Gain essential skills in the Business Administration Scale (BAS) Reliability Training to ensure accurate and consistent program assessments.
Maintain your BAS Assessor status with recertification required two years after initial certification. Learn about eligibility, steps, and deadlines.
Join the PAS-3 Reliability Training April 7–11, 2025, to enhance your skills in early childhood program administration and assessment.
Learn how assessing organizational conditions can drive continuous quality improvement in early childhood programs.
This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.
This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.
This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.
This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.
This document may be printed, photocopied, and disseminated freely with attribution. All content is the property of the McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.
Research consistently finds that high-quality administrative practices are crucial for ensuring program quality as well as beneficial results for children and families. This valuable tool includes 25 items clustered in 9 subscales, which measure whole leadership functions of center-based early care and education programs. The PAS-3 is applicable for multiple uses: program self-improvement, technical assistance, professional development, quality monitoring, research, evaluation, and public awareness. This third edition of the PAS includes updated national norms, revisions to support the reliable use of the instrument, and additions to better assess the effectiveness of early childhood leadership practices. To learn more or buy this book, visit New Horizons.
Explore how collaboration and unity strengthen early childhood leadership at the McCormick Center
Early educational interventions, such as Head Start, have been widely recognized as an effective way to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on early learning and development (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010). In the past decade, there has been a strong expansion of early childhood programming, including Head Start and state-funded prekindergarten programs. However, the cost of the programs calls into question the extent to which this expansion can be maintained. A tension exists between serving as many children as possible and providing the most impact with limited economic resources (e.g., Barnett & Hustedt, 2011; Steuerle, Reynolds, & Carasso, 2007), making the study of program design such as length and intensity of programming critical to efforts to serve low-income or at-risk children in the most efficient fashion. The field knows little about the specific program design factors that lead to favorable program outcomes (Reynolds, 2004), and very few studies have addressed this issue. Therefore, we reviewed two frequently cited studies that looked at Head Start programs, the nation’s largest early educational intervention, and examined the impact of one program factor, intervention dosage, on children’s school readiness outcomes. In the two studies, program dosage was defined as the amount of services children received, and was measured as the duration of program enrollment (i.e., one year versus two years) and the intensity of the program (i.e., half day versus full day). ONE-YEAR VS. TWO-YEAR HEAD START Method . Using a nationally representative sample of Head Start children, Wen and her colleagues (Wen, Leow, Hahs-Vaugh, Korfmacher, & Marcus, 2012) examined school readiness outcome differences by the end of kindergarten between children who attended Head Start program for two years and those who attended for one year. This research question sounds simple, but is hard to address. It is challenging to make a causal conclusion regarding whether children and families who experience a longer duration of intervention would perform better on measured program outcomes than those who are enrolled for a relatively shorter time, because participants who experienced different amount of intervention may differ in other ways as well, including their demographic characteristics (Hill, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2003; Powell, 2005). Simply stratifying participants by intervention duration or estimating the impact of duration in a standard regression model will not typically yield unbiased estimates because sample selection bias might be operating. Therefore, the researchers adopted a rigorous statistical methodology, propensity score analysis, to match Head Start one-year versus two-year program children on 28 family background variables, so that the impact of demographic differences on child outcomes can be largely controlled for, and therefore, the researchers can draw a precise conclusion on how different program duration would lead to different outcomes. This methodology is innovative in addressing the causal relationship when the research design of randomizing children into programs of different durations is almost impossible. These demographics used to find similar comparison groups of children encompassed a comprehensive list of variables identified in the early development and education literature that are associated with child development and learning, including (a) child characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, health status, whether they had diagnosed disabilities, whether they were dual language learners); (b) family characteristics (e.g., parent education, employment status, family income, family size, marital status, parent age, maternal depression, welfare status, parental health status, and home language); (c) parenting styles (e.g., parental warmth) and parent involvement with child (e.g., frequency of reading, weekly and monthly activities with child); (d) child’s initial receptive language skills at the beginning of Head Start; (e) child’s prior intervention experience (i.e., Early Head Start); and (f) the amount of Head Start services the child and family received (i.e., frequency of missing Head Start and parent participation with program activities). The sample consisted of 1,778 children from 63 Head Start programs, 175 centers, and 337 classrooms. Forty-seven percent of children were three-year olds who attended the program for two years and the rest were four-year-olds who attended the program for one year, and 49% were boys. The study examined six academic and social outcomes assessed by the end of children’s kindergarten year: receptive vocabulary skills (PPVT test), emergent literacy skills (Woodcock Johnson III letter-word identification and word attack tasks), mathematic skills (Woodcock Johnson III applied problems and quantitative concept tasks), academic skills (teacher rating on 5-point scale), learning behaviors (e.g., reluctant to tackle new activity; cries when faced with difficulty), and social competence. These measures represent a broad definition of school performance that goes beyond the narrow focus of academic-related skills. Results . Before children with different lengths of program attendance were matched on their baseline characteristics, the outcome comparison yielded significant differences on only two Woodcock-Johnson subtests (literacy skill and math reasoning), favoring the two-year program children (see statistics in Table 1). However, after children were matched on their demographic characteristics, the researchers found that among the five matched comparison groups, children in two-year Head Start performed significantly better than those who attended the program only for one year on all six outcome measures, with decent effect sizes (Table 2). The findings convey a strong and clear conclusion that more, rather than fewer years of Head Start would accrue greater program outcomes. HALF-DAY VS. FULL-DAY HEAD START In a different research study, Leow & Wen (2016) examined another Head Start dosage variable, the program intensity (i.e., half-day versus full-day), and its impact on child outcomes. Similarly, the study involved a Head Start national sample and adopted the same methodology, propensity score analysis, to match children in full-day and half-day programs on various demographic backgrounds before comparing the effects of program intensity. The method would allow the researchers to draw precise causal conclusions on how program intensity predicts child outcomes by controlling for other potential factors. In reality, it is almost impossible to randomly assign children to programs with different dosage intensity to test the effects because it is unethical to deny services to eligible children, especially for public service programs. The advanced methodology of the study helped to address a critical question that has significant policy implications. Method . The sample included 2,097 children who were newly enrolled in Head Start in the fall of 2006. They were from 135 Head Start centers and 410 classrooms, of which 61% were three-year olds and the rest were four-year olds. The three-year old children were eligible to stay in the program for two years, while the four-year olds were enrolled for one year before they transitioned into kindergarten. About 51% of children were enrolled in the half-day program. This study assessed five child outcomes related to cognitive skills (PPVT and Woodcock-Johnson III letter-word identification subscale), preschool learning behaviors, and social skills. The demographic variables used to match full-day and half-day program children were even more extensive than the Wen et al. (2012) study. A total of 45 demographic variables collected from initial parent interviews were used in the propensity score matching. Results . The analyses were performed separately with two different age cohorts – the three-year olds who stayed in the program for two years and four-year olds who stayed in the program for one year. The results showed that in comparison to a demographically comparable group of children who attended the Head Start half-day program, children who experienced more intensive full-day intervention services showed no significant differences on any of the five academic and social outcome measures, and this was true whether children attended the program for one year or two years (Table 3). Discussion . Given limited resources, how should we design the most optimal Head Start and state-funded early childhood education programs that would maximize their impact on children’s school readiness? There is a recent national push to expand state-funded prekindergarten programs to enhance school-related academic skills and social-behavioral competence (Howes et al., 2008). Statistics show that these state-funded programs mainly recruit four-year old children who would be eligible to stay in the programs for only one year before transitioning into kindergarten (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2005). However, the Head Start one-year and two-year comparison study (Wen et al., 2012) clearly suggests that that public preschool programs should target children as early as possible and keep them in the programs for a longer period of time in order to maximize the educational benefit for these vulnerable children. This study provides strong policy justifications for public funding for early education for a minimum of two years. However, the finding regarding the association between program intensity and child outcomes is contradictory to our hypothesis, and to some extent, it is surprising. Hypothetically, we would hope that full-day preschool programs offer children more opportunities for child-centered creative activities and free play, as well as more opportunities for socialization with peers. But instead of making the policy recommendation that Head Start should drop the full-day model and offer only the half-day model to serve more children, the authors think the study actually raises the question of how to promote Head Start program quality, so that the full capacity of this public early intervention program can be fulfilled. Also, instead of answering the question of whether full-day and half-day models make a difference in child outcomes, the study brings up more research questions that need to be addressed. For example, it is unclear how the combination of program intensity and duration would impact program outcomes. Would one-year, full-day programs be similar to two-year, half-day programs? Secondly, program quality needs to be taken into account. Both quality and quantity of Head Start intervention matter in shaping low-income children’s development. Future research should also address the interaction between program quality and quantity and the association with program outcomes. References Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2011). Improving public financing for early learning programs. Preschool Policy Brief, 23. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/24.pdf . Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2005). The state of preschool: 2004 preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, S. W. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620. Hill, J. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Sustained effects of high participation in an early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants. Developmental Psychology, 39, 730-744. Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27-50. Leow, C., & Wen, X. (2016). Is full day better than half day? A propensity score analysis of the association between Head Start program intensity and children’s school performance in kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 28(2), 224-239. Powell, D. R. (2005). Searches for what works in parenting interventions. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: Ecological perspectives (pp. 343-373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reynolds, A. J. (2004). Research on early childhood interventions in the confirmatory mode. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 15-38. Steuerle, C. E., Reynolds, G., & Carasso, C. (2007). Investing in children. Washington, DC: The Partnership for America’s Economic Success. Wen, X., Leow, C., Hahs-Vaugh, D. L., Korfmacher, J., & Marcus, S. M. (2012). Are two years better than one year? A propensity score analysis of the impact of Head Start program duration on children’s school performance in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 684-694.
The number of family child care (FCC) providers in the U.S. is declining at an alarming rate. From 2011 to 2017, there was a 35% decrease in FCC homes (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, 2019). A handful of advocates and systems leaders are responding to this trend by focusing their attention to understand the reasons for the decline and conducting research to explore solutions for its reversal (DiMatteo & Nzewi, 2019; Guzman, Hickman, Turner, & Gennetian, 2016; Hurley & Shen, 2016; Orfali & Tout, 2018; Porter & Reiman, 2016). Considering the substantial portion of child care that is represented in home-based child care (HBCC), a heightened level of concern is warranted and more research is needed. One approach for supporting FCC providers is through staffed family child care networks (SFCCNs). Organizations such as child care resource and referral agencies (CCR&R), Head Start agencies (including Early Head Start and Migrant Head Start), child care organizations, shared services alliances, and social service agencies host SFCCNs. Through the network, paid staff members provide supports and services to improve program quality including technical assistance, training, coaching, and opportunities for peer support. Juliet Bromer and Toni Porter recently published Mapping the Family Child Care Network Landscape: Findings from the National Study of Family Child Care Networks (2019). The report provides findings about the organizational characteristics, services offered to family child care providers, staffing and supervision, and evaluation/quality assessment of SFCCNs. METHODOLOGY The National Study of Family Child Care Networks was a three-year exploratory study that included surveys, interviews with network directors, and in-depth case studies of two networks. The survey consisted of approximately 50 questions adapted from protocols developed previously by the authors. It was sent to 505 organizations that had potential to meet the study criteria. Of these, 275 responded and 156 were identified as SFCCNs that met the study criteria, located in 38 states and the District of Columbia. While the sample is broad, the authors reported it is not representative of all SFCCNs. Of the types of organizations that sponsored SFCCNs, 42% were CCR&R organizations, 13% were from Early Head Start or Child Care Partnerships, and the remaining 44% were from other organizations. In addition, some SFCCNs were housed in larger umbrella organizations including colleges and universities, child care centers, public school districts, shared service alliances, and family child care associations. Figure 1 shows the percentage of SFCCNs programs housed within larger umbrella organizations. Qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed with 46 SFCCNs and two unions. Eighteen of the 46 SFCCNs are highlighted as examples in the report. Profiles of these SFCCNs describe organizational characteristics, the FCC providers that they served, services offered, organizational staffing, and external evaluations. RESULTS The duration of SFCCNs was noteworthy, with nearly half (48%) reported having served HBCC providers (a broader term that includes FCC providers, but may also include family friend and neighbor care) for 20 or more years. Only 12% of the SFCCNs provided statewide services, while 42% served multiple counties and 46% served local communities. Forty-five percent of SFCCNs served urban providers with 28% serving FCC providers in suburban communities and 27% providing services in rural locations. A majority (57%) of SFCCNs served 100 or less providers. However, these limited number of cases did not result in a high dosage of contacts. Nearly all (97%) SFCCNs reported that they made visits to provider homes, but only 17% visited more frequently than once per month, indicating a “light touch” approach. There were significant differences among CCR&Rs, Head Start SFCCNs, and other types of SFCCNs. Table 1 shows the frequency of visits and how they differ by program type. Nearly all (97%) SFCCNs offered training to providers. More than 80% of SFCCNs report training on topics focused on early care and education. A majority also reported offering training related to managing a child care business (77%), licensing regulations (73%), stress management (73%), and working with dual language learners (59%). SFCCNs also offered opportunities for providers to learn from one another by sponsoring support groups and other activities including: staff and/or provider-facilitated peer support groups (73%), provider recognition events (53%), an annual conference (49%), peer mentoring (42%), and links to a family child care association (34%). CCR&R networks were closely connected to the quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) in their states. The survey examined the types of business and administrative supports offered by SFCCNs. The most frequently offered supports included: 1) developing policy handbooks and parent contracts and 2) helping to complete forms and applications. These were the only items that showed significant differences of magnitude among CCR&Rs, Head Start SFCCNs, and other types of SFCCNs. Table 2 shows the frequency of business and administrative supports offered and how they differ by program type. Research suggests that a combination of services is more likely to support child care quality than single supports alone (Bromer, Van Haitsma, Daley, & Modigliani, 2009; Bromer & Korfmacher, 2017). The authors examined various combinations of services and found overwhelming evidence that Head Start SFCCNs combined services in contrast to CCR&R or other SRCCNs. Only SRCCNs associated with Head Start/Early Head Start offered a combination of services that predict quality. The percentage of Head Start SFCCNs providing various combined services included: Evidence-based curriculum and comprehensive resources for children and families (75%) High-frequency visits and comprehensive resources for children and families (80%) Evidence-based curriculum and high-frequency visits (57%) High-frequency visits and evidence-based curriculum and comprehensive resources for children and families (60%) Family child care specialists, consultants, or coaches were the most common staff positions at SFCCNs. A majority of SFCCNs had staff that were dedicated to work with HBCC providers, but 60% reported that all of their staff worked with HBCC providers. As indicated in Figure 1, many SFCCNs are housed in larger umbrella organizations, which may account for the delegation of staff working with HBCC providers. Qualifications for staff working in SFCCNs mirrored that of child care center directors. Of SFCCN staff who work with HBCC providers, 52% were required to have a B.A. degree and 4% were required to have an M.A. degree. DISCUSSION We believe this report supports the notion that SFCCNs have the potential to increase the supply of FCC in local communities and should receive greater attention in early childhood systems development. These findings suggest that SFCCNs are embedded in a broad array of early childhood program support systems. They are found in a majority of states with approximately one-fourth associated with larger umbrella organizations. The longevity of SRCCNs serving HBCC providers suggests it is a sustainable model. However, the low dosage of site visits or “light touch” raises questions about the efficacy of the intervention for sustaining programs and improving quality. While a majority of SFCCNs offered a few business and administrative supports, there were additional supports to help with program viability that were not frequently offered. Expanding the array of services related to the administrative aspects of leading an FCC program may help to slow program closings. Future research is needed to examine the effects of SFCCNs in mitigating the decline in FCC supply through attrition. These findings also suggest that SFCCNs are a promising approach to improve quality in FCC programs. The association between SFCCNs, CCR&Rs, and state QRIS suggest that the role of the network support specialist be included in state professional development systems. As with FCC provider sustainability, the impact of SFCCNs supports on FCC quality is directly related to the frequency of visits and the array of services provided. Therefore, policies and funding that support additional visits may be needed to achieve desired program outcomes. The study highlights the need for additional support for SFCCN staff. The lack of standards for SFCCN staff members that serve HBCC providers is problematic for the credibility of these programs. Demonstrating competency of family child care network specialists, coaches, and mentors could raise the bar for the depth and intensity of the supports provided. Comparable qualifications and competencies in adult learning for SFCCN staff and center-based early childhood administrators should be examined. REFERENCES Bromer, J., Van Haitsma, M., Daley, K., & Modigliani, K. (2009). Staffed support networks and quality in family child care: Findings from the Family Child Care Network Impact Study. Chicago, IL: Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy, Erikson Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/fccnetwork_execsummary1.pdf Bromer, J. & Korfmacher, J. (2017). Providing high quality support services to home-based child care: A conceptual model and literature review. Early Education and Development, 28(6), 745-772. Bromer, J., & Porter, T. (2019). Mapping the family child care network landscape: Findings from the National Study of Family Child Care Networks. Chicago, IL: Herr Research Center, Erikson Institute. DiMatteo, G. & Nzewi, K. (2019, February 20). Decline of family child care. [Presentation]. California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. Guzman, L., Hickman, S., Turner, K., & Gennetian, L. (2016). Hispanic children’s participation in early care and education: Parents’ perceptions of child care arrangements, and relatives’ availability to provide care. MD: The National Center for Research on Hispanic Families & Children. Hurley, K. & Shen, J. Z. (2016). Bringing it all home: Problems and possibilities facing New York City’s family child care. Center for New York City Affairs. National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance (April 25, 2019). Strategies to strengthen family child care: Addressing the decreasing number of FCC providers. [Presentation] Unpublished data analysis. Retrieved from: https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/190424_fcc_webinar_2.pdf Orfali, N. & Tout, K. (2018). Using administrative data to understand the decline of family child care. [Presentation]. Office of Child Care, State and Territory CCDF Administrators Meeting, Arlington, VA. Porter, T., & Reiman, K. (2016). Examining quality in family child care: An evaluation of All Our Kin. New Haven, CT: All Our Kin. Retrieved from: http://www.allourkin.org/sites/default/files/ExaminingQualityinFCC2016.pdf
