Final Report

October 2004

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to offer special thanks to the 21 Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration grantees and their staff, whose assistance made this study possible. They graciously took time from their busy schedules to share their experiences developing and implementing fatherhood initiatives. We also would like to thank the Early Head Start fathers and mothers who actively participated in focus group discussions and staff from local Offices of Child Support Enforcement who contributed valuable insights on their collaborations with the demonstration programs.

At Mathematica Policy Research, David Eden, Verity Levitt, and Betsy Santos skillfully conducted site visits and telephone interviews to the Fatherhood Demonstration grantees. John Love provided valuable guidance throughout the study, and Louisa Tarullo offered thoughtful comments and suggestions as a reviewer of the report. Marcia Gilletto ably coordinated our data collection efforts. Walt Brower and Patricia Ciaccio provided careful editing, and Jane Nelson expertly produced the report. At the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Frankie Gibson, the evaluation Project Officer, provided helpful advice and feedback throughout the evaluation.

The authors appreciate all these contributions but bear full responsibility for the judgments and conclusions presented in this report.

Father involvement enhances children’s well-being. A growing body of research supports this conclusion, showing that children with involved fathers exhibit greater school readiness, increased cognitive development, higher levels of empathy, and other positive characteristics (Administration for Children and Families 2004a). Research also indicates that many low-income fathers are present and involved in the lives of their young children (Vogel et al. 2003).

As the importance of fathers’ involvement in raising children has become clear, policymakers’ interest in effective strategies for engaging fathers in early childhood programs also has grown. 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 and in the lives of their children.

ACYF also commissioned an evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to track the progress of grantees, focusing on the strategies they adopted and the challenges they faced. The first phase of the evaluation resulted in two reports, highlighting the demonstration programs’ planning and implementation process and documenting lessons regarding staffing structures, making programs father-friendly, recruiting fathers and designing services for them, and creating partnerships with child support agencies. In this report, we present findings from the third year of the demonstration, focusing on the evolution of program practices, perceived results of the demonstration, and sustainability of father involvement projects.

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION

Key research questions in the third year of the demonstration and evaluation were:

Context of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration

• What were the characteristics of the programs that the demonstration granteesoperated? Who were the children the programs served? What were thecharacteristics of fathers involved in the children’s lives?

Evolution of Program Practices

• How did strategies to involve fathers in program activities evolve throughout thedemonstration grant period?
• To what extent did the relationships between programs and the local OCSEchange over time?

Father Participation Patterns and Perceived Effects of the Demonstration

• Did the overall level of father participation in Early Head Start services increaseover time? How did participation patterns change?
• How did staff and participants perceive the demonstration’s effects on programs,fathers, families, and children?

Plans for Sustaining Fatherhood Programs

• How do the demonstration programs plan to sustain meaningful fatherhoodinvolvement initiatives beyond the demonstration grant period?

The research team gathered data for the evaluation in three ways: (1) site visits and telephone calls with program staff, (2) staff surveys, and (3) father/father figure information forms. Researchers conducted site visits to all 21 grantees in the first two years of the demonstration and to a subset of 9 grantees in the third year. In the second and third years, staff members in each program were asked to complete questionnaires about their fatherhood initiatives.¹ MPR also asked program staff to complete information forms on the fathers or father figures involved in the lives of each child enrolled in their programs.

The design of our evaluation allowed an in-depth look at the implementation of the fatherhood demonstration projects but also presented some limitations to the conclusions that we can draw. The study was not intended to measure program impacts, as it does not include a control or comparison group that did not receive demonstration services. In addition, survey and father data were collected only during the second and third years of the demonstration, when project operations were generally well under way. Finally, information on individual children and fathers was collected through staff reports rather than direct parent reports and reflects only the knowledge of Early Head Start staff about the characteristics of parents and children in their programs.

THE CONTEXT OF THE EARLY HEAD START FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION

The 21 demonstration programs are a diverse group, varying in their experience working with fathers, their service delivery approaches, and the characteristics of families they enroll. Before the fatherhood demonstration, a minority of grantees had formal experience serving fathers; only six had participated in previous father involvement initiatives. The grantees identified a total of 1,872 children enrolled in Early Head Start in the second year of the demonstration and 1,918 enrolled in the third year, with about 40 percent of each group enrolled in both years. Almost three-quarters of the children had an involved father or father figure in the third year, according to staff reports. Nearly all involved fathers were biological (89 percent in the third year). Resident fathers accounted for more than 70 percent of involved fathers in both years. About 47 percent of fathers identified in the third year were married to the child’s mother, an increase from 41 percent in the second year.

HOW DID PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND SERVICES CHANGE OVER TIME?

We examined the evolution of several program elements during the demonstration:

Program Goals and Father-Friendliness Strategies. Respondents to our staff survey indicated that their programs continued to place the greatest emphasis on getting fathers to spend more time with their children and to attend program events. More programs appeared to be working to improve father-friendliness by developing policies and procedures that reinforced the expectation that fathers would participate in Early Head Start. Examples of new policies and procedures included requiring data collection on the father at enrollment, home visits by fatherhood staff, and separately scheduled home visits with fathers when they could not attend at the same time as the mother.

Staffing Structures. In the third year of the demonstration, a staffing configuration consisting of a fatherhood coordinator and one or more specialists remained the most popular staffing model. Staff turnover was an ongoing challenge, however, with half the programs experiencing at least one instance of turnover in their lead father involvement position during the demonstration.

Engaging and Serving Fathers. Several of the programs visited in the third year of the demonstration indicated that they were making a greater effort to recruit certain subgroups of men, such as non--resident or incarcerated fathers. Programs continued to look to mothers to help with recruitment of all fathers and reported that staff were relying more on personal contacts to engage nonresident fathers. In telephone interviews, most of the programs—about 80 percent—indicated that they had not discontinued any services for fathers in the demonstration’s third year, and a few reported adding new services. Staff in five programs specifically mentioned that family or father-child activity nights were being scheduled more frequently.

Partnerships with Offices of Child Support Enforcement. Most programs in the demonstration had relationships with local OCSEs, but staff reported that helping fathers provide child support was a lower-priority goal than many other objectives. Collaborations generally maintained a focus through years 2 and 3 of the demonstration on providing Early Head Start program staff and participants with information on child support enforcement.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE DEMONSTRATION FOR PROGRAMS, PARENTS, AND CHILDREN?

Our study produced a number of findings regarding the perceived results of the fatherhood demonstration for programs, parents, and children.

Results for Programs. Compared with Early Head Start programs nationally, those in the fatherhood demonstration were at a more advanced stage of father-friendliness, according to directors’ assessments, and they became more welcoming to fathers over time. By the third year of the demonstration, directors in nearly all fatherhood demonstration sites considered their programs to have reached a "mature" or "very mature" stage of fatherfriendliness. Staff in many programs also reported that they and their colleagues were more aware of the importance of fathers. They felt that the demonstration motivated programs to develop new and more inclusive services to make Early Head Start more appealing to men.

Results for Parents. Staff in two-thirds of the fatherhood demonstration programs felt that father participation in Early Head Start was greater at the end of the demonstration than at the beginning. Participation levels may not have increased steadily throughout the demonstration’s three years across all programs, however, and individual father data show a small decline in participation between the second and third years. In programs where participation dropped (12 of 21 programs), a shift in the characteristics of enrolled families or the sense that the demonstration was winding down may have contributed to the decline. Staff and parents in half the programs noted that they felt some fathers had become more confident in interacting with their children after participating in fatherhood services. Staff also commented that mothers’ resistance to father involvement had decreased, although comments in focus groups suggested that some mothers remained reluctant.

Results for Children. Given the design of our evaluation, it is not possible to determine whether the fatherhood demonstration positively influenced children’s well-being. However, staff in nearly half the demonstration programs commented that they believed children had more opportunities to interact with their fathers or father figures, as well as male staff members in Early Head Start, because of fatherhood projects. Staff members and mothers also said that children seemed visibly excited to have their fathers or father figures taking part in Early Head Start services.

ARE THE FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS SUSTAINABLE?

Six of the fatherhood demonstration programs intended to continue fatherhood services after the end of the grant period, including keeping their existing fatherhood staffing structure. The rest of the programs planned to integrate fatherhood services into the overall Early Head Start structure (five programs), reduce the intensity of services (eight programs), or cut services entirely (two programs). Two-thirds of the fatherhood demonstration programs said they hoped to continue partnerships with OCSEs.

Program staff highlighted several factors that appeared to influence their ability to maintain meaningful services for men. Strong administrative leadership and support were critical for focusing attention on fathers, garnering staff cooperation at all levels, and maintaining this emphasis over time. Identifying resources to sustain fatherhood projects, by applying for new grants or tapping existing program budgets, was also important. Programs also benefited from staff members who were enthusiastic about focusing on father involvement, and from a structured planning process before the end of the grant period that helped lay the foundation for continuing services.

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

In our second-year report (Bellotti et al. 2003), we highlighted numerous operational lessons on designing and implementing fatherhood projects within Early Head Start. Several important additional findings emerged in the demonstration’s third year:

• The demonstration programs have shown the viability of targeted, multiyear father involvement initiatives within Early Head Start. Although the 21 demonstration programs experienced a variety of challenges in building and operating their fatherhood projects, most appeared to make strides toward addressing the needs and interests of fathers. It appears that with sufficient resources and motivation, programs can successfully incorporate father involvement into their mission and services.
• Early Head Start staff and parents believe that the demonstration has helped bring about positive changes for programs, families, and children. Perceptions among program staff and families point toward positive results for the fatherhood demonstration in many sites. Key accomplishments, according to staff and parents, include: (1) greater awareness among staff about the importance of father involvement for children and the need to take deliberate steps to make programs more father-friendly, (2) an increase in the number of fathers participating in Early Head Start, (3) greater confidence in parenting among fathers, and (4) more opportunities for children to interact with their fathers and other male role models.
• Fathers’ participation patterns, and the evolution of program strategies, show a trend toward integrating fathers into core Early Head Start services. Program staff generally reported that father participation in Early Head Start was greater than before the demonstration. Most programs encountered challenges maintaining high levels of father attendance in fatheronly activities, however. On the other hand, fathers expressed strong interest in activities that would allow them to interact with their children, and their participation in child development services, including home visits, increased over time. Many programs responded to these developments by offering more opportunities for fathers and children to be together.
• Committed leadership, creative approaches to resource development, staff support, and structured planning are key factors for sustaining fatherhood initiatives over time. Demonstration programs enjoyed the substantial advantage of additional funding as they created and carried out initiatives to enhance father involvement. Factors that helped some demonstration sites continue services beyond the grant period are likely to shape the efforts of other Early Head Start programs aiming to enhance fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children.

Additional research can help address important issues beyond the scope of this evaluation. Further study of the links between father participation in Early Head Start and outcomes for fathers and children would be especially valuable. How does fathers’ participation in specific types of Early Head Start activities influence their parenting behaviors and relationships with their children? Does the intensity or frequency of father participation in Early Head Start make a difference in children’s outcomes? Answers to these questions will help policymakers and practitioners as they shape future efforts to increase father involvement in Early Head Start and their children’s lives.

Father involvement enhances children’s well-being. A growing body of research supports this conclusion, showing that children with involved fathers exhibit greater school readiness, increased cognitive development, higher levels of empathy, and other positive characteristics (Administration for Children and Families 2004a). Research also indicates that many low-income fathers are present and involved in the lives of their young children (Vogel et al. 2003).

As fathers’ importance and involvement in raising children has become clear, policymakers’ interest in effective strategies for engaging fathers in early childhood programs has also grown. Several studies have examined the extent to which programs are reaching out to fathers and the strategies that appear to be most effective. In one survey of early childhood professionals, for example, more than half the educators surveyed reported that they always or often attempt to involve fathers (Green 2003). Among this group, reports of success were linked with such outreach strategies as sending letters to fathers even when they live apart from their children, gathering father contact information at enrollment, and inviting fathers to take part in educational activities with their children.

Nearly all Early Head Start programs have made some effort to involve resident fathers and father figures in activities, according to a study of practitioners funded by the Ford Foundation (Raikes et al. 2002). The most common methods for including fathers were extending invitations to family events and requesting information about them on enrollment forms. Programs reported numerous barriers to father involvement, however—lack of male staff, fathers’ work schedules, conflicts between mothers and fathers, and difficulty reaching fathers who live apart from the mother and child, to name a few. Furthermore, most programs assessed in the practitioners study were still in the early stages of addressing these obstacles and becoming more father-friendly.

The Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) has actively supported the development and dissemination of strategies to enhance father participation in early childhood programs. Underscoring this commitment to father involvement, in June 2004 the Head Start Bureau convened the first National Head Start Institute on Father Involvement. Leaders, including directors, program staff, parents, and other community members from Head Start and Early Head Start grantees nationwide attended the institute, which featured presentations from practitioners, policymakers, and researchers on strategies to promote fathers’ participation and involvement in their children’s lives. In the same month, the Bureau released "Building Blocks for Father Involvement," a publication series intended to help Head Start programs assess their father-friendliness and begin developing fatherhood programs. The Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration described in this report is yet another element of this effort to identify and share methods for increasing fathers’ participation in early childhood programs and the lives of their children.

THE EARLY HEAD START FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION

In February 2001, 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. The maximum annual award was $125,000.

Programs receiving fatherhood demonstration grants were subject to several requirements. First, each grantee was expected to hire a staff member dedicated to working on father involvement. Second, programs were required 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. Finally, to increase father-friendliness, programs were charged with enhancing the skills and sensitivity of Early Head Start staff.

While ACYF provided these basic guidelines for demonstration activities, grantees maintained substantial flexibility in developing specific goals and service structures for the fatherhood initiative. Little was known at the start of the demonstration about how best to involve fathers in Early Head Start. Therefore, the demonstration grantees had an opportunity to develop and test new strategies for engaging men in program activities and meeting their unique needs as fathers. Their experiences throughout the demonstration provide a strong foundation for understanding how father involvement can evolve within Early Head Start programs.

EVALUATION DESIGN

Soon after it awarded the demonstration grants, ACYF commissioned an evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) to track the progress of grantees, focusing on the strategies they adopted and the challenges they faced. The final phase of the evaluation was designed to document changes in program strategies and circumstances over time, examine program plans to sustain meaningful father involvement efforts after the end of the grant period, and detail the perceptions of staff and parents of the demonstration’s results.

Our research in the third year focused on the following questions:

Context of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration

• What were the characteristics of the programs operated by the demonstration grantees? Who were the children served by the programs? What were the characteristics of fathers involved in the children’s lives?

Evolution of Program Practices

• How did strategies to involve fathers in program activities evolve throughout the demonstration grant period?
• How well did emerging staffing structures facilitate delivery of services for fathers, and what adjustments did programs make to them over time?
• What ongoing staff training was needed to increase the knowledge and sensitivity of staff and thus facilitate father involvement?
• In what ways did demonstration programs adjust their services to strengthen permanent parenting relationships?
• To what extent did the relationships between programs and the local OCSE change over time?

Father Participation Patterns and Perceived Effects of the Demonstration

• Did the overall level of father participation in Early Head Start services increase over time? How did participation patterns change?
• How did staff and participants perceive the demonstration’s effects on programs, fathers, families, and children?

Plans for Sustaining Fatherhood Programs

• How do the demonstration programs plan to sustain meaningful fatherhood involvement initiatives beyond the demonstration grant period?
• To what extent and from what sources have programs sought out additional funding for their work with fathers?

Data Collection Methods

The research team gathered data for the evaluation in three ways: (1) site visits, (2) staff surveys, and (3) father/father figure information forms. Information from these sources was synthesized to create a detailed picture of the demonstration programs in their third year of operation, and to pinpoint changes in the programs over time. We describe each of our data collection methods below.

Site Visits and Phone Calls with Key Staff. MPR conducted two rounds of in-depth site visits to all 21 grantees at the end of the first and second years of the demonstration. During these visits, we interviewed Early Head Start directors, fatherhood staff, home visitors, family workers, and teachers. We also met with representatives from the local OCSE and held focus groups with participating fathers. At the end of the third year of demonstration implementation, the research team conducted a third round of visits to a subset of nine programs. The research team, in collaboration with ACYF, purposefully selected this group of programs using data collected during the second year of the demonstration. We selected programs that had implemented particularly interesting strategies for engaging and serving fathers, and that appeared to be developing plans for sustaining their fatherhood programs after demonstration funding was exhausted. The selected programs serve diverse populations and are located in a range of geographical areas. During the third-year site visits, we conducted interviews and activities similar to those in earlier visits, with the addition of focus groups with mothers of children enrolled in Early Head Start.

Finally, we conducted telephone interviews with directors and other key staff in the 12 programs that did not receive a comprehensive site visit in the third year. The telephone interviews covered topics of major interest for the evaluation, including staff structure and training, changes in services or activities, perceptions of demonstration results, and plans for continuing fatherhood services.

Staff Surveys. MPR also asked staff from each grantee to self-administer paper-and-pencil surveys (see Appendix A) at the end of the second and third years of demonstration operations. Four versions of the survey were designed to collect information from the Early Head Start director, the fatherhood coordinator, a representative home visitor or family worker selected by the program, and a representative teacher selected by the program. The surveys included questions about program structure, family characteristics, program strategies to involve fathers, father participation, and program funding for future work with fathers. The staff survey achieved an overall response rate of 93 percent in year 2 of the demonstration, and a similar response rate of 90 percent in year 3.

Father/Father Figure Information Forms. Finally, at the end of the second and third demonstration years, each grantee was asked to submit a list of all children currently enrolled in their program. MPR generated a Father/Father Figure Information Form for each child (see Appendix B). The grantees then were asked to complete at least one form for each child to identify whether the child had a father or father figure involved in his or her life and whether he had participated in the Early Head Start program within the past six months. (Individual programs determined the criteria for identifying father figures, but they typically included relatives or men who were romantically involved with the child’s mother and played a consistent role in the child’s life.) Staff were asked to answer additional questions about all fathers and father figures who had participated in at least one Early Head Start activity. These questions addressed the father’s background, relationship with his child and child’s mother, involvement with child support, and participation in Early Head Start activities. Staff were instructed to complete the forms based on their collective knowledge about the child’s family. They were told not to contact families for information or ask fathers to complete the forms. In year 2, a total of 1,871 children were identified on the program enrollment lists, and we received completed father forms for 1,743 children, or 93 percent of the total sample. In year 3, we achieved a higher response rate (99 percent) with completed father forms for 1,889 of the 1,917 identified children.

Purpose and Limitations of the Study.

MPR’s evaluation of the fatherhood demonstration aimed to track the experiences of demonstration programs and provide lessons for practitioners on designing and implementing fatherhood initiatives. The first phase of the evaluation resulted in two reports providing a detailed look at years 1 and 2 of the demonstration and documenting key lessons. "Reaching Out to Fathers" (Bellotti et al. 2002), the evaluation’s first report, examined programs’ plans and early implementation experiences, provided an overview of the challenges programs faced in the start-up phase of the demonstration, and included a profile of each fatherhood demonstration program at the end of its first year.

The evaluation’s second report, "Dedicated to Dads" (Bellotti et al. 2003), detailed lessons learned through the first two years of the demonstration project. These lessons addressed the staffing structure of fatherhood programs, strategies for making programs father-friendly, approaches to recruiting fathers and designing services for them, and establishing partnerships with child support agencies. The second report also provided information on the level of father involvement among children in the demonstration programs, and the extent to which fathers were participating in program activities.

Our third-year report offers additional information about the development and implementation of fatherhood initiatives. It describes how program strategies and participation patterns changed over time, explores perceptions of the main results of the demonstration among program staff and parents, and details whether and how programs intended to sustain fatherhood services beyond the demonstration grant period.

Because of the design of the study, there are limitations to the conclusions that we can draw from our evaluation efforts. First, the characteristics and experiences of grantee programs may not be representative of Early Head Start programs nationwide. The grantees were purposefully selected for this demonstration through solicitation of competitive grants. Applicants demonstrated an interest in promoting father involvement, and ACYF chose the 21 grantees based on the quality of submitted applications.

Second, the study was not designed to measure program impacts. It does not include data collection for a control or comparison group that did not receive demonstration services. For this reason, we cannot estimate the impact or effect the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration may have had on participating fathers or their families.

Third, the survey and father data used in our analysis were collected only during the second and third year of operations, after the demonstration programs had developed substantial experience involving fathers. We were not able to collect data prior to the start of the demonstration to act as a baseline for assessing change over time, nor were we able to collect data after the first year of operations. Reported changes in father participation rates and other characteristics reflect only the latter part of the demonstration period.

Finally, information on individual children and fathers was collected through staff reports rather than direct parent reports. The evaluation data reflect the knowledge of Early Head Start staff about the characteristics of parents and children in the program. Staff members may have been unfamiliar with the circumstances of some individual fathers and families, or may have been unsure regarding the frequency of father participation in specific activities.

Overview of the Report

We present our findings from the third year of the fatherhood demonstration in the following four chapters. Chapter II describes the demonstration programs as well as the characteristics of the children and fathers they serve. Chapter III describes the evolution of program practices aimed at increasing father involvement through the third year of the demonstration. Chapter IV then turns to findings on fathers’ patterns of participation as well as perceptions of the demonstration’s results for programs, fathers, and children. Finally, Chapter V presents the ongoing plans programs have for father involvement and identifies key factors that influence their ability to sustain meaningful fatherhood services beyond the demonstration grant period.

The characteristics of an individual Early Head Start program—its location, family population, service approach, and other factors—are likely to shape its efforts to increase father involvement and participation. For that reason, understanding the environment in which the demonstration projects operated is important. In this chapter, we describe the context of the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration, providing a portrait of the 21 demonstration programs and the children and families they enrolled, and comparing the demonstration programs to Early Head Start programs nationally. We also explore the level of father involvement for children in the demonstration programs, and describe the characteristics of fathers who participated in Early Head Start services.

THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AND THE CHILDREN THEY SERVED

The 21 demonstration grantees are a diverse group, varying in their experience working with fathers, location and community context, and service delivery approaches (Table II.1). Although the grantees are not representative of Early Head Start programs nationwide, they do provide a view into the varied environments in which father involvement projects might operate.

The demonstration programs cover a wide geographic area and serve a mix of populations and communities. Grantees are spread throughout the continental United States and Puerto Rico (Figure II.1), including locations in 8 of the 10 DHHS geographic service regions, as well as Migrant/Seasonal and American Indian/Alaska Native programs. More than three-quarters of the programs reported that a large majority of the families they serve come from a single racial or ethnic background (not shown in table). Specifically, 8 of the 21 programs serve mostly Hispanic families, 7 predominantly African American families, 2 a majority of white families, and 1 almost exclusively American Indian families. The remaining three programs serve a mixed population with no single racial or ethnic majority. 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.

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

A Minority of Grantees Had Experience Serving Fathers

Prior to the fatherhood demonstration a minority of grantees had formal experience serving fathers. Each grantee perceived fatherhood services as a priority and sought special funding through the demonstration to support them. However, 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. Other grantees described informal efforts to involve fathers through special events and in regular program activities. Despite their lack of experience serving fathers, staff in all programs noted that the fatherhood demonstration was a welcome opportunity to try new strategies for enhancing the lives of the families they serve.

Demonstration Programs Varied in Size and Approach

The fatherhood demonstration included programs of varying sizes and approaches to service delivery. Six of the programs had fewer than 75 children enrolled, eight had between 75 and 125 children, and seven had more than 125 children. For research purposes, we categorized the demonstration programs in three ways: (1) center-based programs, which provided services to families through center-based child care and other activities; (2) homebased programs, which provided services through home visits and other activities, and (3) mixed-approach programs, which provided center-based services to some families and home-based services to others, or provided a mixture of center- and home-based services. Nine of the fatherhood demonstration grantees operated primarily center-based programs, 7 offered primarily home-based services, and 5 operated mixed-approach programs. Compared to Early Head Start programs nationwide, a smaller proportion of the fatherhood demonstration grantees delivered services in primarily home-based settings (33 percent of the demonstration programs versus 41 percent of all Early Head Start programs), and a larger share of programs offered mixed-approach services (24 percent of demonstration programs versus 11 percent of all programs). The proportion of programs offering primarily center-based services was similar for the demonstration (43 percent) and all Early Head Start programs (48 percent).¹

Child Characteristics Were Similar in the Second and Third Years of the Demonstration

The fatherhood demonstration grantees identified a total of 1,872 children enrolled in Early Head Start in the second year of the demonstration and 1,918 enrolled in the third year. Table II.2 provides an overview of the key characteristics of the children by year and by service delivery area, based on program reports. Our sample includes many children who were enrolled in Early Head Start in only one of the two years that we collected information; over 60 percent of children identified in the third-year sample were not present in the second year. In both years, however, the children’s average age was slightly less than two years. The programs served about an equal percentage of male and female children.

Children in the demonstration programs had a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds, with little change in overall racial composition between the demonstration’s second and third years. In the third year, about half of all children were white, 37 percent were African American, 5 percent were American Indian, and the rest were other races or biracial. Of all children, 42 percent were reported to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

Table II.2. Characteristics of Children Enrolled in Demonstration Programs (Percentage of Children)

Table II.4. Characteristics of Fathers Who Participated in EHS Services (Percentage of Fathers)

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Father/Father Figure Information Forms.

Note: Sample sizes vary due to nonresponse on some items.

NA = not available.

*Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test.
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.

About even proportions of children lived in rural and urban areas. Twenty-nine percent were enrolled in programs with rural service delivery areas, 31 percent in urban areas, and 41 percent in mixed urban and rural areas. Nearly three-quarters of the children in rural areas were white, and about 40 percent were Hispanic or Latino. More than half of urban children were African American, and more than half of children in mixed service delivery were white.

The average length of time that a child had been in the program was slightly less than 12 months in both the second and third years of the demonstration. In the third year, nearly 60 percent of children were receiving center-based services, with a higher proportion of children in urban areas enrolled in center-based programs (79 percent) than those in rural (53 percent) or mixed urban-rural areas (50 percent).

FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS

According to staff reports, almost three-quarters of children enrolled in the demonstration’s third year had a father or father figure involved in their lives.

Most Children in the Demonstration Programs Had Fathers Present in Their Lives

According to staff reports, almost three-quarters of children enrolled in the demonstration’s third year had a father or father figure involved in their lives (Table II.2). In both the second and the third year of the demonstration, children living in rural areas were more likely to have an involved father than those in urban areas.

Interestingly, the proportion of children reported to have an involved father declined significantly between the second and third years of the demonstration, by about 6 percent. This change could have resulted from a shift in the characteristics of families enrolled in the demonstration programs: more families without involved fathers may have entered the Early Head Start programs toward the end of the demonstration. It is also possible that the change is a result of nonresponse to the father information forms—that is, staff members may not have returned forms for children without a father involved during our second-year survey but did so in the third year. We received forms for 93 percent of enrolled children (1,747 of 1,872) in the second year and 99 percent (1,890 of 1,918) in the third year of the demonstration. If we assume that unreturned forms in the second year represented children who did not have fathers involved, or for whom staff members were unaware of father involvement, reported father involvement levels look very similar across the two years—around 73 percent.

Biological, Resident Fathers Were the Majority of Involved Fathers

In both the second and the third year of the fatherhood demonstration, the vast majority of involved fathers were biological (Table II.3). In addition, the share of biological fathers increased significantly between the two years, from 84 to 89 percent. Father figures comprised the remaining group of involved fathers and, according to program staff, included a variety of men—grandfathers, uncles, family friends, or others—who played an important and consistent role in the child’s life.

There was little change over the course of the demonstration in the proportion of fathers reported to be living with their children. Resident fathers accounted for 70 percent of those involved in their children’s lives in both the second and third years. Fathers served by primarily home-based Early Head Start programs were somewhat more likely to be living with their child. Reports from the third year of the demonstration indicate that resident fathers comprised 79 percent of identified fathers in home-based programs, compared to 70 percent in primarily center-based programs and 63 percent in combination programs (not shown in table).

Table II.3. Characteristics of Fathers in the Demonstration Programs (Percentage of Fathers)

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration father/father figure information forms.

Note: Data pertain to fathers identified by staff as involved in the child’s life. Sample sizes vary due to nonresponse on some items.

**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.

The Proportion of Married Fathers Increased in the Demonstration’s Third Year.

The marriage rate among identified fathers increased by a statistically significant amount between the second and third years of the demonstration. In the third year, staff reported that about 47 percent of all identified fathers were married to their child’s mother, compared to 41 percent in the second year. In addition, among fathers reported to be involved in their child’s life in both the second and the third year of the demonstration, more were married in the third year, which suggests that the marriages occurred sometime during the demonstration period. It is not possible to determine whether demonstration activities influenced parents’ decisions regarding marriage, but some programs did offer services intended to improve relationships between mothers and fathers.

Characteristics of Participating Fathers Changed Somewhat in the Third Year

For those fathers who participated in Early Head Start activities in the past six months (around two-thirds of all identified fathers), we were able to collect additional information about racial and ethnic backgrounds, educational achievement, and economic circumstances (Table II.4). Fathers who participated during the third year of the demonstration were more likely than those in the demonstration’s second year to be white, to have a high school diploma or general equivalency degree (GED), and to be employed. However, a nearly identical percentage of fathers—about 31 percent—faced one or more barriers to employment, according to staff reports. In both years, a minority of participating fathers received various types of public assistance. The benefit most commonly received—by about a fifth of participating fathers—was medical assistance. Fathers’ use of food stamps or public housing assistance rose slightly but significantly in the third year.

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration father/father figure information forms.

Note: Data pertain to fathers who participated in at least one Early Head Start activity in the past 6 months.

Sample sizes vary due to nonresponse on some items.

*Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test.
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.

Most Participating Fathers Had Established Legal Paternity

Child support issues affected a small proportion of fathers who participated in Early Head Start. Because grantees were required to collaborate with local child support enforcement agencies, father/father figure information forms inquired about participating fathers’ involvement with the child support system. Of all fathers who had participated in Early Head Start in the past six months, 80 percent were reported to have established legal paternity for the enrolled child. Among biological fathers, 88 percent had established paternity. Only 8 percent of fathers had a child support order in effect for the enrolled child, and about 7 percent had an order for another child who was not in the Early Head Start program. Based on staff reports, nearly three-quarters of fathers with a child support order were currently paying support. This payment rate compares favorably to national child support statistics, which indicate that payments are collected in about 50 percent of all open cases (Administration for Children and Families 2004b).

• ¹ National data on program approach are based on 2003 Program Information Reports (PIR), as summarized in Hart and Schumacher 2004. [back]

Most of the Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration programs began their father involvement projects without much experience working with fathers. These programs found it necessary to learn by doing, making adjustments to strategies and services over time. In this chapter, we describe ways the grantee programs changed during the course of the demonstration. We begin by exploring whether the demonstration programs generally unfolded as staff expected. We then look at evolution in programs’ goals and father-friendliness strategies, staffing structure, outreach and services, and collaborations with the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) over the demonstration’s last two years.

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION

Nearly all programs reported that their fatherhood projects did not develop as they expected—in ways both positive and negative. In many cases, programs did not anticipate the challenges they would face working with fathers. Some programs were surprised by the kinds of services and activities that seemed to appeal to fathers most.

Many Program Directors Said That Implementing a Father Involvement Project Was More Difficult than They Expected

In their telephone interviews, directors of 13 programs reported that implementing their demonstration projects was harder than they had anticipated. They frequently mentioned difficulties in engaging fathers, resistance from female staff and mothers to father involvement, and difficulties in hiring and retaining fatherhood staff. Some staff were surprised that fathers were not more responsive to opportunities to become involved in Early Head Start. For example, one respondent remarked, "I thought there was a group of men out there waiting to be served, and that’s not the case." Another expected "packed houses" of fathers and was surprised when they did not materialize.

Staff in two programs noted that their fatherhood project differed fro