PEP Annual Conference Policy and Research Forum June 14, 2017 Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to enhance gender analysis Caroline Kabiru1, Shelley Clark2, Sonia Laszlo2, Stella Muthuri1 1 African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi (Kenya) 2 McGill University, Montreal (Canada) PEP Annual Conference Policy and Research Forum June 14, 2017

Creating better economic opportunities for women in Nairobi slums through improved child care options A GrOW (Growth and Economic Opportunities for Women) Project Participatory Cultures Lab

Is lack of affordable and quality childcare a missing link to women’s economic empowerment? Secondary School No Day Care Primary School Economic Empowerment

Research questions What child care arrangements are currently used by women? How does the affordability and quality of daycare services affect enrollment? Does expanding women’s child care options increase Labor force participation? Number of hours worked? Household income? What is the economic impact for the most disadvantaged women (single mothers, migrants)?

Project site - Korogocho Informal settlement area in Nairobi Characterized by abject poverty and lack of adequate access to basic amenities ~30,000 residents routinely surveyed as part of the Nairobi Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System (NUHDSS) Most women employed in the informal sector A third of single mothers receive no kin assistance with child care (Clark et al. 2017).

Mixed methods approach Synergistic combination of Qualitative stakeholder engagement (community engagement, PhotoVoice, interviews, meetings) Quantitative outcome measurement (Ivankova 2017) Triangulation of research findings Local relevance and adaptation Stakeholder engagement with research outcomes

Mixed methods approach Formative: Community sensitization meetings (community leaders, daycare owners, caregivers) Daycare inventory Qualitative: PhotoVoice sessions (48 mothers) Focus Group Discussions (community leaders based on PhotoVoice results) Quantitative: Baseline survey (1,223 mothers) Qualitative: In-Depth Interviews (31 mothers) PhotoVoice sessions (48 mothers) Focus Group Discussions (community leaders based on PhotoVoice results) Interviews with key stakeholders Quantitative: End-line purpose survey (1,076 mothers) M&E monitoring of voucher use Child Care Subsidy and Quality Intervention Stakeholder engagement: Stakeholder meetings (government, NGOs, etc.) + one-on-one engagement

Day care intervention Voucher Only Voucher Plus Enrolled day care centers received monthly stipends (~USD 50) for their participation Mothers received 12 monthly vouchers which could be redeemed at specific day cares for free daycare Same as voucher-only Enrolled day care centers received Weeklong training workshop on ECD by the Aga Khan Foundation (Nov 2015) + refresher (May 2016) Material support (mattresses, potties, etc)

Randomization 30% of mothers were using an “eligible” day care at baseline Baseline Not using an eligible day care Using an eligible day care Individual-level Day Care-level Control (C) Voucher (V) Voucher + Quality (VQ)

Child care subsidy and quality intervention Baseline Survey 1,223 mothers 1,338 children 1-4 years old Voucher for Regular Daycare 427 children (117 previously enrolled; 310 not previously enrolled) Vouchers for Enhanced Quality Daycare 479 children (168 previously enrolled; 311 not previously enrolled) Comparison 432 children (122 previously enrolled; SEP - OCT 2015 (Baseline) JAN – DEC 2016 (Intervention) End-line Survey 1,076 mothers (88%) 1,158 children SEP – OCT 2016 (Follow-Up)

PhotoVoice

Photographs reviewed by trained field staff members Approach Women trained on the type of photographs that are appropriate for this activity (“no faces”) Women receive cameras from the research team and spend a week taking photographs Photographs reviewed by trained field staff members Women work with the field staff members to provide captions or descriptions Focus group discussions conducted with 10-12 of the participating mothers and local community leaders to discuss the findings What is PhotoVoice? A research strategy that uses photography as a tool for social change A process that gives community members the opportunity to record, reflect and critique personal and social concerns in a creative way

PhotoVoice Round 1 Conducted in May 2016 with 48 women Depicted the challenges women in urban slums encounter in finding suitable childcare and employment concurrently. Prompts How does childcare affect your work? What are some challenges and some solutions?

Taking children to find work “This mother has a child and she is going to look for a casual job. So if you go to someone looking for casual work while carrying one child and holding the other by the hand… no one will give you work.”

Leaving children alone “The mother went to look for a casual job, if she was able, she would have someone take care of them- they would not be eating and playing with mud, which can cause diseases.” “So you get, because men are bad these days, you can get someone who takes and harms one of these children. If this mother was able, she would have taken the child to tuition or day care to stay there.”

Taking children to work “This child was left to care for the smaller child and take care of the business. She has forgotten about the business and about taking care of the younger one- instead she is playing. It is still risky on the road because if motorbikes come it will hit both of them.”

PhotoVoice Round 2 Conducted in July 2016 47 mothers receiving vouchers for child care in local daycares as part of the intervention. Prompt How has your daily life or that of other family members changed since you joined the voucher program?

Ability to focus on work “The mother is going on her business while the child is in daycare” “Mothers are going on with their businesses and work without interruptions from the children”

Time for leisure “This mother is from work and is going to rest because children are in school” “A mother who has a child in daycare is resting while doing her work”

Children are safer “There are no children playing in the sewage after the voucher” “The mother does not go with her child on the dust since she received the voucher”

Mixed methods approach Question Approach What child care arrangements are currently used by women? Daycare inventory PhotoVoice to explore challenges faced by women in finding quality childcare Baseline interviews to determine the full range and distribution of current childcare arrangements. How does the affordability and quality of daycare services affect enrollment? M&E data on voucher uptake Qualitative interviews with mothers Does expanding women’s child care options increase: Labor force participation? Number of hours worked? Household income? Baseline and endline surveys Qualitative interviews with mothers on impact of daycare on ability to find work What is the economic impact for the most disadvantaged women (single mothers, migrants)? Baseline and endline survey data PhotoVoice

Recap – mixed methods Synergistic combination of Qualitative stakeholder engagement (PhotoVoice, interviews, meetings) Quantitative outcome measurement (Ivankova 2017) Triangulation of research findings Local relevance and adaptation Stakeholder engagement with research outcomes

Lessons Cons Pros It requires a relatively large multidisciplinary team with a mix of quantitative and qualitative skills Can be time consuming Steep learning curving A mixed-methods approach has facilitated a broader understanding of how child care can influence women’s economic empowerment Enhanced stakeholder engagement in research and with research outcomes (e.g., PhotoVoice participants have participated in local exhibitions to share their experiences)

Thanks to our Funders! This work was carried out with financial support under the Growth and Economic Opportunities for Women (GrOW) initiative. GrOW is a multi-funder partnership with the UK Government’s Department for International Development, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the International Development Research Centre, Canada.