Cayci | Community and Youth Collaborative Institute ...cayci.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Capacity...Barkin, 2005), family/community partnership models (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:257–287, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online

DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2010.500512

ARTICLE

Capacity-Related Innovations Resulting Fromthe Implementation of a Community

Collaboration Model for School Improvement

DAWN ANDERSON-BUTCHEROhio State University

HAL A. LAWSONThe University at Albany, The State University of New York

AIDYN IACHINIOhio State University

GERALD BEANEvaluation Support Group

PAUL D. FLASPOHLERMiami University

KEITH ZULLIGWest Virginia University

A new genus of district and school improvement models en-

tails partnerships with other organizations and new working

relationships with families, community leaders, and youths. The

Ohio Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement

(OCCMSI) is one such model. It enables partners to leverage family

and community resources for learning, healthy development, and

overall success in school. This study presents qualitative research

findings about the key capacities developed by 6 schools and

6 districts piloting the OCCMSI. Process and product innovations,

as well as facilitators and barriers, were tracked as these sites

Correspondence should be sent to Dawn Anderson-Butcher, College of Social Work,1947 College Road, 340B Stillman Hall, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail:[email protected]

257

258 D. Anderson-Butcher et al.

progressed with their implementation efforts. Implications are

drawn in relation to how these new and expanded capacities

might be prioritized by district and school leaders, consultants,

and other professionals involved in partnership-centered models

of school improvement.

Conventional school improvement models manifest two important common-alties. First, improvement priorities are those educators can influence andcontrol during the regular school day. Second, these models typically arefocused on one building. In fact, descriptors such as ‘‘walled-in,’’ ‘‘building-centered,’’ and ‘‘educator-controlled’’ aptly describe these frameworks andmodels. These models’ merits, documented by research and supported bytheory, are noteworthy and help explain their popularity and widespreadadoption (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002).

These two commonalties are indicative of inherent selectivity and lim-itations. For example, when school improvement is ‘‘walled in,’’ importantfamily and community resources for learning, academic achievement, andhealthy development are ‘‘walled out.’’ More specifically, students’ learningand developmental experiences during out-of-school time remain untappedresources. At the same time, barriers to learning, academic achievement, andsuccess in school tend not to be addressed systematically and effectively.One result is that young people do not come to school ready and able tolearn. Another is that educators and schools are responsible for program andservice needs among students.

Limitations like these are especially apparent in schools and districtswith considerable numbers of young people and families manifesting social-psychological vulnerabilities and experiencing economic, social, and culturalhardships. Under these circumstances, educators simply cannot be expectedto ‘‘do it all, alone’’ inside one building. Nor can they achieve good outcomesby focusing exclusively on what can be done during the restricted hours ofthe regular school day.

Two conclusions are derived. First, ‘‘walled-in,’’ ‘‘building-centered,’’and ‘‘educator-controlled’’ improvement frameworks and models are neces-sary, but they are insufficient to achieve outcomes for young people. Second,expanded school improvement models are needed, especially partnership-centered models that leverage family and community resources for learn-ing, healthy development, and overall success in school. Instituting thesecomplex change initiatives in schools and districts, however, is challenging.Partnership-centered models and other types of reforms place new demandson schools and districts, especially low-performing ones that often do nothave the internal capacities necessary for implementation (Hatch, 2009).

Important questions for research and development surround thesepartnership-centered school improvement models. For instance, what new

Capacity-Related Innovations 259

capacities do schools and districts develop as they adopt and implementpartnership-centered, expanded school improvement models? What factorsfacilitate progress, innovations, and capacity enhancements? What barriersand constraints limit the successful adoption and implementation of thesepartnership-centered approaches? The research and development initiativeintroduced here begins to explore the answers to these questions. The studyexplores new and expanded capacities developed among schools and dis-tricts working through a partnership-centered school improvement process.It also documents facilitators and barriers related to successful adoption andimplementation of partnership-centered models.

PARTNERSHIP-CENTERED MODELS OF

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Expanded school improvement models are being implemented in a varietyof locales. Most of all, they have gained increasing popularity in urbanschools and districts. For example, community schools (Blank, Melaville,& Shah, 2003), multiservice or ‘‘full service’’ schools (Dryfoos, Quinn, &Barkin, 2005), family/community partnership models (Anderson-Butcher &Ashton, 2004; Epstein, 2001), school-linked health and social services (Law-son & Sailor, 2000), comprehensive learning supports systems (Adelman &Taylor, 2006), schools of the 21st century, especially ‘‘Co-Zi schools’’ (Comer,Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996; Zigler, 1997), coordinated school healthprograms (Brener et al., 2006; Weiler, Pigg, & McDermott, 2003), after-schoolprogram partnerships (Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, & Wade-Mdivanian, 2009;Anderson-Butcher, Stetler, & Midle, 2006), and community collaborationmodels (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Shirley, 1997; Warren, 2005) havegained increasing currency over the past 15 years. Hybrids may form as twoor more models also are combined.

Significantly, every one of these expanded models involves partnerships.The best partnerships enable new interpersonal relationships, including co-operation, coordination, and collaboration among diverse, once-separatestakeholders (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Lawson, 2004). Together, thesenew partnerships and interpersonal relationships necessitate systems changesin schools and districts. They also entail cross-systems changes involvingother systems, especially child welfare, juvenile justice, mental health, sub-stance abuse, youth development, and the health system. Predictably, schoolsand districts with histories of ‘‘walled-in’’ improvement planning typicallylack the organizational mechanisms, leadership and management structures,supportive cultures, and organizational expertise required for this and othertransitions (Flaspohler, Anderson-Butcher, Paternite, Weist, & Wandersman,2006; Fullan, 2005; Hatch, 2009; Honig, 2006).


Framing Capacity-Building Efforts

To support adoption and implementation, capacity building among individ-uals, groups, teams, professional learning communities, individual schools,partner organizations, entire districts, and communities is especially impor-tant (Bodilly, Chun, Ikemoto, & Stockly, 2004; Fullan, 2005; Rogers, 2003).Some researchers and consultants suggest that two types of capacity areimportant: innovation-specific and generic (general) capacity (Flaspohler,Duffy, Wandersman, Maras, & Stillman, 2008). Innovation-specific capacitybuilding is necessary for ensuring stakeholders and systems have the knowl-edge, values, and skills needed specific to the innovation being adopted andimplemented. Generic capacity building requires general competencies forworking in teams, relationship building, communication, and broad-basedleadership. Both are essential for building capacity among individuals andsystems.

Other researchers and consultants point to an additional construct: part-nership infrastructure (Adelman & Taylor, 2006). Infrastructure developmentis an emergent construct, and it includes collaborative leadership struc-tures, relevant resource allocations, and complex policy changes (Adelman& Taylor, 2006; Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Honig, 2006). New skills andcompetencies also must be developed in the people charged with systemschange in order to support these complex infrastructures.

It also is important to pay attention to the degree and kind of re-form and innovation specified in each school improvement model. Here,a distinction provided by Cicchinelli, Dean, Galvin, Goodwin, and Parsley(2006) is relevant. First-order change extends past-present structures, oper-ations, roles, responsibilities, policies, and practices in a school or district.Because it builds on existing knowledge and skills and tends to be con-gruent with existing values, learning and adoption are easier (in compar-ison with second-order change). In contrast, second-order change entailsa break with the past in a school or a district as the innovation tends tobe inconsistent with prevailing norms; existing values; and conventionalpolicies, structures, operations, and practices. This kind of change requiresthe ‘‘unfreezing’’ of existing roles, relationships, structures, and processesand, at the same time, the introduction and learning of knowledge, skills,and sensitivities associated with the innovation. This kind of change re-quires systems thinking, nonlinear planning, and embedded evaluations forcontinuous learning and improvement (Fullan, 2005). Arguably partnership-centered models for school improvement require both first- and second-orderchanges.

More insights related to capacity building can be derived from the liter-ature on collaborations and organizational partnerships (Anderson-Butcher& Ashton, 2004; Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Lawson, 2004). Two kindsof innovations stem from these new working relationships (Lawson, 2004).


Process innovations entail new operational procedures, work proceduresand routines, and functional protocols; they represent new ways of ‘‘doingbusiness.’’ Product innovations include substantive changes involving newstructures, programs, and services. Individually and together, these two kindsof innovations are indicators of school, district, and community capacity. Itis important to note that these two kinds of innovations are demonstrablesigns of progress that showcase actual and potential returns on investments(Bodilly et al., 2004).

Where partnership-centered school improvement models are con-cerned, multiple systems are engaged and the attendant capacity-buildingwork is multifaceted. In fact, the literature already documents the difficultiesassociated with schoolwide, microlevel, and classroom-based instructionalchanges (Bodilly et al., 2004). Partnership-centered approaches, whichadd additional priorities to the school improvement agenda, add furthercomplexity. Because of these challenges, there is a clear need for anexplicit capacity-building approach related to partnership-centered schoolimprovement models.

INTRODUCING THE OHIO COMMUNITY

COLLABORATION MODEL FOR

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

One partnership-centered approach is The Ohio Community CollaborationModel for School Improvement (OCCMSI; Anderson-Butcher et al., 2004;Anderson-Butcher et al., 2008; Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010). Groundedin part in the ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the OCCMSIcomplements traditional school improvement models. It does so by addingpriorities related to the development of partnerships to maximize schooland community resources for learning, healthy development, and overallschool success. Table 1 describes the specific milestones schools and districtsgo through when adopting and implementing the OCCMSI. As describedin the table, OCCMSI implementation is guided by an explicit planningframework, one that emphasizes key processes such as fostering buy-in,conducting needs and resource assessments, creating plans for improvementand partnership, implementing programs/services, building infrastructure,and evaluating outcomes. Figure 1 presents the OCCMSI theoretical modeloperationalized as a series of milestones designed to support school-family-community partnerships targeting five improvement pathways vital to ex-panded school improvement initiatives, including academic learning, youthdevelopment, parent/family engagement and support, health and socialservices, and community partnerships programs and services. Strategies areprioritized during the school day as well as in the out-of-school time.


TABLE 1 OCCMSI Implementation Milestones

Milestone Operational definition

Engage the school � Develop strategies to ensure that the model is understoodand accepted as a viable process for school improvement

Engage the community � Establish a pilot team with broad school and communityrepresentation

Conduct a current schooland community practicesinventory

� Map programs and services by filling in the boxes in theOCCMSI model

Assess conditions/needs � Identify the most pressing barriers to learningAssess resources � Identify community resources available, available but

insufficient, and/or needed to help address the mostpressing barriers; explore community assets and strengths,both formal and informal

Analyze gaps � Identify resources that are needed, or those that areavailable but aren’t of sufficient quality and quantity, toaddress the most pressing barriers

Expand continuousimprovementplanning process

� Expand traditional priorities to include strategies to addressyouth development, parent/family, health and socialservice, and community partnerships; foster inclusive andcomprehensive planning

Develop and/orenhance resources

� Develop needed but unavailable or insufficient communityresources; strengthen available resources

Develop and/orstrengthen keypartnerships

� Link community resources to barriers to learning; prioritizepartnerships and relationships

Develop and/or enhanceinfrastructure

� Develop and/or enhance collaborative leadershipstructures, single points of contact, and structuralcomponents in relation to the model and priorities;prioritize linkages and connections across systems andcomponents in relation to overall objectives; develop andstrengthen ongoing relationships, communicationchannels, and service delivery systems between andamong partners; alter policies, procedures, roles, andresponsibilities

Develop and/or enhanceprograms and strategiesto address key barriers

� Work with partners to decide what you are going to do toaddress barriers; adopt best practices and evidence-baseddesign principles, strategies, and programs; use logicmodels to develop the operational detail of programs andstrategies; implement programs and strategies with qualityand fidelity

Develop and/or enhanceeffort and outcometracking strategies

� Identify key data elements; develop data management,data analysis, and reporting capacities; collect data to trackoperations and outcomes

Implement evaluationand feedback processes

� Ensure that data collected during the operation ofprograms and strategies links back to school andcommunity decision making; also commit to continuousimprovement

Note. OCCMSI D Ohio Community Collaboration Model for School Improvement.

FIG

UR

E1

Ohio

Com

munity

Collab

ora

tion

Modelfo

rSc

hoolIm

pro

vem

ent.

263


Community-owned-and-operatedand school-owned-and-operated resourcesare leveraged simultaneously.

Within the OCCMSI, traditional ‘‘walled-in’’ school improvement pro-cesses involving curriculum alignment, high-quality instruction, and standards-based accountabilities existent in schools and districts are complementedby the development of horizontal linkages connecting schools and districtsstrategically with their communities. Stakeholders representing schools, dis-tricts, families, and communities explore both academic and nonacademicbarriers impeding overall school success. Together they create collaborativeleadership structures, ones that encourage leaders to utilize data to guide theimplementation of multiple evidence-based programs and services. Theseprograms, services, and strategies are not just academically focused. Theyalso involve multiple strategies to build protective factors and address riskfactors across micro, mezzo, and macro systems. In the end, traditionally‘‘siloed’’ strategies are integrated, shared agendas are created, linkage sys-tems are prioritized, and mutual accountability for school and communityoutcomes is fostered.

Context for the Study

The OCCMSI, like other partnership-centered approaches, involves collab-oration and new working relationships among organizations. In contrastto linear school improvement planning, several improvement goals can beachieved simultaneously and across multiple systems in the OCCMSI. Notwith-standing these advantages, models such as the OCCMSI are inherently com-plex and their accompanying knowledge base incomplete. Given its com-plexities, schools and districts implementing the OCCMSI serve as relevantcontexts for investigating the capacities that develop and the innovations thatresult when they are implemented. As such, this study presents qualitativeresearch examining the development of key capacities among 6 schoolsand 6 districts piloting the OCCMSI in Ohio. Process and product innova-tions were tracked as these pilots progressed through the series of OCCMSImilestones. Findings point to key generic and innovation-specific capacity-building needs involving first and second order, those of which might serveas targets for schools, districts, and the consultants involved in partnership-centered school improvement efforts.

METHOD

Pilot Schools and Districts

Six pilot schools were chosen to pilot the OCCMSI by the Ohio Departmentof Education (ODE). Readiness, demonstrated in existing commitments, basic


capacities, and community resources, was an important component of siteselection (Flaspohler et al., 2006, 2008). Site selection was done in twosteps. First, schools awarded a special grant focused on the developmentof school-community partnerships to support out-of-school time learningand development were initially targeted for the pilot. These schools alreadyhad programs/services in place within their school communities and there-fore were presumably further along in readiness for model adoption. Allgrantees were given an overview of the pilot project and the pilot requestfor proposals. The application required interested schools to report on key‘‘readiness’’ factors. For instance, they were asked to report on the strengthof key partnerships, the alignment of the pilot opportunity to their currentschool improvement efforts, and the perceived value of such an opportunityamong key school and community leaders. Sites were selected based ontheir overall strength in relation to these multiple factors as well as theirrepresentativeness of Ohio’s considerable geographic, demographic, cultural,and political diversity.

One year after the pilot schools were selected, ODE leaders selected6 districts from an initial pool of 12 also to be involved in the project.These 12 districts had been involved in a special pilot project in the statefocused on the adoption of standards-based reform efforts. It was presumedthat these 12 districts were more ‘‘ready’’ for expanded school improvementapproaches because they already had received extensive support in relationto their ‘‘traditional’’ walled-in improvements. For 2 years prior, their districtadministrators focused on curriculum alignment, performance-based assess-ments, high-quality instruction, and other strategies related to standards-based accountabilities. All 12 districts were approached for the pilot; only 6opted to participate in the project.

In the end, there were two cohorts of OCCMSI pilot sites. The 6 pilotschools focused on schoolwide implementation across an 18-month period.The 6 districts prioritized districtwide implementation within a 9-month timeframe. The school cohort was comprised of 3 urban (1 of which was froma large urban district), 1 rural with urbanlike features, and 2 rural schools.The district cohort involved 4 rural, 1 rural with urbanlike features, and 1urban district. Sites were strategically located across the state (i.e., northwest,southwest).

Pilots within each cohort were charged with moving through the seriesof OCCMSI milestones outlined in Table 1. Their progress toward imple-mentation and adoption was monitored using an Implementation Checklistbased on these milestones. Along the way, they were provided with severaltypes of professional development, technical assistance and support, andcapacity-building supports. Each is described here.

First, each pilot school and district was initially provided with anOCCMSI implementation guide (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2004). The fullimplementation guide may be found at http://www-old.csw.ohio-state.edu/


cayci/occmsi_implementationguide.htm. The guide provided the warrants ofthe OCCMSI model, and it served as a resource for stakeholders involved inthe model’s adoption and implementation.

Both the school and district pilot cohorts received extensive technicalassistance from expert consultants who provided guidance to pilot sites asthey moved through the various OCCMSI milestones. Consultants involvedin the project had content expertise in relation to one or more componentof the OCCMSI model. For instance, some consultants had expertise inplanning processes as they were either program evaluators or state-levelschool improvement specialists. Others had expertise in one or more of thefive school improvement pathways of the OCCMSI (i.e., academic learning,parent/family engagement, youth development, health and social services,community partnerships). Still others were knowledgeable in both contentand process components of the OCCMSI. Consultants averaged over 15 yearsof experience working in their respective specialty areas.

Each pilot site was assigned a lead consultant, although at times otherconsultants were brought in based on local needs for specific expertise.Additionally, these consultants had access to senior external consultants andOCCMSI project leaders of which they could utilize for their own ongoingtechnical assistance, professional development, and capacity-related needs.In other words, senior consultants helped the school and district consultantswho, in turn, provided consultation to school and district leaders and teams.

Consultants provided varying types of technical assistance and capacity-building support. Some of the consultants’ work involved direct service asthey provided leadership and administrative support as the schools anddistricts undertook new planning, implementation, and evaluation tasks.The majority of consultant time, however, was spent in indirect capacitybuilding, during which time they supported each pilot site with their overallimplementation efforts. For instance, consultants helped school and districtleaders create new administrative structures and teams. They coconductedfocus groups during needs assessment processes and supported data col-lection strategies. They supported local leaders as they designed and imple-mented new strategies, programs, and teaming processes to support districtand school improvements. Consultants also provided education related tokey content and practice areas prioritized by the pilots (i.e., after-schoolprogramming, school mental health, etc). In the end, each site receivedapproximately 3 days of consultation per month over the course of theproject.

OCCMSI leadership teams from each site also attended cross-site pro-fessional development and networking meetings offered during the projectimplementation period. Team composition was determined locally by siteleaders, and members included school and district administrators, educators,pupil service personnel, after-school coordinators, community partners, and,at times, parents. Teams ranged from three to nine members, dependent


on local decision-making processes. Each pilot team also had one identifiedleader who was determined locally at the beginning of the project. In thecase of the school pilots, four of the team leaders were principals andtwo were after-school program coordinators. Within the district pilots, threesuperintendents served in the leadership role. Three district teams were ledby district administrators appointed by their superintendents.

The school cohort participated in seven meetings, whereas the districtcohort was only involved in four. Meetings were designed by the consultantsand project leaders and organized in relation to the OCCMSI milestones. Forinstance, learning objectives focused on data collection and managementcapacities early on in the project (as pilots were moving through the needsand resources assessment steps). Later on, learning objectives focused on de-signing and implementing evidence-based programs and strategies across thefive school improvement pathways. Implementation fidelity was monitoredat each of these meetings as discussion also focused on sites completingan OCCMSI Implementation Checklist and reporting progress to meetingparticipants.

Additionally, meetings focused on increasing core knowledge and skillsamong leaders in key practice areas relevant to the five OCCMSI improve-ment pathways. The topics for these meetings arose from cross-site needsemerging across pilots. For example, several pilots identified improvementpriorities related to the provision of school mental health services. In turn,one session’s learning objectives focused specifically on this professionaldevelopment need. Meetings also were designed to allow sites to shareinnovations, lessons learned, achievements, and challenges with others alsoimplementing the OCCMSI. Agendas included opportunities for role-alikegroupings, where team members in specific roles (i.e., superintendents, stu-dent support personnel, etc.) were able to dialogue and brainstorm togetheras a group.

Additionally, each pilot received $5,000 to support their implementationefforts. These dollars were used to support leader involvement in the pilotproject (especially in the cross-site meetings). Expenses primarily related totravel costs and those needed to pay substitutes while school staff attendedmeetings.

Data Collection and Analysis

A research team comprised of OCCMSI leaders, graduate students, oneOCCMSI consultant, and two external consultants oversaw the data collec-tion and analyses processes. These strategies were guided by Barker andPistrang’s (2005) principles for methodological pluralism. Several qualitativedata collection strategies were used to document key capacity-related innova-tions developed by the pilot schools and districts as they moved through theOCCMSI milestones. This allowed for different types of data to be collected


and triangulated in support of a more comprehensive understanding of theOCCMSI adoption and implementation experience. Several steps also weretaken to guard against biases, overstatements of small successes, and otherpotential threats to validity. Details follow.

Throughout the project, stakeholders involved at each pilot completedthe OCCMSI Milestone Implementation Checklist, as previously mentioned.This checklist included a short description of each milestone. Next to eachdescription was a place where stakeholders could write in local activitiesand strategies under way in relation to each milestone. The checklist allowedfor the ongoing monitoring of implementation fidelity within each site andacross each cohort as sites and consultants could monitor progress towardimplementing the OCCMSI milestones. Consultants also used the Imple-mentation Checklist tool to guide their technical assistance and capacity-building supports as well as the content focus of the cross-site networkingand professional development meetings.

Stakeholders documented their experiences, discoveries, challenges, andtheir interventions in an observation form. This one-page, open-ended toolasked stakeholders to document local progress, provide details related tobarriers and challenges, and describe the occurrence of innovations as theyresulted within the OCCMSI implementation process. Stakeholders were in-troduced to the form at the beginning of the pilot and directed to completethe form whenever progress or barriers occurred. Each pilot completedapproximately 10 entries on average. The completion of the observationtool was continuously encouraged by consultants throughout the project.

Minutes from various pilot-specific meetings, as well as meetings in-volving OCCMSI consultants and technical assistance providers, also weretracked. This documentation provided additional knowledge and under-standing about the innovations occurring at each pilot site. Additionally,schools and districts provided information on their progress to date in quar-terly professional development and networking sessions offered as part ofthe pilot. Verbatim quotes and relevant notes were taken in these networkingsessions. Each served as another source of information for inquiry.

As showcased here, information about the pilots’ experiences and in-novations was collected using multiple methods and sources to allow fortriangulation of the data (Barker & Pistrang, 2005). The data were collectedby two graduate students who were not integrally involved with the day-to-day operations and leadership of the project. These graduate studentsanalyzed the data using an inductive approach (Patton, 1990). More specifi-cally, individual innovations and barriers described in the observation tool,Implementation Checklist, and meeting minutes and notes were decipheredto represent mutually exclusive items or themes occurring within each pilotsite (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The descriptions of these various innovationsby site and across the pilots served as the raw data. A grounded theoryprocess was used to allow for conceptual themes and subthemes to emerge


through data coding (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles& Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These themes and subthemeswere then categorized into each site’s innovations and in turn served asa mechanism to track innovations across all sites. A resultant InnovationTable provided descriptive information about each site’s innovations bytheme and subtheme area, thus serving as a qualitative tracking mechanismhighlighting achievements and progress indicators across the implementationof the project. Barriers and challenges were also noted in this same tool.Graduate students analyzing the data met regularly to compare and contrastnotes and reach consensus in relation to each site’s findings as recommendedby Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997).

Several other credibility checks (Barker & Pistrang, 2005; Miles & Hu-berman, 1994) were put in place in order to establish trustworthiness andensure findings are now reflective of biases among the research team. Toguard against biases, two external consultants who were not involved in theOCCMSI implementation process audited the validity of the research find-ings (Barker & Pistrang, 2005). These individuals provided safeguards andobjectivity by providing ongoing feedback to graduate students in relationto the extent emergent themes were adequately supported by the data.

Member checks were completed through an additional probing processduring the last two months of the project. This process allowed for thefurther distillation of innovations, barriers, and lessons learned from theproject. Using each site’s resultant Innovation Table as a discussion tool,each pilot’s consultant was provided the innovation table and asked toadd any additional innovations, activities, barriers, and so on, twice duringthe last four months of the project. During these interviews, the additionalinformation on each already emergent innovation at the site was furthergathered to glean additional insights in relation to each emergent theme orsubtheme area.

Respondent validation was further ensured through one additional va-lidity check. Once each site’s themes and innovations were identified, theconsultants were asked by a research assistant to rank the extent to whichthe sites had made progress toward implementing each emergent innovationat their pilot site. Consultants were asked to respond via a 3-point Likert-typescale (0 D no progress, 1 D initial progress, 2 D substantial progress).

Last, a form of consensus evaluation was used to validate the consul-tants’ rankings through the usage of member checking techniques (Barker& Pistrang, 2005). These rankings were shared with the school and districtleadership teams at one of the cross-site networking sessions. Team mem-bers conducted verification-oriented discussions focused on the extent towhich their consultant’s rankings were accurate. When inconsistencies arosebetween the consultant’s ranking and the team’s, the team members andtheir consultant together negotiated their differences and reached consensuson a final ranking.


RESULTS

In the section, key data findings are described. In the aggregate, resultsindicated that every pilot school and district appeared to develop new andexpanded capacities through their progress of achieving the OCCMSI mile-stones outlined in Table 1. This was an achievement in itself because theOCCMSI is a new, complex process for school and district planning teams.In other words, this kind of planning alone involved new capacities andways of operating, and they contrasted to their counterparts for walled-inimprovement planning. One site’s observation notes portray these successes:

In the history of our schools, various initiatives have been started overthe last few years. Through the OCCMSI, a conscious effort was made tobring focus. The goal was to ‘‘go slow to go fast.’’ The OCCMSI beganto lay a foundation so that we could see how everything is connected.The model has increased awareness of non-academic barriers and thedistrict has begun to focus energy toward these academic barriers throughstrategic strategies.

Pilot site teams focused on risk factors and protective factors underlyingacademic and behavioral indicators, which involved new concepts, newlanguage, and fresh thinking about program and service offerings happen-ing during the school day and the out-of-school time. As one pilot leadernoted, ‘‘The model and its milestone steps have increased awareness ofnon-academic barriers and the district has begun to focus : : : on these otherbarriers (in addition to just academic needs).’’ Pilot approaches to district andschool improvement were much more expansive as a result of the OCCMSIimplementation process.

In addition, several other innovations specific to the OCCMSI milestoneswere documented across sites. Three key theme areas emerged, includingnew and expanded family and community partnerships, expanded use ofmultiple data sources, and enhanced programs and services delivery. Theseemergent themes resulting from the content analyses demonstrate othernew commitments and capacities as described in the following resultantinnovation theme areas.

New and Expanded Family and Community Partnerships

All pilot sites developed new partnerships. Each pilot expanded its districtand/or school improvement teams so that they were inclusive of stakeholdersfrom ‘‘outside the school walls.’’ Stakeholders representing county planningteams, youth development organizations, community mental health, andfamilies were added to planning teams within each pilot. Other emergentpartnerships were more contextually specific. For example, in one district,leaders developed a partnership with the local library and another one


with a special community early childhood initiative called Help Me Grow.A different district pilot was able to forge expanded partnerships with thethree county mental health administrators to develop better access to schoolmental health services across the district and community. This resulted in along-term partnership resulting in the addition of three community mentalhealth workers being colocated at the district.

Expanded Use of Multiple Data Sources

All pilots began collecting data in new and different ways. For example,they all collected qualitative data using focus groups and individual inter-views with stakeholders. They also developed new capacities to use data intheir planning and decision making as they implemented the OCCMSI. Forinstance, in some pilots, teachers gained enhanced capacities to collect anduse student assessment data. In one pilot school, teachers’ new capacitiesembodied a major change. Instead of using pencil-and-paper tracking mech-anisms, teachers began using online data management information systems.In other pilots, leaders and teams began to explore data on nonacademicbarriers.

District pilots especially used new data collection processes and toolsto collect data on what some began to call ‘‘the other side of the reportcard.’’ More specifically, one pilot used data on school bullying, students’perceptions of school climate, and data about parents’ perceptions to helpdetermine improvement priorities. It was noted, ‘‘Collecting data on academicand non-academic needs, doing the gap analysis, and then providing thoseservices that are needed : : : really moved us along.’’

Enhanced Programs and Service Delivery

Many pilot sites developed new programs and services or enhanced thedesigns of already existent ones. For example, one school and one districtstrengthened their after-school programs by hiring teachers within the schoolto help with curriculum, homework support, and build bridges betweenthe school day and out-of-school time. Additionally, many pilot schoolsand districts systematically completed the process of identifying their topbarriers to student achievement. They then strengthened existing programsor developed new programs to meet those needs. Several examples arenoteworthy.

One pilot school identified mental/behavioral health issues of studentsas a top barrier and then worked on strengthening their existing referral pro-cesses and services to meet this need. Three pilot schools adopted evidence-based, research-supported, social-emotional learning programs, and they didso to augment their schoolwide prevention approaches. Some pilot schoolsand districts made another major change, one that resulted from their new


capacities for data-informed decision making and gap analysis. These schoolsand districts also eliminated programs and services that lacked effectivenessdata and teams and other planning structures that were redundant andduplicative.

Additionally, several sites enhanced their current program strategiesthrough the development of logic models for program areas. This processwas identified as a common facilitator among sites. As one pilot team membernoted in a cross-site meeting, ‘‘The development of the logic model reallyhelped the process.’’ Examining the overall OCCMSI logic model contextu-alized to each site also was a facilitator. Observation notes from one pilotsite stated, ‘‘It pulled a lot of the services together so that it is clear to seewho needs to go where and who needs to get what.’’

Other Resultant Innovations

In addition to these milestone-specific innovations, other capacities weredeveloped as a result of the adoption and implementation of the OCCMSI.Table 2 presents a summary of the innovations and new capacities that weredocumented as school and district pilots progressed through the OCCMSImilestones. This table also shows the various degrees of progress indicatedby each pilot site. Six categories of capacity-related innovations emerged.

Expanded professional development and learning. Because of the com-plexity of the OCCMSI, pilot sites arranged for trainings and professionaldevelopment opportunities for their school and district staff and at timescommunity partners. For example, leadership and staff in one pilot schoolconducted a ‘‘book study’’ session. In this session, they analyzed each com-ponent of the model and had a structured discussion regarding its impli-cations for their local context. In another school, representatives from acommunity agency offered a teacher training where information was pre-sented from a community resource handbook. In yet another pilot, theentire school staff was trained on how to conduct short-cycle assessments ofstudent learning. The training linked these assessments with individualizedinterventions for students, especially those provided in the out-of-schooltime. Another school provided professional development to all teachers andstaff on how to identify and refer students with mental health needs.

The benefits of the cross-site networking meetings were described bymany pilots. For instance, one pilot team member noted,

The staff were really helped during the quarterly meetings. They werelearning all the techniques and strategies that the other pilots were doing.The cross-site sharing between schools helped them to think about wherethey wanted their program to go.

Another noted that the overall OCCMSI logic model ‘‘provides directionfor the staff during their staff development days at the school.’’ Time spent


TABLE 2 Capacity-Building Innovations Developed by Pilot Schools and Districts

Theme area

Noprogressschool/district

Initialprogressschool/district

Substantialprogressschool/district

Expanded use of multiple data sourcesEnhanced capacities of teachers to collect and use

student assessment data5/4 0/0 1/2

Explored data on nonacademic barriers 0/0 4/5 2/0Used formative data to guide continuous improvements 2/2 2/2 2/2Collected data from stakeholders not usually involved in

the process3/4 2/1 1/1

Explored multiple data sources in planning 4/3 1/4 1/2

Developed new and expanded family andcommunity partnerships

Developed new partnerships with social serviceproviders

2/3 2/2 2/1

Developed new parent partnerships 2/3 2/3 2/0Increased parent involvement in the school 0/4 4/2 2/0Enhanced connections between school, district, and

county planning systems0/3 5/1 0/2

Strengthened partnerships with universities 3/1 3/4 0/1Enhanced parent support strategies 1/6 4/0 1/0

Enhanced programs and service deliveryDeveloped new programs/services 0/2 1/4 5/0Strengthened current programs/services 0/2 3/3 3/1Better aligned programs/services to needs 1/3 3/3 2/0Better integrated programs/services and reduced

duplication2/2 4/4 0/0

Expanded professional developmentEnhanced skills to deploy OCCMSI 1/1 5/5 0/0Increased knowledge about the OCCMSI 0/1 4/5 0/2Provided trainings and materials on available

community resources4/4 2/2 0/0

Enhanced connections with regional support systemsproviding professional development

0/2 5/2 1/2

Enhanced funding streamsBlended/braided funding streams 2/5 4/1 0/0Generated new funding streams 1/3 3/2 2/1Reallocated existing funding streams 4/4 2/2 0/0Mapped resources to examine integration 1/1 4/3 1/2Community partners wrote grants for school 1/4 4/2 1/0

Changes in policies and proceduresDeveloped new teacher referral systems 3/5 1/1 2/0Established linkages among schools, districts, and

county entities1/1 4/4 1/1

Developed new policies and procedures 4/3 1/3 1/0

(continued)


TABLE 2 (Continued)

Theme area

Noprogressschool/district

Initialprogressschool/district

Substantialprogressschool/district

Enhanced systems and structuresEnhanced current team structures 1/0 5/5 1/0Developed teacher referral system 2/1 2/5 2/0Developed new school leadership, planning, and case

management teams2/2 1/4 3/0

Enhanced procedures for transitions 5/3 0/3 1/0Established single points of contact for referrals 4/3 0/3 2/0Enhanced linkages between teachers and service

providers0/2 4/4 2/0

Provided teacher support in classroom 3/3 2/3 1/0Developed collaborative leadership structures 2/3 2/3 2/0

Changes in roles and responsibilitiesEstablished new roles for parents/caretakers 2/4 3/2 1/0Expanded leadership roles for district staff 4/2 2/4 0/0Expanded leadership roles for school staff 2/3 3/3 1/0Created new roles and hired new staff 4/5 0/1 2/0Redesigned roles of community partners 1/3 3/3 2/0

Enhanced improvement planningHad stakeholders provide input to plans 3/2 2/4 1/0Academic and nonacademic priorities written in plans 3/1 2/5 1/0Planning teams included outside stakeholders 2/2 3/4 1/0Addressed nonacademic barriers in process 1/0 3/5 2/1


during these ‘‘set aside days’’ was better utilized as they moved throughthe OCCMSI milestone processes. In addition, professional development wasgeared toward each of the components of the model (i.e., youth developmentin classrooms, parent/family engagement and support).

Enhanced and expanded funding streams. Pilot schools and districtsdeveloped innovative ways to fund their OCCMSI implementation. Morespecifically, they blended and braided (i.e., pieced together once-separatefunds) funding. For example, in one pilot school, several community organi-zations blended funding in order to provide a collaborative celebration eventfor families and students of the school. Another pilot school determinedthat they needed a student services coordinator who addressed transitionacross the district and within the school. The school’s leaders then workedcollaboratively with both the school board and the community to generatethe funds to support this new position. Notably, two school and two districtpilots also created strong connections with the County Job and Family ServiceDepartments. These partnerships resulted in new funding streams for schoolmental health workers and case managers.


Changes in operational policies and procedures. Pilot schools and dis-tricts developed new teacher referral systems. These systems stand as bothprocess innovations (because they change the way work is done) and prod-uct innovations (because they resulted in new structures). For example,the team at one pilot school created a single point of contact for teacherreferrals at the school. This innovation enabled students to be identifiedearly (as opposed to once chronic behavior patterns have been established).Other pilots established linkages among schools, districts, and counties. Forinstance, one district strengthened connections between school improvementplans and the districtwide improvement plan. These connections supportedschool-district alignment while simultaneously allowing for buildings to ad-dress local needs. In addition, most pilots created new tools and forms (i.e.,consent forms, referral forms) for use in early identification and linkageprocesses.

Enhanced systems and structures. Pilot schools and districts enhancedcurrent team structures. For example, several pilot districts expanded theircomprehensive continuous improvement team. Pilot schools also added com-munity partners to their site-based leadership teams. New school leadership,planning, and case management teams were also developed. One pilotschool, for example, formed a specific team to address transitions, a topnonacademic barrier to student learning in their building. This team includedthe principal, an after-school program coordinator, a student support worker,and the grant writer. It was noted that ‘‘schools don’t even know that socialservices exist. As the table or team is established : : : and new partnersengage, we communicate more and connect the dots.’’

Other sites formed smaller teams and committees. These teams andcommittees formed as each site’s top ‘‘showstopping barriers’’ were iden-tified and planning proceeded to address them. Teams and committeesthen formed collaborative, distributed leadership structures that facilitatedcommunication channels across teams and people. It is important to notethat these leadership structures enabled multiple tasks to be accomplishedsimultaneously with coordination and alignment. As one pilot noted, ‘‘TheOCCMSI work impacted the kids by bringing together different resources inthe community that at times they have pulled on to help meet their needsacademically and non-academically.’’

Changes in roles and responsibilities. Key stakeholders within the pilotschools, districts, and their communities changed roles and responsibilitiesas they implemented the OCCMSI. For example, the coordinator of an after-school program offered in a community agency redesigned her role so itincluded more school-community partner responsibilities. This redesign en-tailed solid communications and better overall connections with the buildingprincipal. It also placed this after-school coordinator in a much neededrole for the school as she began serving as the parent/family/communityliaison.


Another pilot team redesigned a district administrator’s job description.The new job description focused on overseeing learning supports and com-munity partnership development and maintenance. In another pilot school,the guidance counselor expanded his role to incorporate the coordination ofthe OCCMSI planning process across the district. In essence, this school-levelperson began facilitating districtwide scale-up.

New roles and jobs for student support personnel also developed inschools/districts implementing the OCCMSI. For example, a pilot school teamrecognized the need for and hired a school social worker to help facilitatelinkages with the community and also to assist the guidance counselor inproviding services to students. The redesign of community partners’ andservice providers’ roles occurred as well. For example, a different pilot schoolcreated new leadership roles for parents/caretakers. Parents were activelyrecruited, prepared, and supported to serve as leaders and coordinators ofschool volunteer efforts. Parents also were added to the OCCMSI planningteam.

Enhanced integration with comprehensive, continuous improvement

plans (CCIPs). The overall project emphasized that the OCCMSI was de-signed to enhance and incorporate conventional school and district improve-ment planning. In other words, the OCCSMI was offered as an enhancement,not a replacement for, existing CCIPs. As one pilot site team member noted,

We have used the constructs of the OCCMSI to survey to our buildingteam members and our parents and our agency providers to determineneeds and have also built a district wide plan. This is a holistic approachgiven the five domains of the OCCMSI. There is a feedback loop here.We know the program and service strategies and how they impact theoutcomes academic and non-academic. The data point to our needs andwe are thinking about outcomes. Feedback loop checks ensure that theneeds are being addressed.

In the pilot sites, district and school improvement planning processeswere enhanced as OCCMSI priorities were identified and as leaders beganto appreciate how the OCCMSI responded to gaps and needs in theirexisting CCIPs.

School and district improvement CCIP planning teams expanded as thisintegration commenced. For example, school improvement teams expandedto include parents, community partners, and business representatives. Thesediverse stakeholders provided fresh input into the school improvement plan-ning process. Teams also included new academic and nonacademic prioritiesin both district and school improvement plans. For instance, in one pilotdistrict, leaders added a specific goal to their CCIP that addressed mentaland behavioral health needs of students. Another district focused on schoolclimate and culture.


Cross-Site Comparisons

Results include cross-site comparisons with a special focus on strengthsand progress indicators. To begin, the school pilots developed significantlymore capacity-related innovations than districts. This difference occurred fortwo reasons. First, pilot schools had eight more months than districts toimplement the OCCMSI milestones. Second, it became apparent throughoutthe project that district-level priorities related to expanded school improve-ment were much more complex. This can be seen by exploring innovationsoutlined in Table 2. Schools made more progress with systems-level changesand structural enhancements than district sites. Each pilot school also made‘‘substantial progress’’ toward the implementation of a new program andservice, whereas district pilots only reported ‘‘initial progress.’’ It appearedthat OCCMSI implementation at the district level required more time, inten-sive planning, and negotiations to accomplish tasks, foster readiness, anddetermine infrastructure needs. This is both a lesson learned and a reminderto consultants about districts as more complex units of analysis.

In addition, variability was evident among the school and district pilotsin relation to their progress toward adoption and implementation. Somesites progressed very quickly as they moved through the OCCMSI milestones,whereas others took additional time especially within the ‘‘building the table’’phase. For instance, one school and one district tended to be further alongin the adoption of the emergent innovations. When these pilots were studiedmore closely, the qualitative data revealed that these sites had several keyfactors in place prior to the OCCMSI project period. For example, these sitesalready had strong school-community partnerships in place, had school anddistrict leadership that prioritized expanded school improvement work, andhad existent school mental health initiatives. Others had made leadershipdecisions to formally appoint a single point of contact within the school ordistrict to oversee and coordinate the adoption and implementation process.

Key barriers and facilitators also contributed to this intersite variability.Table 3 provides an overview of the key contextual factors that helpedand/or impeded pilot adoption and implementation. Many sites (especiallythe districts) needed additional support in the early stages of milestoneimplementation. Consultants focused on increasing leaders’ knowledge ofpartnership-centered models and in turn their perceived value of expandedapproaches. Once this early readiness among key leaders (especially superin-tendents) was developed, sites more fluidly progressed through the OCCMSImilestones.

One challenge that emerged within three sites, however, related tocompeting local improvement agendas. These sites already were involvedin school reform initiatives when the OCCSMI was introduced, and it isnoteworthy that some of these initiatives were at times at odds with theOCCMSI’s expanded approach. For instance, some sites were actively en-


TABLE 3 Facilitators for Implementation and Barriers to Progress

Facilitators Barriers

� Strong leadership, especially principalleadership, helps to drive localized effortsas well as partnership and infrastructuredevelopment

� Central office administrators ‘‘allow’’schools to develop their own localstrategies for improvement and to fosterlinkages to outside community resourcesand supports

� Educators and other school improvementleaders value addressing nonacademicbarriers

� OCCMSI adoption and implementation aremore likely when the process is fullyembedded within existent planningprocesses

� Readiness and ‘‘buy-in’’ for adoption,including willingness to consider newideas and strategies, needs to bedeveloped, assessed, and monitored

� Tailoring the OCCMSI model and planningprocess to local needs, resources, andassets facilitates innovations and impacts

� Targeting priority barriers identified in thegap analysis helps focus implementationplans and partnership development

� Opportunities to work together aroundspecific tasks that are of mutual interestfacilitates partnership and innovation

� Tools and resources that help withimplementation, such as a logic modeltemplate, facilitate implementation

� Technical assistance, training, andprofessional development guide higherquality implementation

� Access to consultants with content-specificexpertise, especially ones with pastexperience in school and districtleadership, assists with moving forward inimprovement strategies

� Cross-site networking and professionaldevelopment opportunities facilitateadoption of the new ‘‘mental model’’

� Resistance among some stakeholders whodo not want to change their way of doingthings

� Lack of understanding, awareness, andvalue among school and district leaders inrelation to the expanded work

� Takes a long time to make the changesand progress; often there is a lack ofcommitment to a long-term process

� Lack of agreement on what the OCCMSI isand does

� Tendency to view the OCCMSI as an‘‘added on’’ health and social servicesstrategy, or as a way to add moreprograms, as opposed to an expandedschool improvement model

� Stakeholders want and expect ‘‘cookiecutter’’ approaches and struggle with the‘‘process’’ and local flexibility

� Stakeholders struggle to find the time todo the expanded school improvementwork and partnership development

� Time and effort challenges related to thedesign of new infrastructures, theredesign of roles, and the alteration ofpast ways of doing things

� Complex underlying issues are identifiedas barriers/gaps that must be targetedsimultaneously emerge, and there is alack of ‘‘know-how’’ about how toaddress these issues

� Turnover among staff and transitionswithin stakeholder roles leads toinstability

� Lack of resources and funding for schoolsand community partners to addressbarriers to learning

� Year-to-year cycle of grants and fundingstreams limits long-term, consistent workrelated to common directions

� Sociopolitical considerations within localcommunities and schools at times impedeprogress and innovation


gaged in traditional school improvement efforts focused on the alignment ofcurriculum in classrooms to the state standards. District and school leaders,especially teachers, were focused ‘‘inside the school walls’’ on instruction,and they were already involved in the adoption and implementation ofnew practices and processes. Time-related challenges were evident and


clear needs existed related to the integration of traditional and expandedapproaches. Collectively, these barriers outlined in Table 3 point to criticalcontextual and situational characteristics that must be addressed in order tofacilitate change processes.

DISCUSSION

All pilot schools and districts gained significant, new capacities as a resultof their OCCMSI adoption and implementation process. Notably, significantinnovations also developed in several capacity-related categories. Some werespecific to OCCMSI milestones, including new and/or improved partnership,programs, and services as well as enhanced data systems and capacities.Other categories included enhanced professional development opportuni-ties, policies and procedures, funding streams, and infrastructure and lead-ership capacities. Some sites also made changes in roles and responsibilitiesamong key stakeholders involved in the project. Limitations in study designnotwithstanding, together these significant improvements stand as impor-tant progress indicators for expanded school improvement and partnership-centered approaches. After all, the research on school reform indicates thatit takes years, not a few months, to witness demonstrable progress. Althougheach new capacity is important in its own right, the composite they representis significant, especially given the multiple barriers and challenges evidentacross the pilots.

Process and Product Innovations

Many of the innovations emerging in this study involve process innovationsor new operational procedures and policies. Examples include working inteams, expanding data-based decision-making capacities, writing grants, andexploring and mapping resources at both the school and district levels insupport of innovation. Although some such process innovations may beviewed as generic, most of the innovations developed by the 12 pilot sitesmight best be framed as innovation-specific capacities (Flaspohler, Duffyet al., 2008).

The majority of the capacity-related innovations listed in Table 1 qualifyas product innovations. Together these new capacities are indicators of bothneed and progress when the OCCMSI is implemented. They might lead toquantifiable, sustainable changes for schools implementing expanded schoolimprovement models such as the OCCMSI. As with capacity-related processinnovations, the majority of these product innovations appear to be specificto the OCCMSI (Flaspohler, Duffy et al., 2008).

Despite the differences between process and product innovations, inpractice, the two kinds of capacity-building innovations tend to be inter-


twined. New structures often entail ‘‘new ways of doing business.’’ Recip-rocally, new operational procedures and policies, to be institutionalized,many times depend on new structures. In fact, in complex change initiativessuch as the OCCMSI, schools and districts most likely adopt several typesof innovations simultaneously as evidenced by these pilot sites. Duringan era of outcomes-oriented accountability, these capacities are especiallyimportant. Each new capacity-related innovation listed in Table 2 helps to getthe conditions right for student learning, healthy development, and overallsuccess in school. Each capacity-related innovation also could be qualified asone of Weick’s (1984) ‘‘small wins’’ or incremental, microlevel achievementsthat may over time amount to major structural and operational changes.

Drawing on the literature, some such changes may be classified asfirst order, whereas the dramatic ones are second-order changes. Withinthis pilot, both school and district pilots implemented second-order changes

(Cicchinelli et al., 2006). Each was a significant departure from past-presentpolicies, structures, operational practices, and orientations as these schoolsand districts had to move beyond their familiar ‘‘comfort zones’’ for thesenew capacities to be developed. To say it another way, innovations like theOCCMSI tend to be inconsistent with prevailing norms; existing values; andconventional policies, structures, operations, and practices. For this reason,second-order change requires the changing of existing roles, relationships,structures, and processes as well as the introduction and learning of knowl-edge, skills, and sensitivities associated with the innovation. Significantly, get-ting to this kind of integration depends fundamentally on paradigm changesin school and district leaders ‘‘mental models’’ (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross,& Smith, 1994) for what schools are, how they operate, what improvemententails, and who participates in school improvement and district restructuringplanning. Clearly, second-order change, especially changes involving bothprocess and product innovations simultaneously, is more difficult to do butclearly resulted within OCCMSI adoption and implementation efforts.

Finally, the research reported here emphasizes the importance of timing,local context, each school’s and district’s history, organizational readiness,and local priorities and goals. Each pilot site had varying levels of readiness,had context-specific local assets and strengths, was met with different barriersand constraints, and therefore progressed at different rates. The findings fromthis study showcase some of this variability.

The Potential of ‘‘Small Wins’’

In the end, the partnership-centered model implemented and studied hereboth required and incubated the development of new capacities and innova-tions in pilot schools and districts. Although student, school, or communityoutcomes data were not collected across the entire project (a clear limita-tion within the study), these resultant capacities suggest improved design


strategies that ultimately may lead to better systems indicators that mightultimately promote better outcomes. There is some evidence that suggeststhis is the case.

More specifically, preliminary evidence suggests improved stakeholderperceptions of the student support system within the school as well asincreased academic achievement among certain groups of students withinone OCCMSI pilot site (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010). Other long-termindicators of success were apparent. Many of the partnerships that originatedwithin this pilot are still in place today. More than half of the sites still haveactive school-family-community planning teams. Individual programs andinnovations designed during the pilot are still up and running. For instance,one site forged a three-county school mental health partnership during thepilot that is still in operation today. Another began a school-based after-school program serving students who are falling behind academically. Todaythere are waiting lists for entry into this program.

Additionally, many of the individuals involved in this project have goneon to other leadership roles within their school and community. For instance,engaged teachers are now serving as principals. School social workers arenow leading countywide efforts related to family and civic engagement.Principals have moved into district management positions. Most recently,one of the superintendents has been charged with overseeing all schoolimprovement efforts for the state department of education.

Another key indicator of success involves the generativity of the lessonslearned as the OCCMSI planning processes incubated new ideas and dis-semination efforts. The partnerships, organizations, and individuals involvedare still regularly called upon to share lessons learned and innovations withothers in the state beginning to adopt and implement partnership-centeredmodels within their own communities. Their innovations also have beenshowcased in key policy reports focused on supporting school success acrossthe state (Public-Private Collaborative Commission, 2008). These success in-dicators point to the potential of the OCCMSI and other partnership-centeredapproaches.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSULTATION

Ultimately, these capacity-related innovations contribute to an importanttheory of capacity building for the future, especially the kind of theorythat can guide the development of community-oriented and partnership-centered models of school improvement. When the inventory in Table 2is viewed in this way, the innovations presented might serve as importanttargets for change, especially for consultants providing technical assistance,professional development, and ongoing support to schools and districts. Forexample, consultants might target systems-level capacity changes involving


changes in roles and responsibilities of people or focus on enhancing policiesand procedures in support of partnerships and broader agendas. They mayalso focus on the use of new data sources, particularly ones examiningnonacademic barriers to learning that in turn engage school and district lead-ers in more comprehensive planning in partnership with their communities.

Consultants must also pay attention to professional development needsamong individual stakeholders across multiple school improvement path-ways as partnership-centered school improvement models require new anddifferent competencies among diverse stakeholders. For instance, district andschool leaders may be adequately prepared in academic learning but havelittle to no preparation in relation to health and social services, youth de-velopment, and parent/family engagement and support strategies (Weston,Anderson-Butcher, & Burke, 2008). In turn, community-based providers andstudent support personnel may have little understanding of school policy andpriorities and also must learn new and different competencies (Anderson-Butcher, 2004). Consultants’ capacity-building priorities must be individual-ized and tailored because there are different competency-related needs forvarying stakeholders.

This theory of capacity building becomes even more powerful whenconsultants’ technical assistance is focused on eliminating the barriers andfostering the facilitators described in Table 3. Clearly, as these contextualconditions are accommodated, progress toward adoption and implementa-tion of the OCCMSI and other complex improvement models is more likelyto occur.

Ultimately, these capacity-related theoretical frameworks and findingsare especially relevant to the preparation and work of consultants who assistin the implementation of models such as the OCCMSI. Consultants oftenfocus on the core components of a specific innovation. For example, theyfocus on the facilitators, constraints, and deterrents in the local setting andthe improved outcomes the innovation promises to yield. Where schools anddistricts are concerned, some consultants and the school leaders they assistand support look immediately for improvements in student outcomes. Thisorientation is predictable, understandable, and justifiable. For example, arobust literature on the adoption of innovation supports this framework (e.g.,Hall & Hord, 2006; Rogers, 2003). This study recommends a companion ap-proach to consultation and change agent leadership that showcases capacity-building priorities. Three implications of this new approach are germane toconsultants’ preparation and services.

The first, perhaps obvious, is that funders, policy officials, and localleaders should not expect immediate improvements in what amounts to distaloutcomes (e.g., improvements in student academic achievement, reductionsin school dropout rates). Both distal outcomes and even proximal outcomes(e.g., improved sense of connection to school, improved attendance) may notbe immediately achievable because they hinge fundamentally on capacity-


related innovations, which are prerequisites to implementation of the maininnovation (the OCCMSI). Every new capacity-related innovation thus is ademonstrable, important outcome (Lawson, 2010). Each new capacity-relatedinnovation listed in Table 2 helps to get the conditions right for the maininnovation—the OCCMSI.

The innovations in Table 2 also point toward the second implication. Overtime ‘‘small wins’’ often accumulate into huge gains (Weick, 1984). These newcapacities can then lead to improvements in implementation of the OCCMSIand, in turn, to perhaps even better proximal and distal outcomes.

Third, consultants can use the capacity-building literature provided inthis study, as well as the OCCMSI capacity enhancements described here, toguide their technical assistance and capacity-building efforts. For example,innovations can be classified as generic versus innovation-specific, first-order versus second-order changes, and process innovations versus processinnovations. These and other classifications provide clarity and precision toconsultants and stakeholders alike within the OCCMSI and other partnership-centered approaches. They are invaluable planning guides and can becomecenterpieces in both process and outcome evaluations. More fundamentally,prioritizing these different kinds of capacity early in the planning and eval-uation processes for models such as the OCCMSI may facilitate long-termsustainability because many such capacities double as the conditions needingto be in place for intervention efficacy and effectiveness.

Finally, the OCCSMI implementation process produced an unexpectedbut critically important finding, one that stands in contrast to conventionalimplementation and adoption-of-innovation studies involving consultants. Inmany conventional studies, adoption and the implementation of innovationsare technical problems, ones where the problem is known and the solutionperhaps already derived. In these settings, consultants are known as theexperts who have most of the answers.

In contrast to this technical model, the OCCMSI presented school anddistrict leaders and project consultants alike with an adaptive problem (Hei-fetz, 1994). All had to wrestle with the model, its integration with conven-tional school improvement, its multiple facets, and the implementation acrossseveral fronts, sometimes crossing organizational boundaries. In this context,the school and district consultants were not experts who had nearly all of theanswers. To the contrary, they needed to learn and adapt alongside school,family, and community partners adopting and implementing the OCCMSI.This is because each consultant typically had only one primary expertisearea within the OCCMSI (i.e., academic learning, parent/family engagementand support, etc). Under these circumstances, the same milestones andplanning protocol used by schools and districts often guided consultantsin their learning and development. In the end, the project director assignedsenior consultants to work with the school and district consultants, resultingin a two-pronged consultant system: senior consultants helped the school


and district consultants who, in turn, provided consultation to school anddistrict leaders and teams. This consultative design may become normativeas the complexity of school-family-community partnerships increases.

Pilots involved in this study also developed capacities in each otheras they assisted one another with their own adoption and implementationprocesses. This generativity was fostered through the cross-site networkingexperiences and role-specific dialogues hosted within these sessions. Ulti-mately, district and school leaders involved in the pilot were calling uponother leaders from different sites to support their local efforts. The consultantsdid not have all the answers. The sites often found their own technicalassistance and support from ‘‘within’’ the project as they called upon leadersacross the pilot and state to assist with their partnership-centered efforts.

CONCLUSION

In the end, expanded school improvement models such as the OCCMSI, withrequirements for strategic, firm partnerships, are complex. These modelsentail changes of degree (first-order changes) and changes of kind (second-order changes). Significantly, many of these changes involve new capacities,especially those needed to get the conditions right for genuine communitycollaboration and successful partnerships. In fact, partnership-centered mod-els are not likely to systematically improve student outcomes until such timeas these prerequisite capacities are developed.

Although improved student outcomes were not explored in this study,the findings presented provide an in-depth description of the new and ex-panded capacities schools and districts develop as they adopt and implementthe OCCMSI and other partnership-centered models. These new capacitiesare proximal outcomes, and most are required for the achievement of distaloutcomes for students. These capacities also suggest ways in which theadoption and implementation partnership-centered models may be nurtured,constrained, and impeded by a number of facilitators and barriers. By focus-ing on implications for consultation, this analysis highlights key capacitiesand innovations consultants (and district and school leaders) might look for,emphasize, inventory, and target as they support others in adopting andimplementing complex models like the OCCMSI.

REFERENCES

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2006). The school leader’s guide to student learning

supports: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Anderson-Butcher, D. (2004). Transforming schools into 21st century communitylearning centers. Children & Schools, 26, 248–252.


Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration toserve children, youth, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26, 39–53.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Boone, B., Kwiatkowski, A., Cash, S.,et al. (2004). Implementation guide: The Ohio Community Collaboration Model

for School Improvement. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Flaspohler, P., Boone, B., & Kwiat-

kowski, A. (2008). Community collaboration to improve schools: Introducing anew model from Ohio. Children & Schools, 30, 161–172.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Iachini, A., Flaspohler, P., & Bean, J. (2010).Emergent evidence in support of a community collaboration model for schoolimprovement. Children & Schools, 32, 160–171.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., & Wade-Mdivanian, R. (2009). Extending,

accelerating, and connecting learning: A case study of Akron’s pioneering

school community initiatives. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Collegeof Social Work and The Ohio Department of Education.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Stetler, G., & Midle, T. (2006). Collaborative partnerships inschools: A case for youth development. Children & Schools, 28, 155–163.

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism:Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Com-

munity Psychology, 35, 201–212.Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making the difference: Research and

practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Lead-ership.

Bodilly, S., Chun, J., Ikemoto, G., & Stockly, S. (2004). Challenges and potential

of a collaborative approach to educational reform. Santa Monica, CA: RandCorporation.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive

school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hop-kins University and Howard University, Center for Research on the Educationof Students Placed At Risk.

Brener, N. D., Pejavara, A., Barrios, L. C., Crossett, L., Lee, S. M., McKenna, M., et al.(2006). Applying the School Health Index to a nationally representative sampleof schools. Journal of School Health, 76(2), 57–66.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cicchinelli, L., Dean, C., Galvin, M., Goodwin, B., & Parsley, D. (2006). Success

in sight: A comprehensive approach to school improvement. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Comer, J., Haynes, N., Joyner, E., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village:

The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College Press.Dryfoos, J., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons

from a decade of practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators

and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Flaspohler, P. D., Anderson-Butcher, D., Bean, J., Burke, R. W., & Paternite, C. E.

(2008). Readiness and school improvement: Strategies for enhancing dissemina-tion and implementation of expanded school mental health practices. Advances

in School Mental Health Promotion, 1, 16–27.


Flaspohler, P. D., Anderson-Butcher, D., Paternite, C. E., Weist, M. D., & Wan-dersman, A. (2006). Community science and expanded school mental health:Bridging the research to practice gap to promote child well being and academicsuccess. Educational and Child Psychology, 23(1), 27–41.

Flaspohler, P. D., Duffy, J., Wandersman, A., Maras, M., & Stillman, L. (2008).Unpacking capacity: The intersection of research to practice and communitycentered models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 182–196.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Hatch, T. (2009). Managing to change: How schools can survive (and sometimes

thrive) in turbulent times. New York: Teachers College Press.Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap

Press of Harvard University.Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting

consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572.Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and oppor-

tunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy

implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). Albany, NY: State Univer-sity of New York Press.

Lawson, H. A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the humanservices. The Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18, 225–237.

Lawson, H. A. (2010). An appreciation and a selective enhancement of the de-veloping model for university-assisted community schools. Universities and

Community Schools, 8(1–2), 5–20.Lawson, H. A., & Sailor, W. (2000). Integrating services, collaborating, and develop-

ing connections with schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(2), 1–22.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.Public-Private Collaborative Commission. (2008). Supporting student success: A new

learning day in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Board of Regents.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). Strategies for working

with mental models. In P. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, & B. Smith(Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning

organization (pp. 235–263). New York: Currency and Doubleday.Shirley, D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: Univer-

sity of Texas Press.Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education

reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75, 133–173.


Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American

Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.Weiler, R. M., Pigg, M., & McDermott, R. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Florida Coor-

dinated School Health Pilot Schools Project. Journal of School Health, 73(1),3–8.

Weston, K., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Burke, R. (2008). Developing a comprehensivecurricular framework for teacher preparation in expanded school mental health.Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(4), 25–41.

Zigler, E. (1997). Supporting children and families in the schools: The school of the21st century. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 396–407.

Dawn Anderson-Butcher, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the College of Social WorkProgram at The Ohio State University. Her research interests include school-family-communitypartnerships, school social work, and children’s mental health. Her specialties include positiveyouth development in various social settings (schools, sports, afterschool programs, etc.) andinterprofessional collaboration.

Hal A. Lawson, PhD, is a Professor in the School of Social Welfare at University of Albany.His research focus is on school-family-community partnerships, child welfare, and interpro-fessional collaboration. His work encompasses school reform and systems reform in childwelfare, and it involves interdisciplinary collaboration, action science, and action learning.

Aidyn Iachini, PhD, is currently finishing her Masters in Social Work degree at The OhioState University. Her research interests include positive youth development, youth sport andrecreation, after school programming, and autonomy-supportive environments.

Gerald Bean, PhD, is an independent consultant providing research, data management andanalysis, and program evaluation services to public and private, not-for-profit organizations.He has held staff and administrative positions in the Ohio Department of Mental Healthand the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. His research and evaluation experienceincludes child abuse and neglect prevention, perinatal health programs, after-school programs,and school improvement.

Paul D. Flaspohler, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at Miami University.His research interests are in two complementary areas: basic prevention research on copingmechanisms and the development of social, emotional, and academic competencies in earlychildhood and applied research and evaluation with school- and community-based efforts toenhance the education, health, and well-being of children and families.

Keith Zullig, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Director of the PhD program in PublicHealth Sciences in the Department of Community Medicine at West Virginia University. Hisresearch has focused on adolescent quality of life research, measurement, substance use, andcommunity-based interventions.

Note : The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliatedinstitutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or biasthe opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript.

Associate Editor David Shriberg served as an action editor for this manuscript.

Copyright of Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Cayci | Community and Youth Collaborative Institute ...cayci.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Capacity...Barkin, 2005), family/community partnership models (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton,