Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER 7 – WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION?
This chapter presents insights about the process of implementation and the factors that contribute to successful implementation. This summary is based on information obtained from project directors and other key informants in the sites during site visits, final interviews, and other contacts. The “lessons learned” are founded in the experiences of the 31 sites individually and the National Transition Demonstration Consortium collectively. Taken together with an understanding of the barriers and challenges that may be encountered in such implementation efforts, a discussion of the factors that are thought to have contributed to successful implementation in this context may serve to inform those who would seek to implement similar programs in other communities. The information is presented in two parts: insights provided by the sites themselves and insights obtained through a review of characteristics of sites that achieved stronger versus weaker program implementation.
WHAT THE SITES TELL US
The ongoing experiences of the project’s six years led project directors and other key partners in the local implementations to identify seven basic factors that appear to be related to successful program implementation within the context of the Transition Demonstration Project. These factors include:- Planning
- Involvement
- Patience
- Individualization
- Flexibility
- Evaluation
- Leadership
Careful planning is consistently reported to provide the strongest foundation for future and ongoing implementation. Even though the National Transition Demonstration Project allowed for a full year of planning at the beginning of the project, some sites were more successful than others in getting key staff hired and establishing the planning processes early in that year. A number of sites reported that they did not really start planning until the second year, when implementation was already underway. Key informants in these sites felt that having to plan and implement simultaneously was an inefficient process and hindered the forward progress of the implementation. Other sites reported that, even though the program design had to be modified early on as implementation revealed its fallacies, the process of intensive planning served to bring participants together, stimulate communication, and begin the creation of the shared vision. Those relationships then were brought to bear on the modification and growth processes of the implementation period.
It was also seen as critically important for the planning to be in a strong conceptual base. The early identification of the program’s conceptual model and underlying philosophy appeared to make other processes move forward more readily. Program elements were then chosen and added based on their contribution to and consistency with the underlying model. Differences of opinion and philosophy among planners were minimized or were resolved using the conceptual model to guide decisions. When the conceptual model was based on accepted scientific or programmatic theory, there was added strength. Some sites deliberately built on the knowledge bases found in the research and program literatures of education, child and family development, social work, health, and organizational behavior. The use of these accepted theorems and practices to establish a framework for the local Transition Demonstration Program was reported to facilitate the planning process, adding strength to the final program design, and lending credibility where needed.
The involvement of all key participants in the planning and implementation
processes was also seen as an important factor in successful implementation.
The investment of teachers and principals in the planning process was a
strong supportive factor. Many sites included teachers in the planning of
professional development activities; several sites involved teachers and
principals in the development of the developmentally appropriate curriculum
to be applied in demonstration classrooms, and most sites included both
Head Start and school district personnel in the design of the processes
by which Head Start records would be transferred to the school and transition
planning meetings would be held. Those sites which utilized such participatory
strategies reported that the acceptance of the outcome and the realization
of the activity were significantly strengthened by the inclusive process.
Sites consistently report that the processes of decision-making and change,
particularly the inclusive participatory processes, required patience and
time. Processes moved at a pace that seemed slow to many, but efforts to
speed the process often were reported to be counterproductive. Some experts
note that significant change in large systems takes 2 to 3 years to occur
and that institutional change, such as was advocated by the Transition Demonstration
Programs, can take as much as 5 years or longer (Fullan, 1991). In fact,
many sites reported a rapid increase in the rate of change within the schools
and communities toward the end of the 5-year
implementation period.
Project leaders also indicated that individuals and organizations entered
the program at various stages of readiness for change. Through the five
years of intervention, sites learned that:
- interventions designed to help teachers change classroom instructional practices needed to be tailored to the acceptance level of the individual teacher
- some schools were more ready to embrace social support services for families and could accommodate different programming strategies than other schools within the same site
- some schools and teachers were more ready to accept parents as full partners in decision making than others
- some families were more receptive to efforts to effect change, growth, and development than were other families
- Precontemplation – no intention to change
- Contemplation – intending to change but not yet ready
- Preparation – planning to change in the immediate future
- Action – in the process of changing
- Maintenance – changing for a significant period of time
Research further indicates that most intervention programs assume that the individual (organization, system) is ready to change and prematurely offer action programs, which in turn the individual (organization, system) is less likely to accept because of lack of readiness (Prochaska, 1992). The tailoring of intervention to the stage of change has been shown to be more effective in achieving individual behavior change (e.g., Prochaska, 1992). In general, sites learned over time to recognize the degree to which schools, teachers, community agencies, families, school systems, and Head Start programs were ready to adopt new strategies and thus to tailor program activities and interventions to meet those various levels.
The creation of unique programs that would meet the needs of the 31 highly individual sites was a feature of this National Transition Demonstration Project from the beginning. One site structured the Transition Demonstration Program so that schools were offered a menu of available programs, all falling under the umbrella of the Transition Program, and were allowed to choose those program options perceived to meet the needs of their school population and most consistent with their school’s goals and philosophy. Thus, the Transition Demonstration Program’s intervention in each of the schools served by that site was very different, although linked together by overlapping services.
Clearly, sites adopted an individualized approach to family development, devising family specific goals and action plans, creating individualized child transition plans, and tailoring the types and frequency of family contacts to meet the needs of the family. The trend to individualization was evidenced in other ways as well. Because of the differences in readiness to change and in skill levels among teachers, sites increasingly adopted an individualized approach to professional development to promote developmentally appropriate practices. One site had teams of teachers devise development plans for the school year, based on their interests, needs, and the school’s improvement goals. Another site worked individually with teachers to identify professional goals and implement individual development plans for the school year. Other sites offered an array of professional development opportunities and encouraged teachers to select those activities that would be most beneficial to them.
Program leaders consistently noted during site visits that the trend to individualize the program for schools, teachers, and families was as essential to their success as the opportunity to design a unique intervention for their community.
Sites also noted that the process of change is a dynamic process requiring frequent adjustments -- to changes in the environment, changes in the organizations involved, changes in personnel, and changes in needs. Successful implementation required that program developers be flexible, willing to modify and adapt as necessary to the changing demands and needs, while maintaining the essence of the intervention. The existence of a strong conceptual foundation for the program was helpful in this regard, allowing modifications to be made while maintaining the connection with the basic conceptual framework.
The existence of a system of formative evaluation was identified by program leaders as being valuable to implementation. The ability to monitor in an ongoing manner the program’s progress toward achieving goals and the use of this information to modify and improve program offerings was reported by many sites to be helpful in their success. In some sites, the monitoring systems were established and maintained by the program staff; in other sites, the evaluation team took the lead in completing the formative evaluation and providing feedback to the program. The most important aspect, however, was receiving information in a timely manner and broadly throughout the local consortium and the use of discussion and feedback to strengthen the program’s efforts.
Finally, the existence of strong and effective leadership was a cardinal feature in the successful implementation of both the local Transition Demonstration Programs and the National Transition Demonstration Project. Interviews with Project Directors, other program leaders in the local sites, and ACYF staff confirm that the strongest and most successful leaders in the Transition Demonstration effort were those who had: (1) the ability to create a broad sense of ownership throughout the program; (2) the ability to negotiate and facilitate consensus-building decision making processes; and (3) the ability to communicate consistently, frequently, and effectively with a wide range of individuals and groups. These leadership characteristics were found to be equally important in the settings of school buildings (among school principals), in school districts (among school superintendents and school boards), and in the Transition Demonstration Program itself (among Transition Demonstration Program Directors).
WHAT THE DATA TELL US
A second approach to identifying factors that contributed to successful implementation involved reviewing characteristics of sites that achieved strong implementations. A review of implementation ratings given by the National Research Coordinating Team identified a group of 6 sites that had consistently above average implementation ratings (the “high implementation” group) and another group of 8 sites with consistently low implementation ratings (the “low implementation” group). The ratings of the 14 sites are summarized in Table 15.Factors that might influence implementation were chosen for review based on the conceptual model depicting the developmental process of implementation and the factors influencing variation (see Figure 15 in Chapter 6). Key factors identified for review included: (1) program characteristics, including grantee designation, number of school districts involved, and number of schools involved; (2) baseline factors, including homogeneity of population served and characteristics of school districts (per pupil expenditures, percentage of revenue from local and federal sources); and (3) external factors, including continuity in program staff, program leadership, and school leadership (principals and superintendents). The relevance of each of these factors and variables was discussed in Chapter 7. Descriptive data on each of these variables are presented in Table 16. (Note: The small sample size -- only 14 -- precludes statistical analysis, of differences between the two groups, although interesting trends are discussed.)
| High Implementation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Mean | Site I | Site II | Site III | Site IV | Site V | Site VI |
| Family Involvement* | 5.2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
| Education** | 4.5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
| Family Services* | 5.2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
| Health* | 5.5 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
| Low Implementation | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Mean | Site I | Site II | Site III | Site IV | Site V | Site VI | Site VII | Site VIII |
| Family Involvement* | 2.3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
| Education** | 2.5 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
| Family Services* | 2.8 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| Health* | 2.3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
| Variable | High Implementation Group (n=6) |
Low Implementation Group (n=8) |
|---|---|---|
| Grantee
for Transition Program |
Head Start 17% LEA: 83% |
Head Start 50% LEA: 50% |
| Number
of school districts participating in Transition Program |
||
| Mean |
1.7 | 1.1 |
| Range |
1-3 | 1-2 |
| Number
of demonstration schools |
||
| Mean |
4.5 | 6.1 |
| Range |
3-8 | 2-10 |
| Previous
partnership between school district and Head Start |
100% | 25% |
| Homogeneous
population served by Transition Project (study sample within site composed of at least 80% of one ethnic group) |
17% | 63% |
| Per pupil
expenditure for school district |
||
| Mean |
$ 3,401 | $5,540 |
| Range |
$3,375-$7,419 | $2,957-$8,507 |
| Percentage
of school district revenue from local sources |
||
| Mean |
52.6% | 47.5% |
| Range |
12.9%-89.6% | $2,957-$8,507 |
| Percentage
of school district revenue from federal sources |
||
| Mean |
5.9% | 9.8% |
| Range |
0.6%-10.5% | 2.7%-16.9% |
| Percentage
of children in poverty in school district |
||
| Mean |
15.9% | 25.6% |
| Range |
0.6%-10.5% |
2.7%-16.9% |
| Changes
in project director and/or coordinator |
2 sites | 8 sites |
| Changes
in Head Start Director |
1 site | 2 sites |
| Changes
in school superintendent(s) |
4 changes in 10 districts | 8 changes in 9 districts |
| Number
of changes in Demonstration principals |
7 changes in 39 reporting schools | 21 changes in 29 reporting schools |
LEA (Local Education Agency)
Program Characteristics
The data indicate that in all of the high implementation sites, there were strong relationships or partnerships between Head Start and the public schools that preceded the Transition Demonstration effort. In marked contrast, these preexisting relationships were reported for only two of the low implementation sites. The grantee for the Transition Demonstration Program did not, however, seem to affect extent of implementation. In both groups, there were public school grantees and Head Start grantees. In fact, it is noted that in three of the four high implementation sites with LEA grantees, the public school system (LEA) also provided the Head Start program, either as a direct grant to the school district or under a delegate agreement. This close, administrative relationship between public schools and Head Start was present, however, in only two of the eight low implementation sites.No important differences or trends were noted in the number of school districts participating in these groups. The data do indicate, however, that low implementation sites tended to have a larger number of demonstration schools participating. The average number of demonstration schools in the low-implementation group (6.1) was higher than in the high-implementation group (4.5). Three of the eight low-implementation sites worked with a considerably larger number of schools. This suggests that the low implementation sites may have been challenged by spreading their personnel and financial resources over a larger number of schools. (However, many of the sites rated in the moderated level of implementation had as many or more schools per site.)
Baseline Factors
Interestingly, the majority of high implementation sites had substantial ethnic diversity served by the Transition Program, while the majority of the low-implementation sites served more homogeneous populations (all European American or all African American). The cultural and ethnic diversity found within the schools served by the high implementation sites may have stimulated a greater degree of innovation to meet the needs of children, families, and schools.
Per-pupil expenditures within the participating school districts were slightly lower for the high implementation sites, although both groups showed wide ranges of expenditures among participating school districts. Similarly, there were no substantial differences between the two groups in the percentage of revenues that came from local sources. There was a somewhat greater portion of revenue from federal sources seen in the school districts of the low-implementation group. This is likely related to the finding that the percentage of children in poverty in the low-implementation school districts was 1.6 times greater than the percentage of children in poverty in the high implementation sites. The larger percentages of children poverty suggests eligibility for a greater number of federally funded programs and targeted funds. It may also correspond to greater needs to provide social and health services and more obstacles to engaging families in their children’s education.
Leadership
Some particularly interesting differences between the low and high implementation groups were seen in the continuity of leadership at the local site. On the average, changes in Project Director or program coordinator, Head Start director, school district superintendents, and demonstration school principals occurred with much greater frequency among sites in the low implementation group. High implementation sites evidenced a notable stability in their leadership positions. This finding is consistent with the report of sites themselves that stable and effective leadership promotes successful implementation.
Additional insights into the occurrence of higher versus lower implementation in these groups can be found in the data obtained during annual site visits. These data indicated that the sites in the lower implementation group experienced significantly less cohesiveness within the local consortium. In seven of the eight sites, there was significant and ongoing disagreement concerning philosophy, implementation practices, and resource allocations. These disagreements resulted in delays in planning and implementation, created discontinuity within the programs, and limited the program’s ability to move forward across the five years. Five of the low rated eight sites had significant difficulty reaching consensus within the consortium about many issues, in particular the delegation of responsibility for implementation tasks. This difficulty was particularly detrimental to the programs, given the project’s emphasis on shared decision-making and inclusive, consensusbased processes. In contrast, program and consortium leadership in all eight of the high implementation sites had previous experience working in situations where shared responsibility and consensus decision-making were hallmarks.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
Taken together, information from key informants and observers in the sites and from the data gathered to describe the characteristics of sites and the influences on variation indicates that several key factors supported the successful implementation of the Transition Demonstration Programs at the local level. The key factors that did influence success of implementation included: (1) careful planning before and during implementation; (2) involvement of all key participants in the design and implementation of program components; (3) a recognition and acceptance of the role that time plays in implementation and a patience with the processes of consensus building and change; (4) individualization of program activities to meet the needs of diverse participants, along with a fundamental acceptance of the differences in the readiness of participants to change; (5) flexibility and willingness to adapt to changes in the environment, the participants, or the organizations involved in the program; (6) ongoing formative evaluation designed to provide timely feedback about the program’s progress toward goals, with feedback used to modify and strengthen the program; and (7) strong, consistent, leadership in the Transition Program and in the participating schools and Head Start. In these collaborative endeavors, the ability of program leaders to build consensus, create a shared vision and communicate that vision to others, and communicate effectively with a wide variety of people and systems have been key factors in building successful programs.
A comparison of the sites judged the most (6 sites) and the least (8 sites) successful in their implementation of a strong, multi-pronged program revealed important differences in having had a pre-existing partnership or relationship between Head Start and the school district(s), continuity in key leadership at multiple levels, diversity in student population and somewhat less reliance on federal program revenues, and lower rates of poverty in the school districts. Per-pupil expenditures related mostly to proportion of poverty children and families served, but not to successful program implementation.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |