Early Child Care and Education: HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality
Published: 2012-02-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 in-service training, coaching, and mentoring for current workers (all 37 state survey respondents) and scholarships to workers enrolled in higher education programs (34 states). Of those who knew funding sources for these activities, states reported relying primarily on state and federal child care funds.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Many of this country’s children spend time in nonparental care  arrangements, 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 low- income 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.
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  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. 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.
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 before-  and 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  respondents. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  school.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).
Multiple programs and settings exist because early care and  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.
subsections: section_title: Data Sources on Early Child Care and Education Workers
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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— 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.  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.
The following lists a few state data efforts:
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.
section_title: Education and Wages Low, but Data Gaps Limit Knowledge about Early Child Care and Education Workforce
subsections: section_title: Data on the Composition, Education, and Income Levels of Early Child Care and Education Workers Have Limitations
paragraphs: 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.
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).
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 positions 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.
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  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.
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  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  strategies to improve its quality.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.
section_title: HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data
paragraphs: 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.
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.  The  last time a similar survey was conducted was more than 20 years ago.
At 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 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.  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.
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.
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  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).
section_title: Increased Education and Training Can Improve Worker Quality
paragraphs: 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. Other research did not find as clear a link.  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. 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.
section_title: Worker Quality Improvement Activities Include Training and Scholarships, but Program and Funding Data Are Scarce
subsections: section_title: HHS and Education Use Existing Programs and Newer Initiatives to Improve Worker Quality
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.  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.
Both 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 Inter- Department Liaison for Early Childhood Development; in Education it is Senior Advisor to  the Secretary on Early Learning. 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. 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.
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.
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  ECCE worker quality. 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. 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.
section_title: States Used Over $1 Billion in CCDF and State Funds for Worker Training and Other Activities
paragraphs: 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. The two most  heavily funded activities were worker in-service training and  scholarships. 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  the number of states pursuing specific activities changed substantially  from 2007 to 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  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.
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 home- based child care workers the least. 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.
Overall, responding states that could identify the funding streams used  reported relying primarily on CCDF and state funds for worker quality  and improvement activities. 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).
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 before-  and after-school programs.
subsections: section_title: What We Know about the ECCE Workforce and How These Characteristics Relate to Quality
paragraphs: 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).
Preschool teacher: Individual worked in the child day care  services industry (8470)kindergarten teacher occupation (2300) or under the special  education teacher occupation (2330).   under either the preschool or
Private home-based child care worker: Individual worked in the  private household industry (9290) under the child care worker  occupation (4600).
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. 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  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  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.
section_title: Government Activities to Improve Worker Quality
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement Activities
paragraphs: The GAO workforce quality improvement activity survey of the 50 states  and the District of Columbia included the following activities and  descriptions.
Activity description  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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wage supplemental programs, regardless of whether the program ties such  supplementation to an ECCE worker obtaining progressively higher levels of  education or training.
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 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.