Educational development programs are often scheduled during academic breaks to encourage faculty participation. However, these timing decisions can unintentionally create barriers for faculty who are also parents, particularly during summer and school breaks when childcare options are scarce. This article examines case studies from two institutions that implemented childcare support strategies to facilitate faculty participation in professional development. While both initiatives achieved success, they highlight the limitations of addressing a systemic societal issue with grassroots, localized solutions. This discussion offers lessons learned, practical recommendations, and a call for equity-focused, inclusive approaches to better support faculty caregivers in professional development programs.
Participation in faculty development is widely encouraged and even mandated at some higher education institutions. However, certain barriers can limit the inclusion of all faculty members. Among these, family caregiving responsibilities have received limited attention in the context of educational development. While existing research has highlighted gaps in faculty advancement linked to caregiving roles (
This article seeks to address this gap by presenting two case studies of initiatives that provided childcare support during faculty development events to promote more inclusive participation. It also examines the challenges encountered in implementing these efforts and offers actionable recommendations for overcoming them. While the research broadly considers caregiving-related disparities among faculty, it primarily focuses on women in parenting roles, who are disproportionately affected, as noted in the literature (
This brief review provides context on faculty parenting and caregiving, emphasizing intersections with faculty development. To highlight faculty caregivers’ experiences, we incorporate qualitative and quantitative evidence of gender disparities related to caregiving, including insights beyond traditional scholarly sources. Gaps in the literature underscore the urgency of elevating this conversation in academic discourse and addressing the challenges faculty caregivers face.
Multiple factors contribute to inequities in higher education, including gender and parenting status. Women make up 44% of tenure-track faculty, but only 36% of full professors (
Childbearing decisions further illustrate the complex interplay between gender and inequities. Many academic women delay or avoid having children due to lengthy schooling, job searches, relocations, and tenure-track or increasingly precarious positions. Among women aged 30–39, 38.8% with a graduate or professional degree remain childless, compared to 13.1% of those without a high school diploma and 20.4% with a high school diploma but no college (
Economic disparities further exacerbate these challenges for academic women, especially those with caregiving responsibilities. Salaries influence childbearing decisions and caregiving needs, yet the gender pay gap in academia persists: women earn 82 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earn (
In academia and beyond, women tend to bear the childcare and household labor burden disproportionately, increasing stress and affecting career development (
This perception of inequality as structurally-embedded rather than individually-caused underscores the need for institutional policies supporting caregivers. Yet such policies remain inadequate. The U.S. is one of only six countries without national paid leave (
While research has addressed gender disparities and caregiving’s impact on faculty advancement, little attention has been paid to how caregiving affects participation in faculty development. This gap is particularly striking in sources that directly shape the field of educational development.
A keyword search for “childcare” in
A similar search in the
A few sources outside these journals offer a broader context. Mason et al. (
Overall, the literature reveals a consistent lack of engagement with the structural challenges caregiving poses for faculty participation in educational development. Despite decades of research documenting gendered caregiving burdens, references to childcare in key journals remain minimal and largely superficial. This absence reflects the broader marginalization of caregiving in academic discourse and practice.
In response to these long-standing gaps in both practice and literature, this study presents two case studies of grassroots, bottom-up efforts (
This article presents two case studies that originated as independent initiatives aimed at addressing caregiving challenges on college campuses. These efforts highlight the significant gap in information on caregiving within the POD Network and the broader educational development field. As valuable contributions to the larger discourse on caregiving in higher education, these case studies emphasize localized solutions that respond to specific campus needs.
The theoretical framework utilized in this work is grounded in the concept of grassroots justice (
Grassroots initiatives are vital in addressing the caregiving gaps prevalent in higher education, where systemic supports frequently fall short. Through collective action and adaptability, these initiatives can tackle local challenges and inspire meaningful institutional change. The two case studies presented demonstrate scalable, community-driven solutions to caregiving issues on campuses, showcasing their immediate impact and broader potential to create a more inclusive and responsive higher education environment for caregiving faculty. Viewed through this lens, grassroots justice serves as both a conceptual foundation and a practical approach for reimagining support systems.
The collaboration that led to these case studies began with a call for ideas on the POD Network listserv. The author of Case Study 2 sought examples of caregiver support programs, and the author of Case Study 1—who had successfully implemented such a program—was the sole respondent. Their subsequent exchange forged a partnership that culminated in the case studies presented here.
Each case reflects distinct campus contexts, cultures, and challenges, offering insights into the effective operation of grassroots approaches across diverse environments. The collaborative process underscores the methodological significance of grassroots justice, highlighting localized and context-sensitive strategies for tackling systemic caregiving inequities in higher education.
Data for the case studies were drawn from multiple sources. In both, anonymous feedback surveys were developed specifically for the events they evaluated. While not intended to support the broader arguments of this article, they serve as models for other practitioners interested in similar interventions. In Case 2, findings from an institutional report on faculty caregivers were also incorporated to provide additional context and support for the program’s goals.
Data were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics and thematic review. Given the small number of participants, findings are not generalizable but are shared as illustrative examples of the potential value of grassroots initiatives. These cases offer practical models for others developing caregiving-supportive programs, while highlighting the need for future research to expand on this work.
The University of Northern Iowa Institutional Review Board (IRB) administratively reviewed this study and determined it did not meet the definition of Human Subjects Research and thus did not require IRB approval.
University of Northern Iowa is a regional comprehensive university in Cedar Falls, Iowa, serving approximately 8,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate and graduate students. In 2018, several faculty parents identified a significant caregiving gap: faculty were required to work two days before the fall semester began, but campus childcare was closed during the three-week August interim between summer and fall terms—including those mandatory workdays. Compounding the issue, K-12 schools had not yet resumed, and many summer care programs for school-age children were unavailable.
These required workdays included the annual Fall Faculty Workshop, organized by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in partnership with the Office of the Provost. Held the Thursday before fall classes, the Workshop typically focuses on teaching-related topics such as artificial intelligence and accessibility. Departments often scheduled additional meetings or retreats that Friday. Faculty also used this time to prepare syllabi, meet advisees, facilitate student auditions, and fulfill other academic responsibilities.
Childcare providers were highly qualified, background-checked university students—mostly education or communicative sciences and disorders majors—with relevant certifications and extensive childcare experience. Children were divided into two age groups: infants through age two, and ages three to school age. Each group had a lead provider, paid a higher wage, who managed the schedule, activities, and safety protocols.
Snacks and lunch were provided for children and providers. The committee purchased supplies, borrowed first-aid kits from other campus units, and established check-in and safety procedures. Providers received a brief orientation before the event. United Faculty, the faculty union, funded the initiative and provided administrative support and advocacy.
Survey results (see
Table 1. Faculty childcare follow-up survey results, 2019
| Please rate the quality of care (activities, provider credentials, etc.) | 4 on 5-point scale: |
5 on 5-point scale: |
There were no responses 3 or lower on 5-point scale, from 0 (poor) to 5 (excellent). |
| If childcare had NOT been available at the workshop, would you have still attended? | Yes: |
No |
In-person faculty workshop participation was the only option in 2019. |
| Respondent gender | Male |
Female |
There were eight responses to this optional, free-text question. There were no responses indicating genders other than male or female. |
| Faculty academic department/college | There were nine responses to this optional, free-text question. Departments reported represent 4 of 5 academic colleges (College of Business not reported). |
Table 2. Follow-up survey qualitative items, 2019
| Are there other times or events throughout the year when childcare on campus would be useful? | Certain times of year remain especially challenging due to limited or unavailable childcare. |
|
| Feel free to provide any additional feedback. | Respondents expressed strong appreciation, citing: The high quality of care and provider expertise Lack of other options Frustration with systemic childcare gaps and absent solutions No negative comments. |
One major challenge during implementation was ensuring that all new faculty, particularly recent hires unfamiliar with campus processes, were informed about the childcare offering. Department heads were asked to share the information, but communication was inconsistent, and some new faculty may not have received it. United Faculty also sent notifications to all faculty, but many new hires lacked institutional email accounts during the summer, and their personal emails were not available to United Faculty or the committee. As a result, some were excluded from the childcare sign-up and related communications.
Childcare providers also encountered a few minor issues during the event. Some children, initially unfamiliar with the providers, needed a brief adjustment period. In a few cases, siblings placed in separate age groups asked to stay together, prompting room changes. Providers also expressed interest in taking children to other campus locations; however, planned “field trips” to the library makerspace and greenhouse were canceled due to liability concerns.
Due to new university Risk Management guidelines restricting childcare to the campus childcare center (closed those days), the event was relocated to the Catholic Student Center across the street from campus. Three rooms were reserved at a reasonable cost, and insurance was arranged through the Catholic Archdiocese.
The expanded service accommodated 15 children, aged 1 to 10, from 10 faculty families across seven departments in three of the university’s five academic colleges. All but two families required care for both days. The total cost of $3,581 was partially offset by a $1,000 Academic Mamas Foundation grant, with remaining expenses covered by United Faculty.
Provider recruitment and logistics followed the 2019 model, with added COVID-19 precautions. Providers and children over age two wore masks, and all providers submitted proof of vaccination prior to employment.
Table 3. Faculty childcare follow-up survey results, 2021
| Please rate the quality of care (activities, provider credentials, etc.) | 4 on 5-point scale: |
5 on 5-point scale: |
There were no responses 3 or lower on 5-point scale, from 0 (poor) to 5 (excellent). |
| If childcare had NOT been available at the workshop, would you have still attended? | Yes |
No or Not Fully |
Two additional respondents (25.0%) indicated they would attend if a virtual option were provided (as it was this year). |
| Respondent gender | Male |
Female or Woman |
There were five responses to this optional, free-text question. There were no responses indicating genders other than female or woman. |
| Faculty academic department/college | There were six responses to this optional, free-text question. Departments reported represent 3 of 5 academic colleges (Education and Library not reported). |
Table 4. Follow-up survey qualitative items, 2021
| What caregiving needs/gaps do you experience that United Faculty and/or UNI could or should address? | Faculty experience gaps during certain times of year and when schedules change. Faculty noted lack of childcare in our geographic area (childcare desert). |
|
| Feel free to provide any additional feedback. | Participants gave positive feedback and expressed deep gratitude. There were no negative comments. |
(For full 2021 report, see Appendix B in supplemental resources, available at:
In response, the committee broadened its focus to raise awareness and collect more data on caregiving needs. Efforts included advocating for a campuswide childcare needs assessment across all employees and drafting caregiving-related questions for a benefits survey. The committee also worked to elevate student caregiving concerns. National data show that 22% of U.S. undergraduates are caregivers, and they are about ten times less likely to graduate within six years compared to their peers (
Additionally, the committee launched an informal caregivers network, including an email group and occasional in-person gatherings. Participants consistently express appreciation for the connection and support the network provides.
A Caregiving Task Force was set to convene following the benefits survey and represented a critical step toward institutional awareness and expanded resources; it’s unclear whether it was ever formed. A holistic approach would offer the university opportunities to better support faculty, staff, and student caregivers, with positive implications for retention, wellness, inclusion, and academic success.
This case study details a faculty development initiative at Auburn University to support faculty caregivers during the Summer Course ReDesign (CRD) seminar, a cornerstone program aimed at redesigning courses for student-centered learning. Building on lessons from Case Study 1, the initiative addressed participation barriers for faculty with caregiving responsibilities—challenges that intensified during the pandemic.
In response, the Associate Director for Educational Development (second author) explored ways to offer meaningful support. Conversations with the author of Case Study 1 informed the approach, offering practical insights into grassroots childcare solutions and underscoring the importance of flexibility, collaboration, and attention to logistics.
Ultimately, the focus shifted to direct financial support. In collaboration with HR and Provost’s Office, a pilot program offered $500 childcare stipends to faculty with demonstrated need. Recipients could use the funds for childcare during the seminar week and received a curated list of providers. To increase accessibility, a second fully online seminar was added later in the summer.
The pilot initiative successfully addressed immediate barriers for faculty caregivers and highlighted the potential for similar approaches at other institutions. All three faculty who applied for the childcare stipend were able to fully participate in the seminar, and their feedback underscored the value of this support. One participant noted that the stipend alleviated significant stress and allowed them to focus entirely on the seminar’s content and activities. Faculty who did not require the stipend expressed appreciation for the institution’s efforts to recognize and address their colleagues’ caregiving challenges. The introduction of a second session further enhanced the program’s accessibility. Faculty with school-aged children were able to attend the in-person session scheduled immediately after the spring term while children were still in school; those managing other obligations participated in the online session later in the summer. This dual-format approach boosted participation and underscored the value of flexibility in meeting diverse faculty needs.
Administrative concerns about perceived inequity limited the promotion of the childcare stipend, possibly preventing some eligible faculty from accessing support. While the stipend eased financial strain, it didn’t address the limited availability of reliable care and some faculty struggled to find providers.
The approach described here owes much to the insights from Case Study 1. Without those early conversations, the second author would likely have spent considerable time rediscovering the same lessons. Thus, one noteable takeaway is the power of informal networks and importance of asking for guidance. Sharing lessons learned, even from small-scale approaches, can save others time, effort, and frustration.
Future efforts should prioritize advocacy for institutional support and policies that address caregiving challenges comprehensively. Engaging campus leaders in conversations about the economic and academic benefits of supporting faculty caregiver participation in professional development is critical. Additionally, institutions might consider integrating caregiving support into broader well-being and belonging initiatives, recognizing that caregiving intersects with other dimensions of identity and experience. Educational development programs are well-positioned to lead these efforts—not just by offering support, but by modeling inclusive practices in the design and scheduling of professional development programs.
Like many communities nationwide, the Auburn community is facing a severe childcare supply-and-demand crisis—one that underscores the need for universities to address caregiving challenges systemically. In response, the local AAUP chapter, led by faculty advocates such as Dr. Tracy Witte, a professor of Psychology and mother of a young child, launched a campuswide childcare survey in spring
Originating from concerns raised within AAUP’s executive committee, the survey was independently administered to all full-time employees and received 1,500 responses. Respondents were 68% female, 30% male, and 2% nonbinary or unspecified. The results revealed stark disparities, with women disproportionately affected by childcare barriers.
Key findings included difficulty securing summer care—over 40% of those needing care for May 2023 had not finalized plans by April. Financial strain was also prominent, as local childcare costs often exceeded affordability, especially with inflation outpacing salary increases. Emotional stress was acute among women, driven by inadequate care options and the pressures of balancing work and caregiving. A lack of transparency in employee recruitment was also apparent: 61% of those who relocated were unaware of the limited childcare landscape. Notably, 30% of respondents had considered leaving their jobs due to related stress.
In response, the AAUP chapter successfully advocated for a university task force to study the issue, benchmark peer institutions, and propose sustainable solutions—a critical step toward systemic change.
For many caregivers, the survey itself was validating, offering a rare opportunity to voice frustrations and feel seen. This aligns with the broader claims of this paper: raising awareness and creating space for dialogue are essential first steps toward institutional transformation. The findings also underscore the need to integrate caregiving into inclusion efforts.
A vendor-based childcare solution was offered at the 2024 POD Network Conference in Chicago. During registration, attendees could cite their childcare needs, prompting a follow-up email requesting details about children’s ages and specific requirements, as well as the times and days care was needed. This service covered all conference sessions and extended to after-hours evening care during extracurricular events.
As the second author, I share my personal experience in alignment with the grassroots justice framework (
“Other countries have social safety nets. The U.S. has women.”
This viral statement by sociologist Jessica Calarco (2020) captured a systemic truth: The U.S. relies on individual caregivers—especially women—to fill institutional gaps. This paper explores that reality through the lens of faculty participation in professional development programs offered by centers for teaching and learning (CTLs). While grounded in higher education, the challenges discussed reflect broader issues across academia and the workforce.
In place of systemic change—which remains slow-moving and often outside the control of educational developers—we advocate for grassroots strategies that address caregiving barriers where and when we can. These locally-driven efforts, while limited in scope, offer meaningful support to caregiving faculty and help surface institutional blind spots that might otherwise go unexamined.
This orientation aligns with Capeheart and Milovanovic’s (
The three approaches explored in this article—pop-up childcare, stipends, and vendor-based care—illustrate the trade-offs involved in designing support. The pop-up model emphasized accessibility and community but required significant labor and lacked sustainability. The stipend model offered flexible, individualized support but placed logistical burdens on faculty and lacked shared experience. Vendor-based childcare, as seen in the conference example, combined scalability with professional care and reduced institutional lift, but likely came at a higher cost.
Together, these models reflect possibilities within current constraints and offer practical strategies for institutions committed to more inclusive educational development.
The case studies presented here focused specifically on faculty and did not address the needs of other campus stakeholders, such as staff and students, nor did they explore caregiving related to elder care or other dependents. Additionally, they did not fully account for the limited care options available to families with medically vulnerable or special-needs children. As examples from only two U.S. institutions, these cases do not capture the diversity of higher education contexts. Still, they demonstrate that even short-term solutions to childcare gaps can positively impact faculty participation in professional development.
Expanding campus childcare, as Olsen (
CTLs can take meaningful, manageable steps by aligning programming with caregiving realities. Faculty development often falls during intersessions, when childcare is least available. Offering hybrid/virtual formats, scheduling events at more caregiver-friendly times, and collaborating with campus units to provide on-site care during key events can expand access without exceeding CTL capacity.
At the institutional level, integrating caregiving into recruitment, onboarding, and employee support systems is crucial. Centralized resources—such as childcare referrals, digital platforms, and community partnerships—can ease caregiving burdens. Public-private models, like those in Iowa that expanded childcare slots and strengthened retention in early childhood employment (
Universal Design principles also support broader inclusion in faculty development. Hybrid and flexible formats, as seen in the case studies, increase accessibility. CTLs can lead these efforts, while institutions ensure that any caregiving services meet safety and liability standards in collaboration with early childhood experts. Still, hybrid programming alone cannot resolve systemic caregiving challenges; ongoing institutional investment is needed.
A persistent barrier to progress is the lack of awareness among decision-makers, many of whom lack direct caregiving experience. While national media has elevated this issue, institutional leaders may underestimate its impact. Advocates must help connect caregiving gaps to core concerns—morale, recruitment, retention, and productivity (
One important avenue for future research is determining the true costs of implementing or failing to implement support for faculty caregivers. This complex analysis could provide valuable data to make a compelling case for institutional investment. Additionally, researchers might explore innovative partnerships and funding models, such as public-private initiatives, to expand childcare availability while supporting employee retention.
Faculty caregivers—particularly women—face persistent structural inequities that limit their participation in professional development and advancement. These challenges have been magnified by campus childcare closures, the lack of national support systems, and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case studies presented here demonstrate that, while grassroots approaches can temporarily alleviate caregiving burdens, they are not sustainable without institutional support. On-site childcare fosters community but demands resources; stipends offer flexibility but shift responsibility to individuals. Both underscore the need for more comprehensive, equity-focused strategies.
The grassroots justice framework (
Anne Marie Gruber:
Lindsay Doukopoulos:
The authors appreciate the support of the following:
At University of Northern Iowa: United Faculty (AAUP, UNI chapter), particularly Becky Hawbaker, Carissa Froyum, and Chris Martin; Jonathan Chenoweth in the UNI Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning; Academic Mamas Foundation; committee members Angela Pratesi, Ann Bradfield, Laura Pitts, and Ai Wen.
At Auburn University: Tracy Witte, Auburn’s Chapter of the AAUP, Office of the Provost.
The authors have no conflict of interest.