Scaling Early Childhood Development – what to read this month | August 2026

Scaling Early Childhood Development – what to read this month is curated by Bet Caeyers (Lead Editor, Chr. Michelsen Institute), Sadashiv Nayanpally (Editor, Oxford Policy Management), and Daniel Munday (Editor, Oxford Policy Management).

We start this month with parenting research from Sierra Leone. Chandra et al. evaluate adding support on early learning, responsive caregiving and child protection to existing nutrition counselling delivered through monthly mother support groups. The additional support increased psychosocial stimulation, reduced harsh discipline and increased fathers’ involvement in child development. The study did not measure socio-emotional development and cognition, but it did observe a reduction in wasting by 3 percentage points. Physical growth effects are unusual for information-based parenting interventions focused on caregiving and stimulation. One possibility is that, where families already receive nutrition support, strengthening caregivers’ ability to understand and respond to children’s needs generates additional nutritional benefits, although the study does not establish the mechanism. The findings confirm once again the value of integrating parenting support into existing community nutrition services.

Klapow et al. show that a high level of enrolment in chatbot-based parenting programmes does not necessarily translate into effective access and engagement. ParentText – a 38-day automated parenting programme delivered through WhatsApp and Facebook messaging platforms in Jamaica, Malaysia and the Philippines – enrolled 1,293 caregivers, but median engagement was only two days and one module, with 93.8% completing less than a quarter of the content. Attrition was concentrated in the first week, driven by lengthy and frequent messages competing with caregivers’ daily responsibilities, rigid content progression, and platform restrictions that made it difficult to resume after missing prompts. The authors argue that digital programmes should be designed around interruptions rather than assuming continuous participation, with lower message burden, flexible pacing and simple routes for re-engagement – critical for achieving effective access at scale.

Turning to measurement, Kuzik et al. provide evidence that the Early Childhood Development Index 2030 (ECDI2030) survey can be administered by telephone without substantially changing results compared with in-person interviews. Across Brazil, Canada, India and Malawi, 212 paired observations of children aged 36–60 months showed no significant difference in overall scores, with good-to-excellent agreement between modalities and similar proportions of children classified as developmentally on track. Small differences emerged for girls and the Indian sample but were unlikely to be practically meaningful. Telephone administration could therefore make population-level early childhood development (ECD) measurement more feasible and less costly, particularly in geographically dispersed settings. However, the study did not include children aged 24–35 months, and participating households were generally more highly educated than national populations, warranting further testing before broader scale-up.

Van Buuren et al. from the Global Scales for Early Development (GSED) team, meanwhile, provide an important step towards making ECD outcomes comparable across studies, programmes and populations that use different measurement tools. Using data from 9,287 children aged 0–41 months across 7 sites, the authors refine the GSED core model, producing a more precise 281-item model that places development on a common D-score scale. Importantly, they demonstrate how other instruments can be linked to this scale: scores from the widely used Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development were strongly aligned with the GSED model. The updated model is freely available through an open-source R package, providing a practical route towards more standardised population monitoring and comparison of intervention effects across settings. However, the authors caution that the D-score is currently intended primarily for population- and group-level comparisons rather than individual clinical screening.

On systems research this month, Dalglish et al. draw on the experience of Children in All Policies 2030 (CAP-2030), a global collaboration seeking to put children’s needs, rights and voices more centrally into public policy. The authors highlight persistent barriers, including political short-termism, limited child participation and fragmented governance – particularly relevant to ECD, which spans health, nutrition, education and social protection. Drawing on experience across countries, they identify eight lessons (see Figure 1 to understand how these are linked to outcomes and impacts): creatively involving children, patiently building coalitions, seizing political opportunities, harmonising global data, building national platforms, using media to shift perceptions, strategically framing children’s issues across sectors, and promoting joint learning. Their experience suggests that sustainable child-centred policy requires both children’s participation and the cross-sector relationships, political support and institutions needed to translate their priorities into action.

Finally, two reviews from South Africa and Nigeria highlight that strong ECD policies do not necessarily translate into effective services. Ezeonwuachusi’s review of 48 studies finds stronger policy coherence and institutional coordination in South Africa than in Nigeria, but persistent socioeconomic inequalities, workforce shortages and implementation gaps in both countries. Mapanga et al. similarly find that South Africa has an extensive child health and development policy landscape, yet implementation remains uneven across provinces, with caregiver mental health and child psychosocial wellbeing particularly neglected. Together, the reviews suggest that closing the policy-to-practice gap requires stronger subnational capacity, more equitable resources and workforce investment, better intersectoral coordination, and routine monitoring that enables governments to identify and address implementation bottlenecks.