220 likes | 293 Views
Welcome! Review of the National Part C APR Indicator 4 Family Data FFY 2011 (2011-12) Siobhan Colgan, ECTA, DaSy Melissa Raspa , ECTA . A few polls…. Who are we? . Purpose of Today’s Webinar. To share & discuss Part C APR Indicator 4 national data
E N D
Welcome! Review of the National Part C APR Indicator 4 Family Data FFY 2011 (2011-12) Siobhan Colgan, ECTA, DaSy Melissa Raspa, ECTA
A few polls… Who are we?
Purpose of Today’s Webinar To share & discuss Part C APR Indicator 4 national data To highlight key resources related to family data & family outcomes To offer an opportunity for participants to weigh in on family topics of interest
Part C APR Indicator 4 Percent of families who report that early intervention services have helped the family… • …know their rights • …effectively communicate their children's needs • …help their children develop and learn
What Data are Included? • All 56 states & jurisdictions reporting • Data submitted in states’ APRs in February, 2013 • Data from School Year (SY) 2011-2012 • Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011 • Quantitative data as reported by OSEP • Additional ECO analyses
Summary of APR Results Areas • State Approaches • Surveys used • Survey Implementation • Data Quality • Numbers and Response rates • Representativeness • Current Year C4 Data • Trends over time • By survey used • By region • By state size • By percent served
State Approaches: Surveys Used • 25 NCSEAM (45%) [same as last year] • 24 ECO FOS (43%) [same as last year] • 15 using the original FOS (27%) [17 last year] • 9 using the revised FOS (16%) [7 last year] • 7 state-developed (13%)[same as last year]
State Approaches: Survey Implementation • Dissemination & return approaches • Hand-delivered • Mailed • Online option • Follow-up strategies: • Phone calls • Reminder mailings • Incentives to programs • Incentives to families • Populations surveyed • All families in program • Families of children in program a minimum amount of time (6, 9, 12 months) • Survey Timing • Annual point in time • Aligned with child’s participation in program (e.g. at IFSP, at exit) • Other (monitoring schedule, regional)
Data Quality: Response Rates & Number Surveyed • Response rate average = 37.5% (49 states reporting) [up from 36.9% last year] • Ranging from 8% to 100% • Ten states with response rates below 20% • Ten states with response rates above 50% • Mean number of surveys returned = 949 • Ranging from n=34 to n=4374
Data Quality: Representativeness of Family Data • Variables analyzed by states (in descending order or frequency): • Race/ ethnicity • Geographic variables (district, county, region) • Child’s Gender • Child’s age (at time of survey, at referral) • Others: disability/eligibility categories, length of time in services, income, primary language • Comparison data: 618 data tables and/or program data
Data Quality: Comments, Questions, Discussion • What strategies have you tried to improve your data quality (response rates, representativeness of responses) • What are the challenges you face in your family survey process– • implementing the survey? • being confident in the quality of data? • using the data?
Resource Sharing & TA Needs • Graphing Template: Comparing national to state data • ECO/ECTA “Talking with Families” web page • DaSy “For Families” webpage with survey • Final Poll: Family Topics TA Needs