0
Evaluation of the Partnership for Children’s
#1 Question Campaign
Vincent T. Francisco, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
&
James...
Background of the Partnership for Children
A 10 year initiative of the Greater Kansas City
Community Foundation and the He...
Context of the Initiative
Kansas City Metro Area
5 Counties
Approx. 1,050,000 people (all ages)
Approx. 421,000 children (...
Broad Program Goals
Increased involvement of adults in the lives of their own
children
Increased involvement of adults in ...
Double volunteerism among adults in 3 years
Increase volunteerism among youth by 10%
1/3 of the 100 major corporations wil...
Personal contacts and prompts to do business differently
Prompts to act by local champions
Action Guides (tailored to diff...
Logic Model
Planning Intervention Environmental
Change
Behavior Distal
Outcome
Focus Groups
Planning Sessions
Internal
Act...
Were their accomplishments related to the #1 Question
Campaign?
What factors are related to the success of the initiative?...
Monitoring System Community Changes
Community Responses
Community-Level Indicators Volunteerism
Immunization
Opportunities...
Were the Partnership for Children’s accomplishments
related to the #1 Question Campaign?
Evaluation Question 1
Hallmark Cards announces that it will make the new
birth/immunization card available to any state that wishes to use it
Ka...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Campaign
rev.10/24/98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Campaign
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121
96 97...
What factors are related to the success of the initiative?
Evaluation Question 2
Partnership for Children
Accomplishments to Date
J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J
1992 1993 1994 ...
Evaluation Question 3
What relationship exists between community changes
facilitated by the Partnership for Children and c...
Immunization Initiative
Metro Kansas City
Partnership for Children - MidAmerica Immunization Coalition
1992 1993 1994 1995...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Campaign
Community Change Objectives
92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98
Adv...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Campaign
Community Change Sectors
92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98
Busine...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Campaign
Community Change Strategies
92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98
1.1...
Are community norms related to caring for youth changing?
Evaluation Question 4
Behavioral Survey of Community
Caring for Youth
What do people do to care for their own children?
What do people do to car...
Demographics of the Survey Sample
Demographics of the respondents from the baseline survey and
this year’s survey are virt...
We found that on average, people who had children cared for
slightly more than 2 children.
The most common activities (in ...
There was a slight increase from 1997 in the number of children
doing activities with adults other than their parents.
For...
Those who cared for other people's children are spending about
the same amount of time as last year while looking after mo...
For those people who cared for children, there was a shift in the places
of activity including (rank ordered):
providing s...
The kind of support included (rank ordered):
providing tangible aid,
giving information and advice,
giving emotional suppo...
What do people do to support a community caring
for its youth?
To provide support for a community caring for its youth:
th...
General Summary Questions: regarding the awareness,
use, importance, and satisfaction of the #1 Question
In 1998, 72.1% he...
On the surface, the "importance" question would
indicate that not much movement is possible by a
traditional social market...
Sub-analyses of the Data from the
Annual Survey of Adult and
Community Caring for Youth
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey (Trend Analysis)
Involvement With Your Children
*Time spent per w eek w ...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey (Trend Analysis)
Involvement With Other Children and Youth
* Time spent ...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children
*Time spent per ...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children
*Time spent per ...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children
*Time spent per ...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Promoting Safe Places to Go Outside of School
32%
42.8%
32.4%
47.8%
56.8...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Establish A Fund To Open Schools After Regular Hours
52.6%
44.7%
47.4%
3...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Support for a Caring Community
* From1998 survey
21.2%
Advertisement
78....
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question in General
* From1998 survey
Heard of #1Q
72.1%
Haven't Hear...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question in General
* From1998 survey
Heard of #1Q
78.1%
Haven't Hear...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question in General
* From1998 survey
Heard of #1Q
72.1%
Haven't Hear...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
Support for a Caring Community
* From1998 survey
Home
89%
Business
32%
P...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question Awareness and Adoption
67.6%
22.9%
5.4%
1.8% 2.3%
74.9%
18.1...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question Awareness and Adoption
From1998 survey
70.2%
22.1%
3.8% 1.8%...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question Awareness and Adoption
14.3%
37%
19.7% 20.7%
8.4%9.1%
34%
21...
Partnership for Children
#1 Question Phone Survey
#1 Question Awareness and Adoption
From1998 survey
20.7%
23.4%
13.1%
34....
Potential Community Level Indicators
Volunteerism
Immunization
Opportunities for Youth
Programs using school facilities
Ch...
Issues and Recommendations
Improve/Strengthen Independent Variable
Track funding for youth serving organizations
Track kin...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Partnership for Children, Kansas City Metro Area, 1998 Report

986

Published on

This is a summary report developed by Dr Vincent T Francisco to describe evaluation findings from the Immunization Campaign and the #1 Question Initiative. The number one question is: "Is it good for the children?" This initiative sought to embed that question as a decision making frame for all decisions related to the community.

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
986
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Partnership for Children, Kansas City Metro Area, 1998 Report"

  1. 1. Evaluation of the Partnership for Children’s #1 Question Campaign Vincent T. Francisco, Ph.D. University of Kansas & James Caccamo, Ph.D. Partnership for Children Annual Report Summary April 9, 1999
  2. 2. Background of the Partnership for Children A 10 year initiative of the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation and the Heart of America United Way Improve the conditions for children and youth by mobilizing powerful new voices in the community to work on their behalf Desire to launch a childrens' movement to involve adults in the lives of youth in Kansas
  3. 3. Context of the Initiative Kansas City Metro Area 5 Counties Approx. 1,050,000 people (all ages) Approx. 421,000 children (<19 yrs) Issues Include: Child Abuse and Neglect (6% increase in 1997, 18% in 1998) 50% of day care personnel are degreed 15% of children ages 1-5 years receive WIC benefits School readiness dropped 8% in two years (to 87%) Overall high school grad rate is 73% Teen birth rate is increasing slowly Drug use is increasing Teen Homicides rate is decreasing
  4. 4. Broad Program Goals Increased involvement of adults in the lives of their own children Increased involvement of adults in the lives of other people's children Increased numbers of individuals to influence policies that affect children and youth Development of a vehicle for people who want to support children and youth but are limited by time and circumstances
  5. 5. Double volunteerism among adults in 3 years Increase volunteerism among youth by 10% 1/3 of the 100 major corporations will adopt child-friendly corporate policies Public officials will adopt the #1 Question as a guide to their public policy decisions Increase positive alternatives to youth violence Increase immunization rates to 90% Increase participation in training by Child Care Providers Increased compensation for Child Care Providers Establish a public/private youth fund to open schools after regular hours Program Objectives
  6. 6. Personal contacts and prompts to do business differently Prompts to act by local champions Action Guides (tailored to different goals and sectors) Grassroots advocacy and implementation Levels of Social Marketing Whole Community (media campaign) Key Influentials (business people) Local Champions (neighborhood leaders) Citizen Action (parenting manuals, voting, volunteering) Intervention
  7. 7. Logic Model Planning Intervention Environmental Change Behavior Distal Outcome Focus Groups Planning Sessions Internal Action Planning Personal contacts and prompts to do business differently Prompts to act by local champions Action Guides (tailored to different goals and sectors) Grassroots advocacy and implementation Institutional and System Changes Programs Policies Practices Media Messages Social Reinforcement Resource Generation Caring Behaviors (parents, adults) Trustee Behaviors (key influentials) Reported Use of #1 Question Community-Level Indicators
  8. 8. Were their accomplishments related to the #1 Question Campaign? What factors are related to the success of the initiative? What relationship exists between community changes facilitated by the Partnership for Children and community-level impact indicators Are community norms related to caring for youth changing? Evaluation Questions
  9. 9. Monitoring System Community Changes Community Responses Community-Level Indicators Volunteerism Immunization Opportunities for Youth Programs using school facilities Child Care Credentialing Child Care Funding/Salaries Public adoption by Key Influentials Behavioral Survey Caring for own children Caring for others' children Supervision during risk hours Support for the broader community Evaluation Methods
  10. 10. Were the Partnership for Children’s accomplishments related to the #1 Question Campaign? Evaluation Question 1
  11. 11. Hallmark Cards announces that it will make the new birth/immunization card available to any state that wishes to use it Kansas City MO City Council adopts the #1 Question as the litmus test for decisions Nations Bank adopts flex-time policy to allow employees 2 hours release time to become engaged with their own children or volunteer with others' children General Managers of all area TV stations agree to use #1 Question in news broadcasts and public affairs programming #1 Question used to advocate the closing of an adult video store in local neighborhood--City follows up by closing the store Partnership for Children: Selected Community Changes
  12. 12. Partnership for Children #1 Question Campaign rev.10/24/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 96 97 98 99 0 50 100 150 200 Cumulative Numbers Community Changes Community Response
  13. 13. Partnership for Children #1 Question Campaign 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 96 97 98 99 0 50 100 150 200 250 300CumulativeNumbers Community Changes Community Response Community Actions
  14. 14. What factors are related to the success of the initiative? Evaluation Question 2
  15. 15. Partnership for Children Accomplishments to Date J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 CumulativeNumberofCommunityChanges Community Change Issued 1st Report Card New Co-Chairs; Hired New Director Issued 3rd Report Card Hired Full-time Staff Action Plan Issued 4th Report Card Issued 5th Report Card #1 Question Campaign New Co-Chairs Issued 6th Report Card Issued 7th Report Card
  16. 16. Evaluation Question 3 What relationship exists between community changes facilitated by the Partnership for Children and community- level impact indicators?
  17. 17. Immunization Initiative Metro Kansas City Partnership for Children - MidAmerica Immunization Coalition 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Community Changes Immunization Rate
  18. 18. Partnership for Children #1 Question Campaign Community Change Objectives 92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98 Advocacy 40.2% Youth Violence 6.5% Education & Awareness 8.7% Child Care 5.4% Immunization 16.3% Raising New Voices 10.9% Advocacy, Education 12.0%
  19. 19. Partnership for Children #1 Question Campaign Community Change Sectors 92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98 Business and Commerce 16.8% Media 3.2% Education 22.1% Health Organization 4.2% CommunityServices 23.2% Religious 7.4% Youth Services 6.3% Government 15.8% Law Enforcing 1.1%
  20. 20. Partnership for Children #1 Question Campaign Community Change Strategies 92 total community changes from1/96 to 12/98 1.1 11.2 1.1 3.4 67.4 1.1 7.9 5.6 2.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PercentofStrategies Providing Feedback Improving Services Enhancing Skills Changing Physical Design Facilitating Support Barrier Removal Creating Opportunities Providing Information Changing Incentives
  21. 21. Are community norms related to caring for youth changing? Evaluation Question 4
  22. 22. Behavioral Survey of Community Caring for Youth What do people do to care for their own children? What do people do to care for others' children? What do people do to care for children at peak risk hours (3 to 6 pm)? What do people do to support a community caring for its youth?
  23. 23. Demographics of the Survey Sample Demographics of the respondents from the baseline survey and this year’s survey are virtually identical. The average age of respondents is 48, racially similar to the community's racial mix, and two-thirds of the respondents were women. 60% of the respondents had a high diploma, half of them having some college, and 70% had incomes from less then $25,000 to $75,000. Two-thirds were married living together in Kansas City for more than five years. Approximately half of the respondents had children of their own.
  24. 24. We found that on average, people who had children cared for slightly more than 2 children. The most common activities (in rank order) included: talking with them, involving them in things they did, watching them, and basic caring. Although the number of people who have kids increased from 1997, they are doing less activity with their children and spending less time with them. The activities in which there was an increase in activity were going to their place of worship and talking with them. What do people do to care for their own children?
  25. 25. There was a slight increase from 1997 in the number of children doing activities with adults other than their parents. For those people who cared for other people's children, activities included (rank ordered): talking with them, watching them, playing with them, correcting them, taking them places, helping them to do things, and involving them in things the adult was doing. What do people do to care for their own children? (cont.)
  26. 26. Those who cared for other people's children are spending about the same amount of time as last year while looking after more children. Therefore activities shifted to more supervisory activities (watching, correcting, travel time) rather than recreation. What do people do to care for their own children? (cont.)
  27. 27. For those people who cared for children, there was a shift in the places of activity including (rank ordered): providing support in their home, in the neighborhood, at entertainment or recreational places, and the neighborhood in general. We found that for people who provided support for other families, the average number of different families that they supported decreased in 1998 from last year, however, the quality of interactions increased. What do people do to care for others' children? --and-- What do people do to care for children at peak risk hours (3 to 6 pm)?
  28. 28. The kind of support included (rank ordered): providing tangible aid, giving information and advice, giving emotional support and encouragement, listening to them, and talking about their own or similar experiences. There was no change in the number of different organizations supported from last year, however, there was an increase in (rank order): doing things with youth, doing things for organizations, and giving money. What do people do to care for others' children? --and-- What do people do to care for children at peak risk hours (3 to 6 pm)? (Cont.)
  29. 29. What do people do to support a community caring for its youth? To provide support for a community caring for its youth: the number of adults voting on bond issues during the past year, wrote to an elected official, or wrote to an appointed official (e.g., school superintendent), all decreased since 1997. Although the number of these adults decreased, the number of times they voted or wrote officials increased. This may provide evidence that there are fewer people acting, but doing so a lot more frequently.
  30. 30. General Summary Questions: regarding the awareness, use, importance, and satisfaction of the #1 Question In 1998, 72.1% heard of the question mostly through: advertisements (78.8%), schools (6.7%), and at home (6.5%). Additionally, of those who have heard of the question (71%): 89% use the question mostly at home, 46% use it in their neighborhood, 40% use it at their place of worship, 36% use it at school, and 32% use it at their place of business. The importance that adults in the metro area ask #1 Question remained the same as in 1997 (extremely important), yet the satisfaction that adults in the metro area ask the question is decreasing.
  31. 31. On the surface, the "importance" question would indicate that not much movement is possible by a traditional social marketing campaign, it is quite evident that there is a tremendous opportunity to change people's behavior since such a large number of people are not satisfied that people actually use this question when making decisions. General Summary Questions: regarding the awareness, use, importance, and satisfaction of the #1 Question (Cont.)
  32. 32. Sub-analyses of the Data from the Annual Survey of Adult and Community Caring for Youth
  33. 33. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey (Trend Analysis) Involvement With Your Children *Time spent per w eek w ith children betw een the hours of 3pmand 6pm 1997 1998 0hrs 10hrs 20hrs 30hrs 40hrs 50hrs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Time Spent with Children Those Who Have Children
  34. 34. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey (Trend Analysis) Involvement With Other Children and Youth * Time spent per w eek w ith children betw een the hours of 3pmand 6pm 1997 1998 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0hrs 1hrs 2hrs 3hrs 4hrs Average Number of Other's Children Time Spent with Other's Children
  35. 35. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children *Time spent per w eek w ith children betw een the hours of 3pmand 6pm 28.6% 21% 18.9% 31.5% 34.9% 20.9% 16.1% 28.1% 0 hrs 1-2 hrs 3-4 hrs 5+ hrs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1997 1998
  36. 36. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children *Time spent per w eek w ith children betw een the hours of 3pmand 6pm 57.3% 48.1% 38.3% 40% 43.6% 39.3% 47.5% 46.9% 0 hrs 1-2 hrs 3-4 hrs 5+ hrs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1997 1998
  37. 37. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children *Time spent per w eek w ith children betw een the hours of 3pmand 6pm 19.1% 11.4% 8.8% 21.2% 16.5% 7.4% 7.9% 13.5% 0 hrs 1-2 hrs 3-4 hrs 5+ hrs 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Have Children Do Not Have Children
  38. 38. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Promoting Safe Places to Go Outside of School 32% 42.8% 32.4% 47.8% 56.8% 70% 1997 1998 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Entertainment/Recreational Places In Ow n Neighborhood In Ow n Home Where respondents spend time with children after school / at night
  39. 39. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Establish A Fund To Open Schools After Regular Hours 52.6% 44.7% 47.4% 37.7% 1997 1998 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Have Children Do Not Have Children
  40. 40. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Support for a Caring Community * From1998 survey 21.2% Advertisement 78.8% Home 6.5% Health Care 0.3% Place of Worship 2.7% School 6.7% Business 3.2% Neighborhood 1.8% Where respondents first learned of the #1 Question*
  41. 41. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question in General * From1998 survey Heard of #1Q 72.1% Haven't Heard of #1Q 27.9% Use #1Q 70.5% Don't Use #1Q 29.5%
  42. 42. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question in General * From1998 survey Heard of #1Q 78.1% Haven't Heard of #1Q 21.9% Use #1Q 81.7% Don't Use #1Q 18.3%
  43. 43. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question in General * From1998 survey Heard of #1Q 72.1% Haven't Heard of #1Q 27.9% Use #1Q 70.5% Don't Use #1Q 29.5%
  44. 44. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey Support for a Caring Community * From1998 survey Home 89% Business 32% Place of Worship 40% School 36% Health Care 20% Neighborhood 46% Where respondents use the #1 Question*
  45. 45. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question Awareness and Adoption 67.6% 22.9% 5.4% 1.8% 2.3% 74.9% 18.1% 5% 1.3% 0.8% Extremely Important Important Neither Unimportant Extremely Unimportant 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1997 1998
  46. 46. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question Awareness and Adoption From1998 survey 70.2% 22.1% 3.8% 1.8% 2.1% 61% 25% 9.5% 1.9% 2.6% Extremely Important Important Neither Unimportant Extremely Unimportant 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Heard of #1Q Haven't Heard of #1 Q
  47. 47. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question Awareness and Adoption 14.3% 37% 19.7% 20.7% 8.4%9.1% 34% 21.4% 18.6% 17% Not Satisfied Somewhat Not Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 1997 1998
  48. 48. Partnership for Children #1 Question Phone Survey #1 Question Awareness and Adoption From1998 survey 20.7% 23.4% 13.1% 34.5% 8.4% 12.8% 15% 29.7% 37.5% 5% Not Satisfied Somewhat Not Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Use #1Q Don't Use #1Q
  49. 49. Potential Community Level Indicators Volunteerism Immunization Opportunities for Youth Programs using school facilities Child Care Credentialing Child Care Funding/Salaries School Attendance and Achievement Criminal Justice
  50. 50. Issues and Recommendations Improve/Strengthen Independent Variable Track funding for youth serving organizations Track kinds of volunteering for youth (are they volunteering with youth, or doing office work?) Expand Evaluation Include survey of Community Changes among other org’s Track number of new voices Get More Staff for the Partnership for Children
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×