B1775.6 :36 )03 3SL CB PACE Matching Funds for Retention Incentives. for Early Care and Education Staff: . Evaluation Year One Progress Report 2001-2002 17/ idget Hamre ,J gcgca Grove Justin Louie Policy Brief 03-1 Research [2 supported by: FIRST 5 CALIFORNIA" INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL STUDiFQ l VT?“ ARY $3M l-‘\: but. i; ‘1 j “."i i if UNlVERSll ‘5 Qt yfii‘Llf—‘QRNIA LL: _ POLICY BRI EF W. ensitive and stimulating interactions between children and early care and education (ECE) staff are the basis of high quality care. Furthermore, research suggests that both stability and training within the ECE workforce lead to higher quality interactions between children and their caregivers.‘*2 Policy initiatives intended to increase the quality of care in centers and family child—care (FCC) homes are based on these assumptions about the importance of a stable and well-trained ECE workforce. In 1999, Alameda and San Francisco counties implemented child—care retention incentive (CR1) programs, providing graduated stipends to ECE staff with at least nine months experience in the field. The stipends are linked to staff members’ education level and training in the first year, and to gaining additional training and professional development in subse— quent years.3 In March 2001, First 5 California Children and Families Commission (First 5 California) awarded match— ing funds to 14 local First 5 commis— sions implementing CR1 programs. This Matching Funds for Retention Program expanded to 42 counties in the following fiscal year. Table 1 provides a list of counties within each funding phase. CR1 programs were developed locally, through collaboration among various ECE agencies, with the goal of improving the quality of care provided by the ECE workforce. Counties were free to develop models aimed at the following major goals: I Promoting stability in the ECE workforce; and/or I Encouraging ECE staff to engage in professional development activities including unit—bearing ECE coursework and professional growth hours. Due to differences in philosophies and the context of local communities, counties varied in their emphasis on these two goals. Their different strategies led to variations in program design and ultimately to significant differences in the composition of ECE staff participating in each program. Evaluation Overview First 5 California contracted with PACE to provide a three-year assess— ment of the effectiveness of these CR1 programs. The primary goal is to provide an overview of variations in CR1 program design and to examine ways in which specific features of program design may impact the intended outcomes—most notably retention and training activities. PACE POLICY BRIEF Preliminary Findings There were 6,759 participants in the first year of the Match- ing Funds for Retention program.4 The 677 partici- pants tracked in this evalua- tion were an experienced group of ECE staff who varied widely on many personal and work-related demographic characteristics, including ethnicity, education level, and salary/ wages. Initial findings regarding rates of training and retention are positive: 77% of participants took an ECE course or workshop and only 4.3% reported leaving the ECE field in the seven months following receipt of the stipend. However, further evaluation is required before more definitive statements can be made regarding the effectiveness of CRI programs. Additional details on these preliminary findings are provided below. This Year One Progress Report highlights findings from the first year of the Matching Funds for Retention Program, including initial rates of professional development, training, and retention in a subset of counties (Napa, San Luis Obispo, Siskiyou, and Ventura) selected for in-depth study. Specifically, this report will provide preliminary answers to the following: I TABLE 1. Matching Funds for Retention Counties Phase I (2000-2001) Phase II (2001-2002) Alameda Alpine Madera Contra Costa Amador Modoc Marin Butte Mono Mendocino Calaveras Monterey Napa Colusa Placer Nevada Del Norte Plumas San Francisco EIDorado Riverside San Luis Obispo Fresno San Diego Santa Barbara Glenn San Mateo Sierra Humboldt Santa Clara Siskiyou Inyo Santa Cruz Solano Lake Stanislaus Sonoma Lassen Tuolumne Ventura Los Angeles Yuba Note: Counties in bold were selected for the participation in the PACE in-depth study. Further details on the in-depth study are provided below. Aithough Alameda was one of the first counties to implement a CRI program, they were not selected as an in-depth county until the second year of the Matching Funds for Retention evaluation. I What types of CR1 programs did counties design? I What are the characteristics of program participants and how is program design associated with these characteristics? I How many children do CRI participants serve? How many participants work with infants and toddlers, children with special needs, or children whose primary language is not English? I In what types of training activities are program participants engaging? I Do CRI programs encourage retention within the ECE workforce? Time Frame This is a three—year evaluation, which began in 2001, shortly after the first stipends were distributed by the CRI programs in most Phase I (2000— 2001) counties. As displayed in Figure 1, there are three waves of data collection. This Progress Report contains information collected in the first year of the evaluation, April 2001—March 2002 and thus only provides information on implemen— tation and outcomes associated with first year stipends in the 14 Phase 1 counties. The final report will be available in the fall of 2004. a MATCHING FUNDS FOR RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF FIGURE 1. Timeline of Evaluation Components 2001 2002 2003 2004 June Jan June Jan June Jan June Y’l Stipends Distributed Y2 Stipends Distributed Y3 Stipends Distributed Site Visits Site Visits Site Visits Phone Survey Phone Survey Phone Survey 0 0 Administrative Data Collection 0 o 0 Y1 Report Y2 Report Final Report October ’15, 2002 September 30, 2003 September 30, 2004 Methodology I Detailed information about the Sample. Of the 743 program PACE developed two major compo— nents to the evaluation: I Basic demographic and work characteristic data on program participants were collected and entered by staff of each CRI program. These administrative data were submitted to PACE in November 2001,5 and analyzed to create detailed summaries of the demographic composition of program participants in the 14 Phase I counties." Similar infor- mation will be collected from all 42 counties and submitted to PACE in November 2002 and 2003. implementation and effectiveness of different CRI strategies was collected within four counties selected for in—depth study—Napa, San Luis Obispo, Siskiyou, and Ventura.7 Six additional counties were added to the in—depth study for subsequent years of the evalua- tion (refer to Table 1). The in— depth study consisted of telephone surveys with project participants, a qualitative implementation study (Q18), and program cost analyses.8 Details on survey methodology are provided below, as this is the focus of the Year One Progress Report. Further information on the Q18 and cost analysis methodology are available upon request. participants in the four in—depth counties, 677 (91%) agreed to participate in the PACE study. Of these 677 participants, 590 were reached for the phone survey, reflecting an 87% response rate. Program participants were sampled using a stratification scheme that ensured sufficient samples for specific groups—stratifying allows one to generalize the survey findings to all participants and draw conclusions about the program as a whole from data provided by a subset of participants. Thus, unless otherwise noted, all text and tables use weighted numbers to facilitate the generalization of findings to all 677 consenting program participants. PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT 3 POLICY BRIEF PACE Telephone Survey. The survey interview, which was conducted in English and Spanish, took about 25 minutes to administer. The interview focused on obtaining stipend recipients’ demographic and current job information, data on educational i and training activities, and perceptions of CR1 program effects. Analysis. Most analyses for this report were descriptive. In comparing rates of retention and training across counties, the following control variables were used: household income, education level, and years in the ECE field. Limitations of Year One Findings This Progress Report provides preliminary findings regarding questions on CR1 program partici— pants and effectiveness. However, Year One findings are limited by several factors. First, this report only contains information on the 14 counties that received funding in the first year of the program (Phase 1). Information on all 42 counties who received funding from First 5 California will be available in the Year Two and Final Reports. Secondly, this report contains information collected in the first year of the evaluation, April 2001—March 2002 (refer to Figure 1 for more details). Although Phase 1 programs are currently beginning the application process for their third year of stipends, this report provides information on implementation and outcomes associated with the first year stipends. Given changes in program design over time, as well as difficulties inherent in the first year of imple— menting any program, future reports will provide a more comprehensive description of CR1 programs. Lastly, due to the limited amount of time between distribution of retention incentives and Year One data collec- tion, information on retention and professional development is prelimi— nary. More comprehensive and detailed analyses of retention and professional development will be presented in subsequent years. Given these limitations, final conclu— sions regarding the effectiveness of CR1 programs should not be made at this time. However, this preliminary information may be useful for designing new CR1 programs, as well as for state and local First 5 commis— sions and program planners in the continued implementation of current CR1 programs. Year One Findings I What types of CRI programs did counties design? All 14 counties used some form of stipend to reward ECE staff for staying in the workforce and completing additional training in child development or related areas. However, counties varied widely in the specifics of program design, such as amounts and range of stipends, target participants, and availability of support provided to participants in attaining educational and training experiences. Detailed information was gathered about pro- gram design within the four counties selected for in-depth study. A brief summary of each program is provided in the boxes on the following page. Across counties, making decisions about initial eligibility requirements involved a great deal of discussion and compromise, as various program planners had different ideas about the main goals and target population of the programs." All programs required either 6 or 12 ECE units for center—based staff. Counties that required 12 ECE units emphasized the importance of setting a high standard for minimum educational level of ECE staff; those counties requiring 6 ECE units wanted to encourage the participation of ECE staff with less formal education. However, it should be noted that 12 units of ECE is a relatively low minimum educational requirement compared to the requirements for K— 12 teachers or ECE staff in some other states. Additionally, Siskiyou and Ventura had separate, less stringent initial eligibility criteria for FCC providers than for center—based staff. These separate criteria were created to make it easier for FCC providers, who typically have less formal education, to qualify for a stipend. The other major difference among the four in—depth counties was in the stipend distribution. Table 2 provides information on the amounts of stipends and the number of ECE staff awarded at each level of the Child a MATCHING FUNDS FOR RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF Development Permit Matrix.10 While most counties gave higher stipends to ECE staff with more education, Ventura provided a flat rate stipend of $500 to all participants. I What are the characteristics of program participants and how is program design associated with these characteristics? There were 6,759 ECE staff members who received stipends in the first year of the program.“ Of these partici— pants, 4,996 (74%) agreed to partici- pate in the PACE study. Further analyses of the characteristics of recipients and the ways in which program design may have impacted the program participant pool were conducted using data from the 677 participants in the in—depth counties. A lack of county-level demographic data on the ECE staff population makes it impossible to firmly estab- lish how program participants differed from those who did not participate. Nevertheless, the Year One program participants appear to be a diverse group of ECE staff. Program participants were experi- enced—the average participant had been in the ECE field for almost 13 years. They varied greatly on other personal and work-related demo— graphic characteristics, including ethnicity, education, and salary/wages (see Table 3). Although variations in program design were not systemati— cally associated with program participants’ personal characteristics (e.g., gender and age), differences in program design were associated with variations in several work-related demographics, including the proportion of FCC providers, levels of education, and salary/wages. Table 3 provides a brief summary of potential links between program design and participant characteristics. Remaining Questions. There is more information available on general ECE staff characteristics in several of the Phase 11 counties, allowing more refined analyses of ways in which program participants may differ from other ECE staff members in Years Two and Three. Another important question is whether programs will be able to recruit an even more diverse group of ECE staff as the programs become more established in communities. TABLE 2. Stipends Distribution by Levels of the Child Development Permit Matrix Napa* San Luis Obispo Siskiyou Ventura CDP Matrix Level" * Amount # Amount # Amount # Amount # Non-Matrix *** none n/ a none n/ a $140 25 $500 Assistant $250 27 $250 14 $245 8 $500 Associate Teacher**** $500—1250 123 $500-1250 61 $350700 17 $500 Teacher $1500 54 $1500 38 $1050 8 $500 251 Master Teacher $2 500 $2000 14 $1400 13 $500 Site Supervisor $2500 27 $3000 31 $1750 20 $500 Program Director $5000 11 $4000 1 $1750 $500 * Actual stipend amounts were pro—rated depending on number of hours worked per week. ** Descriptions of the requirements at each level of the Child Development Permit matrix are available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentialinfo/ topics/chi|d_dev.html. *** Only FCC providers were eligible at this level. **** Stipend levels are presented for Associate Teachers at the low and high end of the range of stipends within each county. Many counties had one or more levels between the low and high figures presented here. PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT 3 PACE POLICY BRIEF Year 1 In-Depth County Program summaries Napa Name of Program Napa CARES (Compensation and Retention Encourage Stability) Administered By Napa County Office of Education Eligibility Requirements I 9 months in same workplace I 6 ECE units for ALL participants Number of ECE Staff Who Received Stipends I Center-Based Staff: 220 I Family Child-Care Providers: 22 Continuing Eligibility I 3 ECE units OR 21 professional growth hours I Attend a self-assessment workshop San Luis Obispo Name of Program Project REWARD (Retaining Experienced Workers and Reinforcing Development) Administered By San Luis Obispo Child Care Planning Council Eligibility Requirements I 12 months in same workplace I 12 ECE units for ALL participants I Wage below $16 an hour Number of ECE Staff Who Received Stipends I Center-Based Staff: 134 I Family Child—Care Providers: 25 Continuing Eligibility I 3 ECE units OR 21 professional growth hours I Apply for Child Development Permit I Attend a self—assessment workshop Siskiyou Name of Program Child Development Corps Administered By Siskiyou Child Care Council Eligibility Requirements I 9 months in same workplace I 6 ECE units for CENTER—BASED participants I 6 hours of training above minimum licensing requirements for FCC participants Number of ECE Staff Who Received Stipends I Center-Based Staff: 46 I Family Child-Care Providers: 44 Continuing Eligibility I 3 ECE units OR 21 professional growth hours Ventura Name Of Program Early Care and Education Compensation/ Retention Incentive Project Administered By Great Pacific Child Development Center Eligibility Requirements I 12 months in same workplace I 12 ECE units for CENTER—BASED participants I 6 hours of training above minimum licensing requirements for FCC participants I An additional 1 ECE unit or 10 hours of training in addition to minimum stated above Number of ECE Staff Who Received Stipends I Center-Based Staff: 170 I Family Child-Care Providers: 81 Continuing Eligibility I 1 ECE units OR 16 professional growth hours I How many children do CRI participants serve? How many participants serve infants and toddlers, children with special needs, or children whose primary language is not English? The 625 ECE staff members who reported on the number of children in their classrooms or homes served a total of 12,863 children. Center—based staff served an average of 23 children, while FCC providers served an average of 10 children per week.” I 58% served children with special needs.” I 59% served infants and toddlers (children under 3). I 60% served children who live in a home where the primary language is not English. I In what types of training and educational activities are program participants engaging? Initial analyses of training and educational activities suggest that the majority of program participants were involved in some ECE coursework or training in the semester following the receipt of their stipend. Due to limitations of Year One data, however, establishing any direct causal link between participation in CRI programs and levels of professional development activities is not yet possible. Never— theless, almost all participants (89%) either “strongly” or “some— what“ agreed that the program had made them more aware of training a MATCHING FUNDS FOR RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF TABLE 3. Demographic Characteristics of In-Depth County Program Participants Were there significant differences among counties? Type of Care (n = 677) Center-based 81% Yes. Siskiyou (34%) and Ventura (27%) recruited a greater proportion of FCC 19% FCC providers than did Napa (9%) or San Luis Obispo (17%). Siskiyou and Ventura had separate, less rigorous, initial eligibility requirements for FCC providers, making it easier for FCC providers to qualify for stipends. Additionally, Ventura initially allocated 40% of funds to FCC providers, but this percentage was reduced due to a lower number of FCC applicants than anticipated. Gender (n = 677) Female 98% No. Male 2% Age (n = 677) Average 42.3 No. Range 19-68 Education Level—Center—based staff (n = 515) High School/ GED or less 8% No. Some College 38% AA Degree 35% 2 BA Degree 19% Education Level—FCC providers (n = 122) High School/ GED or less 23% Yes. San Luis Obispo (SLO) drew a highly educated group of FCC provid- Some College 45% ers; 36% of the FCC recipients had a BA degree or higher. This is high AA Degree 19% compared to the rates of FCC providers with BA degrees in Napa (18%), 2 BA Degree 13% Ventura (2%), and Siskiyou (13%). This finding is likely related, in part, to the fact that SLO did not have separate eligibility requirements for FCC participants; however, this effect was less evident in Napa, suggesting that other factors were involved. Ethnicity (n = 647) African American 3% Yes. Based on Census 2000 data, it appears that these variations among Asian/ Pacific lslander 2% counties reflect relative ethnic differences in the counties' general Latino 34% populations. However, when comparing survey respondents in each Native American 1% county to their respective 2000 Census population, survey respondents White 59% were consistently more likely to be Latino and somewhat less likely to be Multiethnic 1% White than the general population. This finding is consistent with recent Other 1% reports on the general population of FCC providers in eight California counties* and thus likely reflects general differences between ECE staff and the larger county population, rather than specific Matching Funds for Retention program effects. (table continued on next page) PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT fl POLICY BRIEF PACE TABLE 3. Demographic Characteristics of In-Depth County Program Participants (continued) Were there Significant differences among counties? f Tenuret-YearsVinECE ll~=i§eiici[in,a 664) .‘fl -*' . I. '. ‘ I I Average 12.8 No. This is a relatively high tenure compared to other available data on Under 3 years 9% the general ECE workforce. This high level of tenure is likely related in 3-8 years 30% part to initial eligibility requirements that required participants to have 9 8-13 years 25% to 12 months in the same workplace and to have achieved a minimum Over 13 years 36% level of ECE education. Annual Salary—Fuil-time Center-baSed staff (n “== 285) Average $22,478 Yes. Participants in Siskiyou and San Luis Obispo tended to have lower Median $21,000 salaries than recipients in other counties. The lower salary in Siskiyou < $20,000 39% may reflect the lower median income as reported in Census 2000 data, $20-29,999 45% compared to the other three counties. The lower salary in San Luis $30—39,999 10% Obispo likely reflects the $16 an hour wage cap instituted in the first 2 $40,000 4% year of the program. Annual Salary-Full-time FCC providers in = 83) Average $24,075 Yes. Full-time FCC providers in Siskiyou and San Luis Obispo tended to Median $20,000 have lower salaries than recipients in other counties. Refer to the < $20,000 48% section above on center—based annual salary for details. $20—29,999 25% 31530-39999 12% 2 $40,000 14% Hourly Wage-Part-time Center-based staff ( n = 222) Average $11.25 Yes. Part—time center-based staff members in Siskiyou and San Luis Median $9.85 Obispo tended to have lower hourly wages than recipients in other < $8.00 12% counties. Refer to the section above on center-based annual salary $8-$9.99 40% for details. $10—$11.99 19% $12-$13.99 14% 2 $14.00 15% * These eight reports are available on the Center for the Child Care Workforce website at http://wwwccworg/ pubs/freepubs.html#California and professional development that not having information about Findings from the survey indicate that: opportunities in ECE. This potential ECE classes and workshops had . 77% of program participants program effect is important because been a barrier to their part1c1pation reported taking at least one ECE many program part1c1pants 1nter— in professional development course, conference, or workshop v1ewed 1n focus groups reported act1v1t1es 1n the past. between June and December 2001. u MATCHING FUNDS FOR RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF I 60% of participants took a class/ workshop concerning caring for infants and toddlers. I 66% of participants took a class/ workshop concerning caring for children with special needs. Remaining Questions. In Years Two and Three, PACE will gather similar information on classes and training from survey respondents including those who continued in the CRI programs, as well as those who did not apply for a second stipend. This will allow analysis of the effect of continued program participation on professional development activities. Furthermore, Year Two analyses will include ten in—depth counties (in— stead of four), allowing for more comprehensive examination of program effects on the professional development of program partici— pants. In particular, we will exam— ine associations between more intensive programmatic support for training activities (i.e., requiring program participants to meet with a Professional Growth Advisor) and the amount of training in which recipients engaged. I Do CRI programs encourage retention within the ECE workforce? Only 29 program participants (4.3%) reported having left the ECE field in the seven months after receiving the stipend. This is a relatively low number compared to other studies of turnover in the ECE field.14 At this time, however, it is unclear whether this low rate of turnover is associated with the abbreviated time frame (approximately 7 months passed between receipt of stipend and the survey), selection effects (this sample of program participants may be different from the more general ECE staff population), program effects, or other factors. I Almost 90% of program partici— pants in the in-depth counties “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed that the program had increased their interest in staying in the ECE field. Recipients with lower household incomes were more likely to feel that the program affected their interest in staying in the ECE field. I Among the small number of participants who left the ECE field, the most frequently cited reasons for leaving included a desire to make more money, taking a job in a K—12 setting, and moving. I Participants in the Q18 consistently reported that although the CR1 program made them feel more appreciated and recognized as professionals, they stayed in the ECE field primarily due to their love of working with young children. Remaining Questions. In Years Two and Three of this evaluation, PACE will follow these initial program participants, both those who remained in the CR1 programs and those that , did not. PACE will then provide information on predictors of subse— quent retention in the ECE field. We will also obtain retention data on participants in the additional six in- depth counties. Furthermore, PACE will continue to follow ECE staff members in San Mateo who were initially interviewed as a part of a comparison group in the evaluation of Bay Area CR1 programs. Some of these staff members later received stipends through the San Mateo CR1 program, but others did not. These two groups will be followed to examine whether rates of retention are higher among program partici— pants than among non-participants. Initial Policy Implications Although this Progress Report summarizes only the first of three years of PACE’s evaluation of CR1 programs, there are several initial policy implications that may be useful for state and local First 5 commissions and program planners. These implications are drawn from findings from the quantitative and qualitative evaluations and, as with all findings in this Progress Report, should be viewed as preliminary. CRI programs should delineate specific goals in regard to the targeted population of their intervention. Programs were able to successfully target particular populations of ECE staff. For example, by allocating a percentage of funds for FCC providers, Ventura ensured a signifi— cant number of FCC participants, PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT a POLICY BRIEF PACE while san Luis Obispo targeted lower paid ECE staff by only funding those making less than $16 an hour. These methods may be useful as program planners attempt to meet goals specific to the needs of their local ECE community. CRI program success requires using multiple strategies to reach a diverse group of participants. Counties had to develop new and creative ways to advertise/ promote the programs to some ECE staff members. Programs used a variety of outreach methods including visiting centers and FCC homes in rural areas, paying for radio and television advertise- ments, and forging partnerships with other ECE agencies (such as local Family Child Care Associations). Providing program participants with accessible, convenient, and high-quality training opportunities requires a'great deal ofplanning as well as coordination with local community colleges, Resource e’r Referral agencies, and other ECE training facilities. Many counties developed hand—outs outlining in detail the required trainings and/or classes for the various levels of stipends, where and when they were offered and by whom. CR1 program staff made themselves available for one-on—one advising of program participants and, in some cases, community college staff and/or counselors were also available to advise program participants. In contrast, other CRI programs did not have the capacity to provide such supports. PACE will examine whether varying levels of programmatic support lead to different rates of training in the second and third years of the programs. Institutional-level barriers to su icient ECE training opportunities need to be addressed at local and state-wide levels. PACE has been investigating ways in which growth in child development enrollments may or may not yield new state revenues for the community colleges. From the outset, we assumed that state dollars would be leveraged through the full—time equivalent student (FTES) financing mecha- nism. But some colleges reached their revenue ceilings under Proposition 13. Under the current fiscal climate, many colleges may have to cap enrollments and cut spending. We need to learn more about how the FTES financing system may or may not create incentives for growth in child development enrollments. Areas for Future Research As we move forward in evaluating the effectiveness of CR1 programs, it is important to place the findings in the larger context of issues related to ECE workforce development. Many questions remain about how we can most effectively train and retain a diverse population of ECE staff and provide for higher quality care in ECE facilities. To highlight intersec— tions between the current evaluation of CR1 programs and future research possibilities, two relevant questions are discussed below. Do CR1 programs improve the quality of care provided by CRI participants? I f 50, what aspects of training are most closely associated with improvements in quality? Although research strongly suggests that both stability and training within the ECE workforce lead to higher quality interactions between children and their caregivers, research is needed to examine whether these CR1 programs lead to quantifiable differences in the quality of care provided to children. Furthermore, we do not yet know exactly what types of staff training are most likely to benefit children. For example, there is some evidence suggesting that a comprehensive and integrated program of education in child development or a related field is more likely to improve the quality of care provided to children than is taking isolated courses in these areas.15 However, there is also evidence to suggest that participation in trainings and workshops can affect the quality of care provided.16 Further research in this area is needed, particularly as policymakers look to make the most cost—effective invest— ments in improving the quality of care provided by the ECE workforce. m MATCHING FUNDS FOR RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION STAFF LBIRAR HES How can we best attend to the professional needs of family child- care providers? In the context of growing support for universal preschool, the need for a diverse, professional and stable ECE workforce is vital. Because many parents prefer FCC providers, the question of how best to train and retain FCC providers is a growing concern. However, formal education programs for FCC providers are limited and there is little institution- alized support of FCC training at a state or local level. ‘7 Many of the CR1 programs set specific standards for FCC providers in order to encourage them to further their education and participate in professional organizations and/ or associations. However, many FCC providers feel that their needs regarding the scheduling and content of courses and training were not adequately addressed by CRI pro— grams in the first year of implemen— tation. PACE will continue to docu— ment the experiences of FCC provid— ers in CRI programs, but more research in this area is warranted. Endnotes ‘ For a review of literature on connections between quality of care, retention, and training refer to: National Research Council Institute of Medicine. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. 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 Commu- nity Systemsfor Young Children, UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. “ These initial programs were based on the CARES (Compensation and Retention Encourages Stability) model originally developed by the Center for the Child Care Workforce. 4 This number of participants comes from reports submitted to First 5 California; 4,996 (74%) of these participants agreed to have their data submitted to PACE and 677 of these were followed in the in-depth study. 5 Counties only submitted data from participants who agreed to have their information included in the PACE study. “ These analyses on all 14 counties are available at http://www.caccwrc.org/research/ current.htm#pace. 7 The in-depth counties were chosen to maximize variation in program design and to represent a variety of local settings (urban vs. rural; northern vs. southern). " Population Research Systems (PRS), a member of Freeman, Sullivan & Co., conducted the participant survey. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted the cost analysis and worked with PACE on the Q18. 9 These types of targeting decisions had to be made due to limited funding; given unlimited resources, it is likely that all programs would have found ways to provide incentives to all ECE staff members. lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ll Ill ll - (1.1370051. '0 Most programs based stipend levels on the Child Development Permit (CDP) Matrix, though participants were not required to have a permit. Refer to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) website at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentialinfo/topics/ chi1d_dev.html for a description of the qualifications at each level. ‘1 This number is based on reports submitted to First 5 California and includes all ECE staff who received stipends in Year One. Demo- graphic information available at http:// www.caccwrc.org/research/current.htm#pace is based on data from the 4,996 participants who agreed to participate in the PACE study. ‘1 The number of children served was provided in response to “How many different children are in your classroom (home) in a typical week?” ‘3 Special needs was defined as, “children who have an IEP, an Individual Education Plan; an IFSP, an Individualized Family Service Plan; or children whose behavior, development, or health affect their family’s ability to receive child care services.” ‘4 Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then and Now: Changes in child care staffing 1994—2000 [On-line]. Available: http://www.ccw.org/pubs/ Then&Nowfull.pdf ‘5 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 Commu— nity Systems for Young Children, UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. ”‘ Burchinal, M.R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers, Applied Developmental Science, 6, 2—11. ‘7 Howes, C. & Brown, J. (2000). Improving child care quality: A guide for the Proposition 10 commissions, in E. Shulman, M. Shannon, and M. Hochstein, eds., Building Commu— nity Systemsfor Young Children, UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. PROGRAM EVALUATION PROGRESS REPORT PACE POLICY BRIEF University of California Graduate School of Education 5653 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720—1670 Stanford University Graduate School of Education Stanford, CA 94305 RELATED PACE PUBLICATIONS—EARLY EDUCATION Elizabeth Burr and Bridget O’Brien. Training and Retaining Early Care and Education Staff. Training Projects: Evaluation. Policy Brief 03—3, February 2003. Margaret Bridges and Jennifer Carlat. Training and Retaining Early Care and Education Stafi‘. Bay Area Child-Care Retention Incentive Programs: Evaluation. Policy Brief 03—2, February 2003. Susanna Loeb, Bruce Fuller, and Diane Hirshberg. Estimating Unmet Need for Child Care and Preschool: Alternative Definitions and Analytic Tools. November 2002. New Livesfor Poor Families? Mothers and Children Move Through Welfare Reform. 2002. From the Growing Up in Poverty Project. $25. Bruce Fuller, Yueh—Wen Chang, Sawako Suzuki, and Sharon Lynn Kagan. Child—Care Aid and Quality for California Families: Special Focus on San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. Working Paper Series 01—2, Spring 2001. From the Growing Up in Poverty Project. $10. Judith Carroll. How to Payfor Child Care? Local Innovations Help Working Families. Policy Brief 01—1, Spring 2001. From the Growing Up in Poverty Project. Available on our website, or may be ordered for $10. James F. Mensing, Desiree French, Bruce Fuller, and Sharon Lynn Kagan. Child Care Selection Under Welfare Reform: How Mothers Balance Work Requirements and Parenting. August 2000. Available on our website. Remember the Children: Mothers Balance Work and Child Care Under Welfare Reform. 2000. From the Grmving 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.berkeley.edu.