AmeriCorps LEAP Initiative

Year 1 Evaluation Report

October 2017 - January 2018

Prepared by:

10700 Normandale Blvd., Suite #103

Minneapolis Minnesota 55437

P 952.922.1811

F 952.922.1911

info@acetinc.com

www.acetinc.com
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................3

Project Overview...................................................................................................................................... 4

Fidelity ......................................................................................................................................................5

Opportunities to Strengthen Implementation......................................................................................... 8

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Appendices.............................................................................................................................................. 12

Appendix A: Methodology ................................................................................................................ 12

Appendix B: Observation Summary Table ....................................................................................... 13

Appendix C: Program Logic Model................................................................................................... 15

Appendix D: Observation Protocol...................................................................................................16

Appendix E: LEAP Member Interview Script...................................................................................21

Appendix F: Preschool Teacher Interview Script ............................................................................ 23
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the Year 1 findings of a multi-year evaluation of the AmeriCorps Learning 

Early Achieves Potential (LEAP) initiative, administered through the Southern Minnesota 

Initiative Foundation (SMIF) Early Childhood Development division. The LEAP initiative

focuses on improving the social-emotional development of preschool children within SMIF’s 20-

county region of southern Minnesota to improve their school readiness by engaging AmeriCorps 

members (LEAP members). Throughout the school year, LEAP members interface with all 

children in the classroom, totaling almost 800 children through role modeling, skill-building, 

and instruction. Of those children, LEAP engages 20 full-time AmeriCorps members to work 

closely with 200 preschool children and families attending Head Start centers and other early 

childhood preschool programs who have been identified as falling in the gap of this schoolreadiness skillset. 

The following report reviews the goals of the LEAP program, evaluation methodology, fidelity to 

the LEAP program, and opportunities for further development to enhance children’s socialemotional learning (SEL) skills.

The SMIF Early Childhood Development division sought external evaluators to evaluate the 

AmeriCorps LEAP Program. SMIF contracted with an external evaluation firm, ACET, Inc., to 

provide evaluation services exploring program operations, implementation, and service delivery. 

The following report details evaluation activities from November 1, 2017, through January 31, 

2018.

Key tasks for this project involved:

• A review of program materials;

• Four half-day preschool classroom site observations;

• Four interviews with preschool teachers from selected sites; and

• Four interviews with LEAP members from the selected sites.

Results were determined by identifying common themes from interviewees and site visit 

observations that align with the program’s logic model and theory. Key findings include:

• The classroom observations demonstrated that all of the LEAP core strategies or tools

were implemented, with direct intervention and modeling being the most common

technique;

• Interviewed LEAP members and classroom teachers valued the LEAP program and

linked children’s growth in social and emotional skills to the LEAP program;

• Experience in the LEAP program seemed to strengthen the extent to which the LEAP

member implemented the program;

• While all core strategies were observed, MindUp lesson implementation was inconsistent

across sites;

• The lack of understanding about LEAP members’ and teachers’ roles interfered with the

integration of SEL into the classroom;

• Building positive relationships is essential for success; and

• The value of the MindUp lesson implementation could be enhanced by improving the

language and classroom activities to be age appropriate.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 4

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Developing SEL skills provides foundational building blocks for children’s future success. 

Proper development also prepares children for school by reducing negative effects of risk 

factors, such as poverty and stress, that inhibit social and cognitive development. However, 

there is a wide gap in school readiness, particularly with regards to income inequality. 

Approximately 50% of children from low-income families enter school with the necessary 

and fundamental skills to be successful, or school ready, compared to 75% of children from 

higher-income families (Isaacs, 2012).1 In addition, when exploring school readiness locally, 

approximately six in ten preschool children in Minnesota are not proficient in social 

development when entering kindergarten.

2

The AmeriCorps LEAP initiative, administered through SMIF, strives to improve the socialemotional development of young children to improve school readiness for children. Guided 

by firsthand accounts from teachers and site supervisors, who report seeing an increase of 

dysregulated children in classrooms, the LEAP program works to increase children’s socialemotional skills to produce both immediate- and long-term benefits to every child. These 

skills provide children with a foundational platform from which they can process their 

experiences, learn, and grow to increase academic and future success. 

To address this growing concern, the LEAP program engages AmeriCorps members to work 

alongside classroom teachers during classroom periods throughout southern Minnesota. 

Working to reduce these gaps, LEAP members implement evidence-based strategies while 

incorporating various SEL skill-building 

tools and connected lessons to reduce risk 

factors and adverse childhood experiences 

that inhibit a child’s development, schoolreadiness, and success. These include:

• Breathing/yoga exercises;

• Cue cards to learn emotions;

• MindUp lessons and activities;

• Modeling behaviors;

• Reading books with expanded SEL

conversation; and

• Teachable moments/intervention.

In an effort to determine the effectiveness of their LEAP program, SMIF contracted with 

ACET, Inc., to conduct a process evaluation as a first step to explore the program model, 

operations, implementation, and service delivery (see Appendix A for the methodology). Key 

findings from a review of the program follow. 

1 Isaacs, J. B. (2012). Starting School at a Disadvantage: The School Readiness of Poor Children. The Social Genome 

Project. Center on Children and Families at Brookings.

2 Minnesota Department of Education. (2013). Minnesota School Readiness Study: Developmental Assessment at

Kindergarten Entrance Fall 2012. Roseville: Minnesota Department of Education.

“I just really like that 

language that they use. It 

brings so much more 

awareness to them, and 

awareness to their body, 

which I think helps create 

that empathy factor with 

the things around them.”

—Preschool teacher
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 5

FIDELITY

The process evaluation revealed that the LEAP core strategies and tools were utilized (see 

Appendix B) by all observed LEAP members. LEAP members’ experience in the program 

appears to improve implementation in the classroom. In addition, both LEAP members and 

classroom teachers were excited about the work of the LEAP program and the program’s 

positive impact on children. 

The evaluation assessed program fidelity and alignment with the LEAP logic model through 

conducting four site observations and eight interviews of LEAP members and preschool 

teachers. While the evaluation sample is small, the results are strengthened because the 

classroom observations and interviews were aligned, revealing similar results and themes 

that provide insight into the application of SEL tools in the classroom and implementation 

of the program.

The LEAP logic model (see Appendix C) identifies six core strategies or tools in the LEAP 

program, all intended to strengthen children’s SEL skills. All program strategies described in 

the LEAP logic model were observed in the four classrooms. The key elements include:

• Breathing/yoga exercises;

• Using cue cards to learn emotions;

• Implementing MindUp lessons;

• Reading books with expanded SEL conversation; 

• Directly intervening during teachable moments; and

• Modeling behaviors.

Interviewees stressed the importance of each tool or strategy to enhance the effectiveness of 

the LEAP program. From the interviews and review of the program logic model and 

materials, the following findings were identified regarding fidelity of the LEAP program.

Intervention Strategies and Tools

Breathing. Breathing exercises were observed in all four classrooms and mentioned as 

being implemented each day with the children (see Table 1 in Appendix B). All LEAP 

members and teachers believed that the breathing exercises and tools helped students 

calm their bodies and focus their attention. LEAP members provided examples of the 

effectiveness of breathing. One LEAP member noted the importance of the breathing 

bottles in calming children:

The breathing bottles. The kids love those. I really like using them, because it’s 

like, we need to take a break, and that’s one of the tools that we offer for them to 

take a break, and more times than not, they want to use that because it’s fun.

Using the breath and using the tools that they’ve given, talking about the brain 

and the aspect of it, reiterating the verbiage like the being mindful and 

unmindful and things like that. Those are how, when you have those more 

difficult kids, or the at-risk kids, that’s your toolbox.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 6

MindUp lessons. All LEAP members were observed using the MindUp lessons in the 

classrooms (see Table 1in Appendix B). The MindUp lessons were identified as helpful in 

giving LEAP members a guide to follow and resources to use to build SEL skills with 

their students. The following quote demonstrates the value LEAP members and teachers 

placed on using the lessons:

I think with having this MindUp (lessons) that we're doing this year, that helps 

out a lot. Because we read each lesson and then try to work on that lesson, and I 

think that's been working out really great with the kiddos. Before that we didn’t 

really do the MindUp (lessons), so it was a kind of think of ideas on your own 

kind of deal.

However, the extent of the MindUp implementation varied in the observed classrooms

(see Table 1). Interviews suggested that implementation depends on several factors, 

including the working relationship between the LEAP member and the classroom 

teacher and the LEAP member’s teaching experience and actual knowledge of the 

MindUp lessons. 

Reading books with expanded SEL conversation. Reading books were utilized 

frequently in the classroom, most notably during small group sessions (see Table 1). 

LEAP members and teachers both echoed similar appreciation for the books used by 

LEAP members in helping build SEL skills. All LEAP members and preschool teachers 

spoke to the value of the books in connecting with children while also teaching SEL 

skills. As one interviewee shared:

And they like the books that we read that go along with it, because that just 

gives them another perspective to think of things.

I think the books, the ABDO books, are awesome in building the school-to-home 

bridge.... [The children are] so proud to bring in that bookmark when they’re 

done. It teaches a lot of self stuff, as well.

Children receive the books in the classroom to take home to read with parents. Notes to 

parents and bookmarks for tracking reading are included with each book as incentives. 

LEAP members also utilize other incentives to encourage reading at home. While the 

reading books were identified as useful and a positive resource by all LEAP members and 

preschool teachers, it is yet unclear as to the extent to which these gift books are used 

within the homes. 

Direct intervention. Direct intervention was the most commonly used strategy by 

LEAP members in working with children. Direct intervention is used to encourage 

children to use behaviors that support, rather than disrupt, the classroom to help selfsooth, control impulses, and regulate emotions during teachable moments. All LEAP 

members were observed interacting and reinforcing behaviors several times with 

individual children during the classroom period (see Table 1). Interviewed teachers 

explained that LEAP members directly intervene with children regularly throughout a 

classroom period. The direct intervention was highly valued by the interviewed teachers. 

All of the interviewed preschool teachers appreciated having another person in the

classroom to interact and intervene with children. Teachers frequently spoke about how 

busy they are during a class period that they often missed children’s reactions or could 

not stop instruction time to help a child. The teachers recognized that these missed 
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 7

opportunities limited social-emotional skill-building. One teacher’s reflection mirrored 

the experience of the other teachers:

The [LEAP member] has brought to my attention a few different things, like 

different students that maybe I wasn’t even seeing.

Just providing that guidance and support and that conversational ability to 

kind of pull the students in and get them engaged in whatever we have out.

Modeling. LEAP members and teachers were observed modeling cooperative and 

positive social-emotional behaviors throughout the observed classroom period (see Table 

1 in Appendix B). In particular, modeling was seen the most frequently during free play 

and during transition periods between classroom activities. LEAP members and teachers

credited modeling with improving both the classroom environment but also to reinforce 

SEL skills throughout the class period. Being able to show behaviors and provide 

language for how children may be feeling was cited as a significant factor in seeing 

positive growth in children. Teachers and LEAP members spoke to the value they saw in 

modeling with children:

Extra encouragement along the way, modeling from another person, us being 

able to model with one another. 

Because you’re not just telling them to do something.

Pre-assessment and training materials. All LEAP members assessed the social and 

emotional developmental stages of each child during the beginning of the year. The 

assessments were then used by LEAP members to guide SEL skill-builidng in the 

classroom, particularly with identified children. The pre-assessments and training 

materials were used by all LEAP members to identify at-risk children in need of further 

one-on-one support. These assessments served as a critical learning tool for the LEAP 

members. Interviewees explained that the assessment helped the LEAP members learn 

what to watch for and be aware of when identifying and working with children in need of 

further SEL support. As one LEAP member conveyed:

So, I feel like it's just kind of watching and then using the assessments to kind 

of—if you're not sure about, like, certain ones, you can do the assessment to say, 

“Okay, this is where they need work and this is where they're okay.”

While the pre-assessment was helpful to LEAP members in identifying children in 

further need of SEL skill-building support, it is still unclear as to the extent to which the 

pre-assessments are used to guide instruction and classroom practices.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 8

Successful Implementation Strategies 

Many program strategies were noted by LEAP members as successful indicators for 

successful program implementation but were missing from the program’s logic model and 

goals. Implementing these strategies was seen as successfully strengthening the utilization of 

program tools and strategies that are currently outlined in the program logic model. These 

included:

• Preschool and LEAP member recruitment;

• LEAP member orientation training (three days) on brain development and selfregulation;

• LEAP members being in the classroom for the first month of the program building 

relationships with children and teachers;

• Requiring LEAP members write monthly reflections on implementation progress; 

• LEAP member monthly peer meetings and ongoing communication with one 

another; and

• The importance of SEL to school readiness to clarify LEAP program goals.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 9

OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN 

IMPLEMENTATION

Information from the interviews also revealed opportunities for further development of the 

LEAP program to assist in building SEL skills in children to improve school readiness.

Several opportunities were identified by LEAP members and teachers. 

Consistency of implementation. Implementation challenges have led some site teachers 

to allocate little time toward the MindUp lessons and SEL skill-building small-group time. 

Both LEAP members and teachers stressed how preschool teachers have a lot of material to 

cover in a short amount of time every day, which can result in decreasing the amount of time 

spent on SEL skill building. One LEAP member reflected that:

It's just, like, harder to implement or to, like, even try to do what you have to do 

and integrate it into their classroom.

As a result, LEAP members reflected on how they are administering MindUp lesson material 

or SEL skill building inconsistently and differently across sites. As one LEAP member 

summarized:

There's a lot of inconsistency among all the sites.... Some members don’t even 

get any time. Like, I get a station which is when I know a lot of members don't 

get any time at all, alone with any other students...otherwise they're having to, 

like, pull them from pre-choice and that's not effective, like, at all. Because they 

don't—first of all, they don't want to leave because all their friends are playing.

To address this concern, many LEAP members and teachers suggested receiving more time 

to review the lessons to better understand it and strengthen implementation. As one 

summarized:

Maybe I wouldn't mind, like in the future, having a little more specific 

information about (MindUp lessons), how it would best serve her to teach it and 

how I could—if I could have that information ahead of time, on how to tie that 

into our specific day.

Communicate protocols. Both preschool teachers and LEAP members voiced 

uncertainty regarding roles and expectations in the classroom. Preschool teachers 

mentioned that, especially initially, LEAP members and teachers were confused about 

their roles and expectations. Preschool teachers expressed interest in receiving further

clarification about roles and expectations regarding supporting a national-service 

AmeriCorps LEAP member as well as the LEAP program goals than currently received. 

The teachers’ quotes below exemplify the confusion. 

And I think it was more like—it was left, kind of, up in the air as to exactly what 

role that person would fill besides the (lessons and tools) that she was going to 

teach.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 10

So, if—I guess if I had to say anything, the realistic expectations and be specific, 

pick three things, this is what I want. Two to three things because this is the 

little block of time you’re getting in that two and a half hours, you don't get my 

whole two and a half hours, you have this little bit of time to get something 

done.

Similarly, LEAP members also expressed uncertainty as to their roles in the classroom. 

One LEAP member discussed how “I just feel like [the training] was a lot of 

information. But I left not really knowing what I was going to be doing.” Another LEAP 

member supported this by saying, “The very first year that I was here, so, it would have 

been three years ago, there was just little guidance.”

And so, maybe if there's something that we could do, like, before the school year 

started for us to like...meet with your teachers and just kind of...understand, 

like, what your role is. Because I feel like we just go to school and we're 

supposed to tell them, but at the beginning I wasn't even sure, so it was just a lot 

of uncertainty.

Incorporate training on teaching practices. LEAP members and preschool 

teachers repeatedly expressed interest in having LEAP members receive training on 

implementing the MindUp lessons. The LEAP members’ comments below describe 

suggestions for enhancing the training: 

Actually teaching the lesson, because some people don’t have those skills...a lot 

of people that come into this, they’ve never worked with kids before. They don’t 

know any of that type of terminology or knowledge base stuff.

The orientation was mostly about what the goal is, to help with social, 

emotional learning and why it's important.... So, I feel like it wasn't really 

helpful in preparing us for what we're going to be doing—or it wasn't really 

helpful in telling us how to do, how to help, it was just more the basis of why 

they want us to do it.

Continue to promote relationship-building. LEAP members and teachers 

frequently mentioned how important establishing relationships between each other, as 

well as with the children, is to the program’s success. Interviewees explained that 

positive gains with children were seen by LEAP members and teachers after 

relationships were built, especially over the course of multiple years. Teachers expressed 

how the longer they worked with a LEAP member, the more they trusted the LEAP 

member to implement the lessons. With trust built the teacher was more inclined to 

allocate additional time to SEL skill-building. One LEAP member’s comment reflects 

those of other interviewees:

But now with being in a program for three years I feel more comfortable and 

more like I can do things, and also by getting to know the teachers. It has also 

allowed me to do more.

Once [the LEAP member and teacher] built that relationship, I was able to help 

[the child] learn the four basic emotions. The happy, sad, scared, and mad. Once 

he learned those, he was able to communicate more about how he was feeling. 
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 11

Revise MindUp lessons to be age appropriate. Most LEAP members and teachers 

shared concerns over the appropriateness of the MindUp lessons for preschool children. 

While many believed the concepts are age-appropriate, the language and terminlogiy 

used in the MindUp lessons seemed better suited for older children than preschool 

children. One LEAP member gave an example of how when teaching the concept of self 

talk, the LEAP member using the lesson language could not get the children to 

understand the concept after repeated attempts. Many LEAP members noted the

difficulty in directly following the lessons. The quotes below exemplify the LEAP 

members’ challenges with the lessons: 

The MindUP (lessons have) been difficult for me....I find myself having to really, 

really go to the basic, basic of it.

[The MindUp lessons] makes it difficult that it's more focused I think on older 

children. Some of the things or the examples of things that it has to do with the 

children, it's like, “Oh yeah, we're not going to be able to do that. That's not age 

appropriate.”

Maybe some more training on [teaching a lesson], or maybe a way that we 

could develop something where it is more preschool appropriate, as far as a 

LEAP team.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 12

CONCLUSION

This process evaluation found that all of the LEAP core strategies or tools outlined in the 

program’s logic model were being implemented (see Table 1 in Appendix B). The most 

common strategy observed was direct intervention and modeling. Key strategies observed 

included:

• Breathing/yoga exercises;

• Using cue cards to learn emotions;

• Implementing MindUp lessons;

• Reading books with SEL conversation; 

• Directly intervening during teachable moments; and

• Modeling behaviors.

Overall, many of the LEAP members and classroom teachers who were interviewed linked 

children’s growth in social and emotional skills to the LEAP program. As one interviewee 

summarized:

I see them having conversations with each other, like if someone is not feeling 

good or if they’re having a problem. They start coming to you and being like, so 

and so is crying. They’re really mad.

LEAP members and teachers identified a number of areas that could strengthen the 

program’s implementation, including ensuring the consistency of SEL tool and activity use 

across classrooms, increasing the understanding of roles between LEAP members and 

teachers, continuing to emphasize building positive relationships between the LEAP 

member and teacher, as well as with children, and enhancing the MindUp lessons by 

modifying the language and classroom activities to be age appropriate.

To further strengthen the implementation of the LEAP program in classrooms, LEAP 

members and teachers identified many strategies. Most notably, this included time to build 

relationships in the classroom with both children and teachers. Relationship-building was 

recognized by both LEAP members and teachers as fostering trust and comfort with each 

other, as well as with children. These factors were viewed as important elements in achieving 

LEAP program goals.
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 13

Appendix A

METHODOLOGY

Purpose. This evaluation was the first stage of a three-part evaluation to explore the 

effectiveness of the LEAP model. The purpose of the Year 1 evaluation was to determine 

fidelity to the LEAP program’s theory of change and implementation of program materials, 

as well as opportunities for further development of the program. 

Research Questions. The following research questions guided the evaluation:

• What are the essential elements of the LEAP model?

• What SEL tools and strategies are being used by LEAP members?

• How are tools employed?

• How effective are tools in building SEL skills in children?

Data Analysis. Findings from collected data derive from four selected sites and eight 

interviews (four preschool teachers and four LEAP members) from 16 sites. Findings may 

not be a true representation across the entire LEAP program. Data for the current evaluation 

stage was collected during three phases:

Site observations. Four classroom sites were selected to be observed to gather data on 

utilization of identified SEL tools and materials by LEAP members during teachable 

moments in preschool classrooms as well as how LEAP members support preschool 

teachers. The preschool sites were selected that were believed to have the highest levels 

of fidelity to the LEAP program theory. Site visits were done for an entire classroom 

period of preschool children. See Appendix B for the observation summary. The 

observation protocol may be found in Appendix D.

Preschool teacher interviews. Interviews were conducted with preschool teachers at 

each of the four selected observation sites. Questions were asked regarding the preschool 

teacher’s experiences with the LEAP program to identify potential areas for further 

development of the program. Interview questions may be found in Appendix F.

LEAP member interviews. Interviews were conducted with the LEAP members at 

each of the four selected observation sites. Questions were asked regarding the LEAP 

member’s experiences with the program to also identify potential areas for further 

development of the program. Interview questions may be found in Appendix E

Notes from observation site visits were categorized by activities outlined in the LEAP 

program logic model and strategies used by LEAP members across sites for preschool 

classrooms. A thematic analysis was performed with interview responses to identify findings 

related to program fidelity and opportunities for further development of the LEAP program. 
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 14

Appendix B

SMIF LEAP 

Observation Summary Table

Site observations were conducted in LEAP classrooms to determine the level of fidelity to 

program theory and implementation of program tools in building SEL skills in preschoolers. The 

selected LEAP sites followed similar instruction sequences, incorporating free play time, 

structured lessons, and small-group work stations. Preschool teachers incorporated a variety of 

learning techniques, ranging from hands-on activities, songs, reading aloud, and reflection 

questions. Observation notes were made over the course of a whole classroom period. Notes 

taken focused on how LEAP members and preschool teachers were following the MindUp 

lessons and program theory of change. Table 1 shows a summary of the site observation notes, 

organized by program inputs and activities outlined in the program’s logic model. The most 

common SEL tools and strategies observed included:

• Reading books with SEL conversation;

• breathing/yoga exercises;

• cue cards to learn emotions;

• emotional check-ins;

• find a buddy and read;

• greet children by name;

• MindUp lessons;

• modeling behaviors;

• positive feedback; and

• teachable moments/intervention.

Table 1. Site Observation Summary

Core 

Strategies

Site 

A

Site 

B

Site 

C

Site 

D Comments

Core 

Strategies

X X X X • All 4 sites used the Core Practice, ranging 

from 1 to 5 times a day

• Breaths ranged from 2 to 5 deep breaths with 

2 sites incorporating yoga exercises

• Breaths were taken at the beginning of class 

at 3 sites and during small-group sessions at 

3 sites

• All 4 sites used reading books throughout the 

class period, including during large group, 

small group, and free play

Direct 

Instruction/ 

Intervention

X X X X • LEAP members and teachers used modeling 

throughout the classroom period at all sites.

Both LEAP members and teachers praised 

positive behaviors and consistently 

redirected children to engage in class and 

corrected negative behavior
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 15

• During free time, LEAP members played with 

children and moved around the room to play 

1:1 with certain children

• Children respond positively and look up to 

LEAP members

Implement 

small-group 

instruction 

X X • 1 site reviewed emotions during small group

(happy, mad) and learned 2 new emotions 

(scared, surprised). The LEAP member 

explained the new emotions, why we get 

them, and how we know we are feeling them, 

using cue cards and examples. There were 3 

small groups (4 to 5 children) lasting 15 

minutes each

Implement 

MindUp 

lessons and 

activity

materials

X X X X • 2 sites used bubbles-in-mouth and “eyes on 

me” to encourage mindful listening 

throughout the class

• 1 site reviewed the senses and taught 

smelling to children, reading Ferdinand

during small group

• 1 site reviewed the lion and the brain and 

taught mindful vs. unmindful, using 

examples of each and having children choose 

whether the example was mindful vs. 

unmindful (5-minute, large-group session)

• 1 site played “jack-in-the-box” and chimes to 

practice listening 

• 1 site sang a song that encouraged the use of 

gestures and facial expressions 

• 1 site sang a song about being a mindful 

listener

• 1 site used a glitter bottle during free play

Class 

environment

X X X X • Posters portraying emotions were visible at 

all sites. 2 sites used an emotions check-in 

board at the beginning of class 

• 1 site displayed a poster on how to play 

together and how to calm your body

• 1 site displayed a poster with the various 

parts of the brain 
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 16

Appendix C



Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 17

Appendix D

SMIF LEAP 

Observation Protocol 

The following information is noted by evaluators during meetings and visits to be included in follow-up 

reports. 

Internal Use Only

Time In/Out: Total # of children:

Date: Age of children:

Location: Topic(s):

1. Who was present (member/child characteristics)?

2. What MindUp lesson material were used?

a. What SEL skills were covered (include number of breathing times)?
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 18

3. What activities/strategies were done?

4. Interaction levels:

a. LEAP member:
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 19

b. Child:

c. Teacher:
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 20

5. How did the member/teacher handle challenging behavior from children?
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 21

6. What questions were asked?
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 22

Appendix E

SMIF LEAP 

LEAP Member Interview Script

Hi, my name is _____________. I work with ACET, Inc. as a program evaluator, contracted by 

the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation to assess the Learning Early Achieves Potential 

(LEAP) program to determine program fidelity and identify any potential areas that need further 

development to improve children’s social-emotional skills. Thank you for agreeing to talk to me 

today. I would like to spend our time learning about your thoughts and experiences with the LEAP 

program. The information learned will help to improve this program in the future. With your 

permission, I would like to record this session. Your responses will be anonymous and combined 

with others who are interviewed. Your name will not be tied to your responses.

I would like to begin by thinking back to when you first decided to join this 

program.

1. Why did you decide to join this program? 

a. What were you hoping to gain by participating in this program?

I would like to now reflect on your experiences with the training session materials.

2. How did the orientation and monthly team meetings prepare you for working with 

children?

3. How did the training help you better understand children’s social-emotional skills?

4. How has the training helped you establish and build positive relationships with children?

5. How did the training help you identify at-risk children/children in need of one-on-one 

support? 

6. What else would you have liked covered during your training to better help you address 

the needs of your students?

I would like to now reflect on your experiences with the MindUp curriculum 

materials.

1. How did the MindUp curriculum materials prepare you for working with children?

a. Please describe which materials were most helpful.

2. How, if any, did the curriculum materials help you better understand children’s socialemotional skills?

a. Did you follow the same lesson structure provided in the MindUp curriculum for 

every lesson? If no, why not?

b. Did you do the Core Practice every day? If no, why not?

3. How have the MindUp curriculum materials helped you establish and build positive 

relationships with children?

4. Did the MindUp curriculum materials help you identify at-risk children/children in need 

of one-on-one support? How? 

5. How did the MindUp curriculum materials help you handle behavioral 

misconducts/adverse experiences?

6. Were you able to stick to the curriculum materials while working with students?

a. If so, how? If not, why not?

7. What made it difficult to follow the curriculum?
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 23

I would like to now reflect on children’s social-emotional skills.

8. What gains have you seen from your students?

9. What other measures should be tracked?

I would like to conclude with your thoughts regarding the LEAP initiative in 

general.

10. What works well with the LEAP program to meet students’ needs?

11. What would you change about your experience with this program?

12. What was challenging with the program?

a. Reporting? Curriculum? Communication? Teachers?

13. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your experience that will better 

inform the Foundation for continuous improvement of the LEAP initiative?
Prepared by ACET, Inc. Page 24

Appendix F

SMIF LEAP 

Preschool Teacher Interview Script

Hi, my name is _____________. I work with ACET, Inc. as a program evaluator, contracted by 

the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation to assess the Learning Early Achieves Potential 

(LEAP) program. The LEAP program’s goal is to determine program fidelity and identify any 

potential areas that need further development to improve children’s social-emotional skills. Thank 

you for agreeing to talk to me today. I would like to spend our time learning about your thoughts 

and experiences with the LEAP program. The information learned will help to improve this 

program in the future. With your permission, I would like to record this session. Your responses 

will be anonymous and combined with others who are interviewed. Your name will not be tied to 

your responses.

I would like to reflect on your experiences with the LEAP members and program.

1. How have the Americorps LEAP members helped establish and build positive 

relationships with children?

2. Were you prepared about the role of having an Americorps member in your classroom 

from the site supervisor? Please explain.

3. How does your partnership with a LEAP member help build SEL skills in students?

4. How, if any, is the LEAP member helping to improve the overall classroom 

environment?

5. How have you and your staff grown in capacity for identifying children who need SEL 

skill building due to involvement with the LEAP program?

I would like to now reflect on children’s social-emotional skills.

6. What growth in SEL skills are you seeing from your students?

7. Are the SEL skills taught by LEAP members communicated clearly so you are aware of 

the measurements that are being tracked?

8. What intervention activities were particularly helpful for students to practice behaviors?

I would like to conclude with your thoughts regarding the LEAP initiative in 

general.

9. What else could the LEAP program provide that would assist you to meet students’ 

needs?

10. What would you change about your experience with this program?

11. What was challenging with the program?

a. Curriculum? Communication? Members? 

12. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your experience?