Providing Need-based Professional Development to Home Visitation Staff: Strategies, Challenges, and Outcomes

1. Providing Need-based Professional Development to Home Visitation Staff: Strategies, Challenges, and Outcomes Sukhdeep Gill, Anne Doerr, Sue Evans, Kara McFalls, Allison Banks, & Anneliese Bass The Pennsylvania State University sgill@psu.edu NHSA Head Start Conference Nashville, TN April 16-20, 2012

2. The Purpose is to Share… • … research findings related to the impact of professional development (PD) planning on staff functioning; • … experience of two EHS programs’ planning for professional development; • …strategies these programs employed to promote ongoing need-based training; • …a home visitor’s perspective; and • …lessons and recommendations that can be of help to other programs.

3. Rationale: Start-UP and PD • Start-Up • Clearly articulated job expectations • Adequate time • Training goals and systemic planning • Well-defined timelines and procedures • Professional • Development • Systems for initial/ongoing training • Responsiveness to individual staff needs • Adaptive to changing programmatic demands • Program • Implementation • Satisfied and competent staff • Compliance with Performance Standards • Service delivery responsive to family needs

4. EHS Process Evaluation: Data Sources and Timeframes Two EHS Program Evaluations Data Sources • Semi-structured Staff Interviews • Staff Surveys: Quantitative measures • Program Documents: Grant proposals, process documents Data Collection Timeframes • T1: Nov/Dec, 2010 • T2: Aug/Sept, 2011

5. Start-up Period: Quick Observations

6. Home Visitor Experience of Training * Percent “yes” responses * EHS –I (2010) N =; 6 EHS – I (2011) N = 6; EHS – II (2010) N = 6; EHS – II (2011) N = 7 ϯ Not asked in 2010; * p< .05

7. Home Visitor Recommended Changes to Curriculum Training

8. Topics of Further Training Needed

9. Home Visitor Satisfaction with Different Aspects of Training ** ** ** * ** * ** ** EHS –I 2010 N =; 7 EHS – I 2011 N = 6; EHS – II 2010 N = 7; EHS – II 2011 N = 7 * p< .05; ** p < .01

10. Home Visitor Satisfaction With Support from the Program * * * ** * * * * * ** EHS –I 2010 N =; 7 EHS – I 2011 N = 6; EHS – II 2010 N = 7; EHS – II 2011 N = 7 * p< .05; ** p <.01

11. Home Visitor Overall Job Satisfaction * *** ** * * * * *** * ** EHS –I 2010 N =; 7 EHS – I 2011 N = 6; EHS – II 2010 N = 7; EHS – II 2011 N = 7 * p< .05; ** p < .01; *** p< .001

12. EHS Professional Development Planning During Start-Up • Built on the foundation of grant application • Broadly defined job knowledge, skills, abilities • Confirmed curricular selections • Sought professional consultation • Grew planning team investment in success • Deepened preschool HS manager “buy in” • Valued input of non-HS coordinator with home visitation and toddler experience • Engaged community partners • Worked backwards from program start date • Planned for 4-week orientation training • Tapped into resources and expertise

13. How did our Experience Compare? Differences: • Grant application as foundation • External vs. internal resources: Grant writer as consultant; not employee • Planning team continuity and investment Similarities, and yet constraints: • Time • Working backward from the program start date • Resources and expertise

14. Implementing Professional Development: Challenges • Qualified staff: scarcity of infant/toddler expertise and skills in both child and adult development • All staff new at once • PAT training: differential quality, timely availability, location • Peer mentoring in a new program • Articulation with college credits or CEU awards • Scheduling time for training • Supervisory ratio • Geography: constraints of bringing staff together for PD • Program Culture Shift: preschool only to ‘pre-natal – 5’

15. How did we Incorporate Need-Based Professional Development? • Designated 1 day/week for planning or group training • Visited infant and toddler settings • Participated in center-based and, as appropriate, preschool training events • Utilized peer mentoring • Responded to training needs identified by individuals • Accommodated individual learning styles • Incorporated Reflective Supervision • Used program data to drive PD decision-making (e.g., Child Outcomes, Ongoing Monitoring, Performance Evaluations) • Recognized the need to offer PD relevant to special federal initiatives such as School Readiness

16. My Story: One Home Visitor’s Experience • Professional development opportunities • Diverse staff backgrounds • Share resources, ideas, strategies • Learn from others, gain new perspectives • Available supervisory support • “Open door” policy • Reflective supervision • Apply knowledge and skills on home visits • You can never learn it all!

17. Lessons Learned from the Start-up • Allow adequate time for planning; • Understand strengths and limitations of the grantee and the community; • Design an intentional and focused orientation and training plan ; • Build a team; • Invest preschool HS staff in EHS success; • Plan to retrain staff after field experience; • Repeat often and scaffold based on individual needs; • Plan for turnover; • Budget adequately; and • Seek/use all available resources early and often.

18. Broader Recommendations • Consider professional development even before deciding to develop grant application; • Align with agency vision, mission, strategic plans; • Engage program managers; • Analyze program and community strengths and limitations; • Seek, engage and nurture community partners; • Match community needs to EHS program models; • Maintain enthusiasm, focus, and leadership; • Assume full responsibility for planful, sequential, scaffolded, well-timed professional development; • Allow sufficient time for adequate preparation; and • Stick to it in negotiations with funders.