Mixed Approach Programs in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project: An In-Depth View

Abstract

Research Findings: Reports from the Early Head Start (EHS) Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP) found that participation in programs that combined home-based and center-based approaches (i.e., mixed programs) had the broadest pattern of significant impacts on parents and children through age 3. Which program implementation characteristics distinguish programs that had greater impacts on children and families from those that had fewer impacts? Local research partners provided a description of key service implementation features of the mixed approach programs in the EHSREP. Through secondary analysis of EHSREP data, we compared the parent-reported intensity of service receipt over time across program approaches. We examined the impact of the type and timing of receipt of EHS services on child and family outcomes at 36 months. Practice or Policy: Qualitative results underscored the flexible responsiveness of program plans to implement services in mixed approach programs. Quantitative results showed greater intensity and duration of services received by families. Experiencing intensive home visiting early on was associated with positive parent–child interaction qualities and a more stimulating home environment. Experiencing intensive home visiting late was associated with cognitive, socioemotional, and parent outcomes. The experience of mixed approach programs follows A. J. Reynolds's (1998) recommendations for effective early childhood programming.

Notes

¹Parent services interviews were completed on average 7, 16, and 28 months after enrollment.

²Analyses were conducted to test whether families who dropped out of the program differed significantly from those who stayed in. At all three time intervals (prior to age 1, age 1, and age 2), families who dropped out were more likely to be White, less likely to be Hispanic, and more likely to have mothers who were pregnant at enrollment. Prior to age 1, those who dropped out of the program tended to have lower incomes. At age 1, those who dropped out of the program were more likely to have less than a high school diploma or GED and tended to be younger on average. Though statistically significant, the magnitude of the difference in age was very small (22.9 years for those who stayed and 22.2 for those who left the program), raising a question about the practical significance of this difference. Regardless, the differences between those who stayed in the program and those who left the program further justify examining the service use data both ways (i.e., as an intent-to-treat analysis and with program dropouts removed).

³The control variables reflected families' characteristics and past experience and included mother's age, race/ethnicity, English language ability, education level, primary occupation, living arrangement, number of children in the household, poverty level, welfare receipt, adequacy of resources, previous enrollment in another child development program, mobility during the previous year, age of child at random assignment and at the time of the parent interview or child assessment, low birth-weight status, child gestational age, child gender, and risk categories.

^aPrior to Age 1, χ² ₆ = 202.11, p < .0001; at Age 1, χ² ₆ = 384.85, p < .0001; at Age 2, χ² ₆ = 142.05, p < .0001.

^bIntensive home visiting includes families who received at least monthly home visits and may include visits from a provider other than Early Head Start.

^cCenter care includes Early Head Start center care as well as care from other child care centers in the community.

^dPrior to Age 1, χ² ₆ = 202.46, p < .0001; at Age 1, χ² ₆ = 389.31, p < .0001; at Age 2, χ² ₆ = 158.48, p < .0001.