View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Early Head Start Prenatal Services and Toddlers' Socioemotional Skills: The Role of Program Approach

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Early Head Start Prenatal Services and Toddlers' Socioemotional Skills: The Role of Program Approach
Language: English
Authors: Eleanor Fisk (ORCID 0000-0001-5165-2082), Caitlin Lombardi, Kyle DeMeo Cook, Rachel Chazan-Cohen
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(2):893-903.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Federal Programs, Social Services, Early Intervention, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Program Effectiveness, Toddlers, Social Emotional Learning, Home Programs, Child Care Centers, Child Development
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Early Head Start
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01892-0
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The prenatal period is an ideal time for interventions and social service programs to initiate supports for families, such as is done in many home visiting and two-generation programs, including Early Head Start (EHS). EHS works with pregnant people enrolled in the program to determine what their specific needs for services are, and then either provide the services or offer referrals to them in the community. However, there is incredible variability in what the specific services that programs offer are comprised of. This study explored (1) the availability of prenatal services EHS offers across home- and center-based program approaches; (2) associations between different types of prenatal services and children's socioemotional skills at age 2 among families enrolled in both program approaches; and (3) differences in these associations across subgroups of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one in light of prior research showing differences in EHS' effect on children's socioemotional skills across program approaches (Chazan-Cohen et al. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 78:93-109, 2013), using data from the Early Head Start Child and Family Experiences Study 2009-2012 (Baby FACES). We found that the availability of services differed based on program approach, and that the availability of comprehensive services in particular were linked with toddlers' socioemotional development, especially for those who attended home-based EHS at age one. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed, particularly in relation to the work being done to support expectant families in home-based Early Head Start programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1507342
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFsYENNg8O315zgOm7n2WuFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDAlcl0AjSf-rbl63wIBEICBm9gC4SFd-xielQd72Dp1KFEgpJHyC4XXiLRXoDjvqO9R_i_dKb0tCaswcAJz5R0DZ3WICWGs9FjUBRINJMw58DKVIGzYr5rX0Ih0vJPBDZR5CzxnVPzRX0RyIGlI0n9jGQWRP-T1bRrYRLrLs66KbaTtgvy3i2diXIu8CWiips2T2hdTTz3FRQu70LNlsNXdtp9Pp0fqW3Mfwxfz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191573909;5mx01feb.26;2026Feb17.02:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191573909-1">Early Head Start Prenatal Services and Toddlers' Socioemotional Skills: The Role of Program Approach </title> <p>The prenatal period is an ideal time for interventions and social service programs to initiate supports for families, such as is done in many home visiting and two-generation programs, including Early Head Start (EHS). EHS works with pregnant people enrolled in the program to determine what their specific needs for services are, and then either provide the services or offer referrals to them in the community. However, there is incredible variability in what the specific services that programs offer are comprised of. This study explored (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) the availability of prenatal services EHS offers across home- and center-based program approaches; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) associations between different types of prenatal services and children's socioemotional skills at age 2 among families enrolled in both program approaches; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) differences in these associations across subgroups of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one in light of prior research showing differences in EHS' effect on children's socioemotional skills across program approaches (Chazan-Cohen et al. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 78:93–109, 2013), using data from the Early Head Start Child and Family Experiences Study 2009–2012 (Baby FACES). We found that the availability of services differed based on program approach, and that the availability of comprehensive services in particular were linked with toddlers' socioemotional development, especially for those who attended home-based EHS at age one. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed, particularly in relation to the work being done to support expectant families in home-based Early Head Start programs.</p> <p>Keywords: Expectant families; Prenatal services; Early Head Start; Home visiting; Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-01892-0.</p> <p>Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally funded, comprehensive early childhood program for children and families experiencing low income or other risk factors (e.g., homelessness). EHS has a two-generation approach, meaning it offers services for pregnant people and parents (e.g., continuing education, referrals to resources), as well as their infants and toddlers (e.g., early childhood education, developmental screenings). EHS and other two-generation programs, such as home visiting, have been shown to promote parent and child outcomes when they begin as early as pregnancy (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; Kendrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]; Michalopoulos et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]; Olds et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). The prenatal period serves as a critical and ideal time for interventions and social service programs to initiate health, social, and economic supports for families, given both the rapid brain and nervous system development that occurs prenatally and the biological, neurological, and psychological changes that adults experience during the transition to parenthood (Saxbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]). EHS is unique in that it provides both home- and center-based early care and education (ECE) options for children. Families who enroll during pregnancy are offered supports and services in the home, but their infants can participate in either program approach after birth. Benefits for parents and children are documented for both types of programming, and there is evidence of stronger benefits on parenting and child behavior during parent–child interactions among families who enrolled prenatally (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Love et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study aims to expand the research literature on the EHS program by considering: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>) the availability of prenatal services EHS offers across home- and center-based program approaches; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>) associations between different types of prenatal services and children's socioemotional skills at age 2 among families enrolled in both program approaches; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>) differences in these associations across subgroups of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one in light of prior research showing differences in EHS' effect on children's socioemotional skills across program approaches (Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-2">Early Head Start</hd> <p>Early Head Start (EHS) launched in 1995, expanding the offerings of the by then longstanding Head Start program to pregnant people, infants, and toddlers. Today, it serves approximately 200,000 children and 11,000 pregnant people (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]; Office of Head Start, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). To be eligible to participate in EHS/HS programming, families must have incomes below the federal poverty line (FPL), experience homelessness, receive public assistance, or be foster families (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]). EHS aims to empower families in terms of their parenting skills, but also in areas such as education, employment, and health (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]). Children's positive development is fostered through child development activities included in home-based EHS, or by children's participation in high quality center-based EHS.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-3">Prenatal Participation in Early Head Start</hd> <p>Prior research has shown that there are many more pregnant people living in poverty in the United States than slots available for them in social service programs, including EHS (Bleiweis et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]; Office of Head Start, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]). Head Start Program Performance Standards mandate that pregnant people who enroll in EHS be supported through ongoing health care and health insurance, comprehensive services, prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services. A newborn visit with the mother and baby is scheduled within two weeks of the baby's birth, with the expectation that there will be an opening for enrollment of the baby in a home- or center-based program through EHS (Administration for Children & Families, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]; Office of Head Start, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref25">20</reflink>]). While the EHS program only officially enrolls the pregnant person, prenatal supports and services are intended to be applicable to whole families, including the pregnant person's partner or any other household members present (e.g., materials that EHS shares with expectant families may include parenting strategies applicable to mothers, fathers, and other caregivers). Programs are expected to work with whole families during pregnancy to determine what their specific needs for services are, and then either provide the services or offer referrals to them in the community. However, there is incredible variability in what the specific services that programs offer are comprised of. For example, "comprehensive services" may include a variety of things like nutritional counseling, mental health services, or domestic violence protection (Administration for Children & Families, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]). Some of EHS' positive effects on parenting outcomes have been found to be stronger for families who enrolled in EHS during pregnancy in comparison to those who enrolled later (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]). This work examines differences in impacts based on time of enrollment (i.e., during pregnancy compared to after a child's birth), but has not considered the specific influence of services that EHS families receive during pregnancy. Among the families that enrolled in EHS during pregnancy, it is likely that there are a variety of services available with resulting variability in program impact for families and children. This study aims to further understand prenatal participation in EHS by documenting the specific types of services available to families during this important developmental window (Saxbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]). Experiences during pregnancy have been linked to later child development outcomes (Saxbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]), but to our knowledge research has not thoroughly studied the role of EHS-related experiences during pregnancy.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-4">Early Head Start and Toddlers' Development</hd> <p>A robust literature utilizing data from a randomized control trial (RCT), the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP), has examined the effects of the EHS program on children's development. This research started examining children's developmental outcomes as early as age two, finding modest, but statistically significant effects on children's language, cognition, socioemotional skills, and health. Specifically, researchers found that children who participated in EHS had fewer aggressive behaviors, stronger language and cognitive abilities, and were more likely to have received immunizations (Vogel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]). At the end of toddlerhood, age three, there were impacts of similar magnitudes on socioemotional, cognitive and language outcomes (Vogel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]). Little known research has considered the role of comprehensive services in promoting toddlers' socioemotional skills (Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]), as we do in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-5">Differences Between Home- and Center-Based Early Head Start</hd> <p>While EHSREP research did not find any statistically significant differences in age two impacts for children who attended home-based EHS (Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]), this literature shows positive effects of home-based EHS participation on children's outcomes at age three, including socioemotional outcomes (Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]). These effects are in part driven by impacts on parenting when children are two years old (Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]). Given that most prenatal EHS participants are enrolled in home-based programs and served through home visits (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]), it is important to unpack the potential role that EHS program approach plays by examining associations between prenatal services and child outcomes within subsamples of children who go on to attend home- or center-based EHS.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-6">The Present Study</hd> <p>This study aims to understand if there is variability in the availability of services that EHS programs offer to pregnant people and which, if any, of these services are subsequently linked with toddlers' socioemotional skills. Specifically, we address three research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there variability in the availability of the services typically offered to pregnant people by EHS programs based on EHS program approach (center-based, home-based, or both)?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there associations between the availability of different types of services for pregnant people through EHS and their children's socioemotional development at age two among families enrolled in both program approaches?</item> <p></p> <item> Do these associations differ across subgroups of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one?</item> </ulist> <p>For RQ1, based on previous research (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>]), we expect that EHS programs that only provide center-based services for infants and toddlers will offer fewer services for pregnant people than programs that provide solely home-based or both types of services, given that home-based programs often have staff intentionally in place to work with expectant families. For RQ2, we anticipate small, positive associations between prenatal services and age two socioemotional skills for all children. We hypothesize for RQ3 that children who attend home-based EHS at age one will benefit more from the availability of services for pregnant people in terms of child socioemotional development at age two.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573909-8">Participants</hd> <p>The Early Head Start Child and Family Experiences Study 2009–2012 (Baby FACES; Vogel & Boller, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]) is a longitudinal study that gathered information on children and families enrolled in EHS programs, EHS staff (teachers, home visitors, and program directors), and EHS program characteristics through surveys, interviews, and observations. Baby FACES selected children from 89 program sites using a stratified clustered design, providing a nationally representative sample of the population of EHS programs. A total of 1217 children were selected for the sample, however 109 were determined to be ineligible and 132 had parents who did not provide consent, leaving a total sample of 976 children nested in programs at the first data collection (Cannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]). This study uses data from a subsample of programs (<emph>N</emph> = 72) that enrolled children in EHS when their mothers were pregnant (<emph>N</emph> = 348). Program-level data are used to address RQ1, with additional individual-level data used to address RQ2. The analytic sample for RQ2 and RQ3 comprises of a further subsample of children from the Baby FACES study whose mothers enrolled in EHS during pregnancy, remained enrolled in EHS through age two, and had a valid sample weight (<emph>N</emph> = 222). Demographic data on this sample are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographics of the sample (time invariant or wave 1) within the full sample and subsamples of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Full Sample (<italic>N</italic> = 222)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Home-Based (<italic>n</italic> = 82)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Center-Based (<italic>n</italic> = 99)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Boy</p></td><td align="left"><p>55.45</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Girl</p></td><td align="left"><p>44.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>47.97</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>37.48*</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.64*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.74*</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.08*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Latine</p></td><td align="left"><p>38.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Another or multi-race</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.53</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dual language learner</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>45.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-dual language learner</p></td><td align="left"><p>57.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>54.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cohort (1-year-old)</p></td><td align="left"><p>73.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>68.14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cohort (newborn)</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Immigrant family</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>39.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-immigrant family</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.96</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td><td align="left"><p>62.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-urban</p></td><td align="left"><p>37.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.96</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Married</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>35.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-married</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>64.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mother has less than a high school diploma</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>40.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.65</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mother has more than a high school diploma</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Income-to-needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79 (0.55)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77 (0.55)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80 (0.55)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of household earners</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.51 (0.71)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.44 (0.68)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.55 (0.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of children</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.55 (1.00)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.66 (0.93)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.44 (1.07)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mother's age at child's birth</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.46 (4.76)</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.15 (4.35)</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.81 (4.89)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>EHS= Early Head Start % or <emph>Mean</emph> (<emph>Standard Deviation</emph>) are shown Descriptive statistics were calculated with a child-level sample weight applied There were 41 families with missing data on EHS program type at age one *Indicates a statistically significant difference <emph>p</emph> <.05 between home and center</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573909-10">Services EHS Programs Offer to Pregnant People</hd> <p>In the Baby FACES director interviews, EHS program directors were asked "What types of pregnancy services does your program typically provide to pregnant people? Do you provide..." and then given a list of 23 services (including "some other service") to respond to. A complete list and directors' response rates are shown in Table 2. Services ranged from being offered by as few as four programs (violence prevention) to all programs (information on breastfeeding, nutrition information, information on how to take care of babies, information on how to take care of themselves during pregnancy, and information on how children grow and develop). Following conceptualizations by the Administration for Children and Families ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]), services were grouped into three categories: ongoing health care and health insurance; comprehensive services; and prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services. For each category, we created count variables such that each child received a score in each category based on the number of services their mother's EHS program offered during her pregnancy. For ongoing health care and health insurance, counts range from 0 to 2; for comprehensive services, counts range from 0 to 10; and for prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services, counts range from 0 to 11.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-11">EHS Program Approach</hd> <p>Program directors reported the approach of their program as being center-based only (16%), home-based only (16%), or having both options (68%) for enrollment of infants and toddlers. Programs with each of these three approaches enrolled families during pregnancy.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-12">Child Socioemotional Outcomes</hd> <p>The child socioemotional outcomes included in this study were measured at age two and consisted of the two subscales of the 42-item Brief Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]), which was completed by EHS staff (home visitors for children in home-based EHS and classroom teachers for children in center-based EHS). The BITSEA competence subscale measures children's <emph>socioemotional competencies</emph>, and higher scores indicate greater socioemotional competence, while the problems subscale assesses <emph>problem behaviors</emph>, where higher scores indicate the presence of more problem behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-13">Child and Family Characteristics</hd> <p>The child and family characteristics listed in Table 1 are included as covariates in models to account for some unexplained variance in parent and child outcomes. Specifically, there are indicators for time-invariant child characteristics, including: gender (male, female omitted), race (Black, white, another or multi-race; Latine omitted), dual language learner (DLL; non-DLL omitted), and Baby FACES cohort (one-year-old; newborn omitted), as well as a continuous variable for mother's age (in years) at the birth of the focal child. Additional indicators for child and family characteristics measured at the one-year-old data collection include immigrant family (one or both parents were not born in the United States; no parents born outside of the United States. omitted), urbanicity (urban; non-urban omitted), marital status (married; non-married omitted), and mother having less than a high school diploma (high school diploma or more omitted). Several family characteristics measured continuously at the one-year-old data collection were also included: income-to-needs (household income divided by the Federal Poverty Line guidance amount for that household size), number of adults in the household contributing to the household income, and number of children in the household.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-14">Analytic Plan</hd> <p>All analyses were conducted in Stata 17. The Baby FACES data team developed sample weights to account for differential attrition and sample design, which were applied in all analyses, and, as such sample sizes may vary slightly to include only those with a valid sample weight (Cannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]). Descriptive statistics (percentages or means and standard deviations) were reported to address RQ1. Additionally for RQ1, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc tests were used to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the number of services programs offer to pregnant people based on EHS service delivery approach. We examined differences for the total numbers of services and counts of services in three domains: ongoing health care and health insurance; comprehensive services; and prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services.</p> <p>Within the analytic sample for RQ2, there was a moderate amount of missing data on the variables of interest (ranging from 0% on child and program characteristics to 20% on family income) due to item non-response. Previous research has identified that it is appropriate to impute up to 50% of missing data (Little et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]; Widaman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). To address this, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations to create 20 complete datasets using Stata's mi command (StataCorp, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>]). We then used mi estimate to conduct analyses, which provides a pooled estimate from analyses across the 20 imputed datasets. The Baby FACES data team developed sample weights to account for differential attrition and sample design, which were applied to all analyses. In the imputed data, each of the two age two outcomes were first regressed on the three types of services offered to pregnant people by EHS to address RQ2. Then, to address RQ3, these regressions were re-run within the subsample of children who attended home-based EHS at age one and the subsample of children who attended center-based EHS at age one. There were 41 families with missing data on EHS program approach at age one, and are not included in the subsample analyses. Standard errors in all of these regression models were clustered by program ID to account for the fact that there are multiple families enrolled in the same programs. Results are reported using the conventional level of statistical significance (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05), but only those where <emph>p</emph> < 0.01 are robust to a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573909-16">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>EHS programs offer, connect to, and provide a host of services for pregnant people enrolled in the programs. Table 2 displays the percentages of EHS programs in this sample that offered each of 23 measured services. Services offered by programs ranged from being offered by 6% (violence prevention) to 100% (nutrition information, information on how to take care of babies, information on how to take care of self during pregnancy, and information on breastfeeding) of programs. Table 2 additionally shows the total number of services offered by programs (<emph>M</emph> = 15.1, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.5, min = 11, max = 18), as well as the number of services programs offered in the three categories conceptualized by the Administration for Children and Families ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]): ongoing health care and health insurance (<emph>M</emph> = 2.0, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.3, min = 0, max = 2); comprehensive services (<emph>M</emph> = 2.9, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.1, min = 1, max = 6); and prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services (<emph>M</emph> = 10.2, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.8, min = 8, max = 12).</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-17">Availability of Services Across Program Approaches</hd> <p>To examine differences in service provision based on EHS program approach, ANOVA tests were used to test for significant differences in the numbers of comprehensive services offered between programs offering home-based services, center-based services, and both types of services. Results are also displayed in Table 2. An ANOVA showed that there were statistically significant differences in the numbers of comprehensive services offered (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>, 70) = 4.4, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), with a Tukey's post-hoc test identifying differences between home-based (<emph>M</emph> = 4.0, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.1) and both center-based (<emph>M</emph> = 2.6, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.7) and both types of services (<emph>M</emph> = 2.7, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.0). For individual services, home-based programs were often more likely to offer services than the other two service approach types: the chance to get together with other mothers or pregnant people (100% home-based, 83% center-based, and 81% both types), some other service (48% home-based, 17% center-based, and 16% both types), mental health services (63% home-based, 8% center-based, and 33% both types), nurse home visits (31% home-based, 6% center-based, and 6% both types), violence prevention (20% home-based, 8% center-based, and 2% both types), and referral to social services (39% home-based, no center-based programs, 7% both types). This is in line with the hypothesis that EHS programs that only provide center-based services would offer fewer services for pregnant people than programs that provide solely home-based or both types of services.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-18">Service Availability During Pregnancy and Children's Socioemotional Skills at Age Two</hd> <p>In order to address RQ2 of if there were associations between the availability of different types of services for pregnant people through EHS and their children's socioemotional development at age two, children's social competence and problem behaviors were regressed on both the counts of the individual categories of services (ongoing health care and health insurance; comprehensive services; and prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services) and the total number of services available during pregnancy (second set of models). For the individual categories of services, shown in the top of Table 3, there was a statistically significant, negative association between comprehensive services and children's problem behaviors (<emph>B</emph> = − 1.11, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.39, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), such that children whose mothers were offered more comprehensive services during pregnancy tended to have lower problem behaviors at age two in the full analytic sample. Shown in the last row of Table 2, there were no statistically significant associations between the total number of services available during pregnancy and children's socioemotional skills at age two in the full analytic sample. To check the robustness of these associations, children's EHS experiences (type, quality) at age one were added as additional controls (results shown in Table S1), and the regression coefficients for these results remained similar in magnitude.</p> <p>Table 3 Associations between total number and types of services available during pregnancy and children's social emotional outcomes at age two (<emph>N</emph> = 222)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>BITSEA problems</p></th><th align="left"><p>BITSEA competence</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Services available during pregnancy from EHS</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ongoing health care and health insurance</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.57 (0.89)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41 (0.48)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comprehensive services</p></td><td align="left"><p>−1.11 (0.39)**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.37 (0.27)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76 (0.55)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.00 (0.43)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total number of services available</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.42 (0.22) + </p></td><td align="left"><p>0.24 (0.19)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All models include the child and family characteristics listed in Table 1 as covariates, omitted group for race/ethnicity is Latine Unstandardized regression coefficient (standard error) are shown Models are weighted with a sample weight applied to adjust for parent non-response to the interview Standard errors are clustered by program ID to account for multiple children in the sample attending the same EHS programs ***<emph>p</emph> <.001, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, *<emph>p</emph> <.05, + <emph>p</emph> <.10</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-19">Within Subsamples of Children Based on Age One EHS Type</hd> <p>Table 4 shows results of OLS regressions examining associations between counts of individual categories of services or the total number of services available during pregnancy and child and socioemotional outcomes at age two within subsamples of children who attended home- (top panel) or center-based (bottom panel) EHS at age one to answer RQ3. For the subsample of children who attended home-based EHS at age one, the statistically significant association that was present in the full sample remained (comprehensive services with problem behaviors, <emph>B</emph> = − 0.98, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.48, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). There were other associations between services and child outcomes in this subsample that reached the standards of statistical significance: total number of services (<emph>B</emph> = 0.52, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), ongoing health care and health insurance (<emph>B</emph> = 3.45, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.89, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and comprehensive services (<emph>B</emph> = 0.68, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.28, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) were all positively associated with socioemotional competence. There were no statistically significant associations between the services and age two outcomes for the children who attended center-based EHS at age one.</p> <p>Table 4 Child social emotional outcomes at age two by total number and types of services available during pregnancy within subsamples of children based on EHS attendance at age one</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Home-based subsample (<italic>n</italic> = 82)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>BITSEA problems</p></th><th align="left"><p>BITSEA competence</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Services available during pregnancy from EHS</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ongoing health care and health insurance</p></td><td align="left"><p>−1.62 (0.86) + </p></td><td align="left"><p>3.45 (0.89)***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comprehensive services</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.98 (0.42)*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68 (0.28)*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02 (0.64)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.03 (0.54)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total number of services available</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.42 (0.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52 (0.21)*</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Center-Based Subsample (<italic>n</italic> = 99)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>BITSEA Problems</p></th><th align="left"><p>BITSEA Competence</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Services available during pregnancy from EHS</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ongoing health care and health insurance</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02 (1.62)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−1.43 (1.04)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comprehensive services</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.17 (1.03)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.21 (0.69)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.46 (0.85)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06 (0.60)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total number of services available</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.29 (0.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.17 (0.30)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All models include the child and family characteristics listed in Table 1 as covariates, omitted group for race/ethnicity is Latine Unstandardized regression coefficient (standard error) are shown Models are weighted with a sample weight applied to adjust for parent non-response to the interview Standard errors are clustered by program ID to account for multiple children in the sample attending the same EHS programs ***<emph>p</emph> <.001, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, *<emph>p</emph> <.05, + <emph>p</emph> <.10</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-20">Discussion</hd> <p>EHS is a federally-funded, two-generation social service program that targets families experiencing low income by providing supports and services for parents and high quality home- or center-based programming for infants and toddlers. Families enrolled in either EHS approach are supported by family support staff and offered opportunities for socialization with other families. EHS provides the option for parents to enroll during pregnancy, to begin offering supports during this important period, as well as to provide continuity in services once the infant is born. Prior research documents potential benefits of enrolling in EHS prenatally for children and families, but there remain limited enrollment opportunities in EHS programs for pregnant people (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]; National Head Start Association, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref52">25</reflink>]). This study aimed to understand the types and frequencies of services EHS programs offer to pregnant people who enroll, and, subsequently, if there were links between these services and toddlers' socioemotional skills. We were also interested in how these findings may vary based on EHS program approach. We addressed this using a subsample of EHS programs that enrolled families during pregnancy from the Baby FACES study of EHS children, families, and programs across the country.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-21">Availability of Services to Pregnant People</hd> <p>In the Baby FACES study, EHS program directors were asked if their program typically provided 23 different services to pregnant people. Program directors of the 72 EHS programs in this study reported offering those services at incredibly varying rates, from 6% (violence prevention) to 100% (nutrition information, information on how to take care of babies, information on how to take care of self during pregnancy, and information on breastfeeding), with programs offering 15 of the services on average. While the services that 100% of programs reported offering all represent important components of supports that EHS programs offer to pregnant people (Administration for Children & Families, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]), among the services that fewer programs offered, several have been shown to be beneficial for pregnant people and families. Nurse home visits, for example, were only offered by 10% of EHS programs, but have been shown to have long-term benefits for mothers, with an RCT showing that mothers who received nurse home visits used fewer public benefits and were more likely to be married than the control group (Olds et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]). This may be a place for EHS programs to provide more referrals, something programs in this study are already doing to resources such as social services (11%), doulas (30%), smoking cessation, pediatricians, childbirth classes, lactation consultants, and doctors for mothers (all of which were offered by more than 95% of programs). While Head Start program standards state that programs must offer services to pregnant people either through the program itself or by referrals (Administration for Children & Families, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>]), there is little known about whether one method is more beneficial for children and families or easier for programs.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-22">Differences in the Availability of Services Based on Program Approach</hd> <p>As was expected, on most individual services, counts of different types, and total number of services, EHS programs that only offered center-based services for children were lower than those offering either solely home-based or both types of service delivery. Home-based EHS services are intended to support parents and children together through child-level activities and support for parents, particularly around their child's development (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref56">11</reflink>]). Many of the services program directors were asked about providing to pregnant people fit naturally into the home visiting environment (e.g., information on how to prepare home for a new baby) and home-based EHS programs naturally have more staff in place or staff who are specifically trained to work with pregnant people. There may be roles in center-based EHS programs who could provide this type of support to this population as well, which is an area for researchers and programs to unpack further in the future. Because families who enroll in EHS during pregnancy then have a spot in a home- or center-based program for their infant (Administration for Children & Families, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]), families may seek a program during pregnancy that will then have availability in the service delivery option that they prefer for their infant. While center-based ECE is more common later in early childhood, it is still used by many families in the U.S. while their children are infants (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). An area of consideration for EHS programs and future research is how to align ways to best support families during pregnancy with their preferences for service delivery for their infant.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-23">Total Prenatal Service Availability and Toddlers' Socioemotional Outcomes</hd> <p>In this study, we found that there were no statistically significant robust associations between the total number of services available during pregnancy and socioemotional outcomes when the child was two years old. This indicates that it is likely not necessarily important to offer only large numbers of services to families who enroll in EHS prenatally, but rather it is the thoughtful combination of particular types of services that may provide benefits for different outcomes. Specifically, our findings identified the services captured by the comprehensive services measure as being potentially important for children's socioemotional development, particularly for those children in home-based EHS.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-24">Links Between Comprehensive Services and Child Development</hd> <p>One of the important aspects about the EHS program is that it is intentionally designed to be a comprehensive early childhood program—providing ECE for children as well as wraparound supports for parents and families (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]). As shown in the EHSREP data, families enrolled in EHS receive more comprehensive services when their child is two years old than control families, and experience benefits in terms of parent and child outcomes (Chazan-Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>]). Notably in this study, people who enrolled in EHS prenatally were not offered very many services that fell into the comprehensive services category, but we found associations between the availability of comprehensive services prenatally with children's emotional wellbeing when they were two years old. This shows that this is likely an important area for EHS programs to bolster the supports they are providing to pregnant people. Comprehensive service availability to pregnant people through EHS may be something to explore further in more contemporary data.</p> <p>In this study, there was a negative association between the availability of comprehensive services and children's problem behaviors at age two. Specifically, children whose mothers had more comprehensive services available during pregnancy had fewer problem behaviors, on average, approximately two years later. Within the subsample of children who attended home-based EHS at age one, there was also a positive association with socioemotional competence. The comprehensive services measure in this study included numerous items that provide positive supports to families (e.g., nutrition information, mental health services, referrals to social services) and may decrease familial stress. Given prior research showing relations between familial stress and children's problem behaviors, this may be a potential mechanism to explain the associations between prenatal comprehensive services and child outcomes when they were two years old (Masarik & Conger, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Neece et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]). Parenting stress was not considered as an outcome in the present study, but the role of parenting stress as a mechanism could be an area for further exploration.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-25">Home-Based Early Head Start Programs</hd> <p>In this study, both sets of findings—more prenatal services (especially comprehensive services) were offered to families whose children attended home-based EHS and links between prenatal services (especially comprehensive services) and toddler socioemotional outcomes were stronger in the home-based subsample—lend evidence to the unique role that home-based EHS can play in children's and families' lives, particularly when they enroll in the program prenatally. Two points to consider in relation to this are the nature of home-based EHS programs and the potentially easier transitions for families from prenatal participation in home visiting to children being enrolled in home-based EHS. The nature of home-based EHS is very two-generational, in that the program has more equally distributed goals around supports for parents and children, and home visitors are trained to work with both generations of the family (Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]). This may not be as feasible logistically in center-based programs where classroom staff are tasked with working mostly with children and family engagement staff mostly with parents. Given that prenatal participation in EHS is largely in the home-based program, many of the families in this study who chose to enroll their infant in home-based EHS may have been choosing to keep their baby in the same program (and potentially with the same home visitor) that they had participated in prenatally. While prior EHSREP research has considered why families may leave the home-based EHS program (Roggman et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref64">27</reflink>]), there is not literature considering transitions within the program, an area for future study.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-26">Limitations</hd> <p>While this study has strengths in that it utilizes national secondary data and models contained a multitude of child and family characteristics as covariates, the results should be considered in light of several limitations as well. Firstly, the data are observational in nature and methods do not allow for causal inference. While including the child and family characteristics listed above as covariates does control for some unexplained variance in outcomes, there does remain the potential for omitted variable bias from other, unobserved sources of influence on outcomes. While this study provides a first step in understanding associations between service availability for pregnant people and later child outcomes, experimental research is needed to determine the effects of offering these services.</p> <p>Additionally, the measure of availability of services to pregnant people is determined by EHS program directors' report of the services they typically offer to pregnant people enrolled in their programs. Regrettably, in these data there is not a measure of pregnant people's uptake of these services, so conclusions can only be drawn about the availability of services during pregnancy, not the receipt of them. A third limitation to consider is that children's socioemotional skills were not assessed via direct assessments, but rather ratings by EHS staff. However, previous research by Ponitz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]) found statistically significant correlations between teacher ratings and direct assessments of three- to six-year-olds' behavioral regulation abilities. It may be that in infancy and toddlerhood, non-direct assessments for children's socioemotional abilities may be more acceptable than at other, later ages when children have different and more refined abilities to tap into with direct assessments.</p> <p>Lastly, the Baby FACES data were gathered between 2009 and 2012, and while the availability of these particular services may have been beneficial to pregnant people and their families then, it cannot be ascertained if these same patterns would have been observed in people experiencing their pregnancies during and following COVID-19, when needs were heightened. Research across the world during COVID-19 showed that pregnant people had high rates of depression, anxiety about their and their families' health, and decreases in employment and income (Ahlers-Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]; Corbett et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]; Matsushima & Horiguchi, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]), all of which may indicate a need for more specific or intensive social service intervention than the more general services EHS offers.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-27">Implications</hd> <p>This study has implications for researchers' future work. Namely, our findings suggest that it is worthwhile to study the particular components of home-based EHS and unique services that may explain links between prenatal comprehensive services and toddler socioemotional skills. This could yield findings that inform investments in prenatal services. As a caution in the interpretation of the findings, this study is correlational and future quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trial research is needed to draw causal conclusions. Our findings suggest the importance of prenatal comprehensive services broadly on toddlers' socioemotional skills, but specific hypotheses about these services could be tested by randomly assigning families to receive, for example, an invitation to get together with other mothers or pregnant people with longitudinal measurement of child and family outcomes over time after the prenatal period.</p> <p>There are also implications for EHS programs and practice broadly. We found greater availability of prenatal comprehensive services in EHS home-based programs and stronger links between prenatal service availability and children's outcomes for those who were in home-based EHS at age one. It is likely that there are policies and practices inherent to the EHS home-based program that underlie these findings, and sharing this with center-based programs could be a way to boost supports and outcomes of children and families regardless of their EHS program's approach. All EHS programs may want to consider if and how they gather data on not only referrals and services they offer to families, but also families' receipt of these services. This provides a way for EHS programs to illustrate the extent of the reach of this work.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-28">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we aimed to describe the types of services that EHS programs offer to pregnant people, to identify if there were differences in the services programs offered based on program approach, and to assess associations between services available to pregnant people through EHS and their children's socioemotional skills when they were two years old. We found that many services were offered by nearly all EHS programs, particularly ongoing health care and health insurance and prenatal and postpartum information, education, and services. We found a consistent difference in that EHS programs that had a home-based component tended to offer more services than those that only offered a center-based option, particularly for comprehensive services. The total number of services available prenatally was not associated children's development, but there were associations between comprehensive service availability and children's socioemotional outcomes, particularly for those children who entered home-based EHS at age one.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-29">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank the families and educators who participated in the Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES).</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-30">Data Availability</hd> <p>The Baby FACES Spring 2009-Spring 2012 data (Vogel & Boller, 2009-2012) utilized in this study was made available with a restricted data license through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). For more information visit: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36074.v1.</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-31">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 44 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0191573909-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191573909-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Administration for Children and Families. (2006). Services and outcomes for Early Head Start families enrolled during pregnancy: Is there a magic window?https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/pregnancy2.pdf">www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/pregnancy2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Administration for Children and Families. (2018). Services to pregnant women and expectant families in Early Head Start.https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/no-search/service-to-pregnant-woman-families.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Hervey AM, Neil T, Kuhlmann S, Kuhlmann Z. Concerns of women regarding pregnancy and childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Education and Counseling. 2020; 103; 12: 2578-2582. 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bleiweis, R, Boesch, D, & Gaines, A. C. (2020). The basic facts about women in poverty. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-women-poverty/">www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-women-poverty/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref43" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Briggs-Gowan, M. J. & Carter, A. S. (2006). BITSEA: Brief infant-toddler social and emotional assessment. Examiner's manual. Harcourt Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cannon, J, Murphy, L, Bloomenthal, A, & Vogel, C. A. (2014). Baby FACES data users' guide (Mathematica Reference No. 06432.136). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS). <ulink href="http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgibin/file?comp=none&study=36074&ds=0&file%5fid=1195516&path=CCEERC">http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgibin/file?comp=none&study=36074&ds=0&file%5fid=1195516&path=CCEERC</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chazan-Cohen R, Raikes HH, Vogel C. V. Program subgroups: Patterns of impacts for home-based, center-based, and mixed-approach programs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2013; 78; 1: 93-109. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2012.00704.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chazan-Cohen R, Von Ende A, Lombardi C. Parenting and family self-sufficiency services contribute to impacts of Early Head Start for children and families. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023; 14: 1302687. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1302687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref67" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Corbett GA, Milne SJ, Hehir MP, Lindow SW, O'Connell MP. Health anxiety and behavioural changes of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2020; 249: 96-97. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center. (2020). About the Early Head Start program.https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/about-early-head-start-program</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Head Start Early Learning & Knowledge Center. (2021). Poverty guidelines and determining eligibility for participation in Head Start programs. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/eligibility-ersea/article/poverty-guidelines-determining-eligibility-participation-head-start-programs</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendrick D, Elkan R, Hewitt M, Dewey M, Blair M, Robinson J, Williams D, Brummell K. Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2000; 82; 6: 443-451. 10.1136/adc.82.6.443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little TD, Jorgensen TD, Lang KM, Moore EWG. On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2014; 39; 2: 151-162. 10.1093/jpepsy/jst048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love JM, Kisker EE, Ross C, Raikes H, Constantine J, Boller K, Brooks-Gunn J, Chazan-Cohen R, Tarullo LB, Brady-Smith C, Fuligni AS, Schochet PZ, Paulsell D, Vogel C. The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology. 2005; 41; 6: 885-901. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masarik AS, Conger RD. Stress and child development: A review of the family stress model. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017; 13: 85-90. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsushima M, Horiguchi H. The COVID-19 pandemic and mental well-being of pregnant women in Japan: Need for economic and social policy interventions. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2020. 10.1017/dmp.2020.334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michalopoulos, C, Faucetta, K, Hill, C. J, Portilla, X. A, Burrell, L, Lee, H, Duggan, A, & Knox, V. (2019). Impacts on family outcomes of evidence-based early childhood home visiting: Results from the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation. OPRE Report 2019–07. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Head Start Association. (2022). Confronting Head Start's workforce crisis.https://nhsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022.05-Workforce-Brief.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neece CL, Green SA, Baker BL. Parenting stress and child behavior problems: A transactional relationship across time. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2012; 117; 1: 48-66. 10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Head Start. (2020a). Early Head Start services snapshot: National 2020–2021.https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/no-search/service-snapshot-ehs-2020-2021.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Head Start. (2020b). Head Start programs.https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/head-start">www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/head-start</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of Head Start. (2021). Head Start history. https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/history-head-start">www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/history-head-start</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olds DL, Kitzman H, Anson E, Smith JA, Knudtson MD, Miller T, Cole R, Hopfer C, Conti G. Prenatal and infancy nurse home visiting effects on mothers: 18-Year follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2019; 144; 6: e20183889. 10.1542/peds.2018-3889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ponitz CEC, McClelland MM, Jewkes AM, Connor CM, Farris CL, Morrison FJ. Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2008; 23; 2: 141-158. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center. (2022). Early Head Start.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raikes HH, Roggman LA, Peterson CA, Brooks-Gunn J, Chazan-Cohen R, Zhang X, Schiffman RF. Theories of change and outcomes in home-based Early Head Start programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29; 4: 574-585. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roggman LA, Cook GA, Peterson CA, Raikes HH. Who drops out of Early Head Start home visiting programs?. Early Education and Development. 2008; 19; 4: 574-599. 10.1080/10409280701681870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saxbe D, Rossin-Slater M, Goldenberg D. The transition to parenthood as a critical window for adult health. American Psychologist. 2018; 73; 9: 1190-1200. 10.1037/amp0000376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> StataCorp. Stata 18 multiple-imputation reference manual. 2023; Stata Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Early childhood program participation: 2019 (NCES 2020–075REV), Table 1. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogel, C. A. & Boller, K. (2009-2012). Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) spring 2009–spring 2012. ICPSR36074-v1. Inter-University consortium for political and social research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36074.v12015-04-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogel C, Brooks-Gunn J, Martin A, Klute MM. III. Impacts of early head start participation on child and parent outcomes at ages 2, 3, and 5. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2013; 78; 1: 36-63. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2012.00702.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widaman KF. Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists: III. Missing data: What to do with or without them. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2006; 71; 3: 42-64. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00404.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Eleanor Fisk; Caitlin Lombardi; Kyle DeMeo Cook and Rachel Chazan-Cohen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref68"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1507342
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Early Head Start Prenatal Services and Toddlers' Socioemotional Skills: The Role of Program Approach
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eleanor+Fisk%22">Eleanor Fisk</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5165-2082">0000-0001-5165-2082</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caitlin+Lombardi%22">Caitlin Lombardi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kyle+DeMeo+Cook%22">Kyle DeMeo Cook</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+Chazan-Cohen%22">Rachel Chazan-Cohen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(2):893-903.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Programs%22">Federal Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Services%22">Social Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Intervention%22">Early Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pregnancy%22">Pregnancy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prenatal+Care%22">Prenatal Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Toddlers%22">Toddlers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Emotional+Learning%22">Social Emotional Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+Programs%22">Home Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care+Centers%22">Child Care Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Early+Head+Start%22">Early Head Start</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01892-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The prenatal period is an ideal time for interventions and social service programs to initiate supports for families, such as is done in many home visiting and two-generation programs, including Early Head Start (EHS). EHS works with pregnant people enrolled in the program to determine what their specific needs for services are, and then either provide the services or offer referrals to them in the community. However, there is incredible variability in what the specific services that programs offer are comprised of. This study explored (1) the availability of prenatal services EHS offers across home- and center-based program approaches; (2) associations between different types of prenatal services and children's socioemotional skills at age 2 among families enrolled in both program approaches; and (3) differences in these associations across subgroups of children who attended home- or center-based EHS at age one in light of prior research showing differences in EHS' effect on children's socioemotional skills across program approaches (Chazan-Cohen et al. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 78:93-109, 2013), using data from the Early Head Start Child and Family Experiences Study 2009-2012 (Baby FACES). We found that the availability of services differed based on program approach, and that the availability of comprehensive services in particular were linked with toddlers' socioemotional development, especially for those who attended home-based EHS at age one. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed, particularly in relation to the work being done to support expectant families in home-based Early Head Start programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1507342
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1507342
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01892-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 893
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Federal Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pregnancy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prenatal Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Toddlers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Emotional Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Home Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care Centers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Head Start
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Early Head Start Prenatal Services and Toddlers' Socioemotional Skills: The Role of Program Approach
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eleanor Fisk
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Caitlin Lombardi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kyle DeMeo Cook
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel Chazan-Cohen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1