Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

3.0 Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 Site Visits

3.1 Overview

In 1987, John Love and Jane Grover completed a study for Head Start, focusing on recruitment and enrollment activities (Love & Grove, 1987). Specifically, they interviewed staff from local Head Start programs to document their perceptions of eligible families and the ways that Head Start reached out to eligible families in need of services. Their work was the first to detail problems that staff encountered in getting families into the program (and keeping them there) as well as strategies that were used in addressing these problems.

Similarly, the current study sought to examine how programs were reaching out to serve differing populations of low-income families and to learn about eligible families who do not use Head Start. Nine Head Start sites were visited in the fall of 1999, while two additional site visits took place in the spring of 2000. The selection of individual Head Start programs to participate in this feasibility study was based on overall program size and representation of the original FACES sampling strata: region, urbanicity, and minority membership. At least one urban and one rural Head Start program in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West was selected. At each of nine locations, two focus groups with staff were completed. The first involved administrative staff, and the second included field staff involved in recruitment and enrollment activities. An additional program was added to the focus groups conducted at the rural Midwest site and to the urban West site. This resulted in a total of 11 programs participating in nine pairs of focus groups.

The first round of visits was to review selected Head Start records on recruitment, to solicit information on recruitment and enrollment procedures from Head Start staff, and to discuss impressions of Head Start with parents who had the opportunity for their children to attend, but chose not to use the program. The second set of visits was to test the feasibility of identifying, contacting, and interviewing families who were in the Head Start-eligible population but not using Head Start services.

This section presents the following summaries of local community descriptions as well as findings from both sets of site visits. These findings include:

• A description of Head Start programs and the communities they serve, including the particular needs addressed by the programs and information about enrollment and recruitment decisions,

• Findings from focus groups conducted with Head Start staff and non-enrolled families,

• Reviews of program recruitment records,

• Reviews of program waiting lists,

• Findings from community service providers about Head Start’s partnerships with other Federal, State, and community level organizations that serve low-income children and their families, and

• Assessments of the potential for completing interviews with a sample of non-enrolled, eligible parents, with a summary of the pilot interview findings.

3.2 Program Descriptions

Upon selection, each participating program was asked to provide copies of their most recent community assessment, as well as a listing of the eligibility criteria that the program uses to prioritize families for enrollment. This section summarizes this information, highlighting the range of characteristics that was evident across the participating programs.

3.2.1 Site Descriptions

As part of their enrollment and recruitment activities, each Head Start program is required under the Program Performance Standards to complete a community assessment that examines and documents the specific needs of the population it serves. Community characteristics, such as geographic size, community type (i.e., urban, rural, or suburban), availability of child care and other services for low-income families such as health, education, social, and nutrition services, and general demographic information (i.e., ethnicity, employment and income levels, education, and prevalence of disabilities among preschool children), are required. In addition, documentation of any specific challenges faced by their particular communities that may impact low-income families are also expected to be addressed.

Of the seven programs that responded to the request for a copy of their most recent community assessment, five submitted their formal community assessment, one submitted a re-funding application, while another 38  provided newspaper clippings, maps and the results of a welfare reform survey administered to its Head Start staff. As expected, there was substantial variation in the content and quality of information presented, especially in the data sources used, the comprehensiveness of the data presentation, and the translation of data into articulated community needs. In general, programs uniformly provided information on the geographic size and location of the communities they served, and the characteristics of the population they served, such as ethnicity, employment and income levels, and education.

Census data from 1990 was the most frequent data source used by the Head Start programs to compile their community assessments. Some programs reported using locally-derived data, such as information from state agencies, regional planning boards, economic development groups, local hospitals, advocacy groups and school districts in conjunction with Census data. Other programs relied heavily on data generated from internal surveys of Head Start staff and families to discuss their community characteristics and needs. Exhibit 3-1 presents a summary of community characteristics as reported by each of the Head Start program sites.

>

Exhibit 3-1 Summary of Community Characteristics of Head Start Programs

Program 1:

This is a large, rural county in the Northeast. It covers 1,460 square miles and is one of the most rural of the State’s counties. Over one third of all land parcels in the county are owned by nonresidents.

Population/Ethnicity:

Over the past decade the county’s population has remained relatively constant at about 47,000 people or about 2% of the State’s population. During the past decade, the percentage of elderly persons has risen disproportionally. The county’s average population density is 33 persons per square mile, although in some areas the population density is only 9-10 persons per square mile. The county’s racial composition is largely White; only 1.9% of all residents are non-White. Of the county’s 17,646 households, about 6,500 of these are households containing children. Family units average 3.07 persons.

Employment and Income:

Unemployment and underemployment are major problems in this rural county. The county’s estimated family income in 1995 was $31,700, the fifth lowest in the State. As of June 1996, there were 16,400 persons working in non-agricultural occupations in the county, representing a net loss of several hundred over a two year period. Of these, 11,500 persons were employed in service industries (e.g. wholesale and retail, government, services), while 4,900 were employed in goods producing industries (e.g. construction and mining, and manufacturing). Statistics from 1989 indicate that average per capita income for White residents was about $11,000, while for Blacks and Hispanics it was close to $7,000. It was estimated in 1994 that close to 15% of the county’s population, or slightly more than 7,000 people, were in poverty.

Program 2:

This program covers a large, urban county in the East.

Employment and Income:

Over the past two decades, this county has lost a substantial amount of its manufacturing and heavy industry businesses. This has been replaced by service employment, specifically education and health care. About 1 in 12 county families live below the poverty line. Approximately 16,000 children under the age of five live in poverty. In 1995, nearly 70,000 individuals were receiving cash assistance and about 127,000 were receiving food stamps.

Program 3:

This program covers two counties in the rural Southeast. The larger county contains 1,652 square miles and is less than 100 miles from many of the State’s resorts and vacation areas. In addition, about one fourth of the county is national forest land. Much of the county land is designated for agricultural use. There are five incorporated municipalities within the county. The smaller county contains 629 square miles, with much of the land designated for future residential development.

Population and Ethnicity:

In 1997, the population of the larger county was 237,494, with an anticipated increase to 254,139 by the year 2000. It was also estimated that by 2000, the gender/racial distribution of the population would be as follows: 40.3% White male, 43.3% White female, 6.5% Black female, 5.9% Black male and 4% all others. Further, it was anticipated that over 25% of the population growth by year 2000 would be of persons ages 65 and older. In 1997, the population of the smaller county was 111,828 as compared to 93,515 seven years earlier. Over 71% of this population growth is attributed to migration. The 1990 Census report indicated that this county was 97% non-Hispanic Whites and about 2% Black. The average family size is 2.47 persons per household. Seventy-one percent of children 18-years old and younger reside in two-parent households, about 18% in single-parent households, and the remaining 10% in a household headed by neither parent.

Employment and Income:

1997 statistics suggested that about 19% of the larger county’s population was designated as “poor” and over one fourth of these people were children aged 5-17. At that time, the median household income was $23,200, while the majority of families served by this Head Start program during the previous year earned $15,000 or less. In the county, 57% of the K-5 schools reported a student poverty rate of over 50%. As of January 1998, the county had 36 families residing in emergency shelters and about 200 families with children 5-years old and younger under protective services. In the smaller county, 50% of the K-5 schools have a poverty student enrollment of greater than 50%. No further information was provided about this county.

Program 4:

This Head Start program serves five Midwestern counties.

Employment and Income:

Poverty is increasing in the counties served by this Head Start program. Female-headed households with children under 5 years of age represent the largest group of persons living in poverty, with a high of 65% in County A to a low of 44% in County D. The following chart provides additional information on poverty levels and median household incomes for these counties, as reported for 1995. County # Living in Poverty % of Population Median Household Income A 2,263 6.1% $46,316 B 23,950 6.5% $50,747 C 6,030 7.8% $40,002 D 1,603 3.3% $54,334 E 1,863 5.2% $46,860 Many residents live in one county and work in another. Of the counties served by the program, labor force participation includes administrative support-clerical positions, precision crafts occupations, State-supported jobs, and manufacturing.

Population and Ethnicity:

The following chart shows the distribution of the population by ethnicity, completed in 1997. County Population White Black Hispanic Asian Other A 37,922 90% < 1% 9% < 1% < 1% B 380,801 74% 7% 17% < 1% 2% C 83,602 90% 3% 4% < 1% 3% D 49,856 93% < 1% 6% < 1% < 1% E 36,253 96% < 1% 3% < 1% < 1%

Educational Attainment:

1990 Census data indicates that overall, the percentage of residents age 25 and older having completed high school in the five counties served by the program is higher than the national average of 75.2%. In County C, it is the highest, with nearly 84% of this population having finished high school.

Public Housing:

There is a large gap between availability of public housing and need in these counties. In one county, the waiting list is years long. The program suspects that homelessness may be greater than reported because the Census numbers only include those persons who are in shelters and does not reflect a count of those using less reliable housing.

Program 5:

This Head Start program serves two counties in a split urban-rural area halfway between two large Midwestern cities. At the time of our study, this Head Start program was applying for its Head Start grant renewal. Staff of the program felt that the current community assessment did not accurately reflect community conditions, in part, because of the State’s welfare reform program which, as of September 1997, requires that all former AFDC recipients with children older than 12 weeks of age be involved in work activities.

Employment and Income:

As of January 1998, the first county had a relatively low unemployment rate of 3.5%. About one third of the county’s jobs are in manufacturing, followed by service-related, retail and public administration. Average median household income in July 1996 was approximately $40,000.

Population and Ethnicity:

In the first county, about 6.9% of children under 18-years of age live in poverty. This county is overwhelmingly White, about 98%, according to the 1990 Census. Among minorities, Latinos are the most numerous, about 1.6%. In the second county, approximately 18% of children under 18 years of age live in poverty, according to 1996 statistics. Overall, the population of this county is increasing and it is anticipated that the absolute number of children living in poverty will likewise increase, creating a larger group of potential Head Start-eligible children. Of the county’s 3- to 5- year olds, 3.1% are minority, 10.6% are disabled and 8.6% qualify for free/reduced lunches.

Program 6:

This Head Start program serves families in one county in the Southwest. No other data were available

Program 7:

This Head Start program serves three rural counties in the upper Northwest.

Population and Ethnicity:

The first county is 1,123 square miles. Its population is 23,800 people, spread out across 24 towns and small cities. The second county occupies an area of 873 square miles, with a population of 34,500, while the third county is 687 square miles in area with a population of 42, 500 people. The population of all three counties is predominately White, accounting for more that 93% of the population. All of the counties have experienced a gradual increase in population over the last several years.

Program 8:

This Head Start program serves five rural counties in the Southern United States.

Employment and Income:

There are about 53, 000 residents in the labor force in the program’s service area. Among the approximately 1,280 Head Start families, about 47% are not employed, 44% are employed full-time, and the remaining 9% includes families who are working part-time, in school or training, retired, disabled or performing seasonal work. Most jobs available to Head Start families are entry level service and factory worker jobs that offer minimum pay and limited benefits. About 70% of the Head Start families are not TANF recipients, while the other 30% receive TANF support. In 1998, the average annual income of one third of Head Start families was below $3,000.

Educational Attainment:

Seventy percent of the program’s Head Start parents have less than a high school education.

Program 9:

This is a large, Midwestern urban program consisting of 13 centers and is one of over 70 delegate agencies for the grantee. In a few of the centers, the program provides child care services as well as Head Start.

Program 10:

This Head Start program is located in the West.

Employment and Income:

Seventy-nine percent of the program’s families earn less than $15,000 annually. While 96% of Head Start families are eligible for public assistance, only 55% receive it. Contributing factors include: welfare reform restrictions, immigration status, and issues associated with pride and a desire for self-sufficiency.

Population and Ethnicity:

The majority of the estimated 200,000-250,000 population of this program’s service area is Latino, typically of Mexican heritage. In addition, there are sizable numbers of residents from Central and South America, Southeast Asian countries, and of Armenian heritage. In 1998, about 5,000 children under the age of four are income-eligible for Head Start services, an increase of 41% from 1995.

Program 11:

This Head Start program, whose auspice is a non-profit agency, enrolls over 6,700 children, mostly Hispanic. This grantee offers multiple schedule options, including part-day, full-day, and twilight care (3:30pm to 11:00pm).

3.2.2 Program Needs. While some of the participating Head Start programs documented factual information regarding the challenges faced by their particular communities, they presented little or no information about how they planned to address these needs. Instead, most programs focused on the needs of the families they served, or the needs of their program that they had a reasonable chance of influencing. The two most frequent program needs reported were 1) increasing enrollment capacity, and 2) enhancing partnership efforts. The family service needs most frequently reported were 1) health education and health services, and 2) education and employment services. Exhibit 3-2 summarizes program and family needs identified by each participating Head Start program.

Exhibit 3-2 Program and Family Needs Identified in the Community Assessments

Program 1:

Secure and maintain meaningful employment Make better use of available income Obtain and maintain adequate and affordable housing Obtain emergency assistance Counteract conditions of hunger and poor nutrition Obtain other services as needed by low-income families Attain an adequate education

Program 2:

Expand low cost child care services Convert Head Start classrooms to full day/ full year Increase “Welfare-to-Work” sites Expand family child care

Program 3:

Expand low-cost child care Funding for before and after care for parents working or going to school Improve inadequate transportation Increase ability to serve more eligible children Partner with local agencies to provide information and training on child abuse and neglect Expand community partnerships to develop inter-generational experiences with senior population Expand partnership with Hispanic community based upon emerging information of demographic shifts Realignment of Head Start activities (home visits, parent meetings) to accommodate working hours Health services

Program 4 and Program 5:

Obtain and maintain adequate and affordable housing Improve inadequate transportation

Program 6:

No information provided

Program 7:

No information provided

Program 8:

Continuation of Head Start center-based program: 5 days/week, 6 hours/day for 3- to 5-year-old children Establish a pre-Head Start program Incorporate a comprehensive preventive and corrective program of environmental health education into the parent education curriculum Expand partnerships with agencies to enhance GED program offerings, tuition and transportation Identify and recruit Head Start-eligible children from State-certified day care Provide greater parent/community involvement and support in public education through transition and tracking activities Encourage more medical specialists to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients

Program 9:

No information provided

Program 10:

Provide opportunities for parents to develop civic awareness and pride in their communities

Program 11:

No information provided.

 

3.2.3 Head Start Eligibility Criteria

In an effort to meet their mandate of responsiveness to community needs, individual Head Start programs establish eligibility criteria for entry into their program. Ten39 of the participating Head Start programs were asked to submit a copy of their program’s eligibility criteria. While there were some common eligibility requirements reported across programs, these eligibility criteria also reflected the unique characteristics of each particular community being served. One large urban program even developed a separate list of criteria for each center. Nine of the ten reporting Head Start programs assigned points or a weight to each factor, but these weights were not comparable across programs.40  Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the listed criteria across programs (without consideration of weights or points), with attention given to urban and rural differences. In the case of the one program where criteria were set by the individual centers, these criteria were collapsed into a single representation for the entire program.

Exhibit 3-3 Head Start Eligibility Criteria, Across Sites.

	UrbanSites					RuralSites
Criteria	02	03	06	09	10	01	04	05	07	08	Total
Age Factors
4-years plus (missed kindergarten cutoff)											5
Within age range (3- to 5-years, prioritize by age, oldest have highest priority)											4
Within age range (3- to 5-years, not prioritized)											3
3-years old											1
4-years old											1
Waiting list for over one year											1
Family Status Factors
Number of parents in household											10
Alternate caregiver (e.g., grandparent, foster parent, other relative)											9
Number of siblings (many or none)											5
Age of parent (very young, very old)											4
Ethnic minority											1
Non-English speaking family											1
Health and Disability Factors
Disability - child											10
Disability - other family member											7
Impaired health - child											6
Impaired health - other family member											5
Risk Factors
Referral from another agency											9
Stressful family/personal situation/crisis (e.g., death of parent, incarcerated parent, marital stress)											8
Physical abuse / neglect											7
Alcohol, substance abuse											4
Socialization needs											3
Pregnant mother in shelter											1
Abnormal test results / untestable											1
Illiterate parents											1
Child behavior problems											1
Work / Income / Housing Factors
Level of income relative to FPL											5
Parent works/attends school or training											4
Poor/unsafe housing conditions; homeless											4
TANF Recipient											3
Unemployed family members											1
High medical bills											1
No TANF or Medicaid, but in need											1
Rural isolation											1
Head Start Experience
Child/family currently enrolled in Head Start											5
Parent has Head Start experience											1
Head Start transfer											1
No previous Head Start experience											1
Completed Head Start medical and dental forms											1

 

Common criteria, reported by at least seven of the ten programs, included parental status (typically a single-parent family or a family having an alternate caregiver, such as a grandparent, foster parent, or relative), children with disabilities or families that had another member with a disability, families that were referred to Head Start by another social service agency, families that were experiencing particularly stressful times (e.g., the death of a parent, an incarcerated parent, or marital stress), and families for which there was evidence of physical abuse or neglect.

In reviewing the eligibility risk factors, attention was also given to the application of weights (or points) by specific programs to the different factors. This was done by 9 of the 10 programs. Higher weights increased the likelihood of enrollment for families having that risk, with enrollment decisions typically based on the total points accumulated by a family. Therefore, the eligibility risk factors were reviewed to determine which were given the highest weights by each of the programs (given the large number of risk factors reviewed by programs, the top five -- those carrying the five highest weights within a program -- are discussed). The review found little consistency across programs in the assignment of weights for the risk factors. The only risk factor that consistently carried a top five weight was for a child with a previously diagnosed disability. This risk factor carried a top five weight in 8 of the 9 programs. No other risk factor was listed among the top five weighted factors by more then five programs. The only top five risk factors used by at least five programs included 1) a child who was at least 4.5 years of age; 2) a family referred to Head Start by an outside agency; and 3) a family with an income well-below the FPL (either lower than 50% or lower than 25%, depending on the program). All other eligibility risk factors carried top five weights in three programs or less. For example, children from families with histories of substance abuse received top five weights from only three of the programs. Just as in the selection of the risk factors themselves, the development and application of weights likely reflect specific concerns about the local communitiesas well as Head Start’s ability to address the risk factor.

An interesting pattern among the eligibility criteria also emerged within the groupings of urban programs and rural programs. For age factors, rural programs were more likely to focus on enrolling children who were 4-years old than children who were 3, while urban programs noted little preference for 3-year olds or 4-year olds. Among the family status eligibility factors, rural programs were more likely to target children who were living with non-parents, while urban programs focused on children who had a large number of siblings and children who had parents who were either very young or very old. While it was noted that all programs targeted both child and other family member disabilities as important factors, rural programs were equally interested in reaching children or other family members who are experiencing serious health problems, a risk rarely cited by urban programs. Slightly more urban programs than rural programs listed alcohol or substance abuse as an eligibility risk factor.

With regards to work and income, five of the ten programs considered the level of income relative to poverty status in determining eligibility. In other words, these programs examined each family’s income relative to the FPL, with a special interest in the families that fell furthest below this line. A majority of the urban sites also accounted for whether the family has a parent who is working or is attending school or a training program, a consideration for only one rural site.

3.3 Focus Group Overview

In each of the nine selected Head Start focus group sites, two staff focus groups were conducted. Administrative staff, knowledgeable about their program’s recruitment, enrollment, and retention policies, were invited to participate in the first focus group; field staff who had primary responsibility for doing program outreach and recruitment were invited to participate in the second focus group. At three sites, focus groups were also conducted with parents of preschool children who were eligible for Head Start, but not currently enrolled.41  One of the three parent focus groups was conducted in Spanish. Focus group topic areas and cross-site findings are presented in the sections that follow.

3.3.1 Focus Group Methodology

Instrument Development. Using the stated objectives for the project as a framework, moderator guides were prepared to be used for each type of focus group: Head Start administrative staff (e.g., Program Directors, Coordinators, Center Directors), Head Start outreach and recruitment field staff (e.g., Family Service Workers, Teachers, Assistant Teachers), and non-enrolled parents (families recruited to Head Start that never enrolled, families that enrolled in Head Start but never attended, families that enrolled and began the program, but dropped out early). Exhibit 3-4 presents the topics areas covered in each of the moderator guides. Copies of the three moderator guides are in Appendix D.

Exhibit 3-4 Topics Covered during the Administrative, Field, and Parent Focus Groups

Topics	Admin	Field	Parent
Identification of eligibility
Program outreach and recruitment
Description of recruitment staff
Strategies to locate/approach/enroll families
Agreements with other agencies for referrals
Geographic limitations and overlap of service areas
Safety policies and issues
Cultural considerations
Contacting families
Risk factors for prioritizing enrollment
Characteristics/experiences of non-enrolled families
Drop-out policies and follow-up
Waiting list policies and procedures
Other preschool options for parents
Use of Head Start Training and Technical Assistance
Perceptions of Head Start

 

Subject Recruitment and Description. An On-Site Coordinator from each Head Start focus group site was retained by project staff to recruit Head Start staff and where needed, non-enrolled parents to participate in the focus groups. They also facilitated the arrangement of space for the meetings.

The number of participants in each staff focus group ranged from 5 to 12 (mean = 8.85 participants per group). Most staff participants reported many years of Head Start experience. The administrative staff’s Head Start experience ranged from 2 days to 32 years (mean = 9.7 years; median = 8.0 years), while the field staff’s Head Start experience ranged from 4 months to 33 years (mean = 9.6 years; median = 6.5 years). 42 

Focus groups with Head Start-eligible parents were conducted at three sites. A description of the participants is presented in Exhibit 3-5.

Exhibit 3-5 Description of Parent Participants

	(Site 1) Northeast Urban	(Site 2) South Rural	(Site 3) West Urban
Number of Participants	9	12	7
Gender
Women	9	12	7
Ethnicity
White	1	1	0
Black	8	11	0
Hispanic	0	0	7
Enrollment Status
Recruited, never enrolled	2	4	0
Recruited, dropped out	3	5	0
On wait list	4	0	7
Did not re-enroll	0	2	0
No previous knowledge of Head Start	0	1	0

 

The confidentiality of responses by focus group participants was ensured at two levels. Head Start staff received verbal assurances of confidentiality prior to participating; parents received the same verbal assurances of confidentiality and gave written, informed consent prior to the start of the focus groups.

Staffing. Abt and CDM organized a two-member research team for data collection at each site. These teams consisted of a focus group moderator and a notetaker. All moderators and notetakers attended a one-day training in Washington, DC which covered focus group procedures and a review of the project objectives.

Procedures. Each Head Start focus group site was visited by a data collection team for two to three days. Although most of the staff focus group sessions were held on site (at the local Head Start program), three of the programs did not have appropriate space available. In these cases, a local church, a community center, and a hotel were used as alternative locations. Arrangements were made to host the three parent focus groups at alternative sites (one community center, two hotels) away from the Head Start program to ensure that the participants would feel comfortable expressing their feelings and/or concerns about Head Start. Each focus group session lasted approximately 90 minutes and was audio taped.43  Two recordings were made of each group for quality purposes and to protect against equipment failure.

The focus group was led by the moderator who was responsible for establishing and maintaining rapport with group members, introducing the topics, and encouraging all group members to participate actively in the discussion. The notetaker was responsible for capturing the key comments of each participant, as well as capturing the general feel or attitude of the discussion, including non-verbal cues. Notetakers ensured that all material was adequately covered by the moderator, and occasionally asked questions of the group to help clarify responses. An incentive of $50 was paid to the participants of the parent focus groups. Head Start staff was not paid for their participation.

3.3.2 Analytic Strategies.

Audio tapes of the focus group discussions were transcribed, edited, and supplemented with the notetaker’s affective or intuitive insights. Using data from the final versions of the transcripts, individual site reports were prepared by a member of the research team who summarized the administrative, field, and parent group participants’ responses to each question. Key summative quotes or text segments were selected to represent the findings and were integrated into the descriptive summaries. A second member of the research team reviewed the transcripts with the corresponding site report to ensure the reliability of the site report and to aid in bias recognition.

A cross-site analytic meeting was held as part of the data reduction component of the qualitative analyses. The data reduction technique used at this meeting was Pattern Matching, which involved presenting the findings by site for each of the focus group questions. Data displays for each question were created to quantify the results. These numerically-based tables,44  which listed all the responses reported in each focus group, aided in the identification of similar and dissimilar events, and were used to answer the following questions in order to establish the cross-site summative findings:

• What was the range or distribution of responses?

• What was the modal or typical response?

• Were there relational differences across sites based on factors such as urbanicity, geographic region, or minority membership?

Emergent themes, based on the empirically derived findings and supported by the data, were identified and used to facilitate interpretation and explanation building.

3.4 Focus Group Findings

The data presented in this chapter were obtained from focus groups conducted at the nine Head Start sites. The findings reported are based on cross-site analyses of the qualitative data obtained from Head Start administrative and field staff, and parents of non-enrolled Head Start-eligible children.

3.4.1 Family Typology

A Typical Family Successfully Recruited to Head Start. The field staff group at each site was asked to describe a family that they had successfully recruited into Head Start. The question asked was:

• Think about a typical family you have successfully recruited, what characteristics did they have?

Although a wide range of characteristics was reported by the field staff (Exhibit 3-6) in each focus group, three key themes emerged across all nine groups. Staff reported that successful recruits were more likely to be 1) single-parent families (mentioned by two thirds of the field staff focus groups), 2) families that were low-functioning, or 3) families at high-risk. The last two were each mentioned in approximately one half of the field staff focus groups.

Low-functioning families were described by focus group members as having low self-esteem, or poor learning and/or coping skills. Field staff felt that these families were often aware that they needed help, yet they seemed to lack the knowledge or experience necessary to access and use outside resources. High-risk families were described as families with high social service needs who were coping with major life challenges such as drug and alcohol abuse problems, issues of domestic violence, or loss of significant family members to prison.

Low-income was also mentioned frequently as a characteristic of families successfully recruited to Head Start. However, this was expected, given the Head Start guidelines for eligibility mandate recruitment of low-income families.

 

Exhibit 3-6 Staff Reports of Types of Families Successfully Recruited to Head Start*

Single Parents	Grandparents/Foster	Have 3-year-old children
High Risk	Employed	Non-English speaking
Low-Functioning	Not Employed	Value Education
Low-Income	Teen Parents	In Public Housing
Special Needs	Intact Families	Poorly Educated

* In order of frequency

When asked if particular types of families were targeted for recruitment to Head Start, responses across sites varied considerably and ranged from targeting mothers with multiple children, single fathers, families with low literacy, to Spanish-speaking families. Three of the nine field staff focus groups reported spending more time and effort recruiting families they felt were at risk. This included teen parents and families who were homeless or had mental health or substance abuse issues. Families having children with disabilities were also mentioned.

A Typical Family Recruited to Head Start Who Did Not Enroll, or Enrolled but Dropped Out. The field staff group at each of the nine Head Start focus group sites was asked to describe a family they had recruited into Head Start, who either decided not to enroll, or enrolled and then dropped out of Head Start. The questions asked were:

• Think about a typical family you have recruited who did not enroll. What characteristics did the family have? How were they different from families who enrolled?

• Think about a typical family who dropped out of Head Start. What characteristics did they have? How were they different from families who remained? Why do families drop-out of Head Start?

The reports provided by the field staff focus groups suggested that families who chose not to enroll, and families who dropped out of Head Start, shared similar characteristics and concerns. Five main themes or family typologies emerged across the nine sites: 1) families that moved frequently; 2) families with problematic situations or inadequate coping skills; 3) families with service needs not met by Head Start program options; 4) families unwilling to separate from their young children; and 5) families who lacked transportation.

Moving was mentioned by all but one focus group as characteristic of families who did not enroll or dropped out. The families were described as highly mobile or transient, often seasonal workers. This was particularly true for the Head Start programs serving a large number of Hispanic families. Many fathers or primary wage earners who could not find employment during the winter months moved to find new work to support their families. Although seasonal work was not an issue in all programs, a lack of jobs or adequate wages paid was also mentioned as a reason for why families moved frequently in non-minority programs as well.

Focus groups at 6 of the 9 Head Start sites described these families as grappling with problematic situations such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, or substance abuse. Staff described these families as disorganized, unmotivated, lazy, or generally dysfunctional. Often the parent could not get up in the morning, opting to have an older sibling watch the child because they were unable to get the child ready for school every day. It should be noted these were the families who staff reported having had the most success recruiting to Head Start. However, it also seemed that keeping these families in the program presented a challenge to staff. This is not surprising, given that families experiencing multiple life demands most likely would be less reliable about getting their children to school and being committed to the program.

Head Start staff also reported that families who dropped out or decided not to enroll in Head Start often felt their children were too young to attend school, or were perhaps themselves unwilling to separate from their children, preferring that the children stay at home with them as long as possible. This seemed to occur most often among families of 3-year-old children or among those who had children who were havingproblems with separation.

Inadequate Head Start program hours and services were also mentioned by 7 of 9 administrative and field staff focus groups as reasons why staff felt that families chose not to enroll their children or dropped out of Head Start. The traditional Head Start model of part-day or half-day sessions, which was the type of Head Start option offered in most of the participating sites, was reported to no longer meet the needs of many parents. As the number of parents in the workforce increased due to welfare reform, the need for all-day, all-year care increased, too. Working parents no longer had the luxury of waiting for the school year to begin; they needed immediate child care services. Needing a child care provider with expanded hours, they opted to enroll their children in day care instead, or decided to leave their children in the care of a friend or relative. Staff in several sites reported that their full-day, full-year classes had waiting lists, while their part-day classes were often under-enrolled. Additionally, staff reported that the inability of programs to provide adequate transportation negatively impacted the retention of families who did not have personal transportation, lived in remote areas, or had work schedules that did not coincide with the Head Start schedule. Exhibit 3-7 presents all family typologies mentioned by Head Start staff across-site, in order of frequency.

Exhibit 3-7

Staff Reports of Types of Families Who Decided Not to Attend Head Start or Dropped Out

Move frequently	Feel child is too young
Need full-day child care	Dislike Head Start involvement
Need transportation	Do not value education
Low-functioning	Racial issues in community
High-risk	Want stronger academics

 

Another trend noted by staff at three of the focus group sites was that parents were sometimes uncomfortable with the amount of involvement required of them by Head Start, as well as the level of involvement Head Start staff had in their lives. Parents sometimes did not understand that Head Start was intended for the entire family. Once they discovered the level of involvement required, they decided not to enroll their child or decided to withdraw their child from the program. What they wanted was child care; they were either not interested in volunteering or unable to volunteer. Staff also reported that some families were uncomfortable with home visits because parents felt they were being watched.

Field staff at three of the Head Start sites felt that some parents chose not to enroll their child in Head Start for reasons rooted in the family’s cultural or ethnic background. At two programs serving large numbers of Hispanic families, staff reported that parents were sometimes wary of the amount and type of documentation they were asked to provide for enrollment, and some were hesitant to enroll their child in a Federally-funded program because of their residency status. Staff reported the need to spend a lot of time building rapport and trust with these parents who frequently associated Head Start with other agencies, such as the Department of Social Services, and were fearful of repercussions. Staff noted that Hispanic families often wished to take care of their children themselves, and felt a family’s desire to do this was a strong deterrent to enrollment at Head Start.

 

The staff from a southern Head Start program that serves mostly African American families reported having a difficult time recruiting White families to Head Start, citing racial tensions between the program and a White community within the service area. Staff suggested there was a historical context for these problems that still exists today.

Why Head Start Eligible Families Decided Not to Send Their Children to Head Start.45  The three parent focus groups were also asked about their experiences with Head Start and why they decided not to enroll their child, or why they decided to withdraw their child from the program. The questions asked were:

• Why did you decide not to send your child to Head Start? What were your other choices?

• What made you decide to leave Head Start?

Inadequate Head Start program hours and dissatisfaction with the services provided were the reasons for not enrolling their children in Head Start reported by parents in two of the focus groups. Parents echoed what staff across all sites reported – the traditional Head Start model of part-day or half-day sessions no longer met their needs. Some parents who recently moved into the workforce were employed at jobs that required shift work or working non-traditional hours. Even parents who worked conventional daytime hours found the 3.5 hours provided by Head Start to be inadequate.

Parents from one Head Start program expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of education provided to their children by Head Start. Most seemed to feel that Head Start did not prepare their child academically. They wanted Head Start to provide a stronger educational program that would include more individualized teaching and smaller class sizes. Many parents felt that children who attended Head Start were at a disadvantage compared to children who attended other more academically focused child care placements, and reported 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.

Another parent group expressed anger over the need for a co-payment now required at centers that provided extended-service hours. This Head Start program was in the midst of expanding service hours at many of its centers using funding provided by partnerships with other community child care initiatives or State-subsidy programs. Parents whose children were attending full-day, full-year centers were now required to pay a small amount, based on their financial status. It was clear from the discussion among the focus group members that parents were confused and/or unhappy about the co-payment now being expected. The concept of a sliding scale fee based on income was frustrating for some of the working mothers. Many felt that Head Start had always been a free program and should continue to be free. Administrative staff at this program were aware of the confusion parents felt regarding the issue of expansion and the need for co-payments. They reported that Head Start must do a better job of letting parents know that this will be occurring and suggested a national, public awareness campaign.

Other reasons reported by parents as to why they chose not to enroll their child or decided to withdraw their child from Head Start included doubts about whether Head Start was qualified to help disabled children as well as a belief that teaching young children was the parent’s responsibility.

3.4.2 Other Preschool or Child Care Options Available for Families

Both the Head Start administrative and field staff focus groups, as well as the parent focus groups, were asked to identify other preschool or child care options available for parents of young children in their community. The questions asked were:

• What other preschool or child care options are available for children whose parents cannot get them into Head Start or who choose not to enroll their children in Head Start?

• What are some of the other choices parents have for preschool or child care in your community?

Staff Awareness of Other Child Care Options Available for Families. Staff across all sites reported a variety of child care options. Groups at all nine Head Start focus group sites mentioned day care centers as a viable option of care for parents of young children. Public preschools, such as State or city sponsored pre-K programs, were cited by staff at eight of the sites, while staff focus groups at 5 of the 9 sites mentioned family day care as an option. Other options mentioned included private nursery school or preschool (reported by four programs) and relative-friend care (reported by three programs). Special education programs and parent-child programs, like “Mommy and Me,” were each reported by one program.

Staff noted that while there were other options for care in the community, these options typically charged tuition beyond what low-income families could afford, and were therefore not typically in direct competition with Head Start for families. However, some field staff groups reported that as the availability of State subsidies used to alleviate the cost of child care increased, the competition from other private child care centers for families also increased. Still, most staff felt that the majority of center-based competition appeared to come from public pre-k programs or subsidized day care. Staff at one program felt that families sometimes returned to or chose to attend Head Start instead so they could take advantage of the wider array of services available to them through the Head Start program.

Many of the staff focus groups pointed to the segment of Head Start-eligible families that seem to feel more comfortable having their child cared for by a relative or friend, or by unregulated child care providers. The administrative staff group at one of the programs pointed out that unregulated child care providers, particularly those who have been in the community for years, have addressed an unmet need in that community. They indicated the challenge for Head Start will be to find ways to engage and support the informal child care network, while acknowledging and respecting the network’s role in the child care community. Finding ways to meet this challenge, the administrative focus group members felt, was becoming increasingly more important as Head Start seeks to expand services and, therefore, must partner with other types of child care in the community to achieve this goal. It was the opinion of this group, that thinking of ways to work with these unregulated providers to improve the quality of their care was a necessary and important step for Head Start to undertake. The group felt that accomplishing this goal of partnering with other community providers may require a change in the Head Start philosophy of how services are delivered, particularly as some programs move toward the option of Head Start being provided by family day care providers.

Parent Awareness of Other Child Care Options Available for Families. Parents participating in the focus groups reported the same child care options available to them in their community as reported by the Head Start staff. The three care options most frequently mentioned by parents were day care centers, family day care, and relative-friend care.

Most of the parents reported having their child in a day care center that was church-based or government subsidized. Church-based day care seemed to appeal to parents who valued the Christian practices of these programs such as grace before meals and values education. The second most frequent type of care used by the parents participating in the focus groups was relative or friend care.

When asked to compare their current child care arrangement with Head Start, the responses were mixed. While many parents viewed Head Start positively, and felt it did a good job of providing socialization experiences for children, some parents felt Head Start sacrificed education for socialization. These were the same parents that placed a high value on the educational component of preschool, and felt their current placement offered more individualized teaching, a smaller class size, and better qualified teachers. Other parents indicated that, unlike Head Start, their current child care placement was able to accept their children immediately. This was important because these families needed child care at once and could not wait for Head Start to open in the fall or be placed on a waiting list.

The parent focus groups were asked to think about preschool and child care choices available to parents with young children and to imagine the ideal child care placement. The question posed to them was:

• Each of you have a 4- or 5-year-old child. Think about a place where you would like this child to spend the day. Please tell me what the place would be like by describing it in a few words. For example, “It would be a place where . . .”

Three main themes emerged across the parent focus groups centering around 1) the type of facility; 2) the philosophy of the child care program; and 3) the quality of the caregivers. Overall, parents felt strongly that the ideal child care facility should be clean and safe and have adequate materials available for the children. They wanted the program to provide a positive and structured environment that focused on learning and was a comfortable place for their children. The quality of the caregiver was also very important to parents. The ideal program would be staffed with qualified teachers who were trustworthy and patient. For the Hispanic parent focus group, it was also important that the teacher was bilingual and able to teach the children English.

3.4.3 Recruitment

Recruitment Strategies. The administrative staff focus groups, at all but two of the programs visited, reported that recruitment and outreach was a program-wide effort and involved all Head Start staff. Although most of the programs reported recruitment as ongoing throughout the year, recruitment activities were most intense in the spring and early summer. They felt that the success of recruitment was dependent on engaging all program staff in outreach, and seemed committed to this principle.

Upon further discussion, most of the administrative focus groups acknowledged this was a recent change in philosophy. In the past, recruitment and outreach was often handled by specific staff identified for this task, usually Family Service Workers or Family Advocates who worked most closely with parents and the community. Interestingly, when the administrative focus groups were questioned more carefully, it became apparent that the primary responsibility for recruitment still remained with the field staff, even though other program staff felt invested and committed and contributed in a less formal way. This was not the case at one of the rural sites visited, where recruitment and outreach were primarily the responsibility of the Center Managers, who sometimes were assisted by Family Service Workers, if one was assigned to their center.

Whether or not a Head Start program chose to handle recruitment and outreach at the program- or center-level was very dependent upon where the site was located. Those programs located in rural settings reported recruiting at the center level; all programs located in urban settings reported recruitment efforts to be program-wide.

The field staff focus groups were asked the following questions about strategies they used for outreach and recruitment:

• How are families identified and located? What strategies are used? Do other agencies provide Head Start with a list of potential families?

• In addition to going to homes, from what other places are Head Start families recruited?

• How are families contacted?

Both the field staff focus groups and the administrative focus groups were asked these questions:

• What formal or informal arrangements does your program have with other community agencies to assist you in identifying or recruiting families? How helpful are other agencies to you in locating families for Head Start?

While the use of a wide variety of recruitment strategies was reported, two strategies were mentioned by staff focus groups at all nine of the Head Start focus group sites: 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 by placing posters and flyers at the same local agencies or at local businesses in the community (e.g., grocery stores, laundromats, gas stations, post offices, beer gardens) or through media buys (radio and television ads, public service announcements, advertising on buses).

The next two most frequently mentioned types of successful outreach strategies described by staff focus groups at six of the Head Start programs 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. Almost all of the staff focus groups felt that a successful recruitment of families required the use of multiple strategies, tailored toward the needs of the members of the community itself. Generally, there were no differences found across rural or urban sites in the type 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.

Targeted Recruitment Areas. Both the administrative and field staff focus groups were asked the following questions about whether there were particular areas they found it easy or difficult to recruit families:

• Are there some sections within your geographic service area from where you recruit or find most of your families, and if so, why?

• Are there sections within your geographic service area that are particularly hard to recruit families from, and if so, why?

Almost all of the staff focus groups (7 of the 9 sites) reported low-income housing complexes or trailer parks as areas where they were most likely to find families eligible for Head Start. In six of the sites, staff focus groups reported remote areas as the most difficult places to recruit families. This, of course, was mostly an issue for the rural program sites. Areas where families did not have good access to transportation, either public or private, or where the Head Start program did not provide transportation, were also mentioned in five of the sites as difficult areas for recruiting families. While it might follow that these would more likely be rural programs, that was not the case – 3 of the 5 sites were urban.

One administrative staff focus group said that they found most of their families in areas hit hard by loss of industry or areas experiencing tough economic circumstances, yet they also reported that large numbers of families were sometimes recruited from less needy neighborhoods where Head Start was well-established, had a strong history, and a good community reputation. Conversely, these same administrators felt that some neighborhoods were difficult to recruit from because Head Start historically was not viewed positively by that community and no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to fill the classrooms because of the historical stigma attached to the program. The inability to serve the needs of a particular community was also mentioned as a barrier to successful recruitment. Communities comprised of working-poor families, as well as families who recently moved into the workforce due to welfare reform, needed a full-day, full-year model of Head Start not yet available in their community.

Although the staff in all nine sites seemed to be respectful and mindful of the service boundary lines between Head Start programs, over half of the program sites’ staff focus groups reported that sometimes they found themselves (or other Head Start programs) recruiting in the same areas. They noted that service area lines often become blurry. The focus groups in these five sites provided many examples, such as families who lived in another Head Start program’s jurisdiction but found it was easier to walk to their center, or a city and county Head Start program both having a site in the same area, or service lines that go right through the middle of a town. In 4 of the 5 programs reporting problems with recruitment boundaries, the administrative staff focus group members stated that the competing Head Start programs did their best to reach agreements when the boundaries came into conflict; however, the field staff, who were more directly impacted by this, expressed frustration and held more territorial feelings.

Recruitment Staff. The administrative focus groups were asked the following questions about their recruitment staff:

• Describe your most successful recruitment staff. What is it about this person that makes him/her successful?

• Do you consider a family’s cultural background in your assignment of recruitment staff? If so, how?

• Is the personal safety of your staff a consideration in your recruitment? What do you do to assure safety of your recruitment staff?

All nine administrative staff focus groups used the following three dimensions to describe their ideal or most successful recruitment staff: 1) personality characteristics; 2) work style; and 3) investment in Head Start and the community.

Two thirds of the administrative staff focus groups described their most successful outreach person as someone with a warm and engaging personality, who was perceived by the families as sincere and non-judgmental. The majority of the focus groups also reported that their ideal outreach person was hard-working, enthusiastic, flexible, had good telephone skills, was a good communicator, and was pleasantly aggressive and persistent. The third description that emerged as characteristic of the ideal recruiter across most of the administrative focus groups was someone who had a thorough knowledge of and belief in Head Start, as well as a strong connection to the community.

None of the programs made a strong effort to consider a family’s cultural background in their assignment of recruitment staff, except for meeting language needs. In these cases, 6 of the 9 sites reported having bilingual staff and bilingual materials available for the recruitment effort. Interestingly, staff in many of the focus groups showed awareness of the need for cultural matching, citing instances of increased success when using a culturally diverse staff, yet reported that their program did not consider culture in the assignment of staff. They pointed out that it was not only important to have someone who could speak the families’ language, but also important to have someone who understood their culture. In two of the programs, cultural consideration was not an issue because the population they served was homogeneous.

All of the staff focus groups, both administrative and field, reported that safety was a consideration during recruitment and that a variety of strategies was in place to protect staff at their respective programs. The two main safety precautions were 1) recruiting in pairs, and 2) documenting destinations by leaving itineraries, informing local police of plans, or checking in regularly with the Head Start office. Exhibit 3-8 lists all safety strategies employed across sites, by frequency of mention.

Exhibit 3-8 Safety Strategies Used During Recruitment

Recruit in pairs	Knowledge of the community
Leave destination plans	Avoid high risk areas
High visibility (ID, vans, t-shirts)	Project a fearless attitude
Carry cell phones	Back into driveways
No evening or weekend hours	Recruit in public places

 

How Recruitment and Screening Efforts Can Be More Successful. Each of the administrative and field staff focus groups was asked to suggest ways that recruitment and outreach could be improved. They were asked the following question:

• What would help make your program’s recruitment and screening efforts more successful?

Overwhelmingly, staff from all nine sites suggested raising the Head Start income eligibility guidelines to help with recruitment. Staff reported that as more people entered the workforce, even working minimum wage jobs, the pool of eligible children and families was reduced because these families were now over the income limits. Staff spoke passionately about these working poor families -- although now employed, they still did not have adequate resources to meet the needs of their families, particularly when it came to child care. Staff pointed out that children who were members of families just off cash assistance programs continued to have many of the same risk factors they had before and some risks may have actually increased because the family’s income may not be enough to provide child care of good quality. Many staff focus group participants expressed the opinion that the working poor were the true “missing faces” of Head Start.

Other suggestions made by administrative and field staff for improving the recruitment and screening efforts included having a national public awareness campaign, reducing the amount of paperwork involved in outreach, more timely processing of applications, increasing staff and available staff time, starting outreach earlier in the year, and offering transportation for families.

3.4.4 Enrollment

Both administrative and field staff focus groups were asked what factors other than income and age were considered in making enrollment decisions. The factors most frequently reported across all sites were: 1) a child with a disability (7 of 9 sites), 2) a single parent (5 of 9 sites), 3) referral from another agency (5 of 9 sites), and 4) a grandparent/foster parent (5 of 9 sites). A complete list and discussion of actual enrollment factors, by site, were presented in Section 3.2.3, Exhibit 3-3. All but one of the Head Start programs used some form of a ranked or weighted point system to prioritize family risk for enrollment.

Both the administrative and field staff focus groups were asked to describe the enrollment process at their Head Start program. The following questions were asked:

• Who makes the final enrollment decision?

• Are there circumstances when exceptions are made to program policies regarding enrollment?

Of the nine Head Start programs reporting, it was almost evenly split whether or not they reported that their final enrollment decision was made by an individual or by a group or committee of people. The method of enrolling families to Head Start varied across all programs. Exhibit 3-9 describes the enrollment procedures used at each of the nine programs.

Exhibit 3-9 Enrollment Procedures and Final Enrollment Decisions, by Head Start Program

Program 1: Rural Northeast Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by Committee: Family Service Worker, Head Start Director, Child Services Manager, Family Services Manager, Health Coordinator

Each member of the committee assigns the family a total score based on information from the application, or provided by the Family Service Worker. The scores are then averaged for a final point total.

Program 2: Urban Northeast Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by an Individual: Regional Director, or Family Service Advocate, or Both in Consultation

Although this program has a list of priority risk factors, it is not a weighted list, and it is only used as a guide for selecting the neediest families. The decision is quite subjective, and usually made by the Family Service Advocate who has the best knowledge of each family’s circumstances.

Program 3: Urban South Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by Committee: Community Member, Policy Council Member, Social Service Coordinator, Parent

Families complete an application. They are interviewed by resource and referral staff members to gather additional information and then sent to a certification department to provide documentation of special needs. The certification department then assigns the family points. The Selection Committee (listed above) then makes the enrollment decisions, based on the information provided. Others, including outside agencies, may advocate for a particular family.

Program 4: Suburban Midwest Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by an Individual: Family Community Partnership Member

Applications are reviewed by staff from other program components to provide input, but the final decision is made by one person from Family Community Partnerships. This program felt that because of the number of children they serve, it would be hard for them to team on every application.

Program 5: Rural Midwest Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by Committee: Disabilities Coordinator, Education Coordinator, Social Services Coordinator

The Family Advocate completes the packet or application with the family, while an education specialist completes the testing of the child on the DIAL-3. This developmental test score is considered when assigning points to the family. The team makes the final enrollment decisions.

Program 6: Urban Southwest Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by an Individual: Center Director

Applications for enrollment are taken at the center level and then forwarded to the administrative office, where the eligibility factors are assessed and ranked using a weighted point system. Policy Council evaluates the applications and ranks them according to priority (1(st), 2(nd), or 3(rd) ). Completed and approved applications are returned to the center for final approval by the center director.

Program 7: Rural Northwest Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by Committee: Head Start Director, Center Manager

Each family is visited at home for the application process. Completed applications are forwarded to the administrative offices and entered into the computer where each factor is assigned a point value based on a predetermined weighted point system. For each center, the first 18 families having the highest total scores are selected and their applications are returned to the Center Manager. The Center Manager can advocate for a family who did not make the initial cut. A joint decision is then made by the Center Manager and the Head Start Director.

Program 8: Rural South Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by an Individual: Family Service Worker

The Policy Council determines what risk factors are considered. Family Service Workers assess these factors using the weighted point system and make final enrollment decisions. The Head Start Director and other center staff collaborate if several families have the same score.

Program 9: Urban West Head Start Program

Final Enrollment Decision by an Individual: Center Director

A parent committee is used to review completed applications and assign points based on family circumstances provided on the application, using the enrollment ranking system. The ultimate enrollment decision is made by the Center Director, who enrolls the families with the highest rankings. Other staff are able to advocate for a particular family.

The administrative and field staff participants in focus groups at 7 of the 9 program sites admitted that there were circumstances when they made exceptions to their Head Start Program’s policies regarding enrollment, most often polices involving enrollment criteria, particularly income verification. Staff reported that they sometimes “fudged” the information that they took from families or accepted information from parents without question.

Field staff at several programs expressed concern that requirements to meet full-enrollment by a certain date sometimes precluded them from serving the neediest families. Added to their frustration was the underlying belief that the policy for early enrollment was driven by funding concerns -- that if they were not fully enrolled by a certain date, the program would be de-funded by the Head Start Bureau. The consensus among many staff was that higher functioning, less needy families were more likely to complete the applications and provide the documentation necessary for enrollment. Field staff provided many examples of the difficulties that families in crisis faced. They explained that even providing a birth certificate for the child can be difficult if, for example, the mom or dad is involved in a messy divorce, in which case one parent may refuse to surrender the birth certificate document to the other. Because staff was committed to serving the most needy families, they often felt it necessary to bend the rules and not fill all the slots when required.

3.4.5 Waiting Lists

Both administrative and field staff were asked about the use of waiting lists at their programs. The following series of questions were asked:

• What is your definition of a waiting list?

• At what point is it created?

• Who is on the list?

• Have all the families on the list already been determined to be eligible?

• What information do you have about the waiting list families, prior to their enrollment?

• Are the families on the list ranked or ordered in anyway?

• Is the list program-wide or does each center have its own list?

• How often is the list updated or verified?

• Are families added to the list throughout the year?

• Are families called during the year to verify interest, even when a slot is not open?

Waiting lists at seven of the sites were defined by staff as lists of income-eligible families waiting for placement. The two remaining sites reported that their waiting lists were comprised of families who applied to Head Start, but were not selected. That means that applications for those families may or may not be complete, and families on their waiting lists may or may not be income-eligible. Over half of the program sites also reported keeping separate lists of families who were over-income, as well as lists or piles of folders of families with applications in progress. While all the definitions of waiting lists provided by staff seemed to involve families who were waiting for an available slot, staff at many of the programs also referred to families who were accepted but not yet enrolled as on the waiting list.

The large majority of focus group sites (7 of 9) reported that families on their waiting lists were income-eligible and were given a priority ranking based on the same selection criteria used to enroll children. One of the two programs that did not rank the families on their waiting list was, not unexpectedly, the only program that did not have a priority ranking system in place for enrollment. The other program, whose waiting list was comprised of both complete and incomplete applications, only assigned a priority score to the families who had completed both the application and the required recruitment home visit. All programs reported that waiting lists were maintained at the center level, and over half (5 of 9) of the programs’ lists were computerized.

Interestingly, field staff at many of the programs expressed less optimistic views about the effectiveness of waiting lists. Some staff even defined them as artificial lists of families who wanted their children to be in Head Start, but would never be served because they were not able to wait for an opening -- they needed service immediately. One field staff defined his waiting list as “a black hole.” Staff also expressed some discomfort with placing families on the waiting list because they felt it gave families false hope, particularly if families were placed on an over-income waiting list. This reluctance to give families false hope became apparent again when staff was asked whether or not they routinely updated the waiting list or verified if families on the list were still interested in Head Start. Although staff at eight sites reported that they updated the waiting list monthly, or more frequently, this actually meant they added names of new applicants or updated information if a family called to inquire about the status of their application. All program staff reported that they added families to the waiting list throughout the year. Almost all of the program sites said that they only communicated with the families when they were able to offer them an open slot, although one staff member at one program site reported that she periodically called families to verify their interest, even when there was not an available opening.

There did seem to be a consensus opinion among most staff that often, when they had an opening and went to the waiting list to select a family, many of the families on the list were either no longer interested or unavailable. Both administrative and field staff reported that families often found other child care options instead of waiting for an opening at Head Start and that most families who were placed in these openings were new applicants, rather then families who were on the official waiting list. Staff at seven of the sites agreed that the two main reasons why families on the waiting list were often not viable options when an opening occurred were 1) they had already found another placement for their child and did not want to disrupt the child, or 2) they were unable to locate the family because the phone number was disconnected or they had moved.

3.4.6 Retention

Staff at all of the Head Start programs participating in focus groups indicated that their programs have guidelines in place for staff to follow when a Head Start child begins to have many absences. While these guidelines varied across programs, 7 of the 9 sites indicated that contact with absentee families was made no later than the third day of a child’s absence from class. At four of these focus group sites, two urban and two rural, a telephone call is made to the families’ home by the close of the second day of absence. After the third day, staff at four sites reported making a home visit to determine why the child had been absent from school and what, if anything, the program could do to help. While it was usually the Family Service Worker who made the home visit, in two programs, the visit was sometimes made by the child’s classroom teacher. Staff at two programs also indicated they sent parents letters inquiring about their child’s absence.

Staff from all of the programs shared examples of strategies they had successfully used to retain families who were at risk of dropping out of Head Start. The two main strategies cited were 1) providing enhanced support to the family and, 2) making program accommodations. Enhanced support included providing extra resources or referrals to families who were at-risk, increasing the number of home visits, helping solve transportation problems, or linking at-risk families with other families who could provide additional support.

With regard to program accommodations, some staff members reported that by changing the child’s center or program option, such as increasing the child’s time from part-day to full-day or creating more opportunities for family participation, families had been successfully retained. Staff from four of the programs felt that increased communication was also a successful retention strategy.

Staff from a majority of the Head Start focus group sites said they often continue to provide support to families who drop-out, primarily through offering referrals to other family support agencies. Some programs offered to re-enroll children, on a space available basis, if families changed their minds about dropping out or moved back into the service area after previously relocating.

3.4.7 Head Start Training and Technical Assistance

Staff reported that Head Start Training and Technical Assistance activities designed to enhance recruitment and retention methods were limited in scope and only marginal in their usefulness. Staff from two of the programs indicated they had been given resources to publicize their program, while staff at three programs reported receiving training on home visits, building family and community partnerships, as well as training on enrollment procedures. The staff from a large, urban program felt they did not need training in outreach and recruitment. Coincidentally, this program already had a long waiting list of families interested in enrolling.

While administrative staff from three programs reported that Head Start Training and Technical Assistance activities had been helpful in their programs’ recruitment and enrollment efforts, field staff did not share this opinion. They felt that the uniqueness of their communities limited the value of formal training received from outside their home agencies. While some staff felt that formal training from within their agencies, such as group meetings or internal strategy sessions, was important, the majority found that being paired with and mentored by an experienced outreach staff member was much more effective. Learning good solid “people skills” was thought to be most important to successful recruitment.

Group meetings and internal strategy sessions were the most frequently mentioned sources of training provided at each of the Head Start program sites, followed by the use of training guides and social service manuals. Outside resources, attendance at national conferences, and guidance from parents were also mentioned as training methods used by the programs.

3.4.8 Perceptions of Head Start

How Head Start is Perceived by Families and the Community. Head Start staff participating in the focus groups were asked the following question about perceptions of Head Start:

• If a parent of a preschool child who lives in this community was asked about Head Start, what do you think he or she would say? What is his/her opinion of Head Start?

Administrative and field staff reported that the perception of Head Start within the community was mixed. Some staff felt there were negative impressions of Head Start, including the perception that Head Start only served children with disabilities or behavior problems, had no educational underpinnings, had poorly qualified teaching staffs with no credentials, and was only day care or a babysitting service that provided play activities for children. Yet most staff felt that there was not a unilateral view of Head Start, and that the perception often depended on the longevity of Head Start in a particular community. They noted that Head Start staff who were firmly rooted in the community remained a resource for families long after their children had left the program, thereby contributing to the overall positive view of the Head Start program. While many staff reported Head Start was well respected and viewed positively by families and agencies that were aware of the program, they felt that many in the community were still unaware that Head Start existed or knew little about the full scope of the program. This led to another suggestion for a national public awareness campaign. Almost unanimously, however, staff felt that when parents knew about Head Start, they wanted their children to be there.

What Head Start Can Do for Families. Both the administrative and field staff focus groups were asked the following question:

• When you think about what Head Start can do for families, what words or impressions come to mind?

Staff from all of the programs shared multiple impressions of Head Start. While staff at only three of the programs specifically said that Head Start provided comprehensive services, many staff talked about Head Start’s holistic approach that provided access to a total package of services for parents. Staff from five of the sites expanded on this concept by reporting that Head Start was a program that supported families across multiple domains including education, nutrition, and basic needs such as food, clothing and furniture. Along with providing comprehensive services and support to families, one half of the focus groups said that Head Start linked families to services through its partnership efforts.

Administrative and field staff from most of the focus group sites mentioned some aspect of child-centered services when they were asked to give their impressions of what Head Start did for families. Staff from five of the programs said that Head Start offered education and socialization opportunities as well as a quality, first educational experience for young children. Special education, child care, and transition to kindergarten were also cited by staff as services Head Start provided for children and families.

Staff from 8 of the 9 program sites felt that Head Start provided experiences that enhanced the personal growth of enrolled families. These growth experiences revolved around opportunities for families to foster and develop self-esteem, independence, empowerment, and self-sufficiency. Parent education and job training ranked high among the impressions staff at seven of the programs had regarding what Head Start provided for families.

3.5 Focus Group Summary

The primary goal of the focus groups was to gather primary data on recruitment and enrollment issues for each of the participating programs from administrative staff, who were knowledgeable about their program’s recruitment, enrollment, and retention policies, and from field staff, who had primary responsibility for doing program outreach and recruitment. Primary data were also gathered from families who were recruited to Head Start but never enrolled, families that enrolled in Head Start but never attended, and families that enrolled and began the program, but dropped out early. These qualitative data helped to clarify attitudes and procedures related to program outreach and recruitment as well as enrollment. The findings presented above will be discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

3.6 Record Reviews

During site visits in the fall of 1999, up to 50 individual recruitment or enrollment records from 10 programs were reviewed (several programs had fewer than 50 records). A total of 379 records were reviewed for three groups of families: 1) families with children who were recruited but never attended Head Start (128 records reviewed); 2) families with children who attended Head Start for a brief period, then left the program (74 records); 3) families with children still attending Head Start (177 records). As might be expected, records for Groups 2 and 3 were generally more complete than those for Group 1. Using a data collection form developed specifically for this record review (see Appendix F), site visitors collected the following information from the program records:

• Child characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, and presence of a known disability);

• Family characteristics (household size, presence of mother and father, family income, employment status of parents, and participation status for Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, and TANF); and

• Child and family risk factors (as identified and recorded by individual programs).

The initial information obtained from recruitment forms included the date that the form was completed (Exhibit 3-10). More than one quarter of the recruitment records were initiated in the calendar year before actual enrollment, emphasizing that Head Start recruitment is an on-going process that occurs throughout the year. There was an expected increase in the summer, the period just before class begins. However, the applications that were in place from the previous year were predominantly families that at least started the program. Recruited but never attending families generally completed applications closer to the start of the program year. While the dates on which families initiated their applications to Head Start seemed to vary slightly, the differences were not significant across the three family groups studied.

Exhibit 3.10 Date of Head Start Application

Family Group	Time of Initial Application
	1998	Jan-Mar, 1999	Apr-Jun, 1999	Jul-Sep, 1999
Recruited, but never attended	21	23	31	43
	16.5%	18.1%	24.4%	33.9%
Attended, but left program	24	6	17	26
	32.4%	8.1%	23.0%	35.1%
Enrolled	55	38	37	45
	31.3%	21.6%	21.0%	25.6%

Note: (X2 = 7.9, n.s.) Percentages reflect those within each type of family group in each application period

Child characteristics of interest, including age, gender, ethnicity and disability status, are presented in Exhibit 3-11. Across the three family groups, the majority of children (range = 57.4% to 63.0%) were 4 years of age at the time of application, with less than one fifth (range = 13.6% to 17.3%) reported to be 3 years (or younger) at that time. The remainder of the children were listed as being older than four. There were generally equal percentages of boys and girls at the time of application, but a slightly higher percentage of girls were actually in the program at the time of record review. The percentage of girls was not, however, significantly higher in the enrolled group than in the other two groups. Almost one sixth (range = 14.1% to 16.7%) of the Head Start applicant children were reported to have a disability. Finally, the proportions of African-American, Hispanic, and White applicants fluctuated across the three family groups.

Exhibit 3.11 Child Characteristics Noted on Head Start Enrollment Forms

Characteristics	Family Group
	Recruited, but never attended	Attended, but left program	Enrolled
Child age: 3-years old	17.3%	16.2%	13.6%
Child age: 4-years old	63.0%	59.5%	57.4%
Child age: 5/6-years old	19.7%	21.6%	26.1%
Female child	46.8%	47.3%	53.2%
Black/African American	27.6%	35.1%	32.4%
Hispanic/Latino	35.1%	35.1%	25.7%*
White	32.4%	29.0%	34.7%
Disability present	14.3%	16.4%	14.1%

Note: *Difference <.05 (across groups)

Family characteristics included size of the household, presence of parents, home language, income and employment, and the use of public assistance (Exhibit 3-12). For all of these variables, no statistically significant differences across the applicant groups were noted. Family income, as recorded on the application forms, was quite low, averaging less than $10,000 per household in every group. The source of the recorded family income figures was not reported in many cases; however, about 20% of the records did indicate that a tax return from the previous year was provided, and about 15% of the records were reported as verified by a recent pay receipt. Head Start requires that at least 90% of the families with children attending Head Start have incomes below the FPL, a requirement that was easily met across all records reviewed and within each of the groups.

Exhibit 3.12 Family Characteristics Noted on Head Start Enrollment Forms

Characteristics	Family Group
	Recruited, but never attended	Attended, but left program	Enrolled
Number in household	Mean = 3.7 (SD = 1.4)	Mean = 3.6 (SD = 1.3)	Mean = 4.0 (SD = 1.5)
Mother present in home	97.6%	94.6%	96.0%
Father present in home	45.6%	27.4%	42.3%
Primary language other than English	33.0%	21.1%	24.5%
Family income	Mean = $8,210	Mean = $9,831	Mean = $8,721
Income below poverty level	91.5%	95.4%	93.5%
Mother employed	45.6%	48.5%	40.9%
Father employed	76.5%	81.0%	66.2%
Medicaid	61.8%	81.2%	70.4%
Food Stamps	44.4%	55.8%	42.1%
WIC	61.5%	59.6%	56.0%
TANF	27.6%	33.8%	29.8%

Note: No significant differences were found across columns.

Nationally, Head Start enrollment criteria specify age, family income limits, and use of public assistance. In addition, children with disabilities should account for at least 10% of enrollment. Beyond these requirements, local programs target families having the highest priority risk factors, based on local community assessments (see Section 3.2.3). As noted earlier, some programs even allow for variation in specified risk factors and priorities for enrollment to the individual centers. Information collected from the recruitment records included a wide range of risk factors identified by the programs and centers (see Section 3.2.3). Exhibit 3-13 contains information on selected risk factors that were recorded (as present or absent) across all recruitment records reviewed for this study (those risk factors noted on at least 300 of the 379 records reviewed). These selected risk factors included the number of parents present in the household, the age of the child’s parents, the caregiver-child relationship, the primary household language, the parents’ highest level of education, the parents’ employment status, the family’s TANF status, child disability, and child health status. Other factors taken into consideration in the construction of enrollment priority scores by some programs or centers, but not reported here, included: previous enrollment of a sibling, parent enrollment in an education or training program, extremely low family income, parent disability or health problem, low developmental screening score, homelessness or poor housing conditions, evidence of child abuse or neglect, evidence of domestic violence, referral from a child welfare or family services agency, evidence of family substance abuse, incarceration of parent, and a recent family crises (i.e., death, divorce, or separation). Across all of these factors, no statistical differences were observed in the distribution of risk factors across applicant groups. The primary risk factors reported in the records were related to parents’ income and education levels, receipt of TANF, and whether or not the child lived with a single parent.

Exhibit 3.13 Family/Child Risk Factors Noted on Head Start Enrollment Forms

Risk Factors*	Family Group
	Recruited, but never attended	Attended, but left program	Enrolled
Single parent	58.1%	67.6%	57.1%
Parent(s) did not graduate from high school	37.2%	34.8%	34.8%
Unemployed caregiver	31.3%	39.1%	31.6%
Family receives TANF	27.6%	33.8%	29.8%
Non-English speaking household	23.2%	15.1%	17.2%
Age of parent46	14.3%	15.9%	20.2%
Child has disability	14.3%	16.4%	14.1%
Child has a health problem	6.4%	2.8%	10.2%
Foster child	0.0%	1.4%	2.9%
Non-related primary caregiver	0.0%	1.4%	1.2%

*Risk factors are those that were reported on greater than 300 of the 379 record reviews. No significant differences were found across columns.

Based on the recruitment/enrollment records reviewed, two conclusions may be drawn. First, there were significant numbers of eligible children who initiated contact with or were recruited by local Head Start programs but did not attend those programs (although the records did not indicate why those children did not enroll). Second, the recorded enrollment information suggested no apparent differences between the families and children who were enrolled and those families that were recruited (or applied on their own) but did not attend.

3.7 Waiting List Reviews

During site visits in the fall of 1999, each of the nine programs visited was asked to provide a copy of their program’s waiting lists at two time points: 1) the day before classes began and 2) the day that the research team arrived for the site visit in the fall of 1999. The information that the research team sought to gather included the number of children added or removed from the waiting lists between these two time points.

After comparing the two lists, an attempt was made to ascertain what happened to children who were on the first waiting list, but not on the second list. Information was requested from the program regarding the number of these children who enrolled in Head Start, the number they were unable to contact, and the number who were no longer interested in or in need of Head Start services. For the families no longer interested in or in need of services, programs were asked to provide additional information on the number of children who moved out of the service area or enrolled in another program or type of child care.

Unfortunately, while each of the nine programs attempted to provide the information requested about their waiting lists, none was able to reliably quantify the numbers of families on their waiting lists, or confidently provide accurate information regarding what happened to families once they left the waiting list. Section 3.4.5 reports information gathered from Head Start staff regarding waiting lists during the focus groups, and Section 2.4 summarizes staff reports on waiting lists from the FACES project.

3.8 Community Agency Interviews

For Head Start to serve the neediest of the needy, it must successfully provide comprehensive services to low-income children and families. Therefore, meaningful partnerships with other Federal, State, and community level organizations that serve low-income children and families are critical for the successful delivery of services to Head Start families. In order to understand the partnerships between Head Start and other service providers in the community, a total of 200 community service providers, 20 per site, were interviewed during the summer of 1999, as part of the data collection for FACES.47 

3.8.1 Methodology

Each Head Start program provided directories of community agencies with whom they had relationships, or to whom they had referred families. Using those directories, 20 agencies from 10 Head Start sites were selected for telephone interviews. Five types of agencies were selected to represent a variety of services provided:

• Education/Job Training/Employment,

• Medical/Health Mental Health,

• Drug/Alcohol Treatment, Family Violence,

• Housing/Income Assistance/Food Assistance, and

• Child Care.

The administrator responsible for supervising the direct delivery of services at the agency was interviewed over the telephone. The interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes. The following topics were covered in the interview:

• Description of the agency, including auspice, goals or mission, and services provided,

• Type of collaboration with Head Start,

• Referral patterns with Head Start,

• Perceived relationship with Head Start, and

• Outreach strategies.

3.8.2 Type of Collaboration

When asked about their relationship with Head Start, most community agencies (72%) reported that they had either a formal or informal relationship (or both formal and informal) with Head Start while 27% of the agencies reported having no relationship at all (see Figure 3.1). The 30.0% of agencies who reported having formal relationships with Head Start had contractual agreements with Head Start to provide services such as dental/health care to the children, Welfare-to-Work programs, or parenting classes. Those having informal relationships (61.0%) reported that they simply referred clients to Head Start or served on the same community-wide committees.

Figure 3.1 Type of Collaboration

[D]

Even though agencies reported a relationship with Head Start, only 38% of them indicated that communication with Head Start occurred often or very often. The majority of the agencies reported that they only rarely (41%) or sometimes (21%) communicated with Head Start. In sum, while many community agencies reported having a collaborative relationship with Head Start, most interactions were informal and did not involve regular communication.

3.8.3 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. More than half (64%) of the community agencies reported that Head Start referred clients to them. Yet, the majority of community agencies reported that they rarely (22%) or sometimes (33%) referred clients to Head Start.

3.8.4 Community Perception of Head Start. Many community agencies felt that their relationship with Head Start was very important (48%) and that the quality of that relationship was positive (59%). However, when asked about any problems they had encountered during interactions with Head Start, or if there were areas they felt needed to be improved, 38% reported problems and 68% had suggestions for improvement. Exhibit 3-14 presents the five areas where community providers felt the collaboration between Head Start and community providers could be improved, as well as examples in each area.

Exhibit 3-14 Areas For Improvement: Statements by Agency Providers

Better communication			Need for more joint meetings; need to share information.
Willingness to cooperate			Too few referrals; not receptive to ideas; not willing to work with other agencies; protective of turf; Head Start is elitist.
Service inadequate			Too few hours; no transportation; inaccessible locations; long waiting lists, curriculum inadequate.
Staff not well trained or organized			Weak administrative skills and organization; poor communication skills with children.
Philosophy of Head Start is an impediment			Guidelines are difficult to understand; income guidelines are too low.

 

3.8.5 Strategies for Outreach. Identifying and engaging low-income families can be very challenging. The community agencies reported using a combination of traditional and creative recruitment strategies. A majority of the agencies (81%) reported that word-of-mouth was a critical method of identifying low-income families. Three other common recruitment strategies identified across sites are presented in Exhibit 3-15 below.

Exhibit 3-15

Common Recruitment Strategies Reported by Community Agencies

Type of Outreach Strategy	% Using
Advertising	68%
Sending out fliers Passing out or placing brochures at other agencies Media buys (radio, television and newspaper)
Referrals from Other Agencies	46%
Head Start Churches
Community Events	40%
Flea Markets Health Fairs

3.9 Parent Interview Overview

In two of the participating Head Start program sites (one Eastern urban site, one Western rural site) interviews were completed during the spring of 2000 with a total of nine non-Head Start parents. The purpose of this data collection was twofold: 1) to test the feasibility of identifying, contacting, and interviewing families who were in the Head Start-eligible population but not using Head Start services, and 2) to pilot test a model interview for use with non-Head Start families. The interview was designed to gather descriptive information on family characteristics, risk factors, use of child care, and perceptions of Head Start, as well as to assess the respondents’ willingness to provide sensitive information.

3.9.1 Interviewing Methodology

Based on findings from the three parent focus groups, a decision was made to target families who were eligible for Head Start, but who had never been recruited to the program. This decision was made because the parent focus group members were primarily families (all but one) who had either been recruited, but never enrolled or dropped out, or were on the waiting list.

Staffing. Two experienced interviewers were hired to identify, recruit, and interview the target parents. These two interviewers had previously conducted interviews during each wave of data collection for Head Start FACES and were cited for their expertise in locating hard-to-reach families and engaging them in the study. Both interviewers attended a one-day training in Washington, DC covering study background information, and general interviewing procedures, as well as specific administrative and field procedures.

Sample Selection. One method for identifying potential families to interview is using client lists gathered from local community agencies serving low-income families (a strategy often used by local Head Start programs to identify eligible families). However, findings from the staff focus groups suggested that some “missing” families may be part of the eligible population who are not connected with their local service community. Staff described these families as either too proud to accept services, or lacking the knowledge of how to access needed services. In order to test the feasibility of identifying and engaging eligible but unserved families from the general population, including those families not connected to the service community, two listed household samples, one for each program site, were purchased from Survey Sampling, Inc., a nationally recognized sampling firm. These samples, targeted by age of household members and income, allowed the interviewers to screen for eligible families in households that had a higher probability of having a child aged five or younger and an income below the FPL. For the urban site, Survey Sampling provided 207 household telephone numbers targeted to households with children birth to 5-years old, with maximum household income of $20,000. Generating a sample that targeted both age and income for the rural site was more difficult because the total number of households was limited and there were fewer areas of concentrated poverty found in this area. Because of these limitations, a sample of 220 households, targeted for young children, was selected. Exhibit 3-16 presents the results of the use of both listed household samples. The interviewers ceased calling when the required number of interviews were completed.

Exhibit 3-16 Sample Dispensation

Site 1 (Urban East) 207 Sampled Telephone Numbers	Site 2 (Rural West) 220 Sampled Telephone Numbers
162 households called	155 households called
92 households ineligible	57 households ineligible
6 households eligible	6 households eligible
25 no answers	30 no answers
15 answering machine	42 answering machines
4 busy	3 busy
13 disconnected numbers	15 disconnected numbers
3 deaf/non-English speaking	0 deaf/non-English speaking
0 refusals	0 refusals
2 call backs	1 call back
1 business/government office	0 business/government office
1 willing to participate later	1 willing to participate later
5 interviews completed 238 total calls made 93 viable phone numbers remaining	4 interviews completed 229 total calls made 144 viable phone numbers remaining

 

Procedures. One week prior to the scheduled site visits the interviewers began to contact families from the listed household samples via telephone. The purpose of these screening calls was to verify the respondents’ eligibility, to gain their cooperation and agreement to participate in the study, if eligible, and to schedule an interview appointment for the following week during the site visit. The selected respondents met the following eligibility criteria:

• A parent or guardian of a 3- to 5-year-old child,

• A recipient of public assistance, an income that met the Head Start 1999 Income Guidelines, or the primary caregiver of a 3- to 5-year-old child with a diagnosed disability or a foster child, and

• No prior experience or interaction with Head Start.

Once the interviewers arrived at the site visit locations, the interviews were conducted in the respondents’ homes, after first securing written, informed consent. Respondents received $25 after completing their interview. A copy of the Eligibility Screen is included in Appendix G.

Referrals as a Means of Identifying Families. An additional method for identifying eligible families was tested as part of the telephone contact process. The interviewers asked families reached via the listed household sample to volunteer names and numbers of acquaintances, friends, or family members who had 3- to 5-year-old children not being served by Head Start. This “friend of a friend” approach was successful in generating an additional pool of potential candidates. Interviewers reported that families provided at least two referrals when asked.

Community Service Providers as Means of Identifying Families. Since the findings from the staff focus groups suggested that “missing” families may be part of a population of eligible families who were not connected with their local service community, the decision was made to recruit families for this feasibility study from purchased household samples instead of from lists of clients furnished by the local community providers. However, the feasibility of accessing such lists from local community providers was still assessed for future use. While on site, each interviewer informally contacted a sample of local agency providers who participated in the FACES community agency telephone interviews, conducted during the summer of 1999, to discuss methods for identifying and locating low-income families. They also asked whether or not, in the future, the agencies would be willing to share the names and telephone numbers of the families they served so that they could be interviewed about their knowledge and use of Head Start. Local service providers in both communities were cooperative and willing to collaborate with the research efforts. They offered many suggestions for identifying eligible families, yet were unwilling to provide names and numbers of their clients. Providers in both communities suggested that there was considerable client overlap among agencies and all providers expressed a desire for continuous improvement in identifying and engaging the unserved population. A summary of the discussions in each site are presented in Exhibit 3-17.

Exhibit 3-17 Summary of Discussions with Community Providers

Site 1 (Urban East)		Site 2 (Rural West)
WIC	State Welfare Office
Suggested project “set up shop” in waiting rooms for as long as necessary to identify the number of respondents needed. The Director felt a mailing would be expensive and unproductive.	Offered to mail a letter to all their families explaining the study and requesting they call an 800 number.
	Housing Association
Public Health Dentist	Open to suggestions; willing to collaborate.
Serves clients who meet income guidelines. Suggested putting up flyers in the waiting room.	Community Partnership Team
	Suggested posting notices in office.
Housing Project Office	Women’s Resource Center
Public housing project with community center. Suggested setting up a desk and posting information and flyers for interested residents.	Suggested working with case managers who would tell clients about study, encourage their participation, and get their permission to release their contact information.
Family Support Center Network
Willing to send out information and give eligible clients a referral number to call.

 

Instrument Development. Using the stated objectives for the project as a framework, the research team prepared a parent interview. This instrument was developed to gather descriptive information on family characteristics, risk factors, use of child care, and perceptions of Head Start, as well as to assess the respondents’ willingness to provide sensitive information. Exhibit 3-18 presents the topic areas covered in the interview. A copy of the parent interview is included in Appendix G.

Exhibit 3-18 Topics Covered in Parent Interview

Identification of Eligibility	Child Care Use and Preferences
Activities with Child	Family Health and Health Care
Child Disabilities	Substance Use
Child Behavior	Depression
Household Rules and Discipline Methods	Social Support
Household Structure and Family Composition	Life Events and Coping
Family Resources	Home and Neighborhood Characteristics
Education, Employment, Income, and Housing	Exposure to Neighborhood and Domestic Violence

3.9.2 Interview Findings

The findings presented below are based on nine cases and are not representative of any specific population. Obviously, meaningful conclusions cannot be derived from such a small sample, but these findings provide descriptions of nine individual families who were eligible for Head Start but did not make use of the program’s services. They also offer evidence of the kind of information parents of non-Head Start preschool-age children are willing to provide.

Description of Respondents. Nine interviews were completed: five in Site 1 (urban East) and four in Site 2 (rural West). All but 1 of the 9 respondents were female and employed, and they were almost equally likely to be married as never married. Three of the respondents had less than a high school diploma, one reported a high school diploma, and five reported having attended some college. The mean monthly household income reported was $1,095 (range = $700 to $1,400). Four of the respondents reported living in public or subsidized housing, two reported that they owned or were in the process of buying a house, one reported renting an apartment without assistance, and two reported living in some other type of arrangement. Four of the respondents were White, two were African American, and three were Hispanic. All of the Head Start-eligible children were born in the United States and all respondents were English-speaking. None of the Head Start-eligible children were reported to have disabilities. Exhibit 3-19 presents a summary of the demographic descriptions of the nine participants, by site.

Exhibit 3-19 Description of Parent Participants, by Site

	(Site 1) Urban East	(Site 2) Rural West
Number of participants	5	4
Gender	5 Women	3 Women 1 Man
Ethnicity
White	1	3
Black	2	0
Hispanic	2	1
Marital status
Married	2	3
Single, Never Married	3	1
Employment status
Employed	5	3
Not employed	0	1
Education
Less than 8th grade	0	1
8th-11th grade	0	2
High school diploma	1	0
Some college	4	1
Race of Child
White	1	3
Black	2	0
Hispanic	2	1
Housing
Public or subsidized	2	2
Rent without assistance	1	0
Own or buying home	1	1
Other arrangement	1	1

 

Child Care. The respondents were asked about their current use of child care arrangements. Five of the 9 respondents reported caring for their child at home. Of the four respondents who reported using some form of child care arrangement for their Head Start-eligible child, only one reported that the child was placed in center-based care. Two of the remaining 3 children were cared for in family day care homes, while the third child was cared for at home by a non-relative. The three formal child care arrangements used (center-based and family day care homes) were all reported to be licensed. Exhibit 3-20 summarizes the experience of the four respondents reporting that their Head Start-eligible child was currently being cared for in a child care arrangement, by site.

Exhibit 3-20 Description of Type of Child Care Arrangement Used by Respondents

	Site 1 (Urban East)		Site 2 (Rural West)
	Respondent 1	Respondent 2	Respondent 3	Respondent 4
Type of Care	In home by non-relative	Day care center	Family day care home	Family day care home
Licensed	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Hrs/week in care	10	20	40	14
Payment	Self-pay	Self-pay	Subsidized	Self-pay/partially subsidized

Exhibit 3-21 presents the questions asked of the respondents about their child’s current child care arrangement and their responses.

Exhibit 3-21 Impressions of Current Child Care Arrangements

Site 1 (Urban East)		Site 2 (Rural West)
Respondent 1 (Home by non-relative)	Respondent 2 (Day care center)	Respondent 3 (Family day care home)	Respondent 4 (Family day care home)
How did you first learn about this child care provider?
Referred by friend, neighbor, relative	Referred by college	Word of mouth	Newspaper, advertisement, or yellow pages
Why did you decide to use this type of child care?
“Convenient - I live close by and can come over when they need me.”	“Convenient and it is highly recommended.”	“Only good one in town – only one trustworthy, safest one.”	“I don’t have a choice. It’s not a big huge day care center which I like. It’s out of her home – she is a mother/father figure. She is good with the kids.
What do you like about this child care?
“Easy, convenient, fits my schedule.”	“Educational program is very strong; discipline policies are very fair.”	“Gives my child full attention – she is a good teacher.”	“Good with kids. Not hundreds of kids there. Not a lot of different women taking care of the kids. She is like a grandma figure.”
What do you not like about this child care?
“That I have to pay for it.”	“Security is lacking, lunch is not provided, price is too high.”	“Nothing.”	“Sometimes the animals (dogs) were scratching the kids in the face. Sometimes the house is not so clean.”
How satisfied are you with how easy it is to get your child to your child care provider?
Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Very Satisfied	Satisfied

 

All of the respondents were asked about their ideal child care placement as well as their awareness and impressions of Head Start. Three of the 5 respondents who stayed at home with their children stated that, if given a choice, they would continue to care for their own children at home. Two of the respondents caring for their children at home expressed the desire to have their child in a more formal care arrangement, such as a day care center or preschool. Three of the 4 respondents who had their Head Start-eligible children currently in child care expressed a desire to change the type of child care arrangement they were currently using. Exhibit 3-22 summarizes their responses.

Exhibit 3-22 Respondent's Ideal Child Care Placement48

If you could use any type of child care and not have to worry about how much it would cost, what type of child care arrangement would you prefer to use for your child?
Site 1 (Urban East)			Site 2 (Rural West)
Respondent 1:			Respondent 3:
Current: Ideal:	Home by non-relative Ideal: Full-time nanny		Current: Ideal:	Family day care home Day or group care
Respondent 2:			Respondent 4:
Current: Ideal:	Day care center Day or group care center		Current: Ideal:	Family day care home Friend or neighbor
Respondent A:			Respondent D:
Current: Ideal:	No child care Stay at home and care for child		Current: Ideal:	No child care Stay at home and care for child
Respondent B:			Respondent E:
Current: Ideal:	No child care Nursery, preschool, or Head Start		Current: Ideal:	No child care Stay at home and care for child
Respondent C:
Current: Ideal:	No child care Day care or group center

 

The respondents were also asked to share their impressions of Head Start. These findings are presented in Exhibit 3-23. Many of the views expressed by the nine respondents were not favorable and seemed to be based on misinformation about the program. Interestingly, the misconceptions about Head Start reported by the parents matched what was reported in the staff focus groups regarding perceptions of Head Start in these communities, including the perceptions that Head Start is a program for minorities and that children only play while at Head Start. It is also clear from the responses that parents were unsure about the eligibility requirements for the program.

Exhibit 3-23 Respondent's Awareness and Impressions of Head Start

What are your impressions of Head Start?
Site 1 (Urban East)		Site 2 (Rural West)
Respondent 1:		Respondent 3:
“Good place for children to get ready for school. Good place to meet kids. Not flexible enough for mothers who work or are in school. Too strict about times and scheduling.”		“Employees come from other day care centers49  where they were fired for being negligent. Wouldn’t feel safe having my son there. Discover Land has a terrible reputation – lots of reports in the newspaper regarding children being dropped.”
Respondent 2:		Respondent 4:
“It blows. Don’t like the racial stats –mainly black kids. Not a full day. Often they call parents and say ‘no school today.’ Have heard that the kids never bring any work home. Only offered in black neighborhoods, in the projects.”		“Advancement for the learning of kids. Have heard it is a wonderful program. Thought the kids had to be 4-years old before putting them in; didn’t think I was eligible because Raymond is only 3-years old.”
Respondent A:		Respondent D:
“Haven’t been down to visit, but my impression is that they help people who need to work. Mostly single moms go there. Day care provided so single moms can work.”		“Didn’t realize there was one in this area. It’s a good program. Thought it was an after school program for kids whose parents work. Since I don’t work out of the home, I didn’t think I would be eligible.”
Respondent B:		Respondent E:
“I know it used to be very restricted in terms of hours – short days, half days. Usually in a bad area. Too many blacks – mostly blacks.”50		“Haven’t had a chance to talk with them yet – don’t know much about them. Thought that my son had to be 4-years old before applying. My wife stays home with the children – we really don’t need day care. We are thinking about some kind of pre-school program but haven’t started the search for one yet.”
Respondent C:
“Helps kids start their future in school. I considered it, but right now I just thought she would do better at home –all they do is play at Head Start and she can do that at home with her brother. Plus, he teaches her things.”

 

Personal, Family, and Environmental Risk Factors. Based on findings from the research literature and the staff focus groups, the nine respondents were asked questions about personal, family, and environmental risk factors. Similar to work cited earlier by Foster (in press), McLoyd (1998), and Vandivere, Moore, & Brown (2000), the 1999 Kids Count Data Book suggests that children facing multiple family risk factors are much more likely to exhibit negative child outcomes than children exposed to fewer family risk factors (Kids Count Data Book, 1999). More specifically, the authors suggest that children who are exposed to four or more of the following six key family risk factors are more likely to fail in life than children who experience fewer of these family risks:

• Not living with two parents,

• Living with a household head who is a high school drop-out,

• Having a family income below the poverty line,

• Living with parent(s) who do not have steady, full-time employment,

• Being a member of a family receiving welfare benefits, and

• Not having health insurance coverage.

Almost all of the respondents (7 of 9) reported exposure to three or more of the six risk factors presented above, and three of the respondents reported exposure to four or more of the family risk factors. Exhibit 3-24 summarizes each participants’ total family risk.

Exhibit 3-24 Total Family Risk Based on Kids Count Risk Factors

Family Risk Factors	Participants
	Site 1 (UrbanEast)					Site 2 (Rural West)
	1	2	A	B	C	3	4	D	E
Child not living with two parents
Household head a high school drop-out
Family income below poverty line
Child living with parent(s) who do not have steady, full-time employment
Family receiving welfare benefits
Child does not have health insurance coverage
Total number of risk factors	4	3	2	2	3	5	4	3	3

 

Based on the Head Start staff focus group findings that suggested that families who enrolled in Head Start but never attended, or enrolled in Head Start and dropped out of the program, were likely to be families with fewer coping skills who were at higher risk for substance abuse or domestic violence, information was also collected on the following environmental and personal risk factors:

• Neighborhood violence and neighborhood disorder,

• Alcohol and drug use, and

• Domestic violence.

There were no refusals by respondents to answer any questions regarding these risk factors.

Neighborhood Violence. Seven of the 9 caregivers reported frequent exposure to crime in their neighborhood, although it was mostly non-violent crime. Four of the caregivers reported that they heard or saw violent crime in their neighborhoods (2 of the 4 reported having had this occur more than once) and 3 of these same 4 caregivers reported knowing someone in their neighborhood who was a victim of violent crime. One caregiver reported that she was a victim of violent crime in her neighborhood and in her home.

Family or Domestic Violence. When asked about their children’s exposure to violent crime or domestic violence, only one caregiver reported that her child was a witness to a violent crime. A three-item screening measure suggests that two of the nine caregivers were likely victims of domestic or partner violence.

Substance Use. Seven of the 9 caregivers reported smoking cigarettes, and 4 of the 7 reported living with other household members who smoked. Five of the 9 caregivers reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Among the five drinkers, two reported having drunk five or more drinks in one day, and one caregiver reported having three drinks per day. Of the two caregivers who reported drinking five or more drinks in one day, one reported having done this three times in the past 30 days; the other reported having done this only once in the past 30 days. Of the four caregivers who reported living with other household members who drank, two reported that the household members drank once or twice a week, and two reported that household members drank once or twice a month.

Six of the 7 caregivers reported having used marijuana at some point in their lives. When asked about current marijuana use, three of the six caregivers reported that they had not smoked marijuana at all during the past 12 months. The other three caregivers reported smoking marijuana during the past 12 months, but less than once a month. Only 1 caregiver out of 9 reported living with someone else in the household who smoked marijuana and that person’s usage was reported to be less than once a month.

Only two of the primary caregivers reported having used other drugs in their lifetime. Both caregivers reported past use of cocaine, crack, or heroin; 1 of the 2 also reported past use of sedatives and amphetamines without a prescription. However, both reported no current use of any of these substances within the past 12 months.

3.9.3 Parent Interview Summary

The primary goal of the spring 2000 data collection was to test the feasibility of identifying, contacting, and interviewing families who were in the Head Start-eligible population but not using Head Start services and to pilot test a model interview for use with non-Head Start families. Nine families were successfully identified, contacted, and interviewed. The implications of the findings and process presented above will be discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

3.10 Conclusions Regarding Findings from the Primary Data Collection

For this project, a series of small-scale data collection efforts yielded both substantive information regarding the characteristics of the Head Start-eligible but non-enrolled population and the feasibility of obtaining a greater depth of information from that group of families. Data collection included 1) focus groups with Head Start staff involved with recruitment and enrollment, 2) focus groups with parents of Head Start-eligible but non-enrolled children, 3) a review of recruitment records for children who were recruited but not enrolled as well as children who enrolled in Head Start, 4) a review of Head Start waiting lists, 5) interviews with staff in community agencies regarding contact with Head Start programs51 , and 6) interviews with parents of Head Start-eligible but non-enrolled children. The following is a summary of findings described in this chapter:

Recruitment

• Recruitment of children was described as an on-going process at both the program (urban sites) and center (rural sites) levels with the most intense recruitment periods occurring during late spring and early summer. Program staff focused recruitment efforts on low-income areas near the centers and on the “neediest” families within those areas.

• Staff consistently reported frustration in having to recruit within national poverty guidelines and expressed feelings that many of the “neediest” families were not income-eligible.

• In virtually all sites, including those with little or no waiting list, staff could identify pockets of eligible but unserved children within their service area. Often, difficulties associated with long-distance transportation prevented programs or centers from recruiting in some locations of their service area.

• Staff acknowledged the importance of matching the cultural background of the recruitment staff with potential enrollees, but admitted that this was not always the practice and often only matched on language.

• While service boundary lines between Head Start programs were often blurry and staff from neighboring Head Start programs sometimes found themselves recruiting the same families, programs worked together to find the best solutions to serve all the families when boundaries were in conflict.

• Information provided in Head Start recruitment records differed substantially from one program to another. However, family and child characteristics that were reported for most or all children were similar for three groups of children: (1) those recruited but never attending; (2) those enrolled who withdrew shortly after initiation of services, and (3) those receiving services. In all three groups, over 90% of families were below the poverty line (although the means of establishing and verifying family income was frequently unclear);

• Community agency staff believed that their relationships with the Head Start programs were important and generally positive, and many agencies reported having a collaborative relationship with Head Start. Yet, most interactions with Head Start were informal and did not involve regular communication. Over one half (55%) of the agencies reported that they rarely or only sometimes referred clients to Head Start.

Enrollment

• All programs employed combinations of risk factors determined by each program based upon input from staff and parents to prioritize enrollment. In some cases, ranking of priorities for enrollment was set differently by centers within a program.

• Across all programs, children with disabilities were heavily recruited and received high priority for enrollment.

• There was no consistent enrollment decision-making process across sites. Decision-makers varied, exceptions to priority criteria occurred, and staff occasionally failed to verify information where they felt families might benefit greatly from enrollment.

• Head Start staff reported that requirements to meet full-enrollment by a certain date sometimes precluded them from enrolling the neediest families. Many staff indicated that higher functioning, less needy families were more likely to complete the applications and provide the documentation necessary for enrollment.

Waiting Lists

• There was no standard definition of “waiting list” across programs, nor were waiting lists maintained in a consistent manner. Generally, lists were maintained at the center level and were not updated until an opening occurred.

• Some staff felt that waiting lists gave families a “false hope” of enrollment for their children.

• When openings occurred at Head Start programs, many families on the waiting lists were no longer interested or able to be contacted.

Retention

• Programs followed similar policies regarding termination of enrollment. Frequently, children simply stopped attending; after a period, families were contacted directly to determine their interest in continuing with services.

• Retention of children was often most difficult for the “neediest” families and children - while they dropped out at higher rates, they remained the highest priority for recruitment and enrollment.

Description of Eligible, Non-Enrolled Families

• Staff reported that families who chose not to enroll or dropped out of Head Start shared similar characteristics and concerns. Five main family typologies emerged: 1) families that moved frequently, 2) families with problematic situations or inadequate coping skills, 3) families with service needs not met by Head Start program options (e.g., brief length of the program day), 4) families unwilling to separate from their young children; and 5) families who lacked transportation.

• Some non-enrolled families felt that the educational component of the program was inadequate and that children were negatively labeled as “Head Start” children when they entered elementary school.

• Staff agreed that Head Start had a mixed reputation among unserved families, but felt that negative factors were either misunderstandings (no educational focus, serve only minority children or children with disabilities or emotional problems) or issues beyond their control (transportation, length of the program day). The parent interview case-studies supported this presumption.

• Many Head Start staff suggested that the true “missing” families may be the “working poor” who were not connected to the service community and who wanted their children cared for at home by a friend or relative or by informal child care such as family day care providers. Staff members indicated that the challenge for Head Start will be to find ways to engage and support the informal child care network, particularly as Head Start seeks to expand services and must partner with other types of child care to meet its expansion goal.

---

38This Head Start program was in the process of updating its community assessment. They did not want to submit their current community assessment because they felt it would not accurately reflect that the needs of their community had changed considerably due to welfare reform.(back)

39The 11(th) Head Start program was invited to participate in the focus groups at one of the sites in the West; however, due to the late date of their inclusion, they were not asked to provide a copy of their program’s eligibility criteria.(back)


40Although Program 02 had a list of factors to be considered in enrollment, the items were not given a priority ranking.(back)

41A fourth Head Start site was targeted for a parent focus group. This site was unable to recruit enough non-enrolled Head Start parents to participate. This was because families who dropped out of the program early, or decided not to enroll, had moved from the geographic area and were unavailable to participate.(back)

42Because the number of years of experience for staff was missing from 2 of the 18 staff focus groups conducted, the range and means presented are based on 16 groups; 8 for each type of group.(back)

43 One focus group was not audio-taped at the request of the Head Start Director.(back)

44 An example of a data display is found in the Appendix E.(back)

45At Site 1, a few of the parent participants were unhappy because the Head Start Program was unable to open the particular center their child was targeted to attend at the start of the school year. Their feelings about this inconvenience seemed to affect the parents’ overall perception of Head Start and may have impacted how the parents responded to the questions. This Head Start program partners with a State-funded child care subsidy program as part of the Head Start effort to provide expanded hours of service for families. The subsidy program provides monies to parents to offset the cost of the supplemental hours. Because this State-subsidized program has building code requirements that are more stringent than Head Start’s requirements, the Head Start center was delayed in opening until the property where the center was housed could be brought up to code.(back)

46 Age of parent referred to both teen parents and/or older parents.(back)

47The ten Head Start FACES communities selected for the community agency interviews were matched to the FACES program sites invited to participate in this current study in order to facilitate data sharing across projects.(back)

48Respondents 1-4 reported having their Head Start-eligible children in some type of child care; respondents A-E reported that their children were not in child care.(back)

49The respondent is referring to Discover Land, a community day care center.(back)

50This mother reported that she had an older son who did not go to Head Start for the same reasons.(back)

51 This data collection was completed for the FACES Validation SubStudy(back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next