Louisiana Head Start State Collab Office Needs Assessment Report (2010)

8/14/2019 Louisiana Head Start State Collab Office Needs Assessment Report (2010)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/louisiana-head-start-state-collab-office-needs-assessment-report-2010 1/97

Louisiana Head StartStateCollaboration Project

2008-2009 Needs Assessment Report

November 2009

prepared by

The Block Marketing & Consulting LLC

for

The Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration ProjectState of Louisiana Department of Social Services



Foreword and Acknowledgements

This report, The 2008-2009 Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project Needs Assessment, presents findings from a comprehensive assessment of Head Start program staff and directors performed by the Louisiana Head StartState Collaboration Project representing Head Start Programs in Louisiana for the service year of 2008-2009. This report and recommendations have beenprepared by The Block Marketing and Consulting LLC using data provided by theLouisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project.

The purpose of the assessment was to compile data from nine key activity areasin order to support the direction and inform the activities of the Head Start StateCollaboration Office’s Annually Revised Strategic Plan for the Head Start State

Collaboration Office in the State of Louisiana. The nine key activity areas thathave been examined are:

1) Health Care2) Children Experiencing Homelessness3) Welfare and Child Welfare4) Child Care5) Family Literacy Services6) Services for Children with Disabilities7) Community Services8) Education

a. Partnerships with Local Education Agenciesb. Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12

9) Professional Development

Publication Date:November 2009

Prepared for:Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration ProjectKahree Wahid, Director State of Louisiana Department of Social Services

Authors:Jason Thompson Ahmad Thompson Saddi Thompson

State of Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project Needs Assessment

2



Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project

2008-2009 Needs Assessment ReportTable of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………4

Overview of Head Start Program……………………...………………………….5

Summary of Louisiana Head Start Programs………………………………...…5

Study Objectives………….…………………………….……………………...…10

Survey Instruments and Methodology…..…………..……….…………...........10

Assessment Results………………………………………….…………...………….11

Health Care……………………………………………….…………...…………...13

Services for Children Experiencing Homelessness……………………….…...24

Welfare and Child Welfare……………………………...……………..……….…32

Child Care………………………………………………..………………………....41

Family Literacy Services………………………….……………………..………...47

Services for Children with Disabilities………………….………………………...57

Community Services…………………………………………………..……..........67

Partnerships with Local Education Agencies…………..…………....……….…75

Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12...……..……………..………....81

Professional Development…………………….………….……………..………...89

Experiences with the QRS System……………………….…………..…….........97

Experiences with the Bureau of Licensing….………………………....…………97

Experiences with the Local Public School Entity...…………….……..………....98


3



Experiences with Pathways…….........………….………………..……..………...99

Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project

2008-2009 Needs Assessment ReportTable of Contents

Program Perspective: Changes in the State of Louisiana……..…….………...99

Trends and Implications……………………………………………………...……...101

Recommendations…………………………………………..…………….………....108

Appendix……………...……………………………………..…………..…………....109


4



Introduction

Overview of Head Start Program

Head Start is a “national program that promotes school readiness by enhancingthe social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children andfamilies.” This federal program provides grants to local agencies, both public andprivate non-profit, who in turn provide services to economically disadvantagedchildren from birth to age five, expectant mothers and families.(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/)

Head Start services are provided at no cost to eligible families. At least ninety

percent (90%) of children enrolled in Head Start programs must meet federalincome guidelines (see Appendix for Federal Income Guidelines Table). Tenpercent of a program’s enrollment opportunities must be made available tochildren with disabilities. Services are delivered in a various ways, including butnot limited to center-based, home-based, and childcare and public schoolpartnerships or a combination.

The Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project (LHSSCP) was started in1997 under the Federal Head Start Act and is under the administration of theState of Louisiana Department of Social Service and is directed by KahreeWahid. The goal of the LHSSCP is to create and offer support to statewidepartnerships among Head Start program, child care programs and public schoolpre-kindergarten programs.

The LHSSCP embraces the principle of serving the whole family as the keystrategy for improving developmental, social and economic conditions for low-income children. The identification of gaps and overlaps in service delivery tolow-income families and the recommendation of strategies that result in improvedaccess, delivery and coordination of services for families with young children arealso primary functions of the LHSSCP. The LHSSCP is charged to developinitiatives in eight priority areas: education, child care, health care, welfare, familyliteracy, national service activities, homelessness, and children with disabilities.

Summary of Louisiana Head Start Programs

According to most recent available data (2006-2007 Program InformationReport), Louisiana maintains a Head Start funded enrollment of more than22,000 children. Louisiana has a total of 43 Head Start Programs and Early HeadStart Programs that cover the State’s 64 Parishes. Detailed information on theseprograms is included in Table 1. A map (Figure 1) of the State of Louisiana is


5



also included to display the service areas of some of the programs listed in Table1.

Ages of Louisiana children participating Head Start and Early Head Startprograms range from infant to five years and older. Table 2 shows the age

distribution of all children according to the most recent PIR data.

Table 1. Head Start Programs in the State of Louisiana

Program/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Acadia Parish School BoardCrowley, LAHead Start


Allen Action Agency, Inc.Oberlin, LAHead Start

Program/Grantee:

Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Ascension Public School Board

Donaldsonville, LAHead StartProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Assumption Parish School BoardNapoleonville, LAHead Start


Avoyelles Progress Action CommitteeMarksville, LAHead Start


BeauCARE, Inc.DeRidder, LAHead Start


Bossier Office of Community ServicesBossier City, LABoth


Caddo Parish CommissionShreveport, LABoth


Calcasieu School BoardLake Charles, LAHead Start

Program/Grantee:Location:

Head Start/Early Head Start:

CDCAI/St. Landry Parish Head StartHackberry, LA

BothProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

CDI/Jefferson Davis Parish, LAJennings, LAHead Start


Cenla Community Action Committee, Inc.Alexandria, LABoth

Program/Grantee: City of Baton Rouge


6




Baton Rouge, LAHead Start



Delta Community Action Association, Inc.Tallula, LA

Head StartProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Evangeline Community Action Agency Head StartVille Platte, LAHead Start


Franklin Parish School Board – Head StartWinnsboro, LAHead Start


Iberville Parish Council Head Start ProgramPlaquemine, LAHead Start

Program/Grantee:


Jefferson Community Action Program

Harahan, LAHead StartProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Lafourche Parish Head StartThibodaux, LAHead Start


LaSalle Community Action Association, Inc.Harrisonburg, LAHead Start


Lincoln Head Start Child Development ProgramRuston, LAHead Start


Morehouse Community Improvement Organization, Inc.Bastrop, LAHead Start


Natchitoches Parish Police JuryNatchitoches, LAHead Start


Ouachita Multi-Purpose Community Action ProgramMonroe, LAHead Start


Pine Belt Multi-Purpose Agency, Inc.Jonesboro, LAHead Start


Plaquemines Parish Public Schools Head StartBelle Chasse, LAHead Start


Pointe Coupee Parish School DistrictNew Roads, LAHead Start

Program/Grantee: Quad Area Community Action Agency


7




Hammond, LAHead Start



Regina Coeli Child Development Center Robert, LA

BothProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

Sabine Parish School Board Head StartMany, LAHead Start


SMILE Community Action Agency’s Head Start ProgramLafayette, LABoth


St. Bernard Parish School BoardChalmette, LAHead Start

Program/Grantee:


St. Charles Parish Public Schools

Luling, LABothProgram/Grantee:Location:Head Start/Early Head Start:

St. James ParishConvent, LAHead Start


St. John The Baptist Parish School BoardReserve, LAHead Start


Terrebonne Parish Consolidated GovernmentFranklin, LAHead Start


Total Community Action, Inc.New Orleans, LABoth


Vernon Parish School DistrictLeesville, LAHead Start


Volunteers of America, North LouisianaShreveport, LAEarly Head Start


Webster Parish Police Jury Office of Community ServiceMinden, LAHead Start


West Baton Rouge Parish School BoardPort Allen, LAHead Start


West Feliciana Parish School BoardSt. Francisville, LABoth

Program/Grantee: YWCA Early Head Start


8




Baton Rouge, LAEarly Head Start

Source: Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project Table 2. Louisiana Head Start Programs by Age Group

Age Group Number of Children Percentage of Enrolled Children

Under 1 Year 243 1.07%1 Year Old 388 1.71%

2 Years Old 641 2.82%

3 Years Old 11,098 48.87%

4 Years Old 10,154 44.72%

5 Years and Older 184 0.81%

Total 22,708 100%

Source: Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project: ‘06-‘07 PIR

Figure 1: State of Louisiana Parish Map


9



Study Objectives

The purpose of this needs assessment was to collect data from Head Startprogram management staff and directors in order to determine how the LHSSCPcan assist Head Start programs in Louisiana to more efficiently and effectivelyserve children and families. This assessment is in response to changes inFederal statute P.L. 100-134 entitled Improving Head Start for School Readinessand aligns with collaborative efforts of the National Office of Head Start.

The goals of this assessment project were to gain current and relevant feedbackfrom Head Start grantees and stakeholders, assess perception of past work andprovide guidance for future collaboration efforts. The evaluation activitiesincluded a review and analysis of relevant data and reports and a survey

concerning partnerships, Head Start and Early Head Start involvement in stateplanning and policies and systems development efforts and recommendations for future growth.

The assessment examined nine key activity areas. These areas are:

1) Health Care2) Children Experiencing Homelessness3) Welfare and Child Welfare4) Child Care5) Family Literacy Services

6) Services for Children with Disabilities7) Community Services8) Education

a. Partnerships with Local Education Agenciesb. Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12

9) Professional Development

Survey Instruments and Methodology

Separate surveys were developed for each of the nine activity areas notedabove. The survey covers three parts (sections) for each activity area. Thissection will provide an overview of the three part survey instrument and themethods used to collect data.

Part 1In this section respondents or asked to rate the extent of their involvement withvarious service providers and organizations related to the content area during thepast 12 months. If the respondent has different relationships with differentproviders and organizations in a category, respondents were asked to check the


10



option that “best describes” their relationship with most of them. This part usesthe following 4-point Likert Scale and definitions to reflect the respondent’sprogress in relationship building at this point in time.

No WorkingRelationship

(little/nocontact)

Cooperation

(exchangeinfo/referrals

)

Coordination

(worktogether)

Collaboration

(shareresources/

agreements)

Definitions

No working relationship. You have little or no contact with each other (i.e.; you do not: make/receive referrals, work together on projects/activities, shareinformation, etc.) No working relationship represents no involvement between theHead Start agency and the various providers or organizations. The twoorganizations do not make referrals, do not work together on projects or activitiesand do not share information.

Cooperation. You exchange information. This includes making and receiving referrals, even when you serve the same families. Cooperation represents thelowest level of involvement, in which the Head Start agency exchangesinformation with the various providers or organizations.

Coordination. You work together on projects or activities. Examples: parentsfrom the service providers’ agency are invited to your parent education night; theservice provider offers health screenings for the children at your site.Coordination represents a moderate level of involvement, in which the Head Start agency works together on projects or activities with the various providers or organizations. Collaboration: You share resources and/are have formal, written agreements.Examples; co-funded staff or building costs; joint grant funding for a new initiative; an MOU on transition, etc. Collaboration represents the greatest level

of involvement, in which the Head Start agency shares resources and/or hasformal, written agreements with the various providers or organizations.

Part 2In this section respondents were asked to indicate the level of difficulty their program has had engaging in each of a variety of activities and partnershipsduring the past 12 months (check one rating for each). If the respondent has haddifferent relationships with different providers and organizations in a category,


11



they were asked to check the option that “best describes” their relationship withmost of them. A 4-point scale of difficulty was provided, ranging from “Not At AllDifficult” to “Extremely Difficult,” as shown below. The purpose of this part was toassist respondents in identifying challenges they may be experiencing in buildingsuccessful partnerships at the local and state levels to support the delivery of

quality education and comprehensive services to their children and families.

Part 3This section of the survey includes two open-ended questions located at the endof each of the nine content areas of the survey instrument. The first open-endedquestion gave respondents the opportunity to document any remaining concernsthat were not covered in the survey. “What, if any, other issues do you have

regarding (content area) children and families in your program? Pleasedescribe.”

The second question gave respondents the opportunity to document what isworking well in their program, and to indicate any successful strategies andactivities might be helpful to other programs.

“In your efforts to address the (content area) needs of the children andfamilies in your program, what is working well? Which of these efforts doyou think might be helpful to other programs?”

Respondents were informed that the LHSSCP would aggregate the surveyfindings of participating Head Start agencies and key stakeholders in the state,develop a strategic plan, and make copies for public review (Head Start RegionalOffice, the Louisiana Head Start Association, the Office of Head Start and thegeneral public).

All data was provided to The Block Marketing and Consulting LLC. Percentagesfound in this report differ slightly from the data collected by LHSSCP becausenon-responses were included in the analysis performed by The Block Marketingand Consulting LLC.


12

Not at All Difficult Somewhat Difficult Difficult ExtremelyDifficult



HEALTH CARE

The Health Care section of the assessment was structured to explore the typesof working relationships that currently exist between Head Start programs andcommunity, local and regional agencies and organizations that specialize inproviding health care services to eligible children and families. Health careservices that were addressed in this assessment include full medical, dental,mental health, preventive health, nutrition and dietary, health education, andphysical fitness and obesity prevention.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to work with other organizations, agencies and healthcare professionals to provide health care and health care screenings, enroll

children in CHIP or Medicaid, arrange coordinated services for children withspecial health care needs, assist families to get transportation to appointments,share or exchange information, resources and data on children and families thatare jointly served, and similar issues

WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Medical Home ProvidersAccording to the data collected during the assessment, most Head Startprograms (37%) indicated sharing resources and/or having a formal writtenagreement with an organization, agency or medical professional that providescomprehensive, coordinated care for eligible children and families. More thanone-third of the programs (34%) reported having a working relationship thatconsisted of coordinating with medical home providers on related projects andactivities. Significantly fewer programs (21%) indicated having a workingrelationship that consisted of exchanging information and providing referrals withsuch organizations, agencies and medical professionals. Only two programsindicated having no working relationship with a medical home provider. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Dental Home Providers for Treatment and CareMost programs (39%) indicated having a collaborative working relationship withan organization, agency or dental professional that provides comprehensive,coordinated dental care for children and families. Nearly one-third of theprograms (32%) reported having a coordinative working relationship with such anentity. The remaining 29% of the programs indicated having a cooperativeworking relationship with a comprehensive dental care provider. One program didnot respond to this item.

State Agencies Providing Mental Health Prevention and Treatment Services


13



Nearly 30% of the programs indicated having a moderate level of involvementwith state agencies that provide mental health prevention and treatment services.Fewer programs (26%) reported having a high level of involvement with statemental health prevention and treatment service agencies. Statistically significantdifferences included the nearly 24% of programs that indicated having no

working relationship with a state mental health agency, and the fewer than 15%of programs reported having a low level of involvement with such an agency.Three programs did not respond to this item.

Local Agencies Providing Mental Health Prevention and TreatmentMore than one-third of the programs (36%) indicated having a collaborativeworking relationship with a local agency that provides mental health preventionand treatment. There was more than a 10% percent difference between theprograms reporting collaborative working relationships and the programsreporting a coordinative working relationship (24%) with local agencies providingmental health prevention and treatment. An even larger difference was found

between programs with collaborative working relationships and those withcooperative working relationship (21%). More than 13% of the programsreported having no working relationship with such an agency. Two programs didnot respond to this item.

Agencies or Programs that Conduct Mental Health ScreeningsMore than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated having a high level of involvement with an agency or program that conducts mental health preventionand treatment, and about 29% of the programs indicated having a moderate levelof involvement. Slightly less than one-fifth of the programs (18%) indicatedhaving a low level of involvement with an agency providing these services.Approximately 13% of programs indicated having no working relationship withsuch an agency. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Women, Infants and ChildrenSlightly less than one-third of the programs (32%) indicated having acollaborative working relationship with Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).Nearly 29% of the programs reported having a cooperative working relationshipwith this agency. More than a 10% difference exists between the percentage of programs that reported having a coordinative working relationship with WIC(21%) and the percentage of programs that reported having a collaborativerelationship. About 16% of the programs reported having no working relationshipwith WIC. One program did not respond to this item.

Other Nutrition ServicesAlmost all of the programs indicated having some type of working relationshipwith cooperative extension programs or university projects that focus on nutritionor nutrition service, and most of these programs (42%) indicated having acollaborative working relationship. An approximate 10% difference was foundbetween the percentage of programs that reported coordinating with these types


14



of programs (32%) and the percentage of programs that reported collaborating.Slightly less than one-fifth of the programs (18%) indicated cooperating withextension programs or universities. Two programs did not respond to this item.Children’s Health Education ProvidersNearly one-third of the programs (32%) indicated having a high level of

involvement with organizations or agencies that provide children’s healtheducation. Slightly fewer than 29% of the programs reported having a low level of involvement with such an organization or agency. An 8% percent difference wasnoted between the programs that indicated having a moderate level of involvement with a children’s health education provider (24%) and the programsthat indicated having a high level of involvement. About 8% of programs reportedhaving no working relationship with such an organization or agency, and twoprograms did not respond to this item.

Parent Health Education ProvidersMore than 60% of the programs indicated having either a cooperative or

coordinative working relationship with a parent health education provider with anequal number of programs reporting each type of relationship. Slightly fewer than30% of the programs reported having a collaborative working relationship withsuch an organization or agency, and about 5% of the programs indicated havingno working relationship with a parent health education provider. One program didnot respond to this item.

Home-visiting ProvidersMost of the programs (47%) indicated having no working relationship with ahome visiting health care provider. A sizeable gap was found between theprograms that reported having no working relationship and those that reportedhaving a cooperative working relationship (24%). Slightly more than one-fifth of the programs (21%) indicated having either a coordinative or collaborativeworking relationship with a home visiting health care provider with an equalnumber of programs reporting each type of relationship. Three programs did notrespond to this item.

Community Health CentersMore than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated having a collaborativerelationship with community health centers. Nearly 30% of the programs reportedhaving a cooperative relationship with community health centers, and slightlymore than one-fourth of the programs (26%) reported having a coordinativerelationship. Only about 5% of the programs indicated having no workingrelationship with community health centers. Two programs did not respond to thisitem.

Public Health ServicesMore than one-third of the programs indicated having either a collaborativeworking relationship (37%) or a coordinative working relationship (34%) withpublic health service agencies. Significantly fewer programs reported having a


15



cooperative working relationship with public health service agencies (21%). Onlyabout 5% of the programs reported having no working relationship. One programdid not respond to this item.Programs and Services Related to Children’s Physical Fitness and ObesityPrevention

More than a third of the programs (34%) indicated having a low level of involvement with programs or services related to children’s physical fitness andobesity prevention, and more than a quarter of the programs (26%) reportedhaving no working relationship with this type of program or service. More thanone-fifth of the programs (21%) reported having a moderate level of involvementwith programs or services related to children’s physical fitness and obesityprevention. Approximately 16% of programs indicated having a high level of involvement with physical fitness and obesity prevention programs for children.One program did not respond to this item.

DIFFICULTY OF SERVICE COORDINATION

Linking Children to Medical HomesA majority of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty linking children tomedical homes in the service area. Approximately 29% of the programs reportedthat this process has been somewhat difficult, and more than 15% of theprograms indicated that linking children to medical homes has been difficult or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Receiving Information from Medical Professionals on Results of LeadScreeningsMore than two-thirds of the programs (68%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty receiving information from medical professionals on results of leadscreenings with most of these programs describing this process as somewhatdifficult. About 29% of the programs reported having no difficulty receivinginformation from medical professionals on results of lead screenings. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Linking Children to Dental Homes that Serve Young ChildrenAn overwhelming majority of the programs (71%) indicated experiencing somelevel of difficulty linking children to dental homes that serve young children withmost of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult. More thanone-fifth of the programs (21%) reported that developing linking children to dentalhomes has not been difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Partnering with Oral Health Professionals on Oral Health-Related IssuesA majority of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty partnering withoral health professionals on oral health-related issues. Nearly 45% of theprograms reported experiencing some level of difficulty with most of theseprograms describing this process as somewhat difficult. One program did notrespond to this item.


16



Getting Children Enrolled in CHIP or MedicaidA majority of the programs (63%) indicated that getting children enrolled in CHIP

or Medicaid has not been difficult. Eighteen percent (18%) of the programsindicated that this process has been somewhat difficult. More than 15% of theprograms reported that getting children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid has beeneither difficult or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Arranging Coordinated Services for Children with Special Health CareNeedsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyarranging coordinated services for children with special health care needs withmost of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult. More than47% of the programs reported having no difficulty arranging these services. One

program did not respond to this item.

Assisting Parents to Communicate Effectively with Medical/DentalProvidersTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyassisting parents to communicate effectively with medical and/or dental providerswith most of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult.Approximately 32% of programs reported having no difficulty assisting parents inthis area. One program did not respond to this item.

Assisting Families to Get Transportation to AppointmentsMore than half of the programs (52%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty assisting families to get transportation to appointment with most of theseprograms describing this process as somewhat difficult. Nearly 45% of theprograms reported having no difficulty in this area. One program did not respondto this item.

Getting Full Representation and Active Commitment on Your HealthAdvisory CommitteeMost of the programs (47%) indicated that getting full representation and activecommitment on their Health Advisory Committee has been somewhat difficult. Anadditional 18% of programs reported that getting full representation on healthadvisory committees has been difficult or extremely difficult. Almost one-third of the programs (32%) indicated that getting full representation with most programsdescribing this process has not been difficult. One program did not respond tothis item.

Sharing Data and Information on Children and Families Served JointlyHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty sharingdata and information on children and families served jointly by the program and


17



other agencies with most of these programs describing the process as somewhatdifficult. Slightly fewer than 40% of the programs reported having no difficultysharing data and information on children and families served jointly. Four programs did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Medical, Dental andOther Providers A vast majority of the programs (71%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty exchanging information on roles and resources with medical, dental, andother health care providers with most of these programs describing this processas somewhat difficult. More than a quarter of the programs (26%) reportedhaving no difficulty exchanging information on roles and resources with theseproviders. Two programs did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships with theState agency providing mental health prevention and treatment services, home-visiting providers and programs related to children’s physical fitness and obesityprevention. Programs have had the most difficulty receiving information frommedical professionals on results of lead screenings, partnering with medicalprofessionals on health-related issues, linking children to dental homes andassisting families to receive dental care every six months.

Multiple programs cited an insufficient number of pediatric dentists in their service area as barrier to addressing the health care needs of children andfamilies. This particular barrier exists because dentists inside of the service areanot accepting Medicaid and post-Katrina oral health care provider shortages.Many programs stated that making sure parents follow through on recommendedmedical or dental care, follow preventive measures or transport children toscheduled appointments has been a difficult task.

Some program responses were:

• There [are] not enough pediatric dentists that accept Medicaid in somegeographic areas.

• The main issue is making sure the parent[s] keep the appointments thatare made. If they do not keep the appointments, doctors are reluctant to

reschedule.• Health care providers are not providing all required screening or test

results.

• We need more local [providers that accept Medicaid] for both dental andmedical services, [so] our parents would not have to travel an hour or more for their [health care] needs to be met.

• There are no mental health programs within the community and [minimal]mental health services in the surrounding parishes that can provide further


18



assistance to the families. Also, Head Start families do not typically qualifyfor the services provided by the state mental health agency because[these families] are not at the state of homicidal or suicidal [which wouldallow them] to receive an appointment in a timely manner.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships withmedical home providers, dental home providers for treatment and care, and other nutrition services. Programs have also experienced a significant level of successgetting children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid.

Arranging on-site screening services and dental visits has worked well for someprograms because it eliminates the need for transportation to screenings andfollow-up visits. Participation in the meetings of other agencies and hostingmeetings that attract health care providers was cited as an effective way to buildsustainable working relationships.

Communicating the necessity of proper dental and medical care throughworkshops and meetings to parents and setting goals in obtaining health carewith parents increases the likelihood that parents follow through with scheduledappointments and take an active role in preventive and urgent care.

Assessing the health insurance needs of a family upon enrollment and guidingparents through the process of obtaining health insurance through CHIP,Medicaid or other public and private programs has helped to ensure familiesunderstand what type of coverage best suits the needs of their children and howto access that coverage.


19



CC


20



SERVICESFOR CHILDRENEXPERIENCINGHOMELESSNESS


21



This section of the assessment was structured to explore the types of workingrelationships that currently exist between Head Start programs and local andfederal agencies and organizations that provide services to children and familiesexperiencing homelessness.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to align the Head Start program definition of homelessness with the federal McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness,implement policies and procedures to make sure children experiencinghomelessness are prioritized for enrollment, ensure families experiencinghomelessness can enroll children while trying to obtain required documents,obtaining sufficient data on the needs of homeless children and families for thecommunity assessment, engaging community partners in staff cross training andplanning activities and developing and coordinating outreach, support andtransition planning for families experiencing homelessness.


Local McKinney-Vento LiaisonAccording to the data collected during the assessment, most programs (45%)indicated having no working relationship with the local McKinney-Vento Liaisonsin their service area. More than one-fifth of the programs (21%) reported having acooperative working relationship with McKinney-Vento Liaisons. Nearly one-thirdof the programs (32%) of the programs indicated having a coordinative or collaborative working relationship with an equal number of programs reportingeach type of relationship. One program did not respond to this item.

Local Agencies Serving Families Experiencing HomelessnessMost programs (42%) indicated having a cooperative working relationship withlocal agencies serving families experiencing homelessness. Less than one-thirdof the programs (32%) reported having a collaborative working relationship withthese local agencies. Thirteen percent (13%) of the programs indicated having acoordinative working relationship, and eleven percent (11%) of the programsindicated having no working relationship with local agencies serving familiesexperiencing homelessness. One program did not respond to this item.

Local Housing Agencies and Planning GroupsMost programs (39%) indicated having a low level of involvement with localhousing agencies and planning groups. Almost one-third of the programs (32%)reported having no working relationship with these types of agencies or groups.Slightly more than one-fourth (26%) of programs indicated having either amoderate or high level of involvement with local housing agencies and planninggroups with an equal number of programs reporting each type of relationship.One program did not respond to this item.

Title I Director


22



Almost 40% of the programs indicated having no working relationship with theTitle I Directors in their service area. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the programsreported having a cooperative working relationship with Title I Directors, andeighteen percent (18%) of the programs reported having a collaborative workingrelationship. Two programs did not respond to this item.


Aligning Head Start Program Definition of Homelessness with McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance ActHalf of the programs (50%) indicated having no difficulty aligning the Head Startprogram definition of homelessness with the McKinney-Vento HomelessAssistance Act. Forty-two percent (42%) of the programs reported experiencingsome level of difficulty with this alignment, and most programs described thisprocess as somewhat difficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Implementing Policies and Procedures to Ensure that ChildrenExperiencing Homelessness are Identified and Prioritized for EnrollmentTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) indicated having no difficulty implementingpolicies and procedures to ensure that children experiencing homelessness areidentified and prioritized for enrollment. About 16% of the programs described theprocess of implementing these types of policies and procedures as difficult, andan additional 13% described the process as somewhat difficult. One program didnot respond to this item.

Allowing Families of Children Experiencing Homelessness to Apply to,Enroll in and Attend Head Start while Required Documents are Obtained

within a Reasonable TimeframeAn overwhelming majority of the programs (76%) indicated having no difficultyallowing families of children experiencing homelessness to apply to, enroll in andattend Head Start while required documents are obtained. Thirteen percent(13%) of the programs described the process as difficult, and fewer than 10% of the programs described the process as somewhat or extremely difficult. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Obtaining Sufficient Data on the Needs of Homeless Children to Inform theProgram’s Annual Community AssessmentNearly 40% of the programs indicated having no difficulty obtaining sufficientdata on the needs of homeless children to inform the program’s annualcommunity assessment. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the programs describedthis process as somewhat difficult. Slightly more than 26% of the programsreported experiencing difficulty or extreme difficulty obtaining sufficient data onthe needs of homeless children with an identical number of programs reportingeach type of relationship. One program did not respond to this item.


23



Engaging Community Partners in Conducting Staff Cross-Training andPlanning ActivitiesHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyengaging community partners in conducting staff cross-training and planningactivities related to children and families experiencing homelessness with most of

these programs describing this process as difficult. An identical number of programs (16%) described this process as either somewhat difficult or extremelydifficult. Nearly 40% of the programs reported having no difficulty engagingcommunity partners to conduct cross-training and planning activities. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Entering into an MOU with the Appropriate Local Entity Responsible for Managing Publicly Funded Preschool that Includes a Plan to CoordinateSelection Priorities for Eligible Children, Including Children ExperiencingHomelessnessHalf of the programs (50%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty entering

into a memorandum of understanding with the local entity responsible for managing publicly funded preschool that includes a plan to coordinate selectionpriorities for eligible children with most of these programs describing this processas somewhat difficult. Forty-seven percent (47%) of programs indicated thatentering into an MOU of this kind was not at all difficult. One program did notrespond to this item.

Developing and Implementing Family Outreach and Support Efforts under McKinney-Vento and Transition Planning for Children ExperiencingHomelessnessMore than one-half of the programs (52%) reported experiencing varying levelsof difficulty developing and implementing family outreach and support efforts for children experiencing homelessness with most of these programs describing thisprocess as somewhat difficult. Nearly 40% of programs reported having nodifficulty developing and implementing these plans and services. Three programsdid not respond to this item.

Training Provided to Staff on Working with Children and FamiliesExperiencing HomelessnessA majority of the programs (61%) indicated coordinating training on working withchildren and families experiencing homeless for program staff has not beendifficult. More than one-fifth of the programs (21%) described this process assomewhat difficult, and another 15% of the programs described this process aseither difficult or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships with localMcKinney-Vento Liaisons, local housing agencies and planning groups, and Title


24



I Directors. Programs have had the most difficulty obtaining data on the needs of homeless children and engaging community partners.

Several programs stated that homelessness has not been an issue in their service area; however, the fact that programs aren’t serving children and families

experiencing homelessness does not mean the problem is nonexistent. Oneprogram’s response was summed up this fact by stating, “It is difficult to identifyhomeless families because parents are very reluctant to reveal this information.”In addition to this reluctance, a reduction in the number of agencies that servehomeless families and a lack of coordinative or collaborative workingrelationships with the agencies that do exist make it difficult for a program toaccurately assess the homeless situation.

Other issues that have inhibited the provision of services to children and familiesexperiencing homeless cited by programs were a lack of public transportation, alack of classroom space to accommodate children experiencing homelessness, a

shortage of temporary housing for children and families, a shortage of stable andaffordable jobs and a weak job market.


• No local center has [a] day program to allow for home visits.

• The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has caused many families to sharehousing with multiple families. These families present themselves asindividual units within the household rather than being homeless.

• Identification and follow-up [are difficult] since the families often move.

• [A] lack of public transportation and housing can be limiting in efforts toassist families.

• We have experienced the lack of available housing/shelter [in our attempts] to meet the needs of children and families within our servicearea.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have experienced the most success allowing families experiencinghomelessness to apply to, enroll in and attend Head Start while requireddocuments are obtained and providing training to staff on working with childrenand families experiencing homelessness.

Following up with families to ensure parents have tapped into referral resources

and helping families overcome any obstacles securing temporary housing or other assistance. An open communication line with agencies and organizationsthat families have been referred to for assistance can help to ensure familieshave attempted to access services.

Collaborating with various local community agencies, including shelters, Habitatfor Humanity and HUD provides programs with referral options to assist familiesmeet both short-term and long-term housing needs. Developing a strong


25



relationship with the McKinney-Vento Liaison in the school district allowsprograms to better identify families experiencing homelessness and determinewhich families need the services offered by Head Start programs.


26




27



CC

WELFAREAND

CHILDWELFARE

The

Welfare/ChildWelfare sectionof theassessment was structuredto explore the types of working relationships that currently exist between


28



Head Start programs and local, state and federal agencies that specialize inproviding welfare services to eligible children and families.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to obtain relevant data and information for planning,

recruiting eligible families receiving TANF and similar support services,implementing policies and procedures to ensure children are prioritized for enrollment, establishing interagency partnership agreements, facilitating sharedtraining and technical assistance opportunities, initiating involvement in statelevel planning and policy development, exchanging information on roles andresources with other service providers regarding welfare and child welfareservices, and other issues.


Working Relationship with a TANF Agency

According to the data collected during the assessment, roughly 29% of theprograms exchange relevant data and information with the TANF agencies intheir service area, but a significant working relationship does not exist. Anidentical number of programs (26%) indicated having either a coordinative or collaborative working relationship with TANF agencies. Only 13% of theprograms reported having no working relationship with a TANF agency. Twoprograms did not respond to this item.

Child Care Assistance ProgramMost of the programs (42%) indicated having a low level of involvement with childcare assistance programs in their service area. A difference of more than 20%was noted between the programs that indicated having a low level of involvementand the programs that reported having either a moderate or high level of involvement with child care assistance programs (21% each). Approximately13% of the programs reported having no working relationship with child careassistance programs. One program did not respond to this item.

Working Relationship with Agencies Providing Employment, Training andLabor ServicesMore than a third of the programs (37%) indicated having cooperative workingrelationship with agencies that provide training and labor services to eligiblefamilies. The same number of programs (24%) reported having either acoordinative or collaborative working relationship with employment, training andlabor services. Thirteen percent (13%) of the programs indicated that they had noworking relationship with such an agency. One program did not respond to thisitem.Economic and Community Development CouncilsAlmost 60% of the programs indicated having no working relationship or aworking relationship that consisted solely of exchanging data and informationwith economic and community development councils. Only 18% of the programs


29



reported having a coordinative working relationship, and even fewer programs(16%) indicated having a collaborative working relationship with economic andcommunity development councils. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Child Welfare Agency

Two-thirds of the programs (66%) reported having a moderate or high level of involvement with the child welfare agencies in their service area. Slightly moreprograms (34%) indicated having a coordinative working relationship than acollaborative working relationship (32%). Fewer than a quarter of the programs(24%) reported having a cooperative working relationship with the child welfareagency in their service area, and nearly 8% of the programs reported having noworking relationship. One program did not respond to this item.

Office of Community SupportSlightly less than two-thirds of the programs (63%) indicated having either acoordinative or collaborative working relationship with the Office of Community

Support with the same number of programs reporting each type of relationship.Less than one-fourth of the programs (24%) reported having a cooperativeworking relationship with the Office of Community Support, and approximately10% of the programs reported having no working relationship. One program didnot respond to this item.

Services and Networks Supporting Foster and Adoptive ServicesAlmost three-fourths of the programs (74%) indicated having a low or moderatelevel of involvement with services and networks supporting foster and adoptiveservices with slightly more programs reporting a moderate level of involvement.Approximately 15% of the programs reported having a high level of involvementwith such services, and fewer than 8% reported having no working relationship.One program did not respond to this item.


Obtaining Information and Data for Community Assessment and PlanningMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty obtaining information and data for community assessment and planning.More programs described obtaining this information and data as difficult or extremely difficult (29%) than the number of programs that described thisprocess as somewhat difficult (26%). Forty-two percent (42%) of the programsreported having no difficulty obtaining information and data for community andassessment planning. One program did not respond to this item.

Working Together to Target Recruitment to Families Receiving TANF,Employment and Training and Related Support ServicesMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty working withother organizations to target recruitment to families receiving TANF, employmentand training and related support services. More programs described this


30



targeting process as somewhat difficult (26%) than the programs that describedthe process as difficult or extremely difficult (18%). One program did not respondto this item.

Implementing Policies and Procedures to Ensure that Children in the Child

Welfare System are Prioritized for EnrollmentA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty implementingpolicies and procedures to ensure that children in the child welfare system areprioritized for enrollment. Fewer than 30% of the programs reported experiencingdifficulty implementing these policies and procedures with more programsdescribing this process as somewhat difficult or difficult (24%) than those thatdescribed the process as extremely difficult (5%). One program did not respondto this item.

Establishing and Implementing Local Interagency Partnership AgreementsMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that establishing and

implementing local interagency partnership agreements has not been difficult.Fewer than 40% of the programs reported experiencing varying levels of difficultyestablishing and implementing these types of agreements with most programsdescribing the process as somewhat difficult. One program did not respond tothis item.

Facilitating Shared Training and Technical Assistance OpportunitiesApproximately 47% of the programs indicated experiencing no difficultyfacilitating shared training and technical assistance opportunities. Forty-sevenpercent (47%) of the programs also indicated experiencing some level of difficultywith this process, and a most of these programs described this process assomewhat difficult or difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Getting Involved in State Level Planning and Policy DevelopmentMore than 60% of the programs indicated experiencing some level of difficultygetting involved in state level planning and policy development, and most of these programs described this process as somewhat difficult. Approximately 34%of the programs indicated having no difficulty getting involved in state levelplanning and policy development. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Other ServiceProviders Regarding Family/Child Assistance ServicesMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty exchanginginformation on roles and resources with other service providers regarding familyand child assistance services. Nearly 45% of the programs reported experiencingsome level of difficulty exchanging information on roles and resources, andalmost all of these programs described this process as somewhat difficult or difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Families Accessing Mental Health Services


31



More than half of the programs (58%) indicated experiencing varying levels of difficulty assisting families to access mental health services with almost all of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult or difficult. Nearly40% of the programs reported having no difficulty assisting eligible families withaccessing mental health services. One program did not respond to this item.

Facilitating Child Support Assistance NeedsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated that facilitating parents with child supportassistance needs has been somewhat difficult. An additional 13% of theprograms reported that this process has been either difficult or extremely difficult.Slightly more than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated experiencing nodifficulty facilitating child support assistance needs. One program did not respondto this item.

Providing Assistance to Families of Incarcerated IndividualsMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated experiencing some level of

difficulty providing assistance to families of incarcerated individuals with all of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult or difficult. Nearly45% of the programs reported that providing assistance to families of incarcerated individuals has not been difficult. One program did not respond tothis item.

Training to Staff on Agencies and Services Available to Effectively Assistthe FamilyA majority of the programs (61%) indicated having no difficulty providing trainingto staff on agencies and services to effectively assist the family. Almost 37% of the programs reported experiencing some level of difficulty providing this type of training with most of these programs describing this process as somewhat or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships witheconomic and community development councils. Programs have had the mostdifficulty obtaining information and data for community assessment and planning,facilitating shared training and technical assistance opportunities, and gettinginvolved in state level planning and policy development.

Multiple programs cited an inability to adequately assess the needs of familiesand children due an unwillingness of parents to share this information or theevolving nature of family and child assistance needs due to the ongoing post-Katrina sociopolitical and socioeconomic shifts. A lack of extended child careservices, the prohibitive cost of child care and child care centers with poor qualityratings have made it difficult for some programs to provide high quality care for children in their programs that meet the needs of the family.


32



The provision of mental health services to children and families has also beenproblematic for some programs due to limited staff and options that are readilyavailable within the program.

One program also noted a lack of assistance options for grandparents that areraising children in Head Start.


• Since Katrina, it has been extremely difficult for us to ascertain thefamily/child assistance needs of children and families due to the stillevolving nature of the needs.

• There is a great need for child care before and after Head Start hours.Head Start families would benefit from extend[ed] hours.

• We do have a collaboration agreement for transitioning purposes butcommunication is not happening as well as it should between the two

agencies. We are experiencing a lack of quality-rated child care centers tocollaborate with in our local area.

• Families are in need of further counseling services not provided by theschool system. Oftentimes, families exhaust counseling opportunitieswithin our school district and need further assistance and deeper counseling that is not available in our area.

• Parents are not always open about [the] needs [of the child or family.]

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships with theState Child Welfare Agency and local Office of Community Support. Programs

have also experienced success implementing policies and procedures to ensurethat children in the child welfare system are prioritized for enrollment andproviding training to staff on agencies and services available to effectively assistthe family.

Networking and developing collaborative working relationships with localagencies, organizations and service providers has helped to address the needsof children and families in a timely manner. Cross-training with collaborativepartners increases the knowledge of program staff, which allows for moreeffective referral of parents to appropriate services and the ability to provide moreassistance to families within the program.

Active participation on community program committees, the development of aCommunity Resource Directory, placing community partners on the program’sPolicy Council and hosting community resource fairs were listed as means toincrease program effectiveness in meeting the assistance needs of children andfamilies. Employing the Family/Child Needs assessment to recognize needs hasalso been helpful in understanding and addressing the assistance needs of children and families.


33




34



10 0 State of Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project Needs Assessment

35



CHILD CARE

The Child Care section of the assessment was structured to explore the types of working relationships that currently exist between Head Start programs and localand state agencies that specialize in providing child care services to eligible

children and families, state and regional organizations that address child careissues and higher education programs, services and resources related to childcare.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to establish partnerships with child care providers,assist families in accessing full-day, full-year services, align policies andprocedures with other services providers, share data and information withchildren who are jointly served and exchange information on roles and resourceswith other providers.


State Agency for Child CareAccording to the data collected during the assessment, more Head Startprograms indicated having no working relationship with the state agency for childcare (29%) than any type of working relationship. Approximately 26% of theprograms reported having a coordinative relationship with the state agency, andabout 21% of the programs reported having a cooperative working relationship.Slightly more than 15% of the programs indicated having a collaborative workingrelationship with the state agency for child care. Three programs did not respondto this item.

Child Care Resource and Referral AgenciesMore than one-third of the programs reported having either a coordinative (37%)or cooperative working relationship (34%) with child care resource and referralagencies. More programs reported having no working relationship with theseagencies (13%) than reported having a collaborative working relationship (11%).Two programs did not respond to this item.

Local Child Care Programs for Full Day, Full Year ServicesNearly half of the programs (45%) indicated having a coordinative or collaborative working relationship with local child care programs that couldprovide full day, full year services for programs that could not provide suchservices for children. More than twice the number of programs reported having acooperative working relationship with child care programs that provide full day,full year services (34%) than reported having no working relationship (16%). Twoprograms did not respond to this item.


36



State or Regional Policy/Planning Committees that Address Child CareIssuesOnly a 5% difference was noted between the percentage of programs thatreported having no working relationship with state of regional policy/planningcommittees that address child care issues (42%) and the percentage of

programs that reported having some type of working relationship (47%). Most of the programs that indicated having a working relationship reported having acooperative or coordinative working relationship with these state or regionalcommittees. Four programs did not respond to this item.

Higher Education Programs, Services, and Resources Related to ChildCareMore than one-third of the programs (37%) indicated having no workingrelationship with higher education programs, services and resources related tochild care. The same number of programs reported having either cooperative or collaborative working relationships (18%), but most programs that reported

having a working relationship described the working relationship as coordinative(21%). Two programs did not respond to this item.


Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Child Care ProvidersHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyestablishing linkages or partnerships with child care providers in their servicearea, and all but one of these programs described this process as somewhat or extremely difficult. Significantly more programs described this process assomewhat difficult (37%) than described it as extremely difficult (11%). Most of the remaining programs (47%) indicated having no difficulty establishing linkagesand partnerships with child care providers. One program did not respond to thisitem.

Assisting Families to Access Full Day, Full Year ServicesHalf of the programs (50%) indicated having no difficulty assisting families toaccess full day, full year child care services. Most of the remaining programs(32%) described the process of assisting families to access these services assomewhat difficult. An identical percentage of the programs (8%) reported thatthis process has been difficult or extremely difficult. One program did not respondto this item.

Aligning Policies and Practices with Other Service ProvidersMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty aligning policies and practices with other services providers, and most of these programs described this process as somewhat difficult (39%). Significantlyfewer programs described this process as difficult or extremely difficult (16%).More than 40% of the programs reported having no difficulty aligning policies andpractices with other service providers. One program did not respond to this item.


37



Sharing Data and Information on Children that are Jointly ServedMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty sharing dataand information on children that are jointly served. Most of the remainingprograms (29%) described this process of sharing data and information assomewhat difficult. Significantly fewer programs (16%) described this process as

difficult or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Other Providers andOrganizations Regarding Child Care and Community Needs AssessmentNearly 60% of the programs reported experiencing varying levels of difficulty inattempts to exchange information on roles and resources with other providersand organizations regarding child care and the community needs assessment.Most of these programs (37%) described this process as somewhat difficult.Slightly more than 21% of the programs described exchanging information onroles and resources as difficult or extremely difficult. Approximately 39% of theprograms reported having no difficulty exchanging information on roles and

resources. One program did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships withpolicy and planning committees that address child care issues and higher education resources related to child care. Programs have had the most difficultyproviding shared training opportunities.

The competitive nature of the child care industry has created an almostadversarial relationship between some programs and private child careproviders, which can make it virtually impossible to meet the child care needs of eligible children and families.

In one school-based program, the school system’s decision to begin four-dayschool weeks has made it difficult to provide the complete child care services for children and families need.

The lack of extended day services and delays in service provision caused by theState’s licensing process were also cited as barriers to meeting the child careneeds of children and families.


• Child care providers are reluctant to share information [in] fear that HeadStart will “take” their children. [There are also] licensing requirements thatinterfere with getting children to child care providers at the end of theHead Start day.

• There are no child care providers in our area.

• The state’s licensing process delays servicing children.


38



• Head Start families would benefit from extended day due to the need for children care before and after Head Start hours.

Program Best PracticesAnnually updating the community needs assessment helps to appropriately plan

for the child care needs of children and families in the service area. Working withrelatives to ensure children have appropriate care during the necessary hours(“kin-care”) has been effective. When there are affordable and non-competitiveprivate child care options in the area, the development of collaborative workingagreements can help to ensure the child care needs of children and families aremet.


39




40



FAMILY LITERACY SERVICES

The Family Literacy Services section of the assessment was structured toexplore the types of working relationships that currently exist between Head Startprograms and museums, public and school libraries, reading readinessprograms, Even Start and other organizations and agencies that provide familyliteracy education, employment and training programs, adult education, andparent education services.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to recruit families to family literacy services, educateothers about the importance of family literacy, establish partnerships with keyliteracy providers, and incorporate family literacy into program policies andpractices.


Department of Education Title I, Part A: Family LiteracyAccording to the data collected during the assessment, nearly one-third of theprograms (32%) indicated having a low level of involvement with localDepartment of Education, Title I, Part A programs that focus on family literacy.Nearly a quarter of the programs (24%) reported having no working relationshipwith the Department of Education in regard to family literacy. An identicalpercentage of programs (21%) indicated having either a moderate or high level of involvement with the Department of Education concerning the family literacycomponent of Title I. One program did not respond to this item.


41



Employment and Training ProgramsMost of the programs (47%) reported having a cooperative working relationshipwith these types of programs, and the remaining programs that reported having aworking relationship were divided equally among programs that described this

working relationship as coordinative or collaborative. Only 13% of the programsindicated having no working relationship with employment and training programs.One program did not respond to this item.

Adult EducationNinety-five percent (95%) of the programs indicated having some type of workingrelationship with an adult education program, and most of these programs (44%)reported having a cooperative working relationship. Nearly the same number of programs reported having coordinative working relationships (26%) andcollaborative working relationships (24%) with adult education programs. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

English Language Learner Programs and ServicesSlightly more than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated having noinvolvement with English language learner programs and services. Slightly lessthan one-third of the programs (32%) reported having a low level of involvementwith these programs and services. Roughly 18% of the programs indicatedhaving a moderate level of involvement, and about 11% of the programsindicated having a high level of involvement with English language learner programs and services. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Services to Promote Parent/Child Literacy InteractionsAlmost all of the programs (95%) indicated having some type of workingrelationship with programs that offer services to promote parent/child literacyinteractions. More than 68% of the programs reported having a coordinative or collaborative working relationship with the number of programs reporting eachtype of relationship divided equally. More than one-fourth of the programs (26%)indicated having a cooperative working relationship with programs offeringservices to promote literacy interactions. Only one program reported having noworking relationship, and one program did not respond to this item.

Parent Education Programs and ServicesMore than 90% of the programs reported having some type of workingrelationship with parent education programs and services. Most of the programs(42%) indicated having a working relationship that consisted of coordinating withthese types of programs and services, and more than 26% of programs reportedcollaborating. Slightly less than one-fourth of the programs (24%) indicatedhaving a cooperative working relationship with parent education programs andservices. Five percent (5%) of programs reported having no working relationship,and one program did not respond to this item.


42



Public LibrariesAlmost all of the programs (95%) reported having some type of workingrelationship with a public library with most of the programs (47%) indicatinghaving a high level of involvement. Slightly fewer programs (34%) reportedhaving a moderate level of involvement with public libraries, and less than 15% of

programs reported having a low level of involvement. Only five percent (5%) of programs reported having no working relationship with public libraries. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

School LibrariesNearly 40% of the programs indicated having no working relationship with schoollibraries. Slightly more than one-fifth of the programs (21%) reported having acoordinative working relationship with school libraries, and an identicalpercentage of the programs (18%) reported having either a cooperative or collaborative working relationship with school libraries. One program did notrespond to this item.

Public or Private Sources that Provide Book Donations or Funding for BooksNearly one-third of the programs (32%) indicated having a coordinative workingrelationship with public or private sources that provide book donations or fundingfor books, and slightly more than 26% of the programs indicated having acollaborative working relationship. Significantly fewer programs (16%) reportedhaving a cooperative working relationship with these types of organizations.Slightly less than one-fourth of the programs (24%) reported having no workingrelationship with public or private sources that donate books or provide fundingfor books. One program did not respond to this item.

MuseumsMost of the programs (45%) indicated having no working relationship withmuseums. Approximately 29% of the programs reported having a cooperativeworking relationship, and approximately 24% of the programs indicated having acoordinative or collaborative working relationship with most programs indicatingthe former type of working relationship (16%). One program did not respond tothis item.

Reading Readiness ProgramsAn overwhelming majority of the programs (87%) indicated having some type of working relationship with reading readiness programs. Most programs reportedhaving a cooperative working relationship (42%). Almost 30% of programsreported having a collaborative working relationship with reading readinessprograms, and about 16% of the programs reported having a coordinativeworking relationship. Eleven percent (11%) of the programs indicated having noworking relationship. One program did not respond to this item.


43



Higher Education Programs, Services and Resources Related to FamilyLiteracyWorking relationships with higher education programs, services and resourcesrelated to family literacy were distributed evenly with the highest percentage of

programs (29%) reporting a cooperative working relationship with higher education programs, services and resources. Slightly more than a quarter of theprograms (26%) indicated having a coordinative working relationship, and anequal number of programs (21%) reported either a collaborative workingrelationship or no working relationship with these types of higher educationprograms, services and resources. One program did not respond to this item.

Providers of Services for Children and Families who are English LanguageLearnersMore programs reported having no working relationship with providers of services for children and families who are English Language Learners (34%)

than any of the other types of working relationships. Slightly fewer programs(32%) reported cooperating with providers of these types of services. An identicalnumber of programs (16%) reported having either coordinating or collaboratingwith providers of services for children and families who are English languagelearners. One program did not respond to this item.

Even Start Family Literacy ProgramTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) indicated having no working relationship withan Even Start Family Literacy Program. An identical number of programs (13%)reported having either a cooperative or collaborative working relationship with anEven Start Program. Only 5% of the programs indicated having a coordinativeworking relationship. One program did not respond to this item.


Recruiting Families to Family Literacy ServicesMore then half of the programs (55%) described recruiting families to familyliteracy services as somewhat difficult. An additional 13% of the programsdescribed recruiting families as difficult or extremely difficulty with more programsdescribing this process as difficult. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the programsreported experiencing no difficulty recruiting families to family literacy services.One program did not respond to this item.

Educating Others about the Importance of Family LiteracyMore than half of the programs (58%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty educating others about the importance of family literacy with mostprograms (34%) describing this process as somewhat difficult. Slightly fewer programs (21%) reported that educating others about the importance of familyliteracy has been difficult. Almost 40% of the programs indicated that this processhas not been difficult. One program did not respond to this item.


44



Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Key Literacy ProvidersHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyestablishing linkages and partnerships with key literacy providers, and most of these programs described this process as somewhat difficult. Slightly more than

47% of the programs reported having no difficulty establishing linkages andpartnerships with key literacy providers. One program did not respond to thisitem.

Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Key Local LevelOrganizations and ProgramsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated having no difficulty establishing linkagesand partnerships with key local level organizations. Slightly fewer programs(47%) reported experiencing varying levels of difficulty establishing linkages andpartnerships with all of these programs describing the process as somewhatdifficult or difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Incorporating Family Literacy into Program Policies and PracticesA majority of the programs (68%) described incorporating family literacy intoprogram policies and practices as not at all difficult. Approximately 18% of theprograms described incorporating family literacy as somewhat difficult. Twoprograms did not respond to this item.

Training Provided to Staff on Family LiteracyA majority of the programs (63%) reported having no difficulty providing trainingfor staff on family literacy. Less than one-fifth of the programs (18%) indicatedthat this process has been somewhat difficult, and approximately 11% of theprograms indicated that providing this type of training has been extremelydifficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Training Provided to Families on Family LiteracyMore than half of the programs (55%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty coordinating training for families on family literacy with most of theseprograms (39%) describing this process as somewhat difficult. Approximately16% of the programs described this process as difficult or extremely difficult.About 42% of the programs indicated that providing this type of training tofamilies has not been difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information with Other Providers and Organizations RegardingRoles and Resources Related to Family LiteracyMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty exchanging information with other providers and organizations regardingroles and resources related to family literacy. All of these programs describedthis process of exchanging information as somewhat difficult or difficult. Thirty-


45



nine percent (39%) of the programs reported having no difficulty exchanginginformation with other providers and organizations. One program did not respondto this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships with theDepartment of Education, Title I Part A Family Literacy programs, EnglishLanguage Learner programs, school libraries, organizations that donate books or provide funding for books, museums, providers of services for English LanguageLearners and Even Start. Several programs have not been able to develop highlevel working relationships with employment and training programs and adulteducation programs. Programs have had the most difficulty providing training tofamilies on family literacy.

Multiple programs stated that their ability to provide effective family literacyservices is severely undermined by lack of interest and participation fromparents. Several programs stated that parents will not take advantage of programor community training and resources that are available to them. One programalso stated that working parents have difficulty attending trainings that are heldduring the day.


• Getting families involved in training opportunities [has been difficult.]Working families have a hard time attending any training during the day,and other families who stay at home [don’t always show interest in these

opportunities.]• It is extremely difficult to get our parents to see the importance of the

whole family being a part of the literacy services and how these serviceswill ultimately affect their child.

• Parents will not take advantage of the training/resources available to themin this area.

• [There has been] a lack of parental interest in furthering their education.

• We need help!

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships with

programs and services that promote parent/child literacy interactions, parenteducation programs and services, and public libraries. Programs have alsoexperienced success incorporating family literacy into program policies andpractices and providing training to staff on family literacy.

Monthly literacy activities that involve community partners, program staff andfamilies have been effective for several programs, especially when thoseactivities are creatively developed to pique the interest of parents and scheduled


46



C h

at a time when parents can attend. Engaging the entire community in site-basedreading programs has also worked well, and the development of collaborativeworking relationships with local school boards, public libraries, Title I programs,

communityorganizations that promoteliteracy and other agencies that focus on child and adult literacy assistsprograms in the development of family literacy trainings, programs andservices that meet the needs of children and families.


47



1 00 State of Louisiana Head Start State Collaboration Project Needs Assessment

48



SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

The Services for Children with Disabilities section of the assessment wasstructured to explore the types of working relationships that currently existbetween Head Start programs and state and federal programs for children and

families of children with disabilities, university and community college programsrelated to children with disabilities and non-Head Start councils and committeesthat address policy and program issues regarding children with disabilities.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to obtain timely evaluations of children, ensure staff members attend Individualized Education Plan or Individualized Family ServicePlan meetings, coordinate services with Part C and Part B/619 providers, shareinformation and data on jointly served children and exchange information onroles and resources with other providers.


State Lead Agency for Part B/619According to the data collected during the assessment, more than one-third of the programs (34%) reported having a collaborative working relationship with theState Lead Agency for Part B/619. About 29% of the programs indicated having acooperative working relationship, and the remaining programs that reportedworking relationship described the relationship as coordinative. Less than one-fifth of the programs (18%) reported having no working relationship with the StateLead Agency for Part B/619. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Local Part B/619 Providers (Schools)More than half of the programs (53%) indicated having a high level of involvement with Local Part B/619 providers. More than one-fifth of the programs(21%) reported having a low level of involvement with Local Part B/619 providers,and an additional 11% of the programs reported having a moderate level of involvement. Three programs indicated having no working relationship, and threeprograms did not respond to this item.

State Education Agency – Other Programs and ServicesMore than one-third of the programs (37%) indicated collaborating with the StateEducation Agency regarding other programs and services related to children withdisabilities. Slightly fewer programs (34%) reported cooperating with the StateEducation Agency, and approximately 16% of the programs reportedcoordinating. More than 18% of the programs indicated having no workingrelationship with the State Education Agency. One program did not respond tothis item.


49



State Lead Agency for Part CMore than one-third of the programs (37%) indicated having a collaborativeworking relationship with the State Lead Agency for Part C. Twenty-nine percent(29%) of the programs indicated having a cooperative working relationship, andabout 11% of the programs indicated having a coordinative working relationship

with the State Lead Agency for Part C. Slightly more than 18% of the programsreported having no working relationship with the State Lead Agency for Part C.Two programs did not respond to this item.

Local Part C ProvidersNearly 90% of the programs reported having some type of working relationshipwith local Part C providers. Most of the programs indicated having a collaborativeworking relationship (55%) with local Part C providers, and most of the remainingprograms reported having a cooperative working relationship. Only about 8% of the programs reported having no working relationship or a low level of involvement with local Part C providers. One program did not respond to this

item.

Federally Funded Programs for Families of Children with DisabilitiesMost of the programs (37%) indicated having a high level of involvement withfederally funded programs for families of children with disabilities. An identicalnumber of programs (21%) reported having either a moderate or low level of involvement with these types of federally funded programs. Approximately 18%of programs indicated having no working relationships with federally fundedprograms for families of children with disabilities. One program did not respond tothis item.

State Funded Programs for Children with Disabilities and Their FamiliesAn overwhelming majority of the programs (82%) indicated having some type of working relationship with the State funded programs for children with disabilitiesand their families. More than half of the programs (53%) reported having either acooperative or coordinative working relationship with an identical number of programs reporting each type of working relationship. About 29% of theprograms indicated having a collaborative working relationship with State fundedprograms for children with disabilities and their families. Approximately 13% of the programs reported having no working relationship with State fundedprograms for children with disabilities and their families. Two programs did notrespond to this item.

University and Community College Programs and Services Related toChildren with DisabilitiesA majority of the programs (58%) indicated having no working relationship withuniversity and community college programs regarding services related to childrenwith disabilities. An identical number of programs (16%) indicated havingcooperative or coordinative working relationships, and only about 8% of theprograms reported having a collaborative working relationship with university and


50



community college programs and services related to children with disabilities.One program did not respond to this item.

Non-Head Start Councils, Committees or Work Groups that Address Policyand Program Issues

Slightly more than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated having acollaborative working relationship with Non-Head Start councils, committees or workgroups. Slightly more than a quarter of the programs (26%) reported havinga coordinative working relationship, and an identical number of programs (18%)reported having either a cooperative working relationship or no workingrelationship with these types of councils, committees or workgroups. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.


Obtaining Timely Evaluations of Children

More than half of the programs (55%) indicated having some level of difficultyobtaining timely evaluations of children with most of these programs describingthis process as somewhat difficult. Nearly the same number of programsdescribed this process as difficult (13%) and extremely difficult (16%). About 42%of the programs reported having no difficulty obtaining timely evaluations of children. One program did not respond to this item.

Meeting 10% of Funded Enrollment for Children with IEPs or IFSPsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing varying levels of difficultymeeting ten percent of funded enrollment for children with Individual EducationPlans (IEPs) or Individual Family Service Plans (IFSPs). Most of these programsdescribed this process as somewhat difficult, and nearly the same number of programs described this process as difficult (13%) and extremely difficult (16%).Approximately 47% of the programs reported having no difficulty meeting tenpercent of funded enrollment for children with IEPs or IFSPs. One program didnot respond to this item.

Having Staff Attend IEP or IFSP MeetingsA majority of the programs (68%) indicated that having staff attend IEP or IFSPmeetings has not been difficult. More than a quarter of programs (29%) reportedhaving some level of difficulty having staff attend IEP or IFSP meeting with mostprograms describing this process as extremely difficult. One program did notrespond to this item.

Coordinating Services with Part C ProvidersMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that coordinating services withPart C providers has not been difficult. Less than 40% of the programs reportedexperiencing difficulty coordinating services with Part C providers. Almost all of the programs that reported having difficulty with this process described


51



coordinating services with Part C providers as somewhat difficult (24%) or extremely difficult (13%). One program did not respond to this item.

Coordinating Services with Part B/619 ProvidersA majority of the programs (61%) reported having no difficulty coordinating

services with Part B/619 providers. More than one-fifth of the programs (21%)indicated that this process has been somewhat difficult, and a small percentageof programs (8%) described this process as being difficult or extremely difficult.One program did not respond to this item.

Sharing Data and Information on Jointly Served ChildrenA majority of the programs (63%) described the process of sharing data andinformation on jointly served children as not at all difficult. Nearly one-third of theprograms (32%) indicated having some level of difficulty sharing data andinformation with most programs describing the process as extremely difficult(16%) or somewhat difficult (13%). Two programs did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Other ProvidersTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) reported having no difficulty exchanginginformation on roles and resources with other providers. Less than one-third of the programs (32%) reported experiencing any difficulty exchanging informationon roles and resources with other providers. Almost all of the programs thatreported experiencing difficulty described this process as either somewhat or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Including Children with Significant DisabilitiesMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated experiencing varying levels of difficulty including children with significant disabilities. Most of these programs(26%) described including significantly disabled children as somewhat difficult,and approximately 16% of the programs described this process as extremelydifficult. About 45% of the programs reported having no difficulty includingchildren with significant disabilities. One program did not respond to this item.

Implementing Dual Enrollment for Children with DisabilitiesMore than half of the programs (55%) described implementing dual enrollmentfor children with disabilities as not at all difficult. All of the programs that reportedexperiencing difficulty implementing dual enrollment described the process assomewhat difficult (24%) or extremely difficult (18%). One program did notrespond to this item.

Conducting Ongoing Professional DevelopmentMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated that conducting ongoingprofessional development related to children with disabilities has not beendifficult. More than a quarter of the programs (26%) reported that conductingongoing professional development has been somewhat difficult, and about 16%


52



of the programs described this process as difficult or extremely difficult. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program Issues

Programs have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships withuniversity and community college programs and services related to children withdisabilities. Programs have had the most difficulty obtaining timely evaluations of children, meeting ten percent of funded enrollment for children IEPs or IFSPsand including children with significant disabilities.

Multiple programs have experienced difficulty getting children evaluated (due to alack of therapists or facilitators) and obtaining timely evaluations of children withdisabilities when working with local Part C providers.

Inadequate funding was also noted as an obstacle to providing high quality

services to children with disabilities and their families. One program stated that itdid not have funds available to hire an adequate number of child specific aides.


• Providers are not conducting screenings and meetings in a timely manner.

• The biggest issue this year, as well as last school year is limited andinconsistent participation from parents in taking their children to evaluationappointments. With total reliance on parents to take their children to theevaluation, many appointments are missed; therefore several children whoare highly suspected of having a disability are not identified.

• Part C providers are not meeting the needs of children and families within

our service area.• It is difficulty to get timely evaluations done on children referred to the

local LEA [Lead Education Agency.]

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships with localPart B/619 providers, local Part C providers, and other groups that address policyand program issues. Programs have also experienced success having staff attend IEP or IFSP meetings, coordinating services with Part B/619 providers,sharing data and information on jointly served children, and exchanginginformation on roles and resources with other providers.

Developing a collaborative working relationship with the lead education agencyfacilitates the timely evaluation of children and makes meeting the needs of children with disabilities and their families a more streamlined process. Oneprogram entered into a summer contract with the lead education agencyassessment to screen children during its mass registration, which helps withidentification and intervention.


53




55




56



COMMUNITYSERVICES


57



The Community Services section of this assessment was structured to explorethe types of working relationships that currently exist between Head Startprograms and law enforcement agencies, substance abuse prevention andtreatment providers, child abuse prevention and treatment providers, domesticviolence prevention and treatment providers and providers of emergency

services. The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to partner with service providers on outreach activitiesfor eligible families, obtain in-kind community services for children and families,share data and information with other organizations and agencies for jointlyserved children, exchange information on roles and resources with other organizations regarding community services and establish linkages andpartnerships with law enforcement agencies.


Law EnforcementAccording to the data collected during the assessment, an identical number of programs (34%) indicated having either a cooperative or coordinative workingrelationship with law enforcement agencies. An additional 18% of the programsreported having a collaborative working relationship. Only about 11% of theprograms indicated having no working relationship with law enforcementagencies. One program did not respond to this item.

Providers of Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment ServicesNearly one-third of the programs (32%) indicated having a collaborative workingrelationship with providers of substance abuse prevention and treatmentservices. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the programs reported having acooperative working relationship, and twenty-six percent (26%) of the programsreported having a coordinative working relationship with providers of substanceabuse prevention and treatment services. Only about 11% of the programsindicated having no working relationship with providers of substance abuseprevention and treatment services. One program did not respond to this item.

Providers of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment ServicesAlmost all of the programs (95%) indicated having some type of workingrelationship with providers of child abuse prevention and treatment services, andmost programs (45%) reported having a collaborative working relationship.Slightly more than one-fourth of the programs (26%) of programs indicatedhaving a coordinative working relationship with providers of child abuse andprevention services, and slightly less than one-fourth of the programs (24%)reported having a cooperative working relationship with these types of preventionand treatment services. Only one program reported having no workingrelationship, and one program did not respond to this item.


58



Providers of Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment ServicesNearly 90% of the programs indicated having some type of working relationshipwith providers of domestic violence prevention and intervention. An identicalnumber of programs (34%) reported having either a cooperative or collaborativeworking relationship, and slightly more than one-fifth of the programs (21%)

reported having a coordinative working relationship with private resources gearedtoward prevention and intervention. Only 5% of the programs indicated having noworking relationship. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Private Resources Geared toward Prevention and InterventionSlightly more than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated having a low levelof involvement with providers of private resources geared toward prevention andintervention. Slightly more than one-fourth of the programs (26%) reportedhaving no working relationship with such private resources. About 24% of theprograms indicated having a moderate level of involvement, and an additional14% of the programs indicated having a high level of involvement with private

resources geared toward prevention and intervention. One program did notrespond to this item.

Providers of Emergency ServicesNearly 40% of the programs indicated coordinating with providers of emergencyservices, and more than one-third of the programs (34%) indicated cooperatingwith providers of emergency services. About 13% of the programs reportedhaving no working relationship, and approximately 11% of the programs reportedhaving a collaborative working relationship with providers of emergency services.One program did not respond to this item.


Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Law Enforcement AgenciesA majority of the programs (63%) indicated having no difficulty establishinglinkages and partnerships with law enforcement agencies. Almost one-third of theprograms (32%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty establishing theselinkages and partnerships, and almost all of these programs described thisprocess as somewhat difficult or difficult.

Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Public Resources RegardingPrevention ServicesHalf of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyestablishing linkages or partnerships with public resources regarding preventionand treatment services, and all but one of these programs described this processas somewhat or extremely difficult. About 42% of the programs reported havingno difficulty establishing linkages and partnerships with public resourcesregarding prevention treatment and services.


59



Establishing Linkages and Partnerships with Private Resources RegardingPrevention and Treatment ServicesMost of the programs (47%) indicated having no difficulty establishing linkages or partnerships with private resources regarding prevention and treatment services.Almost one-third of the programs (32%) reported that establishing these types of

linkages and partnerships has been somewhat difficult, and about 16% of theprograms described this process as difficult or extremely difficult. Two programsdid not respond to this item.

Partnering with Service Providers on Outreach Activities for EligibleFamiliesMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty partneringwith service providers on outreach activities for eligible families. Nearly a quarter of the programs (24%) reported that partnering with services providers onoutreach activities has been somewhat difficult, and an additional 13% of theprograms reported that this process has been difficult or extremely difficult. Two

programs did not respond to this item.

Obtaining In-kind Community ServicesMore than half of the programs (53%) indicated having no difficulty obtaining in-kind services for children and families. Slightly more than one-fourth of theprograms (26%) reported that obtaining in-kind community services has beensomewhat difficult, and roughly 16% of the programs reported that this processhas been either difficult or extremely difficult. Two programs did not respond tothis item.

Sharing Data and Information on Children and Families Served Jointly by

Head Start and Other AgenciesMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty sharing dataand information on jointly served children and families. Almost one-third of theprograms (32%) reported that sharing data information on jointly served childrenand families has been somewhat difficult. Two programs did not respond to thisitem.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Other Providers andOrganizations Regarding Community ServicesMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty exchanginginformation on roles and resources between other providers and organizationsregarding community services. Slightly more than one-fifth of the programs (21%)described exchanging information on roles and resources as somewhat difficult,and about 16% of the programs described this process as difficult or extremelydifficult. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Training Provided to Staff on Community ServicesA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty providing trainingto staff on community services. Slightly more than a quarter of the programs


60



(26%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty providing training to staff oncommunity services with most of the programs describing this process asdifficult. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Training Provided to Parents on Community Services

More than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty providingtraining to parents on community services. More than one-third of the programs(34%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty providing training to parentson community services with most programs describing this process as somewhatdifficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships withprivate resources geared toward prevention and intervention. Programs have not

faced any significant difficulty coordinating community services for children andfamilies.

Multiple programs stated linking parents with community services has beendifficult due to a lack of involvement from parents. Programs have hadchallenges while attempting to provide information on community services toparents in their service area because parents do not attend trainings, do notshare information about their needs, and do not express interest in communityservices.

A lack of community services in the service area for referral purposes was alsostated as a barrier by several programs.


• [Our program is located in a] rural area that experiences a lack of treatment services. [M]ost times families have to travel out of [the] area toreceive services, [and] lack of transportation is an issues.

• West Baton Rouge Parish does not have a lot of the outreach services.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships withproviders of child abuse prevention and treatment services. Programs have

experienced success working with law enforcement agencies and providingtraining to staff on community services.

Participating in joint service meetings with other agencies and documentingfollow-up on referrals were stated as ways to ensure families can access andtake advantage of the appropriate community services.


61




62




63




64



PUBLICLY FUNDED PRE-K PARTNERSHIP DEVLEOPMENT

The Publicly Funded Pre-K Partnership Development (Education) section of thisassessment was structured to explore the types of working relationships thatcurrently exist between Head Start programs and publicly funded preschool

programs.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to coordinate educational activities, curricular objectivesand instruction, staff training, services to meet needs of working parents,communications and parent outreach.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Memorandum of Understanding with Publicly Funded PreschoolFifteen of the twenty-nine programs that responded to this item stated that a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Local Education Agency hasbeen completed and approved by all parties. Eight programs reported that anMOU is pending with each program at a different stage in the process. Fiveprograms stated that that an MOU was not necessary because the public schoolsystem is the grantee or because the program is an Early Head Start program


Educational Activities, Curricular Objectives and InstructionsMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated that coordinating educationalactivities, curricular objectives and instructions with the Local Education Agency(LEA) has not been difficult. More than one-third of the programs (34%) reportedexperiencing some level of difficulty with this coordination. More programsdescribed the process as extremely difficult (13%) than described it as either somewhat difficult or extremely difficult (11% each). Four programs did notrespond to this item.

Information Dissemination and Access for Families Contacting Head Startor Other Preschool ProgramsMore than half of the programs (55%) described information dissemination andaccess for families contacting Head Start or other preschool programs as not atall difficult. Slightly more than one-fifth of the programs (21%) reported that thisprocess has been somewhat difficult. Approximately 16% of the programsdescribed information dissemination and access for families as either difficult or extremely difficult with twice as many programs reporting having extremedifficulty. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Selection Priorities for Eligible Children ServedMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that coordinating selectionpriorities for eligible children served has not been difficult. About 13% of the


65



programs reported that selection prioritization has been difficult, and slightly morethan one-fifth of the programs (21%) reported that this process has beensomewhat or extremely difficult with an equal number of programs reporting eachlevel of difficulty. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Service AreasMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that coordinating service areaswith local education agencies has not been difficult. Slightly more than a quarter of the programs (26%) reported that this process has been either somewhatdifficult or difficult with an equal number of programs reporting each level of difficulty. An additional 8% of the programs described the process of coordinatingservice areas with local education agencies as extremely difficult. Threeprograms did not respond to this item.

Staff Training, Including Opportunities for Joint Staff TrainingMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that the coordination of staff

training with local education agencies has not been difficult. Slightly more thanone-third of the programs (34%) reported experiencing some level of difficultycoordinating staff training with most of these programs describing this process assomewhat difficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Program Technical AssistanceMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated that coordinating programtechnical assistance with local education agencies has not been difficult. Theprograms that reported having difficulty coordinating program technicalassistance (34%) were divided nearly evenly among three choices. Threeprograms did not respond to this item.

Provision of Services to Meet the Needs of Working ParentsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated that providing services to meet the needs of working parents has not been difficult. Slightly less than one-fourth of theprograms (24%) described the provision of these services as somewhat difficult,and approximately 13% of the programs described this process as difficult. Threeprograms did not respond to this item.

Communications and Parent Outreach for Transition to KindergartenAn overwhelming majority of the programs (78%) described communications andparent outreach for transition to kindergarten as not at all difficult. Approximately11% of the programs described this process as extremely difficult, and anadditional 11% of the programs indicated that communication and parentoutreach has been somewhat difficult or difficult. Two programs did not respondto this item.Provision and Use of Facilities, Transportation, etc.More than half of the programs (55%) indicated that sharing facilities andtransportation with local education agencies has not been difficult. Nearly 40% of the programs reported experiencing some level of difficulty sharing facilities and


66



transportation. Most of the programs that reported experiencing difficulty sharingfacilities described this process as somewhat difficult or difficult. Two programsdid not respond to this program.

Other Elements Mutually Agreed to by the Parties to the MOU

More than half of the programs (53%) indicated that coordinating other elementsmutually agreed to by the parties to the MOU has not been difficult. More thanone-third of the programs (37%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty,and almost all of these programs described this process as somewhat or extremely difficult. Four programs did not respond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have had the most difficulty coordinating education activities, curricular objectives and instruction; selection priorities for eligible children; program

technical assistance; and provision and use of facilities and transportation withlocal education agencies.

One program stated that attempts to align the policies and procedures of HeadStart and LEAs have been difficult due to the compliance requirements of eachentity. Another program noted that getting the local school system to understandthe importance of having an MOU has been a challenge.

Other issues included problems faced when trying to combine programs andfunding to allow 4-year-old children to attend universal Pre-K with a certifiedteacher in every classroom and ensure that programs meet funded enrollmentwhile working with the LEA.


• The most difficult piece of working with Public Pre-K is the differentguidelines that we both follow. The two programs find it difficult to meshthe different sets of rules in order to be in compliance with their ownrequirements.

• The public school won’t accept any information from Head Start on a child.

• Children eligible for [a] second year in Head Start often are recruited andaccepted by [the] LEA.

• It is extremely difficult to get our local school systems to see the

importance of having an MOU with our Head Start Agency.• Combining programs and braiding funding to allow all 4-year-old children

to attend a universal Pre-K program with a certified teacher in everyclassroom has been a challenge.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success experienced success coordinatingcommunications and parent outreach for transition to kindergarten.


67



Several programs noted the ease of addressing partnerships with LocalEducation Agencies that was a direct result of the public school system servingas the grantee or the development and maintenance of collaborative working

relationships with the local public school system.

The provision of developmentally appropriate activities andindividualized activities engages children at various learning stages andallows for parents to be active participants in the educationprocess. One program noted that hosting meetings during which parents canopenly voice their concerns and staff can readily answer concerns hasworked well.


68




69



CHEADSTART

TRANSITION

ANDALIGNMENT

WITH K-12

TheHead StartTransition andAlignment with K-12 section of this assessment was structured to explore the types of working relationships that currently exist between HeadStart


70



programs and local education agencies regarding transition from Head Start toKindergarten.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to coordinate with local educations agencies to

implement systematic procedures for transferring Head Start program records toschool, facilitating the coordination of programs, establishing and implementingcomprehensive transition policies and procedures, linking services relating tolanguage, numeracy and literacy, aligning curricula and assessments with theHead Start Child Outcomes Framework, aligning Head Start curricula with stateearly learning guidelines and assisting individual children and families totransition to school.


Relationship with Local Education Agencies Regarding Transition from

Head Start to KindergartenAn overwhelming majority of the programs (71%) indicated having a collaborativeworking relationship with local education agencies regarding transition from HeadStart to kindergarten. Approximately 16% of the programs reported having acoordinative working relationship with local education agencies regardingtransition. Only about 5% of the programs indicated having no workingrelationship. One program did not respond to this item.


Coordinating with Local Education Agencies to Implement Systematic

Procedures for Transferring RecordsAn overwhelming majority of the programs (71%) indicated having no difficultycoordinating with local education agencies to implement systematic proceduresfor transferring records. More than a quarter of the programs (26%) reportedexperiencing some level of difficulty implementing systematic procedures for transferring records, and all but one of these programs described this process assomewhat or extremely difficult. One program did not respond to this item. Ongoing Communication with Local Education Agencies to FacilitateCoordination of ProgramsA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty maintainingongoing communication with local education agencies to facilitate coordination of programs. Approximately 29% of programs reported experiencing some level of difficulty communicating with local education agencies to facilitate coordinationwith most programs describing this process as somewhat difficult. One programdid not respond to this item. Establishing and Implementing Comprehensive Transition Policies andProcedures with Local Education Agencies


71



A majority of the programs (74%) indicated having no difficulty establishing andimplementing comprehensive transition policies and procedures with localeducation agencies. About 29% of the programs reported having some level of difficulty with this process with most programs describing this process assomewhat difficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Linking Local Education Agency and Head Start Services Relating toLanguage, Numeracy and LiteracyA majority of the programs (63%) indicated having no difficulty linking localeducation agency and Head Start services relating to language, numeracy andliteracy. About 16% of the programs described linking services as somewhatdifficult, and about half as many programs (8%) described this process asextremely difficult. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Aligning Local Education Agency and Head Start Curricula andAssessments with Head Start Child Outcomes Framework

A majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty aligning localeducation agency and Head Start curricula and assessments with the Head StartChild Outcomes Framework. Approximately 29% of the programs reportedexperiencing some level of difficulty aligning curricula with almost all of theseprograms describing this process as somewhat difficult. One program did notrespond to this item. Aligning Head Start Curricula with State Early Learning Standards andGuidelinesA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty aligning HeadStart curricula with state early learning standards and guidelines. Slightly lessthan one-fourth of the programs (24%) described this process as somewhatdifficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Partnering with Local Education Agencies and Parents to Assist IndividualChildren and Families to Transition to School, Including Review of Portfolioand RecordsA majority of the programs (71%) indicated having no difficulty partnering withlocal education agencies and parents to assist individual children and their families to transition to school. Slightly more than one-fourth of the programs(26%) reported having difficulty partnering with local education agencies andparents to facilitate transition to school with most of these programs describingthis process as somewhat difficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Coordinating Transportation with Local Education AgenciesMore than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty coordinatingtransportation with local education agencies. Slightly less than one-third of theprograms (32%) reported that coordinating transportation has been somewhat


72



difficult or extremely difficult with an equal number of programs reporting eachlevel of difficulty. Two programs did not respond to this item. Coordinating Shared Use of Facilities with Local Education AgenciesA majority of the programs (61%) indicated having no difficulty coordinating the

shared use of facilities with local education agencies. Slightly less than one-fourth of the programs (24%) reported having some level of difficulty coordinatingshared use of facilities with almost all of the programs describing this process aseither somewhat or extremely difficult. Six programs did not respond to this item.

Coordinating with Local Education Agencies Regarding Other SupportServices for Children and FamiliesMost programs (63%) indicated having no difficulty coordinating with localeducation agencies regarding support services for children and families. Morethan one-fifth of the programs (21%) described this process as somewhatdifficult, and an additional 13% of the programs described coordination regarding

other support services as difficult or extremely difficult. One program did notrespond to this item.

Conducting Joint Outreach to Parents and Local Education Agencies toDiscuss Needs of Children Entering KindergartenA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty conducting jointoutreach to parents and local education agencies to discuss the needs of children entering kindergarten. Approximately 29% of the programs reportedexperiencing varying levels of difficulty conducting joint outreach with most of these programs describing this process as difficult or somewhat difficult. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Engaging the Local Education Agencies in Forming Common Policies andProcedures that Support the Transitioning of Children and Families intoElementary SchoolA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty engaging localeducation agencies in forming common policies and procedures that support thetransitioning of children and families into elementary school. Approximately 29%of the programs reported experiencing some level of difficulty forming commonpolicies and procedure with most of these programs describing this process assomewhat difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Helping Parents of Limited English Proficient Children UnderstandInstructional and Other Information and Services Provided by theReceiving SchoolTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) indicated having no difficulty helping parents of limited English proficient children understand instructions. Slightly less than one-


73



third of the programs (32%) reported experiencing some level of difficulty helpingparents understand instructional information and services with most of theseprograms describing this process as somewhat or extremely difficult. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Exchanging Information with Local Education Agencies on Roles,Resources and RegulationsA majority of the programs (68%) indicated having no difficulty exchanginginformation with local education agencies on roles, resources and regulations.About 29% of the programs reported experiencing some level of difficultyexchanging information with most of these programs describing this process assomewhat difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Aligning Curricula and Assessment Practices with Local EducationAgenciesAn overwhelming majority of the programs (71%) indicated having no difficulty

aligning curricula and assessment practices with local education agencies. Morethan a quarter of programs (26%) reported experiencing some level difficultyaligning curricula and assessment practices with most programs describing thisprocess as somewhat difficult. Three programs did not respond to this item.

Accessing Longitudinal Data to Examine School SuccessMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated experiencing some level of difficulty accessing longitudinal data to examine school success, and all of theseprograms described accessing longitudinal data as either somewhat difficult or difficult. About 42% of the programs reported having no difficulty accessinglongitudinal data to examine school success. One program did not respond tothis item.

Organizing and Participating in Joint Training, Including Transition-RelatedTraining for School Staff and Head Start Staff More than half of the programs (58%) indicated having no difficulty organizingand participating in joint training with local education agencies related totransition. More than one-third of the programs (37%) reported experiencingsome level of difficulty organizing and participating in joint training with mostprograms describing this process as somewhat difficult. Two programs did notrespond to this item.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have had the most difficulty coordinating shared transportation andaccessing longitudinal data to examine school success.


74



There were few issues cited by programs regarding the transition of children fromHead Start into the public school system. One program stated that the localeducation agency does not consider Head Start’s transition program to benecessary since the local education agency has its own introduction to the schoolsystem.

Dual school systems within a service area have presented challenges, primarilywhen there are different levels of working relationships with each system. Thissituation is confusing for staff and parents trying to figure out how to best meetthe needs of children and families regarding public school education.


• [The] Local Education Agency does not always understand that HeadStart is required to provide these services for the [eligible] children andfamilies. Head start may be seen as a bother… because the schoolprovides [its] own introduction to the school.

•

It is very challenging to work with the Local Education Agency in the Cityof New Orleans because of the dual school system that exists.

• [Our program needs] a simplified tool to gather progress information onchildren beyond Head Start.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have experienced success coordinating with local education agenciesto implement systematic procedures for transferring records, facilitatingcoordination of programs, establishing and implementing transition policies andprocedures, linking services related to language numeracy and literacy, aligningHead Start curricula with State early childhood guidelines, assisting families and

children with transition, coordinating use of shared facilities, providing supportservices for children and families, conducting joint outreach to parents; formingcommon policies and procedures regarding transition, helping parents of limitedEnglish proficiency, exchanging information on roles and resources, and aligningcurricula and assessment practices.

Programs have developed transition booklets, transition tours and transitionmeetings that all attempt to introduce Head Start children and families to publicschool faculty and staff to ease the transition of children from Head Startclassrooms into public school classrooms.


75



C h


76




77



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Professional

Developmentsection of theassessment wasstructured to explore the types of working relationships that currentlyexist between Head Start programsand organizations and agencies that can assist with theprofessional development of staff, including institutions of higher education, online courses and programs, the Child Care Resourceand Referral Network, the Head Start Training & Technical Assistance


78



Network, and other local, state or regional networks providing training andtechnical assistance and cross-training.

The items in this section also examined the level of difficulty programsencountered while trying to access early childhood education degrees in the

community, training and technical assistance opportunities, online professionaldevelopment programs, and scholarships and other financial aid.


Institutions of Higher Education (Four Year)An overwhelming majority of the programs (82%) indicated having some type of working relationship with four year institutions of higher education for professional development purposes. The programs were divided nearly evenlybetween the three types of working relationships. Approximately 16% of theprograms reported having no working relationship with four year institutions of

higher education. One program did not respond to this item.

Institutions of Higher Education (Two Year)More than one-third of the programs (37%) indicated having a moderate level of involvement with community colleges or comparable two year institutions of higher education, and slightly less than one-third of the programs (32%) reportedhaving a high level of involvement. Significantly fewer programs (21%) indicatedhaving a low level of involvement with two year institutions of higher education.Only about 8% of programs reported having no working relationship. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

On-line Courses/ProgramsNearly one-third of the programs (32%) indicated having no working relationshipwith an organization or agency that provides on-line courses or programs for professional development. Most of the programs that reported workingrelationships with on-line courses or programs reported having a cooperativeworking relationship (29%). Nearly a quarter of the programs (24%) indicatedhaving a coordinative working relationship, and about 13% of the programsindicated having a collaborative working relationship. One program did notrespond to this item.

Child Care Resource and Referral NetworkAlmost all of the programs (92%) indicated having some type of workingrelationship with the Child Care Resource and Referral Network, and most of these programs reported having a coordinative working relationship (37%).Slightly fewer programs reported having a cooperative relationship (32%) withthe network, and approximately 24% of the programs indicated having a


79



collaborative working relationship. Only about 5% of programs indicated havingno working relationship. One program did not respond to this item.

Head Start Training & Technical Assistance NetworkAn overwhelming majority of the programs (89%) indicated some level of

involvement with the Head Start Training & Technical Assistance Network.Approximately 39% of programs reported having a moderate level of involvementwith the network, and slightly more than one-third of the programs (34%) of programs indicated having a high level of involvement. About 16% of theprograms indicated having a low level involvement with the Head Start Training &Technical Assistance Network, and about 5% of the programs reported having noworking relationship. Two programs did not respond to this item.

Other Regional and State Training & Technical Assistance NetworksAlmost all of the programs (92%) indicated having working relationships withother regional and state training and technical assistance networks, and most of

these programs reported coordinating with these network. Nearly the samenumber of programs reported collaborating (26%) and cooperating (24%) withregional and state training and technical assistance networks. Only 5% of programs indicated having no working relationship with other regional and statetraining and technical assistance networks. One program did not respond to thisitem.

Service Providers and Organizations Offering Relevant Cross-Training &Technical Assistance OpportunitiesAlmost all of the programs (95%) indicated having some type of workingrelationship with service providers or organizations that offer relevant cross-training and technical assistance opportunities. Most of these programs (39%)reported having coordinative or cooperative working relationships (32%). Almostone-fourth of the programs (24%) indicated having a collaborative workingrelationship with organizations offering cross-training and technical assistance.Only one program indicated having no working relationship with service providersor organizations that offer relevant training and technical assistance. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.


Transferring Credits between Public Institutions of LearningMost of the programs (42%) indicated that transferring credits between publicinstitutions of learning has been somewhat difficult. Most of these programsdescribed the process as somewhat difficult. Slightly less than one-third of theprograms (32%) reported having no difficulty transferring credits between publicinstitutions of learning. One program did not respond to this item.

Accessing Early Childhood Education Degree Programs in the Community


80



Half of the programs (50%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyaccessing early childhood education degree programs in the community withmost of these programs describing this process as somewhat difficult (29%). Anequal number of programs (11%) reported that accessing childhood educationdegree programs has been either somewhat or extremely difficult. Approximately

47% of the programs indicated that accessing early childhood degree programshas not been difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Accessing Training & Technical Assistance Opportunities in theCommunityMore than half of the programs (55%) indicated that accessing training andtechnical assistance opportunities in the community has not been difficult. Nearlya quarter of the programs (24%) described accessing training and technicalassistance opportunities as somewhat difficult, and an additional 18% of theprograms indicated that this process has been difficult or extremely difficult. Oneprogram did not respond to this item.

Accessing Scholarships and Other Financial Support for ProfessionalDevelopment Programs and ActivitiesTwo-thirds of the programs (66%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyaccessing scholarships and other financial support for professional developmentprograms and activities. Almost all of these programs described this process assomewhat or extremely difficult. Less that one-third of the programs (32%)indicated having no difficulty accessing scholarships and other financial support.One program did not respond to this item.

Staff Release Time to Attend Professional Development ActivitiesA majority of the programs (55%) indicated experiencing varying levels of difficulty coordinating staff release time to attend professional developmentactivities with most of these programs describing this process difficult or extremely difficult. More than one-fourth of the programs (26%) described thisprocess as either somewhat or extremely difficult. Approximately 43% of theprograms reported having no difficulty allocating staff release time for professional development activities. One program did not respond to this item.

Obtaining Hours Provided by Approved Providers of Training to MeetLicensing RequirementsHalf of the programs (50%) indicated that obtaining hours provided by approvedproviders has not been difficult. Most of the programs that reported experiencingdifficulty described this process as somewhat or extremely difficult (37%).Approximately 11% of the programs described obtaining training hours to meetlicensing requirements as extremely difficult. One program did not respond to thisitem.

Accessing On-line Professional Development Opportunities


81



A majority of the programs (61%) indicated experiencing some level of difficultyaccessing online professional development opportunities, and all but one of these programs described this process as somewhat difficult or difficult. Morethan one-third of the programs (37%) reported having no difficulty accessing on-line professional development programs. One program did not respond to this

item.

Exchanging Information on Roles and Resources with Other Providers or Organizations Regarding Professional DevelopmentMore than half of the programs (53%) reported experiencing varying levels of difficulty exchanging information on roles and resources with other providers or organizations regarding professional development. Almost all of these programsdescribed this process as somewhat or extremely difficult. Approximately 45% of the programs reported that exchanging information on roles and resources hasnot been difficult. One program did not respond to this item.

Ongoing Monitoring of Staff and Completing CourseworkA majority of the programs (61%) indicated that coordinating ongoing monitoringof staff has not been difficult. More than one-fifth of the programs (21%) reportedthat ongoing monitoring has been somewhat difficult, and half as many programsreported that this process has been difficult. One program did not respond to thisitem.

PROGRAM INSIGHT

Program IssuesPrograms have experienced the most difficulty developing relationships with on-line courses and programs. Programs have had the most difficulty accessingearly childhood degree programs, accessing scholarships and other financialsupport, coordinating staff release time to attend professional developmentactivities and obtaining hours by approved providers to meet licensingrequirements.

Multiple programs stated that providing teachers and assistants time during theworkday to take courses has been a challenge. A lack of certified substituteteachers and the classroom child-to-staff ratio requirements are two constraintsthat contribute to this issue.

Providing appropriate salaries for staff with higher level early childhood educationdegrees has also been a problem. The inability to transfer credits or coursesfrom on-line courses and degrees to Louisiana public colleges and universitiesand a lack of funding for advanced early childhood education degrees were alsocited as barriers. One program stated that it has been difficult to get its staff torecognize the value of a four-year early childhood education degree.


82



A few programs stated that getting the required professional development hoursby Pathways has been difficult because the many of the trainings attended bystaff are not conducted by a Pathways trainer.


•

Online degrees or courses do not always transfer to the Louisianauniversities, so it limits the head Start teachers/assistant teachers.

• It is difficult to find certified substitutes to cover classes when teachers or assistants attend training.

• Providing salaries commensurate with degrees being earned by staff [isdifficult.]

• [It has been difficult] getting staff to “buy into” the need for a 4-year earlychildhood education degree.

Program Best PracticesPrograms have had the most success developing working relationships with two-

year institutions of higher education, the Head Start Training and TechnicalAssistance Network, other state and regional training and technical assistancenetworks and service providers and organizations offering relevant cross-trainingand technical assistance opportunities.

Developing a professional development plan for each staff member and offeringconvenient training options has helped programs anticipate training needs andensure staff can take advantage of training opportunities. Programs havefostered working relationships with colleges and universities specifically tofacilitate the matriculation of staff members through the early childhood degreeprocess.


83



C h


84



EXPERIENCES WITH THE QRS SYSTEM

About one-third of the programs responding to item reported having either anacute awareness of the QRS System but no working relationship or a relationship

that is one year in length or shorter. A small number of programs expressedpositive experiences with the QRS System stating that the system has beenhelpful in providing Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)evaluations of teachers; focusing on future recordkeeping; and meetingcertification requirements. Other positive feedback included:

• They have been helpful in the early stage of implementing the qualityrating system.

• [Our experience with the QRS System has been] very good. QRS hasbeen helpful in meeting certification requirements.

Several programs indicated experiencing difficulty with the QRS System rangingfrom minor problems such as confusion about tax credits to major issues such aschanges in requirements without prior notification. Some of the negativeresponses regarding the QRS system included:

• [The QRS System] very frustrating and inflexible. [It has been] difficult toschedule trainings [due to] limited training availability. [The] benefits [of theQRS System] are not evident.

• It has been difficult to understand with constant changes in the QRS ratingsystem and the different reviewers’ interpretations.

• Some standards are different from state licensing causing confusion for

the staff.• [We have] not [had] a very good experience.

• The QRS System does not give a clear view of what Head Start’s future isin Louisiana.

EXPERIENCES WITH CHILD CARE LICENSING AND REGULATORY SECTION


85



About two-thirds of the programs responding to this item indicated that their experience with the Bureau of Licensing has been satisfactory or good. Some of the positive feedback about programs’ experience with the Bureau of Licensingincluded:

•

The Bureau of Licensing recognizes our program for efforts to improve thequality of care for young children.

• Our relationship with the Bureau of Licensing is positive and the lines of communication are open.

• During the past three years, the Bureau of Licensing has been extremelysupportive and helpful as we worked to rebuild and restore our Head Startprogram.

• We have a workable relationship with the licensing bureau that helps us tomeet the requirements of the state and federal mandates.

• Licensing has been helpful to use and continues to work to meet our needs as a school district.

More than one-third of the programs reported having issues the Bureau of Licensing, and the two recurrent themes were inconsistencies in inspections anddifficulty in communication. Some of the negative feedback about programs’experience with the Bureau of Licensing included:

• [F]or the most part, they are either impractical or unreasonable in their requests, citations, etc. It is hard to reach them. They never seem to beavailable. They are inconsistent in how they address thepolicies/requirements.

• It is a difficult task working with the Bureau of Licensing. Inspectors come

into our program and cite deficiencies that in some instances are wrong.• There seem to be inconsistencies among surveyors causing many

problems.

• Our current and most pressing issue with the Bureau of Licensing is thatthere is no consistency with implementation of licensing requirements. Wecover six parishes of Head Start, and when [the Bureau of] Licensing visitsone of our six parishes, they are never on one accord.

• They seem to expect more of Head Start programs located in schools.Inspections do not appear to be standardized for all sites.

EXPERIENCES WITH LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ENTITY

Most programs responding to this item stated that their experience with the localpublic school entity has been good. Some of the grantees are local schoolsystems; therefore an inherent working relationship exists. Some of the positivefeedback about programs’ experience with the local public school entity included:


86



• We have a good working relationship with early intervention services. Wehave interagency agreements with the LEA’s in both parishes where weserve children.

• We have a great relationship! They provide all of the services we needand pay salaries and benefits for bus monitors and drivers.

• Our agency has a very good relationship with our LEA. They serve on our committees, and there is collaboration between the two entities.

• We have a wonderful working relationship. They are extremely supportive.We coordinate activities and programs as much as we can.

A few programs stated experienced difficulty working with the local public schoolentity. Some of the negative feedback about programs’ experience with the localpublic school entity included:

• [There is] very little cooperation. [The LEA is] not good on timeliness.

• The public school system does not currently see the benefit of them

having an MOU with our Head Start program.• The dual school system in the Orleans Parish is very challenging to work

with in that it requires twice the work for every task.

EXPERIENCES WITH PATHWAYS

Programs provided mostly positive experiences with Pathways as a trainingresource for staff. Program descriptions of the positive experiences withPathways varied from “okay” to “excellent” with most programs stating that their Pathways experience has been good. Some of the positive feedback aboutprograms’ experience with Pathways included:

• The relationship with Pathways has been excellent. We are always able towork through any problems or concerns the entity might have.

• Pathways has enriched our programs through scholarships and ongoingtraining.

• Staff has benefited from the services of Pathways in the past, and weencourage those with current educational needs to coordinate with thisorganization.

Multiple programs expressed negative experiences with Pathways, commentingon the difficulties encountered in attempts to find certified trainers and the narrow

benefits of Pathways as a training resource. Some of the negative aboutprogram’s experience with Pathways included:

• Our concern is that Pathways seems to only benefit the center/sitesupervisors and teaching staff [while neglecting the training needs] of thestaff [members] that work in the administrative office of our Head Startprogram.


87



• It is very difficult to find trainers who are Pathways trained. It is also verydifficult for my education manager to get the hours that she needs tobecome a Pathways trainer. It is also very hard to find conferences thatprovide sessions that are Pathways approved.

• [Our program has] mixed reviews. [Pathways is] a good resources for

training funds and to help pay for NAEYC. [However, Pathways has]inconsistent guidelines; [it has been] difficult to obtain required training;and [Pathways has been] inflexible in approving trainers.

PROGRAM PERSPECTIVE: CHANGES IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Programs were asked to express their opinions on what should or should not bechanged in the State of Louisiana regarding child care in general and the HeadStart program in particular. Responses varied widely in topic, but licensingrequirements for Head Start programs and duplication of services with the localand state governments were two of the most commonly mentioned items.

In response to what should be changed in the State of Louisiana, some programsprovided the following feedback:

• The State [of Louisiana] should look at the federally funded services for children 3-to-5 years of age and not duplicate these services, or at leastnot compete for the same children.

• Do away with Pathways required training. If a school system is the HeadStart grantee, then daycare licensing should not be required.

• Develop licensing regulations strictly for Head Start programs.

• [W]e would like to see that state move away from the requirements for Class A licensure since Head Start performance standards are more than

sufficient to ensure the well-being of children without the added burdensassociated with licensing regulations.

• We want to see a better collaborative partnership with the public Pre-Kprogram in our area built around recruiting, selection, enrollment andeducating preschool age children throughout the parish. Children currentlyenrolled in our Head Start program are recruited and enrolled in theState’s Pre-K program without regard to adherence of our fundedenrollment and duplication of services.

The responses to what should not be changed in the State of Louisiana variedgreatly, ranging from the preservation of the Head Start program to collaboration.

Most responses focused on the maintenance current funding levels to sustain theHead Start program in the state. In response to what should not be changed inthe State of Louisiana, some of the programs provided the following feedback:

• The Head Start program should remain an autonomous entity from theDepartment of Education of the State of Louisiana. Please do not fix whatis not broken.


88



• Head Start services play an important role to children and families in theState of Louisiana. Funding sources should stay the same, and we shouldnot move to state block grants.

• I would not want to see the elimination of Head Start programs.

• Initiatives that will continue to provide funding to organizations to serve the

needs of the clients in the community they reside [should remain intact.]• We would not want to see a decrease in the number of childcare providers

offering comprehensive services to children zero to five years of age.

ANALYSIS: TRENDS & IMPLICATIONS

Health Care

• Trend. Programs have had difficulty receiving information from medicalprofessionals on the results and/or status of Lead Screenings.

Implication. Programs should work collaboratively with health careproviders to establish a defined process for medical professionals workingwith Head Start children and families that should include the method of reporting and timeframe in which results should be returned.

• Trend. Linking children to medical and dental has been a difficult task for most programs; however the number of collaborative and cooperativeworking relationships seems to be in conflict this finding.

Implication. Programs may be working through the difficulties of locatinghealth care providers and dentists who will serve enrolled children andfamilies, or medical and dental care may not be as effectively provided insome portions of a program’s service area.

• Trend. A substantial number of programs have had difficulty arrangingcoordinated services for children with special health care needs, and most

programs had no working relationship with home-visiting providers.

Implication. Working relationships with agencies and organizations thatprovide special needs, including home-visiting providers, are especiallycritical when programs are serving children with special health care needs.Relationships with home-visiting providers should primarily be coordinativeand collaborative to ensure children can access seamless health carewithin a reasonable timeframe.


89



• Trend. More than a quarter of programs have no working relationship withprograms related to children’s physical fitness and obesity prevention.

Implication. With the State of Louisiana ranking in the top ten in obesity

among all states, Head Start programs should strive to have coordinativeand collaborative working relationships with programs and services relatedto children’s physical fitness and obesity prevention.

• Trend. Assisting parents to communicate effectively with medical anddental providers and assisting families to get transportation toappointments have both been difficult for programs across the board.

Implication. Parents have to be more effectively prepared to navigate thesystem to obtain and maintain proper medical coverage for their childrenand also be able to communicate with health care providers to safeguard

the long-term health of their children. Building collaborative relationshipswith health care providers can lead to the development of more flexibleappointment options that may include providers arranging on-site visits.

Services to Children Experiencing Homelessness

• Trend. A significant number of programs have no working relationshipwith the local McKinney-Vento Liaison, and a high number of programshad not aligned their programmatic definition of homelessness with theMcKinney-Vento Act.

Implication. Alignment of the programmatic definition of homelessnesswith the McKinney-Vento Act is the first step to developing high levelrelationships with McKinney-Vento Liaisons.

• Trend. Most programs have experienced difficulty engaging communitypartners that provide services for children and families experiencinghomelessness; however, the number of programs that have workingrelationships with local agencies serving families experiencinghomelessness is very high.

Implication. These two trends seem inconsistent, but programs may have

difficulty engaging the broad range of services that children and familiesexperiencing homelessness require. The agencies in their service areamay be limited in scope or operating at or near capacity.

• Trend. Obtaining data on the needs of homeless children has been adifficult task for many programs, and few programs have workingrelationships with Title I Directors in their service area.


90



Implication. Title I Directors in the public school system and executivestaff in other agencies that serve children and families experiencinghomelessness should have access to the most current data on the needsof homeless children within a given service area. If this data is not readilyavailable, programs can collaborate with Title I Directors and other agency

heads to develop a plan to collect this information.

Welfare and Child Welfare

• Trend. Programs have found it difficult to become involved in state levelplanning and policy development.

Implication. Programs should be encouraged to participate in state levelmeetings and events. Enhancing working relationships with economic andcommunity development councils can strengthen programmatic networksand facilitate communication with state policymakers.

• Trend. Coordinative and collaborative working relationships with childcare assistance programs and employment and training programs havebeen successfully cultivated by several programs.

Implication. Programs should maintain these types of workingrelationships to ensure families have access to child care assistance andemployment opportunities. Programs with no working relationship or cooperative working relationships with child care assistance programs andemployment and training programs should work toward the developmentof higher level working relationships.

• Trend. A number of programs have had difficulty facilitating sharedtraining and technical assistance opportunities and exchanginginformation or roles and resources with other organizations regardingwelfare and child welfare.

Implication. Programs should focus on developing sustainable high levelworking relationships with welfare and child welfare organizations toincrease the efficiency of service to children and families.

• Trend. Providing assistance to families of incarcerated individuals has

been a challenge.

Implication. Families with one or more incarcerated parents are the mostsusceptible to economic hardships, so programs should seek to improvetheir ability to assist these families during and after the incarcerationperiod.

Child Care


91



• Trend. A significant number of programs have no relationship withstatewide policy and planning committees that address child care issues.

Implication. Developing a relationship with these committees will assist

programs in appropriately addressing concerns regarding with statewidelicensing and training requirements.

• Trend. Providing shared training opportunities with child care providershas been fairly challenging for many programs.

Implication. Programs should focus on accessing or developing trainingopportunities that focus on state requirements that impact both Head Startand private child care providers to engage both entities. These types of shared training opportunities will ensure that resources are beingmaximized and all child care organizations within a given service area are

receiving the same information about licensing and other salient issues.

Family Literacy Services

• Trend. Very few programs have working relationships with museums andEven Start programs, and a significant number of programs had noworking relationships with school libraries. A large number of programshave experienced difficulty recruiting and retaining families in familyliteracy services and educating others, especially parents, about theimportance of family literacy.

Implication. The lack of working relationships with museums and EvenStart programs among Head Start programs is probably due to the factthat these organizations and programs do not exist in many of the areassome programs serve. The absence of these entities suggests thatprograms should make an effort to work more closely with school librariesand other local resources to develop collaborative working relationshipsthat can offset the lack of literacy resources.

• Trend. The incorporation of family literacy into program policies andpractices has not been a challenge for many programs; however theeffectiveness of these policies and practices should be examined due to

the difficulty Head Start programs have with recruiting and retainingparents in literacy and adult education programs.

Implication. Literacy and adult education services may need to be moreclosely linked with employment and training programs in order for parentsto recognize the short-term and long-term benefits of improving their literacy skills.


92



• Trend. Many programs have working relationships with employment andtraining programs, adult education programs and English LanguageLearner programs and services, but most of these relationships werecooperative.

Implication. Developing coordinative and collaborative workingrelationships with programs that provide these much needed services for parents will help programs ensure that the available opportunities meetthe employment, training and educational needs of the families beingserved by the Head Start program.

Services for Children with Disabilities

•

Trend. A significant number of programs experienced difficulty obtainingtimely evaluations of children.

Implication. The inability to get timely evaluations negates the efforts of program staff to provide necessary assistance for children with disabilities.Programs should work collaboratively with providers that conductscreenings to develop practical timelines that meet the needs of bothorganizations and the children and families being served.

• Trend. Most programs have been able to develop a collaborative workingrelationship with local Part B/619 and local Part C providers and have not

had difficulty coordinating services with Part B/619 or Part C providers.

Implication. Developing and maintaining high level working relationshipswith local part B/619 providers ensures that children with disabilitiesreceive high quality child care.

• Trend. A considerable number of programs have no working relationshipswith university or community college programs related to children withdisabilities.

Implication. This finding is consistent with the geographic location of

many programs in respect to university and community college campuses.Programs should work to develop relationships with university extensionservices in the state or region and on-line programs that specialize inworking with children with disabilities may help provide the type of trainingor information beneficial to staff and/or parents.

Community Services


93



• Trend. Programs have been able to effectively conduct outreach activitiesfor families and obtain in-kind services from community organizations.

Implication. Being able to link families to the necessary communityservices is critical, and programs should work to continue in this vein and

provide a framework for other programs to follow.

• Trend. A significant number of programs have experienced difficultyaccessing public and private resources regarding prevention andtreatment services, yet almost all programs have working relationshipswith providers of substance abuse and child abuse prevention andtreatment services.

Implication. Programs may be working with State programs that providesubstance abuse and child abuse prevention and treatment services or have experienced difficulty accessing specific prevention and treatment

services for eligible families other than substance abuse or child abuseservices.

Partnerships with Local Education Agencies

• Trend. Programs seem to have the most difficulty providing services tomeet the needs of working parents.

Implication. Scheduling trainings and coordinating other services for working parents has been difficult for all entities providing child care andeducational services. Head Start programs should work in conjunction with

local education agencies and working parents to make the necessaryservices accessible.

• Trend. Several programs have managed to coordinate activities with localeducation agencies in order to meet the needs of children and families inthe service area.

Implication. Although Head Start programs and local education agencieshave issues competing for 4-year-old children, the two entities have beenable to collaborate effectively on the primary issues that affect childrenand families in the service area.

Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12

• Trend. Partnering with local education agencies for transition andalignment with K-12 curricula has been relatively easy for most programs.


94



Implication. Exploring why programs have been so successful in workingwith local education agencies on these tasks may be beneficial duplicatingthis success in programs throughout the State.

• Trend. Many programs have found it difficult to access longitudinal data

to examine school success.

Implication. Studies that include may not be readily available in a formatthat programs can access, so this information should be made availablealong with practical uses in regard to relationships with local educationagencies.

Professional Development

• Trend. Common professional development challenges programs arefacing include transferring credits between institutions, accessing on-lineprofessional development, accessing early childhood degree programsand accessing scholarships and other financial support.

Implication. Programs whose service area does not include university or community colleges with early childcare programs should work towarddeveloping relationships with extension service programs of publicinstitutions in the state. With funding for professional development beingsuch an issue in many programs, the use of on-line development

programs and services offered by state agencies can significantly reducethe amount of money programs spend on professional development for staff.

• Trend. Working relationships with training and technical assistancenetworks are mostly coordinative or collaborative.

Implication. These relationships should be maintained in order to ensureprogram staff receives the highest quality training available, and allprograms should work toward developing collaborative workingrelationships with these training and technical assistance networks.


95



RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the analysis of the data collectedfrom the Head Start programs in the State of Louisiana by the Louisiana HeadStart State Collaboration Project. These recommendations will be used in thedevelopment of a five-year strategic plan for Head Start in the State of Louisiana.

1. Include Pathways certified trainings at all statewide and regionalconferences to assist programs in obtaining the required training hours.Examine the effectiveness of developing a mechanism for Head Startprogram staff to become Pathways certified trainers provided by the HeadStart State Collaboration Project.

2. Identify or develop on-line professional development tools that programscan access via the Internet (professional development tools can also be inCD-ROM, CD, or DVD format for program use). Explore allocating fundingto record statewide Head Start trainings and conferences that can bemade available on-line or in other formats for program use.

3. Develop literature for private child care providers and local educationagencies on ways that Head Start programs and other child care servicescan complement one another in order to reduce or eliminate competitivetension.

4. Work as a liaison between Head Start programs and the Bureau of Licensing to facilitate communication, address grievances and advocatefor a consistent evaluation system for Head Start programs.

5. Develop literature for health care providers, specifically oral healthprofessionals and home-visiting providers, on the short-term and long-


96



term benefits of partnering with Head Start programs to provide care toeligible children and families.

6. Develop a memorandum that explains the federal definition of homelessness complete with the McKinney-Vento Liaisons in all of the

areas served by Head Start programs in order to facilitate communicationand collaboration.

7. Identify and implement a standard physical fitness and obesity curriculumthat can be employed by every Head Start program in the State.

8. Identify or develop standard comprehensive training modules for parentsthat focus on the importance of family literacy, health services and publiceducation as these items relate to long-term sustainability for children andfamilies.

APPENDIX

2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines & Head Start Income Eligibility

Persons in Family Poverty Guideline1 $10,8302 14,5703 18,3104 22,0505 25,790

6 29,5307 33,2708 37,010

For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additionalperson.

Louisiana Head Start State Collab Office Needs Assessment Report (2010)

Documents

Transcript of Louisiana Head Start State Collab Office Needs Assessment Report (2010)