Kids in Transition to School (KITS)

Year 1 Evaluation Report

Submitted to:

 

United Way of Lane County

Submitted By:

 

Beth L. Green, Ph.D.

Director of Early Childhood & Family Support Research

Center for Improvement of Child and Family Services

Portland State University

April 25, 2017
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 1 

Kids in Transition To School (KITS)

Year 1 Evaluation Report

Executive Summary

Grantee Information

•

•

•

•

Grantee: United Way of Lane County

Sub grantees: 

o

o

o

o

Bethel Education Foundation

Eugene Education Foundation

Lane Education Foundation

Springfield Education Foundation

Evaluator: Portland State University

Evaluation Study/Project Period: Year 1, March 1, 2016- March 31, 2017

Evaluation Overview

Program, intended outcomes/impacts

In 2016, the United Way of Lane County, was awarded a grant from the Social Innovation Fund to replicate and 

expand the Kids in Transition to School (KITS) program in 13 school districts in Lane County, Oregon. KITS is a 

brief but intensive kindergarten readiness program designed to help prepare high risk children and their parents 

for the entry into elementary school. It focuses on teaching children literacy, numeracy, prosocial and selfregulation skills that are critical for school readiness and positive school adjustment. Additionally, parents 

participate in workshops in which they learn skills for supporting learning at home, promoting positive child 

behaviors, and becoming involved in their child’s school. The KITS Program has been tested in 3 Randomized 

Controlled Trials (RCTs: Pears, Kim & Fisher, 2012; Pears, Healey, Fisher, Braun, Gill, Mar Conte, Newman & 

Ticer, 2014; Pears, Kim, Healey, Yoergrer & Fisher, 2015) with different populations of children. Results from 

those studies have laid a promising foundation for the evidence base. Positive effects on literacy and selfregulation have been found across populations and longer term effects on social skills and self-competence have 

been demonstrated. 

The Center for the Improvement of Child and Family Services, a research, training, and education center within 

the School of Social Work at Portland State University, has been contracted by the United Way of Lane County to 

evaluate the recently funded expansion of the Kids in Transition to School (KITS) Program. This report 

summarizes findings from the Year 1 Feasibility Study, and sets the stage for work during Year 2 to implement a 

rigorous outcome study to establish a moderate level of evidence for the KITS model. The goals of the Feasibility 

Study were to:
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 2 

1. Assess the feasibility of using a random assignment lottery system for selecting KITS participants and as 

a basis for a randomized controlled trial. 

2. Assess the ability of a variety of different recruitment strategies to identify and engage program and 

study participants.

3. Assess the resources needed, and success of, a variety of methods for collecting key participant and 

control outcome data. 

4. Identify procedures needed to obtain and link KITS study participant to statewide Oregon Kindergarten 

Assessment (OKA) data. 

5. Collect exploratory outcome data on KITS and comparison parents and children. 

 

Evaluation Design, Methods & Measures

Year 1 used a mixed-method, quasi-experimental comparison group design including open-ended interviews 

with key stakeholders (school district administrators, principals, KITS teachers, assistant teachers, parent group 

facilitators, community partners, and parents); focus groups with KITS parents; web-based surveys with KITS 

training participants; pre-and post KITS surveys with KITS participants and a quasi-experimental comparison 

group; and direct child assessments done pre- and post- KITS with a small group of KITS and comparison group 

children. In addition, detailed records were kept regarding recruitment and data collection strategies and 

results. 

Study Sample

For the Feasibility SEP, although we were not able to over-recruit and implement an RCT, we successfully 

collected baseline surveys from n=272 KITS families (74% of enrolled) and n=66 Comparison group families. Of 

these, n=203 KITS families (75% follow-up) and n=51 comparison families (77% follow-up) completed follow-up 

surveys as part of the feasibility/exploratory outcome study. N=23 KITS children and n=30 comparison children 

completed baseline assessments; 20 (87%) of KITS children completed follow up and 25 (83%) of comparison 

children completed assessments. There was little evidence of differential attrition based on participant 

characteristics, although KITS families with more education and higher rates of full time employment were 

somewhat more likely to complete follow up assessments. 

Comparison families were recruited from the group of parents who expressed interest in KITS but: (1) were 

unable to participate because of scheduling conflicts; (2) whose children did not attend a KITS-eligible schools; 

and/or (3) were not able to be reached in time to enroll in the KITS program. For the process/feasibility 

component, we collected Implementation Surveys from n=66 KITS teachers, facilitators, and coaches in 

September 2016; interviewed n=56 school administrators, KITS teachers, coaches, and other stakeholders; 

conducted 4 parent focus groups, and interviewed 18 KITS parents by telephone.

Measures 

Measures used for the process/feasibility component were developed to address specific aspects of program 

and research implementation (e.g., open-ended interview protocols). Two methods were used for the feasibility 

outcome data collection; (1) parent surveys, and (2) child assessments. Parent surveys were collected either in 

pencil-and-paper format or using a web-based interface at baseline (pre-program) and program end (November, 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 3 

2016). Child assessments were conducted by trained assessors in one-on-one meetings with families. Parent 

surveys included the following outcome measures: 1. Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) 

subscales (Self Control, Externalizing, cooperation, and Hyperactivity); 2. Parent Discipline Questionnaire

(Capaldi, 1995, Poor Discipline Subscale); 3. Arnold Discipline Survey (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolf, & Acker, 1993; 

Laxness subscale); 4. Parent Child Activities Scale (Love et al., 2002); 5. Parent-Teacher Involvement Scale

(Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1995); 6. Frequency of reading to child; 7. Kindergarten 

Readiness Activities (parent report of participation in other kindergarten readiness activities) ; and 8. Family 

demographics. Direct child assessments included the following standardized assessments: 1. The Head Toes 

Knees Shoulders (HTKS) assessment (McClelland et al., 2007); and 2. The Oregon Kindergarten Assessment

(Easy-CBM Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Names, and General Math; Child Behavior Rating Scale, Bronson, 

Goodson, Layzer & Love, 1990). 

Analysis

Qualitative data was entered into Atlas Ti and content coded and analyzed by two members of the research 

team. Outcome data were analyzed using multiple linear regression (continuous outcomes) and multiple logistic 

regression (categorical outcomes). Time 2 outcome scores were used as dependent variables, controlling for

Time 1/pretest scores and covariates (child gender, child participation in formal preschool/child care; mother 

race/ethnicity, household employment, and mother’s education status) and including KITS group (comparison 

vs. KITS), Time 1 score X group interactions as predictors. 

Key findings

Feasibility and Process study findings suggested identified a number of project successes and challenges during 

the first implementation Year. In terms of successes, the evaluation documented the following:

1. The KITS program was well-received by both KITS teachers and participating families; 

2. The KITS training and implementation support/coaching provided by OSLC was a key driver of 

implementation success.

3. KITS teachers described potentially meaningful impacts of the KITS training on their own 

professional development as teachers.

4. Preliminary data suggests that most KITS groups were implemented at a fairly high level of fidelity.

Challenges included: 

1. The short timeline for recruitment of families, hiring, and start-up; 

2. Inability to recruit a randomized comparison group. 

3. Challenges recruiting Hispanic/Latino and other potentially higher risk families; 

4. Challenges implementing parent groups with Spanish-speaking families, and need to enhance the 

cultural appropriateness of the KITS model. 

5. Attendance, especially for parent groups and for both groups during Fall sessions;

6. The steep learning curve regarding KITS curriculum and approaches;

7. Technical challenges with KITS group videotaping;

8. Logistical challenges related to facilities and transportation;
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 4 

In terms of exploratory outcome findings, at follow up, KITS families reported significantly less permissive (“lax”) 

parenting compared to comparison families. Further, on the measures of Child School Readiness and Discipline 

Results, results showed significantly more improvement over time (lower scores on the Discipline Results subscale indicate better discipline skills) for KITS participants compared to controls. One finding favored the 

comparison group, which showed more growth in Cooperation Skills as measured by the Social Skills Rating 

Scales – Parent Report. Further, there were a few significant overall differences in outcomes both between the 

subgroups of families with particular characteristics. However, the sample sizes for subgroups within the 

comparison group were generally very small which may have limited statistical power to detect these 

differences. 

Finally, we conducted multiple regression analyses using child attendance rates as a predictor of Time 2 

parent/caregiver survey outcomes, controlling to T1 scores and demographic characteristics as outlined above. 

As shown in Table 11, children’s attendance in the School Readiness Group significantly predicted 

developmentally supportive activities (Parent-Child Activities Scale), frequency of reading in the home, quality of 

parent-teacher interactions, parents’ endorsement of the school, parents’ satisfaction with information from the 

school, the child’s self-control, and parenting discipline skills above and beyond demographic characteristics and 

T1 scores on these outcomes. Better attendance resulted in better supports for learning at home, parentteacher interaction, and disciplinary styles and results. 

Key updates related to evaluation timeline/budget

The evaluation budget and timeline have not been substantially modified. We have made changes to the 

evaluation plan based on feasibility study findings in regards to resources needed to collect direct child 

assessments. The feasiblility study made it clear that collecting direct child outcome assessments was more 

resource intensive than would be possible given available evaluation resources. Therefore, our current Impact 

SEP does not include the evaluation team collecting these assessments. Instead, we will use parent report of 

child outcomes as well as OKA data.

We are on track with the planned timeline with two exceptions. First, we are still in the process of obtaining 

Oregon Kindergarten Assessment data (OKA) as part of the preliminary outcome study. This was due to delays 

in obtaining Data Use Agreements (DUAs) with participating Districts. At this time, all Districts have signed 

DUAs and we are working with the Lane County Education Services Districts to obtained the needed data 

elements out of their centralized database. Second, due to the need to recode KITS session videos for the 

fidelity study, the evaluation team was not able to obtain fidelity information for individual KITS sessions until 

March 2017; these data are currently being cleaned, entered, and analyzed. 

Key changes to program or evaluation team

There are no planned changes to the evaluation team at this time. However, given information collected 

through the Year 1 Feasibility Study, the following modifications were made to program recruitment processes 

and structure. 

1. Enhanced community recruitment efforts, starting earlier, and using a more centralized recruitment system 

managed by OSLC;
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 5 

2. Modification of the Fall component of the model, to increase the number of summer sessions and reduce 

the length and intensity of Fall sessions;

3. Increasing the level of resources and supports for parent attendance, including more emphasis on flexibility 

and delivery of “make up sessions”

Key next steps for evaluation/program

At this time, we are well underway to successful implementation of the more rigorous evaluation planned for

Year 2 as outlined in the Impact SEP. We have conducted our first round of randomization in three school 

districts that that are already over-recruited for their KITS programs. In the upcoming months (April-June) we 

will be supporting recruitment, contacting and recruiting families for the research study, and planning for 

summer data collection, which will begin in late June. We are working to wrap up the final components of the 

Year 1 study by incorporating group-level fidelity and other information into outcome models, and examining 

outcomes for the Year 1 study participants with the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment data. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 6 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................1

Grantee Information...............................................................................................................................................1

Evaluation Overview...............................................................................................................................................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................8

Prior Research ........................................................................................................................................................8

KITS Program Model Description ...........................................................................................................................9

School readiness group structure and curriculum. ......................................................................................... 10

Parent group structure and curriculum........................................................................................................... 10

Year 1 Program Implementation..................................................................................................................... 11

Year 1 Feasibility Study Research Questions....................................................................................................... 12

Feasibility Study Design & Methods........................................................................................................................ 13

Changes to Study Design During Feasibility Phase.............................................................................................. 13

Data Collection Methods: Implementation & Process Study............................................................................. 14

Data Collection Methods: Quasi-Experimental Outcome Study ........................................................................ 16

Participant Recruitment & Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 16

Parent Survey Data Collection Procedures...................................................................................................... 19

Child Assessment Data Collection Procedures – KITS Participants................................................................. 19

Child Assessment Data Collection Procedures - KITS Comparison Group....................................................... 19

Parent Survey Measures.................................................................................................................................. 19

Child Assessment Measures............................................................................................................................ 21

Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Administrative Data.................................................................................. 23

Feasibility Study Results...................................................................................................................................... 23

Feasibility Question 1: Random assignment lottery and program recruitment process............................... 23

Figure 1. Percentage of parents reporting where they first heard about KITS .............................................. 25

Feasibility Question 2: Research Study Recruitment Process........................................................................ 36

Table 1. Reasons for Declining Study Participation for KITS and Comparison Groups.................................... 38

Feasibility Question 3: Baseline Data Collection Process............................................................................... 38

Feasibility Question 4: Preliminary assessment of selection bias in the research study sample................... 41

Table 2. Baseline Equivalency of Child Assessment Outcomes, KITS vs. Controls, on (Repeated Measures) 

Follow-Up Sample............................................................................................................................................ 42
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 7 

Table 3. Baseline Equivalency of Time 1 Parent Survey Outcome Measures, KITS vs. Controls, Follow-Up 

Sample ............................................................................................................................................................. 43

Table 4. Baseline Equivalency for KITS vs. Controls for Demographic Characteristics.................................... 44

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics at Baseline (Follow-Up KITS Sample) by School District..................... 45

Exploratory Research Questions: Preliminary Outcomes & Attrition Analysis...................................................... 50

Exploratory Question 1: Attrition Analysis..................................................................................................... 51

Table 6. Demographic Differences for Families with and without Follow-Up Assessments.......................... 52

Table 7. Differences in Baseline Parent Survey Scores for Families with and without Follow-Up Assessments

......................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Exploratory Question 2: Preliminary Outcomes.............................................................................................. 54

Table 8. Parent Survey Outcomes with Full Repeated Measures Sample ...................................................... 55

Exploratory Research Question 3a: Effects of Attendance ............................................................................ 56

Table 9. Rates of attendance in SRG and PRG Groups .......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 10. Parent Survey Outcomes with Repeated Measures Sample – KITS Children Who Attended 75% or 

More School Readiness Group Sessions.......................................................................................................... 57

Table 11. Effects of SRG Attendance on T2 Parent Survey Outcomes, Controlling for T1 scores................... 58

Exploratory Research Question 3b: Do participant demographic characteristics relate to attendance levels?

......................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 12. Correlations between Attendance and Family Demographic Characteristics................................. 60

Table 13. Correlations between Attendance and Parent Survey Outcomes at Time 2................................... 61

Exploratory Research Question 3c: Subgroup Effects for KITS...................................................................... 62

Table 14. Sub-Group Differences with Full Repeated Measures Sample....................................................... 63

Figure 2. Gender Differences on Self-Control by Intervention Group............................................................ 65

Figure 3. Household Full-Time Employment Differences for School Climate by Intervention Group ........... 65

Figure 4. Race Differences (Latino vs White) for Poor Discipline Results by Intervention Group.................. 66

Figure 5. Race Differences (Other Race vs White) for Poor Discipline Results by Intervention Group.......... 66

Conclusions: Findings, Lessons Learned, and Next Steps....................................................................................... 67

Summary of Feasibility Study Findings & Changes Planned for Year 2 ............................................................... 67

List of Appendices.................................................................................................................................................... 69
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 8 

Introduction 

This report summarizes the first year of evaluation for the Kids In Transition to School (KITS) program being 

implemented in Lane County, Oregon. While the ultimate goal of the evaluation is to conduct a randomized 

controlled trial (RCT) to establish a moderate level of evidence for the program, the first year was approved as a 

Feasibility Study to set the stage for future efforts. Thus, this report is for the first year Feasibility Study of the 

KITS program. This report is intended to be an internal progress report submitted to the SIF program officers to 

detail first year findings and use of the findings during the feasibility stage to lay a foundation for a more 

rigorous outcome study in Years 2-5. 

Prior Research

For decades it has been recognized that the gap in school achievement between socio-economically advantaged 

and disadvantaged children is apparent as early as school entry (Entwistle, Alexander, & Olsen, 1997; U.S. 

Department of Health & Human Services, 2000). Children from low SES backgrounds tend to enter school with 

poorer literacy and social skills than their peers (Foster, Lambert, Abbott-Shim, McCarty, & Franze, 2005; Hair, 

Halle, Terry-Humen, Lavelle, & Calkins, 2006). Deficits in school readiness increase risks for academic and social 

failures which, in turn, may lead to lower rates of educational and occupational attainment, and higher rates of 

drug use, delinquency, and mental health difficulties (e.g., Fothergill et al., 2008; Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & 

Montague, 2006; Wiesner& Windle, 2004). 

Recently, a number of state governments have begun to invest in early education programs to address deficits in 

school readiness. The State of Oregon has embarked on an ambitious mission to improve the early learning 

resources across the state as well as to increase accountability for positive early education outcomes including 

school readiness. To increase accountability in education, the state developed a statewide kindergarten 

readiness assessment system in 2013 to provide ongoing performance data. Results from the first year of 

statewide testing suggested that, on average, 33% and 37% of children were at high risk for reading failure given 

their scores on letter naming and letter sounds, respectively 

(http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/kindergarten_assessment_makes.html#incart_story_p

ackage). Thus, at minimum, a third of all children may fail to learn to read fluently by third grade and will be at 

high risk for school dropout (Hernandez, 2012). These numbers, though highly concerning, should not be 

surprising, in that Oregon had the 46th worst graduation rate out of 47 states in 2012 (Stetser & Stillwell, 2014). 

The Kids in Transition to School (KITS) Program represents a potential model for addressing these gaps in early 

school readiness. KITS is a relatively brief (16-week) program designed to help prepare high risk children and 

their parents for the entry into elementary school. It focuses on teaching children literacy, numeracy, prosocial 

and self-regulation skills that are critical for school readiness and positive school adjustment. Additionally, 

parents participate in workshops in which they learn skills for supporting learning at home, promoting positive 

child behaviors, teaching new skills, and becoming involved in their child’s school. The KITS Program has been 

tested in 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different populations of children including children in foster 

care, children with developmental disabilities and behavior problems and children from low income 

backgrounds. Results from those studies have laid a promising foundation for the evidence base. Positive effects 

on literacy and self-regulation, as well as on parenting behavior and involvement in school, have been found 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 9 

across populations and longer term effects on social skills and self-competence have been demonstrated. The 

purpose of the funded SIF project is to support a substantial “scale up” effort of the KITS model across multiple 

school districts and schools in a large county in Oregon. The purpose of this evaluation is both to understand 

what factors support successful replication, and to provide at least a moderate level of evidence regarding 

program effectiveness. 

KITS Program Model Description

The Kids in Transition to School Program was designed to be a high-intensity, short-term school readiness 

intervention (24 child sessions over 16 weeks; 8 parent sessions over 8 weeks) delivered in the summer before 

and first 2 months of kindergarten. The KITS intervention is designed to increase school readiness prior to 

kindergarten entry and to promote better subsequent school functioning (Pears et al., 2013). To that end, the 

program occurs in two phases. The school readiness phase (two thirds of the curriculum) covers the 2 months 

before kindergarten entry and is focused on preparing children and families for school. The 

transition/maintenance phase covers the first 2 months of kindergarten and is focused on supporting a positive 

transition to school. The program is based on the idea that a high-intensity, short-term intervention delivered 

just before and during the transition to kindergarten is likely to result in an immediate increase in school 

readiness, which will improve child school adjustment in kindergarten and first grade (Pears et al., 2013). The 

model (described in more detail below) includes intervention directly with children to help them build early 

literacy, numeracy, and self-regulatory skills as well as parenting education and support to enhance parenting 

skills and parent efficacy related to school involvement. 

Three principles underlie the KITS Program. The first is that efficacious interventions have to be developmentally 

timed to occur at the critical transition to school. Pianta and Cox (1999) argued that this period is optimal for 

intervention for two reasons: (a) children are in the process of reorganizing their competencies and might be 

particularly open to influence and (b) this transition might set the trajectory of the child’s later school career. 

Additionally, at transitions, it might be easier to perceive and intervene on between-group skill gaps (Entwistle, 

Alexander, & Olson, 2005).

The second underlying principle of the KITS Program is a focus on self-regulatory skills (i.e., the capacities to 

voluntarily regulate and control emotions and behaviors in different situations) in addition to early literacy and 

social skills. This emphasis is based on the recognition that self-regulatory skills are essential for school success 

(Blair & Diamond, 2008). Exposure to poverty appears to be a consistent predictor of poor prekindergarten selfregulatory skills (Rhoades, Greenberg, Lanza, & Blair, 2011). Further, growth in the self- regulatory skills of lowincome children during the prekindergarten year predicts growth in both literacy and numeracy skills, leading 

some researchers to suggest that prekindergarten programs should incorporate training in self-regulation 

(Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010). However, many programs to address school readiness in high-risk 

children do not feature such a focus (Welsh et al., 2010). 

The third principle is the provision of high-density learning opportunities. Within many typical early learning 

settings, children might spend less than half of their time in instructional activities, and general instructional 

supports can be of fairly low quality (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). The KITS curriculum is designed to provide as many 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 10 

learning opportunities as possible with specific foci on critical early literacy, social, and self- regulatory skills 

within the ecologically valid context of the classroom. Additionally, instruction occurs within a framework of a 

manualized set of empirically based instructional and positive behavior management strategies. Didactic 

instruction and modeling techniques are used to teach skills and multiple opportunities for the children to 

practice those skills are embedded in the program activities.

KITS consists of two primary components: a 24-session school readiness group (SRG) focused on promoting early 

literacy and social-emotional skills in children and an 8- session parent group (PG) focused on promoting parent 

involvement in early literacy and school. The intervention covers the 2 months prior to kindergarten entry and 

the first 2 months of kindergarten. 

School readiness group structure and curriculum. 

Like a typical kindergarten schedule, school readiness sessions have a highly structured, consistent routine with 

many transitions between activities. The routine includes circle times at which students engage in games and 

musical activities designed to promote language, rhyming, and self-regulation skills, instructional periods during 

which the students focus on learning social and early literacy skills, project times during which children complete 

art and science activities designed to reinforce the literacy and social-emotional target skills, and snack time 

during which children practice their conversational and other social skills. The sessions were held in classrooms 

in the schools. 

The curriculum objectives are clearly specified for each session regarding the early literacy, prosocial, and selfregulatory skills to be emphasized. The activities are designed to promote specific skills. Instruction is also 

strategically sequenced to teach the simplest skills first and build toward more complex skills over subsequent 

sessions. A lead teacher and two assistant teachers conduct the groups of 20 children. The high staff-to-child 

ratio provides children with high levels of support and feedback. A key component of the school readiness 

groups is the classroom behavior management system. Teachers are trained to use evidence-based behavioral 

support strategies. The early literacy activities include a letter of the day (letter naming and letter-sound 

knowledge), a poem of the week (phonological awareness, concepts about print, and language), and storybook 

and dramatic activities (understanding of narrative). Two components of socioemotional readiness are targeted 

in the KITS curriculum: prosocial skills (sharing, making a new friend, joining a game, cooperating, recognizing 

intentions and feelings, choosing prosocial responses to peer provocation) and self-regulatory skills (being a 

good sport, handling feelings, problem-solving, and using work-related skills). These skills are taught using a 

blend of direct instruction, role-playing, and activity-based intervention; the children receive feedback and 

guided practice in using the target skills. Multiple opportunities for using inhibitory control, maintaining 

attentional focus, and practicing newly acquired social skills are embedded across activities.

Parent group structure and curriculum.

The parent group meetings coincide with the school readiness group meeting times during session 1-4 during 

the summer and again after the start of school. Food is provided, and childcare is available for siblings of 

intervention children. Each group is led by one or two facilitators. Each facilitator presents information pertinent 

to preparing children for school such as how to practice literacy activities in the home and how to establish 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 11 

routines that will ease the transition to school and support positive adjustment. The parents are also taught 

evidence-based, positive behavior management skills that parallel those used in the school readiness groups. 

The facilitator leads structured group discussions of the materials and addresses questions. Parent groups are 

typically held during the day, most often while children are participating in the child workshops, although 

depending on the particular school, these groups are sometimes held at different times/days. If parents’ work 

schedules don’t allow them to participate in the workgroups, KITS parent facilitators work with them to develop 

an individualized plan for them to receive the materials, sometimes meeting them at home or in a mutually 

agreed-upon location to provide and review materials. Skill acquisition is reinforced via role-plays and 

opportunities to practice new skills. For primarily Spanish speaking parents, there is an interpreter who 

translates the discussion simultaneously. Parent group handouts are also available in Spanish. If a parent misses 

a group session, the facilitator visits or calls the parent to deliver the missed curriculum.

The KITS school readiness group teachers and parent group facilitators complete a standardized 40-hr training 

program. At weekly intervention team meetings, the progress of individual families within the three school 

readiness domains is discussed, and strategies to address behavioral and literacy needs within the broader 

curriculum are planned. More information about the development of the curriculum may be found in Pears et 

al., 2013. 

Year 1 Program Implementation 

During Year 1 of KITS program implementation, 16 schools hosted 24 KITS groups within 12 school districts 

implementing the KITS program. In total, 31 school catchment areas were served by the 24 groups. A total of 

370 children and 310 parents/caregivers were enrolled and participated at least once in the KITS program. SRGs 

met twice per week for 8 weeks during the summer, and once per week after the start of school for 8 additional 

weeks. PGs met once per week for 8 weeks during the summer and once every other week for 8 weeks after the 

start of the school Year 1 Feasibility Study Description

This evaluation of the SIF-funded KITS program ultimately seeks to establish at minimum a moderate level of 

evidence for the effectiveness of the scaled up KITS model, as well as conduct a comprehensive implementation 

and process evaluation to understand those factors that support successful implementation with fidelity of the 

“scaled up” model. However, due to the timeline during this first phase of the SIF project, the first year of the 

evaluation involved a feasibility study to explore the opportunity for conducting a randomized controlled trial 

during Year 2. The Year 1 study was designed to collect information regarding: 

1. Feasibility of using a random assignment lottery system for selecting KITS participants, and 

specifically the factors supporting (or hindering) over-recruitment by schools in which the number 

of potentially eligible KITS kindergarteners exceeded the number of KITS slots funded at the school. 

As mentioned previously, as of the start of the KITS program in June, it was clear that schools had 

not been able to meet this goal, thus the study focused on collecting information to understand 

how to improve the recruitment process during Year 2 and thus facilitate a randomized study. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 12 

2. Methods for recruiting families into the evaluation study, including both KITS participants and 

control and/or comparison families. 

3. Methods for collecting outcome data from two primary sources from both KITS program 

participants and control/comparison families:

3a. Parent surveys that include both parent and child outcomes. Our goal for the feasibility 

phase was to collect parent surveys from all (consenting) participating KITS parents 

(originally targeted sample size, n=320), as well as from those assigned by lottery to the 

comparison group (approximate n=300). Because no lottery was conducted, we used 

alternative sources to recruit a quasi-experimental comparison group (described below). 

3b. Direct child assessments of key child-level outcomes related to early literacy, numeracy and 

self-regulation. Because this aspect of data collection is considerably more resource 

intensive and potentially more difficult, we proposed to collect child assessments from a 

subsample of n=30 KITS children and n=30 control children in two participating schools. 

 

The Feasibility Study thus included two primary components: (1) a Feasibility Implementation Evaluation 

component; and (2) a quasi-experimental Outcome Evaluation Component using a pre-post design and quasiexperimental comparison group. The outcome component included:

•

•

•

Pre-post surveys of KITS participants using parent surveys collected at Baseline and after KITS program 

completion (Nov/Dec 2016)

Pre-Post surveys from a quasi-experimental comparison group of parents not participating in KITS;

Direct child assessments conducted at baseline and following program completion from a small sample 

of children who participated in KITS (program group) and comparison group children comprised of a 

subset of those whose parents completed the baseline parent survey. 

It is important to note that the outcome component was intended primarily as an aspect of the Feasibility Study 

and was not designed to have sufficient power or sample size to contribute to increasing the overall level of 

evidence. 

Year 1 Feasibility Study Research Questions

The Feasibility study addressed the follow key questions about the process of recruiting, randomly assigning, 

and assessing parents and children. Results from the feasibility phase have been used to inform planning for the 

Year 2 Impact and Implementation Study (Impact SEP Approved 3/30/2017). Results have been organized to 

address each question. 

1. Random assignment lottery and program recruitment process (FQ1)

a. Are schools able to successfully over-recruit families for the KITS model and implement a 

lottery based random assignment process?

b. What recruitment strategies, materials, and supports are most effective and efficient in 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 13 

supporting program recruitment?

c. What are the barriers to over-recruitment and how can these be better addressed? 

 

2. Research Study Recruitment Process (FQ2)

a. What percent of families who agree to participate in KITS also provide a “consent to 

contact” for the research study? 

b. What strategies are most effective and efficient in securing these consent to contact forms?

c. What strategies are most effective for successfully recruiting families into the KITS 

evaluation study? 

3. Baseline Data Collection Process (FQ3)

a. What types of activities, events, or other strategies are most useful for facilitating controlgroup data collection?

b. What types events, activities, or other strategies are most effective for facilitating KITS 

participant data collection?

c. How much time is needed for child-level data collection and what strategies might increase 

the efficiency of these assessments?

d. How much time and other staff resources are needed for multi-site simultaneous data 

collection at all implementing KITS schools for parent survey data collection?

4. Preliminary assessment of selection bias in the research study sample (FQ4)

e. Are the baseline characteristics of KITS program families who consent to participate in the 

evaluation different from those of comparison families who consent to participate in the 

data collection? 

f. Are families who consent to participate in KITS representative of the schools from which 

they are recruited in terms of demographic characteristics? 

g. Are families who consent to participate in the research study representative of the families 

who consent to participate in the KITS program in terms of their demographic 

characteristics?

Feasibility Study Design & Methods

Changes to Study Design During Feasibility Phase

The goal of the Feasibility study was to build a better understanding of the resources and supports needed for 

successful recruitment and data collection from children and families, and in particular to assess the feasibility of 

a randomized controlled design. The original Feasibility Study goal was to implement a randomized design, and 

to collect baseline and follow up data that would not only inform the Feasibility questions, but which could 

constitute a Year 1 impact sample. However, due to significant delays in contracting and staffing for KITS 

programs and the evaluation, as of program start up in June 2016 it was clear that insufficient numbers of 

families had been recruited to allow random assignment (which was dependent on the idea of enrolling more 

incoming kindergarten students than could be served by funded program slots). In essence, it was clear that the 

answer to Feasibility Question #1A, “Are schools able to successfully over-recruit families for the KITS model and 

implement a lottery based random assignment process?” was, at least for Year 1, “no”. However, as described 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 14 

below, much was learned about the processes that needed to be in place, the timing of recruitment efforts, and 

barriers and facilitators of successful recruitment and outreach. Thus, our goal for Year 2 as described in the 

pending Impact SEP, remains to conduct a randomized outcome study. 

That said, the design for the Year 1 Feasibility Study was a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design that

included an Implementation/Process Study and a Quasi-Experimental Outcome study. Design, measures, and 

data collection procedures for these components are detailed below. We elected to move forward with this 

quasi-experimental design as we felt it would provide important information about sample and study 

recruitment and data collection protocols, as well as provide data that could inform decision making regarding 

Impact study design should random assignment not prove a feasible option for Years 2 and beyond. 

Data Collection Methods: Implementation & Process Study

The Implementation and Process study used a mixed-method design including key stakeholder interviews, 

quantitative surveys, records review, and observation of program fidelity. These are detailed below; a few 

minor changes from the approved Feasibility SEP are noted where applicable. 

KITS Key Stakeholder Summer Phase Implementation Interviews. 

Telephone interviews were conducted in Fall 2016 with 31 persons involved in the startup phase of the KITS 

expansion in Lane County. Those interviewed included 18 KITS Site Supervisors, 8 KITS Coordinators, 3 

Principals, 5 KITS Coaches, one United Way staff, and two OSLC/ODI implementation leads. In several instances, 

respondents occupied more than one role, e.g., a respondent might be both Principal and Site Coordinator, or 

both Site Coordinator and Site Supervisor. All participants were interviewed by telephone by a trained member 

of the research team. Interviews were recorded and notes verified prior to analysis. Interview notes were 

maintained and analyzed using Atlas.Ti, a qualitative data analysis software. A copy of the stakeholder 

interview is included in Appendix A. 

KITS Coach & Teacher Survey.

KITS School Readiness Group Lead Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Parent Group Facilitators, and KITS Coaches 

completed web-based surveys using Qualtrics in August, 2016. The survey was sent to all potential respondents 

via email, with regular follow-up to ensure high response rates. Individuals completing the surveys were given a 

$15 gift card. The purpose of the surveys was to describe the characteristics of KITS staff and their perceptions 

of the nature and quality of KITS implementation after the first 8-week summer session. Ninety-one percent 

(91%, n=59) of KITS Teachers and Facilitators participated in the survey. Seven KITS Coaches (100%) completed 

the survey. A copy of both surveys are included in Appendix B. 

KITS Parent Focus Groups.

To learn more about the KITS program from the perspective of participating families, four focus groups were 

held with parents who participated in KITS. Four schools were chose for the parent focus groups (two small, 

rural locations and two larger more urban school districts). Parents were recruited during the PG sessions by 

evaluation staff, and the focus groups were held in conjunction with children’s summer KITS graduation to 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 15 

facilitate participation. A total of 44 parents participated in the groups. Focus groups were conducted in 

English, and 3 Spanish-speaking parents participated in 2 of the groups. Translation was provided for Spanish 

speaking parents who participated1. Groups were facilitated by members of the KITS evaluation team and 

recorded and transcribed for analysis. Focus group questions were designed by the evaluation team to learn 

more about families’ experience with the KITS program (e.g., the enrollment process, attendance supports, etc.), 

about the benefits of the program for parents and children, and about any challenges encountered with the 

program. A copy of the focus group protocol is included in Appendix C. 

KITS Parent Interviews

Parent interviews were conducted to learn more about barriers to participation in the KITS program. Purposive 

sampling was used to identify families who were: (1) “non-enrolling”, defined as parents who had initially 

agreed to participate in KITS but were never actually enrolled; (2) “low participating” defined as parents whose 

children attended fewer than 8 classes and who themselves attended fewer than 5 parent group sessions; and 

“low parent participation,”, defined as families in which children attended more than 8 classes but parents 

participating in fewer than 5 parent group sessions. Lists of potential families meeting these criteria were 

developed by the research team based on KITS attendance information and samples randomly selected for 

participating in the interviews. A total of 14 parents (5 non-enrolling parents; 3 non-participating parents; and 6 

low parent participation parents) were interviewed by telephone by members of the evaluation team. In 

addition, n=4 Spanish speaking parents were interviewed to learn more about their perceptions of the 

translation and interpretation processes for KITS. Parents were provided with a $20 gift certificate in return for 

participating. Interviews were recorded and recordings used to verify detailed interview notes, which in turn 

were entered into Atlas.Ti for analysis. A slightly different set of interview questions was developed for each 

respondent group; these are included in Appendix D. 

 

Post-Program Stakeholder Interviews: KITS Teacher, Parent Group Facilitator, and Parent Group Interpreter 

Interviews.

Interviews were done with 9 KITS lead teachers, 4 assistant teachers, 6 Parent Group facilitators, and 5 Parent 

Group interpreters [some respondents occupied more than one role], after the end of the program. These 

interviews were developed to gather teacher, facilitator and interpreter perceptions of the effectiveness of the 

KITS program, as well as barriers to implementation with fidelity, and resources and supports that were most 

helpful in supporting fidelity. A copy of these interview questions is included in Appendix E. Interviews were 

conducted by telephone by trained evaluation staff; recordings were used to verify notes, which in turn were 

entered into Atlas.Ti for analysis. Staff were given a $20 gift certificate for participating. 

Fidelity Data

Two key sources of data to assess program fidelity are routinely collected by OSLC and/or KITS staff and were 

provided to the PSU team for the evaluation. 

1. Attendance and Dosage. Parent and child attendance at each workshop session was recorded on the 

 

For more information, contact Beth Green at: beth.green@pdx.edu. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 16 

School Readiness and Parent Workshop Attendance Sheets (OSLC, 2006) by the Lead Teacher/Facilitator. 

2. Measures of Implementation Fidelity. Videotapes were made of each KITS child and parent class 

(with some exceptions due to technological difficulties in recording). These tapes were then be 

reviewed by trained staff at OSLC, and used to provide feedback during coaching sessions with KITS 

teachers. Checklists developed by OSLC are used to record content fidelity (School Readiness Group 

Content Specific Implementation Fidelity Checklist; Bronz, Heywood, & Pears, 2006), noting whether 

the teachers presented the specific curriculum components for a given session. Content specific 

checklists are unique to each SRG session. Quality of implementation of teaching and behavior 

management strategies are rated using the same form (the School Readiness Group Teaching 

Strategies Implementation Fidelity Checklist; Bronz et al., 2006) for each SRG. 

 

Parent workshops were rated on whether the specified curriculum components were covered using 

the Parent Group Content Specific Implementation Fidelity Checklist (Pears & Healey, 2012) and 

how well the interventionists used strategies to facilitate group process and encourage participation 

using the Parent Group Process Implementation Fidelity Checklist (Pears & Healey, 2012). 

 

Videotapes were reviewed by OSLC staff and coded using the checklists described above. While 

originally, it was intended that the KITS coach would provide the fidelity ratings for each group, to 

improve inter-rater reliability, OLSC instead used other staff (e.g., not that Coach assigned to that 

particular group) to review and code each session. Checklists based on these ratings were provided 

to the PSU team for analysis. However, due to the need to re-do coding of videotapes and delays 

in preparing the fidelity data, these data were not available in time for this report and will be 

included in a subsequent update. 

Data Collection Methods: Quasi-Experimental Outcome Study 

Participant Recruitment & Data Collection 

Schools were responsible for initial recruitment of families into the KITS program. As part of this process, 

parents completed at “KITS Interest Form” that, for most school districts, included a question asking for 

permission for the school to share the families’ contact information with PSU for purposes of the evaluation. 

Schools recorded family information, including whether they provided this “consent to contact” into their own 

local data systems. These lists of families were provided to the evaluation team for study recruitment. In school 

districts where consent to contact was not received through the KITS Interest Form, attempts to attain consent 

to contact was done through the following: a check box on the OSLC KITS website, discussed during follow up 

calls from the KITS Administrative Coordinator, discussed during KITS Program calls from the KITS Site Supervisor 

or KITS Administrative Coordinator, and a check box or question on KITS enrollment forms. Some school 

districts did not consistently collect consent to contact through any of these methods. 

Because one of the goals of the Feasibility Study was to explore the resources and success of various 

recruitment strategies, parents were recruited in several ways, described below. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 17 

KITS Program Group Recruitment & Data Collection Strategies 

1. Evaluation Materials Mailing. All parents/caregivers who provided consent for PSU to contact 

them about the evaluation, either on the interest form and/or through follow up phone calls by KITS 

staff, received a packet of materials for the evaluation. These materials included: (1) a flyer 

introducing the evaluation with contact information for PSU staff; (2) 2 copies of the consent form – 

1 to sign and return, 1 to keep for their records; (3) the baseline parent/caregiver survey to 

complete and return; (4) a self-addressed, stamped envelope in which they could return a signed 

consent form and the baseline parent/caregiver survey. For families residing in the school 

catchment areas where PSU was piloting child assessments, a slightly different version of the 

consent form, explaining the assessment portion of the evaluation, was included in the packet. 

2. Distribution of Evaluation Materials by KITS Teachers. During KITS Program training, PG facilitators 

were given packets of evaluation materials that included the same materials as those described 

above. PG facilitators were asked to distribute these packets to participating parents/caregivers 

during the first PG session in the first week of the KITS Program. Further, parents/caregivers 

received information about the KITS evaluation through program staff prior to face-to-face 

interactions between parents/caregivers and PSU data collection staff.

3. Face-to-Face Recruitment at Initial KITS Classes. The Portland State University evaluation team 

worked with KITS program staff, including the KITS Administrative Coordinator, the Site Supervisor, 

and the KITS SRG teachers and PG facilitators, to arrange a time to visit the SRG or the PG within the 

first two weeks of the program. The purpose of the visit was to introduce the evaluation and invite 

parents/caregivers to participate. PSU data collection staff attended the first sessions of 7 SRGs and 

13 PGs. In one school district (hosting 4 KITS SRGs and PGs), the PSU team set up a table in the

entryway of the school and talked with parents/caregivers before and after the groups. At the SRGs, 

PSU data collection staff talked with parents/caregivers about the evaluation as they dropped their 

children off at the group and/or picked them up. At the PGs, PSU data collection staff were given

15-30 minutes at the beginning or end of the group to introduce the evaluation and invite 

parents/caregivers to participate in the study. During all face-to-face interactions with 

parents/caregivers, for parents/caregivers that were interested in participating, PSU data collection 

staff walked through the consent form, introduced the baseline parent/caregiver survey, and 

distributed gift cards to parents/caregivers who took the time to complete the consent form and 

survey at that time. In the 2 KITS groups where child assessments were piloted, PSU staff also 

explained the assessment process, which was structured like games for children. The PSU staff 

person visiting the KITS group was usually also a child assessor, so parents/caregivers got to meet 

some of the staff that would be doing the assessments and ask questions about the process. For 

parents/caregivers that wanted to take the forms home to review and complete, PSU staff provided 

them with a self-addressed stamped envelope.

 

4. Individual Outreach & Recruitment by PSU Staff. Parents who did not attend the initial KITS PG 

sessions or who did not provide a consent form via mail or in-person were also contacted 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 18 

individually by PSU research staff members. For these families, the following recruitment steps were 

taken: 

a. A letter and/or email introducing the study purpose, including copies of the consent form

and the baseline parent/caregiver survey were sent;

b. Following this, PSU data collection staff made attempts to contact the family by telephone, 

email, and/or text. 

Upon reaching the families, participants were invited to participate in the study. Participants were

told that the study involved collecting information from parents before and after the program, child 

assessments structured like games to assess early literacy and self-regulation skills (in 2 KITS groups) 

and gathering information from children’s school records from Kindergarten through the third 

grade. To incentivize participation in the evaluation, parents/caregivers were told that they would

receive a $20 gift card for participating in each of the two planned parent survey data collection 

points: Baseline (July) and Post-KITS Program (November). For parents/caregivers residing in the 

catchment areas where child assessments were piloted, PSU staff also explained the assessment 

process and answered questions that parents had about the assessment process. 

KITS Comparison Group Participant Recruitment Strategies – Parent Survey Only and Parent Survey/Child 

Assessment School Catchment Areas

Comparison group parents/caregivers were identified through 2 mechanisms: (1) KITS Administrative 

Coordinators or Site Supervisors sent a list of parent/caregiver names and contact information for families that 

were interested in KITS but were unable to participate (e.g., had other summer plans, didn’t live in the school 

catchment area, could not commit to attending SRGs twice per week and/or PGs once per week in the summer) 

was sent to the PSU evaluation team and (2) OSLC sent a list of parent/caregiver names and contact information 

for families that signed up for KITS on the OSLC website but did not reside in an eligible school catchment area 

was sent to the PSU evaluation team. Recruitment of comparison families was similar to that of KITS families. 

Comparison parents/caregivers received a packet of evaluation materials that included (1) a flyer 

introducing the evaluation with contact information for PSU staff; (2) 2 copies of the consent form – 

1 to sign and return, 1 to keep for their records; (3) the baseline parent/caregiver survey to 

complete and return; (4) a self-addressed, stamped envelope in which they could return a signed 

consent form and the baseline survey.

For parents/caregivers that did not return the consent form/survey within a week of the mailing, 

PSU staff contacted them via phone, text message, and/or email. 

All comparison family baseline surveys included a question that asked parents/caregivers if they were interested 

in meeting with PSU data collection staff at a time convenient to them and allow PSU to conduct an assessment 

with their child. This survey item noted that parents/caregivers would receive an additional $20 gift card for 

meeting with PSU staff to conduct the child assessment (in addition to the $20 gift card they would receive for 

completing the baseline parent survey). Parents/caregivers that indicated that they were amenable to meeting 

with PSU staff for the child assessment and resided in the school catchment area where the pilot assessments 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 19 

for KITS children were taking place were contacted by a PSU staff person via phone, text message, and/or email. 

Through these communications, the child assessments were described, questions about the assessments were 

answered, and the assessment was scheduled at a time and location convenient to the parent. Assessments 

were typically scheduled at the family’s home or at the public library; a few assessments took place at a local 

coffee shop or other location in the community. 

Contact logs detailing recruitment attempts made by the research team for study recruitment were kept. These 

logs included time/date of contact, type of contact, and result of contact including whether consent was 

ultimately obtained and if so, using what recruitment method. This information was reviewed as part of the 

Feasibility Study. 

Parent Survey Data Collection Procedures. 

Parent surveys were collected in tandem with consent during the recruitment process, described above. 

Child Assessment Data Collection Procedures – KITS Participants 

In addition to parent/caregiver surveys, PSU piloted child assessments with two KITS School Readiness Groups 

last year. Similar to KITS participating parent/caregiver survey data collection at baseline, KITS child assessments 

were most easily completed during the KITS School Readiness Groups. The PSU evaluation team worked closely 

with the KITS Administrative Coordinators, KITS Site Supervisors, and KITS School Readiness Teachers to pull 

children out of the KITS School Readiness Groups individually. Children were taken by a PSU child assessor to a 

quiet room near their KITS classroom to complete the assessments. The assessments took between 5 and 15 

minutes to complete, and once finished, the child would return to his/her classroom.

 

At follow up (i.e., KITS program-end), some children did not attend the final few KITS School Readiness Groups. 

For these children, the data collection team contacted and coordinated with the parent/caregiver to meet up at 

a convenient location (e.g., public library, child’s home). 

Child Assessment Data Collection Procedures - KITS Comparison Group 

Baseline assessments for the comparison group occurred in August 2016. Most assessments took place at a local 

library (about 83%), some assessments took place at another public location (coffee shop, school, about 5%) or 

in the family's home (12%). Follow-up assessments for the comparison group occurred later that year in 

November and December. Similar to baseline assessments, follow-up assessments generally took place 

wherever family's had met assessors during the summer, although somewhat more happened at the family’s 

home at the time of follow-up (27%). 

Parent Survey Measures

The parent/caregiver survey included the following measures of key program outcomes (unless otherwise 

indicated, all items were collected at both Baseline and Follow Up): 

 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 20 

1. Parent Discipline Strategies: The Poor Discipline subscale of the Discipline Questionnaire (Capaldi, 

1995) (Parent Survey) was used to assess behavioral strategies taught in KITS and other parenting 

programs related to boundary setting and consistency of discipline strategies. This subscale includes 

9 items rated on a 5-point scale from “Never/Almost Never” to “Always/Almost Always.” It has 

been shown to be a good measure of key changes in parenting among KITS participants with 

acceptable internal consistency (α=0.69-0.71; Pears et al., 2015). Additionally, the measure has 

been used in several studies on the transmission of intergenerational externalizing behavior and 

parenting (e.g., Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, & Owen, 2009). In the Feasibility study baseline sample, alpha 

for the Poor Discipline total score was adequate, alpha=.78). 

2. Arnold Discipline Survey, Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993, (Parent Survey): The Laxness 

scale of the Arnold Parenting Discipline Survey was used to assess the lack of strictness in the 

household. The 11 Laxness scale items include a question stem and two anchor points that relate to 

parenting “mistakes” and “effective strategies” (Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993). Parents rate 

their parenting practices on a 7-point scale based on the two anchor points. The Laxness scale has 

shown good internal consistency (α=0.83) and good validity (Arnold et al, 1993). In the Feasibility 

study baseline sample, alpha for this scale was good; α=0.80. 

3. Developmental Supports at Home: The Parent Child Activities Scale (PCAS; Love et al., 2002) 

(Parent Survey). Frequency of developmental supports at home was measured using the ParentChild Activities Scale. The PCAS asks parents to report how often they engage in a variety of 

developmentally supportive activities on a 6-point Likert scale (ranging from not at all [0] to more 

than once a day [5])). Activities include: singing songs/nursery rhymes, telling stories, playing 

outside, playing peek-a-boo or other games, and going on outings. Higher scores indicate greater 

frequency of activities that support child development. The PCAS has been shown to have good 

internal consistency (Green, Furrer, & McAllister, 2007; = .778) and to be associated with positive 

child outcomes including scores on the Bayley Mental Development Index (Love et al., 2002). In the 

baseline Feasibility study, alpha for this scale was adequate, alpha=.74. 

4. Frequency of reading to children (Entering Kindergarten Parent Survey, 2014) (Parent Survey) was

assessed by asking parents how often they read to their young child. Reading to one's child has been 

found to be a key precursor to early literacy development (Kuo, Franke, Regalado, & Halfon, 2004). 

Specifically, parents were asked how often in the past month they had read or looked at books with 

their child (Not at all, Seldom, A few times, 3-4 times per week, About once a day, or More than once 

a day). This item was selected for consistency with a large-scale survey of entering kindergarten 

parents conducted by over 20 school districts in Oregon and developed by the PSU KITS study team. 

5. Child Social Skills: The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott; 1990) (Parent Survey). 

The SSRS is a widely-used and well-validated tool for assessing positive and negative social behaviors 

in young children (Gresham, Elliott, Vance & Cook, 2011; Mashburn, Pianta, Hamre, Downer, 

Barbarin, Bryant, et al., 2008). For the KITS outcome study, four subscales was completed by 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 21 

parents as part of the Parent Survey (see below). Subscales used during the Feasibility phase 

included: (1) Cooperation (8 items); (2) Self-Control (7 items); (3) Externalizing behavior (7 items); 

and (4) Hyperactivity/Inattention (7 items). These scales will serve as a second source of (parentreported) data related to children’s self-regulation skills that can be measured both before and after 

program participation. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from “”Never” to “”Almost Always”. The 

SSRS parent version has been found to have good internal reliability (α ranging from 0.83 to 0.90 on 

the four subscales) and inter-rater reliability (correlation ranging from 0.58 to 0.67 on the four 

subscales) (Gresham et al., 2011). We also examined the reliability of these items for the KITS 

baseline sample and found good reliability: SSRS Cooperation alpha=.87; SSRS Self-Control, 

alpha=.89; SSRS Externalizing alpha=.82; and SSRS Hyperactivity alpha=.82). 

6. Parent Involvement: The Parent and Teacher Involvement Scale- PATI-P; Conduct Problems 

Prevention Research Group, 1995) (Parent Survey, November Follow-Up only). The parent version 

was used to assess key aspects of how parents are involved in children’s schooling at the end of the 

KITS program (November only). This 21-item measure was developed to assess facets of parent and 

teacher involvement. The measure assesses the amount and type of contact that occurs between 

parents and teachers, the parent's interest and comfort in talking with teachers and the parent's 

degree of involvement in activities (e.g., volunteering at school, attending school events). The 

answers are coded on item-specific 5-point scales where 0 represents no involvement and 4 

represents high involvement. Milller-Johnson & Maumary-Gremaud (1995) identified four factors 

within the measure and constructed corresponding subscales: (1) Quality of the Relationship 

between Parent and Teacher (7 items); (2) Parent’s Involvement and Volunteering at School (6 

items); (3) Parent’s Endorsement of Child’s School (4 items), and Frequency of Parent-Teacher 

contact (4 items)). The subscale alphas for the combined normative/high-risk sample were: .89 for

Quality of Teacher Relationship, .79 for Parent Involvement and Volunteering, .89 for Parent 

Endorsement, and .67 for Frequency of Contact. We do not yet have reliability information on the 

Feasibility sample as this measure was only included at the post-program (Follow Up) assessment. 

7. Family Demographic information (Parent Survey). Parent surveys will also include questions about 

demographic characteristics, such as family income, the parents’ highest levels of education, parent 

and child ethnicity, housing stability, languages spoken by parents, family size, and parent marital 

status. 

Child Assessment Measures

Child direct assessments were collected by PSU staff as described above, and included the following measures: 

1. Child Literacy skills—Two basic literacy skills that are considered to be foundations of early reading 

was measured using the easyCBM (Curriculum Based Measurement assessment, Anderson, Alonzo, 

Tindal, Farley, Irvin, Lai, Saven, & Wray, 2014). The easyCBM was used to align the KITS evaluation 

child level assessments of early literacy with the state Kindergarten Assessment which uses these 

subscales to assess literacy (and numeracy, below) at kindergarten entry for all students. To assess 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 22 

children’s letter-naming skills the easyCBM Letter Name Measure (LN) measure was used during 

which children are asked to identify as many letters as possible from a randomly ordered array of 

upper- and lower-case letters. The score is the number of correct letters identified in 1 min. This 

subtest shows moderate to strong alternate form reliability, with correlations ranging from r = .61 to 

r= .90 (Wray, Lai, Saez, Alonzo & Tindal, 2014). The easyCBM LN is highly correlated with the DIBELS 

LNF measure (r=.86, Lai, Alonzo & Tindal, 2013).

To assess children’s initial sound recognition, the Easy CBM Initial Sound Fluency (ISF) measure was 

used. The child is asked to orally produce the initial sound of a word that corresponds to a stimulus 

picture. The total score is the number of correct initial sounds produced in 1 min. Alternate form 

reliability estimates range from .88 to .93 (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001) and the subtest 

shows predictive validity with measures of early reading such as oral reading fluency and sight 

reading (Burke et al., 2009). 

2. Child Early Numeracy Skills – While prior studies of KITS have not examined impacts on early 

numeracy skills, increasingly research has shown that numeracy, perhaps even more than literacy 

skills, are predictive of later third grade reading and math achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). Thus, 

we will include an assessment of early numeracy to examine an exploratory impact research 

question in the KITS evaluation. The easyCBM numbers and operations subtest was used at baseline 

and post program to assess early literacy skills. The general math assessments on easyCBM were 

developed to assess students’ mastery of the knowledge and skills outlined in the National Council 

of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Focal Point Standards. They were designed to focus more on 

students’ conceptual understanding than on basic computational skills. The Numbers and 

Operations scale was used to assess early numeracy and addresses basic operations (addition, 

subtraction, multiplication, division) appropriate for each grade level (University of Oregon, 2016). 

It has been shown to have good test-retest and inter-rater reliability, although longer term 

(predictive) studies are not yet available (Irvin, Saven, Alonzo, Park, Anderson, & Tindal, 2013). 

2. Child Self-Regulatory Skills—Children’s self-regulatory skills were assessed using the Head Toes 

Knees and Shoulders (HTKS) Test (McClelland et al., 2007). This direct measure of behavioral 

regulation focuses on attention, working memory, and inhibitory control. For the HTKS, children play 

a 5- to 10-min game that requires them to do the opposite of what the experimenter says. For the 

first part of the task, which consists of 10 items, children are instructed to touch their toes when the 

experimenter says “Touch your head” and to touch their head when the experimenter directs them 

to “Touch your toes”. In the second half of the task (10 items) the children are additionally directed 

to touch their shoulders when the experimenter says “Touch your knees” and their knees when the 

experimenter says “Touch your shoulders”. Children receive 2 points if they touch the correct body 

part, 1 point if they first touch the wrong part but then self-correct, and 0 if they do not touch the 

correct body part. For this study, the proportions of times that the child touched the correct body 

part (i.e., scored 2 points) were averaged across the two parts of the task. Recent research has 

shown that the HTKS is a reliable and valid measure of children’s regulation in diverse populations, 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 23 

including Spanish-speaking children (McClelland et al., 2007; Ponitz et al., 2007) with high levels of 

interrater reliability (Kappa = .91; Ponitz et al., 2007). The HTKS is significantly associated with 

teacher ratings of classroom behavior over time (Ponitz et al., 2007) and predicts language and math 

achievement (Wanless et al., 2011).

Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Administrative Data

The Oregon Kindergarten Assessment (OKA) is used statewide in Oregon to assess kindergarten readiness at 

school entry and includes the same measures used as part of the Direct Child Assessments (described above). In 

addition, the OKA includes the Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS, Bronson, Goodson, Layzer & Love, 1990), a 

kindergarten teacher-report measure that includes 20 Likert- type items that fall into two subscales, emotional 

regulation and interpersonal skills. This measure was collected in the Fall of the child’s kindergarten year by 

kindergarten teachers. Cronbach's alpha has been reported as .96 and test-retest (fall to spring) reliability of 

scores as .67 (Layzer, Goodson & Layzer, 1990). 

The OKA is conducted on all incoming kindergarteners within 6 weeks of the first day of school and is 

administered by school staff. The evaluation designed originally called for these data to be obtained directly 

from the Oregon Department of Education; however, after project start-up we learned that the Lane Education 

Service District, a county-wide agency, maintained a centralized “data warehouse” that was being compiled and 

used by all Districts in Lane County. Further, the staff person responsible for maintaining the data warehouse 

was able to work with participating Districts to add a field to the local District systems that would indicate for 

each incoming kindergarten student whether they had (or had not) participated in KITS. Thus, the evaluation 

will have access not only to the sample of study participants who explicitly provided study consent, but to a (deidentified) larger dataset that will potentially allow for a large matched comparison group to be constructed. 

However, progress in both setting up these indicators and in obtaining needed signatures for a data sharing 

agreement has been slow. This was in part because of initial information that was provided to the evaluation 

team that because the data did not need to include identifiable information that a formal data-sharing 

agreement would not be required. Additionally, in March 2017, we learned that a formal agreement, including 

each of the participating school districts, would be required for data transfer to PSU. Thus, at this time the final 

data sharing agreement is pending, with execution expected in April. This has not delayed obtaining the actual 

data, however, in that OKA data were not made available to the Districts until February 2017; these data are 

being linked by Lane Education Service District staff at the present time and will be available to the research 

team in late April/Early May for analysis. 

Feasibility Study Results

Feasibility Question 1: Random assignment lottery and program recruitment process 

FQ1A: Are schools able to successfully over-recruit families for the KITS model and implement a lottery based 

random assignment process?

As noted previously, schools were not able to accomplish “over-recruitment” that was foundational to random 

assignment. Additionally, a number of KITS groups were actually under-enrolled. Out of 24 total KITS groups, a 

little more than a third ended up filling most or all of their KITS slots (20 children per classroom was considered 

"full;" smaller, rural classrooms were full with somewhat fewer children). A few sites ended up having more 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 24 

interested families than they could serve, but due to drop-out prior to program initiation, ended up filling those 

slots with families from the control/waiting list. Close to two-thirds of KITS groups appear to have been underenrolled. To explore the reasons for this under-enrollment, respondents were asked about perceived barriers to 

recruitment.

There were a number of unforeseen challenges to the efforts to over-recruit for a comparison group in the first 

year roll-out of the KITS program. First, and most significantly, although schools received contracts and were 

funded to begin their local outreach and recruitment efforts in late February 2016, most did not have the 

materials or staff they needed to begin their outreach efforts until March, or even April, prior to the planned 

KITS start up in late June. Many schools missed the most critical opportunity for family recruitment (late winter 

“kindergarten round-up” meetings) and were significantly hampered in their ability to identify an initial list of 

potentially interested families for KITS. Further, delays in hiring meant that many were insufficiently staffed until 

much later in the spring to engage in the level of one-on-one outreach to families that the model recommends. 

Second, schools were largely unable to establish their KITS programming and transportation schedules until May 

(and in some cases, June) of 2016, resulting in a number of families being unable to commit and/or attend due 

to other prior summer arrangements. This, in turn, led to the inability of PSU to conduct randomization as 

schools were, understandably, unwilling to randomize families when it meant that program slots would go 

unfilled. 

Below we provide a summary of findings that provide key information about what was successful (e.g., “What 

Worked”) to get the word out and successfully recruit families (FQ1B) as well as perceived barriers and 

challenges to recruitment (FQ1C). 

FQ1B: What recruitment strategies, materials, and supports are most effective and efficient in supporting 

program recruitment? 

Four primary sources of data provided information to address this question (Parent Surveys [both KITS 

participants and comparison families], Parent Focus Groups, Parent Interviews [both KITS participants and nonparticipants], and Key Stakeholder Interviews). Key themes from each are summarized below. This information 

provides important information for next year in terms of the type of outreach and communication strategies 

that were most effective. Key themes are summarized below. Appendix F provides the Brief Reports 

summarizing these data that have been shared with KITS implementing Districts, the United Way, and/or KITS 

program developers during Year 1 to inform planning for Year 1. 

1. Capitalize on Key Recruitment Opportunities

One question on the KITS parent survey asked families (including both the KITS participants and the comparison 

families) where they had heard about KITS. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, recruitment at “kindergarten 

round-ups” were a key venue for successful outreach, especially for families that participated in KITS. 

Kindergarten round-up is the spring kindergarten information/orientation sessions held by each school to 

encourage early registration for incoming kindergarteners. This is a natural and opportune moment to connect 

with eligible families. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 25 

The second most frequent avenue for program recruitment for KITS families (and most frequent for comparison 

group families this year) was through partnerships with early learning providers. 

Figure 1. Percentage of parents reporting where they first heard about KITS (Parent survey, 

n=336)

57%

25%

23%

14%

11% Flyer/Brochure 12%

14%

41%

16%

12%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Kinder Roundup

Preschool Program

Information from the School

Word of Mouth

Control KITS

10%

8%

5%

4%

24%

8%

6%

10%

Other

Postcard in the Mail

Bus Ad

Facebook

Individual interviews with parents, both participating and non-participating, echoed the primacy of the 

kindergarten round-up in getting the word out about KITS. By far, the greatest percentage of parents reported 

that they had learned of KITS at the round-up; about a quarter were unsure where they had heard of KITS, and a 

handful said they learned of KITS through an early learning provider. Finally, district/school staff also identified

attending kindergarten round-ups and working with community partners as the two most successful recruitment 

strategies. As noted above, however, many schools did not have KITS recruitment/enrollment information when 

their round-ups took place during Year 1, so they were not able to capitalize on this key recruitment 

opportunity. Earlier planning and recruitment efforts will be crucial to supporting over-recruitment in Year 2, as 

will a stronger focus on partnerships with early learning programs.

A number of district/school respondents also mentioned the media campaign sponsored by UWLC/OSLC, 

consisting of bus ads and radio spots, as an effective recruitment strategy. Other strategies identified included 

KITS banners and posters, mass mailings, announcements on school websites/Facebook pages, inclusion in 

school newsletters, and word of mouth. Responses to the Parent Survey likewise indicated that parents heard 

about the KITS program via a wide range of avenues. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 26 

Overall, district/school staff emphasized the importance of personal contact: face-to-face introductions, followup with families, and championship by those organizations/individuals already trusted by families, e.g., Family 

Resource Centers, preschools, friends/family.

2. Capitalize on What Appeals to Parents 

When asked what families seemed to find most appealing about KITS, the majority of school/district 

respondents reported that families were interested in preparing their children for kindergarten. For 

children/families whose KITS classroom was located at the same school they would be attending in the fall, 

respondents also mentioned the opportunity to become familiar with the school.

“Most families were interested in getting their children ready for the rigors of the kindergarten day.” 

“I think the practice for incoming kindergarten before school started, before all the kids were here, I think 

that was what they were most excited about. They got to try it out a little at a time.” 

Interviews with parents confirmed this perception. Parents mentioned a number of perceived potential benefits 

related to school readiness, including opportunities to:

• Practice kindergarten (routines, bus)

• Enhance social skills 

• Become familiar with the school

• Meet other parents and kids prior to kindergarten

• Provide extra support/practice for kids with disabilities

Similar to English-speaking parents, Spanish-speaking parents reported that they were interested in KITS as a 

way to prepare their child for kindergarten. In particular, Spanish-speaking parents seemed especially concerned 

about their child's social skills. Three out of four parents interviewed reported having a "very shy" child.

“It was interesting to me because my first son, who went to the program four years ago, was very shy 

and the program helped him a little, and it took away the fear of the school, and he became more 

confident, and felt more comfortable with the teachers.” 

“That my son was going to get to know other kids. I was worried about my son because he’s very shy, 

and I knew that if he participated in the program he would feel good about school.”

“Because I knew my son was going to start kindergarten, I needed to know how to help him. My son is 

very shy. I was very concerned about my son because he is so shy and because he did not have any 

interest in the letters.” 

Very few families mentioned academic readiness as a motivator for enrolling in KITS, although school/district 

respondents reported that some families found KITS insufficiently academic:

“At least 2 families complained that they were disappointed in the program – that it taught skills that 

their children had already learned. These were children who had preschool and day care experience, and 

their parents have high expectations for education and their kids do well in school.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 27 

School/district respondents also indicated that KITS was appealing to families because it was provided at no 

cost, and provided food, transportation and childcare. In the parent focus groups, child care was by far the most 

frequently mentioned aspect of the program that supported parent attendance. Most of the participating 

parents in these focus groups had other children, and noted that without child care they would not have been 

able to attend. 

“The child care is wonderful! My youngest one, who is 2 1⁄2, he calls it his class. He wants to go every 

week. That made it work, for me. I could just sit here and talk.” 

3. Utilize Recruitment Supports from UWLC and OSLC

Feedback from district/school staff was generally quite positive about the communication and support they 

received from United Way (in particular, the Learning Collaboratives) and OSLC: 

“The communication has been great. OSLC wants the program to succeed and we want the program to 

succeed....Through meetings or phone calls, they're always willing to support us and help problem-solve 

and work through any glitches.” 

“OSLC sent regular e-mails, phone calls and was instrumental in providing guidance and consultation.” 

“United Way helped coordinate the meetings to get it all started.” 

“Everyone was always so helpful when you called for support.” 

Schools and districts reported varied levels of utilizing support from the KITS Coaches during the recruitment 

phase. When they did access support, they generally found the Coach consultation to be helpful:

“Coach was extremely helpful. I would text her and she would help out, responding at all times of the 

day. Super responsive.” 

“Yes, the Coach has been really helpful...I was meeting with the Coach twice a week, problem-solving,

asking for feedback and suggestions. I felt like that was really good.” 

“Yes, consultation via phone. Coaching has been good.” 

This variability was reflected by Coaches' comments as well: 

“I was minimally involved. I was a touchpoint if the team had questions but didn't have hands-on 

involvement.” 

“I was in touch with them by phone and email to pass on ideas for recruitment or remind them of the 

timeline.” 

“Even when I offered to meet with people, it was hard to get responses.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 28 

4. Utilize Logistical Supports & Materials 

Several sets of materials and tools for recruitment were provided by UWLC and/or OSLC. All district/school staff 

were given a comprehensive "Logistics" Manual, designed to help guide and support the start-up phase. This 

included a variety of forms, tools and ideas to support recruitment (KITS interest forms, enrollment forms, flyers, 

scripts for recruitment, recommended strategies for recruitment, etc.) Regarding the helpfulness of the KITS 

Logistics Manual, most district/school staff indicated that it was very useful:

“I was given the Logistics Manual. We used a lot of it, often.” 

“I used the Manual for recruitment and found it helpful.” 

“Very helpful reference. Used it very often. Thumb drive with the job descriptions was helpful.” 

“I went through the Manual and we just got all of our questions answered and it went really smoothly.” 

“It was great for me to know what the materials were going to be and to make sure we had them and if 

we didn't, make sure they got created. “ 

Many district/school staff also reported that they used a variety of materials from the Manual, including the KITS 

information flyers, postcards, sample scripts, registration forms, etc.:

“The flyers with the numbers on them were great. We could quickly explain KITS while we were handing 

them out.” 

“The questions and script was helpful to get all of the key points out and keep the conversation on track.” 

“Registration packet was helpful, nuts and bolts.” 

5. Utilize Strategies for Program Retention

As noted earlier, drop-out prior to the KITS start date was a challenge experienced in multiple sites. Some 

district/school staff, however, reported successfully retaining registered families via regular, personal contact in 

the period between program registration and initiation. For example, some sites implemented regular 

(sometimes weekly) reminder calls and/or texts to families, in an effort to avoid early drop-out prior:

“I made weekly follow-up reminder calls to all families about the program. This personal contact was 

important.” 

“I continued to make regular reminder calls to all of the families involved. Personal contact seemed to 

work well.” 

“Personal contact worked best in follow-up with families.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 29 

FQ1C: What are the barriers to over-recruitment and how can these be better addressed? 

1. Short Time Frame for Recruitment & Start Up

By far, the most significant challenge reported by school/district respondents regarding recruitment and start-up 

in Year 1, was the extremely short timeline between notification of their KITS status and the program start date. 

This, coupled with the heavier than anticipated workload associated with recruiting KITS families was a 

significant barrier to the recruitment process. Accordingly, the great majority of respondents indicated that they 

intended to begin recruitment efforts earlier in Year 2.

“I think it was all time-related. Just not getting to an event that would have been a great place [to 

recruit] or not calling families in time. Not because [staff] weren't willing to it, but just because there 

wasn't enough time.” 

“We began in April because that's when the KITS materials were available. We went as fast we could, but 

it wasn't soon enough. For next year, we plan to begin recruitment and hiring in January.” 

Most respondents indicated that KITS recruitment efforts began in March - April (April was most often 

mentioned) of 2016, although some reported beginning as late as May, and one reported beginning in January. 

The KITS Logistics Manual recommends beginning recruitment in January, but sub-grantees did not learn that 

the program was funded until mid-February, and then had to designate/hire Site Coordinators and Site 

Supervisors, develop a recruitment strategy and materials, and put into place a support structure, prior to 

beginning recruitment efforts. 

In most cases, sites had little to no experience doing this kind of recruitment and staff tasked with recruitment 

in many cases already had full-time jobs. Indeed, when asked about the thing that most surprised 

district/school staff about the model the most frequent responses were related to was how much time and 

effort was required to get KITS off the ground: 

“Recruitment was much harder and more time-consuming than staff anticipated. Recruitment itself was 

outside of the norm for their positions.” 

“I worked more hours trying to recruit for KITS than I did for my job for the district. I wouldn't do the job 

again because the hours were too many to support with my job and my life.” 

Once families had indicated their interest in KITS, schools typically followed up with a phone call to answer 

questions, get more information from parents, and complete the registration process. This process likewise 

proved to be unexpectedly time-consuming for staff:

“It was a disaster. It was time intensive...When we actually got ahold of them, it went well. But some of 

those families we called 7 and 8 times before we connected.” 

“Inviting 80 families, it took more man power than I thought it would to make phone calls, and do all the 

follow-up. Had to bring on more staff.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 30 

Similarly, several OSLC staff reported the perception that many sites were simply too busy to fully take 

advantage of the recruitment resources offered by OSLC, i.e., the Logistics Manual or the coaches themselves: 

“For many staff, their KITS responsibilities were on top of their regular 40-hour week job responsibilities. 

They just didn't have time to read the Manual, and a written format wasn't easily accessible to them. 

They also just didn't have time to put together a well-thought out recruitment plan or strategy.” 

2. Lack of Prior Knowledge of KITS Model and Lack of Clarity Regarding Effort Needed for Implementation

Compounding the time constraints, most sites had never hosted a KITS program in their district/school prior to 

involvement in the KITS Project. Likewise, most district/school respondents had been unfamiliar with, or only 

somewhat familiar with the program, e.g., a few knew that it had something to do with kindergarten, but little 

beyond that. This meant a steep learning curve for many:

“I think that what the challenge was for us was just not really knowing what to expect.” 

“It's just hard to start a program in a place that's never done that before.” 

“We didn't have the know-how or information. We should have tried really hard.” 

“It surprised me and I'm not quite sure exactly how to deal with this issue...it's a complicated program...it 

requires a tremendous amount of effort and staff time. It's complicated to organize and get up and 

running. The labor intensiveness of it is a pretty significant issue for people who are just starting and it 

continues - I can't see how to mitigate that very much.” 

3. Need for More Role Clarity & Clear Expectations

In addition, some stakeholders lacked clarity about their own role in the recruitment and start up process, and in 

particular around the role of the Site Supervisor. A number of district/school staff mentioned that they would 

have appreciated a training specifically for Site Supervisors, as well as more information regarding the KITS 

curriculum itself:

“There was no [specific] training for Site Supervisors. There was a lot expected that was not gone over 

before it started. It was rather shocking.”

“I would have liked to have had the curriculum ahead of time so that we could have planned in advance 

instead of the week before implementation.” 

“Although I felt supported by UWLC and OSLC, it wasn't clear to me at the beginning that I, and not 

UWLC/OSLC, was responsible for recruitment. It turned out to be a bigger job than I expected.” 

Some district/school respondents likewise reported issues with communication from OSLC, PSU, and/or United 

Way, most specifically during the start-up phase. Several respondents mentioned confusion regarding whom to 

contact with questions, as well as some redundancy in e-mails. A number of respondents suggested 

"streamlining" communications from the various organizations involved, in order to avoid 

confusion/redundancy.
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 31 

“My first impression was that there were "too many cooks in the kitchen." [We] had been receiving 

communications from United Way, PSU, ESD, OSLC, and it was information overload. When I came on, I 

was really unclear about the different roles of OSLC, UW, and SIF.” 

“Maybe a couple of times we were running in circles, not sure who to contact about particular concerns.” 

“Many times we received e-mails from different agencies regarding the same question and had to 

answer it more than once.”

4. Need for Stronger District Leadership & Communication

Several respondents attributed some of the confusion around roles, responsibilities, and timelines to a lack of 

involvement by District leadership:

“After the decision was made to implement KITS, there no outreach from the Superintendents. 

Communication from them was non-existent. The Superintendents needed to be involved in doing 

outreach and talking with the various programs to tap into grants, human resources, facilities, 

transportation.” 

“The infrastructure wasn't in place to implement KITS. There needed to be communication from the 

Superintendents to the Directors, and then down to the front-line staff each step of the way to say here's 

what's needed and needs to be done.” 

5. Time Constraints Limited Effectiveness of Logistical Supports 

As mentioned previously, all district leads and Site Supervisors were given a comprehensive "Logistics" manual. 

However, perhaps due in part to the role confusion present at the outset, as well as staff transitions as KITS roles 

were sorted out, it is not clear that the Logistics manual always made it into the right hands. Several 

district/school staff said that they never received a manual, or had only ever seen the Curriculum manuals, 

intended for teaching staff. It is important to note, however, that those who did utilize the Logistics manual 

found be quite helpful (as mentioned earlier). Some respondents also reported that the shortened time frame 

reduced the helpfulness of materials (such as recruitment materials and the Logistics manual) provided:

“It was more the timeline and that the materials came too late.” 

“We liked the banner but it arrived late and most of our recruiting had been done at that point.” 

6. Challenges in Engaging Families – KITS Time Commitment 

Following time constraints and the unexpected amount of effort required for successful recruitment, the next 

most significant barrier to recruitment identified by district/school respondents, was the time commitment 

required by families to participate in the KITS program. Many school/district respondents felt that families were 

simply too busy and/or unwilling to commit 8 weeks of their summer to KITS:

“It was largely because of the time commitment. Many families had vacation and other commitments 

during the summer.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 32 

“Some of the barriers were that the program took place during vacation; families were busy, and had 

family in town visiting, etc.” 

This perception was confirmed by interviews with parents who were not able or chose not to participate to KITS. 

For example:

“So with his mom’s visitation and the Hawaii trip he would have only been able to attend 6-9 sessions 

and that’s it. He wasn’t going to get the maximum benefit of it. It just didn’t seem like him missing so 

many sessions would accomplish what we had wanted to accomplish.”

On the flip side, some respondents mentioned that participation in KITS was difficult for working parents who 

need more consistent, full-day activities for their children during the summer and/or who were themselves 

unable to attend Parent Group during the day: 

“Another barrier of the program is that working families can’t participate.” 

“Their children [or working parents] were in private preschool or day care.” 

“Overall, timing was an issue for parent participation. Many were stay-at-home moms who didn’t want 

to meet in the evening but then working parents can’t meet during the day.” 

“The parent component is a challenge for working families... [We need to] work through ways to make it 

cost-effective for families who are working to participate.” 

7. Challenges in Engaging Families - Scheduling conflicts

Scheduling conflicts were by far the most frequently mentioned challenge to participation in the parent focus 

groups, and although all four groups discussed the relative merits of different timing and scheduling options, it 

seemed clear that no one time of day or day of the week would work for all parents. Several parents also noted 

that not learning about the time of the parent groups until just a few short weeks before the groups started 

made it difficult, if not impossible, for some parents. Parents also suggested that schools provide more 

information about details (time, location, transportation, etc.) 

For rural districts in particular, respondents reported that getting the word out to more geographically dispersed 

families was challenging. Relatively small numbers of incoming kindergarteners in rural areas likewise resulted in 

small pools from which to recruit. One rural parent who chose not to participate also felt that the transportation 

time was not justified for the relatively brief KITS session (2 hours/day):

“I do think I would have enrolled him if the program had been closer to our house....Honestly, I would 

have thought about it more and tried to figure it out and said maybe we can make this work if there was 

some kind of incentive that I could justify by putting towards gas or groceries. I really have a special 

place in my heart for people who live in rural areas and the challenges they have in getting to school.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 33 

8. Challenges in Engaging Families – Parent Group Requirement 

In addition to the general time commitment issue, a number of district/school respondents mentioned that the 

parent component of KITS had been a disincentive to participation for some parents:

“A lot of parents were not interested or didn't have time to do the parent component so they didn't want 

to register their child in the program once they found out that the parent part was a required piece.” 

“Some parents wanted their children enrolled in the children's program but they weren't interested in the 

parent education piece.” 

One Parent Group bilingual/bicultural facilitator/interpreter reported that the Latino families in her groups were 

more interested in learning how to support their children academically than in a parenting class:

“There were people who chose not to come back, saying that they didn't need a parenting class....The 

parent curriculum needs to be better oriented toward how to support children academically - not 

parenting. How do I support their reading; their math. This is what parents were looking for.” 

A number of parents reported not initially understanding that there was a parent component, or not 

understanding what the parent component entailed:

“I didn't know much about the parent meetings either. I knew that there was something about a parent 

group in there, but I didn't know the extent of the parent group.” 

Even those parents who were aware of the parent component reported that they did not have a good 

understanding of what the parent group was about or what the potential benefits for them might be. Better 

communication about the importance of the parent group and the benefits for parents of having opportunities 

to learn parenting skills and meet other parents might also help increase motivation to participate. 

9. Challenges in Engaging Families - Lack of Clarity Regarding Program Eligibility and Components

Some parent respondents likewise reported confusion regarding KITS eligibility/suitability for their child,

suggesting a need for greater clarity in messaging:

“I didn’t feel like I had a good understanding of what it was and how it could benefit us. What would be 

beneficial for participating in the program? I would want to know if for kids and families who haven’t 

had any kind of school yet or preschool or kindergarten readiness or if it was more social and meeting 

other kids or help with parenting. I just wasn’t sure.”

Similarly, several parents noted that their only concern or worry in signing their child up was not understanding 

who the child’s teacher would be. Knowing that staff were credentialed in some way, or even better, were 

school district staff and/or teachers, would have helped these parents feel more comfortable enrolling the 

program, as illustrated by the following exchange: 

“I was concerned about who the teachers would be...” ...“Yea, we just gave our kids to strangers.” “I think 

they are all District employees”...”but this is the last day and I’m just finding that out.”
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 34 

Having good communication about the program as early as possible was described as important in helping 

parents understand what the expected commitment for KITS would be: 

“I played phone tag for 3 days [with KITS contact person], but she was really clear when she did call, and 

she let us know everything, all the details. She went over it twice with us to make sure we understood.” 

10. Challenges in Reaching Families Most in Need of KITS 

The KITS SIF Project is intended to serve low-income communities in Lane County. In the majority of sites, KITS 

was open to all incoming kindergarteners in Year 1, with no other eligibility criteria. A few sites, however, did 

report focusing on, or even limiting eligibility to, particular populations, e.g., non-white, Free and Reduced 

Lunch eligible, those with no preschool experience, Head Start participants, and/or recipients of Special 

Education services (in some instances, multiple criteria were applied). When asked about the extent to which 

recruitment efforts reached the families they hoped to engage, some respondents reported success, based 

solely on having filled the program slots. Many respondents, however, indicated that they thought they had 

failed to reach the neediest families:

“The families who enrolled were 'families who already have it together.' Next year, I'd like to target 

families enrolled in Head Start and in the public housing complex near the school.” 

“We ended up enrolling families who were savvy with school resources and savvy with resources in 

general. They were all well-functioning families. No non-Native English speakers were enrolled. We've 

realized that we didn't enroll or even reach the kids who need KITS the most. We need to figure out how 

to do this for next year.” 

“The parents who enrolled were very involved parents (involved in their children's lives). They were 

families who were already comfortable with the school system and knew how to talk to teachers....Once 

school started, there were 4-5 children in each kindergarten class whom we think could have benefitted 

from KITS.” 

Of the nine English-speaking KITS families interviewed, all but 2 of the children in question had at least some 

preschool experience (mostly center-based/more than a third in Head Start); many had been enrolled full-time 

and/or for a period of years. Similarly, all 5 of the non-enrolling (yet initially interested) families interviewed 

reported significant preschool experience prior to kindergarten.

The apparent over-representation of highly-involved families, both enrolled and non-enrolled (yet interested) in 

KITS, may be due in part to the reliance on kindergarten round-ups for KITS recruitment; typically, it is the more 

well-informed and connected families that attend such events. Higher-need families are often more challenging 

to identify, establish rapport with, and retain. As OSLC staff explained: 

“The hardest thing is finding families who aren't already connected to services. Need to think outside the 

box. We had a lot of success in previous years going door to door. Just having a booth and expecting 

families to wander over is not sufficient.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 35 

11. Challenges Recruiting Spanish-speaking families

A number of respondents described specific efforts to reach Latino families, including having interpreters 

available at kindergarten roundups, making Spanish-language materials available, identifying Spanish-speaking 

staff to answer calls from and follow up with interested, Spanish-speaking families, attending events for Spanishspeaking families, and partnering with Family Resource Centers.

Such efforts, however, were not always successful, often for reasons not well understood by school/district 

staff: 

“I would say [our efforts to reach Latino families] were not really effective. We're looking at eight percent 

[Latino] in our community and we got one kid.” 

“None of the Latino families enrolled in KITS despite the fact that I'm bilingual and attended the 

kindergarten open house and explained KITS to them in Spanish.” 

“We need to ask more questions. Did they not know about it? Were they not interested? Why are 

families reticent?” 

Spanish-speaking parents confirmed the perception that recruitment efforts had failed to reach many Latino 

families: "I don’t think many families know about the program. I noticed signs in English around the community, 

but I didn’t see any in Spanish." A Parent Group facilitator/interpreter observed, "In Eugene and Springfield, I see 

that none of the parents know about it." All four Latino parents interviewed and one Parent Group 

facilitator/interpreter suggested recruiting Latino families via Latino churches and businesses.

“I think that informing the local churches would be a good way and local Latino businesses too, because 

many families do not know about the program, like I didn’t with my first daughter.” 

“Maybe if they placed signs at the Latino churches and at the only Latino store we have here in Cottage 

Grove.” 

“Sending the information to the Latino churches and Latino businesses.” 

“Taking the information to local Latino churches and local Latino businesses.” 

“Go to Mexican stores -post flyers. Go to where families get together, e.g., the churches and talk to the 

ministers.” 

Several also mentioned connecting with Head Start programs that serve large numbers of Latino children:

“Also, taking the information to the Head Start program. I asked at the Head Start program about KITS, 

and they did not have any information. I had to call the program to find out more information. The Head 

Start program has many Latino kids, they need to have this information there.” 

“Maybe having a meeting in the Head Start program where they tell us about the program.” 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 36 

“Access the Head Start waiting list - provide them with the mailing so they can send out flyers. There are 

200 people on the waiting list, many of which are Latino families - that never end up having any 

experience with preschool.” 

One Parent Group facilitator/interpreter also suggested working with local health care providers (including the 

Health Department) to distribute KITS flyers at regularly scheduled 4-year-old and 5-year-old check-ups.

Respondents also suggested providing transportation, which KITS actually does provide, suggesting there may 

have been a breakdown in communication somewhere:

“I don’t know if transportation was offered or not. I believe transportation would help more families to 

attend the program.” 

“The program did not provide transportation, maybe providing transportation.”

More generally, one Parent Group facilitator observed that personal contact may be a better mechanism than 

flyers for reaching Latino families: "We are a culture of verbal communication. You can paste flyers all over town, 

but we don't read flyers. Need to have a more personal connection."

12. Challenges Recruiting Families: Early Family Drop-Out & Need for Stronger Commitment to Enrollment

As already mentioned, another factor that seems to have contributed to lower-than-expected enrollment in KITS 

was attrition prior to the beginning of the program. According to district/school respondents, a number of 

families registered for KITS in the spring, but then withdrew or failed to attend once KITS actually began in July:

“So many families falling out last minute when we were saving a spot for them throughout the summer.” 

“Signing up for slots, and then when it comes down to it, they evaporate. Parents don't always know 

what they're signing up for. They don't really know [at the time of kindergarten roundup] if they are 

available.” 

“We did have an issue with families showing up. There were two or three at each site that never came. 

Those are the families we were trying to get. Trying to figure out the barriers for those families.”

In many cases, it was reportedly difficult to find replacement families at such a late date. To increase retention, 

one respondent suggested hosting a "meet and greet" with families prior to the KITS start date. A successful 

strategy mentioned above was the practice of regularly calling/texting families during the interim period, to stay 

connected and make sure families maintained their commitment to program participation.

Feasibility Question 2: Research Study Recruitment Process 

FQ2A. What percent of families who agree to participate in KITS also provide a “consent to contact” for the 

research study? 

Because recruitment for the program had started prior to the evaluation methodologies being approved, 

consent to contact was collected in a number of different ways by school districts implementing the KITS 

Program. Some school districts asked parents/caregivers for consent to share contact information with 

partners, including the Portland State University evaluation team, on the KITS Interest Form, other school 

districts asked families on follow up phone calls, and some school districts did not ask families for consent to 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 37 

contact at all and were recruited during face-to-face during Parent Readiness Group sessions or mailed and sent 

information about the research study directly to families from the schools. For this reason, we cannot calculate 

the percent of KITS families that provided consent to contact for the research study; it ended up being less 

meaningful because of the face to face recruitment done at parent groups. 

FQ2B. What strategies are most effective and efficient in securing these consent to contact forms? 

As previously discussed, consent to contact was secured in a variety of ways both within and across school 

districts. Methods to secure consent to contact for the research study included: a check box or question on the 

KITS Interest Form, a check box on the OSLC KITS website, discussed during follow up calls from the KITS 

Administrative Coordinator, discussed during KITS Program calls from the KITS Site Supervisor or KITS 

Administrative Coordinator, and a check box or question on KITS enrollment forms. Based on what was 

observed last year, the most efficient and effective way to secure consent to contact for the research study 

moving forward is to ask parents/caregivers for consent to contact during the first point of contact, where 

parents expressed interest in the KITS Program. At this point of contact, all families completed a KITS Interest 

Form either on hard copy or online. Including a check box on the KITS Interest Form that asks for consent to 

contact regarding additional opportunities (e.g., the research study), was the most efficient way to collect this 

information on a mass scale, minimizing KITS staff time and resources. A check box asking for consent to contact 

was included on KITS Interest Forms for the KITS 2017 cohort. 

FQ2Ca. What strategies are most effective for successfully recruiting families into the KITS evaluation study? 

As described previously, a variety of strategies were used to recruit families into the study (see also Participant 

Recruitment Strategies, above). These included:

• Mailing study packets, including a flyer, a consent form, a parent survey, and a self-addressed, 

stamped envelope to the family;

• Calling and texting parents/caregivers who provided consent to contact every other day at different 

times, leaving messages half of the time, for one month; 

• Emailing (when email address was provided by the school district) parents/caregivers who provided 

consent to contact, once a week for one month; 

• Attending one of the first 4 child groups to catch parents/caregivers who pickup/drop-off kids at the 

Program;

• Asking KITS parent group facilitators to distribute study packets, including a flyer, a consent form, 

and a parent survey, to the family at the first parent group meeting;

• Presenting the study and inviting participation at the first 2 parent group meetings;

• Asking parent group facilitators to follow up with unresponsive parents who provided consent to 

contact.

The study data collection team kept a log of successes and challenges related to data collection, including study 

recruitment. In general, effective strategies were those that made a personal connection with the 

parent/caregiver, were in person, allowed parents/caregivers time to complete the survey and consent form

immediately (e.g., during the Parent Group sessions), and provided the incentive (a $20 gift card) immediately 

following the completion of the forms. More specifically, it was commonly noted by data collection staff that 

attending the end of one of the first couple of a parent group meetings, after parents had already received the 

KITS study packet from the parent group facilitator, was the most effective way to get families to participate in 

the study. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 38 

FQ2Cb. How many families declined study participation and why? 

As shown in Table 1 below, the majority of the declines were because the evaluation team was not able to 

contact families to invite them to participate. Although incorrect contact information was an issue for some 

families, for most families that did not consent to the study, PSU data collectors never reached the 

parent/caregiver on their phone or through mail. These parents/caregivers did not respond to multiple mailings, 

phone calls, text messages, and/or emails. There were a number of KITS parents/caregivers who did not attend 

the parent group, making it difficult to contact them through the KITS Program as well. In addition to lack of 

contact, one parent completed a survey but declined to participate in the research study on the consent form. 

As can be seen, the percentage of comparison families who we were unable to contact was larger than among 

KITS families. This is likely due to the limited information available for comparison families (e.g., those who 

supplied only email information, or only a phone number) and the success of recruitment of KITS families in 

face-to-face recruitment presentations at PRG and SRG sessions. 

Table 1. Reasons for Declining Study Participation for KITS and Comparison Groups

Reason for Decline KITS Comparison

N % of sample N % sample

No contact 37 10% 60 39%

Not interested 2 1% 2 1%

Incorrect contact information 2 1% 5 3%

Mailed information only, not returned 2 1% 0 0%

Declined on consent form 1 1% 0 0%

Contacted, did not turn in materials 8 2% 17 11%

Feasibility Question 3: Baseline Data Collection Process

FQ3A: What types of activities, events, or other strategies are most useful for facilitating control-group data 

collection? 

Data collectors contacted potential comparison group families from an initial list of more than 200 families. 

Comparison group families were identified in two primary ways: (1) families expressed interest in the KITS 

Program but did not qualify for KITS because their child did not attend a KITS school or (2) families expressed 

initial interest in the KITS Program but could not attend because of schedule or other conflicts. Similar to KITS 

participant recruitment, comparison group study packets were mailed to comparison group families, which 

included a flyer describing the study, a consent form, a survey, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. 

Comparison group parents/caregivers were called, emailed, and/or texted at different times in the day and on 

different days of the week every couple of days for up to a month. Phone calls and texting were most effective 

and resulted in the most responses from parents. Once in contact with the families, data collectors would 

describe the opportunity to take part in the research study in order to help key stakeholders learn more about 

family’s experiences transitioning into kindergarten who were not able to participate in KITS. Most families 

(63%) mailed their survey using the self-addressed, stamped envelope. A limited number of families completed 

the survey online (19%) or submitted it in person during the child assessment (19%). Some of the families who 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 39 

completed the survey online were able to do so on their mobile phone. Data collectors found that it was a 

helpful strategy to text a link to the survey to parents directly so they could complete it wherever they were.

Most families who were in the comparison group who were invited to participate in the child assessment agreed 

to participate. Parents were interested in participating in the child assessment portion of the study because it 

resulted in an extra $20 gift card (in addition to the $20 gift card received for completion of the parent survey). 

Interviews with district/school staff also included questions regarding their involvement with and perceptions of 

the research component. On the whole, respondents reported that seeking consent to contact had not been a 

burden:

“It was easy because it [consent] was a part of all the other questions that we needed to ask about 

transportation and contact and things like that.” 

“It was fine. I was making contact with everyone anyway.” 

“I explained the research piece to families when I called them to register for KITS.” 

Many likewise reported using the script provided by PSU to introduce the research to families:

“I read the script PSU gave me.”

“I used the KITS/PSU script. I really emphasized how important it was to know if the program was 

successful or not for the children in getting ready for kindergarten.” 

“I gave a condensed version of the script.” 

The majority of district/school respondents indicated that the research had not been a concern for families. 

“Families didn't have any concerns, even about the information sharing between OSLC and PSU. They 

trusted the researchers' confidentiality policy and felt assured of their anonymity.” 

“All the parents said yes.” 

“Almost all were happy to participate.” 

One respondent commented that the provision of gift cards to families as a "thank you" for participating in the 

research had been valuable. Several mentioned the importance of explaining to families the benefit of research 

to the community, and "making it not scary." Some respondents indicated that 1 or 2 families at their site had 

had concerns and ended up not consenting, or choosing not to participate in KITS at all (participation in the 

research was not required in order to participate in KITS). Family concerns about the research reportedly 

included: fears about the impact on open DHS cases; concerns about being videotaped (which is a KITS program 

requirement, not an aspect of the evaluation); concerns about children receiving "intelligence testing" (not part 

of the evaluation, nor the program); concerns about privacy; and concerns about excessive paperwork.
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 40 

FQ3B: What types events, activities, or other strategies are most effective for facilitating KITS participant 

data collection? 

There were two types of baseline data collection for KITS participants: (1) parent/caregiver surveys and (2) 

child assessments. Activities that best facilitated parent/caregiver survey data collection aligned with strategies 

that were most effective in recruiting parents to participate in the research study (see FQ2C above). In general, 

effective strategies were those where a personal, face-to-face connection was made, allowed parents time to 

complete the survey, and provided the incentive (a $20 gift card) immediately following the completion of the 

survey. These strategies all came together when data collection staff attended one of the first KITS parent group 

meetings. This strategy was also the most effective for follow up parent survey data collection. Of the 230 

follow up parent surveys received, 44% (102) were collected at the end of a parent group session or in-person at 

the KITS Program graduation (i.e., final session).

In addition to parent/caregiver surveys, PSU piloted child assessments with two KITS School Readiness Groups 

last year. Similar to KITS participating parent/caregiver survey data collection at baseline, KITS child assessments 

were most easily completed during the KITS School Readiness Groups. The PSU evaluation team worked closely 

with the KITS Administrative Coordinators, KITS Site Supervisors, and KITS School Readiness Teachers to pull 

children out of the KITS School Readiness Groups individually. Children were taken by a PSU child assessor to a 

quiet room near their KITS classroom to complete the assessments. The assessments took between 5 and 15 

minutes to complete, and once finished, the child would return to his/her classroom. Conducting child 

assessments for KITS participating children in this way was most effective because it minimized amount of travel 

time for the child assessors, eliminated coordination with parents/caregivers to complete the assessments, and 

maximized the number of assessments that could be completed in a 2 hour time span (during the KITS School 

Readiness Group). At follow up (i.e., KITS program-end), some children did not attend the final few KITS School 

Readiness Groups. For these children, the data collection team had to contact and coordinate with the 

parent/caregiver to meet up at a convenient location (e.g., public library, child’s home). This individual attention 

on KITS children that did not attend the last few KITS School Readiness Groups required more resources (time, 

mileage) than did the child assessments that took place at the school during the KITS School Readiness Groups.

FQ3C: How much time is needed for child-level data collection and what strategies might increase the 

efficiency of these assessments? 

See below. 

FQ3D: How much time and other staff resources are needed for multi-site simultaneous data collection at all 

implementing KITS schools for parent survey data collection? 

By far the most resource-efficient approach to child data collection was to capitalize on children’s participation 

in KITS groups to “pull out” children for the brief assessment period. Given the relatively short amount of time 

needed for assessment, this strategy was quite effective for KITS participating children. However, collecting 

child assessments for comparison group children took considerably more resources, as these were done at 

individual home visits and meetings with families. Overall, we estimate that each comparison group child 

assessment took approximately 4-5 hours per child (including recruitment, scheduling, follow up, and 

assessment time) and a cost of $95 per assessments. Additionally, mileage costs for transportation per 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 41 

assessment were estimated at a total cost of approximately $650 for the comparison group child assessments. 

For KITS participant child assessments, we estimate $21 per assessment with additional $17 in mileage costs for 

every assessment. Overall, we estimate that data collection costs for the feasibility study were approximately 

$25,000 in total wages and $6100 in mileage reimbursements. This does not include training and supervision 

costs nor data entry costs. Given this estimate, we have determined that primary child level data collection is 

not a feasible option for the evaluation during Year 2 without additional resources. 

Feasibility Question 4: Preliminary assessment of selection bias in the research study sample

(FQ4)

FQ4A. Are the baseline characteristics of KITS program families who consent to participate in the evaluation 

different from those of comparison families who consent to participate in the data collection? 

While the study was not able to implement a randomized design, a quasi-experimental comparison group was 

recruited. Understanding potential baseline inequivalence of this quasi-experimental group is therefore 

paramount, especially in the unfortunate event that random assignment during Year 2 proves again unfeasible. 

Tables 2 & 3 show baseline scores and results of t-tests (continuous variables) or Chi-squared (categorical 

variables) for the key Time 1 assessment outcome measures for KITS vs. Comparison group children (Table 2) 

and parent/caregiver survey outcomes (Table 3); Table 4 shows baseline demographic information for KITS vs. 

Comparison group families. As can be seen, there were some differences between KITS and Comparison group

families, especially in terms of demographic characteristics. In terms of baseline scores for key outcome 

measures (Tables 2 & 3), the only significant parent difference at baseline was in terms of parent perception of 

school climate (how welcome they feel at the school); KITS parents felt significantly more welcome at baseline. 

This may be due to the fact that some families had attended at least one KITS session at the school prior to 

baseline; whereas it may be less likely that control parents/caregivers had any level of contact, beyond the 

Kindergarten Roundup events, with schools when these surveys were collected. There were no statistically 

significant difference in child assessment scores between KITS and control children at baseline, although it is 

important to note that the sample size for these analyses were quite small. Demographically, however, there 

were several differences between the groups (Table 4). Compared to control parents, KITS families were more 

likely to have at least one parent working full time (81.8% vs. 66.7%); were less likely to have a 4-year degree 

(22.4% vs. 36.0%); and were somewhat more likely to be married (65.7% vs. 52%). Further, there was a 

marginally significant trend indicating comparison group children were more likely to have participated in formal 

preschool (70.6% of controls vs. 57.6% of KITS children). 

Table 4 also presents internal consistency statistics for the various parent survey measures (i.e., Chronbach’s 

alpha). Overall, most measures had adequate reliability (above .70). The Discipline implementation subscale 

had somewhat lower alpha (Chronbach’s alpha=.67), as did the Contact subscale of the Parent-Teacher 

interaction scale (Chronbach’s alpha=.51). Potential alternatives to these measures will be considered for Year 

2. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 42 

Table 2. Baseline Equivalency of Child Assessment Outcomes, KITS vs. Controls, on (Repeated 

Measures) Follow-Up Sample 

KITS 

(n=18)

Comparison 

(n=29)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t-value p

Easy CBM Letter Names 16.0 (11.6) 19.1 (14.9) 0.51 0.48

Letter Sounds 9.2 (10.6) 6.9 (7.7) 0.70 0.41

Numbers & Operations 8.3 (3.6) 7.9 (2.7) 0.12 0.74

Self-Regulation (HTKS) 19.2 (13.8) 23.0 (13.2) 0.90 0.35
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 43 

Table 3. Baseline Equivalency of Time 1 Parent Survey Outcome Measures, KITS vs. Controls, Follow-Up Sample 

KITS

(n=203)

Comparison

(n=51) Internal Consistency

Mean (SD) or 

%

Mean (SD) or

%

t-value or 

chi-square 

(df) p Cronbach's α

# 

Items

Parent-Child Activities Scale 1.62 (0.32) 1.57 (0.34) 0.96 (1) 0.33 0.72 8

Books in the Home NA 1

<10 5.0% 4.0%

11-25 15.4% 10.0% 1.10 (2) 0.58

26 or more 79.6% 86.0%

Frequency of Reading NA 1

Not at all 1.5% 6.0%

3.72 (3) 0.29 1-2 times/week 26.4% 22.0%

3 or more times/week 33.3% 34.0%

Daily 38.8% 38.0%

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (parent) 4.36 (0.62) 4.40 (0.74) 0.16 (1) 0.69 0.77 3

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (child) 4.30 (0.67) 4.21 (0.67) 0.65 (1) 0.42 0.84 4

Parent and Teacher Interactions Scale

Contact NA NA NA NA 0.51 2

Involvement NA NA NA NA 0.78 4

Quality Relationships NA NA NA NA 0.91 7

School Endorsement NA NA NA NA 0.89 4

Receipt of Information from School NA NA NA NA 0.62 3

Satisfaction with Information from School NA NA NA NA 0.89 4

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 2.22 (0.48) 2.21 (0.48) 0.02 (1) 0.90 0.84 6

Self-Control 1.79 (0.57) 1.76 (0.57) 0.10 (1) 0.75 0.87 7

Externalizing Behavior 2.18 (0.46) 2.12 (0.38) 0.75 (1) 0.39 0.83 7

Hyperactivity 1.83 (0.52) 1.74 (0.55) 1.11 (1) 0.29 0.82 7

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale 2.39 (0.77) 2.37 (0.74) 0.40 (1) 0.84 0.84 11

Poor Discipline Implementation 1.99 (0.59) 2.01 (0.62) 0.05 (1) 0.83 0.67 4

Poor Discipline Results 2.10 (0.66) 2.10 (0.69) 0.00 (1) 0.99 0.74 5

Poor Discipline (Total Scale) 2.05 (0.54) 2.06 (0.60) 0.01 (1) 0.92 0.78 9

Parent Perception of School Climate 4.65 (0.72) 4.25 (0.89) 10.55 (1)** 0.001 NA 1

†p<.10 *p<.05 ** p<.01
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 44 

Table 4. Baseline Equivalency for KITS vs. Controls for Demographic Characteristics 

KITS

(n=203)

Comparison

(n=51)

t-value or

Chi-Square value 

(df) p

% Children female (n) 44% (88) 48% (24) 0.32 (1) 0.57

# of Children in household 2.48 2.24 1.00 (1) 0.32

Relationship of Parent to Child (n/%)

 Mother 87.7% (178) 90.2% (46)

1.02 (4) 0.96 Father 8.9% (18) 7.8% (4)

 Other (grandparent, adoptive parent, 

 foster parent, etc.)

3.5% (7) 2.0% (1)

% Child’s Race (n)

 White 82.8% (168) 86.3% (44) 0.37 (1) 0.55

 African American 4.4% (9) 7.8% (4) 0.98 (1) 0.32

 Latino/Hispanic 15.8% (32) 15.7% (8) 0.00 (1) 0.99

 Asian 2.5% (5) 0% (0) 1.28 (1) 0.26

 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2.0% (4) 0% (0) 1.02 (1) 0.31

 Alaska Native/American Indian 5.9% (12) 2.0% (1) 1.31 (1) 0.25

 Other 2.0% (4) 2.0% (1) 0.00 (1) 0.99

English as Primary Language at Home (n/%) 95.5% (193) 98.0% (50) 0.67 (1) 0.41

Spanish as Primary Language at Home (n/%) 10.9% (22) 7.8% (4) 0.41 (1) 0.52

Marital Status (n/%)

 Single 9.5% (19) 20.0% (10)

6.16 (3) 0.10 Living with partner 15.9% (32) 14.0% (7)

 Married 65.7% (132) 52.0% (26)

 Divorced/Widowed/Separated 9.0% (18) 14.0% (7)

Household unemployment (parent and/or partner not employed 

full-time) 81.8% (166) 66.7% (34) 5.56 (1) 0.02

Parent highest education Level

 < HS or GED 27.4% (55) 20.0% (10) 1.13 (1) 0.29

 4-year college degree or greater 22.4% (45) 36.0% (18) 3.95 (1) 0.05

% of children that participated in preschool (n) 57.6% (117) 70.6% (36) 2.86 (1) 0.09
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 45 

FQ4B. Are families who consent to participate in KITS representative of the schools from which they are 

recruited in terms of demographic characteristics? 

Table 5 below compares the racial/ethnic characteristics and home language for KITS participants to this 

information for each participating School District. Although unfortunately, racial/ethnic categories used by the 

evaluation did not match exactly those used by school districts (evaluation forms allowed parents to select more 

than one racial/ethnic group, resulting in a “mixed race/ethnicity” categories), it is quite clear that Latino 

families were under-represented in most of the Districts. In fact, all but two schools had at least 5% fewer 

Latino families in KITS groups than would have been expected given school demographics. This speaks to the 

importance in upcoming year of doing more focused outreach and recruitment of these families. 

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics at Baseline (Follow-Up KITS Sample) by School District 

KITS

15-16 

School 

District 

Report 

Card2

School District Baseline Demographic Characteristics3

Bethel Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 63%(37) 67%

 African American 0%(0) 2%

 Latino/Hispanic 15%(9) 21%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 2%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) <1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 20%(12) NA

 Other 2%(1) 7%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 9%(5) NA

Creswell Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 77%(17) 76%

 African American 0%(0) <1%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 13%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 3%

 Asian 0%(0) 1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 More than one race/ethnicity 23%(5) NA

 Other 0%(0) 7%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Crow-Applegate Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 100%(7) 88%

 African American 0%(0) 0%

 

2 K-3 

3 KITS parent/caregiver race/ethnicity exceeds 100%. Parents/caregivers reported all applicable race/ethnicities.
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 46

KITS

15-16 

School 

District 

Report 

Card2

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 7%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 0%

 Asian 0%(0) 1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 Other 0%(0) 0%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Fern Ridge Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 88%(14) 85%

 African American 0%(0) 1%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 9%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 3%

 Asian 7%(1) 0%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 More than one race/ethnicity 13%(2) NA

 Other 0%(0) 2%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Junction City Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 67%(12) 78%

 African American 11%(2) <1%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 13%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 11%(2) 4%

 Asian 0%(0) <1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) <1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 11%(2) NA

 Other 0%(0) 3%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Lowell Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 58%(7) 78%

 African American 0%(0) 2%

 Latino/Hispanic 25%(3) 11%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 8%(1) 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 0%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 More than one race/ethnicity 8%(1) NA

 Other 0%(0) 9%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Marcola Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 90%(9) 87%

 African American 0%(0) 0%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 6%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 0%
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 47 

KITS

15-16 

School 

District 

Report 

Card2

 Asian 0%(0) 0%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 Other 10%(1) 9%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

McKenzie Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 100%(9) 75%

 African American 0%(0) 0%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 16%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 5%

 Asian 0%(0) 2%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0%

 Other 0%(0) 2%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

Siuslaw Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 93%(13) 78%

 African American 0%(0) <1%

 Latino/Hispanic 7%(1) 7%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 4%

 Asian 0%(0) 2%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) <1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 7%(1) NA

 Other 0%(0) 9%

English Learners (%) NA 7%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 0%(0) NA

South Lane Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 664%(23) 78%

 African American 0%(0) 1%

 Latino/Hispanic 19%(7) 11%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 3%(1) 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 3%(1) <1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 11%(4) NA

 Other 0%(0) 2%

Parent/caregiver primary language Spanish (n/%) 14%(5) NA

KITS 15-16 School Report Card4

School District Baseline Demographic Characteristics 

 

4 K-5 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 48

KITS 15-16 School Report Card4

Eugene 4J Cesar 

Chavez McCornack

Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 33%(4) 47% 60%

 African American 0%(0) 2% 4%

 Latino/Hispanic 25%(3) 35% 26%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 8%(1) 2% 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 1% 1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 1% 1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 33%(4) NA NA

 Other 0%(0) 12% 7%

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Spanish (n/%)

8%(1) NA NA

Eugene 4J Holt

Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 73%(8) 64%

 African American 0%(0) 2%

 Latino/Hispanic 18%(2) 16%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 2%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 9%(1) NA

 Other 0%(0) 14%

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Spanish (n/%)

9%(1) NA

Springfield Guy Lee

Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 57%(8) 52%

 African American 0%(0) 5%

 Latino/Hispanic 21%(3) 36%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 1%

 Asian 14%(2) 1%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 1%

 More than one race/ethnicity 7%(1) NA

 Other 0%(0) 5%

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Spanish (n/%)

7%(1) NA

Springfield Riverbend Mt. Vernon

Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 54%(7) 68% 62%

 African American 0%(0) 2% 1%

 Latino/Hispanic 15%(2) 2% 29%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 2% 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 1% 2%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 0% 0%
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 49 

KITS 15-16 School Report Card4

 More than one race/ethnicity 31%(4) NA NA

 Other 0%(0) 6% 5%

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Spanish (n/%)

15%(2) NA NA

Springfield Two Rivers 

Dos Rios Maple

Parent’s Race (n/%)

 White 73%(11) 63% 62%

 African American 0%(0) 1% 1%

 Latino/Hispanic 0%(0) 27% 28%

 American Indian/Alaska Native 0%(0) 1% 1%

 Asian 0%(0) 0% 0%

 Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander 0%(0) 1% 0%

 More than one race/ethnicity 27%(4) NA NA

 Other 0%(0) 8% 7%

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Spanish (n/%)

0%(0) NA NA

Parent/caregiver primary language 

Other (n/%)

7%(1) NA NA

FQ4C. Are families who consent to participate in the research study representative of the families who consent 

to participate in the KITS program in terms of their demographic characteristics? 

All Districts implementing KITS were provided with a family enrollment form that included key demographic 

information about families. The original plan asked District staff to provide this form to families, with the goal of 

having all KITS participants complete the information so that this question could be addressed. However, there 

was little to no follow up to ensure that Districts were, in fact, using these forms, and in fact, the majority of 

schools did not systematically collect information on KITS families beyond the information that was collected for 

KITS study participants by the PSU evaluation team. Thus, while 254 KITS participants completed the PSU 

Baseline Parent Survey (and thus, provided the information needed to address this question), the remaining 56

families who were served by the KITS program but did not consent to evaluation provided no consistent 

demographic information that could be used to answer FQ4c. Thus, at this point, this question was not able to 

be address by the evaluation team. However, steps have been taken to ensure a consistent KITS Family 

Participant Enrollment Form is in place for Year 2. The United Way of Lane County has clearly indicated the 

requirement for schools to collect and report this information as part of their contracts, and both OSLC and PSU 

plan to follow up with each KITS group to ensure all participating parents fill out the Enrollment Form. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 50 

Exploratory Research Questions: Preliminary Outcomes & Attrition 

Analysis

Although not related to a specific research question, another area in which the Feasibility Study has informed 

planning for Year 2 is through preliminary analysis of study outcome data collected. Originally, we hoped to

address the following Exploratory Research Questions outline in the SEP:

1. Exploratory Research Question #1 (EQ1): Do children randomly assigned to the KITS program have 

higher early numeracy skills at the end of the KITS program participation compared to children assigned 

to the comparison group? 

2. Exploratory Research Question #2 (EQ2): Do children randomly assigned to the KITS program have 

higher scores at school entry on the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment (OKA) of early numeracy 

compared to children assigned to the comparison group? 

3. Exploratory Research Question 3 (EQ3): What is the relationship of changes in particular aspects of 

parenting behavior to child outcomes? 

a. Are particular parenting outcomes linked more (or less) strongly to child outcomes? 

At this time, however, we are unable to examine these outcomes due to pending receipt of the Oregon 

Kindergarten Assessment data, as described previously. Sample sizes for the primary child assessments 

collected for the Feasibility study are insufficient for these analyses (needed for EQ1); however, we expect to 

receive early numeracy, literacy, and social emotional outcomes from the OKA data on all children in the 

parent/caregiver survey outcome groups. These analyses will be included in subsequent reports. 

That said, we utilized the data collected through the Feasibility study to examine several additional questions, 

specifically: 

1. Revised Exploratory Question 1: EQ1. To what extent is there evidence of attrition from the parent 

survey outcomes study for KITS vs. Control participants? What baseline characteristics are associated 

with either (1) overall attrition at follow-up or (2) differential attrition from KITS vs. Control participants? 

2. Revised Exploratory Question 2: EQ2. To what extent is there evidence that participating in KITS is 

associated with more improvements over time for KITS vs. Control participants? 

3. Revised Exploratory Questions 3a-3c. Among KITS Participants: 

a. To what extent is attendance in KITS sessions associated with more evidence of positive 

improvements over time within KITS participants? 

b. Do participant demographic characteristics relate to attendance levels?

c. To what extent is there evidence that there are differential effects of KITS for specific subgroups of 

families, in particular for Hispanic/Latino families and for children who participated (or not) in 

formal preschool or child care?
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 51

Exploratory Question 1: Attrition Analysis

We conducted attrition analysis to examine the extent to which there was evidence of attrition from the parent 

survey outcomes study for KITS vs. Control participants. We conducted two sets of analyses, comparing the 

baseline characteristics (demographic characteristics, see Table 6) and baseline scores on the key outcome 

measures (Table 7) for KITS participants who had baseline and follow up data (“Repeated Measures Sample”) to 

KITS participants who were missing the follow up assessment (“Baseline Only Sample”). Chi-squared analyses 

(categorical characteristics) or T-tests (continuous baseline outcome scores) were used to compare the two 

groups of families. Although ideally we would have assessed differential attrition by directly analyzing the 

differences in patterns of attrition for KITS vs. Comparison groups, there were only n=9 families who comprised 

the “Baseline Only” Sample within the comparison group; therefore we conducted attrition analyses related to 

likelihood of follow up first within the KITS sample, and then within the Comparison sample. 

Within the KITS families, a few baseline characteristics were related to the likelihood of participation at followup. First, KITS parents/caregivers who completed both surveys were significantly more likely to have full-time 

employment in the household (81%) and significantly more likely to have an education level exceeding a high 

school diploma/GED (73%), compared to KITS parents who completed baseline only. There was also a trending 

difference in child gender where KITS families with follow-up data were more likely to have a boy in KITS (56%) 

compared to families with baseline survey data only (44%). Evidence of attritional differences based on 

demographic characteristics was not seen for comparison families. 

Responses to items on the baseline parent/caregiver survey were not significantly different between 

parents/caregivers in the KITS with and without follow-up data (see Table 7). 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 52 

Table 6. Demographic Differences for Families with and without Follow-Up Assessments 

KITS Comparison 

Baseline 

Only 

Sample

(n=64)

Repeated 

Measures 

Sample

(n=219)

Baseline 

Only 

Sample 

(n=9)

Repeated 

Measures 

Sample 

(n=51)

% %

chisquare p % %chisquare p

Child is Female 56.3% 43.6% 3.14 0.08 33.3% 48.0% 0.66 0.42

Household Full Time Employment 59.4% 81.4% 13.56 0.000 66.7% 65.4% 0.01 0.94

Parent Education - More than High School Degree 21.1% 72.6% 3.15 0.08 88.9% 80.0% 0.40 0.53

Race/Ethnicity

White 84.6% 82.8% 0.12 0.73 77.8% 86.3% 0.43 0.51

African American 7.7% 4.4% 1.06 0.30 0.0% 7.8% 0.76 0.38

Latino 21.5% 15.8% 1.16 0.28 22.2% 15.7% 0.24 0.63

Asian 6.2% 2.5% 2.07 0.15 0.0% 0.0% NA NA

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3.1% 2.0% 0.28 0.60 0.0% 0.0% NA NA

Alaska Native/American Indian 1.5% 5.9% 2.04 0.15 11.1% 2.0% 1.99 0.16

Other 1.5% 2.0% 0.05 0.82 0.0% 2.0% 0.18 0.67

Any Formal Childcare 55.1% 57.4% 0.11 0.74 77.8% 69.2% 0.27 0.60

 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 53 

Table 7. Differences in Baseline Parent Survey Scores for Families with and without Follow-Up Assessments 

KITS Comparison 

Baseline Only 

Sample

(n=64)

Repeated 

Measures 

Sample

(n=219)

Baseline Only 

Sample (n=9)

Repeated 

Measures 

Sample 

(n=51)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

tvalue 

or chisquare p Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

tvalue 

or chisquare p

Parent-Child Activities Scale 1.56 (0.35) 1.62 (0.32) -1.46 0.15 1.43 (0.43) 1.57 (0.34) -1.13 0.27

Books in the Home

<10 7.7% 5.0%

0.82 0.66

11.1% 4.0%

11-25 16.9% 15.4% 11.1% 10.0% 0.83 0.66

26 or more 75.4% 79.6% 77.8% 86.0%

Frequency of Reading

Not at all 0.0% 1.5%

4.94 0.18

0.0% 5.1%

1.36 0.71 1-2 times/week 35.4% 26.4% 33.3% 18.6%

3 or more times/week 38.5% 33.3% 22.2% 28.8%

Daily 26.2% 38.8% 44.4% 38.0%

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (parent) 4.36 (0.77) 4.36 (0.62) -0.01 0.99 4.33 (1.09) 4.40 (0.74) -0.23 0.82

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (child) 4.44 (0.71) 4.30 (0.67) 1.44 0.15 4.03 (1.33) 4.21 (0.67) -0.60 0.55

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 2.20 (0.50) 2.22 (0.48) -0.28 0.78 2.26 (0.37) 2.21 (0.48) 0.32 0.75

Self-Control 1.83 (0.56) 1.79 (0.57) 0.56 0.58 1.49 (0.60) 1.76 (0.57) -1.28 0.21

Externalizing Behavior 2.20 (0.47) 2.28 (0.46) 0.33 0.74 2.35 (0.55) 2.12 (0.38) 1.59 0.12

Hyperactivity 1.87 (0.49) 1.83 (0.52) 0.55 0.58 2.05 (0.46) 1.74 (0.55) 1.60 0.11

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale 2.33 (0.88) 2.39 (0.77) -0.55 0.58 2.28 (0.83) 2.37 (0.74) -0.31 0.76

Poor Discipline Implementation 1.95 (0.57) 1.99 (0.59) -0.45 0.66 2.00 (0.83) 2.01 (0.62) -0.04 0.97

Poor Discipline Results 2.15 (0.71) 2.10 (0.66) 0.59 0.56 2.27 (0.56) 2.09 (0.69) 0.71 0.48

Poor Discipline (Total Scale) 2.06 (0.54) 2.06 (0.54) 0.14 0.89 2.15 (0.54) 2.06 (0.60) 0.41 0.68

Parent Perception of School Climate 4.69 (0.75) 4.65 (0.72) 0.41 0.69 4.38 (1.19) 4.25 (.89) 0.35 0.73

 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 54

Exploratory Question 2: EQ2. Preliminary Outcomes 

We conducted multiple regression analyses to address Exploratory Research Question 2: To what extent is there 

evidence that participating in KITS is associated with more improvements over time for KITS vs. Control 

participants? Specifically, multiple regression analyses were employed using Time 2 (T2) outcomes as the 

dependent variables, intervention participation and the intervention X Time 1 (T1) score interaction as 

predictors, and controlled for baseline (T1) scores and demographic characteristics (child gender, child race, 

parent education, household full-time employment, and previous formal child care experiences) as covariates in 

each model. These results are shown in Table 8. At follow up, KITS families reported significantly less 

permissive (“lax”) parenting compared to comparison families. As can be seen, there were three significant 

interaction effects of KITS participation in the overall sample; however, one of these favors the comparison 

group, which showed more growth in Cooperation Skills as measured by the Social Skills Rating Scales – Parent 

Report. However, on the measures of Child School Readiness and Discipline Results, results showed significantly 

more improvement over time (lower scores on the Discipline Results sub-scale indicate better discipline skills)

for KITS participants compared to controls. 

As can be seen in Table 14, there were a few significant overall differences in outcomes both between the 

subgroups (across KITS and comparison families) as well as significant moderation (interaction) effects indicating 

differential effectiveness of KITS for families with particular characteristics. However, the sample sizes for 

subgroups within the comparison group were generally very small which may have limited statistical power to 

detect these differences. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 55 

Table 8. Parent Survey Outcomes with Full Repeated Measures Sample

 

 

 

KITS Comparison

T1 T2 T1 T2 Group Effect

Group by 

T1 

Interaction

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) B p B p

Parent-Child Activities Scale 1.62 (0.32) 1.58 (0.34) 1.57 (0.34) 1.64 (0.29) -0.09 0.13 0.11 0.42

Books in the Home 3.28 (0.90) 3.44 (0.78) 3.42 (0.84) 3.43 (0.78) 0.03 0.6 0.14 0.27

Frequency of Reading 2.09 (0.84) 2.40 (0.72) 2.04 (0.93) 2.49 (0.58) -0.04 0.47 0.07 0.58

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (parent) 4.36 (0.62) 4.62 (0.56) 4.40 (0.74) 4.43 (0.55) 0.14 0.02 -0.10 0.42

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (child) 4.30 (0.67) 4.59 (0.64) 4.21 (0.67) 4.47 (0.71) 0.03 0.64 -0.29 0.03

Parent and Teacher Interactions Scale

Contact NA 1.18 (0.99) NA 1.34 (1.04) -0.08 0.22 NA NA

Involvement NA 1.86 (0.84) NA 1.99 (0.88) -0.07 0.26 NA NA

Quality Relationships NA 3.43 (0.63) NA 3.30 (0.62) 0.09 0.18 NA NA

School Endorsement NA 3.58 (0.59) NA 3.51 (0.51) 0.07 0.27 NA NA

Receipt of Information from School NA 2.56 (0.80) NA 2.40 (1.00) 0.07 0.27 NA NA

Satisfaction with Information from School NA 3.33 (0.75) NA 3.09 (0.91) 0.12 0.06 NA NA

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 2.22 (0.48) 2.22 (0.42) 2.21 (0.48) 2.26 (0.50) -0.07 0.21 -0.33 0.01

Self-Control 1.79 (0.57) 1.87 (0.53) 1.76 (0.57) 1.82 (0.50) 0.02 0.67 -0.18 0.14

Externalizing Behavior 2.18 (0.46) 2.26 (0.47) 2.11 (0.38) 2.18 (0.41) 0.02 0.75 -0.06 0.70

Hyperactivity 1.82 (0.52) 1.86 (0.55) 1.74 (0.55) 1.81 (0.50) -0.02 0.68 -0.04 0.71

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale 2.39 (0.77) 2.34 (0.79) 2.37 (0.74) 2.61 (0.91) -0.14 0.01 -0.13 0.29

Poor Discipline Implementation 1.99 (0.59) 1.91 (0.55) 2.01 (0.62) 1.98 (0.60) -0.03 0.62 -0.24 0.04

Poor Discipline Results 2.10 (0.66) 1.97 (0.61) 2.09 (0.69) 2.05 (0.60) -0.04 0.40 0.03 0.77

Poor Discipline 2.05 (0.54) 1.94 (0.48) 2.06 (0.60) 2.02 (0.55) -0.04 0.36 -0.10 0.30

Parent Perception of School Climate 4.64 (0.72) 4.69 (0.70) 4.25 (0.89) 4.63 (0.77) -0.04 0.53 -0.01 0.92

 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 56

Exploratory Research Question 3a: Effects of Attendance

To explore the question “To what extent is attendance in KITS sessions associated with more evidence of 

positive improvements over time within KITS participants?” we conducted regression analyses comparing 

outcomes for families whose children attended 75% or more of the School Readiness sessions (n=106) to 

comparison families, using the same models described above. Table 9 below shows the average attendance and 

the percentage of parents and children attending 50% and 75% of sessions for all SRG Groups, all PRG groups, 

and for each group type for the summer and fall sessions. Overall, attendance was higher for the SRG (Child) 

groups, with an overall attendance rate of 66% and 83% attending more than half of the sessions. Parent Group 

attendance was lower, with an overall attendance rate of 45% of sessions, and with fewer than half of parents 

attending more than half the PRG sessions. For both groups, attendance was much higher in the summer 

compared to the fall. 

Table 10 shows the outcome findings analyzed separately for families whose children attended 75% or more 

SRG sessions. As can be seen, when outcome analyses included only children with strong attendance, a pattern 

of stronger effects was apparent. Specifically, within this subgroup of KITS families, it appears that KITS parents 

reported that at Time 2, they felt significantly more prepared to help their child enter kindergarten and were 

significantly less lax in their parenting style. KITS parents/caregivers also indicated significantly more change 

over time compared to the comparison group. It appeared that there was more change over time for KITS 

participants compared to controls in terms of perceived school readiness, self-control, and discipline 

implementation and overall discipline skills. However, as noted for the overall outcomes, comparison children 

were reported by their parents/caregivers as improving their cooperation skills significantly more than the KITS 

children. 

Finally, we conducted multiple regression analyses using child attendance rates as a predictor of Time 2 

parent/caregiver survey outcomes, controlling to T1 scores and demographic characteristics as outlined above. 

As shown in Table 11, children’s attendance in the School Readiness Group significantly predicted 

developmentally supportive activities (Parent-Child Activities Scale), frequency of reading in the home, quality of 

parent-teacher interactions, parents’ endorsement of the school, parents’ satisfaction with information from the 

school, the child’s self-control, and parenting discipline skills above and beyond demographic characteristics and 

T1 scores on these outcomes. In all cases, better attendance resulted in better supports for learning at home, 

parent-teacher interaction, and disciplinary styles and results. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 57 

Table 10. Parent Survey Outcomes with Repeated Measures Sample – KITS Children Who Attended 75% or More School 

Readiness Group Sessions

 

 

 

KITS Comparison

T1 T2 T1 T2 Group Effect

Group by T1 

Interaction

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) B p B p

Parent-Child Activities Scale 1.63 (0.30) 1.61 (0.29) 1.57 (0.34) 1.64 (0.29) -0.03 0.73 -0.03 0.84

Books in the Home 3.37 (0.86) 3.51 (0.67) 3.42 (0.84) 3.43 (0.78) 0.03 0.70 0.07 0.57

Frequency of Reading 2.20 (0.81) 2.55 (0.65) 2.04 (0.93) 2.49 (0.58) 0.12 0.15 -0.06 0.61

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (parent) 4.32 (0.64) 4.61 (0.58) 4.40 (0.74) 4.43 (0.55) 0.16 0.05 -0.08 0.51

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (child) 4.29 (0.70) 4.61 (0.65) 4.21 (0.67) 4.47 (0.71) 0.06 0.47 -0.37 0.01

Parent and Teacher Interactions Scale

I

Contact NA 1.16 (0.93) NA 1.34 (1.04) -0.09 0.29 NA NA

nvolvement NA 1.96 (0.76) NA 1.99 (0.88) -0.01 0.90 NA NA

Quality Relationships NA 3.53 (0.56) NA 3.30 (0.62) 0.19 0.02 NA NA

School Endorsement NA 3.69 (0.45) NA 3.51 (0.51) 0.21 0.01 NA NA

Receipt of Information from School NA 2.61 (0.70) NA 2.40 (1.00) 0.15 0.08 NA NA

Satisfaction with Information from School NA 3.40 (0.69) NA 3.09 (0.91) 0.18 0.03 NA NA

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 2.24 (0.46) 2.26 (0.39) 2.21 (0.48) 2.26 (0.50) -0.03 0.72 -0.28 0.02

Self-Control 1.83 (0.53) 1.95 (0.44) 1.76 (0.57) 1.82 (0.50) 0.12 0.12 -0.27 0.03

Externalizing Behavior 2.25 (0.40) 2.35 (0.38) 2.11 (0.38) 2.18 (0.41) 0.10 0.21 -0.20 0.14

Hyperactivity 1.89 (0.46) 1.92 (0.49) 1.74 (0.55) 1.81 (0.50) -0.001 0.99 -0.09 0.39

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale 2.40 (0.74) 2.41 (0.79) 2.37 (0.74) 2.61 (0.91) -0.15 0.03 -0.15 0.22

Poor Discipline Implementation 2.02 (0.56) 1.90 (0.47) 2.01 (0.62) 1.98 (0.60) -0.05 0.49 -0.30 0.01

Poor Discipline Results 2.03 (0.61) 1.88 (0.52) 2.09 (0.69) 2.05 (0.60) -0.12 0.08 -0.10 0.33

Poor Discipline 2.03 (0.50) 1.89 (0.42) 2.06 (0.60) 2.02 (0.55) -0.11 0.09 -0.21 0.04

Parent Perception of School Climate 4.60 (0.80) 4.74 (0.64) 4.25 (0.89) 4.63 (0.77) -0.004 0.97 -0.08 0.55
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 58 

Table 11. Effects of SRG Attendance on T2 Parent Survey Outcomes, Controlling for T1 scores

KITS Full Repeated Measures Sample (n=203)

Attendance Effect

B p

Parent-Child Activities Scale 0.13 0.05

Books in the Home 0.02 0.79

Frequency of Reading 0.18 0.004

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (parent) 0.02 0.80

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten (child) 0.10 0.15

Parent and Teacher Interactions Scale

Contact -0.01 0.90

Involvement 0.11 0.13

Quality Relationships 0.17 0.02

School Endorsement 0.21 0.003

Receipt of Information from School -0.05 0.54

Satisfaction with Information from School 0.17 0.02

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 0.07 0.29

Self-Control 0.16 0.01

Externalizing Behavior 0.11 0.07

Hyperactivity 0.05 0.44

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale 0.03 0.65

Poor Discipline Implementation -0.11 0.09

Poor Discipline Results -0.12 0.02

Poor Discipline -0.15 0.01

Parent Perception of School Climate 0.01 0.84
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 59 

Exploratory Research Question 3b: Do participant demographic characteristics relate to 

attendance levels?

It is important to note that in examining the association of attendance and outcomes, selection factors related 

to strong attendance and participation may be operating; families with different characteristics might be more 

or less likely to attend KITS program sessions. To explore this, we first examined correlations between 

participant characteristics and attendance (see Table 12) and between attendance and T2 parent/caregiver 

survey outcome measures (Table 13). As can be seen in Table 12, there was a significant correlation between 

attendance (75% or higher attendance) and household full-time employment such that participation in 75% or 

more parent group sessions was related to lack of full-time employment. An association was also seen between 

the attendance and race, where Latino parents/caregivers were more likely to attend parent groups; however, 

this relationship was not significant in the KITS sub-sample with 75% or higher attendance. Overall, however, 

few measured parent characteristics were associated with KITS attendance. 

While there were few significant correlations between attendance and demographic characteristics, there was 

more evidence of significant associations between attendance and parent/caregiver survey outcomes (see Table

13). Stronger participation by children in the School Readiness Groups (75% or more sessions attended) was 

positively and significantly related to developmentally supportive activities in the home (Parent-Child Activities 

Scale), frequency of reading, parent endorsement of the school, self-control, and externalizing behavior. Better 

overall parent discipline was also significantly correlated with higher child attendance. Stronger parent group 

participation at 75% or higher attendance was also positively, significantly related to parent endorsement of the 

school. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 60 

Table 12. Correlations between Attendance and Family Demographic Characteristics 

(n=203)

School 

Readiness 

Group 

Average 

Attendance 

Parent 

Group 

Average 

Attendance

50% School 

Readiness 

Group 

Attendance

50% Parent 

Group 

Attendance

75% School 

Readiness 

Group 

Attendance

75% Parent 

Group 

Attendance

Child Gender 0.08 -0.06 0.10 0.01 0.08 -0.04

Household Full Time Employment -0.07 -0.14 -0.09 -0.07 -0.09 -0.16*

Parent Education 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.04

Race/Ethnicity

White 0.04 -0.06 -0.04 -0.04 0.06 0.004

African American -0.08 -0.02 0.01 -0.05 -0.06 0.04

Latino 0.06 0.22** 0.07 0.20** -0.03 0.11

Asian 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.05

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.03 -0.04 0.05 -0.02 -0.01 -0.004

Alaska Native/American Indian 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.04

Other 0.02 -0.05 0.05 -0.01 -0.06 -0.09

Any Formal Childcare -0.05 -0.04 0.04 -0.05 -0.08 -0.08

*p<.05, **p<.01
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 61 

Table 13. Correlations between Attendance and Parent Survey Outcomes at Time 2

(n=203)

School 

Readiness 

Group 

Average 

Attendance

Parent 

Group 

Average 

Attendance

50% or 

Higher 

School 

Readiness 

Group 

Attendance

50% or 

Higher 

Parent 

Group 

Attendance

75% or 

Higher 

School 

Readiness

Group 

Attendance

75% or 

Higher 

Parent 

Group 

Attendance

Frequency of Developmentally Supportive 

Activities 0.17* 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.15* 0.05

Books in Home 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.04

Frequency of Reading 0.22** 0.14* 0.14 0.05 0.26** 0.09

Welcoming School Climate 0.02 -0.05 -0.07 -0.07 0.10 0.03

Confidence to Support Learning 0.01 -0.04 -0.001 -0.04 -0.03 0.01

Child School Readiness 0.12 -0.04 0.13 0.01 0.06 -0.03

P-T Contact -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 0.01

Parent Involvement 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.09 -0.04

P-T Quality Relationship 0.17* 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.06

Parent Endorsement of School 0.21** 0.14 0.14* 0.09 0.16* 0.14*

Receipt of School Info 0.14* 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.01

Satisfaction with Info 0.17* 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.05

Cooperation 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.03

Self-Control 0.21** 0.07 0.21** 0.09 0.14* 0.09

Externalizing 0.23** 0.00 0.22** 0.04 0.16* -0.01

Hyperactivity 0.13 -0.05 0.12 0.01 0.10 -0.02

Laxness 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.06 0.02 0.08

Poor Discipline -0.20** -0.03 -0.21** -0.06 -0.16* -0.07

*p<.05, **p<.01
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 62 

Exploratory Research Question 3c: Subgroup Effects for KITS

To explore whether there were differential effects for specific subgroups of families, we repeated the regression models 

including subgroup interaction terms (e.g., Gender X Group) as predictors. Each subgroup was assessed separately for 

the key outcomes. Specifically, we examined outcomes for the following subgroups: for male vs. female children, fulltime employed vs. unemployed or part-time employed households, parents with and without a high school degree, child 

race comparing Latino and White children and children from other racial backgrounds and White children, and children 

who participated (or not) in formal preschool or child care. These results are included in Table 14. 

As can be seen in Table 14, there were a few significant overall differences in outcomes both between the subgroups

(across KITS and comparison families) as well as significant moderation (interaction) effects indicating differential 

effectiveness of KITS for families with particular characteristics. However, the sample sizes for subgroups within the 

comparison group were generally very small which may have limited statistical power to detect these differences. 

 

As seen in Figure 2, there was one significant interaction between gender and intervention group such that 

parents/caregivers reported that girls participating in KITS (n=88) had better self-control at T2 compared to comparison 

girls (n=24). The opposite was true for boys, where comparison boys (n=27) had better self-control than boys 

participating in KITS (n=115). In households where no caregiver held full-time employment, KITS parents/caregivers 

(n=37) reported higher school climate scores compared to comparison families (n=17); however, comparison 

parents/caregivers with full-time employment (n=34) reported feeling more welcome in the school compared to KITS 

families with full-time employment (n=166; see Figure 3). In addition to significant sub-group effects for race on 

discipline results and discipline overall, there were significant racial sub-group by intervention interactions on these two 

outcomes (see Figures 4 and 5); however, interpretations should be made with caution as sample sizes for families of 

color with KITS and comparison groups are small. While Latino families, on average, reported better discipline results 

compared to White families, Latino parents/caregivers participating in KITS (n=32) reported the highest (i.e., worst) 

discipline results while Latino parents/caregivers in the comparison group (n=8) reported the lowest (i.e., best) discipline 

results at T2. Results were similar for overall discipline, as seen in Table 14. Additionally, KITS parents/caregivers 

reported better discipline results across White families and families from other racial backgrounds; however, the 

difference in discipline results between KITS (n=34) and comparison families (n=6) from other racial backgrounds was 

greater than that for White families. Further, these sample sizes are extremely small and should be interpreted with 

care. 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 63 

Table 14. Sub-Group Differences with Full Repeated Measures Sample

Gender

(Male=112; Female= 112)

Household Full Time 

Employment

(No FT=54; FT =200)

Parent Education - More than 

High School Degree

(< HS=65; >HS =186)

 

Table Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction

B p B p B p B p B p B p

Parent-Child Activities Scale -0.14 0.31 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.70 -0.02 0.93 -0.26 0.10 0.31 0.10

Books in the Home 0.04 0.70 -0.01 0.93 -0.12 0.21 0.17 0.19 -0.23 0.07 0.23 0.14

Frequency of Reading -0.01 0.91 0.01 0.93 -0.15 0.18 0.14 0.35 0.18 0.22 -0.18 0.32

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten 

(parent) -0.11 0.42 0.11 0.47 -0.17 0.17 0.20 0.23 -0.03 0.59 0.30 0.12

Perceived Readiness for Kindergarten 

(child) 0.08 0.58 0.04 0.77 -0.07 0.55 0.06 0.72 -0.26 0.11 0.29 0.14

Parent and Teacher Interactions Scale

Contact -0.05 0.75 -0.10 0.50 -0.19 0.14 0.15 0.38 0.28 0.08 -0.25 0.21

Involvement 0.15 0.30 -0.12 0.42 -0.05 0.72 0.07 0.69 0.15 0.37 -0.20 0.33

Quality Relationships 0.18 0.20 -0.18 0.23 0.03 0.82 -0.06 0.72 -0.02 0.92 -0.05 0.79

School Endorsement 0.12 0.41 -0.10 0.51 0.11 0.39 -0.18 0.29 0.07 0.66 -0.09 0.65

Receipt of Information from School 0.22 0.12 -0.27 0.08 0.07 0.59 0.02 0.91 0.19 0.25 -0.23 0.26

Satisfaction with Information from School 0.10 0.49 -0.05 0.72 0.09 0.48 -0.12 0.49 -0.24 0.14 0.17 0.40

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation -0.07 0.55 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.06 -0.21 0.15 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.98

Self-Control -0.15 0.23 0.27 0.04 -0.07 0.53 0.06 0.69 0.09 0.51 -0.02 0.91

Externalizing Behavior -0.06 0.64 0.16 0.22 0.06 0.58 -0.11 0.44 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.94

Hyperactivity 0.01 0.96 0.03 0.83 0.10 0.30 -0.10 0.49 0.10 0.44 -0.10 0.52

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale -0.11 0.33 0.04 0.72 -0.18 0.08 0.15 0.27 -0.01 0.97 -0.06 0.70

Poor Discipline Implementation 0.10 0.40 0.06 0.65 0.04 0.70 -0.04 0.81 0.06 0.65 -0.21 0.22

Poor Discipline Results 0.14 0.20 -0.14 0.24 -0.03 0.79 0.11 0.38 0.04 0.75 -0.11 0.48

Poor Discipline 0.14 0.18 -0.06 0.59 0.01 0.95 0.05 0.68 0.07 0.56 -0.19 0.21

Parent Perception of School Climate 0.23 0.11 -0.13 0.39 0.24 0.06 -0.35 0.04 -0.18 0.29 0.24 0.25
KITS Eval

Year 1 Feasibility R

uation 

eport

p. 64 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Race - White vs. Latino 

(White = 182; Latino=26)

Race - White vs. Other

(White=182; Other=46)

Any Formal Childcare

None=101; Any=153)

Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction Group Effect

Sub-Group by 

Intervention 

Interaction

B p B p B p B p B p B p

Parent-Child Activities Scale -0.05 0.79 0.12 0.50 0.12 0.05 0.22 0.13 -0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21

Books in the Home -0.02 0.31 -0.02 0.91 -0.12 0.31 0.11 0.34 -0.12 0.31 0.19 0.15

Frequency of Reading -0.21 0.19 0.24 0.13 0.02 0.91 0.03 0.85 0.16 0.26 -0.14 0.37

Perceived Readiness for 

Kindergarten (parent) 0.15 0.40 -0.14 0.44 -0.19 0.18 0.24 0.09 0.13 0.39 -0.09 0.58

Perceived Readiness for 

Kindergarten (child) 0.13 0.45 -0.20 0.26 0.03 0.81 -0.02 0.90 -0.24 0.12 0.22 0.20

Parent and Teacher 

Interactions Scale

Contact -0.10 0.60 0.18 0.31 -0.10 0.50 0.18 0.25 0.07 0.65 -0.10 0.59

Involvement -0.18 0.32 0.32 0.08 -0.21 0.16 0.17 0.26 -0.08 0.63 0.11 0.54

Quality Relationships -0.21 0.24 0.28 0.13 -0.28 0.07 0.15 0.33 -0.01 0.96 -0.03 0.86

School Endorsement 0.15 0.40 -0.03 0.88 -0.31 0.04 0.19 0.23 0.06 0.69 0.01 0.97

Receipt of Information from School -0.04 0.83 0.12 0.51 -0.24 0.12 0.25 0.10 0.18 0.26 -0.23 0.20

Satisfaction with Information from 

School 0.29 0.10 -0.20 0.28 -0.03 0.83 -0.07 0.63 0.04 0.78 -0.07 0.68

Social Skills Rating Scale

Cooperation 0.20 0.21 -0.05 0.73 -0.10 0.45 0.05 0.73 -0.02 0.90 -0.07 0.67

Self-Control 0.12 0.43 0.09 0.59 0.01 0.92 -0.09 0.52 0.05 0.74 -0.09 0.57

Externalizing Behavior -0.14 0.37 0.16 0.30 -0.15 0.23 0.19 0.15 -0.13 0.35 0.00 0.99

Hyperactivity -0.07 0.65 -0.01 0.93 -0.07 0.54 0.04 0.76 0.00 0.97 -0.17 0.24

Parenting Style - Laxness Scale -0.12 0.39 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.08 -0.19 0.13 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.98

Poor Discipline Implementation -0.17 0.28 0.12 0.45 -0.01 0.97 -0.03 0.82 0.12 0.38 -0.01 0.97

Poor Discipline Results -0.26 0.05 0.29 0.03 0.04 0.69 -0.06 0.60 -0.02 0.90 0.09 0.50

Poor Discipline -0.30 0.03 0.30 0.03 0.05 0.65 -0.09 0.46 0.05 0.68 0.05 0.69

Parent Perception of School 

Climate -0.08 0.66 0.08 0.67 -0.03 0.83 -0.04 0.77 0.08 0.60 -0.13 0.47
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 65 

Figure 2. Gender Differences on Self-Control by Intervention Group

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

Male Female

SSRS Self-Control

Gender

KITS

Control

Figure 3. Household Full-Time Employment Differences for School Climate by Intervention Group

4.25

4.5

4.75

chool Climat

Control

No Yes

S

Household FT Employment

5

e

KITS
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 66 

Figure 4. Race Differences (Latino vs White) for Poor Discipline Results by Intervention Group

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

White Latino

Discipline Results

Race

KITS

Control

Figure 5. Race Differences (Other Race vs White) for Poor Discipline Results by Intervention 

Group

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

White Other Race

Discipline Results

Race

KITS

Control
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 67 

Conclusions: Findings, Lessons Learned, and Next Steps

Summary of Feasibility Study Findings & Changes Planned for Year 2

Results of the feasibility study suggest that, while over-recruitment and random assignment were not possible 

during this first year of implementation, random assignment may yet be possible during Year 2. Although 

schools were not able to successfully over-recruit families in Year 1, a great deal was learned from the feasibility 

study about the level of effort needed for recruitment. Thus, in Year 2, the United Way of Lane County and 

Oregon Development, Inc./Oregon Social Learning Center have re-organized recruitment support, providing 

additional resources (e.g., staff for door-to door recruitment, trained recruiters present at school events, 

centralized family recruitment database, and a host of community-based outreach and marketing efforts) and 

begun these efforts much earlier (recruitment is currently underway, and started in January 2017; last year’s 

efforts were delayed until March and even later in many schools). Further, we are leveraging additional 

resources provided by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) for evaluation to further strengthen overrecruitment efforts with additional recruitment staff. Specifically, LJAF has authorized and provided funding to 

PSU to hire 4 additional recruitment specialists to support contacting control families for study recruitment. 

These staff are being used specifically to: (1) do more community-based canvassing in low income 

neighborhoods (e.g., housing projects, etc.); (2) do more concentrated outreach to Hispanic/Latino families; and 

(3) provide additional support for contacting and enrolling families. 

Initial recruitment to the KITS program is being done using a multi-pronged outreach and recruitment plan 

developed by ODI, the United Way, and the school districts based on lessons learned in the Feasibility phase. 

The recruitment plan includes several primary strategies identified as useful in the Feasibility phase: (1) 

Kindergarten orientation meetings (“Kindergarten Round Ups”); (2) Door-to-door community recruitment; (3) 

Extensive use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.); (4) Visits to local child care and preschool facilities; and 

(5) community marketing (radio, newspaper, bus advertisements and mass mailings). Parents will be able to 

express interest through these various venues by completing paper forms, calling a central recruitment 

specialist, using a web-based KITS portal, and/or through a mobile app. Each modality for indicating interest will 

also include a “check box” through which consent to contact for the KITS research study will be obtained. 

Parents who indicate interest will receive a follow up phone call from a central KITS recruitment coordinator, 

who will be housed this year within Oregon Development, Inc. This person will explain the program in more 

detail, screen for eligibility (essentially, that the child is indeed entering kindergarten and that the family and 

child will be available to participate during the KITS program timeframe), and collect a few key pieces of 

information for the evaluation study (namely, child and parent preferred language, race/ethnicity, child date of 

birth, and child gender). Lastly, the KITS recruitment coordinator will tell parents that because it is likely that 

more families will want to participate than can be enrolled, the school will be doing a "lottery" or "drawing" to 

select families for enrollment. 

In addition to these changes in recruitment, outreach, and enrollment, the evaluation plan has been modified 

(details provided in approved impact SEP). We do not plan to collect direct child assessments, but instead will 

access the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment and other school records information to assess child outcomes. We 

also obtained preliminary evidence that parent report of child behavior can provide a good outcome measure 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 68 

related to the key constructs of child behavior and self-regulation. Most measures will be maintained for the 

Year 2 study, although some changes may be made to subscales that were low in reliability. Recruitment of a 

larger comparison/control group will also facilitate improved statistical power to detect subgroup differences. 

The KITS program developers have also planned some additional changes for Year 2 based on Feasibility Study 

findings. Specifically, there are more resources now devoted to supporting PRG attendance (e.g., regular 

reminder calls and more flexibility in providing “make up” sessions). Most significantly, the Fall program 

component has been modified to increase the number of sessions during the summer, and shorten the Fall 

phase to 4 (rather than 8) weeks. This will enable the program to retain the content of these Fall sessions but 

hold them during the summer when parents and children are better able to participate. 

In terms of preliminary outcomes, results from this year provide preliminary promising evidence of program 

effects. These effects were considerably stronger for families with stronger participation (hence, the increased 

focus on attendance support for year 2). Our approved Impact SEP includes our detailed plan for outcomes data 

collection during Year 2 to ensure the study contributes to at least a moderate level of evidence. 

 

 
KITS Evaluation 

Year 1 Feasibility Report

p. 69 

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Summer Phase Stakeholder Interview Protocols

Appendix B: KITS Coach & Teacher Surveys

Appendix C: Parent Focus Group Protocols

Appendix D: Spring Parent Interview Protocols

Appendix E: Spring Stakeholder Interview Protocols (Teacher, PG Facilitator, PG Translator)

Appendix F: Brief Reports and CPI Documents

o Year 1 Highlights

o Teacher-Facilitator Staff Survey Summary

o Recruitment Themes

o Parent Interview Themes

o Spanish Speaking Parent Themes