QUINCE-PFI: Quality Interventions for Early

Care and Education, Partnerships for Inclusion

Model

Research Project funded by the Child Care Bureau, ACF and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE),

US Dept. of Health and Human Services

Donna Bryant, PhDUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

2

Partners and ParticipantsQUINCE-PFI Research Teams

FPG Child Development Institute at UNC-CHDonna Bryant, Peg Burchinal, Florence Chang, Carla Fenson,

Karen Taylor, Pat Wesley UCLA

Brandt Chamberlain, Carollee Howes Iowa State University

Sue Hegland, Kere Hughes University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Gallup

Helen Raikes, Julia Torquati Child Trends and U of Minnesota Harris Center

Amy Sussman-Stillman, Kathryn Tout, Marty Zaslow

Local CCR&R Agency Staff – 20 agencies in 5 states

3

Intervention Model

Partnerships for Inclusion - PFIOn-site consultation for 6-10 months, incorporates use of environment rating scales (ECERS-R, FDCRS) to help provider set goals for change

A parallel project is also part of QUINCE and is evaluating the Rameys’ Immersion Training for Excellence (RITE) in Mississippi

4

PFI Model Components

Focus on environment Joint needs assessment Goals identified by consultee On-site visits to support change Joint assessment of change Evaluation of consultation process

5

Research Questions

Is child care quality improved when providers receive PFI consultation?

Is PFI consultation better than existing quality enhancement services?

Does quality improvement maintain after PFI consultation ends?

What are the characteristics of consultants, providers, children and families who participate in the study?

6

Research Questions, cont.

Do some providers benefit more than others (education level, home/center, experience)?

Will closer adherence to the PFI model result in greater quality outcomes?

Will children in the care of providers who receive PFI consultation have better outcomes than children in control groups?

7

Year 1 PFI: Cohort 1

Treatment26 Consultants

60 Providers/Teachers

~120 Children

Control34 Consultants

90 Providers/Teachers

~180 Children

Randomization at both consultant and provider levels when possible

8

Oct

2004

Baseline:

Time 1

End of Intervention

: Time 2

PROJECT TIMELINE

Jun

2005

Dec

2005

Baseline:

Time 1

Maintenance of

Intervention: Time 3

Jun

2006

Dec

2006

Maintenance of

Intervention: Time 3

End of Intervention

: Time 2

Oct

2005

Cohort 2

Cohort 1

PFI action plan continuously re-assessed by Consultant and Consultee between Time 1

and 2

9

Documentation of Interventions

Fidelity to the PFI treatment model: Adherence to the plan of intervention (Treatment)

Delivery of existing QE activities (Controls) Measured in both Treatments & Controls:

frequency and duration of contact materials used

interactions

10

Environmental Change Assessments

Global quality (FDCRS, ECERS-R)

Assessment of pre-academic activities, especially language (ECERS-E)

Provider-Child Interactions (CIS)

Health and safety (FDCRS and ECERS-R subscales)

11

Assessments of Children

Literacy and language skills (PLS-4)

School readiness concept skills (Bracken)

Social-emotional development (DECA, SCBE)

Physical and health status (Teacher Ratings)

12

Consultants: Criteria for Participation

1 year commitment to be in the study Commitment to implement the

intervention as close as possible to the model or the existing agency intervention

No educational criteria -- we want the diversity that is out there, and the models should be useful for all ed. levels

13

Year 1 Consultants: Preliminary Descriptive Data

PFI (n=26) Control (n=34)Age in years (SD) 42.08 (10.65) 45.32 (11.88)

Average years in early childhood field (SD)

15.15 (7.47) 17.01 (9.59)

Average # of people in consultant’s household (SD)

# Married, living with spouse

3.31 (1.67)

16 (62%)

2.91 (1.19)

26 (76%)

14

Year 1 Consultants:Preliminary Data on Race/Ethnicity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f Consult

ants

PFI Control

WhiteBlackOtherLatina

15

Year 1 Consultants:Preliminary Education Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PFI Control

High schoolSome collegeAssociate'sBachelor'sMaster's

16

Year 1 Consultants:Preliminary Data

PFI (n=26) Control (n=34)

ECE major 9 (36%) 7 (21%)

# with CDA 1 (4%) 3 (9%)

Adult-centered beliefs about children*

2.00 (0.47) 2.09 (0.55)

* Schaefer & Edgerton’s (1985) Modernity Scale; Scores range from 1-5 with higher scores indicating more adult-centered beliefs about interactions with children

17

Year 1 Consultants:Preliminary Data

Plan to be a consultant for…

PFI (n=25) Control (n=33)

1-2 more years 2 (8%) 2 (6%)

3-4 more years 6 (24%) 3 (9%)

5-10 more years

11 (44%) 17 (51%)

> 10 more years

6 (24%) 11 (33%)

18

Year 1 Consultants:Preliminary Data

Area Consultants Serve

PFI (n=26) Control (n=34)

Rural 4 (15%) 3 (9%)

Small town/city 4 (15%) 10 (29%)

Medium town

Large town

4 (15%)

4 (15%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

Urban

Suburban

6 (23%)

4 (15%)

10 (29%)

7 (21%)

19

Year 1 Consultants:Baseline Data (Pre-PFI training)

% who Strongly Agree with… PFI (n=26) Control (n=34)

I see my current child care consultant position as my career or profession.

65% 41%

I feel respected for the work I do. 46% 56%

I see that my work is making a difference.

58% 65%

I feel well-equipped to do the work I do.

23% 38%

I have an opportunity to learn and grow professionally.

85% 74%

Adapted from Kontos, Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky (1995)

20

Year 1 Consultants:Baseline Data (Pre- PFI training)

% who Strongly Believe that they can…

PFI (n=26) Control (n=34)

Help teachers manage behavior problems

35% 32%

Help teachers learn how to help children improve communication skills

50% 38%

Help teachers learn how to help parents support their children’s growth

54% 50%

Help teacher learn to accommodate children with special needs

23% 41%

Find resource materials to help a teacher plan a learning activity

77% 65%

Adapted from the Early Childhood Teacher Inventory, VandeWiele (2001)

21

Policy Implications

What works best to enhance quality?

Educational level of the work force

Turnover among providers

Targeting of subsidy and QE dollars

Cost of training to improve quality

Sustainability infrastructure, dissemination