Case Study November 2023 DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING LOW-COST CHILDCARE SOLUTIONS: ABOUT THIS STUDY: LESSONS FROM THE AFRICA This case study is a product of the World Bank Africa Gender GENDER INNOVATION LAB Innovation Lab within the Office of the Africa Region Chief Economist. The pilots described Authors: Rachel Cassidy, Roxane Zighed, Cansu Birce Gokalp were conducted in partnership with the Governments of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the SUMMARY Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia, with financial and technical assistance from the This case study presents lessons learned by the Africa Gender World Bank’s Social Protection Innovation Lab (GIL) and its partners from pilots of different and Jobs Global Practice, the Invest in Childcare initiative models of low-cost childcare provision across four countries through the World Bank’s Early in Sub-Saharan Africa: mobile crèches in Burkina Faso and Learning Partnership, the World Cameroon, fixed-location crèches in Ethiopia, and community-based Bank Umbrella Fund for Gender Equality (UFGE) and other childcare centers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We World Bank sources. We thank also share findings from qualitative research conducted to inform the Frances Beaton-Day, Aziz Dao, design of a new community-based childcare pilot in Cameroon. This Amanda Devercelli, Rebekka Grun, Adiam Hailemicheal, case study does not intend to prescribe best practices, but instead Florence Kantiono, Estelle to provide examples of the key questions, challenges and solutions Koussoubé, Rachael Pierotti, encountered by project teams. and Julia Vaillant for sharing information and insights. 1 https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/africa-gender-innovation-lab MOTIVATION: WHY SUPPORT CHILDCARE PROVISION? Promoting childcare provision has the potential not only to improve child development, but also to enhance women’s economic participation and productivity, and to boost economic growth. Across Sub-Saharan Africa and the world, women spend substantially more time on unpaid care work than men,i and are much more likely than men to be children’s primary caregivers. This unequal distribution of unpaid care work limits women’s economic participation and productivity.ii There is a widespread lack of access to quality childcare provision, especially among the poorest and most vulnerable households. There is recent, rigorous evidence that childcare availability in low- and middle-income countries has positive impacts for female labor force participation, with some studies also finding benefits to productivity, income, and work quality.iii At the same time, there is a strong evidence base showing that investing in early childhood development has positive impacts on children’s school readiness, life-long learning outcomes, and employment and earnings as adults. Hence, through its potential impacts on both mothers and children, childcare provision has the potential to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth.iv WHAT WAS DONE? PILOT SNAPSHOTS GIL has partnered with a range of project teams to meet demand from project beneficiaries and governments to pilot innovative solutions for childcare provision – and to evaluate these pilots with respect to their impacts on women, children, households, and communities. Burkina Faso In Burkina Faso, the pilot was part of the Labor- Intensive Public Works (LIPW) component of the Youth Employment and Skills Development Project of the Government of Burkina Faso. The mobile crèches aimed to allow women with young and breastfed children to participate in the LIPW and to ensure the safety of children who accompanied their mothers to work sites. Selected project beneficiaries were trained to provide childcare to their own and other beneficiaries’ children during public works sessions, which also created a new opportunity for paid work as a childcare provider. The childcare centers were mobile and located close to the public works sites, allowing for children in the centers to remain close to their mothers as the sites moved. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted by the Africa GIL found that the provision of these mobile crèches for mothers working on construction sites tripled the use of childcare centers for children up to 6 years old, demonstrating high unmet demand. Access to the crèches positively impacted child development, particularly in boosting gross and fine motor skills, while language development remained unchanged. Moreover, access led to improved women’s labor force participation, psychological well-being, financial resilience, and savings. 2 Cameroon In Cameroon, GIL conducted a qualitative studyv to leverage learning from the mobile crèches pilot implemented in Cameroon under the LIPW component of the Social Safety Nets (SSN) project. The SSN pilot employed a similar approach to Burkina Faso, wherein selected project beneficiaries provided childcare for beneficiaries’ children during public works sessions, in mobile locations close to the public works sites. The qualitative study sought to understand reactions to the SSN pilot and demand for childcare services, and to inform the design of a subsequent project, the Sahel Women’s Empowerment and Demographic Dividend (SWEDD) project. Both the SSN and SWEDD projects are funded by the International Development Association (IDA) and implemented by the Government of Cameroon. Ethiopia In Ethiopia, a childcare intervenion was added to the LIPW component of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), implemented by the Government of Ethiopia’s Ministry of Agriculture and funded by IDA and other donors. Childcare providers were selected among PSNP beneficiaries and rotated to provide childcare during public works sessions in a central local government facility. An impact evaluation conducted by the Africa GIL found very high usage of these childcare services, but the pilot and evaluation were subsequently suspended due to the conflict in Northern Ethiopia. The Democratic Republic of Congo In the DRC, formative research conducted by Africa GIL identified strong potential demand for low-cost childcare provision in rural communities. GIL then partnered with the Ministry of Education, Save the Children, and local non-government organisation (NGO) Réseau Provincial des Associations des Femmes pour la Promotion de l’Éducation (REPAFE) to pilot and conduct an impact evaluation of such with basic equipment provided by the project. The provision. Childcare center managers were selected study found very high take-up – over 70% among by community members and then trained on best households offered access – and positive impacts on practices in early childhood development. Centers both women’s and men’s economic engagement and operated in community-designated infrastructure household earnings, as well as on child development.vi 3 KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR DESIGN AND The pilots showed that questions in the diagnostic IMPLEMENTATION analysis should be as specific as possible, to enable respondents to answer effectively. For example, We present below the key design questions encountered questions on which specific features are desirable for by project teams, and example solutions from each pilot. a childcare center are typically better answered than questions on the demand for “quality childcare” without 1 What information should be gathered a definition of “quality”. Similarly, questions on barriers at the design stage? to uptake of existing services are better answered than questions on demand for hypothetical services. In general, hypothetical questions and/or questions with All pilots emphasize the role of diagnostic analysis, obvious incentives for respondents to bias their answers understanding the needs and constraints that a must be treated with caution. For example, participants childcare intervention aims to address prior to in the SWEDD Cameroon qualitative study indicated that designing it, as well as the implementation context. they were willing to pay sizeable sums to access the Diagnostic analysis may include a contextual component crèches, but this is not consistent with the experience (e.g., What is the regulatory framework? What are the of childcare providers in the study locations who had norms for various types of early childhood services?), a difficulty collecting modest fees from parents. prospective component (e.g., What is the demand for the service? What are the constraints that the intervention Box 1: How findings from diagnostic analyses aims to address? What are the constraints to intervention can successfully feed into intervention design take up?), and a capitalization component (e.g., Can In the DRC, the baseline household survey we leverage the experience of projects in similar conducted prior to design and implementation contexts? What were the lessons learned from similar showed high demand for childcare services, with projects?). There are a variety of possible approaches, 76% of female farmers reporting that they would including consultations, needs assessments, supply- leave their children in a center. The survey asked side assessments, landscaping exercises, or household about formal models where infrastructure such as surveys. The resources needed to commission diagnostic school classrooms is financed by the project, food analyses depend on the approach and scope, but do not is provided, and children are provided with toys and necessarily need to be resource- or time-intensive.vii activities designed to aid their cognitive stimulation; and about informal models, where women group The pilots covered in this study relied on a mixture of together and set up an informal rotating scheme different approaches at the design stage. In Burkina Faso, where they take turns as caretakers. Responses the initiative to set up the childcare centers came from to the survey showed that the cost of formal beneficiaries themselves. The model was piloted in one childcare centers, and the lack of trust in the locality and evaluated through a rapid evaluation before quality of care that others would provide in an extending the initiative to other localities. In Cameroon, informal arrangement, were key constraints to the SSN mobile crèches project team conducted take-up. This led to the adoption of a hybrid model consultations with key stakeholders in the target locations with features of both formal arrangements (centers and visited the mobile crèche pilot in Burkina Faso. To were set up in fixed, designated infrastructure; inform the SWEDD community-based childcare design, providers received professional training and the Africa GIL led a formative qualitative study to assess followed an Early Childhood Development (ECD)- the demand for childcare in the targeted communities enhancing curriculum) and informal ones (providers and in communities where SSN mobile crèches had been came from the community, low-cost curricula implemented. In the DRC and Ethiopia, GIL conducted were adopted, infrastructure was community- a baseline household survey to assess the demand for designated), to balance costs and service quality. childcare, and potential obstacles to take-up. In the Intervention take-up during implementation was DRC, the Africa GIL team also engaged in a series of high, with 73% of households with access to the consultations with key stakeholders across governmental centers using the services. and non-governmental organizations. 4 2 Who will implement the project? 3 What is the role of parents and communities? In most pilots, the implementation of public All pilots found that engaging parents was crucial childcare projects involved a range of different for success. In Cameroon and Burkina Faso, parents stakeholders. The central and local government may reported highly valuing the childcare provision due implement all activities using existing networks of health, to the benefits they observed in terms of enhanced preschool, and social structures. This government- child development and school readiness. Effective implemented model can leverage and strengthen the parental mobilization may involve showcasing the value capacity of local government actors to implement proposition and benefits of using childcare services childcare projects. Alternatively, partnership models through sensitization – especially in contexts where may entail government ministries contracting NGOs to parents may be unfamiliar with or skeptical about the carry out activities, combining the institutional learning services – and engaging parents throughout design and and specific expertise of structures with experience implementation. There were various levels of parental implementing similar activities. involvement across pilots. In all cases, parents were requested to ensure children were cleaned and fed before Most pilots in this case study adopted a combination being dropped off. In Burkina Faso and the DRC, parents of these two models. In Burkina Faso, early childhood were involved in village committees; and in the DRC, officers from the Ministry of National Education, Literacy, mothers were asked to choose the service providers and Promotion of National Languages trained and unanimously among eligible candidates. In Cameroon, supervised childcare providers, social workers from the Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, parental education sessions Ministry of Solidarity, Humanitarian Action, Gender and were rolled out by social workers or NGO staff, covering Family provided parental education, and health officers from the Ministry of Health conducted health check-ups topics such as hand washing, breastfeeding, nutrition, on children. In addition, a training institute was hired child protection, child development, malaria prevention, to coordinate activities, with support from preschool vaccination, or prenatal consultations. In Ethiopia, both directors. A focal point from the community was also parents also had to participate in an initial training identified in each location and liaised between the before implementation on early childhood care, child project and the municipality, which helped to identify development, nutrition, and how to interact with their the location, preselect service providers, and provide child. While parental engagement is often targeted at some equipment (e.g., handwashing stations). Similarly, mothers, how to engage fathers effectively in childcaring under Cameroon’s SSN project, the government project activities remains an important and open question. implementation unit (PIU) coordinated local government Some interventions designed to engage both mothers participation, including sensitizing the community, and fathers in positive parenting programs have conducting medical check-ups, training providers, demonstrated positive impact for children and their and ensuring the quality of activities. Additionally, the households.viii Highlighting the availability of childcare PIU hired a local NGO to coordinate and monitor day- facilities to eligible fathers, and encouraging their take- to-day activities, and to identify the sites, providers, up, will also be an important focus for future projects. In and beneficiaries. In Ethiopia, the local government Burkina Faso, the centers were open to children of both provided the sites, and an international NGO was hired female and male project participants, and some fathers to develop curricula, train providers, coordinate and reportedly used the services. In Ethiopia, the eligibility monitor service provision. In the DRC, the Ministry of criterion was having children between the ages of one Education provided quality assurance and supervision, and six, regardless of project participant’s gender, and the international NGO Save the Children developed although there is little evidence as to whether fathers the curricula and trained the trainers; while a local used the childcare services. NGO hired, paid, and trained providers, as well as coordinated and monitored day-to-day activities. 5 Community involvement was key to foster a stronger caregiver-child interactions and relationship. sense of ownership and accountability across In the DRC, Burkina, and Cameroon, caregivers were pilots, ensuring the childcare solution meets the identified and trained and ensured service continuity needs and priorities of the local community, and throughout the pilot duration. On the other hand, in is sustainable in the long term. Both sensitization Ethiopia, caregivers who were selected among the activities and centers’ governance models can ensure women enrolled under the public works component community involvement. For example, in Burkina Faso, of the PSNP, rotated to work at the childcare centers the childcare management committee included parents one day per week. Using a rotating group of caregivers and community representatives. In the Cameroon SSN enabled a larger number of individuals to receive training pilot, community groups were set up in each locality in childcare services. This approach also served as a and contributed to identifying the location for the center means of involving mothers and elderly women, rather and providing building materials. Women’s associations than assigning them to physically demanding public also contributed to sensitizing communities about works sites. The time spent by women at the childcare the pilot. In Ethiopia, community facilitators were centers was considered as part of their public work identified, and worked with providers to manage and days. run the centers and to deliver parenting sessions. In the The question of who should be involved in the selection DRC, village committees were formed to help identify process was important to enhance trust in the quality providers, beneficiaries, and sites, and a grievance of care, and varied across pilots. The qualitative study redress mechanism was set up (for Burkina Faso, in Cameroon found that mothers identified significant Cameroon and Ethiopia, the projects had existing advantages to having community mothers select grievance redress mechanisms). The local NGO team the crèche staff, such as greater propensity to enroll conducted sensitization about the pilot before its start, their children, greater trust, community approval, staff and again at times when attendance rates dropped. accountability, and a rigorous selection process. In contrast, community leaders believed that nursery staff should be chosen by community leaders themselves, 4 Who will act as caregivers, and how because they believe they know their community will they be trained? members best. In the DRC, eligible caregivers were selected from the community based on their good character, their availability for the duration of the The selection of caregivers played a pivotal role program, and their reading and writing skills. Eligibility in ensuring good quality services and securing was confirmed by the implementing partner, and parents’ buy-in and trust across all pilots. In the the final selection was made by beneficiaries based DRC, prior to the pilot, a lack of trust in the quality of on consensus. For the other pilots (Burkina Faso, care that others would provide was extremely prevalent Cameroon, Ethiopia), caregivers were selected by and was the second most-cited reason by parents the project among project beneficiaries, an approach (after cost) for not previously using or creating childcare which could generate a staffing pipeline with individuals centers. In the qualitative research in Cameroon, study who have a pre-existing commitment to the cause participants described the personal qualities of the and are accessible. While the pilots in this study only daycare staff as a key determinant of their willingness considered women as potential childcare providers, to enroll children. an important question for future work will be how to open the opportunity of becoming a childcare provider Caregivers can be selected among the community to men. where the project is implemented (as for the community-based crèches in the DRC), or among Across the pilots, caregiver training spanned from project beneficiaries (as for the other pilots). Caregivers two to ten days. In Burkina Faso, caregivers received can be non-rotating (one or several providers provide a three-day training, delivered by the Ministry of the services without rotating with other providers) or National Education, Literacy, and Promotion of National rotating (caregivers take turns in providing the services). Languages, before starting to operate the centers. Having non-rotating caregivers may allow caregivers They continued to receive ongoing training during to be trained more intensively and also enhance the implementation. In Cameroon, preschool directors formality of the center, which may spur higher levels of delivered a three-day training to the SSN childcare trust. Use of non-rotating caregivers might also facilitate providers, with support from the implementing NGO. 6 In Ethiopia, community facilitators delivered a two-day Burkina Faso, once the LIPW ended and the crèches training with support from the implementing NGO’s established fixed locations, families often discontinued ECD experts. In the DRC, the local NGO focal points use if they would be required to spend a lot of time each delivered a ten-day training, with support from project day transporting their children to and from the crèche, partners in the Ministry of Primary Education. A second since they considered it too costly to sacrifice working training cycle took place three to six months after the hours. This concern was especially problematic for opening of the centers. At the end of each training families living in more remote areas of the city, and cycle, providers had to take a test to assess their level without access to modes of rapid transportation. of knowledge of modules and providers who scored lower than average were trained again. As most of these Infrastructure can be temporary, permanent or a mixture caregiver trainings are short, follow-up observations of both. It can also be private or public. In Ethiopia, the and ongoing coaching and support are also important local government identified kebele facilities that could to enhance the learning quality. host the centers. In Burkina and Cameroon, centers were set up either in available community premises or in temporary structures (full-coverage tents, hangars). 5 Where will childcare provision be In the DRC, community warehouses, churches, offices located? of development organizations or providers’ living rooms served as daycare infrastructures. All pilots found that the childcare center location is key, and could be mobile or fixed depending on 6 What services will be provided? the context. A mobile center can be placed close to where participants work – allowing for breastfeeding, children being close to their mothers, easy drop-off Opening hours need to accommodate: (i) and pick-up – but requires infrastructure material to be beneficiaries’ activities, such as income- adapted. There may also be transport complexities, if generating activities, trainings, and education; mothers have to travel with their children. In Burkina and (ii) the age of children and their breastfeeding Faso and Cameroon, mobile crèches followed the needs. The formative work in Cameroon found that an public works location. In Ethiopia, however, the mobile important participation criterion expressed by parents crèche option was ruled out by community members was that the center would be open during mothers’ because the equipment to build and equip the crèches farm work (usually 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM) or school was deemed too heavy. The project set up centers at the day (7:30 AM to 5 PM), five to six days a week. Across center of the kebele, a location considered central with pilots, centers were open during working hours (8:00 respect to beneficiaries’ homes and the public works AM to 2:00 PM), five days a week, for children zero to sites. In the DRC, a fixed location was selected among five or six years old (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia) available existing infrastructure in the community, with or two to six years old (DRC). the objective of having a centrally located center to ensure that households could access it irrespective of Each pilot incorporated educational techniques to where they worked. Prior to the design of the childcare establish an enjoyable, secure, and engaging setting center, an assessment may need to be carried out to and nurture the growth of children’s sensory-motor, consider the participants needs and preferences and cognitive, linguistic, and socioemotional abilities. For the suitability of the worksite for childcare provision. example, in the Burkina Faso pilot, families reported a great appreciation for the educational activities such When the center is not designed to be close to work, as singing songs, learning letters, and learning to get it may be located centrally within the community, as it along with peers. was the case in Ethiopia and the DRC. Other criteria in locating the centers were proximity to the health center, Childcare centers could also provide additional to latrines, and access to clean water. If childcare facilities services such as food, medical care, and parental are located in the community, it can also be easier for education, but subject to certain considerations: other relatives to drop off and collect the children. In the qualitative work in Cameroon, participants reported Food – food provision in the centers may enable that for a crèche to be accessible, it must ideally be children’s participation. In Burkina Faso and located between 300 and 400 meters from their home, the DRC, where food was not initially provided, with a maximum distance of two kilometers. In urban numerous reports indicated that the children 7 were less likely to attend the centers because of the lack of food and the inability of parents to 7 What will the monitoring system be? provide it. In the DRC, the project team launched an additional pilot of offering a snack to children in two villages, and attendance data suggested a A rigorous monitoring system is important to positive impact on attendance. In the DRC, as well allow course-correction, and to ensure that the as in Burkina Faso and Cameroon, the centers intervention is meeting parents’ and children’s therefore procured and distributed snacks for at needs throughout the project cycle. Across pilots, least part of the intervention period (e.g., biscuits aspects to monitor included attendance, but also and juice in Cameroon, spaghetti and staple food indicators of provision quality such as center hygiene, cooked by providers in the centers in the DRC). as well as parents’ potential grievances.ix While food provision may support participation and enhance child development through nutrition, In Burkina Faso, government-employed social workers it may also, however, raise safeguarding issues. In and education and health specialists conducted regular visits to crèches to monitor the quality of Ethiopia for instance, food provision could not be childcare provision. In Cameroon, the implementing pursued as the project did not have mechanisms NGO monitored the presence of childcare providers in place to avoid food contamination, so parents and the hygiene of the centers. The municipality and were asked to provide food for their own child. early childhood officers also conducted weekly spot- Medical care – childcare centers can serve checks to monitor the quality of services provided and as delivery points for health check-ups, with to ensure that national regulations are respected. In appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that Ethiopia, attendance lists were collected by community only trained professionals deliver healthcare to facilitators and collated in Excel by a survey firm children. Across the childcare centers covered procured by the Africa GIL and community facilitators in this study, partnerships were set up with screened the centers. In the DRC, service providers local health centers to deliver check-ups and/ tracked children’s daily attendance at the center with or deliver medical care in case of emergency. attendance lists. The implementing NGO’s focal points In Burkina Faso, the Ministry of Health, via local collected and recorded attendance data on Excel sheets health centers, sent staff to the crèches to check before tablets were provided to the NGO focal points vaccination records and, where necessary, set to collect monitoring data, which improved monitoring up appointments for further care. In Cameroon, data quality. Regular, unannounced, supervision visits a partnership between the SSN project and were scheduled by various bodies to ensure the quality health centers allowed conducting health check- of services, and a grievance redress mechanism was put in place. ups prior to admission to the center, and weekly throughout implementation, and ensured that sick children would be evacuated and admitted to the 8 What are the models for cost-sharing health center. In Ethiopia, the centers were set and sustainability? up close to health posts to create the necessary health service linkages. Health extension workers were responsible for providing the services Co-payments in cash or in kind by parents who can required (e.g., vaccination, measurement) for afford them are a potential avenue for expanding children in the health post catchment area, access – allowing the centers to operate in more sites, thereby attending the childcare centers near or cross-subsidizing access for the poorest households. the health post. In the DRC, childcare center Such cost-sharing may also be key to sustainability via providers were equipped with first-aid kits and private provision or public-private partnership, in cases also collected parents’ consent to send children where fully public provision is not or no longer fully to a healthcare center in the event that urgent feasible. medical care would be needed. However, experience from pilots across contexts Parental education – the majority of the pilots shows that cost-sharing can be difficult to also delivered parental education, as detailed in enforce. In the DRC, childcare was free, but parents section 3. were asked to contribute in kind by providing materials 8 Box 2: Measuring parents’ willingness-to-pay for childcare services Measuring willingness-to-pay is tricky, and potentially subject to response bias. One option is to estimate willingness-to-pay from existing real-world choices, e.g., demand for existing childcare services at different prices, although this may be difficult in cases where low-cost childcare options are sparse. Another option is to incentivize respondents to answer as accurately as possible e.g., via offering vouchers according to their responses, but this may be difficult to implement. Yet another option is to ask very concrete questions about willingness to pay for services with very specific features, since willingness-to-pay may vary greatly depending on factors such as perceived quality of the childcare provision, and distance from parents’ places of work. Such questions may still generate bias due to their hypothetical nature but may at least allow comparison of how willingness-to-pay is likely to vary with different factors. Parents’ willingness-to-pay may also change after initial access to childcare services, especially if parents observe benefits to their children first-hand, hence measuring willingness-to-pay at various stages in the project may be key. such as wood and crops to cook. In reality, these in-kind continuing to operate with different funding models contributions proved difficult to secure regularly from a once the original project funding ended. More broadly large number of parents. In Cameroon, childcare was though, it is key from the outset to consider questions free, but parents were asked to feed their child before of financial sustainability (how will activities be funded dropping them at the facility, and the project provided when project funding ends?) and operational and snacks. In Burkina Faso, childcare services were free institutional stability (how and by whom will activities be during the period of the LIPW, but for the meals the implemented when project support ends?). proposed model was one of cost-sharing: parents were asked for a voluntary contribution from 1,500 FCFA per Sustainability of the childcare centers in the pilots was month in rural areas to 6,000 FCFA per month in urban mixed, both across pilots and across centers within areas (the amount was fixed by each mobile crèche pilots. In the DRC, around a third of centers were still Management Committee) and the project topped up running for two to three days per week with the support this contribution each month. However, sometimes of the community a year after the end of the pilot, some parents were unable to pay this contribution based on a follow-up survey to measure centers’ take- regularly, although some parents compensated with up.x In Burkina Faso, after the project ended in 2019 payment in kind or by providing services such as help and following local demand for continuation, most with meal preparation and small maintenance work at crèches from the pilot continued operating in fixed sites the centers. After the end of the LIPW project, some provided by local authorities (although a few mobile of the urban crèches continued to operate and began crèches remained). Trust funding from the World Bank’s charging a small fee for access. Without the income Early Learning Partnership allowed the contracting of guarantee provided by the LIPW project, many families a private ECD training institute to ensure continuity of determined that they could not afford the fee to continue training, activities, supervision, and coordination across using the crèches. This financial barrier contributed to a the 20 mobile crèche sites. The crèches continued to dramatic drop in usage by households. In Ethiopia, the operate after the Early Learning Partnership funding services were provided for free, and households were ended in June 2021, under the Burkina Social Safety not asked to contribute. Nets project in partnership with the Ministry of National Solidarity and Humanitarian Action. Various options Identifying models for long-term sustainability for further implementation of childcare activities are remains an open question. Experiences from the four currently being explored by the crèches, with support pilots suggest that establishing a childcare pilot builds from the municipalities. In Ethiopia, the PSNP childcare the capacity of local private and public actors to run pilot closed down due to the conflict in Northern such activities, and showcases the benefits of childcare Ethiopia and in Cameroon, the SSN mobile crèches to communities, in some cases leading to the centers ended after project funding ended. 9 To find out more: • Burkina Faso – The Effects of Childcare on Women and Children: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Burkina Faso | Working Paper and Policy Brief • Ethiopia - Household Demand and Community Perceptions of Community-based Childcare | Policy Brief • Democratic Republic of Congo – Investing in Childcare for Women’s Economic Empowerment | Working Paper and Policy Brief • Cameroon – Qualitative Report • The Invest in Childcare website has more information on the initiative and lists finalized tools and resources (with more to be added as available). i. https://www.ilo.org/africa/media-centre/pr/WCMS_633460/lang--en/index.htm ii. See e.g., Goldstein, Markus, Paula Gonzalez, Sreelakshmi Papineni, and Joshua Wimpey. 2022. Childcare, COVID-19 and Female Firm Exit. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. . iii. Halim, Daniel, Elizaveta Perova, and Sarah Reynolds. 2022. Childcare and Mothers’ Labor Market Outcomes in Lower- and Middle-Income Countries. The World Bank Research Observer: lkac003. iv. See e.g., Heckman, J. 2006. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312 (5782): 1900–02. Cunha, F., and J. Heckman. 2007. The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review 97(2): 31-47. Gertler, P. J., R. Heckman, A. Pinto, et al. 2014. Labor market returns to an early childhood stimulation intervention in Jamaica. Science 344(6187): 998-1001. v. Pierotti, Rachael S. and Leva Rouhani. 2023. Recherche qualitative formative pour informer la conception de crèches pour le projet pour l’Autonomisation des Femmes et le Dividende Démographique au Sahel (SWEDD) Cameroun. vi. Donald A, Vaillant J. Experimental evidence on rural childcare provision (working paper); 2023. vii. The Invest in Childcare initiative is developing sample instruments for childcare situation assessments.. viii. Jensen SKG, Placencio-Castro M, Murray SM, et al. Effect of a home-visiting parenting program to promote early childhood development and prevent violence: a cluster-randomized trial in Rwanda. BMJ Global Health 2021 & Doyle K, Levtov RG, Barker G, Bastian GG, Bingenheimer JB, Kazimbaya S, et al. (2018) Gender-transformative Bandebereho couples’ intervention to promote male engagement in reproductive and maternal health and violence prevention in Rwanda: Findings from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0192756. ix. The Invest in Childcare initiative is developing guidance on essential elements of quality and monitoring. x. Donald A, Vaillant J. Experimental evidence on rural childcare provision (working paper); 2023. FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT Cansu Birce Gokalp cgokalp@worldbank.org Photo credits: Cover: Vincent Tremeau/World Bank; Page 2 photos: i) Amina Semlali, World Bank ii) Agence Africa Gender Innovation Lab Manivelles, World Bank; Page 3 drawings: Guy Bienvenue Kede Eloundou, Page 3 photos: i) Binyam Teshome/ afrgenderlab@worldbank.org World Bank, Child Fund ii) World Bank; Page 10 Photos from the DRC pilot by the World Bank 1818 H St NW This work has received financial and technical assistance from the World Bank’s Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice, the Invest in Childcare initiative through the World Bank’s Early Learning Partnership, the Washington, DC 20433 USA World Bank Umbrella Fund for Gender Equality (UFGE) and other World Bank sources. UFGE is a multidonor www.worldbank.org/africa/gil 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. UFGE is supported with generous contributions from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, the United States, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund. 10