Section 6 Appendix A

6.1 Technical Methodology

6.1.1 Instrument Design

Forsyth Futures analysts conducted six key informant interviews with stakeholders at child care homes, child care and pre-k sites, health care providers, public programs, and nonprofits serving young children. The findings from this interview were used to design a survey questionnaire that was then piloted by three providers.

6.1.2 Child Care Provider Survey

159 child care centers and homes in Forsyth County were invited to participate in the survey by email, and reminder emails were sent to participants who had not completed the survey. Staff from the Child Care Resource Center also followed up by phone with child care providers who had not responded to the email, and conducted the survey over the phone for providers if preferred by the provider. All respondents were paid $15 for their time for completing the survey. For the analysis, responses from respondents who represented multiple sites were weighted based on the number of sites that each respondent managed. 82 respondents representing 105 sites ended up participating in the survey.

Survey responses were not cleaned for internal consistency, though spot checks indicated that responses to survey questions were generally internally consistent. All survey responses given were included in the analysis, even if the respondent did not complete the entire survey. When calculating percentages for visualizations and tables, analysts reported the percentage of respondents who answered the question for multiple choice questions and estimated the number of respondents who answered or skipped questions for “select all” - type questions based on survey response patterns. “Other” responses were only counted for the visualizations and tables where the response is listed. Responses to multiple choice questions were analyzed quantitatively, and an analyst analyzed the comments from open-ended responses in the survey for major themes.

6.1.3 Other Nonprofit and Government Organizations

Analysts invited 16 people representing 24 nonprofit and government programs serving young children and 2 people each representing one of the major local healthcare systems to participate in the survey via video chat. Survey responses were collected for each program that the respondent represented, and comments or more detailed explanations given by respondents were recorded in open ended fields. Analysts then analyzed the open-ended responses for major themes to supplement how respondents answered the survey questions.

6.1.4 Interviews with Communities Who Have a Data Hub

The Forsyth Futures team interviewed four communities across the country, Guilford County in North Carolina, Broward County and Miami-Dade County in Florida, and Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, to capture information on how those communities are approaching their data hubs and what were the lessons learned in their processes to date. The types of information asked in the interview about their data hubs were: the purpose of having the data hub, funding, management/administration, and stakeholders involved. The interviews were recorded and the following is included in this report: key findings from across the interviews, high-level summaries of each interview, and a detailed overview of each community. The key findings were identified by one analyst and confirmed by a second analyst.

6.2 Limitations

6.2.1 Child Care Provider Survey

A primary limitation of this study is that the results presented are from a cross sectional survey at a fixed point in time that relied on a convenience sampling design and therefore, do not represent child care providers attitudes or beliefs about participating in a data sharing hub over time. Representatives from 105 out of 159 child care centers and homes participated in the survey, and there may have been differences between the providers who participated in the survey and the providers who did not. The survey relied heavily on response matrices that were time consuming to fill out and may have been confusing to some respondents. Survey Monkey reported that the typical time spent completing the survey was 37 minutes, and this number includes respondents who did not complete the survey. Additionally, the wording or phrasing of the questions could have been difficult to understand. Providers’ practices can also be detailed and idiosyncratic and may not have been captured well by the response options offered in a multiple choice survey, this may have contributed to the frequency with which respondents chose “other” as a response option. Some open-ended responses also indicated that respondents may need to consult with other members of their organizations before being able to give firm answers, such as legal counsel or corporate boards. This, along with ambiguity around what a potential data hub would do, may have contributed to a significant number of “not sure” responses to the survey. And, this survey does not capture the sentiment of these other organization members or participants’ feelings about a more specific proposal.

6.2.2 Other Nonprofit and Government Organizations

The primary limitation of the conversations with nonprofit and government program staff is limited causality in their survey responses and comments. While staff at Forsyth Futures worked to ensure broad representation, findings are not statistically representative of all nonprofit and government programs that serve young children. Further, qualitative analysis relied on Forsyth Futures staff entering all survey responses in real time without recording equipment. It is possible that not all information was recorded by staff or there were additional nuances missed in recording responses. Lastly, a social desirability bias could have presented itself with respondents potentially answering certain questions differently if they completed the survey on their own instead of with a Forsyth Futures staff member.

6.2.3 Interviews with Communities Who Have a Data Hub

A main limitation of the interviews with other communities that have developed or are developing a data hub is that the communities selected are just a small sample of all of the communities that have built or are building such systems. This means that the findings from these interviews may not be generalizable to all communities who have or are building data hubs. One finding from the interviews is that each community approaches a data hub in different ways, so some of the findings may or may not be as applicable to the environment and circumstances of the Forsyth County community.