1. IDELA Baseline Study
Key Findings & Inferences
September 7, 2016

2. Study Context
ECCD access slowly increasing in Nepal (with increase in number of ECCD center)
35,121 ECD covering more than a million children
% of grade 1 entrant with ECD experience is 57%
Priority in terms of policy but not really in terms of resources
Limited information available on quality of ECD (learning and development of children)
RIDA with technical support from Save conducted the study at the beginning of academic session during May – June, 2016

3. Study Objectives
Envisioned to enable the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the project by setting up the starting point.
Specific objectives are:
To find out the current status of children’s early learning and development outcomes
To find out the current status of care giving practices in Kavre and Saptari districts

4. Baseline Design
Quasi-experimental design (does not meet all requirements for experimental design)
The design made to ensure enough ground to have indicative comparison between 'project' and 'non- project' sites
VDC – zone of influence
Control VDCs selected to enable comparison, based on discussion with the local education authority – DEOs
Sample size calculation overseen by Save the Children Nepal

5. Sample size Children (3.5 to 5.5 years) Parents/caregivers
Both fresh and old in Kavre
Parents/caregivers
Covered by inviting them in ECD centers
Faced some difficulties to trace parents/caregivers in Kavre
Random sampling of ECD centers (covered all eligible children in Kavre)
Children
Caregiver
Kavre
406
364
Saptari
444
422

6. Methodology
Tool 1: IDELA test
Tool 2: Parents/Caregivers survey

7. IDELA Core Items Gross and Fine Motor Skills Emergent Literacy
Emergent Numeracy
Socio-emotional Development
Approaches to learning
Hopping
Print awareness
Size/length identification
Friends
Attention
Copying a shape
Expressive vocabulary
Sorting
Recognizing emotions in self
Confidence
Drawing a human figure
Letter identification
Number identification
Recognizing emotions in others
Concentration
Folding paper
Emergent writing
Shape identification
Conflict resolution
Diligence
Phonemic awareness
One-to-one correspondence
Personal information
Motivation
Oral comprehension
Simple operations
Curiosity
Puzzle completion

8. Caregiver’s survey: Core Items
Socio-economic status
Including parental education
Number of elder brothers/sisters
Learning resources (books, toys)
Learning activities (reading, singing, taking out)
Protective factors (child neglect, access to services, membership of groups, time with family members)
Adversities (Adverse events, depression, child abuse)

9. Study Procedure Review of documents Translation of IDELA tools
Pre-test and pre-finalize the tools
Hire local enumerators
Training of enumerators
Field testing
Finalize tools
Data Collection
Data entry and sample check
Data cleaning
Data analysis
Reporting

10. Limitations/Challenges
Unfavorable data collection timing
Age group and randomness was not considered for project ECDs (ECDs did not have exact data on age)
Very few ECD enrolled children in program ECDs (Kavre) and high absentees (Saptari)
Control VDCs/schools identified mostly based on the DEO suggestions on matching the characteristics with the program implemented VDCs
Did not match with treatment in terms of learning (Better in Kavre, and weaker on Saptari) but can be explained

11. STUDY FINDINGS Home Environment Home Learning Environment
ECCD Participation
IDELA Results

12. Home Environment Child characteristics Family characteristics
Family size and age groups

13. Child/Family Characteristics
Kavre
Saptari
Significance C T
Child is Female
54.5%
52.4%
55.0%
52.1%
Child age
4.1
4.3
4.2
0.006*** (Kavre)
Mother age
28.7
29.6
26.9
27.8
Mother is literate
62.9%
52.0%
24.7%
21.7%
0.04 (Saptari)
Father age
31.7
33.0
32.7
33.4
Father is literate
87.1%
86.3%
58.4%
46.7%
0.01 (Saptari)
Home language as Nepali
52.8%
42.7%
0.4%
0.5%
0.054 (Kavre)

14. Family Size and Age Groups
The size was normally around 8 per house.
No difference in control and treatment
Kavre
Saptari C T
Significant Difference
# of household under 6
1.67
1.57
1.83
1.85
# of household 6-12
1.23
1.41
1.36
1.29
# of household over 18
3.84
4.30
4.18
4.29
0.072 (Kavre)

15. Home Learning Environment
Resources
Activities with children
Protective/adversity factors
Family support

16. Resources Kavre Saptari C T Significance Storybook 25.4% 47.3% 33.19
24.46
.000*** (K), * (S)
Textbook
32.4%
42.2%
37.39
23.91
.055` (K), *** (S)
Magazine
6.8%
14.1%
19.49
15.76
.028* (K)
Religious book
10.7%
23.2%
13.50
17.93
.001*** (K),
Coloring book
22.0%
21.5%
15.84
15.52
Comic book
24.3%
29.7%
20.59
9.24
.001 (S)
Homemade toys
62.9%
50.8%
47.06
54.89
.020* (Kavre)
Store-bought
61.8%
45.7%
61.34
58.15
.002** (Kavre)
Household objects
80.3%
75.5%
63.0
70.6
Outside objects
66.3%
68.6%
44.5
Drawing
46.1%
36.9
28.8
.078* (S)
Puzzle
5.1%
11.4%
10.0
7.0
Hand-eye coordination
7.3%
13.0%
12.1
5.9
.073` (K), .031 (S)
Shapes
23.7%
15.7%
19.8
13.0
.055` (K), .065 (S)
Numbers
24.9%
28.6%
32.9
14.6
.000*** (S)
Other
18.8%
22.2%
30.2

17. Significant difference
Learning Activities
Children were engaged in various activities
Mostly with Moms
Treatment was better than control in terms of activity in Saptari
Kavre
Saptari
Significant difference C T
Reads to child
83.7%
81.0%
56.7%
63.6%
Tells stories
62.9%
64.3%
65.6%
78.3%
.004** (S)
Sings
58.9%
65.9%
60.9%
69.0%
.085 (S)
Takes child out
78.1%
67.0%
68.1%
51.0%
.018* (K), .000*** (S)
Plays with child
66.3%
67.6%
55.8%
40.2%
.030* (S)
Draws with child
64.6%
69.7%
26.9%
30.4%
Teaches new things
31.5%
33.1%
Teaches letters
80.9%
83.2%
32.8%
29.9%
Teaches numbers
80.3%
80.5%
34.0%
36.9%

18. Activities with children (Kavre)
Mom more engaged in treatment
Other members and fathers more engaged in control
Mom
Dad
Others
Control
Treatment
Reads to child
47.8%
48.1%
12.9%
13.5%
25.2%
21.6%
Tells stories
36.5%
40.0%
9.2%
15.7%
Sings
42.1%
47.0%
9.6%
4.9%
10.1%
14.0%
Takes child out
64.0%
58.4%
6.7%
8.1%
7.9%
3.8%
Plays with child
37.6%
43.2%
10.7%
9.7%
20.8%
17.8%
Draws with child
35.9%
48.10%
8.4%
14.0%*
Teaches new things
33.7%
53.5%
16.3%
6.5%
17.4%
11.4%*
Teaches letters
43.8%
58.9%
8.7%
26.9%
17.8%**
Teaches numbers
60.5%
11.4%
24.1%
14.0%**
Hug
93.3%
77.8%
3.4%
10.8%
5.0%
4.3%

19. Activities with children (Saptari)
Mom more engaged in treatment
Other family members more engaged in control
Mom
Dad
Others
Control
Treatment
Reads to child
37.4%
33.7%
9.24%
14.13%
10.97%
16.85%*
Tells stories
50.4%
63.6%***
5.88%
6.52%
10.50%
9.78%
Sings
44.54%
47.07%**
7.56%
7.07%
9.66%
5.98%
Takes child out
49.16%
40.76%*
8.70%
10.08%
2.72%***
Plays with child
32.6%
30.9%
7.14%
4.89%
11.81%
4.35%***
Draws with child
14.3%
20.6%*
4.62%
8.09%
3.83%*
Teaches new things
18.49%
21.74%
4.20%
6.5%
5.43%
Teaches letters
21.43%
16.85%
5.46%
6.30%
3.80%
Teaches numbers
21.01%
19.67%
6.72%
12.5%**
7.98%
Hug
32.35%
35.33%
4.6%
3.35%
9.28%
1.09%***
Hit
37.39%
48.37%*
9.7%
Yell
23.95%
30.43%
6.3%
4.8%
4.2%
0.54%**

20. Significant difference
Protective Factors
Time spent by father higher for control in Kavre
Child under care of child in control (Saptari), but more hours in Kavre in aggregate
Child kept alone more in control (Saptari)
Kavre
Saptari C T
Significant difference
Mother time with child
3.39
2.99
4.1
3.2
.038 (K)
.003 (S)
Father time with child
2.05
1.67
1.6
1.7
.017 (K)
Child care of child
3.11
2.93
2.5
1.9
.000 (S)
Child alone
0.49
0.60
1.4
0.9
.001 (S)
Hug
97.1
89.1
46.22
40.22
.003 (K)

21. Significant difference
Adversity
Hitting and yelling were common
Hitting more than yelling
Mom were aggressive
In Sptari, treatment better than control in terms of adversities
Kavre
Saptari
Significant difference C T
Yells
58.4%
61.1%
33.2%
35.3%
Hits
67.8%
63.2%
53.4%
55.9%
Mom Yells
45.8%
39.8%
23.9%
30.4%
Mom Hits
51.4%
47.5%
37.4%
48.4%
* (S)
Dad Yells
11.9%
7.7%
6.3%
4.8%
Dad Hits
5.1%
6.7%
6.5%
Others Yell
2.3%
2.8%
4.2%
0.5%
** (S)
Others Hit
1.7%
3.3%
6.72%
1.09%
*** (S)
Child Neglect
3.15
3.05
2.92
2.84

22. Overall indices
The values for indices were mostly indifferent for control and treatment
Except (SES in Saptari, and Activity Index in Kavre)
Index
Kavre
Saptari C T
Significant
difference
Social Economic Status
4.24
4.15
5.64
4.76
.01** (S)
Resource Index
5.52
5.97
1.03
1.04
Activity Index
6.63
5.46
5.0
4.8
.000*** (K)
Protective Index
4.60
4.52
3.47
3.57
Adversity
5.39
5.53
9.28
9.13

23. Significant difference
ECCD Participation
In Kavre, almost half students had previous ECCD experience (question from efficiency perspective)
In Saptari, treatment better in terms of ECCD attendance
Training (better in control for Kavre, and treatment for Saptari)
Kavre
Saptari
Significant difference C T
ECCD Experience
49.4%
46.5% 0%
ECCD Attendance
4.53
4.48
4.70
4.85
.02* (S)
ECCD Training
82.6%
73.0%
89%
100%
.027* (K), .000*** (S)
ECCD Structure
63.5%
83.5%
73.4%
79.9%
.012* (K)

24. Child Results (Total IDELA - Kavre)
On the whole, IDELA scores are low.
Literacy better in control
Numeracy better for boys
IDELA score better for control and boys
Total
Control
Treatment
~ Type * Gender
Boys
Girls
Main effects
Motor skill
22.9%
20.4%
19.3%
18.8%
Early literacy
24.9%
22.3%
18.6%
18.1%
Type: 0.000***
Early numeracy
32.0%
25.8%
28.5%
27.2%
Gender: 0.009***
Socio-emotional development
18.9%
17.9%
15.6%
Executive Function
28.3%
28.6%
27.0%
24.8%
IEDLA Total
21.9%
21.2%
20.0%
Type: 0.03**
Gender: 0.09*

25. Child Results (Total IDELA – Saptari)
On the whole, IDELA scores are low.
Except motor, all better for treatment
Early literacy an numeracy better for boys
Control
Treatment
Significant Difference
Boys
Girls
School type
Motor skill
18.9%
15.9%
18.2%
16.5%
Early literacy
30.9%
23.8%
35.1%
31.2%
Type (0.000***)
Sex (0.001***)
Early numeracy
38.4%
32.9%
45.9%
46.2%
Sex (0.09*)
Socio-emotional development
31.6%
30.0%
37.5%
38.0%
Type (0.001 ***)
Total Executive Function
33.6%
33.3%
45.1%
40.9%
IDELA Total
30.5%
26.2%
34.8%
Sex (0.03**)

26. Factors associated with IDELA Score
Common set of factors affected scores
Age, fathers education, and activities were common influencers
Kavre
Caste/Ethnicity
Children’s age
Children’s ECCD experience
Father’s education
Resource Index
Activity Index
Saptari
Protective Index
Mother’s education

27. Conclusion ECCD centers suffer in terms of quality Differences
Learning and development scores are low
Differences
Boys are better than girls in terms of IDELA score
Compared to literacy and numeracy children are poorer in motor skills and executive functions
ECCD center related factors did not have effect on IDELA score
Control better for Kavre, and treatment better for Saptari

28. Recommendations
Clearly indication of need for efforts to enhance child learning and development
Need to focus on motor skills, and executive functions together with literacy and numeracy
Focus on factors influencing results
Focus on girls
Target parents and home environment
More learning activities for children (initiated at home)
With increased engagement of father and other family members
Involvement of fathers and others
Protective factors and environment for Saptari
Enhance effectiveness of ECD to make it a contributory factor

29. Research Inputs and Development Action (RIDA)
Thank You
Research Inputs and Development Action (RIDA)
Bhimsengola, Kathmandu
Phone:
Web: