Advertisement

The Importance of User-Centered Design in Performing Background Checks in Child Care

  • Fuad Abujarad
  • Allissa Desloge
  • Kristina Carlson
  • Sarah J. Swierenga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)

Abstract

Efficiency, effectiveness, and usability are all essential qualities for a background check process. In child care, these qualities are especially needed to ensure the qualifications of the workforce and the safety of children. With changing child care regulations, Michigan has implemented the Michigan Workforce Background Check (MWBC) system. This study consists of multiple focus groups that were conducted with child daycare providers and consultants to gain feedback on the system and to test its user interface. The goal was to allow the user to have a voice in the development of the system, so changes could be made according to their needs and business process.

Keywords

Criminal background checks Child care User-centered design Government 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funding for this research came from the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (MLARA). Specifically, we would like to thank Larry Horvath, Director, Bureau of Community and Health Systems (BCHS), MLARA; Thomas Novak, JD, BA, Manager, BCHS; Mark C. Jansen, Director, Child Care Licensing Division, BCHS; and Cheryl Gandhi, Child Care Program Analyst, Child Care Licensing Division, BCHS, for the support they provided to complete this research.

Any opinions, findings, and recommendations in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

References

  1. 1.
    Finkelhor, D., et al.: Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: results from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatr. 169(8), 746–754 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davidson, H.: Protection of children through criminal history record screening: well-meaning promises and legal pitfalls. Dickinson Law Rev. 89(3), 577–604 (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: Ensuring a Qualified Long-term Care Workforce: From Pre-employment Screens to On-the-job Monitoring. The Lewin Group, Washington, D.C. (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaul, M.S.: Child Care: State Efforts to Enforce Safety and Health Requirements. Report to the Honorable Sander M. Levin, House of Representatives. GAO-04-786. US Government Accountability Office (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levashina, J., Campion, M.A.: Expected practices in background checking: review of the human resource management literature. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 21(3), 231–249 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connerley, M.L., Arvey, R.D., Bernardy, C.J.: Criminal background checks for prospective and current employees: current practices among municipal agencies. Publ. Pers. Manag. 30(2), 173–183 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galantowicz, S., Crisp, S., Karp, N., Accius, J.: Safe at home? Developing Effective Criminal Background Checks and Other Screening Policies for Home Care Workers. AARP Public Policy Institute, September 2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Community and Health Systems Child Care Licensing Division: Special Legislative Edition – Changes to PA 116. Michigan Child Care Matters, Lansing (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Community and Health Systems Child Care Licensing Division: A Parent’s Guide to Child Care Licensing. Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Lansing (n.d.). https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/BCAL_PUB_784_9_15_499332_7.pdf
  10. 10.
    Lynch, K.: The Child Care and Development Block Grant - First Five Years Fund. United States, Congress, Congressional Research Service (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michigan Department of Education: Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 2014-Summary of Statutory Changes, December 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swierenga, S.J., Abujarad, F., Dennis, T.A., Post, L.A.: Improving patient safety through user-centered healthcare background check system design. In: Proceedings of International Symposium of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare HFES 2013, vol. 2, no. 21, pp. 21–26. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abujarad, F., Swierenga, S.J., Dennis, T.A., Post, L.A.: The impact of usability on patient safety in long-term care. In: Nah, F.F.-H., Tan, C.-H. (eds.) HCIB 2015. LNCS, vol. 9191, pp. 221–231. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20895-4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    NICHD Early Child Care Research Network: Child-care structure → process → outcome: direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development. Psychol. Sci. 13(3), 199–206 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FBI Criminal Justice Information Services: Next Generation Identification (NGI), 06 May 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi
  16. 16.
    Abujarad, F., Swierenga, S.J., Dennis, T.A., Post, L.A.: Rap backs: continuous workforce monitoring to improve patient safety in long-term care. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. LNCS, vol. 8014, pp. 3–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39238-2_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Organization for Standardization: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on Usability. (ISO Reference No. 9241-11:1998[E]) (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marcus, A.: User interface design’s return on investment: Examples and statistics. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, 2nd edn, pp. 17–39. Elsevier, San Francisco (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karat, C.-M.: A business case approach to usability cost justification for the web. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, 2nd edn, pp. 103–141. Elsevier, San Francisco (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fuad Abujarad
    • 1
  • Allissa Desloge
    • 1
  • Kristina Carlson
    • 1
  • Sarah J. Swierenga
    • 2
  1. 1.Yale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Usability/Accessibility Research and ConsultingMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations