Minnesota Quality Rating and Improvement System Scaling Options: Presentation to Early Childhood Committee Anne Mitchell Louise Stoney MN Work Group February 16, 2010

Agenda  Goal & Process  Guiding Principles  3 QRIS Options  Financial Worksheets  Design Elements & Trade-offs  Existing Funding

Goal & Process  Goal: Provide Early Childhood Caucus with financial models to be used to determine costs of implementing a statewide QRIS  Process: National experts with QRIS and finance knowledge, supported by local work group providing Minnesota-specific information and context

Guiding Principles 1. Outcome focus: Improve children’s school readiness. 2. Empower parents 3. Use the research 4. Value cultural relevance 5. Increase quality 6. Link and leverage 7. Dynamic and responsive

Design Elements & Trade-offs  Quality Assurance  Data System  Supports for Improvement  Professional development for practitioners  Technical assistance for programs  Facility improvements  Incentives  Program  Practitioners  Consumers/parents  Communications/marketing/outreach  Evaluation

3 QRIS Options

Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model  Quality assurance - annual onsite observations of every program  Supports  No professional development, facilities improvement, or practitioner incentives within QRIS  Directive technical assistance  Average quality grants of $2,400/program  Incentives  Pre-K Allowances  Explicit focus on school readiness

Option 1: Parent Aware Pilot Model  Pros  Focused on school readiness  Builds on pilot infrastructure and momentum  Programs receive quality improvement reports  Strong evaluation of outcomes  Parent-focused  Focus on supporting culturally-specific providers  Cons  Expensive quality assurance  Pre-K Allowances were not renewed  Not yet validated (in process)

Option 2: North Carolina Model  Quality assurance – streamlined standards  Supports  Builds on the state’s very strong existing professional development and technical assistance infrastructure  Responsive TA  Facilities improvement funds  Incentives  Wage subsidies for providers  Tiered reimbursement linked to ratings  100% participation – linked to licensing

Option 2: North Carolina Model  Pros  Streamlines cost by embedding QRIS in overall ECE system  Cons  Licensing-based system would not automatically include school-based programs in Minnesota  Significant shift from Parent Aware pilot model  Responsive technical assistance  Shared monitoring  Provider and practitioner funding linked to QRIS  Minnesota lacks North Carolina’s existing ECE resources for technical assistance and professional development

Option 3: Maine Model  Quality assurance – provider-directed with desk monitoring and online provider handbook  Supports  Responsive technical assistance through existing providers  Strong existing professional development system  Tax credits for facility improvements  Incentives  Quality bonuses to providers based on ratings

Option 3: Maine Model  Pros  Least expensive  Least arduous for providers  Like Parent Aware, QRIS is linked to professional development registry  Cons  Embedded in state’s professional development system, which is much stronger than what exists in Minnesota  Requires stronger evaluation component to validated connection between ratings and school readiness

Next Steps