You are here: Wiki-Summaries >> Common Terms & Topics >> Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks
|
|
intersectoral (Inter-Ministry) Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPFCs)
|
This drop-down menu on the right hand side of page lists several Intersectoral (Inter-Ministry) Policy/Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) which have been published by UN agencies and global/international organizations and are being used in countries around the world. Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) involve whole sectors/ministries on several issues/programs while Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) are focused on one issue or program.This section also examines how Whole of Government (WoG) approaches can align and coordinate these IPPCF frameworks to promote the education and overall development of the whole child for all children.
Intersectoral coordination is required if schools are to act as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable programs. Coordination between or across ministries at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. IPPCFs have been developed, evaluated and promoted as evidence-based and experience tested ways to coordinate multiple interventions, thereby increasing their impact. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational success, health and well-being. This web site differentiates IPPCFs that coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. To be qualified as an IPPCF framework, these interventions need to be coordinated as a requirement by the jurisdiction (delivering several separate interventions does not qualify, nor do other degrees of cooperation). To be effective, these MCAs and MIPs need to have the contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/agencies to the school system. As well, the MCAs and MIPs need to be aligned, contextualized, implemented, coordinated, sustained, integrated within school systems, scaled up by incremental systems change in order to be sustained and institutionalized within the ministries, agencies & schools. A Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) and several good government practices at the highest levels are required to align, coordinate, support and sustain IPPCF frameworks. (Note that the WoG approaches are aimed at the education and development of the whole child and not at at any specific issue, IPPCF framework or program.) These practices include an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development & education, laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools, the active support of first ministers, establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms, comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting, joint sector reviews, shared accountability systems and other actions. The 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit (TES) and the accompanying vision statement on by the UN Secretary-General for the Summit highlighted such WofG strategies. However, an analysis of country commitment statements from TES found that very few countries were making progress on such WofG approaches. The revised UNESCO "Recommendation" (policy framework), OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education and the Education Commission/Dubai Care Foundation call for transformation based on WoG approaches. Global educator organizations and NGO coalitions such as the FRESH Partnership have also advocated for Whole of Government approaches to strengthen the use of IPPCF frameworks. See the more detailed discussion IPPCFs that includes the rationale, related research and other background information in the "Encyclopedia Entry", "Handbook Section" and Bibliography/Toolbox" tabs (found above on this page). See our detailed list of good practices in IPPCF capacity-building such as jointly assigned coordinators, inter-ministry committees and joint sector reviews in the "Capacity Building Checklist" tab (also found above on this page). See our list actions and practices that can be used to develop, maintain and sustain a whole of government approach using the school as a hub in the "Whole of Government" tab (found above on this page). |
See our List & Checklist of leading IPPCFs which includes many Multi- Component Approaches (MCAs) & Multi- Intervention Programs (MIPs)
________________________________________ Use the drop-down menu below to access a brief description of each IPPCF and list of good practices to build capacity and ensure that the IPPCF fits within a Whole of Government (WoG) appproach
Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs)
Promoting Educational Success - Inclusive, Equitable, Child-Friendly - Early Childhood Education - Social & Emotional/ Life Skills - Students with Disabilities - Transition to Work or Training Barriers to Inclusion & Equity - Out of School/Dropouts - Gender related Barriers - School Health & Nutrition - Healthy Schools - Discrimination/Racism - Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying) - Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs) - Community Schools (Poverty) - Disaster Risk Reduction - Global Citizenship - Peace Education - Education Sustainable Development - Conflict-Affected Countries - Low resource Countries - Indigenous Schooling - Minority Communities Building Core Components - Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework) - Integrated Student Services - Physical Resources (WASH) - Safe School Buildings - Curriculum & Extended Education/ (H&LS/PSH/HWB) Multi-Intervention programs (MIPs)
Child Development - Child growth & development - Vision, - Hearing - Child Abuse & Neglect - Family Violence - Child Sexual Abuse - Menstrual health & hygiene Healthy/Risky Behaviours - HIV/STI, Sexual Health - Substance abuse/tobacco use - Physical activity - Accidental injury/safety - Mental health/illness - NCDs - Chronic health conditions - Sun safety - Environmental hazards - Climate crisis health threats (Heat, Floods, Zika virus, Dengue Fever) - Infectious Diseases - Immunization/Vaccinations - Oral/dental health - School Meals - School Feeding - School food & nutrition - Obesity/overweight Child Safety/Security - Child Trafficking/ Exploitation - Refugee students/immigrants - Bullying, Cyber Bullying - Gangs, gang involvement - Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings Use the drop down menu below to access descriptions, examples, guidance and links to several good practices WoG approaches.
Whole of Government (WoG):
List of Good practices - Macro-Policy on Children & Youth - WoG Plan on Whole Child/Every Child - Required Use of IPPCF Frameworks - Required Coordination of Programs - Several Data Sources/ Regularly Compiled - Defined National Priorities for Child/Youth - Focus Resources on 4-5 National Priorities - Regular Surveys of Policies & Programs - Reciprocal, Negotiated, Strategic Inter-Ministry Partnerships - Education Ministry as Host & Co-Lead - Anchor Other Ministry Roles in their Core Mandates & Programs - Defined Roles for Front-Line Staff and Local Agencies - Regular reports on IPPCF Capacities - Senior & Middle Manager Involvement - Negotiate Formal & Informal Boundaries - Use of Inter-Ministry Mechanisms/Agencies - Comprehensive Inter-Ministry Agreements - Support for Core Components (Core H&LS curriculum , integrated student services etc from each IPPCF and ministry - Use of Joint Sector Reviews & Planning - Jointly named Inter-Ministry Coordinators - Defined job descriptions, comptencies and development for Inter-Ministry Coordinators - Donors & Internal Funding Enable "blended funding" at local or regional levels |
This summary was first posted in December 2023 as a "first draft". We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section.
Use the drop-down menu on the right hand side of this page to access brief descriptions and applications of several Intersectoral Policy/Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) which have been published by UN agencies and global organizations and are being used in countries around the world
Intersectoral coordination is required if schools are to act as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable programs. Inter-ministry coordination is at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, personal, social and sustainable development. This web site differentiates IPPCFs that coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. To be qualified as an IPPCF, these interventions need to be coordinated as a requirement by the jurisdiction (delivering several separate interventions does not qualify, nor do other forms/degrees of cooperation). To be effective, these MCAs and MIPs need to have the contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/agencies to the school system. As well, the MCAs and MIPs need to be aligned, contextualized, implemented, coordinated, sustained, integrated within school systems, scaled up by incremental systems change in order to be sustained and institutionalized within the ministries, agencies & schools. School-based/linked intersectoral frameworks are supported by research evidence/reviews, data-based reports, and practice-based program evaluations. Well-known approaches such as Health Promoting Schools[i], Community Schools[ii], Social & Emotional Learning[iii], school food & nutrition[iv] and other used in specific contexts such as education in emergencies[v] or low resource countries[vi] are well-documented as being effective at the school level. Despite the abundance of research evidence that IPPFs improve student health, well-being, safety and learning, almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents about the framework but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers or specific barriers[vi] but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of a “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries. Each of these MCAs and MIPs should organize, guide and coordinate policies and programs through these capacities or good practices:
Urgent Need for a New Paradigm based on Systems Development that Applies Whole of Government (WoG) Approaches A Whole of Government (WoG) approach should extend across and within all ministries concerned with the education, health & development of children, adolescents and young adults. Several systems changes are required to align and sustain these IPPCF frameworks. These include actions such as (a) over-arching policy on child & adolescent development, (b) laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries about working with and within schools, (c) the active support of first minister and cabinets, and (d) establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms including comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting,joint sector reviews,shared accountability systems and other actions. Based on decades of experience, we must admit that comprehensive approaches & programs are not sustainable in school systems, unless they receive ongoing funding & staffing from other ministries or external sources. Practitioners and researchers have issued warnings about capacity, coordination and competing visions & perspectives for several years[i],[ii],[iii],[iv]. Many case studies on comprehensive approaches have reported failure in scale up and sustainability[v], [vi],[vii] and challenges even when building only one component of the framework (health & life skills education)[viii],[ix]. Research, policy, and monitoring activities have focused only on the frontlines of systems (school level) in “whole school approaches” and the actions taken by educators alone are often the primary subject of analysis and action. In a detailed study based on complex systems theory and applied to several settings, including schools, Greaux et al[x] suggested that the “conditions that acted regularly as bottlenecks for implementation can possibly be explained by the way structural factors, i.e. the socio-economic and political context, are arranged, and which are operating ‘one level up’ from an intervention”. The costs and complexities of assessing the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach or program over several years at several levels (classroom/clinic, school/neighbourhood, school district/agency, education/other ministry) are likely to be challenging but not impossible to overcome if the commitment to a systems approach is sustained. Further, most of the larger, longer-tern studies have been focused on specific problems or topics rather than the whole child and overall health & development. The Health Promoting School approach is likely the most studied among the various frameworks. The latest systematic review of that framework[xi] examined only school level implementation on a few topics, over a few years. Other frameworks have less evidence. No multi-level systems application of any framework has been evaluated in a controlled trial, let alone a systematic review. Recent reports on other comprehensive frameworks describing approaches & programs on other aspects of child/youth development also report a lack of scale up and sustainability. A survey of members of the Schools for Health in Europe[xii] (24 of 40 member countries responded) found that while most countries implement individual health activities in schools, only one country reported in the survey that most schools use the HPS framework to coordinate those activities. In south-east Asia a desktop review & key informant interviews[xiii] found that most countries had school health programs. However, these programs suffered from weak leadership and inadequate funding, and they report that intersectoral coordination is often focused on specific topics and was rarely sustained. The Global Survey on school meals[xiv] reported while school meal programs were often accompanied by programs on handwashing & clean water, this example of an “entry point” strategy[xiv] was not truly able to expand to other services such as dental cleaning, eye care or menstrual health in most countries. A 2009 evaluation of Child Friendly Schools[xv] in six countries found that CFS principles were well-accepted by educators, but schools and education ministries lacked resources, training and sustained leadership to implement the entire CFS framework even as it is viewed as a flexible model and not a blueprint. For example, including students with disabilities, likely one of core CFS objectives, was very challenging to many schools in the study. A 2017 survey of Disaster Risk Reduction[xvi]in 68 higher risk countries reported that fewer than one-half of responding countries had the full range of DRR policies on safe facilities, disaster management and risk/resilience education. A lack of funding and capacity were the two themes identified as barriers to implementation. A 2020 systematic review[xvii] of 9677 controlled trials of school-based programs that included sustainability as a major feature was used to determine if they were sustainable after start-up funds end. The review found that none of selected programs maintained all their components after funding ended. “No discernible relationship was found between evidence of effectiveness and sustainability. Key facilitators included commitment/support from senior leaders, staff observing a positive impact on students’ engagement and wellbeing, and staff confidence in delivering health promotion and belief in its value. Important contextual barriers emerged: the norm of prioritising educational outcomes under time and resource constraints, insufficient funding/resources, staff turnover and a lack of ongoing training. Adaptation of the intervention to existing routines and changing contexts appeared to be part of the sustainability process.” This 2020 review of sustainable school programming used a general theory of implementation[xviii] to synthesize the findings from the diverse set of studies it reviewed. This theory suggests that contextual as well as system related characteristics will affect program sustainability. This leads to another gap in the research and evaluation done to date on IPPFs. Other aspects that require much more research, knowledge development and iterative, practice-based development include system and organizational capacities, strategies to integrate programs within the core mandates, concerns and constraints of school systems and the quality/choices made in the implementing, maintaining, scaling up and sustaining processes. A Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) and several systems-based good practices is required to align, coordinate, support and sustain these IPPCF frameworks. These include:
The education reform paper (Rewiring Education) prepared by the Education Commission and the Dubai Cares Foundation (now transferred to EDC) also calls for multi-sector coordination. It states that "driving and sustaining collaborative action requires new incentive structures. To that end, we recommend that governments, in partnership with international and local actors:
End Notes [i] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2 [ii] Blank M, Melaville A, Shah B (2002) Making the Difference: Research & Practice in Community Schools, Coalition for Community Schools, Washington, DC [iii] Durack JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Dev. 2011 Jan-Feb;82(1):405-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564. x. [iv] Meiklejohn S, Ryan L, Palermo C. (2016) A Systematic Review of the Impact of Multi-Strategy Nutrition Education Programs on Health and Nutrition of Adolescents. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016 Oct;48(9):631-646.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.07.015 [v] Dana Burde, Ozen Guven, Jo Kelcey Heddy Lahmann, Khaled Al-Abbadi (2015) What Works to Promote Children’s Educational Access, Quality of Learning, and Wellbeing in Crisis-Affected Contexts: Education Rigorous Literature Review, Department for International Development. [vi] Bundy DAP (2011) Rethinking school health: a key component of education for all. Washington, DC: World Bank [vi] Laitsch D, McCall D (2022) Preliminary findings of a global survey and policy/curriculum document analysis from all countries is revealing that most countries use several (5-15) intersectoral policy/program frameworks to organize interventions promoting inclusion & equity through schools (In Progress) [i] Marthe Deschesnes, Catherine Martin and Adèle Jomphe Hill (2003) Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation? Health Promotion International (2003) 18 (4): 387-396. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dag410 [ii] Deschesnes, M., Couturier, Y., Laberge, S. and Campeau, L. (2010), How divergent conceptions among health and education stakeholders influence the dissemination of healthy schools in Quebec, Health Promotion International, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 435-43 [iii] Nastaran Keshavarz Mohammadi, Louise Rowling, Don Nutbeam, (2010) Acknowledging educational perspectives on health promoting schools, Health Education, Vol. 110 Iss: 4, pp.240 – 25 [iv] Venka Simovska, Lone Lindegaard Nordin and Katrine Dahl Madsen (2015) Health promotion in Danish schools: local priorities, policies and practices, Health Promotion International, (2015) doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav009 [v] Junko Saito, Ngouay Keosada, Sachi Tomokawa, Takeshi Akiyama, Sethavudh Kaewviset, Daisuke Nonaka, Jitra Waikugul, Jun Kobayashi, Mithong Souvanvixay and Masamine Jimba (2015) Factors influencing the National School Health Policy implementation in Lao PDR: a multi-level case study, Health Promotion International (2015) 30 (4): 843-854. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau016 [vi] Michaela Adamowitsch, Lisa Gugglberger and Wolfgang Dür (2014) Implementation practices in school health promotion: findings from an Austrian multiple-case study, Health Promotion International, Advance Access 10.1093/heapro/dau018 [vii] Behrouz Fathi, Hamid Allahverdipour, , Abdolreza Shaghaghi, Ahmad Kousha, and Ali Jannati (2014) Challenges in Developing Health Promoting Schools’ Project: Application of Global Traits in Local Realm, Health Promotion Perspectives, 2014; 4(1): 9–17, Published online 2014 Jul 12. doi: 10.5681/hpp.2014.002 [viii] Amanda Hargreaves (2012) The perceived value of Health Education in schools: New Zealand secondary teachers’ perceptions, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 45, Issue 4, 2013 pages 560-582 [ix] Lisa Gugglberger and Jo Inchley (2014) Phases of health promotion implementation into the Scottish school system, Health Promotion International, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 256-266 [x] Grêaux KM, van Assema P, Bessems KMHH, de Vries NK, Harting J. (2023) Patterns in bottlenecks for implementation of health promotion interventions: a cross-sectional observational study on intervention-context interactions in the Netherlands. Arch Public Health. 2023 Oct 17;81(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01196-y. PMID: 37848963; PMCID: PMC10580618. [x] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2 [xi] Bartelink N, Bessems K & Prevo L (2020) SHE monitoring report 2020: Overall report of the SHE member countries, Schools for Health in Europe Network Foundation, Haderslev, Denmark, p 3 [xii] World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia (2021) Rapid assessment of national school health programmes in countries of the WHO South-East Asia Region: A summary. New Delhi, Author, p 17, p6, pp 17-23 [xiii] The Global Child Nutrition Foundation (2021) School Meal Programs Around the World: Report Based on the Global Survey of School Meal Programs, Seattle, Author, p 51 [xiv] The “entry point” strategy is often used as an argument for investing in one program with a plan to expand to other areas once that initial program has become established. The school meals program is one example. Other examples include HIV/AIDS and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Experience has taught us that entry points can lead to or be connected with directly related programs (e.g. school feeding to other physical health needs in low resource countries, HIV/AIDS with sexual health in many countries, NCDs with physical activity, tobacco and obesity in high resource contexts) there is a finite limit to the width or breadth of the endeavour. For example, the many issues/programs listed in the expanded definition of “school health & nutrition” presented in Paper 4: The Case for School Health and Nutrition in the annexes to May 13 draft discussion paper for Action Track One include skills-based curriculum on health, nutrition and comprehensive sexuality education; and school-based and school-linked health and nutrition services, including school meals, micronutrient supplementation, vaccination, oral health promotion, vision screening and treatment, malaria control, deworming, sexual and reproductive health services, and menstrual hygiene management. There is no jurisdiction in the world that has put these many programs into practice as a coordinated set of programs. Rather than being an unachievable wish list of programs, it may be better to go back to the more focused, earlier list of “essential package of interventions” for low resource countries published by UNICEF & WFP. Trying to merge all of the potential IPPFs into one program is ill-advised and impossible. However, we may want to go back to the FRESH Framework which defines the core components for all IPPFs and then lists 13 topics or themes (there are many more which could be added). This “core and list” method allows for the affinity of programs in the package and for countries to select the combination best suited to their needs. [xv] David Osher Dana L. Kelly, Nitika Tolani-Brown, Luke Shors & Chen-Su Chen (2009) UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report, Washington, DC, American Institutes for Research [xvi] Rebekah Paci-Green, Adriana Varchetta, Kate McFarlane, Padmini Iyer, Marcel Goyenech (2020) Comprehensive school safety policy: A global baseline survey, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 44, April 2020, 101399, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101399 [xvii] Herlitz, L., MacIntyre, H., Osborn, T. et al. (2020) The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 15, 4 (2020). doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0961-8 [xviii] May C. (2913) Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8. doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-18. See our full list of inter-ministry actions and practices that can be used to develop, maintain and sustain a whole of government approach through Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) using the school as a hub of policies, services and programs This summary was first posted in November 2023 last updated on 14-12-2023 as a "first edition". We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section. |
Use the drop-down menu below to access a brief description of each IPPCF
Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs)
Promoting Educational Success - Inclusiion, Equity, Child-Friendly - Early Childhood Education - Social & Emotional Learning/ Life Skills - Students with Disabilities - Transition to Work or Training Barriers to Inclusion & Equity - Out of School/Dropouts - Gender related Barriers - School Health & Nutrition - Healthy Schools - Discrimination/Racism - Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying) - Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs) - Community Schools (Poverty) - Disaster Risk Reduction - Global Citizenship - Peace Education - Education for Sustainable Development - Conflict-Affected Countries - Low resource Countries - Indigenous Schooling - Minority Communities Building Core Components - Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework) - Integrated Student Services - Physical Resources (WASH) - Safe School Buildings - Curriculum & Extended Education (H&LS/PSH/HWB) Multi-Intervention Programs MIPs)
Child Development - Child growth & development - Vision, - Hearing - Child Abuse & Neglect - Family Violence - Child Sexual Abuse - Menstrual health & hygiene Healthy/Risky Behaviours - HIV/STI, Sexual Health - Substance abuse/ tobacco - Physical activity - Accidental injury/safety - Mental health/illness - NCDs - Chronic health conditions - Sun safety - Environmental hazards - Climate crisis health threats (Heat, Floods, Zika virus, Dengue Fever) - Infectious Diseases - Immunization/ Vaccinations - Oral/dental health - School Feeding - School Meals - School Food & Nutrition - Obesity/overweight Child Safety/Security - Child Trafficking/ Exploitation - Refugee students/immigrants - Bullying, Cyber Bullying - Gangs, gang involvement - Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings |
For updates and reader comments on this section of this web site, go to our
Mini-Blog on Common Topics &Terms
Here is our list of topics for this section:
- Introduction & Overview
- Education Equity, Inclusion & Success - Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) (published at global level)
- Multi-component Approaches (MCAs)
- Core Components
- Macro & Specific Policies
- Instruction & Extended Education
- Education Promoting HSPSSD
- H&LS/PSH Curricula & Instruction
- Physical Education
- Home Economics/Family Studies/Financial Literacy
- Promoting HPSSD within Other Subjects
- Moral/Religious Education - Extended Education Activities
- Health, Social & Other Services
- Psycho-Social Environment & Supports
- Staff Wellness
- Student Conduct & Discipline
- Engaging/Empowering Youth
- Parent Participation
- Community Involvement
- Physical Environment & Resources
- How to Build a Multi-Intervention Program
- Learning/Behaviour Models (LBMs)
- Behaviour & Learning Theories
- Government/Inter-sector Actions & Levers
- Whole of Government Strategies
- National Action Plans
- Declarations & Consensus Statements
- Standards & Procedures
- Inter-Ministry Coordination
- Inter-Ministry Committees
- Inter Ministry Coordinators
- Inter-Ministry Agreements
- Inter-Ministry Mechanisms
- Joint Ministry Decision-making - Inter-Agency Coordination
- Inter-Professional Coordination
- Workforce Planning in HPSD
- Teacher Education & Development
- Early Childhood Educators
- Primary School Teachers
- Secondary PSHE Specialists
- Home Economics Specialists
- Physical Education Specialists
- School Counsellors
- School Psychologists
- School Principals - Preparing Other Professionals to Work with or within Schools
- School Nurses
- School Social Workers
- School Resource (Police) Officers
- Security/Civil Protection Guards
- Teaching/Learning Assistants
- School Administrative/Clerical Staff
- School Maintenance Staff
- Pastoral Counsellors
- Community Volunteers & Elders
- Emergency Relief Aid Workers
- Development Aid Workers
- A Systems Focused Paradigm
- Contextualizing Approaches & Programs
- Implement, Maintain, Scale Up & Sustain Programs & Approaches
- System & Organizational Capacities
- Integrate Within Education System Mandates, Concerns & Constraints
- Better Use of Systems Science & Organizational Development Tools