Partnership for Children, Kansas City Metro Area, 1998 Report

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 SummaryApril 9, 1999

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

Context of the InitiativeKansas City Metro Area

5 CountiesApprox. 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 degreed15% of children ages 1-5 years receive WIC benefitsSchool readiness dropped 8% in two years (to 87%)Overall high school grad rate is 73%Teen birth rate is increasing slowlyDrug use is increasingTeen Homicides rate is decreasing

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

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

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 MarketingWhole Community (media campaign)Key Influentials (business people)Local Champions (neighborhood leaders)Citizen Action (parenting manuals, voting,

volunteering)

Intervention

Logic Model

Planning Intervention EnvironmentalChange

Behavior DistalOutcome

Focus Groups

Planning Sessions

InternalAction 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 SystemChanges 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

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

Monitoring System Community ChangesCommunity Responses

Community-Level Indicators VolunteerismImmunizationOpportunities for YouthPrograms using school facilitiesChild Care CredentialingChild Care Funding/SalariesPublic adoption by Key Influentials

Behavioral Survey Caring for own childrenCaring for others' childrenSupervision during risk hoursSupport for the broader community

Evaluation Methods

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

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

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 9101112196 97 98 99

0

50

100

150

200Cumulative Numbers

Community Changes

Community Response


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112196 97 98 99

0

50

100

150

200

250

300C

um

ula

tive

Nu

mb

ers

Community Changes

Community Response

Community Actions

What factors are related to the success of the initiative?


Partnership for ChildrenAccomplishments 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 J1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cu

mu

lativ

e N

um

be

r o

f Co

mm

un

ity C

ha

ng

es 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


#1 Question Campaign

New Co-Chairs




What relationship exists between community changes facilitated by the Partnership for Children and community-level impact indicators?

Immunization InitiativeMetro 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

200Community Changes

Immunization Rate


Community Change Objectives

92 total community changes from 1/96 to 12/98

Advocacy40.2%

Youth Violence6.5%

Education & Awareness8.7%

Child Care5.4%

Immunization16.3%

Raising New Voices10.9%Advocacy, Education

12.0%


Community Change Sectors


Business and Commerce16.8%

Media3.2%

Education22.1%

Health Organization4.2%

Community Services23.2%

Religious7.4%

Youth Services6.3%

Government15.8%

Law Enforcing1.1%


Community Change Strategies


1.1

11.2

1.1 3.4

67.4

1.1

7.9 5.62.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pe

rce

nt

of

Str

ate

gie

s

Providing Feedback

Improving Services

Enhancing Skills

Changing Physical Design

Facilitating Support

Barrier Removal

Creating Opportunities

Providing Information

Changing Incentives

Are community norms related to caring for youth changing?


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?

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.

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?

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.)

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.)

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)?

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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 week with children between the hours of 3pm and 6pm

1997 1998 0hrs

10hrs

20hrs

30hrs

40hrs

50hrs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Time Spent with Children Those Who Have Children

Partnership for Children#1 Question Phone Survey (Trend Analysis)Involvement With Other Children and Youth

* Time spent per week with children between the hours of 3pm and 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

Partnership for Children#1 Question Phone Survey

Increase Involvement of Adults in the Lives of Children


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




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




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


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 Own Neighborhood

In Own Home

Where respondents spend time with children after school / at night

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


Support for a Caring Community

* From 1998 survey

21.2%

Advertisement78.8%

Home6.5%

Health Care0.3%

Place of Worship2.7%

School6.7%

Business3.2%

Neighborhood1.8%

Where respondents first learned of the #1 Question*


#1 Question in General

* From 1998 survey

Heard of #1Q72.1%

Haven't Heardof #1Q27.9%

Use #1Q70.5%

Don't Use #1Q29.5%



* From 1998 survey

Heard of #1Q78.1%


Use #1Q81.7%

Don't Use #1Q18.3%



* From 1998 survey

Heard of #1Q72.1%


Use #1Q70.5%

Don't Use #1Q29.5%


Support for a Caring Community

* From 1998 survey

Home89%

Business32%

Place of Worship40%

School36%

Health Care20%

Neighborhood46%

Where respondents use the #1 Question*


#1 Question Awareness and Adoption

67.6%

22.9%

5.4%1.8% 2.3%

74.9%

18.1%

5%1.3% 0.8%

ExtremelyImportant

Important Neither Unimportant ExtremelyUnimportant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1997 1998



From 1998 survey

70.2%

22.1%

3.8% 1.8% 2.1%

61%

25%

9.5%1.9% 2.6%

ExtremelyImportant

Important Neither Unimportant ExtremelyUnimportant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Heard of #1Q Haven't Heard of #1 Q



14.3%

37%

19.7% 20.7%

8.4%9.1%

34%

21.4%18.6% 17%

Not Satisfied Somewhat NotSatisfied

Neutral SomewhatSatisfied

Very Satisfied0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1997 1998



From 1998 survey

20.7%23.4%

13.1%

34.5%

8.4%12.8%

15%

29.7%

37.5%

5%

Not Satisfied Somewhat NotSatisfied

Neutral SomewhatSatisfied

Very Satisfied0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Use #1Q Don't Use #1Q

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

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 EvaluationInclude survey of Community Changes among other org’sTrack number of new voices

Get More Staff for the Partnership for Children