REPORT OF THE EARLY
CHILDHOOD
RESEARCH AND
EVALUATION
NATIONAL ADVISORY
PANEL

RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE FIRST
THINGS FIRST BOARD
REGARDING A
FRAMEWORK FOR
RESEARCH AND
EVALUATION

FIRST THINGS FIRST EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH
AND EVALUATION NATIONAL ADVISORY PANEL

John M. Love, Ph.D., Panel Chair, Retired Senior Fellow, Mathematica
Policy Research; Independent Consultant, Ashland, OR
W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D. Board of Governors Professor and Director,
National Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Clancy Blair, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Psychology, New York
University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human
Development, Department of Applied Psychology
Noel A. Card, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Family Studies and Human
Development, University of Arizona John and Doris Norton School of
Family and Consumer Sciences
Greg Duncan, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor, Department of
Education University of California, Irvine
Claude Goldenberg, Ph.D. Professor of Education, Stanford University
School of Education
Neal Halfon, MD, MPH. Director, UCLA Center for Healthier Children,
Families and Communities
Dawn M. Mackety, Ph.D. Director of Research, Data, and Policy,
National Indian Education Association
Pamela Powell, Ed.D. Associate Professor of Literacy and Early
Childhood, Northern Arizona University College of Education
Eva Marie Shivers, J.D., Ph.D. Director, Institute for Child
Development Research & Social Change, Indigo Cultural Center, Inc.
Catherine Elizabeth Snow, Ph.D. Patricia Albjerg Graham Professor of
Education, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Eugene W. Thompson, Ed.D. Vice Chair, First Things First Board of
Directors

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The First Things First Early Childhood Research and Evaluation National Advisory Panel (Panel) was
convened to provide recommendations to the First Things First Board on developing a comprehensive
statewide and regional research and evaluation framework. To achieve this, 12 nationally recognized
experts in early childhood met three times in the winter and spring of 2012. Panel members’ expertise
included evaluation design and methodology, Native American early education, placed-based systemslevel evaluation, school readiness, state prekindergarten evaluation, special needs, and health.
Additionally, Arizona early education experts participated to ensure that a unique state-specific
perspective was included.
The Panel engaged in extensive discussion and worked collaboratively with First Things First staff to
define an overarching, long-term view of evaluation. Just as there is no single approach across First
Things First programming, the Panel believes that First Things First evaluations should constitute a
family of studies that reflect this same complexity and flexibility. As a result, the Panel presents its
recommendations for both a short- and long-term agenda to study the processes and intended
outcomes of First Things First, with a focus on evaluation efforts in high priority programming areas.
Never losing sight of First Things First’s overall guiding questions and systems-level approach, as well as
the need for an eventual longitudinal study, the Panel presents its recommendations in two broad
categories, long-term infrastructure building and short- and longer -term evaluation studies:

Infrastructure Recommendations
Recommendation IN-1: Create a strong focus on program implementation.
Recommendation IN-2: Ensure that data analysis and evaluation approaches are meaningful for Regional
Partnership Councils and meet their needs for strategic planning and program improvement.
Recommendation IN-3: Work with Tribal Governments to ensure that they all are full participants in the
process of planning, designing, and conducting data collection and evaluation studies, and in
interpreting and using evaluation results for continuous improvement.
Recommendation IN-4: Create a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database that will enable First
Things First to systematically track key data on services provided, children and families, and progress on
the 10 School Readiness Indicators at the state and regional levels.
Recommendation IN-5: Focus on using program data and evaluation results for continuous program
improvement at all organizational levels.
Recommendation IN-6: Collaborate with the State Board of Education and the Arizona Department of
Education to select or create a kindergarten developmental inventory that will annually assess the school
readiness and development of entering kindergartners across the state in the five readiness domains
identified by the National Education Goals Panel.
Recommendation IN-7: Establish the groundwork for appropriate review and oversight of evaluation
plans.

Recommendation IN-8: Continue to use, as appropriate, data collected by the Tri-University
Consortium.

Recommendations on Approaches to Evaluating Key First
Things First Programmatic Strategies1

Recommendation EV-1: Conduct an implementation study or studies that will enable First Things First to
answer questions about the fidelity of implementation, profiles and intensity of services received,
relation of services received to Star level, the meaningfulness of Star levels and the cut scores used to
calculate them, and improvements in Star levels over time; in addition, to study implementation of FFN
care to answer questions about: implementation, services received, emerging models of practice, family
utilization, and barriers to regulation.
Recommendation EV-2: Conduct a study building on EV-1 along with child outcome data to identify how
outcomes vary according to the Quality First Star levels of quality instruction received.

Recommendation EV-3: Conduct an implementation study or studies of home visitation programs that
will enable First Things First to answer questions about fidelity of implementation, providing services to
hard-to-reach families, intensity of service, and alignment of services with family needs.
Recommendation EV-4: Conduct a quasi-experimental study of home visitation programs that will enable
First Things First to learn whether the degree of model implementation fidelity is associated with
children’s school readiness outcomes.

Recommendation EV-5: Conduct a study or studies of the implementation of Family Resource Centers
that will enable First Things First to address questions about consistency of standards of practice,
intensity of services, providing service to hard-to-reach families, fidelity of practice, coordination among
and between family service providers, alignment of services with family needs, and emerging models of
practice.

1

The recommendations are paraphrased here; the full report contains more details about the specific evaluation
questions to be addressed in connection with each recommendation.

Recommendation EV-6: Conduct a study or studies of Parent Education Community-Based Training that
will enable First Things First to address questions about consistency of standards of practice, intensity of
services, providing service to hard-to-reach families, fidelity of practice, coordination among and
between family service providers, alignment of services with family needs, and emerging models of
practice.

Recommendation EV-7: Use the integrated database to obtain information on the types of services First
Things First is providing across the regions in the four major health strategies (care coordination/medical
home, oral health, nutrition/obesity/physical activity and mental health consultation) to learn about
what services and combinations of services children and families are receiving.
Recommendation EV-8: Use the integrated database and other information as needed to answer
questions related to care coordination/medical home regarding the extent to which these First Things
First health services are connecting families with medical homes and increasing the coordination of care;
the nature, intensity, and standards of practice of the care; whether care reaches the intended families,
particularly hard-to-reach families, and whether models of practice are emerging.

Recommendation EV-9: Obtain information on current approaches in language acquisition, professional
development, and native language and culture preservation to establish the foundation for future
evaluation studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FIRST THINGS FIRST EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH AND EVALUATION NATIONAL ADVISORY
PANEL: PANEL MEMBERS .....................................................................................................................i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................v
SECTIONS
I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
The Charge to the Panel ............................................................................................. 1
Context for the Evaluation Framework ..................................................................... 2
II RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING INFRASTRUCTURE TO
SUPPORT FIRST THINGS FIRST EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ............................................... 4
Recommendation IN-1 ............................................................................................... 5
Recommendation IN-2 ............................................................................................... 6
Recommendation IN-3 ............................................................................................... 6
Recommendation IN-4 ............................................................................................... 6
Recommendation IN-5 ............................................................................................... 8
Recommendation IN-6 ............................................................................................... 9
Recommendation IN-7 ............................................................................................... 9
Recommendation IN-8 ............................................................................................... 9
III RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROACHES TO EVALUATING KEY FIRST
THINGS FIRST PROGRAMMATIC STRATEGIES ............................................................ 10

Recommendatations for Learning About Strategies in the Area of Access,
Affordability, and Quality ......................................................................................... 11
Recommendation EV-1 .............................................................................. 11
Recommendation EV-2 ............................................................................. 12
Recommendatations for Learning About First Things First’s Home
Visitation Strategy .................................................................................................... 13
Recommendation EV-3 ............................................................................. 13
Recommendation EV-4 ............................................................................ 14
Recommendatation for Learning About First Things First’s Family Resource
Centers in the Context of Parent Education Community-Based Training and
Home Visitation ........................................................................................................ 14
Recommendation EV-5 .............................................................................. 15
Recommendation for Learning About Parent Education Community-Based
Training ..................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendation EV- 6 ............................................................................. 16
Recommendations for Learning About First Things First’s Strategies in the Area of
Health........................................................................................................................ 16
Recommendation EV-7 .............................................................................. 16
Recommendation EV- 8 .............................................................................. 17
Recommendation Related to Issues that Span Strategies or Are Not StrategySpecific ...................................................................................................................... 17
Recommendation EV- 9 .............................................................................. 17
IV CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 18

ATTACHMENTS
1

FIRST THINGS FIRST EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH AND EVALUATION NATIONAL
ADVISORY PANEL MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES .......................................................... 19

2

FIRST THINGS FIRST LOGIC MODEL ........................................................................... 31

3

STRATEGIES FUNDED AT $2, 000,000 OR MORE FY 2013.......................................... 46

4

ALIGNMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFIC EVALUATION
QUESTIONS IN EACH OF THE PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS WITH FIRST THINGS
FIRST’S EIGHT GUIDING EVALUTION QUESTIONS ............................................... 47

5

SYNOPSIS OF TYPES OF EVALUATION STUDIES REFERRED TO IN THE PANEL’S
REPORT ................................................................................................................ 50

I.

INTRODUCTION

First Things First was established to provide greater opportunities for all children five and under in
Arizona to grow up ready to succeed. First Things First was established in November 2006 with the
passage of Proposition 203, a citizens’ initiative to fund quality early childhood development and health.
Designed to work with partners to create a voluntary system of early care and education, Proposition
203 included the following principles: (1) local communities must come together to plan and administer
what works best in their community; (2) services and approaches must be flexible enough to
accommodate the unique demographics of the state; and (3) all initiatives must be transparent and held
accountable for outcomes. With its passage, the proposition created a new state-level board known as
the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board. The Board subsequently adopted the name
First Things First and established an agency to provide greater opportunities for all of Arizona’s children
to grow up ready to succeed in school, based on the following vision and mission:

: All Arizona's children are ready to succeed in school and in life.
First Things First is one of the critical partners in creating a family-centered, comprehensive,
collaborative and high-quality early childhood system that supports the development, health, and early
education of all Arizona's children birth through age five.
In the spirit of continuous improvement, innovation, and accountability, the Board supports rigorous
and ongoing research and evaluation of First Things First. Thus, in January 2012, First Things First
assembled the First Things First Early Childhood Research and Evaluation National Advisory Panel
(Panel). The Panel was convened to provide recommendations to the First Things First Board on
developing a comprehensive statewide and regional research and evaluation framework.
To achieve this, 12 nationally recognized experts in early childhood met three times in the winter and
spring of 2012. Panel members’ expertise included evaluation design and methodology; Native
American early education; placed-based systems-level evaluation; school readiness, including, literacy
and language development, cognitive development, and executive functioning; state prekindergarten
evaluation; special needs; and health. Additionally, Arizona early education experts participated to
ensure that a unique state-specific perspective was included. Detailed panel member biographies can be
found in Attachment 1.
This report explains the First Things First’s charge to the Panel, the context and process followed to
reach recommendations, and the Panel’s recommendations to the First Things First Board on both the
infrastructure needed for evaluation and evaluation options for First Things First’s programmatic
strategies. The Panel recommends that the First Things First Board consider this ongoing infrastructure
development in conjunction with targeted strategy-specific evaluation studies as crucial in meeting its
goals for systems evaluation. The Panel recommends a long-term vision that includes capacity-building,
data collection and analysis, and strategy-specific research and evaluation to support ongoing program
improvement.
A. The Charge to the Panel
The Panel was brought together with a very specific focus and anticipated outcomes. The focus of the
Panel’s work was to:






Assess the data and analyses First Things First has received to date from the Tri-University
Consortium and the alignment of these data and analyses with First Things First’s overall
research and evaluation goals;
Provide recommendations to the First Things First Board on the best approaches for evaluating
system-level outcomes; and
Guide the specific development of a plan for next steps.

To provide the Panel with further guidance, First Things First articulated five anticipated outcomes:






Understand First Things First’s strategies, programs, goals, roles, and outcome indicators;
Learn about the evaluation activities that provide First Things First with population-level data on
its ongoing programs;
Discuss various strategies for obtaining meaningful system-level evaluative data on the most
salient First Things First programs and strategies;
Debate the pros and cons of alternative ways of conducting the evaluation; and
Develop clear recommendations to the First Things First Board for conducting its external
evaluation.

As this report demonstrates, the Panel addressed every area of focus, and has met every outcome goal.
B. Context for the Evaluation Framework
The Panel’s recommendations are the product of a thoughtful, deliberative process spanning three inperson meetings and one conference call. They are presented in the context of First Things First’s
initiatives and strategies. As noted above, one of the charges to the Panel was to provide
recommendations to the First Things First Board on how best to examine and quantify system outcomes
for Arizona children. As part of delineating what that would mean, the Panel worked collaboratively with
First Things First staff to define an overarching, long-term view of evaluation. To that end, First Things
First articulated eight critical questions that it would like evaluation activities to address. Taken
together, these questions provided a guide to the Panel’s considerations of a First Things First evaluation
plan. The questions range from the procedural, such as asking whether First Things First programs and
strategies are being fully implemented in accordance with First Things First Standards of Practice, to the
systemic, including the simple yet critical question as to whether First Things First is positively affecting
long-term outcomes for children.
To fulfill its charge, the Panel worked with First Things First to understand:




Intended outcomes of programmatic strategies;
How strategies connect and coordinate; and
Key decision drivers in program choices.

To facilitate this understanding, the Panel recommended that First Things First create a First Things
First logic model (Attachment 2). This series of logic model diagrams clarifies the variety of early
childhood programming that is funded by the agency and the links among strategies.

1. Are the capacity and level of coordination of
the early childhood system changing and are
changes associated with funding levels?
2. Are programs and strategies being
implemented fully and in accordance with
FTF’s standards of practice?
3. What services, and combinations of services,
are children receiving and how does service
receipt relate to identified family and child
needs?
4. Are the 10 school readiness indicators
improving over time?
5. What impact is FTF having on children’s
school readiness Indicator 1 – number and
percentage of children demonstrating school
readiness at kindergarten entry in the
developmental domains of social-emotional,
language and literacy, cognitive, and motor
and physical?
6. Is FTF affecting long-term outcomes for
children?
7. Are there FTF strategies, programs, or
models that are particularly effective and
how is their effectiveness related to costs?
8. Are there relationships among Quality First
ratings, improved early childhood programs,
and children’s kindergarten readiness?

The Panel also requested an opportunity
to speak with Regional Partnership
Council members and gain their
perspective on First Things First’s
evaluation and information needs. In
their second meeting, Panel members
met by telephone conference calls with
Partnership Council members from
around the state. Council
representatives presented perspectives
from rural, urban, and Tribal
communities.
After establishing its understanding of
First Things First evaluation goals
through the eight guiding questions, the
integration of strategies to support and
maximize kindergarten readiness for
Arizona’s children through the First
Things First logic model, and
perspectives of Regional Partnership
Council members, the Panel laid out its
recommendations for a long-term
agenda to study the intended outcomes
of First Things First. This agenda is
detailed in Sections II and III.
Additionally, the Panel recommended
that in the shorter term, First Things First
focus evaluation efforts in the higherpriority programming areas, as
articulated below.

To prioritize key areas for initial
evaluation efforts, First Things First and
the Panel agreed on a set of criteria.
Those criteria included consideration of
(1) First Things First’s total financial
investment, (2) scope and scale of
implementation throughout the state,
and (3) programmatic importance for
improving children’s kindergarten
readiness. To support the prioritization,
First Things First developed a matrix of those strategies whose funding will exceed $2 million in fiscal
year 2013 (Attachment 3). Upon examination, it was agreed that the strategies with the largest
investments were almost always the interventions with the greatest saturation in regions as well as the
interventions identified as immediately relevant to identified child and family needs by both the Board
and Regional Partnership Councils. This prioritization enabled the Panel to recommend specific
evaluation approaches for key, prioritized strategies.

The Panel understands that the mission of First Things First is to support the development, health, and
early education of all Arizona's children five years of age and younger. First Things First undertakes
evaluation and research to ensure that available resources are used for maximum benefit of Arizona’s
children. Because of this, the Panel recommends an approach that couples long-term capacity building
with a series of shorter-term studies to provide feedback in key program areas. The Panel’s
recommendations go beyond a single-study model to offer a multi-faceted approach to support
continuous reflection on timely and accurate data to inform program improvement. Taken as a whole,
the infrastructure and strategy-specific study recommendations, Sections II and III, respectively, present
a developmental and feasible approach to timely measurement of the Arizona early childhood system.
The Panel’s recommendations follow from these considerations. Recognizing that there is no single
approach across First Things First programming, First Things First evaluations should reflect the
complexity and flexibility of the program approaches and the state early childhood system. As a result,
the Panel recommends an evaluation agenda, or family of studies, as no single study could adequately
reflect the diversity of First Things First’s goals. Never losing sight of First Things First’s overall guiding
questions and systems-level approach, as well as the need for an eventual longitudinal study, the first
set of recommendations is about First Things First building the infrastructure in which a system of
evaluation studies can be conducted, both in the short- and long-term.
The Panel also recognizes that although a long-term focus is needed, a variety of evaluations are
important for meeting the needs of First Things First more immediately. Thus, following the
recommendations for a supporting infrastructure, this report presents the Panel’s recommendations for
studies that address the key questions First Things First wants to have answered for its most salient
programmatic strategies.
In its recommendations, the Panel underscores the general importance of evaluation for First Things
First and the children, families, and communities it serves. Funding for evaluation studies should not be
viewed as diverting resources from programming; it can act as a multiplier of program effectiveness. The
Panel joins First Things First in the recognition that only through high-quality, coordinated services can
Arizona’s children achieve their highest potential.
Continuous evaluation is a critical element in developing and refining First Things First’s services. The
Panel recommends that First Things First base its strategic programming choices on rigorous research. It
should also build on existing research to identify those programs with a track record of effectiveness.
Further, First Thing First should undertake or collaborate on new studies to determine whether
evidence-based programs are being implemented with fidelity, are effective for Arizona’s unique
populations, or create new models of practice.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT FIRST THINGS
FIRST EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

First Things First’s mission, vision, and logic model illustrate that no one programmatic strategy or
approach will meet the needs of all children. First Things First is based on the principles that children
learn and develop in a complex context of family, school, and community, and that child development is
supported by quality early education, strong families, healthy adults, and robust communities.

In line with this understanding, First Things First funds and supports strategies as diverse as
strengthening medical homes, supporting parents to understand the importance of oral health,
increasing and improving developmental and sensory screening, promoting children’s cognitive and
language development by intervening with parents, and improving the quality of early education
programming. First Things First intends that these strategies be optimally coordinated among
themselves as well as within other programs in place in communities.
The Panel quickly saw that adequate measurement of the implementation and impact of all facets of
First Things First’s work would require detailed data on children’s receipt of diverse services over time
and, further, that service data would need to be linked to data on children’s kindergarten readiness,
school-aged achievement, and life-long success. The Panel does not recommend that all aspects of First
Things First programming and its impact over time be studied in a single research effort. Rather, the
Panel recommends that First Things First put into place an infrastructure to support the development of
evaluation capacity and ongoing use of data for program improvement over the next several years. The
outcome of this approach will be timely data that can be used for strategic planning at the local and
statewide levels and to assess the impact of First Things First’s efforts on young children over time. This
infrastructure recommendation involves eight main components: (1) focusing on program
implementation; (2) ensuring that data analysis and evaluation approaches are meaningful for Regional
Partnership Councils; (3) working with Tribal Governments to ensure that they are full participants in
setting evaluation priorities and conducting evaluation studies; (4) establishing a comprehensive,
longitudinal, integrated early childhood database; (5) creating a focus on continuous improvement; (6)
collaborating on the implementation of a kindergarten developmental inventory for all Arizona children;
(7) building the groundwork for appropriate oversight and review of evaluation plans; and (8) integrating
existing Consortium data into the early childhood database.

Arizona’s children are best served by high-quality, well-implemented programs. The Panel recognizes
that First Things First does not, in most cases, directly provide services for children and families. First
Things First uses grant and contracting mechanisms to support and improve already existing services in
communities and to expand needed services into new areas. It is critical that evaluation efforts be
aligned with strong and robust contracting, monitoring, and quality assurance processes. To ensure that
strategies and programs reflect the needs of communities, families, and children, as well as best
practices, contracts should be built on data-based strategic planning and evidence-based standards of
practice. Once programs are implemented, contracts should be effectively and rigorously monitored for
timely implementation and adherence to First Things First programmatic standards of practice.
The Panel recommends that a relentless focus on implementation be fundamental to First Things First’s
evaluation framework. The Panel notes that although funding best practices is important, it is also
critical to ensure a high degree of integrity in ongoing program implementation. This involves
establishing mechanisms that allow maximally efficient reporting of data and monitoring of results. This
approach, in comparison with current practice, would increase First Things First’s focus on data
collection. The Panel recommends that First Things First require funded programs to provide individual
child and family data with unique identifiers on service participation including entry and exit date and
cumulative attendance or participation rates.

Regional Partnership Councils are part of First Things First’s governance model and provide local
meaning and relevance. They are composed of dedicated volunteers responsible for working with their
communities to determine what services children five years old and younger in their area need to
ensure that they arrive at school healthy and ready to succeed. Evaluation planning must reflect the
information needs of local communities and build capacity for strategic planning and application of
evaluation findings. Program data analysis and use should be organized and conducted in such a way
that they can be used in community-based planning at the Council level as well as statewide.
The Panel recommends that First Things First work with Regional Partnership Councils to develop data
dashboards that display key information, mapped geographically, on service use, child and family
characteristics, and measures of child wellbeing available from existing data sources such as maternal
and child health indicators, school readiness and success indicators, and other potential indicators such
as environmental and social stress (e.g., air quality, crime) for local use in planning and evaluation.

First Things First values its government to government relationships with Arizona’s Tribal Governments.
In its mission to serve all Arizona children, First Things First recognizes that Arizona’s Tribes and Tribal
Nations are sovereign and have complete authority over all research and data collection conducted on
their lands; they own all data collected on their lands; and they control the use and dissemination of any
of those data. The Advisory Panel recommends that First Things First continue an open dialogue and
consultation with Tribal Governments on potential studies on which to collaborate as well as on specific
tribal approval processes necessary for data collection. These relationships and a common
understanding of purpose and value prior to any research being conducted is essential. To the extent
possible, it is recommended that First Things First enter into ongoing dialogues with Tribal Governments
about data collection and reporting, rather than study-by-study conversations.
The Panel recommends that First Things First work with Tribal Regional Partnership Councils and Tribal
Governments to develop data dashboards that display key information they want to use for planning
and evaluation. First Things First should continue consultation with Tribal Governments, and through
this process, identify ways to use data and evaluation findings and increase capacity for interpretation
and application.

The Panel recommendation for a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database is in line with best
practices in other states and with the growing understanding that comprehensive data are a necessary
foundation for making decisions about allocation of scarce resources and the improvement of program

quality and child outcomes. Data that are useful for strategic decision-making must be of high quality,
track individual children over time, and be integrated with data on services received. The Panel
understands that acquisition and alignment of these data will take intensive collaboration among
multiple partners; substantial investments in new and improved data management infrastructure; and
focused efforts in data analysis, reporting, and management to ensure that collected data are useful.
Having these data facilitates the type of learning community described in Recommendation IN-5.
Essential components of an early childhood longitudinal data system include:2











Unique statewide child identifier
Child-level demographic and program participation information, including dosage, types of
services received, etc.
Child-level data on key developmental indicators of learning, development, and health,
including, for example, the results of health screenings conducted by First Things First,
supported programs, and by schools
Ability to link child-level data with K-12 and other key data systems, including the Arizona
Department of Education and Department of Economic Security (see below)
Unique program site identifier, for example, school, preschool, or child care provider, with the
ability to link with children and the Early Childhood Education (ECE) workforce
Program site data on the structure, quality, and work environment
Unique ECE workforce identifier (teacher identifier) with ability to link with program sites and
children
Individual ECE workforce demographics, including education and professional development
information
Transparent privacy protection and security practices and policies

This data system should build on already existing data warehousing and collection activities in the state.
The creation of this integrated, longitudinal data system would involve the collaboration of all Arizona
state agencies including the Arizona Department of Education, the Arizona Department of Economic
Security, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System. The data system would support uniform data collection and entry by participating agencies,
facilitate exchange of data, and ensure that data are secure and included only with parental approval.
First Things First’s data warehouse currently holds extensive, critical information on program
implementation, finances, and operations. Current data holdings and reporting can answer questions
about funding levels, contract status, and basic information, such as how many families served. Building
on the current data warehouse, an integrated, longitudinal data system would enable the joining of
child-level data about children served by First Things First and by other agencies. The data system would
contain data on the services accessed by children and families over time. This information on services
would link to data from a kindergarten developmental inventory to allow the analysis of how early
experiences relate to kindergarten readiness and later success (see Recommendation IN-6). This is a
complex, long-term undertaking that needs to incorporate best practices for ensuring child and family
confidentiality. Despite the obstacles, the development of a longitudinal data system is critical to future

2

Fundamental components for a longitudinal data system are referenced at:
http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/; and http://www.ecedata.org/

ongoing efforts in system evaluation and data use value. The Panel strongly recommends the
investment of the needed resources and time.
The development of this integrated, longitudinal data system would facilitate population impact analysis
and data-based planning. Some examples of knowledge gained from analysis of data in a full-fledged
data system might include:


Creation of population risk profiles – key data on potential risk factors such as poverty, low-birth
weight, low accessibility of quality early care and education – could be displayed at the
community level to create a map of incidence and location of populations who could benefit
from targeted services.



Risk profiles compared with available services – available services can be mapped onto
population risk factors. Using risk profiles, already-existing services can be closely examined to
identify gaps and/or redundancies.



Over time, populations that received services can be analyzed for decreases in risk factors or
improvements in key outcomes such as insurance enrollment, decrease in child abuse, and/or
kindergarten readiness.

The ultimate goal of data collection and analysis is to enable First Things First to continually improve
program performance, understand what leads to successful outcomes, and to maximize the positive
impacts of programs on children, families, and communities. To that end, the Panel recommends that
First Things First work over time to create a robust community focus on the use of data and evaluation
outcomes for continuous program improvement. It is important to note that Regional Partnership
Councils, all First Things First staff, and community stakeholders are all critical in the building of a
successful learning community.
This recommendation has multiple facets, including (1) ensuring that evaluation results and data are
available in a timely manner and user-friendly format for ease of understanding by a lay audience; (2)
presenting and/or mapping data at the community and other appropriate levels for decision making; (3)
focusing on measuring changes in the quantity and quality of community services and on the growth
trajectories of children across their preschool years and beyond; and (4) facilitating the sharing of
promising practices and encouraging coordination.
This focus on data use and continuous improvement depends on the availability of timely, high-quality
data. Those data should be available in 21st Century technology platforms that are flexible and can
display information in a user-friendly manner and be manipulated and analyzed by a community
audience. For example, an integrated data system could provide map-based displays of information on
number of children in poverty, overlaid with child care providers, overlaid with Quality First ratings of
child care providers. In this example, data and technology would combine to create a map that allows
the community and decision-makers to reflect on whether children with the highest needs are able to
access the highest quality early education. Criteria for the success of such an approach are that it
provides relevant information and ultimate transparency of decision-making.
A program-based vision for this type of collaborative learning and improvement method would
encourage multiple regions or grantees to work together. For example, 10 sites might be implementing

a strategy such as mental health consultation in an early care and education setting. Those sites would
be linked together so that as they are implementing the intervention they can be receiving appropriate
coaching and technical assistance, and at the same time can share lessons learned and results in real
time with each other. This learning approach would be supplemented and facilitated by ongoing,
rigorous evaluation and monitoring to ensure optimal system performance. This approach to learning
and evaluation would produce multiple products and learning outcomes, including an understanding of
the viability of a specific intervention and ways of coordinating two different systems, as well as an
understanding of what it takes to make a particular program or service center successful and whether or
not the level of investment or support is sufficient to ensure the success of the intervention to other
sites.

Research has established the validity and value of a school readiness assessment conducted at the
beginning of kindergarten. We recommend that the state administer such an assessment annually.
These data could be the basis for measuring First Things First’s School Readiness Indicator number 1:
“The number and percentage of children demonstrating school readiness at kindergarten entry
in the developmental domains of social-emotional, language and literacy, cognitive, and motor
and physical.”
More importantly, these data would be a critical component of the longitudinal data system and enable
the systematic review of child development across the five domains of readiness (as identified in
indicator one) over time and the relation of children’s school readiness to services received before
kindergarten entry. It would also serve to improve early childhood service provision by enabling a better
understanding of what is most effective for children in their early years and beyond. This assessment
could be a helpful tool for early childhood and K-12 teachers as well as a critical tool for understanding
the needs of young children and painting a valid and detailed picture of the development and readiness
of children.

The Panel recommends that a key approach to ensuring appropriate oversight and transparency in data
and evaluation efforts is the identification and establishment of appropriate internal statewide and
regional protocols and procedures for data collection, analysis, reporting, and dissemination. First Things
First should also consider establishing an advisory board to regularly review evaluation and research
activities. This board could offer technical review and advice on evaluation contracting, programmatic
monitoring, development of data systems, and reporting and analysis.

In 2008, First Things First contracted with the External Evaluation University Consortium (also referred
to as the Tri-University Consortium and composed of researchers from Arizona State University, the

University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University) to provide a broad-based evaluation of First
Things First programs. The Panel reviewed the reports produced by this consortium, including (1) First
Things First External Evaluation: Annual Report 2010-2011; (2) First Things First External Evaluation:
Longitudinal Child Study of Arizona, Status of Design, Sampling and Data Collection and Proposals for
Analysis, July 1, 2011; (3) First Things First External Evaluation: Arizona Kindergarten Readiness Study,
July 1, 2011; and (4) First Things First External Evaluation: Family and Community Case Study, 2012
Evaluation Report. The Panel also examined comments and reviews prepared by First Things First
regarding the studies’ methodologies, analyses, and currently available data.
The Panel recommends that data collected as part of the Consortium efforts continue to be examined by
First Things First for utility and be integrated into the longitudinal data system. The data should be
considered as a potential source of population data in areas of children’s health, family context, and
early experiences. Data should also be examined closely as a potential source of information on family
use of Family, Friend, and Neighbor (FFN) care and for information related to providers of FFN care. To
the extent possible, the Consortium data should be integrated into First Things First studies as a
potential source of existing data related to early education, children’s health, and/or family support.
Another potentially valuable use of these data would be for refining some of the outcome measures
used in the Consortium longitudinal study to test their value for future use. For example, analyses could
check on the concurrent reliability of self-reports when there are independent behavioral measures and
verify whether the measures function similarly across different subgroups of children.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROACHES TO
EVALUATING KEY FIRST THINGS FIRST
PROGRAMMATIC STRATEGIES

This section presents the Panel’s recommendations to the First Things First Board for evaluating specific
programmatic strategies. The Panel began considerations of its recommendations by reviewing First
Things First’s eight guiding evaluation questions (see sidebar in Section I and Attachment 4). First Things
First then presented the Panel with a series of more targeted questions as the Panel discussions
centered on the 12 strategies that represent the greatest investment of First Things First funds
(Attachment 3). Panel discussions then focused on how various kinds of evaluation studies could provide
First Things First with the information that would answer those questions. Thus, in Section III, the Panel
lists those questions and frames its recommendations as evaluation approaches to answering them.3
The Panel’s hope is that this suite of evaluation approaches, taken as a whole, will provide the
information First Things First needs to enable it to enhance the quality of its strategies and programs for
families with children from birth to kindergarten entry. Nine recommendations emerged from the
Panel’s discussions. They are grouped in five sections (A-E), each addressing a different First Things First
strategy area, with an additional recommendation (Section F) that is not strategy-specific. With the
exception of those identified as longer-term, recommendations for studies are presented in the order of
their recommended priority; studies listed first are those the Panel recommends that the First Things
First Board consider undertaking first.

3

For reference, in Attachment 5 we summarize the major types of studies that are referred to in this report.

This area, which is First Things First’s largest family of strategies, comprises four strategies: Quality First;
Quality First Child Care Scholarships; Pre-Kindergarten Scholarships; and FFN Care. Quality First,
Arizona’s voluntary Quality Improvement and Rating System, is designed to strengthen the state’s
regulated early care and education programs by establishing a standard for quality care, helping
providers meet that standard, and sharing information on program quality with communities. Activities
conducted within Quality First include assessment, coaching, incentives, Child Care Health Consultation,
scholarships for children, and college tuition scholarships for staff. The intended outcomes of all
coaching and supports are an overall increase in program quality and an enhanced ability to meet child
and family needs.
The main purpose of evaluation studies addressing questions about First Things First’s activities in the
area of Access, Affordability, and Quality is to learn about the relationships among Quality First ratings,
improved early childhood programs, and children’s kindergarten readiness. (See Question 8 in the
Section I sidebar and in Attachment 4.) The Panel proposes two broad recommendations that consider
the three main strategies in this area together.

EV-1a. What is the fidelity of implementation of all components of Quality First, Coaching/Quality
Improvement Plan, Child Care Health Consultation (CCHC), incentives, offset of licensing fees,
instructional and other supports, scholarships, and T.E.A.C.H.? What are the profiles of the
services received by providers, for example, what intensity of each service is received?
EV-1b. What is the relation between Quality First components (Coaching/Quality Improvement Plan,
CCHC, incentives, offset of licensing fees, instructional and other supports, scholarships,
T.E.A.C.H.) and Quality First Star levels?
EV-1c. How different are the levels of quality by Star level, as measured by the environmental rating
scales (ERS), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), and Quality First point scale, and do
Quality First cut scores measure meaningful differences between Star levels?
EV-1d. Are the levels of quality by Star level, as measured by the environmental rating scales (ERS),
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), and Quality First point scale, improving over
time, and how do Quality First levels of quality compare with quality of programs that do not
participate in Quality First?
EV-1e. What is implemented by each FFN grantee, what is the intensity of the service, and to what
extent is implementation consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-1f. What consistent FFN approaches, or models, are emerging that reflect best practices?
EV-1g. What families use FFN care? How common is family use of FFN care? What are barriers to
FFN care providers becoming regulated?

Implementation refers to the activities that put a defined program (or a set of practices, or an
intervention) into place. Levels of implementation affect the outcomes that programs are able to
achieve. Following a conceptual framework (the logic models referred to in Section I and detailed in
Attachment 2) describing the intended First Things First activities to be studied, an implementation
evaluation creates plans for interviewing program participants, observing activities and interactions
among providers and participants, and tabulating service data in participating communities.
In learning details about the extent to which, and how well, the critical elements of Quality First are
implemented, First Things First will enable its Board, Councils, and stakeholders to make informed
decisions about future work in this strategy area. The implementation studies should collect data on
factors that potentially influence implementation, including community variables, provider
characteristics, characteristics of the service itself, the service’s delivery system, specific practices and
processes, staffing, and the service’s support system (such as training and technical assistance).
Understanding the implementation process is crucial for effectively replicating the services, programs,
and strategies. In addition, when other studies examine child and family outcomes, the implementation
studies will allow First Things First to better understand why particular outcomes were observed and
provide insights into the steps that could be taken to improve implementation, and, therefore, future
outcomes.
As First Things First addresses Question EV-1a, the Panel encourages First Things First to design the
studies to learn about how the answers differ for subgroups of participants — including subgroups
defined by scholarship status, children’s ages, types of provider, attendance (dosage), tribal context, and
children’s demographics (including household income, special needs status, home language, and child
English-language-learner status).
Although Question EV-1d is important for First Things First, the Panel recognizes that it will take time to
implement. Therefore the Panel suggests that First Things First set a priority on beginning the planning
and collection of relevant baseline data as the integrated database is being developed (see
Recommendation IN-4). Then, when it is appropriate to measure change over time and compare with
non-Quality First programs, the necessary data will be available.

EV-2a. How do child outcomes vary according to the Quality First Star levels of quality instruction
received?
Using geographic and demographic information and appropriate statistical methods, this study could
compare the school readiness outcomes of children who have similar demographic characteristics but
who enrolled in diverse early care and education programs with different Quality First Star ratings. This
study should be planned using rigorous quasi-experimental designs and appropriate data analytic
techniques. Statistical power analyses taking into account the magnitude of effects in previous research
should guide decisions about sample sizes. The Panel suggests that this study will necessarily come later,
when readiness outcomes are available through a kindergarten developmental inventory administered
statewide at kindergarten entry (see Recommendation IN-6).
To the extent feasible, the Panel encourages First Things First to design this quasi-experimental study so
as to learn about how the answer to Question EV-2a differs for subgroups of participants, including

subgroups defined by scholarship status, children’s ages, types of provider, attendance (dosage), tribal
context, and children’s demographics (including household income, special needs status, home
language, and child English-language-learner status).
As important as good quasi-experimental studies can be, the most convincing evidence for Quality First
Star levels being responsible for child outcomes at kindergarten entry would come from a study that
uses an experimental design. The Panel recognizes the logistic and political challenges associated with
implementing such a design, but suggests that First Things First consider finding ways, to the extent
feasible, to randomly assign children or programs to conditions that result in different Star level quality
experiences. This might be possible in circumstances, for example, where not enough program slots are
available to meet the community needs, and children could be selected using a lottery.

Unlike in the strategy area of Quality, Access, and Affordability, the Family Support area comprises three
key strategies that can be related but are typically relatively distinct: Home Visitation, Family Resource
Centers, and Parent Education Community-Based Training. Therefore, First Things First asked the Panel
to recommend evaluation approaches for home visitation separately from the other two strategies.
First Things First-funded home visitation provides voluntary in-home services for infants, children, and
their families, focusing on parenting skills, early physical and social development, literacy, health, and
nutrition. Programs also connect families to resources to support their child’s health and early learning.
Intended outcomes include parents becoming more responsive to the developmental needs of their
young child, families developing a literacy-rich home environment, and families experiencing improved
stability and the ability to provide a healthy, nurturing, safe home environment for their young children.
The intended outcomes for children are that strong, nurturing, and positive relationships with family
and peers will improve children’s well-being and decrease risk factors. Children will develop ageappropriate cognitive, language, social-emotional and self-regulatory capacities.
First Things First has implemented evidence-based home visitation programs that can follow three
national models: Nurse Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, and Parents as Teachers. Because
evidence about the efficacy of these programs is available from other sources, the purposes of
evaluation studies in the area of home visitation are to learn about the services and combinations of
services children are receiving through home visiting and related services and how service receipt is
related to identified child and family needs. A final purpose is to investigate which First Things First
strategies, programs, or models are particularly effective, and how effectiveness is related to costs.

EV-3a. Are home visitation programs being implemented with fidelity to the evidence-based models
they were designed to follow?
EV-3b. Does each home visitation program reach the intended families and hard-to-reach families?
EV-3c. What intensity of service (number of visits per year, duration of visits) is delivered in each
model and is intensity linked to child and family needs?

Studying these home visitation programs requires collecting data on the process and procedures of
conducting home visits and on the content, quality, and nature of the visits themselves. Data might
include such factors as characteristics (qualifications, demographics) of the home visitors, background
(demographics) of the children and families, and frequency and duration of home visits. Evidence-based
model developers have created measures, such as implementation fidelity checklists, which should be
used in accordance with the developers’ procedures for documenting each of the three models. Content
and procedures of the visits can be measured through reports by home visitors and/or observations by a
trained third-party observer.

EV-4a. Is the degree of fidelity of model implementation associated with children’s school readiness
outcomes?
As with Recommendation EV-2, the Recommendation EV-4 study requires a sample of children enrolled
in diverse home visiting programs that have been implemented with varying levels of model fidelity.
Statistical approaches are available that would enable First Things First to match children enrolled in
programs with different degrees of fidelity and/or to statistically control for different levels of fidelity of
implementation. The Panel suggests that this study will necessarily come later, when readiness
outcomes are available through a kindergarten developmental inventory and detailed service data are
available in the longitudinal data system.
As with Recommendation EV-2, a study addressing Question EV-4a could also, to the extent it is feasible,
go beyond reliance on statistical controls and use a lottery to assign children or programs to conditions
that result in different degrees of fidelity of implementing home visitation models. This approach is
more rigorous and would yield more convincing findings.

First Things First-funded Family Resource Centers establish local resource centers and provide families
with training, educational opportunities, and resources on how to support healthy child development.
Family Resource Centers help families make the best choices for their children, with access to
information that educates them about what to look for in quality programs and referrals to services and
supports available in their community. Family Resource Centers do not have national evidence-based
models to follow as in the case of home visitation; they also are implemented in just nine of the regions.
Therefore, the Panel recommends an approach that intentionally selects potentially best or promising
practices that may be clustered in diverse communities, documents and learns about the range of those
practices, and considers exporting them to other locations to study their replicability.
The intended Family Resource Center outcomes are that families have information and supports on child
development and behavior; families read books with their young children daily and incorporate
language and literacy activities in their daily routines and interaction; more families experience a greater
sense of community connectedness and reduced isolation; and families develop increased capacity to
problem-solve and seek out appropriate resources when needed, thus increasing family stability.

EV-5a. What is implemented in each Family Resource Center (which may be operating in the context
of parent education and home visitation programs), what is its intensity, and to what extent is
implementation consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-5b. Do the Family Resource Centers reach their intended families, particularly those that are hard
to reach and are service provision and referral efforts coordinated among and between home
visitation, family resources center, and parent education programs?
EV-5c. Are the family resource services provided to families aligned with the families’ needs?
EV-5d. What consistent Family Resource Center approaches, or models, are emerging that reflect
best practices?
Studies to address these questions could follow one of two approaches, or both: (1) implementation
studies that span many resource centers across all the regions in which this strategy is being
implemented, with data collected on the activities of Family Resource Centers (following the conceptual
framework in First Things First’s logic model), tabulation of variables from the integrated database (see
Recommendation IN-4) to document services received by whom and when, and, potentially, interviews
and/or observations by site visitors; (2) smaller-scale case studies of particular centers selected to
reflect diversity of approaches, geographic areas, and populations served.
Answering EV-5c will involve determining whether families are able to find the services they need. One
approach would be to conduct telephone or in-person interviews with parents, but it may be possible to
obtain the data from the integrated database.
The Panel notes that First Things First has issued a Request for Proposals for a study in the area of Family
Support. First Things First should use its judgment in deciding whether the Panel recommendations in
this area require additional research or can be addressed in the context of the contract that will be
underway by summer 2012.

The third key Family Support Strategy, Parent Education Community-Based Training, supports and aligns
with Family Resource Centers to provide families with the information, services, and other supports they
need to help their children achieve their full potential. First Things First-funded Parent Education
Community-Based Training provides classes on parenting, child development, and problem-solving skills.
The intended family outcomes are that families have information and supports on child development
and behavior; families read books with their young children daily and incorporate language and literacy
activities in their daily routines and interaction; more families experience a greater sense of community
connectedness and reduced isolation; and families develop increased capacity to problem-solve and
seek out appropriate resources when needed, thus increasing family stability.
Because not much is currently known about existing parent education services across the regions where
they are implemented, the Panel’s recommendation suggests that First Things First focus on learning

what is occurring and whether models of best practices are emerging, as with the Family Resource
Centers.

EV-6a. What is implemented by each parent education grantee (which may be operating in the
context of Family Resource Centers and home visitation programs), what is its intensity, and to
what extent is implementation consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-6b. Do the parent education grantees reach their intended families, particularly those that are
hard to reach, and are service provision and referral efforts coordinated among and between
home visitation, family resources center, and parent education programs?
EV-6c. Is the parent education that is provided to families aligned with the families’ needs?
EV-6d. What consistent parent education approaches, or models, are emerging?
Study approaches that First Things First could follow for addressing this recommendation are similar to
those used in learning about Family Resource Centers, namely a multi-region implementation study or a
series of case studies of carefully selected parent education providers.

The Health area comprises five major strategies: Care Coordination/ Medical Home, Oral Health,
Nutrition/ Obesity/ Physical Activity, Mental Health Consultation, and Child Care Health Consultation.
Because the Child Care Health Consultation strategy is a required part of First Things First’s Quality First
model, it is assumed that those services will be studied in the context of Recommendations EV-1 and EV2.
First Things First is devoting considerable effort and funds to strategies in the health area, and clear
models of practice are emerging. It is important that First Things First learn more about its work in
health. Here the panel clusters a number of activities in two recommendations.

EV-7a. What services and combinations of health services are children and families receiving?
The first priority for First Things First is to learn what services and combinations of services children and
families are receiving, the extent to which service receipt relates to identified child and family needs,
and the cost of the services in these four strategies. Data could come from First Things First’s integrated
database or from schools, county and Tribal agencies, or other geopolitical subdivisions. Such data might
include maternal and child health statistics, such as premature births, birth weight, immunizations,
results of health screenings, oral health screenings, developmental screenings, and prevalence of
identified disabilities. In addition, the Panel recommends that First Things First review national research

on effective practices in these areas and prepare research briefs or white papers that would translate
nationally recognized practices into local programmatic approaches.
These data can be useful to First Things First in refining its standards of practice in the health area. It is
also likely that First Things First could partner with existing systems (including national models or
approaches) so as to identify models of practice, whether in connecting families to medical homes,
providing more effective mental health consultations, designing programs that improve children’s
nutrition and physical health with possible obesity reduction, or having a greater impact on children’s
oral health.

EV-8a. To what extent are First Things First health services achieving the goal of connecting families
with medical homes and increasing the coordination of care?
EV-8b. What is implemented by each care coordination/medical home grantee, what is its intensity,
and to what extent is implementation consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-8c. Do the care coordination/medical home grantees reach their intended families, particularly
those that are hard to reach?
EV-8d. What consistent care coordination/medical home approaches, or models, are emerging?

A number of issues in the early childhood programmatic areas implemented by First Things First are not
specific to any particular strategy but rather apply to multiple strategies and programs and are
important for First Things First’s policy agenda. Prime examples include language acquisition for Englishlanguage (or dual-language) learners, professional development and teacher quality, and the need for
preservation of native culture and languages in Arizona’s Tribal communities. In each of these areas,
existing models or approaches are being applied both within Arizona and across the U.S., and the Panel
suggests that Arizona-specific evaluation studies should not be a high priority for First Things First at this
time. Rather, our recommendation is to lay the groundwork for possible studies First Things First could
conduct in the future.

In responding to this recommendation, First Things First could examine data in its integrated database
(see Recommendation IN-4) to learn about the extent and reach of activities and services related to
these three topics across the state. In addition, current and recent national studies exist that can
provide First Things First with guidance as to approaches, models, or standards of practice that could
inform program implementation in First Things First regions as well as statewide. With greater
knowledge of the nature and incidence of these activities, and their importance to First Things First
stakeholders, specific evaluation studies could be designed in the future. In the area of language

acquisition, the Panel suggests that First Things First accumulate information on best practices for
working with children whose first language is not English.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Panel understands that the mission of First Things First is to support the development, health, and
early education of all Arizona's children birth through age five. The Panel joins First Things First in the
recognition that only through high-quality, coordinated services can Arizona’s children achieve their
highest potential. To meet this high standard, in its recommendations the Panel underscores the general
importance of evaluation for First Things First and the children, families, and communities it serves.
Funding for evaluation studies should not be viewed as diverting resources from programming; it can act
as a multiplier of program effectiveness.
In its recommendations to the First Things First Board, the Panel recommends an approach that couples
long-term capacity building with a series of nearer-term studies to provide feedback in key program
areas. The Panel’s recommendations go beyond a single-study model to offer a multi-faceted approach
to support continuous reflection on timely and accurate data to inform program improvement. Taken as
a whole, the infrastructure and strategy-specific study recommendations present a developmental and
feasible approach to timely measurement of the Arizona early childhood system.

Attachment 1: First Things First Early Childhood Research and
Evaluation National Advisory Panel Member Biographies
John M. Love, Ph.D., Chair

Contact Information:
1016 Canyon Park Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: (541) 941-5571
Email: jlove@mind.net

John Love retired in June 2010 after 18 years with Mathematica
Policy Research, where he was a senior fellow and area leader for
early childhood research. He now provides consulting in early
care and education research, program evaluation, and policy. He
has been involved in teaching, research, and evaluation studies of
programs for children birth to age 8 and their families since the
mid-1960s. He began his program evaluation career in 1972 with
a randomized evaluation of the Home Start Demonstration
Program for what was then the Office of Child Development in
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He
followed this with many multisite studies of Head Start programs
(including studies of Project Developmental Continuity and Free
to Grow), Early Head Start, child care, and prekindergarten
programs. In the 1980s, he addressed issues in early childhood
assessment through the Head Start Measures Project and a
decade later participated in the planning phase of the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten cohort. Dr. Love has
been a key player in the EHS research and evaluation project,
which began in 1995 and has continued through its
prekindergarten and fifth-grade follow-up phases. The final
report of the EHS study he directed was awarded a DHHS award
for excellence in “Program Improvement 2002” because its
“soundness of design, methodology, appropriateness of
conclusions, and significance and usefulness of findings” created
“outstanding potential for use by the larger health and human
services community.”
Recently, Dr. Love directed studies of the Los Angeles County First
5 Children and Family Commission’s (First 5 LA’s) universal
preschool program, noteworthy for the highly diverse population
it serves. He was a principal investigator for Mathematica’s
evaluation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Early
Learning Initiative in Washington state, and he directed a
multisite experimental study of preschool curricula (PCER) funded
by the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of
Education. He consults with Mathematica on its study of the
Harlem Children’s Zone early childhood programs and assists First
5 LA with meetings of its Research Advisory Committee. He
serves on Secretary Sebelius’s Head Start Research and
Evaluation Advisory Committee and serves on the Board of ZERO
TO THREE.

W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D.
W. Steven Barnett is a Board of Governors Professor and Director
of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at
Rutgers University. His research includes studies of the economics
of early care and education including costs and benefits, the term effects of preschool programs on children's learning and
development, and the distribution of educational opportunities.
Dr. Barnett earned his Ph.D. in economics at the University of
Michigan. He has authored or co-authored over 160 publications
including 16 books. Research interests include the economics of
human development and practical policies for translating research
findings into effective public investments.

Contact Information:
National Institute for Early
Education Research
Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey
73 Easton Avenue
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
Tel: (848) 932-4350 Ext. 23132
Fax: (732) 932-4360
Email: sbarnett@nieer.org

His best known works include: reviews of the research on longterm effects; benefit-cost analyses of the Perry Preschool and
Abecedarian programs; randomized trials comparing alternative
approaches to educating children including length of day,
monolingual versus dual-language immersion, and the Tools of the
Mind curriculum; and, the series of State Preschool Yearbooks
providing annual state-by-state analyses of progress in public preK. Recent publications include “Effectiveness of early educational
intervention” in the journal Science and “Four reasons the United
States should offer every child a preschool education” in The pre-k
debates: current controversies and issues from Brookes
Publishing, edited by Edward Zigler, Walter Gilliam, & Steven
Barnett.

Clancy Blair, Ph.D.
Clancy Blair is a developmental psychologist who studies selfregulation in young children. His primary interest concerns the
development of cognitive abilities referred to as executive
functions and the ways in which these aspects of cognition are
important for school readiness and early school achievement. He
is also interested in the development and evaluation of preschool
and elementary school curricula designed to promote executive
functions as a means of preventing school failure.

Contact Information:
NYU Steinhardt
School of Culture, Education, and
Human Development, Department
of Applied Psychology
246 Greene Street, Kimball Hall
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 998-5555
Fax: (212) 998-4358
Email: clancy.blair@nyu.edu

In 2002, Blair and his colleagues at Penn State University and at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill received funding
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development for a longitudinal, population-based study of family
ecology and child development beginning at birth. In his part of
the project, Blair is examining interaction between early
experiential and biological influences on the development of
executive functions and related aspects of self-regulation.
Ultimately, Blair and his colleagues plan to follow this sample
through the school years and into young adulthood. Prior to
coming to NYU, Blair spent ten years as an assistant and then
associate professor in the department of Human Development
and Family Studies at Penn State. He received his doctorate in
developmental psychology and a master's degree in public health
from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in 1996.

Noel A. Card, Ph.D.
Dr. Card’s research and teaching is at the interface between
developmental science and quantitative methodology. It pursues
three broad goals: to improve understanding of child and
adolescent social development; to advance methods of
quantitative analysis based on the unique research questions
relevant to developmental science; and to promote the use of the
best quantitative techniques.

Contact Information:
The University of Arizona
John and Doris Norton School of
Family and Consumer Sciences
McClelland Park Room 315K
650 N Park Ave
Tucson, Arizona 85721-0078
Tel: (520) 621-9122
Email: ncard@email.arizona.edu

Dr. Card's research focus is to advance basic scientific
understanding of human development to better inform
prevention and intervention efforts. His research specifically
promotes understanding of child and adolescent peer relations
and aggression. His quantitative research attempts to improve the
tools for scientific understanding of human development more
generally. His areas of expertise include:






Child and adolescent aggression and victimization
Child and adolescent peer relations
Longitudinal modeling of developmental processes
Analysis of interdependent (e.g., dyadic, small group) data
Meta-analysis

Dr. Card’s Current Projects include:




Who aggresses against whom, and how?: Forms and
functions of aggressor-victim relationships during early
adolescence (PI, National Institutes of Health)
The emergence of cyberbullying from middle childhood
through adolescence: A prospective longitudinal study
(co-PI with Sheri Bauman, National Science Foundation).
Consultant on six additional grants (total funding
approximately $9 million).

Greg Duncan, Ph.D.

Contact Information:
University of
California, Irvine
2056 Education
Mail Code: 5500
Irvine, CA 92697
Tel: (949) 824-7831
Fax: (949) 824-9103
Email: gduncan@uci.edu

Greg Duncan comes to the University of California, Irvine from
Northwestern University, where he served as the Edwina S.
Tarry Professor in the School of Education and Social Policy and
Faculty Affiliate in the Institute for Policy Research. He spent
the first 25 years of his career at the University of Michigan
working on and ultimately directing the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics (PSID) data collection project. He has published
extensively on issues of income distribution, child poverty and
welfare dependence. He is co-author with Aletha Huston and
Tom Weisner of Higher Ground: New Hope for the Working
Poor and Their Children (2007) and co-editor with Lindsay
Chase Lansdale of For Better and For Worse: Welfare Reform
and the Well-Being of Children and Families (2001). With
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, he co-edited two books on neighborhood
poverty and child development: Consequences of Growing up
Poor (Russell Sage, 1997) and the two-volume Neighborhood
Poverty (Russell Sage, 1997), which was also co-edited with
Lawrence Aber. The focus of his recent research has shifted
from these environmental influences to the comparative
importance of the skills and behaviors developed during
childhood. In particular, he has sought to understand the
relative importance of early academic skills, cognitive and
emotional self-regulation, and health in promoting children’s
eventual success in school and the labor market.
Duncan was elected president of the Population Association of
America for 2007-08 and president of the Society for Research
in Child Development for 2009-2011. He was elected to the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001 and to the
National Academy of Sciences in 2010.

Claude Goldenberg, Ph.D.
Claude Goldenberg's areas of research and professional interest
center on promoting academic achievement among language
minority children and youth. A native of Argentina, Goldenberg is
currently Professor of Education at Stanford University. He was
previously at California State University, Long Beach, where he
was Professor of Teacher Education, Associate Dean of the College
of Education, and Executive Director of the Center for Language
Minority Education and Research (CLMER).

Contact Information:
Stanford University
School of Education
485 Lasuen Mall,
Stanford, CA 94305-3096
Tel: (562) 883-1408
Email: cgoldenberg@stanford.edu

Goldenberg received his A.B. in history from Princeton University
and M.A. and Ph.D. from Graduate School of Education, UCLA. He
has taught junior high school in San Antonio, TX, and first grade in
a bilingual elementary school in the Los Angeles area.
Dr. Goldenberg has published extensively; his most recent books
include Promoting Academic Achievement among English
Learners: A Guide to the Research, co-authored with Rhoda
Coleman (Corwin, 2010) and Language and Literacy Development
in Bilingual Settings, co-edited with Aydin Durgunoglu (Guilford,
2010). His other publications have appeared in academic and
professional journals, and he has also served on the editorial
boards of Language Arts, The Elementary School Journal, Reading
Research Quarterly, American Educational Research Journal, and
Literacy, Teaching and Learning. His current projects focus on
improving literacy achievement among English learners in
elementary and middle school, language and literacy development
among Mexican children in Mexico, and development of a
measure of classroom quality for English learners.
Goldenberg was on the National Research Council's Committee for
the Prevention of Early Reading Difficulties in Young Children and
on the National Literacy Panel, which synthesized research on
literacy development among language-minority children and
youth.

Neal Halfon, MD, MPH

Contact Information:
UCLA Center for Healthier
Children, Families and
Communities
10990 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
900
Los Angeles, CA 90024-3913
Tel: (310) 794-0967
Fax: (310) 312-9210
Email: nhalfon@ucla.edu

Neal Halfon, MD, MPH is director of the UCLA Center for Healthier
Children, Families and Communities. He is also a professor of pediatrics
in the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, health services in the
UCLA School of Public Health, and policy studies in the UCLA School of
Public Affairs. He served as a member of the Board on Children Youth
and Families at the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council
from 2001-2006. He also served on the IOM Committee on Child Health
that produced the 2004 report Children’s Health the Nation’s Wealth.
Dr. Halfon is the Principal Investigator for the Los Angeles and Ventura
Study Center for the National Children’s Study and serves on the study’s
steering committee. The Ambulatory Pediatric Association awarded Dr.
Halfon its annual Research Award in recognition of his lifetime
achievement in the field of pediatric research in 2006.
Dr. Halfon’s research has spanned clinical, health services, epidemiologic
and health policy domains. This includes studies focused on trends in
childhood chronic illness and disability; and range of studies focused on
improving and transforming the child health system that address issues
of access to health insurance and care; quality of health care and
developmental services; and the provisions of preventive services.
For more than a decade, Dr. Halfon has worked with national, state, and
local initiatives aimed at improving early childhood systems. This has
included policy and program work at the national level (US, Canada,
England, and Australia), state and local level. He is currently directing the
W.K. Kellogg funded TECCS (Transforming Early Childhood Community
Systems) Initiative, a collaborative venture with United Way Worldwide
that is facilitating the use of community based improvement systems in
cities and countries across the US.
Dr. Halfon has also played a significant role in developing new
conceptual frameworks for the study of health and health care, including
the Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework. A major focus of
Dr. Halfon’s recent policy work has been on national health care reform.
He currently directs the “Blue Sky Initiative”, focused on changing the US
Policy discussion on health reform—from an incremental approach to
expanding coverage to medical care to a transformational approach with
the goal of re-engineering the health care system to optimize the health
of the US Population.

Dawn M. Mackety, Ph.D.

Contact Information:
National Indian Education
Association
110 Maryland Ave, NE, Suite 104
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 544-7290
Fax: (202)544-7293
Email: dmackety@niea.org

Dawn M. Mackety is NIEA’s Director of Research, Data, and
Policy. Dr. Mackety has extensive experience conducting
education research, evaluation, program development, and
technical assistance in community and educational settings,
including Native education settings. Her work at NIEA focuses
on furthering NIEA’s mission through educational research,
data collection and analysis, and national policy advancement.
She leads NIEA’s efforts to inform a national Native education
research agenda, provides research based data to inform
national policy recommendations and decisions, and serves as
an expert advisor on several national Native research
collaborations and projects. She also speaks across the country
about Native education issues including tribal education
departments, culturally based education, family and
community engagement, academic achievement, graduation,
and indigenous research designs.
Prior to NIEA, Dr. Mackety was a Principal Researcher at Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) where
she planned, designed, and managed applied education
research and evaluation projects. Her work included a series of
studies on Native American education topics for the Central
Regional Educational Laboratory at McREL and technical
assistance for the North Central Comprehensive Center at
McREL. Prior to McREL Dr. Mackety served as the Michigan
State University Extension Service’s liaison to Native American
communities throughout the state facilitating collaborations
and conducting research, evaluations, and technical assistance.
In this role Dr. Mackety worked with tribal leaders and
Extension staff to improve their collective abilities to conduct
needs assessments and deliver culturally based educational
programs and services to tribes and their youth and adult
members. Dr. Mackety is an enrolled member of the Little
Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan.

Pamela Powell, Ed.D.
Dr. Powell spent over two decades as an elementary school
teacher prior to arriving at Northern Arizona University. Currently,
she is dedicated to helping pre‐service teachers learn to utilize
current, inclusive, and developmentally appropriate practices in
their classrooms, which promote better learning for all students.
Dr. Powell received her B.S. from Texas Tech University in
Elementary Education with a physical education specialization, her
Master’s Degree from Arizona State University in Elementary
Education, with a specialization in reading, and a doctorate from
Northern Arizona University in Curriculum and Instruction, with a
focus on Early Childhood Education.

Contact Information:
4000 N. Central Avenue
Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Tel: 602-771-5026
Email: board@azftf.gov

As an Associate Professor of Literacy and Early Childhood in the
NAU College of Education, Dr. Powell participates in NAU’s Early
Childhood Task Force, teaches courses in early childhood
education and literacy, and is an active member of the
Commission on Disability, Access and Design, and the Commission
on the Status of Women.
In addition, she is very involved in the promotion of quality early
learning opportunities for all children in the state of Arizona and
our nation. She helped develop summer conferences and
institutes in the NAU College of Education for early childhood
educators across the state, which have provided a venue for
continued conversation regarding quality early learning
environments. She also is Northern Arizona AEYC’s policy chair,
AzAEYC Board’s member at large, and participates on various early
childhood committees and taskforces at NAU, in the Flagstaff
community, and the state of Arizona.

Eva Marie Shivers, J.D., Ph.D.
Eva Marie Shivers, J.D., Ph.D. is the director of the Institute for
Child Development Research & Social Change, a non-profit action
research firm at the Indigo Cultural Center, which focuses on the
developmental niche of child care to explore and understand
families’ culturally adaptive responses to poverty and social
injustice. She has served as Principal Investigator on many child
care studies that involve collaborating with community agencies.
Dr. Shivers received her Ph.D. from UCLA, Psychological Studies in
Education, where she studied with Dr. Carollee Howes. Dr. Shivers
also holds a law degree from Howard University School of Law in
Washington, D.C.
Contact Information:
Indigo Cultural Center, Inc.
2942 N. 24th Street
Suite 114-321
Phoenix, AZ 85016

Prior to relocating to Arizona, Dr. Shivers was a faculty member in
the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh. She
received her Ph.D. in Applied Developmental Psychology from
UCLA’s Department of Education. Dr. Shivers also holds a law
degree from Howard University School of Law, and a BA in English
Literature from Arizona State University.

Tel: (602) 424-5723
Her research interests include: child care workforce issues;
Email:
eshivers@indigoculturalcenter.com provider-child attachment relationships in child care; and other
child care issues involving race, culture and family sensitive care.
Dr. Shivers, a Zero to Three Leadership Fellow (Class 2005) also
serves as faculty in the Harris Infant and Early Childhood Mental
Health Training Institute at Southwest Human Development.
She is currently working on a federally funded grant to study the
effect of cultural continuity between home and school on young
children’s transition to kindergarten. For the past seven years, Dr.
Shivers also provides child care policy consultation on Family,
Friend and Neighbor child care issues and Culture and Diversity in
child care issues to national, state and local government agencies
and administrators throughout the country.

Catherine Elizabeth Snow, Ph.D.

Contact Information:
Graduate School of Education
Harvard University
313 Larsen Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel: (617)-495-3563
Email: snowcat@gse.harvard.edu

Catherine Snow is the Patricia Albjerg Graham Professor of
Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She
received her Ph.D. in psychology from McGill and worked for
several years in the linguistics department of the University of
Amsterdam. Her research interests include children's language
development as influenced by interaction with adults in home and
preschool settings, literacy development as related to language
skills and as influenced by home and school factors, and issues
related to the acquisition of English oral and literacy skills by
language minority children. She has co-authored books on
language development (e.g., Pragmatic Development with Anat
Ninio) and on literacy development (e.g., Unfulfilled Expectations:
Home and School Influences on Literacy, with W. Barnes, J.
Chandler, I. Goodman & L. Hemphill), and published widely on
these topics in referred journals and edited volumes.
Snow's contributions to the field include membership on several
journal editorial boards, co-directorship for several years of the
Child Language Data Exchange System, and editorship of Applied
Psycholinguistics. She served as a board member at the Center for
Applied Linguistics and a member of the National Research
Council Committee on Establishing a Research Agenda on
Schooling for Language Minority Children. She chaired the
National Research Council Committee on Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children, which produced a report that has
been widely adopted as a basis for reform of reading instruction
and professional development. She served on the NRC's Council
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and as
president of the American Educational Research Association.
A member of the National Academy of Education, Snow has held
visiting appointments at the University of Cambridge, England,
Universidad Autonoma in Madrid, and The Institute of Advanced
Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and has guest taught at
Universidad Central de Caracas, El Colegio de Mexico, Odense
University in Denmark, and several institutions in The
Netherlands.

Eugene W. Thompson, Ed.D.
A son of the Motor City, once recognized as “One of the Top 100
School Executives in America,” Dr. Thompson has led school
systems everywhere from Alaska to Alabama. Born and raised in
Detroit, Dr. Thompson attended the Detroit Public Schools, where
he was active in leadership as a high school athlete, Boy Scout and
church youth leader.

Contact Information:
4000 N. Central Avenue
Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Tel: 602-771-5026
Email: board@azftf.gov

After graduating from Western Michigan University with a B.A. in
elementary education, he began his career in the Detroit suburbs
as a fourth grade teacher. Following his graduation with a
master’s degree from the University of Michigan, he was
promoted to elementary school principal. After earning his
doctorate from Western Michigan University, he moved to
leadership roles including: Director of Curriculum, Director of
Research and School District Superintendent in Alaska, Alabama,
Indiana and Michigan. He has also served as a university
administrator and professor at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Bowling Green (OH) State University and Western
Michigan University.
During his career Thompson was recognized as “One of the Top
100 School Executives in America” by The Executive Educator, for
his work leading the quality improvement program of the
Manchester (MI) Community Schools.
While serving as a university professor, Thompson formed a
consulting company, Saturn International Education Group. He has
worked for the United States Department of State and the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, providing assistance
to schools throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia. His work on
behalf of American Overseas Schools continues.
Dr. Thompson is serving a 6-year term on the First Things First
Board ending on January 21, 2013.

A logic model can be defined as a map that graphically displays programmatic planning and impact. A
logic model summarizes key program elements; gives the rationale behind activities; clarifies intended
outcomes; and acts as a communication tool.4 According to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the five basic
components of a logic model are: Resources (dedicated to or consumed by the program), Activities
(what the program does with the inputs to fulfill its mission), Outputs (direct products of program
activities), Outcomes (benefits for participants during and after program activities), and Goals (desired
long term results of the program).5
This packet contains 13 FTF draft logic model documents: this guide, three overarching models, and nine
logic sub-models. The Overall Logic Model is a graphical depiction of how the logic models described
below function together and show impact on kindergarten readiness. The nine sub-models provide
additional detail on FTF strategies and are indicated in the Overall Logic Model by a “**”. The
components of the sub-models are: Strategies, Activities, Key Outputs, Short-term Outcomes,
Intermediate Outcomes, and Long-term Outcomes.
FTF’s Overarching Logic Models (3):
1. Model of Change – Presents the most general overview of FTF activities and impacts in the
early childhood system in Arizona.
2. System Processes and Outcomes – Identifies overall system resources and FTF and early
childhood partners’ roles in leadership and infrastructure. Components are: resources,
assumptions, activities, and system outcomes.
3. Overall Logic Model – colored flowchart – Graphical depiction of how the logic sub-models
described below function together and show impact on kindergarten readiness.
Key for the Overall Logic Model (colored flowchart):








4

Read model from bottom to top
Brackets indicate that components below are related to all components immediately above
Arrows denote logical sequencing
Double asterisks (**) represent that additional detail can be found in the sub-models
Broken lines (---) indicate a logical relationship across program areas
Diamonds = School Readiness Indicators 2 through 10
Blue = Family Support

National Network of Libraries of Medicine: http://nnlm.gov/outreach/community/logicmodel.html





Purple = Early Learning
Light Blue = Child Health
Green = Child Readiness

Logic Sub-Models (9): FTF’s Funded Strategies, Activities, Outputs, and Outcomes:
Key for the Logic Sub-Models:





Read models from left to right
Arrows denote logical sequencing
Key Outputs represent the FTF Targeted Service Units (TSUs)
Single asterisks (*) indicate over 2 million in funding

Early Learning
4. Early Childhood Education (ECE/Quality Access) – Includes FTF strategies that expand
regulated early care and education, increase quality and regulation in Family Friend and
Neighbor, and facilitate the transition to kindergarten.
5. Early Learning Professional Development (PD) – FTF strategies that address the continuous
professional development and education of caregivers and teachers of young children.
6. Quality First (QF) –FTF strategy to increase access to quality early learning opportunities that
will help kids arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed. Quality child care settings include: safe,
healthy environments; highly educated teachers; classrooms and materials that stimulate kids
at different stages of learning; and appropriate staff-to-child ratios so that kids get the
attention and support they need.
Family Support Services
7. Level I Family Support: Universal – Services provided to, or routinely available to, all children
birth to five and their families; designed to support healthy development in children, parents,
and families.
8. Level II Family Support: Intermediary – Bridging services designed to facilitate strong family
relationships, family connectedness within neighborhoods, and access to community-based
health and educational services.
9. Level III Family Support: Intensive –Services designed to meet the needs of families with acute,
complex, or high level needs that would otherwise be at great risk of poor health,
developmental, and educational outcomes.
Health
10. Improving Access to Health Care – FTF services to improve: the number of children with
continuous health services and insurance, access to the health care system, and early
identification and appropriate support and care for children with special needs.
11. Prevention Services – FTF services to improve: health for all children, use of dental homes, early
identification of developmental and adaptive delays.

12. Health Professional Development – FTF strategies that address continuous professional
development for those who support the health of young children

Lead through the synergy of
statewide and local strategic
planning
Harness data and technology to
build infrastructure and support
data-based decision making and
accountability
Shift the brand and awareness of
early childhood in Arizona

Partner to build a system of early
childhood services and
information for families

Develop and fund high quality
services for children and families
that are necessary but not yet
available
Strengthen already existing high
quality services for children

If We:

Leadership capacity and
infrastructure to create and
sustain the high-quality service
system

Coordinated, high-quality service
system for young children

We Create:

Public Awareness
All Arizonans understand the
importance of the early years &
recognize the influence of early
childhood development, health &
education on Arizona’s economy &
quality of life and, as a result,
substantially support early childhood
development, health, and education
both politically and financially.

Early Childhood System
The early childhood system is high
quality, child & family centered,
coordinated, integrated &
comprehensive.

Family Support/Literacy
All families have the information,
services & supports they need to help
children achieve their fullest
potential.
Early Childhood Professional
Development
All child care/education & health
professionals are well prepared,
highly skilled and compensated
commensurate with their education
& experience.
Health
All children have access to high
quality preventive & continuous
health care to promote physical,
mental, oral and nutritional health.

Early Learning
All children have access to high
quality, culturally responsive early
care & education.

Resulting In:

All Arizona’s children are ready to
succeed in school and in life.

Achieving:

 Continuous improvement and innovation
throughout the early childhood system is
necessary to maximize benefits to children
and their families.
 Coordination and economies of scale are
necessary to optimize use of resources.
 Competitive grant processes based on state
and local strategic planning optimize
efficiency and effectiveness in service
provision.
 Synergy of local and statewide strategic
planning is necessary to maximize
innovation and flexibility as well as
consistency and scope.
 Strategic planners must have high-quality
information the needs of children and
families to make the best decisions in
resource allocation.
 Educational efforts to increase Arizonans’
knowledge of the importance of early
childhood leads to support for children’s
issues.
 Educational Efforts to increase
policymakers’ knowledge of the importance
of early childhood leads to support for
children‘s issues and maintenance of FTF
funding.

2. Assumptions

1.
2.

4. System Outcomes

Outcomes

 All Arizonans understand the importance of the early years &
recognize the influence of early childhood development, health &
education on Arizona’s economy & quality of life and, as a result,
substantially support early childhood development, health, and
education both politically and financially.

 The early childhood system is high quality, child & family centered,
coordinated, integrated & comprehensive.

 All children have access to high quality preventive & continuous
health care to promote physical, mental, oral and nutritional health.

 All child care/education & health professionals are well prepared,
highly skilled and compensated commensurate with their education
& experience.

 All families have the information, services & supports they need to
help children achieve their fullest potential.

 All children have access to high quality, culturally responsive early
care & education.

High quality early care and education contributes to the overall health and economic well-being of society.
The early childhood system is vast and complex; FTF has critical roles as a funder, change agent, and
collaborator. We are a Partner among partners with agencies and organizations that each has a key role in
providing services.

Overall Assumptions:

 FTF funds and implements high quality,
child and family centered, coordinated,
integrated early childhood services.
 FTF convenes partners, provides
leadership, and contributes funding for
efforts to increase public awareness of
and support.
 FTF convenes partners, provides
leadership, and contributes funding for
the conceptualization and
implementation of a high quality, child
and family centered, coordinated,
integrated, and comprehensive early
childhood system.
 FTF provides leadership in the evaluation
of the early childhood system and
collaborates with partners to utilize the
results to foster continuous
improvement.
 FTF provides leadership to increase the
quality, completeness and availability of
data for decision making.
 FTF secures, coordinates, and advocates
for resources required to develop and
sustain the early childhood system.

3. Activities

Context: FTF operates within the context of federal and state policies which guide and enable available services for children and families.

 Authorizing legislation – voter
approved initiative establishing:
dedicated funding source,
governance structure, and
delivery system.
 Additional state, federal,
philanthropic, private, and local
funding sources enabled for
early childhood services and
activities.
 Existing partners: Dedicated
and committed groups,
individuals, and organizations
working on behalf of children
and families.
 Strong government to
government relations with
Arizona’s tribes.
 Diverse Families committed to
the well-being of Arizona’s
children.
 Accurate and timely data on the
needs and assets of children
and families in local
communities.

1. Resources

Processes

First Things First
Logic Model—System Processes and
Outcomes

Age
Appropriate
Self-Regulation
Skills

Positive
Relationships
with Adults and
Peers

Emergent
Literacy and
Numeracy
Competencies

Age
Appropriate
Executive
Functioning

Confident and
Excited about
Learning

Child is Healthy

Indicator 1 - Overall Goal: All Arizona’s children are ready to succeed in school and in life.

Child’s physical,
social-emotional,
& cognitive needs
are met at home
(Indicator 10)

Child has secure
relationship
w/parent/primary
caregivers

More families with
basic needs met

Universal Family
Support Services**

Child’s
normative and
special health
needs met
(Indicators 5-9)

Child’s
educational
needs met
(Indicators 2-4)

Linkages to early
intervention &
specialized health
services

Child has safe,
secure, and
stimulating home
environment

More families with
sustainable
protective factors
and fewer risk
factors

More
parents/caregivers
develop resiliency,
coping skills,
parenting skills, and
knowledge of child
development

Intermediary Family
Support Services**

Intensive Family
Support Services**

Families access
preventative and
primary
healthcare**

Child is engaged in
individualized
stimulating learning
activities

Families have care
coordination for
high risk and
children w/special
needs**

Families are more
aware of Health
Insurance options

Supporting
healthcare
workforce
development**

Coordination, integration,
appropriate and timely
screening and referral to
needed services

Parent
collaboration

Shared vision &
understanding of
quality early
learning

Staff
commitment
to quality
improvement

High quality
learning
environments
for children

Appropriate
staff: child
ratio

Ongoing
professional
development
for teachers**

High-Quality
Curriculum

Early learning experience for children enhanced by Quality First

Quality First (QF) **

Existing early childcare education based on an
effective system of licensing**

Coordinated system planning and service provision**

Administration
& usage of child
assessment

Providers
attract & retain
high quality
staff

2.8 Scholarships for Staff –
T.E.A.C.H.

2.7 *Scholarships for
children – Child Care/PreK

2.6 Inclusion of Children
with Special Needs

2.5 *Mental Health
Consultation

2.4 *Child Care Health
Consultation

2.3 Assessment

2.2 Incentives

2.1 Coaching

2. Activities

4.8 Continuing education
scholarships offered to
program staff.

4.7 Scholarships are available
to families based on program
rating.

4.6 Increased staff awareness
of and preparedness for
including children with
identified developmental
needs.

4.5 Support for
responsiveness to children’s
mental health needs.

4.4 Supports offered in CCHC
consultation models based on
needs of the program.

4.3 Coaching intensity levels
determined to define level of
support.

4.2 Incentives support
overcoming barriers to
quality improvement.

4.1 Quality Improvement and
Rating plans developed to
support improved practice.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

5.8 Increased education and
knowledge of early care and
education of staff members.

5.7 Scholarships offset the
increased cost of high
quality education so that
quality care remains
accessible for all families.

5.6 Improved inclusion of
special needs children in
quality, appropriate early
education activities.

5.5 Increased teacher
sensitivity to and
preparedness for the
mental health needs of
children and improved
behavior management.

5.4 Improved health and
safety practices.

5.3 Star rating
demonstrates a
commitment to quality
early care and education.

5.2 Improved supply of
equipment and materials to
support quality.

5.1 Overall program quality
increased, enhancing ability
to meet children and family
needs.

5. Provider/Professional
Outcomes
Intermediate-term

Children demonstrate
school readiness at
kindergarten entry in the
developmental domains of
social-emotional, language
and literacy, cognitive, and
motor and physical.

6. Child Long-term
Outcomes

improvement and rating system such as Quality First; 3) Additional sources of funding beyond FTF will be required to ensure that every early care and education program applying for Quality First
can participate; 4) During the next two years as quality ratings are implemented a validation study on the QF Points Scale and Rating Scale will be required; 5) Child outcomes will be shown to be
directly linked to domains within the CLASS tool, specifically the instructional support domain.

Assumptions: 1) All early learning strategies must be interwoven in order to produce child outcomes; 2) Quality and access/affordability are inseparable and must be addressed in a quality

3.8 Financial assistance through
scholarships for staff at QF sites
pursuing higher education.

3.7 Financial assistance through
scholarships for children at QF
sites based on program size
and star rating.

3.6 Specialized services to
support inclusive practices for
children with developmental
needs.

3.5 Consultation on-site and
through telephone support for
staff to address children’s
social-emotional
developmental needs.

3.4 On-site and telephone
guidance and consultation,
offering staff training on health
and safety issues.

3.3 Valid and reliable
assessment tools for program
evaluation that focus on the
environment & adult-child
interactions.

3.2 Financial assistance to QF
providers to support
purchasing of materials,
equipment and professional
development.

3.1 Individualized guidance
and support through on-site
visits with targeted training and
technical assistance.

3. Key Outputs

funded quality, access and professional development strategies that form the early childhood system; 4) Arizona currently does not have a measure to determine readiness at kindergarten, though it is under discussion by a consortium of education agencies and leaders.

Context: 1) Other than the small number of nationally accredited programs, Arizona programs have not been assessed or held to quality standards; 2) Quality is being just beginning to be defined through Quality First; 3) FTF has developed linkages among and between all

Using nationally-developed
performance criteria,
Quality First helps
developing programs
improve, and provides an
important resource for
families.

voluntary Quality
Improvement and Rating
System, is designed to
strengthen our state’s
regulated early care and
education programs by
establishing a standard for
quality care, helping
providers meet that
standard, and sharing
information with the
community.

* Quality First, Arizona’s

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Early Learning - Quality First

2.5 Improves retention of
early care and education
professionals through
financial incentives linked to
increased education and
credentials.

2.4 Provides quality
continuing education and
training in community
settings to early care and
education staff.

2.3 Provides scholarships
for higher education and
credentialing to early care
and education staff.

2.2 Provides scholarships
for higher education and
credentialing to early care
and education staff.

2.1 Recruits new early care
and education professionals
by providing educational
opportunities in high school
and thereafter.

2. Activities

4.5 Increased compensation
for early care and education
professionals who achieve
higher levels of education
and credentials.

4.4 Increased number of
professionals participating
in community-based, highquality continuing
professional development.

4.3. Increased number of
professionals enrolled in
degree
granting/credentialing
programs.

4.2 Increased number of
professionals enrolled in
degree granting/
credentialing programs.

4.1 Increased number and
quality of candidates
entering early childhood
preparation programs and
workforce.

4. Short-term
Outcomes: Professional

5.5 Increased retention of
highly qualified and skilled
early care and education
professionals.

5.4 Increased number of
individuals enrolled in
continuing education and
improving their skills for
working with young
children.

5.3 Increased number of
individuals receiving
professional degrees and
the education and skills
these degrees provide.

5.2 Increased number of
individuals receiving
professional degrees and
the education and skills
these degrees provide.

5.1 Number and quality of
candidates with high-quality
early childhood preparation
is adequate for workforce
needs.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes: Professional

Through interaction with
highly qualified, skilled
professionals, children
demonstrate school
readiness at kindergarten
entry in the developmental
domains of socialemotional, language and
literacy, cognitive, and
motor and physical

6. Long-term
Outcomes: Child

Assumptions: 1) Providing access through financing and other supports to raise the educational qualifications of ECE staff will increase the quality of early care and education, eventually
producing more positive child outcomes; 2) There must be a unified system of supports to build an educated and skilled early childhood workforce, including accessible, affordable pre-service
training, higher education degree programs and continuing community-based professional development; 3) Higher education must be rewarded with commensurate compensation in order to
retain highly qualified professionals in early care and education.

3.5 Number of incentives
distributed to professionals.

3.4 Number of participating
professionals.

3.3 Number of early care
professionals receiving
scholarships.

3.2 Number of professionals
receiving T.E.A.C.H.
Scholarships.

3.1 Number of participants
recruited and enrolled in
coursework.

3. Key Outputs

ongoing professional development are minimal; 4) July 1, 2012 deadline for public school preschool and kindergarten teachers to become ECE certified is likely to pull highly qualified credentialed preschool teachers into kindergarten classes; 5) There is a lack of a comprehensive
ECE PD system in the state – no common core coursework, consistent articulation between higher education degree programs or clear pathways; 6) Arizona has no professional development registry system to keep track of staff qualifications, pre-service education and
credentials, and continuing in-service professional development.

Context: 1) The early care and education workforce is not universally viewed as a profession – both internally and externally; 2) Current low numbers of ECE workforce with a credential or degree is low (<30%); 3) Licensing requirements for educational qualifications and

1.5 Professional REWARD$

1.4 Community Based
Professional Development –
Early Childhood Education

1.3 Scholarships: NonTEACH

1.2 T.E.A.C.H. Professional
Scholarships

1.1 Recruitment into the
Field

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model: Early Learning
Professional Development

3.3 Number of children
without preschool
experience who are served
in summer transition
programs.

3.2 Support, training and
financial supports given to
FFN providers.

3.1 Increased number of
early care and education
and increased slots for
children in regulated care.

3. Key Outputs

4.3 Children without
preschool experience are
more familiar with
classroom routines and
families are better informed
about the transition to
kindergarten.

4.2 Improved quality of care
and education in
unregulated early care
settings.

4.1 Increased supply and
quality of early care and
education programs which
are state/tribal licensed or
certified.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

5.3 Children without
preschool experience are
more prepared for
kindergarten success, and
families are more involved
in the transition.

5.2 Children receive
improved quality of care
and education in
unregulated early care
settings.

5.1 Increased supply and
quality of early care and
education programs which
meet the needs of families
and children.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Children demonstrate
school readiness at
kindergarten entry in the
developmental domains of
social-emotional, language
and literacy, cognitive, and
motor and physical.

6. Long-term
Outcomes: Child

improvement and rating system such as Quality First; 3) Additional sources of funding beyond FTF will be required to ensure that every early care and education program applying for Quality First can
participate; 4) During the next two years as quality ratings are implemented a validation study on the QF Points Scale and Rating Scale will be required; 5) Child outcomes will be shown to be directly
linked to domains within the CLASS tool, specifically the instructional support domain.

Assumptions: 1) All early learning strategies must be interwoven in order to produce child outcomes; 2) Quality and access/affordability are inseparable and must be addressed in a quality

2.3 First time classroom
experiences for children
who are about to begin
kindergarten and
information to their
parents.

2.2 Supports provided to
family, friend and neighbor
(FFN) caregivers to improve
quality, including training
and financial resources.

2.1 Recruitment of new or
existing providers to
increase services for
children, including financial
and other supports for
planning, licensing or
certification and facility
renovation and
improvement.

2. Activities

funded quality, access and professional development strategies that form the early childhood system; 4) Arizona currently does not have a measure to determine readiness at kindergarten, though it is under discussion by a consortium of education agencies and leaders.

Context: 1) Other than the small number of nationally accredited programs, Arizona programs have not been assessed or held to quality standards; 2) Quality is being just beginning to be defined through Quality First; 3) FTF has developed linkages among and between all

1.3 Summer Transition to
Kindergarten

1.2 *Family, Friend &
Neighbor Care

1.1 Expansion: InfantToddler or Capital Expense

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model: Early Learning – Other
ECE Quality/Access

2.4 Provide families of every
newborn leaving the
hospital with the Arizona
Parent Kit, which includes 6
DVDs about good parenting
practices, a resource guide,
and a book to encourage
daily reading activities.

2.3 Provide families with
one postnatal home visit.
Provide screening and
referral resources and
services.

2.2 Provide advice and
information on child
development to families
through a free phone line
staffed by child
development specialists.

2.1 Parent outreach and
education via workshops
and resource distribution;
facilitate FTF branding,
earned & paid media
opportunities and
distribution.

2. Activities

4. Short-term
Outcomes

4.4 Families have culturally
responsive information on
educational resources and
community connections that
help them support healthy
development and school
readiness in their children.

4.3 Families have knowledge of
and access to information on
the quality and availability of
programs and services.

4.2 Families have a reliable and
readily available source of
support which helps them gain
greater knowledge of what
their child is experiencing
developmentally and how
parenting and early learning
opportunities can result in
positive outcomes.

4.1 Families receive high
quality, culturally responsive,
and relevant information on
the importance of the early
years, parenting, child
development, health, and early
education in a variety of
formats and from a variety of
sources.

Assumptions: All families need information and support to raise their children.

3.4 Number of parent kits
distributed.

3.3 Number of families
provided with a newborn
follow-up.

3.2 Number of calls received.

3.1 Amount of educational
and informational materials
distributed; number of
community awareness activities
undertaken; and number of
earned and paid media
distributed.

3. Key Outputs

Context: Federal/state policies that promote healthy family choices, and broad community-wide outreach efforts to support strong and healthy families.

1.4 Arizona Parent Kit

1.3 Newborn Follow-Up

1.2 Warmline

1.1 Parent Outreach,
Awareness & Media

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Level I Family Support: Universal

Increased number of
families appropriately
referred to family support
programs.

Increased number of
parents initiating referrals
for developmental
screenings & needed
services.

Increased percentage of
parents who believe
accessing information and
resources is a regular part
of raising young children,
and who feel comfortable
obtaining information and
services.

Increased percentage of
families who have greater
awareness of the value of
early childhood information
and supports.

Increased public awareness
and grassroots support of
the importance of early
childhood.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Children participate in early
learning opportunities at home
and in their communities during
the course of everyday
interactions and routines.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

2.5 Improve the
coordination of, and access
to, family support services
and programs.

2.4 Provide classes on
parenting, child
development, and problemsolving skills.

2.3 Provide materials,
awareness and outreach to
promote native language
and cultural acquisition for
the young children of Tribal
families.

2.2 Establish local resource
centers; provide families
with training, educational
opportunities, and
resources on how to
support healthy child
development.

2.1 Families experience
quality interactions with
pediatricians during wellchild visits that promote
everyday early language
and literacy activities;
provide books for
pediatricians to distribute
to families with young
children.

2. Activities

4. Short-term
Outcomes

4.5 Families have improved
ability to access the right
service at the right time.
Families know what services are
available, eligibility
requirements, what to expect
from services, and how and
when to access services.

4.4 Families have information
and supports on child
development and behavior.

4.3 Native children use and
value native language; are
proficient in English & native
language.

4.2 Families have greater access
to information, supports and
services to help with parenting.

4.1 Children and parents obtain
age-appropriate reading
materials; parents understand
the importance of daily
language and literacy activities.

Assumptions: All families need information and support to raise their children.

3.5 Number of families
served through family
support coordination.

3.4 Number of adults
participating in family
support trainings.

3.3 Number of adults with
young children receiving
support in native language
preservation.

3.2 Number of families
served by family resource
centers.

3.1 Number of participating
medical practices and
number of books
distributed.

3. Key Outputs

Context: Federal/state policies that promote healthy family choices, and broad community-wide outreach efforts to support strong and healthy families.

1.5 Family Support
Coordination

1.4 *Parent Education
Community Based Training

1.3 Native Language
Preservation

1.2 *Family Resource Center

1.1 Reach Out and Read

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Level II Family Support: Intermediary

Families develop increased
capacity to problem-solve
and seek out appropriate
resources when needed –
increasing family stability.

More families experience a
greater sense of community
connectedness and reduced
isolation.

Families read books with
their young children daily
and incorporate language
and literacy activities in
their daily routines and
interactions.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Children participate in early
learning opportunities at
home and in their
communities during the
course of everyday
interactions and routines.

Young children are supported
by strong and stable families
who have a good
understanding of a child’s
developmental needs.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

2.3 Provides voluntary inhome services for infants,
children and their families,
focusing on parenting skills,
early physical and social
development, literacy,
health and nutrition connects families to
resources to support their
child’s health and early
learning.

2.2 Assign multidisciplinary
teams, led by superior court
judges, to monitor case
plans and supervise
placement when a child 5 or
younger is involved with the
court system.

2.1 Distribute food boxes to
families in need.

2. Activities

4.3 Mothers receive timely
prenatal care.

3.3 Number of families
served.

Assumptions: All families need information and support to raise their children.

4.2 Improved case plan
management for children
involved with the court
system.

3.2 Number of children
served.

Parents learn and practice
sound parenting strategies
and skills to support
positive development and
early literacy skills in their
child.

4.1 Families have greater
ability to meet the basic
food needs of their family.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

3.1 Number of food boxes
distributed.

3. Key Outputs

Context: Federal/state policies that promote healthy family choices, and broad community-wide outreach efforts to support strong and healthy families.

1.3 *Home Visitation

1.2 Court Teams

1.1 Food Security

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Level III Family Support: Intensive

Families experience
improved stability and
ability to provide a healthy,
nurturing, safe home
environment for their
young children.

Families have a literacy-rich
home environment.

Parents are more
responsive to the
developmental needs of
their young child.

Positive birth outcomes for
child and mother.

More timely resolution of
problems necessitating
court involvement; reduced
recurrence of child abuse
and neglect.

Families have increased
food security.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Children have strong,
nurturing and positive
relationships with family
and peers.

Children develop ageappropriate language, social
emotional and selfregulatory capacities.

Improved well-being for
children at risk of or
experiencing an out-ofhome placement.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

2.4/2.5 Provides qualified
health professionals who
assist child care providers in
achieving high standards
related to health, safety and
behavioral health &
inclusion for the children in
their care.

2.3 Pregnant women,
children and child care
providers receive consistent
messages on oral health.

2.2 Families receive
assistance with applications
for health insurance.

2.1 Provides children and
their families with effective
care coordination; connects
them to appropriate health
care services.

2. Activities

4.5 Early Care providers
access mental health
consultation supports.

4.4 Early Care providers
access health consultation
supports.

4.3 Increased awareness of
oral health message.

4.2 Increased enrollment in
health insurance; increased
continuous coverage.

4.1 Parents and caregivers
are more aware of health
insurance and medical care
options; increased hiring
and use of care
coordinators in hospitals
and practices.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

5.5 More awareness of child
social and emotional
adaptation challenges in
child care environments;
consistent and appropriate
screening and referrals for
children.

5.4 Improved health related
practices in child care
settings.

5.3 Improved overall oral
health.

5.2 Improved access to
health care for children.

5.1 Improved coordination
of health care for all
children especially at- risk
children.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Children with health
problems, developmental
and behavioral delays are
identified earlier and
receive appropriate support
and care.

Children receive
appropriate access to the
health care system,
especially children with
special health/ behavioral
needs.

Improvement in the
number of children with
continuous medical, dental
health services & insurance.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

Assumptions: 1) Care coordination for at risk families prevents children from falling through the gaps in services; 2) Having health insurance improves access to health and dental care.

mental health consultant.

3.5 Number of early care
providers with access to a

3.4 Number of early care
providers with access to a
child care health consultant.

3.3 Increased awareness on
importance of oral health
for young children.

3.2 Number of families
receiving health insurance
enrollment support.

3.1 Number of children
receiving care coordination
services.

3. Key Outputs

Context: The limitations within the health care system to meet all of the needs and the changes that are being proposed within the health care system that will address some of these gaps are considered.

1.5 *Mental Health
Consultation

1.4 *Child Care Health
Consultation

Shared Strategies

1.3 Oral Health

1.2 Health Insurance
Enrollment

1.1 *Care Coordination/
Medical Home

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Improving Access to Health Care

2.6 Provides health education
focused on obesity prevention
to children, families and early
care and education
professionals.

2.5 Builds a coalition of health
education programs to
establish a comprehensive
health education system and
provide community-based
health trainings to young
children and their families.

4.6 Families and early care
providers have information and
supports on healthy eating,
activity, and obesity
prevention.

4.5 Increased access to
information and preventative
practices to a wider population
base.

4.4 Families and early care
providers have information and
supports on child health and
injury prevention.

4.3 Increased rates of
appropriate screening and
referrals for children.

4.2 Increased use of prenatal
care and needed supports for
healthy pregnancy and births.

4.1 Increased numbers of
children receiving oral health
screening; increased
knowledge about dental
homes.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

Assumptions: Early, consistent preventive care reduces long term health problems and maximizes health of children.

3.6 Number of children and
families receiving training
focused on healthy eating,
activity, and obesity
prevention.

3.5 Number of children and
families receiving health
prevention education.

3.4 Number of adults and early
care providers receiving
training on health and injury
prevention.

3.3 Number of children
screened for developmental
delays, vision, and hearing
screenings.

3.2 Number of clients
(pregnant/postnatal women)
receiving home visitation and
community based education

3.1 Number of children
receiving oral health screening
and fluoride varnishes applied;
number of participating adults
and early care providers
receiving training on oral
health.

3. Key Outputs

Context: There are existing health prevention activities occurring within the state, some require specific emphasis to meet the gaps in services for young children.

1.6 * Nutrition, Physical Activity
and Obesity Prevention

1.5 Comprehensive
Preventative Health Programs

1.4 Injury Prevention

2.4 Provides parents and child
care staff education on the
importance of health and injury
prevention.

2.3 Provides screening for
developmental and sensory
delays.

2.2 Provides outreach and
education to pregnant women
and their families; links
pregnant women to sources of
prenatal care.

1.2 Prenatal Outreach

1.3 Developmental and Sensory
Screening

2.1 Screening by dental
hygienists or other qualified
health professionals; fluoride
varnish application; distribution
of oral health information to
parents; referrals to dentists.

2. Activities

1.1 *Oral Health

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Health Prevention Services

5.6 Improved exercise, eating,
and wellness activities for
young children and families.

5.5 Increased knowledge
related to the need for
prevention services at parent
and community level.

5.4 Increased safe practices
related to injuries and health
care prevention.

5.3 Increased rates of
appropriate screening and
referrals for children.

5.2 Improved birth outcomes.

5.1 Increased numbers of
children engaged in regular oral
health care and receiving
timely oral health care from a
dental care home.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

6.6 Decrease in childhood
obesity, diabetes and other
related health issues.

6.5 Improved health for all
children.

6.4 Decreased number of
children who are injured –
intentionally or unintentionally.

6.3 Children with
developmental and adaptive
delays are identified earlier and
receive appropriate support
and care; reduced duplication
of services.

6.2 Improved health for all
children.

6.1 Increased availability and
usage of dental homes;
decreased dental caries in
young children.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

2.5 Provides specialized
training to health
professions serving children
5 and younger.

2.4 Mental health
professionals receive tuition
support and stipends for
additional education on
early childhood.

2.3 Offers professionals
financial incentives to work
in underserved
communities.

2.2 Provides consultation
and facilitates a selfassessment process for
physician practices to
provide preventive health
care for young children.

2.1 Provides scholarships
for master’s degrees for
speech and language
professionals working with
children five and younger,
with a requirement for
post-graduate service in
Arizona.

2. Activities

meet the need for change in systems.

4.5 Increased number of
health professionals who
are prepared to support
children 0-5.

4.4 Increased number of
mental health professionals
who are prepared to
support children 5 and
younger.

4.3 Increased number of
therapists qualified to serve
young children, especially
those focused on underserved communities.

4.2 Increased participation
of practices in continuing
education.

4.1 Increased number of
therapists qualified to serve
young children in the state.

4. Short-term
Outcomes

Increased awareness of the
needs of young children for
quality and consistent
health care services.

Increased use and
availability of medical
homes by young children
and their families.

Increased professional
workforce with specialized
knowledge of early
childhood needs.

5. Intermediate-term
Outcomes

Increased number of
medical and other health
care professionals to
provide services to children.

Specialized post graduate
workforce that is capable of
working with young
children and their families.

Improved health care
system that provides
quality, collaborative and
integration of health care
for children.

6. Long-term
Outcomes

Assumptions: 1) It cannot be assumed that all health care providers share knowledge about the needs of young children; 2) Continuing education and support of education can be targeted to

3.5 Number of specialized
health professionals in the
state.

3.4 Number of tuition
reimbursements
distributed.

3.3 Number of mental
health, OT, PT or ST
therapists receiving loan
forgiveness or stipends for
further education.

3.2 Increased number of
health care practices
participating in learning
collaboratives.

3.1 Number of graduate or
post graduate students
receiving continuing
education or scholarships.

3. Key Outputs

Context: Specialized knowledge is always changing and health related providers require ongoing updates to allow them to meet the needs of young children.

1.5 DHS Health Professional
Education and Outreach

1.4 Mental Health
Education and Credentials

1.3 Recruitment –
Stipends/Loan Forgiveness

1.2 Physician Education and
Outreach

1.1 Workforce Capacity –
Therapist Scholarships

1. Strategies

First Things First
Logic Model
Health Professional Development

Attachment 3: Strategies Funded at $2,000,000 or More in FY 20136

Strategy Area (Total Area
Investment)

Strategy

Number of
Regions
Investing

Strategy Funding
Allocation

Quality, Access,
Affordability
($75,006,289)

Quality First Child Care
Scholarships

27

$33,406,287

Quality, Access,
Affordability
($75,006,289)

Quality First

30

$22,276,103

Quality, Access,
Affordability
($75,006,289)

Pre-Kindergarten
Scholarships

15

$13,630,873

Quality, Access,
Affordability
($75,006,289)

Family, Friends, and
Neighbors

13

$3,054,000

Family Support
($40,329,370)

Home Visitation

25

$21,873,905

Family Support
($40,329,370)

Family Resource
Centers

7

$6,410,000

Family Support
($40,329,370)

Parent Education
Community Based
Training

19

$5,484,207

Health ($21,675,871)

Mental Health
Consultation

13

$4,414,250

Health ($21,675,871)

Oral Health

18

$3,881,972

Health ($21,675,871)

Care Coordination/
Medical Home

6

$3,445,555

29

$2,698,920

7

$2,037,827

Health ($21,675,871)
Health ($21,675,871)
All Areas

6

Child Care Health
Consultation
Nutrition/Obesity/
Physical Activity

$122,613,899

These 12 strategies represent 77 percent of the total FTF allocation for FY 2013.

Attachment 4: Alignment of Infrastructure Recommendations and Specific Evaluation Questions in
Each of the Panel Recommendations with First Things First’s Eight Guiding Evaluation Questions
First Things First Guiding Evaluation
Questions
1.

Are the capacity and level of
coordination of the early
childhood system changing and
are changes associated with
funding levels?

Panel Recommendations or Questions
(Report Sections II and III)

IN-1: Create a strong focus on program implementation
EV-1d. Are the levels of quality by Star level, as measured by the
environmental rating scales (ERS), Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS), and Quality First point scale, improving over time, and how do
Quality First levels of quality compare with quality of programs that do
not participate in Quality First?
EV-5b. Do the Family Resource Centers reach their intended families,
particularly those that are hard to reach and are service provision and
referral efforts coordinated among and between home visitation, family
resources center, and parent education programs?
EV-6b. Do the parent education grantees reach their intended families,
particularly those that are hard to reach, and are service provision and
referral efforts coordinated among and between home visitation, family
resources center, and parent education programs?
EV-8a. To what extent are First Things First health services achieving the
goal of connecting families with medical homes and increasing the
coordination of care?

2.

Are programs and strategies
being implemented fully and in
accordance with FTF’s standards
of practice?

IN-1: Create a strong focus on program implementation.
EV-1a. What is the fidelity of implementation of all components of
Quality First, Coaching/Quality Improvement Plan, Child Care Health
Consultation (CCHC), incentives, offset of licensing fees, instructional and
other supports, scholarships, and T.E.A.C.H.? What are the profiles of the
services received by providers, for example, what intensity of each
service is received?
EV-1b. What is the relation between Quality First components (CCHC,
Coaching/Quality Improvement Plan, incentives, offset of licensing fees,
instructional and other supports, scholarships, T.E.A.C.H.) and Quality
First Star levels?
EV-1c. How different are the levels of quality by Star level, as measured
by the environmental rating scales (ERS), Classroom Assessment Scoring
System (CLASS), and Quality First point scale, and do Quality First cut
scores measure meaningful differences between Star levels?
EV-3a. Are home visitation programs being implemented with fidelity to
the evidence-based models they were designed to follow?

First Things First Guiding Evaluation
Questions

Panel Recommendations or Questions
(Report Sections II and III)
EV-5a. What is implemented in each Family Resource Center (which may
be operating in the context of parent education and home visitation
programs), what is its intensity, and to what extent is implementation
consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-6a. What is implemented by each parent education grantee (which
may be operating in the context of Family Resource Centers and home
visitation programs), what is its intensity, and to what extent is
implementation consistent with First Things First standards of practice?
EV-7a. What services and combinations of health services are children
and families receiving?
EV-8b. What is implemented by each care coordination/medical home
grantee, what is its intensity, and to what extent is implementation
consistent with First Things First standards of practice?

3.

What services, and combinations
of services, are children receiving
and how does service receipt
relate to identified family and
child needs?

IN-1. Create a strong focus on program implementation.
IN-4. Create a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database that will
enable First Things First to systematically track key data on services
provided, children and families, and progress on the 10 School Readiness
Indicators at the state and regional levels.
EV-3b. Does each home visitation program reach the intended families
and hard-to-reach families?
EV-3c. What intensity of service (number of visits per year, duration of
visits) is delivered in each [home visiting] model and is intensity linked to
child and family needs?
EV-5c. Are the family resource services provided to families aligned with
the families’ needs?
EV-6c. Is the parent education that is provided to families aligned with
the families’ needs?
EV-8c. Do the care coordination/medical home grantees reach their
intended families, particularly those that are hard to reach?

4.

Are the 10 school readiness
indicators improving over time?

IN-4: Create a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database that will
enable First Things First to systematically track key data on services
provided, children and families, and progress on the 10 School Readiness
Indicators at the state and regional levels.
IN-6: Collaborate with the State Board of Education and the Arizona
Department of Education to create a kindergarten developmental

First Things First Guiding Evaluation
Questions

5.

What impact is FTF having on
children’s school readiness
indicator 1 – number and
percentage of children
demonstrating school readiness
at kindergarten entry in the
developmental domains of socialemotional, language and literacy,
cognitive, and motor and
physical?

Panel Recommendations or Questions
(Report Sections II and III)
inventory that will annually assess the school readiness and development
entering kindergartners across the state in the five readiness domains
identified by the National Education Goals Panel.
IN-4: Create a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database that will
enable First Things First to systematically track key data on services
provided, children and families, and progress on the 10 School Readiness
Indicators at the state and regional levels.
IN-6: Collaborate with the State Board of Education and the Arizona
Department of Education to create a kindergarten developmental
inventory that will annually assess the school readiness and development
entering kindergartners across the state in the five readiness domains
identified by the National Education Goals Panel.
EV-2a. How do child outcomes vary according to the Quality First Star
levels of quality instruction received?
EV-4a. Is the degree of fidelity of model implementation associated with
children’s school readiness outcomes?

6.

Is FTF affecting long-term
outcomes for children?

IN-1: Create a strong focus on program implementation.
IN-4: Create a comprehensive, longitudinal, integrated database that will
enable First Things First to systematically track key data on services
provided, children and families, and progress on the 10 School Readiness
Indicators at the state and regional levels.

7.

Are there FTF strategies,
programs, or models that are
particularly effective and how is
their effectiveness related to
costs?

EV-5d. What consistent Family Resource Center approaches, or models,
are emerging that reflect best practices?
EV-6d. What consistent parent education approaches, or models, are
emerging?
EV-8d. What consistent care coordination/medical home approaches, or
models, are emerging?

8.

Are there relationships among
Quality First ratings, improved
early childhood programs, and
children’s kindergarten
readiness?

EV-1d. Are the levels of quality by Star level, as measured by the
environmental rating scales (ERS), Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS), and Quality First point scale, improving over time, and how do
Quality First levels of quality compare with quality of programs that do
not participate in Quality First?
EV-2a. How do child outcomes vary according to the Quality First Star
levels of quality instruction received?

Attachment 5: Synopsis of Types of Evaluation Studies Referred to in the Panel’s Report
At various points in this report, reference is made to seven types of studies. This attachment
summarizes what the Panel means by each.
1. Family Case Studies
A small number of families are selected to provide insights into the experiences parents and children
have with key components of the First Things First early childhood system. Experienced interviewers
conduct in-depth interviews and track family experiences with, and perceptions of, First Things First
system components. Well-written case studies provide insights into details of particular situations in
personal terms that stakeholders can relate to. They can highlight individual-level benefits families
receive as well as any problems they have with the First Things First system. Case studies are useful for
illustrating findings as well as generating hypotheses to be examined in other studies. However, the
usefulness of case studies and interest in them can depend on the particular experiences of the selected
families and how articulate family members are in describing their experiences and perceptions.
2. Large-Scale Implementation/Process Studies
Implementation refers to the particular activities that put a defined program (or a set of practices, or an
intervention) into place. Levels of implementation affect the outcomes that programs are able to
achieve. Following a conceptual framework (logic model) describing the intended First Things First
activities to be studied, investigators create plans for interviewing program participants, observing
activities, and interactions among providers and participants, and tabulating service data in participating
communities. Learning details about the extent and how well the critical elements of First Things First
programs and strategies are implemented will enable the First Things First Board and stakeholders to
make informed decisions about First Things First programs, models, and strategies. The implementation
studies should collect data on factors that potentially influence implementation, including variables
associated with community factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the intervention itself, the
intervention’s delivery system, specific practices and processes, staffing, and the intervention’s support
system (e.g., training and technical assistance). Thus, comprehensive implementation studies will allow
First Things First to understand why particular child and family outcomes were observed and provide
insights into the steps that could be taken to improve implementation and, therefore, the outcomes.
Understanding the implementation process is also crucial for effectively replicating the services,
programs, and strategies.
3. Place-Based System-Level Process and Outcome Evaluations
Place-based studies begin with a conceptual framework (grounded in the First Things First logic models)
that encompasses (1) experiences of children and families, (2) system outcomes, and (3) costs. Data are
collected on all three facets, through surveys or administrative records in the integrated database,
which could be the same or overlapping with data collected for the large-scale implementation/ process
studies. Mapping software can be used to display variations in the three facets across Arizona counties,
Regional Partnership Councils, or other desired geographic boundaries. Progress can be measured using
statistical process control methods. These studies can incorporate standard recipient report measures in
the database. With an appropriate conceptual framework and strategy for implementing the design,
these studies can facilitate the emergence of new ways of doing things, encouraging collaborative

learning, improvement, and innovation. They can focus attention not just on what sites are doing but on
what it would take to become successful.
4. Descriptive Outcome Studies
Once decisions are made about the sample desired (universal statewide coverage, stratified
representative sample, selected geographic or programmatic areas, and so forth), data are collected on
the 10 school readiness indicators and other identified key measures at predetermined intervals (e.g.,
annually). This information can be used descriptively to look at trends over time, differences that occur
by such factors as geographic areas, variability in types and intensities of services, and family risk and
protective factors.
5. Quasi-Experimental Design Studies
The most common quasi-experimental design is the nonequivalent groups design in which samples of
children who are not participating in the intervention serve as a comparison group and evaluators
administer pre- and post-test measures to both groups. Investigators use various strategies, including
propensity-score matching, to try to match the two groups as closely as possible. Nevertheless, it is
unlikely that the two groups will be as comparable as if the children had been randomly assigned. A
major concern is selection bias, or the possibility that some factor is associated with group membership
and creates a bias so that the two groups are not really equivalent. Another quasi-experimental design
being increasingly used in early childhood studies is the regression-discontinuity (RD) design. In RD
designs, children are assigned to two groups on the basis of a cut-off score along some continuum, such
as age. After some discussion, the Panel did not recommend using this design, though First Things First
may want to consider it later, if relatively strong causal inferences are desired in the absence of an
experimental design. Another possible design is the proxy pretest design. It is usually implemented after
the intervention has taken place when it is too late to administer baseline pre-test measures. As a
substitute, the investigators could find some index to serve as a proxy for the baseline that could be
obtained after the fact, for example, using data from developmental screenings that program staff may
already conduct.
6. Planned-Variation Experimental Studies
The basic planned-variation experimental study (PVES) creates at least two conditions in which the
settings or sites of half the participants in a particular program or strategy (for example, Quality First
settings) receive an enhanced version (the “enhancement”) of the program or strategy. The other half
continues to receive current First Things First services. Settings or sites are randomly assigned (for
example, by using a lottery) to receive the enhancement or “business as usual,” creating the condition
for strong causal inferences about the impacts of the enhancement on school readiness indicators. Data
on the readiness indicators are collected on all children/families enrolled in the study sites. This is the
strongest design for answering the question about the impacts of First Things First services on children.
It allows causal inferences about the effects of the enhancement without denying the usual First Things
First services to participants who are assigned to the control group. It is particularly useful for First
Things First to use to test out ideas for enhanced services and collect rigorous evidence on their
effectiveness before implementing the enhancements more widely. It is important to include measures
of fidelity of implementation so that conclusions about impacts are made only through knowing that the
enhancement was actually delivered well. It will be important for First Things First to achieve full “buyin” from participating programs, grantees, and Councils, to ensure that they are willing to have the
control sites wait before implementing the enhancement so as to protect the integrity of the control
group.

7. Analysis of Existing Data in the Integrated Database
A number of the Panel’s recommendations require no new data collection, but make use of data that
will exist in the longitudinal, comprehensive, integrated database that First Things First would create in
following Recommendation IN-4. Although no new data collection may be required, interpretation and
use of information from the integrated database will require that data be of high quality and analyses
have appropriate methodological controls such as the study designs above.

4000 N Central Ave, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
602.771.5100