Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) Regional Leadership Consortia
Alameda County Consortium Action Plan As an initial step of RTT-ELC implementation, each participating Regional Leadership Consortia (Consortium) will develop an ELC Action Plan and roadmap with local goals and benchmarks for the four-year grant period. Consortia Action Plans will include: • • • • • • • • • • • •
An overview of the Consortium’s current Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS); Early Learning and Development Program participation baseline and target data; Alignment and incorporation of the common elements and tools in the Quality Continuum Framework, in addition to any local elements and tools; Quality Improvement Process; Evaluation and Rating & Monitoring System; Convening & Strengthening Partnerships; Capacity-building & Sustainability; Mentoring Other Counties; Key Personnel; Project Timeline; Budget Narrative; and Project-level Budget Spreadsheet (separate excel document)
Each Consortium will set ambitious yet achievable targets and goals for early learning and program participation in the local QRIS. This template will be a guide for the submission of an ELC Action Plan for each Consortium. Please fill out each section, as appropriate, and sign and date below.
RLC Lead Agency First 5 Alameda County Address 1100 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 120
Signature
RLC Lead Agency Contact Mark Friedman or Malia Ramler City San Leandro
Phone Number
510 875-2424 (MF) 510 875 2444 (MR) State Zip Code CA
94577
Date
Phone Number
10-18-12
510 875-2424
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 1
I. QRIS Overview. Please provide a brief summary of the Consortium’s current QRIS system. Alameda County does not have all elements of a QRIS in place at the present time. We have several quality improvement programs operated by various partners and many of these improvement programs have independently administered incentives. There is currently no recognized quality rating system. The elements of the existing quality improvement system are described below:
Quality Improvement Program Site Based Quality Improvement Coaching (Quality Counts)
Program Description
Intensive, on site 2-year coaching program for center and family based ECE providers to enhance overall program quality. Participants receive stipends to encourage participation and, upon completion of all program requirements, are eligible to apply for a facilities grant. Generalist ECE coaching is supplemented with specialized consultation as needed i.e. mental health, business, health and safety. Quality/Facilities Quality grants for child care sites participating in the Quality Counts Grants and Technical program. Grants are used to purchase materials to implement site Assistance improvement plans and make minor facilities repairs or improvements. Larger facilities grants are used for capital improvements to address health and safety requirements, increase capacity, and meet ADA requirements. Facilities grants are supported by training and technical assistance. Early Childhood Early childhood mental health consultation provided to ECE classrooms. Mental Health Trained mental health providers meet regularly with ECE staff and Consultation to ECE provide both programmatic and child specific consultation, training and additional referrals to resources. HMG ECE Screening Training and support to child care sites to enable them to administer and Support developmental screenings (ASQ) and participate in the Help Me Grow (HMG) system. Business Facilities grants require that the grantee conduct a PAS assessment and Consultation develop an action plan to address issues so identified. Business consultation is provided on an as needed basis. Consultation is also provided to CDD contractor agencies in Alameda County to improve fiscal and accountability practices. Higher Education The Community College Cohorts are designed to provide ongoing Cohorts support to ECE students in reaching academic and professional goals while improving quality of the programs in which they work. College Cohort Coordinators provide individual and group support. Students who complete required components receive incentive stipends. CARES Plus In partnership with local community colleges, CARES Plus participants are enrolled in ECE classes and participate in ECE Cohorts and CLASS related activities. CARES Plus also includes My Teaching Partner, a coaching program for ECE providers which includes both Cohort and Non Cohort participants Community Based Community based Resource & Referral agencies provide informal Provider Training training to child care providers. AB 212 Site based professional development and direct classroom coaching for staff and directors working for state subsidized centers Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 2
II.
Increasing the number and percentage of Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) participating in the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. Please enter baseline and annual target numbers and percentages for each program site within the Consortium.
Please see attached Alameda County QRIS sites served spreadsheet III. Increasing the number of Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) in
the top tiers of the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. Please enter baseline and annual target numbers for the total number of sites and for the number of sites in each tier, based on the number of tiers in the Consortium’s Quality Rating and Improvement System.
Please see attached Alameda County QRIS sites served spreadsheet
IV.
Increasing the number and percentage of Children with High Needs who are enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) that are in the top tiers of the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. Please enter baseline and annual target numbers and percentages for each type of program within the Consortium.
Please see attached Alameda County QRIS sites served spreadsheet
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 3
V. Quality Continuum Framework and Tiers. In addition to the three Common Tiers, please identify how many tiers the Consortium’s QRIS utilizes along with the elements, tools and resources associated with that system. Please insert any local additional tier(s) into the Quality Continuum Framework as needed. In addition, describe scoring methodology to move through the Tiers. HYBRID POINTS = 1 (Common Tier 1)
HYBRID POINTS = 3 (Common Tier 3)
HYBRID POINTS = 2
HYBRID POINTS = 4 (Common Tier 4)
HYBRID POINTS = 5
CORE I: CHILD DEVELOPMENT & SCHOOL READINESS CATEGORY I. A: Comprehensive Assessment System I.A.1 ELEMENT: (B1) Child Observation Not required
Program uses evidence-based child assessment/ observation tool once a year
Program uses valid and reliable child assessment/ observation tool aligned with CA F&F twice a year
DRDP 2010 (minimum twice a year) and results used to inform curriculum planning
Program uses DRDP 2010 twice a year and uploads into DRDP Tech and results used to inform curriculum planning
Program works with families to screen all children using the ASQ at entry and as indicated by results thereafter AND Health Screening Form used at entry, then: 1. annually OR 2. conducts vision and hearing screenings annually.
Program works with families to screen all children using the ASQ & ASQ-SE, if indicated, at entry, then as indicated by results thereafter. AND Program staff uses children’s screening results to implement intervention strategies and adaptations as appropriate. AND Health Screening Form used at entry, then: 1. annually OR 2. conducts vision and hearing screenings annually.
I.A.2 ELEMENT: (B2) Developmental and Health Screenings Health Screening Form used at entry (Community Care Licensing form LIC 701 "Physician's Report Child Care Centers")
Program works with families to screen all children using a valid and reliable child screening tool at entry and as indicated by results thereafter AND Health Screening Form used at entry, then: 1. annually OR 2. conducts vision and hearing screenings annually.
Health Screening Form used at entry, then: 1. annually OR 2. conducts vision and hearing screenings annually.
CORE II: Teachers and Teaching CATEGORYII.A: Early Childhood Educator Qualifications II.A.1 ELEMENT: Minimum Qualifications for Lead Teacher/FCCH Meets Title 22 Regulations
Center: 24 units of ECE (core 8) FCCH: 12 units of ECE (core 8)
24 units of ECE (core 8) and 16 units of General Education
Bachelor’s degree in ECE (or closely related field) with 48+ units of ECE OR master’s degree in ECE
AND
Associate's degree (AA) in ECE OR 60 degree-applicable units, including 24 units of ECE OR AA in any field plus 24 units of ECE
21 hours PD
AND
AND
21 hours PD
21 hours PD
CATEGORY II.B: Effective Teacher-Child Interactions II.B.2 ELEMENT: CLASS Assessments (*Use tool for appropriate age group as available)
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 4
HYBRID POINTS = 1 (Common Tier 1) Not Required
HYBRID POINTS = 3 (Common Tier 3)
HYBRID POINTS = 4 (Common Tier 4)
HYBRID POINTS = 5
Independent CLASS assessment by reliable observer (for appropriate age group as available) to inform the program’s professional development/improvement plan
Independent CLASS assessment by reliable observer (for appropriate age group as available) with minimum CLASS scores: • Emotional Support - 5 • Instructional Support –3 • Classroom Organization -5
Independent assessment with CLASS (for appropriate age group as available) with minimum CLASS scores: • Emotional Support – 5.5 • Instructional Support – 3.5 • Classroom Organization – 5.5
HYBRID POINTS = 2 Familiarity with CLASS (e.g.2hour Overview training) for appropriate age group as available by one representative from the site (on-line or face-to-face via facilitator)
CORE III: Program and Environment CATEGORY III.A: Licensing and Regulatory Requirements III.A.1. ELEMENT: (A1) Ratios and Group Size (Centers Only) Center: Title 22 Regulations Infant: 1:4 Toddler Option: 1:6 Preschool: 1:12
Center: Infant/Toddler Ratio of 4:16 or better; Toddler Ratio of 3:18 or better;
FCCH: Title 22 Regulations (excluded from point values in ratio and group size)
Center: Infant/Toddler Ratio of 3:12 or better; Toddler Ratio of 2:12 or better Preschool Ratio of 2:24 or better
Center: Infant/Toddler Ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 with respective group size 12 or 8; Toddler Ratio of 2:10 or better; Preschool Ratio of 8:1 or 10:1 with respective group size 24 or 20
Center: Infant/Toddler Ratio of 3:9 or better
Independent ERS assessment using scale for the appropriate setting; All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 4.0
Independent ERS assessment using scale for the appropriate setting; All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 5.0
Independent ERS assessment using scale for the appropriate setting; All subscales completed and averaged to meet overall score level of 5.5
Associate’s degree with 24 units core ECE, 6 units management/ administration, 2 units supervision
Bachelor’s degree with 24 units core ECE, 8 units management/ administration
AND
AND
21 hours PD
21 hours PD
Toddler Ratio of 3:12 or better Preschool Ratio of 3:20 or better
Preschool Ratio of 3:36 or better
CATEGORY III.B: Program Administration and Leadership III.B.1 ELEMENT: (B1) Environment Rating Scale(s) – ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R Overview ERS
Familiarity with ERS and every classroom uses ERS as a part of a Quality Improvement Plan
III.B.2 ELEMENT: Director Qualifications (Centers Only) 12 units core ECE (early childhood education, child development, family/consumer studies, or related field), 3 units management/administration
24 units core ECE, 16 units General Education, 3 units management/ Administration
Master’s degree with 30 units core ECE including specialized courses, 8 units management/ administration, or Administrative Credential AND 21 hours PD
California Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) Quality Continuum Framework Professional Development Pathways Pathway 1
Pathway 2
Pathway 3
Pathway 4
CORE I: CHILD DEVELOPMENT & SCHOOL READINESS
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 5
Pathway 5
Pathway 1
Pathway 2
Pathway 3
Pathway 4
Pathway 5
Foundations and Frameworks Awareness of Foundations and Frameworks(Overview)
Developing competency in integrating Foundations and Frameworks
Exploring integrating the Foundations and Frameworks
Building competency in integrating Foundations and Frameworks
Fully integrating Foundations and Frameworks
Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) pyramid model Not Required
Overview of CSEFEL Model - one representative from the site has completed the training
Overview of CSEFEL Model Lead teacher in every classroom and Center Director or FCCH operator complete training
Overview of CSEFEL Model - All teaching staff in every classroom and Center Director or FCCH operator
Overview of CSEFEL Model - All teaching staff in every classroom and Center Director or FCCH operator AND Provides evidence that CSEFEL approach is incorporated into classroom practices
Follows CA Title 22 Licensing Standards for Nutrition Regulations
Utilization of United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Child and Adult Care Food Program Guidelines
Utilization of USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program Guidelines AND 1. Implementing an evidencebased nutrition curriculum and/or physical education program OR 2. Evidence of physical activity in program daily schedule
Utilization of USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program Guidelines and, if applicable, participation in the Adult Care Food Program Guidelines AND Implementing an evidence-based nutrition curriculum and/or physical education program AND Evidence of physical activity in program daily schedule
Utilization of USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program Guidelines and, if applicable, participation in the Adult Care Food Program Guidelines AND 1. Implementing an evidence-based nutrition curriculum and/or physical education program AND 2. Evidence of physical activity in program daily schedule AND 3. Implementing a Health/Nutrition Best Practices OR Tobacco Cessation training completed by all staff
Pathway 1
Pathway 2
Pathway 3
Pathway 4
Pathway 5
Health and Nutrition
CORE II: Teachers and Teaching Professional Growth (PG) Plan and Early Childhood Education (ECE) Competencies
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 6
Pathway 1 Not Required
Pathway 2
Pathway 3
Completed Professional Growth Plan for each lead teacher
Completed Professional Growth Plan for each lead teacher
Pathway 4
Pathway 5
Completed Professional Growth Plan for all teaching staff AND Lead teachers utilize ECE Competencies Self-Assessment tool and tie it to professional growth plan
Completed Professional Growth Plan for all teaching staff AND All classroom teachers utilize ECE Competencies Self-Assessment tool
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Professional Development (Use tool for appropriate age group as available) Not Required
Familiarity with CLASS (e.g. Introduction to the CLASS 2-6 hour overview training) for appropriate age group as available by one representative from the site1 (online or face-to-face via facilitator) OR Familiarity with Program Assessment Rating Scale (PARS)
Every lead teacher has completed an Introduction to the CLASS face-to-face facilitated training2 OR has completed Looking at CLASSrooms training AND All other teaching staff and the director have received the Introduction to the CLASS (2-hour training) OR Familiarity with PARS
Independent CLASS assessment by reliable observer (for appropriate age group as available) and information is used as a part of a PG Plan with a certified trainer or observer AND CLASS concepts applied in a program-wide approach with intentional purpose (e.g. My Teaching Partner or Making the Most of CLASSroom Interaction) OR Informal PARS assessment in same manner
Every classroom uses CLASS as a part of a PG Plan with a certified trainer AND CLASS concepts applied in a program-wide approach with intentional purpose OR PARS in similar manner
CORE III: Program and Environment Program Administration Scale/ Business Administration Scale (PAS/BAS) Not Required
Introduction to PAS or BAS
Familiarity with PAS or BAS
Self-review with PAS/BAS and continuous improvement through a PAS/ BAS action plan OR National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation self-study OR Self-Assessment using the Office of Head Start (OHS) Monitoring Protocols and continuous improvement through a Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
Independent PAS or BAS assessment plus continuous improvement through a PAS or BAS action plan OR NAEYC Accreditation OR Official OHS review in good standing and/or self-assessment using independent assessors plus continuous improvement through a PIP
In addition to the three Common Tiers, please identify how many tiers the Consortium’s QRIS utilizes along with the elements, tools and resources associated with that system. Please insert any local additional tier(s) into the Quality Continuum Framework as needed. In addition, describe scoring methodology to move through the Tiers.
1 Teachstone recommends for director to complete training. 2 If the lead teacher has already completed Introduction to the CLASS then Looking at CLASSrooms is recommended by Teachstone.
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 7
Note: Please describe scoring methodology, if additional Tiers are not based solely on the block system. Alameda County will be using the tiers and professional development matrix which is in draft format above, noting that these are still in development at the state level and subject to change. The 5 County Bay Area Quality Rating and Improvement System Partnership has adopted all 5 tiers and the hybrid scoring methodology with no local revisions at this time. The Regional Consortia has also agreed to revisit modifying tiers 2 and 5 based on data and experience after the first complete round of rating. We will use a point based scoring methodology with Tier 1 as a block.
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 8
VI.
Quality Improvement Process. Please answer each question in the respective box below. 1. How will the Consortium implement continuous quality improvement and support participating Early Learning and Development Programs to ensure their progress along the Quality Continuum Framework? The Consortium will build upon existing quality improvement and support efforts. The first step will be for existing programs to analyze how their current practice aligns with RTT and identify opportunities for further alignment and assess how rating against the quality continuum framework can be integrated into an aligned and layered QI system. Given where Alameda County is in the development of a QRIS, we will have a phased work plan that begins with planning(FY 11-12), Design (FY 12-13), and Implementation (FY 13-14, 14-15, 15-16). Existing programs which will be leveraged and possibly enhanced include: Currently the programs listed below and described on page 2 of the action plan operate independently of one another. Most of the programs below utilize separate criteria for participation and their quality improvement interventions are focused on different units of analysis. Some programs target an individual teacher or director, others target classrooms and teaching teams, and others target entire sites. There is currently some limited coordination of quality improvement models – but this is limited and not inclusive of all programs. The QRIS standards provide an opportunity to align outcomes and incentives and coordinate quality improvement efforts on the same sites in order to enhance the likelihood of meaningful and sustainable improvement. This will, however, require changes in how sites are selected and in some cases involve changes in service models. Because the programs below operate with separate funding streams and under separate jurisdictions, this alignment cannot be mandated by the Consortia. For this reason, the first step must be a feasibility analysis of alignment. Programs will be asked to consider the feasibility of, desirability of, and interest in changes such as coordinating participation criteria, targeting participating QRIS sites as opposed to individuals or classrooms, adopting the quality elements as shared outcomes and part of their QI model, aligning incentives etc. The results of this analysis will provide the information needed to coordinate and layer existing investments. • • • • • • • • •
Quality Counts (site based coaching) Quality/Facilities Grants and Technical Assistance Mental Health Consultation to ECE HMG – Integration of Developmental Screening into ECE Business Consultation Higher Ed Cohorts CARES Plus Community Based Provider Training AB 212 (CLASS)
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 9
2. How will the Consortium ensure that quality improvement Technical Assistance (TA) will include the following: • Inform programs about the local QRIS, helping programs to move up the locally-based tiers, and sustain higher quality; • Incorporate local needs and priorities; • Support the implementation of local programs’ Quality Improvement Plans; • Build on local, state and national expertise and delivery systems, using a client-driven, data-based coaching model as well as other strategies; • Link into the California Department of Education (CDE) Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) quality projects and other state ELC TA research-based resources; and • Incorporate California’s research-based early learning system. The Consortium will include the elements described above by building upon existing programs and networks of relationships. Specifically: •
•
•
•
As a key partner the local resource and referral programs will assist us in informing programs. The existing QI programs (listed above) will all be part of provider outreach and collectively provide support to move programs up tiers and sustain quality. Local needs and priorities will be integral to design work with many stakeholders including the local child care planning council which has representation across many sectors. We expect to convene a variety of input opportunities in the design phase. The quality coaching models used by local programs including Quality Counts and MTP are evidence informed. Quality Counts is based on customized action plans developed collaboratively with participating sites and includes the use of specialty resources including mental health, business, and facilities consultation. Alameda County looks forward to utilizing ELC TA resources as we design our QRIS and will leverage that TA to link to CDE resources.
3. How will the Consortium provide locally-designed incentives for quality improvement? The local design of an integrated incentive structure will be determined in the design phase (FY 12-13). An incentive work group will be convened to lead this design effort. We will explore the feasibility of aligning current quality improvement incentives (i.e. participation grants, training stipends, quality/facilities grants etc. with a QRIS. The design task will be to determine not only how to align existing incentives but how the additional RTT ELC resources will be mobilized to create sustainable incentive structures that will survive beyond the life of this grant.
4. How will the Consortium use a strength-based approach that employs coaching and mentoring for continuous quality improvement? While Alameda County’s quality improvement programs are currently fragmented, they do share a commitment to strength based quality improvement practice and continuous quality improvement. This shared philosophy gives us a strong foundation to build from in developing our QRIS. For example, Quality Counts, AB 212, My Teaching Partner, and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation are coaching and consultation/mentoring approaches currently being used that explicitly build on provider Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 10
and program strengths. The Alameda County Local Child Care Planning Council’s Quality Statement holds continuous improvement through professional development and ongoing reflective practice as critical elements of quality. First 5 Alameda County has been providing training to cross disciplinary coaches working in ECE in order to increase the use of best practice coaching models that are strength based and client driven. The three local R&Rs are building their capacity to deploy strength based coaching by having staff trained and shadowing experienced Quality Counts coaches. We intend to align all of these resources to support shared outcomes as defined by the RTT Quality Continuum Framework. 5. What are the priority local workforce needs and how will the Consortium link these with existing state and local efforts? Below is a list of priority workforce needs we collected from over 20 key informants: • Formal education (AA and BA) • Release time to pursue training during regular work hours • Space and time for reflection and teambuilding • Compensation (better pay and benefits) • Training in child development and challenging behaviors • “Take something off my plate,” i.e. the Title V Contract Monitoring Review (in order to do QRIS) • Tuition reimbursement, cohort opportunities • Business consultation for FCC • Recognition • Tailored training (site by site) • Training on working with dual language learners • Training on inclusion and how to facilitate social interactions We plan to have some degree of alignment with our existing programs, such as Quality Counts, AB212 and our cohort programs. However, some of our greatest needs are related to release time, and better pay and benefits for staff. These challenges are not easily addressed through local programs and are better addressed through statewide system and policy reform. 6. How will the Consortium expand the knowledge, skills and effectiveness of early childhood educators in the participating early childhood settings? We believe that through implementation of strategies to support progress on the quality continuum tiers and the professional development pathways, we will expand the knowledge, skills and effectiveness of early childhood educators in the participating early childhood settings. We currently have an array of robust quality improvement activities and we will build on them. For example, we have one of the highest rates of participation in the My Teaching Partner program through State First 5. Additionally, we are using AB212 funds to provide direct coaching using the CLASS to Title V classrooms across the County. We have received very positive feedback on both of these programs from teachers and directors. They believe that MTP and CLASS coaching are truly enhancing the everyday interaction of teachers and children in the classroom. 7. How will the Consortium work with local institutions of higher education to support pursuit of degrees using a cohort model?
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 11
Consortium staff will continue to participate in a variety of higher education committees, convening and trainings. Additionally, members will: • Continue to fund and provide support to 3-4 local community colleges to continue current cohort/learning community model including the following desired student outcomes: 1) AA degree attainment 2) completion of requirements to be “transfer ready” and 3) advancement on the child development permit matrix. • Continue to partner with CSU East Bay to facilitate BA and MA cohorts • Provide technical assistance and in-kind support to Chabot College/CSU East Bay Pathways program (transfer program supporting BA and credential attainment of current community college students) • Participate on CSU East Bay Early Childhood Special Education Credential advisory committee • Provide consultation and support to CSU East Bay Teacher Education department regarding development of Pre-K to 3 Credential 8. How will the Consortium actively increase the quality of the available programs and eliminate barriers to access for children with High Needs? The Consortium will work to increase quality of programs available to children with High Needs by: • Disseminating information about the quality tiers • Prioritize QRIS enrollment for those programs serving a high percentage of children with High Needs (consistent with our current practice) • Work closely with our 3 local R&Rs who provide resource and referral counselors for all families including those of children with High Needs. R&R inclusion coordinators support families of children with special needs as they look for child care and help eliminate barriers by linking to Family Navigation when necessary. 9. How will the Consortium offer Training & TA to program staff on developmental and behavioral screening using standardized, validated screening tools? Alameda County is a National Help Me Grow replication site. Among our HMG activities is work with subsidized ECE programs to support their integration of developmental screening using the ASQ. Participating sites work with a child development training specialist to learn how to support parents in completing the ASQ, score the results, give feedback to parents and provide needed referral and follow up. Providers have access to the HMG Linkage Line to connect families with needed services when concerns are identified. With the development of a QRIS we will explore expanding this ASQ support work to QRIS participating ECE sites. 10. What type of incentives and support mechanisms will the Consortium explore for high-quality providers to participate or continue participating in state and federally subsidized programs to support both increased and continued access to quality services? The locally designed incentives are yet to be determined (see response VI.3). The incentive design work group will be charged with considering how to support retention of high-quality providers in state and federally subsidized programs.
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 12
11. How will the Consortium include some of the local efforts that support healthy development, such as health and safety practices, active physical play, and adult-child relationships, which support social-emotional development? Quality Counts currently leverages local efforts as described below and we expect that the aligned QRIS quality improvement model will continue to do so • Health and Safety is assessed using both the ERS family of tools and the California Child Care Health Program’s health and safety checklist. Quality Counts coaches spend a significant amount of time addressing basic health and safety conditions (environment) and practices. • A component of our quality incentive structure is facilities grant that can be used to upgrade outdoor play areas so that safe active physical play is possible. Some sites also receive a garden grant and consultation from a local urban farming organization to build vegetable plots at ECE sites – encouraging both outdoor activity and healthy eating • Alameda County’s Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation providers and the coaching work provided around CLASS are focused on social emotional development by supporting healthy adult child relationships. • First 5 Alameda County is a Brazelton Touchpoints Site. Touchpoints is a professional development model devoted to improving adult-child relationships in the service of healthy socialemotional development. ECE providers are the priority participants for certain TP sessions and we will explore prioritizing QRIS participating sites.
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 13
VII.
Evaluation and Rating & Monitoring System. Please answer each question in the respective box below. 1. Who are the training personnel who are conducting the assessments (QRIS ratings), and what is
their processes for ongoing quality control for maintaining an appropriate degree of rigor, including inter-rater reliability, in their rating processes? Currently we are not conducting QRIS assessments. We intend to explore a collaborative Bay Area Regional infrastructure to train rating personnel, establish rigor and inter-rater reliability and ensure ongoing quality control. A Bay Area Regional approach may result in economies of scale and will ensure that consumers can expect commonly defined standards across county lines. 2. What is the local QRIS monitoring and rating frequency (based on local goals and resources)?
Rating is not currently built into our QI system. The ERS tools are used as a self-assessment and reflection guide as part of Quality Counts. The appropriate ERS is administered by QC sites and coaches at entry into the program to guide the development of a quality improvement action plan. Monitoring and rating frequency and methodology for the QRIS will be determined in the design phase of our RTT-ELC work. To the degree possible we will seek consistency of practice with the Bay Area Region. 3. What type of local data systems are used to: implement a local monitoring process; gather quality
and scoring information; track supports and incentives; ensure participation by targeted programs serving children with High Needs; and review progress in relation to the Consortium’s local quality improvement targets. Alameda County, together with the Bay Area Regional consortia, is considering using WELS. In the interim, we will rely on ECC Online, a First 5 Alameda County database, which currently has the capacity to monitor ERS, CLASS and professional development activities, and has capacity to record demographics of children served by participating providers. ECC Online is the data system currently used by Quality Counts. 4. How will data be used to implement continued efficiencies and improvements?
Review of assessment results at time 1 and time 2 over intervention period as well as post participation surveys will inform both effect of interventions as well as strengths and challenges of programs. Also will be able to reflect on amount of investment (staff time, grants, and stipends) relative to effect size. 5. If a separate local RTT-ELC evaluation will be conducted, please describe it including: major
research/evaluation questions, summary of evaluation design, evaluation contractor, and any findings. Additional evaluation considerations are still in the design phase. There is some interest in seeing if providers are able to better manage challenging behaviors and understand referral pathways for children Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 14
with concerns. Also initial discussions through First 5 California CARES Plus initiative to determine if different program models yield different effect sizes in CLASS scores.
VIII.
Convening & Strengthening Partnerships. Please answer each question in the respective box below. 1. How will the Consortium bring together organizations in their region with the same goal of
improving the quality of early learning, including but not limited to: school districts, County Office of Education, the First 5 County Commission, local institutions of higher education, the local Child Care Planning Council, local R&R agency(ies), Early Head Start and Head Start, Child Development programs, migrant child care programs, alternative payment programs, tribal child care, county Health and Human Services including Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), California Home Visiting Program (CHVP) and local home visiting programs, and non-profit agencies and other organizations providing services for children from birth to age 5? An Interim Advisory Committee met from March through September of 2012. As of October 2012 a permanent Advisory Group (through the life of the award) has been formed. The permanent advisory group has some members who served on the Interim body and also integrates new partners. The Committee is jointly staffed by First Five Alameda County and the Child Care Planning Council. They have and will continue to provided valuable input on various aspects of the Action Plan and how the Early Learning Challenge will look in Alameda County. This advisory group will assist staff in developing an inclusive, County-wide input process as we develop our QRIS. 2. Who are the participating stakeholders in the Consortium? Please check the box of those
participating and indicate the name, if relevant. Members of the Alameda County Interim Advisory Committee (Consortium) are: X School District(s): Carol Barton*, Director, Woodstock CDC, Alameda Unified School District X Alternative Payment Program(s): Judy Kriege, BANANAS ☐ California Home Visiting Program (CHVP): representative requested X Child Care Planning Council: Angie Garling and Neva Bandelow, Planning Council staff X Child Development Program representative(s): Rosemary Almand*, CAPE and Carol Barton*, Director, Woodstock CDC, Alameda Unified School District X County Health and Human Services (including: Child Welfare Services, Welfare to Work, WIC, etc.): Kristin Spanos, Assistant Director, Social Services Agency X County Office of Education: Melinda Martin, ACOE Consultant X Early Head Start Grantees: Rosemary Almand*, CAPE X Head Start Grantees: Rosemary Almand*, CAPE X First 5 County Commission: Malia Ramler and Mark Friedman, First 5 staff Aisha Brown, staff to County Supervisor Keith Carson and First 5 Commissioner X Institution(s) of Higher Education: Julie Nicholson, Mills College Valerie Helgren-Lempesis, Cal State East Bay X Licensed Family Child Care Home representative(s): Cynthia Riemann, family child care provider and Quality Counts participant X Licensed Child Care Center representative(s): Meher van Groenou*, Owner and Director, Five Canyons Montessori ☐ Local Home Visiting Program: Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 15
☐ Migrant Child Care Program: see key informant interview information below X Resource & Referral Agency(ies): Renee Herzfeld, 4C’s of Alameda County and First 5 Commissioner ☐ Tribal Child Care Program: n/a X Non-profit Agency(ies) or Other Agencies Providing Services for Children Birth to Age 5: Kim DiGiacomo, Program Officer, Low Income Investment Fund Andrea Youngdahl, Director, Interagency Children’s Policy Council *Child Care Planning Council Steering Committee Member Additionally: the following people provided key informant interviews: Beatriz Leyva-Cutler, Director, Centro Vida (Title V) and Berkeley Unified School Board President Thelma Phones, Livermore Migrant Child Care Program Veronica Ufoegbune, Booth Memorial Child Development Center (Title V) Suzanne Nelson, North Region SELPA Director Alisa Burton, City of Oakland Head Start Rory Darrah, Early Childhood Consultant 3. As the lead agency, how are you ensuring that all Consortium members stay engaged throughout
the life of the RTT-ELC project? We have been regularly updating our Commission members and our QRIS partner the Child Care Planning Council is presenting information at every Council meeting and subcommittee meeting. The Interim Advisory Committee will assist staff in developing an ongoing Consortium structure as well as an ongoing communications plan through the Early Learning Challenge grant period. 4. How is the Consortium reaching out to families with local QRIS information and actively
engaging and informing families within the communities served?
The development of a family communication plan will be part of the design phase. We expect that our 3 local Resource & Referral agencies, who are a primary channel of consumer education about child care quality, will be key partners in the development and dissemination of information about the QRIS. 5. As the lead agency, how are you encouraging networking at the local level to create coherence and
alignment in planning and implementation efforts across communities with support and technical assistance from the CDE, participating state agencies, and other state partners?
We will ask all relevant quality improvement providers who operate in the County to complete an analysis and mapping of opportunities for alignment in their programs. We will ask each program to assess: • Where do they currently align with RTT and the Quality Continuum Framework? • Where will changes be required in order to align? • What are the benefits and costs of alignment and what would program leaders and staff recommend? Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 16
This analysis will be the foundation upon which we design a coherent aligned and layered QI system that integrates the new components included in the Quality Continuum Framework. In the design phase we expect to convene work groups including multiple stakeholders to achieve this alignment. We welcome the opportunity to leverage technical assistance from state partners in this work. 6. How is the Consortium developing strong partnerships with local education agencies that focus on
aligning developmentally appropriate practices, creating and building a birth to age eight continuum that supports healthy transitions, aligns professional development, promotes family engagement, and includes local Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and traditional Kindergarten School Readiness programs in the quality efforts? Building upon First 5’s 10-year history in partnering with school districts on the school readiness initiative, the Consortium will provide coordinated support and technical assistance to school districts and ECE community regarding Kindergarten/TK/ECE Collaborations. Activities are to include: • Leverage relationships with Transition Coordinators, Directors of Curriculum and Instruction and Superintendents as appropriate to further develop transitional activities within each partner district. • Coordinate with school readiness programs funded, developed and/or otherwise supported by First 5. • Coordinate with Alameda County Office of Education to provide technical assistance and support to TK teachers and administrators including quarterly TK learning community convening. • Provide joint professional development opportunities for ECE/TK/K teachers • Provide data and feedback to ECE providers after each annual Kindergarten Readiness Study to identify gaps in services and strategies to support school readiness. • Partner with the Alameda County School Board Association in coordinating their annual meeting and engaging county board members on issues related to early childhood education and articulation. 7. How is the Consortium working with local educational agencies to support their use of the DRDP-
SR in their local Transitional Kindergarten and traditional kindergarten programs during the life of the grant and ensuring DRDP-SR results are reported into CALPADS?
• •
Coordinate with Alameda County Office of Education to provide technical assistance and support to TK teachers and administrators including quarterly TK learning community convening. Provide joint professional development opportunities for ECE/TK/K teachers.
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 17
IX.
Capacity-building & Sustainability. Please answer each question in the respective box below. 1. How will the Consortium use RTT-ELC funds to support capacity-building activities?
Additionally, how will the Consortium utilize existing resources that can be redirected in support of the goals of the Consortium’s plan, with the aim of sustainable change beyond the life of the grant? We will use a portion of the RTT-ELC funding to build capacity in our targeted programs. The quality improvement activities we plan to implement will lead to sustained change through improved teacher/child interactions, improved business practices and, in some cases, through improved facilities. We also believe developing a trained and reliable pool of assessors will have lasting benefits for the County. First 5 is already working closely with our three Resource and Referral agencies to build their capacity to administer Quality Counts. We are also working with our institutions of higher education to administer our cohort programs. We will continue to work with our quality improvement partners to determine the level of alignment to ensure that RTT-ELC is successful in our County. We see RTT-ELC as an opportunity to leverage and align our existing resources toward common outcomes as defined by state recognized quality standards. We believe that this type of collective impact approach will ultimately be more effective at supporting quality and that a key ingredient to sustainable change is demonstrated efficacy. 2. How will the Consortium identify barriers to family access to state and federally subsidized
programs? In some ways this is a challenge that is beyond the scope of this program. We work closely with the Child Care Planning Council who helps coordinate state and federal policy analysis. We have a long waiting list in the County of thousands of eligible parents who would like to access subsidized programs but cannot because the demand is greater than the supply. The only way to increase the supply is to increase state and federal funding for early care and education programs. The Child Care Planning Council and First 5 contract with a consultant to work with Title V centers to help them maximize contract dollars. We hope to continue this relationship and potentially expand it through RTT-ELC funds, particularly in the area of Program Leadership. We feel fortunate to have the only two PAS/BAS reliably trained individuals west of the Mississippi working in our County. 3. How will the Consortium work together to determine effective and cost efficient mechanisms to
increase family and public awareness of the characteristics of early learning program quality that promote better outcomes for children? We will work with our regional partners as well as our local Consortium to determine the most costeffective mechanisms to increase family and public awareness of the characteristics of program quality. Many families, in addition to using word of mouth, are going online to get information. We plan to maximize our use of technology to disseminate information to families and the community. The development of a family communication plan, including information about quality and child outcomes, will be part of the design phase. We expect that our 3 local Resource & Referral agencies, who Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 18
are a primary channel of consumer education about child care quality, will be key partners in the development and dissemination of information about the QRIS. 4. How will the Consortium address policies and practices that impede families’ access to services,
including continuity of services and issues such as transportation? We believe in our County one of the biggest barriers to accessing services is lack of funding for subsidies, a challenge which is beyond the scope of this proposal. Another barrier is the complexity of blending and braiding funding, which requires intensive technical assistance. First 5 and the Child Care Planning Council provide limited resources for technical assistance to contractors to maximize their funding. We will continue to do this work through related funding streams.
X.
Mentoring Other Counties. Please answer each question in the respective box below. 1. How will the Consortium mentor and support peer organizations in the use of the Framework and in joining or implementing their own local QRIS?
The 5 Bay Area Regional RTT-ELC counties are adopting a collaborative approach to engage and support neighboring counties. The Regional Consortia (BAQRISP) has invited peer counties to join in the funded efforts of the 5 participating counties. After the Regional Consortia establishes its shared goals and activities peer counties’ stakeholders will be invited to meetings, trainings, and other opportunities. The specifics are being discussed by the Executive Team of the Regional Consortia, 2. How will the Consortium provide ELC incentives, through RTT-ELC grant funds and local resources, to surrounding communities that volunteer to initiate local QRIS efforts?
A Bay Area Regional approach is yet to be determined. XI.
Key Personnel. Please list key personnel who will be contact persons for the Consortium throughout the life of the RTT-ELC project.
Mark Friedman, CEO First 5 Alameda County 1100 San Leandro Blvd. Suite 120 San Leandro CA 94577
[email protected] (510) 875-2424 Malia Ramler, Senior Administrator Community and Provider Capacity Building F5AC 1100 San Leandro Blvd. Suite 120 San Leandro CA 94577
[email protected] (510) 875-2444 Angie Garling, Child Care Planning Council Coordinator, Alameda County General Services Agency 1401 Lakeside Drive, 11th Floor Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 19
Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 208-9675
[email protected] Neva Bandelow, Early Care and Education Program Specialist Alameda County Child Care Planning Council, General Services Agency 1401 Lakeside Drive, 11th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 208-9722
[email protected]
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 20
XII.
Project Timeline (by task and fiscal year). Please explain how your Consortium will rollout each task throughout the course of the four-year RTT-ELC grant. Specify any sub-tasks that may be associated with the work of each main task below, along with the timeline broken out by fiscal year and the responsible party.
RTT-ELC Task Timeline Tasks
Grant Management Consortia Operations
Training & Technical Assistance and Quality Improvement Activities
Sub-tasks
Timeline
• • •
Establish Interim Advisory Group Establish Shared Leadership with Local Child Care Planning Council Initial Action Plan
•
Establish Permanent Advisory Group
•
Establish governance agreements (Alameda County, Bay Area Regional)
•
Hire staff for QRIS design and implementation
• • • • •
Reporting Ongoing convening and engagement of Advisory Group Reporting Oversight of all activities Begin alignment feasibility assessment of existing QI programs
•
Complete alignment and feasibility assessment of existing programs
•
Design system to layer quality improvement activities
•
Integrate ASQ and ASQ SE into existing QI programs
•
Design cross program incentive structure
•
Plan for integration of Higher Ed cohort models
Design Phase: March 2013
• •
Implement aligned and layered quality improvement system Continuous Quality Improvement – Revise system based on evaluation data and user feedback
Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec 2015
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 21
Planning Phase: FY 11-12 Design Phase: October 2012 Design Phase: September 2012 Design Phase: November 2012 Ongoing Ongoing throughout Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec. 2015 Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012 Design Phase: April 2013 Design Phase: June 2013
Responsible Parties First 5 Alameda County (F5AC) Local Child Care Planning Council (LCPC) Interim Advisory Group F5AC
F5AC
F5AC LCPC F5AC – QRIS Coordinator LCPC Advisory Group
Design Phase: June 2013 Design Phase: June 2013
F5AC QI Partners (LCPC, R&Rs, Community Colleges)
RTT-ELC Task Timeline Tasks
Sub-tasks • •
Rating and Monitoring
Data Collection and Evaluation
• • • • • • •
Research tier and incentive structures used elsewhere in California and Nationally Conduct provider self-assessment survey for preliminary “snapshot” of self –reported distribution on tiers Map existing incentive structure Finalize local tiers Build rater capacity (recruit, train, validate, establish reliability)
•
Design validation process for non-ERS components
• • •
Implementation of rating and monitoring integrated into QI model Ongoing rater quality assurance Explore QRIS Data System Options
•
Select and Install QRIS Data System
•
Identify need for any custom development of QRIS Data System Modules Build out ECC Online (existing data system) to export to QRIS system
• •
Plan to train users
• •
Train Users Open Data Portals
• •
Assess participant progress against tiers Assess tiers for modification
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 22
Timeline Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012 Design Phase: March 2013 Design Phase: March 2013 Design Phase: November 2012 Design Phase: May 2013 Design Phase: May 2013 Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec 2015 Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012 Design Phase: May 2013 Design Phase: March 2013 Design Phase: May 2013 Design Phase: May 2013 Implementation Phase: FY 2013-2014 Implementation Phase: Ongoing
Responsible Parties F5AC, LCPC F5AC, LCPC
F5AC F5AC and Bay Area Regional Consortium F5AC
F5AC
RTT-ELC Task Timeline Tasks
Sub-tasks •
Timeline
Responsible Parties
Assess efficacy of incentives
RTT-ELC Task Timeline Tasks
Partnership Building
Mentoring Other Communities
Sub-tasks
Timeline
• • • • • •
Initial Stakeholder interviews Development of Bay Area Regional Consortia Initial Outreach to Non-Consortia Bay Area Counties Determine what activities are Alameda County vs. Bay Area Regional Develop Provider Communication Plan and Materials Develop Consumer Communication Plan and Materials
• •
Convene Design Groups (Incentives, Tiers, Participation Pathways) Convene Stakeholder Feedback opportunities
Design Phase: Ongoing through FY 12-13
• • •
Ongoing Participation in Bay Area Regional QRIS Consortium Integrate QRIS into existing MOU’s and Agreements for QI work Update local stakeholders
Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec 2015
•
Engage Bay Area Counties who are not RTT-ELC Funded
•
Identify opportunities for leveraging Bay Area Regional work and lessons learned across RTT funded and non-funded counties BAQRISP Executive Directors to Reach Out to Associated Bay Area counties (Monterey, Solano, San Benito, San Mateo) and develop plan for integration
•
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 23
Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012 Design Phase: By June 2013
Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012 Design Phase: FY 2012-2013 Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec 2015
Responsible Parties LCPC, F5AC, Bay Area Regional F5 EDs
F5AC – QRIS Coordinator
F5AC, LCPC
Regional F5 EDs Regional Bay Area RTT Group Executive Cabinet of Regional Bay Area RTT Group
•
Capacity-building and Sustainability
• •
Create Bay Area Regional Structure to leverage work of neighboring counties Use a collective impact framework to align work of multiple stakeholders Join with Bay Area Regional partners to advocate and support local and state policy that rewards quality
Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge | Consortium Action Plan 24
Planning Phase: Jan – June 2012
Regional Bay Area RTT Group
Design Phase: FY 2012-2013 Implementation Phase: July 2013 – Dec 2015
F5AC Regional Bay Area RTT Group
Race to the Top ‐ Early Learning Challenge Grant Consortia Action Plan Data Tables II‐IV Instructions on Completing Data Tables II, III, and IV (located on separate tabs of this Excel workbook) General
Enter data in white cells only. Cells shaded gray include formulas to calculate percentages and have been locked for reporting consistency. Report unduplicated counts of sites across setting types.
Column 1: Includes all sites for all early learning and development programs in the county, whether participating or not in QRIS efforts. Column 2: Includes all sites serving children with high needs in the county.
Column 3: Includes all sites/providers identified within the county “Target Service Population” ‐‐‐ the area or programs within your county
Table II
that your consortium has selected to serve children ages 0 to 5 with high needs.
Footnote 1: Space is provided for the county to describe the criteria used to define their “Target Service Population” Annual targets for the end of calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 should reflect cumulative totals for each year.
Table III (The content of this table remains unchanged) Enter data in white cells only. Table IV
Column 1: This prepopulated number reflects all children ages 0 to 5 in your county based upon 2010 Census data. Column 2: Includes all children with high needs ages 0 to 5 in your county. This data should be available from your Local Planning Council or Resource and Referral Agency. Column 3: Includes all children with high needs ages 0 to 5 in your locally defined “Target Service Population.” Footnote 1: Space is provided for the county to describe their methodology for calculating the population of children ages 0 to 5 with high need. Annual targets for the end of calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 should reflect cumulative totals for each year.
Table II: The number of Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) participating in the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.Please enter updated numbers for each program site within the Consortium. Baseline and Annual Targets -- Number and percentage of Early Learning and Development Column 2: Total Column 3: Total Programs (sites) in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System Column 1: Total Number of Early Number of Early Number of Early Learning and Learning and Type of Early Learning and Development Programs in the Learning and Development Sites Development Sites Target- end of Target -end of Target- end of Target- end of Consortium Baseline (June Development Sites Serving Children calendar year calendar year calendar year calendar year in the Target 2012) in the County with High Needs in Service Population 2012 2013 2014 2015 [1] the County # % # % # % # % # % State-funded Preschool Licensed Sites 97 97 97 0% 0% 2 2% 6 6% 11 11% Head Start Licensed Sites Only [2] 47 47 47 0% 0% 2 4% 7 15% 12 26% Programs funded by IDEA, Part B & C 9 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Title I Sites - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! General Child Care Licensed Sites 22 22 22 0% 0% 2 9% 6 27% 10 45% State-funded Migrant Licensed Sites - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Tribal Sites - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Licensed Family Child Care Homes 1,589 795 795 0% 0% 9 1% 17 2% 25 3% Licensed Center-based Sites (Private Funding) 340 170 170 0% 0% 3 2% 7 4% 11 6% Braided Sites: Head Start & Title 5 31 31 31 0% 0% 2 6% 6 19% 11 35% Title 5 & Title I - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Title I & First 5 - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Head Start & First 5 - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Title 5 & First 5 - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Title I & Head Start - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Combination of any three above funding sources (specify) - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! Total 2,135 1,171 1,162 0% 0% 20 2% 49 4% 80 7% [1]
Criteria used to select the consortium "Target Service Population" : Our target service population includes all high need children in early learning and development programs in the County except children in programs funded by IDEA.
[2]
including Early Head Start and Migrant Head Start (licensed sites)
Table III:Number of Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) per tier of the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. Please enter updated numbers for the total number of sites and for the number of sites in each tier, based on the number of tiers in the Consortium’s Quality Rating and Improvement System. Target- end of Target- end of Target- end of Target- end of Baseline (June calendar year calendar year calendar year calendar year 2012) 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total number of sites covered by the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System in the Consortium Number of programs in Tier 1 (lowest) Number of programs in Tier 2 Number of programs in Tier 3 Number of programs in Tier 4 Number of programs in Tier 5 (highest)
0
0
20
49
80
0
0
10
20
20
0
0
3
9
16
0
0
3
8
21
0
0
3
8
16
0
0
1
4
7
Table IV: The number and percentage of Children with High Needs who are enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs (sites) at low and high tiers of the Consortium’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. Please enter updated numbers for each type of program within the Consortium.
Column 1: Total Number of Type of Early Learning and Development Programs Children Ages 0 in the Consortium to 5 in the County
State-funded Preschool Licensed Sites Head Start Licensed Sites Only [2] Programs funded by IDEA, Part B & C Title I Sites General Child Care Licensed Sites State-funded Migrant Licensed Sites Tribal Sites Licensed Family Child Care Homes Licensed Center-based Sites (Private Funding) Braided Sites: Head Start & Title 5 Title 5 & Title I Title I & First 5 Head Start & First 5 Title 5 & First 5 Title I & Head Start Combination of any three above funding sources Total
Column 2: Total Number of Children with High Needs Ages 0 to 5 in the County [1]
4,656 1,316
Baseline (June 2012)
Target- end of Target -end of Target- end of Target- end of calendar year 2012 calendar year 2013 calendar year 2014 calendar year 2015
# in Low # in High # in Low # in High # in Low # in High # in Low # in High # in Low # in High Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers Tiers
0 3,973 1,190
4,656 1,316 0 0 1,056 0 0 3,973 1,190
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 21
96 56 0 0 96 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 35
288 196 0 0 288 0 0 5 14
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 49
528 336 0 0 480 0 0 25 28
1,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,927
1,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,927
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 421
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
392 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,183
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
616 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,013
unknown 0 1,056
116,952
Column 3: Total Number of Children with High Needs Ages 0 to 5 served by sites in the Target Service Population
Baseline and Annual Targets -- Number of Children with High Needs Participating in Sites by low and high tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
Children with High Needs : Children from birth through kindergarten entry who are from low-income families or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, including children who have disabilities or developmental delays; who are English learners; who reside on "Indian lands" as that terms defined by section 8013(6) of the ESEA; who are migrant, homeless, or in foster care; and other children as identified by the State. California includes "children receiving protective services through the local county welfare department as well as children identified by a legal, medical, social service agency or emergency shelter as abused, neglected or exploited or at risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation." The referral from the County Welfare Department's Child Protective Services unit needs to certify that the need for child care is a component in the case plan. High Tiers : RTT-ELC Common Tier 2 and above (ELQIS Tier 3 and above) Low Tiers : RTT-ELC Common Tier 1 and any locally determined Tiers that fall below Common Tier 2 [1]: Description of the consortium's methodology of calculating the population of children ages 0 to 5 with high need: assumptions are State-funded Preschool Licensed Sites have 2 classrooms of 24 children; private child care average size is 48 children; General Child Care Licensed Sites have two infant toddler classrooms of 12 children and one preschool class of 24 children; Head Start programs have one class of 20 and one class of 8; blended programs have two classrooms of 24 children and one classroom of 8 children; 100% of children in Title V, Head Start and blended programs are high need; 50% of private programs serve an average of seven high need children per center; 50% of family child care programs serve an average of five high need children per program [2]
including Early Head Start and Migrant Head Start (licensed sites)