Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 107
Appendix B Commissioned Papers SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA ON THE ECCE WORKFORCE Michelle L. Maroto and Richard N. Brandon Prepared for the IOM Committee on the ECCE Workforce INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (IOM) con- vened a Committee on the Early Childhood Care and Education Work- force, which is charged with holding a workshop to provide a clear defi - nition of who is included in that workforce and to explore major issues regarding how to support the workforce and improve the quality of services it provides. A first step in that effort is to summarize the number and characteristics of the early childhood care and education (ECCE) workforce. This paper summarizes the currently available information about the number and characteristics of the ECCE workforce in the United States drawing mostly on published studies, tabulations from federal databases, and survey data compiled from multiple studies. Some previ - ously unpublished data from several federal data sources provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics have been included. The first challenge in this task comes from the lack of a uniformly accepted definition of the ECCE workforce, with many studies including 107
OCR for page 108
108 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE workers who are not within the relevant standard federal occupational definitions and excluding others who are paid for similar work. This paper takes the approach first developed by Brandon and Whitebook for estimating the number of ECCE workers,1 which treats any individual who is paid for the care and education of children age birth through five and not in kindergarten as a member of the ECCE workforce. The defini- tion of ECCE workforce used is derived from focusing on the function of being paid to provide care or instruction for young children, regardless of the setting or program in which it occurs. This definition is consistent with the federal concept of what constitutes an occupation, which is inde- pendent of the location in which the occupation is carried out. It is common to divide ECCE into three broad categories reflecting the type of setting in which care and instruction occur: center-based (including community-based centers, preschools, and Head Start programs); formal home-based or Family Child Care (FCC), in which “formal” refers to being available in the open market and often licensed or registered; and informal home-based or Family, Friend, and Neighbor (FFN) care, where there is a relationship between the child and caregiver and access is not broadly available in the community. However, there are not clear demar- cations among these types of settings. Family Child Care homes are often expanded to include many children and several staff, and are not dis - tinguishable from small centers; some FFN caregivers function as small businesses not clearly separable from FCC. In all three settings, some care or instruction is provided by unpaid individuals, who are not normally considered part of a workforce. An appropriate estimate of the size of the workforce therefore requires the ability to distinguish between paid and unpaid care and instruction. Because of the overlap and presence of unpaid caregivers, these three categories therefore serve as useful descriptors, but do not clearly define who is or is not included in the ECCE workforce. We were able to identify 50 relevant studies providing information regarding the size and characteristics of the ECCE workforce. This sum - mary presents broad findings regarding the numbers and characteristics of the ECCE workforce as suggested by these 50 studies, plus additional characteristics derived from several federal data sources provided by Dixie Sommers and Theresa Cosca at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). A description of these studies and their citations may be found at the end of this summary report. Detailed matrices summarizing the find - 1 A. Burton, R. N. Brandon, E. Maher, M. Whitebook, M. Young, D. Bellm, and C. Wayne, Estimating the Size and Components of the U.S. Child Care Workforce and Caregiving Population (Center for the Child Care Workforce [CCW] and Human Services Policy Center [HSPC], May 2002).
OCR for page 109
109 APPENDIX B ings from the national and state studies will be made available on the IOM project website. Twenty-five of these studies used national samples, and the rest came from different state-level studies. Because comprehensive surveys of the ECCE workforce that use nationally representative samples are rare, we combine multiple studies in our summary to present a broad picture of workers. This picture is partial, and we acknowledge a need for more recent representative data about the ECCE workforce. In this summary, we relied on recent studies that provided the best descriptive information about workers. Generally, state-level studies pro - vided the most detailed information, but we refrain from including them in this summary paper because they are not necessarily representative of the U.S. population. Two reviews of state workforce studies found wide variation in the robustness of methodology employed2 and in the reported levels of such essential characteristics as educational attainment. 3 Much of this summary is based on new, unpublished tabulations of federal workforce data reflecting federal occupation and industry codes used by the BLS and the Census Bureau. We requested these data because the most recent nationally representative surveys of the ECCE workforce were conducted between 10 to 20 years ago. We also include characteristics of subsets of the ECCE workforce from more recent, but limited, studies when items of interest are not available from nationally representative sources. Most of the federal databases and studies on the ECCE workforce were lacking in different ways, which complicates the summary. What we present is therefore somewhat of a “pastiche,” combining the best available data from numerous sources to address key questions. We have excluded any data that we consider unreliable or unrepresentative. Michelle Maroto of the University of Washington identified 50 rele- vant studies, which we have divided into seven categories reflecting their relative strength for describing the characteristics of the ECCE workforce on a national scale. In order to address study limitations, but still present characteristics of the ECCE workforce, we ranked each study based upon the representativeness of its sample and the types of workers and set - tings it covered. The sampling structure of studies ranged from nationally 2 G. Stahr-Breunig, R. N. Brandon, and E. J. Maher, “Counting the Child Care Workforce: A Catalog of State Data Sources to Quantify and Describe Child Caregivers in the Fifty States and the District of Columbia,” report to the Child Care Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 2004. 3 R. N. Brandon and I. Martinez-Beck, “Estimating the Size and Characteristics of the U.S. Early Care and Education Workforce,” in Critical Issues in Early Childhood Professional Development and Training, ed. M. Zaslow and I. Martinez-Beck (Brooks Publishing Company, 2005).
OCR for page 110
110 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE representative samples to multistate samples to state-level representative samples. The different settings of interest include center- and home-based care. In addition, studies used different language to refer to child care workers. Some studies divided child care workers into teachers, assistant teachers, and aids. Others only had divisions for center workers and FCC workers. Still others took a limited focus and only surveyed preschool teachers. The studies summarized at the end of this report are categorized below; the number of studies in each category is shown in parenthesis: I. Nationally representative; cover all children age B–5 (birth–age 5) and distinguish B–5 from school age; include most settings (2) 1. Profile of Child Care Settings (PCCS), 1990 2. National Households Education Survey (NHES); Human Ser- vices Policy Center (HSPC)/Center for the Child Care Work- force (CCW) Child Care Workforce Estimates Study, 2005 II. Nationally representative; include most settings; cover all B–5 but do not distinguish from school-age (7) 1. Current Population Survey (CPS), 2004 2. CPS; Occupation, 2010 3. CPS; Industry, 2010 4. American Community Survey (ACS); Occupation, 2009 5. ACS; Industry, 2009 6. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2009 7. American Time Use Survey (ATUS); HSPC Estimating the Eco- nomic Value of Early Care and Education, 2005–2007 III. Nationally representative; cover a portion of B–5 workforce or settings; e.g., prekindergarten, Head Start (7) 1. Head Start Impact Study (HSIS), 2002–2006 2. Head Start: The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), 2006–2007 3. Head Start: FACES, 2001 4. Head Start: FACES, 2000 5. Head Start: FACES, 1997 6. National Prekindergarten Study (NPS), 2003–2004 7. National Center for Early Development and Learning Survey (NCEDL-S), 1997
OCR for page 111
111 APPENDIX B IV. Multistate; cover all of B–5 workforce by child age and setting (4) 1. National Child Care Staffing Study (NCCSS), 1988 2. Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (CQCO), 1993 3. National Day Care Study (NDCS), 1976–1977 4. National Day Care Home Study (NDCHS), 1980 V. Multistate; cover portion of B–5 workforce and settings; e.g., prekin - dergarten (5) 1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), 15 Months 2. NICHD SECCYD, 24 Months 3. NICHD SECCYD, 36 Months 4. Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten (MSSPK), 2001 5. Statewide Early Education Programs Survey (SWEEP), 2001–2003 VI. Single state; cover all B–5 workforce (21) VII. Single state; cover portion of B–5 workforce and settings; e.g., pre- kindergarten (4) The first ranking tier includes studies that are: (1) nationally repre- sentative, (2) cover all child care workers for children birth through age 5, and (3) include most study settings. Within Tier I, the 1990 PCCS was the only study that was drawn from a nationally representative sample, covered child care workers for children birth through 5 years of age, and distinguished them from caregivers of school-aged children. It did not include the large FFN component of the workforce. However, this study was conducted in 1990, which makes it 20 years old and decreases its relevance for workers today. The HSPC analysis conducted in 2011 also meets these specifications, and includes the FFN component, but it only provides estimates of the size of the workforce and does not describe char- acteristics. Thus, we use the HSPC study for estimates of the size of the ECCE workforce, but rely on other studies to describe the characteristics of the workforce. Most of the data presented in this report come from studies in the second category. This tier includes studies that are nationally representa - tive and cover all child care workers for children birth through age 5, but do not distinguish these workers from those responsible for school-aged
OCR for page 112
112 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE children. Characteristics of child care workers provided by these studies come from Census occupational and industry classifications. We draw on previously unpublished tabulated data from the 2009 and 2010 CPS and the 2009 and 2010 ACS, and data from the HSPC demand-based estimate (Brandon et al., 2011), which used the 2005–2007 ATUS; this allowed identification of Family, Friend, or Neighbor caregivers. The application of federal occupation and industry codes in the surveys on which these studies were based allows us to report some descriptive information that is nationally representative. However, these data also include caregivers for school-aged children. We have only included such data where we do not think there is a likely systematic difference between the characteristics of caregivers of young children and those of school age. The third tier consists of nationally representative studies that cover only a portion of the ECCE workforce. Thus, they yield information about some groups of child care workers and early education teachers, but not all of them. Some of the data come from the HSIS, which was conducted from 2002–2006 and the Head Start: FACES surveys from 1997 through 2001. Teachers and assistant teachers in these studies were all recruited from Head Start classrooms. This tier also includes the NPS and the NCEDL-S. Both of these studies only surveyed prekindergarten teachers and are thus restricted to children between ages 3 and 5. It should be noted that due to federal and state prekindergarten program standards, the educational level of the prekindergarten workforce reflected in these studies is higher than for the ECCE workforce in general. The fourth tier consists of multistate studies that cover all of the B–5 child care workforce. Multistate studies often attempted to approximate a nationally representative sample by surveying workers in a diverse subset of states, but none has a sufficient number of states to effectively repre- sent all regions of the United States. The 1988 NCCSS surveyed center workers in five cities (Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Phoenix, and Seattle). The 1993 CQCO surveyed staff in 400 programs across four states (Cali- fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina). The 1976–1977 NDCS was constructed from state licensing lists and thus systematically under- represents unlicensed settings and providers in states that only require licensing of a small fraction of providers. The 1980 NDCHS consists of both regulated and unregulated family day care homes in three urban areas (Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Antonio). Most of these studies are older; therefore, we do not include much information from them in this report. The fifth tier consists of multistate studies that cover only a portion of the ECCE workforce. The NICHD SECCYD at 15, 24, and 36 months surveyed caregivers for children in the NICHD study when the children were 15, 24, and 36 months old and thus excluded workers caring only
OCR for page 113
113 APPENDIX B for children above that age. The 2001 MSSPK and the 2001–2003 SWEEP were both conducted by the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL). The MSSPK is based on a stratified random sample of teachers in state-funded prekindergarten classrooms from six states (California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Ohio). The SWEEP was based on state-funded prekindergarten classrooms from five states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). The sixth and seventh tiers contain 25 single-state studies from 15 states at different time periods. We do not discuss these data in this sum- mary, but these studies are included in the detailed data matrices. The detailed matrices provide the findings from these studies in much richer detail and discuss the nature of the studies, indicating their strengths and weaknesses for this purpose (which may not have been the primary pur- pose for which the studies were conducted). The print matrices provide an overview of this information, but the digital file includes estimates for each of the individual studies. COUNTING THE ECCE WORKFORCE FOR CHILDREN AGE B–5, BY SETTING The only study that encompassed and distinguished the workforce responsible for children B–5 and included all settings (center-based, formal home-based, and informal home-based) was the HSPC demand- based estimate (Brandon et al., 2011). This study updated and refined earlier work led by Brandon and Whitebook (CCW and HSPC, 2002). This approach is labeled demand-based because the essential data are derived from one of several large scale, nationally representative surveys that ask parents how many hours in a typical week each of their children spends in each type of non-parental care setting, including both formal and FFN care; and whether the care and instruction is paid or unpaid. The National Household Education Survey, Early Childhood Supple - ment (2005) was deemed most appropriate because it contains the most comprehensive and well-differentiated set of categories for type of care. It also asks parents the child:adult ratio for the setting where their child is in care. The demand-based estimate combines hours per child in care, child:adult ratios and average hours worked by ECE staff (from BLS Current Employment Statistics) to derive the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of adults caring for young children. Because the estimates are derived from samples of individual children with such known character- istics as age, it is possible to divide the workforce by such variables as the age of child and setting. Various other adjustments are made to convert FTEs to individuals and estimate the number of directors and other staff positions associated with that number of caregivers.
OCR for page 114
114 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE FFN: Paid Non-relatives (11%) Center-based FFN: Paid Relatives (51%) (27%) Family Child Care (12%) FIGURE B-1 Demand-based estimates of the ECCE workforce. TABLE B-1 Formal ECCE Workforce by Role/Responsibility Total Center-Based Staff FCC Staff Persons in Center Assistant Typical Staff: Directors/ Teachers FCC FCC Week Total Administrators Teachers and Aides Providers Assistants 1,333,000 1,083,000 83,000 564,000 435,000 151,000 99,000 NOTE: ECCE: Early Childhood Care Education;,FCC: Family Child Care. Figure 2-2 Redrawn SOURCE: HSPC demand-based estimates. Brandon et al., 2011. These demand-based estimates are illustrated in Figure B-1. It should be noted that in addition to the 2.2 million paid ECCE workers shown here, the same estimates indicate an additional 3.2 unpaid workers, for a total caregiving population of 5.5 million. Table B-1 provides a differentiation of the formal components of the ECCE workforce by role or responsibility. The FFN component is not shown because such a differentiation is not relevant. An advantage of the demand-based approach is that it differentiates by the age of children served as well as by type of setting, as shown in Table B-2. It is useful to differentiate by age of children since different skills and orientations may be required to best meet children’s needs. Differentiation by Occupation and Industry: BLS and Census Bureau Employment Data The demand-based workforce estimates in the previous section have the advantages of covering all components of the ECCE workforce and
OCR for page 115
115 APPENDIX B TABLE B-2 Estimated Number of Paid ECCE Workers in the United States in a Typical Week by Setting and Age of Child FCC Paid Paid Non- Total Paid Center Care Providers Relatives Relatives Infants (0–18 490,000 223,000 78,000 111,000 78,000 mos.) Toddlers 654,000 309,000 92,000 166,000 87,000 (19–36 mos.) Early Head 13,000 13,000 Start Private pre- 826,000 371,000 80,000 312,000 63,000 schoolers (3–5 yrs) Public pre- 79,000 79,000 schoolers (3–5 yrs) Head Start 94,000 94,000 All 0–5 year 2,157,000 1,088,000 250,000 589,000 229,000 olds NOTE: FCC: Family Child Care. SOURCE: HSPC demand-based estimates. Brandon et al., 2011. of being restricted to caring for or instructing children age B–5. However, these estimates have many limitations. They can only be conducted at broad intervals when a demand survey is available. They also entail great uncertainty because they must link many different estimates from dif- ferent data sources. Because they do not directly interview employees or employer, they lack many essential features included in standard federal workforce data such as the sector or industry in which they are employed, the number of hours worked, wages earned, separation or turnover rate. They also lack the educational and demographic characteristics of mem - bers of different occupations collected by the Census Bureau using the same federal occupational classification. In this section, and in Tables B-3A and B-3B below, we draw on relevant federal workforce data from the BLS to complete this initial portrait. In the next major section of the paper, we summarize studies using Census data to provide additional characteristics. There are many challenges to using standard federal data from the BLS and the Census Bureau to describe the ECCE workforce, as dis- cussed in Federal Data Sources for Understanding the Early Childhood Care and Education Workforce: A Background Paper, a second commissioned work
OCR for page 116
116 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE included in this report. The primary challenge is that for the largest share of the ECCE workforce, the federal occupational categorization does not differentiate between those employed to provide care and instruction to young children (B–5) and those responsible for school-aged children. However, there are several relevant pieces of data for which there is no particular reason to assume a different distribution of characteristics related to the age of children in care. It is therefore useful to examine those data, keeping in mind this caveat. Relating ECCE Occupations and Industries A particular advantage of the federal data system is that it cross- tabulates occupations with the industries or economic sectors in which they are employed. We can thus see that ECCE does not function as an isolated bubble in the U.S. economy, but is highly interwoven with other sectors. Tables B-3A and B-3B are based on BLS employment statistics, as opposed to the demand-based estimates shown in Tables B-1 and B-2. We also compare the size of the ECCE workforce as indicated by each of these sources. Comparing BLS Employment Estimates to Demand-Based Estimates As seen in Table B-3A, BLS identified 1.8 million jobs, of which 1.3 million are classified as child care workers and 0.5 million as preschool teachers. The demand-based estimate exclusive of FFN caregivers was about 1.4 million. Because the BLS estimate of 1.8 million includes caregivers for school-aged children, it would be expected to be larger than the demand- based estimate for children under age 6. If, for example, one-third of child care workers identified by the BLS are working with school-aged children, that would reduce the 1.8 million to 1.3 million. The two estimates are therefore roughly similar for the components of the ECCE workforce that they share. However, because the BLS estimate probably does not include most of the 0.8 million paid FFN workers in the demand-based estimate, it is reasonable that the 1.8 million is lower than the 2.2 million total in the demand-based estimate. If the 0.8 million demand-based estimate of paid FFN workers is added to the 1.3 million derived from assuming one-third of child care workers care only for school-aged children, the adjusted total would be 2.1 million, roughly comparable to the demand-based estimate of 2.2 million.
OCR for page 117
117 APPENDIX B Industries Employing ECCE Workers Of the 1.8 million employees reported by the BLS, 75 percent or 1.3 million are wage and salary employees, and the remaining 431,000 are self-employed, presumably as FCC proprietors. About 247,000 of the wage and salary employees are employed in private households. This estimate could include nannies and some paid FFN caregivers. Subtracting this number from the total wage and salary employees leaves a subtotal of 631,000 individuals who are employed out of the home, plus an additional 390,000 preschool teachers. The balance between wage and salary and self-employment varies substantially between those classified as child care workers and those as preschool teachers. Almost a third of the child care workers are self- employed, compared to less than 2 percent of preschool teachers. The industries employing child care workers and preschool teachers are quite different. Of interest is that only about 66,000 or 15 percent of preschool teachers work in public or private schools. More than two- thirds—69 percent—are in social assistance establishments. Presumably Head Start teachers who are employed by community-based contractors are considered social assistance employees. Within the 631,000 child care workers whose employment is not home-based, the greatest number—253,000—work in child care services, what are commonly thought of as child care centers. But these workers comprise less than a third of such employees. Child care workers are distributed across a wider range of economic sectors than preschool teachers. About 21 percent are in social assistance; 4 percent in health care, mostly residential facilities; 19 percent are in child day care services, such as community-based centers; 3 percent are in fitness and recreation centers, and 6 percent work for “religious, grantmaking, civic, professional, and similar organizations,” which are presumably centers operated by such entities. Less than 1 percent are in transporta - tion (including school-bus drivers) and hotel or motel accommodations. Almost 50,000 are employed in “residential care facilities,” of which the largest number—17,000—are in mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse facilities. However, we cannot determine whether these workers are responsible for young children of parents residing in such facilities, for adolescent residents, or a combination of the two. This is one of the challenges of not differentiating child care workers by the age group of children served. Because such residential facilities are cat - egorized within the health sector, they would not normally be identified as related to ECCE if the occupations were not specified within the sector. This brief summary illustrates the value of the BLS system of relating occupations to industries. It allows policy makers to consider both how many employees there are and where they are employed. If large-scale
OCR for page 200
200 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY (CPS) Responsible agency Joint program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau Where to find it http://www.census.gov/cps/ Type of source Household survey Description Monthly survey of about 60,000 households. Primary source of data on the labor force characteristics of the U.S. population, as well as income and poverty status Periodicity of the data Monthly, Annual Reference period Generally the week including the 12th of the month Frequency of publication Monthly, Quarterly, Annual Scope Civilian noninstitutional population. Respondents are interviewed to obtain information about the employment status of each member of the household 15 years of age and older. However, published data focus on those ages 16 and over. Classifications used and level Standard Occupational Classification adapted of detail to Census Occupation Codes. For the 2010 SOC, provides 539 detailed occupations. The NAICS adapted to Census Industry Codes. Geographic detail National ü The sample provides labor force characteristics for the nation and serves as part of model- based estimates for individual states and other geographic areas. Region Some regional data available State Some state data available Metropolitan Area County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe)
OCR for page 201
201 APPENDIX B CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY (CPS) (continued) Data elements produced 1.a Paid workforce (employment) in occupations that relate to the desired related to ECCE information 1.c Full-time vs. part-time. Provides usual weeks worked, usual hours per week 2.c Role and responsibility, represented by occupations 3.a Demographic characteristics: age, education, gender, marital status, race/ethnicity, income, foreign born, and other items 3.b Qualifications: educational attainment, school enrollment 3.d Labor market information: usual weekly earnings by type (for wage and salary workers); health insurance coverage; hours worked; at work part-time for economic reasons; multiple job- holding Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Along with the ACS, the CPS is a comprehensive source of demographic informa- tion of workers by occupation, including data on educational attainment, gender, age, race/ethnicity, and other characteristics. 2. Along with the ACS, the CPS is a source of employment data by occupation for workers in private households. 3. The CPS is very timely. 4. Cross-tabulations can be created using the Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). However, some results may be unreliable because of small sample size. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Compared to the ACS, the CPS provides much less occupational, geographic, and other detail because of the smaller sample size. 2. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. In addition, the Census Occupational Classification does not provide full SOC detail for preschool teachers or education administrators. NOTE: BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics; ETA: Employment and Training Administration.
OCR for page 202
202 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS (EP) PROGRAM Responsible agency Bureau of Labor Statistics Where to find it http://www.bls.gov/emp/ Type of source Combines estimates from establishment and household surveys Description 10-year projections, by industry and occupation, developed primarily using data from the OES, CES, and CPS Periodicity of the data New projections produced every two years. Reference period 2008-2018 Frequency of publication Every 2 years Scope All employed workers are included in total employment as a count of jobs, all classes of worker Classifications used and level SOC 2000 6-digit detailed occupations. Excludes of detail military occupations (SOC Major Group 55) NAICS 2007 industry-specific estimates at 4-digit level, except Educational Services at 3-digit level. Selected 5-digit industry levels Geographic detail National ü Region State State and area projections produced by state agencies, not part of BLS program. See http:// www.projectionscentral.com Metropolitan Area County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe) Data elements produced 1.a Paid workforce. Long-term projections of that relate to the desired demand by occupation and industry information Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Provides long-term projections of employment and job openings for occupations and employment by industry. 2. Career information products are available based on the employment projections analysis. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. 2. Limitations of the NAICS for ECCE purposes.
OCR for page 203
203 APPENDIX B NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY (NCS) Responsible agency Bureau of Labor Statistics Where to find it http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ Type of source Establishment survey Description Provides comprehensive measures of occupational wages by detailed occupation. Employment cost trends; and benefit incidence and detailed plan provisions, by occupational grouping Periodicity of the data Continuous Reference period Varies. Data published in the 2009 national bulletin for occupational earnings were compiled from data collected between December 2008 and January 2010. The average reference period is July 2009 Frequency of publication Occupational pay and benefits incidence—Annual Employment costs—Monthly Scope Includes non-farm private, state government, and local government. Excludes federal, agricultural, and household workers, and self-employed workers Classifications used and level Occupational pay—2000 SOC, 6-digit detailed of detail occupations. Excludes military occupations (SOC major group 55) Employment cost trends; and benefit incidence and detailed plan provisions, by occupational grouping Geographic detail National ü Region ü State ü Metropolitan Area ü Selected MSAs County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe) ü Selected Micropolitan areas Data elements produced 3.d Labor market information: benefits; wages by that relate to the desired full-time/part-time, and by union status information Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Provides information on benefits by occupation, and relative wages by full-time/ part-time and union/nonunion status. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Occupational and geographic detail limited by small sample sizes. 2. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. 3. Limitations of the NAICS for ECCE purposes. 4. Excludes self-employed workers. 5. Excludes private households.
OCR for page 204
204 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS (OES) PROGRAM Responsible agency Bureau of Labor Statistics Where to find it http://www.bls.gov/oes Type of source Establishment survey Description Produces employment and wage estimates for over 800 occupations, with breakouts by industry Periodicity of the data Annual Reference period May of reference year Frequency of publication Annual Scope Wage and salary employment in all industries except private households and most agriculture industries Classifications used and level of Standard Occupational Classification, 6-digit detail detailed occupations. Excludes military occupations (SOC Major Group 23) The NAICS, industry-specific estimates for NAICS sectors, 3-digit, 4-digit, and selected 5-digit industry levels. Geographic detail National ü Region State ü Metropolitan Area ü MSA ü MSA Divisions County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe) Balance of state areas composed of non- metropolitan geography in each state
OCR for page 205
205 APPENDIX B OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS (OES) PROGRAM (continued) Data elements produced 1.a Paid workforce (employment) in detailed SOC that relate to the desired occupations related to ECCE information 2.a Distribution of paid workforce (employment) in occupations related to ECCE by industry, including especially NAICS 611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools, and 624410 Child Day Care Services 2.c Role and responsibility, represented by occupations 3.d Compensation, specifically hourly wages in occupations related to ECCE, total by geographic area, and nationally by industry 5.a Distribution of staffing by roles, represented by occupations, within industries 6.a Distribution by urban/rural location. OES data can be tabulated to urban/rural using the MSA and balance of state (non-metropolitan) area data Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Comprehensive source of employment and wage information by occupation for wage and salary workers. 2. Data available by occupation by industry, indicating variations in wages by industry as well as occupational distribution (staffing pattern) of employment in specific industries. 3. Large sample size results in data in significant occupational, industry, and geo- graphic detail. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. 2. Limitations of the NAICS for identifying ECCE establishments. 3. Excludes wage and salary workers in private households. 4. Does not provide information on worker demographics, qualifications, or preparation.
OCR for page 206
206 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION NETWORK (O*NET) Responsible agency Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor Where to find it http://www.onetonline.org/ (provides O*NET data access, provides documentation, data downloads, and other information) Type of source Establishment survey (two-stage survey to obtain sample of job incumbents within sampled establishments) Subject matter experts Description Provides comprehensive occupational descriptions and data in the form of several hundred rating scales on knowledge, skills, abilities, tasks, and other measures. The O*NET Content Model was developed using research on job and organizational analysis and includes job-oriented descriptors and worker-oriented descriptors. Periodicity of the data Updates to database added approximately annual as data from recent collections are incorporated Reference period Not applicable Frequency of publication Approximately annually Scope Wage and salary employment in all industries except private households and most agriculture industries Classifications used and level SOC, 6-digit detailed occupations with additional of detail detail for some occupations. Excludes military occupations (SOC Major Group 55) Geographic detail National ü Region State Metropolitan Area County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe)
OCR for page 207
207 APPENDIX B OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION NETWORK (O*NET) (continued) Data elements produced No specific data elements. However, O*NET that relate to the desired information can be useful in understanding the information child care workforce in terms of the characteristics in the O*NET Content Model: Worker Characteristics (Abilities, Interests, Work Styles, Work Values) Worker Requirements (Skills, Knowledge, Education) Experience Requirements (Experience and Training, Basic and Cross-functional Skills Entry Requirements, Licensing) Occupational Requirements (Generalized and Detailed Work Activities, Organizational and Work Context) Occupation-specific Information (Tasks, Tools and Technology) Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Comprehensive source of information on tasks performed, skills, abilities, and other measures. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. 2. No data collected from wage and salary workers in private households.
OCR for page 208
208 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE QUARTERLY CENSUS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES (QCEW) Responsible agency Bureau of Labor Statistics Where to find it http://www.bls.gov/cew Type of source Administrative Description Produces monthly, quarterly, and annual data on employment and wages. Quarterly and annual data on total payroll and payroll per employee. First quarter data on establishment size class Periodicity of the data Monthly, quarterly, and annual Reference period Any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month Frequency of publication Quarterly Scope The QCEW program derives its data from quarterly tax reports submitted to State Employment Security Agencies by more than 8 million employers subject to state unemployment insurance (UI) laws and from federal agencies subject to the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program. The QCEW program has data on nonagricultural industries, along with partial information on agricultural industries and employees in private households. For the first quarter of each year, data are tabulated by establishment size class. The size category of each establishment is determined by the March employment level. These size class data are available at the national level by NAICS industry, and at the state level by NAICS sector. Classifications used and level 2007 NAICS, Industry-specific estimates for of detail NAICS sectors, 3-digit, 4-digit, and 5-digit Geographic detail National ü Region ü State ü Metropolitan Area ü Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas ü Metropolitan Statistical Areas County ü City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe) Individual establishment records are geo-coded. Data elements produced 1.a Paid workforce. Monthly and annual estimates that relate to the desired for industries relevant to ECCE, including information employment, number of establishments, total payroll, and payroll per employee
OCR for page 209
209 APPENDIX B QUARTERLY CENSUS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES (QCEW) (continued) Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Provides data on employment, number of establishments, total payroll, and pay - roll per employee for ECCE industries at full NAICS and geographic detail, except where data subject to protection of confidentiality. 2. Includes wage and salary workers in private households. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Compared to CES, QCEW is much less timely. 2. Limitations of the NAICS for identifying ECCE establishments. 3. Excludes employment not subject to unemployment insurance coverage, which may affect inclusion domestic workers in private households. 4. Does not include self-employed workers. 5. Does not provide occupational data. 6. Does not provide information on worker demographics (except for gender), quali- fications, or preparation.
OCR for page 210
210 THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SOII) Responsible agency Bureau of Labor Statistics Where to find it http://www.bls.gov/iif/home.htm Type of source Establishment survey Description Provides annual information on the rate, number, and severity of work-related non-fatal injuries and illnesses, and how these statistics vary by incident, industry, geography, occupation, and other characteristics Periodicity of the data Annual Reference period Calendar year Frequency of publication Annual Scope Employers having 11 employees or more in agricultural production, all employers in all other private industries and state and local government. Excludes self-employed persons and workers in private households (NAICS 814), the U.S. Postal Service (NAICS 491), and the federal government Classifications used and level SOC 2000 6-digit detailed occupations. Does not of detail include SOC residuals or military occupations (SOC major group 55) NAICS 2007 publishable data include 3-digit Educational Services, 4-digit Child Day Care Services Geographic detail National ü Region State 44 participating states, the District of Columbia, and territories (for 2009) Metropolitan Area County City Urban/suburban/rural Other (describe) Data elements produced 3.d Labor market information: number and rate of that relate to the desired illnesses and injuries by occupation and industry information Advantages for ECCE purposes: 1. Source of injury and illness information for occupations and industries of interest to ECCE. Limitations for ECCE purposes: 1. Some states not participating, although national data include samples from all states. 2. Excludes self-employed workers. 3. Excludes private households, U.S. Postal Services, and federal workers. 4. Limitations of the SOC for identifying ECCE workforce. 5. Limitations of the NAICS for ECCE purposes.