Search results

There is, in the literature on administration, a general implication that resource levels are to be largely taken as givens, operating as constraints within which the administrator must work. A contrary view may be taken, namely that the level of resources made available to a specific operating unit may be increased by the insightful administrator. Careful analysis of the situation coupled with a reasoned strategy which utilizes an expanded definition of resources, a definition which rejects superficial categorization in favor of intensive examination of its finer nuances, are necessary to the achievement of this end.

Resource allocation is a problem common to all levels and types of administrative positions. Existing resources are expanded (allocated) both to perform an organizational task and to acquire additional resources. If the leader successfully expends available resources to acquire still more resources in terms of people, materials and space, then a subsequent and equally important task is the allocation of these acquisitions to the various sectors of the organization. It is through the judicious distribution of essential resources to achieve acquisition of still more, in the one instance, and to the furthering of organizational aims in the other that the leader attempts to move the organization towards goals. His accountability as leader is fixed in how efficiently and effectively resources are deployed in the goal attainment efforts.

The Content Theories of Motivation — those of Maslow, Herzberg and Alderfer — yielded four criteria by which alternate promotion structures in N.S.W. High Schools could be evaluated. The four criteria are the extent to which the promotion structure: 1. Acts as a source of intrinsic motivation; 2. Is a source of job enrichment; 3. Allows for and encourages participative management; and 4. Offers non‐administrative career paths. The four criteria were used to evaluate the existing promotion structure in N.S.W. High Schools, the structure proposed in A Discussion Paper, the proposal of the N.S.W. Institute of Inspectors, and the promotion structure policies of the N.S.W. Teachers Federation. It was concluded that the existing promotion structure failed to satisfy any of the criteria. The proposal contained in A Discussion Paper advocated measures to meet all of the criteria except non‐administrative career paths, yet did not incorporate practical means of achieving such objectives. The policies of the N.S.W. Teachers Federation cannot be fully appraised until they are formulated into a concrete proposal. The proposal of the Institute of Inspectors went closest towards satisfying all criteria except that of participative management.

School districts are ongoing organizations which have staffs and organizational structures committed to stabilizing and maintaining their present activities and programs. The authors have attempted to draw together the kinds of information needed to help school district administrators view their organization in a way which examines the consequences of decisions for all of the goals and objectives of the district. This view, which has been labeled comprehensive, is designed to move the administration of the district from solving problems one‐at‐a‐time to an assessment of the complete goal‐activity picture. Implications of a comprehensive approach to school district administration for staff development as well as university and college preparation of administrators are, in the judgment of the authors, substantial.

In this paper the sometimes confusing concepts of structural centralization and decentralization and administrative centralization and decentralization are classified. Brief contrast Is made between the Latin American and North American models. It is hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between administrative decentralization and (I) leadership development at lower hierarchical levels, (II) greater participation in the decision‐making process by people at lower hierarchical levels, (III) an increased sense of responsibility, for the final output, by those at lower hierarchical levels, (IV) implementation of innovative changes which are proposed by individuals at lower hierarchical levels, (V) the development of different approaches to solving problems in the various subsystems at lower hier‐archical levels, (VI) the rapidity at which decisions can be made concerning local issues.

The positive outcomes demonstrated in programme efficacy trials and the apparent ineffectiveness of programmes in community settings have prompted investigators and practitioners to examine implementation fidelity. Critically important, but often overlooked, are the implementers who deliver evidence‐based programmes. This article distinguishes fidelity at the programme level from implementer fidelity. Two components of implementer fidelity are defined. It is proposed that implementer adherence and competence are related but unique constructs that can be reliably measured for training, monitoring and outcomes research. Observational measures from a school‐based preventive intervention are used to illustrate the contributions of implementer adherence and competence. Distinguishing implementer adherence to the manual from competence in programme delivery is the next step in child mental health programme implementation research.

The aims of this article are to highlight the issues that are relevant to the implementation of a rigorously evidence‐based programme of support, the Nurse Family Partnership programme, into a national system of care. Methods used are semi‐structured interviews with families in receipt of the programme in the first 10 sites, with the nursing staff, with members of the central team guiding the initiative and with other professionals. Analyses of data collected during programme delivery evaluate fidelity of delivery. The results indicate that the programme is perceived in a positive light and take‐up is high, with delivery close to the stated US objectives. Issues pertaining to sustainability are highlighted ‐ in particular, local concerns about cost set against long‐term rather than immediate gains. However, local investment is predominantly strong, with creative methods being planned for the future. Overall, the study shows that within an NHS system of care it is possible to deliver a targeted evidence‐based programme.

Educators who work in K-12 educational settings have only begun to make sense of the many consequences the COVID-19 pandemic has had for students. Months of remote teaching and learning have made one thing quite clear; the academic, physical, and mental health benefits of in-person schooling are difficult to replicate through online learning. The COVID-19 pandemic has elevated the importance of social emotional learning (SEL) as children have experienced substantial reductions in social contact with peers while attending school remotely. Given the profound impact this past year has had on children’s social emotional (SE) health, it has never been more important for educators, parents, and caregivers to support student’s SE health. While it may be tempting to put student’ SE well-being on the back burner as we scramble to make up for lost learning; we stand at a crossroad. We can radically weave SEL into the school day to ensure students continue to develop critical SE skills in a socially distanced world or we can fall back on business as usual.

Demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of prevention programmes in rigorous randomised trials is only the beginning of a process that may lead to better public health outcomes. Although a growing number of programmes have been shown to be effective at reducing drug use and delinquency among young people under carefully controlled conditions, we are now faced with a new set of obstacles. First, these evidence‐based programmes are still under‐utilised compared to prevention strategies with no empirical support. Second, when effective programmes are used the evidence suggests they are not being implemented with quality and fidelity. Third, effective programmes are often initiated with short‐term grant funding, creating a challenge for sustainability beyond seed funding. We discuss each of these challenges, and present lessons learned from a large‐scale dissemination effort involving over 140 evidence‐based programme replications in one state in the US.

Over the past 30 years, researchers have documented effective, theory‐based programmes and practices that improve the health and well‐being of children. In order to produce measurable improvements in public health, such practices must be institutionalised; however, there are a number of barriers to translating what we know from science to what we do in practice. In the present article, we discuss a number of those barriers, including: cultural differences between those who espouse a public health, prevention science approach versus those who espouse a strengths‐building, health promotion approach; practical difficulties in documenting the evidence base for existing or newly developed programmes and practices; and inflexibility of standardised programmes and resulting insensitivity to local contexts. We discuss common ground between prevention and promotion perspectives and highlight emerging methods that facilitate the adoption of science‐based practice into community‐based services.