1. Scaling up early childhood development without sacrificing equity 3 September 2015

2. Pre-primary education: enrolment increases but still very low 3 September 2015© 2012 Oxford Policy Management Ltd2 Gross enrolment ratio (%)19992012 Sub-Saharan Africa1120 Arab States1525 Central Asia1933 East Asia and the Pacific3868 South and West Asia2255 Latin America and the Caribbean5474 North America and Western Europe7689 Central and Eastern Europe5174

3. Indicative costs per child per year 3 September 2015© 2012 Oxford Policy Management Ltd3 ProgrammeCountryType of service Cost per child per year (USD) Source – year Head StartUSA Part-day preschool for disadvantaged 3-4 year olds, 34 weeks a year 5000 Currie (2001) – 1998 Perry PreschoolUSA Part-day preschool, 8 months a year approx. 7000 Currie (2001) – 1999 Carolina Abecedarian Project USA Full-day child care for pre- schoolers and home-school resource teacher for school age children 15,000Currie (2001) Estimated averageOECD countries School-year full-day programme for 3-6 year olds 8000 Bennett et al. (2006) Madrasa Early Child Development Programme Kenya, Zanzibar (Tanzania), Uganda Community-based preschool168-228Hyde (2008) Average of 28 programmes Latin America and the Caribbean Child care services in institutional and community settings 1240 (2010) Araujo et al. (2013) Average of 4 programmes Latin America Parenting services which work with parents and families to improve their child rearing practices and early stimulation 247 (2010) Araujo et al. (2013) Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) India Nutrition, healthcare and non- formal pre-school for 3-6 year olds 10-22 Belfield (2006); Gupta et al. (2013)

4. Benefit-cost ratios ProgrammeCountryType of serviceBenefit-cost ratio HighScope Perry Preschool Programme USAPreschool7:1 to 16:1 Chicago Child-Parent CentresUSAPreschoolaround 7:1 Carolina Abecedarian ProjectUSA Child care for children from 6 weeks to 5 years + resource teacher for school age children 3:1 to 4:1 Meta-analysis of 48 programmesUSA >2:1 Hogares Comunitarios de BienestarColombia Home-based childcare, nutrition, psychosocial stimulation 1:1 to 3:1 Early childhood education and development interventions Indonesia 6:1 Proyecto Integral de Desarollo InfantilBolivia Daycare, nutrition and education, 6 months to 6 years 2:1 to 4:1 Programa de Atención Integral a la Niñez Nicaragüense Nicaragua Centre- & community-based nutrition and ECD, 6 months to 5 years 2:1 3 September 2015© 2012 Oxford Policy Management Ltd4

5. Who pays? China administered, organized and funded mainly locally, with private providers Parents contribute significantly, with tax exemptions Variable availability and quality Indonesia Financial burden almost entirely on families small amounts of resources provided by ministries for private child care centres, particularly in urban areas and for younger children Public contributions <5% of total funding Very low pre-primary enrolment Vietnam Private providers cover 8% of the population, but too expensive for most Most provinces unable to reach mandated funding level (10% of education budget for ECCD) India primarily responsibility of national government centrally funded ICDS programme covers around 20% of the population with integrated package many families continue to rely on private sector, sometimes with subsidies. Kenya Total government expenditures very low some funding for teacher training / curriculum development Coverage very variable – est. 40-50% have access to some form of ECCE Source: Belfield (2006) 3 September 2015© 2015 Oxford Policy Management Ltd5

6. Who pays? Public education expenditure per child enrolled in pre-primary, per year 3 September 2015© 2015 Oxford Policy Management Ltd6 Nepal$10 Ghana$50 Tanzania$55 Philippines$65 Vietnam$272 Peru$553 Private expenditures usually > public expenditures (except India) Cost of full-day pre-primary unaffordable to many e.g. in African urban settings Government spending often < 0.1% GDP – a small proportion of education spending Source: based on UIS statistics 2009-2012

7. How to increase funding? 3 September 2015© 2015 Oxford Policy Management Ltd7 Co-financing by parents and communities – Often the default – Can be done with targeting Grants to communities Vouchers or cash transfers – Promising examples: Ecuador, Hong Kong, Mexico, Nicaragua,South Africa Payroll taxes – E.g. Colombia, Institute for Family Welfare collected payroll taxes directly for ECD – Difficult in many countries – large informal sectors and rely instead on consumption and trade taxes Decentralised funding channels – Can lead to diverse outcomes depending on tax income and priorities in each region Reallocating or earmarking government funds – Specific earmarked revenue streams Social impact bonds – private investors put up capital to fund a social intervention, and governments repay the investor only if an agreed outcome is achieved – No examples in developing countries yet

8. How to scale up? 3 September 2015© 2015 Oxford Policy Management Ltd8 Programme / systemCountryCoverage (if available) Preprimary for 3-5 year oldsArgentina Enrolment rate increased from 49% in 1991 to 64% in 2001 Primeira Infância MelhorRio Grande do Sul state, Brazil68,600 children under 6 Chile Crece ContigoChile Educate Your Child (and other ECD services) (EYC) Cuba ECD enrolment rate increased from 26% in 1992 to 98% in 1999 Nuestros Niños (including Creciendo con Nuestros Hijos and 4 other models) Ecuadorover 100,000 children Wawa WasiPeru55,000 children ECD centresKenya Enrolment increased from 800,000 in 1990 to 1.7m in 2008 Community-Based Childcare Centres Malawi 580,000 children (around 20% of all children aged 0-5) Reception year (‘Grade R’) for 5 year olds South Africa49% coverage by 2007 Integrated Child Development Services India20% of the population Step by Step Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, Central Asia, Mongolia and Haiti

9. How to scale up? 3 September 2015© 2015 Oxford Policy Management Ltd9 Build on existing capacity – Add 1 year to beginning of primary school – Use existing health centres etc. Staff and training – Qualified staff vs. community volunteers Targeting – Can be difficult and even reinforce inequalities Governance, coordination and multiple services – Need effective coordinating bodies – Under a single ministry or under multiple ministries?

10. Thank you