Update on Recently Released Scopes of Work Fiscal Committee May 5, 2014

1. Update on Recently Released Scopes of WorkFiscal CommitteeMay 5, 2014

2. Background • In its review in late February of individual appropriation budgets, EEC assessed where there were unspent funds. • The unspent funds were minimal and in non-caseload appropriations. • Working with the Senior Leadership team, EEC considered topics that would benefit from review. • In particular, we were aware of our responsibility to fulfill some requirements negotiated in the SEIU CBA. • In fulfillment of the required mid-year exercise, we submitted to ANF a plan to spend the surplus funds which was subsequently approved. • Recently released Scopes of Work include the following: • Differential Licensing • Environmental Rating Scales Training • Non Traditional Hours Study • Special Needs • Market Rate Study

3. Differential Licensing What is Differential Licensing? • Differential licensing is a method for determining the frequency of monitoring visits and/or the depth of monitoring based on an assessment of a program’s level of compliance with state regulations. This process is used to determine the number of inspections/monitoring visits needed for a particular program. The goal of differential licensing is to develop a system to target resources based on a provider's compliance history and level of risk. More than fifty percent of states report having a method for differential licensing. • EEC will experience several benefits by implementing a differential licensing model, such as: • Increased monitoring frequency for those programs with low levels of regulatory compliance; • Targeted assistance to programs in need of technical assistance; • Better and more efficient use of EEC’s limited staff resources; and • Enforcement actions for problematic programs will be directed more effectively.

4. Differential Licensing • Differential licensing will reward child care, residential, and placement programs that display strong compliance histories with abbreviated inspections and fewer full compliance reviews, if compliance remains consistently strong. Programs with excessive non-compliance histories will receive additional monitoring visits and greater levels of technical assistance. Vendor Tasks • Recommend and provide a plan for implementation of best practices from other states that have implemented a differential licensing system. • Assist EEC to develop provider outreach on the differential licensing initiative, including surveys, regional meetings, re-training, and on-going support. • Develop a work plan that will guide EEC in completing the development and implementation of the Differential Licensing initiative.

5. Differential Licensing • Develop a differential licensing model for EEC that will maximize the utilization of agency staff and enhance the quality of programs. • Develop a Differential Licensing mission statement for EEC in conjunction with a guiding principles document. • Develop an implementation evaluation and plan for the differential licensing model. • Develop policies, procedures and tools for the differential licensing process. Contract Information • Selected Vendor: Public Consulting Group • Contract Timeframe: April 28 through June 30, 2014 • Contract Amount: $44,928 • EEC Contact: Dave McGrath

6. Environmental Rating Scales Training What is an Environmental Rating Scale? • An important aspect of QRIS is the use of existing standardized observational measures to conduct programmatic self-assessments of QRIS standards and levels. • One of the QRIS Measurement Tools used is the Environmental Rating Scales (ERS). The ERS are designed to assess "process quality" in an early childhood or school age care group. Process quality consists of the various interactions that occur in a classroom between staff and children, staff, parents, and other adults, among the children themselves, and the interactions children have with the many materials and activities in the environment, as well as those features, such as space, schedule, and materials that support these interactions.

7. Environmental Rating Scales Training Scope of Work • Provide at least one classroom and hands-on training for up to 30 for each the following ERS: • The Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R): A thorough revision of the ITERS, designed to assess group programs for children from birth to 2 ½ years of age. • The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale - Revised (ECERS-R): A thorough revision of the ECERS, designed to assess group programs for preschool-kindergarten aged children, from 2 through 5 years of age. • The Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale - Revised (FCCERS-R): A thorough revision of the FDCRS, designed to assess family child care programs conducted in a provider’s home. • The School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (SACERS): Designed to assess before and after school group care programs for school-age children, 5 to 12 years of age.

8. Environmental Rating Scales Training • Each training must involve a full-day classroom presentation of one of the key Environment Rating Scales followed by a ½ day of on- site practice and a ½ day of ERS observation reliability check. • Participants do not need to be trained to reliability, but must have adequate content knowledge in all of the ERS in order to provide technical assistance on the tools to programs and providers. Contract Information • Proposals Due: May 7, 2014 • Contract Timeframe: May 12 through June 30, 2014 • Contract Amount: $45,000 • EEC Contact: Gwen Alexander

9. Non-Traditional Hours Study Why Study Non-Traditional Hours? • The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the SEIU requires that EEC, with the Union, FCC Systems, and CCRRs, undertake a study to review and assess the use of non traditional hours (NTH) by subsidized families, such hours being defined as before 7:00AM and after 5:00 PM, and hours on Saturdays and Sundays. Study Goals • The goals of the assessment and analysis are to understand: • the level of demand for NTH child care in Massachusetts on a subsidized/non-subsidized and regional basis (by type of care and age of child); • what other states do, how NTH care is implemented in those states, and if what they do is effective in meeting the needs of families working NTH; • current strategies/programming parents choose during NTH child care hours (relative care, drop in care etc.) and associated costs to parents for these strategies;

10. Non-Traditional Hours Study • parental considerations relative to how they choose care during non-traditional hours (cost, prefer family care during NTH, accessibility etc.); • the number/type/age of children served/regional location of programs that currently provide NTH child care in MA and the additional costs and modifications such programs make to provide such care; • the number of programs willing to provide such care if there is demand for NTH care and considerations of such programs in providing NTH care; • the specific time of day/evening (“shifts”) parents would like to utilize NTH child care and time providers would be interested in providing additional hours of care; • the age of children who may utilize NTH child care or whose parents may be interested/not interested in NTH child care; and • how other states accommodate families with NTH in their subsidized system and whether MA should consider changing the current subsidized system to include NTF child care.

11. Non Traditional Hours Study Summary of Expectations • Research what other states do and how. • Develop a survey of providers (both Center and FCC). • Develop a survey of parents. • Assess the results. • Provide an analysis and recommendations, if any, to EEC. Contract Information • Selected Vendor: Mills Consulting Group and Brodsky Research and Consulting • Contract Timeframe: May 5 through June 30, 2014 • Contract Amount: $37,450 • EEC Contact: Bill Concannon and Carole Meehan

12. Special Needs Why Study Non-Traditional Hours? • The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the SEIU requires that EEC, with the Union, FCC Systems, and CCRRs, undertake a study to review subsidized children who have special needs but are not receiving a subsidy under “special need of child”. Goals of the Project • Determine the number of children participating in the Massachusetts child care subsidy system with special needs/disabilities; • Determine whether EEC should take measures to target resources to this specific population; and • Identify the various service and/or funding models utilized by other states to compensate early education and out of school time programs providing services to “children with special needs”.

13. Special Needs Required Services • Complete a review of all Massachusetts regulations and policies related to the child care subsidy system supporting “children with special needs”. • Conduct outreach to other states to understand how they compensate early education and out of school time programs for services provided on behalf of “children with special needs” • Conduct a survey of early education and care and out of school time providers participating in the EEC child care subsidy system to include (but not limited to): • the program’s current enrollment; • the age groups of children enrolled (i.e., infants, toddlers, pre-school and/or school-age); • the number of children that are provided/not provided EEC financial assistance on the basis of having a documented special need; • types of accommodations the program is making; and • any needs of children enrolled that are not being met, or are only partially met.

14. Special Needs • Complete a final written report and accompanying PowerPoint which contains the overall analysis of all the required services listed above with related analysis and recommendations for how the Massachusetts model may better serve “children with special needs”. Contract Information • Selected Vendor: SOW Release on May 5, 2014 • Contract Timeframe: May 21 through June 30, 2014 • Contract Amount: $20,000 • EEC Contact: Legal Unit

15. Market Rate Study Goals of the Project • To develop an RFR to hire a qualified vendor to conduct a multifaceted study that contextualizes the early childhood system in Massachusetts in a comprehensive but concise manner. • The ultimate goal of the RFR is to gain key input relative to strategies of revamping the Market Rate Survey to engage in greater levels of data collection and analysis while producing a cohesive product that is easy to communicate across all audiences. • The result of the RFR will serve as a vehicle to inform state level decision making in supporting state early childhood programs. Required Services • Conduct a thorough review of background materials and feedback relevant to revamping the Market Rate Survey. Provide EEC with a summary of the review. • Provide a plan outlining recommendations for topics to be included in the RFR and strategies to ensure the study collects data across the system of early education and care in a cohesive manner. This plan should utilize the review of background materials and any additional sources of input. The plan should also include any potential barriers the Bidder anticipates for the data collection or overall study and strategies to overcome said barriers.

16. Market Rate Study Newly Developed RFR Themes and Components • Market Rate (Price): How does the market rate influence the early education experience of children? (What is the optimum rate to have as the maximum rate for our children? What is the optimum price for a voucher?) • Cost: Understand the specific key components contributing to the cost of providing care. • Access: How do we get the most access at the highest quality for what rate? • Quality: Understand the consumer experience – does greater cost increase expectations relative to the level of quality?; Are families with young children forfeiting other economic investments (housing, savings etc.) to afford child care? If higher rates are paid to providers, would the program be better quality? What is the threshold that must be met (e.g., 75%) before expecting a greater level of quality? • Value / Efficient Spending: How much does EEC need to pay to get children into quality subsidized care? • Infant Care: Providers historically indicate that they are losing money on infant programs. This needs to be examined.

17. Market Rate Study The Newly Developed RFR Will: • Collect data points, when applicable, across the different regions of the state, age groups, and the mixed system of early education and care. • Ensure CCDF “Market Rate Survey” data requirements are met in an effort to ensure equal access to low-income families as required by federal law. It is critical that the study data and analysis about the distribution of child care rates and the findings about market rates be credible and withstand strict methodological scrutiny.  • Ensure the RFR results in data collection and analysis that are communicated in a manner that is easy to understand across audiences (Legislature, parents, Board, programs, etc.) and contextual (concepts should have a flow to ensure they are connected; there may be data elements that will need to be added to ensure this flow and allow the data to tell a complete story).

18. Market Rate Study Contract Information • Selected Vendor: SOW Released on May 1, 2014 • Contract Timeframe: May 14 through June 30, 2014 • Contract Amount: $15,000 • EEC Contact: Fiscal Unit