1

What did Connecticut do?

2

The Basics• A group of people who hold stakes met to give

the lead agency suggestions.• We chose the NCSEAM survey and we

distributed the surveys to families eligible on specific date (just like 618 Table 1, point in time.)

• Service Coordinators hand delivered survey in sealed envelopes with a stamped envelope.

• Surveys (with a unique identifier printed on them) were returned directly to the lead agency and scanned in

3

The Basics• In Year One, we also mailed surveys to recently

exited families.• The response rate for hand-delivered was much

higher 26% v 19% so…• In Year Two we only sent them to families who

were participatING in the program but….• Return rates were low! So we did a follow up

mailing ($$$$).• Ended up with a rate of 41%.

4

The Basics• THIS IS A CENSUS APPROACH for distribution

of the surveys.• We gave the surveys to ALL ELIGIBLE families

who had been in Birth to Three at least 6 months.• After year one, OSEP asked Connecticut to

clarify the details of what we had done to assure representativeness.

• READY?

5

This is basically your handout – don’t try to read it.

5

6

• We interpreted the “population of children with disabilities in the early intervention program” to mean our official 618 child count which is the only official demographic data reported to OSEP.

• We called this our Target Group

The Details

7

The Details• Connecticut reported the percentages by both

Race / Ethnicity and Gender for the… – Target Group (FFY05 618 child count - Table 1)

– Census (Children whose families were sent a survey)

– Respondent Pool (Children whose families returned a completed survey)

The respondent pool wasn’t representative!

and….SURPRISE!

8

The Details

9

Random and Representative • So we used SPSS to randomly select

cases in order to create groups that would match the 618 percentages.– By Race/Ethnicity– By Gender– A crosstab of both– (We also did “Region” for our ICC.)

10

Race Ethnicity

11

Gender

12

Race/Ethnicity X Gender

13

Analysis • Then we analyzed the results for each

of the randomly selected representative groups.

• Then we reported EVERYTHING…

14

Analysis 4A – Know My Rights (77%)

15

Analysis4B – Communicate About My Child (75%)

16

Analysis4c – Help Me Help My Child (88%)

17

Remaining Questions • “Week of Clarity” Prelim APR table read that CT

– Didn’t include the N’s and– Didn’t meet it’s target for Indicator 4C

• They use the results from our response pool

• So we revised our APR to – Include the N’s and – Only report results that were

from representative data

18

Original APR4c – Help Me Help My Child (88%)

19

REVISED APR The respondent pool N=875 and from that the following representative groups were selected.

20

Remaining Questions • The final APR response table read that CT

– Didn’t report the total N for the Response Pool– Still didn’t meet it’s target for Indicator 4C

• Because we are required to assure representativeness, which results should be reported to and used by OSEP?

21

• Dr. Paula LaLinda used Connecticut’s data for her dissertation.

• She analyzed many more variables including language spoken in the home, insurance type (public or commercial)

• This was more illustrative.

Remaining Questions

22

• States may be using their family outcome data in ways that are a priority for stake-holders but not required for the APRs.

• What are the minimum requirements for the APRs as related to reporting representativeness?

Remaining Questions