ACF OPRE: Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)

4.0 Head Start Services and Activities

4.1 Introduction

The Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate a comprehensive set of services for enrolled children and families across the areas of Early Childhood Development and Health Services, Family and Community Partnerships, and Program Design and Management. Head Start staff interviewed for FACES provided in-depth information about the types and amounts of services provided through each program component. In addition, the interviews provided information about the main benefits of those services, barriers to receiving full benefits of services, staff goals for families and children, and perceived success in meeting those goals. This chapter consists of six sections:

Section 4.2 contains a description of the educational curricula employed in classrooms, information about the development and implementation of the educational program, and the types and frequencies of activities that occurred in Head Start classrooms.
Section 4.4 provides information about the variety of staff contacts with parents and families through orientation meetings, parent meetings and workshops, parent volunteers in the classroom and other aspects of the program, and male involvement efforts. Finally, staff perceptions regarding barriers to full parent participation in Head Start are reported.
Section 4.6 contains Social Service Coordinator and Family Service Worker descriptions of risk factors frequently observed in Head Start families and the activities and services provided by the program to address families’ needs and problems.
Section 4.8 provides information about health needs and health services that are observed by Health Coordinators and other Head Start staff in the children and families served by the program.
Section 4.10 contains center-level analyses of relationships among the information collected separately from Head Start staff and parents. This section reports the associations among 1) staff and program characteristics reported by staff, 2) parent-reported family demographics, and 3) parent-reported measures of (a) program involvement, (b) satisfaction with the Head Start program and (c) fall 1997 to spring 1998 changes in family-child activities.
Section 4.12 contains the results of discussions completed with Head Start Program Directors in spring 1998 regarding the impact on the program related to implementation of revised Head Start Program Performance Standards in January 1998, and the effects of changes in public assistance laws on the program and the families served.
Finally, Section 4.13 presents a summary of staff responses when they were asked how the program could be improved.

4.2 The Head Start Education Component

The Head Start educational program was, at the time data collection began, organized under the direction of an Education Coordinator, and included classroom teachers, teacher aides, educational and behavioral assessment staff, trainers, consultants, and clerical staff. The Coordinators for the 40 programs in Head Start FACES reported a total of 2,170 staff (an average of over 54 staff per program; range 6 to 186) under their direction. The Education Coordinators were responsible for management of the in-service training program for classroom staff. Exhibit 4-1 contains ratings of the relative importance of in-service training topics. As shown, general child development (62.5%), classroom management strategies (47.5%), and curriculum materials and teaching strategy (37.5%) were considered to be the most important topics for the training of classroom staff. In the next priority rank, methods for involving parents in the classroom when they were present as volunteers or observers (35.0%), training classroom staff to accurately observe (27.5%) and assess (25.0%) children’s behavior and progress, and communications with parents (25.0%) were also considered important.

Exhibit 4-1

Priorities for In-Service Training of Head Start Classroom Staff as Reported by Education Coordinators
In-Service Training Topics	Percentage of Education Coordinators Indicating Topic is One of Top Three Priorities (n = 40)
General child development/early childhood education	62.5
Classroom management strategies	47.5
Curriculum materials/teaching strategies	37.5
Involving parents in the classroom	35.0
Observation of child behavior	27.5
Assessment of child progress	25.0
Communications with parents about child's progress or problems	25.0
Team teaching principles	20.0
Supervision of classroom workers (aides, parent volunteers)	10.0
Observation/reporting of child abuse/neglect	2.5

Education Coordinators reported a variety of means that were employed by education staff in the development of an understanding of the instructional needs of Head Start children. These included teacher observations and review of medical records (reported by 100% of Education Coordinators), observations during home visits, parent-staff conferences (97.5% each), and, if needed, consultation with medical or psychological consultants (90% of Education Coordinators). Where deemed necessary, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) was prepared. Classroom Teachers reported that, on average, 13.8% (SD = 13.0, range = 0 to 100%) of the children in their classrooms had a disability for which they received services or had an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This percentage did not vary by region but teachers employed by programs in rural areas reported a higher proportion (17.4%, SD = 17.3) of children in their classrooms with IEPs than those in urban areas (12.4%, SD = 10.5), t = 3.31, p < .01. Education Coordinators were also asked to indicate the top three disabilities that they had observed in the past year (Exhibit 4-2). As shown, speech and language impairments were reported by all but one Education Coordinator to be a concern that frequently results in the development and implementation of IEPs. In addition, three quarters of the Education Coordinators reported that emotional and behavioral disorders were one of the top three problems resulting in preparation of IEPs.

Exhibit 4-2

Most Frequent Educational Problems Resulting in a Head Start Individualized Education Plan as Reported by Education Coordinators
Disabilities of Children	Percentage of Education Coordinators Indicating Disability as One of Top Three Problems (n = 40)
Speech/language impairment	97.5
Emotional/behavioral disorder	75.0
Non-categorical developmental delay	47.5
Learning disabilities	37.5
Health impairments	32.5
Hearing impairments	7.5
Multiple disabilities	2.5

Home visits by education staff were reported by Education Coordinators to be required in each of the 40 programs that participated in FACES. Thirty-three of the programs required a minimum of two visits per program year, while the remainder required three or more visits by teachers and/or classroom aides. As shown in Exhibit 4-3, two thirds of Education Coordinators (67.5%) reported that delivering educational services to the Head Start children was the most important goal for the home visits involving educational staff; parenting instruction was the next highest priority (30%).

Exhibit 4-3

Most Important Goals for Home Visits by Educational Staff as Reported by Education Coordinators
Goals for Home Visits	Percentage of Education Coordinators (n = 40)
Deliver educational services to Head Start children	67.5
Provide parenting instruction	30.0
Address health/nutritional needs of children	2.5
Provide educational services to other children in the household	2.5

Head Start Educational Curricula

The Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate a comprehensive program of educational services emphasizing the importance of developmentally appropriate educational activities in the classroom. The program does not prescribe a single specific curriculum or set of activities for enrolled children. This approach allows the maximum flexibility for local Head Start staff to select preschool education approaches that they believe are most beneficial for the children and families that they serve. There was significant agreement among Education Coordinators (92.5%), Center Directors1 (94.3%), and Classroom Teachers (93.0%) that a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula were used in their program. As Exhibit 4-4 indicates, the most popular curriculum was High Scope, followed by The Creative Curriculum. In about 10-15% of programs, centers, and classrooms, staff indicated that a statewide Head Start curriculum was employed. In total, over 90 different educational programs for pre-school children were identified, many of which covered only one or two educational content areas and might, therefore, not be considered as “true” curricula (that is, comprehensive programs providing activities and materials covering a variety of educational content areas through a consistent educational approach) but rather as categorical education packages. Other than those mentioned above, no other specific curricula were identified by more than 3% of the staff in any of the positions interviewed.

Exhibit 4-4

Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Identified by Head Start Staff
	Education Coordinators (n = 38)	Center Directors (n = 89)	Classroom Teachers (n = 529)
	Unweighted Percentages
High Scope	44.7	41.7	37.1
The Creative Curriculum	26.3	24.6	19.5
A statewide Head Start curriculum	13.2	11.2	13.9
Othera	10.5	16.8	22.5
Noneb	5.3	5.7	7.0

a“Other” refers to programs, centers, or classrooms where staff did identify a curriculum or curricula other than High Scope, The Creative Curriculum, or a statewide Head Start curriculum.(back)

b”None” refers to programs, centers, or classrooms that staff indicated followed no specific curriculum.(back)

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers reported the components of the curricula they employed in their programs, centers and classrooms. These included having a formal written plan consisting of goals for children’s learning and development, specification of activities for children, suggestions for teaching strategies and teaching materials, and providing ways to involve parents in their children’s activities. As shown in Exhibit 4-5, Head Start staff consistently reported their current curricula generally included all elements of sound educational practice and met the requirements of the Head Start Program Performance Standards. With one exception, over 85% of all staff agreed that all curriculum elements were present. Only about 75% of Education Coordinators and Classroom Teachers reported that their curricula provided specific activities for children.

Exhibit 4-5

Elements of the Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Specified by
Head Start Staffa
	Education Coordinators (n = 36)	Center Directors (n = 84)	Classroom Teachers (n = 492)
	Unweighted Percentages
Curriculum was a formal, written plan	83.3	88.1	87.4
Contained goals for children's learning and development	88.9	96.5	87.8
Specified activities for children	75.0	88.1	74.4
Provided suggested teaching strategies	94.4	94.1	94.1
Included suggested teaching materials	91.7	95.2	92.5
Included ways to involve parents in their child's activities	88.9	94.0	87.2

aIncluding only staff who identified a curriculum for their program, center, or classrooms.(back)

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers each reported on who was responsible for developing the day-to-day instructional plans for children and for the preparation of teaching materials. These staff indicated that, for between 60-70% of programs, centers, and classrooms, the day-to-day instructional responsibilities were with the classroom teaching staff (Exhibit 4-6). For approximately 15-20% of programs and centers, the Center Directors were reported to be responsible for such plans (a slightly lower percentage of Center Director responsibility was reported by Classroom Teachers), and the remaining responsibilities were assigned to program administrators.

Exhibit 4-6

Head Start Staff Responsible for Day-to-Day Instructional Plans for Children (As Reported by Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers)
	Education Coordinators (n = 38)	Center Directors (n = 89)	Classroom Teachers (n = 529)
	Unweighted Percentages
Individual Teachers	60.5	61.5	70.8
Center Directors	15.8	22.4	13.4
Program Administrators	18.4	14.0	14.8

Between 45 and 55% of respondents in each category reported that local Head Start staff were responsible for preparing teaching materials (Exhibit 4-7). In this case, all respondents agreed that the curriculum developer was responsible for the materials in 40-48% of classrooms. In keeping with the Head Start philosophy of decentralized educational programming, less than 10% of respondents indicated that they employed materials prepared by Head Start staff beyond the program level.

Exhibit 4-7

Head Start Staff Responsible for Preparation of Teaching Materials (As Reported by Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers)
	Education Coordinators (n = 38)	Center Directors (n = 89)	Classroom Teachers (n = 529)
	Unweighted Percentages
Local Head Start staff	44.7	51.1	54.5
Curriculum developer	47.4	42.0	41.7
State, regional, or national Head Start Administrators	7.9	2.8	3.8

Notably, in the case of both responsibility for instructional planning and preparation of educational materials, a slight association between the identity of the respondent and the response may be observed. For example, Classroom Teachers were more likely to report that they were responsible for instructional planning and preparation of materials than were Education Coordinators and Center Directors. In turn, Center Directors were more likely to report that they were responsible for day-to-day educational activities than Education Coordinators and Classroom Teachers, and Education Coordinators were slightly more likely to assume responsibility for both instructional activity and materials than profiled in reports from the other staff. Despite these minor differences, the staff involved in choosing and planning the educational program for children were in substantial agreement regarding their responsibilities.

Significant differences were observed in regional patterns related to responsibilities for preparing educational plans and materials (Exhibit 4-8). Classroom Teachers in the South, X2 = 37.8, p < .01, and in rural areas, X2 = 21.3, p < .01, were less likely to report that they were responsible for preparing day-today educational plans than teachers in other areas. As well, Classroom Teachers in both the South and West were less likely to respond that they were responsible for preparing teaching materials than teachers in the Northeast and Midwest, X2 = 17.5, p < .01.

Exhibit 4-8

Classroom Staff Responsibility for Day-to-Day Instructional Activities as Reported by Classroom Teachers
	North East (n = 45)	Midwest (n = 142)	South (n = 202)	West (n = 122)	Puerto Rico (n = 18)	Rural (n = 153)	Urban (n = 376)
	Unweighted Percentages
Individual teachers make most of the decisions about instructional plans for children	72.7	83.3	55.3	79.2	94.4	58.7	76.2
Teaching materials are created by local Head Start staff	64.4	68.1	44.7	47.1	94.4	51.7	56.0

Activities in Head Start Classrooms

Head Start classroom staff provided a diverse set of activities for children each day. The Center Directors and Classroom Teachers participating in FACES were asked to indicate how frequently a variety of activities took place in their classrooms (from “not offered/never” to “daily or almost daily”). Their responses to these items are shown in Exhibit 4-9. Center Directors and Classroom Teacher responses were quite consistent across all the identified activities. Free play, reading stories, construction activities, naming colors, visual arts, puzzle solving, number concepts or counting, outdoor physical activities, performing arts, and health/hygiene were reported to be offered daily or almost daily in over 90% of the centers and classrooms. Classroom Teachers reported that their programs offered indoor physical activities, science or nature slightly less often. Center Directors and Classroom Teachers agreed that letters of the alphabet or words and computer time were far less frequently offered than other academic activities. Finally, cooking activities, trips to the library and other field trips were offered only occasionally.

Exhibit 4-9

Frequencies of Classroom Activities reported by Center Directors and
Classroom Teachers
Classroom Activity	Unweighted Percentages
	Center Directors (n = 89)		Classroom Teachers (n = 529)
	Not Offered/ Never	Daily or Almost Daily	Not Offered/ Never	Daily or Almost Daily
Science or nature	0.0	100.0	0.0	83.2
Free play	0.0	98.9	0.0	95.8
Reading stories	0.0	98.9	0.0	96.0
Block building, other construction activity	0.0	98.9	0.0	97.1
Naming colors	0.0	96.6	0.8	88.7
Visual arts (i.e., drawing, painting)	0.0	96.5	0.0	95.6
Solving puzzles, playing with geometric forms	0.0	95.4	0.0	94.5
Number concepts or counting	0.0	94.3	0.8	92.2
Outdoor physical activities	0.0	94.2	0.2	92.8
Performing arts, music, dance	1.2	92.0	0.0	91.6
Indoor physical activities	0.0	90.7	0.2	89.9
Health and hygiene	0.0	90.0	0.3	93.0
Letters of the alphabet or words	16.3	65.1	9.5	68.8
Computer time	48.3	47.1	42.3	46.2
Cooking	2.3	24.1	4.3	18.3
Field trips (other than the library)	1.2	1.2	1.5	0.6
Trips to the library	14.1	0.0	24.0	0.6

Exhibits 4-10 and 4-11 provide a breakdown for teaching “letters of the alphabet or words” and offering computer time by region and urbanicity. Approximately 15% of Center Directors and 10% of teachers reported that letters of the alphabet or words were never taught in their classrooms. As shown, Classroom Teachers in the Midwest reported that “letters of the alphabet or words” were offered daily or almost daily more often in their classrooms than in other regions, X2 = 23.5, p < .01. Programs in Puerto Rico were also less likely to teach letters of the alphabet or words in their daily activities (Exhibit 4-10).

Exhibit 4-10

Frequencies of Teaching "Letters of the Alphabet or Words" by Region and Urbanicity as Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers
Teaching "Letters of the Alphabet or Words"	Unweighted Percentages
Teaching "Letters of the Alphabet or Words"	North East (n = 45)	Mid West (n = 142)	South (n = 202)	West (n = 122)	Puerto Rico (n = 18)	Rural (n = 153)	Urban (n = 376)
Classroom Teachers reported "never"	9.1	2.8	9.5	15.6	22.2	11.2	8.8
Center Directors reported "never"	11.2	6.9	16.1	20.0	33.3	20.8	11.8
Classroom Teachers reported "daily"	65.9	82.4	71.5	51.6	50.0	67.1	69.3
Center Directors reported "daily"	66.7	82.8	64.5	52.0	33.3	66.7	64.5

Computer time, of course, was based to a large degree on whether or not computers were available in the classrooms. Classroom Teacher responses indicated that slightly less than one half of classrooms (47.6%) offered daily computer time while somewhat fewer (40.5%) never offered that activity (Exhibit 4-11). Although computer time was offered slightly more often in the South and the West by Classroom Teachers, the observed differences were not significant, nor were Center Directors’ reports for the frequency that computer time was offered in their centers. All of the staff in the FACES programs in Puerto Rico reported that computer time was not offered to their children.

Exhibit 4-11

Frequencies of Having Computer Time for Children by Region and Urbanicity as Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers
Computer Time For Children	Unweighted Percentages
Computer Time For Children	North- east (n = 45)	Mid- west (n = 142)	South (n = 202)	West (n = 122)	Puerto Rico (n = 18)	Rural (n = 153)	Urban (n = 376)
Classroom Teachers report "never"	53.3	50.0	39.0	27.1	100.0	33.6	46.1
Center Directors report "never"	33.3	43.3	41.7	40.0	100.0	39.1	43.6
Classroom Teachers report "daily"	40.0	41.4	51.3	51.6	0.0	55.7	42.1
Center Directors report "daily"	44.4	50.0	53.3	52.0	0.0	58.7	48.9

On average, Classroom Teachers reported that children in their classrooms were read to approximately 3.2 hours each week (SD = 2.3). As shown in Exhibit 4-12, the weekly amount of reading reported by Classroom Teachers was higher in the South, F(3, 508) = 3.53; p < .01. In addition, Classroom Teachers were asked to rate whether reading to children in the classroom was essential, very important, somewhat important, or not important. Across all regions, 58.3% of Classroom Teachers rated reading as essential. In contrast to results reported for the number of hours of reading that occurred in classrooms, teachers in the South were less likely to rate classroom reading as essential than their counterparts in other regions, the Northeast in particular, X2 = 14.9, p < .01.

Exhibit 4-12

Reading to Children by Region and Urbanicity as reported by Classroom Teachers
	North- east (n = 45)	Mid- west (n = 142)	South (n = 202)	West (n = 122)	Puerto Rico (n = 18)	Rural (n = 153)	Urban (n = 376)
	Means (Standard Deviations)/ Unweighted Percentages
Weekly hours of reading to children	3.2 (2.1)	3.2 (2.7)	3.7 (2.2)	2.7 (1.8)	3.6 (2.3)	3.3 (2.5)	3.2 (2.2)
Percentage rating reading as essential	73.5	61.9	48.7	64.5	61.1	57.1	58.7

Head Start Benefits to Children

In an open-ended format, Classroom Teachers reported their opinions about the main benefits of Head Start for enrolled children. Their coded responses are shown in Exhibit 4-13. The three largest response categories were enhancement of children’s social skills (69.3%), improvement in school readiness (57.6%), and improvement in children’s health (36.7%). It was also apparent that teachers identified a far greater number and diversity of social benefits than academic or health benefits, although some benefits mentioned, such as school readiness, could be interpreted as encompassing both academic and social skills.

Exhibit 4-13

Staff Opinions on Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to Children, as Reported by Classroom Teachers
Comment Category	Percentage of All Comments (n = 529)	Rank
Improved Social Relationships/Psychological Well Being
Enhancement of children's social skills	69.3	1
Improvement in social interactions with adults	26.1	4
Improvement in self esteem, self confidence	10.1	6
Enhancement of child's psychological development	6.8	8
Providing exposure to new experiences	6.2	9
Learning cooperation, sharing, problem solving, decision making	3.8	13
Learning discipline, responsibility, structure, routine	3.4	15
Learning independence, self help skills	3.2	16
Improved School Readiness/Academic Skills
Improvement in children's school readiness	57.6	2
Improvement in language, verbal skills	3.6	14
Other Benefits
Improvement in children's health	36.7	3
Enhancement of children's motor skills	4.0	12
Improved environment for development
Provision of a safe haven from home/neighborhood	10.5	5

Excludes categories mentioned by fewer than 2% of Classroom Teachers; Totals exceed 100 % due to multiple responses

Exhibit 4-14 contains a summary of regional and urban/rural breakdowns for the three benefits identified most frequently. Classroom Teachers located in the South, X2 = 31.9; p < .01, and those located in rural areas, X2 = 13.3; p < .01, were far more likely to identify enhancement of social skills as a main benefit of Head Start to children. Conversely, teachers in the Northeast and Midwest, X2 = 11.2, p < .01, and in urban programs, X2 = 9.3; p < .01, were more likely to identify improvement in children’s school readiness as a main benefit. No regional or urban/rural differences were observed for improvements in children’s health.

Exhibit 4-14

Staff Opinions about the Three Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to Children by Region and Urbanicity, as Reported by Classroom Teachers
Comment Category	Unweighted Percentages
Comment Category	North- east (n = 45)	Mid- west (n = 142)	South (n =202)	West (n = 122)	Puerto Rico (n =18)	Rural (n = 153)	Urban (n = 373)
Enhancement of children's social skills	55.6	57.0	82.8	66.4	61.1	81.1	64.5
Improvement in children's school readiness	73.2	64.5	51.0	54.9	55.6	47.7	61.7
Improvement in children's health	31.1	34.5	36.6	36.9	66.7	38.6	36.2

4.3 Summary

Section 4.2 provides a description of the Head Start educational component, including curricula and classroom activities, and perceived benefits for children. The following is a summary of these findings.

The Head Start Education Component

The Head Start Education Component consists of a wide variety of staff, including an Education Coordinator, child assessment specialists, trainers, and classroom staff, teachers, and teacher aides.
The top priorities for training teachers as identified by Education Coordinators were in the areas of child development, classroom management, and teaching strategies.
Speech and language impairments, emotional/behavioral disorders, and developmental delay were the most frequent educational problems faced by Head Start educators.
Home visits by educational staff were targeted towards providing educational services for the children and parenting instruction for the adults in the home.

Curricula and Educational Programs

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers reported that a wide variety of externally prepared curricula were employed in the classroom. The most popular were High Scope and the Creative Curriculum, but over 90 different “curricula” were identified.
More than 80% of Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers agreed that the curricula employed in their classrooms were formal, written educational plans containing goals for children’s learning and development, provided suggested teaching startegies, included suggested teaching materials, and included ways to involve parents in their children’s activities.
More than 60% of Education Coordinators and Center Directors, and 70% of Classroom Teachers, indicated that individual teachers were responsible for day-to-day instructional plans for children. Staff indicated that daily activities in the remaining classrooms were specified by Center Directors (as reported by 13-22% of staff) and Program Administrators (reported by 14-18% of staff).
Over 40% of Education Coordinators and 50% of Center Directors and Classroom Teachers indicated that local Head Start programs were responsible for preparation of instructional materials for children. The same staff in less than 10% of programs indicated that teaching materials were provided by state, regional, or national administrators.
Staff in the South and in rural programs was less likely than staff in other regions and urban programs to report that individual teachers had responsibility for day-to-day instructional plans for children.

Activities in Head Start Classrooms

Head Start Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that children were offered a wide variety of educational and social activities on a daily or almost daily basis. Almost all staff reported that they taught number concepts, colors, and read stories to the children in their classrooms daily or almost daily. Children also engaged in block building, free play, and indoor and outdoor physical activities daily or almost daily.
Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that they taught letters of the alphabet and provided computer time in their classrooms much less frequently than other academic activities. Approximately 15% of Center Directors and 10% of teachers reported that letters of the alphabet or words were never taught in their classrooms. Center Directors and Classroom Teachers in programs in the West and in Puerto Rico were less likely to teach letters of the alphabet or words in their daily activities.
Center Directors and Classroom Teachers responsible for just under one half of the FACES classrooms reported that computer time was provided to children on a daily basis; between 42-48% reported that computer time was not offered to children. All staff in the FACES programs in Puerto Rico reported that computer time was not offered to their children.
Classroom teachers in the South reported more time for reading to children in their classrooms, but were less likely to rate reading as “essential” than teachers in other regions.

Benefits of Head Start for Children

Classroom Teachers reported that the most frequently observed benefits to children were enhancement of children’s social skills, improvement in school readiness skills, and improvement in children’s health.
Classroom Teachers in the South and in rural programs were more likely to identify enhancement of social skills as a main benefit of Head Start, while teachers in the North and Midwest and from urban programs were more likely to identify school readiness as a main benefit of Head Start.

4.4 Interaction of Head Start Staff and Parents

The following sections are concerned with Head Start staff efforts to involve parents of enrolled children in program activities. Head Start center staff met with parents regularly when children arrived and left, at scheduled parent meetings, workshops, and during home visits. Parents were asked to volunteer their time in the classroom and in other center functions. Program staff interviews provided a significant amount of information about these activities as well as two additional topics: 1) efforts to increase the involvement of males in program activities, and 2) staff perceptions regarding barriers to parent involvement in program activities.

The Head Start Parent Involvement Component

The Head Start parent activities and involvement program was, at the time data collection began, organized under the direction of a Parent Involvement Coordinator (PIC), and often included parent volunteer managers, center activities coordinators, home visitors, trainers, consultants, and clerical staff. The coordinators for the 40 programs in FACES reported a total of 452 staff (an average of 11.3 staff per program; range 1 to 42) under their direction. The Parent Involvement Coordinator was usually responsible for management of the parent orientation, coordination of the Parent Policy Council and parent committees, management of parent volunteers, and conducting parent and family workshops and activities, including social gatherings.

The Parent Involvement Coordinator, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers each had goals for what they wished to accomplish with parents (Exhibit 4-15). Most importantly, the program staff wished to teach parents about child development and parenting. Approximately 40% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers listed that goal as their most important. The second most frequently selected goal, to inform parents about their own children’s development, was identified by almost 25% of Center Directors and Classroom Teachers. No more than 8% of Classroom Teachers or 15% of Center Directors identified other goals as their most important.

Exhibit 4-15

Most Important Goals for Parents as Ranked by Center Directors, Classroom Teachers, and Component Coordinators
Goals for Parents	Unweighted Percentages
Goals for Parents	*CD n = 89	*CT (n = 527)	*EC (n = 38)	*SSC (n = 39)	*PIC (n = 38)	*HC (n = 40)
Teach parents about child development/ parenting	39.3	41.6	47.4	5.9	26.3	20.0
Inform parents about their own child's development	22.7	25.9	15.8	0.0	0.0	7.5
Help parents become economically self - sufficient through education and employment	14.5	6.8	13.2	41.2	31.6	12.5
Help parents identify their personal goals and ways to achieve them	8.2	5.5	10.5	20.6	15.8	12.5
Explain Head Start principles and practices to parents	4.1	7.2	5.3	0.0	2.6	2.5
Help parents develop a social support network of other parents and families	3.4	1.8	0.0	5.9	13.2	0.0
Have parents participate in policy and program decisions	2.8	1.7	2.6	20.6	2.6	0.0
Teach parents about health and nutrition	1.4	2.3	2.6	0.0	7.9	0.0
Help parents improve their literacy skills	0.0	1.1	0.0	2.9	0.0	45.0
Have parents plan and organize events and activities	0.0	0.4	2.6	2.9	0.0	0.0

* CD = Center Director
CT = Classroom Teacher (includes Administrative Teachers)
EC = Education Coordinator
SSC = Social Service Coordinator
PIC = Parent Involvement Coordinator
HC = Health Coordinator

Head Start Meetings and Workshops

For most Head Start parents, their introduction to the program was through the recruitment process and the orientation meetings following their children’s enrollment. The primary responsibility for the orientation meeting lay with the Center Director, and most meetings were reported to be well-attended. On average, 38.3% of Center Directors reported their orientation meetings to be attended by almost all parents. An additional 30.2% estimated that about three quarters of all parents attended. Only 9.4% of Center Directors indicated that less than one quarter of all parents attended the parent orientation meetings.

Center Directors also considered these meetings quite useful. More than one third considered the meetings very productive; less than 10% reported that these meetings were not productive at all. Most importantly, the meetings provided parents with an opportunity to obtain the basic information about what to expect from Head Start and to express their own concerns. Exhibit 4-16 contains a summary of the most frequent concerns expressed by parents at the orientation meetings. As shown, many of these items were general requests for basic information or clarification of information about the program, such as obtaining information about their children’s transportation (58.2% of Center Directors indicated that topic was one of the three most frequent concerns during orientation meetings), the approach the program would take towards school readiness and academic skills (50.3%), the curriculum content (43.4%), and the hours of center operations (43.4%).

Exhibit 4-16

Parental Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings as Reported by Center Directors
Parent Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings	Percentage Indicating Topic is One of Top Three Concerns Expressed by Parents During Parent Orientation Meetings
Parent Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings	Center Directors/Administrative Teachers (n = 139)
Transportation for children to and from center	58.2
School readiness and academic skills	50.3
Classroom curriculum content and methods	43.4
Hours of center operations	43.4
Disciplinary methods of teachers	19.3
Child care issues or availability	15.9
Opportunities for parent involvement	11.7
Confidentiality regarding family/child matters	7.6
Safety of facility	6.9
Staff/child ratio/supervision of children	6.2
Staff availability to parents	5.5
Transportation of parents to/from the center	4.8
Cultural sensitivity/awareness of staff/teachers	2.1

Parent meetings and workshops were held regularly (Exhibit 4-17). In over 50% of programs, parenting education workshops were held at least monthly. Nearly as many programs reported holding Adult Literacy/ESL/GED classes monthly or more often. Employment assistance workshops (reported by 34.5% of Center Directors to be held monthly) and support/self help groups (30.3%) were also held relatively frequently. Not only were these meetings reported to be held most frequently, they were also among the topics that were reported to have the highest attendance. Center Directors reported the greatest attendance at the orientation (54.5% of Center Directors identified this meeting as one of the three most well-attended). Other popular meetings were reported to be parenting (35.9%), adult literacy (25.5%), child development (25.5%), and employment assistance (22.1%).

Exhibit 4-17

Frequency of Parent Activities/Workshops by Topic as Reported by Center Directors
Parent Meeting Topics	Percentage of Parent Meeting Topics
	Center Directors/Administrative Teachers (n = 145)
	Never	Once a Year	2-5 Times a Year	Monthly or More Often
Orientation to Head Start principles and practices	0.0	63.0	28.8	8.2
Adult literacy/ESL/GED classes	21.3	6.8	22.6	49.3
Employment assistance workshops	19.3	13.8	32.4	34.5
Basic finance and budgeting skills workshops	31.1	31.7	26.9	10.3
Parenting education workshops	3.5	15.9	30.3	50.3
Health/nutrition workshops	6.2	27.1	46.0	24.8
Child growth, behavior and development workshops	8.35	18.6	50.3	22.8
Social activities for adults only	29.6	22.1	26.2	2.0
Support or self help groups	34.85	12.4	23.4	30.3
Family violence education	15.1	32.4	38.6	13.8

Center Staff Contacts with Parents

Exhibit 4-18 conveys that Classroom Teachers reported high rates of contact with families when they dropped off or picked up their children (95.4% at least monthly), through notes sent to the home (89.0% monthly), at general parent meetings (88.6%), and through phone calls home (72.9%). Less frequently, classroom staff and parents met at parent/family workshops and during informal parent-staff conferences (both types of contacts were reported occurring at least monthly by a majority of the Classroom Teachers). One third of the Classroom Teachers (33.4%) reported monthly contact at scheduled meetings with parents at the center, and about one in ten (9.6%) had contact through home visits. Classroom Teachers in rural programs reported more frequent contact with parents at informal parent-staff conferences and parent meetings, through notes sent home, and at home visits than did Classroom Teachers in urban centers.

Exhibit 4-18

Types and Frequencies of Contacts with Parents Reported by Classroom Teachers
Type of Contact	Unweighted Percentages (n = 529)
Type of Contact	Less Than Twice a Year	2-6 Times a Year	At Least Monthly
When parents drop off or pick up their children	0.9	3.8	95.4
Through notes sent to the home	3.9	7.1	89.0
At general parent meetings	4.9	6.7	88.6
Through phone calls home	5.2	22.0	72.9
At Head Start parent/family activities and workshops	12.3	32.4	55.3
During informal parent-staff conferences	9.0	37.5	53.5
At scheduled meetings with individual parents at the center	5.3	61.3	33.4
During home visits	2.0	88.5	9.6

Classroom Teachers also reported attempts to encourage parents to become involved or at least to spend time with other Head Start parents (Exhibit 4-19). Among these efforts, Classroom Teachers most frequently encouraged parents to share their skills with others (54.0%), introduced parents or family members to other adults at the center (41.7%), and encouraged veteran parents to orient new parents to the center routines and activities (40.7%). Approximately 1 in 5 Center Teachers (18.2%) encouraged parents to call other parents.

Exhibit 4-19

Activities to Promote Contacts among Parents Reported by Classroom Teachers
Type of Activity Promoted	Unweighted Percentages (n = 529)
Type of Activity Promoted	Rarely or Never	Sometimes	Frequently
Found out what skills parents have that could be shared	4.5	41.4	54.0
Introduced parents or family members	16.1	42.2	41.7
Encouraged veteran parents to orient newer parents	20.9	38.4	40.7
Encouraged parents or family members to call other parents	36.8	45.0	18.2

Use of Parent Volunteers in Head Start

Classroom Teachers reported that approximately three parents per week volunteered in their classrooms, and that approximately 31% of these volunteers were male. About 30% of teachers indicated that parents volunteered in the classroom every day; another 42% indicated that parents were present once a week or more often. Before serving as a volunteer, parents were provided with an orientation that included center or Head Start policies (as reported by 100% of the Parent Involvement Coordinators), roles and responsibilities of volunteers (100%), organizational structure of Head Start (97.5%), and information regarding parent volunteering that was contained in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (95%). Exhibit 4-20 indicates how parent volunteers were typically used in Head Start classrooms. For over 90% of classrooms, parents were asked to help with special events (97.7%), assist classroom staff during mealtimes (96.0%), clean up the classroom (91.3%), and serve as classroom aides (90.7%). These routine activities required that parents visit the center and be involved in classroom activities. Less frequently, parents were asked to prepare education materials (81.3% of classrooms), contribute supplies (79.3%), contact parents to notify them of meetings (74.7%), help with curriculum planning (64.8%), assist in the preparation of a newsletter for parents (55.7%), serve as a parent workshop leader (45.8%), and participate in home visits (16.6%). In centers located in Puerto Rico, parents appeared to be more frequently used in responsible roles such as serving as parent workshop leaders (77.8%) or participating in home visits (55.6%). Staff in the Western region of the nation were more likely to ask parents to act as interpreters (75.2%).

There were some regional and urban-rural differences observed in the use of parent volunteers. For several roles, Classroom Teachers in the South indicated that they employed parent volunteers more than other regions; these included contributing supplies, X2 = 12.8, p < .01, and contacting parents to notify them of meetings, X2 = 14.7, p < .01. In addition, the Classroom Teachers in the South appeared to involve parents more often in preparing newsletters for parents, X2 = 23.5, p < .01, and participating in home visits, X2 = 38.2, p < .01. Classroom teachers in the West reported more use of parents to advise on ethnic customs, X2 = 26.5, p < .01, to serve as workshop leaders, X2 = 11.9, p < .05, and as interpreters in the classroom, X2 = 70.3, p < .01. Finally, teachers in the Northeast reported that parents were employed in chores or maintenance more than teachers in other regions, X2 = 16.3, p < .01.

Some differences were reported by teachers from rural and urban areas as well. Classroom Teachers from rural areas were more likely to report that parents assisted classroom staff during mealtimes, X2 = 8.4, p < .01, and that parents served as classroom aides, X2 = 9.9, p < .01, while those from urban areas reported more frequent use of parents as interpreters, X2 = 6.4, p < .05.

Exhibit 4-20

Use of Parent Volunteers in the Classroom as Reported by Classroom Teachers
	North- east (n =37)	Mid- west (n =135)	South (n =197)	West (n =120)	Puerto Rico (n =18)	Rural (n =143)	Urban (n =364)
	Unweighted Percentages
Helping with special eventsa	90.9	98.1	98.6	97.7	--	97.8	97.7
Assisting staff during mealtimes	97.2	98.5	96.9	92.4	88.9	100.0	94.5
Cleaning up classrooma	81.8	88.4	94.1	92.9	--	87.8	92.6
Serving as classroom aide	97.3	89.6	92.4	85.8	100.0	97.2	88.2
Preparing educational materialsa	72.7	79.4	81.2	86.1	--	81.5	81.3
Contributing suppliesa	68.2	80.6	86.9	68.2	--	84.6	77.3
Contacting parents about meetings	65.7	67.2	79.6	73.5	100.0	76.8	73.8
Helping with curriculum planninga	54.6	68.9	62.3	66.3	--	65.2	64.6
Doing chores or maintenancea	81.8	56.9	73.9	52.3	--	70.3	61.9
Advising on ethnic customs	60.0	48.2	55.6	76.3	83.3	61.5	59.1
Preparing a newsletter for parents	40.6	49.6	63.4	47.9	94.4	56.3	55.4
Serving as a parent workshop leader	40.0	38.0	46.4	50.0	77.8	47.9	44.9
Interpreting in the classroom	34.4	29.8	31.6	75.2	0.0	32.8	46.1
Participating in home visits	11.1	11.3	23.5	6.8	55.6	12.0	18.4

aN = 349; these items were not included in the spring 1997 interview (Northeast n = 22; Midwest n = 103; South n = 138; West n = 86; Rural n = 92; Urban n = 257).(back)

In addition to those tasks, parent volunteers often participated in health screenings. The Parent Involvement Coordinators reported that parents assisted in height/weight measurements in 63.6% of programs and assisted with vision screenings (48.6%). Far less frequently, parent volunteers were allowed to check immunization records (11.1%) and enter data in medical records (5.4%).

Present and former Head Start parents were frequently employed by the program (Exhibit 4-21). Although about 25% of Center Directors/Administrative Teachers could not address the numbers of former or present parents employed by their centers, 93.1% of those Center Directors that did answer indicated that their centers employed current or former Head Start parents. Almost 80% of those centers had Head Start parents or former Head Start parents serving as classroom aides. At the program level, Parent Involvement Coordinators reported that over 90% of the 40 FACES programs employed former or current parents as teachers in their classrooms.

Exhibit 4-21

Former or Current Head Start Parents Employed by Head Start,
as Reported by Center Directors
Job Category	Unweighted Percentage of Centers (n = 116)
Teacher	49.0
Teacher's aide	79.1
Cook	46.4
Meal preparation assistant	18.4
Bus driver	36.6
Maintenance staff	22.5
Administrator	35.7

Home Visits by Head Start Staff

Home visits were required of Head Start staff in every program (as reported by Parent Involvement Coordinators) and in all but three centers (as reported by the Center Directors). For about 75% of the centers, two yearly visits were the minimum. For the remaining programs and centers, three visits were the minimum according to both the Parent Involvement Coordinators, who reported that 15% of their programs required three visits, and Center Directors, who indicated the same for about 25% of centers.

The primary goals for home visits by the center staff as reported by Center Directors and Classroom Teachers are identified in Exhibit 4-22. Their top two goals for these visits were to inform parents about Head Start and the services it offers and to provide assistance with basic needs.

Exhibit 4-22

Main Goals of Head Start Staff During Home Visits, as Reported by Center Directors and Classroom Teachers
Services Provided During Home Visits	Percentage Indicating Service as one of Top Three Goals
Services Provided During Home Visits	Center Directors (n = 89)	Classroom Teachers (n = 507)
Provide educational experiences to the Head Start children	32.6	35.9
Provide educational experiences to other children in the household	22.5	12.2
Provide instructions to caregiver on parenting, education, or child development	13.5	37.8
Address issues of family health	12.4	15.5
Provide informal counseling or addressing personal issues	16.7	15.5
Provide education information or referral for caregivers	45.2	30.6
Provide assistance with basic needs	61.1	58.6
Inform parents about Head Start and the services it offers	72.6	55.7
Inform parents about the progress of their own children	23.4	40.9

Male Involvement in Head Start

Each of the Coordinators and the Center Directors were asked whether their programs or centers had a staff person designated specifically to encourage male involvement. Staff from all programs indicated they had active male involvement programs in place; however, many were limited to only a few male participants either because the males were working or were absent from the families. As indicated in Exhibit 4-23, responses to questions regarding male involvement drew similar patterns of response from all the groups questioned. In addition to workshops targeted to men, the staff members responsible for male involvement frequently offered job referrals and crisis intervention. About 70% of Center Directors reported that men regularly served as class volunteers and chaperones for field trips. Over 90% of respondents (including all Coordinators) indicated that men regularly served on Parent Policy Councils. Nevertheless, only about 10% of Center Directors and Coordinators felt that the male involvement program was “very successful,” while about 40% felt the program was not yet successful.

Exhibit 4-23

Workshops Targeted for Males, as Reported by Component Coordinators
Workshop Topics	Percentage Indicating Topic is Offered in Workshops Specifically Targeted for Males
Workshop Topics	EC (n = 38)	SSC (n = 40)	PIC (n = 38)	HC (n = 41)
Adult literacy/ESL/GED classes	42.1	37.5	26.3	50.0
Employment assistance workshops	57.9	47.5	47.4	33.3
Basic finance and budgeting skills workshops	50.0	35.0	26.3	28.6
Partner or family relationships workshops	50.0	65.0	23.7	38.5
Parenting workshops	50.0	60.0	50.0	42.9
Health/nutrition workshops	34.2	30.0	28.9	35.7
Child growth, behavior and development workshops	31.6	42.5	31.6	30.8
Social activities for adults only	50.0	77.5	68.4	50.0
Adult-child outings	34.2	66.5	57.9	38.5
Support or self help groups for men	50.0	47.5	39.5	35.7
Special events/family celebrations	34.2	65.0	84.2	57.1

Barriers to Parent Involvement in Head Start

Center Directors, Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators agreed that parents’ work, school, or job training schedules were the most significant barriers to parent participation in the Head Start program (Exhibit 4-24). These findings are similar to those reported in Chapter 7 of Section II. Over 60% of all groups, with the exception of Health Coordinators (51.3%), indicated that scheduling was often a barrier to participation. Lack of childcare and lack of transportation were also problems in many cases, although staff from urban programs compared to those in rural areas identified those problems more often. Classroom Teachers in urban programs identified childcare as a frequent problem in 47% of their responses, X2 = 20.3, p < .01, compared to 26% of those in rural areas. Similarly, lack of transportation was rated as a frequent problem by 30.3% of Classroom Teachers in urban programs compared to only 16% of those in rural areas, X2 = 9.6, p < .01.

Exhibit 4-24

Barriers to Parent Participation as Reported by Center Directors, Classroom Teachers, and Component Coordinators
Barriers to Parent Participation	Percentage Rating Barrier as "Often a Factor"
Barriers to Parent Participation	CD (n = 89)	CT (n = 527)	EC (n = 38)	SSC (n = 35)	PIC (n = 38)	HC (n = 41)
Work or school/training schedule	64.5	61.2	65.8	68.6	76.3	51.3
Lack of child care	42.6	39.7	39.5	45.7	57.9	43.6
Lack of transportation	47.2	26.0	31.6	37.1	52.6	51.3
Did not feel welcome or comfortable	7.3	0.6	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.0
Did not know others at Head Start	4.5	4.7	2.6	11.4	10.5	5.4
Parent, child or family health problem	4.5	3.1	5.3	0.0	5.3	5.1
Language or cultural barriers	4.5	3.4	2.6	8.6	13.2	5.1
Safety concerns about neighborhood	4.5	1.0	0.0	0.0	2.6	2.6
Family issues	2.6	1.2	----	----	----	----
Lack of information and notice	0.0	2.3	----	----	----	----

In Exhibit 4-25, Center Directors, Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators reported their views on problems in planning or having parent activities. The most frequent problem identified was offering activities at times convenient for parents (cited by 40% of Center Director and 53% of Classroom Teachers). The lack of funding for activities was identified by about one third of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers and one half of the Parent Involvement Coordinators. Finally, finding alternate sites when the Head Start centers were not available or appropriate was reported by more than 20% of Center Directors, Classroom Teachers, and Social Service Coordinators, over 30% of Health Coordinators, and about 45% of Education Coordinators and Parent Involvement Coordinators.

Exhibit 4-25

Problems in Planning or Having Parent Activities as Reported by Center Directors and Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators
Problems in Planning or Having Parent Meetings	Percentage Indicating Problem was Present
Problems in Planning or Having Parent Meetings	CD (n = 89)	CT (n = 523)	EC (n = 38)	SSC (n = 39)	PIC (n = 40)	HC (n = 41)
Difficulty offering activities at convenient times	40.6	53.2	44.7	48.7	47.5	73.2
Not enough money for parent activities	34.5	33.7	28.9	17.9	50.0	12.2
Finding an alternate site when center is not available/appropriate	21.7	29.1	44.7	28.2	45.0	34.1
Difficulty getting outside resources (e.g., guest speakers)	13.9	18.8	26.3	2.6	25.0	9.8
Lack of cooperation or support of staff	11.1	15.2	18.4	20.5	27.5	22.0
Lack of agreement among staff on parents' needs and interests	6.7	15.3	28.9	20.5	17.5	12.2
Not having interpreters available	3.4	18.6	21.1	23.1	22.5	22.0
Difficulty informing parents of upcoming activities	0.0	15.1	18.4	17.9	10.0	17.1
Not enough of the right staff to plan or implement activity	23.7	23.1	23.7	23.1	30.0	19.5
Not enough staff time given other duties	52.6	48.7	52.6	48.7	62.5	51.2

4.5 Summary

Section 4.4 presented findings on Head Start staff efforts to engage parents of enrolled children in program activities, including male involvement. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Staff Goals for Families and Children

Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that their most important goals for families were to teach them about child development and parenting and to inform them about their own children’s development. Other important goals that staff had for families included informing them about support services available in the community, helping parents become economically self-sufficient, and helping parents identify their personal goals and ways to achieve them.

Contacts with Parents

Teachers used a variety of ways to keep in contact with parents. Most teachers reported at least monthly contact with parents through informal means, such as when parents dropped off their children, at general parent meetings, as well as through notes and phone calls home.
About one half of the teachers reported at least monthly contact with parents at parent/family activities and informal parent-staff conferences. One third reported monthly contact at scheduled meetings with parents at the center, and about 10% through home visits.
Teachers reported that they often asked parents to participate in ways designed to help them meet and develop relationships with other Head Start parents. For instance, 54% of teachers said they asked parents to identify skills they could share with other parents; about 41% said they introduced parents to one another or asked parents to orient new parents to the center, and about 18% asked parents to call other parents.
Classroom Teachers in rural programs, more often than Classroom Teachers in urban programs, reported more frequent contacts with parents at informal parent-staff conferences and parent meetings, through notes sent home, and at home visits.

Parent Volunteer Programs

More than 90% of Classroom Teachers reported that parent volunteers in their classrooms assisted during mealtimes, helped to clean up classrooms, served as classroom aides, and assisted at special events during the past Head Start year. These routine activities, in general, required that parents visit the centers and be involved in classroom activities.
Approximately 70-80% of teachers reported that parent volunteers in their classrooms assisted in preparing educational materials, notified other parents about upcoming meetings or events, or contributed supplies.
Approximately 45-65% of classroom teachers employed parent volunteers in activities requiring involvement in planning and management of program activities such as assisting with curriculum planning, preparing newsletters, or preparing or leading workshops.
About 16% of teachers reported using parent volunteers to assist in home visits to other Head Start parents. Staff in the Western region of the nation were more likely to ask parents to act as interpreters.
Staff from all programs reported that they had active male involvement programs in place; however, many were limited to only a few male participants either because the males were working or were absent from the families.

Barriers to Parent Involvement in the Head Start Program

Staff reported that parents’ work and school commitments were the dominant barriers to parent involvement. Lack of transportation and childcare were also frequently cited.
Staff from urban programs more frequently indicated that transportation and childcare were significant barriers to parent involvement than staff from rural programs.

4.6 Head Start Family Services

The following sections are concerned with Head Start staff efforts to provide or facilitate delivery of important support services to Head Start families. In most centers, a Family Service Worker is assigned to each family. Program staff interviews provided information about the development of needs assessments, family action plans, patterns of agency referrals, and services provided directly by Head Start programs. In addition, staff provided a profile of the family risk factors based on their caseloads.

The Social Services Component

The Head Start family service program, at the start of data collection, was organized under the direction of a Social Services Coordinator (SSC), and included Family Service Workers, consultants, and clerical staff. The Coordinators for the 40 programs in Head Start FACES reported a total of 662 staff (an average of over 16 staff per program; range 2 to 66) under their direction. The Social Service Coordinators were responsible for assignment of Family Service Worker caseloads and for ensuring that Family Needs Assessments (FNA) and Family Assistance Plans (FAP)2 were completed.

In the 40 FACES programs, Family Service Workers reported an average caseload of 70.5 families.3 Family Service Workers employed by programs in rural areas had far smaller caseloads (M = 50.6 families; SD = 32.8) than those in urban programs (M = 80.3; SD = 53.0) and this difference was significant, t(142) = 4.1; p < .01. Further, caseloads assigned to Family Service Workers in the West (M = 96.4, SD = 78.2) were significantly larger than caseloads elsewhere in the nation, F(3,135) = 2.95; p < .01. Overall, 60% of Social Service Coordinators and 45.5% of Family Service Workers felt the caseloads were too large.

Social Service Coordinators and Family Service Workers were in substantial agreement about the factors related to case assignment (Exhibit 4-26). Generally, caseloads were assigned by center. In larger centers, the Family Service Workers could be assigned a set of classrooms within a center. In rural areas where distances between families may be great, some priority for assignment was given to geographical factors.

Exhibit 4-26

Factors Determining How Families Were Assigned to Family Service Worker Caseloads, as Reported by Social Services Coordinators and Family Service Workers
Factors in Assignment of Families to Family Service Worker Caseloads	Percentage Indicating Factor is One of the Three Highest Priorities for Assignment
	Social Service Coordinators (n = 40)	Family Service Workers (n = 144)
Child's center	55.0	58.7
Child's classroom	20.0	15.3
Geographic location of the family	10.0	11.4
Type/level of family's need	10.0	4.8
Previous experience with specific family	5.0	3.8
Caseload size	0.0	3.8
Language, ethnic, or cultural match between FSW and family	0.0	2.2

Nearly 60% of Family Service Workers reported that they had their first contacts with families during recruitment, another 26.8% had contact when the children enrolled, and the remaining case workers met their families shortly after the children began class. Once a case was assigned, the Family Service Worker was responsible for collaborating with the family on the preparation of a FNA. Nearly 80% of Family Service Workers reported that they completed a written FNA with every family assigned to them and completed written FAPs for about one half of those families. In the process, virtually all Family Service Workers (99.4%) discussed goals and objectives with the families, prepared the written FNA with them (98.1%), and asked them to sign a copy of the plan (96.8%). Just under one half (43.8%) gave a copy to the families.

According to Social Service Coordinators, about 40% of the programs used the FNA form provided by the national Head Start administration and the remainder used a form prepared by the grantee or delegate agency administrators. In preparing the FAP, the case managers discussed the objectives and goals with the families (99.2%), prepared the written plan with them (93.8%), and asked the families to sign copies (86.8%). Again, just under one half (43.8%) left copies of the FAPs with the families. About 40% of the Family Service Workers reported that they reviewed and updated their plans at least once within a three-month period, while 46.5% revised the FAP as needed. About 40% of Family Service Workers indicated that if a family had a new need for services, they would most likely learn about it through a contact initiated by the family; another 31.5% believed they would first learn of a family’s new problem through routine contact with the family, and another 20.3% felt that they would learn of the problem through a referral from another Head Start staff member such as the Classroom Teacher.

Family Service Workers reported a wide variation in the number of face-to-face contacts with their families. They estimated that they saw less than one fifth of their caseloads (18.1%) just once or twice during the year, another 21.1% were seen three to six times during the year, 20.3% were seen once a month, 16.7% more than once a month, and about one quarter of the caseloads (23.8%) were seen once a week or more. About 43.6% were required to make at least one or two home visits, one third were required to make at least three visits, and the remaining 23.7% were expected to complete more than three home visits during the program year.

Exhibit 4-27 contains information about the activities that Social Service staff reported spending time on with families. As shown, the Social Service Coordinators were in almost unanimous agreement that the main activities with families that were important to their component were to provide social service information or referrals to caregivers (95.0% identified this activity as one of the three most important) and to provide informal counseling or address personal needs (92.5%). These two activities were also identified by a high percentage of Family Service Workers (84.0% identified provision of social service information and 66.0% specified informal counseling). In addition, over 70% of Family Service Workers and 55.0% of Social Service Coordinators identified providing assistance with basic needs as one of their three most important goals in working with families.

Exhibit 4-27

Main Activities with Families by Social Service Staff, as Reported by Social Service Coordinators and Family Service Workers
Services Provided By Social Service Staff	Percentage Indicating Service as one of Top Three Goals
Services Provided By Social Service Staff	SSC (n = 40)	FSW (n = 143)
Provide educational experiences to Head Start children	2.5	12.2
Provide educational experiences to other children in the household	0.0	0.0
Educate the caregivers on parenting, education, or child development	40.0	39.2
Address issues of family health	15.0	26.6
Provide informal counseling or address personal issues	92.5	66.0
Provide social service information or referrals to caregivers	95.0	84.0
Provide assistance with basic needs	55.0	71.9

Family Risk Factors Observed by Head Start Staff

Head Start children often live in households where families face many barriers to success in today’s society. Head Start staff, in turn, must be aware of each child’s individual situation in order to provide services that meet those needs. Both Center Directors and Family Service Workers reported the relative frequency of family risks that they were aware of for children enrolled in their centers or as part of their caseloads, respectively. Center Directors reported, in line with national projections from the Head Start Program Information Report, that about 12.6% of the children in their centers had disabilities (Exhibit 4-28).

Exhibit 4-28

Children and Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic Region as Reported by Center Directorsa
	Urbanicity		Geographic Region b
	Unweighted Percentages
	Urban (n =4,838)	Rural (n =1,905)	Northeast (n =749)	South (n =3,009)	Midwest (n =1,259)	West (n =1,606)
Children with disabilities	12.2	13.2	13.0	12.3	12.4	12.9
Children living in foster homes	3.4	2.2	1.6	2.4	5.4	3.1
Children living in homes with families reported for child abuse	2.6	3.5	2.4	1.7	7.5	2.6
Children living in homes with families reported for child neglect	2.9	3.1	1.6	0.9	8.3	2.3
Children living in homes with families reported for other family violence	2.3	2.9	1.3	1.0	5.7	1.6
Children living in homes with family members who were victims of family violence	3.9	6.9	1.7	5.0	4.2	6.5
Families with household members living with AIDS	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.3
Families with household members living with a substance abuse problem	8.9	11.9	5.2	7.2	13.1	9.5
Families with household members currently in prison	3.1	4.1	2.6	3.0	6.2	7.6
Families with household members living with a physical or mental disability	1.6	3.7	1.7	3.2	2.0	5.0

aReported Ns are based on the total center enrollment reported by 119 Center Directors (including Center Directors managing multiple centers).(back)
bPuerto Rico not included.(back)

Generally, where family risks were reported by both types of staff, Center Directors reported higher levels of risk than Family Service Workers. It should be noted that the samples upon which these two groups of Head Start staff were reporting were somewhat different. Although Family Service Workers’ caseloads were sometimes associated with a group of centers, they were not necessarily limited to or representative of those centers in which FACES was being conducted.

Both Center Directors and Family Service Workers (Exhibit 4-29) reported that, after the presence of a child with a disability, the most prevalent family risk factor observed was the presence of a household member living with a substance abuse problem. Although Center Directors reported a higher prevalence of this problem overall (9.3% versus 5.4% for Family Service Workers), this problem was perceived by both groups of staff to be more prevalent in the families served by Head Start programs in the Midwest than in other regions, X2 = 52.3, p < .01, for Center Directors, and X2 = 92.9, p < .01, for Family Service Workers. As well, substance abuse as a proportion of caseload was reported at higher rates by Family Service Workers employed in rural areas more than those employed by urban programs, X2 = 17.1, p < .01.

Exhibit 4-29

Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic Region, as Reported by Family Service Workers
	Urbanicity		Geographic Region b
	Unweighted Percentagesa
	Urban (n =7,705)	Rural (n =2,376)	Northeast (n =944)	South (n =3,516)	Midwest (n =2,520)	West (n =2,602)
Reported for child abuse	2.7	4.2	4.6	1.1	4.6	1.4
Reported for child neglect	1.4	2.1	1.1	1.1	1.8	0.7
Reported for other family violence	1.2	2.0	4.0	0.7	2.3	0.9
Household member with AIDS	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.2	0.0	0.0
Substance abuser in household	4.9	7.7	7.9	4.2	10.6	7.9
Household member in prison	2.2	3.5	5.3	2.0	7.0	4.1
Household member with disability	4.1	6.4	9.9	3.7	6.7	4.8
Family violence victim in household	4.3	6.9	6.9	2.3	6.3	6.2

aReported Ns are based on the total caseloads reported by Family Service Workers.(back)
bPuerto Rico not included.(back)

Families served by the Center Directors and Family Service Workers interviewed in the Midwest also were generally reported to have a higher likelihood of being reported for child abuse, X2 = 103.3, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and X2 = 105.9, p < .01 (for Family Service Workers), child neglect, X2 = 190.1, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and X2 = 13.7, p < .05 (for Family Service Workers). Center Directors also reported a higher prevalence of other forms of family violence in the Midwest, X2 = 102.6, p < .01, but this result was contradicted by Family Service Workers, where those in the Northeast reported higher rates for this problem, X2 = 72.4, p < .01. In each case, staff perceptions of the rates of reported abuse or neglect were slightly higher in rural areas, although not significantly so for any of these indicators. Staff reported rates of household members who were victims of family violence were higher in the Midwest and West, X2 = 26.9, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and X2 = 79.7, p < .01 (for Family Service Workers). For this problem, a higher rate was reported by staff from programs in rural areas, X2 = 21.6, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and X2 = 17.6, p < .01 (for Family Service Workers). Finally, the occurrence of family members in prison, again, was reported to be higher by Center Directors in the Midwest, X2 = 63.5, p < .01, and by Family Service Workers in the Midwest and the West, X2 = 94.1, p < .01.

As indicated above, Center Directors generally reported higher percentages of risk factors in families of their enrolled children than Family Service Workers reported in their caseloads. The one exception to this trend was for the reported prevalence of household members living with a physical or mental disability. Here, Center Directors reported a rate of 2.5% versus 4.8% for Family Service Workers.

Referrals and Head Start Services

Component Coordinators and Center Directors each reported on the types of services that Head Start provides directly and those for which they provide assistance. As shown in Exhibit 4-30 (and for Center Directors in Appendix C-10), the data indicate that, for the most part, Head Start programs provided direct services relatively infrequently, but provided referrals and assistance on a regular basis.

Exhibit 4-30

Head Start Assistance to Families as Reported by Component Coordinators
Type of Community Service/Assistance	Unweighted Percentages (n = 156)
Type of Community Service/Assistance	HS Does Not Provide	HS Refers or Assists	HS Provides Directly
Income assistance (welfare, SSI, unemployment)	1.4	97.2	1.4
Food/nutrition services	0.7	95.1	4.2
Housing assistance	2.2	95.0	2.9
Utilities assistance	2.8	93.1	4.2
Job training/employment assistance	2.1	86.4	11.4
Literacy/basic education programs	0.0	75.0	25.0
Transportation assistance	9.6	68.3	22.1
Child care for preschool children	4.0	74.4	21.6
Child care for older children	0.0	41.7	58.3
Medical/dental care for children	0.0	77.6	22.4
Medical/dental care for adults	4.8	92.8	2.4
Health insurance (e.g., Medicaid)	3.7	96.3	0.0
Alcohol/drug treatment or counseling	1.4	92.9	5.7
Mental health services	0.7	86.3	13.0
Legal aid	1.6	96.9	1.6
Family violence assistance programs	0.0	94.3	5.7
Other family assistance programs	0.0	90.3	9.7

The most frequently reported direct services provided by Head Start agencies were child care (21.6% for preschool children and 28.3% for other children), literacy/ basic education programs (24.8%), medical/ dental care for children (22.4%), and transportation assistance (22.1%). At the other end of the spectrum, direct services reported by Component Coordinators to be provided least frequently were health insurance (0.0%), income assistance (1.4%), legal aid (1.6%), medical/dental care for adults (2.4%), housing assistance (2.9%), and food/nutrition services (4.2%).

Family Service Workers, in turn, reported on the numbers of referrals that they had made in the previous year. Referrals for medical/dental care for adults (58.5% of Family Service Workers reported more than 10 such referrals), literacy/basic education (50.5%), food/nutrition (47.9%), child care (44.4%), and job training/employment assistance (40.9%) were reported to be the most frequent referrals. Least frequent referrals were in the categories of alcohol/drug treatment or counseling (42.3% of Family Service Workers reported no referrals for this service), family violence assistance (35.9% no referrals), transportation assistance (33.1% no referrals), and legal aid (30.3% no referrals).

4.7 Summary

Section 4.6 presented findings on Head Start staff efforts to provide or facilitate delivery of important support services to Head Start families. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Family Service Workers served an average of 70 families in their caseloads. Larger caseloads were found in programs located in urban areas and in the West.
Sixty percent of Social Service Coordinators and 45% of Family Service Workers felt their caseloads were too large.
Family Service Workers reported completing a Family Assistance Plan for about one half of the families in their caseload. Although nearly all families were reported to have signed their FAPs, only 43.8% were given a copy of that plan.
Family Service Workers reported meeting face-to-face with almost one quarter of their families on a weekly basis, but that they met with about one fifth of their families only once or twice during the program year.
Family Service Workers and Center Directors were in general agreement about the rank order of family risk factors that Head Start families faced. In general, Center Directors reported higher rates for family risks. Substance abuse was the most frequent family risk factor noted by both types of Head Start staff.
Rates of most Head Start family risk factors were reported to be higher in the Midwest, followed by the West, and also in rural areas of the nation.
Head Start Component Coordinators reported that the program referred families for services for a wide variety of family needs. Over and above direct Head Start services, child care was the service reported to be provided most often, followed by literacy/basic education, medical/dental care for children, and transportation assistance.
Family Service Workers reported the highest numbers of referrals for medical/dental care for adults, literacy/basic education, food/nutrition services, child care, and job training and employment assistance.

4.8 Health Services for Head Start Children and Families

The following sections cover the frequency of child health problems and family health risks reported by Head Start Health Coordinators, the use of parent volunteers in the delivery of health screenings for Head Start children, and the types and frequencies of workshops provided for parents by Head Start.

The Head Start Health Component

The Head Start health service program, at the start of data collection, was organized under the direction of a Health Coordinator, and may have included a Mental Health Coordinator, a Disabilities Coordinator, a Nutrition Coordinator, nurses, nutritionists, cooks and food service staff, consultants, and clerical staff. For many programs, individual staff members were able to fill two or more of these roles (for example, the Health Coordinator may have also served as the Mental Health Coordinator). The Coordinators for the 40 programs reported a total of 526 staff, an average of over 13 staff per program (range 4 to 44) under their direction. The Health Coordinator was responsible for completion of health, mental health, and dental health screenings, review and maintenance of children’s health records, referrals for health evaluations and services, nutrition, classroom hygiene activities, health-related parent workshops, and for follow-up of routine health services such as immunizations and dental services.

Child Health Problems in Head Start

Head Start Health Coordinators4 were asked to report on the most frequent child health problems that they observed in their programs. As shown in Exhibit 4-31, dental health was by far the most frequently identified health problem for Head Start children. Sixty three percent of the coordinators identified this problem as one of the top three health problems for children in their program. Infectious illness (54.2%), speech and language problems (43.4%), asthma (42.2%), and lice (36.9%) were also identified by more than one third of the Health Coordinators.

Exhibit 4-31

Most Frequent Child Health Problems as Reported by Health Coordinators
Child Health Problems	Unweighted Percentage of Health Coordinators Indicating Health Problem is One of Top Three for their Program (n = 41)
Dental health	63.4
Infectious diseases	53.7
Speech/language problems	43.9
Asthma	41.5
Lice	36.6
Ear infections	22.0
Lack of immunizations	19.5
Vision impairments	9.8
Blood disorders	7.3

Health Coordinators also identified the most prevalent health risk factors that affected the families of children enrolled in Head Start (Exhibit 4-32). In total, 33 of the 40 Health Coordinators (85.0%) placed lack of parenting skills among the three top health risks for Head Start families. Extreme home stress, abuse/neglect, and inadequate housing were mentioned as risk factors by 45% of the Health Coordinators. Thus, Health Coordinators generally identified social factors in the Head Start children’s home environments as presenting the most serious health risks rather than physical needs such as access to support services, actual health threats like HIV infections, or community factors such as violence.

Exhibit 4-32

Top Three Health Risks to Families as Reported by Health Coordinators
Health Risks	Percentage of Risks in Top Three (N = 40)
Lack of parenting skills	85.0
Extreme home stress	45.0
Abuse and neglect	45.0
Inadequate housing	45.0
Community violence	22.5
Lack of access to support services	22.5
Lack of immunizations	22.5
Poor nutrition	15.0
Inadequate clothing	0.0
HIV / AIDS / STD	0.0

Head Start Health Services, Parent Volunteers, and Parent Workshops

Head Start provides or arranges for a variety of health screenings and services. As indicated in Exhibit 4-33, Health Coordinators reported that reviews of immunization records and administration of needed immunizations were required prior to enrollment in 57.5% and 45.0% of the programs, respectively. Similarly, tuberculosis and anemia test reports were required prior to enrollment by 30% and 22.5% of the programs. In most cases where children had not received these screenings prior to enrollment, Head Start staff either completed the screenings or made a referral to an outside service. Coordinators in a majority of programs reported that they provided health screening and measurements for height/weight, vision testing, hearing testing, speech assessment, and developmental/behavioral screenings. Outside services were reported to be required most often for dental examinations and TB screenings (both 62.5% of programs), hemoglobin/hematocrit testing (57.5%), lead testing (52.5%), and urinalysis (50.0%).

Exhibit 4-33

Requirements for Health Screenings and Measurements as Reported by
Health Coordinators
Screening or Measurement	Unweighted Percentages (N = 40)
Screening or Measurement	Required Before Entrance	Head Start Provides	Outside Service Provides	Not Required
Head circumference	7.5	27.5	25.0	40.0
Height/weight	12.5	80.0	7.5	0.0
Blood pressure	17.5	47.5	35.0	0.0
Vision testing	5.0	70.0	25.0	0.0
Hearing testing	5.0	72.5	27.5	0.0
Speech assessment	2.5	70.0	27.5	0.0
Urinalysis	10.0	2.5	50.0	37.5
Lead testing	10.0	10.0	52.5	27.5
TB testing	30.0	7.5	62.5	0.0
Intestinal parasite testing	5.0	0.0	50.0	45.0
Hemoglobin/hematocrit testing	22.5	20.0	57.5	0.0
Sickle cell testing	7.5	5.0	52.5	35.0
Dental examination	12.5	25.0	62.5	0.0
Developmental/behavioral screenings	2.5	72.5	25.0	0.0
Immunization review	57.5	32.5	10.0	0.0
Immunization administration	45.0	5.0	50.0	0.0

Parent volunteers were employed in a variety of health-related activities (Exhibit 4-34). Parent participation was most frequently reported for helping with oral hygiene in the classrooms (87.5% of programs), help with food preparation and helping to collect height and weight measures (75.0%), and help with vision testing and providing peer support to families in crisis (55.0%).

Exhibit 4-34

Use of Parent Volunteers in the Head Start Health Services Program, as Reported by Health Coordinators
Activity	Unweighted Percentages (N = 40)
Help with oral hygiene in the classroom	87.5
Help to measure height/weight	75.0
Help with food preparation	75.0
Help with vision testing	55.0
Provide peer support to families in crisis	55.0
Work with community health agencies	47.5
Develop forms/procedures for emergencies	40.0
Provide transportation to appointments	37.5
Review immunization records	15.0
Enter data on health records	10.0
Volunteer in child guidance clinics for mental health screenings	2.5

The Health Coordinators were responsible for conducting parent education workshops throughout the program year. As shown in Exhibit 4-35, nutrition/cooking workshops and parenting education workshops were reported to be most frequently offered. According to the Health Coordinators, nutrition/cooking was offered at least monthly by 32.5% of the programs, while parenting education was offered that frequently in 27.5% of programs. Only one program reported not having nutrition workshops at all. At least one program offered each of the workshops listed more than once a year, but in some programs some workshops were rarely offered or not offered at all. These included prenatal/postnatal care (not offered at all by 72.5% of Head Start programs in the study), lead poisoning (37.5%), physical fitness (35.0%), personal hygiene (32.5%), and assessing family needs (30.0%).

Exhibit 4-35

Frequency of Health-Related Parent Workshops, as Reported by Health Coordinators
Workshop	Unweighted Percentages (N = 40)
Workshop	Never	Once	More than Once a Year	Monthly or More Often
First aid/CPR	10.0	50.0	35.0	5.0
Prenatal/postnatal care	72.5	7.5	10.0	5.0
Oral hygiene/dental care	7.5	42.5	35.0	15.0
Lead poisoning	37.5	37.5	25.0	0.0
Home safety/fire prevention	10.0	45.0	37.5	7.5
Childhood illnesses	15.0	35.0	40.0	10.0
Immunizations	22.5	32.5	35.0	10.0
Assessing family needs	30.0	40.0	17.5	12.5
Locating and using health services	22.5	32.5	32.5	12.5
Nutrition/cooking workshop	2.5	17.5	47.5	32.5
Personal hygiene	32.5	27.5	22.5	17.5
Physical fitness	35.0	32.5	30.0	2.5
Parenting education	12.5	7.5	52.5	27.5

4.9 Summary

Section 4.8 presented findings on the frequency of child health problems and family health risks reported by Head Start Health Coordinators, the use of parent volunteers in the delivery of health screenings for Head Start children, and the types and frequencies of workshops provided for parents by Head Start. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Dental health was the most frequently identified health problem for Head Start children. For the 40 programs involved in the study, Health Coordinators reported that over 2,000 children were in need of dental services at entry into the program.
Health risk factors identified by Health Coordinators were most frequently associated with the home environment. These included lack of parenting skills, extreme home stress, and family abuse/neglect.
Head Start Health Coordinators reported that the programs, provided a wide variety of health measurements and screenings for children and arranged outside services for key health measures such as dental examinations, TB, anemia, and lead testing.

4.10 Staff and Program Characteristics Linked to Family Outcomes

The staff and parent interviews provided a significant opportunity for examining relationships across these information sources. From the Head Start program’s perspective, the parent interviews included three key outcomes: 1) the kinds and frequencies of activities with family members the Head Start children experienced when not at the center, 2) the degree and type of involvement with Head Start program activities reported by individual parents, and 3) self-reported parent satisfaction with the Head Start program. The central concept underlying these analyses is that the characteristics of the Head Start staff (including staff experience, education, and training) and program (types and frequencies of parent-staff or parent-program contacts and interactions) might be related to such important outcomes as family-child activities, parent involvement, and parent satisfaction, regardless of where the program is located (region or urban/rural setting) or family background factors such as parent education, employment status, family income, or ethnicity. The analyses for this section were completed to provide information about associations among three categories of staff data and three measurement areas from the parent interviews.

Analytic Approach

For the analyses reported in this section, all measures from the staff interviews were aggregated to the center level. That is, average values for each measure were computed for all Classroom Teachers who were employed at each center where children whose parents were interviewed were enrolled. The reasoning behind this approach was that children often changed classrooms within a center but rarely changed centers during the course of a program year. Centers where at least two Classroom Teachers were interviewed in both fall 1997 and spring 1998 (a total of 179 centers) were included in the analyses. The following Classroom Teacher measures were computed or constructed for each Head Start center:

Classroom Teacher Experience. The average total years of experience as a Head Start employee reported by teachers (M = 10.06, SD = 5.65, Range 0.75 – 30.0).
Classroom Teacher Education. The average classroom teacher educational level (grades completed) reported by teachers (M = 14.44, SD = 1.4, Range 11.0 – 17.0).
Teacher Training. The total training hours reported by teachers for the previous 12 months (M = 76.02, SD = 41.5, Range 21.0 – 196.0).
Parent-Teacher Contact. An index of the frequency of contact that Classroom Teachers and parents might have in the Head Start classroom was constructed. Teachers reported that parent volunteers in their classrooms assisted during mealtimes, helped to clean up classrooms, served as classroom aides, assisted at special events, notified other parents about classroom events, and worked on educational materials for the classroom during the past Head Start year. These six activities, in general, required that parents visit the center, observe and/or be involved in classroom activities. Each item was scored as 0 (parent volunteers do not participate in this activity) or 1 (parents do participate in this activity). The average number of these activities reported by teachers was added to form this constructed measure (M = 5.29, SD = 1.3, Range = 4.48 - 6.0).
Parent-Program Contact. An index of the frequency that parent volunteers in the Head Start program assisted with curriculum planning, participated in home visits, prepared newsletters, and/or led workshops. These four activities generally bring parents into contact with a variety of program staff and decision-makers. Each item was scored as 0 (parent volunteers do not participate in this activity) or 1 (parents do participate in this activity). The average number of these activities reported by teachers was added to form this constructed measure (M = 1.83, SD = 1.3, Range = 0.0 – 4.0).
Children’s Academic Activities in the Classroom. An index of the frequency that daily (or almost daily) activities included (1) reading stories, (2) number concepts, (3) colors, (4) science or nature, (5) solving puzzles and (6) working on letters of the alphabet. Each item ranges from a value of 1 (not offered in the classroom) to 5 (offered daily or almost daily). The average frequencies of these activities reported by teachers was added to form this constructed measure (M = 28.37, SD = 2.9, Range 13.0 – 30.0).

The family data included in these analyses were for 2,277 primary caregivers (parents)5 who were interviewed at both fall 1997 and spring 1998 and whose child was enrolled in a center where two or more Classroom Teachers had been interviewed. Two sets of measures were taken from the parent interview. The first were family background characteristics.6 They included:

Parents’ education (less than high school 28.3%; high school or GED 36.5%, at least some college 35.1%).
Parents’ employment status (51.0% employed).
Monthly Household Income (M = $1,239, SD = 832.9).
Ethnicity of the Children (African American 30.6%; Hispanic 24.5%, White 30.4%; other 14.4%).

The second set of measures was constructed by adding together parent responses to sets of related questions. These measures were considered outcomes for the present analyses and included:

Family Activities with the Children. In both fall 1997 and spring 1998, parents were asked how often someone at home had participated in each of 11 activities with the Head Start children during the past week.7 A 3-point response set was employed (no, once or twice, or three or more times). A factor analysis of these responses revealed high positive correlations among all items and a single factor. Therefore, a summary score for family activities with the children at both interview points was computed by adding the responses for all 11 items together. A standardized change score was then computed, providing an index of change for each family-child pair (M = 1.29, SD = 1.1, Range –2.66 – 5.58).
Parent Involvement. Parents were asked about fourteen ways they might have been involved with the Head Start program and how often they had participated in each activity.8 A factor analysis revealed high positive inter-correlations of all items and a single factor. A 3-point response set was employed (not yet, 1-2 times, more than 2 times). A total satisfaction score was computed by summing all 14 items (M = 25.11, SD = 5.9, range 14 – 42).
Satisfaction. Parents were asked how satisfied they were with eight aspects of the Head Start experience for their children, themselves, and their families.9 A 4-point response set was employed (very satisfied, satisfied, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied). A factor analysis revealed high positive inter-correlations of all items and a single factor. A total satisfaction score was computed by summing all eight items (M = 30.39, SD = 2.6, range 8.0 – 32.0).

Relationships between teacher characteristics and teacher-reported interactions with parents and children with the two parent-reported measures were first explored through univariate correlations. Significant correlations among the parent measures as well as correlations among parent and staff measures aggregated to the center level are presented in Exhibit 4-36. The observed correlations at the parent level are relatively small but are consistent with reported results in Section II. That is, involvement with Head Start was negatively related to employment (parents who were employed were somewhat less involved with program activities than those who were not) and related to ethnicity (parents of White children tended to be more involved in program activities). Also, satisfaction with Head Start was negatively related to education, employment, and income. That is, less satisfied parents tended to be those who reported they were employed, had a higher household income, and had achieved higher levels of education. In addition, Hispanic parents tended to be more satisfied with the program.

Exhibit 4-36

Significant Correlations Among Teacher-Reported and Parent Reported Measures
	Univariate Correlations
	Increase in Family-Child Activities from Fall to Spring	Parent Involvement with Head Start	Parent Satisfaction with Head Start
Measures From Parent Interviews (n = 2,277)
Parent education			r = -.05, p <.01
Parent employment		r = -.07, p <.01	r = -.04, p <.01
Monthly household income			r = -.06, p <.01
Child ethnicity: African American
Child ethnicity: Hispanic			r = .06, p <.01
Child ethnicity: White		r = .04, p <.03
Measures from Parent and Classroom Teacher Interviews aggregated to the Center Level (n = 179)
Primary caregiver education		r = .22, p <.01	r = -.21, p <.01
Primary caregiver employment		r = -.26, p <.01	r = -.17, p <.02
Monthly household income			r = -.28, p <.01
Child ethnicity: African American
Child ethnicity: Hispanic			r = .23, p <.01
Child ethnicity: White		r = .17, p <.02
Teacher experience in Head Start
Teacher education (total years)		r = .18, p <.01
Teacher training (total hours)	r = .24, p <.01	r = .23, p <.01
Parent - teacher contacts			r = .18, p <.01
Parent - program contacts			r = .26, p <.01
Academic classroom activities	r = .26, p <.01

At the center level, significant results among parent-reported data are highly consistent with the individual parent level (although the absolute values of the correlations were greater, the observed significance levels were similar). However, significant associations among Classroom Teacher reported information and each of the outcome measures were observed. Where teachers reported greater amounts of training during the past year and where they reported that they engaged their classrooms in academic activities more frequently, parents reported greater increases in family-child activities between fall and spring. Also, parent involvement reported by parents was positively related to teacher reports both that they had completed more years of education and that the program had provided them more training in the past year. Finally, parent-reported satisfaction with the Head Start program was positively related to teacher reports that parents were offered more types of contact with both the teachers themselves and with other program staff.

In the second stage of analysis, multilevel regression models were constructed to assess the relationship between characteristics of Head Start staff and programs on key family outcomes. The predictor variables for these analyses were derived from two levels. Individual-level data included parent background measures. Center-level data included teacher background measures as well as teacher-reported measures of parent involvement and classroom activities. Two-level models were constructed for each of the family outcomes (also at the individual level): 1) family activities with their children; 2) parent involvement; and 3) parent satisfaction with Head Start. Measures were entered into regression models in three groups. First, region and urbanicity of the program were entered, followed by the set of individual parent reported background characteristics, and finally the center-level teacher-reported variables.

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Increases In Family-Child Activities Between Fall And Spring. The types of activities included in this measure are generally thought by child development professionals to reflect positive experiences for young children. Therefore, information about factors that are related to increases in those activities may be important for programs such as Head Start. The analyses confirmed that, after controlling for effects related to region, urbanicity, or family demographic characteristics, the amount of teacher training and the frequency that teachers reported that academic activities occurred in their classrooms were positively associated with parent-reported increases in family-child activities from fall to spring (Exhibit 4-37). Therefore, it is encouraging to note that where programs provided more training for teachers and more frequent academic activities for their children, parents reported greater positive changes in those types of activities at home, without regard to location or family demographics (even with the cautionary note that these observations reflect a naturally occurring rather than a causal relationship among these measures).

Exhibit 4-37

Hierarchical Regression Model of Increases in Family-Child Activities from Fall to Springa
	Coefficient	Standard Error	t	p value
Fixed Effects: Parent Measures
Parent education	.064	.052	1.23
Parent employment	-.079	.058	-1.36
Monthly household income	-.00092	.00071	-1.29
Child ethnicity: Hispanic	1.29	.78	1.65
Child ethnicity: African American	-.795	.82	-.97
Child ethnicity: White	-.44	.58	-.76
Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures
Teacher experience in Head Start	-.071	.046	-1.54
Teacher education (total years)	.655	.39	1.68
Teacher training (total hours)	.0015	.00063	2.43	.02
Parent-teacher contacts	.103	.051	2.02
Parent-program contacts	.088	.086	1.02
Academic classroom activities	.044	.017	2.59	.02

aProgram location indicators (region, urbanicty) were not statistically significant for this measure.(back)

Parent involvement with Head Start activities is strongly encouraged by the Program Performance Standards and by Head Start staff. Involvement was found to be unrelated to either the regional location of the program or to whether the program was in an urban or rural setting. However, several of the significant relationships observed at the univariate level among family characteristics and parent involvement were supported by the regression model as well (Exhibit 4-38). Parents who reported more education, were not employed, and had White children also reported greater levels of involvement in the Head Start program. Once these factors were controlled for statistically, parent-reported involvement was greater in centers where teachers had completed more education and been provided with more training in the past year than teachers in other programs. Again, it may be important that at least some factors under the control of the Head Start program were related to an important program component such as parent involvement.

Exhibit 4-38

Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Involvement in Head Starta
	Coefficient	Standard Error	t	p value
Fixed Effects: Parent Measures
Parent education	.318	.094	3.38	.01
Parent employment	-.188	.043	-4.38	.01
Family income	-.000039	.000047	-0.84
Child ethnicity: Hispanic	-1.04	.93	-1.12
Child ethnicity: African American	-.82	.79	-1.04
Child ethnicity: White	1.11	.64	1.73	.05
Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures
Teacher experience in Head Start	-.048	.031	-1.54
Teacher education (total years)	1.44	.42	3.42	.01
Teacher inservice training (total hours)	.0013	.00056	2.25	.05
Parent-teacher contacts	.051	.038	1.34
Parent-program contacts	.143	.101	1.43
Academic classroom activities	.026	.014	1.86

aProgram location indicators (region, urbanicty) were not statistically significant for this measure.(back)

Parent satisfaction with Head Start services is an index of how well the program is providing services to the consumers it serves directly. Head Start parents reported very high levels of satisfaction in every program location that participated in FACES. Nevertheless, variation in the measure of satisfaction was associated with program location, as well as family and program characteristics. First, parents in the Northeast reported less overall satisfaction than parents in other regions. Also, families where the primary caregiver reported more education and more income also reported less satisfaction with the program. Finally, after statistically controlling for the observed relationships with program location and family demographics, parent satisfaction was reported to be higher in centers where teachers reported more frequent opportunities for parent contact with Head Start staff as well as greater opportunities for parents to be involved in program activities. These included opportunities for parent-teacher interactions such as conversations at general parent meetings, telephone calls home, and informal parent-staff conferences, as well as opportunities for participating in home visits, serving as workshop leaders, assisting in curriculum planning, and preparing newsletters for distribution to other parents.

Exhibit 4-39

Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Satisfaction With Head Start
	Coefficient	Standard Error	t	p value
Fixed Effects: Program Location
Program location: Northeast	-2.59	.614	-4.22	.01
Program location: Midwest	.342	.551	0.62
Program location: South	.412	.489	0.20
Program location: Urban	-.045	.080	-0.58
Fixed Effects: Parent Measures
Parent education	-.141	.071	-1.99	.02
Parent employment	-.021	.025	-0.85
Monthly household income	<.01	<.01	-5.07	.01
Child ethnicity: Hispanic	.167	.087	1.92	.02
Child ethnicity: African American	.087	.083	1.03
Child ethnicity: White	.094	.075	1.25
Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures
Teacher experience in Head Start	-.013	.024	-0.56
Teacher education (in years)	.664	.540	1.23
Teacher inservice training (in hours)	<.01	.<.01	1.47
Parent-teacher contacts	.058	.027	2.14	.05
Parent-program contacts	.276	.094	2.94	.01
Academic classroom activities	.031	.023	1.31

4.11 Summary

Several characteristics of Head Start staff and programs were found to be significantly related to key family outcomes.

Parents reported relatively larger increases in activities with the Head Start child between fall and spring where teachers reported a greater number of in-service training hours during the past year and greater frequencies of academic activities in the classroom.
Parents reported more involvement with program activities where Head Start teachers reported more years of education and a greater number of in-service training hours during the past year.
Parents reported greater satisfaction with the program when teachers reported more opportunities for direct contact with parents and more opportunities for parents to come into contact with other Head Start staff.

4.12 Discussions with Head Start Program Directors

During spring 1998, Head Start Program Directors and many of their key staff participated in discussions with FACES research staff regarding local program responses to the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards as well as how changes in the national welfare reform legislation affected their programs. Discussions were completed at 38 of the 40 FACES sites.

Revised Head Start Program Performance Standards

The majority of the Head Start programs reported having made few if any recent changes in their organization and indicated that they had already met or exceeded the new standards. Other programs were in the planning and development stage. Responsiveness to local contextual factors, along with information about the planned changes from monitoring team members and regional and national Head Start representatives, motivated many of the Directors to begin adjustments in their programs as early as the mid-1990s. Only a small number of programs had made changes due to compliance issues. None of the programs reported a need to reduce the number of their staff, as some Directors had feared, but rather they reassigned staff and, in some cases, actually increased the number of staff serving their programs.

Welfare Reform

Program Directors and senior staff indicated that welfare reform had affected their programs. Most importantly, they reported a decline in parent participation. Programs were being challenged to find and develop new, non-traditional ways of involving parents in the program, including providing expanded parent training, accommodating parents’ work schedules by scheduling evening and weekend parent meetings and workshops, and serving as TANF work sites for Head Start parents. Directors reported a greater emphasis on developing or expanding services to facilitate families’ self-sufficiency, such as providing educational and vocational training, as well as forming support groups, and assisting with employment preparation. Many programs reported a decrease in enrollment in part-day classrooms and acknowledged the need for providing longer hours and extended childcare, although few had been able to expand service to year-round, full day, or extended day services.

4.13 Staff Comments on Head Start Program Improvement

Head Start staff interviews each concluded by asking the respondent what single thing they felt would improve the program. Their responses were coded into six categories: parent involvement, program structure, program facilities, program for children, staff interactions and activities, and relationships with schools and other agencies.

By far, the most frequently identified area for program improvement was parent involvement (Exhibit 4-39). More than 40% of staff indicated that increased parent involvement was desirable. However, relatively few staff provided clear suggestions for the means to accomplish their desired goal. In earlier sections of the interviews, staff had identified parent work, school, or training schedules as the primary barriers to parent involvement, and such activities on the part of parents were often required by current public assistance laws.

The condition of Head Start physical facilities was also an area where staff frequently indicated that improvements would be helpful. Over 40% of Center Directors identified this area, which included moving to better locations, increasing, improving or renovating their current space, and improving the equipment available for educating children, preparing meals, meeting with parents, or managing their centers. Perhaps reflecting their role in the program, only about 15% of Classroom Teachers reported a need for improved facilities.

About 15% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers indicated a need for changes in program structure. In this category, the most frequent suggestion was for increased time to provide services to children in the centers: more year-round, full day, or extended day services. In most cases, these suggestions were based on both the families’ need for more child care as they participated in school, training, or employment programs, as well as the perceived benefit that the children would gain from extending their hours at the Head Start program.

Over one quarter of Classroom Teachers indicated that they felt the program for children could be improved through more materials, an enhanced curriculum, or increased numbers of support staff. The need for additional staff was often based on their perceived need for more one-to-one or small group interactions between teachers and children, particularly in the cases of children with disabilities. While Center Directors were less likely to indicate that more educational materials or improved curricula were necessary, they were equally likely to suggest that additional support staff would improve their program.

Suggestions for improvements in staff interactions or activities by Center Directors and Classroom Teachers clearly reflected their program roles. About 11% of Center Directors felt that increased or improved training for teachers would be beneficial, versus 2% of Classroom Teachers, while about 11% of teachers felt that less paperwork would allow them to spend more time with children, versus 2% of Directors. As well, small percentages of both Center Directors and Teachers suggested improvements in staff communication. Given the relatively low salaries paid to Head Start staff, it is notable that relatively few suggestions for increased salaries were recorded. Finally, a relatively small proportion of Center Directors indicated that improved relationships with community organizations such as schools and service agencies would be of benefit to their Head Start programs.

Exhibit 4-40

Staff Comments on Possible Head Start Program Improvements
Comment Category	Percentage of Total Countsa
Comment Category	Center Directors (n = 89)	Classroom Teachers (n = 502)b
Parent Involvement/Communication
Increase parent involvement	25.8	25.1
Improve/increase parent education services/workshops	6.7	8.0
Increase contact/communication with parents	5.6	6.0
Increase male involvement	4.5	1.0
Program Structure
Provide more year round, full day or extended day services	9.0	7.6
Increase transportation services for children/parents	5.6	5.2
Add special education services and follow-up for children with behavioral/cognitive problems	1.1	3.6
Program Facilities
Move to better location, improve or renovate space	18.0	6.2
Increase amount of available space	16.9	4.6
Improve or add additional equipment	9.0	4.2
Program for Children
Increase available educational materials	3.3	8.4
Improve educational curriculum/services for children	2.2	8.8
Increase number of support staff	9.0	9.0
Staff Interactions and Activities
Increase amount/improve quality of staff training	11.2	2.0
Decrease amount of paperwork	2.2	10.8
Improve/increase communication among staff/administration	3.4	5.9
Increase program funding/staff salaries	3.4	5.4
Increase activity planning/preparation time	0.0	3.8
Relationships with Schools and Other Agencies
Improve relationships with local schools	6.7	0.0
Improve/increase communication with local agencies	4.5	0.0

aExcludes categories mentioned by fewer than 2% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers.(back)
bExcludes 27 Classroom Teachers with no comment.(back)

4.14 Summary of Results

More than 40% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers suggested that improvements in parent involvement would benefit the Head Start program; however, few of these staff had specific suggestions for improvement.
About 44% of Center Directors suggested that improvements in center space (including moves, expansions, or renovations) or equipment (replacement or additions) would benefit the program. In contrast, improvements in this area were mentioned by only 15% of Classroom Teachers.
Classroom Teachers were more likely to identify elements of the program for children as an area for improvement than Center Directors (26.2% of Classroom Teachers compared to 14.5% of Center Directors). The improvements identified included educational materials, curricula, and the number of support staff.
More than 20% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers identified staff interactions or activities as an area for improvement. While Center Directors were more likely to specify improvements in the quantity or quality of staff training in this area (11.2% vs. 2.0%), Classroom Teachers were more likely to suggest decreasing the amount of paperwork (10.8% vs. 2.2%).
About 15% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers suggested structural improvements in the program, including extended service hours for children (year round, full day, or extended day services), better transportation, or improved special education services.
About 10% of Center Directors (but no Classroom Teachers) suggested improved relationships with local schools or other service agencies.

1In some cases, a Classroom Teacher also served some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a Center Director was not available. Within this report, such teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers (AT).(back)

2Many programs now employ the Family Partnership Agreement (FPA) rather than the Family Assistance Plan. The FPA emphasises use of family strengths in the solution of family needs.(back)

3The Head Start Program Performance Standards recommend caseloads of up to 45 families.(back)

4The reports from a previous project, the Descriptive Study of Head Start Health Services, completed in 1994 by the CDM Group, contains results from a complete set of Head Start health service staff. For FACES, only the Health Coordinator was interviewed.(back)

5In this section, the terms “primary caregiver” and “ parent” are used interchangeably, although “primary caregiver” is technically correct. Almost 93% of the respondents to the Parent Interview were biological parents.(back)

6These measures are described and discussed in chapter 4 of Section II. As shown, the sample of families and children included in these analyses are similar in all respects to the full parent sample.(back)

7This measure includes the seven items referenced in Chapter 6.2 of Section II plus four additional items: (1) played a game, sport, or exercised together; (2) talked about what happened in Head Start; (3) talked about TV programs or videos; and (4) played counting games like singing songs with numbers or reading books with numbers.(back)

8These measures include the twelve items referenced in Chapter 7.3 of Section II plus the following two items (1) attended a Head Start event with a spouse or partner and (2) attended a Head Start event with another adult.(back)

9These items are described and discussed in section 7.5 of Section II.(back)

Table of Contents | Previous | Next