|
Article Excerpt
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.
**********
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 $13,000 (1). 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 Transitional 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.
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 working but earning below poverty incomes and those who are receiving TANF (2). Under welfare reform, those receiving TANF, like the second mother, face a state-defined time limit and must find employment after 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 previous 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, communication 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-day Head Start Programs
Full-day Head Start services are important, given that the quality of care that is available to low-income families is highly uneven (Phillips, 1995). Most care falls into a range of quality that some conclude may compromise 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 seriously 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-standard working hours, and trust are the reasons that low-income parents rely heavily on relative 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) reported 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 arrangement 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 assistance 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, 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 continuity of care. The National Child Care Survey 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 (Hofferth, Brayfield, Deich, & Holcomb, 1991).
Thus, families with limited incomes, including 90 percent of Head Start families, 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 Programs
Minnesota 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 programs. 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 enrolled). 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 (Minnesota 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 Design
Researchers contacted the Minnesota Head Start Association and invited interested programs to participate in a study of full-day...
|
