1 / 23

Performance and Progress 2005/2006

Performance and Progress 2005/2006. Introduction. Data collected during 2005/2006 fiscal year. Who did our programs serve? Did programs reach the intended populations? Did programs meet service goals? Did children and families meet outcome goals? Lessons learned. Service Data.

nathaniel-waller
Download Presentation

Performance and Progress 2005/2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance and Progress2005/2006

  2. Introduction • Data collected during 2005/2006 fiscal year. • Who did our programs serve? • Did programs reach the intended populations? • Did programs meet service goals? • Did children and families meet outcome goals? • Lessons learned.

  3. Service Data • Children’s Investment Fund programs served 12,179 children and 3,124 parents/caregivers during the last fiscal year. • Programs exceeded service goals and served 13% more children than projected.

  4. Who Did We Serve? Gender and Age Group • Programs served roughly the same number of boys and girls. • School aged children (age 9-15) make up the majority served (51%).

  5. Who Did We Serve?Race/Ethnicity

  6. Who Did We Serve?Primary Language

  7. Who Did We Serve?Poverty Level

  8. Outcome Goal Areas: Early Childhood and Child Abuse Child development Child health Parenting/family functioning Child stability and welfare Outcome Goal Areas: After-School and Mentoring School attendance School behavior Academic achievement Developmental assets Outcome Data

  9. Outcome Data Limitations • The data we are reporting are descriptive, not causative. • Many data points provide information on progress made while children are enrolled. • Percentages reported apply only to the portion of programs tracking the outcome and those clients who met a participation threshold. • 64% the children served met participation thresholds set by grantees for outcome tracking.

  10. Early Childhood and Child Abuse Program Data • Grantees needed technical assistance in data collection and reporting. • Gathering Data: Technical Assistance Project with Portland State University.

  11. Child Development • 80% of children screened met developmental milestones. • 20% who were not on track made progress on meeting milestones while enrolled. 78% of these children were referred to additional services. • Children screened showed the most risk in language/ communication development.

  12. Child Health • 86% of children screened for current immunizations were up to date. • 84% of children were screened for health and wellness needs.

  13. Parenting and Family Functioning • 85% of parents increased social supports. • 83% of parents increased appropriate parenting practices. • 77% of parents increased knowledge of ways to manage child behavior. • 93% of parents increased knowledge of child development. • 79% of parents increased appropriate parent-child interactions.

  14. Child Stability and Welfare • 99% of children attending child care centers or preschools with access to mental health counselors were not removed from care due to behavioral problems. • 97% of families who were referred to the child abuse hotline for suspected abuse or neglect were not re-reported within 90 days of completing services. • 91% of children experienced an increase in stability.

  15. After-School and Mentoring Program Data • 82% of identified program participants attended Portland Public Schools. • PPS, David Douglas, Reynolds and Centennial School Districts all provided data on academic achievement variables. • PPS also provided data on attendance, behavior variables, and progress on grades.

  16. School Attendance(PPS Only) • 49% of program participants improved school attendance in the 2005/2006 school year. • 74% of program participants attended 90% of school days.

  17. School Behavior(PPS Only) • 79% of program participants decreased behavior referrals • 64% of program participants decreased serious behavior referrals (those that resulted in a suspension or expulsion)

  18. Academic Achievement:Grades(PPS Only) • 33% improved reading/English grades • 31% improved math grades

  19. Academic Achievement:Percentage of Students Meeting State Standards in Reading and Math(All Districts Reporting)

  20. Academic Achievement: Percentage of Students Moving to a Higher Performance Category (All Districts Reporting) • 34% of program participants moved to a higher performance category in reading or stayed at “exceeds.” • 38% of program participants moved to a higher performance category in math or stayed at “exceeds.”

  21. Academic Achievement: Progress toward Meeting State Standards(PPS Only) • Of the students who were not meeting state standards in reading, 52% moved to a higher performance category. • Of the students who were not meeting state standards in math, 53% moved to a higher performance category.

  22. Outcome Data Analysis • First year of data collection for many grantees. • First year results will assist grantees in making future outcome projections for their program participants. • Technical assistance necessary when grantees must gather, analyze and report data. • Need for strategies to increase level of participation in programs.

  23. Considerations for the Future • Need for common intermediate outcomes for after-school and mentoring programs. • CHIF would need to provide technical assistance to help after-school and mentoring programs to collect, analyze and report data on intermediate outcomes. • SUN system task force is considering joint evaluation strategies.

More Related