Series Session #3: Research & Measures to Support Quality Early Childhood Initiatives in Ohio (March 27, 2014)

1. EXAMINING OHIO’S APPROACH TO
MEASURING STUDENT SUCCESS
SERIES SESSION #3: RESEARCH &
MEASURES TO SUPPORT QUALITY EARLY
CHILDHOOD INITIATIVES IN OHIO
March 27, 2014
Making Research Work for Education

2. 2
WELCOME

3. THE OHIO EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTER
A collaborative of Ohio-based
research universities &
institutions
Focused on a statewide
research agenda
Addressing critical issues of
education practice and policy

4.  The mission of the Ohio Education Research Center (OERC) is
to develop and implement a statewide, preschool-through-
workforce research agenda to address critical issues of
education practice and policy. Our intent is to identify and
share successful practices; respond to the needs of Ohio’s
educators and policymakers; and signal emerging trends. We
intend to communicate findings broadly through multiple
platforms and networks, producing materials, products and
tools to improve educational practice, policy, and outcomes.
4
OERC’S MISSION

5.  State Landscape: Ohio’s Early Learning System
 OERC Early Childhood Research
 Feedback Activity
 OERC Learning Network — Brief Demonstration
 Next Steps/Closing
5
TODAY’S AGENDA

6. STATE LANDSCAPE: OHIO’S
EARLY LEARNING SYSTEM
Stephanie Siddens, Ph.D., Director, Office of Early
Learning and School Readiness, Ohio Department of
Education
Alicia Leatherman, Deputy Director, Division of
Child Care, Office of Family Assistance, Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services

7. 7
QUESTIONS?

8. OERC EARLY
CHILDHOOD RESEARCH
Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 3/27/2014

9.  Tina Kassebaum, Ph.D., Strategic Research Group (SRG)
 Lauren Porter, Program Manager, Ohio Education
Research Center at The Ohio State University
 Rob Fischer, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Jack,
Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social
Sciences of Case Western Reserve University
 Jennifer Zimmerman, Evaluation Consultant, Resilient
Children Project
 Jerry M. Jordan, Ph.D., Research Associate, University of
Cincinnati’s Evaluation Service Center
9
OERC EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH
PRESENTERS

10. OERC Early
Childhood
Research &
Measures
Symposium
March 27, 2014
2013 WORKFORCE STUDY:
OHIO EARLY LEARNING &
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

11.  Purpose: To provide an overview of the current characteristics
of the childhood workforce in Ohio.
 Policy Implication: Over 20 years of research has consistently
found a link between the level of education and compensation
of the early childhood workforce, and the program quality and
outcomes for children.
 Key components of study:
 Demographics of the childhood workforce
 Staff education, credentials, and wage
 Benefits offered to staff, turnover, and reasons for staying/leaving
11
PURPOSE OF STUDY

12. History (Similar Studies)
2001 mail survey - 314 ODJFS programs
2005 mail survey - 989 ODJFS & ODE programs
2013: Sample of 3,600 randomly selected
early learning and development programs
2,388 ODJFS-licensed programs
1,212 ODE-licensed programs
12
STUDY BACKGROUND

13. Surveys:
Program Director Survey
Teacher Survey
Data Collection:
Web-based surveys
Invitation letters mailed to Program Directors
 Two mailings 2 weeks apart
Telephone and (if possible) email follow-up
invitations
RESEARCH DESIGN
4

14. Response Rate:
30% for directors and 23% for selected teachers
40% for ODJFS and 20% for ODE
10% held NAEYC Accreditation
Two Reports Generated
General Analysis (comparisons to 2005 study)
A Profession Divided (comparisons by program type)
RESPONSE RATES & REPORTS
5

15.  Six program sponsorship types
 Total Programs = 1060
PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SPONSORSHIP TYPES
10.1%
7.5%
32.1%
20.8%
20.5%
9.0%
ODE School-Affiliated
ODE Other
ODJFS For-Profit
ODJFS Nonprofit
ODJFS Faith-Affiliated
Head Start
6

16.  Majority still female and Caucasian
 Slight increase in gender and ethnic diversity in 2013
 In both 2005 and 2013, ODE staff tended to be older
than ODJFS staff
WORKFORCE DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY
2005 2013
ODJFS ODE ODJFS ODE
Caucasian
Director 91% 95% 82% 91%
Teacher 87% 92% 76% 91%
Female
Director 98% 94% 97% 91%
Teacher 97% 96% 97% 92%
7

17. DEGREES HELD BY PROGRAM STAFF
57%
43%
20% 17%
43%
57%
80% 83%
ODJFS 2005ODJFS 2013 ODE… ODE…
Teacher
Less than AA
AA or Higher
88% 85%
46% 38%
12% 15%
54% 62%
ODJFS 2005ODJFS 2013 ODE… ODE…
Director
Less than Graduate Degree
Graduate Degree
8

18.  A higher percentage of directors and teachers of ODE-
licensed programs have credentials compared to those of
ODJFS-licensed programs
CREDENTIALS HELD BY PROGRAM STAFF
Teachers Directors
Credential
Program with
Highest
Percentage
%
Program with
Highest Percentage
%
Child Development Associate Head Start 26.2 ODJFS For-Profit 23.2
Pre-K Associate License Head Start 28.6 Head Start 23.2
EC Teacher License ODE Other 47.0
ODE (both) & Head
Start
25.2 -
26.3
Other Teaching License
ODE School-
Affiliated
54.4
ODE School-
Affiliated
72.0
9

19.  Continued disparity between wages of ODE-licensed programs
and ODJFS-licensed programs
 Current wages for ODE-licensed staff average over $9 more per hour
 The average highest wage reported for ODJFS-licensed teaching staff
($12.58) is lower than the average starting wage reported for ODE-
licensed staff ($13.57)
 In general, more education is associated with higher hourly
pay
 Directors and staff with graduate degrees in ECE or CD claim higher
salaries than the same degree in another field
 However, program sponsorship clearly matters as ODE-
licensed staff tend to earn higher wages than ODJFS-licensed
staff for the same degree
WAGES
10

20. AVERAGE CURRENT WAGES REPORTED
BY STAFF
$13.56
$23.48
$16.08
$25.42
ODJFS ODE
Directors
2005
2013
$9.59
$16.32
$11.36
$20.79
ODJFS ODE
Teaching Staff
2005
2013
11

21. ODE School-
Affiliated
ODJFS Faith-
Affiliated
ODJFS For-
Profit
ODJFS
Nonprofit
ODE Other Head Start
Credential
Child Development
Associate
$18.58 $15.52 $14.42 $12.99 $12.29 $17.00
Pre-K Associate
License
$29.00 $14.39 $15.26 $16.24 $23.45 $17.33
EC Teacher License $38.52 $14.57 $16.97 $16.04 $21.78 $15.36
Other Teaching License $31.88 $14.79 $16.48 $18.43 $25.64 $15.94
Highest Degree Earned
AA ECE or CD $16.35 $14.74 $14.82 $15.76 $12.89 $17.73
BA/BS ECE or CD $21.99 $15.49 $16.94 $18.22 $19.12 $15.98
Graduate Degree in
ECE or CD
$36.12 $16.90 $19.00 $21.08 $24.78 $18.18
Graduate Degree in
Another Field
$31.32 $15.10 $12.46 $19.42 $27.30 $15.07
DIRECTORS: AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE
12

22. TEACHERS: AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE
ODE School-
Affiliated
ODJFS Faith-
Affiliated
ODJFS For-
Profit
ODJFS
Nonprofit
ODE Other
Head
Start
Credential
Child Development
Associate
$15.54 $11.15 $11.14 $11.92 - $13.14
Pre-K Associate
License
$21.00 $11.74 $10.43 $16.65 $20.97 $15.53
EC Teacher License $24.62 $13.07 $11.61 $11.77 $25.10 $13.43
Other Teaching License $23.24 $12.87 $11.92 $12.32 $25.80 $13.21
Highest Degree Earned
AA ECE or CD $15.94 $12.44 $10.64 $12.29 $14.23 $14.28
BA/BS ECE or CD $16.92 $12.29 $12.32 $12.10 $19.66 $14.44
Graduate Degree in
ECE or CD
$26.84 $14.22 $12.00 $13.90 $31.75 $15.03
Graduate Degree in
Another Field
$25.47 $10.86 $10.70 $10.99 $20.79 -
13

23. BENEFITS BY PROGRAM TYPE
62%
19%
33%
38%
71%
92%
49%
10%
20%
28%
53%
77%
81%
20%
24%
51%
71%
93%
ODE School-
Affiliated
ODJFS
Faith-
Affiliated
ODJFS For-
Profit
ODJFS
Nonprofit
ODE Other
Head Start
Health Benefits
Dental Benefits
Retirement
Benefits
14

24. Generally, from 2005 to 2013 the percentage
of programs offering benefits other than
health and dental coverage has increased
(e.g., reduced fee or free child care, paid maternity
leave, paid education expenses and training)
OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
15

25.  Increase from 2005 to 2013 in percentage of staff employed
at their program for more than 5 years
 Greater longevity for directors and teaching staff in ODE-
licensed programs compared to ODJFS-licensed programs
 Turnover rates among teaching staff are higher for ODJFS-
licensed programs than ODE-licensed programs, and almost
identical to those of 2005
 Turnover rates for directors of ODE-licensed and ODJFS-
licensed programs continue to be similar, decreasing from
2005 to 2013
LONGEVITY & TURNOVER
16

26. TURNOVER RATES
11%
21%
29%
10% 10%
12%
Director Teachers Assistant Teachers
2005
6%
22%
30%
6%
11%
13%
Director Teachers Assistant Teachers
2013
ODJFS
ODE
17

27. ODE
School-
Affiliated
ODJFS
Faith-
Affiliated
ODJFS For-
Profit
ODJFS
Nonprofit
ODE
Other
Head
Start
Total
Directors
Better pay 26% 56% 61% 48% 52% 76% 53%
Better benefits 3% 18% 23% 21% 12% 0% 16%
More help/support/
resources
3% 6% 15% 15% 8% 19% 11%
Work more/fewer hours 7% 9% 10% 10% 4% 0% 8%
More staff/retain good,
qualified staff
3% 4% 13% 10% 8% 5% 8%
Teachers
Better pay 24% 70% 69% 78% 55% 73% 68%
Better benefits 12% 28% 18% 26% 10% 9% 20%
Full-time employment or
better hours
29% 12% 5% 9% 5% 9% 9%
Stable enrollment/job
security
12% 6% 0% 3% 15% 23% 6%
MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED INCENTIVES
FOR STAYING IN ECE/CD FIELD
18

28.  Results highlight the continued disparity between ODE-licensed and
ODJFS-licensed programs
 Compared to staff of ODJFS-licensed programs, ODE-licensed program
staff tend to:
 Receive higher wages and be offered more benefits
 Be older, more gender diverse, and less ethnically diverse
 Attain more credentials and higher levels of education
 Turnover less frequently and be employed longer
 Despite increases in diversity, wages, and non-medical benefits, the
gap in education and wages between ODE-licensed and ODJFS-licensed
programs persists
 Teachers and directors holding the same degrees and credentials are
paid more than two times the rate in a school-affiliated setting than in
for-profit centers licensed by ODJFS.
FINDINGS SUMMARY
19

29. THANK YOU
connect@oerc.osu.edu | oerc.osu.edu

30. COMPREHENSIVE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEM EVALUATION
Lauren Porter, Ohio Education Research Center
Debbie Zorn, University of Cincinnati
Imelda Castañeda-Emenaker, University of
Cincinnati

31.  There are 860,000 children ages 5 and under.
 Currently over 11,000 licensed early learning
programs.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 31
Existing Landscape as of February 2013:

32.  Ohio Department of Education
 Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
 Ohio Department of Health
 Ohio Department of Mental Health
 Ohio Department of Developmental
Disabilities
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 32
Agencies Serving Children Birth–5

33.  RttT ELC Grant – 2011.
 Designed to improve state funded network of
programs.
 One ELC initiative: develop extensive early
learning professional development system.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 33
Early Learning Challenge (ELC) Grant

34.  Mission: CPDS designed to provide
appropriate professional
development to early learning and
development professionals working
with children aged birth-5 years,
enhancing their competencies and
skills.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 34
Comprehensive Professional
Development System (CPDS)

35.  Monitored
 Evaluated
 Aligned to standards from multiple sectors
 Based on research
 Supply data for analysis, reporting, and evaluation
 Support RttT-ELC Outcomes
 Coordinated, using common elements when possible
 Aligned to Ohio Core Knowledge and Competencies
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 35
CPDS Guiding Principles

36. Establishment of a seamless Comprehensive
Professional Development System.
 Activities include interviews of policy
stakeholders & practitioner stakeholders and
survey of the Regional PD Network.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 36
Evaluation Question 1

37. Appraise the development and usefulness of the
16 new PD modules.
 Activities include a needs assessment
conducted by OCCRRA, expert review of
modules, and PD participant feedback.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 37
Evaluation Question 2

38. Appraise the actual delivery of PD content.
 Activities include retrospective interviews with
PD participants and Regional PD network
members and observation of PD modules.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 38
Evaluation Question 3

39.  OCCRRA Project Team and the OERC team have
met regularly to gather materials related to the
evaluation and train on evaluation instruments.
 Integral to the CPDS evaluation are the interviews
from a variety of different practitioners:
 OCCRRA Project Team
 Regional PD Coordinators
 PD participants
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 39
Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration

40.  Currently in preparation stages of research.
 Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is being
sought through The Ohio State University.
 While this application is pending, research
activities (interviews, surveys, data analysis) may
not be conducted.
 Delay has presented an opportunity to develop
materials for later stages of the research project.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 40
Boon and Bane of IRB

41.  Upon IRB approval, next steps are: initial data
access, interviews, and an in-depth
examination of one module from
development to implementation and impacts.
 Potential policy impacts: PD options that
better serve early learning and development
professionals in all settings and a more aligned
approach to early learning professional
development across state agencies.
3/27/2014Early Childhood Research & Measures Symposium 41
Moving Forward

42. THANK YOU

43. Robert L. Fischer, Ph.D., Claudia J. Coulton, Ph.D., and
Seok-Joo Kim, Ph.D.
Center on Urban Poverty & Community Development
Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
March 27, 2014 – Columbus, OH
INVESTIGATING THE PATHWAY TO
PROFICIENCY
FROM BIRTH THROUGH 3RD GRADE:
INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM (IDS) APPROACH

44. BACKGROUND
44
Study significance:
• Importance of early childhood exposures
o Early exposure to stressful circumstances, environmental
hazards, and less than optimal early learning
environments negatively and persistently affect early
development.
• Usefulness of longitudinal data
• State adopted ―3rd Grade Reading Guarantee‖ to
ensure that students pass reading proficiency test
before advancing beyond 3rd grade
• Districts can be more aware of risk factors for students
being held back as the policy is implemented

45. BACKGROUND
45
Study aims:
Aim 1. Assess the practicality of linking early childhood and
K-3 student records and potential usefulness of the
resulting information to local schools(A)&(B)
Aim 2. Determine how individual, family, and environmental
risk factors in early childhood interact with
participation in early childhood education programs to
influence kindergarten readiness(A)
Aim 3. Estimate the effects of early childhood risk factors and
experiences on student progress over grades 1 to 3(B)
Aim 4. Identify child-level indices, including kindergarten
readiness and reading-growth trajectories, that in their
combination accurately predict reading proficiency in
third grade(A)&(B)
Note: (A) In process and (B) After April, 2014

46. COHORT DESIGN
46
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Cohort 4
B 3rdK
B 3rdK
B 3rdK
B 3rdK
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Year
Retrospective Prospective

47. SAMPLING
47
Criteria
Enrolled in Cleveland Metropolitan School District
(CMSD) Kindergarten in the school years of 2008-
2011
First time enrollment of Kindergarten
Have a valid KRA-L score
With Ohio Birth-Certificate & Addresses
16,840
15,581
11,999
9,777
Selection criteria N
• Unduplicated cases
(students)
• Will be updated
from EMIS data
• Will be updated
from Medicaid data
• Missing imputation

48. KRA-L &
3rd grade
reading*
Neighborhood
• Concentrated
disadvantage
• Immigrant
concentration*
• Crime *
School
• School
characteristics *
Service
• Home visiting
• Head Start
• Preschool
• Universal Pre-K
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
48
Child
• Demographic
• Low birth
weight
• Age at
kindergarten
• Disability
Family
• TANF/SNAP/
Medicaid
• Mother’s edu.
• Teen mother
• Maltreatment
• Foster care
* Currently not available; will be included

49. Educational Outcomes
• KRA-L score
• 3rd grade reading proficiency
• Attendance
Child Context
• Demographic
• Low birth weight
• Age at kindergarten
• Disability
Family Context
• TANF/SNAP/ Medicaid
• Mother’s education
• Teen mother
• Child maltreatment
• Foster care
Service Context
• Home visiting
• Head Start
• Preschool
• Universal Pre-K
Mobility
• School / Residential
INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM
49
CHILD system
Educational Outcomes
• KRA-L score
• 3rd grade reading proficiency
• Attendance
School Context
• School characteristics
Mobility
• School
OLDA
Neighborhood context
• Concentrated disadvantage
• Immigrant concentration
• Crime
NEO CANDO
Data Integration
by State Student ID
Data Integration
By Census tract
Data Integration
By ECIID

50. CHILD SYSTEM
50
Introduction
 Key data system for this study
 Data helps inform our understanding of the early
childhood system
 Individuals and families interact with multiple
systems and services, so integrated data offers a
more complete view of reality [―Big Data‖]
 Understanding of how systems work and how to
better meet existing needs can be informed by
integrated data
 Service models emphasize long term and collective
impact, so data needed across services and over
time

51. ID6
ID5
ID4
ID3
ID2
ID1
• Abuse/neglect reports*
• Foster care*
• Home visiting*
• Special needs child care*
• Early childhood mental
health
• Universal pre-k*
• Attendance*
• KRA-L*
• Proficiency test*
• Graduation test
• Disability*
• Medicaid*
• Food Stamp*
• TANF*
• Child care voucher*
• Infant mortality
• Elevated Blood Lead
• Teen births*
• Low weight birth*
CHILD SYSTEM
Concept
Public
Assist
Public
School
Common
ID
Childhood
Integrated
Longitudinal Data
(CHILD) System
51
*: Data for this project

52. CHILD SYSTEM
Structure
Geocode & Standardize
Updated IDS
Register-includes
ID#s, names,
addresses, DOB,
etc.
IDS Register-
includes ID#s,
names, addresses,
DOB, etc. Outcomes
E.g. Kindergarten
Readiness Scores among
children in UPK program
Profiles
E.g. Birth characteristics &
service used for children
entering kindergarten
Geographic
E.g. % LBW births
receiving ongoing home
visits by neighborhood
Time Trends
E.g. Total Children Served
by birth cohort
Data files-Births, Home
Visiting, DCFS, UPK,
KRA-L, Medicaid, etc.
Longitudinal Master Files
for Each Data Source
REPORTS
Match New
Records to
IDS
Register
52

53. NEIGHBORHOOD MEASURE
53
Principal Component Analysis
Poverty
Female-
headed
families
African-
American
Un-
employ-
ment
Welfare
recipient
.9 .8 .8 .5 .7
N of neighborhoods=501 census tracts of Cuyahoga County; American Community Survey 2009
Concentrated
Disadvantage

54. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
KRA-L
(N=9777) % Mean(SD) p1)
Child Context
Male 50.8 15.2(6.9) 0.000
Female 49.2 16.7(6.8)
Low birth weight (No) 88.0 16.1(6.9) 0.001
Low birth weight (Yes) 12.0 15.2(7.0)
Race
White
17.2 16.5
(7.1)
0.000
2)
Others 4.6 16.7(7.0)
Hispanic 9.9 13.7(6.8)
African-American 68.3 16.1(6.8)
Age at Kindergarten (Months) 64.7 (4.2)
3)
0.144)
0.000
Without disability at kindergarten 96.9 16.1(6.8) 0.000
Disability at kindergarten 3.1 11.5(6.3)
Family Context
Born to teenage mother (No) 76.1 16.1(6.9) 0.000
Born to teenage mother (Yes) 23.9 15.5(6.6)
Born to mother without HS degree 44.2 15.0(6.6) 0.000
Born to mother with HS degree 55.8 16.8(7.0)
Months of <150% of poverty line from birth to kindergarten3)
43.2 (23.2)
3)
-.0.144)
0.000
Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (No) 86.2 16.1(6.9) 0.000
Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (Yes) 13.8 14.9(6.6)
Foster care placement before age 5 (No) 94.2 16.3(6.8) 0.025
Foster care placement before age 5 (Yes) 5.8 15.3(6.6)
KRA-L score 16.0(6.9)
Note: 1) p form t-test, 2) p form One-way ANOVA, 3) Mean (SD), 4) Pearson-r and p
54

55. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
KRA-L
(N=9777) % Mean(SD) p1)
Service Context
Early intervention ever (No) 88.9 16.2(6.8) 0.000
Early intervention ever (Yes) 11.1 13.8(6.7)
Number of ongoing home visiting over 12 times (No) 77.6 16.2(6.9) 0.000
Number of ongoing home visiting over 12 times (Yes) 22.5 15.1(6.7)
Welcome home visiting ever (No) 68.9 15.8(6.8) 0.000
Welcome home visiting ever (Yes) 31.1 16.4(6.9)
Headstart over 6 months (No) 90.6 15.8(6.7) 0.000
Headstart over 6 months (Yes) 9.4 17.7(6.7)
CMSD Preschool over 120 days (No) 81.3 15.3(6.7) 0.000
CMSD Preschool over 120 days (Yes) 18.7 18.7(7.1)
Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (No) 97.7 15.9(6.9) 0.000
Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (Yes) 2.3 18.8(6.6)
Neighborhood context
Concentrated disadvantages in 2009 by Census tract (M=0, SD=1) 0.8 (0.9)2)
-.0.043)
0.000
KRA-L score 16.0(6.9)
Note: 1) p form t-test, 2) Mean (SD), 3) Pearson-r and p
55

56. OLS REGRESSION
KRA-L score (Dependent variable) B SE t p B
Intercept -1.261 1.011 -1.25 .213
Child Context
Gender (Female=1) 1.381 0.128 10.78 0.000 0.100
Low birth weight (Yes=1) -0.644 .0202 -3.19 .001 -0.030
Race: Reference (White and others, Yes=1)
Hispanic (Yes=1) -2.515 .0245 -10.25 0.000 -0.109
African-American (Yes=1) 0.114 0.183 0.62 0.533 0.008
Age at Kindergarten (in months) 0.267 0.015 17.38 0.000 0.163
Disability at Kindergarten (Yes=1) -6.354 0.387 -16.41 0.000 -0.161
Family Context
Born to teenage mother (Yes=1) -0.194 0.185 -1.05 0.295 -0.012
Born to mother without HS degree (Yes=1) -1.136 0.141 8.04 0.000 -0.082
Months of <150% of poverty line from birth to kindergarten
(months) -0.037 0.003 -11.89 0.000 -0.124
Substantiated/indicated child abuse before Kindergarten (Yes=1) -0.698 0.205 -3.40 0.001 -0.035
Foster care placement before Kindergarten (Yes=1) 0.714 0.306 2.34 0.020 0.024
Service Context: Before kindergarten
Early intervention ever (Yes=1) -1.935 0.221 -8.77 0.000 -0.088
Ongoing home visiting over 12 times (Yes=1) -0.365 0.160 -2.28 0.023 -0.022
Welcome home visiting ever (Yes=1) 0.917 0.163 5.62 0.000 0.062
Head Start over 6 months (Yes=1) 1.673 0.222 7.55 0.000 0.071
CMSD Preschool over 120 days (Yes=1) 4.003 0.171 23.35 0.000 0.227
Universal Pre-K ever over 6 months (Yes=1) 1.919 0.376 5.10 0.000 0.047
Neighborhood Context
Concentrated disadvantages in 2009 by Census tract -0.239 0.085 -2.80 0.005 -0.031
Model Fit: F(18, 9752)=105.04, p<.001, R2
=16.24% | N=9777
56

57. KRA-L Band and poverty rate
in Cleveland Metropolitan School District, OH
Source: 1. Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD)
data
2. American Community Survey 2009
(www.census.gov)
Note: Kindergartners in the school years of 2008-2011
(N=9777)

58. IMPLICATIONS
58
 Collaboration with Cleveland Metropolitan School District
(CMSD) and Early childhood agencies
o Data Sharing
o Uses
- Building profiles
- Community collaborative planning
- Risk factor reduction
 Helpful to inform educational planning; especially schools
with large numbers of disadvantaged students
 Understand challenges for kindergarten readiness and 3rd
grade guarantee

59. FUTURE PLAN
59
Data work
 Check duplicated cases again*
 Prepare for variables between K-3rd grade*
 Update missing data from Education Management
Information System (EMIS; Expected: April, 2014)**
 Adding more level-2 data
o Neighborhood variables from NEO CANDO*
o School characteristics from EMIS***
 Dealing with missing data
o Missing imputation**
Note: *Completed, **Expected after April, 2014, ***Planned

60. FUTURE PLAN
60
Analysis
 Extended model
o Outcome variable: 3rd grade reading proficiency
 Use multi-level analyses
o School-level
o Census tract-level
 Geo-analysis / mobility analysis
o Spatial auto-correlation
o School or residential mobility

61. Thank you!
61
Contact Information: Robert L. Fischer, Ph.D. (fischer@case.edu)
Resources
 Center on Urban Poverty & Community Development:
http://povertycenter.case.edu/
 Ohio Education Research Center: http://oerc.osu.edu/
 NEO CANDO: http://neocando.case.edu/

62. RESILIENT CHILDREN
PROJECT (RCP)

63.  Funded in February 2011 by the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky Social Innovation Fund
 Expands the scope of two existing Early
Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECMHC)
projects
 Provides comprehensive services to support
young children’s social and emotional
development
 Increases the capacity of early care and
education administrators and caregivers
Resilient Children Project

64.  To what extent, if any, does the programmatic
delivery of ECMHC increase the kindergarten
readiness of the preschool children who receive
the ECMHC?
 To what extent, if any, do the adult professionals
participating in the programmatic delivery of
ECMHC increase their level of self efficacy in the
delivery of ECMCH?
RCP Research Questions

65. Year 1:
 Intervention Group: Early childhood programs
already participating in ECMHC
 Comparison Group: Early childhood programs on
a ―wait list‖ for ECMHC services
Year 2: All sites receive ECMHC services
 Permits examination of effects of
implementation of ECMHC services in new sites
 Comparison of new and long-term sites
RCP Evaluation Design

66.  Linking preschool assessment data to
demographics and kindergarten entry data
 Measuring teacher stress and self efficacy
 New measurement strategies for teacher
knowledge and skill
 Clarification of key program components and
their impact
 Exploration of program climate
The Evolution of an Evaluation

67.  Child, teacher, and staff turnover/mobility
 Differences in program models
 ―Dosage‖ complications
 Changes at the state
 Linkage to kindergarten assessment data sets
Life Happens….

68.  Linking program outcomes
 Revising process monitoring tools
 Enhancing early childhood data systems
 Continued exploration of program climate
 Where do families play into the equation?
What’s Next

69. Thank You

70. 70
QUESTIONS FOR PANELISTS?

71. 71
FEEDBACK ACTIVITY

72.  Erin Joyce, Director, Battelle for Kids, and
co-chair, OERC Outreach Committee
72
OERC LEARNING NETWORK

73. June 18, 2014 — Half-Day Learning Session
Columbus Convention Center
Mid-September — Full-Day Learning Session
Columbus
73
OERC NEXT STEPS

74. THANK YOU!
connect@oerc.osu.edu | oerc.osu.edu