Screening program
(updated on 2021-09-01 11:34:35)
SUMMARY
- Among all children who were screened, percent "Green" has increased: from 47% in 2017-2018 to 68% 2019-2020. On average across schools, it increased by 9% point each year.*
- However, the percent of all eligible children who participated in the program has decreased: from 59% in 2017-2018 to 53% 2019-2020. This is mainly due to a decrease in returning consent forms (from 78% to 64%). The consent rate among those who retured the forms has been stable.
- Characteristics of children who participated in the program have been similar over time.
(*Based on further statistical analysis, adjusting for any school-specific characteristics. Results not presented)
0. Data prep
Number of schools participated in the screening program
|
School year
|
Total
|
Title 1 schools
|
Non Title 1 schools
|
|
2017-2018
|
20
|
8
|
12
|
|
2018-2019
|
20
|
8
|
12
|
|
2019-2020
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
Number of schools participated in the screening program, by grade
|
School year
|
Grade
|
Total
|
Title 1 schools
|
Non Title 1 schools
|
|
2017-2018
|
1.Pre-K
|
19
|
8
|
11
|
|
2018-2019
|
1.Pre-K
|
19
|
8
|
11
|
|
2019-2020
|
1.Pre-K
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
|
2017-2018
|
2.Kindergarten
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
|
2018-2019
|
2.Kindergarten
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
|
2019-2020
|
2.Kindergarten
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
(Note: John Archer data are available only for all grades combined)
See Annex for detailed note on the data.
1. Total number of children who are eligible for and received the program
- In 2019-2020, only eight Title 1 schools were served. So, the first two figures should be interpreted with caution. Only trends in the third figure is straight forward.
- But, the number of eligible children from the Title 1 schools is a majority of the total (about two thirds, based on previous years' data).
2. Gap analysis: consent and attendance rates.
- The difference between the number of eligible vs. the number served is mainly from the relatively low consent rates (including both not returning and dissenting).
- Majority of parents who gave consent for screening consented for fluoride treatment.
Absence is only a minor factor for the gap.
- % form-return has decreased, but % consent (among all eligible) has remained.
Below is based on the pooled data (i.e., all children across schools) - not average across schools.
2.1 Further gap analysis: Do consent rates vary across school?
- But, there is substantial variation in consent across schools.
- Title 1 schools do not appear to perform worse than non Title 1 school - third figure below.
2.4 Further gap analysis: return and consent rates
- response vs. participation
2.5 Further gap analysis: who are screened? Have their characteristics changed over time?
- Because of low consent rates, it is important to understand characteristics of "those who are screened" and, especially, if their characteristics change over time.
- For example, if the percent of children at-risk (based on socioeconomic background characteristics) decreases over time among those who are screened, overall outcomes may improve just because of the background characteristics of who are screened (positive selection, in this case). * Below, we are looking at race and health insurance status as proxy.
3. Screening outcome among those who were screened
3.1 Gap analysis: Where can we improve outcome?
Annex: Data note
- Unless vary obvious, I did not edit the data.
- Nevertheless, the following was edited.
-- total_consentreturn=ifelse(total_consentreturn==0 & name=="Bakerfield", (consented_s + dissented_both + dissented_f), total_consentreturn),