Duration of poverty and Ghanaian children’s learning and executive function outcomes

Abstract

This study investigated whether transitory and persistent poverty spells were associated with children’s learning (literacy and numeracy scores) and executive function outcomes in Ghana. Children resided in the Greater Accra region (N = 2,154; 49% female; M_age = 5.2 years at wave-1) and were followed at four-time points over three years. Multivariate regression models were used to test whether exposure to transitory poverty (1–2 times) or persistent poverty (3–4 times) were differentially associated with child learning and executive function outcomes at wave-4 (M_age = 7.5 years) compared to children who did not experience poverty at any wave. Our results show that transitory poverty was significantly and negatively associated with children’s literacy scores. Persistent poverty had the largest negative relations for both learning outcomes. Findings were mixed for executive function, with persistent poverty negatively related to cognitive flexibility, but not inhibitory control. Implications for global child development and learning are discussed.

Acknowledgements

This article reflects contributions from many organizations and individuals. First, we would like to thank the dedicated staff at Innovations from Poverty Action, and our talented data collection supervisors and enumerators. Second, we would like to thank J. Lawrence Aber and Jere R. Behrman, co-investigators on the project who provided input on all aspects of the larger study; we are grateful for all their support. And third, we thank Emily Hannum for providing very thoughtful and constructive feedback earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank the Ghana Education Service for their support of the larger project from which the data for this study were collected. We would like thank the UBS Optimus Foundation and the World Bank Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund and Early Learning Partnership, as well as the British Academy, for direct support for the project from which the data were collected. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B200035 to the University of Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.