programming over multiple sessions. This continues to be an area of potential improvement, but growth during the past programming year is encouraging. Programs in Missouri 21st CCLC are offering relatively high quality program, but would like to see the average score near 3.90 in order to offer program that is more likely to foster youth engagement. External Relationships Four Leading Indicators were included the External Relationships Context: System Norms, Family Engagement, School Alignment, and Community Resources. These four indicators reflect the policies and practices that facilitate communication and collaboration between the afterschool program and external parties. Leading Indicator 3.1 System Norms – The System Norms Leading Indicator represents the extent to which the afterschool program holds itself accountable for providing high quality services as well as being able to collaborate with other programs in their network. Leading Indicator 3.1 System Norms: Scale Scores MO 21CCLC MO 21CCLC PROMPT: How true are the following statements regarding accountability for quality services? (1=Almost 2013-2014 2014-15 never true, 3=True about half of the time, 5=Almost always true) (N=154) (N=162) 4.63 4.68 Accountability Our program is held accountable for the quality, including point of service quality (i.e., 4.75 4.80 relationships, instruction) 4.46 4.54 Our program is routinely monitored by higher level administrators In our program all staff are familiar with standards of quality 4.69 4.70 Data Source: Project Director/Site Coordinator Survey MO 21CCLC MO 21CCLC PROMPT: How true are the following statements regarding collaboration? (1=Almost never true, 3=True 2013-2014 2014-15 about half of the time, 5=Almost always true) (N=154) (N=162) 4.48 4.56 Collaboration 4.37 4.44 Collaboration across sites is strongly encouraged by network administrators Site supervisors in our network share a similar definition of high quality services 4.61 4.69 Data Source: Project Director/Site Coordinator Survey Key Points: Project directors and site coordinators report that they are familiar with and accountable for standards of quality. Project directors and site coordinators report that they collaborate across sites and share a similar definition of quality. Leading Indicator 3.2 Family Engagement – The Family Engagement Leading Indicator measures the extent to the afterschool program is connected and communicating effectively with the family members of the youth they serve. Leading Indicator 3.2 Family Engagement: Scores
programming over multiple sessions. This continues to be an area of potential improvement, but growth during the past programming year is encouraging. Programs in Missouri 21st CCLC are offering relatively high quality program, but would like to see the average score near 3.90 in order to offer program that is more likely to foster youth engagement. External Relationships Four Leading Indicators were included the External Relationships Context: System Norms, Family Engagement, School Alignment, and Community Resources. These four indicators reflect the policies and practices that facilitate communication and collaboration between the afterschool program and external parties. Leading Indicator 3.1 – System Norms The System Norms Leading Indicator represents the extent to which the afterschool program holds itself accountable for providing high quality services as well as being able to collaborate with other programs in their network. Leading Indicator 3.1 System Norms: Scale Scores PROMPT: How true are the following statements regarding accountability for quality services? (1=Almost never true, 3=True about half of the time, 5=Almost always true) MO 21CCLC 2013-2014 MO 21CCLC 2014-15 (N=154) (N=162) Accountability 4.63 4.68 Our program is held accountable for the quality, including point of service quality (i.e., relationships, instruction) 4.75 4.80 Our program is routinely monitored by higher level administrators 4.46 4.54 In our program all staff are familiar with standards of quality 4.69 4.70 Data Source: Project Director/Site Coordinator Survey PROMPT: How true are the following statements regarding collaboration? (1=Almost never true, 3=True about half of the time, 5=Almost always true) MO 21CCLC 2013-2014 MO 21CCLC 2014-15 (N=154) (N=162) Collaboration 4.48 4.56 Collaboration across sites is strongly encouraged by network administrators 4.37 4.44 Site supervisors in our network share a similar definition of high quality services 4.61 4.69 Data Source: Project Director/Site Coordinator Survey Key Points: Project directors and site coordinators report that they are familiar with and accountable for standards of quality. Project directors and site coordinators report that they collaborate across sites and share a similar definition of quality. Leading Indicator 3.2 – Family Engagement The Family Engagement Leading Indicator measures the extent to the afterschool program is connected and communicating effectively with the family members of the youth they serve. Leading Indicator 3.2 Family Engagement: Scores
Appendix%20to%202014-15%20Statewide%20Evaluation%20-%20Complete%20Leading%20Indicator%20Data.docx