1. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Charles Smith, Ph.D. Executive Director, David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality Vice President of Research, Forum for Youth Investment May 9, 2013; 9:00-9:30 am

2. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Agenda Quality Improvement Systems 1.Building QIS 2.Site Level Process 3.System Accountabilities Local Models of Quality Improvement System Accountability Why Build Systems for Developmental Settings? APPENDIX

3. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Building QIS

4. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? l 2012-2013 Dissemination Policy Setting Organization Setting Point of Service Setting >21,125 Staff Estimate based on mean of 6.5 staff per site in YPQI Study Sample 85 Networks/ Systems >276,250 Child & Youth Estimate based on mean daily attendance of 85 youth per day in YPQI Study Sample >3250 Sites

5. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Building a QIS: Stages and tasks

6. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Site Level Continuous Improvement Process

7. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Instructional Practices “Quality” at the Point of Service Level Setting

8. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Four Continuous Improvement Practices Organization Level Setting (Plus 10 hours of TA/coaching for site managers to implement the four CI practices)

9. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Targeted Staff Trainings for Instructional Skills CI Practice #4

10. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? System Accountabilities

11. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? System Supports for CI Practices Policy: Eligibility, Targeting, Low/high stakes Training, TA & Coaching Evaluation External Raters, Program Evaluation

12. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? System Accountabilities: Higher Stakes Higher Stakes Accountabilities

13. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Lower Stakes Accountabilities Interpretive Community Team Self Assessment Review external scores Team Planning and Implementing Improvement planning Performance coaching Higher Stakes Accountabilities System Accountabilities: Lower Stakes

14. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Higher Stakes: System Needs and Challenges System Needs 1 –Standards beyond licensing regulations –Accountability policies based on assessment and monitoring –Program and practitioner outreach and support –Financing incentives specifically linked to compliance with quality standards Challenges 2 –Differences in structure and design (e.g. measures) –Lack of coordination across agencies and data systems –Policies lack clarity about goals, timing and expectations for improvement 1. National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center. (2009). Quality Rating Systems: Definition and Statewide Systems. Fairfax, VA: National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center. http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/4_NCCIC_QRIS.pdf 2. Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Halle, T., and Forry, N. (2009). Issues for the next decade of quality rating and improvement systems. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Education.

15. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Local Models of Quality Improvement System Accountability

16. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Requirements Policy Stakes LowerMiddleHigher Accountabilities Indianap Seattle / WA MI / OK 21 CCLC Kansas City UW VTOaklandAR QRIS Participation Mandatory x x Financial Incentives xxxxxx Published Scores xx CI Practices Indianap Seattle / WA MI / OK 21 CCLC Kansas City UW VTOaklandAR QRIS Self Assessment xxxxx optional x External Assessment xxxxxxx Planning with Data xxxxxxx Perf Feedback & Coaching xxxxx Training: Instruction Methods xxxxxxx

17. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Incentives/Punishments Policy StakesLowerMiddleHigher Incentive Structures Indiana p Seattle / WA MI / OK 21 CCLC Kansa s City UW VT Oaklan d AR QRIS Voluntary, emphasis on supports xxxx Required, emphasis on supports xxxx Required, participation monitored xxxx Management clarity (“know what to do”) xxxxxxx Information useful xxxxxxx Financial incentives xxxxxx Public ratings xx

18. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Sources of Data for Public Ratings Oakland –Participation records –Program Quality Assessment (PQA) –Stakeholder surveys –Academic records –http://publicprofit.net/Services/Evaluation/http://publicprofit.net/Services/Evaluation/ Arkansas QRIS –Program or Business Administration Scale (PAS or BAS) –Traveling Arkansas Professional Development Registry (TAPP) –Program Quality Assessment (PQA) –School-Age Care Environmental Rating Scale (SACERS) –Various other criteria –http://www.arbetterbeginnings.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/sagridswithdef.pdfhttp://www.arbetterbeginnings.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/sagridswithdef.pdf

19. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? YPQI Study “Best” Practices Requirements Accountabilities Participation Mandatory x Financial Incentives Published Scores CI Practices Self Assessment x External Assessment x Planning with Data x Perf Feedback & Coaching x Training: Instruction Methods x Incentives/Punishments Voluntary, emphasis on supports Required, emphasis on supports x Required, participation monitored x Management clarity (“know what to do”) x Information useful x Financial incentives Public ratings

20. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Prime Time Palm Beach County

21. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Evolution Piloted QIS elements with four providers in 2010 Confirmed what we suspected: expertise in content; opportunity to strengthen youth development Included all enrichment programs in the modified QIS Changed name of enrichment activities to “expanded learning opportunities” in 2012 to reflect new expectations Moving to greater alignment with the school day through the Common Core framework Moving to more concrete learning measures and youth outcomes

22. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Background Founded in 2000 Primary Areas of Service: Quality Improvement Professional Development Community Engagement and Supports Supported enrichment activities for nine years Belief that a variety of experiences is essential for positive youth development

23. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? QIS annual cycle

24. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Entry 12 months Introduction to system QA supported self- assessment Intermediate 12-24 months QA preparation of director for maintenance role and requirements Maintenance Ongoing Based on benchmark scores and director accomplishments QIS Level System Recognizes high quality programs and directors Provides flexible time expectations based on needs

25. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Why Build Systems for Developmental Settings? A Frame for Developmental Systems

26. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Frames Positive Youth Development –Substitution –Skill building Systems as… –Protective factors (Fragmentation = risk) –School reform (“Expanded Learning”) Reinventing Government / Social Sector –Regulating core processes (instead of inputs) –Building performance cultures

27. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Charles Smith, Ph.D. Executive Director, David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality Vice President of Research, Forum for Youth Investment charles@cypq.org http://cypq.org/ypqi

28. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? APPENDIX

29. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? High Stakes Examples

30. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Higher Stakes Models Oakland requires participation, scores are tied to funding, and reports go to the city government AR’s system is voluntary, but once in it, scores feed into 3 tier system that are used for incentive grants and published ratings for families Policy Stakes Higher Accountabilities OaklandAR QRIS Participation Mandatory x Financial Incentives xx Published Scores xx CI Practices OaklandAR QRIS Self Assessment optional x External Assessment xx Planning with Data xx Perf Feedback & Coaching xx Training: Instruction Methods xx

31. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) and Oakland Fund for Child and Youth (OCFY) http://publicprofit.net/Services/Evaluation/ OUSD and OCFY are funders Public Profit is the intermediary and evaluator System is voluntary for self assessment, required for external assessment and planning Process: –All sites get external assessments of 2 program offerings –All sites receive individualized “planning with data” type meetings with the evaluators, who go over their scores and work with them to create improvement plans –Reports of external assessments are also sent to city government –All sites have access to Methods trainings –Programs with low scores receive additional coaching Incentives: –Programs with extremely low scores (scale scores under 2) that don’t improve over the course of 2-3 years could lose their funding –No sites have lost funding almost no programs score that low

32. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Arkansas Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) http://www.arbetterbeginnings.com/ Arkansas State University serves as intermediary for system for school-age care programs System is voluntary Process: –A three-tiered rating system that the PQA scores feed into, but it is only one of multiple measures. –Components included in the ratings are: Administration Administrator/Staff Qualifications & Professional Development Learning Environment Environmental Assessment Child Health & Development Incentives: –Ratings are used to offer both incentive grants and published ratings for families to use to decide where to send their children –Incentive Grants are available upon meeting certification standards at each of the 3 levels At level 1 and level 2, it is renewable for a maximum of 9 years (not to exceed 6 years at either level 1 or level 2). At level 3, the Incentive Grant is available annually, as long as the facility continues to meet the standards. Incentive grant amounts are based on a combination of licensed capacities, current Level and the number of years spent at that level.

33. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Middle Stakes Examples

34. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Middle Stakes Models MI/OK require process to maintain funding, but focus on supports and coaching Kansas City has 3 tier incentive system based on completion of YPQI elements to get funding at the different levels VT has 5 tier recognition program based on various practices where programs get funding, public awareness, discounts, and funding opportunities Policy Stakes Middle Accountabilities MI / OK 21 CCLC Kansas City UW VT Participation Mandatory x Financial Incentives xxx Published Scores CI Practices MI / OK 21 CCLC Kansas City UW VT Self Assessment xxx External Assessment xxx Planning with Data xxx Perf Feedback & Coaching xx Training: Instruction Methods xxx

35. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Kansas City United Way http://www.unitedwaygkc.org/nonprofits/qualitymatters.html UW is the intermediary, partners with Francis Institute for coaching and University of Missouri, Kansas City for evaluation/external assessments System is voluntary Half the sites that participate are United Way funded programs, but United Way funds the YPQI process for all sites Process: –Have high fidelity to YPQI assess-plan-improve, with all sites doing assessments, planning and receiving coaching Incentives: –Have a 3 tier incentive system that is based on completion of the elements of the YPQI, and they receive $300, $500 and $750 accordingly –Example: Participation Level 3: $750 – Completion of: Conduct a fall team based PQA self-assessment which includes observation and team consensus and enter data into the Online Scores Reporter by [DATE]. Program Improvement Plan created and entered into Online Scores Reporter by [DATE]. 75% completion rate of goals set in Program Improvement Plan**by [DATE] Attend 7 different workforce training (1-4 site staff may attend each training and must stay for entire session) by [DATE]

36. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Michigan 21 st CCLC and Oklahoma 21 st CCLC http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6809- 39974--,00.htmlhttp://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6809- 39974--,00.html http://www.ok.gov/sde/21cclc Similarly structured systems, they are both funder and intermediary Participation is required since it is tied to funding Process: –Data from both the PQA and evaluation are incorporated into the QIS process –Coaches are key component, offering comprehensive services to select programs Incentives: –Focus is on implementation and improvement supports –Require that all sites complete full process in order to maintain good standing on grant –Scores are not used punitively, but can be used to target coaching services

37. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Vermont Center for Afterschool Excellence http://www.vermontafterschool.org/ http://dcf.vermont.gov/cdd/stars Are intermediary, they serve both 21 st CCLC and AHS/QRIS programs Both systems encourage use of the YPQI, but is voluntary Process: –Have a 5 tier star system for recognition of programs, based on practices in these areas: Compliance with state regulations Staff qualifications and training; Interaction with and overall support of children, families, and communities; How thoroughly providers assess what they do and plan for improvements; and The strength of the program’s operating policies and business practices. Incentives: –The benefits for the star system, tiered based on number of stars the program has earned: The Child Care Financial Assistance Program (CCFAP) pays a higher rate on behalf of families. Bonus payments for EACH level achieved: Public awareness of STARS participation if requested. Options include: listing on the STARS website, supply of STARS brochures, and a customized press release. The opportunity to apply for grants open only to programs that are in STARS or are nationally accredited Discount on purchases from a list of corporate sponsors.

38. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Lower Stakes Example Indianapolis Marion County Commission on Youth (MCCOY)

39. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Lower Stakes Models Main incentive is access all supports, learning community, flexibility and choice MCCOY is very low stakes, all parts are suggested but optional Raikes also offers funding to programs to subsidize participation Policy Stakes Lower Accountabilities Indianap Seattle / WA Participation Mandatory Financial Incentives x Published Scores CI Practices Indianap Seattle / WA Self Assessment xx External Assessment xx Planning with Data xx Perf Feedback & Coaching x Training: Instruction Methods xx

40. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Indianapolis Marion County Commission on Youth (MCCOY) http://www.mccoyouth.org/ MCCOY is intermediary Very, very low stakes--Participation is entirely voluntary Process –Sites do the full Assess-Plan-Improve sequence –Sites can do self and external assessment, usually only once a year, but could do more –No coaching or training in instructional coaching –Methods workshops are offered for all sites –Recruitment can be hard, but they focus on partnerships and Methods to get sites engaged –Programs choose to join cohorts (2-3 cohorts per year) –Programs can choose to participate multiple times but there is no emphasis on tracking year to year improvement. Incentives –Programs have access to supports and learning community, and a lot of flexibility in choosing how to improve

41. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Seattle & Washington State- Raikes Foundation and School’s Out Washington http://raikesfoundation.org/Secondary.aspx?file%3daboutmission http://www.schoolsoutwashington.org/index.htm Raikes Foundation is the funder Schools Out Washington is the intermediary, with other local supports Has funded 1-3 cohorts across the state since 2008 System is voluntary, programs apply Programs span funding and accountability streams Process –There is an intensive application process that comes with funding to programs to subsidize their participation and all of the supports are free –High level of fidelity to YPQI –Sites get less and less supports over a 3 year period…beyond that they can apply for funding to get a al carte services Incentives: –Participation comes with funding to programs to subsidize their participation and all of the supports are free

42. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? YPQI Evidence

43. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? CQI Systems: Cross-Level Roles Policy Setting Organization Setting Point of Service Setting …engages in continuous improvement practices …enacts continuous improvement practices …engages standards and supports …enact standards and supports Youth engage in instruction and build skills …enacts instructional practices SettingsActorsBehaviors Network Leaders Managers Staff Youth

44. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Management CI Skills YPQI Study Baseline

45. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? State of the Field 10% of staff were engaged in all CI practices 22% were not engaged in CI practices 68% were engaged in some practices Note: Profile of 3 exemplary clusters from an 6 cluster solution Staff CI Skills N=366, YPQI Study Baseline

46. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Staff Instructional Skills 3 N= 600 different youth workers and teachers Occurred For All Occurred For Some Did Not Occur Positive Youth Development N=166, 28% Staff Centered N=231, 39% Low Quality N=193, 33%

47. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? CQI Systems: Cross-Level Roles Policy Setting Organization Setting Point of Service Setting …engages in continuous improvement practices …enacts continuous improvement practices …engages standards and supports …enact standards and supports Youth engage in instruction and build skills …enacts instructional practices Settings ActorsBehaviors Network Leaders Managers Staff Youth ES =.98 ES =.52 ES =.55 ES =1.87

48. SYSTEM-BUILDING AND QUALITY: WHAT’S AT STAKE? Participant Satisfaction N=128 site managers, 178 staff from Atlanta, Baltimore, Chattanooga, Maryland, Nashville, Richmond, Vermont, Washington