Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4)

1. Trends inChild Outcomes (C-3 / B-7)and Family Outcomes (C-4) Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ 2008-2009Annual Performance ReportsChristina Kasprzak, Robin Rooney, Siobhan Colgan Lynne Kahn, Kathy Hebbeler (NECTAC / ECO) November 30, 2010 4:00 PM EST

2. 1. National data on child and family outcomes (C3/B7 and C4)2. Challenges related to collecting and reporting on this indicator3. Improvement activities Webinar Focus

3. Quick Poll 1 Who is joining us on the call today?

4. Child Outcomes Data Summary of 2010 APR Data

5. Part C State Approaches (n=56) to Measuring Child Outcomes Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) 41 (73%) states Single assessment statewide 7 (13%) states Publishers’ online assessment systems 3 (5%) states Other approaches 5 (9%) states

6. State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement Part C Program Early Childhood Outcomes Center –August 2010 MP GU • Legend: • COSF • Publishers’ on-line systems • One tool statewide • Other AS HI

7. 619 State Approaches (n=59)to Measuring Child Outcomes Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) 36 (61%) states Single assessment statewide 9 (15%) states Publishers’ online assessment systems 6 (10%) states Other approaches 7 (12%) states 7

8. State Approaches to Child Outcomes Measurement Section 619 Programs Early Childhood Outcomes Center –August 2010 MP MH GU • Legend: • COSF • Publishers’ on-line systems • One tool statewide • Other PW FM AS HI

9. The number of Part C childrenwith outcome data is increasing!

10. The number of 619 childrenwith outcome data is increasing!

11. Quick Poll 2 Number of children in the data

12. Missing Data ECO additional analysis State efforts to identify missing data State efforts to reduce missing data

13. National Conference Callon Data Quality – Coming Soon • What do you know the quality of your state’s outcomes data? • Do you know how much missing data you have? How much is reasonable? • Missing data is still a major problem for many states. Join us to learn about how much progress has been made and how your state compares to the national numbers.

16. Part C Progress data trends FFY07 FFY08

17. 619 Progress data trends FFY07 FFY08

18. Quick Poll 3 Progress Data Trends

19. Part C - Category ‘e’ by % served

20. FFY2008 Summary Statements

21. Part C - Summary Statement 2 by % Served

22. What States are Doingfor Improvement Continuing training and TA on data collection system Enhancing data systems Developing data analysis Identifying and addressing data quality issues Identifying areas for program improvement

23. Open Discussion Questions? Comments?

24. Family Outcomes Data Summary of 2010 APR Data

25. State Approaches to Family Outcomes Measurement Part C Program MP GU AS HI Early Childhood Outcomes Center – August 2010 • Legend: • ECO Family Outcomes Survey • State-developed survey • NCSEAM survey

26. Survey timing and family population *One State used ≥9 months, and one State used ≥12 months

27. Quick Poll 4 Survey distribution

28. Response rate variables

29. Response rate by state size

30. Representativeness: Comparison data • Thirty-nine states (70%) reported the source of data used: • Part C population/ 618 data: 31 states • Program population data: 3 states • Target population: 3 states • State data (not specified): 2 states • Remaining 17 states did not specify

31. Quick Poll 5 Addressing representativeness

32. Criteria used for evaluating representativeness • Forty-six states (89%) reported the criteria they used for determining representativeness • Race/ ethnicity: 73% (41 states) • Geography (district, county, region): 50% (28 states) • Sex: 21% (12 states) • Child’s age: 20% (11 states) • Disability/ eligibility category: 9% (5 states) • Length of time in services: 9% (5 states) • Program size : 9% (5 states) • Previous years: 2009: 44/56 (78.6%) and 2008: 37/56 (66.1%) reported criteria used • Mean number of criteria used this year: 2.7 Previous years: 2009: 2.6 criteria and 2008: 2 criteria.

33. Performance and trends Early intervention has helped… • Families know their rights: 84% +3% from last year • Families effectively communicate children’s needs: 85% +2% from last year • Families help their children develop and learn: 90% +2% from last year

34. Performance by Survey Type

35. Performance by scoring criteria

36. Performance by state size

37. Performance by percent served

38. Were data representative? • Forty-four states reported whether their data were representative (79%) • Yes, some data provided: 36% (20 states) • Yes, no data provided: 14% (8 states) • No: 11% (6 states) • Varied results: 18% (10 states) • No conclusions re: representativeness reported among the remaining 12 states (21%)

39. State Highlights Analyzing and reporting outcomes among subgroups Improvement activities based on detailed analysis (e.g. by subgroups of families) Data collection improvement activities Partnering w/parent organizations

40. Suggested Formats for February 2011 APR Reporting • http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/ fed_req.cfm#ECOSuggestedFormats • (this link is also available from • the webinar series page)

41. Open Discussion Questions? Comments?

42. Full APR analysis Reportsare Available Online • Part C: • http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/partcapr/2010_spp_partc_report.pdf • Part B: • http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/partcapr/2010_spp_partc_report.pdf • (these links are also available from • the webinar series page)

43. Trends inChild Outcomes (C-3 / B-7)and Family Outcomes (C-4) Thank you for participating. Presentations from this series and their related resources are made available on the NECTAC website at: http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2010/partcapr/partcapr.asp