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 from expectations in a positive way: it offered more activities involving children than they had anticipated. As one staff member commented, "I expected the [fatherhood project] would be a group format for dads. It didn’t unfold that way, because it focused on family activities instead." The director of the second program said she believed the fatherhood program would operate more or less separately from the rest of Early Head Start, but was pleased when it became a core part of the program, organizing activities not only for fathers, but for the entire family.

Among Programs Where Expectations for the Demonstration Were Fulfilled, Planning and Adaptability Seemed Important

Those programs that felt their fatherhood projects generally unfolded as well as or better than expected may have anticipated challenges during their planning. One director reported that the staff and the fathers at her program collaborated extensively in advance of their demonstration project, and that this helped ensure that activities would reflect fathers’ interests and needs. Program staff sought input from some of the fathers when preparing the grant application and collaborated with other community agencies in developing their project after they were awarded the grant.

In addition, programs whose expectations for the demonstration were met seemed to adapt quickly to unanticipated challenges, or to select fatherhood staff well. Directors of two programs felt their fatherhood projects fulfilled expectations by responding creatively when challenges arose. In one program, staff were surprised by mothers’ resentment of services focused on fathers. However, getting mothers directly involved in these services—for example, in a project to educate the wider community about the importance of father involvement— seemed to help. Staff at another program found it quite difficult to engage fathers in child development services and responded by creating designated days for fathers to attend classroom activities. The director of yet another program felt the fatherhood project went as well as she had hoped because the program had hired a fatherhood coordinator who had experience working with men in the community.

PROGRAM GOALS AND FATHER-FRIENDLINESS STRATEGIES

The overarching goals of the demonstration programs reflected the ambitions articulated by ACYF when it awarded the grants—to increase fathers’ involvement in the Early Head Start program and in their children’s lives. When asked about specific objectives, respondents to our staff survey indicated that their programs placed the greatest emphasis on getting fathers to spend more time with their children and to attend program events (Table III.1). Results from the staff survey also indicate that the relative importance of various goals remained nearly constant in the second and third years of the demonstration. There appeared to be a slightly stronger emphasis in the third year on helping nonresident fathers stay in contact with their children and pay child support, and on involving fathers in goal setting.

Table III.1. Emphasis on Father Involvement Goals

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration staff surveys.

Note: Scale ranges from a low of 0 (not at all) to a high of 4 (to a very great extent). The scores in the table are the average score for all Fatherhood Demonstration programs. Individual program scores were calculated by averaging scores of respondents in that program.

Father-Friendliness Strategies Were Consistent, and Included a Special Focus on Policies and Procedures

The number of strategies that programs employed to become father-friendly did not change between the second and third years of the demonstration. Our surveys asked staff to indicate the strategies they had used to increase father-friendliness, selecting from a list of 26 options (the same approach used in the Raikes et al. [2002] study of practitioners). Programs reported using an average of about 19 strategies in both years, about a third more than the typical Early Head Start program in the practitioners study. Generally, the changes in the proportions of programs using specific strategies were small (Table III.2). For example, about 10 percent more programs reported completing needs assessments on fathers and providing bilingual activities. A larger proportion of programs also reported that they had created a room or space specifically for fathers.

Some changes in father-friendliness strategies suggested that programs were attempting to institutionalize their father-involvement efforts. In the third year, four additional programs (a 21 percent increase) sought to improve their father-friendliness by developing policies and procedures that reinforced the expectation that fathers would participate in Early Head Start. Examples of policies that raised the expectation of fathers’ participation included requiring data collection on the father at enrollment, requiring home visits by fatherhood staff, and requiring that staff schedule separate home visits with fathers when they were unable to attend at the same time as the mother.

Table III.2. Father-Friendliness Strategies (Percentage of Programs Using Each Strategy)

Source: Raikes, et al. 2002 and Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration staff surveys.

^aRespondents are program directors.
^bRespondents are program directors, fatherhood coordinators, teachers, and home visitors.
^cPrograms were considered to be using a strategy when the majority of their staff reported it as a strategy.

The father-friendliness strategies that program staff members considered most successful tended to remain constant through the second and third years of the demonstration (Table III.3). In both years, program staff reported that training all staff on father involvement and inviting fathers to all program events were the most successful strategies. A larger proportion of staff members in the third year believed that creating an image of Early Head Start as a program for fathers was an effective approach to increasing father involvement. Staff in many programs also highlighted a change in program image during telephone interviews and site visits, citing it as one of their key accomplishments during the demonstration.

Table III.3. Most Successful Father-Friendliness Strategies

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration staff surveys.

Note: Data reflect the combined responses of program staff.

Staff Training Was Considered a Key Strategy, but Addressing Varied Training Needs Posed Challenges

Compared with year 2, a slightly smaller proportion of programs reported in the third year that they provided training for their fatherhood coordinator or focused on enabling frontline staff to be more receptive to fathers. This change may have resulted from the perception that many staff had received sufficient training by the third year. Nevertheless, the vast majority of programs reported that they provided some type of training to Early Head Start Staff—although it was not always formal—and survey respondents continued to feel that staff training was the most successful strategy for increasing father-friendliness, as noted above. As in previous years of the demonstration, training addressed such issues as the role fathers play in child development, staff members’ own experiences with their fathers or partners, and practical strategies for engaging fathers in Early Head Start services.

Tailoring training for staff with varying levels of experience working with fathers was a challenge that emerged toward the end of the demonstration. As the fatherhood coordinator in one program commented, new staff needed basic information on how to work with fathers. Yet it was also important to enhance the skills of experienced staff, so that they might reach "the next level" in promoting father involvement. The coordinator had not yet determined how to meet both needs simultaneously.

STAFFING STRUCTURES

Among the minority of programs that reported changes in fatherhood staffing in the demonstration’s third year, adding positions for specialized services appeared to be common. For example, two programs created part-time positions—a fatherhood health specialist in one program, and a job developer and fatherhood advocate in the other. Fifteen of the programs reported no changes in fatherhood staffing, however.

Two directors reported extensive adjustments to their fatherhood staffing structure. Both programs previously had fatherhood coordinators or specialists who were specifically responsible for father involvement. The programs opted to discontinue these staff roles and incorporate father involvement into positions with more general responsibilities for serving parents. According to the directors, these changes were intended to distribute tasks related to father involvement more widely among staff and integrate fathers more fully into general program activities.

A Coordinator-Specialist Staff Structure Continued to Be Popular

The coordinator-specialist staffing configuration, consisting of a fatherhood coordinator and one or more specialists, remained the most popular staffing model in the third year of the demonstration. Thirteen of the programs had a second staff member who worked exclusively on father involvement. This is similar to the number in the second year of the demonstration and an increase from the first year, when just 10 of the programs had a second father involvement staff member (Bellotti et al. 2003; Bellotti 2002). Programs that did not adopt the coordinator-specialist staffing configuration tended to use one of two approaches.¹ Half this group hired one staff member to be responsible for their fatherhood program or, in the case of one program, a staff person for each of several centers. The other half did not have staff dedicated solely to their fatherhood initiative; instead, fatherhood staff split their time with other program responsibilities.

Males made up a majority of fatherhood staff members throughout the demonstration’s three years. About 80 percent of the lead father involvement coordinators and 75 percent of the father involvement support staff were men. In focus groups, fathers reinforced the idea that having male staff in the Early Head Start program made a difference for them. One father explained that "with men, there’s a higher level of confidence—you feel comfortable talking to them about things that you wouldn’t with a female." Some fathers made clear that they appreciated the work of the female staff members, but they appeared to feel more at ease discussing personal issues with another man.

Staff Turnover Was an Ongoing Challenge

Fatherhood staff turnover was common among the demonstration programs. Over the course of the demonstration, half the programs experienced at least one instance of turnover in their lead father involvement position. In telephone calls, more than a third of program directors (8 out of 21) reported turnover in fatherhood staff in the third year of the demonstration alone.

Of the programs that experienced staff turnover in the third year of the demonstration, three attributed the turnover to personal reasons (for example, the staff member took another job, returned to school, or moved to another area), and three attributed it to performance issues. Filling these vacancies was not always easy; in nearly 30 percent of the programs, the lead father involvement position went vacant for more than three months over the course of the demonstration, according to staff surveys. As noted in our secondyear report, factors such as low salaries and the absence of a strong professional network among men in the field of early childhood education likely contributed to the challenge of keeping fatherhood staff positions filled.

Staff turnover created significant challenges for a few programs. In one case, a program terminated and chose not to replace a staff member who was primarily responsible for recruiting fathers. Afterwards, the program experienced a substantial drop in the number of fathers participating and had to scale back some fatherhood activities. In addition, a change in fatherhood staff can require rebuilding of trust between the program and fathers. As one focus group participant explained, "We got a new [fatherhood coordinator], but it is not the same because you have to get adjusted and build confidence all over again. It’s not the same because you don’t know the individual."

In contrast, two directors reported that staff turnover had no negative effect on their program. One program was able to weather the turnover because it had enough staff with relevant experience to cover the vacant position. The other noted that the turnover ultimately had a positive impact because the new staff member was closer in age to the fathers and thus had an easier time establishing rapport. As noted in our second-year report, factors that generally appeared to help programs weather fatherhood staff turnover included advance notice of a staff member’s departure, the ability to hire replacement staff from within the organization, and the extent of other staff members’ experience working with fathers. Family workers, teachers, and home visitors who had substantial direct contact with fathers, and were well informed about their family circumstances, were better prepared to continue serving fathers in the event that fatherhood staff left the program.

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING AND SERVING FATHERS

A major challenge programs encountered throughout the demonstration was recruiting fathers and keeping them involved over time. As they worked to address this challenge, programs honed their approaches to engaging fathers and adjusted the types of services and activities they offered.

Programs Expanded Their Target Population and Relied More on Personal Contacts for Recruitment

While all the demonstration programs accepted all Early Head Start fathers and father figures, several of the programs reported that they initially targeted young fathers but expanded their target group when the number of fathers successfully recruited was low. Also, as noted in our previous report, some of the programs eventually expanded father recruitment to include men from their Head Start programs and from the community (Bellotti et al. 2003).

Several of the programs visited in the third year of the demonstration indicated they were making a greater effort to recruit certain subgroups of fathers. One program, motivated by the receipt of an additional grant, was placing a special emphasis on recruiting nonresident fathers. Two other programs were increasing their efforts to involve incarcerated fathers. These efforts may partly reflect the maturity of the programs. At the start of the demonstration, the programs, in order to increase participation quickly, tended to focus on fathers who were easier to recruit. The programs may now be turning their attention to fathers who were initially believed to be more difficult to reach.

Staff interviews and survey responses indicate that to help bring fathers into Early Head Start, programs continued to look to children’s mothers as much as or more than they relied on other men in the program or the community. One program reported that after mothers became more involved in recruiting, the average number of fathers attending the monthly fathers’ night increased from three to around eight. Mothers in focus groups related their experiences encouraging fathers to participate in Early Head Start. As one mother explained, "I started talking to [the fatherhood coordinator] and [came] up with a strategy on how to pull [my child’s father] in little by little and expose him to the benefits of being in the fatherhood program. . . . Little by little, before he knew it, he was already in the fatherhood program."

A noticeable change in strategies for recruiting nonresident fathers was the programs’ greater reliance on personal contacts in the third year of the demonstration. In the third year of the demonstration, two of the three most commonly used recruitment strategies involved personal contacts with the father—calling fathers and inviting fathers in person (Table III.4). In the previous year, just one of the top strategies for engaging nonresident fathers involved personal contacts (inviting fathers in person). Two other strategies that saw large increases in use in the third year also involved personal contacts—home visits and meetings with fathers—while the strategy that saw the largest drop involved mailing materials to the father.

Table III.4. Strategies Programs Used to Involve Nonresident Fathers (Percentage of Programs)

Source: Raikes, et al. 2002 and Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration staff surveys.

^aRespondents are program directors.
^bRespondents are program directors, fatherhood coordinators, teachers, and home visitors.
^cPrograms were considered to be using a strategy when the majority of their staff reported it as a strategy.

During the site visits, program staff suggested why they found personal contacts to be effective and mailings to be less effective recruitment strategies—not only for nonresidential fathers, but also for all fathers. Staff noted that personal contacts provide opportunities to introduce themselves, to share their experiences with fathers, and to address the concerns fathers have. Such contacts also offer a chance to develop a rapport with fathers. Focus group participants confirmed staff impressions that personal contacts make a difference. One father described his experience when meeting the fatherhood coordinator at this program: "As soon as we came down to apply, [the fatherhood coordinator] shook my hand and introduced himself. He was really excited that I was even showing up. And the next time I saw him—like three, four weeks later . . . he remembered my name. That really stuck with me." In contrast, not only do mailings fail to provide these opportunities, but they also may give mothers an opportunity to screen out the invitations. Also, as one fatherhood coordinator pointed out, programs should not assume that all fathers can read.

The Number of Programs Reaching Out to Incarcerated Fathers Increased Over Time

Staff from most demonstration programs (nearly 80 percent) reported in the third-year survey that they make efforts to engage incarcerated fathers. This represented a large increase from the first year of the demonstration, when only a quarter of the programs attempted to engage men in prison. Talking with mothers was the most frequent strategy used to engage incarcerated fathers in both the second and third years of the demonstration. (Forty-seven percent of programs reported that they did so in the third year.) Although a minority of programs indicated that they visit fathers in prison (21 percent in the third year) or mail progress notes to incarcerated fathers (16 percent), the proportion of programs doing so increased between the second and third years of the demonstration.

Most Programs Continued All Services, Emphasizing Family and Father-Child Activities

Most of the demonstration programs—about 80 percent—indicated in telephone interviews that they had not discontinued any services for fathers during the third year of the demonstration. However, two programs reported that they had reduced the frequency of men’s group meetings as a result of low participation. Three programs reported adding new services—such as job training and literacy support—or expanding the geographic area the fatherhood program serves.

During site visits and telephone interviews, staff in several programs noted that they were placing a greater emphasis than in the early part of the demonstration on activities for fathers and their children or family. Staff in five programs specifically mentioned that family or father-child activity nights were being scheduled more frequently. This shift toward family and father-child activities appeared to be a response to preferences fathers expressed. For example, home visitors in one program reported seeing more fathers wanting to be involved in activities with their children, including screenings. One father described in a focus group how important family events were for him: "The first activity that I participated [in] that had a great impact on me was a family activity we celebrated in a restaurant. We did activities and spent time as a group, as a couple, and then as an entire family. It was a beautiful thing." Moreover, as the parent educators at one program related, by holding family activities, they made it more likely that mothers would be there to help encourage fathers to participate.

Staff Expressed Continued Ambivalence About Addressing Marriage and Couple Relationships

The Department of Health and Human Services is now sponsoring several initiatives to support couple relationships and healthy marriage through interventions in a variety of settings, including programs focused on child and family development. In our second-year interviews, staff in most programs told us that strengthening co-parent relationships for the sake of the child was consistent with their program goals. Few staff members appeared to be interested in developing or offering structured activities to address marriage or strengthen couple relationships, however, in either the second or the third year of the demonstration. In interviews, staff in several programs noted that support groups for parents sometimes address communication skills, and that relationship issues are discussed if parents raise the topic in a home visit or other context. One program used parent agreements to help improve parent relationships. Another demonstration program did offer activities designed to enhance couple relationships in the demonstration’s third year. Parents in that program had the opportunity to attend a couples’ retreat, in which married and unmarried couples received counseling and then participated in a "re-marriage" ceremony. In general, however, staff responses in interviews suggested a preference for focusing on promoting healthy coparenting and improving communication between parents over discussions specifically addressing marriage.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH OFFICES OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

A key feature of the demonstration was the requirement that Early Head Start programs work with their local OCSE to facilitate the fathers’ financial support for their children. Programs and local OCSEs determined the specific nature of the collaborations.

Collaborations with OCSE Were Common, Although Helping Fathers Pay Child Support Was a Lower-Priority Goal

Most programs in the demonstration had relationships with local OCSEs, but staff reported that helping fathers provide child support was a lower priority than many other objectives. The demonstration grant requirements probably account for the larger proportion of demonstration programs reporting relationships with OCSE than those in the practitioners study. According to staff survey results, nearly 80 percent of the demonstration programs had partnered with the OCSE in the second and third years of the demonstration, compared to only a third of the Early Head Start programs in the practitioners study (Raikes et al. 2002). However, although most of the Early Head Start programs had partnerships with OCSE, they did not pay as much attention to child support as they did to other matters. In responses to the survey, Early Head Start staff included helping fathers with child support among their program goals, but it was among the least-emphasized goals in both years (Table III.1).

Most Collaborations Focused on Providing Information to Early Head Start Staff

At the end of the second year of the demonstration, we found that most of the collaborations between Early Head Start and OCSE focused on providing Early Head Start program staff and participants with information on child support enforcement. In our thirdyear telephone interviews, 16 of the 21 directors indicated that the nature of their partnerships with OCSE remained unchanged. However, three programs indicated that the relationship improved. Two of these programs had failed to develop a partnership with OCSE in the second year of the demonstration. In one case, the relationship improved through the fatherhood coordinator’s persistence, and in the other, the local OCSE, in an effort to improve its image in the community, reached out to a coalition of fatherhood programs that included the Early Head Start program.

Two programs reported reduced interactions with OCSE. In one case, the crosstraining and technical support OCSE provided was significantly curtailed when special funding for that purpose ended; afterwards, the Early Head Start program and local OCSE interacted only intermittently. In the second case, the frequency of contacts fell because Early Head Start staff encountered few child support issues among the families they served.

A Majority of Programs Expressed Interest in Continuing to Work with OCSE

Most of the directors in programs with successful partnerships reported that they intended to sustain their collaboration with OCSE at some level. Seventeen of the programs were interested in sustaining their collaboration beyond the grant period. Some directors felt quite strongly about maintaining the collaboration because of the new expertise their staff developed on child support issues. This interest in sustained cooperation across agencies could certainly be considered a positive outcome for the demonstration.

• ¹This analysis is based on several sources of information. First, we used the staff survey to identify the programs that did not use a coordinator-specialist configuration. Second, we used data obtained in our telephone interviews to learn about their staffing structure. [back]

By the end of the fatherhood demonstration’s three years, many programs had made substantial changes in their staffing, services, and outreach to parents in an attempt to become more inclusive of fathers. Among other goals, these changes were expected to influence the programs’ father-friendliness, enhance fathers’ participation in Early Head Start and their children’s lives, improve mothers’ attitudes about father involvement, and, ultimately, produce benefits for children. As noted earlier in the report, our assessment of whether the fatherhood demonstration achieved these results has limitations, since we relied on the perceptions of staff and parents and could not compare the demonstration programs’ experience with that of a control group of programs that did not receive demonstration grants. (However, we did use the practitioners study of father involvement [Raikes et al. 2002], which included Early Head Start programs nationwide, as a point of comparison.) In addition, data gathered through surveys and father/father figure information forms included only the second and third years of the demonstration; thus, the data did not reflect circumstances during the demonstration’s earliest months.

Nevertheless, data collected through site visits, interviews with staff and parents, surveys, and father/father figure information forms offered many insights regarding the perceived effects of the fatherhood demonstration. In this chapter, we summarize key results that the fatherhood demonstration appeared to produce for programs, mothers and fathers, and children.

RESULTS FOR PROGRAMS

In surveys and interviews, Early Head Start staff and parents affirmed that programs changed their approach to working with fathers during the demonstration and that programs’ father-friendliness increased over time. In general, the demonstration appears to have had a positive influence on staff attitudes toward fathers, the services programs offer, and the overall image of Early Head Start—as a program for fathers, as well as for mothers and children.

Programs Advanced to a Higher Stage of Father-Friendliness

Compared with Early Head Start programs nationally, those in the fatherhood demonstration were at a more advanced stage of father-friendliness, according to staff assessments, and they became more welcoming to fathers over time. To gauge overall father-friendliness, we asked staff members to rate their own programs using this five-point scale developed for the 2002 study of Early Head Start practitioners (Raikes et al. 2002):

1. Pre-Stage: The program involves parents (mother, father, surrogates) in a general way. Little, if any, thought has been given to the unique issues of involving any parent beyond the mother and to what would be required to plan for their involvement.
2. Early Stage: Some fathers are involved. Most program activities still revolve around women and children. Some thought and effort have gone into father involvement, but it is not one of the top two or three priorities for the program.
3. Mid-Stage: The program has developed ways to increase its attention to father involvement and has begun to show a concerted effort in father involvement. Some exciting and promising changes are occurring as more staff and parents gain a sense of how to make the program father-friendly. A father involvement coordinator may be hired, and that person does a good job of keeping other staff aware of father involvement.
4. Mature Stage: Many changes have been made to make the program fatherfriendly. The father involvement coordinator now focuses more on integrating fathers into the program and applying all program activities to fathers. Programs focus more on fathers in the family as the target rather than on fathers per se. Many resident fathers are now involved with the program. Some nonresident fathers are involved.
5. Very Mature Stage: Most resident fathers are involved in the program at least once a month. The program offers a great variety of father-involvement activities. Many nonresident fathers are involved, and there are many creative efforts to involve nonresident fathers.

In the second year of the demonstration, directors in more than half the fatherhood demonstration sites felt their programs had reached a mature or very mature stage of fatherfriendliness (Figure IV.1). In the third year, nearly all felt that way. In contrast, nearly threequarters of Early Head Start programs in the practitioners study reported that they were at the pre-stage or early stage (Raikes et al. 2002).

Demonstration programs expressed a willingness to involve more fathers by applying for the demonstration grants, and they enjoyed the advantage of special funding to engage fathers. Therefore, their higher stage of father-friendliness compared with Early Head Start programs nationwide is not unexpected. Nevertheless, it appears that the demonstration did help the programs make noticeable and continuing progress toward the goal of enhancing father involvement in Early Head Start. In focus groups at several demonstration sites, fathers made it clear that they felt Early Head Start had become more welcoming. According to one father, "It makes a difference because most people, if this program wasn’t here, most fathers [would] just be bringing their kids here and . . . going right back home or going to work or something like that, or just going to hang out. Now they [have] got this program here. . . . It’s making more fathers want to be involved in [Early Head Start]."

Figure IV.1. Programs’ Stage of Father-Friendliness (Percentage of Programs)

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration staff survey and Early Head Start Practitioners Study (Raikes et al. 2002). Note: Data reflect the responses of Early Head Start directors only.

Staff Awareness of the Importance of Fathers Increased in Most Programs

In interviews, representatives of more than three-quarters of the demonstration programs cited increased staff awareness about fatherhood issues as a major accomplishment of their fatherhood projects. Staff in several programs noted that receptiveness to fathers has increased with staff understanding of the significant role fathers can play in child development. Because of the demonstration project, one director explained, "There’s not a level of resistance, there’s not a shock when [fathers] come in. It’s just another parent. The atmosphere is just more responsive to men." Female family service specialists in another program commented that they initially did not think that having a male role model was important for children, but their attitudes changed after they observed and interacted with father involvement specialists. Other examples of increased awareness that staff highlighted in interviews included discussions of father-related issues in case meetings and home visitors’ efforts to discover the extent of fathers’ involvement among the families in their caseloads. Although staff generally did not mention collaborations with OCSEs when describing key accomplishments, some staff members did note that their knowledge of child support issues had increased.

Programs Began Offering New, More Inclusive, Services

The fatherhood demonstration motivated programs to develop new services to make Early Head Start more appealing to men and to meet the needs of a variety of fathers. According to one director, the demonstration helped challenge her agency to offer more innovative programming for families. The fatherhood coordinator in that program agreed, explaining that the project "push[ed] traditional limits a bit" in its efforts to engage fathers with lively activities such as camping trips and community celebrations. As described in Chapter III and one of our previous reports (Bellotti et al. 2003), demonstration programs created opportunities for father involvement, ranging from peer support groups and employment and training services, to special events for families, father-child activities, and workshops on parenting and child development specifically for men. A few programs also developed referral relationships with local OCSEs.

Some demonstration programs also reached out to groups of fathers whom they had not attempted to serve before. Staff from three programs said they felt the demonstration allowed them to meet the needs of people often overlooked by social services agencies, including men who are incarcerated. One fatherhood coordinator, for example, maintained regular contact with incarcerated fathers through mailings and visits. The coordinator spoke with teachers before writing or visiting, then updated fathers about how their children were doing in school. In about a quarter of the programs, directors and fatherhood coordinators mentioned that staff members are generally more aware of the obstacles that fathers face and are more conscious of identifying fathers’ needs.

Visibility and Leadership Opportunities for Males in Early Head Start Grew

Staff also commonly emphasized that fathers were more visible in Early Head Start because of the demonstration. Staff in six sites specifically noted that fathers have a greater presence in their programs—they are participating in more activities, and the programs’ physical environments feature more images of fathers. In addition, fathers are contributing to some programs by taking leadership roles, such as serving on Policy Councils. Staff at one program considered fathers’ ownership of the demonstration project to be one of its greatest accomplishments—through a governing committee, participating fathers had played a substantial role in specifying the project’s mission, activities, and future direction.

RESULTS FOR PARENTS

The fatherhood demonstration had the potential to enhance parents’ lives in many ways. Increasing fathers’ involvement in Early Head Start and the lives of their children was a priority for the demonstration. Programs also tried to enhance fathers’ ability to provide for their children financially and to help mothers and fathers establish permanent parenting relationships. Programs appeared to have varying levels of success in their efforts to help parents achieve these goals.

To assess the results of the demonstration over time, we identified fathers who participated in Early Head Start activities during both the second and third years. This approach helps elucidate outcomes for those fathers who had a longer opportunity to be involved in Early Head Start services. A total of 282 fathers took part in activities in both years, about one-third of all participating fathers in each year. In the discussion below, we examine and compare trends in participation and satisfaction for all fathers who participated each year and for fathers who participated in both years.

Two-Thirds of Programs Reported a Rise in Father Participation, but Results Over Time Were Mixed

Staff in most programs believed that father participation in Early Head Start was greater at the end of the demonstration than at the beginning. According to staff comments in telephone interviews, more than two-thirds of programs experienced a rise in father participation during the demonstration. In coming to this conclusion, staff members probably compared current father participation levels to circumstances before the grant period.

More fathers probably were participating in Early Head Start after the demonstration than before it. However, data collected through father information forms indicate that participation levels may not have increased steadily throughout the demonstration’s three years or across all programs. In the second year, according to staff reports on father information forms, 70.4 percent of fathers had participated in Early Head Start during the past six months (Figure IV.2). This figure dropped to 66.5 percent in the third year—a small but statistically significant decrease. Not all programs experienced a drop in participation; in nine programs, father participation increased in the third year, with four programs showing statistically significant jumps. For the 12 programs in which participation declined between years 2 and 3, lower participation levels may have been caused, in part, by a shift in the characteristics of enrolled families (with more fathers who were difficult to engage) or the sense that the demonstration was "winding down" in its third year.

Fathers’ participation in specific Early Head Start activities showed similarly mixed trends (Table IV.1). Among all fathers who had participated in at least one Early Head Start activity in the past six months, participation in home visits increased from 69 to 77 percent—a statistically significant rise—between the demonstration’s second and third years. The number of times that fathers attended home visits also increased. In contrast, the proportion of fathers participating in six other activity types (employment services, classroom activities, family activities, father-only activities, child support workshops, and other services) declined significantly or marginally significantly. Fathers who took part in both years 2 and 3 had more consistent patterns of participation in specific Early Head Start activities. The percentage of these fathers involved in home visits also increased significantly in the third year (from 68 to 78 percent), while significant or marginally significant declines occurred in only three activities (family activities, father-only activities, and other services).

Figure IV.2. Father Participation in Early Head Start (Percentage of Involved Fathers Reported to Have Participated in the Past Six Months)

Source: Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration father/father figure information forms. **Significantly different from 0 at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test.

To some extent, these results coincide with information gathered from staff and parents during site visits and telephone calls. As noted in Chapter III, fathers seemed to prefer activities that encouraged interaction with their children to services that involved fathers alone. The rise in home visit participation reflects this preference and suggests that programs were especially successful in engaging more fathers in child development activities. On the other hand, staff and fathers also noted that family-centered activities generally were appealing for men, which made the reported declines in participation in those services more difficult to interpret. One possibility is that fathers’ work schedules or other conflicts made attending family activities at Early Head Start centers less convenient than home visits. As their participation in home visits rose, fathers may have felt less need to take part in other, center-based activities. Changes in fatherhood projects toward the end of the demonstration, such as staff turnover or reduced recruitment efforts, may also have contributed to lower participation in some activities.

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

Notes: 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 to some items.

^aData pertain only to those fathers who participated in this activity in the past 6 months.
*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

According Staff and Parents, Some Fathers Became More Confident and Enthusiastic Interacting with Their Children

Fatherhood demonstration services may have helped some fathers increase their selfesteem and confidence as caregivers and become more eager to interact with their children. Staff in half the programs reported that fathers were more enthusiastic about spending time with their children and noted that fathers have increased their knowledge of child development. They perceived a sense of pride and gratitude among fathers for being seen as positive influences on their children.

Fathers and mothers in focus groups also described how the demonstration projects seemed to have influenced fathers’ approach to parenting. One father explained that participating in Early Head Start "make[s] you more aware of what your child does. . . . So just noticing what my kids do and then getting along with their mother is so important to me now. . . . It definitely changes your perspective on being a dad." Another felt that the program "show[s] you things that you probably [weren’t] doing [with your child] . . . little things that you don’t think really matter, but it really does." Some mothers similarly believed the demonstration had positively influenced fathers’ parenting styles. "He’s more concerned with the needs of the child than he had ever been before," according to one mother. Another felt that her husband was "more inclined to read and to color and to do different things. He’s not afraid to act silly with [my son] . . . so I think it’s brought a little more closeness to him."

Interestingly, staff reports suggest that fathers’ satisfaction with the usual amount of time they spent with their children may have decreased slightly as their confidence and enthusiasm rose. The percentage of fathers reported to be very satisfied declined significantly between years 2 and 3 among all fathers and fathers who participated in both years (Table IV.2). Still, nearly all fathers in both years—more than 90 percent—were reported to be very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the time they spent with their children.

Staff in Several Programs Felt the Demonstration Helped Fathers Economically

Staff in about one-quarter of the demonstration programs said they believed that more fathers were finding jobs and contributing financially to their children’s upbringing as a result of the demonstration. Site visits in the demonstration’s second year revealed that six programs focused heavily on linking fathers to employment and training services. Some of these programs offered direct services, while others worked with community collaborators to link fathers to employment and training services in their communities. Among all fathers, the proportion who were reported to be employed rose significantly between the second and third year of the demonstration, from 74 to 79 percent. We cannot ascertain whether this result was due to fatherhood demonstration services, however. There was no change in the proportion of employed fathers among those who participated in both years 2 and 3.

Table IV.2. Staff Reports on Father’s Satisfaction with Time Spent with Child and Relationship with Mother (Percentage of Fathers)

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

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

*Significantly different from zero at the .10 level.
**Significantly different from zero at the .05 level.
***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level.

Staff in Nearly Half the Programs Say Mothers’ Resistance to Father Involvement Decreased

According to staff in nearly half the demonstration programs, the fatherhood demonstration helped some mothers overcome their discomfort with father involvement and addressed feelings of jealousy about specialized services for men. Indeed, during focus groups, mothers from several programs mentioned their interest in having fathers participate in Early Head Start. As one mother said, "The more they participate, the better. . . . My husband loosens up and gets motivated when he sees other fathers doing the same and realizes that he can do it. It helps him build confidence that he can do it, he can be responsible for raising his kids." Another mother seemed to understand that fathers might need special encouragement to get involved, explaining that she thought "fathers might stand in the back because they don’t expect you to want to talk to them. If they know that they’re supposed to be involved, too, just like we are, maybe they will come out of the woodwork."

Naturally, resistance to father involvement had not been completely removed among mothers in the demonstration projects, and some mothers felt that programs still needed to recognize the reality of father absence. "A man can come right in and, ‘Oh, we got this program for you, we got this for you, this for you,’ but then, the mother, she’s got to wait," said one focus group participant, "’cause they want the fathers involved. But sometimes the mother is the father." In addition, mothers’ reluctance to have fathers involved may sometimes have been warranted—for example, when domestic abuse was involved.

Results for Mother-Father Relationships Were Unclear

As described in Chapter III, staff members in the demonstration programs expressed mixed opinions about how actively they should become involved in mother-father relationships. In the second year, staff from a majority of demonstration programs reported that a focus on strengthening couple relationships was not consistent with their program goals, and nine programs indicated that they focused instead on co-parenting. Staff also noted that Early Head Start parents commonly raised issues about their romantic relationships. When such issues arose, staff generally served as "sounding boards" to help parents vent frustrations or made referrals to outside agencies.

Several programs in the fatherhood demonstration offered serviced intended to improve couple relationships or co-parenting practices, and staff from three programs reported in the third year that they believed parents’ relationships had benefited from coparenting and couples counseling services. Mothers and fathers in one program that provided such services attributed improvements in their relationships to those activities. One father noted that "the psychological therapy sessions the program offers are very helpful. . . . They get us both together and advise us as a couple. Thanks to the program, my relationship has improved a lot and we’re moving forward."

Staff reports on individual fathers do not indicate widespread improvement in fathers’ relationships with mothers, however (see Table IV.2). Although nearly all fathers who participated in Early Head Start in the past six months were reported to have very friendly or somewhat friendly relationships with their child’s mother, the percentage with very friendly relationships declined significantly between years 2 and 3, from 71 to 63 percent.¹ Among fathers who participated in both years, a similar decline was evident. In addition, the percentage of fathers reported to have somewhat hostile relationships with their child’s mother increased, with a larger (though not statistically significant) increase among fathers who participated in both years. These shifts could be due to genuine changes in fathers’ relationships with mothers, but they may also reflect staff members’ greater familiarity with the circumstances in families that participated over a longer period.

RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

Although the ultimate goal of father involvement is improvement in children’s wellbeing, gauging the results of the fatherhood demonstration for children is difficult, given the design of our evaluation. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that children did experience some benefits because of the demonstration.

Staff and Parents Believe Children Had More Opportunities to Interact with Fathers and Other Male Role Models

In telephone interviews, staff from nearly half the programs commented that children probably are interacting more with men inside and outside the program. During site visits, teachers in some programs reported seeing more men in classrooms and attending activities. Some mothers also mentioned changes in the level of interaction between fathers and children. "Ever since my husband has participated," one mother explained, "and my son sees him in the center, picking him up and . . . talking with the teachers and shar[ing] information with the other fathers, my son now tells me that he wants Daddy to pick him up. . . . I feel that now there’s more communication between my son and his father." Another mother felt that her child was "more attached with his father. He plays with him more. He is attached to me but also with his father."

Some staff members and parents commented that the presence of men in Early Head Start, including fatherhood staff, has provided positive male role models for children with or without involved fathers. Staff in one program also highlighted the benefit of cultural activities the fatherhood coordinator provides, which show men demonstrating respect for tradition.

Staff and Mothers Reported That Father Involvement Was Exciting for Children

Finally, staff and mothers often observed that children were visibly excited to have men taking part in Early Head Start activities. Teachers in several programs noted that children were enthusiastic when fathers were present and that men brought a new energy to their classrooms. A few mothers believed that the involvement of fathers had enhanced their children’s feelings of self-worth. "It’s like [my son] feels prouder because both of us went [to Early Head Start]," one mother affirmed. "He feels prouder because his dad pays more attention to him." In the current evaluation, it was not possible to determine whether such changes actually occurred. Future research may examine whether fathers’ involvement in Early Head Start does, indeed, improve children’s confidence levels.

• ¹We emphasize that we did not collect data on mother-father relationships in families where fathers did not participate in Early Head Start. Relationship quality in families with nonparticipating fathers may differ substantially., [back]

Early Head Start staff and participating fathers felt that the demonstration brought about important changes for programs, families, and children, and many programs expressed a desire to sustain father involvement efforts beyond the grant period. However, program staff also noted that one of the greatest challenges they faced toward the end of the demonstration was determining whether and how to maintain services without the additional funding provided by ACYF. In this chapter, we describe programs’ plans and strategies for sustaining their fatherhood projects. It appears that maintaining successful projects requires committed leadership, sufficient resources, staff buy-in, ongoing staff training, and long-term planning.

APPROACHES TO SUSTAINING FATHERHOOD SERVICES

Planning for the end of the grant period was not easy for most of the demonstration programs. At the time of our telephone calls with programs, about one month remained before the grants ended. While some of the grantees appeared to have made substantial progress in charting their next steps, others had not settled on future plans for work with fathers. In this section, we discuss the demonstration programs’ approaches to continuing or restructuring their fatherhood services. Their activities included seeking additional funds to support their efforts to serve fathers, adjusting their staffing structures, reorganizing their service offerings, and modifying relationships with local child support agencies.

Half the Demonstration Programs Sought New Funding for Services

Finding additional funds to support fatherhood services was a major concern for nearly all the demonstration programs. The Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate that all Early Head Start programs involve parents, both mothers and fathers, in their programs. However, historically most programs have focused heavily on serving primary caregivers, typically mothers, while overlooking fathers. The additional resources offered through the demonstration grant provided for staff time to reach out to fathers and develop services to meet their needs. Moreover, when awarding the demonstration grants, ACYF specified that all grantees were required to hire a staff person dedicated to working with fathers. With the conclusion of the grant period, programs needed to decide whether to retain fatherhood staff and, if so, how to fund their compensation. In addition, many programs created new services for fathers throughout the course of the demonstration. These services often required resources—for example, curricula, videos, craft supplies, and refreshments—whose costs were covered through the demonstration grant.

At the time of our telephone calls, slightly more than half the programs had applied for additional funding to support their fatherhood programs. Overall, programs expressed frustration at the lack of state and federal funding available specifically for fatherhood services. To compensate, some sought funding from non-government sources such as local companies and private foundations. In addition, programs began seeking resources that were not specifically targeted at increasing father involvement in Early Head Start but were related in some way to that effort. These included initiatives on children’s literacy, child support, Early Head Start innovation, job training and education services, substance abuse prevention or treatment, and healthy marriage. Programs that sought these funds hoped to tailor their existing fatherhood projects to accommodate the goals of any new funding they received.

At the time of our site visits and phone calls, some programs were still waiting to hear whether their proposals had been accepted, and only four reported actual success in receiving new funds. These programs won grants ranging from $40,000 to $1.7 million. Sources for this funding included the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services— specifically, the Office of Community Services within the Administration for Children and Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)— as well as a state-level agency. The grants funded such activities as targeted outreach to nonresident fathers and preventive mental health services for families with young children.

In response to their lack of success in securing additional funding, some programs chose to tap into their existing Early Head Start budgets to preserve their fatherhood services. As discussed below, directors chose to reallocate their budgets to add new salary line-items for fatherhood staff or shifted fatherhood staff into vacant or new positions within the traditional Early Head Start structure.

Plans for Fatherhood Staff Included Maintaining Current Structures, Combining Fatherhood Duties with Other Roles, and Layoffs

About two-thirds of the demonstration programs had developed concrete plans for sustaining their current fatherhood staff within their agencies. These plans involved one of two main strategies: (1) maintaining fatherhood staff in their current positions; and (2) shifting fatherhood staff into other positions within Early Head Start, with the expectation that they would continue to spend some time serving fathers. Figure V.1 summarizes the demonstration programs’ plans for fatherhood staff once the grant period ended.

Figure V.I. Programs' Plans for Fatherhood Staff After the Demonstration Ends

Source: Telephone Interviews with Early Head Start Staff.

Nine of the 21 programs planned to maintain their current fatherhood staffing structure. Fatherhood staff in these programs would keep their present titles and continue their current responsibilities for work with fathers. The fatherhood staff member in one program expected his focus to shift slightly to substance abuse issues because of the funding source (SAMHSA) that will now pay his salary. Another program did not employ a fatherhood coordinator but expected the parent involvement manager to continue spending a portion of her time on father involvement work. Three programs that did not receive sufficient additional funding for father involvement reallocated their Early Head Start budgets to accommodate fatherhood staff salaries through the summer of 2004. However, these programs were uncertain whether they would receive approval to maintain these staff salaries as specific line items within their Early Head Start budgets for fiscal year 2004-2005.

Another five programs were not able to support full-time fatherhood staff without the dedicated demonstration funds, but they reorganized by shifting fatherhood staff into other existing staff positions within Early Head Start. This move often resulted in a change in the types of responsibilities that fatherhood staff have within the program. For example, one program shifted the male involvement specialist into a home visitor role, allowing him to spend 20 to 25 percent of his time on father activities and the rest on traditional homevisiting work. Two programs planned to shift their fatherhood staff into traditional parent involvement roles that involve work with both mothers and fathers. Another program planned to shift three of its four fatherhood staff into other positions within the agency but were uncertain at the time of our discussion what roles they would eventually assume.

The remaining one-third of programs had developed temporary solutions to adjust their staffing or planned to eliminate their fatherhood staff altogether. At the time of our calls, four programs, because of the possibility that funding would not be forthcoming, were uncertain whether they would be able to maintain their current fatherhood staff. All were still waiting to hear about grant applications that would determine whether funding was available to support those staff. One program had shifted its two full-time fatherhood staff members into on-call positions so the program could pass work to them as it became available without having to hold their full salaries on their accounting books. Another three programs were planning lay off fatherhood staff altogether. Two of the three programs applied for a range of funding sources to support the staff but did not receive any requested funds. Because of the remaining program’s organizational agreement with its sponsoring agency, it was not able to apply for funds.

Most Programs Planned to Change the Focus or Intensity of Fatherhood Services

Plans for continuing fatherhood services varied among the demonstration programs. Only six hoped to continue their dedicated fatherhood services without alteration after the end of the demonstration. All six planned to keep their existing fatherhood staffing structure, facilitating the continuation of services.

The rest of the programs intended either to shift the focus or intensity of services or to cut their fatherhood program entirely as a result of lack of funding. Five programs planned to integrate their fatherhood services into the overall Early Head Start structure. This process generally involved a gradual evolution from dedicated fatherhood activities to infusing a fatherhood focus throughout all services. Staff in these programs believed that offering father-only services throughout the demonstration had helped to develop a core group of fathers that had not participated before. As the grant period ended, they felt it appropriate to shift their focus from providing unique services for men to offering services for the entire family unit, including fathers. This transition involved ensuring that fathers were actively invited and encouraged to attend family activities as well as parenting classes, child development services, and policy council.

The remaining eight programs planned to cut back some services or reduce the intensity of father recruitment as a result of the loss of dedicated funding. All of them planned to maintain some level of father activities but expected the level of their focus on fathers to diminish because of necessary shifts in fatherhood staffing and lack of money for special activities. Most of them had hoped to continue their services without interruption but could not identify sufficient resources to accomplish that goal. Two programs intended to end fatherhood services entirely; they had also decided to lay off their existing fatherhood staff.

Two-Thirds of Programs Intended to Continue Partnerships with Offices of Child Support Enforcement

The final consideration related to sustainability focused on whether programs would maintain partnerships with local OCSEs. Almost two-thirds of programs believed their collaborations with OCSE were productive and planned to continue facilitating cross-agency work with fathers. Since this work focused heavily on information exchange and involved only a fraction of families served by their programs, most programs reported that these collaborations did not require a substantial amount of resources or staff time to maintain. One additional program planned to maintain its relationship with a third-party organization that offers legal assistance to fathers.

The remaining programs were less likely to continue working with their local OCSE. Staff in these programs commented that their relationships with child support agencies were not cost-effective or were limited in their usefulness. Four programs reported that they rarely encountered fathers with child support issues. As a result, they planned to have only intermittent contact with their local OCSE. The other four programs did not plan to continue their collaborations at all, as their directors felt either that the collaborations were too difficult to maintain or that the two agencies had incompatible goals.

FACTORS INFLUENCING SUSTAINABILITY

Program staff highlighted several factors that appeared to influence their ability to maintain meaningful services for men, including (1) strong and supportive leadership, (2) innovative grant-seeking and resourceful budgeting, (3) staff collaboration, and (4) structured planning.

Leadership. First, strong administrative leadership and support are critical for focusing attention on fathers, garnering staff cooperation at all levels, and maintaining this emphasis over time. Because of their lack of experience serving fathers, many of the demonstration programs needed institutional change to create father-friendly environments. Such changes are not possible and cannot be maintained without the ongoing commitment of upper-level management. The director of one program noted that the leadership of her agency had incorporated father involvement as an agencywide goal, creating a supportive environment for continuing to engage fathers.

Resource Development. Second, programs had to think creatively to build resources to fund their fatherhood initiatives. Several programs adjusted their finances to set aside funding needed to maintain fatherhood services. After identifying fathers as a priority, these programs reallocated funds from within their existing Early Head Start budgets to accommodate fatherhood staff salaries and father activities. Nevertheless, supplemental funding was important for many programs to afford staff focused on fathers. As discussed earlier, programs that raised additional funding in some cases tapped sources that were not specifically targeted to fatherhood initiatives.

Staff Support. The level of enthusiasm among program staff for involving fathers in Early Head Start services was a third factor behind programs’ efforts to sustain demonstration projects. Garnering staff acceptance required training, for both existing and new staff, to communicate the importance of father involvement and provide the tools needed to serve fathers effectively. Training also helped staff better understand the changing needs of fathers in their programs and adapt their work to meet those needs. In programs where this training was effective, staff at all levels built a commitment to serving fathers that provided momentum for continuing services.

Structured Planning. Finally, structured planning appeared to increase the likelihood that programs would sustain fatherhood services. Some of the demonstration programs began to lay the foundation for continuing services well before the end of the grant period. In one program, fatherhood staff worked with Early Head Start fathers and other agencies during the second two years of the demonstration to develop plans for a "fatherhood and families collaborative" that would serve fathers throughout the community and provide training and technical assistance for fatherhood professionals. The program hoped that this center would draw the additional funding and community support necessary to maintain and expand the fatherhood project. Another program commissioned a local research project to assess systematically the effects of the fatherhood project on the amount of time fathers spent with their children and on their self-perception as parents. This research was intended to help justify the program’s efforts to continue providing fatherhood services, and to create a strong case for support to present to potential funders.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiences of Early Head Start fatherhood demonstration grantees offer valuable insights to guide policymakers, program administrators, and practitioners as they design and implement new initiatives to increase fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children. In our previous 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. Programs created and implemented numerous new strategies for reaching out to fathers and encouraging their participation in Early Head Start. It appears that with sufficient resources and motivation, programs can indeed 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. Staff frequently noted that the demonstration has raised their awareness about the importance of father involvement for children and the need to take deliberate steps to make programs more father-friendly. Staff in most programs felt that the number of fathers participating in Early Head Start had increased over the course of the demonstration, although there may have been some attrition toward the end of the demonstration’s three years. In addition, staff and fathers provided some evidence that fathers’ confidence in parenting had increased. Finally, although assessing the demonstration’s results for children is difficult, comments from staff and parents indicate that children responded enthusiastically to the chance to participate in activities with fathers and to the presence of more males in Early Head Start programs.
• Fathers’ participation patterns, and the evolution of program strategies, show a trend toward integrating fathers into core Early Head Start services. Nearly all the demonstration programs offered father-only services, such as peer support groups. However, while 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 father-only activities. In fact, according to staff reports, participation in this type of activity declined between the second and third years of the demonstration. 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. This focus on delivering core child and family development services to all family members could be considered one of the key accomplishments of the demonstration.
• 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. Nevertheless, the experiences of these programs, particularly those able to sustain their efforts beyond the grant period, are informative for any Early Head Start agency hoping to make fathers a larger part of the program. Factors that appeared to be important to the future of fatherhood demonstration programs—the level of support from program leaders and staff, the ability to raise additional funds if needed, and the attention given to planning—are also likely to shape the prospects of many other efforts by Early Head Start to enhance fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children.

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Additional research can help address important questions 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. Results from MPR’s national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project showed that Early Head Start had positive impacts in several areas of fathering and father-child interaction (Administration for Children and Families 2002). For example, fathers in Early Head Start were less punitive in discipline and less intrusive in interacting with their children than fathers who were not in Early Head Start. Other research suggests that father involvement in Early Head Start is associated with positive outcomes for children (Roggman et al., 2004). Future studies might build on these findings and those of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration evaluation by addressing such questions as:

• 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 outcomes for children?
• Do outcomes for fathers and children differ depending on the strategies Early Head Start programs use to engage fathers or programs’ overall level of fatherfriendliness?

Answers to these questions will help policymakers and practitioners shape future efforts to increase father involvement in Early Head Start and their children’s lives.

References

Administration for Children and Families. "Building Blocks for Father Involvement:

Building Block 1: Appreciating How Fathers Give Children a Head Start." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 2004a.

Administration for Children and Families. "Child Support Enforcement FY 2003

Preliminary Data Report. Available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/ pubs/2004/reports/preliminary_data/#results]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 2004b.

Administration for Children and Families. "Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and

Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 2002.

Bellotti, Jeanne. "Reaching Out to Fathers: The Early Head Start Fatherhood

Demonstration." Interim report submitted to the Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 2002.

Bellotti, Jeanne, Cheri Vogel, Andrew Burwick, et al. "Dedicated to Dads: Lessons from the

Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration." Report submitted to the Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 2003 (revised March 2004).

Green, Stephen. "Reaching Out to Fathers: An Examination of Efforts That Lead to

Greater Father Involvement in Early Childhood Programs." Early Childhood Research and Practice, vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2003.

Hart, Katherine, and Rachel Schumacher. "Moving Forward: Head Start Children, Families,

and Programs in 2003." Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, June 2004.

Raikes, Helen, Kimberly Boller, Welmoet van Kammen, et al. "Father Involvement in Early

Head Start Programs: A Practitioners Study." Report submitted to the Ford Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., September 2002.

Roggman, Lori A., Lisa K. Boyce, Gina A. Cook, et al. "Playing with Daddy: Social Toy

Play, Early Head Start, and Developmental Outcomes." Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, vol. 2, no. 1, Winter 2004, pp. 83-109.

Vogel, Cheri, Kimberly Boller, Jennifer Faerber, et al. "Understanding Fathering: The Early

Head Start Study of Fathers of Newborns." Report submitted to the Ford Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 2003.

This survey is a critical element of the Early Head Start Fatherhood Demonstration Evaluation your program is participating in.

The goals of this survey are to learn what Early Head Start programs are doing to involve fathers in their services. Your responses will be confidential. We will never report on your individual answers and will only report on findings from the survey by combining answers of respondents.

• Either a pen or pencil may be used.
• When answering questions that require marking a box or a circle, please use an "X".
• Boxes ! are used when you can only mark one response to the question. Circles ! are used when more than one response can be marked.
• If you need to change an answer, please make sure that your old answer is either completely erased or clearly crossed out.
• Follow all "SKIP" instructions AFTER marking a box. If no "SKIP" instruction is provided, you should continue to the NEXT question.

CHILD ID: _____________

DATE: _______________

FATHER/FATHER FIGURE INFORMATION FORM

1. Child’s First Name: ______________ Last Name:  ________________

2. Child’s Gender:

1 Male
2 Female

3. Child’s Birthday: ________________

4a. Is Child considered to be Hispanic or Latino such as Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin?

1 Yes
0 No

4b. Child’s Race/Ethnicity: CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

1 White
2 Black or African American
3 American Indian or Native Alaskan
4 Asian
5 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

5. Date Child Entered the Program: ________________

6. Father/Father Figures in Child’s Life?

1 Yes ? Continue to 6a
0 No ? Stop

6a.

Father 1

Child’s Biological Father?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Living with Child?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Married to Child’s Mother?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Participated in the Program in Past Six Months?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Father 2

Child’s Biological Father?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Living with Child?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Married to Child’s Mother?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Participated in the Program in Past Six Months?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Father 3

Child’s Biological Father?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Living with Child?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Married to Child’s Mother?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Participated in the Program in Past Six Months?

1 Yes
0 No
d Don’t Know

Complete remainder of form for each father/father figure who participated in program in past six months.

CHILD ID NUMBER : __________ FATHER #: __________________

7. Father’s First Name: ______________ Last Name: ______________

8. Father’s Birthday: ________________________

9a. Is Father considered to be Hispanic or Latino such as Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin?

1 Yes
0 No

 9b. Father’s Race/Ethnicity: CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

1 White
2 Black or African American
3 American Indian or Native Alaskan
4 Asian
5 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

10. Father Completed High School/GED?

1 Yes
0 No

11. Date Father Entered EHS Program: __________________

12. Father Still in EHS Program?

1 Yes
0 No

 13. (IF NO) Date Father Left EHS Program: __________________

14. Father Currently Employed?

1 Yes
0 No

 15. Father’s Current Welfare Status: CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

1 TANF

2 Medical assistance (i.e., Medicaid/Medicare)

3 Food stamps

4 Unemployment insurance

5 Public housing assistance

CHILD ID NUMBER: ____________FATHER #: __________________

16. Father’s Report on Relationship with Other Parent:

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

1 Very friendly

2 Somewhat friendly

3  Neutral

4  Somewhat hostile

5  Very hostile

6  No relationship

17. Father’s Current Satisfaction with Usual Amount of Time Spent with Child:

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

1  Very satisfied

2  Somewhat satisfied

3  Somewhat dissatisfied

4  Very dissatisfied

18. Father’s Current Barriers to Being Involved with Child:

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

0 No barriers

1 Custody issues

2 Restraining order

3 Alcohol and/or drug use

4 Problems with anger

5 Domestic violence

6 Mental health problems

7 Other (Specify ): _______________________________

19. Father’s Current Challenges to Finding and Keeping a Job:

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

0 No challenges

1 No valid driver’s license

2 No photo ID

3 No social security number

4 No birth certificate

5 No access to reliable transportation

6 No permanent place to live

7 Health problems or disabilities

8 Problems with alcohol/drugs

9 Trouble reading or writing

10 Problems speaking English

11 Lack of a green card

12 Lack of child care

13 Other (Specify): ____________________

CHILD ID NUMBER : ____________ FATHER #: __________________

20. Father Currently Paying Child Support?

1 Yes
0 No

20. In the past six months did Father participate in any of the following services or activities provided by the program? Use "NA" if Your Program Does Not Provide the Service

(IF YES)Number of Times Attended Past 6 Months

1. Education services 1 Yes 0 No n NA

2. Employment services 1 Yes 0 No n NA

3. Parenting services 1 Yes 0 No n NA 0 No n NA

5. Activities in child’s classroom/teacher conferences 1 Yes 0 No n NA

6. Family activities such as outings picnics 1 Yes 0 No n NA

7. Father-Child activities 1 Yes 0 No n NA

8. Father-Only activities 11 Yes 0 No n NA

9. Child support meetings/workshops 1 ! Yes 0 ! No n ! NA

10 Policy council 1 Yes 0 No n NA

11 Any other services? (Specify What Kind?) 1 Yes 0 No n NA _____________________________________

Please repeat questions 7-20 for all of the child’s other fathers or father figures participating in the program.