1. Family Support Data Early Childhood Iowa The Year 2010 In Review

2. Summary of Major Changes in 2009-2011 Increased ACCOUNTABILITY is KEY Required Performance Measures (2009) Strongly Encourage Program Credentialing (2009) Limitations on Parent Education (2010) Use Excel format for Annual Report (2010) Defined Home Visit Component (2011) Require Adherence to the Iowa Family Support Standards or comparable standards for all funded programs (2011) Additional flexibility on alternate sites for home visits (2011) Require that 60% of all funds supporting family support go to programs with a home visit component (2011)

3. Data Collection Process Information reported in all 58 Early Childhood Iowa Area’s 2010 Annual Report Covers the period of July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 Each was carefully reviewed Follow up will occur with all 58 ECI Areas during their annual report review

4. Limitations Lack a web based data collection system No child or family identifier so there are duplicate counts Family support programs not funded with the family support categorical funds were not required to report the performance measures Programs are not required to report non-ECI funds

5. Limitations We were missing the annual reports from four areas as of 10/15/10. (Buchanan/Delaware/Fayette, Black Hawk, Marshall, Wayne) Follow up has not yet occurred with each area Family support programs vary widely in their models and service delivery making program comparison challenging

6. ECI Area Boards invested $14,040,324.97 in School Ready funds to provide family support services to families with young children in their community. An additional $1,559,555.86 of non-ECI funds were invested in these family support programs. These funds supported a total of 171 programs. – 121 family support programs provided in the home 28 Intensive Long Term Home Visitation (weekly visits) 73 Long Term Home Visitation 20 Short Term Home Visitation (less than 6 months in duration) – 50 group based parent education programs Input Measures

7. 18,725 children 0 -5 served* 13,957 families served* 90,614 home visits completed 4,777 groups offered Only 8% of the 0 – 5 population has the benefit of a family support program because of limited funding. *May include duplicates OUTPUT Measures

8. Impact of 2010 Budget Reductions 2009 Family Support Data 2010 Family Support Data Difference School Ready Funds Expended $17,081,817.88$14,040,324.97-$3,042,492.91 # of Programs Funded 180171- 9 # of Children 0 – 5 Served 22,70718,725-3,982 # of Families Served 16,83313,957-2,876 # of Home Visits Provided 120,79290,614-30,178 # of Groups Offered 4,5934,777+184

9. Ethnic Diversity Ethnicity of Head of Household #% Native American/Alaskan Native 1621% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 19<1% African American 7856% Multi-Racial 2872% Hispanic/Latino 199315% Asian 2372% White 970173% Other 1721% TOTAL 13,352 Data represents 96% of all families served

10. Family Support Ethnicity Data

11. Iowa Ethnicity Data

12. Marital Status # % Married 6157 46% Partnered 2399 18% Single 3965 30% Divorced 484 4% Widowed 35 <1% Separated 338 3% TOTAL Data represents 96% of all families served

13. Household Size #% Two 228517% Three 422432% Four 344226% Five 199115% Six 8847% Greater than Six 5704% TOTAL 13,396 Data represents 96% of all families served

14. Annual Family Income Family Income #% $0 - $10,000 462634% $10,001 - $20,000 272622% $20,001 - $30,000 205316% $30,001 - $40,000 133410% $40,001 - $50,000 8696% $50,001 - $60,000 6815% More than $60,000 10947% TOTAL 13,383 Data represents 96% of all families served

15. Family Income

16. IFSTAN MENTORS LYON OSCEOLADICKINSON EMMET KOSSUTH SIOUX O’BRIEN CLAY PALO ALTO HANCOCK WINNEBAGO CLINTON WORTH MITCHELL HOWARD FLOYD CHICKASAW WINNESHIEK FAYETTE ALLAMAKEE CLAYTON PLYMOUTH CHEROKEE BUENA VISTA HUMBOLDT WRIGHT FRANKLIN BUTLER WOODBURY IDA SAC CALHOUN WEBSTER HAMILTON HARDIN MONONA CRAWFORD CARROLL GREENE BOONE STORY MARSHALL BREMER BLACK HAWK BUCHANAN DELAWARE DUBUQUE GRUNDY TAMA JACKSON BENTON JONES LINN CEDAR POWESHIEK JOHNSON JASPER KEOKUK IOWA WASHINGTON MAHASKA MUSCATINE SCOTT MARION LOUISA POLK MILLS HARRISON POTTAWATTAMIE SHELBY CASS GUTHRIE MADISON DALLAS ADAIR WARREN AUDUBON FREMONT MONTGOMERY PAGE ADAMS TAYLOR RINGGOLD UNION CLARKE DECATUR LUCAS WAYNE MONROE APPANOOSE WAPELLO DAVIS JEFFERSON VAN BUREN LEE HENRY DES MOINES POCAHONTAS CERRO GORDO RED indicates a program/s that serves more families with incomes > $50,000 than families at or below $20,000

17. Education Level Highest Level of Education of Head of Household #% Elementary/Middle School9587% Some High School222917% High School Diploma/GED420431% Trade/Vocational Training4744% Some College241718% Two Year College Degree (Associate’s) 9087% Four Year College Degree (Bachelor’s Degree) 173413% Master’s Degree or Above4503% TOTAL13,374 Data represents 96% of all families served

18. Family Support Education Data

19. Quality/Efficiency 9,601 children (0 – 5) or 57% of children served, were screened for developmental delays 965 or 10% of those children screened that were referred to Early Intervention Services 375 or 64% of direct service staff with Bachelor’s level education or higher (health, human services, or education related field)* 115 or 74% of programs that have a national or state credential or have been accepted into the process

20. Outcomes 80% of participating families that improve or maintain healthy family functioning, problem solving and communication 79% of participating families that increase or maintain social supports 69% of participating families that are connected to additional concrete supports 65% of participating families that increase knowledge about child development and parenting 65% of participating families that improve nurturing and attachment between parent(s) and child(ren)

21. Families Served by Program Type

22. Comparison by Program Type

23. Comparison of Program Types

24. Comparison of Home Visits Provided

25. Comparison of Families Served by Program Type

26. Quality Efficiency Comparison by Program Type

27. Comparison of Outcomes Achieved by Program Type

28. A Closer Look By Model Incentive Based Groups (N = 18) Newborn Home Visits (N = 9) Parents as Teachers (N = 48) Healthy Families America (N = 18)

29. Group Based Incentive Models

31. Newborn Baby Visits – Comparison of Cost Per Home Visit

32. Newborn Baby Visits – Comparison of the # of Home Visits Provided

33. Parents as Teachers Model –

34. Avg. HVs Parents as Teachers Model

35. Healthy Families America Model –

37. Conclusions ECI family support programs represent a wide diversity of program types and models to best meet the diverse needs of the population ECI family support programs serve a high proportion of ethnic minority families ECI family support programs are successful in engaging families with higher risk factors Programs differ on costs and quantity of services Long Term Home Based and Intensive Home Based are more likely to be engaged in quality improvement efforts Group Based programs are less likely to inquire about developmental screenings

38. Conclusions Outcome data demonstrates behavioral changes in families Family demographics differ widely by program type and by ECI Area funder (local decision making board) It is unclear why the significant drop in direct service staff with a BA degree or higher Reductions in staff? Reductions in funded programs? Inaccurate data in 2009?

39. For More Information Contact: Janet Horras, Family Support Coordinator State Capitol, Rm. 13 Des Moines, IA. 50319 Janet.Horras@iowa.gov