Dialog, 22(1),  

Copyright © 2019,  

ISSN: 1930-9325 

 
 

 

Head Start and HIPPY Better Together: Examining Current 

Collaborations 

 

 

Amber L. Brown 

University of Houston Clear Lake 

 

 
The purpose of this project was to examine the blending of two research-supported early 

childhood programs, one delivered in the classroom - Head Start and one delivered by 

parents in the home – HIPPY. Head Start and HIPPY share the common goals of preparing 

children for kindergarten by closing the achievement gap and empowering parents as first 

and best teachers for their children. Data on current Head Start/HIPPY collaborations was 

collected through focus group interviews with home visitors, teachers, parents, and 

administrators. Themes discovered through qualitative analysis included: (a) the 

recognition of home visiting as a way to provide services to more families; (b) the ability 

to provide additional services to children and families; (c) increased communication 

between all parties involved in the collaboration; better perceived outcomes for both the 

children and the parents; (d) the difficulty of including all the requirements of both 

programs in their work with families; (e) difficulties around assessment; and (f) the lack of 

time among home visitors to serve families, plan, and train. Major recommendations for 

future programs were to plan for the collaboration of services during the grant writing 

stage, partner with school districts in order to track the long-term outcomes for children, 

and the most frequent recommendation was to adjust case-loads to reflect the additional 

work required of program staff in order to meet each programs’ requirements in the 

collaboration.  

 

Keywords: Head Start; HIPPY; Home Visiting; Family Involvement 

 

 

The purpose of this project was to investigate potential models of formal collaborations between 

two proven early childhood programs, one delivered in the classroom (Head Start) and one 

delivered by parents in the home (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters – HIPPY).  

Head Start and HIPPY share the common goals of preparing children for kindergarten by closing 

the achievement gap and empowering parents as first and best teachers for their children. With the 

current economic conditions, non-profits and community organizations are struggling to maintain 

funding. To ensure that the limited funding available for early childhood is used efficiently, it 

would seem to be in the best interest of programs serving the same population to pool resources. 

With common goals, philosophies, and populations - Head Start and HIPPY are ideally positioned 

to collaborate with each other. With their combined unique strengths, these programs may be able 

to maximize their ability to serve families, providing more comprehensive support. While several 

informal collaborations exist throughout the country, there is not a set of formal guidelines for 

RESEARCH ARTICLE 



28      BROWN 

 

Head Start and HIPPY programs who wish to establish a formal collaboration. This paper includes 

the results of an investigation into three Head Start programs that operate in collaboration with 

HIPPY. The purpose was to gather information about three current Head Start and HIPPY 

collaborations. This study was guided by the following research questions: 

 

(1) What models for collaboration are currently used in Head Start/HIPPY collaborations? 

(2) What were the motivations behind the current Head Start/HIPPY Collaborations? 

(3) What are the perceived benefits of Head Start/HIPPY Collaborations as expressed by 

administrators, staff, and parents?  

(4) What are the perceived challenges of Head Start/HIPPY Collaborations as expressed by 

administrators, staff, and parents?  

(5) What are the recommendations for future Head Start/HIPPY Collaborations as expressed 

by administrators, staff, and parents? 

 

 

Why Collaborate? 
 

Children living in poverty are often more likely to be at risk for developmental problems due to 

factors within the home environment such as parenting skills, quality of parent-child interactions, 

lack of educational resources, or learning opportunities. Many low-income parents may not have 

access to information about the necessary skills or resources to adequately stimulate cognitive 

development and prepare their children for school (Wagner, Spiker, & Linn, 2002; Wilson-

Simmons, Jiang, & Aratani, 2017). As a result, children from families of lower socioeconomic 

status (SES) may begin school without the necessary skills for academic achievement and are 

particularly at risk for reading difficulties. For example, while 45% of children from middle to 

upper SES families may demonstrate three or more signs of emergent literacy, only 19% of low 

SES children show similar signs (Heath, et al., 2014). Findings have been well documented in 

existing literature that these children may enter school with significant delays in a broad range of 

development (Dickinson & McCabe, 2001; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Moon & Lee, 2009). 

More critically, the lack or poor development of these skills relate to later difficulties in school 

performance (Claessens, Duncan, & Engel, 2009; O’Conner, Harty, Fulmer, 2005; Shaywitz, 

Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008).  

A growing body of research indicates that when parents and families are involved with 

their child’s education, the child has better grades and performs better on standardized tests 

(Cheung & Pomerantz, 2011; Fan & Chen, 2001; Foiland, Peterson, & Davidson, 2013). 

Additionally, increased family involvement is linked to improved student motivation, higher 

academic self-confidence, and improved self-regulatory skills (Cheung & Pomerantz; Gonzalez-

DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005).  

Traditionally referred to as parental involvement, family engagement describes the process 

of building genuine relationships with families. It is now recognized as essential to a child’s health 

and well-being as well as their school readiness and long-term academic success. However, the 

concept of family engagement goes beyond the traditional idea that it is the parent’s or family’s 

responsibility to be involved in their child’s education, but that it is also the responsibility of the 

entire education system to engage families as partners in children’s education.  

Even with this focus on the importance of family engagement, the center-based Head Start 

program only requires two home visits per academic year- one of which must occur before the 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      29 

 

program year begins (Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, n.d). 

However, the Head Start Regulations do not specify the purpose or content of these home visits. 

In or to implement family engagement more systematically, some Head Start programs have 

recently collaborated with the Home Instruction for Parents with Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 

program. HIPPY is a free, three-year program to help parents of pre-school aged children with 

limited formal education and lower family incomes.  

 

 

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 
 

Overview of Head Start Program 
 

The Head Start program is a comprehensive early childhood program designed to help break the 

cycle of poverty by providing children of low-income families with services to meet their 

emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs. (Office of Head Start, n.d.; Garces, 

Thomas, & Currie, 2002; Smolensky & Gootman, 2003). At the time of its inception, Head Start 

was unique in its approach to supporting the whole child rather than just focusing on classroom 

learning (Garces, Thomas, Currie). While the focus of the Head Start program has evolved over 

the years, the primary goal continues to be to better prepare children from low-income families to 

be both developmentally and cognitively ready for school.  

 

Overview of Head Start Learning Outcomes Framework.       The Head Start program 

employs the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework (HSELOF) to represent the five 

broad areas of early learning for young children. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2015). For 3 to 5-year-olds, these five areas are further broken into seven learning domains that 

reflect research-based expectations for the learning and development of young children. The 

HSELOF emphasizes the key skills, behaviors, and knowledge that programs must foster in 

children ages birth to 5 to help them be successful in school and life. The central domains are 

Approaches to Learning; Social and Emotional Development; Language and Literacy; Literacy; 

Mathematics Development; Scientific Reasoning; and Perceptual, Motor, and Physical 

Development. Each domain is related to and influences the others. For example, as preschoolers’ 

working memory develops (a component of Approaches to Learning), their ability to follow 

multiple-step instructions improves, and their ability to learn complex math concepts increases 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). 

Each local Head Start program uses the HSELOF to guide their choices about curriculum, learning 

materials, daily activities, and teaching practices. By aligning instructional choices such as 

opportunities for play, exploration, discovery, and problem-solving with the HSELOF, Head Start 

programs can promote successful learning for children (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2015).  

 

Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework.       Family 

engagement also plays a critical role in children’s development and school readiness (Dearing, 

Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006; Fantuzzo, McWayne, & Perru, 2004; Weiss, Caspe, & Lopez, 

2006; Raikes, et.al., 2006). The Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) 

Framework Family Engagement Outcomes is a research-based approach that illustrates how Head 

Start programs can work together as whole to promote family engagement (U.S. Department of 



30      BROWN 

 

Health and Humans Services, 2011). It was designed to help Head Start programs achieve 

outcomes that lead to positive and enduring difference for children and families. The PFCE 

Framework was developed in partnership with programs, families, experts, and the National Center 

on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement. It is a research-based approach to program 

change that shows how an agency can work together as a whole—across systems and service 

areas—to promote parent and family engagement and children’s learning and development (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services).  The PFCE Framework is designed to support child 

development and school readiness within the context of their family. Programs are encouraged to 

individualize their family engagement efforts based on the culture, language and different parent 

strengths challenges, and perspectives (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).  

The PFCE Framework focuses on seven key areas: 1) family well-being, 2) positive parent-

child relationships, 3) families as lifelong educators, 4) families as learners, 5) family engagement 

in transitions, 6) family connections to peers and community, and 7) families as advocates and 

leaders (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). For each of these key areas, 

examples of strategies that can promote a successful outcome are given for both the program 

administration/staff level and the family level. 

 

Outcomes of Head Start Participation.       There has been extensive research over the 

past several decades documenting the effectiveness of Head Start for children who lack the same 

educational opportunities as children from middle and upper-class families. Children who 

participated in Head Start as preschoolers show significantly better language and cognitive 

development than demographically similar children who did not attend Head Start (Aikens et al., 

2013; Love et al., 2002; U.S. Departments of Health and Human Service, 2010). In addition to 

cognitive benefits, at the end of program participation, Head Start children score better on social-

emotional development, have better social skills and impulse control, and exhibit fewer problem 

behaviors such as aggression and hyperactivity (Aikens, Klein, Tarullo, & West, 2013; Love et. 

al., 2002; U.S. Departments of Health and Human Service). While there are some studies that 

question the benefits of Head Start beyond the early childhood years, other studies have found that 

former Head Start children had higher attendance rated in elementary school (Connolly & Olsen, 

2012); continued to have higher scores on tests of academic and executive functioning through 

fifth grade (Greenberg & Domitrovich, 2011); and are less likely to be held back a year by eighth 

grade (Phillips, Gormley, & Anderson, 2016). 

The benefits of Head Start participation are even evident through adulthood. Garces, 

Thomas, and Currie (2002) used data from the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics to review 

outcomes for close to 4,000 adults followed from childhood. Among European–Americans, adults 

who had attended Head Start were significantly more likely to complete high school, attend 

college, and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties than their nonparticipant siblings. 

African American adults who had attended Head Start were significantly less likely to be booked 

or charged with a crime than were their nonparticipant siblings. Other studies document that as 

adults, Head Start graduates are more likely than non-Head Start graduates to graduate high school, 

attend at least one year of college, are less likely to be unemployed, report higher wages, and are 

less likely to be in poor health (Bauer & Schanzenbach, 2016; Deming, 2009; Johnson; 2010). 

 

  

 

 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      31 

 

Overview of the HIPPY Program  
 

HIPPY is a free, early intervention program for parents of 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children Developed 

in Israel and brought to the United States in 1984, HIPPY now operates 128 communities in 20 

states and the District of Columbia as well as ten other countries internationally. HIPPY is intended 

to provide educational enrichment to at-risk children from low SES and immigrant families by 

training parents to prepare their children to be ready for school. The major purpose of HIPPY is to 

increase children’s school readiness by empowering parents to be active in their children’s 

education and by providing home instruction. The HIPPY program includes three key components: 

the HIPPY curriculum, individual home visits for parents with a peer mentor, and monthly group 

meetings for parents (HIPPY USA, n.d.-a). 

 

HIPPY Curriculum.       HIPPY uses developmentally appropriate curriculum originally 

created in 1969 by the Research Institute of Innovation of the National Council of Jewish Women 

(NCJW) at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel (HIPPY USA, n.d.-b). The curriculum is well 

structured and provides systematic parental supports so that parents may facilitate their children’s 

learning at home. The goal of the curriculum is for parents to become the facilitator of the learning 

process with their child and gain confidence in their ability to be their child's first teacher. The 

HIPPY curriculum consists of 30 weekly packets (15 packets for 5-year-old), written in a clear 

scripted format. Families also receive nine storybooks, a set of 20 manipulative shapes, and a kit 

of basic supplies such as scissors and crayons. Each daily activity is designed with simple 

directions for parents to ensure a successful learning experience for the parent and child and 

includes tips for parents to extend the learning to all parts of their daily life. Each lesson in the 

curriculum is primarily cognitive-based, focusing on language development, problem-solving, 

logical thinking, and perceptual skills. Learning and play mingle throughout HIPPY's curriculum 

(HIPPY USA, n.d.-b).  

 

Home Visits.      The HIPPY program is delivered in the family’s home by home visitors 

who are members of the participating communities and are often former parents of the program. 

They visit participating parents in their homes weekly or biweekly to instruct them in using the 

HIPPY educational materials. Home visitors are crucial to the HIPPY model. Their knowledge of 

their unique communities allows them to develop trusting relationships with the families and, by 

using the HIPPY materials with their own children, home visitors identify with the kinds of 

challenges parents face. 

The primary mode of instruction during each home visit is Role Play. Role Play provides 

opportunities for parents and home visitors to discuss the purpose of the activities and allows for 

reflection on the specific needs of learners (both the parent and the child). Most of all, Role Play 

allows for the development of new teaching skills. The goal of the Role Play method of instruction 

is to promote a comfortable, non-threatening learning environment in which there is always room 

for mistakes (HIPPY USA, n.d.-e). Additionally, role-playing supports parental empathy for the 

developmental capabilities of young children. Finally, the Role Play method of instruction is easily 

managed by the peer mentors conducting each home visit and allows for parents with limited 

reading ability an opportunity to become effective first teachers of their children. The home visitor 

utilizes the role play method to instruct parents on how to complete the week’s activities with their 

children - then parents, in turn, repeat the activities with their children during the week (HIPPY 

USA, n.d.-e). In a typical session, the home visitor spends 45 minutes to an hour role-playing the 



32      BROWN 

 

HIPPY curriculum with the parent, giving the parent the opportunity to ask questions and to feel 

confident in their ability to work with their child. Parents are encouraged to spend 15 to 20 minutes 

with their child working together on specific, curriculum-oriented lessons every day. Before 

presenting a new lesson, every week the peer mentor follows up with each parent by reviewing the 

child's workbook and discussing the child's progress. 

 

Monthly Group Parent Meetings.       Parents also receive information and support in 

their role as their child’s first teacher during group meetings and field trips (HIPPY USA, n.d.-d). 

Parents are strongly encouraged to attend monthly group meetings where they share their 

experiences with other parents and engage in enrichment activities involving issues related to 

parenting, employment, school/community/social services, and personal growth. Parents chose the 

group meeting topics that help them learn how to be more effective parents and members of the 

community. Childcare is provided during the group meetings where the children have the 

opportunity to interact socially with peers while their parents can interact with other parents.  

 
Outcomes of HIPPY Participation.      There is a great deal of evidence documenting the 

positive effects of HIPPY on students’ school readiness at kindergarten entry.  The very first major 

experimental study conducted in the U.S. and funded primarily by the U.S. Department of 

Education found that HIPPY students outperformed those in the comparison group at kindergarten 

entry on objective measures of school performance and teacher ratings of their motivation and 

adaptation to the classroom. HIPPY students also had higher attendance rates, scored higher on 

standardized achievement tests, and were perceived by their teachers as well-performing students 

(Baker, Piotrkowski, Brooks-Gunn, 1999).  More recently, studies have shown that HIPPY 

children perform better on measures of school performance such as reading ability, language 

learning, social development, classroom adaptability, and mathematics skills than non-participants 

(Barnett, Roost, & McEachran, 2012; Brown & Johnson, 2014; Johnson, Martinez-Cantu, 

Jacobson, & Weir, 2012; Lopez & Bernstein, 2016). Other studies have shown that HIPPY 

students had better attendance, more social skills, fewer behavior referrals, fewer suspensions, and 

higher standardized test scores when compared to students from similar socio-economic 

backgrounds (Bradley & Gilkey, 2003; Brown & Lee, 2014; Klein, Weiss, & Gomby, 2001).  

Research also indicates that HIPPY participation supports children by enhancing their 

home literacy environment, the quality of parent-child verbal interaction, and parents’ ability to 

help their children learn (Brown & Johnson, 2014; Jacobson, 2003; Roundtree, 2003). In addition, 

parents participating in HIPPY had significantly increased confidence in their role as their child's 

first teacher between the start and end of HIPPY program participation (Barnett, Roost, 

& McEachran, 2012). HIPPY participation also increases parent and family involvement in their 

child’s education. BarHava-Monteith, Harre, and Field (2003) found that HIPPY parents in New 

Zealand were significantly more involved than comparison caregivers in educational activities. 

These activities included things like helping with field trips, serving on school committees, and 

serving as teachers’ aids. HIPPY parents were also significantly more likely to be involved in an 

adult education class. 

 

 

 

 

 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      33 

 

Theoretical Foundation of Head Start and HIPPY Collaboration 
 

In addition to serving as an early education program, HIPPY incorporates features of family 

support programs. HIPPY is based on an ecological approach that recognizes children’s 

development as powerfully influenced by the families, communities, and societies in which they 

live (Westheimer, 2003). HIPPY, therefore, aims to create greater continuity between home and 

school by enhancing children’s home learning environments. Research has found that programs 

that are mostly home-based were three times more likely to target parenting than child outcomes 

as desired outcomes, whereas center-based programs like Head Start were equally likely to focus 

on child and parenting outcomes (Raikes, et al., 2006). Readiness for school is a consequence of 

cognitive, physical, emotion, and social developmental change in children.  Parents contribute to 

school readiness through their interactions with their children as well as early interventions such 

as those provided by HIPPY and Head Start.  

Home instructors instruct parents through role-playing developmentally appropriate, 

cognitive-based, hands-on lessons (Piaget, 1952) which parents then carry out with their preschool 

children to teach early literacy and cognitive skills important for school readiness.  This process 

fosters cognitive development and preparation for the culture of school through scaffolding 

learning as well as direct teaching (Berk, 2013). Head Start also follows a cognitive theory of early 

childhood development through hands-on and interactive discovery processes in classrooms. The 

curriculum of both programs fosters social/emotional and physical (fine and gross motor skills) 

development. The interactive learning environment in both HIPPY and Head Start supports 

children's growth in (a) language and literacy, (b) cognition and general knowledge, (c) physical 

development and health, (d) social and emotional development, (d) approaches to learning (Piaget, 

1936/1952). Children are helped directly to adjust to the mental and social culture of school 

through their classroom experience as well as indirectly through HIPPY and Head Start 

involvement of parents.  Home visitors support families in their role as their child’s first teacher 

and emphasize that appropriate interactions between parents and children can strengthen the 

parent-child relationship and support emotional and social development necessary for academic 

success in the early years. HIPPY also supports a sense of parental self-efficacy (Ardelt & Eccles, 

2001; Barnett, Roost, McEachran, 2012; Nievar, Jacobson, Chen, Johnson, & Dier, 2011) as well 

as helps parents develop their social capital by teaching them to communicate and be advocates 

for their children in the school setting (Caldera, Burrell, Rodriguez, Crowne, Rohde, & Duggan, 

2007). Head Start also emphasizes the role of parents as their child’s first and most important 

teacher and builds relationships with families that support family well-being and positive parent-

child relationships (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children 

and Families Office of Head Start, 2011). Families are supported as advocates for their children in 

both programs. Head Start programs provide comprehensive services to enrolled children and their 

families, which include health, nutrition, social services and other services determined to be 

necessary by family needs assessments, in addition to education and cognitive development 

services.  HIPPY parents are assisted in connecting to the community for needed services as well. 

 

 

How do Head Start and HIPPY Fit Together? 
 

Head Start programs promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development 

of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200611000044#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200611000044#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200611000044#!


34      BROWN 

 

enrolled children and families. They engage parents in their children's learning and help them in 

making progress toward parents’ educational, literacy and employment goals. Significant 

emphasis is placed on the involvement of parents in the administration of local Head Start 

programs. Similarly, the purpose of the HIPPY program is to support parents as their child’s first 

teacher in order to increase school readiness. This is done with a structured curriculum that is 

delivered to the children by their parent.  

The purpose of the home visit in both the Head Start and HIPPY programs is to help parents 

improve their parenting skills and to assist them in the use of the home as the child’s primary 

learning environment. The home visitor works with parents to help them provide learning 

opportunities that enhance their child’s growth and development.   

 

Blending the Head Start and HIPPY Learning Domains.      Like the HSELOF, the 

HIPPY Curriculum is also arranged in domains of learning. Each week of the HIPPY Curriculum 

includes activities that cover the domains of Literacy, Math, Science, Motor, and Language. 

Integrated throughout these five learning domains are activities that promote social and emotional 

development, creativity, and fine motor development (HIPPY USA, n.d.-b). One area of specific 

importance to future academic success is literacy and language development. Table 1 outlines the 

overlap of the HSELOF and the HIPPY Literacy and Language domains.  

 

 

TABLE 1 
Head Start and HIPPY Literacy Domain Overlap  

Head Start Learning Outcomes 

Language and Communication & Literacy 

HIPPY 

Literacy and Language Domains 

Attending and understanding 
Listening Skills 

Story Comprehension 

Communicating and Speaking 

Receptive Language 

Expressive Language 

Verbal Expression 

Vocabulary Vocabulary Development 

Phonological Awareness 
Phonemic/Phonological Awareness 

Auditory Discrimination 

Print and Alphabet Knowledge 

Print Concepts 

Letter Knowledge 

Picture Reading 

Letter Recognition 

Visual Discrimination 

Comprehension and Text Structure 

Story Retell 

Story Recall 

Book Knowledge 

Story Sequencing 

Writing 

Fine Motor Control 

Pincer Grip 

Eye-hand Coordination 

Early Writing Experiences 

 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      35 

 

 The purpose of HIPPY is to empower parents and enable them to be the primary educators 

of their children. The program fosters parental involvement on the levels of family, school, and 

community to maximize chances of successful early school experiences. HIPPY’s focus on parents 

aligns with the PFCE Framework and can play an integral part in supporting a Head Start program 

(see Table 2 below). 

 

TABLE 2 
Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework Family 

Engagement Outcomes aligned with HIPPY Parent Involvement Components 

  

PFCE Framework Components HIPPY Program Parent Components 

Family Well-Being - Parents and families 

are safe, healthy, and have increased 

financial security. 

 Home visitors frequently share 

information about community resources. As trust 

grows and families begin to reach out, referrals 

are often made to other agencies and programs.  

 Parents are encouraged to attend partner 

school engagement activities (Family Nights, 

etc.). 

Positive Parent-Child Relationships -  

Beginning with transitions to parenthood, 

parents and families develop warm 

relationships that nurture their child’s 

learning and development. 

 The HIPPY Curriculum provides an 

opportunity for developing trust through 

curriculum games and activities where child and 

parent share opinions and express their own ideas. 

 Parent-Child relationship is strengthened 

through habitually doing the HIPPY activities and 

reading books on a regular schedule.  

Families as Lifelong Educators - Parents 

and families observe, guide, promote, and 

participate in the everyday learning of 

their children at home, school, and in their 

communities. 

 The HIPPY curriculum encourages 

families to learn together through 

experimentation, inquiry, observation, and play.  

 During the monthly group meetings, 

parents engage in enrichment activities related to 

parenting, employment, school/community/social 

services, and personal growth.  

Families as Learners - Parents and 

families advance their own learning 

interests through education, training, and 

other experiences that support their 

parenting, careers, and life goals. 

 The role-play instructional method 

involves the parent in age-appropriate activities 

with their child; thereby assisting them in 

understanding child development. 

 Parents have the opportunity to practice 

the activities with their child while getting 

constructive feedback from their home visitor.  



36      BROWN 

 

TABLE 2 (Cont’d) 

 

 

Examples of Collaboration Models 
 

Head Start Home-Based with HIPPY.      One model of blending the HIPPY and Head 

Start program is through the Head Start-Home Visiting program or the home-based option of Head 

Start. In this Head Start model, home visitors go to the family's home once a week and work with 

both the parents and their children. In addition to the home visits, children, parents, and their home 

visitor get together on a monthly basis for group Socializations. In this type of collaboration, 

HIPPY then becomes the curriculum for the home visit. The HIPPY curriculum offers 30 weeks 

of activities, but the Head Start Home-Based Option requires 32 home visits. Typically an 

additional home visit is added to the beginning and the end of the program year to meet this 

requirement. Each home visit lasts a minimum of 90 minutes (rather than just 60 minutes with 

HIPPY alone). Each home visit in the Head Start Home-Based with HIPPY collaboration model 

consists of the following: a) The home-visitor works directly with the parent on the weekly HIPPY 

curriculum activities using the traditional role-playing method; b) the home visitor also works 

directly with the child on using activities designed to supplement the weekly HIPPY curriculum 

and meet the child’s individual learning goals; and c) the home visitor observes the parent 

interacting with the child. 

In addition to the weekly home visits, both HIPPY and the Head Start Home-Based Option 

include group meetings (or Socializations as they are referred to in the Head Start regulations) with 

Family Engagement in Transitions - 
Parents and families support and advocate 

for their child’s learning and 

development as they transition to new 

learning environments, including 

EHS to HS, EHS/HS to other early 

learning environments, and HS to 

kindergarten through elementary school. 

 Planning for routines and transitions 

through engaging in activities that build on 

parents’ and children’s self-confidence and 

positive self-image.  

 Families are encouraged to attend Back-

to-School activities at partner schools.  

Family Connections to Peers and 

Community - Parents and families form 

connections with peers and mentors in 

formal or informal social networks that 

are supportive and/or educational and that 

enhance social well-being and community 

life. 

 HIPPY home visitors are members of the 

target population and/or reasonably reflect the 

ethnic and cultural characteristics of the program 

families.  

 Group meetings allow parents to come 

together and share their experiences as parents.  

Families as Advocates and Leaders - 

Parents and families participate in 

leadership development, decision- 

making, program policy development, or 

in community and state organizing 

activities to improve children’s 

development and learning experiences.  

 Group meetings provide parents with 

enrichment activities (topics are selected by the 

parents), training and knowledge that will allow 

parents to be more effective as parents and as 

members of the community, more self-assured 

and more self-reliant. 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      37 

 

a focus on providing support and enrichment both for parents and children. While HIPPY only 

requires 15 group meetings per program year, the Head Start Home-Based Option requires a 

monthly parent meeting plus two Socializations events per month. These group Socializations are 

focused both on the parents and the children. The purpose of the Socializations experience is to 

support child development by strengthening the parent-child relationship, as well as to provide 

peer interactions for the child and parents alike. The content includes helping parents to understand 

child development better and encourages parents to share with one another. Socializations provide 

opportunities for children to engage with other children while being supported by their parents and 

the home visitor. Families have the time to be together to learn from each other and engage socially 

with other parents. 

As with a center-based Head Start program, children and families who participate in the 

Head Start Home-Based with HIPPY collaboration receive comprehensive services designed to 

provide early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support 

services that will enhance the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development of children. 

These services may include health screenings and immunizations for children as well as referrals 

to mental health services, social services, and continuing education for parents.  

  

HIPPY and Head Start Center-Based Option.      Another option for Head Start 

programs to collaborate with the HIPPY program is for HIPPY to serve as the home visiting and 

parent-teacher conference component of a center-based Head Start program. Home visits are 

valuable in building respectful relationships with parents and in developing a broad understanding 

of every child in the program. A minimum of two home visits and two parent-teacher conferences 

will be conducted in the family's home language or using the services of an interpreter. In addition 

to the required home visits and parent-teacher conferences, the Head Start Performance Standards 

require centers to provide parents with opportunities to volunteer. The parent involvement 

component of the HIPPY program fulfills both of these requirements by providing a curriculum 

and structure for the home visits and parent conferences as well as opportunities for parents to 

volunteer with the guidance and support of their HIPPY Home-Visitor. In addition, family 

participation in the HIPPY program fulfills the parent involvement component of the PFCE 

Framework - as required by the Head Start regulations. 

 

Dual Enrollment Option.      Often children are enrolled in both the Head Start and HIPPY 

programs simultaneously with each program running side-by-side with varying degrees of overlap 

in services. The collaboration between the two programs can include access services not typically 

included in the HIPPY program such as well-child check-ups, dental care, and vision care for 

children as well as GED courses and social service referrals for parents/guardians. The 

collaboration between programs can also include communication between the HIPPY Home-

Visitors and the Head Start teachers and administrators. This level of communication facilitates 

the support and nurture of the whole child - both at the Head Start Center and at home. As with 

the other collaboration models, family participation in the HIPPY program fulfills the parent 

involvement component of the PFCE Framework. 

 

 

 

 

 



38      BROWN 

 

METHODS 
 

Research Design 
 

This study used a qualitative descriptive research design. A multiple case study will be used to 

offer multiple perspectives on this topic. The goal of qualitative descriptive studies is to provide a 

comprehensive summary of specific events experienced by individuals or groups (Sandelowski, 

2000). In this study, the event in question was the Head Start/HIPPY Collaborations at each of the 

three participating sites. Qualitative descriptive studies strive to discover the “who, what, and 

where of events or experiences” (Sandelowski, pp. 338). The qualitative descriptive study is the 

method of choice when straight descriptions of phenomena are desired (Sandelowski). 

 

 

Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration Sites 
 

Three sites were chosen for this study. Each of the sites currently engages in some type of 

collaboration between the Head Start program and the HIPPY program. The sites were 

recommended for participation in this investigation by the director of HIPPY USA. The researcher 

contacted the director of each site to solicit their participation in the study.  

 

Site 1.      This Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration site is an exurban community located in 

the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan area. As of the 2010 United States Census, 

there were 88,737 people, 30,873 households, and 23,732 families residing in the county. The 

racial makeup of the county was 81.4% white, 13.4% Black or African American, 2.7% Hispanic 

or Latino, 1.4% Asian, 0.4% American Indian, 0.7% from other races, and 2.7% from two or more 

races. The county consisted of 30,873 households of which 40.4% had children under the age of 

18. About 2.8% of families and 4.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 

5.3% of those under age 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, n. d.). 

The Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration is administered by the county public school system. 

At the time of this study, the collaboration provided services to 36 three-year-old children and 136 

four-year-old children. Services to three-year-olds were provided using the Head Start Home-

Based option with HIPPY serving as the curriculum and service model. A center-based model was 

used to service four-year-old children. The current Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration began as an 

effort to save the Head Start program for three-year-old children in the county. The previous Head 

Start program was administered by another agency. When the grant came up for renewal, the 

previous grantee did not wish to continue, and the public school system was encouraged to apply. 

However, in the grant writing process it became clear that the public school did not want the 

additional responsibility of bussing three-year-olds, so the decision was made to use the Head Start 

Home-Based option with HIPPY as the curriculum for three-year-olds. Children who participate 

in the HIPPY three-year-old program are then guaranteed a place in the center-based Head Start 

program at age four. At the time of the grant proposal, the HIPPY program was also administered 

by the public school, and the HIPPY Coordinator was asked to also oversee the Head Start 

program.  Rather than discontinue the HIPPY program in favor of Head Start, the decision was 

made to save both HIPPY and three-year-old Head Start by using HIPPY as the curriculum for the 

Head Start Home-Based Option. The director of the program stated, “We saw the value of home 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      39 

 

visiting and one-on-one parent/child interaction. So we wanted to make sure that we [found] a 

place for HIPPY so it wouldn't disappear from our community.”  

 

Site 2.       This Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration is located in a rural, mostly agricultural, 

county in the Midwest along the Mississippi River Delta. As of the 2010 census, there were 46,480 

people residing in the county. The county includes 61.6% White, 34% Black, 3.6% Hispanic or 

Latino, .03% Native American, 0.5% Asian, 0.1% from some other race, and 1.2% from two or 

more races (U. S. Census Bureau, n. d.). The county is a high area of poverty with 8.8% of the 

population in under 5-years old with 44% of the children under age of five reported as living in 

poverty 44% (U. S. Census Bureau).   

The Head Start Program and HIPPY programs are both administered by a county agency 

that has been responsible for coordinating anti-poverty efforts in this county since 1964. The 

agency presently coordinates and manages 43 programs in the areas of community programs, 

education, housing, and childcare. The agency began administering the Head Start Program in the 

county in 1965. In 2010, the agency was awarded a grant to operate the HIPPY program for the 

county.  

Since both the HIPPY and Head Start Programs serve the same population of families in 

the county, at the time of this study there were currently 35 families in the county that participated 

in both programs – exemplifying the Duel Enrollment Model of collaboration. Only about 20% of 

the families enrolled in HIPPY have children who are not enrolled in Head Start. Information about 

the percentage of Head Start families who are enrolled not enrolled in HIPPY was not provided by 

the program administrators. While the programs technically run independent of one another, the 

fact that they are administered by the same agency and operate out of the same building provides 

a level of coordination and communication not always present in separate programs.  

 

Site 3.        The third Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration investigated for this study is located 

in a large, urban city in the Mountain West region of the United States. The city has a population 

of almost 3 million people and is the largest city in a 500-mile radius. According to the 2010 

census, the racial makeup of the city is 68.9% White, 10.2% Black or African American, 1.4% 

American Indian, 3.4% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 9.2% other race, and 4.1% two or more races. 

31.8% of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race, giving the city one of the highest 

populations of Hispanics or Latinos in the U.S. (U. S. Census Bureau). There are 250,906 

households, of which 23.2% have children under the age of 18 living with them. 19.1% of the 

population and 14.6% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 25.3% of 

those under the age of 18 live below the poverty line (U. S. Census Bureau). 

The Head Start/HIPPY Collaboration in the city is operated by a non-profit organization 

with a century-long history of advancing early education in the area for families with limited 

opportunities. The organization began blending the HIPPY and Head Start programs over 30 years 

ago. Originally the organization was delegated by the city to run the HIPPY program. When the 

organization wrote the grant to provide the Head Start program to the community – it was decided 

that HIPPY would be a perfect fit as the curriculum for the Head Start Home-Based Option. 

Currently, the organization offers three Head Start program options for families of three and four-

year-olds: Full-day Center-Based; Half-Day Center-Based, and the Home-Based Option with 

HIPPY as the curriculum. At the time of this study, there were 72 families enrolled in the Home-

Based Option with HIPPY.   

 



40      BROWN 

 

Data Collection 
 

Data for this study were collected through focus groups and interviews at three existing Head 

Start/HIPPY collaborative sites to garner the programmatic, implementation and logistical details 

of how local communities have already blended HIPPY into the Head Start model. Data collection 

in a qualitative descriptive design typically includes minimally to moderately structured, open-

ended individual and/or focus group interviews. Focus groups can usefully be viewed as the 

qualitative counterpart to the quantitative survey, in that they are typically used in qualitative 

research to obtain a broad range of information about events (Sandelowski, 2000). The staff at the 

HIPPY USA national office provided information about existing Head Start/HIPPY 

collaborations. Also, initial contact and introduction of the researcher to the program site directors 

was made by staff at HIPPY USA.  

The first step of data collection involved focus groups at each of the Head Start/HIPPY 

Collaboration sites. The goal of the focus groups was to identify the variety of ways in which the 

Head Start and HIPPY programs can be integrated at the practical level. The focus groups consisted 

of program administrators, home visitors and former and current parents (who are not current or 

former staff) from each existing Head Start/HIPPY collaborative sites. The focus groups provided 

insight into the decision-making process that led the Head Start agency to adopt the HIPPY model; 

the strategies used to blend the two programs; the perceived benefits of the collaboration; and, the 

challenges faced by blending the programs (see Appendix A for the Focus Group Protocol). The 

second step of data collection was an interview with the program administrator to gather 

information about the demographic makeup of the area, the agency/organization administering the 

program(s), and the history of the collaboration (see Appendix B for the Director Interview 

Questions).  

A total of five focus groups and three Director Interviews were conducted. Two focus 

groups were held at Site 1. One consisted of five HIPPY Home-Visitors and one program 

administrator. The second consisted of six current and former HIPPY parents (including two 

grandparents) plus the program administrator. At Site 2 only one focus group was held. It consisted 

of five HIPPY home visitors, two current parents who participate in both the HIPPY and Head 

Start programs, the HIPPY program administrator and two Head Start program administrators. 

Two focus groups were held at Site 3. The first focus group consisted of four Head Start/HIPPY 

home visitors and one Head Start Teacher. The second focus group consisted of seven current and 

former Head Start Home-Based with HIPPY parents (including one grandparent).  

The program administrators at each site chose the participants of each focus group. Ideally, 

all three sites would have a separate focus group for parents and program administrators and staff; 

however, the program administrator at Site 1 choose to stay for the Parent focus group. The 

program administrator at Site 2 chose to only have one focus group with parents, program 

administrators, and program staff together. The inclusion of the program administrator and 

program staff in the focus groups at these two sites may have limited the parent voice. Parents may 

not have felt comfortable expressing themselves freely with program administrators and staff 

present. However, when the parent responses in Site 1 and Site 2 are compared with Site 3 (where 

there were no program administers or staff in the focus group), parents at Site 1 contributed 52 

comments (the program administrator only observed and didn’t comment) during the focus group; 

parents at Site 2 contributed 21 comments (compared to 43 made by the program administration 

and staff) during their focus group; while parents at Site 3 contributed 39 comments during their 

focus group. 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      41 

 

It is worthwhile to note that all of the parents who participated in the focus groups were 

mothers or grandmothers. While fathers are encouraged to participate in both the HIPPY and Head 

Start programs, it is still primarily mothers who are involved. Each focus group was audio recorded 

and later transcribed, omitting names, for analysis. Each participant in the focus groups and 

interviews were informed about the purpose of this study and signed informed consents. 

 

 

Data Analysis 
 

After the transcription of the focus group and interview recordings, the data were analyzed using 

NVivo 11. Directed content analysis was employed to first classify the information from all of 

these sources into several initial categories defined by the research questions. These initial 

categories included: motivation for collaboration, services for families, benefits to children, 

communication, benefits to parents, challenges, and recommendations. To further analyze the data 

in each of these initial categories, pattern coding was employed.  Pattern codings are explanatory 

or inferential codes that categorize emergent themes into more meaningful, larger themes (Saldana, 

2016).  These larger “meta” themes were then synthesized across the three sites to identify 

recurring patterns.  

 

 
FINDINGS 

 
Motivations for Collaboration 
 

Site 1 and Site 3 blended the Head Start and HIPPY programs by using the HIPPY curriculum and 

delivery model of home visits and role-playing as the method for delivering the Home-Based 

Option of the Head Start to participating families. Site 1 used the Head Start Home-Based with 

HIPPY collaboration model to serve the 3-year old children in their community, while Site 3 

offered the Head Start Home-Based with HIPPY model only to 4-year olds. Both sites deliberately 

choose HIPPY as the method for delivery of Home-Based Option of Head Start. The collaboration 

was intentional and planned. While the collaboration at Site 2 was less intentional at the beginning, 

the teachers, administrators, and parents who participated in the focus group fully supported the 

collaboration. 

There were a few themes that occurred in regards to the motivation behind the Head Start 

and HIPPY collaborations across sites. At Site 1, the director of the Head Start and HIPPY 

programs was originally the HIPPY Coordinator for that area. She had seen first-hand the value of 

serving families by going to their homes. She stated in her interview that after, "looking at the 

community needs assessment and the fact that a lot of our families were living in isolation, [we] 

felt that [HIPPY] would be something that could bring families closer together." The value of 

home visiting was also a motivation for the original blending of the Head Start and HIPPY 

programs for Site 3. According to the director during her interview, “we were already providing 

HIPPY services and [the grant writers] saw the value of home visiting and felt [HIPPY] would 

meet the requirements of the [Head Start] Home-Based Option, so they wrote it into the grant." 

Another theme that arose concerning the reason for intentionally blending the Head Start program 

with HIPPY was to provide more services with less money. The director of Site 1 specifically 

wrote HIPPY into the Head Start grant to keep the program in the community. "Our funds had 



42      BROWN 

 

been cut and cut and cut, the community as a whole found ways to find pieces of grants and put it 

together to keep hippy rolling. Well we wanted to make sure that we had secure peace, and so we 

initially wrote the grant to include hippy, and we wanted to do it as a home visiting for 3-year-

olds.” 

 

 

Perceived Benefits of Collaboration  
 

While each of the sites blended the Head Start and the HIPPY programs differently, the 

overwhelming feedback given by home visitors, teachers, and parents the focus group meetings 

was about the benefits of the collaboration. Several of the focus group participants described the 

synergetic effect of the collaboration regarding the added benefits for both the children and the 

parents involved in the collaboration. Participants at each site including 50% of the parents and 

75% of the home visitors/staff at Site 1; 50% of the parents and 60% of the home visitors/staff at 

Site 2; and 71% of the parents and 100% of the home visitors/staff at Site 3 commented on the 

ways in which Head Start and HIPPY worked together to do more for children and families than 

each program could on its own. For example, one home visitor at Site 1 who had previously been 

a HIPPY parent before the two programs began the collaboration described the additional benefits 

as “not achievable by just Head Start alone or just HIPPY alone.” This home visitor went on to 

state that “…HIPPY brings the academics right into the home by showing the family how to do 

the teaching…Head Start then brings all the social services and community resources to support 

the family and create an awesome sense of community. So the whole family is supported, and the 

children are learning.”   

 
Additional Services for Families.    One of the benefits of the Head Start/HIPPY 

collaboration described by the focus group participants at all three Sites was the ability to provide 

services to families that might not be available outside of the collaboration. While 20% of the 

home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents at Site 1 and 40% of the home visitors/staff and 42% 

of the parents at Site 3 mentioned additional services for families, this was especially evident at 

Site 2 where the Head Start and HIPPY programs using the Dual Enrollment model. Head Start 

provides an array of healthcare, mental health, continuing education, and other social services to 

families. The families at Site 2 who only participate in the HIPPY program (about 20% of the 

HIPPY families) are also able to receive the additional social services provided by Head Start 

through communication between the HIPPY home visitors and the Head Start program 

administrators. All of the home visitors and parents in the focus group at Site 1 commented on the 

additional social services for families. One of the home visitors at Site 2 described a HIPPY mother 

whose child was not in Head Start, “the mother didn’t have a GED, and I was able to refer her to 

the Head Start family advocate. She was able to help the mom get enrolled and back to school.” 

This level of cross-program service to families would not be possible without the collaboration 

agreement between the Head Start and HIPPY program administrators.  

 

Increased Communication.      Another important benefit of the Head Start/HIPPY 

collaboration that emerged from the focus groups was the added communication between all of 

the parties involved in both programs. This included communication between the home visitor and 

the child’s classroom teacher, the home visitor and the Head Start administrator, the parent and 

the home visitor, the parent and the child’s classroom teacher, the parent and the child, and even 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      43 

 

among other parents in the programs. At Site 1, 80% of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the 

parents indicated that communication was a benefit. One example of communication between the 

home visitor and the classroom teacher came from a home visitor who commented, “if I have a 

kid that is falling behind on the Brigance assessment, I’ll go in and ask their teacher how they are 

doing in the classroom… we can work together and discuss whether or not they need additional 

help or if they were just having a bad day. Or if the teacher says they know their colors, I’ll skip 

that part [during our home visit] and focus on something else.”  

At Site 2, all of the home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents indicated that increased 

communication was a benefit. Specifically, a home visitor at Site 2 described a situation with one 

of the families they served. "The child was enrolled in Head Start, and we had an opening, so the 

family signed up for HIPPY. After a few visits, the mom began to open up to me about her 

depression. I was able to go to [the Head Start Director], and they were able to set her up with 

mental health services. She is going to school now and thanks me all the time for helping her be a 

better parent and know how to work with her kids.” This is an example of communication at several 

levels. First, the home visitor was able to communicate with the Head Start Director to facilitate 

the child’s enrollment in Head Start; then the parent was able to communicate to the home visitor 

about her depression; finally, the home visitor was able to communicate this parent’s need for 

mental health services to the Head Start Director so the parent could receive help.  

At Site 3, 60% of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents indicated that 

communication was an important benefit of the Head Start/HIPPY collaboration. An example 

given by one parent illustrated the added communication between the home visitor, the child's 

classroom teacher, and the parent. “My daughter was having a little bit of trouble in the Head Start 

classroom. It was hard for me to understand where she was having difficulty. I told [home visitor] 

and she talked with her teacher. They observed that she was having a little trouble putting things 

into groups and separating them. [Home visitor] brought this to my attention and gave me activities 

to do, you know, like taking the things out of the dishwasher and sorting the spoons and forks 

where they should go. She loves to help out in the kitchen so she loved doing this activity and it 

helped her develop that skill a little better so that in the Head Start classroom she could keep up.”  

 

 

Perceived Benefits for Children 
 

The overwhelming majority of comments made by all the focus group participants were related to 

the benefits of the Head Start/HIPPY collaboration for children. Over half of the comments made 

by the home visitors and teachers and over 70% of the comments by the parents were about the 

improved outcomes for the children in the collaboration. The home visitors/staff and parents 

specifically mentioned higher scores on formal assessments, smoother transitions to the classroom, 

improved school readiness, development of routines related to school, improved social skills, and 

bonding time between parent and child. 

 

Formal Assessments.      While this study does not include quantitative results of formal 

assessments, 100% of the home visitors at each of the three sites reported that the results of the 

formal assessments indicate that the children who participated in the collaborative program did 

well on standardized assessments. One home visitor indicated that "according to the data that we 

have…you can see this program works, what were are doing works." Another home visitor from 

Site 3 where there was a large Spanish-speaking population of children indicated that the biggest 



44      BROWN 

 

academic gain is with children for whom Spanish is their first language. These children had 

significant increases in receptive language skills.  

 

Transition to the Classroom.     In addition, 100% of the home visitors/staff from Site 1 

indicated that children who participated in the collaboration had a smooth transition to a 

classroom-based prekindergarten program or kindergarten. This is interesting since none of the 

home visitors/staff at Site 2 and 41% of home visitors at Site 3 mentioned this specific outcome 

for children. At Site 1, the home visitor spends the first few weeks of the school year in the 

classroom of the children from their home visiting caseload of the previous year. The children 

already have a bond with their home visitor and feel comfortable in their new classroom due to the 

presence of their home visitor. One home visitor said that the "kids feel so good to see us…they 

really feel better when we are in the classroom even if it's just for a little while to help with the 

transition – it really works." 

 

School Readiness.      The most commented upon outcome of the collaboration for 

children was in the area of school readiness. Every home visitor/staff and parent at each site had 

multiple comments about school readiness. The home visitors/staff at Site 1 made 13 specific 

comments about school readiness while the parents made eight comments. At Site 2, the home 

visitors/staff made ten comments about school readiness, and the parents made 9. Finally, at Site 

3 the home visitors/staff at Site 3 made 14 comments about school readiness, and the parents made 

seven comments. One parent at Site 1 made the observation that the “curriculum of the home visits 

was really good and helped me prepare him for school. It was definitely in-line with what he 

needed to know for kindergarten. So it definitely helped him and gave him an advantage, especially 

in reading. He is a really good reader.” 

 

Routines Related to School.      Home Visitors also noted that the children who 

participate in the collaborative program are ready for school. This readiness goes beyond  academic 

skills such as recognizing letters and counting. The families in the collaborative program have 

established routines that promote school readiness. At Site 1, 100% of the home visitors/staff and 

parents; at Site 2, 60% of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents; and at Site 3 60% of the 

home visitors/staff and 71% of the parents made comments about routines. These routines included 

reading to the child every day, establishing a place in the home to complete learning activates, and 

establishing the habit of completing learning activities at home.  One home visitor described these 

routines as follows, "The child is now getting into the habit of working with their parents and as 

each year goes by they are taking the time to sit down and work on homework together. They have 

set a precedent, and that becomes a habit."   

 

Bonding with Parent.      Parents specifically but a few home visitors/staff in the focus 

groups also noted that participation in the collaboration led to a stronger bond between the parent 

and their child. Specifically, at Site 1, 20% of the home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents; at 

Site 2, 40% of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents; and at Site 3 20% of the home 

visitors/staff and 42% of the parents commented on the increased bonding time between parent 

and child. One parent stated that she loves being able to have her child at home and watch him 

learn, but “at the same time not just being home doing nothing, but you’re actually teaching him 

what he needs to know for school.” Specifically, parents participating in the Head Start Home-

Based with HIPPY collaboration stated that it was, “the best of both worlds.” Another parent 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      45 

 

stated, “…yes, the best of both worlds. He’s getting to learn while staying at home and I keep him 

close for a little longer.” 

 

Development of Social Skills.     The final outcome for the children noted by the home 

visitors/staff and parents is related to the development of children’s social skills. At Site 1, 20% 

of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents; at Site 2, 60% of the home visitors/staff and 

100% of the parents; and at Site 3 20% of the home visitors/staff and 86% of the parents 

commented on the increased bonding time between parent and child. A parent from Site 1noted 

that before beginning the collaborative program her son was very sheltered and was uncomfortable 

with adults outside of herself and her mother. Through the home visits and Socializations her son 

has become very open and is now comfortable with other adults and enjoys playing with other 

children. She stated that "my son was so shy, he never talked to others – now he talks all the time."  

 

 

Perceived Benefits for Parents 
 

In addition to the improved outcomes for children who participate in Head Start/HIPPY 

collaboration, there were added benefits to parents. Parents in the collaborative program 

specifically noted the support received from the relationship with their home visitor and the social 

capital developed through relationships with other parents in the program. Parents and program 

staff noted that through participation in the collaboration parents gained confidence in their own 

parenting skills as well as in their ability to be their child’s first teacher and in their role as an 

advocate for their child. Parents also gained a better understanding of the expectations of their 

child once they begin school and their role as parents in supporting their child once they are in 

school.   

 

Parent Relationship with Home Visitor.       All of the parents at each of the collaboration 

sites commented on the benefit of communication and relationship that develops between the home 

visitor and the parent. One parent stated, “I never used to read with my child. My home visitor told 

me at every single home visit, ‘you need to read with [child].’ I still didn't feel I had time to read 

with [child], but after being told to read, seeing [home visitor] read, and having her there to read 

with my child and me, by the end of the year she didn't have to tell me to read with [child], I am 

doing it on my own." This quote exemplifies the benefit of having a role model in the home every 

week to reinforce the importance of activities such as reading. A former parent of the collaborative 

program noted the trust that is built between the parent and the home visitor. She noted, “I can still 

call [home visitor] for anything. It’s like, I can call her with a question and she will come by and 

give me the information or just put it in my mailbox if I’m not home.” 

 

Parent Confidence in Their Own Parenting Skills.     Another benefit to parents who 

participate in the collaborative program mentioned by the home visitors and the parents was the 

confidence that parents gain. 20% of the home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents at Site 1; 40% 

of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents at Site 2; and 60% of the home visitors/staff and 

100% of the parents at Site 3 commented on parent confidence. One home visitor stated that 

"They're [the parents] are actually teaching their child something, they are proud of it as well as 

the child is proud of it. So it's good for both of them." This confidence also came from having the 

support of the home visitor and the role play of the activities before the parent is expected to do 



46      BROWN 

 

the activity on their own with their child. One home visitor noted that "…it [role play] makes the 

activities less intimidating. Reading the books first with me so if the parent doesn't know a word 

or two, they are able to learn it and be fluent when reading it with the child."  

 

Parent Support as Their Child’s First Teacher.      Another benefit of the collaboration 

is the support they receive in their role as their child’s first teacher. This was the parent benefit 

most commented on at all three sites. Specifically, at Site 1, 100% of the home visitors/staff and 

parents made multiple comments on this benefit; at Site 2, 80% of the home visitors/staff and 

100% of the parents commented; and at Site 3 100% of the home visitors/staff parents commented 

on the support parents received to be their child’s first teacher. Parents in the collaborative 

programs learn to be organized, keep track of school-related supplies, and communicate with their 

child’s teacher about their child’s academic progress as well as any other concerns. One parent 

from Site 1 commented that participation in the collaboration, “helped me develop the skills to be 

able to sit down and learn how to actually work with my kid in doing their activities with them. I 

show them how to do it, but without actually doing it for them and without just saying, ‘figure it 

out.’ All the materials and the home visits helped me learn to teach her better.”  

 

Parent Understanding of Child Expectations.      Through participation in the 

collaborative, parents also learn what to expect from their child and how to support their learning 

and development. At Site 1, 60% of the home visitors/staff and 20% of the parents; at Site 2, 40% 

of the home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents; and at Site 3 60% of the home visitors/staff and 

42% of the parents commented on the increased bonding time between parent and child. One home 

visitor noted that participation in the collaboration helps parents, “…understand what the 

expectations are for children at certain ages. A lot of time you talk to parents, and they want their 

kids to be reading and writing, but they don’t understand that making lines and scribbling is the 

beginning of writing." Another home visitor explained that often parents question the curriculum. 

For example, one home visitor said that "I can explain to parents that jumping and hopping are 

developing their gross motor skills and that this is important to their learning." This grasp of the 

way children learn is important for parents if they are going to be their child's first teacher.   

 

Parent’s Ability to Advocate for Their Child.      Another important support parents 

receive from participation in the collaborative programs is the understanding and confidence to be 

an advocate for their child. At Site 1, 60% of the home visitors/staff; at Site 2, 40% of the home 

visitors/staff; and at Site 3 14% of the home visitors/staff commented on the increased ability of 

parents to advocate for their children. Ironically, none of the parents mentioned this as a benefit of 

participating in the collaborative program. Perhaps this is something that parents don’t often 

recognize in themselves, but the home visitors and program staff were able to identify it in parents. 

For example, a home visitor from Site 1 noted that the parents who were in the collaborative 

program actually become the more involved parents once their child was in school. They become 

the ones that are participating in the parent policy, etc. Another home visitor from Site 1 

commented that “the parents [from the collaborative program] are more prepared to deal with the 

teacher because they’ve had someone coming into their home, they’ve let someone come into their 

home for 32 weeks and talk to them. So they’re ready to talk to their child’s teacher, more confident 

and more relaxed. They also know what their child’s strengths and weaknesses are. If a teacher 

tells them their child doesn’t know their letters, they can pull out their home visiting portfolio and 

show the teacher that the child can do it.”  



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      47 

 

Parent’s Social Support from Other Parents.      One support parents and program staff 

specifically mentioned was the development of social networks among the parents in the 

collaborative program. At Site 1, 40% of the home visitors/staff and 50% of the parents; at Site 2, 

40% of the home visitors/staff and 100% of the parents; and at Site 3 60% of the home visitors/staff 

and 100% of the parents commented on the support they received from other parents in their 

program. These parent social networks develop from the time spent together at the 

Socializations/Group Meetings that are a part of both the Head Start Home-Based Model and the 

HIPPY program. These meetings gave parents the opportunity to meet and form relationships with 

other parents in their community. One parent commented that one of her favorite part of 

participating in the collaboration is “the emotional support… we have parent meetings where we 

have time to just talk to other parents.” One of the home visitors also stated that one of the biggest 

benefits of the collaboration to parents is “…the group meetings. To not even be around children 

because some parents don’t get out and socialize other than the parent group meetings. There they 

get to spend time with parents going through similar situations.”  

 

 

Challenges to Collaboration 
 

As with any collaborative effort, the focus group discussions brought several challenges to a truly 

effective Head Start/HIPPY collaboration to the service. These challenges included the practical 

issues with blending the requirements and regulations from two different programs into one 

collaborative program, the difficulties with assessment, and the lack of time to complete the 

requirements and still serve families in a collaborative program.  

 

Differing Program Requirements.      Only one of the home visitors/staff from Site 1 

mentioned the challenge of blending program requirements, but 60% of the home visitors/staff 

from Site 3 felt it was an issue. None of the home visitors or program staff from Site 2 commented 

on this challenge. The difficulty of tracking all of the regulations and standards required by Head 

Start and HIPPY can be a challenge. One home visitor from Site 3 mentioned the difficulty of 

including all the requirements of both programs in her work with families. She stated, “…it’s a lot 

of work for us. I’m not going to lie. I think that is the only downfall when you combine two 

programs together.” The director at Site 1 mentioned the desire to truly blend the programs and 

not have to think of the requirements for each program separately. She described this as, “thinking 

in two different lands.” She went on to elaborate by saying, “…now I have to think this is a HIPPY 

requirement or this is a Head Start requirement. It would be nice to just think this is a program 

requirement because often time they [the requirements] are the same.”  

 

Assessment.        Another obstacle to effectively blending the Head Start and HIPPY 

programs mentioned by the focus group participants is the fact that each program requires different 

assessments and require the results to be entered into different database or software program. 40% 

of the home visitors/staff from Site 1, 20% from Site 2, and 100% from Site 3 commented on the 

issue of assessment. Often the assessments required to meet the standards for Head Start and the 

assessments required by HIPPY do have several overlapping constructs, but there isn’t one 

assessment that covers all the constructs required. In addition, the site may have additional grants 

to fund the collaborative program – each of whom may have their own assessment requirements. 

This was especially the case at Site 3 where a home visitor described the issue with assessment as’ 



48      BROWN 

 

“…having to ask the same thing over and over. Rather than having five or six assessments, it would 

be nice to combine everything into one or two.”  

Another issue related to assessment is that there isn’t a commercially available assessment 

that is designed to capture everything that happens during a home visit. The director of Site 3 

described how her home visitors have to "get creative" to document learning during home visits. 

She states that "You really have to be creative and plan out how you are going to get observations 

and documentation [of home visits]…many home visitors have been making videos and taking 

pictures on their cell phones.”  

The final and most mentioned issue related to assessment across all three sites was that 

once the assessment has occurred, the data then has to be entered into two separate computer-based 

evaluation systems for each child. The home visitors for both Site 1 and Site 3 described the 

“double work” they have to complete to enter the required data for each program into the separate 

evaluation databases.  

  

Lack of time.      Finally, the obstacle to blending the Head Start and HIPPY programs 

that arose most often during the focus group discussions was the lack of time. This problem was 

mentioned by 40% of the home visitors/staff at Site 1 and 100% of the home visitors/staff at Site 

3. The home visitors at Site 2 did mention the lack of time, but not specifically in connection with 

the collaboration. This is perhaps because their HIPPY home visitors only delivered the HIPPY 

curriculum and did not also have to include the additional 30 minutes of instruction with the child 

required by the Head Start Home-Based Option. In addition, they are not also serving as the Head 

Start Parent Advocate- which was the case for the home visitors from Site 3.  

The typical Head Start Home-Based educator caseload is 12 families (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Head Start, 2011). 

When you add the additional preparation, training, and activities required by HIPPY, there is often 

not enough time to adequately serve all 12 families. This lack of time is exacerbated when a home 

visitor is serving a family who is exceptionally high-need. This might be due to the family having 

a child with a disability, a family facing a financial crisis or homelessness, a family in an abusive 

situation, or any other circumstance that requires additional time and resources to ensure the family 

weathers the crisis. One home visitor from Site 3 described this issue: "A lot of families require 

you to be there for more than an hour and a half because you can't just get up and leave when the 

time is up when a parent says to you, ‘I was abused this weekend by my husband.’ At that point 

you are making an action plan, you are making referrals, and you are just listening. This means 

that you have to text your next family letting them know you will be late. This means you are late 

for the rest of the day because you can't cut someone else's time short."  

 Another obstacle related to the lack of time brought up during the focus group discussions 

was related to the lack of time for training and professional development. This lack of training was 

mentioned specifically in regards to training specific to home visitors. One home visitor described 

the unique needs of a home visitor in a collaborative program, “We are teaching the family, but 

we are also social workers, counselors, and friends.”  

 

 

Recommendations for Future Collaborations 
 

The participants of the focus groups had several recommendations for future Head Start and 

HIPPY programs that desire to collaborate. First, it was suggested that during the grant writing 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      49 

 

process, plan for the continuation of services for children and families beyond the Head 

Start/HIPPY collaboration. For example, the director of Site 1 commented that when a family 

wished to continue their HIPPY participation after their child turned four, they had to transfer to 

the HIPPY-only program offered by another organization in the area. There is no provision for 

continuing with HIPPY once the child is in the 4-year-old center-based Head Start program or 

once they enter public school prekindergarten or kindergarten. 

Another recommendation was for programs to partner with local school districts so children who 

participate in the HIPPY/Head Start collaboration can be assigned a school identification number. 

This will allow the program to continue to track a child’s academic progress through graduation. 

This tracking also allows the school to track the types of early childhood experiences a child has 

and link those experiences to their academic progress.  

One of the most reoccurring themes in regards to recommendations was for future 

collaborations to plan for lower caseloads for home visitors than typical in a traditional Head Start 

Home-Based program. Most of the home visitors in the focus groups recommended a caseload of 

9 or 10 families. The home visitors also suggested flexible caseloads for home visitors with high-

needs families as discussed in the previous section.  

In addition to lowering the caseload, it was suggested that specific time is set aside for 

home visitors to plan for lessons, enter data, and receive training. Remember that HIPPY requires 

additional time in preparation and training. While the sites who followed the Head Start Home-

based with HIPPY model of collaboration both included a day for this in the typical schedule, this 

time was often used to reschedule home visits or to complete other tasks.  

Finally, perhaps the most mentioned recommendation was to plan for assessment. The 

home visitors requested that whenever possible, choose assessments that meet the requirements of 

both programs. They also suggested having a method of documenting assessments that met the 

requirements of both programs to eliminate the need to enter the same data into two different 

software programs. 

 

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 
 

Focus group participants had a great deal to say about the benefits of the Head Start and HIPPY 

collaborations they were involved with. The benefits to children academically, socially, and 

emotionally were all discussed at each meeting. Home visitors and parents alike felt that the 

children who participated in the collaborations with their families had a solid academic foundation 

that would follow them into the classroom when they began formal schooling. Also, the focus 

group participants felt the collaborations between Head Start and HIPPY were beneficial to the 

parents involved. The parents not only gained more confidence as their child’s first teacher, but 

they had access to social services that allowed them to focus on parenting their child and making 

a better life for their entire family.  

There were some challenges to effective collaboration mentioned by the focus group 

participants. The main obstacle was related to time. Home visitors did not feel they had enough 

time to serve the caseload expected by Head Start with the additional responsibilities required by 

the HIPPY program. The home visitors also felt they need more time for professional development, 

training, and planning. These are challenges that could be alleviated with additional funding to 

support lower caseloads and additional funds for training. Another challenge discussed in the focus 

groups was the overlapping assessment requirements coupled with the two different evaluation 



50      BROWN 

 

databases required by the two different programs. All of the collaborations investigated for this 

study occurred at the local level. Therefore, each site is still required to meet all of the requirements 

of each program – even when these requirements overlap or are redundant.  

It is important to note the limitations of this study. First, typical to the descriptive 

qualitative research design, the data is based solely on the perceptions of the participants. Since 

the perspective of the participants was limited to the Head Start/HIPPY collaboration model at 

their site. They are not able to comment on the differences between their Head Start/HIPPY 

collaboration and programs that are run independently. In addition, this study did not collect any 

data regarding child or parent outcomes as a result of participation in the collaborative program. 

Therefore, the results of this study cannot be used to make assumptions about the merits of 

collaborative programs versus independent programs.  

Overall, the participants of the focus groups and interviews were very supportive of the 

Head Start and HIPPY collaborations at their site. By working together to more effectively serve 

low-income children and families, Head Start/HIPPY collaborations help to alleviate the 

likelihood of children from low-income families to enter school with significant language and 

developmental delays (Dickinson & McCabe, 2001; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Moon & Lee, 

2009; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). The benefits of both the Head Start and 

HIPPY programs operating individually have been well documented in the literature (Brown & 

Lee, 2017; Aikens et.al, 2013; Barnett, Roost, & McEachran, 2012; Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 

2002; Johnson, Martinez-Cantu, Jacobson, & Weir, 2012; Lopez & Bernstein, 2016; Love et. al., 

2002; U.S. Departments of Health and Human Service, 2010; Smolensky & Gootman, 2003;). 

Head Start also has a documented record of supporting parents in the development of their child.  

While this study was not focused on the results of standardized assessments, future studies 

should compare the achievement and development of children who participate in the program with 

those who participate in Head Start only and HIPPY only. It is also recommended that future 

studies quantifiably document the change in parenting skills and parent involvement of parents 

participating in a Head Start/HIPPY collaboration.  

As stated earlier, Head Start and HIPPY share the common goals of preparing children for 

kindergarten by closing the achievement gap and empowering parents as first and best teachers for 

their children. Researchers agree that it is crucial for young children to have meaningful time and 

attention from their parents, extended family, or other significant adults in their life (BarHava-

Monteith et al., 1999; Brown & Johnson, 2014; Jacobson, 2003). The results of this study suggest 

that collaboration between the Head Start and the HIPPY programs can more thoroughly and 

effectively serve low-income families and their children in our communities.  

 

 

REFERENCES 
 
Aikens, N., Klein, A. K., Tarullo, L. B., & West, J. (2013). Getting ready for Kindergarten: Children’s progress 

during Head Start. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on 

inner-city youth. Family Issues, 22(8), 944-972. 

Baker A. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters 

(HIPPY). The Future of Children 9(1), 116-133.  

BarHava-Monteith, G., Harre N., & Field, J. (1999). An evaluation of the HIPPY program in New Zealand. Child 

Development and Care, 159, 145-157. 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      51 

 

Barnett, T., Roost, F. D., & McEachran, J. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of the Home Interaction Program for 

Parents and Youngsters (HIPPY). Family Matters, 91, 25–35. 

Bauer, L., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2016) The long-term impact of the Head Start Program. The Hamilton Project, 

the Brookings Institution. Retrieved from 

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/long_term_impact_of_head_start_program.pdf 

Berk, L. (2013).  Child Development (9th ed.).  Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Bradley, R. H., & Gilkey, B. (2003). The impact of HIPPY on school performance in third and sixth grades. In M. 

Westheimer (Ed.), Parents making a difference: International research on the home instruction for parents 

of preschool youngsters (HIPPY), (pp. 91-101). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. 

Brown, A. L., & Johnson, U. (2014). The impact of early intervention on school readiness and parent involvement of 

at-risk children. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field,17(1), 74-87. 

Retrieved from https://journals.uncc.edu/dialog/article/view/71/219 

Brown, A. L., & Lee, J. (2017). Evaluating the efficacy of children participating in HIPPY and in Head Start. Journal 

of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 61-72. doi: 0.1177/1476718X15577006.    

Brown, A. L., & Lee, J. (2014). School performance in elementary, middle and high school: A comparison of 

children based on HIPPY participation during the preschool years. The School Community Journal, 24(2), 

83-106. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/ journal/2014fw/BrownLeeFall2014.pdf  

Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home 

visiting program on parenting and on child health and development.  Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(8), 829–

852. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.008 

Cheung, C. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2011). Parent’s involvement in children’s learning in the United States and China: 

Implications for children’s academic and emotional adjustment. Child Development, 82(3), 932-950. 

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01582.x 

Claessens, A., Duncan, G., & Engel, M. (2009). Kindergarten skills and fifth-grade achievement: Evidence from the 

ECLS-K. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 415-427. 

Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early elementary performance and attendance in Baltimore City Schools’ pre-

kindergarten and kindergarten. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium. Retrieved 

from http://baltimore-berc.org/pdfs/ PreKKAttendanceFullReport.pdf 

Dearing, E., Kreider, H, Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income 

children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 98(4), 653–664. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653. 

Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence from Head Start. 

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 111-134. Retrieved from 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~deming/papers/ Deming_HeadStart.pdf 

Dickinson, D. K., & McCabe, A. (2001). Bringing it all together: The multiple origins, skills, and environmental 

supports of early literacy. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(4), 186 – 202. 

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational 

Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385 

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their 

relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology 

Review, 33, 467–480.  

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading 

success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 202–211. 

Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A., & Davidson, M. L. (2012). The long-term effects of early parent involvement and parent 

expectation in the USA. School Psychology International, 34(1), 33-50. doi:10.1177/0143034312454361   

Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer term effects of Head Start. American Economic Review 92, 999–

1012. 

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2007). Examining the relationship between parental 

involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123. 

doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7 

Greenberg, M., & Domitrovich, C. (2011). The Harrisburg Preschool Program Evaluation: Final Report. University 

Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, Prevention Research Center.  

Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. (n.d.). Head Start Policy and Regulations. Retrieved 

from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii 



52      BROWN 

 

Heath, S. M., Bishop, D. V. M., Bloor, K. E., Boyle, G. L., Fletcher, J., Hogben, J. H.,…Yeong, S. H. (2014) A 

spotlight on preschool: The influence of family factors on children’s early literacy skills. PLoS ONE, 9(4), 

e95255. 

HIPPY USA. (n.d.-a). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.hippyusa.org/about-us/ 

HIPPY USA. (n.d.-b). Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.hippyusa.org/the-hippy-model/curriculum/ 

HIPPY USA. (n.d.-c). The HIPPY Model. Retrieved from https://www.hippyusa.org/the-hippy-model/ 

HIPPY USA. (n.d.-d). Home Visits/Group Meetings. Retrieved from https://www.hippyusa.org/the-hippy-

model/home-visits-group-meetings/  

HIPPY USA. (n.d.-e). Role Play. Retrieved from https://www.hippyusa.org/the-hippy-model/role-play/ 

Jacobson, A. (2003). Evaluating HIPPY in Texas: Process and progress. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents making a 

difference: International research on the home instruction for parents of preschool youngsters (HIPPY) (pp. 

291-304). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. 

Johnson, R. C. (2010). The health returns of education policies from preschool to high school and beyond. American 

Economic Review, 100(2), 188-194.  

Johnson, U. Y., Martinez-Cantu, V., Jacobson, A. L., & Weir, C. M. (2012). The home instruction for parents of 

preschool youngsters program’s relationship with mother and school outcomes. Early Education and 

Development, 23, 713 – 727. 

Klein, L., Weiss, H., & Gomby, D. (Winter, 2001). What we know about how HIPPY works: A summary of HIPPY 

evaluation research. New York, NY: HIPPY USA. 

Lopez, A., & Bernstein, J. (2016). 2016 HIPPY Evaluation. Report submitted to Parent Possible, Colorado, USA. 

Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., …Smith, C. B. (2002). Making 

a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and 

Families. 

Moon, S. S., & Lee, J. (2009). Multiple predictors of Asian American children's school achievement. Early Education 

and Development, 20(1), 129 – 147. 

Nievar, M. A., Jacobson, A., Chen, Q., Johnson, U., & Dier, S. (2011). Impact of HIPPY on home learning 

environments of Latino families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 268-277. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.01.002 

O’Conner, R. E., Harty, K., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal 

of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 532-538. 

Office of Head Start. (n.d.). History of Head Start. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/ about/history-of-

head-start 

Phillips, D., Gormley, W., & Anderson, S. (2016). The effects of Tulsa’s CAP Head Start Program on middle-school 

academic outcomes and progress. Developmental Psychology, 52(8), 1247-1261. 

Piaget, J. (1952).  The origins of intelligence in children.  New York, NY: International Universities Press. (Original 

work published 1936). 

Raikes, H., Green, B. L., Atwater, J., Kisker, E., Constantine, J., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2006). Involvement in Early 

Head Start home visiting services: Demographic predictors and relations to child and parent outcomes. Early 

Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(1), 2-24. 

Roundtree, W. (2003). Maternal scaffolding behavior within the HIPPY context. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents 

making a difference: International research on the home instruction for parents of preschool youngsters 

(HIPPY) (pp. 181-192). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Mangnus Press. 

Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, 

CA:  Sage Publications.  

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-

340.  

Shaywitz S. E., Morris R., Shaywitz B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young 

adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093633 

Smolensky, E., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.) (2003). Working families and growing kids: Caring for children and 

adolescents. Washington DC: National Academics Press.  

U. S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). American Fact Finder. Retrieved from 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Head Start. 

(2015). Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five. Retrieved from 

https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/sr/approach/pdf/ohs-framework.pdf 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200611000044#!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200611000044#!
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.01.002


HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      53 

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Head Start. 

(2011). The Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework: Promoting Family 

Engagement and School Readiness, from Prenatal to Age 8. Retrieved from 

https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/pfce-framework.pdf 

Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. I. (2002). The effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers program with low-income 

parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(2), 67–81. 

Weiss, H., Caspe, M., & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education. Family Involvement 

Makes a Difference. Retrieved from www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-ourpublications/family-

involvement-in-early-childhood-education 

Westheimer, M. (2003). A decade of HIPPY research. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents making a difference: 

International research on the home instruction for parents of preschool youngsters (HIPPY) (pp. 19-45). 

Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. 

Wilson-Simmons, R., Jiang, Y., & Aratani, Y. (2017). Strong at the Broken Places: The Resiliency of Low-Income 

Parents. National Center for Children in Poverty. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



54      BROWN 

 

APPENDIX A 
 
 

Please answer the following questions in the spaces provided, circle or tick the most appropriate 

options. 

1. What is your role in this HIPPY/Head Start program? 

□ Administrator 

□ Teacher 

□ Parent 

2. How many years have you participated in this HIPPY/Head Start collaborative 

program…………………… 

 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire 
 

 

 

 

Facilitator’s welcome, introduction and instructions to participants  

 

Welcome and thank you for volunteering to take part in this focus group. You have been asked to participate 

as your point of view is important. I realize you are busy and I appreciate your time. 

 

Introduction: This focus group discussion is designed to assess your current thoughts and feelings about 

the collaboration between the HIPPY and Head Start programs. The focus group discussion will take no 

more than two hours. May I tape the discussion to facilitate its recollection? (if yes, switch on the recorder) 

 

Anonymity:  Despite being taped, I would like to assure you that the discussion will be anonymous. The 

tapes will be kept safely in a locked facility until they are transcribed word for word, then they will be 

destroyed. The transcribed notes of the focus group will contain no information that would allow individual 

subjects to be linked to specific statements. You should try to answer and comment as accurately and 

truthfully as possible. I and the other focus group participants would appreciate it if you would refrain from 

discussing the comments of other group members outside the focus group. If there are any questions or 

discussions that you do not wish to answer or participate in, you do not have to do so; however please try 

to answer and be as involved as possible. 

 

Ground rules 

 The most important rule is that only one person speaks at a time. There may be a temptation to 

jump in when someone is talking but please wait until they have finished. 

 There are no right or wrong answers 

 You do not have to speak in any particular order 

 When you do have something to say, please do so. There are many of you in the group and it is 

important that I obtain the views of each of you 

 You do not have to agree with the views of other people in the group 

 Does anyone have any questions?  (answers).  

 OK, let’s begin 

 

Warm up 

 First, I’d like everyone to introduce themselves. Can you tell us your name? 

 

Introductory question 

FOCUS GROUP: DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS QUESTIONNAIRE 

FOCUS GROUP: DISCUSSION GUIDE 



HEAD START/HIPPY COLLABORATION      55 

 

 

I am just going to give you a couple of minutes to think about your experience with the collaboration of the 

HIPPY and Head Start at this center. Is anyone happy to share his or her experience? 

Guiding questions 

 

 How does your center blend the HIPPY and Head Start programs? (For example, is HIPPY used as 

the home-based curriculum? Is HIPPY used as the parent involvement/volunteering element? Is 

HIPPY used only as a referral for families who need more one-on-one intervention?) 

 What components of HIPPY are most successful at your center: Home visits? Curriculum role-

play? Parent group meetings? 

 What are the attitudes of you and other parents, administrators or teachers towards the HIPPY/Head 

Start collaboration? (What did people think/say/do?) 

 What drove the positive/negative reaction? If negative, how could it be rectified? 

 What do you think are the benefits of the HIPPY/Head Start Collaboration? 

 What do you think are the negative aspects of the HIPPY/Head Start Collaboration? 

 Do you think the collaboration of the HIPPY and Head Start programs improve the school readiness 

of participating children? If not, why not?  

 Do you think the collaboration of the HIPPY and Head Start programs improve the parent 

involvement of participating families? If not, why not?  

 What are your thoughts on the blending of the mission of the HIPPY and Head Start programs? 

 What are your thoughts on the blending of the operating procedures of the HIPPY and Head Start 

programs? 

 What are the main issues around the practical collaboration between the HIPPY and Head Start 

programs? 

 What are the barriers to the HIPPY/Head Start collaboration? What are the enablers? 

 How would you make the HIPPY/Head Start collaboration easier? 

 

Concluding question 

 

 Of all the things we’ve discussed today, what would you say are the most important issues you 

would like to express about this HIPPY/Head Start collaboration? 

 

Conclusion 

 

 Thank you for participating. This has been a very successful discussion. 

 Your opinions will be a valuable asset to the study. 

 We hope you have found the discussion interesting. 

 If there is anything you are unhappy with or wish to complain about, please feel free to email me 

at BrownA@uhcl.edu or speak to me later. 

 I would like to remind you that any comments featuring in this report will be anonymous. 

 Before you leave, please hand in your completed personal details questionnaire. 

 

  



56      BROWN 

 

APPENDIX B 
 

Director Interview Guide 

 

 When did your center begin blending HIPPY and Head Start? 

 How did this collaboration develop? 

 How does your center blend the HIPPY and Head Start programs? (For example, is 

HIPPY used as the home-based curriculum? Is HIPPY used as the parent 

involvement/volunteering element? Is HIPPY used only as a referral for families who 

need more one-on-one intervention?) 

 What components of HIPPY are most successful at your center: Home visits? Curriculum 

role-play? Parent group meetings? 

 What are your thoughts on the blending of the operating procedures of the HIPPY and 

Head Start programs? 

 What are the main issues around the practical collaboration between the HIPPY and Head 

Start programs? 

 What are the barriers to the HIPPY/Head Start collaboration? What are the enablers? 

 How would you make the HIPPY/Head Start collaboration easier?