mainland Spanish-speaking Hispanic parents were foreign born (97.1%), while less than one half of the English-speaking parents were born outside the U.S. (42.5%). Only 7.7% of parents living in Puerto Rico reported having been born outside the U.S. However, the majority of parents in each of these groups had lived in the U.S. for more than five years, with an average time in the U.S. of 9.4 years (SD = 5.5) for parents in Spanish-speaking families and 12.8 years (SD = 7.4) for parents in English-speaking mainland families.
|
Language
As displayed in Exhibit 8-7, the vast majority of Hispanic families reported Spanish was the primary language spoken in their homes (90.4%). Among Hispanic groups, almost all parents living in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families spoke Spanish as the primary language in their homes while 81.4% of English-speaking mainland families also primarily spoke Spanish in their homes. Over one half of all Hispanic Head Start children were assessed in Spanish (56.1%) in the fall of 1997. This included almost all of the children living in Puerto Rico (98.0%), 72.9% of the mainland children with Spanish-speaking parents, and over one fourth of mainland children with English-speaking parents (29.1%).
|
Marital Status and Household Size
As displayed in Exhibit 8-8, most Hispanic children enrolled in Head Start resided in families with married parents (55.9%). Proportionally, more Hispanic parents were married or married but separated than non-Hispanic families. The patterns of family structures were generally similar across the Hispanic groups, although more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic parents were married (72.5%) than English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (45.4%).
|
Hispanic families, on average, had only slightly larger households than non-Hispanic families. Hispanic families had an average of 4.7 persons (SD = 1.6) in the household compared to 4.5 (SD = 1.7) for non-Hispanic households. Among Hispanic groups, mainland Hispanic households were larger than households in Puerto Rico. On average, Spanish-speaking mainland households had 5.2 persons (SD = 1.7) and English-speaking mainland households had 4.6 persons (SD = 1.6) compared to 4.2 (SD = 1.0) per household in Puerto Rico.
Educational Attainment
As displayed in Exhibit 8-9, more than one third of Hispanic parents had not received a high school diploma or GED (38.5%), a higher proportion than non-Hispanic parents (22.6%). Fewer Hispanic parents had a high school diploma/GED (34.4%) and attended some college or received an AA degree (24.3%) than non-Hispanic families (39.3% and 35.4%, respectively). However, similar to non-Hispanics, 2.8% of Hispanic parents have attained a college degree or higher. Fewer Hispanic parents were working toward a degree (21.0%) than non-Hispanic parents (25.6%).
|
There was a large degree of variability across the Hispanic groups in terms of educational attainment. Over one half of Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics (54.3%) had not received a high school diploma or GED compared to one third of English-speaking mainland Hispanics (35.8%). Similar to non-Hispanics, less than one fourth of parents who resided in Puerto Rico (21.6%) did not have a high school diploma. Attainment of a high school diploma or GED was fairly similar across the three groups, ranging from 34.0% to 35.5%. In terms of post-secondary education, proportionally more parents living in Puerto Rico had attended some college or received an AA degree (35.1%) than either mainland Spanish-speaking (9.9%) and English-speaking parents (28.7%), and this proportion was comparable to non-Hispanic parents (35.4%). Interestingly, parents living in Puerto Rico were more than twice as likely to have a college degree or higher (7.8%) than non-Hispanics (2.7%). Fewer Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics had attended some college or received a college degree (11.5%) than English-speaking mainland Hispanics (30.2%) or residents of Puerto Rico (42.9%). Similar proportions of the parents living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland residents were working toward a degree (25.5%) compared to Spanish-speaking mainland residents (13.9%).
Employment
Less than one third of Hispanic parents (29.9%) were employed full-time and as seen in Exhibit 8-10, over one half of Hispanic parents (53.0%) were not employed. Proportionally more Hispanic parents were unemployed than non-Hispanics (44.7%) and fewer were employed full-time than non-Hispanics (36.4%). Among the Hispanic groups, proportionally more residents of Puerto Rico (58.0%) and Spanish-speaking mainland residents (61.9%) were not employed. However, English-speaking mainland residents appeared to be more similar to non-Hispanics, with fewer not employed (45.5%) and more employed full time (35.5%) or part time/seasonally (18.8%).
|
Income and Other Sources of Support
Exhibit 8-11 displays the percentage of families with monthly household incomes less than $1,000. Almost one half of Hispanic households had an income of less than $1,000 per month (45.6%), which was proportionally higher than non-Hispanic households (39.6%). Among Hispanic groups, although parents living in Puerto Rico reported higher levels of education, they proportionally had more households making less than $1,000 per month (71.1%) than any other group. Mainland Hispanic households were more comparable to non-Hispanic households in terms of monthly income, with 36.8% of Spanish-speaking households and 40.6% of English-speaking households making less than $1,000 per month.
|
Similar to non-Hispanics, more than one half of Hispanic families (57.6%) received financial assistance from the WIC program (see Exhibit 8-12). However, fewer Hispanic parents received TANF (22.6%) and SSI or SSDI benefits (4.5%) than non-Hispanic parents (33.3% and 13.9%, respectively). Among Hispanic groups, almost one half (49.2%) of parents living in Puerto Rico received assistance from the WIC program compared to almost 60% of mainland Hispanic parents. English-speaking mainland Hispanic families were fairly comparable to non-Hispanics in terms of the percentage who received TANF benefits (30.4%), while fewer Spanish-speaking mainland residents (19.2%) and even fewer residents of Puerto Rico (8.3%) received TANF benefits. Slightly over 5% of mainland English-speaking Hispanic families and families living in Puerto Rico received SSI or SSDI while fewer Spanish-speaking mainland families received SSI or SSDI (2.7%). Finally, fewer Hispanic children were covered by private health insurance (27.9%) or Medicaid (54.0%) than non-Hispanic children (34.5% and 59.7%, respectively). Spanish-speaking mainland children were much more likely (30.8%) to not receive any form of insurance coverage relative to children living in Puerto Rico (4.4%) and English-speaking mainland children (16.0%).
|
Housing
As shown in Exhibit 8-4, the majority of Hispanic families lived in private housing; however, more Hispanic parents (15.2%) lived in shared housing than non-Hispanic parents (11.4%), while fewer Hispanic parents (17.6%) lived in public housing than non-Hispanic parents (24.1%). Findings were generally similar among Hispanic groups, although fewer families living in Puerto Rico lived in shared housing (5.3%) and more Spanish-speaking mainland residents lived in shared housing (21.2%). However, more families who were residents of Puerto Rico lived in public housing (36.6%), while fewer Spanish-speaking mainland residents lived in public housing (8.2%).
8.2.3 Family Risk Factors
Exhibit 8-13 presents the percentage of Hispanic families with selected family risk factors that are aligned with factors identified in the Kids Count Data Book (Annie E. Casey Foundation,1999). As discussed earlier in Section II, Chapter 5 of this technical report, findings from recent research have pointed to the importance of looking at the multiplicative effects of selected risk factors in predicting negative outcomes for children.
The most prevalent risk found among Hispanic families was living in a household that was below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (70.2%). Approximately two fifths of Hispanic children also had a mother who did not complete high school (40.8%) or lived in a single parent household (40.7%). Compared to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families were proportionally more likely to have a mother who did not complete high school (40.8% vs. 24.5%), household income below the FPL (70.4% vs. 62.4%), and to have a child not covered by health insurance or Medicaid (24.0% vs. 15.8%). Hispanic families were less likely than non-Hispanic families to be living in single parent households (40.7% vs. 57.7%), households with no parents with a job (22.0% vs. 27.0%), and households receiving TANF benefits (22.6% vs. 33.3%). Among Hispanic groups, families living in Puerto Rico (88.2%) were proportionally more likely than other Hispanic groups and non-Hispanics to have household incomes below the FPL. Almost twice as many parents living in Puerto Rico (30.8%) reported living in households with no parent working than mainland Spanish-speaking families (15.2%). About one fourth of mainland English-speaking families (22.6%) lived in households with no parent working. The profiles for mainland Hispanic families looked fairly similar. Both Spanish- and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families were more likely than non-Hispanic families to have monthly household incomes below the FPL (65.2% and 66.3% vs. 62.4%, respectively), mothers who did not receive a high school diploma or GED (55.0% and 39.4% vs. 24.5%, respectively), and had no medical insurance coverage for their children (30.7% and 22.6% vs. 15.8%, respectively). In terms of maternal education and children’s health insurance coverage, Spanish-speaking mainland families were proportionally more at risk than English-speaking families.
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Risk Factors | ||||||
| Single parent household | 52.8 | 57.7 | 40.7 | 44.3 | 23.6 | 49.7 |
| Mother did not complete high school | 29.4 | 24.5 | 40.8 | 22.7 | 55.0 | 39.4 |
| Household income below FPL | 64.9 | 62.4 | 70.4 | 88.2 | 65.2 | 66.3 |
| No household parent with a job | 25.6 | 27.0 | 22.0 | 30.8 | 15.2 | 22.6 |
| Family receives welfare | 30.3 | 33.3 | 22.6 | 8.3 | 19.2 | 30.4 |
| Child not covered by health Insurance or Medicaid | 18.2 | 15.8 | 24.0 | 17.2 | 30.7 | 22.6 |
| Number of Risk Factors | ||||||
| Family has zero risk factors | 10.7 | 12.2 | 7.6 | 5.1 | 6.8 | 9.1 |
| Family has one risk factor | 23.8 | 23.6 | 24.9 | 28.9 | 30.0 | 20.2 |
| Family has two risk factors | 25.8 | 24.0 | 30.0 | 31.6 | 29.6 | 29.6 |
| Family has three risk factors | 19.1 | 18.6 | 19.8 | 20.5 | 18.5 | 20.3 |
| Family has four or more risk factors | 20.6 | 21.7 | 17.6 | 13.9 | 15.0 | 20.8 |
| Risk factors taken from Kids Count Data Book, 1999. |
As noted earlier, increases in the number of risk factors, particularly counts of four or more risks, increase the likelihood of negative child outcomes. Exhibit 8-13 also shows the percentage of Hispanic families with four or more risk factors. Results indicate that 17.6% of Hispanic families had four or more risk factors, which was fewer than non-Hispanic families (21.7%). Among Hispanic groups, the highest proportion of families with four or more risks were English-speaking mainland families (20.8%), followed by Spanish-speaking mainland families (15.0%) and families living in Puerto Rico (13.9%), although all were lower proportionally than non-Hispanic families.
8.2.4 Health Care
As displayed in Exhibit 8-14, the majority of Hispanic families had regular health care providers for their children (80.1%) and themselves (66.9%). However, proportionally, more non-Hispanics had regular health care providers for their children (91.6%) and themselves (79.4%) than Hispanic families. Among Hispanic groups, English-speaking mainland Hispanic families were the most likely to have regular health care providers for their children (87.1%) and themselves (74.9%), with families living in Puerto Rico having slightly lower proportions (80.0% and 65.3%, respectively). Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families were least likely to report having regular health care providers for their children (68.7%) and themselves (54.6%). Almost one third of children of Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families did not have regular health care providers, and almost one half of these families did not have regular health care provider for the parents.
|
More than one half of Hispanic families received routine care from a private doctor or HMO for their children (58.8%), while one half received routine care for themselves through a private doctor or HMO (50.1%). However, proportionally more Hispanic families received routine care from non-private sources for their children and themselves (38.9% and 45.3%, respectively) than non-Hispanic families (29.3% and 30 .8%, respectively). The majority of the non-private sources of care Hispanic families received were from public health departments or community health centers. Similarly, among the Hispanic groups, most families indicated that their children received medical care through a private doctor or HMO (52.9% to 63.6%). However, more than one third of mainland Hispanic families (35.3% English-speaking and 39.3% Spanish-speaking) and almost one half of the families living in Puerto Rico (47.1%) received care for their children from non-private sources. While most mainland Hispanic families also indicated that the parents received care from a private doctor or HMO (50.7% English-speaking and 53.9% Spanish-speaking), most families in Puerto Rico indicated that the parents received care at a non-private health care source (56.9%). The majority of non-private sources of care for children and parents in Puerto Rico were public health departments, while mainland Hispanics relied more often on a combination of public health departments, community health centers, or hospital outpatient centers.
8.2.5 Child Care
As indicated in Exhibit 8-15, prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start, 40.3% of Hispanic families reported that they used regular child care (10 hours a week or more), proportionally lower than non-Hispanic families (53.9%). Similar to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families, on average, started this care when the children were about 14 months old (SD = 12.0) and the number of arrangements per week ranged from 1 to 10, with a mean of 1.7 arrangements (SD = 1.4). Among Hispanic groups, almost one half of the families living in Puerto Rico (45.4%) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (48.3%) reported they used regular child care prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start. Proportionally fewer Spanish-speaking Hispanic families (23.9%) reported they used regular child care prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start. While fewer Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had their children in regular care prior to Head Start, on average, these children started child care later than other Hispanic groups. Children from Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families, on average, entered child care at 18.6 months (SD = 14.7), while children living in Puerto Rico began at 9.8 months (SD = 9.5). English-speaking mainland Hispanic children began at 14.0 months (SD = 11.4), similar to non-Hispanics.
Once their children were enrolled in Head Start, 26.1% of Hispanic families reported using child care before or after their children’s time in the Head Start classroom, slightly lower, proportionally, than non-Hispanic families (29.9%). The number of arrangements per week used by Hispanic families again ranged from 1 to 3, with a mean of 1.1 arrangements (SD = 0.2). Non-Hispanic families reported, on average, using 1.2 arrangements per week (SD = 0.4). Similar to all Hispanic families as well as non-Hispanics, more than one fourth of the families living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (26.0% and 31.0%, respectively) reported using regular child care before or after their children’s participation in Head Start. Proportionally fewer Spanish-speaking Hispanic families (18.2%) reported they used regular child care before or after their children’s time in Head Start. Families living in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families, on average, had one arrangement per week (SD = 0.2 and SD = 0.0, respectively) while English-speaking mainland Hispanic families had 1.1 arrangements (SD = 0.3).
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Child Care Prior to Head Start | 49.9 | 53.9 | 40.3 | 45.4 | 23.9 | 48.3 |
| Mean age started | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.9 | 9.8 | 18.6 | 14.0 |
| Mean number of arrangements | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Child Care Before/After Head Start | 28.9 | 29.9 | 26.1 | 26.0 | 18.2 | 31.0 |
| Mean number of arrangements | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.7 |
| Types of Child Care: | ||||||
| Child care center | 14.5 | 16.5 | 8.4 | 12.2 | 11.3 | 6.0 |
| Family day care | 9.3 | 10.3 | 6.2 | 25.6 | 0.0 | 1.9 |
| Non-relative's home | 14.1 | 13.6 | 16.1 | 18.1 | 25.2 | 12.2 |
| Relative's home | 27.7 | 29.4 | 23.2 | 38.7 | 5.5 | 24.3 |
| In home by non-relative | 5.3 | 4.3 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 28.5 | 3.9 |
| In home by relative | 17.9 | 16.9 | 20.5 | 5.4 | 29.4 | 22.4 |
| At Head Start | 10.4 | 8.4 | 16.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.6 |
Similar to non-Hispanic families, the most frequent type of child care arrangements used by Hispanic families during their children’s enrollment in Head Start was care in a relative’s home (23.2%). Another 20.5% of Hispanic families used care by a relative in their own home. In addition, Hispanic families (16.3%) were almost twice as likely as non-Hispanic families (8.4%) to receive care for their children before or after their children’s time in the Head Start classroom. The types of child care arrangements varied among the Hispanic groups. The most frequent type of arrangement used by parents in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland parents was care in relatives’ homes (38.7% and 24.3%, respectively). In addition, approximately one fourth of parents living in Puerto Rico (25.6%) used family day care settings, whereas 22.4% of English-speaking mainland families had care in their homes by relatives. Spanish-speaking mainland families used care in relatives’ homes (5.5%), much less than either families living in Puerto Rico (38.7%) or English-speaking mainland families (24.3%). Instead, Spanish-speaking mainland families most often used care in their homes by relatives (29.4%), followed closely by in home care by a non-relative (28.5%) and care in non-relatives’ homes (25.2%). Finally, more than one fourth of English-speaking mainland families used Head Start as a source of care for their children (27.6%) before and after the Head Start day, while no families living in Puerto Rico or Spanish-speaking mainland families reported Head Start as a source of child care.
Less than one third of Hispanic families (31.2%) reported that their child care providers were licensed, certified, or regulated compared to 39.8% of non-Hispanic families. Among Hispanic groups, 42.6% of English-speaking mainland Hispanic families had their children in licensed, certified, or regulated care compared to 18.3% of families living in Puerto Rico and 11.3% of Spanish-speaking mainland families.
8.2.6 Family Activities with Children
As displayed in Exhibit 8-16, the combined total for weekly and monthly activities indicated that Hispanic families engaged in a mean of 5.9 activities (SD = 2.4) with children, out of a possible 14 activities. Weekly activities made up most of that total, with a reported mean of 3.8 activities (SD = 1.7) of a possible seven, while a mean of 1.9 monthly activities (SD = 1.4) was reported, again out of a possible seven. Hispanic families, on average, reported being involved in slightly fewer weekly, monthly and total activities with their children compared to non-Hispanic families, but these differences were not significant. Among Hispanic groups, although the differences were not significant, English-speaking mainland families reported, on average, being involved in slightly more weekly, monthly, and total activities than families living in Puerto Rico or Spanish-speaking mainland families. English-speaking mainland families engaged in a mean of 6.0 combined weekly and monthly activities (SD = 2.5), comprised of an average of 3.9 weekly activities (SD = 1.7) and 1.9 monthly activities (SD = 1.5).
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n = 2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Weekly activities | 4.1 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.9 |
| Monthly activities | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Total | 6.2 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.5 | 6.0 |
8.2.7 Social Support
In the fall of 1997, families were asked about the people or groups in their lives that were helpful to them in raising their Head Start children during the last six months. Exhibit 8-17 displays the percentages of parents who indicated various people and groups were somewhat or very helpful in raising their children as well as a summary score measuring total support17. Even at the beginning of the school year, a majority of Hispanic families found Head Start to be helpful (81.2%) along with other parents (79.5%) and relatives (78.5%). In terms of total support, Hispanic families were not different from non-Hispanic families. However, a closer look at the sources of support revealed that Hispanic families were proportionally much more likely to get help raising their child from other parents (79.5%) compared to non-Hispanics (62.9%), and much less likely to receive help from friends (54.8%) than non-Hispanics (68.0%). Hispanic families appeared to be proportionally less likely than non-Hispanics to have received help from Head Start, child care staff, and relatives, although they were, interestingly, slightly more likely to receive help from professional helpgivers (27.6%) than non-Hispanics (21.6%).
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Head Start | 87.1 | 89.8 | 81.2 | 95.4 | 69.8 | 82.5 |
| Relatives | 84.3 | 86.7 | 78.5 | 79.1 | 66.3 | 85.6 |
| Other parent(s) | 67.9 | 62.9 | 79.5 | 87.4 | 83.9 | 73.6 |
| Friends | 64.0 | 68.0 | 54.8 | 58.8 | 59.5 | 49.9 |
| Religious/social group | 46.5 | 47.4 | 44.5 | 57.3 | 36.6 | 44.1 |
| Professional helpgivers | 23.3 | 21.6 | 27.6 | 46.1 | 23.1 | 22.8 |
| Child care staff | 31.5 | 34.0 | 25.5 | 31.6 | 18.5 | 27.2 |
| Co-workers | 21.3 | 22.3 | 19.1 | 25.4 | 10.7 | 21.6 |
| Summary Score | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 15.3 | 12.5 | 13.3 |
Social support received by families to raise their children varied among Hispanic groups. In terms of total support, families living in Puerto Rico had higher levels of support (M = 15.3; SD = 4.1), on average, than both mainland Hispanic groups as well as non-Hispanics. Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had, on average, the least amount of total support (M = 12.5; SD = 3.4). In terms of sources of support, the majority of families living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families reported that Head Start, relatives, and other parents were most helpful in raising their children. However, the majority of Spanish-speaking mainland families relied on spouses and other parents for support in raising their children (83.9%). Of particular interest, almost all of the families living in Puerto Rico indicated that Head Start was helpful to them in raising their children (95.4%) while 69.8% of Spanish-speaking families indicated Head Start was helpful. Likewise, English-speaking mainland families (85.6%) relied most on relatives as sources of support to raise their children while two thirds of Spanish-speaking mainland families (66.3%) relied on relatives.
8.2.8 Family Involvement in Head Start
Participation
As displayed in Exhibit 8-18, the most frequent activities that Hispanic parents participated in at least once were attending parent-teacher conferences (86.6%) and home visits by Head Start stafF(84.9%). In addition, more than two thirds of Hispanic families volunteered in the classroom (66.3%) or observed in the classroom for more than 30 minutes (70.1%). Hispanic families participated less than non-Hispanic families in terms of volunteering in the classroom (66.3% vs. 69.8%), preparing food or materials (59.7% vs. 68.8%), attending Head Start social events (50.6% vs. 57.5%), and calling other Head Start parents (22.8% vs. 34.2%). However, Hispanic families participated more than non-Hispanic families in fundraising (65.2% vs. 58.0%), parent-teacher conferences (86.6% vs. 79.7%), and workshops (60.2% vs. 52.7%). However, Hispanic families, similar to non-Hispanic families, participated in about seven activities at least once (M = 6.7; SD = 2.6) and in three Head Start activities (M = 3.3; SD = 2.9) three or more times during the year.
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Volunteered in classroom | 68.9 | 69.8 | 66.3 | 83.2 | 57.5 | 68.8 |
| Observed classroom | 77.4 | 80.2 | 70.1 | 72.5 | 66.2 | 74.6 |
| Prepared food or materials | 66.1 | 68.8 | 59.7 | 67.0 | 51.0 | 68.2 |
| Helped with field trips | 51.0 | 51.7 | 48.9 | 70.2 | 40.9 | 47.4 |
| Attended Head Start social events | 55.6 | 57.5 | 50.6 | 58.0 | 48.5 | 49.1 |
| Attended workshops | 54.8 | 52.7 | 60.2 | 84.0 | 59.7 | 45.8 |
| Attended parent-teacher conferences | 81.6 | 79.7 | 86.6 | 85.6 | 88.1 | 84.9 |
| Had Head Start staff visit at home | 83.1 | 82.2 | 84.9 | 79.1 | 87.6 | 84.3 |
| Participated in Policy Council | 36.0 | 36.6 | 34.6 | 48.8 | 26.3 | 38.2 |
| Called another Head Start parent | 30.8 | 34.2 | 22.8 | 31.1 | 19.9 | 21.9 |
| Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. | 22.7 | 24.3 | 18.6 | 23.9 | 12.6 | 24.4 |
| Participated in fundraising | 60.0 | 58.0 | 65.2 | 78.5 | 58.2 | 67.2 |
| Number of activities at Head Start | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.8 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Participated 3+ times in activities | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.7 | 3.4 |
Among Hispanic groups, the average family living in Puerto Rico participated in more activities and more often than the average mainland Hispanic and non-Hispanic families. Families living in Puerto Rico participated, on average, in about eight activities during the year (M = 7.8; SD = 1.5) and about five activities (M = 4.7; SD = 3.0) three or more times a year. Compared to the other Hispanic groups, proportionally more families living in Puerto Rico volunteered in the classroom (83.2%), helped with field trips (70.2%), participated in Policy Council (48.8%), and participated in fundraising (78.5%) than mainland Hispanic Head Start families. Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had proportionally lower overall participation rates than English-speaking mainland families on most activities.
Barriers to Participation
Exhibit 8-19 displays the most frequently reported barriers to participation by parents. For Hispanic families, work commitments (48.6%) and child care needs (40.0%) were the most frequently mentioned barriers to participation that parents faced. However, many Hispanic parents also identified school schedules (17.9%), transportation needs (17.8%), and lack of support from their spouses (17.8%) as barriers. Compared to non-Hispanic families, proportionally more Hispanic families indicated that their need for child care (40.0% vs. 28.2%), support from their spouses (17.8% vs. 10.5%), language or cultural differences (6.9% vs. 1.7%), and concerns for safety (5.1% vs. 1.8%) were barriers. Fewer Hispanic families (5.4%) indicated that health problems interfered with their participation in Head Start activities than non-Hispanic families (9.4%). Hispanic families reported, on average, slightly more total barriers than non-Hispanic families.
Among Hispanic groups, proportionally more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families reported the need for child care (48.8%) and transportation (21.2%) as barriers than families living in Puerto Rico (30.2% and 12.7%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (33.1% and 15.9%, respectively). As expected, higher proportions of Spanish-speaking mainland families reported language or cultural differences as a barrier (12.0%) as well as concerns for safety (7.6%) than families living in Puerto Rico (0.0% and 5.4%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (1.1% and 1.7%, respectively). A higher proportion of families living in Puerto Rico reported a lack of spousal support (34.4%) and health problems (9.4%) than Spanish-speaking mainland families (16.3% and 4.0%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (9.5% and 4.9%, respectively). However, the total number of reported barriers did not differ significantly among the Hispanic groups.
An apparent barrier for some Hispanic families was the differences in language and culture. While more Hispanic families indicated language and cultural differences as a barrier than non-Hispanics, other data indicates that almost all Hispanic families and children who needed someone at Head Start to speak their language had someone on the staff available to them. Specifically, 21.7% of Hispanic families indicated that their families needed Head Start staff to speak Spanish and 99.6% of these families reported having a Head Start staff who could speak to them in Spanish. Likewise, 19.7% of Hispanic families indicated that their child needed someone at Head Start who could speak Spanish to them and 98.9% of these parents indicated that Head Start had such a staff person. As expected, there was quite a bit of variability on these issues among Hispanic groups. For instance, 77.1% of Spanish-speaking mainland families indicated that their family needed someone at Head Start to speak Spanish compared to 26.9% of the English-speaking mainland families. No families in Puerto Rico indicated having this need.
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Work schedule interferes | 55.9 | 58.8 | 48.6 | 47.1 | 40.2 | 62.2 |
| School schedule interferes | 18.9 | 19.3 | 17.9 | 25.3 | 11.7 | 22.4 |
| Need child care | 31.5 | 28.2 | 40.0 | 30.2 | 48.8 | 33.1 |
| Need transportation | 17.2 | 16.8 | 17.8 | 12.7 | 21.2 | 15.9 |
| Lack support from spouse | 12.5 | 10.5 | 17.8 | 34.4 | 16.3 | 9.5 |
| Health problems interfere | 8.3 | 9.4 | 5.4 | 9.4 | 4.0 | 4.9 |
| Language or cultural differences | 3.2 | 1.7 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 3.7 |
| Concern for safety | 2.7 | 1.8 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 7.6 | 1.1 |
| Mean total number of barriers | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 |
Parent Satisfaction
The vast majority of Hispanic families were very satisfied with the Head Start program. Exhibit 8-20 presents the percentages of parents who reported they were very satisfied in eight areas and on an overall summary score18. At least 80 percent of the Hispanic families were very satisfied that Head Start helped their children grow and develop (88.1%), was open to new ideas (80.0%), respected their families’ culture (88.4%), provided services for their children (84.6%), maintained a safe program (86.3%), and prepared their children for kindergarten (89.2%). A higher proportion of Hispanic families were very satisfied with Head Start compared to non-Hispanic families on 5 of the 8 areas (i.e., help their children grow and develop, staff open to ideas, services for their children, preparing children for kindergarten, and fostering community involvement) as well as the total summary score.
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Help child grow and develop | 86.5 | 85.9 | 88.1 | 91.9 | 90.3 | 82.2 |
| Open to ideas | 77.9 | 76.9 | 80.0 | 78.3 | 84.7 | 73.9 |
| Respect family culture | 88.1 | 87.9 | 88.4 | 88.1 | 90.8 | 84.7 |
| Services for child | 83.4 | 82.9 | 84.6 | 87.2 | 83.9 | 84.2 |
| Services for family | 63.4 | 62.6 | 65.8 | 71.7 | 68.6 | 57.8 |
| Maintain a safe program | 88.3 | 89.0 | 86.3 | 90.0 | 89.4 | 79.4 |
| Prepare child for kindergarten | 84.6 | 82.7 | 89.2 | 86.8 | 92.9 | 85.1 |
| Foster community involvement | 58.5 | 55.2 | 66.9 | 74.1 | 74.0 | 51.6 |
| Summary satisfaction | 29.2 | 28.9 | 29.5 | 29.7 | 30.0 | 28.6 |
Among Hispanic groups, a higher proportion of families living in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic parents were very satisfied across the eight areas than English-speaking mainland Hispanic families. For instance more than 90% of families living in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families were very satisfied that Head Start helped their children grow and develop compared to 82.2% of English-speaking mainland families. Also, at least 74% of families living in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families were very satisfied that Head Start fostered community involvement while slightly over one half of English-speaking mainland families (51.6%) were very satisfied. However, at least 85% of all Hispanic groups felt very satisfied with Head Start’s role in preparing their children for kindergarten as well as respecting their families’ culture. In terms of the total satisfaction score, Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families were more satisfied than English-speaking mainland families, although the differences between mainland Hispanic families and families in Puerto Rico were not significantly different.
8.2.9 Summary
If current trends continue, Hispanic children may become the largest ethnic group enrolled in Head Start over the next decade. This section focused on describing all Hispanic children and their families as a group and began to describe the variations among Hispanic groups. The findings from this section indicate that, as a group, Hispanic families and children in Head Start differ from non-Hispanic families in several areas:
Characteristics of All Hispanic Families
-
Over one half of Hispanic parents were foreign born and, on average, these parents had lived in the U.S. for more than ten years.
-
Over 90% of Hispanic families reported Spanish was the primary language spoken in their homes and over one half of Hispanic children were assessed in Spanish.
-
More Hispanic children live in households with both parents. Over one half of Hispanic Head Start children lived in households with married parents.
-
Compared to non-Hispanic parents, more Hispanic parents did not have a high school degree or GED, were unemployed, and were living in poverty. Almost two fifths of Hispanic parents had not received a high school degree or GED, over one half of Hispanic parents were not employed, and almost three quarters of the Hispanic households’ incomes fell below the Federal Poverty Level. Despite these insecurities, less than one fourth of Hispanic families received TANF benefits and less than 5 percent received SSI or SSDI benefits, although more than one half received WIC benefits.
-
Compared to non-Hispanic families, more Hispanic families had no health insurance coverage for their children and no regular health care provider. Close to one fourth of the Hispanic children were not covered by health insurance or Medicaid. In addition, almost one fifth of Hispanic families did not have a regular health care provider for their children while one third of parents did not have a regular provider.
-
Despite many of these challenges, fewer Hispanic families had multiple family risks than non-Hispanic families. Less than one fifth of Hispanic Head Start families had four or more risk factors that have been associated in the literature with negative outcomes for children.
-
Fewer Hispanic parents reported using child care and having child care providers that were licensed, certified or regulated than non-Hispanic families. More than two fifths of Hispanic Head Start families reported using child care before their children entered Head Start and more than one fourth reported using child care since their children began Head Start. More than twice as many Hispanic families used Head Start for child care before or after the Head Start day than non-Hispanic families.
-
Compared to non-Hispanic caregivers, Hispanic caregivers received more helpful support in raising their child from their spouse and other parents as well as professional helpgivers and less support from friends, co-workers, Head Start staff, and other child care staff.
-
Hispanic families participated in fewer Head Start activities and reported more barriers to participation than non-Hispanic families, although they were more satisfied with the Head Start program.
The data presented also demonstrates that Hispanic families, as a group, were heterogeneous, diverse and dynamic. The section found significant variations among the three Hispanic groups identified based on ethnic- and language-minority status - families living in Puerto Rico, Spanish-speaking mainland families, and English-speaking mainland families - and highlights the importance of understanding variations among Hispanic groups. It also raises the question of whether understanding the variations among Hispanic families is perhaps more important or more reliable than seeking to understand the “average” Hispanic family for a program like Head Start. Some of these findings are highlighted below.
Characteristics of Families from Puerto Rico
-
Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico are the majority ethnic group in their culture and speak the dominant language of the culture (i.e., Spanish), comparable to non-Hispanic Whites in the mainland culture. Having ethnic- and language-majority status in a culture may produce certain advantages over other groups. However, the findings from these data were paradoxical.
-
More parents living in Puerto Rico had received a high school degree or GED and more had attended college or received an AA or BA than other Hispanic families. More than three quarters of parents living in Puerto Rico had a high school degree or GED and more than two fifths attended some college or received a degree.
-
However, compared to other Hispanic families, more parents living in Puerto Rico were unemployed and living in households that were below the Federal Poverty Level. Almost three fifths of parents living in Puerto Rico were not employed and over four fifths of the households had an income below the Federal Poverty Level.
-
Compared to other Hispanic families, fewer families living in Puerto Rico had multiple family risks associated with negative outcomes for children. Just over one out of ten households reported having four or more family risks.
-
Families living in Puerto Rico appeared to be more reliant on public systems of support for housing and health care than other Hispanic families. Over one third of Puerto Rico residents were living in public housing. Almost one half of families living in Puerto Rico reported receiving care for themselves and their children from non-private sources of care.
-
However, compared to other Hispanic families, fewer families living in Puerto Rico received income assistance such as TANF or WIC. Less than one out of ten families reported receiving TANF benefits and less than one half received WIC benefits.
-
More families living in Puerto Rico reported having a child with one or more disabilities than other Hispanic families. Almost one third of Head Start children residing in Puerto Rico were reported to have one or more disabilities.
-
Caregivers residing in Puerto Rico had the highest levels of social support for raising their children, particularly from Head Start, their spouse and other parents, as well as relatives.
-
Families living in Puerto Rico had the highest levels of involvement in Head Start activities and satisfaction with Head Start.
Characteristics of English-Speaking Mainland Hispanic Families
English-speaking mainland Hispanics are ethnic minorities in the overall culture of the U.S., but are able to communicate in the dominant or majority language (i.e., English). Findings from this section appear to indicate that being able to communicate in the dominant language may afford some protective benefits to mainland Hispanics but may also be related to increased risks to this group, possibly a result of acculturation into the mainstream culture. In many ways these families appear to be experiencing the benefits and risks of bridging their ethnic Hispanic culture along with acculturating into the majority culture.
-
While most of these parents can communicate in English, more than four fifths still spoke Spanish as the primary language in their home.
-
More English-speaking mainland Hispanics in Head Start had single parent households than other Hispanic families. One third of these families were single parent households.
-
English-speaking mainland Hispanic families in many areas were more similar to non-Hispanic Head Start families than other Hispanic families. For instance, fewer were unemployed and living below the Federal Poverty Level and yet more were receiving public assistance than other Hispanic families. Less than one half of these families were unemployed and about two thirds had a household income below the Federal Poverty Level. However, almost one third of these families received TANF benefits.
-
However, compared to other Hispanic families, more English-speaking mainland Hispanic families had multiple family risks associated with negative outcomes for children. Just over one fifth of these families reported having four or more family risks.
-
Also compared to other Hispanic families, more English-speaking mainland Hispanic Head Start families reported using child care and having providers that were licensed, certified or regulated, including using Head Start for child care. Almost one half of Hispanic Head Start families reported using child care before their child entered Head Start and almost one third reported using child care since their child began Head Start. Almost one half of these families reported that their current care providers were licensed, certified or regulated. In addition, more than one fourth of these families used Head Start for child care before or after the Head Start day.
Characteristics of Spanish-Speaking Mainland Hispanic Families
Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics have both ethnic- and language-minority status in the culture of the U.S. This may confer certain disadvantages on this group as well as unique ways of coping with these adversities. Specifically:
-
Compared to other Hispanic families, more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic parents did not have a high school degree or GED and fewer had attended some college or were working toward a degree. More than one half of Spanish-speaking mainland families had less than a high school degree or a GED while less than one in ten had pursued some college or received an AA degree. Just over one in ten reported that they were currently working toward a degree.
-
More Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics families included both parents than other Hispanic families. Almost three fourths of Spanish-speaking mainland families include married parents.
-
More Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had an unemployed parent but fewer had a household with no parent working than other Hispanic families. Over three fifths of these families had an unemployed parent; however, only 15.2% had households with no parents working.
-
Compared to other Hispanic families, more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families in Head Start were not able to cover their children with health insurance or Medicaid or had a regular health care provider for their children or themselves. More than one third of these families did not have medical insurance covering their children. More than two thirds of Spanish-speaking families did not have a regular health care provider for their children and over one half of these families did not have a regular health care providers for the parent(s).
-
However, Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had fewer multiple family risks associated with negative outcomes for children than English-speaking mainland families, but had more risks than families living in Puerto Rico. Just over 15% of Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families reported having four or more family risks.
-
Spanish-speaking mainland families reported similar levels of income to non-Hispanics. However, fewer Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic Head Start families reported receiving TANF than other Hispanic families. Less than two thirds of the Spanish-speaking mainland families earned incomes that fell below the Federal Poverty Level. However, less than one fifth reported receiving income assistance through TANF.
-
Fewer Spanish-speaking mainland families reported using child care than other Hispanic families, but those that did reported using more child care provided in their home and unlicensed child care. Less than one fourth of these families reported using child care prior to their children entering Head Start and less than one fifth reported using it while their children were at Head Start. Unlike other Hispanic groups, over three fifths of Spanish-speaking mainland families reported using care provided in their home. Just over one in ten families reported their child care providers were licensed, certified or regulated.
-
Spanish-speaking Hispanic caregivers residing in the U.S. reported the lowest levels of social support for raising their children and relied most on their spouses and other parents for that support. The majority of Spanish-speaking caregivers reported receiving helpful support in raising their Head Start children from Head Start staff, as well as their relatives, but relied most on support from their spouses or other parents.
-
Finally, Spanish-speaking Hispanic families residing in the U.S. participated in fewer Head Start activities and reported more barriers to participation, although they also voiced greater satisfaction with the Head Start program.
| Weighted Percentages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N =2,959) |
Non-Hispanic
(n =2,192) |
All
Hispanic (n = 767 ) |
Types of Hispanic Families | |||
| Puerto
Rico (n =130) |
Mainland Spanish- speaking (n = 195) |
Mainland
English- speaking (n = 442) |
||||
| Urbanicity | ||||||
| Urban | 66.6 | 57.9 | 86.4 | 100.0 | 79.4 | 85.1 |
| Rural | 33.4 | 42.1 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 20.6 | 14.9 |
| Region | ||||||
| Midwest | 22.9 | 29.8 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 17.1 | 3.8 |
| Northeast | 15.7 | 16.2 | 14.5 | 0.0 | 12.8 | 21.5 |
| South | 38.8 | 38.0 | 40.4 | 100.0 | 27.5 | 24.2 |
| West | 22.6 | 16.0 | 38.0 | 0.0 | 42.6 | 50.5 |
| Gender of Child | ||||||
| Male | 50.3 | 50.7 | 49.6 | 61.2 | 45.2 | 47.7 |
| Female | 49.7 | 49.3 | 50.4 | 38.8 | 54.8 | 52.3 |
| Age of Child | ||||||
| 3 years old | 31.6 | 33.2 | 27.4 | 39.2 | 21.4 | 26.4 |
| 4 years old | 68.4 | 66.8 | 72.6 | 60.8 | 78.6 | 73.6 |
| Child Birthweight | ||||||
| Normal | 85.7 | 85.3 | 86.5 | 85.7 | 84.6 | 87.9 |
| Low | 7.7 | 8.0 | 7.3 | 10.6 | 7.0 | 6.1 |
| Very low | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
| One or More Disabilities | 19.3 | 20.6 | 16.8 | 32.7 | 7.3 | 16.1 |
| Age of Parent | ||||||
| Less than 20 years old | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 4.0 |
| 21-29 years old | 53.1 | 54.6 | 49.8 | 45.2 | 49.9 | 51.7 |
| 30-39 years old | 32.4 | 30.3 | 37.1 | 38.4 | 41.2 | 34.0 |
| 40 and older | 11.7 | 12.4 | 10.2 | 12.6 | 8.3 | 10.3 |
| Mean age | 30.2 | 30.6 | 30.1 | 30.4 | 30.9 | 29.4 |
| Nativity of Parent | ||||||
| Born in country other than U.S. | 19.2 | 5.5 | 52.0 | 7.7 | 97.1 | 42.5 |
| Less than 5 years in U.S. | 11.6 | 19.6 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 11.7 | 7.2 |
| Five or more years in U.S. | 88.2 | 79.5 | 90.4 | 100.0 | 88.2 | 92.6 |
| Mean years lived in U.S. | 11.1 | 12.1 | 10.9 | 11.8 | 9.4 | 12.8 |
| Language | ||||||
| Spanish language in home | 30.6 | 5.4 | 90.4 | 98.8 | 99.7 | 81.4 |
| Child assessed in Spanish | 16.7 | 0.1 | 56.1 | 98.0 | 72.9 | 29.1 |
| Marital Status | ||||||
| Married | 43.1 | 37.9 | 55.9 | 56.9 | 72.5 | 45.4 |
| Single, never married | 33.7 | 37.3 | 24.3 | 15.5 | 15.8 | 33.0 |
| Divorced or widowed | 13.5 | 16.4 | 6.9 | 12.8 | 1.6 | 7.7 |
| Married, but separated | 9.6 | 8.4 | 12.9 | 14.8 | 10.1 | 13.9 |
| Education and Training | ||||||
| Less than high school | 27.5 | 22.6 | 38.5 | 21.6 | 54.3 | 35.8 |
| High school diploma/GED | 37.6 | 39.3 | 34.4 | 35.5 | 34.2 | 34.0 |
| Some college/AA degree | 32.1 | 35.4 | 24.3 | 35.1 | 9.9 | 28.7 |
| College degree or higher | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 7.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| Vocational or trade school | 41.7 | 44.2 | 36.4 | 52.0 | 21.4 | 39.1 |
| Working toward degree | 24.3 | 25.6 | 21.0 | 25.5 | 13.9 | 25.5 |
| Employment Status | ||||||
| Full-time | 34.5 | 36.4 | 29.9 | 27.1 | 22.5 | 35.5 |
| Part-time or seasonal | 17.8 | 18.4 | 16.9 | 14.2 | 15.5 | 18.8 |
| Not employed | 47.3 | 44.7 | 53.0 | 58.0 | 61.9 | 45.5 |
| Household Income | ||||||
| $499 or less | 11.8 | 11.6 | 12.1 | 32.2 | 6.4 | 7.4 |
| $500-999 | 29.6 | 28.0 | 33.5 | 38.9 | 30.4 | 33.2 |
| $1,000-1,499 | 24.8 | 25.1 | 24.2 | 18.7 | 28.6 | 23.7 |
| $1,500-1,999 | 14.4 | 16.2 | 10.1 | 1.5 | 11.7 | 12.5 |
| $2,000 or more | 15.7 | 16.7 | 14.0 | 6.7 | 12.4 | 17.9 |
| Housing Status | ||||||
| Private housing | 86.4 | 87.2 | 84.7 | 94.4 | 78.8 | 84.4 |
| Shared housing | 12.5 | 11.4 | 15.2 | 5.3 | 21.2 | 15.6 |
| Transitional housing | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Public housing | 22.2 | 24.1 | 17.6 | 36.6 | 8.2 | 15.6 |
| Sources of Support | ||||||
| WIC | 54.5 | 53.4 | 57.6 | 49.2 | 59.8 | 59.6 |
| TANF | 30.2 | 33.3 | 22.6 | 8.3 | 19.2 | 30.4 |
| SSI or SSDI | 11.0 | 13.9 | 4.5 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 5.2 |
| Insurance Coverage | ||||||
| Private insurance | 32.6 | 34.5 | 27.9 | 34.2 | 21.7 | 29.1 |
| MEDICAID | 58.1 | 59.7 | 54.0 | 61.4 | 47.5 | 54.9 |
| Regular Health Provider | ||||||
| Child | 88.2 | 91.6 | 80.1 | 80.0 | 68.7 | 87.1 |
| Parent | 75.7 | 79.4 | 66.9 | 65.3 | 54.6 | 74.9 |
| Routine Care Provider (Child) | ||||||
| Private doctor or HMO | 66.3 | 69.4 | 58.8 | 52.9 | 63.6 | 54.8 |
| Non-private doctor | 32.1 | 29.3 | 38.9 | 47.1 | 39.3 | 35.3 |
| Routine Care Provider (Parent) | ||||||
| Private doctor or HMO | 60.8 | 65.2 | 50.1 | 42.8 | 53.9 | 50.7 |
| Non-private doctor | 38.5 | 30.8 | 45.3 | 56.9 | 40.0 | 43.8 |
8.3 Overview of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers
Approximately five percent of the Head Start children (4.8%) were members of families where grandparents were designated as their primary caregivers. This section will present the characteristics of these families, information on how they function, and their relationship with the Head Start program. In the following sections, households where the grandparent was the child’s primary caregiver may be referred to as “grandparent-led” or “grandparent-headed” households.
At the end of this section is Exhibit 8-21 that contains frequencies on demographic characteristics of children, parent and grandparent caregivers, and households. Frequencies are presented for all families in the sample and for families where a grandparent serves as the primary caregiver.
8.3.1 Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers
Ethnicity
Ethnic differences were noted between children with grandparents as their caregivers and children in the overall sample. Exhibit 8-21 shows that almost one half of the children who had grandparents as primary caregivers were African American (46.0%). Only 9.3% of the children who had grandparents as primary caregivers were Hispanic, while the overall sample of children was 27.6% Hispanic.
Urbanicity and Region
Differences in the distribution of grandparents and non-grandparents as primary caregivers were minimal with respect to urbanicity and geographic region (Exhibit 8-21). In both groups, about two thirds of the families (66.9% all families, 68.4% grandparents as primary caregivers) lived in urban settings. Almost one half of the families with grandparents serving as primary caregivers lived in the South (49.4%), in contrast to 39.4% of the overall sample of families.
Gender and Age of Children
Exhibit 8-21 demonstrates that in families where grandparents were the primary caregivers, children were evenly split on gender (53.1% were boys), similar to the distribution in the main sample (50.4% were boys). Two thirds of the children (67.6%) in grandparent-led families were 4 years old, matching the proportion of 4-year-olds in the entire sample (68.3%).
Age and Nativity of Grandparents
As expected, grandparents as caregivers were older than other caregivers in the main sample of families (Exhibit 8-21). While more than one half of the caregivers in the main sample (55.6%) were under 30 years of age, all the grandparents who were caregivers were older than 30, and most were older than 40 (93.2%). The mean age of primary caregivers in the main sample was 30.2 years, while the mean age for grandparents who served as primary caregivers was 52.3 years. Three times as many primary caregivers in the main sample (18.7%) were born in a country other than the U.S. than grandparents who were primary caregivers (6.2%).
Marital Status
The sample of all caregivers and the subsample of grandparents as caregivers differed in two categories of marital status (Exhibit 8-21). While one third of all caregivers (33.7%) were single, never married, only 7.2% of the grandparents were reported to be in that category. In contrast, 38.8% of the grandparents were divorced or widowed, compared to only 13.5% of the caregivers in the main sample.
Education and Training
In general, grandparents who served as caregivers did not have as much education as other primary caregivers (Exhibit 8-21). While just more than one quarter (27.2%) of all caregivers had less than a high school diploma, almost two fifths (38.8%) of the grandparents who were caregivers did not complete high school. About one third (32.5%) of all primary caregivers reported attending some college or having an AA degree, while only 19.9% of the grandparents had a similar level of education.
Employment Status and Household Income
As shown in Exhibit 8-21, employment, either full-time or part-time, was greater among all caregivers (52.3%) than among grandparents who were caregivers (37.0%). Overall, the households in which grandparents served as primary caregivers had higher incomes than the overall sample of households (Exhibit 8-21). The proportion of all households with incomes under $1,000 was 41.4%, while only 29.8% of the households with grandparents as primary caregivers had incomes at this level. In contrast, while 30.1% of all households had incomes above $1,500, 41.5% of the households in which grandparents were primary caregivers had incomes above $1,500.
Other Sources of Support and Insurance Coverage
As shown in Exhibit 8-21, families in which grandparents were the primary caregivers were less likely than the overall sample of families to use WIC (44.6% vs. 54.5% for all families), but were more likely to use TANF(44.0% vs. 30.2%) as well as SSI or SSDI (28.3% vs. 11.0%). The proportions of children covered by private health insurance or by Medicaid were virtually identical across both groups of families.
Housing
Although Exhibit 8-21 indicates that the proportions of families living in private or shared housing were very similar for both the overall sample of families and families where grandparents served as the primary caregivers, the families in the overall sample were more likely to report living in public housing (22.2% vs. 14.6%).
Household Composition
Although grandmothers were identified as the primary caregivers of their grandchildren in 94.0% of the grandparent-headed households, a grandfather was also present in 42.1% of these households. Of the three grandfather-led households, grandmothers were present in two. Interestingly, in 6.4% of the grandmother-led households, a great-grandmother also lived with the family. The children’s mothers were present in 21.8% of the grandparent-headed households. Of the non-household mothers, 36.0% rarely or never saw their children, 13.7% saw their children several times a year, 19.7% saw them several times a month, and 20.0% saw their children several times a week or daily. The children’s fathers were present in only 8.1% of the grandparent-headed households. Of the non-household fathers, 38.5% rarely or never saw their children, 13.2% saw them several times a year, 23.9% several times a month, and 19.8% saw their children several times a week or daily. There were only three grandparent-headed households where the children’s mothers and fathers both resided.
Data were not always available to indicate why the parents were not designated as caregivers. It was reported that in grandparent-headed households, 1.1% of non-household mothers and 2.0% of the non-household fathers were in the military. Unfortunately, 11.4% of the non-household mothers and 10.6% of the non-households fathers were reported to be in prison. Additionally, when grandparents were asked if anyone in the household had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of the Head Start child, they reported 16.6% of the children’s mothers and 20.2% of the children’s fathers had been involved in the criminal justice system. In contrast, among other caregiver-headed households, only 4.8% of the mothers and 16.9% of fathers were reported to have been arrested or charged with a crime.
8.3.2 Functioning of Families with Grandparents as Primary Caregivers
This section presents information gathered from the parent interviews about the functioning of the Head Start families who had grandparents identified as the primary caregivers. For the purpose of this section, “grandparent” refers to grandparents identified as the primary caregivers of the Head Start children.
Social Support
In the spring of 1998, grandparents were asked about the people or groups in their lives who were helpful to them during the previous six months in raising their Head Start grandchildren. Almost all of the grandparents (92.0%) reported that Head Start was helpful (15.5%) or very helpful (76.5%) as a source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than other relatives (79.2%) and much more helpful than their grandchildren’s parents (55.9%), people from religious or social groups (53.8%), friends (45.5%), professional helpgivers (31.8%), child care staff (15.1%), or co-workers (15.5%).
Based on a summary variable measuring total support19, grandparents reported receiving significantly less overall support in raising their grandchildren than parents who were caregivers, t(2538) = 2.56; p = .02. Compared to parents who were caregivers, grandparents reported receiving much less support from friends (45.5% vs. 65.8%), child care staff (15.1% vs. 32.6%), and co-workers (15.5% vs. 21.6%). Interestingly, a larger proportion of grandparents (53.8%) reported religious or social group members as a source of support in raising their Head Start children than did parents (46.4%).
Psychological Well-Being
Depression among Head Start grandparents was measured using the CES-D Depression Scale20 (Radloff, 1977). Overall, most grandparents were classified as not depressed (42.4%) or mildly depressed (26.8%). Still, more than one quarter of these grandparents were classified as either moderately depressed (9.8%) or severely depressed (17.2%). Reported depression did not vary significantly between grandparents as caregivers and parents as caregivers; however, a slightly larger proportion of grandparents were classified as severely depressed (17.2%) compared to the parent caregivers (11.5%).
Involvement With Their Grandchildren
Grandparents were asked about their families’ activities with their grandchildren during the week and month prior to the spring 1998 interview. Almost all of the grandparents (94.4%) reported that they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Over one third of the children (36.2%) were read to every day, while 28.2% were read to three or more times, and 30.0% were read to once or twice during the week prior to the interview. A very small proportion, 5.6%, reported they had not read to their grandchildren at all during the past week, slightly more than the 4.7% of parents as caregivers who reported not reading to their children. Grandparents also involved their grandchildren in a wide range of activities. No significant differences reported in the amount of activities with children were noted between families headed by grandparents or parents.
Child Behavior
Grandparents were asked to rate their grandchildren in several different areas, including their behavior and pre-reading skills. Compared to parents as primary caregivers, grandparents as caregivers indicated their grandchildren had more problem behaviors21, t(2516) = 3.33; p < .001, including behavior that was more aggressive22, t(2536) = 2.05; p = .04, hyperactive23, t(2534) = 2.91; p < .01, and withdrawn24, t(2528) = 2.40; p = .02. There was no significant difference between the reported emergent literacy of those children who were cared for by their grandparents or those cared for by their parents.
Neighborhood Environments
When asked in spring 1998 about their families’ exposure to neighborhood and personal violence during the previous six months, compared to families headed by parents, grandparents were less likely to report exposure to crime, violence, and victimization. One fifth of families headed by parents (20.2%) reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods and one fourth (25.2%) reported exposure to violent crime, while grandparents reported less exposure to nonviolent (12.1%) and violent crime (18.2%) in their neighborhoods. Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.1% of the parent-headed households compared to only 1.0% of households headed by grandparents. Again, reports of having been victimized in their homes were higher for families headed by parents (3.8%) compared to less than one percent of grandparents (0.1%). Equal proportions of parents as caregivers (18.7%) and grandparents as caregivers (18.6%) knew individuals who were victims of a violent crime in their neighborhoods.
8.3.3 Relationships with Head Start
This section presents information regarding how satisfied grandparents were with the overall Head Start program, the barriers to participation they faced, and how often they participated in program activities.
Involvement in Head Start
In the spring of 1998, grandparents were asked about the ways that they were involved in the Head Start program throughout the past school year. As demonstrated in Exhibit 8-22, over 70% of the grandparents reported observing in the classroom for at least 30 minutes (73.9%), preparing food or materials (71.2%), attending parent-teacher conferences (79.1%), and participating in home visits (93.3%). Slightly larger proportions of grandparents, compared to parents, prepared food and materials (71.2% vs. 65.7%), attended Head Start social events (63.5% vs. 55.0%) and workshops (59.1% vs. 55.6%), and participated in home visits (93.3% vs. 83.0%) and Policy Council (42.3% vs. 36.5%). Grandparents as caregivers were less likely than parents to volunteer (64.3% vs. 69.5%) and observe (73.9% vs. 77.6%) in the classrooms or help with field trips (44.8% vs. 51.8%).
| Weighted Percentages | ||
|---|---|---|
| Grandparents
(n = 133) |
Parents (n =2,555) |
|
| Volunteered in classroom | 64.3 | 69.5 |
| Observed classroom for 30 minutes or more | 73.9 | 77.6 |
| Prepared food or materials | 71.2 | 65.7 |
| Helped with field trips | 44.8 | 51.8 |
| Attended Head Start social events | 63.5 | 55.0 |
| Attended workshops | 59.1 | 55.6 |
| Attended parent-teacher conferences | 79.1 | 81.5 |
| Had Head Start staff visit at home | 93.3 | 83.0 |
| Participated in Policy Council | 42.3 | 36.5 |
| Called another Head Start parent | 32.6 | 31.5 |
| Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. | 22.0 | 23.6 |
| Participated in fundraising | 62.0 | 61.2 |
Barriers to Participation
Grandparents were asked in the spring of 1998 if there were particular barriers that prevented them from participating as much as they would have liked at their grandchildren’s Head Start programs. The four barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the grandparents were work commitments (34.7%), health problems (26.1%), need for child care (24.8%), and lack of transportation (12.9%). As expected, grandparents were almost four times more likely than parent caregivers to report health problems as a barrier to participation (26.1% vs. 7.4%), and slightly more likely to mention concerns for safety (3.3% vs. 2.8%) and a lack of opportunities (6.7% vs. 4.0%) as barriers. Compared to parent caregivers, grandparents were less likely to indicate that a need for child care (32.4% vs. 24.8%), competing school (9.22% vs. 19.9%) or work (34.7% vs. 56.0%) commitments, lack of transportation (12.9% vs. 17.5%), or language or cultural differences (0.4% vs. 3.3%) interfered with their ability to participate at Head Start.
Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience
Parents were asked how satisfied they were with Head Start’s performance in eight different areas, including helping their children to grow and develop, preparing their children for kindergarten, and supporting their families’ culture and background. Both parent-caregivers and grandparent-caregivers reported high satisfaction with their Head Start programs. Over 90% of the grandparents were “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with Head Start in 6 of the 8 areas displayed in Exhibit 8-23. While no significant difference in overall satisfaction with Head Start was found between grandparents or parents as caregivers, grandparent caregivers were more likely to be “very satisfied” with how Head Start was helping their grandchildren to grow and develop (89.1% vs. 86.3%), respecting their families’ culture (94.0% vs. 87.5%), and providing services for the children (94.3% vs. 82.9%).
| Weighted Percentages | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grandparents (n = 133) |
Parents (n = 2,555) |
|||
| Somewhat Satisfied |
Very Satisfied |
Somewhat Satisfied |
Very Satisfied |
|
| Help children grow and develop | 6.8 | 89.1 | 11.6 | 86.3 |
| Open to new ideas | 17.7 | 76.7 | 19.3 | 78.0 |
| Respect family culture | 6.0 | 94.0 | 10.1 | 87.5 |
| Provide services for children | 2.2 | 94.3 | 12.5 | 82.9 |
| Provide services for family | 18.0 | 63.5 | 16.8 | 63.1 |
| Maintain a safe program | 9.3 | 87.8 | 5.3 | 93.3 |
| Prepare child for kindergarten | 11.0 | 84.6 | 5.2 | 85.9 |
| Foster community development | 27.1 | 58.8 | 16.4 | 65.9 |
8.3.4 Three Generational Families
While close to 5% of the Head Start children lived in families headed by their grandparents, 13.7% lived in households where grandmothers, grandfathers, or both grandparents resided. Because primary caregivers were the focus of the FACES parent interview, little information is available about grandparents who were members of extended family structures, but not the primary caregivers of the children. However, two fifths of these three generational families were families of African American children (40.9%), one quarter were families of Hispanic children (24.8%), and one fifth were families of White children (20.1%). The family structures of almost two thirds of the three-generational families (64.1%) included mothers and grandmothers. More than one half of the grandparents in the household were employed (55.2%).
8.3.5 Summary of Findings on Families Headed by Grandparents
Findings from this section contribute to a more complete understanding of Head Start families who were headed by grandparents, including their involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction with the Head Start program. Highlights from Section 8.3 include:
Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers
-
Almost one half of the children who had grandparents as primary caregivers were African American and less than 10% were Hispanic. African American children as well as Hispanic children each comprised slightly over one quarter of the overall sample.
-
Differences in the distribution of grandparents and non-grandparents as primary caregivers were minimal with respect to urbanicity and geographic region. About two thirds of the families lived in urban settings. Almost one half of the families with grandparents serving as primary caregivers lived in the South.
-
Among families where grandparents were the primary caregivers, children were evenly split on gender, similar to the distribution in the main sample. Two thirds of the children in grandparent-led families were 4 years old, matching the proportion of 4-year-olds in the entire sample.
-
Grandparents as caregivers were older than caregivers in the main sample of families. All the grandparents who were caregivers were older than 30, and most were older than 40. The mean age of primary caregivers in the main sample was 30.2 years, while the mean age for grandparents who served as primary caregivers was 52.3 years.
-
Three times as many primary caregivers in the main sample were born in a country other than the U.S. than grandparents who were primary caregivers.
-
In general, grandparents who served as caregivers did not have as much education as other primary caregivers. While just more than one quarter of all caregivers had less than a high school diploma, almost two fifths of the grandparents who were caregivers did not complete high school. About one third of all primary caregivers reported attending some college or having an AA degree, while only one fifth of the grandparents had a similar level of education.
-
Employment, either full-time or part-time, was greater among all caregivers than among grandparents who were caregivers. Consequently, approximately three fifths of the grandparents were not employed compared to around one half of the other caregivers in the overall sample.
-
The sample of all caregivers and the subsample of grandparents as caregivers differed in two categories of marital status. While one third of all caregivers were single, never married, only 7.2% of the grandparents were reported to be in that category. In contrast, two fifths of the grandparents were divorced or widowed, compared to only 13.5% of the caregivers in the main sample.
-
Overall, the households in which grandparents served as primary caregivers had higher incomes than the overall sample of households. Two fifths of all households reported incomes under $1,000. Only 29.8% of the households with grandparents as primary caregivers had incomes at this level. In contrast, while slightly less than one third of all households had incomes above $1,500, two fifths of the households in which grandparents were primary caregivers had incomes above $1,500.
-
Grandparent-led families were less likely than the overall sample of families to use WIC but were more likely to use TANF as well as SSI or SSDI. The proportions of children covered by private health insurance or by Medicaid were virtually identical across both groups of families.
Functioning of Families With Grandparents are Primary Caregivers
-
Almost all of the grandparents reported that Head Start was helpful or very helpful as a source of support in raising their grandchildren. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than other relatives and much more helpful than their grandchildren’s parents, people from religious or social groups, friends, professional helpgivers, child care staff, or co-workers.
-
Grandparents reported receiving significantly less overall support in raising their grandchildren than parents who were caregivers. Interestingly, a larger proportion of grandparents compared to parents reported religious or social group members as a source of support in raising their Head Start children.
-
Almost all of the grandparents reported that they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Over one third of the children were read to every day. A very small proportion reported they had not read to their grandchildren at all during the past week, slightly more than the percentage of parents who reported not reading to their children.
-
Grandparents also involved their grandchildren in a wide range of activities. No significant differences in reported amount of family activities with children were noted between families headed by grandparents or parents.
-
Compared to parents as primary caregivers, grandparents as caregivers indicated their grandchildren had more problem behaviors, including behaviors that was more aggressive, hyperactive, and withdrawn.
-
There was no significant difference between the emergent literacy of those children who were cared for by their grandparents or those cared for by their parents.
-
Compared to families headed by parents, families headed by grandparents were less likely to report having been exposed to crime, violence, and victimization. Equal proportions of parents as caregivers and grandparents as caregivers knew someone who was the victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood.
-
Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.1% of the parent-headed households compared to only 1.0% of households headed by grandparents. Reports of victimization in their homes were slightly higher for families headed by parents (3.8%), compared to less than 1% of grandparent-led households.
Relationships with Head Start
-
Over 70% of the grandparents reported observing in the classroom for at least 30 minutes preparing food or materials, attending parent-teacher conferences, and participating in home visits. Grandparents as caregivers were less likely than parents to volunteer and observe in the classrooms or help with field trips; however, they were more likely to serve on Policy Council.
-
The four barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the grandparents were work commitments, health problems, need for child care, and lack of transportation.
-
As expected, grandparents were almost four times more likely than parent caregivers to report health problems as a barrier to participation and slightly more likely to mention concern for safety and a lack of opportunities as barriers.
-
Compared to parent caregivers, grandparents were less likely to report that a need for child care, competing school or work commitments, lack of transportation, or language or cultural differences interfered with their ability to participate at Head Start.
-
Grandparents reported high satisfaction with their Head Start programs. While no significant difference was found between the overall satisfaction of grandparent or parent caregivers, grandparents were more likely to be “very satisfied” with how Head Start was doing with helping their grandchildren to grow and develop, respecting their families’ culture, and providing services for the children.
Three Generational Families
-
While close to 5% of the Head Start children lived in families headed by their grandparents, 13.7% lived in a household where a grandmother, grandfather, or both grandparents resided. The family structure of almost two thirds of the three-generational families consisted of a mother and a grandmother.
-
Two fifths of these families had African American children, one quarter were families of Hispanic children, and one fifth were families of White children.
| Weighted Percentages | ||
|---|---|---|
| All (n = 3,120) |
Grandparents (n =133) |
|
| Ethnicity | ||
| African American | 28.8 | 46.0 |
| White | 30.6 | 26.9 |
| Hispanic | 27.6 | 9.3 |
| Native American | 1.9 | 3.0 |
| Asian | 1.3 | 0.0 |
| Other | 8.7 | 14.2 |
| Urbanicity | ||
| Urban | 66.9 | 68.4 |
| Rural | 33.0 | 31.6 |
| Region | ||
| Midwest | 23.1 | 18.6 |
| Northeast | 15.5 | 11.9 |
| South | 39.4 | 49.4 |
| West | 22.0 | 20.1 |
| Gender of Child | ||
| Male | 50.4 | 53.1 |
| Female | 49.6 | 46.9 |
| Age of Child | ||
| 3 years old | 31.7 | 32.4 |
| 4 years old | 68.3 | 67.6 |
| Child Birthweight | ||
| Normal | 85.8 | 64.6 |
| Low | 7.6 | 8.3 |
| Very low | 1.8 | 2.5 |
| Age of Parent | ||
| < 20 years old | 2.5 | 0.0 |
| 21-29 years old | 53.1 | 0.0 |
| 30-39 years old | 32.4 | 5.9 |
| 40 and older | 11.7 | 93.2 |
| Mean age | 30.2 | 52.3 |
| Median age | 28.0 | 51.0 |
| Nativity of Parent | ||
| Born in country other than US | 18.7 | 6.2 |
| Education and Training | ||
| Less than high school | 27.2 | 38.8 |
| High school diploma/GED | 37.5 | 36.7 |
| Some college/AA degree | 32.5 | 19.9 |
| College degree or higher | 2.8 | 4.6 |
| Vocational or trade school | 41.8 | 38.1 |
| Employment Status | ||
| Full-time | 34.5 | 29.8 |
| Part-time or seasonal | 17.8 | 7.2 |
| Not employed | 47.3 | 61.3 |
| Household Income | ||
| $499 or less | 11.8 | 4.5 |
| $500-999 | 29.6 | 25.3 |
| $1,000-1,499 | 24.8 | 21.8 |
| $1,500-1,999 | 14.4 | 20.0 |
| $2,000 or more | 15.7 | 21.5 |
| Housing Status | ||
| Private housing | 86.4 | 82.9 |
| Shared housing | 12.5 | 15.8 |
| Transitional housing | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| Public housing | 22.2 | 14.6 |
| Sources of Support | ||
| WIC | 54.5 | 44.6 |
| TANF | 30.2 | 44.0 |
| SSI or SSDI | 11.0 | 28.3 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Married | 43.1 | 44.2 |
| Single, never married | 33.7 | 7.2 |
| Divorced or widowed | 13.5 | 38.8 |
| Married, but separated | 9.6 | 9.8 |
| Insurance Coverage | ||
| Private insurance | 32.6 | 32.6 |
| MEDICAID | 58.1 | 54.7 |
1Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary scores ranged from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5%; SD = 5.2.(back)
2The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Scores ranged from 0-36. Zero-4 = Not depressed; 5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7.(back)
3A summary score of 17 parent-reported services needed. Scores ranged from 17-34, with higher scores representing more services needed.(back)
4A summary score of 17 parent-reported services received. Scores ranged from 17-34, with higher scores representing more services received.(back)
5A summary score of 7 parent-reported behavior items rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Scores ranged from 0-14, with higher scores representing more positive behavior.(back)
6An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scored ranged from 0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.(back)
7A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums, doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scored ranged from 0-8.(back)
8A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous, high-strung, or tense. Subscale scored ranged from 0-6.(back)
9A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.(back)
10A summary score of 5 parent-reported child skills including whether child can identify all of the primary colors, recognize most or all letters of the alphabet, count to twenty or higher, write rather than scribble, and write own name. Scores ranged from 0-5.(back)
11Summary parent involvement score is based on respondents’ reports of how frequently (not yet, 1-2 times, 3 or more times) they participated in each of 12 activities over the past school year. Scores ranged from 12-36, with higher scores representing more involvement.(back)
12Summary satisfaction score is based on respondents’ reports of how satisfied (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) they were with Head Start in eight different areas. Scores ranged from 8-32, with higher scores representing more satisfaction.(back)
13The term “Hispanic” is used in this report since it is the term most often used in Head Start. However, the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” should be considered by readers as interchangeable, reflecting the new terminology in the standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 1997 that are to be implemented by January 1, 2003. For more information, please refer to “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 280, October 30, 1997, pp. 58, 782-58,790.(back)
14Hispanic families were defined as those families whose Head Start child was Hispanic.(back)
15Spanish-speaking Hispanic families were identified as parents who completed the parent interview in Spanish.(back)
16Children were counted as having a disability only when parent reports were supported by subsequent responses that the children also had an IEP (an indication of a professional diagnosis)(back).
17Summary support score is based on respondent’s ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start children over the last six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary scores ranged from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support (M = 13.5; SD = 5.2).(back)
18Summary satisfaction score is based on respondents’ reports of how satisfied (Very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) they were with Head Start in regard to the 8 items displayed in Exhibit 8-5. Summary scores ranged from 8 to 32, with higher scores representing more satisfaction (M = 29.2; SD = 3.7; Mdn = 31.0).(back)
19Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary score ranges from zero to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5%; SD = 5.2.(back)
20The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Score range zero-36. Zero-4 = Not depressed; 5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7.(back)
21An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scored ranged from 0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.(back)
22A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums, doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scored ranged from 0-8.(back)
23A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous, high-strung, or tense. Subscale scored ranged from 0-6.(back)
24A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.(back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |