SCHOOL YEAR - PDF Free Download

EARLY DEVELOPMET ISTRUMET (EDI) COMMUITY PROFILE EL PASO, TEXAS SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012

We would like to express our appreciation to the kindergarten teachers in El Paso for collecting the EDI information that is used in this report. Their work will heavily inform local planning efforts and result in meaningful progress to improve school readiness. Prepared by: UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. For information regarding this report, contact TECCS@mednet.ucla.edu The EDI is part of a national initiative called Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems (TECCS), developed to help match proven school readiness solutions with the unique needs faced by communities. TECCS represents a partnership between the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities and the United Way Worldwide. The TECCS initiative is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the communities in which TECCS is being implemented. The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster For questions regarding licensing, email: TECCS@mednet.ucla.edu McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies

Table of Contents A. ITRODUCTIO 1 Purpose 1 Overview of contents 1 Contacts and resources 1 B. BACKGROUD 2 The TECCS Initiative 2 Description of the EDI 2 Table 1. Description of EDI Developmental Domains 3 Understanding EDI results 4 Limitations of the data 5 School district participation rates 6 Table 2. Percent of Schools Participating in the EDI by School District, 2012 6 Geographic boundaries used for reporting results 6 Table 3. EDI Participation Rates by eighborhood, 2012 8 Figure 1. umber of EDI Checklists in Analysis, 2012 9 C. MAPPED RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA 10 Figure 2. EDI Map Legend 10 Figure 3. Ranges Used in the EDI Maps for the Percent of Children Vulnerable 11 Child developmental outcomes 12 Figure 4. Map ID Key by eighborhood 13 Map 1 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains 14 Map 2 Children Vulnerable in the Physical Health and Well-being Domain 16 Map 3 Children Vulnerable in the Social Competence Domain 18 Map 4 Children Vulnerable in the Emotional Maturity Domain 20 Map 5 Children Vulnerable in the Language and Cognitive Development Domain 22 Map 6 Children Vulnerable in the Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain 24 Map 7 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of Vulnerabilities by Domain 26

Map 8 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families with Children in Poverty 28 Map 9 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single Parent Families 30 Map 10 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current Residence 32 Map 11 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Children Enrolled in Preschool/ursery School 34 Map 12 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Community Assets 36 Map 13 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Child Care Sites 38 D. DATA TABLES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA 40 Five domains of child development 40 Table 4. EDI Community Profile Summary, 2012 41 Percentage of children vulnerable and very ready by domain & geographic area 43 Table 5. EDI Domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012 43 Table 6. EDI Domain: Social Competence, 2012 44 Table 7. EDI Domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012 45 Table 8. EDI Domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012 46 Table 9. EDI Domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012 48 Overview of sub-domains 50 Table 10. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being 50 Table 11. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence 51 Table 12. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity 51 Table 13. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development 52 Table 14. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge 52 Sub-domain scores by geographic area 53 Table 15. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012 53 Table 16. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence, 2012 54 Table 17. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012 56 Table 18. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012 58 Table 19. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012 60 Multiple Challenge Index 61 Table 20. Percentage of Children with Multiple Challenges on EDI, 2012 61 Descriptive characteristics of the children by geographic area 63 Table 21. Gender, Age, ELL, and IEP Status of EDI Participants, 2012 63 Table 22. Race/Ethnicity of EDI Participants, 2012 64 Table 23. Previous Child Care Arrangement of EDI Participants, 2012 66 E. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 68

APPEDIX 71 Appendix A. EDI Items by Domain and Sub-domain 71 Appendix B. Description of EDI Maps 75

A. Introduction Purpose The Early Development Instrument (EDI) Community Profile provides local policymakers and key community stakeholders with local level information on children s developmental outcomes during the kindergarten year. The Profile maps the information on children s development by geographic area (such as neighborhoods or census tracts) along with other indicators including socio-demographic characteristics and community assets in order to help understand possible factors contributing to the observed outcomes in children. The EDI Community Profile is designed to mobilize and engage local leaders around a data-driven and action-oriented process to inform local planning and improvement activities. The Profile helps early childhood stakeholders look back to assess how to support school readiness and to look forward to plan programs and improve systems that will help children succeed throughout the school years and beyond. Over time, the data in the Profile can be tracked to help assess the impact of past investments made on behalf of young children and families and to demonstrate the importance of sustaining resources dedicated to early childhood. Overview of contents Section B: Background, first provides some context about how the EDI is part of a national initiative to engage communities around a data-driven process to improve developmental outcomes for children. This section then describes the EDI and how to understand and interpret the maps and tables including a discussion of the school district participation rates, the geographic boundaries that were used for reporting data and the limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting and using the data for local planning and improvement activities. Section C: Mapped Results by Geographic Area, provides a quick and user-friendly way for communities to reflect on the differences in child outcomes across the local community. The EDI maps highlight where children are doing better or worse in particular geographic and developmental areas and how community level assets (such as early childhood and family support services) relate to community level developmental outcomes for children. Section D: Data Tables by Geographic Area, provides a more detailed understanding of children s developmental outcomes and their demographic characteristics by geographic area. Section E: Glossary of Terms, defines common terms found throughout the Profile. Contacts and resources Below are some key contacts and resources for learning more about the EDI: For questions regarding the EDI Community Profile, please contact TECCS@mednet.ucla.edu. 1

For information about TECCS, the EDI and the Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, visit, www.teccs.net and www.healthychild.ucla.edu For information about the United Way Worldwide, visit www.liveunited.org and www.bornlearning.org For information on how the EDI has been used in Canada, visit the websites at the Offord Centre for Child Studies (http://www.offordcentre.com/) and the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) (http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/). For information on how the EDI is used in Australia, visit the Centre for Community Child Health s website (http://www.rch.org.au/australianedi/index.cfm?doc_id=6210). B. Background The TECCS Initiative Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems (TECCS) is a national initiative developed through a partnership between the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities (UCLA CHCFC) and the United Way Worldwide. The goal of TECCS is to improve the school readiness of all children in a community by regularly measuring and mapping developmental progress at a population level. This information is used to mobilize local partners around a data driven process to inform the development of early childhood service systems. TECCS has four core components: 1) Measurement and Mapping; 2) Community Engagement; 3) Shared Learning etwork; and 4) Targeted, Place-Based Systems Improvement. The TECCS initiative is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the communities in which TECCS is being implemented. TECCS is comparatively new to the United States and is currently in its fourth year of implementation. In Year 1 (2009), it was piloted in California s Orange and Los Angeles Counties. In Year 2, TECCS expanded to 14 sites including cities in California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, ew York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. By Year 3, 18 sites participated involving over 800 teachers, 18,000 kindergarten students in 67 school districts. ow completing a fourth year, a total of thirty 30 communities are participating in TECCS. Over the course of the past four years, EDI information has been collected on over 49,000 kindergarten students. Description of the EDI The EDI Community Profile uses the Early Development Instrument (EDI) developed by Dan Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University in Canada. As part of TECCS, the UCLA CHCFC is under license from McMaster University to implement the EDI with sites in the US. The EDI has 103 core items and is an observational checklist, based on recall that is completed by kindergarten teachers on each child in their class. 2

Teachers typically fill out the EDI in the second half of the school year. 1 The EDI requires approximately 10-15 minutes per child to complete. Information collected using the EDI is reported at a group level (e.g. for a census tract, neighborhood, city, etc) and is never reported on individual children or used as a screening or diagnostic tool for children. The EDI contains five core domains which are described in Table 1, along with a count of the number of items included in each domain. These domains are further divided into sub-domains, which are explained in Section D, Overview of sub-domains. Appendix A lists the items comprising each domain and sub-domain. Table 1. Description of EDI Developmental Domains Domain Description umber of Items Physical Health and Well-being Social Competence Emotional Maturity Language and Cognitive Development Communication Skills and General Knowledge Absence of disease or impairment, access to adequate and appropriate nutrition, and gross and fine motor skills. ecessary gross and fine motor abilities to complete common kindergarten and first grade tasks, including items such as controlling a pencil or turning pages without tearing the pages. Children need to meet general standards of acceptable behavior in public places, control their behavior, cooperate with others, show respect for adult authority, and communicate feelings and needs in a socially acceptable manner. Emotional maturity is characterized by a balance between a child s curiosity about the world, an eagerness to try new experiences, and some ability to reflect before acting. A child who is fearful and reluctant to engage in new activities misses learning opportunities that are seized upon by a child with a positive approach to life. Language skills refer to vocabulary size and a child s ability to name letters and attend to the component sounds within words. Cognitive skills involve the ways in which children perceive, organize, and analyze information. Children must be able to understand verbal communications with other adults and children and to verbally communicate experiences, ideas, wishes, and feelings in a way that can be understood by others. 13 26 30 26 8 1 Publisher requires that the EDI be completed no earlier than the third month of the school year and no later than the eighth month of the school year. 3

Understanding EDI results The EDI Community Profile depicts the percent of children vulnerable and very ready by geographic area for each of the five developmental domains. To calculate these percentages, four analytic steps were followed: 1) Determined which EDI records were valid for analysis; 2) Calculated the average score per record on each of the five domains; 3) Applied the normative population cutoffs (established in 2009-2010) to each record valid for analysis; and 4) Created the derived variables to determine each child s vulnerability and very ready status by domain. These steps are explained further in the paragraphs below. Determined which EDI records were valid for analysis. The following two criteria were applied: a) Child must have been in the classroom for more than one month; and b) The EDI must have at least four of the five domains completed by the kindergarten teacher. The percent of records valid for analysis for this EDI Community Profile is listed later in this report (see Figure 1). Scored each record. For each record, an average score on each of the five domains was calculated by adding up the scores for all of the core items in that domain and dividing by the total number of core items comprising the domain. This average score then allows each record to be compared to the normative population cutoffs, specifically the vulnerable and very ready cutoffs, which are described below. Applied the normative population cutoffs. The normative population cutoffs were determined using school year 2009-2010 data to set a representative benchmark which helps to compare how children are doing developmentally both across sites and across years. To establish these cutoffs, an average score for each domain was first developed per child with data valid for analysis (=10,244). The averages for all records valid for analysis were then sorted from lowest to highest to determine the 10 th and the 75 th percentile population cutoffs for each developmental domain. The 10 th percentile is the EDI score below which 10% of the children are found and this corresponds to the vulnerable category. The 75th percentile is the EDI score below which 75% of the children are found and this corresponds to the very ready category. Created derived variables. Derived variables were created using the publisher s proprietary syntax to determine the vulnerability and very ready status of each child on each domain. Children are defined as vulnerable in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at or below the 10th percentile population cutoff. Conversely, children in this report are very ready in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at or above the 75th percentile cutoff. In order to use the EDI results for effective local planning and improvement efforts, it is important to consider a variety of factors that will further the understanding about what is 4

working in neighborhoods for young children. For instance, it is important to consider EDI data in light of other important indicators that can help explain the potential reasons for the observed outcomes in child development. To do this, planners should consider community characteristics such as the percent of families living in poverty or the degree of linguistic isolation. They should also consider community assets such as investments made by the region that are dedicated to young children and the quantity, quality and accessibility of services. This information can provide insight into how service inputs in a community relate to the developmental outcomes observed for children and to identify potential service gaps as well as the areas where investments appear to be working. It is also important to consider EDI data in light of both the percent and the actual number of children vulnerable in a community. This is important because in comparing communities, it may be that in one community, there is a relatively high percent vulnerability, but this may translate to a small number of children; whereas in another community, there may be a lower percent of vulnerability but this translates to a much larger number of children falling into the vulnerable category. Without thoughtful consideration of factors such as these, planners run the risk of drawing erroneous conclusions. For instance, redirecting funding from neighborhoods that are showing a lower percent of children vulnerable to those with a higher percent of children vulnerable may not be appropriate when the higher risk community only involves a very small number of children or when the lower risk community has achieved these results because of sustained and effective prevention and/or intervention programs. In this latter case, redirecting resources away from lower risk communities could regrettably result in defunding strategies that are actually achieving positive outcomes for children. Limitations of the data For the EDI Community Profile to accurately reflect children s development by geographic area, it is important to achieve a near census of all children living in each neighborhood. To achieve a census, it is necessary for all schools serving each neighborhood to participate in the EDI data collection effort. We conducted a series of randomized samples of individual child data and have discovered that the vulnerability rates are consistent when at least 70% of children living in the target community have completed EDIs. Though it is often difficult to achieve a full census, we considered data to most likely be representative of children in a community when at least 70% of children participate in a given geographic area. Where this 70% threshold was not met, we have made note to the reader in the maps and data tables that caution is warranted in interpreting the results. We have provided Table 3 to indicate the percent of children living in each geographic area that have an EDI valid for analysis. We have also noted cautions in interpreting data for neighborhoods that have a small number (). While we do not report data for geographic areas with fewer than 10 valid EDI records, some sites nevertheless have a small with slightly more than 10 records valid for analysis. 5

School district participation rates The EDI Community Profile reflects data collected by participating kindergarten teachers during the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, data were combined from the prior two years for schools that exclusively participated in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but did not participate in 2011-2012. By combining data from schools over three consecutive years, the Profile provides a more complete picture of the community results. Table 2 shows the percent of schools from each district that participated in the EDI data collection effort, as well as the number and percent of EDI questionnaires valid for analysis that were collected in that district. Though the data are collected by kindergarten teachers (and each school receives a confidential school report for children in their school), the data in this Profile are not depicted by school. Rather, this report depicts the data by the neighborhood in which the child resides. Since the goal of the EDI is to achieve a near census of all children living in the community, it is recommended that all schools serving each neighborhood participate in the EDI data collection effort. Table 2 can be used in conjunction with Table 3 to help target recruitment activities and bring additional schools into the EDI data collection effort as a key strategy to increase the representativeness of the data and ultimately to achieve a near census of all children living in the community. Table 2. Percent of Schools Participating in the EDI by School District, 2012 El Paso Independent School District Socorro Independent School District umber of Participating Schools 1 umber of Schools in Districts 2 Percent Participation umber and Percent of EDI Questionnaires Valid for Analysis 1 2 57 4% 141 (90%) 22 25 88% 1,995 (83%) Total 24 82 29% 2,136 (83%) 1. The EDI Community Profile reflects data collected by participating kindergarten teachers during the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, data were combined from the prior two years for schools that exclusively participated in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but did not participate in 2011-2012. 2. As reported in the District Profile. Geographic boundaries used for reporting results To facilitate both communitywide and more localized planning efforts, the EDI Community Profile presents the data by local geographic boundaries, such as neighborhoods or an aggregation of census geographies within the city or county. UCLA CHCFC worked with communities to identify the most relevant geographic boundaries to use in this report. Criteria which guided the selection of geographic boundaries included that they should be: 1) Contiguous (no gaps and no overlapping boundaries); 2) Small enough to identify distinct populations of children but large enough to represent a distinct, community defined 6

neighborhood; 3) Useful from a local planning perspective; 4) Consistent with census lines to maximize data analysis opportunities; and 5) Inclusive of the entire target geography. The maps in this report are based on the geographic boundaries established by sites. In communities that chose to use the neighborhood as their geographic boundary, local policymakers and community members were advised to define the neighborhood as a distinct and relatively small geographic area. In some cases, community defined neighborhoods were developed by working with local partners to convene neighborhood groups to jointly define neighborhood boundaries. UCLA used these neighborhood boundaries to create GIS (Geographic Information Systems) shape files for the EDI data maps. Table 3 shows the EDI participation rate for each geographic area that was within the larger target geography for the local initiative. The EDI participation rate was calculated based on dividing the total number of kindergarten students living in the geographic area that had valid EDI records (the numerator) by the estimated total number of kindergarten age children living in the geographic area (the denominator). Estimates for the denominator come from the 2010 Census. It is recommended that communities achieve at least a 70% EDI participation rate. Ideally, the EDI is designed to be a near census of all children and therefore all schools serving children in the geographic area should collect EDI data. A double asterisk in Table 3 next to the name of the geographic area indicates locations where fewer than 70% of kindergarten age children had EDIs valid for analysis. In these cases, results may not be representative of all children living there and therefore it is recommended that additional schools serving children in that area are recruited into the EDI data collection effort to increase the EDI participation rate. For reasons of confidentiality, where fewer than 10 valid EDI records were available for a given geographic area, this area (e.g. neighborhood) was suppressed (i.e. not reported). These neighborhoods are shaded in gray in Table 3. Fewer than 10 records can occur if the neighborhood has a very small kindergarten population or if there was a low EDI participation rate from the schools serving children living in the neighborhood. 7

Table 3. EDI Participation Rates by eighborhood, 2012 eighborhood ame (% Participation) 000101 (13%)** 003200 (3%)** 010325 (70%) 010339 (51%)** 010405 (62%)** 000205 (24%)** 004307 (2%)** 010326 (36%)** 010341 (63%)** 010408 (>100%)* 000206 (1%)** 004313 (3%)** 010327 (24%)** 010342 (16%)** 010409 (70%) 000207 (1%)** 004314 (71%) 010328 (73%) 010343 (18%)** Americas (36%)** 000301 (86%) 004319 (82%) 010329 (47%)** 010344 (55%)** Cedar Groove (1%)** 000302 (6%)** 004320 (47%)** 010330 (21%)** 010345 (68%)** Pecan Groove (1%)** 002202 (2%)** 010212 (2%)** 010331 (67%)** 010346 (>100%)* Placitas del Rey (30%)** 002300 (1%)** 010322 (76%) 010332 (7%)** 010347 (36%)** Ranchos del Sol (47%)** 002400 (2%)** 010323 (66%)** 010334 (39%)** 010401 (>100%)* Stone Ridge (15%)** 002500 (1%)** 010324 (65%)** 010336 (32%)** 010404 (44%)** Thomas Manor (1%)** Shaded cells indicate that the geographic area has fewer than 10 valid EDI records. * EDI participation rates that exceed 100% are likely due to population fluctuations not captured in the census. Population data may be under counted or over counted by the census based on inconsistent citizen participation. ** Census estimates indicate that EDI data was collected on less than 70% of kindergarten age children living in this geographic area and therefore caution is warranted as the results may not be representative of all kindergarten age children living here. Figure 1 below illustrates the total number of EDIs collected and how the final presented in this Community Profile was derived. We provide this information to help local EDI coordinators determine why some data had to be excluded from the analysis and how to target data collection improvement efforts in the future. Below are a few explanations worth noting: Geocoded records are those that were able to be located on a map. ot geocoded are those records that either had incomplete home addresses or addresses that could not be located on the address locator data file, potentially because they were located on newly created roads that were not yet included in national databases or because more than one location was identified for the address. Other records are those not valid when: the student was in the class less than one month; the student moved out of the school or classroom; the teacher did not specify whether the child was in the class for at least one month; or the parent opted out. Mapped records are those that were used to create the EDI maps and tables in this report. Suppressed are those that were not mapped because the child either resides in a neighborhood with less than 10 EDI records or resides outside of the study area 8

Figure 1. umber of EDI Checklists in Analysis, 2012 umber of EDI records collected 2,570 Records valid for analysis 2,136 (83.1%) Records not valid for analysis 434 (16.9%) Geocoded records 2,129 (82.8%) ot geocoded records 7 (0.3%) Teacher left 2 or more domains of Checklist incomplete 33 (1.3%) Other 401 (15.6%) Mapped records 2,110 (82.1%) Suppressed records 19 (0.7%) Resides outside of the study area 0 (0%) Resides in neighborhood with <10 records 19 (0.7%) 9

C. Mapped Results by Geographic Area The EDI data are mapped by geographic area, such as by neighborhood or census tract. The EDI maps also overlay other indicators including socio-demographic characteristics and community assets in order to help understand the factors contributing to the observed outcomes in children. The maps are designed to provide early childhood stakeholders with data for communities to reflect on where children are doing better or worse in particular geographic and developmental areas and how community level assets (such as early childhood and family support services) relate to community level developmental outcomes for children. The first set of maps (Maps 1-7) present the EDI data by geographic area and then the second set of maps (Maps 8-13) overlay EDI data with a variety of other socio-demographic indicators and community assets. The maps assign each geographic area into one of five, color-shaded categories that represent increasing levels of vulnerability rates in that community. The legend in Figure 2 is used for all EDI maps and shows that the darker shades of green indicate a higher percentage of children vulnerable and the lighter shades of green indicate a lower percentage of children vulnerable. Figure 2. EDI Map Legend Each category of shading represents a range of values for the percent of children vulnerable in a neighborhood. The white box in the legend indicates that no children from that neighborhood participated in the EDI or that data were suppressed because fewer than 10 children had EDI data that were valid for analysis. 10

The range of values, unique to each of the five developmental domains, was established using standard deviations. To calculate the standard deviations, the national average percentage of children vulnerable for a neighborhood was calculated for each domain. The break points for the range values were set using 0.5 standard deviations from the national average. The national average is interpreted as what would be the expected norm for any given neighborhood, based on the national data collected in 2010. In the legend shown in Figure 2, the expected norm corresponds to the shade of green that lies in the middle of the scale (i.e. the third shaded box from the top). This range is 0.25 standard deviations below and 0.25 standard deviations above the national average, thus creating a range of 0.5 of the standard deviation. The other four shades of green in the legend have a 0.5 standard deviation range as well. The two shaded boxes appearing above the middle box (expected norm) reflect neighborhoods doing increasingly better than the expected norm (i.e. progressively smaller percentages of children with vulnerability). Conversely, the two shaded boxes appearing below the middle box reflect neighborhoods doing increasingly worse than the expected norm (i.e. progressively larger percentages of children with vulnerability). Figure 3 below shows the actual ranges used in the EDI maps for the percent of children vulnerable in each of the five developmental domains and for the measure of vulnerable on two or more domain. These were used to create the shading schemes in the EDI maps. ote that range values differ across domains because the expected norm differs by domain. Figure 3. Ranges Used in the EDI Maps for the Percent of Children Vulnerable Physical Health and Well-being Social Competence Emotional Maturity Language and Cognitive Development Communication and General Knowledge Developmentally Vulnerable on 2 or More Domains 0% - 6% 0% - 4% 0% - 5% 0% - 4% 0% - 4% 0% - 7% 7% - 11% 5% - 8% 6% - 9% 5% - 8% 5% - 8% 8% - 12% 12% - 15% 9% - 12% 10% - 14% 9% - 13% 9% - 12% 13% - 16% 16% - 20% 13% - 16% 15% - 18% 14% - 17% 13% - 16% 17% - 21% 21% or more 17% or more 19% or more 18% or more 17% or more 22% or more 11

Child developmental outcomes Maps 1-7 present the EDI data by geographic area. Below is a list of the maps in this section: Map 1 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains Map 2 Children Vulnerable in the Physical Health and Well-being Domain Map 3 Children Vulnerable in the Social Competence Domain Map 4 Children Vulnerable in the Emotional Maturity Domain Map 5 Children Vulnerable in the Language and Cognitive Development Domain Map 6 Children Vulnerable in the Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain Map 7 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of Vulnerabilities by Domain Community indicators and assets Maps 8-13 present the EDI data overlaid with a variety of other socio-demographic indicators and community assets. All of the socio-demographic and community assets are overlaid onto the same base EDI map which depicts the proportion of children vulnerable on two or more developmental domains. Below is a list of the maps in this section. Map 8 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families with Children in Poverty Map 9 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single Parent Families Map 10 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current Residence Map 11 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent Enrollment in ursery School/Preschool Map 12 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Community Assets Map 13 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Child Care Sites ote: Please see Appendix B for a description of maps 7-13. 12

Figure 4. Map ID Key by eighborhood Map ID eighborhood Map ID eighborhood 1 000101 19 010336 2 000205 20 010339 3 000301 21 010341 4 004314 22 010342 5 004319 23 010343 6 004320 24 010344 7 010322 25 010345 8 010323 26 010346 9 010324 27 010347 10 010325 28 010401 11 010326 29 010404 12 010327 30 010405 13 010328 31 010408 14 010329 32 010409 15 010330 33 Americas 16 010331 34 Placitas del Rey 17 010332 35 Ranchos del Sol 18 010334 36 Stone Ridge 13

Map 1 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 14

The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 15

Map 2 Children Vulnerable in the Physical Health and Well-being Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 16

Map 3 Children Vulnerable in the Social Competence Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 18

Map 4 Children Vulnerable in the Emotional Maturity Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 20

Map 5 Children Vulnerable in the Language and Cognitive Development Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 22

Map 6 Children Vulnerable in the Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 24

Map 7 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of Vulnerabilities by Domain The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 26

Map 8 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families with Children in Poverty The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 28

Map 9 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single Parent Families The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 30

Map 10 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current Residence The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 32

Map 11 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Children Enrolled in Preschool/ursery School The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 34

Map 12 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Community Assets The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 36

Map 13 Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Child Care Sites The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster. McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies 38

D. Data Tables by Geographic Area The tables in this section offer a more detailed look at children s developmental outcomes and provide a description of their demographic characteristics by geographic area. Five domains of child development Table 4 shows for each area, the number () and percent of children by EDI domain that are considered developmentally vulnerable, meaning they scored at or below the 10 th percentile vulnerability cutoff. The second to last column shows the number and percent of children who were vulnerable on two or more developmental domains. Additionally, the last column displays the number and percent of children who were very ready on four or more domains; that is, they scored at or above the 75 th percentile for at least four out of the five domains. The bottom row lists the total results for all of the children living in the community with completed EDIs. 40

Table 4. EDI Community Profile Summary, 2012 Map ID eighborhood ame * Physical Health and Well-being (%) Proportion of Children Developmentally Vulnerable by Domain Social Competence (%) Emotional Maturity (%) Language and Cognitive Development (%) Communication Skills and General Knowledge (%) Developmentally Vulnerable on 2+ Domains (%) Developmentally Very on 4+ Domains 1 000101** 13 3 (23%) 4 (31%) 2 (18%) 3 (23%) 5 (38%) 5 (38%) 1 (8%) 2 000205** 16 8 (50%) 6 (38%) 4 (27%) 1 (6%) 4 (25%) 6 (38%) 1 (6%) 3 000301 100 5 (5%) 2 (2%) 3 (3%) 4 (4%) 8 (8%) 4 (4%) 20 (20%) 4 004314 48 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 6 (13%) 4 (8%) 5 004319 46 1 (2%) 7 (15%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 8 (17%) 6 004320** 25 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 7 010322 67 4 (6%) 5 (7%) 6 (9%) 3 (4%) 5 (7%) 7 (10%) 7 (10%) 8 010323** 48 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 9 010324** 105 9 (9%) 6 (6%) 8 (8%) 6 (6%) 11 (10%) 9 (9%) 17 (16%) 10 010325 130 7 (5%) 13 (10%) 11 (8%) 7 (5%) 9 (7%) 13 (10%) 32 (25%) 11 010326** 23 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (13%) 4 (17%) 5 (22%) 4 (17%) 7 (30%) 12 010327** 12 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 13 010328 32 2 (6%) 6 (19%) 3 (10%) 2 (6%) 4 (13%) 6 (19%) 8 (25%) 14 010329** 52 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%) 17 (33%) 15 010330** 55 3 (5%) 3 (5%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 3 (5%) 25 (45%) 16 010331** 155 10 (6%) 19 (12%) 21 (14%) 9 (6%) 17 (11%) 20 (13%) 50 (32%) 17 010332** 15 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 2 (13%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 18 010334** 27 4 (15%) 8 (30%) 1 (4%) 6 (22%) 9 (33%) 7 (26%) 4 (15%) 19 010336** 44 2 (5%) 4 (9%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 10 (23%) 20 010339** 48 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 21 (44%) 21 010341** 203 11 (5%) 13 (6%) 8 (4%) 10 (5%) 13 (6%) 14 (7%) 25 (12%) 22 010342** 46 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 1 (2%) 4 (9%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 14 (30%) (%) 41

Map ID eighborhood ame * Physical Health and Well-being (%) Proportion of Children Developmentally Vulnerable by Domain Social Competence (%) Emotional Maturity (%) Language and Cognitive Development (%) Communication Skills and General Knowledge (%) Developmentally Vulnerable on 2+ Domains (%) Developmentally Very on 4+ Domains 23 010343** 23 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 14 (61%) 24 010344** 37 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 9 (24%) 25 010345** 103 4 (4%) 7 (7%) 5 (5%) 6 (6%) 5 (5%) 6 (6%) 36 (35%) 26 010346 73 4 (5%) 4 (5%) 3 (4%) 6 (8%) 6 (8%) 6 (8%) 26 (36%) 27 010347** 30 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 7 (23%) 28 010401 113 6 (5%) 9 (8%) 5 (5%) 6 (5%) 14 (12%) 9 (8%) 23 (20%) 29 010404** 38 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 6 (16%) 30 010405** 76 2 (3%) 3 (4%) 4 (5%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 4 (5%) 19 (25%) 31 010408 69 8 (12%) 9 (13%) 4 (6%) 7 (10%) 8 (12%) 10 (14%) 24 (35%) 32 010409 92 3 (3%) 6 (7%) 2 (2%) 6 (7%) 9 (10%) 8 (9%) 34 (37%) 33 Americas** 39 3 (8%) 7 (18%) 4 (10%) 3 (8%) 7 (18%) 7 (18%) 6 (15%) 34 Placitas del Rey** 37 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 16 (43%) 35 Ranchos del Sol** 57 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (5%) 2 (4%) 22 (39%) 36 Stone Ridge** 13 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 4 (31%) Community-wide 2,110 123 (6%) 172 (8%) 125 (6%) 117 (6%) 188 (9%) 192 (9%) 536 (25%) Data Source: Teacher Reported EDI Checklist * is the number of checklists valid for analysis received for a geographic area. The actual for each domain may be lower (refer to Tables 5-9 for the by domain). ** Data collected on < 70% of children living in this geographic area and therefore caution is warranted as the data may not be representative of all children living here. (%) 42

Percentage of children vulnerable and very ready by domain & geographic area Tables 5-9 show the percentage of kindergarteners who are categorized as vulnerable and very ready in each EDI domain by geographic area. A child is considered developmentally vulnerable if their EDI score is at or below the 10 th percentile. Conversely, a child is considered to be very ready if their EDI score is at or above the 75 th percentile. The column is the number of EDI Checklists with data valid for analysis in that specific domain. Table 5. EDI Domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012 Map ID eighborhood ame % of Children Developmentally Vulnerable % of Children Very 1 000101 13 23% 8% 2 000205 16 50% 6% 3 000301 100 5% 41% 4 004314 48 10% 23% 5 004319 46 2% 26% 6 004320 25 8% 36% 7 010322 67 6% 43% 8 010323 48 2% 42% 9 010324 105 9% 29% 10 010325 130 5% 41% 11 010326 23 0% 39% 12 010327 12 8% 50% 13 010328 32 6% 56% 14 010329 52 4% 48% 15 010330 55 5% 51% 16 010331 155 6% 57% 17 010332 15 0% 60% 18 010334 27 15% 33% 19 010336 44 5% 39% 20 010339 48 6% 69% 21 010341 203 5% 26% 22 010342 46 2% 52% 23 010343 23 0% 70% 24 010344 37 5% 32% 25 010345 103 4% 63% 26 010346 73 5% 48% 27 010347 30 3% 30% 43