Arizona Early Childhood
Coordination and Collaboration:
A Baseline Report
Bringing together all members of the community who work
in the field to serve on work groups/ planning groups…
brings all voices to the table and helps establish the system
as a true community effort. [ It] helps us see that all of the
children of Arizona are our joint responsibility — we are
doing the same work for the same reasons
— comment from a service provider
3
I. Executive Summary
The Arizona Early Childhood Coordination and Collaboration: A Baseline Report is
designed to provide baseline measurement of the degree to which early childhood
services work together in Arizona. The FTF Partner Survey will continue be admin-istered
on a yearly basis to evaluate ongoing progress toward FTF coordination and
family support goals and improvements in early childhood collaboration.
The FTF Partner Survey assesses the understanding and perceptions of FTF’s early
childhood partners’ about the degree of coordination and communication among
agencies and organizations serving young children and their families in Arizona.
Related to their own practice, most partners indicated their agency is active or some-what
active in collaborative planning and many reported joint service delivery. While
agencies report collaborative planning, partner responses reflect the belief that services
are good or very good while concurrently rating family access to services and informa-tion
as poor. This survey of early childhood partners as well as other data, such as FTF
community forums held in the summer and fall of 2007, substantiate that access to infor-mation
and services is the principal area needing greatest attention and improvement.
There is room to improve services but more important is the realignment and
simplification of early childhood services so that families are aware of and under-stand
the services available for their children and can access these services in a timely
manner. The purpose of FTF’s goals in this area is to work with partners to reduce
barriers or eliminate barriers to services for families and children. To achieve this
goal FTF will engage with partners to assess the early childhood delivery system and
recommend changes to the complex pathways that families must negotiate.
Partners also indicated strengths and weaknesses of FTF’s efforts to this point.
Many of FTF’s efforts in supporting development of a coordinated system of early
childhood providers in Arizona were noted as positive steps; however, respondents
also recognized a number of areas that need further attention. Respondents suggested
that FTF expand its inclusionary practices to more community experts and small
agencies. Partners recommended additional communication to Arizona’s hardest to
reach families. And many agreed that an expanded focus on issues beyond early edu-cation
( such as health) will better address the mission and vision of First Things First
II. Background
First Things First ( FTF) seeks to improve the developmental and health outcomes
of children ages birth through 5 years. To achieve this goal, FTF knows the impor-tance
of working with community partners to build on the network of programs and
services that exist in our state, so that young children and their families in Arizona
have easy access to high quality and affordable supports if they choose to use them.
The value of this integrated and coordinated approach is acknowledged in the FTF
Strategic Plan, which identifies two goals specific to building a coordinated network
of early childhood programs and services.
FTF’s coordination goal is to lead cross- system coordination efforts among
state, federal and tribal organizations to improve the coordination and integra-tion
of Arizona programs, services, and resources for young children and their
4
families. To accomplish this goal FTF is fostering increased communication, col-laboration,
coordination across early childhood systems. Improved coordination is
inextricably tied to improvement in program access, quality, and comprehensiveness.
Improvements in these aspects of programming are represented in FTF’s family
support goal to coordinate and integrate with existing education and information
systems to expand families’ access to high quality, diverse and relevant informa-tion
and resources to support their child’s optimal development.
FTF is very intentional about diversity and inclusion practices; [ it] provides
a ready venue for attention and support to those who care and those who
are invested in the mission of FTF. FTF has also recognized the existence of
local/ regional community efforts, [ these are] strengths and accomplishments
related to its mission. – Comment from a business partner.
The FTF Partner Survey: Communication and Collaboration is designed to pro-vide
baseline measurement of the degree to which early childhood services work
together in Arizona. The tool will continue be administered on a yearly basis to
evaluate ongoing progress toward the goals listed above. The FTF Partner Survey
assesses the understanding and perceptions of FTF’s early childhood partners’ about
the degree of coordination and communication among agencies and organizations
serving young children and their families in Arizona.
Who are our Partners?
As stated by one partner, FTF succeeds by:
… inviting new members “ to the table” ( physicians, business community,
public school personnel); providing a beginning point to look at data related
to children 0 to 5 and their families; providing public education/ information
about the importance of early childhood.
To further examine feedback from early childhood stakeholders, the FTF Partner
Survey was sent to a list of FTF’s early childhood partners, including members of the
FTF Regional Partnership Councils, FTF Board members, staff and administrators
from state agencies and other service providers, community partners, representatives
from non- profit organizations, educators, legislators, and health service providers,
among others. A full report on the methods used to administer and analyze the sur-vey
can be found in Appendix A.
In all, 301 early childhood partners were sent e- mails that requested their partici-pation
and provided a link to the online survey. The survey was available for online
completion for three weeks between 9/ 8/ 08 and 9/ 29/ 08. During that interval, 145
partners ( 48% of those contacted) completed the survey. This document summarizes
the results gathered.
A full demographic report on partners can be found in Appendix B. Overall, the
typical respondent on the survey was a white female with a master’s degree or higher
who has worked in social service, health or education for more than 10 years.
5
III. Measuring progress toward FTF’s strategic goals
FTF’s coordination goal and family support goal focus on two outcomes: communi-cation
and collaboration and quality support for families. To provide insight into
these areas respondents were asked their perspective on many aspects of service.
The following analyses present overall partner perspectives on communication and
collaboration followed by perspectives on quality support for families. Descriptive
statistics as well as full text of survey questions can be found in Appendix C.
Communication & Collaboration
Partners were asked to provide their insight into communication and collaboration
for their agency as well as all agencies in Arizona. To gain insight into communica-tion
and collaboration, partners were asked their opinion on the level of coordination
in planning, service delivery, information sharing, and professional development and
training among Arizona agencies.
Figure 1: Satisfaction with Collaboration
Over half of respondents were dissatisfied ( 54%) with
the degree to which Arizona’s agencies collaborate,
with 15% being very dissatisfied. A small percentage
of respondents were very satisfied ( 4%) and 38% were
somewhat satisfied with the degree of collaboration.
When respondents were asked to rate their satisfac-tion
with their own agency’s collaboration, responses
were more positive with 83% reporting they are very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
To provide baseline measurements of the level of collaboration among early child-hood
agencies in Arizona, respondents indicated their current level of involvement in
service planning and administration and service delivery.
Over half of
respondents were
dissatisfied with the
degree to which
Arizona’s agencies
collaborate
6
Service Planning and Administration
Service planning and administration was defined as participating in joint planning,
reflecting common goals, coordinating planning, using consistent terminology, and
collaborating on consistent messaging.
Figure 2: Involvement in service planning and administration
Related to service planning and administration, the
majority of partners indicated their agency is “ some-what
active” or “ actively…” engaged in coordinating
activities. The most common level of involvement
for most activities is “ somewhat active” with many
partners reporting their agency is “ getting started”.
The areas with the most activity are joint planning
and common goal- setting; the majority indicated
that their agency/ organization is “ somewhat active”
or “ actively…” involved in joint planning ( 71%) and ensuring that strategic plans,
standards, and policies reflect common goals ( 56%).
Service Delivery
Collaboration in service delivery was defined as joint monitoring or quality assurance
of services, joint service delivery, joint case management, sharing costs, joint recruit-ment,
and shared location. Respondents indicated the degree to which their agency or
organization is “ currently involved or planning involvement in” a number these areas.
The majority of
partners report being
“ somewhat active” or
“ actively…” engaged
in collaborative
planning
7
Figure 3: Involvement in service delivery
Many respondents reported that their agencies are
currently involved in joint service delivery. Most
partners ( 54%) reported that their agency was “ some-what
active” or “ actively…” engaged in joint service
delivery, with forty- percent ( 40%) reporting joint
case management. A little less than half ( 46%) also
indicated being “ somewhat active” or “ actively…”
involved in joint monitoring/ quality assurance. A
smaller percentage ( 27%) of respondents reported
actively sharing costs for shared services to clients,
however, many reported that they did not know if costs were shared ( 37%).
Comparing figures 2 and 3, respondents reported their agencies to be significantly
more involved in collaborative service planning and administration ( Weighted Mean
= 12.2) compared to collaborative service delivery ( Weighted Mean = 8.5) suggesting
that strategies to improve coordination might place additional focus on improving
inter- agency service delivery. These scores provide a baseline against which improve-ment
in coordination can be measured in the future.
Most partners reported
that their agency was
“ somewhat active” or
“ actively…” engaged
in joint service delivery
8
Quality Support for Families
In addition to reporting on communication and collaboration, FTF partners were
asked their assessment of the quality of support for families in Arizona.
Figure4: Quality of services available to support families
In general, partners felt that the quality of services
available in Arizona to support families and promote
children’s optimal development is ‘ good to ‘ very
good’ ( 78%). Eleven percent ( 11%) indicated that
service quality is ‘ poor’ or ‘ very poor’ and 4% rated
services as ‘ excellent’. While this set of responses may
be unexpected given partners’ poor ratings of the
quality of information and availability for families, further analysis presented below
indicate that partners rate quality of services relatively high while access to services is
seen as poor.
To assess progress toward coordination and family support goals, respondents
were asked to rate the degree to which all services in Arizona meets the needs of
young children and their families. Two areas of were identified: information and
access and family focus.
The majority of
partners reported that
the quality of available
services is ‘ good or
‘ very good’
9
Information and Access
Quality in information and access was measured by partner responses concerning
quality of information for families, access to information for families, and conve-nience/
accessibility of services for families.
Figure 5: Information and Access
Overall, partners indicate that information and
access for families is the area with poorest perfor-mance;
respondents indicate that quality is available
but not accessible. While all areas have opportuni-ties
for improvement, respondents indicated that the
quality of information ( Mean = 3.3) was significantly
better than access to either services ( Mean = 2.8)
or information ( Mean = 2.9). This suggests that additional emphasis be focused on
programs that improve families’ access to information and services.
Partners indicate that
family information
and access to services
are the area needing
greatest improvement
10
Family Focus
Family focus was defined by partner responses concerning cultural responsiveness,
comprehensiveness of services, early identification of problems, family centered prac-tice,
and client focus.
Figure 6: Family Focus
Partner responses related to family focus show a
distinct trend. Again, very few partners indicate that
family focus is excellent, for the majority, services are
rated as poor to good.
Comparing figures 5 and 6, respondents scored access and information about ser-vices
in Arizona lower ( Weighted Mean= 11.9) as compared to family focus ( Weighted
Mean= 13.3) suggesting that strategies to improve coordination might place additional
focus on improving family access to information and services. These scores provide a
baseline against which improvement in coordination will be measured in the future.
IV. How is First Things First doing?
Begin promoting the cause to the general public to make FTF a household
name and to inform the public of the movement that is happening within the
State. — A comment by a partner in education
An additional goal of the partner survey was to establish a baseline and provide
ongoing evaluation by early childhood partners of the work of First Things First. Not
surprisingly, almost all ( 95%) of respondents are familiar with FTF and its mission.
The results of this baseline evaluation indicate that partners perceive that FTF
is clearly articulating its core values. Almost all respondents agreed that the work
of FTF is ‘ very important’ and agreed that FTF understands the importance of the
early years. Many partners indicated that FTF understands and respects evidence-based
practice, is committed to involving community members in the development
of services for children birth through 5, and fosters a shared vision among agencies/
Partners indicate
that family focus
is poor to good
11
organizations about the needs of young children.
Responses were more variable for items reflecting areas in which the work of FTF
is still unfolding— in the actual implementation of the process. Many respondents
agreed that:
FTF has set good priorities f • or service development,
• FTF senior managers are committed to facilitating improvement of services and
increasing the degree to which agencies/ organizations work together,
• FTF senior managers show respect for senior management from other agencies/
organizations that provide services to children birth through 5,
• FTF is committed to encouraging and facilitating service integration to reach out
to the most disadvantaged families in the community, and
• FTF is committed to encouraging and facilitating service integration to support all
families and promote their children’s optimal development,
Between 15 and 33 percent of participants responded “ don’t know” to these items. These
findings emphasize the importance of maintaining clear and ongoing communication
with early childhood partners to ensure that our partners are active participants in the
work of FTF. We expect the number of these responses may diminish as the process and
activities of FTF are clarified and unfold. These responses provide a baseline for ongoing
evaluation of FTF from its partners’ perspective.
Qualitative: comments about First Things First’s role in supporting
collaboration among agencies serving young children.
To evaluate partners’ perceptions of the progress of First Things First in its endeavor to
lead cross- system coordination efforts among state, federal and tribal organizations
respondents were asked to describe what FTF is currently doing to promote “ coordination
and collaboration among agencies/ organizations serving young children” and what FTF
“ should do differently or change to better promote coordination and collaboration among
agencies/ organizations serving young children.” Several themes emerged in the partner
answers that can help guide future work at FTF. Partners indicated that First Things First
is doing the following:
• Setting up inter- agency meetings to promote information
sharing and dialogue
• Promoting inclusiveness
• Focusing on local needs
• Building infrastructure to support collaboration
• Spreading the word about the needs of young children
A number of partners acknowledged FTF’s ongoing efforts
to support collaboration among agencies serving young
children and indicated that FTF is creating opportunities
and forums where agencies can meet, talk, and plan. Respon-dents
noted that, FTF has “… an open- door policy to… all the
community. They have facilitated community leaders meetings
Areas for FTF
improvement:
• Expand emphasis
beyond early
childhood
• Include more,
diverse stakeholders
• Improve
communication
12
and based their decisions on the community’s input” and are “ creating infrastructure that
necessitates communication across agencies and CBOs [ Community Based Organizations].”
Respondents recognized FTF for facilitating meetings among early childhood partners
by “ cooperatively establishing teams to develop strategic directions [ and] conducting inter-agency
meetings to talk about common issues and opportunities.”
Several respondents commended FTF for promoting inclusiveness. Partners com-mented
that FTF encourages collaboration by holding “ open Forums, focus groups;
inviting new members “ to the table” ( physicians, business community, public school person-nel);
providing a beginning point to look at data related to children 0 to 5 and their families;
[ and] providing public education/ information about the importance of early childhood” and
“ seeking wide and divergent perspectives and community input.” “ The organization of com-mittees
by first things first has made it a priority to include a well rounded selection of the
community; including the health care industry, early interventionists, parents, and university
faculty and researchers.”
When asked how FTF can improve “ coordination and collaboration among agen-cies/
organizations serving young children”, partners pointed out several areas needing
improvement, including:
Expanding the focus from early education only by increasing t • he emphasis on other
aspects of early childhood such as health, identification of special needs, etc.
• Being more inclusive— invite small agencies, community members, etc.
• Improving communication, especially to the public, families, in rural areas, and to
tribal members
A recurring theme is the need to expand FTF’s focus from primarily early care and educa-tion
to include other aspects of early child development. A respondent clearly articulated
this in the following comment:
It seems to me that FTF is mostly interested in child care and preschool. There are
so many other facets that are important in early childhood and health and I am not
sure if they are being overlooked because they should be fulfilled by other organiza-tions/
money sources or some other reason. I think that although quality daycare
and preschool is important there are many children who do not attend organized
daycare and I wonder what services are being offered to this population.
Other comments demonstrated similar concerns. One respondent recommended
that FTF “ recognize that fulfilling your mission involves more than just improving the
early childhood education system,” and that FTF should be “ promoting communica-tion
between the multiple state agencies that interact over health and development in
this age group to generate a more seamless, less complicated, more accessible system for
families.” A physician suggested that the role of medical providers be expanded, by
“ recruit[ ing] us in more ways than just asking us to be on the regional boards.” Another
partner summarized the concerns, stating that there need to be “ equal efforts on edu-cation
and health. Both are important in a child’s development.”
A number of responses also focused on the need to provide input from smaller agen-cies
and organizations and foster the creation of new programs; to “ engage local smaller
agencies in the process... Encourage new programs and new participation.” Comments
emphasized the importance of maintaining ongoing communication with smaller groups
13
to better understand their missions and optimize their strengths. They recommended that
FTF “ get involved with local organizations, get to know them and what they do… see what is
working, [ and] build upon existing efforts.”
Respondents also agreed on a need to improve communication and expand com-munity
information about the initiative. Partners suggested that communication to small
agencies, tribal, and community partners should be improved. “ Communication to com-munity
experts is very poor and need[ s] to be improved in order to see a true development of
a system that is impactful for families and children.” Partners emphasized that FTF needs
to “ value the expertise in the community,” and “ recognize everyone’s strengths and what they
can bring to the vision and mission of FTF.”
There was some concern that Arizona residents need to be informed about the exis-tence
of and purpose of FTF. A partner suggested that FTF “ begin promoting the cause
to the general public to make FTF a household name and to inform the public of the move-ment...”
Some partners felt that communities in tribal and rural areas may have been left
out of the information loop and suggested that FTF “ continue to promote the idea on a
statewide basis. Outlying communities don’t always receive the same support or information
as the metropolitan areas.”
Thus, whereas responding partners applauded many of FTF’s efforts supporting devel-opment
of a coordinated system of early childhood providers in Arizona, the respondents
also recognized a number of areas that need further attention. Respondents suggested
that FTF expand its inclusionary practices to more community experts and small agen-cies.
Partners recommended additional communication to Arizona’s hardest to reach
families. And many agreed that an expanded focus on issues beyond early education will
better address the mission and vision of First Things First. These valuable ideas and sug-gestions
will help guide the future activities of FTF toward optimizing collaboration and
communication throughout the state.
V. Conclusion
In the Partner Survey, most partners indicated their agency is active or somewhat
active in collaborative planning and many reported joint service delivery. While
agencies report collaborative planning, to this point these activities have not resulted
in system level coordination that provides seamless services to families. This is evi-denced
by voter approval of Proposition 203 in 2006 which created FTF as an agency
to improve early childhood service delivery and coordination by building on the high
quality work already in happening in Arizona.
In addition to their support of the FTF initiative, partners responding to this sur-vey
indicate their understanding of the need for greater coordination by their survey
responses regarding overall collaboration. Over half of respondents were dissatisfied
with Arizona agencies’ collaboration. FTF has a clear role and mission to build upon
the collaborative work already in process and assure its application in system build-ing
which provides optimal opportunities for families and children to benefit from
the service system.
Other partner responses point to an apparent dissonance. Responses reflect the
belief that services are good or very good while concurrently rating family access to
services and information as poor. This survey of early childhood partners as well as
other data, such as FTF community forums held in the summer and fall of 2007, sub-
14
stantiate that access to information and services is the principal area needing greatest
attention and improvement.
There is room to improve services but more important is the realignment and sim-plification
of early childhood services so that families are aware of and understand
the services available for their children and they can access these services in a timely
manner. The purpose of FTF’s goals in this area is to work with partners to reduce
barriers or eliminate barriers to services for families and children. To achieve this
goal FTF will engage with partners to assess the early childhood delivery system and
recommend changes to the complex pathways that families must negotiate.
In the Partner Survey, partners also indicated strengths and weaknesses of FTF’s
efforts to this point. Many of FTF’s efforts in supporting development of a coordi-nated
system of early childhood providers in Arizona were noted as positive steps;
however, respondents also recognized a number of areas that need further attention.
Respondents suggested that FTF expand its inclusionary practices to more com-munity
experts and small agencies. Partners recommended additional outreach and
communication to Arizona’s hardest to reach families. And many agreed that an
expanded focus on issues beyond early education ( such as health) will better address
the mission and vision of First Things First. These valuable ideas and suggestions
from partners will help guide the future activities of FTF toward optimizing collabo-ration
and communication throughout the state.
15
Appendix A
The FTF Partner Survey was developed to measure First Things First key measures
related to coordination. It was administered as an on- line survey. A partners list was
compiled from early childhood stakeholders including: regional partnership council
members, state agencies involved in early childhood efforts, community partners, ser-vice
providers, non- profit organizations and doctors such as pediatricians and dentists.
Method
Key steps for the Partner Survey:
A list of 301 early childhood p 1. artners was compiled.
2. An introductory e- mail with a link to the Partner Survey on Zoomerang was
deployed on September 8, 2008 to everyone on the Partner’s List inviting them to
take a 10 minute survey on- line.
3. The partners were given three weeks to complete the survey on- line with a follow
up reminder each week the survey was open.
4. An e- mail reminder was sent the day before close of the survey on September 29, 2008.
Analysis: At the close of the survey, the data was downloaded from Zoomerang into
SPSS, a statistical analysis program. The data were cleaned and descriptive statistics
were produced for the items evaluating family support and collaboration. Factor
analyses identified four groups of survey items to be used as reliable indicators of
quality of family support and inter- agency collaboration and cooperation. Descrip-tive
statistics were produced for the survey questions evaluating the work of First
Things First.
The Partners
Partners were asked questions related to quality of services, information & access,
communication and coordination. These questions were created after a review of
similar surveys including, The Service Coordination Study instrument1 used by the
Australian Government.
To learn more about early childhood partners in Arizona, the survey collected
basic demographic and workplace information. Of those responding, the majority
indicated being of White/ Caucasian race ( 79%) followed by Hispanic ethnicity at 8
percent and American Indian at 4 percent. Of the 145 respondents, 77 percent were
females and 20 percent males, a 4: 1 ratio.
An average respondent on the survey can be described as a white female with
a master’s degree or higher who has worked in social service, health or education
for more than 10 years. The majority of the respondents indicated that they were
in middle management ( 21%), or senior management ( 14%) and executives ( 24%).
Twenty- five percent of the respondents indicated that they work in education ( 25%),
followed by service providers ( 24%) and health and medicine ( 14%).
1 Stronger Families and Communities Survey., National Evaluation, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indig-enous
Affairs, Australian Government. http:// www. facs. gov. au/ family/ sfcs_ report/ sec4. htm.
16
Appendix B
Table 1: Demographics
Table 1: Demographics
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 29 20%
Female 111 77%
Missing 5 3%
Total 145 100%
Race/ Ethnicity
American Indian or Native Alaskan 5 4%
Asian 2 1%
Black or African American 2 1%
Hispanic, Latino/ Latina, Chicano/ Chicana 12 8%
White/ Caucasian 115 79%
Multiple 4 3%
Missing 5 4%
Total 145 100%
Education
HS Diploma 2 1%
AA 2 1%
BA/ BS 34 23%
MA/ MS 50 35%
Doctorate/ Ph. D./ Ed. D. 41 29%
MD, JD 13 9%
Missing 3 2%
Total 145 100%
How many years at current position or employment
Less than two years 18 12%
Two to five years 49 34%
Six to ten years 29 20%
Eleven to twenty years 25 17%
Twenty years or more 19 13%
Missing 5 3%
Total 145 100%
How many years worked in social service, health & education
Less than two years 3 2%
Two to five years 6 4%
Six to ten years 10 7%
Eleven to twenty years 38 26%
Twenty years or more 80 55%
Missing 8 6%
Total 145 100%
Type of agency/ organization Frequency Percent
State Agency 14 10%
Service Provider 34 24%
Philanthropy 9 6%
17
Table 1: Demographics
Advocacy Organization 4 3%
Education 36 25%
Tribal 4 3%
Legislative 1 > 1%
Business 8 6%
Health / Medicine 20 14%
Other 8 6%
Missing 7 5%
Total 145 100%
Current role
Executive 35 24%
Senior Management 20 14%
Middle Management 31 21%
General Staff 21 15%
Other Professional 24 17%
Other 14 10%
Total 145 100%
18
Appendix C
1. Does your agency/ organization provide services to children birth through 5 and their families in
partnership with other agencies? These partnerships may be formal or informal. Number Percent
Never 12 8%
Rarely 3 2%
Some of the time 20 14%
Quite often 22 15%
Mostly 20 14%
All of the time 53 37%
Not Applicable 15 10%
Total 145 100%
2. Thinking about agencies/ organizations that offer support for children birth through 5 and their families
in Arizona, how satisfied are you with the degree to which your agency/ organization collaborates and
communicates with other agencies?
Number Percent
Very satisfied 39 33%
Somewhat satisfied 59 50%
Somewhat dissatisfied 10 9%
Very dissatisfied 8 7%
Not sure 1 1%
Total 117 100%
3. Thinking about agencies/ organizations that offer support for children birth through 5 and their
families in Arizona, how satisfied are you with the degree to which all Arizona agencies/ organizations
collaborate and communicate with each other?”
Number Percent
Very satisfied 6 4%
Somewhat satisfied 55 38%
Somewhat dissatisfied 56 39%
Very dissatisfied 21 15%
Not sure 6 4%
Total 144 100%
4. Thinking about services for children birth through 5 and their families in Arizona, what is the quality of
services available to support families and promote their children’s optimal development. Number Percent
Excellent 6 4%
Very Good 48 34%
Good 63 44%
Poor 13 9%
Very Poor 3 2%
Not sure 10 7%
Total 143 100%
19
5. Thinking about all services currently available for children
birth through 5 and their families in Arizona, please rate the
degree to which these services currently meet families’ needs
in the areas below.
Poor 2 3 4 Excellent Don’t
Know
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Quality of information for families 4
3%
40
28%
51
35%
27
19%
7
5%
15
10%
Accessibility of information for families 11
8%
70
49%
30
21%
18
13%
1
1%
14
10%
Convenience/ accessibility of services for families 14
10%
53
37%
48
34%
11
8%
2
1%
15
10%
Quality of services for families 6
4%
27
19%
52
36%
37
26%
5
3%
17
12%
Timeliness of services for families 20
14%
43
30%
49
34%
10
7%
1
1%
20
14%
Cultural responsiveness of services for families 11
8%
37
26%
44
31%
16
11%
2
1%
31
22%
Comprehensiveness of services for families 15
10%
49
34%
40
28%
18
13%
4
3%
18
13%
Early identification of problems 14
10%
51
36%
40
28%
19
13%
2
1%
16
11%
Family centered practice ( the needs of the child( ren) are considered in
the context of the whole family)
7
5%
44
31%
44
31%
21
15%
4
3%
21
15%
Client focus ( client opinions are sought and acted upon) 6
4%
47
34%
44
31%
16
11%
1
1%
26
19%
6. Thinking about all services your agency/ organization currently
has available for children birth through 5 and their families in
Arizona, please rate the degree to which your agency’s/ organiza-tion’s
services currently meet families’ needs in the areas below.”
Poor 2 3 4 Excellent Don’t
Know
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Quality of information for families 0
0%
7
6%
27
24%
55
50%
18
16%
4
4%
Accessibility of information for families 3
3%
6
5%
41
37%
44
40%
13
12%
4
4%
Convenience/ accessibility of services for families 1
1%
11
10%
31
28%
47
42%
16
14%
5
5%
Quality of services for families 0
0%
5
5%
16
15%
48
44%
36
33%
5
5%
Timeliness of services for families 0
0%
11
10%
33
30%
38
34%
20
18%
9
8%
Cultural responsiveness of services for families 0
0%
11
10%
20
18%
48
44%
26
24%
5
5%
Comprehensiveness of services for families 1
1%
9
8%
29
26%
49
44%
16
14%
7
6%
Early identification of problems 4
4%
10
9%
30
27%
40
36%
20
18%
7
6%
Family centered practice ( the needs of the child( ren) are considered in
the context of the whole family)
0
0%
9
8%
30
27%
39
35%
28
25%
6
5%
Client focus ( client opinions are sought and acted upon) 0
0%
8
7%
22
20%
44
39%
26
23%
12
11%
20
“ Think about your agency/ organization and other agencies/ organizations that serve children birth through 5, and their families,
in Arizona. To what degree is your agency/ organization currently involved or planning involvement in the following activities or
arrangements with other agencies/ organizations ?”
7. Planning:
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.
Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Thinking
about it Planning Getting
started
Somewhat
active
Actively
doing it
Don’t
Know
Joint planning 9
8%
4
4%
8
7%
38
33%
43
38%
12
11%
“ Ensuring strategic plans, standards, and policies reflect common
goals”
12
11%
5
4%
19
17%
27
24%
37
32%
14
12%
Coordinating planning cycles between agencies/ organizations 14
12%
9
8%
20
18%
34
30%
21
19%
15
13%
Sharing membership of one another’s organizational structures ( e. g.
boards of directors or management committees)
13
12%
9
8%
21
19%
32
29%
15
14%
21
19%
8. Service Delivery:
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.
Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Thinking
about it Planning Getting
started
Somewhat
active
Actively
doing it
Don’t
Know
Referring clients between agencies/ organizations 4
4%
6
5%
10
9%
32
29%
50
45%
8
7%
Joint monitoring or quality assurance of services 14
13%
10
9%
20
18%
33
30%
17
16%
15
14%
Joint service delivery 9
8%
6
6%
22
20%
32
29%
27
25%
13
12%
Joint case management 14
13%
10
9%
15
14%
27
25%
16
15%
27
25%
Sharing costs for services provided to shared clients 14
13%
9
8%
16
15%
18
17%
11
10%
40
37%
9. Shared Information:
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.
Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Thinking
about it Planning Getting
started
Somewhat
active
Actively
doing it
Don’t
Know
“ Exchanging information ( about projects, funding sources etc.)” 7
6%
9
8%
14
12%
41
37%
28
25%
13
12%
Joint promotional campaigns 15
13%
11
10%
18
16%
27
24%
21
19%
20
18%
Sharing Client Information 8
7%
16
14%
14
12%
31
28%
15
13%
28
25%
21
10. Professional Development and Training:
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.
Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Thinking
about it Planning Getting
started
Somewhat
active
Actively
doing it
Don’t
Know
Inter- agency/ organization staff training and professional development 15
14%
6
5%
13
12%
28
25%
29
26%
20
18%
Joint recruitment of personnel 25
24%
12
11%
8
8%
11
10%
6
6%
43
41%
11. Other:
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom
% is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Thinking
about it Planning Getting
started
Somewhat
active
Actively
doing it
Don’t
Know
Inter- agency/ organization meetings 11
10%
5
5%
11
10%
29
26%
39
35%
15
14%
Co- location ( where services may share the same premises) 23
21%
7
6%
12
11%
15
14%
14
13%
40
36%
Using consistent terminology regarding early childhood 6
5%
5
5%
17
15%
36
33%
25
23%
21
19%
Collaborating on consistent messaging regarding early childhood 9
8%
7
6%
19
17%
32
29%
25
23%
18
16%
12. Which statement best describes how you see the assistance provided to children and families to whom you are responsible?
Different agencies/ organizations work closely together most of the time. 34 30%
Different agencies/ organizations work closely together occasionally. 44 39%
Staffs from different services know little about each other’s work. 34 30%
Total 112 100%
13. Which statement best describes how you see your current working relationship with other services in your area?
A well coordinated team of services. 14 12%
A partially coordinated team of services. 75 66%
“ A group of separate, uncoordinated services.” 24 21%
Total 113 100%
14. Are you familiar with the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board or First Things First?
Yes 135 95%
No 5 4%
Not Sure 2 1%
Total 142 100%
“ First Things First’s mission is to increase the quality of, and access to, the early childhood development and health system that ensures
a child entering school comes healthy and ready to succeed. The First Things First mission and vision will be attained through a
comprehensive early childhood system that values children as our greatest asset, and recognizes families and communities at the center
of decision making.”
15. How important is the work of First Things First?
Very Important 119 84%
Important 19 13%
Not very Important 0 0%
Not important at all 0 0%
Don’t know 5 4%
Total 143 100%
22
16. In your view, how accurate are the following statements in describing the actions and policies of First Things First, since its
inception?”
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.
Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.
Not at all
accurate 2 3 4 Highly
accurate
Don’t
Know
First Things First understands the importance of the early years. 1
1%
4
3%
3
2%
24
17%
102
72%
7
5%
First Things First fosters a shared vision among agencies/ organizations
about the needs of children birth through 5.
6
4%
3
2%
27
19%
42
30%
51
36%
12
9%
First Things First has set good priorities for service development. 3
2%
10
7%
19
13%
51
36%
37
26%
21
15%
First Things First understands and respects evidence- based practice. 2
1%
4
3%
17
12%
34
24%
62
44%
21
15%
At First Things First senior managers are committed to facilitating
improvement of services and increasing the degree to which agencies/
organizations work together.
4
3%
6
4%
17
12%
31
22%
53
38%
29
21%
At First Things First senior managers show respect for senior
management from other agencies/ organizations that provide services
to children birth through 5.
6
4%
4
3%
11
8%
33
24%
39
28%
47
34%
First Things First is committed to involving community members in the
development of services for children birth through 5.
4
3%
6
4%
14
10%
36
26%
67
48%
12
9%
First Things First is committed to encouraging and facilitating service
integration to reach out to the most disadvantaged families in the
community.
5
4%
7
5%
19
14%
35
25%
45
32%
29
21%
First Things First is committed to encouraging and facilitating service
integration to support all families and promote their childrens’ optimal
development?
3
2%
7
5%
16
11%
41
29%
50
36%
23
16%
17. What is First Things First already doing that best promotes collaboration and cooperation among agencies/ organizations
serving young children?
66 Responses
18. What might First Things First do differently or change to better promote coordination and collaboration among agencies/
organizations serving young children?
63 Responses
Arizona Early Childhood Coordination and Collaboration:
A Baseline Report
4000 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
( 602) 771- 5045
www. azftf. gov
