For over two decades, Sylvia Crews has dedicated her life to the foundational work of early childhood education. Operating out of her home in Washington, D.C., since 2015, she manages the LTH Infants and Toddlers Center—a name that pays homage to the “loving, tender home” environment she provides for up to nine children. At 67 years old, Crews oversees a small team of four employees, serving families with children ranging from six weeks to three and a half years old. Yet, as she looks toward the horizon, her commitment to the sector is clouded by a stark realization: the workforce that powers home-based child care is aging out, and there is no clear pipeline of younger professionals to take their place.
Crews remains resolute in her mission, stating she intends to work “as long as the Lord will allow me to.” However, her concerns reflect a broader, systemic anxiety within the childcare industry. “At a point, I know I’ll have to stop,” she said. “But as for the next generation, how do we get them involved? We need to bring them in.”
A Demographic Imbalance
The structural integrity of the American child care system is increasingly fragile, largely due to a stark demographic divide. Federal survey data from the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (CSCCE) reveals that more than 50 percent of licensed or registered home-based child care providers are over the age of 50. By contrast, only 4 percent of these providers are 29 years old or younger.
This trend creates a significant disparity between home-based care and larger, center-based facilities. In traditional child care centers—which include preschools, Head Start, and formal pre-kindergarten programs—approximately one-third of the workforce is 29 or younger. The imbalance is somewhat mitigated only in the “unlisted” or informal market, where providers are not required to hold licenses. In that sector, the age distribution is more equitable, with approximately 30 percent of providers over 50 and a roughly equal share under 30.
Katharine Sadowski, an assistant professor of education at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, notes that the aging workforce is a bellwether for deeper instability. “The aging part of the story, on its own, is not the problem,” Sadowski said. “But when you combine it with all the other pieces—about the composition of the workforce and who we have relied on—it spells trouble.”
The Vital Role of Home-Based Care
While larger centers account for roughly 66 percent of nonparental child care, home-based providers occupy a critical niche that larger institutions struggle to fill. Federal data indicates that only 8 percent of larger child care centers offer care during non-traditional hours—such as evenings, nights, or weekends—to accommodate parents working shift jobs. In contrast, more than one-third of licensed home-based providers offer this essential flexibility.
Beyond scheduling, home-based care often provides a level of cultural and linguistic continuity that is harder to achieve in institutional settings. Parents frequently select these providers because they offer specific diets, such as vegan options, or because they can provide instruction in a child’s native language or observe specific religious traditions.
Natalie Renew, executive director of the nonprofit organization Home Grown, which focuses on supporting home-based child care, emphasizes the importance of this model. “We know families choose providers who eat vegan food or speak the language they like or observe the religion they like,” Renew said. “The strength of home-based child care is a very responsive service delivery. When you have a model reinforcing homogeneity, that is not good for parents.”
A Shrinking Landscape
The decline of the home-based sector is not a new phenomenon, but it is accelerating. Between 2005 and 2017, a federal report identified the closure of more than 97,000 small home-based providers—defined as operations run by a single caregiver. Once these programs close, they rarely return, creating permanent gaps in local child care capacity.
Hayley Village, a veteran educator based in San Mateo, California, has spent 45 years in the field, including the last two decades running "It Takes a Village Children and Family Services." Her approach highlights the personalized nature of home-based care; she integrates diverse cultural events like Chinese New Year, Cinco de Mayo, and Diwali into her curriculum based on the backgrounds of the families she serves. She once guided her students through a correspondence project with the British Royal Family to celebrate the late Queen’s 60th year on the throne, viewing it as a way to connect children to the wider world.
“It’s connecting what you would do with your own children,” Village said. “You embrace who they are. And when you make that connection, they feel heard and validated.” However, even as she continues to innovate, the physical and financial demands of the job are becoming unsustainable. Like many of her peers, she has begun to contemplate retirement. “I thought as I turn 60, it’s time to walk away and mentor the younger generation,” she said. “I can’t do some of the things I did 30 years ago.”
Financial Barriers and Policy Hurdles
The economic reality of the child care industry is perhaps the greatest barrier to recruiting a new generation of providers. According to the National Association for Family Child Care, the top concern among aging workers is the ability to afford retirement. Home-based centers are rarely lucrative enough to provide retirement benefits, and child care remains one of the lowest-paying sectors in the United States.
“When you’re competing with In-N-Out Burger and Amazon drivers’ salaries, at $22, $23 an hour, you have to invest in early childhood education to keep people in the field,” Village noted. “Why is it not looked at that children are tomorrow’s future? We’re brain developers.”
Furthermore, the barrier to entry for young entrepreneurs is prohibitively high. In many jurisdictions, operating a home-based center requires the provider to own their home—a prospect increasingly out of reach for millennials and Gen Z. Even in states like California, where renters are permitted to operate child care centers, the regulatory requirements can be daunting. Experts point to mandates for hard-wired sprinkler systems, secondary exits, and other commercial-grade infrastructure improvements. These modifications are not only expensive but often require landlord approval and can diminish a property’s resale value.
“I think health and safety are important, but I think we’ve conflated them into a set of requirements for providers who can only own their homes,” Renew said. “We’re asking providers to make commercial improvements to residential homes.”
State-Level Interventions and Future Outlook
While federal policy remains in flux, several states have attempted to provide stopgap measures to stabilize the industry. Nebraska has implemented a grant program providing up to $5,000 to assist in starting or expanding family child care operations. Connecticut recently introduced a pilot program to provide physical space for prospective providers, bypassing the need for home ownership. Similarly, Louisiana utilized American Rescue Plan funds to offer stabilization grants during the pandemic, though such funding is often temporary.
Despite these efforts, providers like Crews argue that the assistance is insufficient to meet the scale of the crisis. “Child care is expensive around the country; make it affordable for everyone,” she said.
The long-term implication of this decline is a further reduction in high-quality, accessible care options for working families. Anna Powell, associate director of research and policy at the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, warns that the current situation is a “warning bell.” When these centers shutter, the infrastructure of early childhood support erodes, often leaving families in "child care deserts" with few alternatives.
As the industry stands at this crossroads, many veterans are shifting their focus from daily care to advocacy. Village, for instance, is transitioning into a role aimed at influencing policy, frustrated by a history of top-down decision-making that often excludes the voices of the providers themselves. “When lawmakers make these decisions, it’s never been a truly collaborative effort,” she said. “We’ve never been at the table.”
The challenge moving forward is twofold: first, addressing the immediate financial and regulatory barriers that prevent new, younger providers from entering the field, and second, ensuring that the legacy of those like Crews and Village is preserved through mentorship and sustainable business models. Without a concerted effort to treat early childhood education as a vital public infrastructure, the loss of these experienced providers may signal a permanent shift in how the nation cares for its youngest citizens.
