ERIC ED574338: Illinois' Early Childhood Innovation Zones: A New Model for State Policy? IERC 2017-1

2017·2.5 MB·English

by  ERIC

ILLINOIS EDUCATIONRREESSEEAARRCCHHCOUNCIL
Illinois’ Early Childhood Innovation Zones: A New Model for
POLICY RESEARCH
State Policy?
|
ISSUE 01 2017

Bradford R. White, Carol E. Colaninno, Mimi Doll, and Holly Lewandowski
? ABOUT THE AUTHORS
cy
oli
P
e Bradford R. White is the Associate Director at the Illinois Education Research Council.
at
St
el for Carol E. Colaninno, PhD, is an assistant research professor at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
d
o
w M Mimi Doll is a consultant with the Illinois Education Research Council.
e
N
A
s: Holly Lewandowski is a consultant with the Illinois Education Research Council.
e
n
o
Z
n
o
ati
v
o
n
n
d I
o
o
h
d
hil ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
C
Early The authors would like to thank the Illinois Governor’s Office for Early Childhood Development, Illinois Action
s’
oi for Children, Anni K. Reinking, and Janet K. Holt for their thoughtful review and feedback on earlier versions of
n
Illi the report. Sincere thanks to the Innovation Zone personnel who participated in this study for graciously sharing
their time and perspectives, to Jennifer Barnhart for the report layout and design, Jacqueline Twitty for her keen
editing eye, and Lesley A. Thompson-Sasso for her research assistance. Any opinions expressed in this report are
those of the authors.
This study was funded by the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood through a Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant from the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services.
SUGGESTED CITATION:
White, B. R., Colaninno, C. E., Doll, M., & Lewandowski, H. (2017). Illinois’ early childhood innovation zones:
A new model for state policy? (IERC 2017-1). Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council at Southern
Illinois University Edwardsville.
2 IERC 2017-1
Table of Contents
Illin
Introduction ...................................................................................................................5 o
is
’ E
Background ....................................................................................................................6 arly C
h
The Innovation Zones ..................................................................................................................6 ild
h
o
Policy context ..............................................................................................................................8 od
In
Methodology ..................................................................................................................9 no
v
a
Data & Analysis ...........................................................................................................................9 tion
Z
o
Organization of this Report .......................................................................................................12 ne
s
Innovations in Capacity-Building .................................................................................13 : A N
e
w
Technical Assistance and Other Supports ..................................................................................13 M
o
d
e
Strategies for Problem-Solving and Decision-Making ................................................................16 l fo
r S
Obstacles to Implementing the Framework ................................................................................20 ta
te
Enrollment Barriers ......................................................................................................23 Po
lic
System Barriers ..........................................................................................................................23 y?
Policy Barriers ............................................................................................................................25
Social Barriers ............................................................................................................................25
Innovations in Enrollment ............................................................................................28
System Alignment ......................................................................................................................28
Developmental Screening ..........................................................................................................32
Family and Community Outreach .............................................................................................33
Expanding Partnerships ............................................................................................................38
Innovations in Quality ..................................................................................................43
Outreach and Incentives ............................................................................................................43
Communities of Practice ..........................................................................................................44
Professional Development ..........................................................................................................45
Challenges to Improving Quality ...............................................................................................47
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................49
Innovations in Capacity Building...............................................................................................49
Innovations in Enrollment ........................................................................................................49
Innovations in Quality ...............................................................................................................50
Impacts & Outcomes ....................................................................................................51
Positive Effects on Capacity .......................................................................................................51
Enrollment Outcomes ...............................................................................................................58
Quantitative Enrollment Metrics ..............................................................................................61
Quality Outcomes .....................................................................................................................62
Quantitative Quality Metrics ....................................................................................................64
cy? Differences by Cohort ...............................................................................................................64
oli
P Data Limitations and Other Challenges to Assessing Impacts ....................................................68
e
at
St Sustainability of Innovations ........................................................................................71
or
el f Discussion & Policy Implications .................................................................................74
d
o
M
w Implementation ........................................................................................................................74
e
N
A Human Capital .........................................................................................................................76
s:
e
on Data 79
Z
n
atio Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................80
v
o
n References .....................................................................................................................82
n
d I
oo Appendix A: Innovation Zone Interview Protocol ........................................................83
h
d
Chil Appendix B: IAFC Interview Protocol ..........................................................................85
arly
E Appendix C: Innovation Zones Interview Coding Schema ............................................86
s’
oi
Illin Appendix D: Innovation Zones End-of-Grant Survey ...................................................89
Appendix Tables 1 and 2 ...............................................................................................91
4 IERC 2017-1
Introduction Illin
o
is
’ E
a
rly C
h
This report is an evaluation of efforts made by Illinois Action for Children (IAFC), with ildh
o
o
oversight from the Illinois Governor’s Office for Early Childhood Development (OECD), d In
n
to test, support, and facilitate innovations in the early childhood system in 11 communities o
v
a
across the state. The Early Childhood Innovation Zones (IZ) initiative, funded by Illinois’ tio
n
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RttT-ELC) grant from the U.S. Departments Zo
n
e
of Education and Health and Human Services, was designed to spur experimentation with s: A
new systemic strategies for increasing the number of children from priority populations Ne
w
enrolled in high quality early learning programs. As described in logic model in Figure 1, the M
o
d
IZ initiative provided support to organizations working with young children in underserved el fo
communities to build their capacity to implement systemic strategies for improving two r S
ta
primary outcome measures: 1) enrolling and serving more children (birth to kindergarten) te
P
o
from priority populations in ECE; and 2) increasing the participation in and ratings on the lic
y?
state’s quality rating and improvement system (QRIS), ExceleRate Illinois, which measures
quality of programs across four domains: teaching and learning, family and community
engagement, leadership and management, and qualifications and professional development
of staff.
Each IZ was directed by a lead agency and core team of local early learning professionals.
IAFC worked with these teams to build capacity using an approach guided by decision
theory, psychology of habits, change management, and implementation science. With
training, coaching, and technical assistance from IAFC, each zone engaged in a systems
change framework using small experiments and action learning cycles to develop
community-wide strategies for reducing and eliminating obstacles and creating pathways for
the advancement of these two goals.
http://ierc.education 5
?
cy Background
oli
P
e
at
St
or
el f Illinois’ early childhood system brings together Although these were the identified priority
d
o
M
w early learning, health and mental health, and family populations, not all zones had the objective or capacity
e
N support and engagement to improve outcomes for to target children in each population. For example,
A
es: children and families. Early learning experiences one zone explicitly targeted families with children
n
o
Z include: family child care; center- and school-based living in poverty and deep poverty, while another
n
o
ati early education services; home visiting; family, friend, focused on families who are linguistically isolated.
v
no and neighbor care; early intervention in natural Furthermore, not all communities include children
n
od I environments; and special education services. The IZ from every priority category, and many children may
o
h
d initiative was designed to develop and test innovative be categorized within multiple priority populations.
hil
Early C msysotdeemlss faotr tsheea mlolceasls ,l ehvieglh. Zqounaleist yw eearrel yc hcahlillednhgoeodd w ith Flionrg uexisatmicapllley, ias oclhaitledd .c ould be both homeless and
s’
oi weaving together multiple streams of early learning
n
Illi funds into a coherent system at the local level. These The Innovation Zones
funding sources included federally-funded Head Start
Program development and implementation occurred
programs, state-funded Preschool for All programs,
in two rounds, referred to as cohort 1 and cohort 2.
and the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP),
Cohort 1 began the program in fall 2013 and cohort
which provides low-income and employed families
2 began their work in spring 2015. Cohort 1 included
with assistance in accessing quality child care (Illinois
seven communities selected by OECD to serve as
Department of Human Services, n.d.).
the initial communities for innovation, whereas
The zones were also charged with targeting their work those communities in cohort 2 were asked to submit
toward identifying and serving children from priority proposals and were selected after applications were
populations, those considered to be most vulnerable reviewed by IAFC in consultation with a group of
to multiple risk factors that may hamper future state level reviewers.
educational success. These populations were defined as:
The OECD invited and selected communities to serve
homeless children; children of teen parents; children in
as IZs. These communities were selected based on the
the state’s Department of Children & Family Services
number and concentration of high needs children,
(DCFS) system, including those children in foster care;
the quality and number of care providers, and the
children with disabilities; children in poverty and deep
presence of established and emerging community
poverty; and children whose families are linguistically
collaborations centered on early learning (IAFC,
isolated and experience other effects of isolation
2015). Of the 11 communities selected to be IZs,
based on language. Families and children from these
five are in Chicago communities, including Altgeld-
groups tend to have limited information about
Riverdale, Austin, Englewood, North Lawndale,
benefits or accessibility of early learning programs,
and Pilsen/Little Village. Four zones are in northern
experience transportation barriers, work unpredictable
Illinois, but outside of Chicago, including the Cicero,
hours conflicting with traditional childcare service
Aurora, Elgin, and Thornton Township (the south
hours, experience food and housing insecurity, and
suburbs of Cook County). Although each of these
traditionally mistrust institutions or governments
communities is unique, they can be characterized as
based on previous experiences (All Families Served
densely populated neighborhoods, although some are
Subcommittee, 2013).
experiencing episodes of depopulation. Zones in the
greater Chicago area (the Chicago zones plus Cicero
6 IERC 2017-1
Illin
IACF Supports and Activities Short-Term Outcomes o
is
’ E
Provide all of the following supports in the context Framework elements are implemented: a
of the conceptual model for systems change (see 1. Diverse perspectives engaged to understand rly C
framework elements in next column) current conditions hild
h
o
Make expectations clear at start of work • Identify root causes, data analysis or system od
(recruitment, orientation) scan In
n
o
v
2. Systemic thinking used a
Train collaboration leaders on selected model and tio
methods. Provide guidance on data collection and • Make sense of data, prioritize for collective n Z
o
data use for planning & process improvement. change, design strategies that are feasible, and n
e
Facilitate peer learning to exchange goals, musaetrc’sh e rxopoetr iceanucsee of problem, design from the s: A N
e
challenges & strategies w
3. Changes implemented effectively; incubate M
o
Coach leaders as they implement strategies. change de
Canoda cdhaitnag includes review of submitted reports 4. •A dSamptaelld w qiunisc,k slmyall experiments, iterative cycles l for State
Find or provide outside resources to address P
• Utilize continuous action learning, feedback o
specific needs (e.g., outside training, research, lic
loops, pivot or preserve y?
making connections
[Strategies themselves will be systems-changing to
Elevate barriers found by the community to different extents, ranging from low (traditional
higher-level decision-makers outreach, pop-up preschools) to high (coordinated
intake or enrollment pipelines)]
Intermediate Term Outcomes
Child Outcomes
Increased enrollment of children from priority populations
Program Outcomes
Improved program quality—ExeleRate (# Gold & # moved up)
Community Outcomes
Collaborations routinely use active learning cycles to solve emerging or new problems
(i.e., framework for short-term outcomes becomes routine)
Systems Outcomes
Professionals work more collaboratively to accomplish their work and solve problems
(e.g., collaborate for child recruitment, share waiting lists, participate in communities of
practice)
Organizations change normal processes to achieve collective impact (e.g., improve
referral systems, data systems, scripts for use with clients, etc.)
Long-Term Outcomes
Children begin kindergarten safe, healthy, eager to succeed and ready to learn
(State vision)
1
Figure 1. Innovation Zones logic model
____________________
1
This model acknowledges that supports, including training, technical assistance, and coaching are ongoing.
http://ierc.education 7
? and the South Suburbs) represent communities that Policy context
cy
oli are predominantly comprised of racial and ethnic
e P The work conducted during the IZ project was clearly
at minorities with median household incomes and per
St affected by Illinois’ ongoing state budget impasse.
or capita incomes below the state average (U.S. Census
del f Bureau, 2015). Aurora and Elgin in northern Illinois Beginning in January of 2015, state lawmakers and the
o governorship faced an extended stalemate causing the
M
ew have demographic profiles similar to the state’s, along state to operate without a budget from the start of the
es: A N wsoiuthth aerrena sp oarf tc oofn Iclelinntoraist:e dG preoavteerrt Ey.a Tstw Sot .I ZLos uairse ainnd t he 2016 fiscal year (July 2016) to the publishing of this
n report. This period, during which the state operated
o
Z Williamson County. Greater East St. Louis is in the St.
on without a budget, is referred to as the “budget crisis”
ati Louis Metro East area and is largely a Black/African
v or “budget impasse.” As detailed in this report, this
o
n American community experiencing high levels of
od In poverty with the median household income well below stalemate stifled the ability of the zones to fully
ho operationalize some activities of the project. Although
d the state average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The
hil zones received federal funds associated with RttT-ELC
Early C Wan iellniatmires ocno uCnotyu natnyd I, Zu nisl itkhee a olln olyf tzhoen oe tehnecro zmonpeass,s ing awards, they encountered obstacles as they attempted
s’ to form partnerships and collaborations with those
oi residents in Williamson County are rurally located and
Illin often isolated from early learning services. agencies and organizations dependent on state funds.
The lack of certainty surrounding state funding created
Most IZs started the project with some collaborations a sense of insecurity among many working in ECE,
and partnerships in place, while others had no pre- particularly among childcare centers dependent on
existing partnerships. IAFC classified the initial degree state-allocated CCAP funds. To further complicate
to which communities had established collaborations the early learning landscape, Illinois changed the
prepared to begin IZ work, referred to in Table 1 eligibility requirements for families to receive CCAP
as their collaborative preparedness, including those funds during the grant cycle. This affected waiting
communities with: 1) new collaboration emerging lists, funds for mental health and special education
having no prior partnerships; 2) developing services, and centers’ abilities to move forward in their
collaborations where zone leadership built on quality improvement plans (IAFC, 2016). This added
some pre-existing partnerships; and 3) in place yet another layer of uncertainty for both early learning
collaborations where communities started their IZ programs and the priority population families and
work with fully operational partnerships. children they serve.
Table 1
Innovation Zone Characteristics
Zone Characteristics Frequency
1 7 zones
Cohort
2 4 zones
Yes 4 zones
Focus on quality?
No 7 zones
Northern Illinois (non-Chicago) 4 zones
Geographic Region Chicago 5 zones
Southern Illinois 2 zones
New 3 zones
Collaborative Preparedness Developing 7 zones
In place 1 zone
8 IERC 2017-1
Methodology Illin
o
is
’ E
a
rly C
h
This mixed methods study is designed to help further Interviews. Interview items were designed around the ildh
o
o
the state’s understanding of the functioning of the goals and the objectives of this study, as well as themes d In
n
project’s logic model and describe the relationships identified in project narratives and feedback on draft o
v
a
between stages in the theory of action. The analyses questionnaires provided by program leadership at tio
n
focus on identifying and describing the supports, IAFC and the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Zo
n
capacities, strategies, and outcomes observed within Development.2 The IZ final interview protocols es: A
each collaborative, as well as across collaboratives, to focused on the major strategies tested by each zone, Ne
w
address three primary research questions: the impacts of these strategies, and barriers in program M
o
d
1. Were there changes in capacity during iemnrpollelmmeenntta, tsitornat.e Qgiuese sttoio innsc raelassoe qeunerroileldm benartr,i estrrsa ttoeg ies el for S
the duration of the IZ initiative program ta
to increase quality, the process of developing these te
P
and what do the collaboratives, and which o
strategies, and the support provided by program lic
supports do collaboration leaders and IAFC y?
leadership. Interviewees were also provided an
support staff believe helped them make those opportunity to share other thoughts and impressions
changes (and which did not)? regarding the IZ project and the work they did in
their communities. The IAFC interview questions
2. What strategies for improving enrollment
focused more explicitly on the conceptual framework
and quality did the local collaborations
and theory of action guiding the implementation
implement, and which capacities, including
of the program, as well as the training and technical
those learned or strengthened through the IZ
assistance provided to the zones. The full zone and
project, did collaboration leaders and IAFC
IAFC interview protocols are included as Appendices
staff believe were most (and least) helpful in
A and B, respectively, of this report.
implementing more systemic strategies and
why? The research team contacted each IZ lead to schedule
interviews for a mutually agreed upon time. Zone
3. What are the intermediate outcomes and
leads were invited to include their core team members
which strategies or strategy prototypes did
who also were active with the zone’s development
collaboration leaders and IAFC support
and implementation in these interviews. These in-
staff believe were most (and least) helpful in depth interviews were conducted with all 11 zones,
improving outcomes and why? as well as the leadership team from IAFC, in May
and June of 2016. Interviews were conducted either
Data & Analysis in person or via telephone and were digitally audio
recorded. In general, interviews took between 60 to
Our analyses utilized qualitative data, including
90 minutes, depending on the number of core team
interviews with zone partners and state level program
members participating.3 Immediately following each
staff, and project documentation, along with
interview, the researcher conducting the interview
quantitative data on enrollment and quality collected
completed a short debrief form to record enrollment
by each zone, and surveys distributed to all program
and quality strategies that were highlighted and other
participants.
____________________
2
The IAFC team was not provided advanced knowledge of nor opportunity to provide feedback on the items included in their interview.
3
Due to scheduling conflicts, Zone 7’s Coordinator was interviewed separately from the remainder of their leadership team, both utilizing the
full interview protocol. As a result, the combined duration of the Zone 7 interviews was approximately twice as long as that of the other zones.
http://ierc.education 9
? notes, themes, and general impressions emerging Document review. We augmented our qualitative
cy
oli from the interview, and shared these forms with the analysis of the interview transcripts by coding
P
e
at rest of the research team. Next, the digital interview additional project documentation shared by IAFC.
St
or recordings were fully transcribed, and upon receipt These documents included quarterly progress reports
el f by the research team, reviewed for accuracy and to submitted by each zone to IAFC, as well as summary
d
o
M
w clarify segments of the recordings deemed inaudible documents compiled by IAFC that described ongoing
e
N by transcribers. The transcripts were then uploaded to program activities, supports, and challenges, along
A
es: Dedoose, a web-based application for mixed-methods with notes on local context. We coded these materials
n
o
Z research that provides an encrypted, collaborative with the same schema used to analyze the interview
n
o
ati environment for managing, coding, and analyzing data.
v
no transcriptions.
n
d I Zone enrollment and quality data. Throughout the
o
ho The research team used a deductive coding structure, project, each zone was asked to collect enrollment
d
Chil whereby codes were constructed a priori, derived data bi-annually and submit this information to
arly from the project’s conceptual framework, research IAFC. Zones choosing to focus on quality-building
E
s’ questions, and debrief forms, as well as prior IZ initiatives were also asked to submit information
oi
n
Illi documentation. Next, transcripts were reviewed to identifying programs participating in the state’s
identify emerging commonalities and themes not ExceleRate system, their current Circle of Quality
captured in the initial coding framework, and the ratings, and their QRIS targets. Illinois Action for
framework was revised accordingly. The final coding Children worked with the zones and others to create
framework included eight parent code categories: standardized forms and procedures for collecting
barriers for enrollment, strategies for increasing these data and provided considerable support and
enrollment, strategies for increasing quality, strategies technical assistance in these efforts, including cleaning
for capacity-building, supporting innovation, building and collating the data and reporting them back to
sustainable innovations, obstacles to innovation, and the zones in aggregate form using graphs and charts
impact. Each of these parent codes contained between for ease of interpretation. IAFC shared these data
three and seven child codes, with some also containing aggregated for each participating early childhood
grandchild codes. The full coding scheme, including center with our research team for independent
definitions for each code, is included as Appendix C of analysis, and all data submissions were merged into a
this report. single, continuous longitudinal data file for analysis.
However, for programs within each zone, participation
Prior to coding, all coders were calibrated for inter-
in these regular enrollment and quality data collection
coder reliability using Dedoose’s calibration testing
cycles was voluntary, and the number of programs
application. After all coders were calibrated, each
submitting data varied (sometimes widely) over time
interview was coded by one of two primary coders.
and from zone to zone.
The primary coder highlighted any excerpts that did
not fit within the coding scheme, and the secondary End-of-grant survey. Using information gathered
coder reviewed all coded excerpts and noted any from previous stages of this study, and in consultation
questionable code applications. The coded interviews with IAFC program management, the research team
were then reviewed once again by the primary coder to designed an end-of-grant survey focusing on the
address any disagreements. This process was repeated short-term and intermediate outcomes of the logical
until all coders unanimously agreed upon the coding model, including implementation of framework
application. elements, and child, program, community, and
systems outcomes. The full text of the survey is
available in Appendix D of this report. The survey was
administered online using Qualtrics software between
10 IERC 2017-1