Under contract from the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL), throughout 2023 an Urban Institute team gathered perspectives to inform DECAL's comprehensive review of its quality rating and improvement system called Quality Rated. In this report, we describe what we learned about strengths and areas for improvement for Quality Rated from the more than 900 child care center-based leaders, more than 300 child care home-based leaders, more than 100 Georgia parents who need or use child care for their children from birth through age 13, and others who shared their perspectives with us through surveys, focus groups, and Data Walks. The report also describes how we did the work, provides detailed survey data, and makes six forward-looking recommendations for strengthening a future Quality Rated system.
Authors
Teresa Derrick-Mills, Elly Miles, Anna Farr, Catherine Kuhns, Eve Mefferd, Elli Nikolopoulos, Dow Drukker, Cary Lou
- Pages
- 111
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- Contents 3
- Acknowledgments 5
- Executive Summary 6
- Background 6
- Approach 6
- Project Findings 7
- Six Forward-Looking Recommendations 8
- Where to Find Related Products 9
- Background 11
- Approach 12
- How We Analyzed the Data and Why 14
- Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data 14
- Qualitative Analysis of Focus Group Data and Data Walk Discussions 15
- Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Questions 16
- Organization of This Report 17
- Study Participant Characteristics 18
- Georgia Parents 18
- Georgia Home-Based and Center-Based Care Providers 18
- DECAL and CCR&R Staff Who Interface with the Quality Rated Program and Children’s Nonprofit Advocates 23
- QRIS Experts 23
- Key Findings and Considerations 24
- Expectations and Benefits of Participating in Quality Rated 24
- Quality Rated Portfolios and Technical Assistance 27
- Perceptions of Quality Rated Portfolio Standards among Quality Rated Participants and Parents 28
- Portfolio Standard 1: Staff Qualifications 30
- Portfolio Standard 2: Child Well-Being 33
- Portfolio Standard 3: Family Engagement 36
- Portfolio Standard 4: Intentional Teaching Practices 39
- Portfolio Standard 5: Teacher-to-Student Ratios 42
- Overall Quality Rated Portfolio Assessments of Quality 44
- ERS Observation 45
- Quality Rated Fairness 49
- Why QRN Programs Do Not Participate and Ways to Encourage Participation 51
- Barriers That Prevent QRN Programs from Participating in Quality Rated 51
- Changes to Quality Rated That Would Encourage QRN Programs to Explore Participating 52
- Ways to Improve Quality Rated 53
- Changing the Emphasis in Quality Rated 53
- Changes in the Frequency of Assessments 54
- Changing the Star Rating 55
- Parent Perspectives on Desired Information in State-Provided Information on Child Care Quality 56
- Quality “In Their Own Words” 57
- Forward-Looking Recommendations to Shape Quality Assessment, Rating, and Support 60
- 1. Verify System Goals and Shape the System to Meet Them 60
- 2. Simplify the System but Tailor It to Match Many Strengths and Diverse Needs 62
- 3. Reframe the System to Reflect and Support Experiences 63
- 4. Consider How and How Often to Verify the Experiences 64
- 5. Provide More Education, More Continuously, about the System 66
- 6. Consider Where to Strengthen Links with Other Programs or Systems 67
- Conclusion 68
- Appendix A. Research Design and Methods 70
- Surveys of Quality Rated–Eligible Providers 70
- Goals and Content of Surveys 70
- Survey Population and Recruitment 71
- Survey Participation 72
- Quality Rated and Non–Quality Rated Survey Response Rates and Bias Analysis 72
- Focus Groups 73
- Recruitment 74
- Participation 74
- Focus Group Content 75
- Data Walks 75
- Appendix B. Multivariate Regression Models Describing Perceptions of Quality Rated Effectiveness 77
- Appendix C. Quality Rated Survey Item-Level Responses 82
- Appendix D. Non–Quality Rated Provider Survey Item-Level Responses 99
- Notes 107
- References 108
- About the Authors 109
- Statement of Independence 110
