quality initiatives and qris peer learning group: session 2 · recruiting and retaining providers...

Recruiting and Retaining Providers in Quality Improvement Systems and Supportive MonitoringJuly 25, 20172:00 – 3:30

National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance 1

Quality Initiatives and QRIS Peer Learning Group: Session 4

Welcome – PLG Faculty


Today’s Facilitators

Peggy Ball Char GoodreauZelda Boyd

Agenda

Welcome Reflections on In-Person Meeting Recruiting and Retaining Providers Georgia Team Presentation

Supportive Monitoring Oregon Team Presentation

Session 5 preparation Closing Comments


Session 3: Touching Base

Follow-up on In-Person Meeting


Recruiting & Retaining Providers


Program Supports: Recruitment and Outreach

Intentional focus on recruitment Outreach staff Targeted general technical assistance

One-time incentives or supports Orientations and introductory trainings

For more information see QRIS Resource Guide: Chapter 6 https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?do=section&sid=5


https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?do=section&sid=5

Retaining Program Participation

ResourcesTechnical assistance & coachingProfessional development & trainingFinancial incentives Exclusive access to program & servicesProvider feedback and input




IMPLEMENTING A TQRIS: RECRUITMENT and RETENTION

EFFORTS in GEORGIA CHILD CARE RESOURCE& REFERRAL

Tender YearsLearningCenter #8 Valdosta, GA

2 STARS,Quality Rated!! “Receiving 2 STARS in Quality Rated was like teaching a child how to swim; it takes

teamwork. Together as a team, (staff, students, and parents) we conquered the task set before us. Through this experience, we not only learned new strategies to educate andchallenge young minds, we learned that quality requires education as well as giving love and affection. We are grateful for the hours of hard work and training provided to our center by our local CCR&R TACs. Thank you for allowing us to become bettereducators for our future generations.” Jennifer McGuire and Staff

Quality of Georgia’s Infant/Toddler Classrooms

QR/CAPS 2020 Policy Change for a stronger component of the early childhood education system.

In December 2016, the DECALAdvisory Committee adopted the following:

Quality Rated eligible providers must be star rated by 12/31/2020 in order to continue to receive Child Care and Parent Services (CAPS) funding.

How will Georgia meet the 2020 deadline?• Targeted provider outreach and support

o 57 non-participating providers care for 8% of all CAPS recipientso 140 participating but not yet rated providers care for 21% of all CAPS recipientso By focusing DECAL efforts on those 197 programs, CAPS recipients in Quality

Rated care would increase from 25% to 55%.

• Targeted family outreach and supporto 46% of CAPS Recipients are served in 5 large metro counties (Fulton, DeKalb,

Clayton, Gwinnett, and Cobb)o Another 15% are served in 4 population centers statewide (Bibb, Richmond,

Chatham, Muscogee).

• Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant one year no cost extension through

12/31/2018

• Creation of the statewide Family Support unit within the CAPS program

• Creation of a waiver system for extreme cases of hardship, for both families and providers

How does child care qualityimprove in Quality Rated?• Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) agencies

provide the improvement resources to child care providers.• CCR&R agencies are contracted by DECAL to have a

presence in every county in Georgia• Our sole goal is to increase the availability of Quality Rated

child care and early learning.• We employ over 80 highly trained technical assistance

providers and coaches to provide hundreds of hours of free coaching and Technical Assistance (TA) to child care programs working toward their Quality Rated star rating.

• All training and resources provided by the CCR&Rs are 100% free to child care programs in their region.

Quality Rated brings new financial investment into young children in our communities.

• Free onsite technical assistance• Free assistance with the online portfolio• Free professional development• Scholarships for post-secondary

education with salary bonus incentives• $250 welcome package and $1000-1800

materials and equipment mini-grant• $5000 materials bonus package and cash

bonuses for program staff earning 3 stars• Benefit of a statewide marketing

campaign• Average $14,230.32/year in CAPS

Ongoing Tiered Bonus

• State department dedicated to positive child outcomes and overall management of a TQRIS

• Data collection and research to support current quality status and need for change

• State level administration and legislative support

• Sufficient funding to initiate and sustain a TQRIS• CCR&R agencies or other TA contractor

with: An effective TA modelProven infrastructure to hire/manage well qualified TAstaff Ability to collect and analyze dataAbility to provide ongoing evaluation and recommendation toward system refinement Aggressive community awareness campaign

CHILD CARE RESOURCE& REFERRAL

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS toSuccessful Implementation

Ware

JeffersonBurke

Clinch

Hall

TreutlenLaurensMontgomery

Terrell Lee

ClayEarly

Wayne

Brantley Glynn

Camden

Worth

Floyd

Coffee

Charlton

Bulloch

Evans

FultonClayton

Screven

Liberty

Emanuel

Decatur

Long

Harris

Dodge

Troup

Bryan

Tift

Grady

Carroll

Jones

Chatham

PolkOglethorpe

Wilkes

Webster Sumter

BrooksThomas

Colquitt

Wheeler

Telfair

Ben Hill

Irwin

Bartow

Paulding Cobb

Douglas

WalkerWhitfield

Chattooga

Tattnall

Dooly

Gilmer

Elbert

Talbot

Appling

Lowndes Echols

Chattahoochee

Stewart

Jasper

BerrienMitchell

Rabun

McIntosh

Hart

Coweta

MaconSchley

Taylor

Fannin

Murray

WashingtonWilkinson

Baker

GreeneTaliaferro McDuffie

WarrenHancock Richmond

Pierce

UnionTowns

Henry

Bibb

Wilcox

Crisp

Turner

Lamar Monroe

Upson

Marion

Heard

Meriwether Pike

Twiggs

Gordon

Gwinnett

Putnam

Jenkins

Walton

Cherokee Forsyth

Morgan

Miller

Bacon

Jackson

Quitman

Randolph

Cook

DawsonLumpkin White

Banks

Johnson

Atkinson

Butts

Newton

DeKalb

Madison

Calhoun Dougherty

Franklin

Haralson

Baldwin

Pickens

Toombs

EffinghamHouston

Crawford

Pulaski

Dade

Lincoln

Jeff Davis

Columbia

Candler

Lanier

Fayette

Seminole

Peach

Habersham Stephens

Clarke

Oconee

Bleckley

Spalding

Barrow

Muscogee

Catoosa

Glascock

Rockdale

Quality Rated Facilities (state counts)

Georgia County% Participating

0% (5)1% - 25% (4)26% - 50% (53)51% - 75% (68)76% - 99% (19)100% (10)75% or more Rated (4)

Early EducationEmpowermentZones (E3Z)

Quality Rated Facilities (state counts)

Quality Rating1 Star (478)2 Star (588)3 Star (188)

Rated Facilities & County Participation Rates

April 3, 2017

CCR&R, Region 4: 300 total programsrated since Jan 2012

FY 2016/2017 Quality Ratings

Total Successful Ratings thisFiscal Year: 65

0 Stars: 21 Star: 82 Stars: 433 Stars: 14

RECRUITMENTTargeted child care provider

groups for initial outreach:

• ARRAAccreditation Project - current caseload for established relationships

• Participants with unfinished applications• High number vacancies• Registered in DECAL’s professional development system

with specific training experience

• Regularly update program information in DECAL’s online provider database, KOALA

• Receiving federal subsidy dollars, CAPS• Franchises, Head Start, Montessori, Department of

Defense, YMCA Primetime

KEY MESSAGES• Opportunity to increase quality of

care• Star ratings of 1, 2 or 3 stars, indicate

a higher quality program

• Voluntary participation• Free assessments, onsite T/TA, $$

incentives, tiered reimbursement• Increased CAPS $ with each star• Vacancy reduction• Confident parents• Ease of system navigation

METHODS of Outreach

Monthly and quarterly recruitment bl i tzes consisting of…

• E-mails• Newsletters• Cold calls• Drive-bys• Meetings• Community Events• Presentations• Social media• Give-aways

Now being seen across Georgia ...

SAPORTAREPORTValued voices share insights about Atlanta and beyond

GUEST COLUMN

Quality Rated Child Care is great for children - and benefits our entire stateAugu st 7, 20 16, 9:34 pm I OCommem s

Sh are this :

r1 Facebook €!'!) Twiner 1mLinkedln0 (:$ Reddit a Pocke[ t Tumb lr G • Google liiiii Email < More

By Guest Columnist MILTON J. LITTLE, Jr., president and chief executive officer of the United Way of Greater Atlanta

Like many ot her fathers, a l i i have ever wanted is the reassurance that my children - and now my three grandchildren - are happy.healthy and on track for a successfu l futu re.

Today. many families seeking to supplement the care they are providing to their child ren at home withdevelopmental expertise look at a va riety of child care options. The research shows that beginning at

OuaJrty Rated Child Care IS a tool that rates Georgia programs to help you make the choice that's rigtt for you and your child -without the mystery Visit QualityRated.org

"Georgia Early Education Alliance for Ready Students offers parents online childcare options"

EFFORTS of Outreach• Quality Rated recruitment/information flyers for providers• Targeted scripted calls to child care providers• Weekly recruitment phone calls required from CCR&R staff• Monthly training flyers spotlighting rated provider success stories• Rated provider testimonials• Community partner campaign• Empowerment Zone (local E3Z, Birth to Eight) meetings• Recruitment events

Super Saturday trainings (credit bearing, lunch, Q&A, application assistance)Small group director/owner Q&AQuality Rated dinner meetings (Chat & Chew) via post-secondary institutions

• Contracted trainer support• TAcohort models• MailChimp and social media• Refer a Friend and get free training!

RETENTION:Six Guiding Principles of Technical Assistance

• Dynamic• Relational• Individualized• Responsive• Evidence/Research Based• Strengths-based

Improvement

Assessment

QualityRated Tool

Strategies for Retention• Individualized approach that builds relationship

• Lead TAC and Onsite TAC approach requiring consistent internal communication and documentation with regular monitoring by leadership

• Daily communication – team approach!

• TAC mentor relationships and resource-hub meetings

• Director control

• Customized TA; no “cookie-cutter” POIs!• Targeted portfolio submission and 6 months

assessment• Additional time in TA for larger programs and

slower moving programs

Portfolio

Star Ra3ng

Classroom Assessment

Attributes of Successful Leaders• Establish an ultimate goal with staff input, to rate• Invest in quality improvements with time, money and resources• Work well with assistant directors• Proactive in affecting change• Understand teamwork utilizing the director, program staff and

CCR&R staff• Knowledge of ERS tools• Understand the assigned TAC evaluates without judgment• Strive to implement the goal plan• Spend time in classrooms• Hold program staff accountable and reward successes• Host regular staff meetings• Review portfolio score, ERS Summary and assessor comments

Monitoring


Quality Assurance and Monitoring Objectively assessing program quality and

assigning quality levels

Using data to track program progress and children’s participation by quality level

Conducting classroom assessments

Evaluating supports for effectiveness

External reviewing and revising of standards and levels


Trends in Quality Assurance and Monitoring Linkages with licensing

Differential monitoring

Coordinated monitoring

Moving from to ‘rating’ to ‘recognition’

Readiness tools or assistance

Increased reliance on data systems

Careful consideration of efficiencies Staffing, number of criteria and

assessments, reporting, automation




Key Consideration Even a QRIS that

appears simple can become complex and expensive to administer unless steps are taken to streamline documentation policies and onsite observation expectations for QRIS standards




Using a Portfolio Approach within a QRIS

Tom [email protected]

Robyn Lopez [email protected]

Center on Early LearningThe Research Institute Western Oregon Universityhttp://triwou.org/projects/qris

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://triwou.org/projects/qris

Guiding Principle

Supporting programs

Rating programs

Foundations for Oregon's

QRIS Standards

Licensing Regulations

Quality Indicators

Oregon Programs of Quality

Oregon Registry

QRIS ComponentsBuildin

g block with 5 Tiers

5 Domai

ns

2 Versions of Materi

als

Quality ImprovementQuality

Improvement Plans

Self-Assessm

ents

Supports

Quality RatingPortfolio

System of Documentation

Incentives

Domains and Standards• 12 standards

Children’s Learning and

Development

• 6 StandardsHealth and Safety

• 4 StandardsFamily Partnerships

• 5 StandardsPersonnel Qualifications

• 6 StandardsAdministration and Business

Practices

•Overall categories of quality•5 TotalDomains•Program standards, organized by domain•33 TotalStandards•Star levels of standards•Usually 3 per standard•Some standards only have 1 or 2 indicatorsIndicators•Found in portfolio only•Measurable structural indicators that standard is present in programEvidence

Standards Structure

Portfolio System Balance of evidence

• Data

• Documentation

• Report

• Observation

Reviewed by experts

Example Standard, Indicator and Evidence

Portfolio Review Team MembersExperts

Trained

Reliable minimum of 80%

Inter-rater reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.87)

Rigorous Review Process

Completeness and prescore

Assigned to review team Reviewer 1

Reviewer 2DiscussionReviewer 3

Feedback to programs

Compiled scores on every criteria, indicator and standard with evidence supplied

Specific feedback on why standards were not met

Resubmission process

Continuous Quality Improvement

Looks at QRIS process

Does QRIS lead to quality improvement

Which parts of the process are vital, which

can we streamline?

Cost effective

Study of difference in quality

between each star level

Uses CLASS

Process Evaluation Validation Study

Number of children In QRIS

Issues with Initial Portfolio

Providers feel it is time consuming

Providers feel it is difficult

Providers showing “first draft” fear

Changes in the ProcessTraining revamped with emphasis on the process, not the outcome

Support added to the portfolio to understand indicators and evidence

New emphasis on initial portfolio as rough draft

Associated Costs: Portfolio Based QRIS“Spending to focus on improvement and not rating”

Initial Program Training

TA on Portfolio Preparation

Portfolio Review

Continued TA for improvement

Associated costs: Observer Based QRIS

Observer Based

Initial Rater Training

Maintenance of Reliability

Travel

Observation time

Report preparation

Portfolios Are Perceived as Meaningful for Demonstrating Quality

ELDPs believe that the domain of Children’s Learning and Development (93%) is the most meaningful domain to demonstrate the quality of their programs. N= 237

35%

33%

35%

41%

19%

36%

43%

48%

45%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Administration and BusinessPractices

Personnel Qualifications

Family Partnerships

Health and Safety

Children’s Learning and Development

Meaningful Domains to Demonstrate Quality

SomewhatmeaningfulVerymeaningful

91%

86%

83%

76%

71%

Programs Perception94% would encourage other childcare providers and facilities to complete the process.

• 57% indicated definitely encourage others designation

• 39% percent indicated might encourage others

• 6% indicated they would probably not encourage others.

Challenges and Success Getting initial buy-in

Fear of quality of portfolio

Focusing on documentation vs. CQI

Resubmissions have been done quickly and are streamlined

Comments & Questions


Reflection Activity Recruitment & Retention

What system and strategies do we have in place to support recruitment and retention? Can we describe them?

Does it include?• Data Collection• Outreach activities• Incentives

Monitoring What monitoring activities are in place or planned?

• Is this approach effective, affordable, sustainable?


Resources McDonald, D. (2007). Elevating the field: Using NAEYC early childhood program

accreditation to support and reach higher quality in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/policy/state/NAEYCpubpolReport.pdf

National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement (NCCCQI). (2015). Quality Rating and Improvement System Program Guides. Washington, DC: Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://occqrisguide.icfwebservices.com/files/QRIS_Program_Guides.pdf

Swanson, K. (2013). A Practical Outreach Guide for a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). Boston, MA: BUILD Initiative, QRIS National Learning Network. http://www.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/A%20Practical%20Outreach%20Guide%20for%20a%20QRIS%20(Clickable).pdf

Landing pad: http://qrisnetwork.org/lt/2017-quality-initiatives-and-qris-peer-learning-group/overview


http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/policy/state/NAEYCpubpolReport.pdf

https://occqrisguide.icfwebservices.com/files/QRIS_Program_Guides.pdf

http://www.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/A%20Practical%20Outreach%20Guide%20for%20a%20QRIS%20(Clickable).pdf

http://qrisnetwork.org/lt/2017-quality-initiatives-and-qris-peer-learning-group/overview

Resources

Tout, K., Chien, N., Rothenberg, L. & Li, W. (2014). Implications of QRIS design for the distribution of program ratings and linkages between ratings and observed quality. OPRE Research Brief #2014-33. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/ecls_brief1.pdf

Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Tarullo, L., & Burchinal, M. (2010). Quality dosage, thresholds, and features in early childhood settings: A review of the literature. OPRE #2011-5. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/quality-dosage-thresholds-and-features-in-early-childhood-settings-a-0

Zellman, G. L. & Perlman, M. (2008). Child-care quality rating and improvement systems in five pioneer states: Implementation issues and lessons learned. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG795.pdf


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/ecls_brief1.pdf

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/quality-dosage-thresholds-and-features-in-early-childhood-settings-a-0

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG795.pdf

National Program Standards Crosswalk Tool

https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/crosswalk/


https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/crosswalk/

QRIS Resource Guide

https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance 60

https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/

National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance

9300 Lee HighwayFairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 877-296-2250 Email: [email protected]

Subscribe to Updateshttp://www.occ-cmc.org/occannouncements_sign-up/

National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance

9300 Lee HighwayFairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 877-296-2250 Email: [email protected]

Subscribe to Updateshttp://www.occ-cmc.org/occannouncements_sign-up/