II Workshop Internacional - Selecting measures longitudinal ECD reasearch

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project and Beyond: Lessons Learned and Implications for Longitudinal ECD Research

Kimberly Boller The Maria Cecilia Souto Vidigal Foundation’s Second International Workshop on ECD Sao Paulo, October 3, 2008

1

Overview Review of Early Head Start, the national evaluation findings, the Survey of EHS programs, and Baby FACES Impacts of EHS on pre-k program participation and quality

Impacts of EHS on school readiness and family functioning when children were at pre-k The special stories of subgroups

How programs evolved The newest study: Baby FACES Lessons learned 2

The Early Head Start Program 

More than 650 programs serving more than 65,000 children



Various originating agencies



About 10% of the Head Start budget



3

Follows the Head Start Program Performance Standards

Early Head Start Is an Intensive, Two-Generation Program Child Development Self-Sufficiency and Healthy Families

Parenting 4

Services Among Early Head Start Programs Are Diverse FOUR PROGRAM MODELS:

5



Home-only: programs provide home based services to all families



Center-only: programs provide center-based services to all families



Multiple: programs provide center-based services to some families and home-based to others, some may get both



Combination: programs provide center-based services and frequent home visits to all families

6

Readiness for School and Life Ed Zigler’s definition of social competence,

“the child’s everyday effectiveness in dealing with his environment and later responsibilities in school and life.

Social competence takes into account the interrelatedness of cognitive and intellectual development, physical and mental health, nutritional needs, and other factors that enable a child to function optimally.”

Quoted in Raizen and Bobrow (1974)

7

Policy and Economic Context 



 

8

Welfare reform enacted July 1996, as research programs began enrolling families Strong economy with low unemployment rates Increase in needs for child care Some programs changed their approach based on family child care needs

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study ♦ Began in 1995 ♦ 3,001 children and families randomly assigned to EHS program or control group in impact study with experimental design:

Early Head Start Group

Control Group

♦ Followup: (1) age 14, 24, and 36 months; (2) when children in prekindergarten ♦ Fifth grade followup in progress

♦ Response rates are a challenge 9

Early Head Start Research Sites Kent, WA Sunnyside, WA

Brattleboro, VT

Jackson, Marshalltown, MI Pittsburgh, IA New PA York, Logan, NY UT Kansas City, Denver, CO Alexandria, MO (2 programs) Kansas VA City, KS McKenzie, Venice, TN Sumter, SC Russellville, CA AR

10

Research Conducted by Early Head Start Research Consortium Representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and ACF/ACYF Research institutions in the Consortium (and principal researchers) include ACF (Rachel Chazan Cohen, Judith Jerald, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, and Louisa Tarullo); Catholic University of America (Michaela Farber, Lynn Milgram Mayer, Harriet Liebow, Christine Sabatino, Nancy Taylor, Elizabeth Timberlake, and Shavaun Wall); Columbia University (Lisa Berlin, Christy Brady-Smith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Alison Sidle Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherine Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan, and Catherine Snow); Iowa State University (Dee Draper, Gayle Luze, Susan McBride, Carla Peterson); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Ellen Eliason Kisker, John M. Love, Diane Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, Susan Sprachman, Cheri Vogel, and Welmoet van Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski, Gui-Young Hong, and Susan Pickrel); Michigan State University (Hiram Fitzgerald, Tom Reischl, and Rachel Schiffman); New York University (Mark Spellmann and Catherine Tamis-LeMonda); University of Arkansas (Robert Bradley, Mark Swanson, and Leanne Whiteside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee Howes and Claire Hamilton); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, Paul Spicer, and Norman Watt); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater, Judith Carta, and Jean Ann Summers); University of Missouri-Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, and Kathy Thornburg); University of Pittsburgh (Carol McAllister, Beth Green, and Robert McCall); University of Washington School of Education (Eduardo Armijo and Joseph Stowitschek); University of Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard and Susan Spieker); and Utah State University (Lisa Boyce and Lori Roggman).

11

Families of All Types and Backgrounds

12

Positive, Modest Impacts for Children at Age 3 ♦ Higher immunization rate ♦ Fewer emergency room visits for accidents and injuries ♦ Cognitive development (higher Bayley scores & fewer in low-functioning group) ♦ Larger receptive vocabularies ♦ Lower levels of aggressive behavior ♦ Greater sustained attention with objects, engagement of parent, and less negativity 13

But, Disparities Begin Early 100

90.2

88.0

91.4

89.9

90

83.3

81.1

82.9

81.4

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 EHS Bayley Age 2

EHS Bayley Age 3

Treatment

14

EHS PPVT Age 3

Control

HSIS PPVT Age 3

Positive, Modest Impacts for Parents ♦ More positive (and less negative) parenting observed in parent-child play: both mothers and fathers ♦ More stimulating home environments, support for learning ♦ More daily reading ♦ Less spanking: both mother and father report ♦ More hours in education and job training ♦ Probability of being employed (trend) 15

Parenting Example: More EHS than Control Group Parents Read to Children Daily

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

57

52

Read Daily Program 16

Control

Parenting Example: EHS Parents Were Less Likely to Spank Their Children

100 80 47

54

60 40 20 0 Program 17

Control

Important Subgroup Stories: Programs All program approaches had favorable impacts. Mixed approach had strongest.

Well-implemented programs affected more outcomes when children were 3: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Child outcomes Parent-child interactions Parenting Mental health Progress toward economic self-sufficiency

Strongest impacts found in earlyimplemented mixed programs 18

Important Subgroup Stories: Families Positive Impacts in 28 of 29 subgroups Larger impacts in important subgroups: ♦ African American ♦ Enrolled during pregnancy ♦ Moderate demographic risk

No impacts: highest level of demographic risk Promising effects: families affected by maternal depression 19

Examining EHS Children’s Experiences After Age 3 ♦ 1994 Advisory Committee: continuity and smooth transitions ♦ While in EHS, families got help accessing quality child care. ♦ At age 3, 52% of EHS children were in center child care at least 30 hours per week. ♦ EHS provided transition services as children left their program. ♦ Control group families were on their own.

20

Three Main Hypotheses ♦ EHS will increase children's enrollment in formal care and education programs (FPs) after EHS. ♦ Children’s program participation after EHS will be moderated by: ♦ Characteristics of the programs they were in ♦ Community characteristics ♦ Family demographics ♦ EHS participation will increase the likelihood that children will attend good-quality formal programs after EHS.

21

What Difference Did Being in EHS Make on Program Participation After EHS? • More likely to be in Head Start at some time, 3-5 (55% vs. 49%) • More likely to be in a formal ECE program both 3-4 and 4-5 (47% vs. 42%)

22

What Difference Did it Make for Particular Children?

• White children: more likely ever to be in Head Start (46% vs. 35%) • Moderate-risk children: more likely ever to be in Head Start (60 vs. 51%) • Low-risk children: more likely to be in any formal ECE both periods (48 vs. 36%)

23

What Difference Did EHS make on Enrollment in Good-Quality Programs ♦ 60% of EHS children were in a formal pre-k program with ECERS-R of 5 or better.

61% of control group children were.

♦ Average quality of centers we observed was good: ECERS-R of 5.25.

No difference in average quality of programs EHS and control children were in.

♦ Quality of Head Start centers children attended was higher than quality of other formal programs (5.6 vs. 5.0).

24

Context for Understanding Early Head Start’s Prekindergarten Impacts ♦ Impacts assessed 2 years after children and families left the program. ♦ Control group had considerable program experience after age 3. ♦ Quality of control group’s pre-k program experience was same as for EHS children. ♦ Quality of all observed ECE settings apparently good.

25

EHS Impacts on Children Two Years After Early Head Start ♦ Decreased behavior problems ♦ Higher level of positive approaches to learning

♦ Larger receptive vocabularies for Spanish-speaking children, but not for English speakers ♦ No impacts on achievement-related outcomes: letter-word identification, applied problem solving 26

EHS Impacts on Parents and Home Environment 2 Years After Early Head Start ♦ Higher percentage read to child daily ♦ Higher scores on HOME total scale and warmth scale ♦ Higher on summary of 8 teaching activities ♦ Lower risk for maternal depression ♦ Parent more likely to attend meetings or open houses at child’s program (if child was in a program) 27

Association of Children’s Participation in Formal Programs from Birth to Age 5 with Age 5 Outcomes Formal Programs, 3-5 More-aggressive behavior (negative association) Higher pre-academic skills (letter-word identification)

More IEPs More parent reading to child Ever in Head Start Higher pre-academic skills (letter-word identification and applied problems) More likely to have an IEP Reduction in negative parental regard (interaction)

No association with aggressive behavior 28

Highest-Risk Families Appear to Benefit from 5 Years of Comprehensive Services No positive impacts at 3 Some positive impacts at 5 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Improved approaches to learning Reduced living with someone using drugs Reduced neighborhood exposure to violence Reduced parent experiencing abuse But reduced letter-word identification (negative impact)

Ages 3-5: Least likely to be in formal programs

♦ 39% for high risk vs. 47% for low and 43% for moderate risk. ♦ EHS did not increase in enrollment in formal programs. ♦ EHS did not increase use of Head Start but 57% of highest risk were in Head Start at some time 3-5 29

So far, we’ve seen: ♦ Impacts of EHS observed at 36 months ♦ Impacts of EHS on program participation after EHS ♦ Impacts of EHS observed at prekindergarten

Next: which 36-month outcomes mediate pre-k outcomes?

30

Do EHS Child Outcomes at 36 Months Mediate Prekindergarten Outcomes?

EHS children’s developmental outcomes at 36 months, particularly their cognitive abilities and their ability to engage their mothers in play, were important mediators.

31

Overall Summary  EHS has impacts at age 5.  0-3 and 3-5 experiences contribute to child and parent pre-k outcomes in complementary ways. Greatest benefits when 0-3 program is followed by 3-5 experiences.

 EHS serves as protective factor for negative social-emotional outcomes.  For families at highest risk, may need comprehensive services 0-5 to see benefits.  Many lessons learned…Research to Practice materials.

32

Putting it All Together: At Age 5 Children with EHS and 3-5 fared the best, followed by those with EHS only (for child social-emotional and parent outcomes) or HS/formal program only (for child school-related outcomes).

Important for 0-3 services to be supported by 3-5 services

33

A National Perspective on Early Head Start

More Than Half of Early Head Start Programs Provide Multiple Options 9%

17% Home-Based Center-Based Multiple Combination

23% 51% Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs, 2006 Sample size: 660 Programs.

35

Highest Degree Held by Front Line Staff Percentage of Programs 80 Graduate

60

BA/BS AA

40

CDA/Equivalent

20 0 Primary Caregivers 36

Home Visitors

Note: Indicates percentage of programs who employ 50 percent or more staff holding each credential.

High Risk Families in Early Head Start Risk factors present challenges for serving families Demographic Risks 1. Teen mother 2. Single parent 3. Lack HS/GED credential 4. Unemployed/Not in school 5. More than 3 of above

37

Psychological Risks 1. Mental health problems 2. Substance abuse problems 3. Unsafe neighborhood 4. Family violence 5. More than 2 of above risks

Concentration of High Demographic Risk Families Percentage of Programs

100% Very High

80%

High

60%

Med.

40%

Low

20% 0% Teen Mother

38

Single Parent

No HS/GED

Welfare Unemployed >3 Risks

Concentration of High Psychological Risk Families Proportion of programs

100% 80%

Very High

60%

High

40%

Med.

20%

Low

0% Mental Health Substance Unsafe Abuse Neighborhood

39

Family Violence

>2 Risks

Race/Ethnicity of Early Head Start Families 6% 6% 33%

4%

White

Black/Af. Am.

Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/Alaska Native

25% Biracial/Multiracial

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Other

26% 40

Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs N = 55,611 families.

Primary Non-English Language of Early Head Start Families 13% 3%

Spanish Asian European Other

3%

81% Source: Survey of Early Head Start Programs, 2006 Sample size: 12,930 families speaking language other than English.

41

Percentage of Early Head Start Children with Any Suspected or Diagnosed Disability 80

Percentage of Programs

60

40

20

0 None 42

1-10

11-20

21-30

Percentage of Enrolled Children

30+

Early Head Start Community Partnerships Percentage of Programs 100 80 60 40 20 0 Child Care

43

Health

Mental Health

Part C

Percentage of programs with a formal written partnership with each type of community partner.

Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey Baby FACES • Nationally representative sample of 90 programs • 2,000 children in two age cohorts ♦ Perinatal ♦ Age 1

• Longitudinal follow-up until children 3 years old ♦ Supplemental survey of age 1 cohort when they are 3.5 to learn about transitions

44

Baby FACES Data and Respondents Ongoing • Family service use information Annual 0 to 3 • Parent reports • Home visitor/Teacher reports • Classroom and home visit observations • Program director interviews Information at 2 and 3 • Direct child assessments • Parent/child interactions

45

For More Information on All EHS Research

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre

46

Learn More About US EC Policy and Evaluation Projects OPRE http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/project/projectIndex. jsp#hs Child Care & Early Education Research Connections http://www.childcareresearch.org/discover/index.jsp NIEER http://nieer.org/

NCEDL http://www.fpg.unc.edu/ncedl/ ECLKC http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc

47