A pilot in Haiti tested remote and hybrid early learning models to support young children’s development when insecurity limits access to preschool education.
The program reached 129 families, with approximately 96% remaining engaged throughout implementation despite challenging conditions.
The experience highlights the importance of flexible learning approaches, caregiver and teacher support, and activities adapted to limited connectivity.
How can young children continue learning and developing when insecurity makes it difficult, or even impossible, to reach an early learning center?
For many families in Haiti, access to early childhood education remains a pressing challenge. Ongoing violence, displacement, and institutional instability make it increasingly difficult to ensure access to preschool education.
The latest available analysis from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), based on data from 2016, reveals stark inequalities in preschool attendance: 84% of children aged 3 to 5 from the wealthiest households attended preschool, compared with just 31% of those from the most vulnerable households.
While more recent comparable data are limited, the continued deterioration of security conditions and widespread displacement raise serious concerns about the persistence and potential deepening of these inequalities.
To address this challenge, a pilot implemented in Port-au-Prince tested an alternative approach: when children cannot reach early learning services, can learning and stimulation reach them instead?
This experience was made possible through collaboration. The program was implemented in 2025 and 2026 by the Haitian health and research organization GHESKIO, in partnership with New York University’s Global TIES for Children, and with engagement and coordination from the IDB and Haiti’s Social and Economic Assistance Fund (FAES). The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) funded the evaluation of the pilot.
The approach also built on lessons from a remote early learning model developed by the International Rescue Committee in Lebanon.
The Remote and Hybrid Early Learning Program tested two flexible ways of supporting young children’s development in a context of insecurity.
The first, a hybrid model, worked with children already participating in an in-person early learning program. Children could continue attending activities when conditions were safe and switch to remote support if insecurity made travel difficult. Instead of simply trying to reproduce an in-person session over the phone, teachers guided caregivers through short, structured activities that they could do directly with their children at home.
The second, a remote model, was designed for families living in displacement camps, where young children often had no access to organized early learning opportunities. Groups of caregivers and children gathered with a community health worker, while a teacher joined by phone to guide activities. Families could also receive additional support through WhatsApp, as described in this article by Global TIES for Children.
In both models, caregivers played a central role. Families received kits with books and materials for play and stimulation, while activities were designed to strengthen early language and numeracy, social skills, and motor development. Materials could also be used offline, an important feature where connectivity is limited or unreliable.
The pilot involved 129 families: 69 in the hybrid model and 60 in the remote one. Around 96% of participants remained engaged throughout implementation, despite the difficult circumstances in which many families were living.
Some caregivers organized their daily activities around the sessions or gave up opportunities to earn income so they could participate. One caregiver summarized what the program meant to them in very simple terms: “Now my child is learning, just like others.”
Teachers also described the satisfaction of seeing children participate, play, and engage in learning activities in circumstances where they had initially doubted whether remote activities could work.
This commitment from both caregivers and teachers was particularly notable given the conditions in which they participated. Teachers described sometimes staying close to their workplace rather than traveling home because of security risks. Some caregivers struggled to provide enough food for their children. Gunfire could distract children during activities. Connectivity and access to phones were also obstacles, particularly at the beginning of the remote model.
These challenges, raised by participants themselves, highlight the areas that future programs will need to address.
The goal of this pilot was to test the feasibility of these approaches rather than to evaluate their impact, so it focused on practical questions: Could families participate? Could teachers provide support remotely? Could activities be adapted to unstable conditions? What difficulties would need to be addressed to make these approaches work better for children, caregivers, and teachers?
One lesson stands out: early learning programs in fragile settings need to support not only children but also the adults who make learning and stimulation possible. That may mean providing caregivers with clearer guidance and additional support, ensuring teachers have enough colleagues to share the workload, designing activities that work with limited connectivity, and connecting families with services that can respond to other basic needs.
The pilot also shows the value of designing programs around families’ realities rather than expecting families to adapt to rigid programs.
Young children do not stop developing when a crisis begins. Even in times of crisis, to continue building the skills they need, they must have opportunities to play, interact, communicate, and explore. In places where reaching a learning center cannot always be guaranteed, bringing opportunities closer to them may be an important part of the answer.
To stay up to date on the IDB’s work in early childhood development, join our community.