Evaluation of the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program Teacher Salary Increase Pilot

Implementation Study Findings 

• The pilot program application and payment processes generally worked well and were easy to navigate. 

• Directors and teachers were excited about participating.  

• Program implementation was facilitated by several factors: (1) strong collaboration between State and external partners, particularly during the pilot program’s design phase; (2) a simple program design that included a clear scale for the salary increase amounts across centers and teacher roles; and (3) direct communication from CDEC to centers during the application process. 

• The long-term sustainability of the salary increase, given the pilot program’s temporary nature and ongoing funding constraints, was a key concern of directors and teachers. 

• Pilot program implementers described data and quality assurance challenges. For example, the vendor’s existing database was not built to support a program that disbursed funds monthly and calculated funds at the teacher level. This issue required work-arounds to collect data outside of the vendor’s system and manually enter data. 

• Many directors noted pay parity concerns about increasing pay for teachers but not for staff members in other roles, such as administrative staff members, floaters, or substitutes.  

Impact Study Findings 

• The pilot program did not lead to a statistically significant increase in the primary outcome measure of teacher retention, which was measured with staffing reports that were completed by directors at two points in time. However, the salary increase led to a statistically significant 10 percentage point increase in the secondary outcome measure of teacher retention (measured approximately one year after the start of the pilot program).  

• Program group teachers earned significantly higher wages than those in the control group. However, the pilot program did not lead to a statistically significant increase in household income at Wave 1. Teachers in the program group were less likely at Wave 1 to have other sources of income, particularly income from a second job or from child support, which may partially account for why program group teachers had higher wages but not overall household income.  

• On average, teachers in the program group were more likely, at Wave 1, to report improvements in markers of economic well-being: fewer teachers worked two or more jobs, and teachers experienced less food insecurity, had fewer unpaid bills, and perceived that they had more financial security. 

• Teachers in the program group reported experiencing fewer symptoms of depression and less job stress at Wave 1. 

• Teachers in the program group who remained in CCEE or education-related jobs at Wave 1 reported more stable and better working conditions, greater job satisfaction, and stronger intentions to stay at their current center than teachers in the control group who remained in CCEE or education-related jobs.   

• The study team also examined the pilot program’s effects on centers, although these analyses were exploratory given the small number of centers in the evaluation. Effects on teacher retention rates, teacher turnover rates, vacancies, and hires were in the expected direction but are not statistically significant.  

Cost Study Findings 

• The costs to centers that were associated with administering the pilot program were minimal—approximately $200 per teacher—and could be attributed largely to the time directors spent applying to the pilot program. 

• The estimated costs of turnover were substantial (in both the control and program groups) and were driven largely by director and staff time that was devoted to recruitment and hiring, training and onboarding, and vacancy coverage.