Policy and Practice February 2019

RULEMAKING continued from page 5

NRM by the Numbers

taking into account geography, race/ethnicity, and the stakeholder community groups they represented. Having a team of negotiators rep- resenting the community resulted in the benefit of having implementation champions statewide. Many NRM par- ticipants remained engaged after the rules were filed: n Some are currently providing local leadership in professional devel- opment and/or dissemination of information during the period before implementation of the new regulations; n Parents continue to be involved and support the awareness and educa- tion campaigns currently taking place across the state, as well as par- provider agencies, and has observed improved relationships between par- ticipating parties; n Center-based early learning pro- viders developed the WA Childcare Center Association (WCCA); n The development of the Regional Early Learning Coalition Network; and n Early learning providers and licen- sors have collaboratively made efforts to education legislation on the work in the field. Comprehensive In addition, several sources of information were provided to NRM participants to comprehensively inform the negotiation process. These include public comments submitted both online and live during meetings, aggregated input from a statewide statistically representative survey of child care health and safety risks, and community focus groups conducted statewide of more than 200 participants mirroring the make-up of the affected parties in NRM. More than 80 percent of partici- pants felt the NRM process included the perspectives of affected parties. Conclusion We learned through this case that upfront investment of an effective, ticipating in advocacy efforts; n The DEL has benefited from improved relationships with

licensing regulations. Guided by the lessons learned from previous rule- making processes, the DEL initiated a thorough NRM process which sought to be effective, inclusive, and comprehen- sive . The DEL was driven by the goal to: n Increase stakeholder participation in public decision-making, n Improve the substance of a proposed rule, n Shorten the length of time necessary to implement a final rule, n Increase the level of compliance, and n Reduce litigation by fostering collab- orative working relationships among the agency and stakeholders. Effective The DEL designed the NRM process to include 50 community stakeholders, designated as “affected parties,” from across the state who met, in-person, monthly for 10 months, to negotiate the proposed aligned child care rules. The negotiation meetings were facili- tated by an outside impartial party, Public Consulting Group. To measure consensus, a “fist to five” consensus- building methodology (see graphic above) allowed all members to express their support or concerns throughout the negotiations. The outside facilitator and consistent in-person meetings created an envi- ronment of trust over time between the community and the state agency. As trust developed, participants were more willing to effectively collaborate. More than half (60%) of participants indicated through the reflection survey the guiding principle of “collaboration” defined by the group as “partnership between groups, parents as partners, inspire” was met through NRM. One anonymous participant stated, “It was amazing to see the knowledge across tables [stakeholder groups] and how each WAC [Washington Administrative code rule] affected each table dif- ferently.” Another said, “[the NRM process] reinforced my belief that we all learn differently and need the opportunity to reflect and be heard.” The efficacy of the NRM process was demonstrated throughout the

10 Months ; 220 hours of meeting time

Engaged 50 NRMTeam participants organized into 5 teams

Reviewed more than 1,500 public comments by paper and almost 200 in-person public comments

To reach 95 percent consensus on more than 700 child care regulations

10-month process; NRM participants provided edits to all proposed regula- tory language. The meetings resulted in 95 percent of regulations reaching full or partial consensus. Each NRM group provided comments, concerns, and suggested language for public record and for presentation to DEL leadership on the remaining 5 percent of regulations not reaching consensus. Inclusive The DEL took a comprehensive approach in defining the affected parties who would engage in negotia- tion. This included three groups of licensed child care providers (Center- based, Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program [ECEAP] and Head Start Providers, Family Home Child Care Providers), DEL Licensing Staff, and parents. Each group included up to 10 representatives who attended in-person meetings to review, discuss, and revise child care regulations. “Seats” on the team were flexible, and groups rotated participants during review of specialty areas for regulations requiring expertise; these participants included nurse consul- tants, advocates, legislators and their staff, architects, and health and mental health professionals. The NRM participants were selected from a pool of volunteers by commu- nity partner agencies with support from the DEL to ensure selections reflected an equitable and diverse representation. Criteria for selection included a diversity of perspectives,

Policy&Practice February 2019 32