Quality Rating & Improvement Systems Powerful Policy for Improving and Unifying Early Care and Education Anne Mitchell Early Childhood Policy Research & Oldham Innovative Research Boston, MA

A Guide for States and Communities Developing QRS Designed as a hands-on, practical resource Organized as a planning tool to use as States consider how to develop a new QRS or improve an existing one Outlines the common elements and State and community examples Anne – author of this as scribe for the whole NCCIC QRS team and our state partners. Available on the web – some copies available. Available at: http://www.unitedway.org/sb6/upload/StairStepstoQualityGuidebook_FINALforWEB.pdf

Financing QRIS Planning Administration Technical Assistance Designed to provide guidance on QRIS funding, including: Planning Administration Technical Assistance Financial Supports and Incentives for programs and practitioners Engagement & Outreach Louise – wrote this – and also worked with NCCIC and other states Available at: http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/handouts/Louise_Stoney_QRS_Financing_Paper.pdf

Early Care & Education is a Market-Driven System Providers offer services for a price Consumers choose and pay Tuition is the largest source of revenue YES, there is direct subsidy for Head Start and School Readiness programs, but most government funding for ECE – even in Massachusetts -- is portable tuition (e.g. subsidy follows the child to whatever provider is chosen.) So…even government funding for ECE is, by and large, market driven

EC&E is a Unique Market Sector (serves both public & private needs) ▪ Enables parents to work (private) ▪ Prepares children for school & life (public) ▪ Enhances productivity of educational system (public) ▪ Strengthens future workforce (public) But…ECE isn’t like other market-driven services…because it is a MERIT good…it meets an essential public needs as well as private needs.

Good Outcomes = Higher Standards Higher Standards = Higher Costs Higher Costs = Higher Prices When consumers pay most of the bill, the result is CONFLICT! So…the bottom line is that there is an inherent Tension in the ECE System. To meet the public good aspects of ECE we need high standards – and the state and federal governments are increasingly upping the ante But…the Public Good Aspect of ECE is vulnerable to market forces – When parents pay the push is to keep prices low… So what we have now is schizophrenic…High Standards for Govn’t funding but a push for more affordability (which means lower standards) from parents…and programs squeezed in the middle. But

QRIS is EC&E Market Intervention Quality Assurance – standards, assessment & monitoring Supply side interventions – program and practitioner supports (TA and PD) and financial incentives Demand side interventions – ratings, consumer education and financial incentives QRIS isn’t just about ratings…it is essentially a comprehensive market intervention. Remember – ECE is a market that needs intervention to make it work better A well-crafted and well-implemented QRIS can address the conflicts we described above…the tension between market demand for lower prices and the public demand for better outcomes for children. It can help structure the market by creating “product differentiation” and reinforce the merit good aspects of ECE Provide financial and technical support for providers to increase quality

16 States (incl DC) now have a Quality Rating System with multiple levels available throughout their State. (Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont) -- latest to go statewide are Illinois (2007 -- some concern if it has all the QRIS parts…might be more Tiered Reimbursement) and Indiana 2008 – also Louisiana So now 16 (17) states first was OK (1998)

States with QRIS

30+ states -- most recent are: Alaska – have money ($75K) in budget, began planning in Jan 2007, just finished January 2008 – plan field-test MA allocated funds in the 2007 state budget to develop a QRS ($250K) – now taking off (2008) Delaware and Idaho started their pilots in January 2007 Florida –there are 7 counties in FL that are piloting QRIS and the state drafted the quality assurance elements of a QRS. The “multi-county collaborative” is developing a common QRIS aligned with Sunshine State Stars based on their collective experience operating local QRS.

Only 5 states to go… Very fast moving trend - 10 years ago this map would have been blank!! First QRS in OK in 1998 (same year the OK PreK program went universal), then NC, then TN -- southern states led this. Spread by contact – infectious – in a good way > 80% of the nation is involved now. QRS not only infectious, this is what Malcolm Gladwell would call a “sticky concept” -- easy to grasp and remember – and use (policy tool that’s effective and useful) Less than 10 years for QRS, compared to 40+ for PreK

Early Learning Standards (Outcomes for Children) Standards for Practitioners for Programs Common ECE Standards Now a word about ECE systems – This is what you are going for…a system that has common standards---meaning standards for programs, for practitioners and outcomes for children. -- Legal/Regulatory Standards (child care licensing, prof licensing for teachers) -- Funding Standards (HS, QRS, local grant linked to ECRS, etc.) -- Voluntary Standards (Accreditation, Early Learning Guidelines) You are trying to develop a system that can be a unifying force. And if you can succeed in doing that….then your system will be sustainable..

A Standards-Based ECE System Design Legal/Regulatory Standards Funding Standards Voluntary Standards Quality Standards for Programs and Practitioners Programs: Technical Assistance & Support Practitioners: Professional Development Support/Infrastructure to Meet Standards Quality Early Care & Education System for Programs & Practitioners Monitoring & Accountability (to ensure compliance with standards) Engagement & Outreach (Selling the Vision) for Programs, Practitioners, & Consumers Engagement & Outreach This is our big picture of what an ECE system would look like from the perspective of Public Policy Use PA as an Example Standards – PA Keystone Stars (currently cross-walk with cc, HS, ELGs…are currently exploring way to apply to new Prek…is already a requirement for new ‘collaborative’ prek grant. Supports—There are six PA Regional Keys that develop and implement a regional quality improvement plan for professional development and technical assistance; encourage participation in Keystone STARS; and offer guidance through the self-study process; and provide professional development opportunities and funding. Monitoring – Regional Keys administer Keystone STARS standards FINANCIAL assistance – Regional Keys assist programs in accessing financial supports for STARS; PA has a host of funding streams linked to stars (show separate slide) Engagement and Outreach – Outreach campaigns led by Regional Keys, with leadership from state office for Programs, Practitioners, & Consumers On-going Financial Assistance (Linked to Meeting Standards)

QRIS = the Framework for the Early Care and Education System Quality Standards for programs (and practitioners) aligned to Early Learning Standards to meet /maintain standards Professional/Program Development Aligned with Early Learning Standards to ensure compliance with standards Monitoring & Accountability For consumers, programs practitioners Engagement & Outreach linked to meeting standards On-going Financial Assistance

The Five Common Elements of a QRIS Standards Accountability (assessment & monitoring) Program and practitioner outreach and support Financial incentives specifically linked to compliance with quality standards Family/consumer education QRIS has the five elements of the system design we just talked about. QRS can be thought of as a program accountability system – has standards, assessment, data reporting, and addresses the conditions necessary for success: financial and other supports. Source: Mitchell (2005.

Common Standards Categories ▪ Staff Qualifications & Professional Development ▪ Environment ▪ Curriculum and Learning Included in most QRIS and backed by research HANDOUTS All have Staff Quals &PD Nearly all use ERS somehow (not VT and MT) Curriculum and learning environment – common Ratios/group size – when regs are ‘bad’ on these Health and safety – Iowa Children with Special needs – New Hampshire All states have ELGs or ELS( Standards): Anything related to ELGs was counted in category “learning environment/curriculum” since most common way to align ELGs with QRS to require “staff have been trained on implementing ELGs” or “program uses an assessment of EL recommended by state” OH and PA – best examples (so far) of linking to ELS

Learn to learn

Common Standards Categories Research available but not as strong ▪ Family Engagement ▪ Leadership and Management Included in many QRIS Research available but not as strong HANDOUTS Family engagement – very common – some using Strengthening Families assessment tool (protective factors) Leadership-admin-mangt. -- fairly common – can include personnel policies, compensation policies, turnover, too. A POINT ABOUT STANDARDS – The criertia in each category must be “assessable” – thus the use of tools, ERS etc. If you can’t measure it, do’n put it in. AND must vary with levels of quality – if it’s a yes/no item, not a good candidate. That’s why licensing compliance is a ‘gate’ opener, not a quality variable.

National Accreditation and QRIS In all but 1 state QRIS, accreditation is: ▪ the highest rating (top level), or ▪ accreditation + extra criteria is top level, or ▪ accreditation is one way to reach the top level, or ▪ In points system, accreditation = points. HANDOUT By far the most common are: NAEYC, NAFCC, NAA QRS designers need a way to decide rationally which accreditations should be included -- not by political pressure OK’s criteria good ex.

Supply Side: Program and Practitioner Support Technical assistance Professional development Financial incentives HANDOUT – chart of existing initiatives in MA Many of these supports already exist, but they may not be linked to QRIS. States are increasingly linking TA, PD and financial incentives to QRIS—by requiring recipients of these supports to participate in QRIS (or by giving prioritized supports to folks who participate) and by requiring TA and PD providers to report on QRIS progress among their clients. A few states have mandatory, linked TA (CO, KS, who else?) and most have “responsive” TA (PA, OK, TN). PA’s process evaluation found that responsive TA was more effective and cost-efficient. TA and PD can be provided by a wide range of entities: CCR&Rs, colleges, non-profit or proprietary organizations etc. (name who is important in MA?.) ESSENTIAL that TA is distinct from assessment – for validity need a firewall between assessment/raters and support/TA providers Examples of Technical assistance: Quality improvement plans Mentoring and coaching Accreditation facilitation Professional development Training, workshops College courses leading to degrees, distance learning Financial incentives (see next slide)

professional

Supply Side: Financial Incentives Grants, bonuses and awards Scholarships Wage supplements Tax credits for ECE programs, practitioners and investors All linked to QRIS levels Refer to handout (chart prepared by Anne) Updating chart – to add new states and increased amounts in most states Source: Mitchell (2005)

Demand Side: Financial Incentives Tiered reimbursement rates (or other 3rd party tuition subsidy) Tax credits – higher, refundable state income tax credits for parents (DCTC) VERY important to provide financial incentives in WAYS THAT DO NOT RAISE PRICE TO FAMILIES Tiered rates are really bonuses on top of rates HELP low-income families/subsidized children with incentives like higher bonuses if program enrolls more subsidized children NOT higher rates Tax credit -- good to explore in MA – you have tax deduction (worth more to higher income taxpayers and nothing to those who don’t itemized e.g., lower income families

Consumer Engagement: a Demand-Side Strategy Symbols - establish a QRIS indicator (usually star) as a consumer guide Education and Outreach – ensure that consumers, funders, practitioners, the general public understand QRIS symbols and rating system Multi-faceted – communication in any forms; many messengers Affecting consumer behavior helps improve the system! Establish a quality rating indicator (symbol -- usually star) that families can use as a consumer guide Post the quality rating symbol on site Publicize ratings – on the web, brochures, via child care resource and referral agencies Educate consumers and the public Public awareness campaigns Press releases Informational brochures, Web sites, etc. Partnerships to get the word out Seek non-traditional opportunities for outreach (e.g. QRIS on tax form is education as well as $$)

Broad Participation is Key to Effective Demand All states include child care centers and family child care homes Most include school-age programs and Head Start Some QRIS include Pre-K in public schools None include unregulated family, friend, and neighbor care (yet) High participation (among the many types of programs parents use) is key to success! Public schools are included in those states that already regulate/license programs in public schools – this will be challenge in MA States now expanding to include: Nursery schools, private preschools Other programs that are not regulated NOT “FFN” because that’s not a market, it’s chosen based on family relationships Seeing this as the ‘market intervention’ it is FFN can be involved in the supports – good practice

Typical QRIS Standards Structure Center-based Standards Home-based Standards Qualifications Curriculum & Learning Infant-toddler Preschool School-age Management Standards address all settings – centers, schools and homes Same major categories (qualifications, curriculum, management) Different specifics – criteria related to AGE of child and setting (home-based different from centers)

Do QRIS work? Yes! Quality is improving Better child outcomes in higher quality centers (NC) Evaluations in NC, OK, PA and TN Researchers in Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Carolina have validated that the QRIS in their respective states measures quality accurately and with meaningful distinctions among levels. Oklahoma, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have conducted evaluations of their systems that demonstrate overall quality improvement and better child outcomes related to reading and math in school. Evaluation results North Carolina researchers studied child care centers participating in Smart Start, the early childhood initiative in which the state’s Star rating system is embedded. The primary goal of Smart Start is to ensure that all children enter school healthy and prepared to succeed. Preschool children who attended higher quality centers scored significantly higher on measures of skills and abilities deemed important for success in kindergarten than children from lower-quality centers (Bryant, et al., 2003). In Pennsylvania, Keystone Stars has reversed the trend of declining quality in only three years (Barnard, et al, 2006). Prior to establishing the QRIS, child care quality was declining across the state according to average scores on a widely used program quality measure, the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS). The average ECERS score declined from 4.5 in 1996 to 3.9 in 2002. Keystone Stars, began in 2002 and went statewide in 2003; by 2006 its overall participation rate was 70% of centers. The evaluation of Keystone Stars found the average scores in 2006 for centers not participating in Stars was the same as the state average before Stars (3.9). The average scores for programs participating in Stars rose significantly; programs at the beginning level Start with Stars scored 4.1 and those at the top (Star 4) scored 5.4.

Trends & Implications It’s a SYSTEM! QRIS is: ▪ an accountability system ▪ a framework to unify sectors of ECE system ▪ a finance strategy that addresses market failures a fast growing trend It’s a SYSTEM! QRS is a program accountability system – has standards, assessment, data reporting, and addresses the conditions necessary: financial and other supports REVISIONS Simplicity Key indicators – can a dozen elements predict compliance with the hundreds of items in state’s licensing standards? Yes, Rick Fiene’s work (and another Gladwell idea – in Blink story of Cook County Hospital – collect less (a few critical items), get better at diagnosis Can 16 items predict with 90%+ accuracy the overall score on the ECERS? Yes, Cassidy and colleagues (UNC-Greensboro) How often do observational assessment need to be done? Are there ‘structural’ indicators (more easily collected) that predict process/overall quality? (Ann Witte’s work in FL and CCResearchP’ship in WI)

Lessons Learned ▪ Make it dynamic ▪ Align with child outcomes ▪ Make it simple ▪ Make it dynamic ▪ Align with child outcomes ▪ Start when there’s funding Make it simple - older QRIS are being revised, for simplicity & cost-effectiveness. ▪ Make it dynamic – QRIS standards can change, based on new knowledge. ▪ Align with child outcomes – QRIS can effectively incorporate child assessments. ▪ Align QRIS Standards and Finance – programs need funding to succeed; funding with standards produces results. Do NOT launch a QRIS without financial supports in place!

Developing a MA Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS): Proposed Process Regional Office Staff EEC Commissioner and Key Staff Oversee process and consulting team EEC Parent Advisory Committee EEC Staff QRIS Team: Define the parameters of the MA QRIS development Assist in identifying assets that can be mobilized in developing the QRIS system Provide ongoing support and input to the Work Group on QRIS development EEC QRIS Working Group Subgroup of Advisory Committee with addition of key stakeholders Review information about existing QRIS systems Review information about Massachusetts assets, capacity, and unique conditions Identify questions for EEC staff and others to contribute to discussion Develop draft recommendations around the key components and questions Communicate recommendations to and receive feedback from Steering Committee EEC Advisory Committee Communicate draft recommendations to key constituencies and solicit feedback; finalize and present to Commissioner. Key Constituencies Review draft recommendations and provide feedback This is the process we’ve begun for creating a set of QRIS recommendations in Massachusetts. We’ve tried to incorporate the key factors that make QRIS systems successful: having stakeholder involvement and support, building on and aligning pieces of the system already in place and working well, and in developing program level interventions, we’ll focus on what’s best for children as always. Commissioner: Review/Amend recommendations and present to Board of Early Education and Care

So, what do you all think about this QRIS?