1. 1 NNIP EARLY CHILDHOOD SESSION November 13 th, 2008 Baltimore, MD

2. 2 Agenda for the Session Review of Initial Cross-site Findings for the NNIP School Readiness & Success Initiative Presentations by Project Partners Phase II deliverables Questions and discussion  3 questions sent out by email Planning Session for future NNIP work in School Readiness

3. 3 Review of Cross-site Findings: The system scans revealed that when this project began the existence of any sort of comprehensive or organized school readiness system varied significantly from site to site.  Ranged from Miami and Cleveland (more of a system approach– still requires some integration) to Milwaukee and Indianapolis (little or no local engagement on the issue).

4. 4 Review of Cross-site Findings: System Scan covered 9 domains Home Visits/Family Support, Foster Care/Child Protective Services, Registered Child Care, Head Start, State & Local Pre-K, Medicaid/SCHIP, Immunizations & Lead Screenings, IDEA, and Kindergarten Assessment. Many sites have considerable data resources across domains, but others are still developing relationships and data. The Home Visits and Family Support domain appeared to have the least amount of data and integration across sites (except Cleveland). A number of sites mentioned issues with Head Start or the school district operating in “silos.” A few sites had concerns about obtaining data related to restrictions on confidentiality and HIPAA.

5. 5 Review of Cross-site Findings: Several sites have a county-level group or collaboration on early childhood and families:  Including: Atlanta, Cleveland, Denver, Memphis, and Miami United Way is involved in almost all sites. Many sites have programs that operate in cities across the nation.  SPARK, Smart Start, Parents as First Teachers, HIPPY, Nurse-Family Partnerships

6. 6 Review of Cross-site Findings: Many sites have a quality rating and improvement systems for child care settings or are working to implement them. Almost all sites (except Milwaukee) have some type of Kindergarten Assessment tool, though the utility and reliability of tool vary.  Local Tool: Atlanta, Chattanooga, Cleveland, Denver, Memphis  National Tool: Denver, Indianapolis (Title 1 only), Miami, Providence

7. 7 Review of Cross-site Findings: There are clear disparities between neighborhoods on risk factors for not being ready for school. Almost all sites developed a risk or vulnerability index to map where the most at-risk children live.  Most indices included some data on birth outcomes These children are typically in high poverty-high minority neighborhoods that are often not located near good schools or services.

8. 8 Review of Cross-site Findings: The scan attempted to lay out the elements of the school readiness system. However – it didn’t attempt to fully evaluate the adequacy of the system. Especially:  Home Visits/Parental Support, services ages 0-3 generally  IDEA services  Child Care Subsidies What do we want to evaluate? Which domains have the highest need for this sort of work?

9. 9 Review of Cross-site Findings: Work needs to be done in all sites on developing a more comprehensive and seamless approach to early childhood policy, programming and advocacy.  Special attention needs to be paid to transitions between periods, from 0-3 services to 3-5 services to services for school-aged children.  Particularly a concern for Atlanta, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Miami. Miami – Ready Schools Miami Project

10. 10 Review of Cross-site Findings: Several sites indicated that there is a need for a neighborhood-based data system on school readiness indicators. Overall, there is a considerable lack of evaluation of early childhood programs. Performance management measures in addition to developing data should be encouraged. The scans and briefs revealed gaps in outreach about available services and a need for more public education on services.

11. 11 Phase II Deliverables Proposed Plan for Future Activities in School Readiness and Success Conduct a community forum Participate in cross-site policy research and advocacy (including cross-site forum to be held Spring 2009).

12. 12 Questions and Discussion 1. What do you think are the key findings from your work that are most important to convey to outside audiences? 2. What is the strategy you would like to implement to extend this work in your own city? 3. What do you think we should do as NNIP to extend this work nationally? What should we be saying to policymakers? (Who and when?) What should be in our proposal for the next stages of an NNIP program?