For more than two decades, Sylvia Crews has served as a cornerstone of early childhood education in Washington, D.C. After a long career in the sector, she established the LTH Infants and Toddlers Center—the name serving as an acronym for "loving, tender home"—following her purchase of a home in 2015. Today, her center is licensed to accommodate nine children between the ages of six weeks and 3.5 years old, supported by a staff of four. Yet, as Crews, 67, considers the future of her profession, she is struck by a sobering realization: the workforce that sustains this critical infrastructure is aging rapidly, with few young successors waiting in the wings to take their place.
Crews remains committed to her work, stating she intends to continue "as long as the Lord will allow me to." However, her concerns mirror a broader demographic shift that is currently rippling through the child care industry. As the cohort of experienced, home-based providers nears retirement age, the sector faces an existential question regarding its sustainability and the availability of care for the next generation of working families.
The Demographic Cliff: A Data-Driven Crisis
The statistics surrounding the child care workforce paint a stark picture of a profession experiencing a generational disconnect. According to recent federal survey data analyzed by the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (CSCCE) at the University of California, Berkeley, more than 50 percent of all licensed or registered home-based child care providers are over the age of 50. In stark contrast, individuals aged 29 or younger account for a mere 4 percent of this specific workforce.
This trend is notably different from larger, institutional child care centers—such as preschools and Head Start programs—where the age distribution is more evenly spread, with approximately one-third of the workforce under the age of 30. The discrepancy is even more pronounced when examining "unlisted" or unlicensed home-based care providers, where the workforce is more evenly balanced between older and younger adults. This suggests that while young people are entering the field, they are either avoiding the regulatory hurdles of formal licensing or are unable to overcome the barriers to entry required to establish a registered business.
Katharine Sadowski, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, notes that while aging itself is a natural phenomenon, the combination of a shrinking, older workforce with the existing structural challenges of the industry creates a volatile situation. "The aging part of the story, on its own, is not the problem," Sadowski explains. "But when you combine it with all the other pieces, about the composition of the workforce, of who we’ve relied on, it spells trouble."
The Vital Role of Home-Based Care
To understand the gravity of the situation, one must recognize the specific niche that home-based providers occupy. While federal surveys indicate that roughly 66 percent of children in nonparental care attend larger institutional programs, home-based settings remain an essential alternative for about 17 percent of children.
These providers often offer features that larger centers cannot. A significant advantage is flexibility. Federal data reveals that only 8 percent of large child care centers provide services 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 such flexibility. Furthermore, these settings are frequently chosen by families for their ability to provide culturally responsive care, including instruction in native languages, specific religious observances, or specialized curricula that larger, more homogenized centers might lack.
Natalie Renew, executive director of the nonprofit organization Home Grown, emphasizes that the strength of home-based care lies in its inherent responsiveness to family needs. "We know families choose providers who eat vegan food or speak the language they like or observe the religion they like," Renew says. "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 History of Attrition and Structural Barriers
The decline of the home-based sector is not a new phenomenon. Between 2005 and 2017, federal reports identified that more than 97,000 small, home-based providers—defined as sole proprietors—ceased operations. This mass exit from the market has been driven by a combination of economic pressures and increasingly complex regulatory requirements.
Hayley Village, who has spent 45 years in the field and operates "It Takes a Village Children and Family Services" in San Mateo, California, highlights the personal, often invisible labor involved in the work. For Village, a native of England, this means curating a curriculum that honors the diversity of her students, incorporating celebrations ranging from Diwali to Chinese New Year. Her approach is rooted in connection: "It’s connecting what you would do with your own children. You embrace who they are. And when you make that connection, they feel heard and validated."
However, even for a veteran like Village, the physical and financial demands of the job are becoming unsustainable. While she has no immediate plans to retire, she has spent the last three years contemplating the transition. "I thought as I turn 60, it’s time to walk away and mentor the younger generation," she says. "I can’t do some of the things I did 30 years ago."
The Financial and Regulatory Squeeze
For many, the dream of owning a child care business is obstructed by the harsh realities of the real estate market. In many jurisdictions, licensing requirements mandate that the provider must own their residence. In high-cost urban markets, the barrier to entry is nearly insurmountable. Village, who rents her home, notes that the property is valued at roughly $2 million—a price point that makes business ownership impossible without significant financial intervention.
Even in regions where renters are permitted to operate child care centers, the regulatory demands often mirror commercial property codes. Providers are frequently required to install expensive upgrades, such as hard-wired sprinkler systems, specialized fire suppression technology, or multiple emergency exits. These modifications are not only costly to install but can also negatively impact a residential property’s resale value, and landlords are often unwilling to authorize such structural changes.
Anna Powell, associate director of research and policy at the CSCCE, warns that these closures are often permanent. "When you see a type of business going out of business, it doesn’t mean families don’t want it," Powell explains. "It is more of a warning bell; this is an aging group, and when centers close, they don’t come back."
The Search for Solutions and the Path Forward
The financial strain is compounded by the fact that child care remains one of the lowest-paid professions in the United States. As Village notes, providers are essentially forced to compete with the starting wages of retail and fast-food chains. "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," she argues. "Why is it not looked at that children are tomorrow’s future? We’re brain developers."
Some states have begun to experiment with incentive programs to bridge the gap. Nebraska, for example, offers startup and expansion grants of up to $5,000. Connecticut has initiated programs that provide physical space for providers to operate, bypassing the need for home ownership. Louisiana utilized federal American Rescue Plan funds to stabilize centers during the pandemic, though such temporary funding streams are increasingly drying up.
Critics argue that these efforts, while helpful, are largely insufficient given the scale of the crisis. Sylvia Crews remains skeptical of the current approach, calling for a more holistic commitment to affordability. "Child care is expensive around the country; make it affordable for everyone," she says.
As the industry stands at this crossroads, there is a growing consensus among advocates that the future of child care requires a seat at the policy table for the providers themselves. Hayley Village, transitioning toward an advocacy role, encapsulates the frustration of a generation of educators who have built a vital, yet overlooked, infrastructure. "When lawmakers make these decisions, it’s never been a truly collaborative effort," she says. "We’ve never been at the table."
Ultimately, the impending retirement of the "over 50" cohort of child care providers serves as a stark reminder of the fragile nature of the care economy. Without a concerted effort to lower the barriers to entry, improve wages, and provide meaningful financial support to new entrepreneurs, the nation risks losing a diverse and essential component of its child care system—a loss that will be felt most acutely by the families who rely on these "loving, tender" homes.
