Wage Supports in Early Care and Education: Educator Perspectives on Relief and Remaining Needs

• In Event: Innovative Intervention Approaches to Promote Holistic Well-Being, Competence, and Retention of Early Childhood Educators

Abstract

Chronic underfunding in the early childhood education (ECE) field has led to persistently low compensation for the workforce (McLean et al., 2024; Whitebook et al., 2014). Compensation is critically important, as it has a direct impact on the quality of care and education provided to young children (Cassidy et al., 2017; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015).

A range of initiatives—especially since the COVID-19 pandemic—have aimed to support educator retention and provide financial relief (McLean et al., 2020). While evidence shows these efforts can improve recruitment and retention, less is known about how the flow of funds is experienced by early educators themselves and what impact, if any, these dollars have on workforce stability and well-being.

This study evaluates two, local early educator wage supplement initiatives that were launched in California. One program (Program 1) distributed four rounds of direct payments from Fall 2021 to Summer 2024, targeting early educators working in licensed child care programs that receive public subsidies in that county. Most eligible educators received up to $7,200 over the course of time. The other program in a different county (Program 2) started providing about $1,000 per month to early educators with direct care roles in the county, starting February 2025.

We use a mixed-methods approach. In Spring 2025, we collected survey data of both stipend recipients and non-recipients from each of the Programs. The non-recipients work in programs that do not rely on subsidies, such as state preschool programs or Head Start programs. Focus groups and diary surveys are being conducted with educators, sampled from the survey pools.

This study aims to address the following research questions:

1. What have been the experiences of early educators who received the payments (e.g., economic well-being and future plans)
2. How do educators’ experiences differ between center-based educators and home-based providers?
3. How has the stipend influenced staffing and retention at the program level? (e.g., staffing challenges, turnover rates, etc.)

Preliminary survey findings from Program 1 suggest that economic insecurity remains widespread. Counterintuitively, stipend recipients reported higher levels of economic stress and a stronger intention to seek different positions, compared to non-recipients. This may reflect baseline differences: the initiative targeted voucher-based programs, which tend to face greater financial instability than non-eligible programs like state preschool or Head Start (Bassok et al, 2021; Kim et al., 2022). While stipend may have provided temporary relief for stipend recipients in Program 1, survey data indicate that these effects were not sustained after the final disbursement.

Next steps include survey data analysis of the Program 2 data and completing the focus groups and analyzing qualitative data from both Program 1 and Program 2 to gain deeper insight into educators' experience and how those experiences vary by role and setting. This study offers timely evidence on the limitations and possibilities of direct financial support as a policy lever to address workforce instability. Our findings can inform the design of future wage initiatives aimed at supporting and retaining the ECE workforce.

Authors

• Yoonjeon Kim, University of California - Berkeley

• Wanzi Muruvi, University of California - Berkeley

• Anna Powell, University of California - Berkeley