EARLY CHILD CARE 

AND EDUCATION

HHS and Education 

Are Taking Steps to 

Improve Workforce 

Data and Enhance 

Worker Quality

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Finance, U.S. Senate

February 2012

GAO-12-248

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-248, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

Senate 

February 2012 

EARLY CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION 

HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve 

Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality

Why GAO Did This Study

Research shows that well trained and 

educated ECCE workers are key to 

helping children in care reach their full 

developmental potential. Federal and 

state governments spend billions of 

dollars each year to improve ECCE 

programs, including the quality of its 

caregivers and teachers. Because of 

the importance of this workforce and 

the federal investment in it, GAO 

examined (1) what is known about the 

composition, education, and income of 

the ECCE workforce and how these 

characteristics relate to quality, and (2) 

what activities are the Departments of 

Health and Human Services (HHS)

and Education, and the states

financing to improve worker quality? 

GAO surveyed state child care 

administrators, interviewed HHS, 

Department of Education (Education), 

and other federal and state officials; 

interviewed ECCE experts and 

researchers; analyzed Census Bureau 

and Head Start data; conducted a 

literature search; and reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. HHS and Education 

generally agreed with the report’s 

findings and conclusions and also 

provided additional information on 

several specific points in the report.

What GAO Found

The paid early child care and education (ECCE) workforce was made up of 

approximately 1.8 million workers in a range of positions, most of whom had

relatively low levels of education and income, according to Census’s 2009

American Community Survey (ACS) data. For example, nearly half of all child 

care workers had a high school degree or less as did 20 percent of preschool 

teachers. Average yearly income ranged from $11,500 for a child care worker 

working in a child’s home to $18,000 for a preschool teacher. Experts and 

government officials that we spoke with said, in general, better educated and 

trained ECCE workers are more effective than those with less education and 

training. They also noted the need for more comprehensive workforce data—

such as on workers with specialized ECCE training. While existing ECCE 

workforce data provide valuable insight into worker characteristics, critical data 

gaps exist. For example, these data omit key segments of ECCE workers, such 

as some caregivers who provide child care in their own homes, and also do not 

separately identify preschool teachers working in elementary schools. HHS and 

Education have taken steps to improve ECCE workforce data, such as providing 

guidance and funding to states to encourage the collection of state-level data and 

working with federal agencies to improve workforce data collected nationally.

HHS, Education, and the states use training, scholarships, and other activities to 

improve ECCE worker quality, but program and funding data are scarce. For 

example, HHS funded online training to help Head Start teachers meet new 

teacher credentialing requirements. Both HHS and Education have collaborated

on initiatives to improve ECCE worker quality, such as the Race to the Top-Early 

Learning Challenge Grants. For the most part, however, neither HHS nor 

Education track expenditures on worker quality improvement. In our survey,

states reported that the most common workforce improvement activities were inservice training, coaching, and mentoring for current workers (all 37 state survey 

respondents) and scholarships to workers enrolled in higher education programs 

(34 states)(see fig.). Of those who knew funding sources for these activities, 

states reported relying primarily on state and federal child care funds. 

Responding States’ Workforce Improvement Activities and Funding, FYs 2007 through 2010 

View GAO-12-248 or key components.

For more information, contact Kay E. Brown at 

(202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Letter 1 

Background 3

Education and Wages Low, but Data Gaps Limit Knowledge about 

Early Child Care and Education Workforce 11

Worker Quality Improvement Activities Include Training and 

Scholarships, but Program and Funding Data Are Scarce 20

Concluding Observations 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II State Workforce Improvement Activities 37

Appendix III Cited Studies in the Report 39

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 41

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education 47

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Tables

Table 1: Types of ECCE Settings and Programs 4

Table 2: Federal Education and Training Requirements for Head 

Start Workers 8

Table 3: Types of Degrees Held by Head Start Workers 13

Figures

Figure 1: Key Federal Funding Sources and Expenditures for ECCE 

Programs 6

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Figure 2: Reported State Education and Training Requirements for 

ECCE Workers 7

Figure 3: ECCE Workers —Total Workforce 1.8 Million 12

Figure 4: Examples of Federal ECCE Programs and Activities to 

Improve Worker Quality 21

Figure 5: Responding States’ Workforce Improvement Activities 

and Funding, FYs 2007 through 2010 25

Figure 6: State-Reported Sources of ECCE Worker Quality 

Funding, FYs 2007-2010 28

Abbreviations

ACS American Community Survey

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CCDF Child Care and Development Fund

CDA Child Development Associate

Census U.S. Census Bureau

ECCE early child care and education

Education U.S. Department of Education

GED General Educational Development

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

NACCRRA National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral 

Agencies

NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research

OIG Office of Inspector General

PIR Program Information Report 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Title I Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 15, 2012

The Honorable Max Baucus

Chairman

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Many of this country’s children spend time in nonparental care 

arrangements,1

The federal government helps to improve access to high-quality ECCE 

programs by subsidizing program costs. The two largest federal efforts 

are the Head Start program, funded at approximately $7.2 billion, and the 

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), funded at approximately $5.0 

billion in fiscal year 2010. These funding sources, as well as billions of 

making high-quality early child care and education 

(ECCE) essential to the healthy development of children and the peace of 

mind of working families. Research indicates that a critical component of 

a high-quality ECCE program is qualified caregivers and teachers. A 

child’s successful development depends on sensitive and stimulating 

relationships with adults, and well-trained and skilled ECCE caregivers 

and teachers are better able to develop such relationships. Yet the 

qualifications of this workforce vary due to differences in professional 

requirements across states and ECCE programs, and challenges in 

attracting and retaining well educated and trained workers. While 

improving the quality of ECCE is important for all children, experts and 

government officials say it is especially critical for children from lowincome families because research shows the existence of academic 

achievement gaps, at or before kindergarten, between children living in 

poverty and their more affluent peers. Access to high-quality child care 

and early learning programs, research finds, can improve these children’s 

cognitive, social-emotional, and language development, and resultant 

academic performance.

 

1

The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Household Education Surveys Program estimated, for example, that in 2005 60 percent of 

this nation’s children, infants through prekindergarten, were in nonparental care. This is 

the most current data available and it counted children in child care arrangements; thus if 

a child was in several arrangements, that child was counted more than once.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

dollars in other ECCE federal funding, are overseen by the Departments 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education (Education) and the 

relevant state agencies to which these monies are allocated. For Head 

Start, the federal government allocates funding directly to local 

organizations that run the program; for CCDF and many other ECCE 

programs, federal monies go to the relevant state agencies that 

administer the programs.2

You asked us to examine issues associated with ECCE worker quality 

and efforts to improve it. We addressed the following questions: (1) What 

is known about the composition, education, and income of ECCE workers 

and how these characteristics relate to quality? and (2) What activities are 

HHS, Education, and the states financing to improve ECCE worker 

quality? For our review, we focused on paid ECCE workers who care for 

and educate infants to prekindergarten and school-age children in beforeand after-school programs. We used the U.S. Census Bureau’s (Census) 

American Community Survey (ACS), an annual survey of approximately 3 

million households to obtain information on these workers, because of its 

large sample size and detailed information on the education level of 

The state agencies must follow applicable laws 

and regulations when spending these funds. Such laws and regulations 

can be broad and this results in state discretion in how the funds are 

used. Depending upon the funding stream, for example, federal law either 

allows or requires that states or local grantees set aside portions of these 

funds for activities to improve the quality of ECCE programs, including 

worker quality through education, training, wage incentives, and other 

activities. Little is known, however, about how states and local grantees 

use such funding. Further complicating an assessment of how well these 

funds are used to improve worker quality is the fact that national data 

gaps exist about the composition and characteristics of this workforce, 

making it difficult for policymakers to have a reliable baseline from which 

to determine if effective activities are being used and if the workers who 

would most benefit from them are being targeted.

 

2

Other federal agencies also oversee, or provide support for, ECCE programs. For 

example, the Department of the Interior oversees the Indian Child and Family Education 

program, which includes ECCE services. The Department of Labor has programs that

provide supportive services to its clients, including child care services, to enable them to 

participate in training programs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

Community Development Block Grant Program for Entitlement Communities can be used 

for a variety of public services, including early education and child care. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

respondents.3 We also analyzed data pertaining to Head Start and Early 

Head Start teachers and teaching assistants from HHS’s Head Start 

program for the 2008-2009 program year. We assessed the reliability of 

these data and found them sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

describing the ECCE workforce. In addition, we surveyed state child care 

directors in the 50 states and District of Columbia about activities and 

spending to improve ECCE worker quality. We requested the state lead 

agency child care administrators obtain data and information from their 

counterparts in their state educational or other agencies on activities or 

funding not under their purview. We obtained responses from 37 states, a 

73 percent response rate; the results of this online survey are not 

generalizable to all states.4 The responding states accounted for 

approximately 86 percent of children under the age of five in 2010, 

according to Census data. We interviewed HHS, Education, and state 

child care officials, and representatives of academic and research groups 

about activities used and challenges faced to improve education, wages, 

training, and other aspects of ECCE worker quality, and reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations. We also conducted a literature 

search and consulted experts in the field to learn about the characteristics 

and quality of ECCE caregivers and teachers, and the relationship 

between the two. (For more information on our methodology, see 

appendix I.) We conducted this performance audit from June 10, 2010, 

through February 15, 2012, in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Experts see ECCE as a loosely connected system of programs that 

crisscross private and public sectors and serve the dual goals of providing 

child care for working families and promoting children’s readiness for 

 

3

We used 2009 ACS data, the most recent available at the time of our analysis. Unless 

otherwise noted, all ACS estimates had a 95 percent confidence interval within plus or 

minus 10 percent of the estimate.

4

We conducted this survey between April 20 and July 1 of 2011. 

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

school.5

Table 1: Types of ECCE Settings and Programs

Multiple programs and settings exist because early care and 

education takes many forms, from individuals caring for children in the 

child’s home to centers and preschools offering full-time care and 

education (see table 1).

Type of ECCE settings Programs

Child care and early 

learning programs 

(child care programs)

Programs may be subsidized by federal, state, and/or local 

funds. They include:

• Center-based: Typically located in nonresidential 

settings, such as churches, schools, or community 

centers; may care for infants and toddlers and/or 

children ages 3 to 5 and focus on promoting school 

readiness. If care is for school-aged children, it is 

referred to as before- and after-school programs, and 

can include academic support such as tutoring.

• Family-based: Located in residential settings, often the 

home of the provider, and serves small groups of 

children in personalized, home-like environments.

• Private household caregiver: Individuals who care for a 

child in the child’s home.

Preschool programs Child care center or school locations; primarily serves 

children ages 3 to 5 and can be subsidized by states. Statefunded preschool programs called prekindergarten 

programs tend to target children from low-income families in 

most, but not all, states, with the primary goal to promote 

school readiness. 

Head Start and Early 

Head Start programs

Local organizations awarded grants from HHS to provide 

education, nutrition, health, and family support to lowincome children from birth through kindergarten entry and 

low income pregnant women; key service is providing early 

care and education to promote social, emotional, and 

cognitive development, including school readiness. 

Sources: For child care and early learning programs, see GAO-02-897 and GAO-04-786; and BLS Career Guide to Industries, 2010-

2011, Child Care Day Services; and interviews with ECCE experts. For preschool programs, see the National Institute for Early

Education Research (NIEER), Rutgers School of Education, The State of Preschool 2010. For Head Start and Early Head Start 

Programs, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/. 

 

5

GAO has conducted work assessing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among 

ECCE programs. See GAO, Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess 

Crosscutting Programs, GAO/HEHS-00-78 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000), and GAO 

Update on the Number of Prekindergarten Care and Education Programs, GAO-05-678R

(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

While definitions of high-quality ECCE are not precise, research and 

professional practices have included two broad features: environmental 

(such as fewer numbers of children per staff member or adequate 

physical floor space) and the quality of interactions between children and 

their caregivers or teachers. Researchers and ECCE experts characterize 

high-quality interactions in various ways, including an adult responding to 

the needs of children in sensitive and caring ways and participating in 

children’s play and activities in ways that promote language development, 

and school readiness or advancement. Moreover, studies have shown 

that consistent, high-quality interactions are associated with positive 

social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes for children. Lastly, 

researchers and ECCE experts also believe such interactions are most 

often created by caregivers and teachers who possess needed skills and 

competencies (i.e., well educated and trained workers). However, they 

continue to debate which skills and competencies are most effective and 

how to best foster them in ECCE workers.

Both federal and state funds provide significant support for ECCE. 

Funding at the federal level is primarily administered by HHS and 

Education (see fig. 1). State human services and educational agencies 

also provide funding (for example, states spent about $5.4 billion on 

prekindergarten programs in the 2009-2010 academic year) and distribute 

federal funds to local organizations or eligible families. While federal 

requirements exist for how states can spend federal ECCE funds, states 

have spending flexibility.6

 

6

For example, states are required to use a portion of their CCDF to improve the quality of 

ECCE programs, but states have flexibility in determining what quality-improvement 

activities to pursue. 42 U.S.C. § 9858e.

Moreover, a single ECCE program can receive 

funding from multiple federal and/or state funding sources.

Definitions of High-Quality 

Early Child Care and 

Education

Role of Federal and State 

Governments in Early 

Child Care and Education
 

Page 6 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Figure 1: Key Federal Funding Sources and Expenditures for ECCE Programs

a

This consists of IDEA grants for preschools (Part B), infants and toddlers (Part C), and three National 

Activities (Part D)–State Personnel Development, Technical Assistance, and Personnel Preparation. 

Not all Part D funds were used exclusively for ECCE.

b

Education estimated in 2009 that states spent approximately 2 percent of Improving the Academic 

Achievement of the Disadvantaged grants (Title I) on ECCE program worker salaries. Education 

officials told us that this is the best estimate available, but because Title I funds can be used for more 

than just ECCE worker salaries, it may underestimate the total amount of Title I funds spent on 

ECCE. 

With the exception of Head Start, the states generally determine the 

education and training standards for ECCE workers, through licensing 

requirements imposed by state human service or education agencies. 

The scope and stringency of these regulations vary by state and program, 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

according to surveys conducted by the National Association of Child Care 

Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) and the National Institute for 

Early Education Research (NIEER), including stipulated minimum 

education and continuing training7

Figure 2: Reported State Education and Training Requirements for ECCE Workers

(see fig. 2).

a

NACCRRA refers to these providers as lead teachers in its compilation of state licensing regulations. 

b

The General Educational Development (GED) credential is an alternative credential to a high school 

diploma for individuals who did not complete a regular high school program of study. 

 

7

According to NACCRRA, states often exempt some types of facilities or workers from 

regulations; for example, relatives providing child care for a family member, programs 

affiliated with religious organizations, small family-based providers, and those caring for 

six or fewer children.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

c

The Child Development Associate (CDA) is a nationally recognized education credential earned 

through coursework and ECCE work experience which certifies an ECCE worker has a basic 

understanding of early child development. 

d

In nine states, at least one program in the state had a credit-hour requirement instead of a clock hour 

requirement, according to 2010 NIEER survey data. Because credit hours and clock hours are difficult 

to compare, we excluded these programs from our count. We also excluded one program where the 

requirement for teacher continuing training was determined locally. 

e

In five states, at least one program either allowed assistant teacher continuing training to be 

determined locally, or did not specify what the requirement was, according to 2010 NIEER survey 

data. We excluded these programs from our counts. One state also had a credit-hour requirement 

instead of a clock hour requirement. Because credit hours and clock hours are not comparable, we 

also excluded this program from our count. 

Under federal law, the federal government establishes education and training 

requirements for those working in Head Start centers8

Table 2: Federal Education and Training Requirements for Head Start Workers

(see table 2).

Education requirement

Position Date Description

Continuing training 

requirement

Head Start teacher By Sept. 30, 

2013

50 percent must have a bachelor/advanced degree in early childhood 

education; or a bachelor/advanced degree and coursework equivalent 

to a major in a related field, and preschool teaching experience.

15 hours annually

As of Oct. 1, 

2011

Center-based Head Start classrooms must have a teacher who meets 

one of the 2013 requirements; or has an associate degree in early 

childhood education; or an associate degree in a related field, 

coursework equivalent to a major relating to early childhood education, 

and preschool teaching experience; or a bachelor’s degree, admitted 

to Teach For America, pass an early childhood content exam and 

meet other training requirements.

Early Head Start 

teacher (children 

under age 3)

As of Sept. 30, 

2010

Must have a CDA credential and be trained (or completed equivalent 

coursework) in early childhood development. 

N/A

By Sept. 30, 

2012

Have training (or complete equivalent coursework) in early childhood 

development focusing on infants/toddlers. 

Head Start teaching 

assistants

By Sept. 30, 

2013 

Must have a CDA credential; or be enrolled in a program leading to an 

associate or bachelor’s degree; or be enrolled in a CDA program to be 

completed within 2 years.

N/A

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws.

 

8

HHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported in August 2011 that about 81 percent 

of Early Head Start teachers had the required CDA and, of the 19 percent who did not, 

more than half were pursuing them. OIG further reported teachers from established 

programs were more likely to have a CDA than teachers from newer programs developed 

using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. See HHS, OIG, Most Early Head 

Start Teachers Have the Required Credentials, But Challenges Exist, OEI-10-00240 

(August 2011).
 

Page 9 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

In addition to requirements set by federal and state governments, 

professional organizations have established voluntary standards which 

include education and training. These voluntary standards were typically 

developed because requirements in many states were seen as 

insufficient. They include the following:

• The National Association for the Education of Young Children 

recommends that at least 75 percent of an ECCE program’s teachers 

have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent and all teachers have a 

minimum of an associate degree or equivalent.

• NIEER recommends that ECCE teachers have a bachelor’s degree.

• The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health 

Association, and the National Resource Center for Health and Safety 

in Child Care recommend that ECCE teachers or caregivers have a 

state or national child care certificate.

Both federal and state governments collect data on some, but not all, 

ECCE workers. The following lists a few federal data efforts:

• Annual data collection on Head Start and Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) teachers: Head Start data are provided in 

Program Information Reports (PIR) which contain information on the 

education level and salaries of all Head Start directors, teachers, 

teaching assistants and, with the exception of salary information, 

family-based child care providers and are submitted to HHS by local 

Head Start grantees.9

• Annual surveys by Census and the Department of Labor: The Census 

Bureau and the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) include data on ECCE workers in three annual surveys of U.S. 

households and businesses. Census conducts two of these surveys—

Data on IDEA workforce—teachers who work 

with children and youth with disabilities—are submitted by states to 

Education and include information on the number of teachers and 

teaching assistants, their education levels, and whether they meet 

IDEA teacher qualifications.

 

9

PIR also collects similar information on Head Start personnel who conduct home visits of 

Head Start program participants and Head Start Family/Community Partnership staff.

Data Sources on Early 

Child Care and Education 

Workers
 

Page 10 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

the ACS and the Current Population Survey. Both gather information 

on the demographics, occupations, and income of households using 

standardized industry and occupation codes to classify workers.10

The following lists a few state data efforts:

BLS conducts the third survey—the Occupational Employment 

Survey—which is an annual survey of business establishments that 

uses the same occupational and industry codes. Although ACS has 

the most detailed information on ECCE workers, none of these 

surveys capture all ECCE worker types or workplace settings.

• Establishing state registries: Many states have computerized 

registries, which track education, training, and employment histories 

of individual ECCE workers. Registries are housed in state 

educational agencies or other organizations, such as universities or 

child care resource and referral agencies. According to the National 

Registry Alliance, in most states, registry participation is voluntary, so 

not all ECCE teachers and caregivers are included.

• Developing longitudinal data systems on preschool teachers: State 

educational agencies are increasingly using longitudinal data systems 

to obtain information on teachers and students, and some include 

data on the ECCE workforce. Longitudinal data link student 

performance to teachers and also indicate the education and training 

that teachers have received. If federal Education funding is used to 

help pay for the system, Education has guidance on system 

requirements to afford comparisons across states.

 

10Industry codes depict the types of products or services produced, and occupation codes 

focus on the types of work performed. For example, an individual may work in the “child 

day care services” industry under the occupation “child care worker” or “janitor.” Industry 

codes for the Census and BLS surveys are from the North American Industry 

Classification System and occupation codes are from the Standard Occupational 

Classification system. The Office of Management and Budget oversees revisions to these 

systems using interagency committees.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

The Census Bureau’s ACS provides important insight into the 

composition, education level, and income of the ECCE workforce.

According to these data, there were nearly 1.8 million ECCE workers 

nationwide in 2009 in a range of ECCE positions. About 72 percent of 

these workers lacked an associate degree or higher. However education 

level varied by type of worker, with program directors, preschool teachers, 

and teaching assistants being the most educated (see fig. 3). Among the 

333,000 ECCE workers and directors with a bachelor’s degree included in 

ACS, approximately 93 percent, or nearly 300,000, did not have degrees 

specifically in early childhood education. For example, 29 percent had a 

degree in other education, 7 percent in psychology, and 3 percent in 

sociology.

Education and Wages 

Low, but Data Gaps 

Limit Knowledge 

about Early Child 

Care and Education 

Workforce

Data on the Composition, 

Education, and Income 

Levels of Early Child Care 

and Education Workers 

Have Limitations
 

Page 12 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Figure 3: ECCE Workers —Total Workforce 1.8 Milliona

Note: Some percentages do not total 100 percent due to rounding. 

a

Head Start teachers are not a separate category of ECCE workers in ACS data. Thus, if a 

respondent to the ACS survey taught in a Head Start preschool program, he or she would be included 

with other preschool teachers. 

b

See appendix I for definitions of ECCE workforce components. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

ECCE workers with some of the highest education levels are in Head 

Start programs, and such workers are not separately identified in ACS 

data (see table 3).

Table 3: Types of Degrees Held by Head Start Workers

Type of degree

Head Start 

positiona

CDA/State 

equivalent 

credential

Associate 

degree in child 

development

Bachelor 

degree or 

higher in child 

development

No degree 

in child 

developmentb

Head Start and 

Early Head Start 

Teachers

17% 34% 44% 4%

Teaching 

assistants

31% 14% 6% 49%

Source: Head Start PIR Data, 2008–2009 program year. Percentages do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

a

Education level of Head Start program directors is not reported because PIR data do not track 

directors in a way that enables such reporting. 

b

Workers in this category either have a degree in a field other than child development or do not have 

any degree. This is because PIR data track only degrees relating to child development, in order to 

monitor compliance with the degree requirements set forth in federal law. 

In terms of income, ECCE occupations are often low-paying, according to 

research and government data sources. Our analysis of ACS data found 

that, in 2009, 77 percent of full- and part-time ECCE workers—and 61 

percent of full-time workers—earned less than $22,000 per year, 

approximately the federal poverty level for a family of four. Average 

income ranged from $11,500 to $18,000 per year for the various ECCE 

worker positions11

Our analysis of Head Start PIR data submitted by grantees to HHS found 

that, although Head Start program teachers and teaching assistants were 

paid more than other ECCE teachers, their average annual income 

lagged behind average income earned by workers in general with similar 

and was around $33,000 per year for program 

directors. Moreover, with the exception of program directors, the 

difference in average annual incomes between the highest and lowest 

paid full-time ECCE position was small, ranging from $20,000 to $22,500.

 

11Private, home-based child care workers averaged $11,500 per year, center-based child 

care workers averaged $12,500, family-based child care workers averaged $17,500, 

teaching assistants averaged $13,000, and preschool teachers averaged $18,000.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

levels of education. PIR data for the 2008-2009 program year showed 

that, on average, Head Start teachers earned about $28,000 per year, 

and teaching assistants earned about $18,000 per year. However, when 

PIR data for Head Start teachers is compared to ACS data on the 

average annual income of workers in general with similar levels of 

education (i.e., those with associate degrees), general workers earned 

$41,500 per year, or $13,500 more than Head Start teachers.

Although ACS contains important nationwide data on ECCE workers, its 

exclusion of some types of workers and consolidation of others into single 

categories creates an incomplete picture of this workforce’s numbers, 

components, education and income. These limitations include the following:

• Family, friends, and neighbors who regularly care for other people’s 

children for a fee, but do not identify ECCE as their primary 

occupation: Obtaining data on these workers is important because 

they are a primary source of child care for many families, especially 

those who are low-income. One study estimated that as much as 38 

percent of all care is provided through this type of care.12

• Preschool teachers working in elementary schools: ACS data do not 

distinguish preschool teachers in elementary schools from kindergarten 

teachers. Obtaining discreet data on preschool teachers in elementary 

schools is important because they are a key component of the ECCE 

workforce, often teaching children in state-funded prekindergarten 

programs in elementary schools. In the past decade (academic year 

2001-2002 through academic year 2009-2010), children served in 

state-funded preschool programs have increased by almost 600,000 to 

approximately 1.3 million children, according to NIEER data.

• Staff in before- and after-school programs: ACS classifies these ECCE 

workers as child care workers and combines them with those who care 

for much younger children. Combining these two groups is a concern, 

according to ECCE experts and researchers, because the needed skills 

are different. For example, one expert told us that after-school workers 

need training in how to manage the behavior of older children and in 

 

12Elaine Weiss, Manager, The PEW Center on the States, and Richard Brandon, Director, 

Human Services Policy Center and Senior Research Fellow, Evans School of Public 

Policy, University of Washington, The Economic Value of the U.S. Early Childhood Sector

(Seattle, Wash.: July 2010).
 

Page 15 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

strategies that help connect after-school activities to school-day curricula. 

ECCE workers who work with young children, in contrast, may benefit 

more from training in how to stimulate early language and math skills.

• Classification of workers as preschool teachers or child care 

providers: ECCE experts frequently express concern that the 

distinction ACS and other federal statistical surveys make between 

child care workers and preschool teachers is not necessarily 

meaningful because both of these occupations include tasks related 

to educating children.

ACS data on workers’ education levels are also limited. ACS captures 

high school diplomas, General Educational Development (GED)

credentials, and degree or course credit earned through colleges and 

universities, but not other credentials or training. For example, the Child 

Development Associate (CDA) credential is one of the most recognized 

ECCE credentials across the country. It requires120 hours of training in 

early childhood education and passing an assessment by the Council for 

Professional Recognition. Yet in ACS data, an ECCE worker who has a 

CDA would be listed as having only a high school degree/GED (because 

such a degree is required before getting these credentials) or some 

college, but no degree (if the credential’s training options included 

college-level courses, this was the option that an individual chose, and 

such an individual had no other college degree).

ACS also has only limited data on fields in which degrees are earned.

ACS began collecting this information for workers in its 2009 survey, but 

only for bachelor’s degrees. ACS does not indicate those who have 

studied early childhood education but not yet earned a degree, or those 

with an associate, master’s, or doctorate degree in the ECCE field. As a 

result, education levels and training may be underreported for large 

numbers of the workforce.

Workforce data on workers in a particular occupation, like ECCE workers, 

can be used to assess the overall quality of a workforce and to develop 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

strategies to improve its quality.13 According to ECCE experts and 

researchers, a lack of statewide and national ECCE workforce data 

disadvantages policymakers when assessing ECCE needs and planning 

improvements and allocating limited funds. For example, a lack of 

workforce data can make it difficult for policymakers to assess demand 

and supply trends for ECCE workers or the extent to which ECCE 

workers have specialized education or training in early child development.

They also told us that, without knowing the extent to which ECCE workers 

care for and educate children of varying ages or other traits, such as 

children with disabilities or English language learners, it is difficult for 

policymakers to know how to best target limited quality improvement 

training funds among worker types.

Both federal and state officials reported that HHS and Education are 

trying to improve the comprehensiveness of data collected on ECCE 

workers, as follows:

• HHS sponsored a National Academy of Sciences workshop in 2011 

for ECCE government officials, researchers, and experts, which 

included a BLS presentation on ECCE worker data in federal 

statistical surveys.14

• HHS’s Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation is sponsoring a 

nationwide child care survey that will include data on the education, 

training, and income of ECCE workers across different types of child 

care settings, such as center-based and home-based settings.15

 

13Federal initiatives designed to encourage state collection of worker data attest to the 

importance of workforce data when trying to improve worker quality. For example, both the 

Department of Labor and Education have initiatives which fund state development of data 

systems that include the collection of workforce data to improve worker quality in the jobtraining and education sectors. The Department of Labor’s initiative is the Workforce Data 

Quality Initiative and Education’s is the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems project. 

The 

last time a similar survey was conducted was more than 20 years ago.

14See http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/The-Early-Childcare 

and-Education-Workforce-Challenges-and-Opportunities.aspx for an electronically

prepublished version of the report summarizing this workshop.

15At the time of this report, HHS had not made any decision regarding whether this survey 

will be a one-time or on-going survey.

HHS and Education Are 

Taking Steps to Improve 

Workforce Data
 

Page 17 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

HHS officials said that the contract for this study will run through 

September 29, 2014.

• HHS has provided guidance and funding for state registry systems.

Thirty-two states use these systems to gather data on the 

demographics, completed and ongoing education and training, and 

employment status of ECCE workers, according to a 2011 policy brief 

issued by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment.16

• Education has provided grants for statewide longitudinal data systems 

that contain data linking children and teachers, including ECCE 

teachers in some states. Teacher data may include information on 

training, education, and compensation.

However, according to the National Registry Alliance, in most states, 

participation in these registries is voluntary or, if required, applicable 

to only some ECCE workers, hindering development of a complete 

picture of all ECCE workers in a state.

Officials from both BLS and Census told us that additional avenues exist 

for improving ECCE workforce data collected in federal statistical surveys 

and that these improvements are often contingent upon federal agencies 

proactively pursuing them. For example, BLS officials described 

standardized 5-year revision cycles, which the Office of Management and 

Budget oversees, to improve the occupation and industry codes used in 

ACS and other federal statistical surveys. These cycles consist of federal 

interagency committees investigating if and how such codes should be 

revised, with the public and government agencies not part of these 

committees providing input through the public comment process 

published in the Federal Register. BLS chairs the interagency committee 

to revise the occupational codes, and this committee completed its most 

recent revision cycle in March 2009. According to BLS officials, Education 

actively participated in this revision cycle, successfully showing that the 

tasks special education preschool teachers perform are sufficiently 

different from the tasks general preschool teachers perform; and this in 

turn justified creating a new occupational code specific to special 

education preschool teachers. The next revision cycle is expected to start 

in 2013, with revisions issued by 2018. Census chairs the interagency 

 

16See Fran Kipnis and Marcy Whitebook, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, 

Workforce Information: A Critical Component of Coordinated State Early Care and 

Education Data Systems, Policy Brief 2011.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

committee to revise industry codes; the results from the 2012 revision 

cycle are expected to be published soon, and none of the revisions 

affected ECCE industries.

A second possible avenue to improve ECCE data, according to BLS and 

Census officials, is for HHS, Education, or both to request that periodic 

supplemental survey questions be added to one of the federal statistical 

surveys. BLS and Census use such supplemental surveys to gather 

additional information on specific subpopulations on an ongoing basis.

For example, officials from both agencies told us that a supplement might 

be one way to gather data on before- and after-school workers distinct 

from ECCE workers of very young children; however, this option is not 

without its challenges in terms of timing and sample size.

BLS and Census officials also told us that improving ECCE workforce data 

(or other data collected in federal statistical surveys) is often contingent 

upon federal agency subject-matter experts actively requesting and 

discussing such improvements. For example, Census officials are 

investigating changing how they present data on ECCE workers in their 

publicly available ACS files in response to questions we raised with them 

related to this study. Specifically, we asked about the practice of combining 

the separate occupation codes for preschool teachers and kindergarten 

teachers into a single code when they work in elementary schools. In 

response to our questions about this practice, Census investigated and 

determined that it is feasible to report ACS data separately for these two

types of teachers and is considering changing this.

HHS and Education told us they have taken steps to proactively influence 

the revision of occupational and industry codes in the next revision 

cycles. HHS told us, for example, that they are consulting with research 

experts regarding proposed revisions to occupational codes for ECCE 

workers and that they have developed a workplan and timeline to ensure 

that they fully participate in the five-year revision cycle of these codes 

scheduled to start in 2013 (see appendix IV). Education also told us that 

they are working with or planning to work with BLS and Census to 

improve ECCE data. For example, they mentioned that they are working 

with Census on ways to expand upon and improve data gathered through 

household surveys in general on educational certificates and other 

credentials and that any enhancements resulting from this work may 

extend to ECCE workforce data (see appendix V).
 

Page 19 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Experts and government officials that we spoke with said that in general, 

better educated and trained ECCE workers are more effective than those 

with less education and training because they are able to acquire the 

skills and knowledge necessary to more effectively work with children.

Some research has concluded that teachers and caregivers with higher 

degrees, especially those with a concentration in early childhood 

education or development, were more effective than those with less 

education or no degree.17 Other research did not find as clear a link.18

Some of the discrepancies in these findings are attributed to the wide 

variability of study designs and not taking the environment in which 

teachers work into account (e.g., staff-to-child ratios and adequate 

materials and physical settings). In terms of income, research has found 

that better educated ECCE workers can command higher salaries, but 

that salaries do not necessarily increase worker quality in and of 

themselves.

19 It appears that better educated teachers and caregivers are 

more competitive in the marketplace, and thus are better able to select 

jobs that pay more, and these jobs tend to be associated with higher 

quality ECCE programs.

 

17See, for example, Olivia N. Saracho and Bernard Spodek, “Early Childhood Teachers’ 

Preparation and the Quality of Program Outcomes,” Early Child Development and Care, 

vol 177, no. 1 (January 2007): 71-91. This study reviewed 40 previous studies conducted 

over a 15-year period that were peer reviewed and met other explicit criteria.

18See, for example, Diane M. Early, Kelly L. Maxwell, Margaret Burchinal, et al., 

“Teachers’ Education, Classroom Quality, and Young Children’s Academic Skills: Results 

from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs,” Child Development, vol. 78, no. 2 

(March/April 2007): 558-580. This study reviewed seven previous studies with similar 

methodologies on preschool programs for children age 4. Five of the seven studies were 

statistically representative of populations—for example, a nationally representative sample 

of Head Start children in 2003 or children participating in full-day, full-year preschool 

programs in Georgia.

19See for example Richard Brandon with Juliet Scarpa, Supply, Demand, and 

Accountability: Effective Strategies to Enhance the Quality of Early Learning Experiences 

Through Workforce Improvement, an HSPC Whitepaper, Human Services Policy Center, 

Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington (May 2006). Also, Julia C. 

Torquati, Helen Raikes, and Catherine A. Huddleston-Casas, “Teacher Education, 

Motivation, Compensation, Workplace Support and Links to Quality of Center-Based Child 

Care And Teachers’ Intention to Stay in Early Childhood Profession,” Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 2 (2007): 261-275.

Increased Education and 

Training Can Improve 

Worker Quality
 

Page 20 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

HHS and Education administer six key ECCE programs that provide states 

and other grantees the flexibility to spend federal dollars for ECCE 

purposes—sometimes from program funds set aside to improve general 

program quality—on a variety of workforce quality improvement activities. 

HHS and Education do not have complete information on all program 

workforce quality improvement activities, including the amount of funds 

spent, at least in part because states have discretion over how they use 

program funds. However, such activities can include professional 

development, wage supplementation, and scholarships (see fig. 4). For 

example, HHS’s Head Start program has funded online professional 

development for staff in rural and other areas where staff find it difficult to 

meet credentialing requirements.20

 

20See 42 U.S.C. § 9843a(a). Head Start programs in rural areas and areas serving 

migrant and tribal populations face a deficit of staff who meet the new professional 

requirements, according to officials. 

Because of this targeted professional 

development intervention and other efforts, more staff have been able to get 

the training needed to satisfy those requirements, according to HHS officials.

Worker Quality 

Improvement 

Activities Include 

Training and 

Scholarships, but 

Program and Funding 

Data Are Scarce

HHS and Education Use 

Existing Programs and 

Newer Initiatives to 

Improve Worker Quality
 

Page 21 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Figure 4: Examples of Federal ECCE Programs and Activities to Improve Worker Quality

a

While CCDF requires that at least 4 percent of the fund be used by state grantees for general 

program quality improvement activities, among other things, states usually use more than that 

amount, spending almost $1billion (about 11 percent) on general program quality improvement 

activities in 2009, for example. Workforce quality improvement activities are part of such general 

program quality improvement activities, but are not tracked separately. 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

HHS and Education officials said states and other grantees are not 

required to report expenditures on activities to improve the quality of ECCE 

workers. For example, Head Start officials noted that about half of the fiscal 

year 2010 $176 million allocated for training and technical assistance was 

provided to local grantees. Those officials also noted that there is no readily 

available way to disaggregate the money used for workforce quality 

improvement training and technical assistance from money spent on other 

items in a grantee’s budget. Likewise, Education officials explained that, 

although their programs maintain data on the amount awarded to state or 

other grantees, it would be difficult to determine how much was used on 

activities to improve the quality of ECCE workers.

However, one program—CCDF—has begun collecting more data from 

the states on the use of CCDF to improve worker quality through the 

biannual CCDF state plan process beginning in fiscal year 2012-2013.21

In addition to these longstanding programs, HHS and Education have 

recently worked together and separately on several initiatives to, among 

other areas, improve the quality of ECCE workers.

HHS’s Office of Child Care will require states to assess their efforts to 

create an effective and well-supported child care workforce, including 

availability of ECCE degree programs offered in a state, quality 

assurance mechanisms for training programs and technical assistance, 

and descriptions of workforce data available to them. An HHS official told 

us that such information should help policymakers determine how to best

use CCDF program quality funds to improve worker quality.

22

• Convening the Early Childhood 2010 conference in August 2010, 

which highlighted the benefits of improving the quality of the ECCE 

workforce and including ECCE information in state longitudinal data 

systems. The conference brought together policymakers and experts 

to improve collaboration at the federal, state, and local levels in 

Examples of the 

agencies’ collaboration include:

 

21The 37 states responding to our survey reported that CCDF funding accounted for the vast 

majority of all federal funding used on workforce quality improvement activities (see fig. 6). 

22Both HHS and Education have appointed a senior-level staff member as a “point person” 

to coordinate with other federal agencies and raise awareness of the importance of early 

care and education. In HHS, this position is Deputy Assistant Secretary and InterDepartment Liaison for Early Childhood Development; in Education it is Senior Advisor to 

the Secretary on Early Learning.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

support of the development of integrated state early learning and 

development systems.

• Jointly administering the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge 

grant, which is intended to improve the quality of ECCE for children. In 

May 2011, HHS and Education announced $500 million in funding for 

the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge competitive grants 

awarded in December 2011.23

• Convening interagency study groups in September 2009 to increase 

coordination and collaboration on early learning issues. The agencies 

tasked the groups with identifying and helping articulate key 

components of a high-quality, coordinated state system of early 

learning and development. The groups identified seven such systems, 

including workforce and professional development systems, program 

standards, and data systems, and the groups informed the 

development of criteria for the Race to the Top-Early Learning 

Challenge grants. These groups met for about a year, and as of 

September 2011, there were no plans to resume them.

These competitive grants to states 

support ECCE infrastructure, such as more coherent early childhood 

systems and developing data on ECCE workers. The grants also 

encourage states to increase retention and educator quality by 

supporting their ECCE workers with professional development, career 

advancement opportunities, and incentives to improve their skills.

Administration, monitoring, and oversight of these grantees by the two 

agencies are ongoing, according to Education officials.

• Conducting several “listening tours” to obtain input on workforce 

issues at meetings across the country. One of these tours focused 

exclusively on ECCE workers and professional development.

In addition to their recent collaborative work, HHS and Education have 

each worked to improve ECCE worker quality with their own initiatives.

For instance, HHSofficials noted two new national centers to provide child 

care technical assistance to states, territories, and tribes on improving the 

quality of care for preschool and school-age children, including improving 

 

23The Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grants were funded by the Department of 

Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1832, 

125 Stat. 38, 163.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

ECCE worker quality.24 In addition to the Early Learning Challenge 

grants, Education also included an ECCE focus as a priority in prior Race 

to the Top grants and Investing in Innovation grants, whereby a few 

applications targeted ECCE workers.25 Education officials said they 

hoped to reach those in informal home-based settings as well. At the time 

of our review, it was too soon to assess the impact of these initiatives on 

the quality of ECCE workers.

In our survey of state child care directors, the 37 states that responded 

reported spending at least $1.4 billion on activities to improve ECCE 

worker quality over fiscal years 2007 through 2010.26 The two most 

heavily funded activities were worker in-service training and 

scholarships.27

 

24One center, the National Center on Child Care Professional Development Systems and 

Workforce Initiatives, jointly funded by Head Start and CCDF, plans to build state capacity 

for creating career paths for early childhood educators and after-school teachers through 

higher qualifications and improved compensation. HHS officials also noted that Head 

Start’s new National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning is providing technical 

assistance with the goal of ensuring that Early Head Start and Head Start agencies and 

teachers have access to a professional development system that provides individualized 

support and guidance.

All 37 states reported pursuing in-service training, 

coaching, and mentoring, and 34 states said they offered scholarships or 

other financial aid to students in postsecondary education. States 

responding reported spending more on training than scholarships: nearly 

60 percent, or about $848 million, of all funds dedicated to ECCE worker 

quality went to training while less than 20 percent, or about $259 million, 

went to scholarships (see fig. 5). Neither the overall level of funding nor 

25Education provided an invitational priority for Race to the Top grant applications that 

included programs to improve educational outcomes for high-need students in 

prekindergarten through third grade, though no additional points are awarded for 

invitational priorities. Nine of the 12 Race to the Top grantees for these funds included 

some focus on ECCE in their applications, and 3 of those specifically planned to invest in 

ECCE workers. For the Investing in Innovation grants, Education provided a competitive 

preference—awarded additional points—to those applicants with an ECCE focus, and 

several grantees included an ECCE focus.

26States indicated spending an additional approximately $204 million during the 4-year 

period on other worker quality improvement activities that they did not believe fit into the 

specified worker improvement activities listed in the survey. See appendix I for more 

information on our survey methodology.

27See appendix II for a full description of each of the activities from our survey. 

States Used Over $1 Billion 

in CCDF and State Funds

for Worker Training and 

Other Activities
 

Page 25 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

the number of states pursuing specific activities changed substantially 

from 2007 to 2010.

Figure 5: Responding States’ Workforce Improvement Activities and Funding, FYs 

2007 through 2010

Wage supplementation was the activity with the third-highest funding total 

reported by our survey respondents, who said they spent about 12 

percent of total funds for ECCE worker quality on wages, or about $172 

million from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Nineteen of 37 states 

reported supplementing wages and 3 of those accounted for almost all—

81 percent—of these expenditures. Wage supplementation can 

encourage increased professional development and worker retention by 

paying workers who obtain additional formal education or in-service 

training a higher amount, according to several state officials. While the 

supplemental wages may require workers to stay in their current program 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

for a specified amount of time, the increases provide a greater incentive 

for workers receiving them to remain in these occupations, according to 

several state officials. For example, officials from two states we surveyed 

said they believe wage supplementation has increased professional 

development and retention of ECCE workers in their states. These 

officials noted state research that suggested the wage supplementation 

increased worker retention and an interest in pursuing further education.28

The types of ECCE workers targeted by states’ quality improvement 

activities varied among our survey respondents, but across all activities, 

center-based child care workers were targeted most and private homebased child care workers the least.29 For example, 34 states reported 

targeting training activities to center-based workers to a great or very great 

extent in fiscal year 2010, while only 2 states said they targeted training to 

private home-based workers to a great or very great extent. Several state 

officials we spoke to said they most frequently target center-based child 

care workers because those centers care for far more children than private 

in-home workers. Moreover, research has suggested that private in-home 

workers may be less interested in formal training workshops and instead 

prefer less formal learning approaches, such as home visits. Research has 

also suggested that on-site training and visits to family-based child care 

providers can be effective for workers in that setting.30

 

28Likewise, Education officials offered the example of New Jersey, which they said was 

mandated in a court decision to provide high-quality prekindergarten programs with quality 

teachers to all high-poverty school districts. To attract high-quality teachers, the state 

found it had to increase prekindergarten teachers’ salaries to match levels paid to K-12 

teachers. Turnover consequently diminished, Education officials said.

29Family-based child care workers, preschool teachers and assistant teachers, and ECCE 

program directors were also targeted, but not to the extent of center-based child care workers. 

30See, Juliet Bromer, The Family Child Care Network Impact Study: Promising Strategies 

for Improving Family Child Care Quality, Herr Research Center for Children and Social 

Policy at Erikson Institute, Policy Brief No.1 (2009) and Diane Pausell, Toni Porter, and 

Gretchen Kirby, Supporting Quality In Home-Based Child Care: Final Brief, Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc. (Mar. 31, 2010).
 

Page 27 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Overall, responding states that could identify the funding streams used 

reported relying primarily on CCDF31 and state funds for worker quality 

and improvement activities.32 Specifically, CCDF and state funding 

streams each accounted for more than 40 percent of the total funding and 

together close to 90 percent (about $1.3 billion) of all funding identified by 

the state respondents from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Other sources 

of funding included IDEA and Improving the Academic Achievement of 

the Disadvantaged (Title I), as well as Head Start and other federal 

funding and private funds (see fig. 6).33

 

31Our survey specified whether CCDF funds were funded under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or not.

32State child care directors in 15 of the 37 responding states did not always know whether 

they used a specific program’s funds for any given ECCE worker quality improvement 

activity, or if they knew that a specific program’s funds were used, they did not know the 

amount. This may result, at least in part, because states can use funds from a variety of 

sources to support unified services. Officials from one state reported, for example, that 

they did not know whether the state used state, CCDF, Title I, IDEA, or other federal funds 

to train ECCE workers.

33The survey did not ask how states spent Head Start funds, since those funds generally 

go to grantees directly rather than the states.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Figure 6: State-Reported Sources of ECCE Worker Quality Funding, FYs 2007-2010

Note: Some percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. These data reflect only the 37 of 

51 states (including the District of Columbia) that responded to our survey. 

The existing gaps in national data on the ECCE workforce make it difficult 

to describe these workers and whether they have the necessary 

education, training, and skills to help children reach positive outcomes. 

Not knowing the true size of this workforce and its education and training 

levels inhibits research needed to link worker characteristics to worker 

quality, and to positive outcomes, including academic achievement of 

children, particularly those from low income families. Lack of data also 

hinders development of targeted support for these workers. However, 

data collection can be expensive and burdensome to both the agency

conducting the collection effort as well as the public responding to these 

efforts. Hence careful consideration is needed when thinking through 

options, costs, and the resultant value of the data to be collected. The 

federal government is uniquely positioned to improve national data 

collection, while balancing these considerations, because of its 

experience in conducting nationwide household and business surveys 

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 29 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

and its administration of programs and grants and accompanying 

reporting requirements. HHS and Education have taken a number of 

steps to improve data collection, such as funding a survey of caregivers 

and teachers, and beginning to work with BLS and Census to determine 

how best to improve federal statistical surveys, which include data on 

ECCE workers across program settings; however, it is too early in the 

process to assess the impact of these changes on federal data collection 

efforts in general, let alone their ultimate success in improving federal 

data on the ECCE workforce iin particular.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Health and 

Human Services and Education for review and comment. HHS’s written 

comments are reproduced in appendix IV, and Education’s comments are 

reproduced in appendix V. Technical comments from both agencies were 

incorporated in the report as appropriate.

In their written comments, both Education and HHS generally agreed with 

the report’s conclusions, namely that data on the ECCE workforce need to 

be improved. Both agencies also provided additional information in their 

comments that gave us cause to reconsider a recommendation put forth in 

the draft report that they reviewed. This additional information was not 

provided to us at the time of our study or at exit meetings held with the 

agencies when we discussed the findings to be included in our draft report. 

It outlined how HHS and Education are working with or plan to work with 

OMB, BLS and Census to improve national data on the ECCE workforce 

currently available through the American Community Survey and other 

federal statistical surveys. Our draft report contained a recommendation to 

this effect, but in light of the new information, we have deleted it. The 

additional information is contained in HHS and Education’s written 

comments and has been incorporated into the report as appropriate.

HHS’s comments suggested that GAO develop a recommendation 

related to the capacity of the higher education system to provide 

adequate professional development opportunities for all ECCE workers 

who may want them, noting the information we present in the report about 

the percentage of ECCE teachers without college degrees. While we 

acknowledge that this is an important concern for HHS, our study’s 

objective was to describe what we knew about the characteristics of this 

workforce, which in turn led to a discussion about the data limitations and 

problems. To develop a recommendation such as the one suggested by 

HHS would require us to delve into more depth about the characteristics 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

of the ECCE workforce, such as why education levels are low, which was 

outside the scope of our study.

HHS objected to our statement used in the Highlights page that said, 

“some research indicated that ECCE workers who are better educated 

and trained are more effective teachers, but other research did not find as 

clear a link.” Due to space considerations on the Highlights page, this 

sentence truncated the details laid out in the report, and as such, we have 

revised it to more closely reflect the report text. That said, we stand by 

our conclusions about the research as presented in the report, which is 

based on interviews with experts—including HHS officials—as well as our 

own review of the literature.

HHS also objected to the statement in our report that HHS and Education 

do not have complete information on all program workforce improvement 

activities, including how they are funded. In its comments, HHS noted that 

it was developing such information and provided the example of the 

CCDF. For example, HHS stated that the Office of Child Care has asked 

states about their professional development activities using CCDF, 

including new information to be submitted beginning in December 2012. 

The statement in our report, however, reflects the workforce improvement 

activities across six ECCE programs pursued at both HHS and Education, 

not just CCDF and we have clarified this in the report. Moreover, we 

mention the new CCDF reporting requirements in the report as an 

example of how some information is being gathered on workforce quality 

improvement activities.

Lastly, HHS outlined other efforts that they have undertaken over the past 

2 years to improve ECCE workforce data. Many of these examples were 

already in the report, although we did incorporate some additional details 

on them from HHS’s comments where appropriate.

In its comments, Education cited concerns that not all data limitations 

raised in the report could be solved through improving ACS or other 

federal statistical data. We agree with this perspective and do not believe 

that we suggest this in the report. We highlight the ACS and the other 

federal surveys because they are the current vehicles by which the 

federal government is collecting ECCE data through agencies such as 

BLS and Census. We assume that any effort among the various federal 

agencies about how to improve the data would delve more explicitly into 

what data were needed by the agencies and which changes, if any, made 

sense for any particular database. Education also cited the balance that 

Census in particular has struck between the need for more data and the 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

public burden of responding to such data collection efforts. Again, we fully 

agree with the need to balance data collection and public burden and 

have cited the need for this balance in our concluding observations.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, the Secretary of Education, the appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Kay E. Brown

Director,

Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

The objectives of our report on the quality of Early Child Care and 

Education (ECCE) workers were to determine (1) What is known about 

the composition, education, and income of ECCE workers and how these 

characteristics relate to quality? and (2) What activities are the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of 

Education (Education), and the states financing to improve worker 

quality? For this review, we focused on paid ECCE workers who care for 

and educate infants to prekindergarten and school-age children in beforeand after-school programs.

To address the first objective, we analyzed data on the composition, 

education level, and income of the ECCE workforce from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s (Census) American Community Survey (ACS) and HHS’s Head 

Start Program Information Report (PIR); interviewed ECCE experts, 

researchers and government officials; reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations; and identified and reviewed studies on the characteristics 

and quality of the ECCE workforce.

ACS is an ongoing national survey of 3 million households, which 

replaced the decennial census long form questionnaire as a source for 

social, economic, demographic, and housing information in 2000. We 

chose this source because of its large sample size and detailed 

information on the education levels of its respondents. Using ACS 2009 

data, we identified ECCE workers based on the following criteria:

• The individual was an employed civilian.

• If not self-employed, the individual had positive wage or salary income.

• The individual fell into one of the following categories (with ACS 

industry or occupation number in parentheses): 

• Family-based child care worker: Individual was self-employed, 

worked in the child day care services industry (8470) under the 

child care worker occupation (4600) or under the education 

administrator occupation (0230).

• Center-based child care worker: Individual was not self employed 

and worked in either the child day care services industry (8470) or 

in the elementary or secondary school industry (7860) under the 

child care worker occupation (4600).

• Teaching Assistant: Individual worked in the child day care services 

industry (8470) under the assistant teacher occupation (2540).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

What We Know about the 

ECCE Workforce and How 

These Characteristics 

Relate to Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

• Preschool teacher: Individual worked in the child day care 

services industry (8470)1

• Private home-based child care worker: Individual worked in the 

private household industry (9290) under the child care worker

occupation (4600).

under either the preschool or 

kindergarten teacher occupation (2300) or under the special 

education teacher occupation (2330).

• Director of programs: Individual was not self-employed and 

worked in the child day care services industry (8470) under the 

education administrator occupation (0230) or under the director of 

religious activities and education occupation (2050).

Unless otherwise noted, all ACS estimates had a 95 percent confidence 

interval within plus or minus 10 percent of the estimate. We assessed the 

reliability of these data by reviewing available documentation, discussing 

the strengths and limitations of the data with Census officials, and 

conducting reliability tests on the data that we used. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the 

composition, education level, and income of the ECCE workforce.

We also examined Head Start and Early Head Start PIR data. Head Start 

grantees report on the Head Start and Early Head Start programs they 

administer annually to HHS using HHS’s PIR reporting system; we used 

data from the 2008-2009 program year.2

 

1

As noted above, a limitation of this occupation was that the preschool and kindergarten 

teachers were combined into a single category. However, an alternate data source, the 

Occupational Employment Statistics, showed that while the vast majority of preschool 

teachers were in the Child Care Industry, and thus included, the overwhelming majority of 

kindergarten teachers were in the elementary and secondary school industry, and 

excluded from our group.

We assessed the reliability of 

these data by reviewing available documentation, discussing the 

strengths and limitations of the data with HHS Head Start officials, and 

conducting computerized reliability tests on the data that we used. We 

determined that the fields relating to education and salary of Head Start 

2

PIR data contain information on all Head Start workers nationwide, of which there were 

97,475 teachers, teaching assistants, and family child care providers nationwide in the 

2008-2009 program year. ACS’s 2009 survey included 16,385 randomly selected ECCE 

workers. Thus, although it is possible that some of these ECCE workers were Head Start 

teachers, teaching assistants, or family child care providers, such overlap would likely be 

very small and would not be likely to alter the results of our analysis.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

and Early Head Start teachers, as well as teaching assistants, were 

sufficiently reliable to include in this report. Because salary data for 

teachers and teaching assistants were reported as an average by position 

for each Head Start or Early Head Start program, we averaged these data 

across all programs and weighted them by program size and numbers of 

teachers and teaching assistants in order to report them as an average 

for all programs by Head Start position.

Although PIR data contain education and salary information on Head 

Start program directors, we did not report these data for two reasons.

First, PIR data do not uniquely identify program directors and this can 

result in double counting because one director can oversee multiple 

programs, according to HHS Head Start officials. Second, HHS officials 

also told us that Head Start program directors often oversee programs 

that are much larger and more varied than a typical child care or 

preschool program, thus they are not necessarily comparable to directors 

of these other program types.

We also interviewed ECCE experts and federal officials to obtain their 

perspectives on ECCE worker quality and on the availability and limitations 

of ECCE workforce data. We identified experts and government officials by 

reviewing studies and policy papers, attending two conferences, and 

reviewing applicable websites. Experts and government officials we 

interviewed included those from the National Association for the Education 

of Young Children; the National Institute for Early Education Research; the 

Center for the Study of Child Care Employment; HHS’s Office of Planning, 

Research, and Evaluation; HHS’s Administration for Children and Families; 

Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; 

Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; the Human 

Services Policy Center, Evans School of Public Policy, University of 

Washington; the National Association of State Child Care Administrators; 

the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; and the National Association for 

Family Child Care. Our discussions on ECCE worker quality covered such 

topics as perspectives on quality of the ECCE workforce as a whole, as 

well as for workers in particular ECCE workplace settings (e.g., child care, 

preschools, or Head Start programs) and if and how education and income 

levels relate to worker quality. Our discussions on the availability of ECCE 

workforce data sought to identify data collection efforts that organizations 

were currently undertaking—for example, state efforts to collect workforce 

data through registries.

We also identified relevant studies on the characteristics and quality of 

the ECCE workforce while conducting the above interviews and by 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

searching the literature. Our search emphasized studies conducted from 

2006 through 2011, although we also included several older relevant 

studies. Likewise, although our search emphasized studies that were 

national in scope, we also included key studies that pertained to only a 

portion of the country or the workforce. We searched a number of 

bibliographic databases, including ERIC, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Social 

SciSearch, and PolicyFile. Our search used such search terms as child 

care workers, preschool teachers, and early childhood care providers. 

Two analysts, at least one of whom was a social scientist with expertise in 

research methodology, reviewed all studies cited in this report to ensure 

their reliability and to ensure that we presented their findings accurately.

Appendix III lists the key studies we cited in this report.

To address the second objective and obtain background information, we 

surveyed the 50 states and the District of Columbia; interviewed officials 

from HHS and Education, contacted several states for follow-up 

information; and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.

We surveyed the 50 states and the District of Columbia about the types of 

activities states pursued to improve ECCE worker quality from fiscal years 

2007 through 2010 and the amount of federal, state, and private funds 

used to finance these activities.3

 

3

See appendix II for a description of these activities and an explanation as to why three 

activities were dropped from our analysis. 

The survey further categorized federal 

funds as follows: Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) not funded 

by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; 

CCDF/American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; Improving 

Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Title I); Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and other federal funds (such as Head 

Start and 21st Century Community Learning Centers). We sent the 

survey to state lead agency child care administrators because they are 

responsible for managing government child care programs and subsidies 

in their states, including the administration of CCDF. To get as complete 

information as possible, these child care administrators were requested to 

contact the state educational agencies in their states and other relevant 

departments about funding for activities in their states. We developed 

protocols that facilitated coordination between the state lead agency child 

care administrators and state departments of education to encourage full 

Government Activities to 

Improve Worker Quality
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

participation in the survey. We pretested the survey in five states and 

made appropriate revisions to the survey in response to these pretests.

The survey also contained questions about the reliability of the state data 

systems that housed the funding data reported in the survey. All states 

responding to our survey indicated that these systems were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of reporting funding figures requested in the 

survey. Thirty-seven states responded to our survey (a 73 percent 

response rate) and these responses are not generalizable nationwide.

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular question is 

interpreted, in the sources of information that are available to respondents, 

or how data are analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into survey 

results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data 

collection, and the data analysis to minimize such errors. For example, a 

GAO social science survey specialist designed the questionnaire, in 

collaboration with GAO staff with subject-matter expertise. As we 

mentioned earlier, the draft survey was pretested and was reviewed by a 

second GAO social science analyst. When data were analyzed, an 

independent GAO analyst verified the statistical program used for the 

analysis. Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their 

answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the 

need to have the data keyed into a database and avoiding data entry 

errors. We conducted this survey between April 20 and July 1, 2011.

We also interviewed HHS, Education, and several state officials to 

determine the types of activities and strategies agencies pursued to 

improve workforce quality; the federal and state funding sources most 

commonly used to finance these activities and strategies; perspectives 

regarding if and how worker quality was improved as a result; and how 

the agencies track the relevant spending and results. We also reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations. Finally, we reviewed other 

documentation pertaining to the HHS and Education ECCE funding 

efforts to determine if and how these funds could be used to improve 

worker quality.4

 

4

These funding efforts include CCDF, Head Start, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families, Improving Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, IDEA, and 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers.
Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement 

Activities 

Page 37 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

The GAO workforce quality improvement activity survey of the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia included the following activities and 

descriptions. 

Activity name Activity description

In-service training, coaching or mentoring Initiatives that provide or give ECCE workers opportunities to obtain relevant and 

ongoing training. These opportunities focus, at least in part, on how to become a 

more effective early-learning teacher. Examples of in-service training include 

workshops, classes, and conferences. Coaching and mentoring include ongoing 

one-on-one support from more experienced child care professionals.

Student scholarships or other forms of financial 

aid

Scholarships or other forms of financial aid available to students attending 

institutions of higher education. For example, scholarships through the Teacher 

Education Assistance for College and Higher Education program that subsidize a 

student obtaining a degree or other financial aid programs which subsidize higher 

education coursework, but not necessarily a degree.

Develop, redesign, or improve state registry 

systems (i.e., an automated data system that 

tracks the workforce)

State registry systems or other automated data systems that collect data on the 

ECE workforce and/or track and approve ECE trainers and classes.

Programs or initiatives that directly provide or 

increase access to “train the trainer” programs

Train the trainer programs that are focused, at least in part, on how to improve the 

quality of the ECCE workforce. One example is train the trainer programs, which 

have a sole or partial focus on effective mentoring or coaching strategies for 

improving the interactions between ECCE workers and the children in their care. 

Another example is train the trainer programs, which have a sole or partial focus on 

effective strategies for developing early-learning teaching skills in language, 

literacy, pre-reading and early math.

State certification or credentialing programs for 

the ECCE workforce

Initiatives that provide the ECCE workforce with educational and/or experiential 

opportunities to upgrade their job skills and which result in state certificates or 

credentials. Examples are early childhood certificates or credentials, associate 

certificates or credentials, administrator certificates or credentials, and after-school 

education credentials.

Develop or increase articulation agreements 

among programs offering degrees, credentials, 

or certificates to the ECCE workforce

Initiatives which initiate or increase agreements between two or more colleges, 

universities, or state-credentialed or certification programs, whereby course credits 

that students earned from one educational institution can apply toward a higher 

degree at another institution.

Supplementation of workforce wages Wage supplemental programs, regardless of whether the program ties such 

supplementation to an ECCE worker obtaining progressively higher levels of 

education or training. 

Programs or initiatives that directly provide or 

increase access to career counseling for the 

prospective and existing ECCE workforce

Initiatives that are designed to help prospective and existing ECCE workers get 

information and advice on a variety of career planning topics such as skills 

assessments, career advancement in general or according to a state’s specified 

career path, and employment opportunities.

Apprenticeship programs Apprenticeship programs are usually in partnership with the U.S. Department of 

Labor and/or state departments of labor and provide both instruction on early 

childhood learning and on-the-job training under the supervision of an ECCE 

professional.

Source: GAO survey instrument.

Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement 

Activities 
Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement 

Activities 

Page 38 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

The GAO survey contained questions about three other activities that 

were not included in the final results. Two activities’ survey questions 

allowed space for respondents to record other workforce improvement 

activities that they did not believe fit into the specified worker 

improvement activities noted in the table above. GAO did not include the 

results of these two “other” categories because, upon review, some 

responses did not seem to be appropriate for inclusion in these other 

categories. For example, it seemed that a number of the activities listed 

by some states did not seem to be activities primarily designed to improve 

the quality of ECCE workers. The total amount of funds states attributed 

to these two other categories was approximately $204 million. The third 

activity not included in the final results was monetary or other incentives 

given to child care or prekindergarten programs for workforce quality 

improvement activities. We did not include this in our results because the 

majority of the funding information on this activity was for payments to 

child care providers for child care, rather than activities to improve ECCE 

worker quality. States that had reported most of the funding for this 

activity noted that there was no way to separate the funds given to 

providers for earning higher education—the ECCE worker quality 

improvement activity—from funds given to those same providers for the 

underlying provision of child care. Since we could not identify the funds 

spent on ECCE worker quality activities for vast majority of the funds 

reported, we did not report on the funding for the category as a whole.
Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report 

Page 39 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess 

Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 

2000.

GAO Update on the Number of Prekindergarten Care and Education 

Programs, GAO-05-678R. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005.

HHS, Office of Inspector General. Most Early Head Start Teachers Have 

The Required Credentials, But Challenges Exist. OEI-05-10-00240. 

August 2011.

Weiss, Elaine and Brandon, Richard. The Economic Value of the U.S. 

Early Childhood Sector. The PEW Center on the States. July 2010.

Brandon, Richard with Scarpa, Juliet. Supply, Demand and 

Accountability: Effective Strategies to Enhance the Quality of Early 

Learning Experiences Through Workforce Improvement. Human Services 

Policy Center Whitepaper, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of 

Washington. May 2006.

Saracho, Olivia N., Spodek, Bernard. “Early Childhood Teachers’ 

Preparation and the Quality of Program Outcomes.” Early Child 

Development and Care, vol. 177, no. 1 (January 2007): 71-91.

Torquati, Julia; Raikes, Helen; Huddleston-Casas, Catherine. “Teacher 

Education, Motivation, Compensation, Workplace Support, and Links to 

Quality of Center-Based Child Care and Teachers’ Intention to Stay in the 

Early Childhood Profession.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 

22, no. 2 (2007): 261-275.

Early, Diane, Maxwell, Kelly, Burchinal, Margaret, et al. “Teachers’ 

Education, Classroom Quality, and Young Children’s Academic Skills: 

Results from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs.” Child Development, 

vol. 78, no. 2 (March/April 2007): 558-580.

Bromer, Juliet. The Family Child Care Network Impact Study: Promising 

Strategies for Improving Family Child Care Quality. Herr Research Center 

for Children and Social Policy at Erikson Institute, Policy Brief 2009, No.1.

Paulsell, Dianne; Porter, Toni; Kirby, Gretchen. Supporting Quality In 

Home-Based Child Care: Final Brief. Mathematica Policy Research Inc. 

March 31, 2010.

Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report
Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report 

Page 40 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Kipnis, Fran and Whitebook, Marcy. Workforce Information: A Critical 

Component of Coordinated State Early Care and Education Data 

Systems, Policy Brief 2011. Center for the Study of Child Care 

Employment.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 41 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 42 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 43 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 44 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 45 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 46 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 47 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 48 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-12-248 Child Care Workforce Quality 

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, others making key 

contributions to this report include Janet Mascia (Assistant Director), 

Nancy Cosentino, Shelby Kain, Carla Rojas, Andrew Nelson, Susan 

Aschoff, Alex Galuten, Shana Wallace, Ben Bolitzer, Stewart Kaufman, 

Cathy Hurley, Christine San, and Ashley McCall.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131017)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.