Search

Since it began in 1965, Head Start has been the cornerstone of the nation's services for low-income children and their families. A substantial research base has been attached to Head Start, providing information about the program's overall accomplishments and directions about ways to improve services for young children. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI-AN) children, however, have not always been the direct beneficiaries of knowledge gained through research because very little evidence has been systematically gathered from Head Start programs that serve these children. To support the development and implementation of research within and by tribal communities, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, awarded ORC Macro a two-year contract to review existing information and explore research needs for American Indian-Alaska Native Head Start programs. The goal of the project was to develop a research agenda responsive to the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs--a research agenda that (1) takes into account the unique cultural environments and values of these populations and (2) guides the development of information programs can use to improve services provided to children and families. To begin addressing the gaps in research, the ACF initiative established a consultant panel of experts in early childhood education for American Indians and Alaska Natives; synthesized findings from previous research studies; and conducted listening sessions with tribal leaders, elders, community representatives, parents, and staff from 18 American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs that represent a wide range of geographic location, size, program structure, use of the native language, and other factors. The project addressed the following questions: (1) What are the research priorities and needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs?; (2) What issues should be considered in conducting research among American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs?; (3) How can ACF support partnerships between researchers and American Indian-Alaska Native Head Start programs?; and (4) To what extent are culturally appropriate instruments, measures, and procedures available to assess child outcomes? This report summarizes findings from the initiative, especially opinions and recommendations from listening session participants. The findings will produce directions for developing scientifically valid information that can be used to address matters of consequence for American Indian-Alaska Native Head Start programs. (Contains 42 exhibits and 14 footnotes.)

Intended for policymakers, the report examines the federal government's efforts to influence state and local governments on matters of education. Two agencies within the Department of Education are spotlighted: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education (OSE). Parallel case studies of OCR and OSE were conducted via more than 150 interviews which sought to identify informal strategies used to influence state and local actions. Interviewees included federal officials from both Washington and regional offices; interest group representatives; members of state and local educational agencies; and complainants, parents, and beneficiary group representatives. Following a discussion of the two offices' operating styles and assumptions, a typology of influence methods available to OCR and OSE is postulated. Two major influence strategies (enforcement and promotion) are identified, and the effects of each on decision making administrative processes, and general policies at the state and local level are considered. A final section presents a framework depicting factors to be considered by the federal government in decisions regarding change for local and state government activities. The importance of matching federal goals with local conditions and of using hybrid strategies is emphasized. (CL)

The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) of 1981 is intended to provide opportunities for states and local governments to have more control of their educational programs and to deregulate the administration of federal programs. Introduced at a time when state funding and revenue systems are in flux and severely depleted, it presents states with many unanswered questions. ECIA funds are intended for working on school improvement programs, but lowered funding means officials' attention will be directed toward maintenance of existing programs. Decision-making relationships are left unclear by the ECIA, and compliance standards are uncertain. Chapter 1 of the ECIA will reduce educational services in nearly all school systems, and chapter 2 will do the same in at least the major cities. State education officials are concerned about the lack of direction provided by the United States Department of Education with respect to acceptable practices to be used in administering the ECIA. The amount of deregulation resulting from the ECIA is minimal; in some cases centralized decision-making is increased by the ECIA's policy of nonspecificity. State officials are keenly aware of the ambiguities in chapter 3, which extends responsibility to the states at the same time that it withholds controls. Further research on the effects of the ECIA should focus on administrative and programmatic changes that occur after implementation. (MD)

This document examines the following aspects of the federal administration of evaluation, program improvement, and technical assistance under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act: (1) changes in each of the three areas since 1981 when Chapter 1 replaced Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; (2) activities currently conducted in the United States Department of Education (ED) in each area; and (3) problems and opportunities experienced in the federal administration of evaluation, program improvement, and technical assistance. Among the conclusions are the following: (1) ED has encouraged state and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to continue collecting data on project effectiveness and participant characteristics using the evaluation system mandated under Title I; (2) reports of errors in the research design, collection, and reporting of achievement data suggest that ED should assess the quality of those data to determine if changes are needed; (3) problems in the federal administration of the improvement initiative arise from the voluntary nature of state and local activities to improve Chapter 1 quality, that is not the SEAs' central purpose; and (4) Technical Assistance Center performance in assisting SEAs and LEAs in program improvement has been limited by constraints on their resources, low levels of interest, and the structure of the Chapter 1 program. Data are presented on three tables; a list of references is included. (BJV)

This document reports on those aspects of the findings of the National Study of Local Operations under Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, the federal education block grant, that are concerned with the relationships among the federal, state, and local governmental agencies charged with administering federal educational grants. Particular attention is paid to the degree of influence exerted by the state and to the degree of administrative flexibility experienced at the local level as a result of the consolidation of several federal categorical grants into the Chapter 2 block grant. This report's introductory chapter reviews these issues, lists the research questions addressing the intergovernmental issues discussed in this report, identifies the administrative responsibilities associated with Chapter 2 at each governmental level, and describes the national survey and site visit methods used to collect data for this study. The second chapter discusses the interactions taking place between various government agencies, noting (1) variations in administrative procedures developed by the states; (2) effects on paperwork demands, monitoring, and audits; and (3) state intervention in local programing. The third chapter focuses on the effects of these procedures on local decision-making and local perceptions of Chapter 2. A concluding section summarizes the findings. Appendixes present error values for the report's tables and list categorical grant programs consolidated under Chapter 2. (PGD)

Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act provides basic grants to local school districts to provide supplemental services for disadvantaged students. Additionally, Chapter 1 authorizes smaller programs which provide services for students from migrant families, students in state facilities for the handicapped, and students in state-operated or supported institutions for the neglected or delinquent (N or D). This report, funded by the United States Department of Education and intended for federal policymakers, presents an analysis of state Chapter 1 programs for N or D students. The following topics are discussed in separate sections of the report: (1) federal and state administrative operations including responsibilities of state educational agencies; (2) facility operations including specifics of three state programs as well as a general overview; and (3) transitional programs including alternative high schools and group homes. A final section discusses findings and conclusions in the areas of quality of program information, compliance, program identity, and transitional programs. The report concludes that although the N and D program needs fine tuning, the program is generally well-executed and students enrolled in Chapter 1 classes show improvement. Appendixes list discussion topics for state directors about N or D services, and questions to be discussed during on-site visits to N or D facilities. (ABL)

This paper reviews and summarizes available information on the neglected or delinquent youth population, on education programs for delinquent youth, and on the Neglected or Delinquent (N or D) program funded under Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act that serves a portion of that population residing in state-operated or state-supported facilities. Relatively few neglected or abused children who have not been charged with any crime are assigned to state facilities; delinquent youth, who have been arrested and charged with a crime, are managed through another set of procedures in the juvenile justice system; and some youth under the age of 21, whose offenses or behavior warrant adult treatment, are adjudicated through the adult criminal justice system. Correctional facilities may offer multiple services to inmates, such as education, training, and employment. Academic instruction in juvenile facilities may constitute a major portion of the inmate's day and is often individualized; adult facilities offer a wider range of voluntary programs and instructional techniques vary depending on the inmates' skill levels. One of the chief purposes of education for institutionalized youth is to prepare them for re-entry into non-institutionalized settings, but little information is available on outcomes. To be eligible for Chapter 1 services, an institutionalized youth must lack a high school diploma and be enrolled for at least 10 hours per week in an organized program of instruction supported by non-federal funds. Program evaluation research is scant, the literature has little common focus, and findings are often not generalizable because of the limited scope of past studies. Statistical data are included on nine tables. A list of information sources and a list of 76 references are appended. (FMW)

Intended for federal policymakers, this study examined four aspects of the Chapter 1 migrant education program: program administration, program services, students served, and program expenditures. Case studies were conducted in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas between November 1986 and March 1987. State agencies and 10 project sites were visited in the 6 states. Study questions posed by the United States Department of Education were investigated. Some of the findings were that: some sites, even those with large migrant populations, chose not to participate in the program; most control over program decisions was at the local, not state, level; local initiative was the only source for inter- and intra-state coordination; project funds were generally allocated on a per pupil basis; and, different administrative models were used in the six states. Further, most resources and efforts were devoted to instructional assistance for students; various services were offered; eligible students were selected to receive services according to their needs; staff believed that children were present for more of the school year than was the case in previous years; and, salaries accounted for the largest proportion of program expenditures at the local level. Samples of documents used to report data are included. (JMM)

The National Center for Children in Poverty recently conducted research on case management in service integration projects. The core of the study's information comes from 16 projects around the country, all serving children living in poverty. This brief discusses the characteristics of case managers, including their demographic attributes, tenure, work environment, caseload size, time allocations among tasks, and salaries. Case managers from these projects were a diverse group, from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds, with varied education and work experiences. The resources to support their work are often limited, and their salaries are only moderate, but many have been with their projects for extended periods. Most of these projects had relatively small caseloads, but there was considerable variance. Overall, case managers spent rather comparable amounts of time on the activities they performed. The characteristics of case managers identified may contribute to the development of a typology that would help in further explorations of case management methods and project and client outcomes. (Contains two tables and two figures.) (SLD)

As the case management approach has become increasingly popular, a new phenomenon has emerged. A client may have several case managers, each employed by a different project, and these managers may not be aware of each other. The National Center for Children in Poverty has recently conducted research on case management in service integration projects. The core of the information comes from 16 projects from many service domains serving children and their families. Reviewing the work of these projects has made it apparent that the problem of multiple case managers exists everywhere, in cities and rural areas, and that the cost of unnecessary duplication is excessive, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of wasted human capital. The reality of categorical programs, single-focus interventions, and other features of the human service delivery system virtually ensure the continuation of the trend. Consolidating categorical programs into block grants, as is being debated in some public policy arenas, may remove some system factors that lead to multiple case managers, but it is evident that real solutions call for the application of professional standards and common sense. (SLD)

The National Center for Children in Poverty has recently conducted research on case management in service integration projects, with the core information coming from 16 projects around the country from many service domains. Six programs specifically target very young children living in poverty, and six provide services to very young children regardless of their family income. Aspects of the case management process were studied, from finding the clients through implementing developed service plans to eventual disengagement. While the core functions of case management were routine, the types and needs of clients were extremely varied. Most clients came to these projects through referrals from other human service agencies. Rather than the linear notion of case management promoted in research and the academic literature, most projects followed a rather circular path, suggesting the need for flexibility by case managers. Projects intended to serve the whole family frequently focused on one member. Findings also showed that case managers do more than provide access to and navigation around the human service system in that they provide ongoing support. A final conclusion is that the mutual dependence of some case managers and clients could become counterproductive if taken too far. (Contains one table and three figures.) (SLD)

This publication evaluates The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation school-based health care centers for medically underserved populations. On-site visits and interviews with staff provided data on the experiences of 24 secondary school-based health centers from their design phase through full-scale operation. The report reviews issues that affect all health centers such as dealing with controversy, making decisions about the centers' location in the schools, working with school nurses, and incorporating school staff. Discussion about the delivery of medical and psychosocial service reveal the comprehensive approach these health centers use. Sections on personnel and organizational management show: (1) the importance of the nurse practitioner or physician's assistant; (2) the benefits and disadvantages of using staff contributed by multiple organizations; and (3) ways to make the health center's environment appealing to students. The report also assesses: the development of relationships among health center staff, school staff and students, including confidentiality practices; impact on classroom instruction; response to emergencies; and costs and funding mechanisms for facility operations. The report concludes with lessons for further initiatives. (Contains 17 references.) (LL)