Good Practice for Good Jobs in Early Childhood Education and Care

3. Retaining and developing highly-skilled staff

Policies to attract and recruit ECEC staff need to be matched by strategies to keep skilled staff inside the sector. Given the size of the early childcare sector, even small changes in the rate of staff retention could have large repercussions on the demand for new staff and how much is asked of remaining staff (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). If ECEC systems are to ensure a quality workforce, they not only need to bring talented people into the sector, but also retain skilled workers and further develop the professionals currently employed.

Retaining skilled staff is important not just for economic reasons. The early childhood literature points to a stable relationship with a caring adult as a key component of a child’s development. Secure and trusted relationships affect language and vocabulary skills in addition to emotional stability (Bridges et al., 2011[66]; Wells, 2015[67]; Hale-Jinks, Knopf and Knopf, 2006[68]). High staff turnover in ECEC can be disruptive, forcing children to re-form relationships and, as a result, spend less time taking part in meaningful activities (OECD, 2012[1]).

A number of factors influence ECEC staff retention. Wages are one of the most frequently cited predictors of turnover, but others include working conditions, job satisfaction, and opportunities for development and progression. Totenhagen, et al. (2016[18]) conduct a review of the empirical literature on retaining ECEC workers and find seven themes for predicting retention: wages and benefits, job satisfaction, organisational characteristics, alternative employment opportunities, demographic and job characteristics, as well as education and training. These factors can combine, reinforce, and amplify one another. One study (Wells, 2015[69]) found that it is the accumulation of “risk factors” (including low pay and recognition, low job satisfaction, and a difficult relationship with the supervisor) that greatly increase the chances of quitting. In general, research indicates that improvements in areas such as child-to-staff ratios, wages and benefits, schedule and workload, and the physical and emotional environment can lead to improvements in job satisfaction and retention (OECD, 2012[1]).

This section covers policies and strategies for retaining and developing ECEC staff. It starts with a discussion of the importance of improving pay and recognition and the effects of efforts to boost wages on staff retention. The second sub-section looks at policies and initiatives to improve working conditions, with particular attention paid to strategies to improve regulatory standards, including child-to-staff ratios. The third and final sub-section discusses measures to promote in-service training and professional development opportunities, and especially strategies to encourage staff to engage in training and development.

3.1. Main findings

• Strategies to keep skilled staff inside the ECEC sector are crucial for the construction of a high-quality ECEC workforce. Low pay is one factor often cited by workers considering leaving the sector, and efforts to boost wages in general are likely to help improve staff retention. In addition, however, countries should consider revising wage structures and/or engaging in measures that reward performance and development through improved pay.

• Countries should also engage in strategies to enhance working conditions. Improving regulatory standards, including by reducing minimum child-to-staff ratios, is one option open to countries, even though such a move is likely to place an additional burden on public budgets. Smaller class sizes are important for service quality and can help improve worker retention by, for instance, reducing stress among staff.

• Countries should also consider engaging in activities to promote in-service training and professional development opportunities. This is vital for process quality, and may help boost sector-wide retention by, for example, enhancing professional identity and improving career satisfaction. Importantly, just providing the option of training is not enough; countries should also use strategies to promote and encourage staff participation. Mandating in-service training is one option. Introducing measures that incentivise training is another.

3.2. Improving pay and recognition

Unsurprisingly, low wages are a major reason frequently cited by ECEC staff considering leaving a job or even the sector altogether (Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]; Irvine et al., 2016[15]). As outlined in Section 2.2, wages in ECEC are generally very low, especially in the care-oriented day care sector aimed at very young children. These low wages damage retention. One study from the United States found that only 25% of staff in the lowest wage category had worked in their current centre for at least five years, compared to 90% of workers in the highest wage category. This difference translates to a 6% decrease in the likelihood that an ECEC worker will have left the centre for every one U.S. dollar increase in the hourly wage (Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]).

Low wages and a lack of recognition present a significant challenge for staff retention. Many ECEC workers have opportunities to work elsewhere for higher pay, which leaves providers reliant on the intrinsic motivation of its workers for retention. Yet, vocational commitment and the “love of children” is not able to overcome low wages if staff do not have alternative sources of household income, nor is educators’ household income an appropriate subsidy for the provision of early childcare education (Irvine et al., 2016[15]). This further contributes to the perception that the ECEC sector is a low-status profession, or the stigma that “we’re just babysitters,” as described by one child care director from Brisbane, Australia (McDonald, Thorpe and Irvine, 2018[14]).

Many OECD countries are attempting to raise wages in ECEC. As discussed earlier in Section 2.2.2, several countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Portugal, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic) have recently introduced pay parity between pre-primary and primary teachers (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]; OECD, 2017[32]). These measures, as well as others like New Zealand’s cost-based system of supply-side funding (Box 2.2), are important for staff retention as well as recruitment.

Countries can also help boost retention through wage structures and initiatives that reward performance and development. In the pre-primary sector at least, teachers typically receive salary increases throughout their careers based on experience, grade and/or qualification level (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). On average across OECD countries, the annual salary of a public-sector pre-primary teacher with 15 years’ experience is roughly 34% higher than the statutory starting salary (Figure 3.1). However, tenure-based wage increases do not necessarily reward performance and may inadvertently advantage weaker staff with fewer employment opportunities elsewhere. Explicitly tying wages to performance is difficult in sectors like ECEC where there are few easily measurable performance indicators. Instead, one option is to link pay increases to staff training and professional development activities. Two examples from the United States demonstrate how providing wage boosts and salary supplements based on education and professional development can help reduce turnover and boost retention (Box 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Salary progression for pre-primary teachers varies across OECD countries

Annual statutory teachers' salaries in public pre-primary institutions over the course of the career, USD PPP, 2017

Note: Statutory salaries based on pay scales and the most prevalent qualifications in public institutions at each stage of the career. Statutory salaries are only one component of teachers’ total compensation. Education systems also offer additional payments to teachers, such as allowances, bonuses or other rewards. For Finland, data on pre-primary teachers includes the salary of kindergarten teachers, who are the majority. For Germany, statutory salaries vary considerably depending on collective bargaining agreement. The data shown refer to gross basic starting salary and highest possible gross basic salary for a pre-primary teacher ("Erzieher") ‘with demanding tasks’ covered by the TVöD SuE collective agreement for workers in public social and educational services.

Source: OECD (2018), OECD Education at a Glance 2018, http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/; for Germany, OECD calculations based on information from Oberhuemer and Schreye (2018[4]).

Box 3.1. The Child Care WAGE$ Initiative and Workforce Incentive Project in the United States

Child Care WAGE$ Initiative in North Carolina (United States)

The Child Care WAGE$ initiative in North Carolina (United States) is an education-based salary supplement for ECEC workers aimed at increasing the attractiveness of ECEC as a profession for educated teachers. As part of the programme, participants receive a financial reward issued bi-annually, upon completion of six months in the same ECEC centre. The programme is implemented by a local non-profit organization under the supervision of the North Carolina state government. In 2017‑18, the average six-month supplement was USD 902 (equivalent to an annual salary increase of about EUR 1 600) (T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood National Center, 2017[70]).

Evaluations suggest the WAGE$ initiative has helped improve retention. Turnover rates for participants in WAGE$ over the last decade range from 12% to 18%, significantly below its stated goal of 25% and industry national averages of around 30% to 40% (T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood National Center, 2017[70]). A large majority of participants (96%) report believing that the salary supplements either encouraged them to stay in their current settings or to pursue further education, with 97% of them reporting feeling less stressed, more appreciated, and better recognised due to the programme (T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood National Center, 2017[70]). Furthermore, education levels also increased among WAGE$ participants. In 2017, 74% of WAGE$ participants had an Associate’s degree in early childhood education, compared to only 30% of active participants in 1999, its first year of state-wide implementation (T.E.A.C.H Early Childhood National Center, 2017[70]).

Workforce Incentive Project (W.I.N.) in Missouri (United States)

The Workforce Incentive Project (W.I.N.) in Missouri is a public and privately funded programme that issues bi-annual wage supplements to ECEC staff based on educational attainment. The programme has a primary goal to reduce ECEC staff turnover, and a secondary objective of encouraging staff to engage in education, training, and professional development (Gable et al., 2007[71]). Eligibility for the programme depends on qualifications and tenure: all staff with at least upper-secondary education and a service record of at least 30 hours per week for at least nine months per year are eligible. The programme deliberately includes staff with an upper-secondary qualification but without any further formal post-secondary education, as a key aim is to encourage less educated staff to pursuit further studies. The annual wage supplements delivered to participants range from USD 500 (about EUR 450) for a staff member with upper-secondary education to USD 2 500 (EUR 2 200) for a staff member with a specific Master’s-level qualification in ECEC or child development (Gable et al., 2007[71]).

Evaluations suggest the programme is likely to have helped improve staff retention. Based on a quasi-experimental design and survival analysis, Gabel et al. (2007[71]) find that W.I.N. participation is associated with lower rates of turnover in teaching staff, even after controlling for other factors such as job satisfaction, location (urban, suburban or rural) and hourly wage, though no such association was found for centre managers. Notably, Gabel et al. (2007[71]) find that the positive effect on teaching staff retention is stronger for staff with above-median levels of education, experience, and hourly wages. The authors interpret this finding as suggesting that cash incentives could serve as a welcome bonus for more highly qualified or experienced staff, decreasing their probability to seek out higher paying jobs (Gable et al., 2007[71]).

3.3. Improving working conditions

Wages are not the only factor driving low retention. ECEC staff considering leaving their jobs also often point to stress, burnout and poor support as key reasons (Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]). Several studies show that workers reporting emotional exhaustion and/or poor working conditions are more likely than others to express an intention to leave (Manlove and Guzell, 1997[72]; Grant, Jeon and Buettner, 2019[73]). For example, one study from the United States found that a one-unit increase in emotional exhaustion (measured as low, medium, or high) doubled the likelihood of an individual leaving their job (Manlove and Guzell, 1997[72]). Another found that feeling poorly supported at work is a far stronger predictor of intention to leave than the actual work itself (Wells, 2015[69]).Workload is also correlated with quality, in that staff with heavier workloads tend to perform worse than those with lighter schedules (OECD, 2012[1]; Grant, Jeon and Buettner, 2019[73]). Improving working conditions and staff support structures can help increase staff performance, boost job satisfaction, improve staff-child interactions, and reduce turnover (OECD, 2012[1]; Ackerman, 2006[16]; Schreyer and Krause, 2016[74]; Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]; OECD, 2018[2]).

By several measures, working conditions in ECEC are poorer than those in competing occupations, such as primary education. For example, although total working time is often similar in pre-primary and primary education, there are typically major differences in the structure of working time and in how staff spend their time at work (OECD, 2017[32]). In many OECD countries, pre-primary teachers spend more time than primary teachers in direct contact with children (Figure 3.2, Panel A), and less on other duties (Figure 3.2, Panel B). Indeed, on average across OECD countries with available data, total annual direct contact time for teachers in public pre-primary education institutions is 260 hours longer than direct contact time for primary education teachers. As a result, pre-primary teachers often have less paid time for activities such as preparation and meetings with colleagues and parents, with the risk being that they end up making up the difference through unpaid work in their free time.

Working conditions can be influenced through the setting of minimum regulatory standards, such as those governing the number of children per staff member and the space for a given number of children (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). Child-to-staff ratios are perhaps the most frequently cited and heavily monitored minimum standard. Lower child-to-staff ratios provide more opportunities for interaction between staff and children, and lead to interactions that are more meaningful (OECD, 2012[1]). And in addition to the direct effect on process quality, child-to-staff ratios also impact the working environment. When asked through questionnaires and interviews, staff report feeling more supported and less stress when responsible for a smaller group of children, and that staff-child dialogue and other activities suffer when group size increases (Pramling-Samuelsson et al., 2016[75]).

Currently, child-to-staff ratios in pre-primary education services differ considerably across OECD countries (Figure 3.3). In 2016, the average child-to-teaching-staff ratio across OECD countries was 14.2 – meaning that there was approximately 14 children for every teacher in pre-primary education – but this varied from more than 20 children per teacher in Chile, France and Mexico to fewer than ten in Germany, Iceland, Latvia, and Slovenia. However, some OECD countries make extensive use of teacher’s assistants at the pre-primary level. As a result, in several countries, the child-to-contact-staff ratio is considerably lower than the child-to-teaching-staff ratio (Figure 3.3). Child-to-staff ratios are generally a little lower in services aimed at younger children. In Iceland, for example, the child-to-teaching staff ratio for early childhood educational development services in 2016 was as low as 3.2, meaning there are approximately three children per member of teaching staff.

Several OECD countries have introduced measures to improve ECEC child-to-staff ratios and strengthen regulatory standards more generally. For example, in 2005, Korea tightened regulations to improve standards in day care centres. The maximum staff-to-child ratio was reduced from five to three for children under age one, and set at five for 1-year-olds; seven for 2-year-olds; 15-20 for 3-year-olds; and 20 for 4‑and 5-year-olds (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). Other measures included regulations on the maximum number of children per centre (300) and on regulated floor space per child (raised from 3.64 to 4.29 square metres per child) (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]).

Figure 3.2. Most pre-primary teachers in the OECD spend more hours in direct contact with children than primary teachers

Net teaching time and time spent on other duties over the school year, public pre-primary and primary education institutions, hours per year, 2017

Note: For the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Israel, Latvia, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Turkey, data refer to typical teaching time (i.e. teaching time required from most teachers when no specific circumstances apply to teachers). For Chile, the Netherlands, Portugal and Scotland (UK), maximum teaching time. For Korea, minimum teaching time. For the United actual teaching time. Data for the United States refer to 2016.

Source: OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/19991487.

By their nature, lower child-to-staff ratios are likely to lead to increased staff costs. One option for countries with limited budgets could be introduce responsive child-to-staff regulations that adjust according to the needs and characteristics of staff and children. In England, for instance, child-to-staff ratios have been set to respond to the qualifications of staff employed in the class- and playroom. The stipulated ratio for 3- to 6-year-olds is 13 when there is a qualified teacher or equivalent in the group, but this decreases to 8 when there is no qualified teacher or equivalent present (Wall, Litjens and Taguma, 2015[36]). For 2-year-olds the minimum ratio is four children per member of staff, and for children under two it is three per member of staff. Together with Finland, England has one of the lowest child-to-staff ratios for very young children in the OECD (Wall, Litjens and Taguma, 2015[36]; Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]).

Figure 3.3. Child-to-staff ratios in pre-primary education differ considerably across OECD countries

Average ratios of pupils to teaching staff and to all contact staff (teachers and teaching aides) in pre-primary education services (public and private), based on full-time equivalents, 2016

Note: Data should be interpreted with some caution since the indicator compares the teacher/student ratios in countries with '"education-only” and "integrated education and day care” programmes. In some countries, the staff requirements in these two types of provision are very different. See OECD Education at a Glance 2018 Annex 3 for more detail (http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm).

Source: OECD (2018[19]), OECD Education at at Glance, http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/.

Besides minimum standards, organisational features such leadership and relationships with colleagues are also important for staff retention (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]; Grant, Jeon and Buettner, 2019[73]). Management support, in particular, is key. Evidence shows that staff who report little support from management also express lower job satisfaction and perform their teaching and care-giving tasks less well than those who receive greater support (Ackerman, 2006[16]; Whitebook and Sakai, 2003[76]). Autonomy and independence are important too. In one study of ECEC workers in Australia, staff with a greater degree of influence and those working in settings with a flatter organisational structure often reported a stronger intention to stay (McDonald, Thorpe and Irvine, 2018[14]). Foremost among these practices was increased work-time autonomy, including control over schedules and working hours.

3.4. Encouraging in-service training and professional development

Recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff is only one part of building a high-quality workforce. Education and neuroscience is always progressing, and no matter how good the pre-service education system is, it cannot be expected to prepare ECEC staff for every challenge they will face in their careers. Existing staff need opportunities for ongoing in-service training and professional development to allow them to stay abreast of the latest advances in teaching and care practice, to update them on changes to curricula, and to help weaker staff become more effective (OECD, 2012[1]). In fact, research suggests that relevant in-service training is one of the most effective levers for process quality and for supporting children’s development, learning, and well-being (OECD, 2018[2]).

In-service training may also help improve staff retention, though it is important to make a distinction here between turnover within specific centres and turnover in the wider field. Some studies find evidence that in-service training actually increases the likelihood of an individual leaving their specific centre, perhaps because it opens up new opportunities elsewhere inside the sector (Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]; Irvine et al., 2016[15]). There is also some danger that pressuring unwilling staff to undergo in-service training may force some workers out of their jobs (Irvine et al., 2016[15]; Bridges et al., 2011[66]). At the same time, however, training and professional development can help keep skilled workers in the ECEC sector as a whole (Totenhagen et al., 2016[18]; Irvine et al., 2016[15]). Individuals that have gained sector-specific skills through in-service training have greater incentives to remain in the field. Training and professional development can also help build professional identity and open up new career avenues, boosting commitment and career satisfaction.

In-service training and professional development activities take a variety of forms. They can be conducted “on the job” or externally – such as in colleges, universities, or other training institutions – and can be delivered through, for instance, staff meetings, workshops, conferences, subject training, field-based consultation training, supervised practices and mentoring. To be most effective, in-service training needs to be tailored to the needs of specific staff and offered on a long-term basis (OECD, 2012[1]). They key is to provide both the courses that help staff to stay abreast of the latest developments, and the training that provides staff with the tools needed to apply this knowledge in their work (OECD, 2012[1]).

A major challenge in promoting in-service training and professional development is encouraging and incentivising staff to enrol. In the absence of support, and given the low wages and poor working conditions often found in the ECEC sector, staff may feel they do not have the time or resources to attend training and professional development activities. Providers themselves may also be unwilling to let staff attend training if resources are stretched and they are not properly compensated. And there are practical considerations too – in the context of staff shortages, it may be difficult (and costly) to find substitute workers.

OECD countries have adopted a variety of measures aimed at promoting participation in in-service training and development (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). In several countries, in-service training and professional development is mandatory (OECD, 2012[1]). In Slovenia, for instance, it is obligatory for teaching staff in ECEC to participate in at least five days in-service training per year, or 15 days spread across three years (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]; Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]). In Austria, requirements vary across states but range from a minimum mandatory requirement for two or three days during working time to a maximum of five days during centre holidays (Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]). In Luxembourg, most staff are obliged to attend 32 hours of professional development activities every two years, and at least eight hours annually (Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]). In general, mandatory in-service training is more common for teachers at the pre-primary level than for staff in care-oriented services aimed at children under three (OECD, 2012[1]).

Aside from mandating training, other common strategies for encouraging staff to engage in training and professional development include financial support to cover the costs of training and earnings foregone, as well as study leave. In Slovenia, for instance, ECEC teachers undertaking in-service training receive paid study leave, plus expenses for transport costs and participation fees (Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). In Sweden, under the “Boost for Preschool” training programme that ran between 2009 and 2011, ECEC staff participating in university courses continued to receive 80% of their salary, with the costs shared between government and providers (Swedish Council for Higher Education, 2017[77]; Litjens and Taguma, 2017[3]). In France, public sector pre-primary teachers who have at least three years tenure have the right to a one-year job-secured professional leave, during which they continue to receive 85% of their salary. They have to submit monthly activity reports, and must commit to continuing working in the public sector for at least three times the length of the leave on their return (Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]).

Some countries also provide cash or career incentives to staff who engage in professional development, such as wage increases or new career opportunities. In the United States, for example, several programmes and initiatives from around the country provide scholarships and wage bonuses to ECEC staff engaging in education, training and professional development (Box 3.2). Evidence suggests these kinds of programmes can help encourage staff to participate in education and training, and may also boost retention (Box 3.2). In Spain, professional development activities count as ‘merits’ that can be put towards eligibility for a transfer, promotion, or salary increase (Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]). In Denmark, ECEC teachers that complete at least six weeks of professional development activities in a two-year period and pass an assessment have the opportunity to enrol in a further ‘diploma study’ programme, which typically provides an additional qualification in a specialised area (Oberhuemer and Schreyer, 2018[4]).

Box 3.2. The Teacher Education and Compensation Helps (T.E.A.C.H.) and the Child-care Retention Incentive (CRI) programmes in the United States

Teacher Education and Compensation Helps (T.E.A.C.H.) programme in Wisconsin

The Teacher Education and Compensation Helps (T.E.A.C.H.) early childhood programme is a state-run initiative designed to improve the qualifications, wages, and retention of ECEC workers. The programme began in 1990 in North Carolina, but has since been introduced in other states across the United States. Today, the T.E.A.C.H programme is present in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Exact programme details vary from state to state. Here, the focus is on the implementation of T.E.A.C.H in one specific state, Wisconsin, as described in its 1999-2003 evaluation report.

The T.E.A.C.H early childhood programme in Wisconsin offers scholarships to support ECEC teachers in taking college courses, and financial incentives to stay in the sector afterwards. The programme requires recipients to agree to remain in their jobs for six months to one year following completion of their contract, after which they typically receive a bonus or raise from their employer and a bonus from T.E.A.C.H. (Adams et al., 2003[78]).

The primary goal of the T.E.A.C.H. early childhood programme is to support training and professional development among staff. By several measures, the 1999-2003 evaluation shows it is largely successful in this aim. Roughly half of staff receiving T.E.A.C.H. scholarships had not been in training or professional development in the year prior receipt, suggesting the programme was effective in supporting and encouraging training among staff motivated to do so. Completion rates were also high (Adams et al., 2003[78]). Three-quarters of staff awarded scholarships to study infant care courses went on to complete the course, as did 85% of those awarded scholarships for administration courses (Adams et al., 2003[78]).

Improvements also extend to retention: T.E.A.C.H. recipients had an average annual turnover rate of 12%, corresponding to less than one-third the annual turnover rate across the state of Wisconsin as a whole. Even among those who left their jobs, a majority (57%) stayed in the ECEC field. Only 7.6% of recipients actually left the ECEC field altogether (Adams et al., 2003[78]). However, it is important to bear in mind that these results are based only on recipients that completed the evaluators’ survey, and it is important to consider potential bias problems in the sample, as those who responded normally exhibit higher motivation and may be less likely to leave, in general.

Child-care Retention Incentive (CRI) programme in California

In 2001, California created a similar incentive programme called the Matching Funds for Child-care Retention Incentive (CRI) programme, which offered cash incentives to ECEC staff for participation in professional development. The aim was to boost staff qualification levels and reduce staff turnover. The programme spent $164 million on ECEC staff between 2001 and 2004. Local authorities were encouraged to participate through matching grants from the state (i.e. state financial contributions that “match” the funds put forward at the local level) and given the freedom to design the specific aspects of its program. The exact conditions of the grants (including who would be eligible, the intensity of professional development activities, the level of wage incentives, and the contingency with staying in one's centre or the field) varied from one local authority to another. This feature of CRI makes it attractive option for evaluation, such as that by Bridges et al. (2011[66]), since it is possible to exploit the variability in programme characteristics in order to tease out their potentially differing effects.

One evaluation of the programme found that offering wage incentives helped encourage ECEC staff – especially lower-paid and less-senior staff – to participate in professional development courses (Bridges et al., 2011[66]). The authors report that the effect was “modest” but also consistent across sites. In terms of courses completed, lower skilled staff gained most from the intervention. Staff in more senior roles, staff who were higher paid, and staff who held greater tenure all completed fewer courses, suggesting limits to the gains for already highly qualified and/or highly paid staff. Latino assistants and staff in publicly funded ECEC centres also gained more, compared, respectively, to white assistants and staff in private fee-supported centres. It is an encouraging sign for those looking to raise average ECEC workforce credentials that lower paid staff and staff from minority populations experienced the largest gains.