This report presents findings from a national survey on emerging credentialing programs for school-age care (SAC) providers. About half of the states report that a credential is already available, is being piloted, or is being planned. About one-third of the states do not have a credential, nor is one being planned. Common characteristics of the credentialing programs include: (1) nearly half are offered by a college; (2) most have minimal entry requirements; (3) approximately three-fourths offer college credit; (4) nearly all require candidates to pay some fee, while other funding comes from a variety of sources; (5) planning for the credentials took an average of about 2 years; (6) many different stakeholders were involved in developing the programs; and (7) most credentialing programs have some access to paid staff. While the identified credentials take many different forms, the process used to develop them usually includes the following tasks: (1) defining the core competencies; (2) determining the administering agency; (3) researching the workforce; (4) designing college courses; and (5) signing agreements with colleges to ensure college credit. Other tasks were undertaken by relatively few credentialing planning efforts, such as: (1) changing the licensing regulations to include the credential as either a requirement or an option; (2) measuring the existing quality of school-age care; (3) designing non-credit training; (4) developing a portfolio process; (5) developing procedures for granting credit for prior learning; and (6) designing an observation instrument through which participants can demonstrate competency. Key issues highlighted by this survey include: (1) in many states, there is a profound lack of communication within SAC, early childhood, and education communities about SAC credentials and other professional development issues; (2) many credentialing efforts do not have a plan in place to collect information about the participants earning credentials, who is being left out, or the impact of the credential on quality; (3) many respondents report anxiety about funding for credentialing programs; and (4) for many efforts, the laxity of state licensing is seen as a hindrance to the use of credentials. The report concludes with a number of recommendations for local or state credentialing efforts. Appendices include the survey and a state-by-state report on credential programs and contact information. (EV)