About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 18. School Readiness/Childcare

Paper #1
Continuity of Care Practices and Relationship-Based and Child Outcomes in Early Head Start
Author information	Role
Dr. Jennifer Ann Mortensen, Ph.D., University of Nevada, Reno, United States	Presenting author
Chrisanthi K. Bebis, University of Nevada, Reno, United States	Non-presenting author
Jillian A. Way, University of Nevada, Reno, United States	Non-presenting author
Tawni J. Parrish, University of Nevada, Reno, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Continuity of care (CC) is the intentional practice of early childhood teachers and children staying together for multiple years, ideally 0 to 3 (Essa et al., 1999). CC is recognized as best practice by all leading infant/toddler organizations (NAEYC, Zero to Three, National Head Start Association) because it supports young children’s most essential developmental need for stable relationships (McMullen, 2017; Sosinsky et al., 2016). Infant/toddler teachers find CC beneficial (Longstretch et al., 2016), and CC supports development in the classroom (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2019; Horm et al., 2018; Sosinsky et al., 2016). Acknowledging these benefits, federal guidelines stipulate that Early Head Start (EHS) programs must assign each child a consistent primary teacher, and make efforts to minimize transitions to different teachers throughout the day, as well as throughout the 3-year enrollment period (1302.21). Despite CC-related policies, implementation varies widely (Choi et al., 2019). The present study examines CC as it relates to relationship-based and child outcomes in EHS. Data are from Baby FACES, a nationally representative study of EHS programs (n=245) and families (n=585) in 2022. Preliminary analyses (Table 1) suggest that most centers (97%) transitioned children no more than once per enrollment year. However, only 28.7% of EHS centers used true CC, in which children and teachers remained together throughout enrollment. The remaining transitioned children every year (25.5%) or at a certain age/milestone (45.8%). More troubling, is that nearly 20% of centers had no primary teacher assigned for “leading and establishing relationships” with a given child/family, and 10% of centers reported children having more than 4 teachers daily (Xue et al., 2022). Continued analyses with the CC items will identify profiles that distinguish EHS centers with optimal practices (CC throughout enrollment; primary teachers assigned; 1-2 teachers daily) from those with inadequate practices (children transition yearly; no primary teacher; >4 teachers daily). Profiles will be used to predict relationship and child outcomes, hypothesizing that more optimal CC is associated with more optimal outcomes. Outcomes include: observed teacher-child relationships (QCIT; Atkins-Burnett et al., 2015), teacher-reported child relationships (STRS-SF; Pianta, 2001), parent-teacher relationships (CRQ-Adapted; Lang et al., 2015/2017), language/communication (CDI; Fenson et al., 2000), and social/emotional development (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan & Carter, 2006). Data are concurrent, so the child’s EHS enrollment year (1, 2, or 3) will be tested as a moderating variable to explore if relationship and development outcomes are strengthened by multiple years within a given CC profile. Results will provide a nuanced picture of continuity of care across EHS nationally, including how varied practices are associated with relationships and development cultivated within the center and classroom. The emphasis on relationship-based policies also stands to benefit the infant/toddler workforce. The skilled building of relationships as a means to support children and families is what distinguishes infant/toddler pedagogy (Burchinal et al., 2022; Page, 2018; Soinsky et al., 2016), and should be elevated as the unique professional knowledge and talent that defines this educational field. Continuity of care policies support this mission.

Paper #2
Relationship Quality Continuity in Early Head Start Classrooms and Homes: The Role of Family Engagement
Author information	Role
Melissa A. Barnett, Ph.D., University of Arizona, United States	Presenting author
Caroline F.D. Black, University of Arizona, United States	Non-presenting author
Victoria Cooper-Roundy, University of Arizona, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Toddlers benefit from positive interactions with multiple caregivers (Jeong et al., 2021). However, experiences with caregivers are heterogeneous within- and between classroom and home contexts (Mortensen & Barnett, 2019). We use latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of toddlers experiencing distinct dyadic caregiving quality in classroom and home settings. One contributor to caregiving continuity across classrooms and homes may be family engagement, involvement in ECE programs and relationships (Iruka et al., 2022). Family engagement is a key EHS strategy to promote positive development and parenting (Elicker et al., 2013; Jeon et al, 2020). RQ1: What profiles characterize child-caregiver relationship quality in both settings? H1: Profiles will be low-quality in both settings (dual risk), high-quality in both settings (dual quality), and high in one and low in the other setting (mixed quality). RQ2: Is family engagement associated with caregiver-child relationship quality profiles? H2: Greater family engagement will be associated with dual quality profile membership. Methods Sample: N=1625 toddlers (M = 25.87 (6.87) months; 54% male; 7% Hispanic, 33% Black, Non-Hispanic, 24% White, Non-Hispanic) in 456 centers in 2018 Baby FACES. Profile Indicators: Child-Teacher relationship quality: Teacher-reported Closeness (8-items) and Conflict (7-items) (STRS-SF; Pianta, 2001). Child-Parent relationship quality: Parent reported Closeness (8-items) and Conflict (7-items) (CPRS-SF; Driscoll & Pianta, 2011). Family Engagement: Parent-Teacher Relationship Quality: Parent and teacher reports on a composite measure of support, endorsement, undermining (reverse-scored) and agreement (CRQ-Adapted; Lang et al, 2015; 2017) Teacher Professional Development: Sum of 3 binary (yes=1) items indicating training on: positive child-parent relationships; positive child-teacher relationships; engagement of parents and families. Parental School Involvement: Parent-reported participation in 6 activities (e.g. help lead parent workshop) at EHS centers. Covariates: Child sex and race/ethnicity, parent and teacher depression (CESD-R; Eaton et al., 2004), household poverty, parent and teacher education, teacher experience, and EHS program models. Analyses We used Mplus 8.10 to conduct LPA. Final analyses will use multi-level modeling to account for the hierarchical structure of data (nesting in classrooms and centers; ICCs .03 to .32). First, we used standard procedures (e.g., class enumeration), fit indices (e.g., AIC, BIC), statistics (e.g., entropy, >.80; ALRT, p <0.05) and theory to select the number of profiles. Next, we used multinomial regression using R3STEP to estimate the probability of latent profile membership from explanatory variables (Nylund-Gibson & Choi 2018). Results RQ1. We identified a three-profile solution (Figure 1). Profile 1: Dual Quality (68%) was characterized by high-closeness and low-conflict in both contexts. Profile 2: Inconsistent: Moderate Center, High Quality Home (26%) was characterized by moderate teacher closeness and parent relationships similar to Profile 1. Profile 3: Dual Risk (6%) was characterized by consistent low closeness and high teacher conflict. RQ2: Teacher-reported parent-teacher relationship quality distinguished all three profiles. No other family engagement measures differed across profiles. Teacher depressive symptoms also distinguished all three profiles. See Table 2. Conclusions Most children experienced continuity of positive relationships. The findings add to growing evidence on how ECE teacher wellbeing (Kwon et al., 2021) and teacher-family relationships (Lang et al., 2020) can support early development.

Paper #3
The continuity and change of Early Head Start families’ well-being and stress pre- and post-COVID-19
Author information	Role
Maria Abdul-Masih, The Ohio State University, United States	Presenting author
Arya Ansari, The Ohio State University, United States	Non-presenting author
Kelly Purtell, The Ohio State University, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Early Head Start (EHS) programs support the well-being of children and families from low-income communities by providing wrap-around services like early education and home visits (Love et al., 2005). However, there is a critical need to understand how the needs of EHS families changed after the COVID-19 pandemic and how the continuity of EHS services may have supported family stress and well-being during this time. This work is vital to help providers understand and adapt to families’ unique and changing needs to maximize program benefits. Accordingly, this study examines the continuity and changes in the stress and well-being of EHS families before and after COVID-19, focusing on both the overall population of EHS families and specific groups of families. We use data from two cohorts of the EHS Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES), which are nationally representative samples of children and families served by EHS in 2018 (n = 2,847) and 2022 (n = 1,477). We focus on several aspects of stress- and well-being that were reported on by parents, including reports of: (a) financial strain (e.g., whether families had enough money to afford medical care and food); (b) parents’ depressive symptoms (e.g., “I could not shake off the blues”); (c) parenting stress (e.g., “I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my children’s needs”); (d) household chaos (e.g., “we almost always seem to be rushed”); and (e) social support (e.g., “I feel supported by others”). To address our research questions, we estimated a series of regression models that were weighted to be nationally representative, controlled for a full set of child and family characteristics (see Table 1 for a full list), accounted for the complex sampling design, and used full information maximum likelihood estimation to address missing data. Results suggest that compared to 2018, EHS families in 2022 experienced fewer financial strains, more depressive symptoms, more parenting stress, and less social support (see Table 2). Interaction analyses reveal that White families experienced greater parenting stress in 2022 compared to 2018, but this spike was not observed in Black and Hispanic families. Additionally, English speaking families reported greater parenting stress in 2022 compared to 2018, but these patterns were not reported by other language speakers. Similar patterns were observed for household chaos and depressive symptoms. Taken together, these results represent the first national comparison of the lives of EHS families pre- and post-COVID-19, highlighting critical areas of parental stress and wellbeing needing more support. These findings also highlight areas in need of further investigation to uncover protective factors experienced by some Hispanic, Black, and other home language speakers that may have buffered them from increases in stress post-COVID-19. In our next set of models (to be completed prior to SRCD), we will examine how the continuity in EHS services (i.e., quality and dosage of services) before and after the pandemic relates to family outcomes. This analysis will also provide insight into whether the most vulnerable families are being reached by EHS.

⇦ Back to session