Report Mapping childcare programs and gaps in provision in areas with employment opportunities for women in Honduras May 2025 Photo: Flag of Honduras in Tegucigalpa by Manuel Chinchilla via canva.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the Early Learning Partnership Multi-Donor Trust Fund (ELP). It was prepared by Lourdes Rodriguez-Chamussy (Senior Economist and TTL, Poverty Global Practice), Paola Buitrago-Hernandez (Economist, Poverty Global Practice), and Giselle Del Carmen (Consultant, Poverty Global Practice) under the guidance of Ximena Del Carpio, Manager. The team is grateful to Rita Almeida, Pedro Rodriguez, Magdalena Bendini, Alonso Sanchez, Rafael Cortez, Carolina Mejia-Mantilla and Amparo Elena Gordillo-Tobar for inputs and helpful discussion. Amanda Devercelli, Ella Victoria Humphry, Frances Mary Beaton-Day, and Shawn Powers provided helpful feedback at different stages of the work. The team is grateful for excellent assistance and coordination by Diana Galeano Servian, Cristina Cifuentes, and Pamela Gunio. This research was led by the Gender Innovation Lab for Latin America and the Caribbean (LACGIL). The LACGIL provides policymakers and development practitioners with knowledge to effectively promote gender equality and drive change in the region. The objective of the LACGIL is to generate, disseminate, and help operationalize evidence-based scalable policy solutions to enhance gender equality in the Latin American and Caribbean region. To do this, the LACGIL supports rigorous impact evaluations and inferential research to identify interventions that are effective in narrowing gender gaps in women’s economic empowerment. The LACGIL receives its funding in part from the World Bank Group's Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality (UFGE), a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank to advance gender equality and women's empowerment through experimentation and knowledge creation to help governments and the private sector focus policy and programs on scalable solutions with sustainable outcomes. The UFGE is supported by generous contributions from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund. Visit the LACGIL website for more information Email: lacgenderlab@worldbank.org 1818 H. St NW Washington, DC 204 This material should not be reproduced or distributed without the World Bank's prior consent. 2 SUMMARY Compelling evidence demonstrates that investing in early childhood development has a significant impact on children’s cognitive and socioemotional development and on longer- term outcomes. At the same time, affordable nonparental childcare options are critically linked to women’s economic participation and employment. Evidence from both developed and developing countries shows that access to childcare is in general positively related to increases in female labor force participation. Barely one-fourth of children ages under 6 receive formal early childhood development services in Honduras, with higher enrollment among the older 3–5 cohorts. Only 1.2 percent of children in the 0–2 age-group attend a center of early stimulation, and 37.9 percent of children in the 3–5 age-group attend a formal childcare program.[1] These low shares of enrollment are more striking if one considers that 40.7 percent of Honduran households include young children. As in many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, women in Honduras face barriers to labor force participation and also carry a heavier burden of unpaid home and care work (World Bank 2020). Honduras has the second highest gender gap in labor force participation in the region (33.7 percentage points), exceeded only by Guatemala (45.8 percentage points). Only 54 percent of working-age women in Honduras participate in the labor market, compared with 88 percent of men. [2] Furthermore, Honduras is among the countries in which women’s employment was impacted the most: 27.6 percent of women lost their jobs either temporarily or permanently.[3] Most women outside the labor force cite household and care responsibilities as the reason they do not look for a job. Around 67 percent of the total population of women ages 15+ not participating in the labor market say that looking after the family or home is the reason they do not look for a job. This is more pronounced among women living with children ages under 6 (2019 EPHPM). Unequal intrahousehold arrangements, coupled with the limited availability of childcare programs prevent women from participating more in the labor market. In addition to the negative effects that school closures because of COVID-19, including preschool and childcare centers, are estimated to have on students in the medium and long run, there are also implications in terms of opportunities for women to rejoin the workforce and help raise household incomes even if mobility restrictions are lifted. Data and other evidence indicate that ensuring the appropriate support for meeting childcare needs is a necessary condition for the success of policies intended to improve women’s outcomes in the labor market. This study examines the care arrangements and needs of urban households with young children in Honduras and measures them relative to the provision of childcare services in the country. The study also investigates the changing burden of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting impact on opportunities for female labor force participation and income generation. The analysis involves primary data collection on both the demand and the supply of childcare. Ten main messages emerge from the assessment of formal childcare in Honduras, as follows: [1] Much of the data here and elsewhere in the text are gleaned from the 2019 round of the multipurpose household survey. See EPHPM (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples) (dashboard), National Statistics Institute, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, https://www.ine.gob.hn/V3/ephpm/. [2] 2019 data of WDI (World Development Indicators) (dashboard), World Bank, Washington, DC, https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/. [3] COVID-19 LAC High Frequency Phone Survey 2020-2021. 3 SUMMARY 1. Regarding the policy and legal framework around childcare in Honduras, no institution takes in charge early education for children ages 0–3. The Ministry of Education is only responsible for supervising institutions within the formal education system (ages 4+). Health care and nutrition protocols are set predominantly by the public or private providers and, to a lesser degree, the municipalities, but not the central government. The institutional coordination of early childhood education in Honduras should be strengthened. 2. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the government of Honduras, as in many countries, imposed strict lockdown measures, forcing childcare centers to close or adjust operations to offer distant and virtual learning. If they could, providers offered some type of virtual learning and guided remote activities during lockdown. The effects on operations and institutional survival have been severe. About half the childcare centers surveyed had to lay off staff temporarily. A fifth reported that they would not be able to reopen, and most public centers cited financial assistance as their most pressing need when in-person teaching resumes. 3. The survey of childcare providers for this study was conducted in June 2021 and revealed a gap in the provision of childcare services for children ages 0–3. Although this signals a gap facing mothers who may need this support complementing a short maternity leave benefit (only 84 days), it mostly reflects parental preferences on the appropriate age for children to begin day care outside the home This suggests that a focus is required on the provision of preschool education (ages 4+). 4. There are important differences in capacity and operational standards between public and private childcare centers. Centers of public provision enjoys a larger capacity. However, this does not necessarily translate into more caregiving staff or lower children-to-caregiver ratios among public providers. Private providers tend to follow higher quality standards and offer services for more hours, and they are more likely to operate during weekends. Most providers (70 percent) reported that they operated at capacity before the COVID-19 outbreak. Vacancies are more common among private providers. 5. More than a third of public childcare centers offer free services. In contrast, private providers cost approximately 10 times more than public providers with fees. The most frequently reported additional costs among parents in public childcare centers are associated with essentials, such as food and purified water. In private childcare centers, language classes and school materials account for the largest additional costs. Private providers report significantly higher operating costs relative to public providers, which is mainly explained by expenditures on rent. 6. By June 2021, more than a year after the first lockdown in Honduras, 61 percent of urban parents were working in paid jobs. This suggests that employment in urban areas is close to prepandemic levels (WB Honduras Childcare Demand Survey 2021). However, the gender gap in employment persists. The results of the Honduras Childcare Demand Survey conducted for this study in 2021 reveal a 44 -percentage point gender gap in employment. While 92 percent men of were working at the time of the survey, this was true of only 48 percent of women. 7. The reason for a lack of employment varies by sex. The time required to perform housework and care tasks is the main barrier to engage in paid work among women. Among men, the main reason cited is the lack of jobs availability (76 percent). Household and care responsibilities also stand out as the main barrier to resuming employment among those women respondents who were employed before the pandemic and had to quit their jobs during the pandemic. 4 SUMMARY 8. The most prevalent childcare arrangement in urban areas before and during the pandemic is at-home care provided by parents or other household members. Only a minority share of urban households have made use of alternative care services for young children during the pandemic, such as hiring a nanny or maid (6 percent) or taking children to home-based or community-based childcare (2 percent). Norms on work, motherhood, and childcare and care for household members more generally may play a role in shaping negative perceptions of reliance on care centers. 9. Women spend more time than men caring for children ages under 6 in the household. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 90 percent of mothers reported that they spent most of their time with their children; this was true of only half the fathers. Likewise, women household members (grandmothers, aunts, or sisters) are more likely than male household members to spend time with the young children in the household. As of June 2021, these trends in childcare arrangements had persisted. Even though most men and women respondents indicate that the roles and responsibilities for childcare and household tasks have changed since the COVID-19 lockdown, women still spend more time doing these tasks than men. 10. The survey was applied when schools had not yet to resume in-person learning in Honduras, but most parents indicated they would send their children to school if schools were to reopen. Approximately a third of households reported that they would send their children back under certain conditions. Most parents considered adequate supervision important to ensure that COVID protocols are being followed. Many wanted masks to be mandatory among children, environments to be regularly sanitized, and fewer children per class. If school closures persist, most parents reported that they would continue to maintain their current, mostly maternal care arrangements. CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION Compelling evidence demonstrates that investing in early childhood development has a significant impact on children’s cognitive and socioemotional development as well as on longer- term outcomes. At the same time, affordable nonparental childcare options are critically linked to women’s economic participation and employment. Evidence from both developed and developing countries shows that access to childcare is in general positively related to increases in female labor force participation. As in many countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region, women in Honduras have fewer opportunities to participate in the labor force and, at the same time, carry a heavier load of unpaid home and care work (World Bank 2020). Honduras is, in fact, the country with the second highest gender gap in labor force participation in the region (33.7 percentage points), exceeded only by Guatemala (45.8 percentage points). Only 54 percent of working-age women in Honduras participate in the labor market, compared with 88 percent of men (WDI, 2019).[4] The demand for time devoted to informal and at-home care and to other household responsibilities falls disproportionately on women. The burden of care responsibilities can lead to greater vulnerability and exacerbate gender inequalities. Around 67 percent of the population of women ages 15+ not participating in the labor market cite household responsibilities (that is, looking after the family or the home) as the reason they do not look for a job. The corresponding share of men is barely 8 percent. This situation is more pronounced among women living with children ages under 6; the share then is 77 percent among women, compared with only 10 percent among men (2019 EPHPM). [4] 2019 data of WDI (World Development Indicators) (dashboard), World Bank, Washington, DC, https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/. 5 CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION The gap in labor force participation between men and women is wider among people who live in households with children ages under 6 (Figure 1). This derives mostly from a decline in the participation of women with these characteristics. (The participation of men living with children does not vary relative to the aggregate baseline scenario.) The gap is more visible in the 15–44 age-group in which many women are starting families or are focused on caring for young children. Figure 1. The gender gap in labor force participation, by age-group, Honduras 2019. Figure 2. The use of formal childcare, by the age of the children, Honduras 2019. Source: Data of EPHPM 2019 (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples) (dashboard), National Statistics Institute, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, https://ine.gob.hn/v4/ephpm/. 6 CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION In the region, Honduras has the lowest share of children ages 0–3 and 3–5 attending some sort of formal childcare program (Mateo Díaz and Rodriguez-Chamussy 2016). According to the 2019 multipurpose household survey (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples, EPHPM), only 1.2 percent of children in the 0–2 age-group attend a center of early stimulation, and 37.9 percent of children in the 3–5 age-group attend a formal childcare program (see Figure 2).[5] This means that barely one-fourth of children ages under 6 participate in formal childcare services. The increased provision of quality childcare can clearly lead to improvements in the school readiness of Honduran children through better coverage of early childhood education, which can translate into greater capital accumulation, vital for sustaining economic growth. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated containment policies have established new dynamics that may exacerbate existing gender gaps in economic opportunities in the region. As a result, unpaid care work has risen among women because children are out of school, the elderly are experiencing greater care needs, and health services are overwhelmed (Cucagna and Romero 2021). Women across the region were more likely than men to lose their jobs when the COVID-19 crisis hit (Figure 3). Honduras is among the countries in which women’s employment was impacted the most. According to a World Bank phone survey, 27.6 percent of women had lost their jobs temporarily or permanently by round 3 of the survey, three months after the onset of the crisis.[6] The largest gender gaps are found in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Honduras. Moreover, according to the Survey on Gender Equality at Home, women in Honduras spend an average of 12.7 hours a day on care activities among household members relative to only 8.8 hours among men.[7] Figure 3. Adults ages 18+ who reported lost employment because of COVID-19, Latin America and the Caribbean. Source: Olivieri, Lara Ibarra, and Cuesta (2020). Note: The figure illustrates the share of respondents ages 18+ who were working before the pandemic and who lost their jobs temporarily or permanently. Job loss is defined as not working during the week before the survey. [5] The age of entry into the formal education system in Honduras is 4 years. [6] The World Bank high-frequency phone surveys included modules on labor markets, changes in household incomes, access to services, behaviors, and knowledge around COVID-19, as well as demographic and household characteristics. Between May 2020 and August 2020, three waves of phone surveys were run in 13 countries to assess the impacts and transmission channels of the COVID-19 crisis in the Latin American and Caribbean region. The first round of the surveys was conducted in May 2020, two months after most countries in the region had declared lockdowns (in mid-March). The second wave was collected between June 2020 and July 2020, and the third between July 2020 and August 2020. On Honduras, see Olivieri, Lara Ibarra, and Cuesta (2020). [7] The survey was conducted during July 2020 by Facebook in collaboration with the World Bank, UN Women, Equal Measures 2030, and Ladysmith. The survey was limited to respondents who had Internet access, were active Facebook users during the fielding of the survey, and opted to take a survey through the platform. The results are thus only relevant in terms of this online population in each country or region. See Survey on Gender Equality at Home (dashboard), Facebook, https://www.equalityathome.org/. 7 CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION Despite a gradual reopening of the Honduran economy in late 2020, schools have not resumed in- person learning. As of July 2021, childcare centers and schools were still closed.[8] In addition to the negative effects of school closures that are projected among students in the medium and long run, this limits opportunities for women to rejoin the workforce even if mobility restrictions are lifted.[9] The conflicting demands on women’s time for care and work represent a fundamental barrier to economic participation and generates a vicious circle of low labor market attachment and more prominence for the caregiver role. Evidence from both developed and developing countries shows that the increased availability of formal childcare services is associated with greater female labor force participation in many different contexts.[10] In Latin America, the results of evaluation studies of childcare interventions point to an increase of between 2 percent and 22 percent in the probability of the employment of the mother if access to subsidized childcare is provided (Mateo Díaz and Rodriguez- Chamussy).[11] These results indicate that ensuring the appropriate support to meet childcare needs is necessary for the success of any policy intended to improve outcomes among women in the labor market. This study examines the care needs of households with young children in Honduras and also examines and contrasts the provision of childcare services in the country. The assessment investigates the changing burden of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on female labor force participation. Data on both the demand for and the supply of childcare in Honduras is scarce. The study therefore maps the various existing services by focusing on availability, price, and quality. On the demand side, it collects and analyzes information representative of urban areas on the needs and barriers in access to childcare. The survey instruments developed to gauge the supply and demand of childcare services (available in the Annexes) can be adapted or replicated to conduct similar assessments in other countries. The assessment contributes to informing relevant policies to improve development outcomes among the children of mothers who currently may be relying on difficult arrangements while working and mothers who may not be able to work given the lack of suitable childcare options. Because of women´s greater involvement with the care of children and the elderly, the findings of the report suggest that policies postpandemic should encompass recovery plans with a gender angle. The note is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces data sources and the methodology. Section 3 presents a brief explanation of the policy and legal framework for care services in Honduras. Section 4 describes the supply of childcare. Section 5 discusses the demand for childcare. Section 6 concludes and presents policy recommendations. [8] Some were operating remotely or hosting virtual classes. [9] For example, see Azevedo et al. (2020). [10] For example, in urban Argentina (Berlinski and Galiani 2007), Brazil (Barros et al. 2011; Deutsch 1998), Canada (Lefebvre, Merrigan, and Verstraete 2009), rural Colombia (Attanasio and Vera-Hernandez 2004), the European Union (Del Boca and Locatelli 2006), Japan (Asai, Kambayashi, and Yamaguchi 2015), Romania (Fong and Lokshin 2000), the Russian Federation (Lokshin 2004), and Turkey (World Bank 2015). [11] The review of Mateo Díaz and Rodriguez-Chamussy (2016) includes studies showing the positive effects of preschool expansion in Argentina and the positive effects of publicly financed childcare programs in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico. 8 METHODOLOGY AND DATA This assessment explores the changing burden of childcare and its interaction with outcomes associated with female labor force participation. The study maps the (1) various existing services (public, community, and private), focusing on availability, price, and quality and (2) the childcare needs of households with children and the barriers they face accessing childcare. It concentrates on urban areas, which have relatively higher employment opportunities for women. In the analysis, childcare refers to care provided to children under primary-school age, that is, under age 6. Childcare can be formal or informal. Formal care is defined as care that is paid for and is generally regulated by some type of contractual arrangement (Figure 4). The study includes day-care facilities and preschools as formal institutional care entities, but excludes live-in centers, such as orphanages or temporary protection centers. Informal care in this study refers to unpaid and generally unregulated care, usually provided by household members. Figure 4. Typology of childcare arrangements. Source: Based on Kraus et al. (2010). The assessment presented in this document has three components, as follows: 1.A comprehensive review of the institutional setting. This includes the current policy and regulatory environment for childcare services in Honduras. It covers governmental standards for providers, formal enrollment procedures, inspection, supervision, additional costs, and so on. The assessment of the regulatory environment was conducted in preparation for the data collection. It was carried out through a desk review and interviews with officials at relevant government agencies.[12] 2.Supply assessment of available formal childcare services. This consists of a census-type study of all formal childcare services available in the three cities where employment opportunities for women are more extensive: Choloma, San Pedro Sula, and Tegucigalpa. It includes public, private, and municipal- based care providers. [12] Stakeholders included the General Directorate of Preprimary Education, Ministry of Education; the Directorate of Childhood, Adolescence, and Family (Dirección de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia, DINAF), Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion (Secretaría de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social); Criando con Amor; the United Nations Children’s Fund; the Municipality of Tegucigalpa; the Revenue Administration Service (Servicio de Administración de Rentas); and two private childcare providers (ages 0–6) in Tegucigalpa. 9 METHODOLOGY AND DATA Prior to data collection, a series of consultations was conducted with relevant government and nongovernmental stakeholders to gather information on the supply of services and types of providers. Interviews took place from March 30 to April 13, 2020. This was supported by official documentation from the Ministry of Education, local municipalities, and internet searches. Table 1 summarizes the available data for each type of childcare provider identified in the cities of interest. Table 1. Childcare providers, Choloma, San Pedro Sula, and Tegucigalpa. * Private day-care centers are not registered in a single database. A contact list was therefore assembled through internet searches. Data collection consisted of computer-assisted telephone interviews among childcare providers. A random sample was drawn from the providers identified, ensuring an equal distribution of public and private institutions for each city. The survey took place during November and December 2020, with an average duration per interview of 30 minutes and ranging from 20 to 45 minutes. Because of COVID-19, interviews were conducted by phone using the World Bank Survey Solutions software.[13] Enumerators based in Honduras conducted the phone interviews with the childcare providers and recorded answers using the Survey Solutions interface. To maximize response, providers were also given the option to do the survey themselves.[14] A total of 56 childcare centers were interviewed (Figure 5). Over 50 percent of the nonresponse rate was a result of incorrect contact information.[15] Most respondents were administrators (53). A few were caregivers or teachers (only 3 respondents). Women accounted for 48 respondents. The majority of respondents had at least tertiary education. Figure 5. Childcare providers interviewed, by type and location, Honduras. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). [13] See Survey Solutions (Version 21.09) (dashboard), World Bank, Washington, DC, https://mysurvey.solutions/en/. [14] Even though this option was available for providers, all interviews were conducted by telephone. [15] Some phone numbers provided by the Ministry of Education were no longer valid because someone else had the number, the informant no longer worked at the school, or the number had been disconnected. Some of the contact information for private providers obtained from social media was not up-to-date. In addition, at least 10 of the providers contacted indicated they could not respond to the survey because they had recently been affected by hurricanes Eta and Iota. 10 METHODOLOGY AND DATA The supply questionnaire (available in Annex 1) addresses the pre- and postpandemic situation of providers: capacity, price, and quality characteristics prepandemic and service continuity, challenges, and expectations during the COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 periods (Figure 6). It was adapted from a broader mixed methods study on childcare supply conducted by the World Bank in the Western Balkans and the South Caucasus in 2014–17 (Buitrago Hernandez and Muñoz-Boudet 2019). Figure 6. Topics covered in the survey questionnaire among childcare providers. 3.Assessment of the demand for and use of childcare. This assessment examines the childcare needs of urban households that include children ages under 6 in Honduras by investigating time use, care needs, perceptions, and preferences about care responsibilities, as well as barriers in access to formal childcare services. To this end, a rapid computer-assisted telephone interview survey, representative at the urban level, was conducted among households with children ages 0–6 who were not enrolled in primary school. Eligible respondents were any of the parents living in the household or any other household member responsible for providing care to the children if the parents were absent. The demand questionnaire (available in Annex 2) included questions on childcare needs and household arrangements, perceptions of care, the division of household tasks, and preferences and expectations before and during the pandemic (Figure 7). The core questionnaire was adapted from the work by Mateo Díaz and Rodriguez-Chamussy (2016) for the questions on childcare use and preferences and from UN Women (2020) for the questions related to the implications of COVID-19 for childcare arrangements. Figure 7. Topics covered in the demand questionnaire for households with children ages under 6. 11 METHODOLOGY AND DATA The survey followed a random digit dialing sampling method, which involves the random generation of telephone numbers to create a respondent list. A total of 803 households completed the interviews. The sample size was determined by the following parameters: (1) 55 percent of the population in Honduras is urban; (2) 38 percent of households have children ages under 7 (and thus the households exhibit childcare needs of interest for the study); and (3) the survey response rate was 20 percent.[16] The data collection (including a survey pilot study) took place in May-June 2021. The duration of the telephone survey was 20–30 minutes. As an incentive, a prepaid cellphone card was given to the respondent who provided a complete interview. The fieldwork was completed in 12 days and was conducted by 12 enumerators and two supervisors. Each enumerator conducted around five interviews a day. The phone survey was administered using the Census and Survey Processing System software. There was a maximum of 10 dialing attempts to each randomly selected phone number. The primary respondent was a parent of the randomly selected child in the 0–6 age-group living in the household. Most of the respondents were women (72 percent) compared with 28 percent men. The minimum age of respondents was 15, and the maximum age was 78, although the majority of respondents were ages 23–40. The majority indicated that they were married or living together with a partner (71.7 percent), and one-fifth of respondents (25.2 percent) were single (mostly women: 31.9 percent of women respondents were single compared with 8 percent of the men). Most respondents had completed primary school (28.5 percent), incomplete secondary school (19.6 percent), or completed secondary school (28.6 percent). (See more detailed analysis of the population below.) In addition to the primary data collection activities, the report uses complementary information from administrative databases, especially the 2019 round of the national multipurpose household survey, the EPHPM, conducted by the National Statistics institute. The household survey includes a module on early stimulation (enrollment and the reported reasons for not using the service), which is applied to children ages under 3, and a module on schooling among children ages 3 or more.[17] The report also relies on information of the latest Demographic and Health Surveys available on Honduras (2011/12) and of the Latin American Public Opinion Project.[18] [16] The 800 household sample refers to completed and successful surveys, drawn from a total sample of 15,527 phone numbers contacted during the fieldwork (and 21,646 dialing attempts). Among eligible households, the most frequent reasons for nonresponse were voicemail, no answer, rejection by the respondent, and parents not available to participate in the survey. In addition, there were 86 incomplete surveys that could not be finalized because the respondent asked to stop the survey, the call ended abruptly, the informant’s husband requested that the interview be stopped, the informant needed to take care of other tasks, or the informant was busy at work. [17] The survey collects information on, for example, the public or private status of childcare providers only in the case of children ages 3 or more. In the case of children in the 0–2 age-group, the survey asks only if the child attends an early stimulation center. [18] See Honduras (dashboard), DHS Program (Demographic and Health Surveys), ICF International, Rockville, MD, https://www.dhsprogram.com/Countries/Country-Main.cfm?ctry_id=142&c=Honduras&Country=Honduras&cn=&r=6; LAPOP (Latin American Public Opinion Project) (database), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/. 12 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK AROUND CHILDCARE The regulatory framework for the care of children in Honduras (Política Pública Para el Desarrollo Integral de la Primera Infancia) was approved in 2012 (Government of Honduras 2012). It is the result of a vast consultation process led by the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion (Secretaría de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social) with civil society and public and private actors. The government objective was to provide a guide for service delivery for all entities involved in early childhood development. Prior to its approval, interventions focused on children ages 0–6 were executed individually in various sectors. The framework proposes a comprehensive care approach to coordinate service providers and sets goals in health, nutrition, food security, and education. Even though a strategic plan to execute the approved framework was developed in 2013, the framework does not explicitly identify the governing institution for childcare in Honduras. In 2015, the government strategy for comprehensive early childhood care, Raising with Love (Criando con Amor), was assigned administrative status for early childhood care (Government of Honduras 2015). Initially, the strategy was implemented by the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion, but, by 2017, a special administrative unit had been established within the ministry. The office, Criando con Amor, defined the responsibilities of each actor involved in the provision of early childhood services and developed interinstitutional and intersectoral coordination mechanisms to promote comprehensive care for children ages 0–6. The aim was to optimize the access, coverage, and quality of services in health care, education, and nutrition for early childhood. In 2019, the strategic plan of Criando con Amor was updated to reflect the ongoing institutional changes. The updated 2019–27 strategic plan sets objectives in (1) health, (2) food and nutritional security, (3) education, (4) the protection of rights, and (5) recreation and the formation of values.[19] It is meant to be updated regularly to ensure that it reflects the latest policies on early childhood development (Government of Honduras 2019). To facilitate intersectoral coordination, the 2019–27 strategic plan establishes the institutional architecture of the childcare strategy (Figure 8). Figure 8. Institutional structure of the comprehensive childcare strategy, Criando con Amor, Honduras. Source: Government of Honduras (2019). [19] 52 different services were identified and 15 were prioritized (Government of Honduras and UNICEF 2019). 13 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK AROUND CHILDCARE The institutional architecture is overseen by a steering committee consisting of the following agencies: A high-level commission focused on developing policy and setting objectives for early childhood. It is made up of the Office of the President, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Inclusion, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Government Coordination, and representatives of the Catholic and Evangelical churches. A technical committee responsible for coordinating policies and programs, optimizing sectoral efforts, and promoting complementarities among them. It is comprised of the same actors as the high-level commission, plus a technical appointee from each ministry. In addition, the technical committee includes members from the Directorate of Childhood, Adolescence, and Family (Dirección de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia, DINAF) and the National Commission for the Development of Nonformal Alternative Education in Honduras (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Educación Alternativa No-Formal en Honduras). State-level committees responsible for the implementation of early childhood development policies in the states, as well as for the supervision and monitoring of local governments within states. The state-level committees are led by state governors and appointees of the institutions in the technical committee. Municipal committees focus on the execution and implementation of policies and programs for early childhood. They are led by municipal mayors and appointees from the institutions represented in the other committees. Criando con Amor has been implemented gradually. The country’s most vulnerable populations have been prioritized, mainly rural communities in western Honduras. Currently, the system has programs in the departments of Copán, Intibucá, La Paz, Lempira, Ocotepeque, and Santa Barbara. There are plans to expand to Colón, Olancho, and Yoro in the short term. Some of the milestones include the training of over 3,000 volunteers in childcare provision and the certification of 420 individuals in child development. [20] In 2014, DINAF was created as the decentralized institution responsible for developing and overseeing policies on childhood, adolescence, and family.[21] The Honduran Institute of Children and Family (IHNFA) had been the entity responsible for childcare and family, but the government decided to close it in 2014 given its institutional weaknesses.[22] Among DINAF’s core objectives is to strengthen the country’s capacity to promote, develop, regulate, and monitor public and private services for the care of children. In addition, it is responsible for the transfer of financial resources to the agencies executing care programs, as well as the control and supervision of the use of these resources (Government of Honduras 2014a). Nonetheless it is not clear if, in practice, these formal mechanisms to monitor and regulate service provision are implemented or enforced. Most centers define their own standards because no one is overseeing them. Regarding childcare centers, there is no institution to oversee children ages 0–3, and the Ministry of Education only oversees institutions within the formal education system (ages 4+). The National Commission for the Development of Nonformal Alternative Education in Honduras is the agency responsible for the design of a curriculum for early childhood education, although there is no national curriculum for children in the 0–3 age-group.[23] [20] See the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion website, at http://www.sedis.gob.hn/criando-con-amor. [21] DINAF is a decentralized institution associated with the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion, with technical and administrative independence. [22] IHNFA was created by Executive Decree PCM 199-97 (Government of Honduras 1997) and closed by Executive Decree PCM 026- 2014 (Government of Honduras 2014b). [23] See “Guía Metodológica de Educación Inicial No Formal,” Article 9, National Commission for the Development of Nonformal Alternative Education, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 14 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK AROUND CHILDCARE Despite the role of the commission, private centers often implement their own educational programs and curricula. For both private and public facilities, protocols for disease prevention and health and nutrition are predominantly set by the providers, the municipalities (to a lesser degree), but not the central government (see below). Similarly, the role of DINAF and Criando con Amor on childcare centers is unclear. In practice, Criando con Amor should design policies and guidelines, and DINAF execute them.[24] However, the current regulatory framework does not explicitly outline the role of DINAF. During the transition process from IHNFA to DINAF, 34 childcare centers were transferred to municipalities. These centers serve children ages 0–6 and have 20 to 300 children each (LaPrensa 2014). Administration and management of these became the responsibility of local governments, while DINAF remained in charge of monitoring and supervision (Government of Honduras 2012). Nonetheless, a recent evaluation by DINAF suggests that some public day-care centers do not meet the minimum requirements in operation, risk prevention, and infrastructure quality. Similarly, most centers do not have adequate expansion plans to improve infrastructure or a clear budget earmarked for these improvements (DINAF and UNOPS 2018). Some municipalities lack funding for day-care centers, which affects the quality of the services provided.[25] Institutional coordination for early childhood education in Honduras is still being defined and should continue to be strengthened. For instance, the regulatory framework for the care of children has not been updated to include DINAF as the institution responsible for childcare. Even though IHNFA and DINAF were created with the same objective, they have different responsibilities (Government of Honduras 2012, 2014a). Similarly, the System for Comprehensive Early Childhood Care states that other programs and projects that complement it may be incorporated within, but does not explicitly outline the role of DINAF (Government of Honduras 2015). Thus, both the regulatory framework and the comprehensive childcare system could be updated and amended to include DINAF regarding the substitution of the responsibilities previously delegated to IHNFA. This would strengthen DINAF’s legal basis to regulate the quality of childcare services. Public expenditure on early childhood education and care represents less than 1 percent of GDP. In 2014, public investment in early childhood (ages 0–6) was equivalent to 2 percent of total public spending. Between 2013 and 2014, the relative weight of early childhood in public childhood investment increased from 13.3 percent to 15.4 percent. Nonetheless, this age-group receives the least resources relative to adolescents (44 percent) and children ages 6–12 (40 percent). Furthermore, 51.1 percent of early childhood investments are focused on health care and nutrition, 45 percent on development (including education), and only 3.5 percent on protection of children’s rights.[26] A broader measure of early childhood expenditure suggests that policies associated with early childhood development could represent up to 1.6 percent of GDP and 6.0 percent of total public expenditure in Honduras, above most Central American peers.[27] Nonetheless, Costa Rica spends six times more per child (US$1,909), and Guatemala nearly twice as much (US$560) as Honduras (US$317).[28] [24] In 2018, Criando con Amor developed with DINAF an ideal model for childcare centers, including quality standards and monitoring guidelines. [25] By law, DINAF should transfer the funds received from the Ministry of Finance for childcare centers to municipalities. In practice these funds do not reach municipalities because the Ministry of Finance stopped transferring the resources to DINAF because they were not being used. Thus, municipalities were given childcare centers and no resources to support them. [26] See Government of Honduras (2019). Childhood protection refers to efforts to prevent and respond to violence and abuse against children, such as sexual exploitation, trafficking, child labor, and other harmful practices. [27] This measure encompasses all investments directly or indirectly related to early childhood. It includes direct expenditure measures, such as early childhood education, and indirect measures such as programs targeting families or other groups that indirectly benefit children ages 0–6 (UNICEF, IIPE-UNESCO, and OEI 2015). Early childhood expenditure represents 1.5 percent of GDP in Costa Rica, 1.0 percent in El Salvador, and 0.9 percent Guatemala. As a share of total public expenditure: 5.2 percent in Guatemala and 4.1 percent in El Salvador. [28] Values are in purchasing power parity US dollars. See UNICEF, IIPE-UNESCO, and OEI (2015). 15 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK AROUND CHILDCARE The current employer-mandated provision of childcare, which links the requirement to the employment of women specifically, limits the supply of childcare services available for working parents. According to the Law of Equal Opportunities for Women, companies with more than 30 women workers must have a childcare center available to workers who have children ages under 7.[29] Similarly, the Honduran Labor Code indicates that businesses with more than 20 workers should have a space where mothers can feed their infants and leave them under supervised care during working hours.[30] In practice, few businesses provide these services because the service provision is at the discretion of employers.[31] Since 2018, Criando con Amor and the Ministry of Health have equipped at least five public institutions with childcare centers or breastfeeding spaces. SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Type of childcare providers Throughout consultations with relevant stakeholders, three different types of childcare providers were identified in Honduras. Preprimary education centers (ages 4–6) (public and private). These fall under monitoring by the Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación, SEDUC) which only oversees institutions within the formal education system (ages 4+). As of 2018, SEDUC had registered approximately 12,600 schools offering preprimary education, of which 90 percent are public. There are over 700 preschools in Tegucigalpa, 552 in San Pedro Sula, and 251 in Choloma. Of these, more than half are public (Figure 9). Municipal-based childcare centers (ages 0–6). In 2014, DINAF replaced IHNFA and transferred public day-care centers to 36 municipalities (Government of Honduras 2014a). Currently, only 3 centers are overseen by DINAF. In Tegucigalpa, 17 municipal centers were identified; in San Pedro Sula, 17, and in Choloma, 1. Private day care (ages 0–3). Because these centers are outside the formal education system, they operate as private businesses and are not regulated by the Ministry of Education. Similarly, NGOs and churches operate childcare centers, unfortunately, there is no official public record of these. Local government were also consulted given these centers need to obtain permits to operate from them, nonetheless they do not have a consolidated list of these providers.[32] Figure 9. Universe of preprimary education providers, Honduras. Source: Ministry of Education https://sace.se.gob.hn/reportes/sace/matricula/ [29] Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para la Mujer, Article 59. [30] Honduran Labor Code, Article 142. [31] Providing such services is an additional cost for employers; one that few can undertake. [32] Results from conversations with local governments and private childcare providers in Tegucigalpa. 16 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Situation during COVID-19 When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2000, the government of Honduras imposed strict lockdown measures, forcing childcare centers to close or adjust operations to offer distance and virtual learning. Most of the childcare providers interviewed continued offering at-home activities or virtual learning during the COVID-19 lockdown (Figure 10). Some indicated that parents had requested that centers share resources and information so that the parents could undertake at-home activities with their children. Nonetheless, about half the childcare centers in the survey had to suspend staff temporarily. A fifth stated they would not be able to reopen (whenever the government authorizes a reopening). Most public centers cited financial assistance as their most pressing need whenever in-person teaching resumes (Figure 11). In November 2020, two-thirds of the providers interviewed said they had received updates about reopening from the government; however, half considered this information deficient or poor. Even though lockdown measures have eased and economic activity has recovered somewhat, schools and childcare centers were still closed as of late 2021. Figure 10. Type of service provided during COVID-19 quarantine, by Type of Provider. Figure 11. Type of assistance needed to reopen, by Type of provider. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). 17 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Capacity and operation The survey results suggest important differences in capacity between public and private centers in Honduras and indicates the existence of a gap in service provision among children ages under 3. Public providers seem to have more capacity than private providers, but this does not necessarily translate into more caregiving staff or smaller children-to-caregiver ratios (Table 2). Fewer than half (47 percent) of the providers surveyed in the three cities offer spaces for children ages under 3, and the share is only 27 percent among those accepting children ages under 18 months (Figure 12). Private providers have more capacity than public providers to care for children ages under 3. In fact, the supply of providers accepting different minimum ages is more evenly distributed. This might reflect parental preferences when it is optimal for a child to start day care outside of the home. However, it also signals a gap relative to mothers who might need this support during the early months after birth, particularly because paid maternity leave in Honduras is only 84 days.[33] This also suggests that childcare supply in Honduras is primarily focused on preschool education (ages 4+) and might not include considerations for work-household balance. Table 2. Childcare Provision, by Type of Provider and City. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras 2020. Note: The results for San Pedro Sula and Choloma are presented jointly for two reasons: (a) small sample size of the survey and (b) these are neighboring cities in which the workforce tends to commute from either destination. Figure 12. Minimum age accepted, by type of provider and city (%). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). [33] Article 135-138 of the Labor Code. 18 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE In addition, private providers tend to follow higher quality standards, serve more hours, and are more likely to operate during the weekends. On average, half of private providers offer eight hours of childcare service, and a quarter are open on Saturdays relative to only 28 percent and 12 percent, respectively, among public providers (Figure 13). While private providers have smaller service capacity relative to public providers, they seem to have smaller and more adequate children-to-staff ratios (Table 2) and have on average twice as many classrooms. Likewise, private providers seem to have stricter education requirements for caregivers (Figure 14) and more provisions for children with special needs (Figure 15), particularly through frequent supervision by a psychologist or additional staff. While all private providers reported that they relied on substitute teachers when necessary, one public provider in four indicated there were no substitute teachers. All providers have systems to receive feedback from parents, mainly through parent-teacher meetings or informal spaces to talk with caregivers. Figure 13. Days and hours of operation, by type of provider (%). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Note: Morning sessions range from 6/8AM-11/12PM; Afternoon hours are typically 1-5PM. Figure 14. Minimum education requirements for caregivers and teachers, by type of provider (%). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Availability of childcare services is not consistent across the calendar year. Most private and public providers among preschool–age children close for at least two months. This is also the case among municipal public providers that serve children ages 0–3. Only private ones that admit children ages 0–3 are open throughout the year (Figure 16). Even though closures overlap with the academic calendar this can limit continuous labor force participation of parents as options are limited for childcare.[34] [34] December and January among public schools following the national education system and July and August among private providers following bilingual academic calendars. 19 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Nearly 40 percent of providers were always working at capacity before school closures in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most providers (70 percent) reported they were either ‘Always’ or ‘Usually’ at capacity before the COVID-19 outbreak, including the ones with bigger capacity to enroll 100+ children as well as public ones, and only a quarter reported they were ‘Never’ at capacity. As expected, vacancies are more common among private providers as 38 percent reported ‘Never’ being at capacity relative to 16 percent among public ones (Figure 17). Figure 15. Provision for children with special needs, by type of provider and city (%). Figure 16. Months of operation, by type of provider. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). 20 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Figure 17. How often was the center working at capacity? (Share of Providers). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Cost of services Over a third of public childcare centers offer free services. In contrast, private providers cost approximately ten times more than public ones with fees. While parents pay an average of L 165 a month for public childcare, parents spend L 1,751 in private ones, equivalent to US$7 and US$70, respectively (Table 3). Among those not providing free services, all offer price flexibility for families with financial difficulties, often by extending the payment period or offering discounts (Figure 18). The most cited additional costs for parents in public childcare centers include essentials such as food and purified water. In contrast, in private childcare centers it is language classes, school materials or food. Table 3. Average cost of childcare services, by type of provider and city. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Note: LPS = lepiras. US$1 = L 24. Figure 18. What is done if parents cannot pay fees on time? (number of providers). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). 21 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Private providers report substantially higher operating costs than public ones, mainly explained by rent expenses. Public childcare centers spend around L 43,500 a month to operate; private ones require more than twice this amount (L 93,800) (Table 4). This is partly because of differences in rent costs. None of the public providers reported this expense—all buildings are either school property or government owned— relative to 75 percent of private ones. Similarly, providers in Tegucigalpa report higher operating costs than those in the San Pedro Sula and Choloma. Salaries and transportation are among the highest monthly operating expenditure items (Figure 19). An average of nearly L 500,000 (around US$20,000) are needed to open a childcare center. The reported investment was higher among public providers (nearly 2.5 times higher than private ones) and those in San Pedro Sula and Choloma (twice as high as in Tegucigalpa). Table 4. Childcare cost structure, by type of provider and city. Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Note: LPS = lepiras. US$1 = L 24. Items listed under operating costs are salaries, rent, maintenance and cleaning, electricity, water, telephone, school materials, and food. Figure 19. Monthly operating expenditures, by type of provider and city (lempiras). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Nutrition, health, and biosecurity Most childcare centers have health and nutrition standards, though these are predominantly set by caregivers. In nearly 60 percent of providers, health and nutrition protocols are set by caregivers; in less than a third, these standards are defined by the government (Figure 20). Among providers following government standards, most are established by the municipality, not the central government. This suggests a lack of institutional clarity on childcare standards. Likewise, all providers indicated they have a daily routine for children, one that is mainly defined by the childcare center (administrators, institutional committees, or caregivers). Fewer than a fifth responded that the government defined the routine. 22 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Food is provided predominantly in public childcare centers (Figures 21 and 22). Despite school closures during COVID-19 quarantine, 57 percent of childcare centers continued to provide meals at the time of the survey. This may reflect the government’s efforts to sustain its school-feeding program Merienda Escolar as many parents relied on it for at least one of their children’s meals.[35] As of 2019, 33 percent of children ages 0–6 attending a public institution were part of this program (2019 EPHPM). Figure 20. Who sets the standards for health and nutrition? (number of providers). Figure 21. During COVID-19 quarantine, did children receiving school meals still to do so? (%). [35] December and January among public schools following the national education system and July and August among private providers following bilingual academic calendars. 23 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Figure 22. Are children given food? (number of providers). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). As with health and nutrition standards, for both private and public providers protocols for disease prevention are predominantly set by the childcare centers, not the central government. Over 70 percent of providers indicated that they set their own standards and protocols for disease prevention, a third of public ones follow government protocols (mainly from the Ministry of Health) relative to only 12 percent of private ones (Figure 23 and Figure 24). Standards for disease prevention are relatively homogenous among public and private providers, the most cited are frequent handwashing (for both staff and children), and disinfection of objects and surfaces (Figure 25). Most providers (more than 80 percent), both public and private, indicate that bathrooms are cleaned at least twice a day. Figure 23. What standards are in place for disease prevention? (Share of Providers). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Figure 24. What government institution sets the standards and protocols for Disease prevention? Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). 24 SUPPLY OF CHILDCARE Figure 25. What standards are in place for disease prevention? (Number of Providers) Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). Infrastructure Most providers indicated a need for expanding both indoor and outdoor play areas for children. The original methodology for the supply assessment included an observation component of center infrastructure (through a quality list) that was adapted from previous assessments conducted by the World Bank in Eastern Europe (Buitrago Hernandez and Muñoz-Boudet 2019). Because of COVID-19 containment measures, the observation component was no longer feasible. A question on desired physical improvements was therefore added to the questionnaire. Overall, providers would like to build a garden or patio, expand outdoor play areas, expand indoor areas for children, and do general maintenance work (e.g. painting) (Figure 26). Figure 26. What physical improvements would you make to the facility? (number of providers). Source: Survey of childcare providers in Honduras (2020). 25 PROFILE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS AND PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN This chapter looks at the main characteristics of Honduran households with presence of children in the 0–6 age-group (i.e. households with childcare needs), as well as the sociodemographic characteristics of the parents (or other primary caretaker) of young children with a focus on their employment situation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis is based on the Childcare Demand Survey collected as part of this study, which is representative of urban households with children ages 0–6. Characteristics of urban households with children ages 0–6 The majority of urban households with young children in Honduras are characterized by both parents being present, there is at least one child in the 7–17 age-group, and there are usually two members who are responsible for the young child(ren). According to Honduras Childcare Demand Survey, the average household size with these characteristics is 5.6 (and the median size is 5.0). Three of every five households have only one child in the 0–6 age-group and about a third have two children in this age-group (Figure 27). In most cases both parents are present in the household (64 percent), in less than a third only the mother is present (31 percent) (Figure 28). Households with presence of the father only are a minority. As for other household members (Figure 28), in 65 percent of households there is presence of at least one child in the 7-17 age bracket, and in 31 percent households there is presence of a person age 55+.[36] On average 62 percent of households indicate that two household members – the parents, most likely- are the primary caretakers[37] for the child(ren) age 0-6 living in the household. In 21 percent of households, only one member is responsible for the young child, and in 17.1 percent there are 3 or more members responsible. Figure 27. Distribution of urban households in Honduras, by number of children 0-6 (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Values add up to a 100 percent. [36] In 99.6 percent of households, at least one person is in the 18–55 age-group. [37] Primary caretaker in this context, refers to living in the same household, providing care, and making decision regarding the child’s food, health, and education. Other than parents, primary caretakers are members ages 15 or more. 26 PROFILE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS AND PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN Figure 28. Distribution of urban households by presence of parents, and other members (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Values add up to a 100 percent. The parents or other primary caretakers of children ages 0–6 are on average age 33.[38] Most live together with a partner. Women are more likely to be single than men. More than half have incomplete secondary education or less (Table 5). Women on average are a year younger than men (ages 32.9 and 33.7, respectively). Most parents live together with their partner (46 percent), less than a third are married (29 percent) and 22 percent are single. However, there are differences in marital status by sex. Among women, the two most prevalent status are living together (44 percent) and single (28 percent). On the contrary, half of men live with their partner, 41 percent are married, and less than one in ten are single (7 percent). With regard to educational attainment, 64 percent of parents have incomplete secondary or less, with no major differences by sex. About a quarter of caretakers have complete secondary as the highest level attained although the share is higher among women (26 percent vs. 22 percent for men). Few have incomplete tertiary (5.5 percent) or complete tertiary education (6 percent). Table 5. Characteristics of parents of children ages 0–6, urban Honduras, total and by sex. Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). [38] Primary caretaker in this context, refers to living in the same household, providing care, and making decision regarding the child’s food, health, and education. Other than parents, primary caretakers are members ages 15 or more. 27 PROFILE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS AND PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN Labor market status of parents before and after the COVID-19 pandemic Pre-COVID-19 About 60 percent of urban primary caretakers were employed before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Honduras in March 2020[39]. The survey data confirms the disadvantage toward Honduran women to participate in the labor market, as well as the heavier burden in household work relative to men. While most parents (and/or main caregivers) where employed prior to the COVID- 19 pandemic, either through salaried jobs, temporary jobs or as self-employed, there are significant differences in main occupation by sex (Figure 29). For instance, less than a third of women were working as employees (salaried or temporary) before the COVID-19 pandemic (30 percent) relative to 65 percent among men, resulting in a gender gap of 35 percentage points. The gap is smaller but still significant for the self-employed (15 percentage points). Likewise, more women identified their main activity as ‘housework’ (49 percent women vs. 2 percent men) right before the pandemic. Figure 29. Main occupation before first COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020), distribution by total and sex. . Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Other includes handicapped, unpaid family work, and others. COVID-19 (March 2020 onward) At the time of the survey, over a year after the first lockdown in Honduras, a total of 61 percent of primary caretakers worked for pay at least one hour during the last week and gender gaps in employment continued (Figure 30). This suggests that employment levels in urban areas have already matched prepandemic levels. However, when considering differences by sex, the gender gap in employment persists. While 92 percent of men worked during the week prior to the survey, the percentage among women is nearly half (48 percent) suggesting a gender gap of 44 percentage points (also similar to the prepandemic gender gap in employment). Among those who continued working during the pandemic, 65 percent did so from home while 33 percent worked outside their home. Men were more likely to work from home (79 percent) compared to women for whom the shares are more evenly distributed (54 percent from work, 44 percent outside the home). Only 2 percent of parents follow a mixed home-and-office arrangement. Among those not working in June 2021, when the survey took place, the reason for not working varied by sex. The majority of men (76 percent) are not working because they are unemployed (that is, actively seeking work). By contrast, the main reason among women (60 percent) was housework, followed by unemployment (32 percent). [39] A nationwide lockdown started on March 16, 2020 in Honduras to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus. 28 PROFILE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS AND PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN Figure 30. Employment status at the interview (June 2021), place of work, and reason for not working, distribution by total and sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Other includes maternity/paternity leave, permanently handicapped, retired, vacation, and others. Those who were employed before the COVID-19 onset in March 2020 were also more likely to be employed during the pandemic (at the time of the survey). While women are still at a disadvantage, the gender gap in employment narrows in this group. Focusing exclusively on the population employed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage who continued working is higher (79 percent) than the share who are no longer working (21 percent), this is equivalent to approximately 72,145 jobs lost. Among this population, while women are again less likely to be employed during the pandemic (66 percent are, compared to 93 percent of men), the gender gap is smaller at 27 percentage points. Of those who continue to be employed at the time of the survey, 65 percent have the same job from before the COVID-19 lockdown, and 35 percent switched jobs, with no major differences by sex. In addition, among those who kept the same job, over a third of both men and women observed a decrease in the number of hours worked and a fifth observed an increase. For those who switched jobs, women are more likely than men to have started their own business (26 vs. 15 percent, respectively). Household and care responsibilities stand out as the main barrier among working (prepandemic) women for quitting their job during the pandemic. Among men who were employed before the first lockdown and stopped working during the pandemic, the main reasons for not working are ‘contract ended’ and ‘being dismissed from the job’ (together account for 70 percent) (Figure 31). For working women who had to stop working during the pandemic, the situation is different. Over a third of them cite ‘being dismissed from the job,’ 21 percent had to ‘quit their job to take care of children’ (the share of men citing this reason is only 7 percent), and 16 percent stopped working because the ‘place of work closed’. Almost half of urban households with presence of young children in Honduras experienced a fall in their income relative to income perceived before COVID-19 hit (Figure 32). A little more than a third of households indicate their income stayed the same and only 13 percent experienced an increase in income. 29 PROFILE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS AND PARENTS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN Figure 31. Reason why stopped working during COVID-19 pandemic, among those who had a job before the pandemic hit, distribution (%) by sex. Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Other includes handicapped, unpaid family work, and others. Figure 32. Household income in April 2021 relative to income before March 2020 (first lockdown), % households. Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Context: administrative data on enrollment, use, and reasons for nonuse Barely one-fourth of children ages under 6 receive formal early childhood development services in Honduras, with enrollment being higher among the older 3-5 cohorts. According to the 2019 EPHPM, only 1.2 percent of children in the 0–2 age-group attend a center of early stimulation, and 37.9 percent of children in the 3–5 age-group attend a formal childcare program. These low shares of enrollment are more striking if one considers that 40.7 percent of households include children ages 6 or less. Most household users rely on state-provided childcare services, and the choice for private services is concentrated among wealthier households. Among children in the 3–5 age-group who attend a formal childcare program, the majority (89 percent) do so at a public center (or school), and only a minority attend a private center (8 percent attend private centers, and 3.2 percent attend private bilingual centers). The preference for private services is concentrated among wealthier households; 44 percent of the top quintile enroll their children in private centers. About 92 percent of households in the bottom quintile rely on public centers or public schools that serve the 3–5 age-group. 30 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Furthermore, the share of children attending formal childcare is much lower among households in which the household head has no education. While 11.4 percent of households in which the head has no education use these services, the share goes up to 33.3 percent in households where the head has at least complete primary education. The reasons for nonuse of childcare programs vary depending on whether the child is in the 0–2 and 3-5 age-groups, but in general, there seems to be lack of knowledge about the benefits of early childhood education (Figures 33 and 34). The main reasons why families with children younger than three do not use formal childcare services, are lack of knowledge of what an early stimulation center is (44.3 percent of nonusers) and lack of access to early development centers in the area (26.2 percent); 10 percent of families prefer to care for the young child at home. Among families of children in the 3-5 age-group who do not use formal early childhood services, the main reasons for nonuse are that the child is too young to attend (92.6 percent) and not having a nearby center available (2.5 percent). Figure 33. Main reason for not using formal childcare services, children 0–2. Figure 34. Main reason for not enrolling at a formal early childhood center, children 3-5. Source: 2019 EPHPM. The following sections analyze urban households’ childcare needs, preferences about care responsibilities, time use, perceptions, as well as barriers in access to formal childcare services. The analysis is based on results from the survey on demand for childcare services collected as part of this study. As described in the Data and Methodology section, this survey is representative of urban households with presence of children in the 0–6 age-group.[40] [40] While the demand survey collected information on all children ages 0–6 living in the household, the module on childcare needs and arrangements focused on children in this age-group who (a) were at least ages 18 months at the time of the survey and (b) were not enrolled in primary school. The selection of the child for the questions in the childcare module was random (provided the child satisfied both conditions). 31 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Childcare arrangements Most Hondurans living in urban areas do not use formal or informal childcare services for young children, and the most prevalent arrangement -both before and during COVID-19- is at-home care provided by parents or other household members. In March 2020, prior to the COVID-19 lockdown in Honduras, children ages under 6 were mainly taken care of by their parents or other household members (100 percent) and neighbors or friends (15.5 percent). Fewer than 2 percent attended childcare centers, and only 6 percent were under the care of a nanny or maid (Figure 35, panel a). Households that had the help of members or nannies in caring for young children used these services an average of 4–5 days a week, equivalent to approximately 40 hours of childcare (Figure 36). Among the minority using childcare centers, over 90 percent used public facilities four times a week, and 44 percent paid for this service. Since the first lockdown took place in Honduras, the predominant childcare arrangement for children ages under 6 has also been at-home care, under the parents or other household members (Figure 35, panel b) While at-home during the pandemic reflects closures of childcare centers and schools as a containment measure because of COVID-19, there is a strong preference that household members should provide at-home care for children ages under 6 (100 percent of households). Only a minority of urban households have made use of alternative services such as hiring a nanny or maid to help caring for the child (6 percent of households) or taking children to home-based or community-based childcare (2 percent). Figure 35. Childcare arrangement before and after COVID-19 quarantine in March 2020 (%). Figure 36. Use of childcare arrangement before COVID-19 lockdown, March 2020 (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Childcare centers were not asked about average hours per week. (b) were not enrolled in primary school. The selection of the child for the questions in the childcare module was random (provided the child satisfied both conditions). 32 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Childcare arrangements Most Hondurans living in urban areas do not use formal or informal childcare services for young children, and the most prevalent arrangement -both before and during COVID-19- is at-home care provided by parents or other household members. In March 2020, prior to the COVID-19 lockdown in Honduras, children ages under 6 were mainly taken care of by their parents or other household members (100 percent) and neighbors or friends (15.5 percent). Fewer than 2 percent attended childcare centers, and only 6 percent were under the care of a nanny or maid (Figure 35, panel a). Households that had the help of members or nannies in caring for young children used these services an average of 4–5 days a week, equivalent to approximately 40 hours of childcare (Figure 36). Among the minority using childcare centers, over 90 percent used public facilities four times a week, and 44 percent paid for this service. Since the first lockdown took place in Honduras, the predominant childcare arrangement for children ages under 6 has also been at-home care, under the parents or other household members (Figure 35, panel b) While at-home during the pandemic reflects closures of childcare centers and schools as a containment measure because of COVID-19, there is a strong preference that household members should provide at-home care for children ages under 6 (100 percent of households). Only a minority of urban households have made use of alternative services such as hiring a nanny or maid to help caring for the child (6 percent of households) or taking children to home-based or community-based childcare (2 percent). Figure 35. Childcare arrangement before and after COVID-19 quarantine in March 2020 (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: More than one arrangement can be used by households, thus shares do not sum to 100. Figure 36. Use of childcare arrangement before COVID-19 lockdown, March 2020 (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Childcare centers were not asked about average hours per week. (b) were not enrolled in primary school. The selection of the child for the questions in the childcare module was random (provided the 33 child satisfied both conditions). DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Women spend the most time caring for children ages under 6 relative to men household members. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 90 percent of mothers reported that they were spending most of their time with their children; the corresponding share was only around half among fathers. Likewise, women household members (grandmothers, aunts, or sisters) are more likely than men members to spend time with young children in the household. As of June 2021, over a year after the first lockdown in Honduras, these childcare arrangements remain common (Figure 37 and 38). Figure 37. Person spending the most time with young children, by reference period and sex (%). Figure 38. Person spending the most time with young children during COVID-19 quarantine (March 2020 – March 2021), by sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: More than one person can be identified as spending time with children, thus shares do not sum to 100. 34 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Even though most men and women parents or primary caretakers indicate that the roles and responsibilities for childcare and household tasks have changed since the COVID-19 lockdown, women still dedicate more time to these tasks than men (Figure 39). Among urban households with children ages under 6, 94 percent of women reported that they were spending more time taking care of their children since the onset of the COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020; the share among men was 86 percent. Likewise, while 88 percent of women spend more time doing household chores, only two-thirds of men reported doing so (Figure 40). Figure 39. Time taking care of children, Monday–Friday, relative to the pre-COVID-19 lockdown has . . . , by sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Figure 40. Since the COVID-19 quarantine you dedicate more time to… by sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: More than one category could be selected, thus shares do not sum to 100. Nearly 75 percent of urban households with children ages under 6 report no change in childcare expenditures relative to before the pandemic, in February 2020. Fewer than 1 household in 10 reported that childcare expenditures had either increased or decreased (Figure 41). As of April 2021, on average, households were spending L 2,400 on childcare (equivalent to US$100).[41] [41] The demand survey included a question on amount spent on care for children ages under 6, including childcare centers, nannies and/or maids. The question excluded expenses on food, clothing, or others. It is important to note that of a total 803 surveyed households (with presence of young children), only 153 reported expenses on childcare (equivalent to only 19 percent of the sample). Most respondents (81 percent) indicated this cost to be zero, which is consistent to most households indicating that either the parents or other household members have been in charge of childcare since the first lockdown; only a minority, 2 percent surveyed households, 35 have hired a nanny and/or a maid and/or have used any home-based care services since the first lockdown. DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Figure 41. Current childcare expenses have . . . relative to February 2020? (%). Figure 42. If schools reopen, will you send your children to school? (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Even though schools have yet to resume in-person learning in Honduras, most parents indicate they would send their children to school if schools were to reopen (80 percent). Of these, approximately a third would do so depending on certain conditions. Among the parents, 56 percent required that supervision be provided to ensure that protocols are being followed; 37 percent required that masks be mandatory among children; 33 percent required that school environments be sanitized regularly; and many wanted fewer children per class (Figure 43). If school closures continue, most parents reported that they would continue taking care of their children and that their need for childcare would not change (Figure 44). Figure 43. Under what conditions would you send children to school when they reopen? (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: More than one category could be selected, thus shares do not sum to 100. 36 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE Figure 44. If school closures continue, how will you resolve childcare needs for children ages 0–6? (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: More than one answer could be selected; thus, the shares do not sum to 100. Values and attitudes A significant share of parents/primary caretakers in urban Honduras -more than 60 percent- believe that young children suffer negative consequences if mothers go to work. Figure 45 shows that women are more likely than men to agree (70 percent vs. 62 percent) that young children will likely suffer if the mother works. Around one quarter of parents/primary caretakers disagree with the statement, with men slightly more likely to express disagreement than women (30 percent versus 25 percent, respectively). Moreover, representative results at the country-level from the latest Latin American Public Opinion Project survey in Honduras (2018) confirm the existence of social constructs about work and motherhood that may play a role in shaping negative perceptions on use of childcare centers. According to the survey, around 61 percent of Honduran women are more likely to believe that children will suffer if the mother works outside the home. Only 53 percent of men believe this. Figure 45. Percentage who agree or disagree with the statement “A young child is likely to suffer if his/her mother goes to work”, by sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Values add up to a 100 percent. 37 DEMAND FOR CHILDCARE In addition, representative results from urban households with young children, indicate the prevalence of social constructs that women should take a more active role in taking care of the home and men should be the ones participating in the labor market. The majority of men primary caretakers (65 percent) and almost half of women (49 percent) agree that men should have more right to work than women (Figure 46, left panel). At the same time, women are more likely to disagree with the statement than men (37 vs. 24 percent, respectively). In line with these results, a significant share of parents/primary caretakers -with more men than women- believe that with the pandemic, women should be the ones spending more time on household responsibilities and less time working (Figure 46, right panel). Furthermore, among women, agreement with the statement holds regardless of their prepandemic working status. For instance, about 58 percent of working women (prepandemic), recognized themselves as the ones who should be in charge of performing more household work with the pandemic. Figure 46. Percentage who agree or disagree with the statement, by sex (%). Source: Honduras Childcare Demand Survey (2021). Note: Values add up to a 100 percent for each category -men and women. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS To strengthen inclusive growth, Honduras has to make the best possible use of its present and future human capital assets. The conventional role of women as caregivers is partly responsible for low female labor force participation and the low earnings of women. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the difficulties for women to join and stay in the labor market. Significantly increasing the labor supply in coming years requires the incorporation of women 25– 45 into the labor market. The majority of mothers of children younger than 6 are concentrated in this age-group. Access to good-quality and convenient childcare services can modify female labor force participation decisions, increasing a household’s income and opportunities, especially among the most vulnerable segments of the population. At the same time, childcare and early education policies are at the heart of key social and economic development outcomes playing a role at the crossroads of child development, labor, demography, fiscal sustainability, productivity, growth, and equity. This study examines the care arrangements and needs of urban families with young children in Honduras and contrasts them with the provision of childcare services in the country in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Current challenges related to supply and demand of childcare services are summarized in five salient points: 38 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Limited availability of affordable services underlies the relatively low utilization of formal childcare services mainly among the poorest households, however without emerging opportunities of good jobs for mothers, attendance to nonparental early childhood programs –particularly for children 0 to 3- is not latent among the majority of families in urban Honduras. 2.Institutional coordination for early childhood education in Honduras should be a priority, particularly for provision and regulation of services to children ages 0–3. 3.Financial assistance is identified as the most pressing need to resume early childhood care and education services when the pandemic situation allows in-person teaching to be resumed. 4.The current employer-mandated provision, which links the requirement to the employment of women specifically, can be problematic for different reasons. First, the mandate assigns the responsibility of caring for children solely to mothers (as they are the ones eligible to receive the benefit) which in turns disregards the principle of co-responsibility between both parents in caregiving. At the same time, it contributes to reinforce the prominence of the care provider role for women that leads to other gender-based inequalities. 5.Neighborhood programs—through public or private subsidized provision and based on the expectations of mothers and fathers—combined with a demand-side transfer for households with difficulties to afford the services could be a viable option to enhance mothers’ opportunities to participate in paid jobs. Key elements for successful outcomes are training of caregivers and implementation of safety standards and protocols. Given the simultaneous nature of women’s decisions to work and to use childcare, ensuring the appropriate support for meeting childcare needs is a necessary condition for the success of every other policy intended to improve women’s outcomes in the labor market. In the context of recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, formal childcare and early education programs are a key accompanying element in creating viable opportunities of income generation for women and households in urban Honduras. REFERENCES Asai, Yukiko, Ryo Kambayashi, and Shintaro Yamaguchi. 2015. “Childcare Availability, Household Structure, and Maternal Employment.” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 38 (December): 172–92. Attanasio, Orazio P., and Marcos Vera-Hernandez. 2004. “Medium and Long Run Effects of Nutrition and Child Care: Evaluation of a Community Nursery Programme in Rural Colombia.” Working Paper EWP04/06, Centre for the Evaluation of Development Policies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. Azevedo, João Pedro, Amer Hasan, Diana Goldemberg, Syedah Aroob Iqbal, and Koen Geven. 2020. “Simulating the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures on Schooling and Learning Outcomes: A Set of Global Estimates.” Policy Research Working Paper 9284, World Bank, Washington, DC. Barros, Ricardo Paes de, Pedro Olinto, Trine Lunde, and Mirela de Carvalho. 2011. “The Impact of Access to Free Childcare on Women’s Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Low-income Neighborhoods of Rio de Janeiro.” Paper prepared for the 2011 World Bank Economists Forum, World Bank, Washington, DC, March. Berlinski, Samuel, and Sebastián Galiani. 2007. “The Effect of a Large Expansion of Pre-Primary School Facilities on Preschool Attendance and Maternal Employment.” Labour Economics 14 (3): 665–80. Buitrago Hernandez, Sandra Paola, and Ana María Muñoz-Boudet, 2019. “Why Should We Care about Care? Supply and Demand Assessment of Care Services in Georgia: A Mixed Methods Study.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Cucagna, Maria Emilia, and Javier Romero. 2021. “The Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on the Labor Market.” LACGIL Policy Brief (January), Gender Innovation Lab for Latin America and the Caribbean, World Bank, Washington, DC. 39 REFERENCES Del Boca, Daniela, and Marilena Locatelli. 2006. “The Determinants of Motherhood and Work Status: A Survey.” IZA Discussion Paper 2414 (October), Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany. Deutsch, Ruthanne. 1998. “Does Child Care Pay? Labor Force Participation and Earnings Effects of Access to Child Care in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro.” IDB Working Paper 384 (August), Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Devercelli, A. E., F. Beaton-Day. 2020. Better Jobs and Brighter Futures : Investing in Childcare to Build Human Capital. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. DINAF and UNOPS 2018). La inversion Social en la Primera Infancia. Honduras EMIH (Equipo de Monitoreo Independiente de Honduras). 2018. “Tres Estudios de casos de Centros de Cuidado Infantil.” EMIH, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Fong, Monica, and Michael Lokshin. 2000. “Child Care and Women's Labor Force Participation in Romania.” Policy Research Working Paper 2400, World Bank, Washington, DC. Government of Honduras. 1998. “Executive Decree PCM 199-97.” January 20, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras. 2012. “Executive Decree PCM 031-2013.” September 7, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras. 2014a. “Executive Decree PCM 27-2014.” June 6, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras. 2014b. “Executive Decree PCM 26-2014.” June 6, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras. 2015. “Executive Decree PCM-020-2015.” June 24, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras. 2019. Plan Estratégico 2019-2027 de la Política Pública para el Desarrollo de la Primera Infancia en el marco de las instituciones del Sistema de Atención Integral para la Primera Infancia Criando con Amor. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Government of Honduras and UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Plan Estrategico para la Primera Infancia. 2019. INAM (Instituto Nacional de la Mujer). 2015. Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para la Mujer. July 6, INAM, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Kraus, M., M. Riedel, E. Mot, P. Willeme, G. Rohrling, and T. Czpionka. 2010. “A Typology of Systems of Long-Term Care in Europe: Results of Work Package 1 of the ANCIEN Project.” Research Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna. LaPrensa. 2014. “Dinaf Inicia Traspaso de Centros Infantiles a Municipalidades.” LaPrensa, October 27, 2014. https://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/761687-410/dinaf-inicia-traspaso-de-centros-infantiles-a-municipalidades. Lefebvre, Pierre, Philip Merrigan, and Matthieu Verstraete. 2009. “Dynamic Labour Supply Effects of Childcare Subsidies: Evidence from a Canadian Natural Experiment on Low-Fee Universal Child Care.” Labour Economics 16 (5): 490–502. Lokshin, Michael. 2004. “Household Childcare Choices and Women's Work Behavior in Russia.” Journal of Human Resources 39 (4): 1094–1115. Mateo Díaz, Mercedes, and Lourdes Rodriguez-Chamussy. 2016. Cashing in on Education: Women, Childcare, and Prosperity in Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin American Development Forum Series. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank. Olivieri, Sergio, Gabriel Lara Ibarra, and Jose Cuesta. 2020. “COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Surveys 2020: Honduras.” Dashboard, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/4055. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), IIPE-UNESCO (International Institute for Educational Planning–United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), and OEI (Organization of Ibero-American States). 2015. “La inversión en la primera infancia en América Latina: Propuesta metodológica y análisis en países seleccionados de la región.” January, Panama City, Panama, UNICEF. UN Women (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women). 2020. “The Economic and Social Impact of COVID-19 on Women and Men: Rapid Gender Assessment of COVID-19 Implications in Turkey.” UN Women, Istanbul. World Bank. 2015. Supply and Demand for Child Care Services in Turkey: A Mixed Methods Study. Report 98884- TR (September). Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2017. “Why Should We Care about Care? The Role of Childcare and Eldercare in Armenia.” April, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2020. “Closing Gender Gaps in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Report 128525, World Bank, Washington, DC. 40