MIECHV UPDATES Data & Evaluation
description
Transcript of MIECHV UPDATES Data & Evaluation
MIECHV UPDATESData & Evaluation
Michelle P. [email protected]
1Departments of Education and Public Welfare | www.education.state.pa.us | www.dpw.state.pa.us
Home Visiting Stakeholders Meeting
2/20/2013
4 separate (but connected) pieces
2
MIECHVData & Evaluati
on
Demographic, Service
Utilization & Benchmark
Data
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE –
Strong Start)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE)
3
MIECHVData & Evaluati
on
Demographic, Service
Utilization & Benchmark
Data
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE –
Strong Start)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE)
Baseline Data
4
• Year One• Formula Year One• Families enrolled 7/1/2011 –
6/30/2012
• Submitted to HRSA on February 4, 2013
490 Families Served
124 Pregnant Women349 Female Caregivers
17 Male Caregivers
490 Parents
232 Girls271 Boys
7 Unknown
510 Children
5
+ +
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
6
Construct 1.1: Prenatal Care
Percentage of pregnant women who arereceiving prenatal care by the 3rd trimester
98%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
7
Construct 1.2: Prenatal use ofalcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs
Percentage of pregnant women who smoked in the 3rd trimester
29%Goal: DECREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
8
Construct 1.3: Preconception care
Percentage of postpartum women who have a medical home prior to becoming
pregnant
83%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
9
Construct 1.4: Inter-birth intervals
Percent of postpartum womenwho use birth control
81%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
10
Construct 1.5: Screening for maternal depressive symptoms
Percent of mothers who werescreened for maternal depression
84%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
11
Construct 1.6: Breastfeeding
Percentage of postpartum women whobreast-fed for at least the first six months
9%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
12
Construct 1.7: Well-child visits
Percentage of children who receive the recommend schedule of well-child visits
*Goal: INCREASE
* First data point is 1 Year Post Enrollment so no data to report yet
Baseline Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2013-06/30/2014)
Benchmark Area 1: Maternal and Newborn Health
13
Construct 1.8: Maternal and childhealth insurance status
Percentage of mothers and childrenwho currently have health insurance
96%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
14
Construct 2.1: Visits for children to the emergency department from all
causes
Percentage of children whovisited the emergency department
19%Goal: DECREASEBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period:
01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
15
Construct 2.2: Visits of mothers to the emergency department from all
causes
Percentage of mothers whovisited the emergency department
19%Goal: DECREASEBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period:
01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
16
Construct 2.3: Information provided or training of participants on prevention of
child injuries
Percentage of mothers who received information or training on child injury prevention
75%Goal: INCREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
17
Construct 2.4: Incidence of childinjuries requiring medical treatment
Percentage of children who had an injurythat required medical treatment
10%Goal: DECREASE
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
18
Construct 2.5: Reported suspected maltreatment for children in the
program
Percentage of children with acase of suspected maltreatment
2%Goal: DECREASEBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period:
07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
19
Construct 2.6: Reported substantiated maltreatment for
children in the program
Percentage of children with a caseof substantiated maltreatment
0%Goal: DECREASEBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period:
07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 2: Child Injuries, Child Abuse, Neglect, or
Maltreatment; Emergency Department Visits
20
Construct 2.7: First time victims of maltreatment for children in the
program
Percentage of children with a substantiated case
of maltreatment who are first time victims
0%Goal: DECREASE
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
21
Construct 3.1: Parent support for children’s learning and development
Percentage of mothers who report anIncrease in involvement (as related to their
children’s learning and development)
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
22
Construct 3.2: Parent knowledge of child development and of theirchild’s developmental progress
Percentage of mothers who report an increasein knowledge of their child’s development
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
23
Construct 3.3: Parenting behaviorsand parent-child relationship
Percentage of mothers who report a positivechange in their relationship with their child
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
24
Construct 3.4: Parent emotional well-being or parenting stress
Percentage of mothers who werescreened for maternal depression
78%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
25
Construct 3.5: Child communication,language and emergent literacyPercentage of children with age appropriate
development in communication
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
26
Construct 3.6: Child general cognitive skillsPercentage of children with age appropriate
development in general cognitive skills
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
27
Construct 3.7: Child’s positive approachesto learning including attention
Percentage of children with age appropriatedevelopment in positive approaches to learning
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
28
Construct 3.8: Child’s social behavior, emotional regulation, and emotional well-
beingPercentage of children with age appropriate development in
social behavior, emotion regulation, and emotional well-being
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 3: School Readiness and
Achievement
29
Construct 3.9: Child’s physical health and development
Percentage of children with age appropriatedevelopment in physical development
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 18 Months Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 4: Domestic Violence
30
Construct 4.1: Screening for domestic violence
Percentage of mothers who werescreened for domestic violence
97%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 4: Domestic Violence
31
Construct 4.2: Of families identified for the presence of domestic
violence, number of referrals made to domestic violence services
Percentage of mothers who screenedpositive for domestic violence who werereferred to domestic violence services
58%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAINBaseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period:
01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 4: Domestic Violence
32
Construct 4.3: Of families identified for the presence of domestic violence,
number of families for which a safety plan was completed
Percentage of mothers who screened positive
for domestic violence who have a safety plan
42%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 5: Family Economic Self-Sufficiency
33
Construct 5.1: HouseholdIncome and/or benefits
Percentage of households that increased or maintained their income and benefits
*Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN* Comparison data point is 1 Year Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 5: Family Economic Self-Sufficiency
34
Construct 5.2: Employment of participating adults
Total number of hours worked (paid andunpaid devoted to the care of aninfant) per month by each mother
*Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN* Comparison data point is 1 Year Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 5: Family Economic Self-Sufficiency
35
Construct 5.3: Health insurance status of participating adults and index children
Percentage of household memberswho currently have health insurance
*Goal: INCREASE
* Comparison data point is 1 Year Post Enrollment sounable to determine who is included in the baseline
group yetBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 6: Coordination and Referrals for Other Community
Resources and Supports
36
Construct 6.1: Number of familiesidentified for necessary services
Percentage of families identifiedfor needed services
52%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 6: Coordination and Referrals for Other Community
Resources and Supports
37
Construct 6.2: Number of families identified
that required services and received a referral
to available community resources
Percentage of families who required services who were referred to additional
community resources
89%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 6: Coordination and Referrals for Other Community
Resources and Supports
38
Construct 6.3: Number of completed referrals
Percentage of families who werereferred to additional communityresources who received services
79%Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 01/01/2012-12/31/2012 (Comparison Period: 01/01/2013-12/31/2013)
Benchmark Area 6: Coordination and Referrals for Other Community
Resources and Supports
39
Construct 6.4: MOUs: Number of Memoranda of Understanding or other formal agreements with other social service agencies in the community
Number of MOUs or other formal agreements with other social service
agencies in the community
74Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAINBaseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period:
07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Benchmark Area 6: Coordination and Referrals for Other Community
Resources and Supports
40
Construct 6.5: Information sharing: Number of agencies with which the home visiting provider has a clear point of contact in the collaborating community agency that includes regular
sharing of information between agencies
Number of agencies with which the home visiting provider has a clear point of contact in the collaborating community
agency that includes regular sharing of information between agencies
249Goal: INCREASE or MAINTAIN
Baseline Period: 07/01/2011-06/30/2012 (Comparison Period: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013)
Next Steps
41
• Analyze data by sites, model
• Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
42
MIECHVData & Evaluati
on
Demographic, Service
Utilization & Benchmark
Data
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE –
Strong Start)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE)
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
43
• Currently in the process of collecting data from MIECHV sites and acquiring access to state-level administrative data
• Goals:o Understand the effect of the PA MIECHV expansion of
NFP, EHS, PAT, & HFA on maternal and child community health outcomes
o Analyze program effects for priority families (dual-language and children with disabilities)
o Investigate geographic disparities of program utilization
o Explore the influence of site context and professional development activities on program performance
44
MIECHVData & Evaluati
on
Demographic, Service
Utilization & Benchmark
Data
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE –
Strong Start)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE)
Mother and Infant Home VisitingProgram Evaluation (MIHOPE)
• Random assignment of families has begun in Pennsylvania – about 52 clients have been enrolled; several videos of home visits have been taken in Pennsylvania
• Other states approved by OPRE and HRSA to participate in MIHOPE: California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, & Wisconsin
45
Mother and Infant Home VisitingProgram Evaluation (MIHOPE)
• The Hope of MIHOPE• Listen to the MIHOPE federal project
officer highlight the role of MIHOPE in informing the federal and state policy discussion
http://www.mdrc.org/hope-mihope?utm_source=MIHOPE+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bf61a6cc19-MIHOPE_Newsletter_January_20131_11_2013&utm_medium=email
46
47
MIECHVData & Evaluati
on
Demographic, Service
Utilization & Benchmark
Data
State Evaluation (PolicyLab)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE –
Strong Start)
National Evaluation (MIHOPE)
• Currently ironing out final details with HHS
• A second ‘arm’ of the MIHOPE study• 12 MIHOPE states + 8 additional =
20 states• Random selection• NFP & HFA• Goal: 20,000 families• Study enrollment and data collection
are expected in begin Summer 2013• Connection to Strong Start / Medicaid
48
Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE) –
Strong Start