Capitalizing on Quality: A Comprehensive Review of D.C.'s Child Care Quality Rating and Improvement System

• In Event: QRIS Under Review: Cross-State Lessons for a More Effective System

Abstract

Introduction/Background
In March 2025, the Urban Institute conducted a comprehensive review of Capital Quality, the District of Columbia’s Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) for child care and early learning programs. This paper highlights our qualitative data collection effort, exploring how Capital Quality has functioned since its launch and drawing on stakeholder feedback to assess strengths, surface challenges, and offer recommendations for improvement. Using interviews and focus groups with system leaders, program leaders, and families, we examine how Capital Quality operates in practice and how it might better support high-quality early learning, program growth, and clear, accessible information for families and providers alike.

Purpose/Research Question:
Capital Quality is both a system of services and a set of implementation processes that together influence how families, providers, and administrators experience quality improvement in DC. This evaluation asked: How do key stakeholders perceive and experience the Capital Quality system, and what does their feedback reveal about what is working, what is falling short, and where change is needed? The findings are intended to inform actionable recommendations for updating both the Capital Quality framework and its implementation.

Methods:
Between May and July 2025, we conducted qualitative research to gather stakeholder perspectives. This included interviews with 14 systems leaders knowledgeable about the design and roll-out of Capital Quality, focus groups with 36 child care center and home-based program leaders, and telephone interviews with 75 parents and guardians. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in English and Spanish, recorded with consent, transcribed, and thematically coded using NVivo. Program leaders varied in their participation in Capital Quality, subsidy involvement, and language backgrounds. Focus groups explored system engagement, supports received, and implementation challenges. Parent interviews combined closed- and open-ended items to assess awareness, perceptions, and use of Capital Quality in decision-making. Analysis focused on identifying cross-cutting themes and differences by role, setting, and experience.

Results:
Stakeholders broadly agreed that families have limited awareness of Capital Quality; most parents were unfamiliar with the system, even when enrolled in participating programs. Program leaders cited both benefits and burdens, with experiences varying by setting. Participants recommended improving alignment between trainings and program needs, increasing rating transparency, and decoupling subsidy payments from quality ratings. Nonparticipating programs noted incompatibility with assessment tools and a lack of accessible information. Some welcomed support focused on teacher–child interactions, while others wanted clearer explanations of Capital Quality’s purpose and process. Stakeholders emphasized the need for better communication, consistency, and practical supports.

Conclusion/Implications:
This study contributes to the field by providing an updated, comprehensive snapshot of how a maturing QRIS is perceived across key stakeholders. It adds to a limited body of research on the real-world impact of QRIS models and provides actionable insight into how to design systems that are more effective, equitable, and meaningful for families and providers. Our findings offer timely, practical insights for early childhood leaders across jurisdictions seeking to improve or redesign their QRIS frameworks.

Author

• Catherine Emily Kuhns, Urban Institute
  Presenting Author