Lessons from the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Projects

by Jeanne Bellotti

In February 2001, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) partnered with the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to fund 21 Early Head Start (EHS) fatherhood demonstration projects. The demonstration grantees were selected through a competitive process and funded for three years. Their goal was to develop and implement innovative practices to increase the involvement of fathers in EHS and in the lives of their children. Each grantee was expected to establish a partnership with the local OCSE and other organizations to develop comprehensive plans for delivering services that encourage responsible parenting among EHS fathers and mothers. ACYF provided basic guidelines, but grantees had flexibility in developing their goals and service structure.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) is conducting a process evaluation for ACYF to provide a detailed look at the evolution of the demonstration’s implementation and participants’ experiences. From the evaluation, several lessons have emerged about designing, implementing, and supporting fatherhood initiatives within EHS (Bellotti et al. 2003; Bellotti 2002). The demonstration grantees’ experiences can guide policymakers, program administrators, and practitioners as they design and implement new initiatives to increase fathers’ involvement in Head Start programs.

The evaluation tracked the progress of the 21 demonstration programs using three data sources.

• First, MPR conducted site visits to all 21 grantees after the first and second years of implementation and a final visit at the end of three years to a subset of 9 programs. We interviewed fathers, staff from Early Head Start, and local OCSE staff.
• Second, after the second and third years, we asked EHS directors, fatherhood staff, home visitors and family workers, and teachers at each participating program to complete a survey on program strategies for involving fathers. We modeled this survey on the instrument used in the practitioner’s study (Raikes et al. 2002).
• Finally, after the second and third years of implementation, we asked staff at each program to provide data on the characteristics, involvement, and program participation of the fathers of each child enrolled in EHS.

In this article, we discuss our research findings through the second year of implementation (2001-2003); findings from the final year of operations will be available later in 2004.

Characteristics of the Fathers of Children Enrolled in EHS. Many fathers and father figures are involved in their children’s lives and in the EHS programs. Of the 1,743 children on whom we collected father data, program staff reported that 79 percent had at least one father or father figure currently involved in their lives. Of these, 84 percent were the child’s biological father; 16 percent were father figures. About 41 percent were married to the child’s mother, and more than 70 percent of fathers lived with their children—although in urban compared to rural and suburban programs, fathers were less likely to be living in the home and married to the mother of the child.

Developing a Fatherhood Staffing Structure. By the second year of implementation (2002-2003), two-thirds of the demonstration programs had a fatherhood coordinator and one or more specialists. The coordinator-specialist structure appeared to best facilitate the effective allocation of responsibilities, including program development, program management, and direct service provision. Finding and retaining qualified staff for these positions, however, was challenging for many programs—more than half experienced fatherhood staff turnover within the first two years. Programs reported that fatherhood members need academic qualifications and strong interpersonal and communication skills. Those who were integrated into an existing EHS staff group, frequently communicated with other staff, or had an “open-door policy” for staff questions appeared better able to coordinate comprehensive services for families. Focus groups with fathers also revealed that many fathers felt more comfortable discussing personal needs with male fatherhood staff than with female staff and appreciated the presence of men among the predominantly female EHS staff.

Training Staff on Father Involvement. The demonstration programs believe all staff must be trained on the importance of father involvement. Most respondents to our survey cited staff training as the most successful strategy for making their programs more father-friendly. During site visit interviews, many programs reported that some female staff members have had negative personal experiences with men, which can sometimes color their attitude toward engaging fathers in the program. According to fatherhood staff and program directors, internal staff training sessions often made female staff more receptive to including men.

Engaging Fathers in EHS. All programs agreed that father recruitment was a significant challenge and encouraged programs interested in involving fathers not to underestimate its difficulty. After two years of implementation, EHS directors reported that they still face barriers to father involvement— including fathers’ work schedules, reluctance from some mothers, an image thatEHS is for women, and an overall lack of male involvement in the program. Programs had experimented with several strategies, however, and began to develop practices they perceived as successful in reaching men.

Nearly 95 percent of survey respondents said their programs invite fathers to all aspects of EHS to show them they are welcome. Staff reported that it is critical to encourage fathers to attend the enrollment session, and at that time, highlight services for fathers and families regardless of whether the father is present at the enrollment meeting, and collect father information through enrollment forms. From the start, programs found it important to encourage all EHS staff to learn fathers’ names, engage fathers in conversation, and invite them to participate in the classroom, home visits, and special program events. Staff reported that displaying positive images of men and ensuring that male staff and fathers are present in reception areas and classrooms whenever possible helped convey that EHS is a program for fathers, not just for mothers and children.

Offering Services to Meet Fathers’ Needs. Many fathers engaged in at least some of the EHS activities. Of the fathers identified by staff as involved in their children’s lives, about 70 percent were reported to have participated in at least one activity in a six-month period. Nevertheless, many programs found it more difficult to engage fathers than anticipated and needed to adjust their service offerings accordingly. Among the fathers who participated in any activity, child development services drew the largest number, with 69 and 51 percent participating in home-based and centerbased activities, respectively. When working with fathers who hesitated to interact with children, teachers and home visitors succeeded in directing fathers toward concrete activities—such as reading to the children, helping with meals, or playing games—while explaining how the activity will benefit their children’s development. Having male staff and other participating fathers interact with the children also helped fathers feel more comfortable participating.

Programs reported a growth in father-child and family activities as a result of the programs’ efforts to reach out to fathers. At the end of two years, 53 and 50 percent of participating fathers had attended father-child and family events, respectively. Fathersreported enjoying “daddy and me” time with their children. Several programs created special initiatives to encourage fathers to read to their children. The demonstration programs also offered holiday events and low-budget activities that families could replicate on their own, such as feeding the birds in the park or flying kites.

Father-only activities were common, with programs reporting that 43 percent of fathers who had participated in at least one activity took advantage of these services. Nearly all the demonstration programs offered peer support for fathers, adjusting the structure, content, and timing of their meetings based on fathers’ interests and needs. Activities such as sporting events or camping trips allowed staff and fathers to get to know each other and develop mutual trust. Programs sought to increase fathers’ ability to financially support their children by offering employment and training services. Many demonstration programs found that offering incentives to the men for their participation —such as food and T-shirts—kept them coming back.

Supporting Positive Co-Parenting Relationships. Most of the demonstration programs found a focus on co-parenting consistent with their program goals and responsive to family needs. Many staff members, however, did not feel comfortable providing advice to couples about their relationship. Staff reported that 71 percent of all fathers and only 45 percent of nonresident biological fathers had relationships with the focal child’s mother that were “very friendly.” Five programs had activities to promote healthy co-parenting relationships—including co-parenting education sessions, support groups for both mothers and fathers, and social and recreational activities. Some programs also strengthened partnerships with other local agencies—such as mental health professionals, marriage and family services, and anger management counselors—that could serve as referrals for parents.

Partnering with OCSEs. As mandated by their demonstration grants, 17 of the 21 programs were collaborating with their local OCSE by the end of their second year (2002-2003). Most collaborations focused on disseminating information on child support to staff and families, usually through workshops and printed materials. Three programs were working with intermediaries to provide specialized services for individual fathers, including advocating for modifications to support orders and arrearages and reinstatement of suspended drivers’ licenses.

Conclusion

Through this study, we have identified promising strategies that the EHS Fatherhood Demonstration programs used to reach out to fathers and meet their needs as parents, as well as the common implementation barriers they encountered along the way. Many grantees have found it challenging to fully integrate services for fathers into EHS, but they are clearly making progress. Our continued research on the final year of the demonstration (2003- 2004) will offer valuable insights into the evolution of program practices, staff perceptions of greatest accomplishments, and program plans for sustaining meaningful father involvement initiatives after the dedicated grant funding ends.

REFERENCES

     Bellotti, J., C. Vogel, A. Burwick, et al. 2003. Dedicated to Dads: Lessons from the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration. Report submitted to Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

     Bellotti, J. 2002. Reaching Out To Fathers: The Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration. Report submitted to Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

     Raikes, H., K. Boller, W. van Kammen, et al. 2002. Father Involvement in Early Head Start: A Practitioners Study. Report submitted to the Ford Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Jeanne Bellotti is a Researcher at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. T: 609-799-3535; E: jbellotti@mathematica-mpr.com