monitoring plenary part 1 riki – research institute for ... · bring teach to pennsylvania. dr...
TRANSCRIPT
RIKI
Monitoring Plenary Part 1
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC, directed by Dr Richard Fiene, ResearchPsychologist and Retired Professor of Psychology and Human Development, Penn StateUniversity, focus is to improve the quality of early care and education programs nationally andinternationally through an empirically based Key Indicator methodology.
What are the key indicators that distinguish high quality programs? It is not about findingmore or less rules/regulations/standards, it is about finding the “right”rules/regulations/standards that help produce positive outcomes for children. And then it isbuilding and implementing data driven/empirically based program monitoring systems thatreflect this knowledge in order to determine the most cost effective and efficient approach.
The Key Indicator methodology created by Dr Fiene in the 1970’s which resulted in an EarlyChildhood Program Quality Improvement & Indicator Model (ECPQIM)has gone through fourgenerations from 1975 through to 2013. The ECPQIM’s key components/elements in improvingchild care quality are through an early childhood program quality indicator model of training,technical assistance, quality rating & improvement systems, professional development,mentoring, licensing, risk assessment, differential program monitoring, and accreditation.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
Richard Fiene, Ph.D., Research Psychologist (Bio)(Vita)
Dr. Fiene has spent his professional career in improving the quality of child care in Pennsylvania, nationally,and internationally. He has done extensive research and publishing on the key components in improving childcare quality through an Early Childhood Program Quality Improvement & Indicator Model (RIKI/NARAECPQIM/DMLMA Slides)(RIKI ECPQIM/DMLMA Brief Collection of Readings)(Penn StatePrevention Research Center’s Seminar ECPQIM/DMLMA Video) of training, technical assistance,mentoring, licensing, monitoring, and accreditation. The child care models that he developed in the 1970s and1980s have been used in the majority of states to improve their licensing/regulatory systems and were theprecursors to the development of quality rating systems. A Parent’s Guide to Choosing Safe and Healthy ChildCare published by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services and used by the National ResourceCenter for Health and Safety in Child Care is based upon Dr. Fiene’s 13 Indicators of Child Care Quality hasbeen used as a checklist by parents nationally to select child care (Parents Guide Checklist). This checklist washighlighted in a Parade Magazine article (7/19/09) The New Push For Quality Child Care. In addition, his 13Indicators have been used as part of NACCRRA’s Report Card on Child Care Quality: We CAN Do Better.
In addition to Dr Fiene’s academic appointments at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and thePennsylvania State University as a professor of human development and psychology, he has been a SpecialAssistant to both the Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth and Families and the Secretary of PublicWelfare during the 1990’s in which he was the Research Director and Policy Analyst for the development of thelicensing and training systems in the Department of Public Welfare (now the Department of Human Services)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He also was part of the statewide committee that developed the originalstandards for the Pennsylvania QRIS Keystone STARS program and the original designer of the CCECD – ChildCare and Early Childhood Development training system. In the development of the CCECD training system, heprovided the initial funding for Better Kid Care an innovative national online training delivery system. He cofounded the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics Early Childhood Education LinkageSystem (ECELS) with Dr Susan Aronson, he was the founding director of CAECTI – Capital Area EarlyChildhood Training and Research Institute at Penn State University with Dr Mark Greenberg, and helped tobring TEACH to Pennsylvania. Dr Fiene is a past Fellow of the Pennsylvania Psychological Association and apast Member of the American Psychological Society.
Over the past 40 years, Dr Fiene’s research and publications have helped states develop and improve their childcare licensing systems to more clearly focus on the key factors in developing high quality child care programs.His key indicator and weighting methodologies developed in the 1970’s have led to the development andimplementation of risk assessment, differential monitoring, and abbreviated inspections in the regulatoryadministration field; have been highlighted in two major national publications by the Assistant Secretary’sOffice of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the Office of Children Care (OCC): the ASPE white paper(Innovation in Monitoring ECE Programs) and the OCC licensing brief (Monitoring Strategies forDetermining Compliance); and are part of the NARA Licensing Curriculum. Most recently Dr Fiene’sresearch while at CAECTI related to his mentoring/coaching program was highlighted as a compelling model inthe ASPE/LITES Compelling Models Report and his differential monitoring approach was highlighted in theOPRE/Child Trends’ Coordinated Monitoring Systems in Early Care and Education Report.
His key indicator and weighting methodologies have led to the development of Stepping Stones to Caring forOur Children, the National Early Childhood Program Accreditation system, Head Start Differential
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Monitoring and Key Indicators, Caring for Our ChildrenBasics, Thirteen Key Indicators to Quality ChildCare, and the Cruise to Quality Child Care Standards for the cruise line industry as adapted by CLIA.
Caring for Our Children Basics
In 2013, Dr Fiene created RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC in order to consolidate allresearch development into a single research institute. All Dr Fiene’s previous research became part of the newinstitute specifically designed to further develop his human service licensing and program monitoringmethodologies and systems.
In 2015, RIKI and NARA (National Association for Regulatory Administration) entered into an exclusivepartnership for the future development and implementation of differential monitoring, risk assessment and keyindicators in which NARA will assume the intellectual property rights of these methodologies. Also please seethe NARA Key Indicator Systems Brochure, NARA Targeted Measurement Tools, NARA Key IndicatorWebpage, and NARA Key Indicator Systems.
For additional information, please contact: [email protected]
Please see the Press Release on the partnership between NARA and RIKI.(nara press release on nara–riki partnership).
Dr Fiene pictured with Tara Orlowski, NARA President and Marcus Williams, NARA Executive Director.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
I have updated the Licensing Measurement and Systems NARA Licensing Curriculum Coursethrough the use of this website.
For those interested, one can start with the publications webpage which is listed on(https://rikinstitute.com/publications) the menu above on this RIKI Institute website. These publicationschronicle 40+ years of research into licensing measurement and research with particular emphasis on the EarlyChildhood Program Quality Improvement and Indicator Model (ECPQIM).
After reviewing this webpage, the interested reader can go to the RIKI Reports(https://rikinstitute.com/reports) webpage which provides detailed national and state reports in developingdifferential monitoring, key indicator and risk assessment systems. It also provides many actual examples oftools and policies that can be used by state administrators.
There are additional webpages that the interested reader can explore in greater detail if s/he is so inclined, suchas: the webpage that contains posters and articles (https://rikinstitute.com/posters) which reallysummarizes the ECPQIM in a series of posters and refereed journal articles. Or the webpage that gives adetailed overview to ECPQIM/DMLMA (https://rikinstitute.com/ecpqim) where one will find manydocuments which detail the key elements of the model dealing with licensing, and program quality initiatives,such as quality rating and improvement systems or professional development systems. And then finally, there isa webpage that lists related websites (https://rikinstitute.com/websites) which will provide additionalinformation related to ECPQIM research; and a blog (https://rikinstitute.com/blog) that chronicles the latestthinking about licensing measurement and systems.
I also have the following website (http://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com) which is sort of like an appendix for thecourse by having over 300 resources that support the RIKI Institute website.
This course was usually offered over two days; now with all the updated material it is a five day/full week courseequivalent to a three credit course or 45 contact hours for those who would be interested in CEU’s. The coursecan be offered totally online, a combination of online and in person, or totally in person. It can be offered over afull week or over 15 weeks with 3 hour classes.
Here is a brief outline of the Course (Content (Webpage location)):
1. Overview (ECPQIM/DMLMA & Publications)2. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework (ECPQIM/DMLMA & Publications)3. Principles of Instrument Design (RIKI Reports & Appendix)4. Measurement: Reliability and Validity (RIKI Reports & Appendix)5. Regulatory Compliance and Program Quality (ECPQIM/DMLMA)6. QRIS and other Quality Initiatives (RIKI Blog)7. Statistical Methods and Data Base Development (RIKI Reports & RIKI Blog)8. Coordinated Program Monitoring (National)9. Differential Monitoring, Risk Assessment, Key Indicators (ECPQIM/DMLMA & RIKI Blog)10. What Research Tells Us (Posters/Articles)11. What Research Doesn’t Tell Us: Unanswered Questions (RIKI Blog)12. National, International, and State Examples (RIKI Reports, RIKI Blog & Appendix)
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
13. Future Directions (RIKI Blog)
Please contact me if you have questions or comments:Rick Fiene, Affiliate Professor, Penn State Prevention Research Center [email protected]
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCCreate a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Academic/Research Positions
RESEARCH POSITIONS
Affiliate Professor, Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, 2012present.Research Director, CAECTI – Early Childhood Research and Training Institute, Capital College, ThePennsylvania State University, 20092012.Director, Capital Area Health and Human Development Institute, College of Health and HumanDevelopment, The Pennsylvania State University, 20052009.Director, Capital Area Early Childhood Training Institute, Prevention Research Center, College of Healthand Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, 20002005.Director, Division of Licensing Systems and Research, Office of Licensing and Regulatory Management,Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19992000.Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary, Office of Children Youth and Families, Department of PublicWelfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19951999.Director, Division of Federal Activities and Program Development, Bureau of Child Day Care Services, Officeof Children Youth and Families, Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19911995.Director of Research, Evaluation, and Information Systems, Office of Children Youth and Families,Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19801991.Research Psychologist, Bureau of Child Development, Office of Social Programs, Department of PublicWelfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19771979 and Appalachian Regional Commission Child DevelopmentProgram, Governor’s Office of Human Services, 19751977.
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
Professor of Human Development & Family Studies and Psychology (retired), College of Health and HumanDevelopment, The Pennsylvania State University, 2012present.Professor in Charge, Human Development and Family Studies, School of Behavioral Sciences and Education,Capital College, The Pennsylvania State University, 20102012.Professor in Charge, Psychology Program, School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, Capital College, ThePennsylvania State University, 20072009.Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Studies, Capital College, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 20072012.Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Studies, College of Health and Human Development,The Pennsylvania State University, 20042012.Assistant Professor, Behavioral Sciences and Education, Capital College, The Pennsylvania State University,19912003.Lecturer, Behavioral Sciences and Education, Capital College, The Pennsylvania State University, 19751990.Instructor and Director, National Infancy Demonstration Center, Child Development and Family Relations,University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 19731975.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
COURSES TAUGHT:
HDFS 129—Introduction to Human Development and Family StudiesHDFS 229—Infant and Child DevelopmentHDFS 312—Empirical Inquiry in Human DevelopmentHDFS 401—Program Planning, Implementation, and Program EvaluationHDFS 402—Human Services SeminarHDFS 494—Research ProjectsHDFS 495—Practicum in Human ServicesHDFS 596—Individual StudiesPsychology 212—Developmental PsychologyPsychology 301—Research MethodsPsychology 410—Child PsychologyPsychology 494—Research ProjectsPsychology 530—Master’s Thesis in Applied Psychological Research (10 Theses Chaired)Community Psychology 519–Research Methods for Community Psychologists ICommunity Psychology 520–Research Methods for Community Psychologists IICommunity Psychology 594–Master’s Thesis in Community Psychology (20 Theses Chaired)Community Psychology 596–Cross Systems Evaluation and Community PsychologyEducation 401–Introduction to Early Childhood EducationEducation 402–Children’s Literature and Language DevelopmentEducation 403–Curriculum in Early ChildhoodEducation 404–Observation and Evaluation in Early Childhood ProgramsEducation 405–Infancy and ToddlerhoodEducation 408–Administration of Early Childhood ProgramsEducation 410–Child and Social InstitutionsEducation 495–Early Childhood and Child Care Center InternshipEducation 497–Research in Child Development
CONSULTING
Research Psychologist/President, Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC (RIKI), Middletown,Pennsylvania, 2013present.Senior Consultant/Research Psychologist, National Association for Regulatory Administration, Lexington,Kentucky, 1990present.Research Psychologist/Director, Early Childhood Program Evaluation Associates, Middletown,Pennsylvania, 19752013.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCBlog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Research Projects
1. Senior Consultant/Investigator, Licensing Measurement, Differential Monitoring, Key Indicator, RiskAssessment Modeling, National Association for Regulatory Administration, 2015 – present . Please see theNational Association for Regulatory Administration for any future research projects.
2. CoPrincipal Investigator, Developing a Valid and Reliable BASICS Health and Safety Checklist, EarlyChildhood Education Linkage System, Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics with theUniversity of California at San Francisco as prime contractor, proposal developed.
3. Investigator/Consultant, iLookOut for Child Abuse Prevention Project, College of Medicine, HersheyMedical Center, Penn State University, National Institute for Health, Washington, D.C., 20162021.
4. Consultant, National Center for Early Childhood Quality Assurance, ICFI, Office of Child Care,Administration of Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.,20152020.
5. Consultant/Investigator, National Head Start Monitoring System, Lewin Group, Danya International, Officeof Head Start, Washington, D.C., 20152020.
6. Investigator/Evaluator, Infant Toddler Quality Improvement Project, Pennsylvania Early Childhood LinkageSystem, Pennsylvania Chapter: American Academy of Pediatrics, Federal Department of Maternal and ChildHealth, Health Resources and Services Administration, $420,000, 20132017.
7. Consultant/Investigator, Ontario Child Care Risk Based Assessment System, Ministry of Education,Province of Ontario, Canada, $12,995, 201516.
8. Principal Investigator, New York Key Indicators for Centers and Homes/Quality Indicators, Fund for theCity of New York, $18,000, 201516.
9. Principal Investigator, Colorado QRIS Key Indicators Project, Qualistar Colorado, $15,000, 2014.10. Principal Investigator, Illinois Risk Assessment and Key Indicators Project, National Association for
Regulatory Administration, $22,000, 2014.11. Principal Investigator, Wisconsin Differential Monitoring and Risk Assessment Project, National Association
for Regulatory Administration, $2,000, 2014.12. Principal Investigator, Hawaii Key Indicator Blueprint Project, University of Hawaii, $9,000, 2013.13. Principal Investigator, Oregon Differential Monitoring, Key Indicator and Risk Assessment Blueprint
Project, Oregon Licensing Office, and BLH Technologies, $16,500, 2013.14. Principal Investigator, Kansas Child Care Key Indicators Project, National Association for Regulatory
Administration, $16,000, 2013.15. Principal Investigator, Office of Head Start Key Indicators Project, Administration of Children and Families,
Federal Department of Health and Human Services, $42,000, 20122013.16. CoInvestigator/Consultant, Georgia Licensing and Monitoring Project, Georgia Department of Early Care
and Learning and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child DevelopmentInstitute, $20,000, 20122013.
17. Principal Investigator, Georgia Child Care Compliance Project, Georgia Department of Early Care andLearning, Atlanta, Georgia, $160,000, 20112013.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
18. Investigator, California Human Services Key Indicator Inspection Model Project, National Association forRegulatory Administration and California Office of Licensing, $15,000, 20112012.
19. Principal Investigator, Child Care Standards Cruise to Quality Project, Cruise Line Industry, Miami, Florida,$65,000, 20102012.
20. Principal Investigator, Early Childhood Education, Infant, and Toddler Professional Development andQuality Improvement Program, Greater Harrisburg Foundation, Wells Foundation, Whitaker Foundation,and Office of Child Development and Early Learning, Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania, $7,650,000, 20002012.
21. CoPrincipal Investigator with Betsy Manlove and Margaret Benson, Characteristics of Regulated Child Carein Rural Pennsylvania, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, $49,994, 20092010
22. CoInvestigator with James Johnson and Kathleen MacKinnon, National PK3 PreService TeacherEducation Project, Foundation for Child Development, New York, New York, $130,000, 20082009.
23. CoPrincipal Investigator with Matthew Kaplan, Adult Residential Living Training Project, PennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, $496,142, 20062007.
24. CoPrincipal Investigator with James Johnson, Early Childhood Development Initiative, Children, Youthand Families Consortium, Social Sciences Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark, Pennsylvania, $20,000, 20062007.
25. CoInvestigator with Barbara Carl, York Quantum Human Services Planning and Evaluation, York CountyYWCA, York, Pennsylvania, $30,000, 20052006.
26. Principal Investigator, Mind in the Making Evaluation, Pennsylvania Key/Office of Child Development,Department of Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, $33,519, 20052006.
27. CoPrincipal Investigator with Elizabeth Manlove, Judy Zaengline, Jane Keat, Caroline Owens, & Beth GillMcDonald, Family Communications Early Childhood Workshop Evaluation Project, SAMHSA, Washington,DC, $100,000, 20032006.
28. CoPrincipal Investigator with Anne Farber, Keystone Stars Evaluation, University of Pittsburgh andPennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, $15,800, 20022004
29. Principal Investigator, Mentoring Evaluation Projects, York, Lebanon, Cumberland, Lycoming counties,Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, $79,000, 20022003.
30. CoPrincipal Investigator with Mark Greenberg, The Pennsylvania Early Childhood Quality Study,Governor’s Task Force on Early Care and Education, Governor’s Partnership, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,$560,000, 20022003.
31. Principal Investigator, LycomingClinton Head Start Family Child Care Mentoring Evaluation, Williamsport,Pennsylvania, $78,000, 20002002.
32. Principal Investigator, Louise Child Care Mentoring Evaluation, Heinz Foundation, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, $4000, 20012002.
33. Principal Investigator, National Accreditation Validation Outcome Project, National Child Care Association,Atlanta, Georgia, $10,000, 19992000.
34. CoPrincipal Investigator with R. Neal, National Standards Research Project, National Resource Center forHealth and Safety in Child Care, University of Colorado at Denver, Department of Health and HumanServices, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., $130,000, 19992000.
35. CoPrincipal Investigator with J. Johnson, Children, Youth and Families Child Care and InformationTechnology, Children, Youth and Families Consortium, The Pennsylvania State University & KeystoneUniversity Research Corporation (Erie), University Park, Pennsylvania, $105,500, 19982000.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
36. Principal Investigator, Georgia Weighted Indicator Project, Georgia Child Care Leadership Forum, Atlanta,Georgia, $25,000, 19961997.
37. CoPrincipal Investigator with C. Kuhns, National Evaluation Instrument for the APHA/AAP StandardsProject, National Center for Early Childhood Program Evaluation; National Center for Education inMaternal and Child Health, Georgetown University, Early Childhood Health Division, Bureau of Maternaland Child Health, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., $210,000, 19931995.
38. Principal Investigator, Maryland Licensing Indicator Systems Project, Maryland Office of ChildDevelopment, Baltimore, Maryland, $17,000, 19931994.
39. Principal Investigator, National Child Care Association’s (NCCA) National Early Childhood ProgramAccreditation System, and National Pilot Study, National Child Care Association, Atlanta, Georgia, $21,000,19911993.
40. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Aronson, Early Childhood Education Linkage System, PennsylvaniaChapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Office of Maternal and Child Health, Federal Department ofHealth and Human Services, Washington, D.C. and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ$737,000, 19891993.
41. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Melnick, Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of PediatricsEvaluation Project, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg. Office of Maternal and Child Health,Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., and the Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation, Princeton, NJ, $150,842, 19891992.
42. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Melnick, State of Washington Licensing Matrix Project, Department ofSocial and Health Services, Olympia, Washington, $121,375, 19911992.
43. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Melnick, KenCrest Centers, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, AbandonedInfant Assistance Program–Technology Dependent Babies Evaluation Project. Administration for ChildrenYouth and Families, Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., $59,825, 19901992.
44. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Melnick, Pennsylvania Early Childhood Program Quality Study,Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania Office of Policy and Evaluation, Department ofPublic Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylania, $50,000, 19881990.
45. CoPrincipal Investigator with H. Williams and R. Lesniak, Child Care Training Needs Survey Project,Continuing Education Division and the Behavioral Science and Education Division, Pennsylvania StateUniversity at Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, $5,000, 19881989.
46. CoPrincipal Investigator with S. Kontos, Pennsylvania Day Care Study, Pennsylvania Office of ChildrenYouth and Families and the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, $10,000, 19841986.
47. Principal Investigator, Children’s Services Monitoring Transfer Consortium, Washington, D.C., Office ofHuman Development Services, Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and FederalDepartment of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., $450,000, 19801982.
48. Principal Investigator, Evaluation and Monitoring Project, Governor’s Office for Human Resources, HEW#A4243451B, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, $120,000, 19751977.
49. Principal Investigator, Day Care Group Size Study, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, NC#260016, Greensboro, North Carolina, $25,000, 19731974.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCBlog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Publications
1. Fiene & Kroh (in press). Licensing measurement, regulatory compliance and program monitoring systems,in Licensing Curriculum, Lexington, KY: National Association for Regulatory Administration. Please see theNational Association for Regulatory Administration for any future publications. (#1)
2. Fiene, (2015). Differential monitoring logic model (DMLM): A new early childhood program qualityimprovement and indicator model (ECPQIM) for early care and education regulatory agencies,Middletown, PA.: Research Institute for Key Indicators. (#1)
3. Lahti, Elicker, Zellman, & Fiene (2014). Approaches to validating child carequality rating and improvementsystems (QRIS): Results from two states with similar QRIS type designs, Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, available online 9June2014, doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.005. (#4)
4. Fiene (2013). A Comparison of International Child Care and US Child Care Using the Child Care Aware –NACCRRA Child Care Benchmarks, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 7(1), 6066.(#1/2)
5. Zellman & Fiene (2012). Validation of quality rating and improvement systems for early care andeducation and schoolage care, Washington, D.C.: OPRE and Child Trends. (#4)
6. Fiene & Carl (2011). Child Care Quality Indicators Scale, in T Halle (Ed.), Quality Rating and ImprovementSystems Tool Kit, Washington, D.C.: Child Trends. (#3)
7. Manlove, Benson, Strickland, & Fiene (2011). A comparison of regulated child care in rural and urbanPennsylvania, Pennsylvania: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
8. Johnson, Fiene, McKinnon, & Babu (2010). A study of early childhood education preservice teachereducation at major universities in 38 prek states. New York, New York: Foundation for Child Development.
9. Fiene (2009). Mentoring programs help caregivers “weigh” in on children’s eating behaviors, Penn StatePolicy Briefing, University Park, Pennsylvania: Center for Public Policy Research in Environment, Energyand Community.
10. Fiene (2008). Using Child Care Programs As A Portal to Changing the Eating Behaviors of YoungChildren, in L. Birch and W. Dietz (Eds.), Eating Behaviors of the Young Child: Prenatal and PostnatalInfluences on Healthy Eating, Elk Grove Village, Illinois: American Academy of Pediatrics.
11. Fiene (2007). Child Development Program Evaluation & Caregiver Observation Scale, in T Halle (Ed.),Early Care and Education Quality Measures Compendium, Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.
12. Fiene and Isler (2007). Home based and family child care: Characteristics and quality issues, In C. J. Groark,K. E., Mehaffie, R. B. McCall & M. T. Greenberg (Eds.), EvidenceBased Programs, Practices, and Policiesfor EarlyChildhood Care and Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
13. Weinraub, Shlay, Kochanoff & the Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative (Fiene, Greenberg, McCall,Groark, Mehaffie, Nelkin & EthridgeSmith) (2006). Findings from the 2002 Pennsylvania Family Surveyand their relevance for the future, Commonwealth, Pennsylvania House of Representatives (LORL).
14. Fiene (2006). Early Childhood Initiatives in Other States, in J.M. Perzel, Education in Pennsylvania: EarlyChildhood Education: Universal PreK and Other Alternatives, Volume 4, Spring 2006, Harrisburg:Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
15. Fiene (2003). Licensing related indicators of quality child care, Child Care Bulletin, Winter 20022003, pps1213.
16. Fiene, Greenberg, Bergsten, Carl, Fegley, & Gibbons (2002). The Pennsylvania early childhood qualitysettings study, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Governor’s Task Force on Early Care and Education.
17. Fiene (2002). Improving Child Care Quality Through an Infant Caregiver Mentoring Project, Child andYouth Care Forum, 31(2), 7583.
18. Fiene (2002). Thirteen indicators of quality child care: Research update. Washington, DC: Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services.
19. Johnson, Fiene, Keat, Darling, Pratt, Iutcovich (2001). Mastering course content and learner satisfaction: Acomparison of regular classroom instruction with three variations of internet delivery. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp 267274.
20. Iutcovich, Fiene, Johnson, Koppel, & Langan (2001). Professional development and the quality of child care:An assessment of Pennsylvania’s child care training system. In Early education and care, andreconceptualizing play, Elsevier Science Ltd., Volume 11, 115168.
21. Fiene, & Kroh (2000). Measurement tools and systems, in Licensing Curriculum, National Association forRegulatory Administration, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
22. Fiene, Iutcovich, Johnson, & Koppel (1998). Child day care quality linked to opportunities for professionaldevelopment: An applied community psychology example. Community Psychologist, 31(1), 1011.
23. Fiene, (1997). Quality child care in Pennsylvania linked to opportunities for professional development.National Association of Regulatory Administration, Autumn 1997, page 13.
24. Fiene (1997). Potential solution to the child day care trilemma related to quality, accessibility andaffordability. Child Care Information Exchange, September, 5760.
25. Fiene (1997). Human services licensing information system. National Association for RegulatoryAdministration: Research Column, Spring, 910.
26. Iutcovich, Fiene, Johnson, Koppel, & Langan (1997). Investing in our children’s future, Erie, Pennsylvania:Keystone University Research Corporation.
27. Fiene (1996). Unannounced versus announced licensing visits in monitoring child day care programs.National Association of Regulatory Administration, Spring, 56.
28. Fiene (1996). The feasibility of using sampling of agency facilities. National Association for RegulatoryAdministration Licensing Newsletter, fall, 1214.
29. Fiene (1996). Using a statisticalindicator methodology for accreditation, in NAEYC Accreditation: A Decadeof Learning and the Years Ahead, S. Bredekamp & B. Willer, editors, Washington, D.C.: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.
30. Fiene (1995). Utilizing a statewide training system to improve child day care quality: The other system in aprogram quality improvement model. Child Welfare, Volume LXXIV, #6, NovemberDecember, 11891201.
31. Fiene (1995). Improving human services through licensing reform and training: A unique partnershipbetween academia and state government, Dimensions, Fall, 13.
32. Kuhns & Fiene (1995). Promoting health and safety in child care programs, Child Care Bulletin, JanuaryFebruary (1), 3.
33. Fiene (1995). National early childhood program accreditation standards. Atlanta, Georgia: National EarlyChildhood Program Accreditation Commission.
34. Griffin & Fiene (1995). A systematic approach to policy planning and quality improvement for child care:A technical manual for state administrators. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Clinical InfantProgramsZero to Three.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
35. Fiene (1994). The case for national early care and education standards: Key indicator/predictor state childcare regulations, National Association of Regulatory Administration, summer 1994, 68.
36. Fiene (1991). New early childhood research, evaluation and training program has impact on Pennsylvania forthe 1990’s, Dimensions, Fall, 4.
37. Fiene (1988). Human services instrument based program monitoring and indicator systems, in InformationTechnology and the Human Services, B. Glastonburg, W. LaMendola, & S. Toole, editors, Chichester,England: John Wiley and Sons.
38. Fiene & McDonald (1987). Instrument based program monitoring for child welfare, Portland, Maine:University of Southern Maine.
39. Fiene (1987). Using licensing data in human service programs, in Licensing, H. Hornby, editor, Portland,Maine: University of Southern Maine.
40. Fiene (1987). The indicator system, in Evaluation and outcome monitoring, H. Hornby, editor, Portland,Maine: University of Southern Maine. Kontos &
41. Kontos & Fiene (1987). Child care quality, compliance with regulations, and children’s development: ThePennsylvania Study, in Quality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us?, Phillips, editor, Washington,D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
42. Fiene (1987). Indicator checklist system, in Maximizing the Use of Existing Data Systems, Portland, Maine:University of Southern Maine.
43. Fiene (1986). State child care regulatory, monitoring and evaluation systems as a means for ensuring qualitychild development programs, in Licensing of Children’s Services Programs, Richmond, Virginia: VirginiaCommonwealth University School of Social Work. (ERIC/ECE ED322997)
44. Morgan, Stevenson, Fiene, & Stephens (1986). Gaps and excesses in the regulation of child day care, Reviewsof Infectious Diseases–Infectious Diseases in Child Day Care: Management and Prevention, 8(4), 634643.
45. Kontos & Fiene (1986). Predictors of quality and children’s development in day care, in Licensing ofChildren’s Services Programs, Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University School of SocialWork.
46. Fiene & Nixon (1985). Instrument based program monitoring and the indicator checklist for child care, ChildCare Quarterly, 14(3), 198214.
47. Fiene (1985). Measuring the effectiveness of regulations, New England Journal of Human Services, 5(2),3839.
48. Fiene & Nixon (1983). Indicator checklist system for day care monitoring, Washington, D.C.: NationalChildren’s Services Monitoring Consortium.
49. Fiene & Nixon (1981). An instrument based program monitoring information system: A new tool for daycare monitoring, Washington, D.C.: National Children’s Services Monitoring Consortium.
50. Fiene (1981). A new tool for day care monitoring introduced by children’s consortium, Evaluation Practice,1(2), 1011.
51. Fiene (1980). Theoretical model for computing adult child ratios, Association of Regulatory Administration,summer, 1213.
52. Fiene (1979). Potpourri of child development, In the Best Interests of Children, Spring, 1415.53. Fiene (1975). Current trends in child day care research, In the Best Interests of Children, Spring, 1518.54. Fiene, Cardiff, & Littles (1975). Ecological monitoring information system, In the Best Interests of Children,
JulySeptember, 1975.55. Fiene (1974). The two year old: Characteristics and management of his play, Dimensions: Journal of the
Southern Association of Children Under Six, January, 1974, 2(2), 4648.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCCreate a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Reports
RIKI Sample Reports (20132015) – please click on the respective report in order to download the reportto your device. Also please go to the following RIKI website for additional reports, papers, and articles:RIKInstitute hosted by Wikispaces and the National Association for Regulatory Administration for any futurereports. (#3/4/12)
National:
Head Start Key Indicators
States:
Georgia Validation Study – CentersGeorgia Validation Study – HomesGeorgia Validation of Core Rule Differential MonitoringColorado Qualistar QRIS ValidationIllinois Key IndicatorsKansas Key IndicatorsHawaii Key Indicator QRIS BlueprintOregon DMLMA, Risk Assessment & Key Indicator BlueprintOregon’s Stepping Stones Risk Assessment AnalysisWisconsin Program Monitoring Options Blueprint
Conceptual:
Stepping Stones Key IndicatorsRelationship of Licensing, Head Start, PreK, QRIS, Accreditation, and Professional Development and theirpotential impact on Child Outcomes
Professional Development:
Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics Early Childhood Education Linkage System’sInfant Toddler Quality Improvemen Project Evaluation PreTestPennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy for Pediatrics Early Childhood Education Linkage System’sInfant Toddler Quality Improvement Project Evaluation – PrePostTestPennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy for Pediatrics Early Childhood Education Linkage System’sInfant Toddler Quality Improvement Project Evaluation – Final Report
Methodology:
Validation of the Key Indicator Methodology
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
Thirteen Key Indicators Update
RIKI Reports Anthology:
RIKI Reports 201314 – this is an anthology of various reports & papers (some taken from above) written in201314 related to differential monitoring, licensing & quality indicators, and risk assessment systems.
Anthologies of Selected Papers from Other Sources Supporting Differential Monitoring, Licensing & QualityIndicators, and Risk Assessment Systems:
National ExamplesBackground Examples
These are examples of Risk Assessment and Key Indicator Tools, Policies, Matrices and InformationalStakeholder Powerpoints:
Washington Key Indicators Tool for Family Child CareWashington Key Indicators Tool for Child Care CentersWashington State Differential Monitoring ApproachWashington State Child Care LicensingOregon Key Indicators Tool for Child Care CentersOregon Risk Assessment MatrixKansas Key Indicators Policy ManualKansas Key Indicators Stakeholder PresentationMassachusetts Differential Monitoring PresentationGeorgia DECAL Enforcement and Compliance Policy ReportHealth & Safety Checklist for ECE based upon CFOCHead Start Key Indicator – C Tool ProtocolThirteen Key Indicators of Child Care Quality ToolStepping Stones Compliance/Comparison Checklist
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Share this:
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Posters/Articles
These selected posters present a summary/overview of the ECPQIM (Fiene, 2015) model (#10):
National Early Care and Education StandardsnationalchildcarebenchmarksandpublicpolicyThe Thirteen Key Quality Indicators13indicatorsofqualitychildcarePennsylvania Early Care and Education Quality StudypennsylvaniaearlychildhoodqualitysettingsPennsylvania Early Care and Education Outcome StudychildcarequalitychildrensdevelopmentandcompliancewithregulationsPennsylvania Infant Mentoring ProjectinfantcaregivermentoringprojectPennsylvania Internet ECE Teacher Delivery StudyinternetdeliverywithincoursecontentandlearnersatisfactioninearlychildhoodeducationMathematical Model for Computing Adult Child Ratio Compliancedaycarecentersatheoreticalmodelforcomputingadultchildratios
This poster summarizes the ASPE White Paper on Innovations in Program Monitoring of EarlyCare and Education Settings: Options for States
ECE Monitoring Summary
These selected articles present the key elements of the ECPQIM (Fiene, 1985, 2001, 2002, 2013, 2015) model:
Child Care QuarterlyChild & Youth Care ForumJournal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationEarly Childhood Research QuarterlyInternational Journal of Child Care & Education Policy
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
Share this:
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
ECPQIM/DMLMA
The following brief document and powerpoint slides present the latest information in summary format on theEarly Childhood Program Quality Improvement/Indicator Model and the Differential Monitoring LogicModel and Algorithm (ECPQIM/DMLMA) (#1/2/5/9):
1. ECPQIM/DMLMA Brief Collection of Readings: (RJF1A). This document contains the original2013 paper and the updated 2015 paper describing ECPQIM/DMLMA along with examples of reports andother supporting papers for the model. (#1/2)
2. ECPQIM Listing of Publications by Content Area: (ECPQIM PUBLICATIONS) (#1/2)3. ECPQIM/DMLMA Powerpoint Presentation with Notations: (PPT135+ NARARIKIN). Thispowerpoint contains an overview to the ECPQIM/DMLMA model. Here is the presentation fromYouTube. (#1/2)
4. This graphic (Early Childhood Program Quality Improvement/Indicator Model(ECPQI2M4) & Differential Monitoring Logic Model and Algorithm (DMLMA)Update) summarizes the latest research on ECPQIM/DMLMA (Fiene, 2015a). (#1/2)
5. This graphic (Relationship of Comprehensive Reviews (CR) to Key Indicator (KI) or RiskAssessment (RA) Rule NonCompliance) depicts the relationship amongst comprehensiveinstruments and key indicators & risk assessment tools (Fiene, 2015b). (#1/2)
6. And here is a Seminar Presentation (The Intersection of Translational Research andImplementation Science: An Early Childhood Predictive Analytic Model (ECPQIM4)(Abstract)(Video of the Presentation) I did in 2015 at the Prevention Research Center, Penn StateUniversity describing ECPQIM/DMLMA (Fiene, 2015c). (#1/2)
7. One of the original papers (The Instrument Based Program Monitoring Information Systemand Indicator Checklist for Child Care) describing ECPQIM, differential monitoring, licensing keyindicators and the risk assessment methodologies. (#2)
There are two national initiatives which demonstrate specific outcomes of the ECPQIM/DMLMA approach: Caring for Our Children Basics and Head Start Key Indicators. The following national publications (OHS,OCC, ACF, ASPE), powerpoint presentations, and webinars provide information about theseprograms/initiatives based upon differential monitoring, risk assessment and key indicator methodologies.
Caring for Our Children BasicsDevelopment of the Head Start Key IndicatorC ToolOverview of Head Start Key IndicatorC ToolAligned Monitoring SystemOHS Grantee Webcast: Overview of Head Start MonitoringHead Start Key Indicator ScreenerOffice of Head Start HSKIC Monitoring ProtocolHead Start Key IndicatorC (HSKIC) Review Handbook
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
ASPE Monitoring of ECE Programs White PaperASPE Report of 13 Key Indicators of Child Care QualityOCC Licensing Brief on Monitoring Strategies for Determining ComplianceACF ECD 2015 Accomplishments (CFOCB & HSKIC Differential Monitoring)
Here is an article I wrote for Child Care Information Exchange about 20 years ago which might get a bit moretraction today then it did back in the 1990’s when not as many quality funds were available to states. I wouldlove to see this idea pilot tested in a state or two. I think the “trilemma” still exists today as it did 20 years ago,so let’s think outside the box and see if creative public policies can have some impact on this continuingproblem. Here is a pdf of that article I wrote: Searching for a Solution to the Child Care Trilemma. The ideas inthis article combine several components/elements that I have advocated for from my ECPQIM Paradigm (Fiene,1971, 1985, 2013, 2015).
These are a series of ECE Quality Studies completed in Pennsylvania from 1996 – 2011 which demonstrate theimpact that public policies can have on overall quality of programs:
The 1996 Study – Professional Development, Training System.The 2002 Study – All Early Childhood Settings, Head Start, Preschool, etc.The 2006 Study – Keystone Stars – PA Quality Rating & Improvement System.The 2011 Study – Subsidy System, TEACH, Keystone Stars.
More detailed evaluations of quality locally in Pennsylvania, family child care, child care and Head Start.
Family Child Care Quality in PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Head Start & Child Care Quality ComparisonsLocal Pennsylvania Quality
Here are a QRIS ToolKit and Compendium of Measures for use within ECE/QRIS systems:
OPRE/QRIS Compendium – Tools/InstrumentsOPRE/QRIS TOOLKIT – Overview and Design
These reports give examples of professional development, training system evaluations as well as particularapproaches (mentoring, coaching), and the Institute (CAECTI) responsible for developing and completing them:
Mind in the Making Learning Modules EvaluationEvaluation of the Pennsylvania MAPS ProjectInternet Evaluation – Mastering Course Content & Learner Satisfaction in ECEInfant Toddler Caregiver Mentoring Program EvaluationInfant Toddler Caregiver Mentoring Program ManualCapital Area Health & Human Development Institute ReportPRC/CAECTI ECE Intervention StrategiesLocal Pennsylvania Mentoring Evaluation
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale TrainingASPE/LITES Compelling ModelsQRIS and Coaching Quality ImprovementECELS ITQIP Child Care Health Consultants Mentoring/Coaching MCHB Research Project Reports
For additional detailed information regarding ECPQIM/DMLMA (Fiene, 2015), please go to thefollowing website for additional articles and reports: (RIKI Institute)
Share this:
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
7
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
National
These are national examples of the ECPQIM/DMLMA approach (#8). The following national publications arefrom the Office of Head Start (OHS), Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families(ACF), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), and Office of Planning, Research andEvaluation (OPRE):
ACF Caring for Our Children Basics
OHS Development of the Head Start Key IndicatorC ToolOHS Overview of Head Start Key IndicatorC ToolOHS Aligned Monitoring SystemOHS Grantee Webcast: Overview of Head Start MonitoringOHS Head Start Key Indicator ScreenerOHS HSKIC Monitoring ProtocolOHS Head Start Key IndicatorC (HSKIC) Review Handbook
ASPE Monitoring of ECE Programs White PaperASPE Report of 13 Key Indicators of Child Care QualityASPE LITES Compelling Report
OCC Licensing Brief on Monitoring Strategies for Determining Compliance
ACF ECD 2015 Accomplishments (CFOCB & HSKIC Differential Monitoring)
OPRE QRIS CompendiumOPRE QRIS TOOLKITOPRE QRIS ValidationOPRE Coordinated Monitoring Systems
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
CCDF 2015 NPRM Topical Webinar: Health and Safety P...
Share this:
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Websites
LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rikirichardfiene)ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Fiene)Academia.edu (http://pennstate.academia.edu/RickFiene)
PENN STATE:
Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center at Penn State (http://www.prevention.psu.edu/richardfiene)Early Childhood Education at Penn State (http://www.ed.psu.edu/cross/earlychildhoodeducation/faculty)iLookOut Child Abuse Prevention Program at Penn State College of Medicine(https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02225301)Center for the Protection of Children at Penn State College of Medicine(http://pennstatehershey.org/web/protectionofchildren/home)
NARA – NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION:
NARA Key Indicators (http://www.naralicensing.org/keyindicators)NARA Training and Consulting (http://www.naralicensing.org/trainingconsulting)NARA Strategic Partnerships (http://www.naralicensing.org/strategicpartnerships)
RIKI – RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR KEY INDICATORS:
Research Institute for Key Indicators – RIKI (http://rikinstitute.com) main website; Supporting websites: (http://rikiinstitute.wix.com/rikinstitute) and (http://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com) additional reports,technical notes and updates.RIKI Selected Publications (http://padlet.com/riki_institute/RIKI)(http://padlet.com/RIKILLC/Research_Institute_for_Key_Indicators_LLC)(http://padlet.com/rikirjf/RIKILLC)Google+ RJF (https://plus.google.com/u/1/+DrRichardFiene)Google+ RIKI (https://plus.google.com/104371037538443414170/about)Twitter (https://twitter.com/rikillc)Facebook RIKI (https://www.facebook.com/RIKILLC)Pinterest (https://www.pinterest.com/researchins0345/)Tumblr (http://rikillc.tumblr.com/)
Also, please see these web sites for additional information regarding DMLMA/ECPQIMresearch:
CCEERC (http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/resources?q=richard+fiene)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22richard+fiene%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C39&as_sdtp=)WorldCAT (https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=%22RICHARD+FIENE%22&fq=&dblist=638&start=41&qt=next_page)Penn State Libraries CAT (http://psu.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?ho=t&l=en&q=%22richard%20fiene%22)
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
CAECTI/PSH (http://harrisburg.psu.edu/capitalareaearlychildhoodtraininginstitute/publications)PRC/PSU (http://www.prevention.psu.edu/earlychildhoodpublicationsanducpc)
Additional publications, presentations, policies, programs, and legislation are available on thefollowing web sites:
VIDEO AND AUDIO:
Differential Monitoring, Risk Assessment, Key Indicators 2013 – 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR5qRryeCg4&feature=youtu.be)OCC: The Benefits of Monitoring 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKHfrBwssyQ&feature=emshare_video_user)STAM/OCC/ACF Plenary Session on Monitoring 2014(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/stam2013monitoringplenaryhighlightsparti)Penn State Prevention Research Center Seminar Presentation on ECPQIM 2015(http://live.libraries.psu.edu/Mediasite/Play/2ba6f8729ca54a09aa997963c591508c1d?catalog=8376d4b24dd1457ea3bfe4cf9163feda)STAM 2015 Raising the Bar on Quality (https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/resource/julystammeeting#RaisingQualityBar)CCDF 2015 Webinar Video Protecting Health & Safety of Children in Child Care(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcm8jPiFQq8)
FEDERAL:
Federal Register/CCDF NPRM (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/20/201311673/childcareanddevelopmentfundccdfprogram#h48)Federal Register/CCDBF NPRM (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/24/201531883/childcareanddevelopmentfundprogram)CCDBG Reauthorization (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/ccdfreauthorization)CCDBG Bill 2014 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1086/text)Caring for Our Children Basics (CFOCB) (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/18/201429649/caringforourchildrenbasicscommentrequest)Caring for Our Children Basics Webinar (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/caringforourchildrenbasicswebinar)Caring for Our Children Basics Final (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/caringforourchildrenbasics)CCDF Reauthorization (https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/ccdfreauthorization)CCDF Reauthorization FAQ (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/ccdfreauthorizationfaq)CCDF 2015 Webinar Protecting Health & Safety of Children in Child Care(http://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com/file/view/2015_nprm_hs_slides.pdf/573629981/2015_nprm_hs_slides.pdf)CCDF Health and Safety Requirements Fact Sheet(https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/286_1508_healthsafety_summary_training_final_0.pdf)Establishing Standards and Monitoring Processes to Ensure Health and Safety(https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/150420_licensing_and_health_and_safety_session_ppt_final.pdfHead Start Key Indicators (HSKI) OHS (http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/grants/monitoring)(http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/grants/monitoring/HeadStartKeyIn.htm)Revision of the Head Start Performance Standards Webinar(http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/hspps/nprm/docs/ohsnprmwebinar.pdf)ACF ECD 2015 Accomplishments(https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/clean_ecd_accomplishments_2015.pdf)
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
ASSISTANT SECRETARY’S OFFICE FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION:
ASPE/Monitoring White Paper on Monitoring(http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/15/ece_monitoring/rpt_ece_monitoring.cfm)ASPE/HHS Parent’s Guide and ASPE/HHS Research Monograph (http://aspe.hhs.gov/basicreport/13indicatorsqualitychildcare)ASPE/LITES Compelling Models (https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdfreport/learningaboutinfantandtoddlerearlyeducationserviceslitessummarizingresearchandgapscompellingmodels)ASPE/LITES (https://aspe.hhs.gov/learningaboutinfantandtoddlerearlyeducationserviceslites)
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
APHA Presentation on National Health & Safety Checklist(https://apha.confex.com/apha/141am/webprogram/Paper275254.html)NRCKids Parent’s Guide 2015 (http://nrckids.org/index.cfm/parentsguardians/howtochoosehighqualitychildcare/)NRC/SS3 Standards (http://nrckids.org/index.cfm/products/steppingstonestocaringforourchildren3rdeditionss3/)NRC/CFOC3 National ECE Health and Safety Standards (http://cfoc.nrckids.org/)Teacher Care (http://www.teachercare.com/web/varticle.asp?articleid=5747)NECPA Accreditation (http://www.necpa.net/qualityandresearch.php)PITC – Program for Infant Toddler Caregiving – The Center for Child & Family Studies(http://clas.uiuc.edu/fulltext/cl03267/cl03267.html)CLIA Cruise Lines International Association Standards (https://drfiene.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2013clia.pdf)UNICEF CDPES – Child Development Program Evaluation Scale Summary(http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/Tool_16.pdf)NIEER/QRIS & PreK (http://nieer.org/publications/it%E2%80%99sstarsmorestatesareusingqualityratingsystemsprek)BUILD QRIS (http://qrisnetwork.org/member/calendar/event/140226/validatinglicensingcomplianceandqualityearlychildhoodstatesyste)Child Policy University Consortium/SRCD(http://childpolicyuniversityconsortium.com/pdfs/Update_Policy_Relevant_Materials.pdf)CLASP (http://www.clasp.org/issues/childcareandearlyeducation/pages/body/Chapter2_CCDBGGuide.pdf)NARA Strong Licensing(http://www.naralicensing.drivehq.com/publications/Strong_cc_Licensing_2011.pdf)National Head Start Association (NHSA) (https://www.nhsa.org/files/resources/mtf_report.pdf)Chilean PQ Study(http://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chile%20PQ%20Study.pdf/573883783/Chile%20PQ%20Study.pdf)
EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH:
ECRQ Special Issue on QRIS Research (http://www.mathematicampr.com/news/earlychildhoodresearchquarterly)ECRQ Journal Article on Validation(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200614000337)Early Childhood NEWS (http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=584)New America EdCentral (http://www.edcentral.org/monitoring/)Dowdy Thesis (http://www.csus.edu/ppa/thesisproject/bank/2011/Dowdy.pdf)
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Bohleber Dissertation (http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2980&context=dissertations)Egert Dissertation(http://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com/file/view/EGERTFranziskaDisssek_A3a.pdf/573883123/EGERTFranziskaDisssek_A3a.pdfQi Ph.D. Thesis (http://bbktheses.da.ulcc.ac.uk/152/1/cp_Fullversion2015QiXphdBBK.pdf)Penn State Prevention Research Center Seminar(http://www.prevention.psu.edu/media/prc/files/FieneTalk.pdf)
STATES:
Georgia DECAL Validation Study and Report (http://decal.ga.gov/BftS/ChildCareServicesStudy.aspx)Georgia DECAL Validation Study Presentation(http://decal.ga.gov/documents/attachments/ChildCareLicensingStudy_Presentation.pdf)Georgia DECAL Enforcement and Compliance Policy(http://decal.ga.gov/CCS/EnforcementCompliancePolicy.aspx)California Key Indicator Proposed Legislation (http://asmdc.org/members/a57/newsroom/pressreleases/assemblymemberiancalderonslegislationcallingforannualunannouncedregulatoryvisitstocommunitycarefacilitiespassesassemblyhumanservices)California/MyCCL New Directions Key Indicator Project with Fact Sheets and Pilot Test(http://www.myccl.ca.gov/default.asp?b=New_Directions)Washington State DEL Differential Monitoring(https://del.wa.gov/sites/default/files/imported/publications/laws/docs/2015_differentialmonitoring.pdf)Washington State DEL Child Care Licensing(https://del.wa.gov/sites/default/files/imported/publications/research/docs/LicensingProvisoReport11511.pdf)Maine (http://legislature.maine.gov/uploads/originals/dlrsstatusupdate7115.pdf)Massachusetts (http://www.naralicensing.org/assets/docs/Seminar2015/g3%20nara%20conference%20presentation_diff%20licensing%20in%20ma_final.pdf)
NACCRRA/CHILD CARE AWARE:
NACCRRA Parent’s Guide(http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/publications/naccrra_publications/2012/isthistherightplaceformychild.pdfNACCRRA/NARA (http://www.naralicensing.org/assets/docs/Presentations/1naccrra.pdf)
OFFICE OF CHILD CARE:
Differential Monitoring, Risk Assessment and Key Indicators(https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/1408_differential_monitoring_final_1.pdf)
Share this:
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCBlog at WordPress.com. Follow “RIKI -
Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Blog
The Benets of Monitoring Child Care Settings
Here are some other videos, webinars, powerpoint presentations, and other resources about programmonitoring and ECPQIM:
Differential Monitoring, Risk Assessment, Key Indicators 2013 – 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR5qRryeCg4&feature=youtu.be)OCC: The Benefits of Monitoring 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKHfrBwssyQ&feature=emshare_video_user)STAM/OCC/ACF Plenary Session on Monitoring 2014(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/occ/resource/stam2013monitoringplenaryhighlightsparti)Penn State Prevention Research Center Seminar Presentation on ECPQIM 2015(http://live.libraries.psu.edu/Mediasite/Play/2ba6f8729ca54a09aa997963c591508c1d?catalog=8376d4b24dd1457ea3bfe4cf9163feda)STAM 2015 Raising the Bar on Quality (https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/resource/julystammeeting#RaisingQualityBar)CCDF 2015 Webinar Video Protecting Health & Safety of Children in Child Care(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcm8jPiFQq8)Caring for Our Children Basics 2015 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/caringforourchildrenbasicswebinar)
I have had the distinct honor to become a member of the National Center for Early Childhood QualityAssurance’s Licensing Expert Panel that they have convened. It is with great pleasure that I serve on thispanel with 25 other national experts (Licensing Expert Panel Members) representing all the variouscomponents of an early care and education quality continuum.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
The RIKI Blog has posts regarding Caring for Our Children Basics (CFOCB) and its potential impact on theECE field. I am taking a look at a few of the standards and why they are so important to the ECE field inestablishing a firm foundation to ECE health and safety for all children. I have geared the blog for parents tothink about their own ECE arrangements and if it meets the standards as presented in CFOCB. I am reallycurious to see what I hear back from parents. (#6/7/9/11/12/13)
We can’t underestimate the importance of CFOCB. I have said this in other venues that CFOCB is as importantas Developmentally Appropriate Practices when it was first published. CFOCB is a game changer for the USA inthat now we (ECE) actually have nationally voluntary standards for all ECE programs. This is a significantevent.
Having been a state administrator, policy researcher and analyst for 25 years, I would suggest that present stateadministrators think about using CFOCB as the basis of any revision to their own state ECE rules/regulations astheir core set of rules, and for their basic health & safety standards in the state’s QRIS. CFOCB is based upon asolid research base developed over the past five decades. It is one of the best examples of combining the KeyIndicator and Risk Assessment methodologies together.
My plan is to think through creative ways that CFOCB can be used by state agencies in helping to improve ECEin their respective jurisdictions. Those of you who know me, know that I have been at this for over 40 years infiguring out the best ways of improving ECE quality for all children. CFOCB is a first step for us. Hopefully,with QRIS we can build upon this solid foundation with CFOCB to really tackle ECE quality.
Please go to RIKInstitute.com to get the latest posts. All the posts are from Caring for Our Children Basics andCaring for Our Children 3rd Edition.
Here is a new resource from the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance regarding new Briefs onHealth and Safety Topics (NCECQA Health & Safety Briefs). I highly recommend these to parents and providerswho are seeking child care or are working in child care. This is just another excellent example of the highquality, thoughtful resources being produced by the National Center.
Based upon 40+ years of research into identifying key licensing and quality indicators it is possible to distill thislist of key indicators into three areas/factors when related to rules/regulations/standards. These threerule/regulatory/standard areas are the following:
1. A highly qualified ECE Director with a BA/MA in ECE.2. Highly qualified ECE Teachers with AA/BA in ECE.3. Parent Engagement similar to what we see in Head Start programs.
These three areas have appeared consistently in key indicator lists when analyzing state licensing regulationsand QRIS standards. In an ECE world with very limited resources, I would recommend that we focus our
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
program monitoring on these three areas in order to efficiently and effectively increase the overall quality ofECE programs.
Another question asked many times is if there is a specific rule/regulation that stands out from all the keyindicators, in other words, it shows up on every state’s list or most state’s lists. There is a rule/regulation thatfits this threshold and it has to do with children’s immunizations. For what ever reason, compliance withthis rule/regulation appears to have the ability to consistently discriminate between the highly compliant ECEproviders and those that have lower compliance. This is an area that needs additional exploration to determinein greater detail why this occurs. Presently a MCHB research project being undertaken by the PennsylvaniaChapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics ECELS (ECELS Report) will help to provide some answers to“why”.
In addition to immunizations, the original thirteen key indicators that were identified in the 1985 Child CareQuarterly (1985 CCQ) article have not over the past three decades changed alot (STATE KI X 10KIf). There arefewer of them, 10 rather than 13 with group size and adult child ratio no longer on the list but it is interestingthat these key indicators have stayed so constant for such a long time. And over the past three decades, manystates have used the original 13 Key Indicators in designing their abbreviated inspections. Here is the originallist of the 13 key indicators (Parents Guide Checklist) as published by the National Resource Center for Healthand Safety in Child Care. For the convenience of the reader, I have listed the key indicators below, for a moredetailed look at these, please use the publications listed above. Those listed with an asterisk (*) are inclusive ofthe CCDF health and safety national requirements. Those that are italicized appear approximately twothirdsof the time on state key indicator lists (Thirteen Key Indicators Technical Research Update). All tenrequirements are contained within Caring for Our Children Basics and Stepping Stones.
1. Supervision of children2. Hand washing and diapering3. Director & teacher qualifications4. Children’s immunizations*5. Toxic substances are innaccessible*6. Emergency plan*7. Fire drills8. Child abuse prevention*9. Medication administration*10. Staff training/first aid*
One last comment about using the key indicator methodology with different data sets, such as with accreditationor QRIS systems. The key indicator methodology has been also used with ECERS to see if it was possible to finda similar relationship between scoring very high on individual items and the overall score. Only one item (Item16 – Children Communicating) achieved a perfect correlation (r = +1.00) in which it was always scoredvery highly with only those ECE programs that scored equally highly on the total ECERS score.
I have maintained a national ECPQIM data base where a portion of these data are available athttp://rikinstitute.wikispaces.com in various SPSS data files of the key elements. For interested researchers, Ihave the full data base available for further analyses.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Dr. Fiene will continue his work in further developing the professional development, training and technicalassistance key elements of ECPQIM through his collaborative work with the Pennsylvania Chapter of theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, ECELS – Early Childhood Education Linkage System’s, Infant ToddlerProgram Quality Improvement Project; and the Penn State Hershey, College of Medicine, Center for theProtection of Children’s iLookOut for Child Abuse Prevention Project .
He is also continuing his work in the further development of differential monitoring (Ontario Tiered Licensing)(Realm Award for Innovation) in Canada with the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Education. This projectwill provide a comprehensive implementation, evaluation, and validation strategy for those jurisdictionsplanning on undertaking differential monitoring, risk assessment or key indicator methodologies.
And of course, his continuing collaboration and partnership with NARA – National Association for RegulatoryAdministration where the further development and dissemination of differential monitoring, risk assessmentand key indicator methodologies will continue into the future along with the Validation Studies for each of thesemethodologies.
The ECELS ITQIP is finishing up its three year MCHB funding and here is an initial draft of the reports thathave been produced over the past several years. It begins with the results from the pretest in order to establishequivalency of the intervention and control groups. This is followed by the results from the first post testcomparing the intervention group to the control group and looking at change over time. The third report in theseries presents the results from the second post test comparing the cross over effects and latent effects of theintervention and control groups. And lastly, is the tool/instrument used to collect the data for all three years ofthe study (ECELS ITQIP Reports). This study and project is particularly exciting because it clearlydemonstrates the effectiveness of a child care health consultant mentoring/coaching model in impactingselected Caring for Our Children standards focused on infant and toddler programs. It also demonstratedthat the intervention is effective in a cross over methodology as well as having latent/lasting effects. This studybuilds upon the original mentoring/coaching study conducted at the Penn State Capital Area Early ChildhoodResearch and Training Institute/Prevention Research Center in 2002 (CAECTI/PRC Mentoring/CoachingArticle).
This study also demonstrated the effectiveness of monitoring. Data taken from the number of hours CCHC(Child Care Health Consultants) spent in programs doing mentoring/coaching had a positive impact onimproving compliance with the Caring for Our Children standards. But this result was geared more towardsthe higher compliant programs and the number of hours in mentoring/coaching was not at the high end of thespectrum. So it appears that just a little help goes a long way with the highest compliant programs. This issignificant because with the push for differential monitoring and abbreviated inspections, having several shortmonitoring visits still helps a program to improve.
Speaking of Validation Studies, here are several reports on QRIS Validation that should help to guide the readerwith a strategic framework for doing these types of studies:
Early Childhood Research Quarterly Special Issue on QRIS ResearchQRIS Validation Framework
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
QRIS Validation in Four StatesQRIS Validation Study DesignsQRIS Validation of a Local ImplementationQRIS Approaches to Validating Quality Rating & Improvement SystemsQRIS Maine Evaluation ReportQRIS Family Child CareQRIS RAND Validation StudiesQRIS Studies & OutcomesQRIS and Coaching Quality ImprovementQRIS Minnesota ParentAwareValidation Executive SummaryQRIS Parent Aware Validation Report_FinalQRIS WashingtonQRIS Validation ResourcesNAEYC Public Policy ReportQRIS Keystone Stars ReportSouth Carolina Childcare InitiativesQRIS IowaQRIS FloridaQRIS WisconsinRhode Island Quality Study
A couple of letters of support Appropriations Letter and DOE Letter for evidence based programs, regulations,and policies that RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators signed on to support.
An excellent presentation done by researchers from ASPE, Child Trends, and Georgia DECAL which presentsthe future of ECE monitoring.
A New Report from ASPE highlighting 13 compelling models for infant toddler early childhood services in whichmentoring/coaching models are highlighted, including CAECTI’s InfantToddler Caregiver Mentoring Program.
Interesting article on the impact of quality early care and education services (Child Encyclopedia Article).
Three reports regarding child care licensing in Canada, Accreditation, and good standards improving child carequality that I found very interesting.
Child Care Licensing in CanadaCCIE AccreditationGood Standards Improve Child Care Quality
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
These two reports demonstrate support for the Theory of Regulatory Compliance which depicts the relationshipbetween program quality and licensing/regulatory compliance where higher licensing standards show astatistically significant relationship with program quality standards but lower licensing standards do not. Also,a plateau effect occurs when moving from substantial regulatory compliance to full regulatory compliance as itrelates to program quality standards.
Head Start ReportGeorgia Report
Because of this plateau effect, it ushered in the key indicator and risk assessment methodologies which are atthe basis of abbreviated inspections and differential monitoring. The purpose of these methodologies is not tohave less standards or rules or regulations but rather to determine what are the “right”standards/rules/regulations that impact services the most because they statistically predict overall regulatorycompliance or reduce harm or risk for morbidity or mortality.
Although the reports and examples are from early care and education, these methodologies are applicable to allhuman services (e.g., child and adult residential services, etc.) and probably to other regulatory areas outside ofthe human services arena.
Recently Georgia DECAL revised their enforcement and compliance policy which demonstrates one of the betterexamples of a risk asssessment system. Here is the link to their work(http://decal.ga.gov/CCS/EnforcementCompliancePolicy.aspx).
Here is a discussion I started within NARA (National Association for Regulatory Administration) aboutregulatory compliance data limitations and potential solutions:
I’d like to start a discussion about the nature of regulatory compliance/licensing data and the implicationsrelated to measurement. As a research psychologist who has spent his total professional career examining theimpact of regulatory compliance policies on children and families, the issues related to measurement andprogram monitoring have always been at the forefront of my research studies. I have found regulatorycompliance/licensing data to have many limitations when it comes to measurement and analysis because thedata are severely skewed.
Why is this important? Generally in the social sciences, research psychologists deal with data that are morenormally distributed with sufficient variance. However, licensing data are not and probably never will be closeto being normally distributed. Actually, this is a good thing from a public policy point of view. We don’t wantbasic health and safety rules to be normally distributed; we want programs (as many as possible) to be incompliance with these basic health and safety rules. And this is usually what happens. But from ameasurement standpoint, it creates difficulties in analyzing the data.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
By having severely skewed data, it is difficult at times to distinguish amongst the data between mediocreprograms and either higher performers or lower performers because there isn’t sufficient variance/separation intheir scores. When I first noticed this, I suggested the use of weights attached to each rule in order to increasethe variance in the data. This helps but is not sufficient in increasing the variance in the data. Unfortunately,this will always be a shortcoming of licensing data.
I point out this above limitation for future researchers who will be dealing with licensing data so that they canbe aware of this but also to look at other statistical solutions to this problem and as a discussion point withinNARA with other members to be aware.
I started a discussion earlier this morning (the above post) in which I presented some issues with regulatorycompliance/licensing data. I don’t like bringing up issues or problems without at least proposing somesolutions. So here are some solutions to this problem regarding licensing data skewness.
One way is through weighting (I suggested this in my earlier post so let me expand here) which I have advocatedfor that introduces more variance in the data. This helps and is the basis for risk assessment systems but it canonly go so far because it is really a statistical manipulation where we are saying that all regulations are notcreated nor administered equally. There are some regulations/rules that are more important than others; inother words, there are particular regulations/rules which reduce the potential risk of morbidity/mortality toclients if complied with.
Another potential solution, which I have observed in PreK programs, is the introduction of higher standardsand their resulting influence on licensing compliance in general. This may be a more effective way to deal withthe problem with skewness in data. If the data become more normally distributed because the standards aremore stringent, this is a good thing. I think with PreK standards being utilized in more states and the advent ofCaring for Our Children Basics that we may see a change in data distributions.
A complementary issue that probably is a result of the skewness of data has to do with the nonlinearrelationship between regulatory compliance and program quality. I have termed this relationship, Theory ofRegulatory Compliance. This relationship I first observed in Pennsylvania in the late 1970’s in early care andeducation (ECE) programs. I have continued to find this relationship between regulatory compliance andprogram quality data which is unsettling from a public policy standpoint. As a public policy administrator oneexpects that quality increases with higher levels of regulatory compliance, right. But this nonlinear relationshipdoesn’t support this conclusion – some of the highest quality programs are in substantial but not full regulatorycompliance. I have suggested that higher licensing standards may eliminate this plateau effect when a highquality PreK program is introduced in a state ECE delivery system.
It was because of this nonlinear relationship between regulatory compliance and program quality that usheredin the introduction of licensing key indicators and risk assessment systems in attempting to make inspectionvisits more efficient and effective by balancing program monitoring with quality initiatives.
These results are from the ECE research literature base but I strongly feel that these findings are applicablethroughout the human services field and possibly beyond into any regulatory environment, such as banking orenvironmental regulations, to name a couple of different venues. This is more about finding the “right”
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
regulations to monitor rather than finding “fewer or more” regulations to monitor. By utilizing a riskassessment/key indicator approach, this could be a solution to the deregulatory paradox.
For the interested reader, many of my reports which highlight the results above can be found athttp://RIKInstitute.com/ecpqim
Here is another discussion question that I have been giving a great deal of thought to in how the key indicatormethodology can be used. Generally, in the past, it has been based upon the compliance history (CI) for aspecific provider. Very high regulatory compliance makes a program eligible for the use of an abbreviated keyindicator inspection (KI). Very low regulatory compliance disqualifies a program for the use of an abbreviatedkey indicator inspection and generally leads to a more comprehensive full review of all rules (CI).
But there is another way to use the key indicator methodology. It could be used as a screener where everyprovider in a state receives the abbreviated key indicator inspection (KI) and based upon the results(compliance with all the key indicators) either the program gets another abbreviated inspection (KI) thefollowing year or it moves to a more comprehensive full review (CI) if noncompliance is found with any of thekey indicators.
In summary form, it would look something like this:
Compliance History data (CI) –> If high, key indicator inspection (KI), or if low, fullcomprehensive review (CI). (CI –> KI or CI).
Key Indicator as screener (KI) –> If high, key indicator inspection next year (KI), or if low, afull comprehensive review (CI). (KI –> KI or CI).
The advantage with the screener approach is that all providers from the beginning get a chance to be measuredvia key indicators. This could be looked upon by providers as initially more equitable in the application of keyindicators. Something to think about as we move forward in the future development of the key indicatormethodology.
NARA Newslink Blog of the Month – Key Indicators, by Dr. Rick Fiene.
We often get asked….’What exactly are Key Indicators?’ and ‘Why should my state agency be interested’? Thismonth, Dr. Rick Fiene, the creator of The Key Indicator Methodology has posted a blog to answer thosequestions. Read today and post your comments. And if your interest has been peaked, join the Key IndicatorCircle – a be a part of the NARA community.
NARA has recently created a Key Indicator webpage (http://www.naralicensing.org/keyindicators) that shouldhelp state licensing administrators get additional information about differential monitoring, risk assessment,
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
and key indicator systems. I would highly recommend anyone who is interested to check out the new website. Itis listed under the NARA Resources Folder on the Menu, just click on Key Indicators.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators (http://RIKInstitute.com) has joined a select group oforganizations in a strategic partnership with NARA – National Association for Regulatory Administration. Hereis the statement on NARA’s website:
Strategic PartnershipsNARA has developed a broad spectrum of strategic relationships that provide access to the most uptodateinformation on child care and child welfare regulations at both the federal and state levels. NARA’s collaborativerelationships with agencies and advocacy organizations include:
Collaborative Relationships within the Administration for Children & Families (ACF), Office of Child CareNational Center for Early Childhood Quality Assurance (NCECQA)Children’s Environmental Health NetworkChildcare ExchangeThe National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (NRC)Generations UnitedAnnie E. Casey FoundationAmerican Bar AssociationRIKI Institute
For more information, please email [email protected].
I recently updated the NARA Licensing Curriculum Licensing Measurement and Systems Course. Here is a brief outline of the Course (Content (Webpage location)):
Licensing Measurement, Regulatory Compliance, and Program Monitoring Systems
Richard Fiene, Ph.D.
Overview (ECPQIM/DMLMA & Publications)Conceptual/Theoretical Framework (ECPQIM/DMLMA & Publications)Principles of Instrument Design (RIKI Reports & Appendix)Measurement: Reliability and Validity (RIKI Reports & Appendix)Regulatory Compliance and Program Quality (ECPQIM/DMLMA)QRIS and other Quality Initiatives (RIKI Blog)Statistical Methods and Data Base Development (RIKI Reports & RIKI Blog)Coordinated Program Monitoring, Evaluation, & Validation (National)Differential Monitoring, Risk Assessment, Key Indicators (ECPQIM/DMLMA & RIKI Blog)What Research Tells Us (Posters/Articles)
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
What Research Doesn’t Tell Us: Unanswered Questions (RIKI Blog)National, International, and State Examples (RIKI Reports, RIKI Blog & Appendix)Future Directions (RIKI Blog)
Please contact Dr Fiene if you have questions or comments:Rick Fiene, Affiliate Professor, Penn State Prevention Research Centerat [email protected]
Big news out of the Province of Ontario: the Child Care Quality Assurance and LicensingBranch within the Early Years Division won their Ontario’s Ministry of Education RealmAward for Innovation for their Tiered Licensing System. The REALM Awards recognizeexcellence and achievement in the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Training,Colleges and Universities (the Learning Ministries). Their Tiered Licensing System utilizes theDifferential Monitoring, Key Indicator, and Risk Assessment Methodologies. What is soexciting about the Ontario Tiered Licensing System is that it uses both key indicators and riskassessment approaches for their differential monitoring system. Most jurisdictions use eitherkey indicators or risk assessment but not both together. The Ontario approach provides ablueprint for combining the two methodologies together in the most cost effective and efficientdifferential monitoring approach. The NARA Press Release: (narapressreleaseaward 002).
Additional information about the award and project:
The Prix REALM Awards program formally recognizes Learning Ministries’ (Ministry of Education andMinistry of Training, Colleges and Universities) staff for exceptional and outstanding contributions to:
the services provided to Ontarians and/or,making the Learning Ministries a better place to work
This year outstanding achievements will be recognized in five award categories: Collaboration, CustomerService, Diversity and Inclusion, Innovation, Leadership and Lifetime Achievement
Won for Innovation:
Eligibility: Nominees in the category must have developed a new way of doing or thinking beneficial to abusiness process, program, initiative, or work environment.
About the project:
As part of the modernization of child care, Ontario’s Ministry of Education has developed an innovative riskbased approach to child care licensing – tiered licensing. Tiered licensing is designed to maximize theeffectiveness and efficiency of the licensing process by focusing ministry resources where it matters most – oncentres that need help to achieve compliance and areas of highest risk to children’s health and safety andimportance to their learning and development – with the goal of improving regulatory compliance in all centres.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Tiered licensing is built on best practices from across North America, a robust methodology and a cutting edgeIT solution.
More details:
Ontario’s Ministry of Education has developed an original, transformative and innovative riskbased approachto child care licensing called tiered licensing.
The tiered licensing approach has been designed inhouse to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of thelicensing process with the goal of improving regulatory compliance and quality in all child care centres. Underthis approach, ministry resources will be targeted to areas where they matter most – on centres that need extrasupport to come into compliance and on areas of highest risk to children’s health and safety. At the same time,the approach will free up resources to provide more indepth support in the important area of childdevelopment and wellbeing.
The ministry is transforming how child care licensing is performed in Ontario through tiered licensing byengaging the expertise of front line staff, Municipalities and licensees and integrating best practices from acrossNorth America to develop a robust new methodology and a cutting edge IT solution.
Ontario will be the first province in Canada to adopt a comprehensive riskbased approach for child carelicensing and is now on the map as a North American leader in innovative regulatory practices. Dr. RichardFiene, a leader in the field of regulatory administration for over four decades and a consultant on the project,has referred to Ontario’s approach as a “blueprint that other jurisdictions should follow.”
Maine is in the news for improvements to their child care licensing program. Please go to the following link(Maine Licensing System) to learn more.
Here is a powerpoint presentation for researchers and statisticians which has all the math and logic modelingfor ECPQIM.
Math/Logic Modeling of ECPQIM
Here is a pdf of the latest powerpoint presentation which has an evaluation and validation study of differentialmonitoring, key indicators and risk assessment methodologies:
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Differential Monitoring
PPT139 NARARIKI – Single slides per page (139 pages).PPT139 NARARIKI6 – Multiple slides per page (24 pages).ONTARIO Tiered Licensing System (6) – Multiple slides per page (30 pages).
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR KEY INDICATORS (RIKI) Contributions to the Human ServicesField
Early Childhood Program Quality Improvement and Indicator ModelDifferential Monitoring Logic Model and AlgorithmClustering/Herding Behaviors of Two Year OldsRegulatory Policy based upon Clustering for Adult Child RatiosMathematical Model for Computing Adult Child RatiosChild Development Program Evaluation Scale Theory of Regulatory ComplianceInstrument Based Program MonitoringHuman Service Program Differential MonitoringLicensing Weighting/Risk AssessmentLicensing and Quality Key IndicatorsHuman Service Provider Mentoring/Coaching
EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM QUALITY IMPROVEMENT & INDICATOR MODEL (ECPQIM)KEY ELEMENTS (Publications)
The ECPQIM/DMLMA ModelInternational Regulatory Compliance Comparisons – ICEPLicensing & Monitoring Publications – ASPE, OCC, CCQ, NARA, ZTT
Program ComplianceCaring for Our Children – NRC/AAP/APHAInstrument based Program Monitoring – CCQ
Program Quality
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Keystone Stars Evaluation – OCD; Validation – OPREInfant Toddler Mentoring Program – CYCF, ASPENational Early Childhood Program Accreditation – NECPA
Program Compliance x Program QualityTheory of Regulatory Compliance – NEJHSChild Development Program Evaluation Scale – CCQ
Risk AssessmentStepping Stones – NRC/AAP/APHA
Key IndicatorsThirteen Key Indicators of Quality Child Care – ASPEHead Start Key Indicators – OHS
Risk Assessment x Key IndicatorsCaring for Our Children Basics – ACF
Child Development OutcomesQuality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us? – NAEYC
1. ECPQIM0: 1972 – 1974. Regional Model; EMIS (Fiene, 1975)*. This was the originalconceptualization when I was a graduate student.
2. ECPQIM1: 1975 – 1994. Qualitative to Quantitative; focus on reliability; data utilizationlinking monitoring to training/technical assistance systems; distinctions between programmonitoring and evaluation; Key Indicators, Weighted Rules, & principles of licensinginstrument design introduced. (Fiene, 1981; Fiene & Nixon, 1985). This is the original articlewritten describing the model and suggesting the use of differential monitoring.
3. ECPQIM2: 1995 – 1999. Policy Evaluation and Regulatory Systems Planning added to model.(Griffin & Fiene, 1995).
4. ECPQIM3: 2000 – 2011. Inferential Inspections & Risk Assessment terminology added to themodel. (Fiene & Kroh, 2000).
5. ECPQIM4/4+: 2012 – present. Validation with expected Thresholds & DifferentialMonitoring formally added via a logic model and algorithm; Quality Indicators introduced.(Fiene, 2012, 2013b, 2015).
*These are the various editions/versions of the Early Childhood Program QualityImprovement and Indicator Models (ECPQIM0–4+) that I developed while a graduate studentand then improved upon the original design. All the citations can be found in the publicationswebpage which is part of this RIKI website.
The next section below contains the most recent examples of ECPQIM key elements. These are all projectsactively going on presently (2016) in the Province of Ontario, Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy ofPediatrics, and the Penn State College of Medicine.
ECPQIM1 DM, KI, RA Evaluation & Validation (Realm Award for Innovation)
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
ECPQIM1 DM, RA, KI Technical Research NoteECPQIM2 PD MentoringECPQIM2 PD Mentoring/CoachingECPQIM2 PD ECELSECPQIM2 PD ITQIPECPQIM3 PD Internet TrainingECPQIM3 PD Internet Training Research Protocol
Here is a very important technical aspect of the Key Indicator Methodology that I want to share with researchersand statisticians. There are many different cut points or thresholds that can be used to determine the highgroup from the low group in constructing the 2 x 2 matrix for the phi coefficients (Φ = (a)(d) – (b)(c)/sqrt(w)(x)(y)(z)). Ideally, (a)(d) should be much higher than (b)(c). In fact, (b)(c) should be as close to zeroas possible. For example, the high regulatory compliance group (a) could only be those providers who attain100% regulatory compliance with all rules/regulations. The low regulatory compliance group (d) could bethose providers who attain 99% or lower regulatory compliance with all rules/regulations. Or the high groupcould be 10099% regulatory compliance and the low group could be 95% or less regulatory compliance with allrules/regulations. In this approach the middle 50% of the data are not used. I have reported in a previoustechnical report that a top 25% and a bottom 25% of compliance history for programs was the most optimumcut points. It appears from two separate studies to test this hypothesis that this approach does appear to be themost effective and efficient dichotomization of the regulatory compliance data.
A study completed in New York bears this out where various cut points/thresholds were used. Another studygoing on in Michigan (Centers, Family Homes, Group Homes) where various cut points/thresholds were usedwith the regulatory compliance data supports this contention as well.
For reaching me online, here are my email and website contacts at RIKI and NARA:
Richard Fiene, Ph.D., Research PsychologistRIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC Senior Consultant for Licensing Measurement & SystemsNARA – National Association for Regulatory [email protected]@NARALicensing.orghttp://RIKInstitute.com/RIKIhttp://www.naralicensing.org/keyindicators
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company.
Share this:
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
RIKI & NARA PARTNERSHIPPosted on February 20, 2016
For all future research and development for differential monitoring, risk assessment and keyindicator methodologies please go to the NARA – National Association for Regulatory
Administration.
Dr Fiene pictured with Tara Orlowski, NARA President and Marcus Williams, NARA Executive Director
Please see the Press Release on the partnership between NARA and RIKI.(NARA press release on NARARIKI partnership).
Also see the NARA Key Indicator Systems Brochure which describes the key elements of DrFiene’s methodology.
Please go the the following webpage http://RIKInstitute.com/blog for a continuation andexpansion of this blog. The several posts below highlight selected CFOCB – Caring for Our
Children Basics standards for the interested reader.
Share this:
Posted in Differential Monitoring, Key Indicators, Risk Assessment | Leave a comment
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
7 13
Follow
PRE SERVICE TRAININGPosted on February 11, 2016
Before or during the first three months of employment, training and orientation should detail health and safetyissues for early care and education settings including, but not limited to, typical and atypical child development;pediatric first aid and CPR; safe sleep practices, including risk reduction of Sudden Infant DeathSyndrome/Sudden Unexplained Infant Death (SIDS/SUID); poison prevention; shaken baby syndrome andabusive head trauma; standard precautions; emergency preparedness; nutrition and ageappropriate feeding;medication administration; and care plan implementation for children with special health care needs.Caregivers/teachers should complete training before administering medication to children. The needs of theprogram and the preservice qualifications of staff. Training should address the following areas: a) Health andsafety (specifically reducing the risk of SIDS, infant safe sleep practices, shaken baby syndrome/abusive headtrauma), and poison prevention and poison safety; b) Child growth and development, including motordevelopment and appropriate physical activity; c) Nutrition and feeding of children; d) Planning learningactivities for all children; e) Guidance and discipline techniques; f) Linkages with community services; g)Communication and relations with families; h) Detection and reporting of child abuse and neglect; i) Advocacyfor early childhood programs; j) Professional issues. In the early childhood field there is often “crossover”regarding professional preparation (preservice programs) and ongoing professional development (inserviceprograms). This field is one in which entrylevel requirements differ across various sectors within the field (e.g.,nursing, family support, and bookkeeping are also fields with varying entrylevel requirements). In earlychildhood, the requirements differ across center, home, and school based settings. An individual could receiveprofessional preparation (preservice) to be a teaching staff member in a communitybased organization andreceive subsequent education and training as part of an ongoing professional development system (inservice).
The same individual could also be pursuing a degree for a role as a teacher in a program for which licensure isrequired— this inservice program would be considered preservice education for the certified teaching position.Therefore, the labels preservice and inservice must be seen as related to a position in the field, and not basedon the individual’s professional development program All directors or program administrators andcaregivers/teachers should document receipt of training.
Providers should not care for children unsupervised until they have completed training in pediatric first aid andCPR; safe sleep practices, including risk reduction of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome/Sudden UnexplainedInfant Death (SIDS/SUID); standard precautions for the prevention of communicable disease; poisonprevention; and shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma.
Why this Standard is Important
The director or program administrator of a center or large family child care home or the small family child carehome caregiver/teacher is the person accountable for all policies. Basic entrylevel knowledge of health andsafety and social and emotional needs is essential to administer the facility. Caregivers/teachers should beknowledgeable about infectious disease and immunizations because properly implemented health policies canreduce the spread of disease, not only among the children but also among staff members, family members, andin the greater community. Knowledge of injury prevention measures in child care is essential to control knownrisks. Pediatric first aid training that includes CPR is important because the director or small family child carehome caregiver/teacher is fully responsible for all aspects of the health of the children in care. Medicationadministration and knowledge about caring for children with special health care needs is essential tomaintaining the health and safety of children with special health care needs. Most SIDS deaths in child care
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
occur on the first day of child care or within the first week due to unaccustomed prone (on the stomach)sleeping; the risk of SIDS increases eighteen times when an infant who sleeps supine (on the back) at home isplaced in the prone position in child care. Shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma is completelypreventable. It is crucial for caregivers/teachers to be knowledgeable of both syndromes and how to preventthem before they care for infants. Early childhood expertise is necessary to guide the curriculum andopportunities for children in programs. The minimum of a Child Development Associate credential with asystem of required contact hours, specific content areas, and a set renewal cycle in addition to an assessmentrequirement would add significantly to the level of care and education for children. The National Association forthe Education of Young Children (NAEYC), a leading organization in child care and early childhood education,recommends annual training based on the needs of the program and the preservice qualifications of staff.Training should address the following areas: a) Health and safety (specifically reducing the risk of SIDS, infantsafe sleep practices, shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma), and poison prevention and poison safety; b)Child growth and development, including motor development and appropriate physical activity; c) Nutritionand feeding of children; d) Planning learning activities for all children; e) Guidance and discipline techniques; f)Linkages with community services; g) Communication and relations with families; h) Detection and reporting ofchild abuse and neglect; i) Advocacy for early childhood programs; j) Professional issues. In the early childhoodfield there is often “crossover” regarding professional preparation (preservice programs) and ongoingprofessional development (inservice programs). This field is one in which entrylevel requirements differacross various sectors within the field (e.g., nursing, family support, and bookkeeping are also fields withvarying entrylevel requirements). In early childhood, the requirements differ across center, home, and schoolbased settings. An individual could receive professional preparation (preservice) to be a teaching staff memberin a communitybased organization and receive subsequent education and training as part of an ongoingprofessional development system (inservice). The same individual could also be pursuing a degree for a role asa teacher in a program for which licensure is required— this inservice program would be considered preserviceeducation for the certified teaching position. Therefore, the labels preservice and inservice must be seen asrelated to a position in the field, and not based on the individual’s professional development program.
Share this:
Posted in Professional Development, Training | 1 Comment
BACKGROUND SCREENINGPosted on February 11, 2016
All caregivers/teachers and staff in early care and education settings (in addition to any individual age 18 andolder, or a minor over age 12 if allowed under State law and if a registry/database includes minors, residing in afamily child care home) should undergo a complete background screening upon employment and once at leastevery five years thereafter. Screening should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and should be completedwithin 45 days after hiring. Caregivers/teachers and staff should not have unsupervised access to children untilscreening has been completed. Consent to the background investigation should be required for employmentconsideration. The comprehensive background screening should include the following:
2 8
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
1. A search of the State criminal and sex offender registry or repository in the State where the child care staffmember resides, and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding 5 years;
2. A search of Statebased child abuse and neglect registries and databases in the State where the child carestaff member resides, and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding 5 years; and
3. A Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification.
Directors/programs should review each employment application to assess the relevancy of any issue uncoveredby the complete background screening, including any arrest, pending criminal charge, or conviction, and shoulduse this information in employment decisions in accordance with state laws.
Why this Standard is important
To ensure their safety and physical and mental health, children should be protected from any risk of abuse orneglect. Although few persons will acknowledge past child abuse or neglect to another person, the obviousattention directed to the question by the licensing agency or caregiver/teacher may discourage some potentiallyabusive individuals from seeking employment in child care. Performing diligent background screenings alsoprotects the child care facility against future legal challenges. Having a state credentialing system can reduce thetime required to ensure all those caring for children have had the required background screening review.
Share this:
Posted in Key Indicators, Licensing | Leave a comment
CHILD:STAFF RATIOSPosted on January 30, 2016
As promised, I said I would periodically post selected standards from Caring for Our ChildrenBasics (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/caringforourchildrenbasics) and talk about why they areimportant. For the interested reader, I would suggest going to the full Caring for OurChildren (http://cfoc.nrckids.org/) book to get the full information on each standard I post.
This first standard, Child:Staff Ratios, is a very well researched standard. I remember when I first got startedin the ECE field and the FIDCR Appropriateness Study was being conducted back in the 1970’s, child:staffratios and group sizes were researched in great detail. Although child:staff ratio and group size do not predictoverall quality they do always correlate with overall quality in that they set up the conditions in which highquality care can occur.
Ratios for Centers and Family Child Care Homes
Appropriate ratios should be kept during all hours of program operation. Children with special health careneeds or who require more attention dur to certain disabilities may require additional staff on site, dependingon their needs and the extent of their disabilities.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
In center based care, child provider ratios should be determined by the age of the majority of children and theneeds of children present.
For children 12 months or younger, the maximum child:provider ratio should be 4:1. For children between 1323 months of age, the maximum child:provider ratio should be 4:1. For children between 2435 months of age,the maximum child:provider ratio should be 4:1 – 6:1. For 3 year old children, the maximum child:providerratio should be 9:1. For 4 to 5 year old children, the maximum child:provider ratio should be 10:1.
In family child care homes, the provider’s own children under the age of 6, as well as any other children in thehome temporarily requiring supervision, should be included in the child:provider ratio. In family child caresettings where there are mixed age groups that include infants and toddlers, a maximum ration of 6:1 should bemaintained and no more than two of these children should be 24 months or younger. If all children in care areunder 36 months, a maximum ratio of 4:1 should be maintained and no more than two of these children shouldbe 18 months or younger. If all children in care are 3 years old, a maximum ratio of 7:1 should be preserved. Ifall children in care are 4 to 5 years of age, a maximum ratio of 8:1 should be maintained.
Taken from Caring for Our Children Basics (2015)
Why this standard is important
Low child:staff ratios for nonambulatory children are essential for fire safety.
Children benefit from social interactions with peers. However, larger groups are generally associated with lesspositive interactions and developmental outcomes. Group size and ratio of children to adults are limited to allowfor one to one interactions, intimate knowledge of individual children, and consistent caregiving.
Studies have found that children (particularly infants and toddlers) in groups that comply with therecommended ratio receive more sensitive and appropriate caregiving and score higher on developmentalassessments.
Child:staff ratios alone do not predict the quality of care. Direct, warm social interactions between adults andchildren is more common and more likely with lower child:staff ratios.
Low child:staff ratios are most critical for infants and young toddlers. Infant development and caregivingquality improves when group size and child:staff ratios are smaller. Improved verbal interactions are correlatedwith lower ratios. For three and four year old children, the size of the group is even more important than ratios.
The children’s physical safety and sanitation routines require a staff that is not fragmented by excessivedemands. Child:staff ratios in child care settings should be sufficiently low to keep staff stress below levels thatmight result in anger with children. Caring for too many young children increases the possibility of stress to thecaregiver/teacher, and may result in loss of the caregiver’s/teacher’s self control.
Taken from Caring for Our Children, 3rd Edition (2011)
Share this:
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Posted in Key Indicators, Licensing, QRIS | Leave a comment
ECE STANDARDSPosted on January 29, 2016
SAFE AND HEALTHY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION (ECE) VOLUNTARY STANDARDS
I would like to start a discussion related to early care and education (ECE) quality with the publication ofCaring for Our Children Basics (CFOCB), the new voluntary health and safety standards published by theAdministration for Children and Families last summer. This discussion should occur throughout the ECE fieldbut not be limited to this arena because these new voluntary standards should be viewed by all parents ofchildren in ECE programs and these same parents should be advocating for their adoption by all ECE programs.Grandparents should be involved in encouraging their children who have children in ECE programs becausethese CFOCB standards are a first step to establishing a caring environment that will be safe and healthy for
children in outofhome settings. Something that I am personally concerned about as a grandparent of threepreschool and school age grandchildren. This is a discussion that needs to occur outside the USA as well becauseeven though other countries have standards at a higher level with staffing and training, generally their healthand safety standards can be lacking based upon recent research comparing standards between other countriesand the USA.
CFOCB is based upon the latest research in the field which has accumulated over the past five decades andalthough the standards are very basic and do not necessarily ensure a high quality ECE program, the standardsdo establish a baseline to safe and healthy ECE which is a starting point.
For those interested readers, please go to the following website to see CFOCB:(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ecd/caringforourchildrenbasics).
For those who want to find out more about the research that supports CFOCB, please go the following website:(https://rikinstitute.com/riki/).
I look forward to a continuing dialogue with interested individuals.
Rick Fiene, Research PsychologistResearch Institute for Key Indicators (RIKI)
Share this:
Posted in Child Outcomes, Differential Monitoring, Key Indicators, Licensing, Professional Development, Program Quality, QRIS, Risk Assessment, Training | 2 Comments
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow
Contact
Dr Richard Fiene, Research PsychologistResearch Institute for Key Indicators, LLC (RIKI) 41 Grandview AvenueMiddletown, Pennsylvania 170577175988908 (mobile) or 7179445868 (phone and fax)
Website/Blog: RIKInstitute.comEmail: [email protected] [email protected]
Research Institute for Key Indicators
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company.
RIKI PA. Entity #:4193691.RIKI DUNS #:011323030.RIKI Commercial General Liability #:UDC1564002CGL1516.Research Psychologist, Dr Richard Fiene, PLC#:98G26062718.CITI/IRB/RCR REF: #5372708 (Pennsylvania State University); & #5527822 (PennsylvaniaState University – Hershey – College of Medicine/Hershey Medical Center).
For all future research and development for differential monitoring, risk assessment and keyindicator methodologies please go to the NARA – National Association for RegulatoryAdministration, 403 Marquis Avenue, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40502. NARA will be therepository of all my research papers, all future research papers and reports as well asmaintaining a blog on differential monitoring, risk assessment and key indicators.
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLC
Follow
NARA Key Indicator WebpageNARA Key Indicator BrochureNARA Targeted Measurement ToolsNARA Key Indicator SystemsNARA Key Indicator Systems Example ReportNARA Key Indicator WebinarNARA Key Indicator System ExamplesNARA Risk Assessment WebinarNARA Risk Assessment Example Report
Key Indicator Methodology, Weighting/Risk Assessment Methodology, and InferentialInspections/Differential/Target Monitoring are the property of the Research Institute for KeyIndicators (RIKI) and/or the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA) andmay not be used without their consent. For additional information, please [email protected].
NARA/RIKI Partnership
RIKI – Research Institute for Key Indicators LLCCreate a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Follow “RIKI -Research Institutefor Key IndicatorsLLC”
Get every new post delivered toyour Inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Build a website with WordPress.com
Follow