COEXISTING RELATIONSHIPS 48
An Empirical Study of Coexisting Relationships
Between Area-Specific Support and Early Childhood Development
Jianjun Wang
Department of Advanced Educational Studies, California State University, Bakersfield
9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93311, Phone: 661-654-3048, Fax: 661-654-2016,
Jamie Henderson
Executive Director, Kern County Children and Families Commission, 2724 L Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Judith Harniman
Assistant Director, Kern County Children and Families Commission, 2724 L Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Authors’ Notes
The authors wish to thank the Institutional Review Board of California State University, Bakersfield for approving the human research protocol for this investigation. Appreciation is also extended to the First 5 Kern Commission and its Technical Advisory Committee. The research team received ongoing support from Theresa Martinez and Heather Schreiner. Nonetheless, opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent positions of California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) or Kern County Children and Families Commission (First 5 Kern). Inquiries should be directed to the corresponding author at .
Abstract
Early childhood development is inseparable from healthcare, parental education, and childcare services. Empirical data are gathered in this study from 131 children at age 3 to assess coexisting effects from those area-specific services at 21 preschool communities across Kern County, California. While muscle and bone growth occurs on scales of height and weight to support improvement of motor skills, more dramatic development has been found across communication, problem solving, and personal-social skills within the broad context of environmental interactions that are otherwise not detectable from an isolated investigation of a single service. To examine the well-rounded early childhood development at a county as large as the state of New Jersey, a comprehensive Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model is employed to identify pertinent variables from the current research literature and reconfirm the relationship through empirical data analyses. The result suggests additional needs of incorporating culture-dependent variables for future investigation.
Keywords: Coexisting Effect, Early Childhood Support, Service Integration, First 5 Kern
An Empirical Study of Coexisting Relationships
Between Area-Specific Support and Early Childhood Development
Long before implementation of federal legislations, such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, on child education, California has led the nation in providing subsidized child care and early childhood development for working parents (Arbegast, 2010). The first formal child care centers, referred to as day nurseries, were founded in California in 1913 (see National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 1995). During World War II, the state government strengthened its social services by sponsoring the State Child Care Center program (Karoly, Reardon, & Cho, 2007). Two additional programs, California State Preschool Program and Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, were subsequently launched in the cold war era with a clear focus on supporting children from disadvantaged homes (Reese, 1996). After the cold war end, Californians further incorporated broad-based scientific research on brain development to justify needs of state investment in early childhood services (Huttenlocher & Dabholkar, 1997; McLloyd & Wilson, 1991; Nash, 1997). As a result of the long-lasting public campaign, California Children and Families Act of 1998, also known as Proposition 10, was supported by the state voters to fund services for children ages 0-5 with an additional 50 cents-per-pack sales tax on cigarettes and other similar tobacco products.
Bodenhorn and Kelch (2001) recollected, “When California voters passed the Proposition 10 ballot initiative in 1998, they set in motion an unprecedented experiment to reshape how California communities address the needs of very young children and their families” (p. 151). With support from the tax revenue, Proposition 10 stipulated creation of First 5 Commissions to lead the service delivery at both state and county levels. Accordingly, Kern County Children and Families Commission (First 5 Kern) was established in 1998 to fund services in Kern County. While 20% of the tax revenue is retained by the state commission for state initiatives, the remaining 80% are distributed at the county level according to the local birth rate (First 5 California, 2012). Kern County represents an exemplary case for having the highest birth rate across California over the past decade (Wang, 2012). Since its inception, “First 5 [Kern] has allocated more than $100 million to 450 programs sponsored by 240 different organizations throughout Kern County” (Bedell, 2010, p. 1).
By making the county commissions a creative partner, not just a subordinate organization of the state commission, Proposition 10 has strengthened the local control and accountability on the revenue spending, and thus, promoted service access for the youngest children and their families across the state. To track the public accountability, the state commission identified specific focus areas through strategic planning. It was stipulated that “While counties design their programs to fit their specific local needs, they must provide services in each of the following four focus areas: Family Functioning, Child Development, Child Health, [and] Systems of Care” (First 5 California, 2010a, p. 15). A purpose of this investigation is to examine effectiveness of the area-specific support for early childhood development. Because the early years of a child’s life form a foundation for later growth, the system of care across these focus areas is likely to reduce the needs of extra funding for remedial education and welfare programs in the future.
Nonetheless, the recent state budget crisis has deeply eroded foundation of the public service for the local population. In March 2011, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 99 (AB 99) with an attempt to take $11.7 million from First 5 Kern. This bill was part of the Assembly’s response to a fiscal emergency declared by Governor Brown on January 20, 2011. Prior to this proposed cut, Bodenhorn and Kelch (2001) admitted, “Although the resources of Proposition 10 represent a significant commitment to the early childhood years, they are insufficient to fill all of the existing service gaps” (p. 156). The threat from AB 99 has made it more imperative to examine the impact of First 5 Kern funding. In support of this timely investigation, empirical data have been gathered from 21 preschool communities across Kern County to analyze relationships between indicators of the area-specific service and early childhood development in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Research Questions
The Carnegie Corporation’s (1994) Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children found that brain development during the first 5 years of life has been much more vulnerable to environmental influence than was suspected. Since each child is born with intrinsic dispositions that shape the individual experiences on multiple fronts, researchers suggested modeling of child development as a latent construct with manifest indicators (Bandstra, Vogel, Morrow, Xue, & Anthony, 2004). In addition, latent factors can be derived from multiple service areas to describe the coexisting contributions to child growth (Denham, Blair, & Demulder, 2003). Thus, research questions that guide this investigation are:
1. What indicators are pertinent to identification of child growth and its related services according to the current literature?
2. What are the empirical relationships between indicators of the area-specific service and early childhood development?
3. Does the statistical model fit the First 5 Kern database for this investigation?
While Questions 2 and 3 hinge on quantitative data analyses, answers to Question 1 depend on establishment of a theoretical framework to articulate empirical indicators across multiple service areas.
Literature Review
California counties received numerous state and federal grants in the past, but local
communities have never had such a large, area-specific funding on an ongoing basis (Cousineau, Stevens, & Pickering, 2007). As part of the funding requirement, “The Children and Families Act of 1998 [i.e., Proposition 10] mandates the collection of data for the purpose of demonstrating results” (First 5 Kern, 2011, p. 16). In March 2010, the state commission issued “Guidelines for Implementing the California Children and Families Act” to reaffirm “the support of local decision-making and the development of integrated strategies that are determined to be most appropriate for each county” (First 5 California, 2010b, p. 6). In response, First 5 Kern has developed a strategic plan to align the state focus areas with local priorities (Table 1).
______
Insert Table 1 around here
______
Local creativity was emphasized to address shortfalls of the government funding for child care and development. It was stated in AB 99 that
California is presently experiencing a severe fiscal crisis, which has resulted in funding shortfalls for many services at the state and local levels. Health and human services programs that serve children are among the most seriously affected by this lack of
funding. (p. 1)
Thus, a business as usual approach no longer works, and local innovations are needed to enhance effectiveness of the public spending.
Without a literature-based framework to streamline the knowledge accumulation, local explorations often rely on repeated discoveries of similar solutions through trial-and-error methods. To avoid the disorganized inquiry, John Tukey (1980) advocated confirmatory investigations through statistical modeling. He noted that “Ideas come from previous exploration more often than from lightning strokes. Important questions can demand the most careful planning for confirmatory analysis” (p. 23). To facilitate new knowledge acquisition, data analyses in this study are guided by the research literature to model empirical results across different areas of early childhood service.
The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) Model
Over the first decade of the 21st century, First 5 Kern has evolved from a fledgling organization to an agency with strong accountability. According to the 2010 census findings, Kern County’s population has increased 27% over the past decade, making it the fastest growing county in California. Nearly 60% of the local residents live outside of the Bakersfield city boundary, and local communities of various sizes spread over a valley land as large as the state of New Jersey. Due to the important regional services, First 5 Kern has been recognized by the state commission for its leadership in engaging isolated communities, including those hosting migrant farm worker families (First 5 California, 2008). As tobacco consumption decreases, the state funding inevitably declines. Thus, accountability is particularly critical to address the extensive service demands with the shrinking resources.
While it takes a community to set a nurturing environment, parents still hold the responsibility to care for their children (Tomlin, 2007). “Although a consensus exists about the significant role that parents play in a child’s development, there exists neither a singular ‘one size fits all’ approach to parent education that has been promulgated statewide, nor any major local initiatives” (Zepeda & Morales, 2001, p. 5). Since no program is equally effective under any circumstances, the state statutes “emphasize local decision-making, to provide for greater local flexibility in designing delivery systems, and to eliminate duplicative administrative systems” (FindLaw, 2011, p. 1). To support the systematic approach, a context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model is employed to guide this investigation. As Sloane (2008) suggested, “We change the basic research question from what works to what works for whom and in what contexts” (p. 43).
Since new local context evolves from the previous product outcomes, the CIPP paradigm provides a sustainable platform to support the ongoing progress. In addition, the context phase readily incorporates the spirit of local control promoted by the state legislation. Since its adoption in the 1960s, the CIPP model supported evaluation of numerous projects to address needs of various stakeholders (Stufflebeam, 1983; Wang, 2011). Meanwhile, the model itself matured through a process of developing national evaluation standards over the past four decades (Program Evaluation Standards, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2010). As a proven example, White (1981) has acknowledged that the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) paradigm represents “the most comprehensive evaluation model” in the field (p. 217).
Contextual Support for Service Access
From the contextual perspective, concerted efforts have been made by First 5 Kern to improve service access for local children, including those of rural communities. As part of the effort on local capacity building, First 5 Kern funded mobile services, such as Kern County Children’s Dental Health Network and Children’s Mobile Immunization Program, to serve children and families in hard-to-reach communities (Wang, 2012). In addition, a support network has been established to assist children of Kern County on health insurance application. In the 2011-12 fiscal year, “99% of Kern County residents have available application assistance within ten miles of their community” (Wang, 2012, p. 14).
Considering parental education as an important attribute, Kern County is ranked among the lowest regions across the United States (Brookings Institution, 2010). At the county seat, Zumbrun (2008) concurred that Bakersfield was ranked as one of the least educated metropolitan areas across the nation. Thus, the application assistance paved the way for healthcare access within the local communities. In Fiscal Year 2010-2011, First 5 Kern funded 21 preschool programs across Kern County to enhance parent education and early childhood education. The site choice is grounded on a balanced consideration of transportation network and population distribution. As a result, “With First 5 Kern funding, greater Bakersfield and Kern County’s rural and mountain communities have local access to services that would otherwise be unavailable” (Henderson, 2011, p. 1).
Input Characteristics
Neural scientists indicated that brain development is adaptive to both deleterious and beneficial experiences that impact early childhood growth (Nelson, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Hence, supportive and preventive measures are incorporated in the input phase to assist early child development. The earliest supports start from prenatal care. Low birth weight has been linked to prenatal care in the research literature (Rosenberg, 2004). As was cautioned by Lu, Bragonier, Silver, and Bemis-Hey (2000), “Nearly two thirds of neonatal and infant deaths in the United States and in California occur in the low birth weight population” (p. 3).
Bull (2003) added that “Smoking in pregnancy is a serious health risk to mother and baby that is associated with premature birth, low birth weight and respiratory disorders” (p. 661). Similar to prenatal care, “Quitting smoking before pregnancy may significantly reduce the risk of low birth weight in the infant” (Lu et al., 2000, p. 9). In this study, indicators of prenatal care and smoking prevention are incorporated to assess effectiveness of First 5 Kern services at the input phase.