Overall Findings and Implications for Programs From the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project

1. Overall Findings and Implications for Programs From the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project

2. The Early Head Start Program Over 700 programs serving about 62,000 children Various beginnings, but all become Head Start About 10% of the Head Start budget Follows the Head Start Program Performance Standards

3. Early Head Start Is an Intensive, Two-Generation Program

4. The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project Began in 1995 3001 children and families followed from enrollment in program to child age 3 Implementation Study: 3 rounds of site visits Experimental Design Impact Study

5. Research Conducted by Early Head Start Research Consortium 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, 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).

6. Early Head Start Research Sites

7. Many Measures Used in the Project

8. Policy Context Changes During the EHS Research & Evaluation Project

9. Key Questions Guided the Study

10. EHS Was Broadly Effective Across a Wide Array of Outcomes

11. Positive Impacts: Multiple Dimensions of Children’s Development

12. Positive Impacts: Multiple Dimensions of Children’s Development (cont.)

13. Example: Fewer EHS Children Were in the Low-Functioning Group

14. Positive Impacts in Many Areas of Parenting Greater warmth and supportiveness Less detachment More parent-child play More stimulating home environments More support for language and learning More daily reading Less spanking by both mothers and fathers

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

16. Example: EHS Parents Were Less Likely to Spank Their Children

17. The Program Had Positive Effects on Aspects of Parent Self-Sufficiency More hours in education and job training More employment hours No impacts on welfare receipt or income Reduced subsequent births

18. Consistent Impacts on Participation in Education & Training Programs

19. No Consistent Impacts on Employment

20. The Program Had Beneficial Impacts for Early Head Start Fathers Less spanking Less intrusive in interaction with child Children of program fathers were more engaged and attentive.

21. Family Subgroups

22. Early Head Start Serves Many Different Types of Families

23. Most Types of Families Benefited from EHS Participation

24. Most Types of Families Benefited from EHS Participation (cont.)

25. Impacts Were Larger In 3 Groups

26. Impacts Were Larger in 3 Groups

27. EHS Did Not Appear to Benefit One Group of Families

28. EHS Benefited Some Groups That Have Been Hard to Serve

29. Program Approaches and Implementing the Head Start Program Performance Standards

30. Program Models Fit Community Needs

31. All Program Approaches Had Favorable Impacts

32. Implementing Head Start Performance Standards Strengthened Impacts

33. Strongest Impacts Found in Early-Implemented Mixed Programs

34. Impacts In Early-Implemented Mixed Programs Larger Than Overall Impacts

35. Conclusions Early Head Start was broadly effective across a wide array of outcomes and family subgroups. In several subgroups, impacts were larger as well as broad, demonstrating potential focus areas for programs in the future. The evaluation points to ways programs can build on a good beginning.

36. How Can Early Head Start Build on a Good Beginning? Intensify and specialize services for families with greatest risk. Provide more intensive services for children in home-based programs and for parents in center-based programs. Learn from the mixed model. Begin services early, during pregnancy if possible. Implement well and early.

37. For More Information…