Early Development Instrument (EDI)Fort Worth Pilot Data Release

August 29, 2017

Implementation Partners

2016 Results from the Early Development Instrument (EDI)

A Snapshot of Children’s Developmentfor Select Fort Worth Neighborhoods

UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities

Lisa StanleyEmily Chan

3

ObjectivesGain a Strong Foundation in the EDI

Purpose & Methods

Results for Fort Worth

Uses for Action (Case Studies)

4

Purpose of the EDI• Community snapshot of children’s health,

development and school readiness • Informs place-based planning to optimize

healthy development for all young children• EDI results are used to:

− Look back and assess how early childhood community can better prepare children for school;

− Look forward to address needs of incoming students as they progress through school.

5

Look Back Look Forward

Purpose Continued

•Catalyst to engages cross-sector partnerships dedicated to improving the lives of children

•Inform planning, investment and actions•Monitor progress over time to assess collective impact and investments

6

• Population focus- Community results reported by neighborhood geography- District receives confidential school level reports- Never reported by child or teacher

• Holistic measure- Covers five developmental domains, 16 subdomains

• Feasible to implement at scale- Collected once every 3 years by K teachers- User-friendly, online observational assessment, recall

• Internationally validated• Developed at McMasters University, Canada• Successfully used in over 15 countries• National indicator in Australia • Strong reliability and validity• EDI Predicts later standardized test scores

EDI Characteristics

7

8

9

EDI Results for Fort WorthWhich data were collected?

10

Summary of EDI Participation 2016

11

School Information

Participating school districts 1

Participating schools 13

Classrooms collecting EDI information 56

Demographic Information EDI Sample FWISD

Children 1,059

Children who are English Language Learners (ELL) 51% 31%Children who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for children with disabilities

5%

Free or Reduced Lunch 95% 81%

Race/Ethnicity:

African‐American, Black 25% 23%

Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander  1% 2%

Hispanic, Latino/a 69% 63%

White 4% 11%

Other  1% 2%

EDI Participation• Pilot year - 2016

• Collected data from children living in nine Fort Worth neighborhoods

• Sufficient saturation to map EDI results in seven of the nine neighborhoods

• Great start!• Future Potential

• Expand EDI within Forth Worth to map additional neighborhoods

• Reach a countywide census to map children’s developmental outcomes for all of Tarrant Co.

12

Where are the strengths and challenges

for the pilot sample?

13

About the 5 EDI Domains

• Physical health− Motor skills, physical readiness

• Social competence− Getting along with peers, respect for others

• Emotional maturity− Emotional wellbeing, feeling sad, fearful, etc.

• Language and cognitive − Abilities with reading, writing, numbers, shapes

• Communication skills− Ability to use language, communicate needs and understand

14

EDI Measurement• Vulnerable – Vulnerable for problems later

• Scoring at or below the 10% percentile normative cutoff • At Risk – Not vulnerable but lower than expected

• Scoring between the 10th and 25th percentile cutoffs• On Track – Meeting developmental milestones

and expected to be successful in later grades• Scoring above the 25th percentile cutoff

15

Vulnerability by City

16*

* Select pilot sample, not city‐wide results

National Average vs Fort Worth SamplePercent of Children Vulnerable, At Risk and On Track

33%

25%

14%

9%

15%

9%

11%

9%

16%

11%

11%

10%

26%

26%

21%

16%

20%

13%

14%

12%

18%

14%

18%

13%

41%

49%

65%

75%

65%

78%

75%

79%

66%

75%

71%

77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FW

National

FW

National

FW

National

FW

National

FW

National

FW

National

Vulnerable At‐Risk On‐Track

Physical Health & Well‐being

Social Competence

Emotional Maturity

Language & Cognitive

Communication Skills & General

All Domains*

17*Note: Results in this category represent the percent of students vulnerable or at risk in 1 or more domains and the percent of students on track in all domains. 

What are the patterns of vulnerability across

neighborhoods?

18

19

20

21

22

23

Case StudiesUsing EDI for Change

24

Washington DC•EDI was impetus to launch Campaign, “Our Children, Our Community, Our Change”

•Tool to engage broad cross-sector partners and make data widely available

•Web portal, repository for EDI results and tools to help build local capacity. http://www.raisedc.org/ourchildren

25

Hartford, CT

26

•Using EDI to engage residents in local action plans

•Overlaying other sector data to improve systems

Pasadena, CA

• EDI informed new City level EC Policy

• Policy has a cross-sector, systems focus

• Engaging parents to inform City’s strategic plan

27

Santa Monica, CA

Citywide Youth Wellbeing Scorecard

Informs Cradle to CareerMaster Plan

Among the on‐the‐ground projectsBuilding Blocks to Kindergarten 

28