ERIC ED500808: Looking Beyond Government: The Transfer of the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood[R] Model across States. Charting Civil Society. No. 15

0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

Charting Civil Society
Aseries by the Center on
Nonprofits and Philanthropy
THE URBAN INSTITUTE No. 15, January 2004
Looking Beyond Government:
The Transfer of the T.E.A.C.H. Early
Childhood® Model across States
By Janelle Kerlin with Elizabeth Reid and Jennifer Auer
Increasing attention focused on the low Russell, personal correspondence, August
quality of child care in America and the 25, 2003). This study examines factors that
importance of the early childhood years supported, promoted, and challenged the
has resulted in a number of public and pri- transfer of the T.E.A.C.H. model to four
vate initiatives to improve early care and states: Florida, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and
education. While the federal government Washington. It finds that effectively trans-
has earmarked funds for improving the ferring a program from a nonprofit in
Largely beneath the
quality of child care through such pro- one state to a nonprofit in another state
grams as the Child Care Development happened through four overlapping stages
radar are programs
Fund (CCDF)1and Temporary Assistance and multiple roles by child care advocates.
generated and for Needy Families (TANF) and has strived The four states in the study were
to improve Head Start, decisions on how to selected because they reflect a variety of
implemented by
programmatically address the issue have situations in which the transfer of
state-level nonprofit largely been left to the states. Using federal T.E.A.C.H. has taken place. States were
and other funds, state governments have chosen based on when they adopted
organizations that are implemented a variety of programs to T.E.A.C.H. and the type of initiating group,
improve the quality of child care and have the type of implementing organization, the
then passed on to
often shared program ideas among them- funding sources, and the political environ-
and implemented by selves. Largely beneath the radar are pro- ment (see table 1). In the four selected
grams generated and implemented by states, on-site and telephone in-depth
nonprofits in other
state-level nonprofit organizations that are interviews were conducted with 74 leading
then passed on to and implemented by figures in the transfer, development, fund-
states.
nonprofits in other states. ing, and implementation of T.E.AC.H.
Child Care Services Association Interviewees included nonprofit child care
(CCSA) of North Carolina provides a administrators, child care providers, state
model of a nonprofit organization that and city agency administrators, legislators,
started a statewide initiative to address the governors’ and legislative assistants, busi-
problem of low-quality child care and then ness leaders, foundation officials, and early
helped to transfer the program to other childhood educators and advocates.
states. In 1990, CCSAbegan an education
and compensation scholarship program for Stages of Nonprofit
21 child care workers in three North
Policy Diffusion
Carolina counties. As of August 2003, the
program, now known as the T.E.A.C.H. Research on the transfer of the T.E.A.C.H.
(Teacher Education and Compensation model found four overlapping stages of
Helps) Early Childhood®Project, had policy diffusion among nonprofits. The
spread to 23 states and is annually provid- first two stages speak to the transfer of the
ing more than 15,000 scholarships (Sue model to another state, while the last two
CHARTING CIVILSOCIETY Aseries by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
TABLE1. Overview of T.E.A.C.H. States in the Study
Type of
Type of initiating implementing Year Route to broad
State organization organization implemented funding
Florida National Child care 1995 State legislature
business resource and
organization referral agency
Pennsylvania Foundation Child care 1998 State agency
initiative professional with legislative
association approval
Indiana Public/private State association 1999 State agency
partnership for the education
of young
children
Washington City Child care 2000 Foundation
government resource and
referral agency
speak to the wider spread of the idea North Carolina, the statewide turnover
within a state: rate dropped from 42 percent in 1994 to
31 percent in 1999 (CCSA2000). Docu-
(cid:2) diffusing the policy idea to a state; mentation by CCSAon the education,
(cid:2) replicating the policy model; compensation, and retention of child care
(cid:2) achieving broad funding; providers in the T.E.A.C.H. project in
(cid:2) taking the program statewide. North Carolina brought increasing outside
attention to its apparent ability to affect the
Diffusing the Policy Idea to a State factors underlying low-quality child care.2
Formal and informal networks and
The first stage of nonprofit-to-nonprofit
forums were instrumental in spreading
policy diffusion is the transfer of a policy
news on a national level of the apparent
idea to a state—in this case, the spread of
success of T.E.A.C.H. Particularly impor-
information about the T.E.A.C.H. project
tant was the fact that the originator of the
to the four study states. Ultimately, the
driving force behind any policy diffusion is T.E.A.C.H. project, Sue Russell, was con-
the idea or perception that a given policy nected to the professional child care world
innovation works. From its earliest days, through her involvement with the National
the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood®Project, Association for the Education of Young
begun by CCSAin North Carolina, pro- Children and the Children’s Defense Fund
vided program results that fostered a view Child Care Initiative. Through informal
among many in the child care community conversations and formal presentations at
that it addressed some of the most urgent annual conferences of these and other
problems facing the child care industry organizations, Russell eventually informed
nationwide. Through scholarships for col- thousands of child care professionals about
lege credit, paid release time from work, a T.E.A.C.H. Media stories and the discus-
salary increase or bonus upon completion, sion of T.E.A.C.H. by early childhood
and a teacher commitment to stay for a researchers and advocates followed. In
period of time in child care (see sidebar), short, T.E.A.C.H. was becoming a nation-
the T.E.A.C.H. project increased the pay ally known education and compensation
and education of child care providers in program for child care workers. This expo-
the program and reduced turnover, accord- sure not only informed future players who
ing to CCSAstatistics (CCSA2002). In would bring T.E.A.C.H. to a state but also
2
Aseries by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy CHARTING CIVILSOCIETY
The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Project
The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® ● Apprenticeship program
Project addresses the problems ● Associate degree
of poor education, low compen- ● Baccalaureate degree
sation, and high turnover in the child ● Mentor
care sector by providing early child-
hood professional development oppor- Underlying the T.E.A.C.H. Early
tunities for teachers, directors, and Childhood®Project are four principles
family child care providers. that direct its administration:
The four components of T.E.A.C.H.
Partnership—Scholarships are funded
directly target the problems of the
by a partnership between T.E.A.C.H.,
child care industry: the scholarship recipient, and the
sponsoring child care program. The
Educational Scholarships—cost-shared
T.E.A.C.H. portion of the scholarship is
funding for tuition, books, and travel
often funded by a mix of public and
and often paid release time.
private dollars and pays the largest
Formal Education—attainment of an share of the cost.
established number of college credits
Diversity—T.E.A.C.H. seeks to address
toward a credential or degree in early
the diversity of the early childhood work-
care and education.
force by offering equitable access to
Compensation—a salary raise or scholarships across the different types of
bonus upon completion of the educa- child care providers (including for- and
tion component. not-for-profits, pre-K, Head Start, family
child care, and religious-sponsored),
Commitment—commitment of the their geographic locations, educational
scholarship recipient to remain in the levels, and age and ethnicities.
sponsoring child care organization
Use of Existing Systems—T.E.A.C.H.
or child care field for a period of time
makes use of existing community col-
on completion of the education
lege and university early childhood
component.
programs for the education of scholar-
The exact configuration of scholar- ship recipients. Increased enrollment
ship dollars, college credit, compensa- by T.E.A.C.H. scholars often strength-
tion amount, and commitment time is ens the early childhood education
connected to the type of scholarship system in a state.
model developed for use in a given
Collaboration—T.E.A.C.H. seeks to
state. Some of the T.E.A.C.H. scholar- engage the entire early childhood com-
ships currently being offered include: munity in a state to improve access to
formal education and raise awareness
● State-mandated credentials about the connection between educa-
● Child Development Associate (CDA) tion, compensation, and workforce
credential needs. Every state T.E.A.C.H. project
● CDA Assessment and CDA Renewal has an advisory committee.
Source:CCSA (Child Care Services Association). 2001.T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood®—A National Strategy.
Information portfolio published by CCSA.
facilitated the buy-in of many other state entertain a policy proposal on child care.
and local players who would make it pos- National- and state-level research on the
sible to replicate T.E.A.C.H. once it arrived. quality of child care, statewide awareness-
In addition to national networks, this raising events focusing on children and care,
study found that in each of the four study and new statewide programs in the area of
states, the state environment was ready to early childhood development all worked to
3
CHARTING CIVILSOCIETY Aseries by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
turn attention to broader child care or more per year for T.E.A.C.H. In across the state. To ease statewide
issues. From this environment, orga- Washington, advocates were unable to implementation, T.E.A.C.H. often
nized groups seeking solutions sprang access this level of public funding, and started in counties with easy access to
up from diverse settings, including a mostly private funds supported community colleges that had early
national business collaboration, foun- T.E.A.C.H. childhood education programs. State
dation, public/private partnership, Several factors came into play as professional early childhood associa-
and city government. These became T.E.A.C.H. advocates sought broad tions and other state higher education
the initiating organizations that even- funding. First, the advocates were networks were enlisted to help recruit
tually brought T.E.A.C.H. to their skilled in framing T.E.A.C.H. in dif- scholarship recipients. Perhaps the
states. ferent ways to appeal to different biggest challenge was expanding the
funders. In particular, after imple- administrative capacity of T.E.A.C.H.
Replicating the Policy Model
mentation, T.E.A.C.H. scholarship agencies, especially finding staff with
This second stage considers the actual recipients became valuable advocates appropriate management skills.
transfer of the policy model from a for ongoing public or private funding Ongoing training, technical assis-
nonprofit in one state to a nonprofit
because they could speak of their per- tance, and monitoring by CCSApro-
in another state. This stage begins
sonal experiences with T.E.A.C.H. vided some assurance that the
when the originating nonprofit (in
Second, state and federal policies transferred program maintained its
this case CCSA) starts to interact with
were an important source of public integrity over time.
project initiators in another state and
funding for T.E.A.C.H., and at times
continues through to the actual trans-
related policies generated reasons
fer of program components to the Key Roles of
why T.E.A.C.H. should be supported.
implementing nonprofit. Training Child Care Advocates
For example, CCDF and TANF had
and technical assistance provided by
specific set-asides to improve child
the originating nonprofit to the new At each stage of policy transfer, child
care quality, and these funds
nonprofit T.E.A.C.H. agency (usually care advocates filled certain key roles:
were main resources for funding
selected through a bidding process by the policy originator, the researcher
T.E.A.C.H. Also, advocates stressed
the initiating organization and CCSA) advocate, the program operational-
that T.E.A.C.H. scholarships could
facilitated effective replication of the izer, the state agency insider, and the
help child care providers meet state
policy model in the state. Positive lobbyist advocate. These roles were
Child Development Associate (CDA)
outcomes were achieved by transfer- not always limited to one person. A
credential requirements. Third, the
ring a model that was flexible enough role could be shared by more than
structure of the state government sys-
to adapt to a new environment yet one person, or the same person could
tem and the location of key support-
fixed enough in several key areas to fill several roles. Understanding the
maintain program integrity. Often, ers dictated how to target advocacy importance of these roles at different
groups that initiated the policy trans- efforts in a given state. For example, stages can be instructive to advocates
fer acted as supportive mediators for in Florida, key state legislators and who want to share policy initiatives
the T.E.A.C.H. administering non- respected child care advocates were across states.
profit as it faced initial obstacles and uniquely positioned to get T.E.A.C.H. In the first stage, diffusing the
challenges. funding passed in the state legisla- policy idea to a state, key roles
ture. In Indiana, policymakers in the
include the policy originator and the
Achieving Broad Funding state’s Family and Social Services
researcher advocate. In this study, the
Establishing a broad funding base was Administration were well placed to policy originator, Sue Russell of
crucial for implementing T.E.A.C.H. on facilitate funding through that CCSA, served as an important vehicle
a statewide basis. Initial funds for agency. for getting the word out about
T.E.A.C.H. came from businesses, T.E.A.C.H. Her connection to the
Taking the Program Statewide
foundations, or city governments and national early childhood community
were generally limited to support of Once broad funding was secured, the and her willingness to give presenta-
the project in one or several cities. next task was to take T.E.A.C.H. to tions about T.E.A.C.H. at conferences
However, a much more substantial child care providers across the state. were instrumental in reaching child
amount of funding was needed to take Often the first large infusion of care advocates looking for solutions
the program statewide. In three of the money left T.E.A.C.H. agencies over- to the problem of low-quality child
states, this broad funding came from whelmed: they needed to learn the care in their states. Her documenta-
public funds that a state set aside from intricacies of administering the pro- tion of T.E.A.C.H. outcomes in North
the federal government’s CCDF. gram and, at the same time, quickly Carolina gave the policy model a
Typically, states authorized $1 million fill hundreds of scholarship slots sense of legitimacy for many child
4
Aseries by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy CHARTING CIVILSOCIETY
care advocates. The role of researcher Development; as an advocate, she was and TANF) were basic to the success-
advocate, on the other hand, was ful- founder and cochair of the Indiana ful diffusion of this nonprofit child
filled by one or more people in the Child Care Fund. She had strong care program. The convergence of the
T.E.A.C.H. initiating organization in working relationships with the two problem, a solution, and a favorable
each study state. The individuals in governors and first ladies who held policy environment for funding cre-
this role were charged with research- office during the development of ated a “policy window” of the type
ing different program options that T.E.A.C.H. discussed in Kingdon’s (1995) work
could be used to address the goal of The role of program operational- on setting policy agendas. In the non-
improving child care in the state. izer, played by the T.E.A.C.H. coordi- profit transfer of policy from state to
Key roles for the second stage of nator, was key in the fourth stage of state, child care advocates must also
replicating the policy model are the taking the program statewide. In be ready to bring together people
policy originator and the program every study state, the operationalizer who can fulfill the key roles found
operationalizer. As the policy origina- actively took T.E.A.C.H. to commu- at each stage of nonprofit policy
tor of T.E.A.C.H., Sue Russell placed nity colleges and universities, went diffusion.
great importance on replicating a on the road to present the program at
framework that had been tried and conferences and to child care groups, Endnotes
proven in the development of the and was the first to navigate the data-
T.E.A.C.H. project in North Carolina. base and essentially manage the 1. This is sometimes referred to as the Child
Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG).
The person who filled the program entire project. Indeed, the success of
2. All of the statistics on T.E.A.C.H. in this
operationalizer role was the the project at this stage hinged on the report are based on the T.E.A.C.H. project’s
T.E.A.C.H. coordinator in the non- management and recruitment skills of own assessment of its activities. As of this
profit agency administering the T.E.A.C.H. coordinator. When writing, no comprehensive outside study on
the effectiveness of T.E.A.C.H. has been
T.E.A.C.H. in each of the states. This these skills were in place, the project
completed.
person was responsible for the day- steadily gained momentum and grew,
to-day management of T.E.A.C.H. and when they were not, it was ham-
References
and for setting up the project accord- pered by the problems that arose.
ing to the agreement made with CCSA(Child Care Services Association). 2000.
CCSAand under its guidance. This T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Celebrating Ten
Conclusion
Years July 1, 1990–June 30, 2000. Brochure.
role required a host of management
———. 2002. T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Project
skills and experience accessing and Nonprofit organizations are taking
2001–2002 Annual Report.
working with early childhood pro- the lead in developing innovative Kingdon, John. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and
grams, higher education, public policy to improve the quality of child Public Policies, 2d ed.New York:
finance, and private funding systems care. Child care advocates who HarperCollins.
in a state. attempt to transfer child care policy
Janelle Kerlin is a
In the third stage, achieving broad across states should be aware that
research associate in
funding, key roles include the state concurring events play an important
the Center on
agency insider and, in states where role in the successful diffusion of
Nonprofits and
significant public funding was nonprofit programs. In the case of
Philanthropy at the
obtained, the lobbyist advocate. For T.E.A.C.H., a policy solution devel-
Urban Institute, where
example, the lobbying team that oped in North Carolina converged
she conducts research
helped win T.E.A.C.H. funding in the with a growing national awareness of
on politics and policy related to non-
Florida state legislature consisted of a the problem of poor quality in child
profit development and operation.
welfare agency director and a child care and federal funding opportuni-
She is the author of a forthcoming
care lobbyist. Their success was attrib- ties. Child care advocates seeking book on the politics and policy
uted in part to the fact that strong solutions to the problem of low- behind decentralized social service
advocates from both inside and out- quality child care often had limited outcomes in Poland. Dr. Kerlin holds
side state government were sending a time and few technical and financial a master’s degree in social work from
unified message. In Indiana, one indi- resources. The availability of what Columbia University and a PhD in
vidual appeared to fulfill both roles. appeared to be a proven “off-the- political science from the Maxwell
As a state agency insider, she was shelf” model and funds (particularly School of Citizenship and Public
deputy director in the Bureau of Child from federal sources such as CCDF Affairs, Syracuse University.
5
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
Nonprofit Org.
2100 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Postage
Washington, D.C. 20037 PAID
Permit No. 8098
Mt. Airy, MD
Address Service Requested
For more information, call
The Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy(CNP) was established
Public Affairs:
in September 1996 to explore the role and contributions of nonprofit organizations in
202-261-5709
democratic societies. The work of CNP is communicated through the dissemination of
or visit our web site,
http://www.urban.org. timely, nonpartisan research to policymakers, practitioners, researchers, the media, and
the general public.
To order additional copies
of this publication, call:
The National Center for Charitable Statistics(NCCS) became a part of the Urban
202-261-5687
Institute in July 1996 and is the statistical arm of the CNP. The mission of NCCS is to
or visit our online bookstore:
build compatible national, state, and regional databases and to develop uniform stan-
http://www.uipress.org.
dards for reporting on the activities of charitable organizations. NCCS databases are
available on CD-ROM, diskette, 9-track tape, or via File Transfer Protocol (FTP) in a
variety of database formats. For information, call 202-261-5801 or visit our Web site,
http://www.urban.org/centers/cnp.html.
The authors wish to thank Sue Russell and Edith Locke of Child Care Services Association
for providing invaluable information and feedback, as well as the many individuals inter-
viewed in connection with the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood®Project in Florida, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and Washington. Funding for this research was provided by the Foundation
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
for Child Development.
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
Copyright © 2004
the Urban Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Permission is granted for reproduction of this document with attribution to the Urban
E-mail: [email protected]
Institute.