When programs, states, or countries (i.e., entities) are
seeking to improve early intervention/early childhood special education
services, the EIEIO can help them with
implementation planning. We have now helped many entities develop implementation
plans. From implementation science, we
know entities move through four stages: exploration, installation, initial
implementation, and full implementation. By the time an entity has contacted us,
they are usually well into exploration. In the jargon of implementation science—and
there’s a lot of it, we are a purveyor—the developer of the model they are
implementing or considering implementing.
Some entities have worked with us for a while, and we have
agreed to formalize the implementation plan. What’s so important about an
implementation plan?
1.
It forces stakeholders to think about what a
true commitment to implementation really consists of, particularly how long
it takes.
2.
It helps entities put its efforts into priority
order—of importance but also of feasibility and timeliness.
3.
It announces to the entity, administrators, and
policy makers what the plan is. Therefore it sends a message.
4.
It acknowledges that not everything can be done
at once, that entities have to spread out expenditures over time.
The implementation-planning meeting has some distinct
stages:
·
Explaining the model under consideration—in our
case, the Routines-Based Model;
·
Listing components of the model that might be
good to adopt;
·
Brainstorming areas of needed improvement,
whether related to the model or not;
·
Matching improvement needs to components of the
model;
·
Finalizing the list of components to adopt
(i.e., implement);
·
Deciding on timelines for preparation,
implementation (i.e., intensive training), and maintenance of each component;
·
Deciding on the definition of “full implementation”
for each component chosen;
·
Planning who will write which action steps (one
set of action steps per component) by when.
The final implementation plan, therefore, shows the
timelines and what needs to be done, for each component, (a) to prepare for
implementation, (b) to train people, and (c) how fidelity to the model will be
maintained. Preparation for implementation can mean gathering materials,
reviewing policies that might enhance or interfere with implementation, and finding
or developing instruments for measuring implementation fidelity (e.g.,
checklists).
Stakeholders provide input. It is actually usually
administrators who make the final decisions, because they have the funds and
responsibility. One of the decisions that needs to be made is what “full
implementation” means. Literally, it would be that all children and families
are receiving a given practice or that all providers are using the practice.
But if decision-makers decide they won’t or can’t make everyone do it, the goal
for implementation might be that a given number or percentage of children and
families or professionals are receiving or delivering, respectively, the
practice. This option is especially popular in entities with much local
control. For example, a state’s preschool special education program might want
to implement components of the Engagement Classroom Model (part of the
Routines-Based Model) in 20 local education agencies by the target date. They
would not be targeting implementation in all LEAs, which might be considered
unfeasible in their situation.
Some people might consider it inadvisable
to have the purveyor also do the implementation planning, but we have found it
to work well. You want a facilitator who knows early childhood, and it’s a good
idea to have someone from outside the system doing the implementation to
facilitate. In our case, we have enough experience with facilitating these
meetings that we know how to do so without pushing ideas the group doesn’t
want.
As Thomas Alva Edison said, “The value of an idea lies in
the using of it.” Therefore, entities should plan for implementation and should
not be surprised at how long implementation takes.
