head start-operated full-day services: successes, challenges, and issues
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Oakland University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 12:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Research in Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20
Head Start-Operated Full-Day Services: Successes,Challenges, and IssuesDeborah Ceglowski aa University of North Carolina at CharlottePublished online: 03 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Deborah Ceglowski (2006) Head Start-Operated Full-Day Services: Successes, Challenges, andIssues, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20:3, 189-206, DOI: 10.1080/02568540609594561
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540609594561
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Research in Childhood Education2006, Vol. 20, No. 3
Copyright 2006 by the Association forChildhood Education International
0256-8543/06
189
I get up at 5; get my older kid up at 6—she leaves for school at 7. I then get my little one up. On a home visit day, the [Head Start] teacher comes at 8:30; my little one would be up at 8. She should be dressed, fed, teeth brushed. But if she is not and is running behind, we go through it together. We have already planned together the week before what we want to accomplish and 9 times out of 10 it works, unless something else comes up. The one and a half hours that the teacher is there, is really short. After the teacher leaves, we will play a little longer so it isn’t an abrupt end. Then I pick my kids up at 11 at night. It is a long day for me. I work Tuesday nights and Friday nights. Then Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday I am home in the evenings. But they still complain when I have to go to work.
This working mother juggles long days of work and parenting. She, like 90 percent of Head Start parents, earns less than the
federal poverty guideline for her family. In this single-parent and two-child family, the annual income is below $13,0001. In 1993, 33 percent of families enrolled in Head Start had at least one full-time working parent, 15 percent had a part-time working parent, and 5 percent had a parent attending school or a training program (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 1993). Another Head Start mother, pregnant with her third child and receiving Tran-sitional Aid to Needy Families [TANF], formerly welfare, described her plight:
I want to get off the welfare system, but I am really scared. I will have one kid in school, but I will have 2 kids I will need day care for. I know funding for child care hasn’t increased, I know there are a lot of people on the waiting list for sliding fee, so I guess I really don’t know what I will do. It is very overwhelming and daunting.
Abstract. Researchers conducted focus groups in three Minnesota Head Start programs that provide full-day services. The purpose of this descriptive study was to understand how these programs operated, the strengths and challenges of full-day Head Start programs, and how working parents and those on public assistance described these services. Findings include parents’ satisfaction with various models of full-day services and parents’ needs for extended hour care, transportation, information about full-day options, and child care assistance. Attributes of successful models include guaranteed fiscal support to programs, long-term partnerships with community programs, equipment, supplies, and renovation funds for child care programs, and Head Start mentoring and support personnel to work with family and center providers. Full-day models coupled with postsecondary training opportunities provide a viable means to help families obtain family self-sufficiency. Challenges and issues include concerns about the quality of some child care programs, inadequate fiscal and Head Start staff support for child care partners, and lack of understanding of the differences between Head Start and child care. These findings are important because Head Start agencies, recognizing the need for full-day services, are now developing and implementing these services, and the three programs provide several models, each with strengths, weaknesses, and issues.
Deborah CeglowskiUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte
Head Start-Operated Full-Day Services:Successes, Challenges, and Issues
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
190
Like this mother, 50 percent of families enrolled in Head Start are receiving public assistance. They are guaranteed child care assistance if they find work while on TANF, then are automatically eligible for basic sliding fee [BSF] child care assistance. These two parents represent 90 percent of Head Start families—those who are work-ing but earning below poverty incomes and those who are receiving TANF2. Under welfare reform, those receiving TANF, like the second mother, face a state-defined time limit and must find employment af-ter that time. Thus, working parents and those on TANF enrolled in Head Start have child care needs. Yet only 6.5 percent of children are enrolled in full-day Head Start programs and less than 1 percent of the children were involved in Head Start programs that operated day-long and year-round programs (DHHS, 1993). Although Head Start programs can use federal money for child care services, little is known about the quality and continuity of care for Head Start children (DHHS, 1993). This study’s aim was to investigate how Head Start parents, administrators, and staff in three different models of full-day programs described and evaluated these services. The findings include parents’ perceptions of full-day services, their pre-vious child care experiences, their need for additional child care or preference for non-Head Start forms of full-day services, experiences with child care assistance, and transportation issues related to Head Start programs. Findings from Head Start and child care administrators and staff include the positive aspects of full-day Head Start services, differences in philosophy between Head Start and family- and center-based child care, the fiscal component of center and family child care partnerships, com-munication and support between Head Start and child care partners, and quality of care. The discussion section examines the following question: What is the role of Head Start, a program designed to serve families with low incomes, in providing full-day services and, more broadly, in helping
families move from poverty to economic self-sufficiency?
Rationale for Full-dayHead Start Programs
Full-day Head Start services are important, given that the quality of care that is avail-able to low-income families is highly uneven (Phillips, 1995). Most care falls into a range of quality that some conclude may compro-mise development, and a very limited supply of high-quality arrangements is available (major studies summarized by Phillips, 1995). When selecting child care, many families with limited incomes must chose from a seri-ously constrained set of options. Sonenstein and Wolf (1991) found that 30 percent of the welfare mothers they studied required child care before 6:00 a.m., after 7:00 p.m., or on weekends, and rely on relatives and informal arrangements for child care. Cost, non-stan-dard working hours, and trust are the reasons that low-income parents rely heavily on rela-tive and informal child care. Kisker and Ross (1997) found that while parents with limited incomes wanted the same type of child care as higher income parents, lack of transportation, cost, and non-standard work hours limited their choices. Thus, they tended to be more dissatisfied with their current child care and wanted to change their current arrangement (Kisker & Siverberg, 1991). Myers (1993) re-ported that less than 40 percent of low-income parents were satisfied with their current child care arrangement. A study of Minnesota parents receiving public assistance found that 59 percent used some form of informal, unlicensed arrange-ment to care for their youngest child while they were at work or in school or training (Chazdon & Crichton, 1999). Even those families receiving child care assistance payments tended to use them to pay for legal, unlicensed care. Approximately half of all children covered by the child care as-sistance program were in legal, unlicensed settings, while a quarter each were in licensed centers and licensed family child care homes (Chazdon & Crichton, 1999). This is a concern because Galinsky, Howes,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
191
Kontos, and Shinn’s (1994) observational study of relative and family child care found relative care to be of lower quality than licensed family child care. The available literature on typical child care for families with limited incomes raises an additional issue: the stability and conti-nuity of care. The National Child Care Sur-vey found that about 24 percent of children under age 5 and 45 percent of preschoolers in families with limited incomes headed by an employed single mother were in more than one arrangement on a regular basis (Hof-ferth, Brayfield, Deich, & Holcomb, 1991). Thus, families with limited incomes, including 90 percent of Head Start fami-lies, face a number of obstacles in finding adequate, affordable, and convenient child care. In the last decade Head Start has acknowledged the need for full-day services. The following section provides an overview of Minnesota Head Start programs.
Minnesota Head Start ProgramsMinnesota is one of 14 states providing state funds to augment federal funding for Head Start programs. In 1998-99, funding from the state and federal government provided Head Start services to over 13,000 children and their families (Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, 1999). However, even with both state and federal funding, only 45 percent of income-eligible families are enrolled in Head Start pro-grams. For the year 1997-98, 46 percent of Minnesota Head Start families earned less than $9,000, 64 percent earned less than $12,000, and 77 percent earned less than $15,000 (Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, 1999). In the program year 1997-98, 19 (54 percent) Minnesota Head Start programs provided full-day Head Start services to 1,645 children (12 percent of children en-rolled). Of those children, 632 were in a year round program, while 1,013 were in a school year program (September-May and not including school vacations). For the program year 1998-99, 25 of 35 Minnesota Head Start programs reported that they
provided or were planning to provide full-day Head Start services to a minimum of 1,885 children and their respective families (Min-nesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, 1999). Full-day services are provided through several models, including Head Start administering and operating full-day programs, Head Start teaching staff working in community child care centers, Head Start brokering child care slots in community child care centers, Head Start partnering with family child care providers, and Head Start collocating with community child care programs.
Research DesignResearchers contacted the Minnesota Head Start Association and invited interested programs to participate in a study of full-day services. Three programs responded to the request and participated in the study. The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study and all research protocols comply with IRB re-quirements. The three programs, described in detail below, offered different models of full-day services that included brokering child care slots with community child care programs, operating a full-day program at a technical college, collocating Head Start staff in community child care programs, and collaborating with licensed family child care providers. Research questions were developed by the Head Start directors and the research team. Questions to parents included: 1) Describe how you learned about Head Start and why you enrolled in the program. 2) What impact does full-day Head Start have on your fam-ily? 3) Are there gaps in your current child care arrangement? 4) What would it take for your family to move out of poverty in the next five years? Questions to administrators, staff, and collaborating community-based child care programs included: 1) Are there gaps in the full-day services your program offers? 2) Is Head Start meeting the child care needs of the families you serve? 3) What is the single biggest challenge you face in providing full-day child care services? 4)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
192
Does Head Start impact the quality of child care that families receive? 5) Describe your collaborations with community-based child care programs or family child care homes. Two rural and one urban Head Start pro-grams participated in the study.
MagnumOne of the rural programs, Magnum Head Start, was located in a lake resort and dairy and grain farming area of upper Minnesota and served three counties by providing six program options, two of which provided full-day services. The full-day services consisted of a child care center located in a technical college that was operated by Head Start and available to Head Start-eligible parents enrolled in a technical college program. Head Start paid for the program and did not rely on other funding. The second full-day option was a partnership with licensed family child care providers. Family child care providers applied to be partners and then received equipment, supplies, and tuition for college courses ap-plied towards their Child Development Asso-ciate credential (CDA). Head Start paid the family child care providers for the first three hours of care at three times the going hourly rate and then parents paid for the rest of the day through TANF, BSF, or personal funds. Other program options include a half-day program for children four days per week, a combination center- and home-based pro-gram consisting of two days of preschool per week and two home visits per month, a home visit program that included a weekly home visit and weekly center-based program, and an Early Head Start program for children under the age of 3. During the 1998-99 school year, Magnum Head Start enrolled 18 children in the technical college child care center, 52 chil-dren in the family child care partnerships (including 48 infants), 180 children in the half-day program, 111 children in the home visiting program (including 48 infants), and 16 children in the combination home visit and center-based program. The majority of the families utilizing this program were white. During the 1998-99 program year,
24 percent of the children in Head Start and 10 percent of the Early Head Start infants were diagnosed with a developmental dis-ability. Approximately 12 percent of the families in Head Start and 8 percent of the families in Early Head Start reported incomes above the national poverty level.
LarkLark Community Action Council, Inc., located 60 miles from Minneapolis, serves a primar-ily rural, seven-county region. The agency provided full-day and home-based Head Start programs to 625 families. Lark was a pioneer in providing full-day services to Head Start families by collocating Head Start staff with child care staff in two community child care centers so that Head Start children could receive full-day services in community-based settings. In addition to employing the Head Start teachers collocated at the center, Lark paid the child care centers for the first four hours of care at the going hourly rate and then parents paid for the rest of the care with TANF, BSF, or personal funds. Thus, community-based child care centers gained some additional teaching staff and guaran-teed reimbursement for four hours of care for each Head Start child. In 1998-1999, 40 children were served in two community child care centers. Lark will soon offer full-day services in two other child care centers and will begin partnerships with licensed family child care providers. The home-based model included weekly 1.5 hour home visits and a center-based program for 416 families. The racial composition of the Head Start popula-tion is 97 percent white, 1.5 percent is Na-tive American, and 1.5 percent are African American, Hispanic, or Asian. Twenty percent of the children enrolled have disabilities. Over 92 percent of the Head Start families have below poverty guideline income.
RochRoch Head Start is located in a metropolitan area and until 1983 staffed and operated full-day service programs (7 a.m. - 6 p.m.) for 400 families, and then discontinued this service. In the 1996-97 school year,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
193
Roch offered two program models—full-day brokered services in child care centers and a half-day, four-day-a-week preschool pro-gram. Since 1987, Roch has brokered with child care centers to provide full-day services to Head Start families. Head Start recently has changed the brokering agreement and is currently working with 13 children care
programs to provide full-day slots to Head Start families. In this model, Roch pays a small stipend ($6.00 daily for each child) to each center and TANF, BSF, or parents pay for the child care. Head Start provides some training and technical assistance to child care programs. Roch served 1,453 children from 1,290 households. There are 1,353
Program Full-day Model Funding Families Enrolled
Magnum Center-based child care at technical college
Family child care homes
Head Start operates and funds program. All families receive comprehensive Head Start services.
Head Start pays for the first three hours of care at 3 times the going hourly rate. BSF, TANF, or family pays for rest. Family child care providers receive training, equipment, supplies, college courses, and CDA. Full-time Head Start staff person provides mentoring and support to family child care providers. All families receive comprehensive Head Start services delivered in the family child care home or through arrangement with the parents.
Head Start eligible families attending technical college
Any Head Start family can enroll
Lark Head Start teachers collocated in child care centers work-ing in full-day program
Head Start pays for teachers and first four hours of care at regular rate. BSF, TANF, or family pays for the rest. Head Start provides some supplies and equip-ment to program and has a Head Start staff person assigned as a liaison to the child care programs. All families receive comprehensive Head Start services deliv-ered in the child care center or through arrangement with the parents.
Any Head Start family can enroll
Roch Head Start brokers with community child care centers
Head Start pays $6.00 per child per day for services. BSF, TANF, or family pays for the rest. All families receive compre-hensive Head Start services delivered in the child care center or through ar-rangement with the parents. Head Start provides half-time liaison person to work with centers and support staff to assist centers in serving Head Start families.
Any Head Start family can enroll
Table 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
194
children served in the half-day model and 100 children served in the full-day model. Almost half of the children served by the program are Asian American. There is a range of other cultural and ethnic groups served, including Native American, white, Hispanic, and African American. Roch Head Start families speak more than 20 different languages. For the 1998-99 program year, 12 percent of Head Start families in this pro-gram had incomes that exceeded the poverty guidelines. Twelve percent of the children served have disabilities. Table 1 depicts the three Head Start programs’ full-day models.
Conducting the StudyDuring 1998-1999, researchers conducted focus groups at Lark, Magnum, and Roch Head Start. Focus groups consist of a small group (under 12) of people who have a similar characteristic relevant to the research study conducted (Krueger, 1988). In this study, individual focus groups were conducted with 1) parents (n=30 for the three sites); 2) administrators (n=22 for the three sites); 3) teaching, home visiting, and transporta-tion staff (n=24 for the three sites); and 4) partnering child care programs (n=5 for one site). The partnering child care program staff focus group consisted of five programs that provide brokered services to the Roch Head Start program. Because there was only one program that provided brokered services, this was the only focus group con-ducted with this population. Thirty percent of the parents in this study received public assistance, as opposed to 50 percent of Head Start parents nationally. The remaining 70 percent of the parents were either employed or enrolled in post-secondary training. All focus groups were taped and tran-scribed. The unit of analysis in focus groups is primarily the category of responses (par-ent, administrator, or staff member), rather than the individuals within the group. Focus groups thus differ from individual interviews in that researchers seek to understand how a group of people with a similar characteristic respond to questions. Of course, there are individual differences among group members,
and researchers take careful note of these similarities and differences and present them in the findings. The research team (2 researchers who did initial individual coding and then coded the transcripts) analyzed the transcriptions by grouping similar responses into themes (Graue & Walsh, 1998). Each theme was divided into sub-themes, resulting in an emergent coding map. The coding map was used to code the transcripts and compare re-sponses among participants in one group at one site (i.e., parents) with other groups (i.e., staff and administrators) at the same site. Similarly, responses from parents at one site were compared with responses from parents at the other two sites. The research team first coded the transcripts by hand and then uti-lized a computer software package, NUD*IST Vivo (Nvivo), to assist in the process. Nvivo software enables researchers to code and link documents and to develop models of emerging themes. The hand and computer-assisted cod-ing procedures were conducted independently. The research team then devised charts with themes and sub-themes listed on one side and responses from the various focus groups listed in columns to the right of the themes. In this way, the research team could identify those similar and dissimilar responses. The research team sent a copy of individu-al reports to each of the three participating programs and elicited comments from them. The researchers incorporated the comments into the final version of this manuscript.
FindingsViews About Full-day ServicesParents enrolled in full-day Head Start programs at the three sites were gener-ally positive about their experiences and services offered. Parents receiving dif-ferent types of full-day services, in three different Head Start programs, described the programs as convenient, educational, stable, high quality, and in one instance, so appealing that the parent regularly subs in her son’s room. One mother, whose son at-tends a community-based child care center at Lark Head Start, said:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
195
There has been a great improvement in his per-sonality and his self-esteem. . . . He was ready to go into a program to get the interaction. He doesn’t have to be pulled out of Head Start and put into another day care, so that is nice. He is with the same teachers most of the time, so that is nice. A parent in a rural area enrolled in a Magnum Head Start family child care home describes her experience as:
I have a 4-year-old in child care; she goes 3 days a week. She loves it. It is really good for her. She needed it. She was home alone for a whole year and I saw a big difference when she went back to child care. She is learning to be with the other kids and that is important. I am comfortable with the provider, I give her a lot of credit; it is a very tough job.
An urban parent enrolled in a community child care center partner with Roch Head Start describes the convenience of this model:
I take him to one place and not taking him from one place to another. I am not very comfortable if I don’t know the people who are watching my kids. I like it there; they treat the kids really good; I feel comfortable with them there because I can pick them up anytime before 5:30 or 6:00, so if I am late from school it is ok. That works for me because sometimes I am staying late to do school.
These parents, who receive full-day ser-vices through partnerships with family child care providers, Head Start-run child care centers, community child care centers staffed with Head Start and child care personnel, and in community child care centers that receive support services from Head Start staff, are enthusiastic about the full-day models. In addition to full-day child care, they also receive the full array of Head Start’s comprehensive services, in-cluding medical, dental, and social services, and parent education. In one instance, a parent voiced dissat-isfaction with Lark’s full-day Head Start
services and indicated that she had issued a complaint to the administrators:
I wasn’t [pleased] at first, at the Head Start pro-gram for 3-year-olds, because the staff was not good. I would come into the room and the staff would be sitting there all together visiting, the way they related to the children was harsh, they didn’t really talk to the children, it was really very shaming. I did file complaints and that one staff is now gone. I also substitute occasionally so I saw what happened. I am convinced that any program is only as good as the staff.
This was the only parent who voiced dis-satisfaction about the full-day program. However, Roch program administrators indicated that they had complaints from parents and, in some instances, parents had withdrawn from the child care centers and enrolled in the half-day Head Start program. One administrator said:
I had a family that we transferred to a full-day program, a set of twins, who had a lot of behavior problems; and other problems. We placed them in our full-day program. They were unable to handle these two children in their program, and put them out, so I don’t think that they are equipped to work with children with disabilities or behavior problems; they are not trained.
Full-day Head Start and Families’Future Economic SecurityThe combination of Head Start and postsec-ondary education was important to families’ future economic security. One parent, en-rolled in Magnum’s technical college child care center, stated that “in 5 years I will have my master’s in plumbing, so hopefully I would have my own shop” and a parent in the Lark program said, “I am graduating from college in May, so I hope I can get a job that pays more.” A parent enrolled in the Roch program added:
I already graduate from a secretarial program but I don’t have computer skills. I think when I am done I can start at about $10/hour for ad-ministrative support. I don’t want to make like
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
196
$6/hour; that is not enough for my kids. I will get out of the system if I can make $10/hour.
To these three parents and others inter-viewed, the combination of full-day Head Start and postsecondary training was criti-cal to ensuring the economic well-being of their families. Families using full-day Head Start and employed in lower wage jobs were not as optimistic about their economic future. One recently divorced mother of four enrolled in the Lark program said:
I should be working more hours, but I’ll worry about that later and just crunch now. I have worked at the same place for 1 year. I work at a video store, I have a cleaning service and I do bookkeeping for a restaurant, so I work 45 hours a week now. I don’t have any education past high school; it has just been experience. So just a whole lot of different things and I don’t really know what the options are; it is just one day at a time.
Another single mother in the Roch pro-gram stated that most jobs paid:
$6.00 per hour. I was working at the post office and that was $12 but that was just for Christ-mas. Now back to $6.00 an hour, it seems like nothing. My [public assistance] counselor just wants me to take anything to get me off her back. And I want a job, something that I like, not one I am forced to do.
The combination of post-secondary training and full-day Head Start services contributed to families’ sense of future economic self-sufficiency. Both Head Start and welfare reform focus on helping fami-lies move from poverty to self-sufficiency, yet many Head Start parents working at entry or low-paying jobs were not as opti-mistic about their economic futures as those enrolled in post-secondary training and worried about making ends meet. These low-wage earners were likely to work non-standard hours requiring additional care to that provided by full-day Head Start.
In some instances, parents working non-standard hours did not choose the full-day Head Start option because of their needs for extended care. The following section describes working families’ needs for ad-ditional care and parents’ decision-making in choosing half-day or home-based services instead of the full-day model.
Meeting Families’ Child Care NeedsHead Start does not meet all child care needs. As indicated by the three parents below, they selected other options instead of the full-day Head Start option because their child care needs exceeded the hours of the full-day program, they felt that the full-day option would be too structured for their children, or they preferred relative care. A single mother said that her late eve-ning work at a casino is not compatible with Magnum’s full-day Head Start schedule. Another mother suggests that a full-day Head Start program and a disruption in her child’s long time caregiver would be harmful to her son. She chose instead the half-day, four-day-a-week Magnum Head Start program. Finally, a father shared how he and his wife worked opposite shifts so they could care for their children:
I work a full time job outside of the home and so does my wife. [We work] different shifts, she works during the day and I work at night. Some days, it is hard because I work from 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., and then I have to stay up until my wife comes home at 4:30 in the afternoon.
When I asked this dad if he and his wife had considered the full-day option, he said no, that they preferred this type of care ar-rangement. Four other two-parent families indicated that they arranged their work or school schedules so that one parent could be at home with their preschool children. In these cases, parents chose the half-day, center-based program or the home-based program. In these three cases as well as others, par-ents chose other child care programs to meet their families’ needs. Even when parents
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
197
used the full-day option, they often added supplemental care that included relatives, a 24-hour child care program, and informal child care providers. At the Magnum tech-nical college child care center, Head Start staff surveyed parents about their needs for additional care and then offered extended care to those families. However, the number of families that utilized this extended care was relatively small and the program dis-continued the service. As one staff member explained, “That is such a dilemma because we know they need it and we have the site, but who is going to pay for it?” When asked how many parents in her child care room use additional child care sites, a Magnum full-day Head Start teacher stated that 50 percent of the families did. Although all those interviewed acknowl-edged the need for non-standard hour care, it was not economically feasible for centers to offer this service to a few parents. One of the key motivations for providing extended hour care is that Head Start and child care administrators and staff were concerned about the lack of such care for families.
Parents’ Confusion About Head StartOptions and Child Care AssistanceA number of working parents in the three programs did not know about the Head Start full-day option available to them. I asked one working parent, whose son at-tended Roch’s half-day program, whether she had considered the full-day option. She told me, “Well, that was the only thing that was available [half-day program]; I didn’t know that there was any other options other than that.” Another parent enrolled in the half-day program in Magnum, when asked if she was aware of the full-day option with family child care providers, indicated that she knew about the technical college pro-gram but since she was not a student there, she could not enroll in the program. When another parent in the group mentioned the licensed family child care homes supported by Head Start, the parent responded, “So, I hear you saying that if I would have wanted a full-day option, I would have had to ask
that somebody [to] come into my home every day.” The other parent responded, “No, you take your child to their home.” The confused parent then asked, “To whose home?” and the other parent told her, “The child care provider.” Other families indicated that they were unclear about BSF or how to apply for it. In Minnesota, BSF is operated through county social services agencies. A Lark parent said, “No one really talked to me about it [BSF]. . . . I don’t remember seeing anything about that.” One Magnum Head Start parent explained to another, “They are not going to go out and advertise for it [BSF], but you have to dig for it.” Staff and administrators at the three programs indicated that they did discuss BSF with families. The Lark Head Start program had good rapport with the child care assistance workers and found that most families who qualified for BSF were enrolled in the program. Roch Head Start families often faced a two-year waiting list to receive BSF. And Magnum Head Start staff indicated that the:
County will not advertise [for BSF]. We tell parents when the child care coordinator works with them. She sits down individually with parents and tells them their options. The county won’t advertise this because they would run out of money so quickly. So they would rather just serve the people on the list. Then those people may stay on it for 5 years, so the waiting list gets longer and longer.
In several instances, parents were famil-iar with BSF but preferred not to use it. As this mother shared:
The less systems I have to be a part of it makes me feel better about myself. I had to be on the system when my son was born and not putting the system down or anything, I just feel better not being on it.
Another mother echoed this sentiment: “The less programs I have to be involved with the better I like it. It makes you feel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
198
good and it keeps you going.” Child care assistance and understand-ing of the available full-day Head Start options were important factors in families’ successful utilization of the full-day model. Families’ unfamiliarity with or confusion about BSF, Head Start’s relationship with county child care assistance workers and explanation of BSF and the full-day model to families, and families’ decisions, even when aware of BSF, to forgo the benefits of this program, affected the available choices of child care for Head Start families.
Riding the BusIn the two programs offering half-day pro-grams (Magnum and Roch), Head Start provided transportation to and from the program. Head Start picked up and deliv-ered children to child care centers and fam-ily child care homes along the established bus routes. However, Head Start did not provide transportation in any of the full-day models. Thus, for some working parents who had no personal transportation or relied on public transportation and found that the full-day programs were located far from their homes or work sites, the full-day option was not feasible. Most of these parents would enroll their children in the half-day program and rely on Head Start to bus their children to and from their child care arrangement. Head Start bus driv-ers transporting children to and from the half-day program play an important role in helping families select their child care arrangements. Sometimes, families whose children attend the half-day program experience difficulties in working out the logistics of Head Start providing transportation from the half-day program to their child care provider. Transportation is a factor that influenced parents’ decisions to enroll their children in full- or half-day Head Start programs and affected how parents select their child care arrangements, often relying on bus drivers to inform them of child care cen-ters along the bus route. Even if parents have their own transportation or reliable
public transportation, the full-day program sites were not universally available—some communities have full-day services and others do not. Concerning the Roch full-day program, located in community child care programs, one portion of the city had no child care sites. Urban child care sites may or may not be located along bus routes convenient for parents. Some families in a rural community lived and worked miles from the nearest full-day site, thus making this option unrealistic for them. In conclusion, parents were enthusiastic about full-day Head Start and, with one exception, had positive experiences with the program3. Parents enrolled in post-secondary training were more optimistic about future economic self-sufficiency than those working in low-wage jobs. Full-day Head Start often did not meet the needs of working parents, especially those working non-standard hours. Although Head Start and some community child care programs had, for short periods of time, offered non-standard hour care, given the low usage, these programs were found to be economi-cally infeasible. Parents sometimes were confused about applying for BSF and the Head Start options available to them. Fi-nally, transportation and the location of full-day programs played a role in whether or not families chose the full-day option. In the following section, Head Start and child care administrators and staff describe past and current full-day options, including the benefits and problems encountered with each model of full-day care.
Head Start and Child CareAdministrative and Staff Views
Full-day ServicesAll those who participated in the focus groups felt that full-day Head Start can provide continuity and comprehensive ser-vice to Head Start parents needing full-day services. Another positive aspect of the full-day model, described by a community-based child care director in the Lark program, is that “we have Head Start staff working side by side. We have our staff working alongside
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
199
their staff, with the idea being you are not able to tell who is the Head staff, and who the other.” Likewise, staff and administrators said that another positive aspect of many full-day models is that Head Start children are not isolated into a “poverty program” but rather are integrated into community child care programs. Head Start partnerships with family and center child care may improve the quality of family child care available in the com-munity. For home child care providers participating in the Magnum program, the benefits of the Head Start partnership were the CDA training and credential they received; the supplies, equipment, and home improvement funds available; training stipends; ongoing support from the family child care staff member; and pay at three times the going hourly rate for Head Start children (during the first three hours of care). Head Start partnerships with community child care centers also can positively impact the quality of child care. In addition to state child care licensing regulations, centers must meet the more stringent Head Start performance standards, thus potentially providing higher quality of care to all chil-dren enrolled in partnership centers. Roch Head Start, brokering with 13 community child care programs, found that the child care centers saw the added value of working with Head Start and changed some of their practices because of the partnership. Although there was overwhelming agree-ment about the potential of full-day Head Start services, the reality of implementing these programs challenged Head Start and community center and family child care providers. Focus groups participants often indicated that differences in program op-erations and philosophy were at the core of these challenges. Center and family child care programs provide child care and Head Start provides a comprehensive program to families with low income earnings. One of the key differences between child care cen-ters and Head Start is the fiscal constraints that these programs face, and it is precisely
these fiscal constraints that often motivated centers to partner with the Lark Head Start program. Family child care providers noted these differences and how the Head Start part-nership had affected their operation. A family child care provider who works with Magnum Head Start explained the changes that she made in her curriculum and daily routine when she joined the program. “You know, I thought, ‘Why wouldn’t you want a color book? What do you mean I have to let him pour his own milk?’ It was. . . I had to change everything; it was hard for me to change.” She, like other family child care providers, noted that a difficult aspect of the partnership was keeping up with the paper-work and documentation that Head Start required and that she often was “behind” in her paperwork. Head Start administrators and Lark teach-ers working in child care centers said that child care staff did not understand Head Start, or in the words of one Lark teacher working in a community child care program, “One thing I would like to change would be the attitude of the child care staff. If we could educate them a little about Head Start.” Blending these different philosophies and needs required compromise and an under-standing on both parties about the realities of each program. For child care directors, the fiscal constraints of child care were a key motivator in joining the Lark partner-ship. One director explained, “Child care is a very fiscally unsound business, and so I think you have been honest in saying that partnerships provide more financial stabil-ity. This really drives people to think about these things.” Concerns about child care quality were widespread among the Roch Head Start administrators and staff, although they noted, “Some collaborations are better than others, like the [technical college child care] program is excellent, but some of the other ones are not very developmentally appropri-ate.” When asked what they saw at some child care centers that concerned them, Roch administrators said:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
200
They are doing activities that are very teacher-oriented, expecting too much from the child, not enough choice. There are not enough manipula-tives for the number of children in the room, often staff are sitting back and not interacting with the children, not enough quality toys to keep them busy and stimulated.
Additionally, they noted that child care teachers had:
A lack of training. They’re really looking to our staff when they come out to give them ideas, even on the supervisory level; sometimes, when staff go out, they’re wanting that [Head Start] person to be in the classroom ‘almost just a teacher.’
Another administrator said of some child care staff, “And they’re burned out. It’s not that they’re not trying. They’re giving their first priority to the kids because the kids are there.” Administrators noted the high rate of teacher turnover in some of the child care centers. It is important to note that Lark admin-istrators and teachers working in centers did not voice these quality concerns. Per-haps this is due to the fact that most of the Lark perssonnel had partnered with child care centers for a longer time or that their model of partnering was more effective in promoting quality care. Lark also worked with far fewer child care centers. During the year that this study was conducted, Lark was partnering with two child care centers—although in the previous year, they had partnered with three and were engaged in a year-long planning process to begin two more child care partnerships. Although Magnum no longer partners with community child care and now runs its own program, it is precisely these types of concerns that prompted them to discontinue a one-year partnership with a community child care center and begin operating its own full-day program. In conclusion, Head Start and family and center child care staff and administrators participating in partnerships felt that this model provided Head Start families with
needed full-day services. They noted these models decreased the number of transi-tions for families, provided the full array of Head Start services in child care settings, and in some instances, positively affected the quality of family and center child care programs. Philosophical and programmatic differences were noted as an impediment to full-day services and included child care personnel’s lack of understanding of Head Start and the administrative difficulties for some Lark Head Start teachers collocated in community child care programs, challenges in reorienting family child care providers toward more appropriate practices, fiscal differences between Head Start and com-munity child care programs, and the quality of some community child care programs. What then, to make of these different models of full-day Head Start services? How can this study inform our understanding of Head Start and the growing need for such services? The discussion that follows focuses on these issues. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 2.
DiscussionMost Head Start families need child care because they are either working, attend-ing school, or under TANF time-restricted mandates to find employment. The question at hand concerns the role of Head Start, a program designed to serve families with low incomes, in providing full-day services and more broadly, in helping families move from poverty to economic self-sufficiency. As Hofferth (1994) states, single parent families enrolled in Head Start often need a variety of services, including child care, transportation, and social services. The three Head Start programs participating in the study present various models of full-day services that have positive features and associated challenges. Parents participating in the focus group had different life circumstances, child care needs, and child care preferences. One mod-el of full-day services, no matter how well devised and delivered, would not meet the diverse needs of all working families enrolled
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
201
Program Full-day Model Findings
Magnum Center-based child care at technical college
Family child care homes
Families enrolled in center-based care are very positive about care and financial future. Care is high quality—all teachers have bachelor’s degrees and are certified in early childhood education. Nonstandard hour care is not provided.
Family child care providers attend college and receive their CDA. Full-time support person provides on-site T/TA to providers along with supplies and equipment. Program provides assistance for home improvements. Providers are paid at three times the hourly rate for the first three hours of care. No after-hours care is provided and parents provide their own transportation to and from the program.
Lark Head Start teachers collocated in child care centers working in full-day program
Program has a long history of success. Many Head Start teachers enjoyed working in child care centers though they noted differences and some difficulties in negotiating differences between Head Start and child care. Program provides funding for Head Start teach-ers, four hours of child care fees per child per day, training, and supplies. Program works closely with child care assistance to insure that all Head Start par-ents can receive child care assistance. Head Start does not provide transportation to child care and there is no after-hours care provided.
Roch Head Start brokers with community child care centers
Program provides child care in 13 community child care programs staffed with child care teachers. Program pays center $6.00 per day for each child. Program pro-vides half time support person to work with the 13 cen-ters. Quality of center care is uneven. Centers are not located in all parts of the city and no transportation is provided for families. No after-hours care is available.
Table 2
in Head Start. Rather, Head Start programs, as exemplified by Lark and Magnum, might develop several full-day options (family and center child care) to meet families’ needs. The options could include Head Start-oper-ated programs, collocation with child care centers, partnering with family child care, or brokering with child care programs. It is important to note that parents en-rolled in any model of full-day Head Start indicated satisfaction with the services, and
in only one instance did a parent indicate that she was dissatisfied with the care re-ceived. This is a clear contrast to parents’ ex-periences with other forms of child care and the negative experiences they encountered in these other care environments. These parents’ child care stories, like those of the mothers interviewed by Polakov (1993), include neglect and safety violations that sometimes harmed children. When Head Start operates its own full-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
202
day program, like Magnum’s technical col-lege center, the quality of service appears high, due in large part to the agency’s policy to hire teachers with four-year early childhood degrees and to maintaining lower teacher-child ratios and class sizes. These three program characteristics (teaching staff with early childhood degrees, lower ra-tios, and smaller class sizes) are indicators of higher quality programs and correlated to better child outcomes (Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1998). National studies of Head Start program quality indicate that it is highly variable and ranges from low to high (Phillips, Voran, Kister, Howes, & White-brook, 1994) and that Head Start children (who attend half-day programs) do not, on average, score higher on school readiness assessments than children who attend community child care programs (Zaslow, Oldham, Moore, & Magenheim, 1998). Furthermore, this model links two ele-ments—high-quality child care and post secondary education—into a model that most likely provides long-term economic security for families. Even with the positive elements of this program, one shortcoming that administrators have unsuccessfully addressed is families’ needs for additional child care, resulting in families often using two child care programs. For Head Start programs partnering with community family and center child care programs, the three programs participating in the study provide different models, suc-cesses, and challenges. At Lark and Roch, the two programs partnering with com-munity child care programs, the models are distinctly different. At Lark, Head Start teachers are collocated in two community child care centers and Head Start pays for the first four hours of child care, covers the teacher’s salary, and supplies some equip-ment and supplies. At Roch, Head Start families may enroll in community child care programs and the child care is paid through TANF, BSF, or parental payment. Both Head Start agencies provide a men-tor support network for centers, although at Roch this position was overextended and, according to the Head Start direc-
tor, required a full-time versus part-time staff person. Overall, the Lark program appears to be operating better than the Roch program for a variety of reasons: the partnerships with community child care programs are limited in number and are more established and long term, Head Start teachers provide additional staff and Head Start understanding to the child care team, and Head Start paid for the first four hours of care. As noted in the focus groups, community child care programs need fiscal support and the Head Start partnerships play a key role in maintaining fiscal stabil-ity. The Lark Head Start director stated that the key to the partnerships was “the willingness of the partners to hear us out and to look at unique and credible ways to compromise. And understanding those areas that we can compromise and finding those who can’t.” It is important to note that in this model, as most, the success of the program is depends upon the people who provide the direct services. Lark Head Start teach-ers collocated in the community child care programs voiced concerns about communicating with child care staff and administrators, child care staff jealousy about Head Start training and support, challenges in operating their classrooms, and inconsistency from program to program for preparation time. One Lark teacher, who is enthusiastic about working in a child care program, noted that the key was that the child care staff “forgot” that she was Head Start and they worked together to serve the children and families. This is a stunning contrast to another Lark teacher, who was unwillingly reassigned from her home visitor position to child care teacher and was experiencing significant difficulty in the transition. Perhaps the goal might be to actively recruit teachers who want to work in community child care programs and develop a critical mass of such teachers who support each other and the role that they play in these community settings. At Roch, the model and issues are differ-ent. Head Start had brokered with two child
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
203
care programs since the late 1980s, including a program located at the technical college that provided full-day services to Head Start parents enrolled in post-secondary programs. Parents enrolled in this option were, like those at Magnum’s technical college program, more enthusiastic about their economic future. Roch had recently expanded the brokership to 13 community child care programs. This rapid expansion, coupled with radical changes in the funding formula, resulted in an array of issues, including the quality of care in some community child care programs, limited ($6.00 per day) fiscal support for programs serving Head Start children, under-staffing of support staff to work with community child care programs, and uneven delivery of sup-port services and training. Certainly in Roch Head Start’s partnership with community child care centers, quality was of concern in some, but not all, centers. The Roch Head Start staff and administrators felt that the quality of care at the technical college center was excellent, but they had concerns about other programs. At Roch, neither community child care directors nor Head Start teachers or administrators voiced concern about the qual-ity of the two community child care programs. Perhaps the lesson here is that some, not all, child care centers are suitable partners. It was evident in focus groups with Roch Head Start administrators, staff, and com-munity child care centers that nobody is satisfied with the current arrangement and that many Head Start administrators, including the director, who said that such partnerships may improve the quality of community child care, would prefer to run their own program. Although Head Start administrators felt that the child care pro-grams entered the partnership for financial reasons, the child care directors, unlike those partnered with Lark, did not mention this. One distinction is that the Roch child care partners serve so few Head Start chil-dren and are not guaranteed funding, and so the fiscal impact of serving Head Start children may be minimal. Magnum, at the time that the focus groups were conducted, was the only program
working with family child care providers, although Lark had plans to expand into this arena soon and was in the process of interviewing and evaluating interested par-ties. In a state where most children in child care are cared for in licensed and unlicensed family child care homes (Chase & Shelton, 2001), this model holds great promise. Al-though Magnum’s partnership with a com-munity child care program was a “disaster,” resulting in the running of its own full-day program, its partnership with family child care was an unqualified success. The Head Start administrators, staff, parents, and family child care providers were enthusiastic about this model because it provided college credit and CDA credentials to participants, paid for the first three hours of care at three times the going hourly rate, and provided a full-time Head Start mentor, ongoing training, equipment, supplies, and house renovation funds to participants. Adminis-trators acknowledged that philosophical and operational differences were a challenge for family child care providers in the program, but they were also clear that the model they had established addressed these differences in an ongoing manner. The Magnum family child care part-nership undoubtedly affected the quality of community child care, although it is important to note that while Head Start administrators acknowledged that the partnerships may improve child care qual-ity, that is not the main objective—which is to provide full-day services to Head Start families. As evident in Magnum’s existing and Lark’s soon to be family child care partnerships, Head Start sought providers who would serve Head Start children exclu-sively so that administrators could fill the providers’ slots with eligible children. One concern about Lark’s new program with family child care is that one administrator was uncertain if Head Start would pay an hourly rate higher than that established in the community. This may impact the type of providers interested in the partnership, particularly in recruiting family providers who charge more per hour than others or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
204
would only consider the partnership if there was a financial incentive. One issue not addressed in the family child care partnerships was providing families with extended-hours care. It was evident that child care centers cannot operate ex-tended hour care programs because of low enrollments, but it seems likely that family child care providers might fill the need for such care. Head Start might recruit provid-ers willing to offer such services and match these providers to families needing extended care. This could include evening, night, and weekend care, depending upon families’ needs. Likewise, some families needed assistance in navigating the maze of obtaining child care assistance, and Head Start staff might, as in the case of Lark, play a proactive role in work-ing with county agencies so that families can obtain the help that they need. In the case of Roch Head Start, where families are likely to be placed on a waiting list for BSF, other models of service, including paying for partial day care (such as in Magnum or Lark’s model) or returning to the previous funding formula that gave community child care directors more fiscal flexibility to serve Head Start families, might be possible. Transportation to and from child care is an issue for many families and requires lo-cal solutions tailored to meet individual and collective needs. In some communities, em-ployers may be willing to house on-site Head Start-child care partnerships, particularly since Minnesota regulations sanction busi-nesses to operate under less stringent family child care rules as opposed to child care center rules. Partnering with child care centers that serve high proportions of families receiving BSF may be another option. Perhaps in some instances a special transit system could be arranged for Head Start families. Finally, Head Start family and child care services that promote family self sufficiency are, in the long run, invaluable services to families and a valuable contribution to the larger society. The Children’s Defense Fund reported (1998) that only 17 percent of the total job growth from 1990 to 1998 involved above-poverty earnings. These statistics
paint a bleak picture for families that are transitioning from welfare to work and a strong message that Head Start’s original vision to help families move out of poverty is needed now more than ever. Parents work-ing in low-wage jobs cannot now or will not in the foreseeable future easily bridge the gap to livable wage earnings. Brooks and Buckner’s research, as well as their review of related research (1996), finds a high correla-tion between earnings and educational level. In Minnesota’s TANF program, parents can obtain a technical college degree, although some counties and TANF social service per-sonnel encourage parents more than others. Head Start child care partnerships located at technical colleges, coupled with support services to inform parents of and advocate for their right to obtain post-secondary training, may be a powerful model, possibly the most powerful, to assist families in their efforts to achieve and sustain family self-sufficiency.
ConclusionTwo Lark Head Start teachers participating in the focus groups said, “I really think that we need to keep the partnerships going. The need is there and it is going to do nothing but grow, it is just [a mater of] figuring out how to get the communication, how to get it down so everyone knows their roles.” The other teacher added, “Yes, find a way to be a team, both Head Start and day care have the same goal in mind—they want to meet the needs of the children, if there is a way to turn that into a team effort.” Lark, like the other two Head Start programs described in this study, has developed models to meet the needs of working parents and those attending post secondary training or edu-cation. Some models seem to work better than others and key elements of these more successful programs include long-estab-lished partnerships with selective child care centers, substantial fiscal support to family or center child care programs, training, equipment, and renovation funds for family or center child care programs. Parents are pleased with the full-day ser-vices provided. However, full-day services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
FUll-dAY hEAd StARt SERVICES
205
do not meet all families’ needs, particularly when they require non-standard hour care. Transportation, misunderstanding of the array of Head Start options, and difficulty in obtaining BSF are impediments that many families face in making child care decisions. Regardless of the type of program de-veloped and the inclusion of the successful program attributes, there are, as the teach-ers describe, obstacles along the way. These include differences in program philosophy, operations, budget, teacher training and support, and resources. These difficulties resulted in one child care partnership be-ing dissolved and Head Start assuming full program operation at a technical college, and in Head Start administrators in another program stating that it would best for them to run their own full-day programs. The need for full-day services is real, and yet such services will in and of themselves not help families obtain economic self-sufficiency. The original intent of Head Start, family self-suf-ficiency, translated into family advocacy and support and coupled with full-day services, can, in the long run, best serve the families and children enrolled in Head Start.
ReferencesBrooks, M. G., & Buckner, J. C. (1996). Work and
welfare: Job histories, barriers to employment, and predictors of work among low-income single mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4), 526-537.
Chase, R., & Shelton, E. (2001). Child care use in Minnesota: Report of the 1999 household child care survey. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center.
Chazdon, S., & Crichton, L. (1999). Minnesota Family Investment Program longitudinal study: Baseline report. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota De-partment of Human Services.
Children’s Defense Fund. (1998). Poverty stats reveal some good news, some bad news. CDF Reports, November, 4-17.
Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M. (1994). The study of children in family care and relative care. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and eth-
ics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hofferth, S. (1994). Who enrolls in Head Start?
A demographic analysis of Head-Start eligible children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(3-4), 243-68.
Hofferth, S., Brayfield, A., Deich, S., & Holcomb, P. (1991). National child care survey, 1990. Wash-ington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Kisker, E. E., & Ross, C. M. (1997). Arranging child care. The Future of Children, 7(1), 99-109.
Kisker, E., & Silberberg, M. (1991). Child care utilization by disadvantaged teenage mothers. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 159-177.
Krueger, R. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (1999). Head Start in Minne-sota: Serving Minnesota families since 1965. Roseville, MN: Author.
Myers, M. K. (1993). Child care in JOBS employ-ment and training program: What difference does quality make? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), 767-783.
Peisner-Feinberg, E., Clifford, R., Yazejian, N., Culkin, M., Howes, C., & Kagan, S. (1998, April). The longitudinal effects of child care quality: Implications for kindergarten success. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Phillips, D. A. (Ed.). (1995). Child care for low-income families: Summary of two workshops. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Phillips, D., Voran, M., Kister, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994). Child care for children in poverty: Opportunity or inequity? Child Development, 65(2), 472-492.
Polakov, V. (1993). Lives on the edge: Single moth-ers and their children in the other America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sonenstein, F., & Wolf, D. (1991). Satisfaction with child care: Perspectives of welfare mothers. Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 15-31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993). Creating a 21st century Head Start: Fi-nal report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. (DHHS Publica-tion No. 1994-517-593/80715). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Zaslow, M. J., Oldham, E., Moore, K., & Magenheim,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
CEGlOwSkI
206
E. (1998). Welfare families’ use of early childhood care and education programs, and implications for their children’s development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(4), 537-563.
Notes: 1In 1998, the Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices poverty guidelines was $16,450 for a family of
four, $13,650 for a family of three, and $10,850 for a
family of two. 2Head Start regulations stipulate that no more than
10% of the families have incomes above the federal
poverty guidelines.3 Roch Head Start administrators indicated that parents
were dissatisfied with the full-day option, but none of the
parents voiced concerns about the program.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Oak
land
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
2:10
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14