A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families:

FACES Technical Report I

January 2002

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation

Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation

Administration for Children, Youth and Families

Head Start Bureau
This report is dedicated to the memory of

Helen Hollingshed Taylor

Associate Commissioner of Head Start

1994-2000
A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families:

FACES Technical Report I

January 2002

Prepared for: Louisa B. Tarullo, Ed.D.

Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Administration for Children and Families

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

The CDM Group, Inc.: Robert W. O'Brien, Ph.D., Project Director

Mary Ann D'Elio, M.S., Associate Project Director

Michael Vaden-Kiernan, Ph.D., Senior Analyst

Candice Magee, M.P.H., Research Analyst

Tina Younoszai, Ph.D., Research Analyst

Michael J. Keane, Dr. P.H., Senior Analyst

Abt Associates Inc.: David C. Connell, Ph.D., Project Director

Linda Hailey, M.Ed., Senior Analyst

This report was prepared for the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under contract HHS-105-96-1930, A

Descriptive Study of Families Served by Head Start.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our sincere appreciation is given to the many children, parents, and local Head Start staff

who participated in the study. Their cooperation and genuine interest in the study, as well as the

efforts of the local Head Start program directors, were major factors in the success of this

project. The opportunity to spend time with Head Start families and staff was truly the highlight

of the study.

TECHNICAL REPORT I: SECTION AUTHORS

Section I: David Connell, Robert W. O’Brien

Section II: Robert W. O’Brien, Mary Ann D’Elio, Michael Vaden-Kiernan, Candice Magee

Grayton, Tina Younoszai, Michael J. Keane

Section III: David Connell, Linda Hailey

Section IV: Michael Vaden-Kiernan, Mary Ann D’Elio

Section V: Mary Ann D’Elio, Michael Vaden-Kiernan

Section VI: Robert W. O’Brien, Mary Ann D’Elio, Michael Vaden-Kiernan
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section I: Introduction to the Study

1.0 Introduction to the Study.......................................................................1

Purposes of the Study ........................................................................2

Head Start Growth and Challenges ....................................................2

Head Start Families............................................................................3

Head Start Program Performance Measures......................................5

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................7

Overview of the Design of the Study...................................................8

Organization of the Report................................................................11

Section II: Head Start Children and Families

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Parent Interview..................................................... 13

1.1 Overview.............................................................................................13

Research Questions......................................................................13

Content of the Parent Interview .....................................................14

1.2 Organization........................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Methodology ....................................................................................... 15

2.1 Overview.............................................................................................15

2.2 The Sample Universe and Sampling Method.......................................15

The Sample Universe ....................................................................15

The First-Stage: The Sample of 40 Head Start Programs.............17

The Second-Stage: The Sample of Head Start Centers................18

The Third-Stage: The Sample of Head Start Children...................19

2.3 Response Rates..................................................................................19

2.4 The Instruments ..................................................................................20

2.5 Staffing................................................................................................21

2.6 Description of Data Collection Procedures ..........................................22

2.7 Confidentiality......................................................................................23

2.8 Tests of Procedures and Instruments..................................................23

Pilot Test .......................................................................................23

Field Test.......................................................................................24

2.9 Data Management and Child Weights .................................................24

Weights .........................................................................................25

Data Analysis ................................................................................27
2.10 Strengths and Limitations of the Research ..........................................26

Strengths.......................................................................................26

Limitations .....................................................................................27

2.11 Parent Interview Description................................................................27

Chapter 3: Head Start Children.............................................................................29

3.1 Overview.............................................................................................29

3.2 Children’s Demographics ....................................................................29

3.3 Children’s Health Status and Reported Disabilities..............................30

3.4 Children’s Behavior and Academic Skills.............................................33

3.5 Summary.............................................................................................35

Chapter 4: Head Start Families.............................................................................36

4.1 Overview.............................................................................................36

4.2 The Primary Caregivers.......................................................................36

Age................................................................................................38

Nativity ..........................................................................................39

Marital Status ................................................................................39

Education and Training..................................................................39

Employment ..................................................................................40

4.3 Mothers and Fathers Who Were Not the Interview Respondents ........41

Education ......................................................................................42

Employment or Other Status..........................................................42

Financial Support and Visitation of the Head Start Children...........43

4.4 The Households..................................................................................43

Monthly Household Income ...........................................................44

Other Sources of Financial Support...............................................47

Welfare Reform .............................................................................49

Housing .........................................................................................50

Medical Health Insurance ..............................................................52

Health Status of Parents and Household Members .......................54

Health Care for the Head Start Children ........................................54

Medical Homes...................................................................................54

Sources of Routine Health Care.........................................................54

Sources of Care for Illness and Injury.................................................55

Help from Head Start in Finding Health Care......................................56

Effects of Insurance and Employment on Sources of Health Care ......56

Health Care for the Head Start Parents .........................................57

Dental Care for Children................................................................58

Use of Child Care ..........................................................................59

Language ......................................................................................60

4.5 Summary.............................................................................................63

Chapter 5: Functioning of Head Start Families ..................................................... 74
5.1 Overview.............................................................................................74

5.2 Home Safety Practices........................................................................74

5.3 Social Support.....................................................................................75

5.4 Depression..........................................................................................76

5.5 Household Rules.................................................................................78

5.6 Discipline Practices .............................................................................79

5.7 Exposure to Violence and Crime .........................................................82

Family Exposure to Violence and Crime ........................................83

Child Exposure to Violence............................................................84

Effects of Violence on Child and Family Outcomes........................84

5.8 Involvement with the Criminal Justice System.....................................86

5.9 Household Cigarette, Alcohol, and Drug Use ......................................87

5.10 Family Risk Factors.............................................................................88

5.11 Summary.............................................................................................91

Chapter 6: Families’ Involvement with Their Children........................................... 94

6.1 Overview.............................................................................................94

6.2 Family and Child Activities...................................................................94

6.3 Fathers’ Involvement with Their Children............................................99

Descriptive Information on Fathers ..............................................100

Non-Household Fathers’ Financial Support of and Visitation

with Their Head Start Children.....................................................101

Fathers and Activity with Their Children.......................................101

Fathers and Their Effect on Children and Families ......................103

Fathers and Exposure to Violence...............................................106

6.4 Changes Within the Household .........................................................107

6.5 Summary...........................................................................................109

Chapter 7: Families’ Experiences with Head Start.............................................. 112

7.1 Overview...........................................................................................112

7.2 The Children’s Involvement with Head Start......................................112

7.3 Parents’ Involvement with Head Start................................................113

Participation.................................................................................113

Relationships between Involvement with Head Start and

Family and Child Factors.............................................................114

High, Moderate, and Low Parent Involvement .............................117

Barriers to Participation ...............................................................119

7.4 Perceptions of Head Start .................................................................120

Expectations................................................................................120

Health Behavior Learned at Head Start .......................................124

Children’s and Parents’ Experiences ...........................................124

7.5 Parent Satisfaction ............................................................................126

7.6 Parent Reported Ways to Improve Head Start...................................127

7.7 Summary...........................................................................................128
Chapter 8: Head Start’s Special Populations...................................................... 132

8.1 Overview of Families of Children with Disabilities...................................132

Definition of Children with Disabilities................................................132

8.1.1 Characteristics of Children with Disabilities .......................................133

Ethnicity.......................................................................................133

Gender and Age of Children ........................................................133

Geographic Location ...................................................................134

Child Birthweight..........................................................................134

8.1.2 Characteristics of Families of Children with Disabilities .....................134

Age of Parents.............................................................................134

Nativity of Parents .......................................................................134

Marital Status ..............................................................................135

Education and Training................................................................135

Employment Status .....................................................................135

Household Income.......................................................................135

Housing Status............................................................................136

Sources of Support......................................................................136

Insurance Coverage ....................................................................137

8.1.3 Functioning of Families of Children with Disabilities ..........................137

Social Support.............................................................................137

Psychological Well Being.............................................................138

Social Service Needs ..................................................................138

Health..........................................................................................138

Involvement with Their Children...................................................139

Child Behavior.............................................................................139

Neighborhood Environments .......................................................140

8.1.4 Relationships with Head Start............................................................141

Program Response to Children with Disabilities...........................141

Involvement at Head Start ...........................................................142

Barriers to Participation ...............................................................143

Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience ................................143

8.1.5 Summary of Findings on Families of Children with Disabilities ..........144

8.1.6 Supplemental Table ..........................................................................149

8.2 Hispanic Head Start Children and Families.............................................152

8.2.1 Characteristics of Hispanic Children in Head Start ............................153

Age and Gender ..........................................................................153

Birthweight and Disabilities..........................................................153

8.2.2 Characteristics of Hispanic Families in Head Start ............................154

Family Residence........................................................................154

Nativity of the Parents..................................................................154

Language ....................................................................................155

Marital Status and Household Size..............................................156
Educational Attainment................................................................157

Employment ................................................................................158

Income and Other Sources of Support.........................................158

Housing .......................................................................................160

8.2.3 Family Risk Factors...........................................................................160

8.2.4 Health Care.......................................................................................162

8.2.5 Child Care .........................................................................................163

8.2.6 Family Activities with Children ...........................................................165

8.2.7 Social Support...................................................................................166

8.2.8 Family Involvement in Head Start......................................................167

Participation.................................................................................167

Barriers to Participation ...............................................................169

Parent Satisfaction ......................................................................170

8.2.9 Summary...........................................................................................172

8.3 Overview of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers .................................180

8.3.1 Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers ....................180

Ethnicity.......................................................................................180

Urbanicity and Region .................................................................180

Gender and Age of Children ........................................................180

Age and Nativity of Grandparents................................................181

Marital Status ..............................................................................181

Education and Training................................................................181

Employment Status and Household Income ................................181

Other Sources of Support and Insurance Coverage ....................181

Housing .......................................................................................182

Household Composition...............................................................182

8.3.2 Functioning of Families with Grandparents as Primary Caregivers....183

Social Support.............................................................................183

Psychological Well-Being ............................................................183

Involvement with Their Grandchildren..........................................184

Child Behavior.............................................................................184

Neighborhood Environments .......................................................184

8.3.3 Relationships with Head Start............................................................185

Involvement in Head Start ...........................................................185

Barriers to Participation ...............................................................186

Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience ................................186

8.3.4 Three Generational Families .............................................................187

8.3.5 Summary of Findings on Families Headed by Grandparents.............188
Section III: Head Start Staff

Chapter 1: Introduction to Head Start Staff....................................................................193

1.1 Overview...........................................................................................193

Research Questions....................................................................194

1.2 Organization of Section III .................................................................195

Chapter 2: Methodology................................................................................................197

2.1 Overview of the Head Start Staff Interview Data Collection ...............197

2.2 The Instruments ................................................................................197

2.3 Site Team Staffing.............................................................................199

2.4 Description of Data Collection Procedures ........................................200

Chapter 3: Staff Background Characteristics.................................................................203

3.1 Overview...........................................................................................203

3.2 Staff Experience with Head Start and Early Childhood Programs......203

3.3 Staff Education..................................................................................206

3.4 Head Start Sponsored Training for Staff............................................212

3.5 Characteristics of Head Start Employment ........................................216

3.6 Summary...........................................................................................221

Chapter 4: Head Start Services and Activities...............................................................225

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................225

4.2 Head Start Education Component.....................................................226

Head Start Educational Curricula.................................................228

Activities in Head Start Classrooms.............................................232

Head Start Benefits to Children ...................................................235

4.3 Summary...........................................................................................237

4.4 Interaction Of Head Start Staff and Parents.......................................239

The Head Start Parent Involvement Component..........................239

Head Start Meetings and Workshops ..........................................240

Center Staff Contacts with Parents..............................................242

Use of Parent Volunteers in Head Start.......................................244

Home Visits by Head Start Staff ..................................................246

Male Involvement in Head Start...................................................247

Barriers to Parent Involvement in Head Start...............................248

4.5 Summary...........................................................................................250

4.6 Head Start Family Services...............................................................252

The Social Services Component..................................................252

Family Risk Factors Observed by Head Start Staff...................... 255

Referrals and Head Start Services...............................................258

4.7 Summary...........................................................................................259
4.8 Health Services for Head Start Children and Families .................260

The Head Start Health Component..............................................260

Child Health Problems in Head Start ...........................................260

Head Start Health Services, Parent Volunteers, and Parent

Workshops ..................................................................................262

4.9 Summary...........................................................................................264

4.10 Staff and Program Characteristics Linked to Family Outcomes .........265

Analytic Approach........................................................................265

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses...............................269

4.11 Summary...........................................................................................272

4.12 Discussions with Head Start Program Directors ................................273

Revised Head Start Performance Measures................................273

Welfare Reform ...........................................................................273

4.13 Staff Comments on Head Start Program Improvement......................273

4.14 Summary of Results..........................................................................276

Section IV: The Case Study

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Case Study......................................................................277

1.1 Overview...........................................................................................277

1.2 Organization of Section IV: The Case Study.....................................279

Chapter 2: Case Study Methodology.............................................................................280

2.1 The Sample.......................................................................................280

2.2 Measures and Data Collection Procedures........................................282

Home Visit Parent Interviews.......................................................282

Home and Neighborhood Observations.......................................283

Monthly Telephone Interviews .....................................................283

Community Agency Interviews.....................................................284

Staffing and Data Collection Procedures .....................................284

2.3 Data Analyses................................................................................... 285

Content Coding and Analyses .....................................................285

Descriptive Analyses of Monthly Telephone Interview Data.........286

Family Narratives.........................................................................286

2.4 Limitations.........................................................................................288

Chapter 3: Results from Home Visit Interviews..............................................................289

3.1 Overview...........................................................................................289

3.2 Reasons for Enrolling Their Children in Head Start ...........................289

Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start That Related to the

Children.......................................................................................289

Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start That Related to

Parents or Families......................................................................290
3.3 Head Start Families’ Hopes and Goals for their Children...................290

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Head Start Children’s General

Education ....................................................................................291

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Head Start Children’s Personal

Qualities ......................................................................................291

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Children’s Long-Term Educational

Attainment ...................................................................................292

Parents’ Other Hopes and Goals for Their Children’s Future .......292

3.4 Head Start Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Themselves......................293

3.5 Strengths of the Head Start Families.................................................294

3.6 Issues of Improvement and Change for the Head Start Families.......295

3.7 Current Problems Facing Head Start Families...................................296

3.8 Head Start Child and Family Participation in Head Start....................297

Children’s Participation in Head Start ..........................................297

Head Start Families’ Participation in Head Start ..........................298

Why it Was Important to Participate in Head Start Activities ........298

Types of Activities In Which Families’ Participate ........................299

Barriers and Facilitators to Families’ Participation........................300

3.9 Satisfaction with Head Start ..............................................................300

3.10 Parenting Beliefs and Efficacy...........................................................302

3.11 Parenting Satisfaction and Supports..................................................304

3.12 Head Start Families’ Perceptions of their Neighborhoods..................305

Parents’ Assessments of Their Neighborhoods as Places to Raise

Children.......................................................................................306

What Parents Really Liked about their Neighborhoods................307

What Parents Would Change About Their Neighborhoods ..........308

Neighborhood Resources............................................................309

Social and Physical Neighborhood Quality Indicators ..................310

3.13 Summary...........................................................................................310

Chapter 4: Monthly Telephone Interview .......................................................................313

4.1 Overview...........................................................................................313

4.2 Core Questions .................................................................................313

Household Composition...............................................................314

Employment ................................................................................314

Household Income.......................................................................316

Health..........................................................................................317

Child Care Arrangements ............................................................318

Involvement in Head Start ...........................................................318

4.3 Rotated Questions.............................................................................320

Social Support............................................................................. 320

Psychological Well-Being ............................................................326

Family Resources........................................................................327

Transition to Kindergarten ...........................................................328

4.4 Summary...........................................................................................329
Chapter 5: The Family Narratives..................................................................................332

5.1 Overview........................................................................................... 332

5.2 The Head Start Child.........................................................................333

Children’s Positive Attitudes Toward Learning and Head Start ....333

Parents Have Optimistic Expectations for Their Children and

Value Education ..........................................................................334

Head Start Children are Making Good Progress.......................... 334

Head Start Children May Experience Behavioral and Mental Health

Problems .....................................................................................335

Contradictions Between Parent and Teacher Reports .................337

5.3 Head Start Family..............................................................................337

5.3.1 Head Start Families are Diverse in Type and Experience

Multiple Changes .............................................................337

5.3.2 Search for a Father Figure...............................................337

5.3.3 Families Maintain a Balance between School, Work and

Child Care........................................................................338

5.3.4 The Families’ Challenges and Resilience.........................339

5.4 The Family’s Interactions with the Head Start Program .....................341

Families Valued Their Participation in the Head Start Program....341

5.5 Summary...........................................................................................342

5.6 The Family Narratives .......................................................................343

Narrative A ........................................................................................344

Narrative B .......................................................................................354

Narrative C .......................................................................................361

Narrative D .......................................................................................368

Narrative E .......................................................................................374

Narrative F .......................................................................................382

Section V: Community Agency Substudy

Chapter 1: Introduction to The Community Agency Substudy........................................388

1.1 Overview...........................................................................................388

1.2 Organization of Section V: The Community Agency Substudy..........389

Chapter 2: Methodology................................................................................................390

2.1 Overview...........................................................................................390

2.2 The Sample.......................................................................................390

2.3 Data Collection Instrument ................................................................391

2.4 Procedures........................................................................................392

Chapter 3: Findings and Summary................................................................................393

3.1 Overview...........................................................................................393

3.2 Types of Collaboration ......................................................................393
Informal Collaboration.................................................................. 393

Formal Collaboration ...................................................................394

Communication............................................................................395

Head Start Perspective on Collaboration .....................................396

3.3 Procedures for Referral .....................................................................397

3.4 Perceptions of Head Start .................................................................399

3.5 Strategies for Outreach .....................................................................400

3.6 Summary...........................................................................................401

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications

The Changing Face of Poverty in America .....................................................................403

Trends in Racial and Ethnic Diversity............................................................403

Trends in Family Structure............................................................................404

Trends in Parental Education and Family Size..............................................404

Trends in Employment..................................................................................404

Head Start Families are Diverse.....................................................................................405

Head Start Families are Diverse across Race, Ethnicity, and Culture ...........405

Head Start Families are Diverse in Family Structure.....................................406

Head Start Families are Diverse in Education and Employment ...................406

Head Start Families are Like Other Families ..................................................................407

Head Start Families Have Common Hopes and Goals..................................407

Policy Implications ........................................................................................408

Head Start Families Face Multiple Challenges

Head Start Families Possess Strengths to Address Them .............................................409

Head Start Families Have Challenges in the Home.......................................410

Head Start Families Have Economic Challenges..........................................411

Head Start Families Have Environmental Challenges...................................411

Head Start Families Have Health Challenges and Support Systems.............413

Policy Implications ........................................................................................414

Head Start Families are Active with Their Children and with Head Start.........................415

Parent Involvement with Children is Crucial..................................................415

Families Benefit from Program Involvement..................................................416

Families are Very Satisfied with Head Start....................................................................418

Policy Implications ........................................................................................419

Future Research Directions............................................................................................420

Section VII: References ........................................................................................... 422
LIST OF EXHIBITS

Section 1

Introduction to the Study

Exhibit1-1 Head Start Enrollment Increases by Ethnicity: Data from the 1994-1999 Program

Information Reports......................................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 1-2 The Conceptual Model for the Head Start Family and Child Experiences

Survey (FACES) ............................................................................................................ 8

Exhibit 1-3 The Relationship Between Study Research Questions, Information Types, and

Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 10

Section II

Head Start Children and Families

Chapter 2: Methodology

Exhibit 2-1 Total Number of Programs Available, Total Enrollment of Children Aged 3 and

Older, and the Number of Programs Drawn from Each Cell .......................................... 16

Exhibit 2-2 Distribution of Centers Within Programs in FACES and in 1995-96 PIR........................ 18

Exhibit 2-3 Number of Completed Parent Interviews by Data Collection Wave ............................... 20

Exhibit 2-4 Relationships of the Fall 1997 Respondents to the Head Start Children........................ 28

Exhibit 2-5 Characteristics of the Parent Interviews over Three Data Collection Waves.................. 28

Chapter 3: Head Start Children

Exhibit 3-1 Primary Demographic Characteristics of Head Start Children ....................................... 29

Exhibit 3-2 Primary Demographic Characteristics of Head Start Children by Urbanicity and

Geographic Region ....................................................................................................... 30

Exhibit 3-3 Children’s Health Status as Reported by Parents.......................................................... 31

Exhibit 3-4 Child Birthweight Categories by Ethnicity as Reported by Parents................................ 31

Exhibit 3-5 Child Birthweight as Reported by Parents within Ethnic Groups.................................... 32

Exhibit 3-6 Children’s Disabilities as Reported by Parents and from the PIR .................................. 33

Exhibit 3-7 Children’s Behavior and Academic Skills, as Rated by Parents..................................... 34

Exhibit 3-8 Mean Scores for Child Behavior and Academic Skills as Rated by Parents within

Gender and Ethnicity..................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4: Head Start Families

Exhibit 4-1 Demographic Characteristics of the FACES Primary Caregivers................................... 37

Exhibit 4-2 Description of Parents Who Were Not Respondents: Household Fathers,

Non-Household Fathers, Household Mothers, and Non-Household Mothers................ 41

Exhibit 4-3 Changes in Household Composition from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998.............................. 44

Exhibit 4-4 Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reported Monthly Household Income.......... 46

Exhibit 4-5 Reported Monthly Household Income by Employment Status ....................................... 47

Exhibit 4-6 Non-employment Sources of Economic Support Used in the Past Year........................ 48

Exhibit 4-7 Selected Sources of Financial Support by Parents’ Employment Status ....................... 48

Exhibit 4-8 Experiences of FACES Parents with Welfare Reform ................................................... 49

Exhibit 4-9 Housing Status by Selected Demographic Characteristics............................................ 51

Exhibit4-10 Selected Demographic Characteristics for Households in which the Children

were Covered by Private Health Insurance or by Medicaid or had

No Health Insurance ..................................................................................................... 53

Exhibit 4-11 Sources of Routine Child Health Care and Care When Children are Sick or Injured ..... 55

Exhibit 4-12 Sources of Routine Child Health Care and Type of Health Insurance............................ 57

Exhibit 4-13 Type of Child Care Arrangements as Reported by Parents........................................... 60

Exhibit 4-14 Demographic Characteristics by the Primary Language Spoken in the Home............... 62

Exhibit 4-15 Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Ethnicity ............................... 65

Exhibit 4-16 Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Urbanicity............................. 68

Exhibit 4-17 Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Region ................................. 71

Chapter 5: Functioning of Head Start Families

Exhibit 5-1 Safety Practices in the Home as Reported by Parents, Fall 1997.................................. 74

Exhibit 5-2 Social Support Reported by Head Start Parents, Fall 1997........................................... 75

Exhibit 5-3 Correlations between Depression and Selected Factors Related to the Well-being of

Children and Families ................................................................................................... 77

Exhibit 5-4 Change in Use of Time Outs and Spanking from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998 ................... 80

Exhibit 5-5 Crude and Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Using

Spanking as a Discipline Method by Depression, Single Parenthood, Educational

Attainment, Ethnicity, Income and Age.......................................................................... 82

Exhibit 5-6 Parents’ Reports of Exposure to Violence and Crime in the Past Year, Fall 1997 ......... 83

Exhibit 5-7 Mediational Model: Neighborhood Violence, Child Behavior, and Depression............... 85

Exhibit 5-8 Moderators of Exposure to Violence ............................................................................. 85

Exhibit 5-9 Crude Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Having the Parent,

Another Household Member, or a Non-Household Biological Parent Arrested or

Charged with a Crime Since the Birth of the Head Start Child....................................... 87

Exhibit 5-10 Percentage of Families with Selected Risk Factors for Child Development by Urbanicity

and Ethnicity, Fall 1997................................................................................................. 89
Exhibit 5-11 Change in Family Risk Factors from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998 ...................................... 90

Chapter 6: Families’ Involvement with Their Children

Exhibit 6-1 Mean Total, Weekly, and Monthly Activities of Family Members with Head Start

Children, Fall 1997........................................................................................................ 96

Exhibit 6-2 Correlations of Activity Levels with Selected Child and Family Characteristics,

Fall, 1997 ......................................................................................................................97

Exhibit 6-3 Correlations of Fathers’ Activity With their Children with Child-Oriented Activity for

Mothers, other Household Members and Non-Household Family Members, by

Availability of Fathers.................................................................................................. 103

Exhibit 6-4 Correlations of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing and Their Child-oriented Activity, by

Availability of Fathers.................................................................................................. 104

Exhibit 6-5 Correlations of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing with Parental Ratings of Children, by

Availability of Fathers.................................................................................................. 105

Exhibit 6-6 Correlation of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing with need and use of Family Services,

by Availability of Fathers ............................................................................................. 106

Exhibit 6-7 A Summary of Household Changes Involving Categories of Key Adult Males and

Females, by Ethnicity.................................................................................................. 108

Chapter 7: Families Experience with Head Start

Exhibit 7-1 Number if Days Absent Over the 1997-1998 Head Start School Year......................... 113

Exhibit 7-2 Type and Frequency of Participation at Head Start by Parents ................................... 114

Exhibit 7-3 Parental Involvement in Head Start Predicting Child and Family Outcomes................ 115

Exhibit 7-4 Mean Change Scores by High, Moderate, and Low Involvement Groups, 1997-1998. 119

Exhibit 7-5 Top Six Barriers to Participation at Head Start as Reported by Parents ...................... 120

Exhibit 7-6 Parents’ Perceptions of Benefits Expected and Received from Head Start ................. 121

Exhibit 7-7 Parents’ Perceptions of Child and Family Experiences at Head Start.......................... 125

Exhibit 7-8 Parents’ Satisfaction with the Head Start Program...................................................... 126

Exhibit 7-9 Parents’ Suggestions for Improving Head Start in Spring 1998 ................................... 127
Chapter 8: Head Start’s Special Populations

Exhibit 8-1 Percentages of Parents of Children with Disabilities and Parents of Children without

Disabilities Who Participated at Head Start during 1997-1998 School Year ................ 142

Exhibit 8-2 Characteristics of Children with Disabilities and Their Families ................................... 149

Exhibit 8-3 Head Start Enrollment by Ethnicity: 1992-93 to 1998-99 ............................................. 152

Exhibit 8-5 Percentage of Families with One or More Disabilities.................................................. 154

Exhibit 8-6 Percentage Born Outside the U.S. and Lived More than Five Years in U.S................. 155

Exhibit 8-7 Percentage of Families that Speak Spanish in the Home and Children Assessed in

Spanish....................................................................................................................... 156

Exhibit 8-8 Percentage of Families with Two-Parent Households ................................................. 156

Exhibit 8-9 Educational Attainment ............................................................................................... 157

Exhibit 8-10 Percentage of Families Not Employed ........................................................................ 158

Exhibit 8-11 Percentage of Families’ Household Income < $1,000 per Month................................. 159

Exhibit 8-12 Percentage of Families’ Receiving WIC and TANF Benefits........................................ 160

Exhibit 8-13 Percentage of Families with Selected Risk Factors for Child Development ................. 161

Exhibit 8-14 Percentage of Families’ with Regular Health Care Providers for Children and Parents162

Exhibit 8-15 Child Care Use............................................................................................................ 164

Exhibit 8-16 Average Activities with Child ....................................................................................... 166

Exhibit 8-17 Social Support Reported by Parents – Percentage Somewhat or Very Helpful ........... 167

Exhibit 8-18 Participation at Head Start by Parents One or More Times ......................................... 168

Exhibit 8-19 Top Barriers to Participation at Head Start.................................................................. 170

Exhibit 8-20 Parent Satisfaction with Head Start – Percent Very Satisfied ...................................... 171

Exhibit 8-4 Characteristics of Hispanic Children and their Families............................................... 177

Exhibit 8-22 Percentages of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers and Parents as Primary

Caregivers Who Participated at Head Start during 1997-1998 School Year ................ 185

Exhibit 8-23 Grandparent Caregivers’ and Parent Caregivers’ Satisfaction with Head Start............ 187

Exhibit 8-24 Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers.............................................. 191

Section III:

Chapter 1: Introduction to Head Start Staff

Exhibit 1-1 Contents of the Staff Interviews................................................................................... 195

Chapter 2: Methodology

Exhibit 2-1 Number of Staff Interviews Completed........................................................................ 201

Exhibit 2-2 Number of Staff Interviews by Region and Urbanicity.................................................. 202
Chapter 3: Staff Background Characteristics

Exhibit 3-1 Staff Experience by Position ....................................................................................... 204

Exhibit 3-2 Center Director’s (excluding Administrative Teachers) Experience by Region and

Urbanicity.................................................................................................................... 204

Exhibit 3-3 Classroom Teacher (including Administrative Teachers) Experience by Region and

Urbanicity.................................................................................................................... 205

Exhibit 3-4 Family Service Worker Experience by Region and Urbanicity ..................................... 206

Exhibit 3-5 Level of Education by Staff Position ............................................................................ 207

Exhibit 3-6 Center Director (excluding Administrative Teachers) Education by Region and

Urbanicity.................................................................................................................... 210

Exhibit 3-7 Classroom Teacher (including Administrative Teachers) Education by Region and

Urbanicity.................................................................................................................... 211

Exhibit 3-8 Family Service Worker Education by Region and Urbanicity....................................... 212

Exhibit 3-9 Training Formats Offered by Head Start...................................................................... 213

Exhibit 3-10 Hours of Staff Training (during past 12 months) by Position........................................ 213

Exhibit 3-11 Hours of Staff Training (during past 12 months) by Position, Region, and Urbanicity .. 214

Exhibit 3-12 Percentage of Staff Training Topics by Position .......................................................... 215

Exhibit 3-13 Reported Staff Salaries by Position, Region and Urbanicity ........................................ 216

Exhibit 3-14 Reported Benefits by Position ..................................................................................... 217

Exhibit 3-15 Reported Work Hours and Overall Job Satisfaction by Staff Position .......................... 218

Exhibit 3-16 Reported Barriers to Job Performance by Staff Position.............................................. 219

Exhibit 3-17 Reported Reasons for Continuing Head Start Employment by Position (percentage

Reporting item as “Important”)..................................................................................... 220

Chapter 4: Head Start Services and Activities

Exhibit 4-1 Priorities for In-Service Training of Head Start Classroom Staff as Reported by

Education Coordinators............................................................................................... 226

Exhibit 4-2 Most Frequent Educational Problems Resulting in a Head Start Individualized

Education Plan as Reported by Education Coordinators............................................. 227

Exhibit 4-3 Most Important Goals for Home Visits by Educational Staff as Reported by

Education Coordinators............................................................................................... 228

Exhibit 4-4 Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Identified by Head Start Staff ............ 229

Exhibit 4-5 Elements fo the Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Specified by Head

Start Staff.................................................................................................................... 230

Exhibit 4-6 Head Start Staff Responsible for Day-to-Day Instructional Plans for Children (As

Reported by Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers) .... 230

Exhibit 4-7 Head Start Staff Responsible for Preparation of Teaching Materials (As Reported

By Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers) ................... 231
Exhibit 4-8 Classroom Staff Responsibility for Day-to-Day Instructional Activities as

Reported by Classroom Teachers............................................................................... 232

Exhibit 4-9 Frequencies of Classroom Activities reported by Center Directors and Classroom

Teachers..................................................................................................................... 233

Exhibit 4-10 Frequencies of Teaching “Letters of the Alphabet or Words” by Region and Urbanicity

(as Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers).................................................. 234

Exhibit 4-11 Frequencies of Having Computer Time for Children by Region and Urbanicity (as

Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers)........................................................ 234

Exhibit 4-12 Reading to Children by Region and Urbanicity as reported by Classroom Teachers... 235

Exhibit 4-13 Staff Opinions on Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to Children (as

Reported by Classroom Teachers).............................................................................. 236

Exhibit 4-14 Staff Opinions about the Three Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to

Children by Region and Urbanicity (as Reported by Classroom Teachers) ................. 237

Exhibit 4-15 Most Important Goals for Parents as Ranked by Center Directors, Classroom

Teachers, and Component Coordinators..................................................................... 240

Exhibit 4-16 Parental Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings as Reported by Center

Directors ..................................................................................................................... 241

Exhibit 4-17 Frequency of Parent Activities/Workshops by Topic as Reported by Center

Directors ..................................................................................................................... 242

Exhibit 4-18 Types and Frequencies of Contacts with Parents Reported by Classroom

Teachers..................................................................................................................... 243

Exhibit 4-19 Activities to Promote Contacts among Parents Reported by Classroom Teachers...... 243

Exhibit 4-20 Use of Parent Volunteers in the Classroom as Reported by Classroom Teachers ...... 245

Exhibit 4-21 Former or Current Head Start Parents as Employees at Head Start as Reported by

Center Directors.......................................................................................................... 246

Exhibit 4-22 Main Goals of Head Start Staff During Home Visits as Reported by Center

Directors and Classroom Teachers............................................................................. 247

Exhibit 4-23 Workshops Targeted for Males as Reported by Component Coordinators .................. 248

Exhibit 4-24 Barriers to Parent Participation as Reported by Center Directors, Classroom

Teachers, and Component Coordinators..................................................................... 249

Exhibit 4-25 Problems in Planning or Having Parent Activities as Reported by Center Directors and

Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators.................................................... 249

Exhibit 4-26 Factors Determining How Families Were Assigned to Family Service Worker

Caseloads as Reported by Social Services Coordinators and Family Service

Workers ...................................................................................................................... 253

Exhibit 4-27 Main Activities with Families by Social Service Staff as Reported by Social Service

Coordinators and Family Service Workers .................................................................. 254

Exhibit 4-28 Children and Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic

Region as Reported by Center Directors..................................................................... 255

Exhibit 4-29 Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic Region as

Reported by Family Service Workers .......................................................................... 257
Exhibit 4-30 Head Start Assistance to Families as Reported by Component Coordinators ............. 258

Exhibit 4-31 Most Frequent Child Health Problems as Reported by Health Coordinators................ 261

Exhibit 4-32 Top Three Health Risks to Families as Reported by Health Coordinators ................... 261

Exhibit 4-33 Requirements for Health Screenings and Measurements as Reported by Health

Coordinators ............................................................................................................... 262

Exhibit 4-34 Use of Parent Volunteers in the Head Start Health Services Program as Reported by

Health Coordinators .................................................................................................... 263

Exhibit 4-35 Frequency of Health-Related Parent Workshops as Reported by Health

Coordinators ............................................................................................................... 264

Exhibit 4-36 Significant Correlations Among Teacher-Reported and Parent-Reported Measures ... 268

Exhibit 4-37 Hierarchical Regression Model of Increase in Family-Child Activities from Fall to

Spring ......................................................................................................................... 270

Exhibit 4-38 Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Involvement in Head Start........................... 271

Exhibit 4-39 Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Satisfaction in Head Start............................ 272

Exhibit 4-40 Staff Comments on Possible Head Start Program Improvements ............................... 275

Section IV:

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Case Study

Exhibit 1-1 Key Research Themes and Questions of the FACES Case Study .............................. 278

Chapter 2: Case Study Methodology

Exhibit 2-1 Description of the FACES Case Study Sample ........................................................... 280

Exhibit 2-2 Topical Structure of the Head Start Family Narratives................................................. 287

Chapter 3: Results From Home Visit Interviews

Exhibit 3-1 Child-Focused Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start ...................................... 290

Exhibit 3-2 Hopes and Goals Related to the Children’s Education ................................................ 291

Exhibit 3-3 Other Hopes and Goals for the Children’s Future........................................................ 293

Exhibit 3-4 Parents’ Perceptions of their Families’ Strengths ........................................................ 294

Exhibit 3-5 Parents’ Perceptions of their Families’ Areas of Needed Improvement ....................... 296

Exhibit 3-6 Parents’ Perceptions of Current Family Problems ....................................................... 297

Exhibit 3-7 Parents’ Reasons for Participating in Head Start Activities.......................................... 299

Exhibit 3-8 Types of Head Start Activities Participated in by Families ........................................... 299

Exhibit 3-9 Parents’ Reports of Barriers or Facilitators to Head Start Participation........................ 300

Exhibit 3-10 Parents’ Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Head Start............................................ 301

Exhibit 3-11 Parenting Beliefs as Reported by the Parents............................................................. 303
Exhibit 3-12 The Role Head Start Played in Helping the Parents.................................................... 304

Exhibit 3-13 What Would Help Head Start Parents ......................................................................... 305

Exhibit 3-14 Parents’ Perceptions of Their Neighborhood as a Place to Raise Children ................. 307

Exhibit 3-15 What Parents’ Like about their Neighborhoods and What They Would Change .......... 308

Exhibit 3-16 Percentage of Resources Present in all of the Neighborhoods as Reported by the

Parents ....................................................................................................................... 309

Exhibit 3-17 Percentage of Social and Physical Quality Indicators Present in all of the

Neighborhoods, as Reported by the Parents............................................................... 310

Chapter 4: Monthly Telephone Interviews

Exhibit 4-1 Changes in the Household Composition of Head Start Families.................................. 314

Exhibit 4-2 Changes in the Employment Status ............................................................................ 315

Exhibit 4-3 Changes in Household Income ................................................................................... 316

Exhibit 4-4 Family Health.............................................................................................................. 317

Exhibit 4-5 Child Care Arrangements............................................................................................ 318

Exhibit 4-6 Involvement in Head Start Activities............................................................................ 319

Exhibit 4-7 Intimate Social Support Networks of the Parents ........................................................ 321

Exhibit 4-8 Informational Social Support Networks of the Parents................................................. 323

Exhibit 4-9 Instrumental Social Support Networks of the Parents.................................................. 325

Exhibit 4-10 Psychological Well-Being of the Parents..................................................................... 326

Exhibit 4-11 Family Resources ....................................................................................................... 328

Exhibit 4-12 The Readiness of the Head Start Children to Enter Kindergarten................................ 329

Section V: Community Agency Substudy

Chapter 2: Methodology

Exhibit 2-1 Description of Community Agencies............................................................................ 390

Chapter 3: Findings and Summary

Exhibit 3-2 Types of Informal Collaborations between Community Agencies and Local Head

Start Programs, as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff.................................................... 394

Exhibit 3-3 Types of Formal Collaboration between Community Agencies and Local Head

Start Programs, as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff.................................................... 395

Exhibit 3-4 Communication between Community Agencies and their Local Head Start Programs,

as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff ............................................................................. 395

Exhibit 3-5 Frequency and Type of Collaboration With Community Agencies, as Reported by

Head Start Family Service Workers ............................................................................ 396

Exhibit 3-6 Barriers to Collaboration, as Reported by the Head Start Family Service Workers...... 397
Exhibit 3-7 Methods of Client Referrals to the Local Head Start Programs, as Reported by the

Community Agencies’ Staff ......................................................................................... 398

Exhibit 3-8 Suggested Area for Improved Collaboration with Head Start, as Reported by

Community Agencies’ Staff ......................................................................................... 399

Exhibit 3-9 Most Frequent Strategies Used for Recruiting Low-Income Families, as Reported by

Community Agencies’ Staff ......................................................................................... 400
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

“[I am] very satisfied they are meeting his needs and goals. I am 

pleased with the way it’s handled him and that he is well cared

for. He gets to see his friends. He loves to go to school and that 

is important to me. Because I trust them, I can have a job.”

--- Head Start Parent

Since the inception of the program in 1965, families have played an essential role in the Head 

Start philosophy. The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is an effort by the 

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), in the Administration for Children and

Families (ACF) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), to develop a descriptive 

profile of families participating in the Head Start program and services that are provided to families, as 

well as to develop, test, and refine Program Performance Measures for Head Start. The findings in this 

technical report are focused on providing descriptions of the characteristics and experiences, including 

Head Start experiences, of children and families served by Head Start grantees as well as information

about programs and staff. Findings related to the child assessments and classroom observations will be 

included in the FACES Technical Report II.

Head Start FACES was designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the Head Start program

from a variety of perspectives. The project assessed Head Start’s role in enhancing child development

and school readiness, in strengthening families, and in providing quality family services in the areas of 

education, health, and nutrition. A conceptual model was proposed to guide and inform the project 

design, theorizing that Head Start programs serve a population of families with diverse characteristics, 

strengths, and needs.

The starting point of the model is the Family Context, which includes all aspects of a child’s

developmental context, including ethnicity, parent education, parent employment, housing, family health 

status, and exposure to crime and violence. The second component of the model, Head Start Experiences,

is defined by program activities that are designed to promote immediate, short-term, and long-term goals 

in children and families. For children, these experiences include preschool education, health, and

nutrition services. For parents, the activities involve opportunities for participation in policy and program

decisions, as well as involvement with children in the classroom and in the home, parent education, the 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 1

FACES Technical Report I 
promotion of family self-sufficiency, and facilitating access to needed community services.

 The Immediate Goals are the objectives assessed by the Head Start Program Performance

Measures. While these objectives primarily include promoting children’s school readiness, they also 

include several goals related to parents and families, such as helping families move towards economic and 

social self-sufficiency. Immediate goals lead logically to the subsequent achievement of Short-Term

Goals, such as the successful transition of children into kindergarten and the further achievement of 

family self-sufficiency through productive employment and involvement with the community. The scope 

of the current study precludes the assessment of Long-Term Goals, which encompass the continued

educational and developmental success of the children, parents' positive involvement in their children's

activities, and long-term self-sufficiency for families.

Study Design

The 40 programs participating in FACES were randomly selected from a universe of 1,734

Head Start programs that operated during the 1995-96 program year in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the 

Territories of the United States. This universe did not contain those programs that were designated as 

American Indian or Migrant programs. The available Head Start programs served approximately 785,000

ethnically diverse children aged 3 and older. The universe of programs was stratified on the basis of three 

variables: Census Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), urbanicity (whether the zip code 

associated with the program address was located inside an urbanized area versus located outside an 

urbanized area), and the percentage of minority children in a program (greater than or equal to 50%

minority enrollment versus less than 50% minority enrollment).

The design of FACES included six rounds of data collection. During spring 1997, a field test of 

the data collection procedures and instruments was conducted with a nationally representative, random

sample of 2,400 families from approximately 160 centers in 40 Head Start programs. The first full-scale

data collection took place in the fall of 1997 at the same 40 programs. A total of 3,600 families were

selected for participation, including about 30% of the families who participated in the field test. The 

remaining families were randomly selected from among those with children entering Head Start for the 

first time in fall 1997.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 2

FACES Technical Report I 
In fall 1997, and subsequently in spring 1998 and spring 1999, data collection teams conducted 

visits to each program. During these visits, the research team completed individual interviews with staff 

and parents, child and classroom observations, direct child assessments, and indirect assessments of 

children by teachers and parents. Although the Head Start-based data collection was completed in spring 

1999, the kindergarten and first-grade follow-up data collections were continued during spring 2000 and

spring 2001.

In order to supplement the findings from the main FACES study, a subgroup of 120 families was 

identified for participation in the FACES case study. The case study data collection required home visits 

to participating families at each major data collection point plus a series of monthly contacts between data 

collection periods. All families in the case study were followed through December 1998. 

A related substudy of community agencies used a subset of 10 of the 40 FACES programs for a

systematic investigation to learn more about partnerships between Head Start and other community

service providers. The ten programs, stratified on geography, rural and urban status, and minority

membership, provided lists of the community service providers with which they had relationships or to

whom they referred families. From each program’s list of community agencies, 20 agencies (per 

program) were selected for telephone interviews, for a total of 200 telephone interviews with community

providers overall.

Instruments

 Parent Interviews

The parent interview was designed to collect the up-to-date information about current Head Start

families, while being sensitive to differences based on the background of the respondents. The interview 

provided descriptive information about the parents (education, work status, health, nativity, depression, 

social support, use of discipline and rules, exposure to violence), the household (income, housing, 

activities with children, use of child care), and the children (gender, ethnicity, health, behavior, literacy

skills, disabilities, exposure to violence). In addition, parents reported how their families came to Head 

Start, and how they perceived their Head Start experiences.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 3

FACES Technical Report I 
 Staff Interviews

The research team developed interview instruments for a variety of Head Start staff, including 

Center Directors, Component Coordinators, Classroom Teachers, Family Service Workers and Home

Visitors. The staff interviews were designed to provide a profile of the background, qualifications, and 

training of Head Start personnel as well as an understanding of classroom activities, family activities, 

services local programs offered to families, and staff perspectives on their programs and the families they

served.

Case Study Instruments

In some respects, the FACES case study was a test of the usefulness and feasibility of using a 

smaller, more qualitative approach to better understand Head Start families in the context of a larger

study. The case study methodology involved using a mixed methods approach, including both qualitative 

and quantitative descriptive information, longitudinally and cross-sectionally, from multiple sources to 

address the research questions of interest and support the findings from the larger FACES study. The 

instruments used in the case study focused on four areas: the Head Start children, the Head Start families,

the families’ interactions with Head Start, and the families’ homes, neighborhoods, and communities.

The home visit parent interviews were semi-structured and contained open-ended questions regarding

parents’ perceptions of themselves and their families, their experiences with Head Start, and their 

neighborhoods. The home and neighborhood observations used checklists completed by the interviewers

and by the families during home visits. Finally, the monthly telephone interviews collected updates on 

changes in families’ household composition, child care arrangements, employment status, health status, 

and Head Start participation. 

Community Agency Staff Interviews

A semi-structured telephone interview was developed to learn about community agencies that 

served the same areas as local Head Start programs and the nature of the collaboration between these 

agencies and Head Start. Interviews were completed with the administrators most responsible for 

supervising the direct delivery of services. Interviews were used to gather descriptions of the agencies, 

including auspice, goals or mission, services provided, the types of collaboration the agencies had with 

Head Start, referral patterns between Head Start and the agencies, the perceived relationships of the 

agencies with Head Start, and the types of outreach strategies the agencies used to target low-income 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 4

FACES Technical Report I 
families.

Study Findings

A summary of key findings across the multiple data sources is followed by a discussion

integrating findings from across the various sections.

Children and Families 

Demographics and Background. The parent interview offered the opportunity to learn about

the children and families who were involved with the program. The sample of FACES children was 

evenly balanced between boys and girls, and was primarily comprised of three ethnic groups: African 

Americans, Whites, and Hispanics. Almost three quarters of the parents reported that their children’s

health status was either excellent or very good, and most of the children were classified as normal

birthweight. Almost one fifth of the parents reported that their children had a disability, with the most

commonly reported disability being speech or language impairment.

The data show that there is not a typical Head Start family or household. A majority of the 

parents were in their twenties and almost one third were in their thirties at the time of the fall 1997 parent

interview. Less than one half of all the parents were married. Less than one fifth of all parents were born 

in a country other than the United States, and only 2% reported that they had resided in the United States 

for less than 5 years. English was the primary language in about two thirds of the homes. Mothers and 

fathers were both present in less than one half of the households, and slightly less than three fourths of the 

households had at least two adults age 18 or older. Between fall 1997 and spring 1998, just under one 

half of all parents indicated that someone moved in or out of their households.

Almost three quarters of all parents had at least a high school diploma or GED, and 

approximately one fourth of all parents reported in the fall of 1997 that they were working toward a 

degree, certificate, or license. Slightly more than one half of all parents were employed in the fall of 

1997, and the mean monthly household income was $1,256. Approximately one third of the parents

participated in welfare reform programs, requiring them to get a job, attend job training, or attend school 

to be eligible to receive public assistance. About one half of the parents reported that they used child care 

services prior to enrolling their children in Head Start. Following enrollment, slightly less than one third 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 5

FACES Technical Report I 
had children in child care before or after the Head Start day, typically in a relative’s home.

Social Support and Psychological Well-Being. Virtually all parents reported that Head Start 

was an important source of support to them in raising their young children. Overall, Head Start was 

considered slightly more helpful than relatives, and much more helpful than other parents, friends, people 

from religious/social groups, child care staff, professional help givers, or co-workers. For many families,

social support is important, especially in a population where close to one third of the parents were 

classified as moderately or severely depressed. Parents who were more depressed had a greater need for 

and reported use of social services, had a more external locus of control, had less social support, had a 

lower household income, and engaged in fewer home safety practices. Depressed mothers participated in 

fewer activities with their children, while depressed parents reported more problem behaviors for their 

children.

Exposure to Violence and the Criminal Justice System. Exposure to violence and the 

criminal justice system was a reality for many Head Start families. More than a quarter of all parents 

reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods, while close to one third reported seeing a violent

crime near their homes. About one fourth of the parents knew someone who was a victim of a violent 

crime in their neighborhood. As for the Head Start children, about one fifth had witnessed crime or 

domestic violence in their lives, and 3% had actually been victims of domestic violence or crime. The 

findings suggest, however, that being involved in and having a positive experience at Head Start may

serve as protective factors against the effects of exposure to neighborhood violence.

Almost one fourth of the parents reported that they, another household member, or a nonhousehold biological parent had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of their Head Start 

children and almost one fifth indicated that these individuals had spent time in jail. Children from

families who had involvement with the criminal justice system were almost five times more likely to have 

been exposed to violent crime or domestic violence and four times more likely to have been victims of 

violent crime or domestic violence.

Activities with Children. Families were generally active with their children, and more family

activities with their children were related to more reports of positive child behaviors and emergent 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 6

FACES Technical Report I 
literacy as well as fewer reports of child problem behaviors. Families’ use of rules in the home and 

reported social support for child rearing were both positively correlated with how active families were 

with their children. From fall 1997 to spring 1998, almost one half of the families increased the number

of activities they did with children.

Fathers were reported to live in 44.2% of the households. Sixty percent of the children without a 

father in their household had someone who served as a father figure for them, most often non-household

relatives, or the mothers’ spouses or partners who lived in the household. About one tenth of these

children rarely or never saw their non-household father and had no father figure, a group that represented

more than 5% of the entire sample of children. As expected, activity with children was greatest for inhome fathers, but the levels of activity with their children varied greatly among non-household fathers. In 

what might be viewed as compensatory behaviors, mothers’ activities with their children increased when 

fathers were not in the household, as did non-household family members’ activities with the children.

Families that received TANF were about four times more likely to have the father living out of 

the household than families not receiving TANF. Not only did families with non-household fathers have 

a greater need for and use of community services, but as the levels of child-rearing support fathers offered 

increased, both the number of services the families needed and the number of services they received 

decreased. Children who had witnessed violent crime or domestic violence were almost three times more

likely not to have fathers in the homes. Children who were reported to have been victims of violent crime 

or abuse were almost four times more likely than children who were non-victims not to have fathers in the 

homes.

Changes in Households. Changes in household structures were noted in 40% of the households

during the first year of the study. New household members were reported in almost one third of the 

homes, while one quarter of the households had someone leave. Changes involving key adult males

(fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers, grandfathers, male spouses or partners) affected almost two fifths of 

the households, while only 7.0% of the households experienced a similar change involving key adult 

females. For families having key males enter their households, there were significant increases in 

activities with children and in the monthly household incomes. When key males left the household, the 

noted changes were increases in children’s aggressive behavior and decreases in monthly household 

income. As key females entered the household, increases were reported in aggressive behavior. In homes

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 7

FACES Technical Report I 
where key females left during the year, increases in activities with the children were evident. 

Families and Head Start

Active participation is a goal that Head Start has for every family. On average, parents reported

that their children attended Head Start for slightly more than 5 hours per day and about 5 days per week.

Most parents were very active in the program, with the most frequently reported activities being home

visits with Head Start staff members, parent-teacher conferences, and observing in their children’s

classrooms for at least 30 minutes. Parents who were more involved at Head Start also participated in 

more activities with their children at home and reported fewer problem behaviors for their children. Work 

and school commitments, the need for child care or transportation, health problems, or lack of support 

from a spouse or partner were the primary barriers to parent participation.

From the fall of 1997 to the spring of 1998, parents with high or moderate involvement at Head 

Start had higher levels of social support, a more internal locus of control, higher monthly household

incomes, and an increase in the use of household rules. They also increased the amount of activity they

engaged in with their children. High involvement was also associated with decreased parent depression.

From fall to spring, parents with low involvement also showed many similar gains, but they had no 

increases in the amount of activity with their children. 

Expectations and Experiences with Head Start. Most parents anticipated that Head Start 

would help prepare their children for school and almost two fifths expected that the program would 

provide social interactions with other children. Far fewer parents expected benefits for their families.

About one fifth of the parents did not know that Head Start could help their families. However, by the 

end of the school year, many parents reported that Head Start had helped their children and their families

in ways they had not expected. Almost every parent had very positive feelings toward their children’s 

and their own experiences at Head Start. Parents reported that their children often or always felt safe and 

secure at Head Start, were happy to be in the program, felt accepted by their teachers, and were treated

with respect. Over 80% of parents felt that Head Start maintained a safe program, respected their 

families’ cultures, helped their children to grow and develop, provided their children services, and 

prepared them for kindergarten. Overall, satisfaction with the program was extremely high, and parents 

who were more satisfied were also more involved with the program.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 8

FACES Technical Report I 
Special Populations 

As part of the description of Head Start families, several subgroups or special populations were 

investigated. These include families that had children with disabilities, Hispanic families, and families

that had a grandparent serving as the primary caregiver.

Head Start Children with Disabilities. Head Start directs local programs to make available up 

to 10% of their enrollment for children with disabilities. Among the FACES population, 14% of the 

children were professionally diagnosed as having a disability. Among the children with disabilities, the 

ethnic groups with the largest representation were African American children and White children.

Almost two thirds of the children with disabilities were boys, and more than two fifths of the children 

with disabilities were 3 years old.

The percentage of children with disabilities having parents less than 20 years of age was about

twice that for parents of children without disabilities. The distribution of parents across education and 

training categories was similar for parents of children with disabilities and parents of children without

disabilities. A smaller proportion of families having children with disabilities also had monthly

household incomes of under $500 than was noted among families without children with disabilities. In 

contrast, the families of children with disabilities were more likely than families of children without

disabilities to have monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more. WIC was used by more than one half 

of families, regardless of whether or not the children had disabilities, but the receipt of TANF was slightly

higher for families of children with disabilities. As expected, the receipt of SSI or SSDI was much more

likely among families of children with disabilities, while a higher proportion of children with disabilities

was covered by private insurance and Medicaid than were children without disabilities.

Most parents of children with disabilities reported that Head Start was helpful or very helpful as a 

source of support. Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more depressed, had a more

external locus of control, and had a greater need for services and received more services then parents of 

children without disabilities. While most parents of children with disabilities were classified as not 

depressed or only mildly depressed, the remaining one third of these parents were classified as moderately

depressed or severely depressed. Less than 5% of the parents of children with disabilities reported being 

victims of violence in their homes, slightly higher than parents of children without disabilities. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 9

FACES Technical Report I 
No significant differences in reported activities with children were noted between families with or 

without children with disabilities. Parents of children with disabilities indicated their children had less 

positive social behavior, and more problem behavior, including behavior that was more aggressive, 

hyperactive, and withdrawn. Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more involved at 

Head Start than parents of children without disabilities. While parents of children with disabilities were 

significantly less satisfied than parents of children without disabilities, their satisfaction with the program

was still high.

Hispanic Head Start Families. Data presented on Hispanic families and children suggest that

this group may become the largest ethnic or racial group enrolled in Head Start over the next decade.

Perhaps more importantly, the data demonstrate that Hispanics, as a group, are heterogeneous, diverse, 

and dynamic. Significant variations among the three Hispanic groups identified based on ethnic- and 

language-minority status (families living in Puerto Rico, Spanish-speaking mainland families, and

English-speaking mainland families) highlight the importance of understanding the differences among 

Hispanic families. Understanding this diversity among Hispanic families is perhaps more salient in 

addressing policy and research questions for programs like Head Start than seeking to understand the 

“typical” Hispanic family.

The findings among different Hispanic groups present a complex picture. For instance, one might

assume that Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico, who are both the majority ethnic group in their culture and 

speak the dominant language, may have certain advantages over other Hispanic groups given their ethnicand language-majority status. And while data did support that Hispanic families living in Puerto Rico had 

some advantages over other Hispanic groups in terms of educational attainment and social support for

raising their children, they also faced critical challenges: More parents in Puerto Rico were unemployed

and living in households that were below the Federal Poverty Level. Likewise, Spanish-speaking 

mainland Hispanic families that have both ethnic- and language-minority status in the U.S. might be 

assumed to have certain disadvantages compared to other Hispanic families. However, while Spanishspeaking mainland Hispanic families in the study did have more challenges compared to other Hispanic 

groups in terms of educational attainment, health insurance coverage for their children, and low levels of 

social support for raising their children, they also reported higher income levels compared to non-

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 10

FACES Technical Report I 
Hispanic families and had more dual-parent households than other Hispanic groups.

Lastly, one might assume that English-speaking mainland Hispanics, who are ethnic minorities in 

the overall culture of the U.S., may gain some protective benefits from being able to communicate in the 

majority language. The findings regarding English-speaking mainland Hispanic families indicate that 

there were some protective benefits of proficiency in the dominant language in terms of educational 

attainment, lower levels of unemployment and fewer families living below the Federal Poverty Level.

However, there were risks for this group, such as more single-parent households and more multiple

family risks associated with negative outcomes for children, which may result from acculturation into the 

mainstream culture. This complex picture, along with the increasing number of Hispanic families

enrolled in Head Start, points to an increased need for further research to understand the variation among

Hispanic families and identify the critical elements of Hispanic families’ lives to better inform policy and 

program decisions.

Grandparents as Primary Caregivers. Another important but understudied special population 

noted in the study was families in which grandparents served as primary caregivers for the children.

Almost 5% of the children had grandparents who were identified as their primary caregivers. About one

half of these children were African American while less than 10% were Hispanic. About one half of the 

families with grandparents serving as primary caregivers lived in the South.

As expected, grandparents as caregivers were older than caregivers in the main sample of 

families. The mean age of primary caregivers in the main sample was 30 years, while the mean age for 

grandparents who served as primary caregivers was 52 years. Fewer grandparents who were caregivers 

were single, and more reported they were divorced or widowed. In general, grandparents who served as 

caregivers had less education than other primary caregivers. Almost two fifths of the grandparents who 

were caregivers did not complete high school. Employment, either full-time or part-time, was greater 

among other caregivers, as approximately three fifths of the grandparents were not employed compared

with about one half of the other caregivers in the overall sample.

Overall, the households in which grandparents served as primary caregivers had higher incomes

than the overall sample of Head Start households. Grandparents as primary caregivers were less likely

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 11

FACES Technical Report I 
than the overall sample of families to use WIC but were more likely to use TANF as well as SSI or SSDI.

The proportions of children covered by private health insurance or by Medicaid were virtually identical

across both groups of families.

Grandparents reported receiving significantly less overall support in raising their grandchildren

than parents who were caregivers. Interestingly, a larger proportion of grandparents compared to parents 

reported religious or social group members as a source of support in raising their children. Grandparents 

involved their grandchildren in a wide range of activities, including reading. In fact, there was no 

significant reduction in reported levels of activities with children among families with grandparents as 

primary caregivers. Compared to parents as primary caregivers, grandparents as caregivers indicated

their grandchildren had more problem behaviors. 

Almost three quarters of the grandparents reported participating in some activity at Head Start.

Grandparents as caregivers were less likely than parents to volunteer and observe in the classrooms or 

help with field trips, yet they were more likely to serve on Policy Council. Compared to other caregivers, 

grandparents were less likely to report the typical barriers to program participation, but like other

caregivers, grandparents reported high satisfaction with their Head Start programs.

Three Generational Families. Finally, not all grandparents who lived in the households were 

identified as caregivers. While close to 5% of the Head Start children lived in families headed by their 

grandparents, almost three times as many households were extended families that included a 

grandmother, a grandfather, or both grandparents. Two fifths were families of African American 

children, one quarter were families of Hispanic children, and one fifth were families of White children.

For almost two thirds of these three-generational families, the adult family structure consisted of a mother

and a grandmother.

Head Start Staff

Head Start implements its family services through the work of its staff. Staff include program

administrators responsible for service areas, such as health, education, parent involvement, and social 

services, Center Directors, Classroom Teachers, Home Visitors, and Family Service Workers. These staff 

displayed great loyalty to the program and to their work in early childhood education. Area Coordinators, 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 12

FACES Technical Report I 
Center Directors and Teacher Administrators1

 had an average of over 15 years experience in early

childhood education, while Classroom Teachers and Family Service Workers had been employed in the

field for over 10 years. About half of the Center Directors and Teachers either had children in Head Start 

at the time of the interview, or had been Head Start parents in the past.

Over one half of Head Start Classroom Teachers reported holding an Associate’s degree or 

higher. While more than one half also held a Child Development Associate certificate, about 40% held a 

teaching certificate at the preschool, elementary, or secondary school level. Annual salaries for Head 

Start Center Directors averaged less than $30,000 annually, while the average salaries for Classroom

Teachers were less than $25,000. Reported staff satisfaction, both with their employment in the field of 

early childhood and with their Head Start positions, was very high. Across all positions, staff

overwhelmingly indicated that the importance and enjoyment of working with young children was the 

primary reason for continuing to work at Head Start.

Staff reported that their most important goals for families were to teach them about child 

development and parenting and to inform them about their own child’s development. They also indicated 

that the main benefits of Head Start for children were enhancement of social skills with peers and adults 

and improving children’s school readiness, which were mentioned by just over one half of the staff.

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers reported over 90 different 

curricula that were employed in the classrooms, with High Scope and the Creative Curriculum mentioned

most often. Reading stories, naming colors, teaching number concepts or counting, as well block 

building, free play, and outdoor physical activities were reported to be offered daily or almost daily in 

over 90% of the centers and classrooms. Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that they

taught letters of the alphabet and provided computer time in their classrooms less frequently than other 

academic activities.

No significant relationships were observed between staff experience, education, or training and

parent-reported satisfaction with the program. However, parents did report greater satisfaction with the 

program when their children’s teachers reported more opportunities for contact with parents in the 

classroom and more opportunities for parents to come into contact with other Head Start staff. Parents 

1

 In some cases, a classroom teacher also served some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a

Center Director was not available. Within this report, such teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 13

FACES Technical Report I 
reported more involvement with program activities where Head Start teachers reported more years of 

education and a greater number of in-service training hours.

The FACES Case Study

The case study was a unique opportunity to address research questions that would supplement the 

larger study. These findings from the case study have made a distinct contribution to the FACES study in

a number of areas. For example, findings from the home visit interviews revealed that most Head Start 

families saw positive relationships, most often characterized as the closeness or togetherness of their 

family or knowing that they could rely on one another and would take care of each other, as the primary

strength of their families. The emergent themes identified from the family narratives also highlighted the 

strengths or resilience of the families, which were illustrated within the scope of the challenges they face.

Of particular note is the sense that families held on to critical values or beliefs in the face of adversity,

such as the importance of education for their children or being able to take care of their children.

Most families believed it was important for them to teach their children values or morals,

including teaching or showing their children that education was important and teaching them how to 

behave, as well as guiding them and helping them to set goals in their lives. Parents also felt that they

were successful or somewhat successful at teaching these things to their children and were very satisfied 

with their role as parents. Home visit interviews and family narratives reveal that despite facing various 

barriers to participation, the majority of Head Start families had a strong desire to be involved in their 

children’s Head Start education and valued their involvement in the program.

The findings from the FACES case study also supported and expanded upon many of the findings 

from the larger study. Findings from the case study home visit interviews and family narratives found, 

like the main study, that Head Start families generally held optimistic expectations for their children’s 

early schooling experiences. Most parents’ hopes and goals for their children were focused on general 

education goals, such as learning basic skills and doing well in school. They also had optimistic

expectations about their children’s future educational attainment, with specific long-term educational

goals for their children, such as graduating from high school and attending college.

Home visit interviews indicated that a majority of Head Start families were satisfied or very

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 14

FACES Technical Report I 
satisfied with Head Start and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children.

They felt that their children were learning, the program was preparing their children for kindergarten, and 

they were satisfied with the emphasis on the total child, including their physical, social or behavioral 

development. However, about one third of the primary caregivers also expressed some dissatisfaction 

with Head Start and felt the program was not completely meeting the needs and goals of their children.

Most of these parents wanted more of an emphasis on academics and felt their children were not being 

prepared for kindergarten. They also expressed some dissatisfaction with Head Start staff or service 

related issues such as the hours of operation or the enrollment policies of the program.

Findings from the monthly telephone interviews and family narratives indicated that Head Start 

families coped with multiple changes and balanced the needs of their families’ lives in many critical

areas. Specifically, many Head Start families experienced two or more changes in the areas of household 

composition, employment, income, health, and child care over the course of the case study.

Community Agency Providers 

The data from the community agency providers and Head Start Family Service Worker 

interviews have contributed to a more complete understanding of the types and frequency of collaboration 

between Head Start programs and the network of agencies within their communities. Most community

agencies reported that they had either a formal or informal relationship with Head Start. Formal

collaborations included contractual arrangements to provide dental or health care for Head Start children, 

Welfare-to-Work programs for the families, or parenting classes. The majority of collaboration was 

informal and included the referral of clients to Head Start or serving on the same community-wide

committees.

Even though agencies reported a relationship with Head Start, most interactions were informal

and did not involve regular communication. Most communication was done by phone and involved a 

discussion of mutual clients, mutual services, or client referrals. While most agencies reported receiving 

client referrals from Head Start, respondents indicated that they rarely or only sometimes referred clients 

to Head Start, and when referrals occurred, they typically involved providing their clients with written or 

verbal information about Head Start, such as the local program’s phone number or address.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 15

FACES Technical Report I 
Most agencies felt that their relationship with Head Start was very important and that the quality

of that relationship was positive. Yet when asked about any problems they had encountered during 

interactions with Head Start, many reported problems or had suggestions for improving collaboration.

Agencies suggested that Head Start be more willing to collaborate, increase hours of operation, provide 

transportation for clients, and offer a more challenging curriculum for children, as well as have a better 

trained and more organized staff. Most agencies used a combination of traditional and non-traditional

recruitment strategies including referrals from other agencies or word-of-mouth, not unlike outreach 

strategies utilized by Head Start staff. Very few agencies mentioned outreach to Head Start as a way of 

identifying eligible clients.

Conclusions and Implications 

This study explored many issues faced by Head Start children and families, by Head Start 

programs and staff, and by the community service providers that assist these families. Across this variety

of data sources, the findings have lead to the following conclusions.

Head Start Families are Diverse 

The FACES data clearly suggest that there is no “typical” Head Start family. This diversity is 

evident in the race, ethnicity, and cultures of children. Diversity was also seen in the structures of Head 

Start families. The range of well-represented family types included dual-parent families, single-parent

families, and blended families. Head Start parents represented a range of educational levels and work 

status. Although one quarter of parents did not complete high school, many Head Start parents actually

progressed beyond high school. And while a significant number of households had no employed

members, more than one half of all parents were employed.

Head Start Families are Like Other Families 

While there was great diversity in the types of Head Start families, parents from these lowincome families also had much in common with each other, as well as with parents who were more

advantaged. They shared similar values with regards to the hopes and goals they expressed for their 

families and their children. These parents held optimistic expectations for their children’s early schooling

experiences as well as optimism about their children’s future educational attainment. They believed it 

was important to teach their children values or morals and that education was important – they wanted the 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 16

FACES Technical Report I 
best for their children. In addition, they expressed the conviction that positive relationships within their 

families were a primary strength of their families.

Head Start Families Face Multiple Challenges and Possess Strengths to Address 

These Challenges 

Personal challenges, as well as challenges associated with poverty, typically burdened families

who enrolled in the program. Numerous families faced multiple challenges that reached across several

areas of their lives, including employment status, income and economic supports, household structure, 

and education. Often neglected is the notion that even at-risk families have strengths to draw on as they

face these challenges -- this is how many families demonstrated resilience in the face of their harsh, daily

realities. For example, having fathers in the home was generally considered a strength for families. Even 

where this was not possible, there were important benefits for families just by having fathers who were 

active in the raising of their children. The fact that two thirds of the parents had no more than a high 

school education limited the types of employment opportunities available to them. However, it was 

encouraging to find, that in the face of the challenge of limited education, about one quarter of the parents 

reported that they were working toward a degree, certificate, or license. Whether in their homes or in 

their neighborhoods, the reality of violence challenged Head Start families’ lives – almost one third 

reported seeing violent crimes near their homes and nearly one fourth of the families faced challenges 

associated with having a family member involved with the criminal justice system. In spite of this bleak 

picture of environmental and personal challenges to Head Start families, many held a positive outlook

regarding living environments and felt their neighborhoods were good places to raise children and had 

positive characteristics.

In light of the number of Head Start parents suffering from some level of depression, the 

availability of social supports for raising children takes on heightened importance. Overall, Head Start 

served an important role in this area, as almost all of the parents reported that the local program staff was

helpful to them in raising their young children. Families recognized that there were strengths in the 

people around them, such as the Head Start staff, and made use of this support and expertise.

Head Start Families are Active with Their Children as Well as With Head Start

The Program Performance Standards direct local programs to build Family Partnerships as a 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 17

FACES Technical Report I 
means of assisting parents with the task of involving themselves in the lives of their children. In order to 

meet this goal, programs help parents become involved in all areas of child development as well as with 

local schools and communities.

Parent Involvement with Children is Important 

The FACES data support the notion that parents’ involvement in activities with their children has

a number of positive consequences for families. Family members’ increased activity with children was 

associated with positive child outcomes. Having a father in the home positively affected the entire

household. The use of discipline, including spanking, was more likely to occur when fathers were not 

present in the homes, and these families had the greatest need for and use of community services. Of 

critical importance for understanding the importance of fathers, children who were identified as witnesses

or victims of violent crime or domestic violence were much more likely not to live with their fathers.

Families Benefit from Program Involvement 

Most parents were active in the program, and, along with their strong desire to be involved in

their children’s education, seemed to value and know that there were benefits that came with program

involvement. Program involvement helped parents stay informed about what their children were learning 

and experiencing. Through routine volunteer activities, parents were brought to the centers where they

could be involved with their children as well as with other families and staff; they could also develop job 

skills, parenting skills, and social skills. However, despite parents’ best intentions, not all were able to 

participate at the level they would have liked. The case study provided many examples of families who 

highly valued participating in Head Start, even when faced with the type of barriers most often reported 

by both parents and staff, such as work and school commitments, the need for childcare or transportation, 

and health problems. Parents who were most involved became less depressed, felt a greater sense of 

control over their lives, reported increased social support, and increased use of household rules over the 

program year.

Parents felt that Head Start helped their children with academics and through social interactions 

with other children, as well as with adults. Although parents generally indicated that they came to Head 

Start to help prepare their children for school, by the end of the school year many parents reported that 

Head Start had helped their children and families in ways that were not expected. From the staff 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 18

FACES Technical Report I 
perspective, the main benefits of Head Start for children were improved interactions with other children 

and adults and school readiness. In terms of goals for families, staff suggested that the critical issues were 

to teach parents about child development and parenting and to inform parents about their own child’s

development.

Families Were Very Satisfied with Head Start 

A recent national survey reported that Head Start received the highest customer satisfaction rating 

of any government agency or private business (President’s Management Council, 1999). Similarly,

almost all of the FACES parents had very positive feelings toward their children’s and their own 

experiences at Head Start and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children.

Parents who were more satisfied were also more involved in program activities. In centers where 

staff reported greater use of parents as home visitors or workshop leaders or where parents prepared

newsletters and assisted in curriculum planning, the parents reported greater satisfaction and more 

positive experiences with Head Start. When asked about suggested program improvements, parents in the 

main sample had four key suggestions. These were to extend the program hours or have longer days, to

have a greater focus on academics and school readiness, to provide more transportation options, and to 

improve the facilities like the playgrounds or classrooms. Despite these concerns, almost one half of the 

parents indicated that Head Start did not need to change or they were already satisfied with the program.

Future Research Directions 

This descriptive study of Head Start families had two clear methodological strengths. The study

provided new findings on the developmental and ecological contexts in which Head Start children lived, 

and it was done using a mixed-method approach. While the emphasis on these two aspects has yielded

valuable data, there are potential benefits to continuing this blend of focus and approach. In terms of 

learning more about the developmental and ecological contexts of Head Start families, future studies 

should consider targeting the range of family types or important components of the Head Start population

that need additional study, including special populations such as American Indians and Alaska Natives, 

and Migrants. Targeting specific groups within the Head Start population may allow greater attention to

be given to assessing family and individual strengths. The case study made clear that while the research

often focused on challenges families faced, many of these families demonstrated great resilience in the 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 19

FACES Technical Report I 
face of these challenges. While research on challenges helps to highlight areas in which families need 

support, adding a specific focus on family strengths may help illuminate successful strategies for 

addressing these challenges.

Important developmental and ecological contexts that FACES began to investigate were 

community and neighborhood environments, and further work along these lines is encouraged. The 

ability to link Head Start families to secondary sources of data, such as census data at the neighborhood 

level, will be important for assuring that Head Start services are appropriate for specific communities, and 

should also facilitate both Head Start recruitment efforts and strategic planning so Head Start is always

prepared to meet the changing face of poverty. Methodologically, Head Start will continue to benefit

from the application of varied data collection approaches. The case study is an excellent example of how 

a qualitative approach can provide depth to better understand the findings of the more standard 

quantitative approach. The inclusion of secondary data sources, such as in proposed community and 

neighborhood level work, will further extend the usefulness of the study findings.

Perhaps most important is the need to continue collecting, analyzing, and reporting national data

on the children and families served by Head Start and on the programs that strive to meet their needs.

Regular, ongoing national data collections can serve as a form of surveillance system of the dynamic

population of families that comes to the Head Start door, of the professional development needs of the 

staff that serve them, and of the best program practices to ensure a brighter future for these families and 

the children they entrust to Head Start’s care. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: Executive Summary 20

FACES Technical Report I 
Introduction to the Study 

Families have played an essential role in the Head Start philosophy since the inception of the 

program. In July 1996, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), in the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS), initiated a national effort to develop a descriptive profile of families participating in the Head 

Start program. Shortly thereafter, ACYF combined this project with a second initiative to develop, test, 

and refine Program Performance Measures for Head Start. This combined effort is known as the Head 

Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).

The project was conducted under contracts with Abt Associates Inc. (with The CDM Group, Inc.

as their subcontractor) to collect descriptive information on Head Start staff and families (Contract 105-

96-1930) and Westat (with Xtria, formerly known as Ellsworth Associates, Inc., as their subcontractor) to 

establish a Performance Measures Center that would develop performance measures and collect

assessment information on Head Start classrooms and children (Contract 105-96-1912). Data were 

collected from a nationally representative sample of Head Start children and their parents in fall 1997 and 

during the spring of each year through 2001. Across all waves of data collection, the FACES sample

included more than 3200 children and their parents enrolled in 40 Head Start programs.1

 Participating 

Head Start staff, including Program Directors, Component Coordinators, Center Directors, and Family

Service Workers from over 160 centers, were interviewed one time each, while Classroom Teachers were 

interviewed once and completed a self-administered questionnaire each year they had study children in 

their classrooms. As part of the ongoing process of monitoring Head Start, a second cohort of programs

and families was selected under the Performance Measures Center contract and the data collection known

as FACES 2000 was initiated in fall 2000. This report provides information on the original cohort of 

Head Start families at the time of their Head Start experiences, as well as information about Head Start 

staff.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 1

1 A description of the sampling method for selection of Head Start programs and centers is provided in Section II.
Purposes of the Study

Head Start FACES, guided by the national program’s performance objectives, was designed to 

provide a comprehensive overview of the Head Start program from a variety of perspectives. The broad 

purposes of the study were to:

• Assess Head Start’s role in enhancing child development and school readiness;

• 

• 

• 

Assess Head Start’s role in strengthening families;

Assess Head Start’s role in providing quality services in the areas of education, health, 

nutrition, and social services; and

Determine how Head Start classroom quality is related to child outcomes.

This technical report is focused on Head Start families, and provides descriptions of the 

characteristics and experiences of children and families served by Head Start grantees, information about 

individual programs, and their staff, as well as information on the communities in which Head Start 

provides services. This includes information about several key areas: 

• The demographic characteristics of families and children enrolled in Head Start; 

• The family, home, and neighborhood environments of children enrolled in Head Start; 

• The home-based activities and experiences of families and their children while enrolled 

in Head Start;

• The activities and experiences of children while participating in Head Start; 

• The involvement of parents in Head Start activities and their satisfaction with the

program;

• The staffing patterns as well as the responsibilities, qualifications, and training of staff 

involved in management of Head Start activities for families and children; 

• Head Start programs’ approaches related to recruitment and enrollment of children; and 

• Barriers to the provision of needed services as perceived by families and program staff.

Head Start Growth and Challenges 

During the period from 1990 through 1999, the Head Start program budget grew from

approximately $1.5 billion to $5.5 billion annually. Over that time, Head Start Program Information

Reports (PIR) indicated that the number of enrolled children jumped from 540,930 to 826,016, a 53%

increase. Further, the proportion of children being served in full-day sessions, including classrooms that 

were open year-round, increased from 21% of actual enrollment served in full-day classrooms in 1993-

1994 to 26% during 1997-1998 (ACYF: 1990, 1991, 1992b, 1993, 1994, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 1998a,

1999). At the same time, the Head Start program has undertaken a major effort to improve program

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 2
quality through revised Program Performance Standards and by supporting local programs’ efforts to 

improve staff salaries and benefits while adding requirements for classroom staff to obtain or enter

employment with a college degree. 

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in Head Start demographics has been the increased enrollment of 

Hispanic families and children. In Head Start, as in the United States as a whole, recent population

growth among families of Hispanic heritage has been greater than for any other ethnic group. Between

1994 and 1999, Head Start enrollment increased by 85,523 and the percentage of Hispanic children 

enrolled increased from 22% to 28% of total enrollment (Exhibit 1-1). The number of Hispanic children 

increased by 68,945 over that 5-year period (or 81% of the total increase). These increases occurred

across the nation, making it necessary for Head Start programs to employ more bilingual staff and to 

provide outreach and services to families where the home language was often exclusively Spanish.

Exhibit 1-1

Head Start Enrollment Increases by Ethnicity: 

Data from the 1994-1999 Program Information Reports 

Ethnicity Total Increase 1994-99 Percentage Increase 1994-99

Black 17,103 6.2

White -3,122 -1.2

Hispanic 68,945 42.9

American Indian 947 3.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 1,910 8.1

All Children 85,523 11.5

Head Start Families

The characteristics of enrolled families, including their strengths and needs, have been important

concerns for Head Start since the program's inception. Among the original objectives for Head Start, as 

outlined in Recommendations for a Head Start Program in February 1965, was an intent to foster

constructive opportunities for society to work together with poor families in solving their problems

(Cooke, 1965). The Cooke Panel also envisioned a comprehensive program that would:

• Identify the needs of children and their families, identify programs to meet those needs, 

and help families get involved in and make appropriate use of those programs; 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 3
• Make known existing social service resources and encourage families to make use of 

them; and 

• Ensure that families continue to obtain help as needed. 

The Cooke Panel clearly recognized that low-income families were not a homogeneous group, 

having a range of strengths and needs. Since that time, both the characteristics and social environments

of low-income families have become increasingly diverse, placing new demands upon Head Start

programs. Thirty years after the Cooke Panel set forth its vision for Head Start, the Board on Children,

Youth and Families of the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academy of Sciences issued a report, Beyond the Blueprint: Directions for Head Start Research (Phillips 

& Cabrera, 1996), that echoed many of the same themes. Noting that the conditions of poverty have 

changed dramatically in the past three decades, the report suggested that ACYF consider research 

initiatives in a variety of areas. The initiatives recommended by the panel included: 

• Obtaining an accurate profile of the characteristics of families participating in the nation's

largest program serving preschool children;

• Describing the diversity of cultures and languages represented by families enrolled in 

Head Start, parents' educational and cultural backgrounds, and the mix of cultures and 

instruction in Head Start classrooms;

• Creating a profile of family employment status and child care needs, and the relationships

among Head Start program variations and parents' employment opportunities; 

• Documenting the prevalence and degree to which Head Start children, families, and staff 

are exposed to domestic and community violence, and the perceptions of parents and staff 

regarding Head Start's role in violence intervention; and

• Examining Head Start's impact on other community services and institutions, while 

highlighting systemic barriers to efforts to improve the well-being of families living in 

poverty.

With the advent of recent changes in distribution of public assistance and management of health 

care, the circumstances of low-income families are particularly important to track. Head Start is being 

called on to lead the response to the changing needs of families moving from welfare to work, including 

the increased need for child care, requests for support in improving job-related skills, and flexibility for

involving parents with demanding schedules. In addition, Head Start programs that rely on networks of 

community providers of health and social services may need to adjust the mechanisms of service delivery

or take on more direct service provision. The current climate of change presents challenges to Head Start 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 4
programs and families alike, and makes gaining a better understanding of program services and family

needs imperative at this time. 

Head Start Program Performance Measures 

Head Start FACES has allowed the Head Start Bureau to move toward its goal of implementing a 

system of program performance measures. These measures grew out of the requirements of the 1994 

Head Start Act and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62). The 

Head Start Act, as amended May, 1994, Sec. 641A(b)(1), required Head Start to "develop methods and 

procedures for measuring the quality and effectiveness of programs." The measures were to be designed 

to "identify strengths and weaknesses in the operations of Head Start programs nationally and by region, 

and to identify problem areas that may require additional training and technical assistance resources."

With regard to research, demonstrations, and evaluations, Section 649(d) (1) of the Act further mandated 

Head Start to permit ongoing assessment of the quality and effectiveness of programs and to contribute by

developing knowledge concerning factors associated with the quality and effectiveness of Head Start 

programs and by identifying ways in which the services provided may be improved. In particular, special 

consideration was to be given to longitudinal studies that "examine the developmental progress of 

children and their families during and following participation in a Head Start program." This information

also is needed to satisfy the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 

1993 (Public Law 103-62), which required all Federal agencies to: 

• Develop strategic plans; 

• Prepare annual performance plans that set out the agency's performance goals; and 

• Report annually on actual performance compared to goals. 

In response to GPRA and its 1994 reauthorization legislation, the Head Start Bureau completed a 

revision of the Head Start Program Performance Standards (published in 1996 and took effect in January,

1998) and continues to report regularly on the Program Performance Measures, which are based upon the 

empirical data from FACES and other sources. The legislative provision calling for the review was 

inspired by the recommendations contained in Creating a 21st Century Head Start, the December 1993

report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion (1993). In the opening paragraph 

of the research section of their report, the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion 

stated:

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 5
“Head Start has entered a historic period of reexamination, improvement in quality, and 

expansion of services. The size of the program, its comprehensive services, the diversity

of the population it serves, and the fact that it is Federally funded suggest a role for Head 

Start as a national laboratory for best practices in early childhood and family support 

services in low-income communities. Because Head Start needs to expand and renew 

itself in order to assume its role as a state-of-the-art 'technology,' there is a concomitant

and compelling need for a new, expanded, and formal role for Head Start research (page 

1, 1993).”

The Program Performance Measures were intended to be a set of criteria for assessing how well 

the Head Start program, as a whole, is fulfilling its primary mission of improving the social competence

or school readiness of young children from low-income families nationwide, as well as the related

objective of helping low-income families to attain their educational, economic, and child-rearing goals.

ACYF brought together a wide variety of expert advisers in 1995, and their report recommended specific 

performance measures in the areas of health, education, partnerships with families, and program

management that should be included in the Program Performance Measures system (ACYF, 1995a). The

recommended measures require not only the use of existing record keeping systems, such as the Head 

Start PIR, but also suggested the implementation of new data collection mechanisms for interviewing 

representative samples of Head Start parents, observing representative samples of Head Start classrooms

and home-based programs in operation, and assessing the development and behavior of representative 

samples of Head Start children. These data collection strategies are to be conducted on an ongoing, 

regular basis to allow Head Start to monitor changes in program performance over time. 

In 1996, the Head Start Bureau established the Performance Measures Center (PMC). The 

primary function of the PMC was to move the program performance measures to national scale by

drawing a national probability sample of Head Start programs, centers, children, and families, gathering 

data from these samples using valid, recognized instruments, analyzing the collected data, and reporting 

on the results. This work included developing a battery of measures that fit under five objectives that 

supported the development of social competence and school readiness. These five objectives are: 

• Enhance children's growth and development;

• 

• 

• 

• 

Strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children; 

Provide children with educational, health and nutritional services; 

Link children and families to needed community services; and 

Ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision-making.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 6
These objectives also reflect the key components of the Head Start program, in terms of child outcomes

and services for families. FACES was the initial attempt to implement Program Performance Measures on 

a national scale.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual model is a useful means of illustrating a research project's objectives in the 

appropriate context of a program's activities and information needs. The model developed to drive the 

Head Start Family Study (Exhibit 1-2) theorized that Head Start programs serve a population of families

with diverse characteristics, strengths, and needs. The Family Context box contains examples of areas of 

diversity, such as ethnicity, parent education, parent employment, housing, family health status, and 

exposure to crime, violence, and other health risks within the household and community.

 The Head Start Experiences box lists program activities designed to promote the immediate, 

short-term, and long-term goals Head Start has for its children and families. For children, this experience

includes not only preschool education, but also health and nutrition services. For parents, the activities 

involve opportunities for participation in policy and program decisions, as well as involvement with 

children in the classroom and in the home, parent education, the promotion of family self-sufficiency, and 

facilitating families in gaining access to needed community services.

The objectives listed in the Immediate Goals box are those assessed by the Program Performance

Measures. While these objectives primarily include contributing to the development of children who are 

ready to succeed in school, they also include several goals that are parent and family oriented, such as 

helping families move towards economic and social self-sufficiency. These immediate goals lead 

logically to the achievement of the objectives listed in the Short-Term Goals box -- that is, the successful

transition of children into kindergarten, as well as the further achievement of family self-sufficiency

through productive employment and involvement with the community.

Finally, the Head Start program is intended to produce progress towards Long-Term Goals (not 

shown in Exhibit 1-2 because they are beyond the scope of this study), including continued educational 

and developmental success of the child, parents' positive involvement in the child's activities, and longterm self-sufficiency of the family.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 7
Exhibit 1-2

The Conceptual Model for the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)

Family Context Head Start Experience Immediate Goals Short-Term Goals

• Home language

• Ethnicity

• Cultural traditions

• English-language

literacy

• Parent education

• Employment skills

• Employment

opportunities

• Housing conditions and 

availability

• Nutrition and diet

• Medical, dental, and 

mental health status

• Alcohol, tobacco, and 

substance use status

• Exposure to crime and 

violence

For Preschool Children:

• Preschool education

• Health screenings and 

examinations

• Nutritionally adequate

meals

For Parents:

• Participation in policy and 

program decisions

• Opportunities for classroom 

participation

• Active involvement with the 

education and development

of their children

• Opportunities for parent 

education

• Potential opportunities for 

career and training in early

childhood education field

• Promotion of adult literacy

• Promotion of family selfsufficiency

• Available case

management, assessment,

and crisis intervention

services

• Program sponsored

advocacy for necessary

family-focused social

services

• Parents and children

satisfied with Head Start 

• Parents ready for active 

involvement in child’s

education and 

development

• Families competent to 

identify needs and deal 

with the social service

system

• Families moving toward

self-sufficiency

• Children who are socially

competent and ready to 

succeed in school

• Successful transition of 

children to kindergarten

• Self-sufficient and

independent families

• Parents with ability to

care for and nurture 

child’s development

Overview of the Design of the Study

The design of FACES called for six rounds of data collection. During spring 1997, a field test of 

the data collection procedures was conducted with a nationally representative, random sample of 2,400 

families from approximately 160 centers in 40 Head Start programs. The selection of programs was 

stratified on geographic region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West), urbanicity (urban, rural), and 

proportion of minority families in the program (above or below 50%).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 8
The initial data collection for the full-scale study took place in the fall of 1997 at the same 40 

programs. A total of 3,600 families were selected for participation, with approximately 30% of the 

families returning from the field test. The remaining families in the study were randomly selected from

among those with children entering Head Start for the first time in fall 1997.

The fall 1997 (October-November) and spring 1998 (April-June) data collections included 

interviews with staff and parents, classroom observations, direct child assessments, and indirect 

assessments of children by teachers and parents. The third data collection period was spring 1999.

Families participating in the full-scale study that began in fall 1997 were tracked whether they entered 

kindergarten in fall 1998 or continued to attend Head Start or other preschools. Again, the data collection 

included staff and parent interviews, classroom observations for children remaining in Head Start, direct 

child assessments, and indirect child assessments by teachers and parents.

The end-of-kindergarten and first-grade follow-up data collections were completed during spring

2000 and spring 2001. Although children were no longer in Head Start, they continued to receive inperson assessments, while their parents were interviewed by telephone and their kindergarten or first 

grade teachers were asked to complete a brief mail-in questionnaire. The current report focuses on 

children in the full sample, from entry into the program in fall 1997 through one or two years of Head 

Start experience. For information on the pilot test see the Performance Measures Center Second Progress 

Report (ACYF, 1998b). Information on the kindergarten and first grade follow-ups is included in the 

FACES Technical Report II2

.

A subgroup of 120 families was identified from the spring and fall 1997 samples for participation 

in the FACES Case Study. An initial group of 40 families were selected from the field test sample in 

spring 1997. The remaining 80 families were selected from newly participating families in the fall 1997. 

All families were followed through spring 1998. The case study data collection required home visits to 

participating families at each major data collection point as well as a series of monthly contacts between 

data collection periods. The monthly contacts continued for all families through December 1998. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 9

2 FACES reports, presentations, and additional project information are located on the internet at

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/faces/faces_intro.html
A second substudy focusing on community agencies used a subset of 10 of the original 40 

FACES programs for a systematic investigation designed to further understand the partnerships between 

Head Start and other service providers in their community. The Head Start programs participating in this 

substudy were selected to represent the larger FACES sample, meaning they were stratified on geography, 

rural and urban status, and minority membership. Each of the 10 Head Start programs provided a list of 

the community service providers with which they had relationships or to whom they referred families.

From each program’s list of community agencies, 20 agencies (per program) were selected for telephone 

interviews, for a total of 200 telephone interviews with community providers overall.

The research questions addressed in this report are shown in Exhibit 1-3, and are taken from the

original research questions for The Descriptive Study of Head Start Families. These questions were 

addressed through multiple data sources and may be included in multiple sections of this report. Some

questions were addressed in a separate FACES substudy on recruitment and enrollment, and while the 

findings from that substudy are presented in a companion report, relevant findings from that report are 

discussed here.

Exhibit 1-3

The Relationship Between Study Research Questions, Information Types, and 

Data Sources

Data Sources

Research Questions / Topics

Section

II

Families

Section

III

Staff

Section

IV

Case

Study

Section V 

Community

Agencies

Recruitment

& Enrollment

Report

What are the demographic characteristics of Head Start 

families? X X

What is the family’s previous and current experience with

child care and family support services? X X

What are the expressed goals and hopes of Head Start 

families for both parents and children? X

What are parents’ assessments of child’s functioning and 

capabilities? X X

What are parents’ beliefs, behaviors and satisfaction

regarding their child rearing role? X

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 10
Data Sources

Research Questions / Topics

Section

II

Families

Section

III

Staff

Section

IV

Case

Section V 

Community

Agencies

Recruitment

& Enrollment

Report Study

What are sources of social support for Head Start 

families? X X

What are the needs and concerns expressed by Head

Start families? X X

What are parental expectations for Head Start 

participation and impact? X X

What are barriers to full parent participation in Head

Start? X X

What is the level of parental satisfaction with Head Start? X X

What are the procedures used by Head Start programs to 

recruit and enroll children and families? XX X X

What are the programs’ philosophies, strategies, and 

approaches for engaging and supporting parents? X X

What are Head Start parent involvement and social

services staffing patterns? X

What community resources have Head Start programs

utilized to meet the needs of children and their families? X X

What are barriers faced by programs in achieving full 

family participation in Head Start? X

What program areas are particularly effective in engaging

and supporting parents? X

What are the approaches to facilitation of children’s

transition to kindergarten? X X

Organization of the Report 

Results of parent, Head Start staff, and community agency staff interviews are presented in this 

technical report. Findings related to the child assessments and classroom observations (prepared by 

Westat and Xtria) will be included in the FACES Technical Report II. This report is organized into six

sections:

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 11
• Section I introduces the study and outlines the report; 

• Section II contains information about the families and children drawn from interviews 

with Head Start parents; 

• Section III contains information about the staff and program activities drawn from

interviews with Head Start staff; 

• Section IV contains the findings from the case study of 120 Head Start families selected 

from the larger sample;

• Section V contains the findings of the community agency substudy drawn from 

interviews with community agency administrators; and 

• Section VI contains a discussion of the study findings drawn across the entire array of 

data sources. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section I: Introduction to the Study 12
1.0 Introduction to the Parent Interview 

1.1 Overview

Since the initial conceptualizations of the program, families have always maintained a central 

position within the Head Start program philosophy. This is emphasized by the program’s formal focus on 

families, particularly parents, within the Head Start Program Performance Standards (ACYF, 1998).

Under the heading of Family Partnership (Section 1304.40), the Program Performance Standards detail a 

set of requirements that address the following: 

• Family goal setting;

• Accessing community services and resources;

• Services to pregnant women;

• Parent involvement in child development and education;

• Parent involvement in health, nutrition, and mental health education; 

• Parent involvement in community advocacy;

• Parent involvement in transition activities; and 

• Parent involvement in home visits. 

With low-income populations shifting in both makeup and geographical location, along with 

changes in the availability of work and services for these individuals and families, the profile of what was 

thought to be the typical Head Start family has changed over the past decade. With that in mind, the 

primary goal of this study was to make updated information available to Head Start regarding the families

it serves. The information needed to meet this goal was collected through the administration of a 

comprehensive interview to the parents of selected Head Start children.

Research Questions

The content development of the parent interview was guided by the following research questions 

that were generated by Head Start in an attempt to learn more about the families entering the program.

• What are the demographic characteristics of Head Start families?

• What are the families’ previous and current experiences with child care and family support 

services?

• What are parents’ and teachers’ assessments of the children's functioning and capabilities? 

• What are parents’ beliefs, behaviors and satisfaction regarding their child-rearing role? 

• What are sources of social support for Head Start families? 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Introduction 13 
• What are barriers to full parent participation in Head Start?

• What is the level of parental satisfaction with Head Start? 

Content of the Parent Interview

Based on the research questions, the parent interview instrument was developed using questions 

and scales from previous studies with similar populations, and with considerable input from ACYF staff 

and the investigators from the Head Start Quality Research Centers (1995-2000). The instrument

contained questions grouped around the following topics:

• Descriptive family and household information;

• The family and Head Start; 

• Family activities with the child; 

• Child disabilities;

• Child activities and behavior; 

• Household rules;

• Employment and income;

• Community services;

• Child care; 

• Family health and safety;

• Home and neighborhood characteristics; and

• Personal feelings. 

1.2 Organization

Section II contains a description of the elements of the parent interview and results of analyses of 

the information obtained from Head Start families. Chapter 2.0 covers the methodology of the FACES 

study. Chapter 3.0 presents descriptive findings on the sample of Head Start children, while Chapter 4.0 

has more detailed descriptive information on the Head Start families, including mothers and fathers, as 

well as the households in general. The functioning of Head Start families is covered in Chapter 5.0, while 

Chapter 6.0 explores how family members were involved with their Head Start children. Chapter 7.0 

presents a review of findings about the families’ involvement with the Head Start program and Chapter 

8.0 presents descriptive information on three subgroups: Families of children with disabilities, Hispanic 

families, and families with grandparents as primary caregivers. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Introduction 14 
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 15

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Overview

This chapter outlines the procedures that were followed for the selection of the FACES Head Start

programs and children, and for the collection of data from the parents of these children. The end of the

chapter provides a discussion of the strengths and limitations of this study component and a description of

the results of the data collection effort. Information on the concurrent assessments and observations of

children and classroom observations is available in the FACES Technical Report II.

2.2 The Sample Universe and Sampling Method

The primary sampling objective for the Head Start FACES was to provide a national probability

sample of Head Start children to be used for descriptive and analytic purposes. The desired number of

completed primary caregivers’ interviews and children’s assessments at the baseline data collection point in

the fall of 1997 was 3,200. For sampling purposes, these children were identified by their age at the

beginning of the program year.

The Sample Universe

Information about the available universe of Head Start programs was drawn from the 1995-96

Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) database. The PIR is a compilation of the descriptive

information each program is required to submit at the conclusion of each program year. The universe of

Head Start programs for this study was comprised of 1,734 programs (including both grantees that ran

centers directly and delegate agencies that managed centers for grantees) that operated during the 1995 -

1996 program year in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Territories of the United States. This universe

did not contain those programs that were designated as American Indian or Migrant programs or those

programs not serving 3- and 4-year-olds (Early Head Start). The 1,734 available Head Start programs

served approximately 785,000 children aged 3 and older. Of the total number of children enrolled in these

programs, 38% were African American, 34% were White, and 24% were Hispanic. The remaining

children were Asian/Pacific Islander (3%) and American Indian/Alaskan Native (1%). Approximately

30% of all children enrolled in the Head Start Program universe were 3-year-olds, 64% were 4-year-olds,

and 6% were older than 4 years of age.

The universe of programs was stratified on the basis of three variables: census region (Northeast,

Midwest, South, and West), urbanicity (whether the zip code associated with the program address was
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 16

located inside an urbanized area versus located outside an urbanized area), and the percentage of minority

children in a program (greater than or equal to 50% minority enrollment versus less than 50% minority

enrollment). The combination of these three stratification variables formed a 4 x 2 x 2 matrix with 16

cells. Exhibit 2-1 shows the total number of Head Start programs in each cell, the total number of studyeligible children enrolled, and the number of programs drawn from each cell for the sample.

Exhibit 2-1

Total Number of Programs Available, Total Enrollment of Children Aged 3 and

Older, and the Number of Programs Drawn from Each Cella

Minority Enrollment Under 50%

Northeast Midwest South West

Urban 72

23,765

1

96

37,191

2

32

13,542

1

36

14,039

1

Rural 89

19,068

1

192

63,600

3

156

48,202

2

70

15,363

1

Minority Enrollment 50% or Higher

Northeast Midwest South West

Urban 174

71,296

4

155

93,614

5

240

177,878

9

148

106,316

5

Rural 6

1,663

0

12

4,338

0

193

75,283

4

63

19,646

1

a

Key to each cell of the table: Total number of programs;

Total enrollment of children aged 3 and older; and

Actual number of selected programs.

The sampling approach used a three-stage design. The first-stage was the selection of 40 Head

Start programs. The universe of available Head Start programs was allocated to the 16 cells in proportion

to the enrollment of children aged 3 and older contained in the 1995-96 PIR data for each stratum. The

second stage of sampling involved the identification of four centers from those operated by each of the

selected programs. The average Head Start program operated nearly seven centers, with a range from 0

through 131 (a small number of programs were entirely home-based and counted as having zero centers).

The third stage of sampling was the identification of individual children in the selected centers.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 17

The First-Stage: The Sample of 40 Head Start Programs

In a multi-stage sample design, Head Start programs were the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs).

Because 40 PSUs was a relatively small number, it was necessary to carefully stratify the Head Start

programs to ensure that the selected programs were well distributed on those characteristics that were likely

to be correlated with the variables being measured. Information on the location of each of the programs in

the study universe, the racial/ethnic composition of the children served, and the enrollment of children aged

3 and older was taken from the PIR database and used for stratification.

The selection of the 40 Head Start programs for FACES relied on the use of probability

proportional to size (PPS) sampling, providing each Head Start family in the sample with an equal

probability of selection. Use of PPS gave larger Head Start programs a greater chance of being selected.

To use the PPS selection method, the measure of size for each program was the number of enrolled children

aged 3 and older.

The universe of 1,734 programs was sorted into the four census regions (Northeast, Midwest,

South, and West). In the 1995-96 PIR, the distribution of Head Start children aged 3 and older across the

regions was: Northeast, 14.8%; Midwest, 25.3%; South, 40.1%; and West, 19.8%. Within each census

region, the programs were sorted into two groups: 1) those located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA) county - urban, and 2) those located in a non-MSA county - rural. This sorting was done using a

special data file that linked county level data with the zip code of the program office. This step provided a

distinction between programs located in urban and rural areas. According to the 1995-96 PIR, about two

thirds of Head Start children aged 3 and older were enrolled in programs where the offices were based in

urban areas.

Within the MSA versus non-MSA grouping in each Region, programs were sorted on percentage

of minority student enrollment above or below 50%. The use of these three stratifiers helped ensure that

the sample of 40 programs was well distributed geographically with respect to urban versus rural locations,

and also well distributed with respect to the racial/ethnic composition of the children being served. Thus,

as shown in Exhibit 2-1, the first-stage sampling frame included 16 cells based on three strata: region (4)

by urbanicity (2) by ethnicity (2). The exhibit also shows that two of the cells had a very small number of

programs (<12) and therefore had no sample programs drawn.

The final sample included eight programs that provided a majority of enrolled children with full

day services and 10 others that provided such services to a minority of their children (approximately one
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 18

quarter of all programs provided such services). As well, 16 programs provided home-based services to at

least some of their children.

The Second-Stage: The Sample of Head Start Centers

The most efficient way to sample children was to start by selecting a random sample of Head Start

centers.1 As shown in Exhibit 2-2, of the programs selected, 36 had 4 or more centers. Because the PIR

database did not contain information on the enrollment of children within individual centers, each of the 40

programs selected to participate was asked to provide a listing of their centers, as well as the actual number

of children enrolled in each center for the 1996-1997 school year.

Exhibit 2-2

Distribution of Centers Within Programs in FACES and in the 1995-96 PIR

Programs selected for

FACES

N = 40

1995-1996 PIR

N = 1,734

Programs with less than 60 children total 0 (0.0%) 95 (5.5%)

Programs with 0 centers 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.6%)

Programs with 1 center 0 (0.0%) 283 (16.9%)

Programs with 2 centers 1 (2.5%) 164 (9.5%)

Programs with 3 centers 3 (7.5%) 149 (8.6%)

Programs with 4 or more centers 36 (90.0%) 1,040 (58.9%)

Prior to the project field test conducted in spring 1997 (see Section 2.8), a PPS sample of four

centers was selected from each of the 40 programs, except for four programs that had less than four

centers. A total of 157 centers was selected in the second stage sample.

When a new, larger cohort of children was selected for the main FACES study beginning in the

fall of 1997, each sampled Head Start program was again asked to provide a current list of all their centers

with an estimated number of 3- and 4-year-old children at each center who would be enrolling in Head Start

for the first time that fall. Because the number of 3- and 4-year-old children to be selected was adjusted for

each site to reflect the size of participating programs, additional centers (beyond the original four centers

1 While the use of the term ‘centers’ broadly refers to the unit of direct service delivery, some Head Start programs

included home-based services. These services were generally provided in small units (or were incorporated into operating

centers for the purposes of reporting enrollment) that were considered ‘centers’ for the purposes of sampling.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 19

that participated in the spring 1997 field test) were added at some programs to provide the increased

sample size. The total number of centers participating in the fall of 1997 was 180.

The Third-Stage: The Sample of Head Start Children

The final stage of sampling involved the selection of Head Start children and families. Class

rosters of children were obtained from each Head Start center selected during the second stage of sampling,

identifying children new to Head Start and with the 3- and 4-year-old children listed separately within each

class. In order to achieve the desired sample of 3,200 children and families, an over-sample of 3,648 was

targeted. This over-sample assumed an 85% response rate, was comprised of 1,410 3-year-old children

and 1,510 4-year-old children, and included the estimated 728 returning children who participated in the

spring 1997 field test.

To determine the distribution of 3- and 4-year-old children across programs, the desired sample

size of 1,200 3-year-old children was first allocated across the sampling strata in proportion to the

estimated number of 3-year-old children in each stratum. The number of 3-year-old children targeted for

selection from each program was based on the proportion of 3-year-old children in the sampling stratum

and the proportion of 3-year-old children new to the Head Start program in the fall of 1997, making the

probability of selection of a 3-year-old child approximately equal within each stratum. A similar

procedure was adopted for determining the number of 4-year-old children to be selected from the program.

Once the allocation of the sample was determined at the program level, the numbers of 3- and 4-

year-old children to be selected at the center-level were determined by dividing the number of 3-year-old

children needed from a program by the number of centers in the sample from that program. This number

was multiplied by the inverse of the ratio of the number of 3-year-old children in the program to the total

number of children in the program. Children were randomly selected, across classes having the highest

proportion of 3- and 4-year-old children new to Head Start.

2.3 Response Rate

A critical indicator of the success of any study is the actual participation or response rate of the

individuals selected to participate. For this study, 3,648 families were targeted for participation, and 3,179

of these families provided signed consent forms prior to the beginning of the fall 1997 data collection, for

an overall response rate (agreement to be in the study) of 87.1%. Exhibit 2-3 shows the number of

completed interviews for each of the data collection waves.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 20

Exhibit 2-3

Number of Completed Parent Interviews by Data Collection Wave

Fall 1997 Spring 1998 Spring 1999

Targeted for recruitment 3,648 3,648 3,648

Signed consent forms 3,179 3,179 3,179

Parent interviews 2,983 2,688 806a

/1,520b

Supplemental interviews 137c

a

Only parents of children who returned to Head Start for a second year.

b

Parents of children who left Head Start in spring 1998 and were completing kindergarten in

spring 1999.

c

Parents who were not interviewed in fall 1997.

A number of strategies were used to both encourage families’ continuing participation and

minimize sample attrition. FACES posters were used to advertise the upcoming site visits. Appointment

reminder postcards and FACES refrigerator magnets were mailed to homes one week prior to the visit and

phone calls were made to each respondent the night before the interview to increase the probability that the

respondents would keep their scheduled interview appointments. A monetary incentive of $15 was given to

each participant for interview completion and participating classrooms were given developmentally

appropriate toys for the children. At the end of the parent interviews, each respondent was asked to provide

the names and addresses of three individuals who would always know their whereabouts. Respondents

signed a release authorizing these individuals to provide this information to the study team, if necessary.

2.4 The Instruments

The research team developed a set of parent interview instruments, with consultation from ACYF

staff and the investigators of the Head Start Quality Research Centers (1995-2000).2 One instrument was

used at baseline, with adaptations used for the two subsequent data collections. The parent interviews were

designed to collect up-to-date information necessary to paint a current picture of Head Start families, while

being sensitive to differences based on the backgrounds of the respondents. Wherever possible, existing

measures were included, depending on their length, reliability and validity, and appropriateness for the

study goals. Both the English and the Spanish parent interview forms are found in Appendices B1-B3.

During the baseline data collection, the typical length of time for administration of the English

parent interview was about 55 minutes. When interviews were conducted in Spanish, the length of the

2

The Head Start Quality Research Centers (QRCs) represented a federally funded consortium of researchers with expertise in

various areas of child and program development. This consortium was created to foster ongoing partnerships among ACYF,

Head Start Grantees, and the academic research community, with a goal of enhancing quality program practices and outcomes.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 21

interview increased by about 10-15 minutes. Bilingual staff was available to conduct interviews in

Spanish, as needed. Arrangements were made through the local programs to have interpreters available for

families who spoke languages other than English or Spanish. Interpreters were paid by the study team and

were not members of the local Head Start program staff.

Follow-up interviews were administered during the spring of 1998 and 1999. The baseline

instrument was modified to include additional questions regarding the primary caregivers’ experiences and

satisfaction with Head Start over the previous program years. Baseline demographic information about

the child, the family, and how the family became linked with Head Start was not asked after the first

interview. However, if for some reason a family was unable to complete the fall 1997 baseline interview

but was participating in spring 1998, a supplemental parent interview was used to gather this information

at the conclusion of the regular spring 1998 interview.

2.5 Staffing

Site visit teams were created for each program. Teams were led by a Site Manager from either Abt

or CDM, and included trained, experienced field interviewers. Local Head Start program staff or parents

were hired temporarily to serve as On-site Coordinators. The responsibilities for each of the positions

related to the parent interview are described below. The additional field staff members who were

responsible for child assessments and classroom observations are described in the FACES Technical

Report II.

• The Study Coordinators were senior staff from Abt and CDM who managed all site development

activities with the programs, including materials development and all data collection logistics.

Study Coordinators also supervised the training and work activities of the Site Managers, Field

Interviewers, and On-site Coordinators.

• The Site Managers, who were members of the Abt or CDM research staff, each had primary

responsibility for one or more specific sites. While in the field, they conducted the staff interviews,

coordinated the completion of the parent interviews, interviewed parents (as needed), and

completed quality checks of the completed instruments before shipping them to Abt for data entry.

Site Managers also conducted the home interviews with the case study families as well as the case

study monthly telephone interviews between site visits (See Section IV for further information

regarding the case study).

• The Field Interviewers were drawn from a national pool of experienced data collectors, and

included a number of bilingual staff who were able to interview both English-speaking and

Spanish-speaking parents. Every attempt was made to culturally match interviewers to the study

population. Their responsibility was to conduct parent interviews.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 22

• The On-site Coordinators (OSC) were local Head Start staff or parents, who were nominated by

the local Head Start Directors, and worked under the supervision of the Abt and CDM Study

Coordinators. They distributed project information to staff and parents, recruited parents, obtained

consent forms, scheduled both parent and staff interviews prior to the visits, and assisted with the

collection of attendance data throughout the year. At the end of each round of data collection, the

OSCs received a stipend for their work. In some cases, this role was shared by more than one

individual per program, based on the workload (number of children) and the distance from one

selected center to another (centers in some programs were hundreds of miles apart). During the

visits, the OSCs provided general logistical support but did not conduct interviews.

The Site Managers and Field Interviewers each attended two days of training in Washington, DC,

prior to the first data collection. Prior to each subsequent data collection, the field staff received a single

day of training. Information from the pilot test site visits (see Section 2.7) and experience from previous

work on the Descriptive Study of Head Start Health Services (Keane, O’Brien, Connell, & Close, 1996),

conducted in 1994, provided the foundation for this training. Training manuals that included study

background information, general interviewing and confidentiality procedures, and specific field and

administrative procedures were provided to each member of the site visit teams. OSCs received detailed

training, instruction, and close, on-going supervision directly from the Study Coordinators.

2.6 Description of Data Collection Procedures

Following contact with the ACF Regional Offices and the mailing of letters from the Associate

Commissioner of Head Start, the Study Coordinators called the 40 selected local programs to invite them to

participate in the study. All selected programs agreed to participate. Programs provided all information

required to draw the subsequent samples of centers and children. OSCs were identified, and arrangements

were made to recruit selected families into the study and to set up the logistics of the visits (e.g. space,

interview schedule). Materials, such as FACES brochures, FACES posters, refrigerator magnets, and

reminder postcards were used to inform parents of the project and of the interview schedule.

A site visit team was sent to most programs for a two-week visit to conduct the parent and staff

interviews, child assessments, and both child and classroom observations, as well as to collect the casestudy data. A description of the data collection methodology as well as the findings from the child

assessments and child and classroom observations can be found in the FACES Technical Report II. One

large program took 4 weeks to complete, while one small program required only a one week visit.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 23

In most instances, parents were interviewed privately in spaces arranged at their local Head Start

centers, although some parents were interviewed at alternate locations, mostly homes. When parents were

unavailable for their scheduled interviews, field staff worked with the OSCs to reschedule the interviews

before the end of the site visit. Completed interviews were quality checked for missing data and coding

errors, corrected if necessary, and forwarded to Abt for processing.

2.7 Confidentiality

Confidentiality was assured for all study respondents, parents and staff. At the time of

recruitment, Head Start Directors were assured that this project was a descriptive study, and not an

evaluation of their programs’ or centers’ effectiveness or compliance with the Program Performance

Standards. Parents also received assurances prior to the interview that their responses would not be shared

with Head Start program staff or subsequent school staff and would be reported only as part of group

statistics for all the participating Head Start parents. Researchers obtained signed, informed consent

(Appendix B4) from all parents prior to any participation by themselves or their children.

2.8 Tests of Procedures and Instruments

Pilot Test

During the development of parent and staff interviews, a series of pilot interviews was completed

to establish the readability and comprehensibility of questions (in English and Spanish) with the target

population as well the efficiency of the data collection procedures. The pilot test was completed at two

Head Start programs, one urban and one rural, in February of 1997. The research team conducted

interviews with appropriate Head Start staff and with four parents at each site, and completed child

assessments and classroom observations. Many improvements in the parent interview resulted from

feedback from respondents, as well as from debriefing sessions with parent interviewers after the

conclusion of the pilot data collection.

The pretest not only assessed the instruments and data collection procedures but it also carefully

tested the process for managing the multi-faceted data collection in a way that minimized the burden placed

on programs for staff time and resources, the level of intrusion on normal program operations, and the

burden placed on parents and children. The lessons learned from the ‘hands-on’ experience of this pilot test

were incorporated into the revised OMB clearance submission and used to amend the procedures for the

spring 1997 field test.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 24

Field Test

A large field test was completed with approximately 2,400 children and families who were studied

in all 40 of the sampled Head Start programs in the spring of 1997. The field test was an opportunity to

assess the feasibility of interviewing and assessing parents and children on a large scale using the data

collection instruments modified after the pilot test, as well as provide valuable information on the status of

Head Start programs, children, and families. The procedures and results of this field test can be found in

the Head Start Program Performance Measures: Second Progress Report (1998b). 5

2.9 Data Management and Child Weights

Questionnaires were reviewed in the field by the Site Managers, who noted any missing data that

needed to be recovered and provided feedback to the interviewers as needed. A second review was

completed when the forms were returned to the Abt project office. Upon completion of each site visit and

subsequent data checking and data entry, all written responses to open-ended questions were coded. Data

at this level were weighted to produce national Head Start estimates.

Weights6

Cross-sectional weights were generated for the fall 1997 and spring 1998 data, with additional

weights created for use with the longitudinal findings. The fall 1997 child cross-sectional weights were

calculated as the inverse of the product of the probabilities of selection at each stage of sampling. Using

program level information from the PIR and center level information collected directly from the programs,

three levels of weights -- program, center, and child -- were generated using the formulas below.

For each child, the final child weight = (program weight) x (center weight) x (child weight), where

program weight = n * (#3 - and 4 - year olds in program)

(# 3 - and 4 - year olds in stratum h)

h

; h = 1, 2, ..14 and nh = # programs sampled in

stratum h,

center weight = m* (#3 - and 4 - year - olds in center)

(# 3 - and 4 - year - olds in program) , m = # centers sampled in program,

5

This report can be found on the CORE web page:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/faces/faces_intro.html or be requested by fax (703-683-5769) or

email (hspmc6@mail.idt.net).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 25

child weight for new 3-year-olds = # new 3- year old sampled respondentsin center

# new 3- year - olds listed in center ,

child weight for new 4-year-olds = # new 4 - year old sampled respondentsin center

# new 4 - year - olds listed in center , and

child weight for children returning from the field test = # returning field test children in center

# returning children estimated for center .

A final adjustment was made to each of these child weights so that they represented the full

population of Head Start children. This adjustment was made by multiplying each child weight by the ratio

of the expected number of children in Head Start in each category (new 3-year-olds, new 4-year-olds,

returning 4-year-olds, as determined by the PIR) to the sum of the weights of the actual children in the

study. As a result of the weighting procedure, the fall 1997 sample was weighted to represent a Head Start

population of 779,785.

The three spring 1998 child cross-sectional weights were generated by making adjustments to the

original fall 1997 cross-sectional weights to account for the change in sample size from fall to spring. This

is shown in the following formulas:

child weight for new 3-year-olds = # new 3 - year olds remaining in spring 1998

# new 3 - year - olds in study in fall 1997 ,

child weight for new 4-year-olds = # new 4 - year olds remaining in study in spring 1998

# new 4 - year - olds in study in fall1997 , and

child weight for children returning from the field test = # returning field test children in study in spring 1998

# returning field test children in study in fall1997 .

As a result of this weighting procedure, the spring 1998 sample was weighted to represent a Head Start

population of 763,671.

The child longitudinal weights were generated for two groups of families: 1) those families in

which the same respondent participated in both the fall 1997 and the spring 1998 parent interviews, and 2)

those families in which the same respondent participated in the fall 1997, the spring 1998, and the spring

6

This subsection was adapted from work by Westat for the FACES Technical Report II.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 26

1999 parent interviews. In each case, the fall 1997 child weight was adjusted for non-response by

multiplying the weight by a program-level factor that accounted for the number of families that had

different interview respondents over time or who did not complete the interview due to refusal, an inability

to contact the family at the time of the visit (although the family was still enrolled in Head Start), or the

inability of the parent to be available to the interviewers during the time of the site visit. Weights were

multiplied by a factor based on the following formula:

# returning children in study in spring 1998 # unable to interview # with different respondent from fall1997

# returning children in study in spring 1998

+ + .

The application of this weighting procedure for the longitudinal sample, families who were in Head Start

from fall to spring, resulted in a representation of 634,949 Head Start families.

Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted in SAS and SUDAAN using unweighted and weighted data. Weighted

findings are presented in the report, unless specified. As part of the routine data analysis strategy, care was

taken to minimize the effects of multiple tests (i.e., increasing Type I error) by identifying and completing

only those analyses that were meaningful to meeting the study goal of providing a descriptive picture of

Head Start families and staff. However, because this was a descriptive study, between group differences

are typically presented, whether there were significant differences present or not. In the presentation of

data, where ‘N’ refers to the sample size, it indicates that the entire sample was used. In cases where the

sample size is preceded by ‘n’, this indicates that the sample was less than the entire sample due to missing

data, planned skip patterns in the questions, or the presentation of data for selected subsets of families. The

‘N’s’ that are reported in the text and exhibits are unweighted.

2.10 Strengths and Limitations of the Research

The collection of data at three time points provides some ability to look at prediction and change

over time, but the overall time period used is still relatively limited – about 18 months for families who

completed all three interviews, and 6-7 months for families who were in Head Start for only one year. To

this end, it is recognized that the study has both strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths

The stratification plan used for the random sample provides a representative view of the general

Head Start population, allowing child-level data to be weighted and national estimates produced. At the
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 27

time of the data collection, this was the largest national sample of Head Start families ever studied,

increasing the power to detect differences between subgroups of Head Start families. The large sample size

also improved the ability to learn more about the many different populations represented among Head Start

families, such as families with children having a diagnosed disability, families experiencing welfare reform,

and different ethnic groups.

As a descriptive longitudinal study, FACES provides a unique, comprehensive look at a nationally

representative group of children and families, including some who attended the program for two years. The

ecological research design provides information from several different developmental contexts, including

home, school, and neighborhoods, as well as information on how areas of broader social change influence

Head Start children and families. This study is providing information that Head Start can use at both the

national and local levels to effect programmatic changes that can quickly benefit the families that are

served.

Limitations

A primary limitation of a descriptive study is that it does not provide conclusive findings regarding

the actual impact of Head Start on children and families. Without a control or comparison group, it is

difficult to infer causal relationships between positive or negative outcomes and a family’s Head Start

experience.

The large number of topics addressed in the parent interview and the efforts to minimize the time

burden on the participating families prevented the parent interview instrument from going into detail on any

particular topic. While this strategy fit with the original goal of describing Head Start families, it has also

left some questions unanswered.

2.11 Parent Interview Descriptors

The following tables present the basic information describing the collection of data at each of the

three time points. Exhibit 2-4 shows the range of respondents (based on their relationship to the Head Start

children) who were interviewed in fall 1997, while Exhibit 2-5 provides information on the relationship of

the respondents, the location of the interviews, and the number of repeat respondents over the three data

collection waves. As shown in these exhibits, almost 90% of the respondents were mothers (range = 86.1%

to 88.0% over three time points), while fathers added an additional 5% (range = 4.8% to 5.1%) to this
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Methodology 28

figure. A majority of the interviews were typically conducted in the Head Start centers (range = 74.0% to

79.4%).

Exhibit 2-4

Relationships of the Fall 1997 Respondents to the Head Start Children

N Weighted

Percentages

N Weighted

Percentages

Mother 2,670 87.8 Brother/stepbrother 0 0.0

Father 151 5.1 Other relative or in-law (female) 21 0.7

Stepmother 10 0.3 Other relative or in-law (male) 1 0.0

Stepfather 4 0.1 Foster parent (female) 34 1.1

Grandmother 125 4.2 Foster parent (male) 1 0.0

Grandfather 3 0.1 Other non-relative (female) 4 0.1

Great grandmother 5 0.2 Other non-relative (male) 0 0.0

Great grandfather 0 0.0 Parent’s partner (female) 2 0.1

Sister/stepsister 1 0.0 Parent’s partner (male) 1 0.0

Exhibit 2-5

Characteristics of the Parent Interviews over Three Data Collection Waves

Unweighted Percentages

Characteristics Fall 1997

(N = 2,983)a

Spring 1998

(N = 2,688)

Spring 1999

(N = 806)

Relationship of Respondent to Head Start Child

Mother 87.8 88.0 86.1

Father 5.1 4.8 4.8

Grandmother 4.2 4.3 5.0

Other 2.9 2.9 4.1

Location of Interview

Head Start center 79.4 76.0 74.0

Home 14.4 17.6 20.1

Other location 3.0 6.4 5.8

Repeat Respondents

Fall 97 and spring 98 85.2

Fall 97, spring 98, spring 99 23.2a

a Percentage reflects families from original sample who returned to Head Start for a second year.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 29

3.0 Head Start Children

3.1 Overview

This chapter describes the Head Start children who were participants in the study. Information

was collected through the parent interviews. The screening of respondents at the start of each interview

required that each respondent be the person most responsible for the target child’s care – that is, a primary

caregiver. Because over 90% of the respondents to the interviews were mothers or fathers, respondents

will be referred to in this report as ‘parents.’

3.2 Children’s Demographics

The sample of children was evenly balanced between boys (50.3%) and girls (49.7%). As shown

in Exhibit 3-1, the percentages of boys and girls varied only slightly within the subgroups of 3-year-olds

and 4-year-olds. The children primarily fell into three ethnic groups: African American (28.8%), White

(30.7%), and Hispanic (27.6%). Across the 3- and 4-year-old subgroups, the proportion of Whites was

very consistent, while African Americans were the group most likely to be represented among the 3-yearolds. Children in the Hispanic group made up a larger proportion of the 4-year-old group than the 3-

year-old group.

Exhibit 3-1

Primary Demographic Characteristics of Head Start Children

Weighted Percentages

All

(N = 3,120 )

Age 3

(n = 1,129)

Age 4

(n = 1,991)

Gender

Boys 50.4 48.7 51.2

Girls 49.6 51.4 48.8

Ethnicity

African American 28.8 34.7 26.1

White 30.7 29.0 31.4

Hispanic/Latino 27.6 22.5 30.0

Native American 1.9 2.3 1.7

Asian/ Pacific Islander 1.3 1.3 1.3

Othera 8.7 8.7 8.6 a ‘Other’ generally refers to children who were identified as belonging to multiple ethnic groups.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 30

The distribution of gender did not vary by urbanicity, and varied only slightly across the

geographic regions. The distribution of ethnicity was explored within the urban/rural and geographic

classifications. It is shown in Exhibit 3-2 that the two largest proportions of the urban group were African

Americans (34.2%) and Hispanics (35.4%). While Whites were less than one fifth (17.9%) of the urban

group, they represented more than one half (56.6%) of the rural group. African Americans (17.9%) and

Hispanics (12.0%) represented much smaller proportions of the rural group.

Exhibit 3-2

Primary Demographic Characteristics of Head Start Children by Urbanicity and

Geographic Region

Weighted Percentages

Urbanicity Geographic Region

Urban

(n = 999)

Rural

(n = 2,122)

Northeast

(n = 432)

South

(n = 1,316)

Midwest

(n = 778)

West

(n = 594)

Gender

Boys 50.6 50.0 44.9 51.6 51.3 51.3

Girls 49.4 50.0 55.1 48.4 48.8 48.7

Ethnicity

African American 34.2 17.9 31.5 38.4 29.6 8.9

White 17.9 56.6 28.0 24.3 50.4 23.2

Hispanic 35.4 12.0 26.9 26.6 9.0 49.5

Native American 1.2 3.4 0.8 1.4 2.2 3.3

Asian/ Pacific Islander 1.8 0.3 2.2 0.8 0.7 2.2

Othera 8.3 9.4 9.4 7.4 7.5 11.7

a “Other” generally refers to children who were identified as belonging to multiple ethnic groups.

3.3 Children’s Health Status and Reported Disabilities

Parents reported on the health status of their children using a scale of excellent to poor. Almost

three quarters of the parents reporting that their children’s health was either excellent (42.8%) or very

good (29.3%). Exhibit 3-3 displays the range of parents’ responses regarding their children’s health.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 31

Exhibit 3-3

Children’s Health Status as Reported by Parents

Poor

0.6%

Excellent

42.8%

Fair

6.4%

Good

17.6%

Very Good

29.3%

One factor that has implications for child health is birthweight. Parents were asked to report the

weight of their children at birth, and based on this weight children were classified as normal, low

birthweight, or very low birthweight. Exhibit 3-4 shows that 90.0% of the children were considered to be

normal birthweight. Most of the remaining children (8.2%) were classified as low birthweight, while

relatively few children (2.0%) were very low birthweight. The ethnic composition of the three

birthweight groups indicates that Whites made up a relatively small proportion of the very low

birthweight group, while Hispanics made up the largest proportion of the very low birthweight group.

African Americans made up a higher proportion of the two low birthweight groups (about 35%) than the

normal weight group (27.9%).

Exhibit 3-4

Child Birthweight Categories by Ethnicity as Reported by Parents

Weighted Percentages

Normal Low Very Low

All families 90.0 8.2 2.0

White 31.3 28.8 14.9

African American 27.9 35.7 35.8

Hispanic 27.8 26.9 38.1

Native American 2.1 0.4 0.0

Asian/ Pacific Islander 0.9 1.1 0.9

Othera 8.9 6.7 8.3 a “Other” generally refers to children who were identified as belonging to multiple ethnic groups.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 32

In considering the distribution of the different birthweight categories within ethnic groups

(Exhibit 3-5), the groups with the largest proportion of very low birthweight children were Hispanics

(2.5%) and African Americans (2.3%). Over 80% of all the ethnic groups were classified as normal

birthweight. The exception was the Asian/Pacific Islander group, which, while predominantly of normal

weight (61.7%), also had the largest percentage of children with unreported birthweights.

Exhibit 3-5

Child Birthweight as Reported by Parents within Ethnic Groups

Weighted Percentages

All

(N =3,120)

White

(n = 859 )

African

American

(n = 1,137)

Hispanic

(n = 760)

Native

American

(n = 57)

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

(n = 32 )

Othera

(n = 250)

Normal

>2500gms

85.8 87.5 83.1 86.2 93.5 61.7 88.6

Low

<2500gms and >1500gms

7.6 7.2 9.5 7.4 1.8 6.8 5.9

Very Low

(<1500gms)

1.8 0.9 2.3 2.5 0.0 1.3 1.8

a‘Other’ generally refers to children who were identified as belonging to multiple ethnic groups.

With Head Start’s documented interest in serving children with disabilities, it is important to

understand the prevalence of disabilities within the Head Start population. When asked to report whether

or not their children had a disability, almost one fifth of the parents responded that a disability was

present (19.1% in fall 1997, 18.2% in spring 1998). In Exhibit 3-6, the parent report numbers are

contrasted with the national Head Start numbers reported in the 1997-1998 PIR. The percentage of all

Head Start children with a disability, as indicated in the PIR, is 13.0%, less than was noted in the parent

report. This difference in the reported percentages is most likely due to the fact that the PIR required the

reported disability to be professionally diagnosed, while parents interviewed for FACES were not asked

to verify that the reported disability was professionally diagnosed.

The disability most commonly reported by parents and in the PIR was speech and language

impairment. The PIR reported this problem for just under one tenth (9.3%) of the Head Start children,

while speech or language impairments were noted by 13.9% of the parents in fall 1997 and 13.6% of the

parents in spring 1998. No other category of disability was reported for more than 2.5% of the children,

and most disabilities, listed in Exhibit 3-6, were reported for less than 1% of the sample. Approximately

5% of the children (5.5% in fall 1997, 4.2% in spring 1998) were reported to experience multiple
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 33

disabilities. A more complete discussion of families with children who have disabilities can be found in

Chapter 8.

Exhibit 3-6

Children’s Disabilities as Reported by Parents and from the PIRa

Weighted Percentages Unweighted Percentages

Fall 1997

(N = 2,983)

Spring 1998

(N = 2,688)

PIR

1997-1998

(N =793,809)

Total Disabled 19.1 18.2 13.0

Types of Disabilities

Learning disabled 0.5 0.9 0.3

Mental retardation 0.1 0.3 0.2

Speech or language impairment 13.9 13.6 9.3

Speech impairment 11.8 12.1 ----

Language impairment 3.5 2.8 ----

Emotional/behavioral disorder 2.4 2.2 0.7

Hearing impairment including deafness 1.4 1.3 0.2

Deafness 0.3 0.4 ----

Other hearing disorder 1.2 1.0 ----

Visual impairment including blindness 0.7 0.7 0.1

Blindness 0.0 0.0 ----

Other visual impairment 0.7 0.7 ----

Orthopedic impairment 0.8 0.5 0.3

Health impairment 0.4 0.4 1.1

Autism 0.2 0.2 0.1

Traumatic brain injury 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other developmental delay 0.7 0.7 ----

Other reported disability 3.5 2.7 ----

Children with multiple disabilities 5.5 4.2 ----

a

Reports from the Head Start PIR reflect children with professionally diagnosed disabilities.

3.4 Children’s Behavior and Academic Skills

In the fall of 1997, parents were asked to rate their children in several different areas, including

child behavior and pre-reading skills. As shown in Exhibit 3-7, children generally received high scores

on the Social Skills and Positive Approach to Learning Scale and low scores on the Behavior Problem
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 34

Index (and subscales). The Emergent Literacy Scale showed a moderate range of scores for the Head

Start children.

Exhibit 3-7

Children’s Behavior and Academic Skills, as Rated by Parentsa

Fall 1997

Characteristic Mean SE Median Scale Range

Social Skills and Positive Approach to Learning Scale1 12.0 0.05 12.0 0-14

Behavior Problem Index2 6.2 0.10 0-24

Aggression subscale3 3.0 0.04 3.0 0-8

Hyperactive subscale4 1.8 0.04 2.0 0-6

Withdrawn subscale5 1.3 0.04 1.0 0-10

Emergent Literacy Scale6 2.1 0.01 2.0 0-5

a Reported statistics are based on the weighted sample. Unweighted N = 2,983. a Reported means are based on the weighted sample.

With regards to gender and ethnic differences, Exhibit 3-8 shows that girls were rated slightly

higher on the positive social behaviors and emergent literacy than boys, while the boys received slightly

higher reports of behavior problems than girls. Scores on both scales varied little across ethnic groups

except that Hispanics were rated slightly higher on problem behaviors and slightly lower on emergent

literacy. For a more complete discussion of children’s literacy see the FACES Technical Report II.

1 A summary score of 7 parent-reported behavior items rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often

true.” Scores ranged from 0-14, with higher scores representing more positive behavior.

2 An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based

on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scores ranged from

0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.

3 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums,

doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

4 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous,

high-strung, or tense. Subscale scores ranged from 0-6.

5 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too

young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

6 A summary score of 5 parent-reported child skills including whether child can identify all of the primary colors, recognize most

or all letters of the alphabet, count to twenty or higher, write rather than scribble, and write own name. Scores ranged from 0-5.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Children 35

Exhibit 3-8

Mean Scores for Child Behavior and Academic Skills as Rated by Parents within

Gender and Ethnicity

Fall 1997

Gender Ethnicity

Characteristic All Boys Girls White African

American

Hispanic/

Latino Other

Unweighted N 2,983 1,510 1,473 826 1,050 752 331

Social Skills and Positive

Approach to Learning Scale 12.0 11.8 12.3 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1

Behavior Problem Index 6.2 6.6 5.7 6.1 6.0 6.6 5.8

Aggression subscale 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8

Hyperactive subscale 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.7

Withdrawn subscale 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.4

Emergent Literacy Scale 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.4

3.5 Summary

Chapter 3 provides descriptions of the Head Start children. The following is a summary of the

key findings.

• The sample of children was evenly balanced between boys and girls and was comprised

mostly of three ethnic groups: African American (28.8%), White (30.7%), and Hispanic

(27.6%)

• The reported health status of the children was good, with almost three quarters of the parents

reporting that their children’s health status was either excellent or very good.

• Almost all of the children were classified as normal birthweight. White children made up a

relatively small proportion of the very low birthweight, while Hispanics made up the largest

proportion of the very low birthweight group. African American children were a higher

proportion of the low and very low birthweight groups.

• Almost one fifth of the parents reported that their children had a disability; however, parents

were not asked to verify that the reported disability was professionally diagnosed. The most

commonly reported disability was a speech or language impairment.

• Based on parent reports, children generally received high scores on the Social Skills and

Positive Approach to Learning Scale and low scores on the Behavior Problem Index (and

subscales). Girls were rated slightly higher than boys on the Social Skills and Positive

Approach to Learning Scale, while boys scored higher than girls on the Problem Behavior

Index.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 36

4.0 Head Start Families

4.1 Overview

Findings from the in-person interviews conducted with Head Start parents in the fall of 1997, the

spring of 1998, and the spring of 1999 were used to describe the characteristics and accomplishments of

their families and households. Chapter 4 presents the findings from these interviews. As noted earlier,

the standard format for this Report is to refer to the respondents as parents. However, in the first part of

this chapter, the respondents are discussed as primary caregivers, as data are presented on three subgroups

of caregivers: mothers, fathers, and non-parental caregivers.

At the end of this chapter is a set of three supplemental exhibits. These exhibits were created to

allow an alternative presentation of the relationship between some of the selected variables that are

presented in Chapter 4 and the following: ethnicity, geographic region, and urbanicity. References to

these exhibits will appear in appropriate sections of the chapter.

4.2 The Primary Caregivers

Respondents were identified prior to the parent interview as the primary caregivers1 of the

targeted Head Start children. The majority (92.9%) of primary caregivers were parents, with 87.8%

identified as mothers. Exhibit 4-1 contains data describing the demographic characteristics of the primary

caregivers who completed the parent interviews. The first column in the exhibit focuses on all primary

caregivers. The second column displays data describing mothers as primary caregivers, the third presents

data describing fathers as primary caregivers, and the fourth column represents descriptions of nonparental caregivers.

1 A primary caregiver was defined as the person most responsible for the care of the child.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 37

Exhibit 4-1

Demographic Characteristics of the FACES Primary Caregivers

Weighted Percentages

Demographic Characteristics

All

(N = 3,120)

Mothers

(n = 2,670)

Fathers

(n = 151)

Nonparental

Caregivers

(n = 212)

Age

Less than 20 years old 2.6 2.8 0.0 1.3

21-29 years old 53.2 56.9 50.5 9.0

30-39 years old 32.5 34.0 35.3 11.5

40 and older 11.7 6.3 14.2 78.1

Mean age 30.4 29.0 31.4 47.3

Median age 28.4 27.8 29.4 47.9

Nativity

Born in country other than U.S. 18.7 19.6 26.4 7.0

Less than 5 years in U.S. 2.2 2.2 4.8 0.0

Marital Status

Married 42.1 42.1 62.5 43.6

Single, never married 33.7 36.4 12.8 13.2

Divorced or widowed 13.5 11.7 17.8 33.9

Married, but separated 9.6 9.8 6.9 9.2

Education and Training

Less than high school 27.5 27.5 19.4 32.4

High school diploma or GED 37.6 37.3 45.7 36.3

Some college/AA degree 32.1 32.6 28.2 27.6

College degree or higher 2.3 2.5 6.7 3.7

Vocational or trade school 41.9 41.0 52.4 45.4

Certificate or licenses 37.7 36.2 46.6 47.5

CDA 1.2 1.0 0.9 4.5

Working toward a degree 24.3 25.4 20.6 13.9

Trade license or certificate 4.8 4.8 6.0 4.9
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 38

Weighted Percentages

Demographic Characteristics

All

(N = 3,120)

Mothers

(n = 2,670)

Fathers

(n = 151)

Nonparental

Caregivers

(n = 212)

GED or high school diploma 6.6 7.4 1.4 2.0

CDA 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.4

Associate’s degree 4.2 4.5 5.6 1.2

Bachelor’s degree or higher 4.4 4.5 5.5 4.0

Employment Status

Full-time 34.0 32.2 65.4 35.7

Part-time or seasonal 18.3 19.2 14.1 9.8

Not employed 47.6 48.3 20.2 54.1

Age

Almost all of the primary caregivers were in their twenties (53.2%) or thirties (32.5%) in the fall

of 1997. Only a few (2.6%) of the primary caregivers were less than 20 years old, and just slightly more

than one tenth (11.7%) of caregivers were 40 years or older. The mean age (30.4 years) and median age

(28.4 years) of all primary caregivers was similar to the ages of mothers as caregivers (M = 29.0 years;

Mdn = 28.4 years). Fathers as caregivers were slightly older (M = 31.4 years; Mdn = 29.4 years), while

the mean (47.3 years) and median (47.9 years) ages of the non-parental caregivers were higher than the

mean and median ages of the caregivers who were mothers or fathers. The majority of the non-parental

caregivers (78.1%) were in the 40 and older age range.

The three supplemental exhibits at the end of the chapter provide the opportunity to look at the

distribution of age across ethnicity, urbanicity, and geographic region. As shown in Exhibit 4-15, the

mean age of all primary caregivers varied only slightly across ethnic groups. The greatest proportions of

primary caregivers who were less than 29 years old came from the Midwest (61.1%) and the South

(59.1%), although almost one half of the caregivers in the Northeast (47.8%) or the West (49.7%) were

also under 29 years of age (Exhibit 4-17). A slightly higher percentage of primary caregivers under the

age of 29 lived in urban areas (59.9%), although more than one half of the primary caregivers who lived

in rural areas (53.6%) were under 29 years of age, as well (Exhibit 4-16).
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 39

Nativity

Less than one fifth of all primary caregivers (18.7%) were born in a country other than the United

States, with only 2.2% of all primary caregivers having reported that they had resided in the United States

for less than five years. Fathers had the highest proportion of individuals (26.4%) who reported being

born in a country other than the United States. Among non-parental caregivers, 7.0% reported being born

outside of the United States, but all of them resided in the United States for more than five years.

In the supplemental exhibits, Exhibit 4-15 shows that the primary caregivers of Hispanic (53.4%)

and Asian (86.9%) children had the highest proportion of caregivers born in a country other than the U.S.,

while only small numbers of the caregivers of African American (3.2%) or White children (2.4%) were

born outside this country. Much higher proportions of primary caregivers from the West (35.9%) or the

Northeast (28.5%) were born in a country other than the United States than were caregivers who lived in

the Midwest (8.6%) or the South (11.2%) (Exhibit 4-17). Exhibit 4-16 shows that a higher proportion of

caregivers from urban areas (23.9%) were born outside the United States than caregivers from rural areas

(8.1%).

Marital Status

Less than one half of all primary caregivers (42.1%) were married. About one third (33.7%)

reported being single, while almost one quarter (23.1%) were divorced, separated, or widowed. A higher

percentage of fathers as caregivers (63.5%) reported being married than did mothers as caregivers

(42.1%) or non-parental caregivers (43.6%).

As shown in Exhibit 4-15 of the supplemental exhibits, slightly more than three fifths of the

caregivers of African American children (60.9%) were single and never married, while fewer caregivers

of White (18.4%) or Hispanic children (24.4%) were single. Among the geographic regions (Exhibit 4-

17), the Northeast (42.5%) had the largest proportion of single, never married caregivers. In the other

regions, one third to one quarter of the caregivers were classified as single, never married. In urban areas,

36.8% of the caregivers were reported to be single, while the same classification applied to 27.4% of the

rural caregivers.

Education and Training

Almost three fourths of all primary caregivers (72.0%) had at least a high school diploma or

GED. Although one third of all caregivers (32.1%) reported they attended some college or received an

Associates degree, only 2.3% had a college degree or higher. More than two fifths of all primary

caregivers (41.9%) had attended a vocational or trade school, and 37.7% had received a certificate or
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 40

license. Only 1.2% of all primary caregivers had Child Development Associate (CDA) training.

Approximately one fourth (24.3%) of all primary caregivers reported that they were working toward a

degree, certificate, or license in the fall of 1997, with 6.6% working toward a high school diploma or

GED. Of those who reported they were working towards a degree, about one fourth (24.1%) indicated

they had completed the degree by the time of the spring 1998 parent interview.

When comparing education and training across the different types of caregivers, a greater

proportion of non-parental caregivers (32.4%) had less than a high school diploma or GED than mothers

as caregivers (27.5%) or fathers as caregivers (19.4%). Slightly more than one half of the fathers as

caregivers (52.4%) reported having attended vocational or trade school than did mothers as caregivers

(41.0%) or non-parental caregivers (45.4%), and fewer non-parental caregivers (13.9%) reported that they

were currently working toward a degree, certificate, or license than did mothers as caregivers (25.4%) or

fathers as caregivers (20.6%).

The ethnicity supplemental exhibit (Exhibit 4-15) indicates that the largest proportion of the

caregivers of Hispanic children (39.6%) reported having less than a high school education, while the

largest proportion of caregivers of White children (43.5%) had a high school diploma or GED, with an

additional one third (34.7%) having attended some college or received an Associate’s degree. Most

caregivers of African American children had either a high school diploma (34.4%) or had attended some

college (36.7%). Among primary caregivers who lived in the Northeast, 40.7% attended some college,

slightly higher than the proportion of caregivers from families in the Midwest (32.8%), South (34.9%), or

West (34.8%) (Exhibit 4-17).

Employment

Over one half of all primary caregivers (52.4%) were employed in the fall of 1997, 34.0% had

full-time jobs and 18.3% were working part-time or had seasonal work. Fathers as caregivers (79.8%)

were more likely to be employed than mothers as caregivers (51.5%) or non-parental caregivers (45.9%).

Among those parents who responded to both the fall 1997 and spring 1998 questionnaire, 50.7% were

employed in the fall of 1997 (32.6% full-time; 18.1% part-time) and both overall employment (55.7%)

and full-time employment (38.8%) had increased by the spring of 1998.

The supplemental exhibits show that the primary caregivers of Hispanic children (52.6%) had a

slightly higher rate of unemployment than caregivers of African American children (46.0%) or White

children (45.1%) (Exhibit 4-15). Less than one half of the primary caregivers in the Northeast (43.6%)

were employed, while a majority of the caregivers in the Midwest (56.5%), South (53.1%), and West
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 41

(52.3%) were employed (Exhibit 4-17). Finally, slightly more than one half of the primary caregivers

from both rural areas (55.2%) and urban settings (50.8%) were employed (Exhibit 4-16).

4.3 Mothers and Fathers Who Were Not the Interview Respondents

Additional questions were asked during the interview about parents who were not respondents,

many of whom were also considered primary caregivers. Exhibit 4-2 displays information regarding both

household and non-household mothers’ and fathers’ education and employment, as well as the financial

support and rate of visitation provided by the non-household parents for their children.

Exhibit 4-2

Description of Parents Who Were Not Respondents: Household Fathers, NonHousehold Fathers, Household Mothers, and Non-Household Mothers

Weighted Percentages, Spring 1998

Fathers Mothers

Characteristics

Household

(n =1,085 )

NonHousehold

(n = 1,481)

Household

(n = 106)

NonHousehold

(n = 178) a

Education

Less than high school 39.4 35.0 43.6 45.1

High school diploma or GED 36.9 34.6 23.6 23.0

Some college 18.8 13.0 28.6 12.1

College degree or higher 3.6 2.6 1.0 5.8

Don’t know 1.3 14.9 3.1 14.1

Employment or Other Status

Employed 87.1 52.6 56.8 36.1

Unemployed/laid off 5.8 8.4 17.5 20.0

Looking for work 2.5 1.3 3.5 0.2

In school/training 5.5 3.1 21.1 11.4

In jail/prison 0.3 6.1 0.0 6.5

In military 0.6 1.7 0.0 1.0

Other 4.5 2.7 2.4 4.6

Provided financial support for child ----- 42.3 ----- 29.6

Lived within one hour ride of child ----- 55.0 ----- 65.8
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 42

Weighted Percentages, Spring 1998

Fathers Mothers

Characteristics

Household

(n =1,085 )

NonHousehold

(n = 1,481)

Household

(n = 106)

NonHousehold

(n = 178) a

Frequency of Visitation

Daily ----- 11.9 ----- 8.2

Several times a week ----- 14.0 ----- 26.8

Several times a month ----- 16.6 ----- 21.4

Several times a year ----- 10.2 ----- 13.3

Rarely or never ----- 40.6 ----- 24.8

Don’t know ----- 0.8 ----- 0.5

a

Due to interviewer error, only 178 of 325 non-household mothers were asked the questions reported in this table.

Education

In general, education levels tended to be lower for both categories of mothers than for fathers

(Exhibit 4-2). Higher proportions of the household mothers (43.6%) and the non-household mothers

(45.1%) had less than a high school education than either household fathers (39.4%) or non-household

fathers (35.0%). Even so, almost one third of the household mothers (29.6%) attended some college or

received a college degree or higher, and higher proportions of both household (21.1%) and non-household

(11.4%) mothers were attending school or training than household (5.5%) or non-household (3.1%)

fathers. Non-household parents included lower percentages of both mothers (17.9%) and fathers (15.6%)

who attended college than did the two groups of household parents (22.4% for mothers; 29.6% for

fathers).

Employment or Other Status

While almost all of the household fathers (87.1%) were employed, just over one third of nonhousehold mothers (36.1%) worked. Higher proportions of mothers, both household (17.5%) and nonhousehold (20.0%), were unemployed or laid-off than were either household fathers (5.8%) or nonhousehold fathers (8.4%). Approximately 6.1% of the non-household fathers and 6.5% of the nonhousehold mothers were reported to be in jail or prison.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 43

Financial Support and Visitation of the Head Start Children

Of the non-household parents, over one half of the fathers (55.0%) and almost two thirds of the

mothers (65.8%) lived within a one-hour ride of their children. Forty percent of the non-household

fathers and 24.8% of the non-household mothers rarely or never saw their children. Less than one half of

the non-household fathers (42.3%) and less than one third of the non-household mothers (29.6%) were

reported to have contributed to the financial support of their children. Mother-figures were noted to be

available to more than one half of the Head Start children in households without a resident mother

(56.5%), while father-figures were reported to be available to 63.0% of the children living in households

without a resident father. Children without a father figure and who rarely or never saw their fathers made

up 5.4% of the population, while virtually none (0.1%) of the children rarely or never saw their mothers

and had no mother figure available.

4.4 The Households

The study families resided in households with a mean size of 4.6 persons. A mean of 4.4 persons

per household were identified as family members related to the Head Start children. Mothers and fathers

were present in 42.3% of the households. Mother-only households represented 33.3% of the families,

while mothers living with stepfathers, male partners, or grandmothers were an additional 16.9% of the

families. Two percent of the households were determined to have fathers but no mothers, and 4.4% of the

children lived without either parent. Among the children, 21.8% had no brothers or sisters in the

household, 22.5% were the oldest children in their families, 37.0% were the youngest children in their

families, and 18.8% had both older and younger siblings. The mean number of siblings in a family was

1.4 (range = zero to 9).

There were two or more adults (age 18 or older) in 70.4% of the households. In most of the

households (89.1%), there was at least one individual with a high school diploma or GED, while almost

one half of the households (47.3%) had more than one individual with a diploma or GED. There was at

least one employed household member in 77.6% of the households, and 32.1% of the households had

more than one individual who was working at the time of the baseline interview.

Over time, many of the Head Start households experienced changes in their composition. In

comparing reports of household members from fall 1997 to spring 1998, 40.8% of all families indicated

that either someone entered or left their household. In 30.7% of the households, someone who was not in

the household in the fall was there in the spring, while in 26.2% of the households, someone who was

there in the fall had left the household by the time of the spring interview. As shown in Exhibit 4-3, most
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 44

of the change was accounted for by fathers, brothers, sisters, and by male and female relatives (e.g. aunts,

uncles, cousins).

A higher proportion of males entered or left households than females. While 8.0% of the

households were found to have had a change involving key adult females (mother, grandmother, foster

mother, stepmother, or a female partner), key adult males (father, grandfather, foster father, stepfather, or

male partner) contributed to change in more than twice as many (18.7%) of these households. Chapter 6

of Section II as well as Section IV of this technical report contain additional information on household

changes in Head Start families.

Exhibit 4-3

Changes in Household Composition from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Percentage of households (weighted)

Fem ale non-relative

Male non-relative

Grandm other

Grandfather

Fem ale relative

Male relative

Sister

B rother

StepMother

Stepfather

Partner Fem ale

Partner Male

Mother

Father

Left Household

Joined Household

Unweighted N= 2,543

Monthly Household Income

Income is the key component of the Head Start eligibility criteria. In this study, household

income was collected to assess the broad level of economic resources available to the family. However,

because the household income data presented in this report reflect income contributed by all members of a

household from all sources, it is potentially greater than the family income used to determine eligibility
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 45

under the Head Start regulations (45 CFR 1305.2(e)) which refer to “the income of the parent(s) or

guardian(s) of the child enrolling or participating in the program.” In addition, the Head Start definition

of income includes restrictions on items such as capital gains, tax refunds, and lump-sum inheritances. A

more detailed discussion of this issue is presented in the recruitment and enrollment substudy final report

entitled Reaching Out to Families: Head Start Recruitment and Enrollment Practices (D’Elio, O’Brien,

Magee, Keane, Hailey, & Connell, 2000). Exhibit 4-4 presents household income data reported by

selected demographic characteristics.

In general, the findings regarding income were as expected. The mean monthly income for all

families was $1,256 in the fall of 1997. For each increase in the level of parent education, there was a

corresponding in household monthly income (r = .15; p < .0001) (Exhibit 4-4). Also, parents who were

employed full time had higher mean household incomes ($1,515) than parents who were employed parttime ($1,216) or unemployed ($1,081). Married respondents reported the highest mean household

incomes ($1,528), while single, never married respondents reported the lowest ($979). Within the main

ethnic groups, the parents of White children reported the highest mean household monthly incomes

($1,455) and parents of African American children the lowest mean household monthly incomes ($1,099).

Parents born in the U.S. reported slightly higher mean household incomes than did parents born in other

countries ($1,264, $1,217, respectively). Almost two thirds of the Head Start families (64.9%) had

projected annual incomes below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). In the longitudinal sample2

, the mean

household monthly income in the fall 1997 was $1,258, which significantly increased to $1,326 in the

spring 1998, t(2371) = 4.64; p < .0001.

Employment changed over time for a number of families for whom there were two years of data.

From fall 1997 to spring 1998, more than one tenth of the parents (11.7%) went from being unemployed

to having a full or part-time job. By the spring of 1999, almost one fifth of all parents (17.8%) were

working after reporting no job in the fall of 1997. One tenth of the parents (9.5%) reported not having a

job in spring 1999 after they had been working in fall 1997. Among the parents who were not working in

fall 1997, 75.1% were not working in the following spring, and 16.9% were not working in the spring of

1999. These findings do not account, however, for parents who may have had a working spouse or

partner.

2 Those families who completed both a fall 1997 and spring 1998 questionnaire.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 46

Exhibit 4-4

Selected Demographic Characteristics by Reported Monthly Household

Income

Fall 1997

Mean Income SE Median Income

All (N = 2,983) 1,256 20.1 1,080

Ethnicity

African American 1,099 35.7 900

White 1,455 41.2 1,250

Hispanic 1,178 39.6 1,000

Other 1,322 46.6 1,200

Marital status

Married 1,528 32.3 1,350

Single, never married 979 28.0 800

Divorced or widowed 1,242 56.6 1,000

Married, but separated 1,042 67.2 900

Nativity

Born in the U.S. 1,264 23.2 1,064

Born in country other than U.S. 1,217 39.3 1,000

Education

Less than high school 1,062 28.5 900

High school diploma or GED 1,275 33.0 1,100

Some college 1,367 42.1 1,200

College degree or higher 1,525 121.9 1,448

Employment Status

Full-time 1,515 34.0 1,300

Part-time 1,216 53.4 1,000

Not employed 1,081 27.4 900

Exhibit 4-5 examines the relationship between monthly household income and the employment

status of parents in both single-parent and two-parent families. The shaded area in each column

represents the top three income categories reported by respondents under each category of parent

employment status. As with the previous income table, the findings fit an expected pattern. That is,

families with no working parent represented the highest proportion of families within the lowest income

categories, and families with two working parents represented the largest proportion of families within the

highest income categories. Families with one working parent, whether they were one- or two-parent
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 47

families, reported somewhat similar income patterns, with their highest proportion of these families in the

middle-income categories. The proportion of families within each parent employment status category

who are in households where the incomes are at or below the FPL is also presented in Exhibit 4-5. The

proportion of families under the FPL decreases as the number of employed parents in the household

increases. The reader is again cautioned that this table is based on household income, which is likely to

be higher than the family income used to determine Head Start eligibility.

Exhibit 4-5

Reported Monthly Household Income by Employment Status

Weighted Percentages, Fall 1997

Single-Parent Families Two-Parent Families

Household Income

All

Families

(n = 2,983)

NonWorking

(n = 688)

Working

(n = 868)

Both

Parents

Working

(n = 507)

One

Parent

Working

(n = 625)

Neither

Parent

Working

(n = 118)

$499 or less 11.8 26.5 9.5 2.7 6.8 24.5

$500-999 29.6 42.7 34.3 9.6 24.7 37.3

$1,000-1,499 24.8 16.1 27.8 26.9 29.9 21.4

$1,500-1,999 14.4 6.4 14.4 22.9 16.8 10.8

$2,000 or more 15.7 5.5 11.6 35.9 14.6 3.3

Household income at

or below the FPL 64.9 85.2 61.3 43.9 64.4 92.4

Other Sources of Financial Support

As shown in Exhibit 4-6, the primary sources of reported non-employment economic support

were the public assistance programs: Medicaid (58.1%), the Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

program (54.5%), Food Stamps (49.5%), and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

program (30.3%). Child support was the most often reported non-Federal source of family support

(21.1%). While more than one half of the parents of children from each ethnic group reported reliance on

at least one of these public programs (Exhibit 4-15), parents of African American children reported the

highest rates of participation in public assistance programs. Exhibit 4-16 shows that a higher proportion

of rural families (58.7%) than urban families (52.4%) used WIC. Across the geographic regions (Exhibit

4-17), the greatest proportion of families using TANF was found in the Northeast (41.0%), while

approximately 50% of the families in each region reported that they received WIC.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 48

Exhibit 4-7 presents participation rates in the four primary public assistance programs by parents’

employment status. The pattern that emerges from this table is an inverse relationship between

employment and public assistance program participation. Non-working single parents generally reported

the highest rates of participation in public assistance, while two-parent, both-working families reported

the lowest participation rates. Among those families in which one parent worked, the two-parent families

generally reported lower participation rates than did the single-parent families, except for the WIC

program for which two-parent families reported a slightly higher rate of participation.

Exhibit 4-7

Selected Sources of Financial Support by Parents’ Employment Status

Weighted Percentages, Fall 1997

Single-Parent Families Two-Parent Families

Sources of

Financial

Support All

(n = 2,983)

NonWorking

(n = 688)

Working

(n = 868)

Both

Parents

Working

(n = 507)

One

Parent

Working

(n = 625)

Neither

Parent

Working

(n = 118)

Medicaid 58.1 81.6 54.9 35.3 50.4 80.7

WIC 54.5 62.7 47.7 41.5 61.9 71.8

Food stamps 49.5 83.1 47.2 20.0 39.8 70.7

TANF 30.3 67.8 24.3 6.5 15.3 45.1

Exhibit 4-6

Non-employment Sources of Economic Support Used in the Past Year

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Medicaid

W IC

Food Stam ps

TANF

C hild S upport

SSI/SS D I

Energy

Money Given to Fam ily

SS R etirem ent

Unem ploym ent

Foster C are

Loan R epaym ent

Sources of

Support

Unweighted N Weighte d Pe rce ntage s of Familie s, Fall 1997 = 2,983
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 49

Welfare Reform

During the spring 1998 data collection (the period for which the most complete data on welfare

reform are available), more than 3 in 5 parents in the study sample (63.7%) reported that their families

received benefits from one or more of the following public assistance programs: TANF, Food Stamps, or

WIC (Exhibit 4-8). Approximately one third of the parents participating in these programs (34.6%)

reported that they were required to get a job, attend job training, attend school/GED class, or do

something else in order to continue receiving these program benefits.

Parents who reported their supplemental sources of support were linked to program requirements

were asked how these requirements affected their lives. More than one half of these parents (56.3%)

reported that the requirements had no effect on their families. One in five (20.5%) reported that the

requirements made it more difficult for them to find child care. However, approximately one quarter of

those subject to welfare requirements (28.4%) reported that Head Start had helped them resolve child care

issues.

Exhibit 4-8

Experiences of FACES Parents with Welfare Reform

Weighted Frequencies,

Spring 1998

Welfare Reform Requirements (n = 1,752)a

Get a job 25.5

Job training 18.7

School or GED 12.2

Something else 5.3

Effects of Welfare Reform Requirements (n = 606)

No effect 56.3

More difficult to find child care 20.5

Reduction in other benefits 5.4

More difficult to find child care subsidies 4.1

Transportation needs have increased 4.0

Reduced time for involvement in Head Start 3.6

Must provide more support to family or friends 2.7

Friends or relatives not available 1.9

Other 14.2
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 50

How Head Start Has Helped (n = 606)

With child care 28.4

To understand welfare reform requirements 9.6

Find a job 5.6

Get education or training 4.5

Get transportation 1.6

How Head Start has Been a Problem (n = 606)

Has done nothing 36.8

Sessions are not long enough 1.8

Does not understand welfare reform requirements 0.4

Required participation at inconvenient times 0.4

Required too much participation 0.0

Other 4.0 a

The 1,752 represent families who reported receiving assistance in the form of TANF, WIC, or food stamps. The

606 represent families who had to meet a training or work requirement related to welfare reform.

Housing

A large majority of parents (86.5%) reported that they lived in a house, apartment, or trailer of

their own (Exhibit 4-9), while just over one fifth (22.2%) indicated that they lived in public or subsidized

housing3

. Parents of African American children represented the largest proportions of those families

living in transitional housing and those in public or subsidized housing (82.0% and 49.1%, respectively).

In addition, TANF recipients represented about half of those families living in public or subsidized

housing (48.9%).

3 Note: These categories are not mutually exclusive.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 51

Exhibit 4-9

Housing Status by Selected Demographic Characteristics

Weighted Percentages, Fall 1997

Housing Type

Demographic Characteristic Own House,

Apartment,

or Trailer

(n = 2,606)

Share

House,

Apartment,

or Trailer

(n = 344)

Transitional

Housing or

Shelter

(n = 32)

Public or

Subsidized

Housing

(n = 658)

All (N = 2,983) 86.5 12.5 1.1 22.2

Ethnicity

African American 27.2 30.5 82.0 49.1

White 32.0 21.3 3.0 20.3

Hispanic 27.6 36.1 1.8 21.2

Other 12.3 11.6 6.8 8.0

Nativity

Born in country other than

U.S. 18.4 27.1 0.0 10.5

Education

Less than high school 26.9 32.1 19.7 29.4

High school diploma or GED 38.6 31.9 23.5 36.2

Some college 31.7 32.9 53.8 33.1

College degree or higher 2.7 3.2 3.0 1.4

Employment Status

Full-time 34.8 32.6 33.7 29.7

Part-time 17.7 18.0 16.7 14.7

Not employed 47.1 49.3 38.0 55.1

Welfare Recipient 28.9 38.0 47.6 48.9
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 52

Medical Health Insurance

Exhibit 4-10 presents data on health insurance coverage by selected demographic characteristics.

It was possible for a parent to indicate that their Head Start child was covered by private health insurance

and that someone in the household (possibly the Head Start child) was receiving Medicaid. Therefore,

these two columns are not mutually exclusive.

Among the children covered by private health insurance, the largest proportion (36.3%) was

White, while African American children (34.8%) represented the largest proportion of children from

families receiving Medicaid. Hispanics had the highest percentage of families with no health insurance

(38.3%). Of those families with private health insurance, approximately one half of the parents reported

that they were married (47.6%), as was the case for families reporting no health insurance coverage

(53.9%). Single, never married parents formed the largest proportion of parents reporting receipt of

Medicaid (42.2%). While families with at least one parent born outside of the United States accounted

for 14.9% of families with private health insurance and 15.6% of the Medicaid families, they also

represented 30.7% of the families without any health insurance coverage.

Families with at least one parent who had less than a high school education accounted for only

about one sixth of those children covered with private health insurance (17.5%), while approximately one

third of those families had Medicaid coverage or had no insurance coverage at all (30.9% and 32.2%,

respectively). Parents who were employed full time accounted for approximately half of those families

with private health insurance (48.5%), and represented only about one quarter of those on Medicaid

(27.3%) and just over one third of those with no insurance (34.0%). Further, almost three out of four

families with private health insurance (71.8%) also reported household incomes of $1,000 or more, while

almost three out of five families without health insurance (58.1%) also were in this income category. Of

the families receiving Medicaid, slightly more than two fifths reported monthly incomes of $1,000 or

more (43.5%). Since private health insurance is most often provided through an employer, it makes sense

that employment status appears to be a critical factor in a family’s access to health insurance.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 53

Exhibit 4-10

Selected Demographic Characteristics for Households in Which the

Children were Covered by Private Health Insurance or by Medicaid or

Had No Insurance Coverage

Weighted Percentages, Fall 1997

Demographic Characteristics Private Health

Insurancea

(n = 938)

Medicaidb

(n = 1,768)

No Insurance

Coverage

(n = 567)

All (N = 2,983) 32.6 58.1 19.0

Ethnicity

African American 27.7 34.8 17.9

White 36.3 26.5 29.2

Hispanic 23.7 25.9 38.3

Other 11.1 11.5 13.6

Marital status

Married 47.6 35.0 53.9

Single, never married 27.1 42.4 24.0

Divorced or widowed 15.2 14.1 11.0

Married, but separated 10.0 8.6 11.1

Nativity

Born in country other than U.S. 14.9 15.6 30.7

Education

Less than high school 17.5 30.9 32.2

High school diploma or GED 38.5 37.2 38.4

Some college 41.5 29.8 25.0

College degree or higher 2.5 2.2 4.4

Employment status

Full-time 48.5 27.3 34.0

Part-time 17.5 17.6 19.2

Not employed 33.2 54.4 46.7

Household income

$499 or less 6.4 15.1 13.0

$500-999 19.6 38.8 21.1

$1,000-1,499 24.5 23.8 25.5

$1,500-1,999 20.4 10.1 17.1

$2,000 or more 26.9 9.6 15.5 a

Private health insurance coverage was reported for the child.

b Medicaid coverage was reported for the families. Both Medicaid and private health insurance were reported for 290

families.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 54

Health Status of Parents and Household Members

Overall, most parents reported that their health was good (33.7%), very good (27.7%), or

excellent (22.8%). Very few parents indicated that they had a health problem that kept them from working

(9.2%) or limited them in the kind or amount of work that they could do (6.9%). Almost one quarter of

the parents (24.5%) indicated that someone in their household had an illness or condition that required

regular, ongoing care. See Chapter 3, Section 3.3 for information about the health status of the Head Start

children.

Health Care for the Head Start Children

Medical Homes. Most parents (88.2%) reported that their children had a regular health care

provider for routine medical care. The supplemental exhibits at the end of the chapter show that among

the ethnic groups, White children (94.6%) and African American children (89.7%) had the highest

percentages of regular health care providers (Exhibit 4-15). The lowest reported rate was for Hispanic

children (80.2%). Across the geographic regions (Exhibit 4-17), families in the Northeast had the highest

percentages of children (96.1%) and parents (83.9%) with regular health care providers. Families from

the South had the lowest reports of children (82.8%) and parents (68.9%) having regular health care

providers. Urban (88.3%) and rural (88.0%) children had similar proportions of regular health care

providers, as did the parents in these groups (75.6% urban; 76.0% rural) (Exhibit 4-16).

Sources of Routine Health Care. Two thirds of the parents (66.3%) reported that they usually

took their children to private doctors or HMOs for routine medical care. The remaining parents indicated

that their children received routine medical care through public health departments (10.6%), hospital

outpatient clinics (10.1%), or community health centers (9.5%). A very small proportion of the parents

indicated seeking routine care through the Indian Health Service or Migrant clinics (1.1%), or at hospital

emergency rooms (0.8%).

Among the identified ethnic groups (Exhibit 4-15), White children were the most likely to receive

care from private doctors or HMOs (81.1%), while lower percentages of African American (56.8%) and

Hispanic (59.5%) children went to private doctors or HMOs for their routine care. The supplemental

exhibits also show that routine care was provided by private doctors or HMOs for more than one half of

the children in each geographic region (Exhibit 4-17). Families in the Midwest (81.6%) and the West

(68.7%) had the highest reports regarding the use of private doctors or HMOs. Conversely, the Northeast

(44.5%) and the South (38.5%) had the highest reported use of non-private doctors for routine care for

children. About two thirds of the urban (64.5%) and the rural (69.8%) children received care from private

doctors or HMOs (Exhibit 4-16).
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 55

Sources of Care for Illness and Injury. Over half of the parents (54.2%) also indicated that they

took their children to private doctors or HMOs when their children were sick or injured, while 23.6%

indicated that they took their children to hospital emergency rooms in these cases. Less than 10% of the

parents reported that they took their children to any other categories of providers, such as hospital

outpatient clinics (8.3%), public health departments (6.6%), or community health centers (5.6%). Sources

of health care remained relatively unchanged in the spring of 1998. Exhibit 4-11 displays the sources of

child health care for routine care as well as care for illness or injury.

Exhibit 4-11

Sources of Routine Child Health Care and Care When Children are Sick or

Injured

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Private Medical Office Public Health Department

or Community Health

Center

Hospital Emergency

Room

Hospital Outpatient Clinic

Routine Sick/Injuried

When sick or injured, 70.6% of the White children went to private doctors or HMOs (Exhibit 4-

15). In contrast, just over one half of the Hispanic children (53.0%) received such care from private

doctors or HMOs, as did less than two fifths of the African American children (37.0%). African

American children had the highest percentage of children who were taken to hospital emergency rooms

for illness or injury (40.9%), more than two times the rate reported for White (14.7%) or Hispanic

(17.1%) children.

Regardless of region, when children were sick or injured, the providers of choice were private

doctors or HMOs (Exhibit 4-17). About three fifths of the families in the Midwest (57.6%) and two

thirds of the families in the West (66.9%) used private doctors or HMOs in these situations, but these

percentages dropped to below one half for families in the South (49.4%) and the Northeast (42.7%).

Between one quarter and one third of the families indicated that they would visit a hospital emergency
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 56

room, except in the West where only 8.0% reported that they used this option. Similarly, about one

quarter of the families would visit non-private doctors, except in the Midwest where only 12.3% reported

use of non-private doctors when their children were sick or injured.

Data presented in Exhibit 4-16 paints a similar picture for urban and rural families’ use of services

for sick or injured children. Just over one half took their children to private doctors or HMOs (51.9%

urban; 58.8% rural), while about one quarter used local hospital emergency rooms (24.9% urban; 20.8%

rural). The remainder used non-private doctors.

Help from Head Start in Finding Health Care. Approximately 80.1% of the parents indicated

that their children had health care providers prior to their enrollment in Head Start, and 9.1% found health

care providers on their own. Head Start provided some assistance in finding health care to 4.4% of the

parents; however, 5.8% of parents indicated that Head Start had not helped them, even though they had

needed help. The finding that Head Start generally provided help for only a small percentage of families

held up across classifications of children’s ethnicity, as about 90% of the parents of children within

almost every ethnic group found health care providers without assistance from Head Start (Exhibit 4-15).

A slightly lower percentage of parents of Asian children (73.0%) secured health care providers without

help from Head Start. Program staff was reported to have helped less than five percent of parents across

each ethnic group. Parents of African American children (11.8%) and Asian children (17.7%) were most

likely to desire help from Head Start in finding appropriate heath care providers for their children.

As seen in Exhibit 4-17 of the supplemental exhibits, almost all the families in the Northeast

(96.2%) found their children’s providers without the aid of Head Start, and the percentages of parents in

the other regions who found providers without assistance from Head Start were all 84.0% or higher.

Interestingly, between 3.5% and 10.5% of the parents in the Midwest, South, and West indicated that they

wished Head Start would help them more in this area, a request that came from virtually none of the

parents in the Northeast. The reports were similar for urban and rural families on this issue (Exhibit 4-

16), with about 90% in each group finding providers on their own, and about 6% in each group stating

they hoped Head Start would offer more assistance in finding health care providers for their children.

Effects of Insurance and Employment on Sources of Health Care. The sources of routine

health care for children also appeared to be related to the type of health insurance covering the children

(Exhibit 4-12). Among children with private health insurance, 76.6% reported using private doctors or

HMOs for routine care, while children with Medicaid (63.5%) or no insurance coverage (54.3%) were

less likely to use these sources. About one quarter of children with no health insurance (28.9%) or with
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 57

Medicaid (23.7%) received their routine health care at community health centers or public health

departments, sites used by only a few of the children with private health insurance (12.0%).

Exhibit 4-12

Sources of Routine Child Health Care and Type of Health Insurance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Private Doctor's Office Hospital Outpatient Clinic Community Health Center or

Public Health Dept

Private Insurance Medicaid No Insurance

Slightly more than two thirds of parents who reported that they were employed full-time (69.1%)

or part-time (68.7%) also took their children to private doctors or HMOs for routine care, slightly more

than parents who were not employed (62.5%) or received TANF benefits (61.5%). The opposite patterns

were observed for the use of community health centers/public health departments or hospital outpatient

clinics, which had lower proportions of employed parents than of parents who were unemployed or

receiving TANF benefits.

Health Care for the Head Start Parents

Over three fourths of the parents (75.7%) indicated that they had a regular health care provider for

their own routine medical care. Sources of adult health care were similar to those reported for the

children and predominantly included going to private doctors or HMOs (60.8%), public health

departments (10.9%), hospital outpatient clinics (10.7%), or community health centers (9.9%).

The supplemental exhibits show that almost three fourths of the parents of White children (74.5%)

had private doctors or HMOs where they received their routine medical care (Exhibit 4-15). Among

parents of Hispanic (50.9%) and African American (54.6%) children, private doctors or HMOs were used

by more than one half of these groups. Between one half and three quarters of the parents in each
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 58

geographic region reported that they used private doctors or HMOs as their routine care providers. The

highest percentage was among parents in the Midwest (78.1%). Exhibit 4-16 shows that more than three

fifths of the parents in the rural group (63.6%) received services from private doctors or HMOs, while a

slightly smaller percentage of the parents in the urban group (59.4%) also identified the same sources of

care.

Most parents (76.9%) reported that they had health care providers prior to their children’s

enrollment in Head Start, and 10.3% found health care providers on their own after enrolling. At least

three fourths of the parents, across all ethnic groups, found their own health care providers without the aid

of Head Start (Exhibit 4-15). Less than seven percent of parents in each group were assisted by Head

Start, and except for parents of African American children (13.0%) and Asian children (11.0%), less than

five percent indicated a desire for additional help from Head Start in identifying providers. Regardless of

geographic region, more than 80% of the parents reported that they had found health care providers

without the assistance of Head Start (Exhibit 4-17). More than 10% of the parents in the South (11.9%)

indicated that they would like Head Start to help them find providers, while less than one percent of the

parents in the Northeast (0.01%) suggested a need for similar assistance. Similarly, Exhibit 4-16 notes

that about 85% of both urban (87.9%) and rural (85.9%) parents found health care providers without the

assistance of Head Start, while slightly more than five percent (6.8% urban; 5.7% rural) indicated that

they wanted more assistance from Head Start in locating providers.

Dental Care for Children

Most parents (84.6%) reported that their children had received dental care, and over half (56.6%)

reported that their children went to private dentists for this care. Of the parents who indicated that their

children had not been to a dentist prior to the fall 1997 interview (15.4%), the majority of them (97.6%)

reported receiving dental care by the spring 1998 data collection period. These parents indicated taking

their children to hospital dental clinics (40.1%), private dentists (33.1%), community health dental clinics

(10.9%), or to some other providers (13.5%).

Exhibit 4-15 shows that, across all ethnic groups, between 80% and 90% of the children were

reported to have visited a dentist by the time of the baseline interview. Between one half and two thirds

of the White (67.3%) and the Hispanic (57.2%) children received services from private dentists, while

only 43.4% of the African American children went to private dentists.

Looking at the four geographic regions (Exhibit 4-17), three quarters of the children were reported

to have visited dentists, a figure that went well above 90% for children in the Midwest (93.5%) and the
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 59

Northeast (95.8%). In most cases, children received dental services from private dentists, with

percentages ranging from 44.4% in the South to 70.7% in the Midwest. For both urban and rural groups

(Exhibit 4-16), more than four fifths of the families in each group indicated that their children had

received dental care, typically from private dentists (54.3% urban; 61.4% rural). Those who received

dental services were more likely to be the 4-year-old children (70.2%) than the 3-year-old children

(29.8%).

Use of Child Care

Prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start, about one half of the parents (49.9%) reported

that they used regular child care (10 hours a week or more). Children, on average, started this care when

they were about 14 months old (M = 13.8 months, SD = 12.0; Mdn = 12.0 months), and the number of

arrangements ranged from 1 to 12, with a mean of 1.6 arrangements (SD = 1.0). Once their children were

enrolled in Head Start, 28.9% of the parents reported using child care before or after their children’s time

in the Head Start classroom. The number of arrangements used again ranged from 1 to 5, with a mean of

1.2 arrangements (SD = .45) for each child in care.

The type of child care arrangements used prior to and during children’s enrollment in Head Start

are reported in Exhibit 4-13. The most frequent type of child care arrangement in both cases was care in a

relative’s home. Once children were enrolled in Head Start, the proportion of parents indicating care by a

relative in their children’s home increased slightly, while decreases in proportions were noted in child

care provided in a relative’s home, family day care home, and child care center. About one tenth of the

parents (10.4%) indicated that the local Head Start program provided care for their children before or

after their children’s time in the Head Start classrooms.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 60

Exhibit 4-13

Type of Child Care Arrangements as Reported by Parents

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

In Home by Relative

In Home by Non-relative

Relative's Home

Non-Relative's Home

Family Day Care

Child Care Center

Prior to Head Start Before/After Head Start Day

Parents who reported using child care in addition to their Head Start enrollment indicated using

their primary arrangement an average of 19.9 (SD = 12.0) hours a week. While less than two fifths

(37.4%) reported that the child care provider was licensed, certified, or regulated, 92.8% of the

unregulated care was provided by family, friends, or neighbors. More than one half (54.0%) of the

parents indicated that they paid for their child care themselves. Approximately one quarter indicated that

the care was free (25.5%) or paid for by a government agency (26.5%), while 7.5% indicated that

payment came from some other source, such as their employer, the YMCA, or Head Start. A small

percentage of parents (3.0%) indicated that they traded child care with others. Payment for care was

provided through multiple sources for 18.4% of the parents.

Parents described their children’s experience in the primary child care arrangement used before or

after the Head Start day positively. The majority indicated that their children “always” or “often” felt

safe and secure in this care (95.4%), got lots of individual attention in this care (86.3%), and that their

children’s caregivers were open to new information and learning (91.3%).

Language

Many parents (65.3%) reported English was the primary language spoken in their homes. Those

indicating use of a language other than English predominately reported speaking Spanish (85.8%),4 while

the remaining parents indicated another language, typically an Asian or Eastern-European language.

4 This percentage included 130 families who lived in Puerto Rico.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 61

Exhibit 4-14 displays demographic characteristics by the primary language spoken in the home.

As expected, larger proportions of parents reported speaking a language other than English in the home

who were born in a country other than the U.S., but the majority of these parents indicated that they lived

in the U.S. for five or more years.5 Marital status, education level, and employment status varied across

the groups of English and non-English speaking parents. Those reporting to speak Spanish or an Asian or

Eastern-European language comprised higher proportions of parents who reported being married and

unemployed. Education levels tended to be slightly lower for Spanish speaking parents. Parents’ age,

income level, and family size were similar across the three language groups.

Parents who indicated that a language other than English was spoken in their homes were asked if

they needed someone from Head Start to speak to them or their family in their native language.

Approximately one fifth of the parents (20.5%) said they did, and of these, 94.7% reported that someone

from Head Start was available to speak to them or their family in their native language. Parents who

indicated not having someone available to speak to them in their native language primarily included those

who reported that they spoke an Asian or Eastern-European language. Parents then were asked if their

children ever needed or wanted a member of the Head Start teaching staff to speak in their native

languages. Again, approximately one fifth of the parents (19.6%) indicated that their children needed or

wanted a member of the Head Start teaching staff to speak with them in their native language, and of

these parents, 90.0% reported that Head Start had someone in the classroom available to speak to their

children in their native languages. Parents who reported that their children did not have someone

available in the classroom to speak in their native language included those who spoke Asian languages,

Eastern-European languages, or Spanish.

5 Among parents in Puerto Rico, 92.3% reported being born in the U.S, including Puerto Rico.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 62

Exhibit 4-14

Demographic Characteristics by the Primary Language Spoken in the Home

Weighted Percentages

Demographic Characteristics English

(n = 2,065)

Spanish

(n = 788)a

Other

(n = 130)

Age

Less than 20 years old 3.1 1.6 0.6

21-29 years old 55.7 48.8 43.5

30-39 years old 29.7 37.1 39.7

40 and older 11.2 12.1 16.2

Mean age 30.1 30.7 31.9

Median age 27.9 29.3 31.0

Marital Status

Married 35.9 56.7 56.9

Single, never married 39.1 23.4 23.9

Divorced or widowed 16.5 7.4 12.4

Married, but separated 8.5 12.5 6.9

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other than U.S. 2.3 50.4 56.5

Less than 5 years in U.S. 0.0 9.6 32.3

Education

Less than high school 23.2 36.6 28.1

High school diploma or GED 39.8 34.6 25.9

Some college 29.1 19.8 25.5

College degree or higher 7.9 9.0 20.6

Employment Status

Full-time 36.9 29.6 32.2

Part-time 18.3 16.8 16.6

Not employed 44.5 52.7 51.2

Income

Less than $500 12.4 11.7 4.6

$500-999 28.6 32.2 26.0

$1,000-1,499 24.6 24.4 32.5

$1,500-$1,999 16.0 10.9 16.4

More than $2,000 16.3 14.4 15.8

Mean number of adults in household 1.9 2.2 2.2

Mean number of children in household 2.6 2.5 2.8 a

Includes 130 families from Puerto Rico
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 63

4.5 Summary

Chapter 4 provides the baseline description of the parents of the Head Start children and the

households in which they live. The need for the type of information presented in this chapter was one of

the primary reasons for undertaking this study. The following is a summary of these findings.

Primary Caregivers

• Slightly over one half of the parents were in their twenties or thirties at the time of the fall 1997

parent interview. Only a few of the parents were less than 20 years old, and just slightly more

than one tenth of caregivers were 40 years or older.

• Almost one fifth of all parents were born in a country other than the United States. A small

percentage of caregivers, only 2.2%, reported that they had resided in the United States for less

than five years.

• Less than one half of all parents were married. About one third reported being single, while

almost one quarter were divorced, separated, or widowed.

• Almost three fourths of all parents had at least a high school diploma or GED. Although one

third of all caregivers reported they had attended some college or received an Associate’s degree,

only 2.3% had a college degree or higher. By fall 1997, more than two fifths of all parents had

attended a vocational or trade school, and almost two fifths had received a certificate or license.

• Approximately one fourth of all parents reported that they were working toward a degree,

certificate, or license in the fall of 1997, with 6.6% working toward a high school diploma or

GED. Of those who reported they were working towards a degree, about one fourth indicated

they had completed the degree by the time of the spring 1998 parent interview.

• Over one half of all parents were employed in the fall of 1997, about one third had full-time jobs,

and one fifth were working part-time or had seasonal work. In the longitudinal sample, 50.7%

were employed in the fall of 1997 (32.6% full-time; 18.1% part-time) and by the spring of 1998,

both overall employment (55.7%) and full-time employment (38.8%) had increased.

Households

• Both mothers and fathers were present in two fifths of the households. Mother-only households

represented one third of the families (non-parent adults may have been present).

• There were two or more adults (age 18 or older) in almost three fourths of the households. In

almost 90% of the households, there was at least one individual with a high school diploma or

GED.

• From fall 1997 to spring 1998, two fifths of all families indicated that either someone entered or

left their household.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 64

• The mean income for all households was $1,256 in the fall of 1997. In the longitudinal sample,

the mean household monthly income in the fall 1997 was $1,258 and increased to $1,326 in the

spring 1998. In many cases, household income is likely to be higher than the family income used

to determine Head Start eligibility.

• Approximately one third of the parents participating in these welfare reform programs reported

that they were required to get a job, attend job training, attend school/GED class, or do something

else in order to continue receiving these public benefits.

• The majority of parents reported English was the primary language spoken in their homes. Those

indicating a language other than English was primarily spoken in the home predominantly

reported speaking Spanish, while the remaining parents indicated another language.

• Almost all of the parents reported that they and their children had a regular health care provider

for routine medical care and that care was most often provided at a doctor’s office or private

clinic. Most parents reported having a health care provider for themselves and their children prior

to the children’s enrollment at Head Start.

• Almost all of the parents reported that their children had received dental care and over one half

received that care at a private dentist’s office. Of the one fifth of children who had not been to a

dentist prior to the fall 1997 interview, the majority had received dental care by the following

spring.

• About one half of the children were in child care prior to their enrollment in Head Start and began

in this care soon after their first birthday. After enrollment in the program, slightly less than one

third were enrolled in child care before or after the Head Start day. The most frequent type of

child care arrangement used was care in a relative’s home.

.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 65

Supplemental Tables

Exhibit 4-15

Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Ethnicity

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

African

American

(n = 1,137)

White

(n = 859)

Hispanic

(n = 760)

Asian

(n =32 )

Native

American

(n =57)

Other

(n = 250)

Urbanicity

Urban 67.0 79.5 39.0 85.6 92.7 41.9 64.0

Rural 33.1 20.5 61.0 14.4 7.3 58.2 36.0

Region

Midwest 23.1 23.7 38.0 7.5 12.3 26.7 19.9

Northeast 15.5 16.9 14.1 15.1 26.9 6.1 16.9

South 39.5 52.6 31.3 38.0 23.6 28.8 33.6

West 22.0 6.8 16.6 39.4 37.3 38.4 29.6

Gender of Child

Male 50.4 47.2 54.1 49.4 67.0 48.6 49.7

Female 49.6 52.8 45.9 50.6 33.1 51.4 50.3

Age of Child

3 years old 31.7 38.1 30.0 25.9 32.7 38.3 31.9

4 years old 68.3 61.9 70.0 74.2 67.3 61.7 68.1

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.8 83.1 87.5 86.2 61.7 93.5 88.6

Low 7.6 9.5 7.2 7.4 6.8 1.8 5.9

Very low 1.8 2.3 0.9 2.5 1.3 0.0 1.7

Child Disability 19.3 19.9 24.2 16.1 9.8 14.4 14.9

Age of Parent

Less than 20 years old 2.5 4.9 1.1 2.4 0.0 0.9 1.0

21-29 years old 53.1 52.5 54.7 51.1 30.8 63.7 57.5

30-39 years old 32.4 28.9 34.1 36.4 41.2 26.5 24.5

40 and older 11.7 13.6 10.0 9.7 28.0 8.9 16.6

Mean age 30.4 30.5 30.5 29.9 33.8 30.7 31.2

Median age 28.0 28.0 28.0 29.0 33.0 29.0 28.0

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other than U.S 18.7 3.2 2.4 53.4 86.9 2.2 13.3
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 66

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

African

American

(n = 1,137)

White

(n = 859)

Hispanic

(n = 760)

Asian

(n =32 )

Native

American

(n =57)

Other

(n = 250)

Marital Status

Married 43.1 20.8 50.3 56.3 59.6 46.7 46.2

Single, never married 33.7 60.9 18.4 24.4 11.9 18.4 32.7

Divorced or widowed 13.5 10.7 23.5 6.8 16.9 14.5 9.0

Married, but separated 9.6 7.5 7.7 12.5 11.7 20.4 12.1

Education and Training

Less than high school 27.2 26.4 18.7 39.6 33.2 34.6 17.0

High school diploma or GED 37.5 34.4 43.5 33.1 18.8 38.0 44.7

Some college/AA degree 32.5 36.7 34.7 24.4 45.4 26.7 35.9

College degree or higher 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.6 0.7 2.5

Vocational or trade school 41.7 46.0 42.4 34.8 56.1 39.0 47.4

Employment Status

Full-time 34.5 37.4 34.3 29.9 40.0 45.4 36.3

Part-time or seasonal 17.8 15.9 20.6 17.2 14.4 17.7 17.6

Not employed 47.3 46.0 45.1 52.6 45.6 36.9 43.2

Household Income

$499 or less 11.8 19.1 6.4 10.9 1.3 10.0 11.4

$500-999 29.6 33.9 25.3 34.1 17.8 28.5 18.8

$1,000-1,499 24.8 20.4 27.7 23.6 38.6 18.0 32.9

$1,500-1,999 14.4 13.5 18.0 10.5 18.1 20.0 14.9

$2,000 or more 15.7 10.5 21.4 14.5 13.3 20.8 18.1

Housing Status

Private housing 86.5 83.4 91.1 84.1 83.3 96.3 86.1

Shared housing 12.5 13.5 8.8 15.9 16.7 3.7 13.0

Transitional housing 1.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7

Public housing 22.2 38.8 14.9 16.6 11.8 11.5 15.8

Sources of Support

WIC 54.5 56.0 52.8 58.0 42.7 50.6 48.3

TANF 30.3 46.7 23.0 22.8 28.6 7.7 29.7

Insurance Coverage

Private insurance 32.6 32.0 39.0 27.3 41.5 34.3 27.3

Medicaid 58.1 71.8 50.7 53.1 38.5 53.4 58.0
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 67

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

African

American

(n = 1,137)

White

(n = 859)

Hispanic

(n = 760)

Asian

(n =32 )

Native

American

(n =57)

Other

(n = 250)

Regular Health Provider

Child 88.2 89.7 94.6 80.2 84.2 80.9 88.6

Parent 75.7 78.5 80.8 66.7 68.6 73.3 75.6

Routine Care Provider (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 66.3 56.8 81.1 59.5 64.1 57.7 68.9

Non-private doctor 32.6 42.7 17.4 38.9 33.9 42.3 30.3

Head Start Role in Finding

Provider (Child)

Had provider prior to Head

Start 80.1 70.7 82.7 86.1 69.2 79.2 83.6

Found provider on their own 9.1 13.7 9.5 5.7 4.2 11.5 5.6

Head Start helped find

provider 3.1 2.3 2.6 4.4 1.6 3.4 2.7

Wish Head Start would help

more

5.8 11.8 2.7 3.0 17.7 5.9 3.3

Provider When Ill or Injured

(Child)

Private doctor or HMO 54.2 37.0 70.6 53.0 43.8 42.7 60.6

Hospital ER 23.6 40.9 14.7 17.1 40.8 18.6 16.2

Other non-private doctor 21.8 22.0 13.9 29.5 15.4 38.7 22.7

Child Received Dental Care 84.2 79.9 86.9 84.5 82.1 90.1 87.5

Routine Dental Care Provider

Private 56.6 43.4 67.3 57.2 63.3 57.9 60.7

Non private 27.6 36.6 19.6 27.3 18.8 32.3 26.7

Routine Care Provider (Parent)

Private doctor or HMO 60.8 54.6 74.5 50.9 65.8 52.0 65.0

Non-private doctor 35.4 43.4 21.3 44.5 32.3 39.4 29.2

Head Start Role in Finding

Provider (Parent)

Had provider prior to Head

Start 76.9 67.3 79.4 83.2 73.5 79.3 79.1

Found provider on their own 10.3 13.1 10.9 7.7 0.0 13.1 10.0

Head Start helped find

provider 2.3 3.5 1.1 2.5 6.8 0.0 0.9

Wish Head Start would help

more

6.4 13.0 3.5 4.0 11.0 0.0 3.2
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 68

Exhibit 4-16

Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Urbanicity

Weighted Percentages

All

(N =3,120)

Urban

(n = 2,122)

Rural

(n = 998)

Ethnicity

African American 28.8 34.2 17.9

White 30.7 17.9 56.6

Hispanic 27.6 35.4 12.0

Asian 1.3 1.8 0.3

Native American 1.9 1.2 3.4

Other 8.7 8.3 9.4

Region

Midwest 23.1 21.9 25.6

Northeast 15.5 19.5 7.4

South 39.5 34.9 48.6

West 22.0 23.7 18.5

Gender of Child

Boy 50.4 50.6 50.0

Girl 49.6 49.4 50.0

Age of Child

3 years old 31.7 31.5 32.0

4 years old 68.3 68.5 68.0

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.8 85.7 86.0

Low 7.6 7.0 9.0

Very low 1.8 2.3 0.9

One or More Disabilities 19.3 17.6 22.6

Age of Parent

Less than 20 years old 2.5 2.8 2.1

21-29 years old 53.1 50.8 57.8

30-39 years old 32.4 33.6 30.1

40 and older 11.7 12.6 9.8

Mean age 30.4 30.7 29.9

Median age 28.0 29.0 28.0

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other than U.S. 18.7 23.9 8.1
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 69

Weighted Percentages

All

(N =3,120)

Urban

(n = 2,122)

Rural

(n = 998)

Marital Status

Married 43.1 41.5 46.5

Single, never married 33.7 36.8 27.4

Divorced or widowed 13.5 11.9 16.8

Married, but separated 9.6 9.8 9.3

Education and Training

Less than high school 27.2 28.2 25.2

High school diploma or GED 37.5 36.2 40.2

Some college/AA degree 32.5 32.5 32.4

College degree or higher 2.8 3.1 2.2

Vocational or trade school 41.7 43.4 38.3

Employment Status

Full-time 34.5 32.8 37.9

Part-time or seasonal 17.8 18.0 17.3

Not employed 47.3 48.5 44.8

Household Income

$499 or less 11.8 13.1 9.4

$500-999 29.6 31.0 26.9

$1,000-1,499 24.8 24.0 26.5

$1,500-1,999 14.4 13.0 17.3

$2,000 or more 15.7 14.2 18.7

Housing Status

Private housing 86.5 85.2 89.0

Shared housing 12.5 13.2 10.9

Transitional housing 1.1 1.6 0.1

Public housing 22.2 26.1 14.5

Sources of Support

WIC 54.5 52.4 58.7

TANF 30.3 34.3 22.1

Insurance Coverage

Private insurance 32.6 32.9 31.8

Medicaid 58.1 60.2 54.0
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 70

Weighted Percentages

All

(N =3,120)

Urban

(n = 2,122)

Rural

(n = 998)

Regular Health Provider

Child 88.2 88.3 88.00

Parent 75.7 75.6 76.0

Routine Care Provider (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 66.3 64.5 69.8

Non-private doctor 32.6 35.0 27.7

Head Start Role in Finding Provider

(Child)

Had provider prior to Head Start 80.1 78.4 83.4

Found provider on their own 9.1 11.7 4.0

Head Start helped find provider 3.1 2.5 4.2

Wish Head Start would help more 5.8 5.9 5.5

Provider When Ill or Injured (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 54.2 51.9 58.8

Hospital ER 23.6 24.9 20.8

Other non-private doctor 21.8 23.0 19.4

Child Received Dental Care 84.2 86.1 80.6

Routine Dental Care Provider

Private 56.6 54.3 61.4

Non private 27.6 31.8 19.2

Routine Care Provider (Parent)

Private doctor or HMO 60.8 59.4 63.6

Non-private doctor 35.4 38.0 30.0

Head Start Role in Finding Provider

(Parent)

Had provider prior to Head Start 76.9 75.4 80.0

Found provider on their own 10.3 12.5 5.9

Head Start helped find provider 2.3 2.6 1.8

Wish Head Start would help more 6.4 6.8 5.7
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 71

Exhibit 4-17

Demographic and Family Background Characteristics by Region

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

Midwest

(n = 778)

Northeast

(n = 432)

South

(n = 1,316)

West

(n = 594)

Ethnicity

African American 28.8 29.6 31.5 38.4 8.9

White 30.7 50.4 28.0 24.3 23.2

Hispanic 27.6 9.0 26.9 26.6 49.5

Asian 1.3 0.7 2.2 0.8 2.2

Native American 1.9 2.2 0.8 1.4 3.3

Other 8.7 7.5 9.4 7.4 11.7

Urbanicity

Urban 67.0 63.4 84.3 59.3 72.2

Rural 33.1 36.6 15.7 40.7 27.8

Gender of Child

Boy 50.4 51.3 44.9 51.6 51.3

Girl 49.6 48.8 55.1 48.4 48.7

Age of Child

3 years old 31.7 37.1 35.2 35.7 16.3

4 years old 68.3 62.9 64.8 64.3 83.7

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.8 86.9 81.6 86.7 86.0

Low 7.6 6.7 11.0 8.4 4.8

Very low 1.8 0.9 2.5 1.6 2.8

Child Disability 19.3 18.3 20.7 19.8 18.4

Age of Parent

Less than 20 years old 2.5 1.4 1.2 4.1 2.0

21-29 years old 53.1 59.7 46.6 55.0 47.7

30-39 years old 32.4 28.2 42.3 29.3 35.3

40 and older 11.7 10.7 9.3 11.4 15.0

Mean age 30.4 29.9 31.1 29.9 31.5

Median age 28.0 28.0 30.0 28.0 30.0

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other than U.S. 18.7 8.6 28.5 11.2 35.9
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 72

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

Midwest

(n = 778)

Northeast

(n = 432)

South

(n = 1,316)

West

(n = 594)

Marital Status

Married 43.1 43.0 38.3 42.1 48.4

Single, never married 33.7 34.1 42.5 34.4 26.0

Divorced or widowed 13.5 16.7 8.2 12.9 15.1

Married, but separated 9.6 6.2 11.1 10.6 10.5

Education and Training

Less than high school 27.2 25.6 21.3 30.4 27.4

High school diploma or GED 37.5 41.5 38.0 34.7 37.8

Some college/AA degree 32.5 31.0 38.3 31.5 31.7

College degree or higher 2.8 1.8 2.4 3.4 3.1

Vocational or trade school 41.7 43.2 48.9 38.9 39.9

Employment Status

Full-time 34.5 36.8 25.1 38.2 32.2

Part-time or seasonal 17.8 19.7 18.5 14.9 20.1

Not employed 47.3 43.6 54.9 46.7 46.7

Household Income

$499 or less 11.8 8.3 10.1 19.6 3.3

$500-999 29.6 24.6 35.3 31.1 28.3

$1,000-1,499 24.8 22.7 23.9 22.7 31.3

$1,500-1,999 14.4 19.8 12.1 13.4 12.4

$2,000 or more 15.7 23.0 14.4 11.4 16.6

Housing Status

Private housing 86.5 90.8 87.5 87.6 79.4

Shared housing 12.5 9.1 9.4 11.0 20.6

Transitional housing 1.1 0.1 3.1 1.5 0.0

Public housing 22.2 21.7 25.7 25.4 14.9

Sources of Support

WIC 54.5 49.6 55.6 56.5 55.4

TANF 30.3 31.5 41.0 24.8 30.8

Insurance Coverage

Private insurance 32.6 42.1 32.2 29.2 28.9

Medicaid 58.1 51.9 63.3 60.2 57.2
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Head Start Families 73

Weighted Percentages

Characteristics All

(N = 3,120)

Midwest

(n = 778)

Northeast

(n = 432)

South

(n = 1,316)

West

(n = 594)

Regular Health Provider

Child 88.2 93.5 96.1 82.8 86.5

Parent 75.7 78.6 83.9 71.2 75.0

Routine Care Provider (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 66.3 81.6 55.6 60.1 68.7

Non-private doctor 32.6 18.3 44.5 38.5 28.6

Head Start Role in Finding Provider

(Child)

Had provider prior to Head Start 80.1 76.8 79.1 78.0 87.5

Found provider on their own 9.1 12.6 17.1 6.0 5.3

Head Start helped find provider 3.1 1.9 2.6 4.0 3.1

Wish Head Start would help more 5.8 4.0 0.0 10.5 3.5

Provider when Ill or Injured (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 54.2 57.6 42.7 49.4 66.9

Hospital ER 23.6 30.1 31.1 25.7 8.0

Other non-private doctor 21.8 12.3 26.2 24.5 23.7

Child Received Dental Care 84.2 92.4 96.2 77.3 79.4

Routine Dental Care Provider

Private 56.6 70.7 59.3 44.4 61.4

Non private 27.6 21.7 36.9 32.9 18.0

Routine Care Provider (Parent)

Private doctor or HMO 60.8 78.1 53.1 53.5 61.1

Non-private doctor 35.4 18.9 45.6 42.5 32.8

Head Start Role in Finding Provider

(Parent)

Had provider prior to Head Start 76.9 72.7 77.0 74.7 84.9

Found provider on their own 10.3 11.1 18.8 8.3 7.1

Head Start helped find provider 2.3 4.7 0.9 1.6 2.0

Wish Head Start would help more 6.4 4.3 0.1 11.9 3.6
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 74

5.0 Functioning of Head Start Families

5.1 Overview

Chapter 5 presents information gathered from the parent interviews about the functioning of the

Head Start families, including their home safety practices, use of discipline and household rules, their

psychological well-being, and their exposure to violence.

5.2 Home Safety Practices

Head Start families were asked to indicate whether they engaged in various home safety

practices, such as using a child safety seat or seat belt for their children, keeping medicines in childproof

bottles, having an operating smoke detector, and having a first aid kit. During the fall 1997 interview, all

but two of the safety practices were reported by 85% or more of the parents (Exhibit 5-1). The only items

receiving proportions lower than 85% were “having a first-aid kit in the home” (67.7%) and “keeping the

poison control center number and other emergency numbers by the telephone” (67.6%). Parents, on

average, reported following 7.8 activities out of the nine possible, and their reported use of these practices

remained high throughout the study (Mean change score = .13 from fall 1997 to spring 1998). By the

spring of 1998, parents improved their practice of the two least frequent household safety items. Parents

having a first-aid kit in the home increased to 78.3% in the spring, while the proportion of parents keeping

emergency numbers by the telephone increased to 76.3% by the spring.

Exhibit 5-1

Safety Practices in the Home as Reported by Parents, Fall 1997

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Medicines in child proof bottles

Supervise child when crossing street

Matches out of child's reach

Cleaning material out of reach

Safety seat use

Supervise child in bathtub

Smoke detector

First-aid kit

Poison control number
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 75

During the spring 1998 interview, parents were additionally asked about keeping their firearms

under lock and key. While most parents (62.1%) indicated that this question was not applicable to them,

one third (33.1%) did report that they always kept their firearms under lock and key, and 2.6% noted that

they did not. One half of the parents who lived in rural locations (50.3%) acknowledged having firearms

in their homes compared to 27.9% of the parents who were urban dwellers. Over one third of the parents

who lived in non-subsidized housing (37.9%) indicated they had firearms in their homes while slightly

lower proportions of parents who lived in subsidized or public housing (28.5 %) acknowledged having a

firearm in their homes. Almost one half of the parents of White children had firearms (46.2%), more than

parents of African American children (36.2%), and twice as often as parents of Hispanic children

(21.3%).

5.3 Social Support

Families need outside sources of support in raising young children. In the fall of 1997, parents

were asked about the people or groups in their lives that were helpful to them during the past six months

in raising their Head Start children. Even at the beginning of the school year, almost all of the parents

(87.1%) reported that Head Start was helpful (25.2%) or very helpful (62.0%) as a source of support

(Exhibit 5-2). Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than relatives (84.3%) and much

more helpful than other parents (67.9%), friends (64.0%), people from religious or social groups (46.5%),

child care staff (31.5%), professional help givers (23.3%), or co-workers (21.3%). By the spring of 1998,

94.0% of the parents indicated that Head Start had been helpful or very helpful to them in raising their

children.

Exhibit 5-2

Social Support Reported by Head Start Parents, Fall 1997

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

Percent

H e a d S ta rt R e la tiv e s O th e r

P a re nt(s )

F rie n d s R e ligio u s /

S o c ia l

G roup

P r o f e s s io n a l

H e lp giv e r s

C h ild C a r e

Sta ff

So m ew hat H elpful V ery H elpful
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 76

A summary score measuring total support1 was created for each parent who responded to the

questionnaire. Interestingly, parents who were employed reported significantly higher levels of overall

support, t(2957) = 16.65; p < .0001, than parents not in the workforce, even though coworkers were least

likely to be mentioned by the parents as a source of support in raising their children. Levels of overall

support significantly decreased among those parents who lost employment from the fall of 1997 to the

spring of 1998, t(207) = 4.44; p < .0001, and increased for parents who gained employment from fall of

1997 to the spring of 1998, t(299) = 8.70; p < .0001.

Differences in the overall level of support also varied by ethnicity. Parents of African American

children reported having significantly higher levels of support than parents of White children and parents

of Hispanic children, F(5, 2948) = 6.24; p < .0001. No significant differences were found in reported

levels of support between parents who were married or not married at the time of the fall 1997 interview.

However, those parents who were no longer married by the spring of 1998 reported increased overall

support for raising their children during the second interview, t(77) = 2.96; p = 0.004. No change in

support was found among parents who were not married in the fall of 1997 but were married in the spring

of 1998. Parents who lived in rural locations reported significantly higher levels of support than parents

who lived in urban areas, t(2929) = 3.20; p < .001. Finally, a small but statistically significant

relationship was found between the number of individuals who lived in the household and the level of

overall support reported by the parents. The more individuals living in the household, the less overall

support the parents reported, (r = -0.08; p < .001).

5.4 Depression

Because depression is a frequent phenomenon in low-income families with young children (Belle,

1982), depression among the Head Start parents was measured using the CES-D Depression Scale2

(Radloff, 1975). Overall, parents had a mean score of 7.2 in the fall of 1997, which is in the mildly

depressed range. While most parents were classified as not depressed (41.9%) or only mildly depressed

(27.7%), close to one third of the parents (28.4%) were classified as moderately depressed (15.6%) or

1 Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start

children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very

helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5; SD =

5.2.

2 The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Score range 0-36. Zero-4 = Not depressed;

5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 77

severely depressed (12.8%). From fall to spring, there was a small decline in the overall mean depression

scores (spring 1998 score of 7.0), but the difference was not statistically significant.

Levels of depression varied by ethnicity. Larger proportions of parents of African American

children were classified as moderately or severely depressed (35.2%) than parents of White children

(30.1%) or parents of Hispanic children (23.5%).

Exhibit 5-3 presents a series of zero-order correlations between depression and other factors such

as educational attainment, discipline methods, safety practices, or activities with their children. Findings

indicate that parents who were more depressed were also those who had a need for (r = 0.25; p < .0001)

and used (r = 0.20; p < .0001) more social services, had a more external locus of control (r = -0.35; p <

.0001) and reported less social support (r = -.05; p < .001), reported a lower household income (r = -0.11;

p < .0001), and engaged in fewer safety practices (r = -.11; p < .0001). When asked about activities with

the children, parents who were more depressed were more likely to report that the mothers in the

households participated in fewer activities with their children (r = -0.06; p < .01). A higher proportion of

mothers living without a father in the home were classified as moderately or seriously depressed (32.7%)

than those who had a father present in the home (22.9%). Parents who identified smokers in their

households, t(2965) = 6.37; p < .0001, and problem drinkers in their households, t(2974) = 4.06; p <

.0001, were significantly more depressed. As expected, levels of depression significantly increased for

those parents who lost employment between the fall of 1997 to the spring of 1998, t(208) = 2.38; p <

.0001, and decreased for parents who gained employment between the fall interview and the spring

interview, t(301) = -2.19; p < .0001.

Exhibit 5-3

Correlations between Depression and Selected Factors Related to the Well-being

of Children and Families

Child Problem

Behavior

Child Behavior

– Aggressive

Child Behavior

– Withdrawn

Child Behavior

– Hyperactive

Positive Social

Behavior

Number of

Mother’s

Activities with

Child

r = -.28

p < .0001

r = .22

p < .0001

r = .22

p < .0001

r = .20

p < .0001

r = -.08

p < .0001

r = -.06

p < .01

Social

Support

Number of Social

Services Needed

Number of

Social Services

Received

Household

Income

Home

Safety

Practices

Educational

Attainment

r = -.08

p < .001

r = -.06

p < .0001

r = .20

p < .0001

r = -.11

p < .0001

r = -.11

p < .0001

r = -.05

p < .01
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 78

Findings also revealed that parental depression was significantly related to children’s behavior

ratings. Parents who were more depressed reported children with higher ratings of problem behavior3 (r =

.28, p < .0001), including aggressive4 (r = .22, p < .0001), hyperactive5 (r = .20, p < .0001), and

withdrawn6 (r = .22; p < .0001) behavior. Two small but significant negative correlations were also

found between parental depression and children’s positive social behavior ratings7 (r = -.08; p < .0001)

and emergent literacy8 (r = -.04; p <.05), indicating that less depressed parents reported having children

with better social and academic skills.

5.5 Household Rules

To learn about the structure of children’s activities in the household, parents were asked about

rules or routines for their children. A large majority of parents (90.2%) reported that their children had a

set time to go to bed each night, while 86.0% reported having rules about what types of television

programs their children watched. Fewer children, about three quarters (76.2%), had responsibilities for

helping with household chores, while less than two thirds of the parents reported that they had rules or

routines for how much television their children could watch (63.2%) or what types of foods their children

were allowed to eat (64.7%).

In fall 1997, two thirds of the families used at least 4 of the 5 rules, and the mean number of

reported rules or routines was 3.9. Almost one tenth of the parents (9.3%) reported having only two rules

or routines, and 4.3% reported having only one rule or routine for their children. Among the families who

had the same respondent complete the spring 1998 interview, there was a significant increase in the

number of rules used by most families (mean change = .17; t = 7.2; p < .0001) over the Head Start year.

3 An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based

on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary score ranges from

0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.

4 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums,

doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale score ranges from 0-8.

5 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous,

high-strung, or tense. Subscale score ranges from 0-6.

6 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too

young. Subscale score ranges from 0-8.

7 A summary score of 7 parent-reported behavior items rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often

true.” Score ranges from 0-14, with higher scores representing more positive behavior.

8 A summary score of 5 parent-reported child skills including whether child can identify all of the primary colors, recognize most

or all letters of the alphabet, count to twenty or higher, write rather than scribble, and write own name. Scores range from 0-5.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 79

5.6 Discipline Practices

Parents were asked about their use of two discipline practices: time out and spanking. In fall

1997, 69.4% of the parents reported that they had used a time out with their children during the previous

week, while 46.2% reported that they had spanked their children during the same time. The parents who

reported using time outs had given an average of 3.0 time outs during the previous week, while parents

who indicated they had spanked their children had done so, on average, 2.1 times during the previous

week.

Among the sample of parents who were respondents in both fall 1997 and spring 1998, there was

little change in the reported use of either discipline practice. For this group, the proportion of parents who

spanked their children in the previous week went from 45.7% in the fall to 44.2% in the spring. The

reported use of time outs in the previous week went from 67.7% in fall 1997 to 71.0% the following

spring. Paired t-tests showed that from baseline to the spring 1998 follow-up, there was no change in the

number of spankings or time outs used.

When asked if Head Start had taught them any new ways to discipline their children, 42.3% of the

parents replied that Head Start had helped them. Given that 72.0% of the parents who reported they had

learned a new way to discipline their children were from the families in which the children (and most

parents) were new to Head Start in fall 1997, this suggested that Head Start may have some influence

with parents new to the program. Therefore, further analyses were conducted looking at parents with no

previous Head Start experience. The parents who were new to Head Start spanked and used time outs at

similar rates to the overall sample of parents. In fall 1997, 42.7% of the parents reported giving

spankings, and 67.7% reported using time outs. These numbers showed little change in spring 1998, with

43.4% issuing spankings and 70.1% giving time outs. The proportion of parents who reported learning

new information from Head Start about discipline was 39.1%.

In assessing parents’ use of discipline across time, an unusual pattern of change emerged. As seen

in Exhibit 5-4, a majority of these parents (69.7%) were consistent in their use or non-use of time outs or

gave the same reports of spanking or not spanking in the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998 (71.5%).

However, for both disciplinary practices, about equal percentages of parents reported adding or dropping

the behavior (see the shaded cells in Exhibit 5-4). For example, in spring 1998, 13.3% of the parents who

did not report using time out at baseline now reported having used time outs with their children. In

contrast, an almost identical proportion of parents, 13.4%, who had reportedly used time outs in the fall

did not report them the following spring. Similarly, while 12.9% of the parents who had spanked their
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 80

children in the fall did not report doing so in the spring, virtually the same percentage, 12.5%, reported

spanking their children in the spring after not reporting so in the fall. The implication of this finding is

that while it was noted that almost two fifths of the parents new to Head Start reported learning new

discipline styles from Head Start, this seems to have had little effect on reported behaviors. Where 68.1%

of the parents reported use of time outs in the fall, 71.5% reported use of time outs in the follow-up

interview. There was virtually no change in spanking behavior within the group of parents new to Head

Start. In the fall, 41.4% of the parents spanked their children, while 41.6% reported the same in the

spring

Exhibit 5-4

Change in Use of Time Out and Spanking from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998.

Use of Time Out Use of Spanking

Spring 1998 Spring 1998

Fall 1997 No time out Time out Fall 1997 No spanking Spanking

No time out 15.5% 13.3% No spanking 41.7% 12.5%

Timeout 13.4% 54.2% Spanking 12.9% 29.8%

Among the larger sample of parents who participated in fall 1997 and spring 1998, discipline

practices appeared to vary by ethnicity. Time outs were most likely used by parents of White children

(77.3%), followed by the parents of African American children (62.2%) and parents of Hispanic children

(57.7%). In fall 1997, more than one half of the parents of African American children (53.9%) reported

using spankings, about two fifths of the parents of Hispanic children (41.9%) and one third of the parents

of White children (32.8%) reported having spanked their children in the previous week. Only slight

changes in these percentages were reported in spring 1998 (53.5% African American, 40.5% Hispanic,

and 38.8% White). Using paired t-tests to assess change over time in the number of spankings by

parents, no significant differences were found within any of the ethnic groups. Regardless of the ethnic

group, between one third and one half of the parents reported learning a new discipline practice from

Head Start. The highest report of learning new discipline practices came from parents of Hispanic

children (45.5%), followed by parents of White children (40.4%) and parents of African American

children (33.7%).

The use of spanking as a disciplinary practice was explored more fully through univariate and

multivariate logistic regression models. Crude odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the

independent variables (depression, single parenthood, and educational attainment) included in the models
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 81

are presented in Exhibit 5-5. These estimates indicate that being depressed, regardless of the severity, and

having only a mother in the home increased the likelihood of children being spanked. Parents who were

mildly depressed were 1.6 times more likely to spank their children (OR = 1.63) than parents who were

not depressed, while parents who were moderately depressed (OR = 1.71) or severely depressed (OR =

1.65) were approximately 1.7 times more likely to use spanking as a discipline method than nondepressed parents. Single mothers were 1.4 times more likely to spank than mothers who had the

children’s fathers present in their households.9 There appeared to be no relationship between educational

attainment and the parent’s use of physical punishment. Parents who had a high school diploma, GED, or

some college were no more likely to spank their children than parents who had less than a high school

diploma.

It is widely accepted that cultural norms influence the type of discipline practices used by parents

(Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000; Whaley, 2000; McGroder, 2000; Kilgore, Snyder, &

Lentz, 2000; Kelly, Power, & Wimbush, 1992). Univariate logistic regression models indicated that,

compared to parents of White children, parents of Hispanic children were 1.3 times more likely to use

spanking as a discipline method (OR = 1.31) and parents of African American children were two and onehalf times more likely to have reported spanking their children in the past week (OR = 2.49). In a

multivariate logistic regression model, the adjusted odds ratios suggest that even after controlling for the

effects of income, education, age, single parenthood, and use of social services, parents of African

American children (OR = 2.30) as well as parents who were mildly (OR = 1.63), moderately (OR = 1.55),

and severely depressed (OR = 1.63) were more likely to spank their children than parents of White

children or parents who were not depressed (Exhibit 5-5), respectively.

9 Data were not collected to determine whether or not the father in the household spanked.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 82

Exhibit 5-5

Crude and Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for

Using Spanking as a Discipline Method by Depression, Single Parenthood,

Educational Attainment, Ethnicity, Income, and Age

Use of Spanking as a Method of Discipline

Crude

OR 95% CI Adjusted OR 95% CI

Depression

Not depressed (referent) -- -- -- --

Mildly depressed 1.63 (1.37 – 1.95) 1.63 (1.32 – 2.01)

Moderately depressed 1.71 (1.38 – 2.13) 1.55 (1.19 – 2.01)

Severely depressed 1.65 (1.31 – 2.08) 1.63 (1.23 – 2.16)

Single Parenthood 1.39 (1.20 – 1.60) 1.06 (0.88 – 1.29)

Educational Attainment

Less than high school (referent) -- -- -- ---

High school diploma or GED 1.08 (0.90 – 1.20) 1.14 (0.92 – 1.42)

Some college or more 0.94 (0.86 – 1.03) 0.87 (0.77 – 0.97)

Ethnicity/Race

White(referent) --- --- --- ---

African American 2.49 (2.07 – 3.01) 2.30 (1.82 – 2.90)

Hispanic 1.21 (1.10 – 1.34) 1.14 (1.02 – 1.30)

5.7 Exposure to Violence and Crime

Neighborhoods have long been recognized in theory and research as important contexts for child

development. Children who are exposed to neighborhood violence are at increased risk for lower social

competence and negative emotional or behavioral functioning (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997).

Parents were asked about the violence they knew to occur in their neighborhoods, and were asked

additional questions about their own personal exposure to violence, as well as the exposure to violence

experienced by their Head Start children.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 83

Family Exposure to Violence and Crime

More than one fourth of all parents (27.0%) reported seeing nonviolent crime such as selling

drugs or stealing in their neighborhoods in fall 1997 (18.8% more than once), while even more (32.1%)

reported being a witness to violent crime (17.2% more than once). Almost one quarter (23.2%) of the

parents knew someone who was the victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood, bringing the reality

of violence very close to many of the Head Start families. Being a victim of violent crime in the

neighborhood was reported by 6.3% of the parents while 7.0% of the parents reported being victims of

violence in their homes (Exhibit 5-6).

Exhibit 5-6

Parents’ Reports of Exposure to Violence and Crime in the Past Year, Fall 1997

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Saw Nonviolent Crime in

Neighborhood

Saw Violent Crime in

Neighborhood

Know Victim of Violent Crime

in Neighborhood

Victim of Violent Crime in

Neighborhood

Victim of Violent Crime in

Home

Once More than Once

Exposure to violence varied across ethnic groups. Among parents of African American children,

43.5% reported seeing nonviolent crimes in their neighborhoods, a figure that was about twice the rate

reported by parents of White children (16.2%) or parents of Hispanic children (24.2%). In contrast, just

under one quarter of each group of parents reported exposure to violent crime in their neighborhoods. For

reports of victimization, parents of African American children were again highest, with 10.2% indicating

they were victims of crime in their neighborhoods, and 11.9% reporting they were victims of violent

crime in their homes. These figures were generally twice as high as comparable reports for parents of

White children (5.6% in the neighborhoods; 3.5% in their homes) and for parents of Hispanic children

(1.0% in the neighborhoods; 3.5% in their homes).
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 84

Child Exposure to Violence

As for the Head Start children, almost one fifth (17.4%) were reported by parents to have

witnessed a crime or domestic violence in their lives, and 2.7% had actually been the victims of domestic

violence or crime. As with the parents’ self-reports, exposure to violence varied by ethnic group. About

one fifth of the African American children (19.6%) and the White children (21.3%) had some exposure to

violence, almost twice as high as the reported rate for Hispanic children (11.0%). In the spring of 1998,

7.5% of the children had witnessed domestic violence and 3.8% witnessed a violent crime during the

Head Start program year. Less than one percent of the children were reported by their parents to have

been victims of violent crime (0.5%), while slightly more were victims of domestic violence (1.5%)

during the program year.

Effects of Violence on Child and Family Outcomes

Exposure to neighborhood violence may have direct and indirect effects on child outcomes. In

order to test the relationships between exposure to violence and other family and child factors, a summary

score measuring total exposure to violence10 was created for each parent who responded to the

questionnaire. Small but significant positive correlations were found between neighborhood violence and

the child problem behavior subscales (r = .09; p < .0001), including aggressive (r = .10; p < .0001),

hyperactive (r = .05; p < .001) and withdrawn behavior (r = .04; p < .05). Stronger correlations were

found between neighborhood violence and parental depression (r = .26, p < .0001) and between parental

depression and overall child behavior problems (r = .28; p < .0001), suggesting that depression may

mediate these relationships by serving as the mechanism through which exposure to neighborhood

violence leads to problem behavior in children. A mediational model similar to that displayed in Exhibit

5-7 was tested using linear regression. In path c, neighborhood violence was a significant predictor of

child behavior. However, once paths a and b were controlled, this relationship was no longer significant,

confirming that depression did mediate the relationship between violence and child behavior.

10 Violence score is based on the frequency of respondents’ exposure to five items of neighborhood and personal violence.

Frequency ranged from never, once, or more than once. Total score range was from 5-15. M = 6.1; SD = 1.8.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 85

Exhibit 5-7

Mediational Model: Neighborhood Violence, Child Behavior, and

Depression

Maternal Depression

Neighborhood Child

Violence Behavior

A series of linear regression models tested whether the impact of exposure to violence on child

behavior and depression varied as a function of (or was moderated by) social support, family size,

presence of father, locus of control, and family activities, as well as Head Start support, satisfaction,

experience, and involvement. Exhibit 5-8 presents the interaction terms found to be significant

moderators of exposure to violence in the regression equations, and indicates the important role Head

Start can play in moderating these relationships.

Exhibit 5-8

Moderators of Exposure to Violence

Child Problem Behavior as the Dependent Variable

Among Hispanic Families:

Neighborhood Violence x Head Start Satisfaction (p = .006)

Among White Families:

Neighborhood Violence x Head Start Experience (p = .04)

Among All Families and African American Families:

No significant interactions

a b

c
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 86

Depression as the Dependent Variable

Among All Families:

Neighborhood Violence x Locus of Control (p < .0001)

Among Hispanic Families:

Neighborhood Violence x Locus of Control (p < .0001)

Neighborhood Violence x Head Start Experience (p = .04)

Neighborhood Violence x Head Start Involvement (p = .01)

Among White Families:

Neighborhood Violence x Locus of Control (p < .0001)

Neighborhood Violence x Head Start Experience (p = .05)

Among African American Families:

No significant interactions

Satisfaction with Head Start, as well as having a positive experience at Head Start, significantly

modified the relationship between exposure to violence and problem behavior in children for parents of

White and Hispanic children. The negative impact of exposure to violence on depression was moderated

by Head Start experience for parents of Hispanic and White children, moderated by Head Start

involvement for parents of Hispanic children, and moderated by an internal locus of control for all

parents.

5.8 Involvement with the Criminal Justice System

Parents were also asked if they, another household member, or a non-household biological parent

had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of their Head Start children. Almost one fourth

(22.6%) of the parents reported that someone had been arrested and charged with a crime and 17.5%

reported someone who spent time in jail. When asked who was arrested or charged with the crime, 93.9%

of those identified were fathers or mothers. Almost one fifth of all fathers (17.1%) and 5.4% of all

mothers were arrested and charged with a crime since the birth of their Head Start children. Parents of

Hispanic children had the lowest proportion of reports of having someone in their family who was

arrested (12.9%), about one half of the percentages reported by parents of White children (26.7%) or

parents of African American children (27.6%).

Univariate logistic regression models were used to determine estimates of risk among those

families who had someone close to them who was involved in the criminal justice system. Crude odds

ratios and 95% confidence intervals are presented in Exhibit 5-9. These risk estimates indicate that

parents who reported that they, another household member, or a non-household biological parent had
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 87

been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of their Head Start children were almost twice as

likely to be depressed (OR=1.71), approximately two and one half times more likely to be single mothers

(OR=2.33), and over four times more likely (OR=4.23) to have been a victim of violent crime in their

homes than parents who did not have someone significant in their lives involved in the criminal justice

system.

Children in families from which someone had been arrested were at great risk for witnessing or

being a victim of violence compared to children in families where no one had been arrested or charged

with a crime. These Head Start children were almost five times more likely (OR = 4.74) to have been a

witness to violent crime or domestic violence and four times more likely (OR = 4.04) to have been a

victim of violent crime or domestic violence.

Exhibit 5-9

Crude Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Having the Parent,

Another Household Member, or a Non-Household Biological Parent Arrested or

Charged with a Crime Since the Birth of the Head Start Child

Arrested or Charged with a Crime

Crude OR 95% CI

Parent depressed 1.71 (1.43 – 2.04)

Parent single mother 2.33 (1.95 – 2.78)

Parent victim of violence in home 4.27 (3.13 – 5.82)

Child witness to violent crime or domestic violence 4.74 (2.20 – 5.80)

Child victim of violent crime or domestic violence 4.04 (2.62 – 6.21)

5.9 Household Cigarette, Alcohol, and Drug Use

Almost one half of the Head Start children (45.9%) lived in households with at least one

individual who smoked cigarettes. Although most of the parents reported being in good health, those

parents who lived in non-smoking households reported better health than those parents who lived in

smoking households, t(2966) = 3.15; p <.01. Only 4.7% of the parents reported that someone in their

household had a drinking problem and even fewer (1.2%) reported living with someone who had a drug

problem.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 88

Reported substance use varied by ethnicity. Cigarette smoking was reported less frequently in

households where Hispanic children lived (28.9%) than in households of African American children

(42.4%) or White children (64.4%). Also, parents of White children reported living with someone who

had an alcohol problem (6.4%) or drug problem (2.0%) more often than parents of African American

children (3.3% alcohol problem; 1.2% drug problem) or parents of Hispanic children (3.8% alcohol

problem; 0.3% drug problem). Smoking households were more often located in rural areas (55.0%) than

in urban locations (41.4%).

5.10 Family Risk Factors

Recent research has focused more on how multiple occurrences of some family characteristics

may predict negative outcomes for children (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia, 1997; McLoyd, 1998;

Vandivere, Moore & Brown, 2000). A particular approach, taken in the 1999 Kids Count Data Book

(Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999) looked at how six particular family characteristics affected child

development and well-being. These six characteristics, labeled as risk factors, were:

• The child was not living with two parents;

• The household head was a high school dropout;

• The family income was below the poverty line;

• The child was living with a parent(s) who did not have steady, full-time employment;

• The family was receiving welfare benefits; and

• The child did not have health insurance.

Although the available data from the FACES parent interview do not allow an exact match with

these categories, close approximations are possible. For example, as outlined in the Kids Count Data

Book, the actual effects of the household heads not completing high school were mostly centered on the

mothers. Given that FACES has much more complete information about mothers, the risk factor was

adjusted to mothers who did not complete high school. As noted earlier, FACES collected information on

household income, not family income. Therefore, the classification of families as being below the

poverty line was based on household income. Exhibit 5-10 shows the percentage of families in FACES

determined to have each risk factor, as well as a breakdown of each risk by urbanicity and ethnicity.

Across all families, the most prevalent risks were being in a family that was below the poverty level

(66.7%) and being from a single-parent household (52.8%). None of the other risks were reported for

more than one third of the families.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 89

Exhibit 5-10

Percentage of Families with Selected Risk Factorsa for Child Development by

Urbanicity and Ethnicity, Fall 1997

Weighted Percentages

Urbanicity Ethnicity

All

2983

Urban

n=2011

Rural

n =972

African

American

n=1,050

White

n=826

Hispanic

n=662

Other

n=421

Risk Factors

Single parent household 52.8 52.7 53.0 67.7 52.5 39.8 44.9

Mother did not complete high

school 29.4 30.6 27.1 27.5 20.5 42.2 27.1

Household income below the

FPL 64.9 66.7 61.3 74.2 54.8 69.5 63.8

No household parent with a job 25.6 27.0 22.9 34.5 21.8 21.1 24.0

Family receives welfare 30.3 34.3 22.1 46.7 23.0 22.8 21.4

Child not covered by health

insurance or Medicaid 18.2 16.4 21.9 11.8 17.3 25.0 19.6

Number of Risk Factors

Family has one risk factor 23.8 21.6 28.2 17.8 28.9 24.3 26.0

Family has two risk factors 25.8 25.1 27.2 22.9 25.2 30.2 26.4

Family has three risk factors 19.1 20.6 16.2 20.9 15.9 20.2 19.1

Family has four or more risk

factors 20.6 21.9 17.9 31.2 14.8 17.4 15.2

a

Risk factors adapted from Kids Count Data Book, 1999

As noted in the Kids Count Data Book, increases in the number of risk factors, particularly counts

of four or more risks, increase the likelihood of negative child outcomes. Exhibit 5-10 also shows the

percentage of families with multiple risk factors. One fifth of the families (20.6%) were found to have

four or more risk factors. The level of risk did not vary by urbanicity. Less than one fifth of the families

of White children (14.8%) and Hispanic children (17.4%) had four or more of the risk factors, but almost

one third of the families of African American children (31.2%) were found to have this highest level of

risk.

Those families who reported four or more risk factors had children who scored significantly

lower on the emergent literacy scale than parents who reported fewer than four risk factors, t(2977) =

2.92; p < .001. Interestingly, while the mean scores for child behavior problems were slightly higher for

those children who were members of families with four or more risk factors than families with fewer risk
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 90

factors, the differences were not statistically significant. However, parents from families with four or

more risk factors were more depressed, t(2977) = -8.13; p < .0001, reported less social support, t(2971) =

8.12; p < .0001, and had a more external locus of control, t(2979) = 4.88; p < .0001, than parents with

fewer than four risk factors.

The percentages in Exhibit 5-10 show baseline data (fall 1997). It was also possible to assess

change in risk from the fall 1997 to the spring 1998 data collection. The overall level of reported risk

decreased among the families (mean change = -0.3; t = -14.02; p < .0001) over the year. The proportion

of families encountering four or more risk factors fell to 12.4%, while the proportion of families facing

one or fewer risks went from 36.3% in the fall to 44.6% the following spring. As shown in the chart in

Exhibit 5-11, the largest proportion of families (40.5%) had no change in their reported level of risk. For

39.0% of the families, the level of risk declined, while the total number of risk factors increased for about

one half that number of families (20.5%).

Exhibit 5-11

Change in Family Risk Factors from Fall 1997 to Spring 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- 3' or more -2' -1' no change +1' +2'
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 91

5.11 Summary

Findings from this chapter have contributed to a more complete understanding of how Head Start

families function in their daily lives. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Home Safety Practices

• Almost all parents reported engaging in safety practices such as using a child safety seat or seat

belt for their children, keeping medicines in childproof bottles, having an operating smoke

detector, and having a first aid kit.

• Parents were also asked about keeping firearms under lock and key. While most parents

indicated that this question was not applicable to them, more than one third acknowledged having

firearms in their homes.

Social Support

• Even at the beginning of the school year, almost all of the parents reported that Head Start was

helpful to them as a source of support in raising their young children. Overall, Head Start was

considered slightly more helpful than relatives, and much more helpful than other parents,

friends, people from religious or social groups, child care staff, professional help givers, or coworkers.

Depression

• Close to one third of the parents were classified as moderately or severely depressed. Parents who

were more depressed had a greater need for and reported use of social services, had a more

external locus of control, had less social support, had a lower household income, engaged in

fewer safety practices, and participated in fewer activities with their children.

• Mothers living without their children’s fathers in their homes more often reported being

depressed than those with fathers present.

• Parents who were more depressed reported children with higher ratings of problem behavior,

including aggressive, hyperactive, and withdrawn behavior. Parents who reported less depression

also reported children with higher ratings of positive social behavior and emergent literacy.

Household Rules

• Two thirds of the families used 4 out of 5 household rules. A large majority of parents reported

that their children had a set time to go to bed each night and rules about what types of television

their children watched.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 92

Discipline Practices

• Over two thirds of parents reported that they used a time out with their children during the week

prior to the fall 1997 visit, while almost one half of the parents reported spanking their children

during the same period. There was little change in the reported use of either timeout or spanking

from fall 1997 to spring 1998.

• Being depressed, regardless of the severity, and having only a mother in the home increased the

likelihood of parents spanking their children.

• Compared to parents of White children, parents of Hispanic children were one and one third times

more likely to spank their children and parents of African American children were two and one

half times more likely to spank their children.

Exposure to Violence

• More than one fourth of all parents reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods,

while close to one third reported seeing a violent crime in the same area.

• Almost one quarter of the parents knew someone who was a victim of a violent crime in their

neighborhoods, bringing the reality of violence very close to many of the Head Start families.

• About one fifth of the children were reported to have witnessed a crime or domestic violence in

their lives, and three percent had actually been victims of domestic violence or crime.

Effects of Violence on Child and Family Outcomes

• Findings suggest that exposure to neighborhood violence did negatively impact child behavior,

even in children as young as 3- and 4-years old.

• Since depression was found to mediate the relationship between neighborhood violence and child

behavior, the effect of neighborhood violence was most likely indirect, with depression serving as

the mechanism through which exposure to neighborhood violence led to problem behavior in

children.

• It appears that being involved in and having a positive experience at Head Start may have served

as protective factors against exposure to neighborhood violence.

• Cultural differences seemed to play a role in determining what factors moderated negative

outcomes of depression and problem behavior in children.

Involvement with the Criminal Justice System

• Almost one fourth of the parents reported that they, another household member, or a nonhousehold biological parent had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of their

Head Start children and almost one fifth indicated that someone spent time in jail.
Section II: Head Start Children and Families Functioning of Head Start Families 93

• Children from families who had involvement with the criminal justice system were almost five

times more likely to have been exposed to violent crime or domestic violence and four times

more likely to have been a victim of violent crime or domestic violence.

Household Cigarette, Alcohol, and Drug Use

• Almost one half of the Head Start children lived in households with at least one smoker. Less

than five percent of the parents reported that someone in their household had a problem with

alcohol or drugs.

Family Risk Factors

• Across all families, the most prevalent risks were being in a family with overall household

income that was below the Federal Poverty Level and being from a single-parent household.

• One fifth of the families were found to have four or more of the identified risk factors. Children

in these families had significantly lower scores on the Emergent Literacy Scale and may be

considered to be at risk for developmental problems.

• Parents in families with four or more risks were more depressed, had less social support, and were

more external on the locus of control scale.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 94

6.0 Families’ Involvement with Their Children

6.1 Overview

This chapter focuses on Head Start’s interest in fostering family involvement with their children.

The first section will present data on the level of activity family members engaged in with Head Start

children. Subsequent sections will present findings on the effects of having fathers living in or out of

their children’s households, as well as changes in household structures and how these changes affected

children and families.

6.2 Family and Child Activities

Parents were asked how often family members engaged in weekly as well as monthly activities

with their Head Start children. The weekly activities included the following:

• Told the child a story;

• Taught the child letters, words or numbers;

• Taught the child songs or music;

• Worked on arts and crafts with the child;

• Played with toys or games indoors or played a game, sport, or exercised together;

• Took the child along while doing errands like going to the post office, the bank or the store; and

• Involved the child in household chores like cooking, cleaning, setting the table, or caring for pets.

The monthly activities included the following:

• Visited a library;

• Went to a play, concert, or other live show;

• Visited an art gallery, museum, or historical site;

• Visited a zoo or aquarium;

• Talked with the child about family history or ethnic heritage;

• Attended an event sponsored by a community, ethnic, or religious group; and

• Attended an athletic or sporting event in which the child was not a player.

In a separate question, parents were asked how many days family members read to their Head Start

children during the week prior to the interview. Across all activities, when parents indicated that reading

or another type of activity had taken place, a follow-up question asked them to indicate which family

members (mother, father, other household member, non-household member) participated in each activity

with the children.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 95

Weekly and monthly activity scores were generated by summing the number of activities each

parent reported their family had engaged in with the child during the specified recall period. Total

activity scores are based on the sum of the weekly and monthly activity scores. The total activity score

for weekly and monthly activities indicated that families engaged in a mean of 6.2 activities with the

children, out of a possible 14 activities (SD = 2.4). Weekly activities made up most of that total, with a

reported mean of 4.1 activities of a possible seven (SD = 1.6), while a mean of 1.9 monthly activities was

reported (SD = 1.5), also out of a possible seven.

Ethnic differences were noted in the number of activities families engaged in with their children.

For total activity, there was a significant main effect across the three main ethnic groups, F(2, 2202) =

16.4, p < .0001. Scheffe post-hoc tests revealed that African American children had higher activity than

either White or Hispanic children, and that White children had higher overall activity scores than

Hispanic children. For the weekly activities, there was again a significant main effect for ethnicity F(2,

2203) = 12.2, p < .0001, with both African American and White children having more activity than

Hispanic children. Finally, a third significant main effect for ethnicity was noted for the monthly

activities, F(2, 2624) = 24.6, p < .0001, showing that the African American children had higher levels of

activity than either the White or Hispanic children.

Because the follow-up questions asked who engaged in these activities with the children, it was

possible to assess children’s activity with mothers, fathers, other household members, and non-household

family members. Exhibit 6-1 presents the means of the weekly, monthly, and total activities by each of

the four types of family members. Regardless of the type of activity, mothers were the individuals who

most often engaged in these activities with their children.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 96

Exhibit 6-1

Mean Total, Weekly, and Monthly Activities of Family Members with Head Start

Children, Fall 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total Weekly Monthly

Mothers

Fathers

Other Household Members

Non-Household Members

While weekly activities generally occurred more often than monthly activities, having a

grandparent in the home was particularly important to the levels of monthly and total activities. Children

who were living in households where a grandparent was present had higher levels of monthly activity,

t(2965) = 2.76; p = .0059, and subsequently, this had a similar effect on the total number of activities

these families engaged in with their children, t(2502) = 2.03; p < .0425. As expected, the presence of a

grandparent had an effect on the activities with children specifically attributed to other household

members1

. When a grandparent was present, total child activities with other household members were

higher, t(2966) = 10.76; p < .0001, as were the reported numbers of weekly, t(2966) = 10.47; p < .0001,

and monthly activities with other household members, t(2966) = 6.97; p < .0001.

The relationships between activities with children and selected child and family characteristics

were assessed through bivariate correlations. As seen in Exhibit 6-2, participating in family activities

with children was related to several positive outcomes. While family activities were positively correlated

with scores on positive child behaviors2 and emergent literacy3

, the patterns of correlations were negative

between activities and problem behaviors. The exhibit shows that all three types of activity scores were

negatively correlated with overall problem behavior4

, as well as with aggressive5 and hyperactive6

11 In the interview, parents were asked about child-oriented activities with the other family members in the household (nonparents) and non-household family members. The specific relationships of these individuals to the children were not specified,

but could have included the grandparents.

2 A summary score of 7 parent-reported behavior items rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often

true.” Scores ranged from 0-14, with higher scores representing more positive behavior.

3 A summary score of 5 parent-reported child skills including whether child can identify all of the primary colors, recognize most

or all letters of the alphabet, count to twenty or higher, write rather than scribble, and write own name. Scores ranged from 0-5.

4 An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based

on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scores ranged from
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 97

behavior. Only withdrawn7 behavior evidenced a different pattern: a negative correlation with weekly

activity, a positive correlation with monthly activity, and no significant relationship with total activity.

Exhibit 6-2 also shows how the three levels of activity correlated with selected family

characteristics. The only family characteristic found to have a negative relationship with activity was

parent depression.8 On the other hand, families’ applications of child-oriented rules in the home and

reported social support9 for child rearing were both positively correlated with all three types of activity.

Monthly household income was positively correlated with monthly activity, but that was the only

significant relationship for income. There was no relationship between any of the three activity levels and

the total number of individuals or the number of children (under 18 years of age) reported to be living in

the household.

Exhibit 6-2

Correlations of Activity Levels with Selected Child and Family Characteristics,

Fall 1997

Total Activity Weekly Activity Monthly Activity

Child Characteristics

Positive child behavior .11**** .14**** .04*

Overall problem behavior -.10**** -.12  -.06** *

Problem behavior - aggressive -.13**** -.11  -.11** **

Problem behavior - hyperactive -.10  -.11** ** -.06 

Problem behavior - withdrawn n.s. -.06**  .04*

Emergent literacy .19**** .15  .17** **

0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.

5 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums,

doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

6 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous,

high-strung, or tense. Subscale scored ranged from 0-6.

7 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too

young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

8 The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Scores ranged from 0-36. Zero-4 = Not

depressed; 5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7. 9 Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start

children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very

helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary scores ranged from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5; SD =

5.2.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 98

Total Activity Weekly Activity Monthly Activity

Family Characteristics

Parental depression -.06** n.s. -.11 

Social support for child rearing .14** ** .07*** .17 

Monthly household income n.s. n.s. .06** *

Number of household rules .16**** .08  .19** **

 p < .0001; ** * p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05

Data collection at multiple time points allowed an assessment of changes in the level of activity

from fall 1997 to spring 1998. For the three types of activity (total, weekly, monthly), there were small

but significant increases from the fall baseline interview to the spring follow-up interview. Total activity

increased by an average of .27 activities (SD = 2.5, t(1919) = 4.83; p < .0001). Smaller increases were

noted for weekly activities (M = .11 activities, SD = 1.8, t(1920) = 2.85; p = .0044) and monthly activities

(M = .13 activities, SD = 1.5, t(2458) = 2.85; p < .0001). Increases in the levels of activity with children

were noted for 45.7% of the families, while 16.2% of the families had no reported change in the number

of activities, and 38.2% of the families had a decrease in the reported number of activities with children.

The range for the number of increased activities with children was from 1 to 12, while the range for the

number of decreased activities with children was from 1 to 9.

The number of significant correlations between changes in activity over time and changes in child

and family characteristics was much lower than the number of significant relationships seen between

activity and the same characteristics at baseline (Exhibit 6-2). For the child characteristics, increases in

weekly activities were positively correlated with increased parent reports of positive social behaviors (r =

.07; p = .0014) and emergent literacy (r = .08; p = .0008), but negatively correlated with changes in

overall problem behaviors (r = -.05; p = .0264) and hyperactive behavior (r = -.07; p = .0021). Changes

in total activities were positively correlated with positive social behaviors (r = .08; p = .0002) and

emergent literacy (r = .11; p < .0001). Among the family characteristics, increases in total and weekly

activities were positively correlated with increased support for child rearing (total: r = .05; p = .0143;

weekly: r = .05; p = .0202), while higher monthly household incomes were positively correlated with

increases in monthly activities (r = .04; p = .033).

Changes in some child and family characteristics were associated with changes in total activities

with the child from fall 1997 to spring 1998. Significant main effects for activity change from baseline to
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 99

spring (three categories: increase, no change, decrease) were found for positive child behavior, F(2,

1894) = 4.11, p < .0166, and emergent literacy, F(2, 2623) = 124.8, p < .0001. Post-hoc tests indicated

that in families where activities with the children increased, parents reported significantly greater

increases in positive social behaviors and emergent literacy than for children in families with declines in

total activity. Among the family variables, significant main effects were found for activity change on

support, F(2, 1909) = 4.4, p = .0123, and the use of household rules, F(2, 1887) = 4.82, p = .0082. Again

the post-hoc tests showed that families with increases in total activities with children had significantly

greater increases in child-rearing support and in the number of household rules used than families with

declines in total activity. In the case of the use of household rules, families that increased total activity

also had a significantly greater increase in the number of rules used in the home than families with no

change in activity.

For the final type of activity, reading to the child in the home, 92.0% of the parents reported that

they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Almost two fifths of the

children (37.5%) were read to every day, while 28.5% were read to three or more times and 26.8% were

read to once or twice during the week prior to the interview. The smallest proportion, 7.1%, represented

children who were not read to at all. The individuals most likely to have read to the children during that

week were mothers (80.4%), followed by other (non-parent) household members (30.2%), fathers

(23.8%), and non-household family members (10.2%). Across the three main ethnic groups, a significant

main effect was noted for differences in reading to children, F(2, 2623) = 124.8, p < .0001. Scheffe posthoc tests indicated that White children were read to more often than either African American or Hispanic

children, and that African American children were read to more often than Hispanic children. Over the

Head Start year, about one half of the families (47.0%) showed no change in the number of days family

members read to the children, while 24.0% showed an increase in the number of days the children were

read to, and 26.5% reported a decrease in the number of days the children were read to during the week

prior to the interview. Reading frequency was positively correlated with emergent literacy scores, in both

fall 1997, r = .15; p < .0001, and spring 1998, r = .17; p < .0001, but increases in reading from fall to

spring were not correlated with improvements in emergent literacy scores.

6.3 Fathers’ Involvement with Their Children

Within Head Start’s mission to emphasize the roles of parents in the lives of their children,

increased attention has been given to the role of fathers, including those who do not live in the home with

their children. In the fall 1997 interview, 5.1% of the respondents were identified as fathers. A set of
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 100

questions was added to the interview to gain additional information about those fathers who were not

living with their children.

Descriptive Information on Fathers

At the time of the baseline data collection10, fathers were reported to live in 44.2% of the

households. Among the fathers who did not live in the home with their Head Start children, 46.2%

contributed to the financial support of their children, and 55.4% lived within a one-hour drive of their

children. Differences across the ethnic groups were striking in terms of whether fathers were present in

the home. African American children were 2.8 times more likely than White children to live without a

father in their home (OR = 2.79; 95% CI = 2.30, 3.38), while Hispanic children were one third less likely

than the White children to have a non-household father (OR = .65; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.80).

The fall 1997 baseline data indicated that 75.8% of the household fathers were employed, 3.4%

were in prison, and 0.5% in the military. Almost two fifths had less than a high school diploma (37.6%),

31.1% had a diploma or GED, and 18.1% had attended college or received a degree. In comparison, only

55.7% of the non-household fathers were working, 6.7% were in jail or prison, 2.9% were in school or

training, and 1.5% were away in the military. Over one third had not yet achieved a high school diploma

or GED (34.5%), 26.0% had a diploma, and 6.3% had a GED as their highest level of education, while

13.2% had attended some college or had a college degree. The highest level of education for the nonhousehold fathers was reported as unknown by 9.4% of the respondents and in almost one quarter of the

cases (21.9%), the respondents did not know the current status of the children’s non-household fathers.

Sixty percent of the children without a father in their household had someone who served as a

father figure for them. Individuals who were most frequently named as father figures included nonhousehold relatives (30.7%), the respondents’ spouses or partners who lived in the household (29.8%),

and spouses or partners who did not live in the household (18.6%). Almost one tenth of the children

(9.7%) rarely or never saw their non-household father and had no father figure, a group that represented

5.4% of the entire sample of children. By spring 1998, this latter number was only slightly lower, at 4.7%

of the overall sample.

Over the approximately six months between the fall 1997 and the spring 1998 interviews, there

was little change in the proportion of fathers who lived in households with their children. Fathers who

10 In Chapter 4, the discussion used spring 1998 data for consistency with other data being discussed in that section. The

percentages presented here are from fall 1997, and may be slightly different from those in Chapter 4.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 101

were living out of the household in fall 1997 and were living with their children at the time of the spring

1998 interview represented 5.6% of the overall sample, while 3.5% of the fathers who had been living

with their children left the home during that time.

Non-household Fathers’ Financial Support of and Visitation with their Head Start

Children

As noted above, at the time of the baseline data collection, over one half of the non-household

fathers (55.4%) were reported to live within a one-hour drive of their children. Two fifths of the nonhousehold fathers (39.9%) rarely or never saw their children, including 24.4% of those who lived within

one hour of their children. In contrast, 26.4% of the non-household fathers saw their children several

times a week or every day. Less than one half of the non-household fathers (46.2%) were reported to

have contributed to the financial support of their children, a figure that included only 37.5% of those

fathers who lived within one hour of their children, over the same time.

Overall changes in financial support and contact were minimal from fall 1997 to spring 1998.

While 3.4% of the non-household fathers began giving their children financial support between fall 1997

and spring 1998, 4.0% of the non-household fathers stopped contributing during the same time period.

The proportion of non-household fathers who increased the frequency with which they saw their children

between fall and spring was 8.4%. However, an almost equal proportion of fathers (8.7%) decreased the

frequency with which they saw their children.

Fathers and Activity with Their Children

As noted in Section 6.1, increased family activity with the children was related to several positive

outcomes for children. While the earlier section focused on overall family activity, this also was true for

activities with fathers, even in cases where they did not live with their children. In order to look at the

effect of fathers on activities with children relative to other family members, fathers were categorized

according to their availability to their children. Three categories were used: 1) fathers living in the

homes, 2) non-household fathers who were more available (they saw their children a few times a month

or more), and 3) non-household fathers who were less available (they saw their children several times a

year or less).

An ANOVA found no differences in overall total activities, weekly activities, or monthly

activities based on the availability of the fathers, but, as might be anticipated, clear differences were noted

across the categories on activities with the children involving fathers. Significant main effects were found
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 102

for availability on fathers’ total activities, F(2,2915) = 381.2, p < .0001, fathers’ weekly activities,

F(2,2915) = 309.5, p < .0001, and fathers’ monthly activities with their children, F(2, 2915) = 207.0; p <

.0001. As expected, for each type of activity, the post-hoc comparisons showed that in-home fathers had

significantly higher levels of activity with their children than either category of non-household fathers,

while the non-household fathers who were more available to their children were more active with their

children than the non-household fathers who were less available to their children.

A series of analyses indicated that other family members’ activities with the children varied by

the fathers’ availability, perhaps to compensate for non-household fathers. The total and weekly activities

with children attributed to mothers also had significant main effects across the categories of fathers’

availability. For mothers, total activities, F(2, 2915) = 11.4; p < .0001, and weekly activities, F(2, 2915)

= 15.5; p < .0001, with their children were higher when fathers were not in the household than when

fathers lived at home, regardless of how available fathers were to the children. A main effect for fathers’

availability was significant, F(2, 2915) = 5.3; p < .0001, for weekly activities involving other household

members. Where the children’s fathers were less available, the other household members engaged in

significantly more weekly activities with the children than in families where the fathers lived in the

homes.

In terms of the effect of fathers’ availability on activities attributed to non-household family

members, significant main effects were found for all three types of activities: total activities, F(2, 2915) =

33.9; p < .0001; weekly activities, F(2,2915) = 23.6; p < .0001, and monthly activities, F(2, 2915) =

25.4; p < .0001. Again, post-hoc tests showed the same pattern of findings. Regardless of how available

the non-household fathers were, non-household family members were more involved in activities with the

children when fathers were out of the home than when fathers resided in the home with the children.

Exhibit 6-3 shows that fathers’ activities with their children were significantly correlated with the

corresponding activities for the mothers, particularly in the case of the monthly activities. Correlations

were generally higher for the monthly activities, a finding particularly evident among the correlations of

fathers’ activity with activity scores for other household members and non-household members. This is

not surprising since the monthly activities were generally group-oriented activities that multiple family

members might engage in together.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 103

Exhibit 6-3

Correlations of Fathers’ Activity With their Children with Child-Oriented Activity

for Mothers, Other Household Members and Non-Household Family Members, by

Availability of Fathers

Availability of Fathers Activity with

Mother

Activity with other

Household

Members

Activity with

NonHousehold

Members

Total Activity

Household fathers .19*** .12*** .07*

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a month or more .27*** .20*** .31***

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a year or less .16*** n.s. n.s.

Weekly Activity

Household fathers .08** n.s. n.s.

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a month or more .17*** n.s. .25***

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a year or less .16*** n.s. n.s.

Monthly Activity

Household fathers .58*** .48*** .15***

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a month or more .45*** .43*** .35***

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a year or less .24*** .18*** n.s.

***p < .0001; **p < .01; *p < .05

Fathers and Their Effect on Children and Families

Fathers, whether or not they were present in the home, had a significant effect on the ability of

families to access resources, like household income, community services, and social support, all of which

may be necessary to foster a proper developmental environment for children.

As expected, non-household fathers who saw their children only several times a year or less (“less

available”) provided significantly less child-rearing support to the mothers than did non-household fathers

who saw their children at least a few times a month (“more available”), t(952) = 25.82; p < .0001.

Differences in fathers’ child-rearing support were noted based on the gender of the children. It was noted
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 104

that non-household fathers had higher ratings of support when the Head Start children were boys,

regardless of whether they were in the less available category, t(961) = 2.46; p = .0140, or the more

available category, t(408) = 2.35; p = .0194.

However, in two of the three categories of availability, fathers’ support for child rearing was

correlated with fathers’ activities with children as well as a number of child-related characteristics.

Exhibit 6-4 shows that support for child rearing was significantly and positively correlated with the

amount of activities the fathers engaged in with their children. In this case, non-household fathers who

were more available to their children were more like the household fathers than like the less-available

non-household fathers.

Exhibit 6-4

Correlations of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing with Their Child-oriented

Activity, by Availability of Fathers

Support for Child Rearing from

Fathers’ Activity

with Children -

Total

Fathers’ Activity

with Children -

Past Week

Fathers’ Activity

with Children –

Past Month

Household fathers .19* .17* .14*

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a month or more .20* .17* .18*

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a year or less n.s. n.s. n.s.

*p < .0001

Fathers’ support for child rearing also was related to reported improvements in child behavior and

academic skills. The findings in Exhibit 6-5 indicate that child-rearing support from household fathers

was positively correlated with positive social behaviors in children and negatively related to overall

problem behaviors, including the three problem behavior subscales indicating aggressive, hyperactive, or

withdrawn behavior. Support for child rearing from non-household fathers who were more available was

positively correlated with emergent literacy and negatively correlated with overall problem behavior and

aggressive behavior. Even among non-household fathers who were less available to interact with their

children, the more helpful they were to mothers in raising their children, the more mothers rated their

children as having positive social behaviors and the less they reported aggressive and hyperactive

behaviors.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 105

Exhibit 6-5

Correlations of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing with Parental Ratings of

Children, by Availability of Fathers

Support for Child Rearing

from

Emergent

Literacy

Child

Positive

Social

Behaviors

Child

Problem

Behaviors

Child

Aggressive

Behavior

Child

Withdrawn

Behavior

Child

Hyperactive

Behavior

Household fathers n.s. .10*** -.13  -.09**  -.13*** -.08**

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times

a month or more .11* n.s. -.12* -.22**** n.s. n.s.

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times

a year or less

n.s. .13  n.s. -.09**  n.s. -.08*

****p < .0001; *** p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05

Discipline was another area affected by the presence of a father in the household. Both forms of

discipline that were addressed in the parent interview, time outs and spanking, were more likely to occur

when fathers were not present in the homes. Children who were reported to have been given a time out in

the week prior to the parent interview were 1.2 times more likely than children who did not receive a time

out to have a father who did not live in their home (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.39). Similarly, children

who were spanked during the week prior to the interview were 1.2 times more likely to not have their

father living with them than children who were not spanked (OR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.15, 1.49).

In terms of family resources, the presence of fathers in the home had a significant impact.

Families who were reported to receive TANF were 4.2 times more likely to have the father living out of

the household than families not receiving TANF (OR = 4.19; 95% CI = 3.51, 5.02). The need for and use

of family services also decreased for families in which fathers resided. Comparing families’ need for and

use of services across the three categories of father availability, significant main effects were noted. In

comparing the number of services needed, F(2, 2915) = 78.1; p < .0001, the post-hoc tests indicated that

families with less available, non-household fathers had the greatest need for services, and that families

with more available non-household fathers needed more services than families with a resident father.

Comparisons on the number of services received revealed a significant main effect for availability, F(2,

2841) = 99.5; p < .0001, and the identical pattern among the post-hoc tests.

However, regardless of the number of services needed or received, there was a relationship

between the number of services and the support fathers provided for child rearing. As shown in Exhibit
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 106

6-6, when fathers were in the home, there was a significant, negative correlation between the levels of

child-rearing support fathers offered with both the number of services the families needed and the number

of services they received. This relationship was even stronger for families with non-household fathers

who made themselves available, but it was non-existent for families with fathers who were less available

for their children.

Exhibit 6-6

Correlations of Fathers’ Support for Child Rearing with Need and Use of Family

Services, by Availability of Fathers

Support for Child Rearing from

Number of

Family Services

Needed

Number of Family

Services

Received

Household fathers -.10* -.10*

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a month or more -20** -.17*

Non-household fathers:

See children a few times a year or less n.s. n.s.

**p < .0001; * p < .001

An additional link was noted between the presence of fathers in the household and parental

depression. Compared with non-depressed mothers, mildly depressed mothers were 1.4 times more likely

not to live with the children’s fathers (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.21, 1.72), moderately depressed mothers

were 1.7 times more likely (OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.40, 2.18), and severely depressed mothers were

almost 2.5 times more likely to live in a household without the children’s fathers (OR = 2.45; 95% CI =

1.92, 3.13).

Fathers and Exposure to Violence

The presence of a father in the home appears to be an important factor in assessing and

understanding the current status and previous history of a child and family with regards to their exposure

to violence, both in the neighborhood and in the home. Children who were witnesses to violent crime or

domestic violence were 2.5 times more likely to have non-household fathers than children who were not

reported to have witnessed violent crime or domestic violence (OR = 2.46; 95% CI = 2.00, 3.03). As

well, children who were reported to have been victims of violent crime or abuse were 3.6 times more

likely than children who were non-victims to have their fathers living out of the household (OR = 3.65;

95% CI = 2.11, 6.30). Of the children who were reported to have been victims of violent crime or
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 107

domestic violence, 83.8% lived in homes without fathers present. Finally, children who lived in

households with someone who had been arrested or charged with a crime or had biological fathers who

had been arrested or charged with a crime were 3.0 times more likely than children in other households to

have fathers who did not live in their homes (OR = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.56, 3.75).

6.4 Changes Within the Households

To further the understanding of how Head Start families were affected by their environments,

changes in household structures were investigated. The parent interview assessed changes in the

composition of each household from fall 1997 to spring 1998. At each interview point, respondents were

asked to report how each individual currently living in the household was related to the Head Start child.

Changes in the presence of each designated relationship were assessed across time. While the numbers

presented here indicate that household changes occurred for many children, these numbers are

conservative estimates of change. For example, in cases where a person coded as a female non-relative

left the household and was replaced by another female non-relative, no change would have been noted in

that category for that household, even though there was a different person in the household.

Based on respondents’ reports across both years, household changes were noted in 40.8% of the

households, including 10.1% that had 3 or more reported changes. New household members were

reported for 30.7% of the homes, while 26.2% of the households had someone leave during the Head Start

year. In 2.5% of the households, three or more individuals entered, and 2.2% of the households had three

or more individuals exit between the baseline interview and spring 1998. Overall, as seen in Exhibit 6-7,

changes occurred for almost one half (46%) of the households with African American children, while

42.7% of the households with Hispanic children and 34.0% of the households with White children had

changes.

Although any changes in household structure may have consequences for the children or family,

it was expected that changes among certain adult household members would have additional effects

because they likely had prominent roles within their households. To investigate this notion further, two

categories of ‘key’ adult family members were constructed to include individuals who may have been

important contributors to either the emotional or the financial resources of their households, or both.

These include, for ‘key adult males,’ fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers, grandfathers, or male spouses or

partners of the mother. Similarly, the category of ‘key adult females’ included mothers, stepmothers,

foster mothers, grandmothers, or female spouses or partners of the fathers. Changes involving these key

males affected 18.7% of the households, while only 8.0% of the households experienced a similar change
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 108

involving key females. Exhibit 6-7 shows the proportion of households that experienced such changes.

Across each of the primary ethnic groups, the pattern held for key males effecting structural changes in

about twice as many households as key females.

Exhibit 6-7

A Summary of Household Changes Involving Categories of Key Adult Males and

Females, by Ethnicity

Weighted Percentages

Household Changes All

(n = 2,543)

African American

(n = 933)

White

(n = 698)

Hispanic

(n =635)

Key Males

Into the household 8.6 8.7 6.4 11.2

Out of the household 5.2 7.3 4.4 4.6

In & out of the household 5.0 3.6 6.3 5.1

No change 81.3 80.4 82.9 79.1

Key Females

Into the household 3.0 3.1 2.6 3.1

Out of the household 4.4 5.0 3.9 4.8

In & out of the household 0.7 1.4 0.5 0.3

No change 92.0 90.5 93.1 91.8

Households with any change 40.8 46.0 34.0 42.7

For families having key males enter their households, there were significant increases in total

activities with children, t(144) = 3.82; p = .0002, and in the children’s emergent literacy, t(189) = 11.15; p

< .0001, as well as significant increases in the monthly household incomes, t(183) = 4.84; p < .0001. No

effects were found for changes in child behavior, parental depression, or support for child rearing. When

key males left the household, the noted changes were significant increases in both reports of children’s

aggressive behavior, t(146) = 2.36; p = .0195, and emergent literacy, t(14) = 8.86; p < .0001. In addition,

there were significant decreases in monthly household incomes t(140) = -4.43; p < .0001.

When key females entered the household, significant increases were reported in both children’s

aggressive behavior, t(74) = 2.66; p = .0095, and emergent literacy, t(75) = 4.72; p < .0001. Monthly

household incomes also increased, but not significantly. Increases in weekly family activity with the

Head Start children, t(84) = 2.01; p = .0472, and in the children’s emergent literacy, t(109) = 7.53; p <
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 109

.0001, were evident in homes where key females left during the year. Again, changes in other variables,

including corresponding decreases in monthly household incomes, were not significant.

6.5 Summary

Chapter 6 presents findings related to how family members interact with the Head Start children

and how the involvement of family members may relate to selected characteristics of the children and the

families. The key findings from this chapter are summarized below.

Family and Child Activities

• African American children were involved in more activities with family members than either

White or Hispanic children, and White children had more family activity than Hispanic children.

For the weekly activities, African American and White children had more involvement than

Hispanic children, and for the monthly activities, African American children had more activity

than either the White or Hispanic children.

• Children who were living in households where a grandparent was present had more total and

monthly activities. The presence of a grandparent increased the amount of activities with

children by non-parental household members.

• Family activities had significant positive correlations with the positive child behaviors and

emergent literacy, but all three types of activities were negatively correlated with overall problem

behavior as well as with aggressive and hyperactive behavior.

• Families’ use of child-oriented rules in the home and reported social support for child rearing

were both positively correlated with activities. The only family characteristic found to have a

negative relationship with activity was parent depression.

• Increases in activities with children were noted for almost one half of the families, while 16.2%

of the families had no reported change in the number of activities, and almost two fifths of the

families had a decrease in the reported number of activities with children.

• Almost two fifths of the children were read to every day, while 28.5% were read to three or more

times and slightly over one quarter were read to once or twice during the week prior to the

interview. Less than 10% of the children were not read to at all. Over the Head Start year, about

one half of the families showed no change in the number of days family members read to the

children, approximately one quarter showed an increase in the number of days the children were

read to, and slightly more than one fourth reported a decrease in the number of days the children

were read to during the week prior to the interview.

Fathers’ Involvement with Their Children

• Fathers were reported to live in 44.2% of the households. Among the non-household fathers,

46.2% contributed to the financial support of their children, and 55.4% lived within a one-hour

drive of their children. African American children were 2.8 times more likely than White
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 110

children to live without a father in their household while Hispanic children were one third less

likely than the White children to have non-household fathers.

• Sixty percent of the children without fathers in their household had someone who served as a

father figure for them, most often non-household relatives or the respondents’ spouses or partners

who lived in the household. Almost one tenth of the children rarely or never saw their nonhousehold fathers and had no father figures, a group that represented 5.4% of the entire sample of

children.

• Two fifths of the non-household fathers rarely or never saw their children, including one fourth of

those who lived within one hour of their children. In contrast, over one fourth of the nonhousehold fathers saw their children several times a week or every day. Less than one half of the

non-household fathers were reported to have contributed to the financial support of their children.

• In-home fathers were significantly more active with their children than either category of nonhousehold fathers, while the non-household fathers who were more available to their children

were more active with their children than the non-household fathers who were less available to

their children.

• Mothers’ total and weekly activities with their children were higher when fathers were not in the

household than when fathers lived at home, regardless of how available fathers were to the

children. In cases where the children’s fathers were less available, the other household members

were significantly more active with the children than in families where the fathers lived in the

homes. Regardless of how available the non-household fathers were, non-household family

members were more involved in activities with children than non-household family members

were when fathers resided in the home with the children.

• As expected, non-household fathers who saw their children several times a year or less provided

significantly less child-rearing support to the mothers than did non-household fathers who saw

their children at least a few times a month. It was noted that non-household fathers had higher

ratings of support when the Head Start children were boys, regardless of whether they were in the

less available category or the more available category.

• Support for child rearing was significantly and positively correlated with the number of activities

the fathers engaged in with their children. Both forms of discipline that were addressed in the

parent interview, time outs and spanking, were more likely to occur when fathers were not

present in the homes.

• Families who were reported to receive TANF were four times more likely to have the fathers

living out of the households than families not receiving TANF. Families with non-household

fathers had the greatest need for and use of community services. There was a significant,

negative correlation between the levels of child-rearing support fathers offered with both the

number of services the families needed and the number of services they received.

• Children who were witnesses to violent crime or domestic violence were two and one half times

more likely to have non-household fathers, while children who were reported to have been

victims of violent crime or abuse were over three and one half times more likely than children

who were non-victims to have their fathers living out of their households.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Involvement with Their Children 111

Changes within the Households

• Household changes were noted in two fifths of the households from fall to spring, including

10.1% that had 3 or more reported changes. New household members were reported for almost

one third of the homes, while slightly more than one fourth of the households had someone leave

during the Head Start year. In 2.5% of the households, three or more individuals entered, and

2.2% of the households had three or more individuals exit between the baseline interview and

spring 1998. Overall, changes occurred for almost one half of the households with African

American children, while two fifths of the households with Hispanic children and one third of the

households with White children had changes.

• Changes involving key males affected slightly less than one fifth of the households, while only

8.0% of the households experienced a similar change involving key females.

• For families having key males enter their households, there were significant increases in total

activities with children, in the children’s emergent literacy, and in monthly household incomes.

When key males left the household, the noted changes were significant increases in both

aggressive behaviors and emergent literacy, and significant decreases in monthly household

incomes.

• When key females entered the households, significant increases were reported in aggressive

behaviors and emergent literacy. Monthly household incomes also increased, but not

significantly. Increases in weekly family activities with the Head Start children, and in the

children’s emergent literacy, were evident in homes where key females left during the year.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 112

7.0 Families’ Experiences with Head Start

7.1 Overview

This chapter presents findings regarding the children’s Head Start attendance and their parents’

history, involvement, and satisfaction with the Head Start program.

7.2 The Children’s Involvement with Head Start

On average, parents reported that their children attended Head Start for slightly over five hours

per day (M = 5.1 hours; SD = 5.2; Mdn = 4.0 hours) and 4.5 days per week (SD = 1.7; Mdn = 5.0 days).

The number of days per week that children attended Head Start class did not vary by region of the country

or by whether the programs were located in urban or rural areas. However, the length of the Head Start

day was significantly longer for children who lived in the South than for children who attended Head

Start programs in the Northeast, the West, or the Midwest, F(3, 2524) = 40.0; p < .0001.

Close to one half of the children (44.8%) arrived at school each day on a Head Start bus, 42.1%

arrived by personal transportation, and 15.7% walked to school. Only 2.2% of the families brought their

children to school on public transportation. How children arrived at school varied by the urbanicity of the

programs. Almost three fourths of the children who lived in rural areas (70.0%) rode to school on a Head

Start school bus, while only one third of children who attended urban Head Start programs did (32.2%).

On average, it took children 16 minutes to travel from home to their Head Start centers (SD= 13.6; Mdn =

10.0 minutes), regardless of the means of transportation. As expected, it took children who lived in rural

areas significantly longer to travel to their Head Start centers (M = 17.9 minutes, SD = 10.2) than children

who lived in urban locations (M = 15.1 minutes; SD = 9.4), t(2524) = 5.25; p < .0001.

Exhibit 7-1 displays the number of days that parents reported their children were absent from

Head Start class during the 1997–1998 school year. One half of the children were absent between 1-5

days over the year (50.6%) and one fifth was absent more than 10 days (20.1%). The number of days

absent did not vary significantly by gender; however, the proportion of White children (29.1%) who

missed more than 10 days of school was almost twice as high as the proportions of African American

children (14.9%) and Hispanic children (15.1%). Children who were absent more than 10 days per school

year had parents who were more depressed, t(2664) = -3.43; p = .0006, who were less satisfied with Head

Start, t(2667) = 4.12; p < .0001, and who had fewer positive feelings regarding their families’ Head Start
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 113

experiences, t(2667) = 4.47; p < .0001, compared to children with fewer absences. The children with 10

or more absences had significantly higher reports of overall problem behavior, t(2642) = -2.37; p = .02, as

well as aggression, t(2663) = -2.34; p = .02, and hyperactive, t(2663) = -2.22; p = .03, behaviors. The

most frequent reason children were absent was personal illness (82.5%). Small percentages of parents

reported lack of transportation (5.1%), parental work or school conflicts (3.5%), or family illnesses

(2.4%) as reasons for their children’s absences.

Exhibit 7-1

Number of Days Absent Over the 1997-1998 Head Start School Year

Weighted Percentages

All Gender Ethnicity

(N = 2,688) (n = 1,367) (n = 1,320) (n = 989) (n = 649) (n = 721)

Days Absent Boys Girls African American Hispanic White

Never 7.3 8.3 6.2 7.6 7.7 7.5

1-5 days 50.6 51.1 49.9 51.6 56.2 45.6

6-10 days 21.4 18.9 24.2 25.3 19.5 17.7

10 or more days 20.1 21.1 19.1 14.9 15.1 29.1

7.3 Parents’ Involvement with Head Start

Slightly more than one half of the parents (51.5%) had experience with Head Start before

enrolling their current children in the program, including having other children who attended. One fifth

of the parents (22.2%) attended Head Start themselves. Two fifths of the parents (40.5%) reported that

they first heard about the program from another family member or a friend, 27.9% said they knew of the

program through prior experience, 11.4% were referred, 8.6% heard about the program by word-ofmouth, or saw a flyer (7.8%), and 2.1% indicated that Head Start staff recruited them through visits at

their homes.1

Participation

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked about the ways that they were involved in the Head

Start program throughout the past school year. Exhibit 7-2 shows that most parents were very active.

Parents most frequently reported participating in home visits2 with Head Start staff members (82.9%),

parent-teacher conferences (81.6%), and observing in their children’s classrooms for at least 30 minutes

(77.4%). Approximately two thirds of the parents volunteered in their children’s classrooms (68.8%) and

1 For additional information on recruiting, see report entitled “Reaching Out to Families: Head Start Recruitment and

Enrollment Practices, 2000.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 114

prepared food or materials for special events (66.1%). Over one half of the parents helped with

fundraising activities (60.0%), attended Head Start social events (55.5%) and workshops (54.8%), and

assisted with field trips (50.9%).

Exhibit 7-2

Type and Frequency of Participation at Head Start by Parents

Weighted Percentages

Not Yet 1-2 Times 3 or More Times

Volunteered in classroom 31.1 27.2 41.6

Observed classroom for 30 minutes or more 22.6 35.3 42.1

Prepared food or materials 33.9 31.6 34.5

Helped with field trips 49.0 27.0 23.9

Attended Head Start social events 44.4 32.4 23.1

Attended workshops 45.2 27.4 27.4

Attended parent-teacher conferences 18.4 38.4 43.2

Had Head Start staff visit at home 16.9 51.3 31.6

Participated in Policy Council 64.0 21.0 15.0

Called another Head Start parent 69.2 17.4 13.4

Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. 77.3 13.1 9.7

Participated in fundraising 40.0 34.2 25.8

Unweighted N = 2,688.

Relationships between Involvement with Head Start and Family and Child Factors

A summary score measuring total involvement3 was created for each parent who responded to the

questionnaire. A series of zero-order correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between

involvement at Head Start and other family factors, as reported during the spring 1998 parent interview.

Parents who were more involved at Head Start also participated in more weekly (r = .19; p < .0001),

monthly (r = .29; p < .0001), and total activities (r = .29; p < .0001) with their children. Head Start

involvement was related to child behavior outcomes as well. Small, but significant negative correlations

were found between involvement at Head Start and parents’ reports of child problem behaviors (r = -.04;

p = .02), including aggressive (r = -.07; p < .001) and hyperactive (r = -.04; p = .04) behaviors. A small

2 Head Start teachers are required to make at least two visits to the homes of children enrolled in center-based programs in

accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR 1306.32(b)(8).

3 Summary parent involvement score is based on respondents’ reports of how frequently (not yet, 1-2 times, 3 or more times)

they participated in each of the 12 activities displayed in Exhibit 7-2, over the past school year. Summary score ranges from 12

to 36, with higher scores representing more involvement, M = 22.1; SD = 5.2; Mdn = 21.0.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 115

positive correlation between involvement at Head Start and children’s positive social behaviors (r = .08; p

< .0001) was also noted.

The amount of parent involvement at Head Start varied by ethnicity and, not surprisingly, by

employment status. Parents of White children reported more involvement at Head Start than both parents

of African American and parents of Hispanic children, F(5, 2519) = 9.21; p < .0001, while parents who

worked were less involved in the program, t(2541) = 5.34; p < .0001. Interestingly, parents were more

involved if they had prior exposure to the program through the enrollment of another child or grandchild,

t(2541) = 2.17; p = .03.

A series of multivariate linear regression models were run to further investigate the role of parent

involvement at Head Start. These models tested whether or not involvement at Head Start (independent

variable) predicted parental depression, locus of control, activities with children, child behavior, emergent

literacy, household rules and safety, and household income (dependent variables) in spring 1998 (T2),

after controlling for the baseline level of each dependent variable at fall 1997 (T1). The findings are

presented in Exhibit 7-3.

Exhibit 7-3

Parental Involvement in Head Start Predicting Child and Family Outcomes

Criterion

Predictor

Beta SE Partial R2 p-value

Parental Depression (T2)

Parental depression (T1) 0.5556 0.0181 0.2776 < .0001

Involvement (T2) -0.0307 0.0229 0.0005 NS

Locus of Control (T2)

Locus of control (T1) 0.6126 0.0170 0.3471 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0254 0.0108 0.0015 .0188

Weekly Activities with Child (T2)

Weekly activities with child (T1) 0.3821 0.0218 0.1500 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0375 0.0064 0.0151 < .0001

Monthly Activities with Child (T2)

Monthly activities with child (T1) 0.4514 0.0190 0.2168 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0591 0.0052 0.0399 < .0001

Total Activities with Child (T2)

Total activities with child (T1) 0.4516 0.0212 0.2195 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0933 0.0094 0.0382 < .0001
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 116

Criterion

Predictor

Beta SE Partial R2 p-value

Child Positive Social Skills (T2)

Child positive social skills (T1) 0.4469 0.0177 0.2116 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0164 0.0060 0.0024 .0065

Behavior Problem Index (T2)

Behavior Problem Index (T1) 0.6064 0.0159 0.3779 < .0001

Involvement (T2) -0.0174 0.0108 0.0007 NS

Aggressive Behavior (T2)

Aggressive behavior (T1) 0.5442 0.0154 0.3114 < .0001

Involvement (T2) -0.0153 0.0053 0.0023 .0044

Hyperactive Behavior (T2)

Hyperactive behavior (T1) 0.5216 0.0167 0.2848 < .0001

Involvement (T2) -0.0056 0.0047 0.0004 NS

Household Rules (T2)

Household rules (T1) 0.4704 0.0177 0.2382 .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0149 0.0039 0.0047 < .0001

Emergent Literacy (T2)

Emergent literacy (T1) 0.6478 0.0161 0.4065 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 0.0157 0.0046 0.0028 .0007

Household Income (T2)

Household income (T1) 0.6337 0.0173 0.3612 < .0001

Involvement (T2) 3.0227 2.5921 0.0004 NS

Unweighted N = 2,688.

Even after controlling for each outcome at baseline, parent involvement at Head Start was a

significant predictor of increased parental weekly, monthly, and total activities with children, as well as a

significant predictor of increased positive social behavior and decreased aggressive behavior among the

children. Parent involvement at Head Start also predicted increased children’s emergent literacy, the use

of more household rules, and a more internal locus of control for parents. Involvement at Head Start did

not significantly predict parental depression, monthly household income, or hyperactive behavior among

the children.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 117

High, Moderate, and Low Parent Involvement

In order to further examine the effects of participation at Head Start, a categorical involvement

variable was created that classified parent involvement as low, moderate, or high.4 One-way analyses of

variance were used to test for overall differences in means between the low, moderate, and high

involvement groups of parents on various family and child outcomes. Post-hoc Scheffee tests (ps < .05)

identified individual differences between each group. Significant main effects for involvement were

noted for a number of child and family descriptors.

For the three overall child-oriented activity ratings, significant main effects were noted for

involvement on total activities, F(2, 2363) = 82.84; p < .0001, weekly activities, F(2, 2362) = 31.38; p <

.0001, and monthly activities F(2, 2686) = 101.39; p < .0001). In each case, parents with high

involvement at Head Start reported more child-oriented activities than parents with moderate or low

program involvement, and parents with moderate involvement reported more activities with their children

than parents who were in the low-involvement category.

For child outcomes, significant main effects were found for parent involvement on positive social

behavior, F(2, 2673) = 9.44; p < .0001, and emergent literacy, F(2, 2542) = 18.18; p < .0001. Post-hoc

comparisons again showed that parents with high involvement rated their children higher on positive

social behavior and emergent literacy than did the two categories of parents with less involvement. While

there was also a significant main effect on the aggression subscale, F(2, 2682) = 6.45; p < .0001, the

pattern was reversed in the post-hoc tests. Parents who reported low involvement with Head Start had

children with higher ratings of aggression than parents who were categorized as highly involved in the

program.

Among the family outcomes, significant main effects were noted for level of parent involvement

on the number of household rules, F(2, 2477) = 31.66; p < .0001, and the number of household safety

practices parents followed, F(2, 2504 ) = 27.48; p < .0001. The post-hoc comparisons showed that

parents who were highly involved at Head Start used more household rules and engaged in more safety

practices than parents with moderate or low involvement, while parents with moderate involvement also

employed more rules than parents with lower program involvement.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 118

In terms of the parents, significant main effects for parental involvement were noted on both

locus of control, F(2, 2683) = 3.76; p = .02, and satisfaction with the Head Start program, F(2, 2686) =

14.05; p < .0001. Consistent with previous patterns, parents in the high involvement category had a more

internal locus of control and greater satisfaction with the program than parents in the lower involvement

categories, and moderately involved parents had higher satisfaction with the program than did parents

from the low involvement category. There were no significant differences on parental depression scores,

monthly household incomes, or discipline methods used by parents, across the three levels of involvement

with the Head Start program.

Exhibit 7-4 presents the mean change scores for family and child outcomes among parents who

had high, moderate, or low involvement in Head Start during the school year. From fall 1997 to spring

1998, parents with high involvement in Head Start had a significant decrease in their depression scores,

and a significant increase in their internal locus of control and social support. They significantly

increased the amount of weekly, monthly, and total activities they engaged in with their children, their

monthly household incomes, and their use of household rules. Their children significantly improved their

emergent literacy scale scores. Parents with moderate involvement at Head Start also significantly

increased their internal locus of control, their social support, their use of household rules, their household

incomes, and the amounts of monthly and total activity they engaged in with their children. In addition to

having a significant increase in their emergent literacy scores, their children also showed significant gains

in positive social behavior. Parents with low involvement also had significant increases in their internal

locus of control and social support, their household incomes, and use of household rules. However, they

reported no increases in the amount of activity with their children, no increases in their children’s positive

social behavior, and no decreases in their children’s problem behavior. As with all of the other parents,

their children significantly increased their emergent literacy scores from fall 1997 to spring 1998.

4 Low, moderate, and high categories were determined based on the distribution of responses in the summary parent involvement

score (range 12-36). Low involvement = 1st quartile (score of 12-18; n = 760); moderate involvement = 2nd and 3rd quartiles

(score of 19-25; n = 1,249); high involvement = 4th quartile (score 26-36; n = 679).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 119

Exhibit 7-4

Mean Change Scores by High, Moderate, and Low Involvement Groups, 1997-1998

Change in ...

High Involvement

(n = 679)

Moderate Involvement

(n = 1,249)

Low Involvement

(n = 760)

M SE Sig M SE Sig M SE Sig

Parental depression -0.65 0.26 * -0.10 0.19 ns -0.26 0.26 ns

Social support 0.76 0.15 *** 0.51 0.11 *** 0.56 0.14 ***

Locus of control 0.69 0.12 *** 0.48 0.09 *** 0.45 0.12 **

Weekly activities with children 0.20 0.07 ** 0.10 0.06 ns 0.04 0.08 ns

Monthly activities with children 0.45 0.06 *** 0.15 0.04 *** 0.07 0.05 ns

Total activities with children 0.68 0.11 *** 0.24 0.08 ** 0.08 0.12 ns

Positive social behavior 0.12 0.06 ns 0.12 0.05 * 0.11 0.08 ns

Problem behavior index -0.17 0.16 ns -0.18 0.09 ns 0.04 0.12 ns

Aggressive behavior -0.11 0.06 ns -0.08 0.05 ns 0.05 0.06 ns

Hyperactive behavior -0.09 0.05 ns -0.07 0.04 ns -0.07 0.06 ns

Withdrawn behavior 0.04 0.06 ns -0.02 0.05 ns 0.04 0.06 ns

Emergent literacy 1.02 0.05 *** 0.98 0.04 ns 0.95 0.05 ***

Household rules 0.16 0.05 ** 0.19 0.03 *** 0.13 0.05 **

Household income 110.7 29.0 ** 97.3 22.5 *** 102.6 25.9 ***

* < .05, ** < .01, *** < .001

Barriers to Participation

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked if there were particular barriers that prevented them

from participating as much as they would have liked in activities at their children’s Head Start center.

Exhibit 7-5 displays the top six barriers to participation mentioned by the parents. Work commitments

(55.9%), need for child care (31.5%), and school schedules (18.9%) were the most frequently mentioned

barriers to participation that parents faced. The following barriers were mentioned by less than five

percent of the parents: not knowing others at Head Start (4.6%), having had previous bad experiences at

the program (3.5%), feeling uncomfortable at Head Start (3.1%), language or cultural differences (3.2%),

concern for safety (2.7%), lack of opportunity to participate (4.3%), or a perception that the teacher was

not comfortable having parents in the classroom (1.6%).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 120

Exhibit 7-5

Top Six Barriers to Participation at Head Start as Reported by Parents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Health Problems Interfere

Lack Support from Spouse

Need Transportation

School Interferes

Need Child Care

Work Interferes

Reported barriers were significant predictors of the amount of involvement parents had with the

program. Parents who said that their work schedules interfered with their ability to participate reported

less involvement in Head Start than parents who did not mention work schedules as a barrier, t(2538) =

11.57; p > .0001. There was also less involvement among parents who mentioned transportation as a

barrier, t(2538) = 4.00; p < .0001, as well as the need for child care, t(2537) = 6.61; p < .0001. However,

those parents who reported their school schedules, health concerns, or lack of support from spouses or

partners as barriers were not significantly less involved than parents who did not report these as barriers.

7.4 Perceptions of Head Start

Parents were asked to comment on their expectations for the Head Start school year, as well as

their families’ experiences at the program. The following sections present parents’ expectations of the

program, perceptions of their experiences, and ways that Head Start has helped their families and

children.

Expectations

In the fall of 1997, parents were asked to identify the major ways they felt Head Start could help

their children and their families during the upcoming school year. They were asked the following two

questions. Responses were post-coded into categories (See Exhibit 7-6).

• What are the major ways you feel Head Start could help your child this year?

• What are the major ways you think Head Start could help your family this year?
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 121

During the spring 1998 interviews, parents were asked to think back on their children’s year in

Head Start, and report the ways that the program had helped their children and their families. The

following two questions were asked. Responses were post-coded into categories (See Exhibit 7-6).

• Thinking back over your child’s last year in Head Start, what are the major ways Head Start has

helped your child?

• What are the major ways Head Start has helped your family? Did they help your family in any

other areas besides educating your child?

Responses to both sets of questions are summarized in Exhibit 7-6.

Exhibit 7-6

Parents’ Perceptions of Benefits Expected and Received from Head Start

Weighted Percentages

N = 2,543

Expectations

(Fall 1997)

How HS Helped

(Spring 1998)

Child Benefits

Academic readiness 71.4 67.1

Social interactions with children 37.6 54.8

Social interactions with adults 9.6 21.5

Help with speech and language 12.2 14.6

Child health, nutrition, immunizations 3.5 8.6

Child dental services 1.1 1.1

Mental health counseling 1.5 0.4

Help for special needs 2.8 2.0

Safe haven from home or neighborhood 0.7 1.2

Child care 5.2 1.5

Child Skills

Independence 11.8 23.2

Manners 12.9 24.0

Good habits (pick up toys, set table) 6.7 17.1
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 122

Weighted Percentages

N = 2,543

Expectations

(Fall 1997)

How HS Helped

(Spring 1998)

Family Health

Health education (nutrition or fitness) 0.3 0.7

Medical services 1.4 1.0

Dental services 1.3 1.0

Mental health counseling 1.6 0.4

Referrals and or Information

Social services 2.0 1.2

Legal aid 0.7 0.3

Public assistance 1.3 0.1

Medicaid 0.5 0.3

Employment

Job skills 1.1 0.4

Job searching skills 0.9 0.7

Job interviewing skills 0.2 0.3

Opportunity to work 2.2 2.7

Adult Education

Preparing for GED 2.3 1.0

Vocational or technical training 1.4 1.3

Adult education courses 1.0 0.7

English literacy skills 1.6 0.5

Finance or budgeting 0.7 0.4

Child Development Associate (CDA) 0.6 0.2

College degree 0.4 0.2

Parenting Benefits

Communication skills 1.4 6.1

Discipline 1.1 7.2

Nutrition 1.4 2.5

Reading/education 0.3 1.9

Understanding child growth and development 7.1 11.3
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 123

Weighted Percentages

N = 2,543

Expectations

(Fall 1997)

How HS Helped

(Spring 1998)

Food or clothing 1.5 3.9

Holiday gifts, toys, books 1.0 3.9

Parent Social Benefits

Make new friends 0.0 0.0

Increase self-confidence 0.5 2.5

Social or emotional support 4.1 11.5

Family contentment 5.2 8.0

Volunteer Opportunities 1.9 1.7

Housing 1.8 0.8

Transportation 2.6 2.4

Head Start Cannot Help 1.8 1.8

Do Not Know How Head Start Can Help 15.0 5.6

Respondents were permitted to give multiple responses, resulting in total percentages over 100.

As indicated in Exhibit 7-6, over two thirds of parents (71.4%) anticipated that Head Start would

help prepare their children for school and almost two fifths (37.6%) expected that the program would

provide social interactions with other children. Other topics mentioned included helping their children

with speech and language (12.2%), manners (12.9%), and independence (11.8%). Interestingly, by the

end of the school year, many parents reported that Head Start had helped their children in ways they had

not expected. While slightly fewer parents (67.1%) indicated Head Start had helped their children be

academically prepared than the 71.4% who expected this benefit from the program, more parents

reported that their children had benefited from social interactions with other children (54.8% vs. 37.6%

expected) as well as social interactions with adults (21.5% vs. 9.6% expected). Compared with what

parents expected in the fall, by spring 1998, about twice as many parents reported that Head Start had

helped their children with independence (23.2% vs. 11.8% expected), manners (24.0% vs. 12.9%

expected), and developing good habits (17.1% vs. 6.7% expected).

Overall, parents were much less likely to expect benefits for their families from the program.

When asked to identify the major ways they felt that Head Start could benefit their families, only two

possible benefits were mentioned by more than five percent of the families: helping them understand
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 124

their children’s growth and development (7.1%) and helping them with family contentment (5.2%).

Almost one fifth of parents did not know that Head Start could help their families (15.0%) or believe that

it could help (1.8%). However, as was the case with expectations for how the program could help their

children, by spring 1998 parents reported that Head Start had helped their families in ways they had not

anticipated. Unexpected benefits included help with their communication skills (6.1% vs. 1.4%

expected), discipline methods (7.2% vs. 1.1% expected), and social or emotional support (11.5% vs. 5.2%

expected).

Health Behavior Learned at Head Start

In a separate set of questions focusing on the benefits of Head Start, parent and child health

behaviors were targeted. During the spring 1998 interview, parents were asked about whether their

children’s and their own health behaviors had improved as a result of their Head Start experience. In

particular, parents were asked to report about their children’s tooth brushing, washing hands before meals,

washing hands after using the toilet, eating nutritious and healthful foods, and exercising. Changes in

parents’ own health behaviors were examined in the areas of exercising more regularly, eating more

nutritious or healthful foods, brushing teeth more regularly, using seat belts more regularly, and

improving safety in the home. As expected, parents reported that both they and their children had health

behavior improvements as a result of Head Start across the five health behavior items. The mean number

of health behavior improvements for children was 4.0 (SD = 1.4), while the mean number of health

improvements for parents was 2.2 (SD = 2.2).

Across the targeted behaviors, the highest proportions of parents indicated that their children had

improved tooth brushing (84.6%), washing hands before meals (86.9%), and washing hands after using

the toilet (84.7%), while slightly lower proportions reported that Head Start helped to improve their

children’s exercising (67.8%) or nutritional habits (74.1%). A smaller proportion of parents indicated

Head Start helped them improve their own health behaviors. With the exception of household safety

(61.1%), less than half of the parents reported health improvements across any of the areas. More

specifically, 46.7% showed improvements in seat belt use, 45.3% ate more nutritiously, 39.8% brushed

their teeth more regularly, and 31.1% indicated exercising more regularly.

Children’s and Parents’ Experiences

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked to assess their children’s and their own experiences in

Head Start. As illustrated in Exhibit 7-7, almost all of the parents had very positive feelings toward their

children’s and their own experiences with Head Start. For example, over 95% reported that their children
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 125

often or always felt safe and secure at Head Start (95.7%), were happy to be in the program (96.1%), felt

accepted by their teachers (97.1%), and were treated with respect (97.2%). Parents indicated that teachers

often or always made them feel welcomed (96.9%), supported them as parents (95.7%), and were open to

new information and learning (93.5%).

Exhibit 7-7

Parents’ Perceptions of Child and Family Experiences at Head Start

Weighted Percentages

Never Sometimes Often Always

Child feels safe and secure in Head Start 0.1 4.2 13.6 82.0

Child gets lots of individual attention 0.3 7.6 25.4 64.5

Child’s teacher is open to new information and learning 0.2 3.0 11.0 82.5

Child has been happy in the program 0.3 3.6 12.4 83.7

Teacher is warm and affectionate towards child 0.3 3.1 10.0 85.8

Child is treated with respect by teachers 0.1 1.9 6.4 90.8

Teacher takes an interest in child 0.0 2.6 9.3 87.4

Child feels accepted by the teacher 0.3 2.4 8.3 88.8

Teacher is supportive of parent 0.4 2.6 9.0 86.7

Parent feels welcomed by the teacher 0.3 2.5 6.2 90.8

Teacher handles discipline matters easily without being harsh 0.6 3.4 10.2 79.8

Teacher seems happy and content 0.6 4.0 11.6 82.5

Assistant teacher is warm and affectionate towards child 0.3 3.1 8.5 84.3

Unweighted N = 2,688.

A summary score of total experience5 was created for each parent who responded to the questionnaire.

There were no significant differences in this rating of Head Start experience by ethnicity, urbanicity,

region, prior experience with the program, or length of the Head Start day.

5 Summary experience score is based on respondents’ reports of how frequently (never, sometimes, often, or always) they felt the

13 items displayed in Exhibit 7-6 occurred at Head Start. Summary scores ranged from 13 to 52, with higher scores representing

more positive experience. M = 48.9; SD = 4.9; Mdn = 51.0.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 126

7.5 Parent Satisfaction

Parents were asked how satisfied they were with Head Start’s performance in eight different

areas, including helping their children to grow and develop, preparing their children for kindergarten, and

supporting their families’ culture and background. As shown in Exhibit 7-8, parents were very satisfied

with Head Start in all areas. For example, over 80% of the families were very satisfied that Head Start

maintained a safe program (88.3%), respected their families’ culture (88.1%), helped their children to

grow and develop (86.5%), provided them services (83.4%), and prepared them for kindergarten (84.6%).

Exhibit 7-8

Parents’ Satisfaction with the Head Start Program

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Maintan Safe ProgramRespect family culture

Help child grow developPrepare for kindergartenServices for childOpen to ideas

Services for family

Foster community involvement

A summary score of satisfaction6 was created for each parent who responded to the questionnaire.

Parents of Hispanic children were more satisfied than parents of White children, F(5, 2523) = 2.82; p =

.02.7 and parents who had less than a high school degree were more satisfied than parents who had at least

some college, F(2, 2541) = 10.25; p < .0001. The region of the country was also significantly related to

parent satisfaction with the program, F(3, 2541) = 7.17; p < .0001. Parents who lived in the South, West,

and Midwest were more satisfied than parents who lived in the Northeast. Satisfaction also varied by

employment status, t(2540) = 2.88; p < .01. Employed parents were significantly less satisfied with the

6 Summary satisfaction score is based on respondents’ reports of how satisfied (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) they were with Head Start in regard to the 8 items displayed in Exhibit 7-8. Summary score

ranges from 8 to 32, with higher scores representing more satisfaction. M = 29.2; SD = 3.7; Mdn = 31.0. 7 One-way analysis of variance was used to test for overall differences in the mean satisfaction scores among ethnic groups. Post

hoc Scheffee tests (ps < .05) identified individual differences between each group.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 127

program than those parents who were not employed. Parents who reported their Head Start children as

having disabilities were less satisfied than those families who did not have children with disabilities,

t(2527) = 4.45; p < .0001, and parents of girls were more satisfied than parents of boys, t(2539) = 3.10; p

< .0001. There were no significant differences in satisfaction scores based on marital status, previous

experience with Head Start, whether the program was located in a rural or urban area, or the number of

hours per day that the children attended classes. However, parents who reported their children were only

absent 1-5 days in the previous Head Start school year were significantly more satisfied with the program

than parents of children who were absent for 10 or more days during the year, F(3, 2526) = 5.65; p <

.001. A significant positive correlation was found between satisfaction and involvement in the program, r

= .11; p < .001.

7.6 Parent Reported Ways to Improve Head Start

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked the following open-ended question: If you could

change anything about Head Start that you think would help it better serve children and families, what

would it be? Almost one half of the parents indicated that Head Start did not need to change (36.9%) or

they were already satisfied with the program (8.3%). Only four of the suggestions for improvement were

reported by more than five percent of the parents: have extended hours or longer days (11.9%), focus

more on academic skills (6.8%), provide transportation (6.3%), and improve the facilities such as having

better playgrounds and classrooms (6.1%). Exhibit 7-9 displays the types of suggestions that parents had

for improving Head Start.

Exhibit 7-9

Parents’ Suggestions for Improving Head Start in Spring 1998

Reported by at Least 5% of Parents

• Focus more on academic skills • Improve facilities

• Have extended hours and longer days • Provide transportation

• Nothing to change • Satisfied with Head Start

Reported by Less Than 5% of Parents

• Provide better meals • Have smaller classes

• Have more teachers • Have teachers trained in special needs

• Improve special needs programs • Improve materials and supplies

• Provide more individual attention • Have more teacher assistants
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 128

Reported by Less Than 5% of Parents

• Educate families about services provided • Provide safer playground facilities

• Schedule meetings at more convenient times • Improve transition to kindergarten

• Teach discipline to children • Provide a progress report on children

• Reduce the number of forms to complete • Improve communication with parents

• Get parents more involved • Celebrate more holidays

• Provide for family counseling • Separate children by age

• Provide extended day care • Improve organization and administration

• Have a more racially diverse staff • Pay teachers more

• Increase home based options • Allow younger children to attend

• Eliminate income eligibility requirements • Provide more activities outside school

• Improve teachers’ attitudes • Increase training for teachers

• Require staff to be more patient with children • Improve safety of transportation vehicles

7.7 Summary

Findings from this chapter contributed to a more complete understanding of Head Start families’

involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction with the Head Start program. Highlights from Chapter 7

include:

Children’s Involvement with the Program

• On average, parents reported that their children attended Head Start for slightly more than 5 hours

per day and 4.5 days per week and took approximately 16 minutes to get to school. The length of

day was longer for children who lived in the South.

• Almost three fourths of children who lived in rural areas rode to school each day on a Head Start

bus while only one third of children who lived in urban locations rode on a Head Start bus.

• One half of the children were absent between 1-5 days per year and one fifth was absent more

than 10 days. The proportion of White children who missed more than 10 days was almost twice

as high as the proportion of African American or Hispanic children.

• Children who missed more than 10 days had parents who were more depressed, who were less

satisfied with the program, and had fewer positive feelings regarding their families’ Head Start

experiences. Children with 10 or more absences were reported to have more problem behavior,

including aggressive and hyperactive behavior.

• The most frequent reason for absence was children’s illness.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 129

• Slightly more than one half of the parents had experience with Head Start before enrolling the

FACES child, including having other children or grandchildren who attended.

• One fifth of the parents had attended Head Start.

Parents’ Involvement at Head Start

• Most parents were very active in the program. The most frequently reported activities were home

visits with Head Start staff members, parent-teacher conferences, and observing in their

children’s classrooms for at least 30 minutes.

• Parents who were more involved at Head Start also participated in more weekly, monthly, and

overall activities with their children, and reported their children had fewer problem behaviors.

• Parents of White children reported more involvement at Head Start than either parents of African

American children or parents of Hispanic children.

• Parents who worked were less involved at Head Start than non-working parents, and parents with

prior exposure to the program were more involved than parents with no previous experience.

• Parents with high involvement at Head Start significantly decreased their depression, increased

their internal locus of control and social support, and increased their use of household rules and

their monthly household income from the fall of 1997 to the spring of 1998. They also

significantly increased the amount of weekly, monthly, and total activity with their children from

the fall to the spring.

• Parents with moderate involvement also significantly increased their internal locus of control,

their social support, their use of household rules, their household income, and the amount of

monthly and total activity they engaged in with their children.

• Parents with low involvement showed significant increases in their internal locus of control and

social support, their household incomes, and their use of household rules from fall to spring.

However, they showed no increases in the amount of activity with their children, no increases in

their children’s positive social behavior and no decreases in their children’s problem behavior

from fall to spring.

• Work and school commitments, need for child care or transportation, health problems, or lack of

support from a spouse or partner were the top six barriers to participation reported by the parents.

Expectations of Head Start and Ways that Head Start has Helped

• Over two thirds of parents anticipated that Head Start would help prepare their children for school

and almost two fifths expected that the program would provide social interactions with other

children.

• Interestingly, by the end of the school year, many parents reported that Head Start had helped

their children in ways they had not expected.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 130

• Far fewer parents expected benefits for their families. Almost one fifth of the parents did not

know that Head Start could help their families or believed that they would.

• Only two possible benefits were mentioned by more than five percent of the families: helping

them to understand their children’s growth and development and helping them with family

contentment. Again, by the end of the school year, parents reported that Head Start had helped

their families in ways they had not anticipated.

• Parents reported that their children showed improvement in brushing their teeth, washing their

hands before meals, washing their hands after using the toilet, exercising, and eating more

nutritious food as a result of their Head Start experience. Almost two thirds of the parents

indicated that Head Start helped them improve safety in their homes.

Children’s and Parents’ Experiences in the Program

• Almost all of the parents had very positive feelings toward their children’s and their own

experiences at Head Start. Over 95% reported that their children often or always felt safe and

secure at Head Start, were happy to be in the program, felt accepted by their teachers, and were

treated with respect. Parents indicated that teachers often or always made them feel welcomed,

supported them as parents, and were open to new information and learning.

Parents’ Satisfaction with Head Start

• Over 80% of parents were very satisfied that Head Start maintained a safe program, respected

their family’s culture, helped their children to grow and develop, provided their children services,

and prepared them for kindergarten.

• Parents of Hispanic children were more satisfied with Head Start than parents of White children,

and parents who had less than a high school degree were more satisfied than parents who had

some college or more.

• The region of the country was also significantly related to parent satisfaction with the program.

Parents who lived in the South, West, and Midwest were more satisfied than parents who lived in

the Northeast.

• Employed parents were less satisfied than non-working parents. Parents who reported that their

children had disabilities were also less satisfied with the program than parents who did not have

children with disabilities.

• Parents who were more satisfied were also more involved.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Families’ Experiences with Head Start 131

Suggestions for Improvement

• Almost one half of the parents indicated that Head Start did not need to change or they were

already satisfied with the program.

• The top four suggestions for improvement were to extend hours, focus more on academics,

provide transportation, and improve the facilities like the playgrounds or classrooms.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 132

8.0 Head Start’s Special Populations

This chapter presents descriptions of three special populations served by Head Start: families of

children with disabilities, families of Hispanic children, and families with grandparents as the primary

caregivers of the children.

8.1 Overview of Families of Children with Disabilities

Since its inception, Head Start has promoted enrollment and delivery of services to children with

special needs and has directed local programs to set aside a minimum of 10% of available program slots

for these children and families, regardless of income [Head Start Program Performance Standard

1306.(c)]. Head Start guidelines promote inclusion of children with special needs in regular classroom

activities and the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), including an integrated service

delivery program, to accommodate the needs of these children and their families. This section will

present characteristics of families who have children with disabilities, how these families function, and

their relationships with the Head Start program.

Definition of Children with Disabilities

Although parents reported in the parent interview whether or not their children had disabilities,

for the purpose of this report, children were counted as having disabilities only when these parent reports

were supported by subsequent responses that the children also had an IEP (an indication of a professional

diagnosis). It was also recognized that while some children entered Head Start with an identified

disability (and an IEP), other children were identified sometime during their Head Start experience,

including some who received professional diagnoses and IEPs during their second year in the program.

In order to be inclusive of all children with professionally diagnosed disabilities, children with disabilities

were identified in the sample in the following way.

Classification was based on information taken from each data collection. First, 233 children

were identified in the fall of 1997 as having an IEP. Similarly, 281 were identified with an IEP in the

spring 1998 interview, while 102 were identified as having an IEP in spring 1999. After accounting for

children who were reported to have an IEP in two or more parent interviews, a total of 424 children in the

study sample were classified as having disabilities. Regardless of when the disabilities were first

reported, fall 1997 parent interview data are presented in sections 8.1.1 through 8.1.3, which contain

descriptive background information on these children and families. Starting with section 8.1.4, spring

1998 data were used for only the 281 families with children identified as having disabilities at that time.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 133

This process offers the largest number of families with responses to questions gathered at the end of the

Head Start year, including satisfaction with program services.

8.1.1 Characteristics of Children with Disabilities

Ethnicity

The supplemental exhibit (Exhibit 8-2) in section 8.1.6, page 150, presents the distribution of

child and family characteristics within groups of families with and without children with disabilities, as

well as across five categories of disabilities (language, behavioral, cognitive, physical, and sensory).

Among children with disabilities, the ethnic groups with the largest representation were African American

children (36.7%) and White children (34.1%). While Hispanic children made up 28.9% of the children

without disabilities, only 20.3% of the children with disabilities were Hispanic.

Distributions of children by ethnicity, as shown in Exhibit 8-2, display some differences across

the five disability categories. While African American children made up the largest ethnic percentage of

all children with disabilities, this was the case for only one of the disability groups. White children made

up the largest proportions of children with cognitive, physical, and sensory disabilities. Among children

with physical disabilities, only 6.0% were Hispanic, much lower than the proportion of African American

children (27.7%) or White children (53.9%). Compared with the overall category of children with

disabilities, the sensory disabilities category had fewer African American children (18.2%) and an

increased percentage of Hispanic children (34.0%).

Gender and Age of Children

While the main sample of children was evenly split between boys and girls, almost two thirds of

the children with disabilities were boys (62.6%). This finding was generally true within each of the

disability categories, although the proportion of boys in the behavioral disability category was up to

74.5%. Exhibit 8-2 shows that the percentage of 3-year-olds among the children without disabilities was

less than one third (30.0%). This was very similar to the proportion of 3-year-olds in the overall study

sample. In contrast, more than two fifths of the children (41.8%) with disabilities were 3 years old.

Within the five disability categories, more than one half of the children with behavioral disabilities were 3

years old, but less than one quarter of those in the cognitive disabilities (24.4%) and the sensory

disabilities (22.8%) categories were 3 years of age.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 134

Geographic Location

As noted in Exhibit 8-2, urban areas were home to approximately two thirds of the children with

disabilities (64.4%) and children without disabilities (67.4%). This pattern was consistent across the

disability categories, with the exception of children with physical disabilities (56.3%), who were more

likely to come from rural areas. The distribution of children, both with and without disabilities, by

geographic region was generally similar to the distribution of the regions across the study population as a

whole. In looking at the five disability categories, physical disabilities had an increased proportion of

children from the Midwest (41.4%), while only 17.2% of the children came from the South, which was

the largest group of children, overall.

Child Birthweight

As seen in the supplemental exhibit (Exhibit 8-2), more than 80% of the children in the study

were of normal birthweight, regardless of whether they had disabilities (81.8%) or not (86.5%). Among

the disability categories, less then three quarters of the children in the cognitive category (64.1%) and the

physical category (55.8%) were born with a normal birthweight. The physical disabilities category had

the largest proportions of children with low (20.5%) and very low (7.5%) birthweights.

8.1.2 Characteristics of Families of Children with Disabilities

Age of Parents

As displayed in Exhibit 8-2, the distributions of parents’ ages across the groups of children with

and without disabilities was generally mixed. Both groups had about one half of the parents under 30

years of age, but the percentage of children with disabilities having parents less than 20 years of age

(5.0%) was about twice that of children without disabilities (2.1%). About one tenth of the children in

the behavioral disabilities category (10.2%) had parents under 20, while none of the children in the

physical disabilities category had parents less than 20 years of age. More than one half of the children

with disabilities had parents under age 30, including 70.2% of the children in the sensory disabilities

group; 71.3% of the children in the physical disabilities group and 58.3% of the children in the cognitive

disabilities group had parents older than 30 years of age. Consequently, Exhibit 8-2 also shows that the

mean and median ages for parents of children in these two groups were slightly higher than that reported

for parents of children in the other disability categories.

Nativity of Parents

The parents of children without disabilities (20.6%) included a much higher proportion of nonU.S. born individuals than did parents of children with disabilities (7.3%)(Exhibit 8-2). For children in
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 135

the behavioral disabilities category, only 1.7% of the parents were born in a country other than the U.S.,

while 15.5% of the parents with children sensory disabilities were born out of the U.S.

Marital Status

As noted in Exhibit 8-2, the parents of children with disabilities were very similar to the parents

of children without disabilities on their distribution across four categories of marital status. Within the

disability categories, parents of children in the cognitive disabilities group (66.9%) and the physical

disabilities group (71.3%) had the highest percentage of married parents. More than two thirds of the

children in the behavioral disabilities category had single parents (70.7%), as did 55.8% of the children in

the language disabilities category.

Education and Training

As with some other characteristics, Exhibit 8-2 shows that the distribution of parents across the

five education and training categories was similar for parents of children with disabilities and parents of

children without disabilities. In both cases, just over one quarter had less than a high school diploma, and

just over one third had diplomas or GEDs. Within the five disability categories, less then one tenth of the

parents of children with physical disabilities (9.5%) had less than a high school diploma, while for the

other four groups, the proportion was closer to one quarter. The largest percentages of parents with

college degrees were within the cognitive disabilities (8.2%) and the physical disabilities (6.8%) groups.

Employment Status

Full-time workers represented approximately one third of parents of children both with and

without disabilities (Exhibit 8-2). This figure was also true for parents of children in each of the disability

categories, except for parents of children in the sensory disabilities category (24.7%). Parents of children

in the sensory disabilities category were also the most likely to be unemployed (65.9%).

Household Income

Some important differences in monthly household income were noted between families with and

without children with disabilities. As seen in Exhibit 8-2, a smaller proportion of families having

children with disabilities (7.8%) also had monthly household incomes of less than $500 than was noted

among families without children with disabilities (12.5%). In contrast, the families with children that had

disabilities (21.2%) were more likely than families not having children with disabilities (14.8%) to have

monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more. For the three middle categories of income, differences

between the two groups of families were slight.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 136

Families with children who were classified as having language disabilities had a distribution of

income very much like that of the disabled group as a whole, but differences were apparent for families

with children in the other groups (Exhibit 8-2). The very low family incomes (less than $500) were most

likely found in families having children in the language disabilities category (8.2%), and less apparent

among families with children in the cognitive (2.5%), physical (2.5%), and sensory (3.1%) disabilities

groups. A big difference was noted in the highest monthly income category ($2,000 or more). While

only 14.8% of the families with non-disabled children and 21.2% of all families containing children with

disabilities were in this category, more than two fifths of families with children in the cognitive category

(41.1%) and almost one half in the physical category (47.9%) had the highest level of monthly household

income.

Housing Status

Exhibit 8-2 shows that a slightly higher proportion of children with disabilities (90.5%) lived in

private homes than did children without disabilities (85.8%), while shared housing was used slightly less.

Interestingly, although it was noted above that the families of children with disabilities had fewer families

in the lowest income category and more in the highest income category than did families of children

without disabilities, the former group had the higher proportion of families living in public housing

(29.6% vs. 20.9%). The proportion of children with behavioral disabilities who also lived in public

housing was 39.7%, about two times the level of most other groups.

Sources of Support

Exhibit 8-2 shows that WIC was used by more than one half of families, regardless of whether or

not the children had disabilities, but that the receipt of TANF was slightly higher for families of children

with disabilities (35.4%) than for families of children without disabilities (29.4%). WIC was used,

similarly, by more than one half of the families with children in each of the disability categories. TANF

receipt, however, was lower among families of children classified as having cognitive (53.9%), physical

(19.5%), or sensory (21.8%) disabilities.

As expected, Exhibit 8-2 shows that the receipt of SSI or SSDI was much more likely among

families of children with disabilities (20.4%) than among families of children without disabilities (9.4%).

Among the disability categories, receipt of SSI or SSDI was highest by families of children in the

cognitive (29.7%) and physical (29.0%) categories, and lowest for families with children in the behavioral

(14.2%) and sensory (15.4%) categories.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 137

Insurance Coverage

As noted in Exhibit 8-2, a higher proportion of children with disabilities were covered by private

insurance (37.1%) and Medicaid (68.7%) than were children without disabilities (31.8% and 56.3%,

respectively). Coverage by private insurance was highest among families of children classified in the

cognitive (53.9%) and physical (53.7%) disabilities categories. Use of Medicaid was reported by over

two thirds of the families in each of the disability categories, except by families of children with physical

(49.0%) and sensory (56.4%) disabilities.

8.1.3 Functioning of Families of Children with Disabilities

This section presents information gathered from the parent interviews about the functioning of the

Head Start families who had children with disabilities, including their psychological well-being, and their

neighborhood environments.

Social Support

All families need outside sources of support in raising young children. This may be especially

true for families of children with disabilities. In the spring of 1998, parents were asked about the people

or groups in their lives that were helpful to them during the past six months in raising their Head Start

children. Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities (91.5%) reported that Head Start was

helpful (30.5%) or very helpful (61.0%) as a source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered

slightly more helpful than grandparents or other relatives (82.1%) and much more helpful than friends

(65.1%), other parents (61.9%), professional helpgivers (60.1%), people from religious or social groups

(44.4%), child care staff (38.9%), or co-workers (24.2%).

Based on a summary variable measuring total support1

, parents of children with disabilities

reported receiving more support in raising their children than parents of children without disabilities,

t(2683) = 2.57; p = .01. Although both groups of parents were close on their reports of the amount of

support they received from Head Start, grandparents and other relatives, friends, religious and social

group members, and co-workers, a slightly larger proportion of parents of children with disabilities

(38.9%) reported they received support from child care staff than parents of children without disabilities

(30.8%), and a slightly smaller proportion of parents of children with disabilities reported receiving

1 Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start

children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 138

support from other parents (61.9% vs. 68.1%). As expected, almost twice as many parents of children

with disabilities (60.1%) compared to parents of children without disabilities (31.0%) reported receiving

support from professional helpgivers. Reports of social support did not vary by type of disability.

Psychological Well-Being

Depression among Head Start parents was measured using the CES-D Depression Scale2

(Radloff, 1977). Overall, most parents of children with disabilities were classified as not depressed

(37.0%) or mildly depressed (26.9%). Still, one third of these parents were classified as moderately

depressed (14.8%) or severely depressed (17.6%). Parents of children with disabilities were significantly

more depressed, t(2682) = 3.04; p < .01, and had a more external locus of control, t(2682) = 3.31; p <

.001, than parents of children without disabilities. Reports of parental depression did not vary by type of

disability.

Social Service Needs

Because parents of young children sometimes need help of various kinds, they were asked, during

the spring 1998 interview, to report whether they or someone in their household had needed or received

help from various community agencies since September of 1997. Types of services included income

assistance, employment assistance, help with health care, or other social service needs. Based on

summary scores measuring need for services3 and receipt of services4

, parents of children with disabilities

had a greater need for services, t(2686) = 2.77; p < .01, and received more services, t(2686) = 3.06; p <

.01, than parents of children without disabilities. The mean number of services needed by parents of

children with disabilities was 8.9 (SD = 6.2) compared to 8.0 (SD = 5.6) services needed by parents of

children without disabilities. The mean number of services received by parents of children with

disabilities was 6.9 (SD = 5.4) compared to 6.3 (SD = 4.7) services received by parents of children

without disabilities.

Health

Almost two thirds (65.2%) of the parents of children with disabilities reported they usually took

their children to private doctors or HMOs for routine medical care. The remaining parents indicated that

helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary scores ranged from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5%; SD

= 5.2.

2

The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Scores ranged from 0-36. Zero-4 = Not

depressed; 5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7. 3 A summary score of 17 parent-reported services needed. Scores ranged from 17-34, with higher scores representing more

services needed.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 139

their children received routine medical care through public health departments (19.9%), or hospital

outpatient clinics (14.1%). This use of routine health care services did not differ from that of parents of

children without disabilities. However, parents of children with disabilities were significantly more likely

to report that their children had chronic diseases, X2

(1, 2685) = 24.6; p < .0001. A significant chi-square

was found when testing differences of health status between children with or without disabilities, X2(4,

2688) = 39.9; p < .0001. Children with disabilities were less likely to be reported by their parents as

having excellent health (35.2%) than children without disabilities (44.8%).

Involvement With Their Children

Parents were asked about their families’ activities with their children during the week and month

prior to the spring 1998 interview. Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities (96.3%)

reported that they or another family member read to the children during the past week. Almost one third

of the children (32.1%) were read to every day, while 38.4% were read to three or more times, and 25.9%

were read to once or twice during the week prior to the interview. A very small proportion, 3.7%,

reported they had not read to their children at all during the past week. The frequency of reading reported

by parents of children without disabilities was very similar. Families of children with disabilities also

involved their children in a wide range of activities. No significant differences in the amount of weekly,

monthly, or total activities with children were noted between families with or without children with

disabilities. Reports of family activities with children did not vary by type of disability.

Child Behavior

Parents were asked to rate their children in several different areas, including their behavior and

emergent literacy. Compared to parents of children without disabilities, parents of children with

disabilities indicated their children had fewer positive social behaviors5

, t(2672) = 4.90; p < .0001, and

more problem behaviors6

, t(2659) = 8.12; p < .0001, including behavior that was more aggressive7,

t(2681) = 4.40; p < .0001, hyperactive8

, t(2679) = 6.47; p < .0001, and withdrawn9, t(2671) = 8.34; p <

4 A summary score of 17 parent-reported services received. Scores ranged from 17-34, with higher scores representing more

services received.

5 A summary score of 7 parent-reported behavior items rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often

true.” Scores ranged from 0-14, with higher scores representing more positive behavior.

6 An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based

on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scored ranged from

0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.

7 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums,

doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scored ranged from 0-8.

8 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous,

high-strung, or tense. Subscale scored ranged from 0-6.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 140

.0001. Children with disabilities were significantly lower on emergent literacy10 than children without

disabilities, t(2686) = 7.95; p < .0001.

One-way analyses of variance were used to test for overall differences in the parents’ reports on

child behavior and emergent literacy, categorized by child disability type. Post-hoc Scheffe tests (ps <

.05) identified individual differences between each group. For the child behavior, significant main

effects were noted for type of disability by positive social behavior, F(5, 274) = 3.60; p < .01, overall

problem behavior, F(5, 272) = 10.84; p < .0001, aggressive behavior F(5, 279) = 3.69; p < .0001, and

hyperactive behavior, F(5,275) = 7.96; p < .0001. Children with behavioral disabilities had higher

reported behavior problems, including aggressive and hyperactive behaviors, than children with language

disabilities. They also had more reported problem behaviors and hyperactive behaviors than children

with physical disabilities, and more problem behaviors and aggressive behaviors than children with

multiple disabilities. There were no differences by type of disability on emergent literacy.

Neighborhood Environments

When asked in spring 1998 about their families’ exposure to neighborhood and personal violence

during the past six months, slightly larger proportions of parents of children with disabilities reported

having been exposed to crime, violence, and victimization than parents of children without disabilities.

Almost one fourth of parents of children with disabilities (23.5%) reported seeing nonviolent crime in

their neighborhoods and over two thirds reported exposure to violent crime (35.6%), while parents of

children without disabilities reported less exposure to nonviolent (18.9%) and violent crime (23.3%) in

their neighborhoods. Almost one quarter of the parents of children with disabilities (22.7%) knew

someone who was the victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood, compared to 17.7% of parents of

children without disabilities. Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.5% of the parents with

disabilities compared to 3.8% of parents of children without disabilities and 3.8%% of the parents of

children with disabilities reported being victims of violence in their homes compared to 3.4% of the

parents of children without disabilities.

This finding was somewhat surprising, given parents of children with disabilities reported, on

average, higher monthly household incomes than parents of children without disabilities. Further

9

A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too

young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

10 A summary score of 5 parent-reported child skills including whether child can identify all of the primary colors, recognize

most or all letters of the alphabet, count to twenty or higher, write rather than scribble, and write own name. Scores ranged from

0-5.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 141

investigation through the use of a one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc tests found that those

families reporting the lowest household incomes (less than $500 per month) scored higher on the

exposure to violence scale then families whose reported income fell into any of the other higher income

categories, F(4, 392) = 2.75; p < .05.

8.1.4 Relationships with Head Start

This section presents information regarding how satisfied parents of children with disabilities

were with the overall Head Start program, the barriers to participation they faced, ways they felt Head

Start had helped their families, suggestions for improvement, and how Head Start addressed the special

needs of their children.

Program Response to Children with Disabilities

Over one half of the children with disabilities (57.8%) were diagnosed after enrolling in Head

Start and two fifths of their parents (40.2%) reported that the disabilities affected their children’s ability to

learn. While almost all of the children (81.6%) were members of Head Start classrooms that included

children with or without disabilities, about one half of the children with disabilities (48.7%) left their

classrooms for separate services or instruction.

By the spring 1998 interview, almost 70% of the parents indicated their children received all

(62.1%) or most (7.0%) of the services identified in their Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Yet,

close to one quarter of the parents reported their children only received some (14.6%) or none (8.9%) of

the services needed. When asked where their children were receiving services for their disabilities, Head

Start was mentioned by 64.3% of the parents, school districts were mentioned by 36.7% of parents, 22.5%

cited doctors or clinics, and 18.6% reported receiving services from State or local health or social service

agencies. Over three quarters of the parents were very satisfied (59.6%) or somewhat satisfied (16.5%)

with the services their children were receiving. Close to one fifth reported they were somewhat (2.1%) or

very dissatisfied (14.1%) with these services.

When asked how helpful Head Start was with assisting parents in talking with other schools and

agencies, and knowing about other resources available for meeting their children’s special needs, close to

three quarters of the parents indicated Head Start was helpful (19.8%) or very helpful (53.8%) to them.

Head Start was also rated as helpful (22.9%) or very helpful (49.8%) in assisting parents to better meet

the special needs of their children in the home, for example, providing a proper diet and exercise or

continuing recommended therapy.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 142

Slightly over one third of the parents (34.2%) felt there were areas or ways that the Head Start

program could improve in providing services to children with special needs and their families.

Suggestions included the following: provide therapy at the Head Start center (21.2%), give more

attention to children in special situations such as having separated parents (9.0%), provide more

information about services available for special needs children (8.3%), provide services more quickly

(8.0%), offer more activities or routines focused on special needs children (7.5%), notify parents

immediately about children’s special needs (6.2%), provide more individual attention (5.6%), and have

more special education teachers and staff available (5.3%).

Involvement at Head Start

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked about the ways that they were involved in the Head

Start program throughout the past school year. A summary score measuring total involvement11 showed

that parents of children with disabilities were significantly more involved in Head Start than parents of

children without disabilities, t(2685) = 2.16; p = .03. As demonstrated in Exhibit 8-1, although parents of

children with or without disabilities participated at very similar rates, slightly larger proportions of those

who had children with disabilities attended parent-teacher conferences (88.2% vs. 80.7%) and

participated in Policy Council (42.2% vs. 35.1%).

Exhibit 8-1

Percentages of Parents of Children with Disabilities and Parents of Children

without Disabilities Who Participated at Head Start during 1997-1998

School Year

Weighted Percentages

Parents of Children

With Disabilities Without Disabilities

Observed classroom for 30 minutes or more 76.8 77.4

Prepared food or materials 71.4 65.4

Helped with field trips 50.7 50.9

Attended Head Start social events 58.4 55.2

Attended workshops 55.1 54.7

Attended parent-teacher conferences 88.2 80.7

11 Summary parent involvement score is based on respondents’ reports of how frequently (not yet, 1-2 times, 3 or more times)

they participated in each of 12 activities over the past school year. Scores ranged from 12-36, with higher scores representing

more involvement.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 143

Weighted Percentages

Parents of Children

With Disabilities Without Disabilities

Had Head Start staff visit at home 83.0 82.9

Participated in Policy Council 42.2 35.1

Called another Head Start parent 35.9 30.1

Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. 23.7 22.6

Participated in fundraising 63.0 59.5

Barriers to Participation

In the spring of 1998, parents were asked if there were particular barriers that prevented them

from participating as much as they would have liked at their children’s Head Start program. The four

barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the parents of children with disabilities were work

commitments (56.0%), need for child care (36.9%), school schedules (18.8%), and lack of transportation

(17.3%). Similar proportions of parents of children without disabilities mentioned these four barriers,

except that slightly fewer of these parents reported a need for child care (30.7% vs. 36.9%). Interestingly,

almost twice as many parents of children with disabilities felt Head Start did not provide enough

opportunities to participate (7.6% vs. 3.8%) or reported a lack of support from their spouse or partner as a

barrier to participation (20.4% vs. 11.5%).

Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience

Parents were asked how satisfied they were with Head Start’s performance in eight different

areas, including helping their children to grow and develop, preparing their children for kindergarten, and

supporting their family’s culture and background. A summary satisfaction score12 was created for each

parent who responded to the questionnaire. While parents of children with disabilities were significantly

less satisfied than parents of children without disabilities, t(2685) = 2.42; p = .02, the latter group’s

satisfaction with the program was still high (M = 28.7 out of a possible 32; SD = 3.9). Further

examination revealed that while overall satisfaction was comparable between the two groups, parents of

children with disabilities were more likely to report that they were “somewhat” satisfied with Head Start

whereas parents of children without disabilities more often indicated that they were “very” satisfied.

12 Summary satisfaction score is based on respondents’ reports of how satisfied (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) they were with Head Start in eight different areas. Scores ranged from 8-32, with higher scores

representing more satisfaction.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 144

When asked if they could change anything about Head Start to help it better serve children and

families, 38.1% of the parents of children with disabilities indicated that they were satisfied with the

program and no change was needed. Areas for improvement mentioned by at least five percent of the

parents included having extended hours and longer days (10.3%), involving parents more (9.1%),

improving the special needs programs (6.3%), and focusing more on academic skills (5.7%).

8.1.5 Summary of Findings on Families of Children with Disabilities

Findings from this section contributed to a more complete understanding of Head Start families

who have children with disabilities, including their involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction with the

Head Start program. Highlights from Section 8.1 include:

Characteristics of Children

• Among children with disabilities, the ethnic groups with the largest representation were

African American children and White children. In both cases, these proportions were larger

than the proportions of the same two ethnic groups among children without disabilities.

• While the main sample of children was evenly split between boys and girls, almost two thirds

of the children with disabilities were boys. This finding was generally true within each of the

disability categories, although the proportion of boys in the behavioral disability category was

up to three quarters.

• The percentage of 3-year-olds among the children without disabilities was less than one third.

This was very similar to the proportion of 3-year-olds in the overall study sample. In

contrast, more than two fifths of the children with disabilities were 3 years old. Within the

five disability categories, more than one half of the children with behavioral disabilities were

3 years old, but less than one quarter of those in the cognitive disabilities and the sensory

disabilities categories were 3 years of age.

• Urban areas were home to approximately two thirds of the children with disabilities and

children without disabilities. This pattern was consistent across the disability categories,

with the exception of children with physical disabilities, who were more likely to come from

rural areas.

• The distribution of children, both with and without disabilities, by geographic region was

generally similar to the distribution of the regions across the study population as a whole.

• In looking at the five disability categories, physical disabilities had an increased proportion of

children from the Midwest, while only 17.2% of the children came from the South, which

was the largest group of children, overall.

• More than 80% of the children in the study were of normal birthweight, regardless of whether

they had disabilities or not.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 145

• Among the disability categories, less then three quarters of the children in the cognitive

category and the physical category were born with a normal birthweight. The physical

disabilities category had the largest proportions of children with low and very low

birthweights.

Characteristics of Families

• The distributions of parents’ ages across the groups of children with and without disabilities

was generally mixed. Both groups had about one half of the parents under 30 years of age,

but the percentage of children with disabilities having parents less than 20 years of age was

about twice that of children without disabilities.

• About one tenth of the children in the behavioral disabilities category had a parent under 20,

while none of the children in the physical disabilities category had a parent less than 20 years

of age. The mean and median ages for parents of children in these two groups were slightly

higher than that reported for parents of children in the other disability categories.

• The parents of children without disabilities included a much higher proportion of non-U.S.

born individuals than did parents of children with disabilities.

• The parents of children with disabilities were very similar to the parents of children without

disabilities on their distribution across four categories of marital status.

• Within the disability categories, parents of children in the cognitive disabilities group and the

physical disabilities group had the highest percentage of married parents. More than two

thirds of the children in the behavioral disabilities category had single parents as did slightly

over one half of the children in the language disabilities category.

• The distribution of parents across the five education and training categories was similar for

parents of children with disabilities and parents of children without disabilities. In both

cases, just over one quarter had less than a high school diploma, and just over one third had a

diploma or GED only.

• Within the five disability categories, less then one tenth of the parents of children with

physical disabilities had less than a high school diploma, while for the other four groups, the

proportion was closer to one quarter. The largest percentages of parents with college degrees

were within the cognitive disabilities and the physical disabilities groups.

• Full-time workers represented approximately one third of parents of children both with and

without disabilities. This figure was also true for parents of children in each of the disability

categories, except for parents of children in the sensory disabilities category, who were also

the most likely to be unemployed.

• A smaller proportion of families having children with disabilities also had monthly household

incomes of less than $500 than families without children with disabilities. In contrast, the

families with children that had disabilities were more likely than families not having children

with disabilities to have monthly household incomes of $2,000 or more. For the three middle

categories of income, differences between the two groups of families were slight.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 146

• A slightly higher proportion of children with disabilities lived in private homes than did

children without disabilities, while shared housing was used slightly less.

• Interestingly, although it was noted that the families of children with disabilities had fewer

families in the lowest income category and more in the highest income category than did

families of children without disabilities, the former group had the higher proportion of

families living in public housing. The proportion of children with a behavioral disability who

also lived in public housing was about two times the level of most other groups.

• WIC was used by more than one half of families, regardless of whether or not the children

had disabilities, but the receipt of TANF was slightly higher for families of children with

disabilities than by families of children without disabilities.

• WIC was used by more than one half of the families with children in each of the disability

categories. TANF receipt, however, was lower among families of children classified as

having cognitive, physical, or sensory disabilities.

• The receipt of SSI or SSDI was much more likely among families of children with disabilities

than among families of children with out disabilities. Among the disability categories, receipt

of SSI or SSDI was highest by families of children in the cognitive and physical categories,

and lowest for families with children in the behavioral and sensory categories.

• A higher proportion of children with disabilities were covered by private insurance and

Medicaid than were children without disabilities. Coverage by private insurance was highest

among families of children classified in the cognitive and physical disabilities categories.

Use of Medicaid was reported by over two thirds of the families in each of the disability

categories, except by families of children with physical and sensory disabilities.

• Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities reported that Head Start was helpful or

very helpful as a source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful

than grandparents or other relatives and much more helpful than friends, other parents,

professional helpgivers, people from religious or social groups, child care staff, or coworkers.

• Overall, most parents of children with disabilities were classified as not depressed or mildly

depressed. Still, one third of these parents were classified as moderately depressed or

severely depressed.

• Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more depressed and had a more

external locus of control then parents of children without disabilities. Reports of parental

depression did not vary by type of disability.

• Parents of children with disabilities had a greater need for services and received more

services than parents of children without disabilities.

• Almost two thirds of the parents of children with disabilities reported they usually took their

children to private doctors or HMOs for routine medical care. This use of routine health care

did not differ from parents of children without disabilities.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 147

• Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more likely to report that their children

had chronic diseases and less likely to report they had excellent health than children without

disabilities.

• Almost all of the parents of children with disabilities reported that they or another family

member read to the children during the past week. Almost one third of the children were read

to every day. A very small proportion reported they had not read to their children at all during

the past week.

• Parents of children with disabilities also involved their children in a wide range of activities.

No significant differences in reported amounts of activities with children were noted between

families with or without children with disabilities. Reports of activities with children did not

vary by type of disability.

• Compared to parents of children without disabilities, parents of children with disabilities

indicated their children had less positive social behavior, and more problem behavior,

including behavior that was more aggressive, hyperactive, and withdrawn.

• Children with behavioral disabilities had more reported problem behaviors, including the

aggressive and hyperactive behaviors, than children with language disabilities, more reported

problem behaviors and hyperactive behaviors than children with physical disabilities, and

more problem behaviors and aggressive behaviors than children with multiple disabilities.

• Children with disabilities also had significantly lower reports of emergent literacy than

children without disabilities. There were no differences by type of disability on emergent

literacy.

• Almost one fourth of parents of children with disabilities reported seeing nonviolent crime in

their neighborhoods and over two thirds reported exposure to violent crime. Parents of

children without disabilities reported less exposure to nonviolent and violent crime in their

neighborhoods.

• Almost one quarter of the parents of children with disabilities knew someone who was the

victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood. Victimization in the neighborhood was

reported by approximately five percent of the parents with disabilities. Less than five percent

of the parents of children with disabilities reported being victims of violence in their homes.

These percentages were slightly higher than parents of children without disabilities.

Relationship with Head Start

• Parents of children with disabilities were significantly more involved at Head Start than

parents of children without disabilities. Although parents of children with or without

disabilities participated at very similar rates, slightly larger proportions of those who had

children with disabilities attended parent-teacher conferences and participated in Policy

Council.

• The four barriers to participation mentioned by over ten percent of the parents of children

with disabilities were work commitments, need for child care, school schedules, and lack of

transportation.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 148

• While parents of children with disabilities were significantly less satisfied than parents of

children without disabilities, their satisfaction with the program was still high.

• When asked if they could change anything about Head Start they thought would help it better

serve children and families, two fifths of the parents of children with disabilities indicated

that they were satisfied with the program and no change was needed.

• Areas for improvement mentioned by at least five percent of the parents included having

extended hours and longer days, involving parents more, improving the special needs

programs, and focusing more on academic skills.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 149

8.1.6 Supplemental Table

Exhibit 8-2

Characteristics of Children with Disabilities and Their Families

Weighted Percentages

Disability Categories a

All

(N= 3,120)

Families

without

Disabilities

(n =2,696)

Families

with

Disabilities

(n = 424 )

Language

(n=341)

Behavioral

(n = 59 )

Cognitive

(n = 53 )

Physical

(n = 36)

Sensory

(n = 39 )

Ethnicity

African American 28.8 27.5 36.7 36.7 35.7 30.6 27.7 18.2

White 30.6 30.1 34.1 31.9 42.6 45.7 53.9 36.4

Hispanic 27.6 28.9 20.3 22.0 13.9 16.5 6.0 34.0

Native American 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.9

Asian 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0

Other 8.7 9.0 6.7 6.8 4.4 5.6 12.4 5.8

Urbanicity

Urban 66.9 67.4 64.4 65.4 55.3 59.0 43.7 66.0

Rural 33.0 32.6 35.6 34.6 44.6 41.0 56.3 33.9

Region

Midwest 23.1 23.7 19.4 17.0 34.0 21.0 41.4 26.2

Northeast 15.5 14.8 19.6 19.2 15.0 23.0 22.1 30.7

South 39.4 39.3 40.5 43.0 40.3 38.6 17.2 32.2

West 22.0 22.2 20.5 20.7 10.8 17.4 19.3 10.9

Gender of Child

Male 50.4 48.3 62.6 63.1 74.5 69.1 61.9 58.0

Female 49.6 51.6 37.4 36.9 25.5 30.9 38.1 42.0

Age of Child

3 years old 31.7 30.0 41.8 40.4 54.2 24.4 47.8 22.8

4 years old 68.3 70.0 58.2 59.6 45.8 75.6 52.2 77.1

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.8 86.5 81.8 84.2 77.1 64.1 55.8 85.4

Low 7.6 7.3 9.4 9.3 10.8 9.3 20.5 7.5

Very low 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.4 0.3 2.2 7.5 2.5
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 150

Weighted Percentages

Disability Categories a

All

(N= 3,120)

Families

without

Disabilities

(n =2,696)

Families

with

Disabilities

(n = 424 )

Language

(n=341)

Behavioral

(n = 59 )

Cognitive

(n = 53 )

Physical

(n = 36)

Sensory

(n = 39 )

Age of Parent

Less than 20 years

old 2.5 2.1 5.0 5.8 10.2 3.0 0.0 4.5

21-29 years old 53.1 54.2 46.9 47.2 45.3 38.8 28.7 65.7

30-39 years old 32.4 31.7 36.3 36.4 31.9 38.6 53.4 22.9

40 and older 11.7 11.8 11.5 10.2 12.6 19.7 17.9 6.8

Mean age 30.2 30.0 31.4 30.9 31.8 33.1 32.6 30.5

Median age 28.0 28.0 29.0 29.0 29.5 31.0 32.5 28.0

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other

than US 18.7 20.6 7.3 8.1 1.7 3.6 3.3 15.5

Marital Status

Married 43.1 43.1 43.1 44.2 29.2 66.9 71.3 57.6

Single, never

married 33.7 33.4 35.1 35.0 47.2 19.3 17.8 30.8

Divorced or

widowed 13.5 13.5 13.4 12.2 15.8 11.7 8.2 4.6

Married, but

separated 9.6 9.9 8.3 8.6 7.7 2.1 2.7 7.0

Education and Training

Less than high

school 27.2 27.5 25.4 27.1 28.2 17.0 9.5 30.8

High school

diploma/GED 37.5 37.7 36.4 36.1 26.1 36.8 47.8 25.7

Some college/AA

degree 32.5 31.9 36.1 35.4 45.7 38.0 35.9 43.5

College degree or

higher 2.8 2.9 2.1 1.4 0.0 8.2 6.8 0.0

Vocational or trade

school 41.8 41.0 46.4 45.8 46.6 39.4 51.9 33.0

Employment Status

Full-time 34.5 34.8 32.2 33.5 36.8 31.3 34.0 24.7

Part-time or

seasonal 17.8 17.0 22.3 21.6 23.6 17.5 16.6 9.3

Not employed 47.3 47.7 44.9 44.3 39.7 51.2 47.6 65.9
___________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 151

Weighted Percentages

Disability Categories a

All

(N= 3,120)

Families

without

Disabilities

(n =2,696)

Families

with

Disabilities

(n = 424 )

Language

(n=341)

Behavioral

(n = 59 )

Cognitive

(n = 53 )

Physical

(n = 36)

Sensory

(n = 39 )

Household Income

$499 or less 11.8 12.5 7.8 8.2 4.0 2.5 2.5 3.1

$500-999 29.6 29.1 32.9 35.0 39.4 11.0 13.5 23.9

$1,000-1,499 24.8 24.9 24.5 24.2 17.4 32.2 23.8 33.5

$1,500-1,999 14.4 14.9 11.8 10.4 15.8 13.1 7.3 10.5

$2,000 or more 15.7 14.8 21.2 20.7 21.9 41.1 47.9 28.9

Housing Status

Private housing 86.4 85.8 90.5 91.1 93.0 90.0 89.2 89.9

Shared housing 12.5 13.3 7.7 8.2 2.9 3.5 6.8 10.1

Transitional

housing 1.1 0.9 1.8 0.7 4.2 6.5 4.1 0.0

Public housing 22.2 20.9 29.6 28.7 39.7 16.9 21.0 20.9

Sources of Support

WIC 54.5 54.7 53.4 51.8 61.8 61.4 50.0 47.9

TANF 30.2 29.4 35.4 35.5 38.7 18.8 19.5 21.8

SSI or SSDI 11.0 9.4 20.4 18.8 14.2 29.7 29.0 15.4

Insurance Coverage

Private insurance 32.6 31.8 37.1 38.8 27.0 53.9 53.7 48.0

MEDICAID 58.1 56.3 68.7 67.5 74.1 68.7 49.0 56.4

a Children with multiple disabilities may be represented in more than one disability category.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 152

8.2 Hispanic Head Start Children and Families1

In Head Start, as in the United States, population growth among people of Hispanic heritage is

greater than for any other ethnic group. As displayed in Exhibit 8-3, the Head Start Program Information

Report (PIR) (ACYF, 1993; ACYF, 1999) data indicate that enrollment of Hispanic children has

increased by 77,571 children or 51.0% since the 1992-93 school year, compared to 15.7% for

Asian/Pacific Islanders, 8.5% for African-American, 3.5% for American Indian, and 3.1% for White

children. Overall, enrollment of Hispanic children in Head Start has increased from 21.3% to 27.9% of

the total enrollment since 1992-93.

Exhibit 8-3

Head Start Enrollment by Ethnicity: 1992-93 to 1998-99

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian

Hispanic

White

African-American

Thousands

1992-93 1998-99

Source: Head Start PIR

The focus of this section is to describe Hispanic Head Start children and families. Exhibit 8-4,

located at the end of Section 8.3, presents weighted data describing basic variables of interest. The first

column presents data on all FACES families. The next two columns present data on non-Hispanic

families and all Hispanic families, respectively2

. The last three columns present data on Hispanic families

and children living in Puerto Rico and families of Hispanic children who are mainland residents, both

1 The term “Hispanic” is used in this report since it is the term most often used in Head Start. However, the terms “Hispanic”

and “Latino” should be considered by readers as interchangeable, reflecting the new terminology in the standards issued by the

Office of Management and Budget in 1997 that are to be implemented by January 1, 2003. For more information, please refer to

“Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 280,

October 30, 1997, pp. 58, 782-58,790.

2 Hispanic families were defined as those families whose Head Start child was Hispanic.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 153

those who speak English and those who are Spanish-speaking3. Head Start families residing in Puerto

Rico generally speak only Spanish in a society where Spanish is the common language and the culture is

primarily Hispanic. Mainland Hispanics may differ from Hispanics living in Puerto Rico on a number of

issues, making it important to describe this group separately. Although many mainland Hispanic families

are native English speakers, others live in households where the spoken language is predominantly

Spanish while the common language outside the home is English. Further, mainland Hispanics include

diverse groups of families originating in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba and other nations in Latin America,

South America, and the Caribbean. Due to this diversity, cultural issues may not have an impact on these

families similar to the impact on families residing in Puerto Rico.

This section first presents the results of analyses on descriptive variables of interest. Subsequent

sections assess Hispanic family risk factors, health care, child care, family activities with their children,

social support, and family involvement in Head Start. Each section presents analyses comparing all

Hispanic families and children to non-Hispanic families and then compares findings among the three

Hispanic groups – families residing in Puerto Rico, mainland Spanish-speaking families, and mainland

English-speaking families.

8.2.1 Characteristics of Hispanic Children in Head Start

Age and Gender

Results presented in Exhibit 8-2 indicate that the majority of Hispanic children in Head Start, like

the overall sample, were 4 years old (72.6%). More Hispanic children were 4 years old than nonHispanic children (66.8%). Among Hispanic groups, while almost three fourths of mainland Hispanic

children were 4 years old, proportionally fewer children living in Puerto Rico were 4 years old (60.8%).

In regard to gender, like the overall sample, an equal proportion of Hispanic children were male and

female. Differences among the Hispanic groups in terms of gender were not significant.

Birth Weight and Disabilities

The majority of Hispanic children in Head Start, like the overall sample, were normal birth

weight (86.5%). There were no significant differences in birth weight between children from all Hispanic

families and non-Hispanics or among children across the three Hispanic groups. Exhibit 8-5 displays the

percent of children with disabilities and indicates that proportionally fewer Hispanic children were

3 Spanish-speaking Hispanic families were identified as parents who completed the parent interview in Spanish.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 154

reported to have one or more disabilities4 (16.8%) than non-Hispanic children (20.6%). Head Start

families living in Puerto Rico had almost twice as many children identified with one or more disabilities

(32.7%) than mainland English-speaking (16.1%) and Spanish-speaking (7.3%) families.

Exhibit 8-5

Percentage of Families with One or More Disabilities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

All Non-Hispanic All Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

8.2.2 Characteristics of Hispanic Families in Head Start

Family Residence

The majority of Hispanic families lived in urban areas and was geographically concentrated in the

West and South regions of the country. More than three quarters of the families (86.4%) resided in urban

areas. Likewise, more than two fifths of all Hispanic families lived in the South (40.4%) and the West

(38.0%) regions of the country. Compared to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families were more likely

to live in urban areas and the West and less likely to live in the Midwest.

Nativity of the Parents

As seen in Exhibit 8-6, 52.0% of all Hispanic Head Start parents were foreign born. Of this

group, 90.4% have lived in the U.S. five or more years (M = 10.9 years; SD = 6.6). There was large

variability among the Hispanic groups in terms of parents’ nativity. Almost all the mainland Spanishspeaking Hispanic parents were foreign born (97.1%), while less than one half of the English-speaking

parents were born outside the U.S. (42.5%). Only 7.7% of parents living in Puerto Rico reported having

been born outside the U.S. However, the majority of parents in each of these groups had lived in the U.S.

4 Children were counted as having a disability only when parent reports were supported by subsequent responses that the children

also had an IEP (an indication of a professional diagnosis).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 155

for more than five years, with an average time in the U.S. of 9.4 years (SD = 5.5) for parents in Spanishspeaking families and 12.8 years (SD = 7.4) for parents in English-speaking mainland families.

Exhibit 8-6

Percentage Born Outside the U.S. and Lived More than Five Years in U.S.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All NonHispanicAll

Hispanic

Puerto

Rico

SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

Born outside U.S.

>5 years in U.S.

Language

As displayed in Exhibit 8-7, the vast majority of Hispanic families reported Spanish was the

primary language spoken in their homes (90.4%). Among Hispanic groups, almost all parents living in

Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families spoke Spanish as the primary language in their

homes while 81.4% of English-speaking mainland families also primarily spoke Spanish in their homes.

Over one half of all Hispanic Head Start children were assessed in Spanish (56.1%) in the fall of 1997.

This included almost all of the children living in Puerto Rico (98.0%), 72.9% of the mainland children

with Spanish-speaking parents, and over one fourth of mainland children with English-speaking parents

(29.1%).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 156

Exhibit 8-7

Percentage of Families that Speak Spanish in the Home and Children

Assessed in Spanish

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All All Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

Spanish in Home

Assessed in Spanish

Marital Status and Household Size

As displayed in Exhibit 8-8, most Hispanic children enrolled in Head Start resided in families

with married parents (55.9%). Proportionally, more Hispanic parents were married or married but

separated than non-Hispanic families. The patterns of family structures were generally similar across the

Hispanic groups, although more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic parents were married (72.5%) than

English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (45.4%).

Exhibit 8-8

Percentage of Families with Two-Parent Households

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

All

Non-Hispanic

All Hispanic

Puerto Rico

Spanish-Speaking Mainland

English-Speaking Mainland
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 157

Hispanic families, on average, had only slightly larger households than non-Hispanic families.

Hispanic families had an average of 4.7 persons (SD = 1.6) in the household compared to 4.5 (SD = 1.7)

for non-Hispanic households. Among Hispanic groups, mainland Hispanic households were larger than

households in Puerto Rico. On average, Spanish-speaking mainland households had 5.2 persons (SD =

1.7) and English-speaking mainland households had 4.6 persons (SD = 1.6) compared to 4.2 (SD = 1.0)

per household in Puerto Rico.

Educational Attainment

As displayed in Exhibit 8-9, more than one third of Hispanic parents had not received a high

school diploma or GED (38.5%), a higher proportion than non-Hispanic parents (22.6%). Fewer Hispanic

parents had a high school diploma/GED (34.4%) and attended some college or received an AA degree

(24.3%) than non-Hispanic families (39.3% and 35.4%, respectively). However, similar to nonHispanics, 2.8% of Hispanic parents have attained a college degree or higher. Fewer Hispanic parents

were working toward a degree (21.0%) than non-Hispanic parents (25.6%).

Exhibit 8-9

Educational Attainment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Non-Hispanic All Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

<High School

High School/GED

Some College/AA

College Degree

There was a large degree of variability across the Hispanic groups in terms of educational

attainment. Over one half of Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics (54.3%) had not received a high

school diploma or GED compared to one third of English-speaking mainland Hispanics (35.8%). Similar

to non-Hispanics, less than one fourth of parents who resided in Puerto Rico (21.6%) did not have a high

school diploma. Attainment of a high school diploma or GED was fairly similar across the three groups,

ranging from 34.0% to 35.5%. In terms of post-secondary education, proportionally more parents living

in Puerto Rico had attended some college or received an AA degree (35.1%) than either mainland
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 158

Spanish-speaking (9.9%) and English-speaking parents (28.7%), and this proportion was comparable to

non-Hispanic parents (35.4%). Interestingly, parents living in Puerto Rico were more than twice as likely

to have a college degree or higher (7.8%) than non-Hispanics (2.7%). Fewer Spanish-speaking mainland

Hispanics had attended some college or received a college degree (11.5%) than English-speaking

mainland Hispanics (30.2%) or residents of Puerto Rico (42.9%). Similar proportions of the parents

living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland residents were working toward a degree (25.5%)

compared to Spanish-speaking mainland residents (13.9%).

Employment

Less than one third of Hispanic parents (29.9%) were employed full-time and as seen in Exhibit

8-10, over one half of Hispanic parents (53.0%) were not employed. Proportionally more Hispanic

parents were unemployed than non-Hispanics (44.7%) and fewer were employed full-time than nonHispanics (36.4%). Among the Hispanic groups, proportionally more residents of Puerto Rico (58.0%)

and Spanish-speaking mainland residents (61.9%) were not employed. However, English-speaking

mainland residents appeared to be more similar to non-Hispanics, with fewer not employed (45.5%) and

more employed full time (35.5%) or part time/seasonally (18.8%).

Exhibit 8-10

Percentage of Families Not Employed

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

All

Non-Hispanic

All Hispanic

Puerto Rico

Spanish-Speaking Mainland

English-Speaking Mainland

Income and Other Sources of Support

Exhibit 8-11 displays the percentage of families with monthly household incomes less than

$1,000. Almost one half of Hispanic households had an income of less than $1,000 per month (45.6%),

which was proportionally higher than non-Hispanic households (39.6%). Among Hispanic groups,
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 159

although parents living in Puerto Rico reported higher levels of education, they proportionally had more

households making less than $1,000 per month (71.1%) than any other group. Mainland Hispanic

households were more comparable to non-Hispanic households in terms of monthly income, with 36.8%

of Spanish-speaking households and 40.6% of English-speaking households making less than $1,000 per

month.

Exhibit 8-11

Percentage of Families’ Household Income <$1,000 per Month

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Non-Hispanic All Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

Similar to non-Hispanics, more than one half of Hispanic families (57.6%) received financial

assistance from the WIC program (see Exhibit 8-12). However, fewer Hispanic parents received TANF

(22.6%) and SSI or SSDI benefits (4.5%) than non-Hispanic parents (33.3% and 13.9%, respectively).

Among Hispanic groups, almost one half (49.2%) of parents living in Puerto Rico received assistance

from the WIC program compared to almost 60% of mainland Hispanic parents. English-speaking

mainland Hispanic families were fairly comparable to non-Hispanics in terms of the percentage who

received TANF benefits (30.4%), while fewer Spanish-speaking mainland residents (19.2%) and even

fewer residents of Puerto Rico (8.3%) received TANF benefits. Slightly over 5% of mainland Englishspeaking Hispanic families and families living in Puerto Rico received SSI or SSDI while fewer Spanishspeaking mainland families received SSI or SSDI (2.7%). Finally, fewer Hispanic children were covered

by private health insurance (27.9%) or Medicaid (54.0%) than non-Hispanic children (34.5% and 59.7%,

respectively). Spanish-speaking mainland children were much more likely (30.8%) to not receive any

form of insurance coverage relative to children living in Puerto Rico (4.4%) and English-speaking

mainland children (16.0%).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 160

Exhibit 8-12

Percentage of Families’ Receiving WIC and TANF Benefits

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All NonHispanicAll Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

WIC

TANF

Housing

As shown in Exhibit 8-4, the majority of Hispanic families lived in private housing; however,

more Hispanic parents (15.2%) lived in shared housing than non-Hispanic parents (11.4%), while fewer

Hispanic parents (17.6%) lived in public housing than non-Hispanic parents (24.1%). Findings were

generally similar among Hispanic groups, although fewer families living in Puerto Rico lived in shared

housing (5.3%) and more Spanish-speaking mainland residents lived in shared housing (21.2%).

However, more families who were residents of Puerto Rico lived in public housing (36.6%), while fewer

Spanish-speaking mainland residents lived in public housing (8.2%).

8.2.3 Family Risk Factors

Exhibit 8-13 presents the percentage of Hispanic families with selected family risk factors that are

aligned with factors identified in the Kids Count Data Book (Annie E. Casey Foundation,1999). As

discussed earlier in Section II, Chapter 5 of this technical report, findings from recent research have

pointed to the importance of looking at the multiplicative effects of selected risk factors in predicting

negative outcomes for children.

The most prevalent risk found among Hispanic families was living in a household that was below

the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (70.2%). Approximately two fifths of Hispanic children also had a

mother who did not complete high school (40.8%) or lived in a single parent household (40.7%).

Compared to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families were proportionally more likely to have a mother

who did not complete high school (40.8% vs. 24.5%), household income below the FPL (70.4% vs.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 161

62.4%), and to have a child not covered by health insurance or Medicaid (24.0% vs. 15.8%). Hispanic

families were less likely than non-Hispanic families to be living in single parent households (40.7% vs.

57.7%), households with no parents with a job (22.0% vs. 27.0%), and households receiving TANF

benefits (22.6% vs. 33.3%). Among Hispanic groups, families living in Puerto Rico (88.2%) were

proportionally more likely than other Hispanic groups and non-Hispanics to have household incomes

below the FPL. Almost twice as many parents living in Puerto Rico (30.8%) reported living in

households with no parent working than mainland Spanish-speaking families (15.2%). About one fourth

of mainland English-speaking families (22.6%) lived in households with no parent working. The profiles

for mainland Hispanic families looked fairly similar. Both Spanish- and English-speaking mainland

Hispanic families were more likely than non-Hispanic families to have monthly household incomes below

the FPL (65.2% and 66.3% vs. 62.4%, respectively), mothers who did not receive a high school diploma

or GED (55.0% and 39.4% vs. 24.5%, respectively), and had no medical insurance coverage for their

children (30.7% and 22.6% vs. 15.8%, respectively). In terms of maternal education and children’s health

insurance coverage, Spanish-speaking mainland families were proportionally more at risk than Englishspeaking families.

Exhibit 8-13

Percentage of Families with Selected Risk Factors for Child Development

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N=2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Risk Factors

Single parent household 52.8 57.7 40.7 44.3 23.6 49.7

Mother did not complete high school 29.4 24.5 40.8 22.7 55.0 39.4

Household income below FPL 64.9 62.4 70.4 88.2 65.2 66.3

No household parent with a job 25.6 27.0 22.0 30.8 15.2 22.6

Family receives welfare 30.3 33.3 22.6 8.3 19.2 30.4

Child not covered by health Insurance

or Medicaid 18.2 15.8 24.0 17.2 30.7 22.6

Number of Risk Factors

Family has zero risk factors 10.7 12.2 7.6 5.1 6.8 9.1

Family has one risk factor 23.8 23.6 24.9 28.9 30.0 20.2

Family has two risk factors 25.8 24.0 30.0 31.6 29.6 29.6

Family has three risk factors 19.1 18.6 19.8 20.5 18.5 20.3

Family has four or more risk factors 20.6 21.7 17.6 13.9 15.0 20.8

Risk factors taken from Kids Count Data Book, 1999.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 162

As noted earlier, increases in the number of risk factors, particularly counts of four or more risks,

increase the likelihood of negative child outcomes. Exhibit 8-13 also shows the percentage of Hispanic

families with four or more risk factors. Results indicate that 17.6% of Hispanic families had four or more

risk factors, which was fewer than non-Hispanic families (21.7%). Among Hispanic groups, the highest

proportion of families with four or more risks were English-speaking mainland families (20.8%),

followed by Spanish-speaking mainland families (15.0%) and families living in Puerto Rico (13.9%),

although all were lower proportionally than non-Hispanic families.

8.2.4 Health Care

As displayed in Exhibit 8-14, the majority of Hispanic families had regular health care providers

for their children (80.1%) and themselves (66.9%). However, proportionally, more non-Hispanics had

regular health care providers for their children (91.6%) and themselves (79.4%) than Hispanic families.

Among Hispanic groups, English-speaking mainland Hispanic families were the most likely to have

regular health care providers for their children (87.1%) and themselves (74.9%), with families living in

Puerto Rico having slightly lower proportions (80.0% and 65.3%, respectively). Spanish-speaking

mainland Hispanic families were least likely to report having regular health care providers for their

children (68.7%) and themselves (54.6%). Almost one third of children of Spanish-speaking mainland

Hispanic families did not have regular health care providers, and almost one half of these families did not

have regular health care provider for the parents.

Exhibit 8-14

Percentage of Families’ with Regular Health Care Providers for Children and

Parents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All NonHispanicAll Hispanic Puerto Rico SpanishSpeaking

Mainland

EnglishSpeaking

Mainland

Child

Parent(s)
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 163

More than one half of Hispanic families received routine care from a private doctor or HMO for

their children (58.8%), while one half received routine care for themselves through a private doctor or

HMO (50.1%). However, proportionally more Hispanic families received routine care from non-private

sources for their children and themselves (38.9% and 45.3%, respectively) than non-Hispanic families

(29.3% and 30 .8%, respectively). The majority of the non-private sources of care Hispanic families

received were from public health departments or community health centers. Similarly, among the

Hispanic groups, most families indicated that their children received medical care through a private

doctor or HMO (52.9% to 63.6%). However, more than one third of mainland Hispanic families (35.3%

English-speaking and 39.3% Spanish-speaking) and almost one half of the families living in Puerto Rico

(47.1%) received care for their children from non-private sources. While most mainland Hispanic

families also indicated that the parents received care from a private doctor or HMO (50.7% Englishspeaking and 53.9% Spanish-speaking), most families in Puerto Rico indicated that the parents received

care at a non-private health care source (56.9%). The majority of non-private sources of care for children

and parents in Puerto Rico were public health departments, while mainland Hispanics relied more often

on a combination of public health departments, community health centers, or hospital outpatient centers.

8.2.5 Child Care

As indicated in Exhibit 8-15, prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start, 40.3% of Hispanic

families reported that they used regular child care (10 hours a week or more), proportionally lower than

non-Hispanic families (53.9%). Similar to non-Hispanic families, Hispanic families, on average, started

this care when the children were about 14 months old (SD = 12.0) and the number of arrangements per

week ranged from 1 to 10, with a mean of 1.7 arrangements (SD = 1.4). Among Hispanic groups, almost

one half of the families living in Puerto Rico (45.4%) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families

(48.3%) reported they used regular child care prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start.

Proportionally fewer Spanish-speaking Hispanic families (23.9%) reported they used regular child care

prior to their children’s enrollment in Head Start. While fewer Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic

families had their children in regular care prior to Head Start, on average, these children started child care

later than other Hispanic groups. Children from Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families, on

average, entered child care at 18.6 months (SD = 14.7), while children living in Puerto Rico began at 9.8

months (SD = 9.5). English-speaking mainland Hispanic children began at 14.0 months (SD = 11.4),

similar to non-Hispanics.

Once their children were enrolled in Head Start, 26.1% of Hispanic families reported using child

care before or after their children’s time in the Head Start classroom, slightly lower, proportionally, than
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 164

non-Hispanic families (29.9%). The number of arrangements per week used by Hispanic families again

ranged from 1 to 3, with a mean of 1.1 arrangements (SD = 0.2). Non-Hispanic families reported, on

average, using 1.2 arrangements per week (SD = 0.4). Similar to all Hispanic families as well as nonHispanics, more than one fourth of the families living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland

Hispanic families (26.0% and 31.0%, respectively) reported using regular child care before or after their

children’s participation in Head Start. Proportionally fewer Spanish-speaking Hispanic families (18.2%)

reported they used regular child care before or after their children’s time in Head Start. Families living in

Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families, on average, had one arrangement per week (SD =

0.2 and SD = 0.0, respectively) while English-speaking mainland Hispanic families had 1.1 arrangements

(SD = 0.3).

Exhibit 8-15

Child Care Use

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N= 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n = 30)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Child Care Prior to Head Start 49.9 53.9 40.3 45.4 23.9 48.3

Mean age started 13.8 13.9 13.9 9.8 18.6 14.0

Mean number of arrangements 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.9

Child Care Before/After Head Start 28.9 29.9 26.1 26.0 18.2 31.0

Mean number of arrangements 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.7

Types of Child Care:

Child care center 14.5 16.5 8.4 12.2 11.3 6.0

Family day care 9.3 10.3 6.2 25.6 0.0 1.9

Non-relative’s home 14.1 13.6 16.1 18.1 25.2 12.2

Relative’s home 27.7 29.4 23.2 38.7 5.5 24.3

In home by non-relative 5.3 4.3 8.3 0.0 28.5 3.9

In home by relative 17.9 16.9 20.5 5.4 29.4 22.4

At Head Start 10.4 8.4 16.3 0.0 0.0 27.6

Similar to non-Hispanic families, the most frequent type of child care arrangements used by

Hispanic families during their children’s enrollment in Head Start was care in a relative’s home (23.2%).

Another 20.5% of Hispanic families used care by a relative in their own home. In addition, Hispanic

families (16.3%) were almost twice as likely as non-Hispanic families (8.4%) to receive care for their
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 165

children before or after their children’s time in the Head Start classroom. The types of child care

arrangements varied among the Hispanic groups. The most frequent type of arrangement used by parents

in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland parents was care in relatives’ homes (38.7% and 24.3%,

respectively). In addition, approximately one fourth of parents living in Puerto Rico (25.6%) used family

day care settings, whereas 22.4% of English-speaking mainland families had care in their homes by

relatives. Spanish-speaking mainland families used care in relatives’ homes (5.5%), much less than either

families living in Puerto Rico (38.7%) or English-speaking mainland families (24.3%). Instead, Spanishspeaking mainland families most often used care in their homes by relatives (29.4%), followed closely by

in home care by a non-relative (28.5%) and care in non-relatives’ homes (25.2%). Finally, more than one

fourth of English-speaking mainland families used Head Start as a source of care for their children

(27.6%) before and after the Head Start day, while no families living in Puerto Rico or Spanish-speaking

mainland families reported Head Start as a source of child care.

Less than one third of Hispanic families (31.2%) reported that their child care providers were

licensed, certified, or regulated compared to 39.8% of non-Hispanic families. Among Hispanic groups,

42.6% of English-speaking mainland Hispanic families had their children in licensed, certified, or

regulated care compared to 18.3% of families living in Puerto Rico and 11.3% of Spanish-speaking

mainland families.

8.2.6 Family Activities with Children

As displayed in Exhibit 8-16, the combined total for weekly and monthly activities indicated that

Hispanic families engaged in a mean of 5.9 activities (SD = 2.4) with children, out of a possible 14

activities. Weekly activities made up most of that total, with a reported mean of 3.8 activities (SD = 1.7)

of a possible seven, while a mean of 1.9 monthly activities (SD = 1.4) was reported, again out of a

possible seven. Hispanic families, on average, reported being involved in slightly fewer weekly, monthly

and total activities with their children compared to non-Hispanic families, but these differences were not

significant. Among Hispanic groups, although the differences were not significant, English-speaking

mainland families reported, on average, being involved in slightly more weekly, monthly, and total

activities than families living in Puerto Rico or Spanish-speaking mainland families. English-speaking

mainland families engaged in a mean of 6.0 combined weekly and monthly activities (SD = 2.5),

comprised of an average of 3.9 weekly activities (SD = 1.7) and 1.9 monthly activities (SD = 1.5).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 166

Exhibit 8-16

Average Family Activities with Children

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N = 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n = 2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n = 130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Weekly activities 4.1 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9

Monthly activities 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9

Total 6.2 6.3 5.9 5.9 5.5 6.0

8.2.7 Social Support

In the fall of 1997, families were asked about the people or groups in their lives that were helpful

to them in raising their Head Start children during the last six months. Exhibit 8-17 displays the

percentages of parents who indicated various people and groups were somewhat or very helpful in raising

their children as well as a summary score measuring total support5

. Even at the beginning of the school

year, a majority of Hispanic families found Head Start to be helpful (81.2%) along with other parents

(79.5%) and relatives (78.5%). In terms of total support, Hispanic families were not different from nonHispanic families. However, a closer look at the sources of support revealed that Hispanic families were

proportionally much more likely to get help raising their child from other parents (79.5%) compared to

non-Hispanics (62.9%), and much less likely to receive help from friends (54.8%) than non-Hispanics

(68.0%). Hispanic families appeared to be proportionally less likely than non-Hispanics to have received

help from Head Start, child care staff, and relatives, although they were, interestingly, slightly more likely

to receive help from professional helpgivers (27.6%) than non-Hispanics (21.6%).

5 Summary support score is based on respondent’s ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start

children over the last six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very

helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary scores ranged from 0 to 27, with higher scores representing more support (M = 13.5; SD =

5.2).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 167

Exhibit 8-17

Social Support Reported by Parents – Percentage Reporting Support was

Somewhat or Very Helpful

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N = 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n = 2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n = 130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Head Start 87.1 89.8 81.2 95.4 69.8 82.5

Relatives 84.3 86.7 78.5 79.1 66.3 85.6

Other parent(s) 67.9 62.9 79.5 87.4 83.9 73.6

Friends 64.0 68.0 54.8 58.8 59.5 49.9

Religious/social group 46.5 47.4 44.5 57.3 36.6 44.1

Professional helpgivers 23.3 21.6 27.6 46.1 23.1 22.8

Child care staff 31.5 34.0 25.5 31.6 18.5 27.2

Co-workers 21.3 22.3 19.1 25.4 10.7 21.6

Summary Score 13.5 13.5 13.5 15.3 12.5 13.3

Social support received by families to raise their children varied among Hispanic groups. In

terms of total support, families living in Puerto Rico had higher levels of support (M = 15.3; SD = 4.1), on

average, than both mainland Hispanic groups as well as non-Hispanics. Spanish-speaking mainland

Hispanic families had, on average, the least amount of total support (M = 12.5; SD = 3.4). In terms of

sources of support, the majority of families living in Puerto Rico and English-speaking mainland Hispanic

families reported that Head Start, relatives, and other parents were most helpful in raising their children.

However, the majority of Spanish-speaking mainland families relied on spouses and other parents for

support in raising their children (83.9%). Of particular interest, almost all of the families living in Puerto

Rico indicated that Head Start was helpful to them in raising their children (95.4%) while 69.8% of

Spanish-speaking families indicated Head Start was helpful. Likewise, English-speaking mainland

families (85.6%) relied most on relatives as sources of support to raise their children while two thirds of

Spanish-speaking mainland families (66.3%) relied on relatives.

8.2.8 Family Involvement in Head Start

Participation

As displayed in Exhibit 8-18, the most frequent activities that Hispanic parents participated in at

least once were attending parent-teacher conferences (86.6%) and home visits by Head Start staff
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 168

(84.9%). In addition, more than two thirds of Hispanic families volunteered in the classroom (66.3%) or

observed in the classroom for more than 30 minutes (70.1%). Hispanic families participated less than

non-Hispanic families in terms of volunteering in the classroom (66.3% vs. 69.8%), preparing food or

materials (59.7% vs. 68.8%), attending Head Start social events (50.6% vs. 57.5%), and calling other

Head Start parents (22.8% vs. 34.2%). However, Hispanic families participated more than non-Hispanic

families in fundraising (65.2% vs. 58.0%), parent-teacher conferences (86.6% vs. 79.7%), and workshops

(60.2% vs. 52.7%). However, Hispanic families, similar to non-Hispanic families, participated in about

seven activities at least once (M = 6.7; SD = 2.6) and in three Head Start activities (M = 3.3; SD = 2.9)

three or more times during the year.

Exhibit 8-18

Participation at Head Start by Parents One or More Times

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N= 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767)

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Volunteered in classroom 68.9 69.8 66.3 83.2 57.5 68.8

Observed classroom 77.4 80.2 70.1 72.5 66.2 74.6

Prepared food or materials 66.1 68.8 59.7 67.0 51.0 68.2

Helped with field trips 51.0 51.7 48.9 70.2 40.9 47.4

Attended Head Start social events 55.6 57.5 50.6 58.0 48.5 49.1

Attended workshops 54.8 52.7 60.2 84.0 59.7 45.8

Attended parent-teacher conferences 81.6 79.7 86.6 85.6 88.1 84.9

Had Head Start staff visit at home 83.1 82.2 84.9 79.1 87.6 84.3

Participated in Policy Council 36.0 36.6 34.6 48.8 26.3 38.2

Called another Head Start parent 30.8 34.2 22.8 31.1 19.9 21.9

Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. 22.7 24.3 18.6 23.9 12.6 24.4

Participated in fundraising 60.0 58.0 65.2 78.5 58.2 67.2

Number of activities at Head Start 6.9 7.0 6.7 7.8 6.2 6.8

Participated 3+ times in activities 3.3 3.3 3.3 4.7 2.7 3.4

Among Hispanic groups, the average family living in Puerto Rico participated in more activities and

more often than the average mainland Hispanic and non-Hispanic families. Families living in Puerto Rico

participated, on average, in about eight activities during the year (M = 7.8; SD = 1.5) and about five

activities (M = 4.7; SD = 3.0) three or more times a year. Compared to the other Hispanic groups,

proportionally more families living in Puerto Rico volunteered in the classroom (83.2%), helped with
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 169

field trips (70.2%), participated in Policy Council (48.8%), and participated in fundraising (78.5%) than

mainland Hispanic Head Start families. Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had proportionally

lower overall participation rates than English-speaking mainland families on most activities.

Barriers to Participation

Exhibit 8-19 displays the most frequently reported barriers to participation by parents. For

Hispanic families, work commitments (48.6%) and child care needs (40.0%) were the most frequently

mentioned barriers to participation that parents faced. However, many Hispanic parents also identified

school schedules (17.9%), transportation needs (17.8%), and lack of support from their spouses (17.8%)

as barriers. Compared to non-Hispanic families, proportionally more Hispanic families indicated that

their need for child care (40.0% vs. 28.2%), support from their spouses (17.8% vs. 10.5%), language or

cultural differences (6.9% vs. 1.7%), and concerns for safety (5.1% vs. 1.8%) were barriers. Fewer

Hispanic families (5.4%) indicated that health problems interfered with their participation in Head Start

activities than non-Hispanic families (9.4%). Hispanic families reported, on average, slightly more total

barriers than non-Hispanic families.

Among Hispanic groups, proportionally more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families

reported the need for child care (48.8%) and transportation (21.2%) as barriers than families living in

Puerto Rico (30.2% and 12.7%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (33.1%

and 15.9%, respectively). As expected, higher proportions of Spanish-speaking mainland families

reported language or cultural differences as a barrier (12.0%) as well as concerns for safety (7.6%) than

families living in Puerto Rico (0.0% and 5.4%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic

families (1.1% and 1.7%, respectively). A higher proportion of families living in Puerto Rico reported a

lack of spousal support (34.4%) and health problems (9.4%) than Spanish-speaking mainland families

(16.3% and 4.0%, respectively) and English-speaking mainland Hispanic families (9.5% and 4.9%,

respectively). However, the total number of reported barriers did not differ significantly among the

Hispanic groups.

An apparent barrier for some Hispanic families was the differences in language and culture.

While more Hispanic families indicated language and cultural differences as a barrier than non-Hispanics,

other data indicates that almost all Hispanic families and children who needed someone at Head Start to

speak their language had someone on the staff available to them. Specifically, 21.7% of Hispanic

families indicated that their families needed Head Start staff to speak Spanish and 99.6% of these families

reported having a Head Start staff who could speak to them in Spanish. Likewise, 19.7% of Hispanic
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 170

families indicated that their child needed someone at Head Start who could speak Spanish to them and

98.9% of these parents indicated that Head Start had such a staff person. As expected, there was quite a

bit of variability on these issues among Hispanic groups. For instance, 77.1% of Spanish-speaking

mainland families indicated that their family needed someone at Head Start to speak Spanish compared to

26.9% of the English-speaking mainland families. No families in Puerto Rico indicated having this need.

Exhibit 8-19

Barriers to Parent Participation at Head Start

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N = 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n = 2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Work schedule interferes 55.9 58.8 48.6 47.1 40.2 62.2

School schedule interferes 18.9 19.3 17.9 25.3 11.7 22.4

Need child care 31.5 28.2 40.0 30.2 48.8 33.1

Need transportation 17.2 16.8 17.8 12.7 21.2 15.9

Lack support from spouse 12.5 10.5 17.8 34.4 16.3 9.5

Health problems interfere 8.3 9.4 5.4 9.4 4.0 4.9

Language or cultural differences 3.2 1.7 6.9 0.0 12.0 3.7

Concern for safety 2.7 1.8 5.1 5.4 7.6 1.1

Mean total number of barriers 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7

Parent Satisfaction

The vast majority of Hispanic families were very satisfied with the Head Start program. Exhibit

8-20 presents the percentages of parents who reported they were very satisfied in eight areas and on an

overall summary score6

. At least 80 percent of the Hispanic families were very satisfied that Head Start

helped their children grow and develop (88.1%), was open to new ideas (80.0%), respected their families’

culture (88.4%), provided services for their children (84.6%), maintained a safe program (86.3%), and

prepared their children for kindergarten (89.2%). A higher proportion of Hispanic families were very

satisfied with Head Start compared to non-Hispanic families on 5 of the 8 areas (i.e., help their children

6 Summary satisfaction score is based on respondents’ reports of how satisfied (Very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) they were with Head Start in regard to the 8 items displayed in Exhibit 8-5. Summary scores

ranged from 8 to 32, with higher scores representing more satisfaction (M = 29.2; SD = 3.7; Mdn = 31.0).
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 171

grow and develop, staff open to ideas, services for their children, preparing children for kindergarten, and

fostering community involvement) as well as the total summary score.

Exhibit 8-20

Parent Satisfaction with Head Start – Percent Reporting They Were Very Satisfied

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N = 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n = 2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Help child grow and develop 86.5 85.9 88.1 91.9 90.3 82.2

Open to ideas 77.9 76.9 80.0 78.3 84.7 73.9

Respect family culture 88.1 87.9 88.4 88.1 90.8 84.7

Services for child 83.4 82.9 84.6 87.2 83.9 84.2

Services for family 63.4 62.6 65.8 71.7 68.6 57.8

Maintain a safe program 88.3 89.0 86.3 90.0 89.4 79.4

Prepare child for kindergarten 84.6 82.7 89.2 86.8 92.9 85.1

Foster community involvement 58.5 55.2 66.9 74.1 74.0 51.6

Summary satisfaction 29.2 28.9 29.5 29.7 30.0 28.6

Among Hispanic groups, a higher proportion of families living in Puerto Rico and Spanishspeaking mainland Hispanic parents were very satisfied across the eight areas than English-speaking

mainland Hispanic families. For instance more than 90% of families living in Puerto Rico and Spanishspeaking mainland Hispanic families were very satisfied that Head Start helped their children grow and

develop compared to 82.2% of English-speaking mainland families. Also, at least 74% of families living

in Puerto Rico and Spanish-speaking mainland families were very satisfied that Head Start fostered

community involvement while slightly over one half of English-speaking mainland families (51.6%) were

very satisfied. However, at least 85% of all Hispanic groups felt very satisfied with Head Start’s role in

preparing their children for kindergarten as well as respecting their families’ culture. In terms of the total

satisfaction score, Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families were more satisfied than Englishspeaking mainland families, although the differences between mainland Hispanic families and families in

Puerto Rico were not significantly different.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 172

8.2.9 Summary

If current trends continue, Hispanic children may become the largest ethnic group enrolled in

Head Start over the next decade. This section focused on describing all Hispanic children and their

families as a group and began to describe the variations among Hispanic groups. The findings from this

section indicate that, as a group, Hispanic families and children in Head Start differ from non-Hispanic

families in several areas:

Characteristics of All Hispanic Families

• Over one half of Hispanic parents were foreign born and, on average, these parents had

lived in the U.S. for more than ten years.

• Over 90% of Hispanic families reported Spanish was the primary language spoken in their

homes and over one half of Hispanic children were assessed in Spanish.

• More Hispanic children live in households with both parents. Over one half of Hispanic

Head Start children lived in households with married parents.

• Compared to non-Hispanic parents, more Hispanic parents did not have a high school

degree or GED, were unemployed, and were living in poverty. Almost two fifths of

Hispanic parents had not received a high school degree or GED, over one half of Hispanic

parents were not employed, and almost three quarters of the Hispanic households’ incomes

fell below the Federal Poverty Level. Despite these insecurities, less than one fourth of

Hispanic families received TANF benefits and less than 5 percent received SSI or SSDI

benefits, although more than one half received WIC benefits.

• Compared to non-Hispanic families, more Hispanic families had no health insurance

coverage for their children and no regular health care provider. Close to one fourth of the

Hispanic children were not covered by health insurance or Medicaid. In addition, almost

one fifth of Hispanic families did not have a regular health care provider for their children

while one third of parents did not have a regular provider.

• Despite many of these challenges, fewer Hispanic families had multiple family risks than

non-Hispanic families. Less than one fifth of Hispanic Head Start families had four or more

risk factors that have been associated in the literature with negative outcomes for children.

• Fewer Hispanic parents reported using child care and having child care providers that were

licensed, certified or regulated than non-Hispanic families. More than two fifths of

Hispanic Head Start families reported using child care before their children entered Head

Start and more than one fourth reported using child care since their children began Head

Start. More than twice as many Hispanic families used Head Start for child care before or

after the Head Start day than non-Hispanic families.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 173

• Compared to non-Hispanic caregivers, Hispanic caregivers received more helpful support in

raising their child from their spouse and other parents as well as professional helpgivers and

less support from friends, co-workers, Head Start staff, and other child care staff.

• Hispanic families participated in fewer Head Start activities and reported more barriers to

participation than non-Hispanic families, although they were more satisfied with the Head

Start program.

The data presented also demonstrates that Hispanic families, as a group, were heterogeneous,

diverse and dynamic. The section found significant variations among the three Hispanic groups identified

based on ethnic- and language-minority status - families living in Puerto Rico, Spanish-speaking

mainland families, and English-speaking mainland families - and highlights the importance of

understanding variations among Hispanic groups. It also raises the question of whether understanding the

variations among Hispanic families is perhaps more important or more reliable than seeking to understand

the “average” Hispanic family for a program like Head Start. Some of these findings are highlighted

below.

Characteristics of Families from Puerto Rico

Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico are the majority ethnic group in their culture and speak the

dominant language of the culture (i.e., Spanish), comparable to non-Hispanic Whites in the mainland

culture. Having ethnic- and language-majority status in a culture may produce certain advantages over

other groups. However, the findings from these data were paradoxical.

• More parents living in Puerto Rico had received a high school degree or GED and more had

attended college or received an AA or BA than other Hispanic families. More than three

quarters of parents living in Puerto Rico had a high school degree or GED and more than

two fifths attended some college or received a degree.

• However, compared to other Hispanic families, more parents living in Puerto Rico were

unemployed and living in households that were below the Federal Poverty Level. Almost

three fifths of parents living in Puerto Rico were not employed and over four fifths of the

households had an income below the Federal Poverty Level.

• Compared to other Hispanic families, fewer families living in Puerto Rico had multiple

family risks associated with negative outcomes for children. Just over one out of ten

households reported having four or more family risks.

• Families living in Puerto Rico appeared to be more reliant on public systems of support for

housing and health care than other Hispanic families. Over one third of Puerto Rico

residents were living in public housing. Almost one half of families living in Puerto Rico

reported receiving care for themselves and their children from non-private sources of care.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 174

• However, compared to other Hispanic families, fewer families living in Puerto Rico

received income assistance such as TANF or WIC. Less than one out of ten families

reported receiving TANF benefits and less than one half received WIC benefits.

• More families living in Puerto Rico reported having a child with one or more disabilities

than other Hispanic families. Almost one third of Head Start children residing in Puerto

Rico were reported to have one or more disabilities.

• Caregivers residing in Puerto Rico had the highest levels of social support for raising their

children, particularly from Head Start, their spouse and other parents, as well as relatives.

• Families living in Puerto Rico had the highest levels of involvement in Head Start activities

and satisfaction with Head Start.

Characteristics of English-Speaking Mainland Hispanic Families

English-speaking mainland Hispanics are ethnic minorities in the overall culture of the U.S., but

are able to communicate in the dominant or majority language (i.e., English). Findings from this section

appear to indicate that being able to communicate in the dominant language may afford some protective

benefits to mainland Hispanics but may also be related to increased risks to this group, possibly a result of

acculturation into the mainstream culture. In many ways these families appear to be experiencing the

benefits and risks of bridging their ethnic Hispanic culture along with acculturating into the majority

culture.

• While most of these parents can communicate in English, more than four fifths still spoke

Spanish as the primary language in their home.

• More English-speaking mainland Hispanics in Head Start had single parent households than

other Hispanic families. One third of these families were single parent households.

• English-speaking mainland Hispanic families in many areas were more similar to nonHispanic Head Start families than other Hispanic families. For instance, fewer were

unemployed and living below the Federal Poverty Level and yet more were receiving public

assistance than other Hispanic families. Less than one half of these families were

unemployed and about two thirds had a household income below the Federal Poverty Level.

However, almost one third of these families received TANF benefits.

• However, compared to other Hispanic families, more English-speaking mainland Hispanic

families had multiple family risks associated with negative outcomes for children. Just over

one fifth of these families reported having four or more family risks.

• Also compared to other Hispanic families, more English-speaking mainland Hispanic Head

Start families reported using child care and having providers that were licensed, certified or
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 175

regulated, including using Head Start for child care. Almost one half of Hispanic Head Start

families reported using child care before their child entered Head Start and almost one third

reported using child care since their child began Head Start. Almost one half of these

families reported that their current care providers were licensed, certified or regulated. In

addition, more than one fourth of these families used Head Start for child care before or

after the Head Start day.

Characteristics of Spanish-Speaking Mainland Hispanic Families

Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics have both ethnic- and language-minority status in the

culture of the U.S. This may confer certain disadvantages on this group as well as unique ways of coping

with these adversities. Specifically:

• Compared to other Hispanic families, more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic parents did

not have a high school degree or GED and fewer had attended some college or were

working toward a degree. More than one half of Spanish-speaking mainland families had

less than a high school degree or a GED while less than one in ten had pursued some college

or received an AA degree. Just over one in ten reported that they were currently working

toward a degree.

• More Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics families included both parents than other

Hispanic families. Almost three fourths of Spanish-speaking mainland families include

married parents.

• More Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had an unemployed parent but fewer

had a household with no parent working than other Hispanic families. Over three fifths of

these families had an unemployed parent; however, only 15.2% had households with no

parents working.

• Compared to other Hispanic families, more Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families in

Head Start were not able to cover their children with health insurance or Medicaid or had a

regular health care provider for their children or themselves. More than one third of these

families did not have medical insurance covering their children. More than two thirds of

Spanish-speaking families did not have a regular health care provider for their children and

over one half of these families did not have a regular health care providers for the parent(s).

• However, Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic families had fewer multiple family risks

associated with negative outcomes for children than English-speaking mainland families,

but had more risks than families living in Puerto Rico. Just over 15% of Spanish-speaking

mainland Hispanic families reported having four or more family risks.

• Spanish-speaking mainland families reported similar levels of income to non-Hispanics.

However, fewer Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanic Head Start families reported receiving

TANF than other Hispanic families. Less than two thirds of the Spanish-speaking mainland

families earned incomes that fell below the Federal Poverty Level. However, less than one

fifth reported receiving income assistance through TANF.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 176

• Fewer Spanish-speaking mainland families reported using child care than other Hispanic

families, but those that did reported using more child care provided in their home and

unlicensed child care. Less than one fourth of these families reported using child care prior

to their children entering Head Start and less than one fifth reported using it while their

children were at Head Start. Unlike other Hispanic groups, over three fifths of Spanishspeaking mainland families reported using care provided in their home. Just over one in ten

families reported their child care providers were licensed, certified or regulated.

• Spanish-speaking Hispanic caregivers residing in the U.S. reported the lowest levels of

social support for raising their children and relied most on their spouses and other parents

for that support. The majority of Spanish-speaking caregivers reported receiving helpful

support in raising their Head Start children from Head Start staff, as well as their relatives,

but relied most on support from their spouses or other parents.

• Finally, Spanish-speaking Hispanic families residing in the U.S. participated in fewer Head

Start activities and reported more barriers to participation, although they also voiced greater

satisfaction with the Head Start program.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 177

Exhibit 8-4

Characteristics of Hispanic Children and their Families

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N= 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Urbanicity

Urban 66.6 57.9 86.4 100.0 79.4 85.1

Rural 33.4 42.1 13.6 0.0 20.6 14.9

Region

Midwest 22.9 29.8 7.1 0.0 17.1 3.8

Northeast 15.7 16.2 14.5 0.0 12.8 21.5

South 38.8 38.0 40.4 100.0 27.5 24.2

West 22.6 16.0 38.0 0.0 42.6 50.5

Gender of Child

Male 50.3 50.7 49.6 61.2 45.2 47.7

Female 49.7 49.3 50.4 38.8 54.8 52.3

Age of Child

3 years old 31.6 33.2 27.4 39.2 21.4 26.4

4 years old 68.4 66.8 72.6 60.8 78.6 73.6

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.7 85.3 86.5 85.7 84.6 87.9

Low 7.7 8.0 7.3 10.6 7.0 6.1

Very low 1.8 1.6 2.4 0.0 2.5 3.4

One or More Disabilities 19.3 20.6 16.8 32.7 7.3 16.1

Age of Parent

Less than 20 years old 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 0.0 4.0

21-29 years old 53.1 54.6 49.8 45.2 49.9 51.7

30-39 years old 32.4 30.3 37.1 38.4 41.2 34.0

40 and older 11.7 12.4 10.2 12.6 8.3 10.3

Mean age 30.2 30.6 30.1 30.4 30.9 29.4
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 178

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N= 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other than U.S. 19.2 5.5 52.0 7.7 97.1 42.5

Less than 5 years in U.S. 11.6 19.6 9.5 0.0 11.7 7.2

Five or more years in U.S. 88.2 79.5 90.4 100.0 88.2 92.6

Mean years lived in U.S. 11.1 12.1 10.9 11.8 9.4 12.8

Language

Spanish language in home 30.6 5.4 90.4 98.8 99.7 81.4

Child assessed in Spanish 16.7 0.1 56.1 98.0 72.9 29.1

Marital Status

Married 43.1 37.9 55.9 56.9 72.5 45.4

Single, never married 33.7 37.3 24.3 15.5 15.8 33.0

Divorced or widowed 13.5 16.4 6.9 12.8 1.6 7.7

Married, but separated 9.6 8.4 12.9 14.8 10.1 13.9

Education and Training

Less than high school 27.5 22.6 38.5 21.6 54.3 35.8

High school diploma/GED 37.6 39.3 34.4 35.5 34.2 34.0

Some college/AA degree 32.1 35.4 24.3 35.1 9.9 28.7

College degree or higher 2.8 2.7 2.8 7.8 1.6 1.5

Vocational or trade school 41.7 44.2 36.4 52.0 21.4 39.1

Working toward degree 24.3 25.6 21.0 25.5 13.9 25.5

Employment Status

Full-time 34.5 36.4 29.9 27.1 22.5 35.5

Part-time or seasonal 17.8 18.4 16.9 14.2 15.5 18.8

Not employed 47.3 44.7 53.0 58.0 61.9 45.5

Household Income

$499 or less 11.8 11.6 12.1 32.2 6.4 7.4

$500-999 29.6 28.0 33.5 38.9 30.4 33.2

$1,000-1,499 24.8 25.1 24.2 18.7 28.6 23.7

$1,500-1,999 14.4 16.2 10.1 1.5 11.7 12.5

$2,000 or more 15.7 16.7 14.0 6.7 12.4 17.9
________________________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 179

Weighted Percentages

Types of Hispanic Families

All

(N= 2,959)

NonHispanic

(n =2,192)

All

Hispanic

(n = 767 )

Puerto

Rico

(n=130)

Mainland

Spanishspeaking

(n = 195)

Mainland

Englishspeaking

(n = 442)

Housing Status

Private housing 86.4 87.2 84.7 94.4 78.8 84.4

Shared housing 12.5 11.4 15.2 5.3 21.2 15.6

Transitional housing 1.1 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0

Public housing 22.2 24.1 17.6 36.6 8.2 15.6

Sources of Support

WIC 54.5 53.4 57.6 49.2 59.8 59.6

TANF 30.2 33.3 22.6 8.3 19.2 30.4

SSI or SSDI 11.0 13.9 4.5 5.3 2.7 5.2

Insurance Coverage

Private insurance 32.6 34.5 27.9 34.2 21.7 29.1

MEDICAID 58.1 59.7 54.0 61.4 47.5 54.9

Regular Health Provider

Child 88.2 91.6 80.1 80.0 68.7 87.1

Parent 75.7 79.4 66.9 65.3 54.6 74.9

Routine Care Provider (Child)

Private doctor or HMO 66.3 69.4 58.8 52.9 63.6 54.8

Non-private doctor 32.1 29.3 38.9 47.1 39.3 35.3

Routine Care Provider (Parent)

Private doctor or HMO 60.8 65.2 50.1 42.8 53.9 50.7

Non-private doctor 38.5 30.8 45.3 56.9 40.0 43.8

.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 180

8.3 Overview of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers

Approximately five percent of the Head Start children (4.8%) were members of families where

grandparents were designated as their primary caregivers. This section will present the characteristics of

these families, information on how they function, and their relationship with the Head Start program. In

the following sections, households where the grandparent was the child’s primary caregiver may be

referred to as “grandparent-led” or “grandparent-headed” households.

At the end of this section is Exhibit 8-21 that contains frequencies on demographic characteristics

of children, parent and grandparent caregivers, and households. Frequencies are presented for all families

in the sample and for families where a grandparent serves as the primary caregiver.

8.3.1 Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers

Ethnicity

Ethnic differences were noted between children with grandparents as their caregivers and children

in the overall sample. Exhibit 8-21 shows that almost one half of the children who had grandparents as

primary caregivers were African American (46.0%). Only 9.3% of the children who had grandparents as

primary caregivers were Hispanic, while the overall sample of children was 27.6% Hispanic.

Urbanicity and Region

Differences in the distribution of grandparents and non-grandparents as primary caregivers were

minimal with respect to urbanicity and geographic region (Exhibit 8-21). In both groups, about two thirds

of the families (66.9% all families, 68.4% grandparents as primary caregivers) lived in urban settings.

Almost one half of the families with grandparents serving as primary caregivers lived in the South

(49.4%), in contrast to 39.4% of the overall sample of families.

Gender and Age of Children

Exhibit 8-21 demonstrates that in families where grandparents were the primary caregivers,

children were evenly split on gender (53.1% were boys), similar to the distribution in the main sample

(50.4% were boys). Two thirds of the children (67.6%) in grandparent-led families were 4 years old,

matching the proportion of 4-year-olds in the entire sample (68.3%).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 181

Age and Nativity of Grandparents

As expected, grandparents as caregivers were older than other caregivers in the main sample of

families (Exhibit 8-21). While more than one half of the caregivers in the main sample (55.6%) were

under 30 years of age, all the grandparents who were caregivers were older than 30, and most were older

than 40 (93.2%). The mean age of primary caregivers in the main sample was 30.2 years, while the mean

age for grandparents who served as primary caregivers was 52.3 years. Three times as many primary

caregivers in the main sample (18.7%) were born in a country other than the U.S. than grandparents who

were primary caregivers (6.2%).

Marital Status

The sample of all caregivers and the subsample of grandparents as caregivers differed in two

categories of marital status (Exhibit 8-21). While one third of all caregivers (33.7%) were single, never

married, only 7.2% of the grandparents were reported to be in that category. In contrast, 38.8% of the

grandparents were divorced or widowed, compared to only 13.5% of the caregivers in the main sample.

Education and Training

In general, grandparents who served as caregivers did not have as much education as other

primary caregivers (Exhibit 8-21). While just more than one quarter (27.2%) of all caregivers had less

than a high school diploma, almost two fifths (38.8%) of the grandparents who were caregivers did not

complete high school. About one third (32.5%) of all primary caregivers reported attending some college

or having an AA degree, while only 19.9% of the grandparents had a similar level of education.

Employment Status and Household Income

As shown in Exhibit 8-21, employment, either full-time or part-time, was greater among all

caregivers (52.3%) than among grandparents who were caregivers (37.0%). Overall, the households in

which grandparents served as primary caregivers had higher incomes than the overall sample of

households (Exhibit 8-21). The proportion of all households with incomes under $1,000 was 41.4%,

while only 29.8% of the households with grandparents as primary caregivers had incomes at this level. In

contrast, while 30.1% of all households had incomes above $1,500, 41.5% of the households in which

grandparents were primary caregivers had incomes above $1,500.

Other Sources of Support and Insurance Coverage

As shown in Exhibit 8-21, families in which grandparents were the primary caregivers were less

likely than the overall sample of families to use WIC (44.6% vs. 54.5% for all families), but were more
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 182

likely to use TANF (44.0% vs. 30.2%) as well as SSI or SSDI (28.3% vs. 11.0%). The proportions of

children covered by private health insurance or by Medicaid were virtually identical across both groups of

families.

Housing

Although Exhibit 8-21 indicates that the proportions of families living in private or shared

housing were very similar for both the overall sample of families and families where grandparents served

as the primary caregivers, the families in the overall sample were more likely to report living in public

housing (22.2% vs. 14.6%).

Household Composition

Although grandmothers were identified as the primary caregivers of their grandchildren in 94.0%

of the grandparent-headed households, a grandfather was also present in 42.1% of these households. Of

the three grandfather-led households, grandmothers were present in two. Interestingly, in 6.4% of the

grandmother-led households, a great-grandmother also lived with the family. The children’s mothers

were present in 21.8% of the grandparent-headed households. Of the non-household mothers, 36.0%

rarely or never saw their children, 13.7% saw their children several times a year, 19.7% saw them several

times a month, and 20.0% saw their children several times a week or daily. The children’s fathers were

present in only 8.1% of the grandparent-headed households. Of the non-household fathers, 38.5% rarely

or never saw their children, 13.2% saw them several times a year, 23.9% several times a month, and

19.8% saw their children several times a week or daily. There were only three grandparent-headed

households where the children’s mothers and fathers both resided.

Data were not always available to indicate why the parents were not designated as caregivers. It

was reported that in grandparent-headed households, 1.1% of non-household mothers and 2.0% of the

non-household fathers were in the military. Unfortunately, 11.4% of the non-household mothers and

10.6% of the non-households fathers were reported to be in prison. Additionally, when grandparents were

asked if anyone in the household had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of the Head

Start child, they reported 16.6% of the children’s mothers and 20.2% of the children’s fathers had been

involved in the criminal justice system. In contrast, among other caregiver-headed households, only 4.8%

of the mothers and 16.9% of fathers were reported to have been arrested or charged with a crime.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 183

8.3.2 Functioning of Families with Grandparents as Primary Caregivers

This section presents information gathered from the parent interviews about the functioning of the

Head Start families who had grandparents identified as the primary caregivers. For the purpose of this

section, “grandparent” refers to grandparents identified as the primary caregivers of the Head Start

children.

Social Support

In the spring of 1998, grandparents were asked about the people or groups in their lives who were

helpful to them during the previous six months in raising their Head Start grandchildren. Almost all of

the grandparents (92.0%) reported that Head Start was helpful (15.5%) or very helpful (76.5%) as a

source of support. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful than other relatives (79.2%)

and much more helpful than their grandchildren’s parents (55.9%), people from religious or social groups

(53.8%), friends (45.5%), professional helpgivers (31.8%), child care staff (15.1%), or co-workers

(15.5%).

Based on a summary variable measuring total support1

, grandparents reported receiving

significantly less overall support in raising their grandchildren than parents who were caregivers, t(2538)

= 2.56; p = .02. Compared to parents who were caregivers, grandparents reported receiving much less

support from friends (45.5% vs. 65.8%), child care staff (15.1% vs. 32.6%), and co-workers (15.5% vs.

21.6%). Interestingly, a larger proportion of grandparents (53.8%) reported religious or social group

members as a source of support in raising their Head Start children than did parents (46.4%).

Psychological Well-Being

Depression among Head Start grandparents was measured using the CES-D Depression Scale2

(Radloff, 1977). Overall, most grandparents were classified as not depressed (42.4%) or mildly depressed

(26.8%). Still, more than one quarter of these grandparents were classified as either moderately depressed

(9.8%) or severely depressed (17.2%). Reported depression did not vary significantly between

grandparents as caregivers and parents as caregivers; however, a slightly larger proportion of

grandparents were classified as severely depressed (17.2%) compared to the parent caregivers (11.5%).

1 Summary support score is based on respondents’ ratings of how helpful individuals were in helping them raise their Head Start

children over the past six months. Each of nine categories of individuals was rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not very

helpful” to “very helpful.” Summary score ranges from zero to 27, with higher scores representing more support. M = 13.5%;

SD = 5.2.

2

The CES-D Scale (12-item version) measures levels of depression among parents. Score range zero-36. Zero-4 = Not

depressed; 5-9 = Mildly depressed; 10-14 = Moderately depressed; 15 or more = Severely depressed. M = 7.2; SD = 6.7.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 184

Involvement With Their Grandchildren

Grandparents were asked about their families’ activities with their grandchildren during the week

and month prior to the spring 1998 interview. Almost all of the grandparents (94.4%) reported that they

or another family member read to the children during the past week. Over one third of the children

(36.2%) were read to every day, while 28.2% were read to three or more times, and 30.0% were read to

once or twice during the week prior to the interview. A very small proportion, 5.6%, reported they had

not read to their grandchildren at all during the past week, slightly more than the 4.7% of parents as

caregivers who reported not reading to their children. Grandparents also involved their grandchildren in

a wide range of activities. No significant differences reported in the amount of activities with children

were noted between families headed by grandparents or parents.

Child Behavior

Grandparents were asked to rate their grandchildren in several different areas, including their

behavior and pre-reading skills. Compared to parents as primary caregivers, grandparents as caregivers

indicated their grandchildren had more problem behaviors3

, t(2516) = 3.33; p < .001, including behavior

that was more aggressive4

, t(2536) = 2.05; p = .04, hyperactive5, t(2534) = 2.91; p < .01, and withdrawn6,

t(2528) = 2.40; p = .02. There was no significant difference between the reported emergent literacy of

those children who were cared for by their grandparents or those cared for by their parents.

Neighborhood Environments

When asked in spring 1998 about their families’ exposure to neighborhood and personal violence

during the previous six months, compared to families headed by parents, grandparents were less likely to

report exposure to crime, violence, and victimization. One fifth of families headed by parents (20.2%)

reported seeing nonviolent crime in their neighborhoods and one fourth (25.2%) reported exposure to

violent crime, while grandparents reported less exposure to nonviolent (12.1%) and violent crime (18.2%)

in their neighborhoods. Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.1% of the parent-headed

households compared to only 1.0% of households headed by grandparents. Again, reports of having

3 An adaptation of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Total Problem Behavior Index). Each of 12 behavior items, based

on parent report, is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very true or often true.” Summary scores ranged from

0-24, with higher scores representing more frequent or severe negative behavior.

4 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of four items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child hits and fights with other children, has temper tantrums,

doesn’t get along with others, and is disobedient at home. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.

5 A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of three items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include parents’ reports of whether child can’t pay attention for long, is very restless, and is nervous,

high-strung, or tense. Subscale scores ranged from 0-6.

6

A subscale of the Total Problem Behavior Index, each of five items is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from “not true” to “very

true or often true.” Items include whether child is unhappy, worries, feels worthless, has difficulty making changes, or acts too

young. Subscale scores ranged from 0-8.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 185

been victimized in their homes were higher for families headed by parents (3.8%) compared to less than

one percent of grandparents (0.1%). Equal proportions of parents as caregivers (18.7%) and grandparents

as caregivers (18.6%) knew individuals who were victims of a violent crime in their neighborhoods.

8.3.3 Relationships with Head Start

This section presents information regarding how satisfied grandparents were with the overall

Head Start program, the barriers to participation they faced, and how often they participated in program

activities.

Involvement in Head Start

In the spring of 1998, grandparents were asked about the ways that they were involved in the

Head Start program throughout the past school year. As demonstrated in Exhibit 8-22, over 70% of the

grandparents reported observing in the classroom for at least 30 minutes (73.9%), preparing food or

materials (71.2%), attending parent-teacher conferences (79.1%), and participating in home visits

(93.3%). Slightly larger proportions of grandparents, compared to parents, prepared food and materials

(71.2% vs. 65.7%), attended Head Start social events (63.5% vs. 55.0%) and workshops (59.1% vs.

55.6%), and participated in home visits (93.3% vs. 83.0%) and Policy Council (42.3% vs. 36.5%).

Grandparents as caregivers were less likely than parents to volunteer (64.3% vs. 69.5%) and observe

(73.9% vs. 77.6%) in the classrooms or help with field trips (44.8% vs. 51.8%).

Exhibit 8-22

Percentages of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers and Parents as Primary

Caregivers Who Participated at Head Start during 1997-1998 School Year

Weighted Percentages

Grandparents

(n = 133)

Parents

(n = 2,555)

Volunteered in classroom 64.3 69.5

Observed classroom for 30 minutes or more 73.9 77.6

Prepared food or materials 71.2 65.7

Helped with field trips 44.8 51.8

Attended Head Start social events 63.5 55.0

Attended workshops 59.1 55.6

Attended parent-teacher conferences 79.1 81.5

Had Head Start staff visit at home 93.3 83.0

Participated in Policy Council 42.3 36.5

Called another Head Start parent 32.6 31.5
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 186

Weighted Percentages

Grandparents

(n = 133)

Parents

(n = 2,555)

Prepared newsletters, fliers, etc. 22.0 23.6

Participated in fundraising 62.0 61.2

Barriers to Participation

Grandparents were asked in the spring of 1998 if there were particular barriers that prevented

them from participating as much as they would have liked at their grandchildren’s Head Start programs.

The four barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the grandparents were work commitments

(34.7%), health problems (26.1%), need for child care (24.8%), and lack of transportation (12.9%). As

expected, grandparents were almost four times more likely than parent caregivers to report health

problems as a barrier to participation (26.1% vs. 7.4%), and slightly more likely to mention concerns for

safety (3.3% vs. 2.8%) and a lack of opportunities (6.7% vs. 4.0%) as barriers. Compared to parent

caregivers, grandparents were less likely to indicate that a need for child care (32.4% vs. 24.8%),

competing school (9.22% vs. 19.9%) or work (34.7% vs. 56.0%) commitments, lack of transportation

(12.9% vs. 17.5%), or language or cultural differences (0.4% vs. 3.3%) interfered with their ability to

participate at Head Start.

Satisfaction with the Head Start Experience

Parents were asked how satisfied they were with Head Start’s performance in eight different

areas, including helping their children to grow and develop, preparing their children for kindergarten, and

supporting their families’ culture and background. Both parent-caregivers and grandparent-caregivers

reported high satisfaction with their Head Start programs. Over 90% of the grandparents were

“somewhat” or “very” satisfied with Head Start in 6 of the 8 areas displayed in Exhibit 8-23. While no

significant difference in overall satisfaction with Head Start was found between grandparents or parents

as caregivers, grandparent caregivers were more likely to be “very satisfied” with how Head Start was

helping their grandchildren to grow and develop (89.1% vs. 86.3%), respecting their families’ culture

(94.0% vs. 87.5%), and providing services for the children (94.3% vs. 82.9%).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 187

Exhibit 8-23

Grandparent Caregiver’s and Parent Caregiver’s Satisfaction with Head Start

Weighted Percentages

Grandparents

(n = 133)

Parents

(n = 255)

Somewhat

Satisfied

Very

Satisfied

Somewhat

Satisfied

Very

Satisfied

Help children grow and develop 6.8 89.1 11.6 86.3

Open to new ideas 17.7 76.7 19.3 78.0

Respect family culture 6.0 94.0 10.1 87.5

Provide services for children 2.2 94.3 12.5 82.9

Provide services for family 18.0 63.5 16.8 63.1

Maintain a safe program 9.3 87.8 5.3 93.3

Prepare child for kindergarten 11.0 84.6 5.2 85.9

Foster community development 27.1 58.8 16.4 65.9

8.3.4 Three Generational Families

While close to 5% of the Head Start children lived in families headed by their grandparents,

13.7% lived in households where grandmothers, grandfathers, or both grandparents resided. Because

primary caregivers were the focus of the FACES parent interview, little information is available about

grandparents who were members of extended family structures, but not the primary caregivers of the

children. However, two fifths of these three generational families were families of African American

children (40.9%), one quarter were families of Hispanic children (24.8%), and one fifth were families of

White children (20.1%). The family structures of almost two thirds of the three-generational families

(64.1%) included mothers and grandmothers. More than one half of the grandparents in the household

were employed (55.2%).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 188

8.3.5 Summary of Findings on Families Headed by Grandparents

Findings from this section contribute to a more complete understanding of Head Start families

who were headed by grandparents, including their involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction with the

Head Start program. Highlights from Section 8.3 include:

Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers

• Almost one half of the children who had grandparents as primary caregivers were African

American and less than 10% were Hispanic. African American children as well as Hispanic

children each comprised slightly over one quarter of the overall sample.

• Differences in the distribution of grandparents and non-grandparents as primary caregivers were

minimal with respect to urbanicity and geographic region. About two thirds of the families lived

in urban settings. Almost one half of the families with grandparents serving as primary

caregivers lived in the South.

• Among families where grandparents were the primary caregivers, children were evenly split on

gender, similar to the distribution in the main sample. Two thirds of the children in grandparentled families were 4 years old, matching the proportion of 4-year-olds in the entire sample.

• Grandparents as caregivers were older than caregivers in the main sample of families. All the

grandparents who were caregivers were older than 30, and most were older than 40. The mean

age of primary caregivers in the main sample was 30.2 years, while the mean age for

grandparents who served as primary caregivers was 52.3 years.

• Three times as many primary caregivers in the main sample were born in a country other than the

U.S. than grandparents who were primary caregivers.

• In general, grandparents who served as caregivers did not have as much education as other

primary caregivers. While just more than one quarter of all caregivers had less than a high school

diploma, almost two fifths of the grandparents who were caregivers did not complete high school.

About one third of all primary caregivers reported attending some college or having an AA

degree, while only one fifth of the grandparents had a similar level of education.

• Employment, either full-time or part-time, was greater among all caregivers than among

grandparents who were caregivers. Consequently, approximately three fifths of the grandparents

were not employed compared to around one half of the other caregivers in the overall sample.

• The sample of all caregivers and the subsample of grandparents as caregivers differed in two

categories of marital status. While one third of all caregivers were single, never married, only

7.2% of the grandparents were reported to be in that category. In contrast, two fifths of the

grandparents were divorced or widowed, compared to only 13.5% of the caregivers in the main

sample.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 189

• Overall, the households in which grandparents served as primary caregivers had higher incomes

than the overall sample of households. Two fifths of all households reported incomes under

$1,000. Only 29.8% of the households with grandparents as primary caregivers had incomes at

this level. In contrast, while slightly less than one third of all households had incomes above

$1,500, two fifths of the households in which grandparents were primary caregivers had incomes

above $1,500.

• Grandparent-led families were less likely than the overall sample of families to use WIC but were

more likely to use TANF as well as SSI or SSDI. The proportions of children covered by private

health insurance or by Medicaid were virtually identical across both groups of families.

Functioning of Families With Grandparents are Primary Caregivers

• Almost all of the grandparents reported that Head Start was helpful or very helpful as a source of

support in raising their grandchildren. Overall, Head Start was considered slightly more helpful

than other relatives and much more helpful than their grandchildren’s parents, people from

religious or social groups, friends, professional helpgivers, child care staff, or co-workers.

• Grandparents reported receiving significantly less overall support in raising their grandchildren

than parents who were caregivers. Interestingly, a larger proportion of grandparents compared to

parents reported religious or social group members as a source of support in raising their Head

Start children.

• Almost all of the grandparents reported that they or another family member read to the children

during the past week. Over one third of the children were read to every day. A very small

proportion reported they had not read to their grandchildren at all during the past week, slightly

more than the percentage of parents who reported not reading to their children.

• Grandparents also involved their grandchildren in a wide range of activities. No significant

differences in reported amount of family activities with children were noted between families

headed by grandparents or parents.

• Compared to parents as primary caregivers, grandparents as caregivers indicated their

grandchildren had more problem behaviors, including behaviors that was more aggressive,

hyperactive, and withdrawn.

• There was no significant difference between the emergent literacy of those children who were

cared for by their grandparents or those cared for by their parents.

• Compared to families headed by parents, families headed by grandparents were less likely to

report having been exposed to crime, violence, and victimization. Equal proportions of parents as

caregivers and grandparents as caregivers knew someone who was the victim of a violent crime

in their neighborhood.

• Victimization in the neighborhood was reported by 4.1% of the parent-headed households

compared to only 1.0% of households headed by grandparents. Reports of victimization in their

homes were slightly higher for families headed by parents (3.8%), compared to less than 1% of

grandparent-led households.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 190

Relationships with Head Start

• Over 70% of the grandparents reported observing in the classroom for at least 30 minutes

preparing food or materials, attending parent-teacher conferences, and participating in home

visits. Grandparents as caregivers were less likely than parents to volunteer and observe in the

classrooms or help with field trips; however, they were more likely to serve on Policy Council.

• The four barriers to participation mentioned by over 10% of the grandparents were work

commitments, health problems, need for child care, and lack of transportation.

• As expected, grandparents were almost four times more likely than parent caregivers to report

health problems as a barrier to participation and slightly more likely to mention concern for safety

and a lack of opportunities as barriers.

• Compared to parent caregivers, grandparents were less likely to report that a need for child care,

competing school or work commitments, lack of transportation, or language or cultural

differences interfered with their ability to participate at Head Start.

• Grandparents reported high satisfaction with their Head Start programs. While no significant

difference was found between the overall satisfaction of grandparent or parent caregivers,

grandparents were more likely to be “very satisfied” with how Head Start was doing with helping

their grandchildren to grow and develop, respecting their families’ culture, and providing services

for the children.

Three Generational Families

• While close to 5% of the Head Start children lived in families headed by their grandparents,

13.7% lived in a household where a grandmother, grandfather, or both grandparents resided. The

family structure of almost two thirds of the three-generational families consisted of a mother and

a grandmother.

• Two fifths of these families had African American children, one quarter were families of

Hispanic children, and one fifth were families of White children.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 191

Exhibit 8-24

Characteristics of Grandparents as Primary Caregivers

Weighted Percentages Weighted Percentages

Demographic

Characteristics

All

(N = 3,120)

Grandparents

(n =133)

Demographic

Characteristics

All

(N= 3,120)

Grandparents

(n =133)

Ethnicity Education and Training

African American 28.8 46.0 Less than high school 27.2 38.8

White 30.6 26.9 High school diploma/GED 37.5 36.7

Hispanic 27.6 9.3 Some college/AA degree 32.5 19.9

Native American 1.9 3.0 College degree or higher 2.8 4.6

Asian 1.3 0.0

Other 8.7 14.2 Vocational or trade school 41.8 38.1

Urbanicity Employment Status

Urban 66.9 68.4 Full-time 34.5 29.8

Rural 33.0 31.6 Part-time or seasonal 17.8 7.2

Not employed 47.3 61.3

Region

Midwest 23.1 18.6 Household Income

Northeast 15.5 11.9 $499 or less 11.8 4.5

South 39.4 49.4 $500-999 29.6 25.3

West 22.0 20.1 $1,000-1,499 24.8 21.8

$1,500-1,999 14.4 20.0

Gender of Child $2,000 or more 15.7 21.5

Male 50.4 53.1

Female 49.6 46.9 Housing Status

Private housing 86.4 82.9

Age of Child Shared housing 12.5 15.8

3 years old 31.7 32.4 Transitional housing 1.1 1.3

4 years old 68.3 67.6

Public housing 22.2 14.6

Child Birthweight

Normal 85.8 64.6 Sources of Support

Low 7.6 8.3 WIC 54.5 44.6

Very low 1.8 2.5 TANF 30.2 44.0

SSI or SSDI 11.0 28.3

Age of Parent

< 20 years old 2.5 0.0 Marital Status

21-29 years old 53.1 0.0 Married 43.1 44.2

30-39 years old 32.4 5.9 Single, never married 33.7 7.2

40 and older 11.7 93.2 Divorced or widowed 13.5 38.8

Married, but separated 9.6 9.8
_______________________________________________________________________________

Section II: Head Start Children and Families Special Populations 192

Weighted Percentages Weighted Percentages

Demographic

Characteristics

All

(N = 3,120)

Grandparents

(n =133)

Demographic

Characteristics

All

(N= 3,120)

Grandparents

(n =133)

Mean age 30.2 52.3 Insurance Coverage

Median age 28.0 51.0 Private insurance 32.6 32.6

MEDICAID 58.1 54.7

Nativity of Parent

Born in country other

than US 18.7 6.2
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Introduction 193

1.0 Introduction to Head Start Staff

1.1 Overview

For FACES, interviews were conducted with over 900 Head Start staff, including:

• Center Directors (CD);

• Classroom Teachers (CT)1

;

• Home Visitors (HV);

• Family Service Workers (FSW);

• Education Coordinators (EC);2

• Parent Involvement Coordinators (PIC);

• Social Service Coordinators (SSC); and

• Health Coordinators (HC).

These interviews were intended to provide information about the background of Head Start staff;

their activities, goals, and priorities; and their roles in providing services to children and families.

Head Start Program Directors also participated in discussions regarding the influence of recent revisions

of the Head Start Program Performance Standards and federal and state welfare reform regulations on the

operations of their local programs.

In recent years, the Head Start program has taken steps to improve the professional qualifications

of the staff directly serving children. Since 1993, additional funds have been allocated each year to each

program grantee to increase salaries and benefits for staff, particularly classroom teachers. In addition,

Congress established goals for classroom teacher qualifications in the 1998 reauthorization of the Head

Start Act, requiring a significant increase in the percentage of teachers holding academic degrees. The

interviews conducted for this project provide a profile of Head Start staff in transition to a more advanced

level of professionalism.

1 In some cases, a Classroom Teacher also served some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a Center

Director was not assigned to a center. Within this report, such teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers.

2 Under revised Head Start Program Performance Standards implemented in 1998, these four component coordinator titles were

discontinued, although the functions of these positions were retained and redistributed across staff. Interviews with the

Component Coordinators were completed in spring, 1997.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Introduction 194

Research Questions

The contents of the staff interviews were guided by research questions related to staff

qualifications, goals, and implementation of the program:

All Staff

• What are the levels of experience and education for Head Start staff in each position?

• What are the amounts and types of training provided to staff over the course of a program

year?

• What are the internal program and external family and community factors that enhance or

inhibit program/component effectiveness?

Center Directors

• What strategies are in place for involving families in center activities and decision making

roles?

Classroom Teachers

• What are the relationships among program-based activities with parents and children and (a)

family-child activities at home, (b) parent involvement, and (c) parent satisfaction with Head

Start?

Center Directors and Classroom Teachers

• What is the level and type of communication with parents? What is the level and type of

parent participation in program activities? What are the barriers to full parent participation in

the Head Start program?

• What curricula are employed in classrooms? What activities are provided for children and

how often are they provided? What are the most important elements of the program for

children and parents?

• What are the most important elements of the program for children and parents?

Component Coordinators and Family Service Workers

• What are the staffing patterns and operational elements of each service component?

• What are the primary goals and philosophy of each service component?

• What community resources are available and how are they used by Head Start?
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Introduction 195

The staff interviews developed for FACES contained questions grouped around the topics

displayed in Exhibit 1-1.

Exhibit 1-1

Contents of the Staff Interviews

Interview Section Coordinators FSW CD CT

Experience with Head Start X X X X

Educational background X X X X

In-service training (during the past year) X X X X

Program goals, philosophy, and priorities X X X X

Recruitment/enrollment X X X

Parent involvement with the program X X X X

Contact and communication with parents X X X

Male involvement with the program X X X

Barriers to parent participation X X X X

Curriculum and classroom activities X X X

Home visits X X X X

Community resources and needs X X X X

In addition, Component Coordinator interviews included sections related to the activities within

those domains, such as child recruitment and enrollment (Social Service Coordinators), educational

strategies (Education Coordinators), parent support activities (Parent Involvement Coordinators and

Family Service Workers), the Parent Policy Councils (Parent Involvement Coordinators), health risks and

health needs of children (Health Coordinators), and the Health Services Advisory Committee (Health

Coordinators).

1.2 Organization of Section III

Section III contains a description of the elements of the interviews and results of analyses of the

information obtained from Head Start staff. Chapter 2 of this section provides information relating to the

data collection, including instrument development and pilot testing, data collection procedures and staff,

and the strengths and limitations of the research database. Chapter 3 includes data on program staffing

patterns, staff experience, education, and training, compensation and benefits, and the primary goals of

Head Start staff regarding families and children. Chapter 4 contains information on recruitment and

enrollment, strategies and priorities for involving parents in program activities, communication with
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Introduction 196

parents, and perceived barriers to full parent participation in the program. In addition, Chapter 4 covers

educational curricula, staff priorities for children’s experiences in the program, and classroom activities

with children. The relationships between staff reports of program characteristics and parent reports of

family-child activities in the home, parent involvement and parent satisfaction with the program are also

presented.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 197

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Overview of the Head Start Staff Interview Data Collection

Head Start staff were interviewed at each of the four data collection points: spring 1997, fall

1997, spring 1998, and spring 1999. Component Coordinators (including those responsible for

Education, Parent Involvement, Social Services, and Health) for each of the participating programs were

asked to participate in interviews in spring 1997, as were Center Directors from each of the centers

involved in the project, and one teacher in each center where target children were in attendance. In fall

1997 and spring 1998, interviews were completed with additional Center Directors (those in the

additional centers added for the 1997-98 program year and those who were unavailable for interviews in

the spring of 1997) and all Classroom Teachers with target children in their classrooms (excluding those

teachers who were interviewed earlier). In spring 1998, Program Directors participated in discussions

regarding the new Program Performance Standards and the impact of welfare reform on their programs.

Finally, in the spring of 1999, one Family Service Worker from each center in the study was interviewed.

2.2 The Instruments

The research team developed a set of staff interview instruments, with consultation from ACYF

staff and the investigators of the Head Start Quality Research Centers (in place between 1995-2000). The

Center Director, Coordinator, and Classroom Teacher interview protocols employed in the spring 1997

baseline data collection were modified for subsequent data collections based on interviewer feedback and

a review of the information collected in the initial round. The staff interviews were designed to provide a

profile of the demographic characteristics and activities of Head Start personnel. Spanish translations of

staff interviews were prepared for use in Puerto Rico.

Copies of the interviews are provided in Appendix C and are available on the Internet at

www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/faces/faces_instruments.html. Each of the

staff interviews consisted of two main sections. The first section was common to all staff and provided

information about 1) experience in early childhood education, as well as current and past Head Start

programs; 2) education and degree field; 3) in-service training during the previous 12 months of

employment; 4) characteristics of the job such as salary, benefits, and work hours and weeks; and 5)

elements of the job related to satisfaction, including elements of the job considered to be important,

barriers and constraints to job performance, and reasons for continuing to work for Head Start. The
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 198

second section of each interview was tailored to the specific position for which the interview was being

conducted.

For Classroom Teachers, the remainder of the interview covered the following:

• Frequency and type of contact with parents;

• Program goals for families and program success in achieving those goals;

• Frequency and purpose of home visits;

• Frequency and type of parent involvement in the classroom;

• Types of involvement by males in program activities;

• Barriers to parent participation in program activities;

• Curriculum and classroom activities; and

• Assessments of children’s functioning and capabilities.

For Center Directors, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Frequency and type of contact with parents;

• Program goals for families and program success in achieving those goals;

• Frequency and purpose of home visits;

• Types of parent orientation activities;

• Strategies for involving parents in program activities;

• Parent meetings and involvement in center decision-making activities;

• Use of parent volunteers in the classroom, on parent committees, and other activities;

• Involvement by males in program activities;

• Curriculum and classroom activities;

• Activities related to children’s transition to kindergarten; and

• An assessment of the types of community resources available to the center.

For the Education Coordinators, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Number and responsibilities of Education staff ;

• Number and content of education workshops for staff;

• Curriculum and education strategies for children; and

• Frequency and purpose of home visits.

For the Parent Involvement Coordinators, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Number and responsibilities of Parent Involvement staff;

• Number and content of parent education workshops and other support activities;

• Use of parent volunteers in the classroom, on parent committees and other activities; and

• Frequency and purpose of home visits.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 199

For the Health Coordinators, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Number and responsibilities of Health staff;

• Number and content of health education workshops for staff;

• Number and content of health education workshops for parents;

• Health service activities and use of parents in health service activities;

• Frequency and purpose of home visits; and

• Health risk factors and health needs of children enrolled in their program.

For the Social Services Coordinators, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Number and responsibilities of Social Service staff;

• Procedures for development of Family Assistance Plans;

• Procedures for assignment and management of Family Service Workers; and

• Support activities for parents and an assessment of the types of community resources

available to the program.

Finally, for the Family Service Workers, the remainder of the interview covered:

• Development of Family Needs Assessments and Family Assistance Plans;

• Caseload size and management;

• Frequency and type of contact with families;

• Family needs and risk factors; and

• Contacts with community service providers and referrals.

2.3 Site Team Staffing

Site visit teams were created specifically for each program. These teams were led by a site

manager from either Abt or CDM, and included trained, experienced field interviewers. Local Head Start

program staff or parents were hired temporarily to serve as On-site Coordinators. The responsibilities for

each of the positions related to the staff interviews are described below.

• The Study Coordinators were senior staff from Abt and CDM who managed all site

development activities with the programs, including materials development and all data collection

logistics. Study Coordinators also supervised the training and work activities of the Site

Managers, Field Interviewers, and On-site Coordinators.

• The Site Managers, who were members of the Abt or CDM research staff, each had primary

responsibility for one or more specific sites. While in the field, they conducted the staff

interviews and also coordinated the completion of the parent interviews, interviewed parents, and

completed quality checks of the completed instruments before shipping them to Abt for data

entry.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 200

• The On-site Coordinators (OSC) were local Head Start staff or parents, who were nominated by

the local program directors, and worked under the supervision of the Abt and CDM Study

Coordinators. They distributed project information to staff and parents, recruited parents,

scheduled both staff and parent interviews prior to the visits, and assisted with the collection of

attendance data throughout the year. At the end of each round of data collection, the OSCs

received a stipend for their work. The OSCs provided general logistical support for the visits, but

did not conduct interviews.

Because the responsibility for conducting all staff interviews was assigned to the Site Managers,

they attended two days of training in Washington, DC, and were trained to administer each of the staff

interview instruments. Prior to each subsequent data collection, they received a single day of training.

Information from the pilot test site visits and experience from previous work on a Descriptive Study of

Head Start Health Services conducted in 1994 by CDM and Abt (Keane et al., 1996) provided the

foundation for this training. Training manuals were provided that included study background

information, interview protocols, general interviewing and confidentiality procedures, as well as specific

field and administrative procedures.

2.4 Description of Data Collection Procedures

A site visit team was sent to most programs for a 1 to 2-week visit (one large program took 4

weeks to complete) to conduct the parent and staff interviews, child assessments, and both child and

classroom observations, as well as to collect the case study data.

Head Start staff were interviewed privately in spaces arranged at their local Head Start centers.

Completed interviews were quality checked for missing data and coding errors, corrected if necessary,

and forwarded to Abt for processing. For each participating Head Start program, the Component

Coordinators in the areas of Education (EC), Social Services (SSC), Parent Involvement (PIC), and

Health (HC) were interviewed. Brief and informal discussions with Program Directors in spring 1998

provided some systematic information regarding the impact of the recent welfare reform activities as well

as the impact of the implementation of the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards in January

1998. As a result of the Head Start Program Performance Standards’ revision, Components were

renamed as Early Childhood Development and Health Services, Family and Community Partnerships, and

Program Design and Management. For this report, however, the original designations are retained.

For each participating Head Start center, the Center Director (CD) or Administrative Teacher

(AT) was interviewed (Exhibit 2-1). The Center Director is the individual responsible for overall
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 201

management of a Head Start center without any direct classroom responsibilities. In smaller centers,

there is likely to be an Administrative Teacher who combines both center management and classroom

responsibilities. Classroom Teachers were interviewed if any FACES target child was enrolled in their

classroom.

Exhibit 2-1

Number of Staff Interviews Completed

Staff Member Number Interviewed

Education Coordinators 38

Parent Involvement Coordinators 38

Social Service Coordinators 35

Health Coordinators 41

Center Directors1 145

Classroom Teachers 528

Family Service Workers 144

For this report, regional and urban-rural differences in staff responses were explored. In addition

to the four regions in the lower forty-eight states, two programs in Puerto Rico (where approximately 5%

of children enrolled in Head Start reside) were included in FACES. The responses from staff in the

Puerto Rican programs were considered separately with regard to regional differences, but were included

in the appropriate urban-rural cells.

Exhibit 2-2 indicates the number of interviewed individuals in each staff position by region and

urbanicity2 of the program. As shown, Head Start programs in the Southern section of the nation

employed the largest number of interviewed staff in all positions. This distribution was consistent with

the distribution of families and children enrolled in the program. About two thirds of the staff were

employed by programs located in urban areas. Again, while some caution is required in the interpretation

of rural or urban designation (see footnote), this distribution was consistent with the currently available

information about the Head Start program derived from the annual Program Information Reports.

1

Some Center Directors served in that role for multiple centers within a program. In other cases, a Classroom Teacher also served

some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a Center Director was not available. Within this report, such

teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers. A total of 56 Administrative Teachers were interviewed as both Center

Directors and Classroom Teachers and were counted in both Center Director and Classroom Teacher totals noted above.

2 For each participating program, an “urbanicity” designator was assigned based on the address of the program’s central office.

Although individual centers in an “urban” program with numerous centers were actually located in rural areas, the overall

program designation was retained for these centers.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Methodology 202

Exhibit 2-2

Number of Staff Interviews by Region and Urbanicity

Northeast Midwest South West

Puerto

Rico Rural Urban

Center Directors 9 18 34 25 3 22 67

Administrative Teachers 11 13 29 3 0 27 29

Classroom Teachers 34 129 172 119 18 125 347

Family Service Workers 18 38 55 27 6 47 97
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 203

3.0 Staff Background Characteristics

3.1 Overview

Head Start staff provided information about their experience with their current Head Start

program, other Head Start programs and other early childhood programs, their educational background,

and their recent training. Staff also provided information about their current jobs: salaries, benefits,

satisfaction, constraints and concerns, and reasons for remaining with their current jobs.

3.2 Staff Experience with Head Start and Early Childhood Programs

Head Start staff demonstrated substantial loyalty to the program. Respondents were asked to

provide their length of employment in their present Head Start programs, their total Head Start

experience, and their total years of experience in the field of early childhood education. In addition, they

were asked what previous positions they had held at their current program. For all interviewed staff, the

average number of years of employment with their current Head Start programs was approximately 10

years (Exhibit 3-1). They reported an average of 2 additional years of employment at other Head Start

programs, and an average of 5 additional years of employment in the field of early childhood education.

In all positions except Family Service Worker (FSW), more than 78% of the staff reported prior

experience in the field of early childhood education (ECE). Compared to staff in other positions, Parent

Involvement Coordinators (PIC), Center Directors (CD)1

, and Education Coordinators (EC) tended to

have longer tenures with their current Head Start programs (an average of 12.2, 11.7, and 10.3 years,

respectively) as well as longer cumulative experience in the field of early childhood education (19.0, 19.6,

and 20.2 years, respectively). In turn, Family Service Workers and Classroom Teachers (CT) reported the

briefest tenures (7.6 and 8.1 years, respectively) and the least experience (10.8 and 14.1 years,

respectively).

1 In some cases, a Classroom Teacher also served some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a Center

Director was not available. Within this report, such teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 204

Exhibit 3-1

Staff Experience by Position

Means (Standard Deviations)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n =38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Years of experience in

ECEa

20.2

(12.7)

17.4

(10.2)

19.0

(11.5)

16.9

(9.7)

10.8

(9.3)

19.6

(11.1)

15.8

(9.2)

14.1

(8.6)

Percentage with prior

experience in ECE 78.9% 82.9% 89.5% 85.4% 40.1 % 84.2% 78.5% 83.9%

Years employed by

Head Start programs

12.4

(8.4)

10.2

(7.4)

12.7

(8.4)

10.6

(8.4)

8.4

(8.2)

14.3

(9.4)

11.1

(9.0)

9.3

(8.2)

Years employed by

current Head Start

program

10.3

(8.6)

9.0

(7.3)

12.2

(8.7)

9.1

(7.9)

7.6

(7.5)

11.7

(8.9)

9.5

(8.2)

8.1

(7.3)

a Early Childhood Education

An examination of regional and urbanicity distributions for Center Directors and Classroom

Teachers indicates that in the South these staff reported significantly more years of experience both in

Head Start and in early childhood education. However, reported years of service in their current position

as Center Director was not greater in the South than in other regions. (Exhibit 3-2). Center Directors in

the South reported more experience at their current Head Start program, F(3, 82) = 7.8; p < .012

, more

total experience with the Head Start program, F(3, 82) = 11.5; p < .01, and more total experience in the

field of early childhood education, F(3, 82) = 9.2; p < .01.

Exhibit 3-2

Center Director (excluding Administrative Teachers) Experience by Region and

Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

Northeast

(n = 9)

Midwest

(n = 19)

South

(n = 34)

West

(n = 24)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 3)

Rural

(n = 22)

Urban

(n = 67)

Years of experience in ECE 18.7

(11.3)

17.9

(10.6)

22.0

(13.3)

19.6

(10.5)

5.0

(1.4)

20.5

(11.8)

19.3

(11.4)

Percentage with prior

experience in ECE 88.9% 88.9% 85.2% 84.0% 33.3% 77.3% 86.5%

Years employed by Head Start

programs

12.9

(10.2)

12.2

(8.6)

16.7

(10.9)

14.2

(7.2)

4.7

(1.1)

15.5

(10.5)

13.9

(9.1)

2 In this section of the report, staff employed by centers in Puerto Rico are shown separately from staff on the mainland.

Although the sample of interviewed staff in Puerto Rico was small, the characteristics of these staff were, in several cases,

distinctly different from those on the mainland. Analyses of differences between Center Directors located in different regions do

not include those from Puerto Rico (there were too few Center Directors for analysis).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 205

Means (Standard Deviations)

Northeast

(n = 9)

Midwest

(n = 19)

South

(n = 34)

West

(n = 24)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 3)

Rural

(n = 22)

Urban

(n = 67)

Years employed by current

Head Start program

12.6

(10.3)

10.3

(7.5)

14.2

(10.0)

10.0

(7.6)

4.7

(1.1)

12.8

(8.8)

11.4

(9.0)

Years employed as Head Start

Center Director

6.3

(8.0)

5.1

(3.8)

6.2

(5.8)

5.3

(5.1)

3.7

(1.1)

6.9

(5.4)

5.2

(5.2)

Furthermore, Center Directors and Classroom Teachers located in the South reported much

greater differences between the years employed at their Head Start program and the years they have been

employed in their current position than staff in other regions (Exhibit 3-3). In the South, over two thirds

of Center Directors had previously been employed as teachers, and 45% of Classroom Teachers had been

Assistant Teachers before being promoted. This result is in contrast to 37% and 21%, respectively, for all

other regions combined.

Exhibit 3-3

Classroom Teacher (including Administrative Teachers) Experience by Region

and Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

North

East

(n = 45)

Mid

West

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Years of experience in

ECE

11.1

(7.8)

13.4

(9.7)

16.4

(10.3)

13.5

(9.3)

10.3

(7.4)

13.5

(9.7)

12.9

(9.8)

Percentage with prior

experience in ECE

91.1% 80.9% 80.2% 92.6% 55.5% 80.3% 84.6%

Years employed by

Head Start programs

7.6

(7.4)

8.3

(7.9)

12.0

(9.5)

7.4

(6.1)

9.4

(7.1)

11.2

(9.1)

8.8

(7.9)

Years employed by

current Head Start

program

7.4

(6.7)

7.2

(7.5)

10.4

(8.3)

6.0

(4.6)

9.3

(7.1)

9.4

(7.6)

7.7

(7.3)

Years employed as

Administrative Teacher/

Classroom Teacher

5.7

(4.9)

5.4

(6.2)

7.2

(7.5)

4.6

(3.9)

9.3

(7.1)

6.6

(7.1)

5.8

(6.0)

In contrast, Center Directors and Family Service Workers (Exhibit 3-4) in Puerto Rican centers,

although based on small samples, reported strikingly shorter tenures at their current Head Start center and
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 206

total years of experience in early childhood education than their mainland peers. Puerto Rican Classroom

Teachers, however, reported having an equivalent amount of Head Start experience but somewhat less

overall early childhood experience. Center Directors in Puerto Rico reported far less experience than the

teachers who were employed in their centers.

For Center Directors and Classroom Teachers, there were no statistically significant differences

observed with regard to urban-rural distinctions. However, the trends were consistent across all positions,

as staff in rural Head Start programs reported greater experience at their current program, in Head Start

programs overall, and for total early childhood education work experience. Family Service Workers

located in rural areas did report significantly more experience at their current program, t(143) = 3.5; p <

.01, in Head Start programs overall, t(143) = 3.2; p < .01, and for total experience in social work/case

management than those in urban locations, t(143) = 6.9; p < .01.

Exhibit 3-4

Family Service Worker Experience by Region and Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

Northeast

(n = 18)

Midwest

(n = 38)

South

(n = 55)

West

(n = 27)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 6)

Rural

(n = 47)

Urban

(n = 97)

Years of experience in

ECE

11.1

(9.4)

11.2

(9.9)

12.1

(10.2)

10.1

(9.1)

3.2

(2.0)

13.3

(8.8)

9.7

(8.4)

Percentage with prior

experience in ECE 47.1% 52.6% 22.2% 48.1% 66.7% 39.1% 42.1%

Years employed by

Head Start programs

7.9

(7.2)

7.5

(7.6)

10.7

(9.7)

7.0

(5.8)

2.6

(1.6)

11.5

(8.6)

6.9

(7.5)

Years employed by

current Head Start

program

7.7

(7.2)

6.5

(6.7)

9.9

(9.0)

5.7

(4.5)

2.4

(1.4)

10.7

(7.9)

6.1

(6.8)

Years employed as

Family Service Worker

7.1

(6.4)

5.9

(6.9)

5.9

(5.6)

4.1

(2.4)

2.4

(1.4)

10.7

(7.9)

6.1

(6.8)

3.3 Staff Education

The national Head Start program has devoted significant resources to increasing staff

qualifications in recent years, focused in particular upon the educational achievement of Classroom

Teachers. Specifically, the program has been mandated by Congress to increase the overall proportion of

Head Start teachers with AA or BA degrees in early childhood education or a degree in a related field to
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 207

50% by 2003. Respondents were asked to indicate the highest grade they had completed, their degrees,

the academic field for any degree held, whether they held a Child Development Associate (CDA)

certificate, and whether they were currently working towards any further degree.

For each of the Component Coordinator positions, more than one half of those interviewed held a

Bachelor’s Degree or greater (Exhibit 3-5). Among that group, Education Coordinators, on average, had

the highest levels of education and held the largest proportion of advanced degrees (41.7%). Just 2.9% of

Parent Involvement Coordinators held such degrees and 35.3% of Parent Involvement Coordinators held

no academic degree at all.

The Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) provides information reported yearly by all

Head Start programs. There are several points where information collected from staff interviewed for

FACES and the PIR data base overlap. Results related to achievement of academic degrees for

component coordinators were strikingly consistent with the national data provided through the Head Start

PIR (as shown in Exhibit 3-5). That is, the national data confirmed the high proportion of college

degrees, particularly graduate degrees, attained by Education Coordinators. As well, the relatively lower

percentage of Parent Involvement Coordinators holding baccalaureate and graduate degrees was

confirmed. In Appendix C10, Exhibit A-16 provides a more complete summary of information for the

1997-98 program year for the programs that provided the sample frame for FACES.

Exhibit 3-5

Level of Education by Staff Position

Means (Standard Deviations)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Average years of

education

16.3

(1.2)

15.6

(1.4)

14.7

(2.0)

15.3

(1.5)

14.3

(1.7)

15.2

(1.3)

14.1

(1.9)

14.4

(1.6)

% With no college

degree 5.6 12.5 35.3 16.2 52.8 29.2 55.4 45.9

% With AA as highest

degree 2.8 18.8 11.8 13.5 14.6 27.0 10.7 26.4

% With BA/BS as

highest degree 50.0 53.1 50.0 58.7a 29.9 30.3 28.6 24.3

% With graduate

degree 41.7 15.6 2.9 13.5 2.8 13.5 5.4 3.4

% With CDA -- -- -- -- -- 46.1 78.6 53.9

% With CDA or

teaching certificatec -- -- -- -- -- 60.7 55.3 76.1
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 208

Means (Standard Deviations)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

1997-98 Head Start

Program Information

Reports (n=1815)

EC SSC PIC HC

% With BA/BS 44.0 43.9 37.2 42.3 --b -- b -- b -- b

% With graduate

degree 35.6 19.0 8.9 12.2 -- b -- b -- b -- b

a Includes nursing degrees

b Not provided by the PIR

c Includes preschool, elementary, and secondary school teaching certificates

As might be expected, Center Directors had achieved a higher level of education and more

frequently had completed academic degree programs (70.8% including AA, BA, and graduate levels) than

Administrative Teachers (44.7%), Classroom Teachers (54.1%), or Family Service Workers (47.3%).

Among Center Directors, 30.3% had obtained bachelor degrees and an additional 13.5% had completed

graduate degree programs. Over 90% of Center Directors with one or more college degrees (92.1%) had

at least one degree in the areas of human development, child development, or early childhood education.

Only 8.1% of Center Directors had not attended any college, while another 21.0% had attended college

but not yet received degrees. In addition, 46.1% of Center Directors reported that they held CDAs.

Among staff that provided instruction in the classroom (Administrative Teachers and Classroom

Teachers), 53.2% had obtained Associate degrees or higher and 53.9% had obtained CDAs. Of those

with at least one academic degree, 59.4% were in the field of early childhood education (overall, 31.6%

of Classroom Teachers held degrees in early childhood education). An additional 25.3% held degrees in

general education, special education, or secondary education. Thus, 78.5% of classroom staff held degrees

at the Associates level or higher in fields directly related to their employment. Overall, about 34.0% of

Administrative Teachers and Classroom Teachers had attended some college but not yet achieved

degrees, leaving only 13.2% of those groups who had not attended any college at all. Thus, almost all

teachers had some college education. Nearly 40% of Classroom Teachers and one third of Administrative

Teachers had 1-2 years of college; 37% of Classroom Teachers and 23% of Administrative Teachers had

3-4 years of college.

Classroom Teachers frequently had completed the requirements for a CDA, a teaching certificate,

or both. In all, 21.5% of Classroom Teachers held CDAs alone, 22.5% held only teaching certificates,
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 209

and 32.4% held both (thus, a total of 53.9% of Classroom Teachers held CDAs, and 76.4% held either

CDAs or teaching certificates).

The PIR provides information about the academic achievement of all Head Start classroom

teachers (which include both Administrative Teachers and Classroom Teachers as identified in FACES).

Overall, the 1997-98 PIR indicates that 29.1% of all Head Start teachers (versus 31.6% of FACES

teachers) held early childhood education degrees and that 49.7% (versus 53.9% in FACES) held CDAs.

As with the Component Coordinators, these educational achievement data were consistent with

information provided directly by the FACES Classroom Teachers.

Similar to the data on staff experience, staff education also varied by region and urbanicity

(Exhibits 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8). Among Center Directors and Classroom Teachers, those located in the

Northeast3 had completed more years of education and obtained more degrees than in other regions.

Center Directors in the Northeast reported completing an average of 16.4 years of school, F(3, 82) = 14.3;

p < .01, and 88.9% reported having baccalaureate or graduate degrees, χ2 = 13.8; p < .01. In turn,

Classroom Teachers in the Northeast reported completing 15.4 years of education, F(3, 524) = 8.7; p <

.01, and 62.2% reported having completed baccalaureate or graduate degrees, χ2 = 45.8; p < .01. A

higher percentage of Center Directors (33.3%) and teachers (13.3%) in the Northeast held graduate

degrees than in other mainland regions. Notably, however, although the sample of staff interviewed in

Puerto Rico was relatively small (3 Center Directors and 18 teachers), all Center Directors and all but one

Classroom Teacher in Puerto Rico had Bachelor degrees.

A high proportion of Center Directors and Classroom Teachers in the Midwest also held

academic degrees. Only 5.6% of Midwestern Center Directors held no college degree (the lowest nondegree percentage of any region), while 55.6% held Bachelor’s (equal to the percentage of Northeastern

CDs with such a degree) and 16.7% had completed graduate degrees. Among Classroom Teachers, over

two thirds held college degrees, with one third having completed Bachelor’s degrees and an additional

6.3% holding graduate degrees.

In contrast, over 40% of Center Directors in the South and West held no academic degree. Only

29.5% of CDs in the South held Bachelor’s degrees or higher and only 20.0% of CDs in the West had

obtained Bachelor’s degrees or higher (Exhibit 3-6). Among classroom staff, just over one third of

3 For this analysis, Puerto Rico was excluded because of the small sample of CDs in that sample. Note, however, that all Puerto

Rican CDs reported completion of a BA degree.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 210

teachers in the South (34.2%) had obtained any college degree. In contrast, the proportion of Classroom

Teachers who held CDAs was far higher in the South (71.8%) than in any other region of the nation

(Exhibit 3-7).

Exhibit 3-6

Center Director (excluding Administrative Teachers) Education by Region and

Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

North

east

(n = 9)

Midwest

(n = 18)

South

(n = 34)

West

(n = 25)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 3)

Rural

(n = 22)

Urban

(n = 67)

Average years of

education

16.4

(0.6)

15.8

(1.1)

14.8

(1.3)

14.7

(1.3)

16.0

(0.0)

14.7

(1.5)

15.3

(1.2)

% with no college

degree

11.1 5.6 41.2 40.0 0.0 45.5 23.9

% with Associate as

highest degree

0.0 22.2 29.4 40.0 0.0 22.7 28.4

% with Bachelor’s as

highest degree

55.6 55.6 17.7 12.0 100.0 22.7 32.8

% with Graduate

Degree

33.3 16.7 11.8 8.0 0.0 9.1 14.9

% with CDA 11.1 44.4 67.6 36.0 0.0 63.6 40.3

The pattern of regional PIR results is very consistent with the information reported by FACES

respondents. For the 1997-98 PIR, a larger proportion of Classroom Teachers in the Northeast (49.2%)

and Midwest (36.5%) were reported to have obtained academic degrees in early childhood education or

related fields than, in particular, Classroom Teachers in the South (20.4%). A far greater percentage

(64.2%) of Classroom Teachers in the South were reported to hold CDA credentials than teachers in other

regions (48% or fewer).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 211

Exhibit 3-7

Classroom Teacher (including Administrative Teachers) Education by Region

and Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

Northeast

(n = 45)

Midwest

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Average years of

education

15.4

(1.5)

14.7

(1.5)

13.8

(1.6)

14.3

(1.4)

16.0

(0.3)

14.1

(1.7)

14.5

(1.5)

% with no college

degree 24.4 33.1 65.8 46.7 0.0 56.9 42.8

% with Associate as

highest degree 13.3 27.5 19.8 36.9 5.6 17.0 27.9

% with Bachelor’s as

highest degree 48.9 33.1 12.9 15.6 94.4 22.9 25.5

% with graduate

degree 13.3 6.3 1.5 0.8 0.0 3.3 3.7

% with ECE degrees 53.4 34.5 23.8 34.4 94.4 28.5 36.3

% with CDA 40.0 43.0 71.8 32.0 94.4 45.8 51.1

1997-98 Head Start

Program Information

Reports

Northeast

(n = 368)

MidWest

(n = 455)

South

(n = 655)

West

(n = 337)

% with ECE degrees 49.2 36.5 20.4 28.9 -- -- --

% with CDA 31.1 48.0 64.2 29.4 -- -- --

For Family Service Workers (Exhibit 3-8), the pattern was somewhat different than for Center

Directors and Classroom Teachers. Again, all staff interviewed in Puerto Rico held college degrees: five

held Bachelor’s degrees and one held a graduate degree. Among the mainland regions, Midwestern

Family Service Workers reported having completed the greatest number of years of education (M = 15.1),

F(3, 140) = 9.8, p < .01, and the greatest percentage had obtained at least baccalaureate degrees, χ2 =

43.4, p < .01. Again, Family Service Worker staff employed by programs in the South reported a lower

level of education (M = 13.6 years) and a smaller proportion (25.4%) held academic degrees.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 212

Exhibit 3-8

Family Service Worker Education by Region and Urbanicity

Northeast

(n = 18)

Midwest

(n = 38)

South

(n = 55)

West

(n =27)

Puerto

Rico

(n =6)

Rural

(n =27)

Urban

(n =6)

Average years of education 14.3

(1.6)

15.1

(1.6)

13.6

(1.5)

14.3

(1.9)

16.3

(0.5)

14.0

(1.8)

14.5

(1.7)

% No college degree 61.1 29.0 74.6 48.2 0.0 57.5 50.5

% Associate as highest degree 5.6 21.1 10.9 22.2 0.0 14.9 14.4

% Bachelor’s as highest degree 33.3 44.7 12.7 29.6 83.3 27.7 30.9

% Graduate degree 0.0 5.3 1.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 4.1

Generally, educational differences between staff in rural and urban areas were not as striking,

although staff of urban programs tended to have completed more grades and hold more academic degrees.

For Center Directors, there were significant differences. Over three quarters (76.1%) of those employed

in urban programs reported holding degrees compared to only 54.5% of those working in rural areas, χ2

= 6.8; p < .01 (Exhibit 3-6). Similarly, 57.1% of Classroom Teachers in urban programs held at least

Associate degrees, while only 43.2% of rural teachers met that criterion, χ2 = 8.1; p < .01 (Exhibit 3-7).

No significant differences in educational level were observed for Family Service Workers.

3.4 Head Start-Sponsored Training for Staff

Head Start programs set aside time for staff training throughout the year. All interviewed staff

were asked about the types of training received, the utility of the training provided by Head Start, the total

number of hours of training they received, and, across a variety of topics, how those hours of training

were distributed. Exhibit 3-9 indicates the formats for staff training offered by Head Start as reported by

classroom staff. The most common format (96% reported participating “sometimes” or “often” in this

format) involved in-service training sessions or workshops conducted at the Head Start program. Such

training often occurred off-site as well, while actual classes or courses taught at an outside location

occurred less frequently. Less than half of the classroom staff reported use of a resource library made

available by the program, while ongoing feedback from supervisors was reportedly quite common.

Among the classroom staff, 66.4% rated the training they received from Head Start as “very helpful,” and

another 31.5% indicated it was “somewhat helpful.”
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 213

Exhibit 3-9

Training Formats Offered by Head Starta

Unweighted Percentages

(n = 529)

Training Format Offered Sometimes Offered Often

Training sessions and workshops on site 20.0 76.0

Training sessions and workshops at outside locations 44.4 43.6

Courses/classes at outside locations 28.8 36.0

Resource library made available by the program 21.6 24.8

Ongoing supervision and feedback by their supervisor 17.6 75.2

a Administrative Teacher and Classroom Teacher reports

For each staff position, responses to questions about hours of training varied substantially, from

less than 10 hours to greater than 400 hours. In order to provide stable and realistic estimates of the total

time for training and the proportions of that time devoted to specific topics, the top and bottom 5% of

each staff category were excluded from the results shown in Exhibits 3-10, 3-11 and 3-12 (as well as

Exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3 contained in Appendix C10).

Senior Head Start staff, as might be expected, reported the greatest numbers of training hours

during the previous 12 months (more than 100 hours, on average) while Classroom Teachers and Family

Service Workers reported an average of 69 and 73 hours of training, respectively, during the year. In

total, Center Directors reported receiving the largest amount of training (M = 140.6 hours).

Exhibit 3-10

Hours of Staff Training (during past 12 months) by Position

Means (Standard Deviations)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Reported hours of

training in past 12

months

128.3

(99.3)

104.9

(76.7)

133.0

(89.3)

121.7

(87.8)

73.1

(50.6)

140.6

(99.2)

103.0

(67.2)

68.6

(54.3)
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 214

By region, staff located in the West reported, on average, a greater total amount of training (M =

101.3 hours) than other mainland regions. In particular, Center Directors (M = 206.7 hours) in the West

reported the greatest amount of training. In turn, Classroom Teachers located in Puerto Rico reported

more hours of training (M = 121.5 hours) than Classroom Teachers in any mainland region (Exhibit 3-

11). Center Directors and Administrative Teachers in urban programs reported greater numbers of hours

of training than their rural counterparts.

Exhibit 3-11

Hours of Staff Training (during past 12 months) by Position, Region, and

Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

NortheastMidwest South WestPuerto

Rico Rural Urban

Center Directors (n = 89) 102.0

(91.0)

106.2

(75.2)

124.3

(81.9)

206.7

(115.6)

109.7

(93.9)

103.6

(71.4)

153.8

(104.7)

Administrative Teachers (n = 56) 96.9

(60.3)

89.0

(51.8)

113.4

(78.9)

92.5

(40.3) -- 89.5(45.1)

113.5

(79.7)

Classroom Teachers (n = 473) 66.1

(41.2)

58.3

(51.0)

60.9

(46.0)

83.5

(61.5)

121.5

(75.3)

70.8

(54.8)

67.7

(54.1)

Family Service Workers (n = 144) 61.2

(29.2)

77.4

(54.2)

71.2

(46.0)

83.2

(66.3)

45.2

(27.0)

78.1

(52.5)

70.7

(49.8)

Exhibit 3-12 provides a summary of the percentage of training reported by topic for staff in each

position. That is, each staff member reported hours of training received by topic, and the percentage of

training associated with each topic was computed by dividing those hours by the total hours of training

reported. Administration/program management and Head Start principles and practices received

considerable attention across all positions, ranging from a total of 22.9% for Education Coordinators to

14.5% for Health Coordinators. As might be expected, the remaining topics varied by staff position.

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, Administrative Teachers, and Classroom Teachers each

reported receiving over 22% of their training in the areas of child development and educational

programming. Social Service Coordinators received 8.5% of their training in the area of case

management services to families and another 8.0% on child abuse and neglect. Parent Involvement

Coordinators received 12.8% of their training in the area of involving parents in program activities and

another 7.0% on case management services to families. Health Coordinators received a significant

amount of training in the areas of children’s health issues (12.8%) and family health issues (11.8%).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 215

Finally, Family Service Workers reported receiving 8.6% of their training on services for children with

special needs and an additional 7.7% in the area of substance abuse.

Exhibit 3-12

Staff Training by Position

Unweighted Percentages of Total Training Received

Area of Training EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 73)

Child development 14.8a 5.6 6.3 7.2 7.1 15.0 16.3 12.2

Educational programming 9.8 4.2 3.8 2.9 4.3 7.3 10.9 10.0

Child assessment and

evaluation 4.5 1.4 1.4 4.6 3.7 4.6 6.4 7.1

Children’s health Issues 3.7 4.1 3.9 12.8 5.3 4.1 5.6 6.6

Family health issues 4.1 5.8 7.3 11.8 3.5 6.2 7.6 5.4

Mental health issues 5.7 6.2 3.4 6.1 3.8 4.0 4.5 4.8

Bilingual education 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.0

Multi cultural sensitivity 4.0 4.1 1.8 4.1 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.8

Domestic violence 1.6 5.0 3.6 3.7 6.6 3.2 2.5 3.2

Child abuse and neglect 3.8 8.0 4.2 4.2 3.4 4.0 5.6 6.1

Substance abuse 1.1 3.5 3.6 2.3 7.7 2.6 1.8 3.0

Family Needs Assessment 0.7 4.6 5.7 1.8 4.2 2.5 1.8 3.0

Services for children with

special needs 5.2 2.8 2.6 6.7 8.6 5.8 4.2 5.4

Case management

services to families 0.6 8.5 7.0 2.7 6.0 3.0 1.3 2.0

Working with other

agencies 3.2 5.6 4.2 3.2 4.9 3.0 2.3 2.3

Involving parents in

program activities 5.1 4.8 12.8 2.3 3.7 5.1 6.6 5.6

Behavior management 3.6 2.0 1.7 4.4 1.0 3.4 5.7 5.3

Providing supervision to

staff 7.2 5.4 3.9 4.8 2.0 6.3 3.7 2.5

Administration/ program

management 12.2 7.4 7.2 5.6 8.0 7.2 5.0 3.9

Head start principles and

practices 10.7 9.3 13.5 8.9 10.7 7.9 10.4 11.0

aBoldface indicates percentages greater than or equal to 7 %.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 216

3.5 Characteristics of Head Start Employment

Head Start staff provided information about the characteristics of their employment, including

salary (provided by each program office for Center Directors, Administrative Teachers, and Classroom

Teachers; Family Service Workers provided the information during their interview), benefits, children

attending (past and present), job constraints, and reasons for continuing employment at Head Start.

Not surprisingly, Head Start staff salaries were relatively low when considering their

responsibilities. Even Center Directors (M = $26,055) and Administrative Teachers (M = $21,280)

earned less than $30,000 annually; Classroom Teachers (M = $17,322) and Family Service Workers (M =

$17,310) were paid less than $20,000 yearly. Combining Administrative Teacher and Classroom Teacher

data, the FACES classroom staff was reported to have an average annual income of $17,734. For

Classroom Teachers, these results were close to those calculated from the 1997-98 PIR, where teachers

were reported to earn an average income of $18,124. Furthermore, the regional patterns found in FACES

data were replicated in the PIR. That is, salaries were highest in the Northeast and Midwest, somewhat

lower in the West, and far lower in the South. Although Puerto Rico data were based on only small

samples, reported salaries there were far lower than even in the Southern region of the mainland United

States.

Exhibit 3-13

Reported Staff Salaries by Position, Region, and Urbanicity

Means (Standard Deviations)

NortheastMidwest South WestPuerto

Rico Rural Urban

Center Directors (n = 89) $29,511

(10,238)

$28,114

(9,712)

$23,485

(8,692)

$27,633

(8,923)

$19,321

(6,774)

$23,250

(7,935)

$28,862

(9,623)

Administrative Teachers

(n = 56)

$22,924

(7,238)

$24,043

(8,423)

$19,433

(6,481)

$20,407

(6,420) -- $21,834

(7,429)

$25,352

(8,838)

Classroom Teachers n = 473) $19,371

(7,170)

$17,531

(6,971)

$16,692

(5,967)

$17,925

(6,392)

$14,028

(5,118)

$15,801

(5,735)

$20,394

(8,429)

Classroom Teachers (PIR) $20,508

(7,350)

$18,327

(6,914)

$16,802

(6,914)

$17,857

(5,650) -- -- --

Family Service Workers

(n = 144)

$19,684

(6,159)

$18,691

(4,655)

$15,256

(3,499)

$19,135

(4,770)

$12,955

(991)

$14,785

(4,413)

$18,572

(4,567)
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 217

Head Start staff in all positions reported that they received a substantial benefits package. Over

80% of all staff reported receiving paid vacation, paid sick leave, maternity leave, family leave, health

insurance, dental insurance, tuition reimbursement, and a retirement plan (Exhibit 3-14). In addition,

significant numbers of Head Start staff (42.4% of all staff interviewed) have been or currently are Head

Start parents.

Exhibit 3-14

Reported Benefits by Position

Unweighted Percentages

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSWa

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Paid vacation 86.8 87.5 89.5 100.0 -- 84.1 75.8 83.2

Paid sick leave 100.0 92.7 100.0 100.0 -- 94.5 97.3 94.0

Maternity leave 94.4 88.6 80.7 88.7 -- 85.6 73.4 70.5

Family leave 91.2 86.5 75.0 90.9 -- 83.2 70.3 71.9

Health insurance 100.0 95.1 100.0 100.0 -- 97.9 98.2 97.0

Dental insurance 86.8 75.6 80.6 82.9 -- 78.5 73.5 76.4

Tuition reimbursement 60.5 46.3 51.5 52.8 -- 63.4 75.3 77.1

Retirement plan 92.1 90.2 86.8 91.4 -- 93.1 81.2 86.0

Children currently

attending Head Start 5.4 10.0 10.5 0.0 5.6 4.1 4.5 4.8

Children previously

attended Head Start 16.2 40.0 32.4 34.3 51.7 44.4 35.7 33.1

a Family Service Worker interviews did not include questions on benefits received.

Over 90% of all staff reported receiving paid sick leave and health insurance. Surprisingly,

supervisory staff reported receiving each of the remaining benefits mentioned in only slightly greater

percentages than other staff. For example, almost 90% of staff in all categories reported participation in a

retirement plan. In fact, a greater percentage of classroom staff (both Administrative Teachers and

Classroom Teachers) reported the availability of tuition reimbursement benefits than Center Directors,
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 218

Coordinators, or Family Service Workers. Greater than 70% of Head Start staff in all positions reported

receiving dental insurance, family leave, and maternity leave.

On average, staff was paid for approximately 40 hours per week and worked 4 to 8 additional

hours each week (Exhibit 3-15). In general, Component Coordinators and Center Directors reported

greater amounts of unpaid overtime (ranging between a mean of 5.1 hours for Health Coordinators to a

mean of 8.3 hours for Social Service Coordinators). Among the Coordinators, those responsible for

family services and coordination of family activities spent more of their time in direct contact with

families (36.7% of their time at work for Parent Involvement Coordinators and 31.1% for Social Service

Coordinators). Center Directors and Classroom Teachers were typically paid for approximately 40 weeks

each year while component coordinators were paid for an average of approximately 48 weeks per year.

Over 80% of all staff interviewed reported that they were “very likely” to continue working for

Head Start over the following year and two thirds indicated that they were “very satisfied” working in the

field of early childhood. While a significantly lower proportion of staff (46.4%) reported that they were

“very satisfied” with their current employment, less than 5% indicated that they were actually

“dissatisfied” with their job.

Exhibit 3-15

Reported Work Hours and Overall Job Satisfaction by Staff Position

Means (Standard Deviations)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW a

(n = 144)

CDa

(n = 89)

ATa

(n = 56)

CTa

(n = 473)

Paid work hours/week 39.4

(1.6)

39.0

(3.5)

39.8

(2.3)

38.1

(5.2)

38.1

(3.5)

39.0

(2.2)

38.7

(2.6)

37.8

(3.9)

Actual work

hours/week

47.3

(5.6)

47.3

(8.0)

47.1

(6.0)

43.2

(8.0)

42.0

(7.0)

45.1

(6.7)

43.4

(5.5)

42.8

(9.2)

Paid work weeks/year 48.0

(4.8)

46.6

(7.8)

48.7

(4.2)

47.9

(5.0)

39.8

(3.2)

41.4

(5.6)

39.6

(4.9)

39.2

(5.4)

Hours working directly

with families

7.1

(9.1)

14.7

(13.2)

17.3

(12.7)

11.8

(10.9) -- -- -- --
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 219

Job Satisfaction Unweighted Percentages

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW a

(n = 144)

CDa

(n = 89)

ATa

(n = 56)

CTa

(n = 473)

% Very satisfied with

current position 39.5 48.6 56.4 46.3 34.3 46.9 49.0 49.3

% Very satisfied

working in ECE 86.5 70.6 69.2 70.6 65.7 84.8 82.5 81.6

% Very likely to

continue in HS during

following year

92.1 85.7 97.3 85.6 80.4 88.9 85.0 82.9

a Family Service Worker, Center Director, Administrative Teacher, and Classroom Teacher interviews did not include a question

on hours directly working with families.

Exhibit 3-16 suggests some possible reasons that staff were somewhat less satisfied with their

current position than they were with the field in which they were employed. Over 60% of all staff

interviewed felt they received an insufficient salary and over 50% felt the press of time constraints in

performing their duties adequately. Almost 40% of all Component Coordinators reported that the

program had a lack of support staff, and more than 30% of those same individuals (along with Family

Service Workers) indicated that their roles should be more clearly defined. Not surprisingly, staff

responsible for providing direct services to children were more likely to feel that there were adequate

support staff and that their roles were sufficiently well defined.

Exhibit 3-16

Reported Barriers to Job Performance by Staff Position

Unweighted Percentages

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Time constraints 78.9 77.1 74.4 74.4 66.4 54.9 52.5 53.2

Undefined role 42.1 34.3 30.8 32.5 35.7 20.1 20.4 20.7

Insufficient salary 47.4 57.1 64.1 65.0 56.6 64.6 60.8 57.6

Lack of support staff 34.2 37.1 46.2 45.0 32.9 27.1 26.6 29.1

Not enough training

for other

responsibilities

21.1 29.4 30.8 23.1 28.8 22.9 12.6 10.8
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 220

However, staff endorsed a relatively large number of positive reasons for continuing to work for

Head Start (Exhibit 3-17). Across all positions, they agreed almost unanimously that the importance of

the work and their enjoyment of working with young children were positive factors. With the exception

of Family Service Workers, over 90% cited professional respect, the opportunity to use their experience

in child development, and the opportunity to work with other adults as positive factors for continuing to

work in their current positions. Salary and benefits were endorsed far less frequently, and only a small

proportion of staff indicated that the opportunity to have their own children at work was a reason for

remaining at Head Start.

Exhibit 3-17

Reported Reasons for Continuing Head Start Employment by Position

(Percentage Reporting Item as “Important”)

Unweighted Percentages

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Job security 72.9 63.4 92.1 80.0 78.9 87.5 77.9 80.5

Enjoyment of working

with young children

100.0 100.0 89.5 91.2 88.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Professional respect 91.9 92.7 94.7 88.6 68.5 90.3 94.5 97.1

Salary 63.2 56.1 55.3 60.0 55.9 60.0 56.3 54.7

Benefits 68.4 73.2 79.0 71.4 72.7 80.7 84.3 86.6

Ability to have own

children at work

13.2 12.5 13.2 17.1 17.6 29.7 27.5 29.3

Favorable work

schedule

57.9 84.6 65.8 65.7 59.4 86.2 86.4 86.6

Favorable working

conditions

68.4 80.0 89.5 74.3 74.8 93.1 93.4 93.7

Opportunity to work

with other adults

97.4 92.5 100.0 94.3 76.9 95.9 93.5 91.9

Opportunity to use

experience in child

development

97.4 92.5 89.5 82.9 77.6 100.0 98.0 98.5

Importance of the

work with young

children

100.0 100.0 97.3 100.0 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 221

Unweighted Percentages

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

FSW

(n = 144)

CD

(n = 89)

AT

(n = 56)

CT

(n = 473)

Opportunity to

implement beliefs

about child care

86.8 67.5 81.6 74.3 -- a 80.5 83.5 86.0

Opportunities for

professional growth

73.7 47.5 73.7 65.7 60.8 80.7 87.2 85.2

a This item not included in Family Service Worker interview.

3.6 Summary

Chapter 3 presented information about Head Start staff’s experiences with their current Head

Start programs, other Head Start programs and other early childhood programs, their educational

background, and their recent training. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Staff Experience

• Head Start staff in all positions4 reported extensive experience with early childhood programs. On

average, Component Coordinators, Center Directors and Administrative Teachers had over 15

years experience in early childhood education, while Classroom Teachers and Family Service

Workers had been employed in their field for over 10 years;

• The average number of years of experience with Head Start reported by staff was

12.2 years for Component Coordinators,

14.3 years for Center Directors,

11.1 years for Administrative Teachers, and

9.3 years for Classroom Teachers.

• Center Directors reported that they had been in their current Head Start position about 5 years on

average, while Administrative Teachers and Classroom Teachers had been in their current staff

positions for an average of approximately 6 years.

• Over 80% of Center Directors and Classroom Teachers had experience with other preschool

programs, adding about 5 years to their experience with Head Start.

• Over 40% of Head Start staff interviewed were currently parents of Head Start children or had

other children from their household attend Head Start at some time.

4 “In all positions” refers to Component Coordinators, Center Directors, Classroom Teachers (including those designated as

Administrative Teachers), and Family Service Workers
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 222

• Head Start experience varied by region. For each position, staff employed by programs in the

southern United States reported more experience in early childhood education and longer periods

of service with Head Start.

• Experience did not systematically vary between urban and rural programs except for the Family

Service Worker position, where staff in rural areas reported far more experience than staff in

urban areas.

Staff Education

• Head Start Component Coordinators and Center Directors had more years of education and had

earned more academic degrees than classroom staff.

• More than 50% of the Component Coordinators had at least a 4-year degree, including Bachelor’s

or Master’s degrees; a higher percentage of Education Coordinators had obtained graduate

degrees (42%) than coordinators in the other areas (3-16%).

• Most Head Start Center Directors (70.8%) had a college degree; about 30% had a Bachelor’s

degree and about 14% had a graduate degree;

• Head Start Classroom Teachers reported completing an average of 14.3 years of schooling.

• Almost all teachers had some college education. Nearly 40% of Classroom Teachers and a third

of Administrative Teachers had 1-2 years of college; 37% of Classroom Teachers and 23% of

Administrative Teachers had 3-4 years of college.

• Over 90% of Center Directors and 75% of Classroom Teachers with degrees at the AA level or

higher majored in early childhood education, secondary education, special education, or general

education.

• Center Directors and Classroom Teachers employed by Head Start programs in Puerto Rico

reported high levels of education relative to the mainland. All staff reported that they had a

college degree, and virtually all (95.2%) had completed their baccalaureate program.

• The patterns of education reported during interviews closely matched information drawn from the

Head Start Program Information Report (PIR).

Staff Training

• Component Coordinators and Center Directors participated in more training than classroom staff.

Component Coordinators and Center Directors reported that they had participated, on average, in

approximately 105 - 140 hours of training per year that was provided by their Head Start

program. Center Directors, Education Coordinators, and Parent Involvement Coordinators

reported the highest number of training hours received.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 223

• Administrative Teachers (those with administrative as well as classroom duties) reported about

100 hours, compared with Classroom Teachers who reported about 70 hours of training.

• Approximately 30% of training hours provided for Classroom Teachers (almost 30 hours per

year) were devoted to (1) child development, (2) child assessment or evaluation, and (3)

educational programming and management.

• Center Directors received more training hours from Head Start programs located in urban areas

and from those located in the West. Classroom staff reported similar amounts of training in all

regions of the nation.

Staff Salaries

• Annual salaries reported for Center Directors averaged $26,055; Administrative Teachers were

reported to have an annual income of $21,280 and Classroom Teachers received on average,

$17,322; Family Service Workers reported an average annual salary of $17,310.

• Salaries in the Northeast and Midwest were somewhat higher than national averages, while those

in the South were below the rest of the nation.

• Salaries reported by all categories of Head Start staff in Puerto Rico were far below those

reported for any mainland region despite high levels of staff education.

Staff Benefits

• More than 90% of Head Start staff in all positions reported receiving paid sick leave and health

insurance benefits.

• More than 80% of Head Start staff in all positions reported receiving paid vacation (except for

Administrative Teachers), and had a retirement plan available to them.

• Greater than 70% of Head Start staff in all positions reported receiving dental insurance, family

leave, and maternity leave.

• More than one half of Head Start staff in all positions, except Social Service Coordinators,

reported the availability of tuition reimbursement.

Staff Work Hours

• Head Start staff in all positions were paid for between 35 to 40 hours weekly, and respondents for

all positions reported contributing an average of 5-8 additional hours.

• Center Directors and Classroom Teachers were typically paid for approximately 40 weeks each

year while component coordinators were paid for an average of approximately 48 weeks per year.

Staff Job Satisfaction

• Staff reported high levels of satisfaction with their employment in the field of early childhood,

although satisfaction with their Head Start position was lower.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Staff Background Characteristics 224

• More than 80% of all staff respondents indicated that they were very likely to return to Head Start

in the following year.

• A majority of all Head Start staff indicated that time constraints and insufficient salaries were a

concern.

Reasons for Continuing Employment

• Staff in all positions overwhelmingly indicated that the importance and enjoyment of working

with young children were primary reasons to continue working with Head Start.

• Greater than 80% of staff in all positions cited favorable working conditions (except for

Education Coordinators), professional respect, and the opportunity to work with other adults as

important reasons to continue working for Head Start (both with the exception of Family Service

Workers).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 225

4.0 Head Start Services and Activities

4.1 Introduction

The Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate a comprehensive set of services for

enrolled children and families across the areas of Early Childhood Development and Health Services,

Family and Community Partnerships, and Program Design and Management. Head Start staff

interviewed for FACES provided in-depth information about the types and amounts of services provided

through each program component. In addition, the interviews provided information about the main

benefits of those services, barriers to receiving full benefits of services, staff goals for families and

children, and perceived success in meeting those goals. This chapter consists of six sections:

• Section 4.2 contains a description of the educational curricula employed in classrooms,

information about the development and implementation of the educational program, and

the types and frequencies of activities that occurred in Head Start classrooms.

• Section 4.4 provides information about the variety of staff contacts with parents and

families through orientation meetings, parent meetings and workshops, parent volunteers

in the classroom and other aspects of the program, and male involvement efforts. Finally,

staff perceptions regarding barriers to full parent participation in Head Start are reported.

• Section 4.6 contains Social Service Coordinator and Family Service Worker descriptions

of risk factors frequently observed in Head Start families and the activities and services

provided by the program to address families’ needs and problems.

• Section 4.8 provides information about health needs and health services that are observed

by Health Coordinators and other Head Start staff in the children and families served by

the program.

• Section 4.10 contains center-level analyses of relationships among the information

collected separately from Head Start staff and parents. This section reports the

associations among 1) staff and program characteristics reported by staff, 2) parentreported family demographics, and 3) parent-reported measures of (a) program

involvement, (b) satisfaction with the Head Start program and (c) fall 1997 to spring

1998 changes in family-child activities.

• Section 4.12 contains the results of discussions completed with Head Start Program

Directors in spring 1998 regarding the impact on the program related to implementation

of revised Head Start Program Performance Standards in January 1998, and the effects of

changes in public assistance laws on the program and the families served.

• Finally, Section 4.13 presents a summary of staff responses when they were asked how

the program could be improved.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 226

4.2 The Head Start Education Component

The Head Start educational program was, at the time data collection began, organized under the

direction of an Education Coordinator, and included classroom teachers, teacher aides, educational and

behavioral assessment staff, trainers, consultants, and clerical staff. The Coordinators for the 40 programs

in Head Start FACES reported a total of 2,170 staff (an average of over 54 staff per program; range 6 to

186) under their direction. The Education Coordinators were responsible for management of the inservice training program for classroom staff. Exhibit 4-1 contains ratings of the relative importance of inservice training topics. As shown, general child development (62.5%), classroom management strategies

(47.5%), and curriculum materials and teaching strategy (37.5%) were considered to be the most

important topics for the training of classroom staff. In the next priority rank, methods for involving

parents in the classroom when they were present as volunteers or observers (35.0%), training classroom

staff to accurately observe (27.5%) and assess (25.0%) children’s behavior and progress, and

communications with parents (25.0%) were also considered important.

Exhibit 4-1

Priorities for In-Service Training of Head Start Classroom Staff as Reported by

Education Coordinators

In-Service Training Topics

Percentage of Education

Coordinators Indicating Topic is

One of Top Three Priorities

(n = 40)

General child development/early childhood education 62.5

Classroom management strategies 47.5

Curriculum materials/teaching strategies 37.5

Involving parents in the classroom 35.0

Observation of child behavior 27.5

Assessment of child progress 25.0

Communications with parents about child’s progress or problems 25.0

Team teaching principles 20.0

Supervision of classroom workers (aides, parent volunteers) 10.0

Observation/reporting of child abuse/neglect 2.5

Education Coordinators reported a variety of means that were employed by education staff in the

development of an understanding of the instructional needs of Head Start children. These included

teacher observations and review of medical records (reported by 100% of Education Coordinators),

observations during home visits, parent-staff conferences (97.5% each), and, if needed, consultation with
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 227

medical or psychological consultants (90% of Education Coordinators). Where deemed necessary, an

Individual Education Plan (IEP) was prepared. Classroom Teachers reported that, on average, 13.8% (SD

= 13.0, range = 0 to 100%) of the children in their classrooms had a disability for which they received

services or had an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This percentage did not vary by region but teachers

employed by programs in rural areas reported a higher proportion (17.4%, SD = 17.3) of children in their

classrooms with IEPs than those in urban areas (12.4%, SD = 10.5), t = 3.31, p < .01. Education

Coordinators were also asked to indicate the top three disabilities that they had observed in the past year

(Exhibit 4-2). As shown, speech and language impairments were reported by all but one Education

Coordinator to be a concern that frequently results in the development and implementation of IEPs. In

addition, three quarters of the Education Coordinators reported that emotional and behavioral disorders

were one of the top three problems resulting in preparation of IEPs.

Exhibit 4-2

Most Frequent Educational Problems Resulting in a Head Start Individualized

Education Plan as Reported by Education Coordinators

Disabilities of Children

Percentage of Education Coordinators Indicating

Disability as One of Top Three Problems

(n = 40)

Speech/language impairment 97.5

Emotional/behavioral disorder 75.0

Non-categorical developmental delay 47.5

Learning disabilities 37.5

Health impairments 32.5

Hearing impairments 7.5

Multiple disabilities 2.5

Home visits by education staff were reported by Education Coordinators to be required in each of

the 40 programs that participated in FACES. Thirty-three of the programs required a minimum of two

visits per program year, while the remainder required three or more visits by teachers and/or classroom

aides. As shown in Exhibit 4-3, two thirds of Education Coordinators (67.5%) reported that delivering

educational services to the Head Start children was the most important goal for the home visits involving

educational staff; parenting instruction was the next highest priority (30%).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 228

Exhibit 4-3

Most Important Goals for Home Visits by Educational Staff as Reported by

Education Coordinators

Goals for Home Visits Percentage of Education Coordinators

(n = 40)

Deliver educational services to Head Start children 67.5

Provide parenting instruction 30.0

Address health/nutritional needs of children 2.5

Provide educational services to other children in the household 2.5

Head Start Educational Curricula

The Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate a comprehensive program of

educational services emphasizing the importance of developmentally appropriate educational activities in

the classroom. The program does not prescribe a single specific curriculum or set of activities for

enrolled children. This approach allows the maximum flexibility for local Head Start staff to select

preschool education approaches that they believe are most beneficial for the children and families that

they serve. There was significant agreement among Education Coordinators (92.5%), Center Directors1

(94.3%), and Classroom Teachers (93.0%) that a specific curriculum or combinations of curricula were

used in their program. As Exhibit 4-4 indicates, the most popular curriculum was High Scope, followed

by The Creative Curriculum. In about 10-15% of programs, centers, and classrooms, staff indicated that a

statewide Head Start curriculum was employed. In total, over 90 different educational programs for preschool children were identified, many of which covered only one or two educational content areas and

might, therefore, not be considered as “true” curricula (that is, comprehensive programs providing

activities and materials covering a variety of educational content areas through a consistent educational

approach) but rather as categorical education packages. Other than those mentioned above, no other

specific curricula were identified by more than 3% of the staff in any of the positions interviewed.

1 In some cases, a Classroom Teacher also served some of the administrative functions of a Center Director when a Center

Director was not available. Within this report, such teachers are referred to as Administrative Teachers (AT).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 229

Exhibit 4-4

Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Identified by Head Start Staff

Unweighted Percentages

Education

Coordinators

(n = 38)

Center Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 529)

High Scope 44.7 41.7 37.1

The Creative Curriculum 26.3 24.6 19.5

A statewide Head Start curriculum 13.2 11.2 13.9

Othera 10.5 16.8 22.5

Noneb 5.3 5.7 7.0 a “Other” refers to programs, centers, or classrooms where staff did identify a curriculum or curricula other than High Scope, The

Creative Curriculum, or a statewide Head Start curriculum

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

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers reported the components of

the curricula they employed in their programs, centers and classrooms. These included having a formal

written plan consisting of goals for children’s learning and development, specification of activities for

children, suggestions for teaching strategies and teaching materials, and providing ways to involve

parents in their children’s activities. As shown in Exhibit 4-5, Head Start staff consistently reported their

current curricula generally included all elements of sound educational practice and met the requirements

of the Head Start Program Performance Standards. With one exception, over 85% of all staff agreed that

all curriculum elements were present. Only about 75% of Education Coordinators and Classroom

Teachers reported that their curricula provided specific activities for children.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 230

Exhibit 4-5

Elements of the Curricula Employed in Head Start Programs as Specified by Head

Start Staffa

Unweighted Percentages

Education

Coordinators

(n = 36)

Center

Directors

(n = 84)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 492)

Curriculum was a formal, written plan 83.3 88.1 87.4

Contained goals for children’s learning and development 88.9 96.5 87.8

Specified activities for children 75.0 88.1 74.4

Provided suggested teaching strategies 94.4 94.1 94.1

Included suggested teaching materials 91.7 95.2 92.5

Included ways to involve parents in their child’s activities 88.9 94.0 87.2 a Including only staff who identified a curriculum for their program, center, or classrooms

Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers each reported on who was

responsible for developing the day-to-day instructional plans for children and for the preparation of

teaching materials. These staff indicated that, for between 60-70% of programs, centers, and classrooms,

the day-to-day instructional responsibilities were with the classroom teaching staff (Exhibit 4-6). For

approximately 15-20% of programs and centers, the Center Directors were reported to be responsible for

such plans (a slightly lower percentage of Center Director responsibility was reported by Classroom

Teachers), and the remaining responsibilities were assigned to program administrators.

Exhibit 4-6

Head Start Staff Responsible for Day-to-Day Instructional Plans for Children (As

Reported by Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers)

Unweighted Percentages

Education

Coordinators

(n = 38)

Center Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 529)

Individual Teachers 60.5 61.5 70.8

Center Directors 15.8 22.4 13.4

Program Administrators 18.4 14.0 14.8
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 231

Between 45 and 55% of respondents in each category reported that local Head Start staff were

responsible for preparing teaching materials (Exhibit 4-7). In this case, all respondents agreed that the

curriculum developer was responsible for the materials in 40-48% of classrooms. In keeping with the

Head Start philosophy of decentralized educational programming, less than 10% of respondents indicated

that they employed materials prepared by Head Start staff beyond the program level.

Exhibit 4-7

Head Start Staff Responsible for Preparation of Teaching Materials (As Reported

by Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers)

Unweighted Percentages

Education

Coordinators

(n = 38)

Center

Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 529)

Local Head Start staff 44.7 51.1 54.5

Curriculum developer 47.4 42.0 41.7

State, regional, or national Head Start Administrators 7.9 2.8 3.8

Notably, in the case of both responsibility for instructional planning and preparation of

educational materials, a slight association between the identity of the respondent and the response may be

observed. For example, Classroom Teachers were more likely to report that they were responsible for

instructional planning and preparation of materials than were Education Coordinators and Center

Directors. In turn, Center Directors were more likely to report that they were responsible for day-to-day

educational activities than Education Coordinators and Classroom Teachers, and Education Coordinators

were slightly more likely to assume responsibility for both instructional activity and materials than

profiled in reports from the other staff. Despite these minor differences, the staff involved in choosing

and planning the educational program for children were in substantial agreement regarding their

responsibilities.

Significant differences were observed in regional patterns related to responsibilities for preparing

educational plans and materials (Exhibit 4-8). Classroom Teachers in the South, χ

2 = 37.8, p < .01, and in

rural areas, χ

2 = 21.3, p < .01, were less likely to report that they were responsible for preparing day-today educational plans than teachers in other areas. As well, Classroom Teachers in both the South and

West were less likely to respond that they were responsible for preparing teaching materials than

teachers in the Northeast and Midwest, χ

2 = 17.5, p < .01.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 232

Exhibit 4-8

Classroom Staff Responsibility for Day-to-Day Instructional Activities as

Reported by Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

North

East

(n = 45)

Midwest

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Individual teachers

make most of the

decisions about

instructional plans for

children

72.7 83.3 55.3 79.2 94.4 58.7 76.2

Teaching materials

are created by local

Head Start staff

64.4 68.1 44.7 47.1 94.4 51.7 56.0

Activities in Head Start Classrooms

Head Start classroom staff provided a diverse set of activities for children each day. The Center

Directors and Classroom Teachers participating in FACES were asked to indicate how frequently a

variety of activities took place in their classrooms (from “not offered/never” to “daily or almost daily”).

Their responses to these items are shown in Exhibit 4-9. Center Directors and Classroom Teacher

responses were quite consistent across all the identified activities. Free play, reading stories, construction

activities, naming colors, visual arts, puzzle solving, number concepts or counting, outdoor physical

activities, performing arts, and health/hygiene were reported to be offered daily or almost daily in over

90% of the centers and classrooms. Classroom Teachers reported that their programs offered indoor

physical activities, science or nature slightly less often. Center Directors and Classroom Teachers agreed

that letters of the alphabet or words and computer time were far less frequently offered than other

academic activities. Finally, cooking activities, trips to the library and other field trips were offered only

occasionally.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 233

Exhibit 4-9

Frequencies of Classroom Activities reported by Center Directors and Classroom

Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

Classroom Activity Center Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom Teachers

(n = 529)

Not Offered/

Never

Daily or

Almost

Daily

Not

Offered/

Never

Daily or

Almost

Daily

Science or nature 0.0 100.0 0.0 83.2

Free play 0.0 98.9 0.0 95.8

Reading stories 0.0 98.9 0.0 96.0

Block building, other construction activity 0.0 98.9 0.0 97.1

Naming colors 0.0 96.6 0.8 88.7

Visual arts (i.e., drawing, painting) 0.0 96.5 0.0 95.6

Solving puzzles, playing with geometric forms 0.0 95.4 0.0 94.5

Number concepts or counting 0.0 94.3 0.8 92.2

Outdoor physical activities 0.0 94.2 0.2 92.8

Performing arts, music, dance 1.2 92.0 0.0 91.6

Indoor physical activities 0.0 90.7 0.2 89.9

Health and hygiene 0.0 90.0 0.3 93.0

Letters of the alphabet or words 16.3 65.1 9.5 68.8

Computer time 48.3 47.1 42.3 46.2

Cooking 2.3 24.1 4.3 18.3

Field trips (other than the library) 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.6

Trips to the library 14.1 0.0 24.0 0.6

Exhibits 4-10 and 4-11 provide a breakdown for teaching “letters of the alphabet or words” and

offering computer time by region and urbanicity. Approximately 15% of Center Directors and 10% of

teachers reported that letters of the alphabet or words were never taught in their classrooms. As shown,

Classroom Teachers in the Midwest reported that “letters of the alphabet or words” were offered daily or

almost daily more often in their classrooms than in other regions, χ

2 = 23.5, p < .01. Programs in Puerto

Rico were also less likely to teach letters of the alphabet or words in their daily activities (Exhibit 4-10).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 234

Exhibit 4-10

Frequencies of Teaching “Letters of the Alphabet or Words” by Region and

Urbanicity as Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

Teaching “Letters of the

Alphabet or Words”

North

East

(n = 45)

Mid

West

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Classroom Teachers

reported “never” 9.1 2.8 9.5 15.6 22.2 11.2 8.8

Center Directors

reported “never” 11.2 6.9 16.1 20.0 33.3 20.8 11.8

Classroom Teachers

reported “daily” 65.9 82.4 71.5 51.6 50.0 67.1 69.3

Center Directors

reported “daily”

66.7 82.8 64.5 52.0 33.3 66.7 64.5

Computer time, of course, was based to a large degree on whether or not computers were

available in the classrooms. Classroom Teacher responses indicated that slightly less than one half of

classrooms (47.6%) offered daily computer time while somewhat fewer (40.5%) never offered that

activity (Exhibit 4-11). Although computer time was offered slightly more often in the South and the

West by Classroom Teachers, the observed differences were not significant, nor were Center Directors’

reports for the frequency that computer time was offered in their centers. All of the staff in the FACES

programs in Puerto Rico reported that computer time was not offered to their children.

Exhibit 4-11

Frequencies of Having Computer Time for Children by Region and Urbanicity as

Reported by Directors and Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

Computer Time For

Children

Northeast

(n = 45)

Midwest

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Classroom Teachers

report “never” 53.3 50.0 39.0 27.1 100.0 33.6 46.1

Center Directors report

“never” 33.3 43.3 41.7 40.0 100.0 39.1 43.6

Classroom Teachers

report “daily” 40.0 41.4 51.3 51.6 0.0 55.7 42.1

Center Directors report

“daily” 44.4 50.0 53.3 52.0 0.0 58.7 48.9
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 235

On average, Classroom Teachers reported that children in their classrooms were read to

approximately 3.2 hours each week (SD = 2.3). As shown in Exhibit 4-12, the weekly amount of reading

reported by Classroom Teachers was higher in the South, F(3, 508) = 3.53; p < .01. In addition,

Classroom Teachers were asked to rate whether reading to children in the classroom was essential, very

important, somewhat important, or not important. Across all regions, 58.3% of Classroom Teachers rated

reading as essential. In contrast to results reported for the number of hours of reading that occurred in

classrooms, teachers in the South were less likely to rate classroom reading as essential than their

counterparts in other regions, the Northeast in particular, χ

2 = 14.9, p < .01.

Exhibit 4-12

Reading to Children by Region and Urbanicity as reported by Classroom Teachers

Means (Standard Deviations)/ Unweighted Percentages

Northeast

(n = 45)

Midwest

(n = 142)

South

(n = 202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n = 18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 376)

Weekly hours of

reading to children

3.2

(2.1)

3.2

(2.7)

3.7

(2.2)

2.7

(1.8)

3.6

(2.3)

3.3

(2.5)

3.2

(2.2)

Percentage rating

reading as essential 73.5 61.9 48.7 64.5 61.1 57.1 58.7

Head Start Benefits to Children

In an open-ended format, Classroom Teachers reported their opinions about the main benefits of

Head Start for enrolled children. Their coded responses are shown in Exhibit 4-13. The three largest

response categories were enhancement of children’s social skills (69.3%), improvement in school

readiness (57.6%), and improvement in children’s health (36.7%). It was also apparent that teachers

identified a far greater number and diversity of social benefits than academic or health benefits, although

some benefits mentioned, such as school readiness, could be interpreted as encompassing both academic

and social skills.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 236

Exhibit 4-13

Staff Opinions on Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to Children, as Reported

by Classroom Teachers

Comment Category

Percentage of All

Comments

(n = 529) Rank

Improved Social Relationships/Psychological Well Being

Enhancement of children’s social skills 69.3 1

Improvement in social interactions with adults 26.1 4

Improvement in self esteem, self confidence 10.1 6

Enhancement of child’s psychological development 6.8 8

Providing exposure to new experiences 6.2 9

Learning cooperation, sharing, problem solving, decision making 3.8 13

Learning discipline, responsibility, structure, routine 3.4 15

Learning independence, self help skills 3.2 16

Improved School Readiness/Academic Skills

Improvement in children’s school readiness 57.6 2

Improvement in language, verbal skills 3.6 14

Other Benefits

Improvement in children’s health 36.7 3

Enhancement of children’s motor skills 4.0 12

Improved environment for development

Provision of a safe haven from home/neighborhood 10.5 5

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

Exhibit 4-14 contains a summary of regional and urban/rural breakdowns for the three benefits

identified most frequently. Classroom Teachers located in the South, χ

2 = 31.9; p < .01, and those

located in rural areas, χ

2 = 13.3; p < .01, were far more likely to identify enhancement of social skills as a

main benefit of Head Start to children. Conversely, teachers in the Northeast and Midwest, χ

2 = 11.2, p <

.01, and in urban programs, χ

2 = 9.3; p < .01, were more likely to identify improvement in children’s

school readiness as a main benefit. No regional or urban/rural differences were observed for

improvements in children’s health.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 237

Exhibit 4-14

Staff Opinions about the Three Main Benefits that Head Start Provides to Children

by Region and Urbanicity, as Reported by Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

Comment Category

Northeast

(n = 45)

Midwest

(n = 142)

South

(n =202)

West

(n = 122)

Puerto

Rico

(n =18)

Rural

(n = 153)

Urban

(n = 373)

Enhancement of

children’s social skills 55.6 57.0 82.8 66.4 61.1 81.1 64.5

Improvement in

children’s school

readiness 73.2 64.5 51.0 54.9 55.6 47.7 61.7

Improvement in

children’s health 31.1 34.5 36.6 36.9 66.7 38.6 36.2

4.3 Summary

Section 4.2 provides a description of the Head Start educational component, including curricula

and classroom activities, and perceived benefits for children. The following is a summary of these

findings.

The Head Start Education Component

• The Head Start Education Component consists of a wide variety of staff, including an Education

Coordinator, child assessment specialists, trainers, and classroom staff, teachers, and teacher

aides.

• The top priorities for training teachers as identified by Education Coordinators were in the areas

of child development, classroom management, and teaching strategies.

• Speech and language impairments, emotional/behavioral disorders, and developmental delay

were the most frequent educational problems faced by Head Start educators.

• Home visits by educational staff were targeted towards providing educational services for the

children and parenting instruction for the adults in the home.

Curricula and Educational Programs

• Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers reported that a wide variety

of externally prepared curricula were employed in the classroom. The most popular were High

Scope and the Creative Curriculum, but over 90 different “curricula” were identified.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 238

• More than 80% of Education Coordinators, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers agreed that

the curricula employed in their classrooms were formal, written educational plans containing

goals for children’s learning and development, provided suggested teaching startegies, included

suggested teaching materials, and included ways to involve parents in their children’s activities.

• More than 60% of Education Coordinators and Center Directors, and 70% of Classroom

Teachers, indicated that individual teachers were responsible for day-to-day instructional plans

for children. Staff indicated that daily activities in the remaining classrooms were specified by

Center Directors (as reported by 13-22% of staff) and Program Administrators (reported by 14-

18% of staff).

• Over 40% of Education Coordinators and 50% of Center Directors and Classroom Teachers

indicated that local Head Start programs were responsible for preparation of instructional

materials for children. The same staff in less than 10% of programs indicated that teaching

materials were provided by state, regional, or national administrators.

• Staff in the South and in rural programs was less likely than staff in other regions and urban

programs to report that individual teachers had responsibility for day-to-day instructional plans

for children.

Activities in Head Start Classrooms

• Head Start Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that children were offered a wide

variety of educational and social activities on a daily or almost daily basis. Almost all staff

reported that they taught number concepts, colors, and read stories to the children in their

classrooms daily or almost daily. Children also engaged in block building, free play, and indoor

and outdoor physical activities daily or almost daily.

• Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that they taught letters of the alphabet and

provided computer time in their classrooms much less frequently than other academic activities.

Approximately 15% of Center Directors and 10% of teachers reported that letters of the alphabet

or words were never taught in their classrooms. Center Directors and Classroom Teachers in

programs in the West and in Puerto Rico were less likely to teach letters of the alphabet or words

in their daily activities.

• Center Directors and Classroom Teachers responsible for just under one half of the FACES

classrooms reported that computer time was provided to children on a daily basis; between 42-

48% reported that computer time was not offered to children. All staff in the FACES programs in

Puerto Rico reported that computer time was not offered to their children.

• Classroom teachers in the South reported more time for reading to children in their classrooms,

but were less likely to rate reading as “essential” than teachers in other regions.

Benefits of Head Start for Children

• Classroom Teachers reported that the most frequently observed benefits to children were

enhancement of children’s social skills, improvement in school readiness skills, and improvement

in children’s health.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 239

• Classroom Teachers in the South and in rural programs were more likely to identify enhancement

of social skills as a main benefit of Head Start, while teachers in the North and Midwest and from

urban programs were more likely to identify school readiness as a main benefit of Head Start.

4.4 Interaction of Head Start Staff and Parents

The following sections are concerned with Head Start staff efforts to involve parents of enrolled

children in program activities. Head Start center staff met with parents regularly when children arrived

and left, at scheduled parent meetings, workshops, and during home visits. Parents were asked to

volunteer their time in the classroom and in other center functions. Program staff interviews provided a

significant amount of information about these activities as well as two additional topics: 1) efforts to

increase the involvement of males in program activities, and 2) staff perceptions regarding barriers to

parent involvement in program activities.

The Head Start Parent Involvement Component

The Head Start parent activities and involvement program was, at the time data collection began,

organized under the direction of a Parent Involvement Coordinator (PIC), and often included parent

volunteer managers, center activities coordinators, home visitors, trainers, consultants, and clerical staff.

The coordinators for the 40 programs in FACES reported a total of 452 staff (an average of 11.3 staff per

program; range 1 to 42) under their direction. The Parent Involvement Coordinator was usually

responsible for management of the parent orientation, coordination of the Parent Policy Council and

parent committees, management of parent volunteers, and conducting parent and family workshops and

activities, including social gatherings.

The Parent Involvement Coordinator, Center Directors, and Classroom Teachers each had goals

for what they wished to accomplish with parents (Exhibit 4-15). Most importantly, the program staff

wished to teach parents about child development and parenting. Approximately 40% of both Center

Directors and Classroom Teachers listed that goal as their most important. The second most frequently

selected goal, to inform parents about their own children’s development, was identified by almost 25% of

Center Directors and Classroom Teachers. No more than 8% of Classroom Teachers or 15% of Center

Directors identified other goals as their most important.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 240

Exhibit 4-15

Most Important Goals for Parents as Ranked by Center Directors, Classroom

Teachers, and Component Coordinators

Unweighted Percentages

Goals for Parents *CD

n = 89

*CT

(n = 527)

*EC

(n = 38)

*SSC

(n = 39)

*PIC

(n = 38)

*HC

(n = 40)

Teach parents about child

development/parenting 39.3 41.6 47.4 5.9 26.3 20.0

Inform parents about their own child’s

development 22.7 25.9 15.8 0.0 0.0 7.5

Help parents become economically self -

sufficient through education and

employment

14.5 6.8 13.2 41.2 31.6 12.5

Help parents identify their personal goals

and ways to achieve them

8.2 5.5 10.5 20.6 15.8 12.5

Explain Head Start principles and

practices to parents

4.1 7.2 5.3 0.0 2.6 2.5

Help parents develop a social support

network of other parents and families

3.4 1.8 0.0 5.9 13.2 0.0

Have parents participate in policy and

program decisions

2.8 1.7 2.6 20.6 2.6 0.0

Teach parents about health and nutrition 1.4 2.3 2.6 0.0 7.9 0.0

Help parents improve their literacy skills 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 45.0

Have parents plan and organize events

and activities

0.0 0.4 2.6 2.9 0.0 0.0

*CD = Center Director

CT = Classroom Teacher (includes Administrative Teachers)

EC = Education Coordinator

SSC = Social Service Coordinator

PIC = Parent Involvement Coordinator

HC = Health Coordinator

Head Start Meetings and Workshops

For most Head Start parents, their introduction to the program was through the recruitment

process and the orientation meetings following their children’s enrollment. The primary responsibility for

the orientation meeting lay with the Center Director, and most meetings were reported to be wellattended. On average, 38.3% of Center Directors reported their orientation meetings to be attended by

almost all parents. An additional 30.2% estimated that about three quarters of all parents attended. Only
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 241

9.4% of Center Directors indicated that less than one quarter of all parents attended the parent orientation

meetings.

Center Directors also considered these meetings quite useful. More than one third considered the

meetings very productive; less than 10% reported that these meetings were not productive at all. Most

importantly, the meetings provided parents with an opportunity to obtain the basic information about what

to expect from Head Start and to express their own concerns. Exhibit 4-16 contains a summary of the

most frequent concerns expressed by parents at the orientation meetings. As shown, many of these items

were general requests for basic information or clarification of information about the program, such as

obtaining information about their children’s transportation (58.2% of Center Directors indicated that topic

was one of the three most frequent concerns during orientation meetings), the approach the program

would take towards school readiness and academic skills (50.3%), the curriculum content (43.4%), and

the hours of center operations (43.4%).

Exhibit 4-16

Parental Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings as Reported by Center

Directors

Parent Concerns Expressed at Orientation Meetings

Percentage Indicating Topic is One of Top Three

Concerns Expressed by Parents During Parent

Orientation Meetings

Center Directors/Administrative Teachers

(n = 139)

Transportation for children to and from center 58.2

School readiness and academic skills 50.3

Classroom curriculum content and methods 43.4

Hours of center operations 43.4

Disciplinary methods of teachers 19.3

Child care issues or availability 15.9

Opportunities for parent involvement 11.7

Confidentiality regarding family/child matters 7.6

Safety of facility 6.9

Staff/child ratio/supervision of children 6.2

Staff availability to parents 5.5

Transportation of parents to/from the center 4.8

Cultural sensitivity/awareness of staff/teachers 2.1
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 242

Parent meetings and workshops were held regularly (Exhibit 4-17). In over 50% of programs,

parenting education workshops were held at least monthly. Nearly as many programs reported holding

Adult Literacy/ESL/GED classes monthly or more often. Employment assistance workshops (reported by

34.5% of Center Directors to be held monthly) and support/self help groups (30.3%) were also held

relatively frequently. Not only were these meetings reported to be held most frequently, they were also

among the topics that were reported to have the highest attendance. Center Directors reported the greatest

attendance at the orientation (54.5% of Center Directors identified this meeting as one of the three most

well-attended). Other popular meetings were reported to be parenting (35.9%), adult literacy (25.5%),

child development (25.5%), and employment assistance (22.1%).

Exhibit 4-17

Frequency of Parent Activities/Workshops by Topic as Reported by Center Directors

Percentage of Parent Meeting Topics

Center Directors/Administrative Teachers

Parent Meeting Topics (n = 145)

Never

Once

a Year

2-5 Times

a Year

Monthly or

More Often

Orientation to Head Start principles and practices 0.0 63.0 28.8 8.2

Adult literacy/ESL/GED classes 21.3 6.8 22.6 49.3

Employment assistance workshops 19.3 13.8 32.4 34.5

Basic finance and budgeting skills workshops 31.1 31.7 26.9 10.3

Parenting education workshops 3.5 15.9 30.3 50.3

Health/nutrition workshops 6.2 27.1 46.0 24.8

Child growth, behavior and development workshops 8.35 18.6 50.3 22.8

Social activities for adults only 29.6 22.1 26.2 2.0

Support or self help groups 34.85 12.4 23.4 30.3

Family violence education 15.1 32.4 38.6 13.8

Center Staff Contacts with Parents

Exhibit 4-18 conveys that Classroom Teachers reported high rates of contact with families when

they dropped off or picked up their children (95.4% at least monthly), through notes sent to the home

(89.0% monthly), at general parent meetings (88.6%), and through phone calls home (72.9%). Less

frequently, classroom staff and parents met at parent/family workshops and during informal parent-staff

conferences (both types of contacts were reported occurring at least monthly by a majority of the

Classroom Teachers). One third of the Classroom Teachers (33.4%) reported monthly contact at

scheduled meetings with parents at the center, and about one in ten (9.6%) had contact through home
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 243

visits. Classroom Teachers in rural programs reported more frequent contact with parents at informal

parent-staff conferences and parent meetings, through notes sent home, and at home visits than did

Classroom Teachers in urban centers.

Exhibit 4-18

Types and Frequencies of Contacts with Parents Reported by Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

(n = 529)

Type of Contact Less Than

Twice a Year

2-6 Times

a Year

At Least

Monthly

When parents drop off or pick up their children 0.9 3.8 95.4

Through notes sent to the home 3.9 7.1 89.0

At general parent meetings 4.9 6.7 88.6

Through phone calls home 5.2 22.0 72.9

At Head Start parent/family activities and workshops 12.3 32.4 55.3

During informal parent-staff conferences 9.0 37.5 53.5

At scheduled meetings with individual parents at the center 5.3 61.3 33.4

During home visits 2.0 88.5 9.6

Classroom Teachers also reported attempts to encourage parents to become involved or at least to

spend time with other Head Start parents (Exhibit 4-19). Among these efforts, Classroom Teachers most

frequently encouraged parents to share their skills with others (54.0%), introduced parents or family

members to other adults at the center (41.7%), and encouraged veteran parents to orient new parents to

the center routines and activities (40.7%). Approximately 1 in 5 Center Teachers (18.2%) encouraged

parents to call other parents.

Exhibit 4-19

Activities to Promote Contacts among Parents Reported by Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

(n = 529)

Type of Activity Promoted Rarely or

Never Sometimes Frequently

Found out what skills parents have that could be shared 4.5 41.4 54.0

Introduced parents or family members 16.1 42.2 41.7

Encouraged veteran parents to orient newer parents 20.9 38.4 40.7

Encouraged parents or family members to call other parents 36.8 45.0 18.2
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 244

Use of Parent Volunteers in Head Start

Classroom Teachers reported that approximately three parents per week volunteered in their

classrooms, and that approximately 31% of these volunteers were male. About 30% of teachers indicated

that parents volunteered in the classroom every day; another 42% indicated that parents were present once

a week or more often. Before serving as a volunteer, parents were provided with an orientation that

included center or Head Start policies (as reported by 100% of the Parent Involvement Coordinators),

roles and responsibilities of volunteers (100%), organizational structure of Head Start (97.5%), and

information regarding parent volunteering that was contained in the Head Start Program Performance

Standards (95%). Exhibit 4-20 indicates how parent volunteers were typically used in Head Start

classrooms. For over 90% of classrooms, parents were asked to help with special events (97.7%), assist

classroom staff during mealtimes (96.0%), clean up the classroom (91.3%), and serve as classroom aides

(90.7%). These routine activities required that parents visit the center and be involved in classroom

activities. Less frequently, parents were asked to prepare education materials (81.3% of classrooms),

contribute supplies (79.3%), contact parents to notify them of meetings (74.7%), help with curriculum

planning (64.8%), assist in the preparation of a newsletter for parents (55.7%), serve as a parent workshop

leader (45.8%), and participate in home visits (16.6%). In centers located in Puerto Rico, parents

appeared to be more frequently used in responsible roles such as serving as parent workshop leaders

(77.8%) or participating in home visits (55.6%). Staff in the Western region of the nation were more

likely to ask parents to act as interpreters (75.2%).

There were some regional and urban-rural differences observed in the use of parent volunteers.

For several roles, Classroom Teachers in the South indicated that they employed parent volunteers more

than other regions; these included contributing supplies, χ

2 = 12.8, p < .01, and contacting parents to

notify them of meetings, χ

2 = 14.7, p < .01. In addition, the Classroom Teachers in the South appeared to

involve parents more often in preparing newsletters for parents, χ

2 = 23.5, p < .01, and participating in

home visits, χ

2 = 38.2, p < .01. Classroom teachers in the West reported more use of parents to advise on

ethnic customs, χ

2 = 26.5, p < .01, to serve as workshop leaders, χ2 = 11.9, p < .05, and as interpreters in

the classroom, χ

2 = 70.3, p < .01. Finally, teachers in the Northeast reported that parents were employed

in chores or maintenance more than teachers in other regions, χ

2 = 16.3, p < .01.

Some differences were reported by teachers from rural and urban areas as well. Classroom

Teachers from rural areas were more likely to report that parents assisted classroom staff during
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 245

mealtimes, χ

2 = 8.4, p < .01, and that parents served as classroom aides, χ2 = 9.9, p < .01, while those

from urban areas reported more frequent use of parents as interpreters, χ

2 = 6.4, p < .05.

Exhibit 4-20

Use of Parent Volunteers in the Classroom as Reported by Classroom Teachers

Unweighted Percentages

Northeast

(n=37)

Midwest

(n=135)

South

(n=197)

West

(n=120)

Puerto

Rico

(n=18)

Rural

(n=143)

Urban

(n=364)

Helping with special eventsa 90.9 98.1 98.6 97.7 -- 97.8 97.7

Assisting staff during mealtimes 97.2 98.5 96.9 92.4 88.9 100.0 94.5

Cleaning up classrooma 81.8 88.4 94.1 92.9 -- 87.8 92.6

Serving as classroom aide 97.3 89.6 92.4 85.8 100.0 97.2 88.2

Preparing educational materialsa 72.7 79.4 81.2 86.1 -- 81.5 81.3

Contributing suppliesa 68.2 80.6 86.9 68.2 -- 84.6 77.3

Contacting parents about meetings 65.7 67.2 79.6 73.5 100.0 76.8 73.8

Helping with curriculum planninga 54.6 68.9 62.3 66.3 -- 65.2 64.6

Doing chores or maintenancea 81.8 56.9 73.9 52.3 -- 70.3 61.9

Advising on ethnic customs 60.0 48.2 55.6 76.3 83.3 61.5 59.1

Preparing a newsletter for parents 40.6 49.6 63.4 47.9 94.4 56.3 55.4

Serving as a parent workshop leader 40.0 38.0 46.4 50.0 77.8 47.9 44.9

Interpreting in the classroom 34.4 29.8 31.6 75.2 0.0 32.8 46.1

Participating in home visits 11.1 11.3 23.5 6.8 55.6 12.0 18.4

a N = 349; these items were not included in the spring 1997 interview (Northeast n = 22; Midwest n = 103; South n = 138; West n

= 86; Rural n = 92; Urban n = 257)

In addition to those tasks, parent volunteers often participated in health screenings. The Parent

Involvement Coordinators reported that parents assisted in height/weight measurements in 63.6% of

programs and assisted with vision screenings (48.6%). Far less frequently, parent volunteers were

allowed to check immunization records (11.1%) and enter data in medical records (5.4%).

Present and former Head Start parents were frequently employed by the program (Exhibit 4-21).

Although about 25% of Center Directors/Administrative Teachers could not address the numbers of

former or present parents employed by their centers, 93.1% of those Center Directors that did answer

indicated that their centers employed current or former Head Start parents. Almost 80% of those centers

had Head Start parents or former Head Start parents serving as classroom aides. At the program level,
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 246

Parent Involvement Coordinators reported that over 90% of the 40 FACES programs employed former or

current parents as teachers in their classrooms.

Exhibit 4-21

Former or Current Head Start Parents Employed by Head Start, as

Reported by Center Directors

Job Category Unweighted Percentage of Centers

(n = 116)

Teacher 49.0

Teacher’s aide 79.1

Cook 46.4

Meal preparation assistant 18.4

Bus driver 36.6

Maintenance staff 22.5

Administrator 35.7

Home Visits by Head Start Staff

Home visits were required of Head Start staff in every program (as reported by Parent

Involvement Coordinators) and in all but three centers (as reported by the Center Directors). For about

75% of the centers, two yearly visits were the minimum. For the remaining programs and centers, three

visits were the minimum according to both the Parent Involvement Coordinators, who reported that 15%

of their programs required three visits, and Center Directors, who indicated the same for about 25% of

centers.

The primary goals for home visits by the center staff as reported by Center Directors and

Classroom Teachers are identified in Exhibit 4-22. Their top two goals for these visits were to inform

parents about Head Start and the services it offers and to provide assistance with basic needs.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 247

Exhibit 4-22

Main Goals of Head Start Staff During Home Visits, as Reported by Center Directors and

Classroom Teachers

Percentage Indicating

Service as one of Top

Three Goals

Services Provided During Home Visits

Center

Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 507)

Provide educational experiences to the Head Start children 32.6 35.9

Provide educational experiences to other children in the household 22.5 12.2

Provide instructions to caregiver on parenting, education, or child development 13.5 37.8

Address issues of family health 12.4 15.5

Provide informal counseling or addressing personal issues 16.7 15.5

Provide education information or referral for caregivers 45.2 30.6

Provide assistance with basic needs 61.1 58.6

Inform parents about Head Start and the services it offers 72.6 55.7

Inform parents about the progress of their own children 23.4 40.9

Male Involvement in Head Start

Each of the Coordinators and the Center Directors were asked whether their programs or centers

had a staff person designated specifically to encourage male involvement. Staff from all programs

indicated they had active male involvement programs in place; however, many were limited to only a few

male participants either because the males were working or were absent from the families. As indicated

in Exhibit 4-23, responses to questions regarding male involvement drew similar patterns of response

from all the groups questioned. In addition to workshops targeted to men, the staff members responsible

for male involvement frequently offered job referrals and crisis intervention. About 70% of Center

Directors reported that men regularly served as class volunteers and chaperones for field trips. Over 90%

of respondents (including all Coordinators) indicated that men regularly served on Parent Policy

Councils. Nevertheless, only about 10% of Center Directors and Coordinators felt that the male

involvement program was “very successful,” while about 40% felt the program was not yet successful.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 248

Exhibit 4-23

Workshops Targeted for Males, as Reported by Component Coordinators

Percentage Indicating Topic is Offered in

Workshops Specifically Targeted for Males

Workshop Topics EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 40)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

Adult literacy/ESL/GED classes 42.1 37.5 26.3 50.0

Employment assistance workshops 57.9 47.5 47.4 33.3

Basic finance and budgeting skills workshops 50.0 35.0 26.3 28.6

Partner or family relationships workshops 50.0 65.0 23.7 38.5

Parenting workshops 50.0 60.0 50.0 42.9

Health/nutrition workshops 34.2 30.0 28.9 35.7

Child growth, behavior and development workshops 31.6 42.5 31.6 30.8

Social activities for adults only 50.0 77.5 68.4 50.0

Adult-child outings 34.2 66.5 57.9 38.5

Support or self help groups for men 50.0 47.5 39.5 35.7

Special events/family celebrations 34.2 65.0 84.2 57.1

Barriers to Parent Involvement in Head Start

Center Directors, Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators agreed that parents’ work,

school, or job training schedules were the most significant barriers to parent participation in the Head

Start program (Exhibit 4-24). These findings are similar to those reported in Chapter 7 of Section II. Over

60% of all groups, with the exception of Health Coordinators (51.3%), indicated that scheduling was

often a barrier to participation. Lack of childcare and lack of transportation were also problems in many

cases, although staff from urban programs compared to those in rural areas identified those problems

more often. Classroom Teachers in urban programs identified childcare as a frequent problem in 47% of

their responses, χ2 = 20.3, p < .01, compared to 26% of those in rural areas. Similarly, lack of

transportation was rated as a frequent problem by 30.3% of Classroom Teachers in urban programs

compared to only 16% of those in rural areas, χ2 = 9.6, p < .01.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 249

Exhibit 4-24

Barriers to Parent Participation as Reported by Center Directors, Classroom Teachers,

and Component Coordinators

Percentage Rating Barrier as “Often a Factor”

Barriers to Parent Participation CD

(n = 89)

CT

(n = 527)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 35)

PIC

(n = 38)

HC

(n = 41)

Work or school/training schedule 64.5 61.2 65.8 68.6 76.3 51.3

Lack of child care 42.6 39.7 39.5 45.7 57.9 43.6

Lack of transportation 47.2 26.0 31.6 37.1 52.6 51.3

Did not feel welcome or comfortable 7.3 0.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0

Did not know others at Head Start 4.5 4.7 2.6 11.4 10.5 5.4

Parent, child or family health problem 4.5 3.1 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.1

Language or cultural barriers 4.5 3.4 2.6 8.6 13.2 5.1

Safety concerns about neighborhood 4.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6

Family issues 2.6 1.2 ---- ---- ---- ----

Lack of information and notice 0.0 2.3 ---- ---- ---- ----

In Exhibit 4-25, Center Directors, Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators reported

their views on problems in planning or having parent activities. The most frequent problem identified was

offering activities at times convenient for parents (cited by 40% of Center Director and 53% of Classroom

Teachers). The lack of funding for activities was identified by about one third of both Center Directors

and Classroom Teachers and one half of the Parent Involvement Coordinators. Finally, finding alternate

sites when the Head Start centers were not available or appropriate was reported by more than 20% of

Center Directors, Classroom Teachers, and Social Service Coordinators, over 30% of Health

Coordinators, and about 45% of Education Coordinators and Parent Involvement Coordinators.

Exhibit 4-25

Problems in Planning or Having Parent Activities as Reported by Center Directors and

Classroom Teachers and Component Coordinators

Percentage Indicating Problem was Present

Problems in Planning or Having Parent Meetings CD

(n = 89)

CT

(n = 523)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 39)

PIC

(n = 40)

HC

(n = 41)

Difficulty offering activities at convenient times 40.6 53.2 44.7 48.7 47.5 73.2

Not enough money for parent activities 34.5 33.7 28.9 17.9 50.0 12.2

Finding an alternate site when center is not

available/appropriate 21.7 29.1 44.7 28.2 45.0 34.1

Difficulty getting outside resources (e.g., guest

speakers) 13.9 18.8 26.3 2.6 25.0 9.8
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 250

Percentage Indicating Problem was Present

Problems in Planning or Having Parent Meetings CD

(n = 89)

CT

(n = 523)

EC

(n = 38)

SSC

(n = 39)

PIC

(n = 40)

HC

(n = 41)

Lack of cooperation or support of staff 11.1 15.2 18.4 20.5 27.5 22.0

Lack of agreement among staff on parents’

needs and interests

6.7 15.3 28.9 20.5 17.5 12.2

Not having interpreters available 3.4 18.6 21.1 23.1 22.5 22.0

Difficulty informing parents of upcoming activities 0.0 15.1 18.4 17.9 10.0 17.1

Not enough of the right staff to plan or implement

activity

23.7 23.1 23.7 23.1 30.0 19.5

Not enough staff time given other duties 52.6 48.7 52.6 48.7 62.5 51.2

4.5 Summary

Section 4.4 presented findings on Head Start staff efforts to engage parents of enrolled children in

program activities, including male involvement. The following is a summary of the key findings.

Staff Goals for Families and Children

• Center Directors and Classroom Teachers reported that their most important goals for

families were to teach them about child development and parenting and to inform them about

their own children’s development. Other important goals that staff had for families included

informing them about support services available in the community, helping parents become

economically self-sufficient, and helping parents identify their personal goals and ways to

achieve them.

Contacts with Parents

• Teachers used a variety of ways to keep in contact with parents. Most teachers reported at

least monthly contact with parents through informal means, such as when parents dropped off

their children, at general parent meetings, as well as through notes and phone calls home.

• About one half of the teachers reported at least monthly contact with parents at parent/family

activities and informal parent-staff conferences. One third reported monthly contact at

scheduled meetings with parents at the center, and about 10% through home visits.

• Teachers reported that they often asked parents to participate in ways designed to help them

meet and develop relationships with other Head Start parents. For instance, 54% of teachers

said they asked parents to identify skills they could share with other parents; about 41% said
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 251

they introduced parents to one another or asked parents to orient new parents to the center,

and about 18% asked parents to call other parents.

• Classroom Teachers in rural programs, more often than Classroom Teachers in urban

programs, reported more frequent contacts with parents at informal parent-staff conferences

and parent meetings, through notes sent home, and at home visits.

Parent Volunteer Programs

• More than 90% of Classroom Teachers reported that parent volunteers in their classrooms

assisted during mealtimes, helped to clean up classrooms, served as classroom aides, and

assisted at special events during the past Head Start year. These routine activities, in general,

required that parents visit the centers and be involved in classroom activities.

• Approximately 70-80% of teachers reported that parent volunteers in their classrooms

assisted in preparing educational materials, notified other parents about upcoming meetings

or events, or contributed supplies.

• Approximately 45-65% of classroom teachers employed parent volunteers in activities

requiring involvement in planning and management of program activities such as assisting

with curriculum planning, preparing newsletters, or preparing or leading workshops.

• About 16% of teachers reported using parent volunteers to assist in home visits to other Head

Start parents. Staff in the Western region of the nation were more likely to ask parents to act

as interpreters.

• Staff from all programs reported that they had active male involvement programs in place;

however, many were limited to only a few male participants either because the males were

working or were absent from the families.

Barriers to Parent Involvement in the Head Start Program

• Staff reported that parents’ work and school commitments were the dominant barriers to

parent involvement. Lack of transportation and childcare were also frequently cited.

• Staff from urban programs more frequently indicated that transportation and childcare were

significant barriers to parent involvement than staff from rural programs.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 252

4.6 Head Start Family Services

The following sections are concerned with Head Start staff efforts to provide or facilitate delivery

of important support services to Head Start families. In most centers, a Family Service Worker is

assigned to each family. Program staff interviews provided information about the development of needs

assessments, family action plans, patterns of agency referrals, and services provided directly by Head

Start programs. In addition, staff provided a profile of the family risk factors based on their caseloads.

The Social Services Component

The Head Start family service program, at the start of data collection, was organized under the

direction of a Social Services Coordinator (SSC), and included Family Service Workers, consultants, and

clerical staff. The Coordinators for the 40 programs in Head Start FACES reported a total of 662 staff (an

average of over 16 staff per program; range 2 to 66) under their direction. The Social Service

Coordinators were responsible for assignment of Family Service Worker caseloads and for ensuring that

Family Needs Assessments (FNA) and Family Assistance Plans (FAP)2 were completed.

In the 40 FACES programs, Family Service Workers reported an average caseload of 70.5

families.3 Family Service Workers employed by programs in rural areas had far smaller caseloads (M =

50.6 families; SD = 32.8) than those in urban programs (M = 80.3; SD = 53.0) and this difference was

significant, t(142) = 4.1; p < .01. Further, caseloads assigned to Family Service Workers in the West (M

= 96.4, SD = 78.2) were significantly larger than caseloads elsewhere in the nation, F(3,135) = 2.95; p <

.01. Overall, 60% of Social Service Coordinators and 45.5% of Family Service Workers felt the

caseloads were too large.

Social Service Coordinators and Family Service Workers were in substantial agreement about the

factors related to case assignment (Exhibit 4-26). Generally, caseloads were assigned by center. In larger

centers, the Family Service Workers could be assigned a set of classrooms within a center. In rural areas

where distances between families may be great, some priority for assignment was given to geographical

factors.

2 Many programs now employ the Family Partnership Agreement (FPA) rather than the Family Assistance Plan. The FPA

emphasises use of family strengths in the solution of family needs.

3 The Head Start Program Performance Standards recommend caseloads of up to 45 families.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 253

Exhibit 4-26

Factors Determining How Families Were Assigned to Family Service Worker

Caseloads, as Reported by Social Services Coordinators and Family Service

Workers

Percentage Indicating Factor is

One of the Three Highest

Priorities for Assignment

Factors in Assignment of Families to Family Service Worker

Caseloads

Social Service

Coordinators

(n = 40)

Family Service

Workers

(n = 144)

Child’s center 55.0 58.7

Child’s classroom 20.0 15.3

Geographic location of the family 10.0 11.4

Type/level of family’s need 10.0 4.8

Previous experience with specific family 5.0 3.8

Caseload size 0.0 3.8

Language, ethnic, or cultural match between FSW and family 0.0 2.2

Nearly 60% of Family Service Workers reported that they had their first contacts with families

during recruitment, another 26.8% had contact when the children enrolled, and the remaining case

workers met their families shortly after the children began class. Once a case was assigned, the Family

Service Worker was responsible for collaborating with the family on the preparation of a FNA. Nearly

80% of Family Service Workers reported that they completed a written FNA with every family assigned

to them and completed written FAPs for about one half of those families. In the process, virtually all

Family Service Workers (99.4%) discussed goals and objectives with the families, prepared the written

FNA with them (98.1%), and asked them to sign a copy of the plan (96.8%). Just under one half (43.8%)

gave a copy to the families.

According to Social Service Coordinators, about 40% of the programs used the FNA form

provided by the national Head Start administration and the remainder used a form prepared by the grantee

or delegate agency administrators. In preparing the FAP, the case managers discussed the objectives and

goals with the families (99.2%), prepared the written plan with them (93.8%), and asked the families to

sign copies (86.8%). Again, just under one half (43.8%) left copies of the FAPs with the families. About

40% of the Family Service Workers reported that they reviewed and updated their plans at least once

within a three-month period, while 46.5% revised the FAP as needed. About 40% of Family Service

Workers indicated that if a family had a new need for services, they would most likely learn about it

through a contact initiated by the family; another 31.5% believed they would first learn of a family’s new
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 254

problem through routine contact with the family, and another 20.3% felt that they would learn of the

problem through a referral from another Head Start staff member such as the Classroom Teacher.

Family Service Workers reported a wide variation in the number of face-to-face contacts with

their families. They estimated that they saw less than one fifth of their caseloads (18.1%) just once or

twice during the year, another 21.1% were seen three to six times during the year, 20.3% were seen once

a month, 16.7% more than once a month, and about one quarter of the caseloads (23.8%) were seen once

a week or more. About 43.6% were required to make at least one or two home visits, one third were

required to make at least three visits, and the remaining 23.7% were expected to complete more than three

home visits during the program year.

Exhibit 4-27 contains information about the activities that Social Service staff reported spending

time on with families. As shown, the Social Service Coordinators were in almost unanimous agreement

that the main activities with families that were important to their component were to provide social

service information or referrals to caregivers (95.0% identified this activity as one of the three most

important) and to provide informal counseling or address personal needs (92.5%). These two activities

were also identified by a high percentage of Family Service Workers (84.0% identified provision of social

service information and 66.0% specified informal counseling). In addition, over 70% of Family Service

Workers and 55.0% of Social Service Coordinators identified providing assistance with basic needs as

one of their three most important goals in working with families.

Exhibit 4-27

Main Activities with Families by Social Service Staff, as Reported by Social

Service Coordinators and Family Service Workers

Percentage Indicating Service

as one of Top Three Goals

Services Provided By Social Service Staff SSC

(n = 40)

FSW

(n = 143)

Provide educational experiences to Head Start children 2.5 12.2

Provide educational experiences to other children in the household 0.0 0.0

Educate the caregivers on parenting, education, or child development 40.0 39.2

Address issues of family health 15.0 26.6

Provide informal counseling or address personal issues 92.5 66.0

Provide social service information or referrals to caregivers 95.0 84.0

Provide assistance with basic needs 55.0 71.9
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 255

Family Risk Factors Observed by Head Start Staff

Head Start children often live in households where families face many barriers to success in

today’s society. Head Start staff, in turn, must be aware of each child’s individual situation in order to

provide services that meet those needs. Both Center Directors and Family Service Workers reported the

relative frequency of family risks that they were aware of for children enrolled in their centers or as part

of their caseloads, respectively. Center Directors reported, in line with national projections from the Head

Start Program Information Report, that about 12.6% of the children in their centers had disabilities

(Exhibit 4-28).

Exhibit 4-28

Children and Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic

Region as Reported by Center Directors a

Unweighted Percentages

Urbanicity Geographic Region b

Urban

(n=4,838)

Rural

(n=1,905)

Northeast

(n=749)

South

(n=3,009)

Midwest

(n=1,259)

West

(n=1,606)

Children with disabilities 12.2 13.2 13.0 12.3 12.4 12.9

Children living in foster homes 3.4 2.2 1.6 2.4 5.4 3.1

Children living in homes with

families reported for child abuse 2.6 3.5 2.4 1.7 7.5 2.6

Children living in homes with

families reported for child neglect 2.9 3.1 1.6 0.9 8.3 2.3

Children living in homes with

families reported for other family

violence

2.3 2.9 1.3 1.0 5.7 1.6

Children living in homes with family

members who were victims of

family violence

3.9 6.9 1.7 5.0 4.2 6.5

Families with household members

living with AIDS

0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 256

Unweighted Percentages

Urbanicity Geographic Region b

Urban

(n=4,838)

Rural

(n=1,905)

Northeast

(n=749)

South

(n=3,009)

Midwest

(n=1,259)

West

(n=1,606)

Families with household members

living with a substance abuse

problem

8.9 11.9 5.2 7.2 13.1 9.5

Families with household members

currently in prison

3.1 4.1 2.6 3.0 6.2 7.6

Families with household members

living with a physical or mental

disability

1.6 3.7 1.7 3.2 2.0 5.0

a

Reported Ns are based on the total center enrollment reported by 119 Center Directors (including Center Directors managing

multiple centers).

b Puerto Rico not included

Generally, where family risks were reported by both types of staff, Center Directors reported

higher levels of risk than Family Service Workers. It should be noted that the samples upon which these

two groups of Head Start staff were reporting were somewhat different. Although Family Service

Workers’ caseloads were sometimes associated with a group of centers, they were not necessarily limited

to or representative of those centers in which FACES was being conducted.

Both Center Directors and Family Service Workers (Exhibit 4-29) reported that, after the

presence of a child with a disability, the most prevalent family risk factor observed was the presence of a

household member living with a substance abuse problem. Although Center Directors reported a higher

prevalence of this problem overall (9.3% versus 5.4% for Family Service Workers), this problem was

perceived by both groups of staff to be more prevalent in the families served by Head Start programs in

the Midwest than in other regions, χ2 = 52.3, p < .01, for Center Directors, and χ

2 = 92.9, p < .01, for

Family Service Workers. As well, substance abuse as a proportion of caseload was reported at higher

rates by Family Service Workers employed in rural areas more than those employed by urban programs,

χ

2 = 17.1, p < .01.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 257

Exhibit 4-29

Families with Selected Risk Factors by Urbanicity and Geographic Region, as

Reported by Family Service Workers

Unweighted Percentages a

Urbanicity Geographic Region b

Urban

(n=7,705)

Rural

(n=2,376)

Northeast

(n=944)

South

(n=3,516)

Midwest

(n=2,520)

West

(n=2,602)

Reported for child abuse 2.7 4.2 4.6 1.1 4.6 1.4

Reported for child neglect 1.4 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 0.7

Reported for other family violence 1.2 2.0 4.0 0.7 2.3 0.9

Household member with AIDS 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0

Substance abuser in household 4.9 7.7 7.9 4.2 10.6 7.9

Household member in prison 2.2 3.5 5.3 2.0 7.0 4.1

Household member with disability 4.1 6.4 9.9 3.7 6.7 4.8

Family violence victim in household 4.3 6.9 6.9 2.3 6.3 6.2

a Reported Ns are based on the total caseloads reported by Family Service Workers. b Puerto Rico not included.

Families served by the Center Directors and Family Service Workers interviewed in the Midwest

also were generally reported to have a higher likelihood of being reported for child abuse, χ

2 = 103.3, p <

.01 (for Center Directors) and χ2 = 105.9, p < .01 (for Family Service Workers), child neglect, χ2 =

190.1, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and χ

2 = 13.7, p < .05 (for Family Service Workers). Center

Directors also reported a higher prevalence of other forms of family violence in the Midwest, χ2 = 102.6,

p < .01, but this result was contradicted by Family Service Workers, where those in the Northeast

reported higher rates for this problem, χ2 = 72.4, p < .01. In each case, staff perceptions of the rates of

reported abuse or neglect were slightly higher in rural areas, although not significantly so for any of these

indicators. Staff reported rates of household members who were victims of family violence were higher

in the Midwest and West, χ2 = 26.9, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and χ2 = 79.7, p < .01 (for Family

Service Workers). For this problem, a higher rate was reported by staff from programs in rural areas, χ2

= 21.6, p < .01 (for Center Directors) and χ2 = 17.6, p < .01 (for Family Service Workers). Finally, the

occurrence of family members in prison, again, was reported to be higher by Center Directors in the

Midwest, χ2 = 63.5, p < .01, and by Family Service Workers in the Midwest and the West, χ

2 = 94.1, p

< .01.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 258

As indicated above, Center Directors generally reported higher percentages of risk factors in

families of their enrolled children than Family Service Workers reported in their caseloads. The one

exception to this trend was for the reported prevalence of household members living with a physical or

mental disability. Here, Center Directors reported a rate of 2.5% versus 4.8% for Family Service

Workers.

Referrals and Head Start Services

Component Coordinators and Center Directors each reported on the types of services that Head

Start provides directly and those for which they provide assistance. As shown in Exhibit 4-30 (and for

Center Directors in Appendix C-10), the data indicate that, for the most part, Head Start programs

provided direct services relatively infrequently, but provided referrals and assistance on a regular basis.

Exhibit 4-30

Head Start Assistance to Families as Reported by Component Coordinators

Unweighted Percentages

(n = 156)

Type of Community Service/Assistance HS Does

Not Provide

HS Refers

or Assists

HS Provides

Directly

Income assistance (welfare, SSI, unemployment) 1.4 97.2 1.4

Food/nutrition services 0.7 95.1 4.2

Housing assistance 2.2 95.0 2.9

Utilities assistance 2.8 93.1 4.2

Job training/employment assistance 2.1 86.4 11.4

Literacy/basic education programs 0.0 75.0 25.0

Transportation assistance 9.6 68.3 22.1

Child care for preschool children 4.0 74.4 21.6

Child care for older children 0.0 41.7 58.3

Medical/dental care for children 0.0 77.6 22.4

Medical/dental care for adults 4.8 92.8 2.4

Health insurance (e.g., Medicaid) 3.7 96.3 0.0

Alcohol/drug treatment or counseling 1.4 92.9 5.7

Mental health services 0.7 86.3 13.0

Legal aid 1.6 96.9 1.6

Family violence assistance programs 0.0 94.3 5.7

Other family assistance programs 0.0 90.3 9.7
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 259

The most frequently reported direct services provided by Head Start agencies were child care

(21.6% for preschool children and 28.3% for other children), literacy/ basic education programs (24.8%),

medical/ dental care for children (22.4%), and transportation assistance (22.1%). At the other end of the

spectrum, direct services reported by Component Coordinators to be provided least frequently were health

insurance (0.0%), income assistance (1.4%), legal aid (1.6%), medical/dental care for adults (2.4%),

housing assistance (2.9%), and food/nutrition services (4.2%).

Family Service Workers, in turn, reported on the numbers of referrals that they had made in the

previous year. Referrals for medical/dental care for adults (58.5% of Family Service Workers reported

more than 10 such referrals), literacy/basic education (50.5%), food/nutrition (47.9%), child care (44.4%),

and job training/employment assistance (40.9%) were reported to be the most frequent referrals. Least

frequent referrals were in the categories of alcohol/drug treatment or counseling (42.3% of Family

Service Workers reported no referrals for this service), family violence assistance (35.9% no referrals),

transportation assistance (33.1% no referrals), and legal aid (30.3% no referrals).

4.7 Summary

Section 4.6 presented findings on Head Start staff efforts to provide or facilitate delivery of

important support services to Head Start families. The following is a summary of the key findings.

• Family Service Workers served an average of 70 families in their caseloads. Larger caseloads

were found in programs located in urban areas and in the West.

• Sixty percent of Social Service Coordinators and 45% of Family Service Workers felt their

caseloads were too large.

• Family Service Workers reported completing a Family Assistance Plan for about one half of the

families in their caseload. Although nearly all families were reported to have signed their FAPs,

only 43.8% were given a copy of that plan.

• Family Service Workers reported meeting face-to-face with almost one quarter of their families

on a weekly basis, but that they met with about one fifth of their families only once or twice

during the program year.

• Family Service Workers and Center Directors were in general agreement about the rank order of

family risk factors that Head Start families faced. In general, Center Directors reported higher

rates for family risks. Substance abuse was the most frequent family risk factor noted by both

types of Head Start staff.

• Rates of most Head Start family risk factors were reported to be higher in the Midwest, followed

by the West, and also in rural areas of the nation.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 260

• Head Start Component Coordinators reported that the program referred families for services for a

wide variety of family needs. Over and above direct Head Start services, child care was the

service reported to be provided most often, followed by literacy/basic education, medical/dental

care for children, and transportation assistance.

• Family Service Workers reported the highest numbers of referrals for medical/dental care for

adults, literacy/basic education, food/nutrition services, child care, and job training and

employment assistance.

4.8 Health Services for Head Start Children and Families

The following sections cover the frequency of child health problems and family health risks

reported by Head Start Health Coordinators, the use of parent volunteers in the delivery of health

screenings for Head Start children, and the types and frequencies of workshops provided for parents by

Head Start.

The Head Start Health Component

The Head Start health service program, at the start of data collection, was organized under the

direction of a Health Coordinator, and may have included a Mental Health Coordinator, a Disabilities

Coordinator, a Nutrition Coordinator, nurses, nutritionists, cooks and food service staff, consultants, and

clerical staff. For many programs, individual staff members were able to fill two or more of these roles

(for example, the Health Coordinator may have also served as the Mental Health Coordinator). The

Coordinators for the 40 programs reported a total of 526 staff, an average of over 13 staff per program

(range 4 to 44) under their direction. The Health Coordinator was responsible for completion of health,

mental health, and dental health screenings, review and maintenance of children’s health records, referrals

for health evaluations and services, nutrition, classroom hygiene activities, health-related parent

workshops, and for follow-up of routine health services such as immunizations and dental services.

Child Health Problems in Head Start

Head Start Health Coordinators4 were asked to report on the most frequent child health problems

that they observed in their programs. As shown in Exhibit 4-31, dental health was by far the most

frequently identified health problem for Head Start children. Sixty three percent of the coordinators

identified this problem as one of the top three health problems for children in their program. Infectious

illness (54.2%), speech and language problems (43.4%), asthma (42.2%), and lice (36.9%) were also

identified by more than one third of the Health Coordinators.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 261

Exhibit 4-31

Most Frequent Child Health Problems as Reported by Health Coordinators

Child Health Problems

Unweighted Percentage of Health Coordinators

Indicating Health Problem is One of Top Three

for their Program (n = 41)

Dental health 63.4

Infectious diseases 53.7

Speech/language problems 43.9

Asthma 41.5

Lice 36.6

Ear infections 22.0

Lack of immunizations 19.5

Vision impairments 9.8

Blood disorders 7.3

Health Coordinators also identified the most prevalent health risk factors that affected the

families of children enrolled in Head Start (Exhibit 4-32). In total, 33 of the 40 Health Coordinators

(85.0%) placed lack of parenting skills among the three top health risks for Head Start families. Extreme

home stress, abuse/neglect, and inadequate housing were mentioned as risk factors by 45% of the Health

Coordinators. Thus, Health Coordinators generally identified social factors in the Head Start children’s

home environments as presenting the most serious health risks rather than physical needs such as access

to support services, actual health threats like HIV infections, or community factors such as violence.

Exhibit 4-32

Top Three Health Risks to Families as Reported by Health Coordinators

Health Risks

Percentage of Risks

in Top Three

(N = 40)

Lack of parenting skills 85.0

Extreme home stress 45.0

Abuse and neglect 45.0

Inadequate housing 45.0

Community violence 22.5

Lack of access to support services 22.5

4 The reports from a previous project, the Descriptive Study of Head Start Health Services, completed in 1994 by the CDM

Group, contains results from a complete set of Head Start health service staff. For FACES, only the Health Coordinator was

interviewed.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 262

Health Risks

Percentage of Risks

in Top Three

(N = 40)

Lack of immunizations 22.5

Poor nutrition 15.0

Inadequate clothing 0.0

HIV / AIDS / STD 0.0

Head Start Health Services, Parent Volunteers, and Parent Workshops

Head Start provides or arranges for a variety of health screenings and services. As indicated in

Exhibit 4-33, Health Coordinators reported that reviews of immunization records and administration of

needed immunizations were required prior to enrollment in 57.5% and 45.0% of the programs,

respectively. Similarly, tuberculosis and anemia test reports were required prior to enrollment by 30%

and 22.5% of the programs. In most cases where children had not received these screenings prior to

enrollment, Head Start staff either completed the screenings or made a referral to an outside service.

Coordinators in a majority of programs reported that they provided health screening and measurements

for height/weight, vision testing, hearing testing, speech assessment, and developmental/behavioral

screenings. Outside services were reported to be required most often for dental examinations and TB

screenings (both 62.5% of programs), hemoglobin/hematocrit testing (57.5%), lead testing (52.5%), and

urinalysis (50.0%).

Exhibit 4-33

Requirements for Health Screenings and Measurements as Reported by Health

Coordinators

Unweighted Percentages

(N = 40)

Screening or Measurement Required Before

Entrance

Head Start

Provides

Outside Service

Provides

Not

Required

Head circumference 7.5 27.5 25.0 40.0

Height/weight 12.5 80.0 7.5 0.0

Blood pressure 17.5 47.5 35.0 0.0

Vision testing 5.0 70.0 25.0 0.0

Hearing testing 5.0 72.5 27.5 0.0

Speech assessment 2.5 70.0 27.5 0.0

Urinalysis 10.0 2.5 50.0 37.5

Lead testing 10.0 10.0 52.5 27.5
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 263

Unweighted Percentages

(N = 40)

Screening or Measurement Required Before

Entrance

Head Start

Provides

Outside Service

Provides

Not

Required

TB testing 30.0 7.5 62.5 0.0

Intestinal parasite testing 5.0 0.0 50.0 45.0

Hemoglobin/hematocrit testing 22.5 20.0 57.5 0.0

Sickle cell testing 7.5 5.0 52.5 35.0

Dental examination 12.5 25.0 62.5 0.0

Developmental/behavioral screenings 2.5 72.5 25.0 0.0

Immunization review 57.5 32.5 10.0 0.0

Immunization administration 45.0 5.0 50.0 0.0

Parent volunteers were employed in a variety of health-related activities (Exhibit 4-34). Parent

participation was most frequently reported for helping with oral hygiene in the classrooms (87.5% of

programs), help with food preparation and helping to collect height and weight measures (75.0%), and

help with vision testing and providing peer support to families in crisis (55.0%).

Exhibit 4-34

Use of Parent Volunteers in the Head Start Health Services Program, as Reported by

Health Coordinators

Unweighted Percentages

Activity (N = 40)

Help with oral hygiene in the classroom 87.5

Help to measure height/weight 75.0

Help with food preparation 75.0

Help with vision testing 55.0

Provide peer support to families in crisis 55.0

Work with community health agencies 47.5

Develop forms/procedures for emergencies 40.0

Provide transportation to appointments 37.5

Review immunization records 15.0

Enter data on health records 10.0

Volunteer in child guidance clinics for mental health screenings 2.5
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 264

The Health Coordinators were responsible for conducting parent education workshops throughout

the program year. As shown in Exhibit 4-35, nutrition/cooking workshops and parenting education

workshops were reported to be most frequently offered. According to the Health Coordinators,

nutrition/cooking was offered at least monthly by 32.5% of the programs, while parenting education was

offered that frequently in 27.5% of programs. Only one program reported not having nutrition workshops

at all. At least one program offered each of the workshops listed more than once a year, but in some

programs some workshops were rarely offered or not offered at all. These included prenatal/postnatal

care (not offered at all by 72.5% of Head Start programs in the study), lead poisoning (37.5%), physical

fitness (35.0%), personal hygiene (32.5%), and assessing family needs (30.0%).

Exhibit 4-35

Frequency of Health-Related Parent Workshops, as Reported by Health

Coordinators

Unweighted Percentages

(N = 40)

Workshop Never Once More than Once

a Year

Monthly or

More Often

First aid/CPR 10.0 50.0 35.0 5.0

Prenatal/postnatal care 72.5 7.5 10.0 5.0

Oral hygiene/dental care 7.5 42.5 35.0 15.0

Lead poisoning 37.5 37.5 25.0 0.0

Home safety/fire prevention 10.0 45.0 37.5 7.5

Childhood illnesses 15.0 35.0 40.0 10.0

Immunizations 22.5 32.5 35.0 10.0

Assessing family needs 30.0 40.0 17.5 12.5

Locating and using health services 22.5 32.5 32.5 12.5

Nutrition/cooking workshop 2.5 17.5 47.5 32.5

Personal hygiene 32.5 27.5 22.5 17.5

Physical fitness 35.0 32.5 30.0 2.5

Parenting education 12.5 7.5 52.5 27.5

4.9 Summary

Section 4.8 presented findings on the frequency of child health problems and family health risks

reported by Head Start Health Coordinators, the use of parent volunteers in the delivery of health

screenings for Head Start children, and the types and frequencies of workshops provided for parents by

Head Start. The following is a summary of the key findings.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 265

• Dental health was the most frequently identified health problem for Head Start children. For the

40 programs involved in the study, Health Coordinators reported that over 2,000 children were in

need of dental services at entry into the program.

• Health risk factors identified by Health Coordinators were most frequently associated with the

home environment. These included lack of parenting skills, extreme home stress, and family

abuse/neglect.

• Head Start Health Coordinators reported that the programs, provided a wide variety of health

measurements and screenings for children and arranged outside services for key health measures

such as dental examinations, TB, anemia, and lead testing.

4.10 Staff and Program Characteristics Linked to Family Outcomes

The staff and parent interviews provided a significant opportunity for examining relationships

across these information sources. From the Head Start program’s perspective, the parent interviews

included three key outcomes: 1) the kinds and frequencies of activities with family members the Head

Start children experienced when not at the center, 2) the degree and type of involvement with Head Start

program activities reported by individual parents, and 3) self-reported parent satisfaction with the Head

Start program. The central concept underlying these analyses is that the characteristics of the Head Start

staff (including staff experience, education, and training) and program (types and frequencies of parentstaff or parent-program contacts and interactions) might be related to such important outcomes as familychild activities, parent involvement, and parent satisfaction, regardless of where the program is located

(region or urban/rural setting) or family background factors such as parent education, employment status,

family income, or ethnicity. The analyses for this section were completed to provide information about

associations among three categories of staff data and three measurement areas from the parent interviews.

Analytic Approach

For the analyses reported in this section, all measures from the staff interviews were aggregated

to the center level. That is, average values for each measure were computed for all Classroom Teachers

who were employed at each center where children whose parents were interviewed were enrolled. The

reasoning behind this approach was that children often changed classrooms within a center but rarely

changed centers during the course of a program year. Centers where at least two Classroom Teachers

were interviewed in both fall 1997 and spring 1998 (a total of 179 centers) were included in the analyses.

The following Classroom Teacher measures were computed or constructed for each Head Start center:
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 266

& Classroom Teacher Experience. The average total years of experience as a Head Start

employee reported by teachers (M = 10.06, SD = 5.65, Range 0.75 – 30.0).

& Classroom Teacher Education. The average classroom teacher educational level

(grades completed) reported by teachers (M = 14.44, SD = 1.4, Range 11.0 – 17.0).

& Teacher Training. The total training hours reported by teachers for the previous 12

months (M = 76.02, SD = 41.5, Range 21.0 – 196.0).

& Parent-Teacher Contact. An index of the frequency of contact that Classroom Teachers

and parents might have in the Head Start classroom was constructed. Teachers reported

that parent volunteers in their classrooms assisted during mealtimes, helped to clean up

classrooms, served as classroom aides, assisted at special events, notified other parents

about classroom events, and worked on educational materials for the classroom during

the past Head Start year. These six activities, in general, required that parents visit the

center, observe and/or be involved in classroom activities. Each item was scored as 0

(parent volunteers do not participate in this activity) or 1 (parents do participate in this

activity). The average number of these activities reported by teachers was added to form

this constructed measure (M = 5.29, SD = 1.3, Range = 4.48 - 6.0).

& Parent-Program Contact. An index of the frequency that parent volunteers in the Head

Start program assisted with curriculum planning, participated in home visits, prepared

newsletters, and/or led workshops. These four activities generally bring parents into

contact with a variety of program staff and decision-makers. Each item was scored as 0

(parent volunteers do not participate in this activity) or 1 (parents do participate in this

activity). The average number of these activities reported by teachers was added to form

this constructed measure (M = 1.83, SD = 1.3, Range = 0.0 – 4.0).

& Children’s Academic Activities in the Classroom. An index of the frequency that daily

(or almost daily) activities included (1) reading stories, (2) number concepts, (3) colors,

(4) science or nature, (5) solving puzzles and (6) working on letters of the alphabet. Each

item ranges from a value of 1 (not offered in the classroom) to 5 (offered daily or almost

daily). The average frequencies of these activities reported by teachers was added to

form this constructed measure (M = 28.37, SD = 2.9, Range 13.0 – 30.0).

The family data included in these analyses were for 2,277 primary caregivers (parents)5 who were

interviewed at both fall 1997 and spring 1998 and whose child was enrolled in a center where two or

more Classroom Teachers had been interviewed. Two sets of measures were taken from the parent

interview. The first were family background characteristics.6 They included:

• Parents’ education (less than high school 28.3%; high school or GED 36.5%, at least

some college 35.1%).

• Parents’ employment status (51.0% employed).

5 In this section, the terms “primary caregiver” and “ parent” are used interchangeably, although “primary caregiver” is

technically correct. Almost 93% of the respondents to the Parent Interview were biological parents.

6 These measures are described and discussed in chapter 4 of Section II. As shown, the sample of families and children included

in these analyses are similar in all respects to the full parent sample.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 267

• Monthly Household Income (M = $1,239, SD = 832.9).

• Ethnicity of the Children (African American 30.6%; Hispanic 24.5%, White 30.4%;

other 14.4%).

The second set of measures was constructed by adding together parent responses to sets of related

questions. These measures were considered outcomes for the present analyses and included:

& Family Activities with the Children. In both fall 1997 and spring 1998, parents were

asked how often someone at home had participated in each of 11 activities with the Head

Start children during the past week.7 A 3-point response set was employed (no, once or

twice, or three or more times). A factor analysis of these responses revealed high

positive correlations among all items and a single factor. Therefore, a summary score for

family activities with the children at both interview points was computed by adding the

responses for all 11 items together. A standardized change score was then computed,

providing an index of change for each family-child pair (M = 1.29, SD = 1.1, Range –

2.66 – 5.58).

& Parent Involvement. Parents were asked about fourteen ways they might have been

involved with the Head Start program and how often they had participated in each

activity.8 A factor analysis revealed high positive inter-correlations of all items and a

single factor. A 3-point response set was employed (not yet, 1-2 times, more than 2

times). A total satisfaction score was computed by summing all 14 items (M = 25.11, SD

= 5.9, range 14 – 42).

& Satisfaction. Parents were asked how satisfied they were with eight aspects of the Head

Start experience for their children, themselves, and their families.9 A 4-point response set

was employed (very satisfied, satisfied, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied). A factor analysis

revealed high positive inter-correlations of all items and a single factor. A total

satisfaction score was computed by summing all eight items (M = 30.39, SD = 2.6, range

8.0 – 32.0).

Relationships between teacher characteristics and teacher-reported interactions with parents and

children with the two parent-reported measures were first explored through univariate correlations.

Significant correlations among the parent measures as well as correlations among parent and staff

measures aggregated to the center level are presented in Exhibit 4-36. The observed correlations at the

parent level are relatively small but are consistent with reported results in Section II. That is, involvement

7 This measure includes the seven items referenced in Chapter 6.2 of Section II plus four additional items: (1) played a game,

sport, or exercised together; (2) talked about what happened in Head Start; (3) talked about TV programs or videos; and (4)

played counting games like singing songs with numbers or reading books with numbers.

8 These measures include the twelve items referenced in Chapter 7.3 of Section II plus the following two items (1) attended a

Head Start event with a spouse or partner and (2) attended a Head Start event with another adult.

9 These items are described and discussed in section 7.5 of Section II.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 268

with Head Start was negatively related to employment (parents who were employed were somewhat less

involved with program activities than those who were not) and related to ethnicity (parents of White

children tended to be more involved in program activities). Also, satisfaction with Head Start was

negatively related to education, employment, and income. That is, less satisfied parents tended to be

those who reported they were employed, had a higher household income, and had achieved higher levels

of education. In addition, Hispanic parents tended to be more satisfied with the program.

Exhibit 4-36

Significant Correlations Among Teacher-Reported and Parent Reported Measures

Univariate Correlations

Measures From Parent Interviews

(n = 2,277)

Increase in FamilyChild Activities from

Fall to Spring

Parent

Involvement with

Head Start

Parent Satisfaction

with Head Start

Parent education r = -.05, p <.01

Parent employment r = -.07, p <.01 r = -.04, p <.01

Monthly household income r = -.06, p <.01

Child ethnicity: African American

Child ethnicity: Hispanic r = .06, p <.01

Child ethnicity: White r = .04, p <.03

Measures from Parent and Classroom Teacher

Interviews aggregated to the Center Level (n = 179)

Primary caregiver education r = .22, p <.01 r = -.21, p <.01

Primary caregiver employment r = -.26, p <.01 r = -.17, p <.02

Monthly household income r = -.28, p <.01

Child ethnicity: African American

Child ethnicity: Hispanic r = .23, p <.01

Child ethnicity: White r = .17, p <.02

Teacher experience in Head Start

Teacher education (total years) r = .18, p <.01

Teacher training (total hours) r = .24, p <.01 r = .23, p <.01

Parent – teacher contacts r = .18, p <.01

Parent – program contacts r = .26, p <.01

Academic classroom activities r = .26, p <.01

At the center level, significant results among parent-reported data are highly consistent with the

individual parent level (although the absolute values of the correlations were greater, the observed

significance levels were similar). However, significant associations among Classroom Teacher reported
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 269

information and each of the outcome measures were observed. Where teachers reported greater amounts

of training during the past year and where they reported that they engaged their classrooms in academic

activities more frequently, parents reported greater increases in family-child activities between fall and

spring. Also, parent involvement reported by parents was positively related to teacher reports both that

they had completed more years of education and that the program had provided them more training in the

past year. Finally, parent-reported satisfaction with the Head Start program was positively related to

teacher reports that parents were offered more types of contact with both the teachers themselves and with

other program staff.

In the second stage of analysis, multilevel regression models were constructed to assess the

relationship between characteristics of Head Start staff and programs on key family outcomes.

The predictor variables for these analyses were derived from two levels. Individual-level data included

parent background measures. Center-level data included teacher background measures as well as teacherreported measures of parent involvement and classroom activities. Two-level models were constructed

for each of the family outcomes (also at the individual level): 1) family activities with their children; 2)

parent involvement; and 3) parent satisfaction with Head Start. Measures were entered into regression

models in three groups. First, region and urbanicity of the program were entered, followed by the set of

individual parent reported background characteristics, and finally the center-level teacher-reported

variables.

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Increases In Family-Child Activities Between Fall And Spring. The types of activities

included in this measure are generally thought by child development professionals to reflect positive

experiences for young children. Therefore, information about factors that are related to increases in those

activities may be important for programs such as Head Start. The analyses confirmed that, after

controlling for effects related to region, urbanicity, or family demographic characteristics, the amount of

teacher training and the frequency that teachers reported that academic activities occurred in their

classrooms were positively associated with parent-reported increases in family-child activities from fall to

spring (Exhibit 4-37). Therefore, it is encouraging to note that where programs provided more training for

teachers and more frequent academic activities for their children, parents reported greater positive

changes in those types of activities at home, without regard to location or family demographics (even with

the cautionary note that these observations reflect a naturally occurring rather than a causal relationship

among these measures).
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 270

Exhibit 4-37

Hierarchical Regression Model of Increases in Family-Child Activities from Fall to

Springa

Fixed Effects: Parent Measures Coefficient Standard Error t p value

Parent education .064 .052 1.23

Parent employment -.079 .058 -1.36

Monthly household income -.00092 .00071 -1.29

Child ethnicity: Hispanic 1.29 .78 1.65

Child ethnicity: African American -.795 .82 -.97

Child ethnicity: White -.44 .58 -.76

Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures

Teacher experience in Head Start -.071 .046 -1.54

Teacher education (total years) .655 .39 1.68

Teacher training (total hours) .0015 .00063 2.43 .02

Parent-teacher contacts .103 .051 2.02

Parent-program contacts .088 .086 1.02

Academic classroom activities .044 .017 2.59 .02

a Program location indicators (region, urbanicty) were not statistically significant for this measure.

Parent involvement with Head Start activities is strongly encouraged by the Program Performance

Standards and by Head Start staff. Involvement was found to be unrelated to either the regional location

of the program or to whether the program was in an urban or rural setting. However, several of the

significant relationships observed at the univariate level among family characteristics and parent

involvement were supported by the regression model as well (Exhibit 4-38). Parents who reported more

education, were not employed, and had White children also reported greater levels of involvement in the

Head Start program. Once these factors were controlled for statistically, parent-reported involvement was

greater in centers where teachers had completed more education and been provided with more training in

the past year than teachers in other programs. Again, it may be important that at least some factors under

the control of the Head Start program were related to an important program component such as parent

involvement.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 271

Exhibit 4-38

Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Involvement in Head Start a

Fixed Effects: Parent Measures Coefficient Standard Error t p value

Parent education .318 .094 3.38 .01

Parent employment -.188 .043 -4.38 .01

Family income -.000039 .000047 -0.84

Child ethnicity: Hispanic -1.04 .93 -1.12

Child ethnicity: African American -.82 .79 -1.04

Child ethnicity: White 1.11 .64 1.73 .05

Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures

Teacher experience in Head Start -.048 .031 -1.54

Teacher education (total years) 1.44 .42 3.42 .01

Teacher inservice training (total hours) .0013 .00056 2.25 .05

Parent-teacher contacts .051 .038 1.34

Parent-program contacts .143 .101 1.43

Academic classroom activities .026 .014 1.86

a Program location indicators (region, urbanicty) were not statistically significant for this measure.

Parent satisfaction with Head Start services is an index of how well the program is providing

services to the consumers it serves directly. Head Start parents reported very high levels of satisfaction in

every program location that participated in FACES. Nevertheless, variation in the measure of satisfaction

was associated with program location, as well as family and program characteristics. First, parents in the

Northeast reported less overall satisfaction than parents in other regions. Also, families where the

primary caregiver reported more education and more income also reported less satisfaction with the

program. Finally, after statistically controlling for the observed relationships with program location and

family demographics, parent satisfaction was reported to be higher in centers where teachers reported

more frequent opportunities for parent contact with Head Start staff as well as greater opportunities for

parents to be involved in program activities. These included opportunities for parent-teacher interactions

such as conversations at general parent meetings, telephone calls home, and informal parent-staff

conferences, as well as opportunities for participating in home visits, serving as workshop leaders,

assisting in curriculum planning, and preparing newsletters for distribution to other parents.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 272

Exhibit 4-39

Hierarchical Regression Model of Parent Satisfaction WithHead Start

Fixed Effects: Program Location Coefficient Standard Error t p value

Program location: Northeast -2.59 .614 -4.22 .01

Program location: Midwest .342 .551 0.62

Program location: South .412 .489 0.20

Program location: Urban -.045 .080 -0.58

Fixed Effects: Parent Measures

Parent education -.141 .071 -1.99 .02

Parent employment -.021 .025 -0.85

Monthly household income <.01 <.01 -5.07 .01

Child ethnicity: Hispanic .167 .087 1.92 .02

Child ethnicity: African American .087 .083 1.03

Child ethnicity: White .094 .075 1.25

Fixed Effects: Teacher Measures

Teacher experience in Head Start -.013 .024 -0.56

Teacher education (in years) .664 .540 1.23

Teacher inservice training (in hours) <.01 .<.01 1.47

Parent-teacher contacts .058 .027 2.14 .05

Parent-program contacts .276 .094 2.94 .01

Academic classroom activities .031 .023 1.31

4.11 Summary

Several characteristics of Head Start staff and programs were found to be significantly related to

key family outcomes.

• Parents reported relatively larger increases in activities with the Head Start child between fall and

spring where teachers reported a greater number of in-service training hours during the past year

and greater frequencies of academic activities in the classroom.

• Parents reported more involvement with program activities where Head Start teachers reported

more years of education and a greater number of in-service training hours during the past year.

• Parents reported greater satisfaction with the program when teachers reported more opportunities

for direct contact with parents and more opportunities for parents to come into contact with other

Head Start staff.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 273

4.12 Discussions with Head Start Program Directors

During spring 1998, Head Start Program Directors and many of their key staff participated in

discussions with FACES research staff regarding local program responses to the revised Head Start

Program Performance Standards as well as how changes in the national welfare reform legislation

affected their programs. Discussions were completed at 38 of the 40 FACES sites.

Revised Head Start Program Performance Standards

The majority of the Head Start programs reported having made few if any recent changes in their

organization and indicated that they had already met or exceeded the new standards. Other programs

were in the planning and development stage. Responsiveness to local contextual factors, along with

information about the planned changes from monitoring team members and regional and national Head

Start representatives, motivated many of the Directors to begin adjustments in their programs as early as

the mid-1990s. Only a small number of programs had made changes due to compliance issues. None of

the programs reported a need to reduce the number of their staff, as some Directors had feared, but rather

they reassigned staff and, in some cases, actually increased the number of staff serving their programs.

Welfare Reform

Program Directors and senior staff indicated that welfare reform had affected their programs.

Most importantly, they reported a decline in parent participation. Programs were being challenged to find

and develop new, non-traditional ways of involving parents in the program, including providing expanded

parent training, accommodating parents’ work schedules by scheduling evening and weekend parent

meetings and workshops, and serving as TANF work sites for Head Start parents. Directors reported a

greater emphasis on developing or expanding services to facilitate families’ self-sufficiency, such as

providing educational and vocational training, as well as forming support groups, and assisting with

employment preparation. Many programs reported a decrease in enrollment in part-day classrooms and

acknowledged the need for providing longer hours and extended childcare, although few had been able to

expand service to year-round, full day, or extended day services.

4.13 Staff Comments on Head Start Program Improvement

Head Start staff interviews each concluded by asking the respondent what single thing they felt

would improve the program. Their responses were coded into six categories: parent involvement,

program structure, program facilities, program for children, staff interactions and activities, and

relationships with schools and other agencies.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 274

By far, the most frequently identified area for program improvement was parent involvement

(Exhibit 4-39). More than 40% of staff indicated that increased parent involvement was desirable.

However, relatively few staff provided clear suggestions for the means to accomplish their desired goal.

In earlier sections of the interviews, staff had identified parent work, school, or training schedules as the

primary barriers to parent involvement, and such activities on the part of parents were often required by

current public assistance laws.

The condition of Head Start physical facilities was also an area where staff frequently indicated

that improvements would be helpful. Over 40% of Center Directors identified this area, which included

moving to better locations, increasing, improving or renovating their current space, and improving the

equipment available for educating children, preparing meals, meeting with parents, or managing their

centers. Perhaps reflecting their role in the program, only about 15% of Classroom Teachers reported a

need for improved facilities.

About 15% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers indicated a need for changes in

program structure. In this category, the most frequent suggestion was for increased time to provide

services to children in the centers: more year-round, full day, or extended day services. In most cases,

these suggestions were based on both the families’ need for more child care as they participated in school,

training, or employment programs, as well as the perceived benefit that the children would gain from

extending their hours at the Head Start program.

Over one quarter of Classroom Teachers indicated that they felt the program for children could be

improved through more materials, an enhanced curriculum, or increased numbers of support staff. The

need for additional staff was often based on their perceived need for more one-to-one or small group

interactions between teachers and children, particularly in the cases of children with disabilities. While

Center Directors were less likely to indicate that more educational materials or improved curricula were

necessary, they were equally likely to suggest that additional support staff would improve their program.

Suggestions for improvements in staff interactions or activities by Center Directors and

Classroom Teachers clearly reflected their program roles. About 11% of Center Directors felt that

increased or improved training for teachers would be beneficial, versus 2% of Classroom Teachers, while

about 11% of teachers felt that less paperwork would allow them to spend more time with children,

versus 2% of Directors. As well, small percentages of both Center Directors and Teachers suggested

improvements in staff communication. Given the relatively low salaries paid to Head Start staff, it is
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 275

notable that relatively few suggestions for increased salaries were recorded. Finally, a relatively small

proportion of Center Directors indicated that improved relationships with community organizations such

as schools and service agencies would be of benefit to their Head Start programs.

Exhibit 4-40

Staff Comments on Possible Head Start Program Improvements

Percentage of Total Counts a

Comment Category

Center

Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 502) b

Parent Involvement/Communication

Increase parent involvement 25.8 25.1

Improve/increase parent education services/workshops 6.7 8.0

Increase contact/communication with parents 5.6 6.0

Increase male involvement 4.5 1.0

Program Structure

Provide more year round, full day or extended day services 9.0 7.6

Increase transportation services for children/parents 5.6 5.2

Add special education services and follow-up for children with

behavioral/cognitive problems 1.1 3.6

Program Facilities

Move to better location, improve or renovate space 18.0 6.2

Increase amount of available space 16.9 4.6

Improve or add additional equipment 9.0 4.2

Program for Children

Increase available educational materials 3.3 8.4

Improve educational curriculum/services for children 2.2 8.8

Increase number of support staff 9.0 9.0

Staff Interactions and Activities

Increase amount/improve quality of staff training 11.2 2.0

Decrease amount of paperwork 2.2 10.8

Improve/increase communication among staff/administration 3.4 5.9

Increase program funding/staff salaries 3.4 5.4

Increase activity planning/preparation time 0.0 3.8
________________________________________________________________________________

Section III: Head Start Staff Head Start Services and Activities 276

Percentage of Total Counts a

Comment Category

Center

Directors

(n = 89)

Classroom

Teachers

(n = 502) b

Relationships with Schools and Other Agencies

Improve relationships with local schools 6.7 0.0

Improve/increase communication with local agencies 4.5 0.0

a Excludes categories mentioned by fewer than 2% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers

b Excludes 27 Classroom Teachers with no comment

4.14 Summary of Results

• More than 40% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers suggested that improvements in

parent involvement would benefit the Head Start program; however, few of these staff had

specific suggestions for improvement.

• About 44% of Center Directors suggested that improvements in center space (including moves,

expansions, or renovations) or equipment (replacement or additions) would benefit the program.

In contrast, improvements in this area were mentioned by only 15% of Classroom Teachers.

• Classroom Teachers were more likely to identify elements of the program for children as an area

for improvement than Center Directors (26.2% of Classroom Teachers compared to 14.5% of

Center Directors). The improvements identified included educational materials, curricula, and the

number of support staff.

• More than 20% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers identified staff interactions or

activities as an area for improvement. While Center Directors were more likely to specify

improvements in the quantity or quality of staff training in this area (11.2% vs. 2.0%), Classroom

Teachers were more likely to suggest decreasing the amount of paperwork (10.8% vs. 2.2%).

• About 15% of both Center Directors and Classroom Teachers suggested structural improvements

in the program, including extended service hours for children (year round, full day, or extended

day services), better transportation, or improved special education services.

• About 10% of Center Directors (but no Classroom Teachers) suggested improved relationships

with local schools or other service agencies.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 277

1.0 Introduction to the Case Study

1.1 Overview

The goal of the Family and Child Experiences Study (FACES) case study was to provide a more

complete profile of Head Start families and children, their homes, neighborhoods, and communities, and their

interactions with Head Start. In this regard, the FACES case study sought to describe the family as a whole

(the family as the unit of analysis) as well as to describe the relevant features of the family=s context.

The role of the case study within the context of FACES was to 1) support and expand on the findings

in the larger FACES study, 2) pursue research questions independent of the larger study, and 3) generate

hypotheses for future research with Head Start families. Given its multiple purposes, the FACES case study

demanded a unique design that focused on representativeness, had a large enough sample size to draw

inferences across cases, and used multiple in-depth descriptive data collection methods and measures.

Therefore, the case study included in-depth cross-sectional and longitudinal descriptive data, both qualitative

and quantitative, collected by multiple methods of inquiry (including interviews, observations, home visits,

and monthly telephone contacts) on a smaller, representative sample of the Head Start FACES families over a

period of almost two years.

As a research method, the case study approach originated in the social sciences, particularly in the

fieldwork of anthropology, psychology and sociology. As a research endeavor, the case study contributes

uniquely to our knowledge of individual, organizational, social and political phenomena and addresses the

need to understand complex social phenomena. Case studies have been defined as an empirical method for

learning about a complex phenomenon, based on a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon as a

whole, within a real-life context. The method relies on extensive description and analysis from multiple

sources of evidence and uses multiple methods of inquiry (General Accounting Office, 1991; Yin, 1984).

Applying this definition, case studies have often been used to learn as much as possible about the

phenomenon of interest. The goal is to develop a complete picture, including how the phenomenon operates

and how it relates to the extrinsic and contextual events of which it is a part. Case studies have proven to be

particularly useful when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 278

Historically, case study methodology has largely been applied in research and evaluation to address

descriptive, explanatory or exploratory questions. For example, descriptive data generated from a case study

can help the research audience understand and interpret a situation while also preventing them from oversimplifying the complexities of a given situation. Case studies can address explanatory questions by

describing how a phenomenon has occurred or why it has happened – establishing and tracing the links

between causes and effects over time. Lastly, case studies can also address exploratory questions, developing

pertinent hypotheses and propositions for further inquiry.

A case study approach was taken in the FACES study in order to better understand Head Start

families and children and the contexts in which they live by addressing descriptive, exploratory, and

explanatory questions. Exhibit 1.1 displays the key research questions addressed, organized by four primary

themes: 1) the Head Start child; 2) the Head Start family; 3) the family=s interactions with Head Start; and 4)

the family=s home, neighborhood, and community.

Exhibit 1-1

Key Research Themes and Questions of the FACES Case Study

The Head Start Child

• How do Head Start parents describe their children?

• What is a typical day like for Head Start children?

• What are Head Start parents’ short-term and long-term hopes and goals (i.e., educational and

occupational aspirations) for their children?

The Head Start Family

• What are Head Start parents’ hopes and goals for themselves?

• What kind of strengths do Head Start parents perceive about their families?

• What kind of issues or areas needing improvement do Head Start parents perceive about their

families?

• What are Head Start parents’ beliefs, hopes, and goals with regard to parenting?

• What is the nature of changes in Head Start families’ households with regard to household

composition, adult and child health, child care arrangements, employment and economic status,

and participation in Head Start activities?

• What is the nature of Head Start families’ social support networks, family resources, and the

psychological well-being of the parents?
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 279

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

• What are the primary reasons that Head Start families enrolled their children in Head Start?

• How do Head Start parents characterize their children’s participation in Head Start?

• How do Head Start parents characterize their families’ participation in Head Start?

The Family’s Home, Neighborhood, and Community

• How do Head Start parents characterize their homes, neighborhoods, and communities?

• How do interviewers describe Head Start families’ homes, neighborhoods, and communities?

1.2 Organization of Section IV: The Case Study

This section is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1.0 contains an overview of the case study.

Chapter 2.0 describes the methodology of the study, including the sample, measures, data collection

procedures, and data analyses used. Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 summarize the case study findings from the

home visits, monthly telephone contacts, and family narratives, respectively.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 280

2.0 Case Study Methodology

2.1 The Sample

The FACES case study sample was a randomly selected, representative1 sample of 120 Head Start

families. The sample included three families from each of the 40 Head Start program sites that participated

in FACES. The sample was stratified by the age of the Head Start child. Two out of three families selected

by site had 4 year olds in Head Start during the 1997-1998 school year, while the other families had a 3-yearold child. Exhibit 2-1 displays basic demographic data of the FACES case study sample.

Exhibit 2-1

Description of the FACES Case Study Sample, N = 1172

Variable Percentage

Children’s Race

African American 28.2

White 40.2

Hispanic/Latino 17.1

Native American 0.9

Asian 0.9

Other 12.8

Marital Status

Single 39.3

Married 38.5

Separated 10.3

Divorced 11.1

Widowed 0.9

Language other than English spoken in the home 28.2

Number of Grades Completed

1 There were no statistically significant differences between the case study sample and the larger FACES sample of families

on basic demographic information, including: household income, marital status, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status,

receipt of welfare, Medicaid or food stamps, and language spoken in the home.

2 Demographic data presented in this exhibit is from the FACES fall 1997 parent interviews – 117 of the 120 case study

families completed parent interviews.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 281

Variable Percentage

8 or less 9.4

9 5.1

10 8.5

11 12.0

12 65.0

Degrees Obtained

No degree 79.5

AA: 11.4

BA/BS: 6.8

Graduate: 2.3

Financial Resources

Currently Employed 52.1

Receiving Welfare Benefits 31.9

Receiving Food Stamps 55.6

Receiving Medicaid or Medical Assistance 59.5

Monthly Household Income

Less than $500 10.3

$500-999 17.9

$1000-1499 19.7

$1500-1999 12.8

$2000-2499 4.3

More than $2500 35.0

The sample was developed in two stages. The first stage occurred during the field test in the spring

of 1997. A sample of 40 families (one from each site) with 3-year-old children who were new to Head Start

in the fall of 1996 was randomly selected to participate. Only families with 3-year-old children were chosen

in the first stage of sampling in order to maximize the number of children in the sample who would continue

to their second year of Head Start (when they were 4-years-old). The second stage of the sampling was

completed in the fall of 1997 when an additional 80 families were added to the sample. The 80 new families

were comprised of two families from each site (one family with a 3-year-old-child and one family with a 4-
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 282

year-old child) who were new to Head Start in the fall of 1997. This increased the total sample to 120

families. Families from the original field test sample of 40 that did not return to Head Start in the fall of

1997 (n = 11) were replaced with families with 4-year-old-children starting Head Start in the fall of 19973

.

There was an overall attrition rate of 12% over the course of the study, with 14 families leaving between the

fall of 1997 and December of 1998. Most of these families moved and could not be tracked.

2.2 Measures and Data Collection Procedures

The design of the FACES case study involved the following four primary data collection

components4

:

• Home visit parent interviews;

• Home and neighborhood observations;

• Monthly telephone interviews; and

• Community agency interviews.

Copies of all data collection instruments can be found in Appendices D1 and D2.

Home Visit Parent Interviews

Each of the three major data collection points (home visits in the spring of 1997, fall of 1997, and

spring of 1998) included semi-structured, open-ended interviews to discuss with parents their perceptions of

themselves and their families, their experiences with Head Start, and their neighborhoods. Two home-visit

parent interview instruments were created. The first instrument was adapted from the AGetting to Know your

Family@ introductory interview developed by Ramey and Ramey (1992). This instrument was used to

develop rapport with the families during the first home visit and to obtain valid and reliable data in a brief

amount of time (i.e., 30 minutes). Parents were asked open-ended questions covering the following topics:

• How they would describe their children;

3 Approximately one half of the selected families had a 4-year-old child in the study and one half of the selected families had

a 3-year-old child in the study during the 1997-1998 school year.

4 A complete description of the overall design of the FACES case study can be found in Appendix D1.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 283

• What were the primary reasons for enrolling their children in Head Start;

• What were their short- and long-term educational and occupational hopes and goals for their

children; and

• What they saw as their family strengths and areas of needed improvement.

Home visit interviews were completed with all 40 families in the field study in the spring of 1997 and

with all 120 families in the fall of 1997. The second home visit parent interview instrument, used in the

spring of 1998, included open-ended questions designed to allow parents to discuss, in greater detail, topics

such as the nature of the children=s and families= participation in Head Start activities, their parenting beliefs,

satisfaction and goals, as well as questions regarding their neighborhoods. Home visit interviews using this

second instrument were conducted with 101 of the 110 families remaining in the study in the spring of 1998.

This interview took approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Home and Neighborhood Observations

Each of the three major data collection points also included observations of the families’ homes and

neighborhoods. The 10-item home observation measure included seven items from the Home Observation

for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) physical environment subscale (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984)

and 3 items regarding the families= housing type and circumstances. Interviewers also were asked to describe

the families= homes using an open-ended question format. A 19-item neighborhood observation checklist was

completed by the interviewers in spring and fall of 1997 and asked of the parents in the spring of 1998.

Interviewers (and families) were asked to indicate the presence or absence of items in the families= immediate

neighborhood.5 Items included neighborhood resources, such as parks, libraries, schools, and grocery stores

as well as physical and social neighborhood quality indices, such as abandoned or boarded up buildings,

vandalism, graffiti, or loitering. Parents also were asked to rate the overall safety of their neighborhoods on a

5-point scale.

Monthly Telephone Interviews

These interviews provided monthly updates on changes in the families= household composition, child

care arrangements, employment status, health status, and Head Start participation that occurred between

5 Immediate neighborhood was defined as within six blocks or 2 mile of the family=s home.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 284

home visits. In addition, measures of social support (Chen, Telleen & Chen, 1995), psychological well-being

(Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression Scale –CES-D -Radloff, 1977), family resources (Dunst &

Leet, 1987), and parents= satisfaction with Head Start and transitions to kindergarten were rotated into the

interview (one measure each month) throughout the study. The monthly telephone interview was developed

to be brief (i.e., 10 minutes), to be easy to administer over the phone (mostly close-ended questions), and to

parallel the questions asked in the FACES parent interview. Monthly telephone interviews conducted over

the course of 15 months were completed, on average, with 58% of the families. Monthly response rates

varied from 48% to 68% over the course of the study.

Community Agency Interviews

Telephone interviews were conducted with 200 community agencies in 10 Head Start FACES sites

regarding the amount and overall nature of collaboration between their agency and the local Head Start

program. The methodology and findings from this study are presented in Section V of this technical report.

Staffing and Data Collection Procedures

Case study data were collected at each of the 40 FACES sites. For each of the three waves of data

collection, FACES site managers conducted the home visits as well as the home and neighborhood

observations. The site managers also maintained monthly telephone contacts with the families. In order to

develop and maintain rapport with the families over time, families were assigned to the same site manager for

all of their interviews. Site managers also sent birthday and holiday cards to the families in their caseload to

maintain contact over the year. Families were given small, child-oriented gifts at each home visit for their

participation in the study. All data were quality checked and organized for data analyses by the FACES case

study managers.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 285

2.3 Data Analyses

The FACES case study integrated three methodological or analytic strategies for identifying or

confirming emergent themes within and across the Head Start families in the study. The first strategy

involved content coding of open-ended responses to questions posed to each of the families during home visit

interviews. The second strategy involved descriptive analyses of quantitative data collected in monthly

telephone interviews, with a particular focus on changes over time within families. The third strategy

integrated qualitative and quantitative data from the case study with data from the FACES parent interview,

teacher ratings, and child assessments, to produce a narrative for each family in the case study. The intent of

these three strategies -- the family narratives, the content coding, and descriptive analyses -- was to integrate

them into an overall analytic strategy to identify or confirm important themes both within and across the

families in the study.

Content Coding and Analyses

The second analytic approach involved content analyses of open-ended responses from the home visit

interview. Content analysis is an approach that has been used in a large number of studies to systematically

organize and categorize textual information in a standardized way that allows researchers to make inferences

about the information (Weber, 1990). This process involves content coding words or even sentences of text

into a coding scheme or classification system with many fewer categories that are organized around the

content of the text. In this case study, content codes for the home visit interviews in the spring and fall of

1997 were adapted from content codes used in a previous study that used the AGetting to Know Your Family@

introductory interview instrument (Ramey and Ramey, 1992). These data were content coded by the two

FACES case study managers, first separately, and then together, to refine and reach agreement on aspects of

the content coding schemes and/or ways that particular text should be coded. The spring 1998 home visit

interviews were content coded in the same way, except that there were no previous content coding schemes,

so coding schemes were developed based on a small sample of the cases (i.e., 25%) and were adapted to the

data, if necessary, during the coding process. Once all the cases had been content coded, each case was stored

and codes were organized and analyzed using NUD*IST qualitative software (QSR, 1995) to identify

predominant themes or issues related to particular research questions in the study. The content codes for both

the fall 1997 and spring 1998 home visit interviews are found in Appendix D4.
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 286

Descriptive Analyses of Monthly Telephone Interview Data

The third analytic approach involved conducting descriptive analyses of the monthly telephone data

collected while following the FACES case study families over a 14-month period of time with 12 monthly

data collection points. These involved simple descriptive analyses across families as well as analyses

examining change over time, such as the percentage of families each month who experienced particular health

problems. A critical role of the telephone interview analyses was to examine and understand changes over

time and better understand the amount of change these families were experiencing regarding the key questions

of interest. Whenever possible, monthly telephone data were linked with parent interview data on key indices

to enhance the ability to assess changes within these families.

Family Narratives

Narratives for the FACES case study families were developed using an iterative process integrating

qualitative and quantitative descriptive data from the home visit interviews, monthly telephone interviews, as

well as parent interviews, teacher ratings, and child assessments from the larger study. The first step in the

process was to organize the structure and content (Exhibit 2-2) around the four primary areas or themes of

the FACES case study:

• The Head Start child;

• The Head Start family;

• The family=s interactions with Head Start; and

• The family=s home and neighborhood.

Data from each of the families= home visit interviews, parent interviews, child assessments, and

teacher ratings, as well as monthly telephone interviews were used to create a first draft narrative. After a

first draft was completed, it was refined and read by the two case study managers to identify and highlight

themes within each family narrative. The final narrative was used to identify emergent themes within each

family or across families within each of the primary themes of the study. The emergent themes then became

the organizing structure of the narrative chapter. Chapter 5 of Section IV contains several examples of final

narratives completed on FACES families and demonstrates how this iterative process can become a useful

vehicle for identifying and confirming emergent themes within families as well as beginning to identify

themes across families. This methodology and iterative analytic process emphasizes first developing each

case (family narrative) as the unit of analysis and conducting analyses and building patterns of explanations
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 287

and emergent themes within each case as a building block to comparing themes across cases (Yin, 1984).

With this approach, the themes drawn from the multiple cases can then become the emergent themes for the

overall study.

Exhibit 2-2

Topical Structure of the Head Start Family Narratives

The Head Start Child

Child’s demographics

Parent’s description of child and favorite activities/things to do

Child’s participation in Head Start activities/typical day/attitudes toward Head Start

Child’s social skills/behavior/approaches to learning

Child’s educational readiness, literacy, reading materials in the home

Child’s health

Parents’ hopes and goals for their child’s year in Head Start

The Head Start Family

Family’s demographics/household composition

Family’s educational attainment

Family’s employment, economic status, and income sources

Family’s child care arrangements/history

Family’s health care

Family’s need/use of community services

Family’s strengths, areas of improvement/problems, significant events

Parenting beliefs/efficacy and satisfaction/supports

Parent’s hopes and goals for themselves/progress toward meeting these goals

Parent’s need/use of social support

Parent’s psychological well-being and locus of control

Family’s household rules/discipline

Family’s activities/involvement with child

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

Family’s previous experience with Head Start

Family’s primary reason(s) for enrolling child in Head Start

Family’s involvement in Head Start activities

Expected and actual impact of Head Start on child and family

Family’s satisfaction with Head Start/suggestions for improving Head Start
_________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Introduction and Methodology 288

The Family’s Home, Neighborhood, and Community

Family’s housing type and circumstances

Interviewer’s description of home/home observations

Interviewer’s description of neighborhood/neighborhood observations

Parent’s description of neighborhood/neighborhood checklist

Neighborhood violence: family’s exposure to violence

2.4 Limitations

There were no statistically significant differences found between the case study sample and the larger

FACES sample of families on basic demographic information, such as household income, marital status,

ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, receipt of welfare, Medicaid or food stamps, or

language spoken in the home. It should be noted, however, that because of the reduced sample size from the

main sample, the findings presented in this section are not considered representative of the entire Head Start

population. Caution should be used in generalizing these findings to the entire Head Start population.
____________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 289

3.0 Results from Home Visit Interviews

3.1 Overview

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with the case study families in the fall of

1997 and the spring of 1998. These interviews gathered information on the parents’ perceptions of

themselves and their families, their experiences with Head Start, and their neighborhoods. This chapter

summarizes the findings from these interviews.

3.2 Reasons for Enrolling Their Children in Head Start

Head Start families were asked to talk about the primary reasons why they enrolled their children in

Head Start in the fall of 1997. Content analyses of the parents’ responses indicated that all respondents

reported reasons that focused on their children, with most reporting that they enrolled their children in Head

Start for educational reasons. Fewer parents reported reasons that focused on themselves or their families.

The child-focused and family-focused reasons reported by the parents are presented in the following two

sections.

Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start That Related to the Children

When asked about their reasons for enrolling their children in Head Start, all of the respondents

(100%) reported reasons that focused on their children. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the reasons reported by the

parents. The most frequent reasons mentioned by the parents involved their children’s general education

(58%), including wanting their children to develop

learning skills, providing them with new experiences

outside the home, or helping their children to establish

routines. Forty percent of the parents also cited

specific, short-term educational reasons such as

hoping Head Start would prepare their children for school by focusing on academics, including helping them

to learn their letters and numbers. About one half of the parents (49%) hoped that attending Head Start

would improve their children’s interactions with peers and others.

“To get an idea of what school is like and

learning how to cooperate and socialize

with other kids and learning how to take

directions from teachers...”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 290

Exhibit 3-1

Child-Focused Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start

Reasons Percentage

General Educational Reasons. Help children learn, provide new experiences outside the

home, help children calm down, develop learning skills, establish routines, get an early start 58

Interactions with Peers or Others. Help children interact more comfortably with other

children and adults, learn to share 49

Short-term Specific Educational Reasons. Prepare children for kindergarten or school,

focus on academics, learn letters, numbers 40

Children Want to Go to School 6

Improve Children’s Speech or Health 3

Reasons for Enrolling Children in Head Start That Related to Parents or Families

Fewer parents (37%) indicated reasons for enrolling their children in Head Start that focused on their

families or themselves. One fifth (20%) reported that they enrolled their children in Head Start because they

were familiar or comfortable with the program, while 13% reported that they needed help with childcare.

Four percent of the parents reported that a primary reason they enrolled their children in Head Start was to

give themselves a break from their children or because they needed help in handling them.

There were no significant differences in parents’

reasons for enrolling their children in Head Start by family and

child demographics1

. However, parents of children with

ethnicity other than African American, Hispanic, or White were

significantly less likely to indicate that the reason for enrolling

their children in Head Start was to improve their interactions

with peers. In addition, parents of African American children were significantly less likely than the parents of

all other children to report that a primary reason for enrolling their children in Head Start was because they

were already familiar or comfortable with the program.

3.3 Head Start Families’ Hopes and Goals for their Children

In the fall of 1997, Head Start families were asked to talk about their hopes and goals for their

children during the Head Start school year, their long-term educational aspirations for their children, and

1 Family and child demographics include: parent’s educational attainment, family household composition, and gender, age or ethnicity

of their children.

“I enrolled her because my son

attended Head Start and I saw that

he learned so much from it that I

wanted the same for her. Now that

I think about it, I also attended

Head Start and it was good for me

and I know it will be good for her,

too.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 291

other hopes they had for their children’s future, including occupational aspirations. Content analyses of the

parents’ reported hopes and goals indicated that they generally held optimistic expectations for their

children’s early schooling experiences and future educational attainment. While most parents focused on

goals for their children’s education during the current school year, they also had specific educational

aspirations for their children’s future. Additionally, almost half of the parents reported hopes and goals that

focused on their children’s personal qualities. The parents’ hopes and goals for their children are presented in

the following four sections.

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Head Start Children’s General Education.

Exhibit 3-2 presents the responses reported by parents when asked what they hoped for their children

during the current school year. Three fourths of the parents (75%) reported hopes and goals that related to

their children’s general education. Parents hoped their children would

be able to complete age appropriate tasks (34%), hoped their children

would do well in school and receive a good education (29%), or hoped

their children would develop positive attitudes toward school and school

personnel (20%). There were no significant differences in the parent’s

general education goals for their children based on family and child demographics.

Exhibit 3-2

Hopes and Goals Related to the Children’s Education

Percentages

Complete Age Appropriate Tasks or Be Developmentally on Task. Keep up with other

children, learn numbers and letters, learn to read and write, acquire skills such as learning left

from right.

34

Do Well in School and Get a Good Education. Behave in school, listen to the teacher,

cooperate in school, learn or be well educated, improve past school performance.

29

Have a Positive Attitude Toward School and School Personnel. Have good relationships

with teachers and principals, have school be a positive experience, enjoy learning and school

work.

20

General Education. Have goals that are process oriented, such as “just to learn” or develop

important building blocks for a good education.

24

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Head Start Children’s Personal Qualities

Nearly one half of the parents (47%) reported hopes and goals

for their children that related to their children’s personal qualities. They

hoped their children would develop positive qualities like leadership or

“For her to learn how to

enjoy learning so that

when she’s in school she

enjoys it and she can build

her dreams.”

“To learn to be a better

kid. To learn how to

respect other kids and to

do the best you can.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 292

engage in positive social interactions such as getting along with their peers or classmates (36%). They also

hoped their children lacked negative qualities, such as shyness or hyperactivity, and hoped they would be able

to overcome potentially negative social situations (10%). There were no significant differences in parents’

reports of goals related to qualities of their children based on family and child demographics.

Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Their Children’s Long-Term Educational Attainment

When asked about their long-term educational goals for their children, 65% of the parents reported

specific educational attainment goals. Slightly more than one quarter of the parents (26%) hoped their

children would graduate from high school, while nearly one half (49%) hoped their children would continue

their education beyond high school and attend or graduate from

college. Four percent of the respondents reported no specific

educational goals for their children. Overall, there were no significant

differences in the parents’ long-term educational attainment hopes and

goals for their children based on family and child characteristics. However, parents of children with ethnicity

other than African-American, Hispanic, or White were significantly more likely to report specific long-term

educational attainment goals for their children

Parents’ Other Hopes and Goals for Their Children’s Future

When asked if they had other hopes for their

children’s future, parents reported a range of aspirations

(Exhibit 3-3). One half (50%) wanted their children to do

their best, have a good life, or be happy, including the pursuit

of their own goals. Slightly fewer parents (45%) had specific

career aspirations for their children. About 14% of the

parents felt that family involvement was important to their children’s success while 9% wanted their children

to do as well as or better than they had done in life. Overall, there were no significant differences in parents’

other hopes for their children’s future based on family and child characteristics. However, parents who had

not graduated from high school or attained a GED as well as the parents of White children were significantly

less likely to have a specific occupational aspiration for their children.

“... Education means a lot

to me. I really want them

to go to college.”

“I’m hoping he’ll be a lawyer

because he is smart.”

“Finish school, go to college, have

every opportunity Mom did not

have.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 293

Exhibit 3-3

Other Hopes and Goals for the Children’s Future

Percentages

Be Their Best, Have a Good Life, Pursue Own Goals. To succeed, become what

one wants in life, achieve certain goals, be happy, and make something of one’s self.

50

Career Aspirations. Get a job, enter a profession, develop career-oriented skills. 45

Family Involvement. Parental interest in children’s daily activities, provide moral

guidance, help children reach their goals.

14

Do Better than Parents. Accomplish more than previous generations, do not repeat

parents’ mistakes, improve education attainment, go farther in life.

9

3.4 Head Start Parents’ Hopes and Goals for Themselves

Head Start families were also asked to talk about the hopes and goals that they had for themselves

during the fall 1997 home visit interview. Content analyses indicated that most parents had professional

(68%), educational (62%) and personal (50%) hopes and goals for themselves, yet 7% of the parents reported

no specific goals. The professional goals reported by

parents included goals to attain a specific occupation

or profession (43%) or a desire to get back to work

or find a job (27%). Career advancement was

reported as a goal by 7% of the parents. Parents also

had educational goals. Almost one third (31%) of the parents focused on higher education, including

attending a 2- or 4-year college program, while 18% hoped to finish their secondary education by getting a

GED or their high school diploma. About 11% expressed a desire to obtain a job-related certificate or attend

vocational training. Almost one third of the parents (31%) expressed personal hopes and goals that focused

on providing for their children or expanding their family. Financial independence was a goal of 14% of the

parents. Buying a home or improving their current home was a goal for 10% of the parents. There were no

significant differences in the parents’ reports of hopes and goals based on family and child demographics.

“I want to go to nursing school... I have

always wanted to be a pediatric nurse.”

“I want to be independent and be able to

take care of and support my children.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 294

3.5 Strengths of the Head Start Families

During the fall 1997 home visit interview, Head Start families were asked to talk about their

families’ strengths and discuss what they really liked about their families. Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the

parents’ perceptions of their families’ strengths.

Content analyses of the parents’ responses

indicated that a majority of parents (58%)

focused on their families’ positive relationships.

These relationships were most often

characterized as family closeness or togetherness, including being able to rely on one another and the ability

to take care of each other. Many parents (39%) also referred to family activities, such as spending time with

one another and sharing experiences with their children, as strengths. A number of other strengths were

mentioned, including good communication (24%), family composition, structure, or stability (20%), family

values, beliefs, and cultural practices (22%), and the well-being of their children (21%). Overall, there were

no significant differences in parents’ reports of family strengths based on family and child characteristics.

However, parents of female children were significantly more likely to report involvement in family activities

as a family strength than parents of male children.

Exhibit 3-4

Parents’ Perceptions of their Families’ Strengths

Percentages

Positive Relationships Within the Family. Togetherness or closeness, rely on

one another or take care of each other. 58

Family Activities. Spend time with one another and parents spend time and

share experiences with the children. 39

Good Communication. Discuss problems, be open, listen to one another. 24

Family Values, Beliefs and Cultural Practices. 22

Well-Being of the Children. Feel children are great and doing well, view

children as a family strength, any mention of children.

21

Family Composition, Structure or Stability. Family is stable or back together,

feel family members are a strength.

20

Support of Extended or In-Law Family Members. 13

Coping with Adversity or Solving Problems. Family sticks together when 13

“We stick together. We just love each other

and try to keep each other happy.”

“We have a willingness to keep it all together.

We work together as a family. All of us are

here for each other.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 295

Percentages

things are bad, supportive and adjust to specific and/or general adverse situations.

Other 18

3.6 Issues of Improvement and Change for the Head Start Families

During the fall 1997 home visit interview, the Head Start families were asked to talk about what they

would like to improve or change about their families. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the changes that they would

like to see occur. Content analyses of the parents’ responses indicate that while there was not a clear

majority opinion, many (38%) wanted to improve

the relationships within their families, including

improving marital, sibling, parent-child, and

overall family relationships. Parents talked about

their families’ need for a mother or father (or male or female role model) for their children or the increased

involvement of the mother or father (or male or female role model) with their children. Almost one third of

the parents (30%) hoped to improve their ability to meet their

families’ financial and physical needs and discussed their desire to

increase their income, improve or change their employment, or

improve their health. Fifteen percent of the parents felt that there

was nothing that their families needed to improve or change. There

were no significant differences in parents’ reports of areas of improvement or change for their families in

regard to family and child characteristics.

“I need to work on my child-parent

communication skills. I need to be able to talk

without screaming. I tend to get angry at my

daughter, I have worked hard on fixing this.”

“We would like to change our

economic situation to improve

our home and get what is

necessary for my family.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 296

Exhibit 3-5

Parents’ Perceptions of their Families’ Areas of Needed Improvement

Percentages

Relationships within the Family. References to marital, sibling, parent-child and

overall family relationships as well as the need for a father or mother (or male/female

role model) or increased involvement of a father/mother with their children. 38

Meeting Financial and Physical Needs. Increase their income, improve or change

their employment, or improve their health.

30

Qualities of the Family as a Whole. Improve qualities of the family as a whole or a

specific family member, improve stability/structure or organization of the family,

improve religious or cultural identity/practices, make education a higher priority in the

family or improve family members’ education, and be more successful.

22

Family Activities and Involvement. Improve or increase family activities or amount of

time spent together as well as increase the amount of time spent with their children. 18

Home and/or Neighborhood Environment. Move out of their homes or

neighborhoods or improve their homes or neighborhoods. 15

Qualities in the Children. Improve or increase their children’s education or improve

their children’s behavior. 10

Coping with Adversity. Have children or other family members adjust well to

parental separation (marital or geographic), divorce, and related issues, such as

custody arrangements. References to the family wanting to improve or overcome a

substance abuse problem.

8

No Improvement or Change Needed. 15

3.7 Current Problems Facing Head Start Families

In the fall of 1997, Head Start families were asked to talk about any problems their families had

experienced that they felt may have interfered with their children’s adjustment to Head Start. Exhibit 3-6

summarizes the parents’ perceptions of problems their families faced. Content analyses of the parents’

responses indicated that a large majority (75%) felt that their families had no problems, or at least no

problems that interfered with their children’s adjustment to Head Start. Less than 10% of the families

reported any specific problems. There were no significant differences in parents’ reports of current family

problems in regard to family and child demographics.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 297

Exhibit 3-6

Parents’ Perceptions of Current Family Problems

Percentages

No Current Problems that Interfere with Children’s Adjustment to Head Start. 75

Family Structure, Stability and/or Living Environment. Lacking stability/structure

or organization and problems with child care. 8

Family Relationships. Problems with father-child, mother-child, sibling, and overall

family relationships that were disrupted, non-optimal or problematic. 8

Family Separation or Death. Difficulty adjusting to parental separation, divorce, or

geographic separation of family members, child custody/visitation, family member in

jail, death in the family or someone close to the child. 8

Meeting Physical and Financial Needs. Lack of income to meet necessities,

unemployment or unacceptable employment. 8

Health or Behavior Problems. Health problems (including mental health) or special

needs, behavioral and/or attitudinal problems of child or other family member. 5

Abuse Problems. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, or substance abuse

problems. 3

.

3.8 Head Start Child and Family Participation in Head Start

In the spring of 1998, Head Start parents were asked about their families’ participation in activities

at Head Start, including how their children felt about going to school each day, and how much they valued

their own participation in Head Start activities. The parents’ perceptions of their children’s feelings about

Head Start, as well as how they felt about parent involvement in the program, are discussed in the following

two sections.

Children’s Participation in Head Start

Content analyses of the parents’ reports regarding whether or not their children enjoyed the Head

Start experience indicated that almost all of the parents (92%) felt that their children enjoyed Head Start and

were excited about going to school each day. The most frequent reason reported by parents for why their

children enjoyed Head Start was that they liked to socialize or be with their friends and play (40%). Parents

also reported that the children seemed to enjoy the toys and activities such as arts and crafts and games

(24%), the academics (19%), as well as the teachers (15%). While approximately 11% of the parents
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 298

reported that their children were ambivalent about their feelings – sometimes they enjoyed Head Start,

sometimes they did not -- most of the parents felt their

children were only reluctant to go whenever they had

something else they wanted to do more. Only 1% of the

parents reported that their children did not enjoy Head Start

or going to school. There were no significant differences in

parents’ reports of how their children felt about Head Start

based on family and child demographics.

Head Start Families’ Participation in Head Start

In the spring of 1998, Head Start families were asked the following three questions about their

participation in Head Start:

• How important is it to you to participate in Head Start activities and why?

• Could you tell us about one or two activities you have participated in at the center this year?

• What kinds of things made it easier or harder for you to participate?

Content analyses of the parents’ responses to these questions indicated that a large majority of the Head Start

families felt that it was important for them to participate in Head Start activities. Most parents identified

work or school schedules or other time constraints as the primary barriers to participating more in Head Start

activities.

Why It Was Important to Participate in Head Start Activities

Content analyses of the parents’ responses indicated that a majority (95%) felt that it was important

or very important for them to participate in Head Start activities (Exhibit 3-7). Around 34% of the parents

indicated that parent involvement was important

because it helped their children, their children

enjoyed it, or because it was meaningful to their

children to have their parents participate in activities

at their schools. Thirty-three percent of the parents

felt that being involved and active at Head Start helped them stay informed about what their children were

learning and experiencing. There were no significant differences in parents’ reports of the importance of

participating in Head Start activities based on characteristics of the family or child.

“I think it gives your child more confidence,

makes them know you are interested in

them and that makes them more interested

in school because they know the parents are

interested in school.”

“She likes Head Start a lot. Even

when she is tired because she went

to bed late or had difficulty sleeping,

she gets up as soon as I tell her it’s

time to go to school.”

“She likes Head Start a lot. When

she comes home, she tells me all the

activities she was involved in during

the day.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 299

Exhibit 3-7

Parents’ Reasons for Participating in Head Start Activities

Percentage

It helps children, children like it, it is important to the children 34

To know what children are learning and experiencing at Head Start 33

It helps parents to learn, parents like it 22

To monitor or watch what the Head Start program is doing 11

To demonstrate to the teacher that parents are interested 11

To be involved in their children’s education 9

To meet other parents 2

Not explained 20

Types of Activities in Which Families’ Participate

Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the types of Head Start activities in which parents most often participated.

Content analyses of the responses indicated that a majority of parents (90%) had participated in Head Start

activities with only 10% reporting that they had not participated in any activities. Almost one half of the

parents (49%) reported that they had participated in social events at Head Start that were organized around

holidays or special parties while 30% reported that they had participated in the classroom as a volunteer or a

bus monitor.

Exhibit 3-8

Types of Head Start Activities Participated in by Families

Percentage

Holiday or special parties or other social events 49

Classroom volunteer 30

Field trip volunteer or other activity outside of Head Start 27

Parent meetings/Policy Council 23

Workshops or meetings with special topics or instruction 9

Fundraising activities 8

Parent drop-in activities 5

Parent-teacher conferences 5

Have not participated in any activities at Head Start 10
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 300

Barriers and Facilitators to Families’ Participation

Exhibit 3-9 presents the barriers and facilitators

mentioned by the parents. Most parents (91%) discussed

barriers to participating in Head Start activities. Almost

two thirds of the parents (65%) identified work or school

schedules or other time constraints as the main barriers they

encountered. Almost one third (30%) reported that a lack

of child care for their other children prevented them from

attending activities more often. Less than one fifth of the

parents (16%) said they did not feel comfortable with the

Head Start staff, reporting that they were not receptive or accommodating, and often scheduled activities at

inconvenient times. Only 13% of the parents talked about facilitators or things that made it easier for them to

participate at Head Start. The facilitators that were mentioned by the parents included the openness of the

Head Start teachers and staff, and the proximity of the centers to where they lived.

Exhibit 3-9

Parents’ Reports of Barriers or Facilitators to Head Start Participation

Percentages

Barriers – What Made Participation More Difficult 91

Work or school schedules, time constraints 65

Other children at home to watch, lack of child care 27

No transportation, distance from Head Start center 17

Head Start staff not receptive, parents’ schedules not considered when planning

events, cultural barriers perceived

16

Parents, children, or other family members had physical or medical problems 14

Facilitators – What Made Participation Easier. Included openness of teachers and staff, easy

transportation or proximity of center, entire family can attend activities. 13

3.9 Satisfaction with Head Start

In the spring of 1998, Head Start families were asked about their satisfaction with Head Start.

Specifically, parents’ were asked if they felt the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children.

Exhibit 3-10 summarizes the parents’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction with Head Start. Content analyses of

primary parents’ responses indicated that a majority (97%) reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with

Head Start and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children. Well over one half

(57%) of these parents reported they were satisfied with Head Start because of the program’s emphasis on

“What makes it really hard to

participate in activities is the time

when they are scheduled. They

usually have them in the morning

during the time my child is in Head

Start, but because I also go to school

during that time then that limits my

participation. What it means to me

is that if I participate in Head Start

activities, I usually have to miss

school and I don’t like to do that.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 301

academics. They felt that their children were learning and the program prepared their children for

kindergarten. Satisfaction with the program’s emphasis on the total child, including the physical, social or

behavioral development of their children, was mentioned by 52% of the parents. However, 34% of the

parents also gave some indication that they were not satisfied with Head Start and felt the program was not

meeting the needs and goals of their children. One

third of these parents (33%) said they wanted Head

Start to have more of an emphasis on academics.

They felt their children were not learning and were not

being prepared for kindergarten. Around 30%

indicated that they had problems with some Head Start

staff and also expressed dissatisfaction with servicerelated issues such as the hours of operation or Head Start’s enrollment policies. There were no significant

differences in parents’ reports of satisfaction with Head Start based on family and child characteristics.

Exhibit 3-10

Parents’ Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Head Start

Percentages

Satisfied or Very Satisfied with Head Start - Program Meeting Needs and Goals of Children 97

Why Satisfied?

Emphasis on academic issues, children learning, prepared for kindergarten 57

Emphasis on the total child – physical, social, behavioral development 52

Like Head Start staff 17

Emphasis on health and nutrition 12

Child is happy and having a good experience 8

Meeting families’ needs and goals 8

Head Start “takes good care of them” 4

Not Satisfied with Head Start – Program Not Meeting the Needs and Goals of Children 34

Why Not Satisfied?

More emphasis on academic issues, children not learning, not prepared for

kindergarten

33

Problems with Head Start staff 30

Service-related issues with Head Start (e.g., program operations, hours of

operations, enrollment issues)

30

Transportation issues or problems 12

“I wish Head Start would teach him more

about numbers, letters and spelling his own

name. It’s not one of their strong points.

Usually by the time they start kindergarten,

they’re starting to write their own names

and he’s not doing that. You try to teach

him and he doesn’t have no interest.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 302

More emphasis on the total child – physical, social behavioral development 9

Not meeting families’ needs and goals 3

3.10 Parenting Beliefs and Efficacy

In the spring of 1998, Head Start families were asked the following questions about their parenting

beliefs:

• What are the things you think are important for you to do with your child as she grows up?

• What kinds of things do you want to teach your child?

• How successful do you feel you have been in accomplishing these things with your child?

Exhibit 3-11 summarizes the parents’ parenting beliefs. Content analyses of the responses indicated that a

majority (61%) reported they felt it was important to teach their children values or morals. In addition,

almost one half of the parents (47%) thought it was also important to teach or show their children that

education was important, around 46% felt is was

important to teach their children how to behave,

and 44% believed it was important to guide their

children and help them set goals in life. A majority

of the parents felt that they were successful (52%)

or somewhat successful (41%) at accomplishing

these things with their children, while only 7% of

the parents believed that they were not successful

or did not know if they were successful. Overall, there were no significant differences in the parents’ reports

of parenting beliefs and efficacy based on characteristics of the family and child. However, parents of

Hispanic children were significantly more likely to report the importance of teaching their children that

education was important as well as parents of children with ethnicity other than White, African-American or

Hispanic background, while parents of White children were significantly less likely to emphasize the

importance of education.

“Try to teach him the basics of right and

wrong. Teach him to be a responsible

person and respect people. To grow up to

be a well balanced person and a caring

person, that is important.”

“To help her set her goals high. To have

high standards in life, generally, and to

believe that she can do anything she wants

to do.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 303

Exhibit 3-11

Parenting Beliefs as Reported by the Parents

Percentages

Teach Them Values/Morals. Be a good person, learn right from wrong, impart religious

values, responsibility, respect for others.

61

Teach Or Show Them Education Is Important. Read and write. 47

Teach Them How To Behave. Obedience, discipline, respect and manners. 46

Guide Them And Help Them Set Their Goals. Support them, be there for them, be their

mentor, help them to succeed.

44

Spend A Lot Of Quality Time With Them. Give them attention, talk with them. 29

Teach Them To Stay Safe, Drug-Free, And About Sex. Problem avoidance. 25

Have A Good Relationship With Them. Love them. 21

General - Teach them everything I know. 17

Improve Their Self-Esteem And Self-Respect . How they feel about themselves. 16

Expose Them To Things. Provide extra-curricular activities. 13

Teach Them To Be Independent And Self-Sufficient. Take care of themselves. 11

Teach Them Issues Related To Health. 7

Help Them To Be A Good Parent. Manage a household. 4

Other. 12
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 304

3.11 Parenting Satisfaction and Supports

In the spring of 1998, Head Start families were asked how satisfied they were in their roles as

parents. They were also asked to talk about the role that Head Start had played in supporting them as parents

and to discuss the kinds of supports that they felt would help them. Content analyses of their responses

indicated that a majority (69%) reported they were very satisfied with their role as a parent and only 5%

reported that they were not very satisfied. When

asked to talk about the role that Head Start played in

helping them, 33% of the parents said that Head

Start had done nothing, very little, or they did not

know if Head Start helped them. Almost one fourth

of the parents (24%) reported that Head Start had helped them understand child development or taught them

how to improve their interactions with their children, and 23% reported that Head Start had helped them by

teaching their children skills or academics. When asked what kind of support they needed as parents, 25% of

the parents said they needed financial help and 17% reported a need for more help from other family

members. About 20% of the parents felt they did not need any additional support. There were no significant

differences in parents’ reports of parenting satisfaction and supports based on family and child demographics.

Exhibit 3-12 summarizes the parents’ responses to how Head Start has helped them in their role as parents

and Exhibit 3-13 presents the areas in which parents felt they needed support or help.

Exhibit 3-12

The Role Head Start Played in Helping the Parents

Percentages

None/Very Little/Don’t Know. 33

Understand Child Development And How To Interact With My Child Better.

Parenting skills, workshops. 24

Teaches Children Skills And Academics. Things that I cannot teach them. 23

General Support System. 16

Help with Discipline. 14

Care Taking. Taking care of child during the day. 11

Providing Services or Referrals. 8

Help Improve Health Habits And Nutrition. 3

“Yes, I am very satisfied. Being a parent is

a good experience. You learn a lot in a

hurry when you have a kid. You also feel

like a very special person because you have

the ability to bring life into the world.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 305

Exhibit 3-13

What Would Help Head Start Parents

Percentages

Financial Help. More money, new or better job, house, car. 25

Nothing. 20

More Help From Other Family Members Or Others – Support System. 17

More Workshops Or Parent Training. 14

More Help From Significant Other. Biological, step-, or other parent figure. 12

More Time In The Day -- More Time With Children Or Family. 9

More Education Or Schooling. Need to go back to school, need a degree. 6

Help With Child Care. 6

Help With Parent’s Personal Characteristics Or Qualities. More patience. 6

Need Time Away From Family Or Children. Respite. 5

Help Regarding Discipline. 4

Don’t Know. 6

3.12 Head Start Families’ Perceptions of their Neighborhoods

During home visits conducted during the spring of 1998, Head Start families were asked to describe

their neighborhoods. The following questions were asked:

• How would you describe your neighborhood? What kind of place is it to raise a child?

• What are some of the things you really like about your neighborhood?

• If there were three things you could change about your neighborhood, what would these things

be?

Content analyses of the parents’ open-ended descriptions of their neighborhoods indicated that most

parents (75%) seemed to feel that their neighborhoods were good places to raise children or had several

strengths. Most parents also seemed to use the same set of criteria in judging whether their neighborhoods

were good or bad places to raise their children. These criteria included: 1) safety, particularly the presence of

crime and/or drugs in their neighborhood; 2) the quality of interactions with their neighbors or whether they
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 306

could trust their neighbors; and 3) the presence of social and physical indicators in their neighborhoods, such

as abandoned or vandalized buildings and groups of people loitering.

Parents’ Assessments of Their Neighborhoods as Places to Raise Children

When parents were asked how they would describe their neighborhoods in terms of the kinds of

places they were to raise children, most (75%)

responded that their neighborhoods were good

places to raise children or that their

neighborhoods had several strengths (Exhibit

3-14). Of these parents, 66% mentioned good

neighbors and positive interactions as a

positive feature, 62% said their neighborhoods were quiet or peaceful, and 53% reported that their

neighborhoods were safe and free of crime and drugs. Less than one half (42%) mentioned that they liked the

physical aspects of their neighborhoods, 28% mentioned using neighborhood resources, and 25% liked the

social and cultural makeup of their neighborhoods.

However, 25% of the parents said that their neighborhoods were not good places to raise children or

they reported that their neighborhoods had

several problems or weaknesses. Of these

parents, 68% were concerned about safety,

crime, or drugs, 52% mentioned bad

neighbors or negative interactions, 24%

disliked the social and cultural makeup of

their neighborhoods, 20% mentioned a lack

of neighborhood resources and activities,

and 20% disliked the physical aspects of

their neighborhoods. Overall, there were

no significant differences in parents’

reports of their neighborhoods as places to raise children based on family or child characteristics. However,

parents who had not graduated from high school or attained a GED were significantly more likely to indicate

that their neighborhoods were not good places to raise children.

“This neighborhood has deteriorated...before there

were no drugs nearby, but now they are even in my

building. My neighbors are smoking them

everywhere, even in the hallways. Now I have to be

even more careful when allowing my children to play

out in the street. I have to take them elsewhere to

play but there isn’t a good place to take them

nearby.”

“This neighborhood is definitely not a good place to

raise children because children learn (from) what

they see and I don’t want my children to learn some

of the things that one sees around here.”

“Quiet, really friendly neighborhood. Everyone

knows everyone else. When someone moves in,

we go and introduce (ourselves). It’s a nice place

and everyone looks after the kids and makes

sure they don’t get into trouble. The kids get

along really well and don’t fight.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 307

Exhibit 3-14

Parents’ Perceptions of Their Neighborhood as a Place to Raise Children

Percentages

Neighborhood A Good Place to Raise a Child or Had Several Strengths: 75

Safe/Free of Crime and Drugs. 53

Quiet/Peaceful. 62

Good Neighbors/Positive Interactions with Neighbors. Friendly, helpful, no

one bothers you, trust neighbors and children in neighborhood. 66

Neighborhood Resources/Activities. 28

Composition of the Neighborhood. Many children, mix of ages, family-types,

ethnic groups. 25

Physical Aspects of the Neighborhood. Clean, large yards, room for kids to

play, not crowded, safe traffic. 41

Percentages

Neighborhood Not A Good Place to Raise a Child or Had Several Problems or

Weaknesses: 25

Safety/Reducing Crime and Drugs. 68

Bad Neighbors/Negative Interactions with Neighbors. Unfriendly, no one

helps each other, they cause problems or trouble, do not trust neighbors and

children in neighborhood. 52

Improve Availability/Access to Neighborhood Resources/Activities. 20

Composition of the Neighborhood. Not many children, wrong kind of people

or families, unstable neighborhood. 24

Improve Physical Aspects of Neighborhood. Run down, dangerous traffic,

crowded. 20

What Parents Really Liked about their Neighborhoods

When asked about some of the things they really liked about

their neighborhoods, parents’ most frequent responses were that they

liked their neighbors (53%). Nearly one third (32%) liked the quiet and

peacefulness of their neighborhoods, 24% liked their neighborhoods’

resources and activities, 20% liked the convenience or proximity to schools, businesses and transportation,

and 15% liked the safety of their neighborhoods and their neighborhoods’ lack of crime and drugs. Other

“I like my neighbors. My

neighbors never bother

me and they are helpful.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 308

positive attributes mentioned included the physical aspects of the neighborhood (13%) and neighborhood

demographics (9%). Ten percent of the respondents reported that there were no or very few good things

about their neighborhoods.

What Parents Would Change About Their Neighborhoods

Parents were also asked to identify three things they would change about their neighborhood. Nearly

one half (49%) answered that they would improve the physical

aspects of their neighborhood. One third would change their

neighbors or their interactions with their neighbors and 27%

would improve the availability and access to neighborhood

resources and activities. Twenty percent felt that safety should be

improved and crime and drugs decreased, while 11% would change the social and cultural makeup of the

neighborhood. Almost one fourth of the parents (22%) said they would change very little or nothing about

their neighborhoods. Exhibit 3-15 presents the parents’ reports of what they liked about their neighborhoods

and what they would change about their neighborhoods.

Exhibit 3-15

What Parents’ Like about their Neighborhoods and What They Would Change

Percentages

What Parents Like About Their Neighborhoods

Safe/free of crime and drugs. 15

Quiet/peaceful. 32

Good neighbors/positive interactions with neighbors. 53

Neighborhood resources/activities. 24

Demographic composition of the neighborhood. 9

Physical aspects of the neighborhood. 13

Convenience/proximity to schools, businesses, transportation. 20

There are no good things or very few good things about my neighborhood. 10

“I would like to see the

neighborhood be better taken

care of. I would want to see

houses painted, more trees and

cleaner streets.”
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 309

What Parents Would Change About Their Neighborhoods Percentages

Safety/reducing crime and drugs. 20

Bad neighbors/negative interactions with neighbors. 33

Improve availability/access to neighborhood resources/activities. 27

Demographic composition of the neighborhood. 11

Improve physical aspects of neighborhood. 49

I would not change anything or very little about my neighborhood 22

Neighborhood Resources

Exhibit 3-16 presents the percentage of parents who indicated that they had certain resources in their

neighborhoods. Less than one half of the parents (43%) reported they had a neighborhood watch program, a

neighborhood organization, or a public library. Over two thirds of the parents (69%) indicated they had

access to public transportation, recreation centers, parks, doctor’s offices, and day care centers as well as

commercial businesses such as grocery stores and pharmacies. More than three quarters of the respondents

reported that they had a convenience store and a church in their neighborhoods.

Exhibit 3-16

Resources Present in all of the Neighborhoods, as Reported by the Parents

Neighborhood/Community

Resources

%

Reported

Neighborhood/Community

Resources

%

Reported

Public playground or park 74 Public library 43

Recreation or community center 52 Neighborhood watch program 43

Day care center 63 Neighborhood organization or tenant’s

council

29

Clinic or doctor’s office (for children) 58 Supermarket/chain grocery store 70

Public transportation 69 Convenience or corner store 86

Church 87 Pharmacy or drug store 61

Elementary school 70 Bank 61
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 310

Social and Physical Neighborhood Quality Indicators

Parents were also asked about the presence of several social and physical quality indicators in their

neighborhoods (Exhibit 3-17). Less than one half of all respondents (43%) indicated that they had

abandoned or boarded up buildings or adolescents loitering in their neighborhoods. Less than one third of all

parents (33%) reported graffiti, vandalism, or abandoned vehicles in their neighborhoods. Parents who

indicated that their neighborhoods were not good places to raise children were more than twice as likely to

report the presence of these indicators than parents who indicated that their neighborhoods were good places

to raise children.

Exhibit 3-17

Social and Physical Quality Indicators Present in all of the Neighborhoods, as

Reported by the Parents

Percentages

Physical and Social Quality

Indicators

All

neighborhoods

Good neighborhoods

to raise children

Bad neighborhoods to

raise children

Abandoned or boarded up buildings 43 31 78**

Graffiti or vandalism 33 24 61**

Abandoned cars or farm equipment 32 23 59**

Adolescents loitering 47 33 87**

Adults loitering 42 26 91**

**=chi-square p-value <.01

3.13 Summary

The data from home visit interviews have contributed to a more complete picture of Head Start

families and children, their interactions with Head Start, and their neighborhoods. Highlights from the

findings regarding Head Start families and children include:

Primary Reasons for Enrolling their Children in Head Start

• The primary reason families enrolled their children in Head Start were child-focused.

Specifically, a majority of parents enrolled their children in Head Start for general educational

reasons, such as helping their children to learn, as opposed to specific educational reasons.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 311

Hopes and Goals for Head Start Children

• Case study families generally held optimistic expectations for their children’s early schooling

experiences. Most parents’ hopes and goals for their children were focused on general education

goals, such as learning basic skills and doing well in school.

• Most parents also had optimistic expectations about their children’s future educational

attainment. Most respondents had specific long-term educational goals for their child, such as

graduating from high school and attending college.

Family Strengths

• Most case study families saw the positive relationships they had within their families as the

primary strength of their families. Positive relationships were most often characterized as the

closeness or togetherness of their family or knowing that they could rely on one another and

would take care of each other.

Parenting Beliefs, Efficacy, and Satisfaction

• Most case study families believed it was important for them to teach their children values or

morals. Many families felt it was also important to teach or show their children that education

was important, teach them how to behave, and guide them and help them set goals in their lives.

• Most parents also felt that they were successful or somewhat successful at teaching these things

to their children. Finally, most parents indicated that they were very satisfied with their roles as

parents.

Highlights from the findings regarding families’ interactions with Head Start include:

Participation in Head Start

• A majority of parents indicated that their children enjoyed Head Start or they were excited about

going to Head Start each day. Most parents reported that their children enjoyed Head Start

because they liked socializing, being with friends, and playing.

• A majority of Head Start families reported that they had participated in Head Start activities and

they felt that it was important or very important to be involved.

• Most parents identified work and/or school schedules or other time constraints as the primary

barriers they faced in participating more in Head Start activities.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study The Home Visit 312

Head Start Satisfaction

• A majority of Head Start families indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with Head Start

and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children.

• A majority of the parents said they were satisfied with Head Start because of the emphasis on

academics. They felt that their children were learning, the program was preparing their children

for kindergarten, and they were satisfied with the emphasis on the total child, including their

physical, social, or behavioral development.

• However, about one third of the parents also said that they were not satisfied with Head Start and

felt the program was not meeting the needs and goals of their children. Most of these parents

wanted more of an emphasis on academics, and felt their children were not learning or being

prepared for kindergarten. They also expressed some dissatisfaction with Head Start staff or

service related issues such as the hours of operation or enrollment policies of the program.

Head Start Parenting and Family Support

• The parents’ perceptions of the role that Head Start played in helping their families were mixed.

Around one third of the parents reported that Head Start had done nothing or very little for them,

or they were unsure what Head Start had done for them. Around one fifth of the parents

indicated that their involvement with Head Start had helped them interact better with their

children.

• Help with discipline, serving as a general support system, and teaching them about child

development were other ways they reported that Head Start had helped their families.

Highlights from the findings regarding Head Start families’ neighborhoods include:

Head Start Families’ Perceptions of their Neighborhood

• A majority of Head Start families indicated that their neighborhoods were good places to raise

children or had several strengths.

• Most parents seemed to use the same set of criteria to distinguish whether their neighborhoods

were good or bad places to raise their children. These criteria included: 1) safety, particularly the

presence of crime and/or drugs in their neighborhoods; 2) the quality of interactions with their

neighbors or whether they can trust their neighbors; and 3) the presence of social and physical

indicators in their neighborhoods, such as abandoned or vandalized buildings, and groups of

people loitering.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 313

4.0 Monthly Telephone Interviews

4.1 Overview

Brief, monthly telephone interviews, consisting of close-ended questions, were conducted with

the case study families over the course of 12 months. Core questions were asked each month to provide

updates on changes in each family’s household composition, child care arrangements, employment status,

health status, and Head Start participation. Rotated questions were asked approximately once every six

months regarding each family’s social support, psychological well-being, family resources, and

transitions to kindergarten. The findings from these telephone interviews are presented in this chapter.

4.2 Core Questions

The monthly telephone interviews were conducted over two continuous spans of time covering

twelve months: 1) a five-month period from November 1997 to March of 1998, and 2) a seven-month

period from June 1998 to December 1998. From these two spans, three samples were created to conduct

analyses on the core data from the telephone interviews.1

• Five-Month Sample: Families who responded at least three times in the 5-month span from

November 1997 to March 1998. This sample included 72 out of the 113 case study families

(64%) in the sample during this time span. The most typical families (51%) responded 4 out

of the 5 months, 26% responded 3 months, and 22% responded all 5 months.

• Seven-Month Sample: Families who responded at least five times in the 7-month span from

June 1998 to December 1998. This sample includes 56 out of the 104 case study families in

the sample at the end of the study (54%). The most typical families responded all 7 months

(48%), 32% responded 5 months, and 20% responded 6 months.

• Twelve-Month Sample: Families who responded at least eight times in the 12 months

combining both spans from November 1997 to December 1998. This sample includes 47 out

of the 104 case study families in the sample at the end of the study (45%). The most typical

families responded 11 months out of the 12 months (36%), 11% responded 8 months, 13%

responded 9 months, 19% responded 10 months, and 21% responded during all 12 months.

Analyses with these samples allowed for comparisons over three separate samples of families to

determine the consistency of the findings over time, as well as to look at findings based on different

lengths of time. The following sections present the findings from the core data collected monthly from

the Head Start families.

1 Analyses indicated that these samples were not significantly different from the case study sample of Head Start families on

basic demographic information including household income, marital status, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 314

Household Composition

Across the three samples, roughly one third of the families (between 27% and 38%) experienced

a change in their household compositions. Approximately 1 in 4 of the families in the seven-month

sample had someone move in or out of their households, and as many as 1 in 3 of the families in the fiveand twelve-month samples had someone move in or out of their households (Exhibit 4-1). Most families

experienced changes in their household composition only once over the three samples (84%, 53%, and

61% respectively), although more than one third of the families experienced changes twice or more in the

seven- and twelve-month samples. Most of the families’ changes in household composition involved

people moving into their home across the three samples (64%, 53%, and 61% respectively). Most of

these moves into the household involved immediate family members –including mothers, fathers, siblings

and step-family members across the three samples (53%, 59%, and 67%, respectively).

Exhibit 4-1

Changes in the Household Composition of Head Start Families

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Seven-Month Sample

(n = 56)

Twelve-Month Sample

(n = 47)

Percentage of Families With

Changes in Their Households:

Once

Twice or more

35

84

16

27

53

47

38

61

39

Percentage of Families with:

Moves in

Moves out

Moves in and out

Immediate family member moves in

64

24

12

53

53

7

40

59

61

11

28

67

Employment

Results presented in Exhibit 4-2 indicate that almost one third of the families (32%) experienced

a change in employment in the five-month sample, while more than one half of the families experienced a

change in employment in the seven- and twelve-month samples (52% and 60%, respectively). In addition

to being more likely to have experienced a change in employment status, more than one half of the

families in the seven- and twelve-month samples who did have a change in employment status were likely

to have experienced two or more changes (55% and 57%, respectively). The majority of families in the
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 315

five-month sample who did have a change in employment status experienced only one such change

(74%).

More families gained employment across all three samples, with as many as two thirds to three

fourths of the families in the five- and twelve-month sample gaining employment (78% and 66%,

respectively). Between one quarter to one third of the families lost employment across the three samples

(26%, 37%, and 34%, respectively). Results were not consistent across the three samples in regard to

full-time employment. More families in the five-month sample gained full-time employment (61%) than

lost full-time employment (17%), more families in the seven-month sample lost full-time employment

(82%) than gained full-time employment (50%), and about an equal number of families in the twelvemonth sample gained (42%) and lost (44%) full-time employment. Although results were mixed as to

whether most families gained or lost full-time employment, the results showed that females in Head Start

families were experiencing a majority of these changes. Across all three samples, over 70% of the gains

in employment and over 50% of the lost employment opportunities involved females. These results are

not surprising given that female-only headed households comprised 52% of the case-study sample.

Exhibit 4-2

Changes in the Employment Status

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Seven-Month Sample

(n = 56)

Twelve-Month Sample

(n = 47)

Percentage of Families With

Changes in Employment:

One change

Two or more changes

32

74

26

52

45

55

60

43

57

Percentage of Families:

Gained employment

Lost employment

Gained full-time employment

Lost full-time employment

78

26

61

17

48

37

50

82

66

34

42

44

Percentage of Families: a

Mother gained employment

Father gained employment

Mother lost employment

Father lost employment

78b

22

50

50

71c

14

62

23

74d

21

50

30 a

Reported percentages are based on households

b In the 5 month sample, mothers were present in 90% of households; fathers were present in 48% of households.

c In the 7 month sample, mothers were present in 91% of households; fathers were present in 43% of households.

d

In the 12 month sample, mothers were present in 89% of households; fathers were present in 46% of households.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 316

Household Income

Results presented in Exhibit 4-3 indicate that almost one fourth of the families (24%) in the fivemonth sample experienced a change in their household incomes, while almost 4 out of 10 families in the

seven- and twelve-month samples (37% and 40%, respectively) experienced change in their household

incomes. In addition to being more likely to have experienced a change in income, more than 60% of the

families in the seven- and twelve-month samples who did have a change in income were likely to have

experienced two or more changes. The majority of families in the five-month sample who did have a

change in income experienced one change (71%).

More gains rather than losses in income were found in the seven- and twelve-month samples,

which have longer time frames. In both of these samples, more than 60% of income changes were gains

while approximately 40% of changes were losses of income. However, in the five-month sample, with a

shorter time frame, 60% of the changes were losses of income and 40% of the changes were gains.

Results examining gains and losses among use of federal programs showed few systemic patterns.

However, results across the three samples indicate that as few as 11% and as many as 33% of the changes

in household income among Head Start families involved losing TANF benefits. In addition, results

across the three samples consistently showed that 1 out of 5 changes in household income involved losing

food stamps.

Exhibit 4-3

Changes in Household Income

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Seven-Month Sample

(n = 56)

Twelve-Month Sample

(n = 47)

Percentage of Families With

Changes in Income:

One change

Two or more changes

24

71

29

37

38

62

40

37

63

Percentage of Changes in

Income That Were Gains:

Gained TANF

Gained food stamps

Gained WIC

Gained Medicaid

40

0

20

10

10

64

7

7

7

19

63

0

7

7

7

Percentage of Changes in

Income That Were Losses:

Gained TANF

Gained food stamps

Gained WIC

Gained Medicaid

60

20

27

7

7

41

33

22

11

0

38

11

22

22

11
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 317

Health

Results presented in Exhibit 4-4 indicate that most Head Start families experienced some physical

illness, and of those families, a majority experienced illness more than once. Over 60% of families in all

three samples reported that at least one adult or child in their households had a physical illness, and over

60% of these families reported a child or adult who was sick more than once. One third to one half of the

time it was the Head Start children or their siblings who were sick. Surprisingly, in one quarter to one

third of the cases across the samples, the physical illnesses were serious enough to require hospitalization.

The percentage of Head Start families experiencing accidents or injuries ranged from 21% in the

five-month sample to 43% in the twelve-month sample. The majority of accidents or injuries involved

children and required hospitalization in between 15-20% of cases. The percentage of Head Start families

experiencing psychological or emotional problems ranged from 18% in the five-month sample to 34% in

the twelve-month sample. The majority of psychological or emotional problems involved adults and none

required hospitalization.

Exhibit 4-4

Family Health

Percentage of Families Who

Had:

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Seven-Month Sample

(n = 56)

Twelve-Month Sample

(n = 47)

Physical Illnesses:

Once

Twice or more

Every month

Head Start child

Mother/father

Siblings

Percentage hospitalized

69

36

64

24

45

30

15

24

64

31

64

5

29

51

12

34

81

21

76

3

39

32

18

32

Accidents or Injuries:

Adults

Children

Percentage hospitalized

21

22

78

21

29

47

53

18

43

38

62

15

Psychological or Emotional

Problems:

Adults

Children

Percentage hospitalized

18

62

38

0

27

67

33

0

34

75

25

0
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 318

Child Care Arrangements

Results presented in Exhibit 4-5 indicate that 40% or more of the Head Start families in the

seven- and twelve-month samples reported changes in their child care arrangements. In addition, a

majority of the families experienced two or more changes in child care arrangements during these times.

More than 1 out of 4 families (26%) in the twelve-month sample had three or more changes in child care

arrangements. Results from the five-month sample, with a shorter time frame, indicated that 18% of

families had changes in child care arrangements, and a majority experienced only one change in child

care arrangements during that time. Results also indicated that about two thirds of the Head Start families

who experienced changes in child care arrangements had their children in some form of child care for 20

hours a week or more.

Exhibit 4-5

Child Care Arrangements

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Seven-Month Sample

(n = 56)

Twelve-Month Sample

(n = 47)

Percentage of Families With

Changes in Child Care

Arrangements:

Once change

Two or more changes

In child care ≥ 20 hours/week

18

77

23

62

41

43

57

65

40

37

63

68

Involvement in Head Start

When examining the five-month sample, which is the only sample that includes a time period

with no months where Head Start was out of session (November to March), a majority of families (73%)

were asked to participate in an activity every month (Exhibit 4-6). The results of families’ involvement in

specific Head Start activities, such as parent meetings, volunteering, and field trips, show similar findings

across activities – high rates of families being asked to participate in activities, high rates of participation

by families, and high levels of satisfaction with these activities.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 319

Exhibit 4-6

Involvement in Head Start Activities

Five-Month Sample

(n = 72)

Percentage of Families Asked to Participate:

Every month

97

73

Percentage of Families Asked to Participate in

Parent Meetings:

Every month

% Participated

% Very Satisfied

94

55

50

63

Percentage of Families Asked to Participate in

Parent-teacher Conferences:

Every month

% Participated

% Very Satisfied

71

15

71

71

Percentage of Families Asked to Volunteer:

Every month

% Participated

% Very Satisfied

80

30

66

81

Percent of Families Asked to Participate in

Home Visits:

% Participated

% Very Satisfied

54

92

76

Percentage of Families Asked to Participate in

a Field Trip:

Every month

% Participated

% Very Satisfied

88

19

54

77
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 320

4.3 Rotated Questions

The following sections present the findings from rotated data collected approximately every six

months from the Head Start families regarding social support, psychological well-being, family resources,

and their children’s transitions to school.

Social Support

Head Start families were asked about three types of social support over the course of the study:

intimate, informational, and instrumental. Intimate social support concerned the availability of a

confidant or someone to talk to about personal matters, informational social support involved whether

parents had someone they could get advice or information from regarding parenting, and instrumental

social support involved the availability of someone to help with daily household and child care tasks. For

each type of support, parents were asked about their need for the support, the availability and receipt of

the support they needed, and their satisfaction with the social support they received. Need was measured

on a 5-point scale ranging from no need (1) to very great need (5). Satisfaction was measured on a 6-

point scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (6). Families were asked about each type

of social support twice a year using measures adapted from previous studies (Chen, Telleen, & Chen,

1995).

Intimate Social Support. In February of 1998 and September of 1998, families were asked

whether they had a need for someone to whom they could talk about personal and private things, whether

they had such a person available to them, and whether or not they were satisfied with the support

provided from this person. Data were collected from 90 of the case study families in the sample (77%) at

least once and collected for 52 of the 90 families at both time points.

In terms of Head Start families’ need for intimate social support, findings indicated that the

majority of families had at least some need, although the average need was slight. Seventy percent of

families indicated that they had some need for intimate social support at least once and 60% of families

indicated a need at both time points. The average need was slight (2.3 on a 5 point scale) and did not

change over time. However, almost 1 out of 5 of the parents (19%) reported a great need for intimate

social support.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 321

Findings revealed that most families who needed intimate social support also felt it was available

to them, and a majority of the families reported that they received intimate social support when needed.

Intimate social support was available to 75% of families who reported that they needed intimate social

support at least once, while 64% of the families indicated it was available at both time points. These

findings also reflect some variability in the availability of intimate social support over time with 73% of

families indicating it was available in January of 1998 and 66% in August of 1998. Ninety-five percent

of the families who indicated they needed intimate social support received support at least once and 91%

of the families indicated they received it at both time points. The receipt of intimate social support did

not change over time.

Results displayed in Exhibit 4-7 indicated that the average network size of individuals who

provided intimate social support to the parents was 1.4 persons. Sixty-five percent of parents had at least

one person they could talk to about something personal or private, 30% had more than one person, and

only 5% of parents had no one with whom they could talk. Parents most often received intimate social

support from extended family members (48%) and friends or neighbors (51%). Eleven percent of the

parents received intimate support from Head Start staff, more than from church leaders or members,

colleagues at work, or other professionals combined.

Exhibit 4-7

Intimate Social Support Networks of the Parents

Mean (SD)

Average Network Size

January 1998

August 1998

No person in network

One person in network

One or more in network

1.4 (.86)

1.5 (.99)

1.3 (.88)

Percentages

5

65

30

Types of Relationships in

Network:

Friend/neighbor

Extended family

Spouse/partner/ex

Son/daughter

Head Start

Work

Professional help givers

Church

51

48

22

2

11

5

3

2
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 322

Finally, the majority of Head Start families (73%) were very satisfied with the intimate social

support they received. The average satisfaction rating was 5.5 on a 6-point scale and did not change over

time.

Informational Social Support. In January of 1998 and August of 1998, families were asked

whether they had a need for someone to whom they could go to for information or advice about parenting,

if such a person was available, and whether or not they were satisfied with the support they received from

this person. Data were collected from 85 of the case study families in the sample (74%) at least once, and

collected for 41 of the 85 families at both time points.

In terms of the families’ need for informational social support, findings indicated that less than

one half of the families had some need, and the average need was slight. Forty-nine percent of families

had some need for informational social support at least once, and 35% of the families indicated a need at

both time points. Only 2% of the families reported that they had a great need (4 or more on 5 point scale)

for informational social support. The average need was slight (1.7 on a 5-point scale) and did not change

over time.

Findings indicated that most families who needed informational social support had it available to

them, and a majority of families received informational social support when needed. Informational social

support was available to 74% of families who indicated they needed informational social support at least

once and 55% of the families indicated it was available at both time points. These findings also suggest

some variability in the availability of informational social support over time, with 86% of families

indicating it was available in February of 1998 and 50% in September of 1998. Ninety-eight percent of

families who indicated they needed informational social support received this support at least once and

95% of families indicated they received it at both time points. The receipt of informational social support

also varied slightly over time, with 90% of families reporting they received support in February of 1998

and 97% in September of 1998.

Results displayed in Exhibit 4-8 show that the average network size of individuals who provided

informational social support to Head Start parents was 1.6 persons. Forty-eight percent of parents had at

least one person from whom they could get parenting advice or information, 50% had more than one

person, and only 2% of the parents had no one with whom they could talk. Parents most often received

informational social support from extended family members (56%). Almost one fifth of the parents
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 323

(19%) received informational support from Head Start staff, more than from friends or neighbors, church

leaders or members, colleagues at work, or other professionals.

Exhibit 4-8

Informational Social Support Networks of the Parents

Mean (SD)

Average Network Size:

February 1998:

September 1998:

No person in network

One person in network

One or more in network

1.6 (.75)

1.4 (.81)

1.6 (.79)

Percentages

2

48

50

Types of Relationships in network:

Extended family

Head Start

Friend/neighbor

Professional helpgivers

Spouse/partner/ex

Work

Church

Son/daughter

Percentages

56

19

14

14

9

7

2

0

Finally, most Head Start families (66%) were very satisfied with the informational social support

they received. The average satisfaction rating was 5.3 on a 6-point scale and varied over time from 5.5 in

February of 1998 to 5.1 in September of 1998.

Instrumental Social Support. Head Start families were asked in March of 1998 and again in

October of 1998 whether they needed someone to help them take care of the daily needs of their children

and daily household tasks, the availability of such a person, and whether or not they were satisfied with

the support they received from this person. Data were collected from 84 of the case study families in the

sample (74%) at least once and collected for 44 of the 84 families at both time points.

In terms of the Head Start families’ need for instrumental social support to help with their

children’s daily needs, findings revealed that most families had some need, and that the average need was

slight. Sixty-one percent of the families reported that they had some need for instrumental social support

to care for their children at least once, and 43% of the families indicated a need at both time points. Only

7% of the families felt they had a great need for instrumental social support for the care of their children.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 324

The average need was slight (1.9 on a 5 point scale) and did not change over time. In terms of Head Start

families’ need for instrumental social support to help with daily household tasks, findings show that less

than one half of the families had some need and that the average need was slight. Forty-six percent of

families indicated that they had some need for instrumental social support with household tasks at least

once, while 32% of families indicated a need at both time points. One out of ten families (10%) indicated

that they had a great need for instrumental social support with household tasks. The average need was

slight (1.9 on a 5 point scale) and did not change over time.

In terms of the Head Start families’ having instrumental social support for child care duties and

household tasks available to them and actually receiving such support, findings show that most families

who needed instrumental social support had it available to them, and that a majority of families received

instrumental social support when needed. Instrumental social support for child care duties was available

to 86% of families who indicated they needed instrumental social support at least once, and 75% of

families indicated it was available at both time points. Likewise, instrumental social support for

household tasks was available to 67% of the families who indicated they needed instrumental social

support at least once and 56% of families indicated it was available at both time points. These findings

show some variability in the availability of instrumental social support over time, with 82% of families

indicating instrumental social support for child care was available in March of 1998 and 78% in October

of 1998, while 65% of families indicated that instrumental social support for household tasks was

available in March of 1998 and 58% in October of 1998. Ninety percent of the families who indicated

they needed instrumental social support for child care received support at least once, and 84% of families

reported that they received it at both time points. The receipt of instrumental social support for child care

also varied over time, with 82% of families indicating they received support in March of 1998 and 90% in

October of 1998. However, relatively fewer families said they received instrumental social support for

household tasks. Sixty-nine percent of the families who indicated they needed instrumental social support

for household tasks received support at least once and 62% of the families indicated they received it at

both time points. The receipt of instrumental social support for household tasks did not vary over time.

Results displayed in Exhibit 4-9 indicate that the average network size of individuals who

provided instrumental social support to the Head Start parents was 1.3 persons for child care duties, and

0.9 persons for household tasks. Fifty-three percent of parents had at least one person they could get help

from with child care duties, 37% had more than one person, and 10% of the parents had no one available

to give them such help. While 41% of the parents had at least one person they could get help from with

household tasks, 28% had more than one person, and 31% of parents had no one who could give them
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 325

household help. Parents most often received instrumental social support from extended family members

and spouses or partners. Sixty-three percent of parents received help with child care tasks from extended

family members and 33% received help from their spouse or partner. Likewise, 38% of parents received

help from their spouse or partner with household tasks, and 33% received help from extended family

members.

Exhibit 4-9

Instrumental Social Support Networks of the Parents

Child Care Household Tasks

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Average Network Size:

March 1998

October 1998

No person in network

One person in network

One or more in network

1.3 (.90)

1.5 (1.2)

1.2 (.80)

Percentages

10

53

37

0.9 (.80)

0.9 (.79)

0.9 (.89)

Percentages

31

41

28

Types of Relationships in Network:

Extended family

Spouse/partner/ex

Son/daughter

Friend/neighbor

Church

Head Start

Work

Professional help givers

63

33

4

14

0

0

0

0

33

38

15

3

0

0

0

0

Finally, most Head Start families were very satisfied with the instrumental social support they

received. Seventy-five percent of families indicated they were very satisfied with the support they

received with child care tasks and 54% were very satisfied with the support they received with household

tasks. The average satisfaction rating was 5.6 for child care task support and 5.3 for household task

support, both on 6-point scales. The average satisfaction rating did vary over time for both child care and

household task support. Instrumental social support for child care tasks varied from 5.7 in March of 1998

to 5.5 in October of 1998 while instrumental social support for household tasks changed from 5.0 in

March of 1998 to 5.4 in October of 1998.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 326

Psychological Well-Being

Head Start families were asked about their psychological well being in November of 1997, June

of 1998, and again in November of 1998, using the 20-item CES-D scale (Radloff, 1977). Data were

collected from 94 of the case study families in the sample (78%) at least once. Data were collected for 44

of the 94 families at two time points and for 19 of the 94 families at all three time points.

Results from summing the items into a scale score reveal that, on average, the parents were

mildly depressed. The sum scores indicate that 34% of the parents were not depressed at any time we

talked to them. However, over one fourth (26%) of the parents were mildly depressed at least once during

the study, 16% were moderately depressed, and 24% were severely depressed at least once during the

study period. Findings presented in Exhibit 4-10 reveal that on 6 out of 12 of the individual items, more

than 20% of the sample reported feeling that way occasionally to most of the time. Finally, psychological

well-being was stable over time – the average response did not change over the three time points

measured in the study.

Exhibit 4-10

Psychological Well-Being of the Parents

Percentages

What percentage of parents said they:

Occasionally to

Most of the Time

Average Response

Mean (SD)

Range: 0-3

Were bothered by things that usually don’t bother them 13 1.6 (.71)

Felt everything they did was an effort 44 2.2 (1.2)

Had trouble keeping their mind on what they were doing 23 1.8 (.96)

Felt sad 20 1.7 (.83)

Felt fearful 10 1.4 (.68)

Felt lonely 21 1.6 (.87)

Talked less than usual 14 1.4 (.65)

Slept restlessly 29 1.9 (.96)

Felt they could not shake the blues 13 1.5 (.81)

Could not get going 23 1.8 (.80)

Did not feel like eating 16 1.5 (.88)

Felt depressed 13 1.5 (.79)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 327

Family Resources

Head Start families were asked about their family resources in July of 1998 and again in

December of 1998 using the 19-item Family Resources Scale (Dunst & Leet, 1987). Data were collected

from 80 of the case study families in the sample (74%) at least once and collected from 42 of the 80

families at both time points.

Exhibit 4-11 displays the results for the 19 items of the Family Resource Scale using the sample

of 80 Head Start families. Results indicated that in terms of financial resources (the first 12 items in the

exhibit), most Head Start families were meeting the basic needs of their families. More than 60% of the

families were frequently or always able to pay their monthly bills and had enough money to buy

necessities. In addition, more than 75% of families were frequently or always able to have enough food,

clothes, furniture, toys, and room in their homes. However, Head Start families did report that they had

some difficulties in meeting less basic needs with their financial resources. For instance, most families

(>70%) did not feel that they frequently or always had enough money to buy things for themselves, for

family entertainment, or to give their children all they wanted to give them. In addition, almost all

families (>90%) indicated that they did not frequently or always have enough money for travel, vacations

or to save.

Results presented in Exhibit 4-11 also indicated that in terms of the quality of life or support

resources (the last 7 items in the exhibit) most Head Start families had strong intra-family supports but

often lacked personal or interpersonal supports. For instance, the majority of families (>70%) reported

that they frequently or always had enough time to spend with their children and together with their entire

family. However, more than 60% of families frequently or always felt that they did not have enough time

for themselves, their spouses or close friends, or have enough time to get enough rest or sleep. Finally,

results indicated that family resources were stable over the six-month time period measured - the average

response (2.2) did not change from July of 1998 to December of 1998.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 328

Exhibit 4-11

Family Resources

Percentages

What percentage of parents said they: Frequently or Always Average Response

Mean (SD)

Financial Resources

Had enough money to pay monthly bills 62 2.5 (.63)

Had enough money to buy necessities 62 2.5 (.58)

Had enough food for three meals a day 91 2.8 (.41)

Had enough clothes for their family 86 2.8 (.51)

Had enough room or space in their home 75 2.6 (.65)

Had enough furniture for their home 91 2.8 (.54)

Had enough toys for their children 87 2.8 (.47)

Had enough money to by things for themselves 26 1.9 (.73)

Had enough money to give their children all that

they want to give them 21 1.7 (.71)

Had enough money for family entertainment 29 2.0 (.66)

Had enough money for travel or vacation 8 1.4 (.61)

Had enough money to save 6 1.4 (.56)

Quality of Life Resources:

Get enough sleep or rest 32 2.0 (.73)

Had enough time to be with their spouse 38 2.2 (.77)

Had enough time together as an entire family 71 2.6 (.63)

Had enough time to be with their children 82 2.8 (.61)

Had enough time to themselves 26 1.8 (.75)

Had enough time to be with close friends 17 1.8 (.63)

Had enough time to socialize 24 1.9 (.62)

Transition to Kindergarten

Head Start families were asked how ready they felt their children were to enter kindergarten in

July of 1998 (at the end of their Head Start experience) and again in December of 1998 (after the children

attended kindergarten for a few months). Data were collected from 57 of the case study families in the

sample (53%) at least once and collected for 21 of the 57 families at both time points.

Results displayed in Exhibit 4-12 indicated that most parents felt their children were very ready

physically, academically and socially for school. Results also suggested that the findings for physical and
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 329

social readiness were stable over the six-month time span measured – average responses did not change

between July of 1998 and December of 1998. However, there was variation in the parents’ perceptions of

how ready their children were academically prepared for school. On a 3-point scale with 3.0 representing

“very prepared,” the average response was 2.8 in July of 1998, and decreased slightly to 2.6 in December

of 1998. Finally, the majority of parents (82%) were very satisfied with what Head Start had done to help

their children and families make the transition to school. Results also indicated that satisfaction with

Head Start was stable over the six-month time period measured as the average response (3.8 out of a 4-

point scale, with 4.0 representing very satisfied), and did not change from July of 1998 to December of

1998.

Exhibit 4-12

The Readiness of the Head Start Children to Enter Kindergarten6

Percentages

What percentage of parents felt their

children were ready for Kindergarten: Somewhat Ready Very Ready Average Response

Mean (SD)

Physically 10 86 2.8 (.45)

Academically 24 69 2.7 (1.0)

Socially 7 89 2.9 (.43)

4.4 Summary

Findings from the core and rotated data in the monthly telephone interviews with case study

families have contributed to a more complete picture of the amount of change in Head Start families, their

resources in terms of family resources, social support, and psychological well-being, and their interactions

with Head Start.

Findings indicated that Head Start families cope with change in many critical areas of their

families’ lives and deal with these changes multiple times, over time. Specifically, many Head Start

families experienced changes in the areas of household composition, employment, income, health, and

child care, and most families experienced two or more changes in these areas over the course of the study.

Highlights of the findings include:

Household Composition

• Many but not most case study families experienced changes in their household composition

across all three samples. Most of the changes in household composition happened once over the

6 An average response was used for parents who responded in both July and December (n = 21).
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 330

course of the study. Most of the changes in household composition involved immediate family

members moving into the household.

Employment

• Most case study families in the seven- and twelve-month samples experienced changes in their

employment status, and most experienced changes in their employment status two or more times

over the course of the study.

• Most families had gains in employment, although 50% or less of the gains involved full-time

employment.

Income

• Many but not most families in the seven- and twelve-month samples experienced changes in their

household income; however, most experienced changes in income two or more times over the

course of the study. Most families in these samples experienced gains in household incomes.

Health

• Most case study families in the seven- and twelve-month samples experienced physical illnesses

in their families and most experienced illnesses two or more times over the course of the study.

About one third of the illnesses in these samples were serious enough to require hospitalization.

Child Care

• Many but not most of the families in the seven- and twelve-month samples experienced changes

in child care arrangements; however, most experienced changes in child care arrangements two or

more times over the course of the study. A majority of these families were dependent on child

care for their children for more than 20 hours a week.

Findings from family resources, social support and the psychological well-being of Head Start families

and parents indicated the critical strengths and needs of Head Start families.

Family Resources

• Most families felt their financial resources were able to meet the basic needs of their families,

such as food, clothes, and paying monthly bills. Yet, they also reported their financial resources

did not always meet less basic needs, such as giving their children all that they wanted, or buying

things for themselves.

• In terms of quality of life resources, most families indicated they had strong intra-familial

supports and resources, such as time with their children and family. However, most Head Start

families also reported that they did not have enough personal or interpersonal supports and

resources, such as time for themselves, their spouses, close friends, or time to rest.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section IV: The Case Study Monthly Telephone Interviews 331

Psychological Well-Being

• Most parents in Head Start families experienced some level of depression at least once during the

course of the study.

Social Support

• Most families reported some need for each of the three types of social support: intimate,

instrumental, informational. The proportion of families indicating a great need for support varied

by type of support. Two percent of families reported a great need for informational support or

advice about parenting; between 7-10% of families indicated a great need for instrumental

support with child care and household tasks, while 19% of families had a great need for intimate

social support.

• Most case study families had support available to them, if needed. However, the availability of

support varied over time for all three types of support.

• A majority of families received social support, if needed. Most families had a least one person in

their social support network for all three types of support. However, over 30% of families

indicated that they had no one to give them instrumental social support or help with household

tasks when needed.

• Case study families, across all three types of support, most often received support from extended

family members. The only exception was with instrumental support or help with household tasks,

where spouses or partners were slightly more likely to have given support than extended family

members. Head Start staff played a small but substantial supportive role to families in terms of

intimate and informational social support.

• Most families were very satisfied with the social support they received.

Findings examining families’ interactions with Head Start indicated that most families were involved

in Head Start activities and appreciated the help that Head Start had given them in preparing their

children for school.

Transitions to Kindergarten

• Most case study families felt that their children were very ready for kindergarten - physically,

socially and academically. A majority of the Head Start families indicated they were very

satisfied with what Head Start had done to help their children and families make the transition to

kindergarten.

Involvement in Head Start

• A majority of Head Start families were asked to participate in Head Start activities, were able to

participate in these activities, and were very satisfied with the Head Start activities in which they

had participated.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 332

5.0 The Family Narratives

5.1 Overview

This chapter demonstrates the unique aspects of the qualitative approach, including its benefits

and limitations. Family narratives, documenting the lives of six Head Start families over the course of a

year, are presented to illustrate the value of understanding the context of Head Start families’ lives. This

approach reinforces a basic tenet within the social constructivist paradigm that reality is best understood

by studying the ways that people perceive, experience, and make sense of their lives. This principle is the

core of the family narratives paradigm and demonstrates the strength and value of qualitative research.

The narratives reveal that data gathered through parent and teacher interviews, child assessments, and

monthly telephone contacts, while extremely valuable, are often embedded inseparably in the specific

contexts from which they were gathered. The family narratives provide a vehicle to enhance and interpret

the findings from the larger study by focusing on rich details and stories within the multiple contexts of

the Head Start families’ lives.

The strength of the data and the findings in this chapter focus not on quantity, but quality and

depth. This chapter provides examples of using family narratives to further the goals of the case study

(and the larger FACES study) by presenting a more complete profile of Head Start families. It also

demonstrates the value of the qualitative approach as a research endeavor: how it contributes uniquely to

our understanding of Head Start families by using multiple sources of evidence and multiple methods of

inquiry, and how it helps to develop a complete picture, including how families operate and what families

do in relation to the extrinsic and contextual events of which they are a part.

The six family narratives presented in Section 5.6 include information from the FACES parent

interviews, teacher ratings, child assessments1

, the semi-structured parent interviews completed during the

case study home visit, and the monthly telephone interviews. Each narrative is divided into four sections

that align with the major themes of the FACES case study: 1) the Head Start children, 2) the Head Start

families, 3) family interactions with their local Head Start programs, and 4) family homes and

neighborhoods. The methodology of this approach emphasizes developing each family narrative or case

as the unit of analysis. Patterns of explanations (emergent themes) within each case serve as building

1 See the Performance Measures Center Final Report for further information about child assessments.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 333

blocks for the comparison of themes across cases. Themes drawn from the multiple cases can then reveal

the emergent themes of the overall study.

The following sections will provide examples of identifying emergent themes within and across

family narratives, even within as few as six cases. Examples demonstrate how emergent themes can

confirm or illuminate findings from the main FACES study, as well as draw attention to new areas for

inquiry. Emergent themes encompass three of the four domains: 1) the Head Start child, 2) the Head Start

family, and 3) the Head Start families’ interactions with the Head Start program.

5.2 The Head Start Child

Parents were asked, among other things, to describe their Head Start children and their own hopes

and goals for them, as well as their reasons for enrolling their children in the Head Start program. Five

themes emerged within and across the six family narratives regarding the Head Start child.

Children Have Positive Attitudes Toward Learning and Head Start

One emergent theme across the narratives was parents’ reports that their children had positive

attitudes toward learning and Head Start. For instance, in Family Narrative D, the mother said about her

son, “He loves Head Start. He thinks his teacher is wonderful.” This mother reported that her son

enjoyed learning and trying new things. His teacher also reported that the child did not lack confidence in

learning new things or trying new activities and that he worked well in groups. He joined group activities

without being told to do so, invited others to join in activities, followed rules when playing games with

others, and helped put materials away after the activity was over.

Another example of a child’s positive attitude toward Head Start is demonstrated in Family

Narrative B. Beyond stating that her daughter “loves it [school],” this mother shared how her daughter

had incorporated many of the lessons learned at school into her daily routine at home. “She reminds me

she has to wash her hands, brush her teeth. She knows the colors, numbers.... tries more and more to

explain what has happened during the day.” This theme also emerged in Family Narrative C -- “She’s

happy. She loves it!-- likes the kids and toys and plenty to keep her busy.” Given the importance of how

preschool children approach learning and how their attitudes toward school may predict their future

educational success, having a positive attitude toward learning and school is significant.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 334

Parents Have Optimistic Expectations for Their Children and Value Education

Across the narratives, parents’ hopes and goals for their children were fairly optimistic regarding

their children’s early school experiences, as well as future educational attainment. The narrative for

Family F was fairly typical. This family expected that Head Start would help their child be more

prepared for kindergarten and master developmentally appropriate tasks. The mother said, “I hope he’s

prepared for kindergarten. I don’t want him to get behind or to struggle in any way. I want him to be

comfortable before he enters kindergarten. My goal is to make it as easy as possible for him.” Regarding

educational goals for him, in the short-term she wanted him to master educational tasks appropriate for

his age -- “to learn the basic fundamentals and learn to write his name.” A long-term expectation for her

son was that he would attend college. She wanted him “to get an education and be the boss of all the

people under him. To be happy in his life.”

While resonating the same theme, the narrative for Family B reveals an underlying optimism to

parents’ future expectations for their children in the context of the family as a whole. Regarding her

daughter’s future, this mother wanted her to become an “engineer” and hoped that she “gets a good job.”

But she clarified that “the most important thing is her learning and increasing her abilities.” She wanted

to instill in her daughter “the desire to be somebody...who does not have to struggle like we do.”

Family Narrative A presents another mother who expressed a desire that her son learn the value

of education early in life, stating “I hope that he graduates, that he really learns while he’s younger and

it’s [school] not just to go and play around with.” This mother’s long-term expectations for her child

were also optimistic as she explained that she hoped that he would “become something he really wants to

become like a doctor or a lawyer and be really good at it.”

Head Start Children are Making Good Progress.

In most of the family narratives, parents also reported that their children had made good progress

on school readiness in language and math between the fall of 1997 and spring of 1998. Family A

represents the typical narrative in terms of the children’s progress. In the fall of 1997, the parent reported

that the child could recognize most of the letters in the alphabet, identify the colors red, yellow, blue, and

green, and count up to twenty. He could also hold his pencil properly and liked to write or pretend to

write, including his first name; however, some letters were sometimes backwards. Later, during the

spring parent interview in 1998, the parent not only observed that the child could now count up to fifty,

but also could recognize thirty written numbers and count up to ten blocks. As early as the fall of 1997,

the child would sit and look at a book with pictures, pretending to read to himself, but he did more than
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 335

just describe each picture—he connected them in an integrated story. His mother reported that he enjoyed

being read to for approximately twenty minutes at one time in the fall of 1997 and his attention span for

reading increased to thirty minutes by the spring of 1998. Overall, this mother felt that her son had

progressed and that Head Start had helped prepare him for kindergarten. “...they teach them how to

behave, how to eat, and how to play and to learn.” Family Narrative B provides additional examples of

the progress children made in Head Start. This mother talked about her daughter’s gains. “She knows the

colors, numbers.” In particular, she noted her daughter’s improved language skills: “[She] has learned a

lot of English and speaks less Spanish.”

Head Start Children May Experience Behavioral and Mental Health Problems

Another theme that emerged in the narratives was the frequency and degree of child behavior

problems (and, in some cases, more serious mental health problems) reported by parents. This theme is

present, in particular, in two of the family narratives. In Family Narrative F, the parent reported an

evolving profile of increasing behavior problems and more serious mental health problems over the

course of the school year. In the fall of 1997, the mother reported that her son was not disobedient at

home, but that he sometimes acted too young for his age, had temper tantrums, and hit and fought with

others. She had to discipline him two times, using time out, in the week prior to the fall visit. While she

felt her son was sometimes unhappy, sad, or depressed and that he worried about things for a long time,

she did not believe that he felt worthless or inferior. She described him as “an emotional child. He can

be laughing at one thing and turn around and get upset. His emotions surprise me for someone so

young.” She felt his behavior was affected by the recent divorce of his parents. “He was having a hard

time with that ... the other thing is his temper. He explodes. If he doesn’t get what he wants, he pouts.

He has little patience for wanting things done his way and if it doesn’t happen his way, he gets angry. He

has little patience with other people.” By the spring of 1998, the child’s emotional problems appeared to

have escalated. He continued to exhibit immature and aggressive behavior and was now often

disobedient at home. While in the fall, the mother had indicated that her son was sometimes unhappy, sad

or depressed, she now felt that his unhappiness was occurring often and believed that he now often felt

worthless or inferior.

Family Narrative E presents a child’s profile with the parent’s perspective of an emerging set of

behavioral and mental health-related problems. In the fall of 1997, this mother reported that her son was

not disobedient at home but had temper tantrums very often and sometimes hit and fought with others.

She had to discipline him (using time out) four times in the week prior to the fall visit. Despite his temper

tantrums and somewhat aggressive behavior, his mother did not believe that he was an unhappy child and
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 336

reported that he never seemed to worry about things for a long time. By the spring of 1998, he still had

temper tantrums and continued to sometimes hit or fight with others. But his behavior problems seemed

to have escalated over the school year. His mother now reported that he was somewhat disobedient at

home as well as somewhat unhappy. She still did not believe that he worried about things for very long

or that he acted immaturely, but he was having difficulty concentrating and fidgeted a lot. His mother had

to send him to time out seven times during the week prior to the spring visit. Interestingly, the child’s

older brother was also exhibiting social-emotional problems and was to begin seeing a psychiatrist to

address emotional and behavioral problems at school. The mother said, “I don’t see it [the problem], the

teacher sees it. He has trouble in class in terms of temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way and he

cries a lot in school. Personally, I think it is because every other day he thinks it is not so bad to be at

home.” This difference of opinion illustrates the theme that is presented in the following section.

Contradictions Between Parent and Teacher Reports

The last two cases can also be used to highlight another theme that emerges from the family

narratives regarding the Head Start children - the degree to which parent and teacher reports contradict

one another. For instance, in Family Narrative E , both the parent and the teacher agreed about the child’s

behavior and mental health related issues; however, they disagreed on the child’s overall approach and

attitude toward learning. His mother said that her son enjoyed learning, trying new things, was

imaginative, and made friends easily. However, his Head Start teacher offered a different perspective,

reporting that he lacked confidence in learning new things or trying new activities, and did not work well

in a group. She said he never joined group activities without being told to do so, never invited others to

join in activities and often disrupted ongoing activities. He never followed rules when playing games with

others, and only sometimes helped put materials away after the activity was over.

It is clear in Family Narrative F that the parent and teacher reports of the child’s behavior and

mental health related issues are at odds. The parent reported the presence of several behaviors that the

teacher did not see as problematic. For example, the mother reported that while her son was not

disobedient at home, he sometimes acted too young for his age, had temper tantrums, and hit and fought

with others. She felt her son was sometimes unhappy, sad, or depressed, and that he worried about things

for a long time, but she did not believe that he felt worthless or inferior. Interestingly, his teacher did not

concur with this evaluation of the child’s behavior. She did not feel that he acted immaturely and she

indicated that he did not have temper tantrums or hit or fight with others. While she agreed that he did

sometimes worry about things for too long, she saw no evidence that he was unhappy, sad or depressed,

and reported that he was never restless, fidgety, or nervous in class. Although the parent and teacher did
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 337

not agree about the child’s behavior, they did agree that the child’s approach and attitude toward learning

was positive. Contradictions in parent and teacher reports are well documented in the extant literature.

Given the inherent complexity of the phenomenon under study, contradictions are not unexpected.

Exploration of these contradictions, within the specific contexts of the family and the classroom, using a

qualitative approach, may contribute to further understanding of why the contradictions occur.

5.3 Head Start Family

Head Start families were asked, among other things, to describe their families’ household

composition and economic and employment status. They also talked about the strengths of their families,

as well as their challenges.

5.3.1 Head Start Families are Diverse in Type and Experience Multiple Changes

One of the emergent themes among the Head Start family narratives involved the context of the

families. The narratives represent a diverse range of family types, including dual-parent families, families

with a parent who had been widowed, divorced, or separated, and blended families. While most of the

families described in the narratives were relatively stable, they faced multiple changes and events across

several areas of their lives, including changes in employment status, health, child care, household, and

relationships with significant others. The family represented in Narrative A experienced multiple changes

and events, particularly around health. Across the span of five months, various members of the family

suffered from colds, ear infections, and the flu. One of the children contracted hepatitis, the mother-inlaw was diagnosed with diabetes, and the father-in-law was treated for cancer. Narrative B provides

examples of a family’s struggles around child care. The Head Start child in this family had been cared for

in six different arrangements prior to her enrollment in the program. One of the primary reasons for

enrolling the child stemmed from her family’s great need for child care: “Sometimes the necessities of

work make it very difficult to leave one’s children for eight-to-nine hours at a babysitter.” The mother

expressed concern about her child’s welfare: “I have seen babysitters even treat children badly.” There

is a real sense when reading the narratives that dealing with these changes often preoccupied the time and

energy of the parents. Within this family context or background, several themes emerged across the

narratives that are discussed in the following sections.

5.3.2 Search for a Father Figure

A distinct theme found in several of the family narratives was a search for a father figure in the

lives of the children. In Family D, a young, widowed, single mother expressed strong hopes for her

fiancé to become her children’s father: “My boys are the most important thing to me and my fiancé loves
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 338

them! I’d like my fiancé to be here full time. He loves the kids and wants to adopt both boys.” Similarly,

Family F consists of a divorced, single mother who relocated her family to be closer to their biological

father and at the same time continued searching for a new father figure for her children. While this

mother reported that a relative served as a father figure for her children in the fall, by the spring the father

figure was no longer available to the family. After having moved from one state to another in July of

1997, they moved again eleven months later to be closer to family and the children’s father. The single

mother depicted in Narrative A also seemed to be searching to find a father figure for her children.

Throughout the 18-month span of the narrative, she had significant involvement with two male partners as

well as the biological father of the children. This mother was often eager to report that her male partners

were involved with the children, including reading to the Head Start child, taking him along on errands,

teaching him letters, words, and numbers, and playing with him indoors. While she did express some

resentment toward her son’s biological father, she still seemed to be happy that he was now spending time

with the children. The children’s biological father and his girlfriend “offered to take them [her son and

daughter] for a day, and they came back with all kinds of stories about what a good time they had and all

kinds of presents from their dad and other relatives on his side of the family. They now want to trot him

[her son] out like trophies on holidays. [My son] is glad to find out who his dad is. Maybe he’ll take the

kids again sometime – he tries to help out a little.”

5.3.3 Families Maintain a Balance between School, Work, and Child Care

Across many of the family narratives there is a persistent effort to develop or maintain a practical

and feasible balance between the often-competing demands of school or work and taking care of their

children. For instance, Family E is a blended two-parent family with five children living at home. Both

parents’ jobs involved “shift work” that included periods of heavy overtime as well as strikes and layoffs.

The family had experienced a number of changes in child care over the year and also was dealing with

fairly long-term health and mental health issues with one of their younger children. This included

hospitalization for Hepatitis A and visits to a psychiatrist for emotional and behavioral problems

exhibited at school. The demands of balancing all of the needs of a rather large family were subtle but

evident in many of the mother’s comments throughout the narrative: “I hope I don’t get really stressed

out with five kids. I’m doing really good but I have a feeling I’ll get burnt out. Luckily they are pretty

good... I need organizational skills. I think having a lot of kids you need to get organized - so you can

keep the kids’ appointments and things straight...I’d like to improve the fact that we work too much (and

need to) spend more time together. I think we’ll be able to do that when they are in school (and) maybe

their dad will get another shift. I’d like to be a normal family.” Interestingly, there is a sense that her

idea of “a normal family” is one that is able to balance the demands of time between work and family.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 339

5.3.4 The Families’ Challenges and Resilience

Perhaps the most striking theme from the narratives was that each family seemed to face their

own set of unique challenges and demonstrated resilience in the face of these challenges. For instance,

the narrative of Family B describes a two-parent, two-child Head Start family that had recently

immigrated to the United States from El Salvador. In many ways this narrative illustrates some of the

challenges many Head Start families face. During the span of the narrative, the family faced deportation

of the father back to El Salvador with the accompanying separation and feelings of helplessness and

depression that the mother experienced. The family lived in a drug and gang-infested housing project and

the mother did not feel comfortable allowing her children to play with other children in the neighborhood.

“This is not a place where a child can run and play – it is dirty, it’s dangerous, and I think it’s a bad

place. The other day, they found a murder victim – five days old – in an apartment near where the

children play. There’s gang violence on one side of the complex and alcoholic and drug-abusing adults

on the other. It’s terrible; this is like a rat hole.” The family was also facing challenges related to

acculturation and trying to fit in, while at the same time feeling hampered by their poor English skills and

their immigration status. The mother and her family were often afraid to complain to their landlord or

local housing authority: “The corrupt owners don’t listen to me. They think because many of us are not

legal, it’s okay to treat us like rats.” In addition, the mother seemed concerned about her daughter’s

behavior and negative peer interactions that she may be having with other children in the neighborhood

and at Head Start: “My daughter had a little friend in the neighborhood that hit her. I notice that she hits

back. I don’t like that.”

However, even in the face of these challenges, this family’s resilience and value system is also a

predominant theme of the narrative. Perhaps the strongest example of this resilience is the

mother=s belief system: her family is “poor but honorable” and says that “our surroundings make

it hard to show her how to be good, but we try. I love my children and want to see them grow ...

we are poor, but we try to keep her on the right path.” She also finds it unacceptable to “ask for

handouts” from government agencies. Instead, she relies on the help of her family, church, Head

Start, and child care staff to help her raise her daughter in her husband=s absence. While voicing

concerns over her low wages, the mother focused on working to better her family, saying “there

is only one thing and that is work and work for them.” The family would like to see Head Start

have longer hours to accommodate the mother=s working schedule, but was pleased with Head

Start=s sensitivity for her family=s transportation needs and felt that Head Start supported her

family’s focus on the value of education for her daughter. In particular, the mother appreciated
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 340

that Head Start gave her daughter a ride to school on cold days, stating, “I don=t want them to miss

not one day.”

Family A represents, perhaps more than any of the other families, a family facing incredible

adversity and challenges. The mother was a young, 25-year-old, single-parent with two young children.

She was unemployed and faced a number of serious health and mental health issues that prevented her

from working or even looking for a job. Her personal relationships often involved partners who were

dealing with alcohol and/or substance abuse problems and stormy periods in the relationships resulted in

multiple changes in the household, including both location and composition. “He has stopped drinking

and only has a few in the evening instead of a whole case. He made me so mad one time I banged the

telephone on the floor until it broke. I have to stop behaving that way –that was a bad thing to do.” The

family was often living in difficult home and neighborhood environments where “no one would stay by

choice.” Ultimately, this mother faced challenges protecting her children from the family’s circumstances

that included the children having been witnesses to, as well as victims of, violent crime in their

neighborhood and domestic violence. During the monthly telephone conversations, she relayed incidents

of domestic violence. She talked about the couple who had recently moved into her home: “His wife was

due any minute – the woman, he treats like a dog. He says things like ‘you shut up, or I’ll slap you down.

And, if you try to put me in jail, you’ll lose your kid.’” This mother also admitted when she decided to

leave her partner that “he beat me. He is no longer working.” However, in the midst of this almost

constant flux of challenges, there is also a strong strand of resilience in this family’s story. The mother

proudly affirmed the idea that although she had faced many challenges, including alcohol abuse,

depression, and a suicide attempt, that “I always take care of my babies.” The mother finds a strong

identity in the fact that she had raised her children and taken care of them herself and always did her best

to keep them safe while in her care. Even when her problems became so severe that there was some

discussion of commitment to the local hospital, this mother did not want to be hospitalized because she

“wants to be able to see the children and take care of them.”

In addition, despite the challenges the family perpetually faced, the mother expressed high

expectations and personal hopes and goals “to try and get a degree in computers. I love computers, and I

want to go to college and do that.” She never stopped trying to help herself and her children. She and her

mother were undergoing counseling to focus on improved communication because she no longer wanted

to “yell at her [mother] like a crazy woman,” and she was motivated to join parenting and relationship

classes. She even encouraged her 7-year-old daughter to participate in counseling for dealing with

attention deficit disorder and difficulties with anger management.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 341

5.4 The Family’s Interactions with the Head Start Program

Head Start families were asked to talk about their interactions with Head Start, including their

involvement with the program and the barriers that kept them from participating as much as they would

have liked. They also discussed their satisfaction with the program and their perceptions of their

children’s experiences.

Families Valued Their Participation in the Head Start Program

The final emergent theme to be presented in this chapter is the families’ desire to be involved in

their children’s Head Start education. Without exception, all of the families depicted in the six narratives

said they valued their participation at Head Start and felt that it was very important for them to be

involved. Despite various barriers such as conflicting work or school schedules, lack of child care for

other children in their families, or personal hardships, efforts were made to fulfill the requirement of

parent involvement.

The mother from Narrative C highly valued her involvement with Head Start, yet she often felt

that child care and transportation posed a barrier to her participation. “I have tried to be there, because I

have two kids at the school, but don’t go because of the baby. Don’t like to take her out in rain or cold.”

Despite this, she reported having participated in seven Head Start activities ranging from volunteering

with class events to attending meetings for the Policy Council. Specifically, she recalled a memorable

event in which she assisted her daughter’s class: “We made sashes and caps for graduation – she is going

to kindergarten next year.”

This was also the case for the family depicted in Narrative D. Although the mother was unable to

attend four of the six Head Start events to which she was invited “because I work every day,” she still felt

that participation in Head Start was important: “I always make a point of walking my son into class every

morning and talking to the teacher.” The entire family was able to attend her son’s graduation from Head

Start and was very pleased. “They had a beautiful graduation. Each class performed songs and they

called each child by name to graduate. It was great. The kids had a great time.”

Narrative E also provides examples of a family’s commitment to being involved in their child’s

education. This family was somewhat displeased with a few of the meetings they had previously

attended, had time constraints due to a heavy work load, and many other children at home who needed

attention. “I work 8 hours a day, 6-7 days per week, have five kids and I’m not taking time away from

them. I will probably never attend because I have too many kids.” Despite this, the family reported that
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 342

they participated in 8 out of 13 events to which they were invited, including field trips, classroom

activities, and a family dance and taco lunch. The mother talked about her families’ experience at “fun

night:” “It had a place for the kids to color bags where you could write names and color. All the kids

could do that. They had a place where you could lay down and trace the kids’ bodies. Also had games

that all the kids at different ages could play.” She and her family were very satisfied with these events.

Even the family depicted in Narrative A, who faced many personal hardships including serious

health problems, alcohol abuse, depression, and a suicide attempt, highly valued participating in Head

Start activities and remarked, “It was very important to me. I like to do bulletin boards. I work with kids.

It helps my son. I was President of the Policy Council.” She felt that her involvement helped her to fulfill

her goals for her son, as well as to enhance her role as a parent. She credited her involvement at Head

Start with helping her to manage her emotional problems: “Sometimes I get so angry – too angry with the

kids.” She felt that Head Start had enabled her “to discipline, talk to ‘em, how to listen. They’ve helped

me out quite a bit.”

5.5 Summary

This chapter briefly highlights examples of some of the emergent themes regarding Head Start

children and families found both within and across the six family narratives. The themes illustrate the

following:

 Parents held optimistic expectations for their children in terms of early and future educational

aspirations, indicating that their children had positive attitudes toward learning and Head Start

and were making good progress during the Head Start year. The narratives also illustrate

increasingly troublesome profiles of some Head Start children’s behavioral and mental health

related problems as described by parents and teachers. In addition, the narratives highlight the

issue of contradictions between parent and teacher reports.

 Emergent themes from the narratives highlight how diverse types of Head Start families’

function on a day-by-day basis while faced with numerous changes and challenges. Within the

scope of these challenges, Head Start families face adversity familiar to many low-income

families, including searching for support and male role models and balancing work and child

care responsibilities. These narratives also allow the reader to see the resilience and strength of

these families in the face of their harsh, daily realities.
Section IV: The Case Study Family Narratives 343

 Despite facing various barriers to participation, Head Start families had a strong desire to be

involved in their children’s Head Start education, and valued their involvement in the program.

Each family made an effort to attend activities at their child’s program.

Although the chapter only includes a small subset of the total number of families in the case

study, it demonstrates the value of understanding families and their own stories in context as a way for

framing and generating emergent themes or findings. It is also useful for identifying questions for future

research that are grounded in the families’ contexts. In some instances, the emergent themes from family

narratives included in this chapter illuminated findings from the larger FACES study, while in other cases

the narratives have generated unique perspectives to be considered. In addition, the chapter highlights the

value of family narratives as a component in the larger multi-method approach to case studies,

particularly case studies of families.

5.6 The Family Narratives

The six family narratives discussed in this chapter are presented in this section, consecutively

from Narrative A to Narrative F. The families were purposively selected from the case study sample

based on the completeness of their data over the study time period. Families were also selected to be

representative and balanced across the regions of the country and whether they resided in urban or rural

locations.
Narrative A 344

A Head Start Family: Narrative A

The Head Start Child

David was a four-year-old White boy who lived with his mother, Wynette, and older

sister, Bethany, in a small, southwestern town. David enrolled in Head Start during the fall of

1997 and attended class four days a week for five hours a day. He lived fifteen minutes away

from the center and typically came to school each morning by bus. Wynette described him as a

child that is “playful and weird,” explaining that he “likes to act and dress up like a little girl.”

Both in the fall and spring parent interviews, she reported it was very true that David accepted

his friends’ ideas easily when sharing and playing and that he readily made friends. Yet, despite

his congenial nature, Wynette elaborated, “He [also] loves to pick on people.” “Sometimes he’s

[even] hateful to his sister; loveable when he wants to be.” When asked about his favorite

activities, she replied that he enjoyed “playing with cars and trains” and, although he tended to

trip, stumble, and fall easily, engaging in physical play such as “wrestling.”

According to Wynette, in the fall of 1997, David could recognize most of the letters in the

alphabet, identify the colors red, yellow, blue, and green, and count up to twenty. He could also

hold his pencil properly and liked to write or pretend to write, including his first name; however,

some letters were sometimes backwards. Later, during the spring parent interview in 1998,

Wynette not only observed that David could count up to fifty but also could recognize thirty

written numbers and identify up to ten blocks. David had a good imagination, enjoyed learning,

and liked to try new things, yet he was sometimes restless and made changes with difficulty. As

early as the fall of 1997, David would sit and look at a book with pictures, pretending to read to

himself, but he did more than just describe each picture—he connected them in an integrated

story. In particular, while Wynette reported that he enjoyed being read to for approximately

twenty minutes at one time in the fall of 1997, his attention span for reading increased to thirty

minutes by the spring of 1998. There were a variety of reading materials in the home, including

children’s books, adult novels and non-fiction books, and other religious and reference items such

as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Whereas Wynette, her live-in partner, Mark, and another nonhousehold member all had time to read to David during the week prior to the fall parent

interview in 1997, no one read to him during the week before the spring interview in 1998.

When asked about his behavior, Wynette depicted David as a high-strung, nervous child

who often had temper tantrums and was sometimes disobedient at home. While Wynette only

indicated spanking David twice during the week prior to the fall parent interview in 1997 and not

at all during the same time period before the spring interview in 1998, the number of times that

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 to December of 1998.

Data contributing to this report were obtained from semi-structured home

interviews, structured parent interviews, teacher reports, child assessments, as well

as monthly telephone contacts from November of 1997 to December of 1998. The

names of the family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative A 345

she used time out as a discipline technique increased from two to six times from the fall of 1997 to

the spring of 1998. Interestingly, although Wynette and David’s teacher agreed that, very often,

he made friends easily and accepted peers’ ideas in sharing and playing, his teacher contradicted

the idea that he hit or fought with others, had temper tantrums, or ignored classroom directions

or rules. In particular, teacher ratings from the spring of 1998 affirmed that David very often

waited his turn during games or other activities and assisted in putting away classroom

materials.

Despite his somewhat volatile nature and the fact that David was both a witness to and a

victim of violent crime and domestic violence, Wynette reported that he would help and comfort

others in both her fall and spring parent interviews. Overall, both Wynette and David’s teacher

believed that he was a happy child with a good self-esteem; he appeared to act his age and never

seemed to worry for too long or feel worthless or inferior.

David had a regular health care provider. He received routine care paid for by Medicaid

from a private doctor or HMO. Although Wynette described David’s health as excellent, she also

reported that he suffered from a chronic illness for at least six months and that he was sick with

“a virus” in December and January of 1997. Telephone conversations in July of 1998 revealed

that David was susceptible to seizures and, unfortunately, he was taken to the nearest emergency

room where he received an injection of Benadryl to reduce serious inflammation. Afflicted by the

threat of seizures several months thereafter, David continued taking medication until November

of 1998 in order to prevent this condition. Additionally, a severe ear infection in September of

1998 nearly impaired his hearing. During her fall parent interview in 1997, Wynette further

reported that, despite the fact that David would sometimes stammer and was not easily

understand by strangers, he did not have a disability.

When asked about her hopes and goals for David during his first year in Head Start,

Wynette illuminated that she hoped “that he does real good in school and passes to

‘kiddygarden,’ and he learns to write better his name.” When specifically asked about her son’s

short- or long-term educational goals, Wynette expressed, “I hope that he graduates. That he

really learns while he’s younger and it’s [school] not just to go and play around with.” She

would very much like David to “become something he really wants to become like a doctor or a

lawyer and be really good at it.”

Both before and after enrollment in Head Start, David and his siblings were never placed

in child care. Prior to August of 1998, despite expressing a moderate need for help taking care of

her children’s daily needs, weekends with his biological father, who lived within an hour’s ride,

were the only form of child care support that Wynette experienced.

The Head Start Family

During the initial seven months documented in this narrative, the family experienced

much instability due to Mark’s alcoholism, and, as a result, Wynette, David, and Bethany moved

three times. Early in September of 1997, Mark and Wynette separated, and the family moved in
Narrative A 346

with Wynette’s parents. However, just three months later, in December of 1997, Wynette, David,

and Bethany moved back to live with Mark. Wynette described those circumstances that

alleviated her anxiety about his drinking habits via a telephone interview in November of 1997.

She explained, “There’s a lot going on, but nothing new. Mark has stopped drinking and only

has a few in the evening instead of a whole case.” Shorter-lived than the last arrangement, they

left Mark again in January of 1998 and moved back with Wynette’s parents. She elaborated, “He

made me so mad one time I banged the telephone on the floor until it broke.” Wynette

recognized her need to better manage her emotions, “I have to stop behaving that way—that was

a very bad thing to do.”

Household instability resurfaced in the spring of 1998, however, when her new partner

and husband-to-be, Tom, entered into the picture, and Wynette and her family moved from

Tom’s parents’ home to a one-bedroom apartment and, eventually, to a three-bedroom trailer of

their own. In June of 1998, difficulties with her new in-laws, Ralph and Betty, precipitated her

family’s move into a one-bedroom apartment where they happily acquired two pot-bellied pigs,

named Gordie and Babe, to add to their menagerie of dogs and cats. Later, in July of 1998,

Wynette and Tom were fortunate enough to buy a trailer, situated on what appeared to be a

sprawling five acres. During this telephone contact, the interviewer noted, “Wynette loves living

in the country and having her own place. Her parents bought her a dishwasher over the

weekend.” It was at this time that Marcus and Audrey, an unrelated, married couple who knew

Tom, also temporarily moved in with the family to help refurbish the property in exchange for

rent. Wynette recounted incidents of verbal abuse and threats when Marcus berated his 16-yearold, pregnant wife in front of her family. During a telephone interview in July of 1998, she

relayed, “His wife was due any minute—the woman, he treats like a dog. He says things like,

‘You shut up, or I’ll slap you down. And, if you try to put me in jail, you’ll lose your kid.’” In

constant flux, Wynette experienced more hardships when, in September of 1998, she planned to

divorce Tom and to live with her parents for an indefinite period of time. Wynette said, “He beat

me. He is no longer working.” No more household changes were reported until November of

1998 when Wynette’s sister moved out of her parent’s home, leaving Wynette to care for her five

nieces and nephews, ages 9-13, who remained in the house while their mother and father worked

full-time. While her family experienced myriad household changes both in terms of geographics

and composition, Wynette proudly affirmed the safety and security of her children while in her

care. Having reinforced the idea that David never lived apart from her, she proudly stated, “I

always take care of my babies.”

A 25-year-old, high school graduate who was single and unemployed, Wynette reported

that her poor health often prevented her from working and even from looking for a job. David’s

biological father did not have a high school diploma or a GED but was employed as a machine

operator and an assembler. In January of 1997, he began to contribute to his son’s financial wellbeing. Prior to the fall home interview in 1997, he rarely saw David. Wynette relayed one

unexpected occasion when David’s biological father and his girlfriend “offered to take them
Narrative A 347

[David and Bethany] for a day, and they came back with all kinds of stories about what a good

time they had and all kinds of presents from their dad and other relatives on his side of the

family.” “They now want to trot him [David] out like trophies on holidays.” Wynette continued

in earnest, “David’s glad to find out who his dad is,” and “maybe he’ll take the kids again

sometime-- he tries to help out a little.” Tom, Wynette’s sometimes live-in partner in the spring

of 1998, did not have a high-school diploma or a GED but was employed with two jobs, working

regularly at a large, discount chain and part-time as a carpet cleaner. When living with the

family, he contributed to the household income.

Early in the narrative when Wynette was living with Mark, she reported that her monthly

household income ranged between $500-$1,000. It rose to $1,500 -$2,000 in the spring of 1998

when combined with Tom’s fiscal support. Since David’s birth, Wynette received food stamps,

WIC, Medicaid, and income assistance. She also benefited from various social services provided

by community agencies. These resources included counseling to better cope with family violence

and legal aid in the fall of 1997 and mental health as well as alcohol/drug abuse treatment in

both the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998. Although she did not receive education assistance

until the spring of 1998, early on during a telephone conversation in November of 1997, Wynette

forecast that she would pursue her GED and, later, aspired to obtain a degree in computers.

When asked whether Head Start had helped her to secure this assistance, Wynette explained that

she already received support before David enrolled in Head Start. However, she reported that

Head Start had directly provided help with medical and dental care for both the children and

adults in her family during her fall and spring parent interviews. In December of 1997, Wynette

attempted to appeal to the courts, seeking SSI benefits and hoping to reinstate David’s Medicaid

which, eventually, was restored during June of 1998. In January of 1997, she began babysitting in

her parent’s home, five to seven days per week, from 8:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., and earned

approximately $50 each week in an effort to help support her family.

Fortunately, due to a lack of stringent work commitments, Wynette was able to devote a

great deal of time to David and her other children. During the week prior to the fall parent

interview in 1997, Wynette relayed that she taught David letters, words, and numbers, often

when singing songs, playing counting games, or reading books together. While she also

encouraged David to help with household chores, spoke with him about television programs,

videos, and his Head Start day before both interviews, she brought him along during errands,

read or told him a story, collaborated with him during an arts and crafts activity, and even joined

him at a sporting event during the week prior to the spring parent interview in 1998. She further

reported a visit to the mall and the opportunity for him to learn about his family history when

reflecting on the previous month’s activities with David. By contrast, trips to a playground or a

park predominated when interviewed in the spring of 1998. Specifically, during her fall parent

interview, Wynette reported that Mark also took David along on errands, helped to teach him

letters, words, and numbers, and played with him indoors. Tom, her new partner by the spring
Narrative A 348

of 1998, accompanied David to a community or other ethnic activity and brought him to a

playground or a park during the month prior to the spring interview in 1998.

In a telephone interview in July of 1998, Wynette shared that, at best, her family could

fulfill seven out of nineteen fundamental family needs. Later, in December of 1998, her need

decreased slightly when she relayed that half, ten out of nineteen, of their basic needs were met.

From a broad view, in July, while she frequently had enough food for three meals a day and

enough money to buy basic necessities, she almost never could pay her monthly bills. By

contrast, Wynette frequently had enough food for three meals and money to pay her monthly

bills, but she could only sometimes purchase basic necessities, including food and clothing.

Additionally, Wynette almost always felt that she had enough opportunities to spend quality

time with her children and family during both time periods. Conversely, during both months, she

rarely or never had the chance to afford family entertainment, purchase personal items, travel, or

even socialize with friends or be alone. When asked about those family strengths that she

admired the most, Wynette expressed, “Everybody helps one another in our family. We are all

there to find out what we can do-- we back each other up. We just have a good, loving family.”

“We’re very close, and that’s it.” Despite her positive thoughts and feelings, Wynette also

characterized behaviors that the family could improve. “All of us fight-- once one starts a fight,

everyone tries to get in.” Contrary to her previous statements, she continued, “They don’t stick

up for the one who’s trying to do right.” In her home interview in the fall of 1997, Wynette

reflected, “That’s me, I’m the one trying to do right by moving back in with Mark. They say I’m

stupid and crazy. They say it’s too soon. As soon as we get back together, he’ll start drinking

again, but he hasn’t, and we’ve been back together about a month now. We have a beer once in a

while for a special occasion, like his brother’s birthday.”

Wynette had a regular health care provider in both the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998.

Various family members suffered from colds and the flu throughout December, January, and

March of 1997 and, later, from recurring colds and ear infections during July and August of 1998.

In February of 1997, David’s sister, Bethany, contracted hepatitis and was sick for two weeks.

Fortunately, even though the entire family had to have shots, no one else became ill. Sadly,

Wynette reported how, in the fall of 1997, her mother-in-law, Betty, was diagnosed with

diverculitis and, later, in December of 1998, was hospitalized with both this condition and

diabetes. Additionally, her father-in-law, Ralph, was hospitalized due to major surgery for oral

cancer in June of 1997. Wynette elaborated about Betty’s condition, “She’ O.K., now, when she

takes her medicine. They’re still trying to find out what kind of cancer she has.” One uncle also

passed away, and two others experienced open-heart surgery in November of 1998.

Ironically, Wynette reported her health status as very good in the fall of 1997, yet she had

extensive dental problems and received assistance in February of 1997 in order to begin

rehabilitation. Further complicating her life were chronic seizures and difficulties with her liver

that resulted in multiple hospitalizations in June, August, October, and November of 1998.

During telephone interviews in 1998, Wynette recalled, perhaps, the two gravest incidents. In
Narrative A 349

August of 1998, she recounted how her children called a neighbor who alerted the paramedics.

The interviewer noted, “She’s very proud of the children and feels they saved her life!” Wynette

also experienced a grueling seizure that lasted forty-five minutes –much longer than usual—in

October and had to be hospitalized for several hours. Later during December, her liver enzymes

were “real high,” and, during this interview, she noted, “[I] may have to go on dialysis.”

Beginning in January of 1997, Wynette acknowledged that she had emotional problems

and that she was suffering from depression. Having recognized that her drinking had become a

problem, she began to attend AA meetings and started counseling with a private therapist in a

neighboring town. A suicide attempt raised the issue of commitment to the local hospital.

Wynette did not want to be hospitalized, and she adamantly expressed that she ”wants to be able

to see the children and take care of them.” Because she continued to be severely depressed in

February of 1997, she attended therapy once a week, hoping that “weekly counseling sessions

and medication will help my situation and keep me out of the hospital.” By March of 1997,

Wynette reported feeling better, although she was still undergoing counseling. She explained

that her therapist was very concerned about “what I’m writing in my diary” and is afraid “I’m

gonna’ hurt myself again” and, accordingly, planned to “talk to me everyday [during the] week.”

Fearing the worst outcome, Wynette remarked that her counselor might “have to put me in a

hospital to keep me from hurtin’ myself.” In the fall of 1997, when Wynette and her partner,

Mark, tried to be together again, she relayed how their continued difficulties undermined her

efforts at rehabilitation. “He never lets me leave,” and “I keep telling him that he has to go get

his own help, and I have to go and get mine and then maybe we can get together, maybe.”

Wynette continued her counseling sessions on an intermittent basis, her attendance and

absence mirroring the diverse transitions in her life. For example, in June of 1998, around the

time when Wynette, Tom, and the family moved away from struggles with their in-laws and to

their own one-bedroom apartment, Wynette discontinued therapy on a weekly schedule, but she

resumed her sessions in September when the couple planned a divorce. Ironically, while

Wynette denied having emotional problems during her September telephone interview, she

emphasized the fact that both she and her mother were undergoing counseling to focus on

improved communication. In particular, Wynette noted that she no longer wanted to “yell at her

[mother] like a crazy woman,” and she felt more motivated to join parenting and relationship

classes. Wynette remained very hopeful, affirming that she considered signing herself into “the

hospital again,” yet thought that she could “do this on my own.” Later, in October, Wynette

even encouraged her daughter, Bethany, to participate in counseling for dealing with attention

deficit disorder and difficulties with anger management.

When asked about her need for social support, Wynette expressed a very great need for

intimate support -- someone to confide in about personal and private matters. She mentioned

that she was able to talk with her mother, sister, friend, therapist, and Head Start staff, yet she

only reported being slightly satisfied with these resources. Interestingly, when specifically asked

about her need for parenting advice, including information on how to better care for her
Narrative A 350

children’s daily needs, or for ways to better manage household tasks, Wynette confirmed that she

had no need for support in these areas. In particular, during both her fall and spring parent

interviews, she reported that David’s grandparents and the Head Start staff had been valuable

resources in terms of helping her to raise David over the previous six months. Both in June and

November of 1998, a self-report indicated that, the majority of the time, she felt that everything

she did was an effort, that her sleep was restless, and that her appetite was poor. Specifically, in

the fall of 1997, she also reported that she could do anything that she set her mind to. She

strongly disagreed that there was little that she could do to change important things in her life

and believed that what happened to her depended on her. She even reported remaining hopeful

and that she enjoyed life most or all of the time. However, at the time of the second interview,

she had recently divorced Tom and her family moved back in with her parents. Here, unlike her

previous report, she described feeling somewhat sad, fearful, and that her life had been a failure.

Overall, despite the challenges that her family perpetually faced, Wynette had high personal

hopes and ambitions, “To try and get a degree in computers. I love computers, and I want to go

to college and do that.”

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

Wynette had three years of prior experience with Head Start, because her daughter,

Bethany, had also attended. Originally, she chose to enroll David, “because he wanted to go to

school. He goes to Head Start and pre-K, and he seems to enjoy it.” During her home interview

in the spring of 1998, she further reflected, “David usually doesn’t mind, but sometimes he’d

rather stay home in bed.” Wynette explained, “There was a kid causing problems in David’s

class—fighting-- but it is not so bad now.” She envisioned that Head Start would give David a

solid academic foundation as well as teach him about nutrition and physical fitness. Personally,

Wynette hoped that Head Start would not only help her to receive assistance with her dental

problems but also to obtain vocational or technical training to further her ambitions in

computers.

During her parent interview in the spring of 1998, Wynette indicated that she had

participated in 11 out of 16 Head Start activities at least once and as many as three times since

David’s enrollment. Wynette highly valued Head Start activities and remarked, “It [participation]

was very important to me. I like to do bulletin boards. I work with kids-- it helps David. I was

President of the Policy Council.” These activities ranged from private parent-teacher conferences

and classroom observations to more collaborative efforts including volunteering in the classroom

and, at times, other Head Start events such as preparing newsletters and fundraising. Although

she had attended certain Head Start events with her spouse, Tom, and other adults, she did not

yet have the opportunity to experience a workshop or a Head Start social event.

Overall, Wynette reported very high satisfaction with Head Start, because involvement

helped her to fulfill her goals for David as well as to enhance her role as a parent. Wynette
Narrative A 351

reported being somewhat satisfied with how the program had prepared David for kindergarten

in July and, later, during the December 1998 telephone interview, after David had been attending

kindergarten for several months, Wynette said she was very satisfied that Head Start had helped

prepare him for school. Specifically, during her December telephone contact, she described how

Head Start staff had helped David to improve his motor skills and dexterity. Socially, “he did

just fine with that” and, academically, he was learning a great deal but could still use more help

with letters, numbers, and color recognition. Wynette emphasized how “They [Head Start] are

meeting my goals for him very well, and I really like the teachers. They’re doing as much as they

can with the children. They teach them how to behave, how to eat, and how to play and to

learn.” Additionally, during her spring parent interview, Wynette noted that the teacher was

always warm and affectionate towards and displayed interest in David.

When asked about the extent to which Head Start had helped her to achieve personal

goals, Wynette had mixed feelings. As a parent, she hoped to teach David “to be more polite and

mannerly. [And] how to respect women. Teach him to stay away from drugs and alcohol.” In

terms of her success at accomplishing this task, she continued, “Real good—if Ralph (father-inlaw) or Tom (husband) are having a drink, David says he doesn’t want any, because it’s nasty. I

don’t think he’ll ever have a drinking problem.” In particular, during her spring home interview,

Wynette commented on how Head Start facilitated her ability to be a caring and a strong role

model by clarifying how the program equipped her with important disciplinary techniques and

better ways to manage her emotions. “I love being a parent and think I’m a good one, but,

sometimes, I want a break. Their Dad takes them on weekends and that helps.” She felt that “an

anger management class” would improve the situation a great deal, explaining, “Sometimes I get

so angry—too angry—with the kids.” Head Start enabled her “to discipline, talk to ‘em, how to

listen.” “They’ve helped me out quite a bit.”

In general, during her spring home interview, Wynette indicated that she felt supported

and welcomed by David’s teacher. She recalled how this open atmosphere often encouraged her

to participate in Head Start activities. “They helped me with the Christmas party. We had a

Santa Claus, and he gave presents to all the kids. Everyone had a great time. At Easter, I helped

plan the party. We had an Easter egg hunt and candy and games. It was fun.” Through time

volunteering in the classroom, Wynette also helped David “to learn to tie his shoes and to count

to thirty.” Since David’s enrollment in September of 1997, she even noted how Head Start

helped “giving me a job riding the bus.” Wynette monitored the bus two to three times a day,

commenting that she “loved doing it! I know it’s an important job.” Most importantly, Wynette

felt that Head Start had not only helped her to improve her physical health but also her

professional well-being. She elaborated, “Head Start has helped me to get my teeth fixed. I feel

better about myself.” “They offered a computer class, too.”

Unfortunately, at the same time, Wynette reported being sometimes dissatisfied with

Head Start’s respect for family culture and very dissatisfied with their openness to ideas in her

spring parent interview. She reported, “The way the center director and others were rude to
Narrative A 352

me—they gave me funny looks and talked about me behind my back.” Further serving as

barriers to her participation and complicating her situation were chronic family illness and her

own ongoing struggle with depression, drinking, and troubled relationships. For example,

during January of 1998, although Head Start continued to invite Wynette to many activities, she

was not able to attend because of her breakup with Mark and myriad problems with moving, her

mother’s illness, and her own alcohol addiction and emotional instability. While she resumed a

more regular participation schedule in February, serving as president of a parent group, her

contact with Head Start remained limited due to Bethany’s bout with hepatitis.

During this time, increased exposure to parent and teacher interactions led to Wynette’s

disillusionment with “conditions at the Head Start center. There are not enough teachers, and the

children are running wild.” Wynette attempted to contact both the executive director of the

agency and the Head Start director numerous times in order to address her complaints but was

unsuccessful. Later, in March, the parents held a meeting to jointly express their concern, yet she

remained very dissatisfied with the outcome. Wynette recounted, “the Head Start staff won’t

follow the suggestions of the parents.” Persistent disappointment with the situation led to her

decreased participation in bus duties and, in general, she chose to spend less time at the Head

Start center. “I don’t like the way they treat me. They’re rude. Ever since Claudia [a teacher] left

they’re even more rude.” Wynette also described how David “is refusing to go to Head Start,

because the kids pick on him so bad.” Wynette suggested that in order to improve, Head Start

not only incite cooperative participation and greater parent involvement in both the fall of 1997

and the spring of 1998 but also provide “equal treatment for all” in the spring of 1998. When

David matriculated to kindergarten, she emphasized via a telephone contact in July of 1998,

“[He’s] in kindergarten now, and Head Start doesn’t want to have anything to do with me.” In

September, still somewhat dismayed with the transition, Wynette continued, “David is in all day

kindergarten—which he loves, but he and his teachers don’t get along. She doesn’t give him

enough to do. He plays teacher with some kids, while she does other things, and she don’t like

it.”

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the October 1997 home interview, Wynette and David lived in an upper

level, second floor apartment in an extraordinarily run-down, fourplex building. Replete with

broken, boarded up windows and peeling paint, the complex had no front door on the street

level, and, abut to a deteriorating, industrial park and railroad tracks, fumes from nearby oil and

chemical refineries imbued the area. Equally unpleasant, the interior of Wynette’s home reeked

from the odor of “dirty dishes with scraps of food...scattered [about] the apartment.” The

interviewer elaborated, “The apartment...is filthy... and in need of vacuuming and sweeping.”

“Clothes are scattered everywhere --on the floor, chairs, tables-- just everywhere. Wynette and
Narrative A 353

the children are recovering from the flu and, perhaps, that is part of the reason things are so very

messy.”

Covering a radius somewhere between six to ten blocks, the neighborhood consisted of

four similar buildings on three congested streets. With the exception of a few, well maintained

homes, most surrounding houses seemed unkempt and overcrowded. “Materials are hanging,

mostly lopsided, in the windows.” Various types of litter, including abandoned vehicles, trash,

and broken children’s toys, infiltrated streets, sidewalks, and even private yards. While some

trees and grass grew nearby in sparse patches, only a few lingering birds and dogs barking from

inside apartments added vitality to this community and obscured the interviewer’s notion that it

resembled an “urban blight on a smaller scale.” “This is not a pretty neighborhood, and it does

not feel safe.” “It appears that no one who lives here takes pride in the area.”

Wynette affirmed that her family did not live in a stable neighborhood and that “no one

would stay here by choice.” There were few signs of neighborhood activities and identity, yet

community resources such as two convenient stores, a grocery, a drug store, four churches, a

private daycare center, and an elementary school were all within six to ten blocks. Although

Wynette observed that her family lived across the street from a vacant field, there was no safe

playground nearby for children to play in. Most neighboring businesses were boarded up and

closed down.

Ironically, despite its deceptive appearance, Wynette characterized her neighborhood in

spring 1998 as “quiet, not much trouble—don’t have the cops come down much.” Except for

some individuals who “believe in gangs” and who “don’t know how to get along with anybody,”

she emphasized how she lived in a relatively cooperative, law conscious community. “It’s a safe

environment in some ways—no guns or violence. It’s better than where I was living before.

Everybody helps everybody out.” When asked about which aspect of her neighborhood that she

liked the most, she commented, “how quiet it is. How friendly people are. The law goes by

often—just checking. People look after other people’s kids and keep parents informed.”

Unfortunately, David had both been a witness to and a victim of domestic violence in her home

in the fall of 1997. David also had to experience his own mother being arrested. During her fall

home interview, Wynette noted a contributing factor; she and her “boyfriend, Mark, are drinking

again.” Though circumstances improved by the spring of 1998, the notion that Wynette not only

reported having seen but also knew someone who was a victim of violent crime in her

neighborhood in the fall of 1997 compounded this harsh reality.
Narrative B 354

A Head Start Family: Narrative B

The Head Start Child

Gabriela was a 3-year-old Latina girl who lived with her mother, Celia, father,

Alejandro, and older brother, Eric, in a large, southwestern city. Gabriela enrolled in Head Start

in the fall of 1997 and typically attended class five days a week for eight hours a day. She lived

eight minutes from the center and walked to school each morning. Gabriela’s mother, Celia,

portrayed her as a child who was “like a good girl, a little difficult, but a calm girl to other

children” and stated that she “sometimes acts mean but rarely.” When asked about her favorite

activities, Celia said that Gabriela liked “television, playing with her bike and painting and

drawing” as well as “playing with the kids.” Celia noted that, in general, Gabriela made friends

easily and willingly shared with and accepted her friend’s ideas when playing. However, it

was sometimes true that Gabriela hits and fights with other children. Celia reported that

“Gabriela had a little friend in the neighborhood that hit her. I notice that she hits back. I don’t

like that.”

According to Celia, in the fall of 1997, Gabriela could button her own clothes, count up

to ten, hold her pencil properly, and liked to write or pretend to write. She could not yet point

out any of the letters of the alphabet or identify the colors red, yellow, blue and green.

However, she observed that by the spring of 1998 Gabriela could accomplish all these tasks as

well as recognize and write her first name, identify at least five written numbers, and count up

to five blocks. Gabriela had a good imagination, enjoyed learning and liked to try new things,

although she experienced some difficulty concentrating or paying attention for very long. As

early as the fall of 1997, Celia noted that Gabriela would sit and look at a book with pictures,

pretending to read to herself, but she did more than just describe each picture -- she connected

them in an integrated story. By the spring of 1998, her attention span for reading increased, and

she enjoyed being read to for approximately fifteen minutes rather than five minutes at one

time. There were reading materials in the home, including children’s books, religious books,

and newspapers. While Celia reported that no one had read to Gabriela within the week prior

to the fall home interview, she said that a number of household members had read to her two

times during the week before the spring home interview.

When asked about her behavior, Celia remarked that Gabriela sometimes was

disobedient at home and very often would have temper tantrums. Both in the fall of 1997 and

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 through December of

1998. Data contributing to this report were obtained from semi-structured home

interviews, structured parent interviews, teacher reports and child assessments, as

well as monthly telephone contacts from November of 1997 to December of 1998. The

names of the family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative B 355

spring of 1998, Celia indicated having to spank Gabriela and send her to time-out one to two

times a week. However, Celia recognized an improvement in her daughter’s ability to get along

well with and to act her own age around other children in the spring of 1998. Her teacher also

noted her more congenial and cooperative nature, reporting that Gabriela joined in group

activities on her own and encouraged others to participate as well as accepted her peers’ ideas

in playing and sharing and complimented them. She felt that Gabriela appeared to receive

social support from a friend and showed loyalty to the friend. While Gabriela took turns and

followed classroom directions very often, she occasionally would break rules when playing

games with others and could usually solve problems with other children independently.

Overall, Celia described Gabriela as a happy child with a good self-esteem who never seemed to

worry for too long.

Gabriela did not have a regular health care provider. She received her routine health

care, paid by health insurance, from a private doctor or an HMO. Celia described Gabriela’s

health as excellent. Ironically, she indicated that Gabriela suffered from a chronic illness

(unspecified) in the fall of 1997, yet continued telephone conversations only document that she

had a bout of the flu in August and experienced a common cold in October of 1998.

When asked about her hopes and goals for Gabriela during the fall of 1997, Celia relayed

that she hoped “that they [Head Start] say something good about her, that they have no

problems with her.” “I don’t want her [Gabriela] to tell me that she spent all day watching

movies or was out on the street.” When specifically asked about short or long-term educational

goals, Celia said, “Head Start teaches [them] to do good things. I see the difference in her

drawings and how she interacts with children.” Regarding her future, Celia would like

Gabriela to become an “engineer” and hopes that she “gets a good job.” Of greatest value, she

felt, “The most important thing is her learning and increasing her abilities. And, to instill the

desire to be somebody... who does not have to struggle like we do.”

The Head Start Family

This is a two-parent family that immigrated from El Salvador to the United States in

search of a better life. Prior to the initial visit with the family, Gabriela’s father, Alejandro, was

deported, leaving Celia, Gabriela, and her 9-year-old brother, Eric, with very few resources.

The family began sharing housing after Alejandro was deported, because they could no longer

afford to live on their own. When first contact with the family occurred, the household

consisted of Gabriela, her 36-year-old mother, Celia, Eric, and another 30-year-old female

relative. Spanish was the language spoken in the home.

Celia did not have a high school diploma or a GED but received a job-related certificate

and worked full-time as a machine operator. While Celia reported her monthly household

income to be $850 in the fall of 1997, it rose to approximately $1,000 in the spring of 1998. This
Narrative B 356

increase in income combined with the fact that her husband, Alejandro, returned to live with

the family and worked full-time may have contributed to the family’s living in their own

housing. Since Gabriela’s birth, Celia has needed help with transportation, childcare, and food

and has received help from a variety of community agencies. When asked whether Head Start

had helped her to secure this assistance, Celia explained that she was already receiving the aid

before Gabriela began Head Start and, therefore, did not need help from the program. During

her husband’s absence, Celia received WIC to purchase milk for her children. However, Celia

emphasized that she felt it was unacceptable to “ask for handouts,” and, by the time of the first

interview, she was no longer receiving any public assistance. After having been deported from

the United States, Alejandro returned in January of 1998 with a vehement distrust of the

government and the “North American system.” He explained that the only reason the family

was still in the U.S. was because circumstances were much worse in their homeland of El

Salvador.

Celia worked full-time and, consequently, Gabriela often spent a good portion of her

day either in Head Start or under the supervision of a neighbor who was a helpful but

unlicensed caregiver. However, Celia still reported spending time with her child on a

consistent basis in both the fall and spring parent interviews. During the week prior to the

spring home interview, Celia told or read Gabriela a story and jointly worked on arts and crafts.

She also took Gabriela with her while running errands, had her help with household chores,

and made time to speak with her about her Head Start day. Another household member also

taught Gabriela letters, words, or numbers and played games with her indoors. With her

father’s return to the United States, Celia reported that he would sometimes bring Gabriela to

the mall once a month. In the fall of 1997, Celia remarked she and Gabriela also ventured to a

mall, visited a playground, and attended a sporting event at least once a month. Similarly, with

the exception of a sports outing, they experienced these same events the month prior to the

spring 1998 interview.

In telephone interviews in July and, later, December of 1998, Celia revealed that, at best,

her family was able to meet four out of nineteen fundamental needs. From a broad view,

having enough money to purchase basic necessities enabled her to sometimes pay her monthly

bills and provide her family with three meals a day. Other resources sometimes met included

having enough space in her apartment. She described that that she would like “to change and

improve our way of living, to earn more [and get] better quality things for one’s family.”

Specifically, Celia discussed the difficulty of earning a low wage and expressed her hopes for

the future. “If you go out with the little money that you earn, you have desires to buy what

they [the children] wish.” “We are in this country ... it is not much that they are paying us.” “[I

want] to change our way of living.” Yet, despite her hardships, Celia stated, “We are a poor but

honorable family” when asked about what family quality she truly admired.
Narrative B 357

Celia described her physical health as fair and had a regular health care provider. Sadly,

monthly telephone interviews indicated that her husband, Alejandro, suffered a dangerous

head injury in July of 1998. Alejandro was struck on the head by a marijuana addict in their

apartment complex, and this traumatic situation precipitated a great deal of physical and

psychological distress. He not only spent two days in a hospital but also was forced to take

work leave for two weeks. Deleterious effects, especially emotional ones, lingered for two

months. In September, the interviewer detailed, “Celia was very worried that they wouldn’t

have enough that month to pay the rent or bills. Thankfully, everything worked out—Her

husband was okay, and they still had a place to live.”

When asked about her need for social support, Celia expressed a moderate need for

intimate social support – someone to confide in about personal and private matters. She

mentioned that she was able to talk to her sister and that she was very satisfied with these

experiences during the month of January 1998. When interviewed after Alejandro had been

deported, Celia admitted that she was lonely and sad most or all of the time, occasionally felt

depressed, and that everything she did seemed like an effort. She felt helpless – that there was

no way to solve her problems, she was being pushed around, and she had little control over life

events. Although she agreed that what happened to her depended on her, she felt that there

was very little she could do in order to improve those circumstances that were most important

to her. By contrast, after Alejandro’ return in January of 1998, a self-report in June later revealed

that, while she often felt that life required a big effort to accomplish tasks and that it was

difficult to proceed with daily routines, Celia rarely felt sad, afraid, or alone. She further

demonstrated her receptivity to others’ social support when answering that she rarely felt that

she could not shake her sadness and that she only seldom felt poorly treated by others. In

retrospect, she emphasized how Alejandro, her parents, Gabriela’s child care provider, the

church, and Head Start staff, were all very supportive and helpful resources in terms of raising

Gabriela over the previous six months. Celia’s personal hopes and goals are sound and

realistic: “To just work and be able to take care of them [children]. “There is no initiative to say

we will continue to study. I cannot. There is only one thing and that is work and work for

them.”

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

Celia had prior experience with Head Start because her son, Eric, had also attended.

Celia’s primary reason for enrolling Gabriela in Head Start stemmed from her great need for

child care. She explained, “Sometimes the necessities of work make it very difficult to leave

one’s children for eight-to-nine hours at a babysitter.” She expressed concern about her child’s

welfare. “I have seen babysitters even treat the children badly.” Gabriela initially entered

childcare when she was a one-year-old and has been cared for in six different arrangements
Narrative B 358

before her enrollment in Head Start. Of these various arrangements, care was most frequently

provided in a neighbor’s home. After beginning Head Start, Gabriela continued to receive

child care at a neighbor’s home, both before and after the Head Start day, for approximately 25

hours per week. Although Celia had expressed a need for financial assistance to afford

Gabriela’s child care, she paid for it on her own . When asked how Gabriela perceived these

care experiences, Celia expressed mixed feelings. While she positively noted that the child care

provider always seemed open to new information and often gave Gabriela a great deal of

individual attention and warmth, she also felt there were times when Gabriela did not appear to

feel safe or secure.

Overall, Celia envisioned that Head Start would give Gabriela a solid academic

foundation as well as improve her social interactions with children and adults. She also hoped

that Head Start would improve Gabriela’s manners, reinforcing good habits, while helping her

to learn how to behave better. During a home interview in April of 1998, when asked about

Gabriela’s impression of Head Start, Celia replied positively, “[She] loves it! She has less

tantrums with her friends than before. She’s also reminding me she has to wash her hands,

teeth. She knows the colors, numbers. Gabriela tries more and more to explain what has

happened during the day.” In particular, she noted Gabriela’s improved language skills,

“Gabriela has learned a lot of English and speaks less Spanish.” Accordingly, Celia hoped that

Head Start not only would be able to help her with child care but also to enhance her

understanding of child development. During her spring parent interview, Celia relayed that

she had participated in 9 out of 15 Head Start activities at least once and as many as three times

since Gabriela’s enrollment. These activities ranged from private parent-teacher conferences

and workshops to more collaborative efforts including volunteering in the classroom and, at

times, in other Head Start events such as fundraising and preparing newsletters. By contrast,

she did not yet have the opportunity to call another Head Start parent or attend a Head Start

event, such as a field trip or a social occasion, either with her husband, Alejandro, or another

adult, primarily due to work commitments.

Overall, Celia reported high satisfaction with Head Start, because involvement both

helped her to fulfill her goals for Gabriela and to improve her role as a parent. She commented

that she wished to teach her child “good things, to be an educated woman that is honorable and

studious” and that Head Start had facilitated her capacity “to teach [Gabriela] so she learns. I

have noticed much change—in her attitude and her abilities.” Feeling that Head Start had more

than adequately prepared Gabriela physically, scholastically, and socially for kindergarten,

Celia reported being extremely satisfied during her telephone conversations in July and, later,

in September of 1998. At the same time, she again expressed a continued feeling of “being

ashamed to ask for help [because she was not] used to having programs available for families

and so she didn’t feel comfortable asking.” Overwhelmingly, Celia perceived that Head Start

services for Gabriela and her family helped them to grow, were safe, and fostered community
Narrative B 359

involvement. Additionally, she always felt that the teachers were open to new information and

expressed enthusiasm and warmth towards Gabriela. When asked about the extent to which

she felt she could achieve her goals as a parent, she responded with great candor, “I don’t know

what you mean, I am doing the best I can with what resources we have. Our surroundings

make it hard to show her how to be good. But we try.” Celia elaborated, “I love my children

and want to see them grow...We are poor, but we try to keep her on the right path.” Despite

Gabriela’s and her family’s positive experiences with Head Start, Celia did not meet her own

goals. “I wanted good health and my job. I still have both things. Head Start didn’t help. I’m

pretty sad still. I am not in my country. But our outlook there isn’t any better.”

When asked if there was anything that she would like to see improved or changed in

Head Start, Celia expressed that the program should either have longer hours or provide

extended day care. Unfortunately, she had to leave work early in order to take Gabriela to

another child care arrangement, since extended day care at Head Start was recently

discontinued. Despite her displeasure with the limited hours, Celia mentioned being

particularly pleased that Head Start was often sensitive to her transportation needs. “On cold

days they give my daughter a ride to Head Start.” Transportation to Head Start was a

persistent problem for this family, and Celia explained the difficulty of getting Gabriela to

school. “For me, it’s hard to find a person that will help me. In the time of cold and snow, I

don’t want for them to miss not one day. It’s also hard for me to miss a lot of work. [Having

transportation] could help a lot of mothers out.” Unfortunately, difficulties with transportation

and a lack of child care became such barriers to participation that Celia eventually enrolled

Gabriela in a pre-kindergarten program for fours hours a day, five days a week at her brother

Eric’s school. Although Celia, at first, seemed unhappy about enrolling Gabriela in an

elementary school program, she seemed more comfortable with the change by August of 1998.

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the October home interview, the FACES home visit interviewer described

the family’s neighborhood as a residential, suburban setting comprised of mostly low-income,

blue-collar African-American and Latino families. While the neighborhood consisted of two

apartment complexes surrounded by single-family homes, Celia and Alejandro lived in an

apartment building that was rather old and moderately populated. The complexes had gravel

parking lots with little plants or shrubbery, and the yards were equally bare. All of the

buildings and surrounding grounds were in great need of repair. An abandoned swimming

pool and the absence of an outdoor playground not only made the desolate atmosphere

uninviting but also unsafe for children to play in as dark passage ways, broken cement stairs,

and rusted railings riddled the complex. The interviewer captured, at times, the intensity of

Celia’s struggle via telephone interviews in July of 1998, “Unfortunately, the...complex is not
Narrative B 360

well maintained and the management is lax.” “The situation was no better with the heat wave.”

The property management refused to fix their air conditioner or refrigerator for a long time.

Celia said she felt terrible not being [able] to provide her children any form of relief from the

heat. Despite these times of crisis, Celia and her family were often afraid to complain to their

landlord or local housing authority because of their immigration status and poor English skills.

She elaborated, “The corrupt owners don’t listen to us. They think, because many of us are not

legal, it’s okay to treat us like rats.”

Celia observed that the neighborhood was constantly in transition, since residents were

always moving in and out. A parking lot between the apartment complexes and surrounding

houses acted a small “buffer zone,” heightening a sense of isolation as the buildings almost

appeared to be two distinct neighborhoods. There were no signs of neighborhood activities or

identity, and all community resources such as churches, schools, recreation centers, and public

transportation were at least a half a mile away. From their apartments, people socialized on

their balconies yet were always vigilant of their children playing near isolated houses below.

No one really knew each other, and, fearing for their safety, Celia did not allow her kids to play

with other children. Living near a drug and gang-infested housing project, loitering was often

observed. Celia commented, “I’m suspicious of people, because I don’t know anyone but so far

nothing has happened....This is not a place where a child can run and play—It’s dirty, it’s

dangerous, and I think it’s a bad place.” Unlike the fall parent interview, Celia reported that, in

the spring of 1998, while she and her family had never been a victim of violent crime, her family

had been exposed to violent crime and Gabriela to domestic violence. In April of 1998, Celia

revealed, “The other day, they [officers] found a murder victim --five days old—in an

apartment near where the children play. There’s gang violence on one side of the complex and

alcoholic/drug abuse adults on the other. It’s terrible, this is like a rat hole.”
Narrative C 361

A Head Start Family: Narrative C

The Head Start Child

Felicia was a three-year-old African American girl who lived with her 34-year-old, single

mother, Kathy, sisters, LaShawn, Cheyenne, and Sharice, and her brother, RaShad , in a large,

west-coast city. Felicia enrolled in Head Start in the fall of 1996 and attended class five days a

week for four hours a day. She lived five minutes away from the Head Start center and traveled

each day by bus. Felicia’s mother, Kathy, described her as a “nice, friendly kid” who was

“stubborn, at times.” When asked about her favorite activities, Kathy commented that Felicia

liked “to act silly.” She noted that Felicia was an imaginative child who liked to try new things

and enjoyed learning. She made friends easily and willingly accepted her friends’ ideas when

playing.

According to Kathy, in the fall of 1997, Felicia could button her own clothes, identify the

colors red, yellow, blue and green, count up to ten, and recognize some of the letters in the

alphabet, including her own name in print. She held her pencil properly and liked to write or

pretend to write, especially her first name. By the spring of 1998, although she still experienced

difficulty writing her first name, Felicia could identify at least four written numbers and count up

to sixteen blocks. Her attention span for reading remained steady from the fall of 1997 to the

spring of 1998; she did not have a hard time concentrating and enjoyed being read to for

approximately 10 minutes at one time. She would sit and look at a book with pictures and, while

pretending to read to herself, she would do much more than just describe each picture-- she

connected them into an integrated story. There were many reading materials in the home,

including children’s books and novels, magazines for children and catalogs for adults,

newspapers, and other reference items such as religious books, dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

While Kathy and another household member had read to Felicia everyday during the week prior

to the fall parent interview in 1997, both individuals also read to her three or more times a week

before her spring interview in 1998.

When asked about her child’s behavior, Kathy’s description improved from the fall of

1997 to the spring of 1998. Initially, she reported that Felicia sometimes was disobedient at home

and very often would have temper tantrums . However, during her second parent interview, she

noted that her daughter rarely misbehaved at home and only sometimes would experience

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 to December of 1998.

Data contributing to this report were obtained from semi-structured home interviews,

structured parent interviews, teacher reports, child observations, as well as monthly

telephone contacts from December of 1997 to December of 1998. The names of the

family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative C 362

temper tantrums. Interestingly, in the spring of 1998, although Kathy commented that Felicia

sometimes would not get along with other children and would even hit or fight with them, she

would very often comfort or help her peers. Similarly, teacher ratings in the spring of 1998

confirmed that she followed classroom directions and rules very often as well as rarely disrupted

ongoing activities. Socially, Felicia seemed not only to join in and encourage others to participate

in group games but also would very often take turns and, sometimes, even compliment her

friends. However, her teacher additionally felt that Felicia often acted withdrawn and lacked

confidence in experimenting with new activities. Both in the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998,

Kathy reported that Felicia very often needed reassurance that she was behaving well. Yet, both

Kathy and her Head Start teacher portrayed Felicia as a happy child with good self-esteem;

during both time periods, she typically acted her own age, rarely seemed to worry for too long,

and seldom felt inferior.

In both parent interviews, Kathy reported that the family had household rules about the

kind of food her daughter ate, when she went to bed, and which chores she was responsible for

completing. Although Kathy did not restrict the amount of television that Felicia watched, she

monitored the type of television programs seen. Kathy relayed that she had to spank Felicia once

as well as send her to time-out twice during the week prior to the fall and spring parent

interviews. In the spring of 1998, she noted that she had not learned any new disciplinary

techniques from Head Start.

Prior to her enrollment in Head Start, Felicia never experienced child care, either centerbased or with an unlicensed caregiver, and, during the program, she was not in child care before

or after the Head Start day. She demonstrated excellent health and a had a regular health care

provider both in the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998. All of her routine care was paid for by

Medicaid at an outpatient clinic in a local hospital. Fortunately, a telephone contact revealed that

Felicia only suffered from a common cold and a bout of the flu in December of 1997.

While Kathy did not address any specific hopes and goals for Felicia during her first year

at Head Start nor project any short- or long-term educational aspirations, she stated that she

hoped “for her to be successful and live a happy life.” She wanted to “leave her life up to her.”

The Head Start Family

This single-parent family consisted of Kathy, and her five children, including Felicia, her

sisters, LaShawn, Cheyenne, and Sharice, and her brother, RaShad. English was the language

spoken in the household.

Kathy had her high school diploma as well as having attended some college and a

vocational school in an effort to obtain a job-related certificate. At the time of her fall parent

interview in 1997, Kathy had been unemployed for the past twelve months and Felicia’s
Narrative C 363

biological father, who lived within an hour’s ride, sometimes contributed to the their financial

well-being by providing child support. By the spring of 1998, Kathy was collecting

unemployment insurance while searching for a job. However, she also received education

assistance, and Felicia’s father continued to supplement family funds. Felicia’s father had a high

school diploma and worked as a machine operator in both the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998.

Kathy reported that her monthly household income ranged somewhere between $1,000 and

$1,500 in the fall of 1997 and from $500 to $999 in the spring of 1998. Fortunately, despite her

large family and loss of some public assistance benefits, Kathy and Felicia never experienced

homelessness nor lived in public or subsidized housing; they lived in a privately rented

apartment during both the fall and spring parent interviews. Since Felicia’s birth, the family had

received welfare and income assistance, WIC, Medicaid, food stamps, and help from a variety of

community agencies. When asked about the extent to which Head Start had helped her family to

procure these community services, Kathy explained that they were already receiving income,

nutrition, and medical/dental assistance prior to Felicia’s enrollment at Head Start.

Despite her busy schedule, Kathy was very involved with Felicia. She explained that she

taught her daughter letters, words, and numbers, often singing songs, playing games, or reading

books together during the week prior to the fall parent interview in 1997. Additionally, she also

encouraged Felicia to help with household chores, spoke with her about television programs,

videos, and her Head Start day, read or told her a story, collaborated with her during an arts and

crafts activity, and even joined her playing a sport. Kathy continued to participate in a majority

of these activities during the week prior to the spring interview in 1998. Although she did not

discuss specific television programs or her Head Start day with her daughter, she taught Felicia

more educational counting games. Monthly activities ranged from a trip to the local mall,

playground, and park in both the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998. While Kathy also

accompanied Felicia to a sporting event in the fall of 1997, she brought her daughter to a

community event, ethnic or religious in nature, in the spring of 1998.

Despite the fact that her father was unable to participate in these activities, another

household member had also read Felicia a story, taught her letters, words, or numbers, often

when singing songs, helped her with chores, and played both indoor and outdoor games or

sports with her during the week prior to the fall and spring parent interviews. Additionally, a

family member (unspecified) other than her mother also accompanied Felicia to a local

playground and a sporting event during the month prior to the fall parent interview as well as to

a movie, concert or a play, and a community event before the spring parent interview.

Specifically, in the fall of 1997, Kathy reported that Felicia’s biological father visited her several

times throughout the year but only rarely in the spring of 1998. An unidentified, non-household

relative who routinely spent time with Felicia acted as both a constant father figure and a role

model during both time periods.

In a telephone interview in August of 1998, Kathy revealed that, at best, her family could

fulfill twelve out of nineteen fundamental needs. Later, in December of 1998, her need decreased
Narrative C 364

slightly when she reported that fifteen of their basic needs were met. From a broad view, she

frequently had enough food for three meals a day, money to pay her monthly bills, and ample

resources including clothes, and toys for her children to play with, as well as time to spend with

them during both summer and winter months. Kathy reported having a noticeably enhanced

financial situation by December of 1998, because she had more funds to spend on basic

necessities, furniture for her apartment, family entertainment, travel, personal items, and could

even save some money. Perhaps, this positive change reflected Kathy’s improved employment

status when she accepted a part-time cashier position in June of 1998. She emphasized, “I really

worked at getting it, and I feel good about that.” Although she also had more time to socialize

with her friends, realistically, Kathy still could not provide her children with everything that she

wanted or have enough time alone. She even reported having experienced less sleep. Kathy

emphasized that she would like to “have more money” to “be able to get [the] children things

they really want.” When asked about those family strengths that she admired the most, Kathy

focused on supportive family interactions. She described her family as “close-knit-- the children

play together and watch each other.”

Telephone contacts minimally revealed that Felicia and her sister, Sharice, had colds and

the flu in December of 1997. However, Kathy also divulged that another household member

suffered from a chronic illness during her fall parent interview. Personally, Kathy characterized

her health status as good and had a regular health care provider in both the fall of 1997 and the

spring of 1998. She received her routine medical care at an outpatient clinic in a local hospital. In

the spring of 1998, despite the fact that Kathy reported cigarette smoking in her home, she

attributed improvements in her overall health to Head Start. Specifically, she noted her healthier

nutritional habits and her enhanced activity level.

When asked about her need for social support, --someone to confide in about personal

and private matters-- Kathy’s responses ranged across a continuum in terms of degree, source of,

and satisfaction with her support. In January of 1998, she expressed a slight need for intimate

support, while she reported no need, especially in terms of parenting, assistance with child care,

and daily household tasks, in February, March, and September. Interestingly, in August, Kathy,

again, relayed a slight need for intimate support and, similarly, in October, a moderate need for

aid with child care. She indicated that she was able to speak with her friends, relatives, and, even

her ex-in-laws. However, while she noted very high satisfaction when confiding in her friends,

she only reported moderate satisfaction when revealing her personal thoughts and feelings to

family members and her ex-in-laws. Overall, in her fall parent interview in 1997, Kathy felt that

her friends and Felicia’s grandparents were both very valuable resources in terms of helping her

to raise Felicia over the previous six months, whereas the Head Start staff was only somewhat

supportive.

In the fall of 1997, Kathy reported feeling easily irritated by circumstances that would not

normally bother her, having trouble concentrating on daily tasks, and having difficulty being

productive. By contrast, in both her fall and spring parent interviews, although she confirmed
Narrative C 365

that most or all of the time everything she did seemed like an effort, she also described being

happy, hopeful about the future, and enjoying life during telephone contacts in June and, later, in

November of 1998. Similarly, while she reported rarely feeling depressed or lonely in both her

fall parent interview and during these telephone contacts, Kathy also asserted that what

happened to her depended on her, and she strongly agreed that she could do anything that she

set her mind to in her fall parent interview. Kathy did not delineate any personal hopes and

goals during her fall home interview, yet, in the spring, she reported, “No goals last time, but,

now, [I] plan to go back to beauty school to get [my] license back.” Having continually expressed

a keen interest in her children’s welfare, she explained, “going out looking for a job” was

important, “so I can get things for my kids.”

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

Felicia’s 4-year-old sister, Cheyenne, also attended Head Start during her enrollment.

Kathy initially registered Felicia “so she can be with kids her age. Try to teach her so she can be

ready for kindergarten.” In general, she envisioned that Head Start would give her daughter a

solid academic foundation as well as improve her social interactions with children. Personally,

Kathy hoped that Head Start could provide her family with a safe haven from their

neighborhood as well as enhance her role as a parent.

During her spring parent interview in 1998, Kathy indicated that she had participated in

seven out of sixteen Head Start activities at least once and as many as three times since Felicia’s

enrollment. These activities ranged from private parent-teacher conferences, classroom

observations, Head Start home visits, and workshops to more collaborative efforts including

volunteering with class events, fundraising, and attending meetings for the Head Start Policy

Council. Specifically, Kathy recalled a memorable event in which she assisted Cheyenne’s class.

“[We] made sashes and caps for graduation for Cheyenne—going to kindergarten next year.” By

contrast, she had not yet had the opportunity to prepare classroom food or materials, assist with

Head Start newsletters or fliers, or attend educational fieldtrips or social events, either by herself

or with another parent. Kathy highly valued her involvement with Head Start, yet she often felt

that child care and transportation posed a barrier to her participation. In her spring home

interview in 1998, she elaborated, “I have tried to be there, because I have two kids at the school,

but don’t go because of the baby. Don’t like to take her out in rain or cold.” Later, when she

accepted a part-time cashier position in the spring of 1998, work commitments further impeded

her involvement. However, proactive in her approach, Kathy would often attempt to reschedule

rather than miss appointments.
Narrative C 366

Kathy reported high satisfaction with Head Start. With the exception of a telephone

interview in December of 1997 in which she felt that Felicia was not learning enough, contacts in

January, March, and December of 1998 delineated her positive attitude towards parent-teacher

conferences, home visits, and interactions among parents at council meetings. Although Kathy

was unable to attend many events, she consistently noted staff efforts to solicit her participation

in January, February, March, October, and December. Predominately, satisfaction stemmed from

the fact that involvement both helped her to fulfill her goals for Felicia and to improve her role as

a parent. When commenting on Felicia’s impression of Head Start, Kathy expressed, “[She’s]

happy. She loves it!-- likes the kids and toys and plenty to keep her busy.” She explained that

she hoped to instill Felicia with a sense of “values, manners, and what you have to do in life. [To]

do what a woman is supposed to do to keep herself clean. Keep her mouth clean. Be a

respectable citizen—just because we live in the ghetto, we don’t have to be ghetto.”

Overwhelmingly, Kathy believed that Head Start had a noticeable and a positive impact

on Felicia. Specifically, she noted that staff usually seemed open to new information and ideas

and always expressed enthusiasm and warmth towards Felicia. She commented, “[I] am quite

satisfied. I think that they are teaching her pretty good. Sure teaching her to express her

feelings.” However, Kathy also expressed some displeasure with the program’s capacity to meet

her family’s needs; she was very dissatisfied with their respect for cultural differences and

provision of family services.

When asked about the extent to which she felt she could achieve her goals as a parent,

Kathy emphasized the importance of securing a job in order to support her children. With great

candor, she explained, “[I] love being a parent. I know that you can’t fully raise a family on one

parent, but I’m dong the best I can.” Kathy also felt that Head Start supported her psychological

well-being, especially as a single mother whose children had varying developmental needs. “I

think I’m teaching her pretty good. My 15-year-old is a good girl. I give her space, but I trust her

so I’m going to do the same with the younger girls.” “They [Head Start] have seminars, but I’ve

only been to one.” Regarding professional growth, Kathy revisited her vision to return to beauty

school but was unable to discern any positive change, stating, “Head Start didn’t help.”

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the fall home interview in 1997, Kathy and Felicia lived in a two-story

complex in a large, gated, suburban apartment community. The majority of the homes were

comprised of lower-middle class, African-American families who were among the “working

poor, economically.” Although within blocks of a freeway exit, the building and environs

appeared quiet, clean, and fairly new. Ground maintenance workers were seen around the

development, tending to shrubbery and a local swimming pool. The interviewer noted, “The
Narrative C 367

community, itself, seems to be well-maintained.” “There are parking areas in various locations,

but each building has a lawn and a sidewalk area in front that is away from car traffic.” There

were no abandoned buildings or graffiti. Numerous signs, naming developments or community

shopping areas, were observed, yet their commercial nature did little to create a sense of

neighborhood identity. Uncertain about the availability of community resources and

neighborhood activity, the interviewer noted, “There is...a bus stop across the street from the

entrance to the community. I could not tell if there were churches or schools in the area, but there

is a great deal of shopping available within walking distance.”

At first glance, the neighborhood appeared to be relatively safe and stable. Outside,

people were observed playing and socializing. The interviewer commented, “I noticed adults

checking on the children. There were always adults available to ask directions of, but they were

not hanging out.” “It seems to be a safe place to raise children...visitors must be buzzed in.”

Fortunately, Kathy confirmed that she and Felicia had never been a witness to or a victim of

domestic or violent crime in both her fall 1997 and spring 1998 parent interviews. Overall, she

had a positive impression of her neighborhood and its community interactions. “Pretty good--

Not much problems here. Has rough rack kids, but it is all right.” “Friendly kids. Manager

kicks out tenants who give problems right away.” However, Kathy noted a particular area in

need of improvement: “[We] don’t have a place for the kids to play, so the kids break things.

Need a playground -- Make the parents watch even more.”
Narrative D 368

A Head Start Family: Narrative D

The Head Start Child

Burt was a 4-year-old biracial boy who lived with his mother and his younger stepbrother in a suburban town in the South. Burt was new to Head Start in the fall of 1997 and

attended Head Start five days a week for six hours each day. He lived five minutes away from

Head Start and typically got to Head Start each morning by car. His mother, Michelle, reported

that “he loves Head Start. He thinks his teacher is wonderful.” In addition, Michelle described

Burt as having “a great personality. He’s well-spoken. He knows his manners. He knows right

from wrong. I believe he is very intelligent. He speaks his mind. I taught him to speak up and to

speak the truth.” According to Michelle, his favorite things to do were “sports, sports, sports,

and fishing. I take him and his little brother fishing. We never catch anything but it’s fun.

Baseball, hockey and golf are his favorite sports. He loves to watch the football games on t.v.” In

addition, his mother said that Burt enjoyed learning, trying new things, was imaginative, made

friends easily and liked to comfort or help others. Burt’s teacher indicated that he did not lack

confidence in learning new things or trying new activities and that he worked well in groups. He

joined group activities without being told to do so, invited others to join in activities, followed

rules when playing games with others and helped put materials away after the activity was over.

In the fall of 1997, Michelle reported that Burt could count up to twenty, recognize the

colors red, yellow, blue, and green, recognize his first name in writing and some of the letters of

the alphabet, button his own clothes, hold a pencil properly and liked to write or pretend to write

often, but could not yet write his first name and mostly scribbled when he tried to write. By the

spring of 1998, Michelle indicated that Burt could now recognize all of the letters of the alphabet,

could write his first name, and wrote clearly rather than scribbling, although he liked to write or

pretend to write less often. Burt enjoyed being read to for approximately 30-40 minutes at a time,

and would look at a book with pictures and pretend to read himself. In the fall of 1997, Michelle

indicated that when Burt pretended to read a book, he could tell you what is in each of the

pictures but did not make a connection between each of the pictures yet. However, by the spring

of 1998, Burt was able to tell Michelle what was in each of the pictures and make the connection

between each of the pictures to tell the story. The family had a variety of reading materials in the

home, including children’s books, magazines, religious books, and other books such as novels,

but did not have dictionaries or encyclopedias in the home. At the time of the October 1997

interview, Michelle had read to Burt three or more times during the past week; however, during

the spring interview Michelle had read to Burt one or two times in the past week.

When asked about his behavior in the fall of 1997, Michelle said that Burt was sometimes

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 to December of 1998. Data

contributing to this report were obtained from a structured parent interview, a semi-structured

home interview, and teacher observations conducted in the fall of 1997 and spring of 1998 as

well as monthly telephone contacts from November of 1997 to December of 1998. The names of

the family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative D 369

disobedient at home and had temper tantrums and hit and fought with other children. In the

spring of 1998, Michelle reported that Burt’s behavior had improved somewhat as he was no

longer disobedient at home, yet he still sometimes had temper tantrums or fought with others.

This acting out behavior was confirmed by Burt’s teacher in the spring. At the time of both of the

interviews, Michelle indicated that she had to discipline Burt two times in the past week using

time-out. Despite his occasional difficult behavior, Michelle reported that Burt was not an

unhappy child and he never seemed to worry about things for a long time. Burt’s teacher also

reported that he was not nervous, high-strung or tense, and did not seem to worry about things

for a long time, or tend to withdraw from others. However, contrary to Michelle’s reports, Burt’s

teacher felt that he sometimes seemed unhappy or sad.

Michelle described Burt’s health as excellent with no chronic illnesses and reported in the

spring of 1998 that Burt had only missed one to five days from Head Start due to illness. Monthly

telephone conversations from November 1997 to December 1998 indicated that Burt had not been

sick at all over that time period. However, in November 1997, Burt did get a cut on his head at

Head Start that required him to go to the emergency room and get stitches. Luckily, Burt had a

regular health care provider and was covered by Medicaid health insurance.

When asked about hopes and goals for her child during his first year in Head Start,

Michelle focused on Burt’s character and moral development, saying “I want him to be a good

and moral person.” Regarding educational goals for him, she hoped that he would go to college,

and explained her hopes by saying, “I want him to get a good education so he won’t have to

struggle as hard as I do.” When asked about her hopes and goals for Burt’s future aspirations,

she said that “that will be up to him.”

The Head Start Family

This was a single-parent family with the mother, Michelle (27 years old) living at home

with two children, Burt who was 4- years-old and Shawn who was 2-years-old. Michelle was

single and a widow (Burt’s father was deceased). During this time, however, her family had

remained intact and at the time of the fall 1997 interview had not moved in the last 12 months or

had any changes in household composition from November 1997 to December 1998. In addition,

Michelle indicated in the spring of 1998 that her fiancé had become a father-figure to her boys.

Michelle had a high school diploma and had attended some college. She worked full-time

in a seasonal service occupation maintaining and cleaning boats and estimated her yearly

household income was $13,200 in the fall of 1997 and $12,000 in the spring of 1998. Michelle

described her health as excellent with no major health problems that restricted or stopped her

from working. She also had a regular health care provider and received her routine medical care

at a private doctor’s office, although she was not covered by any health insurance.
Narrative D 370

During the fall interview, Michelle indicated that since Burt’s birth, her family needed and

received Medicaid and food/nutrition services as well as assistance with child care. At the time of

the spring 1998 interview, Michelle’s family continued to receive Medicaid as well as assistance

with child care and transportation. In addition to his time at Head Start, Burt was cared for at a

licensed child care center for 7-10 hours per week. This was the same child care center that Burt

attended prior to enrolling at Head Start, as well as where his younger brother Shawn currently

attended on a full-time basis. This care was paid in part by a government subsidy. Michelle

indicated that Head Start did not help her family get child care or transportation services (they

obtained them on their own) nor did they need Head Start to help them procure or receive any of

the other services since they were already receiving them before Burt began Head Start. In

telephone interviews in July and December of 1998, Michelle shared that her family was always

or frequently able to have enough money or resources to meet basic needs, such as food, clothing,

monthly bills and other necessities. However, she reported that the family rarely or never had

enough money or resources to travel or take vacations and only sometimes had enough time to

socialize or be with friends.

When asked to describe her family’s strengths or positive qualities, Michelle focused on

the support she received from her extended family. “Well, my Mom and Dad and brother and

sister live nearby. The boys are the first grandchildren and they enjoy them a lot! My dad is a

sheriff and they learn a lot of good things from him, the right values. I see them all the time. I

take the boys to the “Y”, where my sister works, 3-4 times a week.” Michelle suggested that her

parents influenced her own parenting beliefs. “I think it is important to teach my kids the same

morals my parents taught me. Teach them to have respect for people and the good things in the

world. I also want them to be comfortable with the fact that they are biracial.” Michelle was

very satisfied being a parent. “I love being a parent. My boys are the most important things to

me and my fiancé loves them! We have such a good time and I like to do things with them.” In

her role as a parent, she received support from a number of sources. “My parents are great, Head

Start is great, and so is child care and I have lots of help.” When asked about areas she would like

to see her family improve or change, Michelle said, “I’d like my fiancé to be here full time. He

loves kids and wants to adopt both boys. His father is a corporal in the army so he has strong

morals.” Concerns about her future family along with work goals were important to her in the

fall of 1997 when asked about her own personal hopes and goals. “Well, I’m looking forward to

marrying my fiancé. The boys love him. I also hope to take over the company I work for. I have

worked there three years and my boss is bringing me into the business to take over when he

retires.” By the spring of 1998, Michelle had made some progress toward her goals. “At work my

boss made me a supervisor so I can spend more time in the office and talking to customers and

doing the books. It’s a small company - just seven people - but it’s a lot of responsibility and I

really like it! Also, I have always hoped to own my own house and my boss helped me apply to

Habitat for Humanity and I’ve been approved. I’m so excited! They are building 15 homes in the

neighborhood and I qualify for a three bedroom! I am already planning!”
Narrative D 371

Michelle expressed a moderate need for intimate social support -- someone to talk to

about things that were personal and private -- in January 1998. She was very satisfied with the

intimate support she received from her fiancé and mother during that month. In August of 1998,

Michelle had no need for intimate support and continued to receive support (if needed) from her

mother. Regarding support in helping her raise her children, in October of 1997, Michelle

indicated that her mother and father, Head Start staff and other child care providers, as well as

members of a religious/social group were very helpful. However, by the May, 1998 parent

interview, Michelle said that the Head Start staff, other child care providers, and members of a

religious/social group, were now only somewhat helpful in helping her raise her children. She

still found the support she received from her mother and father, as well as someone else who was

not identified, as being very helpful. In February and September, 1998, Michelle was very

satisfied with the support she received from her mother, whom she sought out for advice and

information about parenting, saying, “I talk to my mother every day and she gives me lots of

advice. Every time I tell a cute story about the kids, she gives me advice about what it might

mean and what I should do.” Michelle rarely or never felt depressed and strongly felt that she

could control her own destiny - that she could do anything she set her mind to do. In June and

November of 1998 she was happy, enjoyed life and hopeful about the future most or all of the

time.

During the fall 1997 and spring 1998 interview, Michelle indicated that the family had

household rules regarding the type of shows and how long Burt could watch television, the time

he goes to bed, the kinds of food he could eat and what chores he was to do each week. Despite

being a single parent with a full-time job, Michelle spent time with Burt. In the week prior to the

fall 1997 interview, Michelle told Burt a story and worked on letters and numbers with him. She

also took him along while she did errands, had him help her with household chores, and talked

with him about his Head Start day. Within the past month, she and Burt had visited a mall and

playground, seen a movie and attended a community event. Likewise, in the week prior to the

spring visit, Michelle had worked on letters and numbers, sang songs, and played indoor games

with Burt. She also took him on errands, had him help with household chores, and talked with

him about his Head Start day. In the month prior to the spring visit, she and Burt visited the

library and mall and the entire family, along with Michelle’s fiancé, went to the zoo, visited a

playground, and attended a family, religion and sporting event.

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

The family had only been involved with Head Start for one month at the time of our

October 1997 interview. Michelle’s primary reasons for enrolling Burt in Head Start were to

prepare him academically for school and to establish school as a positive thing in his life. “He’s

been in day care but I’m hoping Head Start will teach him more. I hope he’ll learn his letters and
Narrative D 372

numbers. I also hope he’ll learn to like to go to school and get into the habit of school.”

From November 1997 to June 1998 Michelle was unable to attend four of the six Head

Start events in which she was invited to participate due to work demands, including two parent

meetings, a birthday party, and a volunteer opportunity. While Michelle had not participated in

as many events as she would have liked by the spring of 1998 “because I work every day” she

still felt that participation in Head Start was important and that “I always make a point of

walking Burt into class every morning and talking to the teacher.” In May of 1998, Michelle did

participate in a home visit by a Head Start family service worker who brought the family a box of

food items. The entire family also attended Burt’s graduation from Head Start. Michelle was

very pleased. “They had a beautiful graduation. Each class performed songs and they called

each child by name to graduate. It was great. The kids had a great time.”

Michelle expected Head Start to impact Burt and her family in terms of academic

readiness. In a telephone contact made in December 1997, Michelle said that Head Start was

meeting Burt’s needs and that “he really likes it and looks forward to it. He’s doing fine. I talk to

his teacher every day when I drop him off.” In addition, she also felt that Head Start was meeting

the needs of her family “by giving Burt a good experience with school.” Michelle continued to be

satisfied with Head Start at the time of the spring interview. “I think it’s great. At the beginning

of the year I was disappointed because they kept having new assistant teachers - about six of

them- and I felt like they were not teaching Burt but now I think the teachers are wonderful and

Burt is really learning a lot. I want Shawn to go to Head Start - either that or Pre-K.” In a

subsequent conversation in July, Michelle indicated that she thought Burt was “very ready”

academically, socially, and physically for kindergarten in the fall, and was very satisfied with

what Head Start had done to help Burt make the transition. Her only suggestions for

improvement were for the program to focus more on academic skills and have day care available

after the Head Start day.

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the October home visit, the family lived in a single-family home in a

neighborhood that “gives you a feeling of being almost rural.” The FACES home visit interviewer

described the family’s home as a “one-story, duplex, split down the middle. The inside was neat

but furniture and carpet were dark brown, spotted and shabby.” In the spring, the same

interviewer indicated that the home was clean and less cluttered and crowded than the previous

visit and that the walls of the house had been freshly painted. Michelle had purchased new living

room furniture, although the carpet was still seriously soiled.

The interviewer described the neighborhood in the fall of 1997 as “having no trees,

shrubs, or flowers” and the family’s house as “one of many identical row houses all painted pale

green.” There were a couple of abandoned buildings in the neighborhood as well as abandoned
Narrative D 373

cars and litter or trash in a few of the neighborhood’s streets and yards. No community or

neighborhood resources, such as parks, schools, churches, or businesses were within one half

mile of the home.

Michelle felt that her neighborhood was “pretty nice. It’s mixed ethnically and there’s no

racism. That’s important since my kids are mixed.” She felt her neighborhood’s strengths were

“all the kids and the fact (that) people help each other and the fact that there are lots of different

people - different races. And the kids all get along.” When asked whether her neighborhood was

a good place to raise children Michelle said “It’s o.k. It’s quiet. There’s not a lot of traffic so I can

let the boys out and not worry about them. There are lots of kids and I like them in and out of

my house, so I can keep an eye on what’s going on. All their parents are nice and we all pitch in

and help each other. When asked about improvements she would make to her neighborhood,

Michelle indicated that “some of the landlords don’t keep the property up. It would be good to

get them to clean them up and repair them.” The neighborhood did have some abandoned or

boarded up buildings, but did not have any graffiti or vandalism, or have any problems with

adolescents or adults loitering in the neighborhood. In terms of neighborhood resources,

Michelle reported that their neighborhood had a day care, center, community center,

supermarket, pharmacy, church and elementary school as well as having access to public

transportation. However, their neighborhood lacked a public library, public playground, or

doctor’s (pediatrician’s) office. Michelle considered her neighborhood a safe place and reported

that neither she nor anyone in her family had heard, witnessed or been a victim of a violent

crime.
Narrative E 374

A Head Start Family: Narrative E

The Head Start Child

Troy was a 3-year-old White boy who lived with his mother, stepfather, and his five

brothers and sisters in a rural town in the Midwest. Troy was new to Head Start in the fall of

1997 and attended Head Start four days a week for four hours each day. He lived 30 minutes

away from Head Start and typically got to Head Start each morning by car and school bus. His

mother, Julie, described him as “a great 3-year-old. Never had ‘terrible twos’ - he’s just great.”

According to Julie, “his favorite thing on earth is Power Rangers - he loves Power Rangers.” In

addition, his mother said that Troy enjoyed learning, trying new things, was imaginative and

made friends easily. Troy’s teacher, however, indicated that he lacked confidence in learning

new things or trying new activities and did not work well during group times. He never joined

group activities without being told to do so, never invited other to join in activities, often

disrupted ongoing activities, never followed rules when playing games with others, and only

sometimes helped put materials away after the activity was over.

Julie also reported that in the fall of 1997 Troy could count up to ten, recognize the colors

red, yellow, blue, and green, button his clothes, and hold a pencil properly. He often liked to

write or pretend to write, but mostly that consisted of scribbling. Troy also could not recognize

any of the letters of the alphabet or write or recognize his first name yet. However, Troy enjoyed

being read to for approximately 10 minutes at a time, and would look at a book with pictures and

pretend to read himself. When Troy pretended to read a book, he could tell you what was in

each of the pictures, but did not make a connection between each of the pictures yet. By the

spring of 1998, Julie indicated that Troy could now recognize some letters of the alphabet but had

made no progress in terms of counting, writing, and recognizing his first name. He still

continued to mostly scribble rather than writing or drawing, but he now enjoyed being read to

for an hour at a time every night, although he will no longer look at a book and pretend to read

himself. His teacher also reported that Troy did not show interest in reading activities. The

family had a variety of reading materials in the home, including children’s books, magazines,

newspapers, religious books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other books such as novels, and

Julie read to Troy every day during the week prior to both the fall and spring visits.

When asked about his behavior in the fall of 1997, Julie said that Troy was not disobedient

at home, but had temper tantrums very often and sometimes hit and fought with others. Julie

indicated that she sent Troy to time out four times in the week prior to our visit. Despite his

behavior, Julie reported that Troy was not an unhappy child and he never seemed to worry about

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 to December of 1998. Data

contributing to this report were obtained from a structured parent interview, a semi-structured

home interview, teacher reports, and child assessments conducted in the fall of 1997 and spring

of 1998 as well as monthly telephone contacts from November of 1997 to December of 1998. The

names of the family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative E 375

things for a long time. In the spring of 1998, Julie indicated that Troy continued to have some of

the same behavior problems. He still had temper tantrums, hit, and fought with others and was

now somewhat disobedient at home. She reported that Troy was sent to time out seven times

during the week prior to the spring visit. Troy’s teacher agreed that Troy often hit or fought with

other children in the classroom, had temper tantrums, and disobeyed rules or requests.

Interestingly, Julie now felt that Troy was somewhat unhappy, could not concentrate for long

and fidgeted a lot, but still did not seem to worry about things for a long time or act nervous or

too young for his age. Troy’s teacher agreed with Julie that Troy often appeared to be unhappy

or sad and had a difficult time concentrating for long. She also felt that he often seemed sleepy or

tired in class and fidgeted all the time. Unlike Julie, Troy’s teacher felt that he did worry about

things for too long and was somewhat nervous and immature.

Julie described Troy’s health as “excellent” with no chronic illness although she did report

that he had a speech impairment that impacted his learning. She felt that he was not yet

understandable to a stranger when he talked. In the fall of 1997, Julie had not yet participated in

an individual education plan (IEP) at Head Start and reported that they had not been given the

opportunity. However, in December Head Start told Julie that Troy’s speech problems were

developmental and he did not need speech therapy so she got a speech therapist for Troy on her

own. In the spring of 1998, Julie reported that Troy had missed only one to five days of Head

Start, mostly because Troy did not want to go, not because he was ill. Monthly telephone

conversations from November of 1997 to December of 1998 indicate that Troy had been sick only

once in January 1998 at which time all six children in the family were sick with the flu. It is

unclear if they went to the doctor at that time but Julie did report that Troy did have a regular

health care provider and was covered by health insurance.

When asked about her hopes and goals for Troy during his first year in Head Start, Julie

said, “I really hope he outgrows his speech problem and (will be) getting along with other kids.”

She also hoped that they remained close. “I hope I stay as close to him as I’ve always been.

When the other two (siblings) went to school last year - him and I had lots of quality time

together. We really bonded.” Regarding educational goals for him, she indicated that in the

short-term she “assumed he’ll go to Kindergarten next year but I have a feeling he won’t be

ready. Pre-Kindergarten (classes) is every other day so that would be 2 years of every other day.

Pre-1st (classes) is every day so we will do that if (he is) not ready for 1st (grade).” In the longterm “I expect him to go to college. We have already set up something whether he likes it or

not.” When talking about her hopes and goals for Troy’s future, she referenced her hopes for him

relative to his older brother: “He has an older brother (1/2 brother) that doesn’t do much with

his life. I would hope he would always be happy. I imagine he will be the most content, happy,

and social - the other is more stand-offish.”
Narrative E 376

The Head Start Family

The family is a blended two-parent family with the mother, Julie (29-years-old) and

father, Dirk (43-years-old) living at home with six children (three girls, Angela, Tiffany, and

Destiny who are age 17, 5, and 1; three boys, Troy, Kyle, and Dakota who are age 3, 4 and 1).

Julie and Dirk are currently married. With the exception of the eldest daughter, Angela, who

moved out of the house in June 1998, this family has remained intact. At the time of the fall of

1997 interview, they had not moved in the last 12 months and had no changes in their household

composition from November of 1997 to December of 1998.

Julie and Dirk both have a high school diploma (or GED) and Julie had attended some

college beyond high school. Both Julie and Dirk worked full-time “shift work” jobs in the auto

industry and estimated their yearly household income was $30,000 in the fall of 1997 and $96,000

in the spring of 1998. The discrepancy in household income is explained, in part, by the fact that

both Julie and Dirk had periods where they worked a lot of overtime (i.e., 60 hour work weeks).

However, both Julie and Dirk went on strike in June of 1998 and collected unemployment

insurance until they went back to work in August of 1998.

Julie described her health as “excellent” with no major health problems that restricted or

stopped her from working and was only sick once in November of 1997 for four days with a cold.

Julie was covered by health insurance, had a regular health care provider, and received her

routine medical care at her provider’s private office. Troy’s 4-year-old brother, Kyle, was sick in

October of 1998 for a few weeks with a viral infection that eventually was diagnosed as hepatitis

A and spent a day in the hospital because of his illness.

In the fall of 1997, Julie reported that her family had needed assistance with child care and

food/nutrition since Troy’s birth. Child care services for Troy and his older siblings were

provided directly from Head Start for 14 hours per week and paid for by the family. By the spring

of 1998 interview, they continued to need help with child care; however, their child care

arrangement had changed from Head Start to a non-relative who watched the children in their

home for 14 hours each week. The family continued to pay for the child care. Prior to Troy

beginning Head Start, the family received child care services in the home of an unlicensed baby

sitter. The family indicated that Head Start did not help them procure or receive the child care

and food/nutrition services they needed or received. The family’s youngest son, 1-year-old

Dakota, was being tested for a language problem in June of 1998. In October of 1998, Julie shared

that her 4-year-old son Kyle was going to start seeing a psychiatrist to address emotional and

behavioral issues at school. “I don’t see it (the problem), the teacher sees it. He has trouble in

class in terms of temper tantrums when he doesn’t get his way and he cries a lot in school.

Personally, I think it is because every other day he thinks it is not so bad to be at home.” In

telephone interviews in July and December of 1998, Julie indicated that her family was always or

frequently able to have enough money or resources to meet the basic needs of the family, such as
Narrative E 377

food, clothing, monthly bills and other necessities. She felt the family frequently or always had

enough money to take vacations or for family entertainment, and was able to save. However, she

rarely or never had enough time to be with her spouse or with close friends.

When asked to describe her family’s strengths or positive qualities, Julie focused on the

family’s composition and positive relationships. “I actually really like that it’s big and I think my

kids are really good. I really like the fact that we’re really close.” These qualities, as well as the

inherent challenges that come with having a large family, were also important to her when asked

about her personal hopes and goals. “I hope I don’t get really stressed out with five kids. I’m

doing really good but I have a feeling I’ll get burnt out. Luckily they’re pretty good.” When

asked about areas she would like to see her family improve or change, she said, “I’d like to

improve the fact that we work too much (and need to) spend more time together. I think we’ll be

able to do that when they’re in school (and) maybe their dad will get another shift. I’d like to be a

normal family.”

It was important for Julie to teach her children to be honest, to care for others, and not be

afraid to express their feelings for one another. Julie said, “My most important goal for Troy is

that he knows that I love him. My mom was standoffish as a parent and it’s something that really

bothered me as a kid. When he is 18, I want to be able to go up to him and give him a kiss and a

hug and for him not to feel uncomfortable.” Julie shared more about her goals as a parent. “I’d

like my children to not be liars. I’d like them to be honest and I hope that my children would care

about other people’s feelings.”

Julie was “pretty satisfied” being a parent. She said, “I like it a lot better than I thought I

would. I didn’t want children (when younger). If you could have told me then that I’d have five

kids. Even my mom tells me I never thought I’d be able to handle it like I do.” When asked what

sorts of things could help her as a parent, Julie said, “I need organizational skills. I think having a

lot of kids you need to get organized - so you can keep the kids appointments and things

straight.”

Regarding support in helping her raise her children, in the fall of 1997 Julie stated that her

husband, Dirk, as well as the Head Start staff and other child care providers were very helpful.

By the spring of 1998, Julie said that Head Start staff, other child care staff, and Troy’s

grandparents were only somewhat helpful in helping her raise her children but that the support

she received from her mother and other professional help givers was very helpful. Between

January and September of 1998, Julie expressed a very great need for intimate social support -

someone to talk to about things that were personal and private. She was satisfied with the

intimate support she received from her husband and other relatives during that month; seven

months later she reported that she no longer had a need. In February, Julie reported that she was

satisfied with the support she received from a co-worker whom she sought out for advice and

information about parenting. “She has a lot of kids, like me.” One month later, she was satisfied

with the support she received from her husband regarding taking care of the daily needs of their
Narrative E 378

children. By September, she again indicated a slight need for someone to talk to for advice about

parenting and reported that she was moderately satisfied with the advice she received from her

mother, her sister, and sister-in-law.

Julie rarely or never felt depressed and felt that she could control her own destiny - that

she could do anything she set her mind to do - although she did feel helpless dealing with some

of the larger problems in her life. She sometimes felt there was little or nothing she could do to

change the important things in her life. She indicated in June and again in November of 1998 that

she was happy, enjoyed life, and was hopeful about the future most or all of the time.

During the fall and spring interviews, Julie indicated that the family had household rules

regarding the type of shows and how long Troy could watch television, the time he had to go to

bed, and what chores he was to do each week. In addition, although Julie and Dirk had full-time

jobs, she reported that they both spent time with Troy doing various activities. Within a oneweek period prior to the fall of 1997 interview, Julie said she told Troy a story and worked on

letters and numbers with him. Both Julie and Dirk took him along while they did errands, had

him help with household chores, and talked with him about his Head Start day. Troy’s siblings

also taught him letters, words, or numbers, played games, sang songs, and worked on arts and

crafts with him. Julie said within the past month that her family had visited a mall, visited a

playground, and attended a community event with Troy. Dirk and Troy also attended a sporting

event together. Likewise, in the spring of 1998, the family continued to be actively involved with

Troy. Julie had told Troy a story, worked on letters, words or numbers, sang songs, played

games (indoors) within the week prior to the interview. Julie also took him on errands, had him

help with household chores and talked with him about his Head Start day, while Troy’s father

had played games, sports, or exercised with him in the past week. In addition, in the past month

the whole family went to the mall and saw a movie while Troy and his father also attended a

sporting event.

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

Three of the family’s children (Troy, Kyle, and Tiffany) had recently or were currently

attending Head Start, giving this family three years of involvement with the program by the

spring of 1998. This familiarity with Head Start was an important factor when Julie talked about

her primary reasons for enrolling Troy in Head Start: “Because Tiffany and Kyle went last year

and he (Troy) was devastated (that he could not go, too). But I also think Tiffany and Kyle

benefited, too. When you have so many kids you can’t give them all the attention they need.”

Monthly telephone conversations from November 1997 to June 1998 indicate that the

family participated in 8 out of the 13 Head Start events to which they were invited. Troy’s

parents were unable to attend two parent meetings, a Thanksgiving potluck dinner, and a

“family day” in December because of work constraints: “I work 8 hours a day, 6-7 days per
Narrative E 379

week, have five kids and I’m not taking time away from them. I will probably never attend

because I have too many kids.” In November 1997, Julie was able to attend a parent-teacher

meeting but was unsatisfied with the meeting and upset that the teacher had confused her child

currently in Head Start (Troy) with her son in Head Start last year (Kyle) by commenting that “he

doesn’t cry as much as he used to” when, in fact, she said he “never cried.” The family was able

to participate in three of the five field trips or classroom activities, including a family dance and

taco lunch in January 1998, and had Head Start staff visit in their home, as well as participate in

“fun night” in March. Julie talked about the family’s experience at “fun night.” “It had a place for

the kids to color bags where you could write names and color. All the kids could do that. They

had a place where you could lay down and trace the kid’s bodies. Also had games that all the

kids at different ages could play.” Julie and her family were very satisfied with these events.

During the spring of 1998 interview, Julie reported that she was able to observe in Troy’s

classroom for more than 30 minutes, attended Head Start social events with her spouse, prepared

newsletters or fliers, and called another Head Start parent three or more times. Julie also

prepared food or materials for a Head Start event, attended parent-teacher conferences, had a

Head Start staff member do a home visit, and attended a Head Start event with another adult one

or two times in the past school year. Julie had not yet volunteered in the classroom, attended

workshops, or participated in Policy Council meetings or fundraising activities. Despite her

busy work schedule and limited time, Julie indicated that she felt it was “pretty important” for

her to participate in Head Start activities “because we have a large family and we do not do a lot

outside the house. It’s important that we can take all the kids and have fun without being really

stressed out.” Yet Julie felt it would make it easier for her to attend Head Start activities if they

would “make the events at 7 o’clock or later because my husband gets out of work at 7 o’clock

and then there are two adults (to help with all the kids).”

While Julie expected Head Start to impact Troy in terms of academic readiness and give

him the personal attention he needed, she did not expect Head Start to impact her family in any

way. In December, 1997 Julie indicated that Head Start was “sort of” meeting the needs of her

child, Troy, but felt that they were not being proactive enough in identifying and giving him

services related to his speech problems. In the spring of 1998 Julie said, “I would say I’m pretty

satisfied with it. I feel the kids have educationally advanced because of it although sometimes I

don’t know what the goals are though. What goals I’ve learned were from Tiffany going through

Head Start already and I can use that to help find what I want them to work on with Troy.” Julie

was “very satisfied“ that the Head Start program maintained a safe environment for children,

respected family culture and was open to ideas. She felt the program was often safe and secure,

that the teacher was open to new information, and often treated her with respect -- making her

feel welcomed and supported. Julie was “somewhat satisfied” with how well the program had

helped Troy grow, develop, and be prepared for kindergarten - she felt that the teacher was

sometimes warm and affectionate and showed an interest in Troy. Julie was somewhat
Narrative E 380

dissatisfied with Head Start in terms of providing services for Troy, yet she felt that Troy

sometimes received enough individual attention from the teacher and was happy in the program.

In July of 1998, Julie thought Troy was “very ready” socially for kindergarten in the fall but only

“somewhat ready” academically and physically. She was somewhat satisfied with what Head

Start had done to help Troy make the transition to kindergarten: “I actually have not been as

impressed with Head Start when I compare how ready Troy is for kindergarten to Kyle. I don’t

think Troy’s teacher had enough control over the class - Troy slept during class and he’d get so

upset because kids were picking on him. I don’t think they would let him in kindergarten. I

think he would be in pre-K because he still doesn’t talk very much. Kyle’s teacher had control

and she had him doing things I never thought he’d do.” Julie felt that Head Start could improve

if it had extended hours and longer days and had better communication with parents.

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the October home visit, the family lived in a single-family home in a rural

neighborhood. The FACES home visit interviewer described the family’s home in the fall of 1997

as “a small home that had additions (expanded). Very nice - some work left to do. Very open.” In

the spring of 1998 the same interviewer indicated that the home was “clean but cluttered with

kids’ toys although this clutter did not make the home too crowded, unsafe or really dirty.”

In the spring of 1998, Julie described her neighborhood as “a good place” to raise

children. “There’s a lot for kids to do with the lake... lots of kids ... kind of rural. Big yards, big

houses, lots of people the same age with kids the same age. We’re friends in here - like last

weekend, we had snow so we all ‘snowmobiled’ and had a big bonfire.” When asked about

changes she would make to her neighborhood, she said, “The fact that it is getting larger - they

are starting to develop it more.” Also, we “are so far from the grocery store and things like that. I

would have them be closer.”

The interviewer described the family’s neighborhood in the fall of 1997 as “a small,

largely white, working-class neighborhood that sits on a lake located in a rural area. Most of the

houses in the area were well-kept single family homes with large yards.” The neighborhood was

described as “a great place to raise children with lots of space outside, and areas for children to

play such as the woods and the lake. It also seemed like a small enough neighborhood that kids

probably all can play together.” The neighborhood was also described as “very safe” by the

interviewer and Julie, who reported that neither she nor anyone in her family had heard,

witnessed, or been a victim of a violent crime in their neighborhood in the past few years.

However, since the neighborhood was in a rural area, community resources were limited. “There

is really nothing nearby except a convenience store, and that is a few miles away.” The only two

resources Julie identified within a half-mile of her home were a convenience store and a
Narrative E 381

neighborhood watch program - no park or public playground, day care center, bank, doctor’s

office, church, elementary school, or public library.
Narrative F 382

A Head Start Family: Narrative F

The Head Start Child

Tim was a 5-year-old White boy who lived with his mother and brother in a rural town in

the Southwest. Tim was new to Head Start in the fall of 1997 and attended Head Start four days

a week for four hours each day. He lived 30 minutes away from Head Start and typically got to

Head Start each morning by riding on the Head Start school bus. His mother, Linda, described

him as “an emotional child. He can be laughing at one thing and turn around and get upset. His

emotions surprise me for someone so young. One thing about him though is he can find humor

in just about anything.” Tim “enjoys playing.” “He likes motorcycles. Ever since he was two.

He enjoys his bike. He recently removed the training wheels and he built himself a little jump.”

In addition, his mother said that Tim enjoyed learning, trying new things, was imaginative, and

made friends easily. Tim’s teacher agreed, indicating that he made friends easily, was confident

about learning new things or trying new activities, that he worked well in groups by following

rules and waiting his turn when playing games with others, as well as helping to put materials

away after the activity is over. He also sometimes joined group activities without being told to

do so or invited others to join.

Linda reported that in the fall of 1997 Tim could count up to five, recognize some of the

letters of the alphabet, as well as recognize his first name in writing, and knew the colors red,

yellow, blue, and green. Tim could hold a pencil properly, and mostly wrote and drew versus

scribble, yet while he liked to write or pretended to write often, he could not write his first name.

He could, however, button his own clothes. Tim enjoyed being read to for approximately 30

minutes at a time, and would look at a book with pictures and pretend to read himself. While

pretending to read, he would tell you what was in each of the pictures and make a connection

between them. Linda reported that she read to Tim everyday during the week prior to the fall

visit.

In the spring of 1998 Linda reported that Tim could now count up to twenty and write his

first name. He still enjoyed being read to for 30 minutes at a time and he continued to pretend to

read books. Tim’s teacher added that he would answer questions about a story that had been

read and could then repeat part of the story. The family had a variety of reading materials in the

home, including children’s books, comic books, children’s magazines, newspapers, religious

books, dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as other books such as novels. Linda reported

having read to Tim three or more times during the week prior to the spring interview.

This narrative documents the family’s life from October of 1997 to December of 1998. Data

contributing to this report were obtained from a structured parent interview, a semi-structured

home interview, teacher reports and child observations conducted in the fall of 1997 and spring

of 1998, as well as monthly telephone contacts from November of 1997 to December of 1998.

The names of the family members have been changed to protect their confidentiality.
Narrative F 383

When asked about his behavior in the fall of 1997, Linda said that Tim was not

disobedient at home but that sometimes he acted too young for his age, had temper tantrums,

and hit or fought with others. Linda had to discipline Tim two times in the week prior to the fall

interview, using time-out. Linda also felt that Tim was sometimes unhappy, sad, or depressed,

and he seemed to worry about things for a long time, although she did not think that he felt

worthless or inferior. By the spring of 1998, Linda reported that now Tim was often disobedient

at home, continued to act too young for his age, and was still having temper tantrums and getting

into fights sometimes. She had to discipline Tim two times in the week prior to the spring

interview, using time-out. However, Tim’s teacher had a slightly different perception of his

behavior. She felt that he did not act immaturely and never had temper tantrums, or fight with

others at school. Just as in the fall, Linda again reported that Tim was often an unhappy, sad or

depressed child, and he continued to worry about things for too long a time. Unfortunately, she

now also reported that Tim often felt worthless or inferior. Tim’s behavior at Head Start

appeared again to be different from his behavior at home. His teacher reported that Tim did not

seem to be unhappy, sad or depressed although she did believe that he sometimes worried about

things for too long. She felt that he was not restless, fidgety or nervous in class.

Linda described Tim’s health as “excellent” with no chronic illness. In the spring of 1998

Linda reported that Tim missed only one to five days of Head Start due to illness during the past

school year. Monthly telephone interviews from November 1997 to December 1998 indicate that

Tim had not been sick at all during that time period. He had a regular health care provider and

was covered by Medicaid health insurance.

When asked about hopes and goals for her child during his first year in Head Start, Linda

said, “I hope he’s prepared for kindergarten. I don’t want him to get behind or to struggle in any

way. I want him to be comfortable before he enters kindergarten. My goal is to make it as easy

as possible for him.” Regarding educational goals for him, she indicated that in the short-term

she wanted him to master educational tasks appropriate for his age – “to learn the basic

fundamentals and learn to write his name.” For the long-term, Linda said, “I want him to go to

college.” “[I want] Tim to get an education and be the boss of all the people under him... to be

happy in his life.”

The Head Start Family

This was a single-parent family with the mother, Linda (30 years old) living with her two

children, Keith, who was 9-years-old and his younger brother, Tim, who was 5-years-old. Linda

was divorced from the children’s father, who lived in California. The children’s father

contributed child support to the family and saw the children several times a year. In the fall of

1997, Linda reported that the children also had a father figure who was a relative, but in the

spring of 1998 this father figure was no longer mentioned. Linda and her family moved twice in

the 12 months prior to the fall interview - they moved from the West coast to the Southwest in

July of 1997 and then moved to another Southwest State in June of 1998 to be closer to family and
Narrative F 384

the children’s father. The family had no changes in household composition from November of

1997 to December of 1998.

Linda had a high school diploma (or GED) and in the spring of 1998 was attending college

full-time, working toward an Associates degree. Linda was not employed and had not been

employed for the past year. She estimated her yearly household income to be approximately

$13,000. Linda entered job training in November 1997.

Linda described her health as “very good” although she reported that a major health

problem restricted or stopped her from working. Monthly telephone interviews between

November 1997 and December 1998 indicate that Linda had not been sick at all over that time

period. She was covered by health insurance although she did not have a regular health care

provider. During the fall 1997 parent interview, Linda reported that the family needed and

received Medicaid and child support assistance since Tim’s birth as well as assistance with

food/nutrition services (i.e., food stamps). In the spring of 1998, Linda again indicated that her

family needed and received Medicaid, child support and food/nutritional assistance, as well as

educational aid/grants and child care assistance. However, while Linda reported that her family

needed help with adult medical/dental care in the spring of 1998, they had not received this help.

Head Start did not help them procure or receive any of these services.

Tim attended a licensed child care center, paid for by a government agency, for 18 hours

per week since the fall of 1997, in addition to Head Start. This arrangement changed when the

family moved in the summer of 1998. From August to December of 1998, child care was

provided in the home of a friend or neighbor who was not regulated or licensed.

During telephone interviews conducted in July and December, Linda shared that her

family was sometimes able to have enough money or resources to meet basic needs, such as food,

clothing, monthly bills and other necessities. The family rarely or never had enough money to

take family vacations or to save, and only sometimes had enough for family entertainment.

Linda felt they frequently or always had enough time together as a family or to be with the kids,

but only sometimes had enough time to socialize or be with close friends.

When asked to describe her family’s strengths or positive qualities, Linda focused on the

family’s positive relationships, good communication, and family activities. “I like how the boys

and I get along. We play sports. We play baseball. I try to raise them where we can

communicate openly. Communication and loving each other, quality time, trying to make them

feel special -- these are all positive qualities.” Linda suggested there were a number of areas her

family could improve. “I wish my boys had their own rooms. There are times I wish I could

teach them to appreciate each other. Then, there are times I wish I could be at home all the time,

be there for them. Not have to work. But, then I need that for myself. Basically, I need to get

involved with adults and be my own person - socialize.” When asked about problems that the

family was having that may have interfered with Tim’s adjustment to Head Start, Linda focused

on her recent divorce and Tim’s behavior. “We moved from California in July. His father and I

got a divorce, and his father remarried in California. He was having a hard time with that. But

he’s pretty much adjusted. The other thing is his temper. He explodes. If he doesn’t get what he

wants, he pouts. He has little patience for wanting things done his way and if it doesn’t happen
Narrative F 385

his way he gets angry. He has little patience with other people.” In terms of her own hopes and

goals in the fall of 1997, Linda shared, “My hope is to have a career that I am happy doing. I like

the secretarial field, get to meet several different people. I want to go back to college. You can

never have too much education. Within three years I want everything settled, to have a new car,

a new place, to have a house that doesn’t own you.” By the spring of 1998 Linda had met her

personal goal of going to college and “never thought she would do it.” Her new goals were to

“get a four-year (college) degree and maybe become a teacher.”

Linda believed that in her role as a parent it was important for her to “listen to him (Tim),

be there when he needs me, and encourage him to be himself.” Linda felt she had been successful

in doing these things for Tim because “I make it a goal to do these things.” Linda also enjoyed

being a parent. She said, “There are surprises every day (but I) wouldn’t trade it for anything.”

When asked what things could help her as a parent she replied, “Give me more hours in the

day!”

Regarding the need for support, Linda had no need for intimate support (someone to talk

to about things that were personal or private) in August, but a slight need for informational

support (someone to talk to for advice about parenting) in September. She was very satisfied

with the help she received from her mother and sister. In October, Linda had no need for

instrumental support (someone to help her with the daily needs of her children), but a slight

need for someone to help her with daily household tasks. Unfortunately, no one was available to

provide that help. During the parent interview in the fall of 1997, Linda was asked about the

type of social support she needed and received from others to help her raise her children. Tim’s

father and grandparents, as well as the Head Start staff and religious/social group members

were very helpful to her. Their support continued through the spring, when Linda mentioned

that Tim’s child care staff and professional help givers were also very supportive in terms of

helping her raise her children. In addition to feeling very supported, Linda also reported in the

fall and spring interviews that she rarely or never felt depressed and strongly felt that she could

control her own destiny - that she could do anything she set her mind to do. She indicated in

telephone interviews in November of 1997 and again in 1998 that she was happy, enjoyed life,

and was hopeful about the future most or all of the time.

During the fall and spring interviews, Linda reported that the family had household rules

regarding the amount and type of television programs that Tim was allowed to watch, the time

Tim goes to bed, and what chores he did each week. Linda spent time with Tim doing various

activities. Within the one-week period prior to the fall interview, Linda told Tim a story, helped

him learn letters, words and numbers as well as songs. She took him along while she did

errands, had him help her with household chores, and talked with him about his Head Start day.

Within the month prior to the interview, Linda and Tim had visited a mall, a museum and a

playground, as well as seen a movie and attended a community event. Likewise, in the week

prior to the spring 1998 interview, Linda had told Tim a story, helped him learn letters, words

and numbers, and talked about his Head Start day. The entire family went on errands together

and played with toys or games indoors. They also played a sport or game outside together. Over
Narrative F 386

the prior month, the entire family went to the library, a movie, the mall, a museum, playground

and a sporting event.

The Family’s Interactions with Head Start

The family had only been involved with Head Start for one month at the time of our fall

1997 interview. The primary reason for enrolling Tim in Head Start was to prepare him for

kindergarten and because Linda had confidence in the Head Start program. “When I put Keith in

kindergarten I wished he had been better prepared. So, I decided when Tim was old enough, I

would put him in pre-school. I decided to put him in Head Start because I knew from my relative

that it was such a good program.” Linda expected that Head Start would help Tim in terms of

academic readiness for school, and teach him good habits. She hoped that by giving him the

opportunity to make new friends, this would help improve “his social interactions with other

kids” as well as increase his interactions with adults. Linda was satisfied with Head Start

because it “was encouraging him (Tim) to be himself.” She was very satisfied that Head Start

maintained a safe program, provided services to Tim and her family and respected their family

culture. She felt they were open to ideas, fostered community involvement, and helped Tim to

grow and develop. She commented that Tim was always happy in the program, felt safe and

secure, and often received individual attention, affection, respect, and acceptance from the

teacher. She was always accepted and welcomed by the teacher and felt supported as a parent by

the Head Start staff. In December of 1998, she was very satisfied with what Head Start had done

to help Tim make the transition to kindergarten indicating he was very ready socially,

academically and physically for kindergarten. While very satisfied with Head Start, Linda felt it

would be improved by “longer hours” and if it “allowed younger kids to attend.”

In the spring of 1998, Linda indicated that it was “very important” for her to participate in

Head Start activities “because I end up learning things about Tim that I don’t learn at home. At

school they have equipment and activities that I don’t have a chance to do with him here at

home.” The primary barrier to Linda participating more in Head Start activities was “not having

enough time” because she goes to school all day and cannot always get to activities. Monthly

telephone conversations from November 1997 to June 1998 reveal that she did her very best to

attend as many activities as possible. The family participated in all five Head Start events to

which they were invited. The entire family was able to attend parent-teacher conferences, a

family night, and a Halloween party in November 1997 and they were very satisfied with the

activities. In June the family attended parent-teacher conferences and the last day of school

celebration. In the spring of 1998 Linda reported that during the past year she had observed

Tim’s classroom for more than 30 minutes, prepared food or materials for a Head Start event,

attended workshops, attended a Head Start event with a spouse or other adult, and participated

in a home visit by Head Start staff once or twice. She attended parent-teacher conferences and

Head Start social events three or more times during the past year. Linda had not yet volunteered

in the classroom, helped with Head Start field trips, called another Head Start parent, or
Narrative F

387

participated in Policy Council, fundraising, or preparing fliers or newsletters by the spring of

1998. Linda described two events she attended at Head Start. “One night we made a birdfeeder

at Head Start with Tim and took it home to hang on a tree. On a different night at Head Start, we

made snowflakes and also played musical chairs.”

The Family’s Home and Neighborhood

At the time of the fall 1997 home visit the family lived in a two bedroom single-family

apartment in a rural neighborhood. The FACES home visit interviewer described the family’s

home and neighborhood home as “a quiet secluded residential street off the beaten track in a

rural town. Homes are fairly new but look to be hastily constructed - one step up from modular

homes. The street has just a few houses on it and it dead-ends into a plowed area with dirt roads

that map out a new area where it looks like new buildings will soon start. The neighborhood has

a lot of space but has no trees, sidewalks, and is not all that aesthetically pleasing.” The

neighborhood was described as “an o.k. place to raise children - lots of space to play and ride

bikes.” The interviewer reported that Linda wished there were more kids for her sons to play

with. In terms of community resources available to the family, the interviewer did not observe

any community or neighborhood resources, such as parks, schools, churches, or businesses

within one half mile of the home. The neighborhood was described as “very safe” by the

interviewer.

In the spring of 1998 Linda described her neighborhood as an “ok” place to raise a child.

“The kids can ride bikes anywhere and it is a safe place.” Linda reported in the fall and spring

interviews that neither she nor anyone in her family had heard, witnessed or been a victim of a

violent crime in their neighborhood. She described her neighborhood as “quiet, secluded and

very residential.” When asked about changes she would make to her neighborhood she indicated

she wished there were “more kids in the neighborhood” and “that the road was paved.”

Although it was a rural neighborhood, Linda reported several community resources within a

half-mile of her home, including a park, recreation center, day care center, supermarket, bank,

convenience store, pharmacy, a doctor’s office, church, elementary school, and a library. She also

indicated that her neighborhood did not have any abandoned buildings, graffiti, vandalism,

adolescents or adult loitering, and that they had a neighborhood watch program.
Section V: Community Agencies Introduction 388

1.0 Introduction to the Community Agency Substudy

1.1 Overview

Head Start is part of the network of agencies and organizations at the Federal, State, and local

level that are linked together by the common purpose of serving low-income children and families. As

Head Start seeks to expand into the 21st century, it continues efforts to forge new partnerships within the

community, as required by the Program Performance Standards (45 CFR 1304.41). Meaningful

partnerships are critical for the successful delivery of comprehensive services for Head Start families.

While a majority of Head Start programs report that they collaborate with other agencies to provide

services for families, a better understanding of the nature and quality of these partnerships is needed,

particularly from the community service provider’s perspective.

Findings from the 1994 National Survey of Head Start Family Self-Sufficiency Initiatives

(DeSantis & McLellan, 1997) suggested that most collaboration with community agencies was done

informally, that is, without formal interagency agreements. Head Start program directors felt other

community agencies may have been reluctant to enter into a written or formal commitment with them

because resources were scarce and informal collaboration allowed for greater flexibility. The most

successful collaborations appeared to have been influenced by organizational and community factors,

namely, community partners who had sufficient staff available and who were members of a community

that showed a commitment to networking, usually in the form of serving on task forces and communitywide advisory panels.

The network of agencies devoted to providing services for low-income children and families in

any given Head Start community may vary on a number of important dimensions. Some may be large or

small; weighted towards one particular type of service (e.g., family counseling) or diverse in services;

closely knit, diffuse, or even contentious and competitive. Much can be learned through a description of

the linkages among agencies and organizations. Network analysis, although a powerful methodological

approach for investigating such linkages, is not without challenges. Defining a comprehensive universe

of human service providers in a community (i.e., those with which Head Start might cooperate) can pose

significant difficulties, since exhaustive listings of such providers are rare. Knowledge of the provider

universe is important in determining whether, for example, a failure of Head Start to refer families to a
Section V: Community Agencies Introduction 389

particular service is a function of poor relations with the appropriate provider or whether such a service

simply does not exist in the community.

As part of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), a subset of 10 of the

original 40 Head Start FACES programs participated in a systematic investigation designed to further

understand the partnerships between Head Start and other service providers in their community. The

Head Start programs participating in this sub-study were selected to represent the larger FACES sample,

meaning that they were stratified on geography, rural and urban status, and minority membership. These

10 Head Start programs provided a list of the community service providers they had relationships with or

to whom they referred families. From each program’s list of community agencies, 20 agencies (per

program) were randomly selected for telephone interviews, for a total of 200 telephone interviews with

community providers overall. Interviews sought to address the following research questions:

• What was the type of collaboration (formal or informal) with Head Start?

• What was the type, frequency, and quality of communications with Head Start?

• What was the frequency and method of client referrals between the agencies and Head

Start?

• What exchanges of resources such as money or in-kind services occurred between

agencies and Head Start?

• Were there joint planning or joint appointments or memberships on advisory boards or

committees between agencies and Head Start?

Findings regarding the quality of the relationship between Head Start and community providers

will be presented from the community providers’ perspective, as well as the community perception of the

local Head Start program. Additional information addressing the nature and quality of the relationships

between Head Start and community providers from the perspective of Head Start family service workers

will also be included.

1.2 Organization of Section V: The Community Agency Substudy

Section V contains results from the FACES substudy of local community service providers in the

service areas for 10 Head Start programs. Chapter 1.0 presents an overview of the Community Agency

substudy. Chapter 2.0 describes the methodology of the study, including the sample selection, measures

development, data collection procedures, and data analyses used. Chapter 3.0 presents the findings and

summarizes the conclusions from the substudy.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Methodology 390

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Overview

Chapter 2.0 describes the data collection methodology used in this FACES sub-study of

community agency providers, with a primary focus on the sampling plan, the development of the data

collection instrument, and the data collection procedures used with the agency staff. Additional

discussion addresses limitations of the study that impact the interpretation of the findings.

2.2 The Sample

A subset of 10 of the original 40 Head Start programs participating in FACES was selected to

participate in this sub-study of community agency providers. In an effort to increase the generalizability

of the findings, these 10 communities were selected to be representative of the FACES program sites on

the three key sampling strata: urbanicity, geographic region, and minority enrollment of the local Head

Start program.

Each of the 10 Head Start programs located in the selected communities was asked to provide a

directory of the community agencies with whom they had a relationship, and to whom they referred their

Head Start families for services. Using those directories, 20 agencies from each of the 10 communities

were selected for telephone interviews. In order to represent a variety of agencies that provided services

to low-income families, five types of agencies were targeted (Exhibit 2-1). Four agencies were randomly

selected from within each of five types of agencies. A total of 200 community service providers, 20 per

site, were interviewed during the summer of 1999.

Exhibit 2-1

Description of Community Agencies

Unweighted Percentages

N = 200

Type of Service Provided

Housing, income assistance, food assistance 37.0

Drug and alcohol treatment, family violence 35.5

Child care 26.0

Education, job training, employment 22.5

Medical, health, mental health 21.0
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Methodology 391

Unweighted Percentages

N = 200

Auspice

Community-based organizations, community

action agencies, private, non-profits 46.5

Federal, State, county agencies 26.0

Universities, community colleges, school districts 9.0

Individual, private practitioners 7.5

Churches 7.0

Other 1.0

The majority of the agencies (59.5%) provided multiple services (mean number of services

provided = 2.36; SD = 1.54; range 1-6). Over one third of the agencies provided housing, income, or

food assistance (37.0%) or help with substance abuse problems or family violence (35.5%).

Approximately one fourth (26.0%) of the agencies provided child care, 22.5% provided education, job

training, or employment services, and slightly more than one fifth (21.0%) provided medical, health, or

mental health assistance to families. The most frequent auspice of the selected agencies was communitybased organizations (46.5%). Over three fourths (76.0%) of the agencies participating in the study

provided services for children under 5 years old, and 31.5% of the agencies reported having a waiting list.

As part of the FACES staff interviews, a total of 160 family service workers (four from each

selected program) were interviewed across all 40 of the FACES Head Start programs. Findings from

these interviews are presented to compare the Head Start staff perspective with the community agency

staff perspective on collaboration. Complete findings from the Family Service Worker interviews can be

found in Section III. A copy of the instrument is in Appendix B.

2.3 Data Collection Instrument

A semi-structured telephone interview was developed to gather information about the agencies,

targeting the administrators most responsible for supervising the direct delivery of services. Each

interview lasted approximately 20 minutes and inquired about the following topics:

• Description of the agency, including its auspice, goals or mission, and services provided;

• Type of collaboration with Head Start;

• Referral patterns between Head Start and the agency;

• Perceived relationship with Head Start; and

• Outreach strategies aimed at low-income families.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Methodology 392

A copy of the community agency interview can be found in Appendix E1.

2.4 Procedures

Three research assistants completed all of the interviews during the summer of 1999. Each

attended a one-day training in Washington, DC that covered study background information, general

interviewing protocols, and administrative procedures.

Once the list of targeted community agencies was compiled, the interviewers made every attempt

to reach the person at the agency who was most directly responsible for the supervision of direct services

to families. Overall, the community service providers were very cooperative and willing to participate in

the survey. Approximately 83% of the originally selected sample was interviewed. Relatively few

agencies refused to participate, and only a few were unable to be reached. In either of those cases, the

agency originally selected was replaced by an agency in that community that provided the same category

of services for families. It took, on average, less than four calls (M = 3.48; SD = 2.85; range = 1 to 15) to

an agency to complete an interview.

The Community Agency Manager on the research team reviewed all completed questionnaires,

noting any missing data that needed to be retrieved. All written responses to open-ended questions were

transcribed and used to develop coding categories for content analysis. Each interview was content coded

separately by two research assistants. When discrepancies occurred, agreement was reached through

discussions involving the two coders and the Community Agency Manager. All data were then entered

for data analysis. A copy of the coding scheme can be found in Appendix E2.
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 393

3.0 Findings and Summary

3.1 Overview

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the administrators most responsible

for the supervision of direct services at 200 community agencies located in 10 of the FACES Head Start

program sites. These interviews gathered information on the agencies’ collaboration with the local Head

Start programs. This chapter summarizes the findings from these interviews.

3.2 Types of Collaboration

When asked about their relationship with Head

Start, most community agencies’ staff (72.0%) reported that

they had either a formal or informal relationship (or both)

with Head Start, while 27.5% of the agencies’ staff reported

having no relationship at all (see Exhibit 3-1).

Informal Collaboration

The large majority of the agency staff interviewed

indicated that their agencies’ relationship with Head Start

was informal (61.0%) and included collaborations such as referral of clients to Head Start or serving on

the same community-wide committees. Exhibit 3-2 presents the types of informal collaborations the

agencies shared with their local Head Start programs.

Of those agencies’ staff who reported having informal relationships with their local Head Start

programs, almost one half (47.5%) indicated that their collaborations involved the referral of clients,

while more than one fourth said they conducted workshops or trainings (28.7%) or provided some other

type of service (27.1%) for their Head Start partners. About one fifth (19.7%) of the agencies’ staff

reported joint membership on community-wide committees.

Formal Informal No relationship

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Type of Collaboration
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 394

Exhibit 3-2

Types of Informal Collaborations between Community Agencies

and Local Head Start Programs, as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff

Percentages

(n = 122)

Referred clients to Head Start 47.5

Conducted workshops or trainings 28.7

Provided services to Head Start 27.1

Served on community-wide committees 19.7

Served on Head Start Advisory Board or

Head Start served on agency Board of Directors 10.7

Participated in community activities 10.7

Received services from Head Start 8.2

Participated in formal or informal meetings 6.6

Other 8.2

Formal Collaboration

The 30.0% of agencies’ staff who reported having formal relationships with local Head Start

programs had contractual agreements to provide services such as dental or health care to the children,

Welfare-to-Work programs for the families, or parenting classes. Exhibit 3-3 displays examples of the

types of formal relationships community agencies’ staff reported with their local Head Start programs.

Providing other services for Head Start such as mental health counseling, food service, or wrap-around

day care was mentioned by almost one third (31.7%) of the agencies’ staff. Other formal collaborations

included sharing facilities (28.3%), referral of clients (26.7%), and providing health services for Head

Start children (23.3%). Only 8.3% of the community agencies’ staff reported that they had formal

arrangements to share financial resources with Head Start.
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 395

Exhibit 3-3

Types of Formal Collaboration between Community Agencies

and Local Head Start Programs, as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff

Percentages

(n = 60)

Provided other services 31.7

Shared facilities 28.3

Referred clients 26.7

Provided health services 23.3

Conducted workshops 18.3

Shared funds 8.3

In-kind contributions 5.0

Other 8.3

Communication

Even though most agencies’ staff reported a relationship with Head Start, only 34.0% of them

indicated that communication with Head Start occurred often or very often. The majority of the agencies’

staff conveyed that they only rarely (41.0%) or sometimes (21.5%) communicated with Head Start.

Exhibit 3-4 presents the types of communication with Head Start reported by the community agencies’

staff. Most communication was done by phone (38.5%) and involved a discussion of mutual clients and

shared services (29.5%) or client referrals (21.0%). In sum, while many community agency staff reported

having a collaborative relationship with Head Start, most interactions were informal and did not involve

regular communication.

Exhibit 3-4

Communication between Community Agencies and their Local

Head Start Programs, as Reported by the Agencies’ Staff

Percentages

(N = 200)

Methods of Communication

By phone 38.5

In person 26.5

At formal or informal meetings 17.0

Written 5.5
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 396

Percentages

(N = 200)

Nature of Communications

Discuss mutual clients or shared services 29.5

Refer clients 21.0

Request information about services 16.5

Share general information 10.0

Discuss workshops or trainings, or provide advice 3.5

Other 3.0

Head Start Perspective on Collaboration

As part of the main study, Head Start Family Service Workers (FSWs) were asked about their

collaborations with local community service providers. While almost three quarters (73.2%) of the FSWs

reported meeting with community agency staff to discuss what services were available for families in

their caseloads, one half (48.7%) commented that they met with agency representatives less than once a

month. About one third (31.8%) of these Head Start staff indicated they did not meet with community

service providers to discuss specific Head Start families being served by the agency. Exhibit 3-5 displays

the frequency of collaboration with community agencies, as reported by the FSWs.

Exhibit 3-5

Frequency and Type of Collaboration With Community Agencies, as Reported by

Head Start Family Service Workers

Percentages

(N = 160)

More than

Once a Month

About Once a

Month

Less than

Once a Month No Contact

Joint membership on an advisory panel

or community board 3.0 28.4 29.2 39.4

Meetings to discuss general services

for Head Start families 6.1 19.7 48.7 24.5

Meetings to discuss services for

specific Head Start families 9.1 33.3 25.8 31.8

Head Start FSWs were asked to discuss what they perceived as barriers to collaboration with their

local community service providers and the extent to which each barrier impacted their ability to work

with agencies in a meaningful way. A list of the types of barriers to collaboration and how often each
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 397

was experienced is presented in Exhibit 3-6. About two thirds of the FSWs reported lack of child care

during class or meeting times (65.1%), a limited number of openings available to the Head Start parents at

local agencies (63.6%), and inconvenient hours of operation (57.6%) as the most frequent barriers to

successful collaboration.

Exhibit 3-6

Barriers to Collaboration, as Reported by the Head Start Family Service Workers

Percentages

(N = 200)

Never Rarely SometimesFrequently

Limited number of openings for families at agencies 12.1 22.7 33.3 30.3

Content or focus of agencies does not match families’ needs 21.2 30.3 39.4 9.1

Lack of bilingual staff 44.1 21.5 10.8 21.8

Services inaccessible or too far away 22.7 24.2 28.8 24.2

Availability of child care during class or meeting time 19.7 15.2 33.3 31.8

Schedule does not meet family needs 19.7 22.7 39.4 18.2

Lack of cooperation from staff at agencies 33.3 40.9 21.2 4.5

Cost of service is prohibitive 30.3 33.8 24.2 10.6

3.3 Procedures for Referral

Service to low-income families is a common objective for the community agencies and Head

Start. Therefore, client referrals between agencies are critical for helping those families obtain the

resources they need. Almost two thirds (64.1%) of all community agencies’ staff reported that Head

Start referred clients to them. Yet, most of the community agencies’ staff reported that they rarely (22%)

or only sometimes (33%) referred clients to Head Start. Exhibit 3-7 displays the methods of client

referral to Head Start, as reported by the community agencies’ staff.

The most frequent methods of referral used by staff at all of the community agencies included

providing clients with written or verbal information about the Head Start programs (29.0%) or providing

the Head Start programs’ phone numbers, addresses, or locations (27.0%). Only about one fifth (19.0%)

of the community agencies’ staff placed a call directly to their local Head Start programs or accompanied

their clients to the program. The method of referral to Head Start varied somewhat by type of agency.
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 398

The great majority of agencies, regardless of type, engaged in more passive methods of referral such as

merely providing their clients with informational literature or phone numbers and addresses of the local

Head Start programs. However, about one third of the agencies that provided educational services

(33.3%) or provided financial services (28.4%), such as help with housing or income, also engaged in

more proactive methods of referral, such as calling a Head Start program directly or accompanying clients

to a local Head Start program.

Exhibit 3-7

Methods of Client Referrals to the Local Head Start Programs, as Reported by the

Community Agencies’ Staff

Percentages

Methods of Referrals (N = 200)

Type of Agencies

All Education Medical Social Services Financial Child Care

Provide written or verbal information

about Head Start 29.0 31.1 35.7 29.6 28.4 32.7

Provide Head Start phone number,

address, or location 27.0 28.9 31.0 26.8 24.3 34.6

Complete a written referral (form,

letter, application) 12.5 7.8 14.3 18.3 20.3 19.2

Call Head Start directly or take

client to Head Start 19.0 33.3 16.7 23.9 28.4 15.4

Other 3.5 6.7 4.8 1.4 6.8 3.9

Head Start FSWs reported that almost one half (49.8%) of their referrals to community service

providers entailed giving families specific information about the agency’s services so they could arrange

for help independently. Examples of the information provided to families included the location of the

agency, the time of classes, or the name of a contact person. Only around one third (32.4%) of the Head

Start referrals included arranging appointments for the Head Start families with local community service

providers and less than one fifth (16.4%) of the FSWs reported that they actually accompanied the

families. The majority of Head Start staff indicated they most often followed up the referrals by talking

with the families (86.4%) and staff almost never (22.7%) or rarely (34.8%) received notification from the

local community service providers.
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 399

3.4 Perceptions of Head Start

Many community agency staff felt that their relationship with Head Start was very important

(48%) and that the quality of that relationship was positive (59.0%). However, when asked about any

problems they had encountered during interactions with Head Start, or if there were areas they felt could

be improved, 38.2% reported problems and 68.1% had suggestions for improvement. Exhibit 3-8

presents the five areas where community providers felt the collaboration between Head Start and their

agencies could be improved, with examples in each area.

Exhibit 3-8

Suggested Area for Improved Collaboration with Head Start, as Reported by

Community Agencies’ Staff

Areas for suggested improvements Statements by Agency Providers

Better communication

Need for more joint meetings; need to share

information.

Willingness to cooperate

Too few referrals; Head Start not receptive to

ideas; Head Start not willing to work with other

agencies; Head Start is “elitist.”

Improved Head Start service Too few hours; no transportation; inaccessible

locations; long waiting lists; curriculum inadequate.

Better trained Head Start staff or program

organization

Weak administrative skills and organization; poor

communication skills with children.

Philosophy of Head Start Guidelines are difficult to understand; Head Start

income guidelines are too low.

Community Agency Staff Quotes

“They [Head Start] don’t represent themselves

in meetings, they are not an integral part of the

child care system. I think Head Start is so

comprehensive within themselves that they

don’t need to collaborate with anyone else. I

feel that they think they are separte from other

child care agencies.”

--Rural Child Care Subsidy Agency

“I haven’t encountered any problems – we

cooperate to give good service to parents and

kids. We work together on a regular basis to

improve the quality of our services.”

--Urban YMCA

“We have a great relationship. I’ve been

here for over nine years and have never

encountered any problems. I really can’t

think of any problems; we have a very

collaborative relationship.”

--Urban Medical Clinic

“It is really hard to get the person in charge

at Head Start to work with you and follow

through. If I call them, they won’t call me

back. It seems that they are always

hesitant in working with any communitybased organization.”

-- Urban Family Service Center
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 400

3.5 Strategies for Outreach

Identifying and engaging low-income families can be very challenging. Most agencies’ staff

reported using combinations of traditional and non-traditional recruitment strategies. Exhibit 3-9 presents

the top ten recruitment strategies reported by the community service providers. Referrals from other

agencies (44.5%) and word-of-mouth (40.5%) were most frequently mentioned as recruitment strategies.

Fourteen percent of the agencies’ staff indicated they did not actively recruit clients, and only 2.5%

actively sought clients through Head Start.

Exhibit 3-9

Most Frequent Strategies Used for Recruiting Low-Income Families,

as Reported by Community Agencies’ Staff

Percentages

(N = 200)

Referrals from other agencies 44.5

Word-of-mouth 40.5

Distribute brochures, fliers, publications 33.0

Newspaper ads 26.0

TV/radio ads 22.5

Workshops, trainings, speaking engagements 16.5

Yellow pages 13.0

Community events 11.0

Churches or synagogues 10.5

Schools or day care centers 9.5

A study of Head Start recruitment and enrollment practices was conducted in ten of the FACES

program sites in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000 (D’Elio, O’Brien, Magee, Keane, Connell, & Hailey,

2000). Although Head Start outreach and recruitment staff reported the use of a wide variety of

recruitment strategies, two main strategies emerged from focus group discussions: 1) referrals from

agencies (e.g., WIC, social services, health departments, health care facilities, child care referral agencies,

school districts, special needs agencies, crisis centers, food banks, agencies serving the disabled); and 2)

advertising in the form of posters and flyers placed at the same local agencies or at local businesses in the

community (e.g., grocery stores, laundromats, gas stations, post offices) or media buys (radio and

television ads, public service announcements, advertising on buses). The next two most frequently
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 401

mentioned types of successful outreach strategies were recruiting families at community functions such as

health fairs, festivals, or even flea markets and enlisting Head Start families to recruit their friends,

neighbors, or family. Most staff felt that word-of-mouth was very important, perhaps even their most

successful strategy for identifying families eligible for Head Start. Generally, there were no differences

found across rural or urban sites in the types of recruitment strategies used; however, staff from two rural

sites did report that some strategies, such as advertising on cable television or referrals from local

community agencies were less successful because some very remote, rural communities may not have

access to cable television or have many agencies located nearby.

These strategies utilized by Head Start staff are not unlike the outreach strategies reported by the

community agency providers. Agencies located in rural versus urban areas were more likely to provide

information to schools or daycare centers (12.0% rural vs. 7.0% urban), place newspaper ads (33.0% rural

vs. 19.0% urban), or advertise in the Yellow Pages (16.0% rural vs. 10.0% urban). Agencies located in

urban versus rural locations were more likely to recruit families at community events (13.0% urban vs.

9.0% rural) or provide information to physicians, dentists, clinics, or hospitals.

3.6 Summary

The data from the community agency providers and Head Start Family Service Worker

interviews have contributed to a more complete understanding of the types and frequency of collaboration

between Head Start programs and the network of agencies within their communities.

Highlights from the findings of these interviews include:

• Types of Collaboration. Most community agencies collaborated with Head Start but the

majority of the collaboration was informal, such as the referral of clients to Head Start or serving

on the same community-wide committees. Fewer agencies’ staff reported formal collaborations

such as contractual arrangements to provide dental or health care for Head Start children,

Welfare-to-Work programs for the families, or parenting classes.

• Communication. Even though agencies’ staff reported a relationship with Head Start, most

interactions were informal and did not involve regular communication. Most communication was

done by phone and involved a discussion of mutual clients, shared services, or client referrals.

• Referrals. While most agencies’ staff reported receiving client referrals from Head Start, they

rarely or only sometimes referred clients to Head Start, and when referrals occurred, it mostly

involved providing their clients with written or verbal information about Head Start, or the local

program’s phone number or address.
___________________________________________________________________

Section V: Community Agencies Findings 402

• Community Agencies’ Perception of Head Start. Most agencies’ staff felt that their

relationship with Head Start was very important and that the quality of that relationship was

positive. Yet when asked about any problems they had encountered during interactions with

Head Start, many reported problems or had suggestions for improving collaboration. Agencies’

staff suggested that Head Start be more willing to collaborate, increase hours of operation,

provide transportation for clients, and a more challenging curriculum for children, as well as have

better trained, more organized staff.

• Strategies for Recruiting Low-income Families. Most agencies’ staff used a combination of

traditional and non-traditional recruitment strategies including referrals from other agencies or

word-of-mouth, not unlike outreach strategies utilized by Head Start staff. Very few agencies’

staff mentioned outreach to Head Start as a way of identifying eligible clients.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 403

Conclusions and Implications

The central goal of this project was to learn more about Head Start families. To that end, this

study has explored issues faced by Head Start children and families, by Head Start programs and staff,

and by the community services that assist these families. Information has been collected from a variety of

sources, including interviews with Head Start parents and staff members, home visits to Head Start

families, and interviews with service providers in the local communities. This section integrates some of

the key findings that were presented in earlier chapters in this report as well as findings from a related

project on recruitment and enrollment in Head Start. In addition, this section includes brief discussions

regarding the implications of the study findings for Head Start policy makers. In many cases, Head Start

programs are already addressing policy and program issues that are raised in this report.

The Changing Face of Poverty in America

Because the target population served by Head Start is families with young children living in

poverty, it is important to understand the current and evolving context of poverty in the United States.

Several demographic and economic trends among American families have altered the lives of children in

recent decades (Corcoran & Chaudry, 1997; Hernandez 1993).

Trends in Racial and Ethnic Diversity

The ethnic and racial diversity of America’s children continues to increase. According to O’Hare

(2001), minority children (i.e., any group other than non-Hispanic white) accounted for 39% of the

population under 18 in 2000, compared to 31% in 1990. Minority children accounted for 98% of the

growth in the child population during the 1990s. The two fastest-growing groups of U.S. children are

Hispanic and immigrant children. The number of Hispanic children in the U.S. has increased by 4.5

million (59%) between 1990 and 2000 and 6.7 million (119%) between 1980 and 2000 (O’Hare, 2001).

By 2020, it is projected that more than 20% of children in the U.S. will be of Hispanic origin (Federal

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). In 2000, about one fifth (19%) of the children

in the U.S. were immigrants or children of immigrants (O’Hare, 2001; Urban Institute, 2000) compared to

14% in 1990 and 10% in 1980 (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). The number of immigrant children is

projected to continue to increase to over 9 million children in 2010 or 22% of the school-age population

(Fix & Passel, 1994). The high rates of growth among minority and immigrant children are reshaping the

overall racial and ethnic mix of children in the U.S. In addition, because minority and immigrant children
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 404

are disproportionately more likely to be poor, these demographic shifts have led to increased childhood

poverty among these groups.

Trends in Family Structure

Family structures of America’s children have become more varied. More than two thirds (69%)

of the children in the U.S. lived in married-couple households in 2000. However, children living in the

U.S. are increasingly more likely to live with a single parent. The percentage of children who were living

in mother-only families increased from 8% to 20% between 1960 and 1990 (Hernandez, 1993). Current

data indicate that 22% of children lived in single-parent households headed by females in 2000 (O’Hare,

2001). Since mother-only families are much more likely to be poor than are two-parent families, this

trend has led to increased child poverty rates. A recent trend of interest involving family structure is the

multigenerational family. The 2000 Census reported that 3.9 million family households or 4% of

households were multigenerational. Also, the proportion of children living with single fathers has

doubled from 2% in 1980 to 4% in 2000 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,

2001).

Trends in Parental Education and Family Size

Children living in the U.S. are now more likely to have parents who have completed more years

of education than in the past and to live in smaller families with fewer siblings. Recent Census data

(Newburger & Curry, 2000) indicated that 88% of young adults have completed high school and 29%

have received a bachelor’s degree or higher. Census 2000 data also revealed that, despite increases in the

number of households and the number of people in the U.S. since 1990, both the average household size

(2.63 to 2.59) and average family size (3.16 to 3.14) decreased over the decade1

. Family poverty rates

have been found to rise sharply with the number of children in the family (Danzinger, Danzinger, &

Stern, 1997), and educational attainment has been a strong predictor of earnings. Both trends in parental

education and family size increased children’s access to human and economic resources and helped to

reduce childhood poverty rates.

Trends in Employment

Children living in the U.S. are now more likely to have at least one parent working full-time.

Since 1990, the ability of parents to secure employment has paralleled the overall trends in employment

1 The average household size is less than family size because the U.S. Census includes family and non-family households (the

majority of which are one person) in its calculation of household size while only including family households in calculating

family size. Family households include a householder and one or more people living together in the same household who are

related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 405

in the U.S. The percentage of children who had at least one parent working full time all year continued to

increase in 1999 to 79% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). A

disproportionate share of the increase in this trend over the 1990s was due to the increase in the

percentage of children living with single mothers who were employed, which increased from 33%in 1993

to 47% in 1999. Parental employment has been found to reduce the incidence of poverty and its attendant

risks to children. In 1999, 88% of children living at or above the poverty line had at least one parent

working full time all year compared to 31% of children living in poverty.

These trends help explain and give context to the challenges facing Head Start families, staff, and

communities. They also help frame the discussion of the FACES findings that address the following

three questions:

• Who are the families served by Head Start?

• What challenges do Head Start families face and what strengths do families possess?

• How are Head Start families involved with their children and with their Head Start programs?

Head Start Families are Diverse

Although Head Start is too often subject to stereotypic views about families in poverty, the data

strongly supported the fact that there is no “typical” Head Start family. In fact, the diversity within the

population of Head Start families is a defining characteristic of the program. Because programs strive to

tailor their individual programs to meet the needs of particular communities, this process results in a

national program that serves a broad range of children and families.

Head Start Families are Diverse across Race, Ethnicity, and Culture

This diversity was first noted in the race, ethnicity, and culture of the children. The nationally

representative sample of children included strong representation of African American, White, and

Hispanic groups. While diversity was seen across the three main ethnic groups, the proportion of recent

immigrants within the program was relatively low. Less than one fifth of all primary caregivers were

born in a country other than the United States, and only a small percentage of the primary caregivers,

about 2%, reported that they had resided in the United States for less than five years. In addition, English

was the primary language in a majority of Head Start homes, while just under one third of the families

spoke Spanish in their homes.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 406

Even within ethnic groups, diversity was apparent. The data demonstrated that Hispanics, as a

group, were heterogeneous, diverse, and dynamic. For example, Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico, who

were both the majority ethnic group in their culture and spoke the dominant language, may have had

certain advantages over other groups given their ethnic- and language-majority status. Spanish-speaking

mainland Hispanics had both ethnic- and language-minority status in the U.S., which may have conferred

certain disadvantages on these families. While English-speaking mainland Hispanics were ethnic

minorities in the overall culture of the U.S., their ability to communicate in the majority language may

have afforded some protective benefits to these families. Significant variations among the three Hispanic

groups in educational attainment, marital status, and income highlighted the importance of understanding

the diversity among Hispanic families. This diversity is perhaps more salient in addressing policy and

research questions for programs like Head Start than in seeking to understand the “typical” Hispanic

family.

Head Start Families are Diverse in Family Structure

Diversity, however, extended well beyond race, ethnicity, and culture. Diversity was also seen in

family structures. The range of well-represented family types included dual-parent families, single-parent

families who had been widowed, divorced, or separated, and families who were blended. Reflecting the

national trend for an increasing percentage of single parent families, less than one half of all parents were

married, and less than one half of the children lived with both their mother and father. About one third of

the parents reported being single, while almost one quarter were divorced, separated, or widowed. One

third of the households were mother-only, and two or more adults (age 18 or older) were present in just

under three quarters of the households. It also was noted that approximately 5% of the Head Start

children lived in families where grandparents served as their primary caregivers. Almost three times that

many children lived in households where at least one grandparent also resided, a figure that is much

higher than the reported national trend (Simmons & O’Neill, 2001).

Head Start Families are Diverse in Educational Attainment and Employment

Head Start parents represented a range of educational levels and work status. Almost three

fourths of the primary caregivers had attained at least a high school diploma or GED, and, similar to the

national trends, almost 90% of the households contained at least one individual with a high school

diploma or GED. Many Head Start parents had progressed beyond high school. About one third reported

they had attended some college or received an Associate’s degree, but less than 3% had earned a college

degree or higher, a figure much lower than the national trend. Most importantly, at the time of the fall

1997 parent interview, approximately one fourth of all parents reported that they were working toward a

degree, certificate, or license.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 407

Over one half of all parents were employed in the fall of 1997, and of those who were employed,

one third had full-time jobs and one fifth were working part-time or had seasonal work. In contrast, just

over one fifth of the parents reported there were no employed household members. Consistent with the

changes in public assistance programs, many Head Start families experienced changes in the employment

status of adult members; most experienced changes in their employment status two or more times over the

course of the study. Reflective in some respects of the updated TANF requirements that were

implemented about the time the study started, many Head Start families had gains in employment, even

though these gains did not always result in full-time work.

Head Start Families are Like Other Families

Looking at the picture of Head Start families is like looking at a coin -- there are two sides to the

story. While there was great diversity in the types of Head Start families, parents from these low-income

families also had much in common with each other, as well as with parents who were more advantaged.

While commonalities were not evident in family type, education, or work status, many families in the

study shared similar values with regards to the hopes and goals they expressed for their families and their

children.

Head Start Families Have Common Hopes and Goals

Head Start parents generally held optimistic expectations for their children’s early schooling

experiences. Parents’ hopes and goals for their children were focused on general education goals, such as

learning basic skills and doing well in school. These goals included optimistic expectations about their

children’s future educational attainment. Most parents in the case study had specific long-term

educational goals for their children, such as graduating from high school and attending college.

Most parents in the case study expressed the conviction that positive relationships within their

families were a primary strength. These positive relationships were most often characterized in terms of

the closeness or togetherness of their family or knowing that they could rely on one another and would

take care of each other. Parents believed it was important for them to teach their children values or

morals. Many also felt it was important to teach or show their children that education was important, to

teach them how to behave, and to guide them and help set goals in their lives. Parents reported that they

were successful or somewhat successful at teaching these things to their children and indicated they were

very satisfied with their role as parents.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 408

Head Start parents also expressed the desire to have the best for their children. In terms of trying

to help them reach goals, many parents were expecting Head Start to provide an academic boost for their

children. More than two thirds of parents anticipated that Head Start would help prepare their children for

school and almost two fifths expected that the program would provide social interactions with other

children. In fact, findings from the case study suggested that the primary reason families enrolled their

children in Head Start was to benefit the children, particularly for general educational reasons.

Policy Implications

The findings noted in this report reinforce many of the policies and initiatives that have already

been implemented by Head Start, both nationally and on the local level. These initiatives include

program improvements in the areas of staffing, training, and classroom curricula. The diversity of Head

Start families challenges Head Start staff to monitor their communities, to be responsive to the cultures of

their families, and to adapt recruitment strategies as needed. Nationally, the Head Start program has

recognized this need through its Multicultural Principles, while local programs are addressing diversity by

recruiting multicultural and multilingual staff members, providing training and technical assistance, and

implementing multicultural materials and activities in classrooms.

Improved credentials and training do not just prepare Head Start staff for the challenges of

families that come to the program; they also provide the skills needed to go into the community to recruit

families with the greatest needs. The changing picture of families, concurrent with changes in ethnicity,

education, and work status among low-income families, requires staff to broaden their knowledge and

extend their efforts well beyond traditional program activities.

For example, in the recruitment and enrollment substudy, conducted at 10 of the FACES sites

(D’Elio et al., 2000), Head Start field staff noted that some parents’ choices not to enroll their children in

Head Start were rooted in the family’s cultural or ethnic background. They noted that some Hispanic

families who were recruited to the program were wary of the amount and type of documentation they

needed to provide for enrollment. They were hesitant to enroll their children in a Federally-funded

program because of the perceived risks to their residency status. In order for these children to come to the

program, Head Start staff needed to invest a lot of time building rapport and trust with these Hispanic

families, who were often new to the communities.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 409

Head Start Families Face Multiple Challenges

Head Start Families Possess Strengths to Address Them

Low-income families encounter many circumstances that compromise their ability to improve

their economic status, and Head Start works with families to address the challenges associated with

poverty. Assessing and addressing risks has become a key element in the provision of services for lowincome families. The expectation is that when a local program provides assistance to a family, it also is

improving the developmental environment for a child.

The Kids Count Data Book (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999) annually details specific risks

encountered by low-income families across the nation. This source compiles data on six particular family

characteristics that impact child development and well-being. The six characteristics or risk factors are:

• The child is not living with two parents;

• The household head is a high school dropout;

• The family income is below the poverty line;

• The child is living with parents(s) who do not have steady, full-time employment;

• The family is receiving welfare benefits; and

• The child does not have health insurance.

Head Start aims to serve the neediest families, who face many of these multiple risks. In the

recruitment and enrollment substudy, Head Start recruitment staff reported that they often targeted singleparent families, families that were low functioning, and families who were at high risk. In many cases,

families had more than one of these concerns.

Among FACES families, the most likely risks were being from a household that had an income

below the poverty level, experienced by two thirds of the families, and being from a single-parent

household, which affected just over one half of the families. None of the other risks were reported by

more than one third of the families. More critically, however, one fifth of the families were identified as

having four or more of the risk factors. Recent research has noted that multiple occurrences of selected

family risk factors predict negative outcomes for children (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia Coll, 1997;

McLoyd, 1998; Vandivere, Moore & Brown, 2000). Children in these families were considered to be at

risk for developmental problems. In FACES, parents from families with four or more risks were more

depressed, had less social support, and a more external locus of control, while their children scored lower

on emergent literacy.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 410

Too often neglected is the fact that even at-risk families have opportunities to draw on their own

strengths to face these challenges. Head Start families face adversity familiar to many low-income

families. While many of the families were described in the case study narratives as relatively stable, they

still faced multiple challenges that reached across several areas of their lives, including employment

status, health, child care, household membership, and relationships with significant others. However,

findings from the case studies also provided opportunities to see the resilience and strengths of these

families that often surfaced in the face of their harsh, daily realities. What may represent a strength for

one family may actually increase risk for another. As many Head Start staff know, the true interpretation

of what is a challenge versus what is a strength must be based on knowledge of each particular family, an

issue that will be addressed in the policy implications.

Head Start Families Have Challenges in the Home

The study findings suggested that the structure of a household has important implications for

child and family resources and outcomes. In this light, it is interesting that children lived with both a

mother and father in less than one half of the households, and that in one third of the households, the

mothers were the only adults living with the children. As identified above, single-parent families are a

growing trend among low-income families in the U.S. and represent an important risk category identified

by Kids Count (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999).

Many households had a dynamic structure. From fall 1997 to spring 1998, two fifths of all

families indicated that someone either entered or left their household. The importance of household

structure was noted: Changes in child outcomes were associated with household changes. For example,

when key males (fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers, grandfathers, or a male spouse or partner of the

mother) left the household, monthly income decreased and mothers were more likely to report their

children’s behavior as aggressive. Curiously, a similar finding regarding aggressive behavior was seen

when key females (mothers, stepmothers, foster mothers, grandmothers, or a female spouse or partner of

the father) entered the household.

Having fathers in the home was generally considered a strength for families. Even where this

was not possible, there were important benefits for families just by having fathers who were active in the

raising of their children. Given that fathers lived with their children in only 44% of the households, this

is an important finding. While the involvement of fathers certainly benefited their children, benefits of

father involvement extended to mothers and other family members as well.

Strengths and challenges also arose in households where grandparents served as the primary

caregivers for the Head Start children, a situation that occurred in 5% of the FACES families. When
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 411

grandparents were caregivers, households seemed to be better-off economically and had less exposure to

violence, but the challenges included increased reports of child problem behavior and lower caregiver

participation in Head Start activities. Almost 15% of the households contained three-generational

families, a configuration that coincided with increased levels of activity with children by other (nonparent) household members.

Head Start Families Have Economic Challenges

In terms of the economic challenges that Head Start families face, low income is predominant.

Having an income at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is the first eligibility requirement applied

to families during recruitment and enrollment into Head Start. At the time of the baseline data collection,

two thirds of the families had household incomes that were below the FPL. While this is a smaller

percentage of families than was initially expected, this percentage likely reflects advances made by some

families from the time of their enrollment into the program, particularly in the era of welfare reform.

Also, this study collected data on household income (rather than family income), a figure that likely

included resources that were not considered by Head Start for eligibility. Even with limited economic

resources, case study parents felt they were able to meet many of the families’ basic needs, but they also

reported that their financial resources did not always provide them with the ability to give their children

items that they wanted or to buy things for themselves.

Employment was an issue for many families, for even though more than one half of all parents

were employed in the fall of 1997, about 20% of the households had no employed members. The fact that

two thirds of the parents had no more than a high school education at the time of the baseline interview,

and that less than 3% actually had a college degree, limited the types of opportunities available to most

Head Start parents. It was encouraging to find that in the face of the challenge provided by limited

education, about one quarter of the parents reported that they were working toward a degree, certificate,

or license at the time of the baseline interview. As noted above in the description of the changing face of

poverty, improved education and training serves to strengthen families facing economic challenges.

Head Start Families Have Environmental Challenges

One interesting area explored in this study was the investigation of how families perceived their

neighborhoods and what neighborhood and home environments contributed to the lives of Head Start

families. Some of the most striking findings were related to parents’ reports regarding exposure to violent

and nonviolent crimes in their neighborhoods and homes, both for themselves and for their children.

While more than one quarter of the parents reported seeing nonviolent crimes in their neighborhoods,

almost one third reported seeing violent crimes near their homes. Almost one quarter of the parents knew
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 412

individuals who were victims of violent crimes in their neighborhoods. Even many Head Start children

were reported to have been exposed to crime and violence. About one fifth of the children were reported

to have witnessed crimes or domestic violence in their lives, including 3% who had actually been victims

of domestic violence or crimes.

Whether in the home or in the neighborhood, the reality of violence was very close for many of

the Head Start families, and in turn this was associated with specific child and family outcomes.

Exposure to neighborhood violence negatively impacted child behavior, even in children as young as 3

and 4 years old. A relationship was also found between exposure to violence and parental depression.

Parents who lived in more violent neighborhoods were more depressed and more likely to report that their

children had behavior problems. The findings suggested that exposure to violence has both direct and

indirect negative consequences for the children and families. Other factors, such as maternal depression,

may serve as the mechanism through which exposure to neighborhood violence leads to problem behavior

in children.

Another challenge that many families faced was having a family member with current or previous

involvement with the criminal justice system. Nearly one fourth of the parents reported that they, another

household member, or a non-household biological parent had been arrested or charged with a crime since

the birth of the Head Start child. Almost one fifth of the parents indicated that someone in their family

had spent time in jail. Children from families who had involvement with the criminal justice system were

almost five times more likely to have been exposed to violent crime or domestic violence and four times

more likely to have been a victim of violent crime or domestic violence. In addition, more than one third

of the parents acknowledged having firearms in their homes.

While this information paints a rather bleak picture for Head Start families, the case study found

evidence for a more positive outlook regarding living environments. A majority of Head Start families

indicated that they felt their neighborhoods were good places to raise children and had positive

characteristics. For example, over one half described their neighborhoods as quiet or peaceful, free from

crime and drugs, with friendly neighbors who were helpful and trustworthy. Additionally, findings from

the main study suggested that being involved in and having a positive experience at Head Start may serve

as protective factors against exposure to neighborhood violence.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 413

Head Start Families Have Health Challenges and Support Systems

Many low-income families faced a number of risks to the health of their members. For example,

almost one half of the Head Start children lived in households containing at least one smoker. Although

the parent interview did not inquire about health services utilization, most parents in the case study

reported that someone in their families had experienced a physical illness during the study period, often

two or more times over the course of the study. About one third of the illnesses in these samples were

serious enough to require hospitalization.

Fortunately, when medical services were required, almost all of the parents reported that they and

their children had regular health care providers for routine medical care. Medical services for Head Start

families were most often provided at a doctor’s office or at a private clinic, and 80% had private health

insurance or Medicaid coverage. Almost all of the parents also noted that their children had received

dental care, usually at a private dentist’s office. Even when 20% of the children had not visited a dentist

prior to the fall 1997 interview, the majority had received dental care by the following spring, typically

without assistance from Head Start.

With regards to mental health, depression has been found to be a serious problem for low-income

women. Close to one third of the parents in the FACES sample were classified as moderately or severely

depressed. Mothers living without the children’s fathers in the home more often reported being depressed

than those who had the children’s fathers present in the home. Most parents in the case study experienced

some level of depression at least once during the course of the study.

The effects of depression included the findings that parents who were more depressed reported

greater need for and use of social services, were more likely to report an external locus of control,

reported less social support, reported a lower household income, engaged in fewer safety practices, and

participated in fewer activities with their children. Parents who were more depressed were also more

likely to report that their children had problem behavior, including aggressive, hyperactive, and

withdrawn behavior. Conversely, less depression was associated with reports of increased positive social

behavior and emergent literacy. As noted earlier, maternal depression may serve as the mechanism

through which exposure to neighborhood violence leads to problem behavior in children.

In light of the number of Head Start parents suffering from some level of depression, the

availability of social supports for raising children takes on heightened importance. Across three types of

support (parenting advice, help with household tasks, and having someone to confide in), case study
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 414

families most often received support from extended family members, and most of these families reported

having at least one person in their social support network for each type of support. Unfortunately, not all

families shared this type of resource; over 30% of families indicated that they had no one to give them

help with household tasks.

The finding that Head Start families received social support is important. Even at the beginning

of the school year, Head Start served an important role in this area: Almost all of the parents reported that

the local program staff was helpful to them in raising their young children. In this case, families

recognized that there are strengths in the people around them, such as the Head Start staff, and made use

of this support and expertise. More about the relationship between programs and families is covered in

the next part of this section.

Policy Implications

As noted above, risks are present in the lives of many Head Start families, including having a

household income below the poverty line and having a single-parent household. However, the presence

of multiple risks raises serious concerns for these families. The implications of this touch two areas of

program practice and policy. The first area is policy directed at families and family services. The study

findings highlight the need to consider the strengths that families have as well as the challenges families

encounter. This emphasizes the importance of the family assessments and the subsequent Family

Partnerships that are generated from the assessments. From the recruitment and enrollment substudy, it is

apparent that staff members do understand the value of the assessment, and the potential value to be

gained in understanding how individual families operate. Staff also know to target particular family risks

or presence of multiple risks during the recruitment and enrollment activities, in an attempt to bring into

Head Start the families in greatest need of services.

The recent increase in emphasis on literacy programs, including programs for parents, has

important implications for helping parents to draw on their strengths, by continuing education and gaining

or improving their employment opportunities. Training topics for families often incorporate other areas

in which challenges arise. For example, family training regarding physical and mental health issues may

be beneficial for parents who are facing these challenges.

In addition to policy directed towards parent training, Head Start has already begun to consider

the implications of the changing populations for their own staff. Many of the risks presented represent

areas that parents often do not recognize themselves. Head Start staff training must assist staff in the task

of identifying the challenges families face and the strengths they bring to address these challenges.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 415

Critical here is the selection of staff to work most directly with families on these issues. Often the front

line staff of Head Start who address family issues are the Family Service Workers. Unfortunately, they

often have the lowest level of education and are among the poorest paid of the staff. When staff are

entrusted with the task of steering families through delicate or stressful situations, they must possess the

skills to know how to steer families in the right direction. In this case, providing Head Start staff that are

well-trained and appropriate for the task may have great implications for the Head Start families.

Head Start Families Are Active with Their Children and with Head

Start

Head Start’s mission includes promoting the work of parents in their role as the primary nurturers

of their children. The Program Performance Standards (ACYF, 1998c) direct local programs to build

Family Partnerships as a means of assisting parents with the task of involving themselves in the lives of

their children. Parent involvement means both engaging in home activities with their children, such as

reading, playing games, and doing chores with them, and assisting parents in becoming advocates for

their children. In order to meet this goal, programs are helping parents become involved in all areas of

child development as well as with local schools and communities. The discussion below is centered on

how parents are actively involved with their children and with the program.

Parent Involvement with Children is Crucial

The FACES data support the notion that parents’ involvement in activities with their children has

a number of positive consequences for families. Activities with children were identified as coming from

different sources: Various family members may read to a child or engage a child in some type of routine

weekly or monthly activity. Family activities with children were associated with positive child outcomes.

Families who were more actively involved with their children reported that their children had more

positive behaviors and fewer problem behaviors, including aggressive and hyperactive behavior.

The household structure has been associated with outcomes for the family members, including

involvement in activities with children. For example, children who were living in households where a

grandparent was present had higher levels of total and monthly activity with non-parent household

members. When families had key males enter their households, there were significant increases in total

child-oriented activity. Increases in weekly family activity with the Head Start children were evident in

homes where key females left during the year.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 416

With a closer look at the effect of variations in household structures, FACES provided an

opportunity to learn about the involvement of fathers and Head Start children, whether or not the fathers

lived in the home with their children. The salience of this issue is that less than one half of the children

were reported to live with their fathers, and the findings showed that the benefits of having a father

available to the children were clear. As expected, fathers who lived at home engaged in more activities

with their children than fathers who did not live in the home. Mothers were more active with their

children when fathers were not in the household, regardless of how available the non-household fathers

were to the children. Fathers who were more active with their children were also more helpful to mothers

in raising their children. In situations where non-household fathers were less involved, other household

family members and non-household family members seemed to compensate by engaging the Head Start

children in more activities.

The broader consequences of having a father in the household went beyond simple activity with

the children to affect the entire household. For example, the use of discipline, both time outs and

spanking, were more likely to occur when fathers were not present in the homes. Families who received

TANF were more than four times more likely to have the father living out of the household than families

not receiving TANF. Families with non-household fathers had the greatest need for and use of

community services. Of critical importance for our understanding of the importance of fathers, children

who were identified as witnesses of violent crime or domestic violence were more than twice as likely to

have a non-household father, while children who were reported to have been victims of violent crime or

abuse were nearly four times more likely than children who were non-victims not to live with their

fathers.

Families Benefit from Program Involvement

Most parents were active in the program, and, along with their strong desire to be involved in

their children’s education, seemed to value and know that there were benefits that came with program

involvement. About one third of the case study parents focused on child-related consequences of their

involvement, noting that it helped their children, their children enjoyed it, or that it was meaningful to

their children to have their parents participate in activities at their schools.

Program involvement also helped parents stay informed about what their children were learning

and experiencing. Most of the case study families reported they were invited to participate in Head Start

activities, that they had participated in many of these activities, and that they were very satisfied with the

Head Start activities in which they participated. Through routine volunteer activities, parents were
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 417

brought to the centers where they could be involved with their children as well as with other families and

staff; they could also develop job skills, parenting skills, and social skills.

The study data showed that the parents who were most involved with their local programs

became less depressed, felt a greater sense of control over their lives, reported increased social support

and monthly household incomes, and they increased their use of household rules from the beginning of

the Head Start year. They also increased the amount of activity they did with their children from the fall

to the spring. Although parents with moderate and even low levels of program involvement showed

positive gains in some of these areas, unlike the more involved parents, they showed almost no increase in

the amount of activity they engaged in with their children.

Despite parents’ best intentions, not all were able to participate at the level they would have liked.

The case study provided many examples of families who highly valued participating in Head Start, even

when faced with common barriers such as work and school commitments, the need for childcare or

transportation, and health problems. One mother, in particular, who faced such personal hardships as

serious health problems, alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide, exemplified this commitment. Despite

her challenges, she participated in many Head Start activities. She felt that involvement with the program

helped her to fulfill the goals she had for her son and enhanced her role as a parent. She even credited her

involvement at Head Start with helping her to manage her emotional problems.

Parents felt that Head Start helped their children with academics and through social interactions

with other children, as well as with adults. Although parents generally indicated that they came to Head

Start to help prepare their children for school, by the end of the school year, many parents reported that

Head Start had helped their families in ways that were not expected. For example, compared with what

parents had expected in the fall, by spring 1998, more than twice as many parents reported that Head Start

had helped their children with independence, developing good habits, and improving manners.

Unfortunately, parents were much less likely to initially expect benefits for themselves or their families

from the program. Almost one fifth of parents did not believe that Head Start could help them.

However, by the end of the school year, parents also reported unexpected family benefits, including

improved communication skills, better use of discipline, and greater social or emotional support.

The majority of the Head Start staff maintained that the main benefits of Head Start for children

were improved interactions with other children and adults and school readiness. Staff in rural programs

and in the Southern region of the country were more likely to emphasize the social benefits of the Head

Start program for children, while those in urban areas and in the Western region were more likely to
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 418

highlight academic benefits. In terms of goals for families, staff suggested that the critical issues were to

teach parents about child development and parenting and to inform parents about their own child’s

development.

When asked to give their impressions of what the program did for families, Head Start

administrative and field staff who participated in the recruitment and enrollment substudy reported that

Head Start offered education and socialization opportunities as well as a quality, first educational

experience for young children. They also felt that Head Start provided experiences that enhanced the

personal growth of enrolled families and ranked parent education and job training high among benefits

that the program provided, even though only 1% of the parents who were interviewed during the main

study said that Head Start had helped them with education or job training.

Families Are Very Satisfied with Head Start

A recent national survey reported that Head Start received the highest customer satisfaction rating

of any government agency or private business (President’s Management Council, 1999). Similarly,

almost all of the FACES parents had very positive feelings toward their children’s and their own

experiences at Head Start and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children. Indepth conversations with the case study families yielded the following insights. Families liked Head

Start’s emphasis on academics, felt that their children were learning, and believed that the program was

preparing their children for kindergarten. Most importantly, they were satisfied with the emphasis on the

total child, including their physical, social, and behavioral development. A majority of parents indicated

that their children enjoyed Head Start or that they were excited about going to Head Start each day. Most

parents also suggested that their children enjoyed Head Start because they liked the opportunity to be with

friends and play.

Parents from the main sample who were more satisfied were also more involved in program

activities. Employed parents were less satisfied than non-working parents, although it was noted earlier

that employed parents were also less involved with the program. Parents who reported that their children

had a disability were also less satisfied with the program than parents who did not have children with a

disability. In centers where staff reported greater use of parents as home visitors or workshop leaders or

where parents prepared newsletters and assisted in curriculum planning, the parents reported greater

satisfaction and more positive experiences with Head Start.

Unfortunately, about one third of the case study families expressed concerns with some aspects of

Head Start and felt the program was not meeting the needs and goals of their children. Most of these
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 419

parents wanted a greater emphasis on academics, and suggested that their children were not being

prepared for kindergarten. They also expressed concerns with Head Start staff or service-related issues,

such as the hours of program operation or the enrollment policies of the program.

Parents participating in the recruitment and enrollment substudy commented that they felt the

traditional Head Start model of part-day or half-day sessions no longer met their needs, and that was why

they chose not to enroll their children in the program. While many of these parents generally held

positive opinions of Head Start and believed the program did a good job of providing socialization

experiences for children, others felt that Head Start sacrificed education for socialization. The consensus

opinion of one focus group of parents was that once the children moved out of preschool into

kindergarten, they were negatively labeled as “Head Start” children – synonymous with unprepared – by

the public school system.

These concerns were also reflected by the main sample when asked about suggested program

improvements. The top four suggestions were to extend the program hours or have longer days, to have a

greater focus on academics and school readiness, to provide more transportation options, and to improve

the facilities like the playgrounds or classrooms. Despite these concerns, almost one half of the parents

indicated that Head Start did not need to change or they were already satisfied with the program. For

staff, the single most mentioned program improvement was to find methods or strategies for getting

additional parents involved in the program and with their children.

Policy Implications

Head Start must continue its role of promoting parents as advocates for their children and for

themselves. It is clear that although staff work hard to include families, this is their greatest struggle. The

changing dynamics of families, as well as opportunities for work in the recent economic atmosphere, can

create enormous difficulties for low-income families. Additional program initiatives that are underway to

promote child involvement with other family members, such as grandparents and males (fathers), are an

important step to continue in the effort to promote positive developmental environments and outcomes for

children. More functional issues, such as limited ability to provide transportation and a center’s hours of

operation, are currently being addressed within many programs, although resources are still limited in

terms of providing resolutions in some areas. Continuing to promote the role of parents in planning and

decision-making at the local level is another way that Head Start can be sure it is making its best effort to

assist the changing needs of its families.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 420

A recurring theme for Head Start is the recommendation to improve integration of program

services with those in the community. The findings presented in the community agency section suggested

that, at least in some communities, this is a goal that is still being worked out. Increasing opportunities

for families to participate in community level functions help to build parents’ advocacy skills.

Conversely, bringing parents and community services together also helps improve the awareness within

the community of the needs of Head Start families in particular, and low-income families in general.

In terms of Head Start’s outreach efforts, program staff must continue to promote Head Start’s

ability to assist families by offering a full range of the benefits that can be reaped through program

participation. Both FACES and the recruitment and enrollment substudy indicated that parents were not

always aware of the ways in which Head Start might help them.

Future Research Directions

It is clear that the descriptive aspects of FACES have provided updated and needed information

on what is an evolving picture of Head Start families. The addition of a father survey, as well as a greater

focus on family functioning, certainly indicate that the FACES 2000 data collection will be a significant

advance on this effort.

This descriptive study of Head Start families had two, clear methodological strengths. The study

provided new findings on the developmental and ecological contexts in which Head Start children lived,

and it was done using a mixed-method approach. While the emphasis on these two aspects has yielded

valuable data, there are potential benefits of continuing this blend of focus and approach. In terms of

learning more about the developmental and ecological contexts of Head Start families, future studies

should consider becoming more targeted. For example, while FACES provides a rich picture of the

program nationally, there are important components of the Head Start population that seem to need

additional study. This includes special populations, such as American Indians and Alaska Natives and

Migrant families. While these two populations were represented among the study sample, Head Start

programs that were specifically set up for these groups were not included in the overall FACES sample.

The FACES findings also suggest that further investigation into the functioning of varying family types,

including non-traditional families such as grandparent-led households, will be fruitful.

Furthermore, in looking at specific groups or types of families, the focus should be increased on

assessing family and individual strengths. The qualitative case study made clear that while the research

often focused on challenges families faced, many of these families demonstrated great resilience in the
__________________________________________________________________________________

Section VI: Conclusions and Implications 421

face of these challenges. While research on challenges helps to highlight areas in which families need

support, including a focus on strengths may help illuminate successful strategies for addressing these

challenges.

Important developmental and ecological contexts that FACES began to investigate are

community and neighborhood environments, and further work along these lines is encouraged. The

ability to link Head Start families to secondary sources of data, such as census data at the neighborhood

level, will be important for assuring that Head Start services are appropriate, and should also facilitate

both Head Start recruitment efforts and strategic planning so that Head Start is always prepared to meet

the changing face of poverty.

Methodologically, Head Start will continue to benefit from the application of varied data

collection approaches. This report, particularly the case study and the recruitment and enrollment

substudy, are excellent examples of how a qualitative approach can provide depth to better understand the

findings of the more standard quantitative approach. As a follow-up to the FACES case study, future case

studies could extend this methodology beyond the family to the program, and encompass the families,

staff, program components, and community that are associated with each program. The inclusion of

secondary data sources, such as in proposed community and neighborhood level work, will extend the

usefulness of the study findings.

Perhaps most important is the need to continue collecting, analyzing, and reporting national data

on the children and families served by Head Start and on the programs that strive to meet their needs.

Regular, ongoing national data collection can serve as a kind of surveillance system of the dynamic

population of families that comes to the Head Start door, of the professional development needs of the

staff that serve them, and of the best program practices to ensure a brighter future for these families and

the children they entrust to Head Start’s care.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section VII: References 422

References

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1990). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1989-1990 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1991). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1990-1991 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1992). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1991-1992 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1993). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1992-1993 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1994). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1993-1994 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1995a). Charting our progress:

Development of the Head Start performance measures. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1995b). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1994-1995 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1996). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1995-1996 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1997). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1996-1997 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1998a). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1997-1998 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section VII: References 423

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (1998b). Head Start program performance measures:

Second progress report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1998c). Head Start program

performance standards and other regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau (1999). Head Start program

information report: Summary information for 1998-1999 program year. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion (1993). Creating a twenty-first century Head

Start. Washington, D.C.: Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau.

Annie E. Casey Foundation (1999). 1999 Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being.

Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan, G.J. & Aber, J.L. (Eds). (1997). Neighborhood poverty: context and

consequences for children (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage.

Caldwell, B.M. & Bradley, R.H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment:

Administration manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Chen, S.P., Telleen, S. & Chen, E.H. (1995). Family and community support of urban pregnant

students: Support person, function and parity. Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (1)

28-33.

Cooke, R. (1965). Recommendations for a Head Start program by a panel of experts. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Corcoran, M.E., & Chaudry, A. (1997). The dynamics of childhood poverty. The Future of Children, 7

(2) 40-54.

Danziger, S., Danziger, S., & Stern, J. (1997) The American paradox: High income and high child

poverty. In G. Cornia & S. Danziger (Eds), Child poverty and deprivation in the industrialized

countries, 1945-1995, (pp. 181-209). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

D’Elio, M.A., O’Brien, R.W., Magee, C., Keane, M., Connell, D. & Hailey, L. (2000). Reaching out to

families:Head Start recruitment and enrollment practices, final report. Prepared for

Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau, the

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section VII: References 424

DeSantis, J.P. & McLellan, J.A. (1997). Barriers to addressing family mediators of literacy,

employability, and substance abuse: How Head Start programs collaborate to meet their families’

needs. National Head Start Association Research Quarterly, 1. 32-43.

Dunst, C.J. & Leet, H. (1987). Measuring the adequacy of resources in households with young children.

Child Care, Health and Development, 13, 111-125.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2001). America’s children: Key national

indicators of well-being 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fix, M., & Passel, J.S. (1994). Immigration and immigrants: Setting the record straight. Washington

DC: The Urban Institute.

General Accounting Office (1991). Case Study Evaluations (report PEMD 10.1.9.). Washington DC: U.S.

General Accounting Office.

Government Performance Results Act of 1993. Public Law 103-62, One Hundred Third Congress of the

U.S. (1993).

Head Start Act, as amended (1998). Title VI, Subtitle A, Chapter 8, Subchapter B of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1981, PL97-35 (1981).

Hernandez, D.J. (1993). America's children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd, V.C. & Garcia Coll, E. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in contemporary

research. Child Development, 65 (2) 275-282.

Huston, A.C., McLoyd, V.C., & Garcia Coll, E. (1997). Poverty and behavior: The case for mulitple

methods and levels of analysis. Developmental Review, 17, 376-393.

Keane, M.J., O’Brien, R.W., Connell, D.C. & Close, N.C. (1996). A descriptive study of the Head Start

health component. Prepared for the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families,

Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (contract

no. 105-93-1911), Washington, DC.

Kelley, M.L., Power, T.G. & Wimbush, D.D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in lowincome Black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582.

Kilgore, K., Snyder, J. & Lentz, C. (2000). The contribution of parental discipline, parental monitoring,

and school risk to early-onset conduct problems in African American boys and girls.

Developmental Psychology 36 (6) 826–834.

McGroder, S.M. (2000). Parenting among low-income African American single mothers with preschoolage children: Patterns, predictors, and developmental correlates. Child Development, 71 (3)

752-771.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section VII: References 425

McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53 (2)

185-204.

Newburger, E.C., & Curry, A.E. (2000). Educational attainment in the United States: March 2000.

Current Populations Reports, 20-536. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

O’Hare, W.P. (2001). The child population: First data from the 2000 census. Baltimore, MD: The Annie

E. Casey Foundation.

Phillips, D, and Cabrera, N. (1996). Beyond the blueprint: Directions for research on Head Start's

families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pinderhughes, E.E., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses:

Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress and

cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14 (3) 380-400.

QSR NUD*IST (1995). Qualitative solutions and research NUD*IST application software package.

Melbourne, Australia.

Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Ramey, C.T., & Ramey, S.L. (1992). Getting to know your family. Child and family transitions to school:

Measuring adaptation throughout the elementary school years. Unpublished manuscript.

Civitan International Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Ruiz de Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. schools.

Washington DC: Urban Institute.

Simmons, T. & O'Neill, G. (2001). Households and Families: 2000 (Census 2000 Brief). Washington

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census

Bureau.

Urban Institute (2000). Data releases on economic and social issues. Check Points Newsletter (September

2, 2000) Washington DC: The Urban Institute Office of Public Affairs.

Vandivere S., Moore, K.A., & Brown, B. (2000). Child well-being at the outset of welfare reform: An

overview of the nation and 13 states. New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families,

B23. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.

Whaley, A.L. (2000). Sociocultural differences in the developmental consequences of the use of physical

discipline during childhood for African Americans. Cultural-Diversity-and-Ethnic-MinorityPsychology 6(1) 5-12.
________________________________________________________________________________

Section VII: References 426

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.