This chapter examines how human and material resources are distributed across early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings serving children under age 3 and the extent to which they support quality and equity in ECEC systems. The chapter analyses workforce capacity, including staff roles, experience, qualifications and training, and how these align with the needs of settings serving vulnerable children. It also explores differences in the availability of physical and material resources across settings and whether constraints related to environment and staffing resources are concentrated in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children. The chapter further examines how working conditions, including job satisfaction, workload and stress, relate to staff well-being and intentions to leave the profession.
Building Quality Education and Care for Children under Three
Abstract
Workforce capacity in ECEC settings serving children under age 3 is limited in terms of qualifications and experience and is often not aligned with the needs of vulnerable children. Staff are generally less experienced and hold lower qualifications than those in pre-primary education, except in Germany and Norway. In some systems, settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children have less experienced staff.
Staff training focuses on supporting children’s social and emotional development while coverage of other early learning areas that support children’s cognitive development across all domains is less common. Across systems, initial training and professional development place a greater emphasis on children’s social and emotional development than on early learning areas such as language and numeracy. In Israel and Norway, such training is also more common in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
Professional development to support vulnerable children is not aligned with staff needs, particularly in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children. Across systems, while many staff report a need for training to work with children with special education needs, children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from diverse language backgrounds, recent participation in such training is limited. In Germany as well as in New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada), staff in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children report greater needs.
Staffing levels are not always aligned with the needs of settings serving vulnerable children. Across most systems, with the exception of Ireland, staff number per child does not vary according to the percentage of vulnerable children within the setting. Shortages of specialised staff are also more often perceived as barriers to quality in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children in Germany, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada).
Physical infrastructure is generally reported as adequate across most settings, although ventilation and background noise are common challenges. In Germany and Norway, a higher share of settings report issues related to ventilation and background noise. At the same time, physical constraints are more frequently perceived as barriers to quality in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel.
Centre-based settings tend to offer permanent employment and shorter working hours while staff in home-based settings more frequently report higher satisfaction with their salary. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), staff in centre-based settings are more likely to report permanent employment, whereas home-based settings show more diverse work arrangements and longer working hours. In Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), staff in home-based settings are also more likely to be satisfied with their salary.
Intentions to leave the ECEC profession are higher in high-stress contexts, but job satisfaction can mitigate this effect. Stress linked to staff absences and multitasking is widespread and staff working in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children more often report work-related stress and intentions to leave their role. Job satisfaction is associated with lower intentions to leave in most systems, reflecting that improvements in working conditions to reduce workloads may help retain staff.
Children under age 3 require particularly intensive attention and support in ECEC settings. At this stage of development, they are highly dependent on stable and responsive relationships with caregivers and benefit from individualised interactions that support early social and emotional as well as cognitive development (van Trijp et al., 2025[1]; Black et al., 2017[2]). Meeting these developmental needs depends not only on the practices of individual staff members (see Chapter 3), but also on the broader conditions under which ECEC provision operates. Even where staff are well-prepared, insufficient staffing capacity or limited setting resources can constrain responsiveness, increase workload and undermine the quality of interactions with young children (OECD, 2025[3]).
Across countries and subnational entities, system architecture and policy arrangements play a central role in shaping how resources are distributed within ECEC systems (Leseman and Slot, 2025[4]). Differences in funding models, regulatory frameworks and workforce policies that affect the services provided to pre-primary and settings for children under age 3, as well as fragmentation within provision for children under age 3, can lead to uneven access to financial, material and human resources. These differences are particularly important in settings serving children under age 3, where work demands are high and provision can operate under varying regulatory and funding conditions compared to pre-primary settings (see Chapter 2).
From an equity perspective, a key question is whether resources are aligned with the needs of the children served. Settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children often face greater demands related to education and care, communication with families, and support for diverse needs, yet may also operate with more constrained resources. Where such misalignments occur, children may experience fewer opportunities for sustained, high-quality interactions with staff. These disparities are of particular concern given evidence that vulnerable children are often more likely to attend settings operating under greater resource constraints (González-Sancho et al., 2023[5]).
This chapter draws on data from the 2024 Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS Starting Strong) to examine how workforce capacity and setting resources are distributed in ECEC settings serving children under age 3, and how these conditions relate to staff experiences of stress and intentions to leave the profession. Specifically, the chapter addresses the following questions:
How does workforce capacity in ECEC settings vary across and within systems, and how do staff roles, experience, initial education and professional development differ by setting characteristics?
How does the availability and adequacy of physical and material resources vary across ECEC settings and to what extent do resource constraints related to setting environment and staffing affect quality provision in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children?
How are workforce and setting resources associated with staff working conditions, well-being and intentions to leave the profession and do these associations differ by setting characteristics?
High-quality provision in settings serving children under age 3 depends critically on the workforce’s capacity to respond to young children’s intensive care and developmental needs in their daily practice. Structural conditions such as smaller group sizes or the presence of supporting staff can create opportunities for individualised attention (Dalgaard et al., 2022[6]). However, these conditions alone do not guarantee quality. Staff also require adequate initial preparation and sustained access to quality professional learning that meets their needs to implement practices that support children’s development across domains and respond to diverse needs (see Chapter 5).
Workforce capacity can vary substantially between and within systems. Requirements related to staff qualifications, ratios or supervision often differ across provider types, including between centre-based and home-based provision and between publicly managed, privately managed not-for-profit and privately managed for-profit settings (Vandenbroeck, Slot and Hulpia, 2021[7]; Leseman and Slot, 2025[4]; Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[8]). In many systems, regulatory standards may be applied more consistently, or set at higher thresholds, in centre-based services than in home-based ones (OECD, 2025[3]). Financial resources further influence settings’ capacity to attract qualified staff and providers operating under tighter financial margins may face greater constraints in investing in staff competencies and ongoing training (Leseman and Slot, 2025[4]; OECD, 2021[9]; 2025[10]).
From a quality perspective, these possible systemic differences matter because achieving uniform quality ultimately depends on workforce capacity across all setting types. Where staff lack structured support or access to professional development that meets their needs, they may face greater workload pressures, less time for pedagogical work and higher levels of strain. These challenges can be particularly pronounced in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children, where work demands are more complex and the need for skilled staff is higher (González-Sancho et al., 2023[5]).
This section focuses on several aspects of workforce capacity: staff roles, experience, qualification levels and access to professional development aligned with staff-reported needs for supporting children’s diverse learning and development. It examines how workforce capacity in settings serving children under age 3 varies across and within ECEC systems.
In many systems, settings serving children under age 3 rely on limited supporting staff
Settings serving children under age 3 often rely on relatively limited differentiation of staff roles. Teachers account for more than 80% of staff in several systems, including the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel, New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada), and New Zealand** (see Table Staff.3 in OECD (2025[3])). In these contexts, assistants and other supporting roles represent only a small share of the workforce. By contrast, in Germany, Ireland and Norway, settings more commonly rely on a mix of teachers, assistants and other supporting staff, indicating greater role differentiation.
Within systems, staff composition also varies by provision type, particularly between centre-based and home-based settings (Figure 4.1). In Israel, assistants are more prevalent in centre-based settings, whereas home-based settings predominantly rely on teachers alone. In New Brunswick (Canada), home based settings report a higher share of staff identifying as leaders and a lower share of staff identifying as teachers, suggesting that administrative and managerial responsibilities are often concentrated in a staff member who also works directly with children. At the same time, around 20% of staff in home-based settings in New Brunswick (Canada) report holding other supporting roles, indicating that some home-based services operate with additional staff who can support administrative and pedagogical functions. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, supporting roles are limited across all settings and most staff report their role as a teacher, particularly in home-based settings, where they work alone. In this context, most of these settings are affiliated to a service, which provides organisational and pedagogical support to staff, which can offset the demands of working alone in home-based provision (see Box 2.1 in Chapter 2).
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 by role and provision type, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A. Notes: Leaders without staff duties and leaders with staff duties who were identified as the person with the most responsibility for the administrative, managerial and/or pedagogical leadership in the ECEC setting did not respond to this question.
Teachers are the individuals with the most responsibility for a group of children at the classroom or playroom level and may be referred to as pedagogues, educators or childcare practitioners.
Assistants include individuals assisting with the care and education of children (e.g. assistants, auxiliary staff) in the ECEC setting.
Others include staff for individual children, staff for special tasks and interns.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of staff who identify as a leader or teacher.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.4.1.
Staff working with children under age 3 tend to have limited experience, especially in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children
In several systems, including the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), around 30-40% of staff in settings serving children under age 3 report having 3 years of experience or less, while the share of staff with 10 years of experience or more is comparatively lower in New Brunswick (Canada) (Figure 4.2). Across systems participating in both levels of ECEC, staff working with children under age 3 are generally more likely to have relatively limited experience compared to those working in pre‑primary education. A relatively novice workforce (with three years of experience or less) may bring advantages, including exposure to more recent training covering innovative approaches (OECD, 2025[3]). At the same time, limited experience can present challenges, particularly in contexts where staff manage multiple responsibilities across care, emotional support and pedagogical practices to support child development and learning, often with limited organisational support.
Based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff with three years of experience or less.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.2.10.
Within systems, differences in staff experience are linked to provision type and management and profit status arrangements, but patterns are not consistent across contexts. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, home-based settings are more likely to be staffed by more experienced staff than centre-based settings (Table C.4.2), which may help mitigate the organisational demands in home-based settings where staff work alone. In Norway, publicly managed settings report higher shares of more experienced staff than privately managed settings (Table C.4.3). By contrast, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, publicly managed settings report comparatively higher shares of novice staff. In Israel, privately managed for-profit settings report higher shares of more experienced staff, while in Ireland, privately managed for-profit settings report higher shares of less experienced staff.
The distribution of experienced staff across settings does not always align with vulnerable children’s needs. In Israel, settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes cumulate higher shares of novice and fewer staff with ten or more years’ experience (Table C.4.4). Similarly, in Germany, settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs less often report staff with ten years of experience or more. By contrast, in Ireland, such settings report higher shares of more experienced staff.
Staff who work with children under age 3 generally have lower qualifications than staff in pre‑primary education, although practical training is widespread
In several participating systems, staff working with children under age 3 generally report lower levels of initial education than staff working in pre-primary education (Figure 4.3). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, around 90% of staff in pre-primary education report an education level of ISCED level 6 or above, compared to fewer than 20% of staff in settings serving children under age 3, reflecting differences in minimum qualification requirements in a split system (see Chapter 2). Similarly, in Israel, fewer than 20% of staff in settings serving children under age 3 report qualifications at ISCED level 6 or above while almost half of pre-primary staff report qualifications at this level. By contrast, in Norway, where the system is integrated and qualification requirements are set for the entire system, a majority of staff working with children under age 3 report education at ISCED level 6 or above, similar to those in pre‑primary education.
Within systems, differences in qualification profiles are also linked to provision and setting type, reflecting differences in regulatory requirements and varying setting capacities to attract and retain more highly qualified staff. In Israel, staff in home-based settings are more likely to report qualifications at ISCED level 4 or 5 while centre-based settings employ a higher share of staff with lower qualifications (Table C.4.5). Privately managed settings in Norway report higher shares of staff with an education at ISCED level 6 or above than publicly managed settings (Table C.4.6). In Germany, differences emerge between integrated settings and non-integrated settings (see Chapter 2 for definitions), with integrated settings reporting a higher share of staff qualified at ISCED level 6 or above (Table C.4.7).
Despite differences in formal education levels, practical training is widespread among staff working with children under age 3 (Figure 4.3). In all systems, more than 80% of staff report that their training to work with children included a practical training component, indicating that practical experience is a common feature of preparation for working with children, even in systems where formal qualification levels are comparatively lower. Practical training is reported by more staff in home-based and publicly managed settings in Israel and in publicly managed settings in Germany (Tables C.4.5 and C.4.6).
Percentage of staff in each level of highest educational attainment and whether staff received training specifically to work with children, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: Respondents in the “ISCED level 3 or below” group are those whose highest level of education is secondary schooling or below. Respondents in the “ISCED level 4 or 5” group are those whose highest level of education is beyond secondary schooling but less than a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent), including post-secondary non-tertiary education (generally vocationally oriented) and short-cycle tertiary education. Respondents in the “ISCED level 6 or above” group are those whose highest level of education is at the level of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent or higher.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in ascending order according to the percentage of staff with ISCED level 3 or below educational attainment.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables D.2.5 and D.2.6.
Initial training and ongoing professional development more often emphasise children’s social and emotional development than other early learning areas
Across all systems, around or more than 90% of staff working with children under age 3 report that their initial training covered supporting children’s social and emotional development (Table C.4.8). By contrast, fewer than 80% of staff report coverage of early learning content areas (e.g. language, numeracy, science or arts) in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel (Table C.4.9). In Israel, staff in home-based settings more often report that both areas were included in their initial training (around or above 90%), pointing to potential differences in professional capacity and pedagogical preparation across setting types (Tables C.4.8 and C.4.9).
Ongoing professional development also gives higher priority to social and emotional support for children’s development relative to early learning of content areas. Across almost all participating systems for settings under age 3, participation in professional development related to children’s social and emotional development exceeds participation in training focused on early learning of content areas (Figure 4.4). This pattern is also observed at the pre-primary level, with the exception of the Flemish Community of Belgium. This emphasis points to comparatively less attention given to early learning content, which may lead to a stronger focus on social and emotional support in practice, with less emphasis on pedagogical practices targeting areas such as literacy and numeracy (see Chapter 3).
Percentage of staff who report each content area in supporting child development and learning was covered in recent professional development activities
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who participated in professional development activities on supporting children’s early learning of content areas in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.16.
Staff in home-based settings in some systems receive more training in supporting children’s social and emotional development and early learning content than staff in centre-based settings (Table C.4.10). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in home-based settings more frequently report participation in training related to early learning and social and emotional development than staff in centre-based settings. In Israel, a similar pattern is observed for professional development focused on supporting children’s social and emotional development. These differences are particularly relevant given the role of professional learning in strengthening pedagogical practice, especially in home-based settings, where staff often work with greater autonomy and fewer on-site staff (Eckhardt and Egert, 2020[8]).
In some systems, participation in professional development to support child development is more prevalent in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In Israel and Norway, staff in these settings more frequently report recent participation in training related to children’s social and emotional development (Table C.4.11). This is a positive finding, as children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes may benefit from more targeted socio-emotional support (see Chapter 3) (Nystad et al., 2024[11]). However, no differences are observed in participation in professional development related to early learning of content areas for staff working with higher shares of vulnerable children (Table C.4.11). This suggests that staff in these settings may not be receiving the additional training needed to support early learning and mitigate inequalities in these areas of development.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who report a “high” or “moderate” level of need for professional development in the following areas
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who reported “moderate” or “high” level of need in professional development activities on working with children with special education needs.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table Staff.19.
Needs for targeted professional development to support vulnerable children are high, an area little covered in recent training
In addition to training in core development areas, targeted professional development is a key mechanism for supporting staff working with vulnerable children. Data from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 indicate a possible mismatch between professional development needs and training participation across participating systems. In most systems, at least 40% of staff working with children under age 3 report a need for training to work with children with special education needs and children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Figure 4.5). Yet participation in such training is limited in all contexts (see Table Staff.16 in OECD (2025[3])). Similar gaps are observed for training related to supporting children with diverse language backgrounds. In contrast, training needs related to working with parents or guardians are comparatively lower and more closely aligned with participation in training.
Professional development needs are higher in some types of settings (Table 4.1). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in publicly managed settings more frequently report needs related to working with parents or guardians while staff in privately managed not-for-profit settings more often report needs related to supporting children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In New Zealand**, a higher share of staff in for-profit settings report a need for training to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In Israel, staff in centre-based settings more frequently report needs related to working with parents or guardians than staff in home-based settings. In Germany, staff in integrated settings more frequently report a need for training related to supporting children with special education needs and with children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In some systems, higher reported needs align with higher participation in recent training across provision types. For example, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, staff in centre-based settings report higher needs and higher participation in training related to supporting children from diverse language backgrounds (Tables 4.1 and C.4.10).
Professional development needs are also high in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children (Table 4.1). In Germany, staff in settings serving more children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report greater training needs in this area. Similar patterns are observed in New Brunswick and Quebec (Canada) for training related to supporting children from diverse language backgrounds. In Quebec (Canada), this need is more frequently reported in settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs while in New Brunswick (Canada) it is more common in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, which may reflect the intersecting vulnerabilities of the children that staff work with.
Differences in the percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 reporting a “high” or “moderate” level of need for professional development in the following areas, between different types of settings
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: In Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand**, according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.4.12, C.4.13, C.4.14, C.4.15 and C.4.16.
While workforce preparedness shapes staff practices, the availability and adequacy of setting resources determine the conditions under which these practices can be implemented. Environmental conditions such as high noise levels or poor air quality can adversely affect children’s well-being and limit opportunities for sustained interaction (Zhang et al., 2021[12]; Werner et al., 2015[13]). By contrast, well‑designed environments that provide open indoor spaces and access to outdoor areas can facilitate free play and reduce sedentary time, supporting young children’s development (Tonge, Jones and Okely, 2016[14]; Zhang et al., 2020[15]; Sando, 2019[16]). The availability of age-appropriate learning materials, such as picture books or building blocks, further supports high-quality interactions that promote early language and cognitive development (Røe-Indregård et al., 2022[17]). These conditions may vary across provision types. Centre-based settings, often purpose-built, may offer more dedicated space and equipment whereas home-based settings operate in domestic environments that may involve more limited space but lower levels of noise or crowding (Sluiter, Fekkes and Fukkink, 2023[18]; Werner et al., 2015[13]). Resource levels may also differ by management type, depending on regulatory requirements and the level and stability of funding (Slot, 2018[19]).
Alongside material conditions, the availability of human resources aligned with setting needs is critical for quality provision. Staff shortages or frequent absences reduce the time and attention staff can dedicate to individual children, while access to specialised staff strengthens capacity to support children from diverse backgrounds or with special education needs (Asp et al., 2024[20]; Kwon et al., 2020[21]). The availability and adequacy of these resources vary across and within systems by management arrangements, provision type and other setting characteristics (Leseman and Slot, 2025[4]). Settings operating with limited funding may face greater challenges in maintaining support staff, substitute staff or specialised competences. Evidence suggests that these constraints can disproportionately affect settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children, compounding existing inequalities in the quality of provision (OECD, 2025[10]; González-Sancho et al., 2023[5]).
This section draws on data from the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 survey to examine how physical, material and human resources vary across and within ECEC systems serving children under age 3.
While most settings have adequate infrastructure, constraints related to ventilation and noise can be a concern in some contexts
Across most participating systems, leaders report generally adequate physical environments in settings serving children under age 3 (Figure 4.6). In many contexts, more than 90% of leaders indicate that their settings have sufficient furniture, adequate indoor and outdoor space, and easy access to bathrooms, suggesting that infrastructure standards are widely met. However, some aspects of the physical environment are reported less consistently. In Germany and Norway, around 70% of leaders report adequate ventilation, and fewer than 70% report that background noise does not interfere with interactions (see Table D.3.7 in OECD (2025[3])).
Differences also emerge by management type and setting structure. In Ireland, privately managed not-for-profit settings are more likely to report adequate ventilation than privately managed for-profit settings (Table C.4.17). In Germany, variation is more strongly linked to setting organisation, with integrated settings more often reporting noise-related challenges and other building constraints than non-integrated settings (Table C.4.18).
Average percentage of leaders in settings for children under age 3 reporting how much they agree with the following statements on the physical characteristics of their setting
Notes: Averages for settings serving children under age 3 exclude New Zealand**.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Statements are ranked in descending order of the average percentage of leaders who responded agree or strongly agree.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.3.7.
Physical and material constraints are less frequently reported as barriers to quality; however, they are more likely to affect settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children
Aligned with leaders generally reporting adequate physical environments, across participating systems, relatively few leaders identify constraints related to physical space or infrastructure as barriers to quality in settings serving children under age 3 (see Table Leader.42 in OECD (2025[3])). In all systems, around 20% or fewer leaders report shortages or inadequacies in indoor or outdoor space as hindering quality. Reports of inadequate access to basic utilities, such as drinking water, electricity or sanitation, are even less common, affecting around 10% or fewer settings in most systems. However, these constraints are more concentrated in specific types of settings. In Israel, shortages of indoor and outdoor space are more frequently reported as barriers to quality in home-based and small-scale settings (Tables C.4.19 and C.4.20), while in Ireland challenges related to basic utilities are more commonly reported in privately managed not-for-profit settings (Table C.4.21).
Constraints related to learning materials are also rarely reported overall, although these challenges are more prevalent in some settings. In Israel, shortages of play and learning materials are more commonly reported as barriers to quality, especially in publicly managed settings rather than in privately managed ones (Table C.4.21). In Ireland, they are also more commonly reported in privately managed not-for-profit settings than in for-profit provision. These constraints are also more frequently reported in large-scale settings in comparison to small-scale provision in Ireland and Norway, whereas in Israel they are more common in small-scale settings, and in home-based settings in comparison to centre‑based provision (Tables C.4.19 and C.4.20).
In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, settings for children under age 3 reporting higher levels of structural resource constraints also serve higher proportions of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes (Table 4.2). A similar and more pronounced pattern is observed at the pre-primary level in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Israel, indicating that as more vulnerable children access ECEC at the pre-primary level, they are more likely to attend settings facing greater structural resource constraints.
Differences in leader reports of inadequacy of physical resources as barriers to structural quality, between settings enrolling 10% or more compared to less than 10% of children with special education needs or from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: A scale of “barriers to structural quality: Adequacy of physical resources” (S2LSQPRS) was constructed using leaders’ responses (“not at all”, “to some extent”, “quite a bit”, “a lot”) when indicating the extent to which different factors hinder an ECEC setting’s ability to provide a quality environment for children. These factors include “shortage or inadequacy of play or learning materials (e.g. picture books, building blocks, paint)”; “shortage or inadequacy of indoor space”; “shortage or inadequacy of outdoor play space”; “shortage or inadequacy of digital resources and tools”.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.4.22.
The number of staff per child varies within systems and is not consistently aligned with the needs of settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children
The availability of staff is an important aspect of setting resources as it shapes the extent to which staff can engage in individualised and responsive interactions. Across systems, however, staff availability per ten children varies by setting characteristics (Table C.4.23). In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Ireland, privately managed not-for-profit settings report more staff per ten children than other types of providers, whereas in Israel, for-profit settings report comparatively higher staff availability than not-for-profit settings. In addition, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand** and Norway, small settings consistently report more staff per ten children than larger ones.
Beyond overall ratios, the adequacy of staff numbers depends on how well it reflects children’s needs. Younger children typically require more intensive supervision and interaction, and additional staff can support more tailored responses to children with special education needs or those from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes. In Germany, staff allocation appears responsive to age‑related needs (Table C.4.23). Settings that are not integrated and primarily serve children under age 3 report higher staff availability than integrated settings, consistent with the greater demands of younger children. However, across most systems, staff availability does not vary according to the concentration of vulnerable children within the setting. Ireland is an exception, where settings serving higher shares (above 10%) of children with special education needs or from socio-economically disadvantaged homes report higher staff availability. This suggests an alignment between staffing resources and children’s needs in this context, supported by the funding models to improve staffing resources in settings serving a higher share of vulnerable children (see Box 4.1).
Staff absences are the most frequently reported barriers to quality provision, while shortages of specialised staff for vulnerable children also pose a challenge
Across participating systems, staffing-related challenges in settings serving children under age 3 are more frequently identified as barriers to quality provision than physical or material constraints (see Table Leader.42 in OECD (2025[3])). Among these, staff absences emerge as the most reported barrier (Figure 4.7). In Germany, Ireland, New Brunswick (Canada) and Norway, more than half of leaders report that staff absences hinder their setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for young children. In Germany and Norway, shortages of staff relative to enrolment are also reported by more than half of leaders. By contrast, such challenges are much less frequently reported in systems such as the Flemish Community of Belgium, where around or less than 10% of leaders report that staff absences or staff relative to enrolment affect the quality of ECEC provided.
Beyond overall staffing levels, shortages of qualified staff are also widely reported particularly in the two Canadian provinces, Ireland and Israel, where more than 40% of leaders identify shortages of qualified staff as a challenge (Figure 4.7). Shortages of staff with specific competences are also common. In Ireland and Quebec (Canada), more than 30% of leaders report shortages of staff with competences to support children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, while similar shares are reported in the two Canadian provinces, Germany, Ireland and Norway for shortages related to supporting children with special education needs (see Table Leader.42 in OECD (2025[3])). In addition, more than 30% of leaders in Ireland and Norway report limited opportunities to support staff’s professional development, suggesting constraints not only in staffing levels but also in workforce development. Such challenges are particularly lower in the Flemish Community of Belgium, reported by less than 10% of leaders across the system.
Percentage of ECEC settings for children under age 3 whose leaders reported “quite a bit” or “a lot” that the following issues hinder their ECEC setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of ECEC settings whose leaders reported that ECEC staff absences hinder their setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.1.
Staffing pressures are unevenly distributed across settings, particularly affecting publicly managed and large-scale settings
Staffing pressures are not evenly distributed across ECEC provision and tend to be more frequently reported in specific types of settings as barriers to quality (Table 4.3). In Norway, leaders in publicly managed settings more frequently report staff absences, shortages of qualified staff or staff relative to the number of enrolled children, as well as staff with competences to support children with special education needs and limited professional development opportunities as barriers to quality (Table C.4.21). Similarly, in Israel, publicly managed settings more often report shortages of staff with competences to support children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In New Brunswick (Canada), publicly managed settings more frequently report shortages of staff relative to enrolment, whereas privately managed settings report greater shortages of staff with competences to support children from diverse language backgrounds. Variations are also apparent by profit status in some systems. In Ireland, shortages of staff with competences to support children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are more commonly reported in for-profit settings than in not-for-profit ones.
Differences in the percentage of ECEC settings for children under age 3 whose leaders report “quite a bit” or “a lot” that ECEC staff absences or shortages hinder their setting’s capacity to provide a quality environment for children’s development, well-being and learning, between different types of settings and different management types
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: In Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand **, according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.4.21.
Differences also emerge by setting size and organisation. Across systems, large-scale or integrated settings tend to report workforce-related challenges more frequently (Tables C.4.20 and C.4.24). This pattern is consistent with lower staff number per child in these settings, suggesting that larger and more organisationally complex settings may face greater challenges in maintaining adequate staffing capacity to respond to children’s needs.
Staff shortages more often challenge the quality of provision in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children
In some systems, staffing shortages are more frequently reported as barriers to quality in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children, suggesting a misalignment between resources and needs. In Germany, settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs more often report shortages of staff to support children from diverse language backgrounds as barriers to quality (Table C.4.25). In Israel, settings serving higher shares of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes more frequently report shortages of specialised staff as a barrier to quality, including staff trained to work with these children as well as with children with special education needs (Table C.4.26). In New Brunswick (Canada), such settings also more often report shortages of staff to support children from diverse language backgrounds as a barrier to quality.
In other systems, however, settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children are less likely to report staff shortages as a barrier to quality, pointing to a more aligned distribution of resources. In Quebec (Canada), for example, settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs less frequently report shortages of staff relative to the number of enrolled children as a barrier to quality provision (Table C.4.25). Similarly, in Norway, settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are less likely to report shortages of staff to work with these children as a barrier to quality (Table C.4.26).
Working conditions in ECEC settings are closely linked to staff well-being, retention and the sustainability of quality provision (Heilala et al., 2023[22]). Work environments that offer adequate wages and benefits can support staff satisfaction and contribute to workforce stability (Hur et al., 2022[23]). On the other hand, staff shortages and absences can intensify workloads that are already demanding in settings characterised by intensive caregiving responsibilities, particularly where higher shares of vulnerable children are enrolled (Kwon et al., 2020[21]). Working hours constitute an important dimension of staff well‑being, as longer working days may increase strain, particularly in settings where staff work alone or have limited access to supporting staff. Such pressures can translate into stress and may increase staff considerations of leaving the sector (OECD, 2025[3]). High turnover, in turn, has important implications for children’s experiences. For very young children, stable relationships with caregivers in ECEC settings are closely linked to their well-being and development, and high levels of turnover can undermine this stability (Bratsch-Hines et al., 2020[24]; Choi et al., 2018[25]).
This section draws on data from the TALIS Starting Strong 2024 survey to examine how working conditions relate to staff well-being and turnover intentions in settings serving children under age 3. It explores differences across types of provision and management arrangements and examines how the experiences of the workforce intersect with the characteristics of the children served.
Permanent employment is more common in centre-based settings while home-based settings show greater contractual variation
Across participating systems, most staff working with children under age 3 report being in permanent employment, although the prevalence of permanent contracts varies substantially. Less than 70% staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel report having permanent contracts as a result of variations in the contract types used in these systems, whereas in New Zealand**, more than 90% report having permanent employment (see Table D.2.13 in OECD (2025[3])).
Staff in centre-based settings more frequently report permanent employment than those in home‑based settings (Figure 4.8), including in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada) (Table C.4.27). Other arrangements are more common in home-based provision. In Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), larger shares of staff in home-based settings report being self-employed. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, a majority of staff in home‑based settings (around 70%) report having no employment contract, which also includes specific types of employment arrangements with more flexibility that are often used by staff in home-based settings.
Contractual status also varies by management and profit status (Table C.4.28). In Israel, publicly managed settings report higher shares of permanent contracts than privately managed settings, while self-employment is more common in privately managed provision. Differences are also evident within the private sector. In Ireland, self-employment is more prevalent in for-profit provision than in not-for-profit settings. By contrast, fixed-term or temporary employment are more common in privately managed not-for-profit settings than in for-profit settings.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 with different types of contracts, based on staff reports
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the category “no contract of employment” includes staff in home-based settings who work under a specific “sui generis” status.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff with a permanent contract.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table C.4.27.
Staff in home-based settings tend to work longer hours than staff in centre-based settings
Across participating systems serving children under age 3, staff (including those working full-time and part-time) on average report working around 30 or more hours in most systems in centre-based settings (Table C.4.29).
Within systems, a consistent pattern emerges whereby staff in home-based settings report longer working hours than those in centre-based provision (Figure 4.9). While staff working full-time in centre‑based settings report relatively high average working hours, generally at or above 37 hours per week, these remain close to but typically below the levels reported by staff in home-based settings. Gaps between the working hours of staff in home-based and centre-based settings tend to widen among staff with the longest working hours, pointing to substantially higher workload demands in home-based provision (Table C.4.30). In the top tertile, staff report working more than 60 hours per week in home-based settings in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), compared to around 40-50 hours in centre-based settings (Figure 4.9). These patterns likely reflect structural differences in work organisation, with fewer opportunities to share tasks and responsibilities in home-based settings compared to centre-based provision.
Total number of hours staff spent in settings for children under age 3 on tasks related to their job during the most recent complete calendar week
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the average working hours of all centre-based staff.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.4.29 and C.4.30.
Staff satisfaction with salary is low but high with other employment terms
Across participating systems, staff working with children under age 3 are satisfied with the terms of their contract or employment, but to a lesser extent with their salaries (Figure 4.10). This gap is evident across all systems.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who are satisfied with their salary.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.2.
Within systems, satisfaction with their terms of employment and salary sometimes aligns with differences in contractual arrangements by provision type. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, staff working in centre-based settings more frequently report being satisfied with the terms of their contract or employment than those working in home-based settings, in line with the shorter working hours (Table C.4.31 and Figure 4.9). In Israel and New Brunswick (Canada), staff working in home-based settings, where most are self-employed, are more likely to report being satisfied with their salaries than those in centre-based provision (Tables C.4.27 and Table 4.4).
Staff satisfaction with other aspects of their job is generally high, while staff in home-based settings are more often satisfied with their jobs in some systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and New Brunswick (Canada), staff in home-based settings more frequently report enjoying their work and in the Flemish Community of Belgium they also report higher satisfaction with their level of autonomy, suggesting that greater control over practice may lead to more satisfaction with the important aspects of the job (Table C.4.31). These dimensions of job satisfaction may support staff retention and help buffer the effects of job demands in home-based settings that involve long working hours (OECD, 2025[3]).
Differences in satisfaction with salary and other contractual terms are also observed across management arrangements (Table 4.4). In Israel, staff working in privately managed settings are less likely to hold permanent contracts than those in publicly managed provision, yet they more frequently report satisfaction with their salary and the terms of their contract (Tables C.4.28 and C.4.32). This pattern is particularly pronounced in privately managed for-profit settings, where higher shares of staff also report being satisfied with their salaries and enjoying their work compared to privately managed not-for-profit settings (Table C.4.32). Similar patterns are observed in Ireland, where staff in privately managed for-profit settings more often report being satisfied with their salaries than those working in not-for-profit provision. This finding is important in systems where vulnerable children are more likely to attend publicly managed settings (for Israel) or not-for-profit ones (in Ireland) and indicates that privately managed, particularly for-profit, settings may have greater leverage in attracting and retaining high-quality staff through more favourable employment benefits in some contexts.
Differences in the percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who “agree” or “strongly agree” with being satisfied with the salary they receive, between different types of settings
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: In Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand **, according to official sources, all ECEC settings are privately managed.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.4.31, C.4.32, and C.4.33.
Workload linked to staffing constraints is a main source of stress across setting types
Across participating systems, workload pressures linked to limited staffing capacity emerge as central sources of stress for staff working with children under age 3. In most systems, having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff and having too many tasks to do at the same time are among the main stressors (Figure 4.11). In Germany, Ireland, New Zealand** and Norway, more than half of staff working with children under age 3 report stress related to having extra duties due to absent staff. In these same systems, stress related to having too many tasks to do at the same time is also reported by around or more than half of staff, suggesting that staff absences are closely associated with heavier workloads for remaining staff.
Percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 who report that the following is “quite a bit” or “a lot” a source of stress
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order of the percentage of staff who report that having extra duties due to absent ECEC staff is “quite a bit” or “a lot” a source of stress.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.12.
Work-related stress varies across management types and profit status and provision, reflecting differences in staffing models and organisational support that staff receive in different contexts (Table 4.5). In Israel, staff in privately managed not-for-profit settings more frequently report having extra duties due to absent staff, having too many tasks to do at the same time and administrative work as sources of stress, while having extra duties due to absent staff is also more common in publicly managed settings (Table C.4.34). In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Israel, staff working in centre-based settings more often report having too many tasks to do at the same time than staff in home‑based settings (Table C.4.35). In Israel, staff in centre-based settings also more frequently report administrative work and addressing parents’ or guardians’ concerns as sources of stress. These findings also align with lower levels of satisfaction with salaries reported by staff in centre‑based, publicly managed and privately managed not-for-profit settings in Israel, pointing to a potential imbalance between workload intensity and perceived financial rewards (Figure 4.10, C.4.31 and C.4.32). By contrast, in New Brunswick (Canada), staff in home-based settings, where pedagogical and leadership roles are often combined within a single position, more frequently report administrative work and documenting children’s development as sources of stress (Table C.4.35).
In Germany, staff in integrated settings more frequently report stress than those in settings serving only children under age 3, especially in relation to having extra duties due to absent staff, having too many tasks to do at the same time, having too much administrative work and work related to documenting children’s development (Table C.4.36). These patterns point to the higher staff shortages in these settings and the possible additional co-ordination and reporting requirements associated with managing provision across multiple age groups within a single organisational structure.
Differences in the percentage of staff in settings for children under age 3 reporting having too many tasks to do at the same time as a source of stress, between different types of settings
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: ECEC settings in Ireland, Quebec (Canada) and New Zealand** are technically all privately managed.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Tables C.4.34, C.4.35 and C.4.36.
Intentions to leave the profession reflect family responsibilities and system-level pressures and are stronger in high stress contexts
Intentions to leave the profession are substantial in settings serving children under age 3. In Ireland, New Zealand**, Norway, and Quebec (Canada), more than 40% of staff in settings serving children under age 3 report that working in a different job outside the ECEC sector is likely to lead them to leave their role within the next five years (Figure 4.12). In most systems, these shares are higher than those observed in pre-primary settings, indicating particularly strong risks of turnover in settings for children under age 3.
Family responsibilities are also an important factor. More than half of staff in Ireland and New Zealand** working with children under age 3 report that attending to family responsibilities is a likely reason to leave, and close to half do so in Israel, again exceeding or matching levels reported in pre‑primary education (Figure 4.12). Health-related factors are similarly prominent. More than 30% of staff in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany, Israel and Quebec (Canada) report that resolving physical health issues is a likely reason for them to leave, while mental health-related reasons are particularly salient in Ireland, where more than 40% report this as a likely reason, higher than in its pre-primary sector.
Percentage of staff who indicate the following as a “likely” or “highly likely” factor to leave the ECEC staff role in the next five years
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only represent respondents included in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Note: ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Countries and subnational entities, except New Zealand**, are ranked in descending order according to the percentage of staff who reported that work in a different job not in the ECEC sector are “likely” or “highly likely” to cause them to leave their role as ECEC staff in the next five years.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.15.
Reasons for considering leaving the ECEC staff role often mirror work-related stress patterns in settings with different management status and provision. In Israel, staff working in privately managed not‑for‑profit settings more frequently report considering leaving their role, including to work outside the ECEC sector, attend to family responsibilities or resolve mental health-related issues (Table C.4.37). These patterns are consistent with the more frequent reports of stress related to workload reported in these settings (Table C.4.34). Similarly, in centre‑based settings in Israel, where staff more frequently report stress, staff also more often indicate considering leaving their role to resolve physical health-related issues (Tables C.4.35 and C.4.38).
While stress is associated with considering leaving the sector, job satisfaction can buffer intentions to leave
Working in demanding environments can adversely affect staff well-being and lead to intentions to leave the ECEC sector. In settings serving children under age 3, stress and its impact on staff well-being show strong links with the likelihood of staff considering leaving their role to work in a different job outside the ECEC sector in almost all participating systems, including the Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Israel, New Brunswick (Canada), New Zealand** and Norway (Table 4.6).
At the same time, several aspects of job satisfaction (measured through a scale including multiple aspects such as enjoyment of work at the setting, perceptions of the setting as a good place to work, satisfaction with the support they receive from parents) appear to mitigate intentions to leave the sector. In the two Canadian provinces, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Germany and Norway, higher overall satisfaction with work at the ECEC setting is associated with a lower likelihood of considering leaving to work outside the ECEC sector (Table 4.6). Additional dimensions of job satisfaction also play a role in specific systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Germany, staff who report being satisfied with their salary are significantly less likely to consider leaving. In Norway and Quebec (Canada), satisfaction with the terms of employment is similarly associated with reduced intentions to leave the sector. These findings suggest that while stress increases the risk of turnover, strengthening job satisfaction, including through improved work conditions that provide more job resources to reduce workloads, may help buffer against intentions to leave in settings serving children under age 3, particularly in high stress contexts.
Odds of staff in settings for children under age 3 considering it “likely” or “very likely” to leave the ECEC staff role to work in a different job not in the ECEC sector, associated with different aspects of job satisfaction
* Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to a higher risk of non-response bias.
** Data only include respondents in the sample and not the population targeted by the survey. For more information, see Annex A.
Notes: Results show the direction of associations from a single multivariable logistic regression model of the likelihood of staff to leave their role as ECEC staff in the next five years. “Work in a different job not in the ECEC sector” is associated with the list of variables indicated in the table together with additional control variables. For more information, see Annex B.
ECEC: early childhood education and care.
Source: OECD (2025[3]), TALIS Starting Strong 2024 Database, Table D.8.16.
Working with a higher share of vulnerable children can increase stress related to work demands and contribute to intentions among staff to leave their role
Staff working with children under age 3 more frequently report higher levels of work-related stress in settings serving greater shares of vulnerable children. In New Brunswick (Canada), staff more frequently report administrative workload as a source of stress in settings with higher shares of children from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes or with special education needs (Tables C.4.39 and C.4.40). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, addressing parents’ or guardians’ concerns is more often reported as a source of stress in settings serving higher proportions of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. In Ireland, staff in settings serving higher shares of children with special education needs more frequently report administrative workload and communication with parents as sources of stress and are also more likely to consider leaving their role to resolve physical health issues (Tables C.4.40 and C.4.41). Similarly, in Ireland and Israel, staff in settings serving higher shares of children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes more often report stress related to documentation demands (Table C.4.39). In these systems, staff are also more likely to report intentions to leave for mental health-related reasons in Ireland and Israel, and to attend to family responsibilities in Israel (Table C.4.42).
These patterns reflect that staff working in settings serving higher shares of vulnerable children face higher work demands. A question is whether the resources and rewards that ECEC staff have, such as their self-efficacy and satisfaction with salary, level of autonomy and leadership, counterbalance the demands linked to work with vulnerable children. Analyses suggest that this is the case in most systems except Norway and Quebec (Canada) for work with children with special education needs as well as for work with children from socio-economically disadvantaged homes in Quebec (Canada) (Table D.8.20 in OECD (2025[3])). This highlights the importance of strengthening job resources through targeted funding, professional development and additional resources to help mitigate heavy workloads (Box 4.1).
The Flemish Community of Belgium operates a tiered subsidy system for childcare settings serving children under age 3, in which higher levels of public funding are linked to stronger requirements on affordability and inclusion (Opgroeien, n.d.[26]). At lower levels, providers may set their own fees, whereas subsidised settings, particularly at higher levels, are required to apply income-related fees. At the highest tier, funding is explicitly targeted towards settings serving more vulnerable children: these settings are required to implement admissions policies prioritising disadvantaged families, align services with their needs, and contribute to building inclusive practices and expertise. These requirements are supported by system-level measures, including local childcare offices and integrated networks that help vulnerable families access services.
Ireland’s Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) includes targeted supports to strengthen workforce capacity in settings serving children with additional needs, particularly through structured training and professional development (Government of Ireland, 2026[27]). AIM provides a range of universal and targeted measures, including access to training programmes and professional development and mentoring supports designed to build staff capacity to support children with disabilities in early learning and childcare settings. These include the Leadership for Inclusion programme, a government-funded higher education qualification that prepares inclusion co-ordinators within settings to lead inclusive practices and support colleagues. In addition, AIM offers ongoing professional development resources, practical guidance and access to early years specialists who provide on-site support to staff working with children with additional needs.
New Zealand applies an Equity Index to allocate additional funding to ECEC services serving children from more disadvantaged backgrounds (Ministry of Education, 2026[28]). The index is derived from linked administrative data and captures multiple dimensions of disadvantage at the child level, including parental income, benefit receipt, educational attainment and housing circumstances. Based on the characteristics of enrolled children, each service is assigned an index score, which determines its level of equity funding. This approach replaces the earlier funding model on area-based proxy measures with a more granular model, enabling resources to be more accurately directed to services serving higher need populations. The additional funding is intended to support services in strengthening participation, quality and responsiveness to children facing disadvantage.
In New Brunswick (Canada), settings receive public funding through a designation system, under which only approved early learning and childcare providers receive operational and infrastructure funding (New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2024[29]). As part of the Canada-New Brunswick Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, this model combines universal funding with targeted measures to improve access for underserved and vulnerable populations. Funding is prioritised towards not-for-profit providers and services located in areas of greatest need, including rural communities, low-income areas, language minority communities, newcomer populations and indigenous communities. Targeted investments include infrastructure funding to create spaces in underserved areas, additional operational grants for designated providers, and specific inclusion supports such as funding to support workers to assist children with complex needs. In parallel, policies require designated settings to implement inclusion strategies and reinvest public funding into quality and equitable access.
References
[20] Asp, E. et al. (2024), “Declared practices of language facilitation in early childhood education and care with children younger than two years”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 53/4, pp. 1265-1279, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01719-4.
[2] Black, M. et al. (2017), “Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course”, The Lancet, Vol. 389/10064, pp. 77-90, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31389-7.
[24] Bratsch-Hines, M. et al. (2020), “Infant and toddler child-care quality and stability in relation to proximal and distal academic and social outcomes”, Child Development, Vol. 91/6, pp. 1854-1864, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13389.
[25] Choi, J. et al. (2018), “Do stability of care and teacher-child interaction quality predict child outcomes in Early Head Start?”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 30/3, pp. 337-356, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1546096.
[6] Dalgaard, N. et al. (2022), “Adult/child ratio and group size in early childhood education or care to promote the development of children aged 0-5 years: A systematic review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 18/2, https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1239.
[8] Eckhardt, A. and F. Egert (2020), “Predictors for the quality of family child care: A meta-analysis”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 116, p. 105205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105205.
[5] González-Sancho, C. et al. (2023), “Levelling the playing field in ECEC: Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2018”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 305, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/757e4fea-en.
[27] Government of Ireland (2026), The Access and Inclusion Model, 2024, https://aim.gov.ie/ (accessed on 26 May 2026).
[22] Heilala, C. et al. (2023), “Work demands and work resources in ECEC: Turnover intentions explored”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 32/3, pp. 481-494, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2023.2265597.
[23] Hur, E. et al. (2022), “Why are they leaving? Understanding associations between early childhood program policies and teacher turnover rates”, Child & Youth Care Forum, Vol. 52/2, pp. 417-440, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-022-09693-x.
[21] Kwon, K. et al. (2020), “Turnover and retention of infant-toddler teachers: Reasons, consequences, and implications for practice and policy”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 115, p. 105061, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105061.
[4] Leseman, P. and P. Slot (2025), “Strong early childhood education and care systems for the future: A conceptual framework for thematic analyses”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 329, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d0a97f-en.
[28] Ministry of Education (2026), ECE Equity Index Assessment, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/data-services/collection-forms/equity-index-assessment (accessed on 26 May 2026).
[29] New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2024), Canada–New Brunswick Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement: New Brunswick Action Plan 2023–2026, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/ChildCareActionPlan2023-2026-en.pdf.
[11] Nystad, K. et al. (2024), “Toddlers’ cortisol levels in childcare and at home”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 36/1, pp. 62-79, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2024.2360873.
[10] OECD (2025), Reducing Inequalities by Investing in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b78f8b25-en.
[3] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS Starting Strong 2024: Strengthening Early Childhood Education and Care, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20af08c0-en.
[9] OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
[26] Opgroeien (n.d.), Regelgeving en handhaving, 2026, https://www.opgroeien.be/kennis/cijfers-en-onderzoek/kinderopvang-babys-en-peuters/achtergrondinformatie-en-documentatie#toc-de-subsidietrappen (accessed on 26 May 2026).
[17] Røe-Indregård, H. et al. (2022), “Teacher-child interactions during toy play and book sharing”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 35/2, pp. 234-249, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2142028.
[16] Sando, O. (2019), “The physical indoor environment in ECEC settings: Children’s well-being and physical activity”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 27/4, pp. 506-519, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2019.1634238.
[19] Slot, P. (2018), “Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care: A literature review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 176, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/edaf3793-en.
[18] Sluiter, R., M. Fekkes and R. Fukkink (2023), “Comparing center-based with home-based child care: Type of care moderates the association between process quality and child functioning”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 62, pp. 102-114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.017.
[14] Tonge, K., R. Jones and A. Okely (2016), “Correlates of children’s objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in early childhood education and care services: A systematic review”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 89, pp. 129-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.019.
[1] van Trijp, C. et al. (2025), “A systematic scoping review on the transition of under-3-year-old children from home to early childhood education and care”, Education Sciences, Vol. 15/5, p. 589, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050589.
[7] Vandenbroeck, M., P. Slot and H. Hulpia (2021), “Quality in home-based childcare providers: Variations in process quality”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 29/2, pp. 261-277, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2021.1895272.
[13] Werner, C. et al. (2015), “Noise in center-based child care: Associations with quality of care and child emotional wellbeing”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 190-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.003.
[12] Zhang, S. et al. (2021), “What do we know about indoor air quality of nurseries? A review of the literature”, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 42/5, pp. 603-632, https://doi.org/10.1177/01436244211009829.
[15] Zhang, Z. et al. (2020), “Associations between the child care environment and children’s in-care physical activity and sedentary time”, Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 48/1, pp. 42-53, https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120972689.