The Hilton/Head Start Training Program Final Report: 5 Year Visual Executive Summary (2002 through 2007)
Promoting Integrated Services
EHS/MSHS programs realized a number of successes in their efforts to work more collaboratively with families and community partners (including Early Intervention, Head Start, and Child Care). Multiple examples of collaborative activities designed to enhance the quality of services for young children with disabilities and their families were shared, including joint trainings, coordination of intake and referral forms, increased referrals from Early Intervention to Early Head Start, and joint planning and delivery of services.
“I am not only able to provide information to EHS, but bring that information to the Child Care Providers I deal with in the community.” Child Care Partner
Overall, participants indicated that because of their participation in SpecialQuest, the coordination between agencies in their community had been strengthened. On average, over two-thirds of the participants indicated that coordination was at least “much” strengthened.
A bar chart displays a comparison of the average ratings of participants regarding the strengthening of the coordination between agencies in their community. In Year 1, 24 percent of participants indicated the coordination had been strengthened very much, 23 percent in Year 2, 26 percent in Year 3, and 28 percent in Year 4. In Year 1, 33 percent of participants indicated the coordination had been strengthened much, 42 percent in Year 2, 44 percent in Year 3, and 42 percent in Year 4. In Year 1, 25 percent of participants indicated the coordination had been strengthened a fair amount, 24 percent in Year 2, 23 percent in Year 3, and 22 percent in Year 4. In Year 1, 10 percent of participants indicated the coordination had been strengthened a little, 9 percent in Year 2, 6 percent in Year 3, and 6 percent in Year 4. And finally, in Year 1, 1 percent of participants indicated the coordination had not at all been strengthened, and less than one percent in Years 2, 3, and 4.
Programs rated themselves on four practices related to their belief in the importance of collaboration with family members and community partners in serving children with significant disabilities and their families. In general, the programs indicated an increase in average rating from Year 1 to Year 4, again moving towards fully implementing these four practices.
A bar graph displays the summarized results of the “Our Perceptions of Inclusion” ratings. Items between 0 – 1 indicate that no plan is in place. Items between 1 – 3 indicate that programs are in the planning stage. Items between 3 – 7 indicate that a practice is being partially implemented. Items between 7 – 10 mean the practices are being fully implemented.
For item 1, our program believes in the importance of collaboration with family members and community partners in serving children with significant disabilities and their families – programs had a mean score of 6.5, in Year 2 an 8.2, in Year 3 an 8.8 and in Year 4 a 9.05. For item 2, our program and the families it serves have an active and productive partnership with Early Intervention – programs had a mean score of 6.4, in Year 2 a 7.9, in Year 3 an 8.2 and in Year 4 an 8.8. For item 3, our program and the families it serves have an active and productive partnership with Head Start – programs had a mean score of 6.6, in Year 2 an 8.15, in Year 3 an 8.2 and in Year 4 an 8.85. Lastly, for item 4, our program and the families it serves have an active and productive partnership with Child Care representatives in our community – programs had a mean score of 4.5, in Year 2 a 5.6, in Year 3 a 6.3, and in Year 4 a 6.75. It is noted that the difference in average ratings was significant for all items at an alpha level of 0.001.
“There has been more communication and a better understanding of both of our requirements and regulations and actually now our EI Partner is at our site.” Child Care Partner