Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 3. Context of Program Implementation: Diversity Among Families, Schools, and Communities
Chapter 4. Implementation
Chapter 5. Extent of Implementation
Chapter 6. Factors Influencing Variation
Chapter 7. What Contributes to Successful Implementation
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY FINDINGS
 |
The chapters included in Part 2: Implementation summarize the findings related to the implementation of the National Transition Demonstration Project in the 31 local sites. The initial chapter (Chapter 3) addresses the context of the implementation, highlighting the diversity that was found among the sites – diversity among the communities, the school districts, the schools, and the families participating in the Transition Demonstration Project and its National Transition Demonstration Study. Subsequent chapters present discussions of: the ways in which the local sites designed and conducted their programs (Chapter 4); the extent to which the various program components were implemented at the local site level (Chapter 5); the variation in program implementation across the 31 sites and how the context of the local program influenced program implementation over the years, including challenges encountered (Chapter 6); and factors associated with the most and least successful implementation of these ambitious, Head Start-like programs (Chapter 7).
Overall, it is noted that the 31 sites did, indeed, implement the Transition Demonstration Program in accordance with the mandates and guidelines included in the original Request for Proposals. Each site addressed to some degree the four components and provided an array of comprehensive services designed to meet the social, health, and educational needs of children and families and to stimulate family involvement in the education of their children. The specific strategies and activities sites employed to address the implementation varied substantially across sites. While there were many implementation features shared by sites, the actual program implementation within each of the 31 sites was a unique configuration of activities and personnel devised to take advantage of the strengths and address the needs of the children, families, schools, and community agencies. In many sites, transition-like services were also offered in comparison schools, sometimes with very similar quality and intensity.
Ratings of implementation -- linked to specific program activities and supports -- indicated substantial variability in the extent of implementation across sites. A few sites (6) showed relatively strong implementation across all components, while a few others (8) showed consistently low levels of implementation. Most sites achieved at least moderate levels of implementation of all components although there was some unevenness in a number of sites.
| COMMUNITY CONTEXT e.g., Location/Setting, Demography/Diversity, Size, Infrastructure, Economic Opportunity, Political/Social Climate |
|||
| Social Services/ Child Care Supports | Educational Opportunities | School Systems | Health Services |
| Community Resources | |||
The variation across Transition Demonstration Programs highlights several important findings. First, the 31 Transition Demonstration Programs began as unique designs, rather than a single intervention model. The uniqueness of the individual programs was based on variations in the communities, schools, agencies and families participating in the demonstration, including linguistic and cultural diversity, resources available, and the particular organizational features of participating schools, school districts, and community agencies. Initial implementation was also influenced by program factors such as the grantee organization, the number of school districts and schools participating in the program, the philosophy underlying the program, and resource allocation decisions. Second, the process of implementation was not static and preordained by initial designs.
| TRANSITION DEMOSTRATION PROGRAM MODEL | |||
| Program Model | Governing Board | Program Implementation | Program Costs |
Implementation was, instead, a progressive, dynamic (developmental) process through which program features were conceptualized, designed, implemented, revised, and reshaped as the program evolved over the six years of planning and implementation. Specific features as well as the process itself were shaped by external factors -- state and local initiatives, supportive leadership at the state level, continuity in leadership (program directors, school principals, district superintendents) -- and by the successes and challenges experienced within the program itself. Often successful activities were continued and expanded, while less successful activities were analyzed and modified.
Challenges were viewed as inherent in the developmental process. Generally, challenges were related to characteristics in four general areas: (1) this demonstration initiative (e.g., creating Part 2 - Page iv viable governing boards and dealing with the requirements of the evaluation); (2) the local community in which the program was implemented (e.g., dealing with diversity and mobility, creating community networks, and removing barriers to access); (3) the program design chosen by the site (e.g., staffing, developing effective partnerships, maintaining communication, and documenting program implementation); and (4) the participating systems and individuals (e.g., creating of family-friendly environments, reconciliation of policies across organizations, implementation of developmentally appropriate practices).
Information from key informants, site visitors, and data gathered to describe the characteristics of sites indicates that several key factors supported the successful implementation of the Transition Demonstration Programs at the local level. The key factors that did influence the 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. Factors that did not appear related to implementation levels were: the size of the project (measured by the number of schools and school districts participating), grantee designation (school or Head Start), and demographic characteristics of the children, families, or communities.
|
An understanding of the fundamental diversity that was found within the communities, school districts, schools, and families participating in the Transition Demonstration Program is essential to a full understanding of the outcomes presented in Part 3. These communities, school districts, schools, and families are not representative of the nation or the Head Start population. The groups do, however, reflect the immense diversity that is found among Head Start children and families in terms of their community contexts and life situations. A key finding was that despite their shared eligibility characteristic of having an income below the federal poverty level at the time of enrollment and therefore being eligible for Head Start services, this was not a homogeneous group. Using cluster analysis techniques, seven distinctive family types were reliably identified. These family types are labeled by their most salient characteristics, even though not every family within each type has all of these features. These family types are:
- The Most Resourceful families, based on their income (on average, above the poverty level), full-time employment of the child’s primary caregiver, higher levels of caregiver education, and increased father involvement in the child’s routine care. The group accounted for the largest single group of former Head Start families -- representing 42% of the sample.
- Single parent, welfare families were distinguished by the majority receiving some form of cash assistance (AFDC and/or SSI) and very low levels of father involvement. Nearly one-third of the families fit this group, which had the lowest levels of parent education and family income.
- Foreign language families all spoke a language other than English as their primary language at home and most (91%) have foreign-born caregivers: They represented 11% of the sample, and had high father involvement and intermediate levels of family income.
- Highly mobile families were those distinguished by changing residences two or more times in the year prior to kindergarten. They comprised 6% of the families;
- Recently homeless families had all been homeless for at least some time in the 12 months before their child entered kindergarten. In this sample, 3% of the families fit this definition;
- Mother-absent families had the distinguishing feature that the mother was not part of the regular care of her child and did not live with her child. In this study, 5% of the children lived in mother-absent families and typically were cared for by an older female relative.
- Chronic health problem families included families in which the primary caregiver had a chronic health problem that interfered with the daily care of the child. Among these former Head Start families, 3% were affected by major health conditions.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |