head start/child care partnerships: program characteristics and classroom quality

Head Start/Child Care Partnerships: Program Characteristicsand Classroom Quality

Diane Schilder • Ashley Smith Leavell

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract As part of President Obama’s Early Education

Plan, Congress authorized $500 million in the 2014

Omnibus Act to support states and communities in

expanding high-quality early learning through the creation

of a new Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership initiative.

This initiative has placed renewed interest on research

regarding the nature and benefits of Head Start and child

care partnerships. In this study, we sought to confirm—or

call into question—the benefits of Head Start and child care

partnerships by performing secondary analysis of data

collected from child care centers in partnership and mat-

ched non-partnering comparison centers. We analyzed

survey data from 61 child care centers—approximately half

of which were engaged in partnership with Head Start—

and analyzed observational data from 66 classrooms within

these centers. The observational data had been collected

using two psychometrically valid and reliable measures of

quality—the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale

Revised Edition (ECERS-R) and the Early Language and

Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit (ELLCO). Results

show that classrooms at partnership centers demonstrated

higher observed global quality in all six subscales of the

ECERS-R, as well as the total overall score compared to

non-partnership classrooms. Moreover, classrooms in

partnership performed higher on seven out of ten subscales,

as measured by the ELLCO, with the largest difference

seen in language and literacy practices. To further explore

the potential benefits of partnerships on classroom quality,

we developed hierarchical regression models. These results

provided further evidence regarding the benefits of

partnership.

Keywords Head Start � Child care � Partnerships � Early

childhood

Introduction

For more than 20 years, federal and state governments

have been creating incentives for Head Start programs and

child care providers to work together in formal partnership.

The rationale behind this effort is the belief that these

partnerships can be more effective than non-partnered

services in meeting the developmental needs of young

children and the child care needs of their working parents

(Kagan et al. 2000; Schilder et al. 2009). As part of Pres-

ident Obama’s Early Education Plan, Congress authorized

$500 million in the 2014 Omnibus Act to support states and

communities in expanding high-quality early learning

through the creation of a new Early Head Start-Child Care

(EHS/CC) Partnership initiative. The new initiative has

placed renewed interest on research regarding the nature

and benefits of Head Start and child care partnerships.

While Head Start is often equated with child care, Head

Start programs go far beyond most child care programs in

terms of scope, regulations and training (U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau 1998).

For the past two decades, federal and state governments

have promoted partnerships between Head Start programs

and child care providers for many reasons, chief among

them being an effort to bring the higher standards of Head

Start to a larger group of children. Training and technical

assistance projects have been funded by the federal

D. Schilder � A. Smith Leavell (&)

Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development

Center, Inc., 43 Foundry Ave, Waltham, MA 02453, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

D. Schilder

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Early Childhood Educ J

DOI 10.1007/s10643-014-0640-y

government to help Head Start and child care providers

implement and sustain partnerships. In addition, the federal

government has issued numerous regulations and policies

in support of these partnerships (Schilder et al. 2003a).

State governments have also created incentives to encour-

age partnerships by providing additional funding to those

Head Start and child care providers engaged in partnerships

(Schilder et al. 2003a). The belief is that partnerships

between Head Start and child care programs will greatly

improve the quality of care compared to child care pro-

grams that are not in partnership. However, to date there

are no peer-reviewed articles that provide evidence for this

belief. With the recent focus on early childhood education

and quality child care in the current administration, the

effectiveness of partnerships between child care centers

and Head Start must be examined.

Primary Differences

In theory, Head Start and child care programs offer similar

services to the same target population. Head Start offers

early education services to preschool-aged children, and

Early Head Start offers services to infants and toddlers.

Child care programs serve families with children under the

age of five. Public funding for both Head Start and child

care targets children living in low-income families. How-

ever, Head Start and child care were each created with a

unique focus. Head Start’s primary goal is to address the

developmental needs of children, while child care is

designed to address the child care needs of parents who are

working, or attending school or job training. Because of the

primary responsibilities of each entity, a comparison of the

two reveals distinctly different structures, services, and

delivery systems. For example, each entity schedules its

services differently. Child care programs typically offer

services on a full-day, full-year basis so that parents can

work or attend school. The majority of Head Start pro-

grams, meanwhile, are offered on a part-day, part-year

basis. Thus, parents who lack the flexibility to transport

their children in the middle of the day or who cannot take

time off in the summer may be precluded from taking

advantage of Head Start.

The regulations governing Head Start and child care also

differ substantially. While there are many excellent child

care programs all over the country, child care in general

does not benefit from the stringent requirements that ensure

the more universal quality that Head Start programs enjoy.

In particular, Head Start’s Program Performance Standards

require all Head Start programs to offer children and

families a range of comprehensive services to meet child

development needs (Schilder 2004). By contrast, child care

regulations in many states govern only basic health and

safety issues. Educational standards for Head Start teachers

are also higher than they are for child care providers. The

rationale behind incentives for partnership is the belief that

formally arranged, collaborative efforts between these two

entities have the potential of meeting both the develop-

mental needs of young children and the child care needs of

their parents or family caregivers (Kagan et al. 2000;

Stebbins et al. 2007). However, the differences between the

two entities, such as those highlighted above, present sig-

nificant challenges to collaborative efforts. Given these

challenges, it is important to examine whether the benefits

of such partnerships are enough to warrant supporting

efforts to do this work.

Arguments in Favor of Partnerships

Studies show that children benefit from attending Head

Start programs. For example, children attending Head Start

are more likely than their peers to receive comprehensive

services such as health and mental health services and

engage in enriching educational experiences (Schilder

2004). Studies also reveal that high-quality early education

can translate into longer-term cost savings by enhancing

school readiness, reducing retention, and reducing special

education placements. Moreover, some have estimated that

Head Start can generate about 80 % of the benefits of more

resource-intensive programs at about 60 % of the cost

(Deming 2009).

Because of strict oversight, Head Start classrooms tend

to be consistent in their quality and in the range of services

they provide. Child care programs, on the other hand, are

not. Research confirms that there exists substantial varia-

tion in quality across child care settings (Marshall 2003),

and a significant portion of child care is low quality (Edie

et al. 2003). This low quality of child care in some loca-

tions and settings is not surprising, since licensing stan-

dards for centers in many states address only basic health

and safety requirements, with minimal quality standards

(Schilder et al. 2003b). The inconsistency among child care

services represents one instigating factor in the federal- and

state-level push for child care centers to partner with Head

Start. Essentially and frankly, the goal of these envisioned

partnerships is to improve the quality of child care by

aligning it with Head Start standards.

In addition, the continuity of care that comes with

engagement in Head Start is also important. Research is

replete with the many benefits of stability for children in

their earliest years as well as the negative effects of child

care instability. Child care instability has been found to

adversely influence children’s development, and the prob-

lems that come from instability in child care are signifi-

cantly more acute for children who are already at risk for

poor developmental outcomes (Adams and Rohacek 2010).

One seldom discussed factor in child care stability or


123

instability is its connection to parents’ participation in the

workforce and/or access to subsidies. Child care research

suggests that parents who receive subsidies for child care

have greater employment stability than parents who do not

receive subsidies (Henly and Lyons 2000). In addition, the

quality of care affects parents’ workforce participation. For

example, families with low incomes that used a child care

that offered more expanded assistance reported fewer

problems with their child care, such as last-minute cancel-

lations that would cause them to be late or miss work, than a

control group of parents who used a standard child care

arrangement (Gennetian et al. 2002). Thus, high-quality

child care not only has an influence on the child, but also on

the parents. Having subsidies that support parents’ ability to

put their child in child care is important in employment

stability, but those that have access to high-quality child care

will potentially be more involved in the workforce. How-

ever, the access to subsidies or even the ability to pay for

child care is directly tied to the parents’ employment status,

making traditional child care a potentially tenuous

arrangement. Head Start, on the other hand, provides chil-

dren and families with greater continuity of care. Once a

child qualifies for Head Start, even if the parent’s employ-

ment status changes, that child’s status in Head Start remains

the same, and the child is allowed to stay in the program.

Additional advantages exist to partnering child care pro-

grams with Head Start. When compared with their peers,

children from low-income backgrounds who participate in

high-quality programs demonstrate higher cognitive gains

and reduced grade retention, and are more likely to receive

any needed special education placements (Reynolds et al.

2001). Numerous studies have shown that higher observed

quality, as measured by environment rating tools such as

those developed by researchers at Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center, is correlated with desired pro-

gram and child outcomes (Harms et al. 2006, 2007).

Currently, even though Head Start and child care both

offer important services, their existing structural and

scheduling differences can lead to parents having to choose

between part-day higher-quality programs and full-day,

full-year services that support their workforce participation

(Schilder 2003). Partnerships between Head Start and child

care theoretically could create seamless services that

address both parents’ need for work support and children’s

need for early education (Schilder 2003; Schumacher et al.

2005; Sowa 2001).

Review of Research on Partnerships

Since 2000, researchers have been studying the nature and

benefits of partnerships between child care and other early

education providers with the aim of determining whether or

not the theoretical benefits of such partnerships exist.

Qualitative case studies have found that child care pro-

viders in partnership with Head Start view the partnership

as beneficial (Schilder et al. 2003a; Selden et al. 2006).

Case study research conducted by Selden et al. (2006) and

a qualitative study carried out by Schilder et al. (2003b),

found that the child care providers in partnership with Head

Start reported benefits in terms of the professional devel-

opment opportunities offered to teachers, services offered

to families, and the quality of care received by children.

Case study research has also found that partnering centers

received such additional resources as direct funding, pro-

fessional development and training, paid staff, and addi-

tional materials and supplies (Schilder et al. 2005; Selden

et al. 2006).

The findings from these case studies also suggested that

the small sample of child care classrooms participating in

partnerships had higher classroom quality as measured by

the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised

Edition (ECERS-R) than comparison classrooms (Selden

et al. 2006). Similarly, Kiron (2003) found that child care

directors involved in partnerships believed that the funds

and supports Head Start provided were critical in enabling

them to follow Head Start’s more rigorous program stan-

dards, thereby offering more comprehensive services that

are linked to increases in overall quality.

In sum, the research indicates that child care centers in

partnership with Head Start report benefits from the part-

nership at the program level. However, the limited case

study research raises questions about the degree to which

these findings can be generalized. Questions remain about

whether such findings would hold up among a randomly

selected sample of providers in partnership. We sought to

confirm, or disprove, the benefits of partnerships between

Head Start and child care by looking at partnerships on a

more widespread basis with a greater number of children,

and by directly comparing partnership and non-partnership

classrooms. We designed our study to address the follow-

ing research question: Do child care centers that partner

with Head Start demonstrate higher-quality than compari-

son centers?

Methods

We used the term ‘‘partnership’’ in our study to refer to a

formal contractual relationship between a Head Start pro-

gram and a child care provider (Paulsell et al. 2002; Ray

2002).

Sample and Description of Data

The data for this article is a secondary analysis of data from

a larger longitudinal research study that examined child


123

care and Head Start partnerships in Ohio between 2002 and

2006. We chose Ohio as the study’s sample because that

state’s demographic characteristics are similar to national

demographics and because during the period of data col-

lection the state had a large pool of child care providers in

partnership with Head Start. Ohio’s child care policies also

reflect those of other states across the country. For exam-

ple, the administration of the child care subsidy system is

state supervised and county administered, which is a sim-

ilar to many other states in the country (Ohio Department

of Job and Family Services 2003).

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

(ODJFS) serves as the lead state agency for child care, with

each county administrating the subsidy program. As such,

ODJFS regulates child care centers and large family child

care homes. Ohio’s child care regulations consist of basic

requirements designed to prevent harm to children’s health,

safety, and development. The regulations cover the fol-

lowing areas: space requirements, safety/discipline, nutri-

tion, staff requirements, program equipment, health

programs, hand washing/diapering, policies/procedures,

children’s records, infant care, and staffing/grouping

(ODJFS 2003).

Our data came from a randomly selected sample of 61

centers from a list of all full-time child care centers in the

Ohio licensing database. Before the random sampling, we

stratified the list of all full-time child care centers into

categories based on the presence of an existing partnership

with Head Start, the percentage of the population that

participated in the child care subsidy system, and geo-

graphic region (urban, rural, and suburban). We matched

partnering and comparison centers based on subsidy char-

acteristics and geographic region. To determine if the 61

participating centers chosen at random differed from the a

larger sample, we analyzed the dataset based on key

characteristics and found that the subset of centers was

similar to the original sample. The centers’ hours and

weeks of operation were similar (original sample

M = 12.3 h, observation sample M = 12.4 h). The aver-

age weeks-per-year of operation was 50.77 for the larger

sample and 50.72 for the observation sample. And finally,

centers in both samples had similar group sizes (16.6 for

the original sample and 16.7 for the observation sample)

and served similar percentages of children participating in

the child care subsidy system (51 % in the original sample

and 50.4 % in the observation sample).

A sampling strategy was employed that was not bal-

anced for numbers of classrooms in the partnership and

comparison groups (Myers and Dynarski 2003). There

were several advantages to using an imbalanced sample,

including cost savings and improved design to increase

power (Puma et al. 2001). Surveys and classroom obser-

vations were collected at four time points between 2002

and 2006. The data we extracted for this analysis are from

the 2006 wave of survey and observational data collection.

In that wave, the directors of 61 child care centers com-

pleted surveys; 37 in partnerships and 24 in comparison

centers. Independent data collectors who were trained to a

level of reliability obtained observational data from a total

of 66 classrooms (some centers had more than one

classroom).

Measures

Data were collected using a range of psychometrically

valid and reliable measures to assess structural indicators

of quality and observed quality. Directors of the partici-

pating centers completed surveys with questions about the

characteristics of the centers, teacher-child ratios, teacher

professional development, teacher education levels, and

reports of specific child and family services offered directly

by the program or through a formal arrangement with

another agency. The scales used in our survey had strong

internal consistency (a = 0.85 to a = 0.97, depending

upon the scale). We informed all participants that the study

team was examining aspects of child care quality broadly

(rather than child care/Head Start partnerships specifically)

to minimize the risk of bias. To assess classroom quality,

two different measures were used: the Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale Revised Edition (ECERS-R)

and the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Obser-

vation Toolkit (ELLCO).

The ECERS-R is widely used and proven reliable in

assessing ‘‘process’’ quality in the classroom (Harms et al.

1998). Process quality refers to the experience of children

in care including interactions with others, materials, and

activities (Phillipsen et al. 1997). Process quality is asses-

sed through observation and has been found to be more

predictive of child outcomes than structural indicators of

quality like staff-to-child ratio, and group size (Whitebook

et al. 1989). The ECERS-R assesses seven distinct

domains: space and furnishings, personal care routines,

language-reasoning activities, interactions, and program

structure. Multiple assessments of the ECERS-R have

found it to have a high inter-rater reliability (percentage of

agreement across all indicators averaging 85 %), and all

indicators have been found to have agreement over 70 %.

The internal consistency of the ECERS-R has also been

found to be strong (total scale a = 0.92) (Harms et al.

1998).

The ELLCO—which includes a literacy environment

checklist, a classroom observation component, and a lit-

eracy activity rating scale—measures the quality of lan-

guage and emergent literacy supports in early childhood

classrooms (Smith et al. 2002). See Table 3 for a break-

down of each subscale for the ELLCO. The U.S.


123

Department of Education requires the use of this tool for

many early childhood language and literacy interventions

(U.S. Department of Education 2003). The ELLCO has

high internal consistency (Literacy Environment Checklist,

a = 0.84; Classroom Observation, a = 0.90) and high

inter-rater reliability (Literacy Environment Checklist,

a = 0.88; Classroom Observation, a = 0.90).

The ECERS-R and ELLCO data were collected by

highly trained resource and referral agency professionals;

each had previously completed formal training on the

ECERS-R that was provided by the Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center. These data collectors also had

participated in a three-day ELLCO training that was pro-

vided by the ELLCO publishers. Prior to entering the field,

all data collectors demonstrated inter-rater reliability on the

ECERS-R and ELLCO of above 0.85. All data were col-

lected during an eight-week period in the spring—well

before some students might leave for the summer.

Findings

Among the partnerships and comparison classrooms that

we examined, we found no statistically significant differ-

ences in their child–teacher ratios, nonprofit status, faith-

based status, or affiliation with a franchise. We also found

no differences between partnership and comparison centers

in terms of hours of operation, weeks of operation, or

percent of families participating in the subsidy program.

Differences in Classroom Quality

One of our most important findings was that classrooms in

child care centers that partnered with Head Start demon-

strated significantly higher observed classroom quality than

comparison classrooms. Partnership center classrooms

demonstrated higher observed global quality in all six

subscales of the ECERS-R, as well as the total overall

score compared to non-partnership classrooms (see

Table 1). Independent samples t test analysis also showed

that classrooms in partnership performed higher on seven

out of ten subscales as measured by the ELLCO (see

Table 2). As can be seen in the mean scores and standard

deviations of Tables 1 and 2, partnership classrooms

demonstrated particular strength on the activities, interac-

tion, and language and literacy subscales in both measures

compared to non-partnership centers.

Regression analysis allowed for a better understanding

of these findings. To build the regression models, class size

and number of teachers were entered in the first block,

number of students with disabilities was entered in the

second block and partnership status was entered in the final

block. We used these hierarchical regression models to

predict scores on each of the subscales on the ECERS-R

and ELLCO separately.

ECERS-R Regression Results

See Table 3 for regression results of all ECERS-R sub-

scales. Six of the seven subscales in the ECERS-R had

significant overall models in the regression results. These

included Space Furnishing, R2 = 0.23, F(4, 53) = 3.84,

p \ .01, Language/Reasoning, R2 = 0.11, F(4, 53) = 2.79,

p \ .05, Activities, R2 = 0.25, F(4, 53) = 4.33, p \ .01,

Interaction, R2 = 0.23, F(4, 53) = 4.02, p \ .01, Program

Structure, R2 = 0.28, F(4, 53) = 5.25, p B .01, and the

overall Total Score, R2 = 0.26, F(4, 53) = 4.78, p \ .01.

As indicated above, the four predictor model was able to

account for more than 20 % of the variance in each sub-

scale, with the exception of language and reasoning

(R2 = 0.11). And, as shown in Table 3, partnership status

Table 1 Independent t test results for ECERS-R subscales com-

paring partnership and non-partnership classrooms

Subscale n M SD t df

Space and furnishings

Non-partnership 23 3.38 1.01

Partnership 43 4.21 1.33

Total -2.83** 56.49

Personal care



Total -2.08* 53.96

Language-reasoning



Total -2.68** 51.21

Activities



Total -3.31** 60.65

Interaction



Total -3.37*** 50.69

Program Structure



Total -3.78*** 52.97

Total Score



Total -3.64*** 57.07

* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001


123

was the most, and often the only, significant predictor for

all subscales, suggesting that it is partnership status that is

accounting for most of the variance. The one exception was

the Activities subscale, where number of teachers in the

classroom was a more significant predictor. Indeed, number

of teachers was the only other variable that was a signifi-

cant predictor in most of the models. In all cases partner-

ship status was a positive predictor, suggesting engagement

in partnership contributes to higher ECERS-R scores.

Furthermore, increased number of teachers in a classroom

is often a result of partnership, and thus these two indica-

tors may go hand in hand (although they are not signifi-

cantly correlated, r(66) = 0.09, p = .48). Overall these

regression findings support the hypothesis that partnership

status increases overall global quality in a classroom.

ELLCO Regression Results

The results for the ELLCO regressions mirrored the

ECERS-R regressions, in that partnership status was the

most frequent predictor. See Table 4 for regression results.

Six of the nine subscales in the ELLCO had significant

overall models in the regression results. These included

Book Use, R2 = 0.14, F(4, 62) = 2.44, p = .05, Writing

Materials, R2 = 0.22, F(4, 62) = 4.17, p \ .01, Writing in

the Room, R2 = 0.25, F(4, 62) = 4.74, p \ .01, General

Classroom Environment, R2 = 0.21, F(4, 62) = 3.79,

p \ .01, Language, Literacy and Curriculum, R2 = 0.29,

F(4, 62) = 5.86, p \ .001, and Book Reading, R2 = 0.23,

F(4, 62) = 4.36, p \ .01. Again, as seen by these results,

the four predictor model accounted for more than 20 % of

the variance in each of these subscales, with the exception

of Book Use (R2 = 0.14). And, as shown in Table 4,

partnership status was the most frequent significant pre-

dictor for all subscales, with the exception of Book

Reading. However, in five of the six significant subscales

of the ELLCO, number of teachers was also a significant,

and in all cases, a stronger predictor than partnership status.

An examination of the predictive power that was added

to the model when partnership was included allows for an

examination of how much of a contribution partnership

status made in accounting for variance in each of the

subscales. When partnership status was a significant pre-

dictor for a subscale, on average, it accounted for more

than a 5 % increase in the overall predictive power of the

model. For the Language/Literacy and Writing Materials

subscales, partnership status increased the overall predic-

tive power by 10 and 11 %, respectively (R2D = 0.10,

p \ .01 and R2D = 0.11, p \ .01). For the Writing in the

Room and Book Use subscales, partnership status

increased the overall predictive power by 7 and 8 %,

respectively (R2D = 0.07, p \ .05 and R2D = 0.08,

p \ .05). And finally, partnership status increased the

overall predictive power for General Classroom Environ-

ment by 6 % (R2D = 0.06, p \ .05).

Thus, while in most cases number of teachers was an

overall more significant positive predictor, partnership

status also made an important contribution. And indeed, it

may be that number of teachers is a proxy for partnership

status, as partnership agreements often require more

teachers per students than state requirements, although

again the two are not correlated in this measure

r(64) = 0.12, p = .35. In all cases partnership status and

Table 2 Independent t test results for ELLCO subscales comparing

partnership and non-partnership classrooms

Subscale n M SD t df

Book Area



Total -0.59 40.40

Book Selection



Total -2.51* 37.22

Book Use



Total -3.47*** 61.09

Writing Materials



Total -3.13** 40.71

Writing in the Room



Total -3.15** 45.97

General Classroom Environment



Total -2.72** 45.22

Language, Literacy and Curriculum



Total -3.75*** 49.65

Book Reading



Total -1.94 44.06

Writing



Total -0.23 42.98

* p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001


123

Ta

ble

3S

ign

ifica

nt

reg

ress

ion

mo

del

sp

red

icti

ng

EC

ER

S-R

sub

scal

es

Sp

ace

Fu

rnis

hin

gL

ang

uag

e/R

easo

nin

gA

ctiv

itie

sIn

tera

ctio

nP

rog

ram

Str

uct

ure

To

tal

Av

erag

eS

core

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

No

.o

fte

ach

ers

0.1

30

.09

0.1

80

.26

0.1

20

.29

*0

.26

0.1

00

.36

**

0.2

00

.13

0.1

90

.25

0.1

20

.25

*0

.18

0.0

90

.26

*

No

.o

fst

ud

ents

0.0

60

.04

0.2

10

.02

0.0

50

.06

0.0

20

.04

0.0

70

.02

0.0

60

.03

0.0

40

.05

0.0

80

.04

0.0

40

.12

No

.o

fd

isab

ilit

ies

0.1

80

.12

0.1

80

.13

0.1

50

.11

0.0

90

.13

0.0

90

.36

0.1

70

.26

*0

.25

0.1

60

.19

0.1

80

.11

0.1

9

Par

tner

ship

stat

us

0.7

70

.35

0.2

8*

0.7

60

.44

0.2

20

.87

0.3

70

.29

*1

.28

0.5

00

.32

**

1.4

20

.46

0.3

7*

*0

.89

0.3

30

.33

**

Fo

rsp

ace

per

son

alca

re,

wh

ich

had

no

sig

nifi

can

tp

red

icto

rsan

dw

ho

seo

ver

all

mo

del

was

no

tsi

gn

ifica

nt

was

left

ou

to

fth

eta

ble

*p

B.0

5;

**

pB

.01

Ta

ble

4S

ign

ifica

nt

reg

ress

ion

mo

del

sp

red

icti

ng

EL

LC

Osu

bsc

ales

Bo

ok

Use

Wri

tin

gM

ater

ials

Wri

tin

gin

the

Ro

om

Gen

eral

Cla

ssro

om

En

vir

on

men

t

Lan

gu

age,

Lit

erac

yan

d

Cu

rric

ulu

m

Bo

ok

Rea

din

g

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

BS

EB

bB

SE

Bb

No

.o

fte

ach

ers

0.6

90

.51

0.2

00

.41

0.3

50

.17

1.4

30

.58

0.3

5*

2.5

01

.07

0.3

4*

3.8

51

.57

0.3

4*

*1

.14

0.4

10

.39

**

No

.o

fst

ud

ents

0.0

00

.08

0.0

00

.03

0.0

50

.09

0.0

20

.09

0.0

3-

0.0

10

.16

-0

.01

0.0

50

.24

0.0

3-

0.0

30

.06

-0

.08

No

.o

fd

isab

ilit

ies

-0

.09

0.2

6-

0.0

40

.23

0.1

80

.15

-0

.11

0.3

0-

0.0

40

.08

0.5

40

.02

0.5

10

.80

0.0

7-

0.5

50

.21

0.3

1*

*

Par

tner

ship

stat

us

1.7

00

.75

0.2

8*

1.4

10

.50

0.3

3*

*1

.98

0.8

50

.27

*3

.17

1.5

60

.24

*6

.53

2.2

90

.32

**

0.7

60

.60

0.1

5

Fo

rsp

ace

Bo

ok

Are

a,B

oo

kS

elec

tio

n,

and

Wri

tin

g,

all

of

wh

ich

had

insi

gn

ifica

nt

ov

eral

lm

od

els

wer

en

ot

incl

ud

edin

the

tab

le

*p

B.0

5;

**

pB

.01


123

number of teachers were both positive predictors, sug-

gesting engagement in partnership contributes to higher

classroom quality scores as measured by the ELLCO.

Discussion and Conclusion

Partnerships between Head Start and local child care cen-

ters have been gaining a great deal of attention recently as

new legislation is being put in place at the federal level

which promotes this type of alignment. While there have

been some case studies that support the idea that partner-

ships do indeed increase the quality of child care programs,

this is one of the few studies to examine the impact of

partnerships on a larger scale. Our study confirmed that

child care classrooms in centers partnering with Head Start

do demonstrate higher observed quality as measured by the

ECERS-R and ELLCO, confirming our belief that part-

nership with Head Start produces higher-quality overall.

Moreover, we found that partnership classrooms specifi-

cally demonstrated improvements in areas that require

changes in staff behaviors, such as language and literacy

activities, which are more difficult to change than aspects

of the physical environment, such as space and furnishings.

There have been a number of important policy changes

that have occurred since the data for this study were col-

lected. The Head Start Act of 2007 created additional

monitoring and oversight requirements of Head Start pro-

grams, and the recession in 2008 led to a decrease in most

states’ child care subsidy funding and an accompanying

decrease in child care enrollment. In addition, sequestration

created budgetary challenges for Head Start and child care

providers that were accepting subsidies. All of these policy

changes led to declines in partnerships between child care

and Head Start. Yet in 2014, there is an increased emphasis

on policies and funds that support partnerships between

child care and Head Start. The research we conducted

provides important information about the benefits of such

partnerships and provides evidence that such partnerships

can yield desired benefits.

This study makes important inroads into what we can

learn about partnerships and their impact on child care

quality. Additional questions exist about how the duration

and nature of partnerships may impact the overall class-

room quality, the impact of partnerships between EHS and

child care, and the nature and benefits of partnerships

between Head Start and family child care providers. Our

study provides compelling findings about the benefits of

partnerships between child care and Head Start, and offers

credible reasons for continuing to support and promote

these types of partnerships. Within these partnerships,

Head Start students benefit by receiving full-day, year-

round care, children in child care settings benefit by

receiving access to higher-quality and more comprehensive

services, and parents benefit by receiving comprehensive

services and accessing care that supports their workforce

participation. Our findings support the argument that

challenges created by the organizational and philosophical

differences between child care and Head Start are more

than offset by the advantages of partnering to better serve

those children and families most in need.

References

Adams, G., & Rohacek, M. (2010). Child care instability: Definitions,

context, and policy implications. http://www.urban.org/Uploa

dedPDF/412278-child-care-instability.pdf.

Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill

development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic

Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 111–134.

Edie, D., Adams, D., Riley, D., & Roach, M. (2003, April 8, 2011).

Improving child care quality. http://www.sohe.wisc.edu/out

reach/wccrp/pdfs/policy0303l.pdf.

Gennetian, L. A., Huston, A. C., Crosby, D. A., Chang, Y. E., Lowe,

E. D., & Weisner, T. S. (2002). Making child care choices: How

welfare and work policies influence parents’ decisions (Policy

Brief). New York: MDRC. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/

182/policybrief.pdf.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). ECERs-R: Language-

reasoning, interaction, and activities scales. Carrboro, NC:

University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child

Development Institute.

Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (2006). Infant/toddler

environment rating scale (Revised ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (2007). Family child care

environment rating scale (Revised ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Helburn, S. W. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care

centers (Technical report). Denver, CO: University of Colorado,

Department of Economics, Center for Research in Economic and

Social Policy.

Henly, J. R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and

employment demands among low-income parents. Journal of

Social Issues, 56(4), 683–706.

Kagan, S. L., Verzaro-O’Brien, M., Kim, U., & Formica, M. (2000).

Head Start-child care partnership study. New Haven, CT: Yale

University, The Bush Center in Child Development and Social

Policy. Retrieved Aug 28, 2006. http://www.nccic.org/quilt/

partnership-study.pdf.

Kiron, E. (2003). Blending early care and education funds: Issues,

opportunities, and strategies (Res. Brief Vol. 1, No. 2). Newton,

MA: Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved Mar 3,

2004. http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_FinBrief2.pdf.

Lim, Y., & Schilder, D. (2006). Child care/Head Start partnerships

snapshot: Partnership predicts improved classroom quality.

Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.

Lim, Y., Schilder, D., & Chauncey, B. (2007). Supporting parents

through Head Start-child care center partnerships. International

Journal of Economic Development, 9(3), 205–238.

Marshall, N. L., et al. (2003). Family child care today: A report of the

findings of the Massachusetts Cost/Quality Study: Family child

care homes. http://www.wcwonline.org/earlycare/FamilyChild

Care204.pdf.


123

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412278-child-care-instability.pdf

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412278-child-care-instability.pdf

http://www.sohe.wisc.edu/outreach/wccrp/pdfs/policy0303l.pdf

http://www.sohe.wisc.edu/outreach/wccrp/pdfs/policy0303l.pdf

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/182/policybrief.pdf

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/182/policybrief.pdf

http://www.nccic.org/quilt/partnership-study.pdf

http://www.nccic.org/quilt/partnership-study.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_FinBrief2.pdf

http://www.wcwonline.org/earlycare/FamilyChildCare204.pdf

http://www.wcwonline.org/earlycare/FamilyChildCare204.pdf

Myers, D., & Dynarski, M. (2003). Random assignment in program

evaluation and intervention research: Questions and answers.

Retrieved Apr 18, 2007. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/

resources/randomqa.pdf.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal

care and family factors in early development: An overview of the

NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Devel-

opmental Psychology, 22(5), 457–492.

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (2003). Ohio child care

and development fund plan for FFY 2004–2005. Columbus, OH:

Author. Retrieved July 21, 2004. http://jfs.ohio.gov/ocf/fund_

plan/fund_plan2004.pdf.

Paulsell, D., Cohen, J., Stieglitz, A., Lurie-Hurvitz, E., Fenichel, E., &

Kisker, E. (2002). Partnerships for quality: Improving infant-

toddler child care for low-income families. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997).

The prediction of process quality from structural features of

child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3),

281–303.

Puma, M., Bell, S., Shapiro, G., Broene, P., Cook, R., Friedman, J.,

et al. (2001). Building futures: The Head Start Impact Study.

Research design plan. Retrieved Apr 18, 2007. http://www.acf.

hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/

Impactstdy_resrch_plan.pdf.

Ray, K. (2002). The nimble collaboration: Fine-tuning your collab-

oration for lasting success. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder

Foundation.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A.

(2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on

educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-

up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 285(18), 2339–2346.

Schilder, D. (2003). State strategies to support early care and

education partnerships (Res. Brief Vol. 1, No. 3). Newton, MA:

Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved June 25, 2004.

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/StateBrief.pdf.

Schilder, D. (2004). Head Start/child care partnerships: Partnering

programs more likely to provide comprehensive services (Res.

Brief Vol. 2, No. 1). Newton, MA: Education Development

Center, Inc. http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_Comprehen

siveBrief.pdf.

Schilder, D. et al. (2005). Child Care/Head Start Partnership Study:

Final report. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Retrieved June 27, 2007. http://ccf.edc.org/pdf/PipReport-32406.

pdf.

Schilder, D., Kiron, E., & Elliott, K. (2003a). Early care and

education partnerships: State actions and local lessons (Res.

Brief Vol. 1, No. 1). Newton, MA: Education Development

Center, Inc. http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_ExecBrief.

pdf.

Schilder, D., Kiron, E., & Elliott, K. (2003b). Early care and

education partnerships: State actions and local lessons. Newton,

MA: Education Development Center, Inc.

Schilder, D., Broadstone, M., Chauncey, B., Kiron, E., Miller, C., &

Lim, Y. (2009). Child care quality study: The impact of Head

Start partnership on child care quality (Final report). Newton,

MA: Education Development Center, Inc.

Schumacher, R., Ewen, D., Hart, K., & Lombardi, J. (2005). All

together now: State experiences in using community-based child

care to provide pre-kindergarten. Washington, DC: Center for

Law and Social Policy. Retrieved June 8, 2007. http://www.

clasp.org/publications/all_together_now.pdf.

Selden, S. C., Sowa, J. E., & Sandfort, J. (2006). The impact of

nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on

management and program outcomes. Public Administration

Review, 66(3), 412–425.

Simpson, J., Jivanjee, P., Koroloff, N., Doerfler, A., & Garcı́a, M.

(2001). Promising practices in early childhood mental health.

Systems of care: Promising practices in children’s mental

health, 2001 Series, Volume III. Washington, DC: Center for

Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for

Research.

Smith, M. W., Dickinson, D. K., Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L.

(2002). Early language and literacy classroom observation

(ELLCO) toolkit (Research ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Sowa, J. (2001). Why collaborate? Motivations for early childhood

education partnerships (white paper). Lynchburg, VA: Investi-

gating Partnerships in Early Childhood Education Study,

Lynchburg College.

Stebbins, H., & Scott, L. C. (2007, June 25, 2007). Better outcomes

for all: Promoting partnerships between Head Start and pre-K.

http://www.preknow.org/documents/HeadStartPre-KCollaboration_

Jan2007.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Guidance for the Early

Reading First program. Retrieved August 26, 2003. http://www.

ed.gov/offices/OESE/earlyreading/erfguidance.doc.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Administration for

Children and Families/Administration on Children Youth and

Families/Head Start Bureau. (1998). Head Start program perfor-

mance standards and other regulations. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Administration for

Children and Families/Office of Planning Research and Evalu-

ation. (2010). Head Start Impact Study: Final report (Executive

summary). Washington, DC: Author. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_

summary_final.pdf.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Pemberton, C. (1989).

Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in

America. Young Children, 45(1), 41–45.


123

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/resources/randomqa.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/resources/randomqa.pdf

http://jfs.ohio.gov/ocf/fund_plan/fund_plan2004.pdf

http://jfs.ohio.gov/ocf/fund_plan/fund_plan2004.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/Impactstdy_resrch_plan.pdf



http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/StateBrief.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_ComprehensiveBrief.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_ComprehensiveBrief.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/pdf/PipReport-32406.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/pdf/PipReport-32406.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_ExecBrief.pdf

http://ccf.edc.org/documents/PDF/EDC_ExecBrief.pdf

http://www.clasp.org/publications/all_together_now.pdf

http://www.clasp.org/publications/all_together_now.pdf

http://www.preknow.org/documents/HeadStartPre-KCollaboration_Jan2007.pdf

http://www.preknow.org/documents/HeadStartPre-KCollaboration_Jan2007.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/earlyreading/erfguidance.doc

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/earlyreading/erfguidance.doc

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf



head start/child care partnerships: program characteristics and classroom quality

Documents