Phoenix Early Head Start (EHS) is a program for first-time teen parents and their families. It is a family-centered program intended to provide early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for vulnerable families and their very young children. This report presents case studies of 12 families, all EHS participants, who agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their stories could be updated as they unfolded from one year to the next. The case study families were interviewed for the first time in August 1997 and again in August 1998. Common themes in the family's stories regarding EHS's role include: (1) assistance from caring staff; (2) reassurance from home visits and child development; (3) help in becoming good parents; (4) help with personal goals; (5) help with daily life; and (6) socialization opportunities for children and parents.

The Phoenix, Arizona Early Head Start program is a family-centered program providing early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for low-income pregnant women and families with children ages birth to three. Analyses were conducted of program and participant data and program processes from Year 3, the second full year of implementation. The program components evaluated were: (1) child development, promoted through weekly home visits, site-based socialization activities, and weekly play groups; (2) family development services, provided by family support specialists to develop effective, supportive relationships, especially with fathers; (3) staff development, incorporating a multi-disciplinary approach reinforced by a relationship-based supervision model; and (4) community building and collaboration, including connections with Phoenix's program for young fathers and other family-focused initiatives.

Evaluation findings suggest that the program is on the right track. Among the program's successes are the launch of all planned child development activities, increased services by and access to the child development/disabilities specialists, and progress made through the male involvement component. The program continues to face challenges, including increasing staff skills in child development and parent-child relationships, helping young parents adjust to dealing with toddlers, reducing disruptive effects of staff turnover, and making the program and participants visible and vital to other family-centered community endeavors and to policy makers. Recommendations for future operations were derived from the evaluation findings. (Contains 49 references.)

Amidst the numbers and statistics that comprise a program evaluation, it is easy to lose sight of the program participants themselves. That is one rationale for a case study--to tap into some of the rich background information that only participants can provide. To develop some of this background information for the five-year program evaluation of Phoenix Early Head Start(EHS), a case study was undertaken of 12 families who were representative of all EHS program participants. Each of the 12 families agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their "stories" can be updated as they unfold from one year to the next.

The Phoenix Early Head Start (EHS) program is a family-centered program intended to provide early, continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development and family support services for first-time teen parents and their very young children. This report presents case studies of 12 families, all EHS participants, who agreed to be followed throughout their participation in the program so that their stories could be updated as they unfolded from one year to the next. The case study families were interviewed in August of 1997, 1998, and 1999. Four of the families had participated in the first two interviews but had withdrawn prior to the third interview. Additional information was obtained through conversations with family support specialists in May 2000. Common themes in the families' stories regarding EHS's role include: (1) assistance from caring staff; (2) reassurance from home visits and child development; (3) help in becoming good parents; (4) help with personal goals; (5) help with daily life; and (6) socialization opportunities for children and parents. During the study, most families made progress to widely differing degrees. Although somewhat apprehensive about life without the safety net of EHS, all eight families seemed much more confident than earlier, had some knowledge and understanding of their children and themselves, and had articulated and taken some steps toward achieving personal and family goals.

Arizona Ideas includes notions large and small, homegrown and borrowed, current and historical. From A-Z, every one -- whether originally born here or adapted from elsewhere-- contributes to the state’s competitive position. Arizona Ideas also explores the roots of Arizona’s tradition of self-criticism --some call it a sense of insecurity or inferiority in comparison to other places -- that often surfaces in discussions of public policy. This observation has provoked considerable debate, but few would deny that this perspective exists. It is time to debate this idiosyncrasy out in the open and find better ways of moving the state ahead.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.