pennsylvaniaʼs family centers - university of pittsburgh ... · who participates in family...

PennsylvaniaʼsFamilyCenters

2004-05Annual Report

Family Center2004-05 Annual Report

Prepared for:Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

Office of Children, Youth and Families

Prepared by:Center for Schools and Communities

275 Grandview Avenue, Suite 200Camp Hill, PA 17011www.center-school.org

Lynn M. CromleyDirector

Benjamin Cohen, Ph.D.Statewide Evaluation Director

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1Data and Methods ........................................................................................................3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................3 Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................4Who Participates in Family Centers? ....................................................................5 The Demographic Profile of Family Center Participants is Mixed ..................................5Programmatic Information ........................................................................................7 Enrollment Lengths Vary .................................................................................................7 Parents as Teachers (PAT) Implementation Varies ...........................................................9 Participant Referrals to Family Centers are Diverse ........................................................9 Participant Interests in Family Center Services Focus on Parenting ...............................9Participant Outcomes ...............................................................................................10 Community Involvement ...............................................................................................10 Education Program Enrollment ......................................................................................11 Parenting Efficacy ..........................................................................................................11Child Characteristics and Outcomes ..................................................................13 Child Characteristics ......................................................................................................13 Child Health Services and Insurance .............................................................................13 Parental Involvement in Social Activities with their Children ......................................14 Parental Involvement in School Activities .....................................................................14 Parental Involvement in Reading to Children ................................................................15Parent Satisfaction Survey .....................................................................................16 Views on Home Visits and Parents as Teachers (PAT) ..................................................16 Parental Involvement in Family Centers ........................................................................16 Cultural Sensitivity, Self-Perceptions of Growth and Parent Interaction ......................16Family Center Administrators Survey Data ......................................................17 Funding ..........................................................................................................................17Summary ........................................................................................................................19Appendices ...................................................................................................................20 Appendix A: Methodology ...........................................................................................21 Analysis File Creation ....................................................................................................21 Appendix B: Family and Participant Analysis Tables ..................................................22 Appendix C: Child Characteristics and Outcomes .......................................................32 Appendix D: Results from the Parent Satisfaction Survey ............................................36 Appendix E: Administrator Survey Tables ...................................................................39

FiguresFigure 1: Distribution of Participants by Age and Sex ....................................................5Figure 2a: Number of Participants by Number of Months Enrolled in Family Centers ..7Figure 2b: Percentage of Participants Who Were Interested in Parenting Classes, by Enrollment Length .......................................................................................................8Figure 2c: Percentage of Participants Who Were at or Near Poverty, by Enrollment Length ..........................................................................................................................8Figure 3: Change in Community Involvement Level by Enrollment Duration .............10Figure 4: Greater Enrollment Lengths Relate to Improved Parenting Efficacy .............12Figure 5: Percentage of Children Obtaining Health Insurance by Enrollment Duration .....................................................................................................................13Figure 6: Percentage of Parents Who Increased Social Activities with Children ..........14Figure 7: Percentage of Parents Who Increased Their School Involvement, by Enrollment Length .....................................................................................................15Figure 8: Percentage of Parents Who Increased Their Reading Frequency with Children, by Enrollment Duration .............................................................................15Figure 9: Distribution of Other Family Center Matching Funds, by Amount ...............17Figure 10: Distribution of Other Non-matching, Family Center Funds, by Amount ....18

TablesTable A1: Criteria for Case Inclusion in Analytic File ..................................................21Table B1: Characteristics of Family Center Newly Enrolled Participants ....................22Table B2: Percentage of Participants ̓Enrollment in PAT and Enrollment Length, by Site ........................................................................................23Table B3: Duplicated Count of Referral Sources for Participants .................................24Table B4: Duplicated Count of Participants ̓Interest in Services ..................................25Table B5: Duplicated Count of Participants ̓Requested Emergency Services ..............26Table B6: Frequency of Participant Community Involvement, by Enrollment Length .27Table B7: Duplicated Count of Educational Program Enrollment at Intake .................28Table B8: Participants ̓Change in Educational Program Enrollment ............................28Table B9: Distribution of Participants ̓PSOC Intake and Exit Scores .................... 29-30Table B10: Descriptive Statistics for Raw Efficacy Measures ......................................31Table B11: Change in Parenting Efficacy Measure (Intake minus Outcome) ...............31Table C1: Characteristics of Children Newly Enrolled in Family Centers ....................32Table C2: Child Health Services Information ................................................................33Table C3: Child Health Insurance Status by Enrollment Length ...................................34Table C4: Parental Involvement in Social Activities with their Children, by Enrollment Length ........................................................................................................................34Table C5: Frequency of Parental Involvement in School Activities, by Enrollment .....35Table C6: Frequency of Parental Involvement in Reading with Children, by Enrollment Length ........................................................................................................................35Table D1: Parents’ Views of Home Visits, Among Those Participating in Them ..........36Table D2: Parents’ Views of Parental Involvement in Family Center Development .....37Table D3: Parents’ Views of Other Aspects of Involvement in the Family Center ........38Table E1: Family Center (FC) Matching Funds ............................................................39Table E2: Fatherhood Initiative Matching Funds ..........................................................39

Pennsylvania’s Family

Centers are based on the

philosophy that the most

effective way to insure the

growth and development

of children is to support

families and the communities

in which they live.

For over a decade, Pennsylvaniaʼs 42 Family Centers have integrated and provided community services to help families become healthy, well-educated and self-sufficient.

MEETING FIVE KEY GOALS

While each Family Center reflects its communityʼs unique strengths, needs and priorities, all are charged to meet five key goals:

g Encourage economic self-sufficiency for families through adult education, training and employment;

g Assure healthy development and provide health care services for children;

g Promote positive child development through effective parenting, early intervention and outreach activities;

g Support and preserve the family unit as the foundation for success for children; and

g Provide a seamless, comprehensive, and easily accessed network of services for children.

1

Introduction

ACHIEVING POSITIVE OUTCOMES

FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

Working with the existing strengths of community residents and organizations, Family Centers make needed services available to families through a “one-stop-shop” approach.

Every year, thousands of Pennsylvanians use the Centers to receive the information and support needed to achieve positive outcomes for their families and their children. These services may include:

2

g Parent education and child development activities;

g Health care services, information and assistance in accessing health care services and insurance;

g Adult education, employment information, training and referral; and

g Comprehensive information and assistance in accessing available community resources such as well baby care, immunizations and early intervention services.

Evaluating Pennsylvaniaʼs Family Centers requires, in part, an understanding of who Family Centers work with and what Family Centers are like as organizations; consequently, much of the data gathered about Family Centers since their inception has focused on participants. Data are also collected to measure basic characteristics of Family Centers themselves, as reported by Family Center administrators. Several outcome measures are also collected.

DATA SOURCES

Information from Center participants and Center administrators was gathered using three instruments. The first of the three sources of data is the Family Center Management Information System (MIS), which utilizes Intake and Outcome questionnaires of enrolled families and the children in these families. The MIS system also utilizes the Intake and Outcome Supplements, which are self-administered questionnaires completed by each enrolled participant. These Supplements provide a measure of parenting efficacy. The second source of data is the Parent Satisfaction Survey (PSS). The PSS is administered to representatives of active and enrolled families (most often a mother).1 Third, the annual Administratorʼs Survey is completed by each Family Center director at the end of the program year. These three instruments collect quantitative and qualitative data; each is described in more detail as follows.

Management Information System (MIS) Family and Child SurveysThe MIS consists of four paper questionnaires: the Family Intake Form, the Family Outcome Form, the Child Intake Form and the Child Outcome Form. These four questionnaires collect data on demographic characteristics, employment status, community involvement, health and health care status, and participants ̓educational activities.

During 2004-05, MIS data were collected from all participants and their children (if participants had children) who newly enrolled in Family Centers during the 2004-05 program years, a substantial shift from the 25 percent sample that had been collected in previous years.

To account for the effect of the Parents as Teachers (PAT) curriculum, the Intake and Outcome Supplements utilized the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) scale, which is known to be a valid measure of parenting education interventions.2

Parent Satisfaction SurveyAnother source of data utilized in this report is the Parent Satisfaction Survey (PSS). The PSS was given to active and enrolled Family Center parents at the end of the program year and measured their perceptions of the Family Center. Respondents returned the survey anonymously in sealed, pre-addressed

Data and Methods

3

1 “Enrolled” participants have continuous involvement with Family Centers. Individuals with “Active” status in a Family Center have infrequent or sporadic involvement.2 Charlotte Johnston and Eric Mash (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 18(2), 167-175.

envelopes to the Family Center. The PSS data show the percentage of respondents who indicated they “always” or “usually” agreed to a series of positively phrased attitudinal questions.

Administrator’s SurveyA third source of data on Pennsylvaniaʼs Family Centers comes from the Administra-torʼs Survey, which is completed at the end of the program year. The Administratorʼs Survey gathers information on various characteristics of the Family Center. For example, information was collected on the number of families and children served, the types of collaborative endeavors that each Center engaged in, and barriers each Family Center faced.

ANALYSIS METHODS

DataThe majority of analyses in this report are based on a participant and child database containing records of intake and outcome forms. Data were submitted through the course of the 2004-05 program year. When year end data collection ended, a cleaned data set was created. A number of records were deleted because they did not meet certain criteria (see Table A1 in the Appendices). Analyses were conducted on 2,129 newly enrolled participants, however, response rates varied considerably across different survey items, and were generally lower at outcome.

This report also analyzes data on 2,372 child records who are associated with the participants, although a larger number of records submitted on children could not be analyzed due to data quality issues.

Analysis MethodsThis report utilizes a variety of descriptive statistics. In several cases mean values are compared using t-tests, ANOVA, and post-hoc comparison procedures (e.g. a “Scheffe” test of independence). Many statistics are displayed using graphs to improve understanding of the results.

4

Who Participates in Family Centers?

The Family Center Intake Form collects a number of demographic indicators, as well as data about participantʼs socioeconomic status, healthcare and living arrangements. These data are presented first to develop a picture of who enrolls in Family Centers statewide.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF FAMILY CENTER PARTICIPANTS IS MIXED

Table B1 presents several characteristics of new Family Center participants, measured when these individuals first enrolled in the Family Center.

Family Center participants are overwhelmingly female (65 percent), about one-third are minority and 13 percent were of Hispanic ethnicity. About 20 percent of respondents indicated they are black or African American.3 These participants were approximately 30 years of age. Figure 1 shows the distribution of participants by sex and age (the total count of females by age is shown on the right), and illustrates that more females than males are enrolled in Family Centers, and that females tend to be younger than males.

About 16 percent of participants entering Family Centers in 2004-05 spoke a language other than English in their homes, and they had lived in their homes about three years on average. Participants were most likely to be

Figure 1: Distribution of Participants by Age and Sex

3 Items measuring race and ethnicity are designed according to measures used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Race is a multiple response item. Following the Census definition, Hispanic identity is an ethnicity and measure separately from race.4 Family Centers data on race permit respondents to indicate multiple race categories. Individuals who are counted as “white” indicated no other races except “white” on their enrollment forms.5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001. Table 250.

married (44 percent), while nearly 13 percent were widowed, divorced or separated.

Family Center participants most often had either a high school diploma or less (about 64 percent), and only about 7 percent had obtained a college degree. By comparison, national estimates indicated that about 84 percent of white females4 had completed high school and about 24 percent of white females had completed four years of college.5

5

Sex

Ag

e

Participants ̓lower education levels were paralleled by their low employment rates – on average about 50 percent of participants reported that they were unemployed. The high unemployment rates were accompanied by high poverty rates as well; about 64 percent of participants had incomes below the federal poverty level for a family of four individuals. Finally, about seven percent had neither a high school diploma nor health insurance.

6

Programmatic Information

Family Centers provide a wide array of services to their participants. However, a common component across all Centers is the Parents as Teachers (PAT) curriculum. PAT promotes child development by implementing parenting education in regular home visits and group meetings by parent educators trained to work with families and children younger than school age. By examining the frequency of participants ̓enrollment length and site level PAT implementation rates, a view – albeit a partial one – of the status of the Family Center program is possible.

ENROLLMENT LENGTHS VARYFamily Center staff work to identify individuals who have greater commitments and a likelihood for longer enrollments. Nonetheless, participants and their children enroll in Family Centers for different lengths of time. Enrollment length is a key factor in measuring the impact of Family Center services. Although different outcomes may require different enrollment intervals, in general longer enrollments should – and in several instances do – produce greater effects on certain service outcomes.

Enrollment lengths for participants who entered Family Centers in 2004-05 are shown in Figure 2a. The most common enrollment length is less than one month, although the median enrollment length (the point at which 50 percent of participants enroll) is four months, and the mean enrollment is 4.3 months.

Table B2 presents mean enrollment lengths for participants who newly enrolled in 2004-05, for three different types of outcomes.6 “Permanent exits” occur for participants who leave Family Centers and do not return within a program year, often without giving prior notice to Family Center staff. “Recommended exits” occur when Family Center staff realize a participant has made considerable growth and no longer requires intensive Family Center services. Finally, “continuing enrollments” occur when participants decide to maintain their enrollment each June for the following program year. Overall, about

6 Several cases of site data were deleted due to non-response and data quality issues. See Appendices for additional information on creation of the analysis file.

7

Figure 2a: Number of Participants by Number of Months

Enrolled in Family Centers

Enrollment Length (Months)0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Freq

uenc

y

100

200

300

0

72 percent of participants continued their enrollment, while about 14 percent either made a permanent or recommended exit.

Enrollment means are shown for participants who made a permanent exit prior to June 30, 2005, for those who Family Center staff recommended an exit, and for those who continued their enrollment into the following program year. These results help to illustrate that while the most common enrollment length was less than one month, that statistic may be driven by a smaller number of sites with low average enrollment intervals.

It is useful to recognize, as well, that enrollment lengths vary according to certain participant characteristics. These contingent enrollment patterns may help Family Center administrators to better implement their services, particularly in their efforts to sustain enrollments. For example, Figure 2b shows that one type of participant interest (parenting education) is positively related to longer enrollment lengths. About 84 percent of participants who enrolled for 10 or more months had an interest in parenting education services, while only about 74 percent of parents enrolled three or fewer months were interested in such services (p=.003).

Similarly, enrollment lengths tended to vary according to whether a participantʼs income was at or below the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Figure 2c shows that participants with the shortest enrollments are more likely to be in poverty, while those with the longest enrollments are least likely to be in poverty. For example, at the far left

8

Figure 2b: Percentage of Participants Who Were Interested in Parenting

Classes, by Enrollment Length

Figure 2c: Percentage of Participants Who Were at or Near Poverty, by

Enrollment Length

Categorical Enrollment Lengths0-3 Mos

Perc

enta

gge

20

40

4-6 Mos 7-9 Mos 10-12 Mos0

60

100

80

73.95 76.45 79.13 84.43

Enrollment Length (Months)

Perc

enta

ge

20

40

0

60

100

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9

7 Participants must receive more than only emergency services to enroll in Family Centers.

of Figure 2c, over 80 percent of participants who enrolled for less than one month were in poverty, while about 60 percent of participants in poverty enrolled for four months.

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) IMPLEMENTATION VARIES

A key component of Family Centers is the Parents as Teachers (PAT) curriculum. Table B2 shows for each site the percentage of participants enrolled in PAT. Overall, about 75 percent of participants are enrolled in PAT. Sites had a variety of participation levels in PAT, with a minimum of 24 percent and a maximum of 100 percent. Variance

in PAT implementation is explained in part by each participantʼs family structure; that is, participants with teenage children would not be suitable candidates to receive PAT. Additionally, some sites may enroll a higher proportion of participants with shorter-term commitments that preclude PAT implementation.

PARTICIPANT REFERRALS TO FAMILY CENTERS ARE DIVERSE

Participants indicated multiple sources that referred them to the Family Center. Table B3 presents duplicated counts of these responses. Among participants, common referral sources included a “friend/neighbor” (24.8 percent), and social services (16.6 percent). The largest proportion of responses was for some “other” source (29.7 percent).

PARTICIPANT INTERESTS IN FAMILY CENTER SERVICES FOCUS ON PARENTING

Participants indicated up to three different services they wanted to receive from their Family Center at Intake, from a list of 15 options. Table B4 presents duplicated counts of these responses. About 79 percent of participants indicated they wanted parenting classes and just under 19 percent enrolled in Family Centers seeking emergency services.7 Among participants receiving emergency services, about 57 percent sought food and about 50 percent sought clothing (Table B5).

Participant Outcomes

10

The Family Center Data Collection System collects several outcome measures related to its broad program goals. In this section several analyses help to describe the relationship between the length of participants ̓enrollment in Family Centers and specific outcome measures. While the outcome measures do not fully determine the effect (or lack of it) on each participant, they lend some insight into the impact of the Family Center Initiative. This section presents analyses of participants ̓community involvement, educational involvement and parenting efficacy in terms of enrollment duration.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTFamily Center participants are asked at intake and exit the extent to which they participate in any of a range of community activities, such as volunteering at fire department or library, or school or church involvement. Family Centers seek to increase community involvement to improve participants ̓social life and to better integrate participants into their communities. Table B6 presents the participants ̓frequency of community involvement by the length of enrollment and by intake and exit points.

The results show that overall, the mean level of involvement was about 12 percent higher at exit than intake (p=.000; ES=27.5 percent8). Also, participants who were never involved at intake and became any more

Figure 3: Change in Community Involvement Level byEnrollment Duration

frequently involved at exit were more likely to do so if they had longer enrollments (46 percent of participants) than short enrollments (29 percent) (p=.000). Figure 3 further illustrates the importance of enrollment duration on changes in community involvement levels. Community involvement change was computed as the difference between a participantʼs intake and outcome involvement scores; positive values on this measure indicate improved involvement. Participants who enrolled three months or less had an average score of 0.39 and participants with 10-12 months of enrollment had a score of 0.76, an effect size showing an improvement of about 32 percent (p=.116).

8 E.S. refers to effect size. Effect size is the magnitude of a treatment effect. In this analysis, the “treatment” is time in the PPT-ELECT program. Effect sizes below 10% are considered “insubstantial,” those between 10-30% are considered “small,” those between 31-50% “moderate” and effect sizes over 50% are considered “large.” See, for example, Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. E.S. is calculated as d= M

1 - M

2 / σ, where

d is difference between the mean scores and σ is the standard deviation of the time 1 group.

Enrollment Length0-3 Mos

Mea

n of

Com

mun

ity In

volv

emen

t Cha

nge

0.400

0.500

4-6 Mos 7-9 Mos 10-12 Mos

0.600

0.800

0.700

oo o

o

EDUCATION PROGRAM ENROLLMENTParticipants reported their enrollment in up to 12 different educational programs. Table B7 presents the duplicated count of participants who indicated various types of educational program enrollment. Respondents may be reported in more than one category, except “Not involved in any programs.” Most participants have no involvement in educational programs (81 percent). Among the 387 participants who did participate in educational programs, the most common activity was completing high school (n=85, or about 22 percent).

Table B8 presents the frequency of participants who increased or decreased their educational program involvement between intake and exit. The overwhelming majority of participants made no change in their educational program enrollment.

PARENTING EFFICACYSeveral analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between Family Center participation and parenting efficacy. Parenting efficacy is defined as a personal characteristic reflecting competence, problem-solving abilities, and capability in the parenting role. Individuals who receive the PAT curriculum are expected to improve their parenting skills, and parenting efficacy is expected to increase following PAT involvement. Parenting efficacy was measured using the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) scale,9 which is known to be an effective outcome of parent

education interventions, particularly over shorter measurement periods.10

Table B9 presents basic descriptive data for participants ̓responses to the PSOC efficacy items. Each item is scaled from 1 to 6, with 1 indicating greatest agreement with efficacious statements and 6 indicating a strong disagreement. A much smaller number of participant records are available for this analysis (particularly at Outcome), due to low response rates and missing identifier variables.11 These items had a very good internal reliability at both intake

11

9 Charlotte Johnston and Eric Mash (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 18(2), 167-175.10 Mary Wagner, Elizabeth Iida, Donna Spiker (2001). The multisite evaluation of the Parents as Teachers Home Visiting Program: Three year Findings from one community. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

and exit (Cronbach alpha = .795 and .784 respectively). The average intake efficacy score and the average exit efficacy score are presented in Table B10. At intake, the average efficacy score was 2.69 and at exit average efficacy was 2.64, indicating an average improvement in parenting efficacy (0.055) between intake and exit. However, this change was not statistically significant (p=.271).

An average efficacy change value was computed for each participant between intake and exit; positive values indicate improved efficacy. The distribution of these efficacy change scores are shown in Table B11. Other research on parenting efficacy found larger effect sizes (19 percent),12 however, this effect occurred over a three-year period and was measured using a stronger research design within a program that provided much more focused PAT delivery.

Further analysis of efficacy data suggests that improved efficacy is related to enrollment length. Figure 4, which presents mean efficacy change on the vertical axis, illustrates this relationship. For instance, the mean difference in parenting efficacy between participants with 4 to 6 months of enrollment and 7 to 9 months of enrollment is 0.18, a

11 Parenting efficacy measures are collected on a form separate, self-administered from the Intake and Exit forms so that participants can privately respond to questions regarding their parenting attitudes. Identifier variables that link these records the Intake and Exit records were often not complete when submitted to evaluation staff.12 Mary Wagner, Elizabeth Iida and Donna Spiker (2001), “The Multisite Evaluation of the Parents as Teachers Home Visiting Program: Three Year Findings from One Community (Menlo Park: SRI International).”

12

significant difference with a moderate effect size (ES=29%; p=.101). While participants with longer enrollments had even greater improvements in parenting efficacy, reliable analysis among this group is hindered by small samples.

Figure 4: Greater Enrollment Lengths Relate to Improved

Parenting Efficacy

Enrollment Length

0-3 Mos

Mea

n C

hang

e in

Par

entin

g Ef

ficac

y

0

0.050

4-6 Mos 7-9 Mos 10-12 Mos

0.100

0.200

0.150

o

o

o

o

0.250

Child Characteristics and Outcomes

13

Family Centers ̓impact may also be assessed in terms of changes in the children whose families receive Family Center services. Following a presentation of the demographic profile of children, this section examines how parents ̓interactions with children changed following their enrollment in Family Centers.

CHILD CHARACTERISTICSTable C1 presents several statistics concerning children who newly enrolled in Family Centers in 2004-05. About half of all children enrolled are female and average five years in age. About 60 percent of children in Family Centers were “white,” and about 19 percent were ethnically Hispanic.13 The overwhelming majority of children (96 percent) were the participantʼs son or daughter, and very few children were placed out of the home.

CHILD HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCEFamily Centers collect a variety of data concerning the health services its participating children receive. Table C2 presents a summary of enrolled children according to the health services they receive. Nearly all children (95 percent) receive regular medical checkups, and a similar percentage received immunizations on schedule. Among children over age three (n=1,406), about 74 percent had received dental care according to the American Dental Association schedule.

Table C3 presents health insurance availability among children. Data are

presented according to childrenʼs enrollment length and by their intake and exit points. Children with longer enrollments were slightly more likely to have no health insurance at intake (3.7 percent) than children with shorter enrollments (2.4 percent). Further examination of the insurance data reveals that a childʼs access to insurance is related to longer enrollments in Family Centers. For instance, among children who had no insurance at intake but who obtained insurance by outcome, 100 percent had gained insurance when their enrollment duration exceeded six months, while about 74 percent of children gained insurance when they had shorter enrollments (p=.009) (Figure 5).

13 Family Centers data on race permit respondents to indicate multiple race categories. Individuals who are counted as “white” indicated no other races except “white” on their enrollment forms.

Figure 5: Percentage of Children Obtaining Health Insurance by

Enrollment Duration

Did Child Have More Than 180 Days of Enrollment?

No

Perc

enta

ge

20

40

Yes0

60

100

80

73.7 100

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN SOCIAL ACTIVITIES WITH THEIR CHILDRENTable C4 presents the frequency at which parents had social involvement with their children. Results are presented according to whether children had greater or less than 180 days of enrollment length and by intake and exit points.

Individuals with 180 or more days of enrollment tended to have slightly more social engagement with their children at intake. Parents tended to increase their frequency of social activities between intake and outcome overall. For example, the percentage of parents who “never ̓had social activities with their children decreased in both enrollment categories, although parents with longer enrollments had a greater drop in this category than parents with shorter enrollments (p=.001). This change constitutes a 50 percent effect size; a considerable improvement in parental social engagement for those who enrolled longer.

Figure 6 presents a comparison of parents who increased their social activities in any way – for instance, from “2-3 times per month” to “a few times a week,” or any other increased involvement possibility. The figure shows that increases in social activity are related to longer enrollment lengths. Specifically, while about 17 percent of parents increased their frequency of involvement when they were enrolled for less than 180 days, about 21 percent of parents did so when they enrolled for more than 180 days (p=.066). These changes, which constitute an 11 percent effect size, suggest that longer enrollments in Family Centers have a small but beneficial relationship to one aspect of better parenting.

14

Figure 6: Percentage of Parents Who Increased Social Activities

with Children

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL ACTIVITIESTable C5 presents the frequency of parental involvement in their childrenʼs school activities. Like Table C4, data are presented according to enrollment length and by intake and exit points. There are minor differences in the frequency of parental involvement in both enrollment categories. For example, parents involved “a few times a week” were slightly more common among those children who enrolled more than 180 days.

More noteworthy, however, is a marked decrease in the percentage of parents “never” involved in school activities when they enrolled more than 180 days. Specifically, parents “never” involved in school activities decreased from about 70 to 55 percent for children enrolled more than 180 days. This


No

Perc

enta

ge

5

10

0

15

25

20

17.26 20.61

Yes

relationship is illustrated further in Figure 7, which presents the percentage of parents who made any increase in the frequency of their school participation. While about 15 percent of parents who had fewer than 180 days of enrollment increased their involvement, about 33 percent of parents made an increase when they enrolled more than 180 days (p=.000), and effect size of about 50 percent.

15

to their children decreased between intake and exit for both short and long enrollment intervals, although decreases were greater among children with longer enrollments.

Figure 8 illustrates that children with longer enrollments had parents who increased their reading frequency between intake and exit more than children with shorter enrollments. While about 25 percent of children with shorter enrollments had parents who increased their reading frequency with children, about 32 percent of children with longer enrollments did so, a small effect size (16 percent) but statistically significant (p=.000).

Figure 7: Percentage of Parents Who Increased Their School Involvement,

by Enrollment Duration

Figure 8: Percentage of ParentsWho Increased Their ReadingFrequency with Children, by

Enrollment Duration


No

Perc

enta

gge

10

20

Yes0

30

40

15.46

32.88

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENTIN READING TO CHILDRENTable C6 presents how frequently parents read to their children, by enrollment length and by intake and exit points. At intake, there is a relatively similar distribution of parental reading frequency regardless of enrollment length, although parents who read “a few times per week” at intake were more common among children with longer enrollments. The percentage of parents who “never” read


No

Perc

enta

ge

10

20

Yes0

30

40

24.5

32.3

16

Parent Satisfaction Survey

Pennsylvaniaʼs Family Centers work with a large number of families every year. Thus far, this report has presented analyses of “enrolled” families; those who receive longer term and more intensive services. The only view of all Family Center participants – whether they were active or enrolled – is provided using the Parent Satisfaction Form (PSS). About 1,800 PSS forms were collected in 2004-05. About 50 percent of PSS forms were randomly selected for analysis here; all Family Center sites are represented. The analysis focused on several aspects of Family Centers, including: Home Visits and the Parents as Teachers (PAT) curriculum, the level of parent involvement in Family Centers and perceptions of self-growth.

VIEWS ON HOME VISITS AND PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT)The majority of PSS respondents participated in PAT and answered questions about the intervention and its home visits (n=668). Table D1 presents the distribution of responses to questions concerning home visits. For instance, 69 percent of respondents indicated that they strongly agreed that home visitors “listened” to participants ̓concerns and helped them generally. About 97 percent of respondents reported that they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that home visitors “talk about things that are important to me.” Overall, the responses to questions about home visits paint a positive picture of participants ̓experiences with this key component of Family Centers ̓work.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN FAMILY CENTERSTable D2 presents several measures of the nature and extent of parental involvement in Family Centers. For example, about 90 percent of respondents indicated that they “strongly agree” or “agree” that parent participants in Family Centers “make decisions about the program” and over 90 percent similarly responded that staff ask for clients ̓opinions of program status and performance. Other indicators about parental involvement showed a similar, positive pattern.

CULTURAL SENSITIVITY, SELF-PERCEPTIONS OF GROWTH AND PARENT INTERACTIONTable D3 presents a variety of participant perceptions related to Family Centers ̓work. About 37 percent of participants “strongly agreed” and another 61 percent “agreed” that Centers respect their culture and child-rearing practices. This result was very similar for clients who indicated they were Hispanic/Latino (χ2=6.7; p=.061). In terms of their self-perceptions, about 96 percent of respondents indicated that they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Family Centers strengthened their self esteem; a similar proportion commented similarly about their ability to “use resources” in the community.

17

Family Center Administrators Survey Data

The Family Centers administrator questionnaire collects a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data. In this section, information about the Centers ̓different funding sources is presented. A key mission of Family Center Administrators is to “leverage” their base grant funds from the Pennsylvania Public Department of Welfare – that is, administrators work to obtain additional funds over and above the base grant amount they receive. Given this important goal, this section focuses on additional funds raised by Family Centers.

FUNDINGFamily Center administrators provided information about the amount of additional funding they acquired from need-based state funds, other state funds, local business contributions, and “other” matching contributions. In addition, they reported non-matching funds acquired through other sources and in-kind contributions. Non-match funds are those used to support Family Center functions, but cannot be reported as part of each Centerʼs match requirement. For example since over two-thirds of Family Centers ̓funding is from Federal sources, they cannot report Federal funds as match funds. However, it remains important to distinguish all the sources of funding that Family Centers have to support their work, thus “non-matching” and “matching” categories are distinguished here.

Table E1 presents the funds that Family Centers acquired during 2004-05. In the first row, the Centers ̓base funding ($8,421,662) is presented. The next six rows present

the additional funds the Centers raised ($4,234,369). When the Centers ̓base funding amount is compared to the additional funds the Centers raised, Family Centers raised an additional 50 cents for every base funding dollar, not including additional funds raised for the Fatherhood Initiative.

Family Centers ̓funds came from a variety of sources, although the largest set of contributions was from a wide variety of “other funds,” totalling about $1.5 million. Among the larger amounts within this total, $200,000 were provided by Allegheny County Department of Human Services to the Allegheny County Family Centers, and over $200,000 were from child care parent fees at the Central Fulton Family Center. The overwhelming majority of each of the other matching funds, however, was less than $1,000 (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Distribution of Other Family Center Matching Funds, by Amount

0 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,001 - $50,000

Over $50,000

Figure 10: Distribution of OtherNon-matching, Family Center Funds,

by Amount

18

The total of other non-matching funds was about $2.2 million. The larger amounts within this sum included $197,000 21st Century Grant to Pottstown Family Center and $168,000 from Allegheny County DHS to McKeesport Family Center. The overwhelming majority of other non-matching contributions, however, were less than $1,000 (Figure 10).

A much smaller sum of dollars ($81,643) was matched to Fatherhood Initiative base funds. The largest category of matching funds was “other” funding from Children and Youth (Table E2).

0 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,001 - $50,000

Over $50,000

20.83%

16.67%

8.33%

2.08%

52.08%

19

Summary

PROVIDING A WIDE VARIETYOF SERVICESFamily Centers provide a wide variety of services to many Pennsylvanians, many of whom arrive at Family Centers facing serious challenges – half are unemployed and one third of whom have no high school diploma. These participants typically enroll for approximately four months and the majority (75 percent) enroll in the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program. This report has shown that participants ̓enrollment and their participation in the PAT curriculum leave them with several benefits.

IMPROVING COMMUNITY AND FAMILY LIFEDespite their difficult circumstances, participants make headway towards improving their community and family life on a number of different measures. Parents who remain in the program for longer durations interact more often with their children, increase their involvement in community life, take a greater role in school activities, and improve their parenting self-efficacy, among other outcomes suggesting a positive impact of Family Center participation.

BUILDING UPON BASE FUNDINGJust as Family Center participants improve over time, Family Center administrators build upon their base funding to a substantial degree. These administrators raised over $4 million to complement the base funding provided by DPW – roughly a 50 percent match across all sites. The Centers ̓matching funds help to extend their infrastructure and the inherent support it provides to many Pennsylvania families.

SEEKING TO INCREASEPARTICIPATION AND IMPROVE GROWTHFamily Centers may enhance their performance by making a closer examination of their siteʼs enrollment patterns. For example, certain groups of participants have particularly low enrollment durations. Family Center staff might seek to explain program commitments and goals in greater detail to these groups to increase their participation and improve their growth. Enrollment policies might also be adjusted to respond to these varying enrollment patterns.

Appendices

Pennsylvania’s Family Centers - 21 - 2004-05 Annual Report

Appendix A: Methodology Analysis File Creation The quality of 2004-05 Family Centers MIS data varied considerably from site to site. To make the best use of available data, cases were classified according to their quality. Cases with higher quality were retained for analysis and lower quality cases were dropped. The key criteria applied to each case are shown in Table A1. Table A1: Criteria for Case Inclusion in Analytic File 1. Whether variables used to create a unique identifier, specifically participant’s date of birth (DOB) and their mother’s maiden name (PMAID) were missing; and 2. Whether basic descriptive variables (e.g. sex, age) were missing; and 3. Whether basic outcome variables (e.g. child reading frequency) were missing; and 4. Whether sites submitted a matched pair of intake and outcome records. Finally, not all sites are represented in all analyses, particularly if a site did not submit many records initially.


Appendix B: Family and Participant Analysis Tables Table B1: Characteristics of Family Center Newly Enrolled Participants

Count Column N % Mean Male 726 34.7% Sex

Female 1365 65.3% Not White 668 31.9% Race

White is Only Race Indicated 1424 68.1%

Age 30.20 Yes 280 13.3% Hispanic Ethnicity

No 1822 86.7% Married 943 44.6% Widowed 44 2.1% Divorced 118 5.6% Separated 106 5.0% Never Married 610 28.9%

Marital Status

Living w/ Unmarried Partner 292 13.8%

Yes 345 16.4% Is a language other than English spoken most often in the home? No 1755 83.6% Number of years in current residence 3.09

Less Than HS 614 29.2% HS Diploma 710 33.8% GED 195 9.3% Some College 186 8.8% Associate Degree 124 5.9% BA or BS 152 7.2% Graduate or Professional Degree 47 2.2%

Highest degree or level of school completed

Other 75 3.6% Yes 1055 50.3% Is the participant currently

employed? No 1043 49.7% No 444 36.4% Income Near or Below

Poverty Level Yes 775 63.6% No 1955 92.6% Is Participant w/o Health

Insurance and w/o HS Diploma? Yes, Without Both 157 7.4%

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B2: Percentage of Participants’ Enrollment in PAT and Enrollment Length, by Site What is the status of this case

Percentage PAT

Enrollment Continuing CaseRecommended

Exit Unplanned

Exit

Enrollment

Length (Months)

Enrollment Length

(Months)

Enrollment Length

(Months)

Row N % Mean Mean Mean

AC 93.8% 6.52 7.00 5.00 AF 100.0% 6.90 - 8.40 AJ 100.0% 7.73 - 8.50 BB 64.7% 3.31 5.00 3.20 BC 71.9% 5.04 4.40 6.00 BF 89.7% 6.97 6.86 5.83 CC 100.0% 2.58 5.00 1.00 CF 48.3% 3.26 - 1.71 CO 73.5% 5.06 11.00 7.00 CR 100.0% 3.27 9.00 .67 DC 84.6% 5.08 4.67 3.17 DO 73.0% 4.15 5.71 4.33 EC 24.2% 3.54 3.86 2.01 FF 100.0% 5.63 8.00 7.00 GC 100.0% 7.50 5.00 4.87 GN 46.2% 7.00 - - HF 94.6% 5.30 6.60 8.20 LC 45.0% 5.73 - - LF 61.7% 5.57 4.71 4.67 MC 100.0% 4.24 - 4.57 ME 100.0% 4.38 - 4.67 MO 23.5% 6.08 5.80 - NC 68.9% 4.76 5.55 4.00 NF 69.6% 4.38 7.00 - PF 100.0% 6.82 3.00 - PO 57.1% 2.57 5.86 3.50 RF 97.4% 4.82 5.00 3.33 SC 75.4% 1.95 1.67 2.50 SF 100.0% 4.70 - 8.25 ST 60.0% 5.97 7.70 6.00 TF 100.0% 4.76 - 2.29 WB 85.5% 5.79 9.93 6.67 WC 95.7% 5.80 - 5.00 WP 95.5% 5.33 2.00 4.00

Note: Not all sites are reported in this table due to lower response rates at Outcome. Statistics may not match sites’ records due to data cleaning. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B3: Duplicated Count of Referral Sources for Participants

Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent Self 297 13.4% 14.6%

Teacher 60 2.7% 2.9%

School Administrator 92 4.1% 4.5%

Parent or Relative of Participant 171 7.7% 8.4%

Friend/neighbor 505 22.7% 24.8%

Media sources (TV, radio, newspaper)

27 1.2% 1.3%

Other advertising 38 1.7% 1.9%

Employment services 4 .2% .2%

Religious institution 13 .6% .6%

Other Family Center 37 1.7% 1.8%

Social services 337 15.2% 16.6%

Physician/healthcare provider 36 1.6% 1.8%

Other 604 27.2% 29.7%

Total 2221 100.0% 109.1%

Table reads, “About 15 percent of new 2004-05 participants self-referred themselves to the Family Center.” Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B4: Duplicated Count of Participants’ Interest in Services

Responses Percent of

Cases

N Percent

Parent training/learning about child development 1576 28.6% 78.7%

Education information/assistance 441 8.0% 22.0%

Employment information/assistance (i.e., job training, vocational) 291 5.3% 14.5%

Health care information/assistance 220 4.0% 11.0%

Pregnancy support services 78 1.4% 3.9%

Referral for child care 190 3.5% 9.5%

Home management/life skills training 228 4.1% 11.4%

Recreational/social activities 767 13.9% 38.3%

Child programs/services 618 11.2% 30.9%

After school programs 162 2.9% 8.1%

Summer camp programs 159 2.9% 7.9%

Supervised visitation 47 .9% 2.3%

Family Literacy/Even Start 208 3.8% 10.4%

Other 148 2.7% 7.4%

Emergency Assistance 373 6.8% 18.6%

Total 5506 100.0% 275.0%

Table reads, “About 79 percent of new 2004-05 participants requested parent training services at Intake.” Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B5: Duplicated Count of Participants’ Requested Emergency Services

Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent Emergency Assistance: Food

206 21.3% 56.6%

Emergency Assistance: Housing 140 14.5% 38.5%

Emergency Assistance: Utilities 122 12.6% 33.5%

Emergency Assistance: Mental Health 53 5.5% 14.6%

Emergency Assistance: Clothing 179 18.5% 49.2%

Emergency Assistance: Transportation 120 12.4% 33.0%

Emergency Assistance: Employment 101 10.4% 27.7%

Emergency Assistance: Drug & Alcohol 12 1.2% 3.3%

Emergency Assistance: Other 35 3.6% 9.6%

Total 968 100.0% 265.9%

Note: 373 participants reported multiple emergency services. Table reads, “About 57 percent of new 2004-05 participants request emergency food services at Intake.” Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B6: Frequency of Participant Community Involvement, by Enrollment Length

Length of Enrollment

Fewer Than 180 Days Enrollment More Than 180 Days Enrollment

Intake Exit Intake Exit

Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N % Four or more times a month

228 19.8% 278 23.9% 141 21.8% 164 24.6%

2-3 times a month 137 11.9% 210 18.0% 98 15.1% 163 24.4% One time a month 92 8.0% 105 9.0% 52 8.0% 85 12.7% Less than once a month 92 8.0% 119 10.2% 59 9.1% 68 10.2% Never 600 52.2% 452 38.8% 297 45.9% 187 28.0%

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B7: Duplicated Count of Educational Program Enrollment at Intake

N Percent of

Cases

Program enrollment: Not involved in any programs 1693 81.4%

Program enrollment: Job related training 59 2.8%

Program enrollment: Driver's education 4 .2%

Program enrollment: Other 43 2.1%

Program enrollment: High school 85 4.1%

Program enrollment: GED 81 3.9%

Program enrollment: Vocational Training 36 1.7%

Program enrollment: Associate's degree 24 1.2%

Program enrollment: Bachelor's degree 16 .8%

Program enrollment: Graduate degree 5 .2%

Program enrollment: ABE or ESL 13 .6%

Program enrollment: Family Lit/Even Start Progs 57 2.7%

Total 2116 101.8%

Note: Multiple response categories. Table reads, “81.4 percent of all participants were not enrolled in any educational programs.” Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms. Table B8: Participants’ Change in Educational Program Enrollment

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Enrolled in Three Fewer Programs 1 .1 Enrolled in Two Fewer Programs 4 .2 Enrolled in One Less Program 104 5.4 No Change in Enrollment Level 1686 88.3 Enrolled in One Additional Program 106 5.6 Enrolled in Two Additional Programs 8 .4Total 1909 100.0

Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Participant Intake and Outcome Forms.


Table B9: Distribution of Participants’ PSOC Intake and Exit Scores

Intake Outcome Count Column N % Count Column N %

Strongly agree 47 4.3% 26 5.1% Agree 261 24.0% 128 25.3% Mildly agree 340 31.3% 160 31.7% Mildly disagree 164 15.1% 85 16.8% Disagree 223 20.5% 82 16.2%

Problems easy to solve

Strongly disagree 53 4.9% 24 4.8% Strongly agree 69 6.4% 42 8.4% Agree 404 37.6% 192 38.4% Mildly agree 390 36.3% 189 37.8% Mildly disagree 105 9.8% 49 9.8% Disagree 87 8.1% 24 4.8%

New parent could learn from me

Strongly disagree 19 1.8% 4 .8% Strongly agree 32 3.0% 20 4.0% Agree 230 21.5% 115 23.0% Mildly agree 349 32.7% 154 30.7% Mildly disagree 207 19.4% 116 23.2% Disagree 205 19.2% 80 16.0%

Parenting manageable and problems easy to solve


I meet own expectations for caring for children

Strongly disagree 8 .7% 3 .6% Strongly agree 117 10.9% 61 12.1% Agree 383 35.8% 211 41.9% Mildly agree 296 27.7% 130 25.8% Mildly disagree 128 12.0% 55 10.9% Disagree 124 11.6% 42 8.3%

If anyone can find parenting answer I am the one

Strongly disagree 22 2.1% 4 .8% Continued.


Table B9: Distribution of Participants’ PSOC Intake and Exit Scores, continued

Intake Outcome Count Column N % Count Column N %

Strongly agree 201 18.8% 85 17.1% Agree 474 44.4% 229 46.2% Mildly agree 202 18.9% 98 19.8% Mildly disagree 106 9.9% 53 10.7% Disagree 65 6.1% 20 4.0%

I feel familiar with parenting


I have all skills needed to parent

Strongly disagree 13 1.2% 5 1.0% Strongly agree 563 52.1% 225 44.6% Agree 420 38.9% 201 39.9% Mildly agree 69 6.4% 45 8.9% Mildly disagree 12 1.1% 9 1.8% Disagree 10 .9% 12 2.4%

Being parent is reward in itself

Strongly disagree 6 .6% 12 2.4%

Note: A large number of PSOC outcome records were not properly submitted for analysis. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Intake and Outcome Supplement Form.


Table B10: Descriptive Statistics for Raw Efficacy Measures

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Efficacy at Intake 1019 1.00 5.13 2.6850 .73439 Efficacy at Outcome 478 1.00 5.00 2.6407 .70846

Valid N (listwise) 459

Note: A large number of PSOC outcome records were not properly submitted for analysis. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Intake and Outcome Supplement Form. Table B11: Change in Parenting Efficacy Measure (Intake minus Outcome)

N 459 Mean .0547

Std. Deviation .57606 Skewness .091

Std. Error of Skewness .114 Kurtosis 2.015

Std. Error of Kurtosis .227 Minimum -1.88

Maximum 2.50

Note: The change in efficacy measure is a raw difference score between intake and outcome measures. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Intake and Outcome Supplement Form.


Appendix C: Child Characteristics and Outcomes Table C1: Characteristics of Children Newly Enrolled in Family Centers

Count Column N % Mean Male 1220 52.2% Sex

Female 1118 47.8% Age 5

Yes 1371 59.6 Child Is White [no other race indicated] No 929 40.4

Yes 437 18.8% Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?

No 1883 81.2% Son or daughter 2256 96.3% Stepchild 14 .6% Foster child 6 .3% Grandchild 36 1.5% Other relative 10 .4% Court appointed ward 6 .3%

Legal relationship to the participant?

Other 14 .6% Yes 157 6.8% No 2152 93.2%

Currently living in out-of-home placement?

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Child Intake and Outcome Dataset.


Table C2: Child Health Services Information

Count Column N %Yes

2207 95.3%Prior to enrollment, child received regular medical checkups or Early Period Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Schedule

No 108 4.7%

Yes 2177 93.6%No 73 3.1%

Prior to enrollment, child received immunizations according to the PA Department of Health schedule Not Sure 76 3.3%

Yes 1042 45.0%No 364 15.7%

Child received regular dental care according to the American Dental Association schedule NA - child

under 3 912 39.3%

Yes 716 31.3%No 1394 61.0%

Child received any developmental screenings?

NA - child over age 6 177 7.7%

Yes 1140 54.7%Child received any screenings for hearing, vision, speech and/or lead poisoning? No 943 45.3%

Yes 237 10.5%Birth weight under 5 pounds? No 2016 89.5%



Table C3: Child Health Insurance Status by Enrollment Length

Did child have more than 180 days of enrollment?

No Yes

Intake Exit Intake Exit Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N %

Private 259 22.5% 238 21.0% 262 30.6% 276 32.8%Medical Assistance 750 65.1% 718 63.5% 510 59.6% 500 59.4%CHIP 27 2.3% 35 3.1% 26 3.0% 29 3.4%Other 88 7.6% 119 10.5% 25 2.9% 30 3.6%

Child’s health insurance type

None 28 2.4% 21 1.9% 32 3.7% 7 .8%

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Child Intake and Outcome Dataset. Table C4: Parental Involvement in Social Activities with their Children, by Enrollment Length


No Yes


Every day 648 57.4% 633 59.2% 498 58.9% 495 59.4%A few times per week 173 15.3% 200 18.7% 171 20.2% 208 24.9%Once per week 93 8.2% 88 8.2% 41 4.8% 60 7.2%2-3 times per month 57 5.1% 35 3.3% 36 4.3% 27 3.2%1 time per month 20 1.8% 22 2.1% 17 2.0% 10 1.2%Less than 1 time per month 22 2.0% 23 2.1% 5 .6% 5 .6%

During the last year prior to enrollment, freq of social activities with child

Never 115 10.2% 69 6.4% 78 9.2% 29 3.5%



Table C5: Frequency of Parental Involvement in School Activities, by Enrollment


No Yes


Every day 13 1.2% 10 .9% 9 1.1% 17 2.1%A few times per week 17 1.6% 26 2.5% 28 3.6% 24 2.9%Once per week 16 1.5% 30 2.8% 7 .9% 37 4.5%2-3 times per month 39 3.6% 40 3.8% 41 5.2% 42 5.1%1 time per month 61 5.7% 99 9.4% 60 7.6% 110 13.4%Less than 1 time per month 115 10.7% 117 11.1% 94 11.9% 137 16.7%

During year prior to enrollment, freq school activities for child's preschool, childcare provider, EL or SEC school?

Never 815 75.7% 735 69.5% 549 69.7% 452 55.2%

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Child Intake and Outcome Dataset. Table C6: Frequency of Parental Involvement in Reading with Children, by Enrollment Length


No Yes


Every day 438 38.9% 456 42.7% 320 38.5% 421 50.3%A few times per week 235 20.9% 237 22.2% 222 26.7% 173 20.7%Once per week 114 10.1% 54 5.1% 70 8.4% 52 6.2%2-3 times per month 75 6.7% 73 6.8% 35 4.2% 41 4.9%1 time per month 31 2.8% 77 7.2% 11 1.3% 29 3.5%Less than 1 time per month 46 4.1% 41 3.8% 27 3.2% 24 2.9%

During the last year prior to enrollment, freq reading with child

Never 188 16.7% 131 12.3% 146 17.6% 97 11.6%



Appendix D: Results from the Parent Satisfaction Survey

Note: Subtotals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Parent Satisfaction Survey.

Table D1: Parents’ Views of Home Visits, Among Those Participating in Them

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Total

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) N (%)

My home visitor tries to schedule visits at times that are convenient for me and my family.

452(70.0) 190(29.4) 0(0.0) 4(0.6) 646(100.0)

My home visitor listens to my concerns and helps me.

444(69.0) 195(30.3) 1(0.2) 3(0.5) 643(100.0)

I participate in program activities with other families.

212(41.1) 219(42.4) 75(14.5) 10(1.9) 516 (99.9)

My home visitor links me to other resources in the community.

338(55.3) 264(43.2) 6(1.0) 3(0.5) 611(100.0)

I give feedback to my home visitor. 314(50.1) 301(48.0) 9(1.4) 3(0.5) 627(100.0)

My home visitor comes as often as I’d like and talks about things that are important to me.

346(56.2) 249(40.4) 17(2.8) 4(0.6) 616(100.0)

My home visitor keeps in contact with me between visits.

299(49.4) 271(44.8) 33(5.5) 2(0.3) 605(100.0)

I can choose whether or not I have home visits.

324(52.2) 274(44.1) 16(2.6) 7(1.1) 621(100.0)


Table D2: Parents’ Views of Parental Involvement in Family Center Development

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Total

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

Parents make decisions about the program and its plans for the future.

202(26.5) 482(63.3) 65(8.5) 12(1.6) 761(99.9)

Staff asks for my opinions of the program.

270(32.7) 505(61.2) 43(5.2) 7(0.8) 825(99.9)

I have opportunities to:

Give the program feedback.

296(36.1) 494(60.3) 17(2.1) 12(1.5) 819(100.0)

Talk to the staff about family concerns.

367(44.3) 443(53.5) 9(1.1) 9(1.1) 828(100.0)

Get answers to my questions.

391(46.3) 436(51.7) 8(0.9) 9(1.1) 844(100.0)

Staff appreciates my help. 259(35.7) 452(62.2) 8(1.1) 7(1.0) 726(100.0)

At the program, we plan and organize activities and programs that are interesting and useful for families.

278(39.5) 400(56.8) 17(2.4) 9(1.3) 704(100.0)

Note: Totals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Parent Satisfaction Survey.


Table D3: Parents’ Views of Other Aspects of Involvement in the Family Center Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree Total

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

Parents give each other a lot of advice and support.

223(31.0) 441(61.3) 45(6.3) 10(1.4) 719(100.0)

The parent education classes offered by the program:

Respect my culture and child-rearing practices.

210(36.8) 345(60.5) 8(1.4) 7(1.2) 570 (99.9)

Cover the issues I want covered.

221(37.6) 347(59.0) 13(2.2) 7(1.2) 588(100.0)

Staff help me understand how my child learns and grows.

397(49.1) 398(49.2) 7(0.9) 7(0.9) 809(100.1)

By participating in the program, I have strengthened my:

Self-esteem. 258(33.3) 491(63.3) 20(2.6) 6(0.8) 775(100.0)

Self-control. 269(35.2) 468(61.3) 22(2.9) 5(0.6) 764(100.0)

Decision-making skills. 277(35.6) 478(61.5) 16(2.1) 6(0.8) 777(100.0)

Communication skills. 281(36.3) 472(61.0) 16(2.1) 5(0.6) 774(100.0)

Ability to use resources. 291(37.1) 464(59.2) 23(2.9) 6(0.8) 784(100.0)

Goal-setting skills. 265(34.6) 469(61.2) 27(3.5) 5(0.7) 766(100.0)

I give advice to and learn from other parents during the classes, support groups and/or other program activities.

162(26.7) 369(60.9) 62(10.2) 13(2.1) 606 (99.9)

Note: Totals may vary due to missing data. Source: Family Centers 2004-05 Parent Satisfaction Survey.


Appendix E: Administrator Survey Tables Table E1: Family Center (FC) Matching Funds

Minimum Maximum Sum Mean FC Base Grant Amount 0 478,615 8,421,662 175,451 FC Match - Children and Youth Need

0 50,406 121,361 2,528

FC Match - Child and Youth Other 0 36,964 187,544 3,907

FC Match - Local business contribution 0 54,561 159,635 3,326

Total FC Match Other 0 259,969 1,456,557 30,345 Total Non-match Other 0 447,989 2,227,629 46,409 FC In Kind Total 0 16,302 81,643 1,701

Source: 2004-05 Administrators Questionnaire Dataset

Table E2: Fatherhood Initiative Matching Funds

Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Children & Youth Needs Based 0 3,060 3,060 64

Children & Youth Other 0 6,800 41,334 861Local Business 0 5,500 5,500 115Other 1 0 5,587 13,525 282Other 2 0 1,622 1,622 34Other 3 .00 .00 00 .0School District 0 9,802 16,602 345

Total 81,643

Source: 2004-05 Administrators Questionnaire Dataset

pennsylvaniaʼs family centers - university of pittsburgh ... · who participates in family...

Documents