# Presentation: 437808

## Overall Findings and Implications for Programs From the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project

**Overall Findings and Implications for Programs From the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project**

**	****	**

- January 2003

## The Early Head Start Program

**The Early Head Start Program**

- Over 700 programs serving about 62,000 children
- Various beginnings, but all become Head Start
- About 10% of the Head Start budget
- Follows the Head Start Program Performance Standards

## Early Head Start Is an Intensive, Two-Generation Program 

**Early Head Start Is an Intensive, ****Two-Generation Program **

**Self-Sufficiency and Healthy Families**

**Parenting**

**Child Development**

## The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project

**The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project**

- Began in 1995
- 3001 children and families followed from enrollment in program to child age 3** **
- Implementation Study: 3 rounds of site visits
- Experimental Design Impact Study

- Early Head Start

- Control Group

## Research Conducted by Early Head Start Research Consortium

**Research Conducted by Early Head Start Research Consortium**

- Research institutions in the Consortium (and principal researchers) include ACF (Rachel Chazan Cohen, Judith Jerald, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, and Louisa Tarullo); Catholic University of America (Michaela Farber, Lynn Milgram Mayer, Harriet Liebow, Christine Sabatino, Nancy Taylor, Elizabeth Timberlake, and Shavaun Wall); Columbia University (Lisa Berlin, Christy Brady-Smith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Alison Sidle Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherine Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan, and Catherine Snow); Iowa State University (Dee Draper, Gayle Luze, Susan McBride, Carla Peterson); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Ellen Eliason Kisker, John M. Love, Diane Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, Cheri Vogel, and Welmoet van Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski, Gui-Young Hong, and Susan Pickrel); Michigan State University (Hiram Fitzgerald, Tom Reischl, and Rachel Schiffman); New York University (Mark Spellmann and Catherine Tamis-LeMonda); University of Arkansas (Robert Bradley, Mark Swanson, and Leanne Whiteside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee Howes and Claire Hamilton); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, Paul Spicer, and Norman Watt); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater, Judith Carta, and Jean Ann Summers); University of Missouri-Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, and Kathy Thornburg); University of Pittsburgh (Carol McAllister, Beth Green, and Robert McCall); University of Washington School of Education (Eduardo Armijo and Joseph Stowitschek); University of Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard and Susan Spieker); and Utah State University (Lisa Boyce and Lori Roggman).

- The Consortium consists of representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and ACF/ACYF.

## Early Head Start Research Sites

## Many Measures Used in the Project

- Implementation data, including ratings
- Family service use data 7, 16, and 28 months after enrollment (both program and control)
- Child and family data collected when children were 14, 24, and 36 months old

- Videotaped observations of parent-child interaction
- Interviewer observations
- Parent interview
- Child assessments

## Policy Context Changes During the EHS Research & Evaluation Project

- Welfare reform enacted July 1996, as research programs began enrolling families

- Increased work and need for child care for some
- Increased availability of child care subsidies for some
- Altered some programs’ plans for serving families

- Expansion of pre-kindergarten programs in many states
- Federal Fatherhood Initiative
- Strong economy with low unemployment

## Key Questions Guided the Study

- Did Early Head Start have a positive impact on children and families?
- With which types of families was Early Head Start most successful?
- Which types of programs were most successful?
- What can we learn from the research for program improvement?

## EHS Was Broadly Effective Across a Wide Array of Outcomes

- The development of program children was better at ages 2 and 3 than for control children.
- Program parents demonstrated more behaviors that supported children’s learning and well-being than control parents.
- Program parents demonstrated greater involvement in self-sufficiency activities than control parents.

## Positive Impacts: Multiple Dimensions of Children’s Development

- Health:

- More have current immunizations
- Fewer emergency room visits for accidents and injuries

- Cognitive:

- Higher mean Bayley MDI
- Smaller percent with MDI < 85

## Positive Impacts: Multiple Dimensions of Children’s Development (cont.)

- Language:

- Larger receptive vocabularies
- Smaller percent PPVT < 85

- Social-emotional development:

- Lower levels of aggressive behavior
- Higher sustained attention with objects
- Greater engagement of parent
- Less negativity toward parent

## Example:  Fewer EHS Children Were in the Low-Functioning Group

**Example:  Fewer EHS Children Were ****in the Low-Functioning Group**

**73%**

**27%**

**At or Above 85**

**85 or Below**

- Program Children

- Control Children

- Bayley MDI

## Positive Impacts in Many Areas of Parenting

**Positive Impacts in Many Areas of Parenting**

- Greater warmth and supportiveness
- Less detachment
- More parent-child play
- More stimulating home environments
- More support for language and learning
- More daily reading
- Less spanking by both mothers and fathers

## Example:  More EHS than Control Group Parents Read to Children Daily

**57**

**52**

**0**

**10**

**20**

**30**

**40**

**50**

**60**

**Read Daily**

**Program**

**Control**

## Example:  EHS Parents Were Less Likely to Spank Their Children

**47**

**54**

**0**

**10**

**20**

**30**

**40**

**50**

**60**

**Spanked Child ****Last**** Week**

**Program**

**Control**

## The Program Had Positive Effects on Aspects of Parent Self-Sufficiency 

**The Program Had Positive Effects on Aspects of Parent Self-Sufficiency **

- More hours in education and job training
- More employment hours
- No impacts on welfare receipt or income
- Reduced subsequent births

## Consistent Impacts on Participation in Education & Training Programs

**Consistent Impacts on Participation ****in Education & Training Programs**

**Percentage in Education or Training in Quarter **
**After Random Assignment**

***Difference is Significant at the 5% Level**

## No Consistent Impacts on Employment

**No Consistent Impacts on ****Employment**

**Percentage Employed in Quarter **
**After Random Assignment**

***Difference is Significant at the 5% Level**

## The Program Had Beneficial Impacts for Early Head Start Fathers

**The Program Had Beneficial Impacts for Early Head Start Fathers**

- Less spanking
- Less intrusive in interaction with child
- Children of program fathers were more engaged and attentive.

## Family Subgroups

## Early Head Start Serves Many Different Types of Families

**Early Head Start Serves Many ****Different Types of Families**

## Most Types of Families Benefited from EHS Participation

- Pregnant/child born
- Teenage/older mother
- First-born/later-born child
- African American/Hispanic/White
- Number of maternal risk factors (out of 5 possible)

- Single parent
- Teenage mother
- Receiving public assistance
- Neither working nor in school
- No high school diploma or GED

## Most Types of Families Benefited from EHS Participation (cont.)

- At risk/not at risk of depression (subset of research sites)
- Lack high school diploma or GED/higher education
- Employed/in school or training/neither
- Living with spouse/other adults/alone with children
- Receiving AFDC/TANF or not
- Main language English/other
- Girl/boy

## Impacts Were Larger In 3 Groups

- Children and families who enrolled during pregnancy
- African American children and families
- Children and families at moderate levels of demographic risk

## Impacts Were Larger in 3 Groups

**0**

**10**

**20**

**30**

**40**

**50**

**Bayley MDI**

**Child Attention**

**Parent Supportive Presence**

**Enrolled at Pregnancy**

**African American**

**3 Risks**

**Total Sample**

## EHS Did Not Appear to Benefit One Group of Families

**EHS Did Not Appear to Benefit One Group of Families**

- Families with 4 or 5 demographic risks:
- Some negative impacts
- Reduced subsequent pregnancies

## EHS Benefited Some Groups That Have Been Hard to Serve

**EHS Benefited Some Groups That ****Have Been Hard to Serve**

- Teen parents
- Parents at risk for depression when they enrolled in the study

## Program Approaches and Implementing the Head Start Program Performance Standards

## Program Models Fit Community Needs

**Program Models Fit Community Needs**

**	****	****	****	**

**Community Needs Assessment**

**Mixed approach**

**Home-based**

**Center-based**

## All Program Approaches Had Favorable Impacts

- Center-based programs

- Enhanced children’s cognitive and social-emotional development
- Improved some parenting outcomes

- Home-based programs

- Enhanced children’s social-emotional development
- Reduced parenting stress and increased self-sufficiency

- Mixed-approach programs

- Enhanced children’s language and social-emotional development
- Improved wide range of parenting behaviors and increased self-sufficiency

## Implementing Head Start Performance Standards Strengthened Impacts

- Early implementers had strongest pattern of impacts when children were 2
- Early and later implementers affected more types of outcomes when children were 3, including:

- Child outcomes
- Parent-child interactions
- Parenting
- Mental health
- Progress toward economic self-sufficiency

## Strongest Impacts Found in Early-Implemented Mixed Programs

- Child development

- Smaller % with low language scores
- Higher cognitive scores
- Greater engagement of parent
- Greater sustained attention with objects

- Parenting and self-sufficiency

- More supportive presence during the puzzle task
- Higher % read daily to child
- Smaller % suggest physical punishment
- Higher % ever in education and ever worked
- Smaller % with repeat pregnancy

##  Impacts In Early-Implemented Mixed Programs Larger Than Overall Impacts

**0**

**10**

**20**

**30**

**40**

**50**

**Bayley**

**Engagement**

**Daily Reading**

**Ever Employed**

**Early-Mixed**

**Total Sample**

## Conclusions

- Early Head Start was broadly effective across a wide array of outcomes and family subgroups.
- In several subgroups, impacts were larger as well as broad, demonstrating potential focus areas for programs in the future.
- The evaluation points to ways programs can build on a good beginning.

## How Can Early Head Start Build on a Good Beginning?

- Intensify and specialize services for families with greatest risk.
- Provide more intensive services for children in home-based programs and for parents in center-based programs. Learn from the mixed model.
- Begin services early, during pregnancy if possible.
- Implement well and early.

## For More Information...

**For More Information...**

- http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/ehs/ehs_intro.html