issues facing the child care workforce: motivations for … · · 2016-05-06issues facing the...

Issues Facing the Child Care Workforce: Motivations for Entry and Retention in the Field

Developed in Collaboration with the Department of

Defense’s Office of Family Policy, the National Institute

of Food and Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture under Award No. 2009-48667-05833.

Issues Facing the Child Care Workforce: Motivations for Entry and Retention

Submitted By:

The Arizona Center for Research and Outreach (AZ REACH) University of Arizona

Lynne M. Borden , PhD (PI)

Debbie Casper, MS

Kyle Hawkey, MEd

Stacy Ann Hawkins, PhD

Ashley Jones

Bryna Koch, MPH

Leslie Langbert, MSW

Casey Totenhagen, PhD

Christine Bracamonte Wiggs, MPH, MS (Co-PI)

Developed in Collaboration with the Department of Defense’s Office of Family Policy, the National Institute

of Food and Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Award No. 2009-48667-05833.

Developed in Collaboration with the Department of Defense’s Office of Family Policy, the National Institute of Food and

Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Award No. 2009-48667-05833.

ISSUES FACING THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Motivations to Enter the Field .................................................................................................... 3

Overall Retention Rates ............................................................................................................... 4

Predictors of Retention .............................................................................................................. 5

Demographic Characteristics ......................................................................................... 5

Staff Age ..................................................................................................... 5

Staff Ethnicity ............................................................................................. 6

Marital and Family Status .......................................................................... 6

Organizational Characteristics ........................................................................................ 6

Program Auspice ........................................................................................ 7

Accreditation and Regulation Status .......................................................... 7

Organizational Climate and Work Environment ........................................ 8

Program Features ....................................................................................... 8

Job Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 9

Position ...................................................................................................... 9

Job Tenure .................................................................................................. 9

Experience in the field ............................................................................. 10

Education and Training ................................................................................................. 10

Retention within Jobs and Centers .......................................................... 11

Retention within the Field ....................................................................... 11

Professional Development Incentive Programs ........................................................... 12

Wages and Benfits ........................................................................................................ 13

Retention within Jobs and Centers .......................................................... 14

Retention within the Field ....................................................................... 15

Benefits and Retention ............................................................................ 15

Alternative Employment Opportunites ........................................................................ 16

Perception of Alternative Options ............................................................ 16

Changing Jobs within the Child Care Field ............................................... 16

Changing Careers ..................................................................................... 17




Job Satisfaction ............................................................................................................. 17

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 18

References ................................................................................................................................ 20

Articles and Outcomes Table ...................................................................................................... 23

i




ISSUES FACING THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE: MOTIVATIONS FOR ENTRY AND RETENTION IN THE FIELD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to a request from The Office of Family Policy, Children and Youth, within Military Community and Family Policy, the Arizona Center for Research and Outreach (AZ REACH) Military REACH team conducted a review of the research evidence regarding key issues facing the child care workforce. Specifically, motivations for becoming a child care worker (i.e., entry into the field), the overall rates of retention in child care workers, and reasons for remaining in or leaving positions (i.e., predictors of retention) were examined. An extensive review of the literature was conducted and relevant articles and reports were identified. Many of the research studies (i.e., articles presenting quantitative or qualitative analyses) providing evidence about the issues facing child care workers were conducted more than 10 years ago. As such, more recent and relevant literature reviews, policy briefs, and theoretical papers (referred to herein as reviews) published in the last 10 years are also included. These reviews offer a current contextualization of and complement to the research findings. In total, 46 relevant articles (i.e., research studies and reviews) were identified and reviewed. These articles examined motivations to enter the child care field, overall rates of retention, and predictors of retention (see Articles and Outcomes Table).

KEY FINDINGS

Motivations to Enter the Field Despite a thorough search methodology, only four articles were identified that examined child care workers’ motivations to enter the field. In general, child care workers have many varied reasons for entering the field, including personal experience with their own children in child care, and intrinsic motivations such as wanting to support children or loving children.

Overall Retention Rates Turnover rates for jobs in child care generally range from 26 to 40%; however, not all individuals who leave a child care position leave the field entirely. As many as 33 to 51% of those who leave a child care position still remain in the field. Thus, many child care workers may choose to leave their jobs, hoping to move to higher positions or different child care centers.

Predictors of Retention There are many factors that may influence child care workers’ decisions to remain in or leave their positions. Studies examining the variables that influence retention (e.g., predictors) were grouped into the following themes: demographic characteristics, organizational characteristics, job characteristics, education and training, professional development incentive programs, wages and benefits, alternative employment opportunities, and job satisfaction. Demographic Characteristics Age is generally associated with increased retention, and there is initial evidence that ethnicity and marital status may impact retention differently for workers in different positions (e.g., direct caregivers versus administrators).

ii




Organizational Characteristics Overall, publicly-operated and non-profit programs have better retention than privately-funded and for-profit programs, as do programs meeting accreditation or regulation standards. Features of the program and organizational climate (e.g., age of children, work environment) may also impact retention, although the findings were mixed. Job Characteristics Generally, retention rates are higher for child care workers in higher positions and who have more tenure and experience. It is important to note, however, that these characteristics may be confounded with age. For example, individuals who have worked longer and had time to gain more experience are likely to be older. Education and Training The connection between education and retention is still unclear. Although the findings are somewhat mixed, the patterns generally suggest that more education is associated with lower retention in centers but higher retention in the child care field overall. That is, as individuals get more education, they may be less likely to stay in a specific job, yet more likely to remain in the child care field. Professional Development Incentive Programs Professional development incentive programs that provide financial stipends and/or scholarships may increase retention, although other variables are also important to consider, such as the child care worker’s education level or position. Wages and Benefits The area of wages and benefits was one of the most robust areas reviewed in terms of relevant articles and consistent findings. Child care workers earn relatively low incomes, with direct caregivers earning a mean annual salary of $21,320 – less than that of bartenders ($21,550) and janitors ($24,840) – and administrators earning an average salary of $51,290 – less than that of Kindergarten teachers ($52,350). A number of studies have examined the impact of these low wages on retention for child care workers, largely finding that income and benefits are important considerations for improved retention within jobs as well as the field overall. Alternative Employment Opportunities Child care workers who perceive that there are viable alternative job options tend to have lower retention rates in their current positions. Although many who leave their positions remain within the field, some leave for positions outside of the field, such as K-12 education. Job Satisfaction Findings that examine the relationship between job satisfaction (including measures of burnout) and retention are consistent: low job satisfaction (or high burnout) is associated with low commitment and high turnover of child care workers.

CONCLUSIONS Overall, the literature on the issues facing the child care workforce suggests that child care workers enter the field for a variety of reasons (e.g., personal experience with their own children in child care, intrinsic motivations). The paucity of research on motivations for entering

iii




the child care field warrant cautious interpretation of these findings. The articles reviewed also indicate that retention for jobs in child care is low, with documented turnover rates ranging from 26 to 40% each year. Still, of those who leave a particular job, up to half remain in the child care field. To further understand why child care workers choose to remain in or leave either their jobs or the child care field, several predictors of retention were examined. For some predictors of retention, the evidence was fairly clear. For example, better retention was generally associated with:

working in a publicly-operated or non-profit center that meets accreditation or policy standards,

being older,

obtaining/maintaining a higher position,

having more tenure and experience,

receiving higher wages,

participating in professional development incentive programs, and

reporting higher job satisfaction. Wages and benefits were among the most widely researched topics, with the most robust patterns of evidence. Low wages were consistently cited by child care workers as a major issue in their low retention, as well as a frustration for administrators who face challenges retaining high quality direct caregivers in their centers. Given the relatively low pay of child care workers, it is not surprising that they may leave their jobs to take higher paying jobs, either within the field (e.g., publicly-operated programs, or administrator positions) or outside of the field (e.g., kindergarten teachers). Indeed, many of the other predictors of low retention are related to issues of low wages. For example, although the literature reviewed does not provide a clear description of the association between retention and child care worker education, the general patterns suggest that increased education may be associated with decreased retention in jobs, yet increased retention in the child care field. Some researchers posited that with more training and education, individuals may leave their current position to take a better position (e.g., higher paying) either within the field or in public education. Clearly, retaining high-quality child care workers poses a continuing challenge for families, centers, and policy-makers alike. Overall, the results from this literature review suggest that individuals both enter and remain in the child care field for a variety of reasons. Wages and job satisfaction emerged as particularly important predictors of retention, although the allure of job alternatives both within and outside of the field may play a role. A broad understanding of the predictors of child care worker entry and retention in the child care field can suggest potential avenues for increasing recruitment and retention of high quality child care workers among child care centers.

1




ISSUES FACING THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE: MOTIVATIONS FOR ENTRY AND RETENTION IN THE FIELD

In response to a request from The Office of Family Policy, Children and Youth, within Military Community and Family Policy, the Arizona Center for Research and Outreach (AZ REACH) Military REACH team conducted a review of the research evidence regarding key issues facing the child care workforce; namely, motivations for becoming a child care worker (i.e., entry into the field), the overall rates of retention in child care workers, and reasons for remaining in or leaving positions (i.e., predictors of retention). Recruiting and retaining high-quality child care workers is vital to providing high quality child care to children of all ages (e.g., Barnett, 1995, 1998; de Kruif, McWilliam, Ridley, & Wakely, 2000; Helburn, 1995; Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). In addition, high turnover of child care workers has been associated with negative effects on children, such as decreased social competence and lower likelihood of building attachments (e.g., Cryer, Hurwitz, & Wolery, 2001; Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Mill & Romano-White, 1999; Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott–Shim, 2001), as well as increased stress for remaining staff and costs to the child care center (e.g., Carter, 2001). Clearly, understanding the issues related to child care workers’ entry and retention in the field is critical for child care programs. This report provides a review of the literature regarding key issues facing the child care workforce, namely, motivations for becoming a child care worker (i.e., entry into the field) and the reasons for remaining in or leaving positions (i.e., retention). The child care workforce is comprised of individuals working in many different roles. This report examines the issues relevant for child care center staff, including direct caregivers (e.g., lead teachers, aides, etc.) and administrators (e.g., directors). Throughout this report, the term “child care worker” will be used to refer to any person working in a child care center, regardless of his or her position. There was a significant movement in research to address child care workforce issues through the 1980’s and 1990’s. As such, much of the seminal research in this area was conducted during this period. While the economy has shifted since that time, the experiences of child care workers have remained largely unchanged. In this report, we present conclusions drawn from more recent literature reviews and policy reports, along with the research findings that support these conclusions. In the sections that follow, the methodology used to identify and review the literature is briefly described, followed by the results of this review. The results are organized into three main domains: motivations to enter the field, overall retention rates, and predictors of retention. The predictors of retention are categorized into the following themes:

Demographic characteristics

Organizational characteristics

Job characteristics

Education and training

Professional development incentive programs

Wages and benefits

Alternative employment opportunities

Job satisfaction

2




In each section of the results, current trends are briefly described, followed by key findings (highlighted in call-out boxes), and supporting research findings.

METHODOLOGY A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant literature on child care workers’ motivations to enter the field, as well as factors influencing their retention. Search terms included, among others, child care, after school, employee, career, recruitment, and retention. Searches were conducted using traditional social science databases (e.g., PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts) as well as Google Scholar in order to surface a breadth of literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles and reports published by agencies or organizations. In addition, relevant resources cited by the reviewed articles and reports were identified. All documents that examined the motivations for entry into the child care field or retention for child care workers were considered for further review. After identifying potential articles and reports to include in this review, three inclusion criteria were used:

1. Articles and/or reports must include information/data that can be documented. 2. Documents must focus on the experiences of child care workers in child care centers

(e.g., studies exclusive to home-based care providers and child welfare workers were excluded).

3. Literature must examine child care workers in the United States. All relevant documents that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed in detail, and common themes and findings are included in the current report. Many of the research studies providing evidence about the issues facing child care workers were conducted more than 10 years ago. To provide a current context to the findings from older studies, relevant literature reviews, policy briefs, and theoretical papers (referred to here as reviews) published in the last 10 years were also included. These more recent articles and reports support the research evidence that emerged in this review and aid in interpretation relevant to today’s child care workers. In this report, the term articles is used to refer to the literature more generally (i.e., research studies as well as reviews), whereas the terms study and research refer specifically to those publications that present qualitative or quantitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 46 relevant articles were identified and reviewed using this methodology (see Articles and Outcomes Table). Despite a thorough search methodology, only four articles were identified that examined child care workers’ motivations to enter the field. A much larger set of studies have examined retention of child care workers; 44 of the articles discussed retention, providing either general rates of occurrence or evidence about the predictors of retention. The vast majority of reviewed literature focused on direct caregivers in early childhood education (ECE) programs, or included a variety of child care workers (e.g., administrators and direct caregivers; ECE workers and school-age caregivers) without distinguishing them in results. When study results are specific to administrators, or about after school programs, this information is stated.

3




Motivations to Enter the Field In general, child care workers have many varied reasons for entering the field. French (2010), in his review of the issues facing the child care workforce, noted that issues such as low wages, lack of social respect, and alternative employment opportunities in other fields may all contribute to the decrease of well-educated candidates entering the child care workforce. While these issues are concerns that may serve as barriers to entering the ECE workforce, it is clear that the men and women who do choose to become child care workers do so for many different reasons (Huang & Cho, 2010; Murray, 2000).

Research studies provide evidence regarding the variety of reasons child care workers enter the ECE field.

For child care workers at a school-age care program, staff generally reported intrinsic reasons for their employment, such as providing students with academic and social support (Huang & Cho, 2010).

Similarly, most (55-63%) early child care workers reported that they entered the field because they love children (Espinosa, Mathews, Thornburg, & Ispa, 1999). It should be noted, however, that this study did not distinguish home-based care providers from center-based providers. Thus, the percentage of those working in centers who choose to do so because of a love of children might actually be underrepresented, as a large percentage of this sample (23-28%) stated they chose the child care field because they could be home with their own children.

There are also gender differences in motivations to enter the field. Women described basic economic motives (e.g., it’s a job, provides a salary) as well as more gendered reasons (e.g., socialized to care for children), whereas men were more likely to describe political and academic motives for choosing the child care field (e.g., fascinated by social development of children, desire to challenge stereotypes; Murray, 2000). Both men and women also were likely to report first being exposed to the child care field when their own children entered child care. Through these experiences, men and women came to see the child care field as an employment option for themselves.

The paucity of research with respect to motivations for entering into the child care field poses a challenge in identifying overarching themes and patterns. From the available literature, it appears that socialization and exposure to child care may play a role in seeing child care as a possible career path, with intrinsic motivations to work with children also influencing individuals to choose this path. More research in this area using larger, more diverse samples, however, is needed before stronger conclusions can be drawn.

Key Findings: Motivations to Enter the Field Although there are few studies examining motivations to enter the child care field, it appears that child care workers enter the field for a variety of reasons, including personal experience with their own children in child care, and intrinsic motivations such as wanting to support children or loving children.

4




Overall Retention Rates

Fifteen articles examined the retention rates of child care workers, which include documented turnover rates, employees’ intentions to stay in or leave a position, and employees’ commitment to their job or organization. A number of studies suggest that these variables are highly dependent on one another (Bloom, 1996; Manlove & Guzell, 1997; Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001; Phillips, Howes, & Whitebook, 1991; Stremmel, 1991). Staff turnover in child care centers is a persistent challenge that has negatively impacted the ECE field as a whole (Bridges & Carlat, 2003; Johnson, Pai, & Bridges, 2004; Marshall, 2005). Low retention rates are observed at all levels, including teaching assistants, teachers, and directors. Despite the fact that some child care workers choose to leave their jobs, a sizable percentage remain in the field (Mashall et al., 2001; Phillips, et al., 1991; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). Any efforts to increase staff retention and provide high-quality, stable care for children will likely require innovative strategies that combine several approaches.

In general, the child care field is characterized by low retention. When considering retention and turnover within individual child care centers:

Turnover rates are largely in the 26 to 40% range, on an annual basis (Mashall, et al., 2001; Phillips, et al., 1991; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1998; Whitebook et al., 2006) and as high as 76 to 82% over a four to six year period (Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber, & Howes, 2001).

For administrators specifically, annual turnover rates were approximately 18% in California (Whitebook, et al., 2006), and 36% had left their original centers over a six year period (1994-2000; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Of direct caregivers, 31% reported that they would quit immediately if they could, and 27% said they were likely to leave their job within the next 12 months (Stremmel, 1991).

These statistics, however, only account for exits from a particular position or center. Some child care workers leave a particular position to take a similar position in a different child care center. That is, they remain in the child care field. When considering retention in the child care field:

As many as 33 to 51% of individuals who leave their positions still remain in the child care field (Mashall, et al., 2001; Phillips, et al., 1991; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Up to 85% of direct caregivers (Torquati, Raikes, & Huddleston-Casas, 2007) and 70 to 85% of administrators (Mullis, Cornille, Mullis, & Taliano, 2003) expected to still be working in child care over the following two years.

Fifty to 75% of those working in child care planned on remaining in the field indefinitely (Robinson, 1979; Thornburg, Mathews, Espinosa, & Ispa, 1997).

Two-thirds of direct caregivers reported seeing child care work as a career rather than a temporary job and 80% indicated that they would again choose to work in the field; yet, 45% indicated they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to leave their current job (Phillips, et al., 1991).

Key Findings: Overall Retention Rates Turnover rates for jobs in child care generally range between 26% and 40%, although many of those who leave a position still remain in the child care field.

5




Thus, turnover for specific centers and specific positions may be high, yet many child care workers choose to remain in the field, often hoping to move into higher positions.

Predictors of Retention The 40 articles examining what influences retention (e.g., predictors) explored a number of different factors. These factors are organized into eight categories:

Demographic characteristics

Organizational characteristics

Job characteristics

Education and training

Professional development incentive programs

Wages and benefits

Alternative employment opportunities

Job satisfaction Below, findings of articles in each of these eight categories are reviewed, highlighting critical evidence and issues to consider.

Demographic Characteristics Research studies focusing on demographic characteristics have examined the age, ethnicity, and marital/family status of child care workers, as they relate to retention. In these studies, age appears to be consistently associated with retention, with older child care workers being more committed and less likely to leave their jobs (e.g., Holochwost, DeMott, Buell, Yannetta, & Amsden, 2009; Seery & Corrigall, 2009). In addition, there is some evidence that both ethnicity and marital status may influence retention, depending on a child care worker’s position (e.g., direct caregiver versus administrator). This section details the research findings related to the association between demographic characteristics and retention.

Staff Age Across research studies, age is consistently positively associated with commitment and retention.

Age was positively correlated with organizational commitment in multiple studies, such that older child care workers reported greater commitment to their child care centers (Jorde-Bloom, 1988; Webb & Lowther, 1993).

A similar pattern was evident for both retention intentions and actual rates of turnover; older child care workers tended to report greater intentions to stay in their positions or the field (Holochwost, et al., 2009; Seery & Corrigall, 2009; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Key Findings: Demographic Characteristics Age is generally associated with increased retention, and there is initial evidence that ethnicity and marital status may impact retention differently for workers in different positions (e.g., direct caregivers versus administrators).

6




o In a sample including a variety of child care workers (e.g., home-based and center-based; early childhood and school age), staff ages 41 to 55 years had the highest retention intentions, significantly higher than those who were 19 to 29 years old and over 56 years (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

o Teaching staff who stayed in their positions over a two-year study were, on average, older than those who left their jobs (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

o Mor Barak and colleagues (2001) found in a meta-analysis that across studies of human service workers (including child care workers as well as social and child welfare workers), being older predicted both a lower intention to quit, and a lower instance of actual turnover (Mor Barak, et al., 2001).

It is important to note that the association between age and commitment or turnover may depend on a staff member’s position within the child care center. For example, although Whitebook and Sakai (2003) found that teachers who remained in their positions were older, they did not find this result when examining the turnover of center directors. Staff Ethnicity Two studies examined the role of ethnicity in child care worker retention, with mixed results.

In one study, White direct caregivers were more likely to leave the field than African American, Latino, or Asian/Pacific Islander caregivers (Bridges, Fuller, Huang, & Hamre, 2011).

In contrast, child care center administrators who left their positions were more likely to be people of color (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

These seemingly conflicting findings might be related to the difference in staff positions in the studies (i.e., direct caregivers versus administrators); it might be that ethnicity impacts the turnover of direct caregivers differently than administrators. Additional research, however, is needed to clarify this association. Marital and Family Status Marital status and family obligations can also play a role in child care workers’ commitment and turnover.

Child care workers cited family and personal reasons (e.g., marriage and family obligations) as highly important reasons for both staying in and leaving their jobs (Manlove & Guzell, 1997; Stremmel, 1991).

Mor Barak and colleagues (2001) found that across studies, having children predicted greater intentions to quit.

The impact of marital status, however, may depend on a staff member’s position. In one study of a variety of child care workers (e.g., home-based and center-based; early childhood and school age), direct caregivers who were married had higher intentions to remain at their jobs than those who were single; however, there were no differences in the intentions to remain for administrators based on marital status (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

Organizational Characteristics Recent reviews have focused on the importance of program auspice and positive organizational climate in maximizing retention. French (2010) notes that public preschool programs most

7




closely resemble K-12 teaching positions, with higher pay and more stability, resulting in higher retention rates. In addition, building and maintaining support within child care centers and the overall ECE field may help to encourage well-educated candidates to seek work in the field (Greer, 2011). Providing support within an individual child care center is also important, as employees who feel valued may be more likely to stay in their positions (Whitebook, Sakai, & Howes, 2004). Moreover, supportive administrators are key in reducing work-related stress, which may ultimately increase job satisfaction and employee retention (Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple, 2006). Administrators may offer support to direct caregivers in their centers by providing them with additional resources, such as professional development resources, staff development programs, and mentoring. Indeed, the research evidence suggests that organizational characteristics – including having a supportive work climate – are important considerations for retaining child care workers (see below for detailed research findings).

Program Auspice Overall, the research findings with respect to program auspice suggested that publicly-operated (Bellm, Burton, Whitebook, Broatch, & Young, 2002) and non-profit (Mullis, et al., 2003; Phillips, Howes, & Whitebook, 1992; Whitebook, et al., 1998) child care centers had better retention in their programs than their privately-funded and for-profit counterparts.

For Pre-K teachers, those working in publicly operated programs had better teacher stability than those working in privately operated programs, although these correlations did not hold as strongly for assistant teachers or directors (Bellm, et al., 2002).

Non-profit centers tended to have better retention than for-profit centers (Mullis, et al., 2003; Phillips, et al., 1992), with 39% of direct caregivers in non-profit centers having been employed in their centers for five or more years, versus only 20 to 29% of those in for-profit programs (Whitebook, et al., 1998).

In only one study was it found that centers receiving no public dollars reported the lowest teacher turnover rate (Whitebook, Kipnis, & Bellm, 2007). However, programs were defined as receiving public dollars if even one child attending received a voucher through CalWORKS and Alternative Payment (APPP) funding. Thus, programs which received public dollars were not necessarily publicly-operated.

Accreditation and Regulation Status Generally, being accredited and meeting regulation or policy standards was associated with better retention.

Administrators, teachers, and support staff at nationally accredited child care centers had stronger job commitment, whereas those at nonaccredited programs more often reported feeling trapped in their jobs or thinking of quitting (Bloom, 1996).

Accredited programs also had lower documented turnover rates among staff (17%), compared to nonaccredited centers (24%; Bloom, 1996).

Key Findings: Organizational Characteristics Overall, publicly-operated and non-profit programs have better retention than privately-funded and for-profit programs, as do programs meeting accreditation or regulation standards. Features of the program and organizational climate may also impact retention, although the findings were mixed.

8




Similarly, staff turnover for direct caregivers in centers that did not meet the Federal Interagency Daycare Requirements (FIDCR) with respect to staff training, staff-child ratios, and group size was higher than programs that met all provisions (Phillips, et al., 1992).

One study examining accreditation status found that it was not a significant predictor of turnover of direct caregivers (Whitebook, et al., 2004). It should be noted, however, that this study had a much smaller sample size (n=43 centers) than other studies with 380 centers (Bloom, 1996) and 227 centers (Phillips, et al., 1992). This methodological difference could explain the lack of significant findings in this study. Organizational Climate and Work Environment Several studies examined how organizational climate or work environment influences retention in one’s current position. The findings were mixed, with some studies suggesting a better work environment was positive for retention, and others finding no significant association.

Three studies found that characteristics of the work environment may be beneficial in improving retention.

o Direct caregivers indicated working conditions as one of the most important issues in work-related factors for leaving their employers (Stremmel, 1991).

o In a sample of administrators, teachers, and support staff, better organizational climate (e.g., innovativeness, opportunities for professional growth) was strongly associated with increased job commitment (Bloom, 1996).

o Increased organizational support was a significant predictor of both lower intentions to quit and documented turnover across studies (Mor Barak, et al., 2001). Specifically, higher support from co-workers, supervisors, and general social support each individually predicted lower intentions to quit (although not documented turnover rates).

Still, two studies reported nonsignificant results: o Work environment ratings were not associated with job retention expectations

for either direct caregivers or administrators in one study (Garcia, 2011). o Montgomery and Seefeldt (1986) found no relationship between supervisory

style and staff turnover, though it should be noted that there was very little staff turnover in the sample overall.

The mixed findings evidenced here might be the result of small sample sizes in the two studies reporting nonsignificant findings. The smaller samples may have limited the researchers’ ability to detect significant effects.

Program Features Five studies documented how program factors, such as children’s characteristics and program quality, may be associated with retention.

Those working with preschoolers reported higher retention intentions than those working with infants (Holochwost, et al., 2009). Further research in this area, however, is warranted before drawing conclusions about how children’s characteristics such as age may impact retention.

Program quality (quantitatively defined in terms of staff/child ratio, caregiver training, etc. as well as observed program quality)was not significantly associated with retention within child care workers’ jobs or the field in general (Torquati, et al., 2007; Webb & Lowther, 1993).

9




Studies examining whether working in a program with highly trained co-workers improved job retention found mixed results, depending in part on the child care worker’s own background.

o For one, the presence of highly trained staff was not a significant predictor of staff turnover in child care programs (Whitebook, et al., 2004).

o Another study, however, found that highly trained staff were more likely to leave their jobs if they worked in a climate with less stability in highly trained co-workers and/or a larger proportion of staff with less education (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Job Characteristics

Recent research evidence demonstrates that a child care worker’s job characteristics, including the position one holds, the amount of time spent at a job (e.g., tenure), and professional experience in the field, each play an integral role in positively influencing retention and reducing turnover rates. Specifically, individuals who have more tenure often maintain a higher position in the center and have greater levels of professional experience in the field (Bridges, et al., 2011; Holochwost, et al., 2009). Research findings are described in detail below.

Position As we have seen in examining personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, and marital status, a staff member’s position in the child care center may be an important factor in his or her retention in the center. In general, studies indicated that staff holding higher positions are more likely to remain in those positions.

As position level increased, the likelihood of having left the position decreased by 16% (Cooney, 2008).

Classroom aides were significantly more likely to leave the field than teachers over two years (Bridges, et al., 2011).

In comparing preschool assistant teachers, teachers, and teacher-directors between 1996 and 2000, assistant teachers were more likely to leave their jobs than all other staff, and teachers were more likely to leave than teacher-directors (Whitebook, et al., 2001)

Job Tenure Two studies examined the connection between child care worker tenure within their positions and retention. In these studies, greater tenure was associated with lower turnover, and in one study, tenure was the strongest predictor of decreased staff turnover (Cooney, 2008).

Direct caregivers who stayed at their centers over a four to six year period reported longer tenure than those who had left either their positions or the ECE field (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

For each additional year an employee stayed at the center, the likelihood of leaving decreased by 18% (Cooney, 2008).

Key Findings: Job Characteristics Generally, retention rates are higher for workers in higher positions and with more tenure and experience. These characteristics may be confounded with other factors, however, such as age.

10




Similar to age, ethnicity, and marital/family status, the association between tenure and retention appears to differ based on a staff member’s position. While Whitebook and Sakai (2003) found that teachers who remained in their positions reported longer tenures, they did not find this evidence for administrators (i.e., there was no difference in tenure between administrators who remained and those who left their positions or the field). Experience in the Field In addition to tenure in their current positions, child care workers’ experience in the field is generally positively related to retention; those with a longer history in the field report higher retention intentions and lower turnover.

Direct caregivers with less than five years of experience reported lower retention intentions than those with 5-10 years of experience and those with more than 10 years of experience in a sample of child care workers working in different settings (e.g., home-based and center-based, early childhood and school age; Holochwost, et al., 2009).

An increasing number of years in the field predicted lower intentions to leave in the near future (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

In addition, the longer child care workers had been in the child care field, the less likely they were to leave their jobs within 12 months (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

Mor Barak and colleagues (2001) found in their meta-analysis that across studies, greater experience in the field predicted lower intentions to quit and lower rates of actual turnover, although it is important to note that this included child care workers, social workers, and child welfare workers.

It is important to note that experience in the ECE field is likely highly associated with age; those who have been in the field longer are probably also older than those who have been in the field a shorter amount of time. As such, it is important to cautiously interpret these results, and consider the potential impact of staff member age. In fact, in one study, there was an important interaction between marital status, age, and experience, when predicting retention intentions for child care workers (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

For married child care workers, those who were low in age and high in experience reported the highest retention intentions.

For single child care workers, those with high experience reported the highest retention intentions, regardless of age.

These findings shed light on the complexities involved in understanding the interplay between personal characteristics and turnover in the child care field. It is critical to remember and consider factors on many levels that might influence a staff member’s decision to leave his or her job.

Education and Training The education and training of child care workers is an important issue that continues to be raised. Recent reviews note that the majority of child care workers have limited education and training (Bridges & Carlat, 2003; Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006; Johnson, et al., 2004). This lack of adequate training can contribute to higher levels of stress and frustration and may result in higher turnover rates (Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006). Moreover, recent evidence has noted that within the ECE field there exists a divided workforce, with individuals who have limited education and training and others who have extremely high levels (Bridges & Carlat, 2003; Johnson, et al.,

11




2004). Concerns regarding the limited education of many child care workers are further magnified when well-educated child care workers leave their jobs – either due to the frustration of working alongside poorly trained staff, or to pursue higher-paying positions in public elementary schools (Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006). Some scholars have suggested that policy changes could aim to identify and minimize the barriers that child care workers face regarding educational attainment through incentives, scholarships, and/or support (Abbate-Vaughn, Paugh, & Douglass, 2011). The research studies reviewed below support the conclusion that education and training are crucial considerations in retention for the child care workforce.

Retention within Jobs and Centers The literature reflected mixed findings in terms of the association between a child care worker’s education level and retention within child care centers.

Two articles found that higher education was associated with decreased organizational commitment and retention (Gable & Hunting, 2001; Webb & Lowther, 1993).

In a meta-analysis of human service workers, including child care workers, increased education was not significantly associated with intentions to quit, but was associated with increased actual turnover (Mor Barak, et al., 2001).

Qualitative data suggest that administrators often struggle with the choice of quality versus stability, because as one administrator lamented, “the more qualified the teacher, the shortest time I get to have her,” (p. 227, Abbate-Vaughn, et al., 2011).

In contrast, three other studies found nonsignificant associations. o Direct caregivers and administrators who left their centers were as likely to be

well-trained as those who remained at their jobs (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). o Educational level did not predict direct caregivers’ or administrators’

commitment or expectations to stay in their current jobs (Garcia, 2011; Jorde-Bloom, 1988).

Retention within the Field For literature that examined retention in the child care field, the results were still somewhat mixed. Overall patterns suggested that more education was associated with better retention in the field.

Two studies suggested that increased education was associated with increased retention in the field.

o Seventy-eight percent of college-educated child care workers planned to continue in the ECE field, compared to 40% of high school-educated workers (Berk, 1985)

o Child care workers with high school diplomas or some degree of early childhood training reported higher retention intentions than those with no training specific to early childhood (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

However, Torquati and colleagues (2007) found that direct caregiver education was not associated with intentions to remain in the field.

Key Findings: Education and Training The connection between education and retention is still unclear; although the findings are somewhat mixed, the patterns generally suggest that more education may be associated with lower retention in centers but higher retention in the child care field.

12




Overall, although somewhat mixed, the patterns suggested that better education may be associated with decreased retention for child care centers but increased retention in the field. That is, as individuals get more education, they may be less likely to stay in a certain job, yet more likely to remain in the child care field.

Professional Development Incentive Programs Well-tailored, continuous professional development can help prepare child care workers for the vast array of challenges they face each day, enhancing staff efficacy, motivation, and retention (Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006; Huang & Cho, 2010). Opportunities to access meaningful professional development can be limited, especially given that the low incomes associated with child care positions can make it difficult for staff in this field to afford professional development opportunities on their own (Ackerman, 2006). A variety of strategies have been utilized, including organization-, community-, and state- level initiatives to encourage child care workers’ participation in, and access to, professional development (Abbate-Vaughn, et al., 2011; Bridges & Carlat, 2003; Whitebook, et al., 2004). For example, several programs have been developed that use financial stipends and/or scholarship incentives to educate and retain staff. When these incentive programs are sustained over time and well-funded, they may support increased retention of child care workers (Park-Jadotte, Golin, & Gault, 2002). However, in some cases, other variables (e.g., education level, position) are also important to consider (see below for detailed research findings).

Professional development incentive programs may be a useful tool in increasing retention, although factors such as education level and position may be important issues to consider.

The Workforce INcentive Project (WIN) is a project that provides cash incentives to child care workers based on professional development/education that they complete.

o Direct caregivers who participated in WIN had lower rates of turnover than a matched control group who did not participate (Gable, Rothrauff, Thornburg, & Mauzy, 2007); this effect was found for direct caregivers with mid-range incomes (i.e., not highest or lowest paid teachers).

o For administrators, participating in WIN was associated with lower turnover, only for those in the highest income category (Gable, et al., 2007).

T.E.A.C.H. is a scholarship program that supports ECE teachers in taking college courses. Teachers must agree to remain at their jobs for six months to one year following completion of their contract, after which they typically receive a bonus or raise from their employer and a bonus from T.E.A.C.H. (Adams, Bierbrauer, Edie, Riley, & Roach, 2003).

o T.E.A.C.H. participants had a far lower turnover rate (12%), compared to ECE teachers statewide (40%; Adams, et al., 2003).

Key Findings: Professional Development Incentive Programs Professional development incentive programs that provide financial stipends and/or scholarships may increase retention, although other variables are also important to consider (e.g., education level, position).

13




o Four years after T.E.A.C.H. participation, 76% of participants were still in their same centers, and 12% of those who left their positions were still in the ECE field (Adams, et al., 2003).

o Turnover was lower for staff with less initial education than for those with an Associate or Bachelor’s degree before receiving their scholarship (Adams, et al., 2003).

The Child-care Retention Initiative (CRI) provides financial incentives to child care workers for participation in professional development.

o Seventy-three percent of aides, 74% of lead teachers, and 79% of teacher-directors (administrators who also worked as teachers) who participated in CRI stayed at their centers (Bridges, et al., 2011).

o Eighty-eight percent of aides, 90% of lead teachers, and 91% of teacher-directors who participated in CRI remained in the field (Bridges, et al., 2011).

o Participants with higher wages and longer tenures were significantly less likely to leave their centers or the field within two years (Bridges, et al., 2011).

o Providing more support and advising within CRI was associated with lower turnover among participants (Bridges, et al., 2011).

o CRI recipients in one county stayed in their centers and in the ECE field at a significantly higher rate than those in a comparison group of non-recipients in a nearby county (Bridges & Carlat, 2003).

o Although CRI recipients were grateful, very few indicated that the stipend played a major role in their decision to remain in the field; rather, they were deeply committed to remaining in ECE, and some said they would never leave (Johnson, et al., 2004)

Through the Comprehensive Approaches to Raising Educational Standards (CARES) program, First 5 California awards matching funds to counties which offer financial incentives to ECE staff who stay in the field and increase their training and education (Harder+Company, 2008)

o Recipients reported that the stipends encouraged them to stay both in their agencies and in the child care field (Harder+Company, 2008).

o Nearly 86% were in the same child care agency, and 93% were still working in the child care field (Harder+Company, 2008).

o Participants who left their agencies reported lower income and higher education than those who remained employed at the same agency (Harder+Company, 2008).

o Participants who left the child care field had less experience and participated in CARES for a shorter period of time (Harder+Company, 2008).

o Most participants indicated they would definitely or probably stay in the child care field in the next five (93%) to ten (74%) years (Harder+Company, 2008).

Wages and Benefits Recent reviews conclude that low wages make it difficult for child care centers to hire and retain well-educated staff, particularly as child care workers may be able to earn more in alternative positions (e.g., K-12 public schools; Ackerman, 2006; Barnett, 2003; French, 2010; Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006; Whitebook, et al., 2004). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) recently reported that child care workers earn a mean annual salary ($21,320) that is less than that of bartenders ($21,550) and janitors ($24,840). Thus, child care workers could earn more pay by taking

14




alternative jobs outside of the field. In contrast, well-educated child care workers can substantially increase their pay by moving into administrator positions in the field (child care center directors earn $51,290, on average) or by becoming kindergarten teachers, who earn an average of $52,350 (BLS, 2011). Several scholars suggest that state-, local-, or center-level policies supporting increased compensation might improve retention of high quality teachers (Barnett, 2003; Park-Jadotte, et al., 2002), although determining where to access funding, how to distribute support to centers, and how centers should allocate funds to increase wages and benefits are all serious challenges to such policy implementation (Whitebook, et al., 2004). In addition to receiving low wages, child care workers often do not have access to benefits such as health insurance, sick leave, and paid vacations. Offering such benefits may improve retention of high quality staff members (Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006; Marshall, 2005). Indeed, the cost of providing benefits may be outweighed by the savings experienced through reduced staff turnover (Hale-Jinks, et al., 2006). The research studies described below support the conclusion that wages and benefits are one of the most important considerations in retention for the child care workforce.

Retention within Jobs and Centers Research has indicated that child care workers are often dissatisfied with their incomes and that low wages are a potential reason for leaving a job or child care center. Studies have found that child care workers rate low wages as one of the most important issues in their consideration of whether to leave their job, and one of the top ways to improve recruitment and retention (Manlove & Guzell, 1997; Phillips, et al., 1991; Robinson, 1979; Stremmel, 1991).

One small study of child care workers (n = 40) found that only 12% of female ECE staff and zero male staff cited pay, salary and/or standard of living as a reason for staying in their jobs (Robinson, 1979). In contrast, 27% of men and 22% of women cited pay, salary, or standard of living as a key reason for leaving their job.

Cooney (2008) found that 25% of employees in the lowest wage category had tenures of five years; whereas, 90% of employees in the highest wage category had tenures of five years.

In focus groups, one administrator compared his center to a “revolving door” because of the constant turnover due to low pay (Johnson, et al., 2004).

Although one study found no statistically significant relationship between child care workers’ income and desire to continue in their job (Garcia, 2011), this study used a relatively small sample (n = 76 direct caregivers and n = 55 administrators, analyzed separately), and is in sharp contrast to several studies finding that increased wages are associated with lower turnover (Bridges, et al., 2011; Cooney, 2008; Mor Barak, et al., 2001; Phillips, et al., 1991; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Cooney (2008) found that for every dollar increase in hourly wage, the likelihood of a child care worker having left the center (at that wave, or across five subsequent waves), decreased by 6%.

Key Findings: Wages and Benefits Higher wages and improved benefit packages are an important consideration for improved retention within specific jobs and the field overall.

15




A longitudinal study reported that direct caregivers who had left their jobs had earned significantly less – $2.65 per hour, on average – four years before, compared to those who remained (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). A similar pattern was evident for administrators; those who had left their child care centers had earned over $5,000 per year less four years prior, compared to those who stayed.

The connection between wages and job turnover might be particularly strong for those who have more education. Highly trained teachers were more likely to leave their jobs if they earned lower wages, although it is important to note that other variables were important as well, such as stability of highly trained co-workers and directors (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Income is not only associated with retention intentions and actual turnover, but also with child care workers’ commitment to their organizations. Income has been shown to be positively correlated with organizational commitment, such that staff earning more money were more committed to their child care centers (Jorde-Bloom, 1988). In addition, Gable and Hunting (2001) found that higher income (in conjunction with work satisfaction, education, and investment in the child care center) predicted higher organizational commitment. Retention within the Field Few studies have examined the connection between income and retention within the child care field, and these have largely mirrored the findings related to retention within jobs/centers – that is, higher wages are associated with higher retention.

A better salary was the most commonly cited change that would increase administrators’ likelihood of staying in the field (Mullis, et al., 2003).

Child care workers who had left the field for a job in an elementary school reported that they found the increased pay appealing (Whitebook & Sakai, 2003).

Participants with higher salaries were significantly less likely to leave the field over the span of two years (Bridges, et al., 2011).

Although salary was not initially associated with child care staff’s (i.e., those working in home- or center-based care with a variety of ages from 0-12 years) intentions to stay in the field, after eliminating the 5 staff with exceptionally high incomes, there was a correlation such that higher paid staff reported higher retention intentions (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

Benefits and Retention A smaller set of studies have examined the role of benefits in child care worker retention. In general, these studies find that benefits are viewed as an incentive for remaining in the child care field (Holochwost, et al., 2009; Mullis, et al., 2003; Phillips, et al., 1991).

Over 25% of administrators cited better benefits as a change that would increase their likelihood of staying in the field (Mullis, et al., 2003).

Health insurance, disability insurance, and a pension plan (i.e., defined benefit) were all associated with higher retention intentions for child care workers for children age 0 to 12 years, although dental benefits and investment plans (i.e., defined contribution) were not (Holochwost, et al., 2009).

Reduced-fee child care was positively associated with viewing child care as a career (rather than a temporary job; Phillips, et al., 1991).

16




Alternative Employment Opportunities Given the low pay of child care workers, who earn on average $21,320 per year (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011), the allure of alternative employment opportunities—particularly those offering better pay—may be a factor in low retention rates (French, 2010). Individuals who are well-experienced or well-educated may leave their current jobs for better paying jobs within the field or in kindergarten and elementary education (Whitebook, et al., 2004). The difficulty in recruiting and retaining well-educated child care workers may result in the of new child care workers who are inadequately trained or less than those who have left the field (Marshall, 2005). A commonly cited frustration for center directors and stakeholders is losing child care workers to better paying child care centers (such as publicly-operated programs) or elementary education (Bellm, et al., 2002; Johnson, et al., 2004; Whitebook & Sakai, 2003). Research findings, described below, support these reviews.

Perceptions of Alternative Options Simply perceiving that alternatives are available to one’s current job increased the likelihood that individuals were less committed and more likely to leave their jobs (Manlove & Guzell, 1997; Mor Barak, et al., 2001; Stremmel, 1991).

One of the most commonly cited reasons for staying in a child care job was a perceived lack of other job options (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

In addition, child care workers who perceived that job alternatives were available were almost three times as likely to intend to leave their current job, and more than five and a half times more likely to actually leave within 12 months (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

Only one study found that perceptions of job alternatives were not associated with organizational commitment (Gable & Hunting, 2001), although this study included a smaller sample (n = 86), which may have limited their ability to detect significant effects.

Changing Jobs within the Child Care Field Many child care workers who leave a particular job will move to another position in the child care field.

When administrators left their jobs, 39% accepted positions as directors or assistants in other ECE programs (Whitebook, et al., 2001).

Direct caregivers indicated that if they left their current positions, 35% would likely seek employment in another child care setting (Stremmel, 1991).

Several authors surmised that child care workers may leave their jobs to take better (e.g., higher paying) positions within the field, particularly as they receive more education and experience (Adams, et al., 2003; Bellm, et al., 2002; Johnson, et al., 2004; Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

o One administrator in a study by Johnson and colleagues (2004) described her program as a “training ground” for other jobs that paid more than her privately-operated center could, such as those run by school districts.

Key Findings: Alternative Employment Opportunities Having the perception that there are viable alternative job options decreases retention. Although many child care workers who leave their positions remain within the field, some leave for positions outside of the field, such as K-12 education.

17




Changing Careers In terms of leaving the child care field altogether, some authors spoke about losing child care workers to jobs in K-12 education.

When questioned about what type of job they would be likely to seek if they were to leave their jobs, 22% of child care workers indicated they would seek a job in an elementary school (Stremmel, 1991).

Whitebook and Sakai (2003) reported that many directors indicated they lost staff to elementary school jobs. These authors’ own follow up data, however, indicated that of those staff who left and could be reached, only 7% had left for elementary school jobs. It is unknown how many staff members that left and could not be reached may have taken jobs in elementary schools.

Johnson and colleagues (2004) suggested that although the trend of ECE staff leaving for jobs in school districts has not been clearly documented in the research findings, it was a common concern expressed by stakeholders in California’s CRI programs. For example, one funder noted a fear that their financial incentives for education might cause people to go back to school and then leave to become kindergarten teachers, rather than staying in the ECE field.

Job Satisfaction

For child care workers, job satisfaction and burnout are key factors that can influence retention. The research findings consistently demonstrate that as job satisfaction increases (and burnout decreases), commitment to one’s organization and retention rates increase (e.g., Seery & Corrigall, 2009). The dynamic relationships among job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover warrant consideration in efforts to improve retention of child care workers, both within centers and the field in general (see below for detailed research findings).

Several studies have examined the relationship between job satisfaction and commitment to the organization, generally finding that high satisfaction is associated with high commitment.

Child care workers who were committed to a career in day care were more satisfied with both the intrinsic (e.g., chance to try out one’s own ideas, feelings of accomplishment) and extrinsic dimensions (e.g., tangible aspects like pay, working conditions, employee policies) of their work (Berk, 1985).

Two studies have shown a strong, positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Gable & Hunting, 2001; Seery & Corrigall, 2009).

Job satisfaction also predicts commitment (Jorde-Bloom, 1988; Webb & Lowther, 1993). o In one study, overall job satisfaction, including feelings about promotion

opportunities, characteristics of the work itself, means of remuneration, and satisfaction with the job in general, emerged as the strongest predictor of employees’ commitment to the organization (Webb & Lowther, 1993).

Key Findings: Job Satisfaction Low job satisfaction (or high burnout) is consistently associated with low commitment and high turnover of child care workers.

18




Studies focusing on retention intentions and documented turnover rates support the findings related to organizational commitment. Across studies, high levels of job satisfaction were associated with lower turnover.

Satisfaction with work was identified as the primary reason for staying in one’s current position (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

Seery and Corrigall (2009) found, in a sample of child care workers and nurses’ aides, that job satisfaction was strongly negatively associated with intention to quit.

In a sample of 3,880 child care workers, overall center morale was the second strongest predictor of turnover, with low morale predicting higher turnover (Cooney, 2008).

Similarly, in a smaller sample, an increase in emotional exhaustion (one aspect of burnout measured) from low to medium exhaustion, or from medium to high exhaustion, made it nearly two and a half times more likely that an individual intended to leave in the near future (Manlove & Guzell, 1997).

Across 25 studies of human service workers (including child care, social, and child welfare workers), high burnout – measured by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal achievement – and low job satisfaction were significant predictors of intention to quit as well as actual turnover (Mor Barak, et al., 2001).

CONCLUSIONS

In reviewing the extant literature on motivations for entry and retention in the child care workforce, several themes emerged. First, although few studies have examined the reasons why child care workers enter the field, the findings suggested a variety of motivations, such as a love of children, academic interests in child development, and feeling that one was socialized to do so. Retention among employees in the child care field is low. Documented turnover rates range from 26 to 40% each year. Still, of those who leave a particular child care job, as many as 33 to 51% of child care workers remain in the ECE field. To further understand why child care workers choose to remain in or leave both their jobs and the child care field in general, several predictors of retention were examined. For some predictors of retention, the evidence was fairly clear. For example, better retention was generally associated with:

working in a publicly-operated or non-profit center that meets accreditation or policy standards,

being older,

maintaining a higher position,

having more tenure and experience,

receiving higher wages,

participating in professional development incentive programs, and

reporting higher job satisfaction. It should be noted that although job satisfaction emerged as a particularly important predictor of retention, wages and benefits were among the most widely researched topics with the most robust pattern of evidence. Low wages were consistently cited by child care workers as a major issue in their retention, as well as a frustration for administrators who face challenges in retaining high quality direct caregivers in their centers. Many of the other predictors of retention are also related to low wages. For example, given the low pay of child care workers,

19




the allure of higher paying jobs may motivate child care workers to leave their current position and seek alternative employment. Direct caregivers can earn more money by leaving their child care positions for better paying positions at different child care centers (e.g., moving from a privately funded center to a publicly funded center) or alternative fields of employment. Although the literature was somewhat mixed with respect to education, the findings generally suggested that increased education may be associated with decreased retention in jobs, yet increased retention in the child care field. Some researchers posited that well-educated individuals may leave their current position to take a better position (e.g., higher paying) still within the field. For example a two-tiered system in ECE was described, whereby privately-operated centers serve as training and apprenticeship programs before individuals move onto higher paying jobs in publicly-operated programs. Administrators also spoke of losing employees to jobs in the K-12 education field. Concerns about well-educated individuals leaving jobs in ECE are reflected in current salary information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011): child care workers earn a mean annual salary of $21,320, whereas administrators in child care earn a mean salary of $51,290, and kindergarten teachers earn an average of $52,350. Overall, the results from this literature review suggest that individuals both enter and remain in (or leave) the child care field for a variety of reasons. Wages and job satisfaction emerged as particularly important predictors of retention, although the allure of job alternatives both within the field (e.g., publicly-operated centers) and outside of the field (e.g., K-12 education) may play a role. A broad understanding of the predictors of child care worker entry and retention can suggest potential avenues for increasing the recruitment and retention of high quality child care workers within the child care field. For instance, child care centers can increase pay, recruit staff with more experience, or aim to improve job satisfaction among staff. While many strategies may be employed to improve recruitment and retention in the child care workforce, it is clear that any successful approach will need to consider the complex associations between the issues addressed in the literature.

20




REFERENCES

Abbate-Vaughn, J., Paugh, P. C., & Douglass, A. (2011). Sound bites won't prepare the next generation: Early childhood teacher education policy public-private divide in Massachusetts. Educational Policy, 25(1), 215-239.

Ackerman, D. J. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low wages. Educational Policy, 20(1), 85-112.

Adams, D., Bierbrauer, J., Edie, D., Riley, D., & Roach, M. (2003). TEACH Early Childhood® WISCONSIN Evaluation Report (August 1999–June 2003).

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 25-50.

Barnett, W. S. (1998). Long-term cognitive and academic effects of early childhood education on children in poverty. Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 204-207.

Barnett, W. S. (2003). Low wages= low quality: Solving the real preschool teacher crisis Preschool policy matters (Vol. 3). New Bruinswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Bellm, D., Burton, A., Whitebook, M., Broatch, L., & Young, M. P. (2002). Inside the pre-K classroom: A study of staffing and stability in state-funded prekindergarten programs: ERIC.

Berk, L. E. (1985). Relationship of caregiver education to child-oriented attitudes, job satisfaction, and behaviors toward children. Child Care Quarterly, 14(2), 103-129.

Bloom, P. J. (1996). The quality of work life in NAEYC accredited and nonaccredited early childhood programs. Early Education and Development, 7(4), 301-317.

Bridges, M., & Carlat, J. (2003). Training and retaining early care and education staff. Bay Area Child-Care Retention Incentive Programs: Evaluation. Year one progress report, 2001-2002. PACE Policy Brief.

Bridges, M., Fuller, B., Huang, D. S., & Hamre, B. K. (2011). Strengthening the early childhood workforce: How wage incentives may boost training and job stability. Early Education & Development, 22(6), 1009-1029.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2011 Retrieved September 4th, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm

Carter, M. (2001). Right from the start: Changing our approach to staff orientation. Child Care Information Exchange, 9, 79-81.

Cooney, K. M. (2008). Retention of child care staff: Understanding predictors of retention with survival analysis. Master's Thesis, Washington State University.

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(4), 497-514.

de Kruif, R. E. L., McWilliam, R. A., Ridley, S. M., & Wakely, M. B. (2000). Classification of teachers’ interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 247-268.

Espinosa, L. M., Mathews, M. C., Thornburg, K. R., & Ispa, J. (1999). Training and rural child care providers: Results of Project REACH. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field, 2(3), 361-388.

French, R. (2010). The Best of Times, the Worst of Times: Rising Standards and Declining Staff Qualifications in Early Childhood Education. Young Children, 65(2), 62-66.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm

21




Gable, S., & Hunting, M. (2001). Child care providers' organizational commitment: A test of the investment model. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(5), 265-281.

Gable, S., Rothrauff, T. C., Thornburg, K. R., & Mauzy, D. (2007). Cash incentives and turnover in center-based child care staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 363-378.

Garcia, M. E. (2011). A study of early childhood education teachers' level of education, compensation, work environment and retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Greer, K. (2011). Tackling Turnover: One Center's Efforts to Institute Center-and Community-Wide Change. Exchange: The Early Childhood Leaders' Magazine Since 1978, 199, 24-27.

Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling teacher turnover in child care: Understanding causes and consequences, identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82(4), 219.

Harder+Company. (2008). CARES Retention Study: Final Report: First 5 California. Helburn, S. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers: Key findings and

recommendations. Young Children, 50(4), 40-44. Holochwost, S. J., DeMott, K., Buell, M., Yannetta, K., & Amsden, D. (2009). Retention of Staff in

the Early Childhood Education Workforce. Paper presented at the Child & Youth Care Forum.

Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher-child relationships and children's social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 15-32.

Huang, D., & Cho, J. (2010). Using professional development to enhance staff retention. Afterschool Matters, 12, 9-16.

Johnson, L. R., Pai, S. A., & Bridges, M. (2004). Advancing the Early Childhood Workforce: Implementation of Training and Retention Initiatives in the Bay Area. Policy Brief 04-1. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Factors influencing overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment in early childhood work environments. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3(2), 107-122.

Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teachers' interactions with children: Why are they so important? Research in review. Young Children, 52(2), 4-12.

Manlove, E. E., & Guzell, J. R. (1997). Intention to leave, anticipated reasons for leaving, and 12-month turnover of child care center staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(2), 145-167.

Marshall, N. L. (2005). Massachusetts capacity study research brief: Characteristics of the current early education and care workforce serving 3-5 year-olds: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Mashall, N. L., Creps, C. L., Burstein, N. R., Glantz, F. B., Robeson, W. W., & Barnett, S. (2001). The Cost and Quality of Full-Day Year-Round Early Care and Education in Massachusetts: Preschool Classrooms: Wellesley Centers for Women and Abt Associates.

Mill, D., & Romano-White, D. (1999). Correlates of affectionate and angry behavior in child care educators of preschool-aged children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(2), 155-178.

Montgomery, L., & Seefeldt, C. (1986). The relationship between perceived supervisory behavior and caregivers' behavior in child care. Child Care Quarterly, 15(4), 251-259.

Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625-661.

22




Mullis, A., Cornille, T., Mullis, R., & Taliano, K. (2003). Childcare center directors' perceptions of their work environments: a comparison of for-profit and non-profit programs. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5), 545-556.

Murray, S. B. (2000). Getting paid in smiles: The gendering of child care work. Symbolic Interaction, 23(2), 135-160.

Park-Jadotte, J., Golin, S. C., & Gault, B. (2002). Building a stronger child care workforce: A review of studies of the effectiveness of public compensation initiatives. Washington, DC: Institute for Women's Policy Research.

Phillips, D. A., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1991). Child care as an adult work environment. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 49-70.

Phillips, D. A., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1992). The social policy context of child care: Effects on quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(1), 25-51.

Phillips, D. A., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott–Shim, M. (2001). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475-496.

Robinson, B. E. (1979). A two-year followup study of male and female caregivers. Child Care Quarterly, 8, 279-294.

Seery, B. L., & Corrigall, E. A. (2009). Emotional labor: Links to work attitudes and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 797-813.

Stremmel, A. J. (1991). Predictors of intention to leave child care work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(2), 285-298.

Thornburg, K. R., Mathews, M. C., Espinosa, L., & Ispa, J. (1997). Perceptions of child care in rural America. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13, 117-130.

Torquati, J. C., Raikes, H., & Huddleston-Casas, C. A. (2007). 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, 22(2), 261-275.

Webb, N. C., & Lowther, M. A. (1993). Organizational commitment of child care providers employed in centre facilities. Journal of Child & Youth Care, 8(3), 1-16.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. A. (1998). Worthy Work, Unlivable Wages: The National Child Care Staffing Study, 1988-1997. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Whitebook, M., Kipnis, F., & Bellm, D. (2007). Disparities in California’s child care subsidy system: A look at teacher education, stability, and diversity Center for the Study of Child Care Employment: University of California at Berkeley.

Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An examination of job and occupational instability among child care center staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(3), 273-293.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then & now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994-2000. Technical report. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Kipnis, F., Lee, Y., Bellm, D., Almaraz, M., & Tran, P. (2006). California Early Care and Education Workforce Study enter for the Study of Child Care Employment: University of California at Berkeley.

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L. M., & Howes, C. (2004). Improving and sustaining center quality: The role of NAEYC accreditation and staff stability. Early Education and Development, 15(3), 305-326.

Study InformationMotivations to

Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates

ReferenceDemographic

Characteristics

Organizational

CharacteristicsJob Characteristics

Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction

Abbate-Vaughn, J., Paugh, P. C., & Douglass, A. (2011).

x x

Ackerman, D. J. (2006).* x x

Adams, D., Bierbrauer, J., Edie, D., Riley, D., & Roach, M. (2003).

x x

Barnett, W. S. (2003).* x

Bellm, D., Burton, A., Whitebook, M., Broatch, L., & Young, M. P. (2002).

x x

Berk, L. E. (1985). x x

Bloom, P. (1996). x

Predictors of Retention

* denotes reviews (e.g., literature reviews, policy briefs, and theoretical papers)

23


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Bridges, M., & Carlat, J. (2003).

x x x

Bridges, M., Fuller, B., Huang, D. S., & Hamre, B. K. (2011).

x x x x

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011).

x x

Cooney, K. M. (2008). x x x

Espinosa, L. M., Mathews, M. C., Thornburg, K. R., & Ispa, J. (1999).

x

French, R. (2010).* x x x x

Gable, S., & Hunting, M. (2001).

x x x x

*denotes reviews (e.g., literature reviews, policy briefs, and theoretical papers)

24


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Gable, S., Rothrauff, T. C., Thornburg, K. R., & Mauzy, D. (2007).

x

Garcia, M. E. (2011). x x x

Greer, K. (2011).* x

Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006).*

x x x x

Harder+Company. (2008). x

Holochwost, S. J., DeMott, K., Buell, M., Yannetta, K., & Amsden, D. (2009).

x x x x x

Huang, D., & Cho, J. (2010) x x


25


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Johnson, L. R., Pai, S. A., & Bridges, M. (2004).

x x x x

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). x x x x

Manlove, E. E., & Guzell, J. R. (1997).

x x x x x

Marshall, N. L. (2005).* x x x

Mashall, N. L., Creps, C. L., Burstein, N. R., Glantz, F. B., Robeson, W. W., & Barnett, S. (2001).

x

Montgomery, L., & Seefeldt, C. (1986).

x

Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001).

x x x x x x x


26


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Mullis, A. K., Cornille, T. A., Mullis, R. L., & Taliano, K. (2003).

x x x

Murray, S. B. (2000). x

Park-Jadotte, J., Golin, S. C., & Gault, B. (2002).

x x

Phillips, D. A., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1992).

x

Phillips, D., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1991).

x x

Phillips, D. A., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott–Shim, M. (2001).

x

Robinson, B. E. (1979). x x


27


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Seery, B. L., & Corrigall, E. A. (2009).

x x

Stremmel, A. J. (1991). x x x x x

Thornburg, K. R., Mathews, M. C., Espinosa, L., & Ispa, J. (1997).

x

Torquati, J. C., Raikes, H., & Huddleston-Casas, C. A. (2007).

x x x

Webb, N., & Lowther, M. A. (1993).

x x x x

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1998).

x x

Whitebook, M., Kipnis, F., & Bellm, D. (2007).

x


28


Enter the Field

Overall

Retention

Rates


Characteristics

Organizational


Education &

Training

Professional

Development

Incentive

Programs

Wages &

Benefits

Alternative

Employment

Opportunites

Job Satisfaction


Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003).

x x x x x x x

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., Sakai, L., & Gerber, E. (2001).

x x

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Kipnis, F., Lee, Y., Bellm, D., Almaraz, M., & Tran, P. (2006).

x

Whitebook, M., Sakai, L. M., & Howes, C. (2004).

x x x x


29