31775.6
£75

003
GSL

J CB

Training

Education Staff

  

and Retaining
Early Care and

7 Bay Area Child-Care
Retention Incentive
Programs: Evaluation

Year One Progress Report

g..;.,:ai;-2oo1-2002

Margaret Bridges
Jennifer Carlat

Policy Brief 03-2

 

Research

['3

SUDDOFtEd bV:

FIRST5

CALIFORNIA

lNSTlTUTE or GOVERNMENTAL T K
STUDIES? l :I:":>,mr?,v

-- (Q

5‘3

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

 

FACE POLICY BRI EF m...

 

ationally, more than

half of children under

the age of five are in

non-parental care while
their parents work.‘ Research indicates
that children benefit from being with
well—trained, consistent early care and
education (ECE) staff.2'3"‘ Sensitive
and responsive caregiving—charac—
teristic of staff with a high level of
training in child development—is
associated with children’s positive
cognitive, social, and emotional
development?6 Staff retention is
crucial, as frequent turnover impedes
the formation of these. positive,
nurturing relationships and their
benefits to children.7 However, there
is evidence of an educationally
bifurcated workforce, clustered
between those who have high levels
of training and those who have little.
Furthermore, in both groups, the
rates of turnover are high; estimates
range from 20-42% annually.8

First 5 California Children and Fami—
lies Commission (First 5 California),
local First 5 Commissions, and many
counties have made a commitment to
improving the quality of services for
young children by increasing the
retention and training of ECE staff.
Specifically, they have funded child—
care retention incentive (CR1)
programs, interventions that award
stipends—ranging from $475 to

$5,100—t0 ECE staff based on tenure
and education.9 Given the relation-
ship between high turnover and low
wages,‘0 professional development
stipends are provided to participants
to reward their investment in train-
ing, and to encourage retention and
continuing education.

The CR1 programs in Alameda and
San Francisco counties began in 2000,
and were followed by 40 other CR1
programs supported by matching
funds, which were made available by
First 5 California the subsequent year.

Evaluation Overview

First 5 California funded an evalua—
tion designed by PACE to examine
the efficacy of CR1 interventions in
San Francisco and Alameda counties
(hereafter referred to as the Bay Area
CR1 programs). Specifically, the
evaluation assesses how CR1 pro—
grams affect the training and reten—
tion levels of participating ECE staff
by comparing them to those of non—
participating staff in San Mateo, the
comparison county.

This progress report summarizes
findings from 2000—2001, the first
year of the Alameda Child Develop—
ment Corps (CDC) and San Francisco
CARES (SF CARES). The project
timeline is included in Figure 1.

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

 

FIGURE 1. Timeline of Evaluation

 

 

 

 

2000 2001 2002 2003 j
H H
Y1 Stipends Distributed Y2 Stipends Distributed
H H
Y’I Phone Survey Y2 Phone Survey
0 0
Data Analysis
0 0
Y1 Report Y2 Report

 

 

 

 

Preliminary Findings

Preliminary findings suggest
that the CRI programs in
Alameda and San Francisco
included a diverse group of
center—based ECE staff. In
terms of initial training effects,
one year after receiving their
stipends, significantly more of
these CRI recipients had taken
ECE college courses and work-
shops than staff in the compari—
son group. In addition, retention
rates were high in both counties,
although only recipients in San
Francisco stayed in their centers
and in the ECE field at a
significantly higher rate than
those in the comparison group.
These findings will be discussed
in more detail below.

 

 

Preliminary data addressing the
following research questions will be
presented in this report:

I Who is participating in Year One
of the Bay Area CRI programs?

I In Year One are CRI recipients
more likely than other ECE staff
to participate in training and
professional development?

I In Year One are CRI recipients
more likely than other ECE staff to
be retained (to stay in their centers
and the ECE field)?

This evaluation, running from July
2000 to October 2003, started
shortly after the first stipends were
distributed in the CRI programs in
Alameda and San Francisco. Survey
data were collected twice, approxi—
mately one year following stipend
awards in 2001, and again in 2002.
Because the survey assesses whether
or not CRI recipients are completing
coursework and being retained, a
substantial time lag—approximately

fl BAY AREA CHILD-CARE RETENTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

one year—between stipend receipt
and data collection is optimal. This
progress report includes the first
wave of data collection (2001) only.
The final report analyzing all evalua—
tion data will be completed in the
Spring of 2003.

Methodology

This progress report is focused
primarily on data gathered from the
Year One telephone survey of center-
based Alameda CDC and SF CARES
recipients, and of center—based ECE
staff from the comparison county,
San Mateo, which did not initiate a
CRI program until 2001. Information
from other evaluation activities was
used to provide context for the
survey findings and will be incorpo—
rated into the final report.11

Sample. The CRI participant survey
included a sample of center—based
stipend recipients in Alameda and
San Francisco counties, and an ECE

 

center—based staff sample from San
Mateo county, the comparison group.
San Mateo was chosen as the
comparison county due to its
proximity and relative demographic
similarity to Alameda and San
Francisco, as well as the key factor
that it did not have 3 CR1 program in
Year One.” The evaluation was
focused on center-based staff because
their greater numbers (in
comparison to family child—care
providers) allowed comparative
analyses to be conducted with those in
the comparison group.

County CR1 programs provided lists
of consenting recipients from which
to draw the sample, which included
2,436 ECE staff members in
Alameda, and 389 in San Francisco.
Consenting recipients were stratified
according to education levels and the
type of center in which they worked
(federally—subsidized, state—subsi—
dized, or non—subsidized) to capture
the range of staff involved in the CR1
programs. In Alameda, given the
large size of the program, a random
sample of 750 recipients was drawn
according to the stratification
scheme. All recipients were invited to
participate in San Francisco.

To build a comparison sample in San
Mateo, PACE requested a list of all
centers from the local Resource 8r
Referral agency. Research staff then
visited each center and invited ECE
staff who had been working as of
May 2000 to participate in the survey
as part of the evaluation. Those who
had been working in May 2000, but
had left the center since, were mailed

information about the project and
invited to participate. Through this
process a sample of 587 staff from 65
centers in San Mateo was obtained.

Survey response rates varied across
counties. Approximately 60% of the
Alameda CDC sample, 80% of the SF
CARES sample, and 70% of the
comparison sample in San Mateo
completed the survey. This rendered
a Year One survey sample of 453 CR1
recipients from the Alameda CDC, 312
from SF CARES, and 411 ECE center—
based staff from San Mateo County.

Telephone Survey. Each member of
the sample was called by phone, and
asked to participate. All who agreed
were administered a 25-minute
telephone interview, which contained
both closed—and open—ended questions
on demographics regarding age,
ethnicity, education, and marital/
relationship status; on working
conditions, such as current employment,
hourly wage, ages of children served,
and satisfaction with job factors; on
participation in concurrent programs
or interventions; and on outcomes, such
as training and retention. Participants
were paid $25 for their time.

Analysis. Researchers examined
demographic data and determined
differences between the CR1 program
participants and the comparison
group. For primary analyses, all
demographic variables on which the
CR1 recipients differed significantly
from the comparison group were
used as control variables. To assess the
impact of these CR1 programs,
regression analyses were used.

Potential differences among county
samples, such as age, education, or
wage, were controlled for in analyses
to examine whether the retention-
incentive programs affected interim
training and retention outcomes
beyond any systematic differences
between Alameda CDC and SF
CARES recipients and the
participating ECE staff in San Mateo
County. Subsequently, county
membership—connoting program
participation or not—was used to
predict outcomes.

Limitations of Year
One Findings

The determination of whether these
interventions are effective is based
largely on measuring the amount of
training recipients completed and the
length of time they stayed in their
jobs after receiving stipends. Thus,
for comparative annual training and
retention data, evaluation of the
programs is most effectively done
one year after stipend receipt. These
findings are preliminary, based on
the initial 12 months of program
implementation in Alameda and San
Francisco, and may reflect particular
circumstances that are best under—
stood when multiple years of imple-
mentation are considered. The final
report of the Bay Area CR1 program
evaluation, available in the Spring of
2003, will provide results based on
two years of retention and training
information in these counties.

These data represent CR1 programs
in two counties; in 2001, 40 addi—
tional counties across the state

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT 3

 

PACE

(including San Mateo) implemented
CRI programs, through the Matching
Funds for Retention Incentives
Program. Several of these Matching
Funds counties are being evaluated in
a similar manner and may enhance
our understanding of the effective-
ness of these retention-incentive
programs.'3 The Year One progress
report for the Matching Funds for
Retention Incentives for Early Care
and Education Staff: Evaluation will
be available in the Spring of 2003,
and the final report will be available
in 2004.

Year One Findings

POLICY BRIEF

 

I Who is participating in Year One
of the Bay Area CRI Programs?

In the first year, these programs drew
from a more established group of
ECE staff—in terms of education and
tenure——than has been described in
past studies of county ECE staff.14
This is important because if these
programs are designed to retain and
train the ECE workforce, it is
imperative to understand for whom,
and under what conditions, they
have effects.

Tables 1—4 highlight the characteris—
tics of CR1 recipients in Alameda and
San Francisco in comparison to data
on other samples of ECE staff from
each county. In addition, these tables
provide characteristics of the com-
parison group in San Mateo County
with similar information for a
general sample of ECE staff.

As shown in Table 1, Year One CRI
recipients were ethnically diverse—in
fact, more so than other recent
estimates of the ECE workforce in
these counties. This is particularly
true for recipients at the teacher and
assistant teacher levels in Alameda
and San Francisco counties. This
tendency—for greater ethnic diversity
in the survey sample than in other
recent samples—also holds for the
comparison group.

In terms of education level, it appears
that the CRI recipients had higher
levels of education than the general
ECE staff in the counties (see Table
2). For example, among recipients in
the Alameda CDC and SF CARES,
90% of assistant/associate teachers
had at least some college (but no
B.A.) compared to 76% for the
counties’ ECE staff generally. Recipi—
ents were required to have at least six
units to be eligible for SF CARES and
12 units for the Alameda CDC, which
may account for this difference
between the samples within coun—
ties.15 In the San Mateo comparison
group, participants had approxi—
mately the same level of education as
a general sample of county ECE staff.

As indicated in Table 3, the hourly
wages of CR1 recipients generally is
close to or above (for assistant/
associate teachers) the “average
highest wage” as reported by county
center directors.” This may, in part,
reflect the relatively higher levels of
education held by CRI recipients.

In comparison with the general ECE
sample, both the CRI recipients and

u BAY AREA CHILD-CARE RETENTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

the San Mateo comparison group
were more likely than the general
ECE staff samples to have worked in
their centers for one or more years
(see Table 4). CR1 program eligibility
requirements included “tenure at the
center” for the previous nine
months. However, the phone surveys
were conducted approximately one
year after stipend receipt, which
could account for some recipients
having started new jobs in the
interim (i.e. reporting tenure of
“less than 6 months”).

In terms of tenure in the field, CRI
recipients reported working in ECE
for an average of 15 years. This
average held across job titles and is
higher than has been reported in
previous studies. The comparison
group reported working in ECE for
an average of 12 years.

Remaining questions. In assessment
of the Year One CRI program partici-
pants, several questions remain: Do
these Year One recipients look
similar demographically—that is, are
they of a similar ethnicity, age, and
educational status, and earning
similar hourly wages as recipients in
Years 2 and 3?” Programmatic
changes, in part attributable to funding
and the greater amount of time with
which the programs had to conduct
outreach and implementation, may
affect the composition of the CR1
programs in subsequent years. With
administrative data made available
through the Matching Funds for
Retention Incentives program
evaluation, we will be able to address
this question in the final report.

 

 

TABLE 1. Ethnicity: Comparison of Participants with County ECE Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alameda County San Francisco County San Mateo County
CRI ECE CRI ECE Comparison ECE
Recipients Staff* Recipients Staff* * Group Staff* * *
Assistant/Associate (n = 342) (n = 93) (n = 74) (NA) (n = 94) (NA)
White 24% 35% 8% 23% 36% 41%
Black 35% 23% 22% 18% 3% 7%
Asian 15% 10% 47% 37% 20% 14%
Hispanic 16% 28% 18% 12% 29% 34%
Other 5% 3% 2% 7% 4% 4%
Multi-Ethnic 4% 1% 4% (NA) 7% (NA)
Teacher (n = 1033) (n = 122) (n = 184) (NA) (n = 189) (NA)
White 43% 43% 24% 37% 52% 61%
Black 21% 25% 16 13% 3% 5%
Asian 15% 13% 38% 31% 15% 13%
Hispanic 14% 14% 13% 12% 20% 16%
Other 5% 2% 5% 7% 4% 6%
Muiti-Ethnic 3% 3% 3% (NA) 6% (NA)
Teacher-Director (n = 385) (n = 86) (n = 59) (NA) (n = 48) (n = 77)
White 53% 46% 34% 58% 69%
Black 29% 24% 21% 6% 5%
Asian 5% 9% 30% 10% 12%
Hispanic 10% 17% 11% 15% 13%
Other 3% 2% 0% 4% 1%
Multi-Ethnic 1% 2% 4% 6% 0%
Admin. Director (n = 184) (n = 79) (n = 35) (NA) (n = 19) (n = 58)
White 43% 56% 22% 74% 75%
Black 26% 22% 22% 11% 9%
Asian 10% 7% 39% 0% 5%
Hispanic 12% 13% 14% 0% 6%
Other 1% 1% 0% 5% 3%
Multi—Ethnic 9% 1% 4% 11% 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: Due to rounding, cells may not sum to 100%.
For this report, PACE combined the Center for the Child Care Workforce’s categories "American indian” and ”Other" to match the CRI ethnicity categories.

* Burton, A., Duff, 8., & Laverty, K. (2001 ). A Profile of the Alameda County Child Care Center Workforce: 1995-2001. Washington, DC: Center for
the Child Care Workforce.

** Burton, A., Whitebook, M, & Sakai, L. (2000). A Profile of the San Francisco Child Care Center Workforce: 7999. Washington, DC: Center for the
Child Care Workforce.

*** Belim, D., Burton, A., & Duff, B. et. ai. (2002). A Profile of the San Mateo County Child Care Workforce: Findings from the 2007 Survey of
Family Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT 3

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

 

TABLE 2. Education Level: Comparison of Participants with County ECE Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alameda County San Francisco County San Mateo County fl

CRI ECE CRI ECE Comparison ECE

Recipients Staff* Recipients Staff* * Group Staff* * *
Assistant/Associate (n = 354) (n = 103) (n = 75) (n = 50) (n = 95) (n = 70)
Up to HS/CED 10% 24% 23% 14% 33% 32%
Some College 67% 67% 38% 67% 36% 54%
AA+ 16% 2% 28% 4% 19% 5%
BA+ 7% 7% 11% 14% 12% 9%
Teacher (n = 1057) (n = 133) (n = 192) (n = 62) (n =192) (n = 96)
Up to HS/GED 5% 3% 3% 1% 6% 1%
Some College 34% 52% 30% 54% 29% 41%
AA+ 24% 18% 28% 10% 27% 20%
BA+ 37% 27% 39% 36% 38% 37%
Teacher—Director (n = 407) (n = 96) (n = 61) (n = 32) (n = 49) (n = 79)
Up to HS/GED 3% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Some College 24% 30% 18% 20% 25% 20%
AA+ 31% 17% 30% 19% 33% 28%
BA+ 42% 52% 52% 61% 38% 52%
Admin. Director (n = 186) (n = 81) (n = 38) (n = 41) (n =19) (n = 60)
Up to HS/GED 4% 3% 3% 0% 5% 0%
Some College 13% 25% 8% 2% 11% 15%
AA+ 21% 15% 24% 6% 37% 12%
BA+ 62% 56% 65% 92% 47% 73%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: Due to rounding, cells may not sum to 100%.

* Burton, A., Duff, 3, & Laverty, K. (2001). A Profile of the Alameda County Child Care Center Workforce: 7995-2001. Washington, DC: Center for
the Child Care Workforce.

** Burton, A., Whitebook, & M., Sakai, L. (2000). A Profile of the San Francisco Child Care Center Workforce: 1999. Washington, DC: Center for the
Child Care Workforce.

*** Bellm, D., Burton, A., & Duff, B. et. al. (2002). A Profile of the San Mateo County Child Care Workforce: Findings from the 2001 Survey of
Family Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

 

likely to take ECE college coursework
and other training than ECE staff in
the comparison group. This is of

I In Year One are CRI recipients
more likely than other ECE staff
to participate in training and
professional development?

One year after stipends were first
distributed, CRI recipients in the
Alameda CDC and SF CARES
reported taking significantly more
ECE college classes than did ECE
staff in the comparison group.

particular importance because of the
Recipients in the Alameda CDC and link between more education and the

SF CARES were significantly more provision of higher quality care.

a BAY AREA CHILD-CARE RETENTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

 

 

Similarly, these CRI recipients
reported participating in ECE
workshops at a significantly higher
rate than did ECE staff in the com-
parison group. However, participation
in general education (GE) college

courses did not differ between groups.

Remaining questions. These
findings regarding training raise
several additional questions. First,
what particular classes are these CRI
recipients taking? Data are being
gathered to assess the impact of the
CRI programs on the local commu-
nity colleges; anecdotal evidence
indicates that enrollments in ECE
courses are up substantially.l8 Are

recipients enrolling in courses that
allow them to move up on the Child
Development Permit Matrix?l9 By
tracking CRI recipients’ course
completion and permit acquisition in
Year Two of this evaluation, progres-
sion on the Matrix can be quantified
and linked to stipend receipt.

 

I In Year One are CRI recipients
more likely than other ECE staff
to be retained (to stay in their
centers and the ECE field)?

The vast majority of recipients in the
Alameda CDC and SF CARES stayed
in their centers and the ECE field in
the year following stipend receipt.

Although these data are preliminary,
the retention of recipients is a
positive indicator because of the
evidence linking staff stability to the
quality of care provided.

In overall terms, the retention rates
of CR1 recipients in Alameda CDC
and SF CARES were higher than
those in the comparison group.
However, only for recipients of SF
CARES were the retention rates
significantly higher in comparison to
ECE staff in San Mateo County.
Relatively speaking, ECE staff in the
comparison group also stayed in the
field at a higher rate than has been
reported previously. Stipend amount

 

TABLE 3. Average Hourly Wage: Comparison of Participants with County ECE Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alameda County San Francisco County San Mateo County
CRI ECE CRI ECE Comparison ECE '
Recipients StaffT * Recipients Stafff * * Group Staff‘r * *
Assistant/Associate (n = 321) $8.31 - (n = 63) $7.78 - (n = 88) $9.19 -
$11.45 $10.17 $11.61 $9.57 $10.79 $11.70
Teacher in = 894) $10.42 — (n = 173) $10.02 - (n = 169) $12.58 -
$14.95 $14.86 $15.47 $14.21 $15.01 $18.00
Teacher-Director (n = 349) $14.79 - (n = 47) $13.89 — (n = 42) $17.20 -
$17.59 $18.25 $15.80 $16.68 $17.59 $21.75
Admin. Director (n = 135) $19.66 - (n = 28) $15.76 — (n =18) $19.62 -
$22.08 $24.61 $17.60 $20.45 $25.24 $24.79

 

* All "ECE Staff" wages represent the average lowest and average highest wage for each job title in each county, not a range Of wages.

* Burton, A., Duff, 8., & Laverty, K. (2001 ). A Profile of the Alameda County Child Care Center Workforce: 1995-2007. Washington, DC: Center for
the Child Care Workforce. NO sample sizes were provided for these averages.

** Burton, A., Whitebook, M, & Sakai, L. (2000). A Profile of the San Francisco Child Care Center Workforce: 7999. Washington, DC: Center for the
Child Care Workforce. No sample sizes were provided for these averages.

*** Bellm, 0, Burton, A., & Duff, B. et. al. (2002). A Profile of the San Mateo County Child Care Workforce: Findings from the 2001 Survey of
Family Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce. NO sample sizes were provided for

these averages.

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT

 

 

PACE

POLICY BRIEF

did not predict retention for CRI

recipients in Year One.

Remaining questions. Several key
questions remain regarding the
effects of the CRI programs on staff
retention. First, of the CRI recipients
in these counties, who is being

retained? Given the evidence that
more training is associated with
higher quality care, is staff with
higher levels of ECE education
being retained at a similar rate as
those who have lower levels of
education? With dramatically

changing economic conditions in
the Bay Area in 2000—2001, examin-
ing retention rates at the end of the
evaluation, approximately two years
after the initial stipend receipt, is
essential for a more valid estimation

of staff retention.

 

TABLE 4. Average Center Tenure: comparison Of Participants With county ECE Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Alameda County San Francisco County San Mateo County
CRI ECE CRI ECE Comparison ECE
Recipients Staff” Recipients Staff* * Group Staff* * *
Asst/Associate (n = 554) (n = 95) (n = 74) (n = 46) (n = 95) (n = 68)
< 6 months 4% 17% 5% 15% 8% 24%
6 — 11 months 5% 16% 2% 9% 15% 20%
1 — 5 years 42% 45% 28% 48% 65% 46%
> 5 years 52% 25% 64% 50% 16% 11%
Teacher (n = 1057) (n = 125) (n = 192) (n = 48) (n = 192) (n = 95)
< 6 months 8% 10% 4% 20% 7% 10%
6 — 11 months 5% 9% 5% 17% 10% 11%
1 — 5 years 56% 45% 51% 50% 51% 45%
> 5 years 55% 56% 61% 18% 52% 55%
Teacher-Director (n = 407) (n = 87) (n = 62) (NA) (n = 49) (n = 79)
< 6 months 5% 2% 2% 4% 5%
6 — 11 months 2% 4% 8% 2% 4%
1 — 5 years 55% 45% 55% 55% 50%
> 5 years 59% 49% 57% 61% 65%
Admin. Director (n = 186) (n = 75) (n = 58) (NA) (n = 19) (n = 58)
< 6 months 1% 0% 0%} 16% 4%
6 — 11 months 0% 5% 6% 5% 2%
1 - 5 years 40% 57% 21% 21% 29%
> 5 years 59% 60% 70% 58% 65%

 

NOTE: Due to rounding, cells may not sum to 100%.

* Burton, A., Duff, 8., & Laverty, K. (2001 ). A Profi/e of the Alameda County Child Care Center Workforce: 1995-2007. Washington, DC: Center for

the Child Care Workforce.

** Burton, A., Whitebook, M, & Sakai, L. (2000). A Profi/e of the San Francisco Child Care Center Workforce: 1999, Washington, DC: Center for the

Child Care Workforce.

*** Bellm, 0, Burton, A., & Duff, B. et. al. (2002). A Profile of the San Mateo County Child Care Workforce: Findings from the 2001 Survey of
Family Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

fl BAY AREA CHILD-CARE RETENTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

 

 

 

TABLE 5. Year One Participation in Training and Professional

 

 

 

 

Development
Alameda San Francisco San Mateo
CRI Recipients CRI Recipients Comparison Group
ECE Classes 63%* 64%* 50%
ECE Workshops 92%* 90%* 75%

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significantlv different from the comparison group at the p<.05 level.

 

TABLE 6. Year One Retention in the Center and ECE Field

 

Alameda

San Francisco

San Mateo

 

CRI Recipients

CRI Recipients

Comparison CI'OUD

 

Center Retention 93%

94%* 88%

 

Field Retention 95%

 

 

98%* 94%

 

 

 

 

*Significantly different from the comparison group at the p<.05 level.

Initial Policy
Implications

This progress report provides initial
findings, as well as raises important
questions for program designers and
policymakers as they work toward
increasing the retention and
training of the ECE workforce.
Although these implications are
derived from first—year findings
only, there are several that may be
relevant to program development
and implementation.

CRI programs must specify their
target populations for retention
and training.

The CRI programs would be
strengthened by targeting the inter—
vention activities toward particular
groups. Programs included many

ECE staff with relatively high levels of
education and experience, which is
consistent with the aim of retaining
highly trained staff and continuing
their professional development.
Given the generally low levels of
education and training among the
ECE workforce, a fast expansion of
the ECE workforce to meet current
proposals for universal preschool will
require inclusion of entry—level aides
and classroom teachers with minimal
experience. Developing a program
component targeted at entry—level
staff, to draw them into the field and
increase their eligibility for the Child
Development Permit, is essential. CRI
programs could develop alternative
components for entry—level staff to
determine how to do this most
effectively, while maintaining high
training standards.

Providing accessible, afiordable,
high-quality training for CRI
recipients is essential.

The CRI programs require coordina-
tion and cooperation with the
community colleges, Resource and
Referral agencies, and other ECE
training facilities in their counties to
train recipients and ECE staff (who
may be future recipients). Develop-
ing the capacity to support recipi-
ents’ training activities through
advising and coordination may be
essential to program success in
regards to training outcomes.

Streamlining retention program
activities into existing systems may
increase program success.

Some aspects of these training and
retention programs could be
streamlined into existing systems and
infrastructure. Given budget con—
cerns, creative solutions may help
CRI programs to reach more ECE
staff at a lower cost. For example,
could the Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, the organization that
currently verifies coursework to
award the Child Development
Permit, assist in the cumbersome
verification process counties use to
determine stipend eligibility? Explor—
ing potential coordination of services
among the groups involved in ECE
training and permitting may be a
promising option for counties
implementing CRI programs.

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT a

POLICY BRIEF

 

PACE

Areas for Future
Research

In evaluating the effectiveness of the
Bay Area CRI programs, many
important questions remain about
how we can train and retain ECE
staff and provide higher quality care
most effectively. Several of these
questions are discussed briefly below.

How are the CRI programs affecting
training and retention?

The vast majority of CR1 recipients
report staying at their centers—and
in the ECE field—and being satisfied
with their involvement in the
Alameda CDC or SF CARES. Yet,
questions remain about how these
CR1 programs affect retention and
training. Is it primarily through the
direct, financial impact of the sti—
pend, through an increased sense of
professional identity, or through
increased availability of training and
professional development? Are the
current programs the most effective
and efficient means to increase
retention and training among ECE
staff? With the current state budget
shortfalls, resources are likely to be
increasingly scarce. Ascertaining the
most effective method of retaining
and training ECE staff may be one of
the most crucial lines of inquiry
related to this evaluation.

Do CRI programs improve the
quality ofcare provided by
CRI recipients?

This evaluation will provide important
data in addressing questions about

strengthening the ECE workforce
through training and retention.
However, the most basic issue is
outstanding: what effect, if any, are
these changes in the workforce
having on the quality of care pro-
vided to children? An observational
study of ECE staff is needed, includ-
ing staff at a range of levels and
working in a variety of types of centers,
to assess them before and after they
participate in a CRI program.
Moreover, given each county’s
different program components, this
work could include multiple program
designs in an effort to specify the
most promising practices of improv—
ing the quality of care.

Which aspects of training are most
closely associated with
improvements in ECE quality?

Additional research is needed to
examine the types—and components
of those types—of training that are
most likely to benefit children. There
is evidence that participating in a
comprehensive ECE training pro—
gram is more likely to improve the
quality of care provided to children
than is completing individual
classes.20 However, completing ECE
trainings and workshops has been
shown to improve the quality of care
provided?l How much training and
coursework is needed to have an
effect? Which classes and types of
workshops have the most impact?
Further research in this area is needed,
as interventions like the CRI pro—
grams are developed to improve the
quality of care provided to children
in the most effective and efficient way.

m BAY AREA CHILD-CARE RETENTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Endnotes

' Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental child care:
Context, quality, correlates. In W. Damon, 1.
E. Siege], & K. A. Renniger (Eds), Handbook
ofChild Psychology: Vol. 4. Child Psychology in
Practice 5‘" ed., 73-134. New York: Wiley.

3 Cryer, D., Hurwitz, 5., 8( Wolery, M. (2001).
Continuity of caregiver for infants and
toddlers in center-based child-care: Report on
a survey of center practices. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, 497-514.

" Howes, C. (1997). Children‘s experiences in
center-based child—care as a function of
teacher background and adult child ratios.
Merrill-Pulitzer Quarterly, 43, 404—425.

“ NICHD Early Child Care Research Network.
(2000). Characteristics and quality of child
care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied
Developmental Sciences, 4, 116—135.

‘ Burchinal, M. R. (1999). Child care
experiences and developmental outcomes.
The Annals oftheAnzerican Academy, 563, 73-97.

“ Lamb, M. E. (1998). Nonparental child care:
Context, quality, correlates. In W. Damon, 1.
E. Siegel, & K. A. Renniger (Eds.), Handbook
ofChild Psychology: Vol. 4. Child Psychology in
Practice 5‘h ed., 73—134. New York: Wiley.

7 Cryer, D., Hurwitz, S., & Wolery, M. (2001).
Continuity of caregiver for infants and
toddlers in center—based child—care: Report on
a survey of center practices. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, 497—514.

“' Center for the Child Care Workforce (2001).
Current data on child care salaries and benefits
in the United States. Washington, DC.

" Caspary, K. (2002). California‘s pioneering
training and retention initiatives for early
childhood educators: lessons from San
Francisco and Alameda counties. PACE Policy
Brie/024. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.

10Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D.
(1998). Worthy Work, Unlivable Wages: The
National Child Care Staffing Study. Washing—
ton, D.C.: Center for the Child Care
Workforce.

‘1 Additional sources of data for the evalua—
tion include: 1) a Qualitative Implementation
Study (Q18) centered around a series of
focus groups and interviews with Alameda
CDC and SF CARES program planners,

 

community stakeholders, and CR1 program
participants; 2) cost analyses of the CRI
programs; 3) a retrospective overview of
community college course enrollment in the
program counties; and 4) a summary of Child
Development Permit applications from the
relevant counties over the past seven years.

‘3 San Mateo implemented a CRI program in
2001, which changed the nature of their
involvement as a comparison county.
Subsequently, the non«participating staff
from the original sample in San Mateo will be
used as the comparison group, holding
differences between the staff in the counties
constant. Additionally, in Year Two of the
evaluation, analyses will be conducted to
determine which factors, if any, predict
whether or not ECE staff in San Mateo became
CRI recipients.

‘5 Hamre, B., Grove, R., 8: Louie, I. (2003).
Matching Funds for Retention Incentives for
Early Care and Education Staff: Evaluation
Year One Progress Report: 2001—2002. PACE
Policy Brief. Berkeley: UC Berkeley.

'4 Burton, A., Duff, B., & Laverty, K. (2001).
A Profile ofthe Alameda County Child Care
Center Workforce: 1995—2001. Washington,
DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Burton, A., Whitebook, M., 8: Sakai,L .
(2000) A Profile ofthe San Francisco Child
Care Center Workforce: 1999. Washington,
DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

‘5 Caspary, K. (2002). California’s pioneering
training and retention initiatives for early
childhood educators: lessons from San
Francisco and Alameda counties. PACE Policy
Brief 02—1. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.

‘6 In Year One, SF CARES included low wages
(within each qualification level) as a
prioritization factor for awarding stipends.

'7 Year 3 data will be available through the
Matching Funds Evaluation administra—
tive data.

‘8 Caspary, K. (2002). California’s pioneering
training and retention initiatives for early
childhood educators: lessons from San
Francisco and Alameda counties. PACE Policy
Brief 02-]. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.

‘9 Initial data indicate that there was a 237%
increase in permit-holders from 2000-2001 in
Alameda county.

3“ Howes, C. & Brown, I. (2000). Improving
child care quality: A guide for the Proposition
10 commissions, in E. Shulman, M. Shannon,
and M. Hochstein, eds., Building Community
Systemsfor Young Children, UCLA Center for
Healthier Children, Families and Communities.

2‘ Burchinal, M.R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M.,
8( Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and
classroom quality in child care centers,
Applied Developmental Science, 6, 2—1 1.

LIIBRAR IES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII||I|I|III|I

Cll‘llalt76'?

PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT In

 

 

PACE POLICY BRIEF

University of California
Graduate School of Education
3653 Toiman 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 Staff: Evaluation. Policy Brief 03-1, February 2003.

Elizabeth Burr and Bridget O’Brien. Training and Retaining Early Care and Education Staff Training Projects:
Evaluation. Policy Brief 03-3, 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 Pay for 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://pace.berl<eley.edu.