First 5 Sonoma County Program Evaluation Report

1
First 5 Sonoma County Program Evaluation Report

• Regional Child Care Initiative
• Resource Specialist Programs
• August 13, 2007

2
Fit with First 5 Sonoma CountysStrategic Plan

• Goal Early Care and Education
• Priority Outcome Early care and education will
  be of the highest quality
• Pathway to Results Indicator(s)
• Increased number of ECE sites receiving training
• Increased number of ECE providers who receive
  training for children with special needs

3
Program Overview

• Community Child Care Council of Sonoma County
  (4Cs) and Early Learning Institute (ELI)
  implemented Resource Specialist programs
• Part of Regional Child Care Initiative (RCCI)
• The County divided into 7 regions
• 4css programs focused primarily on family child
  care in 4 regions
• ELIs programs primarily served centers

4
Program Overview

• Target population varied slightly by region
• Programs purpose was to improve the quality of
  child care
• Program design provide one-on-one consultation
  to providers as needed
• ELIs program focused on early identification of
  children with special needs

5
Resource Specialist Programs by Region 4Cs
PEERS Program
6
Resource Specialist Programs by Region ELI
7
Evaluation Design

• Dosage outcome design
• Within-group comparison based on level of service
  received
• Methods
• Reviewed background documents reports on the
  planning process and regional scopes of work
• Three interviews lead agency staff (2) and First
  5 Sonoma County staff (1)
• Countywide provider survey (n91)

8
Evaluation Design -- Provider survey details

• Approximately 1,500 surveys mailed
• 378 surveys returned for approximate response
  rate of 25
• 91 of these had participated in Resource
  Specialist program
• 53 in 4Cs-administered regions
• 38 in ELI-administered regions

9
Data Analysis Procedures

• Basic descriptive frequencies
• Composites
• Logistical regressions
• ANOVAs

10
Strengths and Limitations

• Strengths of this evaluation
• Developed with significant participation from
  4Cs, ELI, and First 5 Sonoma County staff
• Dosage-outcome design allows for within-group
  comparison
• Limitations of this evaluation
• While the survey sample is sufficient for
  statistical analysis, response rate is low at 13
  of providers served in FY 2005-06.

11
Survey Respondent Characteristics
12
Process Evaluation Findings
13
Process Evaluation Findings
14
Process Evaluation Findings 4Cs -- PEERS
15
Process Evaluation Findings ELI
16
Key Outcomes Understanding of Dimensions of
Quality Care

17
Key Outcomes Knowledge of Early Literacy
18
Key Outcomes Incorporating Skills Into Practice
19
Key Outcomes Increased Knowledge of Early
Identification Process (ELI)
20
Key Outcomes Increased Knowledge of Community
Resources
21
Key Outcomes Increased Contact Among Providers
(4Cs)
22
Key Outcomes Increased Interaction Among
Providers (ELI)
23
Key Outcomes Increased Sense of Professional
Community (4Cs)
24
Key Outcomes Increased Usage of Whole-Child
Curriculum (ELI)
25
Key Outcomes Increased Confidence to Meet Needs
of Children (ELI)
26
Key Outcomes Providers Part of IFSP/IEP Team
(ELI)
27
Key Outcomes Improvement in Quality
28
Subgroup effects Spanish survey
29
Participant Perspectives
30
Formal Recommendations

• There are no differences in findings by dosage.
  In similar programs, continue to allow the
  provider and Resource Specialist to determine the
  frequency of visits.
• There is a chasm between knowledge of the top
  four community resources and the others.
  Encourage community resources to use child care
  providers as information hubs.
• Providers found talking with the specialist about
  children and the specialists activity ideas
  useful. Support programs that continue these
  activities.

31
Committee Recommendations

• Additional Evaluation Committee recommendations
  for the Commission

32
Questions for Further Exploration

• Summary of ideas for future evaluation
  questions/approaches

33
Conclusion

• Tie conclusion back to the Strategic Plan slide
  (number 2)

34
Attachments

• Logic Model
• Evaluation Plan
• Data Collection Instruments
• Additional Data Tables