Return to Previous page |
| PDF Version, Color |  |
I am Moving, I am Learning: Early Findings from the Implementation of an Obesity Prevention Enhancement in Head Start Region III: Research Brief
This report may contain external links. ACF cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by external links. Providing links to a non-ACF Website does not constitute an endorsement by ACF or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the information or products presented on the site. Also, be aware that the privacy protection provided on the ACF domain (see ACF's Privacy Policy) may not be available at the external link.
There are two to three times as many obese children in the United States today as there were 20 years ago. Obesity is more common among children who are racial/ethnic minorities or who live in low-income households. Head Start, with its almost one million low-income preschool children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, is potentially an ideal setting for developing obesity prevention efforts.
Head Start recently began an innovative approach to obesity prevention called “I Am Moving, I Am Learning” (IM/IL). This program enhancement offers a flexible framework that program staff can use to integrate obesity prevention activities into their daily practices. The goals of IM/IL are to: (1) increase the quantity of time children spend in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) each day, (2) improve the quality of structured movement activities that are facilitated by teachers and other adults, and (3) promote healthy food choices among children each day. In the spring of 2006, Head Start Region III hosted three IM/IL training-of-trainers (TOT) events for reaching a total of 53 programs. Each program sent up to five representatives to the 2½ day training, where they participated in interactive workshops and developed strategies for implementing IM/IL enhancement activities at their local sites. Participants returned to their program and were expected to train fellow staff on what they learned at the training event.
An implementation evaluation was conducted to examine the extent to which grantees who participated in the spring 2006 Region III TOT event are implementing IM/IL enhancements. The initial phase of the evaluation1 involved a questionnaire that was mailed to each of the 53 Head Start programs that had participated in the TOT event. The questionnaire was sent in the spring of 2007 to the individual staff member in each program who was designated to lead the implementation of IM/IL enhancement activities. This questionnaire assessed the staff members’ perceptions of the spring 2006 TOT event and their experience implementing IM/IL in their programs during the year following that event. Fifty completed questionnaires were received, for a response rate of 94 percent. Two programs reported not having tried to implement IM/IL activities; therefore, most of the analyses were completed with 48 programs rather than 50. This brief describes the results of this first-phase questionnaire.
Findings
The IM/IL training event in spring 2006 was well received. Most programs gave the training event a positive overall rating. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), 71 percent rated the event as a 5. The training was rated highly on its organization and content. For example, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), 85 percent strongly agreed that IM/IL goals were clearly explained, 82 percent strongly agreed that the training presented ideas for program enhancements that were consistent with IM/IL goals, and 71 percent strongly agreed that the training provided new information and resources. Programs also identified training topics that required more attention: 40 percent thought that too little time was allowed for staff to develop plans for implementing IM/IL in their own program and 37 percent thought that too little time was spent on strategies that can be used to engage adults, including staff and parents, in IM/IL.
Nearly every program tried to implement IM/IL in the year following the training event. Ninety-six percent of programs reported implementing IM/IL during the following program year, and three-quarters of the programs that implemented IM/IL activities involved all of their centers and classrooms. For staff training, over 60 percent of programs reported providing both pre-service and in-service training on IM/IL. Programs reported providing an average of 6 hours of staff training (ranging from 1 to 24 hours). Fifty-three percent of programs reported that they developed a written plan for their IM/IL enhancement activities.
Enhancements related to physical activity were more common than enhancements related to nutrition.
All but three programs (94 percent) reported implementing one or more enhancement activities that focused on physical activity (either MVPA or structured movement). A smaller percentage of programs (67 percent) reported implementing enhancements that were focused specifically on nutrition. For physical activity, the most common enhancements reported were using equipment or vocabulary for teaching structured movement and body awareness (85 percent) and introducing new play equipment (77 percent). For nutrition, the most common enhancement reported was modifying the foods served to children in the Head Start classroom (65 percent). Other enhancements reported being used to support nutrition and physical activity goals were purchasing instructional materials (88 percent) and using the IM/IL mascot, “Choosy” in IM/IL activities (85 percent).
Almost all programs made efforts to reach out to parents, staff, and community organizations. The most common approach reported to reach parents was distributing written information such as flyers, pamphlets, or newsletters (85 percent), followed by workshops or other events for parents (71 percent), and discussing nutrition and/or physical activity at parent-teacher conferences (63 percent). A majority of programs (65 percent) reported offering activities to parents that focused on improving eating and physical activity behaviors, and over half of the programs (52 percent) reported offering comparable activities for staff. About half of the programs (52 percent) stated they identified a community organization as a partner in their IM/IL implementation.
Staff enthusiasm contributed to programs’ reported success with IM/IL, while limited time and competing priorities posed challenges. Staff enthusiasm for IM/IL was reported to be high, with 71 percent of programs rating staff enthusiasm as a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 (resistant) to 5 (enthusiastic). The two factors most often cited as contributing to the whether IM/IL implementation was reported to be successful were staff enthusiasm about the goals of IM/IL (77 percent) and the fact that the IM/IL training “provided the necessary training to train staff” (75 percent). The two most frequently reported challenges to IM/IL implementation were that “management staff did not have enough time to devote to IM/IL” (59 percent), and that “other areas in the program were a higher priority” (41 percent).
Implications
This initial glimpse into the implementation of IM/IL indicates that participants found the spring 2006 training to be valuable and that most programs reported implementing some IM/IL enhancement activities during the following program year. Staff enthusiasm for IM/IL was reported to be high and this enthusiasm was identified by programs as a key element for successful implementation. At the same time, many programs reported that staff time constraints and competing program priorities posed challenges for IM/IL implementation. Only half of programs had a written plan for implementing IM/IL and many programs reported that they would have liked more time at the initial training to develop such a plan. These early findings suggest that programs need additional support in planning IM/IL enhancement activities and structuring staff responsibilities. Future training events may want to incorporate additional time for trainees to design their IM/IL activities and develop a written plan for implementation. The next stages of this study will focus on the sustainability of IM/IL in Head Start programs in the second year of implementation.
| Type of Enhancement Reported by Programs by IM/IL Goals | Percentage of Programs | |
|---|---|---|
| Enhancements Focused on Physical Activity Goals | 94 | |
| Used equipment and/or vocabulary for teaching structured movement | 85 | |
| Introduced new play equipment | 77 | |
| Reconfigured or enhanced space to facilitate physical activity | 56 | |
| All of the above | 42 | |
| Enhancements Focused on Nutrition Goals | 67 | |
| Changed policies or practices related to foods served to children | 65 | |
| Established policy for foods brought in from home | 31 | |
| All of the above | 21 | |
| Enhancements to Support Nutrition and/or Physical Activity Goals | 94 | |
| Purchased instructional materials or aids | 88 | |
| Used "Choosy" in IM/IL activities | 85 | |
| Used an existing physical activity/nutrition curricula | 17 | |
| All of the above | 15 | |
| Source: IM/IL Implementation Evaluation Stage 1 Questionnaire. Completed by IM/IL coordinators in spring 2007, approximately one year after participating in the 2006 training-of-trainers event. |
[D] |
[D] |
1. About the Study Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) was contracted by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation under the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to study how IM/IL has been implemented by programs that participated in the spring 2006 training. There are three stages to this evaluation including: (1) a survey of all 53 grantees, (2) telephone interviews with IM/IL directors and two teachers from a subset of grantees, and (3) site visits to a subset of grantees. The current brief summarizes key findings from the stage-one survey. For more information on this evaluation please go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/eval_move_learn/index.html (back)
| Return to Previous page |