View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Variations in Pre-Primary Education Infrastructure within and across Administrative Sectors in Rwanda

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Variations in Pre-Primary Education Infrastructure within and across Administrative Sectors in Rwanda
Language: English
Authors: Remy Pages (ORCID 0000-0002-0396-6498), Gilbert Munyemana
Source: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2025 19.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Preschool Children, Child Care Centers, Preschool Education, Community Programs, Family Environment, Educational Environment, Socioeconomic Status, Educational Facilities, Educational Quality
Geographic Terms: Rwanda
DOI: 10.1186/s40723-025-00166-x
ISSN: 1976-5681
2288-6729
Abstract: This study examines disparities in structural quality across Rwanda's pre-primary modalities--centre-based, community-based, and home-based--operating under a single policy framework. Using data from 4,875 settings across 91 administrative sectors in seven districts, we applied multilevel models to separate within-sector differences by modality from between-sector variation, associated with sector-level socioeconomic status (SES). We modeled infrastructure quality with three latent factors: (1) physical facilities, (2) access to public infrastructure, and (3) operational quality. Within sectors, findings indicated that home-based settings--most prevalent in rural and lower-SES sectors--had markedly lower quality than centre-based settings (-0.73 SD for physical facilities; -0.85 SD for operational quality). Gaps persisted between sectors. Community-based settings showed similar structural constraints; however, between-sector disparities were not meaningful after adjusting for sector-level SES. Overall, structural quality is conditioned by both setting modality and local socioeconomic conditions. Policy might consider prioritizing a minimum structural package for home-based settings, paired with educator training, sustainable financing, and supportive oversight.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1501331
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFd4VQQs8YUxeWMSJxBRbapAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD4GHg1W_ibVPorShQIBEICBmy8-QZ8Hu55yCojNCub_Z8k7X4ccuAwiuUUvRLonOj45Mnz00XaldizW2GPnsxMltTTGT4eXLI0WnKYcnVttl503kwDuhO_zoTjwnUgbLzFYTiieB3lyMjpadMXfzGJ9YfCXME6HHsyo53wJ4hM4RX4eEammR2HNeBnAPYxf9rmP85JX53WU_qBoPOBrXmRxL1mQFJqHBOckJO1N
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190435853;[ds0u]23dec.25;2025Dec26.05:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190435853-1">Variations in pre-primary education infrastructure within and across administrative sectors in Rwanda </title> <p>This study examines disparities in structural quality across Rwanda's pre-primary modalities—centre-based, community-based, and home-based—operating under a single policy framework. Using data from 4,875 settings across 91 administrative sectors in seven districts, we applied multilevel models to separate within-sector differences by modality from between-sector variation, associated with sector-level socioeconomic status (SES). We modeled infrastructure quality with three latent factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) physical facilities, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) access to public infrastructure, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) operational quality. Within sectors, findings indicated that home-based settings—most prevalent in rural and lower-SES sectors—had markedly lower quality than centre-based settings (–0.73 SD for physical facilities; − 0.85 SD for operational quality). Gaps persisted between sectors. Community-based settings showed similar structural constraints; however, between-sector disparities were not meaningful after adjusting for sector-level SES. Overall, structural quality is conditioned by both setting modality and local socioeconomic conditions. Policy might consider prioritizing a minimum structural package for home-based settings, paired with educator training, sustainable financing, and supportive oversight.</p> <p>Keywords: Studies in Human Society Policy and Administration Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Despite global commitments under SDG 4.2 to universal, high-quality pre-primary education, affirmed as the right of every child (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref4">74</reflink>]), large disparities in structural quality remain. High-quality early education improves school readiness and later outcomes, with especially strong benefits for children in lower-resourced contexts (Berlinski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]; Bietenbeck et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]; Duncan & Magnuson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]; Heckman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]; Patrinos & Psacharopoulos, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref10">55</reflink>]; Yoshikawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref11">80</reflink>]). Nevertheless, global evidence documents persistent gaps in access to quality programs (Flood et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref13">63</reflink>]; Rege et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref14">65</reflink>]), with particularly acute challenges in low- and middle-income countries relative to high-income settings (Britto et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]; Krafft et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>]; Neuman & Powers, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consistent with these global patterns, Rwanda has prioritized expanding access to pre-primary education within the government's broader commitment to achieving universal education and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref18">43</reflink>]). Recent years have seen significant progress, with policies focused on increasing enrollment rates and improving the quality of early childhood education services (Binagwaho et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]; National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref20">48</reflink>]; UNICEF, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref21">72</reflink>]). However, large urban-rural disparities in both access and quality persist, driven in part by infrastructure constraint, posing a major challenge to realizing equitable education for all children (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref22">43</reflink>]; Sachs et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref23">67</reflink>]; UNICEF, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref24">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Governance and financing of Rwanda's pre-primary system are shared by the Ministry of Education and the National Child Development Agency—responsible for system oversight, standard-setting, public provision, and early childhood development initiatives and evaluations—alongside local governments, private and faith-based providers, and NGOs. Rwanda's pre-primary education landscape consists of three main settings:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Centre-based: Formal early learning and development settings where children receive sensory-motor, social-emotional, and cognitive-language support, as well as school readiness instruction by experienced caregivers.</item> <p></p> <item> Community-based: Improvised settings, typically arranged by community members, in which temporary or communal structures are converted into learning areas for young children.</item> <p></p> <item> Home-based: Informal settings in which neighboring households designates one home to serve as a place for children's early learning during the day, providing care until parents collect them after work.</item> </ulist> <p>Of the three, centre-based and home-based settings are currently the most prevalent, each presenting distinct challenges and opportunities to promote equitable access to quality early learning (Ministry of Gender & Family Promotion, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref25">42</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Oversight operates through sector-level officers who are mandated to receive monthly reports from caregivers and parents' committees, and to conduct supervisory visits (National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref27">49</reflink>]). In practice, however, the intensity of monitoring varies by type of setting.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-3">Centre-based pre-primary settings: access, quality, and socioeconomic barriers</hd> <p>Centre-based pre-primary settings—typically, formal institutions located in urban areas—are generally regarded as providing higher-quality early education. They benefit from regulated standards, greater access to resources, and structured curricula designed to support children's holistic development (Burchinal et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref30">58</reflink>]). These settings are more likely to employ qualified caregivers with specialized training in early childhood development, and with staff development initiatives that have been shown to improve classroom quality in both high- and low- and middle-income countries (Peisner-Feinberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref31">56</reflink>]; Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref32">59</reflink>]; Sylva et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref33">68</reflink>]; Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref34">77</reflink>]). Centre-based settings also more commonly meet basic WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) standards—including handwashing stations, safe waste disposal, and reliable water—providing safer, more inclusive environments for participation and learning (Britto et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]; McCoy, Waldman et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref37">71</reflink>]). Purpose-built classrooms and age-appropriate learning materials further distinguish centre-based provision from other modalities (Britto et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]; Magnuson & Waldfogel, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these advantages, centre-based settings often require substantial financial contributions from families, limiting access for lower-income households (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref40">71</reflink>]; World Bank, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref41">79</reflink>]). In Rwanda, where many families live below the poverty line, enrollment fees pose a significant barrier (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref42">43</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>] Moreover, centre-based settings are primarily concentrated in higher-income, urban areas where families are better able to meet these costs (Rao et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref44">64</reflink>]; World Bank, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref45">79</reflink>]). This spatial and economic concentration contributes to disparities in access, with children from urban, higher-SES backgrounds disproportionately benefiting from centre-based quality (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref46">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regulatory oversight also differentiates centre-based provision from home- and community-based models. Rwanda's centre-based pre-primary settings are most closely aligned with the National Child Development Agency's standards and are subject to direct monthly supervision by Sector Education Officers (SEO), and Social and Economic Development Officers (SEDO) (National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]). Their formal infrastructure and closer alignment with system standards mean that monitoring is relatively more consistent than with other modalities.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-4">Community-based settings: expanding access through local initiatives</hd> <p>Community-based pre-primary settings in Rwanda are typically established by local residents who mobilize shared resources to provide early learning opportunities. They often operate out of communal buildings, temporary structures, or improvised facilities, with caregivers recruited from the community itself (National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref48">49</reflink>]; UNICEF, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref49">73</reflink>]). A key advantage lies in community ownership and local knowledge, which can reduce distance barriers, foster cultural alignment, and create opportunities for parental involvement or links to basic health services (Abimpaye et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]; Gelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]; Mwaura et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many community-based settings are located near health posts, primary schools, and sector offices, which can facilitate service integration and enable supervisory visits by local authorities. They are formally embedded within the National Child Development Agency supervision cascade: caregivers submit monthly reports to Sector Education Officers (SEO) and Social and Economic Development Officers (SEDO); managing committees share information with local leaders; and sector officers are expected to conduct regular visits (National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref53">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Formal integration notwithstanding, community-based settings face persistent structural challenges. Their reliance on improvised facilities and community contributions makes systematic monitoring difficult to sustain (Gelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]; Mwaura & Marfo, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref55">46</reflink>]). Many lack trained caregivers, adequate learning materials, or safe, stimulating environments, and their informality limits regulatory oversight and consistency (Chen & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref57">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-5">Home-based settings: an accessible but unequal alternative</hd> <p>Home-based pre-primary settings are most common in rural areas, where access to formal, structured care is limited (Lanigan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref58">37</reflink>]; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]). They typically involve informal arrangements organized by community members or relatives, often with minimal or no fees, which lowers financial barriers for low-income families. Their flexibility and community orientation make them culturally relevant and accessible, particularly in rural contexts where formal institutions are scarce (Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref60">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Structurally, however, home-based provision is marked by inconsistency. Facilities often lack basic WASH infrastructure; handwashing, sanitation, and safe water access are provided informally or absent altogether (McCoy, Waldman et al., 2018; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref61">71</reflink>]). Caregivers rarely hold formal early childhood qualifications, and operating schedules are determined by household routines rather than standardized hours, producing uneven exposure for children (Halle et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]; Rusby et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref63">66</reflink>]). Learning materials and physical spaces are typically limited, raising concerns about their ability to support sustained child development (Blau & Currie, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref65">62</reflink>]). Additionally, these settings often depend on in-kind contributions from the community and external support, raising concerns about their capacity to provide a stable, quality educational experience over time (Bromer & Henly, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]; Porter et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref67">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>While home-based pre-primary settings are formally recognized by Rwanda's National Child Development Agency, their regulation relies heavily on community-level institutions. Caregivers are expected to report monthly to cell authorities,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>] and parents' committees might oversee daily operations and mobilize resources, sometimes in conjunction with community health workers (National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref69">49</reflink>]). This dependence on voluntary parent leadership and local committees underscores the informal character of oversight compared with centre-based provision.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, home-based settings remain critical for extending access to underserved and remote areas of Rwanda. In many communities they represent the only viable option for early learning and may offer relatively greater value than in higher-income countries, where alternatives such as maternal care are often more accessible and better resourced (Bernal et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref71">24</reflink>]; Justino et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]). That said, their comparatively lower quality—with children experiencing less structured learning and limited infrastructure—risks reinforcing inequities in developmental outcomes (Lu et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]; McCoy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-6">The role of socioeconomic status</hd> <p>Prior research indicates that SES influences not only access but also families' choices and perceptions of care quality (Black et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]; Fuller et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref77">53</reflink>]). Higher SES families are more likely to have access to centre-based settings, where infrastructure and caregiver qualifications are typically superior; however, these settings are often unaffordable for lower-income families, creating barriers to access (Magnuson & Waldfogel, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]; Yoshikawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref79">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond access, higher SES families tend to be more attuned to what constitutes a beneficial environment for child development—both at home and in educational settings (Bornstein & Bradley, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]; Bradley & Corwyn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]). Better equipped to distinguish among forms of care, these families are more likely to select options they believe will yield optimal developmental outcomes. By contrast, lower SES families often face constrained choices and prioritize basic accessibility and affordability (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref82">33</reflink>]; Tang et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref83">69</reflink>]). This dual impact of SES— shaping both access to quality infrastructure and pedagogical processes—contributes to a "double inequality" (Krafft et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref84">36</reflink>]), further exacerbating disparities in child outcomes (Carlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref85">19</reflink>]; Padilla & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref86">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-7">The present study</hd> <p>International research has consistently highlighted the structural dimensions of early childhood education—such as staff qualifications, operating schedules, and access to basic facilities—as critical determinants of quality and equity (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref87">51</reflink>]; Vandell & Wolfe, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref88">75</reflink>]). However, there is limited research on potential disparities in access to settings with high-quality infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries, and, more specifically, on the variations across setting types or geographical characteristics (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref89">71</reflink>]; World Bank, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref90">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>In high-income countries, structural features were highly salient in earlier decades when provision was uneven; as baselines have become essentially universal, they now show more limited variation and weaker associations with outcomes (Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref91">35</reflink>]). By contrast, in low- and middle-income contexts, disparities in infrastructure and staffing remain pronounced, making structural inputs central to both access and quality (McCoy, Waldman et al., 2018; Wolf et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref92">78</reflink>]). Rwanda provides a distinctive case: as we detailed above, centre-based, home-based, and community-based pre-primary settings coexist under one policy framework but differ markedly in resources and oversight. Accordingly, this study focuses on structural indicators and examines whether global patterns of disparity are evident across modalities and geographical areas in Rwanda.</p> <p>To guide the investigation, we asked three research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent do access and enrollment differ across centre-based, home-based, and community-based settings in urban and rural areas?</item> <p></p> <item> How does infrastructure quality vary across these three types of settings?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the association between infrastructure quality and socioeconomic status (SES) across geographical areas, and does this association differ by setting type?</item> </ulist> <p>By addressing these questions, the present study provides empirical evidence aiming to inform policy that promote equitable access to quality pre-primary education in Rwanda and comparable low- and middle-income contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190435853-9">Data</hd> <p>This study used data from a comprehensive 2023 mapping of pre-primary services in Rwanda, commissioned by the National Child Development Agency and conducted by Esri Rwanda. The mapping provides updated information on spatial distribution and quality of services, covering centre-based, community-based, home-based, workplace, and emergency pre-primary settings. All indicators of interest were collected via direct observation and GIS-based classification, and via self-reports from centre managers for staff and operating metrics. Indicators correspond to minimum standards in Rwanda's Integrated ECD regulations and guidelines (Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref93">44</reflink>]; National Child Development Agency, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref94">49</reflink>]), and are widely recognized in the global literature as a structural marker of quality—either because they inform on safe and inclusive participation (WASH indicators), multisectoral linkages and oversight (proximity indicators), or quality instructional stability and dosage (staff qualifications and operating hours/days).</p> <p>Data collection focused on five regions: Kigali Province, which includes the districts of Gasabo, Kicukiro, and Nyarugenge, along with the districts of Nyanza (Southern Province), Nyamasheke (Western Province), Rulindo (Northern Province), and Rwamagana (Eastern Province). In addition to the Esri Rwanda 2023 data, we incorporated Rwanda's 2022 national census—specifically figures on the population of children and sector-level educational attainment. The census reported a total population of 13,246,394, with 1,071,139 children aged 3 to 5 years (8.09% of the population). Analyses were conducted across 91 administrative sectors within the seven sampled districts. The analytic dataset includes 4,875 pre-primary settings serving 207,521 children aged 3–5 years.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-10">Analytical rationale</hd> <p>The analysis contrasts urban and rural areas and includes centre-based, home-based, and community-based settings—the three modalities formally recognized in Rwanda's policy framework. Because centre- and home-based provision are the most prevalent in our sample, this comparison is central. Their distribution across sectors provides a useful lens for identifying disparities in both access and infrastructure quality. As Fig. 3 illustrates, some sectors are characterized by a predominance of centre-based settings, while others rely more heavily on home-based provision. These uneven distributions likely reflect differences in availability, affordability, and community mobilization, indicating variation in local needs and resources. Including community-based settings extends the analysis to a third modality, allowing us to test whether structural disparities observed between centre-based and home-based also appear in community-based provision, and whether global patterns of structural quality generalize to Rwanda's mixed system.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-11">Outcome variables: infrastructure quality factors</hd> <p>An exploratory factor analysis of binary and continuous indicators of infrastructure quality identified a three-factor model with strong fit (CFI = 0.955; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.05). This finding informed our decision to model these factors as confirmatory latent variables in the subsequent multilevel analysis. Using confirmatory latent factors offers a more robust framework than sum-score indexes, as it accounts for shared variance among indicators and improves the identification and precision of effects of interest (Cunha et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref95">22</reflink>]). The three latent factors are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Basic Physical Facilities: presence of a handwashing station, waste disposal, and piped water.</item> <p></p> <item> Public Infrastructure Proximity: proximity (within a 2-km walking distance) to health facilities, local government offices, and primary schools.</item> <p></p> <item> Staff Quality & Operational Metrics: qualified educators (%), hours per day, and days per week.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]</item> </ulist> <p>Table 1 Structural quality indicators</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Latent factor</p></th><th align="left"><p>Indicators</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coding</p></th><th align="left"><p>Rationale</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Basic physical facilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Handwashing station present</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>WASH infrastructure improves health, attendance, readiness (UNESCO, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Waste disposal facility</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sanitation is a structural quality marker (Britto et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2017</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Piped water access</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Clean water foundational for hygiene and learning (McCoy, Waldman, et al., 2018)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Public infrastructure proximity</p></td><td align="left"><p>Near a health facility</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Facilitates health/nutrition integration (Britto et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2011</xref>; Gelli et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Near a primary school</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhances transition & administrative oversight (UNESCO, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Near a local government office</p></td><td align="left"><p>Binary (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reflects feasibility of SEO/SEDO monitoring (NCDA, 2019)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Staff quality & operational metrics</p></td><td align="left"><p>Proportion of qualified educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>Continuous (%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Staff qualifications linked to process quality (Britto et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2011</xref>; Wolf et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2019</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Operational hours per day</p></td><td align="left"><p>Continuous</p></td><td align="left"><p>Proxy for stability and instructional exposure (Sylva et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2010</xref>; Woldehanna, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2011</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Operational days per week</p></td><td align="left"><p>Continuous</p></td><td align="left"><p>More service days = consistent readiness exposure (Nores et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2024</xref>; Raikes et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2023</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1 summarizes the structural quality indicators used in the analysis. Indicators of the first factor (Basic Physical Facilities) represent elements widely recognized as prerequisites for safe and inclusive participation in pre-primary education. Indicators of the second factor (Public Infrastructure Proximity) capture accessibility to complementary services and the feasibility of sector-level oversight in Rwanda's regulatory system. Indicators of the third factor (Staff Quality and Operational Metrics) covers human resource and service stability dimensions. Together, these factors provide a structured framework for examining disparities in infrastructure quality across centre-, home-, and community-based pre-primary settings.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-12">Socioeconomic status</hd> <p>For each administrative sector, socioeconomic status (SES) was operationalized by the average years of completed schooling among residents aged 12 or older. This measure serves as a proxy for SES and is strongly negatively correlated with the Multidimensional Poverty Index (Pearson's <emph>r</emph> = -.89), which is based on multiple non-monetary indicators and calculated as the product of poverty incidence and intensity (Alkire et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-13">Empirical strategy</hd> <p>We employed a multilevel analysis to capture variation in infrastructure quality at both the within- and the between-sector levels. Clustering at the district-level (seven districts) would have lacked statistical power and granularity, making sector-level analysis essential. To address the over-representation of sectors in Kigali Province (35 out of 91 sectors), we included a binary indicator for Kigali in all models. We report cluster-robust standard errors at the sector level to account for within-sector correlation in setting characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-14">Measurement model (by setting within sector)</hd> <p>Each λ represents the factor loading on its indicator; is the measurement error.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-15">Structural model (centre-based = reference)</hd> <p>Level 1 (Within-Sector):</p> <p>Level 2 (Between-Sector):</p> <p>Here, denotes each latent infrastructure factor for setting within sector. Coefficients ​ and ​ capture within-sector differences for home-based and community-based settings (relative to centre-based), with negative values indicating lower quality. ​ captures the association between sector-level SES and infrastructure quality; and capture between-sector differences associated with the prevalence of home-based and community-based provision, relative to centre-based.</p> <p>Using a two-level SEM, we jointly estimated three correlated latent factors and regressed them on sector-level socioeconomic status and setting type, isolating between-sector SES from within-sector modality differences.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190435853-17">Patterns of pre-primary enrollment</hd> <p>Table 2 shows substantial variation in pre-primary enrollment across setting types. Centre-based settings account for 65% of total enrollment, serving 135,634 children across 1,370 centres. Home-based settings follow with 23% (48,366 children in 2,824 homes), while community-based settings account for 11% (23,521 children in 681 settings). This dominance of centre-based provision underscores its central role, particularly in urban areas. Within districts, centre-based settings have the highest enrollment share across all regions, especially in Kigali Province (e.g., <bold>Gasabo</bold>: 78%). In contrast, rural districts such as <bold>Nyamasheke</bold> show a higher proportion of children in home-based settings (41%), indicating reliance on informal structures where access to centre-based services is limited. Overall, these descriptive counts highlight an urban-rural divide: urban areas primarily depend on centre-based provision, whereas rural areas rely more on home-based settings as essential access points.</p> <p>Table 2 Enrollment by setting within districts (by province)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Setting type</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of children enrolled</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of settings</p></th><th align="left"><p>Enrollment within setting type (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Gasabo (Kigali)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36,539</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>411</p></td><td align="left"><p>78%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4,644</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>116</p></td><td align="left"><p>9%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5,348</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>276</p></td><td align="left"><p>11%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Kicukiro (Kigali)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17,735</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>189</p></td><td align="left"><p>72%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4,304</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>89</p></td><td align="left"><p>17%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2,445</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>86</p></td><td align="left"><p>9%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Nyarugenge (Kigali)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13,014</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>128</p></td><td align="left"><p>69%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2,066</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47</p></td><td align="left"><p>10%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3,735</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>159</p></td><td align="left"><p>19%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Nyamasheke (West)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16,356</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>229</p></td><td align="left"><p>47%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4,128</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>204</p></td><td align="left"><p>11%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14,242</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>966</p></td><td align="left"><p>41%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Rulindo (North)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17,698</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>144</p></td><td align="left"><p>62%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,707</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>64</p></td><td align="left"><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9,002</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>611</p></td><td align="left"><p>31%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Nyanza (South)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16,164</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>123</p></td><td align="left"><p>69%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52</p></td><td align="left"><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5,666</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>357</p></td><td align="left"><p>24%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Rwamagana (East)</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18,128</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>146</p></td><td align="left"><p>58%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5,131</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>109</p></td><td align="left"><p>16%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7,928</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>369</p></td><td align="left"><p>25%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Totals</p></td><td align="left"><p>Centre</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>135,634</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1,370</p></td><td align="left"><p>65%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23,521</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>681</p></td><td align="left"><p>11%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48,366</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2,824</p></td><td align="left"><p>23%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Total (overall)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>207,521</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4,875</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0190435853-18">Pre-primary enrollment rate: Gasabo vs. Nyamasheke (Fig. 1)</hd> <p>A closer look at Gasabo and Nyamasheke illustrates how contexts shape access. In Gasabo, sectors' eligible child population ranges from 810 (Kimihurura) to 10,662 (Kinyinya), totaling 68,986 children aged 3–5. In heavily populated urbanized sectors— Kinyinya, Nduba, or Gisozi—centre-based settings account for most of all pre-primary enrollments (within-sector rates of 50%, 60%, and 66% of eligible child population, respectively). Notably, Kimironko and Kimihurura show rates of 109% and 128%, likely reflecting enrollment of children from neighboring areas. Peripheral sectors such as Rusororo and Gikomero rely more on home-based settings (enrollment rates of 25% and 24%, respectively).</p> <p>In Nyamasheke, sectors' eligible child population ranges from 1,595 (Mahembe) to 3,533 (Kagano), totaling 37,449 children. Here, reliance on home-based settings is stronger: sectors such as Kagano, Kanjongo, and Karengera report home-based enrollment rates of 43%, 33%, and 45%, respectively, while Bushenge reaches 90%. Despite the predominance of home-based provision, centre-based remain present (roughly 34%−62% across sectors), indicating more limited—but not absent—access to formal centres within a rural context.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Enrollment Rates across Pre-Primary Settings</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-19">Descriptive differences</hd> <p>Table 3 presents descriptive statistics on key infrastructure and operational metrics, highlighting substantial differences across pre-primary setting types. Centre-based settings exhibit stronger infrastructure: 93% have handwashing stations, 80% have piped water, and 92% have waste disposal. Home-based settings report lower figures—68% handwashing, 23% piped water, and 68% waste disposal. The effect sizes are large (e.g., piped water, <emph>d</emph> = 1.39; handwashing, <emph>d</emph> = 0.61), reflecting sizeable gaps in basic facilities.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics of quality indicators & SES proxy, by setting type</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Centre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Community</p></th><th align="left"><p>Home</p></th><th align="left"><p>Centre vs. home</p></th><th align="left"><p>ICC</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Handwashing station</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93 (0.25)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79 (0.41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68 (0.47)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.25 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.61)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Piped water</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80 (0.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.35 (0.48)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.23 (0.42)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.57 (<italic>d</italic> = 1.39)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.40</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Waste disposal</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92 (0.27)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75 (0.44)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68 (0.47)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.24 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Health facility</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87 (0.34)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75 (0.43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69 (0.46)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.18 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.42)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Government office</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92 (0.27)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89 (0.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78 (0.41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.14 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.37)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Primary school</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.96 (0.19)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86 (0.34)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82 (0.38)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.14 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.43)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Qualified educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.45 (0.43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.26 (0.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.10 (0.27)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.36 (<italic>d</italic> = 1.07)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Operational hours</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.06 (1.63)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.23 (1.00)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.84 (0.78)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.22 (<italic>d</italic> = 1.08)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Operational days</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.99 (0.36)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.35 (1.36)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.83 (1.56)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.16 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.89)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SES/Educational attainment</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.21 (1.73)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.65 (1.52)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.99 (1.03)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.22 (<italic>d</italic> = 0.94)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>1,370</p></td><td align="left"><p>681</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,824</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For proximity to public facilities, centre-based settings again show advantages: 87% are near health facilities and 96% near primary schools, compared to 69% and 82% for home-based settings (<emph>d</emph> = 0.42 & 0.43, respectively). Differences are also pronounced for proximity to government offices (92% in centre-based vs. 78% in home-based; <emph>d</emph> = 0.37).</p> <p>Staff qualifications and operations further underline large gaps. In centre-based settings, 45% of educators are qualified versus 10% in home-based (<emph>d</emph> = 1.07). Centre-based settings also operate longer hours per day (5.06 vs. 3.84 h; <emph>d</emph> = 1.08) and more days per week (around 5 days for centre-based vs. less than 4 for home-based settings; <emph>d</emph> = 0.89). Community-based settings fall between centre- and home-based settings in infrastructure quality, showing, for instance, limited staff qualifications and shorter hours—suggesting resource constraints closer to home-based settings, with slightly better infrastructure.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-20">Sector-level variability</hd> <p>Regarding sector-level SES, centre-based settings are on average located in sectors with 6.21 years of educational attainment, versus 4.99 in sectors where home-based settings operate—a difference of 1.22 years (<emph>d</emph> = 0.94). This pattern indicates concentration of centre-based provision in higher-SES sectors, with home-based more common in lower-SES areas.</p> <p>Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in Table 3 indicate meaningful sector-level variation in infrastructure quality. For example, the ICC for waste disposal is 0.51, implying that 51% of the variance is between sectors and 49% within sectors. High ICCs for proximity to government offices (0.46) and qualified educators (0.42), suggest that sector-level conditions substantially shape infrastructure quality. These values underscore the need for a multilevel approach that accounts for both between- and within-sector differences.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-21">Multilevel regression models</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190435853-22">Within-sector contrasts</hd> <p>Table 4 shows substantial disparities in infrastructure quality across settings and highlights the role of sector-level SES. At the within-sector level—isolating differences between setting types while holding sector characteristics constant—home-based settings consistently exhibit lower quality than centre-based settings. For physical facilities, home-based are 0.73 <emph>SD</emph> below centre-based (95% CI: [−0.77; −0.70], <emph>p</emph> <.001; <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.46), indicating marked gaps in handwashing, waste disposal, and piped water. The gap is even larger for operational quality (−0.85 <emph>SD</emph>; 95% CI: [−0.88; −0.81], <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.58), reflecting fewer qualified staff, shorter hours, and fewer operational days. Differences are smaller for public infrastructure proximity (−0.30 <emph>SD</emph>; 95% CI: [−0.35; −0.25], <emph>p</emph> <.001), and the variance explained by setting type is limited in this domain (<emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.08). Taken together, within-sector results indicate that home-based settings are structurally disadvantaged, especially in physical facilities and operational resources.</p> <p>Table 4 Infrastructure quality factors on pre-primary settings and sector-level SES</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Level 1 (within-sector)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Level 2 (between-sector)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Physical facilities</p></th><th align="left"><p>Public infra. proximity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Operational quality</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Physical facilities</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Public infra. proximity</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Operational quality</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Home</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.73</p><p>[−0.77; − 0.70]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.30</p><p>[−0.35; − 0.25]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.85</p><p>[−0.88; − 0.81]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.94</p><p>[−1; − 0.77]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.33</p><p>[−0.64; − 0.06]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.38</p><p>[−0.63; − 0.06]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p><p>[−0.24; 0.35]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.83</p><p>[−1; − 0.63]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.70</p><p>[−0.95; − 0.31]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Community</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.48</p><p>[−0.52; − 0.44]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.17</p><p>[−0.22; − 0.12]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.35</p><p>[−0.39; − 0.31]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.26</p><p>[−0.48; − 0.05]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.12</p><p>[−0.28; 0.05]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p><p>[−0.24; 0.32]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p><p>[−0.20; 0.32]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.28</p><p>[−0.52; − 0.03]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.21</p><p>[−0.51; 09]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SES</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.54</p><p>[0.42; 0.64]</p><p><italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.21</p><p>[0.05; 0.36]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.01</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.11</p><p>[−0.11; 0.33]</p><p><italic>p</italic> =.36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>R</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></td><td align="left" colspan="9"><p>4,875 settings; 91 clusters (administrative sectors)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0190435853-23">Between-sector contrasts</hd> <p> <bold>Physical facilities.</bold> Between sectors, disparities persist with centre-based settings maintaining a clear advantage. Home-based settings are 0.94 <emph>SD</emph> lower than centre-based settings on physical facilities (95% CI: [−1.00; −0.77], <emph>p</emph> <.001). Controlling for SES attenuates the difference to −0.83 <emph>SD</emph> (95% CI: [−1.00; −0.63], <emph>p</emph> <.001). Community-based settings also lag behind centre-based, though with smaller and less precise estimates: −0.26 <emph>SD</emph> (95% CI: [−0.48; −0.05], <emph>p</emph> =.02), diminishing to a non-significant − 0.12 <emph>SD</emph> (95% CI: [−0.28; 0.05], <emph>p</emph> =.13) with SES included. The explained variance for physical facilities quality is relatively high, with <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> increasing from 0.67 (no SES) to 0.79 (with SES), indicating that setting type and SES together account for much of the between-sector variation.</p> <p> <bold>Public infrastructure proximity.</bold> Centre-based settings also hold an advantage in proximity to public infrastructure, but the effect sizes are smaller than for physical facilities. Home-based settings score 0.38 <emph>SD</emph> lower than centre-based settings (95% CI: [−0.63; −0.06], <emph>p</emph> =.02). This difference disappears once SES is included (0.08 <emph>SD</emph>; 95% CI: [−0.24; 0.35], <emph>p</emph> =.60), underscoring sector-level SES as key determinant of access to nearby health facilities and schools. The SES effect itself is 0.21 <emph>SD</emph> (95% CI: [0.05; 0.36], <emph>p</emph> =.01). Community-based settings show negligible differences from centre-based settings with and without SES. Overall, <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> for public infrastructure rises from 0.17 without SES to 0.41 with SES, again suggesting the central role of SES in explaining between-sector variance.</p> <p> <bold>Operational quality.</bold> Pronounced disparities are exhibited for this factor as well. Home-based settings scored 0.83 <emph>SD</emph> below centre-based settings without SES (95% CI: [−1.00; −0.63], <emph>p</emph> <.001). Noticeably, with sector-level SES included, the gap narrows modestly to −0.70 <emph>SD</emph> (95% CI: [−0.95; −0.31], <emph>p</emph> <.001), implying that SES plays a smaller role. Community-based settings are also lower than centre-based settings (−0.28 <emph>SD</emph>; 95% CI: [−0.52; −0.03], <emph>p</emph> =.03), but this difference becomes nonsignificant when SES is added (−0.21 <emph>SD</emph>; 95% CI: [−0.51; 0.09], <emph>p</emph> =.19). Explained variance is substantial at 0.51 without SES and 0.43 with SES, consistent with overlapping explanatory power when SES enters the model. Because staffing, hours, and schedules are closely tied to modality, adding SES can reduce the unique variance attributed to setting type.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-24">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined disparities in infrastructure quality across centre-based, community-based, and home-based pre-primary settings in Rwanda, and assessed the role of sector-level socioeconomic status (SES) associated with these disparities. Using a multilevel approach, we separated within-sector differences between setting types and evaluated the influence of SES at the between-sector level.</p> <p>Home-based settings consistently demonstrated lower infrastructure quality than centre-based settings across all factors—physical facilities, proximity to public infrastructure, and operational quality. For instance, home-based settings scored 0.73 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>) below centre-based settings in physical facilities and 0.85 <emph>SD</emph> lower in operational quality, highlighting gaps in waste disposal, piped water, operating hours, and qualified staff.</p> <p>At the between-sector level, higher SES was linked to better physical facilities and enhanced access to public infrastructure across all setting types. Including SES in the models partially reduced disparities between home-based and centre-based settings, with significant gaps remaining. For operational quality, SES had a limited effect, suggesting that setting type is the predominant driver for this domain.</p> <p>These results underscore the structural disadvantages of home-based settings in Rwanda. Persistent gaps, even after adjusting for SES, imply that children in home-based settings may lack access to resources essential for early development. This aligns with research on "double inequality" in early childhood education, in which both access and quality favor children from higher-SES backgrounds (Britto et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref98">14</reflink>]; Krafft et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref99">36</reflink>]). Substantial gaps in physical and operational resources within home-based settings highlight the structural barriers faced by low-SES children, who often attend settings that—while accessible—lack on essential quality indicators (Britto et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>]; Magnuson & Waldfogel, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref101">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sector-level SES effects—particularly for public infrastructure proximity—suggest that high-SES sectors often benefit from greater social and physical capital, deepening disparities for children in low-SES, often rural, areas where access to resources remains limited (Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref102">63</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]). Yet, the continued gaps in home-based settings within high-SES sectors indicate that overall SES alone is not sufficiently explanatory. Prior work points to targeted investments that extend beyond physical infrastructure to include regulation, workforce development, and pedagogical resources (Heckman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref104">31</reflink>]; Yoshikawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref105">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Indeed, the minimal effect of sector-level SES on operational quality in home-based settings indicates heightened vulnerability to constraints beyond local socioeconomic conditions, including the lack of robust staffing and extended schedules typical of centre-based provision (Peisner-Feinberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref107">58</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref108">62</reflink>]). This underscores the need for differentiated policy responses that pair enforceable regulatory standards with targeted financial supports to address the barriers specific to home-based settings. Together, these patterns indicate that equalizing infrastructure access without provider-level standards and supports is unlikely to narrow the operational quality gaps.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-25">Limitations</hd> <p>Although the sample—seven districts and 91 sectors—provides a substantial view of pre-primary infrastructure quality, it does not cover all of Rwanda. The findings may therefore not capture the full diversity of districts not included in the sample. Variations in SES, cultural norms, and regional policies likely influence the types, quality, and accessibility of settings elsewhere. As such, the results are not necessarily fully generalizable to the national level and may overlook unique needs in unstudied regions. Future research should expand coverage to additional districts to provide a more granular national portrait.</p> <p>Second, our focus on infrastructure captures essential aspects of quality but does not encompass all dimensions. Key process features—caregiver-child interactions, curriculum content, staff competencies beyond credentials, and child outcomes—were outside the scope of this study. Elements of pedagogy and emotional support were also not evaluated, despite evidence that these dimensions positively affect child development (Ulferts et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref109">70</reflink>]). Robust infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient; future work should incorporate observational and evaluative measures of process quality and child development to offer a more comprehensive assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-26">Implications & future directions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190435853-27">Funding streams and sustainability</hd> <p>Funding profiles differ sharply across settings, mirroring quality discrepancies. As shown in Fig. 2, about 58% of centre-based settings rely primarily on fees alone or a combination of fees and government subsidies, and about 9% operate solely on government funds. These formalized funding sources align with higher infrastructure and operational standards, but impose financial burden on families, potentially limiting access for low-income households (Hahn & Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>By contrast, home-based settings depend more on in-kind contributions; 484 out of 2,146 settings are supported solely through in-kind contributions (Fig. 2). These are frequently supplemented by owner support or modest fees—funding schemes which account for about 42% of the settings—reflecting a less formalized financial structures and greater volatility. Reliance on non-monetary and external supports underscores the vulnerability of home-based settings, particularly in low-SES areas where fee-based revenue is less predictable.</p> <p>Notably, about 16% of home-based settings rely exclusively on family fees, indicating that fee-based funding remains significant even among lower-resource settings. These dynamics likely contribute to structural unevenness in stability and quality, ultimately affecting children served. Policymakers and stakeholders (state and local government, international partners) could expand formal financial support for home-based settings to meet basic infrastructure standards, thereby improving consistency and quality.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-28">Operational disparities</hd> <p>Operational quality also varies substantially. Centre-based settings typically offer longer, more consistent schedules than home-based settings, reflecting higher infrastructure standards and more formalized funding. Such consistency—extended hours, more qualified staff, and more operating days—supports stable routines important for early development (Berti et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref111">5</reflink>]; Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref112">57</reflink>]). In contrast, home-based settings' flexible yet limited schedules may undermine consistency, potentially affecting learning experiences and long-term outcomes. Addressing these gaps through expanded caregiver training and targeted resources could promote a more equitable and robust pre-primary education system in Rwanda (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref113">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-29">Workforce development and professionalization of home-based care</hd> <p>A promising policy direction is the integration of home-based caregivers into the formal pre-primary workforce. Home-based settings often operate with minimal resources yet strong community ties, representing an untapped workforce potential. Targeted professional development, training, and support could equip caregivers to deliver higher-quality care and education (Clarke-Stewart et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref114">21</reflink>]). This would raise quality in home-based settings and create career pathways, strengthening the field's workforce. With adequate resources and regulatory support, some home-based settings may transition toward more formal institutions over time, expanding capacity and quality while addressing shortages (see Yoshikawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref115">82</reflink>], for an overview of ECD workforce policy at scale).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-30">Future research directions</hd> <p>While this study documents key infrastructure differences and points to workforce and operational levers, further research is needed to guide prioritization. Longitudinal studies linking setting modality and infrastructure to child outcomes would provide critical evidence for sequencing investments (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref116">24</reflink>]). Targeted studies of barriers to accessing quality ECD services—especially in rural and lower-SES areas—would clarify contextual constraints and help tailor policy interventions (McCoy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref117">40</reflink>]; Raikes et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref118">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-31">Conclusions</hd> <p>This study shows that structural and socioeconomic factors jointly shape access to quality early learning environments in Rwanda. Home- and community-based settings, though vital for access in low-resource and rural areas, systematically lack the basic facilities, staffing, and operating stability found in centre-based provision. Because these disparities persist even in higher-SES sectors, improvements in socioeconomic conditions alone are unlikely to close gaps without targeted regulatory and financial measures.</p> <p>Policy implications should align with Rwanda's system design. Integrating home- and community-based providers into the formal framework can raise a minimum structural floor—for example, via targeted micro-grants for handwashing, waste disposal, and basic learning materials—without shifting costs to families. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries suggests that light-touch infrastructure upgrades, paired with supportive supervision and modest caregiver training, can improve quality at scale (Gelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]; Mwaura & Marfo, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref120">46</reflink>]; Wolf et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref121">78</reflink>]). More capital-intensive investments (e.g., piped water, permanent classrooms) will require sequenced district or donor financing.</p> <p>Finally, while we focus on structural quality, process quality remains essential. Regulators cannot readily change geographic realities such as proximity to sector offices, but they can use these indicators to guide where supervision and co-location of services are most feasible. A pragmatic strategy is to secure a basic structural package everywhere—with priority for home-based settings, which our findings identify as most disadvantaged. Ensuring minimum WASH facilities, simple learning materials, and predictable operating schedules provide a low-cost foundation for equity. Once that floor is in place, recurrent investment should focus on caregiver training, coaching, and supportive supervision, which international evidence identifies as the most effective levers for raising quality.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-32">Appendix</hd> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 UpSet plots of funding source combinations by setting type</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Distribution (%) of centre-based (green/left) and home-based (red/right) pre-primary settings across administrative sectors</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-33">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors are thankful to Assumpta Ingabire, Henry Cyemezo, Diane Iradukunda, Emmanuel Mucangando, and NCDA data and evaluation research team for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this project.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-34">Author contributions</hd> <p>Remy Pages: conception; empirical strategy and data analysis; writing and writing revisions. Gilbert Munyemana: data collection design; writing revisions.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-35">Funding</hd> <p>Remy Pages was funded by a Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship (award number PS00355715), while conducting research at the National Child Development Agency in Rwanda. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Fulbright Program.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-36">Data availability</hd> <p>The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-37">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190435853-38">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0190435853-39">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0190435853-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abimpaye M, Dusabe C, Nzabonimpa JP, Ashford R, Pisani L. Improving parenting practices and development for young children in Rwanda: Results from a randomized control trial. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2020; 44; 3: 205-215. 10.1177/0165025419861173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> UnitedNations Development Programme. (2021). 2021 Global Multidimensional PovertyIndex (MPI): Unmasking disparities by ethnicity, caste and gender. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/2021mpireporten.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berlinski S, Galiani S, Gertler P. The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance. Journal of Public Economics. 2009; 93; 1: 219-234. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref70" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bernal R, Attanasio O, Peña X, Vera-Hernández M. The effects of the transition from home-based childcare to childcare centers on children's health and development in Colombia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 47: 418-431. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref111" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berti S, Cigala A, Sharmahd N. Early childhood education and care physical environment and child development: State of the art and reflections on future orientations and methodologies. Educational Psychology Review. 2019; 31; 4: 991-1021. 10.1007/s10648-019-09486-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bietenbeck J, Ericsson S, Wamalwa FM. Preschool attendance, schooling, and cognitive skills in East Africa. Economics of Education Review. 2019; 73: 101909. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Binagwaho A, Scott KW, Harward SH. Early childhood development in Rwanda: A policy analysis of the human rights legal framework. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 2016; 16; 1: 1. 10.1186/s12914-016-0076-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref75" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, McCoy DC, Fink G, Shawar YR, Shiffman J, Devercelli AE, Wodon QT, Vargas-Barón E, Grantham-McGregor S. Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course. Lancet. 2017; 389; 10064: 77-90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref64" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blau D, Currie J. Pre-school, day care, and after-school care: Who's minding the kids?. Handbook of the Economics of Education. 2006; 2: 1163-1278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bornstein, M. H, & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2014). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53; 1: 371-399. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britto PR, Yoshikawa H, Boller K. Quality of early childhood development programs in global contexts: Rationale for investment, conceptual framework and implications for equity and commentaries. Social Policy Report. 2011; 25; 2: 1-31. 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2011.tb00067.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britto PR, Yoshikawa H, van Ravens J, Ponguta LA, Reyes M, Oh S, Dimaya R, Nieto AM, Seder R. Strengthening systems for integrated early childhood development services: A cross-national analysis of governance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2014; 1308; 1: 245-255. 10.1111/nyas.12365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britto PR, Lye SJ, Proulx K, Yousafzai AK, Matthews SG, Vaivada T, Perez-Escamilla R, Rao N, Ip P, Fernald LCH, MacMillan H, Hanson M, Wachs TD, Yao H, Yoshikawa H, Cerezo A, Leckman JF, Bhutta ZA. Nurturing care: Promoting early childhood development. Lancet. 2017; 389; 10064: 91-102. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bromer J, Henly JR. The work–family support roles of child care providers across settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2009; 24; 3: 271-288. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burchinal M, Vandergrift N, Pianta R, Mashburn A. Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010; 25; 2: 166-176. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burchinal M, Vernon-Feagans L, Vitiello V, Greenberg M. Thresholds in the association between child care quality and child outcomes in rural preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29; 1: 41-51. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.09.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell F, Conti G, Heckman JJ, Moon SH, Pinto R, Pungello E, Pan Y. Early childhood investments substantially boost adult health. Science. 2014; 343; 6178: 1478-1485. 10.1126/science.1248429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlin C, Davis EE, Krafft C, Tout K. Parental preferences and patterns of child care use among low-income families: A bayesian analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019; 99: 172-185. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen S, Wolf S. Measuring the quality of early childhood education in low- and middle-income countries. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.774740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke-Stewart KA, Vandell DL, Burchinal M, O'Brien M, McCartney K. Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children's development?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2002; 17; 1: 52-86. 10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00133-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunha F, Nielsen E, Williams B. The econometrics of early childhood human capital and investments. Annual Review of Economics. 2021; 13; 1: 487-513. 10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan G, Magnuson K. Investing in preschool programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2013; 27; 2: 109-132. 10.1257/jep.27.2.109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, G, Kalil, A, Mogstad, M, & Rege, M. (2023). Investing in early childhood development in preschool and at home. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. Vol. 6, pp. 1–91). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesedu.2022.11.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flood S, McMurry J, Sojourner A, Wiswall M. Inequality in early care experienced by US children. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2022; 36; 2: 199-222. 10.1257/jep.36.2.199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuller B, Kagan SL, Loeb S, Chang YW. Child care quality: Centers and home settings that serve poor families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2004; 19; 4: 505-527. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelli A, Margolies A, Santacroce M, Sproule K, Theis S, Roschnik N, Twalibu A, Chidalengwa G, Cooper A, Moorhead T, Gladstone M, Kariger P, Kutundu M. Improving child nutrition and development through community-based childcare centres in Malawi – The NEEP-IE study: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017; 18; 1: 284. 10.1186/s13063-017-2003-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelli A, Margolies A, Santacroce M, Roschnik N, Twalibu A, Katundu M, Moestue H, Alderman H, Ruel M. Using a community-based early childhood development center as a platform to promote production and consumption diversity increases children's dietary intake and reduces stunting in Malawi: A cluster-randomized trial. Journal of Nutrition. 2018; 148; 10: 1587-1597. 10.1093/jn/nxy148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hahn RA, Barnett WS. Early childhood education: Health, equity, and economics. Annual Review of Public Health. 2023; 44: 75-92. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071321-032337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halle, T, Forry, N, Hair, E, Perper, K, Wandner, L, Wessel, J, & Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and development: Lessons from the early childhood longitudinal study – birth cohort (ECLS-B). Child Trends. https://<ulink href="http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2009-52DisparitiesELExecSumm.pdf">www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2009-52DisparitiesELExecSumm.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006; 312; 5782: 1900-1902. 10.1126/science.1128898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.In L. Allen (Ed.),</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson AD, Padilla CM, Votruba-Drzal E. Predictors of public early care and education use among children of low-income immigrants. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017; 73: 24-36. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justino P, Leone M, Rolla P, Abimpaye M, Dusabe C, Uwamahoro MD, Germond R. Improving parenting practices for early child development: Experimental evidence from Rwanda. Journal of the European Economic Association. 2023; 21; 4: 1510-1550. 10.1093/jeea/jvac070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly CL, Whitaker AA, Burchinal M, Jenkins JM, Vandell DL. Testing the structure-process-outcome model across different early care and education policy contexts. Developmental Psychology. 2025. 10.1037/dev0002018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krafft C, Raikes A, Towfighian SN, Mojgani RS. Quality and inequality in pre-primary and home environment inputs to early childhood development in Egypt. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2024; 68: 24-34. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanigan JD. Family child care providers' perspectives regarding effective professional development and their role in the child care system: A qualitative study. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2011; 38; 6: 399-409. 10.1007/s10643-010-0420-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu C, Cuartas J, Fink G, McCoy D, Liu K, Li Z, Daelmans B, Richter L. Inequalities in early childhood care and development in low/middle-income countries: 2010–2018. BMJ Global Health. 2020; 5; 2: e002314. 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnuson K, Waldfogel J. Trends in income-related gaps in enrollment in early childhood education: 1968 to 2013. AERA Open. 2016; 2; 2: 2332858416648933. 10.1177/2332858416648933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy DC, Salhi C, Yoshikawa H, Black M, Britto P, Fink G. Home- and center-based learning opportunities for preschoolers in low- and middle-income countries. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018; 88: 44-56. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy DC, Waldman M, Fink G. Measuring early childhood development at a global scale: Evidence from the Caregiver-Reported early development instruments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018; 45: 58-68. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Gender & Family Promotion (2016). Early childhood development policy. MIGEPROF Rwanda.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education (2018). Education sector strategic plan 2018/19 to 2023/24.https://<ulink href="http://www.mineduc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user%5fupload/Mineduc/Publications/ESSP/1%5fEducation%5fSector%5fStrategic%5fPlan%5f2018%5f2024.pdf">www.mineduc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user%5fupload/Mineduc/Publications/ESSP/1%5fEducation%5fSector%5fStrategic%5fPlan%5f2018%5f2024.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (2020, June 3). Ministerial Order No. 001/MIGEPROF/2020 of 03/06/2020 establishing regulations on the implementation of early childhood development. https://frbr.akn.rw/act/mo/minister-of-gender-and-family-promotion/2020/1/eng@2020-06-04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore T, Ryan RM, Fauth RC, Brooks-Gunn J. Low-income and young children. Handbook of research on the education of young children. 2019; Routledge: 209-233. 10.4324/9780429442827-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mwaura PAM, Marfo K. Bridging culture, research, and practice in early childhood development: The madrasa resource centers in East Africa. Child Development Perspectives. 2011; 5; 2: 134-139. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00168.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mwaura PAM, Sylva K, Malmberg L. Evaluating the Madrasa preschool programme in East Africa: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2008; 16; 3: 237-255. 10.1080/09669760802357121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Child Development Agency (2022). Operational plan 2022–2025. NCDA Rwanda.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Child Development Agency. Integrated ECD models guidelines. 2019; Government of Rwanda</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman MJ, Powers S. Political prioritization of early childhood education in low- and middle-income countries. International Journal of Educational Development. 2021; 86: 102458. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child-care structure → process → outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children's development. Psychological Science. 2002; 13; 3: 199-206. 10.1111/1467-9280.00438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nores M, Vazquez C, Gustafsson-Wright E, Osborne S, Cuartas J, Lambiris MJ, McCoy DC, Lopez-Boo F, Behrman J, Bernal R, Draper CE, Okely AD, Tremblay MS, Yousafzai AK, Lombardi J, Fink G. The cost of not investing in the next 1000 days: Implications for policy and practice. Lancet. 2024; 404; 10467: 2117-2130. 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01390-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECDOECD. Starting strong V: Transitions from early childhood education and care to primary education. 2017. 10.1787/9789264276253-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Padilla CM, Ryan RM. School readiness among children of Hispanic immigrants and their peers: The role of parental cognitive stimulation and early care and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2020; 52: 154-168. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrinos, H. A, & Psacharopoulos, G. (2020). Chapter 4—Returns to education in developing countries. In S. Bradley & C. Green (Eds.), The Economics of Education (Second Edition, pp. 53–64). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00004-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, Kagan SL, Yazejian N. The relation of preschool child-care quality to children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development. 2001; 72; 5: 1534-1553. 10.1111/1467-8624.00364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry N, Adi-Japha E, Spektor-Levy O. What a cool classroom! Voices of 5-year-olds on the design of physical learning environments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 63: 370-385. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips D, Mekos D, Scarr S, McCartney K, Abbott–Shim M. Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2000; 15; 4: 475-496. 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00077-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta RC, Barnett WS, Burchinal M, Thornburg KR. The effects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2009; 10; 2: 49-88. 10.1177/1529100610381908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter,T, Paulsell, D, Del Grosso, P, Avellar, S, Hass, R, & Vuong, L. (2010a). A review of the literature on home-based child care: Implications for future directions. Mathematica Policy Research. https://acf.gov/opre/report/review-literature-home-based-child-care-implications-future-directions-final</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter T, Paulsell D, Nichols T, Begnoche C, Grosso PD. Supporting quality in home-based child care: A compendium of 23 initiatives. 2010; Mathematica Policy Research</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raikes H, Raikes HA, Wilcox BL. Regulation, subsidy receipt and provider characteristics: What predicts quality in child care homes?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2005; 20; 2: 164-184. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raikes A, Rao N, Yoshikawa H, Cohrssen C, Behrman J, Cappa C, Devercelli A, Lopez Boo F, McCoy D, Richter Lthe UKRI GCRF. Global tracking of access and quality in early childhood care and education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2023; 17; 1: 14. 10.1186/s40723-023-00116-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, N, Cohrssen, C, Sun, J, Su, Y, & Perlman, M. (2021). Chapter Eight - Early child development in low- and middle-income countries: Is it what mothers have or what they do that makes a difference to child outcomes? In J. J. Lockman (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. Vol. 61, pp. 255–277). JAI. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2021.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rege M, Solli IF, Størksen I, Votruba M. Variation in center quality in a universal publicly subsidized and regulated childcare system. Labour Economics. 2018; 55: 230-240. 10.1016/j.labeco.2018.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusby JC, Jones LB, Crowley R, Smolkowski K. An efficacy trial of carescapes: Home-based child-care practices and children's social outcomes. Child Development. 2016; 87; 4: 1291-1310. 10.1111/cdev.12541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Fuller G. The SDGs and the UN summit of the future. 2024; Dublin University. 10.25546/108572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylva K, Melhuish E, Sammons P, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart B. Early childhood matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project. 20101st ed; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203862063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang J, Hallam R, Francis J. Exploring parents' child care search and decision-making processes. Children and Youth Services Review. 2024; 157: 107437. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulferts H, Wolf KM, Anders Y. Impact of process quality in early childhood education and care on academic outcomes: Longitudinal meta-analysis. Child Development. 2019; 90; 5: 1474-1489. 10.1111/cdev.13296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF (2024). Education in Rwanda: A situation analysis. United Nations Children's Fund. https://<ulink href="http://www.unicef.org/rwanda/media/5346/file/UNICEF%20Rwanda.pdf">www.unicef.org/rwanda/media/5346/file/UNICEF%20Rwanda.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNICEF. Transforming the lives of children in Rwanda: Investing in family- and community-centred services (Early Childhood Development & Family programme endline evaluation). 2017; UNICEF Rwanda</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United NationsUN General Assembly. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). 2015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandell, D, & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? (Vol. 78). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woldehanna, T. (2011). The effects of early childhood education attendance on cognitive development: Evidence from urban Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Economics,20(1), 113–164. https://doi.org/10.4314/eje.v20i1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf S. Year 3 follow-up of the 'Quality preschool for ghana' interventions on child development. Developmental Psychology. 2019; 55; 12: 2587-2602. 10.1037/dev0000843</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf S, Aber JL, Behrman JR, Tsinigo E. Experimental impacts of the quality preschool for Ghana interventions on teacher professional well-being, classroom quality, and children's school readiness. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2019; 12; 1: 10-37. 10.1080/19345747.2018.1517199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World BankWorld Bank. World development report 2018: Learning to realize education's promise. 2018. 10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshikawa, H, Weiland, C, Brooks-Gunn, J, Burchinal, M. R, Espinosa, L. M, Gormley, W. T, Ludwig, J, Magnuson, K. A, Phillips, D, & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Society for Research in Child Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshikawa H, Weiland C, Brooks-Gunn J. When does preschool matter?. The Future of Children. 2016; 26; 2: 21-35. 10.1353/foc.2016.0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshikawa H, Wuermli AJ, Raikes A, Kim S, Kabay SB. Toward high-quality early childhood development programs and policies at National scale: Directions for research in global contexts. Social Policy Report. 2018; 31; 1: 1-36. 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2018.tb00091.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0190435853-41"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> As documented in our dataset, financing streams to providers include fees, public funds, and in-kind/NGO support; we summarize and illustrate these patterns in the Funding Streams and Sustainability subsection of the discussion and in Fig. 2 (Appendix).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The government of Rwanda does not currently offer household-level fee subsidies for early childhood education. It provides, however, population-level financial and programmatic support through a combination of public investment, and partnerships with NGOs and international donors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A cell is a subsection of a sector and functions as a foundational unit for local governance. It is the primary connection point between residents and the higher tiers of the administration. Rwanda's administrative hierarchy is composed of: Province, District, Sector, Cell, and Village.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> "Qualification" was operationalized as possession of a state-sanctioned certificate, diploma, or degree in ECD/ECE.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Remy Pages and Gilbert Munyemana</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref115"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1501331
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Variations in Pre-Primary Education Infrastructure within and across Administrative Sectors in Rwanda
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Remy+Pages%22">Remy Pages</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0396-6498">0000-0002-0396-6498</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gilbert+Munyemana%22">Gilbert Munyemana</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Child+Care+and+Education+Policy%22"><i>International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy</i></searchLink>. 2025 19.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care+Centers%22">Child Care Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Programs%22">Community Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Facilities%22">Educational Facilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rwanda%22">Rwanda</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1186/s40723-025-00166-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1976-5681<br />2288-6729
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines disparities in structural quality across Rwanda's pre-primary modalities--centre-based, community-based, and home-based--operating under a single policy framework. Using data from 4,875 settings across 91 administrative sectors in seven districts, we applied multilevel models to separate within-sector differences by modality from between-sector variation, associated with sector-level socioeconomic status (SES). We modeled infrastructure quality with three latent factors: (1) physical facilities, (2) access to public infrastructure, and (3) operational quality. Within sectors, findings indicated that home-based settings--most prevalent in rural and lower-SES sectors--had markedly lower quality than centre-based settings (-0.73 SD for physical facilities; -0.85 SD for operational quality). Gaps persisted between sectors. Community-based settings showed similar structural constraints; however, between-sector disparities were not meaningful after adjusting for sector-level SES. Overall, structural quality is conditioned by both setting modality and local socioeconomic conditions. Policy might consider prioritizing a minimum structural package for home-based settings, paired with educator training, sustainable financing, and supportive oversight.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1501331
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1501331
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1186/s40723-025-00166-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care Centers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Facilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rwanda
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Variations in Pre-Primary Education Infrastructure within and across Administrative Sectors in Rwanda
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Remy Pages
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gilbert Munyemana
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1976-5681
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2288-6729
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1