Why Early Childhood Development is a High Return, Lifesaving Investment

On World Refugee Day, Ciarán Donnelly, Senior Vice President Crisis Response, Recovery and Development, at the International Rescue Committee (IRC) makes the case that investing in Early Childhood Development (ECD) in crisis contexts is not only a moral imperative, but also a highly cost effective and efficient strategy. This blogpost is part of NORRAG’s Early Childhood Education blog series. 

Introduction

As we mark World Refugee Day, it is especially important to recognise the vital role ECD plays in protecting the rights, well-being, and future of the youngest refugees, who too often remain invisible in crisis responses.

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), approximately 250 million children under the age of five face the risk of not reaching their developmental potential due to factors like poverty, poor nutrition and insufficient learning opportunities. Among 3 to 4 year olds in these countries, 75% of children are not receiving adequate nurturing care. In humanitarian settings, the needs are even more urgent. Young children are highly vulnerable to environmental influences and require nurturing care and responsive learning opportunities to thrive. In crisis contexts, Early Childhood Development (ECD) is a lifeline for young children and their families.

Despite decades of evidence demonstrating high-impact ECD programmes in LMICs, the field still lacks robust evidence on cost-effective, scalable programme models for crisis-affected settings. At the IRC, we are at the forefront of generating cost data on our ECD programmes—and integrating lessons to improve these programmes. Our research shows that ECD interventions can improve outcomes for children in crisis settings at scale. We argue that practitioners and policy makers should further expand costing data to implement, scale and advocate for quality ECD programmes effectively.

Why ECD Saves Lives—and Why we must know what it costs

In crisis contexts, ECD services are both life-saving and life-sustaining. Responsive caregiving, opportunities for early learning, and mental health and psychosocial support are not just beneficial—they are essential. They address critical and often overlooked domains of nurturing care that directly influence a child’s survival, recovery, and long-term development. They buffer young children from toxic stress, reduce the risk of lifelong developmental harm, and support caregivers in providing safe, stable, and emotionally responsive environments.

Global evidence also confirms that ECD yields one of the highest returns on investment in development with up to $7–$10 for every $1 spent, according to global studies on the economic returns of early learning and care programmes. These investments create ripple effects: children who benefit from nurturing care are more likely to complete school, earn more as adults, and raise healthier families—breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty and vulnerability. In other words, investments in ECD pay dividends that span immediate recovery, intergenerational development, and long-term social transformation.

Yet despite the evidence on the return on investment, most ECD programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) still lack comprehensive costing data. Without reliable cost data promising programmes often struggle to scale not because they don’t work, but because we don’t know what it takes to deliver them efficiently at the population level. In settings with limited resources, knowing the unit cost of services allows implementers to tailor interventions based on children’s varying needs. While all families may receive core services, some may receive additional, specialised support—ensuring that resources are used efficiently and reach those who need them most. As outlined in IRC’s recent report on cost effectiveness in ECD, A Small Price to Pay, this is particularly urgent in humanitarian settings, where resources are limited, and every dollar must deliver maximum impact. Costing data supports smarter decision-making, effective resource allocation, and long-term sustainability.

The Cost Case for ECD in Crisis Contexts 

The IRC is committed to ensuring that children and families affected by crisis not only survive, but rebuild their lives with dignity, opportunity, and stability. To achieve that vision, we must ensure every dollar is used effectively—and be able to prove it.

One of our major contributions is Dioptra, a groundbreaking tool co-developed with a consortium of nine organisations (Save the Children, Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Action Against Hunger, CARE, the Norwegian Refugee Council, the Danish Refugee Council, and FHI 360). Dioptra enables organisations to generate comparable, consistent cost-efficiency data across diverse contexts.

To date, the IRC has conducted over 400 cost analyses across 37 countries, tracking over $300 million in humanitarian spending. In the ECD sector specifically, the IRC combines in-house expertise with research and systems partnerships to conduct detailed costing studies of:

• Service delivery by the IRC and local partners,  
• Government-led ECD programs we support and co-implement, and  
• Systems-strengthening investments designed for scale and sustainability.

These analyses provide real-world cost data that empower governments, donors, and implementers to plan, budget, and scale what works—efficiently and equitably.

Our findings from these studies span a range of contexts and programming modalities:

• In Iraq, the IRC helped embed a school readiness programme into Grade 1 classrooms, reaching 470,000 children for less than $1.50 per child, a cost projected to drop below $0.50 in 2025 as the programme scales up. In Jordan, integrating caregiver messages into routine health visits reached over 900,000 people for just $0.56 per person. These are not just cost-effective solutions—they are systemic shifts that unlock long-term resilience and recovery. 

• In Lebanon, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) by NYU-Global TIES, Sesame Workshop, and IRC showed that an 11-week remote early learning programme for Syrian refugee children significantly improved literacy, numeracy, motor, and social-emotional skills—equivalent to a full year of in-person preschool. The program cost $150 per child, much lower than the $802 estimated by the World Bank for traditional pre-primary education. 

• Evidence from the IRC’s Remote Early Learning Program (RELP) highlights how scale improves efficiency: unit costs dropped from around $260 to $150 per child once the program exceeded 1,000 children. 

• In Bangladesh, the Gindegi Goron programme, led by ICDDR, B and IRC, demonstrated that integrated early childhood development (ECD), health, and nutrition interventions—both remote and hybrid (with monthly home visits)—significantly improved child development, parenting, and home environments within six months. Costs ranged from $100–$200 per person. Malnourished children benefited particularly from the hybrid model, which effectively combined learning and nutrition support.

From Data to Decisions: What our ECD Cost Studies Reveal 

Our investments in cost analysis have revealed actionable insights that can guide policy and investment decisions. Through our costing studies across 19 programming models in four countries, our findings include:

• Cost per child varies widely, from $10 to $578, depending on delivery model, scale, modality (remote or in-person), and intensity of services. Adjusting modalities can significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of ECD programmes while delivering outcomes for children. 

• Scale matters more than modality. While remote delivery is often assumed to be cheaper, our analysis shows that programmes serving over 1,000 children tend to achieve greater cost-efficiency, regardless of whether they are delivered remotely or in-person. 

• Systems investments deliver extraordinary long-term value and scalability. As highlighted above in the cases of the school readiness program in Iraq and the nurturing care messages in Jordan, embedding critical ECD services within public systems provides the opportunity to reach hundreds of thousands at very low unit cost ($1.50 per child in Iraq; $0.56 per person in Jordan).

These findings reinforce a core message: high-quality ECD doesn’t have to be expensive to be transformative, especially when designed for scale and delivered through public systems. 

Recommendations for Future Directions

Despite its proven benefits, ECD remains underfunded in humanitarian settings: only 2% of humanitarian aid goes to ECD interventions. With recent shifts in humanitarian aid policies and reductions in foreign assistance, making every dollar count has never been more urgent.  

Drawing from IRC’s experience, particularly through programmes like Ahlan Simsim, we’ve learned a few key lessons that could shape the future of ECD in crisis settings:

1. Flexible, longer-term funding enables deeper, more sustainable impact
   Short-term funding cycles limit our ability to build trust with systems actors, which enables us to embed services within public systems to sustain impact. When provided with multi-year, flexible funding, we’ve been able to test, adapt, and sustain ECD programming while responding to evolving needs of children and caregivers over time.
   
   
2. ECD must be integrated into humanitarian response from the onset
   Too often, ECD is excluded from humanitarian response frameworks. Yet the early years are foundational, and in crises, children cannot wait. Including ECD alongside health, shelter, and food security ensures we support not just survival, but long-term recovery and development in a holistic and cost-efficient way. 
   
   
3. Transparency and accountability build trust and momentum
   To grow investment in ECD, we must show how funds are being used and what outcomes they deliver. Tracking donor commitments, and demonstrating value-for-money strengthens the case for continued and expanded investment.
   
   
4. Costing data should guide design and scale-up
   Accurate, context-specific costing data, whether for remote preschool or health system integration, helps us prioritise the right investments and optimise reach. This isn’t a luxury–it’s a necessity for delivering impact in resource-constrained environments.
   
   
5. Strengthening local systems is essential for scale and sustainability
   The most cost-effective and scalable ECD models are those embedded within public systems and services, such as health, education, or social protection. Investing in frontline workers, training, and infrastructure ensures services endure long after external funding ends.
   

Looking Ahead

We know what works. The question now is: will we fund it, embed it, and scale it? If we do, we can reach more children sooner, more equitably, and at lower cost.

The Author

Ciarán Donnelly is Senior Vice President Crisis Response, Recovery and Development, at the International Rescue Committee (IRC).

Photo credit: ©Ryan Heffernan/Sesame Workshop.

Description: Grover and two young children playing a game in Saida, Lebanon.