NC FAMILY OUTCOMES SURVEY PARENT-CALLING PILOT PROJECT

1. NC FAMILY OUTCOMES SURVEYPARENT-CALLINGPILOT PROJECT ECO Center Family Outcomes Community of Practice 11/10/2009 Angela Deal, DPH; Patrice Neal, FPG; Melanie Long, FSN Please do not copy or distribute without permission of authors

2. NC Part C Survey Background • Use NCSEAM family outcome survey -- mailed • Average return rate 20% every year • Returned surveys have not been representative of the population served

3. Improvement Strategies (APR 2009) • Pre-verify addresses to reduce number of undeliverable surveys • Surveys mailed to families currently receiving services vs. at exit • Postcards hand-delivered by service coordinators to families to be expecting surveys in the mail • Providers asked to also remind families to expect survey in mail • Follow-up with families of minority populations who historically have a low return rate • Requested input from subcommittee of ICC on ways to improve return rate and families’ understanding of the survey process

4. PILOT PROJECT • Committee brainstormed multiple options • Selected most feasible: small pilot • Ultimate goal more representative and useful family data • Trained, unbiased, local parents • Provide information • Offer assistance and support • Encourage participation • Determine if approach results in improved return rate • Obtain feedback about survey and process • Collect data on time, expense, usefulness, practicality • Develop recommendations

5. COLLABORATION A joint project of: • NC Collaborative Outcomes Project (GSEG)of the FPG Child Development Institute at UNC-CH • Child and Family Outcomes Committee of the NC Interagency Coordinating Council • Family Support Network (FSN)of North Carolina • Family Support Network/HOPE • Family Support Network of Central Carolina • Greensboro and Morganton/Hickory CDSAs Children’s Developmental Services Agencies in association with • NC Early Intervention Services: Together We Grow Infant-Toddler Program

6. PREPARATION • Site selection (2) • More urban/larger and more rural/smaller • Close ties between CDSAs and local FSN affiliate • Shared staff and on-site presence • Capacity and mission • Willingness to “volunteer” • Training • Previous Support Parent training, incl. Confidentiality • Developed in-depth Caller Guide • Pre- and Post- training at each site (input & feedback) • On-going TA for questions, clarification

7. LOCAL PARENT CALLERS • 3 at smaller, more rural site and 5 at larger more urban • One Spanish speaking parent caller at each site • Sent local personalized flyer in advance • Calling times flexible, mainly in evenings • Paid hourly rate by grant partner • Referred to Caller Guide • Key points (‘non-script’, scenarios, resources) • Talked to parent or left message • Used tracking forms • Asked follow-up questions (evaluate pilot)

8. LOCAL PARENT CALLERS • “Detective” work • Obtain replacements as needed • Offer a children’s book as thank-you for answering questions about survey and process • Opportunity for outreach and connections • provide info about local FSN and activities offered • Shared thoughts and opinions on pilot • Challenges: Unable to contact wrong/disconnected phone #s, no voicemail • Highlights: Appreciative parents

9. What We Learned • ~ 1000 calls were made (~ 600 families on both call lists) • 75% successful (40% spoke to parent; 35% left message) • RETURN RATE INCREASED • Site 1 34.1% • Previous year: 14% increase of 143% • Site 2 26.7% • Previous year: 19% increase of 41% • State average = 21.1% • National average = overall 33%; NCSEAM 31%; census 32% mailed: distributed 26%; returned 30%

10. What We LearnedFollow-up Evaluation Questions asked to Families by Parent Callers • >80% said it was helpful to get a call • ~1/3 said they would not have returned without reminder • > 90% said they understood survey purpose • 63% overall recommended calling in future (61% White; 84% Black; 71% Hispanic; 78% Spanish-speaking) Differences by Ethnicity/Language • Spanish speakers twice as likely to answer no/not sure if they would return survey without call; higher %-age did not understand purpose: 15% (small n) compared to <3% English-speaking; more likely to say survey was too long, not easy to fill out, & took longer to complete

11. Next Steps • Prelim report to state ICC • Committee review results • Develop recommendations • Present full final report and recommendations to ICC and EI Branch • Share materials and process can be adapted across EC agencies YOUR THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, IDEAS??

12. Contact Information Angela G. Deal, ACSW, LCSW, ITFS Regional Consultant Early Intervention Branch, Department of Public Health 1429 E. Marion St., Suite 5 Shelby, NC 28150 Angela.deal@dhhs.nc.gov Patrice Neal, PhD Director, NC Collaborative Outcomes Project FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 521 S. Greensboro Street Carrboro, NC 27510 nealp@mail.fpg.unc.edu Melanie Long Parent Co-Chair, NC-ICC Child & Family Outcomes Committee Family Support Network/HOPE P. O. Box 5413 Hickory, NC 28601 Melanie.p.long@dhhs.nc.gov