Standards Alignment Project

Focused Checklist

&

Compl Approach

Early Start Act, Alignment Goals

…The Early Achievers program must establish a common set of expectations and standards that define, measure, and improve the quality of early learning and child care settings.

... implement a single set of licensing standards for child care and the early childhood education and assistance program.

The new licensing standards must:• Provide minimum health and safety standards for

child care and preschool programs;• Rely on the standards established in the early

achievers program to address quality issues in participating early childhood programs;

• Take into account the separate needs of family care providers and child care centers; and

• Promote the continued safety of child care settings.

2

3

LicensingFoundation of quality

for all licensed programs to meet

demonstrating health, safety and child

development requirements for

children of all ages.

ECEAPHigh-quality

comprehensive PreKprogram for low-

income children and families

Early Achievers Resources to support and

demonstrate high-quality for infants,

toddlers, and preschoolers.

Duplication

Standard is repeated in licensing and/or Early Achievers and/or ECEAP

Language Inconsistences

Different words are used in licensing and/or Early Achievers and/or ECEAP even though the concepts are the same

Progression

Standards logically build on one another between & across licensing, Early Achievers and ECEAP

Dual Language Learners

Children who acquire two or more languages simultaneously, who learn a second language while continuing to develop their first language, or who are unable to communicate effectively in English because their primary language is not English and they have not developed fluency in the English language yet

Standards Alignment Focus

4

Standards Alignment – Creating a Progression

WAC AlignmentChanges in the federal child care law, increased knowledge and research,

and DEL policy priorities all inform this revision.

6

Aug, 2020Weights implementation begins

Standards Alignment Timeline

Inter-Rater Reliability

Standards Alignment, Change Management Map

Early Start Act

Standards Alignment

Aligned Rules

WA COMPASSBlended Caseload

Rules Weights

ENFORCEMENT PROCESSMONITORING PROCESS

Checklist

Checklist Design

The focused monitoring

checklist approach for

licensing rules

Monitoring TheoryResearch Based Methodology – WA Approach

Differential Monitoring: A regulatory method for determining the frequency or depth of monitoring based on an assessment of a facility’s history of compliance with rules

Key Indicators: An approach that focuses on identifying and monitoring those rules that statistically predict compliance with all the rules.

Risk Assessment: An approach that focuses on identifying and monitoring those rules that place children at greater risk of mortality or morbidity if violations or citations occur

Dr. Richard Fiene Research

11

Improved Health and Safety

Consistent

Usable

ValueFor the checklist to be reliable, it must be consistent

For the checklist to be effective, it must be usable

For the checklist to be trusted, value must be placed in the outcomes

Why – Changing the Checklist

Why - Identified Challenges

Rater-drift:

Checklist are always the same

Compliance blindness:

Ignores individual needs of provider

Inter-rater reliability:

Licensor inconsistency

Risk-assessment:

Regulations are all treated equally

Focused Monitoring Checklist

Rater-drift:

Individualized checklist for each provider

Compliance blindness:

Focus on where providers need support

Inter-rater reliability:

Consistent focus on checklist items

Risk-assessment:

Provides a greater level of protection for children by creating a common understanding of risk

The focused Checklist Content Areas

9 sections

Intent & Authority

Child Outcomes/Family Engagement

Interactions/Curriculum

Program Oversight

Environment - Indoor

Environment - Outdoor/General

Food and Nutrition

Infant Toddler

Professional Development

The Baseline

Each section will always have:– Fiene Key Indicators

–Regulations most critical to children's immediate health and safety (weights #7 and #8)

–Rotating regulations of the remaining weight values

–No more than 3 (possible) historical “findings” per section

Rule Rotation

Findings that are not on the checklist

– DEL will still provide and document Technical Assistance

Rules that will not be placed on the baseline checklist:– Any regulation with Weight N/A

– Regulations that do not impose a duty on the provider

– Regulations that do not apply to the provider

* Example – Rotation will be determined based on NRM weight results

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Always on Baseline

2 Years 3 Years 4 years

Weight

Rotation

• Checklist expansion only happens if a Fiene Indicatoror heavy weighted regulation is found non-compliant.

• Checklist expansion only of the section within which a “risky” violation is found (not the entire checklist).

A provider’s strengths are rewarded with lower oversight in those areas and support is focused where providers need it the most!

Checklist Expansion

The Pilot

Why - Pilot Before Implementation

Validation ensures fair and consistent oversight:• Standards – Measures – Outputs – Outcomes

Reliability addresses the issues of shared knowledge and understanding

Testing ensures a seamless transition

Types of Validation

Validation Approach What does it mean?

1 Standards Approach Does the WAC align with National Best Practices?

2 Measure Approach Do highly-non compliant programs have higher risk

scores while compliant programs have lower risk

scores?

3 Output Approach Are the enforcement actions taken appropriate?

4 Outcome Approach What does the data say? Are children in low risk

programs less likely to get injured?

Implement the content on our current timeline (Aug, 2019) and implement all of the weighted enforcement approach a year later, beginning Aug., 2020.

April–Dec 2018

“Pilot” Checklist training/testing

Jan-July 2019 170-300 and

checklist Training

(re-test)

Aug 2019- Aug 2020

Data collection and validation

(on-going)

May–July 2020

Weight Analysis and

enforcement training.

Aug. 2019 CONTENT LAUNCH

Aug. 2020 WEIGHT LAUNCH

Proposed Timeline

Enforcement Approach

Project Background and Introduction

DEL Policies and Procedures

Steps to issue DEL enforcement actions

Licensor policies 10.2.1 to 10.4.1

Washington Administrative Code

Deny, suspend, revoke license; FLCAs, Non-referral, and civil fines

WAC 170-295-0100 to 0140

WAC 170-296A-8000 to 8400

Revised Code of Washington

Grants Director authority to take administrative actions

RCW 43.215.300(1) and (3)

Rules and Enforcement for DEL - Examples

Current Challenges

Current WAC language is unclear

WACs do not “fill in gaps” of RCWs

Inconsistent enforcement throughout state

Unwritten rules → a lack of transparency in enforcement

Two Prong Approach

P1. Single Finding Score

Any Current Site Visit

Single WAC Weight → Action

P2. Overall Licensing ScoreInclusive of Licensing History

Overall Score = Possible Action

Single Finding Scores/Enforcement Actions

• Denial

• Suspension

• Revocation

• Technical

Assistance

• On 1+

violation:

Civil Penalty

• Pre-probation

• License

Modification

• Suspension

• Technical

Assistance

• On 2+ Repeat

violations:

Civil Penalty

• Safety Plan

• Office

Conference

• Technical

Assistance

• On 3+ Repeat

violations:

Civil Penalty

• Technical

Assistance

• On 4+ Repeat

violations: Civil

Penalty

• Technical

Assistance

P11-3 4 5 6 7 8

2 mph over → small fine

60 mph vs 100 mph on 55 mph freeway

Lower speed limit = higher risk (school zone)

Snapshot Enforcement AnalogyP1

0-50 (Tier1)

Consideration for• Continued Licensing

Technical Assistance

50-100 (Tier 2)

Consideration for• Office Conference

• Civil Penalties

100-150 (Tier 3)

Consideration for• Civil Penalties• Probationary

• License Amendment• License Modification• Suspension

150 plus (Tier 4)

Consideration for

• Denial• Suspension• Revocation

Overall License Score/Adverse and Compliance Actions

P2

Multiple data points over 3 year history

Data points → equation to calculate ‘licensing score’

Lower licensing scores = higher compliance

Clean licensing history = no points

Points fall off after 3 years

Rewards more recent compliance (older infractions count less)

Aggregate Enforcement AnalogyP2

The calculation will consider only the 3 most recent annual monitoring visits.

The calculation will consider only 36 months of history.

Calculating the Overall License Score

Most Recent Monitor

Visit

Previous 12 month FLCAs

Prior 2 Monitoring

Visits

Current MV Score + 12 Month Non-MV scores + (Prior 2 MV Score ÷ 2) + (Prior 24 Month Non-MV scores ÷ 2)

˖ ˖1. All non-compliant

items on the

checklist are added

together by weight

value.

2. This score will

always be total value

1. All non-monitoring

visit non-compliant

items found during

previous 12 month

added together by

weight value

2. This score will always

be total value

1. All non-compliant

items found during

prior 2 monitoring

visits added together

by weight value

2. This score will be

divided by 2 as this is

historical

Prior 24 month FLCAs

1̟. All non-compliant

items found during

the 24 month

timeframe previous

to the prior 12 month

FLCA score

2. This score will be

divided by 2 as this is

historical

1. Scores will be calculated by the system once the FLCA is complete and uploaded into the system.

2. Recommendations for further actions will be sent to the licensing team.

3. Decisions for further action will be made by the licensing team.

4. Scores falling in Tier 3 and above will include the RA in decision making; scores in Tier 4 will include the SLA in decision making.

1. WAC violations will automatically be linked to licensing actions by WA Compass according to weight values once a licensor uploads the checklist and FLCA into the system.

2. Individual non-compliant WACs that qualify, will automatically be flagged for civil penalties by the system.

3. Recommendations for enforcement actions falling within each of the levels would be sent to the licensor and supervisor.

4. Decisions for further action will be made by the licensing team.

5. Weights falling in Level 6 and above will include the RA; scores in Level 7 and above will also include the SLA in decision making.

Single

FindingsScore

Overall

Licensing Score

Licensing staff

will NOT do the calculations

P2

P1

Ensuring Fair and Reasonable Scoring

Questions?