Workforce and Program Features of Quality: How does Early Head Start Compare to other Programs?

• In Event: Meeting the Mandate for Delivering Comprehensive Services for Families: Early Head Start Supports and Outcomes

Abstract

Research shows socioeconomic gaps in development are present at 9 months of age and widen by 24 months of age (Halle et al., 2009); yet, early care and education (ECE) experiences can mitigate negative effects of growing up in poverty (National Council on the Developing Child, 2007). In particular, Early Head Start (EHS) with its two-generation approach, positively impacts child development and family outcomes (Love et al., 2005). Yet, much remains unknown about the quality of EHS programs and, specifically, how that quality compares to other publicly and non-publicly funded options.

Our study compares center-based ECE options serving infants and toddlers (I/T) across program type (EHS, subsidized centers, Public ECE [including state- and locally-funded ECE], non-publicly funded ECE) in moderate- and high-poverty density areas using the most recent nationally representative data available, the 2012 National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE; n=1,091). Specifically, we consider features of the workforce, classrooms, and ECE programs predictive of quality learning environments that could positively shape young children’s development and school readiness, as well as factors that may positively impact families.

Our research questions are: 1) How do EHS programs compare on a series of demographic, workforce, classroom, and program characteristics by program type?; and 2) How is center type related to features of the workforce, classrooms, and programs predictive of quality in I/T programs?

To answer the first research question, characteristics of the workforce, classrooms, and programs serving I/T were assessed descriptively. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics by center type, allowing for comparison.

To answer our second question, ANOVAs and logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between program type and quality indicators (see Table 2). To control for Type I error, Bonferroni correction was applied (p/n, p = .05). Multiple Imputation was used for missing data. Public ECE, subsidized centers, and non-publicly funded centers were compared to EHS in all analyses.

Our results suggest EHS teachers may be significantly different from teachers in subsidized classrooms and non-publicly funded classrooms but similar to Public ECE teachers. EHS teachers had more education, CDA/state certification, and higher engagement in professional development activities than teachers in subsidized classrooms and non-publicly funded classrooms. Yet, few classroom-level quality differences were found. Though EHS classrooms had larger group sizes, we did not find any significant differences in child-adult ratio or use of curriculum across all types.

EHS centers were significantly different from all other center types on nearly all program-level predictors of quality. Compared to other center types, EHS centers were more likely to provide ancillary services to families, including health screening, developmental assessments, and therapeutic, counseling and social services. EHS centers tended to provide specialists and mentors/coaches. Finally, EHS centers had lower turnover rates than subsidized centers. Our findings suggest EHS children and families may be enrolled in higher quality programs (as compared to other publicly and non-publicly funded centers), though it should be noted that some of the differences identified reflect differences in policy requirements for EHS programs. Additional implications will be discussed.

Authors

• Gerilyn Slicker, University of Nevada Las Vegas
  Presenting Author

• Jing Tang, Child Trends -Maryland
  Non-Presenting Author

• Cara Lynn Kelly, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author