Helen Raikes

Low-Income Children's School Readiness: Parent Contributions Over the First Five Years

Early development is likely influenced by quality of early parenting and improvements or declines in quality over time. Little is known about how changes in different dimensions of parenting influence child outcomes, nor the relative sizes of associations when considering several aspects simultaneously. These questions are addressed in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (N = 1273). Assessments occurred when children were 1, 2, 3, and 5 years old. Parent supportiveness (videotaped play interactions), home learning environment (observed), and depressive symptoms and parenting stress (self-report) were assessed. Childrens school readiness at age 5 was assessed via receptive vocabulary, letter–word knowledge, observed emotion regulation, approaches toward learning, and behavior problems. In this low-income sample, early parenting as well as change over time predicted school readiness. Associations mostly followed predictions from the family stress model and cognitive stimulation models; learning environment and maternal supportiveness were most strongly associated with child vocabulary and letter–word knowledge, although supportiveness was also linked with observed emotion regulation, and learning environment early on was also linked with emotion regulation, and early learning environment was also linked with emotion regulation, and early learning environment was also linked with behavior problems and approaches toward learning. Depressive symptoms and parenting stress were more strongly associated with behavior problems, although early parenting stress was also associated with approaches toward learning and emotion regulation.

It Takes Time: Impacts of Early Head Start that Lead to Reductions in Maternal Depression Two Years Later

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, a random-assignment evaluation, found a broad pattern of positive impacts for children and families. However, there were no program impacts on depression or use of mental health services by the time children reached age 3, at the end of the Early Head Start (EHS) program. This paper presents recent findings from the follow-up study in the spring prior to the children entering kindergarten, when a positive program impact emerged for reducing maternal depression. Results show that earlier program impacts on children and parents (when children were 2 and 3 years of age) mediated, or led to, the delayed impact on maternal depression. The combination of the most promising child factors accounted for over 57% of the later impact on depression, while the most promising parent factors accounted for over 35% of the later impact on depression. Implications for EHS programs are discussed.

Who Drops Out of Early Head Start Home Visiting Programs

Research Findings: Early Head Start home-based programs provide services through weekly home visits to families with children up to age 3, but families vary in how long they remain enrolled. In this study of 564 families in home-based Early Head Start programs, “dropping out” was predicted by specific variations in home visits and certain family characteristics. It also was negatively related to several targeted program outcomes. Home visits to dropout families focused less on child development, were less successful at engaging parents, and had more distractions. Dropout families had more risks and changes of residence, were more likely to be headed by a single mother, and were less likely to have a mother with poor English skills or a child with a documented disability. Practice or Policy: Home visiting programs may be able to reduce dropout rates, and thereby increase the duration of services to each family, by keeping home visits engaging and focused on child development and also by individualizing to the specific needs of families at risk for dropping out. To keep families involved longer, home visiting programs should consider (a) planning home visits that are longer, more engaging for both parent and child, scheduled at a time when there are fewer distractions for the family; and (b) spending the majority of time on child development activities and topics.

What Makes a Difference: Early Head Start Evaluation Findings in a Developmental Context.

The federal Early Head Start (EHS) program began in 1995, and a randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 17 EHS programs. In all, 3,001 low-income families (35% African American, 24% Hispanic, and 37% White) with a pregnant women or an infant under the age of 12 months were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group (with 91% of the treatment group receiving some services). Data were collected when the children were about 1, 2, and 3 years of age, and at age 5 (2 years after leaving EHS). Research questions examined (1) impacts of EHS at ages 2 and 3 (when services were being offered) and at age 5, and (2) contributions of early education experiences across childrens first 5 years of life. Child outcomes included cognition, language, attention, behavior problems, and health; maternal outcomes included parenting, mental health, and employment. Overall impact analyses at ages 2 and 3 indicated that EHS benefited children and families: impacts were seen in all domains, with effect sizes of significant impacts ranging from .10 to .20. At age 5, EHS children had better attention and approaches toward learning as well as fewer behavior problems than the control group, although they did not differ on early school achievement. Subgroup analyses indicated that cognitive impacts were sustained 2 years after the program ended for African American children and language impacts for Hispanic children who spoke Spanish. Some significant family benefits were seen at age 5. Mediated analyses identified which child and family impacts at ages 2 and 3 contributed to the child impacts at age 5 (most relevant were earlier treatment effects on child cognition and on engagement with the parent). Growth curve analyses were also conducted. Although fewer than half the children enrolled in center-based preschool programs between ages 3 and 4, almost 90% participated in the year preceding kindergarten. A higher percentage of EHS than control children were enrolled. Nonexperimental analyses suggested that formal program participation enhanced childrens readiness for school while also increasing parent-reported aggression. At age 5, those children and families who experienced EHS followed by formal programs fared best overall. However, the benefits of the two experiences were associated with outcomes in different ways. Benefits in language, behavior, and parenting were associated primarily with EHS; benefits in early school achievement were associated primarily with preschool attendance.

Child Care Subsidy and Quality

This study compared the quality of child care programs serving children receiving government subsidies to those not serving such children. Thirty-four classrooms in full day programs serving preschool aged children (19 subsidized, 15 unsubsidized) were observed using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales-Revised (ECERS-R). (1) Research Findings: One way ANOVA indicated that programs not serving children receiving subsidies were rated higher on overall quality, language and reasoning, learning activities, and social interactions. Teacher salary was significantly correlated with overall quality, and after controlling for teacher salary, subsidy density did not uniquely predict variance in overall quality. (2) Policy Implications: Overall low quality indicates a need for a quality improvement initiative using proven methods. Minimum guidelines for quality beyond state licensing standards should be used to ensure that children in subsidized programs are receiving adequate care and to oversee state and federal investments in early childhood education.

Two Studies of Father Involvement in Early Head Start Programs A National Survey and a Demonstration Program Evaluation

Objective. Departing from the typical focus of intervention studies on service use and program effects for mothers and children, this article examines the extent to which fathers are present as clients in Early Head Start intervention programs for infants and toddlers. Design. The article uses descriptive findings from 2 studies: the first is a population survey of 261 Early Head Start programs (National Practitioners Survey), and the second is a father involvement demonstration program of 21 programs (Fatherhood Demonstration Study). Similar measures enabled comparability across the studies. Results. The 2 studies report that there was a father present in the lives of a majority of Early Head Start children - 70% in the national study, and 76% in the demonstration study. However, only 45% and 48%, respectively, of children had a father in residence, and there was considerable variation by race and ethnicity. About 59% of resident fathers had some participation in programs (53% in demonstration programs). Demonstration programs involved more nonresident fathers (45%) than did typical programs (30%). The proportion of resident fathers who were involved in Early Head Start at higher levels, defined in this study as at least 3 times a month, equaled 24% and 48% for typical and demonstration programs, respectively. For nonresident fathers, comparable figures were 10% and 30%. Conclusions. These studies illustrate that the majority of Early Head Start children have a father present in their lives, although many fathers are not in residence, and that the majority of fathers have some contact with the program. Findings showing that demonstration programs were more successful in engaging fathers at higher levels of involvement (especially true for nonresident fathers) illustrate that there is a greater potential for father participation in intervention programs than is realized today. Greater inclusion of fathers as clients in these programs has important implications for the science and practice of intervention.

Parent Experiences with State Child Care Subsidy Systems and Their Perceptions of Choice and Quality in Care Selected

Research Findings: This study investigated parents’ experiences using Child Care and Development Fund and other state-dispersed child care subsidies, reasons for choosing their current child care program, and perceptions of the quality of child care received from their current program. A telephone survey of 659 parents receiving child care subsidies in 4 states showed that parents gave generally positive ratings to accessibility and reliability of subsidies, reported that child care subsidies were a substantial benefit to them, and gave low ratings to limitations of child care subsidies. However, 40% of parents reported that they had experienced a disruption in eligibility for subsidy. Parent experiences with child care subsidies varied by state. Parents in the sample identified 4 criteria used to choose their child care program: (a) characteristics of the provider, (b) convenience, (c) whether the provider was licensed or accredited, and (d) whether a personal relationship existed with the provider. Selection criteria varied by type of care parents were using. The majority of the participants rated the overall quality of their child care as perfect or excellent (73.6%), but ratings of quality also varied by the type of child care parents were using. Practice or Policy: Implications for child care subsidy program administration and for improving the quality of child care purchased by public subsidies in the context of parental choice are discussed.

The impact of early head start on school readiness: New looks

This special issue includes new analyses of data from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation (EHSRE) study. The goal of the issue is to further delineate how aspects of programs as well as family and contextual factors are implicated in the impact of Early Head Start on school readiness and parenting. The 4 sets of authors address the complex interplay of program, child, and family factors in quite divergent ways, with results offering new vantage points on how best to ensure that low-income children enter school ready to learn and on a trajectory of lifelong adaptive functioning.

Policies and Programmatic Efforts Pertaining to Fatherhood: Commentary

The articles in this section focus attention on (1) the historical shift in policies that affect the young men of this nation (2) how fatherhood policies and programmatic efforts are expanding and (3) how fatherhood practices and policies could and perhaps should be expanded and elaborated further. These efforts are linked to a growing body of research documenting the importance of fathers in childrens lives, summarized in other sections of this issue. In our commentary we review the changing policy and programmatic climate with regards to fathers and note the opportunities for the policy and programmatic worlds for the future and for policy and programmatic research to move to new levels in enhancing the knowledge base.

Examining the Association Between Executive Functions and Developmental Domains of Low-Income Children in the United States and Turkey

This study examined the relations between executive functions and developmental domains of preschool children from low-income families through an intercultural perspective in the U.S. and Turkey. A total of 471 children and their primary caregivers participated in the Turkey part of the study, while 286 children and their parents engaged in U.S. sample. Regression analyses revealed that fine motor, problem solving, and executive functions of children between two contexts were significantly different from each other. In the U.S., executive functions predicted communication, problem solving, and fine motor development, whereas in the Turkish sample, executive functions did not predict domain scores. Child gender predicted four of five developmental outcomes in the U.S., whereas maternal education predicted two of five outcomes in Turkey. In addition, invariance testing demonstrated that predictors to outcomes were not significantly different between the two countries. Country differences from the first set of outcomes were explained in the context of the research sites, children’s socialization, and cultural expectations surrounding child development. This study raises questions about relations between executive functions and developmental domains for future research.