Subsidised access to full-day preschools in Uganda had long-term positive effects on children’s anthropometrics but not their learning outcomes. Cash transfers of a similar value as the preschool subsidy had a similar impact.
Access to preschool education has been shown to positively affect children’s development in high and middle-income countries (e.g. Attanasio et al. 2022, Duncan et al. 2023, Engle et al. 2011, van Huizen and Plantenga 2018), but we have little evidence from low-income settings. Studies that evaluate the effect of preschool programmes in low-income contexts are few and mainly focused on short-term effects (e.g. Ajayi et al. 2022, Bietenbeck et al. 2019, Bjorvatn et al. Forthcoming, Dean and Jayachandran 2020, Donald et al. 2024).
In Bjorvatn et al. (2024), we present evidence on the long-term effects of preschool education on child development in Uganda. We rely on a unique field experiment where families with a three- to five-year-old child were randomly selected to receive subsidised access to a nearby full-day preschool, a similar-valued cash transfer, both a preschool subsidy and a cash transfer, or neither. The preschool subsidy covered the costs of tuition fees, breakfast, and lunch. The cash transfers were delivered to the mothers as mobile money and labelled as a business grant. They were made at the same time as the preschool fees were paid to the childcare centres, and the value of the transfers was equal to the average cost of childcare within the districts.
Studying the effects of preschool subsidies in Ugandan schools
Baseline and randomisation took place in late 2018 and we tracked the children over four years, between 2019 and 2023, capturing their anthropometrics (weight and height) and learning outcomes (test scores in mathematics and reading). In previous work (Bjortvatn et al. forthcoming), we found that, by the end of 2019, the preschool subsidy had positive effects on children's development, driven by their early literacy and motor skills (please see our previous VoxDev article for an extended summary of our short-term findings). In February 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ugandan government imposed a strict lockdown. Schools remained closed for 83 weeks, the longest period of any country during the pandemic. An important question is thus not only whether the positive effects of preschool subsidies persist over time, but if the effects can survive a time of crisis.
The impact of preschool subsidies and cash transfers on anthropometric outcomes in Uganda
We find that the preschool subsidy caused an improvement in the children’s long-term anthropometric outcomes. Figure 1 below displays the effects of the interventions using pooled data from the 2022 and 2023 survey waves, which is more than three years after the end of the preschool subsidy. We find that children who received the preschool subsidy have 0.13 standard deviation (SD) better anthropometric outcomes three years later relative to the control group. This is driven by a 0.15 SD increase in weight-for-age and a 0.2 SD rise in their body mass index (BMI). While the effect on height-for-age is also positive, it is not statistically significant. We find similar treatment effects for children in households receiving cash transfers or both interventions. In particular, cash transfers increased children’s anthropometrics by 0.18 SDs, while the treatment effect for those receiving both a preschool subsidy and cash transfer was 0.17 SDs. The effects of the three interventions do not differ significantly.
Figure 1: Long-term effects on children’s anthropometrics
Note: The figure shows improvements in children’s anthropometric outcomes (in standard deviations) for the treated groups relative to the control group. The bars measure the different anthropometric outcomes: weight-for-age (blue), height-for-age (red) and BMI-for-age (green). The grey box shows an aggregate anthropometrics index of all dimensions, while the whiskers indicate the 90% confidence interval for the treatment effects.
The impact of preschool subsidies and cash transfers on learning outcomes in Uganda
Figure 2: Long-term effects on children’s learning
Note: The figure shows improvements in children’s learning outcomes (in standard deviations) for the treated groups, relative to the control group. The bars measure the different learning outcomes: reading (mauve) measured by EGRA; mathematics (orange) measured by EGMA. The grey box shows an aggregate learning index combining the two dimensions, while the whiskers indicate the 90% confidence interval for the treatment effects.
The impact of preschool subsidies and cash transfers on learning outcomes in Uganda
Regarding children’s learning outcomes, we find positive but small and imprecisely estimated effects of the preschool subsidy or the cash transfers – see Figure 2. This could be due to the 83-week school closure implemented shortly after the completion of the year-long subsidy programme or a catching up of children in the control group. While the combined treatment has a marginally significant effect, further analysis shows that this is driven by a positive impact on learning outcomes in 2022, which dissipates and becomes insignificant in 2023. Overall, our findings suggest that neither of the interventions had a persistent long-term effect on children’s learning outcomes.
Cash transfers and subsidies are both effective at supporting children’s anthropometric outcomes during shocks
Our findings demonstrate that access to full-day preschool education in a low-income context like Uganda can lead to long-term improvements in children’s anthropometric outcomes. We do not, however, find any lasting effects of the preschool intervention on learning. We document very similar effects from a comparable-sized cash transfer. This implies that preschool subsidies and cash transfers can be alternative ways to improve children’s development. This holds despite the pandemic and Uganda’s comprehensive lockdown measures, suggesting their robustness to shocks.
References
Ajayi K F, A Dao, and E Koussoubé (2022), "The effects of childcare on women and children: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Burkina Faso," World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 10239.
Attanasio O, R Paes de Barros, P Carneiro, D K Evans, L Lima, P Olinto, and N Schady (2022), "Public childcare, labor market outcomes of caregivers, and child development: Experimental evidence from Brazil," NBER Working Paper 30653.
Bietenbeck J, S Ericsson, and F M Wamalwa (2019), "Preschool attendance, schooling, and cognitive skills in East Africa," Economics of Education Review 73: 101909.
Bjorvatn K, D Ferris, S Gulesci, A Nasgowitz, V Somville, and L Vandewalle (forthcoming), "Childcare, labor supply, and business development: Experimental evidence from Uganda," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics.
Bjorvatn K, D Ferris, S Gulesci, A Nasgowitz, V Somville, and L Vandewalle (2024), "Long-term effects of preschool subsidies and cash transfers on child development: Evidence from Uganda," AEA Papers and Proceedings 114: 459–62.
Dean J T, and S Jayachandran (2020), "Attending kindergarten improves cognitive development in India, but all kindergartens are not equal," Working paper.
Donald A, S Lowes, and J Vaillant (2024), "Experimental evidence on rural childcare provision," Working paper.
Duncan G, A Kalil, M Mogstad, and M Rege (2023), "Investing in early childhood development in preschool and at home," in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 6, edited by E A Hanushek, S Machin, and L Woessmann, 1–91. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Engle P L, L C H Fernald, H Alderman, J Behrman, C O’Gara, A Yousafzai, M Cabral de Mello, et al. (2011), "Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries," Lancet 378(9799): 1339–53.
van Huizen T, and J Plantenga (2018), "Do children benefit from universal early childhood education and care? A meta-analysis of evidence from natural experiments," Economics of Education Review 66: 206–22.