Presentation Transcript

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. Agenda Quality Improvement Systems Building QIS Site Level Process System Accountabilities Local Models of Quality Improvement System Accountability Why Build Systems for Developmental Settings? APPENDIX
3. Building QIS
4. l 2012-2013 Dissemination Policy Setting 85 Networks/ Systems Organization Setting >3250 Sites >21,125 Staff Estimate based on mean of 6.5 staff per site in YPQI Study Sample Point of Service Setting >276,250 Child & Youth Estimate based on mean daily attendance of 85 youth per day in YPQI Study Sample
5. Building a QIS: Stages and tasks
6. Site Level Continuous Improvement Process
7. Instructional Practices“Quality” at the Point of Service Level Setting
8. Four Continuous Improvement PracticesOrganization Level Setting (Plus 10 hours of TA/coaching for site managers to implement the four CI practices)
9. Targeted Staff Trainings for Instructional SkillsCI Practice #4
10. System Accountabilities
11. System Supports for CI Practices Policy: Eligibility, Targeting, Low/high stakes Training, TA & Coaching Evaluation External Raters, Program Evaluation
12. System Accountabilities: Higher Stakes Higher Stakes Accountabilities
13. System Accountabilities: Lower Stakes Higher Stakes Accountabilities Interpretive Community Team Self Assessment Review external scores Team Planning and Implementing Improvement planning Performance coaching Lower Stakes Accountabilities
14. Higher Stakes: System Needs and Challenges System Needs1 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 Challenges2 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. Local Models of Quality Improvement System Accountability
16. Requirements
17. Incentives/Punishments
18. Sources of Data for Public Ratings Oakland Participation records Program Quality Assessment (PQA) Stakeholder surveys Academic records 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.pdf
19. YPQI Study “Best” Practices
20. Prime Time Palm Beach County
21. 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. 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. QIS annual cycle
24. QIS Level System Recognizes high quality programs and directors Provides flexible time expectations based on needs
25. Why Build Systems for Developmental Settings? A Frame for Developmental Systems
26. 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. APPENDIX
29. High Stakes Examples
30. 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
31. 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. 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. Middle Stakes Examples
34. 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
35. 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. Michigan 21st CCLC and Oklahoma 21st CCLC http://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. Vermont Center for Afterschool Excellence http://www.vermontafterschool.org/ http://dcf.vermont.gov/cdd/stars Are intermediary, they serve both 21st 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. Lower Stakes Example Indianapolis Marion County Commission on Youth (MCCOY)
39. 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
40. 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. 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. YPQI Evidence
43. CQI Systems: Cross-Level Roles Settings Actors Behaviors Policy Setting Network Leaders …enact standards and supports …engages standards and supports Managers Organization Setting …enacts continuous improvement practices …engages in continuous improvement practices Staff Point of Service Setting …enacts instructional practices Youth Youth engage in instruction and build skills
44. Management CI SkillsYPQI Study Baseline
45. Staff CI SkillsN=366, YPQI Study Baseline 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
46. Staff Instructional Skills3N= 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. CQI Systems: Cross-Level Roles Settings Actors Behaviors Policy Setting Network Leaders …enact standards and supports ES =1.87 …engages standards and supports Managers Organization Setting ES =.98 …enacts continuous improvement practices ES =.52 …engages in continuous improvement practices Staff ES =.55 Point of Service Setting …enacts instructional practices Youth Youth engage in instruction and build skills
48. Participant Satisfaction N=128 site managers, 178 staff from Atlanta, Baltimore, Chattanooga, Maryland, Nashville, Richmond, Vermont, Washington