ORI GIN AL ARTICLE

From Early Childhood Development Policyto Sustainability: The Fragility of Community-BasedChildcare Services in Malawi

Michelle J. Neuman • Christin McConnell •

Foster Kholowa

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Over the past 20 years, more than 6,000 community-based childcare

centers (CBCCs) have been created in mostly rural areas of Malawi. Although the

original purpose of these CBCCs was to meet the care needs of orphans and vul-

nerable children affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the services have since

expanded their mandate to provide early development and learning opportunities as

well as part-time childcare for working parents. The Malawi national policy is to

expand this network of CBCCs to improve early childhood development outcomes,

however, sustainability of these services has been an ongoing challenge. This article

discusses the roots and extent of this sustainability challenge, drawing on lessons

learned from recent fieldwork conducted as part of a baseline study.

Keywords Early childhood development � Community-based services � Malawi �Sub-Saharan Africa � Sustainability � Policy

Resume Au cours des 20 dernieres annees, plus de 6,000 centres de la petite

enfance communautaires (CPEC) ont ete crees dans des regions principalement

rurales du Malawi. Bien que l’objectif initial de ces centres etait de repondre aux

The views presented in this article are those of the authors (Michelle J. Neuman, Christin McConnell )

and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Bank or its government member countries.

M. J. Neuman (&)

Human Development Network, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA

e-mail: mneuman@worldbank.org

C. McConnell

Africa Region, The World Bank, Lilongwe, Malawi

e-mail: cmconnell@worldbank.org

F. Kholowa

Chancellor College, University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi

e-mail: foskho@gmail.com

123

IJEC

DOI 10.1007/s13158-014-0101-1

besoins de soins des orphelins et des enfants vulnerables touches par la pandemie du

VIH/SIDA, les services ont depuis elargi leur mandat pour favoriser le developp-

ement et l’apprentissage de la petite enfance ainsi qu’offrir la garde d’enfant a

temps partiel aux parents qui travaillent. La politique nationale du Malawi va

etendre ce reseau de CPEC pour ameliorer les resultats relatifs au developpement de

la petite enfance; cependant, la durabilite de ces services a ete un defi continuel. Cet

article traite des racines et de l’ampleur de ce defi de durabilite en s’appuyant sur

des lecons tirees des travaux recents menes sur le terrain dans le cadre d’une etude

de base.

Resumen En los ultimos 20 anos, mas de 6.000 centros comunitarios para la

primera infancia han sido creados, principalmente, en zonas rurales de Malawi.

Aunque el proposito original de estos centros fue proteger y proporcionar asistencia

a los huerfanos y ninos afectados por las pandemias de VIH/SIDA, los servicios se

han ampliado para proporcionar estimulacion temprana y oportunidades de ap-

rendizaje ası como ofrecer cuidado infantil a tiempo parcial para los padres que

trabajan. La polıtica nacional de Malawi es ampliar esta red de centros comunitarios

para ası mejorar el desarrollo durante la primera infancia. Sin embargo, la susten-

tabilidad de estos centros ha sido un desafıo constante. Este artıculo aborda las

raıces y el alcance de la sustentabilidad de los centros comunitarios para la primera

infancia, aprovechando las lecciones aprendidas en el trabajo de campo realizado

recientemente como parte de un estudio de lınea de base.

Introduction

The importance of Early Childhood Development (ECD) for improving the survival,

growth, development and learning of children ages 0–8 is evident in the growing

body of research showing that investments early in life are a springboard of human

development, human capital formation, economic growth, and social progress

(Engle et al. 2007, 2011; Naudeau et al. 2011). In the recent decade, Sub-Saharan

African countries have made concerted efforts toward national integrated ECD

policies to address the developmental and care needs of vulnerable children. A

community-based model—where ECD centers are managed by parents, guardians,

and members of the community—is becoming a preferred service delivery approach

in rural areas where young children’s access to formal preschool programs has been

limited. While this model is often pursued as a cost-effective strategy for expanding

access and for empowering rural communities, successful implementation has

proved challenging.

Using Malawi as a case study, this article discusses key factors pertaining to the

fragility and sustainability of the community-based model for ECD service delivery

in a developing nation. In this context, sustainability refers to whether or not

childcare centers for three- to six-year-olds in rural communities have the financial,

human, and material resources to operate over time; fragility refers to the ease with

which rural childcare centers close, either on a temporary or permanent basis. The

roots and extent of this sustainability challenge are discussed drawing on lessons

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

learned from initial fieldwork conducted as part of an evaluation of the Protecting

Early Childhood Development Project.

After reviewing the literature on models of ECD service provision in Sub-

Saharan Africa, the article traces the development of the ECD policy in Malawi with

a focus on the emergence of Community-Based Childcare Centers (CBCCs). Then,

data from initial field visits to CBCCs are presented. This data confirm previously-

identified operational challenges faced by centers, but goes further to reveal the

extent of the sustainability struggle for CBCCs in Malawi. After analyzing data on

the timing of, and documented reasons for the closure of these CBCCs, we propose

that centers fall along a ‘‘spectrum of sustainability.’’ Rather than simply classifying

programs as either operational or not, many programs exist in a state of fragility,

opening, and closing for varying lengths of time.

The overall purpose of this article is to highlight this dynamic picture of highly

fragile childcare centers in Malawi, and provide directions for further research to

inform efforts to strengthen the stability and quality of ECD services in rural

communities.

A Review of ECD Service Provision in Sub-Saharan Africa

While ECD programs are expanding in Sub-Saharan Africa, the quality and stability

of these services remain key challenges. Although the community-based ECD

model has gained traction in the region as part of the trend toward community-

driven development in social service delivery more generally, there is a gap in the

literature on the scope of the problem and proposed solutions for developing

sustainable, community-based approaches to ECD.

Trends in ECD Policy and Programming

In Sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 61 % of children below age 5 are

developmentally compromised as a result of poverty, malnutrition, and lack of

early stimulation and learning opportunities (Grantham-McGregor et al. 2007).

Many countries in the region have responded to this crisis by developing early

childhood policies and programs that cover the prenatal period through to primary

school. Over the past decade, there has been tremendous growth in national

integrated ECD policies by African governments, often with the support of

development partners such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and

the World Bank (Neuman and Devercelli 2012). When the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals and Education for All Goals were set in 2000, only Mauritius and

Namibia had adopted national ECD policies. According to a recent review

commissioned by UNESCO, 23 out of 47 countries in Sub Saharan Africa have now

adopted national ECD policies. Another 13 countries have policies under

development or drafted, but not yet approved (Vargas-Baron and Schipper 2012).

The challenge is to develop strategies to support policy implementation.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

Sub-Saharan Africa continues to lag behind other regions when it comes to the

provision of early-learning opportunities. For example, the gross enrolment ratio1

for preprimary education is only 17 % compared to 48 % in South/West Asia and

70 % in Latin America and the Caribbean. However, such comparisons hide the

impressive expansion of access over the past decade. Between 1999 and 2008, the

number of children enrolled in preprimary education in Sub-Saharan Africa

increased from 4.6 million to nearly 11 million (UNESCO 2012b). Nevertheless,

there is persistent inequality with the most disadvantaged children less likely to

participate than their more advantaged counterparts (UNESCO 2012a). Further,

improving the quality of services is an ongoing challenge (UNESCO 2012b). In the

context of scarce resources and competing policy priorities, low-income countries

are struggling to develop cost-effective models for supporting children’s early

development and learning.

Common Models of ECD in Africa

In recognition of the benefits of investing in the early years of life and in response to

demand from parents and communities, several different ECD models have been

tested in Sub-Saharan Africa. For infants and toddlers under the age of three, most

countries focus on parenting education and non-formal interventions that reach

children through the health system (e.g., immunization and Vitamin A campaigns,

growth monitoring, breastfeeding promotion, home visiting) (Engle et al. 2013).

As children get older, center-based and more formal programs, often under the

auspices of the education system, have become more common (O’Gara 2013). One

approach is to attach preprimary education to primary schools as a way to improve

children’s readiness for, and smooth transition to formal schooling (UNESCO

2012a). For example, South Africa has developed a free reception year (Grade R)

for all children at the age of five. Children may attend Grade R either in primary

schools or community-based programs (Biersteker 2010). Countries such as Ghana,

Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, are moving toward a reception class for at

least 1 year before compulsory schooling begins (Biersteker et al. 2008). The

advantage of preprimary classes is that they often use existing facilities (i.e.,

schools) and sometimes trained teachers. However, if primary schools are already

overcrowded and qualified teachers are scarce, such as in Malawi, then this may

limit the expansion of preprimary programs. In addition, there is a risk that there

may be pressure to ‘‘push down’’ the formal curriculum from the primary grades

into the early years (O’Gara 2013; UNESCO 2012a, b).

A second model for the three- to six-year-old age group—and the focus of this

article—is community-based ECD services. These services are owned and managed

by parents, guardians and community members. They are frequently found in rural

areas where access to more formal public services and private provision are less

common. In some cases, community-based organizations (non-profits), private

individuals, international NGOs, or other partners, such as UNICEF, sponsor these

1 The total enrollment in preprimary education (regardless of age), as a percentage of the total population

of official preprimary education age.

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

programs (Hayden and Wai 2013). Although common in Guinea, Kenya, and

Senegal (and expanding in Mali, Mozambique, and Niger), the settings, operating

hours, and content of these ECD programs vary greatly across, as well as within,

national contexts. Workers tend to be female volunteers who may receive a

stipend—either in-kind or cash—from the community. Typically, involvement from

the government is minimal and tends to focus on training of the early childhood

workers and occasional monitoring visits (Hayden and Wai 2013; Prochner and

Kabiru 2008; Drouin and Heymann 2010).

There are potential advantages of the community-based model. Community-

based services do not typically involve expensive construction of facilities or the

hiring of formally qualified teachers (the latter may be detrimental for quality,

however). Services are owned by and likely to be responsive to the members of

local communities (Hayden and Wai 2013). Community management committees

are expected to build/renovate/maintain facilities, prepare snacks or meals, and

mobilize resources to support the workers. In addition to potentially benefiting the

child, there may be ‘‘spillover’’ effects to other family members. Programs may give

parents—especially mothers—the time to engage in formal and informal employ-

ment opportunities as well as to carry out household tasks without additional

childcare responsibilities. Some studies have found that these programs can free up

older siblings (particularly girls) from caring for young children, so that they can

attend school on a more regular basis and devote more time to schoolwork (Loshkin

et al. 2000; Martinez et al. 2012; Naudeau et al. 2011). Furthermore, this model

extends ECD services to children from all backgrounds. Prochner and Kabiru (2008)

observe that in Kenya, ‘‘community participation ensures that formal preschool

education serves a cross-section of children from different social, economic, and

cultural backgrounds unlike many parts of Africa where preschool is for the

privileged elite’’ (p. 129).

The main challenges of this model relate to quality and sustainability. It is

difficult for community-based preschools or childcare centers to attract and retain

qualified workers (often referred to as caregivers) who are willing to serve as

volunteers. Once trained, volunteers often leave for remunerated opportunities.

Young children who depend on stable relationships with adult caregivers may suffer

from the resulting levels of staff turnover. Although community members are

encouraged to develop low-cost play and learning materials with recycled and

locally found items, visits to these centers often reveal few toys, books, or other

supports for quality learning environments (Fisher et al. 2009).

Community-driven development is often touted as a strategy to promote the

sustainability of interventions by making them less reliant on external support from

donors (Dongier et al. 2002; Hayden and Wai 2013). Community-developed

services ‘‘tend to have higher utilization rates and are better maintained than when

investment decisions are made by actors outside the community’’ (Dongier et al.

2002, p. 305). Yet, community-based ECD programs are often very fragile, opening

and closing depending on the availability of human, financial, and material

resources, which, in turn, jeopardizes access to quality services especially for the

most vulnerable young children.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

Keys to Successful Community-Based Approaches

The characteristics of successful, sustainable, and effective community-driven

development programs and services have been identified as including strong

communities, regular monitoring and evaluation, community contributions and local

government involvement (Dongier et al. 2002). Mansuri and Rao’s (2004) meta-

evaluation of community-based programs confirms that the level of social capital

matters.

Though community-based development seems likely to be more effective in

more cohesive and better managed communities, evidence also indicates that

better-networked or better-educated groups within a community may be better

able to organize and thus benefit from most projects (p. 31).

Programs such as the Madrasa preschools in East Africa function well with

strong leadership from communities (Mwaura and Mohamed 2008). The sustain-

ability of community-based programs also depends on an enabling institutional

environment (Mansuri and Rao 2004) such as local government to provide

coordination and support (Dongier et al. 2002). According to Mansuri and Rao,

‘‘several studies suggest that unless communities can lobby for continuing support

for marginal inputs and training, their ability to sustain such projects may be

limited’’ (2004, p. 18).

Thus, while previous research recognizes the sustainability challenges in

community-based programs and identifies elements to address them, the existing

literature does not shed light on the extent of the issue in community-based ECD

centers. Moreover, the characteristics or combination of factors that ultimately

determine a center’s ability to provide regular access to good quality ECD services

are not well known. This article helps fill a gap in the literature by illuminating the

scope of the sustainability problem and the potential factors that make some ECD

centers more fragile than others in the context of Malawi.

Context

A predominantly agrarian nation, Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the

world, ranking 170 of 186 in the 2012 UN Human Development Index, with a gross

national index per capita of only $320.2 Life expectancy is 54.8 years, 91 % of

Malawi’s population of 13 million lives in rural areas.

The majority of Malawi’s population is young with 34 % of population below

8 years old. This population is very vulnerable, and malnutrition of young children

is widespread. Malawi has one of the highest rates of stunting in the world with

47 % of Malawian children aged \5 years stunted. This negatively affects

children’s physical and cognitive development for life. The proportion of

underweight children is 18.4, and 6.3 % of children are wasted. Moreover, 63 %

2 GNI per capita is the gross national income, converted to U.S. dollars using the World Bank Atlas

method, divided by the midyear population.

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

of children aged between 6 and 59 months, and 42 % of mothers are anemic

(Malawi NSO and ICF Macro 2011).

Malawi has also suffered greatly from the HIV/AIDS pandemic: 13 % of women

and 8 % of men aged 15–49 in Malawi are infected with HIV. Many children are

affected by the HIV/AIDS of a close family member. There are over one million

orphans in Malawi. 17.5 % of all children are orphans with half orphaned through

HIV/AIDS (Malawi NSO and ICF Macro 2011). Such conditions put children at-

risk for poor developmental outcomes.

Although ‘‘Free Primary Education’’ has been available since 1994, universal

access is not yet a reality, and the quality of education remains a problem. The

regional educational quality assessment (SACMEQ) reports that mean test scores of

pupils in both reading and mathematics remain below regional averages, while the

performance of girls trails that of boys, and pupils in rural schools perform less well

than those in urban schools (SACMEQ III 2011). These poor outcomes point to the

need to better prepare children for school as well as improve the quality of primary

education.

Despite these significant challenges, Malawi emerges as a hopeful example. Its

focus on ECD policy, strategic planning and development of legal frameworks to

support ECD implementation makes Malawi an interesting case study from which

other countries can learn.

Malawi Early Childhood Development Policy

Malawi has adopted a multisectoral approach to ECD, coordinated nationally and

implemented at the district level. ECD is housed in the national Department of Child

Development Affairs at the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Welfare

(MoGCSW). This Ministry is responsible for coordinating other relevant ministries

(e.g., education, health) and overseeing the implementation of ECD activities. The

District Social Welfare Office (DSWO) coordinates ECD-related activities at the

community level through District ECD Coordinators.

In the last 10 years, Malawi has achieved a number of ECD policy milestones.

Through support from UNICEF, it has developed the National ECD Policy (2003),

ECD National Strategic Plan (2009–2014), Advocacy and Communications

Strategy (2009), Early Learning and Development Standards (2010), and the

National ECD Curriculum. ECD is now recognised as a component of the Basic

Education Sector within the National Education Sector Plan (2008–2017). The

Child Care, Protection and Justice Act No. 22 of 2010, promotes child survival,

growth and development as key to the child’s future participation in national

development. The progress made in the development of these policies is remarkable.

However, many ECD implementers at the grassroots level are not familiar with

these policies, raising questions on the effectiveness of implementation on the

ground (Kholowa 2007; MoWCD and UNICEF 2008).

Malawi has generally made good progress in the increasing access to

ECD (Table 1). 32 % of children access ECD services and can be found in both

public and private centers. Public ECD centers include CBCC, which mostly cater

for children in rural areas. Privately-owned ECD centers are mostly found in urban

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

areas and are mainly preschools, day care centers, and nursery schools, which often

charge fees (GoM and UNICEF 2007).

Community-Based Childcare Centers in Malawi

The CBCC model has developed over 30 years in response to national demands.

The Government of Malawi and UNICEF first piloted rural preschools in the early

1980s though these early experiments were not sustained by communities. The rise

of the HIV and AIDS pandemic toward the end of the 1990s led to the mushrooming

of CBCCs to attend to the growing numbers of orphaned children who needed care

and protection. By 1999, the government, through UNICEF, introduced the Early

Childhood Care for Survival, Growth and Development program, especially in rural

areas. In subsequent years the Government has made concerted efforts to establish a

common philosophy for the provision of CBCCs in rural and periurban areas. Table

2 summarizes the current levles of ECD service provision.

The main objective of the community-based model is to create a self-sustaining

childcare system, initiated, managed, and owned by the communities themselves.

Although originally designed with a custodial care focus, these services also provide

Table 1 Trends in levels of

ECD center-based service

provision

GoM and UNICEF (2010)

Year No. of centers No. of children % coverage

1996 649 31,866 1.2

1997 693 37,994 1.5

1998 785 38,166 1.6

1999 871 42,249 2.1

2000 1,155 51,550 2.6

2001 1,645 72,760 2.9

2002 2,602 127,036 4.9

2003 3,207 135,436 5.6

2004 4,529 229,823 9.7

2005 5,945 582,407 22.5

2006 6,240 615,478 26.8

2007 7,801 683,825 29.8

2008 8,388 720,292 30.2

2009 8,890 771,666 32.0

Table 2 Current levels of ECD

service provision

GoM and UNICEF (2010)

Category Details Public ECD

centers (mainly

CBCCs)

Private

ECD

centers

Grand

total

Centers Operational 6,890 2,027 8,917

Children Female 182,331 201,549 383,880

Male 199,785 188,001 387,786

Caregivers Female 20,670 1,226 21,896

Male 2,786 728 3,514

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

children with early development and learning opportunities that help prepare them

for formal schooling.

The introduction of CBCCs in Malawi has rapidly improved access to ECD in the

last 12 years, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in rural

and peri-urban areas (Civil Society Education Coalition (CSEC) 2011). Neverthe-

less, the majority (68 %) of the child population is not accessing ECD services, and

many of these children are going straight into primary school without meaningful

ECD experience (Fisher et al. 2009; MGCCD 2010).

Challenges Encountered by CBCCs

Field observations and research studies indicate that infrastructure for CBCCs is

generally of poor quality. Facilities range from dilapidated structures, temporary grass

shelters, churches, private homes, and garages to the standard structures sometimes

erected by NGO partners. Most ECD centers lack basic play and learning materials

(CSEC 2011; Fisher et al. 2009; Kholowa 2007; MoWCD and UNICEF 2008).

Many caregivers have not completed more than primary education. By 2011,

only 56 % caregivers had received training, often receiving \2 weeks of the

required basic training. This raises critical questions about the quality of care

provided. Additionally, the voluntary nature of the workforce has resulted in high

turnover.

Public recognition of ECD services is low which sometimes translates to limited

political commitment and financial support. Overall, the ECD sector is severely

underfunded. For example, MoGCSW’s 2008/9 budget of roughly US $120,000 for

child services fell far short of the US $81 million a year required in the National

ECD Strategic Plan. Funding gaps are partly addressed by key development partners

such as UNICEF, and organizations such as Save the Children, Action Aid, and Plan

Malawi. Nevertheless, especially at the district level, there is concern about limited

government capacity and resources to monitor and support quality.

Given these challenges, it is crucial to consider whether current provision

matches the original intentions of this ECD model (Kholowa and Rose 2007).

Drouin and Heymann’s (2010) research on ECD in Malawi, notes ‘‘clear gaps

between government expectations of (Community-Based Organizations) and field

realities’’ (p. 6). Specifically, they raise concerns about caregiver retention, lack of

training, lack of food for children, and limited services provided to infants and

toddlers. Fisher et al. (2009) identify sustainability as a major challenge for most

CBCCs and conclude that, ‘‘For true sustainability, CBCCs need several sources of

funds and support, including access to a variety of income-generating activities

(e.g., farming, a maize mill, or livestock production)’’ (p. 11). Drawing on recent

fieldwork in Malawi, the next sections discuss some of these key issues related to

the fragility of CBCCs.

Protecting Early Childhood Development Project and Study

In response to some of the challenges outlined above, the Protecting Early

Childhood Development (PECD) project aimed to enhance the quality of early

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

development and learning environments for children aged between 3 and 5 years in

four districts—Balaka, Dedza, Thyolo, and Nkhatabay.3 With support from the

World Bank and the Rapid Social Response Multi-donor Trust Fund, the

Government of Malawi in 2010 launched this 2-year pilot project to protect young

children’s development through the enhancement of existing CBCCs. Specifically,

the project focused on strategies to: (a) improve the play and learning resources in

CBCCs; (b) improve the capacity of caregivers to care for children and support their

school readiness; (c) empower parents to support developmental and learning

activities in the home; and (d) build capacity for governance, management,

monitoring, and evaluation of ECD services.

The project includes a rigorous impact evaluation (which is ongoing) to inform

future policy and programs. The theory of change is that children who attend the

CBCCs are at-risk for poor child development outcomes. By strengthening the

capacity, knowledge, and skills of the staff and parents, the quality of the learning

environment and adult-child interactions will improve. In turn, children’s cognitive,

language, socio-emotional, and physical outcomes—as well as their school

readiness—are likely to be enhanced relative to those attending CBCCs that do

not benefit from the project interventions.

The following sections describe the first stage of this impact evaluation—the

identification of the sample through verification visits as part of the baseline study.

Initial lessons learned from this exercise about the fragility of the CBCCs in four

districts are identified.

Methods

This case study draws on quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of

verification visits for the PECD baseline data collection between September 2011

and February 2012. These initial, prebaseline field visits consisted of 20-min site

observations and 5-min interviews with caregivers or committee members to

determine if the childcare center was in fact operational and eligible for

participation in the PECD project. With approval from the Ministry of Gender,

Children, and Social Welfare the site visits were unannounced to capture the state of

the centers and opinions of the caregivers on a typical day.4

Mapping Exercise of CBCCs in the Four Project Districts

The sample of CBCCs for these initial field visits, and ultimately the overall PECD

project and study, was originally based on a list compiled by the government. In

July–August 2011, MoGCSW commissioned a mapping exercise of all CBCCs in

the four study districts. District Social Welfare Officers and related staff visited all

3 The MoGCSW selected the four pilot districts to provide adequate representation of the regions in

Malawi.4 The study was approved by the Malawi National Commission for Science and Technology and

University of California Berkeley’s Institutional Review Board.

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

CBCCs to collect information on center proprietorship, number of caregivers, child

enrolment, attendance, and community involvement. The Government and the

research team worked together to identify criteria to ensure that the sample of

CBCCs in the PECD project were those that were likely to benefit from the targeted

interventions. Centers that failed to meet the following preliminary criteria were

dropped from consideration for the study:

• Centers are open for a minimum of 4 days or 12 h/week.

• Centers have a functioning management committee (evidence that the commit-

tee has elected members and has met at least once in the previous 6 months).

• Centers have a minimum of 30 children enrolled.

After applying these preliminary criteria to the Ministry’s 2011 mapping data, a

total of 690 (of 1,033) CBCCs in the four study districts remained eligible for

participation in the PECD project.

The 690 eligible CBCCs were randomized by district, with the intention of

visiting centers in order of randomization until 60 centers per district (the number

that could be supported with available funding) passed a second round of criteria

(having minimum number of children present, and meeting basic hygiene and

structural requirements) and became formally part of the PECD project. This

approach was used to give each potentially eligible center an equal chance of being

selected to participate in the project.

Verification Visits to Confirm Eligibility

Several days into baseline data collection in the first district, Balaka, it became clear

that a large portion of centers were either closed or failing to pass the second round

of minimum criteria. Data collection halted for several weeks in order for separate

teams to visit all 690 eligible CBCCs from the 2011 mapping exercise and verify

their existence, operational status, and adherence to the secondary criteria. The

unannounced verification visits were attempted at all 690 centers; baseline data

collection followed 1–3 weeks later (see Fig. 1). These verification field visits

comprised of a brief quantitative questionnaire administered to CBCC committee

members or caregivers present to help determine a center’s operational status and

eligibility in the PECD project. Centers closed on the first verification visit were

visited a minimum of three separate times before they were considered no longer

operational. In these cases, enumerators attempted to speak with CBCC caregivers,

committee members, or community members through an informal qualitative

interview to understand the duration and reasons behind the center’s closure.

Overall, 6755 of 690 centers were visited as part of the verification visits for the

PECD baseline study. Of those, the 262 CBCCs determined as operational and still

eligible6 were visited again during baseline data collection.

5 A total of 15 CBCCs were not visited: 2 CBCCs did not exist, 2 were not visited due to impassable

roads, 6 CBCCs listed were duplicates of other CBCCs in the study, and 5 CBCCs were not found in the

districts/villages indicated in the mapping data.6 As discussed below, even operational centers needed to pass secondary eligibility criteria to remain in

the sample.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

While the verification visits were not part of the original plan for the PECD

baseline study, the results yielded important information about the fragility and

sustainability of these CBCCs and will be discussed in greater detail in the next

section.

Results

Previous studies have highlighted the challenge of sustainability of the CBCC

model for ECD in Malawi. The research presented here adds evidence of the

magnitude of CBCCs struggling to operate regularly. For the following results, all

qualitative responses were coded in order for counts, or quasi-statistics, to be

conducted on explanations on CBCC closings. Quantitative data was similarly

analyzed based on the frequency of each coded response across CBCCs.

Number of Operational Centers

The Ministry of Gender (2010) estimates 6,890 CBCCs nationally. The 2011

mapping identified slightly over 1,000 centers located in the four study districts of

Balaka, Thyolo, Dedza, and Nkhatabay. Yet, when teams went to verify the status of

these CBCCs several months later, the results were drastically different. In Balaka,

102 of the 120 listed centers (or 85 %) were in operation, which turned out to be the

highest number and percentage of operating CBCCs in the four districts. Nkhatabay

had the second highest percentage of operating centers with 56 of 77 (72.7 %) listed

centers verified as operational. In Thyolo district, 171 out of 287 CBCCs (59.6 %)

were in operation during verification visits. Lastly, only 39 of Dedza district’s

eligible 206 CBCCs (18.9 %) were operational during verification visits. Overall,

only 53.3 % of the eligible CBCCs from the Ministry’s mapping data were found to

be in operation several months later during the verification visits.

Unfortunately, that percentage of operating centers dropped further when data

collection teams went to the field for full baseline data collection. When teams went

to collect baseline data, sometimes within weeks of the initial visits, 38 additional

centers were reported as closed. Several explanations of these discrepancies are

possible. One possible explanation could be that verification visits took place across

all daylight hours, whereas the baseline teams only visited centers during their

operating hours (i.e., mornings). When verification teams visited centers outside of

Activity2011July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

2012 Jan Feb

Ministry of Gender Mapping Exercise

First attempt at PECD Baseline

Verification Visits

Baseline Data Collection

Fig. 1 Timeline of the verification and baseline study

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

these hours, they relied on evidence at the CBCC building (i.e., clean-up from meal

preparation) and interviews with community members and/or caregivers to confirm

that the centers were still operating. It is possible that the respondents were either

unaware of the CBCC’s current operating status or felt it was in the best interest of

the community to falsely share that the center was still open. Alternatively, the

center may have been closed temporarily during the verification visits, which turned

into a more permanent closure when the baseline was underway.

Length of CBCC Closure

Of the 306 CBCCs found to be nonoperational during the verification visits, 225

(73.5 %) had information from interviews with a CBCC committee member,

caregiver, or village headman regarding when the CBCCs were last open.7

Responses were compared against the date of the verification visit and then

categorized by length of closure.

A large majority (88.9 %) of nonoperating CBCCs reported last operating at

some point in the 12 months prior to the verification visit. As seen in Table 3, just

slightly over half of all nonoperating CBCCs, 52.9 %, had stopped operating in the

previous 1–3 months. As the Malawian school year is divided into 3-month terms, it

was common for respondents to report that the center had not opened since the

beginning of the term. Thirty, or 13.3 %, of nonoperational centers reported closing

less than a month before the verification visit. Of the remaining centers, 10.2 % of

nonoperating centers had closed in the previous 4–6 months, and another 12.4 %

have not been operating in the past 7–12 months. Just over 10 % of respondents at

nonoperating CBCCs reported that their center had been closed for over a year with

6.2 % claiming the center had been closed for between 1 and 2 years, with the

remaining 4.4 % centers out of operation for over 2 years.

Reasons for CBCC Closures

A total of 46 nonoperational centers, across all four study districts, provided reasons

for their closure during the verification visit. These data are exploratory and

illustrative as they do not refer to the full 225 CBCCs that were not in operation at

the time of this visit. In general, the reasons for closure fall into five basic

categories: explanations involving food, shelter, the children, caregivers/CBCC

committee, and learning materials.

As seen in Table 4, the majority of CBCCs cited lack of food as the reason. 25 of

the 27 centers that had closed due to ‘‘lack of available food for the children’’

reported they had only been closed for 3 months or less, which suggests that they

may reopen when circumstances improve.8 The lean months of the year are usually

7 Of the 225 centers with information on period of closure, only one CBCC was from Balaka district.

Because verification visits were an unexpected component of the baseline data collection activities,

enumerators were only specifically instructed to ask for period of closure information a couple of weeks

into the verification visits (when most of Balaka district had already been completed).8 The remaining 2 CBCCs had been closed for 7–12 months.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

from the end October to February the following year, and food shortages are well

known for closing centers (Fisher et al. 2009).

The second most cited reason for CBCC closures related to problems with the

building. Nine of the 27 CBCCs (19.6 %) faced difficulties in either repairing their

structures or (re)acquiring a suitable building space. A CBCC housed in a thatch

structure in Balaka had been demolished in a fire whereas another center in Dedza

had stopped operating for the past few weeks after its roof was blown off in heavy

winds. Three cases also mentioned community-level conflict in securing a building

for CBCC use. In Nkhatabay, a center failed to open this term because a private

secondary school had taken over their facilities, while a CBCC in Thyolo had been

out of operation for the past 6 months because the village chief wanted to use the

center for other purposes.

CBCCs also reported closing for reasons relating to the participation of the

caregivers. A total of 8 of the 46 centers fell into this category. Three CBCCs closed

due to the need for caregivers to participate in farming activities. Similarly, a CBCC

in Thyolo had to close ‘‘because the caregiver responsible is away on maternity

leave.’’ A village headman in Nhkatabay noted that they closed the CBCC because

‘‘caregivers are no longer interested’’ whereas a committee member of another

CBCC in the same district reported that their center has not opened this term

because ‘‘caregivers have not been reporting to work.’’

Table 3 Length of CBCC

closures from verification visitTime since operational No. of CBCCs %

\1 month 30 13.3

1–3 months 119 52

4–6 months 23 10.2

7–12 months 28 12.4

1–2 years 14 6.2

[2 years 10 4.4

unspecified 1 0.4

Total 225

Table 4 Reasons for CBCC

closures

a All three CBCCs that

mentioned learning materials as

a reason that they had closed had

also mentioned a lack of food

Category # of CBCCs

mentioning

reason

for closure

% of CBCCs

mentioning

reason

for closure

Lack of food 27 58.7

Inadequate shelter 9 19.6

Issues related to the caregivers/

staff

8 17.4

Insufficient number of children 2 4.3

Lack of learning materials 3a 6.5

Total 46

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

The remaining CBCCs that mentioned reasons for closing were either attributed

to factors relating to the children or learning materials. Two CBCCs, both located in

Nhkatabay district, reported closing because not enough children were attending the

center. One caregiver noted that they ‘‘closed the center this term because many

children had dropped out,’’ but it is unclear from their reports exactly why the

CBCC was experiencing less demand from children and parents than previously.

Three additional CBCCs, also in Nhktatabay, stated their closures were due to a lack

of learning materials in addition to food.

Lowering CBCC Criteria and Establishing a Final Sample

As noted, only 53.3 % of centers were found to be operational during verification

visits. The secondary eligibility criteria—minimum of ten children ages 3–4 year old

present, adequate shelter, storage space, and hygiene standards—was likely to

exclude many of these operational centers from the study. In the end, a compromise

was made to balance the integrity of the original project design with the reality on the

ground: the number of children present requirement was lowered to five, the

requirement for toilets and secure storage space dropped completely, while the

condition that the CBCC has access to a shelter to operate in inclement weather was

upheld. Even with less stringent criteria, a number of CBCCs were eventually dropped

from the study sample for either failing to meet these revised secondary criteria or

stopping operation by the time the baseline data was collected. Ultimately, the PECD

sample of all eligible CBCCs in the four study districts—199 centers—included only

28.8 % of eligible CBCCs from the Government’s 2011 mapping data (see Table 5).

Discussion and Conclusion

While the verification visits were not originally planned as part of the PECD

baseline study, these data provide a unique glimpse into the true fragility of CBCCs

in Malawi. Several lessons emerge from this experience. First is the need to support

the government to improve its data collection and monitoring of the CBCCs to

inform program planning and to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of

national policies at the district and center levels. The large discrepancy between the

original mapping data and the number of operating CBCCs (as well as other

variables such as the number of children attending) that were verified physically

later suggests that the government data are not reflecting reality on the ground. The

field teams also discovered duplicate center names, incorrect villages, and other

errors and inconsistences on the list. Although recognizing the challenge of

conducting this type of mapping exercise with limited resources and a tight time

frame, more consistent and accurate data collection is needed. This finding is

consistent with other research finding that line ministries need to be aware of and

responsive to the needs of communities (Mansuri and Rao 2004) and engage in

regular monitoring and evaluation activities (Dongier et al. 2002).

Second, we learned that the CBCCs close for a myriad of reasons. Our

verification data largely supports results from earlier studies and reinforces the

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

importance of availability of food, improved facilities, retention of workers, and

play and learning materials. Indeed, the challenge of providing food for children

stands out as the most critical challenge facing CBCCs according to this initial

analysis. Preliminary findings from the baseline study conducted after the

verification visits suggests that even CBCCs that are operating are struggling to

provide food and other supports to children’s development and learning. The PECD

project sought to address some of these challenges by providing a basic kit of play

and learning materials to all pilot CBCCs and testing whether combinations of

caregiver training, incentives, and parenting education helped to improve the quality

of the programs and children’s outcomes.9 However, even if these quality-

improvement interventions are found to be highly successful, it is likely that further

attention is needed to systemic issues such as the support for and maintenance of

infrastructure and the provision of meals in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.

This exploratory study suggests that CBCCs in Malawi are far more fragile than

previously realized. Previous research describes the problems of sustainability with

CBCCs and offers concrete examples of characteristics of consistently operational

centers, but in rather absolute terms. In other words, CBCCs are categorized as

either open or closed, operational or non-operational. Our verification data suggest a

slightly different outlook: that each CBCC in Malawi exists on a spectrum of

sustainability. On one end, centers can close permanently and on the other end,

centers can be fully operational and follow all national guidelines. In between,

centers may fluctuate between operating and closing, potentially changing status

several times within a school year. Numerous factors seem to influence the

classification of CBCCs on this spectrum, including internal (community resources,

caregiver motivation, etc.) and external forces (weather patterns, external support).

The fact that about 90 % ‘‘nonoperating’’ centers reported being closed for less than

a year in our verification research leads us to believe that a large portion of CBCCs

may fall in the highly fragile and dynamic zone of the sustainability spectrum.

In terms of future research, a more robust and longitudinal study examining the

operational status of centers is needed. The verification visit data were ‘‘unintended

research’’ which nonetheless has provided rich insight into a subset of CBCCs and

Table 5 Progression of eligible CBCCs for PECD sample

District Initial no.

CBCCs meeting

preliminary

criteria

No. operational

CBCCs during

verification visits

No. CBCCs operational

during verification visits

with adequate shelter

No.

CBCCs in

final

samplea

% of

original

sample

Balaka 120 102 77 59 49.2

Thyolo 287 171 104 82 28.6

Dedza 206 39 28 11 5.3

Nkhatabay 77 56 53 47 61.0

Total 690 368 262 199 28.8

a CBCCs with\5 children present or that had stopped operating during baseline visits were dropped from

the study sample

9 Initial results of the impact evaluation of these interventions will be available in 2014.

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

the issue of sustainability. Conducting thorough interviews with caregivers/

committee members at closed centers and tracking a larger sample of CBCCs

across several years with key data points multiple times a year would help provide

more in depth information for policy planners. Key questions include: How many

times does a center open and close in a year? How many centers fall into the ‘‘highly

fragile’’ zone? Who visits the CBCCs, how often and for what purpose? What (if

any) types of external support do they receive? What are the implications of this

fragility for children’s development? What are some of the protective factors for

keeping CBCCs in operation?

As community-based ECD centers become the preferred model in Malawi and

across much of the continent for scaling up services, policymakers and program

planners need to be aware of the challenges of maintaining this approach such that it

truly benefits young children and families in rural communities. This requires

increasing attention to the fragility of CBCCs, and the factors that influence whether

these services can operate on a regular and long-term basis. It is hoped that the

lessons from this fieldwork will stimulate more systematic research and attention to

this important area of ECD service delivery.

Acknowledgments The authors are members of a research team led by Co-Principal Investigators Dr.

Lia C. H. Fernald (University of California-Berkeley), Dr. Berk Ozler (University of Otago and The

World Bank), and Dr. Michelle J. Neuman (The World Bank). The authors would like to acknowledge the

officials of the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Welfare for their leadership on the PECD project

and their collaboration with the external evaluation. Josefine Durazo skillfully managed the baseline

study. We would like to thank the survey teams at Wadonda Consult, especially field coordinator James

Mwera. We appreciate funding received from the Rapid Social Response Multi-Donor Trust Fund and

Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund. All findings and interpretations in this article are those of the authors

and do not necessarily represent the views of their respective institutions.

References

Biersteker, L., (2010). Scaling-up early child development in South Africa: Introducing a reception year

(Grade R) for children aged five years as the first year of schooling. Wolfensohn Center for

Development Working Paper #17, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

Biersteker, L., Ngaruiya, S., Sebatane, E., & Gudyanga, S. (2008). Introducing preprimary classes in

Africa: Opportunities and challenges. In M. H. Garcia, J. E. Evans, & A. Pence (Eds.), Africa’s

future, Africa’s challenge: Early childhood care and development in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp.

227–248). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Civil Society Education Coalition (CSEC). (2011). Status of early childhood development in Malawi:

Analysis of funding trends, successes and challenges. Lilongwe: CSEC.

Dongier, P., Van Domelen, P., Ostrom, E., Ryan, A., Wakeman, W., Bebbington, A., Alkire, S., Esmail,

T., & Polsky, M. (2002). Community-driven development. In J. Klugman (Ed.), A sourcebook for

poverty reduction strategies (Vol 1, pp. 303–331). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Drouin, O., & Heymann, J. (2010). Scaling up and sustaining community-based care for preschool and

school-aged children—successes and challenges in Malawi. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies,

5(S1), 31–39.

Engle, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L., et al. (2007).

Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the

developing world. The Lancet, 369(9557), 229–242.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C. H., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Cabral de Mello, M., et al. (2011).

Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in

low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 378(9799), 1339–1353.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123

Engle, P. L., Young, M. E., & Tamburlini, G. (2013). The role of the health sector in early childhood

development. In P. R. Britto, P. L. Engle, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood

development research and its impact on global policy (pp. 183–201). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Fisher, W., Kholowa, F., Chibwana, K., & Silo, L. (2009). Success against the odds, a positive deviance

study of community based care centres in Malawi. Lilongwe: UNICEF and Government of Malawi.

Government of Malawi (GoM) & UNICEF. (2007). Community-based childcare centres in Malawi: Past,

present, and future. Lilongwe: UNICEF.

Government of Malawi (GoM) & UNICEF. (2010). Comprehensive training for early childhood

development (ECD) in Malawi. Lilongwe: UNICEF.

Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B., et al. (2007).

Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet,

369(9555), 60–70.

Hayden, J., & Wai, S. (2013). Community-based approaches to early childhood development: A matter of

degree. In P. R. Britto, P. L. Engle, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood development

research and its impact on global policy (pp. 275–289). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kholowa, F.A.C., (2007). Early literacy development opportunities for rural pre-school children in

Malawi: Case study of four pre-schools in Zomba District. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of

Malawi/Sussex.

Kholowa, F., & Rose, P. (2007). Parental or policy maker misunderstandings? Contextual dilemmas of

pre-schooling for poverty reduction in Malawi. International Journal of Educational Development,

27, 458–472.

Loshkin, M., Glinskaya, E., & Garcia, M., (2000). The effect of early childhood development programs on

women’s labor force participation and older children’s schooling in Kenya, Policy Research Report

on Gender and Development, Working Paper Series No. 15, DRG/PREM Network, Washington,

DC: World Bank.

Malawi National Statistical Office (NSO) & ICF Macro. (2011) Malawi Demographic and Health Survey

2010. Zomba, Malawi and Calverton, Maryland: NSO and ICF Macro.

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V., (2004). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The

World Bank Research Observer, 19 (1).

Martinez, S., Naudeau, S., & Pereira, V. (2012). The promise of preschool in Africa: A randomized impact

evaluation of early childhood development in rural Mozambique. Washington, DC: The World

Bank.

Ministry of Gender, Children and Community Development (MoGCCD). (2010). 2010 Annual report for

Early Childhood Development. Lilongwe: MoGCCD.

Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD) & UNICEF. (2008). The National Inventory of

Community Based Child Care Centres in Malawi. Lilongwe: MoWCD.

Mwaura, P., & Mohamed, B. T. (2008). Madrasa early childhood program: Making a difference. In M.

H. Garcia, J. E. Evans, & A. Pence (Eds.), Africa’s future, Africa’s challenge: Early childhood care

and development in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 389–406). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M. J., & Elder, L. (2011). Investing in young children:

An early childhood development guide to policy dialogue and project preparation. Washington, DC:

The World Bank.

Neuman, M. J., & Devercelli, A. E. (2012). Early childhood policy development in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 6(2),

21–34.

O’Gara, C. (2013). Education-based approaches to early childhood development. In P. R. Britto, P.

L. Engle, & C. M. Super, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood development research and its

impact on global policy (pp. 227–241). New York: Oxford University Press.

Prochner, L., & Kabiru, M. (2008). ECD in Africa: A historical perspective. In M. H. Garcia, J. E. Evans,

& A. Pence (Eds.), Africa’s future, Africa’s challenge: Early childhood care and development in

Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 227–248). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Southern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Education Quality (SACMEQ) III. (2011). Malawi Report,

2011. Lilongwe: SACMEQ.

UNESCO. (2012a). Expanding equitable early childhood care and education is an urgent need. (EFA

Global Monitoring Report Policy paper 03). Paris, France: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2012b). Youth and skills: Putting education to work. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris:

UNESCO.

M. J. Neuman et al.

123

Vargas-Baron, E., & Schipper, J. (2012). Review of policy and planning indicators in early childhood.

Commissioned by UNESCO within the framework of the Holistic Early Childhood Development

Index. Paris: UNESCO.

Early Childhood Development Policy to Sustainability

123