cims (client information management system) child &...

October 2011

CIMS (Client Information Management System)

Pilot Project for Nipissing District

Child & Family Centres (CFCs)

July – September, 2011;

Evaluation and Results

Authors:

Emma Langdon, Data Coordinator

Dave Plumstead, DNSSAB Research Analyst

October 2011

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES 1

LIST OF FIGURES 1

1.0 PREAMBLE 2

1.1 PURPOSE 2 1.2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 1.2.1 CIMS PILOT PROJECT TEAM 2

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

3.0 BACKGROUND 5

3.1 NIPISSING DISTRICT CHILDRENS SERVICES PLANNING TABLE (NDCSPT) 5 3.2 NIPISSING DISTRICT CHILD & FAMILY CENTRES (CFCS) 5 3.3 DATA COLLECTION FOR NIPISSING’S ELCC SECTOR 5 3.4 STATUS QUO (PRESENT INFORMATION AND DATA SYSTEM) 6 3.4.1 STATUS QUO: ATTENDANCE 7

4.0 MAJOR REQUIREMENTS OF AN INFORMATION AND DATA SYSTEM FOR THE CFCS 8

4.1 REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR A CFC INFORMATION AND DATA SYSTEM 9 4.2 CLIENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CIMS) 9 4.3 OVERVIEW OF CIMS SYSTEM 10 4.3.1 KIOSK ATTENDANCE 10 4.3.2 TALLY SHEET ATTENDANCE 11 4.3.3 ATTENDANCE (ATTENDANCE) 11 4.4 BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS – PRE CIMS PILOT 11 4.5 INFORMATION COLLECTED 12 4.6 CIMS PILOT LIMITATIONS (SEE ALSO, ‘SCOPE’) 13

5.0 CIMS PILOT PROJECT 15

5.1 OBJECTIVES OF CIMS PILOT 15 5.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE 15 5.3 PROJECT DETAILS 15 5.3.1 SCOPE 15 5.3.2 COST 16 5.3.3 TIMEFRAME 16 5.3.4 TECHNICAL 16 5.4 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 17 5.4.1 CIMS 17

October 2011

5.4.2 STATUS QUO INFORMATION AND DATA SYSTEM –OEYC DATABASE 21 5.4.3 CFC OPERATIONS 23

6.0 CIMS EVALUATION 26

6.1 TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY 26 6.2 EFFECTIVENESS: ACHIEVING THE INTENDED OBJECTIVES 28 6.2.1 PARENTS/CAREGIVERS AND CHILDREN VISITS 30 6.2.2 PARENTS/CAREGIVERS AND CHILDREN SERVED 33 6.3 SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE 34 6.3.1 CFC FACILITATORS 34 6.3.2 CFC PARENTS/CAREGIVERS 34 6.3.3 PILOT PROJECT LEAD 37 6.4 COST OF IMPLEMENTING CIMS IN ALL NIPISSING CFCS 38

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 39

APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF DATA COLLECTION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 40

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CIMS 41

APPENDIX C: CURRENT CFC REGISTRATION FORM 44

APPENDIX D: CURRENT CFC ATTENDANCE FORM 45

APPENDIX E: STATUS QUO ATTENDANCE SHEETS 46

APPENDIX F: CIMS ATTENDANCE SHEET 48

APPENDIX G: STATUS QUO TALLY SHEET 49

APPENDIX H: CIMS TALLY SHEET 50

GLOSSARY 51

October 2011 1

List of Tables

Table 1 Main Requirements for a CFC Data Collection System ................................................. 8 Table 2 Type of Information Collected: Status Quo and CIMS ..................................................12 Table 3 Problems Encountered with CIMS ................................................................................17 Table 4 Problems Encountered with Status Quo .......................................................................21 Table 5 Problems Encountered with CFC Operations ...............................................................23 Table 6 Achieving the Attended Objectives ...............................................................................28 Table 7 Parent/Caregiver Visits .................................................................................................30 Table 8 Children Visits ..............................................................................................................30 Table 9 Parent/Caregivers Served ............................................................................................34 Table 10 Children Served .........................................................................................................34

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Structure .........................................................................................................15 Figure 2 Status Quo and CIMS Logic Model .............................................................................27 Figure 3 Daily Difference between Attendance Methods (Visits) ...............................................32 Figure 4 Daily Range of Difference for Visits (Adults) ................................................................33 Figure 5 Daily Range of Difference for Visits (Children) ............................................................33 Figure 6 Simplicity and Ease of Use ..........................................................................................35 Figure 7 Convenience ...............................................................................................................36 Figure 8 Overall ........................................................................................................................36 Figure 9 Experienced Problems ................................................................................................37

October 2011 2

1.0 Preamble

1.1 Purpose Between July 1st and September 30 2011, a Client Information System (CIMS) pilot project was conducted at the One Kids Place (OKP) Child & Family Centre (CFC) in Nipissing District. The purpose of the pilot was to evaluate the suitability of CIMS as a data and information system for Nipissing District‟s 12 Child & Family Centres. This report evaluates the CIMS pilot project and describes the results.

1.2 Acknowledgments The CIMS pilot project came about rather quickly and was organized in a relatively short amount of time. The following people in particular, are to be thanked for their contribution and effort in the CIMS project: Parents and Caregivers of One Kids Place Child & Family Centre CIMS Pilot Project Team (see below) Randy Barbarie, Project Manager RBB Innovations Inc. Bob Barraclough, Manager Community Development and Partnerships; District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board (DNSSAB) Darryl Buck, President; RBB Innovations Inc. Bob Chitaroni, CIMS NEMHC Agency Program Manager; North East Mental Health Centre (Sudbury Campus) Darlene Laferriere, Manager; One Kids Place

1.2.1 CIMS Pilot Project Team

Sue Clement, Facilitator; One Kids Place Child & Family Centre Karen Cobb, Best Start Coordinator; DNSSAB Viviane Degagne, Supervisor OEYC/ Student Nutrition Program; Ontario Early Years Centre Chantal Dionne, Data Analysis Coordinator; Ontario Early Years Centre (OEYC) Carol Lajoie, Facilitator; One Kids Place Child & Family Centre Emma Langdon, Data Coordinator (Project Lead); DNSSAB Dave Plumstead, Research Analyst; DNSSAB Kcristal Spiess, Manager Community Services (Children) OEYC; Community Living North Bay

October 2011 3

2.0 Executive Summary

The Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table (NDCSPT) represents a diverse group of stakeholders in the early learning and childcare (ELCC) sector. The table evolved out of the former Nipissing Best Start Network which was created in 2006 to implement the new provincial childcare strategy, Best Start. One of the table‟s primary activities is the management of the district‟s 12 Child and Family Centres (CFCs) which were created under the Best Start initiative. These centres are relatively new – having been created since 2009 – and offer programs and services in the areas of early learning, childcare, parenting, recreation, education, health and nutrition. The Nipissing promise for the CFCs is that “all children, regardless of where they live, will have access to programs, service and resources in their community through an integrated approach to parenting, early learning, child care and kindergarten”. As the Child & Family Centres came into being, the NDCSPT realized that the absence of an information and data system for the centres was creating a void in effective planning and outcome assessment for the CFCs. Although there was plenty of anecdotal evidence for the how the centres were doing, there was little-to-no empirical evidence or data on which to base decision-making. Subsequently, in March 2010, the Planning Table approved an Evaluation and Reporting Project with the goal of implementing an information and data system across Nipissing District‟s CFCs. Further to identifying the technical requirements and specifications for such an information system – and reviewing and presenting the various vendor options – a Client Information Management System (CIMS) was identified as having the most potential. The CIMS developers, RBB Innovations Ltd, were contacted and they agreed to a three-month pilot project in which the CIMS product could be evaluated. After finalizing the business arrangements with RBB, assembling a project team, and obtaining the necessary CIMS training for the Data Coordinator and CFC facilitators, CIMS went live at the One Kids Place CFC on July 4, 2011. Parents /caregivers also needed to receive training and instruction on the new system as a unique feature of CIMS is a swipe card for electronic sign-in! As the project unfolded, some CIMS software issues cropped up but these were resolved relatively quickly by the Data Coordinator and CIMS developers. Also, discrepancies were noted within the existing data collection system and this posed problems for evaluating CIMS in terms of accuracy. CIMS training in the busy CFC environment also proved to be challenging! However, as the project progressed and the bugs were ironed out, the benefits of the electronic CIMS system over the existing paper-based system became readily apparent. From a client perspective, parents /caregivers only have to register once at a CFC using CIMS, regardless of the number of different centres they attend. This in contrast to the present system where parents /caregivers have to register at each centre they attend. Registering daily attendance is also simpler and easier for parents/caregivers in CIMS, as they use an electronic „snap card‟ (a „membership card‟ with a unique identifier) for their daily sign-in (versus a manual tally sheet where they sign their name). From an efficiency perspective CIMS collects the required information and data with less effort. This is particularly evident in the process stage where the labour intensity of the current manual data-entry system can be noted. The efficiency of CIMS carries over into the output stage where reports can be generated in real-time and for any period (vs. the quarterly data and reporting of

October 2011 4

the current system). In terms of outcome, this produces more data and increases the number of statistical methods available for analyzing and describing the data. This in turn results in enhanced CFC reporting and planning. And finally, in terms of data accuracy CIMS improves data consistency and validity. It also eliminates the human error inherent with manual data entry. Additionally, CIMS information and data is kept in a centralized, secure, database and the data collected can be aggregated for effective planning and program implementation, or for Ministry reporting requirements, etc. Overall, CIMS creates an integrated registration, attendance, information and data collection system for the District of Nipissing‟s Child & Family Centres. CIMS was also successful in meeting the two key objectives of the pilot project: it accurately summed (counted) four key Ministry data elements: parents/caregivers served and children served, and parents/caregivers visits and children visits (as a side note, the One Kids Place Child & Family Centre proved to be a very busy place over the summer pilot, recording nearly 2,000 visits by parents /caregivers and their children!). And based on the successful evaluation of the CIMS performance during the pilot project, it is recommended that CIMS be implemented across Nipissing District’s 12 Child & Family Centres. .

October 2011 5

3.0 Background

3.1 Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table (NDCSPT) The Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table (NDCSPT) represents a diverse group of stakeholders in the early learning and childcare (ELCC) sector. The table evolved out of the former Nipissing Best Start Network which was created in 2006 to implement the new provincial childcare strategy, Best Start. Today the NDCSPT operates as a formal structure that makes key decisions and investments in Nipissing‟s early learning and childcare sector. One of the table‟s primary activities is the management of the district‟s 12 Child and Family Centres (CFCs) which were created under the Best Start initiative. The planning table also undergoes annual program and service planning, and in keeping with the central tenet of Best Start, continues to work towards advanced system integration within the district‟s early learning and childcare sector.

3.2 Nipissing District Child & Family Centres (CFCs) Nipissing‟s Child and Family Centres (previously known as “early learning and care hubs”) were created under the provincial Best Start initiative with the intent of providing integrated services and supports for families with children ages 0 – 6 years. The Nipissing CFC promise is that “all children, regardless of where they live, will have access to programs, services and resources in their community through an integrated approach to parenting, early learning, child care, and kindergarten”. There are presently 12 CFCs in the district and they offer programs and services (at little or no cost to the parents/caregivers and children) in the areas of early learning, childcare, parenting, recreation, education, health, and nutrition. Most of the CFCs are located in schools and are open for part of the day, 2-3 days per week.

3.3 Data collection for Nipissing’s ELCC Sector Prior to the implementation of Best Start in 2005, the provincial government collected early learning and childcare data in Nipissing District through the Service Manager (DNSSAB) and the Ontario Early Years Centre, Nipissing (OEYC). The data was in the form of data elements1 and these served as “performance measures” for the provincial Early Learning and Childcare initiative and the licensed childcare sector. The Nipissing data elements were based on manual counts and were hand-tabulated (i.e. counted and recorded on paper) on a weekly / monthly basis. The elements were then submitted to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) in summarized tabular form on a quarterly basis. The DNSSAB and OEYC continue to submit these data elements to the MCYS, and this appears to fulfill the primary role of conformance reporting (vs. management reporting). It can be noted that no community reports have ever been generated with the data, and there has not been any descriptive analysis or summarized statistics of the data, at least not external to the MCYS or the data collectors (DNSSAB and OEYC). For monitoring the performance of Best Start, the government intended to utilize data elements that were based on a review of the existing elements (Best Start Phase I, 2005). These would be in addition to the annual service plans and budgets that the Best Start network provided.

1 The MCYS data elements referred to are for the number of parents and /or children who are served by a program,

or who visit a program – see glossary for definitions.

October 2011 6

However, to date, the NDCSPT has not had any reporting requirements that include the data elements for the Best Start CFCs – only the annual service plans and budgets. As the Best Start hubs – and later the CFCs – came into being, the NDCSPT realized it needed more information and data on which to base its planning, and more specifically, on which to make sound program and investment decisions. Who is using the CFCs and where do they come from? What percentage of the district’s parent and children population are we serving? Do families and children visit more than one CFC and if so, which CFCs and how often? What is the demographic profile of our CFC families? Which CFC programs and services are being utilized the most? And the least? Why? Are there any patterns developing around the use of the CFCs that we should be aware of? Are the parents/ caregivers and their children actually benefiting from the CFCS? How or in which way? How do we know what the CFC outcomes are? Answering these questions and more would require an electronic administrative database that is reliable and consistent across all the CFCs in the district. Based on this realization, in March 2010 the NDCSPT approved funding for an “Evaluation and Reporting Project”. In the meantime and to satisfy the need for basic CFC data collection, the OEYC adjusted its existing registration form and tally sheet for the OEYC programs and used these to collect parent/caregiver and child attendance (i.e. data elements) at the CFCs (the registration form records the number of parents/caregivers and children served by the centre while the daily tally sheet records the number of parents/caregivers and children who visit). In April 2011, the OEYC started publishing parent/caregiver and child counts for all the district‟s CFCs.

3.4 Status quo (present information and data system) When a child first visits a centre, and at the start of each subsequent year, the parent/caregiver registers the child at the centre they attend. (A copy of the registration form is in Appendix C). If a child attends multiple centres, they must register at each centre and with each parent/caregiver they attend with. A sign-in (attendance) sheet keeps count of the children and the parents/caregivers who attend the centre on a daily basis2. The OEYC Data Analysis Coordinator (DAC) tracks attendance in an Access database system which contains basic contact/demographic information for children and parents/caregivers. There is a database for each CFC (As of September 2011, the CFCs were are follows: OEYC, St-Vincent, OKP, Marshall Park, John XXIII/EW Norman, St. Lukes, Ferris Glen, St-Thomas D‟Aquin, Mattawa Cluster, West Nipissing Cluster, Temagami and South Algonquin). Children and parents/caregivers are entered into the database that correspond to the CFC they use, based on the registration forms. (If children use more than one centre, they are entered into the database for each centre they attend). If families do not register at each CFC they attend (i.e. because they believe that they only need to register once for all centres), accurate „served‟ counts may not be collected for individual CFCs. In addition, if a child is not re-registered each year (because of an assumption they need to register once), it will also affect the „served‟ count. There is also an aggregate database for Nipissing District: all children are entered into this database regardless of which CFC they attend. In the hopes of eliminating duplicate entries (from parents/caregivers and children who use more than one centre), a search is conducted by last name/postal code, before a child or parent/caregiver is entered into the Nipissing database. However, children may be inadvertently entered twice into the Nipissing database if a family uses multiple last names, has incomplete or incorrect address information, etc.

2 See Section 3.4.1 for an explanation of the sign in sheets.

October 2011 7

The DAC also enters the total number of visits to the centre into the database, by inputting the total number of children and parents/caregivers gathered from the daily tally sheets (see section below for detail). This system does not track who is attending, therefore data that tracks how many times a child/ parent visits a CFC is generalized and calculated by dividing those served by visits. The system uses 13 different, separate, databases (each CFC plus Nipissing District). These databases do not „share‟ information with each other. In order to get statistics for each CFC and the district, searches and queries must be performed on all the applicable databases in order to get aggregate totals. Although the current system is relatively new to the CFCs it has been in use for many years to collect data for the OEYC‟s early learning programs. The system is user friendly, simple to use and cost effective. However, as noted during the pilot – not to mention with multiple CFCs - it can become complicated, time consuming, and difficult to ensure that each child and parent/caregiver is counted accurately. Additionally, other demographic and socioeconomic information and data is not being collected.

3.4.1 Status Quo: Attendance

The current attendance sheet for OKP CFC is a printed landscape table (see Appendix D). The first column allows for a record of all the names of adults and children attending the CFC in a month. The remaining columns are separated into weeks and program days, and each program day is separated into two columns; with an “A” and “C” heading. (“A” indicates adult and “C” indicates child). When a page is filled with names, a new page is started. Each new month, or if the sheets are filled before the end of the month, a new set of sign in sheets are created and parents/caregivers repeat the process. The parent/caregiver is responsible for signing their own and their child‟s/children‟s names on the first visit each month to the CFC. The adult then indicates, using a checkmark, if the attendee is an adult or a child, in the column corresponding to the date they visit. For a completed attendance sheet, see Appendix E. Anyone who is attending the centre, including visitors and volunteers, are required to sign the log. At the end of the day, the check marks are tallied on each page for the adults and children who visited. The totals from each page are added together and the daily total of adults and children is kept on a separate tally sheet. For a completed tally sheet, see Appendix G. The system tracks the total number of children and parents/caregivers attending rather than who is visiting and by extension how many return visits a person makes to a CFC. During the pilot project it became evident that the „visit‟ count can be adversely affected by parents/caregivers not signing in, signing in on the wrong date (either in the past or in the future), signing in under the wrong name, signing in twice, and signing illegibly (often leading to inadvertent counting errors by staff). The current method of attendance and registration relies on parents/caregivers to self report if it is their first visit (in the fiscal year) to a particular CFC. All first visits require a registration form and are the basis for the „served‟ counts. Parents/caregivers who do not self report, or if a new child, or parent/caregiver, attends with an existing parent/caregiver or child, they may not be included in the served count.

October 2011 8

4.0 Major Requirements of an Information and Data System for the CFCs

In conjunction with the Evaluation and Reporting project, a report outlining the requirements and specifications for a CFC data and information system was completed (Requirement Specification for Child & Family Centre Data Collection Project, 2010) and distributed amongst NDCSPT members. Based on that report, the main requirements for a CFC data collection system are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1 Major Requirements for a CFC Data Collection and Information System

Requirement / Specification Description

System Requirements Central database and web-based system hosted on a central windows server.

Compatible with average desktop computer i.e. Windows XP or greater.

CFC Facilitators window, Administrators window, and client window (if applicable).

Search features (by client name, file number, programs, etc.)

Custom fields (e.g. for Nipissing District) where applicable (ability to change /populate drop-down lists, etc.)

User friendly for staff and clients (if applicable)

Security: client information protected

Information and Data Collected Family and children demographics and socioeconomics.

CFC program /service enrollment (start and end dates, utilization, reasons for attending, etc.)

MCYS data elements

Information and Data Integrity Common definitions, language, and data fields to promote consistency.

Built-in / internal data integrity checks.

Standard format for entering dates and times (error flag if not entered correctly)

Accurate reports.

Reporting Reports available for individual CFCs or total (aggregate) CFCs by day, week, month, quarter, etc.

Reports available through a general reporting tool such as Crystal Reports.

Profile reports (e.g. parent /caregiver and children profiles; program /service profiles, etc.).

Cross Tab reports (e.g. number and age of children by family type, program utilization by age and language, etc.)

October 2011 9

Requirement / Specification Description

Statistical Analysis Ability to export data into Excel, SPSS, SAS or other statistical software for further manipulation and analysis.

Ability to import existing data into system (e.g. data elements from present OEYC system).

Training and Technical Support System training available for CFC Facilitators, staff, administrator, analysts, etc.

User manuals supplied.

Daily access to technical Help Desk.

Database maintenance

Table 1 above will also be used in the evaluation of CIMS, further in the report.

4.1 Review of Options for a CFC Information and Data System A logical place to start in reviewing the options for a CFC data and information system is to see what other Best Start networks and Service Managers/service providers are presently doing. In doing so, a number of DACs (Data Analysis Coordinators) representing various agencies were contacted. These agencies included the Northern Best Start pilot site (Timiskaming) and other Northern and Southern Best Start sites. The research revealed considerable variance around who is collecting what and how – and for whom – with regards to Best Start hubs, centres, etc. During the review, it was noted that there were three off-the-shelf3, childcare-related products that had potential for Nipissing‟s CFC data and information system – these include the Early Years Services Information System (EYSIS), Child and Youth Services Information System (CYSIS), and Client Information Management System (CIMS). Comparisons between these systems were made in a separate report (CFC Data Collection System) which was submitted to the NDCSPT in March and June 2011 respectively, (see Appendix A for a summarized comparison of these systems). Based on the analysis of the three systems – and a demonstration of the CIMS product - the Nipissing District Children‟s Service Planning Table and the CIMs developers, agreed to pilot the Client Information Management System (CIMS) Best Start module. The pilot commenced on July 4, 2011 at the One Kids Place Child & Family Centre, and ran for a period of three months. The pilot was based on the premise that if successful – and depending on the cost - CIMS would be rolled-out across the district‟s remaining Child & Family Centres.

4.2 Client Information Management System (CIMS) The Client Information Management System (CIMS) was developed by RBB Innovations Ltd. based in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. CIMS was originally designed for childrens and volunteer mental health networks and there are currently 81 agencies using CIMS in the youth/mental health sector (RBB has over 100 clients in Ontario).

3 A benefit of using an off-the-shelf product is having a data collection system that has already been tested and works

for the CFCs/OEYC, possibly saving time and money. However, the drawbacks include using a data collection system that does not necessarily meet all the needs of the Planning Table. Creating a customized / unique data collection system would insure that the system meets all the Table‟s needs, however it would take longer to implement in the CFCs and the cost of the project may increase.

October 2011 10

CIMS has different modules depending on the user‟s needs. The module piloted for the Nipissing project was the CIMS module for Best Start/Early Years. This CIMS module builds upon previous modules and versions, and is also currently in use in the City of Greater Sudbury. A unique feature and key component of the CIMS Best Start/Early Years module is a „snap card‟ which facilitates electronic check-in for the parents /caregivers and their children as they arrive at the CFC (more details below).

4.3 Overview of CIMS System This report will specifically deal with the CIMS module used in the pilot (for more technical details on CIMS, see Appendix B). CIMS for Best Start/Early Years is a paperless, web based application. The central CIMS database is currently located at the Northeast Mental Health Centre in Sudbury. The CIMS Best Start module has two primary functions: registration and attendance. Combined, these functions fulfill the MCYS data element requirements for the number of parents/caregivers and children who are served (i.e., they have received services at a centre at least once and are counted once annually) and for the total number of visits that the parents/caregivers and children make to the centre (i.e. they are visiting a centre on any given day and are counted at that time - see Glossary for formal definitions of these data elements). The registration function is for all adults and children who attend a Child & Family Centre and/or use the services provided at a CFC. But this function goes well beyond the data element requirement described above and includes other information such as Aboriginal status; language; age and gender of children; allergy and special needs information; referrals; and address information. Additionally, other information that could be collected (but was not collected during the pilot project) includes marital status, income, employment status, educational attainment, and adult‟s date of birth. Upon initial registration, this information is entered once by staff, and parents/caregivers can then attend multiple CFCs without having to re-register at each one (as they have to do in the present system). Additionally, searches for adults and/or children can be preformed by last name and/or first name and/or a partial last name or first name. There is also visit history and a relationship function, which enables staff members to view the relationships between adults (i.e. spouses) and between adults and children (i.e. if they are a parent, guardian, or childcare provider). Regarding the attendance function, there are three methods for recording attendance in CIMS: Kiosk Attendance, Tally Sheet Attendance, and Attendance.

4.3.1 Kiosk Attendance

In the kiosk mode, parents /caregivers register their visit at the CFC electronically using a „snap card‟ (that was issued upon registration) which they place in front of a webcam each time they visit a CFC4. This mode tracks attendance „live‟ and requires an internet connection that needs to be active for the duration of the program. It keeps track of who is attending, when they are attending and where they are attending. Parents/caregivers can use their card at any CFC in the district.

4 The snap cards have a unique QR number that identifies the adult attending and the spouse and children with

whom the adult has an established relationship. For the pilot, the cards were produced in-house.

October 2011 11

4.3.2 Tally Sheet Attendance

The electronic tally sheet is similar to the status quo attendance system and allows for the data elements to be collected, without indicating who attended. The number of adults and children served and the number of adult and child visits is recorded. The tally sheet can also collect language, gender and child‟s age information, and it can track professionals and „others‟ who attend the CFC programs. This function can also be used in conjunction with the kiosk mode. For example, visitors to the centre are not normally recorded using the kiosk mode; however they could be recorded in the tally sheet after the program ends. It can be noted that the totals from the kiosk mode are also automatically generated into the tally sheet. See Appendix H for an example of the CIMS Tally Sheet.

4.3.3 Attendance (Attendance)

The attendance mode allows staff to add specific attendee(s) to a program or service. This function can be used in conjunction with the kiosk mode, such as to add a person who did not register their attendance in kiosk mode for whatever reason, or separately, such as to create an attendance sheet of all participants for a specific program when kiosk mode was not in use or unavailable. It should be noted that all the data elements are recorded on a program/service basis. Therefore, data and information about specific programs/services is available for analysis and reporting (note: if there is more than one program/service occurring at the same time, it is not possible to separate the programs/services by who attended if using kiosk mode). See Appendix F for an example of the CIMS Attendance Sheet.

4.4 Benefits and Drawbacks – Pre CIMS Pilot The benefits of CIMS, identified prior to the pilot are as follows:

Web based Ability to capture data at each individual CFC Ability to collect demographic information One database Ability to provide MCYS statistics; data elements Minimal maintenance Ability to work and be customized for Nipissing District Data migration from current system Ability to download reports into different formats such as Excel, SPSS etc. „Snap‟ cards for attendance Families only have to register once in the District Attendance data does not need to be entered separately (information is compiled

automatically in kiosk mode) Multiple users can enter information at the same time, from multiple locations Security and backups of the system are the responsibility of the developer

There were also drawbacks and concerns identified prior to the pilot as follows (note: some of these were addressed during the pilot as indicated by the sub-bullet points):

Concern about the accuracy of the CIMS reports. o The pilot results indicate however that the visit counts were generally within an

acceptable range of accuracy, although some large deviations occurred. The

October 2011 12

reasons for the deviations are addressed in Effectiveness: Achieving the Intended Objectives, section 6.2.1.

o The served counts did not match the counts of the existing status quo system but the difference can be explained (see Effectiveness: Achieving the Intended Objectives, section 6.2.2).

French interface currently unavailable. A French interface could be created for an extra cost.

o This was not addressed during the pilot. Some, but not extensive data integrity.

o Basic searches are conducted to check for duplicates, based on first and last name. However, if someone uses an alternate name at times (i.e. David and Dave) it may not recognize it as the same person.

o There are fields with checks in place to make sure it is formatted correctly. CIMS is in the final stages of the development; there may be some „bugs‟ in the system

o There were some ‘bugs’ discovered but these are inherent to a (new) software system. These problems were fixed in a timely fashion, see section 5.4.1 Problems Encountered, CIMS

Each CFC requires a computer, internet connection and a web cam. o All CFCs currently have a computer and the ability to connect to the internet.

Web cams can be purchased for a minimal cost. Enhancements and customisations may take time to develop. Because of the communal

nature of the program all organizations who use CIMS need to agree on the enhancements and customisations. If they do not agree to the customisations/ enhancements there is an extra cost.

o This was not addressed during the pilot Time and cost intensive to set up.

o Training users on CIMS was time intensive, particularly as training and user manuals had to be created in-house. RBB Innovations imported existing information from the status quo database into CIMS at a reasonable cost.

May be cost prohibitive, based on an estimated per-agency cost. o The cost of implementing CIMS in Nipissing District is based on licensing for two

agencies and is estimated at $12,000 annually ($1,000 /CFC).

4.5 Information Collected The following table shows the information that can be/is collected by CIMS and compares it to the status quo, i.e. the current OEYC registration form and tally sheet. By extension, much of the CIMS information and data can be aggregated and used for statistical and research purposes. Table 2 Type of Information Collected: Status Quo and CIMS

Type of Information Collected

Status Quo CIMS

“Snap” card number No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s first and last name

Yes Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s middle name

No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s title No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s date of birth

No Yes

October 2011 13

Type of Information Collected

Status Quo CIMS

Parent/caregiver‟s gender No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s street address

Yes Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s postal code

Yes Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s home telephone number

Yes Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s other telephone number

No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s language spoken

Yes – includes space to write „other‟

Yes – termed First language spoken, no space for other

(except in notes)

Parent/caregiver‟s Aboriginal descent

Yes –Secondary selection for group

Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s marital status

No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s education level

No Yes

Parent/caregiver‟s employment status

No Yes

Annual household income No Yes Parent/caregivers – born outside Canada

Yes No

How did you hear about us Yes No

Child‟s full name Yes Yes Child‟s preferred name No Yes

Child‟s birth date Yes Yes Child‟s gender Yes Yes Child‟s street address No Yes Child‟s postal code No Yes Child‟s home phone number No Yes Child‟s emergency contact No Yes Child‟s emergency contact number

No Yes

Parent/caregiver relationship to child

Yes Yes – Guardian or Childcare

„Other‟ adults Yes Yes – Linked profiles

Special needs information No Yes

Allergy information Yes Yes Consent/authorization for photos/media

Yes Yes

Email address Yes Yes

4.6 CIMS Pilot Limitations (see also, ‘Scope’) The CIMS pilot was designed to obtain the Ministry of Children and Youth Service‟s four data elements that have been referenced throughout this report. In this manner, the electronic CIMS counts can be directly compared to the OEYC paper counts as a measure of accuracy.

October 2011 14

However, this means that not all of CIMS was utilized in the pilot, i.e. not all the data fields were collected or recorded. The pilot was conducted at one CFC, with only one lead agency and program. Thus, the only staff that needed to be trained on the use of CIMS were the two main facilitators at OKP. As such, the Data Coordinator spent time at the CFC to accommodate the regular facilitator‟s vacation schedule(s), due to the supply facilitators not being trained on the system. In addition, during the summer months, no other programs/ agencies used the CFC so the pilot project focused on the main program and not any other programs that took place within the CFC.

October 2011 15

5.0 CIMS Pilot Project

5.1 Objectives of CIMS Pilot The objectives of the CIMS pilot were as follows:

Accurately sum children and parents/caregivers visits for selected period(s) of time including daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly

Accurately sum children and parents/caregivers served for selected period(s) of time including daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly

Ability to use a snap („membership‟) card for attendance

Capture demographic data, which could be used for statistical and research and analysis purposes

Straightforward for parents/caregivers to use

Straightforward for staff/facilitators to use

To see if it meets the requirements for a Data Collection and Information System (from Table 1, section 4.0)

5.2 Project Structure The project structure for the CIMS pilot can be noted in figure 1 below: Figure 1

The project leads were the Data Coordinator from the NDCSPT and the Program Manager from RBB Innovations Ltd. Together, the leads managed the technical and operational facets of the project and communicated on a regular basis. The other people shown in the project structure played various roles in getting the project up and running, and provided project support as required during the pilot.

5.3 Project details

5.3.1 Scope

CIMS was piloted at the One Kids Place, Child & Family Centre. While CIMS is capable of recording many variables of individuals, only two variables were recorded for the pilot: the number of people served and the number of visits to the CFC. Each variable was recorded for

CIMS One Kids Place CFC

CFC Facilitators: Carol Lajoie Sue Clement

RBB Innovations Ltd Randy Barbarie; Program Manager and project lead. Darryl Buck; RBB President. Technical

/administrative support

Operational /functional support

NDCSPT Emma Langdon; Data Coordinator and project lead. Chantal Dionne; OEYC Data Analysis Coordinator (DAC). Dave Plumstead; Research Analyst. Karen Cobb; Best Start Coordinator. Viviane Degagne; OEYC Supervisor

CIMS Lead Agency Bob Chitaroni; CIMS Program Manager, NEMHC.

October 2011 16

parents and children, resulting in four data fields. These four fields correspond with the MCYS data elements (see the glossary for a formal definition of these elements). During the pilot project, DNSSAB and Community Living North Bay staff – along with the Best Start Coordinator and CFC Facilitators – oversaw the operational aspects of CIMS implementation. Meanwhile the CIMS developers (RBB) provided project management and database configuration, and CIMS training.

5.3.2 Cost

The cost of the pilot project was approximately $9,300. This covered RBB‟s services including project and management consultations, training, and database initialization, configuration, testing, and data importing. CFC direct project costs included the computer webcam, and the equipment to produce the snap cards in house (laminator, laminating sheets, card stock and software for QR number generator). It should be noted that there were no licensing fees incurred for the CIMS software as One Kids Place is already using CIMS (but for a different application).

5.3.3 Timeframe

The pilot project was approved by the NDCSPT on May 18, 2011. Following the approval, CIMS was configured for use in Nipissing District and the CIMS administrators received their training. Parents and caregivers of One Kids Place Child & Family Centre were informed in advance of the pilot project. CIMS went „live‟ at the One Kids Place CFC on July 4, 2011 and ran until September 30, 2011. This coincided with the OEYC‟s second-quarter reporting requirements for MCYS, which in turn made it easier to compare CIMS with the status quo system.

5.3.4 Technical

The following were the technical requirements for CIMS to operate:

Computer with Internet Explorer 8.0 and USB webcam (for reading snap cards)

High speed internet access

October 2011 17

5.4 Problems encountered Tables 3, 4 and 5 that follow describe various problems/concerns encountered during the project, in the three main areas of CIMS, the status quo data system, and CFC operations. The following scale is used to show the importance or impact of the problem or concern: 0 – No Importance 1 – Somewhat Important 2 – Moderately Important 3 – Very Important

5.4.1 CIMS Table 3 Problems Encountered with CIMS

Problem/Concern Description Impact and Resolution Importance/

Impact

Staff and Time Intensive to Set Up

All of the families who had attended OKP CFC in the first quarter of the fiscal year needed to be put into the CIMS database, in order to get an accurate „served‟ count for the second quarter. There were over 200 parents and children in the database at the end of the first quarter. Each child had to be associated with the adult(s) they attend the CFC with. In addition, numbers (for the snap cards) could not be assigned until the adult visited the centre during the pilot project.

RBB Innovations was able to import the existing OEYC data into CIMS. The conversion was able to filter some duplicates, but there were still some concerns with the original database (see point one, OEYC Database, Table 4). Information that was not converted due to the difference in the databases was manually inputted. This information included the relationship(s) between the child and adult, parent/caregiver‟s language, child‟s allergies, consent for photographs/ media, and Aboriginal status.

2 – Moderately Important

Possibility of Duplicates

The filter for duplicates performed by RBB depended on an exact match in the person‟s name (first and last), child‟s date of birth, address, and postal code. If there was not an exact match, the two entries could not be deemed the same and they were left as is.

After the data had been converted, an examination of the data yielded the possibility of duplicates based on data matching. For example: a name and address without a postal code, was an assumed duplicated to a matching name and address with the postal code. There were approximately four to six assumed duplicated children and four to seven duplicated adults. This could lead to inaccurate statistics. See OEYC Database, Table 4.


October 2011 18


Impact

Training Parents/ Caregivers

All parents and caregivers of OKP CFC had to be trained on how to use CIMS to register their attendance. Parents/ caregivers have a different level of comfort using computers and webcams. For the beginning of the project when most of the parents/caregivers attending were unfamiliar with the system, extra assistance was needed to demonstrate the system to the parents.

Reference cards were created for the parents/ caregivers, to be kept next to the computer. These cards were intended to answer basic questions about the attendance process for the parents, such as what to do if they forgot their card. As parents became more familiar with the process, they were able to register their attendance with minimal amount of assistance.

3 – Very Important

Changes Requested During the Pilot

At the beginning (and during) the project the following modifications/ additions/corrections to CIMS were requested:

An extra check box for media consent

Card Number on the information/registration information screen

When adding children in kiosk mode, the screen displayed “First Name, First Name” rather than „First Name, Last Name”

The summing of served, for multiple days, was incorrect

All modifications/ additions/ corrections were completed when CIMS launched, within a reasonable amount of time (up to a week).

0 – No importance

Exact Matches (continued on next page)

Part of data integrity and privacy is to ensure that people with similar names are not counted as the same person. Thus for example, “Anne Smith” is not the same as “Ann Smyth”. However, if an adult forgets their card in kiosk mode and searches for themselves using a different form of name than the one they registered under (for example Jen …

Parents/caregivers and staff members need to ensure they are accurate when adding or editing a profile. Parents/caregivers also need to be instructed to use their commonly used name (first or last). Inaccuracy could lead to incorrect data elements and lead to some people being counted as served multiple times.


October 2011 19


Impact

Exact Matches (continued from previous page)

… instead of Jennifer), the system will not find the person. The same situation applies if a name was misspelled or entered incorrectly.

Overriding Card Number (NULL Value). Resolved

When a parent/caregiver first visits the CFC, a quick registration process occurs. This process gathers the parent/caregiver‟s first and last name and their child(ren)‟s first and last name(s) and date of birth(s). It also assigns the parent/caregiver a snap card number. The parent/caregiver also fills out a paper registration form (Appendix C). This information is entered into CIMS at a later time. However, after editing and/or entering the information into a parent/caregiver‟s profile and saving the changes made, the snap card number was deleted (NULL value). When the parent/caregiver went to use their snap card to register their attendance on subsequent visits, they received the error message “invalid snap card”. The snap card number had to be reassigned.

Parents/caregivers were unable to use their snap cards and this required staff member‟s assistance to re-assign the card. Once the problem was discovered, RBB was contacted and made aware of the problem. While the problem was being resolved, any editing and entering information to a parent/caregiver‟s profile was unable to occur. The problem was resolved approximately a week after RBB was informed of the issue. Editing and entering information into a parent/caregiver‟s profile was resumed. Parents/caregivers who were affected by the NULL value had their card number reassigned on subsequent visits to the CFC.


Automatically checking the first child

Ongoing (continued on next page)

After a parent/guardian registered their attendance at the CFC, the first child in the parent‟s/guardian‟s care was checked by default. For parent‟s/guardian‟s who attended with multiple children this led to the possibility of a child being…

RBB changed the default setting so no child would be automatically checked as present. However, parents with one child would often forget to check their child as present. Solutions to the problem…


October 2011 20

Problem Description Impact and Resolution Importance/

Impact

Automatically checking the first child (continued from previous page)

…marked as attended, even if they were not present, or the child being unintentionally unchecked and marked as not present despite attending the CFC.

…(parent education, change by RBB) were still ongoing as the problem was discovered towards the end of the pilot project.

October 2011 21

5.4.2 Status Quo Information and Data System –OEYC Database

Table 4 Problems Encountered with Status Quo


Impact

Database Discrepancies (continued on next page)

As mentioned above, RBB imported the OEYC database for the OKP CFC (first quarter, 2011), into CIMS. The intention of the import was to allow for a more accurate „served‟ count and to eliminate the need for the manual data entry of 200 adults and children from the CFC registration forms. After the import had taken place, each adult had to be manually associated with the child(ren) with whom they had a relationship. During this process, a number of discrepancies were discovered in the OEYC database. Some of the notable discrepancies included5:

First and/or last name spelled incorrectly. For example, Marjory instead of Marjorie. Names were often spelled correctly on the registration form. There were approximately seven cases.

Letters backwards/missing. For examples, Chrsitine instead of Christine. There were approximately nine cases

There are many factors that could be the cause of the discrepancies in the OEYC database. And while the purpose of the pilot was not to identify these causes, it was necessary to eliminate the discrepancies where possible, as they had a negative impact on the functioning of CIMS. Most notably, as the discrepancies related to the need for exact matches; the possibility of duplicates and over /under counts; the inability of the existing OEYC system to be used as a comparator for CIMS, and the resulting increase of staff time to set CIMS up to ensure an accurate database. These discrepancies were in addition to the possible duplicated entries, cited in 5.4.1, point two.


5 There were a few cases in which there were multiple discrepancies for one person/family.

October 2011 22


Impact

Database Discrepancies (continued from previous page)

Incorrect last name (other than spelling). This usually affected people with hyphenated last names or a different last name than their children. There were approximately three cases.

Wrong birth date for the child (other than switching the day/month). There were approximately five cases.

There were some families who were not in the database, but had filled out a registration form during the first quarter, that was on file at OKP. There were approximately five cases.

Conversely there were some families who were in the database, but had no registration form on record at OKP. There were approximately four cases.


October 2011 23

5.4.3 CFC operations Table 5 Problems Encountered with CFC Operations


Impact

Summer Schedules

During the summer months, the regular facilitators at OKP CFC took their scheduled vacations. Supply facilitators oversaw the operations of the CFC several times throughout July and August. When there were supply facilitators, the Data Coordinator attended the CFC to aid in the operation of CIMS. Due to the short nature of the pilot project, the project team felt it was unwise to train supply staff on the use of CIMS.

The system was not self running for a portion of the project, as the Data Coordinator was able to ensure almost all the attendees of OKP CFC used CIMS correctly and were registering using CIMS and the paper attendance sheet. However, due to the need to collect data in a relatively short period of time, it was felt that this was a minor inconvenience.

0 – No importance

Training Facilitators

Related to the previous point, summer vacation schedules combined with time limitations made it difficult to train the regular facilitators early in the project. Facilitators could only receive training when families were not present at the CFC, and be compensated for their time. A reference manual was produced for the facilitators but hands-on training was necessary.

The Data Coordinator attended the CFC to aid in the operation of CIMS until training could take place. A „Quick Start‟ manual was created for the facilitators to allow them to start the system and enter „Kiosk‟ mode.

1 – Somewhat Important

Registration Forms – Not Being Completed (continued on next page)

Each time a parent/caregiver attends a CFC for the first time, attends with a new child, or attends at the start of a new fiscal year, a registration form has to be completed. This ensures the „served‟ count statistics are accurate and contact information is current. Some parents/caregivers are unaware they have to fill out a registration form…

In CIMS all parents/caregivers need to be in the database in order to obtain a snap card (and therefore be registered). Some parents/caregivers, who said they had completed a form, were not in the database. In an effort to provide client focused service, parents/caregivers who were not in the CIMS database, but said they completed a form, were not compelled to complete a registration form….


October 2011 24


Impact

Registration Forms – Not Being Completed (continued from previous page)

…for each CFC they attend and at the start of the fiscal year. Despite the best efforts of facilitators, parents/caregivers may not fill out a form.

Therefore, the served count will be inaccurate.

Registration Forms – Incomplete/ Missing/ Incorrect/ Illegible Information

Registration forms often contain missing, incomplete, incorrect or illegible information.

Any missing or ambiguous information could lead to inaccurate information, duplication and errors in the databases and therefore inaccurate reports.


Completing Attendance Sheet (Any Method)

Parents/caregivers often forget to complete the paper attendance sheet, which is located at the front of the CFC. This can occur for a number of reasons, including: waiting to complete the sheet until later, chasing after/dealing with a child‟s needs when first arriving at the centre or attending only for a portion of the program that is not in the CFC‟s main room (for example outside/gym time).

The reason(s) for forgetting to complete attendance could occur in any early learning and child care environment. Therefore, during the pilot project, there will be some discrepancies in the daily visit count if a parent/guardian did not remember to use both CIMS and the paper attendance method.


Mistakes in Completing the Paper Attendance Sheet (continued on next page)

Related to the previous point, some parents/caregivers make mistakes when they complete the paper attendance system. These mistakes include: signing in on the wrong date, signing the wrong name, signing adults in as children and vice-versa, not signing in a spouse/child, signing-in in multiple places, and being unable to locate their name(s) on the attendance sheet. Please see Appendix E for an example of mistakes on completed Attendance Sheets.

Errors in the attendance process can skew the visit data element. However, many of these errors are inherent to a paper registration system in a busy environment such as childcare. There will be some discrepancies in the visits count, especially when a parent/caregiver erred in the recording of their visit. The Data Coordinator made minor changes in CIMS (for example, removing a child/adult who was accidentally marked as present). No changes were made when people signed the wrong date (on paper) or


October 2011 25


Impact

Mistakes in Completing Attendance (continued from previous page)

…signed in adults as children etc, in particular after the first week of the pilot had been completed.

Visitors Visitors to the CFC are included on the paper attendance sheets and counted as an adult or child. By extension, visitors are included in the „visit‟ count.

For the purposes of the pilot project visitors were not entered, or included with CIMS. Therefore, the visit count will be different.

1 – Somewhat Important

October 2011 26

6.0 CIMS Evaluation

CIMS is being evaluated on three fronts: the technical efficiency of CIMS as an information and data system for the Child & Family Centres, and the effectiveness of CIMS in achieving the intended objectives (from section 5.1). Additionally, a subjective perspective offers feedback on the use of CIMS from key project participants, namely the parents, CFC facilitators, OEYC manager, and the CIMS project lead.

6.1 Technical Efficiency The following page displays the logic models for the existing status quo information and data system, and CIMS. The status quo system is the benchmark to which the efficiency of CIMS is being measured and compared. The model describes a standard method for evaluating efficiency, whereby a process and its inputs are analyzed in relation to the outputs of the process and the final outcome. The focus of this model is comparing CIMS‟ ratio of inputs to outputs – and the subsequent outcomes - to that of the Status Quo. It should be noted that for the purpose of this evaluation, the model is based on the main purpose of collecting information and data, and producing a report for the Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table (the outcome). Thus many other facets of CFC operations are not included in the model. Additionally, the model does not take into account economic efficiency i.e. the overall benefits of the respective systems, relative to their economic costs. Not only is this type of evaluation beyond the scope of the project, it is felt that the description of technical efficiency provided, also offers insight into the economic efficiencies. In terms of technical efficiency, the logic model reveals that CIMS has a lower ratio of inputs to outputs, i.e., CIMS collects the required information and data with less effort. This is particularly evident in the process stage where the labour intensity of the current system can be noted. The efficiency of CIMS carries over into the output stage where reports can be generated in real-time and for any period (vs. the quarterly data and reporting of the current system). In terms of outcome, this produces more data and increases the number of statistical methods available for analyzing and describing the data. This in turn results in enhanced CFC reporting and planning. It is important to note that although CIMS was limited to reporting four variables for the pilot project, CIMS can report on many more variables that go well beyond the MCYS data elements. And being an electronic database, the costs associated with the additional production of this data are relatively small compared to the present system, where data production is more dependent on manual data entry.

October 2011 27

PROCESS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

Figure 2 Status Quo and CIMS Logic Model

The CFC Reports for the Planning Table consist of seven variables /data elements as defined by the MCYS (note: other data is collected but is not reported). Raw data for each quarter is presented in tabular form – the data is not plotted, and there is no numerical summary or description, or statistical analysis. Aggregate and /or individual CFC data is available.

- Reports are submitted quarterly and are not available upon request.

-

Parents register once /year at each CFC they visit during the year. Parents also sign a daily tally sheet for each visit they make to each CFC. The tally sheets are summed manually by the CFC Facilitators and are filed (along with the registration forms). At the end of each month, the completed registration forms and tally sheets are collected by the Manager. OEYC staff person double-checks the tally sheet counts. The OEYC DAC then receives the registration forms and tally sheets, and manually enters the data into an Access database for each CFC (12 separate databases). The data is then exported from the Access database into an Excel database, where the final report is taken from.

Parents CFC Facilitators CFC Manager OEYC DAC

The NDCSPT receives a report of the same data elements for the CFCs that are required by the MCYS for the OEYC parent & child drop-in /early learning programs. Reporting frequency limits the statistical methods available for analyzing and describing the data. Time series analysis is restricted to describing the trend. The quarterly data does not support further analysis of seasonal and other cyclic (random) variations.

Parents register at a CFC once /year regardless of the number of CFCs they attend. Parents also use a swipe card and computer terminal to electronically register for each visit they make to each CFC. The OEYC DAC or CIMS Administrator (to be determined) runs reports from one central CIMS database.

Parents OEYC DAC or CIMS Administrator

The One Kids Place CFC Report for the Planning Table consists of four variables (note: there are over 25 variables that can be reported through CIMS but the project scope limited reporting to four variables). Raw data is presented in tabular form. Aggregate and /or individual CFC data is available.

- Reports can be generated for any period (including real-time /present day) and are available upon request.

-

The NDCSPT receives a pilot project report of the same four variables / data elements as the current system (note: with the full implementation of CIMS, future reports would include additional demographic, socioeconomic, and program information). Reporting frequency expands the statistical methods available for analyzing and describing the data. Time series analysis can include descriptions of the trend, and seasonal and other cyclic (random) variations.

S

T

A

T

U

S

Q

U

O

C

I

M

S

INPUTS

October 2011 28

6.2 Effectiveness: Achieving the Intended Objectives CIMS met the objectives as set out in the pilot project. The table below lists the objectives and provides a description of CIMS‟ achievement of the respective objectives. The first two objectives relate to CIMS ability to sum counts with accuracy. Discrepancies were noted in the counts between CIMS and the existing data system, and these are explained in further detail in the section that follows. Also, the objectives relating to the ease of use of CIMS by parents /caregivers, and CFC staff are also explained in more detail in the “Subjective Perspective” section that follows. Table 6 Achieving the Attended Objectives

Objectives of CIMS Pilot CIMS Achievement of the Objective

Accurately sum children and parents/caregivers visits for selected period(s) of time including daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly.

During the three-month pilot period, CIMS indicates that there were 1,984 „visits‟ made to the One Kids Place CFC. This included 814 visits made by parents /caregivers and 1,170 visits by children ages 0 – 6 years. The data collected on visits can be reported in CIMS on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc. basis. Based on a comparison with the status quo data system, these are considered to be accurate statistics (see section 6.2.1 for a detailed explanation of any discrepancies).

Accurately sum children and parents/caregivers served for selected period(s) of time including daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly.

During the three-month pilot period, CIMS indicates that 284 parents /caregivers and children were „served‟ by the One Kids Place CFC (122 parents /caregivers and 162 children, respectively). This means that each parent /caregiver and /or child actively participated in a CFC program or received services, at least once during the pilot period (each person is only counted once in the quarter they participated in the program or received services, and the total count is cumulative). The served data can be reported in CIMS on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc. basis. Based on a comparison with the status quo data system, these are considered to be accurate statistics (see section 6.2.2 for detailed explanation of any discrepancies).

October 2011 29

Objectives of CIMS Pilot CIMS Achievement of the Objective

Ability to use a snap („membership‟) card for attendance

CIMS facilitated the use of approximately 175 electronic snapcards which were produced in house and handed out to parents /caregivers during the pilot project. Using the cards, parents were able to register and check-in at the CFC on a daily basis by “swiping in”.

Capture demographic data, which could be used for statistical and research and analysis purposes

During the pilot project, CIMS was used primarily to record the number of „visits‟ and „served‟ (as mentioned above). However, CIMS also collected demographic information such as address, Aboriginal status, and the age of children. As previously stated, CIMS has the capability of collecting additional demographic and socioeconomic data in addition to what was included in the pilot project.

Straightforward for parents/caregivers to use

As the pilot came to a close, parents /caregivers were surveyed for their opinion on using CIMS. Generally the parents and caregivers found CIMS to be relatively simple, easy to use, and convenient (see the „Subjective Perspective‟ for more detail).

Straightforward for staff/facilitators to use

The CFC Facilitators generally liked CIMS and its ease of use. However, the Facilitators noted that some parents like to attend for a portion of the program, often outside, and that CIMS makes this difficult (see the „Subjective Perspective‟ for more detail).

To see if it meets the requirements for a Data Collection and Information System (Section 3.1, above)

CIMS generally met the system requirements as set out in Table 1, p. 8. User manuals were not available and had to be created in house. Also, the ability to print reports through a tool such as Crystal Reports, or export the CIMS data into a statistical program such as Excel, has not been confirmed.

As discussed above, CIMS was to be evaluated alongside the status quo system for the four MCYS data elements: Parents/Caregivers Visits, Children Visits, Parents/Caregivers Served and Children Served. In the evaluation, a margin of error (percent difference) of +/- 5% was considered acceptable. As the pilot progressed, it became apparent that CIMS was summing correctly. That is, it was adding different day‟s totals correctly, for weekly, monthly and the quarter‟s totals. These CIMS totals were verified in Excel, and by a random examination of CIMS daily attendance sheet by the Data Coordinator, to ensure accurate summing of parents/caregivers and children.

October 2011 30

The Data Coordinator did not adjust attendance sheets (status quo or CIMS) after approximately the second week of the pilot. The only changes that occurred after the first week were if the Data Coordinator was informed of a mistake or change needed (for example, too many children checked off as attended in CIMS) or if a new parent/caregiver and child attended the CFC while the Data Coordinator was not in attendance. These were minor adjustments and could be preformed by fully trained facilitators at the CFC.

6.2.1 Parents/Caregivers and Children Visits

Tables 7 and 8 below illustrate the difference between CIMS, the status quo daily tally sheets, and the OEYC status quo report, for parent/caregiver visits and children visits (note: monthly totals are unavailable for the OEYC report as it reports quarterly data only). Table 7 Parent/Caregiver Visits

Table 8 Children Visits

As the tables indicate, the longer the pilot project continued the greater percent monthly difference between CIMS and the daily tally status quo. In July, the daily tally was 6.1% and 2.8% higher than CIMS for parents/caregivers and children respectively. For September, the daily tally was 17.9% and 15.6% lower than CIMS for parents/caregivers and children respectively. That is to say more people registered their attendance on CIMS than on the paper tally sheet. Overall, the daily tally was 5.3% lower than CIMS for parents/caregivers visits and 6.9% lower than CIMS for children visits. It is interesting to note that the largest variance between the CIMS and status quo counts is in the monthly data. The difference between the Status Quo – OEYC Report and CIMS for the quarter was well within the +/-5% margin of error. This is a result of the variance (+/- error) in the daily data cancelling itself out over the quarter and „smoothing the data‟. As well, some of the practices used in CFC operations, such as counting visitors as “visits” and performing manual “head counts” during programming, helped contribute to the smoothing effect. Facilitators count the number of adults and children in attendance and, if the total is different than the number of people who signed the attendance sheet, the facilitators add the head count total to the tally sheet. There is no record of who the „head count‟ people are, and where head count numbers have been entered, these will be included in the quarter‟s total (so in other words, the Status Quo- Daily Tally in Tables 7 & 8 above do not include headcounts but the Status Quo-OEYC Report for the quarter, does). Appendix G illustrates the affect of head

OKP CFC Status Quo –

Daily Tally CIMS

Percent Difference

Status Quo – OEYC Report

July 231 217 6.1% N/A

August 263 268 -1.9% N/A

September 279 465 -17.9% N/A

Total (fiscal quarter 2)

773 814 -5.3% 811 (-0.3% diff.)

OKP CFC Status Quo –

Daily Tally CIMS

Percent Difference

Status Quo – OEYC Report

July 321 312 2.8% N/A

August 372 393 -5.7% N/A

September 402 329 -15.6% N/A

Total (fiscal quarter 2)

1095 1170 -6.9% 1141 (-2.5% diff.)

October 2011 31

counts. More often than not, these head count totals matched the totals from CIMS, but they were not considered part of the daily tally as there was no record of who attended. While the intention of the project was to verify the accuracy of CIMS for a select period of time, it became evident during the project that this would be difficult to do given the present CFC environment and the status quo data system as a comparator for accuracy. For the purpose of this project, if “accuracy” is defined as the totals of the two systems always being within the acceptable margin of error, then this became unachievable due to the problems outlined earlier in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3. Additionally, there were two attendance methods during the pilot and as parents/caregivers became more comfortable, and knowledgeable, with using CIMS, they were less likely to register their attendance using the manual attendance sheet. Conversely, when CIMS was new and unfamiliar to parents/caregivers they were more likely to register their attendance using only the paper attendance method. Furthermore, visitors to the center signed in using the status quo attendance sheets but not CIMS. And in most cases, backing the number of visitors out from the tally sheets (to see if the counts would match) was not possible because the visitors would only sign their names – not indicate that they were a „visitor‟ (which, as mentioned previously, created the dual problem of these visitors being counted as parents or caregivers when effectively they were neither). Having said the above, much of the variance between the daily totals for CIMS and status quo attendance method balanced out over periods of the pilot. Figure 3 on the following page, illustrates the daily difference between attendance methods. The area highlighted in yellow is in the acceptable margin of error (+/- 5%). Points above the yellow are days where a greater percentage was recorded on the status quo attendance method. Points below the yellow line indicate a greater percentage was recorded on CIMS. The outliers are indicated by numbers and will be explained in detail below. One important note: the percentages are based on daily totals: there was a wide variance in daily totals. As figure 3 clearly illustrates, at the beginning of the pilot, more people checked in on paper and towards the end of the pilot more people checked in on CIMS.

At point 1, there was a difference of 55.6%: 42 children were recorded on CIMS and 27 children were recorded on the status quo attendance sheet. However, on the sheet where the daily totals are recorded, there was a note indicating that the total for children manually headcounted on the day was 42. This is an example of the „headcount affect‟ described above. Again, the CFC facilitators often count those in attendance at CFC programs to ensure all those in attendance are included in visit counts, even if they did not register their attendance on the status quo attendance sheets. Point 2, there was a difference of 45.8%: 35 children were recorded on CIMS and 24 children were recorded on the status quo attendance sheet. This can be explained because „family‟ groups forgot to sign in on the status quo attendance sheet. On the same day 22.7% (5) parents/caregivers did not record their attendance on the status quo attendance sheets.

October 2011 32

Daily Difference between Attendance Methods (Visits)

-60%

-55%

-50%

-45%

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

01-Jul 11-Jul 21-Jul 31-Jul 10-Aug 20-Aug 30-Aug 09-Sep 19-Sep 29-Sep

Date

Pe

rce

nt

Dif

fere

nce

Parents/Caregivers Children

Greater number

signed

in on paper

attendance

sheet

Acceptable margin of

error

Greater number

signed

in on CIMS

1

2

34

56

Figure 3

Point 3, there was a difference of 40%: 28 parents/caregivers were recorded on CIMS and 20 parents/caregivers were recorded on the status quo attendance sheet. This occurred on the final day of the pilot project and for reasons due to time constraints; there was no ability to analyze why there was such a difference. However, historically during the pilot project, many adults forgot to sign in on the status quo attendance sheet. There was a difference of seven children recorded on CIMS and not recorded on the status quo attendance sheets. The data coordinator attended the CFC during the pilot period and would often recognise many „regular‟ attendees on the CIMS attendance list who were not on the status quo attendance sheets. Point 4, there was a difference of 38.9%: 25 parents/caregivers were recorded on CIMS and 18 parents/caregivers were recorded on the status quo attendance sheets. This can be explained because a number of adults (seven) registered their attendance on CIMS but not on the status quo attendance method. There was also one visitor who attended the program. Point 5 there was a difference of 20%: 12 parents/caregivers were recorded on CIMS and 15 parents/caregivers were recorded on the status quo attendance sheet. This is a large percentage difference, despite being a small number of parents/caregivers. On this day there were three adult (parent/caregiver) visitors in attendance at the CFC. Point 6, there was a difference of 17.9%: 23 children were recorded on CIMS and 28 children were recorded on the status quo attendance method. 6 children were recorded on CIMS, but were not recorded on the status quo attendance method and one child was recorded on the status quo attendance method but was not recorded on CIMS.

October 2011 33

Despite the difference, many of the daily totals were within the acceptable range. Figure 4 right, illustrates the range of difference for adults. Almost 1 in 4 days were within the acceptable 5% range. On 35% of the days there was a difference of greater than -15%: more people recorded their attendance on CIMS than on the status quo attendance methods.

Figure 5 illustrates that the daily visits for children was within the acceptable range 35% of the time. Approximately 1 in 3 days there was a difference of greater than -15%: more children were recorded on CIMS than on the status quo attendance method.

6.2.2 Parents/Caregivers and Children Served

Tables 9 and 10 below illustrate the percent difference between parents/caregivers served and children served (note, while CIMS can calculate „served‟ on a number of frequency levels – including daily - the status quo only records it on a quarterly basis). The served count is calculated using a registration form: each new person on a registration form (after verification for duplicates) is a new person served for the year. It became apparent in the early part of the pilot project that there will be disparity in the CIMS and status quo served count. There are many different explanations for this and many of them were explained in section 5.4.3: Problems Encountered with CFC operations.

Daily Range of Difference for Visits (Adults)

Between

-14.9% to -5%

Greater than

15%

Between 5% to

14.9%

Between

-4.9% to 4.9%

Greater than

-15%

Figure 4

Daily Range of Difference for Visits (Childern)

Greater than 15%

Between 5% to

14.9% Greater than

-15%

Between

-14.9% to

-5%

Between

-4.9% to 4.9%

Figure 5

October 2011 34

Many attendees to OKP CFC claimed they had filled out a registration form, yet they did not exist in the CIMS database which was imported directly from the OEYC database at the start of the project. In addition, if there was difference in a spelling of a name, CIMS automatically generated a new „served‟ count. As well, if a parent/caregiver registered a spouse on a registration form, the spouse would not be counted as „served‟ until the first attendance at the CFC, even if the attendance was in a different quarter.

Table 9 Parent/Caregivers Served

OKP CFC CIMS Status Quo – OEYC

Report Percent Difference

Total 122 104 -17.3%

Table 10 Children Served

OKP CFC CIMS Status Quo – OEYC

Report Percent Difference

Total 162 125 -29.6%

6.3 Subjective Perspective

6.3.1 CFC Facilitators

The CFC facilitators are responsible for the day to day operations of One Kids Place Child & Family Centre. During the pilot period the regular CFC facilitators took vacation time and they were replaced by supply facilitators. The regular facilitators provided feedback on CIMS and how they felt the pilot project went. The facilitators felt that once parents/caregivers were only using one system (as opposed to using CIMS and the status quo system as they did for the pilot), it would be easier for everyone. Using two sign in methods during the pilot did create some confusion for parents/caregivers leading to some parents/caregivers to forget to sign in using one or both methods. The facilitators indicated that with CIMS there was less paperwork to complete at the end of a program: CIMS automatically counts all adults and children who attended a program and there is no room for human error in counting and/or interpreting check marks. Additionally, the CIMS information can be accessed by the staff that are responsible for compiling statistics; the facilitators do not have to take, or send, information and statistics to the responsible parties. It was also felt that the parents/caregivers were open and accepting to the new process. If parents/caregivers are not reminded to sign in they often forget to sign in using both methods. If there is a problem or concern with the sign in process, parents/caregivers are often unaware of how to fix the problem. Facilitators are sometimes unavailable to help fix the problem. The facilitators were also concerned with parents/caregivers coming for a portion of programming (for example active play/outside time) and not wanting to sign in at the computer (inside the CFC room)6. The clip board, which holds the paper attendance sheets, is easy to take outside during these times.

6.3.2 CFC Parents/Caregivers

Parents and caregivers who use OKP CFC were also given the opportunity to provide their feedback on the use of CIMS and paper attendance methods. Parent/caregiver feedback is important, as the system that is used to track attendance must be acceptable to those that are using it: if a method is not acceptable users may be liable not to use the method.

6 In discussion with RBB, a tablet, with wireless capabilities, can be used outside the main CFC room.

October 2011 35

Feedback from parents/caregivers was achieved though an informal parent/caregiver survey. Copies of the parent/caregiver survey were distributed at the CFC for approximately three weeks in September 2011. The survey sought to see how simple and convenient parents/caregivers found CIMS (called “computer method” for the purposes of the survey) and the status quo (called “paper attendance” method for the purposes of the survey) and how they liked each method of attendance overall. Parents/caregivers were also given the opportunity to comment on concerns and/or problems they had encountered with either attendance method. The feedback received only reflects the viewpoints of the parents/caregivers who completed the survey. Question: On a scale of 1-5, with one being very difficult and 5 being very simple, how would you rate the following sign in attendance methods [paper or computer], for simplicity and ease of use. Parents/caregivers were asked how they would rate each method for simplicity and ease of use. The supposition being that the easier/simpler the method of attendance, the more likely the parent/caregiver would use, or want to use, the method on a consistent basis. Figure 6, right, illustrates parents/ caregivers answers to the above question. While no attendance method was rated as difficult or very difficult, all parents/caregivers who answered the survey described using the computer as simple or very simple to use. A simple attendance system that is the same in each CFC in the district, helps ensure parents/caregivers consistently register their attendance at the CFC and accurate visit counts are obtained. As one parent/caregiver commented, “I find the card easier. I always remember to sign in with it.” Parent/caregivers commented on how they felt CIMS was more professional (“paper is annoying – I prefer the computer”!), as well as safer/more private. They also commented on the efficiency of CIMS as it relates to being faster (“I did not have to flip threw (sic) pages to find my name or make sure it was on the right date”). However, there was also a concern that it is another thing to remember when visiting the CFC.

Simplicity and Ease of Use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very

Difficult

Difficult Neither

Simple or

Difficult

Simple Very

Simple

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Paper Computer (CIMS)

Figure 6

October 2011 36

Question: On a scale of 1-5, with one being not very convenient and 5 being very convenient, how would you rate the following sign in attendance methods [paper and computer (CIMS)], for the convenience and the amount of time it takes to sign in. Figure 7, right illustrates that all the respondents felt CIMS was a convenient or very convenient attendance method, while 33% of respondents felt the paper attendance method was not a convenient attendance method. Respondents felt the computer attendance was more convenient because the names of the child(ren) automatically appears after the parent signs in and it is easy to check off the correct child(ren) – they do not have to search for the names on paper, or set anything down to write. Question: On a scale of 1-5, with one being very dislike and 5 being very like, how would you rate the following sign in attendance methods [paper and computer (CIMS)], for how you like them overall. As Figure 8 shows, the majority of respondents “very liked” CIMS overall as an attendance method.

Convenience

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not Very

Convenient

Not

Convenient

Neutral Convenient Very

Convenient

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


Figure 7

Overall

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very Dislike Dislike Neither Like

nor Dislike

Like Very Like

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


Figure 8

October 2011 37

Question: Have you encountered any problems using either of the sign in methods? As Figure 9 illustrates, 80% of respondents had experienced a problem with the paper attendance method. Problems included forgetting to sign in, people checking the wrong name and/or date and names being checked off even though before they arrived/if they were not in attendance. 20% of respondents had experienced problems with CIMS. The problems related to forgetting a card, or a card not working. However, the respondents indicated the problems were resolved and the parents/caregivers were instructed on how to sign in without a snap card.

6.3.3 Pilot Project Lead

CIMS was well received by parents/caregivers at OKP. For the parents/caregivers who are familiar and comfortable with computers and computer applications, attendance became faster and simpler. It is important to remember that any system in place in a CFC has to work first for the parents/caregivers who are using the system and second for the system administrators. By creating a system that is simple to use, parents/caregivers may be more likely to use the system on a consistent basis. Another point of consideration regarding any attendance system is the environment in which the attendance system is in. The Child & Family Centre are by their very nature, busy, loud and distracting places. Children run into the centres, practice their writing skills by „signing in‟ and they (and their parents/caregivers) are excited to see familiar faces. An early learning and child care environment will be chaotic making it more likely for parents/caregivers to forget, or be distracted, and not register their attendance. CIMS was successful in summing all the data elements required for the pilot project. CIMS can be successfully implemented in the district with improved training for CFC facilitators, which would include an understanding of CIMS and the rationale and need for an information and data collection system. Compared to the status quo, CIMS is simpler and has an increased accuracy. CIMS also creates an integrated system: no matter which CFC door a family enters in Nipissing, that family only has to tell their story (register) once. It becomes a service system rather than a service centre. In addition, other information collected by CIMS can improve planning for the CFCs and all community partners and stakeholders of Nipissing Best Start.

Experienced Problems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Yes No

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


Figure 9

October 2011 38

6.4 Cost of Implementing CIMS in all Nipissing CFCs Currently the cost of implementing CIMS across the district‟s 12 Child & Family Centres is approximately $12,000 /year ($1,000 per CFC). This cost includes the following annual charges:

CIMS administration Licenses and maintenance / server maintenance services CIMS Help Desk CIMS enhancements Data centre hosting services Vendor support on client working groups, committees, etc.

October 2011 39

7.0 Recommendations

The CIMS Pilot Project Team recommends to the Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table that the Client Information Management System (Best Start Module) be implemented in all the Child & Family Centres in Nipissing District.

Based on the performance of CIMS, including the accurate summing of key data elements, the ability to use a snap card and the ease of use for parents/caregivers and staff, CIMS fulfils the requirements of an information and data system for the district‟s CFCs.

CIMS can collect data which has previously not been collected. This data can include demographic data, usage patterns and socio-economic information. Aggregating and analyzing the CIMS data will enhance planning and policy development in the CFCs, and subsequently improve programming for the families and caregivers who use the CFCs.

The provincial Best Start initiative is built on the premise of an integrated system to support children ages 0-6 and their parents /caregivers. CIMS will help achieve the integration of information and data collection for the CFCs, by creating one single application in all areas of the district, rural and urban. As they arrive at their local CFC, Parents/caregivers will truly experience the Nipissing Best Start brand, as they now only have to tell their story once - not multiple times. Ultimately CIMS will contribute to improved integration and seamless service delivery in Nipissing District‟s Child & Family Centres.

October 2011 40

Appendix A: Comparison of Data Collection and Information Systems Current System EYSIS CIMS

Microsoft Access Early Years Services Information

System Client Information Management System

Developer Microsoft Mothercraft (Toronto) RBB Innovations (Sault Ste Marie)

Web based? No No Yes

Security/ Backup Responsibility of users Responsibility of users Responsibility of developer

Sharing capabilities (CFCs/agencies)

N/A May be possible to network, but reduces effectiveness

Users can have user rights assigned to them

System requirements N/A (already in use) Minimum: Access 2000, XP/2003/2007 Web access Webcam

Report capabilities Access queries, can export to Excel, Word etc. Limited reports available.

MCYS reports Other reports possible (i.e. participants by programs) Export to Excel, Word

MCYS Reports Ability to write customized reports using Crystal Reports

System maintenance/ upgrades

Responsibility of agency Responsibility of agency Developer

Membership card No May be possible Yes – Snap card

Language N/A English – French available for increased cost (would need to be developed)

English – French available for increased cost (would need to be developed)

Demographics Possibility Yes Yes

Data integrity Self check Available/built in Unknown at this time

Other capabilities N/A N/A Centralized child care wait list/ childcare components

Major benefits System is currently in use User friendly

Current information can be migrated User friendly Changes made to one form are made on all forms Track toy/book lending

Families only need to register once Families counted when they sign in (attendance data does not need to be entered separately) Many users can enter information Attendance/scheduling capabilities Only require one database Customisable

Major drawbacks Time consuming (more centres equates to more databases) No built in data integrity Unable to share information easily

May not pull “served” data accurately Each site requires separate database within the system

Final stages of development May not create accurate reports Time and cost intensive to set up Each centre requires a computer Enhancements/ customisations may not be implemented quickly

Technical support N/A Available Help desk

Training N/A In Toronto Available

Cost (estimate) N/A $800 – “Main” CFC, $400 “Satellite” CFC No annual fee

Estimated: $8000 start up (depending on set up, includes training) Annual fee: $6000 ”per agency”

October 2011 41

Appendix B: Technical Aspects of CIMS

As described in section 3.4 CIMS has two functions: a registration and an attendance function. These two functions allow for a fully functioning data collection and information system. This section will speak to some detail of the technical aspects of the system. Snap Cards One of the main features of CIMS for Best Start/OEYC is the ability to use a „snap card‟ to register attendance. These cards are used in kiosk mode and allow a parent/caregiver to register their attendance at the Child & Family Centre. The cards were made in-house. They are laminated, double card stock. One side is branded for Nipissing Best Start, included the website address. The opposite side has a unique QR code/ number that associates the parent/caregiver with their spouse (if applicable) and their child(ren). The figure below is a sample of the snap card for Nipissing District CFCs.

Each parent/caregiver who received a snap card also received a Nipissing Best Start lanyard. Parents/caregivers were able to attach their snap card to the lanyard for safe keeping, if they wished. Kiosk Mode Kiosk mode allows parents/caregivers to register their attendance using their snap card. Before the start of an early learning program or service, a facilitator creates an event, providing information such as the date and time of the event, the event‟s name, the agency sponsoring the event and the location of the event. After entering the information, the facilitator enters a password protected „kiosk‟ area. The figure to the right is the screen a parent/caregiver sees when they enter the CFC. Parents place their snap card in front of a webcam, set up on a CFC computer. The program reads the QR code and

ww

w.n

ipis

singbes

tsta

rt.c

a

SAMPLE

October 2011 42

registers the number in the card number box. Alternatively, parents/caregivers can enter their card number directly in the box. If a parent/caregiver has forgotten their card, they can select forgot card number and follow the instructions to register their attendance, or obtain a new card if necessary. If the parent/caregiver has not attended a CFC before, they would select first time attendee and complete a quick registration7 with a facilitator‟s assistance. New attendees are still required to complete a registration form. The information on the form that is not collected during the quick registration can be entered at a later time, by a facilitator or staff member.

Parents/caregivers can then register their attendance for the day‟s events. As the figure above shows, Kiosk mode allows parents/caregivers to add a spouse or additional children. By adding a spouse or child in this way, a quick registration is created thus allowing for an accurate served count. Additional registration information (from the paper registration form8) can be added at a later time, by a facilitator or staff member.

Registration

Adults and children each have their own registration screen/information. This ensures children and adults, who have a pre-established relationship but different contact information, each have accurate information recorded in the database. The figures below are examples of the information collected on the adult and child registration screens. Note: any information collected in this registration function can be reported on. In addition, many of the choices in the drop down menus of the registration screen are customizable. Please note: these screen shots were taken before certain changes were made in CIMS, including card number and consent for media.

7 Quick registration information includes first and last name for adults, first and last name, date of birth

and relationship to the adult for children. 8 The information on this paper form would include information on language, Aboriginal status, address

information and allergies.

October 2011 43

October 2011 44

Appendix C: Current CFC Registration Form

BSCFC NIPISSING– REGISTRATION FORM Date: _____________________ Child and Family Centre: _______________________________ Last Name:__________________________ First Name: _______________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ Postal Code: ____________________ Telephone (home): ____________________ Language Spoken: Eng______ Fr______ Bil______ Other (specify) _____

Are you of Aboriginal descent: □ Yes □ No

If yes, would you self-identify as: □ Métis □ First Nations □ Inuit □ Other

Were you born outside of Canada? □ Yes □ No If yes, in which country? _______________

How did you hear about us? □ Family Physician □ Newspaper/Radio □ Website(s) □ Community Partners (i.e.: CAS, Hands, OKP…) □ Other ________

Children’s Names: Birthdate: M/F *Your Relationship to the Child _______________________ _______________________ ____ _________

_______________________ _______________________ ____ _________

_______________________ _______________________ ____ _________

Other Adults ______________________________________

*C-Caregiver F-Father GF-Grandfather GM-Grandmother M-Mother S-Sibling O-Other

Allergy Information

__________________________________________ ______________________________________

__________________________________________ ______________________________________

1. I hereby give authorization to photograph/video for the purpose of:

□ Programs/Newsletter/Flyers

□ Media (television/newspaper/website)

2. E-mail address: ____________________________________

□ I would like to receive information by e-mail (monthly calendar).

3. □ I understand that in borrowing books or resources, I agree to pay for the repair or replacement of lost

or damaged materials.

_______________________________________ ______________________________ ______________

Signature Staff Signature Date March 2011

October 2011 45

Appendix D: Current CFC Attendance Form

Sign-in / Month at a Glance Page Child and Family Centre Location: One Kids Treatment Centre Facilitator(s): Month/Year:

Please print ONE name per line. Date:

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Family Name First Name A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C A C

Totals

October 2011 46

Appendix E: Status Quo Attendance Sheets

A child drew on the sheet, making it difficult to decipher check marks

Adult signed in as child on the wrong date

Signed in on days „in the future‟, so the error continued.

Signed in as two adults, instead of one adult, one child

October 2011 47

Signed in on multiple pages

Signed in on wrong date (this sheet started on Sept. 7)

Signed in on wrong date

Only signed in child, not the adult

October 2011 48

Appendix F: CIMS Attendance Sheet

October 2011 49

Appendix G: Status Quo Tally Sheet

Signed in on wrong date

The head count (bottom number) compared to the actual count

October 2011 50

Appendix H: CIMS Tally Sheet

October 2011 51

Glossary

Best Start: Best Start is the provincial strategy for improving early learning and childcare in Ontario. One of the main goals of Best Start is for “children in Ontario to be ready and eager to learn and excel by the time they start grade 1”. CFC: Child and Family Centre Child & Family Centre: CFCs play a central role in carrying out the Best Start strategy. They offer a one-stop opportunity for parents and caregivers to support children‟s earliest development through the provision of core and unique programs, supports and services. There are currently 12 centres in Nipissing District and nine of these centres are located in schools (note: The WNCC main CFC is not in a school but it has programs operating in all the schools in West Nipissing). Previously, these Child and Family Centres were called „hubs‟. Children Served (CCSCHDER): Number of Children Served, MCYS Data element. The number of children, ages 0-6, who received services during the fiscal year. A child is counted once during the fiscal year and it is reported during the initial quarter he/she receives services. This is a cumulative total. Children Visits (CHDVISIT): Number of Visits Made by Children, MCYS Data element. The total number of visits made by children ages 0-6. This is a cumulative total. CIMS: Client Information Management System Client Information Management System: A data and information collection system created by RBB Innovations Ltd. There are different modules of CIMS in use by agencies and organizations, particularly in the mental health and children‟s health sectors. The module used in the pilot was CIMS for OEYC/ Best Start. DAC: Data Analysis Coordinator. In Nipissing District the DAC is hosted at Community Living North Bay/OEYC. DNSSAB: District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board ELCC: Early Learning and Child Care MCYS: Ministry of Children and Youth Services MCYS Data Elements: These are also known as “data dictionaries”. The data elements are statistics which are reported quarterly or annually to the MCYS, by agencies that are funded and /or operated by the MCYS. As part of the service contracts, these data elements define the service levels and results expected of the service providers. There are various types of data elements but the ones referred to in this report are the service data elements which include: Children Served, Children Visits, Parents/Caregivers Served, Parents/Caregivers Visits, Number of Parents/Caregivers in Workshops/Seminars, Number of Professionals in Workshops/Seminars, Number of Referrals, and Number of Protocols/Official Linkages. NDCSPT: Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table.

October 2011 52

Nipissing Best Start Network: The Nipissing Best Start Network was formed in 2006 in order to implement Ontario‟s Best Start strategy in Nipissing District. It is comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders in Nipissing‟s early learning and childcare sector (see also, “Nipissing District Children‟s Services Planning Table” below). Nipissing District Childrens Services Planning Table: This planning table evolved out of the former Nipissing Best Start Network (which the table is often still referred to as -see above). The Planning Table is comprised of community partners who work together to plan, administer and evaluate Best Start programs and services for the District of Nipissing. OEYC: Ontario Early Years Centre OKP: One Kids Place Parents/Caregivers Served (PARCARSER): Number of Parents/Caregivers Served, MCYS Data element. The number of parents/caregivers that actively participated in a program, wither with or without their child(ren). A parent/caregiver is counted once during the fiscal year and it is reported during the initial quarter he/she receives services. This is a cumulative total. Parents/Caregivers Visits (PARVISIT): Number of Visits Made by Parents/Caregivers, MCYS Data element. The total number of visits made by parents/caregivers. This is a cumulative total. QR code: Quick Response Code. A QR code is a barcode that can code text, URLs or other information. The QR code is read by QR barcode readers, smartphones with cameras, computers and webcams. Status Quo: Encompasses all ways in which information and data is presently collected and disseminated at Nipissing CFCs. This includes, but is not limited to, registration forms, attendance sheets, access databases and MCYS reporting requirements.

cims (client information management system) child &...

Documents