®

EARLY HEAD STARTEARLY HEAD START

RE SEA R C H

Findings from the Survey

of Early Head Start Programs:

Communities, Programs,

and Families

Final Report

December 2006

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation
SEHSP

Findings from the Survey of Early Head Start Programs:

Communities, Programs, and Families

December 2006

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation

Administration for Children and Families 

Department of Health and Human Services
This report was prepared for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (DHHS), under Contract 233-02-0086 (04) to Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect 

the views or policies of DHHS, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

Numerous staff at MPR also played critical roles in the research effort. Leonard Hart 

and Yuki Focus patiently revised and tested the web survey over the course of months to 

ensure it ran smoothly and without errors. Rob Samardik and staff at the MPR Survey 

Operations Center manned the helpline, talking many through the intricacies of the web 

survey, and conducted follow-up calls to clarify information. Thomas McCall and Anne 

Bloomenthal skillfully prepared the initial data set and constructed many of the variables. 

Andrew McGuirk and Bonnie Hart were both instrumental in generating a tremendous 

number of analyses and tables in a short amount of time. Patricia Seunarine carefully 

tracked project expenditures. We benefited from an experienced team that conducted site 

visits to programs, including Barbara Schiff Kennen, Emily Sama Martin, Louisa Tarullo, 

and Ellen Kisker. 

Diane Paulsell and Louisa Tarullo provided valuable insights during the review process. 

We are especially grateful to Patricia Ciaccio, who skillfully edited the report. Bryan Gustus 

led its formatting and production, with assistance from Jennifer Baskwell, and a heroic final 

effort from William Garrett. Any remaining errors or omissions are our own. 

We would like to thank the many people who contributed to the successful 

completion of this study and report. We begin with Ellen Kisker, a former MPR 

colleague and arguably one of the foremost experts on the Early Head Start 

program, who began this project and who has remained involved even after leaving MPR. 

Rachel Chazan-Cohen, Senior Research Analyst, Administration for Children and Families, 

and Helen Raikes, Society for Research in Child Development consultant, have provided 

invaluable leadership and vision to shape this effort. Judith Jerald, former Coordinator of 

Early Head Start, guided formation of the policy questions we tried to answer. Our technical 

work group members (listed below) were an invaluable resource in commenting on early 

versions of the survey and site visit protocols. We are grateful also to the program directors 

and T&TA providers who helped us pretest the survey and candidly gave us suggestions for 

its improvement. Lillian Sugarman and her staff at Zero To Three hosted two large 

conference calls to help Early Head Start programs understand the intent of the study and 

particular survey items. This report would have been impossible without the support and 

participation of the 660 Early Head Start respondents that so generously spent their time and 

effort to complete the survey with care and accuracy.
vi

Acknowledgments

Technical Work Group

Jon Korfmacher

Associate Professor

Erikson Institute

Beth Green

Vice President and Senior Research Associate

NPC Research, Inc.

Rich Faldowski

Assistant Professor

Medical University of South Carolina

Carla Peterson

Associate Professor

Iowa State University

Eduardo Armijo

Research Scientist

University of Washington

Dr. Mark Swanson

Executive Director

Partners for Inclusive Communities

Kathleen Hebbeler

Program Manager

SRI International

Kathryn Barnard

Professor Emeritus of Nursing

University of Washington

Tammy Mann

Deputy Director

Zero To Three

Rhodanne Schiller

Early Learning Coordinator

Community Development Institute

Mary Shiffer

Regional Office EHS Liaison

Pennsylvania ACF Regional Office

Lynda Bitner

Regional Office EHS Liaison

Kansas ACF Regional Office

Jana Gifford

Visiting Lecturer of Early Childhood Education

Arkansas Tech University

Christine Sciarrino

Assistant to the President for Research

and Professional Studies

The Clayton Foundation

Helen Raikes

Professor, Family and Consumer Sciences

University of Nebraska—Lincoln

Gloria Murray

Early Head Start Parent

Susan Sprachman

Senior Fellow

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Cheryl Mitchell

Research Professor

University of Vermont

Diane Paulsell

Senior Researcher

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Donna Bryant

Associate Director of FPG and Senior Scientist

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
C ONTENTS

Chapter Page

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................xix

 I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ON EARLY HEAD START........................................................................ 2

Program Impacts and Implementation .................................................................. 2

Performance Measures for Head Start Programs Serving Infants 

and Toddlers ...................................................................................................... 4

OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS ............................. 5

GUIDE TO THE REPORT ................................................................................................. 10

II METHODS........................................................................................................................11

DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................11

Survey Design..........................................................................................................11

Survey Administration............................................................................................12

Sample Frame and Response Rates......................................................................15

Site Visit Protocol Development..........................................................................16

Site Visitor Qualifications and Training ..............................................................16

Site Selection and Procedures During the Visits ................................................16

ANALYTIC APPROACHES ................................................................................................18

Analysis of Survey Data .........................................................................................18

Analysis of Site Visit Data .....................................................................................19
viii

Contents

Chapter Page

III CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS......................................21

THE PROGRAM SETTING................................................................................................21

PROGRAM FUNDING.......................................................................................................23

EARLY HEAD START ENROLLMENT.............................................................................27

EARLY HEAD START FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................34

Population-Level Demographics..........................................................................34

Program-Level Demographics..............................................................................36

Comparison of Program-Level and Population-Level Demographics...........39

Family Risk Factors................................................................................................40

Children with Disabilities ......................................................................................45

KEY POINTS .....................................................................................................................48

IV EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM SERVICES ..............................................................51

EARLY HEAD START SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS ...................................................51

Program Changes Since Inception .......................................................................52

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START SERVICES...........54

Retaining Families...................................................................................................55

Parent Involvement................................................................................................56

Frequency of Home Visits.....................................................................................59

Transitions ...............................................................................................................60

KEY POINTS .....................................................................................................................64

V STAFF CHARACTERISTICS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................................65

EARLY HEAD START STAFF CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................65

Specialists and Coordinators.................................................................................66

Management Staff...................................................................................................67

Frontline Staff .........................................................................................................68

Staff Turnover.........................................................................................................70
ix

Contents

Chapter Page

V (continued)

SUPERVISION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................73

Supervisory Practices and Support.......................................................................73

Training Opportunities..........................................................................................74

PROGRAM SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT..........77

Curricula in Use.......................................................................................................77

Use of Screening and Assessment Instruments .................................................78

Parent and Family Assessments............................................................................79

Child Care Quality Assessments...........................................................................79

Management Information Systems (MIS) and Use of Data .............................80

KEY POINTS .....................................................................................................................82

VI PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS...........................................................................................85

EARLY HEAD START COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................85

PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS ..................................86

PARTNERSHIPS WITH PART C PROVIDERS ...................................................................88

Identifying and Referring Children with Disabilities.........................................90

PARTNERSHIPS WITH HEALTH PROVIDERS .................................................................94

PARTNERSHIPS WITH MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS......................................94

OTHER SCREENING AND REFERRAL SERVICES ..........................................................96

KEY POINTS .....................................................................................................................98

VII EARLY HEAD START SUBGROUP FINDINGS..........................................................101

ANALYTIC APPROACH ..................................................................................................101

Determining Subgroup Differences...................................................................101
x

Contents

Chapter Page

VII (continued)

COMMUNITY CONTEXT SUBGROUPS..........................................................................104

Service Area ...........................................................................................................104

Community Diversity...........................................................................................105

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................106

Program Size..........................................................................................................106

Program Service Approach .................................................................................107

Operates Preschool Head Start...........................................................................109

Serving Pregnant Women....................................................................................109

Caregiver Education.............................................................................................110

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................................110

Demographic and Psychological Risks..............................................................111

Teenage Mothers...................................................................................................112

Developmental Concerns....................................................................................112

Program Diversity.................................................................................................112

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................113

VIII CROSS-CUTTING THEMES AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH........175

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES............................................................................................175

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH........................................................................179

Potential Descriptive Studies ..............................................................................180

Potential Experimental Research........................................................................180

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................183

APPENDIX A: SURVEY OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS ................................A.1

APPENDIX B: EXPANDED DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY DATA 

COLLECTION METHODS ................................................................... B.1

APPENDIX C: PILOT TESTS OF PROGRAM RATING SCALES IN 

EARLY HEAD START SITE VISITS..................................................... C.1

APPENDIX D: SUPPLEMENTAL WEIGHTED TABLES ..............................................D.1
T ABLES

 Table Page

I.1 EARLY HEAD START PERFORMANCE MEASURES FRAMEWORK, OBJECTIVES,

AND MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 7

II.1 DATA SOURCES FOR EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM AND FAMILY 

CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES, BY 

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE ...........................................................................................13

II.2 RESPONSE RATES BY SURVEY METHOD ......................................................................15

II.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROGRAMS SELECTED FOR SITE VISITS................................17

III.1 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS ..................................22

III.2 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM FUNDING..................................................................26

III.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY HEAD START CHILDREN ............................................30

III.4 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM ENROLLMENT..........................................................32

III.5 DEMOGRAPHICS OF EARLY HEAD START FAMILIES: PROGRAM LEVEL ................38

III.6 PREVALENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS 

ACROSS PROGRAMS.........................................................................................................44

III.7 PREVALENCE OF DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS AMONG ALL EARLY HEAD 

START CHILDREN............................................................................................................48

IV.1 PROGRAM MODELS FOR DELIVERING EARLY HEAD START SERVICES ..................53

IV.2 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM SERVICE MODELS AND FREQUENCY OF 

HOME VISITS....................................................................................................................62
xii

Tables

 Table Page

V.1 TYPES OF STAFF IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS................................................66

V.2 QUALIFICATIONS AND EDUCATION OF EARLY HEAD START STAFF ......................67

V.3 EARLY HEAD START STAFF TURNOVER ......................................................................72

V.4 SUPERVISORY PRACTICES AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES IN EARLY 

HEAD START....................................................................................................................74

V.5 USE OF CURRICULA, SCREENERS, AND ASSESSMENTS ...............................................77

V.6 PARENT/FAMILY ASSESSMENTS IN EARLY HEAD START .........................................79

V.7 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM EFFORTS TO ENSURE QUALITY OF 

CHILD CARE.....................................................................................................................80

V.8 USE OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN EARLY 

HEAD START....................................................................................................................81

VI.1 EARLY HEAD START SERVICE REFERRALS..................................................................98

VII.1 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM SUBGROUPS ............................................................102

VII.2 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM SUBGROUP COMPARISONS: 

POINT DIFFERENCES REQUIRED FOR EACH EFFECT SIZE ....................................114

VII.3 SUMMARY OF KEY SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES...........................................................118

VII.4 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

SERVICE AREA...............................................................................................................119

VII.5 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP:

COMMUNITY DIVERSITY ..............................................................................................123

VII.6 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

CHANGE IN COMMUNITY DIVERSITY ........................................................................127

VII.7 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP:

PROGRAM SIZE ..............................................................................................................131

VII.8 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

SERVICE APPROACH .....................................................................................................135
xiii

Tables

 Table Page

VII.9 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

OPERATING PRESCHOOL HEAD START.....................................................................139

VII.10 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

SERVING PREGNANT WOMEN ....................................................................................143

VII.11 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

PRIMARY CAREGIVER EDUCATION............................................................................147

VII.12 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP:

FAMILIES WITH DEMOGRAPHIC RISKS.......................................................................151

VII.13 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: FAMILIES 

WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL RISKS......................................................................................155

VII.14 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

PROPORTION OF TEEN MOTHERS..............................................................................159

VII.15 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

PROPORTION OF CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS .......................163

VII.16 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

MINORITY ENROLLMENT ............................................................................................167

VII.17 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS BY SUBGROUP: 

SERVING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING FAMILIES ........................................................171
F IGURES

 Figure Page

I.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS 

AND TODDLERS................................................................................................................. 6 

I.2 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS, 1996.......................................................................... 9 

I.3 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS, 2005.......................................................................... 9 

III.1 EARLY HEAD START ACTUAL ENROLLMENT, INCLUDING CHILDREN AND 

PREGNANT WOMEN .......................................................................................................29

III.2 RACE/ETHNICITY OF EARLY HEAD START FAMILIES: POPULATION LEVEL........36

III.3 PRIMARY (NON-ENGLISH) LANGUAGE OF EARLY HEAD START FAMILIES: 

POPULATION LEVEL .......................................................................................................37

III.4 PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS SERVING FAMILIES THAT PRIMARILY SPEAK 

A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.........................................................................39

III.5 PREVALENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ACROSS EARLY HEAD START 

PROGRAMS: CONCENTRATION OF FAMILIES WITH EACH RISK FACTOR...............42

III.6 PREVALENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS ACROSS EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS: CONCENTRATION OF FAMILIES WITH EACH 

RISK FACTOR ...................................................................................................................43

III.7 PERCENTAGE OF EARLY HEAD START CHILDREN WITH ANY SUSPECTED 

OR DIAGNOSED DISABILITY, WITHIN PROGRAMS.....................................................46

IV.1 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM MODELS....................................................................54
xvi

Figures

 Figure Page

IV.2 CHANGES TO EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS SINCE INCEPTION,

AMONG PROGRAMS WITH A CHANGE .........................................................................55

IV.3 AVERAGE ENROLLMENT TURNOVER, AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 

PROGRAM ENROLLMENT ...............................................................................................56

IV.4 PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS CONDUCTING EACH ACTIVITY TO 

ENCOURAGE FATHER INVOLVEMENT.........................................................................60

VI.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE PARTNERSHIPS, AMONG EARLY 

HEAD START PROGRAMS WITH FORMAL AGREEMENTS ...........................................88

VI.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PART C PARTNERSHIPS, AMONG EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS WITH FORMAL AGREEMENTS .......................................................90

VI.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AND TREATMENT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.........91

VI.4 STAGE OF EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF DISABILITIES AMONG 

EARLY HEAD START CHILDREN...................................................................................92

VI.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF HEALTH CARE PARTNERSHIPS, AMONG EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS WITH FORMAL AGREEMENTS .......................................................94

VI.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF MENTAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS, AMONG EARLY 

HEAD START PROGRAMS WITH FORMAL AGREEMENTS ...........................................95

VI.7 PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS OFFERING EACH TYPE OF SCREENING ...................96
B OXES

 Box Page

I.1 EARLY HEAD START IMPACTS......................................................................................... 4 

III.1 INTEGRATING EARLY HEAD START AND HEAD START PROGRAMS .......................24

III.2 MANAGING MULTIPLE GRANTS IN EARLY HEAD START .........................................25

III.3 ENROLLMENT CRITERIA IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS ................................. 28

III.4 RECRUITING, ENROLLING, AND SERVING PREGNANT WOMEN .............................31

III.5 EARLY HEAD START FAMILY RECRUITING PRACTICES.............................................33

III.6 RESPECTING FAMILY CULTURE IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS......................35

III.7 ADDRESSING FAMILIES’ SOCIAL SERVICES NEEDS IN EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................................41

III.8 HIGH-RISK FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START............................................................43

III.9 CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS.......................47

IV.1 RETAINING FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START...........................................................57

IV.2 INVOLVING PARENTS IN EARLY HEAD START DECISION-MAKING AND 

PROGRAM OPERATIONS................................................................................................. 58

IV.3 INVOLVING FATHERS IN EARLY HEAD START ...........................................................61

IV.4 TRANSITIONS FROM EARLY HEAD START TO PRESCHOOL.......................................63

V.1 PROVIDING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS ...........69
xviii

Boxes

 Box Page

V.2 CHALLENGES IN HIRING AND RETAINING STAFF IN EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................................71

V.3 SUPPORTING EARLY HEAD START STAFF WITH REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION..........75

V.4 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT 

IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS .............................................................................76

V.5 USING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN EARLY HEAD 

START PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................................82

VI.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE PARTNERSHIPS...................................................87

VI.2 WORKING WITH PARTNERS TO ENSURE QUALITY CHILD CARE IN EARLY 

HEAD START ....................................................................................................................89

VI.3 POSSIBLE IMPEDIMENTS TO EVALUATING REFERRED CHILDREN..........................93
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

As is the case with Head Start, research with a focus on continuous program 

improvement has been incorporated into Early Head Start from the beginning. When the 

program began, Congress mandated a rigorous evaluation—the Early Head Start Research 

and Evaluation Project (EHSREP)—designed to include an implementation study and an 

impact study to inform program improvement and to assess the program’s effects on child 

and family outcomes.1 Following that study, ACF is embarking on a series of descriptive 

studies about Early Head Start. Rapid expansion of the program during the past decade has 

increased the importance of this research. This report contains information from the Survey 

of Early Head Start Programs—the first step of this descriptive research. Beyond the need 

for an updated picture of the Early Head Start program, the Survey of Early Head Start 

Programs was designed to build on the earlier impact and implementation studies to provide 

information to support program improvement in Early Head Start. 

Five main research questions guided the study: 

1. What are the characteristics of Early Head Start programs?

2. Who is served by Early Head Start programs?

3. What services do Early Head Start programs provide?

 1 Throughout this report we reference findings from the national evaluation as the Early Head Start 

Research and Evaluation Project, or EHSREP. We refer to its specific components as the EHSREP 

implementation study and the EHSREP impact study.

Early Head Start is a comprehensive, two-generation federal initiative begun in 1995 

and aimed at enhancing the development of infants and toddlers while strengthening 

families. Designed for low-income pregnant women and for families with infants 

and toddlers 3 years of age or younger, Early Head Start programs, like preschool Head Start 

programs, must comply with the Head Start Program Performance Standards—a set of 

rigorous criteria that are based on best practices identified by a wide range of practitioners 

and researchers (Administration for Children and Families [ACF] 1996). 
xx

Executive Summary

4. How are Early Head Start programs managed and staffed?

5. Do key program subgroups differ in their characteristics? If so, how?

BACKGROUND ON EARLY HEAD START

Early Head Start programs provide a wide range of services, as mandated in the 

comprehensive Head Start Program Performance Standards.2 These include child 

development services, child care, parenting education, case management, health care and 

referrals, and family support. In addition to providing many services directly, programs 

form partnerships with other community service providers as vehicles for delivering some 

services. To ensure that services are of high quality, the performance standards identify 

explicitly what programs must do to meet standards (for example, they specify child:adult 

ratios in child care centers and educational requirements for staff). The standards also define 

four service delivery options that programs can use based on the unique needs of families: 

(1) home-based—families receive weekly home visits and at least two group socializations3

per month, (2) center-based—families receive center-based child care plus other activities, 

(3) combination—families receive both home visits and center experiences, and (4) locally 

designed. A program can choose to deliver one option to all families or different 

combinations to different families, based on the program’s determination of the best mix of 

services for meeting families’ needs.4

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project

In 1996, after the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) funded the 

first Early Head Start programs, and ACYF along with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

(MPR), Columbia University’s Center for Children and Families at Teachers College and the 

Early Head Start Consortium, initiated a rigorous, large-scale program evaluation. The 

study, conducted with 17 Early Head Start programs, included a rigorous impact study 

(ACYF 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002) and an in-depth implementation study (ACYF 2001,

2002). The impact study found that Early Head Start programs had a broad range of effects 

on child and parent outcomes, both when children were 24 months old and when they were 

36 months old (ACYF 2002a). Child outcomes that program participation positively 

affected included health and cognitive, language, and social-emotional development. Among 

 2 We use the term performance standards to refer to the statutory regulations that programs must meet (the 

Head Start Program Performance Standards).

3 Group socializations are opportunities for parents, their children, and Early Head Start staff to meet in 

an informal atmosphere. They allow parents to meet both with Early Head Start staff and with other parents 

to discuss their children’s interests, strengths, and needs.

4 We use the term service option to refer to one of the four methods of service delivery outlined in the 

performance standards. Throughout this report, the terms program approach(es) to service delivery and program model

refer to specific combinations of options programs use to deliver services. Chapter IV is dedicated to a 

thorough examination of current program approaches to service delivery.
xxi

Executive Summary

parents, Early Head Start positively affected parenting behaviors, such as supportiveness for 

children’s emotional and literacy development, as well as indicators of self-sufficiency.

Analyses showed that most groups of families benefited from the program. Impacts 

varied by characteristics of programs, notably their success in implementing the performance 

standards and their approaches to service delivery.5

 Analysis of program-control differences 

within subgroups showed that programs fully implementing key elements of the Head Start 

Program Performance Standards demonstrated the broadest pattern of impacts. All 

approaches achieved favorable impacts, but programs that provided both home- and centerbased services, referred to in that study as “mixed approach” programs, produced a stronger 

pattern of impacts.6 A followup of these children in the spring before kindergarten entry 

found that Early Head Start continued to have positive impacts, mainly in parenting and 

children’s social-emotional development (ACF 2006).

Performance Measures

After the initial results from the EHSREP became available, ACF was in a position to 

develop performance measures that outlined specific programmatic activities and expected 

outcomes for children and families (ACF 2003). Much work had already been done for 

preschool Head Start programs in articulating a comprehensive framework for providing 

quality services, desired outcomes for children, and the mechanisms by which programs 

meet these goals. The effort for programs serving infants and toddlers built upon this 

existing framework (ACF 2003). Specifically, the Performance Measures Framework for 

Head Start Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers (hereafter “performance measures 

framework”) is based on (1) the Head Start Program Performance Standards, which include 

the regulations and rules all programs must follow; (2) the Head Start performance measures 

framework, which identifies mechanisms by which programs will affect preschool children’s 

outcomes; (3) the Statement of the Advisory Committee for Head Start Programs Serving 

Infants and Toddlers (ACF 1994), which provided guidance in developing the new program; 

and (4) findings from the EHSREP.

The performance measures framework, which is structured as a pyramid, rests on a 

foundation of four cornerstones for Early Head Start services articulated by the Advisory 

Committee for Head Start Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers: (1) staff, (2) child, 

(3) family, and (4) community. The framework has four layers, with program management at 

the base supporting a layer representing effective services that in turn bring about positive 

family and child outcomes and ultimately children’s competence (Figure 1). Within each 

layer of the pyramid, blocks represent objectives that include specific performance measures 

 5 The Early Head Start impact study defined three program approaches: home-based, center-based, and 

mixed (providing both home- and center-based options).

6 In this study, we further refine the EHSREP definition of mixed approach into “multiple” approach, in 

which the program primarily offers both home- and center-based services to different families, and 

“combination” approach, in which programs provide home- and center-based services to all families.
xxii

Executive Summary

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers

representing key program goals. Programs maintain high quality by achieving these 

objectives and can then offer effective services to children and families. These services bring 

about positive child and family outcomes that support children’s competence, as the top of 

the pyramid illustrates. The focus of the Survey of Early Head Start Programs is on the two 

bottom layers of the pyramid: management systems and services.

THE SURVEY OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

The Survey of Early Head Start Programs study approach and rationale focused on 

collecting quantitative data on all programs, supplemented in breadth and depth by 

qualitative information on a smaller subset of programs. The first and primary data source is 

the survey, which included a comprehensive set of questions on program management and 

services (Appendix A contains the survey instrument). The second data source is a series of 

site visits to 17 programs to gather in-depth information about implementation. The goal of 

the survey was to take a “snapshot in time” to paint a basic picture of all Early Head Start 

programs. We purposively selected site visit programs to represent a range of characteristics, 

including ACF region, program size, whether programs serve pregnant women, whether 

programs serve children through partnerships with child care providers, ubanicity, recent 

changes in demographics, turnover of program director, and program approach. We 
xxiii

Executive Summary

conducted the site visits to help illuminate and explain survey findings and identify potential 

implementation issues and lessons.

We intended this survey to represent all Early Head Start programs so that descriptions 

would be generalizable. Because we contacted all operating Early Head Start programs and 

obtained a response rate of nearly 90 percent, we are able to generalize our findings to the 

universe of Early Head Start programs.

FINDINGS

Here, we provide a brief summary of our findings in each of the major areas we 

examined: (1) community and family characteristics, (2) program approaches to service 

delivery, (3) program management and staffing, (4) program partnerships, and (5) subgroup 

analyses. We end with a discussion of implications for program planning and 

future research.

Community and Family Characteristics

• Early Head Start programs are equally likely to be located in urban or rural areas. 

Many (42 percent) are in areas of increasing cultural diversity.

• Most (69 percent) Early Head Start programs are run by nonprofit community 

agencies.

• To supplement program services, most (63 percent) Early Head Start programs 

obtain outside funding in addition to the Early Head Start grant. Thus, the 

typical program blends funds and responds to funders other than Early Head 

Start. Programs that do not report receiving outside funds may receive in-kind 

contributions, but we did not ask about those in the survey.

• About one-third of Early Head Start programs are small, serving 50 or fewer 

children and pregnant women; nearly three-quarters serve 100 or fewer. A few 

programs are very large, with enrollment in the hundreds.

• Most (62 percent) Early Head Start children enter the program between birth 

and age 2 and stay until age 3. About 13 percent of children enter the program 

during the prenatal period.

• All programs surveyed maintain a waiting list for enrollment of eligible families 

and prioritize families by their level of need. Most programs are either at 

enrollment capacity or overenrolled.

• Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics make up most of the Early Head 

Start population, although many other races/ethnicities are represented. Threequarters of programs serve some black or Hispanic families. About one-quarter 
xxiv

Executive Summary

of families served speak a language other than English; however, these families 

are distributed across nearly three-quarters of programs.

• Fairly high levels of family risk factors are prevalent across Early Head Start 

programs, in part because programs prioritize the families with greatest needs 

for enrollment. Demographic risk factors include unemployment, single parent, 

and lack of a high school credential. Single parenthood is the most prevalent 

risk factor, although most programs serve families that have three or more 

demographic risk factors, and about 20 percent serve a high concentration 

(more than half of enrollment) of families that have three or more.

• Psychological risk factors include mental health, family violence, or substance 

use issues. When considering the co-occurrence of risk factors, about 

15 percent of programs serve high or very high concentrations (more than half 

of enrollment) of families with two or more psychological risk factors. 

Although programs have a lower prevalence of individual risk factors in their 

enrolled populations when compared with demographic risks, psychological 

risks can present programs with serious service and management challenges.

• More than three-quarters of Early Head Start programs reported that at least 

10 percent of the children they serve have developmental concerns. Nearly 

one-fifth of programs’ enrollments are more than 30 percent children with 

special needs.

• Across the universe of Early Head Start children, 20 percent of all Early Head 

Start children have been referred for evaluation of a suspected disability, and 

many are receiving services (76 percent). Communication disorders and 

developmental delays are the most common types of developmental concerns 

among Early Head Start children.

Program Approaches to Service Delivery

• While programs vary greatly in their approaches to service delivery, most use a 

multiple service delivery model, providing both home- and center-based 

services. Only a few offer both types of services to all their families 

(combination approach).

• Although most programs provide all core services to families directly, 

28 percent provide some Early Head Start center-based services through 

community partners.

• Many programs offer home visits more frequently than the performance 

standards require. Ninety-nine percent of programs providing home-based 
xxv

Executive Summary

services offer them weekly or more often.7 Among programs providing centerbased services though their own centers, nearly half offer home visits twice a 

year (48 percent), and the remaining 51 percent do so more frequently. Notably, 

among programs that provide services through partners, 64 percent offer home 

visits more than twice a year. Among programs that offer family child care 

services 59 percent offer home visits more often than twice per year.

• Considering frequency of home visits within the research definitions of program 

approach, 99 percent of home-based only programs offer weekly home visits 

and 66 percent of center-based only programs offer home visits at least twice a 

year but less than monthly. In multiple approach programs, 99 percent provide 

weekly home visits to home-based families, 52 percent offer home visits at least 

twice a year but less than monthly to center-based families, and 42 percent offer 

home visits at least monthly along with center care. By definition, combination 

programs offer all families center-based care and home visits at least monthly.

• Most programs (65 percent) have transition plans for all children. Generally, 

planning begins when a child reaches age 21⁄2.

Program Management and Staffing

• Nearly all programs (95 percent) have directors and managers with BAs or 

advanced degrees.

• In 47 percent of programs, at least half the home visitors have a BA. Nearly 

half of all programs report that all home visitors they employ have an AA or 

higher. More than two-thirds report that at least half their home visitors have 

an AA or higher.

• Few programs (13 percent) report that all primary caregivers have an AA or 

higher; for 32 percent, the figure is at least half.

• In 17 percent of programs, at least half of primary caregivers have a BA. All 

primary caregivers in center-based programs must have a Child Development 

Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent within one year of hire. Nearly onethird of programs report employing only primary caregivers with at least a CDA.

• Few programs (12 percent) lost their director in the year before the survey, and 

only a handful (5 percent) lost both a director and manager in that period. 

 7 Programs could indicate offering home visits that “varied with family needs,” a category we consider to 

represent home visits at or above the required level. We stress that these are home visits that programs offer to 

families, not necessarily how often the visits are completed.
xxvi

Executive Summary

Turnover rates among primary caregivers and home visitors were higher—

between 20 and 24 percent, on average.

• Programs engage in a variety of supervisory activities with staff members to 

support and guide them. More than 80 percent of programs report using 

reflective supervision with primary caregivers and home visitors. Two-thirds of 

the programs that report using reflective supervision receive outside training or 

assistance to conduct it.

Program Partnerships

• Early Head Start programs are encouraged to develop partnerships with 

community agencies both to improve the quality of services (such as child care) 

as well as to ensure proper linkages between families and other providers. 

Ninety-five percent of programs participate collaborative groups of service 

providers, and of those, 75 percent hold a leadership position. Ninety-two 

percent of programs have at least one formal partnership with a community 

service provider.

• More than 40 percent of programs report having formal child care partnership 

agreements in place, and 30 percent report serving children through them. 

Programs that use partnerships for services are more likely to have partnership 

agreements that include providing payments for services and evaluating quality.

• Nearly all programs have a formal partnership with a Part C provider, and these 

are an important avenue for ensuring that children receive early intervention 

services when needed. Only 4 percent of all Early Head Start children with a 

suspected disability had not yet been referred for further evaluation at the time 

the survey was conducted.

• About two-thirds of children evaluated for early intervention eligibility are 

receiving these services. Only 7 percent of those referred are found ineligible 

for Part C services. Seventeen percent of children referred for evaluation were 

still awaiting it at the time of the survey. Among referred children, 16 percent 

had been evaluated and were found eligible for Part C services but were not 

receiving them at the time of the survey. Children referred for emotional/ 

behavioral or communication disorders were least likely to be receiving services 

and more likely to be awaiting evaluation.

• About three-quarters of programs have partnerships with health care providers; 

more than 80 percent have them with mental health providers.

• One-third of programs have formal partnerships with at least one child care, 

health, and mental health provider.
xxvii

Executive Summary

Program Subgroup Analysis

• By and large, programs differ in mostly expected ways when we examine 

subgroups of community, program, and family characteristics, and we view this 

consistency as a validity check on survey responses. For example, programs in 

urban areas tend to be larger and are more likely to serve minority and high-risk 

populations, and the reverse is true for rural programs. The subgroups with 

most marked differences are those related to service area, program size, and 

program approach.

In this section, we discuss broad themes identified from survey data; in doing so, we 

review key findings, then suggest potential avenues for future research.

Cross-Cutting Themes

Several cross-cutting themes emerge from a broad examination of the survey findings. 

In identifying these themes, we pay special attention to areas of concurrence between the 

survey’s quantitative and qualitative data. We highlight connections that indicate key trends 

and challenges for Early Head Start programs.

Community context, especially urbanicity, is associated to some extent with 

program services and management.

Program Service Models. Although prevalent in all settings, multiple approach 

programs are most likely to be found in suburban areas. Urban programs are more likely 

than suburban and rural ones to follow a center-based approach, while rural programs are 

most likely to implement a home-based model. Program leaders often mentioned efforts to 

meet the needs of local families (for example, by making child care available to parents who 

are working or in school). Program staff also noted such factors as parents’ access to 

transportation, or other limitations in local resources, when choosing a program model.

As we have noted, multiple approach models are most prevalent, more so now than 

when the program was first implemented. As Early Head Start has become more 

established, programs may have begun to offer multiple approaches to service delivery to be 

responsive to the diversity of families and their needs. Programs appear to be individualizing 

their approaches and this may allow them to provide an optimal mix of services to families, 

particularly those with high levels of risk factors.

Staffing. Context may also be linked with program staffing, but the patterns in this 

area are less clear. Suburban programs have home visitors with the highest educational 

credentials (they are the most likely to employ home visitors with an associate’s degree or 

higher), and rural programs are the least likely to do so. Programs in rural areas with limited 

labor pools may find it difficult to identify and hire well-qualified staff. Rural programs, 

perhaps because of their overall smaller size, are also less likely to employ certain types of 

specialists, including those in male involvement, disability, health care, nutrition, mental 

health, and literacy.
xxviii

Executive Summary

Programs in diverse communities described making special efforts to recruit and hire 

staff whose linguistic skills and ethnic background match those of enrolled families. Many 

programs report changes in the race/ethnicity of the populations they serve. For example, 

about one-fifth of programs serving Hispanic families indicated that the enrollment of such

families has increased substantially over the past five years. Such rapid demographic changes 

have implications for the kinds of skills and cultural competencies that staff need.

Early Head Start programs work to serve families at high risk.

Families enrolled in Early Head Start present complex combinations of risk factors. 

Risks include children with identified disabilities, as well as families experiencing numerous 

simultaneous high risk characteristics and events, any one of which could present challenges 

to programs in providing services. Further complicating matters, the risk profile for a 

particular family can change—perhaps rapidly—over time.

Programs that serve many families in acute crisis were more likely to use a multiple 

service approach, suggesting that flexibility in the choice of approach may be important to 

serving them effectively. Further, these programs require staff with the skills and resources 

to cope with hard-to-serve families and deliver Early Head Start services. We might expect 

to see high rates of staff turnover, however, turnover does not differ across programs 

serving many high risk versus fewer high risk families. Evidently, programs have found ways 

to recruit and retain appropriate staff. Given the prevalence of high risk families, and the 

challenges they present, programs serving many such families may need additional support, 

staff training, and technical assistance.

Many Early Head Start programs establish strong connections with other 

service providers, but some links appear to be easier to forge than others.

Many programs have partnerships with Part C agencies, health care providers, and 

mental health providers. Partnerships for child development services are less common, 

however, and most programs provide all such services directly. These patterns suggest that 

Early Head Start programs are especially likely to pursue organizational links that 

complement their own expertise and that offer the potential to address specific unmet family 

needs. It is also possible that creating partnerships for disability, health care, or similar 

services is less complex than establishing links for child development services, because 

programs with child care partnerships bear substantial responsibility for ensuring that such 

services meet performance standards requirements. Site visit interviews suggest that some 

staff view the benefits of building partnerships for child care as seldom worth the time and 

resources required.

Integration of Early Head Start and Head Start services could also be considered a 

process of establishing partnerships, though this often occurs within agencies. A large 

majority of Early Head Start programs operate under the same agency auspices as preschool 

Head Start programs, but not all these programs offer seamless birth-to-5 services. 

Although nearly half the Early Head Start programs visited described their intention to 

integrate their services with preschool Head Start, challenges to creating seamless services 

remain, including (1) imbalances in enrollment levels between Early Head Start and Head 
xxix

Executive Summary

Start programs, (2) addressing staff perceptions that they cannot learn the skills to work with 

older or younger children, and (3) the tension between offering continued services and 

fostering independence of families.

Early Head Start programs face the challenge of adapting to federal and 

state policies regarding whom they serve and employ.

As a government program in which eligibility is based on income, Early Head Start 

features program requirements and eligibility criteria with which agencies receiving funding 

must comply. Under some circumstances, enrollments and transitions can be complicated 

by eligibility criteria. For instance, during site visits, some programs serving teen parents 

indicated that such parents are sometimes classified as “over income” because the income of 

their own parents’ is considered in determination of eligibility. Because of changes in family 

income since their initial enrollment, Early Head Start children ready to transition to 

preschool may not qualify to continue receiving services through Head Start. In such cases, 

alternatives for child care and family services must be identified. Early Head Start agencies 

also take into consideration the eligibility requirements of other programs, such as the Child 

Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Subsidies from CCDF sometimes help fund child 

care slots at a partner center, for instance. Changes in parents’ eligibility for the subsidies 

can affect the stability of a child’s placement and the overall partnership.

Early Head Start programs are also subject to policies regarding minimum qualifications 

for staff. In many cases, however, a gap appears to exist between staff qualification 

requirements and availability of appropriately credentialed applicants. Programs may 

respond by prioritizing higher qualifications for some positions. For example, one possible 

reason that home visitors tend to have higher credentials than primary caregivers is 

programs’ intent to have more qualified people in positions that require greater staff 

independence.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The Survey of Early Head Start Programs has examined the two base levels of the 

performance measures framework—program management and services—and thus offers a 

substantial foundation for future research. Future studies could build on survey findings by 

examining the next layer of the framework—child and family outcomes—and benefit 

practitioners and policymakers both by identifying effective approaches to service delivery 

and program management and by linking services and management practices to family and 

child outcomes.
C HAPTER I 

I NTRODUCTION AND B ACKGROUND

Early Head Start is a comprehensive, two-generation federal initiative begun in 1995 

and aimed at enhancing the development of infants and toddlers while strengthening 

families. Designed for low-income pregnant women and families who have infants 

and toddlers 3 years of age or younger, Early Head Start programs, like preschool 

Head Start programs, must comply with the Head Start Program Performance Standards—a 

rigorous set of criteria that are based on best practices identified by a wide range of 

practitioners and researchers (Administration for Children and Families 1996). 

As is the case with Head Start, research with a focus on continuous program 

improvement has been incorporated into Early Head Start since the inception of the 

program. At the time the program began, Congress mandated a rigorous evaluation 

designed to include an implementation study and an impact study to inform program 

improvement and to assess the program’s effects on child and family outcomes—the Early 

Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP).1

 Following that effort, the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is embarking on a descriptive study of Early 

Head Start, which has grown from 68 programs in 1995 to nearly 750 nationwide. This 

report contains information from the first step of this descriptive research effort—the 

Survey of Early Head Start Programs, which provides information on program management, 

populations served, and services provided. It also answers the following questions: 

1. What are the characteristics of Early Head Start programs?

2. Who is served by Early Head Start programs?

3. What services do Early Head Start programs provide?

4. How are Early Head Start programs managed and staffed?

5. Do key program subgroups differ in their characteristics? If so, how?

 1 Throughout this report we reference findings from the national evaluation as the Early Head Start 

Research and Evaluation Project, or EHSREP. At times, we refer to its specific components as the Early Head 

Start implementation study and the Early Head Start impact study.
2 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

The next section provides a brief description of Early Head Start services, reviews 

previous research findings, and describes the Performance Measures for Head Start 

Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers, which provide the basis for the Survey of Early 

Head Start Programs.

BACKGROUND ON EARLY HEAD START

Early Head Start programs provide a wide range of services, as mandated in the 

comprehensive Head Start Program Performance Standards.2 These include child 

development services, child care, parenting education, case management, health care and 

referrals, and family support. In addition to providing many services directly, programs also 

form partnerships with other community service providers as vehicles for providing some 

services. To ensure that high-quality services are delivered, the performance standards 

identify explicitly what programs must do to meet standards of quality (for example, they 

specify child:adult ratios in child care centers and educational requirements for staff 

providing child care). The standards also define four service delivery options that programs 

can choose for providing services to families based on their unique needs: (1) a home-based 

option—families receive weekly home visits and at least two group socializations3 per 

month, (2) a center-based option—families receive center-based child care plus other 

activities, (3) a combination option—families receive both home visits and center 

experiences, and (4) a locally designed option. A program can choose to deliver one option 

to all families, or different combinations of these options to different families based on the 

program’s determination of the best mix of services for meeting families’ needs.4

Program Impacts and Implementation

Early Head Start’s focus on continuous program improvement reflects the importance 

that Head Start has traditionally placed on this aspect of program development. In 1996, 

after the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) funded the first Early 

Head Start programs, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), together with Columbia 

University’s Center for Children and Families at Teachers College and the Early Head Start 

Research Consortium, conducted a rigorous, large-scale program evaluation. The intent of 

this random assignment study of 17 Early Head Start programs was to inform program 

improvement and assess the effects on child and family outcomes. The EHSREP yielded 

much valuable information on program implementation (ACYF 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002) 

 2 We use the term performance standards to refer to the statutory regulations that programs must meet (the 

Head Start Program Performance Standards).

3 Group socializations are opportunities for parents, their children, and Early Head Start staff to meet in 

an informal atmosphere. They allow parents to meet both with Early Head Start staff and with other parents 

to discuss their children’s interests, strengths, and needs.

4 We use the term service option to refer to one of the four methods of service delivery outlined in the 

performance standards. Throughout this report, the terms program approach(es) to service delivery and program model

refer to specific combinations of options programs use to deliver services. Chapter IV is dedicated to a 

thorough examination of current program approaches to service delivery.
3

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

and program impacts (ACYF 2001, 2002) and also stimulated many other scholarly papers, 

conference presentations, books, and local site-level studies.

The implementation study provided much-needed information on how these first 

programs began serving families and how services evolved (ACYF 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 

2002) and was useful for policy development and technical assistance efforts. That study 

examined program implementation and demonstrated that 5 of the programs were early 

implementers (judged to be fully implemented after two years of serving families), while 

12 were not. Of these 12, more than half (7 programs) were fully implemented two years 

later, the remaining 5 did not achieve full implementation within the study period, the first 

3 years of serving families. At the outset, the number of programs with home-based, centerbased, and mixed (different combinations of home- and center-based) approaches was 

balanced. After two years, only 2 of the programs were still completely home-based; while 

11 had begun providing a mixture of home- and center-based services.

The impact study found that Early Head Start programs had a broad range of positive 

effects on child and parent outcomes, both when children were 24 months old and when 

they were 36 months of age (ACYF 2002a). Child outcomes positively affected by program 

participation included children’s health and cognitive, language, and social-emotional 

development. Among parents, Early Head Start positively affected parenting behaviors, 

such as supportiveness for children’s emotional and literacy development, as well as 

indicators of self-sufficiency. Impact analyses showed that most groups of families benefited 

from the program. The evaluation team defined 29 subgroups based on family 

characteristics at enrollment and program characteristics (for example, race/ethnicity, 

maternal age, maternal depression, and so on) and found positive impacts for 28 of the 

29 subgroups, although the pattern and magnitude of the impacts varied by group. Program 

impacts varied by characteristics of programs, notably their success in implementing the 

performance standards and their approaches to service delivery.5

 The embedded 

implementation study provided a framework for rating the level and timing of program 

implementation (early, later, and incomplete implementers based upon information gathered 

on in-depth site visits). Analysis of program-control differences within subgroups showed 

that programs fully implementing key elements of the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards in the evaluation period demonstrated the broadest pattern of impacts. All 

program approaches achieved favorable impacts, but programs that provided both homeand center-based services, referred to as “mixed approach” programs, produced a stronger 

pattern of impacts. A followup of these children in the spring prior to kindergarten entry 

found that Early Head Start continued to have positive impacts, mainly in the areas of 

children’s social-emotional development and parenting (ACF 2006). Box I.1 provides 

further detail about program impacts from EHSREP.

 5 The Early Head Start impact study defined three program approaches: home-based, center-based, or 

mixed (providing both home- and center-based options).
4 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

Performance Measures for Head Start Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers

After the initial results from the EHSREP became available, ACF was in a position to 

develop performance measures that outlined specific programmatic activities and expected 

outcomes for children and families (ACF 2003). Much work had already been done for 

preschool Head Start programs in articulating a comprehensive framework for providing 

quality services, desired outcomes for children, and the mechanisms by which programs 

meet these goals. The effort for programs serving infants and toddlers built upon this 

existing framework (ACF 2003). Specifically, the Performance Measures Framework for 

Head Start Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers (hereafter “performance measures 

framework”) is based on (1) the Head Start Program Performance Standards, which include 

BOX I.1

EARLY HEAD START IMPACTS

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project was a comprehensive and rigorous study of 

Early Head Start, beginning at its inception in 1995. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., along with 

partners at Columbia University and the Early Head Start Consortium, conducted the impact study, 

including random assignment of 3,001 families in 17 programs to either Early Head Start or a control 

group (ACYF 2001, 2002). Families were followed over time, with data collected when children were 14, 

24, and 36 months of age, and finally at approximately age 5 (when children were in their prekindergarten 

year). In addition to direct child assessments, parent information, and videotaped semistructured parentchild interactions, were collected. By the time children were 3 years old, the Early Head Start program 

group had experienced modest positive impacts across a broad range of child and parent outcomes. 

Overall, program children performed better on measures of cognition, language, health, and socialemotional functioning compared with control group children. Further, parents in the program group 

showed more support than control parents for their child’s development (emotional, cognitive, and 

language). The programs had some impacts on self-sufficiency as well: program parents were more likely 

to be in school or job training. Within 29 subgroups based on family characteristics, such as race/ 

ethnicity and number of risk factors, African American families, those enrolling during pregnancy, and 

families with a moderate number of demographic risks benefited most from the program, and all 

subgroups showed some positive impacts, with the exception of children from families with the most risk 

factors. Programs that fully implemented the Head Start Program Performance Standards and programs 

that offered both home- and center-based services (termed mixed approach) had the largest impacts.

At approximately age 5 (two years after the program ended and children were in their 

prekindergarten year), the evaluation team once again gathered information from study children and

families (ACF 2006). The team found significant favorable impacts of the program on children’s socialemotional development, specifically behavior problems and approaches toward learning. There were no 

impacts on behavior in play with a parent. For language outcomes, we found significantly better receptive 

vocabulary among Spanish-speaking children, although not native English speakers. There were no 

impacts on children’s academic skills. The Early Head Start program group was also significantly more 

likely to be in a formal child care program in their prekindergarten year. Among parents, Early Head Start 

continued to have positive impacts on support for children’s learning (including daily reading, home 

environment, and teaching activities). There was no impact on other parenting behaviors, although there 

was a decreased risk of maternal depression (a new impact at prekindergarten). Impacts within subgroups 

continued to show sustained impacts from 36 months, and positive impacts for the highest demographic 

risk group emerged. Program implementation no longer showed differences in impacts, but program 

approach did. However, at prekindergarten, home-based rather than mixed approach programs had the 

strongest impacts. 
5 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

the regulations and rules all programs must follow; (2) the Head Start Performance 

Measurement Framework, which identifies mechanisms by which programs will affect 

preschool children’s outcomes; (3) the Statement of the Advisory Committee for Head Start 

Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers (ACF 1994), which provided guidance in developing 

the new program; and (4) findings from the EHSREP. 

MPR guided the process of developing performance measures for Early Head Start 

(ACF 2003). The process was lengthy and included regular meetings of an internal working 

group of federal staff, followed by consultation with the Early Head Start Technical Work 

Group (consisting of experts in the field, including Early Head Start staff and parents) 

and focus groups with program staff, parents, regional office staff, and technical 

assistance providers. 

What emerged from this process was a conceptual framework for programs serving 

families with infants and toddlers (Figure 1.1). Structured as a pyramid, the framework rests 

on a foundation of four cornerstones for Early Head Start services articulated by the 

Advisory Committee for Head Start Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers: (1) staff, 

(2) child, (3) family, and (4) community. The framework has four layers, with program 

management at the base supporting a layer representing effective services that in turn bring 

about positive family and child outcomes and, ultimately, children’s competence. Within 

each layer of the pyramid, blocks represent objectives that include specific performance 

measures representing key program goals (Figure I.1 illustrates the pyramid and objectives; 

Table I.1 lists specific performance measures within each objective). For example, the four 

objectives of the management systems layer are (1) to support staff to work effectively with 

parents and children, (2) to create child development environments, (3) to involve parents, 

and (4) to develop strong community partnerships. Programs maintain high quality by 

achieving these objectives and can then offer effective services to children and families. The 

services layer has three key objectives: (1) providing children with individualized services, 

(2) developing relationships with parents and children, and (3) linking children and families 

to community services. These services bring about positive child and family outcomes that 

support children’s competence (the ultimate goal, at the top of the pyramid). Our focus in 

this research is on the two bottom layers of the pyramid: management systems and services. 

Chapter II describes our approach to operationalizing the performance measures—that is, 

creating precise statements about how performance measures are being implemented by 

programs, based on their responses to survey questions.6

OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY OF EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

The Survey of Early Head Start programs is the first step in a planned series of 

descriptive studies about Early Head Start. Rapid expansion of the program over the past 

decade has increased the importance of this research. Since its inception in 1995, Early 

 6 We use the term performance measures to refer to specific practices and activities that have been identified 

to achieve the best outcomes for children. This is distinct from the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards. 
6 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

Figure I.1. Conceptual Framework for Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers

 

Head Start has grown from 68 programs to nearly 750 (figures I.2 and I.3). Beyond the need 

for an updated picture of the Early Head Start program, the Survey of Early Head Start 

Programs was designed to build upon the earlier impact and implementation studies to 

provide information to support program improvement in Early Head Start. As described 

earlier, child and family outcomes varied by program approach and implementation. 

The Survey of Early Head Start Programs study approach and rationale focused on 

collecting quantitative data on all programs, supplemented in breadth and depth by 

qualitative information on a smaller subset of programs. The first and primary data source is 

the survey, which included a comprehensive set of questions on program management and 

services (Appendix A contains the survey instrument). The second data source is a series of 

site visits to 17 programs to gather in-depth information about implementation. The goal of 

the survey was to take a “snapshot in time” and paint a basic picture of all Early Head Start 

programs. We conducted the site visits to help illuminate and explain survey findings and 

identify potential implementation issues and lessons. 

We developed the survey items to produce clear and quantifiable performance measures 

in the two foundation layers of the conceptual framework: management systems and 

services. Operationalizing and measuring these performance indicators sets the stage for 

later analyses of programs’ progress toward and achievement of the desired outcomes shown 

in the pyramid. 
7 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

Table I.1. Early Head Start Performance Measures Framework, Objectives, and Measures

Management Systems: Processes for Improvement

Programs are well managed operationally and financially.

Programs design and implement services to be responsive to the needs of families in 

the community.

Programs conduct self-assessments that are used for continuous improvement.

Management Systems: Support Staff

Programs employ qualified staff with the skills necessary to provide high-quality services.

Programs support ongoing staff development, training, and mentoring.

Programs support staff activities through ongoing reflective supervision.

Programs promote staff retention and continuity.

Management Systems: Relationships with Community Partners

Programs form partnerships with other community programs and organizations to support an 

integrated community-wide response to the needs of families with young children.

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with local Part C agencies.

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with community child care providers to meet 

the needs of families and enhance the quality of local child care services through the sharing of 

resources, training, and knowledge.

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with local health agencies and health care 

providers to meet the health-related needs of families.

Management Systems: Involving Parents

Parents are involved actively in program planning and decision making.

Programs encourage and support fathers’ involvement in program planning, decision making, 

and activities.

Program Services: Linking to Community Services

Programs work collaboratively with families to identify their goals, strengths, and needed services 

and offer them opportunities to develop and implement individualized family partnership 

agreements that take into account other family plans.

Programs link parents with social service agencies to obtain needed services.

Programs link parents with educational and employment agencies to obtain needed services.

Programs link parents with physical and mental health care prevention and treatment services to 

obtain needed care.

Programs link parents with needed prenatal care and education services.

Programs help parents secure high quality child care in order to work, attend school, or gain 

employment training.

Programs help parents and children make a smooth transition to Head Start or other preschool 

programs.
8 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

Table I.1 (continued)

Program Services: Responsive and Caring Relationships with Parents and Children

Staff form respectful and supportive relationships with parents through all aspects of service 

delivery.

Staff form nurturing relationships with children in group-care settings or during home visits.

Programs support and honor the home cultures and languages of families.

Program Services: Provide Children with Individualized Services

Programs provide developmentally enriching educational environments in group-care settings 

and developmentally enriching parenting and child development services during home visits and 

group socializations.

Programs link children with needed medical, dental, and mental health services.

Programs link pregnant women with comprehensive prenatal health care and education.

Programs provide children in group-care settings with meals and snacks that meet their daily 

nutritional needs, and parents receiving home-based services are given information about 

meeting their children’s nutritional needs.

Programs provide individualized services for parents and children, including children 

with disabilities.
9 

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

Figure I.2. Early Head Start Programs, 1996

Source: Program Information Report, 1996.

Figure I.3. Early Head Start Programs, 2005

Source: Program Information Report, 2006.
10

Chapter I: Introduction and Background

GUIDE TO THE REPORT

Throughout this report, we present key survey findings and supplement them with 

qualitative information collected during site visits. Illustrative information from the site 

visits is highlighted in text boxes. Although by necessity we describe the performance 

measures framework in a linear fashion, the reality of Early Head Start program operation is 

dynamic. Elements at the bottom of the pyramid influence those above them, but the same 

is true in reverse. Changes in needs of families served may result in changes in services that 

require changes in management. Therefore, we organized the report to provide information 

in a way that allows the reader to understand the context in which programs operate and the 

people they serve, how programs provide services, how they are staffed and managed, and 

how they work with community partners. We also explore differences by program 

subgroups and sidebar text boxes on special topics in each chapter. The rest of this report is 

organized as follows:

• Chapter II details the survey and site visit methodologies.

• Chapter III describes programs, their communities, and enrolled families.

• Chapter IV describes program services and ways that programs engage families 

in them.

• Chapter V outlines programs’ management practices, including staff characteristics and training.

• Chapter VI describes program partnerships with community agencies and the 

services provided through them.

• Chapter VII describes program subgroups and key differences among them.

• Chapter VIII identifies cross-cutting themes, implications, and next steps 

for research.

We end each chapter with a summary of key findings. In addition to the information 

above, the appendixes provide detail on the findings in the main body of the report. 

Appendix A contains the complete survey instrument; Appendix B describes survey 

methodology in detail, focusing on how we obtained high response rates. Appendix C 

provides descriptive information on two instruments piloted during the site visits, including 

staff reactions to them. Appendix D presents supplemental tables with weighted data.
C HAPTER I I

M ETHODS

DATA COLLECTION

In this section, we describe our approaches to data collection, beginning with designing 

and administering the survey, identifying a sample frame, and calculating response rates. 

Next we discuss developing site visit protocols, selecting a subset of sites to visit, and 

conducting the site visits.

Survey Design

The Survey of Early Head Start Programs is intended to supplement and extend the 

primary administrative data source for Early Head Start programs, the annual Program 

Information Report (PIR).1 Thus, we replicate or modify some basic PIR items about 

program characteristics and families. Items for the survey can also serve as pilots for future 

revisions of the PIR. One important divergence from the PIR is our use of a common 

reference period (program status as of January 1, 2005) to capture a “snapshot in time” of 

program enrollment and service delivery activities. In addition, the survey is the first 

instrument designed specifically to collect data from programs serving infants and toddlers, 

so it goes beyond the PIR in asking detailed questions about program management, services, 

 1 The PIR is a web-based survey that all Head Start and Early Head Start programs must complete 

annually. It includes basic administrative data, such as enrollment counts, numbers of children served through 

service options, and staff education and credentials. Programs may submit their reports at any time between 

May 15 and August 31. Programs do not use a common date for enrollment counts; rather, they provide endof-month enrollment for three months (November, February, and April). If a program is not operating in one 

or more of these months, it reports enrollment for an alternate month.

For this study, we aimed to collect data from the complete universe of Early Head Start 

programs funded at the time of the survey and to supplement our quantitative survey 

data with qualitative information collected during in-depth site visits to a subset of 

programs. The high response rate we achieved on the survey allows us to generalize our 

survey findings to all Early Head Start programs. The site visits to a subset of programs 

provided rich data that helped us interpret the survey findings and develop hypotheses about 

why programs follow particular management or staffing patterns. In this chapter, we 

describe our approach to both survey and site visit data collection and analysis. 
12

Chapter II: Methods

and staffing specific to these programs. The survey questions focus primarily on community 

and family characteristics, partnership activities, assessment strategies, and children 

with disabilities.

In addition to collecting basic information about the characteristics of grantees and 

enrolled families, we designed our survey to address performance measures contained in the 

two bottom layers of the performance measures framework described in Chapter I—

management systems and services (Figure I.1). We developed survey items to measure 

implementation of as many of the performance measures as possible in the management 

systems and services layer. Table II.1 displays the specific performance measures, organized

by performance objectives in the conceptual framework (Figure I.1) along with the data 

sources we used to collect information on the implementation of each measure. (The 

complete survey is in Appendix A.)

During the survey development process, we consulted with an internal project team 

consisting of MPR staff, federal staff, and consultants. This team and the Technical Work 

Group (TWG), whose members represented diverse areas of expertise regarding Early Head 

Start programs and early childhood education, provided feedback on early versions of the 

instrument. This group collaborated to develop the survey instrument—a process that, 

because of the complexity of the domains to be measured, took one year to complete. 

Appendix B gives a complete description of the survey development process.

Survey Administration

To maximize response rates, we fielded the survey through multiple modes. Because in 

focus groups Early Head Start staff indicated preference for a web-based interface, we 

developed both a web and a paper-and-pencil version and gave respondents their choice. 

We mailed them an individualized login and password for accessing the web version, as well 

as a copy of the paper-and-pencil version. Data collection ran from February 2005 to early 

July 2005, with web and paper modes occurring simultaneously.

We used several strategies to encourage high response: a comprehensive series of 

advance mailings, endorsement letters from federal Head Start officials, informational 

conference calls hosted by the Early Head Start National Resource Center at Zero To Three, 

a seven-day-a-week help desk (available by email and toll-free telephone), and periodic 

reminder emails. We contacted programs that did not complete either self-administered 

form and invited them to complete a partial interview by telephone.2

 2 For the telephone version, we selected the most important questions and asked programs to respond 

only to this abbreviated set of items in hopes of collecting at least partial data from as many programs as 

possible. Telephone surveys were completed by trained telephone interviewers who entered data directly into 

the web survey. 
13

Chapter II: Methods

Table II.1. Data Sources for Early Head Start Program and Family Characteristics and 

Performance Measures, by Performance Objective

Data Element

Data Source

Survey Site Visit

A. Grantee Characteristics

Program approach X 

Program size X 

Program sites X 

Years in operation X 

B. Characteristics of Families Served

Enrollment criteria X 

Recruiting approaches X 

Characteristics of families and children served X X 

Families’ needs X 

Enrollment turnover X X 

C. Management Systems: Processes for Improvement

Programs comply with Head Start regulations. (Not assessed)

Programs are well managed operationally and financially.

– Use of MIS

– Leadership

– Communications

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Programs design and implement services to be responsive to the needs of families 

in the community. X 

Programs conduct self-assessments that are used for continuous improvement. X 

D. Management Systems: Support Staff

Programs employ qualified staff with the skills necessary to provide 

high-quality services. X 

Programs support ongoing staff development, training, and mentoring. X X 

Programs support staff activities through ongoing reflective supervision. X X 

Programs promote staff retention and continuity. X 

E. Management Systems: Relationships with Community Partners

Programs form partnerships with other community programs and organizations 

to support an integrated community-wide response to the needs of families with 

young children. X X 

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with local Part C agencies. X X 

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with community child care 

providers to meet the needs of families and enhance the quality of local child care 

services through the sharing of resources, training, and knowledge. X X 

Programs form partnerships and coordinate services with local health agencies and 

health care providers to meet the health-related needs of families. X X 
14

Chapter II: Methods

Table II.1 (continued)

Data Element

Data Source

Survey Site Visit

F. Management Systems: Involving Parents

Parents are actively involved in program planning and decision making. X X 

Programs encourage and support fathers’ involvement in program planning, 

decision making, and activities. X X 

G. Program Services: Linking to Community Services

Programs work collaboratively with families to identify their goals, strengths, 

and needed services, and offer them opportunities to develop and implement 

individualized family partnership agreements that take into account other 

family plans. X 

Programs link parents with social services agencies to obtain needed services. X X 

Programs link parents with educational and employment agencies to obtain 

needed services. X 

Programs link parents with physical and mental health care prevention and 

treatment services to obtain needed care. X 

Programs link parents with needed prenatal care and education services. X 

Programs help parents secure high-quality child care in order to work, attend 

school, or gain employment training. X 

Programs help parents and children make a smooth transition to Head Start or 

other preschool programs. X X 

H. Program Services: Responsive and Caring Relationships with Parents and Children

Staff form respectful and supportive relationships with parents through all aspects 

of service delivery. X 

Staff form nurturing relationships with children in group-care settings or during 

home visits. X 

Programs support and honor the home cultures and languages of families. X 

I. Program Services: Provide Children with Individualized Services

Programs provide developmentally enriching educational environments in groupcare settings and developmentally enriching parenting and child development 

services during home visits and group socializations. (Not assessed)

Programs link children with needed medical, dental, and mental health services. X X 

Programs link pregnant women with comprehensive prenatal health care 

and education. X X 

Programs provide children in group-care settings with meals and snacks that meet 

their daily nutritional needs, and parents receiving home-based services are given 

information about meeting their children’s nutritional needs. (Not assessed)

Programs provide individualized services for parents and children, including 

children with disabilities. X X 
15

Chapter II: Methods

Sample Frame and Response Rates

Our intention was to take a census of the universe of Early Head Start programs 

operating in late 2004/early 2005. We developed a sample frame from the most recently 

available PIR data by extracting grantee and delegate identification numbers, selected 

program characteristics, and contact information. Using these PIR data, we selected Early 

Head Start programs (not Head Start) and only those providing services directly, excluding 

grantees that provided services only through delegates.3 We refer to all respondents to the 

survey as “programs.” This process resulted in a sample frame of 748 programs.

We obtained a response rate of 89 percent, receiving survey responses from 

660 programs.4 This rate includes partially completed surveys. Respondents clearly 

preferred the web interface, with nearly two-thirds responding in that way. Twenty percent 

returned paper copies, and the rest completed the survey by telephone (Table II.2). 

Appendix B presents a detailed description of our methods for fielding the survey and 

creating final data files.

Table II.2. Response Rates by Survey Method

Number of 

Programs

Percentage of 

Responding 

Programs

Percentage of 

All Programs

Survey Mode

Web 479 72.6 64.0

Paper 148 22.4 19.8

Telephone 33 5.0 4.4

All Responding Programs 660 100 88.2

Nonrespondents

Ineligiblea 7 –– 0.9

No contact/refused 81 –– 10.8

Total Sample Size (Programs) 748 100

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs and 2004–2005 Program Information Report.

a

These programs lost their federal Early Head Start grants and discontinued service provision 

during the field period.

 3 A grantee agency is one that receives federal funding to operate an Early Head Start program. A delegate is 

a program that provides Early Head Start services. Some grantees provide Early Head Start services directly; 

others provide services only indirectly, through delegates.

4 This figure excludes seven programs that were deemed “ineligible” because they lost their Early Head 

Start funding at some point during the field period. If we include these seven programs in the denominator, 

the response rate falls to 88 percent.
16

Chapter II: Methods

Site Visit Protocol Development

We designed our site visits to provide in-depth, rich information about program 

organization, services, and staff through semistructured interviews with staff and two focus 

group discussions—one with staff and one with parents. We developed the site visit 

interview guides using an approach similar to the one we used for the survey. Working from 

the Early Head Start performance measures framework, we identified areas of interest for indepth exploration beyond or in addition to what we could learn from the survey alone. We 

created protocols for specific types of program staff—the director and staff members in five 

different specialty areas (community partnerships, early childhood education, family 

involvement, health and disabilities, and home visiting). We discussed a core set of 

questions with multiple staff members, but each protocol also included specific items 

relevant to particular specialty areas. We also created separate focus group discussion guides 

for Early Head Start center teachers, home visitors, and parents. During the development 

process, we consulted with other MPR staff, our ACF project officer, outside consultants, 

and TWG members.

Interview topics covered the five major program areas described in the survey but in 

much greater depth and detail (Table II.1). In addition, we gave special attention to staff 

views on program leadership, the extent of Early Head Start’s integration with Head Start, 

strategies for serving high-risk families, the use of management information systems and data, 

and partnership arrangements, especially child care partners.

Site Visitor Qualifications and Training

A team of MPR staff conducted the site visits between October 2005 and early February 

2006. These people had extensive experience in conducting site visits, and many had visited 

Early Head Start programs for other studies. To ensure that all visitors would be well 

prepared to carry out the interviews and focus groups, MPR conducted a day-long training in 

September 2005. The session included briefings on the study’s background and objectives, a 

review of the interview protocols, and extensive discussion about the research questions and 

the intent of specific items. We provided all site visitors with training materials that included 

descriptions of procedures, suggested talking points to use when contacting programs to set 

up the visits, copies of the interviews and group discussion guides, and supplementary 

information on Early Head Start. We also held weekly team meetings to discuss the visits 

and resolve issues and questions that had come up in the field.

Site Selection and Procedures During the Visits

To ensure that we could address questions of interest, we purposively selected sites to 

visit based on the following eight characteristics: (1) ACF region, (2) program size, 

(3) whether the programs served pregnant women, (4) whether they served children through 

partnerships with community child care providers, (5) urbanicity, (6) whether the programs 

had experienced recent changes in demographics, (7) whether they had experienced recent 

turnover in the program director, and (8) program approach. We used data from survey 

responses to categorize the programs according to these characteristics, then we selected 
17

Chapter II: Methods

programs to ensure the greatest diversity possible along each dimension and across 

combinations of dimensions (Table II.3).5

Table II.3. Characteristics of Programs Selected for Site Visits

Characteristic Number of Programs

Region 1 1

Region 2 2

Region 3 2

Region 4 2

Region 5 2

Region 6 1

Region 7 2

Region 8 2

Region 9 1

Region 10 1

Region 11 1

Serves Fewer than 50 Children and Pregnant Women 6

Serves 50 or More Children and Pregnant Women 11

Serves Pregnant Women 14

Does Not Serve Pregnant Women 3

Has Child Care Partner 11

Does Not Have Child Care Partner 6

Serves Children Through Child Care Partners 5

Does Not Serve Children Through Child Care Partners 12

Urban Area 9

Non-urban Area 8

Change in Enrollee Race/Ethnicity

Increase in Hispanic enrollment 4

No change/do not have Hispanic enrollment 13

Director Turnover During Past Year 1 

Program Approach

Home-based 4

Center-based 4

Both home- and center-based 9

Sample Size (Programs) 17

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

 5 Before contacting programs, our project officer verified that they were in good standing and notified 

regions of our intent to contact (unnamed) programs in their area. We guaranteed anonymity to participating 

programs and therefore offer only very general information about this sample.
18

Chapter II: Methods

We contacted the selected programs and asked the director or a staff person to help us 

set up interviews with appropriate staff members and recruit teachers, home visitors, and 

parents to participate in focus groups. Site visits took two days to complete. To increase 

participation, we gave each program a $20 Barnes and Noble gift card; parents received a 

$20 incentive for participating in the focus groups.

ANALYTIC APPROACHES

This section provides a brief description of our data preparation procedures and the 

analysis of survey data. We follow with a description of our approach to coding and analysis 

of the qualitative data we obtained in site visits.

Analysis of Survey Data

Before beginning analysis, we thoroughly prepared the data obtained from the survey. 

An advantage of the web survey was that there were some built-in data checks, including 

restricting the range of responses, and screens that alerted respondents to inconsistent 

answers.6,7 We applied variable names and labels to all items and created a program that 

checked all skip patterns (inserting a logical skip code when items were missing for 

that reason).

To analyze the data, we computed descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means. 

We created some key constructs for purposes of aggregating programs (for example, 

categories to describe program service approaches and demographics of enrollees—

described in later chapters). We answer the research questions posed in Chapter I that 

center on the first two layers of the conceptual framework. These include characteristics of 

programs, families served, services provided, and program management using descriptive 

statistics of overall program characteristics. We answer questions about differences among 

program subgroups by creating categories of programs to compare characteristics 

across programs.

We intended this survey to represent all Early Head Start programs so that descriptions 

would be generalizable. Because we contacted all Early Head Start programs in operation 

and obtained a response rate of nearly 90 percent, we are able to generalize our findings to 

the universe of Early Head Start programs. For the same reason, we are also able to detect 

small differences between subgroups. To reduce any potential for nonresponse bias, we 

computed an adjustment factor based on information we knew about all programs from the 

PIR. To calculate the weights, we used program size, location in a metropolitan statistical 

area (MSA), agency size, and agency type. Respondents did not differ from nonrespondents, 

 6 For example, one data check was that applicable responses using percentages should total 100.

7 An example is in Survey Section A (see Appendix A). Total child enrollment is reported in item A4C, 

and if the number of children reported in item A5D did not match, an alert screen would appear and ask 

respondents to check their answers. These alert screens were placed strategically and only at key places so as to 

minimize time and burden on respondents.
19

Chapter II: Methods

except that the latter were more likely to be from an MSA (78 percent versus 65 percent, 

p < .05). We then used this factor as a weight in our analysis to allow projections to the full 

population versus only the sample that responded. Weighted and unweighted data are nearly 

identical, and therefore we report unweighted data in the body of the report and include 

tables of weighted data in Appendix D. We use weighted data for subgroup analyses to 

avoid the possibility that response rates differ across subgroups (something we cannot assess 

for nonrespondents, because for those programs we do not have the survey data that we 

used to create the subgroups). We did however compare responding and nonresponding 

programs on other characteristics from the PIR, including number of children, pregnant 

women, and children with disabilities, and found no significant differences between groups.

Analysis of Site Visit Data

To ensure the quality of site visit data, we developed a structured site visit report 

template and subjected all reports to a quality control review before coding and analysis. We 

used a qualitative analysis software package, Atlas.ti (Scientific Software Development 2004), 

to organize and synthesize the large amount of data collected during the site visits. This 

software enabled research team members to use a structured coding scheme for organizing 

and categorizing data that are linked to the primary research questions. After the site reports 

were coded, we used Atlas.ti to conduct searches and retrieve data on our research questions 

and subtopics. Findings from the qualitative data are presented mainly as general 

descriptions of common program features; in some cases, we identify particularly interesting 

or unique features to use as examples. In contrast to the survey findings, our site visit 

findings are not generalizable to all programs. They do, however, provide rich information 

on a subset of programs and may provide clues to help us understand better why programs 

organize themselves differently and how various systems operate.
C HAPTER III

C HARACTERISTICS OF

E ARLY H EAD S TART P ROGRAMS

THE PROGRAM SETTING

Early Head Start programs individualize their services precisely because they serve a 

broad range of communities, as families in different communities have different needs. 

Population Density. Early Head Start operates in a broad range of settings, from rural 

to urban and suburban. Some agencies operate programs in more than one type of setting, 

such as one in an urban area, and other satellite or delegate program in an outlying rural area. 

Early Head Start programs are roughly evenly divided between primarily urban (45 percent) 

and primarily rural (42 percent) service areas (Table III.1). Ten percent operate in mainly 

suburban areas. Only a handful (2 percent) operate in service areas with a fairly equal mix of 

two or more categories.

D ocumenting the key characteristics of Early Head Start programs, their 

communities, and enrolled families is important for understanding how programs 

operate. This chapter describes the context of Early Head Start programs and the 

families they serve. We begin by describing the settings in which programs operate—

including community factors such as urbanicity, cultural diversity, agency auspices, affiliation 

with a Head Start program, and funding sources agencies use to provide Early Head Start 

services. We then describe program enrollment, recruitment practices, and basic 

demographic characteristics of Early Head Start families, and follow with discussion of 

specific target populations that programs serve, including the extent to which programs 

serve high-risk families and children with disabilities. In this chapter, we use findings from 

survey data in two ways. First, we describe program-level data from the survey of all 

programs (for example, the percentage of programs serving families with particular 

attributes). Second, we describe some data at the enrolled population level (the percentage 

of all Early Head Start families with particular attributes). We use pull-out text boxes to 

describe program and family characteristics based on site visit data from 17 selected 

programs.
22

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Table III.1. Key Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Service Area

Mainly urban 45.2

Mainly rural 42.0

Mainly suburban 9.5

Mixed 2.3

Other 0.9

Number of Program Centersa 

Single 35.8

Multiple 64.2

Community Diversity

High 18.9

Moderate 41.2

Low 39.9

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 42.3

Stayed the same 56.3

Decreased 1.4

Agency Nonprofit Status

Private nonprofit 68.7

Public agency 28.0

Private for-profit 1.8

Other 1.5

Program Auspices

Community agency 69.7

School 9.9

Government agency 5.8

Tribal government 4.4

University 3.5

Hospital or health care provider 3.4

Other 3.4

Program Operates Own Preschool Head Start 81.6

Sample Size (Programs) 461–657b 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Does not include family child care or home-based services.

b

Most questions have sample sizes over 640. Number of Program Centers has a sample size of 

461 because it includes only programs that operate an Early Head Start Center.
23

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Number of Centers or Sites. About two-thirds of programs operate multiple Early 

Head Start centers or sites. Programs usually define their service areas by county lines 

(67 percent), although some use school districts, zip codes, or neighborhoods (not shown). 

Some programs (24 percent) report using more than one of these definitions to determine 

the boundaries of their service area.

Community Diversity. Sixty percent of programs are in areas that programs 

characterize as being of “moderate” or “high” cultural diversity. We also asked programs to 

indicate change over the past five years; many programs (42 percent) are also in areas of 

increasing cultural diversity. Here, we discuss community diversity as distinct from program

diversity—because the families served by Early Head Start may not represent all races and 

cultures in the service area. Still, community diversity is an important consideration for 

program individualization, because programs in diverse areas may need to find ways to make 

services attractive to multiple cultural groups and to serve families that speak languages other 

than English. Rapid changes in community diversity can place stress on program 

management and hiring as programs adjust to different family needs and cultures.

Program Auspices. Agency auspices play a role in programs’ approaches to 

management and service delivery, because agencies differ in the resources they have to offer 

Early Head Start programs as well as in their requirements for program management. Most 

Early Head Start programs are operated by nonprofit community agencies. The majority 

(69 percent) of programs have private nonprofit status, and a substantial minority 

(28 percent) are public agencies. Just 3 percent are operated by for-profit companies. 

Overall, most Early Head Start programs are operated by community agencies, such as 

community action agencies, community-based organizations, and faith-based organizations 

(70 percent). Government agencies or tribal governments account for 10 percent of 

programs, schools account for 10 percent, and the remaining 10 percent are run by 

universities, health providers, and other types of agencies.

Integration with Head Start. More than 80 percent of Early Head Start programs are 

run by grantees that also operate a Head Start program. Information collected through site 

visits suggests that program integration is an ongoing process and that even when Early 

Head Start and Head Start operate under the same organization, the two programs may 

function independently. (Box III.1 describes strategies for integrating Early Head Start and 

Head Start programs and the challenges in doing so, based on site visit data.)

PROGRAM FUNDING

The Office of Head Start provides grants to grantee agencies that can pass the funding 

through to delegates, provide Early Head Start services directly, or do both. In addition, 

federal performance standards require that programs raise 20 percent of total program costs 

through non-federal funds. Matching contributions can be made either through cash 

donations or through in-kind products, resources, or services. Both monetary and in-kind 

contributions can be produced by the grantee or delegate agency itself or through outside 

sources. Programs cannot require that families pay any fees for participating in Early 

Head Start.
24

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.1

INTEGRATING EARLY HEAD START AND HEAD START PROGRAMS

The Office of Head Start has encouraged collaboration between Early Head Start and Head Start 

programs. Among the potential benefits of integrated programs are smoother transitions for families, 

stronger relationships between families and program staff over time, enhanced access to community 

partners and other resources for families, and opportunities for staff members to broaden their 

expertise in early childhood development (DHHS 2005). We selected programs that vary on their 

affiliation with a Head Start program for site visits. Directors at more than half the programs visited 

as part of this study consider their programs to provide seamless services for children aged birth to 5. 

During site visits, staff describe promising strategies for creating integrated programs as well as 

challenges they face in doing so.

Staff members described integration strategies focusing on program organization and service 

delivery to move toward better integration of Early Head Start and Head Start. Specific steps 

programs have taken include the following:

 Reorganizing management and staff. Some programs have changed their organizational 

structure so that one director is responsible for both Head Start and Early Head Start. This director 

typically supervises an administrator with overall responsibility for Early Head Start and/or specialists 

who serve families and staff in both programs.

Creating shared staff training plans and using similar curricula and forms. Several 

programs report integration strategies such as creating staff training plans that cover both Head Start 

and Early Head Start, choosing a curriculum that can be shared across the programs with appropriate 

adaptation, and having common forms and management information systems for both programs.

Combining Policy Councils. Programs working to integrate Early Head Start and Head Start 

programs often have a single Policy Council for Head Start and Early Head Start. Typically, fewer 

Early Head Start parents serve on the council, but they sometimes hold leadership positions.

Administering a single federal grant for Early Head Start and Head Start. Some programs 

have received approval to submit a single federal grant application for both Early Head Start and Head 

Start funding. Managers say that this helps create a stronger administrative link between the two 

programs, although budgets must still be tracked separately.

Program staff members also highlighted integration challenges related to differences in program 

size, comfort with and expertise in serving children of different ages, transitions between Early Head 

Start and Head Start, and program finances.

Differences in program size. Early Head Start programs typically have a much smaller funded 

enrollment size than their Head Start counterparts in the same agency. Imbalance in enrollment levels 

may have implications for sharing specialists across programs, as the larger program is likely to place 

more demands on staff time. Differences in program size may also make it more difficult for Early 

Head Start parents to have a strong voice in making decisions that affect both programs if parent 

representation on the council is proportional.

Need for expertise in serving younger or older children. Managers at some programs 

receiving site visits noted that moving toward integration meant addressing perceptions among Early 

Head Start or Head Start staff members that they did not have the skills or capacity necessary to work 

with children in both age groups. Program leaders must be aware of the important differences in the 

needs of children in each age group and in the training required for staff working with each group.
25

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

 1 Survey item wording asked about the funding that programs receive from outside sources; some 

programs only receive in-kind contributions.

Box III.1 (continued)

Difficulty transitioning families between Early Head Start and Head Start. Staff at several 

programs note that problems can arise when families’ eligibility must be recertified before they enter 

Head Start, particularly if a family’s income has increased since enrolling in Early Head Start. Another 

problem is lack of available Head Start slots for children whose birthdays occur mid-year. Some 

programs continue to serve these children in Early Head Start for the rest of the year.

Segregation of program budgets. A logistical challenge mentioned by managers is the 

requirement that Early Head Start and Head Start budgets and expenditures be tracked separately, 

even when the programs share a single grant number, staff, and facilities.

Nearly two-thirds of programs use additional outside funding sources to provide Early 

Head Start services (Table III.2).

1

 Programs use additional funds for an array of purposes, 

from improving Early Head Start services to offering other services, such as dental 

screenings, father involvement support, and language and cultural training. However, 

additional funding sources introduce management challenges for programs, such as 

contending with reporting requirements for multiple funders and working to sustain funding 

to continue new services. Box III.2 describes the challenges some programs we visited face 

in managing multiple grants.

BOX III.2

MANAGING MULTIPLE GRANTS IN EARLY HEAD START

During site visits, we learned about the ways programs pursue and use outside funding sources. 

Administering more than one grant can be a challenge, because it is necessary to report to more than 

one funder and difficult to sustain funding for limited-term grant activities. Some of the programs we 

visited that have additional funding sources mentioned burdensome additional reporting requirements, 

more complex budgeting issues, and other extra requirements. In addition, new grants often involve 

initiating new services in the Early Head Start program and hiring new staff, but grant funding is time 

limited, and continuation funds can be difficult to obtain. Several programs report that sustaining 

funding over time is a challenge, and another program notes that shifting state budgets make it 

difficult to predict how child care subsidies will fit into future budgets. Furthermore, programs may 

not always be able to use outside funding to meet their most pressing needs, because grant funds 

usually can only be used for certain purposes. For example, one director notes that in the year 

preceding the site visit, the program had more than enough money for technology services but did not 

have funds to paint the facility. Despite these challenges, however, program staff feel that 

the additional service opportunities afforded by extra funding are important enough to merit the 

added effort.
26

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Table III.2. Early Head Start Program Funding

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Funding Sources

Any outside funding sources 62.5

Funding Sources

State child care subsidies or block grant 34.2

State government grant 17.7

Private foundation grants 14.9

Fundraising activities 13.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 8.5

County or municipal government grant 8.2

Part C funds 6.3

Contracts 5.6

Grants provided by businesses 5.3

Other source 6.5

Use of Additional Funding Sources

Child care 47.7

Improvements to existing Early Head Start services 41.2

Parent activities 26.0

Additional Early Head Start staff 24.1

Staff training or technical assistance 22.9

Additional Early Head Start enrollment slots 15.2

Services for Part C children or families 14.9

New Early Head Start services 8.9

Other use 11.6

Number of Additional Funding Sources

Programs with no additional sources 37.5

Programs with 1 additional source 31.2

Programs with 2 or 3 additional sources 25.7

Programs with 4 or more additional sources 5.7

Sample Size (Programs) 415–654a 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Most questions have sample sizes over 640. One question has a low sample size because it 

applied only to certain programs: Use of Additional Funding Sources applies only to the 

415 programs that report having any additional funding.
27

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

The most common sources of additional funding for Early Head Start programs are 

state subsidies or local grants. One-third of programs use state child care subsidies, and 

more than a fourth use state, county, and municipal grants (26 percent). Private funding is 

another main source of additional funding for one-third of programs and includes 

foundation grants, individual donations, and grants from businesses. Other federal and 

outside funding sources, used by 20 percent of programs, include fee-for-service funds, 

contracts, and Part C funds.

EARLY HEAD START ENROLLMENT

Program enrollment is carefully regulated by the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards and is part of the core area of Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and 

Attendance (ERSEA). Families with children under age 3, and pregnant women, both with 

incomes below the poverty line (or whose families are eligible or potentially eligible for 

public assistance) can be enrolled. Programs may impose additional eligibility requirements. 

Performance standards also lay out requirements for maintaining waiting lists, prioritizing 

children for enrollment according to need, and ensuring that enrollment slots are filled. The 

performance standards also specify that 10 percent of enrollment slots should go to children 

with disabilities and that 10 percent of enrollment slots may go to families with incomes over 

the federal poverty threshold. (Box III.3 describes programs’ enrollment criteria, using site 

visit interview data.)

Within the enrollment criteria, local programs have some flexibility in how they 

prioritize families for enrollment. Programs typically integrate the requirements laid out in 

ERSEA, any additional local eligibility requirements, and local needs they have identified to 

design programs that are individualized for their communities into a rating system that give 

priority to the neediest families.

Program Size. Most Early Head Start programs serve fewer than 100 children, and 

overall mean actual enrollment for Early Head Start is 84 children and pregnant women.2

 

However, the few programs with more than 200 enrollees inflate the average (Figure III.1). 

Just under one-third of programs serve 50 or fewer pregnant women and children; 

41 percent of programs serve between 50 and 100. Very large programs, serving 150 or 

more children and pregnant women, make up 11 percent of programs, and the remaining 

16 percent serve between 101 and 149 children and pregnant women. Altogether, program 

size varies widely, with enrollment ranging from fewer than 10 to nearly 600 children and 

pregnant women.

Age of Children. The population of children enrolled in Early Head Start consists 

mainly of 1- and 2-year-olds. Based on survey data, among all children served by Early Head 

Start, 31 percent are age 1 and 37 percent are age 2. Babies under age 1 make up about 

 2 The survey asked programs to report actual enrollment rather than funded enrollment as of 

January 1, 2005.
28

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.3

ENROLLMENT CRITERIA IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Early Head Start is a voluntary program that is not an entitlement, so programs select enrollees 

among families that are interested in participating. Federal requirements restrict the service population 

to families with pregnant women and children up to age 3. Federal poverty guidelines determine 

families’ income eligibility for Early Head Start, although programs may enroll families above the 

poverty line up to 10 percent of total enrollment. Programs are also required to make at least 

10percent of slots available to children with special needs and make efforts to meet that percentage. 

Grantees or programs may impose more stringent or additional enrollment criteria at their own 

discretion. Most programs identify more eligible families than the number of slots they have available 

and therefore maintain a waiting list for enrollment. The federal performance standards require that 

programs establish waiting lists that rank children according to program criteria for prioritizing 

families based on community needs. The following data from our site visits describe the programs’ 

experiences selecting and enrolling families.

Among programs participating in the site visits, about half use additional eligibility 

criteria beyond federal requirements. All but one visited program had a waiting list at the 

time of the interviews. Additional eligibility requirements typically pertained to family income level 

or employment status. Several programs impose a full-time work or school requirement on parents 

seeking center-based care or any Early Head Start services. These and the more stringent income

criteria were usually due to requirements for receiving state child care subsidies or other supplemental 

funding. In addition, one program does not accept children over age 2 at the time of enrollment, 

because children age out of Early Head Start at age 3, and the staff members feel that families would 

not benefit from less than a year of services. One program requires that families document that they 

live in shelters or public housing to be eligible for services. All visited programs keep a list of families 

waiting for services, although one program had no families on the list at the time of the interview and 

another had a very small list. A couple of programs have very large waiting lists, and one has twice the 

number of families on the list as slots available. On average, however, the number of families on 

waiting lists is about half the number of total enrollment slots. 

Almost all Early Head Start programs that participated in site visits use a ranking system to select 

families for enrollment according to the highest level of need. Early Head Start programs usually 

maintain a waiting list, but when a slot becomes available, most do not enroll families solely according 

to length of time on the list. Instead, staff prioritize families for enrollment according to need, so the 

families with greatest need by local criteria on the waiting list are served first regardless of how long 

they have been waiting. Programs typically develop a scoring system for applicants, awarding points 

for family risk factors identified as priorities for the service area. The enrollment prioritization 

systems that programs use are individualized to the needs of the community. For example, one 

program uses the results of the community assessment to identify major community needs and worked 

with its policy council to develop a scoring system based on those needs. Teen parenthood, children 

with special needs, and particularly low family income or poverty are the priority risk factors cited 

most frequently by programs we visited. Some programs give families extra enrollment points for 

single parenthood, current pregnancy, mental health concerns, substance abuse, foster or kinship care, 

homelessness, not speaking English and other risk factors. Several programs award points for families 

with a previous history in Early Head Start or Head Start, particularly if the family has another child 

currently enrolled in Early Head Start. Although these point systems prioritize family needs and risk 

factors over the family’s length of time on the waiting list, some programs do award additional points 

to families for lengthy periods of time spent waiting for services.
29

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165 180195210225240255 270285300400500600

Figure III.1. Early Head Start Actual Enrollment, Including Children and

Pregnant Women

Number of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Enrollment values on x-axis are increments with the high end of the range reported. Each category is 

mutually exclusive; for example, the first bar includes programs with up to 15 enrollees.

Sample Size = 648.

Mean = 84

Total Enrollment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

15 30 45 60 75 90 105120135150165 180195210225240255 270285300400500600

Figure III.1. Early Head Start Actual Enrollment, Including Children and

Pregnant Women

Number of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Enrollment values on x-axis are increments with the high end of the range reported. Each category is 

mutually exclusive; for example, the first bar includes programs with up to 15 enrollees.

Sample Size = 648.

Mean = 84

Total Enrollment

22 percent of children served, and most of the remaining children are 3-year-olds 

(Table III.3). We asked separately about the proportion of children entering the program at 

various ages and then about age of exit—so the two are not directly comparable but we can 

get a sense of the flow of children in and out of the program more generally. About 

13 percent of children enter the program in the prenatal period, but most enter Early Head 

Start between birth and age 2 (62 percent). Fewer (19 percent) enter at between 2 and 

3 years of age. Conversely, nearly half of enrolled children exit Early Head Start at some 

point after turning 3 (46 percent), 23 percent exit between ages 2 and 3, and 16 percent exit 

before age 2. (Survey items are not specific enough to calculate exact age of exit.) Very few 

pregnant women exit the program before the birth of their child (2 percent). 

Considering enrollment from the program standpoint, most programs serve some 

children across all these ages (as well as pregnant women) and so must provide services 

appropriate for each age group, including the prenatal period. A few programs serve only or 

mostly babies under 1 year old (not shown). Almost all programs serve at least some 1- and 

2-year-olds, and most serve children primarily of these ages. While most Early Head Start 

programs serve younger infants and toddlers, a substantial number (about a third of all 

programs) do not serve 3-year-olds, consistent with the policy that Early Head Start is a 0 to 

3 program, with 3-year-olds and older children being served by other programs such as Head 
30

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Table III.3. Characteristics of Early Head Start Children

Percentage of

Enrolled Children/ 

Enrollment Slots

Age of Enrolled Children

Under 1 Year Old 22.2

1-Year-Olds 31.4

2-Year-Olds 36.8

3-Year-Olds 9.5

4-Year-Olds 0.1

Sample Size (Children) 46,317

Pregnant Women 8.2

Age at Program Entry

Prenatal 12.7

0 to 2 years old 61.5

2 to 3 years old 18.6

Age at Program Exit

Prenatal 2.1

0 to 2 years old 16.2

2 to 3 years old 23.3

3 or more 46.0

Sample Size (All Enrollment Slots) 55,570

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. 

Start. Differentials in the concentration of ages across programs may indicate that programs 

are efficient at transitioning children to other services as they reach age 3.

Although programs are not required to serve pregnant women, they are encouraged to 

do so, and if they do, they must comply with the performance standards in providing 

services. Most programs (84 percent) serve pregnant women, although relatively few may be 

enrolled at any one time and some programs that serve pregnant women may not have any 

enrolled at a given point in time. Among programs serving pregnant women at the time of 

the survey, the distribution ranges from just 1 woman (in 9 percent of programs) to 123 (less 

than 1 percent of programs). These women make up about 10 percent of enrollment in 

programs serving them. Looking at all Early Head Start enrollment slots, pregnant women 

fill 8 percent. Programs that serve pregnant women provide basic services as required by the 

performance standards, but they rarely provide specialized services. For example, of 

programs serving pregnant women, nearly all provide referrals (98 percent) and prenatal 

home visits (95 percent); most provide case management services (86 percent) and classes 

(60 percent). Programs rarely provide other types of services such as transportation, 

community activities, or doulas—childbirth coaches (all less than 10 percent). Box III.4 

describes the unique challenges of serving this group of mothers-to-be and strategies to 

address them.
31

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.4

RECRUITING, ENROLLING, AND SERVING PREGNANT WOMEN

In addition to serving families with children aged birth to 3, Early Head Start strives to improve 

birth outcomes by targeting pregnant women for enrollment. Although programs are not required to 

serve pregnant women, they are encouraged to do so. The Head Start Program Performance 

Standards require that programs provide the following services to pregnant women if they do serve 

them: referrals for comprehensive prenatal and postpartum care, prenatal education on fetal 

development, and information on the benefits of breastfeeding. Here, we provide findings from both 

the survey and site visits about enrolling and serving pregnant women and the challenges of serving 

this population.

Although most programs enroll pregnant women, some programs we visited rarely made 

special efforts to recruit them. In others, normal recruiting and referral sources (such as doctors’ 

offices, hospitals, Part C providers, and other community providers) are in place to fill slots for 

pregnant women. One program actively recruits first-time mothers who are immigrants or teenagers, 

or are in high-risk situations (such as homelessness). Pregnant women from these groups are recruited 

through high schools, maternity homes, the health department, and peer support programs.

Transitioning to Early Head Start services after childbirth is often easier when families 

are enrolled in the home-based option. Transitioning from prenatal home visits to centerbased services can be more challenging. Home-based programs indicated that transitioning after 

birth was usually a smooth process, in part because the visiting routine is already established and home 

visitors simply maintain the mother and child on an existing caseload. Center-based services present 

more difficulties. Enrolling an infant requires an open slot, adherence to standards about child-staff 

ratios, and, in some cases, state regulations or child care licensing requirements, all of which can 

present difficulties in placing an infant. For example, in one site, state child care licensing regulations 

stipulate a limited range of ages that can be served in a single classroom. As a result, at times infants 

must wait in home-based services for a center-based opening because staff cannot create a slot for 

them. Sometimes staff want to create an opening by advancing a child who seemed ready to move on 

to the next classroom. However, they cannot do so until he or she is old enough, so as not to violate 

the age range rule in the next classroom. In several other programs, overall low availability of infant 

slots makes transitions difficult. Transportation is a barrier in one program that cannot transport 

infants or toddlers without a parent in the vehicle. This rule makes it very difficult for working 

parents to enroll their children, even though they are the ones most in need of a center-based slot.

Staff at programs we visited described three main challenges in serving pregnant women:

(1) women’s belief that they did not need services until after the birth of the baby (desiring only a 

center-based slot); (2) making information seem relevant to experienced mothers who already had 

other children; and (3) overcoming resistance to receiving services, which is often related to cultural 

issues. Program staff attempt to address these issues by helping women understand the connection 

between prenatal care and later child outcomes, providing them with specific information on child 

development. Staff in some sites reported that teenage mothers are especially resistant to receiving 

services, in part because of their own developmental stage. Staff try to help mothers bond with babies 

before the birth and work to break down cultural barriers. Cultural issues cited by programs include 

language (occasional difficulty hiring bilingual staff), norms about visitors in the home, preferences to 

bottle-feed rather than breastfeed, and practices that make home visits difficult, such as the 

Vietnamese custom of secluding the mother and child in the home for two months after birth. Some 

programs struggle to employ staff who speak families’ languages and are familiar with their cultural 

backgrounds and norms (for example, hiring native Spanish-speaking staff rather than those who 

learned Spanish in school only).
32

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Program Capacity. Most programs (62 percent) report that the number of children 

they serve matches their funded enrollment, while 20 percent of programs have more 

children enrolled than funded slots, and 18 percent have fewer children enrolled than funded 

slots (Table III.4). The Head Start Program Performance Standards allow programs 30 days 

to fill a vacancy, so there may be periods when enrollment is lower than the funded level if a 

few or many children leave at the same time.3 Temporary underenrollment may be 

particularly likely in the fall, when many children transition to Head Start. Box III.5 

describes some strategies programs use to recruit families to Early Head Start.

Table III.4. Early Head Start Program Enrollment

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Enrolled at Funded Enrollment Level

At funded level 61.7

Above funded level 19.8

Below funded level 18.5

Program Maintains a Waiting List 100.0

Program updated waiting list in past 6 months 95.6

Number of children and pregnant women on waiting list

0 to 10 17.3

11 to 50 37.7

51 to 100 21.3

100 or more 23.7

Sample Size (Programs) 583–648

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

All programs maintain a waiting list for enrollment, and almost all update it regularly. 

Waiting lists, which include families with children or pregnant women already deemed 

eligible for Early Head Start services, are an important strategy to ensure that programs can 

quickly fill vacant slots when they become available. Just over half the programs report 

having waiting lists of 50 children or fewer, and three-quarters of programs have waiting lists 

of fewer than 100 children. However, roughly 15 percent of programs had very small 

waiting lists, of 10 children or fewer. Ninety-five percent of programs report that they had 

updated the list during the six-month period before the survey. Waiting lists indicate excess 

demand for Early Head Start and imply that with additional funding, many programs would 

be able to serve a larger number of families than they do currently. 

 3 Indeed, staff at some programs we visited point out that when a child leaves it can take a few weeks to 

get another child into the program, because of administrative requirements and the need for the family to adapt 

its routine. One program we visited reports deliberately enrolling a few extra children when it has funds to 

cover the slots, so that the program will not appear to be underenrolled if a few children leave unexpectedly.
33

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.5

EARLY HEAD START FAMILY RECRUITING PRACTICES

During site visit interviews, we explored the practices programs use to recruit families and how 

they ensure they are reaching those most in need. During our site visits, staff described how the 

recruitment process works in their programs, and we report that information here.

Almost all the programs we visited report that it is easy for them to fill vacant enrollment 

slots when they become available, and about half do not recruit aggressively, because they 

consistently have long waiting lists. The most common ways families learn about the opportunity 

to enroll in Early Head Start are word of mouth from other enrolled families and referrals from other 

agencies. Programs reported that positive word of mouth is their most important recruitment tool. A 

few programs also reported that broader visibility and engagement in the community are important to 

them, and they achieve these through efforts such as participating in coordinating councils and 

attending or speaking at community events. In addition, Early Head Start programs accept referrals 

from other community agencies, such as early intervention programs or disabilities service agencies, 

public schools, child care providers, health departments and providers, shelters and public housing, 

social services and child welfare agencies, WIC, mental health agencies, and Head Start programs. 

Some programs also reported recruiting families by contacting these community agencies when slots 

were expected to open up (such as in the fall when many Early Head Start children transfer into Head 

Start or other preschool programs). Many programs we visited place brochures, flyers, or other 

information about the program in various community locations to attract new applicants, and one 

program reported attending enrollment days at the local public school to inform families about Early 

Head Start. A few programs placed ads or announcements in local media or agency bulletins, and a 

few also report going door to door in target neighborhoods to recruit families.

About half the programs we visited report targeting specific groups for enrollment and 

making special efforts to recruit and enroll these families. Commonly, programs make special 

efforts to recruit children with disabilities, as programs are required to make available 10 percent of 

their slots for children with special needs. A few of the visited programs targeted teen parents, and a 

couple also targeted homeless families. A few programs we visited set aside a specific number of 

enrollment slots for pregnant mothers but do not recruit actively to fill these slots. Programs typically 

identify pregnant mothers from among the families already enrolled in Early Head Start, either 

through word of mouth or through referrals from WIC or other agencies. None of the visited 

programs indicated that they target particular racial, ethnic, or cultural groups for enrollment. 

The low threshold for income eligibility, as well as requirements for parental employment and 

program participation, made it difficult for some families to enroll in Early Head Start. Most 

programs had little difficulty maintaining full enrollment; moreover, more than half the programs we 

visited complained that they cannot serve all who are in need. One program noted that income 

eligibility rules are a particular challenge for enrolling teen parents. If a teen is still a dependent, her 

eligibility assessment must include the income of her own parents; therefore, many do not qualify for 

Early Head Start.

Site visit interviews highlighted other barriers to enrollment for some potentially eligible 

families. For example, program options that require a lot of family participation created barriers for 

some families, particularly for those with limited flexibility because of full-time work or school, lack of 

transportation, language differences, and hesitation or fear about participating (particularly for 

undocumented families). One program noted that the waiting list itself is a barrier for families that 

need care right away.

Programs we visited try to adapt their services and approaches to reduce the barriers to 

enrollment where possible. For example, one program with stringent eligibility requirements from a 

state grant is seeking a waiver for Early Head Start families to exempt them from some of the 

requirements. Another program decided to increase the number of center-based slots it offers because 

a lot of families have trouble fitting home visits into their schedules. Programs also make adaptations 

to address cultural or language barriers, such as hiring bilingual staff, bringing in translators, and 

finding alternative ways to verify income for families without documentation. 
34

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

EARLY HEAD START FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

Early Head Start programs serve families from a wide variety of racial and cultural 

backgrounds. The performance standards do not explicitly require programs to serve 

families of different races or cultures in their communities. However, the standards do 

require that programs individualize services to the needs and circumstances of families who 

live in their service areas and to serve families that are representative of eligible families in 

the community.

The families that most Early Head Start programs serve vary widely in race/ethnicity 

and speak many different languages, and this affects program management and staffing. 

Cultural competence among staff and service delivery approaches that support and honor 

the home cultures and languages are required by the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards and are reflected in the performance measures. In programs that serve families 

from a diverse mix of cultural backgrounds, directors/managers strive to hire staff with 

cultural backgrounds similar to those of enrolled families and to provide services in a 

culturally appropriate manner. In this section, we present population-level and programlevel survey data on family characteristics separately, then compare the differences between 

these units of analysis. Box III.6 describes the ways that programs work to ensure they 

respect the cultures of families they serve.

Population-Level Demographics

Race/Ethnicity. The families served by Early Head Start are diverse in terms of race 

and ethnicity. The most common racial/ethnic groups among Early Head Start children are 

white/Caucasian, black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino (Figure III.2). Whites 

make up the largest proportion of enrolled families (33 percent). African Americans and 

Hispanics (of any race) make up roughly equal proportions of total enrollment (26 and 

25 percent, respectively). Among others, served in much smaller proportions, are American 

Indian/Alaska Native; Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; and biracial or multiracial. We 

find roughly similar information in the 2004–2005 PIR: 34 percent white, 27 percent black, 

and 29 percent Hispanic (not shown).

Language. About one-quarter of families served by Early Head Start primarily speak a 

language other than English. This figure is higher than analogous information in the PIR, 

where 20 percent of families speak such a language (not shown). Among those speaking a 

language other than English, Spanish is by far the most common, both in this survey 

(81 percent; Figure III.3) and in the PIR. There is such variety among the languages spoken 

by Early Head Start families that no one language apart from Spanish dominates. Three 

percent of families speak an Asian language, and a similar number speak a European 

language. The remaining 13 percent speak a variety of other languages, such as Arabic, 

Vietnamese, Swahili, or native Central and South American languages.
35

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.6

RESPECTING FAMILY CULTURE IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Cultural competence is an important part of the performance measures framework for Early Head 

Start; programs are expected to understand the cultural differences among families and design their 

programs to support families’ home cultures. The following information from our site visit interviews 

describes how programs respect home cultures and ensure cultural competence in service delivery.

Early Head Start programs we visited emphasize respecting family cultures and 

traditions, even in less diverse programs. Respecting family culture often means understanding 

and being sensitive to practices and beliefs from other racial or ethnic groups. Language and 

communication are the most obvious challenges for programs serving families from diverse cultures, 

and programs use many strategies to address these and other cultural challenges.

Programs use strategies to ensure culturally competent services, such as hiring staff who 

are representative of the service population (or at least speak the same languages) and 

offering diversity or language training to staff. Most programs try to hire culturally representative 

or bilingual staff, although some said it is not always possible to find enough staff with these 

qualifications. About half the programs we visited reported offering diversity or language training to 

staff, as well as encouraging staff to do research or ask parents about their cultural values, traditions, 

and practices. Programs address language differences in a variety of ways. Some use translators, 

provide parents with materials in their primary language, or integrate cultural traditions and languages 

(such as songs or books) into the curriculum and classroom environment. A few programs offer 

acculturation support services for parents, such as English or literacy courses. Some programs adapt 

program services (for example, by providing vegetarian meals, not celebrating Christian holidays, 

celebrating holidays from many cultures, or holding multicultural events).

Programs that encountered differences in cultural childrearing practices are mostly 

accepting of different practices or take tactful approaches to suggest changing them. 

Differences in childrearing are related primarily to disciplinary practices (such as spanking) and dietary 

or nutrition practices (such as mixing rice with infant formula, bottle-feeding to an advanced age, or 

allowing young children to drink coffee). Program staff generally indicated that they respect cultural 

or family childrearing practices unless they present a danger to the child or are against the law. 

However, some programs attempt to influence family practices by using strategies such as sharing 

positive behavior management techniques and having a nutritionist or nurse explain the health effects 

of poor nutrition.

Additional challenges for programs related to serving a culturally diverse population 

include serving families with undocumented immigration status and contending with cultural 

stigmas against obtaining certain social and health services. Undocumented families presented a 

significant challenge to several programs. Although immigration status does not bar participation in 

Early Head Start, it does present challenges in obtaining resources such as employment, housing, bank 

accounts, health care, and transportation for families. Other problems related to immigration status 

include a lack of income documentation to determine Early Head Start eligibility and overcoming 

families’ fears and suspicions of being reported to immigration enforcement. Among some cultural 

groups, programs are also challenged to overcome social stigmas against seeking services related to 

mental health, disabilities, and domestic violence. Furthermore, families from some cultures are not 

accustomed to seeking preventive and oral health care, so programs have to work hard to inform 

families about the importance of these services for the well-being of their family.
36

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Program-Level Demographics

Race/Ethnicity. Although a small minority of programs serve one race/ethnicity 

exclusively, most serve a population that is at least somewhat diverse. Diversity within 

programs affects program staffing and services, as programs serving multiple races and 

ethnicities need to provide culturally competent services for all groups. More than 

60 percent of Early Head Start programs report serving children or pregnant women from at 

least four racial/ethnic groups, and almost 20 percent of programs serve as many as six 

(Table III.5). Few programs serve children and pregnant women of just one specified 

race/ethnicity: 3 percent of all programs serve only American Indian/Alaska Native, 

3 percent only Hispanic (any race), 2 percent only black/African American, and 1 percent 

only white children and pregnant women. Not unexpectedly, 12 of the 16 programs serving 

only American Indian or Alaska Native children and pregnant women operate under the 

American Indian/Alaska Native program branch, which tailors services and program 

structure to the needs of these cultural groups. Similarly, 7 of the 16 programs serving only 

Hispanic children and pregnant women are located in Puerto Rico. 
37

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Few programs serve multiple races without one being dominant. About a quarter of 

Early Head Start programs are dominated by one race/ethnicity (90 percent or more of their 

service populations) but also serve others: close to half of programs serve a population that 

is 75 percent or more of one race or ethnicity. The dominant race/ethnicity in these 

programs is most frequently white or African American, followed by Hispanic or Latino.4 

Two-thirds of the Early Head Start programs operated by the American Indian/Alaska 

Native branch served 90 percent or more children of this racial category, and many of the 

other children served are identified as biracial or multiracial.

Among programs serving Hispanic or Latino families, 21 percent report that the 

number of such families enrolled has increased during the past five years. Changing 

demographics are important to program management, because as service populations shift, 

 4 The survey collected data at the program level, so we had to ask race/ethnicity questions differently 

from the way we would at an individual level. Programs reported Hispanic enrollees in conjunction with their 

race (that is, Black/Hispanic or White/Hispanic). When we discuss race and ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity 

supersedes race, so white means “White/Non-Hispanic” and black or African American means “Black/NonHispanic.” Typically, surveys ask the person to identify Hispanic or not and then to select a racial group.

Spanish

81%

Other

13%

Asian

3%

European

3%

Figure III.3. Primary (Non-English) Language of Early Head Start Families: 

Population Level 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Primary language is among only those families speaking a language other than English.

Sample Size = 12,930. 

Spanish

81%

Other

13%

Asian

3%

European

3%

Figure III.3. Primary (Non-English) Language of Early Head Start Families: 

Population Level 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Primary language is among only those families speaking a language other than English.

Sample Size = 12,930. 
38

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Table III.5. Demographics of Early Head Start Families: Program Level

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Programs Serving Multiple Races/Ethnicities

4 or more races or ethnicities 62.9

6 or more races or ethnicities 18.9

Programs Serving Primarily One Race/Ethnicity

90 percent or more families of same race/ethnicity 27.2

75 percent or more families of same race/ethnicity 47.9

Families Enrolled in Programa 

White/Caucasian (non-Hispanic) 81.7

Black/African American (non-Hispanic) 76.0

Hispanic/Latino, any race 75.1

Biracial/multiracial 70.1

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 29.7

American Indian/Alaska Native 26.6

Other race/ethnicity 19.3

Programs Serving Multiple Languages

2 or more languages 33.6

4 or more languages 8.2

6 or more languages 2.0

Sample Size (Programs) 646–648

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Race/ethnicity is provided by programs according to the group the family chooses. All race and 

ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive. Hispanic or Latino families of any race are included in 

one category, and other race categories exclude families that are Hispanic or Latino.

programs must adapt to ensure that they continue to provide culturally sensitive services 

(not shown). Among programs serving other than Hispanic racial and ethnic groups, most 

report that the racial/ethnic composition of their population is unchanged in the past 

five years.

Language. Most programs serve Spanish-speaking families, although a substantial 

minority also serve families that speak other languages. Programs serving families that do 

not speak English must find ways to communicate, usually by hiring bilingual staff, using 

translators, and translating program materials. Although the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards do not include specific easily measurable requirements to display 

cultural competence, they do emphasize that services should be designed to accept and 

support families’ home language and cultural practices, and, where possible, staff should 

speak the home child’s language. It is difficult for some programs to find qualified bilingual 

staff to meet the needs of these families, especially non-Spanish speakers, and they may not 

be able to do so if only one or two families speak a particular language. In general, 
39

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

communication is more complicated for programs serving families that speak several 

different languages rather than just one non-English language. 

Almost two-thirds of programs serve at least some Spanish-speaking families, and 

40 percent serve families that speak other languages. Other languages spoken by families in 

at least 10 percent of programs include Middle Eastern languages, such as Arabic or Hindi; 

East Asian languages, such as Vietnamese or Japanese; African languages, such as Swahili or 

Wolof; and native Central and South American languages, such as Quechua or Aymara 

(Figure III.4). Programs often work with more than one language among non-English 

speakers: 34 percent of programs have two or more languages spoken by different families, 

and 8 percent have four or more. 

Comparison of Program-Level and Population-Level Demographics

Language and cultural issues are important for Early Head Start at the national level, not 

just in particular areas of the country. Most programs serve heterogeneous racial/ethnic 

groups in addition to those speaking diverse languages. White, African American, and 

Hispanic children each make up about a third of the entire Early Head Start population but 

10.8 10.2 8.0 7.4 6.9

2.8 2.8 1.2

13.4 12.2

62.3

71.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Any

Language

Spanish Middle

Eastern/

Indic

Far East

Asian

African Indigenous

Latin

American

European/

Slavic

American

Sign

Language

Caribbean Native

American/

Alaskan

Pacific

Island

Other

Languages

Figure III.4. Percentage of Programs Serving Families That Primarily Speak

a Language Other than English

Percentage of Programs

Language Spoken

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

aPrograms may serve more than one language, so the sum of each language is not equal to percentage of 

programs serving different language groups.

Sample Size = 648.

a

10.8 10.2 8.0 7.4 6.9

2.8 2.8 1.2

13.4 12.2

62.3

71.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Any

Language

Spanish Middle

Eastern/

Indic

Far East

Asian

African Indigenous

Latin

American

European/

Slavic

American

Sign

Language

Caribbean Native

American/

Alaskan

Pacific

Island

Other

Languages

Figure III.4. Percentage of Programs Serving Families That Primarily Speak

a Language Other than English

Percentage of Programs

Language Spoken

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

aPrograms may serve more than one language, so the sum of each language is not equal to percentage of 

programs serving different language groups.

Sample Size = 648.

a
40

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

are distributed fairly evenly across more than three-quarters of programs. Although biracial 

children make up just 6 percent of the total population, they are served by almost threequarters of programs (Table III.5). Similar patterns are true of American Indian or Alaska 

Native children and Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander children as well, but these groups 

make up small percentages of the total population, and both are served by about a quarter 

of programs.

A sizable minority (23 percent—not shown) of Early Head Start families primarily speak 

a language other than English, but most Early Head Start programs (72 percent) serve at 

least one family that speaks another language. Some programs serve more non-Englishspeaking families than others, but most must contend with language and associated cultural 

communication issues with at least some families. Early Head Start’s administrative data 

source, the PIR, supports this finding. According to the PIR, 63 percent of programs serve 

at least some non-English-speaking families.

Family Risk Factors

Besides providing education services for enrolled children, programs must assess each 

family’s needs and provide or connect families with services to meet them. Because 

programs prioritize the families with greatest need for enrollment, families served by Early 

Head Start often have many critical issues for which programs must provide or arrange 

services. Box III.7 shows examples of needs gleaned from site visits.

All Early Head Start families are “at risk,” because Early Head Start serves families with 

incomes at or near the poverty threshold. Programs often identify additional risk factors, 

either demographic or psychological. Demographic risk factors typically include single 

parenthood, teen parenthood, receipt of public assistance, unemployment, or low 

educational attainment. Psychological risk factors include mental health and substance abuse 

problems. Other risk factors include living in an unsafe neighborhood and experiencing 

family violence. As part of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project 

(EHSREP) impact study, researchers found a high rate of both demographic and 

psychological risks. Furthermore, the patterns of service use and impacts for children and 

families varied by level of risk. In terms of demographic risk, the five demographic factors 

listed above were used to form a cumulative risk index by looking at families with low, 

medium, and high total number of risks. Families at medium and low risk had the greatest 

positive program impacts, and although families at high risk did not benefit from Early Head 

Start at age 3 (ACYF 2002), they did experience positive impacts when children were about 

age 5 (ACF 2006).

In terms of psychological risks, the EHSREP looked only at maternal depression as a 

moderating factor. At age 3, at the completion of the program, there was a pattern of 

positive impacts, particularly on parenting, for families where primary caregivers were 

depressed at enrollment into the program. The impact study also found that the program 

had new positive impacts on maternal depression when children were in their 

prekindergarten year (ACF 2006). Importantly, the program was able to engage families with 
41

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.7

ADDRESSING FAMILIES’ SOCIAL SERVICES NEEDS IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Early Head Start programs individualize services for the families they serve, so identifying and 

addressing families’ social services needs is an important part of working with families. Understanding 

family needs also helps programs identify high-risk families and connect them to resources and 

supports. Programs reported identifying family needs through intake applications, family partnership 

agreements, ongoing information from home visits or conversations with program staff, staff 

observations, and general parent needs surveys. Below, we use data from our site visits to identify 

common family social services needs reported by programs and to describe the challenges programs 

faced and the strategies they use to address family needs.

According to staff in the Early Head Start programs selected for site visits, the most 

important family needs include housing, employment, and transportation. Other key needs 

include health and dental care, child care, mental health services, adult education and 

training, and parenting skills training. Program staff tended to identify housing, employment, and 

transportation as the most pressing concerns for families, although other needs such as health and 

dental care were identified by nearly all programs. Family problems related to housing are also 

common, including housing quality and affordability, overcrowding, transience, and periodic or longterm homelessness. Employment issues included unemployment, underemployment, and insufficient 

wages. Transportation is a particular problem in rural counties but was also a concern for a few urban 

programs; this is an especially important need to address, because it creates barriers to employment 

and limits participation in most services, including Early Head Start. Many programs reported that 

mental health services are a need for their families, as well as basic education, literacy, and job training. 

Several programs, particularly those implementing the home-based option, reported that quality child 

care is a need. Programs reported that families need support with parenting skills and family violence. 

Other needs that a few programs mentioned include substance abuse services, supports for young or 

teen parents, nutrition and food assistance, and financial difficulties such as debt and poverty.

Overcoming families’ mistrust was the challenge programs most often mentioned related 

to meeting family needs. In some cases, the difficulty establishing trust stems from parent 

suspicions or resistant attitudes; in others, it appears to be related to cultural taboos about 

acknowledging family problems such as mental health issues or developmental delays. Several 

programs reported significant difficulties in obtaining services for undocumented families, including 

eligibility criteria for the services and trust issues for the families. Other challenges included limited 

availability of services in the community, time constraints for employed parents, and language barriers. 

About half the managers in programs we visited mentioned stressful working conditions as a barrier to 

meeting families’ needs. Despite programs’ efforts to support staff, staff are continually challenged by 

personal boundary issues, the stress of crisis management, and the lack of immediately evident 

improvements in family circumstances.

Programs use a variety of strategies to address the challenges they face in meeting family 

needs, tailored to specific local needs and challenges. In general, program strategies for 

addressing these challenges included supporting staff in the work they do, informing families about 

available service options and their benefits, working to link families to needed services, providing 

services directly at the program, and using program funds to pay for needed services when necessary. 

Programs often used combinations of these strategies. For example, one program reported problems 

in connecting families to services because services are limited in the community and service locations 

are spread out. To address these challenges, the program provides certain services itself and uses 

program funds to help pay for others. The program also developed a buddy system for families to 

make appointments together to share transportation. Another program reported that cultural 

differences make it difficult for some families to recognize needs such as preventive health care and 

mental health, because those services were not available in many families’ home countries. The 

program offers information to families about the American service delivery system and the cultural 

expectations related to childrearing. The program respects family cultures but informs families about 

and encourages them to take advantage of services, for the benefit of both the child and the family.
42

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

both demographic and psychological risk factors, although they did leave the program at a 

higher rate then lower-risk families. As we know, the prevalence of any of these risk factors 

in the families served by each program influences the services provided, the types of staff 

hired, and the kinds of partnerships formed and is therefore important to understanding 

how programs individualize services. 

For ease of discussion, we created four mutually exclusive categories that describe the 

concentration of families with each type (demographic or psychological) of risk factors in a 

program: low, moderate, high, and very high. A low concentration means that a program 

serves 10 percent or fewer families with that risk factor, a moderate concentration is between 

11 and 50 percent, a high concentration is between 51 and 75 percent, and a very high 

concentration is 76 percent or higher. The survey data in this section are reported at the 

program level (figures III.5 and III.6). Box III.8 describes program staff members’ views of 

high-risk families from our site visits.

Demographic Risk. Among demographic risk factors described earlier, including 

single parenthood, teen parent, welfare receipt, unemployment, and low educational 

attainment, single parenthood is the most prevalent. More than half of Early Head Start 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Teen Mother Single Parent

Family

No High School

or GED

Welfare

Receipt

Unemployed More than

Three of These

Categories

Figure III.5. Prevalence of Demographic Factors Across Early Head Start Programs: 

Concentration of Families with Each Risk Factor

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 634-648.

Percentage of Programs

Low Concentration/ Moderate Concentration/ 

Fewer than 10 Percent of Enrolled Families 11 to 50 Percent of Enrolled Families 

High Concentration/ Very High Concentration/

51 to 75 Percent of Enrolled Families 76 Percent or More of Enrolled Families

0

20

40

60

80

100

Teen Mother Single Parent

Family

No High School

or GED

Welfare

Receipt

Unemployed More than

Three of These

Categories

Figure III.5. Prevalence of Demographic Factors Across Early Head Start Programs: 

Concentration of Families with Each Risk Factor

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 634-648.

Percentage of Programs

Low Concentration/ Moderate Concentration/ 

Fewer than 10 Percent of Enrolled Families 11 to 50 Percent of Enrolled Families 

High Concentration/ Very High Concentration/

51 to 75 Percent of Enrolled Families 76 Percent or More of Enrolled Families
43

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mental Health

Problems

Substance Abuse Unsafe

Neighborhood

Family Violence More than Two of

These Categories

Figure III.6. Prevalence of Psychological Risk Factors Across Early Head Start Programs: 

Concentration of Families with Each Risk Factor

Source:Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 634-638.

Percentage of Programs

Low Concentration/ Moderate Concentration/ 

Fewer than 10 Percent of Enrolled Families 11 to 50 Percent of Enrolled Families 

High Concentration/ Very High Concentration/

51 to 75 Percent of Enrolled Families 76 Percent or More of Enrolled Families

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mental Health

Problems

Substance Abuse Unsafe

Neighborhood

Family Violence More than Two of

These Categories

Figure III.6. Prevalence of Psychological Risk Factors Across Early Head Start Programs: 

Concentration of Families with Each Risk Factor

Source:Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 634-638.

Percentage of Programs

Low Concentration/ Moderate Concentration/ 

Fewer than 10 Percent of Enrolled Families 11 to 50 Percent of Enrolled Families 

High Concentration/ Very High Concentration/

51 to 75 Percent of Enrolled Families 76 Percent or More of Enrolled Families

BOX III.8

HIGH-RISK FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START

Site visit data portray a more complex picture of high-risk families than the survey suggests, with 

about half the programs we visited indicating that they serve only or primarily high-risk families. Our 

site visit interviews with program staff suggested that programs generally define high-risk families as 

those in acute crisis. One program director explained that families move in and out of crisis on a regular 

basis and experience different risk factors at different times. For example, a family can suddenly become 

homeless, initiating a crisis period involving several other risk factors such as substance use or 

depression. Later, the family’s risk might be reduced as Early Head Start provides services to resolve 

these issues. Another director characterized most of the families served as “on the brink” of serious 

crisis. The challenges and strategies related to working with high-risk families were similar to those 

described in this chapter for addressing family needs, but staff reported providing them in a more 

intensive manner for families in crisis.
44

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

programs report high or very high proportions of single-parent families in their enrollment; 

less than 2 percent of programs report low proportions of families with this risk factor 

(Figure III.5; Table III.6). Low educational attainment occurs at more moderate levels: 

more than two-thirds of programs serve a moderate proportion of families in which the 

primary caregiver does not have a high school diploma or a GED. About one-quarter of 

programs serve moderate to high proportions of families receiving welfare payments. 

Unemployment is somewhat lower, with more than 80 percent of programs serving low or 

moderate proportions of unemployed families. Teen mothers make up a low proportion of 

enrollment in most programs. As some programs specialize in serving this population, 

concentration within a few programs makes sense. Most programs serve families that have 

three or more demographic risk factors, and about 20 percent of programs serve a high 

concentration of such families. Although not all programs serve families with multiple risk 

factors, all programs serve families that have some risk factors. The co-occurrence of 

demographic risk factors is to be expected, because individual risk factors can increase the 

chance of experiencing one of the others (for example, teen parents are more likely to be 

single, lack a high school credential, and or be unemployed [Maynard 1997]). 

Table III.6. Prevalence of Demographic and Psychological Risk Factors Across Programs

Percentage of Programs

Less than 

11 Percent 

of Enrollment

11 to 

25 Percent 

of Enrollment

26 to 

50 Percent 

of Enrollment

51 to 

75 Percent 

of Enrollment

More than 

75 Percent 

of Enrollment

Demographic Risk Factors

Teen mother 51.5 31.3 11.4 1.8 4.0

Single parent 1.7 9.4 34.9 32.7 21.4

No high school diploma/GED 13.5 33.1 35.8 13.6 4.1

Receive welfare 24.5 23.4 24.1 13.4 14.6

Unemployed/not in school 27.5 26.6 29.7 12.4 3.8

More than 3 demographic risks 19.2 27.9 31.2 14.1 7.6

Psychological Risk Factor

Mental health problems 46.7 28.5 17.9 5.8 1.1

Substance abuse problems 54.3 30.6 11.8 2.8 0.4

Reside in unsafe neighborhood 37.3 20.6 18.1 10.8 13.3

Experience family violence 39.1 34.5 5.7 5.7 1.7

More than 2 psychological risks 36.6 31.0 19.8 9.6 3.4

Sample Size (Programs) 634–648

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Psychological Risk. Psychological risk factors such as those we describe here present 

difficulties for staff working with families, even if they occur at low frequency. Living in an 

unsafe neighborhood is the most prevalent psychological risk factor; about one-quarter of 

programs have high or very high proportions of families living in these conditions (Figure 

III.6; Table III.6). Programs tend to serve moderate proportions of families experiencing 

family violence. About half of programs serve relatively low proportions of families with 

substance abuse or mental health issues; for each of these risk factors, around 5 percent of 

programs serve high or very high proportions. Relatively low concentrations of mental 

health concerns are somewhat surprising, given what we learned in the site visits (Box III.8) 
45

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

and in the EHSREP, where 50 percent of families had depression at baseline, and about 

one-third had depression when children were 14 and 24 months of age. Mental health issues 

may prevent them from taking the initiative to apply for the program in the first place or can 

make ongoing participation difficult, or staff may not recognize mental health problems 

among parents. When considering the co-occurrence of risk factors, about 15 percent of 

programs serve high or very high concentrations of families with two or more psychological 

risk factors.

Children with Disabilities

Federal performance standards require that programs make 10 percent of their 

enrollment slots available to children with special needs. Therefore, the Early Head Start 

program is an important source of services for young children with disabilities or 

developmental delays. Indeed, in some communities, Early Head Start is the only infant and 

toddler program that will accept children with disabilities.5 Programs are not required to 

meet the 10 percent enrollment at all times, but they must make demonstrated and ongoing 

efforts to enroll children with special needs. Because disabilities can be difficult to identify 

in children under 3, especially infants, the screening and identification process often occurs 

over a period of time and precedes a formal evaluation by an early intervention provider 

(Chapter VI details this process).

Program Level. Three-quarters of Early Head Start programs report that at least 

10 percent of their total enrollment has developmental concerns, and many programs serve 

much higher concentrations of children with special needs. Nearly one-fifth of programs 

have very high concentrations (30 percent or more) of children with developmental 

concerns, and 5 percent of programs report that at least half their caseloads have been 

referred for evaluation of a developmental concern. Five percent of programs reported that 

they did not serve any children with special needs at the time of the survey. A small 

proportion (2 percent) reported that all the children served have special needs. More 

typically, programs serve a caseload consisting of 10 to 30 percent of children with identified 

or suspected special needs. The percentages counted here include children who have been 

referred for evaluation of a developmental concern but may not yet have been evaluated 

(Figure III.7).

Prevalence of Developmental Concerns Within the Early Head Start Population. 

Identifying a disability may entail several stages, the first of which involves talking with the 

family to verify the observed issues and choose a course of action. It is relatively rare for 

staff to report having concerns about a child but not yet having referred that child for 

further evaluation (4 percent, not shown). After conferring with the family, the next step is 

 5 Although services for infants and toddlers with special needs are available under Part C of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Early Head Start may be the only program of its kind in a 

given community to accept children with special needs.
46

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

17.9

20.8

40.1

21.2

7.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure III.7. Percentage of Early Head Start Children with Any Suspected

or Diagnosed Disability, Within Programs

Percentage of Programs

1 to 10 

Percent

10 to 20

Percent

More than

30 Percent

21 to 30

Percent

Percentage of Enrolled Children with Any Disability

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Sample sizes for disability questions are somewhat smaller as a result of the complexity of 

the question and fewer completed cases with internally consistent answers. Appendix B 

describes our approaches to maximize the completeness and accuracy of these data. 

Sample Size = 514.

None

17.9

20.8

40.1

21.2

7.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure III.7. Percentage of Early Head Start Children with Any Suspected

or Diagnosed Disability, Within Programs

Percentage of Programs

1 to 10 

Percent

10 to 20

Percent

More than

30 Percent

21 to 30

Percent

Percentage of Enrolled Children with Any Disability

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Sample sizes for disability questions are somewhat smaller as a result of the complexity of 

the question and fewer completed cases with internally consistent answers. Appendix B 

describes our approaches to maximize the completeness and accuracy of these data. 

Sample Size = 514.

None

 

referring the child for evaluation of the concern identified by program staff.6

 Across the 

universe of Early Head Start children, a fifth have been referred for further evaluation, most 

commonly as a result of concerns about communication disorders and developmental delays. 

Before we describe the process of identification in Chapter VI, we here describe the 

prevalence of disabilities in the population of Early Head Start children. Of the Early Head 

Start children that have been referred for evaluation of a suspected disability, many are 

receiving services (76 percent; Table III.7).

Among children who have been referred for evaluation, after accounting for 

communication (speech or language) disorders in 9 percent of children and developmental 

delays (such as autism or Down syndrome) in 6 percent, less common concerns include 

emotional or behavioral issues, physical or orthopedic impairments, sensory impairments 

(such as blindness or deafness), and others (all less than 2 percent). Box III.9 gives a fuller 

picture of developmental concerns among Early Head Start children from site visits.

6 For more information on the identification process, see Chapter VI, Box VI.2. 
47

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

BOX III.9

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Serving children with disabilities is part of Early Head Start’s mission. Federal performance 

standards require that Early Head Start programs make 10 percent of their enrollment slots available to 

children with disabilities, and programs are required to make special efforts to meet this percentage by

recruiting children with disabilities and identifying special needs among children already enrolled. The 

following data from our site visits describe how programs comply.

Some programs have difficulty ensuring that 10 percent of enrolled children are those with 

special needs, while others have so many children with special needs that they must work hard 

to keep a mix of special-needs and typically developing children in classrooms. Children with 

disabilities in the programs we visited range from 3 to about 50 percent of enrollment, with most 

programs’ caseloads at 10 to 20 percent. These percentages change on an ongoing basis as children with 

special needs are identified.

Some programs have difficulty with having too many or too few children with disabilities. One 

center-based program whose enrollment of children with disabilities is 50 percent reported it had to stop 

accepting children with disabilities, because it would no longer be an inclusion program. Early Head 

Start programs provide inclusive or integrated services to children with and without disabilities rather 

than have segregated services for children with special needs alone. For some programs, this requires 

particular effort not to have high percentages of children with disabilities in any one classroom. For 

example, one program is operated by a disabilities services agency, and about a quarter of the children it 

serves have special needs. The program reported that it targets children with special needs and does not 

have difficulty identifying and enrolling them, but staff have to work hard to ensure that Early Head 

Start classrooms have a mix of typically developing and special-needs children rather than too many 

children with special needs. Other programs have very small percentages of children with disabilities. 

Programs identify children with special needs through their own screenings and child assessments 

conducted regularly in Early Head Start, but they also enroll children with disabilities that have already 

been identified.

Some programs make special efforts to target families with special-needs children for 

enrollment, but several programs we visited reported that they do not need to do much active 

recruiting for these families. Most programs accept referrals from Part C early intervention providers, 

and some received so many referrals that they could not accept them all.1 Some grantee agencies also 

have early intervention or other disability services providers co-located with the Early Head Start 

program and so do not need to recruit actively. One program is the only early childhood program in the 

community that serves infants and toddlers with disabilities, so it is able to enroll plenty of children with 

special needs without actively recruiting. Ongoing screenings and assessments in Early Head Start also 

uncover special needs among children already enrolled in the program without the need to recruit them 

specifically. Still, some programs we visited have very low enrollment of children with special needs. 

Some disabilities are difficult to identify in infants and toddlers because their early stage of development 

makes it hard to observe delays, and the age of onset of certain developmental milestones ranges widely. 

One program with a very low enrollment of children with special needs reported that it does not have 

the facilities or staff expertise to serve children with severe disabilities.

________________

1 These are disability services providers for infants and toddlers with special needs, authorized under 

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 
48

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Table III.7. Prevalence of Developmental Concerns Among All Early Head Start Children

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Enrolled Children

Children Who Have Been Referred for Evaluation 20.3

Sample Size (Children) 41,333

Among Referred Children

Eligible for/receiving Part C services or has IFSP 75.6

Specific Concerns Among Children Eligible for Part C Servicesa

Communication disorder 42.2

Developmental delay 32.4

Emotional or behavioral issues 7.8

Physical or orthopedic impairment 9.1

Sensory impairment 3.0

Health or mental condition 0.8

Other developmental concern 4.6

Sample Size (Children) 6,335

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

These children have been referred for Part C evaluation, have been found eligible, and may be 

receiving Part C services.

KEY POINTS

• Early Head start programs are equally likely to be located in urban or rural 

areas. Many are in areas of increasing cultural diversity.

• Most Early Head Start programs are run by nonprofit community agencies. 

• Most Early Head Start programs obtain outside funding in addition to the Early 

Head Start grant funds to supplement program services. Programs that do not 

report receiving outside funds may receive in-kind contributions, but we did 

not ask about those in the survey. 

• About one-third of Early Head Start programs are small, serving 50 or fewer 

children and pregnant women; nearly three-quarters of programs serve 100 or 

fewer. A small number of programs are very large, with enrollment in 

the hundreds. 

• Most Early Head Start children enter the program between birth and age 2 and 

do not leave until they have reached age 3. About 13 percent of children enter 

the program during the prenatal period. 
49

Chapter III: Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

• All programs surveyed maintain a waiting list for enrollment of eligible families 

and prioritize families by their level of need. Most programs are either at 

enrollment capacity or overenrolled.

• Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics make up the majority of the Early 

Head Start population, but many other racial/ethnic groups are represented in 

programs. More than 60 percent of programs serve 4 or more different 

racial/ethnic groups.

• About one-quarter of families served speak a language other than English; 

however, they are distributed across nearly three-quarters of programs. Thirtyfour percent of programs serve families speaking two or more languages; 

8 percent have 4 or more languages represented.

• Fairly high levels of family risk factors are prevalent across Early Head Start 

programs, in part because programs prioritize the families with greatest need 

for enrollment. Some programs serve many families with multiple risk factors, 

and these risk factors present programs with many service and management 

challenges. About 15 percent of programs report serving families with multiple 

psychological or demographic risks.

• Three-quarters of Early Head Start programs reported that at least 10 percent 

of the children they serve have developmental concerns; nearly one-fifth of 

programs serve concentrations of more than 30 percent children with 

special needs.

• Communication disorders and developmental delays are the most common 

types of developmental concerns among Early Head Start children.

• Across the total Early Head Start population, about 20 percent of children have 

been referred for evaluation, and in about 5 percent of programs, nearly half 

the children have been referred for evaluation. Among children referred for 

evaluation, most are receiving services (76 percent).

• Eighty-four percent of programs serve pregnant women, although not all 

responding programs had any pregnant women enrolled at the time of 

the survey.
C HAPTER I V

E ARLY H EAD S TART P ROGRAM S ERVICES

This chapter describes the services programs provide and the strategies they employ to 

implement them. First, we use survey data to present program models for providing services 

and explain how these models have changed over time. The second half of the chapter 

expands on survey findings by using qualitative site visit data to describe the strategies 

programs use to engage families in Early Head Start services, including their approaches for 

retaining families, involving parents in the program, and planning for transitions when the 

program ends. 

EARLY HEAD START SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS

The performance standards identify four program service models or “options” from 

which program can choose to serve individual families: (1) center-based, which can be fullor part-day for four or five days a week, in which child development services are provided in 

a child care center; (2) home-based, in which families receive weekly home visits and 

bimonthly group socialization experiences; (3) a combination program incorporating both 

center-based and home-based services; and (4) a locally designed option (requiring ACF 

approval).1

 In the EHSREP, the 17 sites were categorized into three program approaches 

based on services delivered to families: (1) a home-based approach, in which all families 

received the home-based option; (2) a center-based approach, in which all families received 

the center-based option; and (3) a mixed approach. Mixed approach programs were those 

 1 We use program approach as a research term to describe our classifications and analysis of the 

combinations of options that programs use to deliver services.

N ow that we have described the basic characteristics of programs, and the families 

and children that they serve, we turn to the services programs actually provide. As 

we noted in the introductory chapter, Early Head Start programs choose which 

options (as defined in the Head Start Program Performance Standards) they will use to 

provide services to families. Programs develop and implement a model of service delivery 

based on factors that include community needs assessments and the needs of families 

they serve.
52

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

that offered families the combination option, or a home-based option to some families and a 

center-based one to others. In that study, programs changed in their approaches over the 

study period, with some providing more than one type of service to families, and some 

adding services above the minimum requirements for a given model. As described 

in Chapter I, the EHSREP impact study found differential patterns of impacts among 

program approaches.

Therefore, one of the primary goals of the current survey is to capture and describe the 

variation in service delivery models across Early Head Start programs that exist today. In 

the survey, we asked detailed questions about service delivery models to understand, in more 

depth than is possible through the PIR, the combinations of service delivery models that 

programs implement. (See Appendix A for the actual survey questions on service delivery 

models.) Because we group programs into mutually exclusive categories, we can use 

program approach subgroups to compare and contrast other aspects of programs (see 

Chapter VII).

Home-based and center-based models that offer those services exclusively are used by 

23 and 17 percent of programs, respectively. Home visits are performed by Early Head Start 

staff and are usually focused on parent-child interactions, modeling appropriate parenting 

behavior, and generally facilitating activities with parents and children in their home. We 

distinguish combination programs from multiple approach programs based primarily on the 

frequency of home visits to all families. Combination programs provide center-based care 

(focused on developmentally appropriate experiences for the child) as well as frequent 

home-based services that are focused on parent-child interactions to all enrolled families; 

fewer than 10 percent of programs offer this approach. More than half of programs 

(51 percent) provide services with a multiple service delivery model (Table IV.1; 

Figure IV.1). These programs are providing either home-based or center-based services to 

enrolled families. Use of a multiple model gives programs flexibility to adapt their service 

delivery approach to meet the individual needs of families and adjust their approach as those 

needs change.

Our findings about programs’ service delivery models are similar to those from the PIR, 

in which, for the 2004–2005 reporting year, 49 percent of programs offered both home- and 

center-based options, 24 percent offered only center-based services, 16 percent offered only 

home-based services, and 8 percent were combination programs. The combination 

approach offers what seems to be the most intensive intervention and likely requires the 

highest levels of family participation. We cannot tell from survey data why few programs 

choose this approach. Perhaps it is difficult to adopt because of the intensity of services or 

the need for parents to participate in both home- and center-based activities.

Program Changes Since Inception

Sixty-five percent of programs indicated they had made some change to organization or 

design since the program began (not shown). Among programs that made a change, the
53

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

Table IV.1. Program Models for Delivering Early Head Start Services

Program 

Model

Research Definition: 

Services Provided by Programs 

at the Time of the Survey 

Number 

of Programs

Percentage 

of Programs

Office of Head Start Definition: 

Program Option Received 

by Children and Families

Homebaseda

Home visits offered at least monthly 

to all families (99 percent offered 

weekly home visits)

114 17.3 Early Head Start services 

provided to families through 

the home-based option, 

including weekly home visits 

and bimonthly group 

socializations. Other 

comprehensive services are 

also provided.

Centerbasedb

Center-based services and home 

visits less than monthly to all families

(98 percent offered visits at least 

twice a year)

152 23.0 Early Head Start services 

provided to families with the 

center-based option, including 

center care and regular 

parenting education and family 

support through two home 

visits a year. Other 

comprehensive services 

offered through the program or 

referrals.

Combination Center care plus home visits monthly 

or more to all families

56 8.5 Early Head Start services 

provided to children through a 

combination of center-based 

services based on ratios 

defined in the Performance 

Standards.

Multiple 

optionsc

Programs primarily provide homebased services to some families and 

center-based services to others. A 

few families may receive both homeand center-based options. Nearly all 

programs (99 percent) offered 

weekly home visits to home-based 

families. Forty-two percent provided 

combination services to some 

families.

334 50.6 Children are enrolled in one of 

the above official Head Start 

program options, receive 

services from one of the other 

program options, and/or move 

from one program option to 

another.

Other Family child care services provided 

to all families (all offered home visits 

at least twice a year)

4 0.6 Locally defined program option

Sample Size 

(Programs)

660 100

Note: Percentages refer to the proportion of programs within each service option that offered home visits at a given 

frequency.

a

The Head Start Program Performance Standards require weekly home visit for this program option.

b

The Head Start Program Performance Standards require twice yearly home visits for this program option. Among 

programs offering center-based services defined in survey items A4A_C, A4A_E, and A4A_G, 98 percent offered home 

visits at least twice per year. Among all programs that offered center-based services, including those in A4A_D, A4A_F, 

and A4A_H, 66 percent offered home visits at least twice per year.

c

The survey asked about services delivered at one point in time, therefore, we cannot capture the proportions of families 

that move in and out of different program options. Percentages offering home visits in multiple options programs do not 

sum to 100 because programs by definition offer more than one option.
54

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

 

 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size: 660 programs.

Home-based Only

17%

Center-based Only

23%

Multiple

51%

Combination

9%

Figure IV.1. Early Head Start Program Models

most frequent was to the organizational structure (81 percent; Figure IV.2).2 Other changes 

were to design, with 40 percent of programs adding center-based services to their offerings, 

21 percent adding home-based services, and 11 percent dropping home-based services. 

Other changes, including adding or dropping combination models, were infrequent. These 

findings, coupled with the EHSREP implementation study, suggest that for some time now, 

programs have been moving to various types of mixed approaches and/or are working to 

provide center-based services (ACF 2002). The shift could possibly be influenced by welfare 

reforms that require parents to work or attend school full-time (and thus need child care), or 

in response to findings from the EHSREP evaluation that the broadest pattern of impacts at 

age 3 was in mixed approach programs (ACYF 2002), or may reflect the ways that programs 

strive to individualize services for families.

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START SERVICES

All programs, regardless of their service delivery models, must find effective strategies 

to involve families in their services. In the second half of this chapter, we describe the 

strategies that programs use to engage families and sustain their engagement in the services 

that they offer.

2 We are unable to be much more specific about the nature of organizational change, because most 

respondents selected only this pre-coded response. Those who elaborated on their answers report myriad 

changes, most frequently adding or dropping family child care or Early Head Start slots.
55

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

11.8

2.9 1.2 1.5

21.3

40.3

81.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure IV.2. Changes to Early Head Start Programs Since Inception,

Among Programs with a Change

Percentage of Programs

Drop

Combination

Drop

Center

Change 

Organization

or Structure

Add

Home

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 414 programs.

Add

Center

Drop

Home

Add

Combination

11.8

2.9 1.2 1.5

21.3

40.3

81.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure IV.2. Changes to Early Head Start Programs Since Inception,

Among Programs with a Change

Percentage of Programs

Drop

Combination

Drop

Center

Change 

Organization

or Structure

Add

Home

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 414 programs.

Add

Center

Drop

Home

Add

Combination

The sections below are organized according to a chronology of families’ stages of 

involvement in program services, starting with enrollment and ending with exit and 

transition into preschool programs. Because of their qualitative nature, survey data alone 

provide limited insights into these qualitative topics; therefore, we briefly describe four 

important issues programs face when engaging families in services and then refer to text 

boxes using site visit data that contain in-depth examinations of each particular topic. We 

begin by describing programs’ efforts to retain families after they enroll in the program, 

strategies that promote parent involvement, the frequency of home visits provided to 

families, and how programs help families and children transition into preschool services after 

the children age out of Early Head Start.

Retaining Families

To positively affect children’s outcomes, Early Head Start must keep families involved 

and participating. Limiting enrollment turnover among families in the program allows 

children and families to experience Early Head Start fully and receive its maximum benefits. 

Families can voluntarily choose to drop out, or programs can decide to drop them from the 

rolls (usually because of nonparticipation). When programs decide how to 

handle nonparticipation, they must balance their mission to serve families, funding 

regulations (subsidy payments usually require children’s attendance), and long waiting lists of 

unserved families.
56

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

Enrollment turnover is low to moderate in most Early Head Start programs. We 

consider turnover (as a proportion of total enrollment) at or below 15 percent to be low, 

16 to 35 percent to be moderate, and above 35 percent to be high. On average, across 

programs, about 34 percent of enrolled families voluntarily withdrew or were dropped by the 

program in the year before the survey. Although overall enrollment turnover is moderate, 

the average obscures the distribution (Figure IV.3). Twenty-nine percent of programs had 

low turnover of enrolled families, and 34 percent had moderate turnover. The remaining 

37 percent of programs had high levels. None of these figures include turnover due to 

normal transition out of Early Head Start when children turn 3 (described in Chapter III). 

Box IV.1 provides a discussion of this topic, including the types of families who tend to 

drop out and why they drop out, as well as the strategies programs use to retain them. 

37

34

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure IV.3. Average Enrollment Turnover, as a Percentage of Total

Program Enrollment

Percentage of Programs

Low Turnover

(15 Percent

or Lower)

Moderate Turnover

(16 to 35 Percent)

High Turnover 

(More than

35 Percent)

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 540 programs.

37

34

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure IV.3. Average Enrollment Turnover, as a Percentage of Total

Program Enrollment

Percentage of Programs

Low Turnover

(15 Percent

or Lower)

Moderate Turnover

(16 to 35 Percent)

High Turnover 

(More than

35 Percent)

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 540 programs.

Parent Involvement

Involving parents in program activities, operations, and decision-making is central to 

Early Head Start. The performance measures framework reflects the importance the 

performance standards place on parent involvement in program activities. Although they 

specifically relate to retaining those families most likely to drop out, the issues here are more 

generally related to the ways programs work to involve parents. All programs adhere to 

standards for promoting parent participation, including formation of Policy Councils and
57

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

sending invitations to attend socialization groups. We also have detailed information from 

site visit interviews about other ways that programs involve parents in activities and 

decision-making (Box IV.2).

Nearly all programs make special efforts to involve fathers, in keeping with both the 

performance measures and the special focus that the Office of Head Start has placed on 

father involvement (ACF 2003b). The level of effort and range of activities is wide; many 

programs hold special activities to encourage father participation. Ninety-eight percent of 

programs report including fathers in family events, and 78 percent hold events especially for 

BOX IV.1

RETAINING FAMILIES IN EARLY HEAD START 

As part of Early Head Start efforts to positively affect children and families, keeping families 

involved and fully participating is a key program goal. We use site visit data to describe the types of 

families who tend to drop out of the program and why they drop out, as well as strategies programs 

employ to retain families.

In several of the sites we visited, programs report that families who drop out tend to be 

those at the highest risk and most in need of services. Staff in several sites report that families at 

highest risk of dropping out are those with multiple risk factors. In addition to being less able to 

comply with program participation requirements, they are also more likely to move frequently, often 

suddenly. Common risk factors that tend to go along with dropping out are being a single mother, 

having substance abuse problems, being in a housing crisis or homeless, having multiple children, and 

having mental health issues. Families with multiple risk factors may also be hardest to serve 

effectively; the Early Head Start evaluation showed the most short-term benefits for families at 

moderate risk and little benefit for those at highest risk (ACYF 2002). However, newer findings at 

prekindergarten show that positive impacts also emerged for the highest-risk group about two years 

after the end of the program (ACF 2006).

Challenges to program participation include work schedules, lack of transportation, moving out of 

the service area, and extended visits to countries of origin. Apart from the highest-risk groups, staff 

cited several barriers to full participation. Families without access to reliable transportation cannot get 

children to the program and pick them up when required (especially if programs end early and do not 

align with parents’ work schedules). Weather is a problem, particularly in the winter in one 

midwestern program. Programs we visited that enroll immigrant families sometimes drop them when 

they leave for months at a time to visit their home countries. Many of the programs we visited report 

that a subset of families would, for a variety of these reasons, cycle in and out of the program—

enrolling, leaving or being dropped, returning to the waiting list, then reenrolling. When deciding how 

to handle nonparticipation, programs must balance their mission to serve families, funding regulations 

(subsidy payments often require children’s attendance), and long waiting lists of unserved families. 

Programs we visited vary in their attendance policies, both in the specificity of the policies and in their 

enforcement. Although only 7 percent of programs in the survey report saving slots for families who 

become inactive, many of the programs we visited indicate that they make concerted efforts to contact 

and reengage families before dropping them from the rolls. A few programs first attempt to change 

the program option (for example, center-based to home-based) in an effort to retain families. In some 

programs, slots can be kept open for as long as three or four weeks for families that staff expect will 

return. In others, slots are filled quickly, in as little as 7 to 10 days. No programs report that the size 

of the waiting list influences them when deciding whether to drop a noncompliant family.
58

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

BOX IV.2

INVOLVING PARENTS IN EARLY HEAD START DECISION-MAKING

AND PROGRAM OPERATIONS

In this text box, we discuss programs’ efforts to involve parents in program activities, operations, 

and decision-making. We also describe parents’ impressions of and satisfaction with programs. We 

base our discussion on interview data from programs selected for site visits. We focus on parent 

involvement because the performance measures consider their involvement in program activities and 

planning essential for ensuring program quality. While programs and children benefit from the active 

involvement of parents, parents themselves also benefit, mainly through increased self-confidence as a 

parent and an advocate for their child. 

Programs are successful at involving parents in program operations and decision-making. 

All 17 programs selected for site visits had Early Head Start parents involved in the required Policy 

Council or other parent committees. Such involvement provides opportunities to engage in many 

activities, including participating in hiring decisions and interviews, making budget and fundraising 

decisions, making decisions regarding curriculum and child assessments, and generating ideas for 

program activities. Many programs also involve parents in the community- and self-assessment 

process, with parents providing written and oral feedback on program activities and needs.

Programs also strive to involve parents in day-to-day program activities, services, and 

activities for their children. For example, classroom teachers and home visitors often involve 

parents in the assessment and screening process. Parents also provide input on planned services for 

their child, particularly if the child has a disability. Parents are encouraged to spend time and/or 

volunteer in the classroom, assisting with activities, completing administrative tasks, or helping during 

meals or playtime. They also participate in fundraising and special program events like parties and 

field trips.

Parents who formally participate in the program and in parent committees benefit from 

this involvement. For example, in focus groups, some parents suggested that the confidence they 

gained from involvement with the Policy Council or committees allowed them to focus on 

accomplishing goals for themselves, such as furthering their education, pursuing a GED, or finding 

employment. Some programs encourage parent involvement by providing training opportunities to 

parent committee members. For instance, one program indicates that parents receive training in job 

interviewing skills. Another offers opportunities for parents to attend conferences, while another pays 

for the cost of parents to take child care courses to become licensed child care providers. Notably, 

many programs indicate that several of their current Head Start and Early Head Start staff members 

are former program parents. Thus, as intended by the framers of Head Start (Zigler and Muenchow 

1992), involvement in programs may provide parents a springboard for future employment.

Some programs face challenges in making parents aware of opportunities for involvement 

and making activities and meetings accessible to working parents. During site visit interviews, 

parents at one program revealed that they are interested in being more involved in the Policy Council 

and related parent committees, but they are uncertain about how to become involved. This may 

reflect the difficulty this program has in drawing awareness to the diversity of opportunities it provides 

for parent involvement. More commonly, during site visits, programs acknowledged difficulties in 

getting parents involved in committees because of their competing work schedules and the need to 

balance work with the demands of parenthood.
59

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

them (not shown). Programs incorporate other strategies into program practices to 

encourage father participation, including trying to create father-friendly environments and 

routinely collecting fathers’ contact information (Figure IV.4). Most programs provide staff 

training on father involvement (86 percent), and nearly 70 percent hire male staff to serve as 

role models for fathers. Box IV.3 provides detail on the topic of father involvement based 

on site visit data.

Frequency of Home Visits

We asked programs to indicate the frequency of home visits they offer under each 

program option they use to deliver Early Head Start services. Table IV.2 shows the 

percentage of programs that report offering home visits at a frequency that either meets or 

exceeds the requirements of the performance standards. Very rarely, programs indicated 

they offer home visits less frequently than required.3

 Ninety-nine percent of programs 

providing home-based services offer home visits weekly or more often.4 Among programs

 3 The Head Start Program Performance Standards require weekly home visits in the home-based option 

and two visits a year in center-based or other options. It is possible that some programs reported the 

frequency with which they complete, rather than attempt, visits.

4 Programs could indicate offering home visits that “varied with family needs,” a category we consider to 

represent home visits at or above the required level. We stress that these are home visits that programs offer to 

families, not necessarily how often the visits are completed.

Box IV.2 (continued)

Programs respond in many ways to challenges in involving parents. For example, during 

site visit interviews, some programs reported holding meetings in the evenings, paying for child care 

and mileage, and providing meals to participating parents. In general, programs try to accommodate 

parent schedules as much as possible. Other programs offer incentives like door prizes, books for 

children, and points that can be used to purchase items like diapers and formula from the program’s 

pantry. Programs also ensure that materials and activities are available in English and Spanish so that 

parents feel encouraged to attend. One program also reports having parent committee members 

recruit new parents, so that parents can hear directly from other parents about the benefits of 

involvement.

Parents appreciate having relationships and interaction with staff. During focus groups, 

parents spoke about Early Head Start’s emphasis on serving the entire family. This emphasis is shown 

by programs’ efforts at ongoing communication with parents, involving them in home-visiting 

activities and parent-teacher conferences, and sending home written materials. In particular, having a 

voice in their children’s development and Early Head Start experience is important to families. Many 

parents we spoke with report satisfaction in their relationship with teachers/home visitors and state 

that these are people they can trust. They appreciate the respect and concern staff members provide 

to them and their children. In addition, the general level of support provided by staff to parents for 

other issues is important to families. For example, one parent described an instance in which her 

child’s teacher called home to check on the child, who had been sick for several days. Another 

appreciated the support a home visitor provided to her during an ordeal in court.
60

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

providing center-based services though their own centers, nearly half offer home visits twice 

a year (48 percent), and the remaining 51 percent do so more frequently. Notably, among 

programs that provide services through child care partners, 64 percent offer home visits 

more often than twice a year. All programs that provide family child care services offer 

home visits at least twice a year, with 59 percent doing so more frequently.

Transitions

In addition to providing services while children and families are enrolled, programs 

must help children make a smooth transition from the Early Head Start program to Head 

Start or another preschool program. A smooth transition is optimal for children’s wellbeing. In recognition of this, one of the performance measures identifies smooth transitions 

as a key element of Early Head Start services. We have limited survey data about the 

transition process; however, we know that most programs (65 percent) develop formal 

transition plans for all children leaving Early Head Start. We use data from site visits to 

describe transition plans, challenges to smooth transitions, and ways that programs address 

these challenges (Box IV.4).

54.1

44.3 41.8

69.4

86.4

97.2 96.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure IV.4. Percentage of Programs Conducting Each Activity to Encourage 

Father Involvement

Percentage of Programs

Hire Father 

Involvement 

Coordinatora

Hire

Male

Staff

“FatherFriendly” 

Environment

Train All Staff

in Father 

Involvement

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

aOr designate a staff member with at least half-time responsibility for involving fathers.

Sample Size = 599-608 programs.

Include

Father’s

Contact 

Information

on Enrollment 

Forms

Complete

Father Needs 

Assessment

Other

Activities

Activity to Encourage Father Involvement

54.1

44.3 41.8

69.4

86.4

97.2 96.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure IV.4. Percentage of Programs Conducting Each Activity to Encourage 

Father Involvement

Percentage of Programs

Hire Father 

Involvement 

Coordinatora

Hire

Male

Staff

“FatherFriendly” 

Environment

Train All Staff

in Father 

Involvement

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

aOr designate a staff member with at least half-time responsibility for involving fathers.

Sample Size = 599-608 programs.

Include

Father’s

Contact 

Information

on Enrollment 

Forms

Complete

Father Needs 

Assessment

Other

Activities

Activity to Encourage Father Involvement
61

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

BOX IV.3

INVOLVING FATHERS IN EARLY HEAD START

Early Head Start has actively supported father involvement, most recently through a demonstration 

that explored ways to engage dads (Bellotti et al. 2003). Accordingly, in addition to performance 

measures that call for active parent involvement in Early Head Start (both in decision-making and in 

participation), one performance measure addresses father involvement—specifically, that programs 

should encourage and support fathers’ involvement in program planning, decision-making, and activities. 

Site visit data provide information about barriers to father involvement and strategies programs use to 

overcome them. 

Among the 17 programs we visited, all but 2 indicate that they hold special events aimed at 

involving fathers in the program. The substance of the events varies widely but most often includes 

activities to appeal to men, such as sporting events (attending baseball games, fishing, or bowling) or 

picnic/party types of activities (such as “Donuts for Dads” or Fathers’ Day parties). Often, picnic/party 

activities include the entire family.

Father participation in program activities is low to moderate. Despite the efforts that many 

programs make to appeal to fathers, most programs we visited report limited father participation. Some 

programs have fathers doing dropoff or pickup of children from centers, and others say that some 

fathers participate in parent meetings. A few programs we visited indicated that one or more fathers 

participate in the Policy Council. Some of the challenges and barriers that program staff identify as 

important are consistent across programs. The leading barrier is fathers’ daytime work schedules. 

Father-mother conflict, domestic violence, and parental attitudes about the mother’s role as primary 

caregiver are also responsible for limited father involvement in several programs. Other factors—

incarceration, homelessness, and high-risk behaviors such as drug dealing and substance abuse—are 

problematic in a few places as well.

Programs employ a range of strategies to address barriers to participation. A few programs 

address conflicts with fathers’ work schedules by scheduling home visits, socializations, or other events 

in the late afternoon so that fathers can attend. Most programs rely on a range of other strategies, 

including making centers more father friendly by hanging father-related posters, actively encouraging and 

positively reinforcing any father participation (such as during dropoff or pickup), and hiring male staff to 

model caregiving.

To encourage participation at special events, some programs provide door prizes or other gifts, as 

well as transportation or child care. A couple of programs encourage leadership from fathers by asking 

involved Early Head Start fathers to bring other fathers with them or by having dads organize events 

themselves.

Programs provide special training for staff about fathers. One program we visited offers a 

parent training course for fathers each year (with one meeting a week for six weeks). Other visited 

programs report they use curricula (such as “24/7 Dad”) to inform their staff training and father 

activities. 
62

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

Table IV.2. Early Head Start Program Service Models and Frequency of Home Visits

Program Model

Number of 

Programs 

Percentage Offering 

Home Visits That 

Meet Standardsa

Percentage Offering 

Home Visits That 

Exceed Standards

Percentage Offering 

Home Visits at or 

Above Standards

Home-Based 

Services 436 95.6 3.0 98.6

Home-Based with 

Additional Early 

Head Start Servicesb 55 32.7 21.3 54.0

Own Center with 

Home Visits 395 48.4 51.1 99.5

Partner Center with 

Home Visits 104 35.6 64.4 100.0

Family Child Care 

with Home Visits 56 41.1 58.9 100.0

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: “Number of programs” includes any program that indicates serving one or more children through 

each service approach described in the survey. The models presented in this table are items 

drawn directly from the survey. We asked programs to report children they serve through each 

model, therefore programs could endorse more than one model.

a

Head Start Program Performance Standards require home visits weekly in home-based options and home 

visits twice a year in other options.

b

For this program approach, we consider programs that offer home visits weekly or more often to meet 

performance standards.
63

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

BOX IV.4

TRANSITIONS FROM EARLY HEAD START TO PRESCHOOL

We focus here on how programs facilitate children’s transitions from the Early Head Start program 

to Head Start or another preschool program. A smooth transition is optimal for children’s well-being; in 

recognition of this, one of the performance measures identifies smooth transitions as a key element of 

Early Head Start services. Making these transitions seamless is also a requirement of the program 

performance standards. We use data from site visits to describe transition plans, challenges to smooth 

transitions, and ways that programs address these challenges.

Of the 17 programs that we visited, 11 report that they develop transition plans for most of their 

children. We cannot tell from the survey why some children do not receive transition plans, although it 

may be a result of families’ leaving before the children reach the end of their eligibility. As part of the 

transition process, some programs have group meetings twice a year for parents whose children will be 

aging out of the program in the following six months. Other programs have individual meetings with 

parents, usually when the child reaches age 21⁄2. These meetings include a variety of staff members, such 

as family advocates, teachers, home visitors, and/or education coordinators. At the meetings, they 

discuss child care options and next steps for both the family and staff. 

All Early Head Start programs we visited have formal transition processes for children 

moving into Head Start programs. Some programs have transition rooms for children between ages 

21⁄2 and 31⁄2. These classrooms are geared toward children who are ready to move out of the toddler 

room but are not yet ready for preschool. The children are exposed to preschool routines, and Head 

Start teachers visit the transition rooms to become acquainted with the children. Programs that do not 

have transition rooms introduce the children to Head Start staff, and some make trips to Head Start 

classrooms to help children become familiar with their new environment.

Programs deal with a variety of challenges transitioning children to preschool. In 

developing formal transition plans, programs commonly deal with issues of income documentation and 

age restrictions for children entering Head Start programs. One program described a frustrating situation 

in which Early Head Start helped parents obtain a better job, but family income then rose above the 

threshold for Head Start eligibility. In such situations, staff members feel that although parents have 

made progress, they still need many of the services that Head Start can provide. Some programs offer 

priority to Early Head Start children for entering the Head Start program; however, because programs 

are required to serve the neediest families, they cannot always make such accommodations. If an area 

lacks a preschool Head Start program, the possibility of service gaps increases. Some programs will serve 

children through age 3 so that they can transfer to Head Start at age 4. Other challenges for transitioning 

include accessibility of available slots. In rural areas, finding transportation to Head Start programs can 

be a challenge, and even urban programs report difficulties finding available slots in the right 

neighborhoods.

Although the transition from Early Head Start to Head Start is not automatic, the children 

who make the transition most often experience it as a seamless process. The programs we visited 

try to help children adjust to their new classrooms and teachers, in addition to helping parents adjust to 

new staff and different procedures. Program staff also help parents by filling out the paperwork, 

checking on immunizations, and identifying other requirements.

Programs help parents and children make a smooth transition to non-Head Start 

preschool programs. When families do not qualify for Head Start services, program staff work to find 

affordable alternative options for them. Programs refer parents to local resources, such as child care 

resource and referral agencies, and most programs we visited provide parents with guidance on selecting 

a child care provider. Sometimes staff visit child care centers with parents to help them evaluate the 

quality of the centers.
64

Chapter IV: Early Head Start Program Services

KEY POINTS

• Programs vary greatly in their approaches to service delivery but most programs 

take a multiple approach, providing both home- and center-based services.

• While most programs use a multiple service delivery model, few programs 

offer both home- and center-based services to all their families (combination 

approach).

• Many programs, regardless of approach, offer home visits more frequently than 

the performance standards require. Ninety-nine percent of programs providing 

home-based services offer them weekly or more often. Among programs 

providing center-based services through their own centers, nearly half offer 

home visits twice a year (48 percent), and the remaining 51 percent do so more 

frequently. Notably, among programs that provide services through partners, 

64 percent offer home visits more than twice a year. Among programs that 

offer family child care services, 59 percent offer home visits more than twice 

a year.

• Considering frequency of home visits within the research definitions of program 

approach, 99 percent of home-based only programs offer weekly home visits 

and 66 percent of center-based only programs offer home visits at least twice a 

year but less than monthly. In multiple approach programs, 99 percent provide 

weekly home visits to home-based families, 52 percent offer home visits at least 

twice a year but less than monthly to center-based families, and 42 percent offer 

home visits at least monthly along with center care. By definition, combination 

programs offer all families center-based care and home visits at least monthly.

• Programs incorporate many strategies to engage families in the services they 

offer. They work to keep families who may drop out, and they adopt creative 

approaches to involving parents in general and fathers in particular.

• Most families have transition plans that start when a child reaches age 21⁄2. 

Among visited programs, most transitions seem to work smoothly.
C HAPTER V 

S TAFF C HARACTERISTICS AND 

P ROGRAM M ANAGEMENT

EARLY HEAD START STAFF CHARACTERISTICS

The qualifications of staff and their development are core to the success of early 

childhood programs and both the Head Start Program Performance Standards and the 

performance measures framework emphasize employing qualified staff. The current 

mandate requires that staff working with infants and toddlers obtain a Child Development 

Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent within one year of hire, and that at least 50 percent 

of these staff have an associate degree in early childhood education. The pending Head Start 

reauthorization bill will increase these requirements if passed in its current form.1

 Other

important skills include the ability to maintain good relationships with children's families, 

establish caring relationships with infants and toddlers, provide appropriate developmental 

experiences, and conduct developmental screenings. Thus, successful service delivery in 

Early Head Start programs depends on the programs’ ability to attract and keep staff with a 

 1 The pending Head Start reauthorization bill mandates that by 2008, 50 percent of Head Start teachers 

have a BA, and that those hired without an AA must earn one within three years of hire.

Understanding the types of management activities taking place within Early Head 

Start programs to support the delivery of quality services helps policymakers assess 

the extent to which programs are achieving key objectives within the performance 

measures framework. These activities include staff hiring and retention, activities to support 

staff, use of curricula, and use of data to support continuous program improvement. 

Because of their critical role in delivering services, this chapter starts with a description of 

staff qualifications, expertise, and retention in the program. Management activities designed 

to support staff and enhance their work with children and families, including staff 

development, training, and supervision are then described. Finally we describe management 

systems designed to support continuous program improvement, including use of curricula, 

collection of data, both classroom quality and child functioning, and how this information is 

used to enhance program practice. Selected topics from the site visits are highlighted in 

text boxes. 
66

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

range of expertise and educational backgrounds. In this section, we describe Early Head 

Start staff characteristics, how these characteristics differ by types of staff, and the challenges 

programs experience hiring and keeping qualified staff.

Specialists and Coordinators

Early Head Start programs employ and have access to a wide range of staff, including 

primary caregivers and/or home visitors (depending on program model), directors, and 

specialists, all with knowledge, skills, and experience in a wide array of fields. More than 

90 percent of Early Head Start programs employ or have access to a mental health specialist, 

a disability specialist, and a health care professional or nurse (Table V.1). More than half 

report having access to a literacy specialist. Less than 20 percent of programs employ or 

have access to a dietitian or nutritionist. This may be because health specialists/coordinators 

often oversee services provided to address the nutritional needs of Early Head Start children 

and families. Nearly two-thirds of programs report having access to a speech or language 

specialist, perhaps because speech and language impairments are the most common special 

needs reported for children in Early Head Start. Disability specialists may also provide 

services for these conditions. Finally, more than half the programs employ staff specifically 

to support and encourage involvement by fathers, reflecting an emphasis in Early Head Start 

on support for fathers’ involvement in program activities and decision making. Chapter IV 

provides a more detailed discussion of strategies programs use to involve fathers in 

program activities.

Table V.1. Types of Staff in Early Head Start Programs

Staff Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Employs or Has Access to

Mental health specialist 95.5

Disability specialist 92.0

Health care professional or nurse 91.0

Speech or language specialist 64.8

Father or male involvement specialist 57.5

Literacy specialist 56.7

Dietitian or nutritionist 18.9

Any other specialist 27.7

Program Employs

Home visitors (own) 81.8

Home visitors (partner) 15.8

Primary caregivers (own centers) 82.9

Primary caregivers (partner centers) 33.8

Sample Size (Programs) 240–652

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.
67

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Management Staff 

Nearly all program directors have a bachelor’s or higher degree; 62 percent of programs 

employ directors with graduate degrees (Table V.2). Eighty-three percent of programs 

Table V.2. Qualifications and Education of Early Head Start Staff

Staff Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Highest Degree Held by Director

Graduate degree 61.9

Baccalaureate degree 32.9

Associate degree 2.4

GED or high school diploma 2.8

Highest Degree Held by Manager

Graduate degree 58.9

Baccalaureate degree 36.1

Associate degree 4.1

GED or high school diploma 0.9

Employs Only Directors with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree 83.3

Employs Only Managers with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree 50.6

Employs 50 Percent or More Primary Caregivers Who Holda

Graduate degree 1.1

Baccalaureate degree 15.5

Associate degree 15.5

Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential 15.7

Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least an Associate Degree 13.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least a Child Development 

Associate Credential 29.3

Employs 50 Percent or More Home Visitors Who Holdb

Graduate degree 3.8

Baccalaureate degree 46.5

Associate degree 19.0

Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential 12.1

Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least an Associate Degree 46.7

Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least a Child Development Associate 

Credential 63.3

Sample Size (Programs) 422–581

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Among programs reporting any caregivers.

b

Among programs reporting any home visitors.
68

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

indicate that they only employ directors with a baccalaureate (BA) or graduate degree.2 

Similarly, half of all programs only employ managers with such educational backgrounds. 

Like directors, more than 90 percent of these staff members have a bachelor’s or higher 

degree. Nearly 60 percent of programs employ at least one manager with a graduate degree.

Management staff members monitor progress toward program goals and oversee 

implementation of program services. While educational background provides necessary 

knowledge and expertise to manage and, at times, implement services, other characteristics 

may also be essential for management staff to be effective in their roles as program leaders. 

Interviews during site visits provide additional background on the skills and qualities that 

Early Head Start staff members feel are important for effective leadership (Box V.1).

Frontline Staff

Programs rely on frontline staff working within centers the programs operate, as well as 

those employed by community partners.3 Most programs, however, rely on home visitors 

and primary caregivers employed by the program (82 and 83 percent, respectively). A small 

minority (16 percent) of the programs that offer home-based services use home visitors 

employed by community partners. Similarly, one-third of programs report relying on 

primary caregivers employed through partnerships with child care providers in 

the community.

Unlike preschool Head Start, where a distinction is made between teacher and assistant 

teacher in terms of qualifications, for Early Head Start, all direct service classroom care 

providers are called caregivers. The performance standards do not require primary 

caregivers in center-based programs to have a BA degree, but at least half must have an 

associate degree (AA) or higher in early childhood education or a related field. Few 

programs (13 percent) report that all primary caregivers have an AA or higher; 32 percent 

indicate that at least half the primary caregivers they employ have an AA or higher degree 

(Table V.2). All primary caregivers in center-based programs must have a Child 

Development Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent within one year of hire. Nearly onethird of programs report only employing primary caregivers with at least a CDA or higher. 

Most programs also provide tuition reimbursement for some or all of their primary 

caregivers and home visitors to support them in securing required educational credentials 

(discussed later in this chapter). Consequently, many programs employ at least one primary 

caregiver or home visitor who is without a degree but enrolled in training of some sort 

(65 and 32 percent, respectively).

 2 A few programs reported on more than one director, possibly because they were describing a director at 

another site and not just their own, as requested.

3 Chapter VI provides a detailed discussion of Early Head Start programs’ partnerships with other 

community service providers.
69

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

BOX V.1

PROVIDING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Underlying the performance measures for Early Head Start programs is an expectation that 

programs employ qualified staff with the skills necessary to provide high-quality services. While the 

Head Start Program Performance Standards include requirements for staff credentials, other staff 

characteristics also may be critical for providing high-quality services. In selecting sites for visits, we 

chose some programs that had experienced a change in director in the past year. In fact, during site visit 

interviews, Early Head Start staff members rarely focused their discussions of effective leadership traits 

on credentials or educational background; instead, they focused on personal characteristics as essential 

for leadership success. In this text box, we discuss staff perceptions of the skills necessary for effective 

leadership and management staff’s attempts to involve staff and parents in decision making.

Frontline and management staff emphasize the ability to motivate and support staff as 

important skills for effective leadership. During site visits, program directors and other management 

staff recognized that program leaders have to envision “the bigger picture” while also handling the dayto-day tasks and challenges of their work. Therefore, they must balance an understanding of both daily 

and long-term requirements and obligations. They also must have a clear vision of the goals for the 

program. In this process, they must motivate and encourage staff and ensure that they have the tools and 

materials to effectively carry out their jobs. This requires understanding the inherent challenges of 

working with low-income families and the difficulties participating families face. To fulfill all these roles, 

program leaders need strong communication and listening skills, interpersonal and coaching skills, and 

respect for staff opinion and input.

Program leaders need to have knowledge of child development and Early Head Start 

regulations, management and decision-making skills, passion for the work, and the ability to 

support and respect staff. For example, primary caregivers report valuing leaders that relate well to 

frontline staff, are sympathetic to the demands of their position, and respect and treat them as equals. In 

particular, primary caregivers emphasize a desire to interact with management staff who seek their 

opinion and input on policies and procedures and who understand the difficulties associated with their 

daily work. A similar desire for understanding the challenges of home visiting also emerged during site 

visits. Other program staff members (such as education coordinators and specialists) underscore the 

importance of leaders having good communication skills, a willingness to be innovative and try new 

things, empathy for families and frontline staff, and the ability to maintain staff morale.

In an effort to be inclusive and support staff morale, most programs solicit input from 

frontline staff on procedural and policy changes. As many of the selected programs report, 

management staff generally uses this approach to encourage “buy-in” and support of staff members for 

program changes that directly affect them. Even allowing staff members, during staff meetings, to 

discuss any changes that have already been decided is seen as a way to encourage their support. It also 

allows management staff to identify any obstacles to implementation or other ways to approach issues. 

In addition, several program directors report providing detailed information to staff about proposed and 

upcoming changes (and the reasons for these changes) to promote the acceptance of such changes. One 

program reports providing opportunities for staff to contribute suggestions or programmatic ideas 

throughout the year. Again, program leaders view these activities as a means of effectively leading 

programs, with the maintenance of staff support perceived as essential to their success and effectiveness.

Programs that do not openly communicate with staff regarding new policies or the 

rationale for procedural or policy changes have frontline staff members who report greater 

frustration and feelings of powerlessness. As some staff members at visited programs indicate, it is 

important for them to have a voice in policy and a clear understanding of any program changes. Some 

programs also suggest that praise and recognition for frontline staff’s ability to adapt to such changes are 

important in maintaining staff morale.
70

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Home visitors have higher levels of education than primary caregivers on average across 

programs. Nearly half of all programs report that all home visitors they employ have an AA 

or higher in early childhood education. More than two-thirds of programs report that at 

least half their home visitors have an AA or higher. The disparity between education levels 

of home visitors and primary caregivers suggests that programs may impose a higher 

standard for the credentials of home visitors than for those of primary caregivers, even 

though the performance standards contain more stringent education requirements for 

primary caregivers. One possible explanation for this difference is that the classroom setting 

is a more supervised environment, while home visiting is a more solitary activity that may 

require more clinical skills in working with families. Home visitors also need to establish 

relationships with parents and be able to work effectively with both parents and children. 

For example, home visitors must be able to communicate effectively and respectfully with 

parents about sensitive topics and work with families in crisis. Box V.2 describes the ways 

programs approach hiring qualified staff.

Staff Turnover

Programs strive to hire qualified staff and to keep them. Consistency in staff helps 

maintain smooth program operations and reduces costs associated with advertising, 

interviewing, hiring, and training new staff. Furthermore, children and families benefit from 

consistency when relationships are maintained over time; transitions in front-line staff can be 

very difficult for families and may at times precipitate termination of participation in 

the program.

Although Early Head Start programs seek to keep staff, some turnover is to be 

expected. In the year before the survey, many programs had experienced staff turnover 

(Table V.3). Depending on the type of staff who leave and the frequency of changes, 

turnover can have a greater or lesser impact on programs. The loss of management staff is 

particularly critical, as there may be a resulting disruption in leadership and in smooth 

program operations. However, the replacement of an ineffective leader with an effective 

one can have positive effects on a program.

On average, programs report that home visiting staff left at a slightly higher rate than 

other frontline staff during the year before the survey (24 percent of home visitors, 

compared to 20 percent of primary caregivers). However, the rate of home visitor turnover 

varies widely across programs—in that time period, 41 percent of programs had no turnover 

among home visitors, and 6 percent had all home visitors leave. Sixty-six percent of 

programs had home visitor turnover at or below 25 percent. Among primary caregivers, an 

average of 20 percent of those employed directly by Early Head Start left the program in the 

year before the survey; 17 percent of those employed by community partners left their jobs 

during the previous year. Again, the rates of turnover vary across programs, with 27 percent 

of programs reporting no turnover of primary caregivers they employ and 3 percent 

reporting turnover of all primary caregivers in the past year. Seventy-four percent of 

programs had turnover at 25 percent or lower. Nearly half the programs (49 percent) report 

that there has been no turnover among primary caregivers employed by their partners.
71

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

BOX V.2

CHALLENGES IN HIRING AND RETAINING STAFF IN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

Overall, Early Head Start programs employ well-qualified frontline staff members despite facing 

challenges of competing employers offering higher salaries, and shortages of job candidates with early 

childhood backgrounds and experience working with infants and toddlers. During site visits with 

selected programs, staff members discussed their experiences hiring and retaining staff.

Many Early Head Start programs have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified frontline 

staff. During site visit interviews, program staff indicated that compared to other early childhood 

programs, the requirements for Early Head Start teaching staff are stringent. Because of difficulties 

identifying qualified applicants, however, programs often must hire staff without the minimum CDA or 

AA credentials, with the expectation that they will obtain the necessary credentials within a year. 

Programs also report that qualified staff often feel that the salaries for Early Head Start positions are 

inadequate, especially when compared to similar positions in the public schools and when considering 

the emotional commitment the work requires. As some programs report, degreed teachers in Early Head 

Start often do not receive the same compensation as similar staff in other settings. According to some 

programs we visited, this compels them to find other ways to make job offers more appealing to 

potential staff. For example, some programs report offering generous benefit packages to candidates to 

offset less appealing salaries.

Despite the commitment of staff members to the well-being of children and families that 

encourages many to join and stay with the program, low salaries continue to contribute to high turnover 

rates. Difficulty finding staff with an interest in and ability to work with infants and toddlers and the 

intensive care they require, as opposed to preschool-age children, also contributes to hiring challenges. 

A few programs indicate that higher education institutions in rural areas do not offer all the 

coursework necessary to obtain an appropriate degree in the field. The survey data support this assertion 

to a certain degree. Compared to programs in mainly suburban and urban areas, rural programs 

(38 percent) are less likely to employ all home visitors who hold at least an associate degree in early 

childhood education or a related field (38 percent of rural, compared to 70 percent of suburban and 

52 percent of suburban programs). However, similar differences in the degree attainment of primary 

caregivers did not emerge. Rural programs are also less likely than mainly suburban or urban programs 

to employ most types of specialists.

Other than educational background, programs emphasize desired experience in their 

search for qualified frontline staff. For example, many indicate the importance of social service 

experience, so that staff members are prepared to work with low-income, culturally diverse families who 

may be in crisis. Cultural competence among staff members is particularly important because of the 

diversity in cultures and traditions among Early Head Start families. (Chapter III discusses respect for 

the cultures of families receiving services.) During site visit discussions, programs emphasized the desire 

to recruit staff members capable of working with families in a nonjudgmental, empathetic manner. 

Others noted the importance of experience working with young children. As some programs report, 

frontline staff members need to know how to relate well to children, how children learn, and how 

programs can contribute to that learning.

A few programs face challenges in hiring bilingual staff. Bilingual staff members, especially 

those that speak Spanish and English, are in high demand, given the population served by Early Head 

Start programs. During site visits, some programs emphasize the importance of bilingual staff, as their 

presence helps build relationships between families and program staff. As these programs point out, the 

need to use translators during home visits and interactions with families may pose a barrier to 

establishing greater close communication with parents. In addition, some parents may prefer interacting 

and communicating with staff sharing the same language and cultural background. In fact, a parent in 

one visited program notes this preference in home visiting staff. However, as one program points out, it 

may be a challenge to find bilingual staff with the education and experience to provide high quality 

services.
72

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Table V.3. Early Head Start Staff Turnover

Staff Characteristics

Number of 

Programs

Percentage of 

Programs

Director Left Program in the Past 12 Months 77 11.9

Coordinator or Manager Left Program in the Past

12 Months 185 28.5

Among Programs with Any Management Change,

Most Cited Reasons

Personal reasons 128 61.5

Higher compensation (same field) 69 35.9

Change in job field 68 34.0

Fired or laid off 30 14.8

Other reasons 8 4.4

Staff Turnover in Past 12 Months

Average 

Percentage of 

Staff Leaving 

Each Yeara

Turnover of Home Visitors 422 23.8

Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Program 437 19.8

Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Child

Care Partner 121 17.3

Sample Size (Programs 121–650

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Calculated within each program as the number of each type of staff leaving divided by total 

home visitors or total primary caregivers, averaged across all programs with that type of staff.

Relatively few Early Head Start programs (12 percent) lost their director within the 

previous year. However, a sizable minority of programs (29 percent) report that an Early 

Head Start coordinator or manager left within the same period. A handful (5 percent—not 

shown) report that they had lost both their program director and at least one manager. Such 

transitions in management staff may be particularly troubling for programs because of 

disruptions in leadership.

Programs report that most staff (managers and frontline) leave the program for personal 

reasons. More than one-third of programs (36 percent) that lost management staff reported 

that those staff took higher-paying jobs in the early childhood education field. Programs are 

challenged to retain credentialed staff members who are often lost to higher-paying jobs in 

the public school system. Approximately one-third of programs experiencing management 

turnover indicate that a change in job field was the reason for staff leaving. In most cases, 

staff left voluntarily, with only 15 percent of programs that lost a manager or director 

reporting losses due to layoffs or firing. 
73

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

SUPERVISION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Because of the high toll turnover has on programs and families, and to maintain highquality services, programs engage in activities to support staff and prevent turnover. Below, 

we discuss what programs have done to support ongoing staff development, training, and 

mentoring. In this section, we discuss Early Head Start programs’ approaches to supervision 

and staff support, staff development, and training.

Supervisory Practices and Support

Supervision and support activities help staff meet the demands of their job 

responsibilities and work effectively with children and families. Supervisory practices 

include a range of activities, such as reflective supervision, performance appraisals, group 

case conference sessions, and mentoring. These activities may be conducted individually or 

in groups. They also may include formal activities, such as individual performance reviews, 

or less formal activities, such as discussions about how to address the needs of a 

particular family.

Most Early Head Start programs support staff through ongoing reflective supervision. 

Reflective supervision is a collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor and 

supervisee in which staff are encouraged to reflect on the progress of their work with 

children and families on a regular basis. The process is considered important to ensuring 

staff quality, retention, and support and is therefore encouraged by its inclusion in the 

performance measures. Similar numbers of programs report that they engage in this practice 

with primary caregivers and home visitors (83 and 81 percent of programs, respectively; 

Table V.4). Two-thirds of programs that do reflective supervision report receiving outside 

training or assistance to conduct it. Box V.3 provides further details on programs’ 

experiences with reflective supervision. For primary caregivers, 54 percent of programs 

report that they practice reflective supervision monthly or more often. Slightly more 

programs (60 percent) indicate they practice reflective supervision monthly or more with 

home visitors.

Aside from reflective supervision, programs engage in other supervisory activities with 

staff, including performance appraisals, group case conference sessions, and mentoring. 

These activities keep management staff abreast of staff performance, the challenges staff 

face, and potential emerging issues with families. As expected, nearly all programs conduct 

performance appraisals, almost all conduct group case conference sessions, and a significant 

proportion assign mentors to less experienced staff. Formal performance reviews provide 

opportunities for self-assessment and feedback. Assigning experienced staff to mentor 

junior staff allows programs both to monitor and supervise the activities of less experienced 

staff and to provide guidance as needed. Case conference sessions can support 

communication among staff and provide opportunities to brainstorm ways to address 

challenging problems, particularly in regard to serving high-risk families or families facing 

particular difficulties.
74

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Table V.4. Supervisory Practices and Training Opportunities in Early Head Start

Supervision and Training 

Percentage of 

Programs

Staff Supervisory Practices

Conducts performance appraisals for all staff 99.2

Conducts group case conference sessions 92.7

Assigns mentors to less experienced staff 83.6

Conducts reflective supervision with primary caregiversa 82.6

Conducts reflective supervision with home visitorsa 80.9

Received outside training for reflective supervision (among programs 

that use reflective supervision) 69.4

Staff Development and Training

Conducts staff training 99.1

Meets with staff individually 98.9

Holds staff meetings 99.5

Observes frontline staff providing services 98.9

Program Provides Tuition Reimbursement for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 84.9

Home visitors 79.2

Program Provides Workshop Fees or Other Training Costs for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 85.3

Home visitors 86.4

Program Provides Time for Staff Development for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 79.6

Home visitors 82.8

Sample Size (Programs) 398–644

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Reflective supervision is generally considered to be a collaborative learning relationship 

between the supervisor and supervisee in which staff members are encouraged to reflect on the 

progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis.

Training Opportunities

Performance standards require programs to provide training to frontline staff and 

volunteers to help them acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver services 

effectively. For example, there are annual requirements for training in child safety (CPR, 

first aid, emergency response, and medicine administration) and child abuse and neglect 

reporting. However, programs also have flexibility to customize training to address topics of 

particular interest or need. The content of staff training may therefore vary from program to 

program and within programs from year to year. Box V.4 provides additional details on the 

nature of training activities and goals across programs. 
75

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

All Early Head Start programs reported providing opportunities for ongoing staff 

development and training. In addition to directly providing staff training activities, programs 

encourage the ongoing professional development of staff by supporting their attendance at 

conferences, workshops, and classes. For example, 85 percent of programs provide tuition 

reimbursement for some or all of their primary caregivers, and another 79 percent provide 

similar reimbursement for their home visitors. Similarly, approximately 85 and 86 percent of 

programs cover workshop fees or other training costs for some or all of their primary 

caregivers and home visitors, respectively.

BOX V.3

SUPPORTING EARLY HEAD START STAFF WITH REFLECTIVE SUPERVISION

Reflective supervision is a collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor and supervisee 

in which staff members reflect on the progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis. 

Programs are expected to make reflective supervision a regular and ongoing process to help frontline 

staff work with families effectively, to support staff working in stressful circumstances, and to help them 

find solutions to problems faced in their work with families. Program performance measures emphasize 

the use of these activities. Accordingly, during site visit interviews, we asked programs to describe their 

experiences with this practice.

Programs using reflective supervision view it as an opportunity for staff to express their 

needs and to seek guidance and support for coping with the challenges of working with highneed children and families. Several programs indicate that reflective supervision is often an 

opportunity for staff to vent frustration, reduce stress, and work toward professional goals. As one 

program selected for a site visit suggests, the process allows staff members to reflect on their job 

performance and the difficulties of their position. Two programs also emphasize the importance of staff 

members’ self-awareness and their understanding of how their work affects themselves and others. 

Reflective supervision allows programs to provide this opportunity to staff. Some programs also suggest 

that the process helps avoid staff burnout, because it allows staff to discuss issues that are particularly 

stressful for them. One program notes that when managers listen to staff and support them during this 

process, staff feel more confident and better able to independently address issues they encounter. 

Programs we visited use both individual and group meetings for supervision. Group meetings may be 

led by a manager and individual meetings are held with supervisors (who may be the same person 

depending on the program).

Some programs are unfamiliar with the term reflective supervision, or they believe there is 

room for improvement in this process for their program. For example, some programs selected for 

site visits indicate that they do not practice reflective supervision in an organized fashion, in a manner 

that they are satisfied with, or as frequently as they would like. Finding the time to use this approach 

with individual staff members is a challenge for several programs. In addition, during interviews, some 

programs referred to the practice as a less reflective and broad activity than the term implies. For 

instance, one program reports reviewing classroom teachers’ curriculum plans as reflective supervision, 

rather than discussing personal and classroom goals with teachers. Another defines reflective supervision 

as having managers model developmentally appropriate practices for teaching staff. Other programs 

indicate that they do not practice reflective supervision but report engaging in activities that could be 

classified as taking a reflective approach. Because most programs reported using reflective practices 

within the survey component (Table V.5), this may indicate some programs’ lack of knowledge 

of terminology.
76

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

BOX V.4

PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN

EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

The performance measures framework for Early Head Start emphasizes the development of systems 

that ensure programs are well managed, supportive of staff, and able to effectively meet the needs of 

participating parents and children. As part of this mandate, programs develop plans and systems to provide 

staff with training opportunities to support them in performing their job duties and continuing to develop 

their skills. The nature of training activities, as well as the impetus driving training goals, varies from 

program to program and from year to year. This variability in approaches to staff training reflects an 

awareness of and responsivity to program and staff needs. In this text box we discuss programs’ training 

activities, including topics and goals, staff involvement, and participation in national and regional conferences 

and workshops as seen in site visits.

Training goals and decisions in Early Head Start programs are responsive to staff interests and 

needs, the needs of participating families, and ongoing self-assessments of program quality. For 

example, several programs we visited survey teaching staff about their training needs to prioritize areas for 

training. A handful of programs selected for site visits indicate that the program self-assessment process 

guides their training plans and goals. During this process, programs report analyzing child and program 

outcomes; conducting observations of classroom teaching and home visiting practices; and surveying parents, 

staff, and community partners. Results from the process, therefore, help programs to identify training needs 

and areas requiring program-wide attention and improvement. Training plans are then crafted based on 

results from the self-assessment process. Programs also use other tools to guide training activities. For 

instance, one program indicates that outside initiatives, such as promotion of father involvement, guide their 

training activities. Other programs emphasize improving staff knowledge on infant and toddler development 

because, as some staff point out, early childhood coursework does not always focus on this developmental 

period. Notably, while training areas may be identified for the program as a whole, they also may be 

identified for individual staff members. For example, programs may focus training on areas important for all 

staff members to develop (such as the attainment of relevant degrees or knowledge of program curriculum) 

as well as those that individual staff members are interested in learning more about. Commonly, programs 

also must comply with state training requirements in health and safety. These requirements generally center 

on first aid, CPR, child abuse and neglect prevention and reporting, and medicine administration.

Programs vary in how and when they provide training activities and in the staff for whom they 

provide training. For example, visited programs report providing training opportunities using in-house 

staff members, outside consultants, or staff at partner agencies. Programs also report providing training at 

orientation for new staff, as well as at periods throughout the program year for all staff. Similarly, some 

programs provide all training hours for all staff at the beginning of the program year during pre-service 

training, while others provide ongoing and in-service training throughout the year. Often, training 

opportunities are open to staff at child care partners as well. Chapter VI provides further details about the 

nature of child care partnerships in Early Head Start.

Many programs also emphasize increasing staff members’ understanding of program 

curriculum and the assessment process, knowledge of early child development and developmental 

milestones, and receipt of necessary teacher credentials. Programs also provide training geared towards 

developmentally appropriate classroom practices, dealing with parents’ mental health and substance abuse 

issues, building relationships with families, working with special needs children, developing and documenting 

the goal setting process with families, time management, and culture and language issues. In addition, a 

handful of programs indicate that it is important for training to be specific to the needs of the program. 

Typically these programs reference a need to emphasize rural issues (versus urban issues) in mainly rural 

areas.

Besides providing training opportunities locally, many programs support staff in their attendance at 

national and regional conferences and workshops. These opportunities may focus on building knowledge 

among frontline staff or improving the leadership skills of management staff. For example, one program 

reports providing leadership training for its program director, another program director attended Coaching for 

Results training, and another supports the attendance of its entire management staff at a minimum of one 

conference annually. Programs also note that they have staff who attend NAEYC, local and regional AEYC

conferences, WestEd, and the Birth To Three Institute, among other conferences and trainings.
77

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

PROGRAM SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

In this section, we report on program activities to support program improvement, 

including use of specific curricula, screening and assessment tools, and management 

information systems. The performance standards require programs to screen each child for 

developmental delays within 45 days of enrollment, and to conduct regular assessments (at 

least three times a year) to track children’s developmental progress. Early Head Start 

programs are free to select the curricula and screening and assessment tools, they use while 

providing services.

Curricula in Use

We asked programs to report on the curricula they use in each setting where they 

provide services (home-based, center-based, or family child care). Programs report using 

many different curricula in center-based settings, with only a few curricula in use by 

substantial proportions of programs (Table V.5). Slightly more than three-quarters of 

Table V.5. Use of Curricula, Screeners, and Assessments

Curricula and Instruments Percentage of Programs

Curricula (Center-Based Settings)a,b

Creative Curriculum 75.8

Games to Play with Babies 20.0

Games to Play with Toddlers 20.0

Curricula (Home-Based Settings)a,c

Partners for a Healthy Baby 59.6

Games to Play with Babies 31.3

Games to Play with Toddlers 27.3

Hawaii Early Learning Profile 29.3

Curricula in Family Child Care Settingsa,c

Creative Curriculum 82.7

Games to Play with Babies 14.8

Games to Play with Toddlers 14.8

High/Scope 12.4

Screenersd

Ages and Stages 69.5

Ages and Stages Socio-emotional 48.1

Denver II Developmental Screening Test 44.7

Brigance Screening Test 8.7

Assessmentsd

Creative Curriculum 28.5

Ounce Scale 13.3

High/Scope COR 8.7

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Among programs providing this type of service option. b

Sample Size = 120.

c

Sample Size = 99.

d

Sample Size = 541–601.
78

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

programs use the Creative Curriculum (Dodge and Colker 1992) in center-based settings. 

Other curricula—that are used much less frequently—include Games to Play with Babies 

and Games to Play with Toddlers (both 20 percent; Silberg 1993). Fifteen percent of 

programs use the Hawaii Early Learning Profile (Parks 1993), and 15 percent report using an 

agency-created curriculum (not shown).

Curricula in home-based settings are more evenly distributed across programs than 

those in center-based settings. The most popular curricula in use by programs that offer 

home-based services are Partners for a Healthy Baby (60 percent), Games to Play with 

Babies (31 percent), the Hawaii Early Learning Profile (29 percent), and Games to Play with 

Toddlers (27 percent).

Among programs that provide family child care services, again most use Creative 

Curriculum (83 percent), followed by Games to Play with Babies and Games to Play with 

Toddlers (both 15 percent). Nearly one-fifth use an agency created curriculum. 

Use of Screening and Assessment Instruments

Many programs use more than one instrument for initial screening upon program entry. 

Most programs (70 percent) use the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (Squires et al. 2002). 

About half the programs use the Ages and Stages Socio-Emotional scale (Squires et al. 

1999), and a similar number (45 percent) use the Denver II Developmental Screening Test 

(Frankenburg and Dodds 1989). A few programs report using other instruments, such as 

the Brigance Screening Test (Brigance 1991) or another instrument (Table V.5).

Nearly all programs reported using an instrument for ongoing assessment (91 percent). 

Across programs, many different instruments are used, with only a few programs endorsing 

any one instrument. The most frequently cited assessment instruments are the Creative 

Curriculum assessment tools (29 percent), the Ounce Scale (13 percent), and High/Scope 

COR (9 percent; High/Scope 1999).4

 

Programs use these screening and assessment data in a variety of ways, primarily for 

lesson plans, either for a class or a specific child (87 percent), referring a child for additional 

services (79 percent), and planning activities for home visits (74 percent). Other uses that

programs report for screening and assessment data are to update individual family 

partnership agreements (IFSPs; 61 percent), or use assessments in the aggregate to describe 

child outcomes (42 percent). Ten percent of programs reported other uses of these data.

 4 We hypothesized that there may be a relationship between the type of assessment used and the way 

programs use their MIS, particularly for individual child progress reports. However, there is little evidence that 

specific assessments are concentrated within programs that use their MIS in this way. For example, 11 percent 

of programs that use their MIS for progress reports also use the Creative Curriculum, whereas 9 percent of 

programs that do not use their MIS in this way also use Creative Curriculum. We see similar small differences 

when we look at other relatively popular assessments.
79

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Parent and Family Assessments

Nearly three-quarters of programs use some type of parent or family assessment with 

parents (73 percent; Table V.6). As is the case with some other assessments or instruments, 

a few parent/family instruments are most likely to be used by programs that conduct such 

assessments. For example, family partnership agreements are the parent/family assessment 

that most programs use (80 percent), next most common is an agency created assessment 

(32 percent), and the Family Needs Scale (10 percent). Programs primarily use parent/family 

assessment data to support referrals for additional services (93 percent), plan home visit 

activities (64 percent), and create lesson plans for home visits (49 percent), and update IFSPs 

(47 percent).

Table V.6. Parent/Family Assessments in Early Head Start

Parent/Family Assessment Instruments and Uses Percentage of Programs

Family Partnership Agreement 79.5

Agency Created Assessment 31.9

Family Needs Scale 10.4

Use of Parent/Family Assessments

Refer for additional services 93.3

Plan activities for home visits 64.2

Create lesson plans for home visits 49.3

Update IFSP 46.8

Other 11.0

Sample Size (Programs) 402-404

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Among 404 programs that use a parent/family assessment.

Child Care Quality Assessments

As described earlier, the performance standards require programs to ensure that child 

care meets acceptable quality standards. We asked programs to report the quality 

assessments that they use in each setting where they provide care (centers and family child 

care). Nearly all programs report using a tool to assess quality in child care settings 

(92 percent; Table V.7). In center-based settings, two-thirds of programs primarily rely on a 

well-known child care quality assessment, the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale 

(ITERS; Harms et al. 1990). Only a handful of programs report using any other child care 

quality assessment, such as the Arnett (1989) or Early Language and Literacy Classroom 

Observation (ELLCO; Smith 2002; each under 10 percent). Among the few programs 

providing care through family child care providers, more than half (57 percent) use the 

Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; Harms and Clifford 1989); nearly one-third report 

using another unspecified assessment. After assessing child care quality, nearly all programs 
80

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Table V.7. Early Head Start Program Efforts to Ensure Quality of Child Care

Quality Assurance Activities

Percentage of 

Programs 

Conduct Classroom Assessments 92.3

Among Programs That Conduct Assessments, Percentage That Found 

Improvements Were Needed 93.7

Among Those That Found Needed Improvements, Steps Taken

Provided staff training 90.7

Developed written improvement plan 75.9

Scheduled follow-up assessment 71.2

Obtained technical assistance 50.3

Terminated partnership 6.0

Improvements to facility/equipment 3.9

Other 3.4

Sample Size (Programs) 386–456

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

found improvements needed to be made, most often by offering staff training, developing 

written improvement plans, or scheduling a follow-up assessment.

Management Information Systems (MIS) and Use of Data

Nearly 90 percent of Early Head Start programs use an electronic MIS to collect and 

organize administrative data, most often either the Head Start Family Information System 

(HSFIS; 34 percent) or Child Plus (37 percent; Table V.8). A handful of programs use other 

software packages for this purpose (all less than 4 percent), including COPA, Prinis, Access, 

and locally designed systems. Ten percent of programs report using a combination of 

software programs to gather and use program data. These systems allow programs to collect 

data on children and their skills, special needs, and services. For example, programs may 

collect data on children’s attendance and immunizations, health and developmental 

screening results, service receipt, and referrals. Information on staff (such as type, 

credentials, and training), participating family demographics, and other information collected 

at intake are also gathered and stored electronically. These systems enable programs to 

monitor program activities, enrollment, and quality and are usually the primary resource for 

meeting reporting requirements such as the PIR. Site visit interviews provide further details 

on programs’ uses of MIS (Box V.5). 

Among programs using a computerized MIS, most report satisfaction with their system

(Table V.8). One-quarter of programs are very satisfied with their MIS, and half are 

somewhat satisfied. Among the remaining 25 percent of programs reporting being 

somewhat or very dissatisfied with their MIS, most cite problems with software as the reason 
81

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Table V.8. Use of Management Information Systems (MIS) in Early Head Start

Number of 

Programs

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Uses a Computerized MIS 538 88.3

Type of MIS

Head Start Family Information System 183 34.2

Child Plus 197 36.8

Access 18 3.4

COPA 19 3.6

Galilleo 7 1.3

Genesis 11 2.1

Prinis 19 3.6

Locally designed 26 4.9

Combination of software 54 10.1

Satisfaction with MIS (Among Programs Using Any)

Very satisfied 132 24.7

Somewhat satisfied 269 50.3

Somewhat dissatisfied 100 18.7

Very dissatisfied 34 6.4

Reasons for Dissatisfaction with MIS (Among Those 

Somewhat or Very Dissatisfied)

Problems with software 76 57.1

Difficult to use 56 42.1

Reports not useful 53 39.9

Lack of technical support or trained staff 20 15.0

MIS does not meet current needs 19 14.3

Sample Size (Programs) 133–609

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

for their dissatisfaction. Forty-two percent indicate that their MIS is difficult to use, while 

another 40 percent feel that the reports the MIS generates are not useful. Many programs 

completing this survey complained that it is difficult to get needed information because their 

MIS is not adaptable enough or because staff do not know how to use it to report 

information in a different way from the one to which they are accustomed.5

 Among 

programs that report being somewhat or very dissatisfied with their MIS, 82 percent use 

HSFIS and 19 percent use Child Plus (not shown). Small proportions of users of other MIS 

are also dissatisfied.

 5 These complaints generally were registered during discussion groups of programs that pretested a 

preliminary version of the survey or in calls to the helpline we established to aid programs in using the 

web survey.
82

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

Among programs with an MIS, more than 90 percent indicated they use it to generate 

enrollment lists, reports on the characteristics of Early Head Start families, and on children’s 

immunization status. Fewer (83 percent) use it to generate reports on services provided. 

MIS are used less often to trace staff training (59 percent), individual child progress 

(64 percent), or staff characteristics (66 percent).

KEY POINTS

• Nearly all Early Head Start programs have access to a wide array of specialists 

including mental health, disability, and health care specialists.

• Nearly all programs have directors and managers with BAs or advanced degrees.

BOX V.5

USING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) IN 

EARLY HEAD START PROGRAMS

MIS support programs in their efforts to monitor program activities and compliance with the Head 

Start Program Performance Standards. During site visit interviews with selected programs, staff 

described how they use these systems. 

Programs use their MIS for program monitoring, generating reports, and tracking 

participation and service use rates. For example, many programs use the MIS to monitor program 

participation and service receipt, including attendance rates, completion of home visits and health exams, 

and receipt of immunizations and screenings. Programs also use their MIS to track enrollment numbers, 

family characteristics, and children’s illnesses and injuries. In addition, programs use these systems to 

keep track of families that have dropped out of the program or are transitioning into Head Start or 

another program, the proportion of families with incomes above poverty, and the proportion of children 

with disabilities. Several programs also use their MIS to record and track families’ progress toward family 

partnership goals. A few programs mention using MIS data to assess father involvement and 

participation in program activities. Most sites we visited (all but 4 of the 17) use their MIS to compile 

and provide data for the PIR, the primary annual data collection requirement for programs. 

Many programs generate reports with their MIS for instructional planning and to assess 

training and technical assistance needs. Since programs often maintain records of children’s 

assessments, many report using their MIS as a tool to document and monitor children’s status and 

developmental progress. This information is then used to individualize instruction for children. Some 

programs also provide child outcomes data generated from the MIS to parents to make them aware of 

their child’s status and to educate them on how to tailor the home environment to meet a child’s specific 

needs. Similar reports can be generated to monitor program-wide performance. In fact, programs report 

generating program-level data for self-assessment purposes. One program indicates that it is able to 

identify whether it meets program performance standards for completing screenings, for example. 

Programs may also use reports to provide program-level data to other interested parties. For example, 

one program uses its MIS to generate reports for its Policy Council, funders, and executive board. By 

examining performance at the classroom, center, and program level, programs also are able to identify 

training opportunities and areas for improvement. For instance, one program indicates that reports from 

its MIS reveal whether there is a need for better curriculum in certain subjects or whether teachers need 

more training on how to teach certain subject areas. 
83

Chapter V: Program Management and Staff Support

• Forty-seven percent of programs have a staff consisting of at least half home 

visitors with a BA or higher, and 17 percent have a staff consisting of at least 

half primary caregivers with that credential. Overall, home visitors on average 

have more education than primary caregivers.

• Sixty-six percent of programs have a staff consisting of at least half home 

visitors with an AA, and 32 percent have a staff consisting of at least half 

primary caregivers with that credential.

• Few programs lost their director in the year before the survey, and only a 

handful lost both a director and manager in that period. Turnover rates among 

primary caregivers and home visitors were higher—both near 20 percent 

on average.

• Most programs provide tuition reimbursement for some or all of their primary 

caregivers and home visitors to support them in securing required educational 

credentials. Consequently, many programs employ at least one primary 

caregiver or home visitor who is without a degree but enrolled in training of 

some sort (65 and 32 percent, respectively).

• Programs we visited report challenges in hiring and keeping frontline staff, 

primarily because of the educational requirements for Early Head Start teaching 

staff, the low salaries offered compared to those for similar jobs in the 

community, and the desire of many candidates to work with preschool-age 

children rather than infants and toddlers.

• Programs engage in a variety of supervisory activities with staff members to

support and guide them. More than 80 percent of programs report using 

reflective supervision with primary caregivers and home visitors. Of those, 

more than two-thirds report receiving outside training or assistance to conduct 

reflective supervision.

• All Early Head Start programs provide opportunities for ongoing staff 

development and training. Eighty-five percent of programs provide tuition 

reimbursement for some or all primary caregivers, and 79 percent provide 

similar reimbursements for home visitors.

• Programs collect large amounts of data on families, staff, services provided, and 

child functioning. However, not all are aggregating this information for use in 

continuous program improvement. For instance, 83 percent report using their 

MIS to generate reports on services provided to children and families, while 64 

percent generate reports on individual child progress.

• Ninety percent of programs use an MIS to collect and organize administrative 

data, most often the HSFIS or Child Plus. About three-quarters of programs 

using an MIS are somewhat or very satisfied with it. The primary reasons for 

dissatisfaction are software problems, difficulty using the software, and the 

inability to generate useful reports.
C HAPTER V I

P ROGRAM P ARTNERSHIPS

Partnership agreements establish a reciprocal relationship between Early Head Start 

programs and partner agencies. Early Head Start programs can refer enrollees for services 

(or for evaluation of services needed) and, ideally, will work with the partner agency to 

coordinate the services and collaboratively monitor families’ progress. In some cases, 

particularly when a child receives early intervention services from a partner agency, 

interagency cooperation may help to maintain continuity in the services received in both 

partner and Early Head Start settings. In addition to accessing needed services for Early 

Head Start families, partnership agreements enable Early Head Start programs to have a 

wider influence in the community. For instance, partnerships with community child care 

centers that include provision of training, information, and, possibly, access to materials and 

additional staff, can help to improve the quality of child care for children not in Early 

Head Start.

In this chapter, we describe Early Head Start programs’ partnerships with a variety of 

community agencies, most notably child care providers, those offering specialized services 

for children with disabilities, and providers of basic health and mental health services. We 

draw primarily on survey data; illustrative examples from site visits are described in 

text boxes. 

EARLY HEAD START COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Early Head Start programs’ success in establishing partnerships with a variety of 

community agencies is one marker of the place programs hold in their communities. 

Overall, Early Head Start programs seem to have important roles in their communities. 

Ninety-five percent of programs participate in a local collaborative group of service 

To meet the comprehensive service needs of families as specified in the Head Start 

Program Performance Standards, Early Head Start programs are encouraged to 

collaborate with other service providers in their communities. Early Head Start 

programs typically establish formal (written) or informal partnerships with a variety of 

community agencies, such as child care providers, health and mental health providers, and 

social services agencies. The purpose of these partnerships is to promote efficient linkages 

between Early Head Start families and partner-provided services. In essence, partnerships 

allow families who enroll in Early Head Start to be linked to social services without the need 

to seek out each separate service on their own. 
86

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

providers; among programs participating in such a group, about three-quarters report they 

hold a leadership position. Further, many programs have established formal partnerships 

with key service providers in their communities, specifically child care, health, and mental 

health providers. The number of actual partnerships varies considerably and is related to 

community and program features, therefore we report on the number of different types of 

providers with which programs have formal partnerships. Nearly all programs have at least 

one formal partnership with a community provider (92 percent).1 One-third of programs 

have partnerships with three types (child care, health, and mental health) of providers asked 

about in the survey. The variety of partnerships may indicate the extent to which programs 

are integrated in their communities and may facilitate collaboration between and among 

various providers serving the same families.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

Early Head Start programs may pursue partnership with child care providers in the 

community to provide center-based services (Early Head Start slots) to enrolled children. 

Some center-based programs provide all services directly, others rely on partners to provide 

some or all of their center-based services. One notable finding from the survey is that 

formal partnership agreements with child care providers are relatively common. However, 

as we compare these findings with the ways that programs report serving children (see 

Chapter IV, Table IV.2), it is apparent that some programs are not using those partnerships 

for Early Head Start center-based slots at a given time. More than 40 percent of programs 

report having formal partnership agreements in place with child care providers, but fewer 

than 30 percent of programs report serving children through a child care partner. Possible 

reasons that some programs do not provide Early Head Start services through existing 

partners are that (1) the partnerships are with resource and referral agencies, (2) some 

programs may have what we consider to be “potential partnerships” that, although currently 

unused, may have been used in the past and will become active again as slots are needed, as 

funds become available, or if families choose to use the center, or (3) programs may have 

lapsed partnerships, with an agreement still in place with an inactive partner. Reasons for 

this may include a center’s location not being convenient for current families, or a 

partnership no longer used due to quality issues and the partner’s unwillingness or inability 

to meet performance standards. Box VI.1 describes features of child care partnerships in 

greater detail.

Among programs with formal child care partnerships (N = 268), more than 90 percent 

have agreements to coordinate services, exchange referrals, and share staff training. Nearly 

as many of the partnership agreements include provisions for technical assistance. Most 

agreements stipulate quality-of-care issues, such as requiring the partner to adhere to the 

performance standards, evaluate quality, allow the program to monitor quality, and conduct 

improvement planning (82 to 89 percent). About 81 percent of agreements include 

provisions for payments to the partner for child care slots (Figure VI.1).

 1 We omit partnerships with Part C providers because nearly all programs report having them.
87

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

BOX VI.1

CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CARE PARTNERSHIPS

Early Head Start performance measures call for partnerships with child care providers to help 

expand the services programs can offer to Early Head Start families and to enhance the quality of child 

care available in Early Head Start communities. Site visits to Early Head Start programs offered an 

opportunity to explore the reasons some programs establish child care partnerships, especially for centerbased placements; the structure of those partnerships; and the factors that can make partnerships 

difficult to establish or sustain. We specifically selected some programs that offered services through 

child care partners and other programs that had inactive partnerships for site visits. Here we present 

more information gathered in site visits.

Programs’ motivations for establishing child care partnerships, according to staff 

interviews, include making center-based care available to families in home-based programs, 

increasing the capacity of center-based programs, and helping other child care providers 

improve the quality of their services. Staff at some home-based programs (where formal child care 

partnerships are most prevalent) note that establishing partnerships is important for helping parents 

access child care when they are working or in school. Several center-based programs partner with other 

child care providers to provide additional center capacity or to extend the hours that care is available, 

bridging the time between the end of the Early Head Start day and the end of parents’ work days. 

Finally, staff at a few programs specifically mentioned an interest in helping other providers achieve a 

higher standard of care. The director of one program notes quality improvement as a primary 

motivation for establishing a partnership with a private center operating under the same agency auspice.

Staff members describe child care partnerships structured around such activities as 

financial support, joint staffing, and training or technical assistance. Some programs pay for slots 

in a partner center or make payments to the partner to enhance the salaries or benefits of teachers 

working with Early Head Start children. In one program we visited, the Early Head Start agency directly 

hires and supervises staff working in partner centers. Under some partnerships, Early Head Start 

specialists provide services to children and families in the partner centers, sometimes only to Early Head 

Start children and less commonly to non-Early Head Start children as well. Many partnership 

agreements also include provisions for specialists and managers to provide training and technical 

assistance on a variety of topics to partner agencies and their staffs. Another common aspect of 

partnerships is quality monitoring of partner centers, with programs typically using procedures similar to 

those used for their own in-house monitoring. Depending on the partnership arrangement, monitoring 

may focus on the partner’s entire facility or on just those classrooms where Early Head Start children are 

present.

Staff members note the challenges of establishing or maintaining partnerships, ranging 

from partner agencies’ difficulty meeting standards to financial and logistical coordination. 

During site visits, staff at several programs shared examples of collaborations that broke down because 

partners—both centers and family child care providers—were unable to meet the quality standards 

required of Early Head Start providers. Programs also encounter problems with the reliability of funding 

for placements. For example, a partnership based on the assumption that parents will be eligible for 

child care subsidies (to help pay for care at a partner center) is vulnerable to the possibility that parents 

will lose their eligibility for subsidies or may move in and out of eligibility. One program we visited had 

opted to reduce slots with partners and open its own center because of this problem. Staff mentioned 

other financial issues, such as managing differences in the compensation levels of Early Head Start and 

non-Early Head Start teachers in the same center or classroom, and logistical challenges, such as 

coordinating training schedules for Early Head Start and partner staff.

Finally, staff in at least one program note that the amount of effort required to establish and 

support a partnership can seem high relative to the number of children they can actually serve through it. 

The level of coordination and technical assistance required to operate a successful partnership may be 

the same whether the partner serves only a few individuals or several classrooms of Early Head 

Start children. 
88

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

88.1 86.5 85.8 84.8 82.3 80.5

95.4 92.9 92.3 88.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure VI.1. Characteristics of Child Care Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements 

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics of Partnership

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 251-261 programs. 

.

Training for 

Providers

T/A for Providers

Monitor Quality

Parent 

Involvement

Service 

Coordination

Referral from 

Early Head Start

Adhere to Standards

Evaluate

Quality

Improvement 

Planning

Payments to 

Providers

88.1 86.5 85.8 84.8 82.3 80.5

95.4 92.9 92.3 88.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure VI.1. Characteristics of Child Care Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements 

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics of Partnership

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 251-261 programs. 

.

Training for 

Providers

T/A for Providers

Monitor Quality

Parent 

Involvement

Service 

Coordination

Referral from 

Early Head Start

Adhere to Standards

Evaluate

Quality

Improvement 

Planning

Payments to 

Providers

Beyond serving individual children and families, Early Head Start also strives to 

improve the availability of services for infants and toddlers in the wider community, in part 

through improving the quality of child care. Frequently, programs open training to all staff 

at partner centers, even those not directly serving Early Head Start children. The 

performance measures specify that Early Head Start programs assist families in obtaining 

high-quality child care, and programs do so in a variety of ways. Box VI.2 describes the 

ways that programs interpret their responsibility to help families find non-Early Head Start 

child care and how they ensure this care is of sufficiently high quality. 

PARTNERSHIPS WITH PART C PROVIDERS

Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a federal grant program that 

helps states operate a comprehensive statewide program of early intervention services for 

infants and toddlers with disabilities, ages birth through 2 years, and their families. 

Partnerships between Early Head Start programs and Part C agencies are particularly salient, 

not only because performance measures recommend linkages and coordination between 

them, but also because Early Head Start begins as children are at ages when early 

intervention may be most effective. As we note elsewhere, the performance standards 

require Early Head Start programs to make 10 percent of slots available for children with 
89

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

disabilities. Coordination with Part C agencies is one way to reach children with special 

needs. Using survey data primarily, we describe the prevalence and use of these 

partnerships. 

Nearly all Early Head Start programs have a formal partnership with at least one Part C 

provider, reflecting the program’s strong emphasis on early identification and treatment of 

developmental problems. Partnership agreements with Part C providers include three basic 

elements: referrals to and from each program, sharing assessment results, and holding staff 

meetings (89 to 99 percent for each). Although a third of programs report other features, 

these vary widely. Three percent of programs include service coordination in their 

partnerships, and two percent are SpecialQuest participants (Figure VI.2). SpecialQuest is a 

program developed by the Hilton Foundation as part of the Hilton/Early Head Start 

Training Program. These trainings are specifically designed to increase Early Head Start and 

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start capacity to provide excellent services to infants/toddlers 

with disabilities and their families.

BOX VI.2

WORKING WITH PARTNERS TO ENSURE QUALITY CHILD CARE IN EARLY HEAD START 

Early Head Start is charged with enhancing the quality of child care in communities through two 

performance measures: “Enhance the quality of local child care services through the sharing of 

resources, training, and knowledge” and “Help parents secure high-quality child care in order to work, 

attend school, or gain employment training.”

The survey provided information on the prevalence of formal child care partnerships and use of 

them to provide Early Head Start center-based services, a topic discussed in greater detail in this chapter. 

We learned that more than 40 percent of programs have formal partnerships with child care providers, 

although not all programs use them for Early Head Start slots. We use site visit data to elaborate on 

these findings and to better understand how programs ensure quality child care in partner centers. The 

rest of the text box presents site visit data.

Programs that offer center-based care monitor quality closely, whether the care is offered 

directly by the program or by a partner. Programs use a variety of methods of quality assurance in 

child care centers, generally including regular classroom observation, provider training, and use of 

standardized assessments. A few programs we visited feel that Early Head Start has improved the quality 

of care available, even outside of the program, through its monitoring and technical assistance activities. 

Chapter V discusses child care quality assessments in greater detail based on survey findings.

Few programs make direct referrals to child care providers who are not formal community 

partners. Several programs have partnerships with local child care resource and referral agencies 

(CCR&Rs) and refer families there to access child care. Few of the visited programs track the use of 

child care not provided by Early Head Start or their community child care partners, although one 

program has begun to do so because the question appeared on the PIR last year. To determine whether 

a provider is meeting sufficient quality standards, this program requires regular staff training (that the 

program provides), holds annual health and safety screening, conducts classroom observations using the 

ITERS, and drops in for unannounced visits to observe informally. Staff members in many programs 

know about other child care arrangements that families use, even if the program does not formally track 

their use. 
90

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

Identifying and Referring Children with Disabilities

The process of identifying children with disabilities occurs in stages, with several steps 

required for children to receive services from early intervention partners. The steps involved 

are (1) suspect a disability and share this concern with the family, (2) refer for further 

assessment, (3) conduct the assessment, and (4) provide services to those eligible (Figure 

VI.3). We rely on survey data to describe these stages and report these data based upon 

average proportions of children within programs at each stage.2

The first step occurs when staff suspect, or an initial screening indicates, a problem. 

Programs are mandated to conduct an initial developmental screening within 45 days of 

enrollment. The average proportion of children about whom staff have a concern 

warranting further evaluation and referral is 21 percent. (Not all children referred may have

 2 For each program, we calculated the relevant proportion within each program (i) and then calculated the 

mean across them. For example, the average proportion of Early Head Start children with suspected 

disabilities is

 _____________________________________

N programs

1

n

i

i i

Children referred for evaluation in program

= All children in program

 

    ∑

33.9

3.3 2.0

89.0

99.1 98.2 97.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure VI.2. Characteristics of Part C Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements 

Percentage of Programs

Referral to 

Part C

Staff 

Meetings

Special 

Quest

Other

Characteristics of Partnership

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 407-569 programs.

Referral to 

Early Head

Start

Share 

Assessments

Service 

Coordination

33.9

3.3 2.0

89.0

99.1 98.2 97.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure VI.2. Characteristics of Part C Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements 

Percentage of Programs

Referral to 

Part C

Staff 

Meetings

Special 

Quest

Other

Characteristics of Partnership

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 407-569 programs.

Referral to 

Early Head

Start

Share 

Assessments

Service 

Coordination
91

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

Figure VI.3. Identification of and Treatment for Children with Disabilities

Problem Suspected/

Initial Screening

Suggests Problem

Referral for Further Assessment

of Part C Eligibility

Assessment Conducted

Child Is Ineligible for

Part C Services

Child Is Eligible for

Part C Services

Child Receives

Part C Services

Retest?

Figure VI.3. Identification of and Treatment for Children with Disabilities

Problem Suspected/

Initial Screening

Suggests Problem

Referral for Further Assessment

of Part C Eligibility

Assessment Conducted

Child Is Ineligible for

Part C Services

Child Is Eligible for

Part C Services

Child Receives

Part C Services

Retest?
92

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

a problem serious enough to warrant special services or meet the eligibility requirements for 

Part C.)

Among all enrolled children, about four percent have not yet been referred for further 

evaluation, although programs had concerns about them. When a problem is suspected, 

programs may choose to wait and reassess the child before referring the child to Part C, in 

case the child was having an “off day.” We note that the average may be misleading, as 

nearly half (45 percent) of the programs report there are no children they suspect have a 

problem but have not yet referred. Among programs that report at least one child awaiting 

referral, the range is between 1 and 43 children, although most report no more than 5. 

When a suspected problem reaches a given threshold of severity (this may differ across 

programs), the child will be referred to a partner for further evaluation. On average, across 

programs, 17 percent of children who have been referred for evaluation are still awaiting it 

(Figure VI.4). We are particularly interested in this group, because the percentage indicates 

that children who may need services are not receiving them (Box VI.3). 
93

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

Children who are ineligible do not have disabilities severe enough to receive Part C 

services. On average, few children (7 percent) who are evaluated are found to be ineligible 

for Part C services, indicating that program staff rarely make inappropriate referrals. 

Eligibility requirements vary by state, so a child may meet the threshold for services in one 

state and not in another. 

Two-thirds of the children evaluated by Part C and found eligible receive the services 

they need from Part C partners. However, a few (16 percent, on average), although eligible,

are not receiving services. This gap may be a result of limited access to certain services or 

delays in accessing services.

Children referred for emotional/behavioral or communication concerns were least likely 

to be receiving services. We asked programs to report the stage of evaluation for each child 

by his or her primary concern (emotional/behavioral, communication, developmental delay, 

sensory impairment, physical/orthopedic impairment, or other impairments). On average 

across programs, about 75 percent of children referred for concerns other than 

emotional/behavioral or communication had been evaluated, were found eligible, and were 

receiving services. In comparison, only 47 percent of children referred for emotional/

behavioral and 62 percent referred for communication disorders were receiving Part C 

services. Children referred for emotional/behavioral disorders were most likely to be 

awaiting evaluation—on average, 30 percent referred for evaluation had not yet been 

evaluated, more than twice as high as the proportions of children referred for other 

disorders (ranging from 10 to 14 percent of referred children across programs). Fear of 

social stigma may be a factor in keeping these children from formal evaluation and/or Part C 

programs may have fewer assessments or less expertise in diagnosing problems in these areas 

at such young ages. Children referred for communication disorders were slightly more likely 

to be awaiting evaluation (19 percent, on average).

BOX VI.3

POSSIBLE IMPEDIMENTS TO EVALUATING REFERRED CHILDREN

During site visits, we explored some possible reasons that children may be “stuck” after being 

referred for evaluation, but not yet having been evaluated. The two primary explanations are (1) parent 

reluctance to follow through with the evaluations and (2) lack of resources. Most commonly, reluctance is 

based on concerns about labeling the child as having special needs or denial that the child has any 

problems. These attitudes may be reinforced at times by physicians who are willing to wait and see whether 

children outgrow the problem. Cultural barriers may also be behind parental reluctance to seek treatment 

for their children. Resource issues include lack of adequate transportation for parents to take children to 

appointments, long delays before Part C staff conduct evaluations (providers have 45 days to complete 

their assessment), and low availability of specialized services (such as speech/language) or the home-based 

therapies that parents prefer.
94

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

PARTNERSHIPS WITH HEALTH PROVIDERS

An important aspect of the comprehensive services mandated by the performance 

standards, as well as the performance measures, is to ensure appropriate linkages between 

families and community health services. In the health care field, this is generally referred to 

as ensuring that children have a “medical home.” To prevent families from having treatment 

only for acute care or emergencies, Early Head Start strives to link them with health care 

providers for well-baby checkups, immunizations, and routine care. Programs also try to 

help families see the value of seeking routine preventive care even when their child is well.

Just over three-quarters of programs have partnerships with health care providers; the 

provisions of these agreements do not vary greatly across programs. Most include 

consultation and services for pregnant women; services are more likely to be provided offsite than at the Early Head Start program. Two-thirds include provisions to pay providers 

for health care services (Figure VI.5).

76.4

71.1 70.6 66.5

78.9

83.5

90.2 90.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Consultation Provide EHS

Services

Elsewhere

Serve

Pregnant

Women

Outreach Provide

Services at

EHS Sites

Joint

Planning

Training 

EHS Staff

Payments to

Providers

Figure VI.5. Characteristics of Health Care Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements

Percentage of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 445-525 programs. 

Characteristics of Partnerships

76.4

71.1 70.6 66.5

78.9

83.5

90.2 90.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Consultation Provide EHS

Services

Elsewhere

Serve

Pregnant

Women

Outreach Provide

Services at

EHS Sites

Joint

Planning

Training 

EHS Staff

Payments to

Providers

Figure VI.5. Characteristics of Health Care Partnerships, Among Early Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreements

Percentage of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 445-525 programs. 

Characteristics of Partnerships

PARTNERSHIPS WITH MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Because of the high rate of mental health and substance use issues in populations served 

by Early Head Start (ACYF 2002; Knitzer and Yoshikawa 1997), identifying mental health 
95

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

needs and accessing treatment for children or their families is another area in which 

partnerships are key. Apart from parents and adult family members who may struggle with 

chronic mental health issues, infant mental health is also an important component of Early 

Head Start services. Infants and toddlers experience the gamut of emotions, and healthy 

development requires them to gradually take on more of the responsibility to regulate their 

interactions, attention, and behavior. To support positive emotional and social 

development, adults must understand their role in facilitating children’s capacity to regulate 

their emotions, explore their environments, and communicate with adults (Zero To Three 

2001).

Among programs with formal mental health partnerships, nearly all agreements include 

consultation (98 percent, Figure VI.6). Other common features of these partnerships are 

providing training for Early Head Start staff and providing services at Early Head Start 

programs or elsewhere (all 90 percent).

More than 80 percent of programs have formal partnerships with mental health 

providers. Nearly all (92 percent; Figure VI.7) programs screen for mental health problems, 

and 98 percent provide referrals. Services may be provided at the program site, either 

81.6 81.2 77.6

70.0

98.1

90.3 89.8 89.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Consultation Training

EHS Staff

Provide

Services at

EHS Sites

Provide EHS

Services

Elsewhere

Joint

Planning

Payments to

Providers

Serve

Pregnant

Women

Outreach

Figure VI.6. Characteristics of Mental Health Partnerships, Among Early 

Head Start Programs with Formal Agreements

Percentage of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 445-525 programs. 

Characteristics of Partnerships

81.6 81.2 77.6

70.0

98.1

90.3 89.8 89.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Consultation Training

EHS Staff

Provide

Services at

EHS Sites

Provide EHS

Services

Elsewhere

Joint

Planning

Payments to

Providers

Serve

Pregnant

Women

Outreach

Figure VI.6. Characteristics of Mental Health Partnerships, Among Early 

Head Start Programs with Formal Agreements

Percentage of Programs

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 445-525 programs. 

Characteristics of Partnerships
96

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

through partners or their own staff members, or elsewhere, such as at the provider’s office. 

Programs reported the proportion of enrolled families that receive mental health services at 

the program, referrals, or both places. The overlap among programs is high, but 70 percent 

of programs report that at least some families received services only at the Early Head Start 

program. Eighty-one percent report that at least some families receive services only through 

referrals, and 79 percent of programs report at least some families receive service both at the 

program and through referrals (not shown). 

OTHER SCREENING AND REFERRAL SERVICES

Early Head Start programs play a key role in identifying health and mental health needs 

of families and getting them needed services. Programs can conduct screenings themselves 

or use consultants or community partners. Almost all programs (99 percent) report 

conducting developmental screenings—as expected due to performance standards 

requirements for ongoing assessment (see Chapter V). Most programs offer mental health, 

hearing, and vision screenings (all more than 90 percent), while dental screenings are offered 

by 85 percent of programs. Physical examinations and immunizations are offered by 

70 percent of programs. Although not specifically asked, programs wrote in about other 

70.8 70.3

9.3 8.5 5.8 2.4

84.5

91.8 91.8 91.0

98.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure VI.7. Percentage of Programs Offering Each Type of Screening

Percentage of Programs

Hearing

Vision

Physical

Exams

Immunization

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 572-597 programs.

Developmental

Screenings

Mental

Health

Dental

Lead

Nutrition

Speech

Bloodwork

Types of Screenings

70.8 70.3

9.3 8.5 5.8 2.4

84.5

91.8 91.8 91.0

98.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure VI.7. Percentage of Programs Offering Each Type of Screening

Percentage of Programs

Hearing

Vision

Physical

Exams

Immunization

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Sample Size = 572-597 programs.

Developmental

Screenings

Mental

Health

Dental

Lead

Nutrition

Speech

Bloodwork

Types of Screenings
97

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

screenings they offer. About 15 percent of programs report providing lead, 9 percent 

nutrition, and 2 percent speech screenings (Figure VI.6).

When looking to fulfill the needs of families, programs can provide services themselves 

within the program using Early Head Start staff, by forging connections with community 

partners to provide services either on- or off-site, or by referring children and families to 

other community agencies with whom they do not have formal partnership agreements. We 

asked about the types of services for which programs provide referrals and found that most 

programs provide referrals for myriad services. Most infrequent service referrals are for 

English language learners (81 percent), transportation assistance (84 percent) and child care 

(87 percent; Table V.1). About 90 percent or more of programs report referring families for 

other services such as emergency assistance, disability services, or employment assistance. 

Although we cannot tell which specific services are provided by programs or through their 

partners, partnerships are most common for health, mental health, and disability providers, 

for each, more than 80 percent of programs have formal partnerships with some or all such 

providers. Least common are partnerships with legal, financial counseling or transportation 

providers (Table VI.1).
98

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

Table VI.1. Early Head Start Service Referrals

Type of Referral

Percentage of 

Programs 

Partnerships with Some 

or All Providersa 

Child Care 87.3 54.5

Health Care 99.0 78.2

Prenatal Care 95.6 66.2

Mental Health Care 98.1 83.7

Transportation Assistance 84.3 38.8

Disability Services 98.8 93.6

Employment Assistance 96.8 55.2

Emergency Assistance 98.3 46.2

Education or Job Training 97.5 58.5

Drug or Alcohol Abuse 93.9 46.1

Legal Assistance 90.4 29.2

Housing Assistance 98.2 46.2

Financial Counseling 88.5 37.3

Family Literacy 94.4 62.0

English Language Learner 80.6 52.1

Other 16.9 --

Sample Size (Programs) 562–598 440–576

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

Among programs that make such referrals.

KEY POINTS

• Ninety-five percent of programs participate in a local collaborative of service 

providers; of those, 75 percent hold leadership positions. 

• Ninety-two percent of programs have at least one formal partnership with a 

community provider, and about one-third have a partnership with a child care, 

health, and mental health provider. 
99

Chapter VI: Program Partnerships

• More than 40 percent of programs report having formal child care partnership 

agreements in place, and 30 percent of programs report serving children 

through them. 

• Among programs with child care partnerships, more than 90 percent have 

agreements to coordinate services, exchange referrals, and share staff training. 

Nearly as many of the partnership agreements include provisions for technical 

assistance. 

• Nearly all programs have a formal partnership with a Part C provider, an 

important avenue for early intervention. Only 4 percent of all Early Head Start 

children have a suspected disability but have not yet been referred for further 

evaluation.

• About 60 percent of children evaluated for services are receiving them. Only 

6 percent of those referred are found ineligible for Part C services. Seventeen 

percent of children who have been referred for evaluation were still awaiting 

evaluation at the time of the survey. Among referred children 16 percent had 

been evaluated and found eligible for Part C services, but were not receiving 

them at the time of the survey. Children referred for emotional/behavioral or 

communication disorders were least likely to be receiving services and more 

likely to be awaiting evaluation.

• About three-quarters of programs have partnerships with health care providers 

and more than 80 percent have partnerships with mental health providers. 

Many programs provide services at their facility and through referrals.

• Relatively few programs offer screenings for speech, blood work, nutrition, or 

lead. About 70 percent of programs offer physical examinations or 

immunization screenings. Eighty-five percent offer dental examinations.

• Nearly all programs offer developmental, mental health, hearing and vision 

screenings.

• Ninety percent or more of programs refer for myriad services such as 

emergency assistance, disability services, or employment assistance. Fewer, but 

still substantial proportions, refer for transportation assistance and child care.

• Among programs providing referrals the proportion reporting formal 

partnerships with some or all providers is much more variable. Most common 

are health, mental health and disability partnerships; least common are legal, 

financial, or transportation provider partnerships.
C HAPTER VII

E ARLY H EAD S TART

S UBGROUP F INDINGS

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Using survey data, we categorized programs into mutually exclusive subgroups for 

comparison. We then compiled variables spanning community, program, and family 

characteristics of interest and examined them by subgroup. This section describes the 

subgroups we defined and how we analyzed the data.

We generated 14 subgroups that fall into three broad categories: (1) community (service 

area, diversity, and change in diversity), (2) program (size, approach, Head Start affiliation, 

serving pregnant women, and primary caregiver education), and (3) family characteristics 

(demographic and psychological risks, racial/ethnic and language diversity, teenage mothers, 

and developmental concerns). See Table VII.1.

Determining Subgroup Differences

First, we must calculate and compare differences, and decide what size difference is 

large enough to be meaningful. In a study with an experimental design, or a descriptive 

study in which only a sample of programs are included, we would use inferential statistics to

Thus far, we have examined survey data for what they can tell us about the total 

population of Early Head Start programs. Yet programs differ from one another. 

For example, a subgroup of programs operating in urban areas may be very different 

from those providing services in rural areas. In this chapter, we examine how subgroups 

differ on key characteristics, as comparing subgroups may suggest areas for planning and 

future research. For example, if subgroups have meaningfully different profiles, providers of 

training and technical assistance might plan and target support according to the varying 

needs that must be met. A logical next step would be to conduct research aimed specifically 

at understanding potential linkages between characteristics and child outcomes. This chapter 

describes our analytic approach to subgroup analysis, as well as differences across subgroups 

in their community, program, and family characteristics.
102

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.1. Early Head Start Program Subgroups

Category Subgroups

Community Characteristics

Service Area Urban (N = 290; 45.2 percent)

Suburban (N = 61; 9.5 percent)

Rural (N = 269; 42.0 percent)

Community Diversity High: Rated by Survey Respondents (N = 123; 18.9 percent)

Lower: Rated by Survey Respondents (N = 527; 81.1 percent)

Change in Diversity (Past Five Years) Increasing: Rated by Survey Respondents (N = 273; 

42.3 percent)

Stable/Decreasing: Rated by Survey Respondents (N = 372; 

57.7 percent)

Program Characteristics

Program Size Small: Fewer than 50 Families (N = 209; 31.7 percent)

Medium: 51 to 100 Families (N = 271; 41.1 percent)

Large: 101 to 150 Families (N = 108; 16.4 percent)

Very Large: More than 150 Families (N = 72; 10.9 percent)

Program Approach Home-Based (N = 114; 17.3 percent)

Center-Based (N = 152; 23.0 percent)

Multiple (N = 334; 50.6 percent)

Combination (N = 56; 8.5 percent)

Preschool Head Start Affiliation Head Start: (N = 532; 81.6 percent) 

No Head Start: (N = 120; 18.4 percent)

Pregnant Women Serve Pregnant Women (N = 551; 84.5 percent)

Do Not Serve Pregnant Women (N = 101; 15.5 percent)

Primary Caregiver Education High Education: 50 Percent or More Primary Caregivers Have 

BA or More (N = 83; 17.6 percent) 

Lower Education: Less than 50 Percent Primary Caregivers 

Have BA (N = 388; 82.4 percent)

Family Characteristics

Demographic Risk High: More than 25 Percent Enrollment with 3 or More Risks 

(N = 335; 52.8 percent)

Lower: 25 Percent or Less Enrollment with 3 or More Risks 

(N = 299; 47.2 percent)

Psychological Risk High: More than 25 Percent Enrollment with 2 or More Risks 

(N = 207; 32.6 percent)

Lower: 25 Percent or Less Enrollment with 2 or More Risks 

(N = 429; 67.5 percent)

Enrollee Diversity High: 50 Percent or More Racial/Ethnic Minorities (N = 439; 

68.0 percent)

Lower: Less than 50 Percent Racial/Ethnic Minorities (N = 207; 

32.0 percent)
103

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.1 (continued)

Category Subgroups

Language Diversity High: 25 Percent or More Non-English Speakers (N = 199; 

43.0 percent)

Lower: Less than 25 Percent Non-English Speakers (N = 264; 

57.0 percent)

Teenage Mothers High: 10 Percent or More of Enrollment (N = 314; 48.5 percent)

Lower: Less than 10 Percent of Enrollment (N = 334; 

51.5 percent)

Developmental Concerns High: 20 Percent or More of Enrollment (N = 276; 45.3 percent)

Lower: Less than 20 Percent of Enrollment (N = 334; 

54.8 percent)

determine the significance of differences, based on the probability of achieving a difference 

of a given size by chance alone. Because this study covered the universe of Early Head 

Start programs, differences between subgroups of programs are real differences, rather than 

estimates, and no test of statistical significance is needed. To standardize differences 

between subgroups, we calculated effect size units to compare subgroups on 

key characteristics.

An effect size is a statistic that presents differences between means as a standard unit—

a fraction of a standard deviation. Effect sizes are calculated as the difference between 

means divided by the population standard deviation for a given characteristic. In subgroups 

with only two levels, the effect size is the difference in their means, expressed as a fraction of 

a standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we present the maximum 

effect size.1

 However, because large differences in subgroup means can fall between the 

highest and lowest values, we provide a reference table that shows the point differences 

needed to reach effect sizes of different magnitudes (Table VII.2).

We created tables listing key community, program, and enrollee characteristics, by 

program subgroups. The tables present means within subgroups on a given characteristic, 

differences between means, and effect sizes. Because the tables are long, they are placed at 

the end of the chapter for the reader’s convenience. Table VII.3 presents a summary of 

differences by key program subgroups. The complete set of tables follows. In the text, we 

discuss differences in the relative prevalence of characteristics across subgroups, but again, 

for ease of reading, we do not report means, differences, or effect sizes in the text. Because 

effect sizes are descriptive statistics without probabilities (p-values) associated with them, we 

need a guideline for deciding what size differences are practically meaningful. Therefore, for 

this exploratory work we highlighted differences in the text with an effect size of 0.2 or 

higher. We note differences of at least 0.1 if they are part of a larger pattern of differences.

 1 We calculated effect sizes in multilevel subgroups by subtracting the smallest mean from the largest 

across subgroup levels and dividing by the population standard deviation of each characteristic.
104

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Although such an analysis has benefits, it also has some limitations. Many subgroups 

we defined are highly intercorrelated, and some subgroups and individual characteristics have 

small sample sizes. In addition, all the analyses presented in this chapter are descriptive; 

large effect sizes indicate a relationship among variables, but they do not imply causality or 

the direction of the relationship.

COMMUNITY CONTEXT SUBGROUPS

As detailed in Chapter III, Early Head Start programs function within the context of 

their communities. Therefore, we expect that community context is related to other 

program features, such as program auspices, program size, employee education, and 

population served. In the sections that follow, we describe findings for subgroups according 

to community characteristics defined by service area, diversity of the community, and recent 

change in diversity.

Service Area (Table VII.4)

In Chapter III we divided the areas programs serve into three broad categories: urban, 

rural, and suburban. Programs are about evenly distributed across urban (45 percent) and 

rural (42 percent) areas. About 10 percent of programs are located in suburban areas, and 

the rest are in mixed areas. Because cultural populations in the United States vary across 

urban, rural, and suburban areas, it is perhaps not surprising that programs in each type of 

service area also differ in their degree of cultural diversity. Although suburban programs 

make up only a small proportion of all Early Head Start programs, they are the most diverse 

and are increasing in diversity relative to rural programs. Urban programs are also much 

more culturally diverse than rural programs and have increased in diversity in recent years.

Urban and suburban programs are more likely than rural ones to operate under the 

auspices of a community agency. Rural programs are the most likely to have tribal 

government auspices. Both urban and rural programs are more likely than those in suburban 

areas to be housed in university settings.

In terms of enrollment, there are fewer differences than might be expected between 

urban and rural programs. The main differences are between suburban and rural programs, 

with suburban more likely to be of medium size (enrollment of 51 to 100 children and 

pregnant women) and rural the most likely to be small.

Suburban programs seem to have greater community resources. They are the most 

likely to receive a variety of forms of outside funding. In some cases, suburban programs 

also differ from urban programs (such as in fundraising), but for the most part, the trend is 

for suburban programs to be the most likely to have various types of funding, followed by 

urban, and then rural (although urban-rural differences are small). An exception is that rural 

programs are more likely than the others to receive Part C (early intervention) funds. This 

could be because rural areas have fewer service providers, so agencies operating Early Head 

Start programs provide a wider variety of services.
105

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Overall, most programs follow a multiple approach, with only somewhat higher 

prevalence of this approach for suburban programs. Rural programs are the most likely to 

follow a home-based model and urban programs a center-based one. This choice of model 

may be related in part to families’ access to transportation and their geographic distance 

from the program. In rural areas, families may not be able to take children to an Early Head 

Start center far from home, especially if public transportation is not available. In contrast, 

urban programs may be located closer to where families live and may be more accessible by 

public transportation. Suburban programs are more likely than rural ones to have access to 

different types of specialists. Specifically, they are likely to have specialists in male 

involvement, disability, health care, nutrition, mental health, and literacy. Urban programs 

follow closely behind suburban ones in their access to specialists; again, the trend is for 

suburban programs to have the highest probability, followed by urban and then rural ones.

Staff education differs by service area, although only for home visitors. Suburban 

programs have a greater probability than urban and rural programs of employing home 

visitors with an AA or higher. Rural programs are least likely to have staff with this level of 

education, although they are more likely to have a home-based program model in which 

these staff would be employed. Despite having overall better-educated staff, programs in 

suburban areas have higher rates than urban and rural programs of staff turnover for home 

visitors. Urban programs have the lowest rates of caregiver turnover compared to other 

program types.

There are few differences in partnerships by service area, except that rural programs are 

the most likely to have Part C and health care partnerships. This is consistent with the 

finding that rural programs are the most likely to receive Part C funding, and may indicate 

the importance of linking rural families to services.

Enrollee characteristics differ in expected ways by service area. Rural areas have lower 

minority enrollment than urban and suburban programs. Similarly, rural programs are far 

less likely than the other two groups to serve families whose primary language is other than 

English. Enrollee risks tend to be more elevated in urban programs than in rural ones. In 

general, urban and suburban programs serve families with more demographic risks than do 

rural programs. Most large differences between urban and rural programs are among single 

parents, mothers who receive welfare, and teen mothers, all of whom are more prevalent in 

urban programs. Suburban programs have a higher prevalence than rural ones of families 

lacking a high school credential and having multiple demographic risks. Psychological risk 

factors are concentrated in urban programs, which have the highest prevalence of unsafe 

neighborhoods and multiple risk factors. The exception is that substance abuse is far more 

common in rural programs (although the overall number of any programs serving many

families with substance abuse issues is small).

Community Diversity (Tables VII.5 and VII.6)

We measured community diversity based on survey respondents’ ratings of the diversity 

of their service areas, and change over the past five years. Eighty percent of programs rate 

their community diversity as moderate or low; 20 percent rate it as high. However, 
106

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

42 percent of programs report diversity has increased in the past five years; 56 percent report 

no change.

There are few differences between programs that operate in areas rated high in cultural 

diversity, or as increasing in diversity, except in expected ways. For example, programs with 

high or increasing community diversity are more likely to be in urban or suburban areas and 

to have higher prevalence of some risks associated with urban settings, such as many families 

receiving welfare and living in unsafe neighborhoods. As would be expected, these 

programs serve high proportions of racial/ethnic and language minority groups. Programs 

with high community diversity also have more management turnover than programs in 

communities that are less diverse.

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

In this section, we describe subgroups based on program characteristics, including size, 

affiliation with a Head Start program, serving pregnant women, staff education, and 

approach to service delivery.

Program Size (Table VII.7)

We characterized programs by the size of their enrollment of children and pregnant 

women, creating four groups of small (32 percent), medium (41 percent), large (16 percent), 

and very large (11 percent) programs. In terms of community characteristics, very large 

programs are most likely to be in urban areas, and small programs are most likely to be in 

rural ones. Suburban programs fall between these extremes and are most likely to be of 

medium size. Similarly, larger programs tend to be in areas of at least moderate and 

increasing community diversity. Small programs tend to be in low-diversity areas that have 

not changed in recent years.

Program characteristics vary by size in that larger programs are most likely to operate 

out of community agencies and universities and least likely out of schools. Small programs 

are the most likely to have tribal government auspices. School auspices are most prevalent in 

small and medium-sized programs. Larger programs tend to operate in multiple sites, 

whereas small programs in a single site, as would be expected. Very large programs are most 

likely to be affiliated with a preschool Head Start. The picture is mixed when we look at 

types of funding programs receive; however, large and very large programs tend to be more 

likely than small and medium-sized programs to receive almost every type of funding. Large 

and very large programs are also the most likely to have a management information 

system (MIS).

In terms of program approach, small and medium-sized programs are most likely to 

have a home-based approach. Both the small and the very largest programs are most likely 

to be center-based. Although combination models are relatively rare, small programs are 

more likely to use a combination approach and least likely to use a multiple option. Small 

programs are most likely to choose a single program approach (center, home, or 

combination), while larger programs, with more staff and perhaps greater diversity of family 
107

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

needs, are more likely to choose more than one option (multiple approach). Larger 

programs tend to have greater access to specialists than medium-sized or small programs. 

There are especially large differences between larger and smaller programs in having male 

involvement specialists, nurses, and dietitians; again, these differences are to be expected 

given the greater resources of larger programs overall. Large programs are likely to be more 

complex than smaller ones, perhaps because of economies of scale that make specialists 

affordable. Small and medium-sized programs have the highest levels of staff education for 

primary caregivers and home visitors, as well as the highest rates of employee turnover 

(although with smaller numbers of staff, having just a few employees leave could result in a 

large rate of turnover). Small programs are least likely to have had turnover of the director 

in the previous year. Very large programs have the greatest likelihood of formal partnership 

with each type of provider—Part C, child care, mental and health care providers—relative to 

all other groups. However, the smallest programs have the highest average number of Head

Start program partnerships for transitions—more than twice as many as very large programs.

Very large programs have the highest concentration of racial/ethnic minorities and 

people who speak languages other than English. This association may be related to the 

somewhat higher prevalence of very large programs in urban areas, which also have more 

minority residents. There is a mixed pattern of specific risks; in general, however, these are 

most prevalent in larger programs. Among demographic risks, large programs have the most 

prevalence of low enrollee education, and very large programs encounter the highest 

unemployment. Although the profile of individual demographic risk factors varies by 

program size, the difference in percentage of enrolled population at the highest risk levels 

(more than risk factors) does not differ by program size. All psychological risk factors, 

including unsafe neighborhoods, family violence, and substance use, are most prevalent in 

very large programs, except for mental health problems, which are most prevalent in large 

programs. Similarly, very large programs, on average, have the highest percentage of families 

with more than two psychological risk factors.

Program Service Approach (Table VII.8)

Chapter IV describes the way we characterize program models (center-based, homebased, multiple, and combination), based on services provided, with the multiple approach 

most prevalent. As noted earlier, center-based programs are most likely to be in urban areas; 

conversely, home-based programs are most likely to be in rural ones. Multiple and 

combination approach programs are evenly distributed across service areas. Home-based 

programs are most likely to be in areas of low diversity and least likely to be in those of 

moderate cultural diversity.

In terms of program characteristics, combination programs are the most likely to be in 

community agencies, and multiple programs least likely—note, however, that there are not 

many combination programs. Although few programs overall do so, center-based programs 

are most likely to have government agency auspices and multiple programs to have school 

auspices. Home-based programs are by far the most likely to operate in a single site, while 

combination programs are most likely to have multiple sites, followed closely by centerbased and multiple programs. As we describe under the program size subgroups, small 
108

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

programs are the most likely to be combination models and the least likely to be multiple. 

Multiple programs are the most likely to be large or very large. Combination programs are 

also the most likely to operate a Head Start program; home-based are the least likely.

In general, home-based programs have lower receipt of outside funding (perhaps related 

to their overall smaller size). Center-based programs are the most likely to have state child 

care subsidies, fee-for-service, and funds from individual fundraising contributions. 

Programs with center-based services may use these additional funding sources to supplement 

Early Head Start funds to cover the cost of full-day center-based child care. Combination 

programs are the most likely to have other, rarer, funding sources, including contracts, grants 

from businesses, and other sources.

Multiple approach and center-based programs are most likely to have an MIS, in part 

perhaps because they also tend to be larger. Center-based programs are most likely to use 

these systems for producing reports on services or on individual progress.

Combination programs have access to the most specialists, including mental health, 

disability, literacy, speech, and health care specialists. Multiple programs have the most 

likelihood of a male involvement specialist, and they follow closely behind combination 

programs in access to mental health, disability, and health care specialists relative to homeor center-based programs. Home-based programs are least likely to have access to 

specialists. Combination programs and those offering a wider range of service options may 

need more specialists to implement these services.

Multiple approach programs have the highest likelihood of only having primary 

caregivers and home visitors with an AA. However, staff education among other program 

models is difficult to interpret, because a few programs that offered only home services also 

reported on education and turnover of primary caregivers; similarly, a few programs offering 

only center-based services reported on home visitors. Therefore, home visitor education is 

highest in center-based programs and primary caregiver highest in home-based programs. 

Home-based programs have highest rates of turnover among home visitors, although this is 

also a function of program approach. Multiple programs have the highest levels of 

management turnover and combination programs the lowest.

Center- and home-based programs are most likely to have formal partnerships with 

child care partners, depending on which definition of program model we use (direct services 

only or direct and partner-provided services). Center-based programs are most likely to have 

partnerships with health and mental health providers. All program models have a high 

likelihood of having formal Part C partnerships. Otherwise, home-based programs have the 

least likelihood of formal partnerships with health or mental health agencies.

Among enrollee characteristics, center-based programs have the highest prevalence of 

minority enrollment and home-based the lowest. This is consistent with the tendency of 

center-based programs to be in areas with high and increasing diversity. Combination 

programs are the most likely to serve families that speak a language other than English. 

Enrollee turnover is highest among home-based programs and lowest among center-based 
109

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

ones. Combination programs are more likely than the other models to have children enter 

the program at older ages (2 to 3 years).

Patterns of enrollee risk vary in expected ways by program approach, particularly when 

keeping in mind the needs these risk factors represent. For demographic risks, home-based 

programs are the most likely to serve families receiving welfare and those with an 

unemployed primary caregiver and the least likely to serve teens. Center-based programs 

tend to have more single and employed parents, who likely need child care. Combination 

programs tend to serve families without high school credentials and teen mothers. Multiple 

programs have the highest levels of multiple demographic risks. They also have the highest 

levels of many individual psychological risk factors as well as multiple psychological risks 

among program approaches. Multiple approach programs have higher prevalence of unsafe 

neighborhoods, family violence, and multiple psychological risks than the other models. 

Mental health problems have highest prevalence in combination and home-based programs.

Operates Preschool Head Start (Table VII.9)

Most Early Head Start programs also have an affiliation with a preschool Head Start 

program (82 percent). Programs that are part of agencies that also operate a preschool Head 

Start do not differ in community characteristics from programs that do not have such an 

affiliation. They are just as likely to be in urban or rural areas and areas of higher or lower 

diversity. Programs with a preschool Head Start are much more likely than programs 

without one to operate under community agency auspices. Conversely, programs without a 

Head Start affiliation are more likely than those with one to operate under the auspices of a 

university. Programs with a Head Start affiliation are more likely to have multiple sites and 

to have an MIS. However, they are less likely to receive some types of outside funding. In 

their service approaches, programs with a preschool Head Start are less likely to be homebased, but, differences are small.

In general, Head Start affiliated programs have access to more specialists overall. They 

particularly tend to have mental health, literacy, and speech/language specialists more so 

than other programs. Programs with a Head Start affiliation have lower staff turnover (both 

management and primary caregivers) and a higher likelihood of community partnerships 

with health and mental health providers. Not surprisingly, they have formal agreements with 

more preschool Head Start programs than do programs without such an affiliation. There 

are few differences in enrollment characteristics, although enrollment turnover is lower in 

affiliated programs. Head Start-affiliated programs serve fewer families with psychological 

and demographic risks, especially family violence than other programs. However, they serve 

more families with substance abuse issues than do those without Head Start affiliation.

Serving Pregnant Women (Table VII.10)

As we describe in Chapter III, 84 percent of programs serve pregnant women. Here we 

find that programs serving pregnant women do not differ in community characteristics from 

programs that do not serve them, although programs report increasing diversity in recent 

years. There are a few differences among program characteristics in that programs that serve 
110

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

pregnant women tend to be large or very large, but they are less likely than programs that do 

not serve pregnant women to have an affiliation with a preschool Head Start. Perhaps 

because programs serve pregnant women in their homes, they are more likely to use a homebased or a multiple approach. Programs that do not serve pregnant women are more likely 

than programs that do to use a center-based or combination model. Programs that serve 

pregnant women have greater access to all specialists, but in particular to specialists in male 

involvement, disability specialists, and nurses. Programs that serve pregnant women have 

higher primary caregiver education, but lower home visitor education than other programs. 

They are most likely however, to employ only primary caregivers and home visitors with at 

least an AA. They are also more likely to serve families that speak languages other than 

English. Finally, families in programs that serve pregnant women are twice as likely to have 

high numbers of demographic and psychological risks.

Caregiver Education (Table VII.11)

The performance standards require that at least half of primary caregivers hold an AA. 

Here we applied a higher standard to measure very high staff education—programs in which 

at least half their primary caregivers hold a BA (a relatively small group of 83 programs). We 

find that “high staff education” programs do not differ in community characteristics from 

programs with lower levels of staff education. In terms of program characteristics, high staff 

education programs are more likely to have a single site, be affiliated with a university, and 

be smaller than programs with lower staff education. Programs high in staff education are 

less likely to have an MIS, and less likely to use it for information on services when they do 

have one. These programs also tend to pursue a multiple approach and are less likely to use 

center-based or combination approaches. Obviously, these programs have higher overall 

staff education in the various ways we define it. They tend to have lower management and 

frontline staff turnover than programs with lower staff education. All high staff education 

programs have Part C partnerships, but they are less likely than programs with lower levels 

of staff education to have formal partnerships with health or mental health care providers. 

Minority enrollment tends to be lower in programs with higher staff education. 

Demographic risk factors are multiple, with single parents lower in prevalence among high 

staff education programs but higher in welfare receipt and unemployment. There are no 

differences in terms of psychological risk factors.

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

As we have stressed throughout this report, programs must, as a first step to being 

effective, adapt their services to meet family needs. Clearly, family characteristics are highly 

correlated with community characteristics. Although these analyses do not allow 

conclusions about the direction of influence among these factors, it is logical to think of 

programs as operating in and reacting to the context of families and the communities they 

serve. Head Start programs target those most in need and serve many families with 

numerous risk factors. Next we describe programs with high concentrations of families with 

two different types of multiple risk factors (demographic and psychological), then programs 

with many teenage mothers, and then those that serve many children with suspected or 
111

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

diagnosed developmental concerns. Finally, we describe programs with high concentrations 

of minority families.

Demographic and Psychological Risks (Tables VII.12 and VII.13)

Programs rated their enrollment population on the proportions they serve with each of 

five demographic risks: (1) single parents, (2) receiving welfare, (3) primary caregivers 

without a high school credential, (4) primary caregivers unemployed/not in school, and 

(5) teenage mothers. Programs in the high-risk group are those that serve a majority of 

enrollees with three or more of these risks. We refer to these programs as “serving high-risk 

enrollees” and to the rest as “serving lower-risk enrollees.” Programs serving enrollees with 

high demographic risks do not differ in community characteristics except that they are in 

areas of increasing diversity and are less likely to be in rural settings. They are more likely to 

be associated with school systems and universities and less likely to be in community 

agencies. Programs with high-risk enrollees have greater access to several types of 

specialists, including male involvement, disability, literacy speech/language, and health care 

specialists. They are less likely to have an MIS or to use it for reports on service or 

individual progress.

Programs serving high demographic risk families are more likely to pursue a multiple 

approach, and least likely to have only center-based services. They are more likely to have 

had turnover of management-level staff in the previous year. In terms of family 

characteristics, on average, they have a higher percentage of minority families, and, not 

surprisingly, they tend to have higher levels of each individual demographic, as well as 

psychological, risks (described below).

The profile of programs serving many enrollees with high levels of psychological risks is 

similar to that of programs serving high levels of families with demographic risks. As in our 

approach to demographic risks, we classified programs as serving enrollees at high 

psychological risk if at least half their enrollment had two of the following: (1) unsafe 

neighborhood, (2) family violence, (3) mental health problems, and (4) substance abuse. 

Programs serving enrollees with high psychological risk differ in a few ways from those 

serving lower-risk families. They are more likely to be in urban settings (although diversity 

does not differ). Program characteristics include lower likelihood of community agency 

auspices and higher of school auspices, between high- and lower-risk programs, respectively. 

Programs with high-risk enrollees are much more likely than those with lower-risk enrollees 

to have very large enrollments (and less likely to be small). They are more likely to pursue a 

multiple service approach, and less so to have a single service option (home- or centerbased). Programs with high risk enrollees are less likely to be affiliated with a preschool 

Head Start. They have higher primary caregiver education, although not home visitor and 

they tend to have mental health specialists but are less likely to have speech/language 

specialists. Enrollee characteristics differ in expected ways, with programs serving high-risk 

enrollees having higher minority enrollment, as well much higher prevalence of all types of 

demographic and individual psychological risks.
112

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Teenage Mothers (Table VII.14)

Teen mothers are not present in high concentrations across program enrollment; in 

about half of programs, they make up at least 10 percent of enrollment; in the other half, the 

figure is less than 10 percent. Programs with a higher prevalence of teen mothers differ very 

little from programs with a lower one. There are no community-level differences. Programs 

with many teenage mothers receive more government grants and Part C funding, but there 

are few other programmatic differences. They are less likely to be home-based, and tend 

to have somewhat lower staff education. As would be expected, programs with many 

teenage mothers also have higher levels of certain risks, including single parents and parents 

without a high school credential. They also have higher levels of family violence and mental 

health problems.

Developmental Concerns (Table VII.15)

As we describe in Chapter III, programs must set aside 10 percent of their enrollment 

slots for children with disabilities. Here, we examine programs that report 20 percent or 

more of their enrollment as having disabilities (38 percent) relative to programs with a lower 

prevalence. We find very few differences in programs that enroll a substantial proportion of 

children with developmental concerns relative to programs with lower such enrollment. 

Among programs with high levels of developmental concerns, we find that although they are 

equally likely to have a formal Part C partnership, they are somewhat more likely to have 

staff meetings as a part of that agreement. Staff have higher levels of education both among 

primary caregivers and home visitors. Enrollee characteristics of programs with high levels 

of children with disabilities include lower prevalence of blacks and minorities; enrollment 

turnover is also higher in these programs.

Program Diversity (Tables VII.16 and VII.17)

We considered several family characteristics that we describe under the rubric of 

diversity. These include racial/ethnic minority enrollment and speaking a primary language 

other than English. Race/ethnicity and primary language are highly correlated, and the 

profiles of programs serving many families that are racial/ethnic minorities or that 

speak languages other than English are similar. Programs with racial/ethnic minorities 

making up at least half their enrollment are “high-minority,” whereas those with fewer are 

“lower minority.”

High-minority programs differ from lower-minority programs in community context. 

Specifically, they are more likely to be in urban communities, and in neighborhoods with

moderate to high and increasing cultural diversity.

High- and lower-minority programs also differ in auspices, in that high-minority 

programs are less likely to be in community agencies and more likely to be tribal government 

settings. However, they are also more likely to have very large program enrollment. High 

minority programs are less likely to have an MIS but are more likely to use one for tracking 

individual progress. These programs are less likely than lower-minority ones to use homebased or multiple approaches and more likely to use center-based or combination ones. In 
113

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

terms of staff turnover, high-minority programs have lower primary caregiver turnover, but 

higher management-level turnover. They also have less access to literacy specialists and have 

lower staff education. Partnerships with Part C providers are lower, but partnerships with 

health care providers (important for this population) are higher in high-minority programs. 

As expected, enrollee characteristics differ in that high-minority programs serve more nonEnglish speakers and have increased prevalence of several demographic and psychological 

risk factors, such as single parent, lack of a high school credential, teen mother, 

unsafe neighborhood, family violence, and multiple psychological risks. Conversely, highminority programs are lower on several risk factors as well, including employment and 

mental health problems.

Characteristics of programs that serve a substantial proportion of non-English-speaking 

enrollees (defined here as at least 25 percent of enrollment) have only a few notable 

differences from those serving fewer, mostly concentrated within community and family 

characteristics. These programs are more likely to be in urban and suburban communities 

than in rural ones, and to have a greater number of preschool Head Start programs in the 

community (also related to service area, as reported earlier). Compared with programs that 

have fewer non-English-speaking enrollees, programs with many non-English speakers are 

less likely to have an MIS, more likely to use a combination approach, and less likely to use a 

center-based one. Programs with many non-English speakers have lower primary caregiver 

turnover, and are mixed in staff education (more likely to have highly educated primary 

caregivers but less likely to have similarly educated home visitors) relative to their 

counterparts. Part C and mental health provider partnerships have lower prevalence in nonEnglish programs; other partnerships do not differ between groups. As with race/ethnicity, 

programs with greater proportions of non-English speakers are also more likely to have high 

levels of racial/ethnic minorities. Patterns of risks are mixed, with lower levels of single 

parents but increased prevalence of primary caregivers without a high school credential, 

family violence, and unsafe neighborhoods.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Here, we present as a quick reference a synopsis of program characteristics within key 

subgroups we studied (Table VII.3). By and large, we find that programs differ in mostly 

expected ways when we examine subgroups of community, program, and family 

characteristics, and we view this consistency as a validity check on survey responses. The 

subgroups with the most marked differences are those related to service area, program size, 

and program approach, and these are summarized below. For example, urban and suburban 

programs differ in similar ways as larger and small programs. Among other subgroups we 

studied, there are few other differences, except in expected directions, that are based on the 

remaining program and enrollee characteristics.
114

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.2. Early Head Start Program Subgroup Comparisons: Point Differences Required 

for Each Effect Size

Effect Size

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Mainly rural 4.9 9.8 14.8 19.7

Mainly suburban 3.0 5.9 8.9 11.8

Mixed 1.5 3.0 4.6 6.1

Other 0.9 1.9 2.8 3.8

Community Diversity

High 3.9 7.8 11.8 15.7

Moderate 4.9 9.9 14.8 19.7

Low 4.9 9.8 14.7 19.6

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 4.9 9.9 14.8 19.8

Stayed the same 5.0 9.9 14.9 19.9

Decreased 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.7

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 4.6 9.2 13.8 18.4

Government agency 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.3

Tribal government 2.0 4.1 6.1 8.1

School 3.0 6.0 8.9 11.9

University 1.8 3.7 5.5 7.4

Hospital or health care provider 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2

Other 1.8 3.6 5.5 7.3

Number of Sites

Single 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2

Multiple 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2

Enrollment (Number of Children and 

Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 4.7 9.3 14.0 18.7

51 to 100 4.9 9.8 14.7 19.6

101 to 150 3.7 7.4 11.1 14.9

151 or more 3.2 6.3 9.5 12.6

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 3.9 7.7 11.6 15.5

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 4.8 9.5 14.3 19.0

State government grant 3.8 7.6 11.4 15.2

Private foundation grants 3.6 7.1 10.7 14.3

Fundraising activities 3.4 6.7 10.1 13.5
115

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.2 (continued)

Effect Size

Characteristics 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Fee-for-service reimbursements 2.8 5.6 8.4 11.2

County/municipal 

government grant 2.7 5.5 8.2 11.0

Part C funds 2.4 4.8 7.3 9.7

Contracts 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.3

Grants provided by businesses 2.2 4.5 6.7 9.0

Other source 2.5 4.9 7.4 9.9

Has an MIS 3.2 6.4 9.6 12.8

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 3.7 7.4 11.2 14.9

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2

Overall Program Approach

Home-based 3.8 7.5 11.3 15.1

Center-based 4.2 8.4 12.7 16.9

Multiple 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Combination 2.8 5.7 8.5 11.3

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 5.0 9.9 14.9 19.8

Mental health specialist 2.1 4.2 6.2 8.3

Disability specialist 2.7 5.4 8.2 10.9

Literacy specialist 5.0 9.9 14.9 19.8

Speech or language specialist 4.8 9.6 14.3 19.1

Heath care professional or nurse 2.9 5.7 8.6 11.5

Other specialist 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0

Dietitian or nutritionist 3.9 7.8 11.7 15.6

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 3.4 6.8 10.1 13.5

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AA 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.2
116

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.2 (continued)

Effect Size

Characteristics 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 2.3 4.5 6.8 9.0

Home visitors 2.9 5.7 8.6 11.4

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2

Part C Partnership Features

Referrals to Part C 0.9 1.9 2.8 3.7

Referrals to Early Head Start 1.3 2.6 4.0 5.3

Share assessments 1.6 3.3 4.9 6.5

Staff meetings 3.1 6.3 9.4 12.6

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 4.9 9.9 14.8 19.8

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 4.2 8.4 12.5 16.7

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 3.7 7.5 11.2 15.0

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 3.0 6.0 8.9 11.9

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 4.6 9.2 13.8 18.4

Mostly black 4.2 8.5 12.7 17.0

Mostly Hispanic 3.9 7.7 11.6 15.5

Mostly minority 4.6 9.3 13.9 18.6

Serves Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0

Age at Program Entry

Prenatal 1.5 3.1 4.6 6.2

0 to 2 years old 2.0 3.9 5.9 7.9

2 to 3 years old 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4
117

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.2 (continued)

Effect Size

Characteristics 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Primarily Serves Families with the 

Following Demographic Risk Factors:

Single parent 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Receiving welfare payments 4.5 8.9 13.4 17.8

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 3.8 7.6 11.3 15.1

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 3.6 7.3 10.9 14.5

Teen mother 2.3 4.6 7.0 9.3

More than three risk factors (above) 4.1 8.1 12.2 16.3

Primarily Serves Families with the 

Following Psychological Risk Factors:

Unsafe neighborhood 4.2 8.4 12.7 16.9

Experience family violence 2.6 5.2 7.8 10.3

Mental health problems 2.5 5.0 7.4 9.9

Substance abuse 1.7 3.5 5.2 7.0

More than two risk factors (above) 3.3 6.6 9.9 13.2

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

a

We calculated point differences needed for each effect size with the same equation we used to 

calculate actual effect size, this time solving for the point difference needed to achieve particular 

effect sizes:

X ESi = , σ X

where ESi is an effect size of value i, X is the point difference between subgroup means, and 

σ X is the population standard deviation for a given characteristic, x. 
Service Area Program Size Program Approach

Characteristics Urban Suburban Rural Small Large Home-Based Center-Based Multiple Com

Table VII.3. Summary of Key Subgroup Differences 

Community Characteristics

Urban – – + + 

Rural + + – + 

High/Increasing Diversity + + – – +

Program Characteristics

Community Agency Auspice + + – – – 

School Auspice – + + + + + 

Multiple Sites – + – + + 

Large Enrollment – + Operates Preschool Head Start – + + Several Funding Sources – + – – + – + + 

Home-Based Approach – + +


Center-Based Approach + + – + –


Multiple Approach – + – +
Combination Approach +


Access To Specialists + + – – + – + + 

High Staff Education + + – + – + + + 

High Primary Caregiver Turnover – + + –


High Home Visitor Turnover – + + – + 

Family Characteristics 

High Demographic Risk – + 

High Psychological Risk + – – – +


High Minority + + – – – + + 

Serve Non-English Speakers ++ + – – + – 

Source:	 Survey of Early Head Start programs.Note:	 For brevity, we have collapsed levels of program size subgroups and of some key characteristics. In the case of program s

indicates a difference with effect size at least 0.2 relative to the category with the highest or lowest prevalence, whether or n

shown (for example, “large” programs may differ at this level on a given characteristic from “medium” programs although meshown. 

+ = Subgroup is more likely to have a characteristic (0.2 effect size or higher).– = Subgroup is less likely to have a characteristic (0.2 effect size or higher).Blank cells indicate no difference (effect size less than 0.2). 

– 

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings 
119

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.4. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Service Areaa

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Urban

(N = 290)

Suburban

(N = 61)

Rural

(N = 269) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban –– –– –– –– ––

Mainly rural –– –– –– –– ––

Mainly suburban –– –– –– –– ––

Mixed –– –– –– –– ––

Community Diversity

High 29.4 32.3 5.5 26.8 0.7

Moderate 45.9 48.2 33.3 14.9 0.3

Low 24.7 19.5 61.2 41.7 0.9

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 48.9 57.7 30.9 26.8 0.5

Stayed the same 49.2 40.6 68.4 27.8 0.6

Decreased 2.0 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 72.3 79.0 66.1 12.9 0.3

Government agency 6.0 4.6 5.6 1.4 0.1

Tribal government 0.7 0.0 7.9 7.9 0.4

School 8.1 12.8 10.9 4.7 0.2

University 4.9 0.0 3.3 4.9 0.3

Hospital or health care 

provider 4.2 1.7 2.9 2.5 0.1

Other 3.9 2.0 3.4 1.9 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 36.9 32.5 36.8 4.4 0.1

Multiple 63.1 67.5 63.2 4.4 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 29.8 24.9 37.3 12.4 0.3

51 to 100 40.7 51.2 37.9 13.3 0.3

101 to 150 16.9 17.3 15.2 2.1 0.1

More than 150 12.7 6.7 9.6 6.0 0.2

Operates Own Preschool Head 

Start 79.7 81.8 83.5 3.8 0.1
120

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.4 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Urban

(N = 290)

Suburban

(N = 61)

Rural

(N = 269) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care 

subsidies/block grant 37.5 46.3 27.7 18.6 0.4

State government grant 15.0 18.3 18.4 3.4 0.1

Private foundation grants 17.5 14.2 11.2 6.3 0.2

Fundraising activities 12.1 19.2 12.1 7.1 0.2

Fee-for-service 

reimbursements 8.4 7.1 7.6 1.3 0.0

County/municipal

government grant 9.9 13.3 4.8 8.5 0.3

Part C funds 3.7 1.7 9.1 7.4 0.3

Contracts 6.9 7.4 4.3 3.1 0.1

Grants provided by 

businesses 5.1 8.5 4.5 4.0 0.2

Other source 6.3 5.6 6.8 1.2 0.0

Has an MIS 86.5 89.9 90.2 3.7 0.1

Uses MIS for Reports on 

Services (Among Programs 

Using an MIS) 83.6 84.2 82.7 1.5 0.0

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs 

Using an MIS) 65.8 62.7 63.5 3.1 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 12.3 17.6 22.4 10.1 0.3

Center-based 30.1 17.8 17.5 12.6 0.3

Multiple 48.1 57.9 50.8 9.8 0.2

Combination 9.1 4.8 8.6 4.3 0.2

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has

Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 59.5 69.0 51.3 17.7 0.4

Mental health specialist 96.8 98.0 92.8 5.2 0.3

Disability specialist 93.1 98.0 88.5 9.5 0.3

Literacy specialist 57.0 63.2 54.8 8.4 0.2

Speech or language specialist 63.5 68.5 65.9 5.0 0.1

Heath care professional

or nurse 93.6 95.1 87.5 7.6 0.3

Other specialist 29.5 33.6 24.7 8.9 0.2

Dietitian or nutritionist 20.2 26.0 16.2 9.8 0.3
121

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.4 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Urban

(N = 290)

Suburban

(N = 61)

Rural

(N = 269) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Primary 

Caregivers with at Least an AA 12.0 11.8 13.7 1.9 0.1

Employs Only Home Visitors 

with at Least an AA 51.5 70.2 38.0 32.2 0.6

Employs Only Primary 

Caregivers and Home Visitors 

with at Least an AA 8.5 11.3 11.3 2.8 0.1

Lost Director or Manager in Past 

12 Months 38.6 31.2 32.6 7.4 0.2

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed

by program 18.3 21.7 21.6 3.4 0.2

Home visitors 22.8 27.7 23.7 4.9 0.2

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with

Part C Partner 95.2 96.8 98.8 3.6 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with 

Child Care Partner 44.9 41.4 38.2 6.7 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with 

Health Care Provider 76.1 73.9 80.4 6.5 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with 

Mental Health Care Provider 84.0 82.2 84.2 2.0 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal

Agreement to Coordinate 

Transition Services 3.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 0.2

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 33.7 36.4 33.9 2.7 0.1

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 11.3 18.2 55.5 44.2 1.0

Mostly black 37.8 13.4 10.4 27.4 0.6

Mostly Hispanic 23.1 21.4 11.8 11.3 0.3

Mostly minority 87.7 78.7 44.1 43.6 0.9

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 80.2 90.3 58.5 31.8 0.7
122

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.4 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Urban

(N = 290)

Suburban

(N = 61)

Rural

(N = 269) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic

Risk Factors: 

Single parent 65.9 59.7 39.0 26.9 0.5

Receiving welfare payments 32.1 22.7 21.2 10.9 0.2

Primary caregiver does not 

have diploma/GED 20.7 22.7 13.1 9.6 0.3

Primary caregiver unemployed 

or not in school 14.1 15.8 17.0 2.9 0.1

Teen mother 8.1 3.3 3.8 4.8 0.2

More than three risk factors 

(above) 23.4 27.7 18.3 9.4 0.2

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 38.2 18.0 8.0 30.2 0.7

Experience family violence 9.3 5.4 5.2 4.1 0.2

Mental health problems 7.2 5.0 6.9 2.2 0.1

Substance abuse 1.4 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.3

More than two risk factors 

(above) 16.1 11.8 8.8 7.3 0.2

Sample Size (Programs) 103–290 23–61 72–269

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We excluded the few programs that characterized their area as “mixed” or “other.”

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
123

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.5. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Community Diversitya

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

High 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 123)

Lower 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 527) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 71.6 40.2 31.4 0.6

Mainly rural 11.9 47.7 35.8 0.7

Mainly suburban 16.5 8.1 8.4 0.3

Mixed 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.2

Other 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.1

Community Diversity

High –– –– –– ––

Moderate –– –– –– ––

Low –– –– –– ––

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 71.6 35.6 36.0 0.7

Stayed the same 27.6 62.9 35.3 0.7

Decreased 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 74.5 69.4 5.1 0.1

Government agency 3.2 6.1 2.9 0.1

Tribal government 0.7 4.9 4.2 0.2

School 9.9 9.8 0.1 0.0

University 3.2 3.7 0.5 0.0

Hospital or health care provider 2.3 3.4 1.1 0.1

Other 6.2 2.9 3.3 0.2

Number of Sites

Single 35.5 35.9 0.4 0.0

Multiple 64.5 64.1 0.4 0.0

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 30.8 32.4 1.6 0.0

51 to 100 43.0 39.9 3.1 0.1

101 to 150 15.7 16.6 0.9 0.0

More than 150 10.5 11.2 0.7 0.0

Operates Own Preschool Head 

Start 80.5 82.1 1.6 0.0
124

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.5 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 123)

Lower 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 527) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 38.2 33.7 4.5 0.1

State government grant 18.4 17.4 1.0 0.0

Private foundation grants 18.2 14.4 3.8 0.1

Fundraising activities 14.7 12.9 1.8 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 9.5 8.3 1.2 0.0

County/municipal 

government grant 14.5 6.6 7.9 0.3

Part C funds 5.1 6.4 1.3 0.1

Contracts 6.2 5.7 0.5 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 6.2 5.0 1.2 0.1

Other source 8.4 5.8 2.6 0.1

Has an MIS 87.0 88.6 1.6 0.0

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 83.3 83.3 0.0 0.0

Uses MIS for Individual Progress

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 68.8 63.4 5.4 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 18.8 17.1 1.7 0.0

Center-based 22.0 23.6 1.6 0.0

Multiple 50.8 50.2 0.6 0.0

Combination 8.4 8.4 0.0 0.0

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to:

Male involvement specialist 58.3 56.8 1.5 0.0

Mental health specialist 96.3 95.3 1.0 0.0

Disability specialist 93.0 91.7 1.3 0.0

Literacy specialist 55.0 57.2 2.2 0.0

Speech or language specialist 65.6 64.6 1.0 0.0

Heath care professional or nurse 95.0 89.9 5.1 0.2

Other specialist 26.6 28.2 1.6 0.0

Dietitian or nutritionist 21.1 18.2 2.9 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 12.3 13.4 1.1 0.0
125

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.5 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 123)

Lower 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 527) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AA 47.8 46.4 1.4 0.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 6.9 11.1 4.2 0.1

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 46.2 33.2 13.0 0.3

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 16.5 20.5 4.0 0.2

Home visitors 21.9 24.3 2.4 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 93.8 97.3 3.5 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 43.2 41.7 1.5 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 78.2 77.2 1.0 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 85.0 82.8 2.2 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 4.5 2.1 1.6 0.3

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 36.9 33.1 3.8 0.1

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 7.8 35.9 28.1 0.6

Mostly black 18.8 24.8 6.0 0.1

Mostly Hispanic 33.0 14.8 18.2 0.5

Mostly minority 92.2 63.0 29.2 0.6

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 93.5 67.5 26.0 0.6
126

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.5 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 123)

Lower 

Community 

Diversity

(N = 527) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic Risk 

Factors: 

Single parent 54.9 53.4 1.5 0.0

Receiving welfare payments 36.4 25.4 11.0 0.2

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 26.0 15.5 10.5 0.3

Primary caregiver unemployed or 

not in school 12.9 16.5 3.6 0.1

Teen mother 7.3 5.4 1.9 0.1

More than three risk factors 

(above) 25.1 20.2 4.9 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 33.9 20.9 13.0 0.3

Experience family violence 7.4 7.3 0.1 0.0

Mental health problems 6.5 6.7 0.2 0.0

Substance abuse 1.6 3.4 1.8 0.1

More than two risk factors 

(above) 14.5 12.0 2.5 0.1

Sample Size (Programs) 46–123 158–527

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

High-diversity programs are those in communities characterized as such by respondents.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
127

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.6. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Change in 

Community Diversitya

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Increasing 

Diversity

(N = 273)

Stable/ 

Decreasing 

Diversity

(N = 372) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 53.3 40.7 12.6 0.3

Mainly rural 30.0 48.9 18.9 0.4

Mainly suburban 13.4 7.1 6.3 0.2

Mixed 2.6 2.2 0.4 0.0

Other 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.0

Community Diversity

High 32.0 9.4 22.6 0.6

Moderate 50.5 35.4 15.1 0.3

Low 17.6 55.3 37.7 0.8

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased –– –– –– ––

Stayed the same –– –– –– ––

Decreased –– –– –– ––

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 73.9 67.8 6.1 0.1

Government agency 4.8 6.2 1.4 0.1

Tribal government 1.4 5.8 4.4 0.2

School 10.2 9.4 0.8 0.0

University 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.0

Hospital or health care provider 2.6 3.7 1.1 0.1

Other 3.1 3.8 0.7 0.0

Number of Sites

Single 32.8 38.1 5.3 0.1

Multiple 67.2 61.9 5.3 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 26.5 36.3 9.8 0.2

51 to 100 43.5 38.0 5.5 0.1

101 to 150 18.0 15.2 2.8 0.1

More than 150 12.1 10.5 1.6 0.1

Operates Own Preschool Head 

Start 83.3 80.4 2.9 0.1
128

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.6 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Increasing 

Diversity

(N =273)

Stable/ 

Decreasing 

Diversity

(N =372) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 40.0 30.7 9.3 0.2

State government grant 19.4 16.3 3.1 0.1

Private foundation grants 15.6 14.6 1.0 0.0

Fundraising activities 16.2 11.2 5.0 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 9.7 7.8 1.9 0.1

County/municipal

government grant 8.4 7.9 0.5 0.0

Part C funds 7.6 5.2 2.4 0.1

Contracts 7.1 4.9 2.2 0.1

Grants provided by businesses 5.7 5.0 0.7 0.0

Other source 5.6 6.9 1.3 0.1

Has an MIS 87.3 89.3 2.0 0.1

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 83.4 83.7 0.3 0.0

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 67.7 62.1 5.6 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 18.2 16.7 1.5 0.0

Center-based 24.1 23.0 1.1 0.0

Multiple 49.8 50.7 0.9 0.0

Combination 7.6 8.8 1.2 0.0

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 59.5 55.2 4.3 0.1

Mental health specialist 96.7 94.5 2.2 0.1

Disability specialist 93.7 90.4 3.3 0.1

Literacy specialist 58.3 55.1 3.2 0.1

Speech or language specialist 62.3 67.0 4.7 0.1

Heath care professional or nurse 92.5 89.6 2.9 0.1

Other specialist 27.4 27.6 0.2 0.0

Dietitian or nutritionist 20.3 17.7 2.6 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 12.8 13.8 1.0 0.0
129

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.6 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

Increasing 

Diversity

(N =273)

Stable/ 

Decreasing 

Diversity

(N =372) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 46.5 46.6 0.1 0.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 9.1 11.4 2.4 0.1

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 37.9 34.0 3.9 0.1

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 19.4 20.0 0.6 0.0

Home visitors 25.9 22.1 3.8 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.0 97.1 1.1 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 42.6 41.0 1.6 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 77.2 77.5 0.3 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 81.2 84.4 3.2 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.5 2.6 0.1 0.0

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 33.3 34.0 0.7 0.0

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 26.1 33.9 7.8 0.2

Mostly black 27.1 21.1 6.0 0.1

Mostly Hispanic 14.5 21.3 6.8 0.2

Mostly minority 73.2 65.1 8.1 0.2

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other 

than English 83.7 64.2 19.5 0.4
130

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.6 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

Increasing 

Diversity

(N =273)

Stable/ 

Decreasing 

Diversity

(N =372) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic Risk 

Factors: 

Single parent 56.8 51.8 5.0 0.1

Receiving welfare payments 31.1 25.0 6.1 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 20.3 15.3 5.0 0.1

Primary caregiver unemployed or 

not in school 16.0 16.0 0.0 0.0

Teen mother 5.1 6.1 1.0 0.0

More than three risk factors 

(above) 25.7 17.8 7.9 0.2

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 27.4 20.2 7.2 0.2

Experience family violence 7.3 7.2 0.1 0.0

Mental health problems 7.6 5.6 2.0 0.1

Substance abuse 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0

More than two risk factors 

(above) 12.2 12.6 0.4 0.0

Sample Size (Programs) 90–273 112–372

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

Program respondents reported how their community’s diversity has changed over the past 

five years.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
131

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.7. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Program Sizea

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Small 

(N = 209)

Medium

(N = 271)

Large

(N = 108)

Very 

Large

(N = 72) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 42.6 46.3 47.7 52.8 10.2 0.2

Mainly rural 47.5 38.5 38.3 35.5 12.0 0.2

Mainly suburban 7.5 12.2 10.2 5.9 6.3 0.2

Mixed 1.5 1.9 3.0 5.9 4.4 0.3

Other 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.1

Community Diversity

High 18.2 20.1 18.1 18.1 2.0 0.1

Moderate 35.1 40.9 46.4 56.1 21.0 0.4

Low 46.7 39.0 35.5 25.8 20.9 0.4

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 34.9 45.8 46.6 45.9 11.7 0.2

Stayed the same 63.6 53.1 51.7 52.7 11.9 0.2

Decreased 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.0

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 64.5 71.7 73.1 74.3 9.8 0.2

Government agency 5.8 5.2 7.5 5.4 2.3 0.1

Tribal government 7.8 3.0 2.7 1.2 6.6 0.3

School 10.4 12.4 6.3 4.0 8.4 0.3

University 3.3 3.4 3.6 4.4 1.1 0.1

Hospital or health care provider 2.3 3.7 2.9 5.4 3.1 0.2

Other 5.8 0.8 3.9 5.4 5.0 0.3

Number of Sites

Single 57.6 34.2 19.1 14.9 42.7 0.9

Multiple 42.4 65.8 81.0 85.1 42.7 0.9

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer –– –– –– –– –– ––

51 to 100 –– –– –– –– –– ––

101 to 150 –– –– –– –– –– ––

More than 150 –– –– –– –– –– ––

Operates Own Preschool Head 

Start 83.8 77.6 82.5 90.1 12.5 0.3
132

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.7 (continued)

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

Small

(N = 209)

Medium

(N = 271)

Large

(N = 108)

Very 

Large

(N = 72) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 30.4 30.9 45.0 42.0 14.6 0.3

State government grant 14.6 16.6 21.1 23.8 9.2 0.2

Private foundation grants 9.8 15.3 23.4 15.8 13.6 0.4

Fundraising activities 12.4 15.7 7.7 12.8 8.0 0.2

Fee-for-service reimbursements 7.3 9.7 10.8 4.4 6.4 0.2

County/municipal 

government grant 7.5 8.1 7.8 11.6 4.1 0.1

Part C funds 6.0 4.6 11.1 5.6 6.5 0.3

Contracts 7.1 5.2 3.9 5.8 3.2 0.1

Grants provided by businesses 1.9 7.0 7.6 6.0 5.7 0.3

Other source 8.2 5.2 6.8 6.0 3.0 0.1

Has an MIS 82.6 89.7 92.4 93.8 11.2 0.3

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 85.1 81.7 85.0 83.1 3.4 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using 

an MIS) 64.3 63.4 64.5 67.8 4.4 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 23.7 17.8 9.6 6.9 16.8 0.4

Center-based 31.7 19.2 16.9 22.5 14.8 0.4

Multiple 31.7 56.7 63.6 61.3 31.9 0.6

Combination 12.9 5.9 8.9 6.9 7.0 0.2

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has

Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 45.6 57.7 68.7 62.4 23.1 0.5

Mental health specialist 92.3 96.1 97.4 97.7 5.4 0.3

Disability specialist 87.5 93.7 92.0 95.8 8.3 0.3

Literacy specialist 50.7 59.0 58.8 59.6 8.9 0.2

Speech or language specialist 67.9 64.6 65.0 58.4 9.5 0.2

Heath care professional or nurse 86.0 92.0 91.1 98.2 12.2 0.4

Other specialist 22.3 25.6 37.4 33.0 15.1 0.3

Dietitian or nutritionist 13.2 22.0 16.7 23.8 10.6 0.3

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 16.5 13.4 8.4 11.0 8.1 0.2
133

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.7 (continued)

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

Small

(N = 209)

Medium

(N = 271)

Large

(N = 108)

Very 

Large

(N = 72) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AA 47.8 51.0 43.0 32.7 18.3 0.4

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 16.4 10.2 5.0 7.7 11.4 0.4

Lost Director or Manager in Past 

12 Months 29.4 38.0 35.7 44.0 14.6 0.3

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed 

by program 21.2 20.7 16.8 17.3 4.4 0.2

Home visitors 22.7 26.0 22.6 21.3 4.7 0.2

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.2 95.5 98.2 100.0 4.5 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 33.7 40.9 52.3 54.9 21.2 0.4

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 76.6 78.7 69.9 87.2 17.3 0.4

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 82.7 82.2 80.1 92.8 12.7 0.3

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement 

to Coordinate Transition Services 4.4 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.8 0.4

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 34.9 35.3 32.3 30.5 4.8 0.2

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 31.3 31.7 32.9 21.0 11.9 0.3

Mostly black 25.2 19.7 27.0 28.0 8.3 0.2

Mostly Hispanic 14.8 20.1 15.0 27.1 12.3 0.3

Mostly minority 68.2 66.4 67.2 79.0 12.6 0.3

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 57.8 75.8 79.9 87.6 29.8 0.7
134

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.7 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

Small 

(N = 209)

Medium

(N = 271)

Large

(N = 108)

Very 

Large

(N = 72) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic

Risk Factors: 

Single parent 54.2 51.9 51.0 57.6 6.6 0.1

Receiving welfare payments 28.6 25.8 29.7 25.1 4.6 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 16.4 17.8 21.5 11.4 10.1 0.3

Primary caregiver unemployed 

or not in school 11.4 18.2 11.8 23.7 12.3 0.3

Teen mother 5.9 6.0 5.0 5.3 1.0 0.0

More than three risk factors 

(above) 19.0 20.6 24.8 21.3 5.8 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 16.7 22.9 22.7 43.2 26.5 0.6

Experience family violence 4.7 9.8 2.7 11.6 8.9 0.3

Mental health problems 4.3 7.4 9.0 6.8 4.7 0.2

Substance abuse 1.8 2.6 4.5 6.7 4.9 0.3

More than two risk factors 

(above) 8.0 14.7 7.6 24.3 16.7 0.5

Sample Size (Programs) 55–209 101–271 34–108 14–72

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We defined small programs as those with fewer than 50 enrollees, medium as those with 50 to 

100, large with 101 to 150, and very large as those with more than 150 enrollees.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
135

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.8. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Service Approacha

Subgroup Levels 

Characteristics

Percentage of Programs

HomeBased

(N = 114)

CenterBased

(N = 152)

Multiple

(N = 334)

Combination

(N = 56) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 33.4 58.9 44.1 49.1 25.5 0.5

Mainly rural 54.0 30.5 41.4 41.4 23.5 0.5

Mainly suburban 10.0 7.3 11.1 5.5 5.6 0.2

Mixed 1.9 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.1 0.1

Other 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.1

Community Diversity

High 20.5 17.9 19.2 19.0 2.6 0.1

Moderate 30.9 46.2 42.8 41.5 15.3 0.3

Low 48.6 35.9 38.0 39.5 12.7 0.3

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 44.6 43.6 42.0 38.7 5.9 0.1

Stayed the same 54.6 55.0 56.2 61.3 6.7 0.1

Decreased 0.8 1.4 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.2

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 71.2 71.3 67.5 80.5 13.0 0.3

Government agency 7.0 7.5 5.4 1.7 5.8 0.2

Tribal government 3.4 4.6 3.8 6.9 3.5 0.2

School 8.7 10.0 11.3 1.7 9.6 0.3

University 2.7 2.6 4.5 1.8 2.7 0.1

Hospital or health care 

provider 3.4 1.3 4.5 2.0 3.2 0.2

Other 3.6 2.8 3.1 5.4 2.6 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 63.9 36.0 37.7 1.9 42.0 0.9

Multiple 36.1 64.0 62.3 78.1 42.0 0.9

Program Enrollment (Number 

of Children and Pregnant 

Women)

50 or fewer 44.3 43.8 20.2 47.2 27.0 0.6

51 to 100 42.0 33.4 45.4 27.3 18.1 0.4

101 to 150 9.2 12.0 20.8 16.8 11.6 0.3

More than 150 4.5 10.8 13.6 8.8 9.1 0.3

Operates Own Preschool

Head Start 75.9 84.8 80.7 90.7 14.8 0.4
136

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.8 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

HomeBased

(N = 114)

CenterBased

(N = 152)

Multiple

(N = 334)

Combination

(N = 56) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 6.1 42.3 39.9 39.2 36.2 0.8

State government grant 13.0 18.2 19.6 14.2 6.6 0.2

Private foundation grants 17.0 13.2 14.3 18.2 5.0 0.1

Fundraising activities 9.7 15.2 12.6 14.7 5.5 0.2

Fee-for-service 

reimbursements 2.5 11.9 8.7 11.5 9.4 0.3

County/municipal

government grant 6.5 7.0 9.3 9.4 2.9 0.1

Part C funds 5.3 4.0 7.6 6.5 3.6 0.1

Contracts 1.9 8.6 5.1 9.4 7.5 0.3

Grants provided by 

businesses 5.2 1.5 5.6 14.2 12.7 0.6

Other source 7.3 4.7 6.7 9.6 4.9 0.2

Has an MIS 86.3 89.9 88.9 84.4 5.5 0.2

Uses MIS for Reports on 

Services (Among Programs 

Using an MIS) 72.2 81.9 88.7 80.5 8.2 0.2

Uses MIS for Individual 

Progress Reports (Among 

Programs Using an MIS) 55.6 59.8 79.8 65.9 24.2 0.5

Direct Program Approach

Home-based 100.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 100.0 2.3

Center-based 0.0 85.7 0.3 0.0 85.7 2.1

Multiple 0.0 0.0 84.9 0.0 84.9 1.7

Combination 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 100.0 3.5

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has

Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 49.0 54.0 60.8 58.6 11.8 0.2

Mental health specialist 91.7 94.7 96.7 97.4 5.7 0.3

Disability specialist 88.7 90.5 92.7 96.9 8.2 0.3

Literacy specialist 46.6 57.4 58.2 65.4 18.8 0.4

Speech or language 

specialist 50.6 69.3 65.3 73.7 23.1 0.5

Heath care professional or 

nurse 90.0 86.8 91.9 97.0 10.2 0.4

Other specialist 30.6 27.5 26.2 27.0 4.4 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 19.7 17.3 20.4 13.1 7.3 0.2

Employs Only Primary

Caregivers with at Least an 

AAb 24.8 9.2 16.7 0.0 24.8 0.7
137

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.8 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

HomeBased

(N = 114)

CenterBased

(N = 152)

Multiple

(N = 334)

Combination

(N = 56) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AAb 43.3 61.0 47.1 35.5 25.5 0.5

Employs Only Primary

Caregivers and Home Visitors 

with at Least an AA 5.9 8.4 11.2 0.0 11.2 0.4

Lost Director or Manager in 

Past 12 Months 35.4 30.2 39.8 25.8 14.0 0.3

Rate of Employee Turnoverb

Caregivers employed

by program 20.2 19.3 19.8 21.8 2.5 0.1

Home visitors 27.2 11.8 24.2 20.8 15.4 0.5

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with

Part C Partner 97.9 95.7 96.7 95.8 2.2 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with 

Child Care Partner 23.3 48.6 46.3 38.5 25.3 0.5

Has Formal Agreement with 

Health Care Provider 70.3 86.6 75.7 79.3 16.3 0.4

Has Formal Agreement with 

Mental Health Care Provider 74.2 90.5 81.9 88.3 16.3 0.4

Number of Preschool Head 

Start Programs with Formal 

Agreement to Coordinate 

Transition Services 1.5 2.5 2.1 9.5 8.0 1.1

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 42.0 26.9 33.9 37.7 15.1 0.5

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 49.9 11.4 35.6 14.8 38.5 0.8

Mostly black 8.9 44.9 17.9 30.0 36.0 0.8

Mostly Hispanic 18.0 23.0 16.7 15.1 7.9 0.2

Mostly minority 49.3 87.9 63.2 85.2 38.6 0.8

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 72.2 66.5 73.8 75.4 8.9 0.2

Age at Program Entry

Prenatal 14.2 13.9 13.6 12.6 1.6 0.1

0 to 2 years old 68.7 66.5 67.1 63.6 5.1 0.3

2 to 3 years old 17.3 17.9 19.6 22.3 5.0 0.3
138

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.8 (continued)

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Characteristics

HomeBased

(N = 114)

CenterBased

(N = 152)

Multiple

(N = 334)

Combination

(N = 56) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic

Risk Factors: 

Single parent 32.0 71.0 50.2 62.3 39.0 0.8

Receiving welfare payments 30.6 23.2 30.0 15.9 14.7 0.3

Primary caregiver does not 

have diploma/GED 18.4 17.0 16.4 21.3 4.9 0.1

Primary caregiver 

unemployed or not in 

school 21.9 3.8 20.5 5.6 18.1 0.5

Teen mother 0.9 7.3 5.5 10.6 9.7 0.4

More than three risk factors 

(above) 19.9 15.7 24.0 14.1 9.9 0.2

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological 

Risk Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 19.6 22.1 25.9 18.3 7.6 0.2

Experience family violence 6.1 3.9 9.5 5.4 5.6 0.2

Mental health problems 8.0 0.7 8.3 8.8 8.1 0.3

Substance abuse 1.7 2.6 3.8 1.7 2.1 0.1

More than two risk factors 

(above) 7.8 8.5 16.0 10.8 8.2 0.2

Sample Size (Programs) 9–114 25–152 108–334 9–56

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and dividing by 

the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we calculated the difference 

between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the population standard deviation.

b

A small number of home-only programs (six programs) reported primary caregiver turnover in the past year. 

Similarly, a small number of center-only programs (seven programs) reported home visitor turnover.
139

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.9. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Operating Preschool 

Head Start

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Operates 

Preschool 

Head Start

(N = 532)

Does Not 

Operate 

Preschool

Head Start

(N = 120) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 44.7 50.7 6.0 0.1

Mainly rural 42.1 37.1 5.0 0.1

Mainly suburban 9.7 9.6 0.1 0.0

Mixed 2.5 1.7 0.8 0.1

Other 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0

Community Diversity

High 18.6 20.2 1.6 0.0

Moderate 42.2 39.4 2.8 0.1

Low 39.3 40.4 1.1 0.0

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 43.5 38.8 4.7 0.1

Stayed the same 55.2 59.6 4.4 0.1

Decreased 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.0

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 73.7 54.4 19.3 0.4

Government agency 5.2 8.2 3.0 0.1

Tribal government 4.4 3.2 1.2 0.1

School 9.5 9.9 0.4 0.0

University 2.1 10.2 8.1 0.4

Hospital or health care provider 1.7 10.8 9.1 0.5

Other 3.5 3.3 0.2 0.0

Number of Sites

Single 33.0 51.1 18.1 0.4

Multiple 67.0 48.9 18.1 0.4

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 32.7 28.4 4.3 0.1

51 to 100 38.4 49.7 11.3 0.2

101 to 150 16.7 15.9 0.8 0.0

More than 150 12.2 6.0 6.2 0.2

Operates Own Preschool Head Start –– –– –– ––
140

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.9 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Operates 

Preschool 

Head Start

(N = 532)

Does Not 

Operate 

Preschool

Head Start

(N = 120) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 35.6 29.9 5.7 0.1

State government grant 16.7 22.2 5.5 0.1

Private foundation grants 12.8 25.3 12.5 0.4

Fundraising activities 12.5 16.3 3.8 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 8.8 6.9 1.9 0.1

County/municipal

government grant 6.5 15.8 9.3 0.3

Part C funds 6.3 6.2 0.1 0.0

Contracts 5.8 5.5 0.3 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 4.4 10.0 5.6 0.2

Other source 5.9 8.9 3.0 0.1

Has an MIS 89.6 82.7 6.9 0.2

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 84.1 79.6 4.5 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 65.3 59.1 6.2 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 16.1 22.9 6.8 0.2

Center-based 24.2 19.4 4.8 0.1

Multiple 49.8 53.5 3.7 0.1

Combination 9.1 4.2 4.9 0.2

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 57.4 54.0 3.4 0.1

Mental health specialist 96.3 91.5 4.8 0.2

Disability specialist 92.6 88.7 3.9 0.1

Literacy specialist 61.2 36.6 24.8 0.5

Speech or language specialist 67.8 50.1 17.7 0.4

Heath care professional or nurse 90.4 93.2 2.8 0.1

Other specialist 29.0 23.1 5.9 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 17.9 23.5 5.4 0.1
141

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.9 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Operates 

Preschool 

Head Start

(N = 532)

Does Not 

Operate 

Preschool

Head Start

(N = 120) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Employs Only Primary Caregivers

with at Least an AA 14.1 8.6 5.5 0.2

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 47.6 43.0 4.6 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 11.0 7.1 3.9 0.1

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 31.4 53.9 22.5 0.5

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 19.1 23.8 4.7 0.2

Home visitors 24.4 22.0 2.4 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.7 96.4 0.3 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Child

Care Partner 41.8 41.9 0.1 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 78.6 71.6 7.0 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 84.5 76.9 7.6 0.2

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 3.4 1.8 1.6 0.2

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 32.8 37.5 4.7 0.2

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 31.9 25.4 6.5 0.1

Mostly black 21.7 31.8 10.1 0.2

Mostly Hispanic 18.5 16.1 2.4 0.1

Mostly minority 66.9 74.6 7.7 0.2

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 71.4 74.1 2.7 0.1
142

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.9 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Operates 

Preschool 

Head Start

(N = 532)

Does Not 

Operate 

Preschool

Head Start

(N = 120) Difference

Effect 

Sizea

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 52.5 58.7 6.2 0.1

Receiving welfare payments 26.5 32.5 6.0 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 15.8 24.9 9.1 0.2

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 14.5 21.8 7.3 0.2

Teen mother 5.2 8.4 3.2 0.1

More than three risk factors (above) 19.8 26.7 6.9 0.2

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors:

Unsafe neighborhood 21.9 29.5 7.6 0.2

Experience family violence 5.5 15.0 9.5 0.4

Mental health problems 5.9 10.0 4.1 0.2

Substance abuse 3.5 1.7 1.8 0.1

More than two risk factors (above) 11.6 17.1 5.5 0.2

Sample Size (Programs) 387–532 73–120

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
143

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.10. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Serving Pregnant 

Women

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 551)

Not Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 101) Difference Effect Sizea

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 46.7 42.6 4.1 0.1

Mainly rural 40.3 45.2 4.9 0.1

Mainly suburban 9.5 10.2 0.7 0.0

Mixed 2.7 1.0 1.7 0.1

Other 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.0

Community Diversity

High 19.5 15.5 4.0 0.1

Moderate 41.8 41.7 0.1 0.0

Low 38.7 42.8 4.1 0.1

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 43.8 35.9 7.9 0.2

Stayed the same 54.8 63.0 8.2 0.2

Decreased 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.0

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 69.5 70.3 0.8 0.0

Government agency 6.0 5.1 0.9 0.0

Tribal government 3.3 9.6 6.3 0.3

School 10.4 7.1 3.3 0.1

University 3.6 3.0 0.6 0.0

Hospital or health care provider 3.4 2.9 0.5 0.0

Other 3.7 2.0 1.7 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 35.5 39.7 4.2 0.1

Multiple 64.5 60.3 4.2 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 28.2 53.3 25.1 0.5

51 to 100 40.3 38.6 1.7 0.0

101 to 150 18.8 5.3 13.5 0.4

More than 150 12.7 2.8 9.9 0.3

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 80.2 88.8 8.6 0.2
144

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.10 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 551)

Not Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 101) Difference Effect Sizea

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 32.5 44.0 11.5 0.2

State government grant 17.1 20.9 3.8 0.1

Private foundation grants 15.1 12.1 3.0 0.1

Fundraising activities 13.4 9.2 4.2 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 8.3 9.2 0.9 0.0

County/municipal 

government grant 8.5 7.2 1.3 0.0

Part C funds 6.4 5.6 0.8 0.0

Contracts 4.6 10.9 6.3 0.3

Grants provided by businesses 5.8 3.0 2.8 0.1

Other source 6.4 7.3 0.9 0.0

Has an MIS 88.2 89.4 1.2 0.0

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 83.5 82.9 0.6 0.0

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 63.4 68.3 4.9 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 18.7 8.8 9.9 0.3

Center-based 19.7 39.9 20.2 0.5

Multiple 53.9 32.2 21.7 0.4

Combination 7.1 18.2 11.1 0.4

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 60.0 42.9 17.1 0.3

Mental health specialist 95.8 93.6 2.2 0.1

Disability specialist 93.4 83.0 10.4 0.4

Literacy specialist 57.0 53.2 3.8 0.1

Speech or language specialist 65.4 58.4 7.0 0.1

Heath care professional or nurse 92.6 80.1 12.5 0.4

Other specialist 28.9 24.3 4.6 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 19.4 15.1 4.3 0.1
145

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.10 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 551)

Not Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 101) Difference Effect Sizea

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 14.2 8.6 5.6 0.2

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AA 45.9 52.5 6.6 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 11.1 5.2 5.9 0.2

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 36.5 30.9 5.6 0.1

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 19.3 20.9 1.6 0.1

Home visitors 24.0 22.2 1.8 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.8 95.5 1.3 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 41.9 43.5 1.6 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 77.3 78.6 1.3 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 82.7 85.7 3.0 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.6 3.1 0.5 0.1

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 33.6 37.0 3.4 0.1

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 31.9 23.8 8.1 0.2

Mostly black 23.1 25.1 2.0 0.0

Mostly Hispanic 17.7 21.3 3.6 0.1

Mostly minority 67.2 75.2 8.0 0.2

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 74.2 60.0 14.2 0.3
146

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.10 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 551)

Not Serving 

Pregnant 

Women

(N = 101) Difference Effect Sizea

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 52.0 57.8 5.8 0.1

Receiving welfare payments 28.0 21.6 6.4 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 17.5 14.4 3.1 0.1

Primary caregiver unemployed or 

not in school 16.1 12.2 3.9 0.1

Teen mother 6.1 2.0 4.1 0.2

More than three risk factors (above) 22.6 11.2 11.4 0.3

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 24.6 14.1 10.5 0.2

Experience family violence 7.7 4.0 3.7 0.1

Mental health problems 7.0 4.9 2.1 0.1

Substance abuse 3.6 1.0 2.6 0.1

More than two risk factors (above) 13.4 6.9 6.5 0.2

Sample Size (Programs) 170–551 33–101

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
147

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.11. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Primary Caregiver 

Educationa

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Education

(N = 83)

Lower 

Education

(N = 388) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 43.0 48.4 5.4 0.1

Mainly rural 40.0 38.1 1.9 0.0

Mainly suburban 13.6 10.4 3.2 0.1

Mixed 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.0

Other 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.0

Community Diversity

High 20.8 19.2 1.6 0.0

Moderate 41.1 42.6 1.5 0.0

Low 38.2 38.2 0.0 0.0

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 48.1 42.7 5.4 0.1

Stayed the same 49.5 55.8 6.3 0.1

Decreased 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 69.2 70.3 1.1 0.0

Government agency 8.2 5.2 3.0 0.1

Tribal government 3.5 4.8 1.3 0.1

School 10.7 10.0 0.7 0.0

University 5.9 2.6 3.3 0.2

Hospital or health care provider 1.2 3.1 1.9 0.1

Other 1.3 4.0 2.7 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 45.4 33.6 11.8 0.2

Multiple 54.6 66.4 11.8 0.2

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 33.2 29.6 3.6 0.1

51 to 100 46.0 38.9 7.1 0.1

101 to 150 14.6 18.6 4.0 0.1

More than 150 6.2 13.0 6.8 0.2

Program Operates Own Preschool 

Head Start 88.0 82.3 5.7 0.1
148

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.11 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Education

(N = 83)

Lower 

Education

(N = 388) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Program Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 38.3 40.9 2.6 0.1

State government grant 20.3 18.5 1.8 0.0

Private foundation grants 13.7 13.6 0.1 0.0

Fundraising activities 13.4 14.6 1.2 0.0

Fee-for-service reimbursements 11.3 9.2 2.1 0.1

County/municipal

government grant 10.5 8.5 2.0 0.1

Part C funds 3.6 6.2 2.6 0.1

Contracts 7.9 5.6 2.3 0.1

Grants provided by businesses 2.5 6.3 3.8 0.2

Other source 10.4 5.2 5.2 0.2

Has an MIS 84.1 89.3 5.2 0.2

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 77.3 85.3 8.0 0.2

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 65.2 67.4 2.2 0.0

Program Approach

Home-based 4.7 4.2 0.5 0.0

Center-based 13.7 29.2 15.5 0.4

Multiple 77.6 53.6 24.0 0.5

Combination 3.9 12.5 8.6 0.3

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 56.1 59.7 3.6 0.1

Mental health specialist 96.5 94.9 1.6 0.1

Disability specialist 91.3 93.1 1.8 0.1

Literacy specialist 65.7 56.7 9.0 0.2

Speech or language specialist 72.3 67.4 4.9 0.1

Heath care professional or nurse 92.8 91.3 1.5 0.1

Other specialist 21.5 30.3 8.8 0.2

Dietitian or nutritionist 20.3 18.9 1.4 0.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers

with at Least an AA 52.3 4.9 47.4 1.4
149

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.11 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Education

(N = 83)

Lower 

Education

(N = 388) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 56.6 45.6 11.0 0.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 34.6 3.8 30.8 1.0

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 26.9 37.5 10.6 0.2

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 17.9 20.2 2.3 0.1

Home visitors 16.3 26.1 9.8 0.3

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 100.0 95.9 4.1 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Child

Care Partner 33.8 41.1 7.3 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 70.6 80.5 9.9 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 79.3 85.3 6.0 0.2

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 1.6 2.8 1.2 0.2

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 32.9 32.4 0.5 0.0

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 38.5 23.5 15.0 0.3

Mostly black 14.9 29.3 14.4 0.3

Mostly Hispanic 21.1 16.9 4.2 0.1

Mostly minority 60.3 75.7 15.4 0.3

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 73.7 73.8 0.1 0.0

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with the Following Demographic

Risk Factors:

Single parent 41.3 62.7 21.4 0.4

Receiving welfare payments 35.3 26.0 9.3 0.2
150

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.11 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Education

(N = 83)

Lower 

Education

(N = 388) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 13.4 19.0 5.6 0.1

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 22.6 11.8 10.8 0.3

Teen mother 8.6 7.1 1.5 0.1

More than three risk factors (above) 23.1 22.0 1.1 0.0

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with the Following Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 20.8 24.0 3.2 0.1

Experience family violence 4.8 7.8 3.0 0.1

Mental health problems 4.7 6.2 1.5 0.1

Substance abuse 3.6 3.0 0.6 0.0

More than two risk factors (above) 12.2 13.4 1.2 0.0

Sample Size (Programs) 24–83 134–388

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

Higher education is defined as programs with 50 percent or more of their primary caregivers 

holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
151

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.12. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Families with 

Demographic Risksa 

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 137)

Lower Risk

(N = 497) Difference Effect Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 50.2 44.8 5.4 0.1

Mainly rural 35.0 43.3 8.3 0.2

Mainly suburban 12.5 8.9 3.6 0.1

Mixed 2.3 2.5 0.2 0.0

Other 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.1

Community Diversity

High 22.5 18.3 4.2 0.1

Moderate 42.4 40.9 1.5 0.0

Low 35.1 40.8 5.7 0.1

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 51.5 39.3 12.2 0.2

Stayed the same 47.1 59.3 12.2 0.2

Decreased 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 60.9 73.0 12.1 0.3

Government agency 6.8 5.4 1.4 0.1

Tribal government 2.2 4.9 2.7 0.1

School 14.6 8.4 6.2 0.2

University 6.8 2.4 4.4 0.2

Hospital or health care provider 0.7 3.6 2.9 0.2

Other 8.2 2.3 5.9 0.3

Number of Sites

Single 39.8 34.3 5.5 0.1

Multiple 60.2 65.7 5.5 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 29.1 32.7 3.6 0.1

51 to 100 39.8 40.9 1.1 0.0

101 to 150 19.6 15.5 4.1 0.1

More than 150 11.4 10.9 0.5 0.0

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 76.9 83.3 6.4 0.2
152

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.12 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 137)

Lower Risk

(N = 497) Difference Effect Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 29.2 36.3 7.1 0.1

State government grant 16.8 16.9 0.1 0.0

Private foundation grants 14.5 14.7 0.2 0.0

Fundraising activities 15.5 12.4 3.1 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 8.6 8.6 0.0 0.0

County/municipal government grant 10.1 7.8 2.3 0.1

Part C funds 6.8 6.4 0.4 0.0

Contracts 5.5 5.6 0.1 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 4.9 5.1 0.2 0.0

Other source 9.2 6.0 3.2 0.1

Has an MIS 88.6 87.8 0.8 0.0

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 77.9 84.7 6.8 0.2

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 61.1 64.9 3.8 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 16.3 17.7 1.4 0.0

Center-based 17.5 24.6 7.1 0.2

Multiple 58.0 48.4 9.6 0.2

Combination 5.9 9.2 3.3 0.1

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 62.6 55.0 7.6 0.2

Mental health specialist 97.9 94.9 3.0 0.1

Disability specialist 96.9 90.5 6.4 0.2

Literacy specialist 64.1 53.8 10.3 0.2

Speech or language specialist 70.7 63.1 7.6 0.2

Heath care professional or nurse 94.7 89.5 5.2 0.2

Other specialist 29.9 27.2 2.7 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 21.0 18.1 2.9 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 15.3 12.7 2.6 0.1
153

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.12 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 137)

Lower Risk

(N = 497) Difference Effect Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 46.6 47.3 0.7 0.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least an 

AA 10.5 10.5 0.0 0.0

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 42.0 33.8 8.2 0.2

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 19.7 19.9 0.2 0.0

Home visitors 25.9 23.2 2.7 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.1 96.7 0.6 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 41.6 42.6 1.0 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 78.0 77.9 0.1 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 79.7 84.6 4.9 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.6 2.7 0.1 0.0

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 34.7 33.3 1.4 0.0

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 24.6 32.1 7.5 0.2

Mostly black 28.4 22.1 6.3 0.1

Mostly Hispanic 20.6 18.2 2.4 0.1

Mostly minority 74.6 67.1 7.5 0.2

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 78.2 70.7 7.5 0.2

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 77.4 47.2 30.2 0.6

Receiving welfare payments 59.1 19.0 40.1 0.9
154

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.12 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 137)

Lower Risk

(N = 497) Difference Effect Sizeb

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 40.2 11.4 28.8 0.8

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 37.6 10.1 27.5 0.8

Teen mother 17.1 2.8 14.3 0.6

More than three risk factors 

(above) –– –– –– ––

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 38.4 18.5 19.9 0.5

Experience family violence 18.2 4.3 13.9 0.5

Mental health problems 11.6 5.3 6.3 0.3

Substance abuse 5.7 2.2 3.5 0.2

More than two risk factors (above) 32.2 7.0 25.2 0.8

Sample Size (Programs) 49–137 149–497

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

Programs that reported having more than 50 percent of their enrolled families with three or more 

demographic risks (teen mother, single parent family, primary caregiver does not have 

diploma/GED, primary caregiver unemployed or not in school, or receiving welfare payments).

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
155

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.13. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Families with 

Psychological Risksa 

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 81)

Lower Risk

(N = 555) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 58.6 44.1 14.5 0.3

Mainly rural 28.5 42.9 14.4 0.3

Mainly suburban 9.0 9.9 0.9 0.0

Mixed 3.9 2.0 1.9 0.1

Other 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.1

Community Diversity

High 22.1 18.7 3.4 0.1

Moderate 45.8 41.3 4.5 0.1

Low 32.1 40.0 7.9 0.2

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 41.7 42.5 0.8 0.0

Stayed the same 58.3 56.1 2.2 0.0

Decreased 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 59.5 71.8 12.3 0.3

Government agency 2.5 6.0 3.5 0.1

Tribal government 4.8 4.1 0.7 0.0

School 11.9 9.5 2.4 0.1

University 7.6 2.9 4.7 0.3

Hospital or health care provider 5.2 3.0 2.2 0.1

Other 8.6 2.8 5.8 0.3

Number of Sites

Single 38.7 35.5 3.2 0.1

Multiple 61.3 64.6 3.3 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 20.6 32.9 12.3 0.3

51 to 100 47.6 39.4 8.2 0.2

101 to 150 10.0 17.8 7.8 0.2

More than 150 21.8 9.9 11.9 0.4

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 75.3 82.6 7.3 0.2
156

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.13 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 81)

Lower Risk

(N = 555) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 31.1 35.3 4.2 0.1

State government grant 17.1 18.0 0.9 0.0

Private foundation grants 18.4 14.0 4.4 0.1

Fundraising activities 12.8 13.0 0.2 0.0

Fee-for-service reimbursements 6.6 8.3 1.7 0.1

County/municipal government grant 10.6 7.7 2.9 0.1

Part C funds 9.1 5.9 3.2 0.1

Contracts 4.2 5.3 1.1 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 5.5 5.2 0.3 0.0

Other source 12.1 5.8 6.3 0.3

Has an MIS 88.0 88.2 0.2 0.0

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 79.0 84.1 5.1 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 62.9 64.2 1.3 0.0

Program Approach

Home-based 10.8 17.6 6.8 0.2

Center-based 15.8 24.0 8.2 0.2

Multiple 64.7 49.3 15.4 0.3

Combination 7.6 8.8 1.2 0.0

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 52.1 58.1 6.0 0.1

Mental health specialist 100.0 94.8 5.2 0.3

Disability specialist 94.1 91.8 2.3 0.1

Literacy specialist 52.7 57.6 4.9 0.1

Speech or language specialist 52.9 66.6 13.7 0.3

Heath care professional or nurse 91.9 90.9 1.0 0.0

Other specialist 30.6 27.1 3.5 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 24.5 17.9 6.6 0.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers

with at Least an AA 17.8 12.3 5.5 0.2
157

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.13 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 81)

Lower Risk

(N = 555) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 43.6 46.6 3.0 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 11.1 10.0 1.1 0.0

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 37.3 35.9 1.4 0.0

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 22.3 19.3 3.0 0.1

Home visitors 21.8 24.5 2.7 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 95.7 96.7 1.0 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Child

Care Partner 39.4 42.3 2.9 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 77.6 77.2 0.4 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 79.0 84.0 5.0 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.0 2.8 0.8 0.1

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 33.5 33.8 0.3 0.0

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 18.9 31.9 13.0 0.3

Mostly black 27.7 22.8 4.9 0.1

Mostly Hispanic 22.6 17.9 4.7 0.1

Mostly minority 81.1 67.2 13.9 0.3

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 77.0 71.9 5.1 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 67.0 51.9 15.1 0.3

Receiving welfare payments 46.8 25.0 21.8 0.5

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 30.9 15.9 15.0 0.4
158

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.13 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Risk

(N = 81)

Lower Risk

(N = 555) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 32.0 13.5 18.5 0.5

Teen mother 14.4 4.7 9.7 0.4

More than three risk factors (above) 53.8 16.3 37.5 0.9

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 69.0 17.0 52.0 1.2

Experience family violence 44.7 1.9 42.8 1.7

Mental health problems 27.9 3.7 24.2 1.0

Substance abuse 13.2 1.8 11.4 0.7

More than two risk factors (above) –– –– –– ––

Sample Size (Programs) 28–81 169–555

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

Programs that reported having more than 50 percent of their enrolled families with two or more 

psychological risks (mental health problems, substance abuse, residing in an unsafe 

neighborhood, or experiencing family violence) make up the high-risk subgroup.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
159

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.14. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Proportion of Teen 

Mothersa

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 314)

Lower

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 46.4 45.4 1.0 0.0

Mainly rural 41.5 40.7 0.8 0.0

Mainly suburban 8.8 10.7 1.9 0.1

Mixed 2.3 2.5 0.2 0.0

Other 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.0

Community Diversity

High 18.8 18.8 0.0 0.0

Moderate 40.1 42.6 2.5 0.1

Low 41.1 38.6 2.5 0.1

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 42.2 42.2 0.0 0.0

Stayed the same 56.5 56.6 0.1 0.0

Decreased 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 66.1 73.9 7.8 0.2

Government agency 5.8 5.4 0.4 0.0

Tribal government 5.3 3.2 2.1 0.1

School 11.7 8.0 3.7 0.1

University 3.2 4.0 0.8 0.0

Hospital or health care provider 3.7 2.8 0.9 0.1

Other 4.2 2.8 1.4 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 33.3 38.8 5.5 0.1

Multiple 66.7 61.2 5.5 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 29.9 34.3 4.4 0.1

51 to 100 38.4 41.4 3.0 0.1

101 to 150 19.3 14.1 5.2 0.1

More than 150 12.4 10.2 2.2 0.1

Operates Own Preschool Head 

Start 79.5 83.5 4.0 0.1
160

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.14 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 314)

Lower 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 33.8 35.4 1.6 0.0

State government grant 21.2 14.7 6.5 0.2

Private foundation grants 14.2 15.4 1.2 0.0

Fundraising activities 13.6 12.5 1.1 0.0

Fee-for-service reimbursements 7.5 8.8 1.3 0.0

County/municipal

government grant 10.9 5.1 5.8 0.2

Part C funds 8.1 4.7 3.4 0.1

Contracts 5.2 5.7 0.5 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 6.6 4.1 2.5 0.1

Other source 5.8 7.1 1.3 0.1

Has an MIS 88.0 88.9 0.9 0.0

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 82.2 84.6 2.4 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 64.0 64.3 0.3 0.0

Program Approach

Home-based 14.7 19.1 4.4 0.1

Center-based 22.7 23.9 1.2 0.0

Multiple 51.8 49.6 2.2 0.0

Combination 10.1 6.9 3.2 0.1

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 56.8 57.5 0.7 0.0

Mental health specialist 95.4 95.5 0.1 0.0

Disability specialist 92.1 92.1 0.0 0.0

Literacy specialist 59.0 54.1 4.9 0.1

Speech or language specialist 68.9 60.8 8.1 0.2

Heath care professional or nurse 93.0 89.1 3.9 0.1

Other specialist 29.2 25.5 3.7 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 19.2 18.7 0.5 0.0

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with at Least an AA 10.9 15.6 4.7 0.1
161

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.14 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 314)

Lower 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors

with at Least an AA 44.1 49.0 4.9 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 7.6 13.5 5.9 0.2

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 33.5 37.5 4.0 0.1

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 18.7 20.3 1.6 0.1

Home visitors 24.3 23.7 0.6 0.0

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 97.0 96.6 0.4 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Child 

Care Partner 42.5 41.8 0.7 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 78.1 77.0 1.1 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 82.2 84.5 2.3 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.4 2.9 0.5 0.1

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 33.9 33.2 0.7 0.0

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 29.9 31.5 1.6 0.0

Mostly black 24.0 22.4 1.6 0.0

Mostly Hispanic 16.8 20.0 3.2 0.1

Mostly minority 69.5 67.6 1.9 0.0

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 70.7 73.3 2.6 0.1
162

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.14 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

High 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 314)

Lower 

Proportion 

Teen Mothers

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Demographic Risk 

Factors: 

Single parent 62.6 45.2 17.4 0.3

Receiving welfare payments 29.2 25.7 3.5 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 22.1 12.9 9.2 0.2

Primary caregiver unemployed or 

not in school 13.7 17.6 3.9 0.1

Teen mother –– –– –– ––

More than three risk factors 

(above) 23.7 18.3 5.4 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving 

Families with Psychological Risk 

Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 25.3 21.4 3.9 0.1

Experience family violence 10.3 4.2 6.1 0.2

Mental health problems 9.0 4.2 4.8 0.2

Substance abuse 3.8 2.3 1.5 0.1

More than two risk factors 

(above) 14.8 10.1 4.7 0.1

Sample Size (Programs) 110–314 92–334

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We defined programs with high proportions of teen mothers as those with teen mothers making 

up more than 10 percent of their enrollment.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
163

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.15. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Proportion of 

Children with Developmental Concerns

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concernsa

(N = 276)

Lower Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concerns

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 43.5 46.9 3.4 0.1

Mainly rural 42.0 41.4 0.6 0.0

Mainly suburban 10.8 9.1 1.7 0.1

Mixed 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.1

Other 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.1

Community Diversity

High 17.5 20.0 2.5 0.1

Moderate 44.8 38.3 6.5 0.1

Low 37.8 41.6 3.8 0.1

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 44.9 40.2 4.7 0.1

Stayed the same 54.4 58.0 3.6 0.1

Decreased 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 70.4 69.1 1.3 0.0

Government agency 5.5 5.4 0.1 0.0

Tribal government 3.9 5.0 1.1 0.1

School 9.2 11.2 1.9 0.1

University 4.1 3.0 1.1 0.1

Hospital or health care provider 4.3 2.4 1.9 0.1

Other 2.6 4.0 1.4 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 35.6 37.0 1.4 0.0

Multiple 64.5 63.0 1.5 0.0

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 32.3 29.9 2.4 0.1

51 to 100 39.4 41.2 1.8 0.0

101 to 150 18.0 15.9 2.1 0.1

More than 150 10.3 13.0 2.7 0.1

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 79.8 83.4 3.6 0.1
164

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.15 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concernsa

(N = 276)

Lower Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concerns

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 31.4 34.7 3.3 0.1

State government grant 17.1 17.9 0.8 0.0

Private foundation grants 15.4 14.9 0.5 0.0

Fundraising activities 13.8 13.3 0.5 0.0

Fee-for-service reimbursements 6.0 8.4 2.4 0.1

County/municipal

government grant 7.1 8.2 1.1 0.0

Part C funds 8.0 5.1 2.9 0.1

Contracts 4.2 5.1 0.9 0.0

Grants provided by businesses 4.6 5.5 0.9 0.0

Other source 5.3 7.3 2.0 0.1

Has an MIS 86.2 90.3 4.1 0.1

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 83.3 83.3 0.0 0.0

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 59.0 67.3 8.3 0.2

Program Approach

Home-based 19.4 16.1 3.3 0.1

Center-based 19.5 23.5 4.0 0.1

Multiple 53.3 52.0 1.3 0.0

Combination 7.7 7.2 0.5 0.0

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 55.5 58.9 3.4 0.1

Mental health specialist 95.3 95.6 0.3 0.0

Disability specialist 93.1 92.0 1.1 0.0

Literacy specialist 55.5 58.7 3.2 0.1

Speech or language specialist 64.1 65.8 1.7 0.0

Heath care professional or nurse 90.9 90.9 0.0 0.0

Other specialist 25.3 27.7 2.4 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 21.3 17.9 3.4 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

with AA 16.7 10.3 6.4 0.2
165

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.15 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concernsa

(N = 276)

Lower Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concerns

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors

with AA 51.0 42.9 8.1 0.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers 

and Home Visitors with at Least

an AA 14.5 6.9 7.6 0.3

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 31.9 38.4 6.5 0.1

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 21.0 18.0 3.0 0.1

Home visitors 23.5 23.9 0.4 0.0

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 96.9 96.8 0.1 0.0

Part C Partnership Features

Referrals to Part C 99.6 98.6 1.0 0.1

Referrals to Early Head Start 98.8 97.6 1.2 0.1

Share assessments 97.0 97.2 0.2 0.0

Staff meetings 91.7 86.8 4.9 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with

Child Care Partner 41.5 41.3 0.2 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Health 

Care Provider 74.8 79.0 4.2 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 82.4 84.7 2.3 0.1

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.3 2.8 0.5 0.1

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 36.2 31.3 4.9 0.2

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 34.4 27.6 6.8 0.1

Mostly black 17.3 27.2 9.9 0.2

Mostly Hispanic 19.1 16.9 2.2 0.1

Mostly minority 64.5 71.8 7.3 0.2
166

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.15 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

High Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concernsa

(N = 276)

Lower Level 

Children with 

Developmental 

Concerns

(N = 334) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Serve Any Families Speaking 

Primary Language Other

than English 76.0 71.5 4.5 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 50.5 56.1 5.6 0.1

Receiving welfare payments 26.9 29.0 2.1 0.0

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 16.7 17.8 1.1 0.0

Primary caregiver unemployed or 

not in school 18.8 14.1 4.7 0.1

Teen mother 4.4 7.0 2.6 0.1

More than three risk factors 

(above) 21.5 21.6 0.1 0.0

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors: 

Unsafe neighborhood 24.5 23.7 0.8 0.0

Experience family violence 8.2 6.5 1.7 0.1

Mental health problems 7.1 5.7 1.4 0.1

Substance abuse 3.1 3.0 0.1 0.0

More than two risk factors (above) 14.3 11.3 3.0 0.1

Sample Size (Programs) 84–276 104–334

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

Programs that have more than 20 percent of enrolled children with suspected or diagnosed 

disabilities make up the “high level of children with developmental concerns” subgroup. Those with 

fewer than 20 percent are the “lower level of developmental concerns” subgroup.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the population 

standard deviation.
167

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings 

Table VII.16. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Minority Enrollmenta

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Primarily 

Minority

(N = 439)

Primarily

Nonminority

(N = 207) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 59.2 18.0 41.2 0.8

Mainly rural 26.5 72.5 46.0 0.9

Mainly suburban 11.1 6.5 4.6 0.2

Mixed 2.0 2.6 0.6 0.0

Other 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.1

Community Diversity

High 25.9 4.8 21.1 0.5

Moderate 47.3 28.1 19.2 0.4

Low 26.9 67.1 40.2 0.8

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 44.8 35.6 9.2 0.2

Stayed the same 53.4 63.9 10.5 0.2

Decreased 1.8 0.5 1.3 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 65.5 78.8 13.3 0.3

Government agency 5.9 5.4 0.5 0.0

Tribal government 6.0 0.4 5.6 0.3

School 10.8 7.8 3.0 0.1

University 4.4 1.9 2.5 0.1

Hospital or health care provider 3.6 2.8 0.8 0.0

Other 3.8 2.8 1.0 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 37.9 30.8 7.2 0.1

Multiple 62.1 69.3 7.2 0.1

Program Enrollment (Number of 

Children and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 32.0 32.4 0.4 0.0

51 to 100 39.0 43.0 4.0 0.1

101 to 150 16.2 17.2 1.0 0.0

More than 150 12.8 7.4 5.4 0.2

Operates Own Preschool Head Start 79.8 85.2 5.3 0.1
168

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.16 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Primarily 

Minority

(N = 439)

Primarily

Nonminority

(N = 207) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 34.6 35.2 0.6 0.0

State government grant 15.4 22.7 7.3 0.2

Private foundation grants 16.2 12.9 3.3 0.1

Fundraising activities 14.2 10.3 3.9 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 7.7 10.0 2.3 0.1

County/municipal government grant 9.1 6.4 2.7 0.1

Part C funds 5.9 7.3 1.4 0.1

Contracts 6.9 3.0 3.9 0.2

Grants provided by businesses 5.5 5.3 0.2 0.0

Other source 7.3 4.9 2.4 0.1

Has an MIS 85.7 94.0 8.3 0.3

Uses MIS for Reports on Services 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 85.0 80.3 4.7 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress 

Reports (Among Programs Using

an MIS) 69.1 55.2 13.9 0.3

Program Approach

Home-based 12.3 27.7 15.4 0.4

Center-based 30.0 9.0 21.0 0.5

Multiple 46.4 58.9 12.5 0.2

Combination 10.5 4.0 6.5 0.2

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to: 

Male involvement specialist 59.3 52.5 6.8 0.1

Mental health specialist 96.4 93.4 3.0 0.1

Disability specialist 92.5 90.5 2.0 0.1

Literacy specialist 54.1 61.8 7.7 0.2

Speech or language specialist 64.8 66.1 1.3 0.0

Heath care professional or nurse 91.9 89.4 2.5 0.1

Other specialist 29.8 23.8 6.0 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 18.0 20.3 2.3 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers

with at Least an AA 12.1 14.8 2.7 0.1
169

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings 

Table VII.16 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Primarily 

Minority

(N = 439)

Primarily

Nonminority

(N = 207) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Employs Only Home Visitors with at 

Least an AA 45.7 48.7 3.0 0.1

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 7.3 15.9 8.6 0.3

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 38.0 30.7 7.3 0.2

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 18.3 22.8 4.5 0.2

Home visitors 23.7 24.3 0.6 0.0

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 95.7 98.5 2.8 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Child

Care Partner 43.0 39.9 3.1 0.1

Has Formal Agreement with

Health Care Provider 80.6 70.8 9.8 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 83.3 83.3 0.0 0.0

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 2.7 2.4 0.3 0.0

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 32.4 36.1 3.7 0.1

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 0.0 97.1 97.1 2.1

Mostly black 34.5 0.0 34.5 0.8

Mostly Hispanic 26.7 0.0 26.7 0.7

Mostly minority –– –– –– ––

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English 78.8 57.4 21.4 0.5

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Demographic Risk Factors: 

Single parent 60.9 38.5 22.4 0.4

Receiving welfare payments 28.6 24.2 4.4 0.1
170

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.16 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels 

Percentage of Programs

Primarily 

Minority

(N = 439)

Primarily

Nonminority

(N = 207) Difference

Effect 

Sizeb

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 21.3 9.1 12.2 0.3

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 12.7 21.5 8.8 0.2

Teen mother 7.4 2.5 4.9 0.2

More than three risk factors (above) 22.7 16.8 5.9 0.1

Programs Primarily Serving Families 

with Psychological Risk Factors:

Unsafe neighborhood 31.9 4.3 27.6 0.7

Experience family violence 9.2 3.2 6.0 0.2

Mental health problems 5.3 9.4 4.1 0.2

Substance abuse 2.7 3.8 1.0 0.1

More than two risk factors (above) 14.7 7.4 7.3 0.2

Sample Size (Programs) 155–439 48–207

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We defined programs with more than 50 percent racial/ethnic minority enrollment as the 

“primarily minority” subgroup.

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
171

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.17. Early Head Start Program Characteristics by Subgroup: Serving NonEnglish Speaking Familiesa

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Many 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 199)

Fewer 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 264) Difference

Effect

Sizeb

Community Characteristics

Service Area

Mainly urban 62.9 42.5 20.4 0.4

Mainly rural 17.5 44.6 27.1 0.6

Mainly suburban 15.5 9.8 5.7 0.2

Mixed 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.0

Other 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.1

Community Diversity

High 41.1 12.2 28.9 0.7

Moderate 37.0 54.0 17.0 0.3

Low 21.8 33.8 12.0 0.2

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 52.3 46.9 5.4 0.1

Stayed the same 45.2 51.6 6.4 0.1

Decreased 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.1

Program Characteristics

Program Auspice

Community agency 69.8 73.5 3.7 0.1

Government agency 5.9 4.7 1.2 0.1

Tribal government 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.0

School 12.2 9.6 2.6 0.1

University 3.1 4.6 1.5 0.1

Hospital or health care provider 4.1 2.2 1.9 0.1

Other 2.7 3.8 1.1 0.1

Number of Sites

Single 32.4 33.8 1.4 0.0

Multiple 67.6 66.2 1.4 0.0

Program Enrollment (Number of Children 

and Pregnant Women)

50 or fewer 25.6 25.6 0.0 0.0

51 to 100 44.4 41.1 3.3 0.1

101 to 150 14.3 21.1 6.8 0.2

More than 150 15.7 12.3 3.4 0.1

Operates Own Preschool

Head Start 81.9 80.5 1.4 0.0
172

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.17 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Many 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 199)

Fewer 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 264) Difference

Effect

Sizeb

Outside Funding Sources

State child care subsidies/

block grant 32.4 40.6 8.2 0.2

State government grant 15.2 19.6 4.4 0.1

Private foundation grants 17.4 18.6 1.2 0.0

Fundraising activities 13.1 16.1 3.0 0.1

Fee-for-service reimbursements 6.8 10.7 3.9 0.1

County/municipal government grant 11.7 7.5 4.2 0.2

Part C funds 5.2 6.2 1.0 0.0

Contracts 4.8 6.2 1.4 0.1

Grants provided by businesses 5.8 6.7 0.9 0.0

Other source 6.3 5.8 0.5 0.0

Has an MIS 82.4 92.5 10.1 0.3

Uses MIS for Reports on Services

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 80.8 82.8 2.0 0.1

Uses MIS for Individual Progress Reports 

(Among Programs Using an MIS) 63.0 65.5 2.5 0.1

Program Approach

Home-based 19.3 15.0 4.3 0.1

Center-based 15.7 26.2 10.5 0.2

Multiple 52.6 52.1 0.5 0.0

Combination 11.8 6.3 5.5 0.2

Staff Characteristics

Program Employs or Has Access to:

Male involvement specialist 54.3 60.8 6.5 0.1

Mental health specialist 96.6 94.8 1.8 0.1

Disability specialist 93.0 93.3 0.3 0.0

Literacy specialist 56.4 55.8 0.6 0.0

Speech or language specialist 62.8 63.7 0.9 0.0

Health care professional or nurse 93.6 89.8 3.8 0.1

Other specialist 27.3 33.8 6.5 0.1

Dietitian or nutritionist 24.0 14.9 9.1 0.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers

with at Least an AA 14.8 9.3 5.5 0.2

Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least 

an AA 39.7 54.0 14.3 0.3
173

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.17 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Many 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 199)

Fewer 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 264) Difference

Effect

Sizeb

Employs Only Primary Caregivers and 

Home Visitors with at Least an AA 6.9 9.2 2.3 0.1

Lost Director or Manager in Past

12 Months 37.8 39.6 1.8 0.0

Rate of Employee Turnover

Caregivers employed by program 16.4 22.0 5.6 0.2

Home visitors 25.4 22.3 3.1 0.1

Program Partnerships

Has Formal Agreement with Part C 

Partner 93.8 98.0 4.2 0.2

Has Formal Agreement with Child

Care Partner 41.4 42.5 1.1 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with

Health Care Provider 77.6 78.2 0.6 0.0

Has Formal Agreement with Mental 

Health Care Provider 78.4 87.7 9.3 0.2

Number of Preschool Head Start 

Programs with Formal Agreement to 

Coordinate Transition Services 3.4 2.0 1.4 0.2

Family Characteristics

Average Enrollment Turnover 37.3 34.3 3.0 0.1

Program Enrollment

Mostly white 4.0 38.8 34.8 0.8

Mostly black 10.7 29.9 19.2 0.5

Mostly Hispanic 43.5 7.4 36.1 0.9

Mostly minority 95.0 59.7 35.3 0.8

Serve Any Families Speaking Primary 

Language Other than English –– –– –– ––

Programs Primarily Serving Families with 

Demographic Risk Factors:

Single parent 46.6 60.3 13.7 0.3

Receiving welfare payments 25.6 28.4 2.8 0.1

Primary caregiver does not

have diploma/GED 28.3 12.6 15.7 0.4
174

Chapter VII: Early Head Start Subgroup Findings

Table VII.17 (continued)

Characteristics

Subgroup Levels

Percentage of Programs

Many 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 199)

Fewer 

Non-EnglishSpeaking

(N = 264) Difference

Effect

Sizeb

Primary caregiver unemployed or

not in school 15.1 15.9 0.8 0.0

Teen mother 5.5 4.7 0.8 0.0

More than three risk factors (above) 22.3 23.0 0.7 0.0

Programs Primarily Serving Families with 

Psychological Risk Factors:

Unsafe neighborhood 33.7 22.0 11.7 0.3

Experience family violence 10.1 5.4 4.7 0.2

Mental health problems 6.0 6.7 0.7 0.0

Substance abuse 1.5 3.4 1.9 0.1

More than two risk factors (above) 16.2 11.3 4.9 0.1

Sample Size (Programs) 68–199 84–264

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

a

We defined programs serving more than 25 percent of enrollees with a primary language other 

than English as “many non-English-speaking.”

b

We calculated effect sizes by taking the absolute value of the difference between means and 

dividing by the population standard deviation. For subgroups with more than two levels, we 

calculated the difference between the maximum and minimum means and divided by the 

population standard deviation.
C HAPTER VIII

C ROSS - C UTTING T HEMES AND 

D IRECTIONS FOR F UTURE R ESEARCH

Previous chapters have described the extensive information that the Survey of Early 

Head Start Programs provides on fundamental aspects of the program—including 

characteristics of communities and families, services, management and staffing, and 

partnerships. The survey builds upon existing data from the Program Information Report, 

offering detailed quantitative and qualitative data on program operations and enrollment. It 

also highlights the wide range of services and experiences among current Early Head Start 

programs and offers a baseline for future inquiries on their operation and context. 

In this chapter, we propose broad themes identified from survey data; in doing so, we 

review some of the key findings presented in previous chapters. We then suggest potential 

avenues for future research.

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

Several cross-cutting themes emerge from a broad examination of the survey findings. 

In identifying these themes, we pay special attention to areas of concurrence between the 

survey’s quantitative and qualitative data. We highlight connections that indicate key trends 

and challenges for Early Head Start programs.

• Community context, especially urbanicity, is associated to some extent with 

program services and management.

Survey data support the notion that program approaches and service offerings are 

associated with community context. As noted in Chapter VII, urban programs are more 

likely than suburban and rural ones to follow a center-based approach, while rural programs 

are most likely to implement a home-based model. Multiple approach programs make up 

about half of programs in each service area but are most prevalent in suburban areas. On 

the other hand, combination programs are low in prevalence overall, but are least likely to be 

in a suburban setting. In describing their reasons for choosing a particular approach, 

program leaders often mentioned efforts to meet the needs of local families (for example, by 

making child care available to parents who are working or in school). Program staff also 

noted such factors as parents’ access to transportation, or other limitations in local resources, 
176

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

when choosing a program model. Affiliation with a preschool Head Start program may also 

be a factor in choice of model; rural programs are most likely to be affiliated with a 

preschool Head Start program, but differences among programs across areas are not large.

Context also may be linked with program staffing, but the patterns in this area are less 

clear. Suburban programs seem most resource rich in general. They are the most likely to 

employ home visitors with an associate’s or higher degree, and they have the most access to 

specialists. Conversely, rural programs are the least likely to have these attributes. We 

caution that the suburban subgroup is made up of a small number of programs, and 

differences may be exaggerated as a result. However, it is also possible that programs in 

rural areas with limited labor pools find it more difficult to identify and hire well-qualified 

staff, and may have less access to specialists. The distinction between rural and other 

programs is not consistent across all types of staff, however; there is no notable difference in 

the credentials of primary caregivers in rural or urban programs.

Community demographics and patterns of family and community risk factors may be 

additional influences on hiring decisions. For example, programs in increasingly diverse 

communities tend to serve more racial/ethnic and language minority families. During site 

visits, managers of programs in such areas described their efforts to recruit and hire staff 

whose linguistic skills and ethnic background match those enrolled families.

These survey findings—that small, home-based, and rural programs have the least 

access to highly educated staff or specialists compared with larger, urban, multiple approach 

programs, may have implications for T/TA. Targeted T/TA and perhaps additional 

resources for small, home-based, rural programs may be warranted to support their efforts 

to hire and retain qualified staff.

• Early Head Start program work to serve families at high risk.

Families enrolled in Early Head Start present complex combinations of risk factors. 

Risks include children with identified disabilities, as well as families experiencing numerous 

simultaneous high risk characteristics and events, any one of which could present challenges 

to programs in providing services. Further complicating matters, the risk profile for a 

particular family can change—perhaps rapidly—over time.

Programs that serve many families in acute crisis were more likely to use a multiple 

service approach, suggesting that flexibility in the choice of approach may be important to 

serving them effectively. Further, these programs require staff with the skills and resources 

to cope with hard-to-serve families and deliver Early Head Start services. We might expect 

to see high rates of staff turnover, but found it does not differ across programs serving many 

high risk versus fewer high risk families. As described in Chapter VII, programs whose 

enrollment is characterized by many families with high psychological risks are more likely 

than other programs to employ mental health specialists. Evidently, programs have found 

ways to recruit and retain appropriate staff. However, given the prevalence of high risk 

families and the challenges they present, programs serving many such families may need 

continued and additional support, staff training, and technical assistance.
177

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

• Early Head Start programs are not static—as a group and individually, they 

change the mix of services they provide. They also experience transitions in 

staff and management structure, as well as in the characteristics of the families 

they serve.

Survey data provide some insight not only on Early Head Start programs’ current 

circumstances, but also on how they have changed. As noted in Chapter IV, about twothirds of programs indicated they had made some change to program organization or 

program design since they began. Programs most often altered their organizational 

structure, but changes to program design were also frequent, with two-fifths of programs 

adding center-based services to their offerings, one-fifth adding home-based services, and 

one-tenth dropping home-based services. Such changes could be due to a variety of factors, 

including needs expressed by families, welfare reforms requiring families to work or attend 

school full-time, findings from the EHSREP evaluation that multiple approach programs 

had the broadest pattern of impacts, or a continued focus on individualizing and 

customizing services as programs mature. The movement toward multiple approaches 

observed in the EHSREP seems to have been maintained. This may be a response by 

programs to be able to flexibly meet the changing needs of families.

As with many providers of early childhood education, staffing changes and turnover are 

a common feature of Early Head Start programs. As noted in Chapter V, turnover at the 

director level is infrequent, with just over 1 in 10 programs experiencing a change in 

directors during the past year. However, turnover among frontline staff is higher: programs 

reported that about a quarter of all home visitors left their positions in the past year, and 

about one-fifth of all primary caregivers. (Compared with average staff turnover in early 

childhood programs, these rates might be considered moderate. According to state-level 

data compiled by the Center for the Child Care Workforce [2004], turnover rates among 

frontline early childhood staff typically range between 25 and 40 percent). However, staff 

transitions plainly create challenges for program directors and managers and have 

implications for the ability of children and families’ to form close relationships with staff.

Some programs operating in communities experiencing demographic shifts also report 

changes in the race/ethnicity of the populations they serve. For example, about one-fifth of 

programs serving Hispanic families indicated that the number of such families has increased 

substantially over the past five years. Such demographic changes have implications for the 

kinds of skills and cultural competencies that staff need.

• Many Early Head Start programs establish strong connections with other 

service providers, but some links appear to be easier to forge than others.

The Survey of Early Head Start Programs explores in detail the characteristics of 

program partnerships with other agencies, as well as the successes and challenges programs 

have experienced in developing such connections. Many programs have partnerships with 

Part C agencies, health care providers, and mental health providers. Partnerships for child 

development services are less common, however, and most programs provide all the services 

they offer directly. These patterns suggest that Early Head Start programs are especially 
178

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

likely to pursue organizational links that complement their own expertise and that offer the 

potential to address specific unmet family needs. It is also possible that creating partnerships 

for disability, health care, or similar services is a less complex process than establishing links 

for child development services, because programs with child care partnerships bear 

substantial responsibility for ensuring that such services meet performance standards. 

Interviews during site visits suggest that some staff feel the benefits of building partnerships 

for child care are not always worth the time and resources required.

Integration of Early Head Start and Head Start services could also be considered a 

process of establishing partnerships, though this often occurs within agencies. As with child 

care partnerships, programs appear to experience a mixed pattern of successes and 

challenges in creating connections. As described in Chapter III, a large majority of Early 

Head Start programs operate under the same agency auspices as preschool Head Start 

programs, but not all these programs offer seamless birth-to-5 services. Leaders of nearly 

half the Early Head Start programs receiving site visits cited their intention to integrate their 

services with preschool Head Start programs and described the progress they have made 

toward doing so. However, challenges to creating seamless services remain, such as 

(1) imbalances in enrollment levels between Early Head Start and Head Start programs, 

(2) addressing staff perceptions that they cannot learn the skills to work with older or 

younger children, and (3) the tension between offering continued services, birth through

age 5, and fostering independence of families as well as serving more families.

• Early Head Start programs face the challenge of adapting to federal and state 

policies regarding whom they serve and employ.

As a means-tested (eligibility dependent upon income) government program, Early 

Head Start features requirements and eligibility criteria with which agencies receiving funding 

must comply. These requirements help ensure that the program maintains quality services 

and that it reaches those families who need its assistance most. However, policies at the 

federal and state levels also create challenges for Early Head Start programs as they try to 

provide continuous services and recruit and employ qualified staff.

Enrollments and transitions can be complicated by eligibility criteria under some 

circumstances. For instance, during site visits, some programs serving teen parents indicated 

that such parents are sometimes classified as “over income” because the income of their 

own parents’ is considered in determination of eligibility. Early Head Start children ready to 

transition to preschool may not qualify to continue receiving services through Head Start 

because of changes in family income since their initial enrollment. In such cases, alternatives 

for child care and family services must be identified. Early Head Start agencies also take into 

consideration the eligibility requirements of other programs, such as the Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF). Subsidies provided with CCDF funds sometimes help fund 

child care slots at a partner center, for instance. Changes in parents’ eligibility for the 

subsidies can affect the stability of a child’s placement and the overall partnership.

Early Head Start programs are also subject to policies regarding minimum qualifications 

for staff. In many cases, however, a gap appears to exist between staff qualification 
179

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

requirements and availability of appropriately credentialed applicants. Programs may 

respond by prioritizing higher educational qualifications for some positions. For example, 

one possible reason that home visitors tend to have higher credentials than primary 

caregivers is programs’ intent to have more qualified people in positions that require greater 

staff independence. Programs may also respond to these requirements by investing 

resources to establish clear pathways for staff to enhance their credentials within the grace 

period defined under Head Start Program Performance Standards.

• Most Early Head Start programs have an MIS and many are using it to 

aggregate and track data at the program and individual levels. 

Early Head Start programs have been encouraged to use data to improve service 

delivery for families and to target areas for staff training and support improvement efforts. 

Most programs have an MIS (88 percent) and of those about three-quarters are satisfied with 

its performance. Of the one-quarter of MIS users who are not satisfied, many (40 percent) 

find that the reports generated by the MIS are not useful. Without useful reports, programs 

will have little incentive to use their MIS in new ways, such as for tracking progress and 

targeting staff training.

Most MIS can generate basic reports, such as enrollment lists; fewer are useful for 

tracking ongoing child assessment information or staff training and characteristics—

something that may be beneficial for programs to target services and training. The main 

challenges programs have with MIS are software problems (57 percent), difficulty of use 

(42 percent), and limited usefulness of reports (40 percent). Efforts to help programs install, 

use, and troubleshoot MIS may help them make greater use of the data they collect.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Having provided a national snapshot in time of the two base levels of the performance 

measures framework—program management and services—the Survey of Early Head Start 

Programs offers a substantial foundation for research. It will be important to take periodic 

snapshots to chart changes in program implementation. In addition, future studies could 

build on survey findings by examining the next layer of the framework: child and family 

outcomes. These potential studies could benefit practitioners and policymakers by 

identifying effective approaches to service delivery and program management and by linking 

services and management practices to family and child outcomes. Below, we describe 

several possible purposes and questions such research might address. These questions touch 

on key elements of the performance measures framework, including community context, 

management systems, services, and outcomes for children and families.

We organize possible future research studies into two primary categories: descriptive 

and experimental. Both types are useful, but for different purposes. The advantage of a 

descriptive study is that it allows examination of many program features to get an in-depth 

understanding (in this case, nationally representative) of the program and its operations. 

Correlations between program characteristics and outcomes do not enable us to establish 

causality between a given characteristic or practice and outcomes, but a study of this type can 
180

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

suggest likely pathways of relations for further research and avenues for training and 

technical assistance. An experimental study, on the other hand, is necessarily narrower in 

focus but allows a rigorous examination of the ways that particular program elements affect 

child and family outcomes. Unlike a descriptive study, a study using an experimental design 

with random assignment would allow conclusions about causal relationships between 

program characteristics or practices and participant outcomes.

Potential Descriptive Studies

Several of the research questions proposed below suggest the use of child and family 

outcome data, and the comparison of outcomes across programs taking different approaches 

to management and service delivery. Outcome data could be gathered through a descriptive 

longitudinal study similar to the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). 

FACES gathers comprehensive data on the cognitive and social-emotional development of 

Head Start children through direct child assessments in multiple domains; observations of 

Head Start classrooms; and interviews with Head Start parents, teachers, and administrators 

(ACF 2003). In addition, FACES examines the characteristics of families; the quality of 

Head Start classrooms; and the qualifications and credentials, of Head Start teachers and 

other program staff as well as their views toward preschool education. The design and 

structure of the FACES study is a model that Early Head Start may want to build upon in 

future research.

Much like the FACES study described above, data from successive cohorts of Early 

Head Start children could answer questions such as these: What are the developmental skills 

of Early Head Start children when they enter the program? What is the quality of their Early 

Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, and what specific program 

approaches are being used? How do programs vary in how they reach full implementation 

of the comprehensive Head Start Program Performance Standards? What are the 

characteristics and qualifications of Early Head Start teachers, and how do they relate to 

children’s outcomes? Do the data suggest a potential relationship of classroom quality, 

program approach, and overall program implementation to children’s outcomes? What is 

the best way to characterize management structures and practices of Early Head Start 

programs? Are particular structures and practices linked to staff consistency and 

effectiveness? How can the quality of leadership at various levels within a program be 

described and assessed? Does leadership quality relate to staff turnover rates, qualifications, 

and effectiveness?

Potential Experimental Research

As mentioned above, experimental and descriptive approaches can complement one 

another in answering research questions. One way to determine the actual effect (impact) of 

a particular program element or service on child and family outcomes is to identify 

important potential elements, then randomly assign programs to them (for example, 

different levels of training and technical assistance for staff). Researchers then would 

estimate the impacts of the strategies on service quality and children’s outcomes. With an 

experimental design, researchers could establish clear causal links between these different 
181

Chapter VIII: Cross-Cutting Themes and Directions for Future Research

program conditions and children’s outcomes. Further, a carefully designed experimental 

study or studies could address the extent to which variations in child outcomes are 

accounted for by the interaction between program and family/child characteristics. In other 

words, an experimental study could answer the question “What works best for whom?” 

Therefore, the Office of Head Start and training and technical assistance providers would be 

able to provide clear guidance to programs about which strategies have evidence of 

effectiveness, and for which families.

Clearly, the topics suggested here represent only an initial set of possibilities for future 

research. As the Early Head Start program continues to develop, practitioners, 

policymakers, and researchers will no doubt identify additional ways in which this study can 

inform efforts to understand and improve the program for the benefit of its participants.
R EFERENCES

Administration for Children and Families. “Preliminary Findings from the Early Head Start 

Prekindergarten Followup.” Early Head Start and Research and Evaluation Project 

report. Washington, DC: DHHS, April 2006.

Administration for Children and Families. Head Start FACES (2000): A Whole-Child 

Perspective on Program Performance. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2003.

Administration for Children and Families. “Program Performance Measures for Head Start 

Programs Serving Infants and Toddlers.” Washington, DC: DHHS, 2003.

Administration for Children and Families. “Head Start Program Performance Standards.” 

Final rule cited in Federal Register, November 5, 1996. [www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

hsb/performance]. 

Administration for Children and Families. “Statement of the Advisory Committee on 

Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers.” Washington, DC: DHHS, 1994. 

[www.bmcc.edu/Headstart/Advse.Commtte/index.html]. 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Dedicated to Dads: Lessons from the Early 

Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2003.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Pathways to Quality and Full Implementation in 

Early Head Start. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2002a.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Building Their Futures: How Early Head Start 

Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of Infants and Toddlers in Low Income Families. Summary 

Report. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2001.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early 

Experiences of Selected First-Wave Early Head Start Programs. Executive Summary. 

Washington, DC: DHHS, 2000a.
184

References

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early 

Experiences of Selected First-Wave Early Head Start Programs. Volume 3: Program 

Implementation. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2000b.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early 

Experiences of Selected First-Wave Head Start Programs. Volume 1: Cross-Site Perspectives. 

Washington, DC: DHHS, 1999a.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Leading the Way: Characteristics and Early 

Experiences of Selected First-Wave Early Head Start Programs. Volume 2: Program Profiles. 

Washington, DC: DHHS, 1999b.

Arnett, Jeffrey. “Caregivers in Day Care Centers: Does Training Matter?” Journal of Applied 

Developmental Psychology, vol. 10, 1989, pp. 541–552.

Brigance, Albert H. “Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development, Revised 

(BDIED-R).” North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, 1991.

Center for the Child Care Workforce. “Current Data on the Salaries and Benefits of the U.S. 

Early Childhood Education Workforce.” Washington, DC: CCCW, June 2004.

Dodge, Diane Trister, and Laura J. Colker. “Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood.” 

Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, 1992.

Frankenburg, William K., and J.B. Dodds. “Denver II Development Screening Test 

(DDST-II).” Denver: Denver Developmental Materials, Inc., 1989.

Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. “Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS).” New 

York: Teachers College Press, 1989.

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, Richard M. Clifford, and Frank Porter. “Infant/Toddler 

Environment Rating Scale (ITERS).” New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.

High/Scope Education Research Foundation. “High/Scope Child Observation Record 

(COR) for Ages 2 1/2 – 6.” Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1999.

Lambert, R.G., M. Abbott-Shim, and C. Oxford-Wright. Policy and Program Management 

Inventory: Teachers Version. Georgia State University, 2001. [education.uncc.edu/qrc/ 

teacher%20version.pdf]. Accessed September 28, 2006.

Love, John M., Ellen Eliason Kisker, Christine M. Ross, Peter Z. Schochet, Jeanne BrooksGunn, Diane Paulsell, Kimberly Boller, Jill Constantine, Cheri Vogel, Alison Sidle 

Fuligni, and Christy Brady-Smith. “Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and 

Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start. Vol. I: Final Technical 

Report.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 2002.

Maynard, Rebecca. Kids Having Kids. New York: Robin Hood Foundation, 1996.
185

References

Parks, Stephanie. “Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP).” Palo Alto, CA: VORT 

Corporation, 1997.

Scientific Software Development. Atlas.ti: Visual Qualitative Data Analysis Management Model 

Building in Education Research and Business. Berlin: Scientific Software Development, 

2004.

Silberg, Jackie. Games to Play with Babies. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House, Inc., 1993a.

Silberg, Jackie. Games to Play with Toddlers. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House, Inc., 1993b.

Smith, Miriam W. “User’s Guide to the Early Language and Literacy Classroom 

Observation Toolkit. Research Edition (ELLCO).” Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks, 

2002.

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, and Elizabeth Twombly. “Ages and Stages Questionnaires: 

Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE).” Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2002.

Squires, Jane, LaWanda Potter, and Diane Bricker. “Ages and Stages Questionnaires 

(ASQ).” Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 1999.

Yoshikawa, H., and J. Knitzer. Lessons from the Field: Head Start Mental Health Challenges to Meet 

Changing Needs. New York: Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, 

National Center for Children in Poverty and American Orthospsychiatric Association, 

1997.

Zero To Three Infant Mental Health Task Force. Definition of Infant Mental Health. 

Washington, DC: Zero To Three, December 2001. [www.zerotothree.org/imh/ 

definition.html]. Accessed July 24, 2006.
A PPENDIX A 

S URVEY OF E ARLY H EAD S TART 

P ROGRAMS
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

OMB NO. 0970-0008 

APPROVAL EXPIRES: 12/31/2007 

MPR Reference No.: 6028-004 

Survey of Early Head 

Start Programs 

January 2005 

MPR ID #: | | | | | | | | | 

GRANT # AND DELEGATE: | | | | | | | | |-| | | | 

Early Head Start Program: 

Mailing Address: 

Location Address: 

Telephone Number: (| | | |)-| | | |-| | | | | 

Area Code Number 

Fax Number: (| | | |)-| | | |-| | | | | 

 Area Code Number 

Director‘s Name: 

E-mail Address: 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 

0992-0008. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 180 minutes per 

respondent, including the time to review instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this 

form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. If you have comments or concerns 

regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208. 
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has funded Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), a nationally 

recognized social policy research company to gather information from all Early Head Start programs. ACF is 

interested in programs' management practices and program services to inform planning for training and technical 

assistance as well as for future research. MPR brings to this task experience from conducting the EHS Research and 

Evaluation Project, which found a broad range of impacts on child development and parent outcomes as well as great 

variation in service delivery patterns and rates of implementation. 

This is the first survey expressly designed for Early Head Start programs and is being sent to all EHS program 

directors nationwide. In addition, MPR staff will visit 25 programs to gather more in-depth information about these 

topics. You may recognize some of the questions in the survey as being the same or similar to those that appear on 

the Program Information Report (PIR). We have tried to keep duplication to a minimum, but some duplication is 

necessary. 

Unlike the PIR, the information you provide in the survey will not be used for accountability purposes. We will 

not report on individual programs but will report findings in aggregate statistical form (such as —X% of programs 

offered center-based services“ and further, those programs that offered center-based services also had 

Y characteristics). Information you provide will be treated in a confidential manner to the extent allowable by law. 

We appreciate your help! After completing the survey, we will send you a $20 Barnes & Noble gift certificate. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

Please review the Early Head Start program information listed on the front cover. Cross out errors and enter the 

correct or missing information. 

The questionnaire is divided into five sections: 

A. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ENROLLMENT 

B. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND INVOLVEMENT 

C. STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 

D. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS 

E. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES 

• Mark each response box with an —X.“ If a question has a line to write an answer, write your answer in 

the space provided. 

• For questions that require a numeric or percentage response, write the numbers in the boxes provided, 

recording —zeros“ to the left for space unused. For example, 25 should be recorded as | 0 | 2 | 5 |. 

• Return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided. Please keep a copy for your records. 

• If you have any questions, contact Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (1-888-633-8329). 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

SCREENER 

This survey has been specifically designed to help ACF 

gain a better understanding of how Early Head Start 

programs deliver services to families and children. You 

will notice in a few places that the survey asks 

questions that are similar to those on the Program 

Information Report (PIR). However, many of these 

questions have been refined to reflect the services 

offered to infants and toddlers, or substantially 

elaborated to gather information specific to Early Head 

Start programs. 

S1. Do you currently provide Early Head Start 

services to families? 

1 £ Yes GO TO A1 

0 £ No 

S1A. When did you stop providing Early Head Start 

services? 

| | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

GO TO E32, PAGE 34 

A. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

AND ENROLLMENT 

A1. Which of the following best describes your

agency? 

MARK ONLY ONE 

1 £ A private for-profit 

2 £ A private not-for-profit 

3 £ A public agency 

4 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

A1A. Which of the following phrases best describes

your agency? 

MARK ONLY ONE 

1 £ A Community Action Agency (CAA/CAP) 

2 £ A community-based organization (CBO) 

3 £ A public or private school system 

4 £ A government agency 

5 £ A tribal government or consortium 

6 £ A hospital 

7 £ A health care provider or agency 

8 £ A university 

9 £ A faith-based organization 

10 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

A2. Apart from any Early Head Start grants from the 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

that you may receive, do you receive funding for 

Early Head Start services from any of the 

following sources? 

MARK YES OR NO FOR EACH 

Yes No 

a. A state government grant.......................... 1 £ 0 £

b. State child care subsidies or block grant... 1 £ 0 £

c. A county or municipal government grant... 1 £ 0 £

d. One or more private foundation grants ..... 1 £ 0 £

e. Grants provided by businesses................. 1 £ 0 £

f. Fundraising activities ................................ 1 £ 0 £

g. Part C funds .............................................. 1 £ 0 £

h. Contracts................................................... 1 £ 0 £

i. Fee-for-service reimbursements ............... 1 £ 0 £

j. Some other source (Specify)...................... 1 £ 0 £

 

A2A. How does your Early Head Start program receive 

state child care subsidies? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Individual child payment 

2 £ Grant directly from the state program 

3 £ Some other subsidy (Specify) 

 

A3. What do these funding sources pay for? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Additional Early Head Start enrollment slots 

2 £ New Early Head Start services 

3 £ Improvements to existing Early Head Start 

 services 

4 £ Additional Early Head Start staff 

5 £ Staff training or technical assistance 

6 £ Services for Part C children or families 

7 £ Parent activities 

8 £ Child care 

9 £ Some other use (Specify) 

 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

A3A. How many slots? 

| | | NUMBER OF SLOTS 
A4. As of January 1, 2005, how many pregnant women were enrolled in your Early Head Start program and received 

Early Head Start services such as classes or home visits? 

| |,| | | | NUMBER OF PREGNANT WOMEN 

0 £ None 

A4A. We would like to understand the way your Early Head Start program plans services to best meet the needs of 

enrolled families. Some programs may use several service categories to account for all enrolled children. Using 

the categories below, report each child only once in the category that best describes his or her service mix. 

As of January 1, 2005, what is the actual enrollment of children, not including pregnant women, in your Early Head 

Start program served through the following program options: 

If number of children recorded 

in A4A: 

A4A. A4B.

Number of 

Early Head 

Start Children 

How often are home visits 

completed per family, on 

average? 

Not 

Applicable 

a. Home-based services, in which Early Head Start services are provided 

primarily in the child‘s home............................................................................. 

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Something else (Specify) 

n.a. £ | | | | 

GO TO A4B 

 

b. Home-based services, plus Early Head Start services such as centerbased care, family child care, respite care, or similar service options ............. | | | | 

GO TO A4B 

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Something else (Specify) 

n.a. £

 

c. Centers you operate, in which Early Head Start services are provided 

primarily in a child development center but also include home visits.............. n.a. £

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Something else (Specify) 

| | | | 

GO TO A4B 

. 

 

d. Centers you operate, in which Early Head Start services are provided 

primarily in a child development center and do not include home visits ......... n.a. £ | | | | 

e. Centers you partner with, in which Early Head Start services are provided 

primarily in a child development center but also include home visits............... 

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

n.a. £ | | | | 

GO TO A4B 

f. Centers you partner with, in which Early Head Start services are provided 

primarily in a child development center and do not include home visits ......... n.a. £ | | | | 

g. Family child care, in which Early Head Start services are provided primarily 

in a family child care home but also include home visits ................................. n.a. £ | | | | 

GO TO A4B 

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

h. Family child care, in which Early Head Start services are provided primarily 

in a family child care home and do not include home visits ............................ n.a. £ | | | | 

i. Some other program option (Specify) .............................................................. 

 

n.a. £

| | | | 

GO TO A4B 

1 £ Once a year 

2 £ Twice a year 

3 £ Less than once a month 

4 £ Monthly 

5 £ Weekly 

6 £ Varies with family needs 

7 £ Do not have home visits 

8 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

COUNT CHILD IN ONLY ONE CATEGORY. 

A4C. TOTAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN (SUM OF A4Aa a to A4Ai) 

A4D. TOTAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN 

 (SUM OF A4 + A4C) 

| | | |,| | | | 

| | | |,| | | | 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
A5. Is the number of children and pregnant women in 

question A4D, Page 2, the actual enrollment for 

your Early Head Start Program? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO BACK AND CORRECT 

 NUMBERS IN A4 and A4A 

A5A. Is the number of children and pregnant women in 

question A4D, Page 2, the typical enrollment for 

your Early Head Start Program? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No, the number is higher than typical 

2 £ No, the number is lower than typical 

A7. On average, what percentage of all your Early 

Head Start program families leave Early Head 

Start . . . 

a. At or before child‘s birth? ............... | | | | %

b. When child is 0-2 years old? .......... | | | | % 

c. When child is 2-3 years old? .......... | | | | % 

d. When child is over 3 years old? ..... | | | | % 

A5B. Is the number of children and pregnant women in 

question A4D, Page 2, the funded enrollment for 

your Early Head Start Program? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No, the number is higher than funded 

2 £ No, the number is lower than funded 

A5C. How many of the total children in question A4C, 

Page 2, who are currently enrolled in your Early 

Head Start program are . . . 

Number of Early 

Head Start 

Children None

a. Under 1 year old................. | | | | 0 £

b. 1 year old ........................... | | | | 0 £

c. 2 years old.......................... | | | | 0 £

d. 3 years old.......................... | | | | 0 £

e. 4 years old or older............. | | | | 0 £

A5D. SUM OF A5C (a to e): 

A5E. DOES THE SUM IN QUESTION A5D EQUAL THE 

SUM IN QUESTION A4C, Page 2? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO BACK AND CORRECT NUMBERS IN 

QUESTIONS A5C OR A4A, PAGE 2

A6. On average, what percentage of all your program 

families enter Early Head Start . . .

a. Before child‘s birth?........................ | | | | %

b. When child is 0-2 years old? .......... | | | | %

c. When child is 2-3 years old? .......... | | | | %

A8.	 At any time during the past 12 months, how many 

children stopped attending your Early Head Start 

program for the following reasons? Do not count

children who re-enroll.

ESTIMATE IF NECESSARY. 

 NUMBER 

 OF CHILDREN

a. Dropped out or withdrawn .............. | | | |

b. Terminated by the Early Head 

Start program, no longer qualify, 

lack of participation ......................... | | | | 

c. Became inactive but slots saved .... | | | | 

d. No children stopped attending ........ 0 £ GO 

TO A10, 

PAGE 4 

| | | |,| | | | 


 


 


 


 


 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
A9.	 Of the spaces left open by those who left your 

Early Head Start program, how many were filled 

by children and pregnant women during the past 

12 months? 

| | | | CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN 

A10. When was the last time you updated your waiting 

list? 

MARK ONLY ONE 

1 £ In the past 0 - 3 months 

2 £ In the past 4 - 6 months 

3 £ In the past 7 - 12 months 

4 £ More than 12 months ago 

0 £ None œ Do not have waiting list 

d £ Don‘t know 

A11. How many children and pregnant women are 

currently on your waiting list? 

| | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND 

 PREGNANT WOMEN 

0 £ None 

d £ Don‘t know 

A12. Of all the children who have ever enrolled in Early 

Head Start, what percent remain in your Early 

Head Start program until they are no longer age 

eligible? 

| | | | PERCENT OF CHILDREN 

 REMAIN UNTIL NO LONGER 

 AGE ELIGIBLE 

0 £ None 

A13. Of those children who remain until they are no 

longer age eligible, for what percentage, on 

average, are you able to develop transition 

plans? 

| | | | PERCENT OF CHILDREN 

 WITH TRANSITION PLANS 

0 £ None 

A14. On average, what percentage of children in your

Early Head Start program transition into 

preschool Head Start? 

| | | | PERCENT TRANSITION TO 

 HEAD START PROGRAM 

A15. On average, what percentage of children in your

Early Head Start program transition into a nonHead Start preschool program? 

| | | | PERCENT TRANSITION TO 

 NON-HEAD START PROGRAM 

A16. Does your agency operate a Preschool Head Sta

Program? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO B2, PAGE 5

A17. As of January 1, 2005, how many children were 

enrolled in your Preschool Head Start program?

| | |,| | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

 ENROLLED 

A18. What percentage of the children enrolled by you

Preschool Head Start program are . . . 

PERCENT 

| | | | 3 YEARS OLD?

| | | | 4 YEARS OLD?

| | | | 5 YEARS OLD?

rt 

r 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

B. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND INVOLVEMENT
 

B1.	 NOT IN PAPER VERSION. 

B2.	 How many of the total number of children and pregnant women enrolled in your Early Head Start program are 

from the following racial or ethnic groups? 

• Please count children and pregnant women by the individual ethnicity or race that the family chooses. 

B2A.

a. American Indian or Alaska Native................ | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

 

c. Black or African American ........................... | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ... | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

g. White/Hispanic............................................. | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

i. Other race or ethnicity (Specify).................... 

 

 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

Number of 

Early Head 

Start Children 

and Pregnant 

Women 

Program Does 

Not Track This 

Information 

Over the past 5 years, has the number 

of children and pregnant women from 

this racial or ethnic group increased 

substantially, remained about the 

same, or decreased substantially? 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

b. Asian............................................................ | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

d. Black/Hispanic ............................................. | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £ 3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

f. White ........................................................... | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £ 3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

h. Biracial or multi-racial .................................. | | | | 

0 £ None 

d £

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

B2.

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

B3.	 Do any of the children and pregnant women served by your Early Head Start program speak a language other 

than English as their primary language at home? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO B4, PAGE 7 

B3A. Of the children and pregnant women who speak a primary language other than English, in the home, what 

number speak the following? 

a. Spanish........................................................................ | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

0 £ None 

c. Caribbean languages (e.g., French-Creole, Haitian) ... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

0 £ None 

e. Far Eastern Asian languages (e.g., Japanese, 

Vietnamese) ................................................................ | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDRE

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

N 

0 £ None 

g. Pacific Island languages (e.g., Palauan, Fijian)...........

i. African languages (e.g., Swahili, Wolof) ...................... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

0 £ None 

k. Some other language (Specify).....................................

 

| | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

0 £ None 

B3A.

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

B3B.

Over the past 5 years, has the 

number of children and pregnant 

women speaking this language, 

increased substantially, remained 

about the same, or decreased 

substantially? 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

b. Native Central American, South American and 

Mexican Languages (e.g., Mexican, Quichean) .......... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN 

0 £ None 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

d. Middle Eastern and Indic languages (e.g., Arabic, 

Hindi) ........................................................................... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN 

0 £ None 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

f. Native North American or Alaska Native languages .... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN 

0 £ None 

| | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN

0 £ None 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

h. European and Slavic languages (e.g., Italian, 

Croatian) ...................................................................... | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN 

0 £ None 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY

j. American Sign Language ............................................ | | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

AND PREGNANT 

WOMEN 

0 £ None 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

3 £ INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

2 £ REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME 

1 £ DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

B4. Early Head Start programs face many challenges in serving high need or high risk families. We would like 

to know more about the needs of the enrolled families you serve and how many of them have high needs or 

are at high risk. Rather than collecting specific information to provide exact figures, please provide your 

best estimate of the proportion of families who fit each of the following categories: 

• Families may fall into more than one category. 

B4A. Teen mother (under age 20).........................................................................................

B4C. Primary caregiver does not have a high school diploma or GED.................................. 

B4E. Primary caregiver is not employed or in school ............................................................

Percentage of Families 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

B4B. Single parent family (primary caregiver of child not married or living with a partner) .... 1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

B4D. Anyone in family receives welfare payments (cash assistance or TANF) ..................... 

B4F. Considering the five categories above, what proportion of families enrolled in your 

Early Head Start program have more than three of these characteristics? .................. 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

B5. Thinking about enrolled families, what percentage of families have the following characteristics: 

• Families may fall into more than one category. 

• Please provide your best estimate. 

B5A. Mental health problems.....................................................................................................

B5C. Reside in an unsafe neighborhood ................................................................................... 

B5E. Considering the four areas above, what proportion of families enrolled in your 

Early Head Start program have more than two of these characteristics? ......................... 

Percentage of Families 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

B5B. Substance abuse .............................................................................................................. 1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

1 £ ≤ 10 percent 

2 £ 11 to 25 percent 

3 £ 26 to 50 percent 

4 £ 51 to 75 percent 

5 £ 76 percent or more 

B5D. Experience family violence ............................................................................................... 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
B6. What is the number of children actually enrolled in your Early Head Start program who have developmental 

concerns but who have not been referred or evaluated? Perhaps these children are being monitored by staff 

members to determine the need for referral or perhaps the families are in the process of deciding whether to 

pursue formal assessment. 

| | | | NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

0 £ None 

B6A. Many Early Head Start children have developmental concerns that require some level of assessment and 

intervention. The process leading to intervention can include the building of awareness, planning with 

families, referral for evaluation, and then possible referral for intervention services. Please record the 

number of children with each developmental concern and indicate where they are in this process. Please 

ONLY report the PRIMARY concern for each child. Thus, each child should be included in only one row. 

ESTIMATE IF NECESSARY. 

PLEASE REPORT THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERN 

FOR EACH CHILD ONLY ONCE 

List of Developmental Concerns 

Not 

Applicable

Number of 

Children 

Early Head Start 

Referred for or 

Awaiting Part C 

Evaluation 

Number of 

Children 

Evaluated But Not 

Eligible for Part C 

Services 

Number of 

Children 

Evaluated and 

Eligible for Part C 

Services 

Number of 

Children 

with IFSP or 

Receiving 

Part C 

Services 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

b. A communication disorder such as a 

speech or language impairment......... 

n.a. £

GO TO B6Ac 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

d. A sensory impairment (including 

deafness or blindness) ....................... 

n.a. £

GO TO B6Ae

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

f. Other developmental concerns 

(Specify) .............................................. 

n.a. £

GO TO B7 | | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

a. An emotional or behavioral issues ..... n.a. £

GO TO B6Ab 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

c. A developmental delay....................... n.a. £

GO TO B6Ad 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

e. A physical or orthopedic 

 impairment .........................................

n.a. £

GO TO B6Af 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

| | | | 

0 £ None 

 

B7. Does your Early Head Start program involve parents or guardians in any of the following ways: 

MARK YES OR NO FOR EACH 

a. Early Head Start Parent Policy Council...................................... 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

c. Other program or center-level committees................................. 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

e. Volunteering in the classroom.................................................... 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

 

Yes No NA

B7A. IF MARKED “YES”: 

How many parents are 

involved? 

| | | | 

b. Combined Early Head Start and Head Start Policy Council....... 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £ | | | | 

| | | | 

d. Making improvements in the facilities ........................................ 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £ | | | | 

| | | | 

f. Some other way (Specify) ........................................................... 1 £ 0 £ n.a. £ | | | | 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
B7B. Do you offer any of the following services to pregnant women? 

a. Case management .................................................. 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable 

c. Referrals.................................................................. 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

.a. £ Not Applicable 

 

n

e. Some other service (Specify) .........................................

 

 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable 

B7B. B7C. How frequently are these 

offered? 

b. Prenatal home visits ................................................ 1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable

| | | Times per month 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable

| | | Times per month 

| | | Times per month 

d. Classes ....................................................................

B8. Do you offer any of the following services to children and families? 

a. Group socializations ................................................ 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable

| | | Times per year 

c. Workshops on parenting.......................................... 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable 

| | | Times per year 

e. Some other service (Specify) ........................................

 

. 1 £ Yes 

 0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable 

| | | Times per year 

B8. B8A. How frequently are these 

offered? 

b. Events for the entire family ...................................... 1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable

| | | Times per year 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not Applicable 

d. Parent training or workshops on subjects such as | | | Times per year

employment, job training, ELL (English Language 

Learner), or financial counseling .............................

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
B9. Has your program made a commitment to being father friendly by: 

MARK YES OR NO FOR EACH 

Yes No

0 £

b. Hiring male staff ......................................................................................................................... 1 £ 0 £

0 £

d. Ensuring the décor includes pictures of fathers and is otherwise father friendly ....................... 1 £ 0 £

0 £

f. Completing a father involvement needs assessment................................................................. 1 £ 0 £

0 £

a. Hiring a father involvement coordinator or someone who has at least half time responsibility 

for involving fathers.................................................................................................................... 1 £

c. Providing training for all staff in father involvement.................................................................... 1 £

e. Including father‘s name and contact information on the enrollment forms................................. 1 £

g. Some other commitment (Specify).............................................................................................. 1 £

 

B10. Which types of activities does your Early Head Start program do to involve fathers or father figures? 

MARK YES OR NO FOR EACH 

a. Hold events or activities specifically for fathers or fathers and children 

(not including mothers) .......................................................................... 1 £ 0 £

c. Provide employment or job training services for fathers........................ 1 £ 0 £

e. FOR NON-HOME-BASED FAMILIES: Include fathers in parent 

education or group socialization activities.............................................. 1 £ 0 £

b. Host events for the entire family that include fathers ............................. 

d. FOR HOME-BASED FAMILIES: make a special effort to include 

fathers in home visits or group socialization activities ........................... 

Yes No

B10A. IF MARKED 

“YES”: 

On average, what 

percentage of fathers 

participate? 

| | | | % 

1 £ 0 £ | | | | % 

| | | | % 

1 £ 0 £ | | | | % 

| | | | % 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
SECTION C: STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
 

The next series of questions ask about the types of staff you employ, their education, and staff development 

activities. 

C1.	 How many of the following frontline staff does your program employ to provide Early Head Start services? 

C1A. How many of the following frontline staff do your community partners employ to provide Early Head Start 

services? 

• Please count each person only once. Choose the category that best describes his or her role. 

• If you don’t have staff in a particular category, mark “not applicable.” 

• Include staff that work part-time as well as those that work full-time. 

a. Primary Caregivers: Include all staff who have primary 

responsibility for all or some children in a classroom..................

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

c. Home Visitors: Include all staff whose primary function is to 

make regular home visits to families and children.......................

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

e. Directors or Assistant Directors.............................................. | | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

g. Supervisors. .............................................................................. | | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

 

i. Specialists ................................................................................. | | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

 

C1.

Number Employed 

by your Early Head 

Start Program 

C1A.

Number Employed 

by your Community 

Partner(s) to Provide Early 

Head Start Services 

ESTIMATE IF NECESSARY. 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

| | | | 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

b. Floaters or Rovers: All staff who are not assigned to specific 

classrooms but work where needed in caring for children .......... 

d. Family Child Care Providers: Include all family child care 

providers and their assistants. ....................................................

f. Coordinators or managers .......................................................

h. Other frontline staff (Specify) ...................................................
 

C1B. Do you employ or have access to the following services? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ A father or male involvement specialist or coordinator 

2 £ Mental health specialist or coordinator 

3 £ Disability specialist 

4 £ Literacy specialist 

5 £ Speech or language specialist 

6 £ Health care professional or nurse 

7 £ Any other specialists (Specify) 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
C2.	 For each manager in your Early Head Start program, please specify the highest educational degree 

completed. Do any of your managers hold a . . . 

•	"A manager is a staff member who has overall responsibility for the Early Head Start program or a key role in 

managing the Early Head Start program. 

C2A. Please specify the number of mangers who hold each degree. 

a. GED or high school 

diploma?...........................

1 £ Yes 

0 £ None 

GO TO C2b 

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

c. Baccalaureate degree? .... 1 £ Yes 

0 £ None 

GO TO C2d 

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

b. Associate of Arts 

degree? ............................

1 £ Yes 

0 £ None 

GO TO C2c 

(1)

Number of 

Early Head 

Start Program 

Directors 

(2)

Number of Child 

Development 

Education 

Coordinators or 

Managers 

(3)

Number of 

Health Services 

Coordinators or 

Managers 

(4)

Number of 

Family and 

Community 

Partnerships 

Coordinators or 

Managers 

(5)

Number of 

Family 

Services 

Coordinators 

or Managers 

| | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | d. Graduate degree? ............ 1 £ Yes 

0 £ None 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
The next question is about your child development staff. By child development staff, we mean staff members who 

provide or coordinate child development services, including primary caregivers, floaters or rovers, home visitors, 

family child care providers, child development supervisors, and home-based supervisors. 

C3. Please mark the number of child development staff employed by your Early Head Start program who hold 

credentials in the following areas. Count each person only once by the highest degree held. 

C3A. Please specify the number who hold a degree. 

a. A Graduate degree in Early 

Childhood Education or a 

related field 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO 

 C3b

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

c. Associate degree in Early 

Childhood Education or a 

related field 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO 

 C3d

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

e. State-awarded preschool, 

infant/toddler, family child 

care or home-based 

certification, credential, or 

licensure that meets or 

exceeds CDA requirements 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO 

 C3f

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

g. Of the number of staff who 

do not have degrees, how 

many are enrolled in CDA

training at an accredited 

institution of higher education 

0 £ None | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

(1)

Number of 

Primary 

Caregivers 

(2)

Number of 

Floaters 

or Rovers 

(3)

Number 

of Home 

Visitors 

(4)

Number of 

Family Child 

Care 

Providers 

(5)

Number of Child 

Development 

Supervisors 

(6)

Number of 

Home-Based 

Supervisors 

| | | |

b. A Baccalaureate degree in 

Early Childhood Education or 

a related field 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO 

C3c

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | 

d. Child Development 

Associate (CDA) credential

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO 

C3e

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | 

f. Of the number of staff who 

do not have degrees, how 

many are enrolled in an Early 

Childhood Education or 

related degree program at an 

accredited institution of 

higher education 

0 £ None | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | |

h. Of the number of staff who 

do not have degrees, how 

many are enrolled in a 

course of early childhood 

training from some other 

organization (not an 

accredited college or 

university) that leads toward 

a state infant-toddler 

credential, the CDA, a family 

child care certificate, or other 

credential recognized in your 

state 

0 £ None | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
C4.	 How many primary caregivers employed by your Early Head Start program left your Early Head Start program 

during the past 12 months? Please do not include floaters or rovers, home visitors, or family child care 

providers. 

| | | NUMBER OF PRIMARY CAREGIVERS
 

d £ Don‘t know 

n..a £ Early Head Start program does not have center-based program 

C5.	 How many primary caregivers employed by your community child care partners to provide Early Head Start 

services left their jobs during the past 12 months? 

| | | NUMBER OF PRIMARY CAREGIVERS
 

d £ Don‘t know 

n.a. £ Early Head Start program does not have center-based program 

C6.	 Has the Early Head Start director or have any coordinators or managers left your Early Head Start program 

during the past 12 months? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Yes, the Early Head Start director 

2 £ Yes, Early Head Start coordinators or managers | | | NUMBER OF EARLY HEAD START 

 COORDINATORS OR MANAGERS WHO LEFT 

0 £ No GO TO C8 

C7.	 Of the Early Head Start director or managers who left the Early Head Start program, did any leave for the 

following reasons? 

MARK YES, NO, OR DON’T KNOW FOR EACH 

Yes No

Don’t 

Know 

d £

b. For a change in job field .............................................................................................. 1 £ 0 £ d £

d £

d. For personal reasons ................................................................................................... 1 £ 0 £ d £

d £

a. For a higher compensation or benefits package in the same field............................... 1 £ 0 £

c. Because they were fired or laid off............................................................................... 1 £ 0 £

e. For another reason (Specify).........................................................................................

 

1 £ 0 £

 

C8.	 How many home visitors left your Early Head Start program during the past 12 months? Do not include other 

staff. 

| | | NUMBER OF HOME VISITORS 

0 £ None 

d £ Don‘t know 

n.a. £ Early Head Start program does not have home visits 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
For each category of staff, please indicate the level of educational benefits you provide. Does your Early Head Start 

program or grantee agency provide any of the following: 

C9. Tuition reimbursement for 

relevant college courses 

a. Primary Caregivers b. Home Visitors 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

C10. Workshop fees or other costs for 

outside training 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

C11. Staff time during work hours for 

staff development activities such 

as attending courses or 

workshops 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

1 £ Sometimes/depends 

2 £ Yes for some 

3 £ Yes for all 

0 £ No 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
C12. Mark how often your managers or staff supervisors do the following staff development activities. 

MARK ONE FOR EACH 

a. Conduct performance appraisals for all staff....................... 0 £ | | | 1 £

c. Meet with staff individually to discuss their 

cases/classroom activities................................................... 0 £ | | | 1 £

e. Hold staff meetings to convey information and discuss 

Early Head Start program activities..................................... 0 £ | | | 1 £

 Reflective supervision is generally considered to be a 

collaborative learning relationship between the supervisor 

and supervisees where staff are encouraged to reflect on 

the progress of their work with children and families on a 

regular basis. 

h. How often do your managers or staff supervisors do 

reflective supervision with primary caregivers in centers? .. 0 £ | | | 1 £

i. How often do they do reflective supervision with home 

visitors?............................................................................... 0 £ | | | 1 £

b. Formally assign mentors to less experienced staff .............
 

d. Conduct group case conference sessions ..........................
 

f. Conduct staff training ..........................................................
 

g. Observe frontline staff at work or providing 

 services ...............................................................................
 

Never 

Times per 

Year 

As 

Needed 

Don’t 

Know 

d £

0 £ | | | 1 £ d £

d £

0 £ | | | 1 £ d £

d £

0 £ | | | 1 £ d £

0 £ | | | 1 £ d £

d £

d £

C13. Did you receive outside training and consultation for reflective supervision? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

SECTION D: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS 

D1. Please indicate how your Early Head Start program defines the community it serves. 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ County or counties 

2 £ School district 

3 £ Zip code 

4 £ Neighborhoods 

5 £ Something else (Specify) 

D1A. Please list the zip codes included in your program’s catchment area: 

 

 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | | | | | | | 

D1B. What percentage of families enrolled in your Early Head Start program live in the following areas? 

a. Urban ................................................. | | | | % 

b. Rural .................................................. | | | | % 

c. Suburban ........................................... | | | | % 

d. Something else (Specify) .................... | | | | % 

 

MUST TOTAL | 1 | 0 | 0 | % 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
D2. Please mark the category that best describes how much of a problem each of these are for the neighborhoods 

your program serves. Most of the families served by this program come from neighborhoods that . . . 

• Please provide your best estimate. 

a. Have crime rates that are . . . ......................... 3 £ 2 £ 1 £

c. Have mobility rates (frequency that families 

move) that are . . . .......................................... 3 £ 2 £ 1 £

MARK ONE FOR EACH 

b. Have unemployment rates that are . . . ..........
 

D2. D2A.

HIGH MODERATE LOW In the past five years has . . . 

Crime . . . 

3 £ Gone up, 

2 £ Stayed about the same, or 

1 £ Gone down? 

d £ Don‘t know 

3 £ 2 £ 1 £ Unemployment . . . 

3 £ Gone up, 

2 £ Stayed about the same, or 

1 £ Gone down? 

d £ Don‘t know 

Mobility . . . 

3 £ Gone up, 

2 £ Stayed about the same, or 

1 £ Gone down? 

d £ Don‘t know 

D2B. Most families served by this program come from neighborhoods that are . . . 

3 £ Highly diverse (have multiple racial or ethnic groups), 

2 £ Somewhat diverse, or 

1 £ Not very diverse? 

D2C. In the past five years, these neighborhoods have become . . . 

3 £ More diverse, 

2 £ Stayed about the same, or 

1 £ Less diverse? 

D3.	 Not including the preschool Head Start program you operate, how many preschool Head Start programs are in

your community? 

| | | NUMBER OF PRESCHOOL HEAD START PROGRAMS
 

0 £ None GO TO D5, PAGE 20 

D4.	 Of the preschool Head Start programs in your community, with how many do you have a formal agreement to 

coordinate transition services for children and families? 

| | | NUMBER OF PRESCHOOL HEAD START PROGRAMS
 

0 £ No preschool Head Start programs in community 

n £ Agency operates its own preschool Head Start program 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
D5. Does your Early Head Start program belong to or participate in any local collaborative groups of service 

providers or other community agencies? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know 

n.a. £ Not applicable

GO TO D7 

D5A. How many groups? 

| | | | GROUPS 

D6.	 Do any of your staff have leadership roles in these collaboratives? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No
 

d £ Don‘t know 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

D7.	 Does your Early Head Start program have a formal collaborative agreement with at least one local Part C 

agency? 

•	"A Part C agency is one designated by Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments to be 

responsible for ensuring that services are provided to all children with disabilities from birth to age 3. 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

GO TO D9, PAGE 21 

D8.	 Do your formal agreements include any of the following? 

a. Early Head Start referrals to Part C agencies for eligibility determination ....... 1 £ 0 £ d £

c. Meetings of Part C and Early Head Start staff individually on a regular basis 

to discuss their (cases or classroom) activities................................................ 1 £ 0 £ d £

e. Something else (Specify) ..................................................................................

 

1 £ 0 £ d £

 

MARK ONE FOR EACH 

b. Part C referrals to Early Head Start .................................................................

d. Sharing assessment results .............................................................................
 

Yes No

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Applicable 

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
D9. Does your Early Head Start program have any formal written partnership agreements with child care 

providers? 

 

 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know 

GO TO D12 

D10. How many providers? 

| | | | PROVIDERS 

D11. Do your formal written partnership agreements with child care providers include the following services? 

MARK ONE ON EACH 

a. Referrals from Early Head Start to the providers ............................................. 1 £ 0 £

c. Technical assistance to child care providers ................................................... 1 £ 0 £

e. Monitoring child care quality ............................................................................ 1 £ 0 £

g. Resources or payments to child care providers............................................... 1 £ 0 £

i. Provisions for evaluating quality ...................................................................... 1 £ 0 £

 

 

b. Staff training for child care providers ............................................................... 

d. Coordination of Early Head Start and child care services ................................ 

f. Child care quality improvement planning ......................................................... 

h. Adherence to the Performance Standards.......................................................

j. Parent involvement activities ...........................................................................

Yes No

Not 

Applicable

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ n.a. £

D12. Does your Early Head Start program have any formal written partnership agreements with health care 

providers? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know GO TO D14, PAGE 22 

D12A. How many providers? 

| | | | PROVIDERS 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
D13. Do your formal written partnership agreements with health care providers include the following? 

MARK ONE FOR EACH LINE 

a. Resources or payments to providers ................................................ 1 £ 0 £ d £

c. Provision of services to Early Head Start children and families at 

Early Head Start sites ........................................................................ 1 £ 0 £ d £

e. Provisions for pregnant women ......................................................... 1 £ 0 £ d £

g. Consultation....................................................................................... 1 £ 0 £ d £

b. Training for Early Head Start staff......................................................

d. Provision of services to Early Head Start children and families at 

other locations (referrals) ................................................................... 

f. Joint planning.....................................................................................

h. Outreach ............................................................................................

Yes No

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Applicable 

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

a. Resources or payments to providers ................................................. 1 £ 0 £ d £

c. Provision of services to Early Head Start children and families at 

Early Head Start sites ........................................................................ 1 £ 0 £ d £

e. Provision of services for pregnant women ......................................... 1 £ 0 £ d £

g. Consultation....................................................................................... 1 £ 0 £ d £

 

 

D14. Does your Early Head Start program have any formal written partnership agreements with mental health 

providers? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know GO TO D16 

D14A. How many providers? 

| | | | PROVIDERS 

D15. Do your formal written partnership agreements with mental health providers include the following? 

.

 

MARK ONE FOR EACH LINE 

b. Training for Early Head Start staff...................................................... 

d. Provision of services to Early Head Start children and families at 

other locations (referrals) ...................................................................

f. Joint planning.....................................................................................

h. Outreach ............................................................................................

Yes No

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Applicable

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

n.a. £

1 £ 0 £ d £ n.a. £

D16. Do you offer health screenings or referrals for health screenings to children enrolled in your Early Head Start 

program? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO D18, PAGE 24 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

D17. What kinds of health screenings do you offer? 

D17A. 

Where do the screenings happen? Do 

they happen at the Early Head Start 

program facility with professionals 

coming in from outside, at a provider or 

physician’s office, at both the program 

and a provider’s office, or at the child’s 

home? 

 

a. Hearing 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17b 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

b. Vision 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17c 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

c. Immunization 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17d 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

d. Physical exams 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17e 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

e. Developmental 

Screening 

1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17f 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

f. Mental Health 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17g 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

g. Dental Health 1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D17h 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

h. Some other health 

screening (Specify) 

1 £ Yes GO TO D17A 

0 £ No GO TO D18, PAGE 24 

1 £ At the Early Head Start program facility 

2 £ Provider‘s office

3 £ Both 

4 £ At child‘s home 

 

 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D18. What types of mental health services does your Early Head Start program offer? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Mental health screenings 

2 £ Mental health assessments 

3 £ Family therapy 

4 £ Care coordination 

5 £ Staff consultation 

6 £ Something else (Specify) 

0 £ None 

D19. Does your Early Head Start program refer children and their families for mental health services? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO D21 

D20. On average, what percentage of enrolled families receive mental health services? 

At the Early Head Start program only ........................................ | | | | % 

Through a referral only .............................................................. | | | | %
 

Both at the Early Head Start program and through referral ....... | | | | %
 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

D21. For what kinds of services do you refer your Early Head Start program’s families or children to community 

agencies? 

a. Child care.......................................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

None

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

0 £

c. Prenatal care .................................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

e. Transportation assistance................................................. 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

g. Emergency assistance...................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

i. Education or job training ................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

k. Legal assistance ............................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

m. Financial counseling ......................................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

o. English Language Learner (ELL)...................................... 1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

 

q. DO NOT REFER............................................................... 1 £

b. Health care .......................................................................

d. Mental health care ............................................................ 

f. Disability services .............................................................

h. Employment assistance ....................................................

j. Drug or alcohol abuse....................................................... 

l. Housing assistance ...........................................................

n. Family literacy ...................................................................

p. Some other service (Specify)............................................

MARK YES OR NO 

FOR EACH 

Yes No

IF D21 MARKED “YES”: 

D21A. With what proportion of 

agencies does your Early 

Head Start program have 

formal agreements? 

All Some

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

1 £ 0 £ 2 £ 1 £

0 £

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
 

E1. Since your Early Head Start program started, have there been any changes in your overall organizational or 

Early Head Start program design? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No 

d £ Don‘t know GO TO E3 

n.a. £ Not applicable 

E2. What kind of changes have there been in your Early Head Start program? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Changes to organization chart or structure 

2 £ Added center-based services 

3 £ Added home-based services 

4 £ Dropped center-based services 

5 £ Dropped home-based services 

6 £ Some other change (Specify) 

E3. Does your Early Head Start program use a computerized management information system (MIS)? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO E8, PAGE 27 

E4. What computerized MIS does your Early Head Start program use? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Head Start Family Information System (HSFIS) 

2 £ Child Plus 

3 £ Combination of software (Specify) 

4 £ Something else (Specify) 

E5. How satisfied are you with the MIS your Early Head Start program uses? 

1 £ Very satisfied GO TO E7, PAGE 27 

2 £ Somewhat satisfied 

3 £ Somewhat dissatisfied 

4 £ Very dissatisfied 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

 

 

 

E6. Why are you dissatisfied with the MIS your Early Head Start program uses? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ MIS is difficult to use 

2 £ Reports are not useful 

3 £ Problems with software 

4 £ Something else (Specify)
 

E7. Which of the following reports can be generated from your Early Head Start program’s MIS? 

MARK YES OR N

a. Enrollment lists..................................................................................... 1 £

c. Reports on services provided............................................................... 1 £

e. Reports on staff characteristics............................................................ 1 £

g. Progress reports on individual children ................................................ 1 £

 

No

0 £

0 £

O FOR EACH 

 

Yes

b. Reports on characteristics of Early Head Start program families ......... 1 £

0 £

d. Reports on child‘s health/immunization status ..................................... 1 £ 0 £

0 £

f. Reports on staff training/in-service....................................................... 1 £ 0 £

0 £

h. Something else (Specify)....................................................................... 1 £ 0 £

E8. How many Early Head Start centers does your program operate? Please do not include family child care 

homes or home-based services. 

| | | NUMBER OF EARLY HEAD START CENTERS 

0 £ Do not operate Early Head Start centers GO TO E15, PAGE 29 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
E8A. Does your Early Head Start program follow a 

specific curriculum in centers? 

1 £ Yes, one curriculum 

2 £ Yes, draws on multiple curricula 

0 £ No GO TO E10 

E9. What curriculum or curricula (does/do) your Early 

Head Start program use in centers to provide 

Early Head Start services for children? 

Please include center-based services provided by 

your partner(s). 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Agency-created curriculum 

2 £ Assessment, Evaluation and Programming 

 System (AEPS) 

3 £ Beautiful Beginnings 

4 £ Creative Curriculum 

5 £ Early Learning Accomplishments Profile 

6 £ Emotional Beginnings 

7 £ Games to Play with Babies 

8 £ Games to Play with Toddlers 

9 £ Hawaii Early Learning Profile 

10 £ High/Scope 

11 £ Learning Activities for Infants 

12 £ Montessori 

13 £ Ones and Twos 

14 £ Partners as Primary Caregivers 

15 £ Partners in Learning 

16 £ Playtime Learning Games for Young Children 

17 £ Resources for Infant Educators 

18 £ Talking to Your Baby 

19 £ The Anti-Bias Curriculum 

20 £ Another curricula (Specify)
 

 

 

 

E10. Do you conduct any classroom or child care 

quality assessments in your Early Head Start 

centers or centers of your Early Head Start 

partners? 

• By assessments, we mean evaluation tools that 

measure primary caregiver-child interaction, 

classroom arrangement, or other indicators of 

quality of care. 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO E14, PAGE 29 

E11.	 What are the most important classroom or child 

care quality assessments you use in your Early

Head Start center-based child care settings? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ ITERS (Infant/Toddler Environment

 Rating Scale) 

2 £ ARNETT 

3 £ ELLCO (Early Language and Literacy 

 Classroom Observation) 

4 £ CCOS (Child Caregiver Observation Scale)

5 £ Another assessment (Specify)
 

 

E12.	 Based on an assessment of a center-based child 

care, have you ever determined that

improvements were needed? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No
 

GO TO E14, Page 29 d £ Don‘t know 

E13.	 The last time an assessment indicated the need 

for improvement, what steps did you take?

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

1 £ Developed written improvement plan

2 £ Scheduled follow-up assessment

3 £ Provided staff training 

4 £ Obtained technical assistance 

5 £ Terminated partnership 

6 £ Something else (Specify) 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
E14. What is the usual child-adult ratio in your Early Head Start program’s center for children in different age 

groups listed below? 

E14A. What is the usual child-adult ratio for your community partners’ centers for children in different age groups 

listed below? 

a. Under 1 year old ...................................... | | | n.a. £ | | | 

c. 2 years old ............................................... | | | n.a. £ | | | 

e. Other age group including mixed ages .... | | | n.a. £ | | | 

 

b. 1 year old .................................................

d. 3 years old ...............................................

E14.

For Early Head Start 

Program Center 

E14A.

For Community 

Partners’ Center 

Number of 

Children 

per Adult 

Not 

Applicable 

Number of 

Children 

per Adult 

Not 

Applicable 

n.a. £

| | | n.a. £ | | | n.a. £

n.a. £

| | | n.a. £ | | | n.a. £

n.a. £

 

 

 

E15.	 Do you follow a specific curriculum when providing child care services in a family child care setting? 

1 £ Yes, one curriculum 

2 £ Yes, draw on multiple curricula 

0 £ No GO TO E17, PAGE 30 

3 £ Do not have family child care services GO TO E22, PAGE 32 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E16. What curriculum or curricula (does/do) your family child care use to provide Early Head Start services? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Agency-created curriculum 

2 £ Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) 

3 £ Beautiful Beginnings 

4 £ Creative Curriculum 

5 £ Early Learning Accomplishments Profile 

6 £ Emotional Beginnings 

7 £ Games to Play with Babies 

8 £ Games to Play with Toddlers 

9 £ Hawaii Early Learning Profile 

10 £ Healthy Families America 

11 £ High/Scope 

12 £ HIPPY 

13 £ Learning Activities for Infants 

14 £ Montessori 

15 £ Ones and Twos 

16 £ Partners as Primary Caregivers 

17 £ Partners in Learning 

18 £ Playtime Learning Games for Young Children 

19 £ Resources for Infant Educators 

20 £ Talking to Your Baby 

21 £ The Anti-Bias Curriculum 

22 £ Another curriculum (Specify) 

E17. Do you conduct any assessments of child care quality in family child care? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO E21, PAGE 31 

E18. What child care quality assessments are used in your family child care settings? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ FDCRS (Family Day Care Rating Scale) 

2 £ ARNETT 

3 £ ELLCO (Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation) 

4 £ CCOS (Child Caregiver Observation Scale) 

5 £ Another assessment (Specify) 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

E19. Based on an assessment of family child care, have you ever determined that improvements were needed? 

1 £ Yes 

0 £ No GO TO E21 

E20. The last time an assessment indicated the need for improvement, what steps did you take? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Developed a written improvement plan 

2 £ Scheduled follow-up assessment 

3 £ Provided staff training 

4 £ Obtained technical assistance 

5 £ Terminate partnership 

6 £ Something else (Specify) 

 

E21. What is the usual child-adult ratio in your family child care for Early Head Start children who are in different 

age groups? 

a. Under 1 year old ................................................................ | | | 

c. 2 years old......................................................................... | | | 

e. Other age group including mixed ages.............................. | | | 

 

Number of Children 

per Adult for Family 

Childcare 

No Children in 

Age Group 

n.a. £

b. 1 year old ........................................................................... | | | n.a. £

n.a. £

d. 3 years old ......................................................................... | | | n.a. £

n.a. £

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
 

 

E22. What curriculum or curricula (does/do) your Early

Head Start program use in your home-visit 

services? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

0 £ Does not provide home-based 

 services GO TO E23 

1 £ Agency-created curriculum 

2 £ Beautiful Beginnings 

3 £ Early Learning Accomplishments Profile 

4 £ Games to Play with Babies 

5 £ Games to Play with Toddlers 

6 £ Hawaii Early Learning Profile 

7 £ Healthy Families America 

8 £ HIPPY 

9 £ Learning Activities for Infants 

10 £ Ones and Twos 

11 £ Parents as Primary Caregivers 

12 £ Partners for a Healthy Baby 

13 £ Partners in Learning 

14 £ Partners in Parenting Education 

15 £ Playtime Learning Games for Young Children 

16 £ Early Head Start Program for Infant/ 

 Toddler Caregivers 

17 £ Resources for Infant Educators 

18 £ Talking to Your Baby 

19 £ Another curriculum (Specify) 

The next questions are about screening and assessing 

children and families. 

• Screening: To identify concerns regarding a child'

developmental, sensory, behavioral, motor, 

language, cognitive, perceptual, and emotional skill

that might require a further formal evaluation.

• Assessment: Ongoing procedures used by 

appropriate personnel throughout the period of a 

child's eligibility to (1) identify strengths, needs and 

services appropriate to meet those needs; and (2) t

identify resources, priorities, and concerns of family

and the supports and services necessary to 

enhance the family's capacity to meet the 

developmental needs of their child. 

E23. What are the most important child screening 

tools that you use with children? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

0 £ Does not use

1 £ Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ) 

2 £ Ages and Stages Questionnaires: 

 Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE) 

3 £ Battelle Developmental Screening Test 

4 £ Brigance Screening Test 

5 £ Denver II Developmental Screening Test 

 (DDST II) 

6 £ EAS Temperament Survey for Children

7 £ Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

 (PPVT or TVIP-Spanish Version)

8 £ Another screening (Specify)

s

s 

o 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
E23A. What are the most important child assessment 

tools that you use with children? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

0 £ Does not use GO TO E25, PAGE 33 

1 £ Agency-Created Screening Assessment 

2 £ Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) 

3 £ Bayley Behavior Rating Scale (BRS) 

4 £ Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) 

5 £ Creative Curriculum Tools 

6 £ High Scope COR 

7 £ Infant Toddler Developmental Assessment 

8 £ The Ounce Scale 

9 £ Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment 

 and Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional 

 Assessment (ITSEA.BITSEA) 

10 £ Leiter International Performance Scale 

 Revised (Leiter-R) 

11 £ Macarthur Communicative Development 

 Inventories (CDI) 

12 £ Mullen Scales of Early Learning 

13 £ Preschool Language Scale (PLS-3) 

14 £ Receptive/Expressive Emergent Language 

 Test-2nd Ed (REEL-2) 

15 £ Temperament and Atypical Behavior 

 Scale (TABS) 

16 £ Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) 

17 £ Vineland Social-Emotional Early 

 Childhood Scales (Vineland SEEC) 

18 £ Woodcock Johnson 

19 £ Another assessment tool (Specify) 

 

E24.	 How do you use the child assessments listed in 

question E23A, to individualize services for 

children? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

1 £ Use to create lesson plans for classrooms 

 or specified child 

2 £ Use to plan activities for home visits 

3 £ Use to update or amend IFSP 

4 £ Use for referrals for additional services 

5 £ Aggregate to describe child outcomes 

6 £ Another purpose (Specify) 

 

 

E25. Do you administer any parent or family 

assessments to parents of children in Early 

Head Start? 

1 £ Yes

0 £ No GO TO E28

E26. What parent or family assessments are most 

important for your Early Head Start program? 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

0 £ Does not use GO TO E28 

1 £ Agency-Created Assessment 

2 £ Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory

3 £ Beck Depression Inventory 

4 £ CES-D Depression Scale

5 £ Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP)

6 £ Family Needs Scale 

7 £ Family Partnership Agreement 

8 £ Family Support Scale (FSS) 

9 £ Home Observation for Measurement of the 

 Environment (HOME) 

10 £ Infant-Toddler and Family Instrument

11 £ Kempe Family Stress Inventory

12 £ Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory

 (KIDI)

13 £ Parenting Stress Index

 14 £ Partners in Parenting Education (PIPE)

15 £ Parents as Primary Caregivers Parent Survey 

16 £ Another parenting or family assessment (Specify) 

 

E27. How do you use parent or family assessments

listed in question E26? 

1 £ Use to create lesson plans for home visits 

2 £ Use to plan activities for home visits 

3 £ Use to update or amend IFSP 

4 £ Use for referrals for additional services 

5 £ Something else (Specify) 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
E28. Overall, how much time did it take to complete this survey? Please include any time required in looking up 

information or generating reports. 

| | | HOURS | | | MINUTES 

E29. How much of the time recorded above was spent on looking up information or generating reports? 

| | | HOURS | | | MINUTES 

E30. How many staff members were involved in completing the survey? 

| | | NUMBER OF STAFF 

We are interested in the mix of Early Head Start services offered to families. 

E31.	 If the program options listed at the beginning of the survey (A4A, Page 2) do not adequately describe the 

Early Head Start services your program provides, record your program service options below. 

 

 

 

 

E32. Please provide the following information about the person primarily responsible for completing this form. 

Name: 

Phone Number: (| | | |)-| | | |-| | | | | 

 Area Code 

Fax Number: (| | | |)-| | | |-| | | | | 

 Area Code 

 Email Address: 

END. MPR appreciates you taking the time to complete the survey. Your responses are crucial for research about 

Early Head Start programs. We anticipate that a report describing the survey findings will be completed by 

(DATE). 

Thank you for participating in this important study. We will be sending your $20 Barnes & Noble gift 

certificate in the next few weeks. 

Please confirm mailing address for sending the $20 Barnes & Noble gift certificate. 

EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM NAME: 

DIRECTOR‘S NAME:
 

MAILING ADDRESS: 

CITY, STATE, ZIP: 

£ SAME AS MAILING LABEL 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
RETURN ADDRESS: 

MAIL TO: 

MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC. (6028) 

P.O. BOX 2393 

PRINCETON, NJ 08543-9809
 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
Intentionally Blank 

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 
A PPENDIX B 

E XPANDED D ESCRIPTION OF S URVEY 

D ATA C OLLECTION M ETHODS

DEVELOPMENT OF ITEM CONTENT

The survey instrument was designed to accomplish the research objectives described in 

Chapter I. Working from the Early Head Start performance measures pyramid, we 

developed survey items that would address as many areas as possible within the conceptual 

model (Figure I.1). We also replicated or modified some items from the primary 

administrative data source for Early Head Start programs, the Program Information Report 

(PIR).1

 We vetted earlier versions of the instrument with staff from MPR, our project 

officer, and outside consultants and Technical Working Group (TWG) members who 

represented broad expertise in the Early Head Start program. This group worked together 

to develop the survey instrument, a process that took more than a year due to the complexity 

of the domains to be measured. 

After we had a working survey document, we gave it to program directors and Early 

Head Start technical assistance providers for their reactions. This took place in focus groups 

held at the 2004 Birth To Three Institute, the primary annual training conference for Early 

Head Start program staff. With the assistance of ZERO TO THREE, the conference host 

organization, we were able to access lists of conference registrants and their job titles before 

the conference. We invited 15 program directors and 12 training and technical assistance 

(T/TA) staff to participate in one of four focus groups during a scheduled break in the 

 1 The PIR is an annual survey that all Early Head Start and Head Start programs complete. It is the 

primary national administrative data source for the Early Head Start and Head Start programs.

Chapter II presents a streamlined description of the survey data collection process. 

Because the process was complex, lengthy, and, ultimately, very successful in 

achieving high response rates, here we present a much more detailed description of 

the procedures we employed. We describe specific components of the survey work, 

including (1) development of item content, (2) web survey development, and (3) data 

collection procedures. We conclude with implications for practice. 
B.2

Appendix B: Expanded Description of Survey Data Collection Methods

conference. We asked program directors and T/TA staff to complete a paper-and-pencil 

copy of the survey and then to discuss the clarity of the questions, whether programs were 

likely to have access to requested information, preferred mode of data collection, and any 

other comments and impressions they had. Focus group participants were forthright with 

their comments and were unanimous that a web-based survey was strongly preferred, 

followed by mail. A telephone survey was least desirable. Two themes that emerged from 

these groups were that (1) they appreciated the opportunity to be able to showcase the 

services Early Head Start provides to families, and (2) they were concerned that the survey 

would duplicate effort by too closely resembling PIR information that programs already had 

to provide.

We revised the survey based on focus group suggestions and pretested the revised 

version with nine Early Head Start program directors. They completed a hard-copy version 

of the survey, then participated in a debriefing telephone call. In the end, we created a 

survey with five sections that would take approximately 70 minutes to complete.

As we discuss in detail in the body of this report, the survey collected information on 

program characteristics, including program service approaches, family characteristics 

and involvement, staff characteristics, community partnerships, and program 

improvement activities.

WEB SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

After the items were finalized, we began constructing the web survey. The 

programming language we used (BLAISE) is attractive and user-friendly, containing easily 

understood instructions. The web version of the survey replicated, to the extent possible, 

the paper version. Its primary limitation was that it was not possible to keep some item 

structures that were in the paper copy (for example, item tables and grids could not 

be represented).

We maximized responses to the web survey by limiting use of survey features that 

require completed answers to move to the next item and providing as much clarifying 

information as possible. Because respondents were unlikely to complete the survey in one 

session, we allowed them to log in and out at will, saved data automatically, and skipped 

reentering respondents to the next unanswered question. We also made every 

accommodation we could to decrease the time needed to complete the instrument online. 

Those accommodations included using a minimum number of “data check” pop-up screens, 

allowing respondents to “click through” the entire instrument without entering any data 

(many opted to preview the items in this way), and giving respondents the ability to proceed 

through a data check screen even if the data were not changed as prompted.2

 To ensure the 

cleanest data possible, we provided assistance and clarification by including a link for 

frequently asked questions (FAQs) on each page of the web survey, as well as an email link 

to a help desk. Some of the FAQs were constant through the survey, and some were 

 2 We discuss our data checking and cleaning procedures in the “Data Cleaning Procedures” section.
B.3

Appendix B: Expanded Description of Survey Data Collection Methods

specific to items asked in a particular section. Finally, we ordered the survey sections from 

most to least important, being mindful of the time required to complete all items. Our hope 

was that even incomplete survey responses would cover the most critical questions before 

stopping. After extensive pretesting of skip patterns, item wording, and content, we put the 

instrument online in early February 2005.

Data Collection Procedures

The survey was introduced in an advance email announcing the study. This email, 

written by the then Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau, explained the study’s 

objectives and encouraged all programs to participate. At the same time, a packet was sent 

via Federal Express to each program director at the 748 Early Head Start sites providing 

services to children and families (our sample frame). The packet included a cover letter from 

the MPR project and survey directors, an endorsement letter from the ACF project officer, a 

hard-copy survey, a colored flyer with individual login and password information, and a 

business reply envelope. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, provided an 

offer of assistance from our toll-free helpline, and reiterated the voluntary nature of the 

study—and that identities and responses of all participants would be kept confidential. The 

business reply envelope gave programs the option to complete the paper survey and return it 

by mail. Programs received a $20 Barnes & Noble gift card and a certificate of completion 

for participation in the survey.

With assistance from ZERO TO THREE as host, we held two question-and-answer 

conference calls approximately four weeks into data collection. Nearly 100 program 

directors, regional office staff, and T/TA providers participated in the two calls. MPR 

project and survey directors, the ACF project officer, and ZERO TO THREE staff 

participated in the calls. In the calls, the project officer described the background of the 

survey questions and research objectives. The project director explained the process of 

survey development and explained particularly complex survey items and answered questions 

about them. The survey director provided helpful hints about negotiating the web survey. 

Many good questions were raised in these calls, some of which were subsequently addressed 

in the FAQ sections of the survey.

Throughout the field period, we kept close watch on responses and prepared many 

reports that would be generated from the survey database automatically either daily or 

weekly. During the eighth week of data collection, the MPR Survey Operations Center 

(SOC) began making reminder calls to all program directors who had not yet responded by 

mail or web. The MPR survey director trained approximately six telephone interviewers to 

cover the calls Monday through Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. E.S.T. and six hours each day 

on Saturday and Sunday. During this time, we also sent periodic reminder emails to 

programs that had not responded or that had incomplete surveys.

We developed a tracking database to manage reminder mailings, keep track of the mode 

in which the survey was completed, and monitor the progress of cases being conducted from 

the SOC. Throughout the data collection period, we used the database to monitor the 

progress of cases and generate reports for managing data collection. The database allowed 

us to issue the Barnes & Noble cards to programs that completed the survey. We also 
B.4

Appendix B: Expanded Description of Survey Data Collection Methods

designed and mailed a frame-ready certificate of participation personalized for each Early 

Head Start program.

We developed a call-back plan to recover incomplete or missing data. Recognizing that 

the survey was too long to complete by telephone, we identified a series of “critical 

questions” for a case to be considered partially complete. Programs that had responded at 

all or that had omitted answers to these critical questions were targeted for reminder 

telephone followup. Approximately 10 weeks into data collection, MPR created a 

preliminary file to identify any missing information on critical questions. Trained quality 

control clerks contacted program directors by telephone and email and faxed them 

abbreviated surveys to directly collect responses to these critical questions. The quality 

control clerks also contacted any programs returning hard-copy surveys with inconsistent or 

missing data.

Data Cleaning Procedures

We took steps to ensure that data collected via the web and other modes were 

equivalent. One key limitation of BLAISE for the web is that it cannot support tables—

therefore, some items (particularly the B6 series—see Appendix A) presented on the web 

looked different than those in the paper copy. On the web, each item had to be asked 

separately, with subquestions embedded as separate screens. For example, a screener 

question would ask if there were any children with emotional or behavioral disorders. If the 

respondent answered yes, then subsequent questions would ask about referrals and eligibility 

status. Presenting the item in this way, rather than as a grid (as in the paper copy), may have 

elicited different responses. We assessed whether responses varied by mode by creating a 

series of flags to categorize types of problematic responses to these items (such as skipped 

questions, illogical answers, and so forth) and noted that problems were somewhat more 

prevalent in web respondents. To correct any possible unintended bias toward error among 

web respondents, we called back any program that was flagged to have any of several types 

of problematic answers. Any differences in the information retrieved through the callback 

were corrected in the database by quality control clerks. There were no other items that 

presented challenges beyond those normally associated with preparing data. The final data 

file was prepared for analysis (variable names and labels applied, values formatted, logical 

skips coded, and so on).

Results and Implications

This combination of careful survey development and proactive, continuing support and 

assistance with responses resulted in a very high response rate, not only for surveys of this 

type, but for any survey: 89 percent of eligible programs responded. This high response was 

in spite of a variety of factors, including length and complexity of the survey, that would 

ordinarily work against good response. In addition to the overall high response rate, we 

found that nearly two-thirds of programs responded via the web-based option, much more 

than is typical for web-based surveys. In addition to the implications for good survey 

practices and consistent followup, it appears that, at least in programs like Early Head Start, 

a web-based approach may be a successful way to reach programs.
A PPENDIX C 

P ILOT T ESTS OF P ROGRAM R ATING 

S CALES IN E ARLY H EAD S TART

S ITE V ISITS

IMPLEMENTATION RATING SCALE

We adapted a checklist of program implementation ratings developed as part of the 

Early Head Start evaluation (ACYF 2000a). The implementation rating scale identified 

specific criteria for determining the degree to which programs implemented each of five 

program areas. These are based on the Head Start Program Performance Standards and 

linked to the performance measures framework. They represent cornerstones that underlie 

the entire Early Head Start program model; see Chapter I, Figure I.1. The cornerstones are 

child development, family development, staff development, community building 

development, and management systems and procedures (Table C.1). Site visitors asked 

program directors to complete the checklists, then reviewed the answers with them as part 

of the closing interview. 

Within each of the cornerstones were listed specific items to be rated on a scale from 

minimal implementation (level 1) to enhanced implementation (level 5). Each point was 

anchored with concrete descriptions of program features necessary to achieve a given 

implementation level.

RATING RESULTS

We considered ratings on individual elements between levels 1 through 3 (assigned by 

program directors) to have reached partial implementation and elements directors rated at 

levels 4 or 5 to have reached full implementation for that element (Table C.2). 

The purpose of the site visits was twofold. They (1) provided in-depth information to 

augment survey findings, and (2) pilot-tested measures that might be useful in future 

research or by programs themselves as part of their self-assessments. We selected 

two instruments—an implementation rating scale and a work climate survey—for use in the 

site visits, and we describe their content and basic psychometric properties here. We stress 

that the sample sizes are quite small, and psychometrics should be interpreted with this 

in mind. 
C.2

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits

Table C.1. Program Elements Included in the Early Head Start Implementation Rating 

Scales

Program Component Program Element

Child Development and Health Frequency of child development services

Developmental assessments

Follow-up services for children with disabilities

Health services

Child care

Parent involvement in child development services

Individualization of services

Group socializations (for home-based and mixed 

approach programs)

Family Development Individualized family partnership agreements

Availability of services

Frequency of regular family development services

Parent involvement

Community Building Collaborative relationships

Advisory committees

Transition plans

Staff Development Supervision

Training

Turnover

Compensation

Morale

Management Systems Policy council

Communication systems

Goals, objectives, and plans

Self-assessment

Community needs assessment
C.3 

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits 

Table C.2. Early Head Start Implementation Rating Scale Levels

Level Definition

Partial Implementation

1 Minimal Implementation Program shows little or no evidence of effort to implement 

the relevant program element.

2 Low-Level Implementation Program has made some effort to implement the relevant 

program element.

3 Moderate Implementation Program has implemented some aspects of the relevant

program element.

Full Implementationa

4 Full Implementation Program has substantially implemented the relevant 

program element.

5 Enhanced Implementation Program has exceeded expectations for implementing 

the relevant program element.

a

The term “full implementation” is a research term to reflect our judgment that a program had 

achieved a rating of 4 or 5. We recognize that programs not “fully” implemented were 

nevertheless often implementing many features of the performance standards. In addition, even 

when rated as “fully” implemented, programs may have been striving to do more and be involved 

in continuous improvement activities.

We used criteria developed from the evaluation study (ACYF 2002a) to identify programs at 

different levels of implementation, but our main purpose was to examine how the 

instrument performed on this small sample of 17 programs. The rating scales were originally 

developed for use by site visitors on in-depth visits to programs. Here, our interest is to see 

what we can learn from self report. For each site, we calculated implementation ratings for 

each of the five cornerstones and for overall implementation. We stress that individual 

element ratings were based on directors’ responses; we assigned composite (cornerstone and

overall) ratings using a set of rules that we define below.

Most visited programs are fully implemented in one or more of the cornerstone areas. 

Within the child development cornerstone, programs range from low-level implementation 

to enhanced implementation. Programs are most successful at fully implementing the 

community building cornerstone (88 percent), and 82 percent of visited programs reached 

full implementation for management systems and procedures. Most programs (76 percent) 

have fully implemented the child development cornerstone. Similarly, the majority of 

programs (65 percent) reached full implementation for the family development cornerstone. 

Just more than half of the programs (59 percent) reached full implementation for the staff 

development cornerstone. 
C.4

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits

To assess overall implementation, we followed these guidelines:1 

• Low-Level Implementation: Programs that reached only a low level of 

implementation had achieved moderate implementation in only one or two 

program areas. Other programs areas are poorly or minimally implemented.

• Moderate Implementation: Programs are fully implemented in a few program 

areas and moderately implemented in the other areas, moderately implemented 

in all areas, moderately implemented in most areas with low-level 

implementation in one area, or fully implemented in every area except child 

development and health services.

• Full Implementation: Programs that are fully implemented overall were rated 

as fully implemented in most of the five component areas. 

• Enhanced Implementation: Programs with full implementation in all areas 

and that exceed the standards in some of the component areas demonstrate 

enhanced implementation. 

Visited programs range from low to enhanced implementation. We assigned programs 

overall ratings on a case-by-case basis by assessing the ratings for each of the five categories. 

Just over half (nine programs, or 53 percent) of the visited programs reached full 

implementation, and, of the fully implemented programs, three have enhanced overall 

implementation. We rated only one program as having low-level implementation. This 

program reached moderate to full implementation on all of the five categories except the child 

development cornerstone. Less than half of visited programs (41 percent) were moderately 

implemented. Although these programs were not fully implemented, they all have moderate 

to full implementation in the child development category. Figure C.1 illustrates the range of 

implementation among the 17 sites.

PROGRAM DIRECTOR IMPRESSIONS

In our reviews of implementation ratings that program directors gave their own 

programs, many expressed positive opinions about the implementation rating scale. Positive 

comments included finding most of the descriptors for each rating anchor to be clear and 

easy to understand. More critical comments about the scale included some confusion about 

how to rate particular areas when they met some but not all of the requirements for a given 

rating. A few directors requested clarification about “family development services” and 

examples of these services. Some program directors were displeased that they met the 

standards but still could not meet the highest implementation rating (enhanced 

implementation often goes beyond the performance standards). Most directors, despite 

finding the instrument interesting and thought provoking, did not indicate that they would 

 1 These guidelines were developed by the December 2002 Pathways to Quality and Full Implementation 

in Early Head Start Programs study.
C.5 

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits 

3

6

7

1

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Figure C.1. Early Head Start Overall Implementation Ratings

Number of Programs

1

Minimal 

Implementation

2

Low-Level 

Implementation

4

Full

Implementation

3

Moderate 

Implementation

Ratings

Source: Survey of Early Head Start site visits.

Sample size = 17 programs.

5

Enhanced

Implementation

Partial Implementation Full Implementation

3

6

7

1

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Figure C.1. Early Head Start Overall Implementation Ratings

Number of Programs

1

Minimal 

Implementation

2

Low-Level 

Implementation

4

Full

Implementation

3

Moderate 

Implementation

Ratings

Source: Survey of Early Head Start site visits.

Sample size = 17 programs.

5

Enhanced

Implementation

Partial Implementation Full Implementation

use it for program assessment or improvement activities (or, if so, only as part of a much 

larger process). By and large, directors are satisfied with the instruments they currently use 

and are not interested in making changes to them. 

RELATIONSHIP OF IMPLEMENTATION RATINGS TO SURVEY DATA

We examined survey data between fully implemented and partially implemented 

programs, based on their self rating. This analysis is very preliminary and based on only a 

small number of programs. In general, we found no differences in the type of community 

served, but we did find a few differences in program and family features (not shown). 

Specifically, fully implemented programs are more likely to have a combination model than 

partially implemented programs. They are also less likely to have management turnover, 

although they tend to have high enrollee turnover and to serve enrollees with lower levels of 

risk than partially implemented programs. 

WORK CLIMATE SURVEYS

Work climate surveys were adapted from the Support Subscale of the Policy and 

Program Management Inventory (Lambert et al. 2001) and were intended to be a quick and 

easy way to identify areas of concern for staff in the workplace. We created a version of the 
C.6

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits

survey for teachers and a parallel one for home visitors. The primary difference between the 

instruments is wording specific to “classroom” or “home visit.” During discussion groups 

with teachers and/or home visitors, site visitors asked the group to complete the relevant 

instrument. Our aim here is to describe the internal consistency reliability of the scales and 

to provide basic descriptive summary scores for each program and overall. We conducted 

analyses separately for each group (teachers and home visitors). The same caution about 

small sample sizes applies here as well, because each site had multiple teachers or home 

visitors, the total number of completed surveys was 56 teacher surveys and 36 home visitor 

surveys among the 17 programs.

The surveys were brief (17 and 18 items for teachers and home visitors, respectively) 

and asked for ratings of agreement with statements on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly 

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items were worded so that higher ratings indicate more 

positive impressions of the work climate.

ANALYTIC PROCESS

Before calculating total scores for individuals and then for sites, we ensured that each 

item contributed to the quality of the overall rating. We assessed internal consistency by 

calculating an overall alpha for all survey items. The standardized alphas for both teacher 

and home visitor surveys were very high (.97 for all 17 items on the teacher survey and 

.96 for 18 items on the home visitor survey). We created total scores by summing all items 

in the scale, then calculating total scores for teachers and for home visitors and averages 

within programs.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Next we present overall means and standard deviations for all teacher and home visitor 

survey items, on the individual level, and the average site score (Tables C.3 through C.6).

STAFF IMPRESSIONS OF THE WORK CLIMATE SURVEYS

Staff generally found the surveys easy to use and took little time to complete them. 

Many seemed to think the surveys could be useful for program self-assessment. Specifically, 

home visitors were most enthusiastic about the instrument and found it useful because it 

easily illustrated problem areas. On a few occasions, however, staff said the questions were 

too specific and did not capture their overall feelings about the program, and that honest 

individual ratings could give the mistaken overall impression that they were unhappy in their 

jobs. We subsequently added an open-ended question to ask about overall job satisfaction 

and whether the ratings accurately reflected their feelings about their job. In general, staff 

who liked the work climate survey liked it because it provided an opportunity to think about 

a variety of situations.

Because of the low variability in work climate ratings across sites, we are unable to 

examine survey responses in light of these ratings.
C.7 

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits 

Table C.3. Overall Teacher Work Climate Survey Ratings

Survey Item Mean

Standard 

Deviation

Helps teachers feel good about their jobs 3.7 1.3

Promotes teamwork among teachers 3.8 1.2

Helps teachers feel that they are part of a team 3.6 1.3

Ensures that teachers do not feel isolated 3.5 1.2

Provides enough assistance to teachers in the classroom 3.4 1.2

Provides orientation to new teachers 4.0 1.1

Helps new teachers adjust to the classroom 3.7 1.2

Knows what teachers deal with in the classroom 3.2 1.2

Has timely delivery of materials for use in classrooms 3.4 1.3

Provides opportunities for teachers to identify their strengths

and weakness 3.5 1.1

Provides an atmosphere that is free from destructive gossip 3.3 1.4

Provides freedom for teachers to create their own unique classrooms 4.0 1.1

Has clear guidelines for ordering classroom materials efficiently 3.4 1.3

Provides appropriate and supportive supervision 3.6 1.2

Allows teachers input into planning curriculum 3.9 1.1

Helps teachers to work effectively with children with disabilities 3.9 1.3

Provides useful professional development training 3.9 1.3

Average Site Score 3.6 0.9

Sample size = 56 teachers.

Table C.4. Average Teacher Work Climate Scores, by Program

Site Average Site Score

S01 4.3

S02 4.6

S04 3.8

S05 4.2

S06 2.4

S09 1.7

S10 3.8

S11 3.4

S12 4.8

S13 4.5

S16 3.4

S17 3.1

Note: Not all sites employ teachers.
C.8

Appendix C: Pilot Tests of Program Rating Scales in Early Head Start Site Visits

Table C.5. Overall Home Visitor Work Climate Survey Ratings

Survey Item Mean

Standard 

Deviation

Helps home visitors feel good about their jobs 4.3 0.8

Promotes teamwork among home visitors 4.3 1.0

Helps home visitors feel that they are part of a team 4.2 1.0

Ensures that home visitors do not feel isolated 4.0 1.1

Provides enough assistance to home visitors 4.0 1.1

Provides orientation to new home visitors 4.1 1.1

Helps new home visitors adjust to their jobs 4.0 1.1

Knows what home visitors deal with in working with families 4.0 1.1

Has timely delivery of materials for use in home visits 4.1 1.0

Provides opportunities for home visitors to identify their strengths and 

weaknesses 4.2 0.9

Provides an atmosphere that is free from destructive gossip 3.8 1.1

Provides freedom for home visitors to create their own approaches to 

working with families 4.5 0.8

Has clear guidelines for ordering home visiting materials efficiently 3.8 1.2

Provides appropriate and supportive supervision 4.1 1.1

Allows home visitors input into planning home visit activities 4.6 0.8

Helps home visitors to work effectively with children with disabilities 4.2 0.8

Provides useful professional development training 4.1 1.0

Enables home visitors to access services outside of Early Head Start for 

families who need them 4.5 0.6

Average Site Score 4.1 0.7

Sample size = 36 home visitors.

Table C.6. Average Home Visitor Work Climate Scores, by Program

Site Average Site Score

S03 4.3

S05 3.3

S06 2.7

S07 4.8

S08 4.0

S12 4.6

S14 4.2

S15 4.3

S17 2.9

Note: Not all sites employ home visitors.
A PPENDIX D 

S UPPLEMENTAL W EIGHTED T ABLES
CHAPTER III WEIGHTED TABLES
D.5 

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.1. Key Characteristics of Early Head Start Programs

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Service Area

Mainly urban 46.1

Mainly rural 41.0

Mainly suburban 9.7

Mixed 2.4

Other 0.9

Number of Program Centersa 

Single 36.0

Multiple 64.0

Community Diversity 

High 19.0

Moderate 41.6

Low 39.4

Diversity Past Five Years

Increased 42.4

Stayed the same 56.2

Decreased 1.4

Agency Non-Profit Status

Private non-profit 69.0

Public agency 27.7

Private for-profit 1.8

Other 1.6

Program Auspice

Community agency 69.9

School 9.8

Government agency 5.8

Tribal government 4.3

University 3.5

Hospital or health care provider 3.3

Other 3.4

Program Operates Own Preschool Head Start 81.8

Sample Size (Programs) 461–657b 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Does not include family child care or home-based services.

b

Most questions have sample sizes over 640. Number of Program Centers has a sample size of 

461 because it only includes programs that operate an Early Head Start Center.
D.6

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.2. Early Head Start Program Funding

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Funding Sources

Any outside funding sources 62.5

Funding Sources

State child care subsidies or block grant 34.3

State government grant 17.5

Private foundation grants 15.0

Fundraising activities 13.0

Fee for service reimbursements 8.5

County or municipal government grant 8.2

Part C funds 6.2

Contracts 5.7

Grants provided by businesses 5.3

Other source 6.5

Use of Additional Funding Sources 

Child care 47.8

Improvements to existing Early Head Start services 41.0

Parent activities 26.1

Additional Early Head Start staff 23.9

Staff training or technical assistance 22.8

Additional Early Head Start enrollment slots 15.1

Services for Part C children or families 14.6

New Early Head Start services 8.9

Other use 11.7

Number of Additional Funding Sources

Programs with no additional sources 37.6

Programs with 1 additional source 30.9

Programs with 2 or 3 additional sources 25.9

Programs with 4 or more additional sources 5.7

Sample Size (Programs) 415–654a 

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Most questions have sample sizes over 640. One question has a low sample size because it 

only applied to certain programs: Use of Additional Funding Sources only applies to the 415 

programs that report having any additional funding.
D.7 

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.3. Early Head Start Program Enrollment

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Number of Children and Pregnant Women Enrolled

50 or fewer 32.0

51 to 100 40.3

101 to 149 16.5

150 or more 11.2

Enrolled at Funded Enrollment Level

At funded level 62.0

Above funded level 19.8

Below funded level 18.2

Program Maintains a Waiting List 100.0

Program updated waiting list in past 6 months 95.6

Number of children and pregnant women on waiting list

0 to10 17.4

11 to 50 37.6

51 to100 21.2

100 or more 23.9

Sample Size (Programs) 583–660

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.
D.8

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.4. Characteristics of Early Head Start Children

Percentage of

Enrolled Children

Age of Enrolled Children

Under 1 Year Old 22.2

1-Year-Olds 31.4

2-Year-Olds 36.8

3-Year-Olds 9.5

4-Year-Olds 0.1

Age at Program Entry

Prenatal 12.7

0 to 2 years old 61.6

2 to 3 years old 18.6

Age at Program Exit

Prenatal 2.1

0 to 2 years old 16.2

2 to 3 years old 23.3

3 or more 46.0

Sample Size (Children) 46,317

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.
D.9 

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.5. Demographics of Early Head Start Families: Program Level

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Programs Serving Multiple Races/Ethnicities

4 or more races or ethnicities 62.8

6 or more races or ethnicities 18.9

Programs Serving Primarily One Race/Ethnicity

90 percent or more families of same race/ethnicity 26.3

75 percent or more families of same race/ethnicity 47.1

Families Enrolled in Programa 

White/Caucasian (non-Hispanic) 81.5

Black/African American (non-Hispanic) 76.2

Hispanic/Latino, any race 75.2

Biracial/multiracial 70.1

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 29.8

American Indian/Alaska Native 26.3

Other race/ethnicity 19.3

Programs Serving Multiple Languages

2 or more languages 33.9

4 or more languages 8.2

6 or more languages 2.0

Sample Size (Programs) 646–648

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Race/ethnicity is provided by programs according to the group the family chooses. All race and 

ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive. Hispanic or Latino families of any race are included in 

one category and other race categories exclude families that are Hispanic or Latino.
D.10

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.6. Prevalence of Developmental Concerns Among All Early Head Start Children

Characteristic

Percentage of 

Enrolled Children

Children Who Have Been Referred for Evaluation 20.4

Sample Size (Children) 41,333

Among Referred Children

Eligible for/Receiving Part C services or has IFSP 75.6

Specific Concerns Among Children Eligible for Part C Servicesa

Communication disorder 42.3

Developmental delay 32.3

Emotional or behavioral issues 7.8

Physical or orthopedic impairment 9.1

Sensory impairment 3.0

Health or mental condition 0.8

Other developmental concern 4.6

Sample Size (Children) 6,335

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs. 

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

These children have been referred for Part C evaluation, found eligible, and may be receiving 

Part C services.
CHAPTER IV WEIGHTED TABLES
D.13

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.7. Program Models for Delivering Early Head Start Services Directly and in Partnership

Program Approach

Number of 

Programs

Percentage of 

Programs

Direct Services Provided by Programs

Direct home-based (home visits at least monthly) 162 24.4

Direct center-based (home visits less than monthly) 132 20.0

Direct mixed (monthly home visits for some families and 

center care for other families) 284 42.8

Direct combination (center care plus home visits monthly 

or more for the same families) 57 8.9

No direct servicesa 25 3.9

Sample Size (Programs) 660 100

Services Received by Families, Including Partners

Received home-based (home visits at least monthly) 114 17.1

Received center-based (home visits less than monthly) 152 23.2

Received mixed (monthly home visits for some families 

and center care for other families) 334 50.3

Received combination (center care plus home visits 

monthly or more for the same families) 56 8.7

Received other services 4 0.6

Sample Size (Programs) 660 100

Serving Children Through Child Care Partnerships

Provides services through child care partners 188 28.6

Does not provide services through child care partners 472 71.4

Sample Size (Programs) 660 100

Has a Formal Agreement with a Child Care Partner 268 42.1

Does Not Have a Formal Agreement with a Child Care 

Partner 369 57.9

Sample Size (Programs) 637 100

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

25 programs do not provide services directly, instead partnering with center-based or family child 

care providers.
D.14

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.8. Early Head Start Program Service Models and Frequency of Home Visits

Program Model

Number of 

Programs

Percent Offering 

Home Visits that 

Meet Standardsa

Percent Offering 

Home Visits at or 

Above Standards

Home-Based Services 436 95.6 3.0

Home-Based with Additional 

Early Head Start Servicesb 55 32.6 21.5

Own Center with Home Visits 395 47.9 51.6

Partner Center with Home Visits 104 35.2 64.9

Family Child Care with

Home Visits 56 40.8 59.2

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Number of programs includes any program that indicates serving one or more children 

through each service approach in the survey. Data are weighted to adjust for survey 

nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a Head Start Program Performance Standards require home visits weekly in home-based options 

and home visits twice a year in other options.

b

For this program approach, we consider programs that offer home visits weekly or more often, to 

meet performance standards.
CHAPTER V WEIGHTED TABLES
D.17

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.9. Types of Staff in Early Head Start Programs

Staff Characteristics 

Percentage of 

Programs

Program Employs or Has Access to

Mental health specialist 95.5

Disability specialist 91.9

Health care professional or nurse 90.9

Speech or language specialist 64.8

Father or male involvement specialist 57.1

Literacy specialist 56.8

Dietitian or nutritionist 18.8

Any other specialist 27.9

Program Employs

Home visitors (own) 81.7

Home visitors (partner) 15.8

Primary caregivers (own centers) 83.0

Primary caregivers (partner centers) 33.9

Program Operates Own Preschool Head Start 81.8

Sample Size (Programs) 423–652

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.
D.18

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.10. Qualifications and Education of Early Head Start Staff 

Staff Characteristics

Percentage of 

Programs

Highest Degree Held by Director

Graduate degree in Early Childhood Education 62.1

Baccalaureate degree in Early Childhood Education 32.7

Associate degree in Early Childhood Education 2.5

GED or high school diploma 2.8

Highest Degree Held by Manager

Graduate degree in Early Childhood Education 59.2

Baccalaureate degree in Early Childhood Education 35.9

Associate degree in Early Childhood Education 4.1

GED or high school diploma 0.9

Employs Only Directors with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree 83.5

Employs Only Managers with a Baccalaureate or Graduate Degree 51.2

Employs 50 Percent or More Primary Caregivers Who Holda

Baccalaureate degree or higher in Early Childhood Education 17.5

Associate degree in Early Childhood Education 15.5

Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential 15.9

Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least an Associate Degree in 

Childhood Education 13.2

Employs Only Primary Caregivers with at Least a Child Development 

Associate Credential 29.4

Employs 50 Percent or More Home Visitors Who Holdb

Baccalaureate degree or higher in Early Childhood Education 52.0

Associate degree in Early Childhood Education 18.9

Child Development Associate credential or equivalent state credential 12.2

Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least an Associate Degree in 

Childhood Education 46.7

Employs Only Home Visitors with at Least a Child Development Associate 

Credential 63.3

Sample Size (Programs) 422–581

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Among programs reporting any caregivers.

b

Among programs reporting any home visitors.
D.19

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.11. Early Head Start Staff Turnover

Staff Characteristics 

Number of 

Programs

Percentage of 

Programs

Director Left Program in the Past 12 Months 77 11.8

Coordinator or Manager Left Program in the Past 12 Months 185 28.7

Among Programs with Any Management Change,

Most Cited Reasons

Personal reasons 128 61.2

Higher compensation (same field) 69 36.5

Change in job field 68 34.1

Fired or laid off 30 15.0

Other reasons 8 4.4

Average Rate of Turnover in the Past 12 Monthsa

Average 

Percentage of 

Staff Leaving 

Each Year

Turnover of Home Visitors 422 23.9

Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Program 437 19.8

Turnover of Primary Caregivers Employed by Childcare 

Partner

121

17.4

Sample Size (Programs) 192–650

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Calculated within each program as the number of each type of staff leaving divided by total 

home visitors or total primary caregivers, averaged across all programs with that type of staff. 
D.20

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.12. Supervisory Practices and Training Opportunities in Early Head Start

Supervision and Training

Percentage of 

Programs

Staff Supervisory Practices

Conducts performance appraisals for all staff 99.2

Conducts group case conference sessions 92.7

Assigns mentors to less experienced staff 83.5

Received outside training for reflective supervision 69.3

Conducts reflective supervision with primary caregiversa 82.7

Conducts reflective supervision with home visitorsa 80.8

Staff Development and Training

Conducts staff training 99.1

Meets with staff individually 98.9

Holds staff meetings 99.5

Observes frontline staff providing services 98.9

Program Provides Tuition Reimbursement for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 85.0

Home visitors 79.2

Program Provides Workshop Fees or Other Training Costs for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 85.1

Home visitors 86.4

Program Provides Time for Staff Development for (Some or All)

Primary caregivers 79.6

Home visitors 82.8

Sample Size (Programs) 398–644

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.

a

Reflective supervision is generally considered to be a collaborative learning relationship between 

the supervisor and supervisees, in which staff members are encouraged to reflect on the 

progress of their work with children and families on a regular basis.
D.21

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.13. Parent/Family Assessments in Early Head Start

Parent/Family Assessment Instruments and Uses

Percentage of

Programs 

Family Partnership Agreement 79.5

Agency Created Assessment 31.6

Family Needs Scale 10.4

Use of Parent/Family Assessments

Refer for additional services 93.4

Plan activities for home visits 64.4

Create lesson plans for home visits 49.5

Update IFSP 46.9

Other 11.2

Sample Size (Programs) 402–404

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Among 404 programs that use a parent/family assessment. Data are weighted to 

adjust for survey nonresponse.
D.22

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.14. Early Head Start Program Efforts to Ensure Quality of Child Care

Quality Assurance Activities

Percentage of

Programs 

Conduct Classroom Assessments 92.4

Among Those Who Conduct Assessments, Percentage Who Have Found 

Improvements Were Needed 93.7

Among Those Who Found Needed Improvements, Steps Taken

Provided staff training 90.9

Developed written improvement plan 75.9

Scheduled follow-up assessment 71.2

Obtained technical assistance 50.6

Terminated partnership 5.9

Improvements to facility/equipment 3.7

Other 3.3

Sample Size (Programs) 386–456

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.
D.23

Appendix D: Supplemental Weighted Tables

Table D.15. Use of Management Information Systems (MIS) in Early Head Start

Number of 

Programs

Percentage 

of Programs

Program Uses a Computerized MIS 538 88.4

Type of MIS

Head Start Family Information System 183 34.1

Child Plus 197 36.9

Access 18 3.4

COPA 19 3.6

Galilleo 7 1.4

Genesis 11 2.0

Prinis 19 3.5

Locally designed 26 4.8

Combination of software 54 10.1

Satisfaction with MIS (Among Programs Using Any)

Very satisfied 132 24.6

Somewhat satisfied 269 50.3

Somewhat dissatisfied 100 18.8

Very dissatisfied 34 6.3

Reasons for Dissatisfaction with MIS (Among Those Somewhat 

or Very Dissatisfied)

Difficult to use 56 42.3

Reports not useful 53 39.3

Problems with software 76 57.2

MIS does not meet current needs 19 14.1

Lack of technical support or trained staff 20 14.5

Sample Size (Programs) 133–609

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs.

Note: Data are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. Sample sizes are unweighted.