Get documents about "TEXAS HEAD START STATE COLLABORATION OFFICE HEAD START EARLY
Document Sample
TEXAS
HEAD START STATE
COLLABORATION OFFICE
HEAD START/
EARLY HEAD START
NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
2008‐2009 Survey Results
The goal of Head Start/Early Head Start is to increase the social
competence of children in low‐income families and children
with disabilities, and to improve their chances for school
success.
1
2
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report, entitled Texas Head Start/Early Head Start Needs Assessment 2008-2009 Survey
Results, presents findings from a survey of staff and directors representing 34 of the 86
grantees in Texas for the school year 2008-2009. The purpose of the survey was to gather
information for site-based assessment of Head Start/Early Head Start programs with specific
focus on cooperation, coordination, and collaboration within ten key activity areas:
1) Health Care
2) Children Experiencing Homelessness
3) Family/Child Assistance
4) Child Care
5) Family Literacy Services
6) Children with Disabilities and Their Families
7) Community Services
8) Publicly Funded Pre-K Partnership Development (Education)
9) Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12 (Education)
10) Professional Development
This report was prepared and funded by the Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office.
Authors:
Mrs. Zynda Patton, Booz Allen Hamilton State T/TA Manager
Ms. Maia Shelby, Booz Allen Hamilton Grantee Performance Support Specialist/Liaison to
THSSCO
Mrs. Catherine Chennisi, Texas Trainer Registry Coordinator
Dr. Dorothy J. Calhoun, Director Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Forward and Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 6
Overview of Head Start Program 6
Summary of Texas Head Start Programs 7
Map: Texas Head Start/Early Head Start Programs 9
Study Design 10
Study Objectives 10
Study Planning Process 10
Survey Instrument 10
Methodology 11
Presentation of Findings 11
Survey Results 12
Key Activity Area 1: Health Care 12
Involvement with health care 12
Issues regarding health care 13
Efforts to address health care needs that are working well 13
Identified training and technical assistance needs 14
Key Activity Area 2: Children Experiencing Homelessness 14
Involvement with homelessness 14
Issues regarding homelessness 16
Efforts to address homelessness needs that are working well 16
Identified training and technical assistance needs 17
Key Activity Area 3: Family/Child Assistance 18
Involvement with family/child assistance 18
Issues regarding family/child assistance 18
Efforts to address family/child assistance that are working well 19
Identified training and technical assistance needs 19
Key Activity Area 4: Child Care 20
Involvement with child care 20
Issues regarding child care 20
Efforts to address child care needs that are working well 21
Identified training and technical assistance needs 21
Involvement with the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM) 22
Key Activity Area 5: Family Literacy Services 23
Involvement with family literacy services 23
Issues regarding family literacy services 24
Efforts to address family literacy needs that are working well 24
Identified training and technical assistance needs 25
Key Activity Area 6: Children with Disabilities and Their Families 26
Involvement with children with disabilities and their families 26
Issues regarding children with disabilities and their families 27
Efforts to address children with disabilities and their families that are working well 27
Identified training and technical assistance needs 28
Experiences dealing with Response to Intervention (RTI) 28
4
Key Activity Area 7: Community Services 30
Involvement with community services 30
Issues regarding community services 31
Efforts to address community services needs that are working well 31
Identified training and technical assistance needs 31
Key Activity Area 8: Publicly Funded Pre-K Partnership Development (Education) 32
Involvement with publicly funded Pre-K partnership development 32
Issues regarding publicly funded Pre-K partnership development 33
Efforts to address publicly funded Pre-K partnership development needs that are
working well 33
Identified training and technical assistance needs 34
Experience with the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM) 34
Key Activity Area 9: Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12 (Education) 36
Involvement with Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 36
Issues regarding Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 37
Efforts to address Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 needs that are
working well 37
Identified training and technical assistance needs 38
Experience with Texas School Readiness Certification System (SRCS) 38
Key Activity Area 10: Professional Development 40
Involvement with professional development 40
Issues regarding professional development 41
Efforts to address professional development needs that are working well 41
Identified training and technical assistance needs 41
Succession plan for Head Start staff 42
Trends and Implications (include data analysis) 43
Trends of extent of involvement with providers/organizations 43
Trends of levels of success with efforts in Key Activity Areas (KAA) 44
Trends regarding other issues with the Key Activity Areas (KAA) 46
Trends regarding efforts to address the needs relating to the Key Activity Areas (KAA)
that are working well 46
Recommendations 47
Resources and References 48
Appendices 49
5
INTRODUCTION
Overview of Head Start Program
Head Start is a “national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and
cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional,
social and other services to enrolled children and families”. This program provides grants to
local public and private non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive child
development services to economically-disadvantaged children from birth to 5, expectant
mothers, and families (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/).
Texas has had Head Start programs since 1965, when the national program began. The Early
Head Start Program, which began in 1995, focuses on expectant mothers and children from
birth to age 3. The Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office (THSSCO), under the
administration of Dr. Dorothy J. Calhoun, is part of the Texas State Center for Early Childhood
Development within the Children’s Learning Institute at The University of Texas Health
Science Center at Houston. THSSCO is charged with addressing nine priority areas:
1. Improve the availability and affordability of child care
2. Increase opportunities for children with disabilities
3. Expand partnerships with school systems
4. Strengthen family literacy services
5. Promote access to timely health care services
6. Support access for homeless children
7. Collaborate with existing community services activities
8. Encourage collaboration with welfare systems
9. Support career development in early care and education
Head Start programs are free-of-charge to participants. At least 90% of children enrolled in
Head Start programs must meet federal income guidelines. For 2009, the federal poverty level
is $22,050 for a family of four (http://nccp.org/profiles/TX_profile_9.html). Ten percent of
enrollment must be made available to children with disabilities
(http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Espanol/Policy%20Clarifications%20and%20FAQs_2/k_pc.h
tm). Services are delivered in different ways, including center-based options, home-based
options, and combination models.
6
Summary of Texas Head Start/Early Head Start Programs
According to Program Information Report (PIR) data from 2007-2008, Texas has funded
enrollment for 74,129 children. Table 1 shows the enrollment numbers by program type.
Table 1. Funded Enrollment by Program Type
Center Based (5 days/week): # %
Full Day 55,279 74.57%
Part Day 14,340 19.34%
Center Based (4 days/week):
Full Day 960 1.30%
Part Day 499 0.67%
Home Based 1,232 1.66%
Combination 0 0%
Family Child Care 7 0.01%
Locally Designed Options 1,812 2.44%
TOTAL FUNDED ENROLLMENT 74,129
TOTAL ACTUAL ENROLLMENT (including those non-federally funded) 87,296
Table 2 indicates the number of Head Start/Early Head Start families involved in Texas programs and receiving
social benefits. Table 3 shows the number of pregnant women enrolled.
Table 2. Head Start Families
# %
Dual Parent Families 35,470 44.98%
Single Parent Families 43,381 55.02%
Families Receiving TANF 6,044 7.67%
Families Receiving WIC 43,981 55.78%
Families receiving SSI 3,450 4.38%
Table 3. Number and Percent of Pregnant Women Served
# %
Pregnant women 691 0.79%
7
The following tables show the breakdown of Head Start/Early Head Start enrollment by
ethnicity (Table 4) and race (Table 5) in the state of Texas.
Table 4. Enrollment and Percentage by Ethnicity
# %
Hispanic or Latino Origin 60,510 69.32%
Non Hispanic 26,786 30.68%
Table 5. Enrollment and Percentage by Race
# %
American Indian or Alaskan 337 0.39%
Asian 448 0.51%
Black or African American 15,704 17.99%
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 65 0.07%
White 51,198 58.65%
Bi-Racial or Multi-Racial 2,239 2.56%
Other Races 0 0.00%
Unspecified Races 17,305 19.82%
8
Texas has 124 Head Start/Early Head Start programs in all but 24 of its 254 counties. The
following map represents the counties which have Head Start/Early Head Start programs. The
counties in white are not covered. Of counties with Head Start/Early Head Start programs, the
10 counties with the largest enrollment numbers range between 1,136 and 6,789 children and
families. At this time only 58 of the shaded counties serve Early Head Start children and
families.
The counties serving the most children and families are as follows, in order of enrollments:
1. Bexar
2. Harris
3. Dallas
4. El Paso
5. Hidalgo
6. Tarrant
7. Cameron
8. Travis
9. Webb
10. Nueces
Map 1. Counties covered by Head Start/Early Head Start programs (http://cli.uth.tmc.edu/thssco/)
9
STUDY DESIGN
Study Objectives
The purpose of this survey project was to collect data from staff for a needs assessment of
Head Start/Early Head Start programs in Texas. The project is in response to the changes in
Federal statute P.L. 100-134 entitled “Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of
2007”, and aligns with collaborative efforts of the National Office of Head Start. The goal of the
project was to conduct a site-based assessment of Head Start/Early Head Start programs with
specific focus on cooperation, coordination, and collaboration within ten key activity areas.
These ten activity areas are: 1) health care, 2) children experiencing homelessness, 3)
family/child assistance, 4) child care, 5) family literacy services, 6) children with disabilities
and their families, 7) community services, 8) publicly funded Pre-K partnership development
(education), 9) Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 (education), and 10)
professional development.
The purpose of gathering this program information is to support the direction and inform the
activities of the annually revised strategic plan for the Texas Head Start State Collaboration
Office as well as identifying the T/TA needs for the state. The cumulative findings from this
needs assessment survey will assist the collaboration director, State, and Regional T/TA
Networks in supporting program needs in the collaboration and systems development work of
Texas Head Start/Early Start programs. Our shared goal is to support and promote the
success in serving Texas children and families.
Study Planning Process
A survey was developed representing the ten activity areas noted above. This was designed
to include the collaboration with representatives from Texas Head Start Association,
Children’s Learning Institute, South by Southwest Conference Group, State and Regional
T/TA Specialists, and the Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office staff. The survey was
pre-tested by selected grantees and stakeholders to give feedback on the content of the
survey. Feedback from the pre-test was used to modify and finalize the survey content. It was
then field tested with another group of grantees in order to complete the online survey and
provide feedback regarding the mechanical operations.
Survey Instrument
The finished product was uploaded to the survey website Survey Monkey
(www.surveymonkey.com) which produced a link
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=4m33_2bMo5TBwLfLxOKz5VGA_3d_3d) by
which to access the survey. This allowed recipients to access the survey online.
There were three main parts to the survey. The first part asks respondents to rate the extent
of their involvement with various service providers/organizations related to the content area.
This part uses the following 4-point Likert scale and definitions to reflect their progress in
relationship-building:
1. Collaboration (share resources/agreements): represents the greatest level of involvement,
in which the Head Start/Early Head Start agency shares resources and/or has formal, written
agreements with the various providers or organizations.
10
2. Coordination (work together): represents the next lower level of involvement, in which the
Head Start/Early Head Start agency works together on projects or activities with the various
providers or organizations.
3. Cooperation (exchange info/referrals): represents the lowest level of involvement, in which
the Head Start/Early Head Start exchanges information with the various providers or
organizations.
4. No Working Relationship (little/no contact): represents no involvement between the Head
Start/Early Head Start agency and the various providers or organizations. They do not make
referrals, do not work together on projects or activities, do not share information, or no service
was available).
The second part asks respondents to indicate the level of involvement their program has had
engaging in each of a variety of activities and partnerships. A 4-point scale was provided,
ranging from “Successful” to “Extremely Difficult”. The purpose of this part was to highlight as
well as assist in identifying challenges in building successful partnerships at the local and
state levels to support the delivery of quality education and comprehensive services to their
children and families.
The third part includes open-ended questions at the end of each section, to include questions
related to the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM), the Texas School Readiness Certification
System (SRCS), and state T/TA needs. Here respondents had the opportunity to document
any remaining concerns that were not covered in the survey and to document what is working
well in their programs and indicate if any of these successful strategies/activities might be
helpful to other programs.
Methodology
The survey link was emailed to the Texas Head Start/Early Head Start Listserve, comprised of
86 grantees. This email was sent on April 7, 2009. Several reminder emails were sent in mid-
April and data collection was completed by April 29, 2009.
A cover letter, including the purpose for the survey, from the Texas Head Start State
Collaboration Office Director Dr. Dorothy J. Calhoun was attached to the email (see
Appendix).
Data was collected, processed, and analyzed by Survey Monkey.
Presentation of Findings
A detailed review of the data responses for each key activity is presented in the Survey
Results section of the report. A summary and discussion of key findings are presented in the
Trends and Implications section. Frequency distributions for each of the nine activity areas as
well as open-ended questions regarding each activity area, to include additional information
on TEEM, SRCS, and the state T/TA needs, will follow. Please note that the shaded cells
represent the highest number of responses from the grantees who completed the survey. A
total of 47 respondents or 55% started the survey, but only 34 respondents or 39% fully
completed it.
11
SURVEY RESULTS
Key Activity Area 1: Health Care
Involvement with health care
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past twelve months
with each of the following health care providers/organizations (Table 6) and to indicate the
level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this key activity area (Table
7).
Table 6. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past 12
months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Medical Home Providers 37.0% (13) 31.4% (11) 25.7% (9) 5.7% (2) 35
Dental Home Providers 42.9% (15) 28.6% (10) 25.7% (9) 2.9% (1) 34
State Agencies providing mental health 25.7% (9) 28.6% (10) 31.4% (11) 14.3% (5) 35
prevention and treatment services
Local agencies providing mental health 32.4% (11) 38.2% (13) 23.5% (8) 5.9% (2) 34
prevention treatment services
Agencies/programs that conduct mental 31.4% (11) 34.3% (12) 17.1% (6) 17.1% (6) 35
health screenings
WIC 23.5% (8) 32.4% (11) 35.3% (12) 8.8% (3) 34
Local agencies providing services to pregnant 17.1% (6) 25.7% (9) 40.0% (14) 17.1% (6) 35
women
Other nutrition services 31.4% (11) 34.3% (12) 20.0% (7) 14.3% (5) 35
Children health education providers 17.1% (6) 40.0% (14) 28.6% (10) 14.3% (5) 35
Parent health education providers 20.6% (7) 44.1% (15) 26.5% (9) 8.8% (3) 34
Home visiting providers 17.6% (6) 23.5% (8) 32.4% (11) 26.5% (9) 34
Community health centers 29.4% (10) 41.2% (14) 20.6% (7) 8.8% (3) 34
Public health services 33.3% (11) 51.5% (17) 9.1% (3) 6.1% (2) 33
Programs/services related to physical 11.4% (4) 42.9% (15) 28.6% (10) 17.1% (6) 35
fitness/and obesity prevention of children
Answered Questions 35
Skipped Questions 12
Table 7. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Linking children to medical homes 75.0% (27) 19.4% (7) 5.6% (2) 0.0% (0) 36
Partnering with medical professionals on health- 74.3% (26) 14.3% (5) 11.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 35
related issues
Linking children to dental homes that serve young 52.8% (19) 22.2% (8) 22.2% (8) 2.8% (1) 36
children
Partnering with oral health professionals on oral- 50.0% (18) 30.6% (11) 19.4% (7) 0.0% (0) 36
health related issues
Getting children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid 52.8% (19) 25.0% (9) 22.2% (8) 0.0% (0) 36
Arranging coordinated services for children with 55.6% (20) 36.1% (13) 8.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 36
special health care needs
Assisting parents to communicate effectively with 61.1% (22) 19.4% (7) 19.4% (7) 0.0% (0) 36
medical/dental providers
Assisting families to get transportation to 55.6% (20) 38.9% (14) 5.6% (2) 0.0% (0) 36
appointments
Getting full representation and active commitment 61.1% (22) 30.6% (11) 8.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 36
on your Health Advisory Committee
Sharing data/information on children/families 68.6% (24) 25.7% (9) 2.9% (1) 2.9% (1) 35
served jointly by Head Start/Early Head Start and
other agencies re: health care
Exchanging information on roles and resources 66.7% (24) 22.2% (8) 8.3% (3) 2.8% (1) 36
with medical, dental and other providers
/organizations regarding health care
Answered Questions 36
Skipped Questions 11
12
Issues regarding health care
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
health care for children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs. Detailed
responses are found below.
Table 8. Issues regarding health care for the children and families
Response Response
Percent Count
Obesity or Weight Management 89.7% 26
Medically Underserved 41.4% 12
Dental Underserved 55.2% 16
Teen Pregnancy 31.0% 9
Other 24.1% 7
Answered Question 29
Skipped Question 18
Some additional issues mentioned in the “Other” category, were:
‐ Lack of insurance
‐ Drug prevention
‐ Smoking cessation
‐ Healthy life style choices
‐ Lack of providers accepting Medicaid and transportation because of rural geographic area
‐ Difficulty obtaining lab results from healthcare professional
‐ Difficulty obtaining screening results
‐ Parents forgetting to renew Medicaid every 6 months
‐ Lead screening
Efforts to address health care needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address needs
relating to health care for children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs that
are working well and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. A summary of
detailed responses are below:
‐ Collaboration with Texas Tech Health Services
‐ Having representatives from Medicaid available at enrollment
‐ Assigning a Medicaid liaison to help families needing resource assistance
‐ Helping families to maintain Medicaid coverage & working with transportation issues
‐ Well established long standing partnerships with Health and Dental providers
‐ Sponsoring a quarterly Community Service Provider meeting at our facility to share
resources and information
‐ Partnership with local agencies to inform them of the children’s needs that we serve
‐ Negotiation with providers regarding costs of services for special procedures such as
surgery, etc.
‐ Tracking system for health services
‐ Continuous education for parents
‐ Addressing transportation needs if from a rural area
‐ Forming an interagency group, where organizations from surrounding areas meet on a
quarterly basis to share new updates
‐ Partnering with local Federal Qualified Health Clinics (FQHC)
‐ Communication is very important - having a liaison that is directly involved and sharing
resources and information
‐ Introducing myself to all persons I will be working closely with; i.e. health and dental
providers; take them to a "working lunch". Make appointments to meet each person you will
13
contact in all agencies; know personally those who you are collaborating. It works in our
small community.
‐ Positive relationships with community resources
‐ Networking in the community, staying abreast of what is available, and open lines of
communication and negotiations is vital
‐ Our Coordinator of Health Services works to find information for Doctors and programs that
will benefit our parents and students
‐ Persistence resulting in written agreements with a myriad of service providers
‐ Extremely active Health Advisory committee
‐ Making sure the community understands the benefits of supporting Head Start programs
‐ Active and knowledgeable Board of Directors
‐ We have formed good working relationships with these providers and in turn they have a
relationship with our families
‐ Working with State Agencies in addressing Health and Dental needs
‐ Getting State Official involved
‐ Having active relationships with parents, agencies and multiple avenues
‐ Have providers come to do presentations for parents and staff
‐ Have staff become members of local health committees and maintain active membership in
these committees
‐ We are looking at having a mobile unit come to the center to help the children with
screenings
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs were collected, along with the preferred training venue for these
needs. Detailed responses are shown in the table below:
Table 9. Identified Training and Technical Assistance (T/TA) needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 29.0% 9
Coordination 16.1% 5
Planning 25.8% 8
Grant Writing 29.0% 9
Parent Education 58.1% 18
Teacher Education 35.5% 11
Identification of Resources 32.3% 10
Technology 35.5% 11
Record Keeping and Reporting 29.0% 9
Strategic Planning 45.2% 14
Other : “In kind/Transportation” was the answer provided by the one respondent 3.2% 1
Answered question 31
Skipped question 16
Preferred training method: Cluster Events (80%)
Key Activity Area 2: Children Experiencing Homelessness
Involvement with homelessness
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations serving children experiencing homelessness
14
(Table 10), and to indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards
to this key activity area (Table 11). Details are as follow:
Table 10. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
McKinney-Vento liaison with the Texas 16.7% (6) 13.9% (5) 19.4% (7) 50.0% (18) 36
Homeless Network
Local agencies serving families and/or 25.7% (9) 25.7% (9) 25.7% (9) 22.9% (8) 35
individuals experiencing homelessness
Local housing agencies and planning 17.1% (6) 28.6% (10) 31.4% (11) 22.9% (8) 35
groups
Title I Director 29.4% (10) 14.7% (5) 5.9% (2) 50.0% (17) 34
Answered question 36
Skipped question 11
Table 11. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Aligning Head Start/Early Head Start program 55.9% (19) 32.4% 2.9% (1) 8.8% (3) 34
definition of homelessness with McKinney-Vento (11)
Homeless Assistance Act
Developing and implementing policies and 58.8% (20) 38.2% 2.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 34
procedures to ensure that children experiencing (13)
homelessness are identified and prioritized for
enrollment
Allowing families of children experiencing 76.5% (26) 17.6% 5.9% (2) 0.0% (0) 34
homelessness to apply to, enroll in and attend (6)
Head Start/Early Head Start while required
documents are obtained within a reasonable
time frame
Obtaining sufficient data on the needs of the 44.1% (15) 41.2% 11.8% 2.9% (1) 34
homeless to inform the program’s annual (14) (4)
community assessment
Engaging community partners, including the 21.2% (7) 51.5% 9.1% (3) 18.2% (6) 33
McKinney-Vento Liaison, in conducting staff (17)
cross training and planning activities
Entering into an MOU with the appropriate local 64.7% (22) 26.5% 5.9% (2) 2.9% (1) 34
entity responsible for managing publicly funded (9)
preschool (LEA) that includes a plan to
coordinate selection priorities for eligible
children, including children experiencing
homelessness
In coordination with LEA, developing and 32.4% (11) 52.9% 11.8% 2.9% (1) 34
implementing family outreach and support (18) (4)
efforts under McKinney-Vento and transition
planning for children experiencing
homelessness
Answered question 34
Skipped question 13
15
Issues regarding homelessness
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
homelessness for children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs. Detailed
responses can be found in the following table.
Table 12. Issues regarding services for children and families experiencing homelessness
Response Response
Percent Count
Identification 56.5% 13
Enrollment 21.7% 5
Tracking 26.1% 6
Recruitment 65.2% 15
Other 30.4% 7
Answered question 23
Skipped question 24
Some additional issues included in the “other” option are:
‐ Pre-school program for homeless in Amarillo
‐ Establishing MOU's with agencies serving homeless families
‐ Over enrollment of children
‐ Clarification about enrollment, especially that the homeless children are eligible but not
automatically placed in a class when classes are already filled
‐ Few homeless shelters in rural service area
‐ Getting the required paperwork after students are enrolled because of homelessness
Efforts to address homelessness needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address need
relating to homelessness for children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs
that are working well and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. A summary of
detailed responses are as follows:
‐ We operate a program for the homeless in the downtown Tyler Street Resource Center
‐ Collaboration with school district
‐ Periodic meetings with agencies that work with the homeless population
‐ Connecting parents to social services when needs are expressed
‐ Having presentations from the Education Service Center homeless liaison and the State
Center for Homelessness provide information
‐ Held a meeting in which we invited all of our district partners' homeless liaisons to gain
input on our enrollment criteria and the questions on our application that addressed
homelessness. The representative from the State Center for Homelessness also reviewed
our application questions and gave guidance.
‐ We coordinate with SAAFE House and our local Housing Authority when we have
homeless families
‐ We try to assist homeless families in locating shelter and receiving care
‐ Knowledge of resources and other agencies that serves homeless individuals in the area
‐ Collaborate with agencies that are serving homeless families
‐ Conducting an extensive community needs assessment involving agencies that deal with
homeless families
‐ Work with the local education agency to address homelessness
‐ Coordination & collaboration with local LEA has been very successful due to monthly
meetings to stay informed, updated and address issues, if any, as they arise
‐ Particular agreements with shelters and other local programs that serve homeless
population
16
‐ Collaboration with public schools and the local Youth Services Bureau helps identify some
homeless youth with children
‐ Working with the County's Community Resource Coordination Group helps agencies share
resources and information
‐ Make sure that the doors are open for these students without asking for so much
paperwork up front
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding children experiencing homelessness were collected, along
with the preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses are as follows:
Table 12. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Definition of the Act 33.3% 10
Recruitment 43.3% 13
Enrollment 13.3% 4
Tracking 36.7% 11
Indentifying available resources 60.0% 18
Other 3.3% 1
Answered question 30
Skipped question 17
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (72.7%)
17
Key Activity Area 3: Family/Child Assistance
Involvement with family/child assistance
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following family/child assistance providers/organizations (Table 13) and to
indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this key activity
area (Table 14). Details are provider in the following tables:
Table 13. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
TX Health & Human Services 21.2% (7) 33.3% (11) 33.3% (11) 12.1% (4) 33
Employment & Training and Labor services 15.2% (5) 27.3% (9) 45.5% (15) 12.1% (4) 33
agencies
Economic and Community Development 9.1% (3) 24.2% (8) 33.3% (11) 33.3% (11) 33
Councils
TX Dept. of Family and Protective Services 12.1% (4) 48.5% (16) 36.4% (12) 3.0% (1) 33
Services and networks supporting foster and 12.1% (4) 21.2% (7) 48.5% (16) 18.2% (6) 33
adoptive families, faith based organizations,
grandparents raising grandchildren
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
Table 14. Level of success with the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Obtaining information and data for community 57.6% (19) 27.3% (9) 12.1% (4) 3.0% (1) 33
assessment and planning
Working together to target recruitment to families 54.5% (18) 45.5% (15) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33
receiving TANF, Employment and Training, and
related support services
Developing and implementing policies and 60.6% (20) 33.3% (11) 6.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 33
procedures to ensure that children in the child welfare
system are identified and prioritized for enrollment
Establishing and implementing local interagency 60.6% (20) 33.3% (11) 6.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 33
partnerships agreements
Facilitating shared training and technical assistance 30.3% (10) 54.5% (18) 15.2% (5) 0.0% (0) 33
opportunities
Getting involved in state level planning and policy 9.1% (3) 63.6% (21) 15.2% (5) 12.1% (4) 33
development
Exchanging information on roles & resources with 51.5% (17) 33.3% (11) 15.2% (5) 0.0% (0) 33
other service providers regarding family/child
assistance services
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
Issues regarding family/child assistance
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
family/child assistance. Detailed responses are as follows:
‐ More staff
‐ Transition services for children/families leaving Head Start and entering elementary school
‐ Respite care for parents with severely disabled children
‐ Legal support for minor parents served
‐ Education for parents through training about what are available resources for them
18
Efforts to address family/child assistance that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address needs
relating to family/child assistance for children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start
programs that are working well and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. A
summary of detailed responses are as follows:
‐ We initiated quarterly Community Service Provider meetings. This provides an opportunity for
Social Service Workers, ISD Nurses and Counselors, medical professionals, WIC staff, TANF
staff, religious community resource persons and many others to network and coordinate
resources.
‐ A computerized tracking program
‐ Keeping open communication with agencies that have valuable resources/services that are
accessible to low-income families. We partner with several child care centers for after-school
assistance and we also provide child-care services for parents substituting, volunteering,
attending meetings, etc.
‐ Programs should be strongly encouraged from the top to actively seek collaborations and
coordination with local Head Start program
‐ Attending more trainings and networking
‐ Partnering with local entities and sharing information has been helpful to our agency and its
families
‐ County wide coordination group of service agencies to include public schools, Head Start,
Juvenile Justice, MHMRA, Children's special needs network, hospitals, and others.
‐ Maintain a parent/teacher center where parents can go to access the internet, write resumes,
etc.
‐ Maintaining active membership in local committees - community involvement is a two way
street
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding assistance to families and children were collected, along
with the preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses are as follows:
Table 15. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 42.3% 11
Coordination 30.8% 8
Planning 34.6% 9
Grant Writing 11.5% 3
Parent Education 50.0% 13
Teacher Education 26.9% 7
Identification of Resources 42.3% 11
Information Management Systems 50.0% 13
Other 0.0% 0
Answered question 26
Skipped question 21
Preferred training venue: Cluster Events (75%)
19
Key Activity Area 4: Child Care
Involvement with child care
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following child care providers/organizations (Table 16), and to indicate the
level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this Key Activity Area (Table
17). Details are provided below:
Table 16. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
TX Dept. Family and Protective Services 18.2% (6) 48.5% (16) 30.3% (10) 3.0% (1) 33
Child Care Resource & Referral agencies 15.2% (5) 36.4% (12) 36.4% (12) 12.1% (4) 33
Local child care programs for full-year, full-day 27.3% (9) 33.3% (11) 27.3% (9) 12.1% (4) 33
services
Child Care Management Services 15.6% (5) 25.0% (8) 31.3% (10) 28.1% (9) 32
State or regional policy/planning committees 9.1% (3) 33.3% (11) 21.2% (7) 36.4% (12) 33
that address child care issues
Higher education 36.4% (12) 39.4% (13) 12.1% (4) 12.1% (4) 33
programs/services/resources related to child
care
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
Table 17. Level of success with each following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Establishing linkages/partnerships with child care 51.5% (17) 33.3% (11) 9.1% (3) 6.1% (2) 33
providers
Assisting families to access full-day, full year services 54.5% (18) 36.4% (12) 6.1% (2) 3.0% (1) 33
Aligning policies and practices with other service 48.5% (16) 42.4% (14) 9.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 33
providers
Sharing data/information on children that are jointly 60.6% (20) 33.3% (11) 0.0% (0) 6.1% (2) 33
served
Exchanging information on roles and resources with 54.5% (18) 39.4% (13) 3.0% (1) 3.0% (1) 33
other providers/organizations regarding child care and
community needs assessment
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
Issues regarding child care
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
child care. Detailed responses are as follows:
‐ Lack of child care resources in rural areas
‐ Transportation service for before and after child care
‐ Caring for the younger children of volunteers who volunteer in our center
‐ Getting the agencies in these areas to attend meetings that are provided by Head Start
‐ Need more funding to implement longer hours of service. There are Head Start families who do not qualify
for extended day care because the mother refuses to pursue child support or the family is not a legal
immigrant.
‐ We work well with our local LEAs, but have more trouble working with Child Care Providers in the area.
Most of the private local day cares have fee-for-service and do not take CCMS.
‐ Maybe one day an after school program can be developed on the Head Start campus for the children
20
Efforts to address child care needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address the child
care needs of children and families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs that are working
well and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. A summary of detailed
responses are as follows:
‐ Collaboration with local partners
‐ Establish an interagency program to include all agencies that serve high risk families and children
‐ Keep reasonable rates for low-income families
‐ Visiting their agency in person and informing the agencies of what takes place at the social service
advisory meeting and how they can benefit from that meeting
‐ Monthly meetings to ensure that involved parties are well informed and that direct services are being
provided
‐ TEEM (Texas Early Education Model) brings school, faith-based child care, for-profit child care and Head
Start together
‐ I think that other programs as well as this program will benefit from having an after school program on
campus
‐ We are a partner in the TEEM grant. Extremely helpful!
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding child care were collected, along with the preferred training
venue for these needs. Detailed responses are offered in the table below:
Table 18. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 29.6% 8
Coordination 29.6% 8
Planning 37.0% 10
Parent Education 33.3% 9
Teacher Education 14.8% 4
Identification of Resources 40.7% 11
Funding Opportunities 51.9% 14
Grant Writing 11.1% 3
Other (please specify) 0.0% 0
Answered question 27
Skipped question 20
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (65.4%) & Webinars (65.4%)
21
Involvement with the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM)
In partnership with TEEM the following questions were developed. Here respondents were
asked to describe their experience with TEEM (Table19) and mention ways to make the
partnership more successful (Table 20). Detailed responses are presented in the tables
below:
Table 19. Involvement with the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM)
Response Response
Percent Count
Currently involved with TEEM 62.5% 20
Involved in the past with TEEM 3.1% 1
On a waiting list to be involved with TEEM 9.4% 3
Not familiar with TEEM 12.5% 4
Other 12.5% 4
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
The additional answers included in the “other” option are from respondents who stated that
they are aware of TEEM, but are not involved with them.
Table 20. Ways to make the TEEM partnerships more successful
Response Response
Percent Count
Regularly scheduled meetings with mentors 32.0% 8
Clarification of rules/guidelines 36.0% 9
More funding to serve classes 60.0% 15
Less staff turnover 28.0% 7
Other 32.0% 8
Answered question 25
Skipped question 22
The following list represents a summary of the answers provided by those respondents who
selected the option “Other”:
‐ Place Region 9 Head Start on email lists
‐ Partnerships
‐ Ensure that Head Start is treated as an equal partner
‐ Stipends for Teacher Assistants as well as Teachers
‐ Work with 3-yr old classrooms
‐ Provide some of the resources to all Head Start classes
22
Key Activity Area 5: Family Literacy Services
Involvement with family literacy services
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following family literacy service providers/organizations (Table 21) and to
indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this Key Activity
Area (Table 22). Details are provided below:
Table 21. Extent of your involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the
past 12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Dept. of Ed Title I, Part A Family Literacy 9.4% (3) 21.9% (7) 25.0% (8) 43.8% (14) 32
Employment and Training programs 9.1% (3) 39.4% (13) 42.4% (14) 9.1% (3) 33
Adult Education 18.2% (6) 36.4% (12) 39.4% (13) 6.1% (2) 33
English Language Learner programs & 27.3% (9) 27.3% (9) 30.3% (10) 15.2% (5) 33
services
Services to promote parent/child literacy 36.4% (12) 30.3% (10) 27.3% (9) 6.1% (2) 33
interactions
Parent education programs/services 34.4% (11) 37.5% (12) 21.9% (7) 6.3% (2) 32
Public libraries 37.5% (12) 46.9% (15) 12.5% (4) 3.1% (1) 32
School libraries 41.9% (13) 25.8% (8) 19.4% (6) 12.9% (4) 31
Public/private sources that provide book 39.4% (13) 21.2% (7) 18.2% (6) 21.2% (7) 33
donations or funding for books
Museums 15.2% (5) 12.1% (4) 27.3% (9) 45.5% (15) 33
Reading Readiness programs 33.3% (11) 30.3% (10) 15.2% (5) 21.2% (7) 33
Higher education 30.3% (10) 21.2% (7) 21.2% (7) 27.3% (9) 33
programs/services/resources related to
family literacy
Providers of services for children and 28.1% (9) 25.0% (8) 28.1% (9) 18.8% (6) 32
families who are English language
learners
Even Start 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 9.4% (3) 65.6% (21) 32
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
Table 22. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Recruiting families to Family Literacy Services 51.5% (17) 27.3% (9) 18.2% 3.0% (1) 33
(6)
Educating others (e.g., parents, the community) 60.6% (20) 24.2% (8) 15.2% 0.0% (0) 33
about the importance of family literacy (5)
Establishing linkages/partnerships with key 54.5% (18) 36.4% (12) 9.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 33
literacy providers
Establishing linkages/partnerships with key local 42.4% (14) 48.5% (16) 9.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 33
level organizations/programs (other than libraries)
Incorporating family literacy into your program 75.8% (25) 21.2% (7) 3.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 33
policies and practices
Exchanging information with other 50.0% (16) 43.8% (14) 6.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 32
providers/organizations regarding roles and
resources related to family literacy
Answered question 33
Skipped question 14
23
Issues regarding family literacy services
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
family literacy services. The following list represents a summary of the answers provided by
those respondents:
‐ Lack of incentives for families to attend
‐ Additional guidance and funding on meeting these expectations would be helpful
‐ Would like to know how some of the other programs are incorporating family literacy into their
program, other than what we are doing
‐ We are very rural and there are not many programs in our service area that handle these
issues. Families would have to travel outside of their communities to get the services. However,
we are working with LEAs and other Higher Education Facilities to get ESL and literacy types of
resources to our families.
‐ We need to involve families
‐ Due to transportation challenges, unable to getting families/children to the local literacy
providers
Efforts to address family literacy needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address the
literacy needs of families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs that are working well and
that might be helpful to other programs in the state. The following list represents a summary of
the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ Close collaboration with Adult Basic Education Programs with ESL and GED
‐ Implemented our "Read with Me" program approximately five years ago. Initial Parent and
Mobil Libraries funded by Kiwanis Organization. Every Tuesday parents spend at least an hour
on campus reading with their children throughout our facility. National Company (TCIM) with a
local sight partnered with us to provide funding for continued financial and on sight assistance
with the program. Neighborhood Fire Station provides "Stop Drop and Read" program. Support
from on campus readers such as Retired Teachers Association, National Honor Society
Students from local school campuses, High School Athletic teams, Paris Junior College
Athletes and many others.
‐ Promote fathers reading every day to their child & literacy take home activities
‐ We have the Reading Is Fundamental/Family of Readers program that assists with family
literacy needs and provides books for distribution. We have also been the recipient of some
First Book awards as well as donations from Kohl's Department Stores.
‐ We encourage Tribal department employees to take the time to visit our program and be a part
the regular volunteers in the literacy program. We try to have donation items as an incentive for
the literacy program. We also have an annual book fair that has been a success.
‐ Utilize the Fatherhood Initiative program and be creative.
‐ Network with the elementary schools and other child development services to find available
resources.
‐ We refer parents to the community program for literacy at the Public Library. We also refer
parents to the Terrell ISD ESL program for parents and The WING program at the Public
Library.
24
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding family literacy services were collected, along with the
preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses are offered in Table:
Table 23. identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 26.1% 6
Coordination 30.4% 7
Planning 26.1% 6
Funding Opportunities 26.1% 6
Grant Writing 13.0% 3
Parent Education 52.2% 12
Teacher Education 30.4% 7
Identification of Resources 52.2% 12
Accessing Resources 30.4% 7
Technology 17.4% 4
Record Keeping and Reporting 13.0% 3
Strategic Planning 34.8% 8
Multiplicity of Language Spoken 34.8% 8
Literacy Level of Staff 39.1% 9
Other 4.3% 1
Answered question 23
Skipped question 24
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (76.9%)
25
Key Activity Area 6: Children with Disabilities and Their Families
Involvement with children with disabilities and their families
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations servicing children with disabilities and their
families (Table 24), and to indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with
regards to this Key Activity Area (Table 25). Details are provided below:
Table 24. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
State Lead Agency for Part B/619 45.2% (14) 19.4% (6) 19.4% (6) 16.1% (5) 31
Preschool Program for Children with 71.0% (22) 19.4% (6) 9.7% (3) 0.0% (0) 31
Disabilities
Texas Education Agency—other 62.5% (20) 18.8% (6) 9.4% (3) 9.4% (3) 31
programs/services
State Lead Agency for Part C 59.4% (19) 15.6% (5) 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 32
Local Part C providers 68.8% (22) 12.5% (4) 15.6% (5) 3.1% (1) 32
Federally-funded programs for families of 34.4% (11) 28.1% (9) 21.9% (7) 15.6% (5) 32
children with disabilities
State-funded programs for children with 32.3% (10) 32.3% (10) 19.4% (6) 16.1% (5) 31
disabilities and their families
Other funded programs for children and 21.9% (7) 15.6% (5) 34.4% (11) 28.1% (9) 32
their families
University/community college programs/ 12.9% (4) 16.1% (5) 25.8% (8) 45.2% (14) 31
services related to children with
disabilities
Non-Head Start councils, committees or 34.4% (11) 21.9% (7) 31.3% (10) 12.5% (4) 32
work groups that address policy/program
issues regarding children with disabilities
Dual enrollment of children with 63.3% (19) 23.3% (7) 6.7% (2) 6.7% (2) 30
disabilities
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
Table 25. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Obtaining timely evaluations of 56.3% (18) 21.9% (7) 18.8% (6) 3.1% (1) 32
children
Having staff attend IEP or IFSP 93.8% (30) 3.1% (1) 3.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 32
meetings
Coordinating services with Part C providers 76.7% (23) 16.7% (5) 6.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 30
Coordinating services with Part 62.5% (20) 25.0% (8) 12.5% (4) 0.0% (0) 32
B/619 providers
Sharing data/information on jointly served 77.4% (24) 22.6% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 31
children
Exchanging information on roles and 71.9% (23) 28.1% (9) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 32
resources with other providers/organizations
regarding services for
children with disabilities and their families
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
26
Issues regarding children with disabilities and their families
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
services for children with disabilities and their families or working with this population. The
following list represents a summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ Response To Intervention (RTI) has made it very difficult to identify children with disabilities in
the public schools
‐ Ongoing training of teachers so that they feel comfortable serving children with disabilities if
they do not have a special education background
‐ Working with teachers and parents regarding toilet learning issues. We still have teachers who
assume that children must be independent in their toileting skills if they are going to be in Head
Start. The regulations regarding this are continually addressed in our program, and ongoing
training in helping children become independent in their toileting skills is provided.
‐ Response to Intervention - Guidelines more strict
‐ Obtaining a timely evaluation of children from LEA
‐ Getting the families to feel comfortable and not feel intimidated by the LEA employees
‐ Working with local LEAs to get timely services/assessments for Head Start children. Dually
enrolled children get services faster then Head Start only children. However, I feel that it is
getting better as we attempt to communicate with our local LEAs on a regular basis concerning
this issue.
‐ RTI process takes too long
Efforts to address children with disabilities and their families that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are doing to address the
needs of children with disabilities and their families in Head Start/Early Head Start programs
that are working well and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. The following list
represents a summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ It is very important to have a certified special education staff member employed as the disability
coordinator
‐ We have a few classes that are co-teach models with a Head Start teacher and a PPCD
teacher. Approximately one third of the students have identified disabilities, but all children
qualify for Head Start services. IEP implementation is provided by both teachers. ECI provides
the initial screening for all of our Early Head Start students. This assists with the ECI child find
efforts and helps our program be aware of any concerns that ECI has recognized.
‐ Dual enrollment
‐ Coordinate with attorney that specializes in assisting families/children with disabilities as it
relates to the legal ramifications
‐ Educating the parents in the aspects of ARD meetings and their rights as parents of children
with special needs
‐ We work closely with the Special Education facilitator from the LEA for the referral process, to
conduct all ARDs, and to forward the child's record to kindergarten
‐ Our Disabilities Coordinator is very active with the local agencies in ensuring that necessary
services are being provided and that we remain in contact and share information
‐ Persistence with the LEAs and vocal advocacy at meetings of school boards, committees, and
departments
‐ Having a fabulous working relationship with ECI
27
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding services for children with disabilities and their families
were collected, along with the preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses
are offered in Table 26.
Table 26. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 18.5% 5
Coordination 14.8% 4
Planning 18.5% 5
Funding Opportunities 14.8% 4
Grant Writing 7.4% 2
Parent Education 25.9% 7
Training in Specific Disabilities 51.9% 14
MOU Development 25.9% 7
Writing Goals and Objectives 7.4% 2
Implementing the IEP 14.8% 4
Writing a Disability Service Plan 29.6% 8
Budget Issues 11.1% 3
Health Issues 11.1% 3
Identifying Children for Services 33.3% 9
Acquiring Services from the LEA 22.2% 6
Timely Assessments 33.3% 9
Identification of Resources 14.8% 4
Accessing Resources 7.4% 2
Other 11.1% 3
Answered question 27
Skipped question 20
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (78.6%)
Experiences dealing with Response to Intervention (RTI)
Respondents were asked to offer information about their experiences dealing with Response
to Intervention (RTI). The following list represents a summary of the answers provided by
those respondents:
‐ RTI is a time to evaluate. Staff must document a child’s progress in the classroom and at home
-a standard tool must be utilized-Individual plans must be in place for classroom intervention
‐ Many districts are still thinking that RTI pertains to Preschool, even if the law states that RTI
begins at the kindergarten level.
‐ Difficult-guidelines are more strict-children w/speech delays from ECI are not qualifying
‐ This has been a challenge for our program with the amount of time it takes to complete the
process.
‐ It delays Head Start obtaining their 10% disability enrollment since we can no longer utilize
Head Start IEP's
‐ In our community the employees we deal with are wonderful people and we have a great
working relationship, and the RTI process is going very well
‐ RTI has been receptive
‐ RTI provides time and strategies to ensure child success. It should decrease the over-
identification of low-income children.
28
‐ ISD's are cooperative to share information about their process and incorporate Head Start
children wherever possible. ISD's have their own special education laws that require them to go
through many steps prior to a special education referral.
‐ I consistently use RTI in my classroom and help other teachers when they request help from
me for students. It is important to see which interventions and strategies help the student be
successful and which ones do not help.
‐ With two school districts, used properly to make sure of the need for referral. For one school
district, RTI was used as a means to delay implementation of services.
‐ Maintaining the 10% disability standard. The State standard and Head Start standards are
different and it is difficult to maintain the 10%
29
Key Activity Area 7: Community Services
Involvement with community services
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations providing community services (Table 27),
and to indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this Key
Activity Area (Table 28). Details are provided below:
Table 27. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Law Enforcement 9.4% (3) 37.5% (12) 28.1% (9) 25.0% (8) 32
Texas Department of Criminal 3.3% (1) 16.7% (5) 26.7% (8) 53.3% (16) 30
Justice System
Providers of substance abuse 12.5% (4) 15.6% (5) 53.1% (17) 18.8% (6) 32
prevention/treatment services
Providers of child abuse 22.6% (7) 41.9% (13) 35.5% (11) 0.0% (0) 31
prevention/
treatment services
Providers of domestic violence 25.0% (8) 37.5% (12) 28.1% (9) 9.4% (3) 32
prevention/ treatment services
Public and private resources 25.0% (8) 25.0% (8) 40.6% (13) 9.4% (3) 32
geared toward prevention/
intervention and support
Providers of emergency 15.6% (5) 34.4% (11) 34.4% (11) 15.6% (5) 32
services
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
Table 28. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Establishing linkages/ partnerships 28.1% (9) 56.3% (18) 6.3% (2) 9.4% (3) 32
with law
enforcement agencies
Establishing linkages/ partnerships 37.5% (12) 50.0% (16) 9.4% (3) 3.1% (1) 32
with public resources
Establishing linkages/ partnerships 31.3% (10) 50.0% (16) 15.6% (5) 3.1% (1) 32
with private resources
Partnering with service providers on 40.6% (13) 50.0% (16) 6.3% (2) 3.1% (1) 32
outreach activities for eligible
families
Obtaining in-kind community 58.1% (18) 35.5% (11) 6.5% (2) 0.0% (0) 31
services for the children /families in
your program
Sharing data/information on 45.2% (14) 35.5% (11) 19.4% (6) 0.0% (0) 31
children/families served jointly by
Head Start/ Early Head Start and
other agencies regarding prevention/
treatment and support services
Exchanging information on roles and 45.2% (14) 51.6% (16) 3.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 31
resources with other
providers/organizations regarding
community services
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
30
Issues regarding community services
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
community services for Head Start/Early Head Start families. The following list represents a
summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ Transportation & developing relationships with pertinent organizations
‐ Sharing community resource information - to make sure that all information is current and
correct - Recruiting and awareness of Head Start
‐ Marriage counseling is greatly needed
‐ Working on more direct involvement for our military families
Efforts to address community services needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are making to address the
community services needs of the children and families in their program that are working well
and that might be helpful to other programs in the state. The following list represents a
summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ Outreach to community organizations via invitations to meetings and trainings; also
participation on task committees of other organizations
‐ Attend interagency meetings and other local meetings to gather information about their
agencies and inform them of our program
‐ Organizing an event with other organizations to promote Head Start
‐ Survey of family needs
‐ The sheer number of formal community agreements--we have 97--to coordinate and serve
children and families
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding community services Head Start/Early Head Start families
were collected, along with the preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses
are offered in Table 29.
Table 29. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 25.0% 6
Coordination 16.7% 4
Planning 29.2% 7
Funding Opportunities 25.0% 6
Grant Writing 8.3% 2
Parent Education 41.7% 10
Teacher Education 25.0% 6
Identification of Resources 45.8% 11
Counting Services for In-Kind 62.5% 15
Mental Health Services for Children with Incarcerated Parents or Caregivers 50.0% 12
Other 8.3% 2
Answered question 24
Skipped question 23
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (68%)
31
Key Activity Area 8: Publicly Funded Pre-K Partnership Development
(Education)
Involvement with publicly funded Pre-K partnership development
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations responsible for publicly funded Pre-K
partnership development (Table 30), and to indicate the level of success with implementing
certain efforts with regards to this Key Activity Area (Table 31). Details are provided below:
Table 30. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Memorandum of 75.0% (24) 9.4% (3) 15.6% (5) 0.0% (0) 32
Understanding (MOU) with the
appropriate local
entity responsible for
managing publicly funded
preschool programs
in the service area of your
agency which includes plans
to coordinate
activities, as described in
642(e) (5) (A)(i)(ii) (I-X), and a
review of each of
the activities
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
Table 31. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Educational activities, curricular 78.1% (25) 15.6% (5) 3.1% (1) 3.1% (1) 32
objectives and instruction
Information, dissemination and 71.9% (23) 25.0% (8) 3.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 32
access for families contacting Head
Start or other preschool program
Selection priorities for eligible 71.9% (23) 25.0% (8) 3.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 32
children served
Service areas 74.2% (23) 22.6% (7) 3.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 31
Staff training, including 65.6% (21) 25.0% (8) 6.3% (2) 3.1% (1) 32
opportunities for joint staff training
Program technical assistance 62.5% (20) 34.4% (11) 0.0% (0) 3.1% (1) 32
Provision of services to meet 65.6% (21) 28.1% (9) 6.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 32
needs of working parents, as
applicable
Communications and parent 83.9% (26) 16.1% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 31
outreach for transition to
kindergarten
Provision and use of facilities, 71.0% (22) 22.6% (7) 0.0% (0) 6.5% (2) 31
transportation, etc.
Other elements mutually agreed to by 75.0% (24) 18.8% (6) 3.1% (1) 3.1% (1) 32
the parties to the MOU
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
32
Issues regarding publicly funded Pre-K partnership development
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced regarding
education/pre-k partnership development for the children and families in their program. The
following list represents a summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ House Bill 130 – Full day Pre-K
‐ Helping parents and the community understand the similarities and the differences in Pre-K
and Head Start
‐ Difficulty recruiting parent volunteers in the classroom or to help with Library Program
‐ Head Start not treated as an equal partner ISD filling enrollment slots first and letting Head
Start have what is left plus all 3 year olds
‐ One school district is not willing to collaborate with Head Start, due to some bad history
‐ We have been successful in implementing partnerships with our local Pre-K programs
‐ Transportation issues related to partnerships with LEAs
Efforts to address publicly funded Pre-K partnership development needs that are
working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about efforts they are making to address the
pre-k partnership development needs of your program that are working well and that might be
helpful to other programs in the state. The following list represents a summary of the answers
provided by those respondents:
‐ Proceed with caution and in baby steps
‐ Our program is a partnership with the district's pre-K program. It has been a very
successful partnership, but it takes continuous work.
‐ Cooperative understanding of the transition periods and communication between the public
schools not only at the end of the school year but throughout the year. Active participation
in the TEEM grant.
‐ Educate the public schools about the services Head Start provides for the families and their
children
‐ Location on the same campus is beneficial
‐ Constant communication and joint meetings
‐ This year we have been fortunate to have a great partnership with our local school district's
pre-k program to deliver direct services to children and families; monthly meetings and
communication as been integral in the partnership
‐ Persistence!
‐ Everyone has to buy into the idea of collaboration, from Superintendent, to Principal, to
Teachers. If one does not it makes it very difficult to collaborate.
33
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding publicly funded Pre-K partnership development for Head
Start/Early Head Start families were collected, along with the preferred training venue for
these needs. Detailed responses are offered in Table 32.
Table 32. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 27.3% 6
Coordination 31.8% 7
Planning 36.4% 8
Funding Opportunities 13.6% 3
MOU Development 40.9% 9
Grant Writing 4.5% 1
Parent Education 13.6% 3
Impasse Training 13.6% 3
Eligibility of Children 13.6% 3
Wrap Around Services 36.4% 8
Recruitment 18.2% 4
Meshing TEA Guidelines and HS Performance Standards 54.5% 12
Identification of Resources 27.3% 6
Strategic Planning 40.9% 9
Other 13.6% 3
Answered question 22
Skipped question 25
Preferred Training Venue: Cluster Events (69.2%)
Experience with the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM)
In partnership with TEEM the following questions were developed. Here respondents were
asked to describe their experience with TEEM. The following list represents a summary of the
answers provided by those respondents:
‐ We are the Lead Agency for TEEM. Experience has been very successful
‐ We began working with the State Center in the early days of the grants when they were the
Head Start Readiness grants. We then received Ready to Read grants and now have TEEM
grants. We are currently waiting to hear the results of the Tier grants and are preparing Texas
School Ready grants.
‐ Successful participation by the Head Start education staff
‐ There have been some differences between TEEM and Head Start practices, for example, a
TEEM mentor told a teacher to display children’s assessment results in the classroom--a
violation of privacy
‐ When administered by the State Center for Early Childhood Development, they made sure
Head Start was treated equal and shared the slots for 4 year olds
‐ It has been a great experience; our children (and teachers) have truly benefited from the
training and resources provided
‐ TEEM does not always mesh with the whole-child approach of Head Start
‐ It has helped the schools to recognize the excellence of Head Start Program Performance
Standards and to respect our teachers
‐ TEEM has been a very good experience with our teachers, this is our first year to have our 4 yr
old classes in the ISD. The teachers had a difficult time doing everything that Head Start
required and then all of the TEEM work, but in the end they have seen the advantages and will
continue it for next year. Our 3-yr old teachers love it and are completely on board with the
TEEM effort
34
‐ It has been very successful in our program. Our staff have worked well with the TEEM staff.
‐ Excellent. Have been a partner with TEEM since inception.
‐ The training for TEEM was outstanding
Respondents were asked to offer information about suggestions on how to make the TEEM
partnership more successful. The following list represents a summary of the answers provided
by those respondents:
‐ The assessment tool should meet Head Start and state pre k requirements--staff should not be
required to use two tools
‐ Coordination among all partners is key. In the past, we have often found ourselves in a position
of hearing one set of instructions from the State Center and a differing set of instructions from
TEA. Because we want to follow the guidelines as they are intended, this can be frustrating.
Also, we have from time to time found ourselves trying to meet very tight deadlines for
information. Helping districts/child care/Head Start programs involved understand the data entry
requirements for OZ as it relates to TEEM projects and the TPRI data entry as it relates to
Kindergarten and the School Readiness Certification process has been challenging for our
staff.
‐ Fieldtrips to other Early Childhood centers w/TEEM
‐ Expand and make the project available to more children
‐ Stop allowing ISD's to serve all the 4 year olds in the community
‐ More information on outcome data, shared with the HS programs
‐ More local press releases on success stories
‐ I have just found out that our 3 yr old classes will not be included in the TEEM grant for next
year. I am very disappointed in this even though we did not do the tracking on the 3 yr olds.
‐ Some Head Start teachers are not contracted and they are considered on over-time when
attending the professional development classes. Supply funding for over-time for teachers to
attend mandatory training classes after work hours. Also, taken into consideration that Head
Start Programs that do not have contracted teachers can lose staff during the school year,
teacher turn-over can be a problem in some locations.
‐ Offer some of the activities and supplies to all head start teachers
‐ More funding
35
Key Activity Area 9: Head Start Transition and Alignment with K-12 (Education)
Involvement with Head Start transition and alignment with K-12
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations responsible for Head Start transition and
alignment with K-12 (Table 33), and to indicate the level of success with implementing certain
collaborative efforts with regards to this Key Activity Area (Table 34). Details are provided
below:
Table 33. Extent of involvement with local education agencies (LEAs) during the past 12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 65.6% (21) 25.0% (8) 6.3% (2) 3.1% (1) 32
regarding transition from Head Start to
kindergarten
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
Table 34. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Partnering with LEAs to implement systematic 81.3% (26) 15.6% (5) 0.0% (0) 3.1% (1) 32
procedures for transferring Head Start program
records to school
Ongoing communication with LEAs to facilitate 68.8% (22) 25.0% (8) 3.1% (1) 3.1% (1) 32
coordination of programs
Establishing and implementing comprehensive 62.5% (20) 31.3% (10) 0.0% (0) 6.3% (2) 32
transition policies and procedures with LEAs
Linking LEA and Head Start Services relating to 65.6% (21) 31.3% (10) 0.0% (0) 3.1% (1) 32
language, numeracy and literacy
Aligning LEA and Head Start curricula and 62.5% (20) 31.3% (10) 3.1% (1) 3.1% (1) 32
assessments with Head Start Outcomes Framework
Aligning Head Start curricula with Texas Pre-K 68.8% (22) 28.1% (9) 0.0% (0) 3.1% (1) 32
Guidelines
Partnering with LEAs and parents to assist individual 74.2% (23) 22.6% (7) 0.0% (0) 3.2% (1) 31
children/families to transition to school, including
review of portfolio/records
Coordinating transportation with LEAs 58.1% (18) 19.4% (6) 12.9% (4) 9.7% (3) 31
Coordinating shared use of facilities with LEAs 75.0% (24) 15.6% (5) 6.3% (2) 3.1% (1) 32
Coordinating with LEAs regarding other support 71.9% (23) 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 3.1% (1) 32
services for children and families
Conducting joint outreach to parents and LEA to 59.4% (19) 31.3% (10) 3.1% (1) 6.3% (2) 32
discuss needs of children entering kindergarten
Establish policies and procedures that support 71.9% (23) 18.8% (6) 3.1% (1) 6.3% (2) 32
children transition to school that includes
engagement with LEA
Helping parents of ELL children understand 50.0% (16) 37.5% (12) 3.1% (1) 9.4% (3) 32
instructional and other information and services
provided by the receiving school, including
section 3302 ESEA
Exchanging information with LEAs on roles, 62.5% (20) 25.0% (8) 6.3% (2) 6.3% (2) 32
resources and regulations
Aligning curricula and assessment practices with 59.4% (19) 25.0% (8) 6.3% (2) 9.4% (3) 32
LEAs
Organizing and participating in joint training, 62.5% (20) 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 12.5% (4) 32
including transition related training for school staff
and Head Start staff
Answered question 32
Skipped question 15
36
Issues regarding Head Start transition and alignment with K-12
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced regarding
education/Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 for the children and families in their
program. The following list represents a summary of the answers provided by those
respondents:
‐ Dual language schools are difficult to coordinate
‐ Parent Involvement in the classroom is limited
‐ Education of superintendants and principals as to the benefit of Head Start and inform them
that Head Start is a viable program and not a step child to public school
‐ Need more cohesive collaboration on recruitment and enrollment
Efforts to address Head Start transition and alignment with K-12 needs that are working
well
Respondents were asked to offer information about the efforts they are making to address
transitioning of the children into Kindergarten that are working well and that might be helpful to
other programs in the state. The following list represents a summary of the answers provided
by those respondents:
‐ Having the Head Start program as part of the public school facilitates these processes
immensely
‐ Fieldtrips to prospective schools
‐ Keep an on-going dialogue with parents all year long regarding kindergarten expectations (for
graduating children)
‐ Meet with LEA principals to explain the needs of transition activities, parent orientation, etc. and
coordinate dates for the activities
‐ Transition process in place runs very smoothly between HS and the local school districts
‐ We transition students effectively, since we are part of the School District. We move student’s
records directly to the next grade level on our campus. We also hold a Parent Committee
meeting giving tours and providing information to parents.
‐ Get into the public schools. Convince them that having Head Start on campus is a benefit--in
dollars and in results.
‐ We have invited the Kindergarten teachers to visit our classrooms and our teachers to see what
our children are learning and we invite them to give us suggestions on how we can better
prepare our children for their classrooms
37
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding transition and alignment with K-12 for Head Start/Early
Head Start families were collected, along with the preferred training venue for these needs.
Detailed responses are offered in Table 35.
Table 35. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 45.0% 9
Coordination 40.0% 8
Planning 25.0% 5
Parent Education 35.0% 7
Teacher Education 35.0% 7
Identification of Resources 20.0% 4
Aligning HS Performance Standards, Child Outcomes and Pre-K Guidelines 70.0% 14
MOU Development 40.0% 8
Transition Activities 55.0% 11
Preparation of Children and Families for Kindergarten 45.0% 9
Other 10.0% 2
Answered question 20
Skipped question 27
Preferred training Venue(s) – Cluster Events (63.6%) & Webinars (63.6%)
Experience with Texas School Readiness Certification System (SRCS)
In partnership with TEEM, two questions were developed to assess respondent’s experience
with the Texas School Readiness Certification System (SRCS). In the first question
respondents were asked to describe their experience with SRCS. The following list represents
a summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ We have some classrooms that are TSR Certified, and several others in the process of being
certified
‐ None at this time. We will be participating in the TEEMS Project through Region VIII Service
center in school year 09-10 and will as a part of the collaboration will be working toward
campus and teacher School Readiness Certifications.
‐ Because of our involvement with the TEEM grants and having the ESC SRI person on staff in
our Preschool Services area, we have had a great deal of experience with SRCS.
‐ Good-still in progress
‐ There is a challenge getting the center administrators to "buy in" to the system, since it is a very
time consuming process for center administrators and teachers
‐ Currently, we have 2 classrooms that are certified, but most parents unaware or not sure what it
means
‐ Very successful, a great program
‐ It has been a good experience
‐ Unclear criteria for certification. The process seems secretive and is finally becoming more
transparent. Long delay in services to children and notification of SRCS status.
‐ Positive and beneficial
‐ I think it is expanding some horizons for both school teachers and Head Start teachers.
‐ It is a good system
‐ Excellent experience
38
The second question asks respondents to provide suggestions on what needs to be in place
to increase the participation of Head Start centers in the SRCS and to mention the specific
technical or other issues that serve as potential barriers. The following list represents a
summary of the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ Intensive teacher trainings
‐ Typically the data that is entered into SRCS is already being gathered in another way in
districts or child care, and often the data entry into SRCS is the second time that the data entry
person has entered the same information. Facilitating ways that the SRCS system can access
data that are already entered in other existing systems would alleviate much frustration. If that
cannot be accomplished, providing funding for additional staff to provide the data entry that is
needed would be helpful. We have also had situations where multiple records existed for a
single campus but under slightly different names. Often these records were not combined within
the system, so it appeared that data were incomplete when in actuality, the records existed.
These types of glitches often are barriers to a program being recognized as School Ready.
‐ On-site recruitment on SRCS information
‐ Face-t-face training on the implementation as opposed to e-mail alerts and on-line training
‐ More advertising, need additional staff for data entry, teachers don't have time
‐ Getting the teachers educated on what the school readiness program is all about and how to
obtain a certification in the school readiness program
‐ Maybe setting some kind of monitoring/tracking guidelines (especially for participating
directors/agencies) to ensure that information is submitted on time and also for us to follow-up
with teachers
‐ More information about SRCS to Head Start programs
‐ Once again, I think it is the amount of teacher turnover that can be an obstacle. Also, making
sure that you have a TEEM Mentor that understands Head Start and the Head Start
philosophy.
‐ More training and education about school readiness
39
Key Activity Area 10: Professional Development
Involvement with professional development
Respondents were asked to rate the extent of their involvement during the past 12 months
with each of the following providers/organizations responsible for professional development
(Table 36), and to indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards
to this Key Activity Area (Table 37). Details are provided below:
Table 36. Extent of involvement with each of the following service providers/organizations during the past
12 months
Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working Response
Relationship Count
Institutions of Higher Education 25.0% (8) 31.3% (10) 34.4% (11) 9.4% (3) 32
(4 year)
Institutions of Higher Education - 32.4% (11) 41.2% (14) 23.5% (8) 2.9% (1) 34
less than 4 year
On-line courses/programs 29.4% (10) 26.5% (9) 26.5% (9) 17.6% (6) 34
Child Care Resource & Referral 18.2% (6) 27.3% (9) 24.2% (8) 30.3% (10) 33
Network
OHS T/TA Network (e.g., 26.5% (9) 26.5% (9) 32.4% (11) 14.7% (5) 34
National
Resource Center
Other T/TA networks (regional, 20.6% (7) 38.2% (13) 26.5% (9) 14.7% (5) 34
state)
Service providers/organizations 27.3% (9) 36.4% (12) 24.2% (8) 12.1% (4) 33
offering relevant T/TA cross-
training opportunities
Answered question 34
Skipped question 13
Table 37. Level of success with each of the following items during the past 12 months
Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely Response
Difficult Count
Transferring credits between public 32.4% (11) 58.8% (20) 5.9% (2) 2.9% (1) 34
institutions of learning
Accessing early childhood education 61.8% (21) 20.6% (7) 11.8% (4) 5.9% (2) 34
degree programs in the community
Accessing other related degree programs 41.2% (14) 41.2% (14) 17.6% (6) 0.0% (0) 34
in the community
Accessing T/TA opportunities in the 55.9% (19) 26.5% (9) 17.6% (6) 0.0% (0) 34
community
Accessing scholarships and other financial 33.3% (11) 54.5% (18) 6.1% (2) 6.1% (2) 33
support for professional development
programs/activities
Staff release time to attend professional 54.5% (18) 27.3% (9) 15.2% (5) 3.0% (1) 33
development activities
Accessing on-line professional 51.5% (17) 36.4% (12) 12.1% (4) 0.0% (0) 33
development opportunities
Exchanging information on roles and 41.2% (14) 52.9% (18) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (2) 34
resources with other
providers/organizations regarding
professional development
Answered question 34
Skipped question 13
40
Issues regarding professional development
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced regarding
professional development activities and resources. The following list represents a summary of
the answers provided by those respondents:
‐ large rural area, staff has a lot of travel time, more information on online resources
‐ Wish they had colleges closer to our area
‐ Provide more health information on line; especially related to Head Start requirements
‐ Need our technology updated and strategically aligned
‐ It is difficult for us to have enough substitutes in all of our locations to afford all of our teachers to attend
workshops or training at the same time unless it is a teacher work day or summer break.
Efforts to address professional development needs that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about the efforts they are making to address the
professional development in their program that are working well and that might be helpful to
other programs in the state. The following list represents a summary of the answers provided
by those respondents:
‐ Amarillo College works very closely with us to provide CDA trainings as needed
‐ Accessing training through the Education Service Centers
‐ Online/Distance education
‐ Information shared with local community colleges in our area & On-site visits conducted
‐ TTU is a four year university and therefore provides excellent professional development
opportunities for our staff
‐ We cluster trainings throughout our service area. We are working implementing electronic
trainings.
‐ Bringing the trainer to the campus
Identified training and technical assistance needs
In partnership with the T/TA specialist, a summary of the identified Training and Technical
Assistance (T/TA) needs regarding professional development were collected, along with the
preferred training venue for these needs. Detailed responses are offered in Table 38.
Table 38. Identified T/TA needs in this area
Response Response
Percent Count
Collaboration 36.4% 8
Coordination 31.8% 7
Planning 18.2% 4
Grant Writing 13.6% 3
Teacher Education 40.9% 9
Succession Planning 18.2% 4
Strategic Planning 31.8% 7
Professional Development Plans 50.0% 11
Identification of Resources 36.4% 8
Technology 31.8% 7
Record Keeping and Reporting 9.1% 2
Other 9.1% 2
Answered question 22
Skipped question 25
Preferred training venue: Webinars (75%)
41
Succession plan for Head Start staff
The following table shows the number of respondents who have created succession plans for the different staff in
their program. Respondents who answered “Other”, mentioned not having formalized plans, and included “Family
Services Associates” as staff members for whom they have succession plans for.
Table 39. Succession plan for program staff
Response Response
Percent Count
Executive Director 22.7% 5
Head Start Director 45.5% 10
Management Staff 59.1% 13
Teaching Staff 77.3% 17
Other 18.2% 4
Answered question 22
Skipped question 25
42
TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS
Trends of extent of involvement with providers/organizations
Respondents were asked to express their extent of involvement with providers and
organizations during the past 12 months across the nine activity areas, and to indicate the
level of success with implementing certain efforts with regards to this Key Activity Areas.
Within these nine Key Activity Areas, respondents were asked to report upon their
experiences with TEEM, SRCS, and their T/TA needs.
# Key Activity Area Collaboration Coordination Cooperation No Working
(KAA) Relationship
1 Health Care Of the 14 agencies Of the 14 agencies Of the 14 Of the 14
in this KAA, the in this KAA, the agencies in this agencies in this
(See Table 6, pg. majority of the majority of the KAA, the majority KAA, there were
11) respondents respondents of the few respondents
answered answered respondents who answered
“collaboration” for 2 “coordination” for 8 answered “No Working
of them of them “cooperation” for Relationship”
4 of them
2 Children Of the 4 agencies Of the 4 agencies Of the 4 agencies Of the 4 agencies
Experiencing in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
Homelessness majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
(See Table 10, pg. respondents respondents respondents respondents
14) answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 1 “coordination” for 1 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 2 of them relationship” for 2
of them
3 Family/Child Of the 5 agencies Of the 5 agencies Of the 5 agencies Of the 5 agencies
Assistance in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
(See Table 13, pg. majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
17) respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 0 “coordination” for 1 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 4 of them relationship” for 1
of them
4 Child Care Of the 6 agencies Of the 6 agencies Of the 6 agencies Of the 6 agencies
(See Table 16, pg. in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
19) majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 0 “coordination” for 4 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 2 of them relationship” for 1
of them
5 Family Literacy Of the 14 agencies Of the 14 agencies Of the 6 agencies Of the 6 agencies
Services in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
(See Table 21, pg. majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
22) respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 6 “coordination” for 2 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 4 of them relationship” for 3
of them
6 Children with Of the 11 agencies Of the 11 agencies Of the 11 Of the 11
Disabilities and in this KAA, the in this KAA, the agencies in this agencies in this
Their Families majority of majority of the KAA, the majority KAA, the majority
(See Table 24, pg. respondents respondents of the of the
25) answered answered respondents respondents
“collaboration” for 9 “coordination” for 1 answered answered “No
of them of them “cooperation” for working
43
1 of them relationship” for 1
of them
7 Community Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies
Services in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
(See Table 27, pg. majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
29) respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 0 “coordination” for 4 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 3 of them relationship” for 1
of them
8 Publicly Funded Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in
Pre-K Partnership this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
Development majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
(See Table 30, pg. respondents respondents respondents respondents
31) answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 1 “coordination” for 1 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 1 of them relationship” for 1
of them
9 Transition and Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in Of the 1 agency in
Alignment with K- this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
12 majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
(See Table 33, pg. respondents respondents respondents respondents
35) answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 1 “coordination” for 1 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 1 of them relationship” for 1
of them
10 Professional Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies Of the 7 agencies
Development in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the in this KAA, the
(See Table 36, pg. majority of majority of the majority of the majority of the
39 respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered answered answered “No
“collaboration” for 1 “coordination” for 3 “cooperation” for working
of them of them 2 of them relationship” for 1
of them
Trends of levels of success with efforts in Key Activity Areas
Respondents were asked to indicate the level of success with implementing certain efforts
with regards to the nine Key Activity Areas during the past 12 months. The following table
shows the trends for these questions.
# Key Activity Area (KKA) Successful Neutral Difficult Extremely
Difficult
1 Health Care Of the 11 efforts in Of the 11 efforts in Of the 11 efforts in Of the 11 efforts in
(See Table 7, pg. 11) this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 11 for 0 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
2 Children Experiencing Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in
Homelessness this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
(See Table 11, pg. 14) majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 5 for 2 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
44
of them for 0 of them
3 Family/Child Assistance Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in
(See Table 14, pg. 17) this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 5 for 2 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
4 Child Care Of the 5 efforts in Of the 5 efforts in Of the 5 efforts in Of the 5 efforts in
(See Table 17, pg. 19) this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 5 for 0 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
5 Family Literacy Services Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in
(See Table 22, pg. 22) this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 5 for 1 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
6 Children with Disabilities and Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in Of the 6 efforts in
Their Families this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
(See Table 25, pg. 25) majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 6 for 0 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
7 Community Services Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in Of the 7 efforts in
(See Table 28, pg. 29) this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 2 for 5 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
8 Publicly Funded Pre-K Of the 10 efforts in Of the 10 efforts in Of the 10 efforts in Of the 10 efforts in
Partnership Development this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
(See Table 31, pg. 31) majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 10 for 0 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
9 Transition and Alignment Of the 16 efforts in Of the 16 efforts in Of the 16 efforts in Of the 16 efforts in
with K-12 this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
(See Table 34, pg. 35) majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 16 for 0 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
10 Professional Development Of the 8 efforts in Of the 8 efforts in Of the 8 efforts in Of the 8 efforts in
(See Table 37, pg. 39 this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the this KAA, the
majority of majority of majority of majority of
respondents respondents respondents respondents
answered answered “neutral” answered “difficult” answered
“successful” for 5 for 4 of them for 0 of them “extremely difficult”
of them for 0 of them
45
Trends regarding other issues with the Key Activity Areas (KAA)
Respondents were asked to offer information about issues they have experienced relating to
each of the KAA. Themes for each activity area and all individual responses can be found in
the Survey Results section. However, certain themes present in several of the key activity
areas are worth noting here:
‐ Transportation
‐ Obesity and weight management
‐ Recruitment and enrollment
‐ Understaffed
‐ Respite care, legal support, education, and marriage counseling for parents
‐ Difficulty in accessing services or lack of services in rural areas
‐ Hours and costs of services
‐ Guidance and funding for family literacy services
‐ Teacher training and difficulties accessing substitutes
‐ Difficulties working with local LEAs
‐ Parents/Public not understanding the difference between Pre-K and Head Start
‐ Lack of Pre-K willingness to collaborate with Head Starts
Trends regarding efforts to address needs relating to the Key Activity Areas
(KAA) that are working well
Respondents were asked to offer information about the efforts they are doing to address
needs related to the KAA that are working well. Themes for each activity area and all
individual responses can be found in the Survey Results section. However, certain themes
present in several of the key activity areas are worth noting here:
‐ Networking and maintaining open lines of communication and negotiation
‐ Knowledge of resources and other agencies
‐ Computerized tracking program
‐ Maintaining active membership on local committees
‐ Partnering with TEEM
‐ Implementing parent, especially fathers, reading to children programs
‐ Working with pregnant teens
‐ Online/distance learning
‐ Good working relationship with community agencies, i.e. health and dental services,
adult literacy programs, and legal services
46
Recommendations
The following recommendations were derived from the accumulation of suggestions
provided by respondents throughout the survey.
• Assist Head Start/Early head Start Agencies in developing/maintaining involvement
with providers/organizations serving children experiencing homelessness, to include
recruitment
• Assist agencies in expanding relationships regarding health care, focusing on barriers
to related tasks
• Assist agencies in developing parent education models
• Assist Head Start/Early Head Start agencies in addressing the needs of children and
families living in rural areas
• Assist agencies in expanding relationships with family literacy services, especially
regarding Even Start
• Assist agencies in developing and expanding relationships with universities and
community colleges, especially as related to children with disabilities
• Provide assistance for Head Start agencies in meshing Head Start standards and
Texas Education Agency (TEA) guidelines
• T/TA provide training in clusters first and webinars second
• Align Head Start Performance Standards, Child Outcomes, and Pre-K Guidelines
• Assist Head Start/Early Head Start agencies in their working relationship with Child
Care Resource and Referral Network
• Assist Head Start/Early Head Start Executives and Directors in establishing
succession plans for their positions
• Assist Head Start/Early Head Start in developing staff professional training plans
It is recommended that the THSSCO Director, utilize the following
persons/organizations, to develop and carry out the next five year strategic plan,
based on the recommendations stated above. The recommended
persons/organizations are Joyce Hyatt, President of Texas Head Start Association;
John Rodriguez, Representative of South by Southwest Conference Group; Shannon
Hills, Region VI HSSCO Coordinator; Zynda Patton, State T/TA Specialist; Maia
Shelby, Grantee Performance Support T/TA Specialist; John Gasko, Director, State
Initiatives, Children’s Learning Institute; or their representatives.
47
RESOURCES AND REFERENCES
Office of Head Start Website- http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/
Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) for 2007-2008 Program Year.
Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office Website – http://cli.uth.tmc.edu/thssco
National Center for Children in Poverty Website - http://nccp.org/profiles/TX_profile_9.html
Survey Monkey Website – www.surveymonkey.com
The complete survey can be found online by following the link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=4m33_2bMo5TBwLfLxOKz5VGA_3d_3d
Photos used may be found in the Texas Head Start/Early Head Start photo album -
http://cli.uth.tmc.edu/thssco
48
APPENDICES
Texas Head Start State Collaboration Office
Dorothy J. Calhoun, Ed.D., Director
7000 Fannin, UCT 2355
Houston, TX 77030
713‐500‐3835
Toll: 866‐282‐7780
Fax: 713‐500‐0386
Email: dorothy.j.calhoun@uth.tmc.edu
Website: http://cli.uth.tmc.edu/thssco
http://www.uth.tmc.edu/tececds
April 3, 2009
Dear Head Start/Early Head Start Grantee/ Delegate Director:
By April 6, you will be receiving a link to the 2009 Texas Head Start/ Early Head Start Needs
Assessment Survey to be completed and returned by April 24, 2009. We strongly encourage you to
utilize relevant staff in the completion of the different sections as applicable. The Head Start Act
requires this office to use the results of the needs assessment to develop a Strategic Plan outlining
how THSSCO will assist and support Head Start/ Early Head Start Grantees/ Delegate programs in
meeting the requirements of the Head Start Act for coordination and collaboration, alignment of
services, alignment of curricula and assessment, and other specified activities. This office will make
the results of the needs assessment available to the general public within the state, and also annually
update the needs assessment and strategic plan.
This office will continue to keep you abreast of information and resources relevant to your program
operations. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated as we seek to better serve you.
Sincerely,
Dorothy J. Calhoun, Ed.D.
49
Related docs
