Comparing Community Profiles of Risk, Protection and Behavior Outcomes from 6th Grade Self-Report School Surveys to Those Obtained from Parents of Children Ages 0-8

Introduction: Accurate measurement of community levels of risk and protection is a key element of many science-based prevention models.  Assessing representative samples of young children generally pose considerably more challenges than assessing samples of youth via school surveys.  As part of the implementation of the Evidence2Sucess prevention model, a survey of parents of children 0-8 was developed to examine risk, protection and behavior profiles of young children who are too young to self-report on these outcomes validly. Through a random household sample, we obtained a representative sample of parents of children 0-8 in three communities (approximately 400 children per neighborhood).  We used a modified version of the Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey to assess the population of 6^th grade public school students from these same neighborhoods (86% response rate), resulting in approximately 170 sixth grade students per neighborhood. 

Methods: We examine community profiles of risk, protection and outcomes across three inner city neighborhoods obtained with the two methods (household and school surveys) to compare similarities, differences and unique aspects of each profile.  The risk and protective factor profiles use a cut point method (based on the CTC youth survey) to display the comparative levels across different indicators (Arthur et al, 2007; Briney et al, 2012). Sixth grade profiles will be compared to those from the parent report on a number of risk and protective factors (e.g., family conflict, parental involvement in education, community disorganization, transitions and mobility).  Behavioral outcomes differ during these developmental periods, but broad categories—such as conduct problems, emotional regulation, anxiety and depression, prosocial behavior, and relationship with parents—will be compared.  In other words, we use the data from these two surveys to explore whether the profiles of 6^th grade students can be used as a proxy for the needs of children in the early years.

Conclusions: While the household survey provides a scientifically accurate picture of risk, protection and outcomes, it is expensive to administer accurately.  We were able to meet the target response rates using both household and school surveys, but the latter data collection method was much quicker and less costly.  We expect that the results of the analyses will allow us to understand whether measuring risk and protection among older youth, via school surveys, can be used as a close enough proxy for the assessment of younger children. Results can broadly inform prevention efforts seeking cost-efficient data collection methods at the community level.