Two-Generation Strategies at the Administration for Children and Families

Introduction

On behalf of my ACF colleagues, I want to start by thanking Libby and her colleagues at ED for their work in bringing together today’s session, and thank and acknowledge the terrific work that Ann and her colleagues at the Aspen Institute have done to elevate attention of policy makers, program administrators, funders, researchers, and others to the importance of two generation strategies and initiatives.

Second, while I want to be clear that this is not a competition, I do want to note that ACF, we very much view ourselves as the original two-generation agency.  It’s, of course, reflected in our name --- the Administration for Children and Families.  And, perhaps, more importantly, it’s reflected in the orientation that from the beginning has guided the Head Start Program, and that is increasingly reflected in our work across ACF. 

It’s a specific commitment in the ACF strategic plan, and over the course of the day, you’ll have opportunities to hear more of the specifics of our two generation work in a set of areas, including early childhood, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, collaborative work around Rural Impact, the Community Services Block Grant, and more.  But in my opening comments, I wanted to say a few words about why we’re committed to a two generation approach and about some of the questions and challenges that we think are key in efforts to bring this work forward.

Supporting strong families

For us, a starting point is that we want to get good outcomes for children, and we believe it is not possible to do that without recognizing that children grow up in families, that strong and supportive families will promote better outcomes, and that when family life is disrupted, chaotic, or worse, it is far more difficult to get good outcomes for children.   At the same time, we also recognize that in efforts to work with adults, particularly to promote success in employment, it’s essential that strategies are mindful of the roles, responsibilities, and challenges faced when workers are also parents. 

We appreciate that these basic insights aren’t new.   But, it’s often striking to see how little they’re reflected in program design.  Programs working with children may have minimal awareness of family circumstances and needs and may have little or no capacity to identify broader family needs and connect family members to services.   Programs working with adults may not even know they are parents, and if they do have that information, may not use it in any meaningful way in employability planning or services. 

ACF’s Commitment to a Two-generation Approach

The discussion of the need for a two generation, or whole-family approach is also not entirely new.  But, what does seem new in the last several years is a burgeoning interest in the importance of taking a two generation approach, and an active discussion at the federal, state and local level about what that might mean for program design and redesign.

States and localities are having these discussions, and we’re having and acting on them at ACF.  Broadly, we’ve made a commitment to support and advance two-generation approaches through our research, technical assistance, and program and policy guidance.  We’ve articulated this as seeking to promote and support:

• linkages between high quality educational services for children and workforce development services for their parents
• programmatic efforts to help  parents gain the skills, knowledge, and resources to  support their child’s development
• ensuring that families have access to the economic and social supports needed for stability and resilience and healthy child development
• helping families build social capital that can support both resilience and upward mobility

And, we’ve made a commitment to identifying  ways in which these principles can apply in programs we administer; identifying ways in which we can better support their adoption in state and local efforts; and, advancing a research agenda that will enhance our understanding of effective two-generation approaches and their impacts for children, parents, and families.

Some Key Questions in Moving Forward

Having said this, I want to note several important open questions.   First, there’s a big gulf between recognizing the importance of a two-generation framework and identifying precisely what we want programs to do differently.   By nature and design, some programs are already structured to serve parents and children together, but many are not.  When they aren’t, there are questions about whether the desired approach should be a change in service delivery, or in assessment and referral processes, or in staff awareness and understanding, or some combination of these.   In part, this goes to questions about what programs are funded and statutorily mandated to do, what they’re good or potentially good at doing, when a broadening of mission leads to improved performance and when it just leads to mission creep or mission diffusion.

     Second, there are some areas in which the programmatic implications of a two generation framework seem relatively straightforward, but others are far less so.   It seems clear, for instance, that we want to strengthen and expand high quality early childhood programs for children and high quality workforce programs for adults.  In some discussions, there’s also a strong interest in building social capital, but it’s less clear here what we should seek to do, how we’d measure it, and what is and isn’t the most appropriate role for public programs.  And, at ACF, our discussions of two-generation strategies overlap in important ways with our discussions of trauma and trauma informed human services; the implications of the adverse childhood experiences research; work around addressing and seeking to reduce the risks of toxic stress; work around resilience, executive functioning, non-cognitive skills, parenting skills, scarcity, and the potential relevance of the behavioral economics research and literature.    We’re seeking to bring our understanding of each of these related areas into an overall approach to program, policy, research and communications, and believe that over time, it’ll have important implications for two-generation approaches.

And, fundamentally, while the logic of the two generation approach seems compelling, the ultimate questions about whether it will in fact lead to stronger impacts is still an open research question.

ACF’s Two-Generation Research Agenda

So for us, one aspect of moving forward involves our research agenda.  Our Early Head Start Buffering Toxic Stress demonstration involves experimental demonstrations in six Early Head Start Programs, in which grantees are testing strategies designed to strengthen parental capacity to reduce the risk of toxic stress experienced by their child or children.  We’re also funding  four Head Start University Partnership grants, in which researchers are working with Head Start programs to implement and experimentally evaluate approaches that combine intensive, high-quality, child-focused programs with  intensive, high-quality, adult-focused services to support both parent well-being and children’s school readiness.  And, last September, we launched the Two-Generation Approaches to Improving Family Self-Sufficiency Project, which will include a targeted literature review, expert consultations, and field work to identify and describe program models; assess how well defined and evaluable the models are; engage stakeholders in a discussion regarding the potential evaluation of any of the models; and develop options for evaluations that may be feasible, relevant, and useful to ACF and the field.  And, we’re issuing a set of synthesis papers designed to strengthen understanding of the research relating to self-regulation and toxic stress. 

While we’re building the research agenda, we want to be clear that we view this as a time for innovation, exploration, identifying promising practices, and spurring federal, state and local initiatives.  We want to build the evidence base, but we’re also mindful that much of the status quo is not evidence-based, and the existence of open questions should never be reason to be unwilling to test new approaches.  We think that the energy and excitement around two generation initiatives provides an important opportunity, and we look forward to today’s discussion, to learning from each other, and to a strong shared commitment to two generation strategies.