Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
3.0 Findings and Summary
3.1 Overview
Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the administrators most responsible for the supervision of direct services at 200 community agencies located in 10 of the FACES Head Start program sites. These interviews gathered information on the agencies’ collaboration with the local Head Start programs. This chapter summarizes the findings from these interviews.
3.2 Types of Collaboration
When asked about their relationship with Head Start, most community agencies’ staff (72.0%) reported that they had either a formal or informal relationship (or both) with Head Start, while 27.5% of the agencies’ staff reported having no relationship at all (see Exhibit 3-1).
|
Informal Collaboration
The large majority of the agency staff interviewed indicated that their agencies’ relationship with Head Start was informal (61.0%) and included collaborations such as referral of clients to Head Start or serving on the same community-wide committees. Exhibit 3-2 presents the types of informal collaborations the agencies shared with their local Head Start programs.
Of those agencies’ staff who reported having informal relationships with their local Head Start programs, almost one half (47.5%) indicated that their collaborations involved the referral of clients, while more than one fourth said they conducted workshops or trainings (28.7%) or provided some other type of service (27.1%) for their Head Start partners. About one fifth (19.7%) of the agencies’ staff reported joint membership on community-wide committees.
| Percentages (n = 122) |
|
|---|---|
| Referred clients to Head Start | 47.5 |
| Conducted workshops or trainings | 28.7 |
| Provided services to Head Start | 27.1 |
| Served on community-wide committees | 19.7 |
| Served on Head Start Advisory Board or Head Start served on agency Board of Directors | 10.7 |
| Participated in community activities | 10.7 |
| Received services from Head Start | 8.2 |
| Participated in formal or informal meetings | 6.6 |
| Other | 8.2 |
Formal Collaboration
The 30.0% of agencies’ staff who reported having formal relationships with local Head Start programs had contractual agreements to provide services such as dental or health care to the children, Welfare-to-Work programs for the families, or parenting classes. Exhibit 3-3 displays examples of the types of formal relationships community agencies’ staff reported with their local Head Start programs. Providing other services for Head Start such as mental health counseling, food service, or wrap-around day care was mentioned by almost one third (31.7%) of the agencies’ staff. Other formal collaborations included sharing facilities (28.3%), referral of clients (26.7%), and providing health services for Head Start children (23.3%). Only 8.3% of the community agencies’ staff reported that they had formal arrangements to share financial resources with Head Start.
| Percentages (n = 60) |
|
|---|---|
| Provided other services | 31.7 |
| Shared facilities | 28.3 |
| Referred clients | 26.7 |
| Provided health services | 23.3 |
| Conducted workshops | 18.3 |
| Shared funds | 8.3 |
| In-kind contributions | 5.0 |
| Other | 8.3 |
Communication
Even though most agencies’ staff reported a relationship with Head Start, only 34.0% of them indicated that communication with Head Start occurred often or very often. The majority of the agencies’ staff conveyed that they only rarely (41.0%) or sometimes (21.5%) communicated with Head Start. Exhibit 3-4 presents the types of communication with Head Start reported by the community agencies’ staff. Most communication was done by phone (38.5%) and involved a discussion of mutual clients and shared services (29.5%) or client referrals (21.0%). In sum, while many community agency staff reported having a collaborative relationship with Head Start, most interactions were informal and did not involve regular communication.
| Percentages (N = 200) |
|
|---|---|
| Methods of Communication | |
| By phone | 38.5 |
| In person | 26.5 |
| At formal or informal meetings | 17.0 |
| Written | 5.5 |
| Nature of Communications | |
| Discuss mutual clients or shared services | 29.5 |
| Refer clients | 21.0 |
| Request information about services | 16.5 |
| Share general information | 10.0 |
| Discuss workshops or trainings, or provide advice | 3.5 |
| Other | 3.0 |
Head Start Perspective on Collaboration
As part of the main study, Head Start Family Service Workers (FSWs) were asked about their collaborations with local community service providers. While almost three quarters (73.2%) of the FSWs reported meeting with community agency staff to discuss what services were available for families in their caseloads, one half (48.7%) commented that they met with agency representatives less than once a month. About one third (31.8%) of these Head Start staff indicated they did not meet with community service providers to discuss specific Head Start families being served by the agency. Exhibit 3-5 displays the frequency of collaboration with community agencies, as reported by the FSWs.
| Percentages (N = 160) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than Once a Month |
About Once a Month |
Less than Once a Month |
No Contact | |
| Joint membership on an advisory panel or community board | 3.0 | 28.4 | 29.2 | 39.4 |
| Meetings to discuss general services for Head Start families | 6.1 | 19.7 | 48.7 | 24.5 |
| Meetings to discuss services for specific Head Start families | 9.1 | 33.3 | 25.8 | 31.8 |
Head Start FSWs were asked to discuss what they perceived as barriers to collaboration with their local community service providers and the extent to which each barrier impacted their ability to work with agencies in a meaningful way. A list of the types of barriers to collaboration and how often each was experienced is presented in Exhibit 3-6. About two thirds of the FSWs reported lack of child care during class or meeting times (65.1%), a limited number of openings available to the Head Start parents at local agencies (63.6%), and inconvenient hours of operation (57.6%) as the most frequent barriers to successful collaboration.
| Percentages (N = 200) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never | Rarely | Some-times | Frequently | |
| Limited number of openings for families at agencies | 12.1 | 22.7 | 33.3 | 30.3 |
| Content or focus of agencies does not match families' needs | 21.2 | 30.3 | 39.4 | 9.1 |
| Lack of bilingual staff | 44.1 | 21.5 | 10.8 | 21.8 |
| Services inaccessible or too far away | 22.7 | 24.2 | 28.8 | 24.2 |
| Availability of child care during class or meeting time | 19.7 | 15.2 | 33.3 | 31.8 |
| Schedule does not meet family needs | 19.7 | 22.7 | 39.4 | 18.2 |
| Lack of cooperation from staff at agencies | 33.3 | 40.9 | 21.2 | 4.5 |
| Cost of service is prohibitive | 30.3 | 33.8 | 24.2 | 10.6 |
3.3 Procedures for Referral
Service to low-income families is a common objective for the community agencies and Head Start. Therefore, client referrals between agencies are critical for helping those families obtain the resources they need. Almost two thirds (64.1%) of all community agencies’ staff reported that Head Start referred clients to them. Yet, most of the community agencies’ staff reported that they rarely (22%) or only sometimes (33%) referred clients to Head Start. Exhibit 3-7 displays the methods of client referral to Head Start, as reported by the community agencies’ staff.
The most frequent methods of referral used by staff at all of the community agencies included providing clients with written or verbal information about the Head Start programs (29.0%) or providing the Head Start programs’ phone numbers, addresses, or locations (27.0%). Only about one fifth (19.0%) of the community agencies’ staff placed a call directly to their local Head Start programs or accompanied their clients to the program. The method of referral to Head Start varied somewhat by type of agency.
The great majority of agencies, regardless of type, engaged in more passive methods of referral such as merely providing their clients with informational literature or phone numbers and addresses of the local Head Start programs. However, about one third of the agencies that provided educational services (33.3%) or provided financial services (28.4%), such as help with housing or income, also engaged in more proactive methods of referral, such as calling a Head Start program directly or accompanying clients to a local Head Start program.
| Methods of Referrals | Percentages (N = 200) Type of Agencies |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Education | Medical | Social Services | Financial | Child Care | |
| Provide written or verbal information about Head Start | 29.0 | 31.1 | 35.7 | 29.6 | 28.4 | 32.7 |
| Provide Head Start phone number, address, or location | 27.0 | 28.9 | 31.0 | 26.8 | 24.3 | 34.6 |
| Complete a written referral (form, letter, application) | 12.5 | 7.8 | 14.3 | 18.3 | 20.3 | 19.2 |
| Call Head Start directly or take client to Head Start | 19.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 23.9 | 28.4 | 15.4 |
| Other | 3.5 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 6.8 | 3.9 |
Head Start FSWs reported that almost one half (49.8%) of their referrals to community service providers entailed giving families specific information about the agency’s services so they could arrange for help independently. Examples of the information provided to families included the location of the agency, the time of classes, or the name of a contact person. Only around one third (32.4%) of the Head Start referrals included arranging appointments for the Head Start families with local community service providers and less than one fifth (16.4%) of the FSWs reported that they actually accompanied the families. The majority of Head Start staff indicated they most often followed up the referrals by talking with the families (86.4%) and staff almost never (22.7%) or rarely (34.8%) received notification from the local community service providers.
3.4 Perceptions of Head Start
Many community agency staff felt that their relationship with Head Start was very important (48%) and that the quality of that relationship was positive (59.0%). However, when asked about any problems they had encountered during interactions with Head Start, or if there were areas they felt could be improved, 38.2% reported problems and 68.1% had suggestions for improvement. Exhibit 3-8 presents the five areas where community providers felt the collaboration between Head Start and their agencies could be improved, with examples in each area.
 |
||
| Areas for suggested improvements | Statements by Agency Providers | |
| Better communication |  |
Need for more joint meetings; need to share information. |
| Willingness to cooperate | |
Too few referrals; Head Start not receptive to ideas; Head Start not willing to work with other agencies; Head Start is “elitist.” |
| Improved Head Start service | |
Too few hours; no transportation; inaccessible locations; long waiting lists; curriculum inadequate. |
| Better trained Head Start staff or program organization | |
Weak administrative skills and organization; poor communication skills with children. |
| Philosophy of Head Start | |
Guidelines are difficult to understand; Head Start income guidelines are too low. |
Community Agency Staff Quotes |
||
“They [Head Start] don’t represent themselves in meetings, they are not an integral part of the child care system. I think Head Start is so comprehensive within themselves that they don’t need to collaborate with anyone else. I feel that they think they are separate from other child care agencies.” |
“We have a great relationship. I’ve been here for over nine years and have never encountered any problems. I really can’t think of any problems; we have a very collaborative relationship.” |
|
| --Rural Child Care Subsidy Agency | --Urban Medical Clinic | |
| “I haven’t encountered any problems
– we cooperate to give good service to parents and kids. We
work together on a regular basis to improve the quality of our services.” |
“It is really hard to get the person in charge
at Head Start to work with you and follow through. If I call them,
they won’t call me back. It seems that they are always hesitant
in working with any community-based organization.” |
|
| --Urban YMCA | --Urban Family Service Center | |
3.5 Strategies for Outreach
Identifying and engaging low-income families can be very challenging. Most agencies’ staff reported using combinations of traditional and non-traditional recruitment strategies. Exhibit 3-9 presents the top ten recruitment strategies reported by the community service providers. Referrals from other agencies (44.5%) and word-of-mouth (40.5%) were most frequently mentioned as recruitment strategies. Fourteen percent of the agencies’ staff indicated they did not actively recruit clients, and only 2.5% actively sought clients through Head Start.
| Percentages (N = 200) |
|
|---|---|
| Referrals from other agencies | 44.5 |
| Word-of-mouth | 40.5 |
| Distribute brochures, fliers, publications | 33.0 |
| Newspaper ads | 26.0 |
| TV/radio ads | 22.5 |
| Workshops, trainings, speaking engagements | 16.5 |
| Yellow pages | 13.0 |
| Community events | 11.0 |
| Churches or synagogues | 10.5 |
| Schools or day care centers | 9.5 |
A study of Head Start recruitment and enrollment practices was conducted in ten of the FACES program sites in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000 (D’Elio, O’Brien, Magee, Keane, Connell, & Hailey, 2000). Although Head Start outreach and recruitment staff reported the use of a wide variety of recruitment strategies, two main strategies emerged from focus group discussions: 1) referrals from agencies (e.g., WIC, social services, health departments, health care facilities, child care referral agencies, school districts, special needs agencies, crisis centers, food banks, agencies serving the disabled); and 2) advertising in the form of posters and flyers placed at the same local agencies or at local businesses in the community (e.g., grocery stores, laundromats, gas stations, post offices) or media buys (radio and television ads, public service announcements, advertising on buses). The next two most frequently mentioned types of successful outreach strategies were recruiting families at community functions such as health fairs, festivals, or even flea markets and enlisting Head Start families to recruit their friends, neighbors, or family. Most staff felt that word-of-mouth was very important, perhaps even their most successful strategy for identifying families eligible for Head Start. Generally, there were no differences found across rural or urban sites in the types of recruitment strategies used; however, staff from two rural sites did report that some strategies, such as advertising on cable television or referrals from local community agencies were less successful because some very remote, rural communities may not have access to cable television or have many agencies located nearby.
These strategies utilized by Head Start staff are not unlike the outreach strategies reported by the community agency providers. Agencies located in rural versus urban areas were more likely to provide information to schools or daycare centers (12.0% rural vs. 7.0% urban), place newspaper ads (33.0% rural vs. 19.0% urban), or advertise in the Yellow Pages (16.0% rural vs. 10.0% urban). Agencies located in urban versus rural locations were more likely to recruit families at community events (13.0% urban vs. 9.0% rural) or provide information to physicians, dentists, clinics, or hospitals.
3.6 Summary
The data from the community agency providers and Head Start Family Service Worker interviews have contributed to a more complete understanding of the types and frequency of collaboration between Head Start programs and the network of agencies within their communities.
Highlights from the findings of these interviews include:
-
Types of Collaboration. Most community agencies collaborated with Head Start but the majority of the collaboration was informal, such as the referral of clients to Head Start or serving on the same community-wide committees. Fewer agencies’ staff reported formal collaborations such as contractual arrangements to provide dental or health care for Head Start children, Welfare-to-Work programs for the families, or parenting classes.
-
Communication. Even though agencies’ staff reported a relationship with Head Start, most interactions were informal and did not involve regular communication. Most communication was done by phone and involved a discussion of mutual clients, shared services, or client referrals.
-
Referrals. While most agencies’ staff reported receiving client referrals from Head Start, they rarely or only sometimes referred clients to Head Start, and when referrals occurred, it mostly involved providing their clients with written or verbal information about Head Start, or the local program’s phone number or address.
-
Community Agencies’ Perception of Head Start. Most agencies’ staff felt that their relationship with Head Start was very important and that the quality of that relationship was positive. Yet when asked about any problems they had encountered during interactions with Head Start, many reported problems or had suggestions for improving collaboration. Agencies’ staff suggested that Head Start be more willing to collaborate, increase hours of operation, provide transportation for clients, and a more challenging curriculum for children, as well as have better trained, more organized staff.
-
Strategies for Recruiting Low-income Families. Most agencies’ staff used a combination of traditional and non-traditional recruitment strategies including referrals from other agencies or word-of-mouth, not unlike outreach strategies utilized by Head Start staff. Very few agencies’ staff mentioned outreach to Head Start as a way of identifying eligible clients.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |