Despite the common misconception, most low-income fathers are not missing. They are present and involved in the lives of their children (Vogel et al. 2003). These fathers are important contributors to both the emotional and financial support of their children. A growing volume of research on fatherhood confirms the importance of father involvement in the lives and education of their children (Cabrera et al. 2000; Coley 2001; Levine 1998; McBride et al. 1999; Nord 1997; Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera 2002; and Vogel et al. 2003). Acting on these findings, federal agencies have been developing and enhancing fatherhood policies to promote the positive involvement of fathers in child and family programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start.

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 fatherhood demonstration projects. Selected through a competitive process, the demonstration grantees were funded for three years to develop and implement creative practices that would lead to increased involvement of fathers in Early Head Start programs and in the lives of their children. In addition, the grantees were expected to establish partnerships with their local OCSE and other community resources to increase the availability and efficient delivery of services appropriate to the interests and needs of fathers. While ACYF provided these basic guidelines for demonstration activities, grantees were given great flexibility in developing their local program goals and service structure for the fatherhood initiative. Little was known at the start of the demonstration about the most effective ways to involve more fathers in Early Head Start. Because of this, the demonstration grantees were charged with developing and testing new strategies for engaging men in program activities and meeting their unique needs as fathers.

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION

Shortly after awarding the demonstration grants, ACYF and OCSE commissioned a study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to conduct an evaluation of the father involvement strategies developed by the participating Early Head Start programs through the first two years of the demonstration. The study is designed to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the roles of low-income fathers in the lives of the young children served by the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration grantees? How have the grantees attempted to affect changes and continuities in fathers' involvement with their children?
2. What staffing patterns have the grantees implemented to deliver comprehensiveservices to meet the diverse needs of Early Head Start families, especially fathers? How well have these staffing structures worked? What staff training was needed to increase the knowledge and sensitivity of staff and thus facilitate father involvement?
3. What strategies have the demonstration programs developed to involve fathers in program activities and the lives of mothers and children?
4. How do the parenting roles of mothers and fathers interact? In what ways have demonstration programs attempted to increase permanent parenting relationships?
5. How have the grantees attempted to increase fathers' ability to provide for their children financially? To what extent have the programs promoted voluntary, established legal paternity among unwed fathers and mothers?
6. To what extent have the relationships between programs and the local OCSE changed over time? How have partnerships between programs and other community resources developed in order to facilitate service delivery for Early Head Start fathers?

MPR gathered both qualitative and quantitative data in three ways. First, researchers conducted two rounds of site visits to the 21 demonstration grantees in winter 2001-2002 and winter 2002-2003. The visits consisted of a series of in-depth interviews with Early Head Start staff, focus groups with participating fathers, and interviews with liaisons from local Offices of Child Support Enforcement.¹ Second, at the time of the second site visit, staff members in each participating program were asked to complete questionnaires about their fatherhood initiatives.² Third, each program provided MPR with a list of the children enrolled at the time of the second visit. Using these lists, MPR generated Father/Father Figure Information Forms for each child in the program. Local staffs were asked to complete one form for each father or father figure involved in the child's life.³

---

1. ¹ The study's interim report details key findings from the first year of implementation, based on the site visits conducted to the 21 demonstration grantees during winter 2001-2002 (Bellotti 2002). [back]
2. ² The staff surveys were modeled on an instrument used in the Ford Foundation practitioner study (Raikes et al. 2002). [back]
3. ³ Father/Father Figure Information Forms were completed by grantee staff, based on their knowledge of the children and fathers participating in the program. These data reflect only those fathers about whom the Early Head Start staff are aware and do not represent the responses of fathers themselves. [back]

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FATHERS SERVED BY THE DEMONSTRATION

The demonstration programs identified a total of 1,871 children enrolled in Early Head Start at the time of the second round of site visits. For each child enrolled, program staff provided information on whether the biological father or a father figure was involved in the child's life. MPR received information about father involvement for 1,743 of the children, or 93 percent of the total sample. Of these children, program staff reported that 79 percent had at least one father or father figure who was currently involved in their lives.

Of the fathers identified by program staff, nearly 84 percent were the biological father of an enrolled child, while 16 percent were father figures. About 40 percent of all identified men were married to the child's mother. More than 70 percent of fathers lived with their children-although fathers and father figures of children served by urban programs were less likely than those in rural or mixed-setting programs to be living in the home. Further, these fathers and father figures were less likely to be married to the mother of the child.

In general, many fathers engaged in at least some program activities. Staff reported that about 71 percent of the fathers and father figures involved in their children's lives had participated in at least one Early Head Start activity in the past six months. Compared to men who were involved with their children but did not participate in Early Head Start, fathers and father figures who engaged in the program were more likely to be living with the child and to be married to the child's mother.

Participating fathers and father figures were 30 years old, on average; fewer than 8 percent were younger than age 21. Of all fathers and father figures engaged in the program, approximately 60 percent had completed high school or received a general equivalency degree (GED), and almost 75 percent were employed. More than half of fathers who did not work received medical assistance (68 percent) and food stamps (59 percent).

According to staff reports, most fathers were very satisfied (76 percent) or somewhat satisfied (18 percent) with the usual amount of time they spent with their children. Staff reported, however, that only 46 percent of nonresident biological fathers were very satisfied. In fact, among nonresident biological fathers, nearly 22 percent were somewhat or very dissatisfied with the time they were able to spend with their children, and 46 percent were reported as facing at least one barrier to involvement with their child.

LESSONS LEARNED

The experiences of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration grantees can help guide policymakers, program administrators, and practitioners as they design and implement new initiatives to increase fathers' involvement in Early Head Start programs and the lives of their children. Through the evaluation of the first two years of demonstration operation, we have derived a number of operational lessons about designing, implementing, and supporting such fatherhood initiatives.

Lessons on Fatherhood Staffing Structures

• Choosing a fatherhood staffing structure. Staffing structures that feature a fatherhood coordinator and one or more male involvement specialists appear to facilitate the effective allocation of responsibility for fatherhood work. While other staffing structures may be less expensive and may work under the right conditions, they also appear to have some significant disadvantages.
• Determining the qualifications of fatherhood staff. To engage fathers effectively, fatherhood staff need academic qualifications paired with strong interpersonal and communication skills. Training in social work and experience in community organizing were common among demonstration staff. Programs found that personal and professional abilities, such as charisma, familiarity with the community, and experience with program administration, also made staff more effective. In addition, many fathers felt more comfortable discussing personal needs with male, as opposed to female, fatherhood staff.
• Hiring fathers as staff members. Participating or "graduate" fathers may serve as a valuable pool of potential staff candidates. Depending on the fathers' backgrounds and previous work experience, supervisors may find it necessary to provide fathers with substantial professional mentoring in order to ease their transition into a staff role and the Early Head Start work environment.
• Encouraging communication between fatherhood and other Early HeadStart staff. Frequent communication among fatherhood and other Early Head Start staff facilitates father involvement in all aspects of the program. Fatherhood staff who were integrated into an existing Early Head Start staff unit, as well as those who had an "open-door policy" for questions appeared better able to coordinate comprehensive services for Early Head Start families.
• Weathering fatherhood staff turnover. More than half of the demonstration programs lost one or more members of their fatherhood staff during two years of implementation. Programs that had some advance notice of staff departures or that hired replacement staff from within the organization had less difficulty dealing with staff turnover. Involving all Early Head Start staff in providing services for fathers also helped programs weather staff turnover without major disruption to their efforts to engage fathers.

Lessons on Making Programs Father-Friendly

• Training staff for work with fathers. Some female staff members may have had negative personal experiences with men, and that these experiences can sometimes color their attitudes toward engaging fathers in the program. According to staff reports, internal staff training sessions on the importance of father involvement can be successful in making staff more receptive to including men.
• Evaluating all Early Head Start staff on their work with fathers. Evaluating the efforts of staff to involve fathers is another way to send a clear signal to staff that father involvement is an important, and expected, part of their jobs.
• Providing fathers with personal staff attention. Inviting fathers in person and by telephone to the program's events shows fathers that they are welcome and appreciated at Early Head Start. All Early Head Start staff can also be encouraged to learn fathers' names, engage fathers in short conversations, invite them to participate in the classroom and home visits, and extend invitations to special program events.
• Overcoming resistance from mothers. Staff in several demonstration programs reported that they encountered resistance from mothers about including fathers. Programs may benefit from allowing staff sufficient time to redouble their efforts to address mothers' concerns and encourage them to cooperate with fathers, in instances where the program does not have a legitimate reason for excluding the father. In cases where mothers are resentful of special services for fathers, creating parallel activities and groups for mothers may ease these tensions.
• Allowing staff time and flexibility to work with fathers when they are available. Program directors may find it important to evaluate whether staff members have sufficient time to recruit fathers during regular work hours. The barriers posed by fathers' work schedule may be addressed through program policies that allow staff flexibility in scheduling their work when fathers are available (and in staffing willingness to adapt their schedules in these ways). Giving staff sufficient time to reach out to men and allowing this type of flexibility in their work schedules may also help make it clear to the staff that fathers are expected to participate fully in the program and encourage them to promote fathers' involvement from the beginning of enrollment.
• Making the physical program environment father-friendly. Displaying positive images of men and ensuring that male staff and fathers are present whenever possible in reception areas and classrooms helps convey that Early Head Start is a program for fathers, as well as mothers and children.
• Assessing staff perceptions of progress toward father-friendliness. We suggest that program directors continually assess their staff member's perceptions of progress toward program goals and implement some of the strategies discussed above to help establish the idea of father involvement and provide staff with the time and resources to do the work well.

Lessons on Getting and Keeping Fathers Involved

• Involving fathers in Early Head Start family enrollment. Programs might consider revising their enrollment procedures to ensure that fathers are present during the enrollment process whenever possible, to highlight the fatherhood program regardless of whether the father is able to attend and to collect father information through enrollment forms. Enrollment staff might also develop a mechanism for passing father enrollment information to the staff members responsible for male recruitment.
• Making all staff responsible for engaging fathers. Fatherhood staff naturally have responsibility for reaching out to fathers. However, other Early Head Start staff members also have many points of contact with fathers and may succeed in reaching out to them.
• Taking advantage of every opportunity to engage fathers. Program staff can think of ways to include fathers in all phases of their work. When fathers drop off or pick up their children from Early Head Start centers, teachers and other program staff present have an opportunity to relay information about programs, invite them into the classroom, or just talk to fathers about their children's day. Providing food or other refreshments during these times is another way for staff and fathers to get to know each other. Further, home visitors can try to engage fathers who are present at the time of visits, regardless of whether the father chooses to participate actively.
• Mailing information and invitations to fathers. While mailings to fathers were one of the most common strategies that demonstration programs used to recruit fathers, many staff did not find them useful. Programs serving migrant or transient populations found mailings especially unproductive. Given the lack of success reported by demonstration staff, we suggest that program directors or fatherhood staff reassess the characteristics of the population they serve before determining the volume and frequency of mailings that would be most appropriate for their program.

Lessons on Service Offerings and Referrals for Fathers

• Assessing fathers' needs. The demonstration programs had difficulty involving fathers in the family partnership agreement (FPA) process that allows families to identify their strengths and needs and set their own goals. xvii Nevertheless, the experience of the demonstration projects shows that fathers of Early Head Start children have an array of needs that must be addressed; yet these needs may go unmet if programs do not become more proactive in engaging fathers in the FPA process or in finding alternative ways to provide similar services.
• Providing fathers with opportunities to bond with their children andfamilies. Fathers reported enjoying "daddy and me" time in which to play and bond with their children. The demonstration programs enjoyed success in offering holiday events and low-budget activities that families can replicate on their own. Programs may also wish to consider holding family events that recognize children's accomplishments at various points throughout the year.
• 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 who were experiencing problems with their relationship. To help support positive co-parenting, programs can strengthen 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 in need of such assistance. Programs with enough interest from parents and staff expertise might also consider offering co-parenting workshops for participating parents.
• Encouraging father participation in child development services. Many fathers appear to be more comfortable participating in child development services when they are given clearly delineated roles. When working with fathers who hesitate to interact with children, teachers and home visitors can try to direct fathers toward concrete activities while explaining how the activity will benefit their children's growth. Such activities can include developmentally appropriate play, arts and crafts, help with meals, and reading books. Also, having male staff and other participating fathers present in centers may help fathers feel more comfortable participating. Several programs found that some fathers were most receptive when they were able to use their existing trade skills to help improve the center facilities and grounds.
• Developing successful support groups for fathers. Nearly all of the demonstration grantees offered some form of peer support for fathers. Programs found that listening to fathers' interests and needs, and adjusting the structure, content, and timing of their meetings accordingly improved attendance. Offering father-only activities, such as sporting events or camping trips, is another opportunity for staff and fathers to get to know each other and develop mutual trust. In addition, demonstration programs found that offering men incentives-such as food, T-shirts, gym memberships, and even cash payments-for their participation was useful in keeping them coming back to group meetings.
• Helping fathers find stable employment in better-paying jobs. To increase fathers' ability to support their children financially, program staff might consider strengthening their ability to offer direct employment and training services or to link fathers with local agencies that offer those services. Simply providing information about these local agencies may not be sufficient to encourage them to take advantage of such services. Instead, many fathers feel more comfortable using referrals when an Early Head Start staff member accompanies them to the local agency or puts them in contact with a counselor who is familiar with the Early Head Start fatherhood program.

Lessons on Partnerships with Local OCSE

• Facilitating child support workshops for fathers. Several fatherhood coordinators commented on how difficult it was to get fathers to attend child support workshops. Many fathers are hostile toward OCSE and may be more willing to attend workshops on child support that are led by the fatherhood staff or a representative from a legal service agency. When possible, the programs may also consider developing linkages with access and visitation programs.
• Offering separate child support workshops for mothers. In light of resistance from many mothers to involving fathers, it may be important to have child support workshops for mothers and grandparents to highlight how father involvement can benefit their children both economically and emotionally. We suggest holding separate workshops for mothers and fathers, to allow open and honest discussion.

Despite the common misconception, most low-income fathers are not missing. They are present and involved in the lives of their children (Vogel et al. 2003). These fathers are important contributors to both the emotional and financial support of their children. A growing volume of research on fatherhood confirms the importance of father involvement in the lives and education of their children (Cabrera et al. 2000; Coley 2001; Levine 1998; McBride et al. 1999; Nord 1997; Tamis-LeMonda and Cabrera 2002; and Vogel et al. 2003). Additional studies have helped to identify the potential role of two generation programs, such as Early Head Start, in promoting such father involvement. One recent study by Fagan and Iglesias (1999) suggests a positive association between high levels of participation in Head-Start-based intervention programs and increased father involvement with children.

Acting on these findings, federal agencies have been developing and enhancing fatherhood policies to promote the positive involvement of fathers in child and family programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start. Since its inception in 1995, the federal Fatherhood Initiative has brought several key government agencies together to evaluate the role of fathers in national policies and programs. Welfare reform (or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) created heightened emphasis on paternity establishment and enforcement of child support judgments. These efforts have stimulated both a shift in public policy and new national studies of father involvement.

The momentum of the fatherhood movement continues as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has identified father involvement as a continuing priority for the federal government. A variety of grassroots organizations, state-funded programs, and federally mandated initiatives have expanded the effort to provide fathers with the tools they need to become emotionally involved with, and financially responsible for, their children. Included in this effort is a greater attempt to involve fathers within the federal Early Head Start program.

In February 2001, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) partnered with the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to fund 21 Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration projects. Selected through a competitive process, the demonstration grantees were funded for three years to develop and implement creative practices that would lead to increased involvement of fathers in Early Head Start and in the lives of their children. Each grantee was expected to establish partnerships with the local OCSE and other community resources to increase the availability and efficient delivery of services appropriate to the interests and needs of fathers. To improve their ability to serve fathers effectively, programs also were expected to enhance the skills and sensitivity of Early Head Start staff working with fathers. While ACYF provided these basic guidelines for demonstration activities, grantees were given great flexibility in developing their goals and service structure for the fatherhood initiative. Little was known at the start of the demonstration about the most effective ways to involve more fathers in Early Head Start. As such, the demonstration grantees were charged with developing and testing new strategies for engaging men in program activities and meeting their unique needs as fathers.

This report details the progress of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration grantees through their first two years of implementation and identifies interesting practices emerging from their efforts to involve fathers in Early Head Start and the lives of their children. The rest of this chapter describes the evaluation design and methodology and provides an overview of the fatherhood demonstration grantees and the families they serve. Chapter II examines the staffing structures programs adopted to meet the needs of fathers. Chapter III analyzes the strategies that programs used to become more "father-friendly," including staff perceptions of progress toward that goal. Chapter IV discusses program efforts to engage fathers and father figures in program activities. Chapter V describes the range of activities that programs offered to men and examines the operational lessons that emerged from the experiences of the demonstration grantees and participating fathers. Finally, Chapter VI describes the evolution of partnerships between the grantees and their local OCSE.

Shortly after awarding the demonstration grants, ACYF and OCSE commissioned a study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to collect information on the models developed by the participating Early Head Start programs. An Early Head Start practitioners study funded by the Ford Foundation (Raikes et al. 2002) served as the precursor to this evaluation. As part of that study, all Early Head Start programs nationwide were invited to participate in a voluntary survey on their father involvement activities. Findings from the survey suggest that many Early Head Start programs were increasing efforts to involve fathers and father figures in program activities. Throughout their efforts, however, programs faced numerous barriers—for example, fathers’ work schedules, conflicts between mothers and fathers, and fathers who were incarcerated or were experiencing substance abuse problems. As a result, most programs were still in the early stages of development in becoming father-friendly. Therefore, it is critical to promote collaboration between researchers and practitioners and thus build on these early experiences in identifying successful practices that can promote responsible fatherhood. The evaluation of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration aimed at building on this volume of research by identifying the strategies that appear most successful in engaging the fathers of Early Head Start children.

Research Questions

The evaluation of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration is designed to provide a detailed look at the evolution of program implementation and participants’ experiences through the first two years of the demonstration. It examines both the challenges that programs faced in creating and sustaining fatherhood initiatives, and their progress toward involving fathers in Early Head Start and the lives of their children. The study is designed to answer the following research questions:

• What are the roles of low-income fathers in the lives of the young children served by the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration grantees? How have the grantees attempted to affect changes and continuities in fathers' involvement with their children?
• What staffing patterns have the grantees implemented to deliver comprehensiveservices to meet the diverse needs of Early Head Start families, especially fathers? How well have these staffing structures worked? What staff training was needed to increase the knowledge and sensitivity of staff and thus facilitate father involvement?
• What strategies have the demonstration programs developed to involve fathers in program activities and the lives of mothers and children?
• How do the parenting roles of mothers and fathers interact? In what ways have demonstration programs attempted to increase permanent parenting relationships?
• How have the grantees attempted to increase fathers' ability to provide for their children financially? To what extent have the programs promoted voluntary, established legal paternity among unwed fathers and mothers?
• To what extent have the relationships between programs and the local OCSE changed over time? How have partnerships between programs and other community resources developed in order to facilitate service delivery for Early Head Start fathers?

This study looks at fathers and their children in the context of the demonstration programs. It focuses on the range of strategies that programs have employed to increase father participation in Early Head Start and, in turn, their involvement with their children. The role that fathers play in the lives of their children was explored only in this limited scope. As discussed earlier, a growing number of research studies provide a more comprehensive look at father-child interactions and how the quality and quantity of fathers’ involvement with their children influence child outcomes. As Early Head Start programs continue their efforts to involve more fathers, on-going research should continue to expand upon findings that confirm the importance of fathers in fostering child development.

Since the grantees were purposefully selected for this demonstration through solicitation of competitive grants, their experiences are not representative of Early Head Start programs nationwide. In addition, the study was not designed to measure program impacts, and thus does not include data collection for a control or comparison group that did not receive demonstration services. For these reasons, we cannot estimate the effect the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration may have had on participating fathers or their families. The evaluation does, however, provide rich information about program operations and emerging practices that will be useful to policymakers and practitioners as they continue their efforts to support father involvement in Early Head Start.

Data Sources and Collection

To assess the grantees’ experiences during the first two years of implementation, MPR gathered both qualitative and quantitative data using three collection methods:

1. Site Visits. MPR researchers conducted two rounds of site visits to the 21 demonstration grantees. Conducted in winter 2001 and winter 2002, the visits consisted of a series of in-depth interviews with Early Head Start directors, fatherhood staff, family workers, home visitors, and teachers. Researchers also conducted focus groups with participating fathers at each program and interviewed liaisons from local Offices of Child Support Enforcement.
2. Staff Surveys. At the time of the second site visit, staff members at each participating program were asked to complete questionnaires about their fatherhood initiatives. The questionnaires covered the number and types of fathers the programs sought to involve, the actual level of father involvement in various activities, the strategies programs employed to increase father participation in services, and the perceived barriers and successes of father involvement in their Early Head Start programs.¹ Separate versions of the survey were developed for directors, father coordinators, family workers and home visitors, and teachers. In home-based programs, the teacher version was not administered.
3. Father/Father Figure Information Forms. Each program also provided MPR with a list of the children enrolled in their program at the time of the second visit. Using these lists, MPR generated Father/Father Figure Information Forms for each child in the program. Local staff were asked to complete one form for each father or father figure involved in the child’s life. The forms included items on the demographic characteristics of the child and the child’s father or father figure, the father’s relationship to the child, his education and employment, involvement with child support, relationship and involvement with the child’s mother, challenges he faces in finding and keeping a job, and participation in Early Head Start services.²

The staff survey achieved an overall response rate of 93 percent, with 76 of the 82 potential respondents replying to the survey. Early Head Start directors and fatherhood coordinators from 19 of the 21 programs completed the survey. A representative home visitor or family worker from 20 programs responded. Finally, of the 19 programs that offered center-based services, 18 programs returned surveys completed by a representative teacher.

The data collection through the Father/Father Figure Information Forms also was successful. A total of 1,871 children were identified on the program enrollment lists. We received information on fathers and father figures of 1,743 children, or 93 percent of the total sample. With the exception of one program that returned only 47 percent of the forms, all the programs returned Father/Father Figure Information Forms for more than 85 percent of enrolled children.

The study’s interim report (Bellotti 2002) documents the demonstration programs’ development through the first year of funding based on the site visits conducted to the 21 grantees during fall and winter 2001. It discusses the main features of the new fatherhood programs and identifies the challenges and successes they experienced during the initial phase of implementation. The interim report also contains detailed profiles of each fatherhood initiative at the time of these first round visits. This second report focuses on the grantee’s experiences through the second year of implementation using key findings from all three qualitative and quantitative data sources.

OVERVIEW OF THE EARLY HEAD START FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION

Early Head Start, a comprehensive, two-generation program that began in 1995, extended Head Start services to low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers up to age 3. The program focuses on enhancing children’s development while at the same time strengthening families. In 2002, some 650 programs across the nation served more than 62,000 children. Findings from the National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation project³ indicate that the program had modest positive impacts on 3-year-old Early Head Start children in cognitive, language, and social-emotional development when they were compared to a control group. In addition, their parents scored higher than control group parents on such aspects of the home environment as parenting behavior and knowledge of infant-toddler development. The evaluation also found that, even though few programs had implemented formal initiatives to increase father involvement, Early Head Start influenced father participation in such activities as home visits, parenting classes and events, and parent-child activities (Administration for Children and Families 2002).⁴

Building on these experiences, the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration sought to inform both practitioners and policymakers about the promising strategies for promoting greater father involvement in Early Head Start. ACYF selected a diverse mix of fatherhood demonstration grantees that operate Early Head Start programs across the country. Below, we describe the characteristics of the demonstration grantees, the children they serve, and the fathers and father figures involved in their lives.

Who Are the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Grantees?

The Early Head Start programs operated by the 21 demonstration grantees reflect a range of geographic locations, urban and rural service delivery areas, and service approaches (see Table I.1). The grantees are located in 8 of the 10 DHHS geographic service regions and include a Migrant/Seasonal and an American Indian/Alaska Native program (Figure I.1). The size of the Early Head Start programs operated by the grantees varied substantially, with six programs serving fewer than 75 children, eight serving between 75 and 125 children, and seven serving 125 or more children.

All Early Head Start programs design the services and program options they offer, based on family and community needs. For research purposes, programs can be categorized according to the Early Head Start service options they offer to families:⁵

Table I.1: Overview of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Programs

DHHS Region 1

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Central Vermont Community Action Council	Barre, VT	Mixed-Approach	Rural
Action for Bridgeport Community Development	Bridgeport, CT	Center-Based	Urban
Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.	Boston, MA	Mixed Approach	Urban

DHHS Region 2

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Educational Alliance	New York, NY	Center-Based	Urban
New York Foundling	Hato Rey, PR	Mixed Approach	Urban/Rural
Babyland Family Services	Newark, NJ	Mixed Approach	Urban

DHHS Region 3

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Community Services for Children	Allentown, PA	Home-Based	Urban

DHHS Region 4

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Redland Christian Migrant Association	Immokalee, FL	Mixed Approach	Rural
Partnership for Community Action	Decatur, GA	Center-Based	Urban

DHHS Region 5

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Community Action Agency	Jackson, MI	Mixed Approach	Urban/Rural
Next Door Foundation	Milwaukee, WI	Home-Based	Urban
Provido-Leyden Council for Community Action, Inc. and The Children’s Center of Cicero/Berwyn	Maywood and Cicero, IL	Mixed Approach	Urban/Suburban
Family Development Service, Inc.	Indianapolis, IN	Center-Based	Urban
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa	Bayfield, WI	Mixed Approach	Rural
Wabash Area Development, Inc.	Enfield, IL	Mixed Approach	Rural

DHHS Region 6

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Community Action Corporation of South Texas	Alice, TX		Rural
Texas Tech University	Lubbock, TX	Mixed Approach	Suburban

DHHS Region 8

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Family Star	Denver, CO	Center-Based	Urban
Youth and Family Services	Rapid City, SD	Mixed Approach	Urban/Rural

DHHS Region 9

Agency Name	City, State	Program Approach	Service Delivery Area
Sacramento Employment and Training Agency	Sacramento, CA	Mixed Approach	Urban/Rural/Suburban
Child Development Resources of Ventura County	Oxnard, CA	Mixed Approach	Urban/Rural

Figure I.1 Long Description : The location of the fatherhood demonstration grantees are illustrated in this figure. The figure illustrates a map of the United States. The city and state is pinpointed on the map. The cities and states are as follows: Sacramento, California; Oxnard, California; Rapid City, South Dakota; Denver, Colorado; Lubbock, Texas; Alice, Texas; Bayfield, Wisconsin; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Enfield, Illinois; Jackson, Mississippi; Decatur, Georgia; Immokalee, Florida; Barre, Vermont; Boston, Massachusetts; Bridgeport, Connecticut; New York, New Bridgeport, Connecticut; New York, New York; Newark, New Jersey; Allentown, Pennsylvania; and Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

• Center-based programs, providing services to families through center-based child care and education, parent education, and a minimum of two home visits per year to each family
• Home-based programs, providing all services to families through weekly home visits and at least two group socializations per month for each family
• Mixed-approach programs, providing center-based services to some families, homebased services to other families, or a mixture of center-based and home-based services

Of the 21 grantees, 6 operate center-based programs, 2 operate home-based programs, and 13 operate mixed-approach programs. Compared to the study of Raikes et al. (2002), which included information on 261 Early Head Start programs, the fatherhood demonstration grantees included far fewer programs that offered a home-based approach (10 percent versus 37 percent) and far more programs with a mixed service delivery approach (62 percent versus 36 percent).

Nineteen of the programs reported that a large majority of the families they served came from a single racial or ethnic background (not shown in table). In particular, 8 of the 21 programs served mostly Hispanic families; 7 programs served predominantly African American families; 3 programs reported serving a majority of white families; and 1 program included almost exclusively American Indian families. The rest of the programs served a mixed population with no single racial or ethnic majority. By comparison, Raikes et al. (2002) reported that more than 44 percent of Early Head Start programs surveyed nationwide served predominantly white families, compared to less than 10 percent of the demonstration programs.

Prior to the demonstration, few grantees had formal experience serving fathers. Only six had participated in formal initiatives aimed at helping fathers in Head Start or Early Head Start become more involved in their children’s lives. Most of the other programs described informal experiences involving fathers through special events and in regular program activities. Despite their lack of experience providing targeted services to fathers, all of the grantees understood the importance of engaging fathers and believed that the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration was a welcome opportunity to try new strategies for enhancing the lives of the families they serve.

As they began work on the demonstration, most programs formulated general goals for their work with fathers. Through the survey, grantee staff were asked to identify their program purposes for father involvement (Figure I.2). The largest proportion of staff reported that getting fathers involved in program events and encouraging them to spend time with their children were major objectives for their work with fathers. These overarching goals and objectives motivated the structure of services supported by the demonstration grants.

Figure I.2 Long Description : Program objectives for father involvement are illustrated in this figure. The figure illustrates their program purposes for engaging in the father involvement demonstration project: 85% reported involving fathers in program events was their major objective; 85% reported helping fathers spend time with their children was their major objective; 73% identified helping fathers with parenting skills was their major objective; 73% also stated that helping fathers work with mothers was their major objective; 63% said that involving fathers in employment and education was their major objective; 53% stated that they wanted to create a reputation as a community resources for fathers; 53% also said that they wanted to help fathers resolve personal issues; 51% reported that their main objective was to help fathers provide emotional support to their child’s mother; 47% identified involving fathers in family goal setting was their main objective; 45% stated that their main objective was helping fathers stay in contact with their children; 43% identified involving fathers in child support was their major objective; and 32% stated that helping fathers stay in contact with children and provide child support was their main objective.

Who Are the Children Served by the Demonstration Programs?

The demonstration programs identified a total of 1,871 children enrolled in Early Head Start at the time of the second round of site visits. Table I.2 provides an overview of the key characteristics of the children by service delivery area. The children’s average age was slightly less than 2 years, with children in home-based programs being on the average about 3 months younger. The programs served about an equal percentage of male and female children. At the time of the data collection, the average length of time that a child had been in the program was slightly less than 12 months. However, children who were participating in center-based programs had a shorter length of stay than children who were in a mixedapproach or home-based program (not shown in table).

The children came from a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds, with the largest group (approximately 43 percent) being of Hispanic decent. Approximately 29 percent lived in rural service delivery areas, 31 percent in urban areas, and 41 percent in mixed urban and rural areas. More than 80 percent of the children in rural areas were either of white or Hispanic decent. By contrast, more than half of urban children were African American, and more than half of children in mixed service delivery areas were of Hispanic origin.

Table I.2: Characteristics of the Children Served by the Demonstration Programs, by Service Delivery Area (Percentage of Children)

		Service Delivery Area
	All Children	Rural	Urban	Mixed Urban and Rural
Had Father or Father Figure Involved in His or Her Life	79.1	82.0	71.5	82.4*
Gender
Female	48.2	46.5	48.8	49.3
Male	51.8	53.5	51.2	50.7
Average Age in Months	23.5	20.5	23.5	23.8
Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	21.4	38.5	3.6	20.3*
African American, non-Hispanic	25.3	9.7	54.6	17.1
American Indian, non-Hispanic	4.8	8.3	0.2	5.4
Hispanic	44.5	41.2	36.5	52.1
Other	4.3	2.4	5.1	5.1
Average Stay in the Program in Months	11.3	11.0	11.0	11.8
Sample Size	1,871	540	571	760

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Father/Father Figure Information Forms.
*The difference between subgroups is significant at the 0.5 level, two-tailed test.

What Role Do Fathers Play in These Children’s Lives?

For each child enrolled in Early Head Start, program staff provided information on whether the biological father or a father figure was involved in the child’s life. The demonstration programs adopted a broad definition of "father figure"?attempting to include a wide range of men, such as grandfathers or uncles, who serve as an important role model in the child’s life. MPR received information about father involvement for 1,743 of the children, or 93 percent of the total sample. Of these children, program staff reported that 79 percent had at least one father or father figure who was currently involved in their lives (Table I.2). Only a small proportion (3 percent) of children had two or more fathers or father figures reported.

This level of father involvement was somewhat lower than the levels reported by the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (ACF 2002). In the national study, mothers of children attending Early Head Start programs reported that nearly 90 percent of the children had either a biological father or a father figure in their lives. Similarly, the Fragile Family Study (McLanahan et al. 2003) reported only 9 percent of the fathers having little or no contact with the mothers near the time of the child’s birth. Since our study relied on reporting by program staff, it is possible that Early Head Start staff were not always aware of the involvement of a father in the child’s life. Supporting this hypothesis, programs reported more fathers involved in the children’s lives for older children, as well as for children who had been in the program longer. Programs identified about the same number of fathers for children who had entered the program before the start of the demonstration versus children who had entered the program after the demonstration started.

Table I.3 provides information on the characteristics of the fathers and father figures involved in the lives of the children served by the demonstration programs. Of the fathers identified by program staff, nearly 84 percent were the biological father of an enrolled child, while 16 percent were father figures. About 40 percent of all identified men were married to the child’s mother, which is similar to the percentage of mothers reported to be married in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (ACF 2002).

More than 70 percent of fathers lived with their children; however, children served by urban programs were less likely than those in rural or mixed-setting programs to have a father and father figure living in the home. Further, these fathers and father figures were less likely to be married to the mother of the child (not shown in Table I.3). These results suggest the likelihood that programs serving urban areas encountered special challenges in trying to get fathers and father figures involved in Early Head Start.

		Type of Father		Living with Child		Married to Child’s Mother
	All Fathers	Biological	Father Figure	Yes	No	Yes	No
Type of Father
Biological	84.3	100.0	0.0*	85.8	79.7*	95.4	75.9*
Father figure	15.7	0.0	100.0	14.2	20.3	4.6	24.1
Living with Child	71.2	73.6	64.4*	100.0	0.0*	93.2	55.5*
Married to Child’s Mother	40.9	47.3	12.1*	54.1*	9.7	100.0	0.0
Service Delivery Area of Program Where Child is Enrolled
Rural	28.3	28.7	32.5*	31.6	28.1*	30.9	30.6*
Urban	30.3	28.0	17.5	22.5	34.5	22.0	27.8
Mixed urban and rural	41.4	43.4	50.0	45.9	37.4	47.0	41.5
Participated in Early Head Start in Past 6 Months	70.6	71.2	66.7	76.7	57.6*	77.2	67.5*
Race/Ethnicitya
White, non-Hispanic	22.7	21.5	31.6*	25.3	15.1*	28.1	19.3*
African American, non-Hispanic	24.1	22.9	24.7	16.7	39.9	13.1	31.6
American Indian, non-Hispanic	3.8	3.9	3.8	4.5	2.2	3.6	4.0
Hispanic	46.8	48.7	38.6	50.6	41.2	51.2	43.4
Other, non-Hispanic	2.6	3.0	1.3	2.9	1.6	4.0	1.6
Sample Size	1,433	1,141	212	952	385	540	780

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Father/Father Figure Information Forms.
* The difference between subgroups is significant at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
^aData pertain only to those fathers and father figures w ho participated in Early Head Start within the past 6 months.

In general, many fathers engaged in at least some program activities. Staff reported that about 71 percent of the fathers and father figures involved in their children’s lives had participated in at least one Early Head Start activity in the past six months. Compared to men who were involved with their children but did not participate in Early Head Start, fathers and father figures who engaged in the program were far more likely to be living with the child and to be married to the child’s mother. Participating biological fathers were 30 years old, on average; fewer than 8 percent were younger than age 21. Participating father figures were slightly older with an average age of 36 years.

Of all fathers and father figures engaged in the program, approximately 60 percent had completed high school or received a general equivalency degree (GED), and almost 75 percent were employed (Figure I.3). Although the level of education was lowest among participating Hispanic fathers and father figures, these men were much more likely to be employed than fathers of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Educational achievement was the highest among American Indian fathers, who also had the highest level of current employment. More than half of fathers who did not work received medical assistance (68 percent) and food stamps (59 percent).

According to staff reports, most fathers were very satisfied (76 percent) or somewhat satisfied (18 percent) with the usual amount of time they spent with their children (Figure I.4). However, staff reported that only 46 percent of nonresident biological fathers were very satisfied. In fact, more than 22 percent of nonresident biological fathers were somewhat or very dissatisfied with the time they were able to spend with their children. To expand on this, staff members were asked to identify the barriers that fathers faced in being involved with their children. Compared to 16 percent of fathers overall, 46 percent of nonresident biological fathers faced at least one barrier to involvement. Among the most common barriers that these fathers faced were custody issues (16 percent), work schedules (11 percent), domestic violence or problems with anger (9 percent), alcohol or drug use (7 percent), and incarceration (6 percent). The demonstration programs attempted to address these barriers in a variety of ways. Throughout the remainder of this report, we discuss the range of strategies that programs have employed to help fathers become more involved in the Early Head Start program and, in turn, in the lives of their children.

Figure I.3 Long Description : This figure illustrates the education and employment of participating fathers by race/ethnicity. The percentage of fathers are as follows: for all fathers and father figures engaged in the program, 60% had completed high school or received a general equivalency degree (GED), and 74% percent were employed; for white fathers 70% had a high school diploma or received a GED and 68% were employed; for African American fathers 71% had a high school diploma or received a GED and 63% were employed; for American Indian fathers 93% had a high school diploma or received a GED and 85% were employed; for Hispanic fathers 47% had a high school diploma or received a GED and 83% were employed; for the other fathers 60% had a high school diploma or received a GED and 46% were employed.

Figure I.4 Long Description: This figure provides information on the fathers’ satisfaction with the barriers to involvement with their children in percentages. For all fathers and father figures engaged in the program 94% were very or somewhat satisfied with usual amount of time spent with child and 16% identified barriers to being involved with their children; 97% of resident biological fathers reported that they were very of somewhat satisfied with the usual amount of time spent with their children and 10% identified barriers to being involved with their children; 78% of nonresident biological fathers reported that were very or somewhat satisfied with usual amount of time spent with their children and 46% identified barriers to being involved with their children; 97% of resident father figures reported that they were very or somewhat satisfied with the usual amount of time spent with their children and 10% identified barriers to being involved with their children; and 93% of nonresident father figures reported that they were very or somewhat satisfied with the usual amount of time spent with their children and 13% identified barriers to being involved with their children.

---

1. ¹ The staff surveys were modeled on an instrument used in the Ford Foundation practitioner study discussed earlier (Raikes et al. 2002). [back]
2. ² Father/Father Figure Information Forms were completed by grantee staff based on their knowledge of the children and fathers participating in the program. These data reflect only those fathers of whom the Early Head Start staff are aware and do not represent the responses of fathers themselves. [back]
3. ³ Commissioned by ACF, the national evaluation was conducted by MPR, in conjunction with the Columbia University Center for Children and Families and the Early Head Start Research Consortium. [back]
4. ⁴ Several strains of father studies were funded under the umbrella of the larger evaluation. These studies were supported by the Ford Foundation, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, ACYF, the office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) within DHHS. For additional information about the studies, visit www.mathematica-mpr.com [back]
5. ⁵ These program approaches were defined for research purposes in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation project (ACF 2000). Mixed approach is a research term and is not used in the revised Head Start Program Performance Standards. [back]