Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Overview
Chapter 2.0 describes the data collection methodology used in this FACES sub-study of community agency providers, with a primary focus on the sampling plan, the development of the data collection instrument, and the data collection procedures used with the agency staff. Additional discussion addresses limitations of the study that impact the interpretation of the findings.
2.2 The Sample
A subset of 10 of the original 40 Head Start programs participating in FACES was selected to participate in this sub-study of community agency providers. In an effort to increase the generalizability of the findings, these 10 communities were selected to be representative of the FACES program sites on the three key sampling strata: urbanicity, geographic region, and minority enrollment of the local Head Start program.
Each of the 10 Head Start programs located in the selected communities was asked to provide a directory of the community agencies with whom they had a relationship, and to whom they referred their Head Start families for services. Using those directories, 20 agencies from each of the 10 communities were selected for telephone interviews. In order to represent a variety of agencies that provided services to low-income families, five types of agencies were targeted (Exhibit 2-1). Four agencies were randomly selected from within each of five types of agencies. A total of 200 community service providers, 20 per site, were interviewed during the summer of 1999.
| Unweighted Percentages N = 200 |
|
|---|---|
| Type of Service Provided | |
| Housing, income assistance, food assistance | 37.0 |
| Drug and alcohol treatment, family violence | 35.5 |
| Child care | 26.0 |
| Education, job training, employment | 22.5 |
| Medical, health, mental health | 21.0 |
| Auspice | |
| Community-based organizations, community action agencies, private, non-profits | 46.5 |
| Federal, State, county agencies | 26.0 |
| Universities, community colleges, school districts | 9.0 |
| Individual, private practitioners | 7.5 |
| Churches | 7.0 |
| Other | 1.0 |
The majority of the agencies (59.5%) provided multiple services (mean number of services provided = 2.36; SD = 1.54; range 1-6). Over one third of the agencies provided housing, income, or food assistance (37.0%) or help with substance abuse problems or family violence (35.5%). Approximately one fourth (26.0%) of the agencies provided child care, 22.5% provided education, job training, or employment services, and slightly more than one fifth (21.0%) provided medical, health, or mental health assistance to families. The most frequent auspice of the selected agencies was community-based organizations (46.5%). Over three fourths (76.0%) of the agencies participating in the study provided services for children under 5 years old, and 31.5% of the agencies reported having a waiting list.
As part of the FACES staff interviews, a total of 160 family service workers (four from each selected program) were interviewed across all 40 of the FACES Head Start programs. Findings from these interviews are presented to compare the Head Start staff perspective with the community agency staff perspective on collaboration. Complete findings from the Family Service Worker interviews can be found in Section III. A copy of the instrument is in Appendix B.
2.3 Data Collection Instrument
A semi-structured telephone interview was developed to gather information about the agencies, targeting the administrators most responsible for supervising the direct delivery of services. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes and inquired about the following topics:
- Description of the agency, including its auspice, goals or mission, and services provided;
- Type of collaboration with Head Start;
- Referral patterns between Head Start and the agency;
- Perceived relationship with Head Start; and
- Outreach strategies aimed at low-income families.
A copy of the community agency interview can be found in Appendix E1.
2.4 Procedures
Three research assistants completed all of the interviews during the summer of 1999. Each attended a one-day training in Washington, DC that covered study background information, general interviewing protocols, and administrative procedures.
Once the list of targeted community agencies was compiled, the interviewers made every attempt to reach the person at the agency who was most directly responsible for the supervision of direct services to families. Overall, the community service providers were very cooperative and willing to participate in the survey. Approximately 83% of the originally selected sample was interviewed. Relatively few agencies refused to participate, and only a few were unable to be reached. In either of those cases, the agency originally selected was replaced by an agency in that community that provided the same category of services for families. It took, on average, less than four calls (M = 3.48; SD = 2.85; range = 1 to 15) to an agency to complete an interview.
The Community Agency Manager on the research team reviewed all completed questionnaires, noting any missing data that needed to be retrieved. All written responses to open-ended questions were transcribed and used to develop coding categories for content analysis. Each interview was content coded separately by two research assistants. When discrepancies occurred, agreement was reached through discussions involving the two coders and the Community Agency Manager. All data were then entered for data analysis. A copy of the coding scheme can be found in Appendix E2.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |