This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-248 
entitled 'Early Child Care and Education: HHS and Education Are Taking 
Steps to Improve Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality' which was 
released on February 15, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate: 

February 2012: 

Early Child Care and Education: 

HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data and 
Enhance Worker Quality: 

GAO-12-248: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-248, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Finance, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Research shows that well trained and educated ECCE workers are key to 
helping children in care reach their full developmental potential. 
Federal and state governments spend billions of dollars each year to 
improve ECCE programs, including the quality of its caregivers and 
teachers. Because of the importance of this workforce and the federal 
investment in it, GAO examined (1) what is known about the 
composition, education, and income of the ECCE workforce and how these 
characteristics relate to quality, and (2) what activities are the 
Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education, and the 
states financing to improve worker quality? GAO surveyed state child 
care administrators, interviewed HHS, Department of Education 
(Education), and other federal and state officials; interviewed ECCE 
experts and researchers; analyzed Census Bureau and Head Start data; 
conducted a literature search; and reviewed relevant federal laws and 
regulations. 

What GAO Found: 

The paid early child care and education (ECCE) workforce was made up 
of approximately 1.8 million workers in a range of positions, most of 
whom had relatively low levels of education and income, according to 
Census’s 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data. For example, 
nearly half of all child care workers had a high school degree or less 
as did 20 percent of preschool teachers. Average yearly income ranged 
from $11,500 for a child care worker working in a child’s home to 
$18,000 for a preschool teacher. Experts and government officials that 
we spoke with said, in general, better educated and trained ECCE 
workers are more effective than those with less education and 
training. They also noted the need for more comprehensive workforce 
data-—such as on workers with specialized ECCE training. While 
existing ECCE workforce data provide valuable insight into worker 
characteristics, critical data gaps exist. For example, these data 
omit key segments of ECCE workers, such as some caregivers who provide 
child care in their own homes, and also do not separately identify 
preschool teachers working in elementary schools. HHS and Education 
have taken steps to improve ECCE workforce data, such as providing 
guidance and funding to states to encourage the collection of state-
level data and working with federal agencies to improve workforce data 
collected nationally. 

HHS, Education, and the states use training, scholarships, and other 
activities to improve ECCE worker quality, but program and funding 
data are scarce. For example, HHS funded online training to help Head 
Start teachers meet new teacher credentialing requirements. Both HHS 
and Education have collaborated on initiatives to improve ECCE worker 
quality, such as the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Grants. 
For the most part, however, neither HHS nor Education track 
expenditures on worker quality improvement. In our survey, states 
reported that the most common workforce improvement activities were 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)(see figure). Of those who knew 
funding sources for these activities, states reported relying 
primarily on state and federal child care funds. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Activity: In-service training, coaching, mentoring; 
Number of states: 37; 
Total funding: $848 million. 

Activity: Scholarships, financial aid; 
Number of states: 34; 
Total funding: $259 million. 

Activity: State registry systems; 
Number of states: 27; 
Total funding: $17 million. 

Activity: State certification or credentialing programs; 
Number of states: 25; 
Total funding: $50 million. 

Activity: Wage supplementation; 
Number of states: 18; 
Total funding: $172 million. 
 
Source: GAO analysis of state survey data, 37 of the 51 states 
responded (including the District of Columbia).  

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making recommendations in this report. HHS and Education 
generally agreed with the report’s findings and conclusions and also 
provided additional information on several specific points in the 
report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-248] or key 
components. For more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-
7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Education and Wages Low, but Data Gaps Limit Knowledge about Early 
Child Care and Education Workforce: 

Worker Quality Improvement Activities Include Training and 
Scholarships, but Program and Funding Data Are Scarce: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement Activities: 

Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report: 

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

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Types of ECCE Settings and Programs: 

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

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

Figures: 

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

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

Figure 3: ECCE Workers --Total Workforce 1.8 Million: 

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

Figure 5: Responding States' Workforce Improvement Activities and 
Funding, FYs 2007 through 2010: 

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

Abbreviations: 

ACS: American Community Survey: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CCDF: Child Care and Development Fund: 

CDA: Child Development Associate: 

Census: U.S. Census Bureau: 

ECCE: early child care and education: 

Education: U.S. Department of Education: 

GED: General Educational Development: 

HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: 

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

NACCRRA: National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral 
Agencies: 

NIEER: National Institute for Early Education Research: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

PIR: Program Information Report: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 15, 2012: 

The Honorable Max Baucus:
Chairman:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Many of this country's children spend time in nonparental care 
arrangements,[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] We also analyzed data 
pertaining to Head Start and Early Head Start teachers and teaching 
assistants from HHS's Head Start program for the 2008-2009 program 
year. We assessed the reliability of these data and found them 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing the ECCE 
workforce. In addition, we surveyed state child care directors in the 
50 states and District of Columbia about activities and spending to 
improve ECCE worker quality. We requested the state lead agency child 
care administrators obtain data and information from their 
counterparts in their state educational or other agencies on 
activities or funding not under their purview. We obtained responses 
from 37 states, a 73 percent response rate; the results of this online 
survey are not generalizable to all states.[Footnote 4] The responding 
states accounted for approximately 86 percent of children under the 
age of five in 2010, according to Census data. We interviewed HHS, 
Education, and state child care officials, and representatives of 
academic and research groups about activities used and challenges 
faced to improve education, wages, training, and other aspects of ECCE 
worker quality, and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. We 
also conducted a literature search and consulted experts in the field 
to learn about the characteristics and quality of ECCE caregivers and 
teachers, and the relationship between the two. (For more information 
on our methodology, see appendix I.) We conducted this performance 
audit from June 10, 2010, through February 15, 2012, in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 5] Multiple programs and settings exist 
because early care and education takes many forms, from individuals 
caring for children in the child's home to centers and preschools 
offering full-time care and education (see table 1). 

Table 1: Types of ECCE Settings and Programs: 

Type of ECCE settings: Child care and early learning programs (child 
care programs); 
Programs: Programs may be subsidized by federal, state, and/or local 
funds. They include: 
* Center-based: Typically located in nonresidential settings, such as 
churches, schools, or community centers; may care for infants and 
toddlers and/or children ages 3 to 5 and focus on promoting school 
readiness. If care is for school-aged children, it is referred to as 
before-and after-school programs, and can include academic support 
such as tutoring; 
* Family-based: Located in residential settings, often the home of the 
provider, and serves small groups of children in personalized, home-
like environments; 
* Private household caregiver: Individuals who care for a child in the 
child's home. 

Type of ECCE settings: Preschool programs; 
Programs: Child care center or school locations; primarily serves 
children ages 3 to 5 and can be subsidized by states. State-funded 
preschool programs called prekindergarten programs tend to target 
children from low-income families in most, but not all, states, with 
the primary goal to promote school readiness. 

Type of ECCE settings: Head Start and Early Head Start programs; 
Programs: Local organizations awarded grants from HHS to provide 
education, nutrition, health, and family support to low-income 
children from birth through kindergarten entry and low income pregnant 
women; key service is providing early care and education to promote 
social, emotional, and cognitive development, including school 
readiness. 

Sources: For child care and early learning programs, see GAO-02-897 
and GAO-04-786; and BLS Career Guide to Industries, 2010-2011, Child 
Care Day Services; and interviews with ECCE experts. For preschool 
programs, see the National Institute for Early Education Research 
(NIEER), Rutgers School of Education, The State of Preschool 2010. For 
Head Start and Early Head Start Programs, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/]. 

[End of table] 

Definitions of High-Quality Early Child Care and Education: 

While definitions of high-quality ECCE are not precise, research and 
professional practices have included two broad features: environmental 
(such as fewer numbers of children per staff member or adequate 
physical floor space) and the quality of interactions between children 
and their caregivers or teachers. Researchers and ECCE experts 
characterize high-quality interactions in various ways, including an 
adult responding to the needs of children in sensitive and caring ways 
and participating in children's play and activities in ways that 
promote language development, and school readiness or advancement. 
Moreover, studies have shown that consistent, high-quality 
interactions are associated with positive social, emotional, and 
cognitive outcomes for children. Lastly, researchers and ECCE experts 
also believe such interactions are most often created by caregivers 
and teachers who possess needed skills and competencies (i.e., well 
educated and trained workers). However, they continue to debate which 
skills and competencies are most effective and how to best foster them 
in ECCE workers. 

Role of Federal and State Governments in Early Child Care and 
Education: 

Both federal and state funds provide significant support for ECCE. 
Funding at the federal level is primarily administered by HHS and 
Education (see figure 1). State human services and educational 
agencies also provide funding (for example, states spent about $5.4 
billion on prekindergarten programs in the 2009-2010 academic year) 
and distribute federal funds to local organizations or eligible 
families. While federal requirements exist for how states can spend 
federal ECCE funds, states have spending flexibility.[Footnote 6] 
Moreover, a single ECCE program can receive funding from multiple 
federal and/or state funding sources. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): 

Administering office: Office of Head Start (OHS); 
Funding source: Head Start and Early Head Start; 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $7.2 billion; 
Primary uses: Direct federal grants to local organizations to provide 
services to low-income children and their families to promote school 
readiness for children from birth through kindergarten entry. 

Administering office: Office of Child Care (OCC); 
Funding source: Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF); 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $5.0 billion; 
Primary uses: Grants to states to help subsidize child care costs for 
low-income working families; states establish eligibility criteria 
within federally set parameters. 

Administering office: Office of Family Assistance (OFA); 
Funding source: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $1.4 billion; 
Primary uses: Federal benefits to eligible families with dependent 
children; states administer TANF program and can elect to use TANF 
funds to directly subsidize child care costs for these families or use 
a portion for CCDF. If used for CCDF, transferred funds are subject to 
CCDF rules. 

Department of Education (Education): 

Administering office: Office of Academic Improvement and Teacher 
Funding source: Quality Program (AITQP); 
21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st Century); 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $1.2 billion; 
Primary uses: Grants to states to subsidize before- and after-school 
programs for children at low-performing schools.
   
Administering office: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP); 
Funding source: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $1.0 billion[A]; 
Primary uses: IDEA provides, in part, grants to states and other 
entities to provide early intervention, special education, and related 
services to eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youths with 
disabilities.
   
Administering office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 
(OESE); 
Funding source: Improving the Academic Achievement of the 
Disadvantaged (ESEA Title I); 
FY 2010 estimated spending on ECCE: $0.3 billion[B]; 
Primary uses: Grants to state and local educational agencies for K-12 
education; these agencies may use some of these funds for preschool 
programs in elementary schools that serve high percentages of low-
income students and families.
   
Sources: HHS and Education's websites (wwwacf.hhs.gov and 
wwweducation.gov); FY2012 Department of Health and Human Services 
Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates 
for Appropriations Committees; FY2012 Department of Education 
Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress. 

[A] This consists of IDEA grants for preschools (Part B), infants and 
toddlers (Part C), and three National Activities (Part D)-State 
Personnel Development, Technical Assistance, and Personnel 
Preparation. Not all Part D funds were used exclusively for ECCE. 

[B] Education estimated in 2009 that states spent approximately 2 
percent of Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged 
grants (Title I) on ECCE program worker salaries. Education officials 
told us that this is the best estimate available, but because Title I 
funds can be used for more than just ECCE worker salaries, it may 
underestimate the total amount of Title I funds spent on ECCE. 

[End of figure] 

With the exception of Head Start, the states generally determine the 
education and training standards for ECCE workers, through licensing 
requirements imposed by state human service or education agencies. The 
scope and stringency of these regulations vary by state and program, 
according to surveys conducted by the National Association of Child 
Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) and the National Institute 
for Early Education Research (NIEER), including stipulated minimum 
education and continuing training[Footnote 7] (see figure 2). 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Type of ECCE worker: Child care; Center-based provider[A]; 
Minimum education requirements: Most common requirement: An equal 
number of states require less than high school diploma as require a 
high school diploma or GED[B]; 
Range: Less than a high school diploma to a bachelor's degree; 
Continuing training requirements: 
Most common requirement: 11 to 15 hours annually; 
Range: 0 to 40 hours annually. 
  
Type of ECCE worker: Child care; Family-based provider; 
Minimum education requirements: Most common requirement: No 
requirement; 
Range: No requirement to some college or CDA[C]; 
Continuing training requirements: 
Most common requirement: 9 to 16 hours annually; 
Range: 0 to 24 hours annually.  

Type of ECCE worker: Pre-kindergarten; Teacher; 
Minimum education requirements: Most common requirement: Bachelor's 
degree; 
Range: High school diploma to bachelor's degree; 
Continuing training requirements: 
Most common requirement: 15 hours annually[D]; 
Range: 0 to 60 hours annually[D]; 
 
Type of ECCE worker: Pre-kindergarten; Teaching assistant; 
Minimum education requirements: Most common requirement: High school 
diploma or GED; 
Range: No requirement to CDA or associate degree; 
Continuing training requirements: 
Most common requirement: 15 hours annually[E]; 
Range: 0 to 45 hours annually[E]. 

Sources: For center-based child care, We Can Do Better, 2011 Update 
(NACCRRA's Ranking of State Child Care Center Regulations and 
Oversight); for family-based child care, Leaving Children to Chance: 
2010 Update (NACCRRA's Ranking of State Standards and Oversight of 
Small Family Child Care Homes); for prekindergarten, The State of 
Preschool, 2010 NIEER.   

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

[B] The General Educational Development (GED) credential is an 
alternative credential to a high school diploma for individuals who 
did not complete a regular high school program of study. 

[C] The Child Development Associate (CDA) is a nationally recognized 
education credential earned through coursework and ECCE work 
experience which certifies an ECCE worker has a basic understanding of 
early child development. 

[D] In nine states, at least one program in the state had a credit-
hour requirement instead of a clock hour requirement, according to 
2010 NIEER survey data. Because credit hours and clock hours are 
difficult to compare, we excluded these programs from our count. We 
also excluded one program where the requirement for teacher continuing 
training was determined locally. 

[E] In five states, at least one program either allowed assistant 
teacher continuing training to be determined locally, or did not 
specify what the requirement was, according to 2010 NIEER survey data. 
We excluded these programs from our counts. One state also had a 
credit-hour requirement instead of a clock hour requirement. Because 
credit hours and clock hours are not comparable, we also excluded this 
program from our count. 

[End of figure] 

Under federal law, the federal government establishes education and 
training requirements for those working in Head Start centers[Footnote 
8] (see table 2). 

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

Position: Head Start teacher; 
Education requirement: 
Date: By Sept. 30, 2013; 
Description: 50 percent must have a bachelor/advanced degree in early 
childhood education; or a bachelor/advanced degree and coursework 
equivalent to a major in a related field, and preschool teaching 
experience; 
Continuing training requirement: 15 hours annually. 

Position: Head Start teacher; 
Education requirement: 
Date: As of Oct. 1, 2011; 
Description: Early Head Start teacher (children under age 3): Center-
based Head Start classrooms must have a teacher who meets one of the 
2013 requirements; or has an associate degree in early childhood 
education; or an associate degree in a related field, coursework 
equivalent to a major relating to early childhood education, and 
preschool teaching experience; or a bachelor's degree, admitted to 
Teach For America, pass an early childhood content exam and meet other 
training requirements; 
Continuing training requirement: 15 hours annually. 

Position: Early Head Start teacher (children under age 3); 
Education requirement: 
Date: As of Sept. 30, 2010; 
Description: Must have a CDA credential and be trained (or completed 
equivalent coursework) in early childhood development; 
Continuing training requirement: N/A. 

Position: Early Head Start teacher (children under age 3); 
Education requirement: 
Date: By Sept. 30, 2012; 
Description: Head Start teaching assistants: Have training (or 
complete equivalent coursework) in early childhood development 
focusing on infants/toddlers; 
Continuing training requirement: N/A. 

Position: Head Start teaching assistants; 
Education requirement: 
Date: By Sept. 30, 2013; 
Description: Must have a CDA credential; 
or be enrolled in a program leading to an associate or bachelor's 
degree; or be enrolled in a CDA program to be completed within 2 years; 
Continuing training requirement: N/A. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws. 

[End of table] 

In addition to requirements set by federal and state governments, 
professional organizations have established voluntary standards which 
include education and training. These voluntary standards were 
typically developed because requirements in many states were seen as 
insufficient. They include the following: 

* The National Association for the Education of Young Children 
recommends that at least 75 percent of an ECCE program's teachers have 
a bachelor's degree or equivalent and all teachers have a minimum of 
an associate degree or equivalent. 

* NIEER recommends that ECCE teachers have a bachelor's degree. 

* The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health 
Association, and the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in 
Child Care recommend that ECCE teachers or caregivers have a state or 
national child care certificate. 

Data Sources on Early Child Care and Education Workers: 

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.[Footnote 9] 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.[Footnote 10] 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. 

Education and Wages Low, but Data Gaps Limit Knowledge about Early 
Child Care and Education Workforce: 

Data on the Composition, Education, and Income Levels of Early Child 
Care and Education Workers Have Limitations: 

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 figure 
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. 

Figure 3: ECCE Workers --Total Workforce 1.8 Million[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and 6 sub-charts] 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Center-based child care workers: 32%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 11%; 
Associate degree: 7%; 
Some college but no degree: 34%; 
High school degree or lower: 48%. 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Program directors: 5%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 46%; 
Associate degree: 17%; 
Some college but no degree: 26%; 
High school degree or lower: 11%. 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Teaching assistants: 6%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 13%; 
Associate degree: 8%; 
Some college but no degree: 40%; 
High school degree or lower: 40%. 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Private, home-based child care workers: 
11%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 13%; 
Associate degree: 5%; 
Some college but no degree: 33%; 
High school degree or lower: 48%. 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Family-based child care workers: 23%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 14%; 
Associate degree: 9%; 
Some college but no degree: 29%; 
High school degree or lower: 48%. 

ECCE workforce component[B]: Preschool teachers: 24%; 
Education level: 
Bachelor's degree or higher: 32%; 
Associate degree: 15%; 
Some college but no degree: 33%; 
High school degree or lower: 20%. 
 
Source GAO analysis of 2009 ACS Census data.    

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

[A] Head Start teachers are not a separate category of ECCE workers in 
ACS data. Thus, if a respondent to the ACS survey taught in a Head 
Start preschool program, he or she would be included with other 
preschool teachers. 

[B] See appendix I for definitions of ECCE workforce components. 

[End of figure] 

ECCE workers with some of the highest education levels are in Head 
Start programs, and such workers are not separately identified in ACS 
data (see table 3). 

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

Head Start position[A]: Head Start and Early Head Start Teachers; 
Type of degree: 
CDA/State equivalent credential: 17%; 
Associate degree in child development: 34%; 
Bachelor degree or higher in child development: 44%; 
No degree in child development[B]: 4%. 

Head Start position[A]: Teaching assistants; 
Type of degree: 
CDA/State equivalent credential: 31%; 
Associate degree in child development: 14%; 
Bachelor degree or higher in child development: 6%; 
No degree in child development[B]: 49%. 

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

[A] Education level of Head Start program directors is not reported 
because PIR data do not track directors in a way that enables such 
reporting. 

[B] Workers in this category either have a degree in a field other 
than child development or do not have any degree. This is because PIR 
data track only degrees relating to child development, in order to 
monitor compliance with the degree requirements set forth in federal 
law. 

[End of table] 

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[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 

* Preschool teachers working in elementary schools: ACS data do not 
distinguish preschool teachers in elementary schools from kindergarten 
teachers. Obtaining discreet data on preschool teachers in elementary 
schools is important because they are a key component of the ECCE 
workforce, often teaching children in state-funded prekindergarten 
programs in elementary schools. In the past decade (academic year 2001-
2002 through academic year 2009-2010), children served in state-funded 
preschool programs have increased by almost 600,000 to approximately 
1.3 million children, according to NIEER data. 

* Staff in before-and after-school programs: ACS classifies these ECCE 
workers as child care workers and combines them with those who care 
for much younger children. Combining these two groups is a concern, 
according to ECCE experts and researchers, because the needed skills 
are different. For example, one expert told us that after-school 
workers need training in how to manage the behavior of older children 
and in 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.[Footnote 13] According 
to ECCE experts and researchers, a lack of statewide and national ECCE 
workforce data disadvantages policymakers when assessing ECCE needs 
and planning improvements and allocating limited funds. For example, a 
lack of workforce data can make it difficult for policymakers to 
assess demand and supply trends for ECCE workers or the extent to 
which ECCE workers have specialized education or training in early 
child development. They also told us that, without knowing the extent 
to which ECCE workers care for and educate children of varying ages or 
other traits, such as children with disabilities or English language 
learners, it is difficult for policymakers to know how to best target 
limited quality improvement training funds among worker types. 

HHS and Education Are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data: 

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. 
[Footnote 14] 

* HHS's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation is sponsoring a 
nationwide child care survey that will include data on the education, 
training, and income of ECCE workers across different types of child 
care settings, such as center-based and home-based settings.[Footnote 
15] The last time a similar survey was conducted was more than 20 
years ago. 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.[Footnote 
16] 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). 

Increased Education and Training Can Improve Worker Quality: 

Experts and government officials that we spoke with said that in 
general, better educated and trained ECCE workers are more effective 
than those with less education and training because they are able to 
acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to more effectively work 
with children. Some research has concluded that teachers and 
caregivers with higher degrees, especially those with a concentration 
in early childhood education or development, were more effective than 
those with less education or no degree.[Footnote 17] Other research 
did not find as clear a link.[Footnote 18] Some of the discrepancies 
in these findings are attributed to the wide variability of study 
designs and not taking the environment in which teachers work into 
account (e.g., staff-to-child ratios and adequate materials and 
physical settings). In terms of income, research has found that better 
educated ECCE workers can command higher salaries, but that salaries 
do not necessarily increase worker quality in and of themselves. 
[Footnote 19] It appears that better educated teachers and caregivers 
are more competitive in the marketplace, and thus are better able to 
select jobs that pay more, and these jobs tend to be associated with 
higher quality ECCE programs. 

Worker Quality Improvement Activities Include Training and 
Scholarships, but Program and Funding Data Are Scarce: 

HHS and Education Use Existing Programs and Newer Initiatives to 
Improve Worker Quality: 

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 
figure 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.[Footnote 
20] 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. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Agency: HHS; 

Program: CCDF; 
Funding requirements: At least 4 percent of awarded grants must be 
used for program quality improvement activities, among other things, 
which can include ECCE worker quality improvement activities[A]; 
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: Program quality 
improvement includes workforce training and wage supplementation, 
among others. States may use these funds: 
* to build state career development systems and quality rating 
improvement systems; 
* to train infant and toddler caretakers, such as on sudden infant 
death syndrome; and; 
* for scholarships and wage supplementation to individuals. Funds 
have, for example, gone to the Teacher Education and Compensation 
Helps Early Childhood Project, which gives scholarships to child care 
workers to attend college classes related to child development. 

Program: Head Start and Early Head Start; 
Funding requirements: From 2.5 percent to 3 percent must be used to 
fund training and technical assistance activities, some of which is 
reserved for Early Head Start programs. Additional funds are reserved 
for improving program quality;
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: Technical assistance and 
program quality improvement funds may be used for multiple worker 
improvement activities, including improving staff qualifications, 
implementing career development programs, wage supplementation, and 
scholarships. HHS has provided Head Start funds for: 
* training one staff member per grantee to use Head Start's Classroom 
Assessment Scoring System to promote instructional quality; and; 
* wage supplementation and scholarships, such as a 2009 one-time 
program that helped grantees meet degree requirements. 

Program: TANF; 
Funding requirements: No specific requirements for amount that must be 
spent on ECCE worker or quality improvements; 
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: States may use up to 30 
percent of their TANF funds for CCDF, and those funds may then be used 
for all CCDF-eligible expenditures, including professional development 
activities, increasing payment rates to allow for better compensation 
of child care workers, and establishing or enhancing incentives for 
providers who attain accreditation. 

Agency: Education; 

Program: Programs under IDEA, especially Part D; 
Funding requirements: No specific requirements for amount that must be 
spent on ECCE worker or quality improvements; 
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: IDEA's Part D provides 
some funding for improving quality of ECCE workers, including for 
professional development and training. For example, IDEA funding has 
been used for: 
* credentialing programs, such as the Combined Priority for Personnel 
Preparation grants, to increase the number and quality of workers 
credentialed to serve infants, toddlers, and children with 
disabilities; 
* training using such funds as Paraprofessional Pre-Service Program 
Improvement Grants, which support enhancing program curricula in early 
intervention, early childhood special education, and early childhood 
paraprofessional programs. 

Program: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged 
(ESEA, Title I); 
Funding requirements: No specific requirements for amount that must be 
spent on ECCE worker or quality improvements; 
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: Title I funds can be 
used: 
* for training on effective teaching practices, professional 
development that aligns with state content standards, or coaching for 
preschool teachers in public elementary school with high numbers of 
children from low-income families; and; 
* in conjunction with other funding such as Head Start. 

Program: 21st Century; 
Funding requirements: Up to 1 percent is reserved for national 
activities; 
Type of ECCE worker quality improvement uses: 21st Century funding 
reserved for national activities can include technical assistance and 
training to improve the quality of the after-school programs 
workforce. For example, Education hosts a 21st Century program 
institute each summer that includes technical assistance, and last 
summer's institute included a discussion of workforce development. 
Additionally, states may use up to 3 percent of the funds for their 
own technical assistance, which can include professional development 
and ECCE worker quality improvement activities. 

Sources: Interviews with HHS and Education officials and HHS and 
Education websites and relevant federal laws and regulations. 

[A] While CCDF requires that at least 4 percent of the fund be used by 
state grantees for general program quality improvement activities, 
among other things, states usually use more than that amount, spending 
almost $1billion (about 11 percent) on general program quality 
improvement activities in 2009, for example. Workforce quality 
improvement activities are part of such general program quality 
improvement activities, but are not tracked separately. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 21] 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. 

In addition to these longstanding programs, HHS and Education have 
recently worked together and separately on several initiatives to, 
among other areas, improve the quality of ECCE workers.[Footnote 22] 
Examples of the agencies' collaboration include: 

* Convening the Early Childhood 2010 conference in August 2010, which 
highlighted the benefits of improving the quality of the ECCE 
workforce and including ECCE information in state longitudinal data 
systems. The conference brought together policymakers and experts to 
improve collaboration at the federal, state, and local levels in 
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.[Footnote 23] 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, HHS officials 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.[Footnote 24] In addition to 
the Early Learning Challenge grants, Education also included an ECCE 
focus as a priority in prior Race to the Top grants and Investing in 
Innovation grants, whereby a few applications targeted ECCE 
workers.[Footnote 25] Education officials said they hoped to reach 
those in informal home-based settings as well. At the time of our 
review, it was too soon to assess the impact of these initiatives on 
the quality of ECCE workers. 

States Used Over $1 Billion in CCDF and State Funds for Worker 
Training and Other Activities: 

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. 
[Footnote 26] The two most heavily funded activities were worker in-
service training and scholarships.[Footnote 27] 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 
figure 5). Neither the overall level of funding nor the number of 
states pursuing specific activities changed substantially from 2007 to 
2010. 

Figure 5: Responding States' Workforce Improvement Activities and 
Funding, FYs 2007 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Activity: In-service training, coaching, mentoring; 
Number of states: 37; 
Total funding: $848 million. 

Activity: Scholarships, financial aid; 
Number of states: 34; 
Total funding: $259 million. 

Activity: State registry systems; 
Number of states: 27; 
Total funding: $17 million. 

Activity: Train the trainer program; 
Number of states: 26; 
Total funding: $55 million. 

Activity: State certification or credentialing programs; 
Number of states: 25; 
Total funding: $50 million. 

Activity: Articulation agreements; 
Number of states: 20; 
Total funding: $3 million. 

Activity: Wage supplementation; 
Number of states: 18; 
Total funding: $172 million. 

Activity: Career counseling; 
Number of states: 18; 
Total funding: $23 million. 

Activity: Apprenticeship programs; 
Number of states: 10; 
Total funding: $3 million. 
 
Source: GAO analysis of state survey data, 37 of the 51 states 
responded (including the District of Columbia).  

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 28] 

The types of ECCE workers targeted by states' quality improvement 
activities varied among our survey respondents, but across all 
activities, center-based child care workers were targeted most and 
private home-based child care workers the least.[Footnote 29] For 
example, 34 states reported targeting training activities to center-
based workers to a great or very great extent in fiscal year 2010, 
while only 2 states said they targeted training to private home-based 
workers to a great or very great extent. Several state officials we 
spoke to said they most frequently target center-based child care 
workers because those centers care for far more children than private 
in-home workers. Moreover, research has suggested that private in-home 
workers may be less interested in formal training workshops and 
instead prefer less formal learning approaches, such as home visits. 
Research has also suggested that on-site training and visits to family-
based child care providers can be effective for workers in that 
setting.[Footnote 30] 

Overall, responding states that could identify the funding streams 
used reported relying primarily on CCDF[Footnote 31] and state funds 
for worker quality and improvement activities.[Footnote 32] 
Specifically, CCDF and state funding streams each accounted for more 
than 40 percent of the total funding and together close to 90 percent 
(about $1.3 billion) of all funding identified by the state 
respondents from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Other sources of 
funding included IDEA and Improving the Academic Achievement of the 
Disadvantaged (Title I), as well as Head Start and other federal 
funding and private funds (see figure 6).[Footnote 33] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Funding stream: State funding; 
Amount: $674 million. 

Funding stream: CCDF on-Recovery Act; 
Amount: $621 million. 

Funding stream: Other federal funds (e.g., Head Start of 21st Century); 
Amount: $53 million. 

Funding stream: IDEA; 
Amount: $37 million. 

Funding stream: CCDF Recovery Act; 
Amount: $28 million. 

Funding stream: Title I; 
Amount: $21 million. 

Funding stream: Private funding; 
Amount: $6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of state survey data, 37 of the 51 states 
responded (including District of Columbia). 

Note: Some percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 
These data reflect only the 37 of 51 states (including the District of 
Columbia) that responded to our survey. 

[End of figure] 

Concluding Observations: 

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 in 
particular. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Kay E. Brown: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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. 

What We Know about the ECCE Workforce and How These Characteristics 
Relate to Quality: 

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)[Footnote 34] under either the preschool or 
kindergarten teacher occupation (2300) or under the special education 
teacher occupation (2330). 

* 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.[Footnote 35] 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. 

Government Activities To Improve Worker Quality: 

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.[Footnote 36] 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.[Footnote 37] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: State Workforce Improvement Activities: 

The GAO workforce quality improvement activity survey of the 50 states 
and the District of Columbia included the following activities and 
descriptions. 

Activity name: In-service training, coaching or mentoring; 
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. 

Activity name: Student scholarships or other forms of financial aid; 
Activity description: 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. 

Activity name: Develop, redesign, or improve state registry systems 
(i.e., an automated data system that tracks the workforce); 
Activity description: State registry systems or other automated data 
systems that collect data on the ECE workforce and/or track and 
approve ECE trainers and classes. 

Activity name: Programs or initiatives that directly provide or 
increase access to "train the trainer" programs; 
Activity description: 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. 

Activity name: State certification or credentialing programs for the 
ECCE workforce; 
Activity description: 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. 

Activity name: Develop or increase articulation agreements among 
programs offering degrees, credentials, or certificates to the ECCE 
workforce; 
Activity description: 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. 

Activity name: Supplementation of workforce wages; 
Activity description: Wage supplemental programs, regardless of 
whether the program ties such supplementation to an ECCE worker 
obtaining progressively higher levels of education or training. 

Activity name: Programs or initiatives that directly provide or 
increase access to career counseling for the prospective and existing 
ECCE workforce; 
Activity description: 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. 

Activity name: Apprenticeship programs; 
Activity description: Apprenticeship programs are usually in 
partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor and/or state departments 
of labor and provide both instruction on early childhood learning and 
on-the-job training under the supervision of an ECCE professional. 

Source: GAO survey instrument. 

[End of table] 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Cited Studies in the Report: 

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, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 

[End of section] 

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

Department of Health & Human Services: 
Office of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

January 17, 2012: 

Kay Brown, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Brown: 

Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Early Child Care and Education: Improved 
Workforce Data Could Benefit Efforts to Enhance Worker Quality" (GAO 
12-248). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report 
before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled, 
"Early Child Care And Education: Improved Workforce Data Could Benefit 
Efforts To Enhance Worker Quality" (GAO-12-248): 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on 
this draft report. 

GAO Recommendation: 

To improve the government's ability to describe the characteristics of 
this country's early child care and education workforce and assess the 
ability of this workforce to help achieve positive outcomes for 
children, we recommend the Secretaries of HHS and Education address 
shortcomings in national data on ECCE workers by working with OMB, 
BLS, and the Census Bureau to develop more comprehensive. ongoing, 
education levels, training and income. 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Response: 

ACF acknowledges and appreciates the GAO's recommendation to 
strengthen the data on the early care and education workforce. We 
share that goal and have undertaken significant steps to improve the 
data available on early care and education workers. In just the last 
two years, ACF has funded a National Academy of Sciences workshop on 
the status of the workforce. We have significantly revised data 
collection under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) to capture 
State's efforts to improve the workforce and data that will indicate 
the effectiveness of workforce initiatives and investments. We have 
taken several critical steps to work with the Census Bureau and the 
Department of Labor to improve the information available on the Early 
Child Care and Education (ECCE) workforce through national surveys. We 
are working with the Department of Education to contribute to the 
Common Education Data Standards that are being developed for early 
childhood, including data standards related to the workforce. 

ACF believes GAO has the opportunity to build upon this recommendation 
in light of the data presented that currently exist on the workforce 
and efforts to improve ECCE worker quality. As the GAO reports, the 
available data shows that the ECCE workforce education and training 
levels are low, almost three-fourths lack an associate's degree or 
higher, and most workers' incomes are at the poverty level, less than 
$22,000 per year. GAO's findings on the inadequate training and poor 
compensation of the workforce are concerns that we share. Each year, 
we work with States to invest in the quality of the child care 
workforce through the CCDF. In Head Start, we focus on coordination 
and collaboration among early childhood programs, including for 
training and professional development and partnerships with 
institutions of higher education to provide opportunities to increase 
education levels of staff. Both programs, Head Start and Child Care, 
have funded national technical assistance (TA) centers to help 
maximize the effectiveness of current workforce initiatives and 
investments. The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), last 
reauthorized in 1996, is long overdue for a reauthorization that takes 
into account the current status of program and teacher quality. Head 
Start reauthorization is also on the horizon. Given these upcoming 
reauthorizations, we would like to consider GAO's important findings 
on the status of the ECCE workforce and work with members of Congress 
to ensure that our youngest children are taught by highly qualified 
teachers who will help them prepare for school. 

The 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act shows how Congress and 
the Administration, working together, can make a tremendous impact on 
the education and training of early care and education teachers. As 
GAO notes, the Head Start Act pays particular attention to improving 
the quality of the workforce and focuses on coordination and 
collaboration among early childhood programs, including for training 
and professional development and partnerships with institutions of 
higher education to provide opportunities to increase education levels 
of staff. With this mandate, Head Start has been a leader in the field 
in improving teacher quality. As of October 1, 2011, Head Start 
successfully met the mandate for all teachers to have an associate's 
degree. Building on the Head Start success, it is time to look at how 
we can improve the qualifications of teachers in the child care system 
who are responsible for the care and education of millions of children 
each week. The Administration has put forward core principles for the 
reform of the CCDBG. One of the President's core principles for CCDBG 
reform is to improve quality by supporting professional development 
systems that improve qualifications of child care teachers which 
demonstrates our commitment to improving the quality of the workforce. 

ACF strongly believes that professional development is key to 
improving quality. ACF has invested considerable resources to ensuring 
a strong ECCE workforce, including strong data collection, beyond what 
is currently mandated for the ECCE workers. Highlights of ACF 
investments include: 

* New Administrative Data Collection: Program office efforts such as 
the Office of Child Care's continued collection of information on 
professional development through its biennial Plan and the Office of 
Head Start's ongoing refinements to the Program Information Report 
(PIR) data collection tool to ensure the most useful data is collected 
from States and local Head Start grantees on the workforce and efforts 
to improve professional development. 

* New National Technical Assistance Centers: Funding two new technical 
assistance centers that are focused on ECCE worker quality — the 
National Center on Child Care Professional Development Systems and 
Workforce Initiatives that is providing technical assistance to build 
State capacity to produce qualified child care professionals which is 
jointly funded by the Office of Child Care and the Office of Head 
Start; and the Office of Head Start's National Center on Quality 
Teaching and Learning that is providing technical assistance to ensure 
that every Early Head Start/Head Start agency and teacher has access 
to a strong and flexible professional development system that provides 
individualized support and guidance. 

* Research efforts related to the ECCE workforce, including the 
National Academy of Sciences "Early Childhood Care and Education 
Workforce: A Workshop," which began its 18 month project period in 
December 2010. A report from the workshop was issued on November 15, 
2011.[Footnote 1] This workshop was sponsored by the ACF and was 
designed to look at some of the issues that the GAO mentions in their 
report. Reports on the meetings with ECCE experts are available to the 
public and additional research papers will come from this project. 
Also, the National Survey of Early Care and Education which is 
currently in the field which will collect data on the care and early 
education workforce, the types of programs where these workers are 
employed, and the socioeconomic contexts where they work, in order to 
be able to answer many of the questions of interest addressed in the 
GAO report. 

* Inter-departmental Data Coordination: Inter-departmental efforts 
with federal statistical agencies to improve data collection on the 
Early Child Care and Education (ECCE) workforce. ACF and HHS have 
participated in interagency efforts with the Department of Education 
to contribute to the Common Education Data Standards that are being 
developed for early childhood including data standards related to the 
workforce. 

Regarding pages 16-17, the following activities have happened since 
May of 2011. 

* Meeting on May 20, 2011, between the Office of Child Care (OCC), 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) and representative 
from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the process to submit 
proposals for changes to the Standard Occupational Classification of 
child care and early education workers in federal statistical surveys; 

* Follow-up meeting in July 2011 between the OCC and OPRE to plan 
process for submitting proposed changes to the SOC Policy Committee; 

* OPRE and OCC are currently consulting with expert researchers 
(Martha Zaslow from Child Trends and the Society for Research in Child 
Development, Richard Brandon from RNB Consulting, Margaret Burchinal 
from FPG Child Development Institute, Marcy Whitebook and Fran Kipnis 
from the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, and Roberta 
Weber from Oregon State University) to develop documentation in 
support of the proposed changes to the SOC; and; 

* A workplan and timeline has been developed to follow submission 
requirements to request to OMB changes to the SOC during the 2013 
cycle. 

ACF believes that GAO could say more about the capacity of higher 
education training and education mandates, and about the Child 
Development Associate (CDA) credential. As noted on page 11, given the 
size of the ECCE workforce and that the majority did not have a 
college degree; we believe the GAO could consider a recommendation 
related to the capacity of the higher education system to provide 
adequate professional development that would help the current 
workforce increase their education and training levels. A national 
report showed that in 2006 there were over 1,200 institutions of 
higher education that offered some type of degree program in early 
childhood education, with over 60 percent offering an associate's 
degree and 40 percent offering a bachelor's degree, with some offering 
both. We believe that the efforts by the Office of Head Start to 
support meeting the mandates of the Head Start Act illustrates the 
importance of partnering with higher education and utilizing online 
learning opportunities to ensure there is adequate capacity to meet 
any education and training mandates. Also, while the GAO mentioned the 
lack of data on CDA in the report, we believe it should receive more 
attention. HHS helped create the Child Development Associate 
credential and for decades subsidized the training so that ECCE 
providers, both in Head Start and other programs, could obtain the 
credential. CDA is the nationally recognized credential for ECCE 
professionals and indicates training and skills development in the 
area of early childhood care and education. It is required by the Head 
Start Act for Head Start workers and by many state child care 
licensing standards for child care workers. As such, it is essential 
to include CDA in any description of ECCE teacher education, training, 
and credentials. 

ACF does not agree with the broad statement, "Some research indicates 
that ECCE workers who are better educated and trained are more 
effective teachers, but other research did not find as clear a link." 
There is considerable research evidence that indicates that more 
education and training is linked to child care quality and more 
effective practice. Findings from a recent comprehensive review of the 
literature on the relationship between qualifications of the 
workforce, professional development, and quality of ECE highlight that, 

* More education, particularly with specialization in early childhood 
development, is related to higher quality in ECE programs and 
interactions between teachers and children[Footnote 2]; 

* Coursework paired with coaching in support of improved practice is 
more effective in changing practices to support children's outcomes in 
specific domains of learning than coursework alone[Footnote 3]; 

* Workforce credentialing in early childhood development, such as that 
achieved through the Child Development Associate (CDA) which requires 
demonstration of competencies and which focused on developing 
knowledge and skills relevant to early childhood development, is 
associated with higher quality of ECE in those areas most relevant for 
supporting children's development, e.g., interactions with children
[Footnote 4]; 

* Furthermore, recent research in this area of inquiry also highlights 
the importance of cultivating a "culture of quality"; work by Raikes 
et al[Footnote 5], identifies provider-level and program-level 
variables that together contribute to better quality of ECE in support 
of children's development. Provider-level variables like education, 
receiving a CDA, compensation, training, and on-site coaching combined 
with program-level variables such as licensing, accreditation, 
participation in the Adult Care Food Program and partnerships with 
programs that link families to other services, and formal 
communication with parents together were highly related to quality of 
care and early education. 

GAO's statement (page 20) regarding available information on program 
workforce quality improvement activities is inaccurate and conflicts 
with the information presented on page 22. ACF's Office of Child Care 
has asked states about their professional development activities 
through its biennial Plan since 1999, with more specific questions 
starting in 2003. Since 2003, states have reported on activities 
related to core knowledge and competencies for the workforce,
career lattices, professional development capacity (e.g., technical 
assistance, training/trainer approval, articulation agreements), 
access to professional development (e.g., scholarships, career
advisors), and compensation and benefits (e.g., wage supplements, 
bonuses or merit pay upon completion of professional development 
through their descriptions of their professional development 
activities. For example, in our most recent plans 48 States and 
Territories reported establishing expectations for the workforce 
knowledge and skills (referred to as core knowledge and competencies); 
46 States and Territories have established pathways which define the 
sequence of qualifications (career lattices); and, 38 provide salary 
bonuses for completing a training or education program. Additionally, 
the most recent Plan for FY2012-2013 includes an Appendix — called the 
Quality Performance Report — which will ask the states to annually 
report on workers' education levels, inclusion in the registries, 
participation in training and technical assistance, and financial 
supports provided to workers. States will begin submitting this report 
in December 2012. 

Footnotes: 

[1] [hyperlink, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/The-Early-Childhood-
Care-and-Education-Workforce-Challenges-and-Opportunities.aspx]. 

[2] Tout, K., Zaslow, M., & Berry, D., (2006). Quality and 
Qualifications: Links between Professional Development and Quality in 
Early Care and Education Settings. In Critical Issues in Early 
Childhood Professional Development. Martha Zaslow, Ivelisse Martinez-
Beck, I. (Eds.), (pp. 77-110). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. 

[3] Zaslow, M, Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, I., & Lavelle, B. 
(2010). Emerging Research on Early Childhood Professional Development 
In Preparing Teachers for the Early Childhood Classroom: Proven Models 
and Key Principles. Susan B. Neuman, Michael L. Kamil, (Eds.) Paul H. 
Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. 

[4] Same at footnote 1. 

[5] Raikes, H., Torquati, J., Hegland, S., Raikes, A., Scott, J., 
Messner, L., Peterson, C., Thornburg, K., Houf, B., & Scott, S. 
(2006). Studying the Culture of Quality in Early Education and Care. 
In Critical Issues in Early Childhood Professional Development. Martha 
Zaslow & Ivelisse Martinez-Beck, (Eds.), (pp.I I 1-136). Baltimore: 
Brookes Publishing. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20202: 
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov] 

January 11, 2012: 

Ms. Kay E. Brown: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Brown: 

Thank you for providing the Department of Education with a draft copy 
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's report entitled, "Early 
Child Care and Education: Improved Workforce Data Could Benefit 
Efforts to Enhance Worker Quality" (GAO-12-248) for review and comment. 

There is one recommendation for the Department of Education in the 
report — To improve the government's ability to describe the 
characteristics of this country's early child care and education 
workforce and assess the ability of this workforce to help achieve 
positive outcomes for children, we recommend the secretaries of HHS 
and Education address shortcomings in national data on ECCE workers by 
working with OMB, BLS, and the Census Bureau to develop more 
comprehensive, ongoing, education levels, training, and income. 

Department's response — The report highlights some gaps in our 
understanding of the early child care and education (ECCE) workforce, 
and the primary message of the report is that more regular data are 
needed below the national level to help policymakers make data-driven
decisions. We agree generally with this conclusion, but it is 
important to stress that apart from obtaining more detailed labor 
force information, the kinds of data called for in the GAO report may 
not be readily obtained through adjustments to existing Bureau of 
Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data collections. The Department of 
Education plans to work with these agencies to improve labor 
categorization rules in an effort to ensure that ECCE labor force 
members can be more readily identified in the data. 

Beyond better occupation and industry coding, the other kinds of 
information that GAO recommends be collected are more challenging to 
collect on a regular basis, particularly below the national level. 
Data collection vehicles recommended in the report for such 
information, primarily the American Community Survey (ACS), may not be 
best suited to the task. For instance, the report indicates that 
better coordination with Census could lead to capturing information 
about certifications earned outside of traditional colleges and 
universities. Data collection for ACS is done through household-level 
contacts, One person in the household responds for all household 
members. Evidence from other household studies suggests that one 
person in a household often lacks accurate information about 
certifications of other household members. The Department of Education 
has been working with the Census Bureau on this issue more generally 
to determine how best to capture information about certifications in 
household studies. Also, adding additional questions to capture more 
information on the ACS forms is challenging in and of itself. The 
collection gathers a wealth of information from the public. The Census 
Bureau has struck a sound balance between data needs and public 
response burden. Adding items to the ACS to capture more ECCE specific 
information would require removing existing items that gather data on 
other topics. Given that the ACS may not be the best study to collect 
such data (outside of improved occupational coding), the trade-off may 
not generate sufficient improvements in our understanding of ECCE to 
warrant such change. We will examine other data collection 
possibilities, while being mindful of the need to balance the value of 
the data collected with the burden. 

At the same time, through efforts with the Department of Health and 
Human Services, such as the joint administration of the Race to the 
Top — Early Learning Challenge program, we expect to 

receive significant information on the quality of the ECCE workforce.
I am enclosing technical comments for your consideration. Please let 
us know if you have any questions about our comments. We appreciate 
the work that went into the draft report and thank you for the 
opportunity to review it. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jacqueline Jones: 
Senior Advisor on Early Learning to the Secretary of Education: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program estimated, 
for example, that in 2005 60 percent of this nation's children, 
infants through prekindergarten, were in nonparental care. This is the 
most current data available and it counted children in child care 
arrangements; thus if a child was in several arrangements, that child 
was counted more than once. 

[2] Other federal agencies also oversee, or provide support for, ECCE 
programs. For example, the Department of the Interior oversees the 
Indian Child and Family Education program, which includes ECCE 
services. The Department of Labor has programs that provide supportive 
services to its clients, including child care services, to enable them 
to participate in training programs. The Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant Program for 
Entitlement Communities can be used for a variety of public services, 
including early education and child care. 

[3] We used 2009 ACS data, the most recent available at the time of 
our analysis. Unless otherwise noted, all ACS estimates had a 95 
percent confidence interval within plus or minus 10 percent of the 
estimate. 

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

[5] GAO has conducted work assessing fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication among ECCE programs. See GAO, Early Education and Care: 
Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-78] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 
28, 2000), and GAO Update on the Number of Prekindergarten Care and 
Education Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-678R] (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 
2005). 

[6] For example, states are required to use a portion of their CCDF to 
improve the quality of ECCE programs, but states have flexibility in 
determining what quality-improvement activities to pursue. 42 U.S.C. § 
9858e. 

[7] According to NACCRRA, states often exempt some types of facilities 
or workers from regulations; for example, relatives providing child 
care for a family member, programs affiliated with religious 
organizations, small family-based providers, and those caring for six 
or fewer children. 

[8] HHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported in August 2011 
that about 81 percent of Early Head Start teachers had the required 
CDA and, of the 19 percent who did not, more than half were pursuing 
them. OIG further reported teachers from established programs were 
more likely to have a CDA than teachers from newer programs developed 
using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. See HHS, OIG, Most 
Early Head Start Teachers Have the Required Credentials, But 
Challenges Exist, OEI-10-00240 (August 2011). 

[9] PIR also collects similar information on Head Start personnel who 
conduct home visits of Head Start program participants and Head Start 
Family/Community Partnership staff. 

[10] Industry codes depict the types of products or services produced, 
and occupation codes focus on the types of work performed. For 
example, an individual may work in the "child day care services" 
industry under the occupation "child care worker" or "janitor." 
Industry codes for the Census and BLS surveys are from the North 
American Industry Classification System and occupation codes are from 
the Standard Occupational Classification system. The Office of 
Management and Budget oversees revisions to these systems using 
interagency committees. 

[11] Private, home-based child care workers averaged $11,500 per year, 
center-based child care workers averaged $12,500, family-based child 
care workers averaged $17,500, teaching assistants averaged $13,000, 
and preschool teachers averaged $18,000. 

[12] Elaine Weiss, Manager, The PEW Center on the States, and Richard 
Brandon, Director, Human Services Policy Center and Senior Research 
Fellow, Evans School of Public Policy, University of Washington, The 
Economic Value of the U.S. Early Childhood Sector (Seattle, Wash.: 
July 2010). 

[13] Federal initiatives designed to encourage state collection of 
worker data attest to the importance of workforce data when trying to 
improve worker quality. For example, both the Department of Labor and 
Education have initiatives which fund state development of data 
systems that include the collection of workforce data to improve 
worker quality in the job-training and education sectors. The 
Department of Labor's initiative is the Workforce Data Quality 
Initiative and Education's is the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 
project. 

[14] See [hyperlink, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/The-Early-
Childhood-Care-and-Education-Workforce-Challenges-and-
Opportunities.aspx] for an electronically prepublished version of the 
report summarizing this workshop. 

[15] 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. 

[16] See Fran Kipnis and Marcy Whitebook, Center for the Study of 
Child Care Employment, Workforce Information: A Critical Component of 
Coordinated State Early Care and Education Data Systems, Policy Brief 
2011. 

[17] See, for example, Olivia N. Saracho and Bernard Spodek, "Early 
Childhood Teachers' Preparation and the Quality of Program Outcomes," 
Early Child Development and Care, vol 177, no. 1 (January 2007): 71-
91. This study reviewed 40 previous studies conducted over a 15-year 
period that were peer reviewed and met other explicit criteria. 

[18] See, for example, Diane M. Early, Kelly L. Maxwell, Margaret 
Burchinal, et al., "Teachers' Education, Classroom Quality, and Young 
Children's Academic Skills: Results from Seven Studies of Preschool 
Programs," Child Development, vol. 78, no. 2 (March/April 2007): 558-
580. This study reviewed seven previous studies with similar 
methodologies on preschool programs for children age 4. Five of the 
seven studies were statistically representative of populations--for 
example, a nationally representative sample of Head Start children in 
2003 or children participating in full-day, full-year preschool 
programs in Georgia. 

[19] See for example Richard Brandon with Juliet Scarpa, Supply, 
Demand, and Accountability: Effective Strategies to Enhance the 
Quality of Early Learning Experiences Through Workforce Improvement, 
an HSPC Whitepaper, Human Services Policy Center, Evans School of 
Public Affairs, University of Washington (May 2006). Also, Julia C. 
Torquati, Helen Raikes, and Catherine A. Huddleston-Casas, "Teacher 
Education, Motivation, Compensation, Workplace Support and Links to 
Quality of Center-Based Child Care And Teachers' Intention to Stay in 
Early Childhood Profession," Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 
22, no. 2 (2007): 261-275. 

[20] See 42 U.S.C. § 9843a(a). Head Start programs in rural areas and 
areas serving migrant and tribal populations face a deficit of staff 
who meet the new professional requirements, according to officials. 

[21] The 37 states responding to our survey reported that CCDF funding 
accounted for the vast majority of all federal funding used on 
workforce quality improvement activities (see figure 6). 

[22] 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. 

[23] The Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grants were funded 
by the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2011. Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1832, 125 Stat. 38, 163. 

[24] One center, the National Center on Child Care Professional 
Development Systems and Workforce Initiatives, jointly funded by Head 
Start and CCDF, plans to build state capacity for creating career 
paths for early childhood educators and after-school teachers through 
higher qualifications and improved compensation. HHS officials also 
noted that Head Start's new National Center on Quality Teaching and 
Learning is providing technical assistance with the goal of ensuring 
that Early Head Start and Head Start agencies and teachers have access 
to a professional development system that provides individualized 
support and guidance. 

[25] Education provided an invitational priority for Race to the Top 
grant applications that included programs to improve educational 
outcomes for high-need students in prekindergarten through third 
grade, though no additional points are awarded for invitational 
priorities. Nine of the 12 Race to the Top grantees for these funds 
included some focus on ECCE in their applications, and 3 of those 
specifically planned to invest in ECCE workers. For the Investing in 
Innovation grants, Education provided a competitive preference--
awarded additional points--to those applicants with an ECCE focus, and 
several grantees included an ECCE focus. 

[26] States indicated spending an additional approximately $204 
million during the 4-year period on other worker quality improvement 
activities that they did not believe fit into the specified worker 
improvement activities listed in the survey. See appendix I for more 
information on our survey methodology. 

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

[28] Likewise, Education officials offered the example of New Jersey, 
which they said was mandated in a court decision to provide high-
quality prekindergarten programs with quality teachers to all high-
poverty school districts. To attract high-quality teachers, the state 
found it had to increase prekindergarten teachers' salaries to match 
levels paid to K-12 teachers. Turnover consequently diminished, 
Education officials said. 

[29] Family-based child care workers, preschool teachers and assistant 
teachers, and ECCE program directors were also targeted, but not to 
the extent of center-based child care workers. 

[30] See, Juliet Bromer, The Family Child Care Network Impact Study: 
Promising Strategies for Improving Family Child Care Quality, Herr 
Research Center for Children and Social Policy at Erikson Institute, 
Policy Brief No.1 (2009) and Diane Pausell, Toni Porter, and Gretchen 
Kirby, Supporting Quality In Home-Based Child Care: Final Brief, 
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Mar. 31, 2010). 

[31] Our survey specified whether CCDF funds were funded under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or not. 

[32] State child care directors in 15 of the 37 responding states did 
not always know whether they used a specific program's funds for any 
given ECCE worker quality improvement activity, or if they knew that a 
specific program's funds were used, they did not know the amount. This 
may result, at least in part, because states can use funds from a 
variety of sources to support unified services. Officials from one 
state reported, for example, that they did not know whether the state 
used state, CCDF, Title I, IDEA, or other federal funds to train ECCE 
workers. 

[33] The survey did not ask how states spent Head Start funds, since 
those funds generally go to grantees directly rather than the states. 

[34] As noted above, a limitation of this occupation was that the 
preschool and kindergarten teachers were combined into a single 
category. However, an alternate data source, the Occupational 
Employment Statistics, showed that while the vast majority of 
preschool teachers were in the Child Care Industry, and thus included, 
the overwhelming majority of kindergarten teachers were in the 
elementary and secondary school industry, and excluded from our group. 

[35] PIR data contain information on all Head Start workers 
nationwide, of which there were 97,475 teachers, teaching assistants, 
and family child care providers nationwide in the 2008-2009 program 
year. ACS's 2009 survey included 16,385 randomly selected ECCE 
workers. Thus, although it is possible that some of these ECCE workers 
were Head Start teachers, teaching assistants, or family child care 
providers, such overlap would likely be very small and would not be 
likely to alter the results of our analysis. 

[36] See appendix II for a description of these activities and an 
explanation as to why three activities were dropped from our analysis. 

[37] These funding efforts include CCDF, Head Start, Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, Improving Academic Achievement of the 
Disadvantaged, IDEA, and 21ST Century Community Learning Centers. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.