Presentation on theme: "Welcome! Review of the National Part C APR Indicator 4 Family Data FFY 2011 (2011-12) Siobhan Colgan, ECTA, DaSy Melissa Raspa, ECTA."— Presentation transcript:
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… (A)…know their rights (B)…effectively communicate their children's needs (C)…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] 7
State Approaches: Surveys Used
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 10
Response Rates by Survey Distribution and Return Methods Response rateStates (n) In-person Only Distribution49.6%17 With in-person return63.7%5 With multiple return methods49.5%5 With mail return35.7%6 Multiple/Combined Distribution Methods (two or more) 41.5%9 With mail return47.2%2 With multiple return methods39.9%7 Mailed-Only Distribution27.0%23 With multiple return methods31.8%8 With mail return24.4%15
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