Search

This publication presents the challenges and opportunities confronting early childhood development in vulnerable urban contexts, derived from specialised research by Arup and the Bernard van Leer Foundation (BvLF). The data is clear: vulnerable urban areas such as refugee and informal settlements house a growing population in critical need, and the number and size of these areas will only increase in the coming decades. Living in these contexts has particularly significant negative impacts on young children aged 0 to 5. At present, governments, development and humanitarian organisations, and urban practitioners devote little attention to the specific needs of the 0-5 age group in projects aimed at improving conditions in informal and refugee settlements. This age group's needs are different than those of older children but are often 'lumped in' with them from a planning and policy perspective, or worse, go entirely unrecognised. In addition, the complexity of vulnerability in these contexts makes it difficult to design and implement effective early childhood development solutions that consider the influence of the built environment. Arup and BvLF have partnered to help bridge this gap. The Proximity of Care approach was developed to better understand the needs and constraints faced by young children, their caregivers, and pregnant women in informal and refugee settlements; and to ultimately help improve their living conditions and well-being. [This report was co-produced by Arup.]

The 'Spotlight on the Many Voices of the Early Childhood Workforce' Solutions Summit was held on 11 December 2018 as an official side event of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH) Partners' Forum in New Delhi, India. The aim of the Summit was to place a spotlight on and develop solutions for the diverse early childhood workforce and create a strong international community in support of the workforce. This report summarises the insights gained from the Summit and brings together the concrete solutions to real-world challenges facing the early childhood workforce that were co-created by the attendees.

This paper describes important issues in the promotion of the development of children 0 to 6 years of age in Brazil, particularly in education, health, children's rights and public policy. Brazil exhibits tremendous disparities and some of the worst welfare indicators in Latin America. Much of the population faces poverty, limited educational opportunities, and inequitable access to services and basic protections. The youngest children are disproportionately affected. Indicators of malnutrition remain high. Despite the efforts of dedicated teachers and officials, the public education system is not providing an adequate foundation so that children from low-income families may one day rise out of poverty. Education has been a key area of public policy under several government administrations, but early childhood development has not been underscored. Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. This paper includes numerous examples of good practice in early childhood education in Brazil, including children's participation, progressive pedagogies that build on local cultures and well-designed, publicly funded early childhood education strategies. (Contains 4 figures and 26 footnotes.)

"Can You Hear Me? The Right of Young Children to Participate in Decisions Affecting Them" emphasises that participation enhances children's self-esteem and confidence, promotes their overall capacities, produces better outcomes, strengthens understanding of and commitment to democratic processes and protects children more effectively. Participation provides the opportunity for developing a sense of autonomy, independence, heightened social competence and resilience. The benefits are therefore significant, and adults with both direct and indirect responsibility for children need to acquire a greater humility in recognising that they have a great deal to learn from children. But the case for listening to young children goes beyond the beneficial outcomes. It is also a matter of social injustice and human rights. All people, however young, are entitled to be participants in their own lives, to influence what happens to them, to be involved in creating their own environments, to exercise choices and to have their views respected and valued. (Contains 4 footnotes.)

This paper discusses routes by which HIV/AIDS money is dispersed and received. It notes that capturing accurate data on actual spending patterns of large donors can be difficult, as there is no uniform tracking or reporting system and much HIV/AIDS money is spent under the broader category of sexual and reproductive health. Most of the information contained in the first two sections is based on main reports that assess the general manner in which HIV/AIDS money as a whole is being distributed. Moving on from who is providing funds for HIV/AIDS initiatives at global level, it tracks sources and flows from governments, through bilateral and multilateral channels. It does not include estimates of household spending on care and treatment, which cannot be realistically quantified. Information follows on top US and European donors, the international business community and pharmaceutical companies. Later sections look into ways HIV/AIDS funding is being spent, with the proviso, as before, that detailed breakdowns of actual spending are rare. The broadest categories are prevention, care and treatment, orphan support and research. Within the field of ECD vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS, funds are being directed through two main areas of concern--prevention of mother-to-child transmission and the care of orphans and vulnerable children. This paper describes major players in these arenas, showing that efforts are being made by a few agencies through the amount of funding directed along these channels is minimal in contrast to other target areas. Fundamental questions are raised about current donor priorities and there follows some discussion touching areas where new or reallocated HIV/AIDS funding could be directed. Obvious gaps in the provision of money for ECD and HIV/AIDS support are then identified along with opportunities to carry out work fill such gaps. The final section examines what it would take to direct more money to support young children living in the shadow of HIV/AIDS. Including very young children in HIV/AIDS response strategies will ultimately depend on individual communities devising their own solutions. A further section highlights the critical importance of sharing knowledge through networks that communicate and disseminate evidence-based research findings and project evaluations. In conclusion, this paper calls for advocacy to urge that more funding should go to ECD-HIV/AIDS needs and that current funding approaches to dealing with the crisis need, in addition, to be tracked and evaluated, with a view to promoting more and better ways of meeting the unfulfilled needs of very young children affected by HIV/AIDS. (Contains 2 figures.)

The research reviewed and the current responses identified in this paper show that at local, national and international levels there are gaps in programming and policy to engage ideas and mobilise resources to address the needs and experiences of very young children infected/affected by HIV and AIDS. Chapter one identifies some key areas where the lives of very young children are affected by the pandemic. Chapter two reveals that HIV and AIDS and early childhood development (ECD) programming has shown a limited response so far. Finally, in Chapter three, conclusions are drawn that indicate that services are required urgently to support very young children both directly and through the families and communities in which they live. (Lists 9 resources and 11 online resources.)