Father Involvement in Early Head Start: The Practitioners Study

by Helen Raikes

IN 2000 AND 2001, the Early Head Start Research Consortium conducted a survey to learn more about what Early Head Start programs were doing to involve fathers. Responses to this Web-based and paper survey (respondents could choose) were received from 261 Wave 1 through Wave 5 (programs funded in 1995 through 1998) Early Head Start programs. The 261 represented 63 percent of all programs actively offering services at the time. The study is part of an overall group of Father Studies that in turn is a part of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Findings from the survey informed early understandings of father involvement in Early Head Start (EHS) and provided groundwork for the fatherhood demonstration project (see Bellotti, pages 24-26).

The study examined father populations at the sites as well as program goals, activities and strategies for engaging fathers in program services. It also examined program developmental stages for father involvement and identified what more mature father involvement programs were doing to involve the fathers.

Who were the fathers served by EHS?
The study found considerable variation in patterns of father presence in Early Head Start children’s homes. The respondents estimated that about half of the EHS children had resident fathers (45%) and a quarter (25%) had nonresident fathers involved in their lives (saw or communicated with the child a few times a month over the past 3 months). In general, children with resident fathers were more likely to be found in EHS programs that were either home-based, served a majority of Hispanic families, served fewer teen parents or were located in rural areas. Most EHS programs (74%) served at least some children whose fathers were incarcerated (3 incarcerated fathers on average per program).

Thus, EHS programs are similar to one another in that nearly all serve some children who have resident fathers and some who have nonresident involved fathers. On the other hand, there are profound differences in the proportion of families with resident fathers in each category across programs; these population variations are likely to create important differences in how EHS programs structure their approach to involving fathers.

How did EHS programs involve fathers?
In 2000-2001, most EHS programs were attempting to involve fathers at some level. Nearly all programs reported that they attempted to involve biological resident fathers through their program activities (99%); almost as many attempted to reach a resident father or father figure who was not a biological father (95%). The majority of programs attempted to involve nonresident biological fathers (77%) and nonresident father figures (58%).

Programs used a variety of strategies to engage fathers.

• Nearly all (90% or more) programs issued open invitations to fathers (inviting fathers to participate in all program events) and ensured that the father’s name was on the enrollment forms.
• Many programs (50-90%) displayed positive images of men in materials, referred fathers for services, worked with staff to become open to working with fathers, and worked to create an image of the program as one that serves fathers as well as mothers.
• A minority of programs used explicit practices such as hiring male staff, ensuring that mailing materials included fathers as well as mothers, conducting a needs assessment for fathers, providing training for staff on father involvement, and utilizing fathers and other men in recruiting fathers for program activities and as mentors. These may be activities that more programs will want to adopt in the future.

How involved were fathers in EHS program activities?
A majority of resident fathers had been involved in an EHS program activity (59%), but only a minority had been highly involved (24%). Highly involved was defined as participating 3 times or more times per month in program activities. Additionally, some nonresident fathers were involved (30%), but fewer than 10% of these nonresident fathers were highly involved.

How far along were EHS programs in implementing a father involvement component?
Programs appeared to evolve through stages in providing father involvement activities. In the survey, programs categorized themselves into one of five stages which had been identified in earlier qualitative work by the Early Head Start Research Consortium.

Stages I and II: Early stage programs for father involvement comprised 72% of all programs. At Stage I (6%) little, if any, thought had been given to the unique issues involving a parent other than the mother or to how best to plan father involvement. Stage II (66%) programs involved some fathers and had given some thought and effort to father involvement but it was not a priority of the program.

Stage III: The mid-stage programs (21% of all programs) demonstrated a concerted effort to involve fathers. Some exciting and promising changes were occurring as more staff and parents gained a sense of how to make the program more father-friendly. Typically, a father involvement coordinator had been hired and that person did a good job of keeping other staff aware of father involvement and in promoting a number of father involvement activities.

Stages IV and V: Mature programs for father involvement (7%) made many changes to make their programs fatherfriendly. A father involvement coordinator focused on integrating fathers into the program at all levels; the program was often as focused on fathers as the target of program activities as on mothers and babies. Many resident fathers were involved at Stage IV (6% of the programs) and at Stage V (1%) most resident and many non-resident fathers were involved in the program.

What were the practices of mature father involvement programs?
In 2000-2001, a small number of programs (7%) were demonstrating what a mature father involvement program in Early Head Start could be. Mature programs differed from early-stage and midstage programs in a number of ways.

1. Mature programs had a wider range of goals for their father involvement programs than other programs.They emphasized supporting fathers as parents more than other programs but also emphasized programming that helped fathers’ personal development. These mature programs also saw themselves serving as resources in the community for fathers.

2. Mature programs hired a father involvement coordinator. Nearly all mature programs (94%) had named one or two persons to be responsible for leadership and day-to-day management for father involvement with the program as compared to only 38% for early stage programs. Generally, the father involvement coordinator in mature programs was a man.

3. Mature programs provided training for a father involvement coordinator but also provided training for all staff in father involvement. For example, 89% of mature programs provided training for a father involvement coordinator compared to only 14% for early-stage programs, and 78% of the mature programs also provided training for all staff on father involvement (28% for earlystage programs).

4. Mature programs involved both resident fathers and nonresident fathers. Mature programs reported that many of the resident fathers (65%) were involved in their program at some level and that nearly half (41%) were highly involved. A majority (56%) of these programs made a strong effort to involve many nonresident fathers in the program when there was no other father figure in the family (vs. 11% of early-stage programs). More than a third of mature programs (40%) serving children whose fathers were incarcerated said they made a strong effort to reach out to those fathers compared to 5% of early-stage programs. Mature programs mailed progress notes, conducted home visits in prison, and prepared duplicate materials of program reports for the incarcerated fathers.

5. Mature Programs recruited fathers in diverse ways. Like early-stage programs, mature programs asked mothers to encourage the men to get involved, but they also drew heavily on male networks to recruit fathers for EHS.

6. Mature programs involved fathers despite difficult situations. By sensitively working with family members, mature programs were significantly more likely to successfully involve the father in EHS even when the mother or the mother’s family initially did not want the father involved; when the mother and the father were in conflict; when the father was involved in domestic violence; or when the father was not paying his share of child support.

7. Mature programs faced challenges in involving fathers, as did all EHS programs, but they were different ones. Early stage programs most often reported that the greatest barriers to father involvement were program factors such as lacking lacking male staff members to whom fathers could relate. Mature programs’ greatest barrier reported was fathers and mothers who were not living together.

8. Mature programs worked closely with other agencies within their communities. Mature programs (50%) were more likely to have had a relationship with the local child support enforcement agency (vs. 28% for early stage programs) and to have referred fathers to other agencies providing services related to domestic violence, substance abuse, and employment training than were early stage programs (89% vs. 67%). These significant differences echo the comments made in focus groups by some mature program staff—that the program “works within the village.”

9. Mature programs could identify key successes. Mature programs were significantly more likely than others to have identified the key ingredients for building their programs:

   • creating a father needs assessment,
   • providing training for all staff working with men and for father involvement coordinators,
   • recruiting fathers who completed the program to work as mentors, recruiters, and group facilitators, and
   • creating a program image that makes it clear the program is designed for fathers.

   These successes suggest leverage activities for Early Head Start as well as Head Start programs looking for the best ways to move to higher levels of father involvement.

This article references Father Studies in Early Head Start. These studies are supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; the Administration on Children, Youth and Families; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and the Ford Foundation. The Father Studies include information from a variety of sources including quantitative and qualitative studies of approximately 800 lowincome fathers participating in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, an embedded study of nearly 200 fathers of newborns, qualitative and quantitative studies of practitioners, and local research studies.

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project is a longitudinal study of 17 Early Head Start programs’ implementation and impacts. The study is funded by the Administration for Children and Families under contract to Mathematica Policy Research and Columbia University Center for Children and Families in collaboration with the Early Head Start Research Consortium. Reports from this project are available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/.

Helen Raikes is Society for Research in Child Development Consultant, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. T: 402-433-7278; E: hraikes@neb.rr.com