Download Acrobat Reader
Transfer of Knowledge Symposium
Introduction
The inaugural Transfer of Knowledge (TOK) Symposium on Child Care for Children with Disabilities and Other Special Needs was held in Sacramento on Nov. 15, 2002, and sponsored by numerous agencies and entities. The organizers of this groundbreaking event were First 5 California Children and Families Commission; California Institute on Human Services, Sonoma State University; the California Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Intervention; WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, and the California Map to Inclusive Child Care Project.
The goal of the symposium was to bring multidisciplinary community teams together to develop an integrated infrastructure for inclusive child care. More than 400 decision makers from 51 counties attended, including representatives from:
-
Local Planning Councils
-
Resource and Referral Agencies
-
First 5 commissioners and staff
-
Child care providers
-
Head Start programs
-
Regional Centers
-
Family Resource Centers
-
Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs)
-
County Offices of Education and school districts
-
Parents of children with disabilities and other special needs
A report of the proceedings is available by contacting WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention at (916) 492-4011 or by going online to http://www.wested.org/cs/cpei/print/docs/220.
About six months following the symposium, the Map Project conducted a telephone interview to investigate ongoing activities and impact of the county teams. The executive summary of that follow-up report is published here.
Summary
Results from the follow-up interview indicate that the Transfer of Knowledge (TOK) Symposium was successful in facilitating local county teams in meeting together locally to work on goals and activities promoting inclusion of children with disabilities and special needs in child care and development programs. In some counties, the TOK team meetings were combined with related groups.
A majority of the county teams shared information from the event with others, most with others within their agencies, sometimes by adding members to their group, and sometimes with other agencies. The county teams shared other outcomes that were facilitated or encouraged by the county’ participation in the Symposium:
-
More communication and combining of efforts with others in county 32%
-
Sharing of information with others through public meetings and/or trainings 20%
-
Plans developed or in process of development 16%
-
Confirmation of existing efforts 16%
-
Development of resources 12%
-
Surveys or other information collection efforts 12%
-
Increased awareness of needs and issues 10%
-
Funding obtained or being pursued 8%
-
Ongoing groups set up 6%
Note: Because respondents gave multiple answers percentages may total more than 100%.
There was a great deal of variation across counties in terms of activity. About one-fourth of the county teams had not met in the six months following the symposium, while another one-fourth had met over 4 times. Similarly some counties described many activities while a few (5) had not developed goals yet. Interviewees expressed some frustration at the difficulties of getting people who are already very busy to find time and to coordinate schedules.
Teams created goals in the following areas:
-
Creating resources, support and training to encourage and sustain child care providers in inclusive practice 20%
-
Ensuring that all children in the county including children with disabilities have access to high quality child care 18%
-
Developing a collaborative county wide infrastructure which works for inclusive childcare 16%
-
Increasing availability of child care providers offering services to children with disabilities 8%
-
Gathering data on needs and issues 6%
-
Creating resource directories 8%
-
Other 6%
Over __ of the teams reported “some” to “much” progress on their goals. Teams seemed most successful in early steps such as getting people together, circulating plans and information, doing needs assessments and awareness building. Teams saw the resources provided by the symposium as helpful, especially the Tool Kit. The support and contact of others in their community appeared to be the most useful type of assistance.
The barriers for achievement of goals are similar to the issues that stood in the way of regular meetings, lack of time and very busy schedules. Funding is also mentioned regularly as a barrier to achievement of goals. Counties reporting success often cite SB1703 funding as a facilitating factor, while counties with activities “on hold” cited lack of or delay in funding. Getting all the needed people and agencies to participate is also a challenge for some counties. A few counties mentioned lack of leadership and clarity of purpose.
Next steps
The following suggestions for next steps emerge from team representative’s responses across the interview.
-
The local teams should continue to meet to work on the goals developed at the symposium. These efforts are supported by outside support and reminders such as the phone interview.
-
Carry out a follow-up Symposium/meeting to the original Transfer of Knowledge Symposium. Though a few teams suggest that this happen at the state level, there appear to be the most requests to have regional meetings where local counties can participate together.
-
The content of the next Symposium should center on opportunities to learn what other county teams are doing. Teams want to know about models of innovative and best practice and “experiences, successes, failures and activities that worked”. The Symposium should also include time for teams to meet together. People are also interested in knowing about state level activities especially funding options.
-
Set up a tech resource, an email/listserve/website that collects information on what individual counties are doing and distributes the information. This source also could share technical assistance information, resources and support.
-
Team representatives expressed the need for funding to promote achievement of goals and support the resources and “manpower” needed to carry out the goals. Some interviewees also felt that official state support by a mandate would facilitate success of the teams. State support through training and technical assistance was also seen as a need.
