Case studies on achieving impact at scale in the area of early childhood development
Dec 23, 2021
Case study that describes the advocacy efforts of the cross-sector National Network of Early Childhood (RNPI) to introduce the Legal Framework for Early Childhood Development in Brazil. The successful introduction of the Legal Framework was attributed to strong support by and collaboration with politicians and other civil society. It offers valuable lessons for others aiming to inform policy change through children advocacy.
A case study
|PDF file||2.6 MB|
|PDF file||0.7 MB|
This case study analyses the events and debates between 2012 and 2016 leading up to the adoption of a Legal Framework for early childhood development in Brazil, focussing on advocacy efforts of the National Network of Early Childhood (RNPI), while recognising the active roles played by the Brazilian government's legislative and executive powers, as well as, by other civil society organisations. It highlights the factors that facilitated the adoption of the Legal Framework, including a favourable political climate and close collaboration between civil society and political stakeholders. The case study also describes some of the challenges experienced in the process, including time pressure, concerns of business organisation and a Special Committee that opposed its approval. Finally, it describes the continued work by RNPI and the Brazilian judiciary to ensure the effective implementation of the Legal Framework.
At the time that advocacy efforts took place for the adoption of the Legal Framework, the political climate within the Brazilian government was receptive to social policies. This was further enhanced by the work of various civil society organisations, individuals, and scientific evidence.
Osmar Terra, a federal deputy and specialist on early childhood, and Vital Didonet, an expert in ECD, guided decision-making to ensure strategic action throughout the process. They helped mobilise a greater number of supporters within the political sphere and civil society.
RNPI led various awareness-raising activities and increased the profile of the issue in the media.
Challenges included time pressure and a lack of awareness about early childhood issues, concerns from business organisations about the Legal Framework and a special committee in the Senate that was opposed the Legal Framework.
RNPI continues to work actively to ensure the application of the Legal Framework at the local level and national level. In 2019, a National Pact for Early Childhood was created by several public institutions, including the National Council of Justice, the Early Childhood Parliamentary Front and several ministries. Over 100 civil society organisations have since joined.
Setting the stage
The legislative journey that resulted in the adoption of the Legal Framework
Factors that enabled the adoptions of the Legal Framework
The challenges overcome to achieve adoption of the Legal Framework
The implementation journey of the Legal Framework continues
The research described in this report was prepared for the Bernard van Leer Found and conducted by RAND Europe.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.