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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.