1 / 45

Implementation Science: Closing Gaps Between Policy and Practice

Implementation Science: Closing Gaps Between Policy and Practice. Circe Stumbo, West Wind Education Policy Inc. and CCSSO CCSSO/SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness April 10, 2013. Acknowledgements.

santo
Download Presentation

Implementation Science: Closing Gaps Between Policy and Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementation Science: Closing Gaps Between Policy and Practice Circe Stumbo, West Wind Education Policy Inc. and CCSSO CCSSO/SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness April 10, 2013

  2. Acknowledgements • Special thanks to Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, and the National Implementation Research Network for their generosity in sharing their findings and their passion for all things implementation. This PowerPoint slide deck is built off their original work, with permission.

  3. Sixth Year of Working with SEAs • State Implementation & Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center • scalingup.org

  4. Implementation Science` • A policy is one thing • Implementation of a policy is a very different thing • Students cannot benefit from a policy they do not experience

  5. An Implementation Failure labeled as an Intervention Failure Example: $500 million for Homebuilders (Family Support Services) 1993-1998 • Funding only for interventions • No fidelity criteria insisted upon by the developers • National evaluation = not effective Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2002

  6. An Implementation Failure labeled as an Intervention Failure Example: $500 million for Homebuilders (Family Support Services) 1993-1998 • Funding only for interventions • No fidelity criteria insisted upon by the developers • National evaluation = not effective • But, over 25% was spent on in-office interventions with parents or children (< 0 fidelity) Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2002

  7. Longitudinal Studies of CSR Programs Evidence-Base For Effectiveness • Actual Supports • Years 1-3 • Outcomes • Years 4-5 • Fewer than 50% of the teachers received some training • Fewer than 10% of the schools used the CSR as intended • Every Teacher Trained • Every Teacher Continually Supported • Fewer than 25% of those teachers received support • Vast majority of students did not benefit Source: Aladjem& Borman, 2006; Vernez, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006

  8. Formula for Success Effective Policies/ Interventions Effective Implementation Methods Enabling Contexts Socially Significant Outcomes

  9. Formula for Success Effective Policies/ Interventions Effective Implementation Methods Enabling Contexts WHY: Socially Significant Outcomes (Vision!)

  10. Formula for Success WHAT: Effective Policies/ Interventions Effective Implementation Methods Enabling Contexts WHY: Socially Significant Outcomes

  11. Formula for Success WHAT: Effective Policies/ Interventions Effective Implementation Methods WHERE: Enabling Contexts WHY: Socially Significant Outcomes

  12. Formula for Success WHAT: Effective Policies/ Interventions HOW & WHO: Effective Implementation Methods WHERE: Enabling Contexts WHY: Socially Significant Outcomes

  13. Table Discussions • Share a situation you have experienced/ observed where one of the variables in the formula was zero

  14. Implementation Science

  15. Excellent evidence for what does not work • Implementation without changing supporting roles and functions • Implementation by edict • Diffusion/dissemination of information by itself • Implementation by “following the money” • Training alone, no matter how well done Paul Nutt (2002). Why Decisions Fail

  16. What does work? An Implementation Framework • Implementation Teams • Implementation Drivers • Improvement Cycles • Implementation Stages http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/learning-zone/science-of-implementation/implementation-frameworks

  17. An Implementation Framework • Implementation Teams • Implementation Drivers • Improvement Cycles • Implementation Stages http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/learning-zone/science-of-implementation/implementation-frameworks

  18. Implementation Science IMPLEMENTATION Effective NOT Effective Student Benefits Inconsistent, not sustainable, poor outcomes Effective INTERVENTION Poor outcomes; sometimes harmful NOT Effective Poor outcomes (Institute of Medicine, 2000; 2001; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003; National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983; Department of Health and Human Services, 1999)

  19. Implementation Teams IMPLEMENTATION Impl. Team NO Impl. Team 80%, 3 Yrs 14%, 17 Yrs Effective INTERVENTION NOT Effective Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001 Balas & Boren, 2000 Green, 2008

  20. Implementation Team • A group that knows: • the intervention/policy • implementation • improvement cycles

  21. Simultaneous, Multi-Level Interventions Partners Teacher • School • Management (leadership, policy) • Administration (HR, structure) • Supervision (nature, content) Implementation Team District Region State

  22. Iowa’s Collaborating for Kids (C4K)

  23. State Department of Education Leadership Cascading Logic Model State Transformation Team Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  24. An Implementation Framework • Implementation Teams • Implementation Drivers • Improvement Cycles • Implementation Stages http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/learning-zone/science-of-implementation/implementation-frameworks

  25. Improvement Cycles • Practice-Policy Communication Loops • Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles • Usability Testing

  26. State Department of Education Leadership Practice/Policy Communication Loops State Transformation Team Policy Enabled Practice (PEP) Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Practice Informed Policy (PIP) Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  27. State Department of Education Leadership Practice/Policy Communication Loops State Transformation Team Policy Enabled Practice (PEP) Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Practice Informed Policy (PIP) Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  28. State Department of Education Leadership Practice/Policy Communication Loops State Transformation Team Policy Enabled Practice (PEP) Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Practice Informed Policy (PIP) Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  29. State Department of Education Leadership State Transformation Team Feedback Loops Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Feedback Loops Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  30. North Carolina Example

  31. State Department of Education Leadership Authentic Work Informs the PEP-PIP Cycle State Transformation Team Plan-Do- Study-Act Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Plan-Do- Study-Act Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  32. State Department of Education Leadership Authentic Work Informs the PEP-PIP Cycle State Transformation Team Usability Studies Regional Implementation Teams District Leadership and Implementation Teams Building Leadership and Implementation Team Usability Studies Building Teachers and Staff Students & Families

  33. Table Discussions • How do teams at each level of your system interact? • What work are the teams doing with each other? • What feedback loops exist between teams? • How might you increase interaction among teams? • Have/might you incorporate improvement cycles into pilots and policy innovations?

  34. Growing Implementation Capacity UsingTransformation Zones

  35. Implementation Team • Minimum of 3 people (4-5 preferred) • Tolerate turnover; sustainable

  36. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 1) State Transformation Team First Regional Implementation Team N = 9 Staff Invest up front to build capacity First School Implementation Team N = 10 Schools

  37. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 2) State Transformation Team First Regional Implementation Team N = 3 Staff Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) First School Implementation Team N = 10 Schools

  38. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 2) State Transformation Team First Regional Implementation Team N = 3 Staff Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) First School Implementation Team, Expanded N = 20Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools

  39. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 2) State Transformation Team First Regional Implementation Team N = 3 Staff Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) First School Implementation Team, Expanded N = 20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools

  40. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 2) State Transformation Team First Regional Implementation Team N = 3 Staff Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) First School Implementation Team, Expanded N = 20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools

  41. External Support & 2 FTEs Growing Implementation Capacity (Phase 2) State Transformation Team STAFF First Regional Implementation Team N = 3 Staff Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) Subsequent Regional Implementation Team (3 Staff) First School Implementation Team, Expanded N = 20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools Subsequent School Implementation Teams N=20 Schools

  42. Table Discussions • What responsibility will your state take to ensure implementation of your policies? • How can you grow implementation capacity within your state? • How can you rethink staffing in order to invest in the early stages of implementation?

  43. Poll • One key take-away OR • What questions do you have?

  44. Possibilities to consider…. • SCEE webinars • SCEE Topical Meetings • SCEE Discussion Groups • GIC • Individual state follow-up

  45. Thank you

More Related