1 | Page

Every Child Succeeds: Transition to Preschool 

and Kindergarten Readiness

 Review of Year 3 Data (2013-14)

1. Program Theory and Objectives

Every Child Succeeds (ECS) has strengthened communities in Cincinnati and Northern 

Kentucky with its home visitation intervention for over a decade. Families served by ECS are 

considered high-risk due to low economic status, young maternal age, inadequate prenatal 

care, limited social supports, mental illness or substance abuse. Specifically: 91% are 

unmarried; 98% are low income; one in four is under 18. Eighty-five percent have experienced 

challenges such as social isolation, mental illness, and substance abuse. 

Each month, more than 200 referrals are made to ECS and 2400 total visits are provided.

Participants in ECS receive two to four visits a month from home visitors who work to ensure 

that mothers have access to parenting supports, and infants and young children receive the 

care, nurturing, and interaction they need to have a successful start in life. ECS relies on two 

national evidence-based models of home visitation to address their families’ needs: Healthy 

Family America ® (HFA) and Nurse Family Partnership ® (NFP). Research demonstrates the 

efficacy of these models in sustaining the well-being of participating families, including reduced 

reliance on government welfare programs, improved self-regulation of aggression, and higher 

IQs and language scores for children (Olds et al. 2004). Longitudinal studies of children who 

received home visits through age 12 also indicate reduced incidences of both substance use

and internalizing disorders meeting clinical thresholds (Kitzman et al. 2010).

ECS’s data resonates with these findings. Regular assessment of ECS children using the Ages 

and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) indicates that in 2014 nearly all children exhibited ageappropriate gross motor skills (98%), fine motor skills (98%), language skills (97%), and socialemotional development (93%). ECS pre-post data collected between 2003 and 2008 assessed

children’s and parents’ results after receiving approximately two years of home visits, first at 

two-nine months of age and again at 18-27 months; of children delayed at three or nine months 

on the Denver Screening, more than 72% were on-track by 27 months, or after approximately 

two years of home visitation. As well, over 83% of children delayed in language were on-track 

by 27 months. Results of the Parenting Inventory indicate that at 18 months, 68-89% of mothers 

report parenting beliefs and attitudes of average to low risk – ones that are flexible, accepting, 

and nurturing of child development. Of those parents who expressed high-risk beliefs at two 

months, 43-63% were in average to low risk ranges by 18 months. Lastly, the majority of home 

environments as assessed by the HOME inventory were in the low risk range at 18 months. Of 

high-risk homes at three months, 78-95% were in average to low risk ranges by 18 months.

Findings such as these demonstrate encouraging outcomes for children actively participating in 

ECS. Ensuring that children’s development keeps pace with their peers as they enter 

kindergarten can be additionally supported by helping to transition ECS children from home 

visits to preschool participation. Typically, ECS services for mothers and children end when 

children are 36 months of age. The implementation of a Social Innovation Fund (SIF) supported 

Preschool Transition Program allows ECS to continue working with these families by assisting 

them to enroll their children in quality preschool, further strengthening skill development and 

better preparing them for school.

A large and growing literature speaks to the importance of preschool in mediating barriers to
2 | Page

developmental, academic, and even economic well-being experienced by children with similar 

risk factors as those enrolled with ECS (Levenstein, Levenstein, Oliver 2002; Nelson, 

Westhues, MacLeod, 2003). Gains experienced by children participating in early home visitation 

programs such as ECS may be substantially augmented when followed by participation in 

preschool (Levenstein & Oliver, 2002; Nelson, Westhues, & MacLeod, 2003). Evidence further 

suggests that enrollment in a quality rated preschool increases the likelihood that at-risk children 

will be ready for kindergarten, improving developmental gains in early literacy and socialemotional development (Thornburg, Mayfield, Hawks & Fuger, 2009). 

Regional standards for quality preschool align with national criteria and are defined as those 

centers accredited through the National Association for the Education of Young Children 

(NAEYC) and/or have a star rating in either the Kentucky STARS for KIDS NOW (SKN) or Ohio

Step Up to Quality (SUTQ) rating systems. NAEYC accreditation is based on adherence to eight

standards of care that include criteria for the relationships among teachers, children, families 

and their communities, the health and development of children, and curriculum content and 

delivery. SKN ratings are implemented through the Kentucky Department of Education, while 

SUTQ is administered through the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services. Both state 

agencies award star ratings for centers which exceed state licensing standards. Criteria for 

ratings are similar in both systems and include annual performance evaluations, staff/child 

ratios, curriculum, and the training and continuing education of staff.

Children with quality preschool experiences are more likely to reach benchmarks on stateadministered kindergarten assessments. Regional indicators of school readiness include a 

benchmark score of 19 on the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment – Literacy (KRA-L) in Ohio 

and a “Normal Curve Equivalent” score of 50 on the Developmental Indicators (DIAL-4) in 

Northern Kentucky (United Way, 2010). Additional supports for school readiness are essential 

as an estimated 50% of children in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky are considered “ready” by 

regional standards. By securing enrollment opportunities to quality preschool programs for atrisk populations served by ECS, the Preschool Transition program is expected to contribute to 

moving the needle on school readiness within the region. 

The Preschool Transition program supported by the SIF includes home visitation but enhances 

this service through four additional features: 1.) the dissemination of information and individual 

consultation on the benefits of preschool to ECS parents, 2.) additional developmental 

assessment of children using the Bracken Basic Concepts Scale in Ohio and the DIAL-4 in 

Kentucky, 3.) the monitoring of assessment results to assist in coordinating referral services to 

quality preschools and to increase parents’ understanding of school readiness concepts and 

practices, and 4.) working cooperatively with quality preschools to remove barriers to enrollment 

and attendance. These enhanced transition services will be offered to all ECS participating 

families living in Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport school districts. 

The relationship between the ECS Preschool Transition program components and their 

anticipated outcomes is summarized by the program’s logic model (Figure 1). This project 

model is based on the Kellogg Foundation’s Logic Model Development Guide (2004) and is 

informed by components of effective home-visitation programs as outlined by the Council on 

Child and Adolescent Health Pediatrics (1998). By consistently meeting implementation goals, 

the ECS Preschool Transition program expects to: 1.) reach a large number of ECS families 

with information on preschool, 2.) engage these families in transition coordination services 

provided by a home visitor, 3.) increase children’s developmental progress relative to standard 

norms on early childhood assessments, 4.) establish partnerships with quality preschools, 5.) 
3 | Page

successfully enroll ECS children in these programs, and 6.) improve school readiness as 

indicated in kindergarten assessments of at-risk children in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.

2. Summary of Program Evaluation Methodology 

Evaluation of the ECS Preschool Transition program focuses on assessing both program 

implementation and its preliminary outcomes. Program activities and outputs outlined by the 

logic model describe the program’s intended implementation. Implementation goals were 

tracked primarily by ECS by logging numbers for: hours of training each staff member received, 

families eligible for transition services, families provided with preschool information packets, and 

families receiving transition services and participating in transition groups. Assessors with ECS 

likewise tracked the number of children tested, while the lead transition coordinator tracked 

efforts to form partnerships with quality rated preschools.

ECS assessors administered either the Bracken or the DIAL 4 depending upon service delivery 

area. The Bracken is a measure of receptive language that assesses concept knowledge. It is 

composed of ten subtests which correspond to different categories of concept development. For 

the purposes of the ECS Preschool Transition evaluation, five subtests were administered. 

These first five subtests make up the school readiness composite (SRC) and assess concept 

awareness related to colors, letters, numbers and counting, sizes and comparisons, and 

shapes. The SRC of the Bracken assessment has well documented validity and reliability with 

high rates of intercorrelation with both measures of preschool development and the KRA-L. In 

Kentucky, the DIAL-4 is used as a complement to measures of kindergarten readiness. 

Although the Bracken and the DIAL are not directly comparable, the domains of knowledge 

assessed with this tool overlap with those assessed by the Bracken, including color and shape 

identification, counting, meaningful counting, concepts, and problem solving.
4 | P age

Figure 1: ECS Transition Program Logic Model
5 | Page

Preschool developmental assessment data were recorded and scored by ECS assessors and 

were compiled and reviewed for errors by program evaluation staff at INNOVATIONS in 

Community Research and Program Evaluation. Efforts to link data to school readiness 

assessments at the kindergarten level were also led by INNOVATIONS. Currently available data 

sources include the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) KRA-L database for 2013-14 and the 2013

Southwest Early Learning Leaders (SWELL) Preschool Experience Survey project, the latter of 

which has compiled KRA-L and preschool attendance data for both 20+ school districts in a four 

county region and Head Start programs. Aggregation and organization of both implementation 

and impact data were led by INNOVATIONS, who also completed this evaluation summary 

report for ECS and their funders. ECS intends to apply the findings of this report to continuous 

improvement efforts aimed at strengthening program implementation and efficacy.

The current evaluation report uses a series of between group analyses to answer questions of 

program implementation and impact as outlined in subsequent sections. Twelve groups of 

interest are listed in Table 1. Anticipated group size and composition are compared to group 

characteristics emerging through the course of program implementation. The Year 1(2011-12) 

and Year 2 (2012-13) report examined data from these years in detail and offered baseline data 

for comparison for the Year 3 (2013-14) report (current report). Due to limitations in the 

availability of information for risk factors in general preschool and kindergarten populations, 

family income level as indicated by eligibility for free- and reduced lunch became the primary 

variable for identifying comparison groups. Eligibility requirements mandate that adjusted 

income relative to family size be no greater than 185% federal poverty guidelines. Although 

income is an indicator of barriers to preschool and kindergarten readiness and success,

comparison groups outlined in Table 1 are likely to outperform ECS children in measures of 

school readiness as ECS targets a population with the greatest identified risks. 

Table 1: Groups Identified for Program Evaluation

Group Name Intended Composition and Size Resultant Composition and Size

Group 1a: All participants 

in ECS enhanced with 

Preschool Transition. 

A total of 250 ECS families from 

both Ohio and Kentucky

(estimated from prior ECS 

enrollment and program 

availability)

234 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). 

Data source is ECS proprietary 

database and the SuccessBy6® Data 

Central online database.

Group 1b: Ohio ECS with 

enhanced Preschool 

Transition assessed with 

the Bracken.

75 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). Data 

source is ECS proprietary database and 

the SuccessBy6® Data Central online 

database.

Group 1c: Northern 

Kentucky ECS with

enhanced Preschool 

Transition assessed with 

the DIAL.

32 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). Data 

source is ECS proprietary database and 

the SuccessBy6® Data Central online 

database.

Group 2: ECS Without 

Preschool Transition. 

15-20% of ECS families who 

decline Preschool Transition 

services (approximately 50 

families). 

100 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). 

Data source is the ECS proprietary 

database and the SuccessBy6® Data 

Central online database.

Group 3a: 

Kindergarteners in Ohio 

with ECS experience and 

preschool experience.

56 children with both ECS and 

preschool experience.

56 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). Data 

source is the CPS KRA-L database

(2013-14). 

Group 3b: 

Kindergarteners in 

Northern Kentucky with 

No data available. Data sharing 

agreements with school districts in 

Northern Kentucky are pending. 

Baseline data not available. Data 

sharing agreements with school districts 

in Northern Kentucky are pending.
6 | Page

ECS experience and 

preschool.

Group 4a: 

Kindergarteners in Ohio 

with ECS and NO

preschool experience.

28 children with ECS only 

experience. 

28 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14). Data 

source is the CPS KRA-L database

(2013-14).

Group 4b: 

Kindergarteners in 

Northern Kentucky with 

ECS and NO preschool

experience.

No data available. Data sharing 

agreements with school districts in 

Northern Kentucky are pending. 

Data sharing agreements with school 

districts in Northern Kentucky pending. 

Group 5a: Kindergarten 

Children in Ohio with 

preschool experience

and NO ECS 

participation.

156 children with preschool but no 

ECS participation. 

156 for Year 3 of the SIF (2013-14).

Data source is the SWELL regional 

survey. (2012-13). 

Group 5b: Kindergarten 

Children in Northern 

Kentucky with preschool

experience and NO ECS 

participation.

No data available. Data sharing 

agreements with school districts in 

Northern Kentucky are pending. 

Data sharing agreements with school 

districts in Northern Kentucky pending. 

Group 6a: Kindergarten 

Children in Ohio with NO

preschool experience 

and NO ECS 

participation.

462 children with no preschool or 

ECS participation. 

462 for Year 3 SIF (2013-14). Data 

source is the SWELL regional survey.

(2012-13). 

Group 6b: Kindergarten 

Children in Northern 

Kentucky with NO

preschool experience 

and NO ECS 

participation.

No data available. Data sharing 

agreements with school districts in 

Northern Kentucky are pending. 

Data sharing agreements with school 

districts in Northern Kentucky pending. 

Demographic data for these evaluation groups are represented by Tables 2 through 4 and show 

composition by gender, race/ethnicity, and primary language. 

Table 2: Gender

Group Name Females Males Total

Group 1b: Ohio ECS with enhanced 

Preschool Transition assessed with the 

Bracken.

44.0% 

(33) 

56.0% 

(42) 75

Group 1c: Northern Kentucky ECS with 

enhanced Preschool Transition assessed with 

DIAL. 

28.1%

(9)

71.9%

(23) 32

Group 3a: Kindergarteners in Ohio with ECS 

experience and preschool experience.

51.8%

(29) 

48.2% 

(27) 56

Group 4a: Kindergarteners in Ohio with ECS 

and NO preschool experience.

50.0%% 

(14)

50.0% 

(14) 28

Group 5a: Kindergarten Children in Ohio with 

preschool experience and NO ECS 

participation.

47.1% 

(73) 

52.9% 

(82) 155

Group 6a: Kindergarten Children in Northern 52.1% 47.9% 461
7 | Page

Kentucky with NO preschool experience and 

NO ECS participation.

(240) (221)

Table 3: Race/Ethnicity

Group Name American

Indian

Asian/ 

Pacific

Islander

Black/ 

African 

American

Latino/ 

Hispanic

MultiRacial/ 

Other

White/ 

Caucasian No Record

Group 1b: Ohio ECS with 

enhanced Preschool 

Transition assessed with 

the Bracken.

0.0%

(0)

1.3%

(1)

70.7%

(53)

1.3%

(1)

5.3%

(4)

21.3%

(16)

0.0%

(0)

Group 1c: Northern 

Kentucky ECS with 

Enhanced Preschool 

Transition assessed with 

the DIAL. 

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

6.3%

(2)

21.9%

(7)

18.8%

(6)

53.1%

(17)

0.0%

(0)

Group 3a: Kindergarteners 

in Ohio with ECS 

experience and preschool 

experience.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

82.1%

(46)

3.6%

(2)

7.1%

(4)

7.1%

(4)

0.0%

(0)

Group 4a: Kindergarteners 

in Ohio with ECS and NO 

preschool experience.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

50.0%

(14)

17.9%

(5)

17.9%

(5)

14.3%

(4)

0.0%

(0)

Group 5a: Kindergarten 

Children in Ohio with 

preschool experience and 

NO ECS participation.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

41.7%

(60)

9.0%

(13)

6.3%

(9)

43.1%

(62)

0.0%

(0)

Group 6a: Kindergarten 

Children in Northern 

Kentucky with NO 

preschool experience and 

NO ECS participation.

0.0%

(0)

0.2%

(1)

19.2%

(82)

7.2%

(31)

7.0%

(30)

65.0%

(278)

1.4%

(6)

Table 4: Primary Language 

Group Name English Spanish Other No Record

Group 1b: Ohio ECS with enhanced Preschool 

Transition assessed with the Bracken.

97.3%

(73)

0.0%

(0)

2.7%

(2)

0.0%

(0)

Group 1c: Northern Kentucky ECS with enhanced 

Preschool Transition assessed with the DIAL. 

81.3%

(26)

18.8%

(6)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Group 3a: Kindergarteners in Ohio with ECS 

experience and preschool experience.

94.6%

(53)

3.6%

(2)

1.8%

(1)

0.0%

(0)

Group 4a: Kindergarteners in Ohio with ECS and 

NO preschool experience.

85.7%

(24)

14.3%

(4)

0,0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

Group 5a: Kindergarten Children in Ohio with 

preschool experience and NO ECS participation.

95.5%

(149)

2.6%

(4)

0.0%

(0)

1.9%

(3)

Group 6a: Kindergarten Children in Northern 

Kentucky with NO preschool experience and NO 

ECS participation.

95.9%

(443)

2.6%

(12)

0.0%

(0)

1.5%

(7)
8 | Page

* Data variables have been changed or eliminated from Tables 2-4 for better ease of analysis. 

There is an extensive literature that documents benefits of preschool experiences for improving 

school readiness outcomes, particularly for low-income and at-risk children (Heckman, Moon, 

Pinto, Savelyev & Yavitz, 2010; Herrod, 2007; Reynolds & Temple 1996). Studies also 

substantiate the benefit of home visitation services (Kitzman et al. 2010; Gomby 2005; Olds, 

Henderson, Cole, Eckenrode, Kitzman, Luckey, et al, 1998); however, there are no studies on 

kindergarten readiness in children who have received home visitation services. An important 

goal of this evaluation plan is, therefore, to differentiate the effects on school readiness due to 

participation in a home visitation intervention from those produced by either preschool alone, a 

home-visitation program in combination with preschool, or no documented intervention. 

Given extant literature, the working hypothesis for this project is that the combination of home 

visitation and preschool offered through the ECS Preschool Transition Program will produce the 

most significant gains in school readiness for a population of at-risk children. In its first and 

second year of SIF funding the evaluation plan assessed the benefits of home visitation to 

kindergarten readiness for ECS children both with and without the benefit of preschool transition 

services. In its third year of SIF funding, the evaluation plan expanded its scope by comparing 

school readiness for four groups of at-risk children. 

3. Evaluation of Program Implementation

A summary of program implementation questions, their place within the logic model, and their 

findings are summarized in Table 5. Generally, implementation goals for high levels of staff 

training, family outreach, availability of materials and resources, and assessment of children 

prior to transition to preschool were met.

In Year 3 of the SIF, ECS’ home visitation and transition staff received a minimum of 3 hours of 

training that included an hour-long introduction to the project and explanation of transition 

resources, as well as guidance and training on assessment tools. At present there are a total of 

8 staff members delivering developmental assessments (2 in Ohio and 6 in Northern Kentucky). 

Goals for reaching ECS families with information pertaining to the Preschool Transition program 

were met, as were goals for distributing developmental and preschool planning packets. Barriers 

to delivery of assessments include family mobility and lack of phone minutes. As ECS continues 

to bring its assessment efforts to scale through the initial years of program implementation, the 

percentage of those children receiving assessments should meet the goals established through 

the program logic model. 

Table 5: Summary of Program Implementation Questions and Findings

1.) Are ECS transition staff receiving necessary training?

Logic Model OP1: ECS staff are well-trained.

Logic model Component Findings

Did 100% of home visitation 

staff complete 10 hours of 

assessment and transition 

related training?

All staff received 1 hour introductory seminar, 3 additional hours of 

transition resources seminar. All 8 assessors received an additional 6 

hours of evaluation training for a total of 10 hours of training.

2.) Are ECS families receiving information about the benefits of quality preschool?

Logic Model OP2: Parents are well informed on benefits of quality preschool.

a.) Were 95% of families eligible 

for transition services reached 

100% (n = 234) of eligible families Year 3 of the SIF were contacted by 

ECS staff.
9 | Page

by ECS staff?

b.) Did 85% of eligible families 

receive preschool planning 

packets/books?

84% (n = 197) of eligible families with a child between 2 and 3 years of 

age were provided at least 1 developmental packet by home visitors.

75% (n = 178) of eligible families received an age-appropriate book.

62% (n = 146) of eligible families received a preschool resource packet 

to prepare for school enrollment.

3.) Are ECS transition program participants being tracked for developmental progress.

Logic Model OP3: Children are assessed/screened using Bracken or DIAL measures.

a.) Were 75% of children 

receiving transition services 

assessed by 36 months?

50% (n = 118) of eligible families received assessment services. This 

is 82% of those families who participated in transition specific visits 

with a home visitor or transition coordinator.

92% (n =109) of these families provided consent to share their child’s 

scores with the program evaluator.

36% (n = 43) of these families had children who received assessments 

by 36 months of age.

b.) Were 75% of children 

receiving transition services

assessed with Bracken?

67% (n = 78) of children whose families participated in transition 

specific home visits were assessed with the Bracken. 

96% (n = 75) of these families provided consent to share their child’s 

scores with the evaluator. 

c.) Were 25% of children 

receiving transition services 

assessed with DIAL?

44% (n = 40) of children whose families participated in transition 

specific home visits were assessed with the DIAL-4. 

83% (n = 33) of these families provided consent to share their child’s 

scores with the evaluator. 

4. Evaluation of Program Outcomes 

A summary of program outcome questions, their place within the logic model, and their findings 

are summarized in Table 6. Generally, outcome goals for high rates of participation in transition 

services, appropriate developmental progress for children, and enrollment in quality preschool 

were met. 

In Year 3 of the SIF, 62.0% participated in home visits as compared with 80% of families in 

years 1 and 2. Despite this success to program participation, barriers encountered in scheduling 

transition home visits include family mobility and lack of phone minutes, typical of serving such a 

vulnerable population. Project staff was creative with outreach to families, utilizing text 

messaging, calling and visiting during family-friendly hours, and reaching out to home visitors for 

updated contact information. Preschool developmental assessments indicated that children who 

participated in ECS enhanced with Preschool Transition services were developmentally on pace 

with their peers. Of those children assessed using the Bracken, 66.7% of Ohio ECS students 

with enhanced Preschool Transition produced scores at or above the level considered average 

according to test norms. Of those children assessed using the DIAL-4 in Northern Kentucky,

59.4% produced scores at or above the benchmark score for average according to test norms. 

ECS has entered into or has maintained partnerships with at least 15 preschool programs – 

significantly more than the originally stated goal for the Preschool Transition program. These 
10 | Page

partnerships include: Cincinnati Early Learning Centers (CELC), Children’s Home of Cincinnati

(CHOC), University of Cincinnati Early Learning Centers (UCELC), YMCA Early Learning 

Centers, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), Northern Kentucky 

Community Action Commission Head Start (NKCAC), Hamilton County Community Action 

Commission Head Start (CAA), Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS), Bright Days, Children Inc., 

Newport Public Schools, Covington Public Schools, Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool 

Youngsters (HIPPY), Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids (SPARK), and Promoting 

Our Preschoolers (POP). 

The percent of ECS families who enrolled or were in the process of enrolling their children for 

preschool neared the goal of 75.0%. Of these 123 families (53.0%) who received transition 

services, 83 (67.0%) have children currently enrolled in a preschool program, while 40 (33.0%) 

are in the process of enrolling. 

Table 6: Summary of Program Outcome Questions and Findings

1.) Are ECS families participating in the preschool transition program?

Logic Model OT1: Enhanced reach of services.

Logic model Component Findings

a.) Did 75% of ECS participants 

receive transition services?

59% (n = 140) eligible families developed a transition goal.

b.) Did 75% of parents participate in 

transition services with their home 

visitor?

62% (n = 146) of eligible families participated in home visits with 

Transition Program coordinators.

81% (n = 118) of these families were provided developmental 

assessments for their children.

c.) Did 25% of parents participate in 

transition groups with their ECS 

coordinator?

31% (n = 36) of families with children assessed with either 

Bracken or DIAL participated in transition groups.

2.) Are the children who participate in the ECS transition program making appropriate 

developmental progress?

Logic Model OT2: Children show an increase in developmental progress relative to standard 

norms. 

a.) Did children show developmental 

progress relative to standard norms 

on the Bracken assessment?

Children were developmentally on pace with their peers.

75 children with Bracken assessments had a mean scaled score 

of 9.0, which falls in the “average” performance category for the 

school readiness composite (indicated by a range of scores from 

8 to 12).

66.7% (n =50) of those evaluated had assessment scores at or 

above the “average” performance category.

b.) Did children show developmental 

progress relative to standard norms 

on the DIAL assessment?

Children were developmentally on pace with their peers.

32 children with DIAL-4 scores had a mean standard score 

of 105.5, and a mean Normal Curve Equivalent score of 57.7, 

which falls within the “Average” category (indicated by a 

standard score of 100 or an NCE of 50).

59.4% (n = 19) of those evaluated had assessment scores at or 

above the “average” benchmark score.

3.) Does the ECS transition program help participating children enroll in quality preschool?
11 | Page

Logic Model OT3: Children enroll in quality preschool.

a.) Did as many as 75% of ECS 

transition program participants 

successfully enroll in quality 

preschool? 

53% (n = 123) of families receiving preschool transition services 

have successfully enrolled or are enrolling a child in a quality 

preschool program. 

Of these children, 83 (67%) are currently enrolled in a quality 

preschool program, while 40 (33%) are in the process of 

enrolling.

b.) Were as many as 10 planning 

partnerships formed with preschools?

ECS currently participates in planning partnerships with 15

programs including SUTQ or STARS center based programs, 

public preschool, and Head Start.

c.) Did 60% of families report 

receiving assistance with enrollment?

Family feedback survey not yet administered. 

5. Year 3 Analysis of Impacts

A summary of program impact questions, their place within the logic model, and their findings 

are summarized Table 7. 

Table 7: Summary of Program Impact Questions and Findings

Are ECS children who participate in the Preschool Transition Program and quality preschool more 

ready for school compared to other at-risk children?

 Impact: Children Achieve Developmental Success and School Readiness

a.) Did ECS children who 

transitioned to quality preschool 

score higher on measures of 

kindergarten readiness than ECS 

children who did not participate in 

transition services or receive quality 

preschool?

ECS participants with confirmed preschool program participation 

(n = 56), evaluation group 3a, produced a mean school readiness 

(KRA-L) score of 19.2. 

ECS participants without preschool (n = 28), evaluation group 4a, 

produced a mean school readiness (KRA-L) score of 18.9. 

b.) Did ECS children who ECS participants with confirmed preschool program participation 

transitioned to quality preschool (n = 56) produced a mean school readiness (KRA-L) score 

score higher on measures of of 19.2. 

kindergarten readiness than similarly 

at-risk children with preschool Non-ECS participants with preschool experience (n =156), 

experience but without the benefit of evaluation group 5a, produced a mean school readiness score 

ECS participation? (KRA-L) of 18.5.

c.) Did ECS children who 

transitioned to quality preschool 

score higher on measures of 

kindergarten readiness than similarly 

at-risk children who did not 

participate in ECS or preschool?

ECS participants with confirmed preschool program participation 

(n = 56) produced a mean school readiness (KRA-L) score 

of 19.2. 

Non-ECS participants without preschool (n = 462), evaluation 

group 6a, produced a mean school readiness (KRA-L) scores 

of 15.8.

KRA-L scores are evaluated according to performance bands in the state of Ohio. These bands 

are defined as follows:
12 | Page

• Band One: Scores between 0 and 13 – “Assess broadly for intense instruction” 

• Band Two: Scores between 14 and 23 – “Assess for targeted instruction” 

• Band Three: Scores between 24 and 29 – “Assess for enriched instruction”

When baseline results for assessing program impacts are evaluated according to band criteria, 

a more nuanced picture emerges for ECS program participation, preschool attendance and 

school readiness (Figure 1). The distribution of scores may be also considered in light of 

community standards for school readiness, which rely on a score of 19 or above (Figure 2). As 

illustrated by figures 1 and 2, graduates of the Preschool Transition Program who were tracked 

into kindergarten better retained developmental skills that contribute to school success. 

Figure 1: KRA-L Performance Band Distributions for Evaluation Groups

25.0%

17.9%

27.6%

40.0%

46.4%

50.0%

39.1%

43.9%

28.6%

32.1% 33.3%

16.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

ECS Graduates With

Quality Preschool

Experience (3a)

ECS Graduates Without

Preschool Experience (4a)

Non-ECS Kindergarteners

With Preschool (5a)

Non-ECS Kindergarteners

Without Preschool (6a)

Band One Band Two Band Three
13 | Page

Figure 2: KRA-L Performance and School Readiness for Evaluation Groups

37.5%

42.9%

46.8%

66.2%

62.5%

57.1%

53.2%

38.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

ECS Graduates With

Quality Preschool

Experience (3a)

ECS Graduates Without

Preschool Experience (4a)

Non-ECS Kindergarteners

With Preschool (5a)

Non-ECS Kindergarteners

Without Preschool (6a)

Score below 19 - "Not Ready" Score 19 and above - "Ready"

6. Summary of Implementation and Outcomes 

• ECS staff received 10 total hours of training and will continue to receive additional hours 

of training in future years. 

• 100.0% of the families eligible to receive transition services have been reached by ECS 

staff. 84.0% of these families received at least one developmental packet; 75.0% of 

families received an age-appropriate book; and 62.0% of families received a preschool 

resource packet. 

• 59% of eligible families worked to develop a transition plan or goal for their children.

• 62.0% of eligible families participated in home visits with Transition Program 

coordinators.

• Children assessed as a part of transition activities were developmentally on pace with 

their peers and produced scores in the “average” range for both Bracken and DIAL-4 

measures. 

• ECS maintained or created partnerships with over 15 high quality preschools. 

• ECS graduates with preschool experience outperform ECS graduates without preschool 

by 0.3 points on the KRA-L. 

• ECS graduates with preschool experience also outperform a comparison group of 

students without either preschool or ECS experience by 3.4 points.
14 | Page

References

Bracken , B. (2007). Bracken School Readiness Assessment – Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: 

Pearson Assessment.

Council on Child and Adolescent Health Pediatrics. (1998). The Role of Home-Visitation 

Programs in Improving Health Outcomes for Children and Families. American Academy 

of Pediatrics 101(3), 486-489. 

 

David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Kauffmann Foundation, Ford Foundation. (2005). Getting 

Ready: Findings from the National School Readiness Indicators Initiative a 17 State 

Partnership. Providence, RI: Rhode Island. KIDS COUNT.

Gomby, D.S. (2005). Home Visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents. Invest in Kids 

Working Paper (7). Committee for Economic Development. 

Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., Yavitz, A. (2010). The Rate of Return to 

the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114-128.

Herrod, H.G. (2007). Do First Years Really Last a Lifetime? Clinical Pediatrics, 46(3), 199-205.

Kitzman, H.J., Olds, D.L., Cole, R.E., Hanks, C.A., Anson, E.A., Arcoleo, K.J., et al. (2010). 

Enduring Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Home Visiting by Nurses on Children: Followup of a Randomized Trial Among Children at Age 12 Years. Archives of Pediatric and 

Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 412-418. 

Levenstein, P., Levenstein, S., Oliver, D. (2002). First grade school readiness of former child

participants in a South Carolina replication of the Parent-Child Home Program. Journal 

of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 331-353.

Mardell, C. & Goldenberg, D. (2011) Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – 

Fourth Edition. San Antonia, TX: Pearson Assessments.

Nelson, G., Westhues, A., MacLeod, J. (2003). A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Research on 

Preschool Prevention Programs for Children. Prevention and Treatment, 6(1), Article 

31a. No Pagination Specified.

Olds, D.L., Kitzman, H.J., Cole, R.E., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D., et al. (2004). Effects 

of Nurse Home-Visiting on Maternal Life Course and Child Development: Age 6 FollowUp Results of a Randomized Trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550-1559.

Olds, D.L., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). 

Long-term Effects of Nurse Home Visitation on Children’s Criminal and Antisocial 

Behavior. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(14), 1238-1244.

Reynolds, A.J. & Temple, J.A. (1996). Extended Ealry Childhood Intervention and School 

Achievement: Age 13 Findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Institute for 

Research on Poverty Discussion Paper (1095-96).

SuccessBy6, Greater Cincinnati United Way, (2010). KRA-L report 2009-2010. 
15 | Page

Southwest Early Learning Leaders, (2011). Annual Report on Regional Trends in Early Learning 

Experiences. 

Thornburg, K.R., Mayfield, W.A., Hawks, J.S., & Fuger, K.L., (2009). The Missouri Quality 

Rating System School Readiness Study: Executive Summary. Center for Family Policy & 

Research University of Missouri and the Institute for Human Development. Kansas City, 

MO: University of Missouri.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. 

Kellogg Foundation.

 

Werner, A. (2004). A Guide to Implementation Research. Washington: Urban Institute Press.