Evaluating the Early Childhood Development (ECD) Program in the Philippines
Jere Behrman (U. of Pennsylvania)Paulita Duazo (OPS, U. of San Carlos)
Sharon Ghuman (U. of Michigan)Socorro Gultiano (OPS, U. of San Carlos)
Elizabeth King (World Bank)The ECD Study Team (Office of
Population Studies, University of San Carlos, Cebu)
World Bank April 5, 2005
Background
Health and nutrition at young ages affect important outcomes in childhood and later life
ECD programs increasingly seen as ways to: Reduce malnutrition Reduce infectious disease Provide better pre-school learning environments
Few evaluations of ECD programs in developing countries
World Bank Research Fund Project with Harold Alderman PI on Uganda, Bolivia and the Philippines
Behrman, Jere R., Yingmei Cheng and Petra Todd, 2004, “Evaluating Preschool Programs when Length of Exposure to the Program Varies: A Nonparametric Approach,” Review of Economics and Statistics 86:1, 108-132.
2002 ECCD Act: Objectives
To institutionalize a national program and a system for service delivery for children 0-6
To provide capability building for parents and caregivers
To raise public awareness about the importance of early child care and development
To mobilize resources and establish viable financing mechanisms for ECCD
To ensure survival and promote the total development of children, particularly those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged (formalized in R.A. 8980/2002)
Reduce by 30% under-5 mortality Decrease by 40% proportion of underweight
children Reduce by 30% proportion of children under 6
with anemia Increase to 90% children aged 12-18 months
fully immunized Improve psychosocial & cognitive
development of children Increase to 75% children ages 3-5 attending
daycare centers Increase to 90% primary school completion
rate for Grade 1 entrants
Quantitative ECD Goals
Millennium Development GoalsEast Asia and Pacific CountriesBy 2015, reduce 1990 child mortality by two-thirds
Under 5 Mortality Rate (per 1,000)
010203040506070
1990 1995 2001 2015
East Asia Philippines
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births)
010
2030
4050
6070
1990 1995 2001 2015
East Asia Philippines
Millennium Development GoalsBy 2015, halve 1990 child malnutrition ratesand 90% of children immunized for measles
Measles Immunization(% of children 12- 18 months)
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1995 2001 2015
East Asia P hilippines
Child Malnutrition(% of children under 5)
0
10
20
30
40
1990 1995 2001 2015
East Asia P hilippines
Millennium Development GoalsBy 2015, Net Primary Enrollment = 100%
Net Primary Enrollment Ratio
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1995 2001 2015
%
East Asia/Pacific Philippines
The Filipino ECD Program
Goal: improve the psycho-social development and nutrition of young children Began with pilot projects in 1999 Three regions Covers 10 provinces, 2.5 million households
ECD Program Mechanisms
Support to all provinces for select MCH programs:
Immunization Management of Child Illness Micronutrient Malnutrition Control Parent Effectiveness Seminars
Grants to pre-selected municipalities to invest in service-provider packages
Implementation Support
Service Provider Specific Components
Key Providers: Midwife Day Care Worker Child Development Worker Day Care Mother
Services Supported: Food and micronutrient supplementation Growth monitoring Child development monitoring and activities Educating parents Primary health care
ECD Evaluation Study
Aim: To evaluate Filipino ECD program through collection of longitudinal data in program and non-program regions
Baseline: representative sample of newborns and children below age 5 (N = 7,925) Two rounds of follow up data Evaluation analysis based on children who
remained in same sample barangay (N = 6,693)
Figure 1. ECD Study Regions
Region 6Region 7
Region 8
Program Areas: Regions 6 and 7 Control Area:Region 8
The Evaluation Study SampleThe Evaluation Study Sample
Region 6: 24 municipalities
96 barangays
Region 7: 14 municipalities
96 barangays
Region 8: 57 municipalities
96 barangays
Schedule of Data CollectionSchedule of Data CollectionSchedule of Data CollectionSchedule of Data Collection
ROUND 1: April 2001 - November 2001 (8 months)Region 6 Jun 2001 - Oct 2001Region 7 Apr 2001 - Oct 2001Region 8 Aug 2001 - Nov 2001
ROUND 2: September 2002 - March 2003 (7 months)Region 6 Sep 2002 - Mar 2003Region 7 Sep 2002 - Mar 2003Region 8 Sep 2002 - Feb 2003
ROUND 3: September 2003 - January 2004 (5 months)
Region 6 Sep 2003 - Jan 2004Region 7 Sep 2003 - Jan 2004Region 8 Sep 2003 - Dec 2003
Response Rates: HouseholdsResponse Rates: HouseholdsResponse Rates: HouseholdsResponse Rates: Households
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS RESPONSE RATE
ROUND 1 ROUND2 ROUND3 R1-2 R1-3
REG 6 1,456 1,377 1,330 94.6 91.3
REG 7 1,959 1,849 1,817 94.4 92.8
REG 8 1,909 1,699 1,670 89.0 87.5
TOTAL 5,324 4.925 4,817 92.5 90.5
N.B. excludes migrants outside sample barangays (if incl., RP=92.8)
NUMBER OF CHILDREN RESPONSE RATE
ROUND 1 ROUND2 ROUND3 R1-2 R1-3
REG 6 2,115 1,968 1,877 93.0 88.7
REG 7 2,913 2,694 2,639 92.5 90.6
REG 8 2,894 2,543 2,646 87.9 85.2
TOTAL 7,922 7,205 6,982 90.9 88.1
Response Rates: ChildrenResponse Rates: ChildrenResponse Rates: ChildrenResponse Rates: Children
N.B. excludes migrants outside sample barangays (if incl., RP=92.1)
Evaluation Methodology
Relation of Interest:
∆Yp-∆Ynp = a(∆Pp-∆Pnp) + b(∆Xp-∆Xnp) + c(∆Zp-∆Znp) + (∆ep-∆enp)
where ∆Y = Y3 – Y1, etc.Y = ECD outcomesP = receive ECD programNP = not receive ECD programX = child, family, community variablesZ = unobserved variablese = error term
Participation in child feeding programs
Percentage of children 0-4 years who participated in feeding programs
2001 2003 Difference
Program regions 8.5 17.4 8.9
Control region 8.1 4.9 -3.2
Diff in Diff Impact a significance at p<.05
12.1a
Time
After intervention
Before intervention
For example, participation in infant feeding program
Legend:
Region 8
Regions 6 & 7
Counterfactual
Estimated diff-in-diff impact is 12.18.5
8.1
17.4
4.9
BUT NOT EXPERIMENT WITH RANDOM ASSIGMENT SO DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT
VS CONTROLS:PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM
MUNICIPALITIES BY INCOME CLASS Region and Income Class
Survey Round Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Region 6 First class 17.4 13.0 13.0 Second or Third class 21.7 34.8 30.4 Fourth to Sixth class 60.9 52.2 56.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 23 23 23
Region 7 First class - - - Second or Third class 25.0 58.3 53.8 Fourth to Sixth class 75.0 41.7 46.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 8 12 13
Both regions First class 12.9 8.6 8.3 Second or Third class 22.6 42.9 38.9 Fourth to Sixth class 64.5 48.6 52.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 31 35 36
Region 8 First class 5.3 5.3 7.0 Second or Third class 14.0 22.8 19.3 Fourth to Sixth class 80.7 71.9 73.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 57 57 57
N.B. All Region 8 municipalities are non-program municipalities.
There were 9 program municipalities in Region 7 during Round 1 (1NR).
25.9
19.5
24.6
14.3
26.4
20.9
25.3
15.7
27.8
21.4
26.5
16.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Region 6 Region 7 Reg 6&7 Region 8
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS WITH COLLEGE EDUCATIONWITH COLLEGE EDUCATION
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS WITH COLLEGE EDUCATIONWITH COLLEGE EDUCATION
N.B. Households present in all three rounds
48.3
38.1
42.3
20.1
48.6
37.5
46.4
19.3
47.6
38.2
45.7
19.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
Region 6 Region 7 Reg 6&7 Region 8
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN URBAN AREASURBAN AREAS
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN URBAN AREASURBAN AREAS
N.B. Households present in all three rounds
42.9 43.1 42.9
37.1
41.743.5
42
38.7
49.447.1
49
38.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Region 6 Region 7 Reg 6&7 Region 8
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSES PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSES MADE OF STRONG MATERIALSMADE OF STRONG MATERIALS
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSES PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSES MADE OF STRONG MATERIALSMADE OF STRONG MATERIALS
N.B. Households present in all three rounds
31.7
23.2
29.9
19.7
33
23.3
31.1
19.4
36.3
23.4
33.7
18.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
Region 6 Region 7 Reg 6&7 Region 8
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH REFRIGERATORPERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH REFRIGERATORPERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH REFRIGERATORPERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH REFRIGERATOR
N.B. Households present in all three rounds
Top Related