Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Section VI
Conclusions and Implications
The central goal of this project was to learn more about Head Start families. To that end, this study has explored issues faced by Head Start children and families, by Head Start programs and staff, and by the community services that assist these families. Information has been collected from a variety of sources, including interviews with Head Start parents and staff members, home visits to Head Start families, and interviews with service providers in the local communities. This section integrates some of the key findings that were presented in earlier chapters in this report as well as findings from a related project on recruitment and enrollment in Head Start. In addition, this section includes brief discussions regarding the implications of the study findings for Head Start policy makers. In many cases, Head Start programs are already addressing policy and program issues that are raised in this report.
The Changing Face of Poverty in America
Because the target population served by Head Start is families with young children living in poverty, it is important to understand the current and evolving context of poverty in the United States. Several demographic and economic trends among American families have altered the lives of children in recent decades (Corcoran & Chaudry, 1997; Hernandez 1993).
Trends in Racial and Ethnic Diversity
The ethnic and racial diversity of America’s children continues to increase. According to O’Hare (2001), minority children (i.e., any group other than non-Hispanic white) accounted for 39% of the population under 18 in 2000, compared to 31% in 1990. Minority children accounted for 98% of the growth in the child population during the 1990s. The two fastest-growing groups of U.S. children are Hispanic and immigrant children. The number of Hispanic children in the U.S. has increased by 4.5 million (59%) between 1990 and 2000 and 6.7 million (119%) between 1980 and 2000 (O’Hare, 2001). By 2020, it is projected that more than 20% of children in the U.S. will be of Hispanic origin (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). In 2000, about one fifth (19%) of the children in the U.S. were immigrants or children of immigrants (O’Hare, 2001; Urban Institute, 2000) compared to 14% in 1990 and 10% in 1980 (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). The number of immigrant children is projected to continue to increase to over 9 million children in 2010 or 22% of the school-age population (Fix & Passel, 1994). The high rates of growth among minority and immigrant children are reshaping the overall racial and ethnic mix of children in the U.S. In addition, because minority and immigrant children are disproportionately more likely to be poor, these demographic shifts have led to increased childhood poverty among these groups.
Trends in Family Structure
Family structures of America’s children have become more varied. More than two thirds (69%) of the children in the U.S. lived in married-couple households in 2000. However, children living in the U.S. are increasingly more likely to live with a single parent. The percentage of children who were living in mother-only families increased from 8% to 20% between 1960 and 1990 (Hernandez, 1993). Current data indicate that 22% of children lived in single-parent households headed by females in 2000 (O’Hare, 2001). Since mother-only families are much more likely to be poor than are two-parent families, this trend has led to increased child poverty rates. A recent trend of interest involving family structure is the multigenerational family. The 2000 Census reported that 3.9 million family households or 4% of households were multigenerational. Also, the proportion of children living with single fathers has doubled from 2% in 1980 to 4% in 2000 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001).
Trends in Parental Education and Family Size
Children living in the U.S. are now more likely to have parents who have completed more years of education than in the past and to live in smaller families with fewer siblings. Recent Census data (Newburger & Curry, 2000) indicated that 88% of young adults have completed high school and 29% have received a bachelor’s degree or higher. Census 2000 data also revealed that, despite increases in the number of households and the number of people in the U.S. since 1990, both the average household size (2.63 to 2.59) and average family size (3.16 to 3.14) decreased over the decade(1). Family poverty rates have been found to rise sharply with the number of children in the family (Danzinger, Danzinger, & Stern, 1997), and educational attainment has been a strong predictor of earnings. Both trends in parental education and family size increased children’s access to human and economic resources and helped to reduce childhood poverty rates.
Trends in Employment
Children living in the U.S. are now more likely to have at least one parent working full-time. Since 1990, the ability of parents to secure employment has paralleled the overall trends in employment in the U.S. The percentage of children who had at least one parent working full time all year continued to increase in 1999 to 79% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). A disproportionate share of the increase in this trend over the 1990s was due to the increase in the percentage of children living with single mothers who were employed, which increased from 33%in 1993 to 47% in 1999. Parental employment has been found to reduce the incidence of poverty and its attendant risks to children. In 1999, 88% of children living at or above the poverty line had at least one parent working full time all year compared to 31% of children living in poverty.
These trends help explain and give context to the challenges facing Head Start families, staff, and communities. They also help frame the discussion of the FACES findings that address the following three questions:
- Who are the families served by Head Start?
- What challenges do Head Start families face and what strengths do families possess?
- How are Head Start families involved with their children and with their Head Start programs?
Head Start Families are Diverse
Although Head Start is too often subject to stereotypic views about families in poverty, the data strongly supported the fact that there is no “typical” Head Start family. In fact, the diversity within the population of Head Start families is a defining characteristic of the program. Because programs strive to tailor their individual programs to meet the needs of particular communities, this process results in a national program that serves a broad range of children and families.
Head Start Families are Diverse across Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
This diversity was first noted in the race, ethnicity, and culture of the children. The nationally representative sample of children included strong representation of African American, White, and Hispanic groups. While diversity was seen across the three main ethnic groups, the proportion of recent immigrants within the program was relatively low. Less than one fifth of all primary caregivers were born in a country other than the United States, and only a small percentage of the primary caregivers, about 2%, reported that they had resided in the United States for less than five years. In addition, English was the primary language in a majority of Head Start homes, while just under one third of the families spoke Spanish in their homes.
Even within ethnic groups, diversity was apparent. The data demonstrated that Hispanics, as a group, were heterogeneous, diverse, and dynamic. For example, Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico, who were both the majority ethnic group in their culture and spoke the dominant language, may have had certain advantages over other groups given their ethnic- and language-majority status. Spanish-speaking mainland Hispanics had both ethnic- and language-minority status in the U.S., which may have conferred certain disadvantages on these families. While English-speaking mainland Hispanics were ethnic minorities in the overall culture of the U.S., their ability to communicate in the majority language may have afforded some protective benefits to these families. Significant variations among the three Hispanic groups in educational attainment, marital status, and income highlighted the importance of understanding the diversity among Hispanic families. This diversity is perhaps more salient in addressing policy and research questions for programs like Head Start than in seeking to understand the “typical” Hispanic family.
Head Start Families are Diverse in Family Structure
Diversity, however, extended well beyond race, ethnicity, and culture. Diversity was also seen in family structures. The range of well-represented family types included dual-parent families, single-parent families who had been widowed, divorced, or separated, and families who were blended. Reflecting the national trend for an increasing percentage of single parent families, less than one half of all parents were married, and less than one half of the children lived with both their mother and father. About one third of the parents reported being single, while almost one quarter were divorced, separated, or widowed. One third of the households were mother-only, and two or more adults (age 18 or older) were present in just under three quarters of the households. It also was noted that approximately 5% of the Head Start children lived in families where grandparents served as their primary caregivers. Almost three times that many children lived in households where at least one grandparent also resided, a figure that is much higher than the reported national trend (Simmons & O’Neill, 2001).
Head Start Families are Diverse in Educational Attainment and Employment
Head Start parents represented a range of educational levels and work status. Almost three fourths of the primary caregivers had attained at least a high school diploma or GED, and, similar to the national trends, almost 90% of the households contained at least one individual with a high school diploma or GED. Many Head Start parents had progressed beyond high school. About one third reported they had attended some college or received an Associate’s degree, but less than 3% had earned a college degree or higher, a figure much lower than the national trend. Most importantly, at the time of the fall 1997 parent interview, approximately one fourth of all parents reported that they were working toward a degree, certificate, or license.
Over one half of all parents were employed in the fall of 1997, and of those who were employed, one third had full-time jobs and one fifth were working part-time or had seasonal work. In contrast, just over one fifth of the parents reported there were no employed household members. Consistent with the changes in public assistance programs, many Head Start families experienced changes in the employment status of adult members; most experienced changes in their employment status two or more times over the course of the study. Reflective in some respects of the updated TANF requirements that were implemented about the time the study started, many Head Start families had gains in employment, even though these gains did not always result in full-time work.
Head Start Families are Like Other Families
Looking at the picture of Head Start families is like looking at a coin -- there are two sides to the story. While there was great diversity in the types of Head Start families, parents from these low-income families also had much in common with each other, as well as with parents who were more advantaged. While commonalities were not evident in family type, education, or work status, many families in the study shared similar values with regards to the hopes and goals they expressed for their families and their children.
Head Start Families Have Common Hopes and Goals
Head Start parents generally held optimistic expectations for their children’s early schooling experiences. Parents’ hopes and goals for their children were focused on general education goals, such as learning basic skills and doing well in school. These goals included optimistic expectations about their children’s future educational attainment. Most parents in the case study had specific long-term educational goals for their children, such as graduating from high school and attending college.
Most parents in the case study expressed the conviction that positive relationships within their families were a primary strength. These positive relationships were most often characterized in terms of the closeness or togetherness of their family or knowing that they could rely on one another and would take care of each other. Parents believed it was important for them to teach their children values or morals. Many also felt it was important to teach or show their children that education was important, to teach them how to behave, and to guide them and help set goals in their lives. Parents reported that they were successful or somewhat successful at teaching these things to their children and indicated they were very satisfied with their role as parents.
Head Start parents also expressed the desire to have the best for their children. In terms of trying to help them reach goals, many parents were expecting Head Start to provide an academic boost for their children. More than two thirds of parents anticipated that Head Start would help prepare their children for school and almost two fifths expected that the program would provide social interactions with other children. In fact, findings from the case study suggested that the primary reason families enrolled their children in Head Start was to benefit the children, particularly for general educational reasons.
Policy Implications
The findings noted in this report reinforce many of the policies and initiatives that have already been implemented by Head Start, both nationally and on the local level. These initiatives include program improvements in the areas of staffing, training, and classroom curricula. The diversity of Head Start families challenges Head Start staff to monitor their communities, to be responsive to the cultures of their families, and to adapt recruitment strategies as needed. Nationally, the Head Start program has recognized this need through its Multicultural Principles, while local programs are addressing diversity by recruiting multicultural and multilingual staff members, providing training and technical assistance, and implementing multicultural materials and activities in classrooms.
Improved credentials and training do not just prepare Head Start staff for the challenges of families that come to the program; they also provide the skills needed to go into the community to recruit families with the greatest needs. The changing picture of families, concurrent with changes in ethnicity, education, and work status among low-income families, requires staff to broaden their knowledge and extend their efforts well beyond traditional program activities.
For example, in the recruitment and enrollment substudy, conducted at 10 of the FACES sites (D’Elio et al., 2000), Head Start field staff noted that some parents’ choices not to enroll their children in Head Start were rooted in the family’s cultural or ethnic background. They noted that some Hispanic families who were recruited to the program were wary of the amount and type of documentation they needed to provide for enrollment. They were hesitant to enroll their children in a Federally-funded program because of the perceived risks to their residency status. In order for these children to come to the program, Head Start staff needed to invest a lot of time building rapport and trust with these Hispanic families, who were often new to the communities.
Head Start Families Face Multiple Challenges
Head Start Families Possess Strengths to Address Them
Low-income families encounter many circumstances that compromise their ability to improve their economic status, and Head Start works with families to address the challenges associated with poverty. Assessing and addressing risks has become a key element in the provision of services for low-income families. The expectation is that when a local program provides assistance to a family, it also is improving the developmental environment for a child.
The Kids Count Data Book (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999) annually details specific risks encountered by low-income families across the nation. This source compiles data on six particular family characteristics that impact child development and well-being. The six characteristics or risk factors are:
- The child is not living with two parents;
- The household head is a high school dropout;
- The family income is below the poverty line;
- The child is living with parents(s) who do not have steady, full-time employment;
- The family is receiving welfare benefits; and
- The child does not have health insurance.
Head Start aims to serve the neediest families, who face many of these multiple risks. In the recruitment and enrollment substudy, Head Start recruitment staff reported that they often targeted single-parent families, families that were low functioning, and families who were at high risk. In many cases, families had more than one of these concerns.
Among FACES families, the most likely risks were being from a household that had an income below the poverty level, experienced by two thirds of the families, and being from a single-parent household, which affected just over one half of the families. None of the other risks were reported by more than one third of the families. More critically, however, one fifth of the families were identified as having four or more of the risk factors. Recent research has noted that multiple occurrences of selected family risk factors predict negative outcomes for children (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia Coll, 1997; McLoyd, 1998; Vandivere, Moore & Brown, 2000). Children in these families were considered to be at risk for developmental problems. In FACES, parents from families with four or more risks were more depressed, had less social support, and a more external locus of control, while their children scored lower on emergent literacy.
Too often neglected is the fact that even at-risk families have opportunities to draw on their own strengths to face these challenges. Head Start families face adversity familiar to many low-income families. While many of the families were described in the case study narratives as relatively stable, they still faced multiple challenges that reached across several areas of their lives, including employment status, health, child care, household membership, and relationships with significant others. However, findings from the case studies also provided opportunities to see the resilience and strengths of these families that often surfaced in the face of their harsh, daily realities. What may represent a strength for one family may actually increase risk for another. As many Head Start staff know, the true interpretation of what is a challenge versus what is a strength must be based on knowledge of each particular family, an issue that will be addressed in the policy implications.
Head Start Families Have Challenges in the Home
The study findings suggested that the structure of a household has important implications for child and family resources and outcomes. In this light, it is interesting that children lived with both a mother and father in less than one half of the households, and that in one third of the households, the mothers were the only adults living with the children. As identified above, single-parent families are a growing trend among low-income families in the U.S. and represent an important risk category identified by Kids Count (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1999).
Many households had a dynamic structure. From fall 1997 to spring 1998, two fifths of all families indicated that someone either entered or left their household. The importance of household structure was noted: Changes in child outcomes were associated with household changes. For example, when key males (fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers, grandfathers, or a male spouse or partner of the mother) left the household, monthly income decreased and mothers were more likely to report their children’s behavior as aggressive. Curiously, a similar finding regarding aggressive behavior was seen when key females (mothers, stepmothers, foster mothers, grandmothers, or a female spouse or partner of the father) entered the household.
Having fathers in the home was generally considered a strength for families. Even where this was not possible, there were important benefits for families just by having fathers who were active in the raising of their children. Given that fathers lived with their children in only 44% of the households, this is an important finding. While the involvement of fathers certainly benefited their children, benefits of father involvement extended to mothers and other family members as well.
Strengths and challenges also arose in households where grandparents served as the primary caregivers for the Head Start children, a situation that occurred in 5% of the FACES families. When grandparents were caregivers, households seemed to be better-off economically and had less exposure to violence, but the challenges included increased reports of child problem behavior and lower caregiver participation in Head Start activities. Almost 15% of the households contained three-generational families, a configuration that coincided with increased levels of activity with children by other (non-parent) household members.
Head Start Families Have Economic Challenges
In terms of the economic challenges that Head Start families face, low income is predominant. Having an income at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is the first eligibility requirement applied to families during recruitment and enrollment into Head Start. At the time of the baseline data collection, two thirds of the families had household incomes that were below the FPL. While this is a smaller percentage of families than was initially expected, this percentage likely reflects advances made by some families from the time of their enrollment into the program, particularly in the era of welfare reform. Also, this study collected data on household income (rather than family income), a figure that likely included resources that were not considered by Head Start for eligibility. Even with limited economic resources, case study parents felt they were able to meet many of the families’ basic needs, but they also reported that their financial resources did not always provide them with the ability to give their children items that they wanted or to buy things for themselves.
Employment was an issue for many families, for even though more than one half of all parents were employed in the fall of 1997, about 20% of the households had no employed members. The fact that two thirds of the parents had no more than a high school education at the time of the baseline interview, and that less than 3% actually had a college degree, limited the types of opportunities available to most Head Start parents. It was encouraging to find that in the face of the challenge provided by limited education, about one quarter of the parents reported that they were working toward a degree, certificate, or license at the time of the baseline interview. As noted above in the description of the changing face of poverty, improved education and training serves to strengthen families facing economic challenges.
Head Start Families Have Environmental Challenges
One interesting area explored in this study was the investigation of how families perceived their neighborhoods and what neighborhood and home environments contributed to the lives of Head Start families. Some of the most striking findings were related to parents’ reports regarding exposure to violent and nonviolent crimes in their neighborhoods and homes, both for themselves and for their children. While more than one quarter of the parents reported seeing nonviolent crimes in their neighborhoods, almost one third reported seeing violent crimes near their homes. Almost one quarter of the parents knew individuals who were victims of violent crimes in their neighborhoods. Even many Head Start children were reported to have been exposed to crime and violence. About one fifth of the children were reported to have witnessed crimes or domestic violence in their lives, including 3% who had actually been victims of domestic violence or crimes.
Whether in the home or in the neighborhood, the reality of violence was very close for many of the Head Start families, and in turn this was associated with specific child and family outcomes. Exposure to neighborhood violence negatively impacted child behavior, even in children as young as 3 and 4 years old. A relationship was also found between exposure to violence and parental depression. Parents who lived in more violent neighborhoods were more depressed and more likely to report that their children had behavior problems. The findings suggested that exposure to violence has both direct and indirect negative consequences for the children and families. Other factors, such as maternal depression, may serve as the mechanism through which exposure to neighborhood violence leads to problem behavior in children.
Another challenge that many families faced was having a family member with current or previous involvement with the criminal justice system. Nearly one fourth of the parents reported that they, another household member, or a non-household biological parent had been arrested or charged with a crime since the birth of the Head Start child. Almost one fifth of the parents indicated that someone in their family had spent time in jail. Children from families who had involvement with the criminal justice system were almost five times more likely to have been exposed to violent crime or domestic violence and four times more likely to have been a victim of violent crime or domestic violence. In addition, more than one third of the parents acknowledged having firearms in their homes.
While this information paints a rather bleak picture for Head Start families, the case study found evidence for a more positive outlook regarding living environments. A majority of Head Start families indicated that they felt their neighborhoods were good places to raise children and had positive characteristics. For example, over one half described their neighborhoods as quiet or peaceful, free from crime and drugs, with friendly neighbors who were helpful and trustworthy. Additionally, findings from the main study suggested that being involved in and having a positive experience at Head Start may serve as protective factors against exposure to neighborhood violence.
Head Start Families Have Health Challenges and Support Systems
Many low-income families faced a number of risks to the health of their members. For example, almost one half of the Head Start children lived in households containing at least one smoker. Although the parent interview did not inquire about health services utilization, most parents in the case study reported that someone in their families had experienced a physical illness during the study period, often two or more times over the course of the study. About one third of the illnesses in these samples were serious enough to require hospitalization.
Fortunately, when medical services were required, almost all of the parents reported that they and their children had regular health care providers for routine medical care. Medical services for Head Start families were most often provided at a doctor’s office or at a private clinic, and 80% had private health insurance or Medicaid coverage. Almost all of the parents also noted that their children had received dental care, usually at a private dentist’s office. Even when 20% of the children had not visited a dentist prior to the fall 1997 interview, the majority had received dental care by the following spring, typically without assistance from Head Start.
With regards to mental health, depression has been found to be a serious problem for low-income women. Close to one third of the parents in the FACES sample were classified as moderately or severely depressed. Mothers living without the children’s fathers in the home more often reported being depressed than those who had the children’s fathers present in the home. Most parents in the case study experienced some level of depression at least once during the course of the study.
The effects of depression included the findings that parents who were more depressed reported greater need for and use of social services, were more likely to report an external locus of control, reported less social support, reported a lower household income, engaged in fewer safety practices, and participated in fewer activities with their children. Parents who were more depressed were also more likely to report that their children had problem behavior, including aggressive, hyperactive, and withdrawn behavior. Conversely, less depression was associated with reports of increased positive social behavior and emergent literacy. As noted earlier, maternal depression may serve as the mechanism through which exposure to neighborhood violence leads to problem behavior in children.
In light of the number of Head Start parents suffering from some level of depression, the availability of social supports for raising children takes on heightened importance. Across three types of support (parenting advice, help with household tasks, and having someone to confide in), case study families most often received support from extended family members, and most of these families reported having at least one person in their social support network for each type of support. Unfortunately, not all families shared this type of resource; over 30% of families indicated that they had no one to give them help with household tasks.
The finding that Head Start families received social support is important. Even at the beginning of the school year, Head Start served an important role in this area: Almost all of the parents reported that the local program staff was helpful to them in raising their young children. In this case, families recognized that there are strengths in the people around them, such as the Head Start staff, and made use of this support and expertise. More about the relationship between programs and families is covered in the next part of this section.
Policy Implications
As noted above, risks are present in the lives of many Head Start families, including having a household income below the poverty line and having a single-parent household. However, the presence of multiple risks raises serious concerns for these families. The implications of this touch two areas of program practice and policy. The first area is policy directed at families and family services. The study findings highlight the need to consider the strengths that families have as well as the challenges families encounter. This emphasizes the importance of the family assessments and the subsequent Family Partnerships that are generated from the assessments. From the recruitment and enrollment substudy, it is apparent that staff members do understand the value of the assessment, and the potential value to be gained in understanding how individual families operate. Staff also know to target particular family risks or presence of multiple risks during the recruitment and enrollment activities, in an attempt to bring into Head Start the families in greatest need of services.
The recent increase in emphasis on literacy programs, including programs for parents, has important implications for helping parents to draw on their strengths, by continuing education and gaining or improving their employment opportunities. Training topics for families often incorporate other areas in which challenges arise. For example, family training regarding physical and mental health issues may be beneficial for parents who are facing these challenges.
In addition to policy directed towards parent training, Head Start has already begun to consider the implications of the changing populations for their own staff. Many of the risks presented represent areas that parents often do not recognize themselves. Head Start staff training must assist staff in the task of identifying the challenges families face and the strengths they bring to address these challenges. Critical here is the selection of staff to work most directly with families on these issues. Often the front line staff of Head Start who address family issues are the Family Service Workers. Unfortunately, they often have the lowest level of education and are among the poorest paid of the staff. When staff are entrusted with the task of steering families through delicate or stressful situations, they must possess the skills to know how to steer families in the right direction. In this case, providing Head Start staff that are well-trained and appropriate for the task may have great implications for the Head Start families.
Head Start Families Are Active with Their Children and with Head Start
Head Start’s mission includes promoting the work of parents in their role as the primary nurturers of their children. The Program Performance Standards (ACYF, 1998c) direct local programs to build Family Partnerships as a means of assisting parents with the task of involving themselves in the lives of their children. Parent involvement means both engaging in home activities with their children, such as reading, playing games, and doing chores with them, and assisting parents in becoming advocates for their children. In order to meet this goal, programs are helping parents become involved in all areas of child development as well as with local schools and communities. The discussion below is centered on how parents are actively involved with their children and with the program.
Parent Involvement with Children is Crucial
The FACES data support the notion that parents’ involvement in activities with their children has a number of positive consequences for families. Activities with children were identified as coming from different sources: Various family members may read to a child or engage a child in some type of routine weekly or monthly activity. Family activities with children were associated with positive child outcomes. Families who were more actively involved with their children reported that their children had more positive behaviors and fewer problem behaviors, including aggressive and hyperactive behavior.
The household structure has been associated with outcomes for the family members, including involvement in activities with children. For example, children who were living in households where a grandparent was present had higher levels of total and monthly activity with non-parent household members. When families had key males enter their households, there were significant increases in total child-oriented activity. Increases in weekly family activity with the Head Start children were evident in homes where key females left during the year.
With a closer look at the effect of variations in household structures, FACES provided an opportunity to learn about the involvement of fathers and Head Start children, whether or not the fathers lived in the home with their children. The salience of this issue is that less than one half of the children were reported to live with their fathers, and the findings showed that the benefits of having a father available to the children were clear. As expected, fathers who lived at home engaged in more activities with their children than fathers who did not live in the home. Mothers were more active with their children when fathers were not in the household, regardless of how available the non-household fathers were to the children. Fathers who were more active with their children were also more helpful to mothers in raising their children. In situations where non-household fathers were less involved, other household family members and non-household family members seemed to compensate by engaging the Head Start children in more activities.
The broader consequences of having a father in the household went beyond simple activity with the children to affect the entire household. For example, the use of discipline, both time outs and spanking, were more likely to occur when fathers were not present in the homes. Families who received TANF were more than four times more likely to have the father living out of the household than families not receiving TANF. Families with non-household fathers had the greatest need for and use of community services. Of critical importance for our understanding of the importance of fathers, children who were identified as witnesses of violent crime or domestic violence were more than twice as likely to have a non-household father, while children who were reported to have been victims of violent crime or abuse were nearly four times more likely than children who were non-victims not to live with their fathers.
Families Benefit from Program Involvement
Most parents were active in the program, and, along with their strong desire to be involved in their children’s education, seemed to value and know that there were benefits that came with program involvement. About one third of the case study parents focused on child-related consequences of their involvement, noting that it helped their children, their children enjoyed it, or that it was meaningful to their children to have their parents participate in activities at their schools.
Program involvement also helped parents stay informed about what their children were learning and experiencing. Most of the case study families reported they were invited to participate in Head Start activities, that they had participated in many of these activities, and that they were very satisfied with the Head Start activities in which they participated. Through routine volunteer activities, parents were brought to the centers where they could be involved with their children as well as with other families and staff; they could also develop job skills, parenting skills, and social skills.
The study data showed that the parents who were most involved with their local programs became less depressed, felt a greater sense of control over their lives, reported increased social support and monthly household incomes, and they increased their use of household rules from the beginning of the Head Start year. They also increased the amount of activity they did with their children from the fall to the spring. Although parents with moderate and even low levels of program involvement showed positive gains in some of these areas, unlike the more involved parents, they showed almost no increase in the amount of activity they engaged in with their children.
Despite parents’ best intentions, not all were able to participate at the level they would have liked. The case study provided many examples of families who highly valued participating in Head Start, even when faced with common barriers such as work and school commitments, the need for childcare or transportation, and health problems. One mother, in particular, who faced such personal hardships as serious health problems, alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide, exemplified this commitment. Despite her challenges, she participated in many Head Start activities. She felt that involvement with the program helped her to fulfill the goals she had for her son and enhanced her role as a parent. She even credited her involvement at Head Start with helping her to manage her emotional problems.
Parents felt that Head Start helped their children with academics and through social interactions with other children, as well as with adults. Although parents generally indicated that they came to Head Start to help prepare their children for school, by the end of the school year, many parents reported that Head Start had helped their families in ways that were not expected. For example, compared with what parents had expected in the fall, by spring 1998, more than twice as many parents reported that Head Start had helped their children with independence, developing good habits, and improving manners.
Unfortunately, parents were much less likely to initially expect benefits for themselves or their families from the program. Almost one fifth of parents did not believe that Head Start could help them. However, by the end of the school year, parents also reported unexpected family benefits, including improved communication skills, better use of discipline, and greater social or emotional support.
The majority of the Head Start staff maintained that the main benefits of Head Start for children were improved interactions with other children and adults and school readiness. Staff in rural programs and in the Southern region of the country were more likely to emphasize the social benefits of the Head Start program for children, while those in urban areas and in the Western region were more likely to highlight academic benefits. In terms of goals for families, staff suggested that the critical issues were to teach parents about child development and parenting and to inform parents about their own child’s development.
When asked to give their impressions of what the program did for families, Head Start administrative and field staff who participated in the recruitment and enrollment substudy reported that Head Start offered education and socialization opportunities as well as a quality, first educational experience for young children. They also felt that Head Start provided experiences that enhanced the personal growth of enrolled families and ranked parent education and job training high among benefits that the program provided, even though only 1% of the parents who were interviewed during the main study said that Head Start had helped them with education or job training.
Families Are Very Satisfied with Head Start
A recent national survey reported that Head Start received the highest customer satisfaction rating of any government agency or private business (President’s Management Council, 1999). Similarly, almost all of the FACES parents had very positive feelings toward their children’s and their own experiences at Head Start and felt that the program was meeting the needs and goals of their children. In-depth conversations with the case study families yielded the following insights. Families liked Head Start’s emphasis on academics, felt that their children were learning, and believed that the program was preparing their children for kindergarten. Most importantly, they were satisfied with the emphasis on the total child, including their physical, social, and behavioral development. A majority of parents indicated that their children enjoyed Head Start or that they were excited about going to Head Start each day. Most parents also suggested that their children enjoyed Head Start because they liked the opportunity to be with friends and play.
Parents from the main sample who were more satisfied were also more involved in program activities. Employed parents were less satisfied than non-working parents, although it was noted earlier that employed parents were also less involved with the program. Parents who reported that their children had a disability were also less satisfied with the program than parents who did not have children with a disability. In centers where staff reported greater use of parents as home visitors or workshop leaders or where parents prepared newsletters and assisted in curriculum planning, the parents reported greater satisfaction and more positive experiences with Head Start.
Unfortunately, about one third of the case study families expressed concerns with some aspects of Head Start and felt the program was not meeting the needs and goals of their children. Most of these parents wanted a greater emphasis on academics, and suggested that their children were not being prepared for kindergarten. They also expressed concerns with Head Start staff or service-related issues, such as the hours of program operation or the enrollment policies of the program.
Parents participating in the recruitment and enrollment substudy commented that they felt the traditional Head Start model of part-day or half-day sessions no longer met their needs, and that was why they chose not to enroll their children in the program. While many of these parents generally held positive opinions of Head Start and believed the program did a good job of providing socialization experiences for children, others felt that Head Start sacrificed education for socialization. The consensus opinion of one focus group of parents was that once the children moved out of preschool into kindergarten, they were negatively labeled as “Head Start” children – synonymous with unprepared – by the public school system.
These concerns were also reflected by the main sample when asked about suggested program improvements. The top four suggestions were to extend the program hours or have longer days, to have a greater focus on academics and school readiness, to provide more transportation options, and to improve the facilities like the playgrounds or classrooms. Despite these concerns, almost one half of the parents indicated that Head Start did not need to change or they were already satisfied with the program. For staff, the single most mentioned program improvement was to find methods or strategies for getting additional parents involved in the program and with their children.
Policy Implications
Head Start must continue its role of promoting parents as advocates for their children and for themselves. It is clear that although staff work hard to include families, this is their greatest struggle. The changing dynamics of families, as well as opportunities for work in the recent economic atmosphere, can create enormous difficulties for low-income families. Additional program initiatives that are underway to promote child involvement with other family members, such as grandparents and males (fathers), are an important step to continue in the effort to promote positive developmental environments and outcomes for children. More functional issues, such as limited ability to provide transportation and a center’s hours of operation, are currently being addressed within many programs, although resources are still limited in terms of providing resolutions in some areas. Continuing to promote the role of parents in planning and decision-making at the local level is another way that Head Start can be sure it is making its best effort to assist the changing needs of its families.
A recurring theme for Head Start is the recommendation to improve integration of program services with those in the community. The findings presented in the community agency section suggested that, at least in some communities, this is a goal that is still being worked out. Increasing opportunities for families to participate in community level functions help to build parents’ advocacy skills. Conversely, bringing parents and community services together also helps improve the awareness within the community of the needs of Head Start families in particular, and low-income families in general.
In terms of Head Start’s outreach efforts, program staff must continue to promote Head Start’s ability to assist families by offering a full range of the benefits that can be reaped through program participation. Both FACES and the recruitment and enrollment substudy indicated that parents were not always aware of the ways in which Head Start might help them.
Future Research Directions
It is clear that the descriptive aspects of FACES have provided updated and needed information on what is an evolving picture of Head Start families. The addition of a father survey, as well as a greater focus on family functioning, certainly indicate that the FACES 2000 data collection will be a significant advance on this effort.
This descriptive study of Head Start families had two, clear methodological strengths. The study provided new findings on the developmental and ecological contexts in which Head Start children lived, and it was done using a mixed-method approach. While the emphasis on these two aspects has yielded valuable data, there are potential benefits of continuing this blend of focus and approach. In terms of learning more about the developmental and ecological contexts of Head Start families, future studies should consider becoming more targeted. For example, while FACES provides a rich picture of the program nationally, there are important components of the Head Start population that seem to need additional study. This includes special populations, such as American Indians and Alaska Natives and Migrant families. While these two populations were represented among the study sample, Head Start programs that were specifically set up for these groups were not included in the overall FACES sample. The FACES findings also suggest that further investigation into the functioning of varying family types, including non-traditional families such as grandparent-led households, will be fruitful.
Furthermore, in looking at specific groups or types of families, the focus should be increased on assessing family and individual strengths. The qualitative case study made clear that while the research often focused on challenges families faced, many of these families demonstrated great resilience in the face of these challenges. While research on challenges helps to highlight areas in which families need support, including a focus on strengths may help illuminate successful strategies for addressing these challenges.
Important developmental and ecological contexts that FACES began to investigate are community and neighborhood environments, and further work along these lines is encouraged. The ability to link Head Start families to secondary sources of data, such as census data at the neighborhood level, will be important for assuring that Head Start services are appropriate, and should also facilitate both Head Start recruitment efforts and strategic planning so that Head Start is always prepared to meet the changing face of poverty.
Methodologically, Head Start will continue to benefit from the application of varied data collection approaches. This report, particularly the case study and the recruitment and enrollment substudy, are excellent examples of how a qualitative approach can provide depth to better understand the findings of the more standard quantitative approach. As a follow-up to the FACES case study, future case studies could extend this methodology beyond the family to the program, and encompass the families, staff, program components, and community that are associated with each program. The inclusion of secondary data sources, such as in proposed community and neighborhood level work, will extend the usefulness of the study findings.
Perhaps most important is the need to continue collecting, analyzing, and reporting national data on the children and families served by Head Start and on the programs that strive to meet their needs. Regular, ongoing national data collection can serve as a kind of surveillance system of the dynamic population of families that comes to the Head Start door, of the professional development needs of the staff that serve them, and of the best program practices to ensure a brighter future for these families and the children they entrust to Head Start’s care.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |