Child Care Workers:

High Demand, Low Wages

By MARCY WHITEBOOK

ABSTRACT: This article provides an overview of child care employ-

ment, identifying its key characteristics and issues impeding the de-
velopment of a skilled and stable workforce to meet the need for qual-
ity early care and education services. Characteristics of child care
jobs are summarized, including information about poverty-level
earnings, poor benefits, unequal opportunity, and high turnover.
Market pressures that depress wages in this sector are explored with
particular attention to the impact of welfare reform. Also reviewed
are institutional barriers to improving child care jobs, such as insuffi-
cient funding, lack of organizational representation, a stark resis-
tance to national program standards, and unsupportive reimburse-
ment and funding policies. The article concludes with highlights of
current initiatives to improve child care jobs, including the North
Carolina scholarship program, the U.S. Army Child Development
Services’ Caregiver Personnel Pay Plan, Head Start quality improve-
ment efforts, mentoring and apprentice programs, grant programs,
and union and community organizing.

Marcy Whitebook is executive director of the Center for the Child Care Workforce
(previously the National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force and the Child Care
Employee Project). She was the project director for the National Child Care Staffing
Study (1988, 1992, 1998), NAEYC Accreditation as a Strategy for Improving Child
Care Quality (1997), and Salary Improvements in Head Start: Lessons for the Early
Care and Education Field (1996). She coauthored Taking on Turnover: An Action
Guide for Child Care Center Teachers and Directors and The Early Childhood Men-
toring Curriculum (1998).

146

care employment is rid-
C HILD
dled with contradictions. Con-
sider that a severe shortage of quali-
fied staff coexists with exceedingly
low wages, and that ideal candidates
for jobs have completed postsecon-
dary education, yet most states re-
quire no preservice training for em-
ployment in child care. As reflected
in the comments of former California
governor Pete Wilson (1998), who re-
cently vetoed legislation aimed at ad-
dressing a severe staffing crisis by
providing wage supplements to child
care teachers and providers with pro-
fessional training, the notion that
the market will resolve these prob-
lems persists:
While recognizing the important role
child care providers play in caring for our
children, I do not believe it is appropriate
for the State of California to provide
wages subsidies or otherwise interfere in
the private child care market. This bill
would introduce state regulation of
wages into a field that is currently con-
trolled by the market and allow direct
wage supplements to private sector em-
ployees. This may constitute a gift of pub-
lic funds.
Yet the current child care market
does not support the cornerstone of
child care that promotes healthy de-
velopment and reliable services: the
presence of sensitive, consistent,
well-trained, and well-compensated
caregivers.l Children who attend
higher-quality child care programs
with lower staff turnover have been
found to be more competent in their
language and social development
(Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips
1990). But, due to a general disre-
gard for the needs of the child care
147
workforce-not only by government
officials and policymakers but by
most advocacy organizations as
well-job conditions in this female-
dominated occupation remain woe-
fully inadequate (Bellm et al. 1997).
CURRENT STATUS OF
CHILD CARE WORKERS
Child care workers’ low status is
reflected in poverty-level earnings,
poor benefits, unequal opportunity,
and high turnover.
Poverty-level earnings
The average center-based child
care teacher nationwide earns
roughly $6.70 an hour, despite
above-average levels of education
(see Figure 1). Roughly one-third of
teaching staff are paid the minimum
wage (Whitebook, Howes, and Phil-
lips 1990). Figure 2 shows that even
those with experience earn on aver-
age less than $20,000 a year (White-
book, Howes, and Phillips 1998).
Family child care providers, who
care for small groups of children in
their own homes, earn even lower
wages: those who are subject to
licensing or other forms of regulation
earn between $8500 and $10,000 per
year after expenses, and nonregu-
lated providers earn only $5132 (Hel-
burn and Howes 1996; Burton et al.
1995). Providers can work very long
hours, often 50 or more hours per
week with children as well as several
hours shopping, cleaning, preparing
activities, and so on. Further, some
also make costly renovations to their
homes to make them safe and appro-
priate for group child care.
148

FIGURE 1
CHILD CARE WORKFORCE EARNINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

SOURCE: Current Data on Child Care Salaries 1998, 3. Reprinted by permission of the Center for
the Child Care Workforce.
NOTE: The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reports the median wage
for 764 occupations, as surveyed by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program. (A &dquo;me-
dian wage&dquo; indicates that 50 percent of workers in an occupation earn wages below this figure, and 50
percent earn wages above it.) The median wage for family child care providers is surveyed through
the bureau’s Office of Current Employment Analysis. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects child
care workforce data through numerous surveys and uses such occupational titles for child care centerr

employees as aides, child care assistants, day care assistants, teacher assistants, child care atten-
dants, day care attendants, and early childhood teacher assistants. The OES definitions and data are
used [for this figure] instead of [those from] other surveys because those other titles are not mutually
exclusive and are not used consistently across states.) According to the most recent OES survey,
based on data from 1996, only 15 occupations report having lower median wages than [those of] child
care workers. Those who earn higher wages than child care workers include service station atten-
dants, messengers, and food servers. These data are based on the OES occupation title definitions,
which include the categories of managerial, professional, sales, clerical, service, agricultural, and
production employment. Unfortunately, the OES categories create a misleading division of the child
care workforce into preschool teachers and child care workers. A preschool teacher is defined as a

person who instructs children (normally up to 5 years of age), in a preschool program, day care cen-
ter, or other child development facility, in activities designed to promote social, physical, and intellec-
tual growth in preparation for elementary school. A child care worker is defined as a person who per-
forms such duties as dressing, feeding, bathing, and overseeing play. Employees of before- and
after-school child care programs may be included in the child care worker category, or in othercatego-
ries such as teachers’ aides, which also include K-12 classroom assistants and aides. Only 4.8
percent of the professional occupations, among which preschool teachers are classified, earn an
average wage of less than $10.00 per hour, and nearly 70 percent of professional workers earn
(Note continued)
 149

more than $15.75 per hour. Child care workers are classified as service workers, the lowest-paid divi-
sion, in which 55 percent of workers earn less than $8.50 per hour, placing them at the low end of the
wage range for all occupations surveyed by the OES. The median weekly wage for family child care
providers is $118.00, based on the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of usual weekly
earnings of full-time wage and salaried workers. The CPS considers &dquo;full time&dquo; to be at least 35 hours
per week. The figure of $3.37 per hour reflects a 35-hour week; most family child care providers, how-
ever, work 50 hours or more per week. The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects child care workforce
data through numerous surveys and uses such as occupational titles for child care center employees
as aides, child care assistants, day care assistants, teacher assistants, child care attendants, day
care attendants, and early childhood teacher assistants. The OES definitions and data are used [for
this figure] instead of [those from] other surveys because those other titles are not mutually exclusive
and are not used consistently across states.

FIGURE 2
AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS OF CHILD CARE TEACHING STAFF, 1997

SOURCE: Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips 1998, 14. For the poverty-level figure, U.S. Bureau of
the Census. Reprinted by permission of the Center for the Child Care Workforce.
NOTE: Full-time annual earnings based on 35 hours per week, 50 weeks per year-the average
work week of teaching staff in the original sample. In the original sample, 34 percent of all teaching
staff had completed some college education and 22 percent had completed a B.A. or more. We do not
have comparable data for 1997 and thus cannot determine the extent to which the educational back-
ground of providers has changed in the last decade.
150
Poor benefits
Despite workers’ high exposure to
illness and physical strain on the job,
less than one-third of child care cen-
ters provide fully paid health insur-
ance. Many more centers provide
partial coverage; however, anecdotal
reports suggest that teaching staff
frequently do not utilize partially
paid health benefits due to their
inability to afford the premium, a High
phenomenon that is common across
industries (Ginsburg, Gabel, and
Hunt 1998). Even fewer centers offer
a pension plan (Whitebook and Bur-
ton 1996). In seeking access to health
insurance and other benefits, family
child care providers not covered by a
spouse fare even worse. Many
center-based child care staff are
expected to work without breaks,
and often for extra hours without
pay. Less than 4 percent of them
have a union contract (Whitebook,
Howes, and Phillips 1990).
Unequal opportunity
Child care is a relatively easy field
of employment for anyone to enter.
But because of unequal access to
training, education, and other ave-
nues of career advancement, poor
and minority women tend to remain
disproportionately at the entry-level,
lowest-paid child care jobs (Center
for the Child Care Workforce 1995a,
1995b, 1995c; National Black Child
Development Institute 1993). There
are some exceptions. The San Fran-
cisco Unified School District, for
example, pays the highest wages in
the city, and two-thirds of the staff
are people of color (Child Care Law
Center 1995). Among home-based
providers, there is a higher concen-
tration of women of color among rela-
tives and unregulated caregivers
than among those who are regulated.
For example, a recent study found
that 71 percent of regulated provid-
ers were Caucasian, in contrast to 59
percent of nonregulated and 28
percent of relative caregivers
(Kontos et al. 1995).
turnover
More than one-third of the
nation’s child care workforce leave
their jobs each year-most often in
order to earn a better living else-
where. At such a rate of turnover, the
shortage of trained and qualified
workers has created a national staff
ing crisis. Those who do remain on
the job share the extra burden of con-
stantly training new coworkers.
Many teachers and directors report
working with less trained coworkers
and worry that the quality of services
that children and parents receive is
continuing to decline dangerously
(Whitebook and Bellm 1998). See
Figure 3 for a comparison of turnover
in child care and other industries.
MARKET PRESSURES
THAT DEPRESS WAGES
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
Despite a major public investment
in the U.S. child care system during
the last decade, job conditions in the
profession remain substandard,
leading to problems of inconsistent
care, understaffing, and the strong
potential for unsafe conditions for
children. Wages in center-based care
have stagnated at near poverty level,
according to a nine-year follow-up of

FIGURE 3
TURNOVER IN CHILD CARE AND OTHER OCCUPATIONS
SOURCE: Whitebook and Bellm 1998, 32.
Care Workforce.
the National Child Care Staffing
Study, which originally examined
the quality of care in 225 centers in
five cities (Atlanta, Boston, Detroit,
Phoenix, and Seattle) (see Table 1
and Figure 2). Public funds have had
little if any effect in stabilizing the
child care workforce. More child care
centers receive public dollars now
than in the past, allowing more of
them to assist low-income families
with child care costs, but programs
paying the lowest wages are experi-
encing the greatest increase in public
subsidies (Whitebook, Howes, and
Phillips 1998).
151
Reprinted by permission of the Center for the Child
The current pressures on the child
care workforce are formidable-as
are the pressures on parents, who
cannot shoulder alone the heavy bur-
den of child care costs. A serious
teacher shortage in many elemen-
tary school districts,’ as well as a
healthy U.S. economy overall, are
creating new incentives for the best-
trained, most experienced child care
workers to leave the field for better-
paying careers. At the same time, as
welfare reform rapidly increases the
demand for child care services
nationwide, over half of the states
are encouraging former welfare
152

TABLE 1
TRENDS IN HOURLY WAGES FOR CENTER-BASED CHILD CARE STAFF

SOURCE: Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips 1998, 12. Reprinted by permission of the Center for
the Child Care Workforce.
NOTE: All wages and the 1988-97 trends are in 1997 dollars. Each category reflects average
wages for the position.

recipients to become child care pro-
viders themselves-often without
the necessary training or support
that leads to quality care or decent
child care jobs (Center for the Child
Care Workforce 1998b). As currently
designed, the majority of these pro-
grams place limited emphasis on
skill training and education and are
on one hand, there may be a major
new influx of untrained, entry-level
workers, and on the other, a serious
teacher shortage in many elemen-
tary school districts is creating new
incentives for the best-trained, most
experienced child care workers to
leave the field for better-paying
careers.

thus unlikely to prepare participants The pressure on low-wage

for the limited number of better-
paying child care jobs, which require
college course work and degrees
(Bloom 1997). In most cases, child
care work is a highly unlikely avenue
to economic independence for poor
women coming off public assistance.
For more experienced and trained
teachers and providers, such an
influx of untrained, entry-level work-
ers is likely to drive wages down and
reduce opportunities for advance-
ment even further (Weisbrot 1997).
The nation appears to be on the brink
of a dramatic shift in the overall com-
position of the child care workforce;
female-dominated occupations such
as child care to absorb an influx of
former welfare recipients is also
coming at a time when the
low-wage labor market supply is al-
ready high. Adding this influx to
such a supply will depress wages.
The Washington-based Economic
Policy Institute has recently esti-
mated that
to absorb almost one million new work-
ers, the wages of low-wage workers (de-
fined as the bottom 30 percent of work-
ers-about 31 million men and women
who earn less than $7.19 per hour) will
have to fall by 11.9 percent nationwide.

Wages for low-wage workers in states
with relatively large welfare populations
will have to fall by even more: in Califor-
nia, by 17.8 percent; in New York, by 17.1
percent. (Mishel and Schmitt 1996)
The staffing crisis reported anec-
dotally by directors, and currently
under investigation by the Center for
the Child Care Workforce, suggests a
dire situation marked by little im-
provement. Action to improve child
care compensation will never be
more urgently needed than in the
coming period.
To date, the limited investments
in child care employment have most
often been motivated by a desire to
improve the quality of services for
children and only secondarily to pro-
vide better opportunities for
advancement for low-income teach-
ers and providers (Bellm et al. 1997).
In reality, these two goals should be
closely linked, since high turnover
and low compensation among care-
givers have been shown to have
direct and harmful effects on the
quality of care that children receive
and on children’s ability to socialize
and learn. Research has also shown
that poor children are more vulner-
able than others to low-quality child
care, and that they benefit more than
others from better-quality care (Hel-
burn 1995; Whitebook, Howes, and
Phillips 1990, 1993).
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO
IMPROVING CHILD CARE JOBS
It should perhaps go without say-
ing that the entire U.S. child care
system will need to be infused with
major new sources of funding, both
153
public and private, in order to truly
meet the demand for quality services
and decent worker wages. At present,
the system is based heavily on parent
tuition, and since many parents have
a sharply limited ability to pay more,
fees and wages are kept depressed at
levels that are incommensurate with
the actual cost of providing high-
(Willer 1990). Among
quality care
broader social barriers, the persis-
tence of a low U.S. minimum wage
also clearly keeps child care wages
depressed. With an estimated one-
third of caregivers working as mini-
mum wage earners, the recent
increase in the minimum wage to
$5.25 has resulted in an immediate,
badly needed boost for the profession
as a whole. Even this increase, how-
ever, is not likely to hold much
ground against the cost of living over
recent decades; it has been estimated
that to match the buying power of the
$2.00 minimum wage of the mid-
1970s, the minimum would have to
be well over $6.00 per hour now. In
addition, the lack of a guaranteed
national health care insurance sys-
tem continues to keep health benefits
out of reach for many child care
workers.
Fundamentally, the direct-
service, caregiving child care work-
force remains unorganized. It lacks a
national association or union that
can amplify the voice of teachers and
providers in the political arena,
mobilize their activism, defend their
interests, and devote itself to meet-
ing their economic and professional
needs. The largest professional asso-
ciation, the National Association for
the Education of Young Children,
composed of university professors,
154

advocates, trainers, employees, and better-paying child care jobs are

teachers, does not and cannot play much harder to find, since the mar-
this role given its diverse member- ket tends to favor unregulated care.
ship. Equally critical, child care The inevitable result is wide vari-
teachers and providers are almost ability between the states-and
completely excluded from positions there are rising pressures to chip
of leadership and influence in their away at the relatively minimal stan-
chosen field. Most child care organi- dards on adult-child ratios, group
zations do not address the economic size, and training that do exist. As
concerns of teachers and providers or states increasingly promote unregu-
do so only nominally as one of many lated forms of child care under wel-
issues. Indeed, many have tradition- fare reform, the importance of sound
ally viewed an active call for better training and education for teachers
wages as unprofessional or inappro- and providers is becoming more
priately political behavior. undervalued than ever.
Unlike other fields, such as medi- The failure of wages to rise can be
cine, law, and even K-12 education, traced to the virtually free entry into
child care spokespersons are gener- child care employment. Child care is
ally not practitioners who spend not only a female-dominated occupa-
their days in direct service. When tion ; it is derived from the gender
service providers are invited to take division of labor that has existed
part in advocacy efforts, they are throughout history. Any woman
generally program directors rather thinks she can do the work, and this
than classroom staff, who cannot attitude is generally shared by the
lobby effectively for teachers and public at large, including some con-
providers. In addition, compared sumers of child care services as well
with the early childhood workforce as many employers and policymak-
as a whole, the leadership is also dis- ers. Thus, when demand for child

proportionately Caucasian and male care increases, the supply of workers

(National Black Child Development can come from the large pool of
Institute 1993; Whitebook 1997). It is untrained and inexperienced women
unlikely that the field will place looking for jobs. The situation is rein-
workforce concerns high on its forced by a regulatory system that
agenda until a significant number of does not require individuals caring
teachers and providers have their for young children to be licensed.
own organizations and have reached Although there is a great deal of
positions of leadership in other emphasis within the child care field
organizations so that they can repre- on professionalism, the reality
sent themselves. remains that a rigorous course of
A historical resistance to consis- training to learn a specific body of
tent national program standards or knowledge, a hallmark of profession-
regulations also remains a severe alism and a key to high-quality ser-
barrier in the entire child care field. vices, is not required of those
In states where licensing require- employed in this field. Furthermore,
ments are minimal or absent, although skilled caregivers have

expert knowledge, this information
is not their exclusive domain. Indeed,
most child careteachers and provid-
ers are eager to share their expertise
with their clients, that is, the parents
who consume their services.
Commitment to child care quality
varies greatly across states, often
depending on the department of gov-
ernment that administers subsidized
child care services. This commitment
can be especially undependable if it
is tied too closely to certain elected
officials’ presence in office. Further,
state and federal payment guidelines
for subsidized child care often act as
a barrier to program quality and
decent compensation-with reim-
bursement rates set at a percentage
of the market rate, for example, or
parent fees set at a percentage of the
cost of care, rather than based on
parents’ ability to pay. A heavy or
exclusive reliance on voucher pay-
ment systems, in particular, can eas-
ily prevent child care centers from
being able to predict enrollments and
income, which in turn tends to keep
wages depressed.
Because increased public funding
for child care over the last several
years has rarely been targeted to
quality improvements or increased
compensation, these dollars have not
resulted in better wages or lower
staff turnover. In the National Child
Care Staffing Study follow-up, for-
profit chain centers that paid the
lowest wages experienced threefold
a period that they are in the program,
increase in revenue from public sub-
sidies over nine years, and revenue
doubled for independent for-profit
centers, the next lowest paying. By
contrast, independent nonprofit cen-
ters, which pay the highest wages,
155
experienced a percent decrease in
4
revenue from public subsidies, and
church-sponsored programs received
a modest 4 percent increase (White-
book, Howes, and Phillips 1998).
IMPROVING CHILD CARE JOBS
The nation’s challenge now is to
create model programs to improve
child care jobs without placing the
burden of the cost solely on parents.
Over the past decade, a few models
have emerged as promising ways to
address the problems of child care
quality and workforce stability.
Teacher Education and Compen-
sation Help (TEACH), an educa-
tional scholarship and compensation
initiative begun in North Carolina
and now operating in six other
states, has led to better pay and
lower turnover for center teaching
staff and home providers. In North
Carolina, participants receive schol-
arships to offset the cost of earning a
North Carolina Child Care Creden-
tial or Child Development Associate
(CDA) credential, completing course
work toward an A.A. or B.A. degree
in early childhood education, or
becoming an early childhood model/
mentor teacher. Any teacher, direc-
tor, or family child care provider in a
regulated child care setting is eligi-
ble to apply for a scholarship.
TEACH participants receive a salary
increase or bonus for each contract
so that each additional educational
attainment is rewarded with addi-
tional compensation. The funding for
TEACH comes from a variety of
sources, including the state, corpo-
rate contributions, and foundation
156

support. In 1995, 1,805 North Caro- those funds to increasing personnel

lina child care workers received a compensation. The 1998 reauthori-
TEACH scholarship. zation allocates nearly $90 million
The U.S. Army Child Develop- for salary improvements. From 1991
ment Services’ Caregiver Personnel through 1994, $470 million in salary
Pay Plan is a systemwide program increases raised average employee
for Army child care center staff and salaries by about $1500 per year.
family child care providers that links Actual staff compensation plans var-
training to increased compensation ied widely depending on local discre-
(Zellman and Johansen 1998).’ The tion in how to distribute the funds
program has resulted in a dramatic and/or develop new salary schedules.
reduction in staff turnover within Some programs rewarded training,
Army Child Development Services. tenure, a combination of both, or
Major goals are to make early child- some other valued staff characteris-
hood staff salaries competitive with tic (Whitebook and Gaidurgis 1995).
comparable professions within the In 1994, after two years of salary
military and to break the link improvements, entry-level teachers
between staff compensation and par- still earned only $14,350 per year on
ent fees. Entry-level staff receive average, and those with at least six
three salary increases over an 18- years of experience, many with col-
month period, linked to completion of lege degrees, earned an average of
specified training and demonstrated only $17,883 per year (Bellm et al.
classroom competency. Staff with 1997; Whitebook and Gaidurgis
CDA credentials or associate’s or 1995). The pending increases could
bachelor’s degrees can also increase improve wages substantially in this
their compensation by taking sector, but they may also attract
advanced training. They now receive teachers from other child care
regular cost-of-living increases com- programs.
mensurate with those received by all Mentoring programs that train
federal employees (Bellm et al. and reward experienced teachers are
1997). The Army has also begun to encouraging them to remain in the
reward family child care providers field by helping them learn to share
with a quality care subsidy in recog- their skills with others and grow in
nition of completing a CDA creden- the profession. By creating a new
tial or associate’s or bachelor’s de- step on the child care career ladder
gree. Training is free. Parent fees are that is rewarded with improved com-
set as a percentage of family income, pensation, by addressing a serious
with the Army providing the differ- shortage of on-the-job child care
ence between the cost of care and the training, and by emphasizing excel-
price charged to families. lence in daily practice, mentoring
The Head Start Expansion and programs have been instrumental in
Quality Improvement Act of 1990 stemming staff turnover and
(reauthorized in 1994), devoted 25 enhancing program quality. Men-
percent of all new funds to the toring also offers novice caregivers
improvement of services, with half of (often called prot6g6s) a practical

and supportive way to learn and to
overcome the hurdles of the critical
first years on the job (Whitebook,
Hnatiuk, and Bellm 1994). The pro-
grams described next also have made
important strides in rewarding men-
tors financially.’ They are all local or
state-level initiatives financed by
private foundations, local govern-
ment, and increasingly by federal
Child Care Development Block
Grants.
The California Early Childhood
Mentor Program has successfully
been rewarding teachers’ increased
skills and training with higher com-
pensation since it was cofounded as a
pilot program by the Center for the
Child Care Workforce and Chabot
College in Hayward in 1988. Now
operating at 68 community college
sites statewide, it is the largest pro-
gram of its type in the country.
Teachers who complete a mentor-
training course can apply to become
mentors and then earn a stipend on a
per student basis (at an average of
$1000 per year) for using their class-
room to train student teachers, help-
ing students to link child develop-
ment theory with on-the-job,
high-quality practice. Mentors also
receive an annual $500 in-service
training stipend, as well as ongoing
training and support to enhance
their own professional development
and their efforts to upgrade the qual-
ity of services in the community.
The Minnesota Child Care
Apprentice/Mentor Program com-
bines training, support services,
wage subsidies, and job placement to
help low-income women find decent-
paying child care jobs. Apprentices
work one-on-one with mentors at a providers.
157
child care center for two years,
receive a90 percent tuition reim-
bursement for 30 college credits
toward a certificate in early child-
hood education, and become quali-
fied as head teachers under Minne-
sota licensing guidelines. The college
credits articulate with two-year com-
munity college degree programs and
the four-year community psychology
degree available from Minnesota
State University. Participating cen-
ters are required to meet certain
wage goals, and apprentices have
averaged about $2000 in wage
increases over the two years.
The Milwaukee Early Childhood
Mentor Program selects qualified
caregivers in child care centers and
family child care homes who then
enroll in a two-credit seminar to pre-
pare for a new mentoring role. Men-
tors and prot6g6s are matched and
enroll in a three-credit course that
structures and enhances their one-
on-one work. Once center-based
mentors and prot6g6s have com-
pleted the program, their directors
are required to increase their wages,
and family child care providers are
encouraged to raise their rates. The
Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development now funds the pro-
gram, which has been expanded to
five counties, with priority for par-
ticipation going to welfare recipients
in work experience or community
service programs. Retention grants
and salary supplements, also piloted
in Wisconsin and in selected counties
of New York and North Carolina,
focus on rewarding and retaining
already trained teachers and
158

The Wisconsin Quality Improve- private child care programs by pro-

ment Grants Program helps centers viding differential reimbursement
and family child care providers boost rates and Quality Improvement
the quality of care through staff Rewards to assist them in achieving
training and retention strategies. accreditation, improving staff reten-
The initiative supports child care tion, and making progress toward
programs that seek to improve qual- meeting state-recommended com-
ity by undergoing accreditation, pro- pensation guidelines (Burton and
moting teacher training, and raising Whitebook 1998).
compensation. Programs must cer- Modest, new efforts at organiza-
tify to the state that they have a plan tion are under way and have stimu-
to improve compensation and reduce lated many of the efforts previously
turnover. Between 1992 and 1996, described. Since 1991, the Worthy
340 centers and 133 family child care Wage Campaign, coordinated
providers participated in the pro- nationally by the Center for the
gram ; of these, 31 percent of the cen- Child Care Workforce, has raised
ters and 43 percent of the family awareness of the dilemmas facing
child care providers have become the workforce through public educa-
accredited. Once programs meet a tion. At the local community level,
certain level of quality, as measured the Worthy Wage Campaign serves
by accreditation, they can reapply as a fledgling organizational home
indefinitely to receive staff retention for child care teachers and providers.
grants to augment salaries. The Center for the Child Care Work-
Legislation introduced in Califor- force also conducts research and
nia (and to be reintroduced in 1999) engages in public policy efforts at the
would create Compensation and Rec- federal, state, and local levels to
ognition Enhances Stability improve child care jobs. A member-
(CARES). It comprises two compo- ship organization committed to
nents : the Child Development Corps building the voice of teachers and
and Resources for Retention. The providers through leadership train-
Child Development Corps would ing, the capacity of the Center for the
include family child care providers Child Care Workforce to represent
and center-based staff who meet cer- child care workers continues to grow,
tain education and training qualifi- but the organization has limited
cations, commit to continuing their resources. Model work standards

professional development for at least and compensation guidelines devel-

21 hours per year, and agree to pro-
vide child care services for a specified
period of time. Members of the corps
would receive monetary rewards
ranging from $500 to $6500 per year,
depending on their education, back-
ground, and bilingual skills.
Resources for Retention would pro-
vide additional support to public and
oped by the center are helping to gal-
vanize and focus local community
efforts (Burton and Whitebook 1998;
Center for the Child Care Workforce
1998a).
Union-organizing drives in Seat-
tle and Philadelphia reflect creative
approaches to the challenges of orga-
nizing in high-turnover, small-shop

occupations. Although nascent,
these drives are attempting to create
an industrywide contract and an
employer association to facilitate or-
ganizing and to minimize adversar-
ial tensions between employers and
workers in settings with limited
resources. Both drives recognize the
need for a third-party payer to truly
address the quality of child care
employment and are involved in leg-
islation initiatives to get more
resources targeted to child care
jobs.
CONCLUSION
The American child care system
suffers basic structural failure, in
which caregivers’ wages are almost
always based directly on what par-
ents pay for these labor-intensive
services. The result is high consumer
costs combined with poverty-level
earnings for a workforce that is 98
percent female and one-third women
of color. In effect, our nation has
adopted a child care policy that relies
on an unacknowledged subsidy: the
contribution that child care workers
make by being paid much less than
the value of their skilled and vital
work. Particularly in low-income
communities, where child care is
major service need and majora
employment option for women, the
dilemmas of low compensation and
inconsistent child care quality are
two of the major factors that make
the cycle of poverty so persistent.
Notes
1. In this article, I focus primarily on care-
givers working within a publicly regulated
system, and I use the terms "child care jobs"
and "child care workforce" as broadly as possi-
159
ble. This diverse workforce includes center-
based teachers and assistants in public and
private, nonprofit and for-profit, full-day and
part-day programs; family child care provid-
ers, both licensed and unlicensed, who care for
groups of children in their own homes; Head
Start program employees; teachers and assis-
tants in school-based prekindergarten pro-
grams ; staff of before- and after-school care
programs serving school-age children; and a
wide range of unregulated caregivers, typi-
cally working in private homes.
2. In California, for example, recent class-
size reduction in the early primary grades has
greatly increased opportunities for well-
trained child care teachers and family child
care providers to obtain better-paying elemen-
tary teacher jobs. In the fall of 1998, Congress
passed a similar size-reduction policy nation-
wide.
3. Each branch of the military has its own
system.
4. See also Stahr-Breunig and Bellm, 1996
for an in-depth survey of 19 mentoring pro-
grams across the United States.
References
Bellm, Dan, Alice Burton, Renu Shukla,
and Marcy Whitebook. 1997. Making
Work Pay in the Child Care Industry.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
Bloom, Dan. 1997. After AFDC Welfare-
to-Work Choices and Challenges for
States. New York and San Francisco:
a Manpower Demonstration Research.
Burton, Alice and Marcy Whitebook.
1998. Child Care Staff Compensation
Guidelines for California, 1998.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
Burton, Alice, Marcy Whitebook, Laura
Sakai, Mary Babula, and Peggy
Haack. 1995. Valuable Work, Minimal
Rewards: A Report on the Wisconsin
Child Care Workforce. Washington,
DC: Center for the Child Care Work-
force ; Madison: Wisconsin Early
Childhood Association.
160
Center for the Child Care Workforce.
1995a. A Profile of the Alameda
County, California Child Care Center
Workforce. Washington, DC: Center
for the Child Care Workforce.
—. 1995b. A Profile of the Alexan-
dria, Virginia Child Care Workforce.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
—. 1995c. A Profile of the Child Care
Workforce in Los Angeles County,
California. Washington, DC: Center
for the Child Care Workforce.
—. 1998a. Creating Better Child
Care Jobs: Model Work Standards for
Teaching Staff in Center-Based Child
Care. Washington, DC: Center for the
Child Care Workforce.
—. 1998b. State Initiative to Train
TANF Recipients for Child Care Em-
ployment. Washington, DC: Center for
the Child Care Workforce.
Child Care Law Center. 1995. Seeds of
Opportunity: Final Report on the San
Francisco Unified School District
Child Development Program. San
Francisco: Child Care Law Center.
Current Data on Child Care Salaries and
Benefits in the United States. 1998.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
Ginsburg, Paul B., Jan R. Gabel, and
Kelly A. Hunt. 1998. Tracking Small-
Firm Coverage, 1989-1996. Health Af-
fairs 17(1):167-71.
Helburn, Suzanne W., ed. 1995. Cost,
Quality and Child Outcomes in Child
Care Centers: Technical Report. Den-
ver : University of Colorado, Depart-
ment of Economics, Center for Re-
search in Economic and Social Policy.
Helburn, Suzanne W. and Carollee
Howes. 1996. Child Care Cost and
Quality. The Future of Children
6(2):62-82.
Kontos, Susan, Carollee Howes, Mary-
beth Shinn, and Ellen Galinsky. 1995.
Quality in Family Child Care and
Relative Care. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Mishel, Laurence and John Schmitt.
1996. Cutting Wages by Cutting Wel-
fare : The Impact of Reform on Low-
Wage Labor Market. Economic Policy
Institute, Washington, DC. Briefing
paper.
National Black Child Development Insti-
tute. 1993. Paths to African American
Leadership Positions in Early Child-
hood Education: Constraints and Op-
portunities. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Black Child Development
Institute.
Stahr-Breunig, Gretchen and Dan Bellm.
1996. Early Childhood Mentoring Pro-
grams : A Survey of Community Initia-
tives. Washington, DC: Center for the
Child Care Workforce.
Weisbrot, Mark. 1997. Welfare Reform:
The Jobs Aren’t There. Washington,
DC: Preamble Center for Public Policy.
Whitebook, Marcy. 1997. Who’s Missing
at the Table? Leadership Opportuni-
ties and Barriers for Teachers and
Providers. In Leadership in Early
Care and Education, ed. S. L. Kogan
and B. T. Bowman. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children.
Whitebook, Marcy and Dan Bellm. 1998.
Taking on Turnover: An Action Guide
for Child Care Center Teachers and
Directors. Washington, DC: Center for
the Child Care Workforce.
Whitebook, Marcy and Alice Burton.
1996. California Child Care and De-
velopment Compensation Study: To-
ward Promising Policy and Practice.
Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for
Research.
Whitebook, Marcy and Andrew Gaidur-
gis. 1995. Salary Improvements in
Head Start. Washington, DC: Center
for the Child Care Workforce.
Whitebook, Marcy, Patty Hnatiuk, and
Dan Bellm. 1994. Mentoring in Early
Care and Education: Refining an

Emerging Career Path. Washington,
DC: Center for the Child Care Work-
force.
Whitebook, Marcy, Carollee Howes, and
Deborah Phillips. 1990. Who Cares?
Child Care Teachers and the Quality
of Care in America: Final Report.
Washington, DC: Center for the Child
Care Workforce.
—. 1993. Four Years in the Life of
Center-Based Child Care: National
Child Care Staffing Study. Washing-
ton, DC: Center for the Child Care
Workforce.
161
—. 1998.
Worthy Work, Unlivable
Wages: The National Child Care Staff-
ing Study, 1998. Washington, DC:
Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Willer, Barbara, ed. 1990. Reaching the
Full Cost of Quality in Early Child-
hood Programs. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Wilson, Pete. 1998. Veto Message to the
Legislature, Sacramento, CA, 24 Sept.
Zellman, G. and A. Johansen. 1998. Ex-
amining the Implementation and Out-
comes of the Military Child Care Act of
1989. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.