LB
1775.6
.387
2003
IGSL
UCB

and Education Staff“

  

Training and

Retaining Early Care

Training Projects:

 

Year One Progress Report

Evaluation

2001-20072

:y:.3;:3“"‘Eiizabeth Burr
‘Egigget O'Brien

 

 

 

Policy Brief 03-3

 

Research

[2

supported bV:

FIRST 5

CALIFORNIA'

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL

UNIVERSITY oi- CALIFORNIA 7
l

v 23:: ~>

STU Dir—hleV—‘AQ\ (. ‘..;':'

 

3?

PACE POLICY BRIEF ...;,;.‘

 

hildren benefit when

they are served by stable

and highly trained

center-based staff and
caregivers, according to accumulating
evidence.‘ But we have much to learn
about how community colleges and
local training organizations can
recruit a more diverse early care and
education (ECE) staff, provide
training in a cost—effective manner,
and facilitate job placement.

Responding to the unequal distribution
of child—care supply across the state
and a need for well—trained caregivers,
First 5 California approved an initiative
to train ECE staff using different project
models. The initiative aims to increase
the number of individuals entering
and remaining in the workforce by
developing or expanding preservice or
inservice training opportunities. The
geographic focus is on regions with a
scarcity of child-care supply. Another
important goal of this program is to
increase the number of ECE staff
working with infants and children with
disabilities and other special needs.

PACE developed a request for
proposals (RFP) process, and in
January, 2001 distributed $4.8 million
of First 5 California funds to six
training projects representing various
program designs, geographic loca—
tions, and target populations. The six
demonstration projects selected for
study are:

I The Chicano Federation

I Inland Empire CONNECTIONS
Project

I Early Childhood Job Training
Project (ECITP)

I Enhanced Mentor Program (EMP)

I Nevada County Educator Support
Program (Nevada ESP)

I San Mateo Career Development
Program (San Mateo CDP)

Table 1 provides key dimensions on
which the regional projects vary:
location, length of training, enrollments
as of June, 2002 and primary focus on
four key aims: l) Recruit ECE staff 2)
Reduce barriers to progress or comple-
tion of training 3) Increase retention in
the ECE field, and 4) Build local capacity
and infrastructure for coordinated
training and retention efforts.

As indicated in the table, all funded
projects address these four aims, but not
necessarily with equal emphasis. The
project enrollment numbers also vary, by
design. For example, the Nevada ESP
project enrolls a fixed cohort, offering
intensive services over the course of the
program. Building a group identity
among these trainees is a focus in this
project. In contrast, the Inland Empire
CONNECTIONS project has open
enrollment, offering a variety of services
to a large number of individuals.
Although all of the projects offer
training in community colleges, several
also provide additional trainings on a
shorter—term or one—time basis.

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

 

TABLE 1. Select Project Variation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicano CONNECTIONS ECJTP Enhanced Nevada ESP San Mateo j
Federation Mentor CDP
Program
County San Diego, . San West Fresno, Nevada San Mateo
. Imperial , Bernardino, Contra Humboldt.
‘ . , Riverside Costa Mendocino.
- Los Angeles.

_ Yuba
Enrollments as of 988 (Open 1,211 (Open 174 (More 180 (Fixed 81 (Fixed 264 (Open
6/02 (type of enroll- enrollment) enrollment) fixed cohort) cohorts) cohort) enrollment)
ment: fixed or open)
Length of training 8 week non- College College College College College

unit bearing semester or semester semester semester semester or

FCCH training unit-bearing individual

or college classes for workshops &

semester FCCH services
Biggest emphases Recruit and All 4 equally Reduce All 4 equally Reduce Recruit, reduce
among 4 research reduce (123,4) barriers and (1,2,3,4) barriers (2) barriers and
questions barriers (1,2) retain (2,5) retain (1,2,3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preliminary Findings

As of June, 2002, projects had
recruited 3,197 participants.
These trainees are taking college
courses and engaging in train—
ing, moving towards applying
for a Child Development Permit
or a family child—care license.
Among the 1,614 participants
who had enrolled by February,
2002, 129 participants attained
a Child Development Permit or
a higher level of permit; 186
participants had applied for or
attained Family Child Care
(FCC) licenses, and 20 had
started a business.

 

 

Evaluation Overview

Between January 2001 and Iuly 2003,
PACE is evaluating the six training

models. The goal is to inform First 5

California about which models, or

components of models, are most

effective. Stemming directly from the

aims of the initiative, the four research

questions guiding the evaluation are:

a To what extent does the training

project recruit diverse individuals
into the field of ECE?

I To what extent does the training

project include supports that

address barriers inhibiting

progress or completion of training

by participants?

TRAINING AND RETAINING EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF

To what extent does the training
project offer supports that are likely
to retain ECE staff in the field?

To what extent does the training
project build ongoing local
capacity and infrastructure for
high—quality coordinated training
and retention efforts, with a clear

plan for collaboration?

Time Frame

As shown in Figure 1, the training
projects are funded from January
2001 through lune 2003. The current
progress report includes the first
wave of data, collected in the first
year and a half of the evaluation
(Ianuary 2001—lune 2002). The final

 

report analyzing all evaluation data
will be completed in October 2003.

Methodology

To inform the research questions,
PACE is examining measurable
outcomes over time, through several
methods, working closely with the
regional projects funded under this
program. Since the six projects place
varying emphases on the four aims,
we would expect that some research
questions are more relevant for them
than for others.

Information for this progress report
is focused primarily on data gathered
from the Year One telephone survey
of training project participants.
Other information from evaluation
activities was used to provide context
for the survey findings and will be
incorporated into the final report.
Additional sources of data for the
evaluation include:

I A Qualitative Implementation
Study (QIS) to track how project
staff is implementing their programs
and moving toward the four major
objectives. One goal is to identify
the key organizational elements
and factors operating within local
contexts that enhance or constrain
successful implementation.

I A cost analysis of the training
projects to determine the unit
costs associated with increasing the
number of ECE trainees and
increasing their retention rates and
professional development.

Sample. Training participants
enrolled by November 2001 were
included in the phone survey sample.
The six projects provided lists of
consenting participants from which
to draw the sample. Consenting
participants were stratified according
to education levels and the type of
employment (i.e., working in a

center, working in a family child-care
home, or not currently working in
ECE). This stratification captures the
range of staff involved in the training
projects. All who participated in the
phone survey were paid $25 for their
time. The response rate was
approximately 80% across all
projects, for a total sample of 1,111.

Telephone Survey. Each respondent
was called by phone, and asked to
participate in the evaluation. All who
agreed were administered a 20-
minute telephone interview, which
contained both closed-and open—
ended questions on demographics
regarding age, education, and
household composition; working
conditions, such as current
employment, hourly wage, and ages
of children served; utilization of
services and supports offered by the
training projects; satisfaction with
these services; and outcomes, such as
training and retention.

 

FlGURE ’1. Timeline O‘F Evaluation

 

2001 2002 2003

 

 

0
New/ Expanded Training Projects Funded

H
Year One Site Visits

H
Year Two Site Visits

H
Year One Phone Survey

0
Year One Report

 

H
Year Two Phone Survey

0
Year Two Report

 

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT a

 

 

PACE

Analysis. Researchers conducted
descriptive analyses to present these
data, including demographic
information and utilization of
support services offered by the
training projects.

Limitations of Year One
Findings

PACE’s ability to quantify the effec-
tiveness of the training projects is
based largely on measuring the
amount of training that recipients
complete and the length of time they
stay in their jobs. Thus, the compre—
hensive evaluation of the projects
requires substantial time to pass.
These findings are preliminary, based
on the initial 18 months of program
implementation. The final report will
provide results based on thirty months
of retention and training informa—
tion, which will be a more valid
assessment of program outcomes.

It also is important to note that there
is no control or comparison group in
this evaluation. While the evaluation
is comparative, it is important to
remember that the project designs
vary widely, from target populations,
number of participating trainees,
services and supports offered, length
of training, and intensity of in-
volvement. PACE will attempt to
examine ways in which particular
projects or project components may
be associated with outcomes. But this
study design does not allow for
conclusions regarding causality.

POLICY BRIEF

Year One Findings

 

I To what extent do the training
projects recruit diverse
individuals into the field of early
care and education?

As of June 2002, projects had re-
cruited 3,197 participants. A diverse
group of ECE staff may better
represent and serve children in centers
and family child—care homes, includ-
ing infants and children with disabili—
ties and other special needs. Four of
the six training projects included this
goal of recruiting diverse staff among
their top priorities.

Participant demographics

I Participants are ethnically diverse.
Overall, the majority of partici—
pants in all programs is Latino
(57%), followed by Caucasian
(23%). However, some projects are
unique in the ethnic composition
of their participants. For example,
the vast majority of participants
(90%) in the Chicano Federation’s
program is Latino.

I The six projects have nearly equal
numbers of center—based staff
(41%) and individuals who are
new to the field, i.e. not working in
child care at the time of enroll—
ment (41 0/0). Additionally, nearly
20% of participants are family
child—care providers.

I Overall, when they enrolled in the
projects, most participants had less
education than a two—year college
degree (36% had a high school
degree or less while 40% had some

n TRAINING AND RETAINING EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF

college experience but no degree).
The vast majority of participants
in the Chicano Federation Pro-
gram and in Nevada ESP had no
college experience upon enroll-
ment (69% and 72%, respectively).

Household composition and income

I Overall, the majority of participants
in all of the programs lives with a
partner or spouse and has children.
Over half of all participants who
have dependent children require
child care for those children while
at work or in training.

I Nearly half of all employed
participants (48%) work between
21 and 40 hours per week at a paid
job, with an average of 35 hours.
Among those working in ECE jobs
(59%), 63% work between 21 and
40 hours per week, with an average
of 37 hours.

I Participants in ECITP reported the
lowest mean annual income
($14,071), while participants in the
CONNECTIONS program re—
ported the highest mean annual
income ($20,410).

I Between 21—34% of participants
across the six projects receive
public assistance for their medical
care, while 12—27% utilize pub—
licly—funded food support.

While the data above are presented in
the aggregate, Tables 2 and 3
demonstrate the variability among
projects in selected characteristics of
their participants: ethnicity and type
of provider at time of enrollment in
the project.

 

 

TABLE 2. Participant Ethnicity*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

°/o(n) Chicano Fed CONNECTIONS ECJTP Enhanced Nevada ESP San Mateo
Mentor CDP

Latino 89.4 (312) 38.5 (98) 56.1 (66) 39.3 (45) 8.6 (7) 72.7 (106)

White 6.5 (23) 31.9 (81) 0.0 (0) 31.5 (36) 82.8 (67) 11.9 (17)

Black 2.8 (10) 23.4 (60) 0.0 (0) 11.0 (13) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (3)

American Indian 0.0 (O) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 2.6 (3) 3.0 (2) 0.0 (0)

or Native Alaskan

Asian or 0.5 (2) 3.1 (8) 36.8 (43) 7.2 (8) 1.4 (1) 5.4 (8)

Pacific Islander

Multi—racial 0.4 (2) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 7.4 (8) 2.8 (2) 6.2 (9)

Other 0.5 (2) 1.9 (5) 7.1 (8) 1.0 (1) 1.4 (1) 2.1 (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Baseline data are used in this chart. Lower n's are due to missing data.

As shown in Table 2, most projects
have a majority of participants who
identify as non—White. Overall, nearly
60% of program participants
(n:634) are Latino. The exception,
the Nevada ESP, is situated in a
county with a largely white popula—
tion. Both the Chicano Federation
program (89%) and the San Mateo
CDP program (73%) have a majority
of Latino participants. The CON—
NECTIONS project has the highest
number of Black participants (23%),
while the ECJTP program has the
highest number of Asian—American
or Pacific Islander participants (37%).

The training projects offer training
for experienced ECE staff as well as
for individuals who are new to the

child—care field. (PACE defines partici—
pants as ‘new to the field’ if they were
not working in a paid child—care job at
the time of enrollment in the training
project). Notably, as indicated in Table
3, the programs have nearly equal
numbers of center-based experienced
providers (41%) and staff/providers
who are new to the field (41%).
Additionally, nearly 20% of participants
are experienced family child—care
providers. Although all programs
offer training relevant for ECE staff in
centers and family child—care homes,
the Enhanced Mentor Program, Nevada
ESP, San Mateo CDP and CONNEC—
TIONS have the largest contingents
of family child—care providers (20%
or more). Both the Chicano Federa—
tion program and the ECJTP consist

of a large number of caregivers who
are new to the field (76% and 61%
respectively), in contrast to the Nevada
ESP, which consists of less than 10%
of ECE staff who are new to the field.

All six training projects have been
successful in attracting a diverse group
of ECE staff. The challenge, however,
are barriers that inhibit progress in
accumulating ECE and general
education (GE) units. As suggested
by the data above, these include having
little formal education experience;
balancing work, school and family; and
low wages. Especially notable are the
high rates of public assistance receipt.

Remaining questions. )As PACE
continues to track the training
participants, we aim to determine

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT 3

 

PACE

POLICY BRIEF

 

TABLE 3. Type of Child-Care Employment at Time of Enrollment in Project*

 

    
  

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%(n) Chicano Fed CONNECTIONS ECJTP Enhanced Nevada ESP San Mateo
Mentor CDP

Family Child—Care 26.0 (90) 12.4 (29) 4.6 (5) 27.6 (32) 25.9 (2’)) 25.6 (53)

Provider

Center-Based 13.9 (48) 71.9 (168) 40.4 (44) 53.6 (59) 66.7 (54) 55.6 (75)

Provider g

Not Working in 60.1 (208) 15.7 (37) 55.0 (60) 38.8 (45) 7.4 (6) 22.9 (32)

Child Care at ,

Enrollment

 

 

 

* Baseline data are used in this chart. Lower n's are due to missing data.

which projects successfully attract
and retain a diverse group of ECE
staff and through which means.

 

I To what extent do the training
projects address barriers
inhibiting progress or completion
of training by participants?

Although the participant characteristic
data suggest that the projects are
successful in recruiting a diverse
group of ECE staff, they also provide
evidence of some of the barriers that
individuals face in progressing through
training. These barriers are the focus
of the second research question.

According to project staff and project
instructors/trainers, many new
trainees require extensive counseling
and informal support, especially
those with limited academic training,
those from low—income backgrounds,
and those with limited English
proficiency. Many entrants have

never taken college—level courses.
Furthermore, general education (GE)
requirements at community colleges
are a huge barrier for many trainees.
Attaining higher levels of the Child
Development Permit—and moving
up in the field—depends on acquir—
ing these GE units. Furthermore,
many have little information about
the ECE job market and how to
secure a job.

Lack of financial aid, including
assistance with the cost of books, is a
crucial barrier. Many trainees are
working full or part-time, although
not necessarily in the ECE field.
Some have young children and face
high child—care costs, adding to their
financial burdens.

All six projects prioritized this goal of
offering a variety of supports to
mediate some of these barriers and
facilitate student progress and
completion of training.

a TRAINING AND RETAINING EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF

Four programs offered partici—
pants a monetary stipend in
addition to providing support
services for participants. Most
participants (69%) who received a
stipend used some of their money
to pay for books and tuition.

Overall few participants in the
three projects that offered free
child care during training used it.
Participants in ECITP were the
exception; 28% of their partici—
pants used the support. Partici—
pants in other projects may have
used their stipend money to pay
for child care.

Although all programs offered
academic counseling (help choos—
ing courses) to participants,
utilization of this support varied
widely by program. For example,
25% of participants in the CON—
NECTIONS project used this
support, in contrast to 74% of
ECJTP participants.

 

 

Participants are taking college
courses and engaging in training,
moving towards applying for a Child
Development Permit or a Family
Child—Care License. By June 2002,
among the 1,614 participants who
had enrolled by February 2002, 129
participants attained a Child Devel—
opment Permit or a higher level of
Permit. By June of 2002, 186 partici—
pants had applied for or attained
Family Child Care Licenses, and 20
had started a business.

Remaining questions. Through
June 2003, PACE will gather more
information on classes and training
from survey respondents. Questions
about training and education will be
asked of initial recipients who
continued in the training projects, as
well as those who did not continue in
the projects. This will allow analysis
of the effect of continued project
participation on training activities.
PACE also will determine for whom
the project supports are most
effective, in terms of continued
progress in training and retention
in the ECE field.

 

I To what extent do the
training projects offer supports
that are likely to retain ECE staff
in the field?

Training more individuals will do
little to expand the workforce unless
staff secure and are retained in ECE
jobs. All projects offer a variety of
supports to encourage participants to
continue with training, and to get a
job and stay in the ECE field. Four of
the six training projects included this

goal of retaining staff among their
top priorities by offering supports
linked to employment and retention.

I All programs offered assistance in
setting career goals to their partici-
pants. Participant utilization of
this service varied by program
considerably. Most participants
met with a counselor once per
month or less frequently.

I All training programs offered
employment assistance services to
participants. The type of assistance
varies across projects, and includes
offering job placement services,
career counseling, and resume
workshops, listing employment
opportunities in newsletters,
providing a job resource library,
and leading field trips to local
centers to visit high quality
ECE environments.

Remaining questions. Because it is
still early in the evaluation, it is
difficult to discuss retention in the
ECE field at this point. Through June
2003, PACE will follow training
project participants, both those who
remained in the projects and those
that did not. Using data from the Year
One survey, PACE will be able to
provide information on predictors of
retention in the ECE field. Future
questions of interest include: Which
participant characteristics most
strongly predict retention? Do
certain factors—such as use of
particular supports—predict
retention? Are different project
components associated with higher
rates of retention? PACE also will
determine which projects are situated

in counties with CARES programs, as
participants may be eligible for these
retention programs.

 

I To what extent do the training
projects build ongoing local
capacity and infrastructure for
high-quality coordinated training
and retention efforts, with a
clear plan for collaboration?

All projects are collaborating with
other agencies, community colleges
and other partners to maximize
resources and capitalize on existing
programmatic strengths. This initiative
has spurred new collaborations
among organizations, and deepened
existing ones. For example, the Nevada
ESP is able to provide textbooks to
participants through a loan program
supported by the local child-care
planning council (LPC); their support
of a faculty member at the commu—
nity college has increased staff time
available for student counseling and
support services; and the local
Commission has funded a new child
development center at the college
which serves as a practicum setting
for ESP participants. The Nevada ESP
also has driven the community
college to design a parallel ECE
training track that is aligned with the
statewide Child Development Permit
matrix, such that core courses are
now being offered every semester in
two rural, underserved areas.

In the last section of this progress
report, we identify several ways in
which these relationships and project
components might continue beyond
this initiative.

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

Innovative Practices

In the original request for proposals
(RFP) for this initiative, projects were
encouraged to be innovative in their
efforts to recruit, support and retain
participants. This section reports on
several successful practices that could
be replicated elsewhere in efforts to
recruit and retain ECE staff.

Intensive Job Placement
Support

The Early Childhood Job Training
Project (ECITP) in West Contra
Costa County offers training and
employment services to improve
access for individuals with limited
English proficiency. Specifically, the
project provides prospective ECE
staff with: 1) academic support
tailored to the needs of students with
limited English proficiency, 2) job
preparation and placement services,
and 3) long—term post-employment
training, placement, and support
services designed to qualify clients for
more lucrative ECE positions.

The job placement assistance is
particularly noteworthy for its
individualized and ongoing support.
At ECJTP, a full—time staff person is
devoted to job placement for partici—
pants. This includes assistance with
resumes, finding jobs, talking with
employers, practicing interviewing
skills with participants, and accom—
panying them to visit programs and
follow up. Once a participant starts a
new ECE job, the job placement
coordinator conducts visits at 1
week, and 1—, 3—, 6—, and 12—month

intervals. Project staff receives
employment information such as pay,
benefits, etc. from the employers
themselves, with consent from the
participant, in order to track salaries.

Participants reported to project staff
that they wanted to see high quality
centers, as well as centers with
various teaching philosophies. ECJTP
staff felt equally strongly about
helping participants observe high
quality ECE settings. As a result, they
developed an innovative solution: a
day-long field trip to four centers,
which includes a play—based parent
co—op, a Montessori preschool, a
Chinese bilingual school district
preschool and an infant program.
ECITP repeats the trip approximately
every two weeks. One or two staff
members take four participants to
the four sites, as well as to a local
Resource & Referral agency, followed
by lunch to discuss the experience.

Coordination with County
Retention Incentive
(CARES) Program

The San Mateo Career Development
Program (CDP) targets both new and
existing ECE staff, with an emphasis
on providers from under—served areas
and those from Spanish—speaking
background. The project is co-
located with the county’s retention
incentive program, SaMCARES,
which targets a more highly—trained
group of ECE staff. Together, the two
efforts provide financial incentives
and individual support to all levels
of caregivers.

a TRAINING AND RETAINING EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF

For some CDP participants, the
program has provided the support
and the tools to make decisions about
their career choice; for others, the
program has prompted them to
return to school and enroll in a
college—level, unit-bearing class for
the first time in many years; finally,
for the many immigrants in the
program, the alternative, non-
traditional trainings created by this
program have enabled them to take
their first class in the new country,
offered in their first language.

The Career Development Project has
played a vital role in serving as a
bridge between new or existing
providers with little formal training
and SaMCARES. While SaMCARES
targets experienced professionals who
have been in the field for at least a
year, the CDP aims to capture the rest
of the workforce by concentrating on
the recruitment of new students into
the field and existing providers
lacking in formal education or
training. These professionals are
often family child—care providers who
have been working in isolation with
little exposure to other ECE profes—
sionals, providers who are not fluent
in English and therefore have limited
or no access to support or training
opportunities via traditional venues,
and providers who are under—
privileged and cannot pay the costs
associated with training. The two
programs complement each other
and have created synergetic effects
that would not have been achieved by
either one alone.

 

Supporting Spanish-Speaking
and Hmong Family Child-Care
Providers

The city of Fresno and rural, unin—
corporated areas of Fresno County
have a critical shortage of ECE staff
who is trained in infant toddler care
and who speak the languages of the
families served, especially Spanish. At
its Fresno site, the Enhanced Mentor
Program (EMP) has expanded an
existing mentoring program for
family child—care providers and offers
additional course offerings in Span-
ish that count towards the Child
Development Permit.

Twenty—four Spanish—speaking
providers were recruited at Fresno
City College to participate in special—
ized child development coursework
leading to a Child Development
Permit. The Monolingual Spanish
Certificate Program includes
coursework in child development,
child/ family/ community, and infant
health and safety. The providers
earned eight units of college credit.
The college’s Mentor Coordinator also
developed new, special studies courses
called English as a Second Language
(ESL) for Child—Care Providers.
Twenty—four students participated in
two semesters of coursework.

Also in Fresno, an EMP mentor teacher
recruited and mentored 14 Hmong
students to take courses toward the
Child Development Permit. To offer
additional support for these students,
the college’s Mentor Coordinator
developed a one—unit course, Hmong
Women in Education. Some activities

included a literacy workshop, Hmong
folklore, Hmong art, and professional
development activities to support
their work with young children. As
an outgrowth of the literacy work-
shop, participants designed a project
integrating oral traditions in needle—
work. In order to continue their
outreach, the students started a new
club, Hmong Women in Early Care
and Education, to support other
women in the field of early child-
hood. Seven of the students have
gotten jobs in ECE and ten students
are eligible and are applying for the
Child Development Permit.

As a result of this project, the Fresno
Center of New Americans is seeking
funding to recruit and train potential
Hmong family child-care providers.
The Center has asked the EMP
students to mentor their providers in
working with young children, to
expand the choices for parents and
providers working in the community.

Initial Policy
Implications

This report raises several issues for
program designers and policymakers,
providing more data but also raising
further questions about how to
stabilize and improve the quality of
the workforce.

The relationships among training
projects and community colleges
are criticalfor sustaining project
elements after First 5 California
funding ends.

For example, the presence Of
specialized advisors and counselors
within training projects or commu—
nity colleges appears to yield posi-
tive benefits. College counselors
often cannot spend enough time
with child development students.
An ECE advocate can suggest
appropriate courses, help to schedule
courses, and ease trainees’ transition
back to college for those with limited
academic experience.

CBO—based training projects may be
better able than community colleges
to meet the diverse needs of entry—
level ECE stafi as they work towards
higher levels of education.

Support services such as academic
counseling, tutoring, mentoring, and
employment counseling must be
strong and steady for trainees to
succeed in community colleges.
These tailored services often are
beyond what colleges are able to
provide. The CBO—based training
projects have developed innovative
and personalized ways of supporting
and motivating trainees with limited
academic preparation. The local
programs also have experience in
reaching individuals from different
ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
Therefore, steady collaborations can
be an effective way to capitalize on
and leverage resources.

Training projects should tailor
their intervention to a targeted
population or program goal.

In the beginning of their outreach
and recruitment efforts, most

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT a

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

projects found it easier to enroll with some estimation of this effect.
existing providers than to recruit new In other words, further examination
ECE staff. However, even ECE staff is needed about the particular type.
that had worked in the field for some amount, and quality of training that
time often had low levels of formal leads to quantifiable differences in the
education. Because training needs quality of care provided to children.
vary among populations (individuals

with limited English, individuals with Are informal supports, 51“” “5

low levels of academic preparation, building a shared identity among
center—based vs. FCC providers, new training project participants,

vs. more established staff) efforts to correlated With continued training
support them must be tailored in and retention?

order to be effectlve. Evidence from the qualitative imple-

mentation study suggests that

participants respond favorably to the
Areas for FUture ‘group identity’ in some of the
ResearCh training projects. They report feeling

part of a community and enjoy the
As PACE continues to assess the opportunity to share their experi—

effectlveness Of the tralnlng prOjects, ences with other ECE staff in casual

it is important to place the evaluation settings It is not clear however

in the larger context Of ECE whether the presence of these infor—

workforce development. Many mal networks actually leads to

important questlons remam about continued training, higher retention,

how to most effectively train and or improved practice.
retain a diverse population of ECE

staff. Although it is beyond the scope

of this document to cover these issues

in detail, two questions are discussed

briefly below to highlight intersec—

tions between the current evaluation

and future research possibilities.

What types of training will have a
direct impact on the quality ofcare?

Additional research in this area
would prove valuable to efforts at
improving the availability of quality
ECE programs. Given that the
training projects vary in terms of the
kinds of training they offer, the
evaluation would be more complete

m TRAINING AND RETAINING EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF

BERKELEY LIBR

WIWIIMIIIWIIIN HIIHIuI‘ifiiIWN

Cll‘iEH?Bl=3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT m

 

PACE POLICY BRIEF

University of California
Graduate School of Education
3653 Tolman Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720-1670

Stanford University
Graduate School of Education
Stanford, CA 94505

 

RELATED PACE PUBLICATIONS—EARLY EDUCATION

 

Bridget Hamre, Rebecca Grove and Justin Louie. Matching Funds for Retention Incentives for Early Care and Educa—
tion Stafi‘? Evaluation. Policy Brief 03—1, February 2003.

Margaret Bridges and Jennifer Carlat. Training and Retaining Early Care and Education Stafi. Bay Area Child—Care
Retention Incentive Programs: Evaluation. Policy Brief 03—2, February 2003.

Susanna Loeb, Bruce Fuller, and Diane Hirshberg. Estimating Unmet Need for Child Care and Preschool:
Alternative Definitions and Analytic Tools. November 2002.

New Lives for Poor Families? Mothers and Children Move Through Welfare Reform. 2002. From the Growing Up in
Poverty Project. $25.

Bruce Fuller, Yueh—Wen Chang, Sawako Suzuki, and Sharon Lynn Kagan. Child-Care Aid and Quality for California
Families: Special Focus on San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. Working Paper Series 01—2, Spring 2001. From the
Growing Up in Poverty Project. $10.

Judith Carroll. How to Payfor Child Care? Local Innovations Help Working Families. Policy Brief 01—1, Spring 2001.
From the Growing Up in Poverty Project. Available on our website, or may be ordered for $10.

James F. Mensing, Desiree French, Bruce Fuller, and Sharon Lynn Kagan. Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform:
How Mothers Balance Work Requirements and Parenting. August 2000. Available on our website.

Remember the Children: Mothers Balance Work and Child Care Under Welfare Reform. 2000. From the Growing Up in
Poverty Project. $25.

To obtain copies, please send a check payable to UC Regents to PACE. The publications order form is available on the
PACE website: http://paceberkeley.edu.