About the Family Map

To successfully address family needs, intervention and referral efforts, programs supporting children living in poverty try to consider family strengths and resources.  The Family Map was developed to support programs targeting preschool children (ages 3 to 5 years) in these efforts.  The content, format, and coding system of the Family Map were based on a careful review of the relevant literature, detailed input from Head Start families and educators, and multiple pilot versions.  The Family Map is based on a foundation of literature that connects the quality of the family and parenting environment with child outcomes particularly those in the Head Start Outcomes Framework.   The result is a structured interview that allows parents to identify parenting, health, and safety issues in a supportive manner.  The interview helps families understand the wide range of areas that can be supported by service programs like Head Start. 

The Family Map was developed to be used in home twice yearly home visits but may be useful in home visitation programs and has successfully been used to interview parents in classroom settings with low-income parents.  Input from parents suggested that the interview was enjoyable and comfortable. Input from teachers and parents indicate that the tool is useful in:

·         helping families identify family goals,

·         providing the teacher with important context regarding the family life of the child,

·         providing the parent time to share important information about the family, and

·         establishing a more productive working relationship. 

    Beyond the important goal of supporting individual families, the Family Map provides data to support agencies in two ways.  First, an examination of areas in which many families lack resources will allow more targeted efforts for the program.  For example, when many families have the same concern, educational activities available to the whole center (Parent Meeting topic, materials sent to all families, or educational activities such as ‘safety day’) may be useful.  Second, the Family Map can be used effectively for record keeping and monitoring, self-assessment, and outcomes measurement. This information can be used by the agency to focus on development of the most needed community resources, support the agency in supplemental funding requests from community, state or national sources, and identify classroom curriculum targeting specific child health and safety needs.  Administering the Family Map at the beginning and end of the year allows programs to monitor improvement across families and to identify new strengths and concerns. It can also help programs demonstrate the impact of services to families and determine new kinds of support services needed by families.  Critically, it should help agencies form more meaningful and enduring partnerships with parents, partnerships that can help build competence and reduce stress for family members, and partnerships that benefit children.

Rationale and Development of the Family Map

 

Conceptual Framework - Risk and Protection.. 2

Development of the Family Map.. 3

Compliance with Head Start Performance Standards. 4

Documenting Head Start Impacts with the Family Map.. 9

Reliability of the Family Map.. 12

Validity of the Family Map.. 12

Family Map Interview Length.. 13

Parent and Teacher Satisfaction with the Family Map.. 13

 

Conceptual Framework - Risk and Protection

            Many parents of young children face difficult circumstances that affect their parenting and, as a result, their children face challenges in achieving age-appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Over the past 30 years, research has identified key factors that place young children at risk for future poor outcomes such as teen pregnancy, substance abuse, school failure, and delinquency. Some of the factors that may be risks for children include single parent homes, lack of financial resources, lack  of learning materials, experiencing harsh parenting, lack of supervision, witnessing family conflict or violence, or having parents with mental health problems such as depression and substance abuse. 

            As children experience more risk factors, the probability they will have problems such as school failure and delinquency increases substantially.  The Head Start Bureau’s Family and Child Experience Survey (FACES) found that parents from families with four or more risk factors were more depressed, reported less social support, and had an external locus of control than parents of Head Start families with fewer risk factors. Children from these families were reported to have more problem behaviors and significantly lower scores on one-to-one counting, book knowledge, color naming, design copying, print concepts, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), the Woodcock-Johnson dictation, and applied problems in the letter-word identification than children with fewer risk factors. Thus, young children with four or more risk factors are less likely to be ready for school than children with fewer risk factors.

            Early childhood research indicates that when parents provide structure and routines, warm and nurturing care, and talk and read with their children, they are setting the stage for the children to be successful learners. These behaviors serve as protective factors. Some of the known protective factors include having two healthy parents; parenting characterized by warmth, responsiveness, engagement, support, consistency and stimulation; monitoring of child safety; and availability of learning materials in the home.  Such positive parenting strategies are associated with the development of cognitive skills and positive behavior in children.

            Although family factors like poverty, single-parent status, or a history of family problems can not be easily changed, early childhood programs can reduce the impact of other risk factors and strengthen protective factors by connecting families with services and support based on their needs. For this reason, early childhood programs need to identify families’ challenges that interfere with effective parenting such as lack of structure and routines, lack of age-appropriate learning materials in the home, lack of supervision and monitoring, safety concerns in the home and neighborhood, lack of basic needs such as food and clothing, transportation problems, depression, family conflict, domestic violence, and substance abuse.

The goal of the Family Map is to systematically identify areas of concern to enable appropriate interventions which will reduce risk factors (e.g. family conflict, harsh parenting practices, parental depression) or enhance protective factors (e.g. ensure basic needs are met and increase availability of learning materials in the home, supervision, or home safety).  Once risks and barriers are identified, programs can link families with appropriate services. When the child’s environment is improved by reducing the risks and strengthening the capacities of parents, the likelihood for children’s school success is enhanced.

 

Development of the Family Map

          The Family Map: An Integrated Assessment of the Parenting Environment was designed to create a comprehensive, user-friendly measure to assess the aspects of the family and home environment consistent with the performance standards as well as those shown to be most critical for healthy child development.  The Family Map development was funded by the Administration on Children, Youth, & Families, U. S. Dept. of Health & Human Services (90YF0051/01) in a three year Measurement Development University-Head Start Partnership grant beginning in 2004.  The Family Map provides comprehensive information on parenting practices, household conditions, and parental characteristics that are associated with child well-being. The development of the Family Map included an evaluation of the Family Map as applied to three major sociocultural groups: European Americans, Latinos and African Americans.

The Family Map is a tool to help teachers identify family strengths and needs during home visits. It is designed to specifically address the Head Start Performance Standards: strengthen families as the primary nurturers of children; conduct assessment of families’ strengths and needs/concern; and enhance parental characteristics that affect parents’ ability to be effective nurturers. However, since it’s development the Family Map has been used by non-Head Start providers that target low-income families such as state funded non-Head Start programs.

The systematic identification of meaningful family goals is a critical step in the success of Head Start programs in their efforts to improve the lives of children living in poverty.  To successfully address family needs, intervention and referral efforts should consider family strengths and resources.  The Family Map was developed to support early childcare programs such as Head Start in these efforts.  The Family Map locates, in detail, strengths and weaknesses in family life that can serve as targets of productive Head Start (or other provider’s) efforts and document progress of the family in specific areas.  This structured interview allows parents to identify parenting, health, and safety issues in a supportive manner, understand ways they can support their child’s development, and understand the wide range of areas that can be supported by Head Start involvement. 

The content, format, and coding system were based on a careful review of the relevant literature, detailed input from Head Start families and educators, and multiple pilot versions.  The Family Map is based on a foundation of literature that connects the quality of the family and parenting environment with child outcomes particularly those in the Head Start Outcomes Framework.   The structure of the Family Map will allow for different levels of measurement in multiple domains allowing for discretionary use by program staff.

The Family Map is intended to be useful for child care providers, especially Head Start programs, and others who work directly with young children and their families.

The Family Map was specifically designed to be conducted by the Head Start teacher during the twice yearly home visits.  Input from teachers and parents during development of the Family Map suggested that the tool was useful in helping families identify family goals, providing the teacher with important context regarding the family life of the Head Start child, providing the parent time to share important information about the family, and establishing a more productive working relationship.  Input from parents suggested that the interview was enjoyable and comfortable. 

           

Compliance with Head Start Performance Standards

            Head Start Performance Standard 45 CFR 1304.40 mandates a collaborative partnership-building process that is strength based and family driven.  This process includes engaging parents, developing a family plan responsive to parents needs, offering opportunities to parents, and showing parents’ progress toward their goals. To do this, Head Start programs are charged with evaluating and identifying areas of strength or concern in a wide range of parent related areas such as the child’s home safety, the learning environment, the degree to which parents effectively use limit-setting, and the appropriateness of their disciplinary methods .  Additional targets of Head Start performance standards are parental characteristics that affect parents’ ability to be effective nurturers (e.g. the parents’ sense of control over their own lives, depression, and social support network) and access to health care. To meet the standards Head Start staff must be able to efficiently assess the family and home environment in ways that can lead to productive engagement with the family.   

            Head Start is a two generation (i.e. parent and child) intervention program; however, many Head Start programs, teacher preparation programs, and in-service trainings are primarily child-focused.  For example, family needs are typically assessed during enrollment, a time when parents may be reluctant to discuss personal problems.  Although home visits provide an opportunity for a more in-depth interview, home visits often focus solely on the achievements of the child as teachers sometimes feel that they do not have the training or tools to address the Head Start standards related to strengthening families. By using the Family Map, teachers can restructure the home visit to identify family needs and strengths in a systematic way. Results of the Family Map can be used to link families with resources and provide programming in areas shown to directly improve child development.

          The collaborative partnership process between parents and staff seeks to identify family goals, strengths, and necessary services and other supports (45 CFR 1304.40). To ensure this partnership with families, Head Start teachers must make no less than two home visits per program year to the home of each enrolled child to:

1)     Identify and continually access services and resources that are responsive to each family’s interests and goals, including emergency or crisis assistance in areas such as food, housing, clothing, and transportation; education and other appropriate interventions including mental health, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, and domestic violence; continuing education and employment services;

2)     Provide opportunities for parents to enhance their parenting skills, knowledge, and understanding of the educational and developmental needs and activities of their children and provide opportunities for parents to share concerns about their children with program staff;

3)     Assist parents to enroll and participate in a system of ongoing family health care, become active partners in their children's medical and dental health care process, and learn the principles of preventive medical and dental health, emergency first-aid, occupational and environmental hazards, and safety practices for use in the classroom and in the home, including information specific to health needs of individual children.

      Head Start is required to implement ongoing recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring systems that provide confidential, accurate and timely information about children and families (45 CFR 1304.51).  The Family Map can be used as a tool for recordkeeping and monitoring, self-assessment, and outcomes measurement. Administering the Family Map at the beginning and end of the year allows programs to monitor improvement across families, identify new strengths and concerns, and help Head Start programs demonstrate the impact of services to families. The information obtained from the Family Map can be used for system improvement. Programs can identify areas of concern that are shared by large numbers of families and develop specialized programming to meet those needs. For example, if results indicate high levels of parenting stress, programming may be developed to reduce parenting stress.

 

The table below provides a detail link between the Family Map and the Head Start Performance Standards. 

Head Start Performance Standards linked to Family Map Topics and Sections   Sustenance/Safety: Parents must provide adequate nutrients, shelter, and health care to ensure both survival and the level of biological integrity needed for physical and psychological development.
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 9 Basic Needs	Nutrition and food choices:  Food Quality and Quantity	1304.21(c)(1)(iii)  habits and attitudes about physical health, mental health, and nutrition
Section 8 Health	Health (medical, dental, physical) Care: Each child has a source of continuous, accessible preventive and primary health care. Parenting goal: Parents participate in health promotion activities, well child care, treatment for health problems, and follow-up health care, and to receive training and information on child health and development. Managing a chronic illness	1304.20(a)(1-2) determining health status 1304.2(c)(3)(i)-(ii) dental care 1304.20(e) involving parents 1304.20(e)(3) –preparing for health procedures 1304.40(f)(2)(i) 1304.20(c)(1)(2) extended follow-up and treatment; assist parents with follow-up 1304.40)(f)(1) provide medical, dental, nutrition, and mental health education programs for program staff, parents, families 1304.40(f)(2)(i), (ii), & (iii) assist parents with medical, dental, and mental health education program
Section 10 Home and Car Safety	Safety Safety plan Car restraints Child safety in a car Environmental tobacco smoke Hazards in the home/yard Play safety – infants/toddlers (no walkers, jumpers) Play safety - preschool Bath safety	1304.21(a)(5)(i) equipment and materials
Section 9 Basic Needs	Basic needs (food, utilities, housing, transportation, child care, clothing) Medicaid and other insurance Access to quality child care Appropriate clothing for children Hygiene and personal care	1304.21(b)(1)(ii) newborn care 1304.23(b)(1)(iv) and 1304.23(c)(5) feeding infants 1304.40(b)(1) accessing community services and resources
School Readiness:  The environment must provide stimulation that engage attention and provide information.
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 3 School Readiness	Learning environment Toys, books, learning materials at home Daily activities and experiences	1304.21 Education and early childhood development
Section 3 School Readiness Section 12 Warmth	Language and literacy environment Reading Sustained conversations Pretend play Stories and songs Encouraging children to share ideas and feelings Family literacy	1304.21 emotional security and social relationships, understanding of self and member of a group, competence, self-esteem, positive attitudes toward learning, cognitive and language skills, art, music, movement, literacy, numeracy, 1304.40 access to family literacy services, materials, activities
Section 3 School Readiness	Parental efforts to teach specific skills Working with child on specific content areas TV viewing	1304.21 parents involvement in child’s education 1304.40 parents as their child’s teacher parenting education and using home materials and routines
Section 3 School Readiness Section 11 Social Integration	Parent orchestrated out-of-home activities Cultural experiences in the community
Support: Environment that helps children develop emotional security and facility in social relationships
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 3 School Readiness Section 12 Warmth	Parental responsivity Sensitivity and responsivity Nurturing supportive environments	1304.20, 1304.21, 1304.24 nurturing supportive environments and relationships
Section 12 Warmth	Parental warmth/affirmation	1304.21 nurturing supportive environments and relationships
Section 7 Discipline	Discipline practices Praising/Reprimanding Limit setting Consistency Rewards and punishment Positive discipline	1304.24 appropriate responses to child’s behaviors re developmental changes, environment, positive techniques of guidance
Structure: Optimal parenting consists not only of ensuring that sufficient amounts of stimulation, sustenance, and support reach a child, but also in configuring or structuring a child’s encounters with those direct inputs so that “fit” is achieved.
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 2 Routines	Structuring the physical environment Sleep needs of children Appropriate TV viewing Household management Household rules	13042.21 routines and transitions
Section 11 Social Integration	Structuring social encounters Helping children find friends Playing with others	1304.3 facility in social relationships
Section 2 Routines	Family routines: developing routines that include predictability and repetition Nurturing family routines ·       Sleep routines ·       Meal-time routines ·       Parent-child playtime routines ·       Clean-up routines Family traditions	13042.21routines and transitions
Surveillance: To be effective in managing children’s lives, parents must keep track of their children’s whereabouts and activities to protect from harm.
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 4 Monitoring Section 2 Routines Section 5 Environmental Safety	Parental monitoring – physical Supervision in the home Supervision in the yard/neighborhood Protecting children from violence TV violence	1304.22 injury prevention, safety practices in parent education
Section 4 Monitoring	Parental monitoring – social Protecting children from abuse Choosing a babysitter/caregiver	1304.22 injury prevention, safety practices in parent education
Social Integration
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 11 Social Integration	Involvement with family and friends Children’s play with friends Parents support network Child-friendly community resources	1304.41(a) community linkages with family service agencies
Section 11 Social Integration Section 1 Demographics	Involvement with social institutions Parental involvement in HS/EHS Communication with agencies Immigration documents ESL resources	1304.40(d) & (e) Parent involvement
Family Cohesion /Conflict / Violence Section 6 Family Cohesion Section 5 Environmental Safety	Family conflict Handling conflict between siblings Handling conflict between parents Teen parenting when living at home Child witness of domestic violence Child trauma	1304.40(b)(1)(ii) Counseling and information on mental health issues, including … domestic violence
Social Support Section 11 Social Integration Section 3 School Readiness Section 8 Health	Social support Accessing community resources Transition	1304.40(a)(1) family goal-setting 1304.20(e)(4) accessing health resources 1304.20(f)(2)(iii) transitions for children with disabilities
Section 9 Basic Needs Section 1 Demographics	Economic support Child support enforcement Adult education Money management Buying a car Financial assistance for education	1304.40(b)(1) access community services and resources 1304.40(b)(1)(iii) assist parents in identifying and securing access to continuing education, training, and employment
Substance Abuse
Family Map Sections	Family Map Topics	Performance Standard
Section 8 Health	Parental substance use/abuse	1304.40(b)(1)(ii) Counseling and information on mental health issues, including substance abuse
Section 8 Health Section 10 Home and Car Safety	Prenatal exposure to substances of abuse	1304.40(c)(2) prenatal education on fetal development and risks including smoking and alcohol
Psychological Disorders
Section 8 Health	Maternal depression	1304.40(b)(1)(ii) Counseling and information on mental health issues 1304.40(c)(2) prenatal education on postpartum recovery including maternal depression
Section 8 Health	Maternal distress	1304.40(b)(1)(ii) Counseling and information on mental health issues, including domestic violence
Section 8 Health	Child social-emotional	1304.24(a)(1)(v) – (vi) helping parent understand mental health; interventions 1304.24(a)(3(ii) promote mental wellness

 

Documenting Head Start Impacts with the Family Map

Beyond the important goal of supporting individual families, the Family Map provides data to support Head Start agencies in two ways.  First, an examination of areas in which many families lack resources will allow more targeted efforts for the program.  For example, community partnerships, parent meeting topics and parent educational activities may target areas in which many families have identified needs.  Second, it can be used effectively for record keeping and monitoring, self-assessment, and outcomes measurement. This information can be used by the agency to focus on development of the most needed community resources, support the agency in supplemental funding requests from community, state or national sources, and identify classroom curriculum targeting specific child health and safety needs.  Administering the Family Map at the beginning and end of the year allows programs to monitor improvement across families and to identify new strengths and concerns. It can also help Head Start programs demonstrate the impact of services to families and determine new kinds of support services needed by families.  Critically, it should help agencies form more meaningful and enduring partnerships with parents, partnerships that can help build competence and reduce stress for family members, and partnerships that benefit children.
            Based on data from the two large Head Start Agencies involved in the development of the Family Map, improvements were seen across almost all areas assessed by the Family Map from Fall to Spring.  Data presented below  were obtained during the Fall of 2006 and Spring of 2007 as the Family Map was implemented in 20 Head Start centers located in an urban area (n = 53 classrooms) and in 6 centers (n = 17 classrooms) serving families living in more rural areas.  As seen in the table below, a majority of the urban families were African American families while a majority of the rural families were European American.  Educators were diverse in their level of education and years of experience.

These Head Start agencies were able to document the success of their programs in a wide range of areas by comparing Family Map data collected in the Fall to data collected in the Spring.  In each area assessed by the Family Map, the number of risks families experienced was reduced from Fall to Spring.  For example, between the fall and spring home visits, there was a 10% reduction of families with basic need concerns (food, utilities); a 8% reduction of families with safety (e.g., access to poisons) concerns, and a 12% increase of families providing an environment promoting school readiness (e.g., adequate materials and activities for children) was seen.  Of 14 major concern areas assessed, 78% of families in the Fall had concerns in 5 or more areas, but only 69% (reduced by 9%) had this many concerns in the Spring.

 

Description of Home Visitor Educator and Families Interviewed with Family Map

	Urban	Rural
Educators - Number	39	14
% with Associate Degree	39 %	54 %
% with BA or more	56 %	39 %
% currently enrolled in education	38 %	33 %
% employed as Head Start teacher Less than 5 years	49 %	86 %
	Urban	Rural
Families Number	843	262
% European American	9 %	48 %
% African American	69 %	14 %
% Latino	16 %	31 %
% Other	6 %	7 %
% Working	69 %	74 %
% Have Partner/Married	56 %	70 %
% No HS Diploma/No GED	15 %	20 %
% HS Graduate/GED	36 %	43 %
% Some Post Secondary Ed	49 %	37 %
% Child Male	48 %	48 %

 

Percent of Families at Risk based on Family Map at Fall/Spring Head Start Home Visits with Two Large Head Start Agencies (One Rural and One Urban)

Constructs Assessed By Family Map Module	Source of Original Items a	Number of items	Test-Retest d Reliability	Percent of Risk b
Area 1 Physical/social Conditions				Fall	Spring
Sustenance and Safety Meeting Basic Needs
Utilities	Fragile Families & EHSRE “ “ “ “	1	84%	14%	10%
Rent		1	95%	15%	11%
Health Care		1	79%	15%	13%
Housing		2	95%	9%	6%
Transportation		1	79%	14%	9%
Clothing		1	95%	17%	12%
Food Quantity	Food Security, Nord	2	79%	16%	13%
Food Quality	Head Start Intake	10	68%	69%	60%
ESL – Communication	Ramos & Mendez	6	-	79%	67%
Education	EHSRE	2	89%	58%	56%
Employment	EHSRE	2	72%	51%	50%
Safety - Home & Car
Vehicle Safety	EHSRE, FACES, HUD Healthy Homes Checklist	4	79%	29%	25%
Fire Safety		2	84%	18%	13%
Secondhand Smoke		2	95%	37%	33%
Poison Accessibility		4	68%	41%	34%
Injury or Accident		7	63%	44%	39%
Physical Health
Pregnant	Study	1	100%	7%	6%
Child Health Care Use	National Survey of Children’s Health	4	84%	30%	18%
Health Care Access	“	1	100%	5%	4%
Chronic Condition	“	1	89%	13%	12%
Chronic Treatment Need	“	1	95%	4%	5%
Caregiver Care Access	“	7	83%	38%	34%
Chronic Condition	“	1	95%	8%	8%
Chronic Treatment Need	“	1	95%	4%	6%
Other Chronic Care	Study	1	75%	10%	9%
Stimulation Promoting School Readiness
Availability of Simulating Materials	HOME	6	89%	58%	44%
Read to child	FACES	3	84%	29%	26%
Interact with child	FACES	4	100%	18%	17%
Academic Stimulation	HOME	4	79%	46%	38%
Variety of Experience	HOME	7	79%	81%	77%
Support
Discipline Practices Positive Discipline	FACES	3	84%	52%	48%
Excessive Punishment	EHSRE, FACES, PDMI	1	100%	2%	3%
Inconsistent		5	95%	2%	2%
Harsh Discipline		5	79%	51%	46%
Parental Warmth	PICCOLO	8	80% c	15%	15%
Structure Nurturing Routines
Nighttime Lodging	EHSRE	2	84%	15%	14%
Daily Activities	Brody & Flor Jensen et al.	4	63%	38%	39%
Amount of Sleep	Davis & Montgomery	2	86% c	39%	37%
TV Content	Conners et al.	4	79%	74%	71%
Amount of TV	FACES	2	95%	91%	93%
Physical Structure	HOME	3	100%	6%	4%
Surveillance
Monitoring	Study	3	79%	54%	48%
Childcare	Study	5	95%	24%	20%
Social Integration
Social Support	MSSS	3	84%	28%	24%
Social Integration	IHDP	4	95%	6%	5%
Head Start Integration	Study	5	100%	4%	3%
Area 2 Family Climate/Context
Exposure to Violence
Neighborhood Safety	FastTrack	4	84%	28%	22%
Exposure	EHSRE	4	89%	14%	10%
Family Cohesion/Conflict
Parenting Stress	PSI, AAPI	7	63%	28%	22%
Conflict w/ Co-Parent	Study	3	94%	7%	5%
Family Conflict	FES	3	83%	5%	4%
Family Cohesion	FES	2	94%	27%	24%
Area 3 Parental Characteristics
Alcohol/Drug Use
Caregiver Use	CAGE		89%	2%	2%
Friend/Family Use	RAFFT	2	83%	9%	9%
Use Impact Parenting	Study	1	100%	3%	3%
Caregiver Mental Health
Depression	PHQ 9	2	84%	27%	24%
Hostility	BSI	3	84%	22%	17%
Anxiety	BSI	3	79%	15%	10%
Impact Parenting	Study	1	93%	5%	4%
a Note: See References in Research/Evaluation AAPI (Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory) Bavolek & Keene (1999); Brody & Flor (1997); BSI (Brief Symptom Inventory) Derogatis (1992); CAGE,  Bisson, Nadeau, & Demers (1999);  Ewing (1984); Conners, Tripathi, Clubb, & Bradley(in Press); Davis & Montgomery (2004); EHSRE (Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/index.html); FACES (Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html); FastTrack (Neighborhood items used in FastTrack and NICHD Study of Early Childcare studies, www.fasttrackproject.org/techrept/n/nhq/);FES (Family Environment Scale) Moos & Moos (1984); Food Security (www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools.htm); Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/);Healthy Homes Checklist (www.hud.gov/offices/lead/hhi/4B_Boston_HHI_Checklist.pdf); HOME (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment) Bradley, Mundfrom, Whiteside, Casey, & Barrett (1994), Caldwell & Bradley (1984); IHDP (Infant Health and Development Program, www.childtrends.org/lifecourse/programs/InfantHealthDev.htm); Jensen, James, Boyce, & Hartnett (1983); MSSS (MOS Social Support Survey) Sherbourne, & Stewart (1991); National Survey of Children’s Health (http://nschdata.org/Content/Default.aspx); PDMI (Parental Discipline Methods Interview) Webster-Stratton, & Spitzer (1991); PHQ 9 (Patient Health Questionaire) Kroenke, Spitzer, &  Williams (2001); PICCOLO (Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes) Roggman, Innocenti, Cook, Jump, & Akers (2007); PSI (Parenting Stress Index) Abidin (1990); RAFFT (Relax, Alone, Family Friends, Trouble) Bastiaens, Francis, & Lewis (2000); Ramos & Mendez (2004); Study (Created in the development of the EC-Family Map). b Note: Sample size for each item ranged from 133 to 843 for Urban and 96 to 262 for Rural families based on the applicability for the item.  For example, the level of partner education was not assessed when no partner was present in the home. c Note: Based on sample size of less than 10 d Note: Based on 29 research visits about 2 weeks after teacher visit.  Matches above 85% considered excellent.  Due to the small sample these estimates are considered preliminary.

 

Reliability of the Family Map

Tests-retest reliability is a test of the consistency of the assessment of the Family Map interview conducted at two points in time.  If the Family Map is consistent, reports from families should be similar if they are interviewed twice in a short period of time.  We assessed test-retest reliability by comparing the responses of a subset of parents (n = 19) interviewed by both teachers and research data collectors.  While the findings are preliminary given the small sample, they suggest adequate agreement between researcher and teacher (see Table 1) for most of the 59 risk indicators examined.  Notable exceptions including food quality, parenting stress, routines related to daily activities, poison accessibility, and exposure to injury or accident in the home.  A review of the data indicated that for food quality and poison accessibility research assistants identified two additional families not identified by the teacher.  For injury in the home, the teacher identified one additional family not identified by the researcher.  The largest discrepancy was for parenting stress and daily activities with research assistance identifying more than twice the number of families at risk than the teacher.

Validity of the Family Map

One measure of the usefulness and validity of the Family Map is the degree to which it appears to identify families at risk.  Compared to national estimates (e.g., FACES), the estimates from the Family Map appear reasonable and suggest that the rate of identification is consistent with rates found in other studies. For example, about 60% of children live in homes free of access to poisons based on the Family Map assessment.  This is comparable to the estimated 69% found in the FACES studies of low-income families (U.S. Dept of HHS, 2003).  The Family Map assesses children’s exposure to neighborhood and domestic violence somewhat more broadly than the Head Start FACES 2002 report and therefore identified more children at potential risk (Neighborhood: 28% with Family Map compared to 19% FACES; Domestic Violence: 14% with Family Map compared to 10% FACES). Data from the Head Start FACES 2000 study indicated that 25% of Head Start parents are moderately or severely depressed and about the same number (28%) reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days (U.S. Dept of HHS, 2003).  Although few families surveyed in the FACES study reported drug use (< 1%) this may be because participants were reluctant to report drug use.  Similarly, the Family Map identified 27% of parents interviewed at risk for depression, 2% at risk for AOD use, 9% with AOD use concerns among their family or friends, and for 3% the teacher observed situations in which AOD use might be impacting parenting.

Family Map Interview Length

After all home visits were completed, all teachers (n = 57) and a subset of parents (N=29) were surveyed regarding their view of the home visit using the Family Map. Educators were diverse in their level of education and years of experience. Data presented are from 20 Head Start centers located in an urban area (n = 53 classrooms) and in 6 centers (n = 17 classrooms) serving families living in more rural areas. Teachers were asked a variety of questions about the length of the home visit using the Family Map including the first visit and the last visit (i.e., we expected that visits would be shorter with practice).  They were also asked to estimate how long most visits took once they were experienced in administering the Family Map. A researcher interviewed a subset of parents about 2 weeks after their home visit with the Head Start educator. Each parent was asked to recall how long their Head Start home visit lasted.  As seen in the Figure, most teachers took longer to complete their first visits (i.e., only 13% lasted less than an hour). With experience, however, most teachers (84%) reported that visit times ranged from an hour to an hour and a half.  Most parents (83%) reported the visit length as less than an hour.  While perceptions of the visit length between teacher and parent may differ for a variety of reasons, discussions with agency staff suggested that some teachers included travel time in their estimates.  A comparison of teacher characteristics with the time to complete the interview suggested that the length of interviews using the Family Map did not differ by past experience with the Family Map, years of education, or years of work experience suggesting that most teachers can become efficient in conducting the interview.

 

Length of Interview by Language of Interview and Parent/Teacher

Note:  Teachers were asked more detailed questions regarding the length of the interview than parents.

 

Parent and Teacher Satisfaction with the Family Map

After the Family Map training, teachers from the Head Start agencies described above evaluated their view of the training and Family Map. Educators were diverse in their level of education and years of experience. Data presented are from 20 Head Start centers located in an urban area (n = 53 classrooms) and in 6 centers (n = 17 classrooms) serving families living in more rural areas. 

 Evaluations before educators had conducted any Family Map interviews indicated that the Family Map was received with considerable skepticism and concern prior to implementation.  For example, only 50% of educators at one site felt that the Family Map would be a good tool for a home visit.  Almost all teachers expressed some level of concern that they would receive the needed support from their agency in the implementation of the use of the Family Map.  Comments from educators during the training included concern that they did not have the level of social work knowledge required to effectively implement the interview.  Educators were also concerned that the interview would require too much time and families would feel it was too intrusive. 

After using Family Map as part of the fall home visit, teachers were surveyed again. Teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of the Family Map (i.e., The information I learned during the home visit was helpful working with families) and their comfort level when using it (i.e., I was comfortable conducting the home visits using the Family Map).  Teachers rated these items from not at all to very much. As seen in the Figure, the majority of teachers (70%) rated the Family Map as useful and about half (51%) indicated that they were comfortable conducting a home visit with the Family Map. As expected, pilot teachers (i.e., teachers with more experience with the Family Map) perceived the Family Map as more useful (t (51) = 2.48, p = .012) and indicated they were more comfortable using it (t (50) = 2.27, p = .03) than teachers for which the fall home visit was their first exposure to the Family Map.  Differences were also seen for teachers with more work experience; but because we purposefully selected the most experienced teachers for the pilot phase, work experience and past experience with the Family Map were confounded and it was not possible to determine which experience was the most important.  However, teachers with more education did not report different opinions than teachers with less education suggesting that teachers of every level of education can become successful in the use of the Family Map.

Of parents interviewed, about half (44%) indicated that this was their first Head Start home visit.  Of those for whom this was a repeat visit, about 2/3 (66%) reported liking this home visit better than past home visits. Most (83%) reported enjoying this home visit with their teacher ‘very much’ and most (93%) felt that the teacher understood the family’s goals. Most parents (90%) reported that they were comfortable with the interview (i.e., I was comfortable with the home visit recently conducted by my child's teacher.).

Teachers were also asked questions regarding their perception of the value of the Family Map.  For example, teachers were ask if the Family Map contributed to the identification of family goals, gaining important information about the family, and learning more about the Head Start child.  While it is difficult for teachers to report on the information that might have been gained without the use of the Family Map, teachers’ reports suggest that the Family Map was useful in each of these areas.  For example, 59% of teacher reported that they were able to identify more family goals with the Family Map than in past home visits.  A majority (69%) indicated that they learned information during the home visit that was helpful in working with families and 50% of teachers reported that they learned something about the child that explained his/her classroom behavior.

 

Teacher and Parent Rating of Usefulness and Comfort by Reporter